The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02/20/2024 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA WORK SESSION February 20, 2024 Tuesday 2:00 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 Work Room 451 South State Street, Room 326 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 SLCCouncil.com 7:00 pm Formal Meeting Room 315 (See separate agenda) Welcome and public meeting rules In accordance with State Statute and City Ordinance, the meeting may be held electronically. After 5:00 p.m., please enter the City & County Building through the main east entrance. The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters. The public is welcome to listen. Items scheduled on the Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and / or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting based on circumstance or availability of speakers. The Website addresses listed on the agenda may not be available after the Council votes on the item. Not all agenda items will have a webpage for additional information read associated agenda paperwork. Generated: 14:25:31 Note: Dates not identified in the project timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start times and durations are approximate and are subject to change. Work Session Items 1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 2:00 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive information from the Administration on major items or projects in progress. Topics may relate to major events or emergencies (if needed), services and resources related to people experiencing homelessness, active public engagement efforts, and projects or staffing updates from City Departments, or other items as appropriate. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Recurring Briefing Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 2.Ordinance: Yalecrest - Princeton Heights Local Historic District ~ 2:15 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning map to apply the H-Historic Overlay District, establishing the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights Local Historic District. The proposal includes 43 homes located at approximately 1323 Princeton Avenue to 1500 East along Princeton Avenue. The project is within Council District 6. Petitioner: Paula Harline. For more information visit tinyurl.com/HistoricDistrictsSLC. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 5, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 26, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 2, 2024 3.Ordinance: Rezone at Approximately 756 South Montgomery Street ~ 2:35 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning of the property located at approximately 756 South Montgomery Street from R-1/5,000 (Single- Family Residential District) to RMF-30 (Low-Density Multi-Family Residential District). The proposal would allow the construction of a higher number of residential dwellings on this property and is intended to support appropriately scaled housing choices as recommended by the Westside Master Plan. Consideration may be given to rezoning the properties to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 2. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 5, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 26, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 2, 2024 4.Informational: Water and Snowpack Report ~ 2:55 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing from the Department of Public Utilities about the status of water runoff, snowpack and water supply projections. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 5.Resolution: Authorizing Transfer of Foreign Trade Zone Authority ~ 3:15 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a resolution that would transfer Salt Lake City’s Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) grantee status to the World Trade Center Utah (WTC Utah). The Administration is requesting this transfer to take advantage of staff capacity and other resources at WTC Utah. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 5, 2024 6.Ordinance: Landscaping and Buffers Chapter Text Amendment Follow-up ~ 3:35 p.m. 15 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 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 tinyurl.com/SLCLandscapingAndBuffers. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 5, 2023; Tuesday, December 12, 2023; Tuesday, February 6, 2024; and Tuesday, February 20, 2024 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 7.Tentative Break ~ 3:50 p.m. 15 min. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Set Public Hearing Date - Hold hearing to accept public comment - TENTATIVE Council Action - 8.Informational: Developing a Priority Climate Action Plan for the Salt Lake City Metropolitan Statistical Area ~ 4:05 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about the Priority Climate Action Plan for the Salt Lake City Metropolitan Statistical Area (Salt Lake County and Tooele County). The plan is due by March 1, 2024 to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The plan would identify potential actions to reduce greenhouse gases and harmful air pollutants. The actions identified in the plan would be eligible for $4.6 Billion of nationally competitive climate pollution reduction implementation grant funding. Applications for that funding are due by April 1, 2024. The EPA is limiting the number of applications an agency may submit alone, while coalitions of entities may submit multiple applications. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 9.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.4 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 Follow-up ~ 4:25 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about Budget Amendment No.4 for the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and modifications. The proposed amendment includes over $1.8 million for police officer overtime related to the Clean Neighborhoods Program, three new full-time mechanics in the Fleet Division, $230,000 to expand a City air quality incentives program, and a new software tool to identify non-compliant short-term rentals among other items. For more information visit tinyurl.com/SLCFY24. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 13, 2024 and Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 6, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD 10.Informational: Financial Risks and Reserves Analysis ~ 4:45 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) Consultant about the recently completed financial risks and reserves analysis. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 11.Informational: State Legislative Briefing ~ 5:05 p.m. 10 min. The Council will receive a briefing about issues affecting the City that may arise during the 2024 Utah State Legislative Session. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, January 16, 2024; Tuesday, February 6, 2024; Tuesday, February 13, 2024; and Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 12.Board Appointment Interviews for the Racial Equity in Policing Commission ~ 5:15 p.m. 15 min. The Council will interview the following candidates prior to considering their appointment to the Racial Equity in Policing Commission: •Alex Vandiver •Chloe Raymundo •Detria Taylor •Diya Oommen •Heather Stringfellow •Jason Hinojosa •Rodrigo Fernandez-Esquivias FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Standing Items 13.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of Chair and Vice Chair. 14.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director - - Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business, including but not limited to scheduling items. 15.Tentative Closed Session - - The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to: a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual; b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if: (i) public discussion of the transaction would: (A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; (ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale; and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the sale; f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. CERTIFICATE OF POSTING On or before 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 15, 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. Administrative Updates February 20, 2024 www.slc.gov/feedback/ Regularly updated with highlighted ways to engage with the City. Community Engagement Highlights Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.com Planning slc.gov/planning Thriving in PlacePlanning •Allowing Projecting Signs in all commercial and mixed used districts •PC recommended adoption •Prohibiting Demolition of Housing for Parking •Tabled by PC •Modifications to PC and HLC numbers •Hearing scheduled for March 13th Public Lands •Making the Emerald Ribbon •Public feedback on proposed themes •March 13 – Sorenson Unity Center @ 4 PM – 8 PM •March 14 – Mestizo Coffee House @ 4 PM – 8 PM Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.comThriving in PlaceLove Your Block •Applications Open •March 1st •Mini-Grant Application Assistance Sessions •March 5th @ 5:30 PM – 7 PM •March 14th @ 5:30 PM – 7 PM •Updated Website slc.gov/planning CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:February 20, 2024 RE: Yalecrest – Princeton Heights Local Historic District PLNHLC2023-00044 The Council will be briefed about the proposed Princeton Heights Local Historic District (LHD) in the Yalecrest neighborhood. This will update the Council on progress since its May 2, 2023 briefing on initiating the Laird Heights and Princeton Heights LHDs, the required Planning Director’s reports, and the LHD creation process. (The Council was briefed on the Laird Heights LHD February 6, 2024.) Creating an LHD amends the zoning map by applying the H-Historic Overlay District to the proposed area, which is a step that requires City Council approval. Council review, public hearing, and vote are the final steps in the process. Boundaries of the proposed Princeton Heights LHD are approximately 1323 East to 1500 East along Princeton Avenue shown in the map below. The proposed LHD boundaries include 43 parcels with homes and two vacant parcels. There are several steps to LHD creation as outlined below and in a graphic at the end of this report. LHD Creation Process •Pre-application meeting. •Initial letter mailed to all property owners within proposed district. •Application submittal. •Notice of application letter mailed. •Planning Director’s report to the City Council (May 2, 2023) Item Schedule: Briefing: February 20, 2024 Set Date: March 5, 2024 Public Hearing: March 26, 2024 Potential Action: April 2, 2024 Page | 2 •Property owner meeting seeking input from and informing owners about the process and requirements. •Open house seeking input from and informing immediate neighborhood and general public about the proposal. •Historic Landmark Commission public hearing, review, and recommendation. •Planning Commission public hearing, review, and recommendation. •Property owner ballot to determine support of LHD creation. •City Council review, public hearing, and decision. (Current step) Map of subject proposed Princeton Heights (purple), and Laird Heights (tan) Local Historic Districts. (The Council was briefed on the Laird Heights LHD February 6, 2024.) Existing Local Historic Districts are shown in blue. Image courtesy of the Salt Lake City Planning Division ADDITIONAL INFORMATION A 2005 Reconnaissance Level Survey of the Yalecrest National Historic District area found that 42 of 43 homes (98%) within the proposed Princeton Heights LHD were rated as contributing structures. In February 2023 Staff from the State Historic Preservation Office and Planning staff confirmed the 42 structures listed in the 2005 survey are still considered contributing. Reconnaissance Level Surveys are the most basic approach for systematically documenting and evaluating historic buildings and are based on a visual evaluation of the properties. Page | 3 For the creation of Local Historic Districts, the Historic Landmark Commission (HLC) first reviews the proposals and forwards a recommendation to the Planning Commission. This included: •The proposed Princeton Heights LHD was reviewed at the HLC’s November 2, 2023 meeting and a public hearing was held at which eight people spoke and written comments from one person were read. All were in favor of the proposal. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. •The Planning Commission reviewed this petition at its November 8, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing at which 10 people spoke. All were supportive of the proposed LHD. The Planning Commission voted 5-3 to send a positive recommendation on the Princeton Heights LHD to the Council. One Commissioner who voted in opposition expressed concerns with air quality and low-density housing as a contributing factor. The other Commissioners who voted against the motion did not say why they were opposed. Following the Historic Landmark, and Planning Commission meetings, ballots required for LHD creation were mailed November 22, 2023 to all property owners within the proposed Princeton Heights LHD. Owners were given 30 days to return their ballots indicating support of, or opposition to the proposal. The City Recorder issued the Official Canvas of the Property Owner Opinion Ballot December 29, 2023, which contained the following results: Ballots in Support..........................28 Ballots Opposed...............................6 Did Not Vote ....................................8 Undeliverable/Did Not Receive.......1 Returned but Did Not Vote..............1 Returned After Due Date.................0 Total Ballots Received ..........35 of 43 Since the number of returned property owner opinion ballots (81%) exceeds the required two-thirds threshold of ballots mailed, and ballots in support (65%) represents more than 50% of the number of parcels in the proposed LHD, the City Council may designate the LHD by a simple majority vote. It should be noted that the Council is not bound by the property owners’ opinion ballot results. Goal of the briefing: To review the proposed local historic district, address questions Council Members may have and prepare for a public hearing. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to ask for more information about whether establishing a Historic District will conflict with other Citywide policies, such as the recently passed Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance, or the upcoming multi-family residential overlay. If the Historic Districts create some obstacle to increasing density throughout the City, does the Council want to discuss whether density is appropriate citywide, or whether there are exceptions? 2. In the past, the creation of Historic Districts created some contention. The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether they have received any concerns or anticipate any substantive objections. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Below is a chronology for the proposed LHD with steps in the flowchart below indicated. Page | 4 •November 14, 2022 – Pre-application meeting. (Step 1) •December 1, 2022 – Letter sent to property owners within proposed LHD letting them know Planning was notified a property owner is interested in creating a new LHD. (Step 2) •January 22, 2023 – LHD application submitted to Planning. Property owner petition initiated. (Step 3) •February 2, 2023 – Property owners within the proposed LHD sent notice of application, and “Local Historic District Pros and Cons” information letter indicating the Planning Division received an application, including the required number of signatures to initiate the designation of a new LHD. (Step 4) •May 2, 2023 – Planning Director’s report to the City Council. The Council directed Planning staff to move forward processing the proposed new LHD. (Step 5) •August 8, 2023 – Property owners sent notice for the required neighborhood information meeting to be held June 20, 2023. (Step 6) •August 30, 2023 – Property owner meeting held at Anderson Foothill Library. Approximately 13 property owners were in attendance. (Step 6) •August 31, 2023 – Email sent to Yalecrest Neighborhood Council, East Liberty Park Community Organization, Wasatch Hollow Community Council, and KEEPYalecrest with online open house notification. (Step 6) •September 1, 2023 – Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposed LHD mailed online open house notification. Open house ran from August 31 – October 15, 2023. (Step 6) •October 19, 2023 – Historic Landmark Commission public hearing notice sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposed LHD. Listserv notification of the Historic Landmark Commission’s agenda emailed. Agenda posted on the Planning Division and State websites. (Step 7) •October 26, 2023 – Planning Commission public hearing notice mailed to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposed LHD. Listserv notification of the Planning Commission agenda emailed. Agenda posted on the Planning Division and State websites. (Step 7) •November 2, 2023 – Historic Landmark Commission briefing and public hearing. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. (Step 7) •November 8, 2023 – Planning Commission briefing and public hearing. The Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council on the proposed LHD. (Step 7) •November 22, 2023 – Property Owner Opinion Ballot (Support Survey) mailed to all property owners within the proposed LHD asking if they support or are opposed to the proposed LHD. Ballots were required to be returned to the City Recorder’s Office or postmarked by December 21, 2023. (Step 8) Page | 5 •December 29, 2023 – City Recorder’s Office released results of the survey. 28 property owners were in support, 6 were opposed, 1 ballot was undeliverable, and 8 did not vote. •January 2, 2024 – Planning staff requested ordinance from the City Attorney’s Office. •January 12, 2024 – Planning received ordinance from the City Attorney’s Office. •February 2, 2024 – Transmittal received in City Council Office. •February 20, 2024 – City Council briefing. (Public hearing anticipated to be held March 26, 2024, and a potential Council vote April 2, 2024.) (Step 9) LHD Designation Process Flowchart Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division CITY COUNCIL // FEBRUARY 20, 2024 YALECREST –PRINCETON HEIGHTSLOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT PLNHLC2023-00044 Salt Lake City // Planning Division Factor Finding Rationale 1.Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes,goals,objectives,and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents; Complies The proposal is consistent with the stated purposes, goals,objectives,and policies of the City as identified in the Community Preservation Plan,East Bench Master Plan,Plan Salt Lake,Creating Tomorrow Together:Final Report of the Salt Lake City Futures Commission,the City Vision and Strategic Plan,and the Salt Lake City Urban Design Element as discussed in this staff report as well as the HLC staff report. 2.Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies The Zoning Map amendment is consistent with the purposes of the H Historic Preservation Overlay district. 3.The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties; Complies The proposed Zoning Map amendment will not have any additional effects on the adjacent properties. 4.Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards Complies The proposed Zoning Map amendment will not affect the administration of the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay and will be complimentary to the provisions of the Yalecrest Compatible Overlay. 5.The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property,including,but not limited to,roadways,parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection,schools,stormwater drainage systems,water supplies,and wastewater and refuse collection. Complies The proposed amendment has all utility and public services necessary to serve the properties and is consistent with this standard. •The proposed local historic district is supported by City policies in multiple documents, including: •Community Preservation Plan (2012) •East Bench Community Master Plan (2017) •Plan Salt Lake (2015) •Creating Tomorrow Together: Final Report of the Salt Lake City Futures Commission (1998) •City Vision and Strategic Plan (1993) •Salt Lake City Urban Design Element (1990) Sounds li ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: 02/02/2024 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: 02/02/2024 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: February 2, 2024 Victoria Petro, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods SUBJECT: Petition PLNHLC2023-00044 Yalecrest – Princeton Heights – Local Historic District STAFF CONTACT: Lex Traughber, Senior Planner (801) 535-6184 or lex.traughber@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The Historic Landmark Commission and the Planning Commission both voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for consideration. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: This petition is a request that the City Council designate a new local historic district that includes 43 homes (45 properties) located at approximately 1323 Princeton Avenue to 1500 East along Princeton Avenue. The proposed Yalecrest – Princeton Heights Local Historic District is located within the Yalecrest Neighborhood, which is generally located between 1300 East, and 1900 East, from 800 South/Sunnyside Avenue to 1300 South. The Yalecrest Neighborhood was designated as a National Register Historic District in 2007. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 rachel otto (Feb 2, 2024 10:07 MST) On January 22nd, 2023, Paula Harline submitted a petition to designate a new local historic district within the Yalecrest neighborhood of the city. The application was submitted with approximately 60% of property owner’s signatures (representing a majority ownership interest in a given lot) in the proposed district, which exceeds the required 33% necessary to initiate a petition of this nature. As required by ordinance, a report regarding the proposed district was presented to the City Council on May 2, 2023, at which time the Council instructed Planning Staff to proceed with processing the request. Protection of Historic Resources: Although the homes within the proposed district have retained a high degree of architectural integrity, some property owners fear that the existing zoning and the National Register Designation of the Yalecrest Neighborhood do not provide sufficient protection of the historic architecture found in the proposed district. They are of the opinion that local historic district designation is the appropriate tool to ensure historic resource protection and management. In 2005, Salt Lake City created the Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay (YCI) district to establish standards for new construction, additions, and alterations of principal and accessory residential structures within the Yalecrest community. The goal is to encourage compatibility between new construction, additions, or alterations and the existing character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood. The standards allow for flexibility of design, while providing compatibility with existing development patterns within the Yalecrest community. Some property owners are concerned that the YCI does not include design standards that address appropriate exterior alterations in the context of maintaining the historic integrity or structures in the area. The H – Historic Preservation Overlay district that would be applied to the proposed district, if the local historic district were approved, would add an additional layer of regulation that requires design review for exterior alterations and imposes stringent regulations on demolition of contributing buildings. The Yalecrest neighborhood was designated to the National Register of Historic Places in 2007. Being listed on the National Register is an honorary designation that provides property owners with the ability to seek state and/or federal tax credits for appropriate repairs or restoration work on contributing buildings. The National Register designation provides incentives for appropriate alterations but provides no protection from demolition or additions that may not be compatible with the historic character of the area. Adopted Policy: Several Salt Lake City policy documents generally support historic preservation efforts. The Community Preservation Plan (2012) and the East Bench Master Plan (2017) specifically address preservation and the protection of architectural and character defining features found in Yalecrest. The Community Preservation Plan (2012) places a high priority on providing additional regulations to control demolitions and teardowns within the Yalecrest neighborhood. Additionally, the East Bench Master Plan (2017) also acknowledges that the Yalecrest Neighborhood contains some of the oldest structures on the East Bench within Salt Lake City and encourages communities to pursue additional overlay zoning, if it is a desire of the community. Other adopted Salt Lake City documents contain policies that support historic preservation and can be found in: • Plan Salt Lake (2015) • Creating Tomorrow Together: Final Report of the Salt Lake City Futures Commission (1998) • City Vision and Strategic Plan (1993) • Salt Lake City Urban Design Element (1990) Commission Recommendations: The Historic Landmark Commission reviewed this application on November 2, 2023, and found that it meets the local historic district designation criteria, and voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to designate Yalecrest – Princeton Heights as a local historic district. The Planning Commission considered this application on November 8, 2023, and found that the proposed Zoning Map Amendment to add the Historic Preservation Overlay district to this area also meets the general zoning amendment criteria, and therefore voted (5-3) to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to designate Yalecrest – Princeton Heights as a local historic district. Property Owner Opinion Ballot Results: On November 22, 2023, the Property Owners Opinion Ballot (Support Survey) was mailed to property owners within the proposed local historic district. Property owners were given thirty days to submit a ballot indicating whether they support or oppose the designation of the Yalecrest – Princeton Heights Local Historic District. On December 29, 2023, the City Recorder issued the Official Canvass of the Property Owner Opinion Ballot, which contained the following results: Ballots in Support ................................................. 28 Ballots Opposed… ............................................... 6 Did not Vote .......................................................... 8 Undeliverable or Did Not Receive ........................ 1 Returned but did not Vote .................................... 1 Returned After Due Date ....................................... 0 Total Ballots Returned… ..................................... 35 of 43 Since the Property Owner Opinion Ballots returned equals at least two-thirds (2/3) of the total number of returned property owner support ballots, and represents more than fifty percent (50%) of the parcels within the proposed local historic district, the City Council may designate a local historic district by a simple majority vote. It is noted that the City Council is not bound by the results of the Property Owner Opinion Ballot. PUBLIC PROCESS: • Initial Notification of Affected Property Owners: Section 21A.34.020(C)(4) requires Staff to notify affected property owners by sending a neutral informational pamphlet to each property affected by the potential application. The informational pamphlet was mailed to property owners within the proposed district on December 1, 2023. The informational pamphlet contained a description of the process to create a local historic district, as well as a list of the pros and cons of a local historic district. The pamphlet was mailed after the applicant submitted and finalized the proposed boundary for the Yalecrest – Princeton Heights Local Historic District. • Application Notification to Affected Property Owners: The application was submitted on January 22, 2023, and the subsequent Notice of Designation Application Letter was mailed to affected property owners within the proposed Yalecrest – Princeton Height Local Historic District on February 2, 2023. Property owners were sent the notice of application and “Local Historic District Pros and Cons” informational letter indicating that the Planning Division had received an application, including the required number of signatures to initiate the designation, of a new local historic district. • Planning Director Report to the City Council: Staff prepared and transmitted the Planning Director Report to the City Council. The Planning Director Report included the requirements found in 21A.32.020(C)(7)(A-F). The City Council adopted the Planning Director Report on May 2, 2023, instructing Planning Staff to move forward with the proposal. • Property Owner Meeting: On August 30, 2023, the Planning Division met with owners of property located within the proposed boundaries of the Yalecrest – Princeton Heights Local Historic District. The purpose of the meeting was to inform the property owners about the designation process and to discuss how local historic district designation would impact the property owners. The meeting included discussions regarding the process for obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness, the adopted historic preservation standards and design guidelines. There was also a discussion on common over-the-counter approvals and the process of applying for approval. Approximately 13 property owners attended this meeting. • Open House: On August 31, 2023, the Planning Division established an on-line Open House to solicit public comment regarding the proposed designation. All property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposed local historic district, as well as those individuals on the Planning Division e-mail listserve were notified of the open house. An email was also sent out to the Yalecrest Neighborhood Council, East Liberty Park Community Organization, Wasatch Hollow Community Council, and KEEPYalecrest with notification of the on-line open house. • Historic Landmark Commission Meeting: On November 2, 2023, the Historic Landmark Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed Yalecrest – Princeton Heights Local Historic District. Following the public hearing, the Historic Landmark Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance to create the proposed local historic district. The agenda, minutes, and staff report of the November 2, 2023, Historic Landmark Commission meeting are bookmarked below for reference. • Planning Commission Meeting: On November 8, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed Zoning Map Amendment, which would add the H – Historic Preservation Overlay zoning district to the properties within the proposed local historic district. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted (5-3) to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the designation of the proposed local historic district. The agenda, minutes, and staff report of the November 8, 2023, Planning Commission meeting are bookmarked below for reference. • Property Owner Opinion Ballot: On November 22, 2023, the Property Owners Opinion Ballot (Support Survey) was mailed to property owners within the proposed local historic district. Property owners were given thirty days to submit a ballot indicating whether they support or oppose the designation of the Yalecrest – Princeton Heights Local Historic District. On December 29, 2023, the City Recorder issued the Official Canvass of the Property Owner Opinion Ballot (Support Survey) which proved favorable to the proposed district. Of the 35 ballots returned, 26 were in support of the proposed district, 6 were opposed, and one ballot was received but contained no vote. HISTORIC LANDMARK & PLANNING COMMISSION RECORDS: a) HLC Agenda of November 2, 2023 (Click Here) b) HLC Minutes of November 2, 2023 (Click Here) c) HLC Staff Report of November 2, 2023 (Click Here) d) PC Agenda of November 8, 2023 (Click Here) e) PC Minutes of November 8, 2023 (Click Here) f) PC Staff Report of November 8, 2023 (Click Here) SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2024 (Amending the Zoning Map to establish the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights Local Historic District) An ordinance amending the Zoning Map to establish the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights Local Historic District pursuant to Petition No. PLNHLC2023-00044. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission (“Historic Landmark Commission”) held a public hearing on November 2, 2023 on a petition submitted by Paula Harline (“Applicant”) to amend the city’s zoning map (Petition No. PLNHLC2023-00044) to apply the H Historic Preservation Overlay District to properties located on Princeton Avenue between Laird Avenue and 1500 East Street, along with properties located at 1150 South 1400 East Street and 1136 South 1500 East Street, which area shall be known as the Yalecrest- Princeton Heights Local Historic District; and WHEREAS, at its November 2, 2023 public hearing, the Historic Landmark Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) and Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said petition. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 8, 2023 on said petition; and WHEREAS, at its November 8, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the City Council on said petition; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to apply the H Historic Preservation Overlay District to all buildings, structures and real property within the boundaries described and depicted on Exhibit “A”. The areas described and depicted on Exhibit “A” shall be known as the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights Local Historic District. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2024. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on . Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2024. Published: . Ordinance adopting Yalecrest Princeton Heights LHD APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: January 12, 2024 By: Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney Exhibit “A” YALECREST - PRINCETON HEIGHTS LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT DESCRIPTION Beginning at the Southwest Corner of Lot 26, Block 3, Normandie Heights Subdivision, as recorded in Book 'H', Page 128, Salt Lake County Recorders Office, and running thence N08°30'00"W 124.64 feet to the Northwest Corner of said Lot 26; thence N68°23'00"E 35.54 feet to the Southeast Corner of Lot 5, said Block 3; thence N49°12'00"E 245.77 feet to the Southeast Corner of Lot 9, said Block 3; thence N66°42'00"E 131.53 feet to an angle point on the north line of Lot 19, said Block 3; thence N53°42'00"E 97.62 feet to the Southwest Corner of Lot 15, said Block 3; thence N22°14'50"W 15.12 feet to the Northwest Corner of Parcel 16-09-351-019; thence N77°42'33"E 101.33 feet to the Northeast Corner of said Parcel; thence N82°27'36"E 52.82 feet to the most Westerly Corner of Lot 11, Block 5, said subdivision; thence N61°25'19"E 118.92 feet to the Northwesterly Corner of said Lot 11; thence N89°57'20"E 584.34 feet to the Southeast Corner of Lot 23, said Block 5; thence N00°02'40"W 62.32 feet to the Northwest Corner of Parcel 16-09-352-024; thence N87°40'47"E 120.15 feet to the Northeast Corner of said Parcel; thence S00°01'00"E 316.22 feet to the Southeast Corner of Lot 1, Block 2, said subdivision; thence S89°57'20"W 110.00 feet; thence S38°26'50"W 15.67 feet; thence N82°22'06"W 91.82 feet to the Southeast Corner of Lot 3, said Block 2; thence S89°57'20"W 523.06 feet; thence S22°40'48"W 35.66 feet; thence S30°02'16"W 52.17 feet; thence S00°01'00"E 67.18 feet to the Southeast Corner of Lot 13, said Block 2; thence S80°00'00"W 253.91 feet; thence S65°08'25"W 50.31 feet; thence N06°15'00"E 13.44 feet to the Northeast Corner of Lot 20, said Block 2; thence S80°00'00"W 57.80 feet to the Northwest Corner of said Lot 20; thence S13°10'18"W 128.67 feet to a point on the South Line of Laird Ave; thence along said South Line the following 3 courses: 1) Northwesterly along a 1,056.57 foot radius curve to the right 11.95 feet (chord bears N84°09'27"W 11.95 feet) to a 1,634.83 foot radius curve to the left; 2) 176.43 feet along said curve (chord bears N86°55'30"W 176.34 feet); 3) S89°59'00"W 12.52 feet; thence N00°01'00"W 64.78 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 8.712 Acres, more or less. N 6 ioo" N I i SALTLAKE CITYCORPORATION PUBLIC SERVICES SURVEYDEPARTMENT .,,9"'-- ,·-i: ' N89"57'20"E 584.34' N87"40'47"E ( N0"02'40"W 120.15' 62.32'-----.... ffi i S! ..,.o ,,,.s:S N22"14'50"W 15.12' ,d:i .t>,'l- ' "":, Q'), "' 9'1· t,1. T4i33"t. N82"27'36"E , 7,_ 3" s2.82' 0 3 "'" \\U9"'1, PRINCETON AVE S38"26'50"W 15.67'\ w N O cri ;;:; U1 ffi i S! :Jl u iii a:: 6 i'.: 0 § ;;; ,oo,'<,, .,'l- '\ .;!'-9'V·""' \_N68"23'00"E 35.54' s8o·oo·oo"w I;.\ i,..\Jt- 1'1<-\\'.\c'S'o N6"15'00"E /13.44' 2so.9\' s8o·oo·oo" w S22"40' 48"W 35.66'"- S30"02°16"W 52.17'\ _w . 0 _o r--: 0 <O 0 U1 523.06' 91.a2· 110.00' S89"57'20"W Na2·22·05"w S89"57'20"W Beginning at the Southwest Corner of Lot 26, Block 3, Normandie Heights Subdivision, as recorded in Book 'H', Page 128, Salt Lake County Recorders Office, and running thence Noa·3o'OO"W 124.64 feet to the Northwest Corner of said Lot 26; thence N68"23'00"E 35.54 feet to the Southeast Corner of Lot 5, said Block 3; thence N49"12'00"£ 245.77 feet to the Southeast Corner of Lot 9, said Block 3; thence N66"42'00"£ 131.53 feet to an angle point on the north line of Lot 19, said Block 3; thence N53"42'00"£ 97.62 feet to the Southwest Corner of Lot 15, said Block 3; thence N22"14'50"W 15.12 feet to the Northwest Corner of Parcel 16-09-351-019; thence N77"42'33"£ 101.33 feet to the Northeast Corner of said Parcel; thence N82"27'36"£ 52.82 feet to the most Westerly Corner of Lot 11, Block 5, said subdivision; thence N61"25'19"£ 118.92 feet to the Northwesterly Corner of said Lot 11; thence N89"57'20"£ 584.34 feet to the Southeast Corner of Lot 23, said Block 5; thence N00"02'40"W 62.32 feet to the Northwest Corner of Parcel 16-09-352-024; thence N87"40'47"£ 120.15 feet to the Northeast Corner of said Parcel; thence S00"01'00"£ 316.22 feet to the Southeast Corner of Lot 1, Block 2, said subdivision; thence f- (f) <( w 0 0 lf) :Jl u iii a:: z 0 u i'.: 0 § i :08- . - 57.80'1 S89"5712011W 110.00 feet; thence S38"2615011W 15.67 feet; thence N82"22'06"W 91.82 feet to the Southeast Corner of Lot 3, said Block 2; thence S89"57'20"W 523.06 feet; thence S22"40'48"W 35.66 feet; thence S30"02'16"W 52.17 feet; thence soo·o1'00"£ ;Ji DESCRIPTION - 1/11,'llltl 67.18 feet to the Southeast Corner of Lot 13, said Block 2; thence S8o·oo•oo"w 253.91 feet; thence S65"08'25"W 50.31 feet; io \_s55·08'25"w thence N06"15'00"£ 13.44 feet to the Northeast Corner of Lot 20, said Block 2; thence S80"00'00"W 57.80 feet to the z 50.31' Northwest Corner of said Lot 20; thence S13"10'18"W 128.67 feet to a point on the South Line of Laird Ave; thence along said POINT OF sc South Line the following 3 courses: 1) Northwesterly along a 1,056.57 foot radius curve to the right 11.95 feet (chord bears BEGINNING ;.,.,, Q'.;) N84"09'27"W 11.95 feet) to a 1,634.83 foot radius curve to the left; 2) 176.43 feet along said curve (chord bears N86"55'30"W 8- ro -"s',... 176.34 feet); 3) sa9·59'oo"w 12.52 feet; thence Noo·o1'oo"w 64.78 feet to the point of beginning. ;: . .r.--., {";j ' Contains 8.712 Acres, more or less. p <O 0z L=176.43', R=1634.83' LAIRD AVE S89"59'00"WJ 0=6"11'00" \_L=11.95', R=1056.57' 12.52' 6=0°38°54" ,,.•..·...j,•1•/,,, l l- .;;: 0"'7/lllP:.:· l ,,,,! T SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION PUBLIC SERVICES SURVEY DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION Jl!ml!DOO",!IIIOO 501,i!CJY,UJlll III lllll\lH:1111-llr/YJ 1nlo< t. Chris Donoghue, PLS SoHLakeCfy 349Soulh21111Eas1Soite600P.0.Box 145506SoHlakeCay,ll.841154 Pll:(8111)535-7973 LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT PRINCETON HEIGHTS 1 EXHIBITS: 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. ORIGINAL PETITION 4. MAILING LIST 5. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT (RECEIVED AFTER STAFF REPORT PUBLICATION) 6. OFFICIAL CANVASS RESULTS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Yalecrest – Princeton Heights – Local Historic District Petition PLNHLC2023-00044 December 1, 2022 Property owners were sent a notice and a “Local Historic District Pros and Cons” informational letter indicating that the Planning Division had been notified by a property owner of interest in creating a new local historic district. January 22, 2023 Application submitted to the City by property owner, Paula Harline. February 2, 2023 Application Notification - Property owners were sent a notice of application and “Local Historic District Pros and Cons” informational letter indicating that the Planning Division had received an application, including the required number of signatures to initiate the designation of a new local historic district. May 2, 2023 Planning Director’s Report to the City Council for a new proposed local historic district. The City Council directed Planning Staff to move forward processing the proposed local historic district. August 8, 2023 Property Owner Meeting Notification – Property owners were sent a notice for the required “Neighborhood Information” meeting to be held on August 30, 2023. August 30, 2023 Property Owner Meeting held at the Anderson Foothill Library. Owners of approximately 13 properties attended the meeting. August 31, 2023 Open House Notification to Recognized Organizations – An email was sent out to the Yalecrest Neighborhood Council, East Liberty Park Community Organization, Wasatch Hollow Community Council, and KEEPYalecrest with notification of the on-line open house. September 1, 2023 Open House Notification – Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposed local historic district boundaries were mailed notification of an on-line open house. The on-line Open House ran from August 31, 2023 to October 15, 2023. October 19, 2023 Notice of the Historic Landmark Commission November 2, 2023 Public Hearing mailed to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject property. Listserve notification of the Historic Lanmark Commission’s agenda emailed. Agenda posted on the Planning Division and State websites. October 26, 2023 Notice of the Planning Commission’s November 8, 2023 Public Hearing mailed to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject property. Listserve notification of Planning Commission agenda emailed. Agenda posted on the Planning Division and State websites. November 2, 2023 The Historic Landmark Commission heard the proposal in a public hearing and voted to forward a positive recommendation on to the City Council for consideration. November 8, 2023 The Planning Commission heard the proposal in a public hearing and voted to forward a positive recommendation on to the City Council for consideration. November 22, 2023 A “Property Owners Opinion Ballot (Support Survey)” was mailed to all property owners asking if owners were in support, or if they were opposed, to the designation. Ballots were required to be submitted to the City Recorder’s Office or postmarked by December 21, 2023. December 21, 2023 The “Property Owners Opinion Ballot (Support Survey)” period ended at 5:00 p.m. December 29, 2023 The City Recorder’s Office issued the “Official Canvass”, or official results of the support survey. 28 property owners were in support, 6 opposed, 1 undeliverable, and 8 did not vote. January 2, 2024 Planning Staff requested an ordinance from the City Attorney’s Office. January 12, 2024 Ordinance received from the City Attorney. January 12, 2024 Transmittal was submitted to the Community & Neighborhoods Office. 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNHLC2023-00044 – Yalecrest – Princeton Heights – Local Historic District – Paula Harline, a property owner, submitted a petition to designate a new local historic district within the Yalecrest neighborhood of the City. The proposed boundaries of the Yalecrest – Princeton Heights Local Historic District are approximately 1323 Princeton Avenue to 1500 East along Princeton Avenue. The subject property is located in Council District 6 represented by Dan Dugan. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance on the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held in-person, to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, please visit www.slc.gov/council. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Lex Traughber at (801) 535-6184 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at lex.traughber@slcgov.com The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “Planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNHLC2023-00044. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to participate in this hearing. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com , 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. ORIGINAL PETITION UPDATEf? 6/28/22 Phone/Fax: Phone/Fax: HP: Designation Received By: OFFICE USE ONLY Date Received: I Project ff: Project Name: PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION 'VqJe.Clt¼-6-Rili(Jl:(bc>)-k; LH(\ Name of Applicant (property owner): P/utiq Wi 1--/d.clioe. Address of Property Address of Applicant: Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of public review by any interested party. AVAILABLE CONSULTATION Planners are available for consultation prior to submitting this application. Please email historicpreservation@slcgov.com if you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application. A pre-submittal meeting for all Historic Designations should be scheduled prior to submitting this application. To request a pre-submittal meeting, please contact the planning counter by sending an email to zoning@slcgov.com. FEE No application fee is required. WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION Apply online through the Citizen Access Portal. There is a step-by-step guide to learn how to submit online. SIGNATURE If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required. I UPDATED 6/28/22 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Project Description - Intake Review Provide a written description of the proposed local historic district, including the proposed boundaries. The description should include a discussion regarding how the proposed local historic district meets the following criteria: 1. Significance in local, regional, state or national history, architecture, engineering or culture, associated with at least one of the following: a. Events that have made a significant contribution to the important patterns of history, or b. Lives of persons significant in the history of the city, region, state or nation, or c. The distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or the work of a notable architect or master craftsman, or d. Information important in the understanding of the prehistory or history of Salt Lake City; and 2. Physical integrity in terms of location, design, setting, mater_:ials, workmanship, feeling and association as defined by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places; 3. The proposed local historic district is listed, or is eligible to be listed, on the National Register of Historic Places; 4. The proposed local historic district contains notable examples of elements of the City's history, development patterns or architecture. 5. The designation is generally consistent with the adopted planning policies of the City; and 6. The designation would be in the overall public interest. Photographs - Intake Review a. Historic photographs of existing building/s (contact the Salt Lake County Archives at {385) 468-0820 for historic photographs) b. Current photographs of each fa ade on building or the neighborhood requesting a boundary adjustment. c. Historic photographs of the neighborhood if available D D 3. Research Material - Intake Review a. Title search D D b. Building permits card and invoice D D c. Tax card information and photo D D d. Biographical information or obituary for any previous owners D D e. Information about the architect and/or builder 4. Landmark Sites - Intake Review Complete the designation form 5. Boundary Adjustment - Intake Review D D Signatures from each of the property owners who agree to the proposal INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED £ I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be processed. I understand that Planning will not accept my application unless all of the following items are included in the submittal package. 1 □□ QD Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 1 of 24 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A. Project Description 1. Written Description of the Proposal 3 Significance of area in local, regional, state or national history Physical Integrity of houses in the area Commercial Properties Notable Developers, Builders, Architects Properties Recommended for National Register Level Research Significant persons in the area Distinctive characteristics of the type/period/method of construction Importance to Salt Lake City history 2. Physical Integrity 9 Contributing Status of Houses Building Dates Architectural Types in the Residential Structures Exterior Construction Materials 3. Eligibility Listing on the National Register of Historic Places 12 4. Notable examples of elements in Salt Lake City’s History 12 5. Consistent Designation Of Proposed LHD Designation With Adopted City Planning Policies 13 6. Public Interest in Proposed LHD Designation 16 B. Photographs (attached separately) 17 C. Research Materials 17 D. Landmark Sites 17 E. Boundary Adjustment 17 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 2 of 24 Page APPENDICES A. Maps 1. Normandie Heights Subdivision within Yalecrest 19 2. Princeton Heights LHD within other establish LHDs in Yalecrest Neighborhood 20 3. Expanded view of Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD 21 B. Contrary Documentation in 2005 RLS and Salt Lake County Assessor 22 C. Photographs of houses in Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD (Original vs.2022) 23 See photos in a separate attached document 1323 -1490 E Princeton Ave 1150 S 1400 E 1136 S 1500 E D. Research Materials (References) 24 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 3 of 24 1. Project Description Significance of area in local, regional, or state history In the mid 1800’s, Salt Lake City was platted and developed with public buildings in the center of Salt Lake City surrounded by residential lots and farmland to the south and west. The Big Field Survey in 1848 divided the land to the south of the Salt Lake City settlement (900 South today) into five and ten acre plots to be used for farming for the “mechanics and artisans” of the city.1 The Yalecrest survey area is located on the northeastern section of land that was initially set apart as Five-Acre Plat “C” of the Big Field Survey1 The land was divided into 100-acre blocks, each of which was again divided into 20 lots of 5 acres each. Yalecrest occupies Blocks 28, 29, and 30. The original blocks are bordered by the major north-south streets of the survey area: 1300, 1500, 1700 and 1900 East and the east-west streets of 900 and 1300 South. (The Utah Historic Sites Database). The area north of 2100 South was a Five-Acre Plat “A” and the area south was a Ten-Acre Plat. The majority of Yalecrest with the exception of strips along the north and west sides are part of Five Acre Plat “C”.1 Property within the area was distributed by the LDS church authorities, by lot, for use in raising crops and farming.1 Dividing the plots for land speculation was discouraged: 1875 maps of Salt Lake City show no development in the southeast section of the city beyond 1000 East or 900 South. The earliest identified residents in the Yalecrest area begin to appear in the 1870s1. Yalecrest boundaries are represented by 840 South (Sunnyside Ave) to 1300 South and 1300 East to 1900 East. The 1920s were a period of tremendous growth in Yalecrest with 22 subdivisions platted by a variety of developers. The Bowers Investment Company, a branch of the Bowers Building Company, filed the subdivision papers for Normandie Heights in 1926 with 140 lots, and its houses were built primarily from 1926-35. It is distinctive because of its picturesque rolling topography with landscaped serpentine streets, regular promotions, prominent homeowners, deep setbacks, and large irregularly shaped lots. A number of factors contributed to the Yalecrest development in the early twentieth century; 1) the population of Salt Lake City almost doubling from 1900 to 1910, 2) air pollution in the valley from coal burning furnaces led residents to seek higher elevations East of 1300 East for cleaner air to breathe for their residences recently developed by in-state and out-of-state land developers. Transportation options made the Yalecrest area easily accessible to the downtown area. The primary means of transportation in the early part of this era was the streetcar line along 1500 East.1 The streetcars serving the Yalecrest area traveled from downtown to 1300 East in front of East High, traveling East along 900 South to 1500 East, then south on 1500 East to the State Prison located at 2100 S. The former State Prison on Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 4 of 24 2100 South is the current site of Sugar House Park. 1960’s and Beyond (1960-2005) The Yalecrest neighborhood, in general, and Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD specifically, avoided the blight common in many urban residential neighborhoods during this era. There was no population pressure as the population of Salt Lake City slightly decreased during this time period.12 No major roads were built through the neighborhood although traffic increased on the border streets of 1300 South, 1300 East and Sunnyside Ave. Zoning ordinances restricted commercial building to a few spots on the major streets. While there are 51 original duplexes in Yalecrest, there are none in the proposed boundaries of Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD. The original Uintah Elementary School located on 1300 S (outside the proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD boundaries) was demolished and replaced by a new structure in 1993. The attractive neighborhoods of Yalecrest have mature street trees, single-family owner-occupied, well-maintained houses with landscaped yards and continue to be a desirable residential area.1 The current practice of razing an existing small historic structure and replacing it with a residence several times the size of the original house in established neighborhoods galvanized some residents into action in the years 2000-2005. A zoning overlay ordinance called the Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay ordinance was passed by the Salt Lake City Council in 2005. The purpose of the ordinance is: to encourage compatibility between new construction, additions or alterations and the existing character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood. That infill overlay zoning regulated building height, minimum front yard size, and several aspects of garages or accessory structures. Due to liberal interpretation of the current City and State demolition ordinances, houses in Yalecrest continue to be demolished above ground and replaced with out-of-size, mass and architectural incompatibility. The currently proposed SLC “Affordable Housing Incentive” (AHI) City (2022) aims to increase multifamily housing within ¼ mile of high frequency (every 15 minutes) transportation corridors. UTA has recently changed the frequency of bus route #220 on 1300 E to a 15-minute frequency. All 1300-1500 Blocks of Yalecrest are impacted by this zoning overlay. The AHI zoning overlay allows demolition of single-family housing to create new multifamily housing construction thus making historic single-family houses in the proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD endangered to demolition. The listing of Yalecrest on the National Register of Historic Places does not protect against this local zoning. This application seeking a Local Historic District designation is the only current legal option to minimize demolition of historic single-family houses in this established, mature, and historic neighborhood. The proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights Local Historic District (LHD) is located on Block Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 5 of 24 30 and encompasses the following properties: 1323 E Princeton Ave on the north side of the Princeton as the West boundary, 1136 S 1500 East on the west side of 1500 E as the East boundary and all Princeton Ave properties on the north and south sides of Princeton Ave street face as the North and South boundaries, respectively. The property located at 1150 S 1400 E lies between Princeton Ave and the Harvard Heights LHD (see APPENDIX A). Thus, 43 single- family houses are contained within the proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD. Physical Integrity of Houses in the Area An Architectural and Historic Reconnaissance Level Survey (RLS) of Yalecrest was conducted in 20051 by Beatrice Lufkin of the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for Salt Lake City in preparation for the National Register of Historic Places application for the Yalecrest neighborhood. Much of the information in this document comes from that survey. The proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD area contains houses constructed over the time period from 1917(1475 E Princeton Ave) and extending through 1953 (1387 E Princeton Ave) in the historic era. There is a very high degree of retained historic integrity in the proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD according to the 2005 RLS. The vast majority of houses (42/43) were eligible/significant and eligible contributing (97.7%): 69.8% were considered eligible and significant (A) and 27.9% were considered eligible and contributing (B). Only one house, a large 1917 Prairie School house located at 1475 East Princeton Ave, and originally built and owned by JW Phinney, was considered non-contributing (C) or 2.3%. To date, no residential properties have been demolished with new construction houses in the Princeton Heights LHD, but the contributory status of each property may have changed since the last assessment in 2005. Commercial Properties There are no commercial properties in the Princeton Heights LHD. Notable Developers, Builders, Architects The name “Princeton Ave first appears in 1908 in the Polk directory and is associated with development of that street in Normandie Heights subdivision (see Significant persons in the area section below). Normandie Heights subdivision was platted for 140 properties in 1926 by the Bowers Investment Co. Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD contains 43 single-family residences of the 140 platted parcels in the greater Normandie Heights subdivision. The builder Gaskell Romney was involved in developing Normandie Heights subdivision. He built 10 houses in the proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD: 1370, 1404, 1410, 1426,1442,1445,1449, 1450 and 1458, 1465 E Princeton Ave. He was active in Utah, Idaho, California, and worked in Mexico before coming to Utah in 1921. G. Maurice Romney, his son, also did speculative building. Gaskell Romney and his wife, Amy, lived at Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 6 of 24 1442 Yalecrest and later at 1469 E Princeton Avenue. He is father to George Romney, former Governor of Michigan and presidential candidate and father to current Utah Senator Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts, former presidential candidate, and current Senator to Utah. Another building company, Bowers Building Co. built 7 houses in the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD: 1333, 1343, 1348, 1353, 1360, 1376 and 1466 E Princeton Ave. The proposed boundaries of the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD are outlined in red (APPENDIX A-1). It will join 6 other LHDs created in Yalecrest: Harvard Park, Princeton Park, Yale Plat A/Upper Harvard, Harvard Heights, Normandie Circle and Douglas Park-I, outlined in blue. Properties Recommended for National Register Level Research 1465 E Princeton Ave (built 1926). The bowed roof over French doors on an English Cottage architecture was suggested in the 2005 RLS for further research investigation. Significant Persons in the Area Yalecrest-Princeton Heights has been home to a variety of early residents who shaped the City’s development and economic base: businesspersons, educators, immigrants, widows, senators, lawyers, shopkeepers, physicians, architects, and builders, described below by street address. 1340 E Princeton Ave State Senator Paul Quayle Callister (1895-1967) and wife Mary Adeline Bramwell (1899-1984) lived in this English Cottage with their four children for 10 yrs (1939-1948). After serving in World War I, Paul Q. Callister was President of Associated Oil and Gas, renamed Premium Oil and Gas. His investors included Jack Vincent, Fred C. Staines, and the Bamberger Group. The company purchased land throughout Utah, Idaho, and Nevada to open 48 service stations. The 1940 US census lists his salary at $50,000. He was elected State Senator (R) from 1940-1944. During WWII, he started a second company, Premoco, to deal with rationed fuel supplies to maximize fuel allocations. 1345 E Princeton Ave This 1929 English Tudor and 1349 E Princeton Ave was built by well-known East Bench contractor Samuel Campbell. The James G. McDonald, Jr. family lived here for 10 yrs from 1929 to 1939. James Jr. was treasurer and vice president of J.G. McDonald’s Chocolate Company, a wholesale and retail grocery and confectionary business which was founded by his grandfather, John T. McDonald in 1863. James Jr.’s father, James Sr., took over the business at the age of 18 and in 1912 began to specialize in boxed chocolates and cocoa. They innovated the paper-wrapped candy bar. This was the beginning of a new Utah Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 7 of 24 industry on a large-scale production level. J.G. McDonald Candy Company became world-renowned and was the recipient of over forty-four gold medals and awards, including the highest international award possible, the "Grand Prix for excellence and quality." 1361 E Princeton Ave LeGrand Pollard Backman and family lived in this 1929 English Tudor for 36 years. Mr. Backman was a prominent Salt Lake City attorney and a senior partner in Backman, Clark, and Marsh Law Firm. He was a member of the Salt Lake City Board of Education for 20 years and president from 1945-56. He was also a member and president of the Utah State Board of Education for 18 years (1952-1970). 1370 E Princeton Ave Built by Gaskell Romney, this 1926 English Tudor was owned by two notable widowed women who persevered to become notable businesswomen of their own. First, after living in the house for three years, Helen Taylor became a 28 year old widow with a four-year-old daughter. She took over her husband’s (Heber C Taylor) job as part-owner of the Taylor-Richards Motor Co. Ford automobile/tractor dealership and continued living here until she remarried, about 14 years later. Second, in 1943 Georgia Papanikolas was already a widow when she moved into this house. She was born in Greece (1912) and immigrated to the United States, most likely as a “picture bride,” when she was 18 yrs old and married Emmanuel “Mike” Papinikolas, a successful businessman in Bingham, Garfield,and Magna with coal, lumber, hardware and real estate companies. She was widowed at age 39 with 7 children in Magna. Ten years later she bought 1370 E Princeton Ave with the help of her son, Gus, for $5,000 and raised 5 of her children here. Her son Nick, married Helen Zeese, who later became Utah’s premier ethnic historian and our country’s expert on Greek immigrants. 1377 E Princeton Ave This 1927 house built by Samuel Cottam is a beautiful and unusual example of a period revival Jacobethan French Tudor. In May 1928 he sold the home to William E. and Louise Day who lived there until William’s death in1947. Mr. Day moved to Salt Lake City from Ohio to become Superintendent of Physical Education for the Salt Lake City Board of Education. The entryway of this house has a fanlight transom and terra cotta surrounds in a quoin pattern (small tabs of cut stone called ‘ashlar‘, projecting into the surrounding brickwork giving it a ‘quoin’ (pronounced ‘coin’) effect. This house has a “twin” built by a different builder on 1445 E 900 S. 1404 E Princeton Ave This 1927 English Tudor was owned by William Cassidy who lived here with his wife Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 8 of 24 Florence and daughter Mary Lou for 28 yrs. William Cassidy was initially hired as a traffic manager by the family-owned Sweet Candy Co in 1915. He became Vice President of the company in 1941 and President and General Manager in 1947. He holds 2 patents. The Sweet Candy Co is the world’s largest manufacturer of salt water taffy but also manufactures 250 different candies, including their innovation, cinnamon bears. Fifteen million pounds of their products are shipped annually. The original business office and manufacturer site at 224 South and 200 West is a Salt Lake City tour stop with an historic bronze plaque. 1405 E Princeton Ave The Cowan family has lived in this 1938 English Cottage house exhibiting “random course ashlar masonry’ for 82 years. Drs. Robert Leland Cowan (1894-1976) and his son, Leland R Cowan (1924-2022) each practiced surgical oncology in SLC. The house is built using “Ashlar masonry,” the finest type of stone masonry. It uses finely tooled (dressed) sandstone or limestone in rectangular, cuboid shapes laid in a random course. Leland R. Cowan founded the Leland R Cowan Cancer Clinic in Salt Lake City. 1429 E Princeton Ave This 1926 “Cape Dutch Colonial” is a unique architectural style house called “Cape Dutch Colonial,” a modification of the Amsterdam Cape style and favored in the Western Cape of South Africa. Hugh Barker, Sr. lived here with his family for 6 yrs (1932-1939). He was one of the celebrated first airmail pilots (aerial pony express) in the 1920’s servicing mountainous areas in Idaho, Utah, and Nevada. He later became a lawyer and head of his own law firm. 1458 E Princeton Ave The 1926 English Cottage, built by Gaskell Romney, was home to Lorenzo Snow Young— the grandson of two LDS Presidents, Brigham Young and Lorenzo Snow. He lived here with his wife Ailene and children for 5 yrs (1927-32). He was a locally famous architect designing over 700 buildings over his 40 yr practice. Most notable are those listed on the National Register of Historic Places, including the University of Utah’s Kingsbury Hall on President’s Circle, and the Granite Stake Tabernacle in Idaho. He also designed the Harold B. Lee Library and Marriot Center (with Bob Fowler 1968) at Brigham Young University, the University of Utah Law and Library building, Olympus and Highland High Schools and The Daughters of the Utah Pioneers Memorial (DUP). 1475 E Princeton Ave This 1917 Prairie School architecture is a unique architecture style in the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD. Built in 1917, it was owned by Eugene W Kelly 10 yrs from 1932-1942. He was manager of a retail clothing store in SLC. Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 9 of 24 Distinctive Characteristics of the Type/Period/Method of Construction Yalecrest-Princeton Heights contains many notable examples of brick English Cottages and English Tudors from famous builders in Salt Lake City. Importance to Salt Lake City History Yalecrest-Princeton Heights might be the last block in Yalecrest that has not experienced teardowns, helping it tell the story of Salt Lake City almost a century ago. Historic houses might lack the convenience of modern homes, but living in one and knowing something of the residents who lived there before you, connects you to the neighborhood and to the City. In my house at 1340 E. Princeton, for example, I know that former residents had their wedding receptions in the living room, served in World Wars I and II, sang for events all over the neighborhood, served the community as dentist and doctor, died in childbirth, and played on the back patio with other neighborhood children. I have found their wallpaper and walk on their hardwood floors. The block where I live is a beautiful example of residential living close to downtown Salt Lake City. Every house on the block is unique and draws a constant stream of admiring dog-walkers, bikers, and runners. Street lights provide safety, and huge mature trees–Ash, Elm, Sycamore, and Norwegian Maple–create a pleasing shaded tree-lined block. Situated between 9th-and-9th and 15th-and-15th commercial areas, and with close access to I-15 and I-80, this block showcases the integrated infrastructure necessary for successful residential living: commercial neighborhood zoning districts that host grocery, pharmacy, restaurants, library, public parks, and schools within walking distance. The residents are proud of this successful planned community and wish to preserve it as an example for generations to come. Please note that this block was the site of the 6th Annual KEEPYalecrest Historic Home Walking Tour (7 October 2022) which witnessed the largest attendance of any prior walking tour. This widespread interest in and appreciation for historic houses and the persons who lived in those houses continues to build each year as many historic areas throughout the City are lost to demolition. 2. Physical Integrity The proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD is located in a mature tree-lined, rolling-hills western section of Yalecrest. Contributing Status of Houses in Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD The proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD retains a very high degree of historic and physical integrity. The vast majority of houses (97.7%) are eligible/significant (29/43 = Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 10 of 24 69.8%) and eligible contributing (12/43 = 27.9%)1. There is only 1 ineligible non-contributing house, or C (1/42 or 2.3%) listed in the 2005 Reconnaissance Level Survey. The majority of houses are of architecturally notable English Cottages (37.2%) and English Tudors (30.2%) built 1920-1930’s. To our knowledge, no houses in the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD have been demolished. The number of contributing and non-contributing houses and their eligibility status on each street in the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD is tabulated below. Contributing Structure Status of Single-Family Residential Properties in Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHDa,c Street Ab Bb Cb Db Xb Total Princeton Ave 28 12 1 0 0 41 1400 East 1 0 0 0 0 1 1500 East 1 0 0 0 0 1 TOTAL 30 12 1 0 0 43a % Total (69.8%) (27.9% (2.3%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (100%) ) aaccording to the 2005 RLS, there are 43 single family residential structures included in this analysis. bA= eligible significant, B= eligible/contributing, C= ineligible/noncontributing, D=out of period, X=demolished c1926 plat of Normandie Heights lists 104 properties. The Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD contains 43 of those 104 parcels, all used as single-family houses. The number of currently (2022) eligible significant (A) plus eligible contributing structures (B) may have changed due to remodeling projects that alter the street face including; windows, porches, dormers, house heights, roofing materials and/or exterior materials that have altered their contributing status. The number of contributing structures in 2022 remains to be verified by the City Planning Department / Preservation Office and Historic Landmarks Commission. Building Dates Houses in the proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD were built from 1919 through 1953 in the current historic era. The majority of single-family residences in Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD were built in the late 1920’s (67.4%) and 1930’s (25.6%). The distribution of houses built in different decades from 1910 to 1950’s as a function of streets with the proposed LHD are shown in the table below. Construction Yearsa of Original Single-Family Residences in Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHDb Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 11 of 24 Street 1910’s 1920’s 1930’s 1940’s 1950’s Total Princeton Ave 1 29 9 1 1 41 1400 East 0 0 1 0 0 1 1500 East 0 0 1 0 0 1 TOTAL 1 29 11 1 1 43 % Total 2.3% 67.4% 25.6% 2.3% 2.3% ~100% aaccording to Salt Lake County Assessor website (www.slco.org/assessor) b1428 E Princeton Ave is listed in RLS but no house is associated with the land parcel Architectural Types Houses of the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD contain a variety of architectural style types including English Cottage (37.2%), English Tudor (30.2%), Colonial Revival (13.9%), Cape Dutch and Dutch Colonial (4.6%), Jacobethan/French Norman (4.6%), Period/other (2.3%), Prairie School (2.3%), Minimal Traditional/Ranch (4.6%). Tabulation of the house styles as a function of street within the Yalecrest-Princeton Height LHD is shown below. Architectural Types in Residential Structuresa Type Princeton Ave 1400 East 1500 East TOTAL %TOTAL English Cottage 16 0 0 16 37.2% English Tudor 13 0 0 13 30.2% Colonial Revival 5 0 1 6 13.9% Cape/Dutch Colonial 2 0 0 2 4.6% Jacobethan/French Norman 2 0 0 2 4.6% Period Revival/Other 1 0 0 1 2.3% Prairie School 1 0 0 1 2.3% Minimal Traditional 1 1 0 2 4.6% TOTAL 41 1 1 43 100% aaccording to RLS 2005. Exterior House Materials Exterior construction materials of houses in Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD are primarily striated brick (58.1%), regular brick (34.9%), stucco/paster (4.7%) and stone (2.3%), with various accompanying materials including half timbering, clapboard, stucco/paster, wood and aluminum/vinyl siding. The distribution of the various exterior construction materials is tabulated below. Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 12 of 24 Exterior Construction Materials of Residential Structures in Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHDa Type Princeton Ave 1400 East 1500 East Total %Total Striated Brick 7 0 1 8 +Half Timber 13 0 0 3 + Stucco/plaster 3 0 0 3 +Alum/vinyl/wo od 1 0 0 1 subtotal 24 0 1 5 58.1% Regular Brick 6 1 0 7 +Half timber 5 0 0 5 +Clapboard siding 1 0 0 1 +stucco/stone/ veneer 1 0 0 1 +Terra cotta/half timber 1 0 0 1 subtotal 14 1 0 5 34.9% Stucco/Plaste r 1 0 0 1 +B other 1 0 0 1 subtotal 2 0 0 2 4.7.% Stone 0 0 0 0 +clapboard 1 1 1 1 2.3% TOTAL 41 1 1 43 ~100% a2005 RLS assessment 3. Eligibility Listing on the National Register of Historic Places As previously stated, the proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD is located within the boundary of the existing Yalecrest National Register Historic District established in 2007 (#07001168) and thus is eligible for Local Historic District designation. 4. Notable examples of elements in Salt Lake City’s History The proposed area contains a diverse collection of historically contributing architecture styles: English Cottage, English Tudor, Colonial Revival, Prairie School, Cape and Dutch Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 13 of 24 Colonial, Ranch, Jacobethan/ French Norman, and Minimal Traditional. In addition, these homes were developed, designed, built, and owned by renowned individuals who contributed to cultural, defense, business, medical, education, and legal aspects of the city, state, and country. An Intensive Level Survey was completed of Yalecrest by Beatrice Lufkin, of the Utah State Historic Office (SHPO) in 2005. Exterior and interior photographs, a title search, genealogical and other information are on file at the Utah State Preservation Office. 5. Consistent Designation Of The Proposed LHD Designation With Adopted Planning City Policies Historic Preservation Overlay 21A.34.020.A (click here for a link to the Historic Preservation Overlay zoning provisions) A. Purpose Statement: In order to contribute to the welfare, prosperity, and education of the people of Salt Lake City, the purpose of the Historic preservation overlay district is to: 1. Provide the means to protect and preserve areas of the city and individual structures and sites having historic, architectural, or cultural significance; 2. Encourage new development, redevelopment, and the subdivision of lots in historic districts that is compatible with the character of existing development of historic districts or individual landmarks; 3. Abate the destruction and demolition of historic structures; 4. Implement adopted plans of the city related to historic preservation; 5. Foster civic pride in the history of Salt Lake City; 6. Protect and enhance the attraction of the city's historic landmarks and districts for tourists and visitors; 7. Foster economic development consistent with historic preservation; and 8. Encourage social, economic, and environmental sustainability. Adopted Master Plans and City Policies Community Preservation Plan: The City Council adopted the Community Preservation Plan in October 2012. The Plan is the key strategic document that will guide Salt Lake City’s preservation efforts into the future. The purpose of the plan is to address the important goals of historic preservation and community character preservation to ensure the continued preservation of the City’s neighborhoods. The Plan provides vision and established policies that will help preserve those areas of the City that are uniquely historic and tell the story of the City’s historic past. (Click this link to view the Community Preservation Plan) Relevant Community Preservation Plan Policies Policy 3.1a: Identify historic resources in the City through the use of surveys that are consistent with the adopted State Historic Preservation Office survey criteria. Policy 3.2a: Local designation of historic resources should occur where the primary purpose is to protect the historic resources for the public interest and not where the primary purpose is something other than that such as to stabilize a neighborhood or preserve neighborhood character. Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 14 of 24 Policy 3.2b: The pursuance of new locally designated historic resources should focus on protecting the best examples of an element of the City’s history, development patterns and architecture. Local historic districts should have logical boundaries based on subdivision plats, physical and / or cultural features and significant character defining features where possible. Policy 3.2c: Protect exemplary groupings of historic properties as local historic districts. Policy 3.2d: Local designation should only occur after the City has an understanding of the degree of property owner and public support for the proposed designation. Policy 3.2e: Local designation of historic properties should only occur, after the City expends resources to inform property owners of the reasons for the proposed designation and what regulations will be included and the incentives offered for local designation. Policy 3.2h: Prior to local designation, national designation should be pursued to ensure financial incentives are in place for those historic resources that are regulated locally. Policy 3.2i: Professional reconnaissance level survey work should be completed prior to designating a local historic district because it identifies the number and type of historic resources in an area and provides the information needed when determining the appropriateness for change to a specific historic resource. Other Adopted City Policy documents addressing the role of Historic Preservation East Bench Community Master Plan (2017): (click this link to view the East Bench Master Plan) The proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Height Local Historic District is located within the area covered by the East Bench Community Master Plan. A stated goal of the Urban Design section of the plan is to “enhance the visual and aesthetic qualities and create a sense of visual unity within the community.” The Plan identifies the following elements which detract from the residential character: - Building remodeling or additions that are not compatible with the design of the original structure or neighboring homes, and - New structures that are not compatible with the design of surrounding homes. In the1987 East Bench Master Plan, Yalecrest is specifically identified for preservation. “The older Harvard-Yale area contains many buildings of architectural and historic significance. Conditions may warrant creating a conservation or historic district in this area where the city would review all new buildings, additions, or alterations for compatibility with established neighborhood character. The city is in the process of conducting a survey of the community to document sites of architectural and historic significance and to evaluate the potential for establishing a historic district.” In the 2017 version of the East Bench Master Plan, Yalecrest is noted for being the oldest historically contributing neighborhood on the East Bench and encourages residents to find a common voice to preserve it using either Local Historic Districts or Conservation Districts. Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 15 of 24 Urban Design Element (1990): The Urban Design Element includes statements that emphasize preserving the City’s image, neighborhood character, and maintaining livability while being sensitive to social and economic realities. The Plan includes the following concepts: -Allow individual districts to develop in response to their unique characteristics within the overall urban design scheme for the City. - Ensure that land uses make a positive contribution to neighborhood improvements and stability. - Ensure that building restoration and new construction enhance district character. - Require private development efforts to be compatible with urban design policies of the city, regardless of whether city financial assistance is provided. - Treat building height, scale, and character as significant features of a district’s image. - Ensure that features of building design such as color, detail, materials, and scale are responsive to district character, neighboring buildings and the pedestrian. Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan (2000): Provide historic preservation education to developers and property owners, including information on technical and financial assistance and incentives. City Vision and Strategic Plan (1993) - Restore and adaptively reuse historic resources. - Develop programs to enhance and preserve the City’s cultural history and character as expressed in the built environment. - Offer strong economic incentives to stop housing unit deterioration. Together: Final Report of the Salt Lake City Futures Commission (1998) - Enforce preservation strategies for buildings and neighborhoods. - Rehabilitate historic buildings for cultural uses wherever possible. The proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD is also currently zoned under the Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay (YCIO) zoning ordinance adopted by the City in 20073. The purpose of the ordinance is to “encourage compatibility between new construction, additions, or alterations and the existing character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood.” The YCIO regulates building height, minimum front yard size, and several aspects of garages or accessory structures, but does not protect against demolitions or out-of-mass, scale and architecture character of additions or new structures. The proposed boundaries of Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD (Appendix A) represents the southeast corner in Normandie Heights subdivision and the greater Yalecrest neighborhood that is nationally recognized for its historic value (National Register of Historic Places 2007). Recognizing this resource and protecting it via a Local Historic District designation is consistent with the City's preservation goals. Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 16 of 24 6. Public Interest in the Proposed LHD Designation To date, 31/43 of the single-family homeowners within the proposed area of Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD have signed an application petition in support of opening the process to create a Local Historic District. The overall support on the application is 72%, which greatly exceeds the minimum support of 33% required by the LHD designation ordinance guidelines. Property owners at 1150 S 1400 East were contacted and do not support the local historic designation, but were included at the suggestion of the city Historic Preservation Office. Residential Support for Local Historic District Designation in Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Street # Property Parcels # Signatures Supportinga % Support Princeton Ave 41a 30 73% 1400 East 1 0 0% 1500 East 1 1 100% TOTAL 43 31 72% aone signature was collected on the application signature form for property parcels that have Joint tenants (JT) and the appropriate trustee signature was obtained for Trusts on associated property parcels. Designating the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights as Local Historic District (LHD) zoning overlay would minimize the frequent teardowns and demolitions (56 permit filings over the past 27 years) that have plagued Yalecrest in recent years. In addition, the recent Affordable Housing Incentive (AHI) which allows demolition of historic houses for new multi-family housing installation within ¼ mile of high frequency bus transportation (1300 East) has concerned residents of this quiet street. Designation of Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD would maintain the historic character and mass/scale of the street face architecture while providing homeowners and district residents the only legal method to minimize demolition and dismantling of intact historic structures that result in loss of neighborhood character. These services are not offered from Salt Lake City to the National Register of Historic Place designation, nor the local City Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay (YCIO) zoning ordinance. A Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD designation would also provide the citizens of Salt Lake City and the state of Utah with an additional protected heritage resource for future generations from which to learn and appreciate the cultural and City history of notable residents and fine, well-maintained, diverse architectural examples of English Cottage, English Tudor, Cape Dutch, Dutch Colonial, Prairie, and Jacobethan French Norman architectural styles. In addition, the area will teach future urban developers/builders the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 17 of 24 value and sustainability of smaller well-built homes with quality materials that have stood the test of time (100 yrs), the successful layout design of new neighborhoods that include different housing options for singles, empty-nesters, couples, and families that include both small- and medium-sized single-family and multi-family duplexes at various prices. It will aid in the education of designing new successful neighborhoods that include such elements as sidewalks, green space, streetlights, mature shade trees, and proximity to infrastructure necessities such as libraries, grocery stores, restaurants, schools, and child care that encourage walkability and enhance safety from crime. These are the elements that have made Yalecrest a successful and highly desirable neighborhood. B. Photographs Original and current photographs of the individual homes in the proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD are listed with addresses in APPENDIX C. The original photographs were downloaded from the Salt Lake County Tax Assessor site. Current photographs were collected by the Lynn Kennard Pershing, resident in Yalecrest, using an iPhone 11 camera.. C. Research Material The Reconnaissance Level Survey was completed by Salt Lake City in 2005 in preparation for the Yalecrest National Register of Historic Places designation, which was awarded in 2007. Much of the information in this document about the area’s architecture, history, builders, and building dates comes from that survey and the Salt Lake County Assessor website. Additional information is on file at the Utah State Historic Preservation Office, Family Search website, and newspaper archives (Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News). Research material used to prepare this application are listed in APPENDIX C. See (http://utahhistory.sdlhost.com/#/item/000000011019963/view/146 D. Landmark Sites Not applicable E. Boundary Adjustment: Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD is located to the immediate south of Yalecrest-Harvard Heights LHD. The new Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD is parallel to Yalecrest-Harvard Heights LHD and both traverse the 1300-1500 blocks of their respective streets, while also including 2 properties; 1150 S 1400 E and 1136 S 1500 E that lie between those streets. The boundaries of the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD containing 43 property parcels are listed below: West boundary is 1323 E Princeton Ave Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 18 of 24 East boundary is demarcated by1136 South 1500 East and 1490 E Princeton Ave North boundary contains the north side of Princeton Ave containing the odd numbered houses (1323-1475 E Princeton Ave) and 1150 E 1400 East South Boundary contains the south side of Princeton Ave with the even numbered houses of 1340-1490 E Princeton Ave. APPENDIX A-1 Original plat of Normandie Heights Subdivision July 1, 1926, Pr. Lots 2-3, Block 28 Bowers Investment Company Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 19 of 24 Bottom of Form The Normandie Subdivision lies in the southwestern most corner of. The Normandie subdivision is outlined in purple. APPENDIX A-2 All LHDs in Yalecrest Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 20 of 24 Existing Yalecrest LHDs Douglas Park-I Normandie Circle Harvard Heights Upper Harvard Yale Park Plat A Harvard Park Princeton Park Princeton Heights (proposed) outlined in red APPENDIX A-3 Expanded street map view of the proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD boundary adjustment (red outline) within the East Bench Yalecrest Neighborhood Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 21 of 24 .. Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD (43 parcels) includes the following property addresses Princeton Ave (41 parcels): 1323-1490 E Princeton Ave 1500 East: 1 parcel, 1136 S 1500 East 1400 East: 1 parcel, 1150 E 1400 East APPENDIX B Contrary Documentation in RLS 2005 and Salt Lake County Assessor Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 22 of 24 1. Missing photographs: Original house photographs were not available from the State Historic Preservation Office, nor the SLCounty Assessor website (www.slco.org/assessor) a. 1348 E Princeton Ave b. 1458 E Princeton Ave c. 1466 E Princeton Ave d. 1490 E Princeton Ave 2. Inaccurate original photos on SLCounty Assessor website a. 1422 E Princeton Ave b. 1426 E Princeton Ave c. 1442 E Princeton Ave d. 1450 E Princeton Ave APPENDIX C Photographs of Princeton Heights LHD Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 23 of 24 See separate attached document 1323-1490 E Princeton Ave 1150 S 1400 East 1136 S 1500 East Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 24 of 24 APPENDIX D Research Materials (References) 1. Lufkin, Beatrice. Yalecrest Reconnaissance Level Survey 2005. Utah State Historic Preservation Office. 2. Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay. Sterling Codifier 21A.34.120. December 2005. http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/getBookData.php?id=&chapter_id=49078&ke ywords=#s928586 3. Salt Lake City Community Preservation Plan. October 2012 4. Polk directories 1925-1976, State Historic Preservation Office, www.ushpo.utah.gov 5. Family Search app online 6. Salt Lake County Assessor: House information: parcel number, build date, exterior materials, original house photos, www.slco.org/assessor. 1 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Yalecrest-Princeton Heights Local Historic District embodies 43 houses total 41 houses: 1323-1490 E Princeton Ave NOTE: Code for each house: address, (contributing status): property parcel number, original date and style description. 1NA= original photo not available on SLCounty Assessor nor Salt Lake County Archives 1323 E Princeton Ave (B) 16-09-351-009 1937 English Cottage 2022 1333 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-351-010 1930 English Cottage 2022 1340 E Princeton (A) 16-09-353-001 2 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD 1938 English Cottage 2022 1343 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-351-011 1926 English Cottage 2022 1345 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-351-012 1929 English Tudor 2022 1348 E Princeton Ave (B) 16-09-353-002 1926 English Cottage1 2022 3 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Original photo not available 1349 E Princeton Ave (B) 16-09-351-013 1929 English Tudor 2022 1353 E Princeton Ave (B) 16-09-351-014 1928 French Norman 2022 4 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD 1360 E Princeton Ave (A): 16-09-353-003 1927 English Tudor 2022 1361 E Princeton Ave (B) 16-09-351-015 1927 English Tudor 2022 1362 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-004 1926/ 1928 English Tudor 2022 1369 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-351-016 5 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD 1929 English Cottage 2022 1370 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-005 1926 English Tudor 2022 1376 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-006 1926 English Cottage 2022 6 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD 1377 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-351-017 1927 Jacobean Revival French Norman 2022 1380 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-007 1940 Colonial Revival Neoclassical 2022 1387 E Princeton Ave (B) 16-09-351-018 1951 Minimal Traditional 2022 7 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD 1388 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-008 1926 English Cottage/Tudor 2022 1400 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-009 1937 Colonial Revival 2022 1401 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-352-012 1927 English Tudor 2022 8 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD 1404 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-010 1927 English Tudor 2022 1405 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-352-013 1937 English Cottage 2022 9 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD 1410 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-011 1927 English Cottage 2022 1411 E Princeton Ave (A). 16-09-352-014 1937 English Cottage (RLS 2005)/ Colonial Revival 2022 10 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD 1418 E Princeton Ave (B) 16-09-353-012 1928 Period Revival; Other 2022 1419 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-352-015 1936 Colonial Revival (RSL 2005)/Cape Cod 2022 1422 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-013 1927 English Tudor 2022 11 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD incorrect original photo? 1426 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-014 1927 English Tudor 2022 Incorrect original photo? 1429 E Princeton Ave (B) 16-09-352-016 1926 Cape Dutch Colonial Period Revival 2022 12 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD 1439 E Princeton Ave (B) 16-09-352-017 1927 Colonial Revival/English Tudor 2022 1442 E Princeton Ave (B) 16-09-353-015 1926 English Cottage 2022 inaccurately original photo 1445 E Princeton Ave (B) 16-09-352-018 1929 English Cottage 2022 13 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD 1449 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-352-019 1929 English Tudor 2022 1450 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-017 1928 English Cottage 2022 Inaccurate original photo? 1457 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-352-020 1926 Dutch Colonial Revival/Period Cottage 2022 14 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD 1458 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-018 1926 English Cottage 2022 Original photo unavailable 1465 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-352-021 1926 English Cottage/Tudor 2022 15 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD 1466 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-019 1929 Colonial Revival 2022 Original photo not available 1469 E Princeton Ave (B) 16-09-352-022 1929 English Tudor 2022 16 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD 1475 E Princeton Ave (C) 16-09-352-025 1917 Prairie School 2022 1490 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-060 1928 English Tudor 2022 Original photo unavailable 17 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD 1 house from 1500 East 1136 S 1500 East (A) 16-09-352-024 1932 Colonial Revival 2022 4. MAILING LIST OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR own_ OWN_CITYOWNOWN_ZIP BRITTNEY NYSTROM; EDWARD P ROG (JT 1323 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 D'ARCY BENINCOSA 1333 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 SEAN M RHODES; EMILY R BUCHI (JT) 1343 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 ROBERT B MOODY; B CATHERINE MOOD 1345 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 EVE H SMITH FAMILY TRUST 03/14/1984 1349 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 ALEXANDRA OWENS 2540 E CATALINA DR COTTONW UT 84121 RALPH L FINLAYSON 1361 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 APT REV TR 1369 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 GERALD STRINGFELLOW; BARBARA STRIN1377 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 JULIAN ONTIVEROS 1387 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 KARLY GREENWOOD NIELSEN REVOCABL 1401 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 CFAM REV TR 670 OXFORD AVE VENISE CA 90291 SUSAN P AMOSS 1411 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 AEM FAM TRUST 1419 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 DANIEL EASTMAN; ANNE MARIE EASTMA 1429 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 PERRY A SLOAN III LIVING TRUST 04/19/2 1439 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1445 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 KATHLEEN ELAINE VIETORIS; CINDY LOU 1449 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 RACHAEL E KIRKWOOD 1457 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 SARIAH TORONTO; DOUGLAS ROLLINS (JT1465 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 AMY BRADSHAW YOUNG TRUST 4/29/20 1469 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 ROBERT K WOLTERS; COLEEN T WOLTERS1136 S 1500 E SALT LAKE UT 84105 JMG TRUST; JFPG TRUST 1475 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1340 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 SYCAMORE ASSET PROTECTION TRUST 081348 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 MARK ALBERT GLISSMEYER TRUST 09/13 1360 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 TIMOTHY J ERMISH FAMILY TRUST 6/20/ 1362 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 LAURENE G JOSEPH REVOCABLE TRUST 1 1370 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 DANIEL JED TORSAK; ALLYSON WHITBY T 1376 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 JENNIFER A BOWNE; JOHNNY T BOWNE ( 1380 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 GEORGE & SABRINA FAMILY LIVING TRUS 1388 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 REBECCA L WILSON; MICHAEL D ROBIS (J 1400 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 BONNIE L RANDALL 1404 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 STEFAN C PENNER 1410 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 STRONG LIVING TRUST 03/27/2023 201 S MAIN ST 1800 SALT LAKE UT 84111 WARREN MICHAEL JENSON; SARAH JAYN 1422 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1426 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 1442 PRINCETON AVENUE LLC 201 COSTA MESA ST COSTA ME CA 92627 SUZANNE J WINCHESTER 1450 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 JAMES R LEE TRUST 12/16/2019 740 PARK VIEW DR PARK CITY UT 84098 BRIAN K MILLER; REBECCA A MILLER (JT) 1466 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 BRIAN K MILLER; REBECCA A MILLER (JT) 1466 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1490 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 5. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT (RECEIVED AFTER STAFF REPORT PUBLICATION) Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From: cindy cromer To: Traughber, Lex Subject: (EXTERNAL) Fw: please forward to the Dropbox for tonight-Princeton Heights Date: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 2:52:52 PM Attachments: Scanned_from_a_Lexmark_Multifunction_Product11-08-2023-143743.pdf The attachment includes the analyses completed by developers who participated in the Mayor's task force on Affordable Housing. (The complete tables are included in the link below at Attachment G beginning on p. 92.) The analyses were completed by Chris Zarek for multiple family developments and by Josh Green for lower density development. This material was in your packet for the April 26 hearing on the Affordable Housing project. The conclusion of the Mayor's task force was that the proposed changes would be unlikely to affect neighborhoods with higher land costs. The discussion by members of the task force specifically mentioned the Yalecrest neighborhood. Professional Memo (slcdocs.com) submitted by cindy cromer for the hearing on Princeton Hts. A1TACHMENT G: Summary of Proforma and Scenario Analyses PLNPCM2019-00522 91 April 26,2023 I • 20% units @ 80% AMI, with 2 floor above max height 285 0.937S D-2 $8M / Sl96p$1/ S2Bl</door 45 122 60 12 30 16 20%units @ 80% AMI, with 3 floors above max height 315 $8M/ S196psf / 525.41</door 48 128 64 12 32 16 20%units @ 80% AMI, with 3 floors above max height, add'Ipark 300 $8M/ $196p,f / $26.61</door 48 128 64 12 32 16 Development Scenarios D-2 • Using New Downtown Building Heights standards Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80%AMI 50%AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 I I Scenarios # of Units LotSize (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80%AMI 30%AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 I ::: Market Rate Project, by right to zoning 225 I 0.9375 I D·2 I $SM/$196psf /$3S.51</door 45 120 60 Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80%AMI 30%AMI l.": Studio l BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio l BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 I Market Rate Project,same project as above 225 $BM/$196psf / $35.Sl</door 45 120 60 5%units @ 30% AMI, with 1 floor above max height 255 $BM/$196p$f / $31,31</door 48 129 64 3 7 4 5%units @ 30% AMI, with 2 floor above max height 285 0.9375 D-2 $8M / $196p$f / $2Bl</door 54 144 72 3 8 4 5% units @ 30% AMI, with 3 floors above max height 315 $8M / $196psf / SZS.41</door 59 160 79 4 8 5 5% units @ 30% AMI, with 3 floors above max height,add'I park 300 $8M / $196psf / $26.61</door 57 152 76 3 8 4 Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80%AMI 60%AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio l BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio l BR 2 BR 3 I Market Rate Project, same project as above 225 $8M / $196psf / S3S.Sl</door 45 120 60 ((. 20% units @ 80% AMI, with 1 floor above max height 255 $8M/ S196psf / $31,31</door 40 109 54 11 27 14 7 Market Rate 80%AMI . Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value 60%AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 I I 10%units @ 60% AMI, with 2 floors above max height 10%units @ 60% AMI, with 3 floors above max height 285 0.9375 315 D-2 $8M/ $196psf / $281:/door $BM/ 5196psf / 52S.41</door 51 56 137 152 68 75 6 7 15 16 8 9 10%units @ 60% AMI, with3 floors above max height, add'Ipark 300 $BM/$196psf / $26.61</door 54 144 72 6 16 8 Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80%AMI 60%AMI Studio l BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio l BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 I ;: Market Rate Project, same project as above 225 $8M / $196psf / $3S.Sl</door 45 120 60 10% units @ 80% AMI. All 2s,with 1 floor above max height 255 $8M/ $196psf / $31,lk/door 51 136 42 26 10% units @ 80% AMI. All 2s,with 2 floors above max height 285 0.9375 D·2 $8M / $196psf / $281</door 57 152 47 29 Scenarios Studio l BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio l BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 I @I LIHTC project 225 $8M / $196psf / $35.Sl</door 36 96 48 9 24 12 20% units@ 50% AMI, with 1 floors above max height 255 $8M / $196psf / $31..31</door 40 109 54 11 27 14 20% units@ 50% AMI, with 2 floors above max height 285 0.9375 D·2 $8M / Sl96p$1/ $281</door 45 122 60 12 30 16 20% units@ 50%AMI, with 3 floors above max height 315 $8M/ $196psf / $2S,41</door 50 135 66 13 33 18 20%units@ 50%AMI, with 3 floors above max height 300 $8M/ $196psf / $26.61</door 48 128 64 12 32 16 Market Rate Project, same project as above 225 $8M /S196psf / $35.51</door 45 120 60 5% units @ 60% AMI, All 2s,withl floor above max height 255 $BM/$196psf /$31,31</door 51 136 55 13 5% units @ 60% AMI, All 2s, with 2 floors above max height 285 0.9375 D-2 $BM/$196psf / $281</door 57 152 61 15 5% units @ 60%AMI, All 2s, with3 floors above max height 315 $BM/ $196psf / $25.41</door 63 168 68 16 5% units @ 60%AMI, All 2s, with3 floorsabove max, add'I park 300 $BM/ $196psf / $26.61</door 60 160 65 15 Market Rate Project, same project asabove 225 $BM/5196psf / $35.51</door 45 120 60 10%units @ 60% AMI, with 1 floor above max height 255 $BM/S196psf / 531,31</door 46 122 61 5 14 7 27 72 36 II 7 - . . ;I Scenarios #of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80%AMI 50%AMI I Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR Scenarios # of Units lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80%AMI - . - 10% units@ 60% AMI,with 1 floor above max height 165 I Scenarios # of Units lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80%AMI Market Rate Project, same project as above 135 I 0.9375 Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR I $6.3M/ S154psf / $46.6k/door 27 72 36 Vanous I I $6.3M / Sl54psf / $46.6k/door Development Scenarios Wood Frame (Type 111/V Construction) 4 over 1 to 5 over 1 in various zones allowing approximately 50 feet in height . Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 0.9375 I $6.3M / $154psl/ $46.6k/door 22 57 29 Vanous 5 15 7 I I $6.3M/ Sl54psf / $38.lk/door 26 70 35 7 18 9 Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80%AMI 30%AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR _ Market Rate Project, by right to zoning 135 I 0.9375 I Various I $6.3M / S154psl / $46.6k/door 27 72 36 i Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning land Value Market Rate 80%AMI 30%AMI . Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR . 0.9375 I $6.3M / SIS4psf / $46.6k/door 27 72 36 Vanous I S6.3M / Sl54psf / $38.!k/door 31 83 42 2 5 2 Scenarios # of Units lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80%AMI 60%AMI f Market Rate Project, same project as above 135 I I $6.3M / Sl54psl / $46.6k/door 27 72 36 0.9375 Various 5% units @ 60% AMI, All 2s, with 1 floor above max height = 165 I I I $6.3M / SIS4psf / $3!1.lk/door 33 88 35 9 m· Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80%AMI 60%AMI . Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 1; Market Rate Project, same project as above 135 I 0.9375 I S6.3M / Sl54psf / $46.6k/door 27 36 Vanous - 20% units@ 80% AMI, with 1 floor above max height I 165 I I I $6.3M / SlS4psf / $38.!k/door 27 70 35 6 18 9 I - . Market Rate Project, same project as above 135 I I S6.3M/ S154psf / $46.6k/door 27 72 36 0.9375 Vanous = 10%units @ 80% AMI. All 2s, with 1 floor above max height 165 I I I S6.3M / $154psf / $38.lk/door 33 88 27 17 . .,. Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value 60%AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 5% units (a) 80%AMI. All 3s. with 1 floor above max heieht 165 I 0.9375 I Vanous I S6.3M / SlS4osf/ S38.lk/door 51 123 42 13 80%AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Market Rate Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 60%AM Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR I $6.3M/ $154psf / $38.lk/door 30 79 39 3 9 - 60%AMI . Market Rate Project, same project as above 135 I Mixed Income 4%UHTC project, 20%of units@ 50% AMI 13S I 4%LIHTC 20% units @ 50% AMI, with 1 floor above max height 165 I Market Rate Project, same project asabove 135 I 5%units @ 30% AMI, with 1 floor above max height 165 I Development Scenarios RMF-35 and TSA Apartment Buildings Citizens West Citizens West 2 & 3 are 100% affordable units, 25-50% AMI for all units. *Building this many units might be limited by LIHTC Equity available per cycle. lncreas from the existing 5 floors of residential/2 floors of parking would require change of construction type to steel, would affect OCR. Scenarios #of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Average 43% AMI Studio 3 BR 4 BR OCR/ Stal LIHTC project (9%) 80 1 TSA-UN-T $1.8M 45 25 10 Same project as above, with 1 floor above max height (AHi) 97 55 30 12 * Same project as above, with 2 floors above max height (AHi) 114* 65 35 14 * Denver Apartments This is a permanent supportive housing development. It is zoned RMF-35. The scenarios below show what was built based on the existing regulations and wl existing incentives. The incentives have a requirement of no more than 25% of units less than 500 sq. ft. Some units had to be enlarged and if there was not would have fit on the site. Scenarios #of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Permanent Supportive Haus Studio= 39% AMI 1 BR= 50% AMI Project with existing zoning requirements 22 0.9 RMF-35 We don't have a current appraisal for this parcel. When the project was done, we paid $1M for land 10 LIHTC project (9%) - with allowances by incentives 53 13 Avia (The Exchange, Phase I) The Avia is 80% market rate units and 20% of units are at 50% AMI Scenarios #of Lot Size Zoning Units (acres) Market Studio 1 BR Avia (The Exchange) LIHTC project (4%) 286 1 TSA-UN-C 25 13 Same project as above, with 1 floor above max height (AHi) 326 28 15 Same project as above, with 2 floors above max height (AHi) 367 31 17 Development Scenarios Summary Single- and Two-family zoning districts #of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Unit Size For Sale Product, 80% AMI Market Rate 80%AMI Profit Market Price 80%, 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4BR Scenario #1: Lower land value/Sales price neighborhood Single-family Detached without AHi 1 0.15 R-1/7,000 $185,000 2,800 sq ft + 2 car garage 1 $ (109,043) $500,000 Duplex with AHi 2 0.15 R-1/7,000 $185,000 1,500 sq ft each 1 1 $ (35,693) $450,000 Fourplex with AHi 4 0.15 R-1/7,000 $185,000 1,000 sq ft each 2 2 $ 118,558 $350,000 (x2) $32 Townhouses with AHi 4 0.25 R-1/7,000 $300,000 1,730 sq ft+ 2 car garage 2 2 $ (75,150) $450,000 (x2) $30( Scenario #2 Higher land value/Sales price neighborhood Single-family Detached without AHi 1 0.15 R-1/7,000 $300,000 2,800 sq ft + 2 car garage 1 $134,800 $1,050,000 Duplex with AHi 2 0.15 R-1/7,000 $300,000 1,500 sq ft each 1 1 ($61,150) $600,000 Fourplex with AHi 4 0.15 R-1/7,000 $300,000 1,000 sq ft each 2 2 $81,350 $450,000 (x2) $325. Townhouses with AHi 4 0.25 R-1/7,000 $500,000 1,730 sq ft+ 2 car garage 2 2 ($7,610) $660,000 (x2) $350. Assumptions: 80% AMI max. for sale price for a 3 bed unit assumes 4-person household, $81,900 annual income, 5% interest rate, 7% down payment 80% AMI max. for sale price for a 2 bed unit assumes 3-person household, $73,750 annual income, 5% interest rate, 7% down payment 80% AMI rental rates: 1 br = $1,537, 2 br = $1,844, 3 br = $2,130, 4 br = $2,136 NOi = net operating income= annual income - annual expenses 4.5% Cap rate for all PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 1 To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Sara Javoronok, Senior Planner, AICP, sara.javoronok@slcgov.com, 801-535-7625 Brooke Olson, Principal Planner Date: April 26, 2023 Re: PLNPCM2019-00658 Text Amendment PROPERTY ADDRESS: City-wide PARCEL ID: N/A MASTER PLAN: Plan Salt Lake, Growing SLC: A Five-Year Housing Plan ZONING DISTRICT: Multiple REQUEST: A request by the Mayor to amend zoning requirements to incentivize and reduce barriers for affordable housing. The proposed amendments include the following if requirements for affordable units are met: • Permit administrative design review and additional building height between 1-3 stories, depending on the zone, in various zoning districts that permit multifamily housing. • Remove the Planned Development requirement for specific modifications and for development in the CS zoning districts. • Permit an additional story in the TSA Transition zoning districts and two stories in the TSA Core zoning districts. • Allow additional housing types in the CG (General Commercial), CC (Community Commercial), and CB (Community Business) zoning districts. • Allow housing on Institutional zoned land. • Remove the density requirements in the RMF zoning districts. • Allow townhouses, 3-4 unit buildings, a second detached dwelling when an existing dwelling is maintained, and cottage developments on properties that are currently zoned for single- or two-family homes. Permit twin and two-family homes in these zoning districts where they are not currently allowed. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed Affordable Housing Incentives Text Amendment, with the ability to amend the adopted ordinance language as necessary to eliminate potential conflicts with other pending ordinances and ensure consistency with other code sections and references in the zoning ordinance. The content and intent of the proposed regulations will not be changed. Staff Report PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND A. ATTACHMENT A: Proposed 21A.52 Zoning Incentives Text B. ATTACHMENT B: Single- and Two-Family Zoning District Graphics C. ATTACHMENT C: Updated Affordable Housing Incentives Document D. ATTACHMENT D: Updated Affordable Housing Incentives Summary Document E. ATTACHMENT E: Public Process & Comments F. ATTACHMENT F: Analysis of Standards G. ATTACHMENT G: Summary of Proforma and Scenario Analyses H. ATTACHMENT H: Zoning Maps and Graphics Affordable Housing Incentives (AHI) are proposed for the city’s zoning code to encourage the development, construction, and preservation of housing in the city. There are two primary goals of the AHI. First, they are to help public and private dollars that go into building affordable housing create more housing units. Second, they are to create additional opportunities for property owners to provide new, affordable housing units. The AHI propose allowing for additional height, reducing parking requirements, allowing additional housing types, and providing planning process waivers or modifications. The project was initiated in 2019 to address increasing concerns regarding housing affordability and to implement Growing SLC. It was initially envisioned as an overlay district and called “Affordable Housing Overlay”. Since the proposal applies differently in various zoning districts, an “overlay” is not applicable, and the “Affordable Housing Incentives” are now the first section in a new incentives chapter. Initial outreach on the proposal included an online survey in late 2019/early 2020. From the initial survey results, staff developed a draft framework for the AHI that serves as the basis for the current proposal. This was presented online in a Story Map and staff requested additional feedback from the community in a survey. Based on this feedback, developed draft the initial AHI text amendments. Staff presented these initial draft amendments to the community in the spring of 2022 and to the Planning Commission and public at a hearing in May 2022. Following the hearing, staff worked with developers and a focus group convened by the Office of the Mayor to address and revise the draft based on the issues raised. The revisions also incorporate changes from the now adopted RMF-30 and pending Downtown Building Heights text amendments. Staff presented a revised draft to the Planning Commission for discussion on March 22, 2023 and March 29, 2023. The Historic Landmark Commission held a work session on April 6, 2023. The incentives are summarized below. Attachment A includes the full text of the draft language. Many of the incentives refer to area median income (AMI). This is the midpoint of the region's income distribution. Half of the families in the region earn more than the median and half earn less than the median. In this case, the Federal government sets the region for the Salt Lake City Metro Area, which is Salt Lake and Tooele counties. The proposal does not change other city requirements, including building codes, fire codes, or public utilities requirements. ATTACHMENTS: PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 3 Mixed-Use and Multifamily Zoning Districts Additional height and process modifications Provisions related to additional height are a key incentive in the proposal. These are specific incentives for additional height of 1 to 3 stories in zoning districts that allow for additional height in mixed-use, multifamily and attached units (there are separate incentives for the RMF zoning districts). See pages 7-8 in Attachment A or pages 14-17 in Attachment D for the specific allowances in these districts. The proposal does not modify the design standards in 21A.59 but modifies the review process to administrative design review rather than requiring a Planning Commission hearing. This would decrease the review time for these projects by approximately 50%. Planned Development process modifications The proposal would remove the requirement for a Planned Development for two types of projects. The first type of project is for buildings in the CS (Community Shopping) zoning district, which is limited to four areas of the city (see the map in Attachment H.1). Previously, this requirement was also in place for the GMU (Gateway Mixed Use) zoning district, but it is removed with the Downtown Building Heights text amendment, which is pending City Council action. The second type of project is for building lots that do not have public street frontage. This is a common request with a planned development, often associated with other requests. Removing the requirement for this process could shorten the review and process for units. Generally, requests for building lots without street frontage are approved. As properties with long, deep lots redevelop with more intensive uses, townhouses, or other forms that were not previously as common, this is a frequent request as the larger size of many lots allows for internal, private drives to access garages for townhouses, or sites where there are multiple buildings. The removal of this requirement is intended to decrease the processing time for applications and would not affect base zoning district standards. TSA modification Another component of the proposal is a change from the existing requirements in the TSA or Transit Station Area zoning districts. There are eight TSA districts, four are “core” districts and four are “transition” districts (see the map in Attachment H.2 for the location of the TSA zoning districts). The zoning district has an administrative approval process for projects if they meet a required number of points per guidelines that apply to the district. If projects meet this required number of points, they can add an additional story. The proposal would allow one additional story in the Transition districts and two additional stories in the Core districts, but only if affordable units are provided. Additional building types The proposal would allow single-family and single-family attached dwellings, which include row houses, sideways row houses, and cottage developments in the CB – Community Business, CC – Corridor Commercial, CG – General Commercial, and I - Institutional zoning districts. These districts are located across the city (see the map in Attachment H.3 for the location of the commercial zoning districts). CB generally has neighborhood-oriented businesses and related uses, including grocery stores. Concentrations of corridor commercial are located on State Street and Redwood Road. There are areas of General Commercial west of downtown, on 300 West and west of I-15. Definitions and design standards are provided for these building types with the amendments. The CB, CC, and CG zones permit multifamily development. Buildings that look like townhouses or row houses are often platted as condos and considered multifamily development. This would permit them as single-family attached housing that could be developed without a condo plat. This PROPOSED AMENDMENTS (See attachments for the full text) PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 4 could allow for additional financing opportunities for homeowners that are not necessarily an option with condo units. The institutional zoning district includes land where there are schools, hospitals, and other non- profit entities. The city’s zoning regulations do not apply to land that is owned by the state. Multifamily housing is not permitted in this zoning district. At a later date, planning staff may consider multifamily housing as a permitted use in this zoning district. Affordability requirements Projects in the mixed-use and multifamily districts would need to provide units that meet one of the following seven options listed below. The first three are those presented in May 2022: • 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI; • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI; or • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; The new options with more deeply affordable and larger units are below: • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an average income at or below 60% AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI; or • 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 30% AMI; or • 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or • 5% of the units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have three or more bedrooms. See Key Consideration #2 for additional information on the affordability level and number of units required. Middle, Single- and Two-Family Zoning Districts Residential Multifamily Districts The existing density requirements in the RMF (Residential Multifamily) zoning districts often prevent the construction of development that is the same density and type as existing surrounding development. These districts are located in various areas of the city with concentrations of them to the east of downtown. See the map in Attachment H.4. The proposed amendments incentivize affordable housing by removing these density limits or qualifying provisions if affordable units are provided. For example, in the RMF-35 zoning district the density limits require a 9,000 square foot lot for a multifamily development of 3 or more units. Then, for each additional unit above 3, an additional 3,000 square feet is needed. For example, this would require a half-acre of land for 7 units. This is often a greater amount of land than would have been required historically. This results in a smaller number of units constructed on properties. In addition, the units that are constructed are much larger than those constructed historically, which results in a higher cost per unit. The proposal would remove these density restrictions and the minimum lot width. It would not permit additional height or increased building coverage. There are additional design standards and no more than 25% of the units can be less than 500 sq. ft. The removal of the density restrictions would enable a greater number of units, likely smaller units, to be built on properties. Affordability requirement: Feedback from the surveys and other outreach indicate support for more for sale units that could be owner occupied and the proposal includes different requirements for rental and for sale units. The rental units must be at affordable at 50% or 60% AMI and have affordability requirements similar to those for Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) which is a tax credit program for the acquisition, PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 5 rehabilitation, or new construction rental housing for lower-income households. The city’s zoning requirements generally do not regulate ownership. However, with the more restrictive affordability requirements proposed, for sale units have an alternative requirement. For rental housing: • A minimum of 40% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes at or below 60% AMI; • A minimum of 20% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes at or below 50% AMI; or • A minimum of 40% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes averaging no more than 60% AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI. For sale owner occupied units: 50% of units as affordable to those with incomes at or below 80% AMI. Single- and Two-Family Incentives The city has six single-family zoning districts, there are three R-1 districts: R-1/5,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/12,000, and three FR districts: FR-1, FR-2, and FR-3. The city has four districts that generally allow two-family or duplex homes in addition to single family homes. These are the R-2, SR-1, SR-1A, and SR-3 zoning districts. The proposed amendments would permit several types of homes that are not currently permitted in all of these districts: • Two-family, twin, or duplex homes; • 3-4 unit buildings – triplexes or fourplexes; • Townhouses, or single family attached units, as sideways rowhouses or rowhouses in groups of 3-4; • A second detached dwelling when an existing dwelling is maintained; and • Cottage developments, which are single family homes in groups of two to eight that are generally arranged in a courtyard layout. One of the primary concerns raised in the public comments and the focus group meetings was that the AHI would result in the loss of existing dwellings, historic dwellings that are not locally designated, and naturally occurring affordable housing. This could result in increased gentrification. The focus group discussed several options to incentivize the preservation of existing dwellings, while also allowing for additional housing. The primary incentive recommended by the focus group is to lower the affordable unit requirement when maintaining an existing dwelling to one unit on the property and allow for a second, detached dwelling. For example, the owner of a single-family dwelling could maintain the existing house and use the AHI to construct a second, detached, new dwelling in the rear yard of the property. For additional units, an ADU could also potentially be added. One of these units must be designated as an affordable unit and meet the affordability requirements (See 21A.52.050.H.1.c.4 and Table 21A.52.050.G in Attachment A). The following would apply to properties in the single- and two-family zoning districts: • Yards: Minimum required yards/setbacks shall apply to the perimeter of the property and not to the individual principal building(s). • Parking: One parking space would be required per dwelling unit. If a property has multiple units, a minimum of one space would be required for each unit. A detached garage or carport with up to 250 sq. ft. for each unit may be provided in a single structure. • Subdivision: Lots may contain up to four units. Existing lots may be divided such that each unit is on its own lot. The new lots are exempt from minimum lot area and lot width requirements. PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 6 • Rowhouse standards: There are specific yard requirements. On street facing facades buildings cannot exceed 60 ft. in length and garages are not permitted. There is a maximum length of 15’ for blank walls. • Cottage standards: There are specific yard requirements. Individual cottages cannot be more than 850 sq. ft. Open space and personal outdoor space must be provided. • Accessory Dwelling Unit: An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is considered one unit and counts toward the number of units permitted. • No additional height or building coverage is permitted. The center lot above depicts an existing single-family home with a basement ADU, two surface parking spaces, a new, detached single-family home to the rear, and a detached two-car garage. This is on a larger, nearly 12,000 sq. ft. lot. The three structures have a total building coverage of 24%. See Attachment B for additional views and information. The center lot above depicts an existing single-family home with a second single-family dwelling to the rear. It includes one parking space per unit located on the driveway. This is on a 7,000 sq. ft. lot. This shows the maximum building coverage for the property at 40%. See Attachment B for additional information and examples. Affordability requirement: In the single- and two-family zoning districts, 50% of the additional dwelling units must be affordable to those with incomes at or below 80% AMI. If an existing dwelling is maintained, this is lowered to one of the units as affordable to those with incomes at or below 80% AMI. PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 7 KEY CONSIDERATIONS Consideration 1: How the proposal helps implements city goals and policies identified in adopted plans. The proposal is for a zoning text amendment. The Planning Commission may make a recommendation to the City Council on this type of proposal per 21A.50.050.A. The Planning Commission may make modifications to the proposed amendments, direct staff to make changes, or forward a recommendation to the City Council. The key considerations listed below were identified through the analysis of the project: 1. Implementation of city goals and policies identified in adopted plans. 2. Affordability level and percentage of units 3. Neighborhood impacts 4. Administration and enforcement 5. Infrastructure impacts The city’s adopted plans and policies provide a basis for this proposal. This includes the citywide plan, Plan Salt Lake (2015) and Growing SLC: A Five-Year Housing Plan 2018-2022 (2017). These plans were both adopted by the City Council after extensive review by the public and city boards and commissions. The proposal is consistent with the following principles, objectives, and policies. See below for the specific items and analysis. Plan Salt Lake The proposal is consistent with several items in the Growth, Housing and Transportation & Mobility Chapters. The Growth chapter Guiding Principle, “Growing responsibly, while providing people with choices about where they live, how they live, and how they get around” is applicable. The proposal seeks to enable greater opportunities for people to make these choices by allowing additional housing throughout the community in different building types and sizes and by orienting greater development opportunities to areas with increased transit opportunities. It is consistent with the following initiatives: • Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as transit and transportation corridors. • Encourage a mix of land uses. • Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land. • Accommodate and promote an increase in the City’s population. These initiatives are applicable in that most development proposed using these incentives would be infill or redevelopment of existing properties that have existing infrastructure and amenities. The incentives include zoning districts that allow for mixed-use development and it would add additional building types to other residential districts, which could create a wider mix of housing types in these zoning districts. Additional housing constructed with the incentives would accommodate an increase in the city’s population and help to fulfill the existing gap between households and housing units in the area. In the Housing chapter, the Guiding Principle, “Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics” is applicable. The proposal would allow for additional housing types in APPROVAL PROCESS AND COMMISSION AUTHORITY PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 8 several zoning districts and specifically require that a percentage of the units are affordable for those earning 80% or less than the area median income. The proposal is also consistent with the following initiatives in the Housing Chapter: • Ensure access to affordable housing citywide (including rental and very low income). • Increase the number of medium density housing types and options. • Encourage housing options that accommodate aging in place. • Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the potential to be people oriented. • Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate. • Promote energy efficient housing and rehabilitation of existing housing stock. • Promote high-density residential in areas served by transit. The proposal allows for and incentivizes affordable housing units across the city by increasing the development right. It increases the housing types permitted in many districts, including commercial, single- and two-family districts. This is designed to facilitate moderate density increases in these existing neighborhoods. Amendments to the Downtown and TSA districts further enable and incentivize the development of high density residential in these areas that are served by high-frequency bus and rail transit. These moderate and high-density areas have existing infrastructure and services and, particularly in the high-density residential areas, have the potential to be people oriented. The ability to add units on properties and permit additional housing types in neighborhoods can accommodate aging in place both in homes and in neighborhoods. The proposal promotes the rehabilitation of housing stock by allowing additional units on properties. In the Transportation chapter, the proposal is consistent with the Guiding Principle, “A transportation and mobility network that is safe, accessible, reliable, affordable, and sustainable, providing real choices and connecting people with places.” The proposal incentivizes additional units in many zoning districts that are in close proximity to transit, consistent with the initiative to encourage transit-oriented development. Growing SLC: A Five-Year Housing Plan 2018-2022. The proposal is consistent with several goals, objectives, and policies in Growing SLC: • Goal 1: Reform City practices to promote a responsive, affordable, high-opportunity housing market. o Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city.  Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along significant transportation routes.  Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts.  Reduce parking requirements for affordable housing developments and eliminate parking requirements in transit-rich, walkable neighborhoods or when the specific demographics of a development require less parking, such as senior populations. o Objective 2: Remove impediments in City processes to encourage housing development.  1.2.1 Create an expedited processing system to increase City access for those developers constructing new affordable units. The proposal is to modify existing zoning to allow greater flexibility and opportunities for housing across the city. It encourages diversity in housing stock by allowing for additional housing types in several commercial districts and in single- and two-family zoning districts. In PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 9 single- and two-family zoning districts, this is enhanced by reducing the number of affordable units required when existing housing is maintained. It also permits the conversion or addition of units in existing structures. It decreases the parking required for additional units in single- and two- family zoning districts and for smaller projects. An element of the proposal is waiving or reducing the required Planning processes for developments. It removes the requirement for a Planned Development for many projects including those in the CS (Community Shopping) zoning district and when lots are proposed without public street frontage. These projects may not require a Planning process. Similarly, it allows for administrative Design Review for additional height when permitted or incentivized and meeting the affordability requirements. This administrative process does not modify the existing 21A.59 Design Standards, but could decrease the processing time for projects. • Goal 2: Affordable Housing: Increase Housing Opportunities and Stability for Cost- Burdened Households  2.1.2 Consider an ordinance that would require and incentivize the inclusion of affordable units in new developments. The proposal generally incentivizes rather than requires the inclusion of affordable units in developments. The modification to the TSA zoning district requires affordable units for additional height, which is not currently required. It increases the allowable height to two stories in core districts and maintains one story in the transition districts. Otherwise, the proposal incentivizes affordable units rather than require them through inclusionary provisions. State law no longer permits new inclusionary requirements. This is further detailed in Key Consideration 2. • Goal 3: Equitable & Fair Housing: Build a More Equitable City o Objective 2: Align resources and invest in strategic expansion of opportunity throughout all neighborhoods of the city and access to existing areas of opportunity  Make strategic affordable housing investments in high opportunity neighborhoods.  Support diverse and vibrant neighborhoods by aligning land use policies that promote a housing market capable of accommodating residents throughout all stages of life. The proposal allows for additional housing types in a variety of zoning districts, including commercial, single- and two-family districts. These include high opportunity neighborhoods and may increase the opportunity for owner-occupied units in these neighborhoods. The same provisions may also allow for greater opportunities for residents to remain in the same neighborhoods or elsewhere in the city throughout all stages of life by providing for additional housing types and greater opportunities for these types of developments that are often occupied by recent graduates, young families, and those that may wish to downsize. Consideration 2: Affordability level and percentage of units There has been significant comment and discussion on providing for a greater percentage of affordable units and providing a greater percentage of units that are deeply affordable. Making significant changes to the percentage of affordable units or the targeted AMI would result in projects that are not feasible. This would result in “incentives” that would not be used because they would not provide a benefit. The purpose of the AHI are to allow for a greater number of units than may otherwise be constructed. The intent of the AHI presented in May 2022 was to provide a sufficient incentive that developers of market rate housing could include affordable units in their proposals, and the AHI would allow for developers that were already constructing affordable units to add more units to their projects. PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 10 Posed as a policy question: “Can we increase the affordable housing levels by decreasing the AMI or requiring a different proportion of units?” it is important to consider that if a “gap” is created, it must be filled with a grant or subsidy, or the project cannot be built. The lower the average AMI, the lower the rent collected, and the lower the amount a bank will loan the project to get it built. As shown in the example below, as rent decreases from market rate, the cost of the development does not decrease. However, the maximum loan that a bank is willing to lend decreases, which creates a gap in financing that must be filled. The “annual cash flow” column assumes this gap is filled with equity. With the decrease in rent paid, the annual cash flow is lower and produces less favorable terms for an owner or investor. As AMI decreases, the gap increases and the annual cash flow decreases. The gap must be filled for a project to be developed and a project must have sufficient cash flow for operational expenses, maintenance, and other costs. 80 1-Bed Units Rent per Unit Development Cost Financing Annual Cash Flow Maximum Loan 35% Equity Gap Market Rate $1,841 $23,200,000 $15,912,404 $8,120,000 No gap $256,264 80% AMI $1,537 $23,200,000 $12,505,567 $8,120,000 -$2,574,433 $201,398 70% AMI $1,345 $23,200,000 $10,232,535 $8,120,000 -$4,847,465 $166,724 60% AMI $1,153 $23,200,000 $8,199,392 $8,120,000 -$6,880,608 $132,048 50% AMI $961 $23,200,000 $6,046,360 $8,120,000 -$9,033,640 $97,375 40% AMI $769 $23,200,000 $3,893,216 $8,120,000 -$11,186,784 $62,699 30% AMI $576 $23,200,000 $1,740,185 $8,120,000 -$13,339,815 $28,025 A second policy question considers the effect of 50% market rate units and 50% affordable units at 30% AMI and 50% AMI. As with the first example, there is a gap that needs to be filled with equity, and the project has a much lower cash flow than the market rate development. 80 1-Bed Units Development Cost Financing Annual Cash Flow Maximum Loan 35% Equity Gap 40 Market Rate, 40 @ 30% AMI $23,200,000 $8,826,294 $8,120,000 -$6,253,706 $142,144 40 Market Rate, 40 @ 50% AMI $23,200,000 $10,979,382 $8,120,000 -$4,100,618 $177,979 Assumptions for both examples: • Annual Cash Flow assumes that the "gap" is filled with equity • Development cost is based on $290,000 per unit • Considers reserves/operating expenses of $380,000 per year, 23% of effective gross income for Market Rate rents • Maximum Bank Loan is based on a debt coverage ratio (DCR) of 1.25, 5% interest rate, and a 30-year term • Vacancy rate is 6% • Market Rate Rent Source: CBRE 2022 Greater Salt Lake Area Multifamily Market Report, average Downtown SLC rent • Affordable rents by AMI based on 2022 HUD Income Limits, 1.5 household for a 1-bedroom apartment, 30% of income Based on the direction from the Commission and in response to public comment, staff reached out to members of the local development community, particularly those that are experienced with developing affordable housing and smaller scale developments, and asked them to test the feasibility of the proposed AHI. Staff and the developers created scenarios and proformas to show the performance of the AHI, model their feasibility, and assess how they could be modified to accommodate lower incomes and/or provide for a greater number of affordable units. See Attachment B for details. Chris Zarek of Cowboy Partners, who develops market rate and affordable housing, modeled the existing AHI, and based on the results, additional incentive options for more deeply affordable units and larger units. A model was created for a scenario in the D-2, Downtown Support, zoning district to show how the three options for AHI incentives presented in May 2022 could apply with concrete/steel construction in zoning districts that allow for greater height and steel construction. These options are as follows: PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 11 • 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI; • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI; or • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; Generally, the modeling showed a sufficient return for development. However, with one additional story, the return decreased. The return increased with additional floors, and, with some incentives, was greater (See Attachment G.1). A second model and scenario demonstrate how the AHI could apply in zoning districts that allow for approximately 50’ in height (ex. FB-UN2 or TSA Transition zone). This building would have a concrete podium base with parking and wood frame construction and residential units above it. This shows the potential for a change from a 4-over-1 to a 5-over-1 building. The incentives could allow for an increase from four wood frame residential floors above the first floor of parking to five wood frame residential floors above the first floor of parking. This example shows that as buildings increase in height, there are different building code requirements, like a change from Type V to Type III construction, which provides additional fire protection, and results in higher construction costs. Additionally, depending on the type and location of the building, less parking may be provided (See Attachment G.2). Based on these scenarios, staff is not recommending an increase in the percentage of units required as affordable. To address the issue of providing more deeply affordable units, Cowboy Partners modeled additional scenarios with lower percentage of units at more deeply affordable levels, and with larger unit options. The model indicated these scenarios provided a sufficient return for development and four additional incentive options have been added to the three originally proposed. The new options are below: • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an average income at or below 60% AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI; or • 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 30% AMI; or • 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or • 5% of the units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have three or more bedrooms. An important consideration is that the AHI allow new affordable housing developments to construct more units than are allowed with the existing zoning. Amanda Dillon of GIV Group, who develops affordable housing, prepared scenarios to show the number of units that could have been added to existing projects with the proposed AHI. See Attachment G.3 for details. A summary is as follows: • Denver Apartments (permanent supportive housing) increase from 22 to 53 units • Avia (20% of units at 50% AMI, 4% LIHTC*) increase from 286 to 367 units • Citizens West 2&3 (100% affordable, 25-50% AMI, 9% LIHTC) increase from 80 to 114 units *LIHTC = Low Income Housing Tax Credit Josh Green of Alchemy Development developed a proforma to model the additional housing types in the single- and two-family neighborhoods. The proforma included rental and ownership options in lower and higher value neighborhoods to assess how the AHI may apply in different areas of the city. See Attachment G.4 for details. In summary, for the single- and two-family zoning districts, the original proposal for the AHI may not provide sufficient profit for new development. For ownership units, the fourplex provides the PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 12 greatest return. For rental units, the townhouses or rowhouses provide the highest net operating income, but, depending on the goals of the owner, may not be sufficient. The proposed modifications also include focus group recommendations to preserve existing housing in the single- and two-family zoning districts. This modification, discussed in the following section, may increase the likelihood for profit for homeowners or developers. Alternatively, increasing the maximum AMI for ownership housing may make it more likely to be constructed and does not require a financial incentive on behalf of the city or another entity. Consideration 3: Neighborhood impacts The focus group discussed several mitigation options based on the comments from the Planning Commission and the public and came to a consensus on the following recommendations: • The removal of the proximity to transit and adjacency to arterial roads requirement for additional housing types in the single- and two-family zoning districts. This opens the AHI up to all areas of the single- and two-family zoning districts. This requirement was the subject of many public comments. The intent of the requirement was to encourage additional housing units in areas that are served by frequent transit (rail or bus service with 15-minute headways during peak periods) or are adjacent to arterial roads, which often have greater intensities of development. However, this requirement proved difficult because the location and frequency of the non-fixed bus routes has changed several times in the past few years. Additionally, some areas of the city were excluded and this raised concerns regarding the equity of the AHI and how they applied in different neighborhoods. • An emphasis on the preservation of existing housing. Members of the focus group did not want to see existing housing demolished. Many existing housing units are naturally more affordable than new housing units. This recommendation is addressed in the revisions by allowing for a second detached dwelling on a lot if the existing dwelling is maintained. As with the previous proposal, existing dwellings may be divided into multiple units provided other development standards are met. It decreases the affordability requirement when an existing dwelling is preserved from 50% of units to at least one of the units. More than two detached dwellings on a lot would require a cottage development. See the single- and two-family section above for additional information and graphics as to how this could be implemented. The graphics are also in Attachment B. • Additional design standards for new housing types in single- and two-family zoning districts. The focus group identified the design of the additional housing types and open space as potential issues. Through discussions with staff, there is additional language that requires 50% durable building materials; a building entrance with an entry porch, canopy, or awning; and an open space requirement for a yard, patio, or other outdoor area. See pages 13-14 in Attachment A for specific requirements. Consideration 4: Administration and enforcement The city anticipates that staff will be needed to administer the AHI program. The amount of staff time necessary will depend on the number of projects that use the AHI and the specific AHI adopted. There is additional language added to the AHI to allow the city to contract with a third party for administration of the incentives. Administration will need to include the following: • Preparing and recording restrictive covenant agreement. • Preparing administrative guidelines and providing general support regarding the incentives and approval process. • Reviewing of annual reports and auditing for compliance. There is additional language added detailing the requirements of these reports and allowing submittal of the copy of the report provided to Utah Housing Corporation, Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund, Housing PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 13 Authority of Salt Lake City, Housing Connect or other sources approved by the Department of Community and Neighborhoods to satisfy this requirement. • Noncompliance shall be cured or will result in fines or an enforcement action. This may include a lien placed on the property or revocation of the business license associated with the property. • The city may contract with another entity for reporting and compliance review. The current proposal includes additional language on reporting, compliance, and enforcement. The properties using the AHI would be required to submit an annual report and a restrictive covenant would be placed on the property. Key points include the following: • Annual Reporting and Auditing – There is additional language requiring annual reporting from the property owner. This can be through reporting for another entity or by meeting the city’s requirements. These include providing information on the dwelling units, rental rates, occupancy, and income verification. • Definitions are added and clarified for affordable housing, affordable rental unit, and affordable homeownership unit. • Enforcement – The penalties have been increased. The fine will be set annually in the Consolidated Fee Schedule and there is an additional fine that is the difference between the affordable monthly rent and the market rate rent. If fines are not paid, a lien may be placed on the property. The business license for the property may also be revoked and there are additional penalties for those whose license has been revoked. • Affordable Homeownership Unit o The city will have a first option on future sales to ensure that the housing unit remains affordable. o Owners will need to meet income requirements at the time of purchase. • Affordable Rental Unit o Through administrative requirements, unless otherwise required for the development, if a resident’s income increases to market rate, the resident will be switched to a market rate unit/rate, or, if not available, may remain in the unit. Consideration 5: Infrastructure impacts It is the responsibility of developers to provide service to new development. During the review process, infrastructure needs, like water and sewer are identified, and new or upgraded service may be required to be installed by the developer. This is typically handled during the building permit process. If a water, sewer, or storm drain line does not have adequate capacity for new housing units, a developer is required to increase the capacity. This is similar for other utilities. The city plans for future growth in various master plan documents. This includes the city’s water supply. The Public Utilities Department determines the amount of water available for all future development. Staff discussed this issue with Laura Briefer, the Public Utilities Director. The city’s most recent water supply and demand plan (2019) projects to the year 2060 and takes into consideration land use changes associated with densification, as well as land use changes in the Northwest Quadrant of the City, including the inland port and new correctional facility. The plan also takes into consideration the city’s best projections for climate change impacts to water supply and demand. The conclusion of the 2019 plan is that more water conservation is needed to meet the cumulative projected population and land use driven demands by the year 2060. Public Utilities will conduct a water supply and demand iteration this year that may explore demand factors for the needs of the Great Salt Lake and environmental flows. Recent state water rights policy changes have paved the way for the city to include environmental water needs, especially for the Great Salt Lake, as part of the long-term water supply and demand planning. At the request of planning staff, public utilities provided information on single-family residential water usage as compared with small and large multifamily dwellings for 2018-2022, as available. PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 14 ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS ADDITIONAL MODIFICATIONS The average monthly usage for single-family residential dwellings is between 12,000-15,000 gallons per month. Much of this is for outdoor watering and in the winter water usage is approximately 6,500-7,000 gallons per month. Large multifamily buildings have a more consistent year-round water usage per unit and there are greater hardscape impacts. For the five sample buildings planning staff requested information, a mix of high-rise and wood frame construction with a total of about 725 units, the monthly water usage averaged approximately 2,000 gallons per month, per unit. Staff also requested information on two fourplexes and a cottage court (10 units). These averaged approximately 3,000 gallons per month, per unit. Multifamily dwellings are likely to have fewer residents per unit and less outdoor watering. Multifamily dwellings have more consistent year-round usage compared to single- family properties, but overall, based on the units examined, have much lower water usage per unit when compared to a single-family home. The focus group made the following additional recommendations for future zoning/subdivision text amendments: • ADU/condo subdivisions – This would allow for the subdivision of a property with an ADU. This may be accomplished with a condo unit or otherwise dividing the property. There are financial benefits to subdividing the property and it would allow for additional ownership opportunities for ADU residents. There would not be an affordability requirement. • Modifying unit legalization – Focus group members wanted to see changes to the existing regulations for unit legalization. Generally, there was a desire to see fewer regulations, an emphasis on legalizing units that comply with fire/life safety requirements and removal of the requirement that the unit was in place before 1995. • Transfer of development rights from existing affordable properties to others – Members of the focus group wanted to see a program that allowed for the transfer of development rights from existing properties to other properties. This has the potential to preserve existing housing units where property owners do not want to make changes and allow for additional housing units where new development is desired. There are several other modifications made to the draft. They address the following items: • Changes related to the Downtown Building Heights Text Amendment o CG (General Commercial): Permit additional height and change the mapped area to the Depot District proposed with the Downtown Building Heights text amendment. o D-1 (Central Business): Clarity when administrative design review would apply. o D-2 (Downtown Support): Increase in additional height to provide greater benefit. o D-3 (Downtown Warehouse/Residential): Increase in additional height to be compatible with the increase in height proposed with the amendments. o D-4 (Downtown Secondary Central Business): Allow for administrative design review where mapped additional height is permitted. o GMU: Increase in additional height to be compatible with the increase in height proposed with the amendments. Removes the Planned Development requirement in the GMU zoning district. • Landscaping in Commercial Zoning Districts – Based on the feedback from the public, staff modified the landscaping requirement so that it can be met through an open space requirement that includes patios, courtyards, rooftop gardens, and other options. • RMU-35 and RMU-45 – Allows for additional height abutting single- and two-family zoning districts. PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 15 STAFF RECOMMENDATION NEXT STEPS • Annual reporting – There is additional language describing the annual reporting requirements. This can be satisfied with a report as required by another approved entity or by meeting the city’s requirements, which includes providing information on the dwelling units, rental rates, occupancy, and income verification. • Enforcement – Reports of noncompliance and or other violations will be investigated as necessary. The fines for noncompliance are increased. A lien may be placed on the property for fines and the business license revoked. • Removal of modifications to yards/setbacks and building coverage. This simplifies the proposal and requires development proposals to meet the yards or setbacks and building coverage of the base zoning district. • Housekeeping and clarifying language – There are housekeeping modifications and clarifying language in several sections. These are identified and noted in the draft. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the city Council for the proposed Affordable Housing Incentives Text Amendment, with the ability to amend the ordinance language as necessary to ensure consistency with other code sections and references in the zoning ordinance. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. After the recommendation is provided, staff will compile the information and transmit the proposal to City Council for a briefing, public hearing, and potential adoption. PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 16 ATTACHMENT A: Proposed 21A.52 Zoning Incentives Text 1 17 New Chapter: April 2023 Public Hearing Draft 21A.52 Zoning Incentives 21A.52.010 Purpose: The purpose of this chapter is to establish zoning incentives to support achieving adopted goals within the City’s adopted plans and policy documents. 21A.52.020 Applicability: This chapter applies as indicated within each subsection. 21A.52.030 Relationship to base zoning districts and overlay zoning districts: Unless otherwise indicated in this chapter, all base zoning district or overlay zoning district standards and requirements take precedence except as indicated in this section. 21A.52.040 Approval Process: Any process required by this title shall apply to this chapter unless specifically exempt or modified within this chapter. A. The Planned Development process in 21A.55 may be modified as indicated within this chapter. B. The Design Review process in 21A.59 may be modified as indicated within this chapter. C. Developments authorized by this chapter are exempt from 21A.10.020.B.1. 21A.52.050 Affordable Housing Incentives: A. Purpose: The Affordable Housing Incentives encourage the development of affordable housing. The provisions within this section facilitate the construction of affordable housing by allowing more inclusive development than would otherwise be permitted in the base zoning districts. Housing constructed using the incentives is intended to be compatible in form with the neighborhood and provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play. B. Applicability: The provisions in this section provide optional incentives to development projects that include affordable housing units. Unless specifically stated below, all other applicable provisions in the base zoning district or overlay districts shall apply. C. Uses: Additional housing types are allowed in zones subject to compliance with this section. D. Reporting and Auditing: Property owners who use the incentives of this chapter are required to provide a report that demonstrates compliance with this section and any additional approvals associated with the use of incentives. The report shall be submitted annually by April 30th and shall be reflective of the financial status at the end of the previous calendar year. The report shall be submitted to the Director of Community and Neighborhoods or successor. 1. Annual Report and Auditing: Each property owner shall submit a report that demonstrates compliance with this chapter. a. If applicable, the property owner shall submit a copy of the annual report(s) provided to Utah Housing Corporation, Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund, Housing Authority of Salt Lake City, Housing Connect, or similar funding Underline = New text Strikethough = Text removed 2 2 source as determined by the Department of Community and Neighborhoods, or successors, confirming compliance with affordable housing conditions, including tenant income and rent rates. b. If an annual report is not submitted as required in 21A.52.050.D.1.a above, the property owner shall provide a report that includes, but is not limited to the following: (1) The property location, tax ID number, and legal description. (2) Property owner name, mailing address, and email address. (3) Information on the dwelling units and tenants of the property receiving the incentives that includes: (A) The total number of dwelling units (B) The number of bedrooms of each dwelling unit (C) The rental rate of each dwelling unit (D) Identify the dwelling units that comply with the level of affordability identified in the approval to use the incentives and a statement that the dwelling units are in compliance with the approval requirements. (E) Identify any change in occupancy to the units that are required to be affordable under this section, including a change in the number of people residing in each unit and any change in tenant. Personal data is not required to be submitted. (F) Confirm that income verification for all tenants was performed on an annual basis. (G) Identify any differences in rent between the agreed upon rental rate in the approval to use the incentives and the actual rent received for the identified affordable dwelling units. (H) Identify any instance where an affordable dwelling unit was no longer rented at the agreed upon level of affordability, the length of time the dwelling unit was not in compliance with the agreed upon level of affordability, and any remedy that was taken to address the noncompliance. 2. Review of Annual Report: The Director of Community and Neighborhoods shall review the report to determine if the report is complete. 3. Within 30 days of receipt of a complete report, the Director of Community and Neighborhoods shall provide the property owner with written notice that: a. Identifies whether the property is in compliance. b. Identify any deficiency in the information provided by the owner. c. Assesses any penalty that is due as a result of an identified noncompliance. 4. After receipt of the notice from the Director of Community and Neighborhoods that indicates noncompliance, the property owner shall: a. Shall cure the identified noncompliance within 30 days of such notice and concurrently submit an updated report of then-current operations of the property that demonstrates compliance; or b. Property owners can request an extension in writing prior to the expiration of the 30-day cure period identified above. The request shall include an explanation of the efforts to correct the non-compliance and the reason the extension is needed. The Director of Community and Neighborhoods will review and determine if the timeframe and extension are appropriate and 3 19 whether or not fines shall be stayed during any approved extension. Upon expiration of the extension granted by the Director the property owner shall submit an updated report of then-current operations of the property that demonstrates compliance. c. Pay any fine or fee that is assessed pursuant to 21A.20.040 due to any noncompliance within 14 days of achieving compliance. Any fine or fee shall be assessed from the first identified date that the property is not in compliance. d. Violations of this Chapter shall be investigated and prosecuted pursuant to 21A.20, except as set forth below in 21A.52.050.E. 5. The city may contract with another entity for review of the requirements in this section. E. Enforcement: Violations of this Chapter, or the restrictive covenant on the property as set forth in 21A.52.050.F.1, shall be investigated and prosecuted pursuant to 21A.20. The city shall have the additional remedies for violations as set forth below. 1. Lien on Property. If the property owner fails to make payment of the outstanding fines, then after 90 days or when fines reach $5,000, the division will issue a statement of outstanding fines. If the property owner fails to make payment within 14 days, then the division may certify the fines set forth in the statement to the Salt Lake County Treasurer. After entry by the Salt Lake County Treasurer, the amount entered shall have the force and effect of a valid judgment of the district court, is a lien on the property, and shall be collected by the treasurer of the county in which the property is located at the time of the payment of general taxes. Upon payment of the amount set forth in the statement, the judgment is satisfied, the lien is released from the property, and receipt shall be acknowledged upon the general tax receipt issued by the treasurer. 2. Revocation of Business License. Upon a determination of the division that the property is in violation of this Chapter the city may suspend or revoke the business license associated with the property. Any suspension or revocation of a license shall not be imposed until a hearing is first held before the Director of Community and Neighborhoods or his/her successor. The licensee shall be given at least 14 days’ notice of the time and place of the hearing, together with the nature of the charges against the licensee. The licensee may appear in person or through an officer, agent or attorney, to introduce evidence on the licensee’s behalf, and to confront and cross-examine witnesses. The Director of Community and Neighborhoods shall make a decision based upon the evidence introduced at the hearing and issue a written decision. The licensee may appeal to an appeals hearing officer and thereafter to district court pursuant to 21A.16. If the license is revoked or suspended it shall thereafter be unlawful for any person to engage in or use, or permit to be used any property for any business with respect to which the license has been suspended or revoked until a license shall be granted upon appeal or due to the property’s compliance with this Chapter. No person whose license has been revoked, and no person associated or connected with such person in the conduct of such business, shall be granted a license for the same purpose for a period of six months after the revocation has occurred. The Director may, for good cause, waive the prohibition against persons formerly associated or connected with an individual who has had a license revoked. 4 4 F. Eligibility Standards: Developments shall meet the criteria below to be eligible for the authorized incentives: 1. Restrictive Covenant Required: a. Any owner who uses the incentives of this chapter shall enter into a legally binding restrictive covenant, the form of which shall be approved by the City Attorney. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of a building using the incentives, the restrictive covenant shall be filed with the Salt Lake County Recorder. The agreement shall provide for the following, without limitation: acknowledge the use of the incentives, the nature of the approval and any conditions thereof, the affordability requirements, the terms of compliance with all applicable regulations, shall guarantee compliance for a term of 30 years, and the potential enforcement actions for any violation of the agreement. The agreement shall be recorded on the property with the Salt Lake County Recorder, guarantees that the affordability criteria will be met for at least 30 years, and is transferrable to any future owner. b. For an affordable homeownership unit, a notice of sale shall be provided to the city and the city shall have a right of first refusal to any sale of the property in accordance with a future sales price that is capped to comply with section 21A.52.050.F.2.b.2 below. 2. The affordable units shall be both income and rent/housing payment restricted. a. Income Restriction - The affordable units shall be made available only to Eligible Households that are qualifying occupants with an annual income at or below the SLC Area Median Income (“AMI”) as applicable for the given affordable unit for Salt Lake City Utah, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Metro FMR Area (as periodically determined by the HUD and adjusted for household size). b. Rent/Housing Payment Restriction (1) For an affordable rental unit, the monthly rent, including all required housing costs per unit, such as utilities and other charges uniformly assessed to all apartment units other than charges for optional services, shall be set forth in a written lease and shall not exceed, for the term of the lease, the maximum monthly gross rental rate published annually by the Utah Housing Corporation for affordable units located in Salt Lake City for the percentage AMI as applicable for the given affordable unit type. (2) For an affordable homeownership unit, the annualized housing payment, including mortgage principal and interest, private mortgage insurance, property taxes, condominium and/or homeowner's association fees, insurance, and parking, shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the maximum monthly income permissible for the AMI as applicable for the given 5 5 affordable unit, assuming a household size equal to the number of bedrooms in the unit plus one person. 3. Comparable units: Affordable units shall be comparable to market rate units in the development including entrance location, dispersion throughout the building or site, number of bedrooms (unless otherwise permitted), access to all amenities available to the market rate units in the development, or as set forth in the terms of the restrictive covenant. This section does not apply to units in single- and two-family zoning districts. 4. The property owner shall be ineligible for affordable housing incentives pursuant to this Chapter if the property owner or its principals, partners, or agents are under enforcement for any violation of title 11, 18, 20, or 21. G. Incentives: Developments are eligible for the incentives identified in this section. Table 21A.52.050.G establishes the affordability requirements based on the zoning district of the property. Sections 1 through 4 establish the modifications allowed within each zoning district in order to achieve the affordability incentives. To use the incentives, developments shall comply with the criteria applicable to the base zoning districts. Table 21A.52.050.G Incentive Types Types Incentive Type A. Applicable to the single- and two-family zoning districts: FR- 1, FR-2, FR-3, R-1/12,000, R- 1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, SR- 1A, and SR-3. Dwelling units shall meet the requirements for an affordable rental or homeownership unit affordable to those with incomes at or below 80% AMI. New construction: At least 50% of the provided dwelling units shall be affordable. Existing building maintained: A minimum of one of the dwelling units shall be affordable provided the existing building is maintained as required in 21A.52.050.H.1.c. Type B. Applicable to residential multifamily zoning districts: RMF- 30, RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75 An affordable rental unit shall meet a minimum of at least one of the following affordability criteria: 1. 40% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes at or below 60% AMI; 2. 20% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes at or below 50% AMI; or 3. 40% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes averaging no more than 60% AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI. For sale owner occupied units: An affordable homeownership unit shall provide a minimum of 50% of units affordable to those with incomes at or below 80% AMI. Type C. Applicable to zoning districts not otherwise specified. Affordable rental or homeownership units shall meet a minimum of at least one of the affordability criteria identified. Any fractional number of units required shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. 6 6 1. 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI; 2. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI; 3. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an average income at or below 60% AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI; 4. 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 30% AMI; 5. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; 6. 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or 7. 5% of the units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have three or more bedrooms. 1. Single- and Two-Family Zoning Districts: The following housing types: twin home and two-family, three-family dwellings, four-family dwellings, row houses, sideways row houses, and cottage developments are authorized in the FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, SR-1A, and SR-3 zoning districts provided the affordability requirements in for Type A in Table 21A.52.050.G are met. 2. RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45 and RMF-75 zoning districts: The qualifying provisions for density found in the minimum lot area and lot width tables for the RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75 zoning districts do not apply and in the RMF- 30 zoning district, the minimum lot size per dwelling unit does not apply, provided the affordability requirements for Type B in Table 21A.52.050.G are met. 3. Incentives in the CB Community Business, CC Corridor Commercial, CG General Commercial, and I Institutional Zoning Districts: a. The following housing types: row houses, sideways row houses, and cottage developments are authorized in zoning districts provided the affordability requirements in subsection b. are complied with; b. To be eligible for the incentives listed in this section, a development shall meet the affordability requirements for Type C in Table 21A.52.050.G. 4. The following incentives are authorized in zoning districts provided the affordability requirements for Type C in Table 21A.52.050.G are complied with: 7 7 (2) Commercial Districts: a. Administrative design review provided the noticing requirements of 21A.10.020.B and the standards in 21A.59 are met. Early engagement notice requirements to recognized organizations are not applicable. b. Additional building height as indicated in the following sections: (1) Residential districts: Zoning District Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive RMU-35 45’ with administrative Design Review, regardless of abutting use or zone. RMU-45 55’ with administrative Design Review, regardless of abutting use or zone. RB May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. Density limitations listed in the land use table do not apply. RMU May build three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. RO May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. Zoning District Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive SNB May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. CB May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. CN May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. CC 45’ with administrative Design Review; additional landscaping may be met by meeting requirements in 21A.52.050.H.3.c.5. CG May build two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. May build three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review for properties in the mapped area in Figure 21A.26.070.G. CSHBD1 105’ and two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. CSHBD2 60’ with administrative Design Review and one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. TSA- Transition May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative review. TSA-Core May build two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative review. (3) Form-based districts: Zoning District Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive FB-UN3 125’ and three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. 8 8 FB-UN2 May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in the building. FB-SC May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in the building. FB-SE May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in the building. FB-UN1 May build up to three stories and 30’ in height. (4) Downtown districts: Zoning District Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive D-1 Administrative Design Review is permitted when a Design Review process is required. D-2 120’ and two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. D-3 180’ and three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. D-4 120’ and three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the stories permitted with administrative Design Review. 375’ and administrative Design Review in mapped area in 21A.30.045.E.2.b. (5) Other districts: Zoning District Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive GMU 180’ and two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. MU 60’ with residential units and administrative Design Review. c. Administrative Design Review is permitted for the following: (6) Buildings in the CSHBD1 and CSHBD2 zoning district that exceed 20,000 square feet in size. (7) Buildings in the CB zoning district that exceed 7,500 gross square feet of floor area for a first-floor footprint or in excess of 15,000 gross square feet floor area. 5. Planned Developments: A Planned Development is not required when the purpose of the planned development is due to the following reasons cited below, subject to approval by other city departments. If a development proposes any modification that is not listed below, planned development approval is required. To be eligible for the incentives in this section, a development shall meet the affordability requirements for the applicable zoning district in Table 21A.52.040. a. Multiple Buildings on a Single Parcel: More than one principal building may be located on a single parcel and are allowed without having public street frontage. This allowance supersedes the restrictions of 21A.36.010.B; b. Principal buildings with frontage on a paved public alley; c. Principal buildings with frontage on a private street; d. Development located in the Community Shopping (CS) “Planned Development Review” in 21A.26.040.C. 9 9 H. Development Regulations: The following development regulations are intended to provide supplemental regulations and modify standards of the base zoning district for the purpose of making the affordable housing incentives more feasible and compatible with existing development. Base zoning standards apply unless specifically modified by this section and are in addition to modifications authorized in subsection 21A.52.050.G. If there are conflicts with design standards, the more restrictive regulation shall apply and take precedence. These standards are not allowed to be modified through the planned development process. 1. Modifications in the FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, SR-1A, and SR-3 zoning districts: a. Parking: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in 21A.44, only one off-street parking space per unit is required. One detached garage or covered parking space, no greater than 250 sq. ft. per unit, may be provided for each unit and these structure(s) may exceed the yard and building coverage requirements for accessory structures. When covered parking is provided, the 250 sq. ft. per unit of covered parking may be combined into a single structure for each required parking stall provided. b. Yards: Minimum required yards shall apply to the perimeter of the development and not to the individual principal buildings within the development. c. Density: (1) Lots approved through a planned development prior to the effective date of this chapter are required to go through a major modification of the planned development to use the incentives. (2) Lots may contain up to four units. Existing lots may be divided such that each unit is on its own lot. The new lots are exempt from minimum lot area and lot width requirements. (3) An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is considered one unit and counts toward the number of units permitted. (4) Arrangement of dwellings: (A) New dwelling units may be arranged in any manner within a building, as a second detached dwelling, as attached units, or a cottage development with three or more detached dwellings, within the buildings that are part of the cottage development. (B) When an existing building is maintained, new units may be added internal to the existing structure, as an addition, or as a second detached dwelling. Any addition must comply with the standards of the base zoning district; however, the addition may contain additional units. 50% of the exterior walls of the existing dwelling, including the front elevation, shall remain as exterior walls. (C) The units shall comply with this section, applicable requirements of the base zoning district, and any applicable overlay district. 10 10 2. Within the RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45 and RMF-75 zoning districts the following provisions shall apply: a. Unit Mix: No more than 25% of the units in the development shall be less than 500 square feet to promote a mix of unit sizes. b. Parking: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in 21A.44, only one off-street parking space per unit is required in multifamily developments with less than 10 units. c. Yards: The minimum required yards shall apply to the perimeter of the development and not to the individual principal buildings within the development. d. Lot width: Minimum lot width requirements do not apply. 3. In addition to applicable requirements in 1. and 2. above, the following provisions apply to the specific building types listed: a. Row house and Sideways row house (1) Perimeter yard requirements: (A) Front yards: The front yard and corner side yard of the base zoning district apply. (B) Side yards: A minimum of 10 feet on one side of the building and 6 feet on the other interior side yard unless a greater yard is required by the base zoning district (C) Rear yard: The rear yard of the base zoning district applies. (2) Number of Units: To qualify for incentives in the FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, and SR- 1A zoning districts there is a minimum of three and a maximum of four residential dwelling units per building. (3) Building length facing street: (A) The building length shall not exceed 60 feet or the average of the block face, whichever is less, in FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, R -1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R- 2, SR-1, and SR-1A districts; (B) The building length shall not exceed 100 feet in the RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45 and RMF-75 districts; and (C) The building length shall not exceed 175 feet in other zoning districts. (4) Building entry facing street: At least one operable building entrance on the ground floor is required for each unit facing the primary street facing façade. All units adjacent to a public street shall have the primary entrance on the street facing façade of the building with an unenclosed entry porch, canopy, or awning feature. The entry feature may encroach in the front yard setback, but the encroachment shall not be closer than 5 feet from the front property line. (5) Building materials: 50% of any street facing facade shall be clad in durable materials. Durable materials include stone, brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete, and fiber cement board. Other materials may be used for the remainder of the facade adjacent to a street. Other materials 11 11 proposed to satisfy the durable requirement may be approved at the discretion of the Planning Director if it is found that the proposed material is durable and is appropriate for the structure. (6) Parking requirement and location: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in 21A.44, only one off-street parking space per unit is required. All provided parking shall be located to the side of the street facing building façade, behind a principal structure that has frontage on a street, or within the principal structure subject to any other applicable provision. (7) Garage doors facing street: Garage doors are prohibited on the façade of the building that is parallel to, or located along, a public street. (8) Personal outdoor space: Each unit shall have a minimum outdoor space of 60 square feet where the minimum measurement of any side cannot be less than 6 feet. (9) Glass: The surface area of the façade of each floor facing a street must contain a minimum of 15% glass. (10) Blank wall: The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, or architectural detailing at the ground floor level along any street facing façade is 15’. (11) Screening of mechanical equipment: All mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view and sited to minimize their visibility and impact. Examples of siting include on the roof, enclosed or otherwise integrated into the architectural design of the building, or in a rear or side yard area subject to yard location restrictions found in section 21A.36.020, table 21A.36.020B, “Obstructions In Required Yards” of this title. Illustration for 21A.52.050.E.3.a.1 Required Setbacks for Public Street Facing Row House 12 12 Illustration for 21A.52.050.E.3.b.1 Required Setbacks for Sideways Row House b. Cottage Development (1) Perimeter yard requirements: (A) Front yards: The front yard and corner side yard of the base zoning district apply. (B) Side yards: A minimum of 10 feet on one side of the property line and 6 feet on the other interior side yard, unless a greater yard is required by the base zoning district. (C) Rear yard: The rear yard of the base zoning district applies. (2) Setbacks Between Individual Cottages: All cottages shall have a minimum setback of eight feet from another cottage. (3) Area: No cottage shall have more than 850 square feet of gross floor area, excluding basement area. There is no minimum square foot requirement. (4) Building Entrance: All building entrances shall face a public street or a common open space. (5) Building materials: 50% of any street facing facade shall be clad in durable materials. Durable materials include stone, brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete, and fiber cement board. Other materials may be used for the remainder of the facade adjacent to a street. Other materials proposed to satisfy the durable requirement may be approved at the discretion of the Planning Director if it is found that the 13 13 proposed material is durable and is appropriate for the structure. (6) Open Space: A minimum of 250 square feet of common, open space is required per cottage. At least 50% of the open space shall be in a courtyard or other common, usable open space. The development shall include landscaping, walkways or other amenities intended to serve the residents of the development. (7) Personal Outdoor Space: In addition to the open space requirement in this section, a minimum of 120 square feet of private open space is required per cottage. The open space shall provide a private yard area for each cottage and will be separated with a fence, hedge, or other visual separation to distinguish the private space. (8) Parking: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in 21A.44, one off-street parking space per unit is required. All provided parking shall be located to the side of a street facing building façade, behind a principal structure that has frontage on a street, or within the principal structure subject to any other applicable provision. c. In addition to applicable requirements in 21A.52.050.H above, the following provisions apply to all other buildings containing more than two residential units. If the base zone has a greater design standard requirement, that standard applies. (1) Perimeter yard requirements: (A) Front yards: The front yard and corner side yard setback of the base zoning district apply. (B) Side yards: For housing types not otherwise allowed in the zoning district, a minimum of 10 feet on each side property line, unless a greater setback is required for single-family homes. (C) Rear yards: The rear yard of the base zoning district applies. (2) Building entrances: The ground floor shall have a primary entrance on the street facing façade of the building with an unenclosed entry porch, canopy, or awning feature. Stairs to second floor units are not permitted on street facing elevations. (3) Glass: The surface area of the façade of each floor facing a street must contain a minimum of 15% glass. (4) Building materials: 50% of any street facing facade shall be clad in durable materials. Durable materials include stone, brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete, and fiber cement board. Other materials may be used for the remainder of the facade adjacent to a street. Other materials proposed to satisfy the durable requirement may be approved at the discretion of the Planning Director if it is found that the proposed material is durable and is appropriate for the structure. (5) Open space: Open space area may include landscaped yards, patios, dining areas, and other similar outdoor living spaces. 14 14 All required open space areas shall be accessible to all residents or users of the building. (A) Single- and two-family zoning districts: 120 sq. ft. of open space with a minimum width of 6 ft. shall be provided for each building with a dwelling. (B) All other zoning districts: A minimum of 10% of the land area within the development shall be open space, up to 5,000 square feet. Open space may include courtyards, rooftop and terrace gardens and other similar types of open space amenities. All required open space areas shall be accessible to all residents or users of the building. d. Single- and Two-family Dwellings: No additional design standards except as identified in 21A.24. e. Unit Limits: For overall development sites with more than 125 units, no more than 50% of units shall be designated as affordable units. f. Lots without public street frontage may be created to accommodate developments without planned development approval subject to the following standards: (1) Required yards shall be applied to the overall development site not individual lots within the development. The front and corner yards of the perimeter shall be maintained as landscaped yards; (2) Lot coverage shall be calculated for the overall development not individual lots within the development; and (3) Required off street parking stalls for a unit within the development are permitted on any lot within the development. (4) The subdivision shall be finalized with a final plat and the final plat shall document that the new lot(s) has adequate access to a public street by way of easements or a shared driveway or private street; and (5) An entity, such as a homeowner association, must be established for the operation and maintenance of any common infrastructure. Documentation establishing that entity must be recorded with the final plat. Additional Language: 21A.20.040 Civil Fines A. If the violations are not corrected by the citation deadline, civil fines shall accrue at twenty five dollars ($25.00) a day per violation for those properties legally used for purposes that are solely residential uses, and one hundred dollars ($100.00) a day per violation for those properties used for purposes that are not residential uses. B. Affordable housing incentives per 21A.52.050: If the violation(s) are not corrected by the citation deadline, civil fines shall accrue at the rate set in the Consolidated Fee Schedule per day per violation. If the violation(s) include renting an affordable rental unit in excess of the approved rental rate then an additional monthly fine shall accrue that is the difference between the market rate of the unit and the approved rental rate that is agreed to by the applicant at the time of approval for a project using the incentives. 15 15 21A.60.020: LIST OF DEFINED TERMS: (Staff note: The following terms would be added to the list of defined terms.) AFFORDABLE HOUSING AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT DWELLING, THREE-FAMILY DWELLING, FOUR-FAMILY DWELLING, ROW HOUSE DWELLING, SIDEWAYS ROW HOUSE DWELLING, COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT 21A.62.040: DEFINITIONS OF TERMS: (Staff note: The following definitions would be added to the definitions of terms.) AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Affordable housing shall be both income and, as applicable, rent- restricted. The affordable units shall be made available only to individuals and households that are qualifying occupants at or below the applicable percentage of the area median income for the Salt Lake City Utah, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Metro FMR Area the “SLC Area Median Income” or “AMI”, as periodically determined by HUD and adjusted for household size) and published by the Utah Housing Corporation, or its successor. Affordable housing units must accommodate (30% of gross income for housing costs, including utilities) at least one of the following categories: a. Extremely Low-Income Affordable Units: Housing units accommodating up to 30% AMI; b. Very Low-Income Affordable Units: Housing units accommodating up to greater than 30% and up to 50% AMI; or c. Low-Income Affordable Units: Housing units accommodating greater than 50% and up to 80% AMI AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT: A housing development that meets the criteria in 21A.52.050 DWELLING, THREE-FAMILY: A detached building containing three dwelling units. DWELLING, FOUR-FAMILY: A detached building containing four dwelling units. DWELLING, ROW HOUSE: A series of attached single-family dwellings that share at least one common wall with an adjacent dwelling unit and where the entry of each unit faces a public street. Units may be stacked vertically and/or attached horizontally. Each attached unit may be on its own lot. DWELLING, SIDEWAYS ROW HOUSE: A series of attached single-family dwellings that share at least one common wall with an adjacent dwelling unit and where the entry of each unit faces a side yard as opposed to the front yard. Units may be stacked vertically and/or attached horizontally. Each attached unit may be on its own lot. 16 16 DWELLING, COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT: A cottage development is a unified development that contains a minimum of two and a maximum of eight detached dwelling units with each unit appearing to be a small single-family dwelling with a common green or open space. Dwellings may be located on separate lots or grouped on one lot. 21A.24.050: R-1/12,000 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-1/12,000 Single-Family Residential District is to provide for conventional single-family residential dwellings and affordable housing developments with up to four units on residential neighborhoods with lots twelve thousand (12,000) square feet in size or larger. This district is appropriate in areas of the City as identified in the applicable community Master Plan. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. 21A.24.060: R-1/7,000 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District is to provide for conventional single-family residential dwellings and affordable housing developments with up to four units on residential neighborhoods with lots not less than seven thousand (7,000) square feet in size. This district is appropriate in areas of the City as identified in the applicable community Master Plan. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. 21A.24.070: R-1/5,000 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District is to provide for conventional single-family residential dwellings and affordable housing developments with up to four units on residential neighborhoods with lots not less than five thousand (5,000) square feet in size. This district is appropriate in areas of the City as identified in the applicable community Master Plan. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. 21A.24.110: R-2 SINGLE- AND TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-2 Single- and Two- Family Residential District is to preserve and protect for single-family dwellings the character of existing neighborhoods which exhibit a mix of predominantly single- and two-family dwellings by controlling the concentration of two-family dwelling units. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play and to promote sustainable and compatible development patterns. 21A.24.170: R-MU RESIDENTIAL/MIXED USE DISTRICT: F. Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height shall not exceed seventy five feet (75'), except that nonresidential buildings and uses shall be limited by subsections F1 and F2 of this section. Buildings taller than seventy five feet (75'), up to a maximum of one hundred twenty five feet (125'), may be authorized through the design review process (chapter 21A.59 of 17 17 FIGURE 21A.24.170.F.3 this title) and provided, that the proposed height is located within the one hundred twenty five foot (125') height zone indicated in the map located in subsection F3 of this section. 1. Maximum height for nonresidential buildings: Forty five feet (45'). 2. Maximum floor area coverage of nonresidential uses in mixed use buildings of residential and nonresidential uses: Three (3) floors. 3. One hundred twenty five foot (125') height zone map for the R-MU District: (Staff note: The following use would be added to the existing tables.) 21A.33.020: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS: 18 18 Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District FR -1/ 43, 56 0 FR -2/ 21, 78 0 FR -3/ 12, 00 0 R- 1/ 12, 00 0 R- 1/ 7, 00 0 R- 1/ 5, 00 0 S R -1 S R - 2 S R - 3 R - 2 R M F- 30 R M F- 35 R M F- 45 R M F- 75 R B R - M U - 3 5 R - M U - 4 5 R - M U R O Afforda ble Housin g Develo pment P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 21A.33.030: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS: Use Permitted and Conditional Uses by District CBN CG CC Affordable Housing Development P P P 21A.33.070: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS: Use Permitted and Conditional Uses by District I Affordable Housing Development P 21A.26.078 … E. Development Standards: … 2. Building Height: The minimum and maximum building heights are found in table 21A.26.078E2, "Building Height Regulations", of this subsection E2. The following exceptions apply: a. The minimum building height applies to all structures that are adjacent to a public or private street. The building shall meet the minimum building height for at least fifty percent (50%) of the width of the street facing building wall. b. Projects that achieve a development score that qualifies for administrative review are eligible for an increase in height. The increase shall be limited to one story of habitable space. The height of the additional story shall be equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. This is in addition to the height authorized elsewhere in this title. Modifications to Existing Affordable Housing References: 19 19 21A.27.040: FB-SC AND FB-SE FORM BASED SPECIAL PURPOSE CORRIDOR DISTRICT: C. FB-SC Building Form Standards: Building form standards are listed in table 21A.27.040.C of this section. TABLE 21A.27.040.C FB-SC BUILDING FORM STANDARDS Permitted Building Forms Multi-Family And Storefront H Maximum building height Maximum building height in the FB-SC is 60 ft. An additional 15 ft. in height (for a total height of 75 ft.) may be permitted for residential uses if a minimum of 10% of the units are affordable housing. 21A.31.010: GENERAL PROVISIONS: … N. Affordable Housing: 1. Notwithstanding the minimum height requirements identified above, any buildings that have ten (10) or more residential units with at least twenty percent (20%) of the units as affordable shall be allowed to have a minimum building height of thirty feet (30'). 2. Affordable housing units within a market rate development shall be integrated throughout the project in an architectural manner. 21A.31.020: G-MU GATEWAY-MIXED USE DISTRICT: … I.Affordable Housing: Notwithstanding the maximum height requirements identified above, any buildings that have at least ten (10) or more residential units with at least twenty percent (20%) of the units as affordable shall be allowed a maximum building height of ninety feet (90'). The affordable units shall be integrated throughout the project in an architectural manner. 21A.55.010: PURPOSE STATEMENT: … 2. Preservation of, or enhancement to, historically significant landscapes that contribute to the character of the City and contribute to the general welfare of the City's residents. … C. Housing: Providing affordable housing or types of housing that helps achieve the City's housing goals and policies: 1. At least twenty percent (20%) of the housing must be for those with incomes that are at or below eighty percent (80%) of the area median income. Affordable housing that meets the requirements of 21A.52.050. 2. The proposal includes housing types that are not commonly found in the existing neighborhood but are of a scale that is typical to the neighborhood. 36 ATTACHMENT B: Single- and Two-Family Zoning District Graphics PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TYPES SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING 37 The City’s Planning Division is considering zoning amendments to encourage the construction of additional affordable housing. This includes adding additional housing types in many areas of the city. ADDITIONAL HOUSING TYPES The proposed amendments would add additional housing types including single-family attached (rowhouses and sideways row houses), fourplexes, triplexes, duplexes, and cottage developments in many areas of the city. This handout has examples of a sideways row house, fourplex, duplex, and what can be built by right in an R-1/7,000 zone. Scaled drawing of sideways row home consistent with proposed regulations. 4 - Unit Townhome Lot Layout Unit # 4 (1,840 SF) Units Lot Size 10,920 SF Building Height 20 FT Building Coverage 3,680 SF (34%) Front Yard Setback 20 FT Side Yard Setbacks 10 FT , 28 FT Rear Yard Setback 25 FT Open Space 7240 SF (66%) Parking 2 Car Attached Garage Per Unit (8 Stalls Total) Scaled drawing of fourplex building consistent with proposed regulations. 4 - Plex Lot Layout Unit # 4 (800 SF) Units Lot Size 7,000 SF Building Height 28 FT Building Coverage 1,600 SF (23%) Front Yard Setback 20 FT Side Yard Setbacks 10 FT , 15 FT Rear Yard Setback 61 FT Open Space 5,400 SF (77%) Parking 5 Surface Stalls AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TYPES SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING 38 Scaled drawing of duplex consistent with proposed regulations. Duplex Lot Layout Unit # 2 (800 SF) Units Lot Size 8,400 SF Building Height 16 FT Building Coverage 1,596 SF (20%) Front Yard Setback 28 FT Side Yard Setbacks 5 FT , 18 FT Rear Yard Setback 74 FT Open Space 6,804 SF (80%) Parking 2 Car Garage Scaled drawing of single-family home consistent with the existing R-1/7,000 zoning regulations. Single Family Home Developed Under Current R-1-7000 Standards Unit # 1 Unit (4632) Lot Size 7,000 Building Height 28 FT Building Coverage 2,800 SF (40%) Dwelling (2,316 SF) Detached Garage (484 SF) Front Yard Setback 20 FT Side Yard Setbacks 6 FT , 15 FT Rear Yard Setback 40 FT Open Space 3,045 SF (43%) Parking 2 Car Detached Garage ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Sara Javoronok, Senior Planner // sara.javoronok@slcgov.com // 801.535.7625 39 The update to the Affordable Housing Incentives adds provisions to encourage the preservation of existing housing. This includes allowing a second, detached dwelling on a property when the existing dwelling is maintained. This handout depicts several examples of this type of development. Development proposed using the affordable housing incentives must meet all other city regulations, including building, fire, and public utilities requirements. BUILDING #1 EXISTING DWELLING Includes Internal Basement ADU Option Building Height 16.5 FT Building Coverage Dwelling (1,100 SF) Front Yard Setback 36 FT Side Yard Setbacks 6 FT, 28 FT Rear Yard Setback 106 FT Parking 2 Surface Parking Stalls INTERNAL BASEMENT ADU OPTION Basement Square Footage 1,100 SF Basement Unit Parking 1 Street Parking Stall BUILDING #2 Building#1 facing public street, Building#2 behind Building#1 Building Height 16.5 FT Building Coverage Dwelling (1,178 SF) Detached Garage (550 SF) Front Yard Setback 110 FT from Front Property Line Side Yard Setbacks 6 FT, 32 FT Rear Yard Setback 25 FT Parking 2 Car Detached Garage LOT DETAILS Lot Size 11,776 SF (Width 64', Depth 184') # of Units 3 Units (2 Single-family Detached Dwelling Units & 1 Internal Basement ADU) Building Coverage 2,828 SF (24%) Open Space 6,995 SF (59%) Updated | March 2023 PRESERVATION OF EXISTING HOUSING R-1-5000 SCENARIOS 40 SCENARIO #1 SCENARIO #2 SCENARIO #3 Accessory Dwelling Unit P AHI - 2nd Single Family P Dwelling P P P 2 Car Garage: 440 sf Lot Coverage: 34% 2nd Single Family Dwelling: 600 sf Lot Coverage: 38% Accessory Dwelling Unit: 720 sf Lot Coverage: 40% Lot Size (Per Scenario): 4,800 sf Principal Dwelling (Per Scenario): 1,200 sf Min. Front Yard Setback: 20 ft Min. Rear Yard Setback: 20 ft Min. Side Yard Setback: 4 ft, 10 ft 2 Car Garage Updated | March 2023 PRESERVATION OF EXISTING HOUSING R-1-7000 SCENARIO 41 SCENARIO #1 P AHI - 2nd Single Family Dwelling P 2nd Single Family Dwelling: 1,300 sf Lot Coverage: 40% Lot Size: 7,000 sf Principal Dwelling: 1,500 sf Min. Front Yard Setback: 20 ft Min. Rear Yard Setback: 25 ft Min. Side Yard Setback: 6 ft, 10 ft 42 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Sara Javoronok, Senior Planner // sara.javoronok@slcgov.com // 801.535.7625 Legend Single and Two-Family Zoning Districts FR-1/43,560 FR-2/21,780 FR-3/12,000 SR-1 SR-1A SR-3 R-1/12,000 R-1/7,000 R-1/5,000 R-2 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles County of Salt Lake, Utah Geospatial Resource Center, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA SINGLE & TWO-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS 43 ATTACHMENT C: Updated Affordable Housing Incentives Document PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 44 UPDATED | MARCH 2023 SALT LAKE CITY | PLANNING DIVISION AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES PLANNING DIVISION | SLC.GOV/PLANNING | VERSION 1.1 45 [ THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ] PLANNING DIVISION | UPDATED MARCH 2023 SLC.GOV/PLANNING 46 CONTENTS 5 Introduction 6 Project Process 7 Focus Group Recommendations 9 Summary of Changes 10 Program Basics, Administration & Enforcement 12 Multi-family & Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 18 Waive Planned Development Requirement for Specific Developments 20 Allow Housing on Institutional Lands 21 Allow Additional Housing Types 22 Modify Density Limits in Residential Multi-family Zones 24 Single & Two-Family Zoning Districts 30 Next Steps 31 Appendix A: Draft Language SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING 451 S. State Street | Room 406 P.O. Box | 145480 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 - 5480 47 4 INTRODUCTION Introduction 5 48 This proposal is for affordable housing incentives. Over time, and particularly in recent years, housing in Salt Lake City has become less affordable. There are many variables affecting housing prices, including zoning regulations. The goal of the proposed amendments are to increase affordable housing throughout Salt Lake City. Where multifamily housing is permitted, the incentives are designed to encourage developers to include affordable housing in projects and allow affordable housing developers to build more housing units. The incentives also allow for small increases in housing units throughout the city. The proposed amendments would incentivize the construction of affordable housing through modifications to the zoning requirements. The following pages describe the project process, the proposed zoning regulations, the changes to them since presented to the Planning Commission in May 2022, and the next steps in the project process. For additional background and historic information on context and housing in Salt Lake City, see the Affordable Housing Document from 2022: www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Projects/ Affordable%20Housing%20Overlay/affordable_housing_12_28_21_draft_ordinance.pdf. PROJECT PROCESS 6 Project Process 49 The project was initiated in 2019 to address increasing concerns regarding housing affordability and to implement the city’s 2018 housing plan, Growing SLC. It was initially envisioned as an overlay district and called “Affordable Housing Overlay”. Since the proposal applies differently in various zoning districts, an “overlay” is not applicable, and the “Affordable Housing Incentives” are now the first section in a new incentives chapter in the city’s zoning regulations. Initial outreach on the proposal included an online survey in late 2019/early 2020. From the initial survey results, staff developed a draft framework for the incentives that serves as the basis for the current proposal. This was presented online in a StoryMap and staff requested additional feedback from the community in a survey. Based on this feedback, staff developed draft affordable housing incentives amendments to the city’s zoning regulations. Staff presented these draft amendments to the community in the winter and spring of 2022 and to the Planning Commission at a hearing in May 2022. There was a significant amount of public comment at the meeting and it is included with the staff report. The Planning Commission provided additional feedback. Staff researched options to respond to the feedback and worked with developers on scenarios and proformas. In fall 2022, the Office of the Mayor convened a focus group comprised of community members, developers, policy advisors, and housing advocates to review the incentives and respond to feedback. This revised draft addresses these comments and incorporates changes recommended by the focus group. This document further describes the draft zoning amendments and the changes that have been made to them. The text for the proposed zoning amendments that would implement these changes are located in Appendix A. Additional information is available on the project page: www.slc.gov/planning/affordable-housing. FOCUS GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS Focus Group Recommendations 7 50 AFFORDABILITY LEVEL 2022 PROPOSAL FOCUS GROUP RECOMMENDATION UPDATED PROPOSAL MIXED-USE/MULTI-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS A project is required to do one of the following: • 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI; or • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI; or • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms. Incentives that require a higher percentage of affordable units are unlikely to be feasible for market rate developers. Lower number of affordable units are required to provide for more deeply affordable and larger units, otherwise the incentives will not work. The affordability requirement was expanded to address size and reduce displacement as household income increases as indicated below: • 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI; or • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI; or • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms. • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an average income at or below 60% AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI; or • 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 30% AMI; or • 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or • 5% of the units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have three or more bedrooms. SINGLE- AND TWO-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS 50% of units need to be affordable to those with incomes at or below 80% AMI. In the single- and two-family zoning districts the proposed incentives may not provide sufficient profit for new development. Lower the required percentage of affordable units to one when the existing dwelling is maintained. New construction: At least 50% of the provided dwelling units shall be affordable; or Existing building maintained: A minimum of one of the dwelling units shall be affordable provided the existing building is maintained. 8 Focus Group Recommendations 51 NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS 2022 PROPOSAL FOCUS GROUP RECOMMENDATION UPDATED PROPOSAL PROXIMITY TO TRANSIT To be eligible for the incentives single-family and two-family residential zoning districts, a property shall be within a ¼ mile of high frequency transit or located adjacent to arterial streets. Remove proximity to transit requirements due to frequency of non-fixed transit route changes and to improve equitable distribution of additional housing types. The proximity to transit and adjacency to arterial roads requirement for additional housing types in the single- and two-family zoning districts has been removed and no longer applies to the AHI. The incentives would apply to all areas of single- and two- family residential districts. DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS • Building entrances on street facing façades. • Glass on 15% of surface area on street facing facades. • One off-street parking space required per unit. Additional development and design standards needed. • Determined that a blank wall standard wasn’t necessary. • Determined that additional parking wasn’t necessary. Additional standards added as indicated below: • Clarified location requirements for building entrances. • Added 50% durable materials requirement (fiber cement, brick, concrete, etc.) for street facing facades. • Added 120 sq. ft. open space requirement with a minimum width of 6 ft. open space requirement per unit. ENFORCEMENT 2022 PROPOSAL FOCUS GROUP RECOMMENDATION UPDATED PROPOSAL Require a restrictive covenant and annual reporting for each property. Increase city capacity to or use third party to review annual reporting. Increase city capacity for enforcement. Additional language provided on enforcement, annual reporting, and the restrictive covenant requirements. Provision to allow for third party review. INFRASTRUCTURE 2022 PROPOSAL FOCUS GROUP RECOMMENDATION UPDATED PROPOSAL Existing city requirements are for developers to pay for necessary infrastructure including water, sewer, and storm water. The city has an existing water supply and demand plan from 2019 that will be updated in 2023. It takes into consideration infill and Northwest Quadrant development. Existing plans address future water needs and emphasize system conservation. None. Development must provide necessary upgrades to city services. City plans and policies will continue to be updated and assess for adequate infrastructure. Summary of Changes 9 52 SUMMARY OF CHANGES There are a number of modifications to the draft proposal presented to the Planning Commission in May 2022. Several of the major modifications are summarized below and further described in this document. • The removal of the proximity to transit and adjacency to arterial roads requirement for additional housing types in the single- and two-family zoning districts. This opens the incentive up to all areas of the city within single- and two-family zoning districts, increasing its equity and availability. • An emphasis on the preservation of existing housing. Members of the community and focus group did not want to see existing housing demolished. Many existing housing units are naturally more affordable than new housing units. This recommendation is addressed in the revisions by allowing for a second detached dwelling on a lot if the existing dwelling is maintained. It decreases the affordability requirement when an existing dwelling is preserved from 50% of units to at least one of the units. • Additional design standards for new housing types in single- and two-family zoning districts. The focus group identified the design of the additional housing types and open space as potential issues. There is additional language that requires durable building materials, an entry feature, and open space. • Removal of provisions that allowed for reduction from some development standards. The yards and setbacks of the base zoning district apply to the perimeter of the development and may not be reduced. No increase in building coverage is permitted. • Enforcement penalties clarified. Enforcement of the incentives to ensure that units are occupied as required was a frequent comment from members of the community. Staff has detailed the annual reporting and auditing requirements and increased the fines that could apply. Noncompliance can result in a lien placed on the property for fines and revocation of the business license associated with the property. • Additional incentive options for deeply affordable and larger units. Members of the focus group had concerns regarding the proposed affordability level and percentage of units required to be affordable. Staff and members of the development community presented information on the feasibility of the existing incentive proposal and the viability of requiring more deeply affordable units and/or a greater percentage of affordable units. Options for a lower percentage of more deeply affordable and larger units are provided. • Modifications for consistency with the proposed Downtown Building Heights text amendment. The Planning Commission recommended changes to zoning districts within the downtown in August 2022 and, while these have not been adopted, staff is proposing changes to the proposal to be consistent and compatible with the proposed changes to these zoning districts. 10 Program Basics, Administration & Enforcement 53 PROGRAM BASICS, ADMINISTRATION & ENFORCEMENT GENERAL STANDARDS • Except for the single- and two-family zoning districts, there are requirements that the affordable units are comparable to market rate units. This includes the location of the entrance, dispersion of the units throughout the building or site, number of bedrooms, and access to all amenities available to the market rate units in the development. • For overall development sites with more than 125 units, no more than 50% of units shall be designated as affordable units. • The proposal does not change other city requirements, incluidng building codes, fire codes, or public utilities requirements. ADMINISTRATION & ENFORCEMENT The city anticipates that additional staff time will be needed to administer the incentives program. The amount of staff time necessary will depend on the number of projects that use the incentives, and the specific incentives adopted. Administration will include the following: • Preparing and recording a restrictive covenant agreement. • Reviewing annual reports for compliance. This will assess whether the dwelling units, owner, and occupants are in compliance with the requirements. • Projects that require annual reports to be provided to Utah Housing Corporation, Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund, Housing Authority of Salt Lake City, Housing Connect, or others may submit that report in lieu of the city reporting requirements. • Reports of noncompliance and or other violations will be investigated as necessary. A lien may be placed on the property for fines and the business license revoked. • •= ·········· ········•• -•111'1'11••·••' ■■■l'"l'l'l'■■Jl■ 1!!!!ll■•••■1 ••••• ••••• 1 ···••111'•·•· ■ 11••····· ., • ■ •• ii.... 11 54 12 Multi-family and Mixed-use Zoning 55 MULTI-FAMILY & MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICTS PROPOSAL Permit additional height between 1-3 stories (approximately 10’ per story), depending on the zone, in various zoning districts that permit multifamily housing. Allow for administrative Design Review when a Design Review process is required. WHAT IS CHANGING FROM MAY 2022? There are several zoning districts where the height permitted is changing from what was previously proposed. The “Proposed Maximum Height with AH Incentives” column identifies what is now proposed. The changes are identified in a footnote at the bottom of the page. The changes include the following: • Consistency with the proposed Downtown Building Heights Amendments. • Four additional options for more deeply affordable or larger units. • Modifications to encourage greater flexibility and encourage more affordable units. The simplified administrative design review process for many zoning districts remains. When a public hearing is required, the approval process can take approximately 4-6 months and an administrative design review process could shorten this process by 2-3 months. Multi-family and Mixed-use Zoning 13 56 Proposals that wanted to use this incentive would require affordable units that meet the following characteristics: The three initial options for affordable units remain: • 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI; or • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI; or • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms. Staff worked with market rate and affordable housing developers to test these in scenarios and proformas. Incentives that require a higher percentage of affordable units are unlikely to be feasible for market rate developers. To provide for more deeply affordable and larger units, staff, developers, and the focus group prepared the following additional options: • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an average income at or below 60% AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI; or • 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 30% AMI; or • 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or • 5% of the units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have three or more bedrooms. WHAT IS THE GOAL? The goal of this proposal is to encourage affordable housing in projects where it may not be built otherwise and allow for projects that are already providing affordable units to provide additional units. This is proposed by permitting additional height to encourage the development of affordable housing and, in some zoning districts, by decreasing the processing time for applications without modifying the design standards and requirements. Decreasing the processing time could allow for projects to proceed that may not have otherwise and to begin construction sooner with reduced carrying costs and development timelines. The following Residential districts would allow for additional stories by right or with administrative design review for additional height with affordable units as follows: 14 Multi-family and Mixed-use Zoning 57 DISTRICT PERMITTED MAXIMUM HEIGHT PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITH AH INCENTIVES RMU-35 35’, 45’ Design Review* 45’ with administrative Design Review* RMU-45 45’, 55’ Design Review* 55’ with administrative Design Review* RB 30’ May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. Density limitations listed in the land use table do not apply.† RMU 75’ residential 125’ in mapped area May build three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review.** RO 60’ multifamily 90’ if adjacent to a district with greater maximum height One additional story equal to the average height of the stories permitted. Footnotes - Changes from May 2022: Residential Districts * Removes prohibition of additional height for property abutting a Single-Family or Two Family Residential District. † Provides clarity on permitted units. ** Removes the mapped area and requires affordable units for additional height. *** Removes SR-3 from table. Limits to incentives for single- and two-family zoning districts. The following Commercial districts would allow for additional stories by right or with administrative design review for additional height with affordable units as follows: Multi-family and Mixed-use Zoning 15 58 DISTRICT PERMITTED MAXIMUM HEIGHT PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITH AH INCENTIVES SNB 25’ May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. CB 30’ May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. CN 25’ May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. CC 30’ 45’ Design Review and additional landscaping equal to 10% of the additional floor 45’ with administrative Design Review* CG 60’ 90’ Design Review and additional landscaping equal to 10% of the additional floor. May build two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review*† May build three additional storeis equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building for properties in the mapped area in the Downtown Building Heights proposal.† CSHBD1 105’ for residential with structured parking and Design Review for buildings over 50’ 105’ and two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. CSHBD2 60’ for residential with Design Review over 30’ 60’ with administrative Design Review and one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. TSA Transition UC-T: 60’ UN-T: 50’ MUEC-T: 60’ SP-T: 60’ May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative review. *only allowed if affordable units are provided TSA-Core UC-C: 90’; 105’ with two sloping planes UN-C: 75’ MUEC-C: 75’ SP-C: 75’ May build two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative review. *only allowed if affordable units are provided Footnotes: Changes from May 2022: Commercial Districts * Allows for additional landscaping to be met with open space. This includes courtyards, patios, or other usable areas. † Proposed Downtown Building Heights for CG allows for 75’ & 105’ with Design Review, 150’ in new Depot District mapped area. Removes mapped area previously included with incentives and replaces with Depot District mapped area. The following Form-Based districts would allow for additional stories by right or with administrative design review with affordable units as follows: 16 Multi-family and Mixed-use Zoning 59 DISTRICT PERMITTED MINIMUM OR MAXIMUM HEIGHT PERMITTED MINIMUM OR MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITH AH INCENTIVES FB-UN3 *pending 85’ 125’ Design Review 125’ and three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the stories permitted with administrative Design Review FB-UN2 50’ 65’ on identified corners and in mapped area One additional story equal to the average height of the stories permitted. FB-SC 60’ 75’ with 10% affordable units One additional story equal to the average height of the stories permitted. Moves affordable unit requirement to the incentives chapter. FB-SE 45’ May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in the building. FB-UN1 2.5 stories, 30’ May build up to three stories and 30’ in height. The two districts below would allow for additional stories by right or with administrative design review with affordable units as follows: DISTRICT PERMITTED MAXIMUM HEIGHT PERMITTED MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITH AH INCENTIVES GMU 75’ flat 90’ pitched 120’ Design Review 180’ and two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review.* 45’ mixed-use and residential MU 60’ with residential and Design Review 60’ with residential units and administrative Design Review Footnotes - Changes from May 2022: GMU District * Proposed Downtown Building Heights amendments for GMU allows for a permitted height of 75’ and an increase to 180’ with Design Review. The Downtown districts would allow for additional stories by right or with administrative design review with affordable units as follows: Multi-family and Mixed-use Zoning 17 60 DISTRICT PERMITTED MAXIMUM HEIGHT PERMITTED MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITH AH INCENTIVES D-1 Min. 100’ corners Mid-block 100’ or greater with Design Review Greater than 375’ with Design Review Administrative Design Review when a Design Review process is required. D-2 65’ 120’ Design Review 120’ and two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review.* D-3 75’ 90’ residential Design Review 180’ and three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review.* 75’ D-4 120’ Design Review 120’ and three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the stories permitted with administrative Design Review. 375’ and administrative review in mapped area.* Footnotes - Changes from May 2022: Downtown Districts * The proposed changes are to be consistent and compatible with Downtown Building Heights amendments that allow the following: D-1: Minimum height of 100’, with exceptions for utilities, accessory buildings, small parcels & footprints, and buildings with Design Review. Design review required for buildings greater than 200’. D-2: Increased additional stories from one to two. Permitted height remains 120’. D-3: Permitted height remains 75’, up to 180’ permitted with Design Review. D-4: Additional height permitted with administrative review in mapped area. 18 Waive Planned Development Requirements 61 WAIVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENT FOR SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENTS PROPOSAL Permit affordable housing developments by right that would otherwise require a Planned Development. WHAT IS CHANGING FROM MAY 2022? The proposed changes are to be consistent with the Downtown Building Heights proposal, which removed the Planned Development requirement for the Gateway Mixed Use zoning district (GMU). The waiver would require affordable units as otherwise permitted in the zoning district. Proposals in the Community Shopping (CS) zoning district: • These modifications would apply to a small number of properties in the CS zone. There are 20 parcels with a total area of 64 acres. The parcels consist of the Brickyard, Foothill Village, Trolley Square, the Redwood Rd. shopping center with a Lucky grocery, and a church at the southwest corner of 400 S and 800 E. Proposals for buildings and lots that do not have street frontage: This part of the proposal would allow for the development of housing in the following locations: • Private streets • Improved public alleys • Parcels without adequate street frontage Waive Planned Development Requirements 19 62 This type of development currently requires a planned development, as buildings are normally required to face a public street. This could apply in various zoning districts. From 2015-2020, the Planning Commission reviewed approximately 80 Planned Development requests. Approximately 45% of these requests included a request for lots without street frontage. The applications also requested other items, such as reduced yard setbacks or a reduction in landscaping, but for most, it is likely that the requirement for street frontage was a primary issue. The removal of this requirement for projects that provide affordable units could potentially decrease the review time and development costs for the applicant. WHAT IS THE GOAL? Planned development proposals often ask for modifications for reduction in the required yard setback, height, or other regulations. The purpose of the review is to ensure that the resulting development is one that is enhanced compared to a proposal that would otherwise be constructed. However, all development proposals the Community Shopping (CS) zoning districts require Planned Development approval. This is also a Planned Development requirement for buildings that do not have street frontage, including those on public alleys or private streets. This planning process takes approximately 4-6 months and requires Planning Commission approval. Similar to the other proposals, this would decrease the review time for a project with affordable housing, and potentially enable additional projects that may not choose to proceed when this process is required. Proposals using these provisions would still need to meet other zoning district standards, including design standards. ALLOW HOUSING ON INSTITUTIONAL LANDS 20 Allow Housing on Institutional Lands 63 PROPOSAL Allow affordable housing on institutional lands. WHAT IS CHANGING FROM MAY 2022? The previous proposal required that 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI. The current proposal allows one of the seven options that apply to zoning districts with additional height or process waivers. These are as follows: • 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI; or • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI; or • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an average income at or below 60% AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI; or • 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 30% AMI; or • 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or • 5% of the units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have three or more bedrooms. WHAT IS THE GOAL? The intent of this is to allow single-family and single-family attached housing on properties that are in the Institutional zoning district and excludes multifamily development. This district includes schools, hospitals, and non-profits. However, state owned land, including the University of Utah, is not subject to city zoning regulations. Future zoning amendments may be considered to allow multifamily housing. ALLOW ADDITIONAL HOUSING TYPES Allow Additional Housing Types 21 64 PROPOSAL Allow additional single-family dwellings, including single-family attached units (row houses and sideways row houses), or cottages in commercial zoning districts (CB Community Business, CC Corridor Commercial, CG General Commercial) to encourage the redevelopment of underutilized land. These projects would be required to meet the standards for those housing types. Permitting single-family dwellings would allow for these dwellings in a cottage development. WHAT IS CHANGING FROM MAY 2022? The previous proposal required that 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI. The current proposal allows one of the seven options that apply to zoning districts with additional height or process waivers. These are as follows: • 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI; or • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI; or • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an average income at or below 60% AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI; or • 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 30% AMI; or • 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or • 5% of the units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have three or more bedrooms. WHAT IS THE GOAL? Allowing additional housing types could provide for more variety in development or redevelopment opportunity. It would also provide the opportunity to transition additional land to lower scale residential development. 22 Modify Density Limits 65 MODIFY DENSITY LIMITS IN RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY ZONES PROPOSAL Allow for additional units in RMF zoning districts when affordable housing is provided. RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY (RMF) ZONING DISTRICTS The city has four RMF zoning districts. They are located throughout the city with the greatest concentration to the east of downtown. Properties in these districts have a mix of single and multifamily uses. Many of the existing multifamily structures have density exceeding what is currently permitted in the zone. The four districts, distinguished by their height limits are listed below: • RMF-30 • RMF-35 WHAT IS THE GOAL? • RMF-45 • RMF-75 The goal is to encourage the construction of affordable multifamily housing in neighborhoods that are typically close to services and amenities and have a variety of existing housing types. Removing the density requirements could increase the number properties that may accommodate affordable units. This benefit would increase the feasibility of these developments. Modify Density Limits 23 66 WHAT IS CHANGING FROM MAY 2022? There are not changes to the affordability from the May 2022 proposal. There are additions and changes to the design standards: • Building materials: 50% of any street facing facade shall be clad in durable materials. • Building entrances: The ground floor shall have a primary entrance on the street facing façade of the building with an unenclosed entry porch, canopy, or awning feature. Stairs to second floor units are not permitted on street facing elevations. WHAT AFFORDABILITY IS PROPOSED? The existing proposal removed the existing qualifying provisions for density in the individual RMF zoning districts provided rental housing shall be income-restricted and rent-restricted and meet a minimum of at least one of the following affordability criteria if the following are met: • 40% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes at or below 60% AMI; • 20% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes at or below 50% AMI; or • 40% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes averaging no more than 60% AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI. For sale owner occupied units shall provide a minimum of 50% of units affordable to those with incomes at or below 80% AMI. This is intended to allow for a greater number of smaller and more affordable units than what is currently permitted. WHAT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WOULD APPLY? The following standards would also apply: • Unit Mix: No more than 25% of the units in the development shall be less than 500 square feet to promote a mix of unit sizes. • Parking: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in 21A.44, only one off-street parking space per unit is required in multifamily developments with less than 10 units. • Yards: The minimum required yards shall apply to the perimeter of the development and not to the individual principal buildings within the development. • Lot width: Minimum lot width requirements do not apply. • Sideways row house and row house standards: Specific yard requirements. On street facing facades buildings cannot exceed 100 feet in length and garages are not permitted. There is a maximum length of 15’ for blank walls. • No additional building coverage or height is permitted. 24 Single & Two-Family Zoning Districts 67 SINGLE & TWO-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS PROPOSAL Allow additional building types in single and two-family zoning districts with an affordable component. Affordable units need to be affordable to those with incomes at or below 80% AMI. The proposal is to allow townhouses in groups of up to four units, 3-4 unit buildings, and cottage developments on parcels that are currently zoned for single- or two-family homes. Twin and two-family homes would also be permitted in the zoning districts where they are not currently allowed. The units could be renter or owner-occupied. The appreciation on owner-occupied units would be limited and, if sold, would require the unit to remain affordable for the remainder of the required time period. The proposal does not change other city requirements, including requirements for building codes, fire codes, or public utilities requirements. SINGLE-FAMILY AND TWO-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS The city has six single-family zoning districts. These are divided into Foothills and R-1 districts. The Foothills districts are generally located on the periphery of the city and close to the Foothills. The R-1 districts are located closer to the center of the city. Most of these areas developed in the early to mid-20th century. Single & Two-Family Zoning Districts 25 68 The districts and minimum lot sizes are as follows: • FR-1/43,560 • FR-2/21,780 • FR-3/12,000 • R-1/12,000 • R-1/7,000 • R-1/5,000 Many properties in the R-1 districts were previously zoned to allow for additional uses including two, three-, and four- family buildings. There are four additional two-family districts where the current proposal applies: • R-2 • SR-1 • SR-1A • SR-3 These zoning districts allow two-family units in addition to single-family homes. This would allow for the additional housing types in these zoning districts. NEW DWELLING TYPES The proposal would allow these types of dwellings, provided the units met the affordability requirement: • Twin and Two-family Dwellings: Twin, two-family, and duplex dwellings are not currently permitted in the single-family zoning districts (FR and R-1 zones). This proposal would permit them and require them to meet the existing standards for dwellings in the single- and two-family zoning districts. • Townhouses and Row houses: These would be defined as row houses and sideways row houses similar to the recently adopted RMF-30 zoning district changes. In the single- and two-family districts, the number of attached units would be limited to four and design standards would provide greater compatibility with the existing development. • Three- and Four-family Dwellings: Small, multi-unit dwellings with up to four units would be permitted with additional design standards. These modifications are to ensure greater compatibility with the existing development. • Cottage Development: The proposal would allow cottage developments with similar design and standards to the recently adopted RMF-30 zoning district changes. Cottages are designed to look like single-family homes and would be permitted in groups of two to eight with a common green or open space. 26 Single & Two-Family Zoning Districts 69 Example of a 4-unit townhouse (sideways row house) on a nearly 11,000 square foot lot. Each unit is 1,840 sq. ft. with a two-car garage. WHAT IS CHANGING FROM MAY 2022? The focus group spent a significant amount of their discussion on the proposed incentives for the single- and two-family zoning districts. There are several changes proposed: • The removal of the proximity to transit and adjacency to arterial roads requirement for additional housing types in the single- and two-family zoning districts. This opens the incentive up to all areas in single- and two-family zoning districts. This increases its equity and availability. The intent of the requirement was to encourage additional housing units in areas that are served by frequent transit (rail or bus service with 15-minute headways during peak periods) or are adjacent to arterial roads, which often have greater intensities of development. However, this requirement proved difficult because the location and frequency of the non-fixed bus routes has changed several times in the past few years. Additionally, some areas of the city were excluded and this raised concerns regarding the equity of the incentives and how they applied in different neighborhoods. • Addition of an incentive to preserve existing housing. This incentive allows for the construction of a second detached dwelling on the property when an existing dwelling is maintained. When a dwelling is retained, the affordability requirement is lowered to one of the units on the property. When an existing unit is not maintained, 50% would be required to meet the affordability requirement. The proposed incentives may not provide a sufficient profit for development. This provides an alternative with a lower percentage of units required to be affordable. Single & Two-Family Zoning Districts 27 70 • Additional design standards requiring durable building materials, entry features, and open space. There is an existing requirement for 15% glass on street facing facades. • Building materials: 50% of any street facing facade shall be clad in durable materials. • Building entrances: The ground floor shall have a primary entrance on the street facing façade of the building with an unenclosed entry porch, canopy, or awning feature. Stairs to second floor units are not permitted on street facing elevations. There are separate requirements for cottage developments for entries to face the street or common open space. • Open space: Open space area may include landscaped yards, patios, dining areas, and other similar outdoor living spaces. All required open space areas shall be accessible to all residents or users of the building. 120 sq. ft. of open space with a minimum width of 6 ft. shall be provided for each building with a dwelling. There are separate open space requirements for row house and cottage developments. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS There are changes to the previous requirements. The following are new requirements: • Arrangement of Dwellings: Dwelling units may be arranged in any manner within a building, as a second detached dwelling, as attached units, or if a cottage development with three or more detached dwellings, within the buildings that are part of the cottage development. • Existing Building: When an existing building is maintained, new units may be added internal to the existing structure, as an addition, or as a second detached dwelling. There are clarifications and modifications for the following: • Yards: Minimum required yards shall apply to the perimeter of the property and not to the individual principal building(s). • Parking: One parking space would be required per dwelling unit. If a property has multiple units, a minimum of one space would be required for each unit. A detached garage or carport with up to 250 sq. ft. for each unit may be provided in a single structure. • Subdivision: Lots may contain up to four units. Existing lots may be divided such that each unit is on its own lot. The new lots are exempt from minimum lot area and lot width requirements. • Rowhouse standards: There are specific yard requirements. On street facing facades buildings cannot exceed 60 ft. in length and garages are not permitted. There is a maximum length of 15’ for blank walls. • Cottage standards: There are specific yard requirements. Individual cottages cannot be more than 850 sq. ft. Open space and personal outdoor space must be provided. • Accessory Dwelling Unit: An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is considered one unit and counts toward the number of units permitted. • No additional building coverage or building height is permitted. 28 Single & Two-Family Zoning Districts 71 Preservation of Existing Structure: Center lot depicts an existing single-family home with a basement ADU, two surface parking spaces, detached two-car garage, and new, detached single-family home to the rear. This is on a larger nearly 12,000 sq. ft. lot. The three structures have a total building coverage of 27%. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff understands that there are concerns regarding the potential demolition of historic resources. The process for construction and demolition, including review by the Historic Landmark Commission, would not change for properties that are in local historic districts or are local landmark sites. It would be difficult for a contributing, locally designated building to be demolished for construction using the affordable housing incentives. Additions and any new structures on the property would require historic review. Demolition of a non-contributing structure and new construction would need to meet historic preservation standards and guidelines. The city’s regulations do not apply to districts or individual properties that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, but are not locally designated. The existing demolition process for these buildings would not change. Whether to redevelop a property would be up to individual property owners. Additionally, some properties that are not currently designated as local historic districts could be designated. Any new local historic district would need to meet the requirements in the city’s Historic Preservation Overlay District. 72 WHAT IS THE GOAL? The proposal would allow for some gentle increases in density in areas of the city that are predominantly occupied by single-family homes. Removal of the proximity to transit and arterial requirements open the option to all areas of the city zoned for single- and two- family dwellings and make this more equitable. The gentle increase in density that would be permitted is compatible with the historic development patterns of the city, where a mix of housing types, including duplexes and the division of a dwelling into multiple residences, previously occurred. 29 NEXT STEPS 30 Next Steps 73 ADOPTION PROCESS & IMPLEMENTATION STEP 1: Planning staff is seeking additional feedback on the proposal. Public comments were included with the May 2022 staff report. Comments received after the May 2022 public hearing are included in 2023 memos and reports. Based on the feedback, in fall 2022, the Office of the Mayor convened a focus group to review the proposal and make recommendations. Based on these discussions staff revised the proposal, and is presenting this revised document to detail the changes to the proposal. Additional comments will be included with subsequent memos and reports. STEP 2: Review revised draft zoning ordinance text amendment language. This will be reviewed by the community, the Planning Commission at a briefing, and a subsequent public hearing. The Planning Commission provides a recommendation to the City Council who will hold an additional public hearing prior to action. Language implementing the proposal will be adopted in the Zoning Ordinance. STEP 3: After adoption, interested parties consult with planning and other city staff to determine during the planning stages if the project meets the zoning and other applicable requirements. A planning process may be required. STEP 4: Development plans are reviewed to make sure they comply with the incentives and applicable regulations. This would require the typical review process as well as an additional review to ensure compliance with the incentives and a restrictive covenant placed on the property. This would be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. STEP 5: Building is constructed and after completion, a report is submitted annually to verify compliance with the requirements of affordability. APPENDIX A: DRAFT LANGUAGE Appendix A: Draft Language 31 74 DRAFT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE 75 76 ATTACHMENT D: Updated Affordable Housing Incentives Summary Document PLNPCM2019-00658 April 26, 2023 77 Proposal Summary | March 2023 AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT PROPOSAL The proposed zoning amendments would incentivize the construction of designated affordable units, lessening the burden for those that would qualify and live in these units. Residential units that wanted to use the incentives would be required to place a restrictive covenant on the property for the units to be made available to qualifying households. The proposal could apply to rental housing units and for sale units. This document summarizes the proposal. See more information at: www.slc.gov/planning/affordable-housing PROJECT OBJECTIVE The proposed amendments would incentivize the construction of affordable housing through modifications to the zoning requirements. Over time, and particularly in recent years, housing in Salt Lake City has become less affordable. There are many variables affecting housing prices, including zoning regulations. The goal of the proposed amendments are to increase affordable housing throughout Salt Lake City. Where multifamily housing is permitted, the incentives are designed to encourage developers to include affordable housing in projects and allow affordable housing developers to build more housing units. The incentives also allow for small increases in housing units throughout the city. Other recent and upcoming zoning changes further enable the construction of more housing. However, there are issues and concerns that zoning cannot address, including job wages, home prices, and, outside of these proposed amendments, the types of units constructed, and the rents charged. 