Loading...
01/09/2024 - Formal Meeting - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FORMAL MEETING   January 9, 2024 Tuesday 7:00 PM Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in person at the City & County Building. Learn more at www.slc.gov/council/agendas.   Council Chambers 451 South State Street, Room 315 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 SLCCouncil.com   CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Victoria Petro District 1 Alejandro Puy District 2 Chris Wharton District 3 Eva Lopez Chavez District 4 Darin Mano District 5 Dan Dugan District 6 Sarah Young District 7   Generated: 13:53:05 Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. WELCOME AND PUBLIC MEETING RULES   A.OPENING CEREMONY: 1.Council Member Darin Mano will conduct the formal meeting. 2.Pledge of Allegiance. 3.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. 4.The Council will approve the work session meeting minutes of November 14, 2023 and December 8, 2023, as well as the formal meeting minutes of December 5, 2023. B.PUBLIC HEARINGS:   1. Ordinance: Landscaping and Buffers Chapter Text Amendment The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to Landscaping and Buffers chapter amendments. The proposed amendments would seek to reduce water consumption, enhance the urban forest, and improve air quality and green infrastructure city-wide. The proposal would also seek to clarify, simplify, and reorganize the landscaping and buffer chapter to be more user-friendly. The City Council may consider modifications to other related sections of the code as part of this proposal. For more information visit http://tinyurl.com/SLCLandscapingAndBuffers.     FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 and Tuesday, December 12, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, December 12, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: NONE.   D.COMMENTS: 1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. 2.Comments to the City Council. (Comments are taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other City business. Comments are limited to two minutes.)   E.NEW BUSINESS: 1. Motion: Nomination of Council Chair and Vice Chair for Calendar Year 2024 The Council will consider a motion to ratify the election of Chair and Vice-Chair of the Salt Lake City Council for calendar year 2024.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, January 9, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 9, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Suspend the rules and consider motions.     F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Ordinance: Airport Board Code Revisions The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend Section 2.14 of the Salt Lake City Code, Airport Board, and Subsection 5 2.07.020, City Boards and Commissions Named. For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/slcairports.     FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 12, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 9, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   G.CONSENT: 1. Ordinance: Library Budget Amendment No.1 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 The Council will set the date of Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the budget for the Library Fund for Fiscal Year 2023-24. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and modifications. The proposed amendment includes a 1% cost of living increase for all Library employees and a new full-time employee for the Safety Team, among other items.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, January 16, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, January 9, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Set date.   2. Board Appointment: Airport Board – Nathan Rafferty The Council will consider approving the appointment of Nathan Rafferty to the Airport Board for a term ending January 9, 2028.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, January 9, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 9, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Approve.   3. Board Appointment: Airport Board – Luz Escamilla The Council will consider approving the appointment of Luz Escamilla to the Airport Board for a term ending January 9, 2028.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, January 9, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 9, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Approve.   4. Board Reappointment: Mosquito Abatement District – Van Turner The Council will consider approving the reappointment of Van Turner to the Mosquito Abatement District Board for a term ending December 31, 2027. This is a Council- appointed position, therefore an Administrative Recommendation letter is not included.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 9, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Approve.   5. Board Reappointment: Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry and Trails Advisory Board – Ginger Cannon The Council will consider approving the reappointment of Ginger Cannon to the Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry and Trails Advisory Board for a term ending January 9, 2027.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, January 9, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 9, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Approve.   6. Board Reappointment: Racial Equity in Policing Commission – Tanya Hawkins The Council will consider approving the reappointment of Tanya Hawkins to the Racial Equity in Policing Commission Board for a term ending December 29, 2025.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, January 9, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 9, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Approve.   H.ADJOURNMENT:     CERTIFICATE OF POSTING On or before 5:00 p.m. on Friday, January 5, 2024, the undersigned, duly appointed City Recorder, does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1) posted on the Utah Public Notice Website created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701, and (2) a copy of the foregoing provided to The Salt Lake Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any others who have indicated interest. CINDY LOU TRISHMAN SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda, including but not limited to adoption, rejection, amendment, addition of conditions and variations of options discussed. The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Work Session on Tuesday, November 14, 2023. The following Council Members were present: Ana Valdemoros, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young The following Council Members were absent: Victoria Petro Present Legislative leadership: Cindy Gust-Jenson – Executive Director, Jennifer Bruno – Deputy Director, Lehua Weaver – Associate Deputy Director Present Administrative leadership: Mayor Erin Mendenhall, Rachel Otto – Chief of Staff Present City Staff: Katherine Lewis – City Attorney, Cindy Lou Trishman – City Recorder, Michelle Barney – Minutes & Records Clerk, Thais Stewart – Deputy City Recorder, Isaac Canedo – Public Engagement Communication Specialist, Taylor Hill – Constituent Liaison/Policy Analyst, Scott Corpany – Staff Assistant, Andrew Johnston – Director of Homelessness Policy and Outreach, Ben Luedtke – Senior Public Policy Analyst, Brian Fullmer – Constituent Liaison, Policy Analyst, Lorena Riffo Jenson – Economic Development Director, Nick Norris – Planning Director, Nick Tarbet – Senior Public Policy Analyst, Jacob Maxwell – Deputy Director Economic Development, Sara Javoronok – Senior Planner, Todd Andersen – Economic Development ARPA Project Coordinator, Jack Markman – Community Development Grant Specialist, Tony Milner – Director of Housing and Neighborhood , Wayne Mills – Planning Manager, Katherine Schnell – Executive Assistant, Mayor's Office The meeting was called to order at 3:00 pm MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, November 14, 2023 1 Work Session Items 1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 3:45 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive information from the Administration on major items or projects in progress. Topics may relate to major events or emergencies (if needed), services and resources related to people experiencing homelessness, active public engagement efforts, and projects or staffing updates from City Departments, or other items as appropriate. Katie Schnell provided updates regarding: Community Engagement Updates • Ways to engage with the City www.slc.gov/feedback/ • Public Lands – Donner Trail Park • Mayor’s Office: Community Office Hours • ACE Grant (Arts, Culture and Events Fund) accepting applications through December 1, 2023 ◦ Session Information: ◾IN SPANISH - Glendale Mountain View Community Learning Center, Rm 182 Nov. 15 5:30 pm – 6:30 pm ◾The Shop, hosted by The Utah Black Chamber Nov. 27 6:00 pm – 7:00 pm Andrew Johnston provided updates regarding: • Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness (SLVCEH): endutahhomelessness.org/salt-lake-valley • Utah Office of Homeless Servicesv(OHS): jobs.utah.gov/homelessness/index.html • Homeless Resources Center utilization • Encampment Impact Mitigation (EIM) information • Resource Fair scheduled for November 17, 2023 at Library Square with Valley Behavioral Health • Temporary (Micro) Shelter Community • 24/7 Winter shelter options • Code Blue information Council Member Valdemoros reminded everyone of the clothing and food donations that were needed as well as assistance with folding and distribution. Council Members and Andrew Johnston discussed: • Process of selecting a service provider • When the MVP shelter would come online • Churches and other organizations that were offering shelters throughout the state • If there would be enough beds for those that needed shelter during the winter with all the shelters coming online and if that was being communicated to the state authorities • How Code Blue information was distributed • How the community was notified of the work Salt Lake City was doing to address homelessness MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, November 14, 2023 2 2.Ordinance: Affordable Housing Incentives Follow-up ~ 4:00 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about an ordinance that would amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code establishing a chapter for zoning incentives and adding affordable housing incentives. The proposed amendments would incentivize and reduce barriers for affordable housing. The incentives would include administrative design review and additional building height in various zoning districts, planned development requirement modifications, removal of the density requirements in the RMF zoning districts, and additional dwelling types in various zoning districts. Other sections of Title 21A – Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. The City Council may consider modifications to other related sections of the code as part of this proposal. For more information visit tinyurl.com/AffordableHousingIncentives. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, November 14, 2023 3 Nick Tarbet reviewed the items Council discussed at the prior briefing and what needed to be focused on. Council Members, Nick Tarbet, Katie Lewis, Sara Javoronok, and Nick Norris discussed: • Suggestion that the ordinance be approved contingent on language being added to the ordinance regarding what could be done if a neighbor/contractor caused damage to a neighboring property • Whether or not to approve the proposed ordinance with or without the language regarding damage • Creating a Legislative Intent regarding Title 18 and timeline for the ordinance to be approved ◦ Katie Lewis and Nick Norris presented the timeline for when the ordinance could potentially be reviewed by the Planning Comission and Council with the suggested changes • Whether or not Title 18 of the Zoning Code addressed property damage currently • The City’s role in property damage claims and if an ordinance was necessary • Council wanting to be more involved in helping the residents when issues arose Straw Poll Council would enact the affordable housing incentives before the end of the year, implementation and applications would be delayed until April 30, 2024, in which time Council asked Staff to develop another ordinance addressing Title 18; supported by all Council Members present. Straw Poll In addition to the Title 18 changes, by the April 30, 2023 deadline, Council wanted frame work for enforcement and reporting on how staff would manage the new ordinance; supported by all Council Members present. Straw Poll Remove letter “E”, regarding the number of units that could be designated as affordable from Section 21A.52.050.H3.e; supported by all Council Members present. 3.Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at 711 and 721 South 1200 East ~ 4:30 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning of the properties located at 711 and 721 South 1200 East Street from R-2 (Single- and Two- Family Residential District) to I (Institutional District). The proposal also would amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map. The proposal would allow the use of the existing church building as a school. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 4. Petitioner: Jim Brewer, Head of the McGillis School. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, November 14, 2023 4 Brian Fullmer gave a brief overview of the proposal. Wayne Mills presented the amendment highlighting: • Project request and location • Existing and proposed zoning • Master Plan designation for the property • Land uses, building height, and other affects of Institutional versus R-2 zoning • Planning Commission discussion and recommendation Council Members, Wayne Mills, and Brian Fullmer discussed: • Whether or not churches were allowed in the R-2 zone Jim Brewer (McGillis School) presented the proposal for the property, highlighting: • Number of students that attended the school • Need for more space to serve additional students • Programs provided at the McGillis school • Benefits of a school in the area • History of using the ward building Council Members and Jim Brewer discussed: • Use of the new school space and what programs would be at the church building • No drop-off or pick-up services would be offered on the subject property • Multiple letters of support were received from the community • Re-purposing an old building • Timeline for the proposal 4.Resolution: Local Nonprofit Direct Assistance Grant Awards Follow-up ~ 4:50 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about a resolution that would approve the disbursement of local nonprofit direct assistance grant awards. The Council will review the Community Recovery Committee’s funding recommendations of twenty-three applicants for the $2,000,000 of available one-time awards. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, November 14, 2023 5 Ben Luedtke gave a brief overview, including: • Applications that were withdrawn because funding was received from other sources • Applications that were suggested for funding reductions • Three scenarios for allocating funding Council Members, Ben Luedtke, Jack Markman, and Tony Milner discussed: • Proposed allocation of funds and if the applicants agreed to the reductions • Applications that the Council wished to fund • Mayor’s proposal • How each scenario affected each organization and which one benefited the most organizations • Consideration of a potential contingency that would delegate any unused funds Straw Poll Reduction of the applications identified in the report and use the $301,000; supported by Council Members Valdemoros, Mano, Dugan, Young, Wharton. Council Member Puy did not support the straw poll. Straw Poll Support Scenario 3 as proposed; supported by all Council Members present. 5.Ordinance: Local Business Direct Assistance ARPA Grant Awards ~ 5:10 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would approve the disbursement of local business direct assistance grant awards from the City’s American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) fiscal recovery funds. A business needs to show an economic hardship caused by the pandemic and meet other eligibility and compliance standards per federal ARPA guidance. Ben Luedtke gave an overview of the grants, highlighting: • Purpose • Scoring • Businesses recommended for funding and the goal being to fund as many as possible • Consideration of a potential contingency that would delegate any unused funds Lorena Riffo-Jenson, Jake Maxwell, and Todd Anderson presented the program, highlighting: • Request to approve $2 million be awarded to the recommended list of 15 applicants • Phase 2 of the program • 94 eligible small business applicants MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, November 14, 2023 6 • Demographics of Phase 2 • Community Recovery Committee (CRC) Process Council Members, Ben Luedtke, Lorena Riffo-Jenson, Jake Maxwell, and Todd Anderson discussed: • Number of applicants not recommended for funding • Number of applicants reapplying in Phase 2 • Council expressed support for the proposal • Contingency plan for unused funding Jay Fox (UTA Executive Director), Viola Miller (Chief Financial Officer), Russ Fox (Planning Director), and Carlton Christensen (Board of Trustee Chair) presented the 2024 Tentative Budget for Utah Transit Authority (UTA), highlighting: • 2024 Operating Budget – Salt Lake City Highlights • Budget filters/lenses ◦ Operating priorities ◦ Strategic priorities ◦ Priority considerations ◦ Economic value • Operating Budget Overview • Budget by mode • Capital revenue summary • Capital expense summary Council Members, Jay Fox, Russ Fox, and Carlton Christensen discussed: • Areas with high usage that needed additional public transportation • 24/7 Airport bus service was needed, not only TRAX service • Options for revenue streams that would result in increased service times • The need to increase service times making buses easier and more reliable • The cost of the fare box in regards to staffing for UTA • Council asked UTA to outline the ridership percentages in the budget in the future for more clarity • Flex services and if it was a benefit for riders • Increasing routes throughout the city • More transit services were needed on the West side of Salt Lake • Expanding the Free-Fare-Zone • Salt Lake seemed to be behind the times in terms of transportation • The number of CNG (natural gas) buses that would be added to the UTA fleet in the next few years MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, November 14, 2023 7 6.Informational: UTA Budget Presentation ~ 5:30 p.m. 45 min. The Council will receive a briefing from the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) about their tentative 2024 annual budget which begins on January 1, 2024. The budget includes $424 million in operating expenses and $230 million in capital investments. The annual budget includes additional Frontrunner service, funding to improve operator recruitment, transit ambassadors on TRAX trains, replacing older high-floor TRAX vehicles, investments in electric vehicles and charging infrastructure, and more Transit app capabilities among many other items. UTA operates across a multi-county service area. Salt Lake City partners with UTA for enhanced services within the City such as frequent service (every 15 minutes) bus routes, Westside on-demand service, 50% off HIVE transit passes for City residents, free transit passes for K-12 public school students, faculty, and a parent or guardian, and the S-Line Streetcar. City and County Building Conservation and Use Committee Board for a term ending July 19, 2027. Interview was held. Council Member Mano said Robyn Taylor-Granda’s name would be on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. 9.Board Appointment: Planning Commission – Landon Kraczek ~ 6:20 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Landon Kraczek prior to considering appointment to the Planning Commission for a term ending November 14, 2027. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, November 14, 2023 8 7.Ordinance: Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund – Ocean City Seafood Market Written Briefing - The Council will receive a written briefing about an ordinance that would approve a $90,000 loan for Ocean City Seafood Market at 1701 South State Street from the Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF). Ocean City Seafood Market is a local grocer specializing in Asian foods, international foods, and seafood. This loan will assist in the creation of one new job in the next year and the retention of three current jobs. Written briefing only. No discussion was held. 8.Board Appointment: City and County Building Conservation and Use Committee – Robyn Taylor-Granda ~ 6:15 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Robyn Taylor-Granda prior to considering appointment to the Interview was held. Council Member Mano said Landon Kraczek’s name would be on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. Standing Items 10.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of Chair and Vice Chair. No report. 11.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director - - Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business, including but not limited to scheduling items. Cindy Gust Jenson asked the Council to review the annual calendar and notify staff of any needed changes. 12.Tentative Closed Session - - The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to: a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual; b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if: (i) public discussion of the transaction would: (A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; (ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale; and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, November 14, 2023 9 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. Closed Session started at 5:30 pm Held in the Mayor’s Conference Room due to earthquake repairs and via Zoom. Council/Board Members in Attendance: Council/Board Members Puy, Wharton, Valdemoros, Mano, Dugan, and Young. City Staff in Attendance: Rachel Otto, Danny Walz, Lindsey Nikola, Megan Yuill, Cara Lindsley, Austin Taylor, Ashley Ogden, Jim Sirrine, Robyn Stine, Amanda Greenland, Erin Cunningham, Marcus Lee, Mary Beth Thompson, Blake Thomas, Tammy Hunsaker, Katherine Lewis, Kimberly Chytraus, Allison Parks, Cindy Gust- Jenson, Jennifer Bruno, Lehua Weaver, Allison Rowland, Ben Luedtke, and Cindy Lou Trishman. Closed Session ended at 7:20 pm Motion: Moved by Council Member Dugan, seconded by Council Member Puy to exit out of Closed Session. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young ABSENT: Victoria Petro Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass Motion: Moved by Council Member Valdemoros, seconded by Council Member Puy to enter into Closed Session as the RDA Board and City Council for the purposes of strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property and for attorney-client matters that are privileged. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young ABSENT: Victoria Petro Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, November 14, 2023 10 Meeting adjourned at 7:20 pm Minutes Approved: _______________________________ City Council Chair Darin Mano _______________________________ City Recorder Please refer to Meeting Materials (available at www.data.slc.gov by selecting Public Body Minutes) for supportive content including electronic recordings and comments submitted prior to or during the meeting. Websites listed within the body of the Minutes may not remain active indefinitely. This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held Tuesday, November 14, 2023 and is not intended to serve as a full transcript. Please refer to the electronic recording for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52-4-203. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, November 14, 2023 11 PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Work Session on Friday, December 8, 2023. The following Council Members were present: Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Sarah Young The following Council Members were absent: Ana Valdemoros, Darin Mano Present Legislative leadership: Cindy Gust-Jenson – Executive Director, Jennifer Bruno – Deputy Director, Lehua Weaver – Associate Deputy Director Present Administrative leadership: Rachel Otto – Acting Mayor/Chief of Staff Present City Staff: Katherine Lewis – City Attorney, Cindy Lou Trishman – City Recorder, Cindy Lou Trishman – City Recorder The meeting was called to order at 4:58 pm.   MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Friday, December 8, 2023 1 Work Session Items NONE.   Council Vice Chair Petro convened the meeting in the Historic Room of the City Council Office and via Zoom for Council Member online attendance.   Standing Items   1.Closed Session ~ 4:45 p.m.  - 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.      Motion: Moved by Council Member Wharton, seconded by Council Member Dugan to enter into Closed Session for the purposes of strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation and advice of Counsel. AYE: Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Sarah Young ABSENT: Ana Valdemoros, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano Final Result: 4 – 0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Friday, December 8, 2023 2 Closed Session Started at 4:59 pm. Held via Zoom and in the Historic Meeting Room of the City Council office (Room 304) Council Members in Attendance: Council Members Petro, Dugan, Young, Wharton, and Puy (joined at 5:02 pm). City Staff in Attendance: Rachel Otto, Lindsey Nikola, Laura Briefer, Jason Brown, Jesse Stewart, Katherine Lewis, Mark Kittrell, Angela Price, Cindy Gust-Jenson, Jennifer Bruno, Lehua Weaver, Nick Tarbet, Whitney Gonzalez Fernandez, Sam Owen, Eva Chavez-Lopez, Kate Bradshaw, and Cindy Lou Trishman. Closed Session ended at 5:58 pm. Note: Council Member Wharton and Puy left the meeting at 5:56 pm, thereby dissolving a quorum and the Closed Session meeting concluded.   Motion: Moved by Council Member Dugan, seconded by Council Member Young to exit Closed Session. AYE: Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Sarah Young ABSENT: Ana Valdemoros, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano Final Result: 3 – 0 Pass   MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Friday, December 8, 2023 3 Meeting adjourned at 5:58 pm Minutes Approved: _______________________________ City Council Chair Darin Mano _______________________________ City Recorder Please refer to Meeting Materials (available at https://data.slc.gov by selecting City Council Meeting Information) for supportive content including electronic recordings and comments submitted prior to or during the meeting. Websites listed within the body of the Minutes may not remain active indefinitely. This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held Friday, December 8, 2023 and is not intended to serve as a full transcript. Please refer to the electronic recording for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52-4-203.   MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Friday, December 8, 2023 4 PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Formal Session on Tuesday, December 5, 2023.  The following Council Members were present: Ana Valdemoros, Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro Present Legislative Leadership: Jennifer Bruno – Deputy Director, Lehua Weaver – Associate Deputy Director Present Administrative Leadership: Rachel Otto – Chief of Staff Present City Staff: Katherine Lewis – City Attorney, Cindy Lou Trishman – City Recorder, Brian Fullmer – Public Policy Analyst, Stephanie Elliott – Minutes & Records Clerk, Thais Stewart – Deputy City Recorder, Taylor Hill – Constituent Liaison/Policy Analyst, Scott Corpany – Staff Assistant, Achintya Mahajan – Constituent Liaison Intern  The meeting was called to order at 7:10 pm MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 5, 2023 1 A.OPENING CEREMONY: 1.Council Member Darin Mano will conduct the formal meeting. 2.Pledge of Allegiance. 3.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. 4.The Council will approve the work session meeting minutes of October 17, 2023. Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Dugan to approve the work session meeting minutes of October 17, 2023. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass B.PUBLIC HEARINGS:   1. Ordinance: Rezone at Approximately 1380 South 900 West The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of the properties located at approximately 1380 South 900 West, 1361 South 1000 West, and 1367 South 1000 West from R-1/7,000 (Single Family Residential District) to RMF-30 (Low-Density Multi-Family Residential District). The applicant owns the property located at 1380 South 900 West and intends to only develop that property. The other two properties are owned by a separate organization that asked to be included in this request to enable additional development flexibility. This proposal would accommodate a redevelopment proposal to be submitted at a later date. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 2. Petitioner: Drake Powell of TAG SLC, representing the various property owners. Petition No.: PLNPCM2023-00172.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 5, 2023    Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 5, 2023 2   Brian Fullmer introduced the rezone ordinance at 1380 South and 900 West.  Cameron Williams provided Council a written comment regarding the rezone. (See meeting materials for full comment.) Albert Eslie Barlow spoke in opposition of the rezone and stated mass opposition from the neighboring homes due to multi-family housing not fitting into the old-growth community.  Nephi Wyman spoke against the rezone and stated current parking and outside space issues that would arise with a new development.    Motion: Moved by Council Member Dugan, seconded by Council Member Petro to close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass 2. Ordinance: Rezone at 680 South Gladiola Street The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of the property located at approximately 680 South Gladiola Street from M-2 (Heavy Manufacturing District) to M-1 (Light Manufacturing District). This proposal would enable the use of the property as a commercial truck driving school, classified as a vocational school with outdoor activities. The applicant has not included development plans with this request. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 2. Petitioner: Tony Sieverts. Petition No.: PLNPCM2023-00236.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 5, 2023    Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   Brian Fullmer introduced the ordinance to rezone 680 South Gladiola Street.  There was no public comment. Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Wharton to MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 5, 2023 3 close the public hearing and adopt Ordinance 71 of 2023: Rezone at 680 South Gladiola Street. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass 3. Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at 711 and 721 South 1200 East The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of the properties located at 711 and 721 South 1200 East Street from R- 2 (Single- and Two-Family Residential District) to I (Institutional District). The proposal also would amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map. The proposal would allow the use of the existing church building as a school. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 4. Petitioner: Jim Brewer, Head of the McGillis School. Petition No.: PLNPCM2023-00496 & PLNPCM2023-00639    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 5, 2023    Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 5, 2023 4   Brian Fullmer introduced the rezone ordinance and master plan amendment at 711 and 721 South 1200 East.   Joel Briscoe spoke in support of the rezone and described the positive impact the new developments would create in the community.   Kristina Robb expressed parking concerns from the neighbors and asked the Council to review those concerns before adopting the ordinance.  Arla Funk spoke in support of the item and thanked Council Member Valdemoros for giving attention to the community's needs. Kathy Scott stated unanimous support from the East Central Community and stated other support throughout the neighboring communities.  Council Member Valdemoros expressed gratitude for the collaboration and involvement of the City and community for the rezone. Motion: Moved by Council Member Dugan, seconded by Council Member Valdemoros to close the public hearing and adopt Ordinance 72 of 2023 Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at 711 and 721 South 1200 East. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: 1. Ordinance: Subdivision Code Amendments The Council will consider adopting an ordinance repealing and replacing all text, tables, and illustrations in Title 20 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to subdivisions and condominiums. This proposal reorganizes the subdivision regulations, updates application requirements, makes minor changes to subdivision approval processes, updates the standards for approval for dividing land and modifying lots and parcels, updates the subdivision standards to align with City goals identified in the City's general plan, and makes changes necessary to align with State code mandates for review times and review processes. The changes are necessary to bring the City's subdivision regulations into compliance with recent State code changes that require Cities to update their codes by February 1, 2024. Petition No.: PLNPCM2023-00494. For more information visit tinyurl.com/SubdivisionCodeUpdates.     FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 5, 2023 5 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 5, 2023    Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 5, 2023 6   Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Petro to adopt Ordinance 73 of 2023: Subdivision Code Amendments. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass 2. Ordinance: Rezone at 2157 South Lincoln Street The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of the property located at 2157 South Lincoln Street from RB (Residential/Business District) to CSHBD2 (Sugar House Business District). This proposal would facilitate the redevelopment of this, and the adjacent parcels into a multi-family residential project. The property is currently occupied by a Victorian home used as an office building. Under the proposal, the home would be preserved and used as part of the project. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 7. Petitioner: Mark Isaac, representing the property owners. Petition No.: PLNPCM2023-00239    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 5, 2023    Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   Item pulled and rescheduled for a future Council meeting. 3. Ordinance: Affordable Housing Incentives The Council will consider adopting an ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code establishing a chapter for zoning incentives and adding affordable housing incentives. The proposed amendments would incentivize and reduce barriers for affordable housing. The incentives would include administrative design review and additional building height in various zoning districts, planned development requirement modifications, removal of the density requirements in the RMF zoning districts, and additional dwelling types in various zoning districts. Other sections of Title 21A – Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. The City Council may consider modifications to other related sections of the code as part of this proposal. Petition No.: PLNPCM2019-00658. For more information visit tinyurl.com/AffordableHousingIncentives.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 5, 2023 7 discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 19, 2023; Tuesday, October 3, 2023; Tuesday, October 10, 2023 and Tuesday, November 7, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 5, 2023    Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   Council Member Dugan thanked the community for their involvement and thanked fellow Council Members for being open to other discussions.  Council Member Petro thanked Council Member Dugan for advocating for home ownership in the City and urged the rest of the community to get involved in the conversation about housing.  Council Member Puy applauded the community and Council for coming to an agreement that would benefit the residents and the future of the City.  Council Member Wharton thanked the community and City employees for all their efforts on this ordinance and expressed excitement for the future development. Council Member Valdemoros expressed excitement for the growth in Salt Lake City and commended the Council for being proactive in future development.  Council Member Mano thanked staff and everyone involved for creating this ordinance and being able to collaborate and complete the incentive this year.  Motion: Moved by Council Member Petro, seconded by Council Member Young to adopt Ordinance 74 of 2023 establishing a chapter for zoning incentives and adding affordable housing incentives in City code. I further move the Council to initiate a legislative action requesting the Administration work with the Attorney’s Office to draft an ordinance that: •Clarifies City code to ensure that construction work does not damage adjacent properties. •Establishes penalties to deter damage from occurring. •Defines a process for the City to effectively enforce City code in situations where damage occurs. •Outlines a process to remediate situations when damage occurs. I further move the Council request that the Administration transmit a report to the Council outlining the implementation plan to administer and enforce the Affordable Housing Incentives program by April 30, 2024. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 5, 2023 8 NAY: Daniel Dugan Final Result: 6 – 1 Pass 4. Ordinances: Form Based Urban Neighborhood Zoning Text Amendments (Fleet Block Rezone and Public Square Designation) The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would create the Form-Based Mixed Use 11 (FB-MU11), previously titled Form-Based Urban Neighborhood 3 or FB- UN3, as well as an ordinance that would amend the zoning map to apply the FB-MU11 to the fleet block property. The ordinance would also establish the southeast portion of the block as a public square in Title 15. The fleet block property is between 800 South and 900 South Streets and 300 West and 400 West Street. Form-Based code focuses on the form and appearance of buildings. It has more regulations that control those aspects of development than traditional zones. The proposal would apply regulations such as building design, height, bulk, use, and other development standards and land uses. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Other sections of Title 21A – Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. A portion of the fleet block property will also be added to the City’s public square inventory identified in Title 15. Petition No.: PLNPCM2019-00277 For more information on this item visit tinyurl.com/SLCFleetBlock.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, August 8, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 5, 2023    Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   Council Member Puy expressed excitement for this ordinance to create more open space and thanked the community for their input on the ordinance throughout the process.   Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Valdemoros to adopt Ordinance 75 of 2023 that: 1. Establishes the Form Based Mixed Use 11 zoning district, and 2. Rezones the Fleet Block to Form Based Mixed Use 11 I further move the Council adopt an ordinance that establishes the southeast portion of the block as a public square in Title 15, pursuant to the boundaries included in the ordinance. I further move the Council adopt a legislative action requiring a restrictive covenant be recorded against the property that identifies that area of the fleet block as a public square. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 5, 2023 9 AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass D.COMMENTS: 1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. There were no comments. 2.Comments to the City Council. (Comments are taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other City business. Comments are limited to two minutes.)   Levy Woodruff spoke regarding the Fleet Block rezone,the current housing issues in the area and requested the neighborhood voices be heard.  Rae Duckworth spoke regarding police brutality and the affordable housing crisis surrounding the Fleet Block murals and memorials.  Tim Dwyer spoke regarding the Fleet Block rezone and parking considerations, and applauded the City for listening to the community's needs.  Karina McLellan spoke on behalf of The Work Activity Center, described the services and programs they provide to the community and those with disabilities.  Cindy Cromer spoke regarding the extent of authority of City boards and commissions and offered suggestions regarding future nominees for City boards and commissions. Kristina Robb thanked the Council for listening to the community's concerns, comments, and suggestions in the affordable housing ordinance.  Ilana Raskind spoke on the Fleet Block rezone and urged the Council to listen to the public request about the community square being used for resources for the residents. Wendy Garvin expressed concern regarding empty housing in the City that was not being filled while people are dying and freezing on the street.      E.NEW BUSINESS: 1. Resolution: Recertifying the Salt Lake City Justice Court The Council will consider approving a resolution requesting the recertification of the Justice Court of Salt Lake City in order to provide for the Court's continued operation.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 5, 2023 10 discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 5, 2023    Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   Motion: Moved by Council Member Wharton, seconded by Council Member Dugan to adopt Resolution 34 of 2023 requesting the recertification of the Salt Lake City Justice Court by the Board of Justice Court Judges and the Utah Judicial Council. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass   F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Ordinance: Local Business Direct Assistance ARPA Grant Awards The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would approve the disbursement of local business direct assistance grant awards from the City's American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) fiscal recovery funds. A business needs to show an economic hardship caused by the pandemic and meet other eligibility and compliance standards per federal ARPA guidance.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 5, 2023    Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 5, 2023 11   Motion: Moved by Council Member Petro, seconded by Council Member Dugan to adopt Ordinance 76 of 2023 approving American Rescue Plan Act local business direct assistance grant awards and contingency as shown in the Exhibit A Funding Log. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass 2. Resolution: Local Nonprofit Direct Assistance Grant Awards The Council will consider approving a resolution that would approve the disbursement of local nonprofit direct assistance grant awards. The Council will review the Community Recovery Committee’s funding recommendations of twenty-three applicants for the $2,000,000 of available one-time awards.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 and Tuesday, November 14, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 5, 2023    Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   Motion: Moved by Council Member Dugan, seconded by Council Member Young to adopt Resolution 35 of 2023 approving local nonprofit direct assistance grant awards and contingency as shown in the Exhibit A Funding Log. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass 3. Ordinance: Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund – Ocean City Seafood Market The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would approve a $90,000 loan for Ocean City Seafood Market at 1701 South State Street from the Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF). Ocean City Seafood Market is a local grocer specializing in Asian foods, international foods, and seafood. This loan will assist in the creation of one new job in the next year and the retention of three current jobs.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 5, 2023 12 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 5, 2023    Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 5, 2023 13   Motion: Moved by Council Member Petro, seconded by Council Member Wharton to adopt Ordinance 77 of 2023 approving a $90,000 loan for Ocean City Seafood Market from the Economic Development Loan Fund. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass   G.CONSENT:   1. Grant Holding Account Items (Batch No.2) for Fiscal Year 2023-24 The Council will consider approving Grant Holding Account Items (Batch No. 2) for Fiscal Year 2023-24.     FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 5, 2023    Staff Recommendation - Approve.   MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 5, 2023 14 2. Board Appointment: Transportation Advisory Board – Matt Gray The Council will consider approving the appointment of Matt Gray to the Transportation Advisory Board for a term ending September 28, 2026.     FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 5, 2023    Staff Recommendation - Approve.   3. Board Appointment: Citizens Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC) – J. Clair Baldwin The Council will consider approving the appointment of J.Clair Baldwin to the Citizens Compensation Advisory Committee for a term ending December 5, 2027. This is a Council-appointed position, therefore an Administrative Recommendation letter is not included.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 5, 2023    Staff Recommendation - Approve. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 5, 2023 15   Motion: Moved by Council Member Wharton, seconded by Council Member Dugan to approve the Consent agenda. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass H.ADJOURNMENT:       MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 5, 2023 16 Meeting adjourned at 8:08 pm Minutes Approved: _______________________________  City Council Chair Darin Mano _______________________________  City Recorder Please refer to Meeting Materials (available at www.data.slc.gov by selecting Public Body Minutes) for supportive content including electronic recordings and comments submitted prior to or during the meeting. Websites listed within the body of the Minutes may not remain active indefinitely.    This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the City Council Formal meeting held Tuesday, December 5, 2023 and is not intended to serve as a full transcript. Please refer to the electronic recording for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52- 4-203.   MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 5, 2023 17 Item B1 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Jennifer Bruno Deputy Director DATE:January 9, 2024 RE: PUBLIC HEARING, ORDINANCE: LANDSCAPING AMENDMENTS MOTION 1 – CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND DEFER ACTION I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future meeting. MOTION 2 – CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future meeting. COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Jennifer Bruno, Deputy Director DATE: December 5, 2023 RE:Landscaping and Buffers Chapter Text Amendment PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing 1: Dec 5, 2023 Set Date: Dec 12, 2023 Public Hearing: Jan 9, 2024 Potential Action: TBD ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Administration’s proposed ordinance rewrites and re-organizes the Landscaping and Buffers Chapter, consistent with previous Council discussions relating to various sustainability goals for Salt Lake City, and consistent with the strategies outlined in the City’s Urban Forest Action Plan. The Administration’s transmittal notes that the ordinance is intended to “better support the City’s adopted policies related to reducing water use, enhancement of the urban forest, reduction in the urban heat island, improve air quality…”. It also notes that re-organizing this section of the code to improve clarity and readability for both the public and administration. The proposed changes also include feedback from several City departments, as well as changes recommended from the Planning Commission. On April 26, 2023 the Planning Commission voted 10 to 1 to recommend a positive recommendation to the Council with two modifications (see Key Elements #2 and Policy Question #1 on page 3). Goal of the Briefing: Review proposed changes to Landscaping and Buffers chapter, provide feedback and schedule public hearing to receive public comment. KEY ELEMENTS 1.Proposed Changes – The Administration’s transmittal notes the following proposed changes/additions, organized by policy goal: a. Improve water conservation by: i. Requiring a landscaping or irrigation professional letter of compliance with irrigation and landscaping standards. ii. Requiring a WaterSense automatic irrigation controller. iii. Prohibiting water waste. iv. Creating standards for irrigation systems to be designed and maintained to maximize water efficiency. Page | 2 b. Supporting the Urban Forest/trees by: i. Allowing tree canopy to count toward vegetation coverage standards and requiring the largest tree appropriate to the landscape location in most zoning districts. ii. Ensuring tree health by requiring Urban Forestry review of alterations to street trees and root zone protection. iii. Improving tree survival rates by requiring a permanent irrigation system for street trees when a landscape plan is required (new construction, or a commercial property where the landscaping is being updated by 50% or more, or a commercial addition that increases the floor area by 50% or more). iv. Requiring trees in the Northwest Quadrant. c. Reduce the urban heat island by: i. Creating parking lot landscaping standards directed at reducing the urban heat island effect. ii. Establishing rock mulch limitations. iii. Allowing tree canopy to count toward landscape coverage and requiring street trees where new construction is proposed. d. Reduce stormwater runoff by: i. Allowing stormwater curb cuts. ii. Requireing bioretention for parking lots with 50 or more stalls in the Parking Chapter (21A.44) e. Simplify and clarify through: i. Requiring separate plans for planting, grading, and irrigation. ii. Addressing artificial turf, by removing it as permitted, based on the Planning Commission recommendation (See Planning Commission changes below and policy question #1 on Page 3). iii. Consolidating buffer sizes. iv. Updating the Freeway Landscape buffer better comply with goals and intent of chapter. v. Creating tables and graphics where possible. vi. Removing duplicate or wordy standards that were difficult to implement. vii. Quantifying, where possible, minimum landscaping standards. 2.Planning Commission Changes – The Planning Commission voted 10-1 to forward a positive recommendation to the Council with the following changes: c. Prohibiting artificial turf. The Administration’s transmittal notes that the proposed draft before the Council includes “a statement that artificial turf is prohibited anywhere landscaping is regulated by the chapter. Where landscaping is not regulated in this chapter, artificial turf would be allowed (such as the rear yard), as it is today in unregulated landscaping areas. The commission’s recommendation was based on a discussion centered around artificial turfs impact on stormwater runoff and possible harmful chemicals contained in the manufacturing process.” See Policy Question #1 on Page 3. d.Define “Landscape or Irrigation specialist”. During the Planning Commission hearing, some commented that the general language originally proposed about a “landscape or irrigation professional” was too broad. The current draft now requires review and signature by a landscape architect (licensed with the State of Utah), or a US-EPA WaterSense Labeled Certified Professional. Page | 3 5.Elements not changing - The Administration’s transmittal notes that several current standards in the zoning code will remain: a. Regulated landscaping locations (Park Strips, Yard areas, Buffers, Parking Lots). b. 33% vegetation standard. c. 20% hard surfacing limitations. d. Landscaping and irrigation designed depending on watering needs. e. Drip and spray irrigation on separate valves. f. Park Strip less than 36” in width are exempt from some landscaping standards. g. Landscaping buffer tree and shrub quantities. – h. Mulching depth and permeability standards. i. And encroachment standards in the park strip or public right of way. j. Maintaining the City’s resident’s eligibility for “rip your strip” rebate programs through the CUWCD (Central Utah Water Conservancy District) and Utah Department of Natural Resources. POLICY QUESTIONS 1.Planning Commission recommendations relating to turf – o The draft presented to the Planning Commission on April 26th, permitted artificial turf in front and corner yard landscaping locations as an impervious surface, which is limited to a maximum of 20% of the required landscaping. It was prohibited in other locations. Additionally, artificial turf would have had to meet certain material standards such as individual grass blade length and quantity as well as infill material type. o As noted above, the Planning Commission was concerned with this aspect of the proposal, particularly the impact of turf on stormwater runoff and harmful chemicals used in the turf manufacturing process. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommended to prohibit turf in required landscaping areas. Where landscaping is not regulated by this chapter, such as the rear yard, turf would be permitted. o Recently, some cities, including Boston and several in California have prohibited artificial turf. They have cited Poly-fluoroalkyl Substances or P-FAS, as well as bisphenol A (BPA) in the rubber crumb underlayer as a main public health reason to prohibit artificial turf. o According to the Environmental Protection Agency, PFAS chemicals are a known carcinogen which can interfere with hormones, reproduction, immunity and cause developmental delays in children. The EPA has not officially listed BPA on their concerned substance list but they are continuing to monitor research. o Turf manufacturers have been working to improve the production of artificial turf to reduce/remove chemicals, and each year of development shows improvement on this front. o Previous Council discussions asked for the Administration to evaluate artificial turf as an option for required landscaping areas. Does the Council wish to discuss this further with the Administration, including reviewing the language originally proposed to the Planning Commission? Page | 4 2.Enforcement – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if they have a recommendation for how to handle enforcement/grandfathering of the changing standards, particularly as it relates to turf? Currently staff understands that the Administration has paused enforcement on turf in landscaping areas, while this ordinance is working its way through the process. CHRONOLOGY •September 6, 2022 – Initial feedback from City Council in work session •February 8, 2023 – Text amendment formally initiated •February 10, 2023 – Notice emailed to recognized organizations and changes posted to Planning Division Open House webpage •March 20, 2023 – Proposed changes presented to Sugar House Community Council •April 26, 2023 – Planning Commission discussion and positive recommendation forwarded •May 8, 2023 – Ordinance forwarded to Attorney’s office for review •June 15, 2023 – Ordinance corrections forwarded to Attorney’s office •August 29, 2023 – Corrected ordinance returned to Attorney’s office for final review •September 26, 2023 – Final ordinance received from Attorney’s Office •September 28, 2023 – Transmittal sent to Council Office F course not ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: 12/04/2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: 12/04/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 11/27/2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods SUBJECT: Landscaping and Buffers Chapter Text Amendment STAFF CONTACT: Nan Larsen, Senior Planner nannette.larsen@slcgov.com or 801-535-7645 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Landscaping and Buffers Ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This is a text amendment for a complete rewrite and reorganization of the Landscaping and Buffers Chapter of the zoning ordinance to better support the City’s adopted policies related to reducing water use, enhancement of the urban forest, reduction in the urban heat island, improve air quality, and improvements to air quality and green infrastructure city-wide. Reorganization and clarity of the ordinance was of upmost importance for both the public’s understanding and for city administration. On September 6, 2022, the Planning Division and Public Utilities held a work session with the City Council to get initial feedback on priorities related to changes to landscaping regulations to help achieve city policies and goals. The report that was prepared for the City Council briefing is included in the staff report to the Planning Commission as found in Planning Commission records b). The proposed Landscaping and Buffers Chapter changes are based on the feedback received 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 AS from the Council during the briefing, feedback from several departments including Public Utilities, Urban Forestry, and Enforcement, begins to implement strategies in the Urban Forest Action Plan. ZONING REGULATIONS AND LANDSCAPING: Title 21A, SLC zoning code, regulates landscaping in several ways for several purposes. Generally, landscaping is regulated in the zoning code to reduce the heat island effect, reduce stormwater runoff, reduce auditory and visual impacts of certain uses, improve aesthetics, and make use of the health benefits of being in a more natural environment. These goals are accomplished by regulating landscaping in certain locations of a property depending on the use or district. The zoning code regulates landscaping in the following locations: Park strips: The strip of vegetation that is usually between the street and the sidewalk. Park strips vary in size and form, different standards for different park strip sizes are proposed. Yard areas: Front or corner side yards are identified as required landscaped yards. Yard areas are where the building is required to be setback from the property line, where buildings are prohibited, and other structures like fences and sheds are limited. Outside of a required landscaped yard, there are no specific vegetation requirements in a required yard, except for buffer yards (if required) or parking lot landscaping (if applicable). Buffers: The purpose of buffer areas is to mitigate potential impacts between dissimilar zoning districts. Landscaping in buffer areas is utilized to reduce auditory or visual impacts on an adjoining property. Parking lots: Landscaping standards in parking lots are utilized to reduce the auditory, visual, or temperature impacts of a large surface area that is paved. This type of landscaping takes the form of interior and perimeter parking lot landscaping and generally applies to parking lots with 10 or more stalls. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: What’s Staying? Several standards that are currently required in the landscaping chapter will remain:, - Regulated landscaping locations. - 33% vegetation standard. - 20% hard surfacing limitations. - Landscaping and irrigation designed depending on watering needs. - Drip and spray irrigation on separate valves. - Park Strip less than 36” in width are exempt from some landscaping standards. - Landscaping buffer tree and shrub quantities. - Mulching depth and permeability standards. 2 - And encroachment standards in the park strip or public right of way. - Maintaining the City’s resident’s eligibility for “rip your strip” rebate programs through the CUWCD (Central Utah Water Conservancy District) and Utah Department of Natural Resources. What’s New? The significant new additions to the landscaping chapter aim to: - Improve water conservation by: o Requiring a landscaping or irrigation professional letter of compliance with irrigation and landscaping standards. o Requiring a WaterSense automatic irrigation controller. o Prohibiting water waste. o Creating standards for irrigation systems to be designed and maintained to maximize water efficiency. - Simplify and clarify through: o Requiring separate plans for planting, grading, and irrigation. o Addressing artificial turf. o Consolidating buffer sizes. o Updating the Freeway Landscape buffer better comply with goals and intent of chapter. o Creating tables and graphics where possible. o Removing duplicate or wordy standards that were difficult to implement. o Quantifying, where possible, minimum landscaping standards. - Prioritizing trees by: o Allowing tree canopy to count toward vegetation coverage standards and requiring the largest tree appropriate to the landscape location in most zoning districts. o Ensuring tree health by requiring Urban Forestry review of alterations to street trees and root zone protection. o Improving tree survival rates by requiring a permanent irrigation system for street trees when a landscape plan is required (new construction, or a commercial property where the landscaping is being updated by 50% or more, or a commercial addition that increases the floor area by 50% or more). o Requiring trees in the Northwest Quadrant. - Reduce the urban heat island by: o Creating parking lot landscaping standards directed at reducing the urban heat island effect. o Establishing rock mulch limitations. o Allowing tree canopy to count toward landscape coverage and requiring street trees where new construction is proposed. - Reduce stormwater runoff by: 3 o Allow stormwater curb cuts. o Require bioretention for parking lots with 50 or more stalls in the Parking Chapter (21A.44). SUMMARY OF PROPOSED LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERS CHAPTER: The proposed Landscaping and Buffers Chapter is outlined and briefly described below: 21A.48: Landscaping and Buffers Purpose and Intent: Explains the purpose of establishing a landscape chapter and the intent of the standards. - Increase tree canopy, protect and preserve public trees, reduce heat island, reduce stormwater runoff, improve air quality, enhance community appearance from the public realm, mitigate impacts through buffer between uses, and promote water conservation. Applicability: Applies to all properties in SLC, any updates must comply. Existing landscaping that does not comply with the regulations of the chapter do not need to come into compliance unless there is a change made to the landscaping for single- and two- family districts, or if the floor area or the number of parking stalls required increases by 50% or more for all other uses. Authority: What modifications can be applied; Zoning Administrator may make modifications to standards to better comply with the intent of the chapter, or in coordination with the Urban Forestry, Police, or Public Utilities. Responsibility & Maintenance: Establishes the responsibilities of the property owner and ongoing maintenance required in regard to landscaping maintenance in general, landscape yards, park strips, street trees, and irrigation. - Clearance from the public right-of-way. - Maintained in good condition. - Lists specific responsibilities for street trees and irrigation systems. - Height limitations within the sight distance triangle to prevent vision obstructions from approaching traffic. Landscape Plan: Required for new construction of a primary structure and when an addition increases the floor area by 50%, or modifies any required landscaping by 50% . - Landscape plans require a planning plan, a grading plan, and an irrigation plan. Lists specific criteria for each. 4 - Requires Landscape Architect licensed with the State or a US-EPA WaterSense certified professional signature and letter of completion. Landscape Requirements: Describes required landscape locations, landscape location sizes, and specific landscape standards per location. Landscape locations include park strip, landscaped yards, surface parking lot landscaping, and buffer areas. - Establishes minimum ground coverage and tree planting in all landscape areas. - Describes locations where turf is permitted, and the coverage allowed. - Describes impervious surface coverage maximums. - Establishes where landscape buffers are required, the size, location, and coverage, shrub, and tree planting requirements. Parking Lot Landscaping: Applies to surface parking lots with 10 or more stalls. - Interior landscape areas and perimeter parking lot landscaping required. Describes size, location, exceptions, and vegetation requirements in these areas that include trees, shrubs, and ground cover. - Curbs are required where no biodetention is utilized. Standards: Requires specific landscape installation and landscape material standards that apply to all regulated landscaping locations. - Requires drought tolerant, adaptive, or native species. - Establishes limitations and standards on turf, mulch, and berming. Prohibits artificial turf. - Describes specific park strip material standards that includes ground cover regulations, pathways, stormwater detention allowances, and permitted encroachments. Private Lands Tree Preservation: Establishes process and standards for removing a tree on private lands. This section has not been changed, it is expected the Urban Forestry Division will update this section in the coming years as they continue to work on updates to better respond to the Urban Forest Action Plan. Appeal: Right to appeal statement. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On April 26, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed text amendment and voted 10 to 1 to recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed Landscaping and Buffers Chapter amendments with two recommended modifications to the draft ordinance: • Define a landscape or irrigation specialist. The draft ordinance language has been updated to address this and now requires review and signature by a Landscape Architect, licensed with the State of Utah, or a US-EPA WaterSense Labeled Certified Professional. The previous draft included a generalized statement about a landscaping or irrigation professional, during the Planning Commission hearing comments questions were raised on the need to define what constitutes a landscaping or irrigation professional. • Remove all language that permits artificial turf. The existing Landscaping and Buffers chapter does not allow artificial turf in required landscaped locations. The chapter draft the Planning Commission reviewed on April 26th, permitted artificial turf in front and corner yard landscaping locations as an impervious surface, which is limited to a maximum of 20% of the required landscaping. In all other required landscaping locations, artificial turf was prohibited. Additionally, artificial turf would have had to meet certain material standards such as individual grass blade length and quantity as well as infill material type. With the Planning Commission’s recommended modification, the artificial material standards and its inclusion in the impervious surface has been removed. Now included in the draft language is a statement that artificial turf is prohibited anywhere landscaping is regulated by the chapter. Where landscaping is not regulated in this chapter, artificial turf would be allowed (such as the rear yard), as it is today in unregulated landscaping areas. The commission’s recommendation was based on a discussion centered around artificial turfs impact on stormwater runoff and possible harmful chemicals contained in the manufacturing process. MODIFICATIONS MADE AFTER PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW: Following the positive recommendation from Planning Commission, planning staff made corrections to the draft chapter for the City Council to consider. The current draft ordinance reflects these changes: Landscaping buffer table - Inconsistencies were found and updated between specific district landscaping buffer references, within the I, RP, EI, and MU districts, and the proposed chapter’s required landscaping buffers. Also updated the table to maintain a required landscaping buffer between multi- family residential and commercial districts, residential and Business Park, residential and Research Park, and required a landscaping buffer in Extractive Industries and Mobile Home Districts when abutting any zoning district. Added a buffer between manufacturing districts and open space. 6 - Included language that a freeway landscape buffer is required on properties abutting a freeway. Parking lot landscaping - Added a provision that parking lot interior landscaping must include no less than 5% of the total parking lot. This provision ensures there is sufficient amount of landscaping to reduce the urban heat island effect regardless of the parking lot design. - Deleted the vehicle sales and lease lot provision that required a 5’ landscaping buffer in the front and corner side yard. The parking lot perimeter landscaping provision already ensures that a greater setback with sufficient landscaping would apply. - Included in the perimeter parking lot landscaping specific section references of 21A.44.060 and 21A.36.020 that address where a parking lot may be allowed in a yard area. - Clarified that the perimeter parking lot landscaping that abuts a building does not need to be included in the tree calculation. Clarified that the vehicle overhang area may be included in the perimeter parking lot landscaping width. - Specified parking lot interior landscaping allowed locations, minimum size, and ratio of trees and shrubs required. - Specified in 21A.44.060 that parking lots with 10 or more stalls or within 20’ of a lot line are subject to the landscaping chapter. Landscaping graphics - Consolidated the residential and nonresidential landscaping locations graphics into a single graphic that addresses both residential and nonresidential zoning districts. Updated the parking lot landscaping graphics to show the approximate number of trees required based on approximated scale and size of the interior and perimeter parking lot landscaping areas. Revision - Revised the purpose and intent section in the landscaping chapter that simplified language and listed purposes and intents based on priority. Multiple Section Deletions - Landscaping related terms and definitions as they are no longer referenced in the ordnance: Evapotranspiration rate, Best Management Practice, Landscape BMPs manual, Evergreen and Perennial, Overspray, Maximum extent practicable, Tier 2 water target, Treasured landscape, Landscaping vegetation, Water budget, and a duplicative Street tree definition. - Language in the applicability section that referenced that the entire chapter 48 may be exempted if permitted in other sections of the zoning code. There are no other sections that allow for an exception from the entire chapter 48, specific sections exception language within the proposed chapter have remained. - Removal of Bond requirement to comply with State Code. Multiple Section Clarifications - In the landscape requirements section of the landscaping chapter clarified that where conflict between specific district standards and this landscaping chapter the specific district standards shall prevail. - In the Foothills and Foothills Protection District removed titles in the landscape plan requirements to be consistent with the rest of the section. 7 - Clarified precedence language in the Design Standards section where conflicting language may occur between the design standards and the district specific standards. Clarified where percent tree canopy coverage is required in the design standards table, the tree canopy cannot be counted toward vegetation coverage in the downtown districts. Removed vegetation coverage and streetscape landscaping to ensure vegetation coverage and streetscape landscaping applies to all properties not just the downtown and CG districts. - Included language that clarified landscaping installation process during winter months through a temporary certificate of occupancy. - In the park strip standards table, specified where the center of a park strip is. - In the authority section, stated simply which departments or divisions may provide input to the zoning administrator when the provisions of the landscaping chapter may be waived. Removed qualifying provisions required when departments or divisions may recommend a landscaping waiver. - Clarified in the landscape plan section, permitted modification if the change is from one plant species to another with similar watering needs. - Specified in the CSHBD district sufficient soil volumes for street trees must be approved by Urban Forestry. PUBLIC PROCESS: Recognized Organizations: All recognized organization chairs city-wide were notified on February 10th, 2023, of the proposed text amendments. The Planning Division presented the proposed code amendments to the Sugar House Community Council on March 20th, 2023 and accepted comments and answered questions. Open House: A virtual open house was hosted on Planning’s website and published via list serve on February 10th, 2023. The open house information included the most recent version of the landscaping and buffers chapter draft. The open house page was continually updated to include the most recent draft amendments and public hearing dates. Public Hearing Notification: Notice of the public hearing was posted on City and State websites and emailed via list serve to subscribers on April 19th, 2023. Planning Commission Public Hearing: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the text amendments on April 26, 2023. The Planning Commission provided a positive recommendation to City Council on the proposed amendments. Planning Commission Staff Report Public Comments Received: We received 14 public comments, as of the date this memo was transmitted. The public comments ranged from concerns of enforceability of some of the standards, landscaping rocks and their contribution to the urban heat island, landscaping materials on the sidewalk and unkempt landscapes, vegetation and vegetation maximum height 8 in the park strip, costs associated with requiring permanent irrigation, water waste, allowing native grass species, and public noticing procedures. Comments included statements encouraging waterwise landscaping and improving water conservation in landscaping areas. There were also statements where there was some misunderstanding on when a street tree is required. Where possible staff clarified when a street tree is required to the public – in a park strip over 36” in width and for new construction for single- and two- family developments. PLANNING COMMISSION (PC) RECORDS: a) PC Agenda of April 26, 2023 (Click to Access) b) PC Staff Report of April 26, 2023 (Click to Access Report) c) PC Minutes for April 26, 2023 (Click to Access) d) PC Video for April 26, 2023 (Click to Access) EXHIBITS: 1) Project Chronology 2) Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3) Petition Initiation 4) Public Comments Received after Planning Commission Staff Report Published 5) Public Utilities Director Statement 9 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 202_ (Amending the zoning text of various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to Landscaping and Buffers chapter amendments) An ordinance amending the text of various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to Landscaping and Buffers Chapter amendments pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00098. WHEREAS, on April 26, 2023, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on a petition submitted by Salt Lake City Mayor, Erin Mendenhall--at the request of the Salt Lake City Council--to amend the zoning code pertaining to the Landscaping and Buffer Chapter (Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00098); and WHEREAS, at its April 26, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said petition; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.24.010.P.12. That Subsection 21A.24.010.P.12 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: General Provisions: Special Foothills Regulations), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 12. Landscaping and Revegetation: a. Installation of all required landscaping shall begin no later than one month after a certificate of occupancy; except that if the certificate of occupancy is issued between October 15 and the following April 1, installation of the landscaping shall begin no later than April 30. Landscaping shall be substantially completed within nine (9) months after a certificate of occupancy is issued. Landscaping shall conform to the requirements of Chapter 21A.48 of this title, and shall also conform to the following requirements: (1) Front Yards and Side Yards: Front yards, corner side yards and interior side yards shall be completely landscaped except for driveways, walkways and patios/decks. (2) Disturbed Areas: All other areas disturbed during construction shall be either landscaped or revegetated to a natural state. (3) Undevelopable Areas: Lawns or gardens are prohibited in the undevelopable areas. Native and drought tolerant plant species established in undevelopable areas may be enhanced by irrigation and supplemental planting as approved by the zoning administrator, provided the zoning administrator finds that such supplemental planting is in keeping with the natural conditions. b. Special Landscape Regulations in the FR-1/43,560 and FR-2/21,780 Districts: In addition to the regulations in Chapter 21A.48 “Landscaping and Buffers” the following special landscape regulations apply: (1) Landscape Plan: In addition to the landscape plan submittal requirements listed in Section 21A.48.050, landscape plans shall also include: (a) Delineation between the proposed revegetation of disturbed site areas. (b) As a condition of site plan approval, a plan for erosion protection. (c) An irrigation plan designed to provide sufficient water for at least the first two years of growth to establish revegetation of natural areas. (2) Tree Preservation and Replacement: Existing trees over 2 inches in caliper that are removed from the site to accommodate development shall be replaced. Whenever microclimate conditions make it practical, the proportion of replacement tree species shall be the same as the trees removed. (3) Slope Revegetation: All slopes graded or otherwise disturbed shall be restored/replanted. Restored vegetation shall consist of native or adapted grasses, herbaceous perennials, or woody trees and shrubs as appropriate for slope and microclimate conditions. SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.24.020.I. That Subsection 21A.24.020.I of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: FR-1/43,560 Foothills Estate Residential District: Landscape Plan), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: I. Landscape Plan: A landscape plan conforming to the requirements of Section 21A.48.050 and Subsection 21A.24.010.P of this title shall be required. SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.24.030. That Subsection 21A.24.030.I of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: FR-1/21,780 Foothills Residential District: Landscape Plan), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: I. Landscape Plan: A landscape plan conforming to the requirements of Section 21A.48.050 and Subsection 21A.24.010.P of this title shall be required. SECTION 4. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.24.120.G. That Subsection 21A.24.120.G of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District: RMF-30 Building Type Zoning Standards), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: Building Regulation Building Type Single- Family Dwelling Two- Family Dwelling Multi- Family Residential Row House1 Sideways Row House1 Cottage Development1 Tiny House1 Non Residential Building Building Regulation Building Type Single- Family Dwelling Two- Family Dwelling Multi- Family Residential Row House1 Sideways Row House1 Cottage Development1 Tiny House1 Non Residential Building H Height 30’ Pitched Roof- 23’ Flat Roof-16’ 16’ 30’ F Front yard setback 20’ or the average of the block face C Corner side yard setback 10’ S Interior side yard setback 4’ on one side 10’ on the other 10’ 4’ 6’ on one side 10’ on the other 4’ 10’ R Rear yard Minimum of 20% lot depth, need not exceed 25’ 10’ Minimum of 20% lot depth, need not exceed 25’ L Minimum lot size2 2,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit 1,500 sq. ft. per dwelling unit 5,000 sq. ft. per building DU Maximum Dwelling Units per Form 1 2 8 6 8 per development 1 n/a BC Maximum Building Coverage 50% LY Required Landscaped Yards The front and corner side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards. LB Landscape Buffers per Chapter 21A.48. X X X G Attached Garages Garage doors accessed from the front or corner side yard shall be no wider than 50% of the front facade of the structure and set back at least 5’ from the street facing building facade and at least 20’ from the property line. Interior side loaded garages are permitted. DS Design Standards All new buildings are subject to applicable design standards in Chapter 21A.37 of this title. 0 SECTION 5. Amending the Text of Section 21A.26.010. That Section 21A.26.010 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: General Provisions), shall be and hereby is amended as follows: a. That Subsection 21A.26.010.C.1 shall be amended to read as follows: C. Impact Controls and General Restrictions in the Commercial Districts: 1. Refuse Control: Temporary storage of refuse materials shall be limited to that produced on the premises. Refuse containers must be covered and shall be stored within completely enclosed buildings or screened in conformance with the requirements of Section 21A.40.120 of this title. For buildings existing as of April 12, 1995, this screening provision shall be required if the floor area or parking requirements are increased by twenty five percent (25%) or more by an expansion to the building or change in the type of land use. b. That Subsection 21A.26.010.H shall be amended to read as follows: H. Landscaping and Buffering: The landscaping and buffering requirements for the commercial districts shall be as specified in Chapter 21A.48 of this title. SECTION 6. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.26.020.G. That Subsection 21A.26.020.G of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: CN Neighborhood Commercial District: Landscape Yard Requirements), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: G. Landscape Yard Requirements: Front and corner side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards, conforming to the requirements of Chapter 21A.48. Subject to site plan review approval, part or all of the landscape yard may be a patio or plaza. SECTION 7. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.26.025.G. That Subsection 21A.26.025.G of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: SNB Small Neighborhood Business District: Landscape Yard Requirements), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: G. Landscape Yard Requirements: Front and corner side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards. Subject to site plan review approval, part or the entire landscape yard may be a patio or plaza. SECTION 8. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.26.040.F. That Subsection 21A.26.040.F of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: CS Community Shopping District: Landscape Yard Requirements), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: F. Landscape Yard Requirements: A landscape yard of fifteen feet (15’) shall be required on all front and corner side yards, conforming to the requirements of Chapter21A.48. SECTION 9. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.26.050.E. That Subsection 21A.26.050.E of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: CC Corridor Commercial District: Landscape Yard Requirements), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: F. Landscape Yard Requirements: A landscape yard of fifteen feet (15’) shall be required on all front and corner side yards, conforming to the requirements of Chapter 21A.48. SECTION 10. Amending the Text of Section 21A.26.060. That Section 21A.26.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: CSHBD Sugar House Business District (CSHBD1 and CSHBD2)), shall be and hereby is amended as follows: a. That Subsection 21A.26.060.J shall be amended to read as follows: J. Park Strip Materials: Properties within this zoning district may utilize alternative park strip landscaping materials. Alternative materials are subject to planning director approval based on its compliance with the adopted “Circulation and Streetscape Amenities Plan” or its successor. b. That Subsection 21A.26.060.K shall be amended to read as follows: K. Street Trees: Street trees are required and subject to the regulations in Chapter 21A.48. If a park strip does not exist, street trees are required when the sidewalk width of at least 10’ can be maintained, to which required street trees shall be planted in tree wells with tree grates with sufficient soil volume as determined by the Urban Forestry Division. SECTION 11. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.26.070.E. That Subsection 21A.26.070.E of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: CG General Commercial District: Landscape Yard Requirements), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: E. Landscape Yard Requirements: A landscape yard of five feet shall be required on all front or corner side yards, conforming to the requirements of Chapter 21A.48 of this title. SECTION 12. Amending the Text of Section 21A.28.010. That Section 21A.28.010 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Manufacturing Districts: General Provisions), shall be and hereby is amended as follows: a. That Subsection 21A.28.010.B.1 shall be amended to read as follows: B. Impact Controls and General Restrictions in the Manufacturing Districts: 1. Refuse Control: Refuse containers must be covered and shall be stored within completely enclosed buildings or screened in conformance with the requirements of Section 21A.40.120 of this title. b. That Subsection 21A.28.010.G shall be amended to read as follows: G. Landscaping and Buffering: All uses in the manufacturing districts shall comply with the provisions governing landscaping and buffering in Chapter 21A.48 of this title. SECTION 13. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.28.030.E. That Subsection 21A.28.030.E of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Manufacturing Districts: M-2 Heavy Manufacturing District: Landscape Yard Requirements), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: E. Landscape Yard Requirements: The first twenty five feet (25’) of all required front yards and the first fifteen feet (15’) of all required corner side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards in conformance with the requirements of Chapter 21A.48 of this title. SECTION 14. Amending the Text of Section 21A.30.010. That Section 21A.30.010 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Downtown Districts: General Provisions), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.30.010: GENERAL PROVISIONS: A. Statement of Intent: The downtown districts are intended to provide use, bulk, urban design and other controls and regulations appropriate to the commercial core of the city and adjacent areas in order to enhance employment opportunities; to encourage the efficient use of land; to enhance property values; to improve the design quality of downtown areas; to create a unique downtown center which fosters the arts, entertainment, financial, office, retail and governmental activities; to provide safety and security; encourage permitted residential uses within the downtown area; and to help implement adopted plans. B. Permitted Uses: The uses specified as permitted uses in Section 21A.33.050, “Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts”, of this title are permitted; provided, that they comply with all requirements of this chapter, the general standards set forth in Part IV of this title, and all other applicable requirements of this title. 1. Conditional Uses: The uses specified as conditional uses in Section 21A.33.050, “Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts”, of this title, may be allowed in the downtown districts provided they are approved pursuant to the standards and procedures for conditional uses set forth in Chapter 21A.54 of this title, and comply with all other applicable requirements. C. Impact Controls and General Restrictions in the Downtown Districts: 1. Refuse Control: Refuse containers must be covered and shall be stored within completely enclosed buildings or screened in conformance with the requirements of Section 21A.40.120 of this title. For buildings existing as of April 12, 1995, this screening provision shall be required if the floor area or parking requirements are increased by twenty five percent (25%) or more by an expansion to the building or change in the type of land use. 2. Lighting: On site lighting, including parking lot lighting and illuminated signs, shall be located, directed or designed in such a manner so as not to create glare on adjacent properties. 3. Fencing for Vacant Lots in the D-1 Central Business District and D-4 Downtown Secondary Central Business District: Fencing shall be required on those lots becoming vacant, where no replacement use is proposed, in conformance with the following: a. Fencing, pursuant to Section 21A.40.120 of this title, is required to secure vacant lots in the downtown area; b. Fencing shall consist of wrought iron or other similar material (chainlink is prohibited); and c. Fencing shall be open so as not to create a visual barrier, and shall be limited to a maximum of 4 feet in height, with the exception of a fence located within a sight distance on any corner lot as noted in Section 21A.40.120 of this title. The approval of a building permit shall be delegated to the building official with the input of the planning director, to determine if the fencing materials, location, and height are compatible with adjacent properties in a given setting. D. Outdoor Sales, Display and Storage: “Sales and display (outdoor)” and “storage and display (outdoor)”, as defined in Chapter 21A.62 of this title, are allowed where specifically authorized in Section 21A.33.050, “Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts”, of this title. These uses shall conform to the following: 1. The outdoor sales or display of merchandise shall not encroach into areas of required parking for periods longer than 30 days; 2. The outdoor sales or display of merchandise shall not be located in any required yard area within the lot when the required yard abuts a residential zoning district; 3. The outdoor sales or display of merchandise shall not include the use of banners, pennants or strings of pennants; 4. Outdoor storage shall be allowed only where specifically authorized in the applicable district regulation and shall be required to be fully screened with opaque fencing not to exceed eight feet in height; and 5. Outdoor sales and display and outdoor storage shall also be permitted when part of an authorized temporary use as established in Chapter 21A.42 of this title. E. Restrictions on Parking Lots and Structures: An excessive amount of at or above ground parking lots and structures can negatively impact the urban design objectives of the Downtown zoning districts. To control such impacts, the following regulations apply to surface parking and above grade structures: 1. Parking shall be located behind principal buildings or incorporated into the principal building provided the parking is wrapped on street facing facades with a use allowed in the zone other than parking. 