78 2023 Implementation Tentative SUMMARY OF INCENTIVES Multi-family and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts • Permit additional height, between 1-3 stories (approximately 10’ per story), depending on the zone in various zoning districts that permit multifamily housing. Residential Multifamily Zoning Districts • Remove the density requirements in the RMF zoning districts, if the proposal meets the affordability requirements. • No additional height permitted. • Only 25% of the units could be 500 square feet or smaller. • Add development and design standards for rowhouse, sideways rowhouse, cottage, and other building forms. Single- and Two-family Zoning Districts • Allow additional building types in single- and two-family zoning districts provided 1-2 of the units would be affordable. • Allow townhouses in groups of up to four, 3-4 unit buildings, and cottage developments on parcels that are currently zoned for single- or two-family homes. Twin and two-family homes would also be permitted in the zoning districts where they are not currently allowed. • Add development and design standards for these dwellings. Other Incentives • Waive the Planned Development process for some proposals when affordability requirements are met. • Allow single-family and single-family attached housing on Institutional zoned land. Future zoning amendments may be considered to allow multifamily housing. • Allow additional housing types in the CG (General Commercial), CC (Community Commercial), and CB (Community Business) zoning districts to encourage the redevelopment of underutilized land. These districts permit multifamily housing, but not single-family dwellings, including single-family attached units, or cottages. SUMMARY OF CHANGES There are a number of modifications to the draft proposal presented to the Planning Commission in May 2022: • The removal of the proximity to transit and adjacency to arterial roads requirement for additional housing types in the single- and two-family zoning districts. This opens the incentive up to all areas of the city within single- and two-family zoning districts, increasing its equity and availability. • An emphasis on the preservation of existing housing. The revisions incentivize retaining an existing dwelling. The affordability requirement when an existing dwelling is preserved decreases from 50% of units to at least one of the units. • Additional design standards for new housing types in single- and two-family zoning districts. There is additional language that requires durable building materials, an entry feature, and an open space. • Enforcement penalties detailed. There are additional annual reporting requirements and an increase in the fines that could apply. Noncompliance can result in a lien placed on the property for fines and revocation of the business license associated with the property. • There are additional incentive options for more deeply affordable and larger units. These allow for a lower percentage of units to be set aside, ranging from 5-10% of units. • Modifications for consistency with the proposed Downtown Building Heights text amendment. The Planning Commission recommended changes to zoning districts within the downtown in August 2022. Pending adoption, staff is proposing changes to the proposal to be consistent and compatible with the proposed changes to these zoning districts. PROJECT TIMELINE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | Sara Javoronok, Senior Planner | sara.javoronok@slcgov.com | 801.535.7625 PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 79 ATTACHMENT E: Public Process & Comments SEE SEPARATE ATTACHMENT E FOR ALL SUB-ATTACHMENTS Public Notice, Meetings, Comments The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related to the proposed project since the application was initiated: Online Surveys and Comment Form • December-January 2020 – Planning staff posted an initial survey seeking feedback on housing issues. Over 2,100 people responded. See complete responses in Attachment E.1. • July 2020 – Planning staff presented a draft proposal in a Story Map and sought feedback on the proposal. Nearly 300 people responded. See complete responses in Attachment E.2. • February 2022 – Planning staff posted the draft amendments and sought feedback through a comment form. Approximately 130 people responded. See complete responses in Attachment E.3. • March 2023 – Planning staff posted an updated draft of the proposed amendments and sought feedback through the comment form. Two people responded for a total of approximately 175 since February 2022. See complete responses from May 11, 2022-April 19, 2023 in Attachment E.4. Developer Discussions Planning staff met with several affordable housing developers in 2019 to discuss issues and obstacles to building affordable housing in the community and how zoning may be able to address them. Developers generally indicated that by right processes were best, there should be parking reductions especially for lowest incomes, density limits made development difficult in the RMF districts, additional height was needed in many zoning districts, and there was a preference for form-based zoning districts. Staff requested feedback from developers on the draft proposal and generally heard that the incentives would allow them to construct more units and that the incentives in the single-family zoning districts may encourage smaller developers to construct units. Recognized Community Organization Notice and Meetings • June 25, 2020 – The 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations was sent citywide. o July 20, 2020 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Sugar House Land Use and Zoning meeting (Zoom). o August 6, 2020 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Ball Park Community Council meeting (Zoom). • March 3, 2022 – The 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations was sent citywide. o March 16, 2022 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the East Bench Community Council meeting (Zoom). Members expressed concerns with loss of views, view easements, and wanted to be notified of potential projects in the neighborhood. o March 21, 2022 - Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Sugar House Land Use Committee meeting (Zoom). Members expressed concerns with additional PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 80 housing types proposed, especially in the Highland Park neighborhood, lack of parking, lack of utility capacity, loss of neighborhood character, increase in rental housing, and desire for the proposal to be implemented as a smaller, pilot program. o April 7, 2022 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Ball Park Community Council meeting (Zoom). Community members want to see more owner-occupied housing in the neighborhood, expressed concerns with additional height in the FB districts, have concerns with existing parking requirements in the FB zones, and have general parking and safety concerns. o April 13, 2022 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Jordan Meadows/Westpointe Community Council meeting (Zoom). Community members asked questions about parking and how the increased number of students and increased park usage would be addressed. o April 14, 2022 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Yalecrest Community Council meeting (Zoom). Community members asked questions about historic districts and how the proposal would affect them, required parking, accessory dwelling units, rental units, and neighborhood character. o May 4, 2022 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Greater Avenues Community Council meeting (Zoom). Community member questions included affordability levels, the Planning Commission meeting and how to submit comments if not able to attend, and the monitoring of the deed restricted properties. o March 16, 2023 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Salt Lake City Community Network meeting (Zoom). Open Houses and Virtual Events • July 9, 2020 – Facebook Live Q&A – Planning staff hosted an AMA/Q&A discussion on Facebook. It reached 4,365 people with 1,423 3-second video views and 52 comments. See Attachment E.4. • February 16, 2022 – Facebook Live Q&A – Planning staff hosted an AMA/Q&A discussion on Facebook. It reached 772 people with 401 3-second video views and 71 reactions, shares, and comments. See Attachment E.5. • April 5, 2022 – Virtual Office Hours (Zoom) – Planning staff hosted an open Zoom meeting to answer questions. There were no attendees. • April 5, 2022 – Open House (Sugar House Fire Station #3) – Planning staff hosted an open house to provide information and answer questions on the proposal. Seven people attended. • April 12, 2022 – Open House (Unity Center) – Planning staff hosted an open house to provide information and answer questions on the proposal. Three people attended. • April 14, 2022 – Virtual Office Hours (Zoom) – Planning staff hosted an open Zoom meeting to answer questions. No one attended. • April 19, 2022 – Open House (Riverside Park) – Planning staff hosted an open house to provide information and answer questions on the proposal. No one attended. • April 21, 2022 – Open House (Lindsey Gardens Park) – Planning staff hosted an open house to provide information and answer questions on the proposal. One person attended. Sign-in sheets for open houses are included in Attachment E.7. Additional Comments The Glendale Community Council submitted a letter in 2020. See Attachment E.6. The Sugar House Community Council submitted a letter on May 3, 2022. See Attachment E.7. Community members provided additional written comments that are attached to this report. For comments through May 11, 2022, see Attachment E.7 for emails and E.8 for social media PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 81 comments. Additional emails and phone calls with general questions were received and responded to by staff. For comments received through July 2022, see below for a summary of the comment themes and tenor. See Attachment E.9 for a table of the comments received through July 2022. See Attachment E.10 for all comments received May 12, 2022-April 19, 2023. Community Notification The City Council office sent a flyer to commercial and residential addresses in the city and owners that live outside of Salt Lake City. It identified housing initiatives in the city and highlighted this proposal. A total of 99,832 were sent. See Attachment E.11 for flyer and comments submitted to the Council office. Development Scenarios Staff contacted and worked with local developers in the summer and fall of 2022 to provide information on the feasibility and impact of incentives. See scenarios and proformas in Attachment G. Focus Group The Office of the Mayor convened a focus group that included 15-20 members. It was comprised of neighborhood leaders, developers, policy advisors, and housing advocates. The group reviewed and discussed topics with the most community concerns over four meetings in the fall and winter of 2022. They made several recommended changes to proposal detailed in this report. Department Comments Debbie Lyons, Sustainability I do not have comments specific to the zoning modifications noted in the most current version, however I do want to provide a couple of resources on energy efficiency as it relates to affordable housing, just as an FYI. For background, the City has adopted a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2040 through Mayor-Council joint resolution 22 of 2016. More than 75% of our carbon footprint is attributable to electricity and natural gas use in homes and businesses, so looking for all opportunities to incentivize energy efficiency is important. It’s especially important in affordable housing because utility costs can pose significant hardship for low-income residents. In case you’re not aware or familiar with them: EPA’s Energy Efficiency in Affordable Housing Guide EPA – Energy Star Program – Residential Resources for Affordable Housing The RDA’s Sustainable Development Policy should serve as a great complement for developers looking into applying for RDA funds for new housing projects. Erik Fronberg, Housing Stability Please see my comments below for the draft language of the City’s Affordable Housing Incentives ordinance. 21A.52.050.F.2.a – The language addressing household incomes at a given percentage AMI is not consistent throughout the ordinance. I recommend replacing the following from 21A.52.050.F.2.a: “Eligible Households that are qualifying occupants with an annual income at or below the SLC Area Median Income (“AMI”) as applicable for the given affordable unit for Salt Lake City Utah, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Metro FMR Area (as periodically determined by the HUD and adjusted for household size).” PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 82 with the clearer language from 21A.62: “households that are qualifying occupants at or below the applicable percentage of the Area Median Income (AMI) area median income for the Salt Lake City Utah, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Metro FMR Area Salt Lake Metro Area, (the “SLC Area Median Income” or “AMI”, as periodically determined by HUD and adjusted for household size) and published by the Utah Housing Corporation, or its successor.” 21A.52.050.F.2.b – I recommend replacing “AMI” with “percentage AMI.” 21A.52.050.H.3.e – I recommend removing this provision. I’m assuming that limiting the number of units designated as affordable in large developments is intended to promote mixed-income developments or geographic equity (not concentrate deed-restricted units in one place); however, in light of the current affordable housing crisis, the City should maximize, not limit, the number of affordable units in any development. Overall, the draft looks great! It’s clear you and your team have worked hard on incorporating the feedback you’ve received. PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 83 Summary of Public Comment Themes Since the petition was initiated in 2019, staff has received over 1,100 public comments from individual members of the public through email, the online comment form, the City Council office, Planning Commission public hearing comment cards, surveys, and social media platforms etc. This attachment outlines a summary of the Affordable Housing Incentive (AHI) public comments received since the project started in 2019 through July 2022. Staff analyzed the comments and identified 14 common themes regarding the AHI proposal which are listed in the section below. It should be noted this analysis primarily includes digitally received comments which could be easily compiled for a digital analysis. Staff reviewed each comment, documented the themes each comment referred to, and identified whether the comment voiced opposition, support, questions, recommendations, or a combination. The following sections provide a summary of the public comment analysis: Theme: Affordability Requirements This theme consists of comments related to the proposed AHI affordability requirements such as the Area Medium Income requirements and the for rent/ownership options. • Staff received a total of 146 comments regarding affordability requirements. 97 of the comments suggested recommendations, 47 voiced opposition, 3 voiced support, and 31 included questions. Theme: Lack of Infrastructure/utilities This theme consists of comments related to the City’s infrastructure, and utilities such as water supply, street capacity, and utility lines. • Staff received a total of 58 comments regarding City infrastructure and utilities. 16 of the comments suggested recommendations, 48 voiced opposition, and 5 included questions. Theme: Transportation Infrastructure This theme consists of comments related to the proposed AHI parking requirements, transportation regulations, and the City’s transportation infrastructure. • Staff received a total of 242 comments regarding transportation infrastructure. 127 comments suggested recommendations, 141 voiced opposition, 18 voiced support and 16 included questions. Theme: Density, unit type, and size This theme consists of comments related to housing typologies, densities, unit type, size, and mix. • Staff received a total of 318 comments regarding density, and unit type and size. 138 comments suggested recommendations, 121 voiced opposition, 81 voiced support and 13 included questions. Theme: Enforcement This theme consists of comments related to the AHI proposed enforcement regulations such as deed restrictions, monitoring, and enforcement methods. • Staff received 64 comments regarding enforcement. 19 of the comments suggested recommendations, 42 voiced opposition, 1 voiced support and 15 included questions. PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 84 Theme: Design and Compatibility This theme consists of comments regarding proposed AHI design standards, open space requirements, and architectural compatibility considerations. • Staff received 122 comments regarding design and compatibility. 89 of the comments suggested recommendations, 35 voiced opposition, 4 voiced support and 3 included questions. Theme: Neighborhood Impacts This theme consists of comments regarding the potential impacts the AHI could have on the City’s neighborhoods. • Staff received 308 comments regarding neighborhood impacts. 96 of the comments suggested recommendations, 215 voiced opposition, 36 voiced support and 10 included questions. Theme: Historic District This theme consists of comments regarding the AHI could have on Historic Districts and properties. • Staff received 56 comments regarding historic districts and properties. 17 of the comments suggested recommendations, 40 voiced opposition, and 10 included questions. Theme: Zoning This theme consists of comments regarding zoning regulation such as land use, and development standards. • Staff received 220 comments regarding zoning. 93 of the comments suggested recommendations, 68 voiced opposition, 63 voiced support and 27 included questions. Theme: Housing Policies This theme consists of comments regarding housing policies such as homelessness, pilot programs, ADU regulations etc. • Staff received 78 comments regarding housing policies. 34 of the comments suggested recommendations, 26 voiced opposition, 19 voiced support and 6 included questions. Theme: Outside of Project Scope This theme consists of comments related to topics outside of the scope of the AHI such as rent caps, wages, and the mandate of affordable housing construction. • Staff received 206 comments regarding topics outside of the scope of the AHI. 194 of the comments suggested recommendations, 21 voiced opposition, 2 voiced support, and 8 included questions. Theme: Public Outreach This theme consists of comments related to the AHI public outreach process and methods. • Staff received 48 comments regarding public outreach. 24 of the comments suggested recommendations, 14 voiced opposition, 3 voiced support and 15 included questions. Theme: Climate Impacts This theme consists of comments related to climate change and climate events such as wildfires and precipitation. PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 85 • Staff received 17 comments regarding climate change. 4 of the comments suggested recommendations, 9 voiced opposition, 2 voiced support and 4 included questions. Theme: General Comments This theme includes comments that generally stated opposition, support and general statements related to affordable housing. • Staff received 195 comments regarding general comments. 79 of the comments suggested recommendations, 40 voiced opposition, 24 voiced support, 22 included questions, and 46 included general statements. Theme: Multiple Themes This theme notes the number of comments that addressed multiple themes. • Staff received a total of 518 comments which addressed multiple comment themes. 86 Affordable Housing Overlay Comments - Through July 2022 Summary of Themes and Tenor Counts and Tenor Comment Themes 1- Opposed 2- Support 3-Questions 4- Recommendations X - General Comments Total Comments within Theme Affordability Requirements 47 3 31 97 146 Lack of Infrastructure/utilities 48 0 5 16 58 Transportation Infrastructure 141 18 16 127 242 Density, unit type and size 121 81 13 138 318 Enforcement 42 1 15 19 64 Design and Compatibility 35 4 3 89 122 Neighborhood Impacts 215 36 10 96 308 Historic District 40 0 10 17 56 Zoning 68 63 27 93 220 Housing Policies 26 19 6 34 78 Outside of Project Scope 21 2 8 194 206 Public Outreach 14 3 15 24 48 Climate Impacts 9 0 2 4 17 General Comments 40 24 22 79 46 195 Multiple Themes TOTAL OF 1100 COMMENTS 518 518 PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 87 ATTACHMENT F: Analysis of Standards ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS 21A.50.050: A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any one standard. In making a decision to amend the zoning map, the City Council should consider the following: 1. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents; Plan Salt Lake Plan Salt Lake is the adopted City vision document. It establishes citywide values, principles, and initiatives that are intended to guide the decision-making process for a number of different topics, including the manner in which the City addresses growth. The following guiding principles and initiatives are related to and consistent with the proposed zoning amendments: Growth: Guiding Principle: Growing responsibly, while providing people with choices about where they live, how they live, and how they get around. Initiatives: • Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as transit and transportation corridors. • Encourage a mix of land uses. • Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land. • Accommodate and promote an increase in the City’s population. • Work with regional partners and stakeholders to address growth collaboratively. Housing Guiding Principle: Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics.” Initiatives • Ensure access to affordable housing citywide (including rental and very low income). • Increase the number of medium density housing types and options. • Encourage housing options that accommodate aging in place. • Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the potential to be people oriented. • Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate. • Promote energy efficient housing and rehabilitation of existing housing stock. • Promote high-density residential in areas served by transit. Transportation and Mobility Guiding Principle: A transportation and mobility network that is safe, accessible, reliable, affordable, and sustainable, providing real choices and connecting people with places. PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 88 Initiatives • Create a complete circulation network and ensure convenient equitable access to a variety of transportation options by: o Having a public transit stop within 1/4 mile of all residents. • Encourage transit-oriented development (TOD). Growing SLC Growing SLC is the city’s housing plan. It outlines strategies for long-term affordability and preservation that continues to enhance neighborhoods while balancing their unique needs. It includes policies to address the city’s need for affordable housing. This proposal is consistent with several goals, objectives, and policies in Growing SLC: Goal 1: Reform City practices to promote a responsive, affordable, high-opportunity housing market. • Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city. o Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along significant transportation routes. o Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts. o Reduce parking requirements for affordable housing developments and eliminate parking requirements in transit-rich, walkable neighborhoods or when the specific demographics of a development require less parking, such as senior populations. • Objective 2: Remove impediments in City processes to encourage housing development. o 1.2.1 Create an expedited processing system to increase City access for those developers constructing new affordable units. Goal 2: Affordable Housing: Increase Housing Opportunities and Stability for Cost- Burdened Households o 2.1.2 Consider an ordinance that would require and incentivize the inclusion of affordable units in new developments. Goal 3: Equitable & Fair Housing: Build a More Equitable City • Objective 2: Align resources and invest in strategic expansion of opportunity throughout all neighborhoods of the city and access to existing areas of opportunity o Make strategic affordable housing investments in high opportunity neighborhoods. o Support diverse and vibrant neighborhoods by aligning land use policies that promote a housing market capable of accommodating residents throughout all stages of life. The proposed changes are consistent with City purposes, goals, and policies. See detailed responses in Key Consideration 1. 2. Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. 21A.02.030 Purpose and Intent PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 89 The purpose of the zoning ordinance “is to promote the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Salt Lake City, to implement the adopted plans of the city, and to carry out the purposes of the municipal land use development and management act, title 10, chapter 9, of the Utah Code Annotated or its successor, and other relevant statutes.” The purposes of the zoning ordinance also states the title is intended to: • Lessen congestion in the streets or roads • Classify land uses and distribute land development and utilization • Foster the City's industrial, business and residential development The proposed amendments to incentivize affordable housing meet the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance as excerpted. The proposed amendments implement the adopted master plans listed above in 1, which furthers a purpose of the zoning ordinance. 3. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; The proposed text amendment creates a Zoning Incentives chapter. The Affordable Housing Incentives are proposed for this chapter and additional incentives may be added. Many overlay districts apply in zoning districts affected by this proposal. This includes the following overlay districts: • 21A.34.020: H Historic Preservation Overlay District • 21A.34.030: T Transitional Overlay District • 21A.34.040: AFPP Airport Flight Path Protection Overlay District (primarily Zones C and H) • 21A.34.060: Groundwater Source Protection Overlay District • 21A.34.080: CHPA Capitol Hill Protective Area Overlay District • 21A.34.090: SSSC South State Street Corridor Overlay District • 21A.34.110: DMSC Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District • 21A.34.120: YCI Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay District • 21A.34.130: RCO Riparian Corridor Overlay District • 21A.34.150: IP Inland Port Overlay District (limited to CG properties on 5600 W) The proposed amendments would be limited by additional standards in many of these overlay zoning districts. The base and overlay districts may provide additional standards and restrictions than provided for in these incentives. Specifically, there has been discussion regarding the Historic Preservation Overlay District, Historic Landmarks, and the impact of the proposed AHI. The AHI would not change the historic standards, guidelines, or processes applicable to properties that are in local historic districts or are local landmark sites. Properties that are in National Register Historic Districts or are individually listed on the National Register are not subject to the city’s historic regulations. Units could be added to existing properties with additions or new construction. 4. The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current, professional practices of urban planning and design. The proposed text amendments support Sustainability, Equity, Growth, and Opportunity. In recent years, lack of affordable housing and increasing housing prices have become an issue in Salt Lake City, throughout the Wasatch Front and across the country. Increasing prices for rental and ownership housing, historically low number of PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 90 days on market in for sale housing, and historically low vacancy rates in rental housing indicate that additional housing is needed in Salt Lake City and beyond. This was discussed on pages 6-7 in the original Affordable Housing document from 2022. There have been changes in the market over the past year. For ownership units, prices have not continued to increase at the same rate as in previous years. However, interest rates have increased, and the monthly payment for a property of a similar value is greater than early 2022. See the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Policy Brief: Housing Prices and Affordability from February 2023 for more information. For renters, a February 2023 fact sheet from the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute on Utah’s Rental Market indicates the average apartment rent for Salt Lake County increased 37.1% from 2016-2021 while incomes increased by 18.5%. In Salt Lake County, 46% of renters are cost burdened, spending more than 30% of their income on housing, which is higher than the national average of 40%. In October 2021 Salt Lake County and partners hosted a Regional Solutions Event with Daniel Parolek, of Opticos Design, who created the concept of “Missing Middle Housing” to discuss the concept and how it could address Utah’s housing needs. “Missing Middle Housing” is “is a range of house-scale buildings with multiple units—compatible in scale and form with detached single-family homes—located in a walkable neighborhood.” (MissingMiddleHousing.com) Many aspects of the proposed text amendments permit and incentivize middle housing types and options. The County also prepared reports on housing highlighting the gap between new households and new homes, suggesting middle housing as an opportunity to fill the gap. The Kem C. Gardner Institute issued a paper in December 2020 entitled, “Housing Affordability: What Are Best Practices and Why Are They Important?” that included making changes to zoning as a best practice. It identified that zoning can “Provide a Powerful Policy Tool to Increase the Supply of Housing” and that through higher density housing or upzoning communities could add more housing and respond to changing market preferences for housing types other than single-family homes. This could also reduce spatial concentrations of moderate- and low-income households of color and provide greater economic efficiencies for households and government. It also references the initial “Affordable Housing Overlay” approach initiated with this project. The name change reflects the location of the proposed provisions in the city’s zoning code, but the substance of the proposal is similar. The differences have been outlined in the staff report and are further detailed in the specific language in Attachment A and the narrative document (Attachment D). Of the five recommendations in the March 2022 article in Planning, the magazine for the American Planning Association, entitled “5 Practical Zoning Hacks for Missing Middle Housing”, the affordable housing incentives proposal includes aspects of all five, plus includes requirements for affordable units. The five recommendations are as follows: • Reduce minimum lot size • Allow for more housing types and revisit structure sizes • Level the playing field for smaller units (more density doesn’t always mean bigger buildings) • Reduce or eliminate parking minimums • Allow missing middle housing everywhere (if possible) PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 91 ATTACHMENT G: Summary of Proforma and Scenario Analyses Development Scenarios D-2 - Using New Downtown Building Heights standards D -2 S ce n a r i o s L I H T C Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 80% AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 50% AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR DCR/ Stabilized Cash Flow ROC Notes LIHTC project 225 0.9375 D-2 $8M / $196psf / $35.5k/door 36 96 48 9 24 12 1.14/$577,668 4.29% 4% Tax Credits, $3M in subsidized gap debt assumed from State, County and City Sources 20% units @ 50% AMI, with 1 floors above max height 255 $8M / $196psf / $31,3k/door 40 109 54 11 27 14 1.14/$664,864 4.32% 4% Tax Credits, $3M in subsidized gap debt assumed from State, County and City Sources 20% units @ 50% AMI, with 2 floors above max height 285 $8M / $196psf / $28k/door 45 122 60 12 30 16 1.15/$753,879 4.44% 4% Tax Credits, $3M in subsidized gap debt assumed from State, County and City Sources 20% units @ 50% AMI, with 3 floors above max height 315 $8M / $196psf / $25.4k/door 50 135 66 13 33 18 1.15/$842,894 4.51% 4% Tax Credits, $3M in subsidized gap debt assumed from State, County and City Sources 20% units @ 50% AMI, with 3 floors above max height 300 $8M / $196psf / $26.6k/door 48 128 64 12 32 16 1.15/$800,763 4.40% 4% Tax Credits, $3M in subsidized gap debt assumed from State, County and City Sources M a r k e t Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 80% AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 30% AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR DCR/ Stabilized Cash Flow ROC Notes Market Rate Project, by right to zoning 225 0.9375 D-2 $8M / $196psf / $35.5k/door 45 120 60 1.35/$1.452M 5.04% Low Leverage (45%)/High Equity Raise, parked 1:1, LifeCo loan 5 % @ 3 0 % Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 80% AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 30% AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR DCR/ Stabilized Cash Flow ROC Notes Market Rate Project, same project as above 225 0.9375 D-2 $8M / $196psf / $35.5k/door 45 120 60 1.35/$1.452M 5.04% Low Leverage (45%)/High Equity Raise, parked 1:1, LifeCo loan 5% units @ 30% AMI, with 1 floor above max height 255 $8M / $196psf / $31,3k/door 48 129 64 3 7 4 1.35/$1.570M 4.86% Same basic leverage and loan, parked ..88 stalls/unit 5% units @ 30% AMI, with 2 floor above max height 285 $8M / $196psf / $28k/door 54 144 72 3 8 4 1.35/$1.749M 4.96% Same basic leverage and loan, parked .79 stalls/unit 5% units @ 30% AMI, with 3 floors above max height 315 $8M / $196psf / $25.4k/door 59 160 79 4 8 5 1.35/$1.923M 5.02% Same basic leverage and loan, parked .71 stalls/unit Same basic leverage and loan, parked 1:1 (third added level is a parking level with units at street 5% units @ 30% AMI, with 3 floors above max height, add'l park 300 $8M / $196psf / $26.6k/door 57 152 76 3 8 4 1.35/$1.841M 4.91% 5 % @ 6 0 % 2 b d s Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 80% AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 60% AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR DCR/ Stabilized Cash Flow ROC Notes Market Rate Project, same project as above 225 0.9375 D-2 $8M / $196psf / $35.5k/door 45 120 60 1.35/$1.452M 5.04% Low Leverage (45%)/High Equity Raise, parked 1:1, LifeCo loan 5% units @ 60% AMI, All 2s, with 1 floor above max height 255 $8M / $196psf / $31,3k/door 51 136 55 13 1.35/$1.592M 4.93% Same basic leverage and loan, parked ..88 stalls/unit 5% units @ 60% AMI, All 2s, with 2 floors above max height 285 $8M / $196psf / $28k/door 57 152 61 15 1.35/$1.769M 5.01% Same basic leverage and loan, parked .79 stalls/unit 5% units @ 60% AMI, All 2s, with 3 floors above max height 315 $8M / $196psf / $25.4k/door 63 168 68 16 1.35/$1.949M 5.09% Same basic leverage and loan, parked .71 stalls/unit 5% units @ 60% AMI, All 2s, with 3 floors above max, add'l park 300 $8M / $196psf / $26.6k/door 60 160 65 15 1.35/$1.860M 4.96% Same basic leverage and loan, parked 1:1 (third added level is a parking level with units at street 2 0 % @ 8 0 % Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 80% AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 60% AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR DCR/ Stabilized Cash Flow ROC Notes Market Rate Project, same project as above 225 0.9375 D-2 $8M / $196psf / $35.5k/door 45 120 60 1.35/$1.452M 5.04% Low Leverage (45%)/High Equity Raise, parked 1:1, LifeCo loan 20% units @ 80% AMI, with 1 floor above max height 255 $8M / $196psf / $31,3k/door 40 109 54 11 27 14 1.35/$1.563M 4.81% Same basic leverage and loan, parked ..88 stalls/unit 20% units @ 80% AMI, with 2 floor above max height 285 $8M / $196psf / $28k/door 45 122 60 12 30 16 1.35/$1.738M 4.89% Same basic leverage and loan, parked .79 stalls/unit 20% units @ 80% AMI, with 3 floors above max height 315 $8M / $196psf / $25.4k/door 48 128 64 12 32 16 1.35/$1.912M 4.96% Same basic leverage and loan, parked .71 stalls/unit Same basic leverage and loan, parked 1:1 (third added level is a parking level with units at street 20% units @ 80% AMI, with 3 floors above max height, add'l park 300 $8M / $196psf / $26.6k/door 48 128 64 12 32 16 1.35/$1.827M 4.84% 1 0 % @ 6 0 % Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 80% AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 60% AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR DCR/ Stabilized Cash Flow ROC Notes Market Rate Project, same project as above 225 0.9375 D-2 $8M / $196psf / $35.5k/door 45 120 60 1.35/$1.452M 5.04% Low Leverage (45%)/High Equity Raise, parked 1:1, LifeCo loan 10% units @ 60% AMI, with 1 floor above max height 255 $8M / $196psf / $31,3k/door 46 122 61 5 14 7 1.35/$1.565M 4.84% Same basic leverage and loan, parked ..88 stalls/unit 10% units @ 60% AMI, with 2 floors above max height 285 $8M / $196psf / $28k/door 51 137 68 6 15 8 1.35/$1.741M 4.92% Same basic leverage and loan, parked .79 stalls/unit 10% units @ 60% AMI, with 3 floors above max height 315 $8M / $196psf / $25.4k/door 56 152 75 7 16 9 1.35/$1.916M 4.99% Same basic leverage and loan, parked .71 stalls/unit 10% units @ 60% AMI, with 3 floors above max height, add'l park 300 $8M / $196psf / $26.6k/door 54 144 72 6 16 8 1.35/$1.830M 4.87% Same basic leverage and loan, parked 1:1 (third added level is a parking level with units at street 1 0 % @ 8 0 % 2 s Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 80% AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 60% AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR DCR/ Stabilized Cash Flow ROC Notes Market Rate Project, same project as above 225 0.9375 D-2 $8M / $196psf / $35.5k/door 45 120 60 1.35/$1.452M 5.04% Low Leverage (45%)/High Equity Raise, parked 1:1, LifeCo loan 10% units @ 80% AMI. All 2s, with 1 floor above max height 255 $8M / $196psf / $31,3k/door 51 136 42 26 1.35/$1.588M 4.91% Same basic leverage and loan, parked ..88 stalls/unit 10% units @ 80% AMI. All 2s, with 2 floors above max height 285 $8M / $196psf / $28k/door 57 152 47 29 1.35/$1.766M 4.99% Same basic leverage and loan, parked .79 stalls/unit 10% units @ 80% AMI. All 2s, with 3 floors above max height 315 $8M / $196psf / $25.4k/door 63 168 52 32 1.35/$1.945M 5.07% Same basic leverage and loan, parked .71 stalls/unit 10% units @ 80% AMI. All 2s, with 3 floors above max, add'l park 300 $8M / $196psf / $26.6k/door 60 160 50 30 1.35/$1.856M 4.94% Same basic leverage and loan, parked 1:1 (third added level is a parking level with units at street 5 % @ 8 0 % 3 s Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 80% AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 60% AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR DCR/ Stabilized Cash Flow ROC Notes Market Rate Project, same project as above 225 0.9375 D-2 $8M / $196psf / $35.5k/door 45 120 60 1.35/$1.452M 5.04% Low Leverage (45%)/High Equity Raise, parked 1:1, LifeCo loan 5% units @ 80% AMI. All 3s, with 1 floor above max height 255 $8M / $196psf / $31,3k/door 51 123 42 13 1.35/$1.640M 4.99% Same basic leverage and loan, parked ..88 stalls/unit 5% units @ 80% AMI. All 3s, with 2 floors above max height 285 $8M / $196psf / $28k/door 57 137 76 15 1.35/$1.825M 5.07% Same basic leverage and loan, parked .79 stalls/unit 5% units @ 80% AMI. All 3s, with 3 floors above max height 315 $8M / $196psf / $25.4k/door 63 152 84 16 1.35/$2.008M 5.15% Same basic leverage and loan, parked .71 stalls/unit 5% units @ 80% AMI. All 3s, with 3 floors above max, add'l park 300 $8M / $196psf / $26.6k/door 60 145 80 15 1.35/$1.916M 5.02% Same basic leverage and loan, parked 1:1 (third added level is a parking level with units at street *120' is max height permitted *Assume current land values *Assume current market rents for the neighborhood * I had to push the rents for this site/neighborhood to make it make sense; the rents might be appropriate given the greater height and quality inherent with a tall tower. 92 *Fill or modify headers as applicable 93 Development Scenarios Wood Frame (Type III/V Construction) 4 over 1 to 5 over 1 in various zones allowing approximately 50 feet in height W o o d F r a m e S c e n a r i o s - 4 o v e r 1 T y p e V ( 5 5 F e e t ) t o 5 o v e r 1 T y p e II I ( 6 5 F e e t ) L I H T C Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80% AMI 50% AMI DCR/ Stabilized ROC Notes Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Cash Flow Mixed Income 4% LIHTC project, 20% of units @ 50% AMI 135 0.9375 Various $6.3M / $154psf / $46.6k/door 22 57 29 5 15 7 1.11/$281,153 5.07% 4% Tax Credits, $3M in subsidized gap debt assumed from State, County and City Sources 4% LIHTC 20% units @ 50% AMI, with 1 floor above max height 165 $6.3M / $154psf / $38.1k/door 26 70 35 7 18 9 1.12/$362,344 4.90% 4% Tax Credits, $3M in subsidized gap debt assumed from State, County and City Sources M a r k e t Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80% AMI 30% AMI DCR/ Stabilized ROC Notes Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Cash Flow Market Rate Project, by right to zoning 135 0.9375 Various $6.3M / $154psf / $46.6k/door 27 72 36 1.35/$847,545 5.87% Low Leverage (53%)/High Equity Raise, parked .55:1, LifeCo loan 5 % @ 3 0 % Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80% AMI 30% AMI DCR/ Stabilized ROC Notes Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Cash Flow Market Rate Project, same project as above 135 0.9375 Various $6.3M / $154psf / $46.6k/door 27 72 36 1.35/$847,545 5.87% Low Leverage (53%)/High Equity Raise, parked .55:1, LifeCo loan 5% units @ 30% AMI, with 1 floor above max height 165 $6.3M / $154psf / $38.1k/door 31 83 42 2 5 2 1.35/$917,421 5.48% Same basic leverage and loan, parked ..45 stalls/unit 5 % @ 6 0 % 2 b d Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80% AMI 60% AMI DCR/ Stabilized ROC Notes Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Cash Flow Market Rate Project, same project as above 135 0.9375 Various $6.3M / $154psf / $46.6k/door 27 72 36 1.35/$847,545 5.87% Low Leverage (53%)/High Equity Raise, parked .55:1, LifeCo loan 5% units @ 60% AMI, All 2s, with 1 floor above max height 165 $6.3M / $154psf / $38.1k/door 33 88 35 9 1.35/$1.015M 5.68% Same basic leverage and loan, parked ..45 stalls/unit 2 0 % @ 8 0 % Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80% AMI 60% AMI DCR/ Stabilized ROC Notes Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Cash Flow Market Rate Project, same project as above 135 0.9375 Various $6.3M / $154psf / $46.6k/door 27 72 36 1.35/$847,545 5.87% Low Leverage (53%)/High Equity Raise, parked .55:1, LifeCo loan 20% units @ 80% AMI, with 1 floor above max height 165 $6.3M / $154psf / $38.1k/door 27 70 35 6 18 9 1.35/$913,021 5.42% Same basic leverage and loan, parked ..45 stalls/unit 1 0 % @ 6 0 % Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80% AMI 60% AMI DCR/ Stabilized ROC Notes Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Cash Flow Market Rate Project, same project as above 135 0.9375 Various $6.3M / $154psf / $46.6k/door 27 72 36 1.35/$847,545 5.87% Low Leverage (53%)/High Equity Raise, parked .55:1, LifeCo loan 10% units @ 60% AMI, with 1 floor above max height 165 $6.3M / $154psf / $38.1k/door 30 79 39 3 9 5 1.35/$1.005M 5.61% Same basic leverage and loan, parked ..45 stalls/unit 1 0 % @ 8 0 % 2 s Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80% AMI 60% AMI DCR/ Stabilized ROC Notes Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Cash Flow Market Rate Project, same project as above 135 0.9375 Various $6.3M / $154psf / $46.6k/door 27 72 36 1.35/$847,545 5.87% Low Leverage (53%)/High Equity Raise, parked .55:1, LifeCo loan 10% units @ 80% AMI. All 2s, with 1 floor above max height 165 $6.3M / $154psf / $38.1k/door 33 88 27 17 1.35/$1.010M 5.82% Same basic leverage and loan, parked ..45 stalls/unit 5 % @ 8 0 % 3 s Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80% AMI 60% AMI DCR/ Stabilized ROC Notes Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Cash Flow Market Rate Project, same project as above 135 0.9375 Various $6.3M / $154psf / $46.6k/door 27 72 36 1.35/$847,545 5.87% Low Leverage (53%)/High Equity Raise, parked .55:1, LifeCo loan 5% units @ 80% AMI. All 3s, with 1 floor above max height 165 $6.3M / $154psf / $38.1k/door 51 123 42 13 1.35/$917,421 5.48% Same basic leverage and loan, parked ..45 stalls/unit *Assume current land values *Assume current market rents for the neighborhood *Fill or modify headers as applicable 94 Development Scenarios RMF-35 and TSA Apartment Buildings Citizens West Citizens West 2 & 3 are 100% affordable units, 25-50% AMI for all units. *Building this many units might be limited by LIHTC Equity available per cycle. Increasing the height from the existing 5 floors of residential/2 floors of parking would require change of construction type to steel, would affect DCR. Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Average 43% AMI Studio 3 BR 4 BR DCR/ Stabilized Cash Flow LIHTC project (9%) 80 1 TSA-UN-T $1.8M 45 25 10 1.15 Same project as above, with 1 floor above max height (AHI) 97 55 30 12 * Same project as above, with 2 floors above max height (AHI) 114* 65 35 14 * Denver Apartments This is a permanent supportive housing development. It is zoned RMF-35. The scenarios below show what was built based on the existing regulations and what could be built with the existing incentives. The incentives have a requirement of no more than 25% of units less than 500 sq. ft. Some units had to be enlarged and if there was not this requirement, 66 units would have fit on the site. Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Permanent Supportive Housing DCR/ Stabilized Cash Flow Studio = 39% AMI 1 BR = 50% AMI Project with existing zoning requirements 22 0.9 RMF-35 We don't have a current appraisal for this parcel. When the project was done, we paid $1M for land 10 12 1.25 LIHTC project (9%) - with allowances by incentives 53 13 40 1.25 Avia (The Exchange, Phase I) The Avia is 80% market rate units and 20% of units are at 50% AMI Scenarios # of Lot Size Zoning Units (acres) Market Rate Units Affordable Units (50% AMI) Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR Avia (The Exchange) LIHTC project (4%) 286 1 TSA-UN-C 25 138 51 15 6 34 13 4 Same project as above, with 1 floor above max height (AHI) 326 28 158 58 18 7 39 14 4 Same project as above, with 2 floors above max height (AHI) 367 31 178 65 20 8 44 16 5 Attachment Development Scenarios Summary Single- and Two-family zoning districts # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Unit Size For Sale Product, 80% AMI For Rent Product Market Rate 80% AMI Profit Market Price 80% AMI Price Market Rate 80% AMI NOI Value Monthly Rent Market Monthly Rent 80% AMI 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Scenario #1: Lower land value/Sales price neighborhood Single-family Detached without AHI 1 0.15 R-1/7,000 $185,000 2,800 sq ft + 2 car garage 1 $ (109,043) $500,000 NA 1 $20,850 $463,333 $2,500 NA Duplex with AHI 2 0.15 R-1/7,000 $185,000 1,500 sq ft each 1 1 $ (35,693) $450,000 $350,000 1 1 $37,852 $841,151 $2,300 $2,130 Fourplex with AHI 4 0.15 R-1/7,000 $185,000 1,000 sq ft each 2 2 $ 118,558 $350,000 (x2) $325,000 (x2) 2 2 $48,808 $1,084,622 $1,450 (x2) $1,450 (x2) Townhouses with AHI 4 0.25 R-1/7,000 $300,000 1,730 sq ft + 2 car garage 2 2 $ (75,150) $450,000 (x2) $300,000 (x2) 2 2 $79,704 $1,771,191 $2,300 $2,130 Scenario #2 Higher land value/Sales price neighborhood Single-family Detached without AHI 1 0.15 R-1/7,000 $300,000 2,800 sq ft + 2 car garage 1 $134,800 $1,050,000 NA 1 $27,532 $611,822 $3,200 NA Duplex with AHI 2 0.15 R-1/7,000 $300,000 1,500 sq ft each 1 1 ($61,150) $600,000 $350,000 1 1 $40,956 $910,129 $2,700 $2,130 Fourplex with AHI 4 0.15 R-1/7,000 $300,000 1,000 sq ft each 2 2 $81,350 $450,000 (x2) $325,000 (x2) 2 2 $63,172 $1,403,822 $1,800 (x2) $1,800 (x2) Townhouses with AHI 4 0.25 R-1/7,000 $500,000 1,730 sq ft + 2 car garage 2 2 ($7,610) $660,000 (x2) $350,000 (x2) 2 2 $85,964 $1,910,302 $2,800 (x2) $2,130 (x2) Assumptions: 80% AMI max. for sale price for a 3 bed unit assumes 4-person household, $81,900 annual income, 5% interest rate, 7% down payment 80% AMI max. for sale price for a 2 bed unit assumes 3-person household, $73,750 annual income, 5% interest rate, 7% down payment 80% AMI rental rates: 1 br = $1,537, 2 br = $1,844, 3 br = $2,130, 4 br = $2,136 NOI = net operating income = annual income - annual expenses 4.5% Cap rate for all 95 Attachment G4 PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 96 ATTACHMENT H: Zoning Maps and Graphics Attachment H.1 CS Zoning Districts CS (Community Shopping) – Trolley Square area PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 97 CS (Community Shopping) – Brickyard PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 98 CS (Community Shopping) – Foothill Village CS (Community Shopping) – Lucky Grocery area Attachment H.2 Locations of TSA Zoning Districts PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 99 TSA (Transit Station Area) Zoning Districts – North Temple TSA (Transit Station Area) Zoning Districts – 400 South Attachment H.3 Selected Commercial Districts PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 100 Attachment H.4 Locations of RMF Zoning Districts PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 101 Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From: cindy cromer To: Traughber, Lex Subject: (EXTERNAL) Fw: comment on Princeton Heights 11/8/23 Date: Thursday, November 9, 2023 6:12:06 AM Lex-In my comments at the meeting, I omitted the paragraphs on Housing Salt Lake and Plan Salt Lake because other people had spoken about those policies. Please include these written comments in the record as you forward the transmittal. My references to the data from the Mayor's task force will continue. Sincerely, cindy c. At your meeting on September 13, you voted to send a negative recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed historic district for Laird Heights, citing the need for more housing based on Housing SLC, Thriving in Place, and Plan Salt Lake. This afternoon I sent to your Dropbox the data generated by the Mayor's task force on Affordable Housing. The finding was that additional density was unlikely in high value, low density neighborhoods such as Yalecrest. You had those data for the April 26 hearing on Affordable Housing. It is clear to me as a small-scale investor that allowing demolitions in a neighborhood such as Yalecrest will result in even larger, more expensive single-family residences which exclude even more of Salt Lake City's residents. My own view is consistent with the data generated by developers on the task force and with the demolitions which have already occurred in the Yalecrest neighborhood. In addition to the data generated by the task force, I see shortcomings of citing the planning documents used in the motion on Laird Heights. Thriving in Place (2023)is an anti-displacement plan focusing on renters. It certainly should not be used to justify the replacement of expensive housing with even more expensive housing. Housing Salt Lake (2023) in C 3 addresses needs for family housing which both Laird and Princeton Heights provide and C 4 talks about geographic equity. We have data specific to Salt Lake City indicating that the proposed changes to increase density are unlikely to work in low density, high value neighborhoods. Plan Salt Lake (2015)contains a chapter on preservation and calls for a balanced approach to preservation and redevelopment. I am hoping that the City Council will consider both the Laird and Princeton Heights proposals at the same time. That would mean that both achieved the number of favorable votes required by the State and that I wouldn't have to repeat myself regarding the relevant adopted plans and the available data on affordable housing. From: GEORGE SABRINA THEODORE To: Planning Public Comments Subject: (EXTERNAL) Leave Princeton Harvard historical district zoning alone do not change it Date: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 12:05:38 PM Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Our city is not a one size fits all zoning. This decision to change the zoning is to benefit developers not the neighborhood. As it is there are too many cars on our narrow Princeton street. Duplexes, fourplexs will not work in our neighborhood. We do not want to live next to one either. The neighborhood would deteriorate and lose its’ historical charm. Our neighborhood with the rules and current zoning works. As a taxpayer, we feel frustrated that our petitions, our voices are not being heard. Sent from my iPhone From: Mark Glissmeyer To: Planning Public Comments; Paula Harline; Ann AA Glissmeyer Subject: (EXTERNAL) Princeton Heights LHD Date: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 4:48:26 PM Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. We respectfully request approval of the Princeton Heights Local Historic District. We are 41-year residents on Princeton Avenue. We came to house sit for the summer of 1982 to return to the University and have chosen to stay since that time due to the beautiful architecture and tree lined streets, and especially we have stayed because of the people drawn to such an area Communities such as this one need to be preserved to continue to strengthen our city. It was a stretch for us to afford our home at the beginning but our experience living in our single family home in a stable neighborhood with many long time residents was a wonderful help while raising our four boys. Our neighbors have been the village that helped us raise our children, and they are a large reason why we stay though our sons have all launched to their own single family home communities. We love the homes on these beautiful lighted and tree-lined streets. It has been a safe neighborhood for walking to nearby excellent public schools and shops. We are the third owners of our nearly 100 year old home and our hope is to continue to enjoy and care for the one- of-a-kind unique structures found in the Princeton Local Historic District. Mark and Ann Glissmeyer Sent from my iPhone Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From: Jan Hemming To: Traughber, Lex Cc: KEEPYalecrest; Paula Harline Subject: (EXTERNAL) Statement of support for Princeton Heights LHD Date: Thursday, November 2, 2023 5:15:14 PM Lex: I hope you can add my letter of support to petition PLNHLC2023-00044 — the Princeton Heights LHD — that will be heard tonight at the Historic Landmark Commission. November 2, 2023 Historic Landmark Commission and Lex Traughber: I am unable to attend the public hearing this evening for petition PLNHLC2023-00044 before the Historic Landmark Commission but wanted to declare support for designating Princeton Avenue between 1300 East and 1500 East a Local Historic District. This petition exceeds Salt Lake City’s fundamental requirements for an LHD. But is also a superior example of why cities protect and preserve unique historic properties. From every criterion, Princeton Heights belongs in an LHD. Many of these homes have stood the test of time for over 100 years, representing a rare collection of Salt Lake’s heralded past that can’t be found elsewhere. Salt Lake outlined a clear vision in Plan SLC (2015) that “preservation is an important component of community character and sense of place.” Adding that “we value neighborhood character and the defining elements that make up our neighborhoods and City. The historic development patterns, including building composition and landscaping, details, and elements all play important roles in defining the character of our places.” Historic preservation was such an essential part of this 40-year vision of Salt Lake, outlined in Plan SLC, that an entire chapter was devoted to it. Designating Princeton Heights an LHD would fulfill Plan SLC’s intent to safeguard “the best examples of the City’s historic architecture.” Generations of homeowners who have lived in Princeton Heights have nurtured these one-of- a-kind domiciles with immense respect, conservation, maintenance, honor and even a sense of awe and reverence. It is only fitting that those who hold positions of power in Salt Lake would exercise their authority to protect and preserve them. Please approve Princeton Heights as an LHD. Respectfully, Janet (Jan) Hemming Yalecrest Neighborhood Council Chair Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies 774 East 2100 South Salt Lake City UT 84106 (801) 949-4040 | kirk@kirkhuffaker.com MEMO November 7, 2023 TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission; Lex Traughber, SLC Planning Division FROM: Kirk Huffaker, Principal Subject: PLNHLC2023-00044 Princeton Heights Local Historic District, Salt Lake City Before you this week is the application for Princeton Heights in Yalecrest to become a local historic district. As a preservation planner in Salt Lake City for over 25 years, I unequivocally support this application and encourage the Planning Commission to give it a favorable recommendation. Princeton Heights meets all the criteria to be locally designated, given its deep historic and architectural significance. This is one of the most intact historic districts I’ve ever seen in my professional career and a local historic district designation, which is strongly supported by the owners, will keep that character intact. To that end, this proposal is supported by statement nine of Plan Salt Lake: “As our City grows, finding the right places to preserve the character is as important as finding the right places for growth to occur." As a preservationist and city resident, I am as concerned about affordable housing as I am about preservation. However, historic preservation should not be considered an impediment to achieving historic preservation. Having directly discussed this issue today with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and numerous organizations across the country, there are creative and untried methods to integrate deeper affordability into any historic district that do not require demolition, thus preserving their historic character. Yes, Salt Lake City can have both. It’s not an either/or circumstance. The Salt Lake City historic preservation program has had more than 45 years of success, making the city’s historic neighborhoods the jewels of the city, telling its stories while providing a range of housing choices. The Princeton Heights LHD application is the next important step in that line of success that deserves the Planning Commission’s support. Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies 774 East 2100 South Salt Lake City UT 84106 (801) 949-4040 | kirk@kirkhuffaker.com Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From: Emoli Kearns To: Planning Public Comments Subject: (EXTERNAL) Nov 8 meeting participation. Date: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 1:15:06 AM I will be speaking to the Planning Commission as a landmark commissioner to support the creation of the Princeton Heights Historic Overlay district. The Planning Commission cited Thriving in Place, an Anti-Displacement and Gentrification Mitigation Plan and Plan Salt Lake in their recent denial of the Laid Heights National Historic District application. I hoped to show the guiding principles from page 14 of Plan Salt Lake. Can you suggest how to best accomplish this? -Emoli Kearns GUIDING PRINCIPLES 1/ Neighborhoods that provide a safe environment, opportunity for social interaction, and services needed for the well-being of the community therein. 2/ Growing responsibly while providing people with choices about where they live, how they live, and how they get around. 3/ Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics. 4/ A transportation and mobility network that is safe, accessible, reliable, affordable, and sustainable, providing real choices and connecting people with places. 5/ Air that is healthy and clean. 6/ Minimize our impact on the natural environment. 7/ Protecting the natural environment while providing access and opportunities to recreate and enjoy nature. 8/ A beautiful city that is people focused. 9/ Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past. 10/ Vibrant, diverse, and accessible artistic and cultural resources that showcase the community’s long-standing commitment to a strong creative culture. 11/ Ensure access to all City amenities for all citizens while treating everyone equitably with fairness, justice, and respect. 12/ A balanced economy that produces quality jobs and fosters an environment for commerce, local business, and industry to thrive. 13/ A local government that is collaborative, responsive, and transparent. 14 SALT LAKE CITY | PLAN SALT LAKE Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From: LYNN Pershing To: Traughber, Lex; Lillie, Aiden Cc: Dugan, Dan Subject: (EXTERNAL) Princeton Heights LHD PLNHLC2023-00044 online open house comments Date: Sunday, September 3, 2023 5:41:31 PM Hi Mr Traughber I went to the SLCgov website and it directed me to you for my online open house comments concerning posting my comments regarding PLNHLC2023-00044, Princeton Heights LHD My comment I strongly support local historic district designation for the proposed Yalecrest- Princeton Heights LHD, PLNHLC2023-00044. It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places since 2007. It’s exquisite building structures of mainly English Cottages, English Tudors and and an unusual Cape Dutch Colonial, along with Jacobethan French Norman architecture are highly intact, having 97.7% historically contributing houses. This proposed LHD has a rich culture of property owners representing many professional areas of commerce that have shaped the City’s, state and regional development and notoriety. Designation of Yalecrest-Princeton Heights as a local historic district is consistent with the East Bench Master Plan (1987, 2017), the Community Preservation Plan (2012) and other City Historic Preservation codes aim at "preserving the historic and cultural aspects of our City to encourage social, economic and environmental sustainability and create a sense of visual unity within the community”. Lynn K. Pershing Yalecrest From: Rebecca Wilson Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. To: Planning Public Comments Subject: (EXTERNAL) Princeton Heights Local Historic District Date: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 10:31:17 AM Commssioners: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Princeton Heights Local Historic District Proposal. I believe the Planning Commission should consider that land use that preserves the integrity of neighborhoods is important to SLC residents and measures should be taken to insure that the basic character of SLC remains. Multi- unit buildings in single family neighborhoods favor developers at the expense of home buyers by : 1. increasing the price of single family homes 2. increases congestion and pollution with more density 3. destroys the original and historical architectural character of neighborhoods that will never be replaced..... lost forever 4. destroys incentives to improve and preserve existing structures 5. adds to land fill and replaced by cheaper and more expendable building materials 6. creates a never ending cycle of destruction and construction in quiet and livable neighborhoods 7. detracts from a standard of living that values open spaces for walking and playing (children) 8. may resemble California in architecture that is jumbled and confused, definitely a place that is disturbing Please recommend the Salt Lake City Council approve the proposal to create the Princeton Heights Local Historic District. Help to keep SLC unique and livable. Michael Robis 1400 Princeton Ave From: Eve Smith To: Traughber, Lex Subject: (EXTERNAL) Princeton Avenue Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 5:18:00 PM Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. This is a public comment for the Salt Lake City Planning Commission. We are opposed to our street being zoned historic. One reason why is that we are finding window restoration to be completely unaffordable, and the few craftsmen that work on the old leaded windows don’t even e mail or call back with estimates. The historic zoning rules are way too restrictive. As much as we love our home we are strongly opposed to being forced into a historic zone. Thank you, Eve Smith 1349 Princeton Avenue. Sent from my iPhone From: To: Subject: Date: Jim & Eve Smith Planning Public Comments (EXTERNAL) Princeton historic proposal Wednesday, November 8, 2023 12:44:35 PM Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. We live at 1349 Princeton Avenue and are opposed to becoming historic zoned. We love our old home but fear the restrictions that will come as our leaded glass windows continue to age and we won’t be able to afford the hand craftsmanship that repairs cost. This is just one example. Eve Smith Sent from my iPhone From: To: Subject: Date: GEORGE SABRINA THEODORE Planning Public Comments (EXTERNAL) Leave Princeton Harvard historical district zoning alone do not change it Wednesday, November 8, 2023 12:05:38 PM Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Our city is not a one size fits all zoning. This decision to change the zoning is to benefit developers not the neighborhood. As it is there are too many cars on our narrow Princeton street. Duplexes, fourplexs will not work in our neighborhood. We do not want to live next to one either. The neighborhood would deteriorate and lose its’ historical charm. Our neighborhood with the rules and current zoning works. As a taxpayer, we feel frustrated that our petitions, our voices are not being heard. Sent from my iPhone From: To: Subject: Date: Rebecca Wilson Planning Public Comments (EXTERNAL) Princeton Heights Local Historic District Wednesday, November 8, 2023 10:31:17 AM Commssioners: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Princeton Heights Local Historic District Proposal. I believe the Planning Commission should consider that land use that preserves the integrity of neighborhoods is important to SLC residents and measures should be taken to insure that the basic character of SLC remains. Multi- unit buildings in single family neighborhoods favor developers at the expense of home buyers by : 1. increasing the price of single family homes 2. increases congestion and pollution with more density 3. destroys the original and historical architectural character of neighborhoods that will never be replaced..... lost forever 4. destroys incentives to improve and preserve existing structures 5. adds to land fill and replaced by cheaper and more expendable building materials 6. creates a never ending cycle of destruction and construction in quiet and livable neighborhoods 7. detracts from a standard of living that values open spaces for walking and playing (children) 8. may resemble California in architecture that is jumbled and confused, definitely a place that is disturbing Please recommend the Salt Lake City Council approve the proposal to create the Princeton Heights Local Historic District. Help to keep SLC unique and livable. Michael Robis 1400 Princeton Ave Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. 6. OFFICIAL CANVASS RESULTS Official Canvass PROPERTY OWNER PUBLIC SUPPORT SURVEY Proposed Yalecrest - Princeton Heights Local Historic District WHEREAS, a mailing was provided to all forty-three (43) area property owners on November 22, 2023 regarding the proposed Princeton Heights Local Historic 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 IT RESOLVED, all valid ballots accounted for, returned, and postmarked as of December 21, 2023, have now been tabulated with the following 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 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:February 20, 2024 RE: 756 South Montgomery Street Zoning Map Amendment PLNPCM2023-00706 The Council will be briefed about a proposal from the Administration to amend the zoning map for an approximately one-half acre City owned parcel at 756 South Montgomery Street in City Council District Two from its current R-1/5,000 (Single-family Residential) zoning designation to RMF-30 (Low-density Multi-family Residential). No development plan has been submitted, but Planning staff noted the property is in the Housing Stability Division’s portfolio and affordable housing would likely be developed on the site if the proposed zoning map amendment is approved by the Council. Current zoning has a maximum lot size of 5,000 square feet and requires 50 feet of street frontage. At slightly more than 22,000 square feet, the lot is nonconforming. The 119-foot street frontage would allow the lot to be divided into two lots, but at least one would be nonconforming due to the parcel’s size. The proposed RMF-30 zoning would allow up to six townhome units or eight cottage or multi-family units to be built. A mobile home park is immediately to the north of the subject property, and a legal nonconforming commercial plant nursery is across Montgomery Street to the east. Other surrounding properties are single-family residential. Except for the adjacent mobile home park, the area is zoned R-1/5,000 as shown in the zoning map below. It is Planning staff’s opinion that the proposed RMF-30 zoning is an appropriate transitional zone for the area. They found that because of its location at the edge of the development pattern, neighborhood impact of slightly higher building heights and lot coverage allowance would be lower. Item Schedule: Briefing: February 20, 2024 Set Date: March 5, 2024 Public Hearing: March 26, 2024 Potential Action: April 2, 2024 Page | 2 Area zoning map with the subject property outlined in blue. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed zoning map amendment during its November 29, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing at which one person had his comments opposing the rezone read. The commenter said he sent an email opposing the rezone but did not receive a response. Planning staff said they were not aware of receiving the email. Planning staff recommended and the Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to ask the Administration if they intend the proposed housing units to be for rent or for sale. If for rent, does the Administration intend to continue owning the property or sell it? 2. The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration what City goals for housing they have for potential development on the subject property such as if it will be used to advance affordability goals ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property. No formal site plan has been submitted nor is it within the scope of the Council’s authority to review the plans. Because zoning of a property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project. Page | 3 KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified three key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 5-12 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1 – Compatibility with Adjacent Land Uses and Zoning. If the property is rezoned to RMF-30, it would be the only multi-family residential zoning in the immediate neighborhood. However, there is RMF-45 zoning immediately north of the mobile home park, and other multi-family zoned properties in the broader area. Planning staff noted the Westside Plan calls for compatible infill in the Glendale and Poplar Grove neighborhoods, with this site specifically identified as one with good potential for infill development. The property is located within the Airport Flight Path Protection overlay district Zone “H” which limits building heights. The 30-foot maximum building height allowed in RMF-30 zoning will not conflict with the overlay. Consideration 2 – Implementation of City Plans. Planning found the proposed zoning map amendment and development potential for this site are supported by various goals and initiatives related to growth and housing found in Plan Salt Lake, Housing SLC, and the Westside Plan. Consideration 3 – Comparison of R-1/5,000 and RMF-30 Zoning. The current R-1/5,000 and proposed RMF-30 zoning have similar maximum building heights. R-1/5,000 allows pitched roofs up to 28 feet and flat roofs up to 20 feet. RMF-30 has a maximum height of 30 feet. There are increased required setbacks for multi-family and row house developments to help moderate impact from the additional height. Single-family detached houses are allowed in both zones but RMF-30 zoning also allows two-family, multi- family, and row house/sideway row house development not permitted uses under the current zoning. These and other requirements are compared in the table below. In addition, the proposed RMF-30 zone has design standards including durable external building materials, minimum glass requirements, and a maximum length of external blank walls. The existing R-1/5,000 zoning does not have these requirements. ZONING COMPARISON The following table compares building height, setback, and other requirements for the current R-1/5,000 and proposed RMF-30 zoning districts. R-1/5,000 (Current)RMF-30 (Proposed) Maximum Building Height 28 feet for pitched roof, 20 feet for flat roof. 30 feet. Front Yard 20 feet or average of the block face. 20 feet or average of the block face. Side Yard 4 feet on one side and 10 feet on the other. Single family detached and two- family: 4 feet on one side and 10 feet on the other. Page | 4 Multi-family (maximum of 8 attached units): 10 feet. Row Houses (maximum of 6 attached units): 6 feet on one side and 10 feet on the other. Cottage Development: 4 feet. Rear Yard Minimum 25% of the lot depth or 20 feet, whichever is less. Minimum of 20% lot depth, need not exceed 25 feet (10 feet required for cottage developments). Parking Requirements Two spaces per dwelling unit.Two-family: Two spaces per dwelling unit. Multi-family: •Studio and one bedroom: One space per dwelling unit. •Two or more bedrooms: 1.25 spaces per dwelling unit. Row House and Sideways Row House: Two spaces per dwelling unit. Cottage Developments: One space per dwelling unit. Lot Area/Width 5,000 square feet, with minimum lot width of 50 feet. Single family detached, two- family, multi-family, row houses: 2,000 square feet. Minimum lot width requirements are not applicable. Cottage developments: 1,500 square feet. Minimum lot widths are not applicable. Analysis of Standards Attachment D (pages 24-25) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings are summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information. Factor Finding Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Complies Page | 5 Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties Complies Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Complies The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. Complies City Department Review During City review of the petitions, no responding departments or divisions expressed concerns with the proposal, but stated additional review and permits would be required if the property is developed. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • July 27, 2023-Petition for zoning map amendment received by Planning Division. • August 17, 2023-Petition assigned to Michael McNamee, Principal Planner. • September 13, 2023-Notice sent to Poplar Grove Community Council informing them of the petition. The community council did not provide formal comments. • September 11, 2023-Early notification notice mailed to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject properties. • November 17, 2023- o Planning Commission hearing notices posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv. o Notices mailed to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject properties. • November 29, 2023- Planning Commission public hearing. The Planning Commission voted 8-0 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment. • December 20, 2023-Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office. • February 2, 2024-Transmittal received in City Council Office. City Council// February 20, 2024 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT –756 S MONTGOMERY STREET PLNPCM2023-00607 •Zoning Map Amendment from R-1/5000 to RMF-30 Salt Lake City // Planning Division REQUEST •City-owned since 2014 •In portfolio of Housing Stability Division •Vacant, likely never developed Salt Lake City // Planning Division SUBJECT PROPERTY Salt Lake City // Planning Division SURROUNDING ZONING & LAND USES RMF-30 (Low Density Multi-Family Residential District) Land Uses •Single-family, two-family, and multi-family dwellings allowed depending on lot area. •Commercial uses not permitted. Uses that are incidental to residential uses allowed. Development Standards •Maximum height: 30’ •Maximum lot coverage of 50%. •Design standards not required in R-1/5000. R-1/5000 (Single-Family Residential District) Land Uses •Single-family dwellings only. No two-or multi-family dwellings. •Commercial uses not permitted. Uses that are incidental to residential uses allowed. Development Standards •Maximum height: 28’ (pitched roof) or 20’ (flat roof) •Maximum lot coverage of 40%. Salt Lake City // Planning Division COMPARISON OF RMF-30 AND R-1/5000 •Plan Salt Lake (2015) •Westside Plan (2014) •Housing SLC (2023) APPLICABLE PLANS & POLICIES Salt Lake City // Planning Division Kelsey Lindquist// Planning Manager kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com 801-535-7930 ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: February 2, 2024 Victoria Petro, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Zoning Map Amendment for 756 S. Montgomery Street (PLNPCM2023-00607) STAFF CONTACT: Michael McNamee, Principal Planner (801-535-7226 or michael.mcnamee@slcgov.com) DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve the proposed Zoning Map amendment. BUDGET IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Mayor Erin Mendenhall initiated a petition to amend the zoning map designation of this City-owned property at 756 South Montgomery Street in July of 2023. The request is to rezone the subject property from R-1/5000 (Single-Family Residential District) to RMF-30 (Low Density Multi-Family Residential District). On November 29, 2023, the Planning Commission heard the petition and forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council to amend the zoning map. If approved, it would allow for the construction of a higher number of residential dwellings on this property. The property is in the portfolio of the Housing Stability Division, who will likely seek to develop affordable housing on the site. The site is currently vacant and based on available records likely has never been developed. It was acquired by the City in 2014. rachel otto (Feb 2, 2024 10:07 MST)02/02/2024 02/02/2024 The RMF-30 zone is a residential zoning district that is intended to be a transition zone between low-density residential districts such as R-1/5000 and higher density zones. This site sits in a location that is between a mobile home park, non-conforming commercial plant nursery, and a neighborhood that is otherwise comprised of single-family homes. As such, a transitional zone makes sense here and given the location on the edge of the established development pattern the impact of a slightly more intense development will be lower. Development standards in RMF-30 Mo n t g o m e r y S t r e e t Pr o s p e c t St r e e t 800 S Indiana Avenue are similar to R-1/5000, with a slightly higher allowable building height and lot coverage allowance. RMF-30 would also introduce design standards that are not required in R-1/5000, such as requirements for a certain amount of durable building materials or glass facing the street. PUBLIC PROCESS: • Petition for the zoning map amendment was accepted by the Salt Lake Planning Division on July 27, 2023. • The petition was assigned to Michael McNamee, Principal Planner, for staff analysis and processing on August 17, 2023. • The petition was deemed complete on August 17, 2023. • Information concerning this petition was sent to the chair of the Poplar Grove Community Council on September 13, 2023. o The Community Council did not provide formal comments. • The surrounding property owners and residents within 300’ of the subject properties received an early notification by mail on September 11, 2023. • Public notification for the Planning Commission Hearing was mailed November 17, 2023 to all neighbors within 300’ of the zoning map amendment site. The public notice was also posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve. • The petition was heard by the Planning Commission on November 29, 2023. The Planning Commission voted 8-0 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed zoning map amendment. o There were two public comments received prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of November 29, 2023 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of November 29, 2023 (Click to Access) c) Planning Commission Staff Report of November 29, 2023 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1) Ordinance 2) Project Chronology 3) Notice of City Council Public Hearing 4) Original Petition 5) Mailing List TABLE OF CONTENTS: 1. ORDINANCE 2. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING 4. ORIGINAL PETITION 5. MAILING LIST 1. ORDINANCE 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2024 (Amending the zoning map pertaining to a parcel of property located at 756 South Montgomery Street to rezone the parcel from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to a parcel of property located at 756 South Montgomery Street to rezone the parcel from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District pursuant to petition number PLNPCM2023-00607. WHEREAS, Mayor Erin Mendenhall submitted an application to rezone a parcel of property located at 756 South Montgomery Street from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District pursuant to petition number PLNPCM2023-00607; and WHEREAS, at its November 29, 2023 meeting, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on the application; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the city council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the parcel located at 756 South Montgomery Street (Tax ID No. 2 15-10-203-003-0000, more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, is rezoned from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ___ day of ____________, 2024. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2024 Published: ______________. APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: _________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney December 20, 2023 3 Exhibit “A” Legal description of the property Tax ID No. 15-10-203-003-0000 LOTS 19, 20 & 21, BLK 5, EVAN'S ADD TO POPLAR GROVE. TOGETHER WITH 1/2 VACATED ALLEY ABUTTING ON S. 2. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2023-00607 July 27, 2023 Petition for the zoning map and amendment received by the Salt Lake City Planning Division. August 17, 2023 Petition assigned to Michael McNamee, Principal Planner. September 11, 2023 Staff hosted an online Open House to solicit public comments on the proposal. The Online Open House period started on September 11, 2023 and ended November 29, 2023. September 11, 2023 Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners living within 300 feet of the project site providing information about the proposal and how to give public input on the project. September 13, 2023 Information about the proposal was sent to the Chair of the Poplar Grove Community Council in order to solicit public comments and start the 45-day Recognized Organization input and comment period. October 30, 2023 The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations ended. No formal comments were submitted to staff by the recognized organizations to date related to this proposal. November 16, 2023 Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the property. November 16, 2023 Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting of November 29, 2023. Public hearing notice mailed. November 29, 2023 The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 29, 2023. By a majority vote of 8-0, the Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment. 3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2023-00607 – 756 S. Montgomery Street Zoning Map Amendment – Mayor Mendenhall has initiated a petition to amend the zoning map for city-owned property at the above-listed address. The proposal would rezone the property from R-1/5000 (Single-Family Residential) to RMF-30 (Low Density Multi-Family Residential) District. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map is intended to support appropriately scaled housing choices as recommended by the Westside Master Plan. The project is within Council District 2, represented by Alejandro Puy. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Michael McNamee at 801-535-7226 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at michael.mcnamee@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “Planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2023-00607. 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. 