2. A parking lot shall not consist of more than two double-loaded parking aisles (bays) adjacent to each other. The length of a parking lot shall not exceed 10 stalls. Parking for government facilities necessary for public health and safety are exempt from this provision. 3. Parking lots, garages or parking structures, proposed as the only principal use on a property that has frontage on a public street and that would result in a building demolition are prohibited in the Downtown zoning districts. 4. No special restrictions shall apply to belowground parking facilities. F. Midblock Walkways: As part of the city’s plan for the downtown area, it is intended that midblock walkways be provided to increase pedestrian connectivity and overall livability downtown through the creation of an intricate pedestrian network. The city has adopted the Downtown Plan that includes a midblock walkway map and establishes a need for such walkways as the Downtown grows. Because the districts within the downtown area allow building heights that exceed those of other districts in the city, the requirement for a midblock walkway is considered to be necessary to alleviate pedestrian impacts on the public sidewalks by dispersing future use of the public sidewalks. All buildings constructed after the effective date hereof within the Downtown zoning districts shall conform to this officially adopted plan for midblock walkways, in addition to the following standards: 1. Any new development shall provide a midblock walkway if a midblock walkway on the subject property has been identified in a master plan that has been adopted by the city. 2. The following standards apply to the midblock walkway: a. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of 15’ wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path. b. The midblock walkway may be incorporated into the building provided it is open to the public. A sign shall be posted indicating that the public may use the walkway. Illustration of Regulation 21A.010.E.2 Surface Parking Lots c. Building encroachments into the midblock walkway are permitted if they include one or more of the following elements: (1) Colonnades; (2) Staircases; (3) Balconies: All balconies must be located at the third story or above. (4) Building overhangs and associated cantilever: These coverings may be between 9 and 14’ above the level of the sidewalk. They shall provide a minimum depth of coverage of six feet and project no closer to the curb than three feet. (5) Skybridge: A single skybridge is permitted. All skybridges must be located at the third, fourth, or fifth stories. (6) Other architectural element(s) not listed above that offers refuge from weather and/or provide publicly accessible usable space. Illustration of Regulation 21A.30.010.F Midblock Walkways 1 The midblock walkway must be a minimum of 15’ wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path. G. Sidewalks: For all downtown districts, sidewalks must be a clear walking path that is a minimum of 10’ wide. Outdoor dining shall be permitted within the sidewalk if it complies with the minimum width of a clear path as defined in the outdoor dining design guidelines. H. Landscaping and Buffers: All uses in the downtown districts shall comply with the provisions governing landscaping and buffers in Chapter 21A.48 of this title. Where a park strip does not exist, street trees are only required when the sidewalk width of at least 10’ can be maintained, in which required street trees shall be planted in tree wells with tree grates. I. Additional Standards: All uses in the downtown districts shall comply with the standards set in Part IV, Regulations of General Applicability, of this title, including the applicable standards in the following chapters: 1. 21A.36 General Provisions 2. 21A.37 Design Standards 3. 21A.38 Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures 4. 21A.40 Accessory Uses, Buildings, and Structures 5. 21A.42 Temporary Uses 6. 21A.44 Off Street Parking, Mobility, and Loading 7. 21A.46 Signs 8. 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers 9. Any other applicable chapter of this title that may include applicable provisions. SECTION 15. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.30.020.C. That Subsection 21A.30.020.C of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Downtown Districts: D-1 Central Business District), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: C. D-1 District General Regulations: The regulations established in this section apply to the D-1 District as a whole. 1. Yard Requirements: No minimum yards are required. A maximum yard of eight feet is allowed. a. If provided, the yard must include one of the following elements: i. Seating at a ratio of at least one bench for every 500 square feet of yard space; or ii. Landscaping that includes an increase of at least 25% in the total number of trees required to be planted on the site; or iii. Awning or a similar form of weather protection that covers at least five feet in width and length from all street-facing building entrances. b. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized through the design review process, subject to the requirements of Chapter 21A.59 of this title. c. The planning director, in consultation with the transportation director, may modify this requirement to accommodate a wider sidewalk if the adjacent public sidewalk is less than 15’ wide and the resulting modification to the setback results in a more efficient public sidewalk. The planning director may waive this requirement for any addition, expansions, or intensification, which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than 50% if the planning director finds the following: i. The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the original structure or the surrounding architecture, or ii. The addition reduces the extent of the noncompliance of the existing building. d. Regardless of the setback provided, doors shall be setback a minimum distance to allow the door to operate without swinging into a right of way or midblock walkway. e. Interior Side Yards: No minimum interior side yard is required. f. Rear Yard: No minimum rear yard is required. SECTION 16. Amending the Text of Section 21A.32.030. That Section 21A.32.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Special Purpose Districts: BP Business Park District), shall be and hereby is amended as follows: a. That Subsection 21A.32.030.E shall be amended to read as follows: E. Minimum Open Space Area: The minimum open space area for any use shall not be less than fifteen percent (15%) of the lot area. 1. At least thirty three percent (33%) of the required open space area shall be covered with vegetation. 2. All landscaped open space areas shall conform with the water efficient landscaping standards found in Chapter 21A.48 of this title. b. That Subsection 21A.32.030.I shall be amended to read as follows: I. Other District Regulations: In addition to the foregoing regulations, all uses shall comply with the following requirements: 1. Enclosed Operations: All principal uses shall take place within entirely enclosed buildings. 2. Outdoor Storage: Accessory outdoor storage shall be screened with a solid fence and approved through the site plan review process. 3. Nuisance Impacts: Uses and processes shall be limited to those that do not create a nuisance to the use and enjoyment of adjacent property due to odor, dust, smoke, gases, vapors, noise, light, vibration, refuse matter or water carried waste. The use of explosive or radioactive materials, or any other hazardous materials, shall conform to all applicable State or Federal regulations. 4. Property Zoned Business Park: When a property zoned Business Park abuts, or is across the street from, an AG-2 or AG-5 Zoning District the following standards shall apply: a. Buildings shall be prohibited within one hundred feet (100’) of the adjacent property line; b. Parking lots shall be prohibited within fifty feet (50’) of the adjacent property line; and c. The portion of the lot located between the adjacent property line and the parking lot or building shall be improved in the form of a landscaped buffer with a minimum 5 foot berm and shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 21A.48 of this title. SECTION 17. Amending the Text of Section 21A.32.040. That Section 21A.32.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Special Purpose Districts: FP Foothills Protection District), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.32.040: FP FOOTHILLS PROTECTION DISTRICT: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the FP Foothills Protection District is to protect the foothill areas from intensive development in order to protect the scenic value of these areas, wildlife habitats and to minimize flooding and erosion. This district is appropriate in areas where supported by applicable master plans. B. Uses: Uses in the FP Foothills Protection District as specified in Section 21A.33.070, “Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts”, of this title, are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in Section 21A.32.010 of this chapter and this section. C. Special Foothills Regulations: The regulations contained in Subsection 21A.24.010.P of this title, shall apply to the FP Foothills Protection District. D. Minimum Lot Area and Lot Width: Any use, except trailheads, in the FP Foothills Protection District shall comply with the following lot area and width requirements: 1. Minimum lot area: Sixteen (16) acres. 2. Minimum lot width: One hundred forty feet (140’). E. Maximum Building Height: See Subsection 21A.24.010.P of this title for special foothills regulations governing building height. F. Minimum Yard Requirements: No principal or accessory building shall be located within twenty feet (20’) of the front or corner side lot line nor shall any principal or accessory building be located within 75’ of any side or rear lot line. Accessory structures (other than accessory buildings) shall conform to Section 21A.36.020, Table 21A.36.020.B of this title. G. Maximum Disturbed Area: The disturbed site area shall not exceed two acres. For the purposes of this district, “disturbed areas” shall be defined as areas of grading and removal of existing vegetation for principal and accessory buildings and areas to be hard surfaced. H. Slope Restrictions: To protect the visual and environmental quality of foothill areas, no building shall be constructed on any portion of the site that exceeds a thirty percent (30%) slope for lots in subdivisions granted preliminary approval by the planning commission after November 4, 1994. I. Fence Restrictions: Fences and walls shall only be constructed after first obtaining a building permit subject to the standards of this subsection. 1. Site Plan Submittal: As a part of the site plan review process, a fencing plan shall be submitted which shall show: a. Any specific subdivision approval conditions regarding fencing; b. Material specifications and illustrations necessary to determine compliance with specific subdivision approval limitations and the standards of this section. 2. Field Fencing of Designated Undevelopable Areas: Fencing on areas identified as undevelopable areas or transitional areas on any subdivision granted preliminary approval by the planning commission after November 4, 1994, or any lot previously platted which identifies undevelopable areas or transitional areas shall be limited to the following standards unless subdivision approval granted prior to November 4, 1994, included specific fencing requirements which are more restrictive. The more restrictive requirement shall apply. a. A low visibility see through fence shall consist of flat black colored steel “T” posts and not more than four strands of nonbarbed steel wire, strung at even vertical spacing on the “T” post, and erected to a height of not more than 42” above the natural ground surface. b. When fencing lot boundary lines, vegetation or native brush shall not be cleared so as to create a visible demarcation from off site. c. The existing surface of the ground shall not be changed by grading activities when erecting boundary fences. d. Fence materials and designs must not create a hazard for big game wildlife species. e. No field fencing shall be erected in conflict with pedestrian easements dedicated to Salt Lake City. 3. Buildable Area Fencing: Fencing on any portions of a lot identified as buildable area or required side yard on any subdivision granted preliminary approval by the planning commission after November 4, 1994, or any lot previously platted which identifies undevelopable areas or transitional areas shall be limited to the following standards unless subdivision approval granted prior to November 4, 1994, includes specific fencing requirements which are more restrictive. The more restrictive requirement shall apply. a. An open, see through fence shall be constructed of tubular steel, wrought iron or similar materials, finished with a flat black, nonreflective finish constructed to a height of six feet or less; or b. A sight obscuring or privacy type fence shall be of earth tone colors, or similar materials to the primary dwelling, and located in a way to screen private outdoor living spaces from off site view. 4. Front or Corner Side Yard Fencing: Walls and fences located within the front or corner side yards or along dedicated roads shall not exceed a maximum of 42” in height. J. Special Landscape Regulations: In addition to the regulations in Chapter 21A.48 “Landscaping and Buffers” the following special landscape regulations apply: 1. Landscape Plan: In addition to the landscape plan submittal requirements listed in Section 21A.48.050, landscape plans shall also include: a. Delineation between proposed revegetation of disturbed areas of the site, and road/driveway areas. The landscape plan shall extend 100 feet beyond the disturbed site area and 25 feet beyond the limits of grading for roads/driveways, but need not include any portions of the site designated as undevelopable unless these areas are disturbed. b. As a condition of site plan approval, a plan for erosion protection. c. An irrigation plan designed to provide sufficient water for at least the first 2 years of growth to establish revegetation of natural areas. 2. Maximum Disturbed Area: The maximum disturbed area shall not exceed 10% of the total site area. 3. Tree Preservation and Replacement: Existing trees over 2 inches in caliper that are removed from the site to accommodate development shall be replaced. Whenever microclimate conditions make it practical, the proportion of replacement tree species shall be the same as the trees removed. 4. Limits on Turf: To minimize the impact on the natural landscape and promote the intent of this district, the area of turf grasses shall not exceed 33% of the area to be landscaped and shall not encroach into undevelopable areas. 5. Slope Revegetation: All slopes graded or otherwise disturbed shall be restored/replanted. Restored vegetation shall consist of native or adapted grasses, herbaceous perennials, or woody trees and shrubs as appropriate for slope, soil and microclimate conditions. SECTION 18. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.32.130.I. That Subsection 21A.32.130.I of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Special Purpose Districts: MU Mixed Use District: Landscape Buffers), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: I. Landscape Buffers: Where a nonresidential or mixed use lot abuts a residential or vacant lot within the MU Mixed Use District or any Residential District, a 10’ landscape buffer shall be provided subject to the improvement requirements of Chapter 21A.48 of this title. SECTION 19. Amending the Text of Section 21A.34.030. That Section 21A.34.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Overlay Districts: T Transitional Overlay District), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.34.030: T TRANSITIONAL OVERLAY DISTRICT: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the T Transitional Overlay District is to allow for the redevelopment of certain older residential areas for limited commercial and light industrial uses. This district is intended to provide a higher level of control over such activity to ensure that the use and enjoyment of existing residential properties is not substantially diminished by future nonresidential redevelopment. The intent of this district shall be achieved by designating certain nonresidential uses as conditional uses within the overlay district and requiring future redevelopment to comply with established standards for compatibility and buffering as set forth in this section. B. District Locational Criteria: Residential areas covered by the T Transitional Overlay District are characterized by: 1. A land use designation in the city’s General Plan identifying reuse or redevelopment for nonresidential uses; 2. The presence of external influences, such as proximity to expressways, railroad tracks and incompatible uses, which impact the long term viability of residential use; and 3. Deteriorating housing stock. C. Permitted Uses: The uses specified as permitted uses in the table of permitted and conditional uses set forth in Part III of this title for the underlying district shall be permitted uses and no other. D. Conditional Uses: The uses specified as conditional uses in the table of permitted and conditional uses set forth in Part III of this title for the underlying district shall be conditional uses. In addition to the conditional uses permitted in the underlying district, the following uses shall be allowed as conditional uses in the T Transitional Overlay District: 1. Light manufacturing and industrial assembly uses; 2. Warehouse and wholesale uses in which goods and materials are stored in completely enclosed buildings; 3. Offices; 4. Furniture and appliance repair shops; 5. Commercial photography studios and photofinishing laboratories; 6. Retail goods establishments; 7. Retail services establishments; 8. Medical and dental offices and clinics; and 9. Medical laboratories. E. Minimum Lot Area: The minimum lot area for any conditional use shall be 10,000 square feet. F. Minimum Lot Width: The minimum lot width for any conditional use shall be 60’. G. Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height for conditional uses shall be 35’. H. Site Design Criteria: The land use compatibility of a proposed conditional use shall be assessed, through the application of the following criteria in addition to the standards for conditional uses set forth in Chapter 21A.54, “Conditional Uses”, of this title. 1. The proposed principal building shall be located not less than 20’ from any residential dwelling; 2. Interior side yards for lots abutting residential uses shall not be less than 12’; 3. Interior side yards for lots abutting another nonresidential use shall not be less than eight feet; 4. Front and corner side yards shall be provided consistent with the underlying zoning district; 5. Rear yards shall not be less than 25’; 6. Signs should be limited to one flat nonilluminated identification sign not more than six square feet per 50’ of lot frontage. I. Application: The application for a conditional use in the transitional overlay district shall include information in sufficient detail so that the planning commission may judge the compatibility of the conditional use with the existing residential conditions and the adopted mixed use development policies and for the planning commission to assess the impacts to the existing neighborhood. The following specific information shall also be provided in the application: 1. The amount of employee, customer or other business related traffic (i.e., delivery and pick up) expected to be generated by the proposed use; 2. Traffic impact analysis determining the anticipated effect on contiguous streets and necessary improvements to the street network required to maintain an acceptable level of service for the neighborhood; 3. The location and design of vehicular access to the proposed use, the amount of off street parking facilities, and the location, arrangement and dimensions of loading and unloading facilities; 4. Hours of operation of the business; 5. The amount of noise, noxious odors, fumes or vibration anticipated from the proposed use; 6. Schematic elevations of all building facades indicating building materials, entries, loading docks, signage and building height; 7. Schematic landscape plan. J. Standards: In evaluating the suitability of a proposed conditional use, the planning commission shall consider the following standards: 1. In addition to all the requirements, standards and criteria established for the transitional overlay district, each conditional use must satisfy the requirements of Chapter 21A.54, “Conditional Uses”, of this title. 2. The applicant has the burden of establishing to the planning commission that the proposed conditional use meets the purposes of the transitional overlay district. SECTION 20. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.34.040.FF. That Subsection 21A.34.040.FF of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Overlay Districts: AFPP Airport Flight Path Protection Overlay District: Airport Parking Lot Landscaping), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: FF. Airport Parking Lot Landscaping: All parking lots located within the airport landscaping overlay district shall comply with the following guidelines: 1. General Landscaping Performance Standards: Landscaping plans for parking lots shall be developed to reflect a balance between the responsibility of ensuring the safety and security of persons and property with the objective of creating aesthetically pleasing, environmentally sensitive landscapes. Landscaping should address city goals related to reduction of urban heat islands, visual buffering of parking lots, impacts of noise, water conservation, as well as minimization of dust, runoff and sedimentation. Landscaping shall consist of a variety of landscape materials, which may include trees ground cover, shrubs, perennials, managed water features, and rock features. Drought tolerant, native, or adaptive or resistant vegetation, which reflects the natural vegetation and geography of the region, shall be used to create an aesthetically appealing landscape. 2. Reduction of Urban Heat Islands: The following standards are intended to help mitigate the contribution to the urban heat island effect from large parking areas. Parking lot owners or operators may use a combination of any of the following methods to reduce urban heat: a. The total airport parking supply shall consist of a combination of surface and structured parking lots. Structured parking shall offset the area of surface parking that is otherwise required, thereby reducing the area that contributes to urban heat. b. Landscaping within large land use areas may be evaluated in terms of a comprehensive planned development program to consider the total landscaping within the entire development area. Landscaping may be shifted from the interior of parking lots to other areas within the developed area. c. Landscaping, which includes trees, shrubs, ground cover and perennials, shall be dispersed throughout parking lots to provide shade while ensuring trees are not planted at a spacing or density that will encourage wildlife use or create an aviation hazard. d. Shade for pedestrians shall be provided in parking lots through the use of pedestrian shelters integrated with landscaping. e. Interior landscaped areas shall be provided in parking lots to reduce heat, provide a visual buffer and reduce runoff. f. No specific ratio of trees and shrubs to landscaped area is required. 3. Visual Buffering: Landscaped buffers, not less than 10’ in width, shall be provided, where feasible, between parking lots and primary entrance and exit roads. Visual screening shall be provided within landscape buffers to enhance aesthetics and reduce visibility of parked vehicles. Visual screening may consist of a combination of shrubs, trees or other methods. 4. Water Conservation: To promote water conservation, landscape concepts shall incorporate features that use trees, shrubs, ornamental grasses, ground cover, and perennials that are drought tolerant, native, or adaptive species that can withstand dry conditions once established. The plant list developed by the city, titled “Water Conserving Plants for Salt Lake City”, shall be used as the primary reference in determining drought tolerance of plants. All irrigation systems shall be designed for efficient use of potable water. Traditional turf areas are prohibited. 5. Temporary Parking Lots: Parking lots that are intended to be in use for three years or less are exempt from parking lot landscaping requirements. Such parking lots may exist to phase the construction of other facilities and shall be removed once the facilities are completed. Temporary lots that are within the area of an approved comprehensive plan may remain in use for the duration approved in the plan. However, temporary parking lots shall still comply with applicable development standards for parking lots as outlined in Chapter 21A.44 of this title. Parking lots that remain in use by the public beyond three years shall be brought into compliance with these standards within 12 months. 6. Operational and Maintenance Lots: Parking lots that are not available to the public for parking and are used to store vehicles, operational materials, or maintenance equipment are exempt from landscaping requirements. The portions of permanent storage lots that are adjacent to public areas shall be landscaped using acceptable landscaping principles contained herein to screen the storage area from public view. 7. Plan Approval: All landscape plans shall be coordinated with the city’s development review team (DRT) and planning division, for review and comment on compliance with city ordinances and these performance standards. The planning director and director of airports shall jointly approve final landscaping plans for any airport parking lot. SECTION 21. Amending the Text of Section 21A.34.140. That Section 21A.34.140 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Overlay Districts: Northwest Quadrant Overlay District), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.34.140: NORTHWEST QUADRANT OVERLAY DISTRICT: A. Northwest Quadrant Overlay District: 1. Purpose: The purpose of the Northwest Quadrant Overlay District is to protect sensitive lands and wildlife habitat; allow for the continuation of agricultural uses; and allow for the development of lands in appropriate areas that contribute to the future economic growth of the city and will not negatively impact sensitive lands, habitats, and waterways in the area north of I-80 and west of the Salt Lake International Airport. Sites within this area may be subject to difficult environmental and site conditions. The overlay defines three subareas: the Development Area, the Eco-Industrial Buffer Area, and the Natural Area. 2. Public Improvements and Dedications: The undeveloped land in the Northwest Quadrant requires public improvements to ensure the long term development potential and success of the area. All development subject to a site development or building permit, shall be required to provide public improvements required by city departments as outlined in their master plans. 3. State and Federal Permits Required: A site development and/or building permit shall not be granted unless the applicant has first obtained any necessary State and/or Federal wetlands and/or stream alteration permits. 4. Precedence: For areas where the LC Lowland Conservancy Overlay District is mapped within the Northwest Quadrant Development Area and/or the Northwest Quadrant Eco-Industrial Buffer Area, the LC Lowland Conservancy Overlay District shall take precedence. B. Northwest Quadrant Development Area: The purpose of this area of the Northwest Quadrant Overlay District is to allow for new development to occur in a way that allows for the growth of light industrial uses in the city while minimizing impacts to wildlife and the surrounding sensitive Great Salt Lake shore lands. This area is identified on the zoning map. 1. General Requirements: a. Minimum Yard Requirements: (1) Front Yard: 20’. (2) Corner Side Yard: 20’. (3) Interior Side Yard: None required. (4) Rear Yard: None required. b. Lighting: All lighting on the property, including lighting on the buildings, parking areas, and for signs shall be shielded to direct light down and away from the edges of the property to eliminate glare or light into adjacent properties and have cutoffs to prevent upward lighting. Uplighting and event searchlights are prohibited. c. Roof Color: Light reflective roofing material with a minimum solar reflective index (SRI) of 82 shall be used for all roofs. 2. Landscaping Requirements: The purpose of the special landscaping for the Northwest Quadrant Development Area is to provide appropriate native landscaping that can survive in the unique conditions of the area, prevent noxious weeds, and to provide landscaping that will not negatively impact the adjacent sensitive lands and birds areas. a. All landscaping shall consist only of native plants as identified in the “Salt Lake City Northwest Quadrant Plant List” on file with the city’s planning division. b. Any areas disturbed by construction activity that will be left undeveloped shall be landscaped with plantings at an appropriate density to achieve complete cover within two years. c. Noxious weed species as identified by the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food (or its successor) in the State of Utah Noxious Weed List (or its successor) shall be removed from landscaped areas and areas disturbed by construction activity. Noxious weeds shall be controlled for a period of two years and methods of control shall be identified on the landscape plan. d. Required trees, including street trees, shall be chosen from the “Northwest Quadrant Plant List”. Noxious trees, as identified by the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food (or its successor) in the State of Utah Noxious Weed List (or its successor) are prohibited. e. Any shrub required by Chapter 21A.48 of this title shall be selected from the “Salt Lake City Northwest Quadrant Plan List” have a mature height of at least three feet (3’). f. All other requirements in Chapter 21A.48 of this title apply. This section shall take precedence in the case of a conflict with Chapter 21A.48 of this title. C. Northwest Quadrant Eco-Industrial Buffer Area: The purpose of this area of the Northwest Quadrant Overlay District is to provide an adequate buffer between the Natural Area, the adjacent Inland Sea Shore and the development of light industrial uses. Requirements in this area are meant to provide an area of transition from the natural environment to the built environment that will limit impacts to wildlife and sensitive areas. This area is identified on the zoning map. 1. In addition to the requirements listed in Subsection B of this section, properties located within the Northwest Quadrant Eco- Industrial Buffer Area are subject to the following requirements: a. Glass Requirements: For buildings with more than 10% glass on any building elevation, a minimum of 90% of all glass shall be treated with applied films, coatings, tints, exterior screens, netting, fritting, frosted glass or other means to reduce the number of birds that may collide with the glazing. Any treatment must create a grid pattern that is equal to or smaller than two inches wide by four inches tall. b. Fencing: When adjacent to the Northwest Quadrant Natural Area or the western city boundary, a see through fence that is at least 50% open with a minimum height of six feet shall be erected along the property line to protect the Natural Area from development impacts and trespass. D. Northwest Quadrant Natural Area: The purpose of this area of the Northwest Quadrant Overlay District is to protect sensitive lands and wildlife near the Great Salt Lake shorelands, to allow for the continuation of existing uses, and to limit new uses and new development in this area. This area is identified on the zoning map. 1. Permitted Uses and Improvements: Within the Natural Area, permitted developments and improvements to land are limited to the following: Accessory use (associated with an allowed principal use). Agricultural use. Living quarters for caretaker or security guard. Maintenance to existing infrastructure. Natural open space. Necessary infrastructure to support an allowed use. Utility, building or structure (public). Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe or pole (public). Wildlife and game preserves. 2. Conditional Uses and Standards: a. Uses and Improvements: The following uses and improvements are subject to conditional use standards contained in Chapter 21A.54 of this title: Hunting club, (when allowed by the underlying zoning). Underground utility transmission infrastructure (private), subject to the following: (1) An appropriate plan for mitigation of any construction activities shall be prepared, and (2) Absent any State or Federal regulations, a plan for creating no adverse impact should the line be abandoned shall be prepared. Utility, building or structure (private). Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe or pole (private). b. Conditional Use Standards: In addition to demonstrating conformance with the conditional use standards contained in Chapter 21A.54 of this title, each applicant for a conditional use within the Northwest Quadrant Natural Area must demonstrate conformance with the following standards: (1) The development will not detrimentally affect or destroy natural features such as ponds, streams, wetlands, and forested areas, nor impair their natural functions, but will preserve and incorporate such features into the development’s site; (2) The location of natural features and the site’s topography have been considered in the designing and siting of all physical improvements; (3) Adequate assurances have been received that the clearing of the site topsoil, trees, and other natural features will not occur before the commencement of building operations; only those areas approved for the placement of physical improvements may be cleared; (4) The development will not reduce the natural retention storage capacity of any watercourse, nor increase the magnitude and volume of flooding at other locations; and that in addition, the development will not increase stream velocities; (5) The soil and subsoil conditions are suitable for excavation and site preparation, and the drainage is designed to prevent erosion and environmentally deleterious surface runoff; (6) The proposed development activity will not endanger health and safety, including danger from the obstruction or diversion of flood flow; (7) The proposed development activity will not destroy valuable habitat for aquatic or other flora and fauna, adversely affect water quality or groundwater resources, increase stormwater runoff velocity so that water levels from flooding increased, or adversely impact any other natural stream, floodplain, or wetland functions, and is otherwise consistent with the intent of this title; (8) The proposed water supply and sanitation systems are adequate to prevent disease, contamination and unsanitary conditions; and (9) The availability of alternative locations not subject to flooding for the proposed use. 3. Landscaping: Landscaping is not required for uses and improvements within the Natural Area, except: a. Any areas disturbed by construction activity that will be left undeveloped shall be revegetated with native plants as listed in the “Salt Lake City Northwest Quadrant Plant List”. b. Noxious weed species as identified by the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food (or its successor) in the State of Utah Noxious Weed List (or its successor) shall be removed from landscaped areas and areas disturbed by construction activity. Noxious weeds shall be controlled for a period of two years and methods of control shall be identified on the landscape plan. SECTION 22. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.37.050.P. That Subsection 21A.37.050.P of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Design Standards: Design Standards Defined: Streetscape Standards), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: P. Streetscape Standards: These standards are required for landscaping that is within the public right of way. This is defined as the space between the private property line and the back of the curb. All properties must comply with the park strip landscaping regulations in Chapter 21A.48. Where there is a conflict between the requirements in Chapter 21A.48 and the requirements of this Subsection, the requirements in this Subsection shall apply. 1. Tree Canopy Coverage: No tree canopy shall cover less than the specified percentage according to Section 21A.37.060, Table 21A.37.060 of this chapter. The defined percentage represents the canopy coverage at maturity. At installation, a minimum of 20% of all trees shall have a minimum caliper of 3”. Where tree canopy coverage percentage is indicated in Table 21A.37.060, tree canopy coverage shall not count towards the minimum coverage requirements for park strip vegetation. Illustration of Regulation 21A.37.050.P.1 Tree Canopy Coverage 1 No tree canopy coverage shall cover less than the specified percentage according to Section 21A.37.060, Table 21A.37.060 of this chapter. Illustration of Regulation 21A.37.050.P.4 Minimize Curb Cuts 2. Street Trees: All new development must provide street trees in accordance with the requirements in Chapter 21A.48. Where specified in Table 21A.37.060 of this chapter, for every new development, there shall be one street tree planted for every 30’ of street frontage. 3. Soil Volume: In order to promote street tree health and longevity, each tree shall have an adequate volume of soil. The soil volume surrounding a tree shall be 750ft3 to 1,000ft3 per tree, provided that this area is exclusive of the soils volume calculation for adjacent trees. The soil volume may be reduced if under ground utilities are present within the soil volume and the soil volume cannot be extended horizontally due to other obstructions or barriers. Illustration of Regulation 21A.37.050.P.3 Soil Volume 1 The soil volume surrounding a tree shall be 750ft3 to 1,000ft3 per tree, provided that this area is exclusive of the soils volume calculation for adjacent trees. 4. Minimize Curb Cuts: As an effort to emphasize the public realm and encourage the safety of pedestrians, places where cars intersect the street shall be minimized. More specifically, curb cuts are encouraged to be concentrated at midblock and alley locations. The sidewalk material shall continue at ground level of the curb cuts. 1 Curb cuts are encouraged to be concentrated at midblock and alley locations. 5. Overhead Cover: Overhead covers are required at building entrances to provide weather protection to pedestrians and may encroach into a required yard as indicated in this section or into a public right of way with an approved encroachment agreement with the city. These coverings are required to be between 9 and 14’ above the level of the sidewalk. They shall also provide coverage with a minimum depth of 6’ and project no closer to the curb than 3’. Illustration of Regulation 21A.37.050.P.5 Overhead Cover 1 The shade structure shall occur between 9 and 14’ above the level of the sidewalk. The shade shall provide a minimum coverage of 6’ in width. The cover shall project no closer than 3’ to the curb. SECTION 23. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.37.060. That Subsection 21A.37.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Design Standards: Design Standards Required in Each Zoning District), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: This section identifies each design standard and to which zoning districts the standard applies. If a box is checked (X), that standard is required. If a box is blank, it is not required. If a specific dimension or detail of a design standard differs among zoning districts or differs from the definition, it will be indicated within the box. In cases where a dimension in this table conflicts with a dimension in the definition, the dimensions listed in the table shall take precedence. TABLE 21A.37.060 A. Residential Districts: Standard (Code Section) District RMF-30 RMF-35 RMF-45 RMF-75 RB R-MU-35 R-MU-45 R-MU RO Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050.A.1) 75 75 Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050.A.2) Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050B.3) 80 80 Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.B.4) Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 60 60 40 Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050.D) 75 75 X Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.E) 15 15 15 Street facing facade: maximum length(feet) (21A.37.050.F) Upper floor stepback (feet) (21A.37.050.G.2 and 21A.37.050.G.3) 10 Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050.H) Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050.I) X X Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050.J) X X X Screening of service areas (21A.37.050.K.1) X X X Ground floor residential entrances for dwellings with individual unit entries (21A.37.050.L) Parking garages or structures (21A.37.050.M) Residential character in RB District (21A.37.050.N) X B. Commercial Districts: Standard (Code Section) District SNB CN CB CS CC CSHBD CG1 TSA Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050.A.1) 80 802 80 Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050.A.2) 60/25 70/20 60/25 Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.B.3) 80 70 90 Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.B.4) 60 60 Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 40 40 40 40 60 60 Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) 25 Reflective Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 0 Reflective Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) 40 Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050.D) X X X X X 40 40 40 Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.E) 15 15 15 15 20 15 Street facing facade: maximum length (feet)(21A.37.050.F) 200 200 200 Upper floor stepback (feet) (21A.37.050.G.2 and 21A.37.050.G.3) 15 X Façade height for required stepback (21A.37.050.G.2) 30 Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050.H) X X X Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050.I) X X X X X X X X Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050.J) X X X X X Screening of service areas (21A.37.050.K) X X X X X X Ground floor residential entrances for dwellings with individual unit entries (21A.37.050.L) X Parking garages or structures (21A.37.050.M) X Primary entrance design SNB District (21A.37.050.O) X Tree canopy coverage (%)(21A.37.050.P.1) 40 Street trees (21A.37.050.P.2) X Soil volume (21A.37.050.P.3) X Minimize curb cuts (21A.37.050.P.4) X Overhead cover (21A.37.050.P.5) X Height transitions: angular plane for adjacent buildings (21A.37.050.Q) Horizontal articulation (21A.37.050.R) X Notes: 1. These standards only apply to the portion of the CG district within the boundaries of north of 900 S, south of 200 S, west 300 W and east of I-15. 2. Maximum width of the entrance shall be 35’ if the additional 20% is used for an entrance to a parking structure. C. Manufacturing Districts: Standard (Code Section) District M-1 M-2 Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050.A.1) Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050.A.2) Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.B.1) Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.B.2) Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050.D) Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.E) Street facing facade: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.F) Upper floor stepback (feet) (21A.37.050.G) Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050.H) X X Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050.I) X X Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050.J) Screening of service areas (21A.37.050.K) Ground floor residential entrances (21A.37.050.L) Parking garages or structures (21A.37.050.M) D. Downtown Districts: Standard (Code Section) District D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050.A.1) 90 80 80 80 Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050.A.2) 80/10 70/20 70/20 70/20 Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.B.1) 70 80 701 70 Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.B.2) 50 50 701 50 Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 60 60 60 60 Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) 50 50 50 50 Reflective Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 0 0 0 0 Reflective Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) 50 50 50 50 Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050.D) 40 40 60 60 Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.E) 20 20 20 20 Street facing facade: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.F) 150 200 150 150 Upper floor stepback (feet) (21A.37.050.G.1) X X X X Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050.H) X X Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050.I) X Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050.J) X X X X Screening of service areas (21A.37.050.K) X X X X Ground floor residential entrances for dwellings with individual unit entries (21A.37.050.L) Parking garages or structures (21A.37.050.M) X2 X2 Tree canopy coverage (%) (21A.37.050.P.1) 40 40 40 40 Street trees (21A.37.050.P.2) X X X X Soil volume (21A.37.050.P.3) X X X X Minimize curb cuts (21A.37.050.P.4) X X X X Overhead cover (21A.37.050.P.5) X X X X Height transitions: angular plane for adjacent zone districts (21A.37.050.Q) X X X Horizontal articulation (21A.37.050.R) X X X X Notes: 1. In the D-3 zoning district this percentage applies to all sides of the building, not just the front or street facing facade. 2. Parking structures shall be located behind principal buildings. This requirement may be modified so that structures may be located at least 15’ from front and corner side lot lines if a minimum of seventy five percent (75%) of the ground floor adjacent to a sidewalk is used for retail goods/service establishments, office and/or restaurant space to encourage pedestrian activity. The facades of the ground floor shall be designed to be compatible and consistent with the associated retail or office portion of the building and other retail uses in the area. E. Gateway Districts: Standard (Code Section) District G-MU Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050.A.1) 80 Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050.A.2) 70/20 Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.B.1) 70 Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.B.2) 50 Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 60 Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) 50 Reflective Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 0 Reflective Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) 50 Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050.D) 40 Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.E) 15 Street facing facade: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.F) 150 Upper floor stepback (feet) (21A.37.050.G.1) X Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050.H) 1 X Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050.I) 1 X Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050.J) X Screening of service areas (21A.37.050.K) X Ground floor residential entrances for dwellings with individual unit entries (21A.37.050.L) Parking garages or structures (21A.37.050.M) X2 Tree canopy coverage (%) (21A.37.050.P.1) 40 Street trees (21A.37.050.P.2) X Soil volume (21A.37.050.P.3) X Minimize curb cuts (21A.37.050.P.4) X Overhead cover (21A.37.050.P.5) X Height transitions: angular plane for adjacent zone districts (21A.37.050.Q) X Horizontal articulation (21A.37.050.R) X Notes: 1. Sidewalks and street lamps installed in the public right-of- way shall be of the type specified in the sidewalk/street lighting policy document adopted by the city. 2. Parking structures shall be located behind principal buildings. This requirement may be modified so that structures may be located at least 15’ from front and corner side lot lines if a minimum of seventy five percent (75%) of the ground floor adjacent to a sidewalk is used for retail goods/service establishments, office and/or restaurant space to encourage pedestrian activity. The facades of the ground floor shall be designed to be compatible and consistent with the associated retail or office portion of the building and other retail uses in the area. F. Special Purpose Districts: Standard (Code Section) District RP BP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG-20 PL PL-2 I UI OS NOS MH EI MU Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050.A.1) Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050.A.2) Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.B.1) Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.B.2) Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 40-70 Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050.D) X Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.E) 15 Street facing facade: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.F) Upper floor stepback (feet) (21A.37.050.G) Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050.H) X X X Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050.I) X X Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050.J) X Screening of service areas (21A.37.050.K) X Ground floor residential entrances (21A.37.050.L) Parking garages or structures (21A.37.050.M) Tree canopy coverage (%) (21A.37.050.P.1) Street trees (21A.37.050.P.2) Soil Volume (21A.37.050.P.3) Minimize curb cuts (21A.37.050.P.4) Overhead cover (21A.37.050.P.5) Height transitions: angular plane for adjacent zone districts (21A.37.050.Q) Horizontal articulation (21A.37.050.R) G. Form Based Districts: Standard (Code Section) District FB-UN1 FB-UN2 FB-MU11 FB-SC FB-SE Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050.A.1) 75 753 75 75 Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050.A.2) Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.B.3) 70 70 70 70 70 Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.B.4) 70 70 70 70 70 Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 601 601 601 601 601 Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) 15 15 15 15 15 Reflective Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) Reflective Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050.D) 75 75 75 75 75 Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.E) 15 15 30 30 30 Street facing facade: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.F) 200 200 200 200 200 Upper floor step back (feet) (21A.37.050.G.4) X X X X Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050.H) X X X X X Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050.I) X X X Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050.J) X X X Screening of service areas (21A.37.050.K.1) X X X2 Ground floor residential entrances for dwellings with individual unit entries (21A.37.050.L) X X X Parking garages or structures (21A.37.050.M) X X X X X Tree canopy coverage (%) (21A.37.050.P.1) 40 40 40 Street trees (21A.37.050.P.2) X X X X X Soil volume (21A.37.050.P.3) X X X Minimize curb cuts (21A.37.050.P.4) X X X Overhead cover (21A.37.050.P.5) Height transitions: angular plane for adjacent zone districts (21A.37.050.Q) X X X Horizontal articulation (21A.37.050.R) X X X Notes: 1. This may be reduced to twenty percent (20%) if the ground floor is within one of the following building types: urban house, two-family, cottage, and row house. 2. Except where specifically authorized by the zone. 3. For buildings with street facing building facades over 100’ in length: a. A minimum length of 30% of the ground floor street facing façade shall consist of non-residential active uses allowed by Subsection 21A.37.050.A.1. b. An additional minimum length of 45% of the ground floor street facing façade shall consist of any active uses allowed by Subsection 21A.37.050.A.1. c. This footnote does not apply to the rowhouse building form. SECTION 24. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.40.120.E.1. That Subsection 21A.40.120.E.1 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges: Height Restrictions and Gates), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: E. Height Restrictions and Gates: 1. Fences, walls, and hedges shall comply with the following regulations based on the following zoning districts: a. Nonresidential Zoning Districts: (1) Notwithstanding Subsection 21A.40.120.1.b.(l), in the M-2 and EI zoning districts fences, walls, or hedges may be up to six (6) feet in height if located between the front property line and the front yard setback line. (2) If there is no minimum front yard setback in the underlying zoning district, a fence, wall, or hedge of a maximum six (6) feet in height may be placed no closer than ten (10) feet from the property line. (3) Outdoor storage, when permitted in the zoning district, shall be located behind the primary facade of the principal structure and shall be screened with a solid wall or fence and shall comply with the requirements in Section 5.60.120. (4) All refuse disposal and recycling dumpsters, except those located in the M-2, LO and EI districts shall be screened on all sides by a solid wood fence, masonry wall or an equivalent opaque material to a height of not less than 6 feet but not more than 8 feet. SECTION 25. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.44.060.A. That Subsection 21A.44.060.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Off Street Parking, Mobility and Loading: Parking Location and Design), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: A. Generally: 1. Parking Located on Same Lot as Use or Building Served: All parking spaces required to serve buildings or uses erected or established after the effective date of this ordinance shall be located on the same lot as the building or use served, unless otherwise allowed pursuant to Subsection 21A.44.060.A.4, “Off-Site Parking Permitted”. 2. Biodetention Parking Lot Interior and Perimeter Landscaping Areas: Retention of the 80th percentile storm is required for all impervious surface parking lots with 50 or more parking spaces. Where this is not feasible, as defined in the SLCDPUs Standard Practices Manual, an approved Stormwater Best Management Practices (Stormwater BMPs) is required. All proposed Stormwater BMPs are subject to Public Utilities Division review, approval, and inspection. 3. Parking Location and Setbacks: All parking shall comply with the parking restrictions within yards pursuant to Table 21A.44.060-A, “Parking Location and Setback Requirements”. Parking lots with 10 or more stalls and within 20’ of a lot line that are in a required yard area or abutting a building are subject to Section 21A.48.070 Parking Lot Landscaping. TABLE 21A.44.060-A: PARKING LOCATION AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS: N = parking prohibited between lot line and front line of the principal building Zoning District Front Lot Line Corner Side Lot Line Interior Side Lot Line Rear Lot Line TABLE 21A.44.060-A: PARKING LOCATION AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS: N = parking prohibited between lot line and front line of the principal building Zoning District Front Lot Line Corner Side Lot Line Interior Side Lot Line Rear Lot Line GENERAL CONTEXT Residential (FR Districts, RB, RMF, RO) FR N Parking in driveways that comply with all applicable city standards is exempt from this restriction. 6 ft. 0 ft. R-1, R-2, SR- 1, SR-2 0 ft. RMF-30 N 0 ft.; or 10 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district RMF-35, RMF-45, RMF-75, RO 0 ft.; or 10 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district. Limited to 1 side yard except for single-family attached lots. Commercial and Manufacturing (CC, CS, CG, M-1, M-2, SNB) CC 15 ft. 0 ft.; or 7 ft. when abutting any residential district CS 0 ft.; or 15 ft. when abutting any residential district CG 10 ft. M-1 15 ft. M-2 0 ft.; or 50 ft. when abutting any residential district Special Purpose Districts A 0 ft. 0 ft. AG, AG-2, AG-5, AG-20 N BP 8 ft.; or 30 ft. when abutting any residential district EI 10 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. 20 ft. FP 20 ft. 6 ft. 0 ft. I 0 ft.; or 15 ft. when abutting any residential district MH 0 ft. OS 30 ft. 10 ft. PL 0 ft.; or 10 ft. when abutting any residential district PL-2 20 ft. RP 30 ft. 8 ft.; or 30 ft. when abutting any residential district NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER CONTEXT CB, CN, SNB N 0 ft.; or 7 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district R-MU-35, R- MU-45 Surface Parking: N Parking Structures: 45’ or located behind principal building Limited to 1 side yard, 0 ft,; or 10 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district 0 ft.; or 10 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district RB, SR-3, FB-UN1, FB- SE N 0 ft. URBAN CENTER CONTEXT CSHBD1 N 0 ft.; or 7 ft. when abutting any residential district CSHBD2 0 ft.; or 7 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district D-2 Surface Parking: 20 ft. Parking Structures: N 0 ft. MU Surface Parking: 25 ft. or located behind principal structure 0 ft.; limited to 1 side yard 0 ft. Parking Structures: 45 ft. or located behind principal structure TSA-T See Subsection 21A.44.060.B.2 0 ft. TRANSIT CONTEXT D-1 See Subsection 21A.44.060.B.1 D-3 D-4 See Subsection 21A.44.060.B.1 0 ft. G-MU FB-UN2, FB- UN3, FB-SC N TSA-C See Subsection 21A.44.060.B.2 R-MU Surface Parking: 30 ft. Parking Structures: 45 ft. or located behind principal structure 0 ft.; or 10 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district Surface parking at least 30 ft. from front lot line 0 ft.; or 10 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district UI 0 ft; Hospitals: 30 ft. 0 ft.; or 15 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district; Hospitals: 10 ft. 0 ft.; or 15 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district; Hospitals: 10 ft. 4. Off-Site Parking Permitted: When allowed as either a permitted or conditional use per Chapter 21A.33, “Land Use Tables”, off-site parking facilities may be used to satisfy the requirements of this chapter and shall comply with the following standards: a. Maximum Distance of Off-Site Parking: Off-site parking shall be located according to the distance established in Table 21A.44.060-B, “Maximum Distances for Off-Site Parking” (measured in a straight line from the property boundary of the principal use for which the parking serves to the closest point of the parking area). Table 21A.44.060-B: Maximum Distances for Off-Site Parking: Context Maximum Distance to Off-Site Parking Neighborhood Center 600 ft. General Legal Nonconforming Use in Residential District Urban Center 1,200 ft. Transit 1,000 ft. b. Documentation Required: (1) The owners of record involved in an off-site parking arrangement shall submit written documentation of the continued availability of the off-site parking arrangement to the planning director for review. (2) The planning director shall approve the off-site parking arrangement if the director determines the location meets the standards of this section. No zoning or use approval shall be issued until the director has approved the off-site parking arrangement and the documentation has been recorded in the office of the Salt Lake County Recorder. (3) If the off-site parking arrangement is later terminated or modified and the planning director determines that the termination or modification has resulted in traffic congestion, overflow parking in residential neighborhoods, or threats to pedestrian, bicycle, or vehicle safety, the property owners of the uses for which the off-site parking was provided may be held in violation of this chapter. 5. Circulation Plan Required: Any application for a building permit shall include a site plan, drawn to scale, and fully dimensioned, showing any off street parking or loading facilities to be provided in compliance with this title. A tabulation of the number of off street vehicle and bicycle parking, loading, and stacking spaces required by this chapter shall appear in a conspicuous place on the plan. 6. Driveways and Access: a. Compliance with Other Adopted Regulations: (1) Parking lots shall be designed in compliance with applicable city codes, ordinances, and standards, including but not limited to Title 12 of this code: Vehicles and Traffic and the Off Street Parking Standards Manual to the maximum degree practicable, with respect to: (A) Minimum distances between curb cuts; (B) Proximity of curb cuts to intersections; (C) Provisions for shared driveways; (D) Location, quantity and design of landscaped islands; and (E) Design of parking lot interior circulation system. (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection 21A.44.060.A.6.a(1) above, relocation of a driveway for a single-family, two-family, or twin home residence in any zoning district shall only be required when the residence is replaced, and shall not be required when the residence is expanded or renovated in compliance with the city code. b. Access Standards: Access to all parking facilities shall comply with the following standards: (1) To the maximum extent practicable, all off street parking facilities shall be designed with vehicular access to a street or alley that will least interfere with automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic movement. (2) Parking facilities in excess of five (5) spaces that access a public street shall be designed to allow vehicles to enter and exit the lot in a forward direction. (3) Parking facilities on lots with less than one hundred feet (100’) of street frontage shall have only one (1) curb cut, and lots with one hundred feet (100’) of street frontage or more shall be limited to two (2) curb cuts, unless the transportation director determines that additional curb cuts are necessary to ensure pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle safety or to comply with the fire code. Public safety uses shall be exempt from limitations on curb cuts. (4) All vehicular access roads/driveways shall be surfaced as required in accordance with Subsection 21A.44.060.A.8, “Surface Materials”. c. Driveway Standards: All driveways shall comply with the following standards: (1) Driveway Location in Residential Zoning Districts: With the exception of legal shared driveways, driveways shall be at least twenty feet (20’) from street corner property lines and five feet (5’) from any public utility infrastructure such as power poles, fire hydrants, and water meters. Except for entrance and exit driveways leading to approved parking areas, no curb cuts or driveways are permitted. (2) Driveway Widths: All driveways serving residential uses shall be a minimum eight feet wide and shall comply with the standards for maximum driveway widths listed in Table 21A.44.060-C, “Minimum and Maximum Driveway Width”. TABLE 21A.44.060-C: MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY WIDTH: Zoning District Minimum Driveway Width (in front and corner side yard) Maximum Driveway Width* (in front and corner side yard) TABLE 21A.44.060-C: MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY WIDTH: Zoning District Minimum Driveway Width (in front and corner side yard) Maximum Driveway Width* (in front and corner side yard) SR-1, SR-2 and SR-3 8 ft. 22 ft. MH 8 ft. 16 ft. Other Residential Zoning Districts 8 ft. 30 ft. M-1 and M-2 12 ft. single lane and 24 ft. for two-way 50 ft. Other Non-Residential Zoning Districts 12 ft. single lane and 24 ft. for two-way 30 ft. * Maximum width is for all driveways combined when more than one driveway is provided (3) Shared Driveways: Shared driveways, where two (2) or more properties share one (1) driveway access, may be permitted if the transportation director determines that the design and location of the shared driveway access will not create adverse impacts on traffic congestion or public safety. (4) Driveway Surface: All driveways providing access to parking facilities shall be improved and maintained pursuant to the standards in the Off Street Parking Standards Manual. 7. Minimum Dimensional Standards: All parking spaces shall comply with the dimensional standards in the Off Street Parking Standards Manual. 8. Surface Materials: All parking spaces shall comply with the standards for surfacing of access, driving, and parking surfacing in the Off Street Parking Standards Manual. 9. Grading and Stormwater Management: All surface parking areas shall comply with city grading and stormwater management standards and shall be reviewed for best management practices by Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities. Refer to the Salt Lake City Stormwater Master Plan, Storm Drainage Manual, and Green Infrastructure Toolbox for additional information. 10. Sight Distance Triangles: All driveways and intersections shall comply with the sight distance triangle standards as defined in the Off Street Parking Standards Manual. 11. Landscaping and Screening: All parking areas and facilities shall comply with the landscaping and screening standards in Chapter 21A.48 and Section 21A.40.120 of this title. 12. Lighting: Where a parking area or parking lot is illuminated, the light source shall be shielded so that the light source is not directly visible from any abutting property or abutting private or public street. 13. Signs: All signs in parking areas or related to parking facilities shall comply with Chapter 21A.46, “Signs”, and applicable provisions of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). 14. Pedestrian Walkways: The following standards shall apply to surface parking lots with 25 or more parking spaces: a. Pedestrian walkway(s) shall be at least five feet (5’) in width, and located in an area that is not a driving aisle leading from the farthest row of parking spaces to the primary entrance of the principal building. b. Vehicles shall not overhang the pedestrian walkway(s). c. Where the walkway(s) crosses a drive aisle, pedestrian walkway(s) shall be identified by a change in color, material, surface texture, from surrounding driving surfaces, but such identification cannot be curbing of the walkway. d. One (1) pedestrian walkway meeting these standards shall be provided for every 50 parking spaces provided on site or part thereof, after the first 20 parking spaces. 15. Parking Garages: The following standards shall apply to all above-ground parking garages except those located in the FB zones subject to Subsection 21A.27.030.C.4, whether freestanding or incorporated into a building: a. Each façade or a parking garage adjacent to a public street or public space shall have an external skin designed to conceal the view of all parked cars. Examples include heavy gauge metal screen, precast concrete panels, live green or landscaped walls, laminated or safety glass, or decorative photovoltaic panels. b. No horizontal length of the parking garage façade shall extend longer than 40 feet without the inclusion of architectural elements such as decorative grillwork, louvers, translucent screens, alternating building materials, and other external features to avoid visual monotony. Facade elements shall align with parking levels. c. Internal circulation shall allow parking surfaces to be level (without any slope) along each parking garage facade adjacent to a public street or public space. All ramps between levels shall be located along building facades that are not adjacent to a public street or public space, or shall be located internally so that they are not visible from adjacent public streets or public spaces. d. The location of elevators and stairs shall be highlighted through the use of architectural features or changes in façade colors, textures, or materials so that visitors can easily identify these entry points. e. Interior parking garage lighting shall not produce glaring sources toward adjacent properties while providing safe and adequate lighting levels. The use of sensor dimmable LEDs and white stained ceilings are recommended to control light levels on-site while improving energy efficiency. f. In the Urban Center Context and Transit Context areas, the street-level facades of all parking garages shall be designed to meet applicable building code standards for habitable space to allow at least one (1) permitted or conditional use, other than parking, to be located where the parking garage is located. g. Vent and fan locations shall not be located on parking garage facades facing public streets or public spaces, or adjacent to residential uses, to the greatest extent practicable. 16. Tandem Parking: Where more than one (1) parking space is required to be provided for a residential dwelling unit, the parking spaces may be designed as tandem parking spaces, provided that: a. No more than two (2) required spaces may be included in the tandem parking layout; and b. Each set of two (2) tandem parking spaces shall be designated for a specific residential unit. 17. Cross-Access between Adjacent Uses: The transportation director may require that access to one or more lots be through shared access points or cross-access through adjacent parcels when the transportation director determines that individual access to abutting parcels or limited distance between access points will create traffic safety hazards due to traffic levels on adjacent streets or nearby intersections. Such a determination shall be consistent with requirements of state law regarding property access from public streets. Required cross- access agreements shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office. SECTION 26. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.44.070.B. That Subsection 21A.44.070.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Off Street Parking, Mobility and Loading: Off Street Loading Areas: Location and Design of Loading Areas), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: B. Location and Design of Loading Areas: 1. All required loading berths shall be located on the same development site as the use(s) served. 2. No loading berth shall be located within thirty feet (30’) of the nearest point of intersection of any two (2) streets. 3. No loading berth shall be located in a required front yard. 4. Each required loading berth shall be located and designed to: a. Allow all required vehicle maneuvering and backing movements on-site; b. Minimize conflicts with pedestrian, bicycle, and traffic movement or encroachments into any pedestrian walkway, bicycle lane, public right-of-way, and fire lane; and c. Avoid the need to back into a public street while leaving the site to the maximum extent practicable, as determined by the planning director and the transportation director. 5. Landscaping and screening of all loading berths shall be provided to comply with the requirements of Subsection 21A.40.120, “Regulation of Fences, Walls, and Hedges”. 6. Where a loading berth is illuminated, the light source shall be shielded so that the light source is not directly visible from any abutting property or abutting private or public street. 7. All signs in loading areas shall comply with Chapter 21A.46, “Signs”, and applicable provisions of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 8. All required loading berths shall comply with the surfacing standards of the Off Street Parking Standards Manual. SECTION 27. Amending the Text of Chapter 21A.48. That Chapter 21A.48 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Landscaping and Buffers), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.48: LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERS SECTION: 21A.48.010: Purpose and Intent 21A.48.020: Applicability 21A.48.030: Authority 21A.48.040: Responsibility & Maintenance 21A.48.050: Landscape Plan 21A.48.060: Landscape Requirements 21A.48.070: Parking Lot Landscaping 21A.48.080: General Standards 21A.48.090: Private Lands Tree Preservation 21A.48.100: Appeal 21A.48.010: PURPOSE & INTENT: The purpose of this chapter is to promote water conservation, preserve and expand Salt Lake City’s urban tree canopy, improve air quality, and reduce urban heat islands and stormwater runoff. These regulations are intended to encourage low impact development principals into overall landscape design in a way that is attractive, and to mitigate impacts through buffering between dissimilar zoning districts. 21A.48.020: APPLICABILITY: A. The provisions of this chapter apply to all properties within the city. B. Any modification of required landscaping shall come into greater compliance with this chapter. 21A.48.030: AUTHORITY: A. The requirements of this chapter may be modified by the zoning administrator, on a case- by-case basis where innovative landscaping design that furthers the purpose and intent of this chapter is implemented, or in response to input from: 1. Police Department; 2. Public Utilities; or 3. Urban Forestry. 21A.48.040: RESPONSIBILITY & MAINTENANCE: A. All landscaping shall: 1. Maintain a clearance from grade level to 7 feet above the sidewalk, or 10 feet above a street; 2. Be limited to a maximum height of 22 inches in the park strip and 30 inches in all other landscaped areas within a sight distance triangle, as defined and illustrated in Chapter 21A.62 of this title; 3. Be maintained in live condition to present a reasonably healthy appearance; and 4. Be kept free of refuse, debris, and noxious weeds. B. Landscape Yards. The owner of the property shall be responsible for the correct installation, maintenance, repair, or replacement of all landscaping, and obtain permits as required by the provisions of this chapter. C. Park Strips. 1. The owner of the property abutting the park strip shall be responsible for the correct installation, maintenance, repair, or replacement of all landscaping and obtain permits as required by the provisions of this chapter. 2. Exclusions: Any street tree planting or maintenance pursuant to Subsections 21A.48.040.D.1 and 21A.48.040.D.2. D. Street Trees. 1. Salt Lake City’s expectation is to preserve street trees. Planting, cutting, removing, pruning, and any other maintenance of street trees is subject to approval by the Salt Lake City Urban Forestry Division as described in Section 2.26.210 of this code. 2. It is the abutting property owner’s responsibility to: a. Contact the Salt Lake City Urban Forestry Division to request maintenance on a street tree and obtain required approval for any changes made to a street tree. b. Provide sufficient irrigation to a street tree located in the abutting park strip. 3. Root Zone Protection: The root zone of all street trees shall be protected when impacted by any construction work on the abutting property or within the right-of- way when a street tree is present. 4. Irrigation. a. When a Landscaping Plan is required, as described in Section 21A.48.050, street trees shall be irrigated with a permanent automatic irrigation system. b. Street tree irrigation systems are the responsibility of the abutting property owner to install and maintain. It shall provide water adequately and efficiently to each street tree, as determined by the Salt Lake City Urban Forestry Division. E. Irrigation Systems: 1. Shall be maintained in good operating condition to eliminate water waste or run-off into the public right-of-way. 2. Shall be appropriate for the designated plant material and achieves the highest water efficiency. 3. All irrigation systems, including drip irrigation shall be equipped with a pressure regulator, filter, flush-end assembly, and backflow preventer. 4. Each valve shall irrigate landscaping with similar site, slope, soil conditions, and similar watering needs. 5. Turf and planting beds shall be irrigated on separate irrigation valves; and, 6. Drip emitters and sprinklers shall be placed on separate irrigation valves. 7. Irrigation systems are required to use an irrigation controller that can automatically adjust the frequency and duration of irrigation in response to changing weather conditions and have a US-EPA WaterSense label. 8. Any fountain, pond, and other similar water feature supplied through the culinary water system shall have a recirculating system. 9. Backflow preventer assemblies shall be designed and installed and maintained according to the standards as outlined in the “Salt Lake City Landscape BMPs For Water Resource Efficiency and Protection” or the documents’ successor. 21A.48.050: LANDSCAPE PLAN: A. Landscape Plan Required: A landscape plan shall be required for the following: 1. New construction of a primary structure. 2. Any addition, expansion or intensification of a property that increases the floor area by 50% or more, increases the number of parking stalls required by 50% or more, or modifies any required landscaping by 50% or more. Single- and two- family uses are exempt from this provision. 3. When required elsewhere in this title. B. Modifications to an Approved Landscape Plan: Any change to an approved landscape plan requires the approval of the zoning administrator, except for changes from one plant species to another plant species that have similar watering needs and meet all other standards within this chapter. C. Unauthorized Modifications: Landscape improvements made to a lot that are not authorized and not in conformance with a required and approved landscape plan shall be a violation of this title, and subject to the fines and penalties established in Chapter 21A.20. D. Contents of a Complete Landscape Plan: A complete landscape plan shall include at least the following information unless specifically waived by the zoning administrator. All plans shall be drawn at the same scale: 1. Planting Plan: a. Property lines, easements, and street names. b. Location and dimensions of existing and proposed structures, parking lots, drive aisles, and fencing. c. Location of existing and proposed sidewalks, bicycle paths, ground signs, refuse disposal, freestanding electrical equipment, and all other structures. d. The location of existing buildings, structures, and trees on adjacent property within 20 feet of the site. e. The location, size, and common names of all existing trees. f. Sight distance triangles at curb cuts or corners, as defined and illustrated in Chapter 21A.62. g. Root Zone Protection Plan required when construction work will occur near a street tree or other protected tree and is subject to approval from the Urban Forestry Division. h. Minimum tree soil standards set by the Salt Lake City Urban Forestry Division. i. The location, quantity, size at maturity, and name (botanical and common) of proposed plants and trees. j. Summary table that specifies the following for each landscaping location separately: (1) Area and percentage of each required landscape location. (2) Area and percentage of each landscape location covered in turf grasses, impervious surfaces. (3) Area and percentage of each landscape location covered in adaptive or native plant species and adaptive or native trees at maturity. k. A signature by a Landscape Architect licensed with the State of Utah, or an US- EPA WaterSense certified professional verifying planting plan compliance with the standards of this chapter. 2. Grading Plan: a. Property lines, street names, existing and proposed structures, turf areas, and paved areas. b. Existing and proposed grading of the site indicating contours at 2-foot intervals. c. Any proposed berming shall be indicated using 1-foot contour intervals. d. Delineate and label areas with a grade greater than 25% (4 feet Horizonal: 1 foot Vertical). 3. Irrigation Plan: a. Layout of the irrigation system and a legend summarizing the type and size of all components of the system. b. Delineate and label each hydrozone in accordance with the Salt Lake City Plant List and Hydrozone Schedule. c. Location and coverage of individual sprinkler heads. d. Use of a water efficient irrigation system. e. Type of US-EPA WaterSense automatic controller. f. A signature by a Landscape Architect licensed with the State of Utah, or an US- EPA WaterSense certified professional verifying irrigation plan compliance with the standards of this chapter. g. Separate plans from the irrigation plan are required for: (1) Backflow Prevention Plan. (2) Water Feature Recirculating Plan, if applicable. E. Specific Landscape Regulations: Various zoning districts in this title have specific landscaping regulations in addition to the requirements found in this chapter. Refer to the respective zoning district for specific landscaping regulations. Landscape plans for properties subject to zoning district specific landscape regulations shall be in compliance with all applicable landscape and district specific requirements. F. Compliance Certification: A letter of compliance shall be prepared and submitted to the city upon completion of the landscape plan installation and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or commencement of the use of the property. Compliance certification shall be signed by a landscape architect licensed with the State of Utah, or an US-EPA WaterSense certified professional verifying that all landscape plan elements have been installed in compliance with the approved landscape plan. G. Planting Season Installation: The landscape plan installation may be delayed until the next optimal planting season. A Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) may be issued and subsequent TCO fees waived between October 15 and the following April 1 where it is not favorable to install landscaping. The landscape plan shall be installed, and a letter of compliance submitted within 30 days following April 1. Temporary Certificate of Occupancy fees pursuant to Section 18.32.035 of this code shall be reinstated where no letter of compliance is submitted by the end of the 30-day period. 21A.48.060: LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS: A. Landscape Locations: 1. Applicability: The following graphics illustrate required landscape locations that are regulated by the standards identified in this chapter. 2. Landscape Yards: All required front and corner side yards shall be maintained as landscaped yards, unless otherwise exempted in this title. 3. Landscape Buffers: Landscape buffers and freeway buffers may be located within a required side or rear yard. 4. Coverage and Quantity calculations: a. Vegetation coverage is measured at plant maturity. b. Tree canopy may be included in the vegetation coverage calculations of the required landscaping location the tree is within. c. Fractional landscaping quantities shall be measured to the nearest whole number. d. Streets, drives and sidewalks necessary for reasonable access may be excluded from impervious surface calculations. 5. Conflicting Standards: a. Where there are conflicting standards in this chapter, the more restrictive requirements shall apply. b. Where the standards in this chapter conflict with specific district regulations, the specific district regulations shall prevail. Landscape Yards B. Park Strip Standards: Park Strips Street Trees Minimum of 1 street tree planted on center between back of street curb and the sidewalk. Additional street trees shall be provided at the following rate per each frontage length: 1 small tree per 20 feet, or 1 medium tree per 30 feet, or 1 large tree per 40 feet. The largest tree that is appropriate to the park strip size shall be used. 1, 2 Vegetation Minimum 33% coverage. Turf Prohibited Impervious Surfaces The combination of all paving materials shall not exceed 20% of the total park strip area. 1. Street trees shall be an appropriate species chosen from the Urban Forestry Street Tree List based on park strip size, shall have sufficient separation from public utilities, and shall be approved by the Urban Forestry Division. 2. Park strips with a width of 36” or less are exempt from this provision. C. Landscape Yard Standards 1. Residential Districts (all districts included in Chapter 21A.24): Landscape Yards Vegetation Minimum 33% coverage. Turf Maximum 33% 1 (Landscape yard areas less than 250 sq. ft. are exempt) Impervious Surfaces Maximum 20% 1. Turf limitations established in 21A.48.080.B shall apply. 2. Manufacturing Districts (all districts included in Chapter 21A.28): Landscape Yards Vegetation Minimum 33% coverage. Turf Prohibited. Impervious Surfaces Maximum 20% up to a maximum of 1,200 sq. ft. 3. All Other Districts Not Included in Chapters 21A.24 and 21A.28: Vegetation Minimum 33% coverage (may be decreased if specified within specific district regulations). Turf Only permitted in active recreation areas. 1 Impervious Surfaces Maximum 20% (may be increased if specified within specific district regulations). 1. Turf limitations established in Subsection 21A.48.080.B shall apply. D. Landscape Buffer Standards: District When Abutting 1 Required Landscape / Freeway Buffer Widths All districts (except Single- and Two- Family, Foothill, Special Development Pattern, SNB, FB-UN1, and those districts listed below that require a greater buffer width) Single- and Two- Family, Foothill, & Special Development 10’ All districts Freeway 2 20’ All other non-residential districts (except SNB, FB- UN1, and those districts listed below that require a greater buffer width) RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45, & RMF-75 10’ M-1 Any district that allows residential uses, AG districts, & OS 15’ M-2 Any district that allows residential uses 50’ AG districts & OS 30’ BP & RP All residential districts (in Chapter 21A.24) 30’ EI All districts 30’ MH All districts 20’ 1. Or when required elsewhere by this title. 2. The zoning administrator may approve a reduced freeway buffer if there’s an existing sound wall or required off-street parking cannot be met. If such a reduction is necessary, the buffer may not be less than 10’ in width. Landscape Buffer Standards 1 tree for every 30 linear feet of landscape buffer. 1 shrub every 3 feet, with a mature height of no less than 4’, along the entire length of the buffer. A 6-foot solid fence along the length of the required landscape buffer unless modified by the zoning administrator to better meet the fence height provisions in Section 21A.40.120. Turf is limited to active recreation areas. Freeway Landscape Buffer Standards (buffer standards for those properties abutting a freeway) 1 tree for every 15 linear feet of required freeway landscape buffer. Trees shall be staggered along the length of the buffer. 100% coverage required, may include adaptive or native grasses, wildflower, and shrubs. Turf is prohibited. 21A.48.070: PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING: A. Applicability: 1. Hard surfaced parking lots with 10 or more parking spaces shall provide landscaping in accordance with the provisions of this section. The following graphic depicts landscape location required and corresponding standards identified in this chapter. 2. Parking lots with less than 10 parking spaces are exempt from parking lot landscaping but shall provide the required landscape yards and landscape buffers. B. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping: 1. Minimum Area: A minimum of 5% of the parking lot shall be interior parking lot landscaping in the locations identified below and dispersed throughout the parking lot. Landscaping areas located along the perimeter of a parking lot shall not be included toward satisfying this requirement. 2. Location: Interior landscape areas shall be provided in the following locations: a. At each end of a parking row containing 6 stalls or more, where not abutting required perimeter landscaping; b. Parallel to parking lot stalls, at a rate of 1 interior landscape area for every 6 parking spaces; c. Along the interior length of a double-loading parking row; 3. Size: Interior landscape areas shall have a minimum width of 10 feet, as measured from the inside of the curbing, and shall have a minimum length equal to the length of the abutting parking spaces. Where interior landscape areas do not abut parking spaces, a minimum length of 10’ is required. 4. Planting Requirements: Interior Landscape Areas Shade trees A minimum of 1 tree is required per interior landscape area. Additional trees are required at a rate of 1 tree for every additional 140 square feet in each required interior landscape area. Shrubs A minimum of 2 shrubs are required per interior landscape area. Additional shrubs are required at a rate of 2 shrubs for every additional 140 square feet in each landscape area. Adaptive or native ornamental grasses or wildflowers with a minimum height of 3’ may be used as an alternative. Ground cover / Mulch Landscape area outside of shrub masses shall be established in ground cover or mulched consistent with the standards of this chapter. Turf is prohibited. 5. Modifications to Interior Parking Lot Landscaping: The zoning administrator may waive interior landscape area requirements if a solar energy system is integrated into the roof structure of a carport, or if the parking lot perimeter landscaping width is increased to 15’ and with an equal number of trees, as required in the interior, and perimeter parking lot landscaping, are provided. C. Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping: 1. Applicability: Landscaping along the perimeter of the parking lot shall be provided when the parking lot is located: a. Within a required yard (where permitted in Sections 21A.44.060 or 21A.36.020) b. Within 20 feet of a lot line; or c. Abutting a principal building. 2. Where both landscape buffers and perimeter parking lot landscaping are required, the more restrictive shall apply. 3. Where a surface parking lot is adjacent to another surface parking lot, on the same or separate parcels or lots, the perimeter parking lot landscaping provision may be waived by the zoning administrator if the required number trees are located elsewhere within the development. 4. Size: a. In a required yard or within 20 feet of a property line: 10 feet in width, as measured from the back of the parking lot curb and extending into any parking space overhang area. b. Abutting a building on the same property: A minimum 5-foot-wide required landscaping and 3-foot walkway shall be required to buffer buildings from parking spaces. 5. Planting Requirements: Perimeter Parking Lot Landscaping: Shade Tress 1 tree per 300 square feet of perimeter parking lot area. Trees may be clustered or spaced throughout the landscaping areas. Perimeter landscaping abutting a building does not need to be included in the square footage calculation.1 Shrubs 1 shrub per 3 feet, on center, along 100 percent of the yard length. Shrubs with mature height not more than 3 feet Ground cover / Mulch Required landscaping outside of shrub masses shall be established in ground cover or mulched consistent with the standards of this chapter. Turf is prohibited. Parking Lot Fences/Walls: Fences or walls along parking lot perimeters may be required to satisfy landscape buffer requirements outlined in Section 21A.48.060 of this chapter. 1. Required perimeter trees species shall be chosen from the Urban Forestry Street Tree List and shall be approved by the Salt Lake City Urban Forestry Division. D. Curbing: Concrete curbing shall be installed at the perimeter of internal landscape areas and perimeter parking where parking lots vehicular access aisles or stalls directly abuts required landscaping. Biodetention areas are exempt from curbing requirements, however a vehicle stop is required when biodetention areas directly abut parking stalls. E. Stormwater BMP Approval Required: A SLC Approved Stormwater Best Management Practice (Stormwater BMP) for all hard surfaced parking lots is required prior to discharge to the public storm drain and gutter, as required in Subsection 21A.44.060.A.2: 1. All Stormwater BMPs are subject to Public Utilities Division review, approval, and inspection. 