4. ORIGINAL PETITION 5. MAILING LIST OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR own_unit OWN_CITY OWN_STATOWN_ZIP BONNEVILLE MHC LLC 18006 SKY PARK CIRCLE IRVINE CA 92614 DARNELL, SHERRIE A 748 S PROSPECT ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 WHIPPLE, JESSICA A &SRI; JT 756 S PROSPECT ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 PAMELA L SEAGER REVOCABLE TRUSSEAGER, PAMELA L; TR 1636 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 GLENN, TIMOTHY AARON; JTGLENN, BETHANY HOPE; JT 749 S PROSPECT ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 REMUND, KIRK J 1005 W WALDEN MEADOWS DR MURRAY UT 84123 SALT LAKE CITYCORPORATION PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 RUBENSTEIN, ROBERT J 1622 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT LAKE COUNTY PO BOX 144575 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 MACLEOD, WILLIAM; JTPAULDING, ANNA A; JT 1616 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SANDERS, CALVIN D 1608 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 WELLMAN, FRANKIE LEE JTWELLMAN, MARY RAQUEL JT 1602 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 PALAMINO, MERTIN P &HERNANDEZ, BERTHA A; JT 1596 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 RAYMUNDO, JULIO C 2333 W JOSIE LN TAYLORSVILLE UT 84129 FONOIMOANA, HANS J; JTET AL 1582 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 COX, CASEY J 752 S CHEYENNE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 ROSENLUND, ANNETTE; TR 756 S CHEYENNE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 FRECKLETON, JOAN; TR( JF FM TRST ) 1550 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 TAPIA, FLORENCIO &HERNANDEZ, LUISA T; JT 1556 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 JOAN FRECKLETON FAM TRGATES, BETH; TR 7973 S 1300 W WEST JORDAN UT 84088 FRECKLETON, JOAN; TR(JF FAM TR) 1550 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 FRECKLETON, JOAN; TR(JF FM TR) 1550 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SUNNYSIDE 1621 A SERIES OFSUNNYSIDE RENOVATION, LLC PO BOX 58944 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84158 SANDERS, CHAD; JTSANDERS, DONNA; JT 1615 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 MYINT, KYAW THU MOE &KHAING, MOH MOH; JT 1599 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 GUTIERREZ, FABIAN 1583 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 MARTINEZ, EMILIO A 1593 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 CORNEJO, FRANCISCO J 1589 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 MCCLURE, JAREDMCCLURE, MORGAN 1609 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 ZAVALA, ARTURO G;ZAVALA, ALICIA; JT 1557 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 NGUYEN, TIFFANY HUONG 1171 W PARK PALISADE DR SOUTH JORDAN UT 84095 BODILY, CHEYENNE R 1565 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 GARCIA, JOHNNY; JTVELASQUEZ, LORI; JT 819 S MONTGOMERY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 Occupant PARCEL_ADDR NEW_UNIT CITY STATE ZIPCODE 705 S REDWOOD RD Salt Lake City UT 84104 755 S PROSPECT ST Salt Lake City UT 84104 756 S MONTGOMERY ST Salt Lake City UT 84104 1620 W 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 1588 W 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 1562 W 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 1550 W 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 761 S MONTGOMERY ST Salt Lake City UT 84104 1542 W 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 1621 W 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 1609 W 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 1553 W 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Salt Lake City Water Supply Outlook -2024 Salt Lake City Council Briefing February 20, 2024 Salt Lake City’s Water Service Area •We provide drinking water to more than 360,000 people •Our water service area includes all of Salt Lake City and large portions of Mill Creek, Holladay, and Cottonwood Heights. •Stormwater and sanitary sewer service are within Salt Lake City’s corporate boundary. •Our water service area includes small portions of South Salt Lake, Murray, and Midvale •***Service Area Map: https://www.slc.gov/utilities/ 2 Determining Annual Water Supply Outlook •Current Conditions (good news): •Above normal snowpack (snow water equivalent) in our watersheds. •No listed drought in our region. •Soil moisture appears improved. •High probability of average or above average watershed yields this year: •98%-112% of average for our local Wasatch Mountain watersheds (last year at this time we were 123% to 193% of average) •We have little over a month prior to the start of the water year. 3 Big Cottonwood Creek: 2022-2024 •Big Cottonwood Creek provides about 20-25% of our water supplies annually. •In 2022, the annual yield was about 20,700 acre-feet, or 61%of the average 11th lowest flow. •The water yield for 2023 was about 48,000 acre-feet, or 142%of average –9th highest flow. •The estimated water yield for the 2024 water year is 35,000 acre-feet, or 104%of average. 2022 2023 Precipitation and Temperature Outlook •Seasonal precipitation and temperature are factors in both water supply and water demand. •The three-month outlook for March, April, and May projects equal chances for above or below normal precipitation. •The three-month outlook through May projects above normal temperature for our region. •Higher temperatures can cause greater water demand in the spring, and a faster runoff. Reservoirs •Reservoirs store water to help us through drought years and to meet annual system water demands. •Deer Creek Reservoir is critical to Salt Lake City, providing between 30-35% of our water supplies annually and providing reliable water during droughts. •Deer Creek Reservoir is 96% full as of February 14th. •Salt Lake City has access to Deer Creek water through the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy participation in the federal Provo River Project and the Central Utah Project. •Little Dell and Mountain Dell Reservoirs in Parleys Canyon are also important for water supplies and flood control. Great Salt Lake –current level 4193.4 feet 7 Water Demand and Conservation •Last year, the communities in our water service area continued to conserve water. •Water conservation is necessary for our overall water resiliency now and in the future. •Water conservation is necessary to help maintain and increase flows to Great Salt Lake. •While water supplies look good for this year, Great Salt Lake remains in peril. •Our communities will be asked to continue to conserve water. •Let’s take advantage of a time of plenty to benefit GSL. Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) #30 Department of Economic Development Salt Lake City History •Foreign Trade Zone #30 (FTZ #30) approved by the FTZ Board in May 1977 •Allows companies to reduce or defer taxes and duties on imported products •Serves Northern Utah communities within a 60-mile/90 -minute drive time from SLC •Approved for Alternative Site Framework (ASF) in 2017, reducing application time and adding City fee •Past operators/businesses: Cabela's, Scott Sports, Red Wing Shoes •Current operator/business: Specialized Bicycles Current and Future Operators Specialized Bicycle Components (SLC) •Bicycle manufacturer •FTZ Subzone established in 2021 •Expanding subzone in 2024 Albion (Ogden) •Neutraceutical manufacturer •Completing application in 2024 Next Steps and Future of FTZ #30 •Request support from Council to provide a letter to the FTZ Board to transfer FTZ #30 to the World Trade Center Utah (WTCUtah ) •FTZ Board supports WTCU t a h ’s application and transfers Grantee Authority to WTC Utah •The FTZ is a regional tool, WTCUtah is better positioned to administer the program •WTC Utah can provide in-house consulting,enhanced service and marketing, saving companies interested in the FTZ money and resources. •WTC Utah plans to support diverse owned businesses’ access to the FTZ DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICDEVELOPMENT ERINMENDENHALL MAYOR LORENARIFFO-JENSON DIRECTOR CITY COUNCILTRANSMITTAL _______________________Date Received: ___________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: ___________ __________________________________________________________________ TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE:1/30/2024 Victoria Petro, Chair FROM:Lorena Riffo-Jenson, Director, Department of Economic Development SUBJECT:Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) Grantee Transfer STAFF CONTACTS: Peter Makowski, Project Manager,peter.makowski@slcgov.com Roberta Reichgelt, Division Director,Roberta.reichgelt@slcgov.com Lorena Riffo-Jenson, Director, Lorena.RiffoJenson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE:Information Briefing RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends Council action in support of the Administration providing a letter of support for the transfer of City’s FTZ grantee status (FTZ #30) to the World Trade Center Utah (WTC Utah). BUDGET IMPACT:Administering the FTZ requires substantial overhead expenses and generates $10,000 of annual revenue (in the form of administrative fees pursuant to the Consolidated Fee Schedule), which offsets those expenses in part. When the Department of Economic Development (DED) worked with the Department of Finance in 2017 to estimate administrative costs for running the tool, those costs were estimated to be $30,527.29 per year. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: History of FTZs and FTZ #30 The FTZ program was established in 1934 in the United States and is widely referred to as a Free Trade Zone abroad. FTZs encourage United States economic activity and jobs - in competition with foreign alternatives - by allowing delayed or reduced duty payments on foreign merchandise, as well as other savings. 1 Salt Lake City applied for - and was granted - FTZ grantee status for FTZ #30 in 1977, with some periods of inactivity between 1977 and now. 1 Microsoft PowerPoint - FTZ Info for CBP Jan 2020 (trade.gov) 1-30-2024 1-30-2024 rachel otto (Jan 30, 2024 14:17 MST) DED updated the framework of the FTZ in 2017. The Department also updated the Consolidated Fee Schedule to incorporate FTZ. Prior to 2017, the City did not charge fees to join the FTZ and has traditionally run the program at a net loss. 2 This was the last policy action taken by the City relating to the FTZ. City Council took action to approve these updates. There is presently one active company in the FTZ, Specialized Bicycles. Why Transfer? Currently, companies of all sizes (but in particular small and medium size companies) face extremely high barriers when attempting to access the FTZ. FTZs are highly technical and require that companies wishing to apply have specialized knowledge for both administration and strategy. Because the City doesn’t currently have the resources to assist companies navigating the process, companies often face the prospect of incurring hundreds of thousands of dollars in consultant fees to get through the application process and join the FTZ. The Department would like to see the FTZ administered in a way that would reduce or eliminate these barriers and encourage more participation by companies of all sizes. If the City were to provide similar consulting services to companies seeking to join, it would require substantial financial resources to support such services and the City would face added liabilities and risks when stepping into that role. WTC Utah, however, has prepared a strategy to reduce these barriers and encourage participation in the FTZ. Why World Trade Center Utah? WTC Utah is seeking FTZ grantee status so that the tool may be utilized statewide and may be more easily and effectively accessed by companies of all sizes, both within Salt Lake City and beyond. WTC Utah has developed a strategy to invest in breaking down barriers with the tool that will allow companies to join more seamlessly. The World Trade Center Utah approached the City about a partnership as an alternative to the possibility of applying for its own, competing, FTZ. The possibility of the City and WTC Utah operating competing zones that may have overlapped coverage would likely be confusing for companies, and ultimately risk the grantee status of the City if the City loses its active company in FTZ #30. To have an ambitious growth model for the tool, substantial investment is required. WTC Utah seeks to bring onboarding consulting services in-house through standard program fees to fund the long-term operational costs of this enhanced service. This service would save companies the large consultant fees and allow for less confusion in the process. Such investment may not align with 2 It is also important to clarify that grantee status for FTZ #30 generates no revenue from the federal government as a matter of course. The grantee may take in fees for the purposes of cost recovery, but the grantee runs the FTZ for the purposes of community benefit, not generating revenue. the City’s many other pressing priorities, whereas promoting the growth of the tool falls directly into WTC Utah’s overall mission and its members' needs. 3 There are instances where transfers have happened nationally for the same reason. For example, Savanna, Georgia had a similar transfer take place in the 2010s. Savannah/Hilton Head International Airport ran a high-functioning FTZ, but requested WTC Savannah take over the tool. The airport recognized that it was important for the tool to be housed under an organization whose mission aligned with the purpose of the FTZ and one that could allocate necessary resources to ensure the highest community benefit. The City presently shares an ongoing partnership with WTC Utah, whose mission is to accelerate growth for Utah companies through its global networks, programs, and services. Both the City and WTC Utah share an understanding that international business is an essential component of the economy. This measure is meant to deepen the City’s partnership with WTC Utah to reduce the barriers of trade and investment for companies doing international business in a time of growing costs for going global. Finally, Salt Lake City’s position in the intermountain west affords a comparative advantage for enhancements of the tool. Companies that wish to utilize the tool most benefit when importing products from abroad, and Salt Lake City has several logistical advantages for importing companies to be located in Salt Lake City’s boundaries. In addition, WTC Utah is in Salt Lake City, making it simple for Salt Lake City companies to have the same access to the tool alongside enhanced services. How to Transfer? It is important to clarify that the City does not have the authority to transfer FTZ #30. That authority resides solely with the Foreign Trade Zones Board (Board), which is an entity within the United States Department of Commerce. WTC Utah; however, may apply to the Board to receive the grantee authority, and the City may accommodate this process by providing a letter to the Board supporting WTC’s request for a transfer. The Administration is requesting a resolution that supports to draft a letter to the FTZ Board in support of a transfer of grantee status. Next Steps ●If the Council signifies support, the Administration will draft a letter to the FTZ Board supporting WTC Utah’s grantee status. ●WTC Utah will file an application for grantee status within days of the letter being sent. ●The Foreign Trade Zones Board will receive the letter and the application which will take between 4-8 months to process and consider. ●The Administration will transmit to City Council the necessary amendments to the Consolidated Fee Schedule (CFS) if the FTZ Board approves WTC Utah as a grantee. 3 To be clear, the benefit of the tool will be available beyond WTC Utah’s membership base and will extend to any company interested in participating. RESOLUTION NO. ____ OF 2024 A Resolution Authorizing the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to Transfer Grantee Authority of Foreign-Trade Zone Number 30 to World Trade Center of Utah WHEREAS, on June 18, 1934, Congress approved the Foreign-Trade Zones Act “to provide for the establishment, operation, and maintenance of foreign trade zones in ports of entry of the United States to expedite and encourage foreign commerce and for other purposes” (the “Act”); and WHEREAS, on May 26, 1977, in accordance with the Act and its accompanying regulations, Salt Lake City Corporation (“City”) received approval from the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to establish, operate, and maintain Foreign-Trade Zone No. 30 in a capacity as Grantee; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 28 of 2017, the City created a Service Area for Foreign-Trade Zone No. 30 under the Alternative Site Framework, to include the Counties of Davis, Morgan, Salt Lake, Utah, and Weber, and the Cities of Brigham City, Corinne, Honeyville, Perry, Erda, Grantsville, Lake Point, Mills Junction, Rush Valley, Stansbury Park, Stockton, Terra, Tooele, Vernon, Heber City, Midway, Coalville, Deer Mountain, Echo, Francis, Henefer, Kamas, Kimball Junction, Oakley, Park City, Peoa, Samak, Silver Summit, Snyderville, Wanship, Woodland, and Mantua, consistent with the Act and its accompanying regulations; and WHEREAS, the purpose of maintaining a Foreign-Trade Zone is to accelerate growth for local businesses by reducing barriers for trade and investment for companies engaged in business on an international scale, which is increasingly vital in a global economy; and WHEREAS, as of January 2024, Foreign-Trade Zone No. 30 includes one active company; and WHEREAS, the City desires to see Foreign-Trade Zone No. 30 be more widely accessed by local businesses throughout Salt Lake City by ensuring that barriers to access, such as the need for companies to engage costly technical and consultant assistance, are removed; and WHEREAS, the World Trade Center of Utah has emerged as a potential recipient of the City’s Grantee authority and has demonstrated it has additional resources available that would enable it to operate and maintain Foreign-Trade Zone No. 30 in accordance with the City’s desire to lower barriers to access for local businesses; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that a transfer of City’s Grantee authority to the World Trade Center of Utah would promote the City’s goals of encouraging the growth and vitality of Salt Lake City’s local business community, particularly for small and medium sized businesses and those with limited resources, such as minority-owned and underserved businesses; and WHEREAS, for the Foreign-Trade Zone Board to effectuate a transfer of the City’s Grantee authority for Foreign-Trade Zone No. 30 to the World Trade Center of Utah, the City must consent to the transfer. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City Corporation as follows: 1. That Salt Lake City Corporation, Grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone No. 30, is hereby duly authorized to consent to the transfer of Grantee authority to the World Trade Center of Utah. 2. The Council hereby authorizes the Mayor or her designee to negotiate and execute any documents required to effectuate the transfer of Grantee authority, and incorporating such other documents and agreements as recommended by the City Attorney’s office. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this ___ day of _________, 2024. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL ___________________________________ Victoria Petro, Chair Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. MAYOR ___________________________ CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM (SEAL)Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: __________________________ Bill No. ________ of 2024 Published: ______________._______________________________ Sara Montoya, Senior City Attorney January 30, 2024 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Jennifer Bruno, Deputy Director DATE:February 20, 2024 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 New Information - February 20 Discussion The Council held a discussion on February 6 and took straw polls regarding several potential edits and/or clarifications to the ordinance. Planning staff has included those edits/clarifications in the attached memo and revised ordinance: •Clarifying that landscaping requirements for properties with multiple park strips will be calculated cumulatively rather than separately. Planning has suggested the following language: “Park strip standards shall be applied cumulatively along the adjacent street frontage. Lots with park strips on 2 or more street frontages shall be calculated separately for each street frontage.” •Keep “promote water conservation” in the purpose statement: “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.” •Vehicle overhang in parking lot perimeter landscaping. Planning staff has provided the following response: A question was raised whether the proposed chapter and existing zoning code allows for vehicle overhang into a required parking lot perimeter landscaping area. The Division of Transportation parking standards allow for an approximately 2’ vehicle overhang allowance, dependent on the angle of the park stall. The proposed Landscaping & Buffers chapter will allow for this vehicle overhang to extend into the required parking lot perimeter landscaping. Unresolved Issue – enforcement on artificial turf - Some Council Members have been contacted by constituents who were referred by Public Utilities to a rebate program run by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD) which reimburses residents who remove their grass turf on the basis of how much grass turf is removed. As a part of this program, a resident would take a class run by CUWCD. While the program strongly Page | 2 discourages artificial turf, it doesn’t expressly prohibit it. So, some residents who participated in this program installed artificial turf as a part of removing their grass turf. o In order to address the issue regarding messaging, one Council Member have suggested that the ordinance simply grandfather any artificial turf installed before January 1, 2024 (or some other date). o Another Council Member has suggested the ordinance could outline a “grace period” to give those who installed artificial term a period of time to comply with the new ordinance. o Public Utilities indicated support for the concept of an enforcement date. Community and Neighborhoods Staff raised concerns about equitably enforcing based on a date. o The Council may wish to discuss further with the Administration. -The Council may wish to discuss this issue and straw poll a preferred approach to enforcement on artificial turf. - Note: Council Staff is inquiring with City staff to get an estimate of how many properties may have installed artificial turf in their required landscaping area, to get a better idea of the scope of the issue. The following was provided for the February 6 Discussion, and is provided again for reference: The Council held discussions on December 5 and 12, 2023, and identified several areas to discuss further and potentially adjust. Planning Staff has provided a memo and revised ordinance (see attached) responding to the various areas identified. The Council may wish to discuss and straw poll any of these items: ➢Parking Lot Landscaping – there are five elements relating to Parking Lot landscaping that the Administration has evaluated based on the Council’s discussion, and has come back with recommendations: -Applicability – The Council discussed whether the requirements should apply to parking lots as small as 10 stalls (initial proposal). Upon review and analysis included in their memo, the Administration is recommending the requirements apply to parking lots of 15 stalls or more (which is the current code). -Perimeter Landscaping – The Council’s discussion included a concern that the proposal’s requirement of 10’ of perimeter landscaping could be too much. Current perimeter landscaping is 7’. After discussion with the City’s Urban Forester, the Administration is recommending 8’ of required perimeter landscaping, to achieve the policy goals of tree health and urban heat island effect. See analysis in the Administration’s memo. -Clarification of Double-Loading Row and Row End Landscaping – The Administration has recommended the following language to clarify this language, as there was some confusion in the previous discussion, page 88, line 2642 of the ordinance: “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, or landscape areas may be provided along the interior length of double-loaded parking rows.” -Accessibility – The Council’s discussion included concerns about the proposed changes and pedestrian experience/walkability. The Administration believes that the overall increase in Page | 3 walking distance would be minimal, and notes that a walkway is required in lots with 25 or more stalls. As such, the Administration is not recommending changes. -Reduce required Minimum Interior Landscaping – the Council requested a change in the minimum required size of the interior landscaping to be similar in size to a parking stall. The original proposal required interior landscaping be at least 10’ wide. The Urban forester recommended that a landscaping area be between 8’ and 9’. The Administration has provided proposed language changes, page 88, line 2651 of the ordinance: “Size: Interior landscape areas shall have a minimum width equal to the width of average parking stall within the parking lot, 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.” ➢Natural Turf – See page 4 of the Administration’s memo which covers additional information regarding the reasoning for allowing natural turf. Staff note: Staff is aware of some suggestions from Public Utilities about the definition of turf in the code, and is inquiring with the Administration if these adjustments are included in the proposal. The Administration is not recommending changes. ➢Public Information prohibiting artificial turf – The memo (page 5) indicates that public outreach is ongoing and staff will be updating a project webpage on this topic. ➢Reduction in Tree Canopy that qualifies as vegetation coverage – Based on the Council conversation, the Administration is recommending that qualifying tree canopy coverage be limited to newly planted tree canopy at the time of planting (or existing canopy). The Administration has provided proposed language changes, page 84, line 2603 of the ordinance: “The total area of an existing tree canopy, or a tree canopy at the time of planting, may be included in the vegetation coverage calculations of the required landscaping location the tree is within.” ➢Rock Mulch Limits – Based on the Council conversation, the Administration has modified this language to clarify that a maximum of 20% of rock mulch be allowed in the required landscaping area. The Administration has provided proposed language changes, page 92, line 2759 of the ordinance: “ f. Rock used as a mulch material is limited to 20% of an area where landscaping is required by this chapter.” ➢Park Strip Vegetation Height Allowance – This item was raised by the Planning Director to allow for some native plant species and addressing the sight distance triangle. The Administration has provided proposed language changes – page 81, line 2433: A. All landscaping shall: 1. Maintain a clearance from grade level to 7 feet above the sidewalk, or 10 feet above a street; 2. Not create a hedge or visual barrier between the sidewalk and street; 3. Not create obstructions within the sight distance triangle, as defined and illustrated in Chapter 21A.62 of this title; The following information was provided for the Council’s previous work session. It is provided again for reference. Page | 4 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. 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. Requiring bio-retention 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. Page | 5 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. 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 Page | 6 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? 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 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLC.GOV PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-535-7757 FAX 801-535-6174 PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS MEMORANDUM To: City Council Members From: Nannette Larsen, Senior Planner Date: January 12th, 2023 Re: Landscaping & Buffers Chapter During the briefing held on December 12, 2023, the City Council provided guidance and direction for changes to the 21A.48 Landscaping & Buffers Chapter draft. The following memorandum is a response to the comments and requested changes: 1. Parking Lot Landscaping Applicability: The Council discussed concerns with the proposed minimum number of stalls before parking lot landscaping standards would apply. Specifically, that the proposed threshold for when parking lot landscaping applies may limit infill development or redevelopment potential of smaller properties. In the initial proposal presented to Council, parking lot landscaping would apply to parking lots with 10 or more parking stalls. Currently, parking lot landscaping is required for parking lots with 15 or more parking stalls. Parking lot landscaping requirements include interior and perimeter landscaping. A minimum of 5% of the square footage of the parking lot is required for interior parking lot landscaping. Interior landscaping areas must be provided on parking row ends, and every 6 parking spaces or between double-loading parking rows. Perimeter parking lot landscaping is required where a parking lot is located within a required yard area or within 20’ of a property line. The recommended width of the perimeter parking lot landscaping is 8’. Analysis: For the Council’s consideration, analysis of the percentage of parking lot landscaping that would be required for a parking lot with 10 stalls (initial proposal), 15 stalls (current code requirement) and 25 stalls, is provided below. The following calculations are based on the assumption that the average parking lot size is approximately 350 square feet per parking stall. Parking Lot Parking Lot Square Footage Minimum Interior Landscaping 5% Perimeter Landscaping 8’ Total Landscaping as a % of a Parking Lot 10 Stalls 3,500 175 Sq Ft 944 Sq Ft 31% 15 Stalls 5,250 262 Sq Ft 1,144 Sq Ft 26%  Page 2 (Current requirement & recommendation) 25 Stalls 8,750 437 Sq Ft 1,488 Sq Ft 22% It is recommended that the threshold for when parking lot landscaping applies is maintained at 15 stalls, the current ordinance requirement. A parking lot with 15 stalls would require approximately 26% landscaping with a typical design. This total landscaping area of 28% is similar to vegetation coverage standards, of 1/3rd, in required yard areas. Recommendation: maintain the parking lot landscaping threshold at 15 stalls Status: direction needed. Perimeter Landscaping: The majority of parking lot landscaping falls within the perimeter landscaping, encompassing all of the required parking lot landscaping except generally the 5% interior landscaping area. The perimeter parking lot landscaping acts as both a tool that reduces the urban heat island as well as a form of a land use buffer from adjoining properties. Currently the parking lot perimeter landscaping width is required at 7’, this was increased to a minimum of 10’ in the initial proposal presented to council. The purpose of the initial proposal of 10’ was to promote tree health and longevity, it was also increased to match landscape buffer widths required elsewhere in the chapter. While there is some concern about the amount of required perimeter parking lot landscaping, it is still recommended that there is an increase in perimeter landscaping width to improve tree health in these areas. After follow-up conversations with the Urban Forester, 8’ in width is sufficient to support tree health and reduce tree mortality rates. It is recommended that the perimeter parking lot landscaping be a minimum of 8’ to assuage concerns regarding infill and redevelopment properties while still sufficiently addressing and mitigating the effects of a parking lot located within 20’ of a property line and reducing the urban heat island effect. Parking Lot Parking Lot Square Footage Perimeter Landscaping 8’ Perimeter Landscaping 10’ Perimeter Landscaping (8’) as a % of Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping (10’) as a % of Parking Lot 10 Stalls 3,500 944 Sq Ft 1,180 Sq Ft 33%38% 15 Stalls 5,250 1,152 Sq Ft 1,440 Sq Ft 21%32% 25 Stalls 8,750 1,488 Sq Ft 1,860 Sq Ft 17%26% The proposed landscaping chapter’s perimeter and interior parking lot landscaping averages based on parking lot size are indicated in the above table. It is shown in this table that as parking lot square footages increases, the percentage of landscaping decreases. This is due to  Page 3 most of the landscaping being located along the perimeter of the parking lot. While the overall landscaping to hard surface ratio decreases as the size of the parking lot increases, it is expected that the provision requiring a biodetention in parking lots with 50 or more stalls landscaping ratios will be similar to smaller square footage parking lots. This is because these biodetention areas will generally need to be larger, than the interior and perimeter parking lot landscaping minimums, to adequately detain stormwater in these larger parking lots. Recommendation: require perimeter parking lot landscaping to be 8’ wide Status: direction needed Clarification of Double-Loading Row and Row End Landscaping: The language in the most recent draft chapter was updated to clarify where interior parking lot landscaping is required. The type of interior landscaping locations provided are required to ensure dispersion of interior landscaping areas. The minimum 5% interior landscaping is stated to ensure sufficient interior parking lot landscaping is provided to meet the purpose and goals of the chapter. Status: changes made to the legislative version, pg. 88, line 2642. “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, or landscape areas may be provided along the interior length of double-loaded parking rows.” Accessibility: During the briefing there was a concern raised regarding the accessibility of parking lot and how the proposed parking lot landscaping standards would affect how pedestrians experience the increase in walking distance. In addition to the 5% interior landscaping, it would also require 5’ perimeter landscaping and a 3’ walkway where a parking lot abuts the principal building. The interior parking lot landscaping area would affect the distance between parking stalls and access to the building. However, a 5% of interior landscaping area and a 5’ perimeter landscaping area between the parking lot and the building, the increase in walking distance would be overall minimal. In addition to the proposed changes to the Landscaping & Buffer chapter, are proposed modifications to the Off-Street Parking chapter (21A.44). Pedestrian walkways are proposed to be required where there are 25 or more stalls. One walkway, which is separate from drive aisles, is required for every 20 stalls provided. While the proposed parking lot landscaping will increase the distance from the surface parking lot to the building, the experience of the pedestrian will improve as there will be a separation between the pedestrian and vehicles, and there will be a reduction in the urban heat island. Recommendation: no modification to proposed chapter Status: direction needed Reduce Required Minimum Interior Landscaping Size: The Council requested a change in the minimum required size of the interior parking lot landscaping areas to be similar to a standard parking stall. This modification would ease in the implementation of the ordinance and  Page 4 encourage compliance. The original proposal required that interior parking lot landscaping areas be at least 10’ wide and equal to the length of the adjoining stalls. The Council recommended that the interior landscaping minimum width be reduced to the average parking stall width. The average stall width is dependent on the angle of the parking stall. Generally, standard parking stall widths are between 8’ and 9’. The current interior landscaping minimum width is 5’, it is recommended that this width is increased as this isn’t sufficient space for tree health or a tree full canopy. The Urban Forester confirmed an interior parking lot landscaping area between 8’ and 9’ would be sufficient to promote the health and longevity of the tree. The draft Landscaping & Buffers chapter has been modified and now requires a minimum interior landscaping width equal average parking stall in the parking lot. Status: changes made to the legislative version, pg. 88, line 2651. “Size: Interior landscape areas shall have a minimum width equal to the width of average parking stall within the parking lot, 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.” 2. Why Allow Turf in Required Landscaping Areas: The proposed Landscaping & Buffers chapter addresses high water consuming grass species which are commonly seen in single-family residential areas. These cool season grasses (like Kentucky Blue) are defined as turf in the proposed chapter. Turf is defined as: “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.” This definition of turf does not include all ground cover grass seed. The grass species which qualify as turf, those species which are non- adaptive and non-native to northern Utah climates, generally cool season grasses, are those grass species proposed to be limited in all zoning districts. Turf limitations are to reduce water consumption, qualify for waterwise rebates, and assist in changing landscape expectations in the City. It is typical to see 100% turf coverage in residential districts as the preferred landscape material. While limiting turf in residential districts will still allow turf grasses that require more watering in the summer months to maintain a green lawn in 1/3 of the landscaping locations, it will cut high water consuming cool season grasses by over half, with a 2/3 reduction. It’s important to remember that while many single- and two- family residential districts have landscaped rear yard areas, available for recreational activities, other residential districts do not always have this rear yard landscaping areas. An example of this is the RMF districts. In the RMF districts there are rear yard setbacks required but the rear yard is generally occupied by needed parking or storage areas to accommodate the increase in density. By allowing some turf in required yard areas it allows for multi-family residential districts to still provide a recreational or lounging space for residents in required landscaping areas, a landscaping use that is typical in residential neighborhoods. Turf is proposed to be prohibited in manufacturing districts as it’s rare for uses in manufacturing districts to utilize turf areas. All other zoning districts not included in the residential or manufacturing districts allow turf but only in active recreational areas. These  Page 5 prohibitions and limitations also facilitate a reduction in water consumption while still allowing outdoor activity use, if these areas are dedicated to activities where turf is a typical playing surface. Turf limitations in these areas are needed to retain waterwise rebate eligibility for City residents. Turf in park strips throughout Salt Lake City is proposed to be prohibited. Recommendation: changes are not recommended Status: direction needed 3.Public Information About Prohibiting Artificial Turf: The concern was raised by Council regarding the public’s response to prohibiting artificial turf in required landscaping locations. Public outreach is ongoing and staff will be updating the Landscaping & Buffers project webpage with information that is accessible to the public with accessible information on why it is recommended that artificial turf is prohibited as a landscaping material. Status: outreach is ongoing 4. Reduction in Tree Canopy that Qualifies as Vegetation Coverage: During the December briefing the Council was informed that the rewrite of the chapter includes the provision where a tree’s canopy at maturity could count towards 100% of the vegetation coverage in required landscaping locations. At maturity, a small tree generally has a 300 square foot canopy, this would allow for a tree canopy to count toward 100% of the vegetation, resulting in the tree being the only living landscape material in these locations – the council expressed concern with this. It's recommended that the qualifying tree canopy coverage is limited to the newly planted tree canopy at the time of planting or existing tree canopy. That way, it is the size of the canopy, not the age or degree of maturity that would be counted. This would potentially still allow for existing mature trees to account for all the required vegetation, however, staff believes this still accomplishes the goals of the landscaping chapter and is in line with the goals of the urban forest action plan related to prioritizing trees. New trees would be calculated by their existing canopy, not their canopy at maturity, so it’s likely that in the case of new trees, more than just a tree would be required to meet the vegetation requirements. Allowing existing tree canopies Image 1: park strip trees with no vegetation ground cover  Page 6 to qualify as vegetation coverage minimums would still incentivize trees in required landscaping locations, while still requiring sufficient organic material that benefits the appearance of neighborhoods, maintains soil health, and ensures sufficient evapotranspiration thereby assisting in the reduction of the urban heat island. Recommendation: limit qualifying tree canopy coverage to exiting canopies or canopies at the time of planting Status: changes made to legislative version, pg. 84, line 2603. “The total area of an existing tree canopy, or a tree canopy at the time of planting, may be included in the vegetation coverage calculations of the required landscaping location the tree is within.” 5. Rock Mulch Limits a Percentage of a Landscaping Area: During the Council’s discussion the method of measuring and limiting rock mulch was raised as a possible issue where mulch beds are limited in size. It was recommended by Council that rock mulch is limited as a percentage of the landscaping area rather than a percentage of the mulch used. The purpose of limiting rock mulch is to better address the effect rock mulch has on the urban heat island effect and soil quality. These goals can still be met when rock mulch is regulated as a maximum percentage of landscaping area. The original proposed draft recommended that no more than 50% of the mulch used on the site may be rock mulch. This has been modified at the request of Council, to a maximum of 20% of rock mulch in the landscape area. The maximum rock mulch ratio was determined as rock mulch heat index and heat retention is similar to that of hard surfacing. However, rock mulch doesn’t have the same stormwater runoff rate that hard surfaces have. This proposed maximum 20% rock mulch is also consistent with what was previously required – a maximum 50% of the mulch in the landscaping area. Landscaping areas must have no less than 33% of vegetation and has a maximum of 20% hard surfacing. The remaining landscaping area, 47%, could be mulched. Half of this allowed mulched areas would equate to approximately 20% of the required landscaping area. Status: changes made to legislative version, pg. 92, line 2759 “ f. Rock used as a mulch material is limited to 20% of an area where landscaping is required by this chapter.” 6. Increase Park Strip Vegetation Height Allowance: The Planning Director brought up an issue that was raised over the summer about allowed vegetation height in the park strip. There was concern that some native plant species would be excluded from the park strip due to vegetation height restrictions. Allowed vegetation height in the park strip was previously proposed to remain at a maximum of 22”. The newly updated language to address this issue states that there cannot be a visual barrier between the sidewalk and the street – to ensure continued visibility between these spaces. The modifications also address view obstructions within the sight distance triangle.  Page 7 Status: changes made to legislative version, pg. 81, line 2433 A. All landscaping shall: 1. Maintain a clearance from grade level to 7 feet above the sidewalk, or 10 feet above a street; 2. Not create a hedge or visual barrier between the sidewalk and street; 3. Not create obstructions within the sight distance triangle, as defined and illustrated in Chapter 21A.62 of this title; The full revised draft of the Landscaping & Buffers Chapter is attached for reference. Text Amendment // City Council Briefing LANDSCAPING & BUFFERSCHAPTER 48 FOLLOW-UP PLNPCM2023-00098 POTENTIAL DRAFT MODIFICATIONS Salt Lake City // Planning Division PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING. Applicability Threshold Perimeter Landscaping Parking Lot Parking Lot Square Footage Minimum Interior Landscaping 5% Perimeter Landscaping 8’ Total Landscaping as a % of a Parking Lot 10 Stalls 3,500 175 Sq Ft 944 Sq Ft 31% 15 Stalls 5,250 262 Sq Ft 1,144 Sq Ft 26% 25 Stalls 8,750 437 Sq Ft 1,488 Sq Ft 22% •Clarification of Double Loading Parking Row and Row End Landscaping. •Reduce Required Minimum Interior Landscaping Size. •Parking Lot Accessibility. Salt Lake City // Planning Division PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING. Salt Lake City // Planning Division WHY ALLOW TURF IN REQUIRED LANDSCAPING AREAS? Will Still Reduce Water Consuming Turf By 2/3. Allows For Multi-family Recreational Or Lounging Space. Prohibited In Districts Where Turf Is Not Utilized. Continued Rebate Eligibility. Salt Lake City // Planning Division PRIORITIZING TREES WHILE ENSURING SUFFICIENT VEGETATION Existing Tree Canopy May Count Toward Required Vegetation Coverage. PARK STRIP VEGETATION HEIGHT. ROCK MULCH LIMITATIONS. Limited To 20% Of A Required Landscaping Area. Cannot Create A Hedge Or Visual Barrier. “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 grasses that are listed in the Salt Lake City Plant List &Hydrozone Schedule.Inorganic substitutes,commonly referred to as artificial turf,are prohibited in required landscaping areas.” UPDATE TURF DEFINITION. *ADDITIONAL MODIFICATION* Salt Lake City // Planning Division Applicability Threshold: Direction Needed Recommendation: Maintain existing 15 stall threshold. Perimeter Landscaping: Direction Needed Recommendation: Require minimum 8’ wide. Clarification of Interior Parking Lot Landscaping: Changes Made Recommendation: Clarified. Parking Lot Accessibility: Direction Needed Recommendation: No modifications. Reduce Minimum Interior Landscape Size: Changes Made Recommendation: Minimum width of average stall. Why Allow Turf in Required Landscaping Areas: Direction Needed Recommendation: No modification. Existing Tree Canopy as Vegetation Coverage: Changes Made Recommendation: Limit qualifying tree canopy coverage to existing canopies or canopies at the time of planting. Rock Mulch Limited Per Landscaping Area: Changes Made Recommendation: Limit rock mulch to 20% of a required landscaping area. Increase Park Strip Vegetation Height Allowance: Changes Made Recommendation: Cannot create a hedge or visual barrier. Salt Lake City // Planning Division LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 2 No. _____ of 202_ 3 4 (Amending the zoning text of various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code 5 pertaining to Landscaping and Buffers chapter amendments) 6 7 An ordinance amending the text of various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City 8 Code pertaining to Landscaping and Buffers Chapter amendments pursuant to Petition No. 9 PLNPCM2023-00098. 10 WHEREAS, on April 26, 2023, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning 11 Commission”) held a public hearing on a petition submitted by Salt Lake City Mayor, Erin 12 Mendenhall--at the request of the Salt Lake City Council--to amend the zoning code pertaining 13 to the Landscaping and Buffer Chapter (Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00098); and 14 WHEREAS, at its April 26, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of 15 forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said petition; and 16 WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that 17 adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. 18 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 19 20 SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.24.010.P.12. That Subsection 21 21A.24.010.P.12 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: General Provisions: 22 Special Foothills Regulations), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 23 12. Landscaping Aand Revegetation: 24 a. Installation of all required landscaping shall begin no later than one month after a 25 certificate of occupancy; except that if the certificate of occupancy is issued 26 between October 15 and the following April 1, installation of the landscaping 27 shall begin no later than April 30. Landscaping shall be substantially completed 28 within nine (9) months after a certificate of occupancy is issued. Landscaping 29 shall conform to the requirements of cChapter 21A.48 of this title, and shall also 30 conform to the following requirements: LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 31 a.(1) Front Yards Aand Side Yards: Front yards, corner side yards and interior 32 side yards shall be completely landscaped except for driveways, walkways 33 and patios/decks. 34 b.(2) Disturbed Areas: All other areas disturbed during construction shall be 35 either landscaped or revegetated to a natural state. 36 c.(3) Undevelopable Areas: Lawns or gardens are prohibited in the 37 undevelopable areas. Native and drought tolerant plant species established in 38 undevelopable areas may be enhanced by irrigation and supplemental planting 39 as approved by the Zzoning Aadministrator, provided the Zzoning 40 Aadministrator finds that such supplemental planting is in keeping with the 41 natural conditions. 42 b. Special Landscape Regulations in the FR-1/43,560 and FR-2/21,780 Districts: In 43 addition to the regulations in Chapter 21A.48 “Landscaping and Buffers” the 44 following special landscape regulations apply: 45 46 (1) Landscape Plan: In addition to the landscape plan submittal requirements 47 listed in Section 21A.48.050, landscape plans shall also include: 48 49 (a) Delineation between the proposed revegetation of disturbed site areas. 50 (b) As a condition of site plan approval, a plan for erosion. 51 (c)An irrigation plan designed to provide sufficient water for at least the first 52 two years of growth to establish revegetation of natural areas. 53 54 (2) Tree Preservation and Replacement: Existing trees over 2 inches in caliper 55 that are removed from the site to accommodate development shall be replaced. 56 Whenever microclimate conditions make it practical, the proportion of 57 replacement tree species shall be the same as the trees removed. 58 (3) Slope Revegetation: All slopes graded or otherwise disturbed shall be 59 restored/replanted. Restored vegetation shall consist of native or adapted 60 grasses, herbaceous perennials, or woody trees and shrubs as appropriate for 61 slope and microclimate conditions. 62 63 SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.24.020.I. That Subsection 64 21A.24.020.I of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: FR-1/43,560 Foothills 65 Estate Residential District: Landscape Plan), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 66 I. Landscape Plan: A landscape plan conforming to the requirements of chapter Section 67 21A.48.050 and Subsection 21A.24.010.P of this title shall be required. 68 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 69 SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.24.030. That Subsection 70 21A.24.030.I of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: FR-1/21,780 Foothills 71 Residential District: Landscape Plan), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 72 I. Landscape Plan: A landscape plan conforming to the requirements of chapter Section 73 21A.48.050 and Subsection 21A.24.010.P of this title shall be required. 74 75 SECTION 4. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.24.120.G. That Subsection 76 21A.24.120.G of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: RMF-30 Low Density 77 Multi-Family Residential District: RMF-30 Building Type Zoning Standards), shall be and 78 hereby is amended to read as follows: LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Building TypeBuilding Regulation Single- Family Dwelling Two- Family Dwelling Multi- Family Residential Row House1 Sideways Row House1 Cottage Development1 Tiny House1 Non Residential Building 79 Building TypeBuilding Regulation 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’ LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 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 subsectionChapter 21A.48.080 C of this title. 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 cChapter 21A.37 of this title. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 81 82 SECTION 5. Amending the Text of Section 21A.26.010. That Section 21A.26.010 of 83 the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: General Provisions), shall be and hereby 84 is amended as follows: 85 a. That Subsection 21A.26.010.C.1 shall be amended to read as follows: 86 87 C. Impact Controls Aand General Restrictions Iin Tthe Commercial Districts: 88 89 1. Refuse Control: Temporary storage of refuse materials shall be limited to that 90 produced on the premises. Refuse containers must be covered and shall be stored 91 within completely enclosed buildings or screened in conformance with the 92 requirements of chapter Section 21A.40.1208 of this title. For buildings existing as of 93 April 12, 1995, this screening provision shall be required if the floor area or parking 94 requirements are increased by twenty five percent (25%) or more by an expansion to 95 the building or change in the type of land use. 96 97 b. That Subsection 21A.26.010.H shall be amended to read as follows: 98 99 H. Landscaping Aand Buffering: The landscaping and buffering requirements for the 100 Ccommercial Ddistricts shall be as specified in cChapter 21A.48 , including 101 section 21A.48.110, of this title. 102 103 SECTION 6. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.26.020.G. That Subsection 104 21A.26.020.G of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: CN Neighborhood 105 Commercial District: Landscape Yard Requirements), shall be and hereby is amended to read as 106 follows: 107 G. Landscape Yard Requirements: Front and corner side yards shall be maintained as 108 landscape yards, conforming to the requirements of Chapter 21A.48. Subject to site plan 109 review approval, part or all of the landscape yard may be a patio or plaza, conforming to 110 the requirements of Chaptersection 21A.48.090 of this title. 111 112 SECTION 7. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.26.025.G. That Subsection 113 21A.26.025.G of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: SNB Small LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 114 Neighborhood Business District: Landscape Yard Requirements), shall be and hereby is 115 amended to read as follows: 116 G. Landscape Yard Requirements: Front and corner side yards shall be maintained as 117 landscape yards. Subject to site plan review approval, part or the entire landscape yard 118 may be a patio or plaza, conforming to the requirements of section 21A.48.090 of this 119 title. 120 121 SECTION 8. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.26.040.F. That Subsection 122 21A.26.040.F of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: CS Community 123 Shopping District: Landscape Yard Requirements), shall be and hereby is amended to read as 124 follows: 125 F. Landscape Yard Requirements: A landscape yard of fifteen feet (15’) shall be required on 126 all front and corner side yards, conforming to the requirements of Chaptersection 127 21A.48.090 of this title. 128 129 SECTION 9. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.26.050.E. That Subsection 130 21A.26.050.E of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: CC Corridor 131 Commercial District: Landscape Yard Requirements), shall be and hereby is amended to read as 132 follows: 133 F. Landscape Yard Requirements: A landscape yard of fifteen feet (15’) shall be required on 134 all front and corner side yards, conforming to the requirements of Chaptersection 135 21A.48.090 and subsection 21A.48.100C of this title. 136 137 138 SECTION 10. Amending the Text of Section 21A.26.060. That Section 21A.26.060 of 139 the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: CSHBD Sugar House Business District 140 (CSHBD1 and CSHBD2)), shall be and hereby is amended as follows: 141 a. That Subsection 21A.26.060.J shall be amended to read as follows: 142 143 J. Park Strip Materials: Propertiesy within this zoning district may utilize alternative park 144 strip landscaping materials. Alternative materials are subject to planning director 145 approval based on its compliance with the adopted shall be considered part of 146 an improvement district subject to the provisions of Section 21A.48.060, and as such, LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 147 alternative materials may be utilized for park strips. Alternative material is subject to 148 planning director approval based on its compliance with the adopted “Circulation and 149 Streetscape Amenities Plan” or its successor. 150 b. That Subsection 21A.26.060.K shall be amended to read as follows: 151 152 K. Street Trees: Street trees are required and subject to the regulations in ChapterSection 153 21A.48.060. If a park strip does not exist, street trees are required when the sidewalk 154 width of at least 10’ can be maintained, to which required street trees shall be planted in 155 tree wells with tree grates with sufficient soil volume as determined by the Urban 156 Forestry Division. 157 158 SECTION 11. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.26.070.E. That Subsection 159 21A.26.070.E of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: CG General 160 Commercial District: Landscape Yard Requirements), shall be and hereby is amended to read as 161 follows: 162 E. Landscape Yard Requirements: A landscape yard of five feet shall be required on all 163 front or corner side yards, conforming to the requirements of Section Chapter 21A.48.090 164 of this title. 165 166 SECTION 12. Amending the Text of Section 21A.28.010. That Section 21A.28.010 of 167 the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Manufacturing Districts: General Provisions), shall be and 168 hereby is amended as follows: 169 a. That Subsection 21A.28.010.B.1 shall be amended to read as follows: 170 171 B. Impact Controls Aand General Restrictions Iin Tthe Manufacturing Districts: 172 173 1. Refuse Control: Refuse containers must be covered and shall be stored within 174 completely enclosed buildings or screened in conformance with the requirements of 175 Section chapter 21A.4840.120 of this title. 176 b. That Subsection 21A.28.010.G shall be amended to read as follows: 177 178 G. Landscaping Aand Buffering: All uses in the manufacturing districts shall comply with 179 the provisions governing landscaping and buffering in cChapter 21A.48 of this title, 180 including section 21A.48.110 of this title. 181 182 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 183 SECTION 13. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.28.030.E. That Subsection 184 21A.28.030.E of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Manufacturing Districts: M-2 Heavy 185 Manufacturing District: Landscape Yard Requirements), shall be and hereby is amended to read 186 as follows: 187 E. Landscape Yard Requirements: The first twenty five feet (25’) of all required front yards 188 and the first fifteen feet (15’) of all required corner side yards shall be maintained as 189 landscape yards in conformance with the requirements of cChapter 21A.48 of this title, 190 including section 21A.48.110 of this title. 191 192 SECTION 14. Amending the Text of Section 21A.30.010. That Section 21A.30.010 of 193 the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Downtown Districts: General Provisions), shall be and hereby 194 is amended to read as follows: 195 21A.30.010: GENERAL PROVISIONS: 196 A. Statement of Intent: The downtown districts are intended to provide use, bulk, urban 197 design and other controls and regulations appropriate to the commercial core of the city 198 and adjacent areas in order to enhance employment opportunities; to encourage the 199 efficient use of land; to enhance property values; to improve the design quality of 200 downtown areas; to create a unique downtown center which fosters the arts, 201 entertainment, financial, office, retail and governmental activities; to provide safety and 202 security; encourage permitted residential uses within the downtown area; and to help 203 implement adopted plans. 204 B. Permitted Uses: The uses specified as permitted uses in Section 21A.33.050, “Table of 205 Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts”, of this title are permitted; 206 provided, that they comply with all requirements of this chapter, the general standards set 207 forth in Part IV of this title, and all other applicable requirements of this title. 208 209 1. Conditional Uses: The uses specified as conditional uses in Section 21A.33.050, 210 “Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts”, of this title, may 211 be allowed in the downtown districts provided they are approved pursuant to the 212 standards and procedures for conditional uses set forth in Chapter 21A.54 of this title, 213 and comply with all other applicable requirements. 214 215 C. Impact Controls and General Restrictions in the Downtown Districts: 216 217 1. Refuse Control: Refuse containers must be covered and shall be stored within 218 completely enclosed buildings or screened in conformance with the requirements of 219 Section 21A.40.120chapter 21A.48 of this title. For buildings existing as of April 12, LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 220 1995, this screening provision shall be required if the floor area or parking 221 requirements are increased by twenty five percent (25%) or more by an expansion to 222 the building or change in the type of land use. 223 2. Lighting: On site lighting, including parking lot lighting and illuminated signs, shall 224 be located, directed or designed in such a manner so as not to create glare on adjacent 225 properties. 226 3. Fencing for Vacant Lots in the D-1 Central Business District and D-4 Downtown 227 Secondary Central Business District: Fencing shall be required on those lots 228 becoming vacant, where no replacement use is proposed, in conformance with the 229 following: 230 231 a. Fencing, pursuant to Section 21A.40.120 of this title, is required to secure vacant 232 lots in the downtown area; 233 b. Fencing shall consist of wrought iron or other similar material (chainlink is 234 prohibited); and 235 c. Fencing shall be open so as not to create a visual barrier, and shall be limited to a 236 maximum of 4 feet in height, with the exception of a fence located within a sight 237 distance on any corner lot as noted in Section 21A.40.120 of this title. 238 239 The approval of a building permit shall be delegated to the building official with the 240 input of the planning director, to determine if the fencing materials, location, and 241 height are compatible with adjacent properties in a given setting. 242 243 D. Outdoor Sales, Display and Storage: “Sales and display (outdoor)” and “storage and 244 display (outdoor)”, as defined in Chapter 21A.62 of this title, are allowed where 245 specifically authorized in Section 21A.33.050, “Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses 246 for Downtown Districts”, of this title. These uses shall conform to the following: 247 248 1. The outdoor sales or display of merchandise shall not encroach into areas of required 249 parking for periods longer than 30 days; 250 2. The outdoor sales or display of merchandise shall not be located in any required yard 251 area within the lot when the required yard abuts a residential zoning district; 252 3. The outdoor sales or display of merchandise shall not include the use of banners, 253 pennants or strings of pennants; 254 4. Outdoor storage shall be allowed only where specifically authorized in the applicable 255 district regulation and shall be required to be fully screened with opaque fencing not 256 to exceed eight feet in height; and 257 5. Outdoor sales and display and outdoor storage shall also be permitted when part of an 258 authorized temporary use as established in Chapter 21A.42 of this title. 259 260 E. Restrictions on Parking Lots and Structures: An excessive amount of at or above ground 261 parking lots and structures can negatively impact the urban design objectives of the 262 Downtown Zzoning Ddistricts. To control such impacts, the following regulations apply 263 to surface parking and above grade structures: 264 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 265 1. Parking shall be located behind principal buildings or incorporated into the principal 266 building provided the parking is wrapped on street facing facades with a use allowed 267 in the zone other than parking. 268 2. A parking lot shall not consist of more than two double-loaded parking aisles (bays) 269 adjacent to each other. The length of a parking lot shall not exceed 10 stalls. Parking 270 for government facilities necessary for public health and safety are exempt from this 271 provision. 272 Illustration of Regulation 21A.010.E.2 Surface Parking Lots 273 274 3. Parking lots, garages or parking structures, proposed as the only principal use on a 275 property that has frontage on a public street and that would result in a building 276 demolition are prohibited in the Downtown zoning districts. 277 4. No special restrictions shall apply to belowground parking facilities. 278 279 F. Midblock Walkways: As part of the city’s plan for the downtown area, it is intended that 280 midblock walkways be provided to increase pedestrian connectivity and overall livability 281 downtown through the creation of an intricate pedestrian network. The city has adopted 282 the Downtown Plan that includes a midblock walkway map and establishes a need for 283 such walkways as the Downtown grows. Because the districts within the downtown area 284 allow building heights that exceed those of other districts in the city, the requirement for 285 a midblock walkway is considered to be necessary to alleviate pedestrian impacts on the 286 public sidewalks by dispersing future use of the public sidewalks. All buildings 287 constructed after the effective date hereof within the Downtown zoning districts shall 288 conform to this officially adopted plan for midblock walkways, in addition to the 289 following standards: 290 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 291 1. Any new development shall provide a midblock walkway if a midblock walkway on 292 the subject property has been identified in a master plan that has been adopted by the 293 city. 294 2. The following standards apply to the midblock walkway: 295 a. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of 15’ wide and include a minimum 296 6’ wide unobstructed path. 297 b. The midblock walkway may be incorporated into the building provided it is open 298 to the public. A sign shall be posted indicating that the public may use the 299 walkway. 300 c. Building encroachments into the midblock walkway are permitted if they include 301 one or more of the following elements: 302 303 (1) Colonnades; 304 (2) Staircases; 305 (3) Balconies: All balconies must be located at the third story or above. 306 (4) Building overhangs and associated cantilever: - These coverings may be 307 between 9 and 14’ above the level of the sidewalk. They shall provide a 308 minimum depth of coverage of six feet and project no closer to the curb than 309 three feet. 310 (5) Skybridge: A single skybridge is permitted. All skybridges must be located at 311 the third, fourth, or fifth stories. 312 (6) Other architectural element(s) not listed above that offers refuge from weather 313 and/or provide publicly accessible usable space. 314 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. 315 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 316 G. Sidewalks: For all downtown districts, sidewalks must be a clear walking path that is a 317 minimum of 10’ wide. Outdoor dining shall be permitted within the sidewalk if it 318 complies with the minimum width of a clear path as defined in the outdoor dining design 319 guidelines. 320 321 H. Landscaping and Buffers: All uses in the downtown districts shall comply with the 322 provisions governing landscaping and buffers in Chapter 21A.48 of this title. Where a 323 park strip does not exist, street trees are only required when the sidewalk width of at least 324 10’ can be maintained, in which required street trees shall be planted in tree wells with 325 tree grates. 326 327 IH.Additional Standards: All uses in the downtown districts shall comply with the standards 328 set in Part IV, Regulations of General Applicability, of this title, including the applicable 329 standards in the following chapters: 330 331 1. 21A.36 General Provisions 332 2. 21A.37 Design Standards 333 3. 21A.38 Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures 334 4. 21A.40 Accessory Uses, Buildings, and Structures 335 5. 21A.42 Temporary Uses 336 6. 21A.44 Off Street Parking, Mobility, and Loading 337 7. 21A.46 Signs 338 8. 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers 339 9. Any other applicable chapter of this title that may include applicable provisions. 340 341 342 SECTION 15. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.30.020.C. That Subsection 343 21A.30.020.C of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Downtown Districts: D-1 Central Business 344 District), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 345 C. D-1 District General Regulations: The regulations established in this section apply to the 346 D-1 District as a whole. 347 348 1. Yard Requirements: No minimum yards are required. A maximum yard of eight feet 349 is allowed. 350 a. If provided, the yard must include one of the following elements: 351 352 i. Seating at a ratio of at least one bench for every 500 square feet of yard space; 353 or 354 ii. Landscaping that includes an increase of at least 25% in the total number of 355 trees required to be planted on the site; or LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 356 iii. Awning or a similar form of weather protection that covers at least five feet in 357 width and length from all street-facing building entrances. 358 b. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized through the design review 359 process, subject to the requirements of Chapter 21A.59 of this title. 360 c. The planning director, in consultation with the transportation director, may 361 modify this requirement to accommodate a wider sidewalk if the adjacent public 362 sidewalk is less than 15’ wide and the resulting modification to the setback results 363 in a more efficient public sidewalk. The planning director may waive this 364 requirement for any addition, expansions, or intensification, which increases the 365 floor area or parking requirement by less than 50% if the planning director finds 366 the following: 367 368 i. The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the 369 original structure or the surrounding architecture, or 370 ii. The addition reduces the extent of the noncompliance of the existing building. 371 372 d. Regardless of the setback provided, doors shall be setback a minimum distance to 373 allow the door to operate without swinging into a right of way or midblock 374 walkway. 375 e. Interior Side Yards: No minimum interior side yard is required. 376 f. Rear Yard: No minimum rear yard is required. 377 378 4. Landscape Requirements For Demolition Sites: Vacant lots, resulting from 379 demolition activities where no replacement use is proposed, shall conform to chapter 380 21A.48 of this title, special landscape requirements applicable to the D-1 Central 381 Business District. 382 383 SECTION 16. Amending the Text of Section 21A.32.030. That Section 21A.32.030 of 384 the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Special Purpose Districts: BP Business Park District), shall be 385 and hereby is amended as follows: 386 a. That Subsection 21A.32.030.E shall be amended to read as follows: 387 388 E. Minimum Open Space Area: The minimum open space area for any use shall not be less 389 than fifteen percent (15%) of the lot area. 390 391 1. At least thirty three percent (33%) of the required open space area shall be covered 392 with vegetation. 393 2. All landscaped open space areas shall conform with the water efficient landscaping 394 standards found in section Chapter 21A.48.055 of this title. 395 396 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 397 b. That Subsection 21A.32.030.I shall be amended to read as follows: 398 399 I. Other District Regulations: In addition to the foregoing regulations, all uses shall comply 400 with the following requirements: 401 402 1. Enclosed Operations: All principal uses shall take place within entirely enclosed 403 buildings. 404 2. Outdoor Storage: Accessory outdoor storage shall be screened with a solid fence and 405 approved through the site plan review process. 406 3. Nuisance Impacts: Uses and processes shall be limited to those that do not create a 407 nuisance to the use and enjoyment of adjacent property due to odor, dust, smoke, 408 gases, vapors, noise, light, vibration, refuse matter or water carried waste. The use of 409 explosive or radioactive materials, or any other hazardous materials, shall conform to 410 all applicable State or Federal regulations. 411 4. Property Zoned Business Park: When a property zoned Business Park abuts, or is 412 across the street from, an AG-2 or AG-5 Zoning District the following standards shall 413 apply: 414 415 a. Buildings shall be prohibited within one hundred feet (100’) of the adjacent 416 property line; 417 b. Parking lots shall be prohibited within fifty feet (50’) of the adjacent property 418 line; and 419 c. The portion of the lot located between the adjacent property line and the parking 420 lot or building shall be improved in the form of a landscaped buffer with a 421 minimum five foot (5-’)foot berm and shall comply with the provisions of 422 subsection Chapter 21A.48.080D3 of this title. 423 424 SECTION 17. Amending the Text of Section 21A.32.040. That Section 21A.32.040 of 425 the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Special Purpose Districts: FP Foothills Protection District), 426 shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 427 21A.32.040: FP FOOTHILLS PROTECTION DISTRICT: 428 429 A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the FP Foothills Protection District is to protect the 430 foothill areas from intensive development in order to protect the scenic value of these 431 areas, wildlife habitats and to minimize flooding and erosion. This district is appropriate 432 in areas where supported by applicable master plans. 433 434 B. Uses: Uses in the FP Foothills Protection District as specified in sSection 21A.33.070, 435 “Table Oof Permitted Aand Conditional Uses Ffor Special Purpose Districts”, of this 436 title, are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in sSection 21A.32.010 of 437 this chapter and this section. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 438 439 C. Special Foothills Regulations: The regulations contained in sSubsection 21A.24.010.P of 440 this title, shall apply to the FP Foothills Protection District. 441 442 D. Minimum Lot Area Aand Lot Width: Any use, except trailheads, in the FP Foothills 443 Protection District shall comply with the following lot area and width requirements: 444 1. Minimum lot area: Sixteen (16) acres. 445 2. Minimum lot width: One hundred forty feet (140’). 446 447 E. Maximum Building Height: See sSubsection 21A.24.010.P of this title for special 448 foothills regulations governing building height. 449 F. Minimum Yard Requirements: No principal or accessory building shall be located within 450 twenty feet (20’) of the front or corner side lot line nor shall any principal or accessory 451 building be located within seventy five feet (75’) of any side or rear lot line. Accessory 452 structures (other than accessory buildings) shall conform to sSection 21A.36.020, 453 tTable 21A.36.020.B of this title. 454 G. Maximum Disturbed Area: The disturbed site area shall not exceed two (2) acres. For the 455 purposes of this district, “disturbed areas” shall be defined as areas of grading and 456 removal of existing vegetation for principal and accessory buildings and areas to be hard 457 surfaced. 458 H. Slope Restrictions: To protect the visual and environmental quality of foothill areas, no 459 building shall be constructed on any portion of the site that exceeds a thirty percent 460 (30%) slope for lots in subdivisions granted preliminary approval by the Pplanning 461 Ccommission after November 4, 1994. 462 I. Fence Restrictions: Fences and walls shall only be constructed after first obtaining a 463 building permit subject to the standards of this subsection. 464 1. Site Plan Submittal: As a part of the site plan review process, a fencing plan shall be 465 submitted which shall show: 466 a. Any specific subdivision approval conditions regarding fencing; 467 b. Material specifications and illustrations necessary to determine compliance with 468 specific subdivision approval limitations and the standards of this section. 469 2. Field Fencing Oof Designated Undevelopable Areas: Fencing on areas identified as 470 undevelopable areas or transitional areas on any subdivision granted preliminary 471 approval by the Pplanning Ccommission after November 4, 1994, or any lot 472 previously platted which identifies undevelopable areas or transitional areas shall be 473 limited to the following standards unless subdivision approval granted prior to 474 November 4, 1994, included specific fencing requirements which are more restrictive. 475 The more restrictive requirement shall apply. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 476 a. A low visibility see through fence shall consist of flat black colored steel “T” 477 posts and not more than four (4) strands of nonbarbed steel wire, strung at even 478 vertical spacing on the “T” post, and erected to a height of not more than forty 479 two inches (42”) above the natural ground surface. 480 b. When fencing lot boundary lines, vegetation or native brush shall not be cleared 481 so as to create a visible demarcation from off site. 482 c. The existing surface of the ground shall not be changed by grading activities 483 when erecting boundary fences. 484 d. Fence materials and designs must not create a hazard for big game wildlife 485 species. 486 e. No field fencing shall be erected in conflict with pedestrian easements dedicated 487 to Salt Lake City. 488 3. Buildable Area Fencing: Fencing on any portions of a lot identified as buildable area 489 or required side yard on any subdivision granted preliminary approval by the 490 Pplanning Ccommission after November 4, 1994, or any lot previously platted which 491 identifies undevelopable areas or transitional areas shall be limited to the following 492 standards unless subdivision approval granted prior to November 4, 1994, includes 493 specific fencing requirements which are more restrictive. The more restrictive 494 requirement shall apply. 495 a. An open, see through fence shall be constructed of tubular steel, wrought iron or 496 similar materials, finished with a flat black, nonreflective finish constructed to a 497 height of six feet (6’) or less; or 498 b. A sight obscuring or privacy type fence shall be of earth tone colors, or similar 499 materials to the primary dwelling, and located in a way to screen private outdoor 500 living spaces from off site view. 501 4. Front Oor Corner Side Yard Fencing: Walls and fences located within the front or 502 corner side yards or along dedicated roads shall not exceed a maximum of forty two 503 inches (42”) in height. 504 J. Special Landscape Regulations: In addition to the regulations in Chapter 21A.48 505 “Landscaping and Buffers” the following special landscape regulations apply: 506 507 1. Landscape Plan: In addition to the landscape plan submittal requirements listed in 508 Section 21A.48.050, landscape plans shall also include: 509 510 a. Delineation between proposed revegetation of disturbed areas of the site, and 511 road/driveway areas. The landscape plan shall extend 100 feet beyond the 512 disturbed site area and 25 feet beyond the limits of grading for roads/driveways, 513 but need not include any portions of the site designated as undevelopable unless 514 these areas are disturbed. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 515 b. As a condition of site plan approval, a plan for erosion protection. 516 c. An irrigation plan designed to provide sufficient water for at least the first 2 years 517 of growth to establish revegetation of natural areas. 518 519 520 2. Maximum Disturbed Area: The maximum disturbed area shall not exceed 10% of the 521 total site area. 522 3. Tree Preservation and Replacement: Existing trees over 2 inches in caliper that are 523 removed from the site to accommodate development shall be replaced. Whenever 524 microclimate conditions make it practical, the proportion of replacement tree species 525 shall be the same as the trees removed. 526 4. Limits on Turf: To minimize the impact on the natural landscape and promote the 527 intent of this district, the area of turf grasses shall not exceed 33% of the area to be 528 landscaped and shall not encroach into undevelopable areas. 529 5. Slope Revegetation: All slopes graded or otherwise disturbed shall be 530 restored/replanted. Restored vegetation shall consist of native or adapted grasses, 531 herbaceous perennials, or woody trees and shrubs as appropriate for slope, soil and 532 microclimate conditions. 533 534 SECTION 18. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.32.130.I. That Subsection 535 21A.32.130.I of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Special Purpose Districts: MU Mixed Use 536 District: Landscape Buffers), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 537 I. Landscape Buffers: Where a nonresidential or mixed use lot abuts a residential or vacant 538 lot within the MU Mixed Use District or any Residential District, a ten foot (10’) 539 landscape buffer shall be provided subject to the improvement requirements of subsection 540 Chapter 21A.48.080D of this title. 541 542 SECTION 19. Amending the Text of Section 21A.34.030. That Section 21A.34.030 of 543 the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Overlay Districts: T Transitional Overlay District), shall be and 544 hereby is amended to read as follows: 545 546 21A.34.030: T TRANSITIONAL OVERLAY DISTRICT: 547 548 A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the T Transitional Overlay District is to allow for the 549 redevelopment of certain older residential areas for limited commercial and light 550 industrial uses. This district is intended to provide a higher level of control over such 551 activity to ensure that the use and enjoyment of existing residential properties is not 552 substantially diminished by future nonresidential redevelopment. The intent of this 553 district shall be achieved by designating certain nonresidential uses as conditional uses LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 554 within the overlay district and requiring future redevelopment to comply with established 555 standards for compatibility and buffering as set forth in this section. 556 B. District Locational Criteria: Residential areas covered by the T Transitional Overlay 557 District are characterized by: 558 1. A land use designation in the Ccity’s General Plan identifying reuse or redevelopment 559 for nonresidential uses; 560 2. The presence of external influences, such as proximity to expressways, railroad tracks 561 and incompatible uses, which impact the long term viability of residential use; and 562 3. Deteriorating housing stock. 563 564 C. Permitted Uses: The uses specified as permitted uses in the table of permitted and 565 conditional uses set forth in pPart III of this title for the underlying district shall be 566 permitted uses and no other. 567 D. Conditional Uses: The uses specified as conditional uses in the table of permitted and 568 conditional uses set forth in pPart III of this title for the underlying district shall be 569 conditional uses. In addition to the conditional uses permitted in the underlying district, 570 the following uses shall be allowed as conditional uses in the T tTransitional oOverlay 571 dDistrict: 572 1. Light manufacturing and industrial assembly uses; 573 2. Warehouse and wholesale uses in which goods and materials are stored in completely 574 enclosed buildings; 575 3. Offices; 576 4. Furniture and appliance repair shops; 577 5. Commercial photography studios and photofinishing laboratories; 578 6. Retail goods establishments; 579 7. Retail services establishments; 580 8. Medical and dental offices and clinics; and 581 9. Medical laboratories. 