2. Plantings within BMPs are to be drought tolerant, salt tolerant, winter hardy, and able to be submerged. 21A.48.080. GENERAL STANDARDS All required landscape plans shall be prepared based on the following standards. All landscape improvements in the required landscape locations, as described in Sections 21A.48.060 and 21A.48.070 shall meet the regulations described in this section. A. Installation: All landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the current planting procedures established by the American Association of Nurserymen. The installation of all plants required by this chapter may be delayed until the next optimal planting season, as determined by the zoning administrator. 1. At the time of planting: a. Deciduous Trees: All deciduous trees shall have a minimum trunk size of 1.5 inches in caliper. b. Evergreen Trees: All evergreen trees shall have a minimum size of 5 feet in height. c. Shrubs: All shrubs shall have a minimum height or spread of 10 inches depending on the plant’s natural growth habit, unless otherwise specified. Plants in 2-gallon containers will generally comply with this standard. B. General Landscaping Standards: 1. Drought Tolerant or Native Species: 100% of required shrubs, perennial plants, and groundcover used on a site shall be drought tolerant, adaptive or native species. The city has compiled a list titled “Salt Lake City Plant List & Hydrozone Schedule”, established and maintained by Public Utilities, shall be used to satisfy this requirement. Other plants that are not on the list but are considered drought tolerant, adaptive or native and require similar watering needs may also be used. 2. Turf: Turf is not permitted: a. In the park strip. b. In parking lot perimeter and interior landscaping areas. c. In areas that are less than 8 feet in any dimension at the narrowest point. d. In areas with a slope greater than 25% (4 feet horizontal: 1 foot vertical). e. In required landscape buffer areas. 3. Mulch: Mulch shall be: a. At least 3 inches in depth, b. Used in areas that are not covered with landscaping. c. Permeable to air and water. d. Permanent fiber barriers, plastic sheeting, crushed rubber, or other impervious barriers are prohibited. e. Rock used as a mulch material is limited to 50% of the overall mulch used, the other 50% shall be an organic mulch material. 4. Artificial turf is prohibited in any location where landscaping is regulated by this chapter. 5. Berming is prohibited in parking lot and park strip landscaping unless required in specific district regulations. C. Specific Park Strip Standards: In addition to General Landscape Standards these provisions shall apply to park strips. 1. Street Trees: a. Substitutions. The Urban Forester may approve a substitute of the required street tree provision for a cash in lieu payment if the number of required trees cannot be met due to conflicts related to public utilities or right-of-way regulations. A cash in lieu payment, in the amount of cost to purchase and plant the required number of street trees, shall be contributed to the city’s Tree Fund; b. Tree Grates: If new street trees are proposed in a location where the area surrounding the tree will have an impervious surface, tree wells with grates shall be provided with adequate dimensions and sufficient soil volume to accommodate the proposed tree species, subject to review by the Urban Forestry Division. c. Tree Root Protection: Rock or gravel shall maintain a 2-foot separation from the trunk of a street tree. 2. Vegetation with Thorned, Spined, or Other Sharp Rigid Parts: Vegetation with thorns, spines, or other sharp, rigid parts hazardous to pedestrians and bicyclists, and difficult to walk across are prohibited within 3 feet of a curb, sidewalk, walkway, or driveway. 3. Storm Drain Protection: a. Rock or gravel shall be set at or below top back of curb or abutting sidewalk grade. b. Rock or gravel shall have 1 inch or greater diameter. Grades abutting public streets exceeding 4%, as indicated by Public Utilities Division’s “4% Grade Streets Map”, shall have rock or gravel 3 inch or greater diameter. 4. Pathways: Impervious surface pathways provided between the curb and sidewalk, are permitted subject to the following: a. Shall not be more than 5 feet in width and shall be located to provide the most direct route from curb to sidewalk. b. A maximum of 1 pathway per 20 linear feet of park strip is permitted. c. The pathway area shall be included in impervious surface percentage calculation. 5. Stormwater Curb Controls: Integration of LID (Low Impact Development) practices are encouraged in park strip areas. Stormwater curb cuts are permitted to allow stormwater to enter the landscaped area subject to the following provisions: a. The design and construction of the stormwater curb cut shall comply with the SLCDPU Standards Practices Manual. b. All stormwater curb controls are subject to Public Utilities Division review and approval. 6. Encroachments in the Right-of-Way: Structural encroachments are only permitted when specifically approved by city divisions and applicable decision-making bodies (or their designee) and may require an encroachment permit. a. All encroachments are subject to the following standards, unless specifically allowed elsewhere in this title: (1) Any raised structure shall be setback from the curb a minimum of 24 inches, (2) There are no other practical locations for the structure on the private property, and (3) The proposed structures will serve the general public and are part of general public need, or the proposed structures are necessary for the functional use of the property. b. Bus Stops and Bike Share Stations: Concrete pads for bus stop benches and/or shelters and bike share stations may be permitted with zoning administrator approval. Impervious surface limitations may be modified upon review. c. Outdoor Dining: Park strip materials and structural standards may be modified by the Zoning Administrator when outdoor dining is approved pursuant to Section 21A.40.065 of this title. d. Bike Paths: Bike paths that are separated from the travel lanes with cars are permitted in any existing park strip. Any space between the bike path and the sidewalk and/or curb of the travel lanes are subject to the requirements of this section. 21A.48.090: PRIVATE LANDS TREE PRESERVATION: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of these tree preservation provisions is to recognize and protect the valuable asset embodied in the trees that exist on private lands within the city and ensure that the existing trees of Salt Lake City continue to provide benefit to its citizens. Essential to effective tree preservation is the understanding of tree growth requirements having to do with space, water, and soil quality needs, among other qualities. Good, early planning, site design, and construction management practices are key to allowing trees to prosper. Preconstruction planning and mitigation of potential impacts that development may have on trees is necessary and one of the purposes of this section. Numerous community and personal benefits arise from the presence of trees in urbanized areas - both on residential and nonresidential lands - and it is the intent of this section through the preservation of the trees to: 1. Enhance the quality of life in the city and protect public health and safety; 2. Preserve and enhance the visual and aesthetic qualities of the city; 3. Enhance public and private property for greater enjoyment and usability due to the shade, cooling, and the aesthetic beauty afforded by trees; 4. Protect and improve the real estate values of the city; 5. Preserve and enhance air and water quality; 6. Reduce noise, glare, dust, and heat, and moderate climate, including urban heat island effect; 7. Increase slope stability, and control erosion and sediment runoff into streams and waterways; 8. Protect the natural habitat and ecosystems of the city; 9. Conserve energy by reducing heating and cooling costs; and 10. Preserve the function of mature trees to absorb greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. B. Applicability: 1. General: The standards in this section shall apply to new development in the city unless exempted in accordance with Subsection C, “Exemptions”, of this section. The standards in this section shall apply at the time of a development application for “development” as defined in the zoning ordinance. 2. Other Regulations: Title 2, Chapter 2.26 of this code, the Salt Lake City urban forestry ordinance, addressing the protection of trees located on public property owned by the city and in rights of way, shall remain in effect. 3. Specimen Trees: The city forester shall maintain a list of trees or tree types that are deemed to be specimen trees subject to Subsection E, “Standards”, of this section. C. Exemptions: The following specimen tree removal activities may be exempt from the standards of this section upon confirmation and approval by the city forester: 1. The removal of dead, damaged, or naturally fallen trees, or in cases of community emergency; 2. When in conjunction with the construction of a single- or two- family residence not part of a proposed new subdivision; 3. The removal of trees on an existing legal lot when not associated with new development; 4. The removal of trees in such a condition that they pose a threat to structures or natural features on the site, on adjoining properties, or in the public right of way; 5. The removal of diseased trees posing a threat to adjacent trees; 6. The selective and limited removal of trees necessary to obtain clear visibility at driveways or intersections; 7. The removal of trees associated with development at the Salt Lake City International Airport only as necessary to provide safe operations; 8. The removal of trees when requested by the city forester for the purposes of conflict with utilities or streets; and 9. The removal of trees deemed appropriate by the city forester, based on tree species, site conditions, or other variables. D. Standards: 1. Preservation of Specimen Trees: Specimen trees shall be preserved to the maximum extent practicable as determined by the city forester, in consultation with the zoning administrator, unless exempted pursuant to Subsection C, “Exemptions”, of this section. a. In determining if preservation is impracticable, the city shall consider the following criteria, including, but not limited to: (1) Whether an alternative location or configuration of the development including elements such as parking or structures on the site would be feasible to accomplish tree preservation, without negatively impacting adjacent properties, (2) Whether preservation of the specimen tree would render all permitted development on the property infeasible, or (3) If development of the property will provide significant community benefits that outweigh tree preservation. b. The zoning administrator may modify any dimensional standard, such as setbacks and height limits, by up to 20% if such modification will result in preservation of a specimen tree. 2. Cutting, Removal, or Damage Prohibited: Specimen trees, required to be preserved, shall not be cut, removed, pushed over, killed, or otherwise damaged. 3. Paving, Fill, Excavation, or Soil Compaction Prohibited: The tree protection zone of any protected specimen tree shall not be subjected to paving, filling, excavation, or soil compaction. 4. Mitigation: Where the city determines it is not practicable to preserve a specimen tree on the development site, the following mitigation provisions shall apply. a. Replacement Tree Required: 2 caliper inches of replacement trees shall be provided for each dbh of specimen tree removed (for example, if a 24 inch dbh specimen tree is removed, it must be replaced with at least 24 trees of a minimum 2 inch caliper or 8 trees with a 6 inch caliper). Each replacement tree shall be a minimum of 2 inches in caliper, and shall either be replanted prior to certificate of occupancy or within a conditional time frame as approved by the city forester. Consult the “Salt Lake City Plant List and Hydrozone Schedule” for recommendations on tree selection. Replacement trees shall be planted on the lot or site where the specimen tree was removed except where the city forester, in consultation with the zoning administrator, finds the following: (1) The site does not provide for adequate landscape surface area to accommodate the total number of replacement trees; or (2) That due to unique soil types, topography, or unusual characteristics of the site, the likelihood of successful tree growth is diminished. In such cases, the applicant shall mitigate for the loss of the specimen tree in the form of payment to the city’s tree fund as provided below. b. Cash in Lieu Payment/Tree Fund Contribution: Applicants who are permitted to remove a specimen tree but not plant a replacement tree on site shall make a cash in lieu payment, in the amount of the cost to purchase and plant the required number of replacement trees, into the city’s tree fund. E. Specimen Tree Protection During Construction: 1. Owner’s Responsibility: During construction, the owner of the property shall be responsible for the ongoing health of specimen trees located on the site. This includes basic tree maintenance and watering throughout the term of construction. The owner shall also ensure the erection of barriers necessary to protect any specimen tree from damage during and after construction. 2. Tree Protection Zone Fencing: Tree protection fencing shall be erected to protect all preserved trees from excavation, fill, compaction, or other impacts that would threaten tree health. Specimen trees shall be fenced in accordance with this subsection before any grading, excavating, or other land disturbing activity begins on a construction site. No construction, grading, equipment or material storage, or any other activity shall be allowed within the tree protection zone, as delineated by the required tree protection fencing, except in accordance with the standards in Subsection F.3, “Encroachments Into Tree Protection Zones and Root Zones”, of this section. Fencing shall be maintained until the land disturbance activities are complete, and shall not be removed or altered without first obtaining written consent from the city forester. The tree protection fencing shall be clearly shown on the required development applications such as a site plan, building permit, or grading permit application. a. Location: Fencing shall extend at least 1 foot in distance from the edge of the drip line of a specimen tree or group of specimen trees or as directed by the city forester to best protect a specimen tree’s critical root zone and still allow construction access. b. Type of Fencing: The developer shall erect a chainlink fence, a minimum of 4 feet in height, secured to metal posts driven into the ground. Such fencing shall be secured to withstand construction activity and weather on the site and shall be maintained in a functional condition for the duration of work on the property. This is not considered permanent fencing subject to Section 21A.40.120, “Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges”, of this title. c. Timing: All required tree protection measures shall be installed, inspected and approved by the city forester prior to the commencement of any land disturbing activities. 4. Encroachments Into Tree Protection Zones and Root Zones: Encroachments into a tree protection zone or within the critical root zones of trees protected in accordance with this subsection shall occur only in rare instances, and only upon obtaining written authorization from the city forester. If such encroachment is anticipated, tree preservation measures including, but not limited to, the following may be required: a. Tree Crown and/or Root Pruning: The pruning, or cutting, of specimen tree branches or roots shall only be done under the supervision of an ISA certified arborist, and only upon approval of the city forester. b. Soil Compaction Impact Mitigation: Where compaction might occur due to planned, temporary traffic through or materials placed within the protection zone, the area shall first be mulched with a minimum 4 inch layer of woodchips or a 6 inch layer of pine straw. Plywood sheet or metal plate coverage of the impacted area may be accepted by the city forester when high moisture conditions warrant. Equipment or materials storage shall not be allowed within the tree protection zone. c. Grade Change Impact Mitigation: In the event proposed site development requires soil elevation changes tree protection measures designed to mitigate harm to the tree(s) shall be coordinated with the city forester and the zoning administrator. d. Construction Debris/Effluent Strictly Prohibited: In no instance shall any debris or effluent, associated with the construction process, including equipment or vehicle washing, concrete mixing, pouring, or rinsing processes, be permitted to drain onto lands within tree protection zones, as delineated by the chainlink tree protection fencing. F. Enforcement: These tree preservation provisions shall be subject to the zoning and development enforcement codes as adopted by the city. 21A.48.100: APPEAL: Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the zoning administrator on a landscaping or buffer requirement may appeal to the appeals hearing officer in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 21A.16 of this title. SECTION 28. Amending the Text of Section 21A.60.020. That Section 21A.60.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: List of Defined Terms), shall be and hereby is amended to as follows: a. Section 21A.60.020 shall be and hereby is amended to add the following terms in the list of defined terms to be inserted into that list in alphabetical order and shall read as follows: Artificial turf. Impervious surface. Low impact development (LID). Shade tree. Stormwater curb cut. b. Section 21A.60.020 shall be and hereby is amended to amend the following terms in the list of defined terms, which shall remain in that list in alphabetical order and shall read as follows: Caliper. See Chapter 21A.48 of this title. dbh. See Chapter 21A.48 of this title. Diameter at breast height. See Chapter 21A.48 of this title. Specimen tree. See Chapter 21A.48 of this title. Tree protection fencing. See Chapter 21A.48 of this title. Tree protection zone. See Chapter 21A.48 of this title. c. Section 21A.60.020 shall be and hereby is amended to delete the following terms in the list of defined terms: BMP Best Management Practice (BMP) ET or ETo. ETAF. Ecological restoration project Evapotranspiration (ET) rate. Evergreen. Landscape BMPs manual. Maximum extent practicable. See subsection 21A.48.135D of this title. Overspray. Perennial. Tier 2 water target. Treasured landscape. Water budget. SECTION 29. Amending the Text of Section 21A.62.040. That Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Definitions: Definitions of Terms), shall be and hereby is amended as follows: a. Amending the definition of “GROUND COVER.” That the definition of “GROUND COVER” shall be amended to read as follows: GROUND COVER: Any perennial plant material species that generally does not exceed 12 inches in height, stabilizes soils and protects against erosion, and covers 100% of the ground all year. b. Amending the definition of “LANDSCAPE AREA.” That the definition of “LANDSCAPE AREA” shall be amended to read as follows: LANDSCAPE AREA: That portion of a lot devoted exclusively to landscaping, except streets, drives and sidewalks may be located within such an area to provide reasonable access. c. Amending the definition of “LANDSCAPING.” That the definition of “LANDSCAPING” shall be amended to read as follows: LANDSCAPING: The improvement of a lot, parcel or tract of land with vegetation such as ornamental grass, shrubs and trees. Landscaping may include pedestrian walks, flowerbeds, ornamental objects such as fountains, statuary, and other similar natural and artificial objects designed and arranged to produce an aesthetically pleasing effect. d. Amending the definition of “MULCH.” That the definition of “MULCH” shall be amended to read as follows: MULCH: Any material such as rock, bark, compost, wood chips or other materials left loose and applied to the soil, for the purposes of suppressing weeds, moderating soil temperature, and preventing soil erosion. e. Amending the definition of “PARK STRIP LANDSCAPING.” That the definition of “PARK STRIP LANDSCAPING” shall be amended to read as follows: PARK STRIP LANDSCAPING: The improvement of property within the street right-of-way situated between the back of curb and the sidewalk or, if there is no sidewalk, the back of curb and the right-of-way line, through the addition of plants and other organic and inorganic materials harmoniously combined to produce an effect appropriate for adjacent uses and compatible with the neighborhood. f. Amending the definition of “PARKING LOT.” That the definition of “PARKING LOT” shall be amended to read as follows: PARKING LOT: An area on the surface of the land used for the parking and circulation of more than four (4) automobiles. g. Amending the definition of “TURF.” That the definition of “TURF” shall be amended to read as follows: TURF: Grasses planted as a ground cover that may be mowed and maintained to be used as a lawn area of landscaping. Does not include decorative grasses, grasses that are adaptive or native to the local environment or grasses that do not generally require supplemental water, or inorganic substitutes commonly referred to as artificial turf. h. Adding the definition of “ARTIFICIAL TURF.” That the definition of “ARTIFICIAL TURF” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order to read as follows: ARTIFICIAL TURF: A synthetically derived, grass substitute that simulates the appearance of natural live grass. i. Adding the definition of “CALIPER.” That the definition of “CALIPER” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order to read as follows: CALIPER: The dimension of the diameter of a tree trunk measured at a distance of 6 inches from the soil line. j. Adding the definition of “DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (dbh).” That the definition of “DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (dbh)” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order to read as follows: DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (dbh): The dimension of the diameter of a tree trunk measured at a distance of 4 feet 6 inches from the ground. k. Adding the definition of “IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.” That the definition of “IMPERVIOUS SURFACE” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order to read as follows: IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: Any material that substantially reduces or prevents the infiltration of stormwater directly into the ground, including: asphalt, concrete, pavers, and brick. l. Adding the definition of “LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID).” That the definition of “LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID)” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order to read as follows: LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID): Systems or practices that use or mimic natural processes that result in the infiltration, evapotranspiration, and/or use of stormwater to protect water quality and aquatic habitat. m. Adding the definition of “SHADE TREE.” That the definition of “SHADE TREE” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order to read as follows: SHADE TREE: Any tree that has a mature minimum tree canopy of 30 feet and a mature height that is 40 feet or greater. n. Adding the definition of “SPECIMEN TREE.” That the definition of “SPECIMEN TREE” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order to read as follows: SPECIMEN TREE: A structurally sound and healthy tree or grouping of trees, having an individual or combined dbh measuring greater than 10 inches; whose future vitality can be reasonably expected and maintained with proper protection and regularly scheduled care; and whose absence from the landscape would significantly alter the site’s appearance, environmental benefit, character or history. o. Adding the definition of “STORMWATER CURB CUT.” That the definition of “STORMWATER CURB CUT” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order to read as follows: STORMWATER CURB CUT: Openings created in the curb to allow storm water from an adjacent impervious surface to flow into a depressed planting area. p. Adding the definition of “TREE PROTECTION FENCING.” That the definition of “TREE PROTECTION FENCING” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order to read as follows: TREE PROTECTION FENCING: The fencing required to be installed, and maintained during construction activities, to delineate required tree protection zones. q. Adding the definition of “TREE PROTECTION ZONE.” That the definition of “TREE PROTECTION ZONE” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order to read as follows: TREE PROTECTION ZONE: The area of a development site that includes the area located within the drip line of specimen trees and also includes the area that supports tree health requirements and interactions as determined by the city forester. r. Deleting definitions. That the following definitions are hereby deleted from the definitions of terms: BMP BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE (BMP) (Applies Only To Chapter 21A.48 Of This Title) ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION PROJECT ET OR ETo ETAF EVAPOTRANSPIRATION (ET) RATE EVERGREEN LANDSCAPE BMPs MANUAL OVERSPRAY PERENNIAL TIER 2 WATER TARGET TREASURED LANDSCAPE WATER BUDGET SECTION 30. Amending the Text of Section 21A.62.050. That Section 21A.62.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Definitions: Illustrations of Selected Definitions), shall be and hereby is amended to read and appear as follows: 21A.62.050: ILLUSTRATIONS OF SELECTED DEFINITIONS: The definitions listed below are illustrated on the following pages: A. Building Height in Foothills Districts, R-1 Districts, R-2 District and SR Districts. B. Building Height (Outside Foothills Districts, R-1 Districts, R-2 District and SR Districts). C. Flag Lot. D. (RESERVED). E. Lattice Tower. F. Monopole With Antennas and Antenna Support Structures Greater Than Two Feet in Width. G. Monopole With Antennas and Antenna Support Structures Less Than Two Feet in Width. H. Roof Mounted Antennas. I. Sight Distance Triangle. J. Wall Mounted Antennas. K. Dormer. ILLUSTRATION A BUILDING HEIGHT IN FOOTHILLS DISTRICTS, R-1 DISTRICTS, R-2 DISTRICT AND SR DISTRICTS Finished Grade: The final grade of a site after reconfiguring grades according to an approved site plan related to the most recent building permit activity on a site. Established Grade: The grade of a property prior to the most recent proposed development or construction activity. On developed lots, the zoning administrator shall estimate established grade if not readily apparent, by referencing elevations at points where the developed area appears to meet the undeveloped portions of the land. The estimated grade shall tie into the elevation and slopes of adjoining properties without creating a need for new retaining wall, abrupt differences in the visual slope and elevation of the land, or redirecting the flow of runoff water. ILLUSTRATION B BUILDING HEIGHT (OUTSIDE FOOTHILLS DISTRICTS, R-1 DISTRICTS, R-2 DISTRICT AND SR DISTRICTS) ILLUSTRATION C FLAG LOT ILLUSTRATION D (RESERVED) ILLUSTRATION E LATTICE TOWER ILLUSTRATION F MONOPOLE WITH ANTENNAS AND ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURES GREATER THAN TWO FEET IN WIDTH ILLUSTRATION G MONOPOLE WITH ANTENNAS AND ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURES LESS THAN TWO FEET IN WIDTH ILLUSTRATION H ROOF MOUNTED ANTENNAS ILLUSTRATION I SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE ILLUSTRATION J WALL MOUNTED ANTENNAS SECTION 31. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective four months from the date of its adoption; however, a land use applicant wishing to have the provisions of this Ordinance apply to a land use application sooner may elect to have the provisions herein apply following its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 202_. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER ILLUSTRATION K DORMER Transmitted to Mayor on . Mayor’s Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 202_. Published: . Ordinance amending landscaping regulations (final) 10-30-23 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:_No_ve_mb_er_14_, 2_023 By: Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Project Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3. Petition Initiation 4. Public Comments Received After Planning Commission Staff Report Published 5. Public Utilities Director Statement 1) PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2023-00098 September 6, 2022 City Council briefing to get initial feedback on potential changes to landscaping regulations. February 8, 2023 Text amendment to update the Landscaping and Buffers chapter initiated. February 10, 2023 Notice emailed to recognized organizations City-wide. February 10, 2023 The proposed code changes were posted to the Planning Division’s Online Open House webpage. March 20, 2023 The Planning Division presented proposed code changes to Sugar House Community Council. Public comments and questions were accepted. April 19, 2023 Public hearing notices were posted on City and State websites. April 21, 2023 Staff Report posted online and sent to the Planning Commission. April 26, 2023 Planning Commission forwards a positive recommendation to City Council. May 8, 2023 Draft ordinance forwarded to the Attorney’s Office for review. June 7, 2023 Ordinance corrections forwarded to the Attorney’s Office. June 12, 2023 Ordinance corrections forwarded to the Attorney’s Office. Ordinance returned from the Attorney’s Office. June 15, 2023 Ordinance corrections forwarded to the Attorney’s Office. June 22, 2023 Reviewed ordinance returned from the Attorney’s Office. June 29, 2023 Ordinance forwarded again to the Attorney’s Office, reviewed final received from Attorney’s Office. August 29, 2023 Corrected ordinance returned to Attorney’s Office for final review. September 26, 2023 Final ordinance version received from Attorney’s Office. September 27, 2023 Transmitted to CAN administration. October 26, 2023 Council Office informed of needed modifications to the ordinance. November 6, 2023 Ordinance with needed corrections forwarded to the Attorney’s Office. November 14, 2023 Corrected ordinance returned to Attorney’s Office for final review. November 15, 2023 Transmitted to CAN administration. 2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2023-00098 – A petition initiated by Mayor Erin Mendenhall to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Code for the Landscaping and Buffers Chapter Text Amendment. This proposal includes amendments that will be affected City-wide. The proposed code amendments seek to better address landscaping regulations and seek to reduce water consumption, enhance the urban forest, and improve air quality and green infrastructure city-wide. The proposed amendment also seek to clarify, simplify, and reorganize the landscaping and buffer chapter to be more user friendly. The City Council may consider modifications to other related sections of the code as part of this proposal. DATE: Date #1 and Date #2 TIME: 7:00 p.m. All persons interested and present will be given an opportunity to be heard in this matter. his meeting will be held via electronic means, while potentially also providing for an in person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building,located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting, please visit the website www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings/ or call 801-535-7654 to obtain connection information. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801)535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Nannette Larsen at 801-535-7645 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail nannette.larsen@slcgov.com People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to participate in this hearing. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com , 801-535- 7600, or relay service 711. 3) PETITION INITIATION To: Mayor Erin Mendenhall Cc: Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer; Blake Thomas, Department of Community and Neighborhoods Director; Michaela Oktay, Deputy Planning Director From: NickNorris,Planning Director Date: January 27, 2023 Re: Initiate Petition to AmendText in the Zoning Ordinance to Update the Landscaping Chapter This memo is to request that a petition is initiated directing the Planning Division to update the Landscaping Chapter to better address the needs of the City and the changing climate being experienced along the Wasatch Front. Amendments to the Landscaping Chapter will also better conform to Plan Salt Lake. In Plan Salt Lake direction to reduce water consumption, protect and enhance the urban forest, and improve green infrastructure in the City’s neighborhoods is emphasized. To achieve these goals amending the landscaping chapter is necessary to reduce barriers to water conservation while improving water and air quality. In addition to providing best management practices to reduce barriers and incentive water conservation, is promoting accessible conservation strategies and standards in the Zoning Ordinance. The updates to the Landscaping chapter will accomplish this by quantifying best practices and creating visual elements to the chapter to better achieve accessibility needs of the residents in the City. As part of the process, the Planning Division will follow the City adoption process for zoning text amendments, which includes citizen input and public hearings with the Planning Commission and City Council. The adoption process will include collaboration with other City Departments and the Central Utah Water Conservancy District to ensure best management practices are utilized. 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 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 4) PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED AFTER PLANNING COMMISSIONS STAFF REPORT PUBLISHED Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From: Amanda Dillon To: Larsen, Nannette Subject: (EXTERNAL) Comment on new Landscaping Ordinance - Planning Commission Meeting Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 10:38:19 PM Hey Nan! I was chatting with Amanda Roman and she let me know that tomorrow is when the new landscaping ordinance goes in front of the planning commission. Congrats on getting these revised policies to this point! I had the chance to skim through it earlier today and wanted to submit two official comments. SLC's website said to reach out to you as the staff listed at the top of the report. Let me know if I should reach out somewhere else to get this comment officially recorded. The first comment is in regards to plant height in the park strip. The proposed ordinance says: Plant height is limited to 22” to preserve clear views from intersection driveways, alleys, and streets, to preserve line of sights for people, and to prevent areas that some people may find unsafe when visibility is blocked. One issue we've found with this limited plant height is that it makes it hard to put planter boxes or similar into the park strip because we are so limited in height. As a developer of infill multifamily housing, we find that many of our residents let their pets relieve themselves in the park strips on any planted vegetation. The high acidity of their urine/feces makes it so that most plants die immediately and don't really grow back, leaving barren and unattractive park strips. One solution we've found that helps keep the park strips vegetated and looking nice is putting plants in planter boxes, which makes it harder for pets to disturb them. However, to create one that is hard for pets to get into, the planter box needs to be at least 12" tall. With the plant height restriction, that means we can only put a plant in that will mature to 10" tall. This really narrows down the selection of plants we can use to beautify the park strips and prevents us from designing attractive landscaped right of way areas for the City. It would be great to have a slight modification in this part of the code that would allow for taller plant heights if those are planted in garden boxes or the like. The second comment is more of a clarification question. On page 6 of the ordinance, in the second paragraph, it says "rocks (over a certain size)" but no where else in the code does it give any specifics about that size. Can more definition/clarity be added on this point? Thanks so much! Let's get together soon. Amanda Amanda Dillon Giv Development From: Bruce A. Hamilton To: Larsen, Nannette Subject: (EXTERNAL) Case PLNPCM2023-00098: oppose vegetation requirements on park strips Date: Monday, April 24, 2023 10:54:24 PM Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Planning Commission, April 26 agenda, case PLNPCM2023-00098: It is insane to require vegetation on park strips in this age of droughts. Please oppose all such existing and new zoning requirements. --Bruce (Bruce A. Hamilton, Salt Lake City, UT) Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From: Margaret Holloway To: Larsen, Nannette Subject: (EXTERNAL) PLNPCM2023-00098 Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 10:40:34 AM The goal of the city is to increase the canopy throughout the city. But what I see is a stumbling block is the fact of a permanent irrigation line to a street tree. I was quoted 3000 dollars just to connect a irrigation connection to my water line. If this is required of ALL homeowners who would like a tree or are going to be required to have a tree planted To whom is going to pay this bill? That quote was just to dig down to the water line and connect a meter. That does not include the line to the tree. I understand the need to encourage watering the tree. But if this is not done correctly you can have the water go into reverse and contaminate the water supply. It has happened when people try to do plumbing themselves. Now how is this even reasonable? All you need is a hose . The city gave buckets to the homeowners that had their trees taken out by Rocky Mountain power on 900 west. They were told to haul 5 gallons to the tree each week or 10 days. Which sounds reasonable... But how do you fill the bucket with a hose. And if they had given them a hose instead maybe they would have watered the trees. But they didn't and they did not get watered They all died except a couple that did. ..... The city plants trees into parks without water and then they die. The new trees the city planted on 1200 west there were 10 all but 2 died Because the sprinklers were turned off and the new trees need help for the first few years. The city turns off the sprinklers or cuts back and the trees die. But here you are requiring homeowners to spend upward of 3,000 to put a line in maintain it when you just need a hose. ..... I water my street tree with a soaker hose every other week if it doesn't get enough water like last 2 years .... The canopy changes over the life of the tree. ... You MUST water under the canopy..... It only benefits the tree if you water under the growing canopy. .. This is where a soaker hose is important.. it goes straight to the roots.... But to make the decision that everyone has to pay upto 3,000 dollars to put a permanent line to where it isn't going to do what you want it to do. ... seems missguided. The city just planted 30 more trees in Rosewood In Rosepark ..... if they have to cut off the water again will they make it? It depends this year they have a chance because of all the water in the soil. But last year they lost 5 from the previous year lack of water. The west side needs the trees but forcing people to put in an expensive hook up when a 30 dollar hose will do ... But last year you just drive around and see the trees they had planted in the parks that died. So why is the city going to require something of homeowners that the city does not do itself? Please reconsider this it won't do the trees any good to water where they can't use it.,..It will not get the city where it wants to go with the canopy. If there are actually any new houses built in the city i can see where this might come into play before everything is installed. But since we don;t have any place to build new houses you are telling existing homeowners what to do. after the fact of 60 or more years. Margaret Holloway 1412 west 1100 north SLC Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Larsen, Nannette; Planning Public Comments Wharton, Chris; City Council Liaisons; slcgreen; (EXTERNAL) Public Comment on Petition PLNPCM2023-00098 - 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates Tuesday, April 25, 2023 12:51:52 PM 21A.48 Nextdoor posting 1.4 K Views 5 Days .pdf Public Comment on Petition PLNPCM2023-00098 - 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates From: Stanley Holmes 4-25-2023 Dear Salt Lake City Planning Commission, I urge you to reject the proposed ordinance rewrite of 21A Zoning that was submitted as Petition PLNPCM2023-00098 - "21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates" as flawed and problematic on several fronts. The set of proposed amendments to Title 21A Zoning should be remanded back to Salt Lake City's Planning Division ("Division") for revision and a new, more appropriately noticed 45-day public comment period to be opened by the Division before a corrected set of proposed Title 21A Zoning amendments is brought before the Planning Commission ("Commission"). The proposed changes to Title 21A Zoning Chapter 48 under consideration now would have significant, wide-ranging, and costly impacts for many Salt Lake City ("City") property owners of various means and for all city taxpayers. That the Division would rely primarily on community council chairs to, at their individual discretion and in a timely manner, notify the general public of statutory/regulatory changes of this scope and magnitude can be most graciously characterized as cavalier. Division records indicate that only four comments were received during the 45-day comment period and that Sugarhouse C.C. was the only community council to actively engage. I learned from city staff that the Division’s notification system had been used, but found that there are no water conservation, landscaping, energy conservation, environment, or other sustainability categories listed. Through which category did the Division send the landscaping code updates notice; and how many city residents actually get notices through that means? Please be advised, and let the public record show, that on April 20, 2023, I posted on the community blog --Nextdoor.com-- information about the proposed Title 21A Zoning changes and ways that interested citizens could submit public comments. Over the next five days, Nextdoor.com reported 1,400 views and there were 48 public comments. Please see evidence of this included with the Addendum at the close of my comment and attached. Those folks on Nextdoor.com were Salt Lake City residents who missed the initial comment period that ended on March 27th and, quite likely, also did not know about your April 26 Planning Commission meeting or their opportunities to submit public comments before the zoning/ordinance changes had become a ‘done deal.’ Outrageous. I am also quite surprised and disappointed that there was no input from the Sustainability Department, and wonder how their input was solicited. SLCGreen is copied on this comment, as are my District 3 Councilman Chris Wharton and the City Council Liaisons. City officials should have known that not every community council would post or distribute the notice. Not every potentially interested and impacted citizen is on a community council distribution list or regularly checks a community council's website. One might wonder to what extent the Division was truly desirous of robust public input, having solicited comments by such a narrow and undependable means. The Commission should insist upon a proper re-do of the public comment period and extend its further consideration of any Title 21A Zoning Chapter 48 amendments until legitimate opportunities for public input have occurred. The proposed Petition PLNPCM2023-00098 - "21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates" are themselves in several ways inadequate and problematic. Their 'as is' endorsement by the Commission and the City Council would, upon attempted implementation and enforcement by the City, certainly result in strong opposition that would include costly litigation. Please recall that the most recent revision of 21A.48 was in the year 2000, prior to over two decades of climate change-exacerbated heat increases and drought that finally prompted state and local officials to take action. The updates now under consideration were supposed to deal more effectively with the climate change-related impacts. Let me begin with the proposed re-write of 21A.48.010, the Purpose and Intent section. While the earlier version calls for promoting "the prudent use of water", the update would remove this and make no mention of water conservation as a priority. The lead "purpose" of a revised chapter 21A.48 would be to "increase Salt Lake City's urban tree canopy"; and the lead "intent" would be to "promote and enhance the community's appearance." While trees are nice, useful, and can be aesthetically pleasing, the City is located in the second driest U.S. state and is experiencing an unprecedented, worsening drought. Water conservation should not only have been mentioned in the proposed re-write of 21A.48.010, but been listed as a priority goal, as has been done by other Utah municipalities. Why was this not done? Under the current zoning ordinance, Section 21A.48.060 refers to Park Strip Landscaping and one of the "intent" items is to "encourage water conservation". But the proposed re-write (update) would change the title of 21A.48.060 to "Landscape Requirements" and remove the water conservation reference. The re-write of 21A.48.060 has a new "Park Strip Standards" section that adds the requirement of at least one "street tree" in the park strip. Additional park strip trees would be required, depending on the park strip length. The current ordinance has no park strip tree requirement. Therefore, residents who've implemented water-wise park strip measures --in compliance with the existing ordinance -- that do not include at least one street tree would be required to add a tree and, according to the 21A.48.040 re-write, see that it is "irrigated with a permanent automatic irrigation system." A hydrozoned irrigation system would be required, so that tree(s) watering can be isolated from any water needed for other vegetation. The park strip abutting property owner would have to pay for the new park strip tree-plus-irrigation requirement. That could be quite costly, especially if the park strip has to be excavated to install the required irrigation system. The Commission should assume that some residents will be unable to afford this and that others who had been compliant would rather fight the compliance rules change in court. Please consider the burden on low-income families, especially if the $25-per-day violation fine is retained. The Commission should also consider that the City's Department of Community and Neighborhood's Civil Enforcement staff would have to be expanded and that additional budgetary provisions would have to be made for the City's legal team. Litigation could delay implementation and enforcement of parts or all of the proposed 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates for an extended period of time. And aside from pushback from angry residents delaying implementation of the proposed ordinance updates, the sheer magnitude of any effort to achieve widespread compliance should sober city planners and policy-makers. Have Division staff conducted a city-wide, on-street survey of the number of park strips that would require tree-planting and new irrigation plumbing? Have they calculated how many contractors, and how many years, would be required to accomplish full implementation? Then, there's the additional per-tree water requirement times however many park strips would be affected. At this point, I'll add that there are some positive aspects of the proposed ordinance re-write, such as 21A.48.040.E.1., which says that "All irrigation systems shall be maintained in good operating condition to eliminate water waste and run-off into the public right-of-way." Drip irrigation is also mentioned in 21A.48.040.E, though it could have been promoted. Some of the proposed re-write items are not clear. For example, 21A.48.040.C.2. "Exceptions" circles back to itself. And under 21A.62 "Definitions", the Park Strip Landscaping section says that park strip landscaping may include "lawn", which is normally a reference to turf. The re-write, under 21A.48.060 and 21A.48.080, prohibits turf in park strips. There is also a reference to the right-of- way line's relevance if there is no sidewalk, but the dimensions of the right-of-way line are not given. As a final point to this comment, it concerns me that the City Planning Division failed to take a holistic view of the abutting residential property owner's landscape unless a new home is being constructed or the floor area of an existing structure(s) is being expanded by 50% or more. The overall vegetative contribution of individual residential properties that are not undergoing structural change is ignored by the proposed 21A Zoning rewrite's determination of compliance or non- compliance with new park strip requirements. I can imagine situations where the owner of a well- wooded, well-vegetated residential property is forced to install and water a park strip tree while the owner of a minimally vegetated property who happens to have a tree in the park strip is left alone. Where is the environmental justice in that? Salt Lake City needs to do a better job of conserving water. The proposed amendments to Title 21A Zoning are inadequate to the task, as they do not give water conservation the top priority status our current megadrought crisis demands. I urge the Commission to deny Petition PLNPCM2023-00098 - "21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates" and send it back to the Division for revision and a properly noticed, 45-day public review and comment period. I thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration of the points I raised and your directive to have the ordinance revised in a more transparent way that better engages the public and serves the City's best interests. Stanley Holmes 846 N. East Capitol Blvd. Salt Lake City, UT 84103 Addendum: My attempt to use Nextdoor.com to notify the public of proposed 21A.48 changes, first posted on April 20, 2023, is copied below. In five days, 1,400 views and 48 resident comments. The Planning Division got 4 public comments in 45 days. Stan Holmes Author • West Capitol Hills•0 mi SLC Park Strip, Landscape Policy Changes Public comments are being taken by the Salt Lake City Planning Division and Planning Commission as they consider city-wide changes to the Landscaping Chapter of the Zoning Code. This includes proposed revision of the Park Strip ordinance under which many city residents have been penalized for their water conservation efforts. The proposed Park Strip policy revision would require one "street tree" every 30 feet and vegetation covering at least 30% of the area. See all proposed amendments at... www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Online%20Open%20Houses/2023/02 2023/PLNPCM2023- 00098/02102023%20DRAFT%20Landscaping%20Updates_Posted.pdf The Planning Commission will consider landscape/park strip ordinance changes at its April 26 meeting. Public comments can be submitted in-person or via email to and . Reference case number PLNPCM2023-00098 in the subject line. The agenda for next Wednesday's (April 26) Planning Commission meeting is at... www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2023/PC04.26.2023/PC04.26.2023agenda.pdf Whatever the Planning Commission decides will then be presented to the City Council for final approval. Now is the time to shift from opinion to action and file a public comment. Stan Holmes Author • West Capitol Hills•0 mi The email addresses that were stripped are planning.comments and nannette.larsen that are both at slc.gov. They are also listed in the April 26 agenda at... www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2023/PC04.26.2023/PC04.26.2023agenda.pdf also attached: Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From: Chelsea Benjamin To: Larsen, Nannette Subject: (EXTERNAL) Report to include as part of public record for today"s planning commission meeting Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 11:00:08 AM Attachments: 2022 WRA Artifical Turf Report.pdf Hello Nannette, I would like the following report to be included as part of the public record during the Planning Committee discussion on the new landscaping ordinance today. Here is a link to the report, and I have attached it as a PDF to this email. https://westernresourceadvocates.org/publications/is- artificial-turf-a-beneficial-water-conservation-tool-in-the-west/ Please let me know if there is anything else I need to do to include it in the Planning Commission’s discussion today. Thank you, Chelsea Benjamin Chelsea Benjamin Water Policy Fellow | WesternResourceAdvocates.org 2260 Baseline Road, Suite 200 | Boulder, CO 80302 photo Is Artificial Turf a Beneficial Water Conservation Tool in the West? December 2022 Author: Chelsea Benjamin Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 3 Water Management ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Temperature Impacts .................................................................................................................................... 4 Lifecycle Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Harmful Chemicals ........................................................................................................................................ 5 PFAS Contamination ...................................................................................................................................... 6 Microplastic Contamination .......................................................................................................................... 7 Soil Quality .................................................................................................................................................... 7 Pet Waste Buildup ......................................................................................................................................... 8 Cost ................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 9 Introduction Artificial turf is a landscaping alternative made of plastic that mimics the look, feel, and function of a natural grass lawn or athletic field. Artificial turf has become more popular in Colorado and the West in recent years for its ability to reduce landscape water use in the face of unprecedented drought and water security challenges; the region now accounts for 24% of the artificial turf market share in the United States, with most being used for athletic fields. In recent years, many communities across the West have mounted turf replacement programs to encourage residents to save water used on outdoor landscapes in the face of prolonged drought. Communities are also limiting the amount of high water use, non-functional turf that can be installed in new development and instead requiring landscaping alternatives. As momentum continues to grow around reducing high water use turfgrass in our communities, water conservation practitioners, land use planners, landscape professionals and community members are asking: is artificial turf a worthwhile landscaping alternative, especially for residential properties? While artificial turf may reduce landscape water demand compared to traditional cool season turf, research shows that artificial turf can also have significant environmental and economic drawbacks. This report explores the current state of the research behind the benefits and drawbacks of artificial turf as it relates to: water management, temperature impacts, lifecycle analysis, PFAS contamination, harmful chemicals, microplastic contamination, pet waste buildup, and cost. While much of the data available are from studies of artificial turf athletic fields, most findings are applicable to properties with smaller footprints as well. Water Management Artificial turf has gained popularity in large part for its ability to reduce outdoor water use. One study found that full-sized, 1.32 acre, natural grass sports fields can use up to 1.5 million gallons of water for irrigation per year depending on geographic location. The Synthetic Turf Council estimates that same- sized artificial turf athletic fields can save 500,000 to 1 million gallons of water per year (8.7 to 17.4 gallons/sq-ft), and that a turf lawn of 1,800 square feet can save 99,000 gallons of water per year, or about 70% of a homeowner’s water bill. In the arid Western United States, the need for water conservation has been a driver of artificial turf demand. Artificial turf for residences has proven especially popular in drought-stricken California, where some areas were limited to one day of outdoor watering per week in the summer of 2022 due to water shortages. While artificial turf companies tout water savings as a main benefit of artificial turf, this is not always the case. Studies have found that on a warm, sunny day artificial turf can measure up to 80 degrees hotter than the ambient air temperature. In one study, an artificial turf field measured 160 degrees while the ambient air temperature was 87 degrees. On an athletic playing field, one solution to this heat is to water the artificial turf. A large amount of water needs to be applied to achieve a cooling effect, and it has been found that this cooling effect lasts only minutes before temperatures rebound. Some sports arenas have attempted to solve the problem by installing misters that apply water to the turf field throughout sports events. Others find that irrigation of artificial turf improves traction and athletic performance; one university in North Carolina going so far as to apply for a business exemption to water their artificial turf athletic fields during a drought. An additional concern is the effect of artificial turf on groundwater recharge. Cities in California that once encouraged the replacement of natural grass with artificial turf have since changed their policies upon discovering that artificial turf can increase stormwater runoff and prevent groundwater recharge. Los Angeles offered a rebate for homeowners who replaced irrigated grass with artificial turf until 2016, when they revised their program’s requirements to provide a rebate only for replacement with xeriscape landscaping. Los Angeles realized that artificial turf reduces the amount of rainwater that soaks into the ground after a storm, and that more stormwater flushed out to sea via the stormwater system. Temperature Impacts Artificial turf can reach temperatures up to 80 degrees higher than the ambient air temperature due to its material composition and color, as well as the color and heat retention abilities of infill materials used. This excess heat contributes to urban heat island effect in cities, as heat from the synthetic turf elevates the ambient air temperature and disperses into the local environment. One researcher found that some of the hottest areas in New York City are artificial turf fields, rivaling black colored roofs in their heat retention abilities. Research has shown that excessively hot artificial athletic fields can lead to heat stress, especially in children who are more susceptible than adults, turf burns, and the cancellation of athletic events due to unsafe playing conditions. Artificial turf heat can also be an issue when used in landscaping, as pets and children use the turf for play on warm days. Urban heat island effect can also increase the demand for energy for air conditioning, and can increase pollution as natural grass areas are removed. Natural grass absorbs the sun’s heat during the day, and slowly releases it at night, contributing a cooling effect to the surrounding environment, as well as removing pollutants from the air. The artificial turf industry has responded to temperature issues and has developed products that can repel UV rays, better disperse heat, and even mimic the evaporative cooling effects of natural grass. Some types of artificial grass have been developed specifically for areas like Arizona that have extreme high temperatures during the summer. Manufacturers claim that heat-repellent synthetic turf measures 10-20% cooler than grasses with high heat retention. Another heat reduction measure is the infill material chosen; crumb rubber and sand infill materials can contribute to extreme artificial turf temperatures due to their color and heat-retention abilities. Special infill materials have been developed that when wet with water, will slowly release the water over time, mimicking the evaporative cooling properties of natural grass and reducing the hottest temperatures by 50 degrees. Cooling technologies seem to be distributed across price points, but largely cannot match the cooling properties of natural grass or other plants. Lifecycle Analysis In the early 1990s, the United States had a mounting problem with the disposal of used automobile tires; they were costly to dispose of and created pest and fire hazards in landfills. It was then discovered that discarded tire rubber could easily be recycled into small pellets to be used as “infill” to stabilize artificial turf athletic fields and lawns. The infill is now mainly used for large athletic field installations and industry experts estimate that the artificial turf industry now recycles one-twelfth of all automobile tires disposed of each year. One artificial turf athletic field can use 20,000 to 40,000 used tires as crumb rubber infill. Infill is added during installation, and as needed to replace infill that migrates out of the artificial turf area. Artificial turf has an average lifespan of 8-10 years before an athletic field becomes worn out, or a residential lawn loses its formerly lush appearance. The Synthetic Turf Council, an artificial turf industry group, insists that artificial turf is recyclable, and that its members actively recycle the spent turf it sells. Investigative journalists and concerned citizens have documented otherwise in the Netherlands and in the United States. The Netherlands requires artificial turf to be recycled. A few Dutch companies claim to be artificial turf recyclers; these companies accept payment to recycle spent turf and provide removal services. However, investigative journalists have found that several of these companies have no active facilities for turf recycling. The companies do not recycle the artificial turf they accept, but either hold on to it indefinitely in growing piles in municipalities with lax regulations or sell it to new customers who repurpose the turf, rather than recycle its components into new materials. In the United States, there are no regulations that pertain to the disposal or recycling of artificial turf. Most municipalities will accept artificial turf in local landfills. Fees to dispose of large amounts of turf, such as from athletic fields, can be extremely expensive. As artificial turf owners are not held responsible for the turf at the end of its life, it is often illegally dumped, or a small fee is paid to store the turf on an abandoned lot rather than paying disposal or recycling fees. Piles of discarded turf create fire and chemical hazards, just as discarded automobile tires did in the 1990s. Although a Danish artificial athletic field recycler, Re-Match, has plans to open an artificial turf recycling facility in Pennsylvania, and has recently expanded its European operations to the Netherlands and France, life cycle concerns for end-of-life artificial turf athletic fields and synthetic residential landscaping remain an active problem the world over. Harmful Chemicals Artificial turf eliminates the need for pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers that are traditionally used to maintain a lawn or sports field; the plastic turf and its base layers block the growth of weeds and pests that otherwise might invade natural grass. However, artificial turf contains many chemicals of concern. These chemicals can migrate into the surrounding environment as the plastic material degrades when exposed to heat and light. The majority of research on artificial turf focuses on athletic fields, and many specifically on the chemicals related to crumb rubber infill. Crumb rubber infill is the cheapest infill material on the market and is often used in athletic field installations. It is less likely to be used for artificial lawns, but the following research discussed can at times apply to residential installations. The cheapest infill material on the market is crumb rubber infill made from recycled discarded tires. Crumb rubber infill is most often used for athletic fields, as it provides a durable playing surface. However, crumb rubber infill has been found to release chemicals as it degrades. Crumb rubber infill has been analyzed and found to contain 197 carcinogenic chemicals. Alternative infill materials include EPDM rubber, TPE plastic, and recycled athletic shoe material, as well as natural materials like sand, cork, and zeolite clay. A study comparing infill materials found that almost all contain chemicals of concern, except natural infill materials, which may conversely be susceptible to mold growth, or cause negative respiratory effects. Studies have found that organic contaminants and heavy metals in crumb rubber leach into stormwater runoff, posing hazards to the surrounding environment, aquatic life, and human health. Studies have also found that Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) from crumb rubber infill can aerosolize during play on artificial turf athletic fields. VOCs can cause respiratory irritation and have been linked to the development of cancer. While there are no fully conclusive studies on the human health effects of exposure to artificial turf, studies have been conducted on the effects of crumb rubber infill chemicals on earthworms, an invertebrate, and on chicken embryos, a vertebrate. Two experiments have been conducted on the effects of earthworm exposure to crumb rubber infill. The first experiment tested the effect of exposure to new crumb rubber infill, and found that after one week of incubation in contaminated soil, the exposed earthworms had noticeably lower body weight than those in clean soil. A second, similar, experiment was conducted using recycled tire crumb rubber infill. In this experiment, the exposed earthworms quickly died in a stress test, demonstrating a marked decrease in resilience to stress when exposed to chemicals in recycled tire rubber. Another study that examined the effects of crumb rubber leachate on fertilized chicken embryos during their development process found that approximately half of the fertilized eggs exposed to the leachate developed extreme malformations, while the unexposed group developed into healthy chicken embryos. Although no conclusive studies have been conducted on the direct effects of artificial turf on human health, anecdotal collections of statistics have raised concerns about artificial turf’s potential connection to cancer development in humans. In 2013, one women’s soccer coach compiled a list of 38 US soccer players who had developed cancer, mainly leukemia and cancers of the blood. Many of the players were goalies, who regularly dive into artificial turf. Health experts have been unable to reach consensus on whether artificial turf and the use of crumb rubber infill can be linked to cancer or other human health effects. Despite this lack of consensus, the presence of known carcinogens in artificial turf blades and infill and the results of the animal studies have raised alarm. PFAS Contamination PFAS chemicals are widely found in artificial turf because they are used in the artificial turf production process and are typically added as a coating to the grass blades as they are manufactured. The chemicals can break down and leach into the environment when exposed to heat and light after artificial turf is installed. PFAS chemicals are also known as “forever chemicals” because they do not break down under normal environmental conditions, and can last in the environment for hundreds of years, or longer. PFAS chemicals are also associated with negative health effects in humans and wildlife. Studies on the human health effects of PFAS chemicals have found that the chemicals bioaccumulate in human tissues and can lead to liver effects, immunological effects, developmental effects, endocrine effects, decreased fertility, cardiovascular effects, and can contribute to the development of cancers. PFAS can cause similar problems in animals and can also bioaccumulate in plants. In 2020, one New Hampshire community attempted to purchase PFAS-free artificial turf to minimize exposure risks. The community tested the turf they had been sold, and found that it did contain PFAS chemicals. The company claimed that the levels of PFAS in the turf were below EPA accepted maximum levels of the chemical and could safely be labeled “PFAS-free”. However, the EPA has recently concluded that no amount of PFAS chemicals are safe in drinking water, which is concerning as many components of artificial turf installations regularly make their way into surrounding waterways. Microplastic Contamination In addition to the chemical concerns surrounding artificial turf, there are also significant concerns relating to microplastic pollution. Artificial turf plastic grass blades can break off from the turf surface and migrate into the surrounding environment, creating microplastic pollution as they break down into smaller pieces over time. Artificial turf athletic fields that use crumb rubber infill can be even greater sources of microplastic pollution. One study in Norway found crumb rubber infill pieces in 85% of water samples taken in waterbodies downstream from artificial turf fields, and in 42% of samples taken from locations upstream. Microplastic pollution from artificial turf fields accounts for over one third of total microplastic pollution in Norway. Similarly, researchers have found that artificial turf fields are the second highest source of microplastic pollution in Sweden. Swedish authorities estimate that large artificial athletic fields lose 2-3 tons of infill to the surrounding environment per year. Microplastic pollution is a concern for actively used artificial turf fields, and for discarded fields that await recycling or incineration or are illegally dumped. Discarded fields have the potential to release microplastic pollution into the surrounding environment indefinitely. Artificial turf lawns also can release microplastics via the grass blades’ degradation over time, and depending on the choice of infill will also release infill particles into the environment. Researchers are only beginning to understand what the effects of this pollution might be. Study of the effects of microplastics is relatively new. Studies have found the tiny particles worldwide, including in remote wilderness areas that have no human visitors, and in the umbilical cords of newborn babies. The effects of microplastic pollution on human health and the environment are still relatively unknown, but some early studies suggest that microplastic exposure and ingestion can cause harm to human health and the environment. One study in particular found that microplastics added to soil disturb natural biological processes and change soil structure. Knowledge of the long-term effects of microplastics will continue to develop over time. Soil Quality Artificial turf installation requires the removal of the existing top level of soil and heavy soil compaction to create a smooth surface for the turf. Compaction negatively effects the soil structure, disturbs the soil’s microbial activity, and can damage tree roots. After soil is compacted for athletic field installation, several layers are added between the soil and the artificial turf surface to level the playing field, improve storm water drainage, and provide cushioning. In artificial turf lawn installations, plastic and wire layers may be added beneath the turf for protection from burrowing animals, and weeds. In addition to the effects of soil compaction, artificial turf changes the quality of the soil beneath it by starving the soil of water, air, and light. Artificial turf has also been shown to degrade over time, leaching chemicals from the plastic turf material and the infill materials into stormwater runoff that can soak into surrounding soils, further disturbing soil health. Pet Waste Buildup Pet waste can build up over time on artificial turf, and additional maintenance is required to keep artificial lawns fresh. Artificial turf companies have designed special types of turf to improve pet waste drainage and claim that it can better eliminate waste than natural grass. Pet-friendly infill has also been created with a special coating to prevent odors and the growth of bacteria. Despite these measures, artificial turf needs to be rinsed off after use by pets. To fully sanitize artificial turf when pet waste builds up, infill must be vacuumed out and a special cleaner applied to break down urine and other waste. Natural grass and other plant installations do not need this type of maintenance and special products; the elements naturally break down remnant pet waste. Cost A New York Times investigation compared costs for artificial turf lawns. Bids to install a large artificial turf grass lawn averaged $10,000. The average lifetime of artificial grass is 10 years or less and there are maintenance costs associated with artificial turf, and costs associated with removal and replacement at end of life. Natural grass lawns are likely to have longer lifespans if managed sustainably. Natural lawn costs increase substantially if located in an area that requires supplemental irrigation. One way to lower such costs is to install drought-resistant or low-water species of grass in drought-prone regions, though irrigation systems will likely be needed even if used less frequently. Regarding athletic fields specifically, many schools and universities choose to install artificial turf rather than natural grass fields because artificial turf is a durable play surface that allows for continuous use, while natural grass can require rest between athletic activities. Artificial turf can also save on maintenance costs associated with irrigation and mowing. However, artificial turf has been shown to require heat related closures, maintenance such as brushing and sanitization, regular replacement of infill material, and even irrigation to improve heat conditions and playability. The Toxics Use Reduction Institute (TURI) has conducted several studies comparing costs between artificial fields and natural grass fields that show that organically managed natural grass fields can improve play conditions, reduce wear and tear related closures, and lower maintenance costs. Costs to install a variety of natural grass field installations range from $0.60-$5.00 per square foot, and estimates for artificial turf costs range from $4.50-$10.25 per square foot. TURI’s research concludes that artificial turf athletic fields can cost 2 to 10 times more than organically managed natural grass fields over their life cycles when accounting for installation fees, maintenance fees, and disposal and replacement fees at the end of an artificial turf’s lifecycle. Many sports facilities decide that the investment is worth it because artificial turf can extend playing time, and be used in any season or weather condition, including in snow. Conclusion Artificial turf has gained popularity, particularly in the increasingly arid West, as it conserves water used on outdoor landscapes and sports fields, among other reasons, like extending playing time for athletic activities. While artificial turf eliminates the need for pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers used on natural grass, it can have considerable drawbacks. Artificial turf can have unexpected negative impacts to water supplies including requiring watering for cooling on hot days and hindering groundwater recharge. The heat generated by artificial turf can increase urban heat island effect and cause heat- related injuries. To date, there are few sustainable options for artificial turf recycling, leading to stacks of discarded artificial turf building up the world over. In addition to the above issues, the chemicals and microplastic particles that make up artificial turf can leach into the environment, causing environmental and health impacts not yet entirely known. And, while many artificial turf companies tout the material as more cost-effective, cost comparisons with natural grass show that in some cases artificial turf is significantly more expensive. Better alternatives to artificial turf exist in the form of water wise landscaping, including drought-resistant and native species of grasses, trees, shrubs, and perennials. Water-wise landscaping can reduce irrigation water use significantly, with some native plants and grasses requiring no or very little supplemental irrigation. While water savings vary depending on what is installed, compared to cool season turf, water-wise plantings provide numerous other benefits such as pollinator habitat, reduced fertilizer and pesticide use, and groundwater recharge. As the West faces a hotter and drier future, we must continue to research and assess opportunities for reducing landscape water demand while maximizing benefits and minimizing negative consequences. For residential property owners seeking to be more water efficient or wanting lower maintenance landscaping, artificial turf is likely not the hoped-for solution due to costs and wide-ranging environmental and potential health impacts. From: Christopher C. Nixon To: Planning Public Comments; nannette@slcgov.com Cc: jan Nixon Subject: (EXTERNAL) Comment on Landscaping, Park Strip Changes to Code 21A.48 Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 12:25:04 PM Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. To Whom It May Concern, I just learned of this public comment opportunity through our neighborhood social media, not from city officials. Apparently, the first comment opportunity has come and gone with little publicity. Salt Lake City must try harder to not only save water, but also to provide the public with more chances to have a say in what we can do as individuals and neighbors. The water crisis is serious. City officials need to get serious, too. What Salt Lake City needs to do first is to stop all the water waste on park strips and adjoining properties. Every day in the summer, I see broken and badly adjusted sprinklers watering the street and sidewalks. I’ve received two citations from SLC Civil Enforcement wanting to penalize me for getting rid of park strip turf and putting in a water-wise, attractive rock garden. What is Civil Enforcement doing about the gutter rivers from the wastrels that are mismanaging their landscape and park strip water? Do city planners need water-wise residents to submit photos and addresses of these residential, commercial, and industrial wastrels across the city? I know neighbors who would like to have a say in this but also missed the opportunity. The city planning division should re-open the public comment period and have it properly noticed in the Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune. KSL and KUER would air PSAs to let people know. Please get serious about the drought situation and bring the residents onboard to find solutions. Thank you. Jan Nixon Salt Lake City Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From: Margaret Holloway To: Larsen, Nannette Subject: (EXTERNAL) design presented on landscaping last night Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 11:25:34 AM I see a design with a tree in the corner with mulch and drought bushes spotted around. The problem with mulch is that leaves that fall from the tree can not be raked or blown without removing the mulch with the leaves. So that is a problem I was going to put bark and mulch like this buyt my trees drop small leaves and large leaves during the year. WHich i saw before i did this new landscaping. So it sounds and looks good until the trees drop leaves. Margaret Holloway 1412 west 1100 north Salt Lake City, Utah Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From: Kyle Deans To: Larsen, Nannette Subject: (EXTERNAL) PC Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 12:41:42 PM Nannette, I am sending this in regards to the Landscaping and Buffers Amendments. I am in full support of anything that can help reduce the consumption of water by SLC residents, especially when it comes to non essential ornamental landscapes. Kyle Deans SLC Resident August 1, 2023 Re: Landscaping and Buffers Chapter Amendments Dear Nannette, Mayor and City Council Proposed Park strip requirements allowing up to 50% rock and not allowing any turf grass as approved in the Planning Commission's final draft of the landscape requirements is a bad idea and defeats the larger goal of reducing the heat island effect and promoting mature tree growth. Park strip water use needs improvement, but the code as written needs revision. Rock mulch and no turf at all hurt our city. No turf is a negative for families with children that like to play in thei r front yard. North Dakota State Horticulturist Tom Kalb has written, "Do you enjoy torturing plants? If yes, get some rock mulch and put it around your plants. Rock mulch does nothing for a plant. A rocky bed may look good to us, but the plants are crying in pain." https://www.ndsu.edu/agriculture/extension/extension-topics/gardening-and-horticulture/trees-and- shrubs/choosing-mulch-trees-and 50% rock will add to the heat island effect and hurt tree growth! Rock is a material that absorbs heat and bakes the surface roots of any plants and trees within the park strip. It retains heat throughout the day and contributes to the heat island effect and evaporation of water in the soil. Also rocks add no nutrients to park strip plants or trees. Rock mulch should not be encouraged as it contributes to the heat island effect. Families with children have front yards where children play soccer and other sports. Turf grass in a residential mow strip should be allowed to extend this play area for families. Turf is easy to maintain, fun to play on, and when it is under a large, shaded canopy of trees uses much less water. Native turf is available. Products like Habiturf offers waterwise planting, "The resulting Habiturf®is a blend of Bouteloua dactyloides (buffalograss), Bouteloua gracilis {blue grama) and Hilaria belangeri curly mesquite). It establishes quickly and, best of all, conserves precious resources once established. It does especially well in the dry regions of Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arizona." Obviously not everyone should have turf for their mow strip and when poorly irrigated they can waste water, but in many places, it makes good sense. For example, our family and many other families sat on grassy mow strips downtown to watch the Pioneer Day parade. Also, our family with small children play sports in our yard and the mow strip turf extends that play area. In addition, the turf mow strip areas are cooler, tend to have trees that grow better because it is cooler than rock mulch and hardscape. Turf absorbs rain and snow moisture and contributes to city cooling better than rock mulch. I would recommend that turf be allowed with an approved irrigation plan that minimizes any water run off into the street and includes shade trees that at mature canopy cover 75% of the mow strip. A balance of shade trees and turf grass can be water efficient and urban cooling. We can save water in other ways by reducing the width of our wide streets, reducing the amount of surface parking lots and all the unnecessary asphalt. Of course, other mow strip plants and shrubs and grasses can be beautiful and should be encouraged, but turf should not be banned completely. Rock is not a good alternative to turf grass. Sincerely, Josh Stewart Architect and Urban Designer 1867 Princeton Ave Salt Lake City Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Larsen Nannette Planning Public Comments; City Council Liaisons; (EXTERNAL) Second Public Comment on 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates Thursday, July 20, 2023 4:57:24 PM West Side Street UHI Despite Park Strip Trees jpg Freshly Black Topped West Side Street UHI.jpg Public Comment Follow-Up to 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates From: Stanley Holmes 7-20-2023 Dear Salt Lake City Planning Division, As a follow-up to my 4-25-202 public comment [copied further below] urging the S.L.City Planning Commission to reject the proposed 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates, I submit the following inquiry along with suggestions for improvement of your Urban Forest Action Plan adopted Feb. 2023. First, the inquiry. Some residents have asked me whether the new park strips street tree requirement applies to park strips abutting existing homes as well as to new homes and remodeled homes. My responses have included references to the Salt Lake City Planning Division's ordinance revision proposal report that was submitted to the SLC Planning Commission on April 26, 2023, the day the Commission considered proposed Landscape and Buffers Chapter [21A.48] Amendments. That report included the Planning Commission Draft as Attachment B. My counsel to residents for whom the ordinance revision is unclear is that, as worded, the new park strips street tree requirement applies everyone, with few exceptions. I point to the following document components which, taken together, substantiate this: The 4-26-2023 document states that it is intended to "Specify responsibilities of the property owner." Applicability [21A.48.020] chapter provisions state that the ordinance "[A]pplies to all properties within the city, unless otherwise exempted in another chapter." Responsibility & Maintenance [21A.48.040] chapter provisions state that, with reference to park strips, "The owner of the property abutting the park strip shall be responsible for the correct installation, maintenance, repair, or replacement of all landscaping vegetation..." and include "Providing sufficient irrigation to a street tree located in the abutting park strip." That section proceeds to list multiple requirements for irrigation systems. The Landscape Plan chapter, 21A.48.050, indicates that a landscape plan is only required for "[New] construction of a primary structure" and alterations to an [existing] property that increase the floor area by 50% or more. The next chapter, Landscape Requirements [21A.48.060], however, makes no distinction between properties requiring a landscape plan and those that do not, when it states that "Where there are conflicting standards in this chapter, the more restrictive requirements shall apply." Park Strip Standards include "Minimum of 1 street tree..." and, for overall vegetation, "Minimum 33% coverage." The General Standards chapter, 21A.48.080, states that "All landscape improvements in the required landscape locations, as described in 21A.48.060 and 21A.48.70 shall meet the regulations described in this section." Under the chapter's Specific Park Strip Standards section, the Street Trees:Substitutions rule is that the Urban Forester "may approve a substitute of the required street tree provision for a cash in lieu payment..." In the Key Considerations section, under Consideration 2, the SLC Planning Division's 4-26-2023 document references its Urban Forest Action Plan, then concludes that the proposed landscaping chapter will include the requirement that "[S]treet trees are required in every park strip depending on the length of the park strip." [Attachment A, Water Conservation and Landscaping Regulations Council Briefing Report, includes specific observations and recommendations in its Water Conservation and Landscaping Regulations. It acknowledges that "property owners are not aware" of landscape zoning rules and criticizes the current landscape chapter's "lack of Gliot Tony; clarity" and consequent problems that include resident violations and subsequent [civil] enforcement actions. My takeaway is that the Division has identified a problem, but not corrected it.] Looking again at the Planning Commission Draft: The first textual content specifying applicability to new construction does not occur until chapter 21A.48.050, Landscape Plan, where it states that such a plan shall be required for new construction and modification of an existing property's floor plan by 50% or more. Up to that point, the revision suggests that requirements apply to all residences...with a few exceptions. Prior to 21A.48.050 we have: ~ 21A.48.020: Applicability... "The provisions of this chapter apply to all properties within the city, unless otherwise exempted..." ~ 21A.48.040: Responsibility and Maintenance ... "The owner of the property abutting the park strip shall be responsible for...all landscaping vegetation." "Providing sufficient irrigation to a street tree located in the abutting park strip." "shall provide water adequately and efficiently to each street tree..." Then, in 21A.48.060 under Park Strip Standards, the document sets a minimum of one street tree per park strip and a minimum 33% vegetation. No distinction is made between existing properties and those requiring a landscape plan. If the Commission intended to exempt existing properties, it should have stated that. I therefore conclude that the SLC Planning Division document fails to convince me that the revised ordinance requirements would only apply to new projects or non-residential landscape sites. While there are separate chapters in the Division and Commission portions of document that apply to new projects and changes to existing residential property floor plans, and there are later chapters citing variations for certain areas, such as the Northwest Quadrant, there are no residential park strip requirement waivers or exemptions specified in prior chapters. Nor is it stated in introductory sections, such as Project Description or later in Purpose & Intent, that the ordinance update does not apply to most existing residential properties. General applicability of the park strip street tree requirement should have been clearly stated up front, but was not. Since the proposed ordinance update is not clear about all who would be subjected to the new park strip street tree requirement, my counsel is that SLC residents whose park strips have no trees should assume they will be required to make changes if the Commission-approved ordinance update is adopted by the Salt Lake City Council. What would you say to SLC residents who feel threatened by the proposed ordinance update? Finally: Some comments on the Urban Forest Action Plan (UFAP)… Inasmuch as the City is concerned about the urban heat island (UHI) effects of <33% vegetation covered park strips, and is focusing on irrigated park strip street trees as a solution, I am surprised that the UFAP lacks details about the UHI of super-wide residential streets, especially on the West Side. For example, 1100 West and 400 North are 77 feet wide. That's the width of seven or eight car lanes…all imposing intense UHI effects and trying-to- stay-cool cost burdens on economically vulnerable families. The only [passing] reference to the option of street trees median strips is a sketch on page 76. There's no discussion of the functionality of street trees median strips, which could be quite useful in reducing UHI on wide residential streets. I have attached to this comment the photo of a West Side street block whose park strips are full of trees. Notice the huge area of exposed street pavement still drawing and radiating heat. Another attached photo shows a recently black-topped street. Why is the City still coating streets with black when lighter alternatives are available? There are other cost-burden, mitigation responsibility, and water conservation topics that should inform improvements to the Urban Forest Action Plan and the revision of city ordinance 21A.48 prior to the City Council's scheduling of public hearings and its final vote. Thank you for your attention to questions and suggestions raised in this, my second, public comment to the City regarding plans, policies, and programs to address climate change impacts that threaten our quality of life. And please let me know when any potential revisions are available to the public prior to City Council hearings. Thanks. Stanley Holmes 846 N. East Capitol Blvd. Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Quoting "Larsen, Nannette" <Nannette.Larsen@slcgov.com>: Stanley, Thank you for your comments. I will forward them to the Planning Commission for commission members to view before the public hearing tomorrow. Best, NANNETTE LARSEN | (She/Her) Senior Planner PLANNING DIVISION | SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION Mobile: (801) 535-7645 Email: Nannette.Larsen@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING WWW.SLC.GOV From: Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 12:52 PM To: Larsen, Nannette <Nannette.Larsen@slcgov.com>; Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com> Cc: Wharton, Chris <Chris.Wharton@slcgov.com>; City Council Liaisons <City.Council.Liaisons@slcgov.com>; slcgreen <slcgreen@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) Public Comment on Petition PLNPCM2023-00098 - 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Public Comment on Petition PLNPCM2023-00098 - 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates From: Stanley Holmes 4-25-2023 Dear Salt Lake City Planning Commission, I urge you to reject the proposed ordinance rewrite of 21A Zoning that was submitted as Petition PLNPCM2023-00098 - "21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates" as flawed and problematic on several fronts. The set of proposed amendments to Title 21A Zoning should be remanded back to Salt Lake City's Planning Division ("Division") for revision and a new, more appropriately noticed 45- day public comment period to be opened by the Division before a corrected set of proposed Title 21A Zoning amendments is brought before the Planning Commission ("Commission"). The proposed changes to Title 21A Zoning Chapter 48 under consideration now would have significant, wide-ranging, and costly impacts for many Salt Lake City ("City") property owners of various means and for all city taxpayers. That the Division would rely primarily on community council chairs to, at their individual discretion and in a timely manner, notify the general public of statutory/regulatory changes of this scope and magnitude can be most graciously characterized as cavalier. Division records indicate that only four comments were received during the 45-day comment period and that Sugarhouse C.C. was the only community council to actively engage. I learned from city staff that the Division’s notification system had been used, but found that there are no water conservation, landscaping, energy conservation, environment, or other sustainability categories listed. Through which category did the Division send the landscaping code updates notice; and how many city residents actually get notices through that means? Please be advised, and let the public record show, that on April 20, 2023, I posted on the community blog --Nextdoor.com-- information about the proposed Title 21A Zoning changes and ways that interested citizens could submit public comments. Over the next five days, Nextdoor.com reported 1,400 views and there were 48 public comments. Please see evidence of this included with the Addendum at the close of my comment and attached. Those folks on Nextdoor.com were Salt Lake City residents who missed the initial comment period that ended on March 27th and, quite likely, also did not know about your April 26 Planning Commission meeting or their opportunities to submit public comments before the zoning/ordinance changes had become a ‘done deal.’ Outrageous. I am also quite surprised and disappointed that there was no input from the Sustainability Department, and wonder how their input was solicited. SLCGreen is copied on this comment, as are my District 3 Councilman Chris Wharton and the City Council Liaisons. City officials should have known that not every community council would post or distribute the notice. Not every potentially interested and impacted citizen is on a community council distribution list or regularly checks a community council's website. One might wonder to what extent the Division was truly desirous of robust public input, having solicited comments by such a narrow and undependable means. The Commission should insist upon a proper re-do of the public comment period and extend its further consideration of any Title 21A Zoning Chapter 48 amendments until legitimate opportunities for public input have occurred. The proposed Petition PLNPCM2023-00098 - "21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates" are themselves in several ways inadequate and problematic. Their 'as is' endorsement by the Commission and the City Council would, upon attempted implementation and enforcement by the City, certainly result in strong opposition that would include costly litigation. Please recall that the most recent revision of 21A.48 was in the year 2000, prior to over two decades of climate change-exacerbated heat increases and drought that finally prompted state and local officials to take action. The updates now under consideration were supposed to deal more effectively with the climate change-related impacts. Let me begin with the proposed re-write of 21A.48.010, the Purpose and Intent section. While the earlier version calls for promoting "the prudent use of water", the update would remove this and make no mention of water conservation as a priority. The lead "purpose" of a revised chapter 21A.48 would be to "increase Salt Lake City's urban tree canopy"; and the lead "intent" would be to "promote and enhance the community's appearance." While trees are nice, useful, and can be aesthetically pleasing, the City is located in the second driest U.S. state and is experiencing an unprecedented, worsening drought. Water conservation should not only have been mentioned in the proposed re-write of 21A.48.010, but been listed as a priority goal, as has been done by other Utah municipalities. Why was this not done? Under the current zoning ordinance, Section 21A.48.060 refers to Park Strip Landscaping and one of the "intent" items is to "encourage water conservation". But the proposed re-write (update) would change the title of 21A.48.060 to "Landscape Requirements" and remove the water conservation reference. The re-write of 21A.48.060 has a new "Park Strip Standards" section that adds the requirement of at least one "street tree" in the park strip. Additional park strip trees would be required, depending on the park strip length. The current ordinance has no park strip tree requirement. Therefore, residents who've implemented water-wise park strip measures --in compliance with the existing ordinance -- that do not include at least one street tree would be required to add a tree and, according to the 21A.48.040 re-write, see that it is "irrigated with a permanent automatic irrigation system." A hydrozoned irrigation system would be required, so that tree(s) watering can be isolated from any water needed for other vegetation. The park strip abutting property owner would have to pay for the new park strip tree-plus-irrigation requirement. That could be quite costly, especially if the park strip has to be excavated to install the required irrigation system. The Commission should assume that some residents will be unable to afford this and that others who had been compliant would rather fight the compliance rules change in court. Please consider the burden on low-income families, especially if the $25-per-day violation fine is retained. The Commission should also consider that the City's Department of Community and Neighborhood's Civil Enforcement staff would have to be expanded and that additional budgetary provisions would have to be made for the City's legal team. Litigation could delay implementation and enforcement of parts or all of the proposed 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates for an extended period of time. And aside from pushback from angry residents delaying implementation of the proposed ordinance updates, the sheer magnitude of any effort to achieve widespread compliance should sober city planners and policy-makers. Have Division staff conducted a city-wide, on-street survey of the number of park strips that would require tree-planting and new irrigation plumbing? Have they calculated how many contractors, and how many years, would be required to accomplish full implementation? Then, there's the additional per-tree water requirement times however many park strips would be affected. At this point, I'll add that there are some positive aspects of the proposed ordinance re-write, such as 21A.48.040.E.1., which says that "All irrigation systems shall be maintained in good operating condition to eliminate water waste and run-off into the public right-of-way." Drip irrigation is also mentioned in 21A.48.040.E, though it could have been promoted. Some of the proposed re-write items are not clear. For example, 21A.48.040.C.2. "Exceptions" circles back to itself. And under 21A.62 "Definitions", the Park Strip Landscaping section says that park strip landscaping may include "lawn", which is normally a reference to turf. The re-write, under 21A.48.060 and 21A.48.080, prohibits turf in park strips. There is also a reference to the right-of-way line's relevance if there is no sidewalk, but the dimensions of the right-of-way line are not given. As a final point to this comment, it concerns me that the City Planning Division failed to take a holistic view of the abutting residential property owner's landscape unless a new home is being constructed or the floor area of an existing structure(s) is being expanded by 50% or more. The overall vegetative contribution of individual residential properties that are not undergoing structural change is ignored by the proposed 21A Zoning rewrite's determination of compliance or non- compliance with new park strip requirements. I can imagine situations where the owner of a well- wooded, well-vegetated residential property is forced to install and water a park strip tree while the owner of a minimally vegetated property who happens to have a tree in the park strip is left alone. Where is the environmental justice in that? Salt Lake City needs to do a better job of conserving water. The proposed amendments to Title 21A Zoning are inadequate to the task, as they do not give water conservation the top priority status our current megadrought crisis demands. I urge the Commission to deny Petition PLNPCM2023-00098 - "21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates" and send it back to the Division for revision and a properly noticed, 45-day public review and comment period. I thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration of the points I raised and your directive to have the ordinance revised in a more transparent way that better engages the public and serves the City's best interests. Stanley Holmes 846 N. East Capitol Blvd. Salt Lake City, UT 84103 Addendum: My attempt to use Nextdoor.com to notify the public of proposed 21A.48 changes, first posted on April 20, 2023, is copied below. In five days, 1,400 views and 48 resident comments. The Planning Division got 4 public comments in 45 days. Stan Holmes Author • West Capitol Hills•0 mi SLC Park Strip, Landscape Policy Changes Public comments are being taken by the Salt Lake City Planning Division and Planning Commission as they consider city-wide changes to the Landscaping Chapter of the Zoning Code. This includes proposed revision of the Park Strip ordinance under which many city residents have been penalized for their water conservation efforts. The proposed Park Strip policy revision would require one "street tree" every 30 feet and vegetation covering at least 30% of the area. See all proposed amendments at... www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Online%20Open%20Houses/2023/02_2023/PLNPCM2023- 00098/02102023%20DRAFT%20Landscaping%20Updates_Posted.pdf The Planning Commission will consider landscape/park strip ordinance changes at its April 26 meeting. Public comments can be submitted in-person or via email to and . Reference case number PLNPCM2023-00098 in the subject line. The agenda for next Wednesday's (April 26) Planning Commission meeting is at... www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2023/PC04.26.2023/PC04.26.2023agenda.pdf Whatever the Planning Commission decides will then be presented to the City Council for final approval. Now is the time to shift from opinion to action and file a public comment. Stan Holmes Author • West Capitol Hills•0 mi The email addresses that were stripped are planning.comments and nannette.larsen that are both at slc.gov. They are also listed in the April 26 agenda at... www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2023/PC04.26.2023/PC04.26.2023agenda.pdf also attached: 5) PUBLIC UTILITIES DIRECTOR STATEMENT From: Briefer, Laura To: Larsen, Nannette Cc: Thompson, Amy; Bench, Nikole; Rice, Marian; Duer, Stephanie; Draper, Jason Subject: RE: Landscaping Chapter Planning Commission Public Hearing Tonight Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 1:02:05 PM Attachments: image002.png image003.png Good afternoon, Nannette – please let me know if this will be useful tonight for the questions concerning artificial turf– see below: Artificial turf has the potential to impact water quality and stormwater runoff in the following ways: 1. The combination of soil compaction in the installation of artificial turf and the material that is used does not allow water to be retained onsite. As such, this is considered an impermeable surface. This contributes to additional stormwater runoff from a site, which can have negative downstream impacts, such as flashier and increased stormwater flows. 2. As stormwater flows across impermeable surfaces it picks up and carries pollutants that get deposited in receiving water bodies, such as the Jordan River and streams that flow through our city. All stormwater that flows through Salt Lake City ultimately heads toward Great Salt Lake. 3. Pollutants of concern that can emanate directly from artificial turf include micro-plastics and PFAS compounds (https://www.epa.gov/pfas/pfas-explained). PFAS compounds are “forever chemicals” that pose health risks to people and animals. It is unclear whether all artificial turf contains PFAS compounds, but there is evidence that at least some of it does. To our knowledge, it is not currently tested and certified regarding the presence or absence of PFAS. Microplastics also pose health risks to people and animals. Both PFAS and microplastics are ubiquitous in the environment, and there is much concern nationally and globally about this pollution. 4. Artificial turf also needs to be washed periodically, which could contribute runoff that contains cleaning chemicals. Pet feces needs to be removed from artificial turf, and pathogens from pet feces could be introduced into stormwater during cleaning. Regulatory and health considerations with respect to PFAS compounds: Salt Lake City Public Utilities is obligated to comply with drinking water and clean water regulations promulgated by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and enforced by both the Utah Department of Environmental Quality and the EPA. The EPA is prioritizing the regulation of PFAS in drinking water and in cradle to grave hazardous materials regulations (https://www.epa.gov/pfas/key-epa-actions- address- pfas#:~:text=On%20August%2026%2C%202022%2C%20EPA,for%20cleaning%20up%20their%20c ontamination). In March 2023, EPA proposed new very stringent regulations for six PFAS compounds with a proposed maximum contaminant level of four (4) parts per trillion, showcasing that EPA is extremely concerned about the health risks associated with PFAS in drinking water. The EPA is also considering new regulations under the Clean Water Act which would affect stormwater and wastewater discharges. Finally, EPA is considering new PFAS regulations under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, also known as Superfund). This primarily impacts environmental remediation for PFAS-contaminated soil and water, and there is some concern about the potential long thread of liability associated with PFAS contamination. Please let me know if you have any further questions. I have added Jason and Stephanie to this email thread too. LAURA BRIEFER, MPA | (She/Her/Hers) DIRECTOR Department of Public Utilities | Salt Lake City Corporation Office: (801) 483-6741 Cell: (385) 252-9379 Email: Laura.Briefer@slcgov.com www.slc.gov/utilities www.slc.gov Signature: Alejandro Sanchez (Dec 4, 2023 13:15 MST) Email: alejandro.sanchez@slcgov.com 11152023 Transmittal FINAL Final Audit Report 2023-12-04 "11152023 Transmittal FINAL" History Document created by Aubrey Clark (aubrey.clark@slcgov.com) 2023-11-27 - 6:43:40 PM GMT Document emailed to Blake Thomas (blake.thomas@slcgov.com) for signature 2023-11-27 - 6:46:21 PM GMT Email viewed by Blake Thomas (blake.thomas@slcgov.com) 2023-11-27 - 6:54:35 PM GMT Document e-signed by Blake Thomas (blake.thomas@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2023-11-27 - 8:29:54 PM GMT - Time Source: server Document emailed to Alejandro Sanchez (alejandro.sanchez@slcgov.com) for signature 2023-11-27 - 8:29:57 PM GMT Email viewed by Alejandro Sanchez (alejandro.sanchez@slcgov.com) 2023-11-27 - 8:31:28 PM GMT New document URL requested by Blake Thomas (blake.thomas@slcgov.com) 2023-12-04 - 8:11:11 PM GMT Document e-signed by Alejandro Sanchez (alejandro.sanchez@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2023-12-04 - 8:15:44 PM GMT - Time Source: server Document emailed to rachel otto (rachel.otto@slcgov.com) for signature 2023-12-04 - 8:15:48 PM GMT Email viewed by rachel otto (rachel.otto@slcgov.com) 2023-12-04 - 10:33:18 PM GMT Document e-signed by rachel otto (rachel.otto@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2023-12-04 - 10:34:11 PM GMT - Time Source: server Created: 2023-11-27 By: Aubrey Clark (aubrey.clark@slcgov.com) Status: Signed Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAA0PzvbpGjNz77WUcjaXmTX2mPGTprNRHF Agreement completed. 2023-12-04 - 10:34:11 PM GMT Item F1 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Sam Owen, Policy Analyst DATE:January 9, 2024 RE:Ordinance: Airport Board Code MOTION 1 I move the Council adopt the ordinance. MOTION 2 I move the Council not adopt the ordinance. 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: November 29, 2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: November 29, 2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: November 29, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Bill Wyatt, Executive Director, Department of Airports SUBJECT: Airport Board Ordinance Revisions STAFF CONTACTS: Brady Fredrickson, Director of Airport Planning and Capital Programming DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Adopt ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: With the construction of the new Salt Lake City International Airport, the Department of Airports has been reviewing Salt Lake City Code, policy, and procedures for consistency with the new facilities and operational practices, and to discern if any changes are needed. While reviewing Section 2.14 of the Salt Lake City Code, creating the Airport Board, the Department found the Section does not currently comply with state law. The proposed amendments bring Section 2.14 of the Salt Lake City Code into alignment with state law and better reflect the current function of the Airport Board. Subsection 2.07.020, City Boards and Commissions Named, is included in the changes as well to update the name of the Board. Below is brief summary of the changes. SUMMARY OF CHANGES: Composition of the Airport Advisory Board: • Number of board members changed from 9 to 11, in accordance with state law; • Definition of “qualifying political subdivision” added to clarify which political subdivisions may appoint a member to the Board; • Appointment process for political subdivision representatives added to comply with state law; • Specific qualifications of “at least one member with experience in commercial or industrial construction projects with a budget of at least $10,000,000” and “at least one member with experience in management and oversight of an entity with an operating budget of at least $10,000,000” added in accordance with state law; rachel otto (Nov 29, 2023 16:28 MST) 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 • The number of board members who may reside outside of Salt Lake City, but in the state, reduced to two. Changes to Clarify the Role of the Airport Advisory Board: • Name change to reflect advisory nature of Board; • Powers and duties amended so that policy-making functions are retained by the City Council and board members focus on providing feedback to the Mayor and Executive Director of the Airport. Changes to Subsection 2.07.020, City Boards and Commissions Named: • Name of Airport Boad updated to Airport Advisory Board. • Other cross references to the “Airport Board” exist in Title 16 and Section 2.08 of the Salt Lake City Code. Because both Title 16 and Section 2.08 are currently in the process of being revised, the name of the Board will be updated in those ordinances. EXHIBITS: 1. Airport Board Amendment Ordinance, Final Version 2. Airport Board Amendment Ordinance, Legislative Version 3. Utah Code §72-10-203.5, Advisory boards of airports and extraterritorial airports LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1 No. ______ of 2023 2 3 (An ordinance amending Section 2.14 of the Salt Lake City Code, Airport Board, and Subsection 4 2.07.020, City Boards and Commissions Named.) 5 WHEREAS, Section 2.14 of the Salt Lake City Code, creating the Airport Board, 6 requires amendment to align with state law; and 7 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council has reviewed the amendments and determined 8 that adopting this ordinance is in the City’s best interests. 9 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah that: 10 SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 2.14. Section 2.14 of 11 the Salt Lake City Code, regarding the Airport Board, is hereby amended as follows: 12 CHAPTER 2.14 13 AIRPORT ADVISORY BOARD 14 15 2.14.010: General Provisions 16 2.14.020: Definitions 17 2.14.030: Creation Of Board 18 2.14.040: Eligibility For Membership 19 2.14.050: Term; Expiration 20 2.14.060: Powers And Duties 21 22 2.14.010: GENERAL PROVISIONS: The provisions of chapter 2.07 of this title shall apply to 23 the airport advisory board except as otherwise set forth in this chapter. 24 25 2.14.020: DEFINITIONS: 26 In this chapter, the following definitions apply: 27 AIRPORT: The city’s department of airports, and a All property owned or operated by the city 28 through its department of airports, including the Salt Lake City International Airport, South 29 Valley Regional Airport, Tooele Valley Airport, and any other airport owned or operated by the 30 city. 31 BOARD: The city airport advisory board. 32 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2 BOARD MEMBER: A person appointed by the mayor, with the advice and consent of the 33 council, who is a duly qualified voting member of the board. 34 CITY: Salt Lake City, a municipal corporation of the state. 35 COUNCIL: The city council of the City. 36 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF AIRPORTS: The city’s executive director of its department of 37 airports. 38 EX OFFICIO MEMBER: A duly qualified and nonvoting member of the board. 39 MAYOR: The duly elected or appointed, and qualified mayor of the city. 40 POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: A county or a municipality in the state. 41 POLITICAL SUBDIVISION REPRESENTATIVE: A voting board member, appointed by a 42 qualifying political subdivision. the mayor, with the advice and consent of the council. A 43 political subdivision representative must, at the time of appointment, be an elected official of a 44 political subdivision which has within its boundaries an airport owned by the city. 45 QUALIFYING POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: A city or town in which an extraterritorial 46 airport owned and operated by the city is located or, if the airport is not located in a city or town, 47 the county in which the extraterritorial airport is located. 48 49 2.14.030: CREATION OF BOARD: 50 There is created the city airport board, hereinafter referred to as “board” 51 A. There is created an airport advisory board. The advisory board shall consist of: 52 1. Nine (9) eleven (11) appointed voting board members, with the following composition 53 and limitations: no more than two (2) three (3) of whom may reside outside the boundaries of 54 Salt Lake City; 55 1. One appointed political subdivision representative from each qualifying political 56 subdivision, each of whom shall be included in the total number of appointed board 57 members. The political subdivision representatives shall be appointed: 58 a. in accordance with an ordinance or policy in place in each qualifying 59 political subdivision for appointing individuals to a board, if any; or 60 b. if no ordinance or policy described in subsection (A)(1)(a) exists, by the 61 chief executive officer of the qualifying political subdivision, with advice 62 and consent from the legislative body of the qualifying political subdivision. 63 2. Not counting the political subdivision representatives, no more than two (2) board 64 members may reside outside the boundaries of Salt Lake City; 65 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 3 3. At least one board member must have experience in commercial or industrial 66 construction projects with a budget of at least $10,000,000. 67 4. At least one board member must have experience in management and oversight of an 68 entity with an operating budget of at least $10,000.000. 69 5. 2. One appointed political subdivision representative from each qualifying 70 political subdivision; and 71 3.B. Ex officio members: 72 1. The city council member in whose council district the Salt Lake City International 73 Airport is located; and 74 75 2. The mayor, or the mayor’s designee; 76 b. Each council member; 77 c. The director of airports, or the director's designee; 78 d. The city attorney, or the city attorney's designee; and 79 e. The city engineer, or the city engineer's designee. 80 2.14.040: ELIGIBILITY FOR MEMBERSHIP: 81 To be eligible to be appointed as a board member a person must be: 82 A. Not less than twenty one (21) years of age; 83 B. A resident of the state; and 84 C. Not actively engaged or employed in commercial aeronautics. 85 2.14.050: TERM; EXPIRATION: 86 All appointments shall be made for a four (4) year term, consistent with the city’s boards and 87 commissions ordinance, chapter 2.07 of this title. A board member may not serve more than two 88 (2) four-year terms. 89 2.14.060: POWERS AND DUTIES: 90 The board shall have the following powers and duties: 91 A. The power to determine and establish such rules and regulations for the conduct of the 92 board as the board members, and form committees or subcommittees as the board shall deem 93 advisable. Such rules and regulations shall not be in conflict with this chapter or other applicable 94 city, state or federal law; 95 B. The duty to review To adopt and alter all airport rules and regulations before adoption by 96 the mayor, and provide advice to the mayor about those rules and regulations which it shall from 97 time to time deem in the public interest and most likely to advance, enhance, foster and promote 98 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 4 air transportation at city airports, for the conduct of the business of, and the use and operation of, 99 the airport and the facilities thereof, and for the purpose of carrying out the objects of this 100 chapter; but such rules and regulations shall not be in conflict with the terms of this chapter or 101 any other city ordinance, state or federal law; 102 C. The right to To recommend an individual to be appointed as the appointment and/or 103 removal of the executive director of airports, and also to recommend the appointment and/or 104 removal of the deputy director of airports and any project manager hired by the city. All other 105 personnel shall be processed through the city personnel department with final recommendations 106 to come from the director of airports and with appointment by the board; 107 D. The right to be apprised of To plan, establish and approve all major construction and 108 expansion projects for the airport. The approval required in this section shall be in addition to all 109 other approval of other city departments required by law; 110 E. The duty to To determine consider and provide feedback to the executive director on broad 111 matters of policy regarding the operation and management of the airport, including which shall 112 include, but not in limitation thereof, the following: 113 1. Expansion of the airport, 114 2. Timing of such expansion, 115 3. Determining the method of establishing and establishing rate structures for services or 116 facilities furnished by the airport to the public or to any person, firm or corporation, public or 117 private, and for leasing of space or facilities, or for granting rights, privileges, or concessions at 118 the airport, 119 4. The duration which will be allowed for each particular class of leases or granting of 120 rights at the airport, 121 5. To establish any other general provisions of agreements or leases which may be brought 122 before the board, 123 1.6. To provide input make determinations when required as to the public need and for 124 additional concessionaires, services or facilities amenities at the airport, 125 7. To fix and determine exclusively the uses to which any of the airport land shall be put; 126 provided, that any use shall be necessary or desirable to city, airport or the aviation industry, 127 8. Review and establish policy on all operations or activities that are major in nature and 128 require policy determinations, 129 2.9. To review and provide feedback on Review and establish policy regarding the capital 130 improvement program of the airport’s master plan study as related to income and revenue so that 131 the staging of major capital improvement projects are within the anticipated airport revenues and 132 income projected, in a conservative manner, 133 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 5 3.10. To review and provide feedback on Review and adopt matters of policy on all major 134 problems which require broad policy considerations, including rules and regulations, commercial 135 operations and general aviation, 136 11. Review and decide policy matters regarding problems of general public concern 137 affecting the airport, 138 12. Decide matters of policy regarding all matters which are properly brought before the 139 board; 140 F. To annually prepare review a budget for the operating and maintenance expenditures, 141 before approval of the budget by city council for the airport and to calculate the revenue 142 necessary to provide funds for the operating and maintenance expenditures of the airport. The 143 budget shall be prepared and filed at such time as the board shall designate and shall contain a 144 full and detailed estimate of the revenue required during the ensuing year for the maintenance 145 and operation of the airport, showing therein the number of employees, classification, and the 146 amount of salary and wages. The expenditures for the maintenance and operation of the airport 147 shall be limited to the extent of specific appropriations of money made in advance by the board 148 upon estimates furnished. The city council has final approval authority; 149 G. Review not less often than annually with the airport administration, the income from all 150 sources, the expenditures for all purposes, and the relationship of anticipated revenues to 151 anticipated expenditures, including debt retirement; 152 G.H. The duty to select a chair and vice chair of the board. Assist the director of airports in 153 every way possible for the continuing orderly development and promotion of the airport in order 154 to best serve the local and regional requirements for airport service. 155 SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 2.07.020. 156 Subsection 2.07.020 of the Salt Lake City Code, City Boards and Commissions Named, is 157 hereby amended as follows: 158 For the purpose of this chapter the term “city board” or “board” means the following city boards, 159 commissions, councils, and committees: 160 Accessibility and disability commission 161 Airport advisory board 162 Board of appeals and examiners 163 Business advisory board 164 Citizens' compensation advisory committee 165 City and county building conservancy and use committee 166 Community development and capital improvement programs advisory board 167 Community recovery committee 168 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 6 Fire code board of appeals 169 Golf enterprise fund advisory board 170 Historic landmark commission 171 Housing advisory and appeals board 172 Housing trust fund advisory board 173 Human rights commission 174 Library board 175 Parks, natural lands, trails, and urban forestry advisory board 176 Planning commission 177 Public utilities advisory committee 178 Racial equity in policing commission 179 Salt Lake art design board 180 Salt Lake City arts council board 181 Salt Lake City sister cities board 182 Transportation advisory board 183 SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date 184 of its first publication. 185 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ____________, 186 2023. 187 ___________________________ 188 CHAIRPERSON 189 190 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 191 192 ___________________________ 193 CITY RECORDER 194 195 APPROVED AS TO FORM: 196 197 _______________________ 198 Senior City Attorney 199 200 Transmitted to Mayor on ______________________. 201 202 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 7 Mayor’s Action: __________ Approved. ___________ Vetoed. 203 204 205 ____________________________ 206 MAYOR 207 208 209 210 ___________________________ 211 CITY RECORDER 212 213 214 (SEAL) 215 216 217 Bill No. ______ of 2023. 218 Published: _____________________. 219 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1 No. ______ of 2023 2 3 (An ordinance amending Section 2.14 of the Salt Lake City Code, Airport Board, and Subsection 4 2.07.020, City Boards and Commissions Named.) 5 WHEREAS, Section 2.14 of the Salt Lake City Code, creating the Airport Board, 6 requires amendment to align with state law; and 7 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council has reviewed the amendments and determined 8 that adopting this ordinance is in the City’s best interests. 9 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah that: 10 SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 2.14. Section 2.14 of 11 the Salt Lake City Code, regarding the Airport Board, is hereby amended as follows: 12 CHAPTER 2.14 13 AIRPORT ADVISORY BOARD 14 15 2.14.010: General Provisions 16 2.14.020: Definitions 17 2.14.030: Creation Of Board 18 2.14.040: Eligibility For Membership 19 2.14.050: Term; Expiration 20 2.14.060: Powers And Duties 21 22 2.14.010: GENERAL PROVISIONS: The provisions of chapter 2.07 of this title shall apply to 23 the airport advisory board except as otherwise set forth in this chapter. 24 2.14.020: DEFINITIONS: 25 In this chapter, the following definitions apply: 26 AIRPORT: All property owned or operated by the city through its department of airports, 27 including the Salt Lake City International Airport, South Valley Regional Airport, Tooele Valley 28 Airport, and any other airport owned or operated by the city. 29 BOARD: The city airport advisory board. 30 BOARD MEMBER: A person appointed by the mayor, with the advice and consent of the 31 council, who is a duly qualified voting member of the board. 32 2 CITY: Salt Lake City, a municipal corporation of the state. 33 COUNCIL: The city council of the City. 34 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF AIRPORTS: The city’s executive director of its department of 35 airports. 36 EX OFFICIO MEMBER: A duly qualified and nonvoting member of the board. 37 MAYOR: The duly elected or appointed, and qualified mayor of the city. 38 POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: A county or a municipality in the state. 39 POLITICAL SUBDIVISION REPRESENTATIVE: A voting board member, appointed by a 40 qualifying political subdivision. 41 QUALIFYING POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: A city or town in which an extraterritorial 42 airport owned and operated by the city is located or, if the airport is not located in a city or town, 43 the county in which the extraterritorial airport is located. 44 2.14.030: CREATION OF BOARD: 45 A. There is created an airport advisory board. The advisory board shall consist of eleven (11) 46 appointed voting board members, with the following composition and limitations: 47 1. One appointed political subdivision representative from each qualifying political 48 subdivision, each of whom shall be included in the total number of appointed board 49 members. The political subdivision representatives shall be appointed: 50 a. in accordance with an ordinance or policy in place in each qualifying 51 political subdivision for appointing individuals to a board, if any; or 52 b. if no ordinance or policy described in subsection (A)(1)(a) exists, by the 53 chief executive officer of the qualifying political subdivision, with advice 54 and consent from the legislative body of the qualifying political subdivision. 55 2. Not counting the political subdivision representatives, no more than two (2) board 56 members may reside outside the boundaries of Salt Lake City; 57 3. At least one board member must have experience in commercial or industrial 58 construction projects with a budget of at least $10,000,000. 59 4. At least one board member must have experience in management and oversight of an 60 entity with an operating budget of at least $10,000.000. 61 B. Ex officio members: 62 1. The city council member in whose council district the Salt Lake City International 63 Airport is located; and 64 65 2. The mayor, or the mayor’s designee. 66 3 2.14.040: ELIGIBILITY FOR MEMBERSHIP: 67 To be eligible to be appointed as a board member a person must be: 68 A. Not less than twenty one (21) years of age; 69 B. A resident of the state; and 70 C. Not actively engaged or employed in commercial aeronautics. 71 2.14.050: TERM; EXPIRATION: 72 All appointments shall be made for a four (4) year term. A board member may not serve more 73 than two (2) four-year terms. 74 2.14.060: POWERS AND DUTIES: 75 The board shall have the following powers and duties: 76 A. The power to determine and establish such rules and regulations for the conduct of the 77 board as the board members, and form committees or subcommittees as the board shall deem 78 advisable. Such rules and regulations shall not be in conflict with this chapter or other applicable 79 city, state or federal law; 80 B. The duty to review airport rules and regulations before adoption by the mayor, and provide 81 advice to the mayor about those rules and regulations; 82 C. The right to recommend an individual to be appointed as the executive director of airports; 83 D. The right to be apprised of all major construction and expansion projects for the airport; 84 E. The duty to consider and provide feedback to the executive director on broad matters of 85 policy regarding the operation and management of the airport, including the following: 86 1. To provide input amenities at the airport, 87 2. To review and provide feedback on policy regarding the capital improvement 88 program of the airport’s master plan study, 89 3. To review and provide feedback on matters regarding problems of general public 90 concern affecting the airport, 91 F. To annually review a budget for the operating and maintenance expenditures, before 92 approval of the budget by city council; 93 G. The duty to select a chair and vice chair of the board. 94 95 4 SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 2.07.020. 96 Subsection 2.07.020 of the Salt Lake City Code, City Boards and Commissions Named, is 97 hereby amended as follows: 98 For the purpose of this chapter the term “city board” or “board” means the following city boards, 99 commissions, councils, and committees: 100 Accessibility and disability commission 101 Airport advisory board 102 Board of appeals and examiners 103 Business advisory board 104 Citizens' compensation advisory committee 105 City and county building conservancy and use committee 106 Community development and capital improvement programs advisory board 107 Community recovery committee 108 Fire code board of appeals 109 Golf enterprise fund advisory board 110 Historic landmark commission 111 Housing advisory and appeals board 112 Housing trust fund advisory board 113 Human rights commission 114 Library board 115 Parks, natural lands, trails, and urban forestry advisory board 116 Planning commission 117 Public utilities advisory committee 118 Racial equity in policing commission 119 Salt Lake art design board 120 Salt Lake City arts council board 121 Salt Lake City sister cities board 122 Transportation advisory board 123 5 124 SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the 125 date of its first publication. 126 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of__________, 127 2023. 128 ___________________________ 129 CHAIRPERSON 130 131 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 132 133 ___________________________ 134 CITY RECORDER 135 136 APPROVED AS TO FORM: 137 138 _______________________ 139 Senior City Attorney 140 141 Transmitted to Mayor on ______________________. 142 143 Mayor’s Action: __________ Approved. ___________ Vetoed. 144 145 146 ___________________________ 147 MAYOR 148 149 150 151 ___________________________ 152 CITY RECORDER 153 154 155 (SEAL) 156 157 158 Bill No. ______ of 2023. 159 Published: _____________________. 