582 583 E. Minimum Lot Area: The minimum lot area for any conditional use shall be ten thousand 584 (10,000) square feet. 585 F. Minimum Lot Width: The minimum lot width for any conditional use shall be sixty feet 586 (60’). 587 G. Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height for conditional uses shall be 588 thirty five feet (35’). 589 H. Site Design Criteria: The land use compatibility of a proposed conditional use shall be 590 assessed, through the application of the following criteria in addition to the standards for 591 conditional uses set forth in cChapter 21A.54, “Conditional Uses”, of this title. 592 1. The proposed principal building shall be located not less than twenty feet (20’) from 593 any residential dwelling; LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 594 2. Interior side yards for lots abutting residential uses shall not be less than twelve feet 595 (12’); 596 3. Interior side yards for lots abutting another nonresidential use shall not be less than 597 eight feet (8’); 598 4. Front and corner side yards shall be provided consistent with the underlying zoning 599 district; 600 5. Rear yards shall not be less than twenty five feet (25’); 601 6. Signs should be limited to one flat nonilluminated identification sign not more than 602 six (6) square feet per fifty feet (50’) of lot frontage. 603 604 I. Buffer Requirements: All conditional uses shall conform to the buffer requirements 605 established in subsection 21A.48.100E of this title. 606 JI. Application: The application for a conditional use in the transitional overlay district shall 607 include information in sufficient detail so that the planning commission may judge the 608 compatibility of the conditional use with the existing residential conditions and the 609 adopted mixed use development policies and for the planning commission to assess the 610 impacts to the existing neighborhood. The following specific information shall also be 611 provided in the application: 612 613 1. The amount of employee, customer or other business related traffic (i.e., delivery and 614 pick up) expected to be generated by the proposed use; 615 2. Traffic impact analysis determining the anticipated effect on contiguous streets and 616 necessary improvements to the street network required to maintain an acceptable 617 level of service for the neighborhood; 618 3. The location and design of vehicular access to the proposed use, the amount of off 619 street parking facilities, and the location, arrangement and dimensions of loading and 620 unloading facilities; 621 4. Hours of operation of the business; 622 5. The amount of noise, noxious odors, fumes or vibration anticipated from the proposed 623 use; 624 6. Schematic elevations of all building facades indicating building materials, entries, 625 loading docks, signage and building height; 626 7. Schematic landscape plan. 627 628 KJ.Standards: In evaluating the suitability of a proposed conditional use, the planning 629 commission shall consider the following standards: 630 1. In addition to all the requirements, standards and criteria established for the 631 transitional overlay district, each conditional use must satisfy the requirements of 632 cChapter 21A.54, “Conditional Uses”, of this title. 633 2. The applicant has the burden of establishing to the planning commission that the 634 proposed conditional use meets the purposes of the transitional overlay district. 635 636 SECTION 20. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.34.040.FF. That Subsection 637 21A.34.040.FF of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Overlay Districts: AFPP Airport Flight Path LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 638 Protection Overlay District: Airport Parking Lot Landscaping), shall be and hereby is amended 639 to read as follows: 640 FF.Airport Parking Lot Landscaping: All parking lots located within the airport 641 landscaping overlay district shall comply with the following guidelines: 642 643 1. General Landscaping Performance Standards: Landscaping plans for parking lots 644 shall be developed to reflect a balance between the responsibility of ensuring the 645 safety and security of persons and property with the objective of creating aesthetically 646 pleasing, environmentally sensitive landscapes. Landscaping should address city 647 goals related to reduction of urban heat islands, visual buffering of parking lots, 648 impacts of noise, water conservation, as well as minimization of dust, runoff and 649 sedimentation. Landscaping shall consist of a variety of landscape materials, which 650 may include trees, turf, ground cover, shrubs, perennials, managed water features, and 651 rock features. Drought tolerant, native, or adaptive or resistant vegetation, which 652 reflects the natural vegetation and geography of the region, should shall be used to 653 create an aesthetically appealing landscape. 654 2. Reduction Oof Urban Heat Islands: The following standards are intended to help 655 mitigate the contribution to the urban heat island effect from large parking areas. 656 Parking lot owners or operators may use a combination of any of the following 657 methods to reduce urban heat: 658 659 a. The total airport parking supply shall consist of a combination of surface and 660 structured parking lots. Structured parking shall offset the area of surface parking 661 that is otherwise required, thereby reducing the area that contributes to urban heat. 662 b. Landscaping within large land use areas may be evaluated in terms of a 663 comprehensive planned development program to consider the total landscaping 664 within the entire development area. Landscaping may be shifted from the interior 665 of parking lots to other areas within the developed area. 666 c. Landscaping, which includes trees, shrubs, ground cover and perennials, shall be 667 dispersed throughout parking lots to provide shade while ensuring trees are not 668 planted at a spacing or density that will encourage wildlife use or create an 669 aviation hazard. 670 d. Shade for pedestrians shall be provided in parking lots through the use of 671 pedestrian shelters integrated with landscaping. 672 e. Interior landscaped areas shall be provided in parking lots to reduce heat, provide 673 a visual buffer and reduce runoff. 674 f. No specific ratio of trees and shrubs to landscaped area is required. 675 676 3. Visual Buffering: Landscaped buffers, not less than ten feet (10’) in width, shall be 677 provided, where feasible, between parking lots and primary entrance and exit roads. 678 Visual screening shall be provided within landscape buffers to enhance aesthetics and 679 reduce visibility of parked vehicles. Visual screening may consist of a combination of 680 earth berms, shrubs, trees or other methods. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 681 4. Water Conservation: To promote water conservation, landscape concepts shall 682 incorporate features that use trees, shrubs, ornamental grasses, ground cover, and 683 perennials that are drought tolerant, native, or adaptive or resistant species that can 684 withstand dry conditions once established. The plant list developed by the city, titled 685 “Water Conserving Plants Ffor Salt Lake City”, shall be used as the primary reference 686 in determining drought tolerance of plants. All irrigation systems shall be designed 687 for efficient use of potable water. Traditional Tturf areas is are prohibited should be 688 minimized in favor of alternative landscape practices to reduce the use of water. 689 5. Temporary Parking Lots: Parking lots that are intended to be in use for three (3) years 690 or less are exempt from parking lot landscaping requirements. Such parking lots may 691 exist to phase the construction of other facilities and shall be removed once the 692 facilities are completed. Temporary lots that are within the area of an approved 693 comprehensive plan may remain in use for the duration approved in the plan. 694 However, temporary parking lots shall still comply with applicable development 695 standards for parking lots as outlined in cChapter 21A.44 of this title. Parking lots 696 that remain in use by the public beyond three (3) years shall be brought into 697 compliance with these standards within twelve (12) months. 698 6. Operational Aand Maintenance Lots: Parking lots that are not available to the public 699 for parking and are used to store vehicles, operational materials, or maintenance 700 equipment are exempt from landscaping requirements. The portions of permanent 701 storage lots that are adjacent to public areas shall be landscaped using acceptable 702 landscaping principles contained herein to screen the storage area from public view. 703 7. Plan Approval: All landscape plans shall be coordinated with the city’s development 704 review team (DRT) and planning division, for review and comment on compliance 705 with city ordinances and these performance standards. The planning director and 706 director of airports shall jointly approve final landscaping plans for any airport 707 parking lot. 708 709 SECTION 21. Amending the Text of Section 21A.34.140. That Section 21A.34.140 of 710 the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Overlay Districts: Northwest Quadrant Overlay District), shall 711 be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 712 21A.34.140: NORTHWEST QUADRANT OVERLAY DISTRICT: 713 A. Northwest Quadrant Overlay District: 714 1. Purpose: The purpose of the Northwest Quadrant Overlay District is to protect 715 sensitive lands and wildlife habitat; allow for the continuation of agricultural uses; 716 and allow for the development of lands in appropriate areas that contribute to the 717 future economic growth of the Ccity and will not negatively impact sensitive lands, 718 habitats, and waterways in the area north of I-80 and west of the Salt Lake 719 International Airport. Sites within this area may be subject to difficult environmental 720 and site conditions. The overlay defines three (3) subareas: the Development Area, 721 the Eco-Industrial Buffer Area, and the Natural Area. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 722 2. Public Improvements Aand Dedications: The undeveloped land in the Northwest 723 Quadrant requires public improvements to ensure the long term development 724 potential and success of the area. All development subject to a site development or 725 building permit, shall be required to provide public improvements required by Ccity 726 departments as outlined in their Mmaster Pplans. 727 3. State Aand Federal Permits Required: A site development and/or building permit 728 shall not be granted unless the applicant has first obtained any necessary State and/or 729 Federal wetlands and/or stream alteration permits. 730 4. Precedence: For areas where the LC Lowland Conservancy Overlay District is 731 mapped within the Northwest Quadrant Development Area and/or the Northwest 732 Quadrant Eco-Industrial Buffer Area, the LC Lowland Conservancy Overlay District 733 shall take precedence. 734 735 B. Northwest Quadrant Development Area: The purpose of this area of the Northwest 736 Quadrant Overlay District is to allow for new development to occur in a way that allows 737 for the growth of light industrial uses in the Ccity while minimizing impacts to wildlife 738 and the surrounding sensitive Great Salt Lake shore lands. This area is identified on the 739 zoning map. 740 741 1. General Requirements: 742 743 a. Minimum Yard Requirements: 744 745 (1) Front Yard: Twenty feet (20’). 746 (2) Corner Side Yard: Twenty feet (20’). 747 (3) Interior Side Yard: None required. 748 (4) Rear Yard: None required. 749 750 b. Lighting: All lighting on the property, including lighting on the buildings, parking 751 areas, and for signs shall be shielded to direct light down and away from the edges 752 of the property to eliminate glare or light into adjacent properties and have cutoffs 753 to prevent upward lighting. Uplighting and event searchlights are prohibited. 754 c. Roof Color: Light reflective roofing material with a minimum solar reflective 755 index (SRI) of 82 shall be used for all roofs. 756 757 2. Landscaping Requirements: The purpose of the special landscaping for the Northwest 758 Quadrant Development Area is to provide appropriate native landscaping that can 759 survive in the unique conditions of the area, prevent noxious weeds, and to provide 760 landscaping that will not negatively impact the adjacent sensitive lands and birds 761 areas. 762 763 a. All landscaping shall consist only of native plants as identified in the “Salt Lake 764 City Northwest Quadrant Plant List” on file with the Ccity’s Pplanning Ddivision. 765 b. Any areas disturbed by construction activity that will be left undeveloped shall be 766 landscaped with plantings at an appropriate density to achieve complete cover 767 within two (2) years. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 768 c. Noxious weed species as identified by the Utah Department of Agriculture and 769 Food (or its successor) in the State of Utah Noxious Weed List (or its successor) 770 shall be removed from landscaped areas and areas disturbed by construction 771 activity. Noxious weeds shall be controlled for a period of two (2) years and 772 methods of control shall be identified on the landscape plan. 773 d. Required Ttrees, including street trees, shall be chosen from the “Northwest 774 Quadrant Plant List” are not required for any landscaping as required elsewhere in 775 this title. Noxious trees, as identified by the Utah Department of Agriculture and 776 Food (or its successor) in the State of Utah Noxious Weed List (or its successor) 777 are prohibited. 778 e. Any shrub and tree plantings required by cChapter 21A.48 of this title shall be 779 selected from the “Salt Lake City Northwest Quadrant Plan List” and substituted 780 with allowed shrubs or with allowed plants that have a mature height of at least 781 three feet (3’). as identified in the “Salt Lake City Northwest Quadrant Plant 782 List”. 783 f. All other requirements in cChapter 21A.48 of this title apply. This section shall 784 take precedence in the case of a conflict with cChapter 21A.48 of this title. 785 786 C. Northwest Quadrant Eco-Industrial Buffer Area: The purpose of this area of the 787 Northwest Quadrant Overlay District is to provide an adequate buffer between the 788 Natural Area, the adjacent Inland Sea Shore and the development of light industrial uses. 789 Requirements in this area are meant to provide an area of transition from the natural 790 environment to the built environment that will limit impacts to wildlife and sensitive 791 areas. This area is identified on the zoning map. 792 793 1. In addition to the requirements listed in sSubsection B of this section, properties 794 located within the Northwest Quadrant Eco- Industrial Buffer Area are subject to the 795 following requirements: 796 797 a. Glass Requirements: For buildings with more than ten percent (10%) glass on any 798 building elevation, a minimum of ninety percent (90%) of all glass shall be treated 799 with applied films, coatings, tints, exterior screens, netting, fritting, frosted glass 800 or other means to reduce the number of birds that may collide with the glazing. 801 Any treatment must create a grid pattern that is equal to or smaller than 2 two 802 inches wide by 4 four inches tall. 803 b. Fencing: When adjacent to the Northwest Quadrant Natural Area or the western 804 Ccity boundary, a see through fence that is at least fifty percent (50%) open with a 805 minimum height of six feet (6’) shall be erected along the property line to protect 806 the Natural Area from development impacts and trespass. 807 808 D. Northwest Quadrant Natural Area: The purpose of this area of the Northwest Quadrant 809 Overlay District is to protect sensitive lands and wildlife near the Great Salt Lake 810 shorelands, to allow for the continuation of existing uses, and to limit new uses and new 811 development in this area. This area is identified on the zoning map. 812 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 813 1. Permitted Uses Aand Improvements: Within the Natural Area, permitted 814 developments and improvements to land are limited to the following: 815 816 Accessory use (associated with an allowed principal use). 817 Agricultural use. 818 Living quarters for caretaker or security guard. 819 Maintenance to existing infrastructure. 820 Natural open space. 821 Necessary infrastructure to support an allowed use. 822 Utility, building or structure (public). 823 Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe or pole (public). 824 Wildlife and game preserves. 825 826 2. Conditional Uses Aand Standards: 827 828 a. Uses Aand Improvements: The following uses and improvements are subject to 829 conditional use standards contained in cChapter 21A.54 of this title: 830 831 Hunting club, (when allowed by the underlying zoning). 832 833 Underground utility transmission infrastructure (private), subject to the following: 834 835 (1) An appropriate plan for mitigation of any construction activities shall be 836 prepared, and 837 (2) Absent any State or Federal regulations, a plan for creating no adverse impact 838 should the line be abandoned shall be prepared. 839 840 Utility, building or structure (private). 841 842 Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe or pole (private). 843 844 b. Conditional Use Standards: In addition to demonstrating conformance with the 845 conditional use standards contained in cChapter 21A.54 of this title, each 846 applicant for a conditional use within the Northwest Quadrant Natural Area must 847 demonstrate conformance with the following standards: 848 849 (1) The development will not detrimentally affect or destroy natural features such 850 as ponds, streams, wetlands, and forested areas, nor impair their natural 851 functions, but will preserve and incorporate such features into the 852 development’s site; 853 (2) The location of natural features and the site’s topography have been 854 considered in the designing and siting of all physical improvements; 855 (3) Adequate assurances have been received that the clearing of the site topsoil, 856 trees, and other natural features will not occur before the commencement of 857 building operations; only those areas approved for the placement of physical 858 improvements may be cleared; LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 859 (4) The development will not reduce the natural retention storage capacity of any 860 watercourse, nor increase the magnitude and volume of flooding at other 861 locations; and that in addition, the development will not increase stream 862 velocities; 863 (5) The soil and subsoil conditions are suitable for excavation and site 864 preparation, and the drainage is designed to prevent erosion and 865 environmentally deleterious surface runoff; 866 (6) The proposed development activity will not endanger health and safety, 867 including danger from the obstruction or diversion of flood flow; 868 (7) The proposed development activity will not destroy valuable habitat for 869 aquatic or other flora and fauna, adversely affect water quality or groundwater 870 resources, increase stormwater runoff velocity so that water levels from 871 flooding increased, or adversely impact any other natural stream, floodplain, 872 or wetland functions, and is otherwise consistent with the intent of this title; 873 (8) The proposed water supply and sanitation systems are adequate to prevent 874 disease, contamination and unsanitary conditions; and 875 (9) The availability of alternative locations not subject to flooding for the 876 proposed use. 877 878 3. Landscaping: Landscaping is not required for uses and improvements within the 879 Natural Area, except: 880 881 a. Any areas disturbed by construction activity that will be left undeveloped shall be 882 revegetated with native plants as listed in the “Salt Lake City Northwest Quadrant 883 Plant List”. 884 b. Noxious weed species as identified by the Utah Department of Agriculture and 885 Food (or its successor) in the State of Utah Noxious Weed List (or its successor) 886 shall be removed from landscaped areas and areas disturbed by construction 887 activity. Noxious weeds shall be controlled for a period of two (2) years and 888 methods of control shall be identified on the landscape plan. 889 890 SECTION 22. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.37.050.P. That Subsection 891 21A.37.050.P of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Design Standards: Design Standards Defined: 892 Streetscape Standards), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 893 P. Streetscape Standards: These standards are required for landscaping that is within the 894 public right of way. This is defined as the space between the private property line and the 895 back of the curb. All properties must comply with the park strip landscaping regulations 896 in Chapter 21A.48. Where there is a conflict between the requirements in Chapter 21A.48 897 and the requirements of this Subsection, the requirements in this Subsection shall apply. 898 899 1. Tree Canopy Coverage: No tree canopy shall cover less than the specified percentage 900 according to Section 21A.37.060, Table 21A.37.060 of this chapter. The defined 901 percentage represents the canopy coverage at maturity. At installation, a minimum of LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 902 20% of all trees shall have a minimum caliper of 3”. Where tree canopy coverage 903 percentage is indicated in Table 21A.37.060, tree canopy coverage shall not count 904 towards the minimum coverage requirements for park strip vegetation. 905 906 2. Minimum Vegetation Standards: The percentage of vegetation shall be no less than 907 the specified amount according to Chapter 21A.48. The vegetation shall be planted in 908 the public right of way. 909 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.2 Minimum Vegetation Standards (References the measurements in Table D, Downtown Districts) [Illustration to be deleted] LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 910 911 23. Street Trees: All new development must provide street trees in accordance with the 912 requirements in Street trees are required and subject to the regulations in Section 913 Chapter 21A.48.080. Where specified in Table 21A.37.060 of this chapter, In addition 914 to those standards, for every new development, there shall be one street tree planted 915 for every 30’ of street frontage. 916 34. Soil Volume: In order to promote street tree health and longevity, each tree shall have 917 an adequate volume of soil. The soil volume surrounding a tree shall be 750ft3 to 918 1,000ft3 per tree, provided that this area is exclusive of the soils volume calculation 919 for adjacent trees. The soil volume may be reduced if under ground utilities are 920 present within the soil volume and the soil volume cannot be extended horizontally 921 due to other obstructions or barriers. 922 923 924 45. Minimize Curb Cuts: As an effort to emphasize the public realm and encourage the 925 safety of pedestrians, places where cars intersect the street shall be minimized. More 926 specifically, curb cuts are encouraged to be concentrated at midblock and alley 927 locations. The sidewalk material shall continue at ground level of the curb cuts. 928 1 The percentage of vegetation shall be no less than the specified percentage according to Chapter 21A.48. 2 Vegetation shall be planted in the public right of way. Illustration of Regulation 21A.37.050.P.34 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. Illustration of Regulation 21A.37.050.P.45 Minimize Curb Cuts LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 929 930 56. Overhead Cover: Overhead covers are required at building entrances to provide 931 weather protection to pedestrians and may encroach into a required yard as indicated 932 in this section or into a public right of way with an approved encroachment agreement 933 with the Ccity. These coverings are required to be between 9 and 14’ above the level 934 of the sidewalk. They shall also provide coverage with a minimum depth of 6’ and 935 project no closer to the curb than 3’. 936 1 Curb cuts are encouraged to be concentrated at midblock and alley locations. Illustration of Regulation 21A.37.050.P.56 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. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 937 938 7. Streetscape Landscaping: All vegetation used along the streetscape must comply with 939 the landscape requirements set forth in Chapter 21A.48. 940 941 SECTION 23. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.37.060. That Subsection 942 21A.37.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Design Standards: Design Standards Required 943 in Each Zoning District), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 944 This section identifies each design standard and to which zoning districts the standard applies. If 945 a box is checked (X), that standard is required. If a box is blank, it is not required. If a specific 946 dimension or detail of a design standard differs among zoning districts or differs from the 947 definition, it will be indicated within the box. In cases where a dimension in this table conflicts 948 with a dimension in the definition, the dimensions listed in the table shall take precedence. 949 950 951 952 953 954 The cover shall project no closer than 3’ to the curb. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 955 TABLE 21A.37.060 956 A. Residential Districts: 957 District Standard (Code Section) 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) LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Parking garages or structures (21A.37.050.M) Residential character in RB District (21A.37.050.N) X 958 959 B. Commercial Districts: 960 District Standard (Code Section)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 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 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 Minimum vegetation standards (%) (21A.37.050.P.2)X Street trees (21A.37.050.P.32)X Soil volume (21A.37.050.P.43)X Minimize curb cuts (21A.37.050.P.54)X Overhead cover (21A.37.050.P.65)X Streetscape landscaping (21A.37.050.P.7)X Height transitions: angular plane for adjacent buildings (21A.37.050.Q) Horizontal articulation (21A.37.050.R)X 961 Notes: 962 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-15.963 2. Maximum width of the entrance shall be 35’ if the additional 20% is used for an entrance to a parking structure. 964 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 965 C. Manufacturing Districts: 966 DistrictStandard (Code Section)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) LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Ground floor residential entrances (21A.37.050.L) Parking garages or structures (21A.37.050.M) 967 968 D. Downtown Districts: DistrictStandard (Code Section)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 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 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 Minimum vegetation standards (21A.37.050.P.2) X X X X Street trees (21A.37.050.P.32) X X X X Soil volume (21A.37.050.P.43) X X X X Minimize curb cuts (21A.37.050.P.54) X X X X Overhead cover (21A.37.050.P.65) X X X X Streetscape landscaping (21A.37.050.P.7) 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 969 Notes:970 1. In the D-3 zoning district this percentage applies to all sides of the building, not just the front or street facing facade.971 2. Parking structures shall be located behind principal buildings. This requirement may be modified so that structures may 972 be located at least 15’ from front and corner side lot lines if a minimum of seventy five percent (75%) of the ground 973 floor adjacent to a sidewalk is used for retail goods/service establishments, office and/or restaurant space to encourage 974 pedestrian activity. The facades of the ground floor shall be designed to be compatible and consistent with the 975 associated retail or office portion of the building and other retail uses in the area. 976 977 E. Gateway Districts: DistrictStandard (Code Section) 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 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 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)X1 Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050.I)X1 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 Minimum vegetation standards (21A.37.050.P.2) X Street trees (21A.37.050.P.32)X Soil volume (21A.37.050.P.43)X Minimize curb cuts (21A.37.050.P.54)X Overhead cover (21A.37.050.P.65)X Streetscape landscaping (21A.37.050.P.7)X Height transitions: angular plane for adjacent zone districts (21A.37.050.Q) X Horizontal articulation (21A.37.050.R)X 978 Notes:979 1. Sidewalks and street lamps installed in the public right-of- way shall be of the type specified in the sidewalk/street 980 lighting policy document adopted by the city.981 2. Parking structures shall be located behind principal buildings. This requirement may be modified so that structures may 982 be located at least 15’ from front and corner side lot lines if a minimum of seventy five percent (75%) of the ground 983 floor adjacent to a sidewalk is used for retail goods/service establishments, office and/or restaurant space to encourage LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 984 pedestrian activity. The facades of the ground floor shall be designed to be compatible and consistent with the 985 associated retail or office portion of the building and other retail uses in the area. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 986 987 F. Special Purpose Districts: DistrictStandard (Code Section)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) LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 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) Minimum vegetation standards (21A.37.050.P.2) Street trees (21A.37.050.P.32) Soil Volume (21A.37.050.P.43) Minimize curb cuts (21A.37.050.P.54) Overhead cover (21A.37.050.P.65) Streetscape landscaping (21A.37.050.P.7) LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Height transitions: angular plane for adjacent zone districts (21A.37.050.Q) Horizontal articulation (21A.37.050.R) 988 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 989 G. Form Based Districts: DistrictStandard (Code Section) 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 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Minimum vegetation standards (21A.37.050.P.2) X X X Street trees (21A.37.050.P.32)X X X X X Soil volume (21A.37.050.P.43)X X X Minimize curb cuts (21A.37.050.P.54)X X X Overhead cover (21A.37.050.P.65) Streetscape landscaping (21A.37.050.P.7)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 990 Notes: 991 1. This may be reduced to twenty percent (20%) if the ground floor is within one of the 992 following building types: urban house, two-family, cottage, and row house. 993 2. Except where specifically authorized by the zone. 994 3. For buildings with street facing building facades over 100' in length: 995 a. A minimum length of 30% of the ground floor street facing façade shall consist of 996 non-residential active uses allowed by Subsection 21A.37.050.A.1. 997 b. An additional minimum length of 45% of the ground floor street facing façade shall 998 consist of any active uses allowed by Subsection 21A.37.050.A.1. 999 c. This footnote does not apply to the rowhouse building form. 1000 1001 1002 SECTION 24. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.40.120.E.1. That Subsection 1003 21A.40.120.E.1 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures: 1004 Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges: Height Restrictions and Gates), shall be and hereby is 1005 amended to read as follows: 1006 E. Height Restrictions and Gates: 1007 1008 1. Fences, walls, and hedges shall comply with the following regulations based on the 1009 following zoning districts: 1010 1011 a. Nonresidential Zoning Districts: 1012 1013 (1) Notwithstanding Subsection 21A.40.120.1.b.(l), in the M-2 and EI zoning 1014 districts fences, walls, or hedges may be up to six (6) feet in height if located 1015 between the front property line and the front yard setback line. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1016 (2) If there is no minimum front yard setback in the underlying zoning district, a 1017 fence, wall, or hedge of a maximum six (6) feet in height may be placed no 1018 closer than ten (10) feet from the property line. 1019 (3) Outdoor storage, when permitted in the zoning district, shall be located behind 1020 the primary facade of the principal structure and shall be screened with a solid 1021 wall or fence and shall comply with the requirements in Section 5.60.120. 1022 1023 (4) All refuse disposal and recycling dumpsters, except those located in the M-2, 1024 LO and EI districts shall be screened on all sides by a solid wood fence, 1025 masonry wall or an equivalent opaque material to a height of not less than 6 1026 feet but not more than 8 feet. 1027 1028 SECTION 25. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.44.060.A. That Subsection 1029 21A.44.060.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Off Street Parking, Mobility and Loading: 1030 Parking Location and Design), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 1031 A. Generally: 1032 1033 1. Parking Located on Same Lot as Use or Building Served: All parking spaces 1034 required to serve buildings or uses erected or established after the effective date 1035 of this ordinance shall be located on the same lot as the building or use served, 1036 unless otherwise allowed pursuant to Subsection 21A.44.060.A.4, “Off-Site 1037 Parking Permitted”. 1038 2. Biodetention and Landscape Islands in General and Neighborhood Center 1039 Contexts Parking Lot Interior and Perimeter Landscaping Areas: Retention of 1040 the 80th percentile storm is required for all impervious surface parking lots with 1041 50 or more parking spaces. Where this is not feasible, as defined in the 1042 SLCDPUs Standard Practices Manual, an approved Stormwater Best LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1043 Management Practices (Stormwater BMPs) is required. All proposed 1044 Stormwater BMPs are subject to Public Utilities Division review, approval, and 1045 inspection. For parking lots with one hundred (100) or more parking spaces in 1046 the General Context and Neighborhood Center Context areas, parking lot 1047 islands or biodetention areas shall be provided on the interior of the parking lot 1048 to help direct traffic flow and to provide landscaped areas within such lots. 1049 3. Parking Location and Setbacks: All parking shall comply with the parking restrictions 1050 within yards pursuant to Table 21A.44.060-A, “Parking Location and Setback 1051 Requirements”. Parking lots with 150 or more stalls and within 20’ of a lot line that 1052 are in a required yard area or abutting a building are subject to Section 21A.48.070 1053 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 6 ft. R-1, R-2, SR- 1, SR-2 N Parking in driveways that comply with all applicable city standards is exempt from this restriction. 0 ft. RMF-30 0 ft.; or 10 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district RMF-35, RMF-45, RMF-75, RO N 0 ft.; or 10 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district. Limited to 1 side yard except for single-family attached lots. 0 ft. Commercial and Manufacturing (CC, CS, CG, M-1, M-2, SNB) CC 0 ft.; or 7 ft. when abutting any residential district CS 15 ft. 0 ft.; or 15 ft. when abutting any residential LEGISLATIVE DRAFT CG 10 ft. M-1 district M-2 15 ft. 0 ft.; or 50 ft. when abutting any residential district Special Purpose Districts A 0 ft. AG, AG-2, AG-5, AG-20 N 0 ft. BP 8 ft.; or 30 ft. when abutting any residential district EI 10 ft.30 ft.30 ft.20 ft. FP 6 ft.0 ft. I 0 ft.; or 15 ft. when abutting any residential district MH 20 ft. 0 ft. OS 10 ft. PL 30 ft. PL-2 20 ft. 0 ft.; or 10 ft. when abutting any residential district 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 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT CSHBD1 0 ft.; or 7 ft. when abutting any residential district CSHBD2 N 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 Parking Structures: 45 ft. or located behind principal structure 0 ft.; limited to 1 side yard 0 ft. TSA-T See Subsection 21A.44.060.B.2 0 ft. TRANSIT CONTEXT D-1 D-3 See Subsection 21A.44.060.B.1 D-4 G-MU See Subsection 21A.44.060.B.1 FB-UN2, FB- UN3, FB-SC N TSA-C See Subsection 21A.44.060.B.2 0 ft. 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. 1054 4. Off-Site Parking Permitted: When allowed as either a permitted or conditional use 1055 per Chapter 21A.33, “Land Use Tables”, off-site parking facilities may be used to LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1056 satisfy the requirements of this chapter and shall comply with the following 1057 standards: 1058 1059 a. Maximum Distance of Off-Site Parking: Off-site parking shall be located 1060 according to the distance established in Table 21A.44.060-B, “Maximum 1061 Distances for Off-Site Parking” (measured in a straight line from the property 1062 boundary of the principal use for which the parking serves to the closest point of 1063 the parking area). Table 21A.44.060-B: Maximum Distances for Off-Site Parking: Context Maximum Distance to Off-Site Parking Neighborhood Center General Legal Nonconforming Use in Residential District 600 ft. Urban Center 1,200 ft. Transit 1,000 ft. 1064 1065 b. Documentation Required: 1066 1067 (1) The owners of record involved in an off-site parking arrangement shall submit 1068 written documentation of the continued availability of the off-site parking 1069 arrangement to the planning director for review. 1070 (2) The planning director shall approve the off-site parking arrangement if the 1071 director determines the location meets the standards of this section. No zoning 1072 or use approval shall be issued until the director has approved the off-site 1073 parking arrangement and the documentation has been recorded in the office of 1074 the Salt Lake County Recorder. 1075 (3) If the off-site parking arrangement is later terminated or modified and the 1076 planning director determines that the termination or modification has resulted 1077 in traffic congestion, overflow parking in residential neighborhoods, or threats 1078 to pedestrian, bicycle, or vehicle safety, the property owners of the uses for 1079 which the off-site parking was provided may be held in violation of this 1080 chapter. 1081 1082 5. Circulation Plan Required: Any application for a building permit shall include a site 1083 plan, drawn to scale, and fully dimensioned, showing any off street parking or loading 1084 facilities to be provided in compliance with this title. A tabulation of the number of 1085 off street vehicle and bicycle parking, loading, and stacking spaces required by this 1086 chapter shall appear in a conspicuous place on the plan. 1087 6. Driveways and Access: LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1088 1089 a. Compliance with Other Adopted Regulations: 1090 (1) Parking lots shall be designed in compliance with applicable city codes, 1091 ordinances, and standards, including but not limited to Title 12 of this code: 1092 Vehicles and Traffic and the Off Street Parking Standards Manual to the 1093 maximum degree practicable, with respect to: 1094 1095 (A) Minimum distances between curb cuts; 1096 (B) Proximity of curb cuts to intersections; 1097 (C) Provisions for shared driveways; 1098 (D) Location, quantity and design of landscaped islands; and 1099 (E) Design of parking lot interior circulation system. 1100 1101 (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection 21A.44.060.A.6.a(1) above, 1102 relocation of a driveway for a single-family, two-family, or twin home 1103 residence in any zoning district shall only be required when the residence is 1104 replaced, and shall not be required when the residence is expanded or 1105 renovated in compliance with the city code. 1106 1107 b. Access Standards: Access to all parking facilities shall comply with the following 1108 standards: 1109 1110 (1) To the maximum extent practicable, all off street parking facilities shall be 1111 designed with vehicular access to a street or alley that will least interfere with 1112 automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic movement. 1113 (2) Parking facilities in excess of five (5) spaces that access a public street shall 1114 be designed to allow vehicles to enter and exit the lot in a forward direction. 1115 (3) Parking facilities on lots with less than one hundred feet (100’) of street 1116 frontage shall have only one (1) curb cut, and lots with one hundred feet 1117 (100’) of street frontage or more shall be limited to two (2) curb cuts, unless 1118 the transportation director determines that additional curb cuts are necessary 1119 to ensure pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle safety or to comply with the fire 1120 code. Public safety uses shall be exempt from limitations on curb cuts. 1121 (4) All vehicular access roads/driveways shall be surfaced as required in 1122 accordance with Subsection 21A.44.060.A.8, “Surface Materials”. 1123 1124 c. Driveway Standards: All driveways shall comply with the following standards: 1125 1126 (1) Driveway Location in Residential Zoning Districts: With the exception of 1127 legal shared driveways, driveways shall be at least twenty feet (20’) from 1128 street corner property lines and five feet (5’) from any public utility 1129 infrastructure such as power poles, fire hydrants, and water meters. Except for 1130 entrance and exit driveways leading to approved parking areas, no curb cuts or 1131 driveways are permitted. 1132 (2) Driveway Widths: All driveways serving residential uses shall be a minimum 1133 eight feet wide and shall comply with the standards for maximum driveway LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1134 widths listed in Table 21A.44.060-C, “Minimum and Maximum Driveway 1135 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 1136 1137 (3) Shared Driveways: Shared driveways, where two (2) or more properties share 1138 one (1) driveway access, may be permitted if the transportation director 1139 determines that the design and location of the shared driveway access will not 1140 create adverse impacts on traffic congestion or public safety. 1141 (4) Driveway Surface: All driveways providing access to parking facilities shall 1142 be improved and maintained pursuant to the standards in the Off Street 1143 Parking Standards Manual. 1144 1145 7. Minimum Dimensional Standards: All parking spaces shall comply with the 1146 dimensional standards in the Off Street Parking Standards Manual. 1147 8. Surface Materials: All parking spaces shall comply with the standards for surfacing of 1148 access, driving, and parking surfacing in the Off Street Parking Standards Manual. 1149 9. Grading and Stormwater Management: All surface parking areas shall comply with 1150 city grading and stormwater management standards and shall be reviewed for best 1151 management practices by Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities. Refer to the 1152 Salt Lake City Stormwater Master Plan, Storm Drainage Manual, and Green 1153 Infrastructure Toolbox for additional information. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1154 10. Sight Distance Triangles: All driveways and intersections shall comply with the sight 1155 distance triangle standards as defined in the Off Street Parking Standards Manual. 1156 11. Landscaping and Screening: All parking areas and facilities shall comply with 1157 the landscaping and screening standards in Chapter 21A.48 and Section 1158 21A.40.120, “Landscaping and Buffers” of this title. 1159 12. Lighting: Where a parking area or parking lot is illuminated, the light source shall be 1160 shielded so that the light source is not directly visible from any abutting property or 1161 abutting private or public street. 1162 13. Signs: All signs in parking areas or related to parking facilities shall comply with 1163 Chapter 21A.46, “Signs”, and applicable provisions of the Manual on Uniform 1164 Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). 1165 14. Pedestrian Walkways: The following standards shall apply to 1166 1167 a. Ssurface parking lots with between twenty-five (25) and one hundred (100) or 1168 more parking spaces shall provide a pedestrian walkway or sidewalk through the 1169 parking lot to the primary entrance of the principal building. Pedestrian walkways 1170 shall be identified by a change in color, material, surface texture, or grade 1171 elevation from surrounding driving surfaces. 1172 b. Parking lots with more than one hundred (100) parking spaces shall provide: 1173 1174 a.(1) One (1) or more grade-separated Ppedestrian walkway(s) shall be at least 1175 five feet (5’) in width, and located in an area that is not a driving aisle surface, 1176 leading from the farthest row of parking spaces to the primary entrance of the 1177 principal building. 1178 b.(2) Vehicles shall not overhang the pedestrian walkway(s). 1179 c.(3) Where the walkway(s) crosses a drive aisle, pedestrian walkway(s) shall be 1180 identified by a change in color, material, surface texture, or grade elevation 1181 from surrounding driving surfaces, but such identification cannot be curbing of 1182 the walkway. 1183 d.(4) One (1) pedestrian walkway meeting these standards shall be provided for 1184 every ach 50 one hundred (100) parking spaces provided on site or part 1185 thereof, after the first 20 one hundred (100) parking spaces. 1186 1187 15. Parking Garages: The following standards shall apply to all above-ground parking 1188 garages except those located in the FB zones subject to Subsection 21A.27.030.C.4, 1189 whether freestanding or incorporated into a building: 1190 1191 a. Each façade or a parking garage adjacent to a public street or public space shall 1192 have an external skin designed to conceal the view of all parked cars. Examples 1193 include heavy gauge metal screen, precast concrete panels, live green or 1194 landscaped walls, laminated or safety glass, or decorative photovoltaic panels. 1195 b. No horizontal length of the parking garage façade shall extend longer than 40 feet 1196 without the inclusion of architectural elements such as decorative grillwork, 1197 louvers, translucent screens, alternating building materials, and other external 1198 features to avoid visual monotony. Facade elements shall align with parking 1199 levels. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1200 c. Internal circulation shall allow parking surfaces to be level (without any slope) 1201 along each parking garage facade adjacent to a public street or public space. All 1202 ramps between levels shall be located along building facades that are not adjacent 1203 to a public street or public space, or shall be located internally so that they are not 1204 visible from adjacent public streets or public spaces. 1205 d. The location of elevators and stairs shall be highlighted through the use of 1206 architectural features or changes in façade colors, textures, or materials so that 1207 visitors can easily identify these entry points. 1208 e. Interior parking garage lighting shall not produce glaring sources toward adjacent 1209 properties while providing safe and adequate lighting levels. The use of sensor 1210 dimmable LEDs and white stained ceilings are recommended to control light 1211 levels on-site while improving energy efficiency. 1212 f. In the Urban Center Context and Transit Context areas, the street-level facades of 1213 all parking garages shall be designed to meet applicable building code standards 1214 for habitable space to allow at least one (1) permitted or conditional use, other 1215 than parking, to be located where the parking garage is located. 1216 g. Vent and fan locations shall not be located on parking garage facades facing 1217 public streets or public spaces, or adjacent to residential uses, to the greatest 1218 extent practicable. 1219 1220 16. Tandem Parking: Where more than one (1) parking space is required to be provided 1221 for a residential dwelling unit, the parking spaces may be designed as tandem parking 1222 spaces, provided that: 1223 1224 a. No more than two (2) required spaces may be included in the tandem parking 1225 layout; and 1226 b. Each set of two (2) tandem parking spaces shall be designated for a specific 1227 residential unit. 1228 1229 17. Cross-Access between Adjacent Uses: The transportation director may require that 1230 access to one or more lots be through shared access points or cross-access through 1231 adjacent parcels when the transportation director determines that individual access to 1232 abutting parcels or limited distance between access points will create traffic safety 1233 hazards due to traffic levels on adjacent streets or nearby intersections. Such a 1234 determination shall be consistent with requirements of state law regarding property 1235 access from public streets. Required cross- access agreements shall be recorded with 1236 the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office. 1237 1238 SECTION 26. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.44.070.B. That Subsection 1239 21A.44.070.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Off Street Parking, Mobility and Loading: Off 1240 Street Loading Areas: Location and Design of Loading Areas), shall be and hereby is amended to 1241 read as follows: LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1242 B. Location and Design of Loading Areas: 1243 1244 1. All required loading berths shall be located on the same development site as the 1245 use(s) served. 1246 2. No loading berth shall be located within thirty feet (30’) of the nearest point of 1247 intersection of any two (2) streets. 1248 3. No loading berth shall be located in a required front yard. 1249 4. Each required loading berth shall be located and designed to: 1250 1251 a. Allow all required vehicle maneuvering and backing movements on-site; 1252 b. Minimize conflicts with pedestrian, bicycle, and traffic movement or 1253 encroachments into any pedestrian walkway, bicycle lane, public right-of-way, 1254 and fire lane; and 1255 c. Avoid the need to back into a public street while leaving the site to the maximum 1256 extent practicable, as determined by the planning director and the transportation 1257 director. 1258 1259 5. Landscaping and screening of all loading berths shall be provided to comply with the 1260 requirements of Chapter 21A.48 Subsection 21A.40.120, “Regulation of Fences, 1261 Walls, and Hedges Landscaping and Buffers”. 1262 6. Where a loading berth is illuminated, the light source shall be shielded so that the 1263 light source is not directly visible from any abutting property or abutting private or 1264 public street. 1265 7. All signs in loading areas shall comply with Chapter 21A.46, “Signs”, and applicable 1266 provisions of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 1267 8. All required loading berths shall comply with the surfacing standards of the Off Street 1268 Parking Standards Manual. 1269 1270 SECTION 27. Amending the Text of Chapter 21A.48. That Chapter 21A.48 of the Salt 1271 Lake City Code (Zoning: Landscaping and Buffers), shall be and hereby is amended to read as 1272 follows: 1273 21A.48: LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERS 1274 1275 SECTION: 1276 21A.48.010: Purpose Statement and Intent 1277 21A.48.020: Enforcement Of Landscape Requirements Applicability 1278 21A.48.030: Landscape Plan Authority 1279 21A.48.040: Selection, Installation And Maintenance Of Plant Materials Responsibility 1280 & Maintenance 1281 21A.48.050: Design Standards And Guidelines Landscape Plan 1282 21A.48.055: Water Efficient Landscaping 1283 21A.48.060: Park Strip Landscaping Landscape Requirements LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1284 21A.48.070: Parking Lot Or Vehicle Sales Or Lease Lots Landscaping Parking Lot 1285 Landscaping 1286 21A.48.080: Landscape Buffers General Standards 1287 21A.48.090: Landscape Yards Private Lands Tree Preservation 1288 21A.48.100: Special Landscape Regulations Appeal 1289 21A.48.110: Freeway Scenic Landscape Setback 1290 21A.48.120: Screening Of Refuse Disposal Dumpsters 1291 21A.48.130: Innovative Landscaping 1292 21A.48.135: Private Lands Tree Preservation 1293 21A.48.140: Changes To Approved Landscape Plans 1294 21A.48.150: Automobile Sales Establishments 1295 21A.48.160: Appeal 1296 21A.48.170: Landscaping Provided As A Condition Of Building Permit Issuance 1297 21A.48.010: PURPOSE STATEMENT: 1298 The landscaping and buffering requirements specified in this chapter are intended to foster 1299 aesthetically pleasing development which will protect and preserve the appearance, character, 1300 health, safety and welfare of the community. These regulations are intended to increase the 1301 compatibility of adjacent uses and, in doing so, minimize the harmful impacts of noise, dust 1302 and other debris, motor vehicle headlight glare or other artificial light intrusions, and other 1303 objectionable activities or impacts conducted or created by an adjoining or nearby use, 1304 thereby fostering compatibility among different land uses. These regulations are also 1305 intended to preserve, enhance and expand the urban forest and promote the prudent use of 1306 water and energy resources. 1307 21A.48.020: ENFORCEMENT OF LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS: 1308 Wherever the submission and approval of a landscape plan is required by this title, such 1309 landscape plan shall be an integral part of any application for a building permit and 1310 occupancy permit. No permit shall be issued without city approval of a landscape plan as 1311 required herein. The requirements of this chapter may be modified by the zoning 1312 administrator, on a case by case basis, in response to input from the city police department 1313 regarding the effects of required landscaping on crime prevention. 1314 21A.48.030: LANDSCAPE PLAN: 1315 A. Landscape Plan Required: A landscape plan shall be required whenever landscaping or 1316 alteration of landscaping is required by this title. Such landscape plan shall be drawn in 1317 conformance with the requirements specified in this chapter. Landscape plans must be 1318 approved by the zoning administrator prior to the issuance of a building permit. 1319 Landscape plans for planned developments or conditional uses, or other uses requiring 1320 site plan review approval shall be reviewed and approved by the development review 1321 team. The construction of detached single- family residences and two-family residences 1322 shall be exempt from this landscape plan requirement, except for dwellings in the FP, FR- 1323 1 and FR-2 districts, which shall conform to the requirements of this chapter. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1324 B. Content Of Landscape Plan: All landscape plans submitted for approval shall contain the 1325 following information, unless specifically waived by the zoning administrator: 1326 1327 1. The location and dimensions of all existing and proposed structures, property lines, 1328 easements, parking lots and drives, roadways and rights of way, sidewalks, bicycle 1329 paths, ground signs, refuse disposal and recycling areas, bicycle parking areas, fences, 1330 freestanding electrical equipment, tot lots and other recreational facilities, and other 1331 freestanding structural features as determined necessary by the zoning administrator; 1332 2. The location, quantity, size and name, both botanical and common names, of all 1333 proposed plants; 1334 3. The location, size and common names, of all existing plants including trees and other 1335 plants in the parkway, and indicating plants to be retained and removed; 1336 4. The location of existing buildings, structures and plants on adjacent property within 1337 twenty feet (20’) of the site, as determined necessary by the zoning administrator; 1338 5. Existing and proposed grading of the site indicating contours at two foot (2’) 1339 intervals. Proposed berming shall be indicated using one foot (1’) contour intervals; 1340 6. Elevations of all fences and retaining walls proposed for location on the site; 1341 7. Elevations, cross sections and other details as determined necessary by the zoning 1342 administrator; 1343 8. Water efficient irrigation system (separate plan required); 1344 9. Summary data indicating the area of the site in the following classifications: 1345 1346 a. Total area and percentage of the site in landscape area, 1347 b. Total area and percentage of the site in turf grasses, and 1348 c. Total area and percentage of the site in drought tolerant plant species. 1349 21A.48.040: SELECTION, INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF PLANT 1350 MATERIALS: 1351 A. Selection: Plants used in conformance with the provisions of this chapter shall be of good 1352 quality, and capable of withstanding the extremes of individual site microclimates. Size 1353 and density of plants both at the time of planting and at maturity, are additional criteria 1354 which shall be considered by the zoning administrator when approving plants. The use of 1355 drought tolerant plants is preferred when appropriate to site conditions. 1356 B. Installation: All landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the current planting 1357 procedures established by the American Association of Nurserymen. The installation of 1358 all plants required by this chapter may be delayed until the next optimal planting season, 1359 as determined by the zoning administrator. 1360 C. Maintenance: 1361 1362 1. Responsibility: The owner of the premises shall be responsible for the maintenance, 1363 repair and replacement of all landscaping materials and barriers, including refuse 1364 disposal areas, as may be required by the provisions of this chapter. 1365 2. Landscaping Materials: All landscaping materials shall be maintained in good 1366 condition so as to present a healthy, neat and orderly appearance, and plants not in LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1367 this condition shall be replaced when necessary and shall be kept free of refuse and 1368 debris. 1369 3. Fences, Walls And Hedges: Fences, walls and hedges shall be maintained in good 1370 repair. 1371 4. Irrigation Systems: Irrigation systems shall be maintained in good operating condition 1372 to promote the conservation of water. 1373 21A.48.050: DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES: 1374 Landscape plans shall be prepared based on the following design standards and guidelines. 1375 Design standards are numerically measurable design requirements that can be definitively 1376 evaluated for compliance. Design guidelines are not precisely measurable, but compliance 1377 can be determined through the evaluation process of landscape plan review. The evaluation 1378 and approval of landscape plans shall be based on compliance with both the design standards 1379 and guidelines. 1380 1381 A. Design Standards At Time Of Planting: 1382 1383 1. Deciduous Trees: All deciduous trees shall have a minimum trunk size of two inches 1384 (2”) in caliper, unless otherwise specified. 1385 2. Evergreen Trees: All evergreen trees shall have a minimum size of five feet (5’) in 1386 height, unless otherwise specified. 1387 3. Ornamental Trees: All ornamental trees shall have a minimum trunk size of one and 1388 one-half inches (11/2”) in caliper, unless otherwise specified. 1389 4. Shrubs: All shrubs shall have a minimum height or spread of eighteen inches (18”) 1390 depending on the plant’s natural growth habit, unless otherwise specified. Plants in 1391 five (5) gallon containers will generally comply with this standard. 1392 5. Drought Tolerant Species: Site conditions in Salt Lake City are generally arid, and the 1393 selection of plant species suited to dry conditions is appropriate. To promote water 1394 conservation, not less than eighty percent (80%) of the trees and eighty percent (80%) 1395 of the shrubs used on a site shall be drought tolerant species that can withstand dry 1396 conditions once established. The city has compiled a list titled “Water Conserving 1397 Plants For Salt Lake City”, that may be locally available. 1398 6. Existing Street Trees: The removal of trees within the street right of way is prohibited 1399 without the approval of the zoning administrator in consultation with the urban 1400 forester. 1401 1402 B. Design Guidelines: 1403 1404 1. Scale And Nature Of Landscaping Material: The scale and nature of landscaping 1405 materials shall be appropriate to the size of the structures. Large scale buildings, for 1406 example, should generally be complemented by larger scale plants. 1407 2. Selection Of Plants: Plants shall be selected for form, texture, color, pattern of growth 1408 and adaptability to local conditions. 1409 3. Evergreens: Evergreens should be incorporated into the landscape treatment of a site, 1410 particularly in those areas where screening and buffer is required. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1411 4. Softening Of Walls And Fences: Plants shall be placed intermittently against long 1412 expanses of building walls, fences, and other barriers to create a softening effect. 1413 5. Planting Beds: Planting beds may be mulched with bark chips, decorative stone, or 1414 similar materials. Mulch shall not be used as a substitute for plants. 1415 6. Detention/Retention Basins And Ponds: Detention/retention basins and ponds shall be 1416 landscaped. Such landscaping may include shade and ornamental trees, evergreens, 1417 shrubbery, hedges, turf, ground cover and/or other plant materials. 1418 7. Water Conservation: Landscape design pursuant to the requirements of this chapter 1419 must recognize the climatic limitations of the Salt Lake City area and the need for 1420 water conservation. While irrigation systems are required for certain landscape areas, 1421 and may be desirable for other applications, all irrigation systems shall be designed 1422 for efficient use of water. 1423 8. Turf Grasses: Turf grasses should be used in areas with less than a fifty percent (50%) 1424 slope to prevent the runoff of irrigation water. 1425 9. Energy Conservation: Plant placement shall be designed to reduce the energy 1426 consumption needs of the development. 1427 1428 a. Deciduous trees should be placed on the south and west sides of buildings to 1429 provide shade from the summer sun. 1430 b. Evergreens and other plant materials should be concentrated on the north side of 1431 buildings to dissipate the effect of winter winds. 1432 1433 10. Preservation Of Existing Plants: Existing plants should be incorporated into the 1434 landscape treatment of a site as required herein or as required by the site plan review 1435 process found in chapter 21A.58 of this title. Trees in the public right of way shall not 1436 be removed without the approval of the zoning administrator and urban forester. 1437 11. Berming: Earthen berms and existing topographic features should be, whenever 1438 determined practical by the zoning administrator, incorporated into the landscape 1439 treatment of a site, particularly when combined with plant material to facilitate 1440 screening. 1441 21A.48.055: WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPING: 1442 A. Applicability: 1443 1444 1. New Development: All new development as specified below requiring approval by the 1445 city shall comply with the provisions of this section. 1446 1447 a. Residential: 1448 1449 (1) Large subdivisions with ten (10) or more lots which also have a common 1450 landscaped area (applies to common area only); 1451 (2) Multi-family residential, three (3) units or more; 1452 (3) Planned unit developments that include residential units; 1453 (4) Single-family and two-family homes on lots that have a landscaped area 1454 greater than one-half (1/2) acre; 1455 (5) Common areas of condominium and/or planned developments; and LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1456 (6) Mixed use developments including residential elements. 1457 1458 b. Nonresidential: 1459 1460 (1) Industrial; 1461 (2) Commercial; 1462 (3) Institutional (including public facilities); and 1463 (4) Mixed use developments including industrial, commercial, or institutional 1464 elements. 1465 1466 2. Existing Development: The regulations in this section shall apply to all existing 1467 nonresidential, mixed use and multi-family residential development projects that 1468 increase the square footage of the footprint of the building or the parking requirement 1469 by twenty five percent (25%) or more. 1470 3. Exemptions: The following developments and uses are exempt from the provisions of 1471 this section unless otherwise specified: 1472 1473 a. New single- and two-family homes on lots one-half (1/2) acre or less of 1474 landscaped area; 1475 b. Treasured landscapes; 1476 c. Plant collections as part of botanical gardens and arboretums open to the public; 1477 d. Community gardens and portions of private gardens dedicated to edible plants; 1478 e. Cemeteries; 1479 f. Parks, athletic fields and playgrounds; 1480 g. Ecological restoration projects that do not require a permanent irrigation system; 1481 and 1482 h. Similar uses and activities as determined by the zoning administrator in 1483 consultation with the public utilities department or designee. 1484 1485 B. Submittal Requirements: In addition to the submittal requirements set forth in section 1486 21A.48.030, “Landscape Plan”, of this chapter the applicant shall complete any 1487 additional submittal requirements identified in the “Salt Lake City Landscape BMPs For 1488 Water Resource Efficiency And Protection”. The landscape submittal packet shall be 1489 prepared by a licensed landscaped architect, licensed civil engineer, licensed architect, 1490 certified irrigation professional, or other landscape professional appropriately licensed or 1491 recognized by the state of Utah or Salt Lake City. It shall contain the submittal 1492 information listed in the “Salt Lake City Landscape BMPs For Water Resource 1493 Efficiency And Protection” unless specifically waived in writing by the zoning 1494 administrator in consultation with the public utilities department director. 1495 C. Review Procedures: The following review procedures shall be followed for all 1496 landscaping plans and irrigation systems subject to this section: 1497 1. Landscaping plans shall be submitted concurrently with a development application. 1498 2. Backflow prevention plans shall be reviewed by the public utilities department. 1499 D. Standards: All developments subject to this section shall comply with the following 1500 standards: LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1501 1. Required Plants: All landscapes in developments subject to this section shall use 1502 plants identified in the “Salt Lake City Plant List And Hydrozone Schedule” or plants 1503 identified as being water wise or low water plants in other guides approved by the 1504 public utilities department as listed in the “Salt Lake City Landscape BMPs For 1505 Water Resource Efficiency And Protection”. 1506 2. Plant Substitutions: Landscaping shall be installed consistent with the approved 1507 planting plans, but plant substitutions may be made provided that the substituted 1508 plants are from the same hydrozone and of similar plant type (grass for grass, tree for 1509 tree, etc.) as the plant originally specified in the approved landscape plan. 1510 3. Hydrozones: All landscape plans shall identify and indicate each plant, and all plants 1511 shall be grouped into appropriate hydrozones as listed in the “Salt Lake City Plant 1512 List And Hydrozone Schedule” and as described in the “Salt Lake City Landscape 1513 BMPs For Water Resource Efficiency And Protection”. Mixing plants from different 1514 hydrozones and with different water demands is strongly discouraged. Landscape 1515 areas with a mix of plants from different hydrozones shall be designated on landscape 1516 submittals as being of the hydrozone of the highest water demand plant within that 1517 irrigation zone. 1518 4. Water Budget: All developments with a total landscaped area greater than one-half 1519 (1/2) acre must install an irrigation meter at the expense of the applicant and shall be 1520 assigned a tier 2 water target by the public utilities department. 1521 5. Small Landscaped Areas: To prevent overspray and water waste, landscaped areas 1522 eight feet (8’) or smaller in any perimeter dimension, including, but not limited to, 1523 park strips, parking lot islands, and landscaped areas separated by walkways from 1524 other landscaped areas, shall only be irrigated with a system designed to prevent 1525 overspray. 1526 6. Soil Amendment/Preparation: Where appropriate, the use of organic soil amendments 1527 or additives, such as aged compost, are encouraged. See the “Salt Lake City 1528 Landscape BMPs For Water Resource Efficiency And Protection” for more 1529 information. 1530 7. Mulch: Where mulch is required or allowed in a landscape plan by this section, it 1531 shall be installed and maintained at a minimum depth of three inches to four inches 1532 (3” - 4”). Fiber barriers and plastic sheeting that are not porous to air and water are 1533 prohibited. 1534 8. Preservation Of Existing Specimen Trees: All specimen trees located within a 1535 landscape plan area shall be protected as provided in section 21A.48.135, “Private 1536 Lands Tree Preservation”, of this chapter. 1537 9. Water Features: Unless it is a natural water body or stream, recirculating systems 1538 shall be used for all water features such as fountains, ponds, reflecting pools, and 1539 other similar water features. 1540 10. Irrigation Systems: Irrigation systems shall be designed, installed, and maintained to 1541 work efficiently, as defined in the “Salt Lake City Landscape BMPs For Water 1542 Resource Efficiency And Protection”. 1543 11. Backflow Prevention: Backflow prevention assemblies shall be designed and installed 1544 according to the standards as outlined in the “Salt Lake City Landscape BMPs For 1545 Water Resource Efficiency And Protection”. 1546 21A.48.060: PARK STRIP LANDSCAPING: LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1547 A. Intent: The intent of these requirements is to maintain the appearance of park strips, and 1548 expand landscape design flexibility while not unreasonably inhibiting access for repair 1549 and maintenance of public utilities, encourage water conservation through the use of 1550 water conserving plants and generally to improve environmental conditions along the 1551 city’s streets. It is also the intent to protect the users of park strips by prohibiting the use 1552 of materials that may cause harm or injury to pedestrians or vehicles, and to provide for 1553 safe and convenient visual and physical access across park strips to and from vehicles 1554 that may park at the curb. 1555 B. Applicability: The requirements of this section shall apply to all “park strips”, as defined 1556 in section 21A.62.040 of this title, except as otherwise noted. 1557 1558 1. Properties With Curbs And Gutters: These standards apply to all properties in the 1559 city, including vacant lots that have street curb and/or gutter. Owners of property on 1560 streets that do not have curb and gutter are not required to maintain formal 1561 landscaping within the public right of way. 1562 2. Improvement Districts: These requirements shall not apply to official improvement 1563 districts where exceptions to park strip standards are approved pursuant to subsection 1564 E of this section. 1565 3. Discretionary Authority: The zoning administrator may modify the standards of this 1566 section to better achieve its intent and address site specific conditions such as, among 1567 other things, steep grades between the curb and sidewalk or the presence of canals or 1568 drainage channels. 1569 1570 C. General Landscape Requirements: 1571 1572 1. Property Owner Responsibility: All park strips shall be landscaped by the abutting 1573 property owner, in conformance with the provisions of this section. For permits 1574 involving new construction of a principal building, the contractor shall be responsible 1575 for landscaping the park strips as part of the building permit. In general, this 1576 landscaping will involve improving the ground surface of the park strip with plant 1577 material, or hard surface treatments where permitted. Park strip trees shall also be 1578 provided as required herein. 1579 2. Maintenance: All park strip landscaping shall be maintained in a safe and well kept 1580 condition by the abutting property owner. Trash, other debris, and noxious weeds 1581 shall not be allowed to collect or grow in these areas. 1582 3. Watering: Sufficient water shall be provided for vegetative ground cover, annuals, 1583 perennials, shrubs and trees to keep them in a healthy condition. 1584 4. Definition Of An “Operable Irrigation System”: For purposes of this section, 1585 “operable irrigation system” shall mean a fixed underground irrigation system 1586 connected to the adjacent property’s water supply, but does not include a movable 1587 hose, sprinkler or other portable watering system. 1588 1589 D. Park Strip Trees: 1590 1591 1. Spacing And Size: Park strip trees, when required, shall be provided at the equivalent 1592 of at least one tree for each thirty feet (30’) of street frontage and may be clustered or LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1593 spaced linearly as deemed appropriate by the city forester. Tree size shall be a 1594 minimum of two inch (2”) caliper (measured at a point 6 inches above the soil line) at 1595 time of planting. 1596 2. Tree Grates: If new trees are proposed in a park strip in which the area surrounding 1597 the tree will have an impervious surface, the property owner responsible for 1598 installation shall ensure that tree wells with grates are provided which have 1599 dimensions adequate to accommodate the recommended tree species. All new 1600 installation of tree grates shall be accompanied by an operable irrigation system to 1601 ensure adequate water to the tree, and structural soil shall be installed according to 1602 Salt Lake City engineering standards. 1603 3. Permit And Planting: No tree shall be planted in a park strip without first obtaining a 1604 permit from the urban forestry division of the Salt Lake City public services 1605 department (section 2.26.210 of this code). Tree species and location shall be 1606 approved by the city forester. 1607 4. Tree Maintenance: Planting and maintenance of trees shall be done in conformance 1608 with the Salt Lake City urban forestry standards and specifications which are 1609 available and shall be administered and enforced through the urban forestry office. 1610 No work (pruning, removal, etc.) shall be performed on street trees without first 1611 obtaining a permit from the urban forestry office. 1612 1613 E. Park Strip Ground Surface Treatment: The intent of this section is to provide a palette of 1614 allowed plant, organic and/or natural materials that allow for creative landscaping, 1615 maintain a healthy street tree canopy, and create an attractive pedestrian environment 1616 while encouraging actual, not merely perceptual, water conservation. In many instances, 1617 a water wise turf grass/sod remains the most effective park strip plant material. 1618 1619 1. Plant Coverage: Live plant materials, not to exceed twenty two inches (22”) in height, 1620 are allowed. Plants with heights up to thirty six inches (36”) tall may be allowed as 1621 specimen or accent plants when not located within sight distance areas. These plants 1622 may not be planted in a manner that would create a visual barrier between the street 1623 and the sidewalk. 1624 At least thirty three percent (33%) or more of the park strip surface must be covered 1625 with turf, perennial or low growing shrub vegetation within three (3) years of planting 1626 or when planting has reached maturity, whichever comes first. For lots with two (2) 1627 or more street frontages, this standard shall be applied separately to each adjacent 1628 park strip on each street frontage. In new park strips, or when replacing landscaping 1629 in existing park strips, it is recommended that water conserving plants constitute at 1630 least eighty percent (80%) of all plants used. 1631 Plants which have thorns, spines, or other sharp, rigid parts are hazardous to 1632 pedestrians and bicyclists, and are difficult to walk across and are generally 1633 prohibited except that limited use of thorn bearing flowers, such as roses, may be 1634 acceptable subject to the approval of the zoning administrator. 1635 2. Erosion: It shall be the property owner’s responsibility to ensure that erosion does not 1636 deposit soil or other material on sidewalks or in the street. Where annual or perennial 1637 plants are planted in the park strip, an organic much is required on the park strip 1638 during the dormant season to prevent erosion. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1639 3. Organic Mulch: Materials such as bark, shredded plant material, and compost, may be 1640 used as water conserving mulch for plants and may also be used as the only material 1641 in portions of a park strip. 1642 4. Gravel, Rocks, And Boulders: Because rock, gravel and other hard surface materials 1643 as a ground cover retain and emit heat during the summer months when water is 1644 scarce, they may not be used within a thirty six inch (36”) radius (72 inch diameter) 1645 of any street tree, unless an operable irrigation system is provided. Otherwise, gravel, 1646 rocks, and boulders, may be used on portions of the park strip. Organic mulch or 1647 gravel, as approved by the city forester, shall be used near existing street trees. Rocks 1648 are limited to twenty inches (20”) in height. Boulders as an accent material are 1649 limited to thirty six inches (36”) in height, and may not be arranged in a manner that 1650 creates a continuous visual obstruction. 1651 Any rock raised above the curb height shall be set back from the curb by at least 1652 twenty four inches (24”). 1653 Large diameter rocks (over 6 inches) or boulders shall be kept a minimum of twenty 1654 four inches (24”) away from street trees. 1655 Any material placed beneath gravel, rocks or boulders designed to block weed growth 1656 must be of a porous nature, allowing water to percolate to plant root systems. 1657 5. Paving Materials: Paving materials, limited to poured concrete, concrete pavers, brick 1658 pavers, or natural stone pavers, may be used in portions of a park strip subject to the 1659 following limitations: 1660 1661 a. Paving Materials Near Existing Street Trees: Poured concrete shall not be placed 1662 in any park strip with existing street trees unless the park strip is being improved 1663 as part of an improvement district or pedestrian traffic counts warrant (as 1664 determined by Salt Lake City transportation and engineering divisions) and tree 1665 grates and an operable irrigation system is being installed, except as otherwise 1666 noted. Organic mulch or gravel, as approved by the city forester, shall be used 1667 near existing street trees. Poured concrete or rocks/gravel may not be used in any 1668 park strip unless an operable irrigation system is provided to the street trees. 1669 b. Twenty Four Inch Wide Park Strips: Except as specified in subsection E5a of this 1670 section, any allowed paving material listed in this section may be used in a park 1671 strip that is twenty four inches (24”) or less in width. If poured concrete is used, it 1672 shall be finished with a stamped pattern resembling brick or natural stone or 1673 scored with another decorative pattern to distinguish it from the adjacent 1674 sidewalk. 1675 c. Less Than Thirty Six Inch Wide Park Strips: In park strips that are less than thirty 1676 six inches (36”) in width, brick pavers, concrete pavers, or natural stone pavers 1677 may be used. Poured concrete shall not be used except for carriageways as 1678 outlined in subsection E6 of this section. The use of plants in combination with 1679 paving materials is encouraged. 1680 d. Park Strips Thirty Six Inches Wide Or Greater: In park strips thirty six inches 1681 (36”) in width or greater, the combination of all paving materials, gravel, rocks, 1682 and boulders shall not exceed sixty seven percent (67%) of the total park strip 1683 surface area. Poured concrete shall not be used except for carriageways as 1684 outlined in subsection E6 of this section. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1685 6. Carriageways: In order to provide for safe and convenient access across park strips to 1686 and from vehicles that may park at the curb, carriageways (walkways between the 1687 curb and sidewalk) through planted area are encouraged. The material of 1688 carriageways may be poured concrete, concrete pavers, brick pavers, or flat, natural 1689 stone paving materials such as flagstone or a combination of these materials. If 1690 poured concrete is used, the carriageway shall be not more than four feet (4’) in width 1691 and shall be located so as to provide the most direct route from the curb to the 1692 sidewalk. The area of carriageways shall be included in calculating the percentage of 1693 inorganic material in the park strip. 1694 7. Retaining Walls, Fences And Other Similar Structural Encroachments: Retaining 1695 walls, fences, steps, raised planter boxes and other similar structural encroachments in 1696 park strips are only permitted when specifically approved by the engineering 1697 department pursuant to adopted standards and/or recognized engineering principles, 1698 and by: 1699 1700 a. The historic landmark commission if the proposed structure is located with the H 1701 historic preservation overlay district; 1702 b. The planning commission if the proposed structure is part of a development 1703 proposal that requires planning commission approval; 1704 c. The planning director or the planning director’s designee if the proposed structure 1705 is not within an H historic preservation overlay district and not part of a 1706 development proposal that requires planning commission approval; or 1707 d. The city council if the proposed structure is part of an adopted improvement 1708 district. 1709 1710 Structural encroachments in park strips are generally limited because they may block 1711 access from the street to the sidewalks and create obstructions to, and increase the 1712 cost of performing maintenance of public improvements and utilities within the park 1713 strip. Structural encroachments are not permitted unless the relevant decision making 1714 entities identified in this section find that: 1715 1716 a. The proposed structures will serve the general public and are part of general 1717 public need, or 1718 b. The proposed structures are necessary for the functional use of the adjacent 1719 property (such as a mailbox near the curb, steps or a retaining wall on a sloping 1720 site, fence behind the sidewalk, etc.), and 1721 c. There are no other practical locations for the structure on the adjacent private 1722 property. 1723 1724 Any raised structure or retaining wall shall be set back from the curb by at least 1725 twenty four inches (24”). 1726 This subsection E7 does not apply to outdoor dining that is subject to section 1727 21A.40.065 of this title or ground mounted utility boxes governed by section 1728 21A.40.160 of this title. 1729 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1730 8. Plants And Objects Within Sight Distance Areas: Because of safety and visibility 1731 issues related to both pedestrians and automobile drivers, tall objects are not allowed 1732 in sight distance triangle areas. Except for street trees, or mailboxes, no plant, 1733 boulder, monument, structure or other object which is over twenty two inches (22”) in 1734 height shall be planted or located within sight distance areas. 1735 9. Turf And Gravel On Steep Park Strips: Turf and gravel are not permitted in park 1736 strips with a slope greater than three to one (3:1) (3 feet horizontal distance to 1 foot 1737 vertical distance). Turf is difficult to mow on steep slopes and gravel will migrate 1738 down the slope and collect in the gutter. Larger rocks (a diameter greater than 6 1739 inches) or boulders used on steep park strips shall be buried in the ground to a depth 1740 equal to at least one-third (1/3) of the rock or boulder’s average dimension in order to 1741 anchor them into the slope. 