160 Utah Code Page 1 Effective 5/9/2017 72-10-203.5 Advisory boards of airports and extraterritorial airports. (1) For purposes of this section: (a) "Airport owner" means the municipality, county, or airport authority that owns one or more airports. (b) "Extraterritorial airport" means an airport, including the airport facilities, real estate, or other assets related to the operation of an airport, outside the municipality or county and within the boundary of a different municipality or county. (2) (a) If an airport owner that owns an international airport also owns one or more extraterritorial airports, the airport owner shall create and maintain an advisory board as described in this section. (b) The advisory board shall advise and consult the airport owner according to the process set forth in ordinance, rule, or regulation of the airport owner. (3) (a) An advisory board described in Subsection (2) shall consist of 11 members, appointed as follows: (i) one individual from each municipality or county in which an extraterritorial airport is located, appointed: (A) according to an ordinance or policy in place in each municipality or county for appointing individuals to a board, if any; or (B) if no ordinance or policy described in Subsection (3)(a)(i)(A) exists, by the chief executive officer of the municipality or county, with advice and consent from the legislative body of the municipality or county in which the extraterritorial airport is located; and (ii) as many individuals as necessary, appointed by the chief executive officer of the airport owner, with advice and consent from the legislative body of the airport owner, when added to the individuals appointed under Subsection (3)(a)(i), to equal 11 total members on the advisory board. (b) The airport owner shall ensure that members of the advisory board have the following qualifications: (i) at least one member with experience in commercial or industrial construction projects with a budget of at least $10,000,000; and (ii) at least one member with experience in management and oversight of an entity with an operating budget of at least $10,000,000. (4) (a) (i) Except as provided in Subsections (4)(b) and (6)(b), the term of office for members of the advisory board shall be four years or until a successor is appointed, qualified, seated, and has taken the oath of office. (ii) A member of the advisory board may serve two terms. (b) When a vacancy occurs on the board for any reason, the replacement shall be appointed according to the procedures set forth in Subsection (3) for the member who vacated the seat, and the replacement shall serve for the remainder of the unexpired term. (5) The advisory board shall select a chair of the advisory board. (6) (a) For an airport owner that owns and operates an extraterritorial airport as of March 9, 2017, that has an advisory board in place, the members of the advisory board may complete the member's respective current term on the advisory board. Utah Code Page 2 (b) After March 9, 2017, and upon expiration of the current term of each member of the advisory board serving as of March 9, 2017, the airport owner shall ensure that the membership of the advisory board transitions to reflect the requirements of this section. (7) (a) The chief executive officer of each municipality or county in which an extraterritorial airport is located, with the advice and consent of the respective legislative body of the municipality or county, may create an extraterritorial airport advisory board to represent the interests of the extraterritorial airport. (b) The extraterritorial airport advisory boards described in Subsection (7)(a) shall meet at least quarterly, and: (i) shall provide advisory support to the member of the advisory board representing the municipality or county; and (ii) may advise in the request for proposals process of a fixed base operator for the respective extraterritorial airport. (8) The airport owner, in consultation with the airport advisory board, shall, consistent with the requirements of federal law, study, produce an analysis, and advise regarding the highest and best use and operational strategy for each airport, including all lands, facilities, and assets owned by the airport owner. (9) An airport owner, in consultation with the county auditor and the county assessor of a county in which an extraterritorial airport is located, shall explore in good faith whether a municipality or county where an extraterritorial airport is located receives airport-related tax disbursements to which the municipality or county is entitled. (10) An airport owner shall report annually to the Transportation Interim Committee regarding the requirements in this section. Enacted by Chapter 301, 2017 General Session MARY BETH THOMPSON Chief Financial Officer ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238 PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 TEL 801-535-6394 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ___________________________________ Date Received: ________________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: ___________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: December 19, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Salt Lake City Library Budget Amendment #1 SPONSOR: NA STAFF CONTACT: Greg Cleary, City Budget Director (801) 535-6394 or Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403 DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that, subsequent to a public hearing, the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY 2023-24 Library Fund adopted budget. BUDGET IMPACT: REVENUE EXPENSE LIBRARY FUND $ 229,670.00 $ 229,670.00 TOTAL $ 229,670.00 $ 229,670.00 Greg Cleary (Dec 19, 2023 15:43 MST) Greg Cleary 12/21/2023 12/21/2023 rachel otto (Dec 21, 2023 09:12 MST) BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: When the Salt Lake City Council (the Council) adopted the Library’s FY24 budget, the Library was informed that the new growth used in projecting property taxes revenues would generate about $200,000 more than the estimate used in preparing the budget. In addition, the amount allowed for the judgment levy was $193,000 higher than was budgeted. The Council adopted the higher amounts, which allowed the $393,000 difference to go to the Library’s fund balance. Given the additional property tax revenue anticipated in FY24, Administration is proposing amendments to the FY24 budget for the following items, totaling $229,670. The following memo provides additional detail and information on this item. PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing MEMO | November 20, 2023 To: Salt Lake City Library Board of Directors From: Deborah Ehrman, Interim Executive Director Re: Budget Amendment 1 for FY2023-24 When the Salt Lake City Council (the Council) adopted the Library’s FY24 budget, the Library was informed that the new growth used in projecting property taxes revenues would generate about $200,000 more than the estimate used in preparing the budget. In addition, the amount allowed for the judgment levy was $193,000 higher than was budgeted. The Council adopted the higher amounts, which allowed the $393,000 difference to go to the Library’s fund balance. The Board may recall that the FY24 budget included a three percent total increase for longevity and COLA. In addition, the percent increase used to budget the employee health insurance was about half of the actual percent increase once quotes were received. Given the additional property tax revenue anticipated in FY24, Administration is proposing amendments to the FY24 budget for the following items: 1. An additional one percent increase to the COLA amount for all Library employees and an adjustment in the employee health insurance rate to reflect the actual increase. The cost of these two adjustments would be $166,240. 2. An increase of one FTE for the Safety team. The Library is experiencing a significant increase in the number of safety related incidents across the system, and branches have expressed a need for additional support from the Safety team. The cost of one additional safety associate would be $63,430. General Fund – Proposed increase of $229,670 Account Name Current Budget Amount Requested Amt: COLA & Insurance Requested Amt: Safety Position Amended Budget Funding Source Fund Balance-Appropriated 4,023,640 166,240 63,430 4,253,310 Total Revenue $4,023,640 $166,240 $63,430 $4,253,310 Expenditures Salaries & Wages-Regular 12,858,000 112,800 42,900 13,013,700 Social Security-Regular 984,900 8,500 3,200 996,600 Employee Insurance 2,316,500 28,600 9,800 2,354,900 State Retirement 1,777,300 16,000 6,900 1,800,200 Workers Compensation 38,600 340 630 39,570 Total Expenditures $17,975,300 $166,240 $63,430 $18,204,970 Recommended Motion: Move to approve an increase in the Library’s FY24 General Fund budget of $229,670. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ______ of 2024 (Amending the Final Budget for the Library Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah for Fiscal Year 2023-24) An ordinance amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 28 of 2023, which adopted the final budget for the Library fund of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2023 and ending June 30, 2024. PREAMBLE On June 23, 2023, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget for the Library fund of Salt Lake City, Utah for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2023 and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-118 of the Utah Code. The City’s Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. All conditions precedent to amend said budget have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget for the Library fund of Salt Lake City as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 28 of 2023. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget for the Library fund of Salt Lake City, Utah for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2023 and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128, of the Utah Code. 2 SECTION 3. Certification to Utah State Auditor. The City’s Policy and Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments with the Utah State Auditor. SECTION 4. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of _______________, 2024. ________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________ Mayor’s Action: ____ Approved ____ Vetoed _________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. _________ of 2024. Published: ___________________. Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Approved As To Form _________________________ Jaysen Oldroyd Signature: Email: Alejandro Sanchez (Dec 21, 2023 08:47 MST) alejandro.sanchez@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: 11/28/2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 11/28 /2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 11/28/2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Airport Board STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Airport Board RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Nathan Rafferty member of the Airport 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 November 28, 2023 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Dear Council Member Mano, Listed below is my recommendation for the membership appointment Airport Board. Nathan Rafferty to be appointed for a four year term starting from date of City Council advice and consent. I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor cc: file 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: 11/27/2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 11/27 /2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 11/27/2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Airport Board STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Airport Board RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Luz Escamilla member of the Airport 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 November 27, 2023 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Dear Council Member Mano, Listed below is my recommendation for the membership appointment for Airport Board. Luz Escamilla to be appointed for a four year term starting from date of City Council advice and consent. I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor cc: file 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: 12/15/2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 12/15/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 12/15/2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Re-Appointment Recommendation: Parks, National Lands, Urban Forestry and Trails Advisory Board STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Re-Appointment Recommendation: Parks, National Lands, Urban Forestry and Trails Advisory Board RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Ginger Cannon member of the Parks, National Lands, Urban Forestry and Trails 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 December 15, 2023 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Dear Council Member Mano, Listed below is my recommendation for the membership appointment Parks, National Lands, Urban Forestry, and Trails Advisory Board. Ginger Cannon to be re-appointed for a three year term starting from date of City Council advice and consent. I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor cc: file 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: 12/18/2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 12/18/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 12/18/2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Re-Appointment Recommendation: Racial Equity in Policing Commission STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Re-Appointment Recommendation: Racial Equity in Policing Commission RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the re- apppointment in the attached letter from the Mayor and re-appoint Tanya Hawkins member of the Racial Equity in Policing Commission. 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 December 18, 2023 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Dear Council Member Mano, Listed below is my recommendation for the membership re-appointment Racial Equity in Policing Commission. Tanya Hawkins to be re-appointed for a two year term starting from date of City Council advice and consent and ending on Monday, December 29, 2025. I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this re-appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor cc: file Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 12/13/2023 18:06 Richard Taylor Street lights and holidays Hello David, > > I received a hanger on my door regarding holiday lights. Can you please point me to the specific law that is broken by decorating street lights? I don’t doubt there is one, but I’d like to review it for my reference. Also, please explain how the city has the time and resources to design, print, and distribute these articles while city work often goes unfinished for in some cases years, homelessness continues to be unaddressed in a humane and effective manner and city crews regularly violate the law with nonexistent or insufficient detour signs, and proper permits for the work they do or contract out. > > Thanks, > Richard Taylor > <Holiday Street Lighting.pdf> 12/18/2023 10:48 Anonymous Constituent sears block the current lights are a huge visual pollutant. if thwy arw worriwd ablht the propery use of a human securoty guard would be better then the bright horrible lights. 12/18/2023 16:54 Jan Hemming Hate incident at Bonneville Elementary School Brent, Chief Brown and Principal Karen Holman: I live across the street from Bonneville Elementary School and am shocked and deeply disturbed by the the hate speech/graffiti incident at Bonneville Elementary School yesterday. It has no place in our community and will not be tolerated. I noticed the crude symbols and words late Sunday morning as I was walking my nephew’s dog. Bonneville Elementary is a beloved place in our community and should always be welcoming and safe for all students. > > Let me offer some insights about potential perpetrators. For years, groups of unruly teenagers have gathered at the school at night causing all kinds of problems — throwing water balloons, pumpkins and other projectiles at cars. About a week ago a group of boys stood near the road ramp on the south side of the school and threw small, plastic containers full of coffee creamers at cars. The debris was all over the street and sidewalk the next morning. > > Sometimes these groups of young boys stand in the busy 1900 East roadway trying to stop traffic or dangerously running alongside cars, chasing them or harassing drivers. I have complained in the past about these problems to the police and, in one instance, the police came and said I was just making it all up — even though the teens were right there just roaming around. I even captured video of their reckless acts. I’ve watched a few aggravated drivers stop their cars and have confrontations with these gangs — with shouting and chasing. During July these kids always set off fireworks at the school — even though it’s illegal. > > Were members of this group involved in the weekend’s mischief? Or was this an outlier? I hope your team of detectives can find and prosecute those responsible. Fox13Utah and KSL TV interviewed me about the incident. > > I would also urge our police department to create a plan of action for Bonneville Elementary so it no longer is a gathering place for teenage trouble and bad behavior. > > Respectfully, > > Janet (Jan) Hemming Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 12/19/2023 14:46 Suzanne Stensaas in preparation for 2 pm today about develpment and the BST/D6 In preparation for our conversation. My request arose because of vague illusions and info on Nextdoor Those on nextdoor have lots of fears, info , misinfo? About the development and our use of the the shoreline trail and other trails we access so often. We need a source of accurate info and we need it posted and circulated. Public input? Is it possible? we need to know what is planned before things are a done deal. I wrote to Wendy Fisher of Utah Open Lands and this is what she wrote back but I am still not clear. “Subject: Re: development cardigan canyon phase 11 etc? Suzanne, Thank you for reaching out. When Utah Open Lands facilitated the purchase of H Rock this Turville Piece was already known to have development plans. I believe at that time the City had determined that if the development went in that the trail would be adjacent to the road accessing the subdivision. Though the Bonneville Shoreline Trail is intended to be a regional connection it is not protected through any formal easement and so communities along the BST have worked to purchase segments. UOLs purchase of the land at the base of Little Cottonwood Canyon was one of those efforts. About 2 years ago UOL met the son of the Turvilles who has been settling affairs for his family. We had some good discussions and long story short, UOL wrote a grant to the Utah Office of Outdoor Rec and subsequently obtained the majority of the funding, with SLC also allocating funding. As you might imagine land in this area is pretty pricey. Additionally, development options for this property have been on paper for a while. I do not know exactly where the three lots stand in the planning process but part of what we were able to negotiate was the purchase of 10 acres which would include a trailhead location as well as open space and the trail. Additionally, I believe that there is approximately 10 acres that will also be placed under a conservation easement that has scenic value, but that I believe is difficult to develop. I would be more than happy to meet with folks and discuss further. I have one final grant out for $40,000 and the landowner is making a partial contribution of the appraised value on the ten acres as well. Hope this helps. Wendy Suzanne S. Stensaas 12/20/2023 17:52 Julie LEFGREN Election, SLC biking and Sugarhouse building/D6 Dear Mr Dugan I met and spoke with you a couple of times when you were canvassing the neighborhood. I live on REDACTED. I was so impressed that you were personally out knocking doors (something the other guys didn’t seem to do). From what I can tell,you won the election? I can’t find a report that says it’s a done deal, but seems you did, congrats. I wanted to thank you for all your support of biking accessibly in SLC. I bought an e~bike through the UCAIR program and have been exploring the bike options around the city, I love it ! I especially love the newly opened 300W and 900 S routes. Thank you so much for this. My good friend, Donna McCleer, ex director of the bike collective also said to thank you for supporting them. I want to put my voice in the hat about this proposal to bypass the 105 height limit to allow for a taller building where the Wells Fargo is on 1000 E 2100 s. I’m adamantly opposed to this height restriction being lifted. I understand about housing shortage and all that, but aesthetically it will not align with the area and once this is allowed 1 time, I fear a cascade effect. I purposely bought in this area for the charm and somewhat small town feel, buildings of that height would definitely ruin this for Sugarhouse as well as over tower the area. Please don’t allow this. It would also contribute expedentially to the congestion that is already almost untenable for the 1000 east 2100 south area. Much thanks for your service Julie Lefgren Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 12/20/2023 19:45 Greg Buehler Illegal Camping There is a large group of illegal campers in Liberty Park. They have been in the Park for well over 3 weeks. They have moved locations from the East side of the tennis courts to the hand ball courts to this evening just North of the tennis courts on the inside sidewalk area. Please take action to move them out of the Park. Another issue was the illegal camping at the Rice Pavilion. The Parks department moved all of the picnic tables out of the pavilion so now the public has no picnic tables to use in the facility. This was probably done to discourage illegal camping but penalizes the public. The tables were not removed last winter as there were illegal campers using the tables all winter long. Please move the illegal campers out of the Park. Thank you. 12/21/2023 15:10 Wendy Garvin Police harassing peacocks?!Just thought you should all know the ongoing problems with the PD folks are having. Amy has cared for a flock of peacocks as long as she's lived there. They're wild peacocks and live around her neighborhood, but they're not owned by anyone. They've been there for *80* years and are a neighborhood icon. Today a self important officer took it on himself to remove them. He also apparently has beef with the turkeys. I've dealt with this same guy harassing an intellectually disabled homeless person, out in 101° temps, until the guy cried. He would have gone to jail if I hadn't intervened. Amy, a lovely Rose Park community member, was terrified, but stood up to him. He was so bad she had to call dispatch to have a sergeant sent out. This is an example of a police officer who's in the job for the wrong reasons. I've gone to Captain Dimond multiple times in the past, about his officers threatening to shoot dogs and cats, and he refuses to do anything, so I'm coming back to you. As long as we condone bullies with guns, we will have police violence. There was a shooting in that neighborhood last night, and thefts. Why did he need to be harassing peacocks? Why do we continue to allow this? What can you do to help? -Wendy Just a side note. This is the Fairpark mural, which INCLUDES ROSIE THE TURKEY! Both the turkeys and the peacocks are integral to the area. Police are so insulated from the community they're policing, it hardens their hearts and makes them soldiers, not community members. Wendy Garvin 12/21/2023 19:24 Daniel Meder Temporary shelter community District one newsletter says 50 people will be sheltered for 6 months at a cost of $1.5 million. I live on $20k per year. Please help me to understand this use of taxpayer money. Thx 12/22/2023 11:20 Ira Hinckley Do not destroy 602 East 300 South In what world does some stucco repair make an entire CONTRIBUTING building suddenly worthless?? If it is unauthorized, make them repair it, but don't destroy our history, our beautiful neighborhoods and our city character to replace it with some ghastly, hideous, boxy, cheap construction by Bamboo or whatever greedy developer that wants to call their monstrosity "matching the neighborhood". How about you don't tear down the neighborhood and then try to "match" it! I have completely lost faith in our city leaders to do the right thing for us residents. They have no vision of keeping this city a beautiful, enjoyable place to live. All I see is tear downs of beautiful neighborhoods to be replaced with cramped, crowded and ugly, cheap construction to cram as many people in as possible, no matter the consequences for those of us who call this place our home. Why can't our elected officials prioritize the concerns of their residents, instead of throwing us under the bus to cram in more people and make us pay for it to boot with new ugly substandard, subsidized housing!! How about preserving the character and beauty of our already existing housing!!! Ira Hinckley Long term resident Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 12/22/2023 11:22 Bernie Hart A Challenge Hi All, There must be a better way. Denver is the city everyone is pointing to as the latest trend setter for how to best deal with the homeless. https://coloradosun.com/2023/12/22/denver-homeless-by-the-numbers/ It's time I said this...Denver, New York, San Francisco, Portland, LA, Boston, Hartford/New Haven and San Antonio all have shown increases in homelessness and to be clear, the real problem is the ever growing number of chronically homeless living on our streets. What none of those cities have is a Street Tai Chf Program. It's time I said what I think and that is: we may have created the most effective way of not only engaging with, but also providing what may turn out to be the most effective mental health and addiction services in the country. Ah: The Olympics are coming. Maybe it's time to start a competition with all those other cites and invite them to send challengers our way, and Street Tai Chi will compete with all of them for the heart's and minds of people living on the street. Whoever helps the most people wins. A Gold Medal and a high level of recognition and more funding for the medalists. Doing good could become fun... Bernie 12/26/2023 16:02 Margaret Holloway UTA. Benches.Fir some reason the benches have compartments on them. That is not needed. It is most irritating if you have a big coat and not the tiny person. And can't use the bench because it has bars railing marking off each space. People can move over for others They need to get rid of the bars. You are making it difficult for all size people to use the dang benches . I do NOT. Understand their reasoning!!!! I have never seen a public bench broken like that. If you don't want people to sleep on them . Tell them to move. But you are keeping older not thin persons who need to su from accessing the benches. I mean COME ON .. our taxes pay for this. . Margaret Holloway. 12/27/2023 16:41 Jania Sommers Affordable housing Dear Council, Here are my primary concerns about affordable housing in Salt Lake City. What buildings I see going up or already in place seem to be placed in a helter-skelter fashion with little surrounding green space or access to food shopping and other basics that make a house a home. So, more actual, discernible planning for neighborhoods and more green space around these homes, including required space for landscaping on the build site and nearby. More food access, maybe small markets, not 7/11 but actual food stores or year round farmers markets. In addition, my blood pressure rises when I see impingement on beautiful old houses squeezed in between apartment buildings that fill every inch of the lot size. There is no percentage for anyone in just building and building without more access to green spaces. We need the green to counter the poor air quality and to make life worth living. Thank you. I look forward to a response. Jania Sommers 12/28/2023 10:03 Carolyn Hansen (EXTERNAL) Ballot Dan, as a supporter of yours, I have noticed for the last couple of years, that the ballots in our district do not include party affiliation when you are voting. This is a problem. Other districts within Salt Lake do show party affiliations next to the person you are voting for, our ballots need to start including party affiliations for each candidates. It is confusing not to have that included, especially with the new rank voting. I vote strictly Democrat But recently, on this last ballot, because of rank voting I accidentally voted for a couple of Republicans and did not realize it. A few of my neighbors also voted for the wrong candidate who are Democrats and voted Republican. I threw my ballot away and went down and voted in person but not many people are willing to do that, it is not fair to not put the party affiliation by the name of each candidate running. You will see if you check with other districts that they do include it. I feel like this is deceitful and it needs to change. Hopefully you can initiate that change. Thanks Carolyn Hansen . Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 12/28/2023 11:03 Bernie Hart So...once again Council Members, I have asked a number of times for information on the effectiveness of the programs Salt Lake City funds that are intended to address the needs of the mentally ill and addicted homeless individuals in our City. The taxpayers have supported this humanitarian effort with funding in excess of $30-35 million annually. The portion of SLCPD annual $215 Million budget that is focused on homeless could exceed $25 Million. With other outreach efforts, Park Rangers and housing also adding significantly to the cost of addressing the needs of the homeless. But my still unanswered question is just how much is all this really helping the mentally ill and addicted homeless living in our city? Are the programs outreach workers refer people to actually changing their lives? How effective are the addiction programs the homeless addicts are referred to? Why is the level of police and social worker frustration off the charts? Why is the average number of times in jail for this population 10,... if jail programs work? How effective are Mental Health and Drug Courts? And the most important thing may be that I have addressed these same questions to our elected officials a number of times (100 plus) and everyone pretends ...what...that what they are funding actually works. And do so without any confirming data...and do it without ever walking the streets of our city and seeing people sleeping outside...everywhere. We, the taxpayers, have been generous and supported the city's efforts. But even with this financial support going directly to city programs and additional SLC funding support given to other service providers, the number of homeless in our region has not declined...I would guess that the numbers have gone up. To claim a government entity is being Intentional Ignorant is hurtful and could create pushback, but....someone has to have the courage to speak to the reality of the situation. You...not me...have to have the wisdom, courage and compassion to create something better. And better can only start by knowing how bad a situation is...and we just don't know. Functioning and making decisions and funding programs without really knowing what works is unprofessional and helps no one. I think we can do better, Bernie Hart 12/28/2023 11:04 Wendy Garvin Abusive Police video cam This is a link to a video of an abusive police officer, who threatens to shoot a homeless man's dog multiple times. The officer is Officer Wolfenbarger, and the bodycam came from Officer Prince, who is verbally abusive to my client on the trip to the jail. I am filing an IA investigation, but there is no way to do so online, the online link to report a crime is broken. I hold the City Council and Mayor's office directly responsible for the behavior of Salt Lake City police, and this is one of many examples of abusive behavior by people you empower to carry guns in your city. https://youtu.be/KLuENW8t1V4 This is utterly unacceptable, and I can only imagine what the many dog lovers of Salt Lake City would think about it. I expect to see consequences to this officer and reforms in the police department to prevent this type of unreasonable abuse. -Wendy -- Wendy Garvin she/her/hers Executive Director - Unsheltered Utah 1/4/2024 16:48 Alessandro Rigolon In favor of Landscaping & Buffers Chapter Amendments Dear Council, I'm writing to support policy changes that promote water conservation in landscaping, as well as changes to improve the urban forest. I am also in favor of banning artificial turf, as it provides very little benefits. Sincerely, Alessandro Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 1/5/2024 8:57 Ginny Dehnert Attn Dan Dugan D6 Dear Dan, I’m aghast about the proposal for a giant building of 300 feet going up at the old Wells Fargo branch on 11thE and 21s. This proposal makes absolutely no sense to me. Why on earth would the neighbors benefit from this monstrosity. Isn’t there a better location, like downtown for tall buildings. Please don’t destroy our neighborhood any more. I’ve been in the neighborhood for 28 years and it’s getting bad. Is the city council brain dead? Greedy? In the pocket of developers? I just don’t understand the logic. There is no way I’ll change my ways to suit the green movement to get us out of our cars. Ain’t gonna happen in my lifetime. And hearing a vehicle is a luxury item is kooky to me. We ain’t NYC - Sincerely, Ginny Dehnert 1/5/2024 10:33 Cathy Kelner Sugarhouse skyscrapers . Hi Dan, We just wanted to share our strong opposition to rezoning Sugarhouse to allow skyscraper like building such as the one being proposed at the Wells Fargo site. We don’t live I Sugarhouse it we do own a property there at 1225 Westminster avenue. We are appalled at what Sugarhouse has turned into. The infrastructure there is already not able to handle the growth with all the new housing and adding a skyscraper seemed ridiculous. Please oppose the rezoning. Thank Cathy and George Kelner 1/5/2024 10:52 Evan A Sugden Bike parking & rail rejuvenation Dear Councilmember Dugan: Greetings. I am a resident in District 7 but I was impressed by your comments earlier today at the inauguration ceremonies at the Downtown Library. I am an avid bicyclist and supportive of efforts to increase bicycle usage in lieu of automobiles. So, I appreciate the city’s recent efforts to implement bicycle lanes and the Mayor’s proposal to offer rebates for eBike purchases (I do not know the fate of that proposal.) However, a central aspect of the burgeoning and necessary bicycle culture is perennially neglected - adequate bicycle parking. It is a major concern and often a blocking issue for bicycling in many circumstances that secure, safe, and convenient bike parking is all but absent in our city. I have been studying this issue for the past year. I have canvassed around 100 cyclist-shoppers at the Downtown Farmer’s Market and photographed many “bike racks” with which I am assembling an expose to prove my point. Too often, planners and designers simply throw some odd contraption on the curb and call it a bike rack with no consultation with bicyclists and no realistic accommodation of their needs. I have compiled a list of desirable features of a truly good bicycle parking facility. I am also Vice Chair of the Board of Directors of Wasatch Community Market and have been working with our property owner to consider including such a facility in the renovated landscaping of the Milk Block, where our prospective storefront will be located. My hope is that this could be a prototype for other such installations throughout the city. I have already discussed this with the Mayor’s liaison for my District and have proposed in person that the City Council set aside supportive funds. I would be interested in discussing this further with you and/or your own liaison. My second issue, to which you also alluded in your speech, with notable audience response, was “burying the train tracks,” by which I am assuming you are referring to the recent proposal to reroute the main through-town rail lines underground and linking the corridor to the Rio Grande Station, which could be revitalized to once again serve as an effective passenger train depot (i.e. the “Rio Grande Plan.). I very much support this concept in terms of city planning, but also with anticipation that it could support greater passenger rail usage, including not only local rail but also long-distance train travel as might be provided by an expanded Amtrak service or some future national rail plan. Including an “extra’ two lines should be a minimal feature. This is another topic regarding which I would like to keep my ear to the ground and development of which I would be interested in participating. Congratulations on your re-election and thank you for your thoughts and service. Evan A. Sugden Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 1/5/2024 13:05 Matthew Givens Comments on RDA Station Center Presentation D6 Hi, My name is Matthew Givens and I am a local citizen that is closely involved with promoting the Rio Grande Plan, working with Dan Dugan (cc'd) relatively frequently. I realize that the Station Center project, while related to the Rio Grande Plan, is a separate conversation. I watched the recent presentation about the new concept for the RDA Station Center project and I think that the new plan for the area looks very good. I like the vision, the density, and the aggressiveness of the proposed timeline. This area should be one of the most urban places in the entire region with or without the Rio Grande Plan. Councilmember Wharton made a comment about the Station Center name being too generic and easy to confuse with other projects (especially for developers), and so I thought I would throw some ideas into the ring (hopefully better than AI-generated ones): • "The Crossroads" - reference to city nickname and geography • "Utah Central" - identifies it as the premiere TOD project of the state • "The Depot" - reference to the Rio Grande Depot and the Depot District • "The Rio Blocks" or "Depot Blocks" - same as previous • "Re-District" or "Ri-District" - portmanteau of "redevelopment" or "Rio" and "district" • "Grande Central" - ok, this one is a little tongue-in-cheek Moving on from names: one thing that I did not see addressed in this version of the concept was connectivity through and around the Rio Grande Depot itself. I think it's absolutely critical for the success of this project to make it easier for people, cyclists, and even cars to get from one side of the Depot to the other. Right now, it is comically difficult. Also, unlike some in the local urbanist media, I don't think cars necessarily have to be completely removed from 300 S to make a good pedestrian experience. I like your concept of a single car lane on each side of the street on the western side of the Depot. Lastly, I hope that whatever decisions are made about the utility placements and transit connectivity are informed by the possibility of the Rio Grande Plan eventually coming to fruition. I think it would be unfortunate to build this project in such a way that it makes the Rio Grande Plan less viable or more difficult/expensive. I am mostly concerned with utility placement across 500W and UTA's selections in the TechLink study. Thanks for listening, Matthew Givens 1/5/2024 13:37 Tess karen Leiker Water wastage Hello. I agree we all must help in water conservation. However why aren’t we restricting water for companies like builders? Example. The northwest corner of 7th east and 5th south. The water has been running 24/7 for over a year into the gutters. It’s running right now as we speak. Why are they allowed to waste millions of gallons straight into the gutter, yet all us residents are restricted? I don’t get it. Tess love resident in the avenues. 1/6/2024 14:30 Chris Williams Artificial Turff I have read all the information the council has presented concerning artificial turf. I have even researched why Boston has banned any new installation. I would like to point out that there are now turf companies who do not have toxic PFAS compounds. To ban all artificial turf would be extreme. Ban the bad and allow the good. Make your decision with all the current industry information. By the way, I have no connection to any turf company. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 1/7/2024 8:45 Katie Pappas Inland Port Impacts on Salt Lake City I know you are all very aware of the Utah Inland Port development impacts from Northwest Quadrant development projects and are working diligently to lessen those impacts. The requested studies on human health, traffic and community impact are an important data driven approach to development. Up to this point, there has been little data supporting development of any port project area. UIPA has been driven solely by a desire to promote, often risky, economic development in as many places as possible. Board member Petro has offered valuable input at UIPA board meetings regarding impacts to Salt Lake City residents. I'm writing this comment in hopes that you will also take into consideration the impacts that other port project areas will have on Salt Lake City. Two new port areas in Tooele county lie within our airshed and will add to our already unhealthy air, In addition to the NWQ port, Spanish Fork, Tooele, Golden Spike and the proposed Vineyard and Weber ports are all located in the Great Salt Lake Basin and will impact the Great Salt Lake wetlands and ecosystem. How can we protect our health and save the Great Salt Lake when a quausi-government organization is promoting economic development above all other interests? Salt Lake City can raise these concerns in their negotiations with UIPA and also at the Utah legislature. As the capitol city, we have an important role in preservation of the lake and in securing a healthy future for our citizens. Thank you for your efforts on our behalf. 1/8/2024 9:58 Daniel Tuutau SLC Public Hearing Jan. 9 re: Water Conservation Hey Ale, Happy New Year. I got this email and wanted to voice my concerns about limiting the Xeroscaping and artificial turf usage in SLC. I personally have wanted to put in artificial turn in my front yard (I already have it in my backyard and love it) but I know current city rules won't allow it. If the new policy requires 33% vegetation, that would limit being able to have water-free options for my landscaping. I know there are pros and cons on both sides, but I strongly feel that we shouldn't limit residents in attempts to reduce water usage (both for the sake of having water for other uses, as well as saving money on the raising costs of living). So as suggested in the email below, I'd like to postpone the decision until more voices can be heard on this subject. -Daniel -- Daniel Tuutau 1/8/2024 11:08 Rob Osborne Art at the airport Dear Council members, First, thank you for your service. Second, I’m writing to provide some feedback on the recent structures that were added to the entrance and exit of the SLC airport. I am a weekly patron of Tyne airport. I love the one at the exit, commemorating the 2002 Winter Olympics. That’s a home run, hit it out of the park on that one. However, the steel structure at the entrance appears to be more of a rusty heap of metal. Not so appealing, particularly because it cannot compete with the real mountains that are already visible 360 degrees around the entrance. Respectfully, Rob Osborne Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 1/9/2024 14:36 Cindy CROMER voting on Laird and Princeton Heights ***2 attachments Dan-I tracked down the data for the votes on Laird and Princeton Hts. (attached). You probably already have these numbers. The other part of my message is that I'm planning a blistering comment on the negative recommendation from the Planning Commission on Laird Hts. The Commissioners cannot set aside the adopted ordinances because of their personal views, and they did. I would like to run a draft past you for "inspection" before I make the comment to the Council. That won't be for a couple of weeks because I have to talk about artificial turf this Tuesday. Thank you for running for office again; you have plenty of other places to use your talents. Onward, cindy c. ________________________________________ From: Traughber, Lex <lex.traughber@slcgov.com> Sent: Friday, January 5, 2024 8:52 AM To: cindy cromer <3cinslc@live.com> Subject: RE: (EXTERNAL) voting on Laird and Princeton Heights Hi Cindy, Both Official Canvasses are attached. Thx for your support! LEX TRAUGHBER Senior Planner PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS | SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION Phone: (801) 535-6184 Email: Lex.traughber@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING From: cindy cromer <3cinslc@live.com> Sent: Friday, January 5, 2024 9:48 AM To: Traughber, Lex <lex.traughber@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) voting on Laird and Princeton Heights Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Lex- Wonderful news that the voting on Laird and Princeton backs up your hard work. Thank you! I asked last night at HLC about the percentages of support. Amy and Sara didn't have the information at their fingertips. I am planning a comment to the City Council about the Planning Commission's recommendation on Laird and would like to have the percentages. Can you share them? cindy c. 1/9/2024 14:58 Josh Stewart RDA item Jan 9: Folsom Corridor vs. 300 North for Daylighting City Creek Dan, I noticed that the RDA was considering the Folsom trail tomorrow. While I am a big supporter of daylighting our creeks and have been a supporter of Seven Canyons Trust, however, I am not a supporter of the Folsom trail alignment for daylighting the creek along the old rail tracks. The Folsom alignment is a very industrial blighted area and is not a place that will magnify the most from this potentially very beautiful infrastructure investment. A better option would be to take the creek to 300 North and over to the Fairpark where there could be huge potential for growth along the Fairpark and at the Northwest Rec Center. It also connects the existing community of Rosepark, Hardware District with a lovely connection to the central business district and City Creek Canyon. There is abundant right of way on 300 North for the amount of traffic and lots of quality growth potential along that street. I worked on the first Trax line years ago with UTA and that project never succeeded as well with transit oriented development as it could have had it been in a better alignment that wasn't an old industrial blighted rail right of way. Trails and transit should be more long term quality growth focused. The RDA should look at multiple alternatives for daylighting City Creek to the Jordan River rather than focusing solely on the Folsom alignment. Sincerely, Josh Stewart Architect 1/9/2024 15:20 Bernie Hart Budget and other information Hi All, There is an item on the agenda for an additional full time safety employee at the main library. I called the library and asked for information on the budget for The Safety Program and I was told I had to submit a Gramma Request to get the information. I have asked the SLCPL a number of times for information on the effectiveness of their work with the homeless and my requests go unanswered. They have expanded their efforts by adding partners and now they are requesting even more staff, My feeling is that if programs were working they would require less staff...not more. Is anyone held accountable for the effectiveness of programs the city funds? And if programs are shown to work...double the budget. Bernie Hart Salt Lake City, Ut. Official Canvass PROPERTY OWNER PUBLIC SUPPORT SURVEY Proposed Yalecrest - Princeton Heights Local Historic District WHEREAS, a mailing was provided t o all forty-three (43) area property owners on November 22, 2023 regarding the proposed Princet on Height s Local H istoric District ; and WHEREAS, the property owners were asked as to whether they should support or oppose designation of this area as the Princeton Heights Local Historic District, voting was allowed following November 22, 2023, thru December 22, 2023, with mail in ballots must being postmarked by December 21, 2023, NOW, THEREFORE, BE I T RESOLVED, all valid ballots accounted f or, returned, and postmarked as of December 21, 2023, have now been tabulated with the f ollowing results: SUPPORT: 28 OPPOSED: 6 UNDELIVERABLE: 1 DELIVERED or POSTMARKED AFTER DEADLINE: 0 RETURNED BUT DID NOT VOTE: 1 VERIFIED and DULY CERTIFIED by the City Recorder of Salt Lake City as of the 29th day of December 2023. ATTEST: ______________________________ Cindy Lou Trishman Salt Lake City Recorder