1742 10. Exceptions To Park Strip Standards: Exceptions to the park strip policies established 1743 herein shall be limited to the following: 1744 1745 a. Improvement District: Variations from these standards may be approved as part of 1746 improvement districts. Areas where alternative park strip materials could be 1747 considered include identifiable nonresidential areas. The improvement district 1748 concept is not intended to respond to one or two (2) properties but an identifiable 1749 district. The improvement district concept is not generally applicable to 1750 residential areas where a predominant design theme consisting of vegetation has 1751 been established. 1752 b. Nonconforming Provision: All vegetation located in park strips prior to November 1753 5, 1992, may be maintained subject to city transportation division approval for 1754 sight distance and public way safety requirements. 1755 c. Bus Stop Benches And Shelters, And Bike Share Stations: Concrete pads for bus 1756 stop benches and/or shelters and bike share stations are permitted with zoning 1757 administrator approval and subject to all permitting requirements. Concrete used 1758 for this purpose shall not be included in calculating the percentage of inorganic 1759 material in the park strip. 1760 d. Outdoor Dining: Park strip materials may be modified by the zoning administrator 1761 when outdoor dining is approved pursuant to section 21A.40.065 of this title. 1762 21A.48.070: PARKING LOT OR VEHICLE SALES OR LEASE LOTS LANDSCAPING: 1763 A. Applicability: All hard surfaced parking lots or hard surfaced vehicle sales or lease lots, 1764 for passenger cars and light trucks, with fifteen (15) or more parking spaces shall provide 1765 landscaping in accordance with the provisions of this section. Smaller parking lots shall 1766 not be required to provide landscaping other than yard area landscaping and landscaped 1767 buffer requirements as specified in other sections of this title. 1768 B. Interior Parking Lot And Vehicle Sales Or Lease Lots Landscaping: 1769 1770 1. Area Required: Not less than five percent (5%) of the interior of a parking lot or 1771 vehicle sales or lease lots shall be devoted to landscaping. Landscaping areas located 1772 along the perimeter of a parking lot or vehicle sales or lease lots beyond the curb or 1773 edge of pavement of the lot shall not be included toward satisfying this requirement. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1774 2. Landscaped Areas: The landscaped areas defined in subsection B1 of this section 1775 shall be improved in conformance with the following: 1776 1777 a. Dispersion: Interior parking lot or vehicle sales or lease lots landscaping areas 1778 shall be dispersed throughout the parking lot or vehicle sales or lease lots. 1779 b. Minimum Size: Interior parking lot or vehicle sales or lease lots landscaping areas 1780 shall be a minimum of one hundred twenty (120) square feet in area and shall be a 1781 minimum of five feet (5’) in width, as measured from back of curb to back of 1782 curb. 1783 c. Landscape Material: The plants used to improve the landscape areas defined 1784 above shall conform to the following: 1785 1786 (1) Type: The primary plant materials used in parking lots or vehicle sales or 1787 lease lots shall be shade tree species in conformance with applicable 1788 provisions of subsections 21A.48.050A and B of this chapter. Ornamental 1789 trees, shrubbery, hedges, and other plants may be used to supplement the 1790 shade tree plantings, but shall not be the sole contribution to such landscaping; 1791 (2) Quantity: One shade tree shall be provided for every one hundred twenty 1792 (120) square feet of landscaping area; 1793 (3) Ground Cover: A minimum of fifty percent (50%) of every interior parking 1794 lot or vehicle sales or lease lots landscaping area shall be planted with an 1795 approved ground cover in the appropriate density to achieve complete cover 1796 within two (2) years, as determined by the zoning administrator. 1797 1798 3. Exceptions: In the CG, M-1, M-2 and EI districts, hard surfaced areas used as 1799 operational yard areas for trucks, trailers and other incidental vehicles, other than 1800 passenger automobiles and light trucks, and which are not parking lots for employees, 1801 clients, and customers, are exempt from the parking lot interior landscaping 1802 standards. 1803 1804 C. Perimeter Parking Lot Landscaping: 1805 1806 1. Applicability: Where a parking lot is located within a required yard, or within twenty 1807 feet (20’) of a lot line, perimeter landscaping shall be required along the 1808 corresponding edge of the parking lot in conformance with the provisions in table 1809 21A.48.070G of this section. Perimeter landscaping for vehicle sales or lease lots 1810 shall include rear and interior side yard landscaping only. Front and corner side yard 1811 landscaping for vehicle sales or lease lots shall be provided as specified in each 1812 zoning district. Where both landscape buffers and parking lot landscaping is required, 1813 the more restrictive requirement shall apply. 1814 2. Landscape Area: Where perimeter landscaping is required, it shall be provided within 1815 landscape areas at least seven feet (7’) in width, as measured from the back of the 1816 parking lot curb and extending any parking space overhang area. 1817 3. Required Improvements: Within the landscape area required above, landscape 1818 improvements shall be required as established in table 21A.48.070G of this section. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1819 D. Parking Lot Fencing: Fences along parking lot perimeters may be required through the 1820 site plan review process pursuant to the provisions of chapter 21A.58 of this title or when 1821 required by the zoning administrator to satisfy buffer requirements outlined in section 1822 21A.48.080 of this chapter. 1823 E. Parking Lot Curb Controls: Six inch (6”) poured concrete curb controls shall be 1824 constructed around all required landscaping on the perimeter and within parking lots. 1825 F. Discretionary Authority: The zoning administrator may modify requirements of this 1826 section to better achieve the intent of this section and address site specific conditions. 1827 These modifications shall be limited to the location of required plants and shall not 1828 permit a reduction in the required total number of plants. 1829 G. Landscape Improvements Table: 1830 1831 TABLE 21A.48.070G 1832 REQUIRED PERIMETER PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 1833 General Intent: The landscape requirements identified in this table provide for the 1834 enhancement of parking lots by recognizing two (2) distinct conditions. The first is where 1835 parking lots are located within front and corner side yards, and a uniform scheme of 1836 landscaping is required to protect the aesthetics along public streets. The second condition is 1837 where parking lots are located within rear and interior side yards, and minimum requirements 1838 for beautification of both residential and nonresidential uses are the city’s goal. The intent is 1839 to require a higher level of landscaping for residential uses (principally multi-family uses) 1840 than for nonresidential uses. The improvements established in this table are required only for 1841 parking lots with fifteen (15) or more spaces and where the lot is located within a required 1842 yard or within twenty feet (20’) of a lot line. The reduction of impacts between dissimilar 1843 uses is addressed by section 21A.48.080 of this chapter. Where both parking lot landscaping 1844 and landscape buffers are required, the more restrictive shall apply. Required Landscaping Front And Corner Side Yards Required Landscaping Front And Corner Side Yards Shade trees 1 tree per 50 feet of yard length, measured to the nearest whole number (in addition to required parkway trees) Shrubs 1 shrub per 3 feet, on center along 100 percent of the yard length. Shrubs with mature height not more than 3 feet unless a lower shrub height is specifically required in this chapter for front yard areas Ground cover Landscape area outside of shrub masses shall be established in turf or other ground cover Required Rear And Interior Side Yards LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Landscaping Residential Use (Including Institutional Residential Uses) Nonresidential Use Shade trees 1 tree per 30 feet of yard length, measured to the nearest whole number 1 tree per 50 feet of yard length, measured to the nearest whole number Shrubs 1 shrub per 3 feet, on center along 100 percent of the yard length. Shrubs shall have a mature height not less than 3 feet 1 shrub per 3 feet, on center along 50 percent of the yard length. Shrubs shall have a mature height of not less than 3 feet Ground cover Landscape area outside of shrub masses shall be established as per section 21A.48.090 of this chapter Landscape area outside of shrub masses shall be established as per section 21A.48.090 of this chapter 1845 H. Landscaping Performance Standards For Airport District (A): Parking lot landscaping in 1846 Airport District shall comply with the specifications set forth in subsections 1847 21A.34.040EE and FF of this title. 1848 21A.48.080: LANDSCAPE BUFFERS: 1849 A. Applicability: The regulations of this section shall establish the dimensions and 1850 improvement requirements of landscape buffers as required for transitions between 1851 dissimilar uses. 1852 B. General Restrictions: Landscape buffers shall be reserved for planting and fencing as 1853 required within this section. No parking, driveways, sidewalks, accessory buildings or 1854 other impervious surfaces shall be permitted, unless specifically authorized through the 1855 site plan review process. Landscape buffers may be located within required yards or 1856 required landscape yards as established in the applicable district regulations. Where both 1857 landscape buffers and parking lot landscaping is required the more restrictive shall apply. 1858 C. Size Of Landscape Buffers: The minimum size of landscape buffers for various situations 1859 is set forth below: 1860 1861 1. RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45, RMF-75, R-MU-35, R-MU-45, R-MU, RO, MU, PL, 1862 PL-2 And OS Districts: Lots in the RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45, RMF-75, R-MU-35, 1863 R-MU-45, R-MU, RO, MU, PL, PL-2 or OS Districts which abut a lot in a single- LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1864 family or two-family residential district, shall provide a ten foot (10’) wide landscape 1865 buffer. 1866 2. RB And FB-UN1 Districts: A landscape buffer is not required for lots in an RB or 1867 FB-UN1 District which abut a lot in a residential district. 1868 3. CN, CB, CC And CSHBD Districts: Lots in the CN, CB, CC or CSHBD Districts 1869 which abut a lot in a residential district shall provide a seven foot (7’) landscape 1870 buffer. 1871 4. CS And CG Districts: Lots in the CS or CG Districts which abut a lot in a residential 1872 district shall provide a fifteen foot (15’) landscape buffer. 1873 5. M-1 District: Lots in the M-1 District which abut a lot in a residential, AG-2 1874 Agriculture, or AG-5 Agriculture District shall provide a fifteen foot (15’) landscape 1875 buffer. 1876 6. M-2 District: Lots in the M-2 District which abut a lot in a residential district shall 1877 provide a fifty foot (50’) landscape buffer. 1878 7. RP And BP Districts: Lots in the RP or BP Districts which abut a lot in a residential 1879 district shall provide a thirty foot (30’) landscape buffer. 1880 8. I Institutional District: Lots in the I Institutional District which abut a lot in a 1881 residential district shall provide a landscape buffer fifteen feet (15’) in width or equal 1882 to the average height of the facade of the principal building facing the buffer, 1883 whichever is greater. 1884 9. UI Urban Institutional District: Lots in the UI Urban Institutional District which abut 1885 a lot in a single-family or two-family residential district shall provide a fifteen foot 1886 (15’) landscape buffer. 1887 10. MH Mobile Home District: A landscape buffer of twenty feet (20’) in width shall be 1888 provided around the perimeter of each mobile home park. 1889 11. EI Extractive Industries And LO Landfill Overlay Districts: A landscape buffer of 1890 thirty feet (30’) shall be provided around the perimeter of each use. 1891 12. TSA District: Lots in the TSA District which abut a lot in an OS, R-1, R-2, SR, 1892 RMF-30, RMF-35 or RMF-45 District shall provide a ten foot (10’) landscape buffer. 1893 13. All Other Non-Residential Districts: Where not otherwise specified by this 1894 subsection, lots in a non-residential district which abut a lot in an R-1, R-2, SR, RMF- 1895 30, RMF-35 or RMF-45 District shall provide a seven foot (7’) landscape buffer. The 1896 provided landscape buffer shall be improved to the same standards required for lots in 1897 the CN Zone. 1898 1899 D. Improvement Of Landscape Buffers: Required planting and fencing shall be installed in 1900 conformance with the following provisions: 1901 1902 1. RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45, RMF-75, R-MU-35, R-MU-45, R-MU, RO, MU, PL, 1903 PL-2 And OS Districts: In the RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45, RMF-75, R-MU-35, R- 1904 MU-45, R-MU, RO, MU, PL, PL-2 and OS Districts, the following improvements 1905 shall be provided: 1906 1907 a. Shade trees shall be planted at the rate of one tree for every thirty (30) linear feet 1908 of landscape buffer. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1909 b. A continuous evergreen or deciduous shrub hedge shall be planted along the 1910 entire length of landscape buffer. This shrub hedge shall have a mature height of 1911 not less than four feet (4’). 1912 c. A fence not exceeding six feet (6’) in height may be combined with the shrub 1913 hedge, subject to the approval of the Zoning Administrator. 1914 d. Landscape yards shall be maintained per section 21A.48.090 of this chapter. 1915 1916 2. CN, CB, CC And CSHBD Districts: In the CN, CB, CC, and CSHBD Districts, the 1917 following improvements shall be provided: 1918 1919 a. Shade trees shall be planted at the rate of one tree for every thirty (30) linear feet 1920 of landscape buffer; 1921 b. Shrubs, having a mature height of not less than four feet (4’), shall be planted 1922 along the entire length of the landscape buffer; 1923 c. Landscape yards shall be maintained per section 21A.48.090 of this chapter; and 1924 d. A solid fence between four feet (4’) and six feet (6’) in height shall be erected 1925 along the property line unless waived by the Zoning Administrator. 1926 1927 3. CS, CG, TSA, M-1, I, UI, MH, RP And BP Districts: In the CS, CG, TSA, M-1, I, UI, 1928 MH, RP and BP Districts, the following improvements shall be provided: 1929 1930 a. Shade trees shall be planted at the rate of one tree per twenty five (25) linear feet 1931 along the entire length of the landscape yard. Shade trees may be clustered subject 1932 to the site plan review approval. Evergreen trees may be substituted for a portion 1933 of the shade trees; 1934 b. Shrub masses, at least two (2) rows deep and with shrubs alternately spaced, shall 1935 be provided along the entire length of the landscape yard. Shrubs shall reach a 1936 mature height of not less than four feet (4’); 1937 c. Landscape yards shall be maintained per section 21A.48.090 of this chapter; and 1938 d. A solid fence six feet (6’) in height shall be located on the property line along the 1939 required landscape buffer unless waived by the Zoning Administrator. 1940 1941 4. M-2 District: In the M-2 District, the following improvements shall be provided: 1942 1943 a. Shade trees shall be planted at a rate of one tree for every twenty feet (20’) of 1944 length of the landscape buffer. Shade trees may be grouped or clustered, subject 1945 to site plan review approval. Evergreen trees may be used as substitutes for some 1946 of the shade trees. 1947 b. Shrub masses, at least two (2) rows deep and with shrubs alternately spaced, shall 1948 be provided along seventy five percent (75%) of the length of the landscape yard. 1949 Shrubs shall reach a mature height of not less than four feet (4’). 1950 c. Landscape yards shall be maintained per section 21A.48.090 of this chapter. 1951 1952 5. EI And LO Districts: Each use in the EI and LO Districts must submit a landscape 1953 plan to the Zoning Administrator indicating how the proposed landscaping will 1954 mitigate noise, dust or other impacts on surrounding and nearby uses. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1955 21A.48.090: LANDSCAPE YARDS: 1956 Landscape yards are yards devoted exclusively to landscaping except, however, that 1957 driveways and sidewalks needed to serve the use and buildings on the lot may be located 1958 within a required landscape yard. As used in this chapter, the term “landscaping” shall be 1959 defined as set forth in section 21A.62.040, “Definitions Of Terms”, of this title. No specific 1960 improvements are required within landscape yards, except that all landscape areas shall be 1961 maintained with at least one-third (1/3) of the yard(s) area covered by vegetation, which may 1962 include trees, shrubs, grasses, annual or perennial plants and vegetable plants. Mulches such 1963 as organic mulch, gravel, rocks and boulders shall be a minimum depth of three inches to 1964 four inches (3” - 4”), dependent on the material used, to control weeds and erosion in 1965 unplanted areas and between plants, and that these aforementioned items at all times cover 1966 any installed weed block barriers that cover the ground surface. 1967 1968 A. Bond Requirement: All developers and/or contractors shall be required to post a bond 1969 with the City for the total amount of the landscaping contract for all multi-family 1970 dwellings and commercial development. 1971 21A.48.100: SPECIAL LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS: 1972 In addition to the foregoing requirements, special landscape regulations shall apply to certain 1973 zoning districts. These regulations are established below: 1974 1975 A. FP Foothills Protection District: 1976 1977 1. Landscape Plan Required: A landscape plan, conforming to sections 21A.48.030 and 1978 21A.48.050 of this chapter, shall be required for all uses within this district. This plan 1979 shall delineate the proposed revegetation of disturbed areas of the site, and 1980 road/driveway areas. The landscape plan shall extend one hundred feet (100’) beyond 1981 the disturbed site area and twenty five feet (25’) beyond the limits of grading for 1982 roads/driveways, but need not include any portions of the site designated as 1983 undevelopable unless these areas are disturbed. 1984 2. Maximum Disturbed Area: The maximum disturbed area shall not exceed ten percent 1985 (10%) of the total site area. 1986 3. Tree Preservation And Replacement: Existing trees over two inches (2”) in caliper 1987 that are removed from the site to accommodate development shall be replaced. 1988 Whenever microclimate conditions make it practical, the proportion of replacement 1989 tree species shall be the same as the trees removed. 1990 4. Limits On Turf: To help promote the intent of this district by minimizing the impact 1991 on the natural landscape, the area of turf grasses shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) 1992 of the area to be landscaped and shall not encroach into undevelopable areas. 1993 5. Slope Revegetation: All slopes graded or otherwise disturbed shall be 1994 restored/replanted. Restored vegetation shall consist of native or adapted grasses, 1995 herbaceous perennials, or woody trees and shrubs as appropriate for slope, soil and 1996 microclimate conditions. 1997 6. Irrigation: Irrigation shall be installed to provide needed water for at least the first two 1998 (2) years of growth to establish revegetation of natural areas. Irrigation for areas of LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1999 turf and ornamental landscaping shall be provided at the discretion of the property 2000 owner, however, all systems shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning 2001 Administrator. 2002 7. Erosion Protection: As a condition of site plan approval, a plan for erosion protection 2003 shall be submitted with the landscape plan. 2004 2005 B. FR-1 And FR-2 Foothills Residence Districts: 2006 2007 1. Landscape Plan Required: A landscape plan, conforming to sections 21A.48.030 and 2008 21A.48.050 of this chapter, shall be required for all uses within this district. This plan 2009 shall delineate the proposed revegetation of disturbed site areas. 2010 2. Tree Preservation And Replacement: Existing trees over two inches (2”) in caliper 2011 that are removed from the site to accommodate development shall be replaced. 2012 Whenever microclimate conditions make it practical, the proportion of replacement 2013 tree species shall be the same as the trees removed. 2014 3. Slope Revegetation: All slopes graded or otherwise disturbed shall be 2015 restored/replanted. Restored vegetation shall consist of native or adapted grasses, 2016 herbaceous perennials, or woody trees and shrubs as appropriate for slope and 2017 microclimate conditions. 2018 4. Irrigation: Irrigation shall be installed to provide needed water for at least the first two 2019 (2) years of growth to establish revegetation of natural areas. Irrigation for areas of 2020 turf and ornamental landscaping shall be provided at the discretion of the property 2021 owner, however, all systems shall be subject to city review and approval. 2022 5. Erosion Protection: As a condition of site plan approval, a plan for erosion protection 2023 shall be submitted with the landscape plan. 2024 2025 C. CC Commercial District: 2026 2027 1. Special Front Yard Landscaping: Special front yard landscaping shall be required in 2028 conformance with the following: 2029 2030 a. The first fifteen feet (15’) of lot depth shall be devoted to landscaping. Driveways 2031 and sidewalks may be located within this area to serve the building and use on the 2032 lot; 2033 b. Shrubs limited to a height of not more than three feet (3’) shall be provided at the 2034 rate of one shrub for every two feet (2’) of lot width. A mix of shrub species is 2035 recommended, and at least forty percent (40%) of the shrubs must be evergreen; 2036 c. Trees shall be provided at the rate of one tree for every twenty five feet (25’) of 2037 lot width, rounded to the nearest whole number. Evergreen trees or shade trees 2038 may be substituted with ornamental trees, subject to the review and approval of 2039 the development review team; and 2040 d. Areas not planted with shrubs or trees shall be maintained in turf or as vegetative 2041 ground cover. A drought tolerant ground cover is recommended. 2042 2043 2. Irrigation: Permanent irrigation shall be installed and used as needed to maintain plant 2044 material in a healthy state. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2045 3. Maintenance: Landscaping shall be installed and maintained in substantial 2046 conformance with the approved landscape plan. Landscaping shall be kept free of 2047 weeds and litter. 2048 2049 D. D-1 Central Business District And D-4 Downtown Secondary Central Business District: 2050 2051 1. Right Of Way Landscaping: The principal area of focus for landscaping in the D-1 2052 and D-4 districts shall be along sidewalks and parkways. Landscaping on private 2053 property shall be subject to the regulations below and in the D-1 and D-4 districts. 2054 2055 a. Location: Landscape areas shall be located a minimum of two feet (2’) from back 2056 of the street curb and shall be located in conformance with the adopted 2057 beautification plan for an approved beautification district. If the beautification 2058 plan does not address the site in question, the location of landscape areas shall be 2059 determined through the site plan review process. 2060 b. Trees: Shade trees shall be planted as specified through the site plan review 2061 process. 2062 c. Shrubs/Ground Cover: The ground surface of the landscape area may be suitable 2063 for the planting of shrubs, ground cover or flowers depending on use and 2064 pedestrian patterns. Tree grates or other improvements may be required to 2065 facilitate pedestrian circulation along the street. The ground surface shall be 2066 determined by the beautification plan, or in the absence of specific direction from 2067 the plan, the site plan review process. 2068 2069 2. Landscaping For Vacant Lots: Special landscaping shall be required on those lots 2070 becoming vacant, where no replacement use is proposed, in conformance with the 2071 following: 2072 2073 a. Landscape Yard Requirement: A landscape yard of fifteen feet (15’) shall be 2074 required as measured from any point along all property lines. Fencing, pursuant to 2075 section 21A.40.120 of this title, can be used as an element of the overall 2076 landscaping plan, however, shall not be used in lieu of the landscaping 2077 requirements of this section. The purpose of any fencing on downtown lots is for 2078 aesthetic value only, and shall consist of wrought iron or other similar material 2079 (no chainlink). Fencing shall be open so as not to create a visual barrier, and shall 2080 be limited to a maximum of four feet (4’) in height, with the exception of a fence 2081 located on any corner lot as noted in subsection 21A.40.120E of this title. The 2082 approval of a final landscape plan, that includes a fencing element, shall be 2083 delegated to the building official with the input of the planning director, to 2084 determine if the fencing materials, location, and height are compatible with 2085 adjacent properties in a given setting. 2086 b. Trees: Shade trees shall be provided at the rate of one tree per thirty feet (30’) of 2087 yard length, rounded up to the nearest whole number. 2088 c. Shrubs: Shrubs shall be provided at the rate of one plant for every three feet (3’) 2089 of yard length, evenly spaced, limited to a height of not more than three feet (3’). LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2090 All plants shall be drought tolerant; consult the Salt Lake City water wise plant 2091 list for suggestions. At least forty percent (40%) of the plants must be evergreen. 2092 d. Ground Cover: Areas not planted with shrubs and trees shall be maintained in 2093 drought tolerant vegetative ground cover. 2094 e. Irrigation: Permanent irrigation shall be installed and used as needed to maintain 2095 plant materials in a healthy state. 2096 f. Maintenance: Landscaping shall be installed and maintained in conformance with 2097 the approved landscape plan. Landscaping shall be kept free of weeds and litter. 2098 E. Transitional Overlay District: All conditional uses in the transitional overlay district shall 2099 conform to the following landscape/buffer requirements. Permitted uses shall be exempt 2100 from these requirements. 2101 2102 1. Landscaped Front And Corner Side Yard: All front and corner side yards shall be 2103 maintained as landscape yards. The improvement of such landscape yards shall be 2104 consistent with the character of the residential neighborhood. 2105 2. Landscaped Interior Side Yard: Where the interior side yard abuts a residential use, a 2106 landscape yard eight feet (8’) in width shall be provided. This landscape yard shall be 2107 improved as set forth below: 2108 2109 a. A six foot (6’) high solid fence or wall shall be constructed from the front yard 2110 setback line to the rear lot line. The outside edge of this fence or wall shall be 2111 located no less than seven feet (7’) from the side lot line. The requirement for a 2112 fence or wall may be waived by the zoning administrator if the building elevation 2113 facing the residential property is of a design not requiring screening by a fence or 2114 wall; 2115 b. Deciduous shade trees shall be planted within the landscape yard. One tree per 2116 thirty (30) linear feet of landscape yard shall be required, although the spacing of 2117 trees may be arranged in an informal manner; 2118 c. A continuous row of shrubs (deciduous or evergreen) shall be planted along the 2119 entire length of the landscape yard. The size of the shrubs shall not be less than 2120 four feet (4’) in height at the time of maturity. The spacing of shrubs shall not be 2121 greater than five feet (5’) on center. Shrubs must be set back from the side lot line 2122 at least four feet (4’) on center; and 2123 d. Landscape yards shall be maintained per section 21A.48.090 of this chapter. 2124 2125 3. Landscaped Rear Yard: Where the rear yard abuts a residential use, a solid fence or 2126 wall shall be constructed along the entire length of the rear lot line. The requirement 2127 for a fence or wall may be waived if conditions on the lot, including landscape 2128 screening within the rear yard, eliminate the need for a fence or wall. 2129 21A.48.110: FREEWAY SCENIC LANDSCAPE SETBACK: 2130 A. Purpose Statement: Freeway scenic landscape setbacks shall be established along all 2131 federal interstate highways to enhance the visual appearance of Salt Lake City, reduce 2132 visual distractions to motorists and promote the general health, safety and welfare of Salt 2133 Lake City. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2134 B. Applicability: Freeway scenic landscape setbacks shall be required for all lots abutting an 2135 interstate highway that are subdivided after April 12, 1995, for construction of a principal 2136 building, or for a twenty five percent (25%) floor area increase of a principal building, or 2137 for any new use of a previously undeveloped site or twenty five percent (25%) expansion 2138 of an existing use on a developed site, in all zones except single- family, R-2 single- and 2139 two-family residential districts. 2140 C. Scenic Landscape Location: Freeway scenic landscape setbacks shall be located directly 2141 adjacent to an interstate highway right of way line. For applicable properties adjacent to 2142 an interstate highway, a scenic landscape setback shall be provided along the full length 2143 of its frontage along such interstate highway. 2144 D. Size Of Scenic Landscape Setback: For lots platted after April 12, 1995, scenic landscape 2145 setbacks shall be twenty feet (20’) in width. For lots existing as of April 12, 1995, the 2146 width of the scenic setback may be reduced, upon approval of the zoning administrator, if 2147 such reduction is necessary to achieve the required off street parking. The width of the 2148 scenic landscape setback shall not be less than ten feet (10’). 2149 E. Planting Of Scenic Landscape Setback: All scenic landscape setbacks shall be planted to 2150 achieve a significant vegetative screen. To accomplish this, the following planting shall 2151 be required within a scenic landscape setback. 2152 2153 1. Shade Trees: One shade tree shall be planted for each three hundred (300) square feet 2154 of setback area. 2155 2. Evergreen Trees: Evergreen trees may be substituted for one hundred percent (100%) 2156 of the shade trees required in subsection E1 of this section, where microclimate 2157 conditions support the use of evergreen trees, subject to the approval of the zoning 2158 administrator. 2159 3. Ornamental Trees: Ornamental trees, having a mature canopy size less than thirty feet 2160 (30’), may be substituted for up to thirty percent (30%) of the shade trees required in 2161 subsection E1 of this section. 2162 4. Large Shrubs: Large shrubs may be substituted for up to ten percent (10%) of the 2163 shade trees required in subsection E1 of this section. Three (3) large shrubs shall be 2164 planted for each shade tree substitution. 2165 5. Ground Cover: To promote water conservation and the visual character of the native 2166 landscape, scenic landscape setbacks shall use native grasses, wildflowers and shrubs 2167 for the establishment of ground cover. In areas with greater exposure to sun and 2168 drought conditions, herbaceous perennials and shrubs will be used to create a native 2169 ground cover. 2170 2171 F. Drought Tolerant Material: All of the plant material used shall be drought tolerant species 2172 conforming to the current list maintained by the zoning administrator, or as otherwise 2173 approved. 2174 G. Irrigation: A permanent water efficient irrigation system shall be installed within each 2175 scenic landscape setback. 2176 H. Waiver Of Requirements: Some or all of the requirements of this section may be waived 2177 by the zoning administrator if conformance with such will not benefit the visual 2178 appearance of the city or the general public welfare. Specifically, the zoning LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2179 administrator may waive the requirement where property abuts interstate highway bridges 2180 and underpasses and where the change of grade/elevation would not allow for views of 2181 the scenic landscape setback. 2182 21A.48.120: SCREENING OF REFUSE DISPOSAL DUMPSTERS: 2183 All refuse disposal dumpsters, except those located in the CG, M-2, LO and EI districts shall 2184 be screened on all sides by a solid wood fence, masonry wall or an equivalent opaque 2185 material to a height of not less than six feet (6’) but not more than eight feet (8’). This 2186 requirement shall not apply to recycling containers and devices. 2187 21A.48.130: INNOVATIVE LANDSCAPING: 2188 Innovative landscaping design is encouraged and shall be considered as a positive attribute in 2189 connection with any request for a variation from the requirements of this chapter. 2190 21A.48.135: PRIVATE LANDS TREE PRESERVATION: 2191 A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of these tree preservation provisions is to recognize and 2192 protect the valuable asset embodied in the trees that exist on private lands within the city 2193 and ensure that the existing trees of Salt Lake City continue to provide benefit to its 2194 citizens. Essential to effective tree preservation is the understanding of tree growth 2195 requirements having to do with space, water, and soil quality needs, among other 2196 qualities. Good, early planning, site design, and construction management practices are 2197 key to allowing trees to prosper. Preconstruction planning and mitigation of potential 2198 impacts that development may have on trees is necessary and one of the purposes of this 2199 section. Numerous community and personal benefits arise from the presence of trees in 2200 urbanized areas - both on residential and nonresidential lands - and it is the intent of this 2201 section through the preservation of the trees to: 2202 2203 1. Enhance the quality of life in the city and protect public health and safety; 2204 2. Preserve and enhance the visual and aesthetic qualities of the city; 2205 3. Enhance public and private property for greater enjoyment and usability due to the 2206 shade, cooling, and the aesthetic beauty afforded by trees; 2207 4. Protect and improve the real estate values of the city; 2208 5. Preserve and enhance air and water quality; 2209 6. Reduce noise, glare, dust, and heat, and moderate climate, including urban heat island 2210 effect; 2211 7. Increase slope stability, and control erosion and sediment runoff into streams and 2212 waterways; 2213 8. Protect the natural habitat and ecosystems of the city; 2214 9. Conserve energy by reducing heating and cooling costs; and 2215 10. Preserve the function of mature trees to absorb greenhouse gases such as carbon 2216 dioxide. 2217 2218 B. Applicability: 2219 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2220 1. General: The standards in this section shall apply to new development in the city 2221 unless exempted in accordance with subsection C, “Exemptions”, of this section. The 2222 standards in this section shall apply at the time of a development application for 2223 “development” as defined in the zoning ordinance. 2224 2. Other Regulations: Title 2, chapter 2.26 of this code, the Salt Lake City urban forestry 2225 ordinance, addressing the protection of trees located on public property owned by the 2226 city and in rights of way, shall remain in effect. 2227 3. Specimen Trees: The city forester shall maintain a list of trees or tree types that are 2228 deemed to be specimen trees subject to subsection E, “Standards”, of this section. 2229 2230 C. Exemptions: The following specimen tree removal activities may be exempt from the 2231 standards of this section upon confirmation and approval by the city forester: 2232 2233 1. The removal of dead, damaged, or naturally fallen trees, or in cases of community 2234 emergency; 2235 2. When in conjunction with the construction of a single- or two- family residence not 2236 part of a proposed new subdivision; 2237 3. The removal of trees on an existing legal lot when not associated with new 2238 development; 2239 4. The removal of trees in such a condition that they pose a threat to structures or natural 2240 features on the site, on adjoining properties, or in the public right of way; 2241 5. The removal of diseased trees posing a threat to adjacent trees; 2242 6. The selective and limited removal of trees necessary to obtain clear visibility at 2243 driveways or intersections; 2244 7. The removal of trees associated with development at the Salt Lake City International 2245 Airport only as necessary to provide safe operations; 2246 8. The removal of trees when requested by the city forester for the purposes of conflict 2247 with utilities or streets; and 2248 9. The removal of trees deemed appropriate by the city forester, based on tree species, 2249 site conditions, or other variables. 2250 D. Definitions: For purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall have the following 2251 meanings: 2252 CALIPER: The dimension of the diameter of a tree trunk measured at a distance of 2253 six inches (6”) from the soil line. 2254 dbh: Diameter at breast height. 2255 DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT: The dimension of the diameter of a tree trunk 2256 measured at a distance of four feet six inches (4’6”) from the ground. 2257 MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE: No feasible or practical alternative exists, 2258 as determined by the city forester, and all possible efforts to comply with the 2259 standards or regulations and minimize potential harmful or adverse impacts have been 2260 undertaken by the applicant. Economic considerations may be taken into account but 2261 shall not be the overriding factor in determining “maximum extent practicable”. 2262 SPECIMEN TREE: A structurally sound and healthy tree or grouping of trees, having 2263 an individual or combined dbh measuring greater than ten inches (10”); whose future LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2264 vitality can be reasonably expected and maintained with proper protection and 2265 regularly scheduled care; and whose absence from the landscape would significantly 2266 alter the site’s appearance, environmental benefit, character or history. 2267 TREE PROTECTION FENCING: The fencing required to be installed, and 2268 maintained during construction activities, to delineate required tree protection zones. 2269 TREE PROTECTION ZONE: The area of a development site that includes the area 2270 located within the drip line of specimen trees and also includes the area that supports 2271 tree health requirements and interactions as determined by the city forester. 2272 E. Standards: 2273 1. Preservation Of Specimen Trees: Specimen trees shall be preserved to the maximum 2274 extent practicable as determined by the city forester, in consultation with the zoning 2275 administrator, unless exempted pursuant to subsection C, “Exemptions”, of this 2276 section. 2277 2278 a. In determining if preservation is impracticable, the city shall consider the 2279 following criteria, including, but not limited to: 2280 2281 (1) Whether an alternative location or configuration of the development including 2282 elements such as parking or structures on the site would be feasible to 2283 accomplish tree preservation, without negatively impacting adjacent 2284 properties, 2285 (2) Whether preservation of the specimen tree would render all permitted 2286 development on the property infeasible, or 2287 (3) If development of the property will provide significant community benefits 2288 that outweigh tree preservation. 2289 2290 b. The zoning administrator may modify any dimensional standard, such as setbacks 2291 and height limits, by up to twenty percent (20%) if such modification will result 2292 in preservation of a specimen tree. 2293 2294 2. Cutting, Removal, Or Damage Prohibited: Specimen trees, required to be preserved, 2295 shall not be cut, removed, pushed over, killed, or otherwise damaged. 2296 3. Paving, Fill, Excavation, Or Soil Compaction Prohibited: The tree protection zone of 2297 any protected specimen tree shall not be subjected to paving, filling, excavation, or 2298 soil compaction. 2299 4. Mitigation: Where the city determines it is not practicable to preserve a specimen tree 2300 on the development site, the following mitigation provisions shall apply. 2301 2302 a. Replacement Tree Required: Two (2) caliper inches of replacement trees shall be 2303 provided for each dbh of specimen tree removed (for example, if a 24 inch dbh 2304 specimen tree is removed, it must be replaced with at least 24 trees of a minimum 2305 2 inch caliper or 8 trees with a 6 inch caliper). Each replacement tree shall be a 2306 minimum of two inches (2”) in caliper, and shall either be replanted prior to 2307 certificate of occupancy or within a conditional time frame as approved by the LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2308 city forester. Consult the “Salt Lake City Plant List And Hydrozone Schedule” for 2309 recommendations on tree selection. 2310 Replacement trees shall be planted on the lot or site where the specimen tree was 2311 removed except where the city forester, in consultation with the zoning 2312 administrator, finds the following: 2313 2314 (1) The site does not provide for adequate landscape surface area to 2315 accommodate the total number of replacement trees; or 2316 (2) That due to unique soil types, topography, or unusual characteristics of the 2317 site, the likelihood of successful tree growth is diminished. 2318 In such cases, the applicant shall mitigate for the loss of the specimen tree in 2319 the form of payment to the city’s tree fund as provided below. 2320 2321 b. Cash In Lieu Payment/Tree Fund Contribution: Applicants who are permitted to 2322 remove a specimen tree but not plant a replacement tree on site shall make a cash 2323 in lieu payment, in the amount of the cost to purchase and plant the required 2324 number of replacement trees, into the city’s tree fund. 2325 F. Specimen Tree Protection During Construction: 2326 1. Owner’s Responsibility: During construction, the owner of the property shall be 2327 responsible for the ongoing health of specimen trees located on the site. This includes 2328 basic tree maintenance and watering throughout the term of construction. The owner 2329 shall also ensure the erection of barriers necessary to protect any specimen tree from 2330 damage during and after construction. 2331 2. Tree Protection Zone Fencing: Tree protection fencing shall be erected to protect all 2332 preserved trees from excavation, fill, compaction, or other impacts that would 2333 threaten tree health. Specimen trees shall be fenced in accordance with this subsection 2334 before any grading, excavating, or other land disturbing activity begins on a 2335 construction site. No construction, grading, equipment or material storage, or any 2336 other activity shall be allowed within the tree protection zone, as delineated by the 2337 required tree protection fencing, except in accordance with the standards in 2338 subsection F3, “Encroachments Into Tree Protection Zones And Root Zones”, of this 2339 section. Fencing shall be maintained until the land disturbance activities are complete, 2340 and shall not be removed or altered without first obtaining written consent from the 2341 city forester. 2342 The tree protection fencing shall be clearly shown on the required development 2343 applications such as a site plan, building permit, or grading permit application. 2344 a. Location: Fencing shall extend at least one foot (1’) in distance from the edge of 2345 the drip line of a specimen tree or group of specimen trees or as directed by the 2346 city forester to best protect a specimen tree’s critical root zone and still allow 2347 construction access. 2348 b. Type Of Fencing: The developer shall erect a chainlink fence, a minimum of four 2349 feet (4’) in height, secured to metal posts driven into the ground. Such fencing 2350 shall be secured to withstand construction activity and weather on the site and 2351 shall be maintained in a functional condition for the duration of work on the LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2352 property. This is not considered permanent fencing subject to section 21A.40.120, 2353 “Regulation Of Fences, Walls And Hedges”, of this title. 2354 c. Timing: All required tree protection measures shall be installed, inspected and 2355 approved by the city forester prior to the commencement of any land disturbing 2356 activities. 2357 2358 3. Encroachments Into Tree Protection Zones And Root Zones: Encroachments into a 2359 tree protection zone or within the critical root zones of trees protected in accordance 2360 with this subsection shall occur only in rare instances, and only upon obtaining 2361 written authorization from the city forester. If such encroachment is anticipated, tree 2362 preservation measures including, but not limited to, the following may be required: 2363 2364 a. Tree Crown And/Or Root Pruning: The pruning, or cutting, of specimen tree 2365 branches or roots shall only be done under the supervision of an ISA certified 2366 arborist, and only upon approval of the city forester. 2367 b. Soil Compaction Impact Mitigation: Where compaction might occur due to 2368 planned, temporary traffic through or materials placed within the protection zone, 2369 the area shall first be mulched with a minimum four inch (4”) layer of woodchips 2370 or a six inch (6”) layer of pine straw. Plywood sheet or metal plate coverage of 2371 the impacted area may be accepted by the city forester when high moisture 2372 conditions warrant. Equipment or materials storage shall not be allowed within 2373 the tree protection zone. 2374 c. Grade Change Impact Mitigation: In the event proposed site development requires 2375 soil elevation changes tree protection measures designed to mitigate harm to the 2376 tree(s) shall be coordinated with the city forester and the zoning administrator. 2377 d. Construction Debris/Effluent Strictly Prohibited: In no instance shall any debris or 2378 effluent, associated with the construction process, including equipment or vehicle 2379 washing, concrete mixing, pouring, or rinsing processes, be permitted to drain 2380 onto lands within tree protection zones, as delineated by the chainlink tree 2381 protection fencing. 2382 2383 G. Enforcement: These tree preservation provisions shall be subject to the zoning and 2384 development enforcement codes as adopted by the city. 2385 21A.48.140: CHANGES TO APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLANS: 2386 Any change or deviation to an approved landscape plan shall require the approval of the 2387 zoning administrator. Changes which do not conform to this chapter shall be subject to the 2388 procedures for a variance as established in chapter 21A.18 of this title. Landscape 2389 improvements made to a lot that are not in conformance with an approved landscape plan 2390 shall be a violation of this title, and subject to the fines and penalties established herein. 2391 21A.48.150: AUTOMOBILE SALES ESTABLISHMENTS: 2392 In the absence of more restrictive regulations of the applicable zoning district, automobile 2393 sales and lease establishments shall be required to provide a five foot (5’) landscape front and 2394 corner side yard. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2395 21A.48.160: APPEAL: 2396 Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the zoning administrator on a 2397 landscaping or buffer requirement may appeal to the appeals hearing officer in accordance 2398 with the provisions of chapter 21A.16 of this title. 2399 21A.48.170: LANDSCAPING PROVIDED AS A CONDITION OF BUILDING 2400 PERMIT ISSUANCE: 2401 The landscaping required by this chapter shall be provided as a condition of building permit 2402 issuance for any addition, expansion or intensification of a property that increases the floor 2403 area and/or parking requirement by fifty percent (50%) or more. The zoning administrator 2404 may waive the landscaping requirement if an existing building is located in an area of the lot 2405 that is required to be landscaped and compliance with the landscaping requirements of this 2406 chapter necessitates removing all or a portion of an existing building. 2407 2408 21A.48.010: PURPOSE & INTENT: 2409 The purpose of this chapter is to promote water conservation, preserve and expand Salt Lake 2410 City’s urban tree canopy, improve air quality, and reduce urban heat islands and stormwater 2411 runoff. 2412 These regulations are intended to encourage low impact development principals into overall 2413 landscape design in a way that is attractive, and to mitigate impacts through buffering 2414 between dissimilar zoning districts. 2415 21A.48.020: APPLICABILITY: 2416 A. The provisions of this chapter apply to all properties within the city. 2417 B. Any modification of required landscaping shall come into greater compliance with this 2418 chapter. 2419 21A.48.030: AUTHORITY: 2420 A. The requirements of this chapter may be modified by the zoning administrator, on a case- 2421 by-case basis where innovative landscaping design that furthers the purpose and intent of 2422 this chapter is implemented, or in response to input from: 2423 2424 1. Police Department; 2425 2. Public Utilities; or 2426 3. Urban Forestry. 2427 2428 21A.48.040: RESPONSIBILITY & MAINTENANCE: 2429 A. All landscaping shall: LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2430 2431 1. Maintain a clearance from grade level to 7 feet above the sidewalk, or 10 feet above a 2432 street; 2433 2. Not create a hedge or visual barrier between the sidewalk and street; 2434 3. Not create obstructions within the sight distance triangle, as defined and illustrated in 2435 Chapter 21A.62 of this title; 2436 3. Be maintained in live condition to present a reasonably healthy appearance; and 2437 4. Be kept free of refuse, debris, and noxious weeds. 2438 2439 B. Landscape Yards. 2440 2441 The owner of the property shall be responsible for the correct installation, maintenance, 2442 repair, or replacement of all landscaping, and obtain permits as required by the provisions 2443 of this chapter. 2444 2445 C. Park Strips. 2446 2447 1. The owner of the property abutting the park strip shall be responsible for the correct 2448 installation, maintenance, repair, or replacement of all landscaping and obtain permits 2449 as required by the provisions of this chapter. 2450 2. Exclusions: Any street tree planting or maintenance pursuant to Subsections 2451 21A.48.040.D.1 and 21A.48.040.D.2. 2452 2453 D. Street Trees. 2454 2455 1. Salt Lake City’s expectation is to preserve street trees. Planting, cutting, removing, 2456 pruning, and any other maintenance of street trees is subject to approval by the Salt 2457 Lake City Urban Forestry Division as described in Section 2.26.210 of this code. 2458 2. It is the abutting property owner’s responsibility to: 2459 2460 a. Contact the Salt Lake City Urban Forestry Division to request maintenance on a 2461 street tree and obtain required approval for any changes made to a street tree. 2462 b. Provide sufficient irrigation to a street tree located in the abutting park strip. 2463 2464 3. Root Zone Protection: The root zone of all street trees shall be protected when 2465 impacted by any construction work on the abutting property or within the right-of- 2466 way when a street tree is present. 2467 4. Irrigation. 2468 2469 a. When a Landscaping Plan is required, as described in Section 21A.48.050, street 2470 trees shall be irrigated with a permanent automatic irrigation system. 2471 b. Street tree irrigation systems are the responsibility of the abutting property owner 2472 to install and maintain. It shall provide water adequately and efficiently to each 2473 street tree, as determined by the Salt Lake City Urban Forestry Division. 2474 2475 E. Irrigation Systems: LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2476 2477 1. Shall be maintained in good operating condition to eliminate water waste or run-off 2478 into the public right-of-way. 2479 2. Shall be appropriate for the designated plant material and achieves the highest water 2480 efficiency. 2481 3. All irrigation systems, including drip irrigation shall be equipped with a pressure 2482 regulator, filter, flush-end assembly, and backflow preventer. 2483 4. Each valve shall irrigate landscaping with similar site, slope, soil conditions, and 2484 similar watering needs. 2485 5. Turf and planting beds shall be irrigated on separate irrigation valves; and, 2486 6. Drip emitters and sprinklers shall be placed on separate irrigation valves. 2487 7. Irrigation systems are required to use an irrigation controller that can automatically 2488 adjust the frequency and duration of irrigation in response to changing weather 2489 conditions and have a US-EPA WaterSense label. 2490 8. Any fountain, pond, and other similar water feature supplied through the culinary 2491 water system shall have a recirculating system. 2492 9. Backflow preventer assemblies shall be designed and installed and maintained 2493 according to the standards as outlined in the “Salt Lake City Landscape BMPs For 2494 Water Resource Efficiency and Protection” or the documents’ successor. 2495 21A.48.050: LANDSCAPE PLAN: 2496 A. Landscape Plan Required: A landscape plan shall be required for the following: 2497 2498 1. New construction of a primary structure. 2499 2. Any addition, expansion or intensification of a property that increases the floor area 2500 by 50% or more, increases the number of parking stalls required by 50% or more, or 2501 modifies any required landscaping by 50% or more. Single- and two- family uses are 2502 exempt from this provision. 2503 3. When required elsewhere in this title. 2504 2505 B. Modifications to an Approved Landscape Plan: Any change to an approved landscape 2506 plan requires the approval of the zoning administrator, except for changes from one plant 2507 species to another plant species that have similar watering needs and meet all other 2508 standards within this chapter. 2509 C. Unauthorized Modifications: Landscape improvements made to a lot that are not 2510 authorized and not in conformance with a required and approved landscape plan shall be 2511 a violation of this title, and subject to the fines and penalties established in Chapter 2512 21A.20. 2513 D. Contents of a Complete Landscape Plan: A complete landscape plan shall include at least 2514 the following information unless specifically waived by the zoning administrator. All 2515 plans shall be drawn at the same scale: 2516 2517 1. Planting Plan: 2518 2519 a. Property lines, easements, and street names. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2520 b. Location and dimensions of existing and proposed structures, parking lots, drive 2521 aisles, and fencing. 2522 c. Location of existing and proposed sidewalks, bicycle paths, ground signs, refuse 2523 disposal, freestanding electrical equipment, and all other structures. 2524 d. The location of existing buildings, structures, and trees on adjacent property 2525 within 20 feet of the site. 2526 e. The location, size, and common names of all existing trees. 2527 f. Sight distance triangles at curb cuts or corners, as defined and illustrated in 2528 Chapter 21A.62. 2529 g. Root Zone Protection Plan required when construction work will occur near a 2530 street tree or other protected tree and is subject to approval from the Urban 2531 Forestry Division. 2532 h. Minimum tree soil standards set by the Salt Lake City Urban Forestry Division. 2533 i. The location, quantity, size at maturity, and name (botanical and common) of 2534 proposed plants and trees. 2535 j. Summary table that specifies the following for each landscaping location 2536 separately: 2537 (1) Area and percentage of each required landscape location. 2538 (2) Area and percentage of each landscape location covered in turf grasses, 2539 impervious surfaces. 2540 (3) Area and percentage of each landscape location covered in adaptive or native 2541 plant species and adaptive or native trees at maturity. 2542 2543 k. A signature by a Landscape Architect licensed with the State of Utah, or an US- 2544 EPA WaterSense certified professional verifying planting plan compliance with 2545 the standards of this chapter. 2546 2547 2. Grading Plan: 2548 2549 a. Property lines, street names, existing and proposed structures, turf areas, and 2550 paved areas. 2551 b. Existing and proposed grading of the site indicating contours at 2-foot intervals. 2552 c. Any proposed berming shall be indicated using 1-foot contour intervals. 2553 d. Delineate and label areas with a grade greater than 25% (4 feet Horizonal: 1 foot 2554 Vertical). 2555 2556 3. Irrigation Plan: 2557 2558 a. Layout of the irrigation system and a legend summarizing the type and size of all 2559 components of the system. 2560 b. Delineate and label each hydrozone in accordance with the Salt Lake City Plant 2561 List and Hydrozone Schedule. 2562 c. Location and coverage of individual sprinkler heads. 2563 d. Use of a water efficient irrigation system. 2564 e. Type of US-EPA WaterSense automatic controller. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2565 f. A signature by a Landscape Architect licensed with the State of Utah, or an US- 2566 EPA WaterSense certified professional verifying irrigation plan compliance with 2567 the standards of this chapter. 2568 g. Separate plans from the irrigation plan are required for: 2569 2570 (1) Backflow Prevention Plan. 2571 (2) Water Feature Recirculating Plan, if applicable. 2572 2573 E. Specific Landscape Regulations: Various zoning districts in this title have specific 2574 landscaping regulations in addition to the requirements found in this chapter. Refer to the 2575 respective zoning district for specific landscaping regulations. Landscape plans for 2576 properties subject to zoning district specific landscape regulations shall be in compliance 2577 with all applicable landscape and district specific requirements. 2578 F. Compliance Certification: A letter of compliance shall be prepared and submitted to the 2579 city upon completion of the landscape plan installation and prior to the issuance of a 2580 certificate of occupancy, or commencement of the use of the property. Compliance 2581 certification shall be signed by a landscape architect licensed with the State of Utah, or an 2582 US-EPA WaterSense certified professional verifying that all landscape plan elements 2583 have been installed in compliance with the approved landscape plan. 2584 G. Planting Season Installation: The landscape plan installation may be delayed until the 2585 next optimal planting season. A Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) may be 2586 issued and subsequent TCO fees waived between October 15 and the following April 1 2587 where it is not favorable to install landscaping. The landscape plan shall be installed, and 2588 a letter of compliance submitted within 30 days following April 1. Temporary Certificate 2589 of Occupancy fees pursuant to Section 18.32.035 of this code shall be reinstated where no 2590 letter of compliance is submitted by the end of the 30-day period. 2591 21A.48.060: LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS: 2592 A. Landscape Locations: 2593 2594 1. Applicability: The following graphics illustrate required landscape locations that are 2595 regulated by the standards identified in this chapter. 2596 2. Landscape Yards: All required front and corner side yards shall be maintained as 2597 landscaped yards, unless otherwise exempted in this title. 2598 3. Landscape Buffers: Landscape buffers and freeway buffers may be located within a 2599 required side or rear yard. 2600 4. Coverage and Quantity calculations: 2601 2602 a. Vegetation coverage is measured at plant maturity. 2603 b.The total area of an existing tree canopy, or a tree canopy at the time of planting, 2604 may be included in the vegetation coverage calculations of the required 2605 landscaping location the tree is within. A maximum of 50% Ttree canopy may be 2606 included in the vegetation coverage calculations of the required landscaping 2607 location the tree is within. 2608 c. Fractional landscaping quantities shall be measured to the nearest whole number. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2609 d. Streets, drives and sidewalks necessary for reasonable access may be excluded 2610 from impervious surface calculations. 2611 2612 5. Conflicting Standards: 2613 2614 a. Where there are conflicting standards in this chapter, the more restrictive 2615 requirements shall apply. 2616 b. Where the standards in this chapter conflict with specific district regulations, the 2617 specific district regulations shall prevail. 2618 2619 2620 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 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 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. 2621 C. Landscape Yard Standards 2622 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% Inorganic mulches 1. Turf limitations established in 21A.48.080.B shall apply. 2623 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. 2624 3. All Other Districts Not Included in Chapters 21A.24 and 21A.28: Landscape Yards 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. 2625 2626 D. Landscape Buffer Standards: District When Abutting 1 Required Landscape / Freeway Buffer Widths All districts (except Single- and Two- Family, Foothill, Single- and Two- Family, Foothill, & Special Development 10’ LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Special Development Pattern, SNB, FB-UN1, and those districts listed below that require a greater buffer width) 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’ Any district that allows residential uses 50’ M-2 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. 2627 21A.48.070: PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING: 2628 A. Applicability: 2629 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2630 1. Hard surfaced parking lots with 150 or more parking spaces shall provide landscaping 2631 in accordance with the provisions of this section. The following graphic depicts 2632 landscape location required and corresponding standards identified in this chapter. 2633 2. Parking lots with less than 150 parking spaces are exempt from parking lot 2634 landscaping but shall provide the required landscape yards and landscape buffers. 2635 2636 B. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping: 2637 2638 1. Minimum Area: A minimum of 5% of the parking lot shall be interior parking lot 2639 landscaping in the locations identified below and dispersed throughout the parking 2640 lot. Landscaping areas located along the perimeter of a parking lot shall not be 2641 included toward satisfying this requirement. 2642 2. Location: Interior landscape areas shall be provided in the following locations: 2643 2644 a. At each end of a parking row containing 6 stalls or more, where not abutting 2645 required perimeter landscaping. 2646 b. Parallel to parking lot stalls, at a rate of 1 interior landscape area for every 6 2647 parking spaces, or landscape areas may be provided along the interior length of 2648 double-loaded parking rows. 2649 c. Along the interior length of a double-loading parking row; 2650 2651 3. Size: Interior landscape areas shall have a minimum width equal to the width of 2652 average parking stall within the parking lot of 10 feet, as measured from the inside of 2653 the curbing, and shall have a minimum length equal to the length of the abutting 2654 parking spaces. Where interior landscape areas do not abut parking spaces, a 2655 minimum length of 10’ is required. 2656 4. Planting Requirements: 2657 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. 2658 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2659 2660 2661 2662 2663 5. Modifications to Interior Parking Lot Landscaping: The zoning administrator may 2664 waive interior landscape area requirements if a solar energy system is integrated into LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2665 the roof structure of a carport, or if the parking lot perimeter landscaping width is 2666 increased to 15’ and with an equal number of trees, as required in the interior, and 2667 perimeter parking lot landscaping, are provided. 2668 C. Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping: 2669 2670 1. Applicability: Landscaping along the perimeter of the parking lot shall be provided 2671 when the parking lot is located: 2672 2673 a. Within a required yard (where permitted in Sections 21A.44.060 or 21A.36.020) 2674 b. Within 20 feet of a lot line; or 2675 c. Abutting a principal building. 2676 2677 2. Where both landscape buffers and perimeter parking lot landscaping are required, the 2678 more restrictive shall apply. 2679 3. Where a surface parking lot is adjacent to another surface parking lot, on the same or 2680 separate parcels or lots, the perimeter parking lot landscaping provision may be 2681 waived by the zoning administrator if the required number trees are located elsewhere 2682 within the development. 2683 4. Size: 2684 2685 a. In a required yard or within 20 feet of a property line: 10 feet in width, as 2686 measured from the back of the parking lot curb and extending into any parking 2687 space overhang area. 2688 b. Abutting a building on the same property: A minimum 5-foot-wide required 2689 landscaping and 3-foot walkway shall be required to buffer buildings from 2690 parking spaces. 2691 2692 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. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2693 2694 2695 2696 2697 2698 D. Curbing: Concrete curbing shall be installed at the perimeter of internal landscape areas 2699 and perimeter parking where parking lots vehicular access aisles or stalls directly abuts 2700 required landscaping. Biodetention areas are exempt from curbing requirements, however 2701 a vehicle stop is required when biodetention areas directly abut parking stalls. 2702 E. Biodetention in Parking Lot Interior and Perimeter Landscaping Areas: Retention of the 2703 80th percentile storm is required for all impervious surface parking lots with 50 or more 2704 parking spaces. Where this is not feasible, as defined in the SLCDPUs Standard Practices 2705 Manual, an approved Stormwater Best Management Practices (Stormwater BMPs) is 2706 required. All proposed Stormwater BMPs are subject to Public Utilities Division review, 2707 approval, and inspection. 2708 F. Stormwater BMP Approval Required: A SLC Approved Stormwater Best Management 2709 Practice (Stormwater BMP) for all hard surfaced parking lots is required prior to 2710 discharge to the public storm drain and gutter, as required in Subsection 21A.44.060.A.2: 2711 2712 1. All Stormwater BMPs are subject to Public Utilities Division review, approval, and 2713 inspection. 2714 2. Plantings within BMPs are to be drought tolerant, salt tolerant, winter hardy, and able 2715 to be submerged. 2716 21A.48.080. GENERAL STANDARDS LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2717 All required landscape plans shall be prepared based on the following standards. All 2718 landscape improvements in the required landscape locations, as described in Sections 2719 21A.48.060 and 21A.48.070 shall meet the regulations described in this section. 2720 2721 A. Installation: All landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the current planting 2722 procedures established by the American Association of Nurserymen. The installation of 2723 all plants required by this chapter may be delayed until the next optimal planting season, 2724 as determined by the zoning administrator. 2725 2726 1. At the time of planting: 2727 2728 a. Deciduous Trees: All deciduous trees shall have a minimum trunk size of 1.5 2729 inches in caliper. 2730 b. Evergreen Trees: All evergreen trees shall have a minimum size of 5 feet in 2731 height. 2732 c. Shrubs: All shrubs shall have a minimum height or spread of 10 inches depending 2733 on the plant’s natural growth habit, unless otherwise specified. Plants in 2-gallon 2734 containers will generally comply with this standard. 2735 2736 B. General Landscaping Standards: 2737 2738 1. Drought Tolerant or Native Species: 100% of required shrubs, perennial plants, and 2739 groundcover used on a site shall be drought tolerant, adaptive or native species. The 2740 city has compiled a list titled “Salt Lake City Plant List & Hydrozone Schedule”, 2741 established and maintained by Public Utilities, shall be used to satisfy this 2742 requirement. Other plants that are not on the list but are considered drought tolerant, 2743 adaptive or native and require similar watering needs may also be used. 2744 2. Turf: Turf is not permitted: 2745 2746 a. In the park strip. 2747 b. In parking lot perimeter and interior landscaping areas. 2748 c. In areas that are less than 8 feet in any dimension at the narrowest point. 2749 d. In areas with a slope greater than 25% (4 feet horizontal: 1 foot vertical). 2750 e. In required landscape buffer areas. 2751 2752 3. Mulch: Mulch shall be: 2753 2754 a. At least 3 inches in depth, 2755 b. Used in areas that are not covered with landscaping. 2756 c. Permeable to air and water. 2757 d. Permanent fiber barriers, plastic sheeting, or other impervious barriers are 2758 prohibited as an underlayment. 2759 e. Crushed rubber is prohibited. 2760 f. Rock used as a mulch material is limited to 20% of an area where landscaping is 2761 required by this chapter. 50% of the overall mulch used, the other 50% shall be 2762 an organic mulch material. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2763 2764 4. Artificial turf is prohibited in any location where landscaping is regulated by this 2765 chapter. 2766 5. Berming is prohibited in parking lot and park strip landscaping unless required in 2767 specific district regulations. 2768 2769 C. Specific Park Strip Standards: In addition to General Landscape Standards these 2770 provisions shall apply to park strips. 2771 2772 1. Street Trees: 2773 2774 a. Substitutions. The Urban Forester may approve a substitute of the required street 2775 tree provision for a cash in lieu payment if the number of required trees cannot be 2776 met due to conflicts related to public utilities or right-of-way regulations. A cash 2777 in lieu payment, in the amount of cost to purchase and plant the required number 2778 of street trees, shall be contributed to the city’s Tree Fund; 2779 2780 b. Tree Grates: If new street trees are proposed in a location where the area 2781 surrounding the tree will have an impervious surface, tree wells with grates shall 2782 be provided with adequate dimensions and sufficient soil volume to accommodate 2783 the proposed tree species, subject to review by the Urban Forestry Division. 2784 2785 c. Tree Root Protection: Rock or gravel shall maintain a 2-foot separation from the 2786 trunk of a street tree. 2787 2788 2. Vegetation with Thorned, Spined, or Other Sharp Rigid Parts: Vegetation with thorns, 2789 spines, or other sharp, rigid parts hazardous to pedestrians and bicyclists, and difficult 2790 to walk across are prohibited within 3 feet of a curb, sidewalk, walkway, or driveway. 2791 2792 3. Storm Drain Protection: 2793 2794 a. Rock or gravel shall be set at or below top back of curb or abutting sidewalk 2795 grade. 2796 b. Rock or gravel shall have 1 inch or greater diameter. Grades abutting public 2797 streets exceeding 4%, as indicated by Public Utilities Division’s “4% Grade 2798 Streets Map”, shall have rock or gravel 3 inch or greater diameter. 2799 2800 4. Pathways: Impervious surface pathways provided between the curb and sidewalk, are 2801 permitted subject to the following: 2802 2803 a. Shall not be more than 5 feet in width and shall be located to provide the most 2804 direct route from curb to sidewalk. 2805 b. A maximum of 1 pathway per 20 linear feet of park strip is permitted. 2806 c. The pathway area shall be included in impervious surface percentage calculation. 2807 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2808 5. Stormwater Curb Controls: Integration of LID (Low Impact Development) practices 2809 are encouraged in park strip areas. Stormwater curb cuts are permitted to allow 2810 stormwater to enter the landscaped area subject to the following provisions: 2811 2812 a. The design and construction of the stormwater curb cut shall comply with the 2813 SLCDPU Standards Practices Manual. 2814 b. All stormwater curb controls are subject to Public Utilities Division review and 2815 approval. 2816 2817 6. Encroachments in the Right-of-Way: Structural encroachments are only permitted 2818 when specifically approved by city divisions and applicable decision-making bodies 2819 (or their designee) and may require an encroachment permit. 2820 2821 a. All encroachments are subject to the following standards, unless specifically 2822 allowed elsewhere in this title: 2823 2824 (1) Any raised structure shall be setback from the curb a minimum of 24 inches, 2825 (2) There are no other practical locations for the structure on the private property, 2826 and 2827 (3) The proposed structures will serve the general public and are part of general 2828 public need, or the proposed structures are necessary for the functional use of 2829 the property. 2830 2831 b. Bus Stops and Bike Share Stations: Concrete pads for bus stop benches and/or 2832 shelters and bike share stations may be permitted with zoning administrator 2833 approval. Impervious surface limitations may be modified upon review. 2834 c. Outdoor Dining: Park strip materials and structural standards may be modified by 2835 the Zoning Administrator when outdoor dining is approved pursuant to 2836 Section 21A.40.065 of this title. 2837 d. Bike Paths: Bike paths that are separated from the travel lanes with cars are 2838 permitted in any existing park strip. Any space between the bike path and the 2839 sidewalk and/or curb of the travel lanes are subject to the requirements of this 2840 section. 2841 21A.48.090: PRIVATE LANDS TREE PRESERVATION: 2842 A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of these tree preservation provisions is to recognize and 2843 protect the valuable asset embodied in the trees that exist on private lands within the city 2844 and ensure that the existing trees of Salt Lake City continue to provide benefit to its 2845 citizens. Essential to effective tree preservation is the understanding of tree growth 2846 requirements having to do with space, water, and soil quality needs, among other 2847 qualities. Good, early planning, site design, and construction management practices are 2848 key to allowing trees to prosper. Preconstruction planning and mitigation of potential 2849 impacts that development may have on trees is necessary and one of the purposes of this 2850 section. Numerous community and personal benefits arise from the presence of trees in 2851 urbanized areas - both on residential and nonresidential lands - and it is the intent of this 2852 section through the preservation of the trees to: LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2853 2854 1. Enhance the quality of life in the city and protect public health and safety; 2855 2. Preserve and enhance the visual and aesthetic qualities of the city; 2856 3. Enhance public and private property for greater enjoyment and usability due to the 2857 shade, cooling, and the aesthetic beauty afforded by trees; 2858 4. Protect and improve the real estate values of the city; 2859 5. Preserve and enhance air and water quality; 2860 6. Reduce noise, glare, dust, and heat, and moderate climate, including urban heat island 2861 effect; 2862 7. Increase slope stability, and control erosion and sediment runoff into streams and 2863 waterways; 2864 8. Protect the natural habitat and ecosystems of the city; 2865 9. Conserve energy by reducing heating and cooling costs; and 2866 10. Preserve the function of mature trees to absorb greenhouse gases such as carbon 2867 dioxide. 2868 2869 B. Applicability: 2870 2871 1. General: The standards in this section shall apply to new development in the city 2872 unless exempted in accordance with Subsection C, “Exemptions”, of this section. The 2873 standards in this section shall apply at the time of a development application for 2874 “development” as defined in the zoning ordinance. 2875 2. Other Regulations: Title 2, Chapter 2.26 of this code, the Salt Lake City urban 2876 forestry ordinance, addressing the protection of trees located on public property 2877 owned by the city and in rights of way, shall remain in effect. 2878 3. Specimen Trees: The city forester shall maintain a list of trees or tree types that are 2879 deemed to be specimen trees subject to Subsection E, “Standards”, of this section. 2880 2881 C. Exemptions: The following specimen tree removal activities may be exempt from the 2882 standards of this section upon confirmation and approval by the city forester: 2883 2884 1. The removal of dead, damaged, or naturally fallen trees, or in cases of community 2885 emergency; 2886 2. When in conjunction with the construction of a single- or two- family residence not 2887 part of a proposed new subdivision; 2888 3. The removal of trees on an existing legal lot when not associated with new 2889 development; 2890 4. The removal of trees in such a condition that they pose a threat to structures or natural 2891 features on the site, on adjoining properties, or in the public right of way; 2892 5. The removal of diseased trees posing a threat to adjacent trees; 2893 6. The selective and limited removal of trees necessary to obtain clear visibility at 2894 driveways or intersections; 2895 7. The removal of trees associated with development at the Salt Lake City International 2896 Airport only as necessary to provide safe operations; 2897 8. The removal of trees when requested by the city forester for the purposes of conflict 2898 with utilities or streets; and LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2899 9. The removal of trees deemed appropriate by the city forester, based on tree species, 2900 site conditions, or other variables. 2901 2902 D. Standards: 2903 1. Preservation of Specimen Trees: Specimen trees shall be preserved to the maximum 2904 extent practicable as determined by the city forester, in consultation with the zoning 2905 administrator, unless exempted pursuant to Subsection C, “Exemptions”, of this 2906 section. 2907 2908 a. In determining if preservation is impracticable, the city shall consider the 2909 following criteria, including, but not limited to: 2910 2911 (1) Whether an alternative location or configuration of the development including 2912 elements such as parking or structures on the site would be feasible to 2913 accomplish tree preservation, without negatively impacting adjacent 2914 properties, 2915 (2) Whether preservation of the specimen tree would render all permitted 2916 development on the property infeasible, or 2917 (3) If development of the property will provide significant community benefits 2918 that outweigh tree preservation. 2919 2920 b. The zoning administrator may modify any dimensional standard, such as setbacks 2921 and height limits, by up to 20% if such modification will result in preservation of 2922 a specimen tree. 2923 2924 2. Cutting, Removal, or Damage Prohibited: Specimen trees, required to be preserved, 2925 shall not be cut, removed, pushed over, killed, or otherwise damaged. 2926 3. Paving, Fill, Excavation, or Soil Compaction Prohibited: The tree protection zone of 2927 any protected specimen tree shall not be subjected to paving, filling, excavation, or 2928 soil compaction. 2929 4. Mitigation: Where the city determines it is not practicable to preserve a specimen tree 2930 on the development site, the following mitigation provisions shall apply. 2931 2932 a. Replacement Tree Required: 2 caliper inches of replacement trees shall be 2933 provided for each dbh of specimen tree removed (for example, if a 24 inch dbh 2934 specimen tree is removed, it must be replaced with at least 24 trees of a minimum 2935 2 inch caliper or 8 trees with a 6 inch caliper). Each replacement tree shall be a 2936 minimum of 2 inches in caliper, and shall either be replanted prior to certificate of 2937 occupancy or within a conditional time frame as approved by the city forester. 2938 Consult the “Salt Lake City Plant List and Hydrozone Schedule” for 2939 recommendations on tree selection. 2940 Replacement trees shall be planted on the lot or site where the specimen tree was 2941 removed except where the city forester, in consultation with the zoning 2942 administrator, finds the following: 2943 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2944 (1) The site does not provide for adequate landscape surface area to accommodate 2945 the total number of replacement trees; or 2946 (2) That due to unique soil types, topography, or unusual characteristics of the 2947 site, the likelihood of successful tree growth is diminished. 2948 In such cases, the applicant shall mitigate for the loss of the specimen tree in 2949 the form of payment to the city’s tree fund as provided below. 2950 2951 b. Cash in Lieu Payment/Tree Fund Contribution: Applicants who are permitted to 2952 remove a specimen tree but not plant a replacement tree on site shall make a cash 2953 in lieu payment, in the amount of the cost to purchase and plant the required 2954 number of replacement trees, into the city’s tree fund. 2955 E. Specimen Tree Protection During Construction: 2956 2957 1. Owner’s Responsibility: During construction, the owner of the property shall be 2958 responsible for the ongoing health of specimen trees located on the site. This includes 2959 basic tree maintenance and watering throughout the term of construction. The owner 2960 shall also ensure the erection of barriers necessary to protect any specimen tree from 2961 damage during and after construction. 2962 2. Tree Protection Zone Fencing: Tree protection fencing shall be erected to protect all 2963 preserved trees from excavation, fill, compaction, or other impacts that would 2964 threaten tree health. Specimen trees shall be fenced in accordance with this subsection 2965 before any grading, excavating, or other land disturbing activity begins on a 2966 construction site. No construction, grading, equipment or material storage, or any 2967 other activity shall be allowed within the tree protection zone, as delineated by the 2968 required tree protection fencing, except in accordance with the standards in 2969 Subsection F.3, “Encroachments Into Tree Protection Zones and Root Zones”, of this 2970 section. Fencing shall be maintained until the land disturbance activities are complete, 2971 and shall not be removed or altered without first obtaining written consent from the 2972 city forester. 2973 The tree protection fencing shall be clearly shown on the required development 2974 applications such as a site plan, building permit, or grading permit application. 2975 a. Location: Fencing shall extend at least 1 foot in distance from the edge of the drip 2976 line of a specimen tree or group of specimen trees or as directed by the city 2977 forester to best protect a specimen tree’s critical root zone and still allow 2978 construction access. 2979 b. Type of Fencing: The developer shall erect a chainlink fence, a minimum of 4 feet 2980 in height, secured to metal posts driven into the ground. Such fencing shall be 2981 secured to withstand construction activity and weather on the site and shall be 2982 maintained in a functional condition for the duration of work on the property. This 2983 is not considered permanent fencing subject to Section 21A.40.120, “Regulation 2984 of Fences, Walls and Hedges”, of this title. 2985 c. Timing: All required tree protection measures shall be installed, inspected and 2986 approved by the city forester prior to the commencement of any land disturbing 2987 activities. 2988 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2989 4. Encroachments Into Tree Protection Zones and Root Zones: Encroachments into a 2990 tree protection zone or within the critical root zones of trees protected in accordance 2991 with this subsection shall occur only in rare instances, and only upon obtaining 2992 written authorization from the city forester. If such encroachment is anticipated, tree 2993 preservation measures including, but not limited to, the following may be required: 2994 2995 a. Tree Crown and/or Root Pruning: The pruning, or cutting, of specimen tree 2996 branches or roots shall only be done under the supervision of an ISA certified 2997 arborist, and only upon approval of the city forester. 2998 b. Soil Compaction Impact Mitigation: Where compaction might occur due to 2999 planned, temporary traffic through or materials placed within the protection zone, 3000 the area shall first be mulched with a minimum 4 inch layer of woodchips or a 6 3001 inch layer of pine straw. Plywood sheet or metal plate coverage of the impacted 3002 area may be accepted by the city forester when high moisture conditions warrant. 3003 Equipment or materials storage shall not be allowed within the tree protection 3004 zone. 3005 c. Grade Change Impact Mitigation: In the event proposed site development requires 3006 soil elevation changes tree protection measures designed to mitigate harm to the 3007 tree(s) shall be coordinated with the city forester and the zoning administrator. 3008 d. Construction Debris/Effluent Strictly Prohibited: In no instance shall any debris or 3009 effluent, associated with the construction process, including equipment or vehicle 3010 washing, concrete mixing, pouring, or rinsing processes, be permitted to drain 3011 onto lands within tree protection zones, as delineated by the chainlink tree 3012 protection fencing. 3013 3014 F. Enforcement: These tree preservation provisions shall be subject to the zoning and 3015 development enforcement codes as adopted by the city. 3016 3017 21A.48.100: APPEAL: 3018 Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the zoning administrator on a 3019 landscaping or buffer requirement may appeal to the appeals hearing officer in accordance 3020 with the provisions of Chapter 21A.16 of this title. 3021 3022 SECTION 28. Amending the Text of Section 21A.60.020. That Section 21A.60.020 of 3023 the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: List of Defined Terms), shall be and hereby is 3024 amended to as follows: 3025 a. Section 21A.60.020 shall be and hereby is amended to add the following terms in the list of 3026 defined terms to be inserted into that list in alphabetical order and shall read as follows: 3027 Artificial turf. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 3028 3029 Impervious surface. 3030 3031 Low impact development (LID). 3032 3033 Shade tree. 3034 3035 Stormwater curb cut. 3036 3037 3038 b. Section 21A.60.020 shall be and hereby is amended to amend the following terms in the list of 3039 defined terms, which shall remain in that list in alphabetical order and shall read as follows: 3040 Caliper. See subsection Chapter 21A.48.135D of this title. 3041 3042 dbh. See subsection Chapter 21A.48.135D of this title. 3043 3044 Diameter at breast height. See subsection Chapter 21A.48.135D of this title. 3045 3046 Specimen tree. See subsection Chapter 21A.48.135D of this title. 3047 3048 Tree protection fencing. See subsection Chapter 21A.48.135D of this title. 3049 3050 Tree protection zone. See subsection Chapter 21A.48.135D of this title. 3051 3052 3053 c. Section 21A.60.020 shall be and hereby is amended to delete the following terms in the list 3054 of defined terms: 3055 BMP 3056 3057 Best Management Practice (BMP) 3058 3059 ET or ETo. 3060 3061 ETAF. 3062 3063 Ecological restoration project 3064 3065 Evapotranspiration (ET) rate. 3066 3067 Evergreen. 3068 3069 Landscape BMPs manual. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 3070 3071 Maximum extent practicable. See subsection 21A.48.135D of this title. 3072 3073 Overspray. 3074 3075 Perennial. 3076 3077 Tier 2 water target. 3078 3079 Treasured landscape. 3080 3081 Water budget. 3082 3083 3084 SECTION 29. Amending the Text of Section 21A.62.040. That Section 21A.62.040 of 3085 the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Definitions: Definitions of Terms), shall be and hereby is 3086 amended as follows: 3087 a. Amending the definition of “GROUND COVER.” That the definition of “GROUND 3088 COVER” shall be amended to read as follows: 3089 GROUND COVER: Any perennial evergreen plant material species that generally does not 3090 exceed twelve inches (12 inches”) in height, stabilizes soils and protects against erosion, and 3091 covers one hundred percent (100%) of the ground all year. 3092 3093 3094 b. Amending the definition of “LANDSCAPE AREA.” That the definition of “LANDSCAPE 3095 AREA” shall be amended to read as follows: 3096 LANDSCAPE AREA: That portion of a lot devoted exclusively to required landscaping, 3097 except that streets, drives and sidewalks may be located within such an area to provide 3098 reasonable access. 3099 3100 3101 c. Amending the definition of “LANDSCAPING.” That the definition of “LANDSCAPING” 3102 shall be amended to read as follows: 3103 LANDSCAPING: The improvement of a lot, parcel or tract of land with vegetation such as 3104 ornamental grass, shrubs and trees. Landscaping may include pedestrian walks, flowerbeds, 3105 ornamental objects such as fountains, statuary, and other similar natural and artificial objects 3106 designed and arranged to produce an aesthetically pleasing effect. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 3107 3108 3109 d. Amending the definition of “MULCH.” That the definition of “MULCH” shall be amended 3110 to read as follows: 3111 MULCH: Any material such as rock, bark, compost, wood chips or other materials left loose 3112 and applied to the soil, for the purposes of suppressing weeds, moderating soil temperature, 3113 and preventing soil erosion. 3114 3115 3116 e. Amending the definition of “PARK STRIP LANDSCAPING.” That the definition of “PARK 3117 STRIP LANDSCAPING” shall be amended to read as follows: 3118 PARK STRIP LANDSCAPING: The improvement of property within the street right-of-way 3119 situated between the back of curb and the sidewalk or, if there is no sidewalk, the back of 3120 curb and the right-of-way line, through the addition of plants and other organic and inorganic 3121 materials harmoniously combined to produce an effect appropriate for adjacent uses and 3122 compatible with the neighborhood. Park strip landscaping includes trees and may also 3123 include a combination of lawn, other perennial ground cover, flowering annuals and 3124 perennials, specimen shrubs, and inorganic material. 3125 3126 3127 f. Amending the definition of “PARKING LOT.” That the definition of “PARKING LOT” 3128 shall be amended to read as follows: 3129 PARKING LOT: An area on the surface of the land used for the parking and circulation of 3130 more than four (4) automobiles. Areas designated for the display of new and used 3131 vehicles for sale are not included in this definition. 3132 3133 3134 g. Amending the definition of “TURF.” That the definition of “TURF” shall be amended to 3135 read as follows: 3136 TURF: Grasses planted as a ground cover that may be mowed and maintained to be used as a 3137 lawn area of landscaping. Does not include decorative grasses, grasses that are adaptive or 3138 native to the local environment or grasses that do not generally require supplemental water, 3139 or inorganic substitutes commonly referred to as artificial turf. 3140 3141 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 3142 h. Adding the definition of “ARTIFICIAL TURF.” That the definition of “ARTIFICIAL 3143 TURF” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order to read as 3144 follows: 3145 ARTIFICIAL TURF: A synthetically derived, grass substitute that simulates the appearance 3146 of natural live grass. 3147 3148 3149 i. Adding the definition of “CALIPER.” That the definition of “CALIPER” be added and 3150 inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order to read as follows: 3151 CALIPER: The dimension of the diameter of a tree trunk measured at a distance of 6 inches 3152 from the soil line. 3153 3154 3155 j. Adding the definition of “DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (dbh).” That the definition of 3156 “DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (dbh)” be added and inserted into the list of definitions 3157 in alphabetical order to read as follows: 3158 DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (dbh): The dimension of the diameter of a tree trunk 3159 measured at a distance of 4 feet 6 inches from the ground. 3160 3161 3162 k. Adding the definition of “IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.” That the definition of 3163 “IMPERVIOUS SURFACE” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical 3164 order to read as follows: 3165 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: Any material that substantially reduces or prevents the 3166 infiltration of stormwater directly into the ground, including: asphalt, concrete, pavers, and 3167 brick. 3168 3169 3170 l. Adding the definition of “LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID).” That the definition of 3171 “LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID)” be added and inserted into the list of definitions 3172 in alphabetical order to read as follows: LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 3173 LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID): Systems or practices that use or mimic natural 3174 processes that result in the infiltration, evapotranspiration, and/or use of stormwater to 3175 protect water quality and aquatic habitat. 3176 3177 3178 m. Adding the definition of “SHADE TREE.” That the definition of “SHADE TREE” be added 3179 and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order to read as follows: 3180 SHADE TREE: Any tree that has a mature minimum tree canopy of 30 feet and a mature 3181 height that is 40 feet or greater. 3182 3183 3184 n. Adding the definition of “SPECIMEN TREE.” That the definition of “SPECIMEN TREE” 3185 be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order to read as follows: 3186 SPECIMEN TREE: A structurally sound and healthy tree or grouping of trees, having an 3187 individual or combined dbh measuring greater than 10 inches; whose future vitality can be 3188 reasonably expected and maintained with proper protection and regularly scheduled care; and 3189 whose absence from the landscape would significantly alter the site’s appearance, 3190 environmental benefit, character or history. 3191 3192 3193 o. Adding the definition of “STORMWATER CURB CUT.” That the definition of 3194 “STORMWATER CURB CUT” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in 3195 alphabetical order to read as follows: 3196 STORMWATER CURB CUT: Openings created in the curb to allow storm water from an 3197 adjacent impervious surface to flow into a depressed planting area. 3198 3199 3200 p. Adding the definition of “TREE PROTECTION FENCING.” That the definition of “TREE 3201 PROTECTION FENCING” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical 3202 order to read as follows: 3203 TREE PROTECTION FENCING: The fencing required to be installed, and maintained 3204 during construction activities, to delineate required tree protection zones. 3205 3206 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 3207 q. Adding the definition of “TREE PROTECTION ZONE.” That the definition of “TREE 3208 PROTECTION ZONE” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order 3209 to read as follows: 3210 TREE PROTECTION ZONE: The area of a development site that includes the area located 3211 within the drip line of specimen trees and also includes the area that supports tree health 3212 requirements and interactions as determined by the city forester. 3213 3214 3215 r. Deleting definitions. That the following definitions are hereby deleted from the definitions 3216 of terms: 3217 BMP 3218 3219 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE (BMP) (Applies Only To Chapter 21A.48 Of This 3220 Title) 3221 3222 ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION PROJECT 3223 3224 ET OR ETo 3225 3226 ETAF 3227 3228 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION (ET) RATE 3229 3230 EVERGREEN 3231 3232 LANDSCAPE BMPs MANUAL 3233 3234 OVERSPRAY 3235 3236 PERENNIAL 3237 3238 TIER 2 WATER TARGET 3239 3240 TREASURED LANDSCAPE 3241 3242 WATER BUDGET 3243 3244 3245 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 3246 SECTION 30. Amending the Text of Section 21A.62.050. That Section 21A.62.050 of 3247 the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Definitions: Illustrations of Selected Definitions), shall be and 3248 hereby is amended to read and appear as follows: 3249 21A.62.050: ILLUSTRATIONS OF SELECTED DEFINITIONS: 3250 The definitions listed below are illustrated on the following pages: 3251 A. Building Height Iin Foothills Districts, R-1 Districts, R-2 District Aand SR Districts. 3252 B. Building Height (Outside Foothills Districts, R-1 Districts, R-2 District Aand SR 3253 Districts). 3254 C. Flag Lot. 3255 D. Landscape Area. (RESERVED). 3256 E. Lattice Tower. 3257 F. Monopole With Antennas Aand Antenna Support Structures Greater Than Two Feet Iin 3258 Width. 3259 G. Monopole With Antennas Aand Antenna Support Structures Less Than Two Feet Iin 3260 Width. 3261 H. Roof Mounted Antennas. 3262 I. Sight Distance Triangle. 3263 J. Wall Mounted Antennas. 3264 K. Dormer. 3265 3266 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 3267 ILLUSTRATION A 3268 BUILDING HEIGHT IN FOOTHILLS DISTRICTS, R-1 3269 DISTRICTS, R-2 DISTRICT AND SR DISTRICTS 3270 Finished Grade: 3271 The final grade of a site after reconfiguring grades according to an approved site plan related 3272 to the most recent building permit activity on a site. 3273 Established Grade: 3274 The grade of a property prior to the most recent proposed development or construction 3275 activity. On developed lots, the zoning administrator shall estimate established grade if not 3276 readily apparent, by referencing elevations at points where the developed area appears to 3277 meet the undeveloped portions of the land. The estimated grade shall tie into the elevation 3278 and slopes of adjoining properties without creating a need for new retaining wall, abrupt 3279 differences in the visual slope and elevation of the land, or redirecting the flow of runoff 3280 water. 3281 3282 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 3283 ILLUSTRATION B 3284 BUILDING HEIGHT (OUTSIDE FOOTHILLS DISTRICTS, R-1 3285 DISTRICTS, R-2 DISTRICT AND SR DISTRICTS) 3286 3287 3288 3289 3290 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 3291 ILLUSTRATION C 3292 FLAG LOT 3293 3294 3295 3296 3297 3298 3299 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 3300 ILLUSTRATION D 3301 LANDSCAPE AREA 3302 (RESERVED) 3303 3304 3305 3306 3307 3308 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 3309 ILLUSTRATION E 3310 LATTICE TOWER 3311 3312 3313 3314 3315 3316 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 3317 ILLUSTRATION F 3318 MONOPOLE WITH ANTENNAS AND ANTENNA SUPPORT 3319 STRUCTURES GREATER THAN TWO FEET IN WIDTH 3320 3321 3322 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 3323 ILLUSTRATION G 3324 MONOPOLE WITH ANTENNAS AND ANTENNA SUPPORT 3325 STRUCTURES LESS THAN TWO FEET IN WIDTH 3326 3327 3328 3329 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 3330 ILLUSTRATION H 3331 ROOF MOUNTED ANTENNAS 3332 3333 3334 3335 3336 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 3337 ILLUSTRATION I 3338 SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE 3339 3340 3341 3342 3343 3344 3345 3346 3347 3348 3349 3350 3351 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 3352 ILLUSTRATION J 3353 WALL MOUNTED ANTENNAS 3354 3355 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 3356 ILLUSTRATION K 3357 DORMER 3358 3359 3360 SECTION 31. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective four months from 3361 the date of its adoption; however, a land use applicant wishing to have the provisions of this 3362 Ordinance apply to a land use application sooner may elect to have the provisions herein apply 3363 following its first publication. 3364 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 3365 202_. 3366 ______________________________ 3367 CHAIRPERSON 3368 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 3369 3370 ______________________________ 3371 CITY RECORDER LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 3372 3373 3374 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 3375 3376 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 3377 3378 ______________________________ 3379 MAYOR 3380 ______________________________ 3381 CITY RECORDER 3382 (SEAL) 3383 3384 Bill No. ________ of 202_. 3385 Published: ______________. 3386 Ordinance Amending Landscaping Regulations (legislative) 10-30-23 3387 3388 ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: _________________ ________________________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 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 11/27/2023 -# '*//*җ уѶ20231фѷ3уҘ 12/0у/2023 12/0у/2023 2 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. 3 - 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: 4 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. 5 - 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. 6 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. 7 - 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. 8 - 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 9 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 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 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLC.GOV PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-535-7757 FAX 801-535-6174 PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Erin Mendenhall Cc: Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer; Blake Thomas, Department of Community and Neighborhoods Director; Michaela Oktay, Deputy Planning Director From: Nick Norris, Planning Director Date: January 27, 2023 Re: Initiate Petition to Amend Text 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 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:Larsen, Nannette; Planning Public Comments Cc:Wharton, Chris; City Council Liaisons; slcgreen; Subject:(EXTERNAL) Public Comment on Petition PLNPCM2023-00098 - 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates Date:Tuesday, April 25, 2023 12:51:52 PM Attachments: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 photo Chelsea Benjamin Water Policy Fellow | WesternResourceAdvocates.org 2260 Baseline Road, Suite 200 | Boulder, CO 80302 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 Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From: To:Larsen Nannette Cc:Planning Public Comments; City Council Liaisons; Gliot Tony; Subject:(EXTERNAL) Second Public Comment on 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Updates Date:Thursday, July 20, 2023 4:57:24 PM Attachments: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 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. Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. 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 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: Email: Alejandro Sanchez (Dec 4, 2023 13:15 MST) alejandro.sanchez@slcgov.com 11152023 Transmittal FINAL Final Audit Report 2023-12-04 Created:2023-11-27 By:Aubrey Clark (aubrey.clark@slcgov.com) Status:Signed Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAA0PzvbpGjNz77WUcjaXmTX2mPGTprNRHF "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 Agreement completed. 2023-12-04 - 10:34:11 PM GMT Greater Salt Lake Area Clean Energy and Air Roadmap (SL-CLEAR) Priority Climate Action Plan “PCAP” “SL-CLEAR” Due March 1, 2024 Comprehensive Climate Action Plan (“CCAP”) Status Report EPA CPRG: Key Deliverables Due August 2027Due August 2025 Implementation Grant Proposals Due April 1, 2024 Priority Climate Action Plan Near-Term High Priority Implementation-Ready Authority to Implement or Pathway Enables local governments and other eligible organizations across the Salt Lake MSA to apply for implementation grants GHG Inventory Required PCAP Elements Quantified Measures LIDAC Benefit Analysis Authority to Implement Milestones + Activities March-April 2023 Interagency coordination May 31, 2023 SLC Submits Application August 3, 2023 EPA Sends SLC Award Notice October 3, 2023 SLC Council Approves Grant October –Present Partner Agreements, Consulting RFP’s & Contracts Staff Hired 8 Jurisdictional and Stakeholder Meetings Resident Environmental Justice Committee Established Public Survey Begin coalescing on Implementation grant application (due April 1) March 1, 2024 PCAP submitted to EPA PCAP | SL-CLEAR Roadmap Buildings PCAP Priority Sectors Electricity Natural Lands Transportation •Commercial •Home •Electrification •Efficiency •Solar •Residential •Commercial •Utah Renewable Communities •Urban Forestry (Carbon Sequestration) •EV Adoption •SLC Fleet •Mode shift Wastewater •Biodigester retrofit Next Steps Feedback from Council March 1: Finalize PCAP/SL-CLEAR –Quantification, Narrative April 1: Submit Implementation Grant(s) Climate Pollution Reduction Grant Thank You Priority Climate Action Plan (PCAP) for SL-CLEAR See below for measures submitted from jurisdictions, environmental stakeholders, and SLC Corp departments as part of the SL-CLEAR PCAP process. These are planned to be included in the PCAP (as of Feb. 16, 2024). The PCAP is due March 1, 2024. Note: Items marked in blue may be submitted by PCAP partners as potential CPRG Implementation grants, due April 1, 2024. Buildings Residential Efficiency Electrification • retrofit incentives and programs o simple efficiency measures package o pre-weatherization o weatherization o tariffed on-bill financing o one-stop-shop retrofit support for households and contractors • new construction incentives and programs o voluntary stretch code and incentives o HVAC heat pumps o heat pump water heaters o Salt Lake County Housing Trust all-electric new construction • retrofit incentives and programs o Induction cooking o residential electric induction cooking Commercial, Government, Universities, Schools Efficiency Electrification • retrofit incentives and programs o simple efficiency measures package o building performance standards o pre-weatherization o weatherization o recommissioning o LED lighting o large commercial and industrial assessments o Climate Innovation Solutions – University Center of Excellence • retrofit incentives and programs o HVAC heat pumps o heat pump water heaters o voluntary stretch code and incentives o retrofit solutions accelerator Transportation Driving Reduction Electric Vehicles (EVs) • active transportation / infrastructure o bicycling facilities and incentives o e-bike incentives and programs o bike sharing incentives, facilities, and equipment o mobility hubs o complete streets o enhanced transportation GHG planning • mode shifting o micromobility o vanpool programs o ridesharing o car sharing • transit • residential EV charging incentive o charging stations o EV purchase incentives • commercial, government, universities, schools EV charging incentives o charging stations o EV purchase incentives o electric bus fleet • commercial, government, universities, schools fleet electrification accelerator • SLC municipal fleet electrification o Charging stations and grid readiness o Vehicle purchase incentives: light, medium, and heavy-duty o bus rapid transit lanes o transit facilities o free or subsidized transit Electricity Distributed Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Utility-scale • residential solar PV • residential energy storage • commercial, government, universities, and school solar PV • commercial, government, universities, and school energy storage • Utah Renewable Communities program Other Natural and Working Lands Wastewater • trees and urban forests • biodigester retrofit Comprehensive Climate Action Plan SLC recommends deferring these ideas that were submitted to the PCAP to the CCAP, which is due August 2025. These ideas are more complex to model and/or need further input. • Low-carbon construction materials • Building professional workforce and solutions accelerator • Forestry workforce and contractor training and engagement • Workforce training programs • Commercial, government, universities, and schools building retrofit accelerator programs • Large commercial and industrial buildings facility assessments • Hydrogen-fueled vehicles Item B5 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY tinyurl.com/SLCFY24 TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke, Sylvia Richards, Allison Rowland, Jennifer Bruno, and Kira Luke DATE:February 20, 2024 RE: Budget Amendment Number Four of FY2024 MOTION 1 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING I move that the Council close the public hearing and refer the item to a future date for action. MOTION 2 – CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future date. MOTION 3 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT STRAW POLLED ITEMS I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt an ordinance amending the Fiscal Year 2024 final budget of Salt Lake City including the employment staffing document only for items as shown on the motion sheet and move to authorize release of the condition regarding the air quality incentives program expansion. Staff note: Council Members do not need to read the individual items being approved below; they are listed for reference. The budget amendment is still open, and the Council may consider the remaining items at a future date. A-1: Air Quality Incentives Program Expansion for Electric Bikes and Indoor Air Purification ($230,000 from Nondepartmental Holding Account to the Sustainability Department One-time and Satisfying Condition on the Funds) Staff note: The Council intends to discuss the air quality incentives program in the future. New contracts for the program should not assume ongoing funding including for the existing categories (gas-powered lawnmower exchange, e-bikes, and indoor air purification) A-7: Increase in Fleet Maintenance Capacity ($399,909 from General Fund Balance of which $91,809 is ongoing and $308,100 is one-time) A-9: Mobile Phone Data Extraction Software ($194,540 from the IMS Fund Balance ongoing) A-10 Versaterm Case Service Software Upgrade ($203,148 from the IMS Fund Balance one-time) MOTION 4 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND NOT ADOPT I move that the Council close the public hearing and proceed to the next agenda item. COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY tinyurl.com/SLCFY24 TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke, Sylvia Richards, Allison Rowland, Jennifer Bruno, Kira Luke DATE: February 20, 2024 RE: Budget Amendment Number 4 of Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 NEW INFORMATION At the February 13 briefing, the Council discussed and unanimously passed nonbinding straw polls for four items as listed below. The Council is scheduled to continue reviewing proposed items at the February 20 work session briefing. There is a new Council-added item I-2 which the Administration requested after the budget amendment was transmitted. The write-up for A-4 is updated based on new information from the Public Lands Department after the first briefing staff report was published. Four Straw Polls A-1: Air Quality Incentives Program Expansion for Electric Bikes and Indoor Air Purification ($230,000 from Nondepartmental Holding Account and Satisfying Condition on the Funds) - The Council’s straw poll was to approve these funds for FY2024 only as a one-time transfer to the Sustainability Department. The Council also signaled to the Administration that new contracts for the program should not assume ongoing funding for the existing incentive categories. Council Members expressed an interest to review the income-qualified amounts and percentages and continue the department role clarity discussion including how the air quality incentives program can follow that legislative policy guidance. - Council Member Wharton highlighted potential confusion for some residents if the City on one hand is issuing vouchers for non-pedal assisted electronic bikes while on the other hand prohibiting those bikes on certain trails and natural lands. He suggested this information and other rules be provided to program participants at the time of voucher issuance. A-7: Increase in Fleet Maintenance Capacity ($399,909 from General Fund Balance) - The Council’s straw poll was to support early advertising of the three new mechanic FTEs. The hiring of the positions would be after a vote formally approving the funding and updating the staffing document to authorize the positions. - Council Members expressed support for increasing maintenance capacity to avoid greater costs in the future. They also requested that the FY2025 budget reflect how to address the multiple challenges to keep the City’s vehicle fleet well maintained such as continuing supply chain uncertainty, staffing levels, and leasing vs purchasing vehicles. A-9: Mobile Phone Data Extraction Software ($194,540 from the IMS Fund Balance) - The Council’s straw poll is to support this item to avoid likely cost increases. Project Timeline: Set Date: February 6, 2024 1st Briefing: February 13, 2024 2nd Briefing & Public Hearing: February 20, 2024 3rd Briefing: March 5, 2024 Potential Action: March 5, and/or March 26, 2024 A-10: Versaterm Case Service Software Upgrade ($203,148 from the IMS Fund) - The Council’s straw poll is to support moving ahead with this item to avoid a yearlong delay if funding were unavailable until next fiscal year. - Council Members expressed support for increasing the public’s access and options to file public safety reports. This includes up to 30 languages for verbal communications and up to 60 for texting and form based communications. This is part of a larger streamlining process including an upcoming launch of mySLC later this year. The current mobile app contract is scheduled to end in November and be replaced with the new consolidated system. Updated Write-up Based on New Information from the Public Lands Department A-4: Liberty Park Greenhouse Stabilization and Entrance Gates ($31,250 from General Fund Balance for Ongoing Greenhouse Operations, $248,015 Reappropriation of Vacancy Savings One-time to CIP for Greenhouse Repairs, and $37,110 Reappropriation of Vacancy Savings One-time to CIP for Entrance Gates) There are three separate appropriations proposed in this item. Two are related to the greenhouses in the center of Liberty Park. A recently completed facility condition assessment concluded the greenhouses are significantly deteriorated and damaged. As a result, they are closed and not being used for operations. The original building was constructed in 1902 and multiple additions were added in later decades around the historic house in the center. The facilities are estimated to cover 11,000 square feet. $2 million is a high-level cost estimate to address the multiple issues identified in the assessment. The $37,110 one-time reappropriation of vacancy savings in the Public Lands Department would purchase several gates to control afterhours access to Liberty Park. The gates would be posted at the north and south entrances as well as east and west along the interior vehicle loop. The Historic Landmarks Commission would need to review and approve the gates. The $31,250 from General Fund Balance is partial year funding for ongoing greenhouse operations. These funds could be used for temporary operations such as to rent a mobile temporary office, rent underutilized greenhouse spaces at the University of Utah to continue the native plant program, and pay related utilities. The total annual cost that would need to be included in the FY2025 annual budget is estimated to be $62,500. The $248,015 one-time reappropriation of vacancy savings in the Public Lands Department would be used for urgent repairs to an east bay. The Department and Engineering Division completed a preliminary structural assessment with external architects. The cost estimate for urgent repairs to the east bay is $283,720. The $35,705 gap would be covered by the existing budget in the Public Lands Department. Further structural assessments will determine the extent of necessary repairs and refine cost estimates. A CIP request may be submitted to fund some or all the structural repairs and renovations. I-2: Placeholder for Housekeeping Move of CDBG Dormant Program Income (5,633,511 from the Housing Loan Fund to the Grants Fund) This includes three separate budgets the Council previously approved and were later approved by HUD as a substantial amendment to the City’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. They are $5.6 million for property acquisition, $250,000 for the small business façade improvement program within the targeted geographic area, and $250,000 for Westside sidewalks. The Administration stated that moving the funds would improve the City auditor’s ability to meet federal single audit compliance requirements. Currently the federal CDBG dollars are comingled with non- federal housing loans. This transfer is a housekeeping item that’s not legally required but is a best practice for government accounting. This also furthers the Council’s goal of enhancing oversight of federal grant programs with the new grants administrator FTE in the Finance Department that was approved in Budget Amendment #3  Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings  Budget Amendment Number Four includes 20 proposed amendments, $4,464,748 in revenues and $9,248,709 in expenditures of which $3,860,205 is from General Fund Balance and requesting changes to nine funds. Additionally, the transmittal indicates there is an increase of three FTE’s for the Fleet Fund in A-7 Increase Fleet Maintenance Capacity. Tracking New Ongoing General Fund Costs for the Next Annual Budget (See Attachment 1 at the end of this staff report) The chart of potential new ongoing General Fund costs for the FY2025 annual budget is available as Attachment 1 and included at the end of this document. If all the items are adopted as proposed by the Administration, then the FY2025 annual budget could have $2,253,085 of new ongoing costs. The total new ongoing costs from Budget Amendments 1 through 4 would be $7,452,172. It’s important to note that $3.1 million of that could be covered by the Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation State Grant assuming the Legislature continues to appropriate sufficient funds under the current formula and law. Fund Balance If all the items are adopted as proposed, then General Fund Balance would be projected at 31.73% which is $83,247,761 above the 13% minimum target of ongoing General Fund revenues. It’s important to note that while Fund Balance at this level is healthy the FY2025 annual budget (like the FY2024 annual budget) is anticipated to have a relatively large structural deficit necessitating use of one-time Fund Balance. The latest revenues update from Finance also shows that sales tax revenues are coming in about $3 million below budget. The Administration has requested straw polls for the following items: A-1: Air Quality Incentives Program Expansion for Electric Bikes and Indoor Air Purification ($230,000 from Nondepartmental Holding Account and Satisfying Condition on the Funds), A-7: Increase in Fleet Maintenance Capacity ($399,909 from General Fund Balance) A-9: Mobile Phone Data Extraction Software ($194,540 from the IMS Fund Balance) and A-10: Versaterm Case Service Software Upgrade ($203,148 from the IMS Fund) CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 The Administration indicates that revenues are trending below the initial budget projections. At this time, Finance staff are projecting revenues to remaining consistent with current estimates for the remainder of FY 2024. Consistent with the update provided to Council on January 16, 2024, modifications have been made primarily to Sales Tax, resulting in a decrease of approximately $3 million. Fund Balance Chart The Administration’s chart below shows the current General Fund Balance figures. Fund balance has been updated to include proposed changes for Budget Amendment #4. Based on those projections the adjusted fund balance is projected to be at 31.73%. A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached to the transmittal. The Administration requests that document be modified based on the decisions of the Council. The budget opening is separated in eight different categories: A.New Budget Items B.Grants for Existing Staff Resources C.Grants for New Staff Resources D.Housekeeping Items E.Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources F.Donations G.Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards I.Council Added Items Impact Fees Update The Administration’s transmittal provides an updated summary of impact fee tracking. The information is current as of 7/20/23. The table below has taken into account impact fees appropriated by the Council on August 15 as part of the FY2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) . As a result, the City is on-track with impact fee budgeting to have no refunds during all of FY2024 and FY2025. The transportation section of the City’s Impact Fees Plan was updated in October 2020. The Administration is working on updates to the fire, parks, and police sections of the plan. Type Unallocated Cash “Available to Spend”Next Refund Trigger Date Amount of Expiring Impact Fees Fire $273,684 More than two years away - Parks $14,064,637 More than two years away - Police $1,402,656 More than two years away - Transportation $6,064,485 More than two years away - Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract Section A: New Items Note: to expedite the processing of this staff report, staff has included the Administration’s descriptions from the transmittal for some of these items. A-1: Air Quality Incentives Program Expansion for Electric Bikes and Indoor Air Purification ($230,000 from Nondepartmental Holding Account and Satisfying Condition on the Funds) See pages 23 – 29 of the Administration’s transmittal for an overview of the proposed expansion. Note: The Administration has requested a straw poll for part of this item. The new funding is proposed to be split into two parts: $200,000 for e-bike vouchers to approximately 350 residents and $30,000 for indoor air purification to approximately 60 households. The program would partner with five local bike shops to supply the bikes, safety accessories, education, and basic maintenance support. The program would also partner with the City’s Handyman and Home Repair Programs in the Housing Stability Division to provide indoor air purifiers, HVAC filters, air quality monitors, and single burner induction cooktops. The Council approved an Air Quality Incentives Program Coordinator FTE in the annual budget to administer the existing gas-power lawnmower exchange program and the proposed expansion. The table below shows proposed bike voucher amounts based on the applicant’s income and type of bike. If the Council approves program funding, then issuing a request for proposal or RFP would be the next step. The Administration has requested a straw poll on the e-bike portion of the program expansion. Bike Type Standard Voucher Income-Qualified Voucher City and Commuter $400 $1,000 Adaptive $600 $1,200 Cargo & Utility $800 $1,400 In the FY2024 annual budget, the Council put $230,000 into a Nondepartmental holding account for a potential expansion of the City’s air quality incentives program and approved the below condition on the appropriation as part of the budget adoption ordinance. The Council also adopted the below legislative intent identifying the Sustainability Department as priority for a policy discussion on role clarity and updating City Code. The Council could first address the role clarity question, so the outcome informs whether and how to expand the air quality incentives program. In prior discussions, some Council Members expressed interest in more clearly defining the City’s role, avoiding duplication of services between levels of government and local service providers / organizations, and recognizing the competing funding needs of core city services. For example, on one end of the spectrum could be the City directly providing services to residents, on the other end the City convenes and funds existing service providers to administer programs and services, or a hybrid approach between the two. Conditional Appropriation -- Air Quality Incentives Program $230,000 of new ongoing funding for an expanded Air Quality Incentives Program is hereby adopted contingent upon the Administration providing a written proposal of the program policy (such as but not limited to: income- qualification guidelines, prioritization criteria, maximum awards by incentive type, equity considerations, and other details) and Council approval of the program policy and goals. Legislative Intent from the FY2024 Annual Budget Adoption Motion Sheet Department Role Clarity in Ordinance - It is the intent of the Council to ask the Attorney’s Office to propose updates to the City’s code that define and discuss the respective roles of City departments. This review should include, but not be limited to, the Sustainability, Economic Development, and Public Lands Departments. Per Council discussion, Sustainability is the priority. $250,000 Existing Ongoing for Gas-powered Lawnmower Exchange Air Quality Incentives Program The Council previously funded $250,000 annually over three years for a gas-powered lawnmower exchange program in partnership with the State. Residents can choose to participate in the Call 2 Haul program for old gas-powered lawnmowers to be picked up and recycled. The State has ended the residential component of the program to solely focus on commercial landscaping businesses. The City has more flexibility to tailor goals and eligibility by taking on the residential portion of the program. The Sustainability Department plans to broaden eligible incentives beyond lawnmowers to other gas-powered lawn maintenance equipment such as weed whackers, edgers, trimmers, leaf blowers, snowblowers, etc. Policy Questions: ➢Department Role Clarity – The Council may wish to continue the discussion of providing role clarity and how the Air Quality Incentives Program could follow that direction (e.g., City directly provides services to residents, convenes and funds local organizations to administer the program, or hybrid approach). ➢E-bike Programs Provided by Other Entities – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if they have reviewed other e-bike incentive programs offered in the Salt Lake Market to evaluate whether there is greater efficiency partnering with those programs. Staff is aware of a program offered to all Salt Lake County residents by the Utah Clean Air Partnership (UCAIR), as well as Utah Clean Energy (UCE). ➢Types of Air Quality Incentives – Does the Council support the proposed mix of air quality incentives (e.g., e- bikes, indoor air purifiers, and electric yard maintenance equipment) to advance the City’s goals or are different targeted incentives preferred? The Council may also wish to discuss how the expanded Air Quality Incentives Program would balance indoor air quality improvements which benefit the members of the immediate household (and where people spend most of their time) with reducing outdoor air pollution which benefits all residents and visitors in the local airshed. ➢Air Quality Incentives Equity Considerations – The Council may wish to provide policy guidance to the Department for how to prioritize an expanded air quality incentives programs such as outreach to support geographic equity, the proposed income-qualified approach and amounts, limiting a maximum of two vouchers per household, identifying at least half of the funding for low to moderate income households, focusing indoor air quality incentives on neighborhoods with greater levels of pollution and asthma rates, etc. A-2: Short-Term Rental Identification Software ($49,000 Ongoing from General Fund Balance) This budget item would purchase software and training to help the Civil Enforcement Division monitor and enforce violations by short-term rentals that do not comply with City codes. These would include ADUs (Accessory Dwelling Units), as well as apartments, single-family homes, and other structures. The Division worked with IMS and the Innovations Team to identify options for software, but the software costs will be charged to Civil Enforcement as the only entity using it. The software will allow inspectors to identify these properties more quickly and easily, saving time to be used on other priorities. This funding includes $39,000 for the software and $10,000 for training. Two Civil Enforcement positions were added in the last annual budget. A-3: WITHDRAWN A-4: Liberty Park Greenhouse Stabilization and Entrance Gates ($31,250 from General Fund Balance for Ongoing Temporary Greenhouse Operations, $248,015 Reappropriation of Vacancy Savings One-time to CIP for Greenhouse Repairs OR Stay in Operational Budget for Temporary Greenhouses, and $37,110 Reappropriation of Vacancy Savings One- time to CIP for Entrance Gates) There are three separate appropriations proposed in this item. Two are related to the greenhouses in the center of Liberty Park. A recently completed facility condition assessment concluded the greenhouses are significantly deteriorated and damaged. As a result, they are closed and not being used for operations. Parts of the facilities are historic dating back to the late 1930s and possibly earlier. $2 million is a high-level cost estimate to address the multiple issues identified in the assessment. The $37,110 one-time reappropriation of vacancy savings in the Public Lands Department would purchase several gates to control afterhours access to Liberty Park. The gates would be posted at the north and south entrances as well as east and west along the interior vehicle loop. The Historic Landmarks Commission would need to review and approve the gates. The $31,250 from General Fund Balance is partial year funding to rent a mobile temporary office, rent underutilized greenhouse spaces at the University of Utah to continue the native plant program, and pay related utilities. The total annual cost that would need to be included in the FY2025 annual budget is estimated to be $62,500. The $248,015 one-time reappropriation of vacancy savings in the Public Lands Department would be used for temporary greenhouses (“hoop houses”), fencing, access to water, and a new transformer. The Department and Engineering Division are currently working on a structural review of the greenhouses. The review results could change the Department’s recommendation to use these funds for repairs to the east and west greenhouses if possible. At the time of publishing this staff report an update was pending on which option the Administration is recommending (e.g., repairs to the greenhouses vs temporary greenhouses) and clarification of what expenses qualify as capital expenditures in the CIP Fund. A-5: Public Lands One-Time Budget Reallocation ($558,000 one-time of Vacancy and Attrition Savings; $333,000 to the Fleet Fund and $225,000 to Contract Temporary Labor) The Department of Public Lands wishes to reallocate $558,000 from attrition and vacancy savings to other expense categories. Under this proposal, the Department would: - transfer a one-time amount of $333,000 to the Fleet Fund for new equipment, and - reallocate a one-time amount of $225,000 to the operations and maintenance budget to cover contracted services through June 30, 2024. The equipment that Public Lands wishes to purchase includes two wide-area mowers ($133,000 each) and one mini- excavator for irrigation system repairs ($67,000). These would ensure that the regular repairs needed on their current models do not result in unnecessary work delays. At last check, the lag between ordering and delivery of this equipment is around 18 months. The Department would use the remaining $225,000 to contract temporary labor to perform essential maintenance in parks, on medians, and on right of way properties from early spring to June 30, 2024. This additional labor would relieve the excess workloads for existing staff and ensure that new FTEs hired with additional FY24 budget are able to keep pace with Council and public expectations. Most of the FTEs funded in FY24 have been hired or are anticipated to be hired soon, though the Department acknowledges ongoing challenges with recruitment and retention. It is working with the City Human Resources Department to promote hiring through several different initiatives. Public Lands does not anticipate requesting a pay increase for seasonal staff for FY25, which now stands at $17.85 per hour, but notes that the labor market remains highly competitive. A-6: Fire Station 1 Perimeter Fencing ($130,275 one-time from Fire Impact Fees as Excess Capacity Reimbursement to the General Fund and Transfer to CIP Fund) Fire Station 1, at 211 South 500 East, is located on the corner of 500 East and 200 South. It has one driveway that enters the parking lot from 500 E. and another that enters from 200 S. The parking lot is not well lit and is secluded. The location, pedestrian traffic, and access from two directions has led to many issues over the years. - People often cut through the parking lot to get to the businesses on 500 E. - Persons experiencing homelessness have set up camping spots in the parking lot. - When returning to the station at night, crews have seen people running out of the parking lot on multiple - occasions. - Since 2019, SLC PD has opened 14 cases related to issues in the parking lot. Including vehicle theft, prowling, and - property theft. - Since 2018, SLC PD has responded to 45 calls at the station that were not made into active cases. It is the Salt Lake City Fire Department’s priority to provide a safe area to conduct emergency response and for our employees to park and secure their private property while on shift. The department believes that a gated fence to the parking lot would assist in creating a safer area to conduct emergency responses and in preventing crime. The Facilities Division has received estimates for installation of security fencing at the perimeter of Fire Station 1. This will include chain link at the rear perimeter and ornamental fencing and gates at the front of the station and two access points. Fire impact fees excess capacity is proposed to be utilized for this request. This project would be combined with the Fire Station #1 Apparatus Bay Extension project that was fully funded in FY2024 CIP. Combing the projects might result in less disruption to the neighborhood and potential cost savings. A-7: Increase in Fleet Maintenance Capacity ($399,909 from General Fund Balance) The Administration is requesting three (3) new FTE mechanics and additional funding to address immediate Fleet maintenance needs. As identified in the transmittal, due to significant changes in the automotive industry during the Pandemic, costs and delivery times for parts and vehicles have increased and some orders have been cancelled, resulting in an older fleet requiring more maintenance. Fleet mechanics have been offered overtime to work longer shifts. More vehicles have been sent to outside vendors for maintenance, and Fleet has used 73% of its maintenance budget in the first six months of the fiscal year. As a result of these factors, the Administration indicates Fleet is unable to keep up with the recent growth of departments and the corresponding increase of Fleet vehicles for new employees. The full cost of a new mechanic position is $104,195 each or $312,585 annually for three new FTEs. To add the 3 new mechanics at this time, Fleet would need the following: 3 FTE Fleet Mechanics (last 3 months FY23-24) $91,809 Education & Training – one-time $42,100 IMS Expense (software, hardware) one-time $9,000 Outside Repair – Mechanical (sublet) one-time $257,000 Total Costs to General Fund for FY2024 $399,909 Fleet indicated that they previously requested one-time budget adjustments to supplement sublet costs and has limited the number of vehicles sent out to external vendors. This has caused increased wait times for vehicle repairs which will continue to increase if Fleet is unable to add capacity, either with internal or external resources. Additionally, preventative maintenance may be delayed as repairs are prioritized, potentially causing a ripple effect on fleet vehicles by deteriorating faster and needing more intensive repairs soon. Council staff asked if costs for outside vendor vehicle repairs are typically greater than hiring more mechanic FTEs. Fleet indicated that to increase Fleet capacity to the same levels as the 3 FTEs would produce, Fleet would need $650,000 to pay for outside repairs. Fleet further indicated their total annual budget (FY24) for outside vendor vehicle repairs is $1,197,688 which was increased by 10% from FY23 to keep up with inflation. A-8: Police Overtime Ongoing Budget Increase ($1,829,000 from General Fund Balance in FY2024 and Ongoing in future fiscal years) This item would double the annual ongoing overtime budget for the Police Department from $1,814,784 to $3,643,784. This fiscal year, most of the funds would be used for “mitigation officers” which the Administration states would focus on reducing illegal camping, park safety, and the Downtown Safety Initiative. The Department stated the increasing volume of calls for service related to mitigation services has required increasing use of overtime this fiscal year. In particular, overtime needs increased from calls related to the temporary sanctioned campground and from the County Health Department requests for enhanced mitigation impact clean ups. As of late January, the actual overtime expenses for the Police Department were nearly $2.8 million which exceeds the $1,814,784 overtime budget line item. Vacancy savings are often used to cover overtime shifts. The Police Department has over $7 million of unused budget lapse to General Fund Balance at the end of FY2023. The Department does not anticipate a similarly large amount of unused budget at the end of FY2024 because of increasing overtime and progress to reach full staffing of both sworn and civilian positions. In Budget Amendment #3, the Council recently approved $500,000 for police officer overtime related to the temporary sanctioned campground using ARPA funds that were budgeted but not spent in prior fiscal years. Progress to Reach Full Staffing The Department reports a high officer participation rate in the retention and hiring bonuses program where an $8,500 bonus is provided in exchange for a two-year employment commitment. As of February 6, there were 21 vacant sworn officer positions and 11 vacant civilian positions. Three lateral police officer hires and seven civilian hires are in process. A new hire academy is planned in May. Upcoming Requests for New Police Officer FTEs The Department states requests for new police officer FTEs are being planned. An application to the Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation State Grant is planned for a new squad dedicated to calls for service related to the permanent micro shelter community at approximately 750 West and 550 South. The squad would include one sergeant and five regular police officers. This would be like the two squads dedicated to the Miller and King Homeless Resource Centers. The same state grant currently pays for 17.5 FTEs including the two squads. It’s important to note that the annual grant award is subject to appropriations by the Legislature. Policy Questions: ➢Alternative Response Programs and Mitigation Officers – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration how mitigation officer overtime fits into the City’s diversified public safety response approach (police civilian response team, community health access team or CHAT, park rangers, street ambassadors, partnership with mobile crisis outreach teams or MCOT, rapid intervention team). Over the past few years, the Council has significantly expanded these alternative response programs so police officers can focus on more serious crimes. ➢Available Vacancy Savings to Cover Overtime – The Council may wish to ask the Administration when Workday entries will be completed so budget to actual reporting and available vacancy savings can be shared. Vacancy savings could be used to fund some overtime this fiscal year instead of General Fund Balance. ➢Overtime Budget Increases vs New FTEs – The Council may wish to ask the Administration to evaluate when increasing FTEs (civilian and sworn officers) makes sense vs increasing the ongoing overtime budget. Overtime hourly wages cost the City more than regular hourly rates. ➢Metrics on Mitigation Calls for Service – The Council may wish to ask the Administration to provide metrics on mitigation calls for services including how these needs have changed, where they are occurring, and diverting calls to alternative response programs. A-9: Mobile Phone Data Extraction Software ($194,540 from the IMS Fund Balance) Note: The Administration has requested a straw poll for this item. This budget request addresses the outdated and inefficient process of mobile phone data extraction used by various departments. Currently, investigations incur staff time costs of $3,000-$6,000 per case, with additional expenses for training and forensics-grade computers. Currently, the Police Department, Fire Department, and Human Resources all require the ability to extract data during investigations. The existing practice has been put together to meet short-term needs and relies on the availability of individual staff and more powerful computers than would typically be needed by the positions who conduct investigations. The recommended solutions standardize the data extraction process and make the software available to all positions who do investigative work. IMS reports that the recommended solution also provides better security for the personal data extracted. The software is intended to be more compatible with what’s used by other law enforcement and judicial partners, like the District Attorney’s Office, which enables the City to work more securely and collaboratively when sharing information. A-10 -Versaterm Case Service Software Upgrade ($203,148 from the IMS Fund Balance) Note: The Administration has requested a straw poll for this item This request is for an improved case service solution for the Police Department, replacing the current Coplogic online reporting system. The FY2024 budget included $48,954 for a new case service program, but implementation couldn't begin until after case management was moved to the cloud. Since the original quote, the vendor has added more features and improvements to the software, resulting in the $203,148 cost. Since the new features include enhancements that will be beneficial to multiple departments, like Dispatch and Fire, the general fund will see a reduction of $48,954 while the full cost will be allocated from IMS Fund Balance. Enhancements include public availability in multiple languages, and a phone tree to better direct calls to the non-emergency line. This software provides the public with options to report an issue via phone, app, or web browser, as opposed to the existing solution that was only available online. The Department has requested a straw poll for this item. The vendor currently has a yearlong waitlist but based on Salt Lake City’s prior relationship and commitment to the software, is willing to begin implementation this fiscal year if funds are committed. A-11: Replacing Two Traffic Signals Damaged in Accidents ($250,000 one-time from General Fund Balance) Traffic signals at two separate intersections in the City have been damaged by non-city vehicles. (Gladiola and California signals were damaged by a semi-truck roll over; 200 West 100 South signals were damaged by a grade-all forklift hitting the mast arm and spinning the pole foundation.) The damage is severe enough that they cannot be repaired by our inhouse technicians. Street’s staff has obtained quotes for the repairs needed from our contracted vendor. This work will ultimately be paid for by the insurance companies of the outside entities who caused the damage. However, Risk has informed us that best practice is for the repairs to be managed by the City, and then to be reimbursed by the insurance companies. This will ensure the City receives full compensation for the damages as the total cost will only be known after the work is complete. Public Services does not have sufficient funding in our budget to cover the cost of repairs. No long- term impact to the general fund is expected as, once the work is completed, Risk will seek reimbursement from the insurance companies, and the money will go back to the general fund. The timing of this reimbursement is unknown and may not be in the same fiscal year as the expenditures are incurred. This request is for $250,000 which includes a 10% contingency on the quotes that we have received. This is a replacement only - no design necessary; no upgrade and no addition to be made and is not a CIP project. A-12: Medical 911 Dispatch Software Change to Improve Response Times ($165,793 one-time from the Emergency 911 Dispatch Fund or E-911 Fund) The 911 Department is requesting one-time funds to change the medical dispatch protocol equipment and processes which is expected to improve response times. It’s important to note that on an annual basis the Department already exceeds the industry best practice for 90% of 911 calls to be answered within 10 seconds. This software change is expected to improve the time a call is in queue waiting for sufficient information before it can be dispatched. The Association of Public-safety Communications Officials or APCO IntelliComm EMD Protocol is used by the Valley Emergency Communications Center or VECC. The City’s 911 Department and VECC already use the same computer aided dispatch or CAD systems but do not use the same medical protocol. This item would further integrate a more seamless handoff between the agencies when a call for service needs to be transferred. The CAD system can only use one medical protocol. This means that a dispatch must take additional time to change a call to fit the parameters in each dispatch center’s medical protocol before help can be dispatched. The 911 Department and VECC are responsible for providing emergency dispatch services in the Salt Lake Valley. The Utah Legislature directed the Utah Communications Authority to help create a “unified statewide 911 emergency services network” and “coordinate the development of an interoperable computer aided dispatch platform.” This item would advance this state goal. This item is also a follow up to findings from a 2019 performance audit of the 911 Department that recommended continued use of standardized script-based software but noted the current medical dispatch ProQA software scored poorly on public safety service provider feedback assessments. The E-911 Fund revenues come from a 911 excise tax paid on phone bills. The E-911 Fund has its own Fund Balance (savings account) that ended FY2023 with approximately $5.2 million. This fund has provided several software and hardware upgrades for the Department in recent years. A-13: Outside Legal Counsel for the City Attorney’s Office ($250,000 one-time from General Fund Balance) This is a request from the City Attorney’s Office for a one-time appropriation of $250,000 from General Fund Balance to hire outside counsel to handle items where the Attorney’s Office needs additional or specialized expertise or where the Attorney’s Office is recused. Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources (None) Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources (None) Section D: Housekeeping D-1: Creating a Planning & Design Division in the Public Lands Department and Reclassifying an FTE to be the Appointed Division Director (Budget Neutral in FY2024 Using Vacancy Savings) This is a follow up from Budget Amendment #2 when the request was originally proposed. In that budget opening, the Council transferred four existing landscape architects from the Engineering Division in the Public Services Department to the Public Lands Department and increased the pay grade to 34 for the existing Planning Manager merit position. The Department is requesting approval for the remaining part of the proposal to create a new division called the Planning and Design Division and convert the Planning Manager position to be an appointed division director position at pay grade 35. Vacancy savings would be used to cover the increased compensation for the new division director for the remainder of FY2024. The next annual budget would need to include $12,113 ongoing for the position. This item would also amend the Appointed Pay Plan to add the new division director. The new division would include the new appointed director, four landscape architects transferred in Budget Amendment #2 (one Senior Landscape Architect (Grade 34), two Landscape Architect IIIs (Grade 30), and one Landscape Architect II (Grade 27)), and two project managers currently in the Public Lands Department. The Attorney's Office is working on an amendment to City Code Chapter 2.08 Administrative Organization that is expected later this year. It would update the sections for Public Lands and Public Services to reflect the responsibilities being transferred along with the FTEs. It’s part of a larger update that the Attorney’s Office is already working on for the Chapter. A legal best practice is for divisions and associated responsibilities is to be listed by department in this section of City Code. D-2: Ongoing Landfill Projects Pass-through Revolving Fund for Module 8 ($1 Million One-time in the CIP Fund) The landfill unallocated CIP account has been receiving revolving funds for various ongoing landfill projects. The funds placed in the account are applied to individual projects and then reimbursed to the General Fund. Module 8 is the next step in the series of landfill modules where refuse will be placed. It is needed to continue the expansion of the landfill to accommodate ongoing growth. Module 8 is approximately 40 acres and has a clay liner and HDPE welded liner underneath to protect the groundwater from the landfill leachate. There have been change orders to Module 8 that require the fund to be replenished. This reimbursable fund also needs to be in place for current and future projects on a revolving basis. Public Services’ Engineering Finance bills the County after services are provided. This is a pass-through cost that used to reside under Waste and Recycling but has since been moved to Engineering. Since Engineering oversees the improvements, it was determined that Public Services should process the pass-through costs as well. D-3: Parking Garage Loan Pass-through Funds for Debt Service Payment on State Infrastructure Bond ($1.1 Million One-time from the General Fund to the Debt Service Fund) This is a housekeeping item related to the State Infrastructure Bond repayment. This item is to transfer the $1.1M received from the State to the Debt Service Fund, to support the approximate $7 million State Infrastructure Bond for the construction of a parking garage. Section E: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources E-1: WITHDRAWN Section F: Donations (None) Section G: Grant Consent Agenda G-1: Bloomberg Philanthropies Wake the Great Salt Lake ($1,000,000 from Misc. Grants Fund) Salt Lake City applied for a grant with Bloomberg Philanthropies. The grant aims to educate and inspire residents and visitors to identify possible solutions and take action locally and nationally. Public art projects will be structured around major themes such as water conservation, air quality, agriculture, industry, environmental and social justice, including indigenous rights and lake ecology. Salt Lake City's proposed project consists of 1) a series of 3-5 significant artworks created by world-renowned artists across the city. These artists will be selected to leverage their notoriety and practice while bringing awareness to our civic issues. 2) a series of temporary public art projects by local and regional artists and organizations in various disciplines, including but not limited to performers, sculptors, painters, muralists, printmakers, filmmakers, poets, new media, etc. By commissioning our local community of artists to create context and site-specific artworks about the Great Salt Lake, our local community will be able to reflect on this crisis in new and compelling ways. Bloomberg Philanthropies is awarding the City $1,000,000 to fund the two-year public art project, Wake the Great Salt Lake. Salt Lake City will be providing a match of $1,060,000 with in-kind staff time and other grant funding. A public hearing was held on April 18, 2023. G-2: State of Utah Increase Homeless Mitigation Grant ($216,439.66 from Misc. Grants Fund The State has given the City an increase for the Homeless Mitigation grant. As a reminder, the City was awarded $3,107,201 for FY 2024. This award was for 1) Public Safety staff, program supplies, equipment, and vehicle maintenance, 2) Two sub-awards for Volunteers of America and Downtown Alliance, and 3) two HEART Coordinators, a Case Manager, half the salary of a grant’s person along with training, travel, and program supplies. Due to the City hosting overflow beds, the City will receive additional funds for FY 24. In total, the City will receive $650,000. Two-thirds of that funding will go directly to shelter providers. The City will retain $216,439.66, which is required to be put toward public safety. This money will be used for PD overtime in the Rio Grande area around the new Temporary Shelter Community. The original grant was approved as part of Budget Amendment No. 2 on 10/17/23. Section I: Council-Added Items I-1: Placeholder for Potential Funding to Buyback Single-family Homes with Right of First Refusal ($TBD) This is a placeholder item pending upcoming information about the potential to buyback properties in the City’s first-time homebuyer program and possibly adding them to the Community Land Trust. ATTACHMENTS 1. Potential New Ongoing General Fund Costs Approved in Midyear Budget Amendments (Chart) ACRONYMS ADU – Accessory Dwelling Unit APCO International – Provides Emergency Medical Dispatch BA – Budget Amendment CAD – Computer Aided Design CAN – Department of Community and Neighborhoods CIP – Capital Improvement Program Fund E-Bike – Electric Bike EMD – Emergency Medical Dispatch FTE – Full Time Employee FY – Fiscal Year FOF – Funding Our Future GF – General Fund HDPE – High Density Polyethylene HVAC – Heating, Ventilation & Air Conditioning IMS – Information Management Services Misc. – Miscellaneous RMS – Records Management System RDA – Redevelopment Agency RFP – Request For Proposal SAA – Special Assessment Area TBD – To Be Determined VECC – Valley Emergency Communications Center ATTACHMENT 1 Council Request: Tracking New Ongoing General Fund Costs Approved in Midyear Budget Amendments Council staff has provided the following list of potential new ongoing costs to the General Fund. Many of these are new FTE’s approved during this fiscal year’s budget amendments, noting that each new FTE increases the City’s annual budget costs if positions are added to the staffing document. Note that some items in the table below are partially or fully funded by grants. If a grant continues to be awarded to the City in future years, then there may not be a cost to the General Fund but grant funding is not guaranteed year-over-year. Budget Amendment Item Potential Cost to FY2025 Annual Budget Full Time Employee (FTEs)Notes #2 Item A-1: Homeless General Fund Reallocation Cost Share for State Homeless Mitigation Grant $53,544 0.5 FTE Community Development Grant Specialist for Homelessness Engagement and Response Team (HEART) This position is proposed to be half funded from the State Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant and half by the General Fund for FY2024. The $107,088 reflects the fully loaded annual cost for the FTE. #2 Item A-5: Create a Public Lands Planning & Design Division $12,113 Reclassify an existing FTE to a higher pay grade and director of new division. Request position be appointed in a future budget opening. Transfer all four (4) full-time landscape architect positions and associated operating budget ($543,144) from the Engineering Division (Public Services Department) to this new division in the Public Lands Department. Returned as item D-1 in Budget Amendment #4 #2 A-6 Sorenson Janitorial and County Contract - Senior Community Programs Manager Budget Neutral (see note to the right) 1 Senior Community Programs Manager This item requires amending an existing interlocal agreement with the County. At the time of publishing this report, staff is checking whether the amendment could result in additional funding needs to maintain current levels of service. The item might not be budget neutral depending on the agreement changes. #2 A-7: Economic Development Project Manager Position $122,000 1 Economic Development Project Manager Would be focused on the creation of Special Assessment Areas or SAAs for business districts and renewal every three to five years. #2 A-9: Know Your Neighbor Program Expenses $6,500 Program expenses were inadvertently left out of the last annual budget #2 A-10: Love Your Block Program Expenses $55,750 Program expenses were inadvertently left out of the last annual budget Budget Amendment Item Potential Cost to FY2025 Annual Budget Full Time Employee (FTEs)Notes #2 Item E-3: Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant Award $3,107,201 13 Existing FTEs: - 2 Police sergeants - 10 police officers - 1 Business & community liaison 4.5 New FTEs: - 1 Sequential Intercept Case Manager in the Justice Court - 0.5 Grant Specialist in CAN (half grant funded and half by the General Fund in item above) - 1 Police sergeant - 2 police officers Admin expects to apply for grant funding annually to cover these costs. General Fund would not need to cover costs if the State grant is awarded to the City to fully cover the costs. Note: Justice Court FTE is part of the City’s contribution towards implementation of the “Miami Model” of diversion out of the homelessness system. #2 G-1: Greater Salt Lake Area Clean Energy and Air Roadmap Coordinator Position $482,915 (funding is to cover four years of new FTE) 1 Coordinator Four years of salary and benefits. The position would be responsible for facilitating the sustained involvement of jurisdiction partners, managing consultants, assisting with community engagement, coordinating stakeholder and public engagement activities and presentations, and tracking task completion and achievement. #3 A-1: Fire Department (4 New FTEs)$292,638 4 New Medical Response Paramedic FTEs Annual cost; this assumes the Fire Department requests two new entry level firefighters to replace the two that were converted into civilian paramedics #3 A-4 City Attorney’s Office Legislative Division (4 New FTEs)$594,441 Legislative Affairs Director (E34) • Senior City Attorney (E39) • Special Projects Analyst (E26) • Administrative Assistant (N21) Focus on legislative affairs, with special emphasis on the legislative session Annual cost #3 A-9: Adding Multimodal Specialized Road Markings Maintenance Funding into the Streets Division’s Base Budget $200,000 #3 A-10: Downtown Parking Pay Station Replacements $271,985 Would be paid annually over six fiscal years from FY2025 – FY2030. The Council left Budget Amendment #3 open to consider this item later #4 A-2: Short-term Rental $49,000 Budget Amendment Item Potential Cost to FY2025 Annual Budget Full Time Employee (FTEs)Notes Identification Software #4 A-4: Liberty Park Greenhouses $62,500 #4 A-7: Increase Fleet Maintenance Capacity $312,585 3 New Mechanics 3 new FTE mechanics, education/training, software/hardware, maintenance from outside vendor. Request to finish this fiscal year is $399,909. #4 A-8: Police Officer Overtime $1,829,000 This item would double the annual line item for police officer overtime TOTALS $7,452,172 32 FTEs of which 19 are New 911 BUREAU Job Title Grade 911 DISPATCH DIRECTOR 041X 911 COMMUNICATIONS DEPUTY DIRECTOR 032X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X AIRPORT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF AIRPORTS 041X CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, AIRPORT 040X DIRECTOR AIRPORT DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 039X DIRECTOR AIRPORT MAINTENANCE 039X DIRECTOR FINANCE/ACCOUNTING AIRPORT 039X DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT ADMINISTRATION/COMMERCIAL SERVICES 039X DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 039X DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT PLANNING & CAPITAL PROJECTS 039X DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS - AIRPORT 039X DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONAL READINESS & TRANSITION 039X DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 038X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X CITY ATTORNEY CITY ATTORNEY 041X DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY 040X CITY RECORDER 035X LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DIRECTOR 034X CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL MEMBER-ELECT N/A* EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL OFFICE 041X COUNCIL LEGAL DIRECTOR 039X DEPUTY DIRECTOR - CITY COUNCIL 039X ASSOCIATE DEPUTY DIRECTOR COUNCIL 037X LEGISLATIVE & POLICY MANAGER 037X SENIOR ADVISOR CITY COUNCIL 037X SENIOR PUBLIC POLICY ANALYST 033X COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL 031X PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST III 031X COMMUNITY FACILITATOR 031X OPERATIONS MANAGER & MENTOR – CITY COUNCIL 031X PUBLIC POLICY ANALYST 031X POLICY ANALYST/PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT 028X PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST II 028X CONSTITUENT LIAISON/POLICY ANALYST 027X CONSTITUENT LIAISON 026X PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST I 026X ASSISTANT TO THE COUNCIL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 025X COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT/AGENDA 024X COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 021X COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR - COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS 037X DEPUTY DIRECTOR - COMMUNITY SERVICES 037X DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION (ENGINEER) 037X PLANNING DIRECTOR 037X BUILDING OFFICIAL 035X DIRECTOR OF HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT 035X DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION (PLANNER) 035X YOUTH & FAMILY DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 037X APPENDIX B – APPOINTED EMPLOYEES BY DEPARTMENT Effective June 25, 2023 ARTS DIVISION DIRECTOR 033X BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT DIVISION DIRECTOR 033X FINANCE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 041X CITY TREASURER 039X DEPUTY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 039X CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER 036X FIRE FIRE CHIEF 041X DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF 037X ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF 035X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X HUMAN RESOURCES CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER 041X DEPUTY CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER 037X CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD INVESTIGATOR 035X TRANSITION CHIEF OF STAFF 041X* TRANSITION COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR 039X* TRANSITION EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X* INFORMATION MGT SERVICES CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 041X CHIEF INNOVATIONS OFFICER 039X DEPUTY CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 039X JUSTICE COURTS JUSTICE COURT JUDGE 038X JUSTICE COURT ADMINISTRATOR 037X MAYOR CHIEF OF STAFF 041X CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 041X COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR 039X DEPUTY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 039X DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF 039X SENIOR ADVISOR 039X COMMUNICATIONS DEPUTY DIRECTOR 030X POLICY ADVISOR 029X REP COMMISSION POLICY ADVISOR 029X COMMUNITY LIAISON 026X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X OFFICE MANAGER - MAYOR'S OFFICE 024X COMMUNITY OUTREACH - EQUITY & SPECIAL PROJECTS COORDINATOR 024X COMMUNICATION AND CONTENT MANAGER - MAYOR'S OFFICE 021X ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 019X CONSUMER PROTECTION ANALYST 016X POLICE CHIEF OF POLICE 041X ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE 039X DEPUTY CHIEF POLICE 037X ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR - COMMUNICATIONS 037X ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR - INTERNAL AFFAIRS 037X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X PUBLIC LANDS PUBLIC LANDS DIRECTOR 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PUBLIC LANDS 037X GOLF DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X PARKS DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X URBAN FORESTRY DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X PLANNING & DESIGN DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICES 041X CITY ENGINEER 039X DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS 038X SAFETY & SECURITY DIRECTOR 037X FACILITIES DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X FLEET DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X STREETS DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X COMPLIANCE DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X PUBLIC UTILITIES DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC UTILITIES 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC UTILITIES 039X FINANCE ADMINISTRATOR PUBLIC UTILITIES 039X CHIEF ENGINEER - PUBLIC UTILITIES 037X WATER QUALITY & TREATMENT ADMINSTRATOR 037X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 037X SUSTAINABILITY SUSTAINABILITY DIRECTOR 041X SUSTAINABILITY DEPUTY DIRECTOR 037X WASTE & RECYCLING DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X Except for a change in job title or reassignment to a lower pay level, no appointed position on this pay plan may be added, removed or modified without approval of the City Council. * Compensation for transitional positions, including city council member‐elect, is set as provided under Chapter 2.03.030 of the Salt Lake City Code. Benefits for transitional employees are equivalent to those provided to full‐time employees. Except for leave time, benefits for city council members‐elect are also equivalent to those provided to full‐time employees. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor MARY BETH THOMPSON Chief Financial Officer CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ___________________________________ Date Received: _______________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: __________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: February 1, 2024 Victoria Petro, Chair FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: FY24 Budget Amendment #4 - Revised SPONSOR: NA STAFF CONTACT: Greg Cleary (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 2024 adopted budget. BUDGET IMPACT: REVENUE EXPENSE GENERAL FUND $0.00 $3,860,205.00 FLEET FUND $723,909.00 $723,909.00 CIP FUND $1,415,400.00 $1,415,400.00 IMPACT FEES FUND $0.00 $130,275.00 SUSTAINABILITY FUND $0.00 $230,000.00 911 COMMUNICATIONS FUND $0.00 $165,793.00 IMS FUND $9,000.00 $406,688.00 MISCELLANEOUS GRANTS FUND $1,216,439.66 $1,216,439.66 DEBT SERVICE FUND $1,100,000.00 $1,100,000.00 TOTAL $4,464,748.66 $9,248,709.66 Gregory Cleary (Feb 1, 2024 09:03 MST) Gregory Cleary April Patterson (Feb 2, 2024 08:03 MST) April Patterson rachel otto (Feb 2, 2024 10:06 MST) 02/02/2024 02/02/2024 DEP~o\R.TMENT OF F1NAN CE BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Revenue for FY 2024 Budget Adjustments The chart below presents General Fund Projected Revenues for FY 2024. To date, revenues are trending below the initial budget. At this time, Finance staff are projecting revenues to remaining consistent with current estimates for the remainder of FY 2024. Consistent with the update provided to Council on January 16, 2024, modifications have been made primarily to Sales Tax, resulting in a decrease of approximately $3 million. Revenue FY23-FY24 AnnualBudget FY23-24 Amended Budget NewProjection Amended Variance Favorable/(Unfavorable) Revenue Property Taxes 131,752,713 131,752,713 131,752,713 0 Sales,Use & Excise Taxes 117,129,000 117,129,000 114,129,000 (3,000,000) Franchise Taxes 12,348,127 12,348,127 12,341,052 (7,075) TotalTaxes 261,229,840 261,229,840 258,222,765 (3,007,075) Revenue Charges For Services 4,745,443 4,745,443 5,770,419 1,024,976 Fines & Forfeitures 2,561,547 2,561,547 2,567,590 6,043 Interest Income 8,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 0 InterfundService Charges 26,131,213 26,131,213 26,144,079 12,866 Intergovernmental Revenue 5,134,621 5,134,621 5,234,598 99,977 Licenses 18,434,301 18,434,301 18,436,598 2,297 Miscellaneous Revenue 2,958,012 2,958,012 2,978,339 20,327 ParkingMeter Revenue 2,801,089 2,801,089 2,801,089 0 ParkingTickets 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,499,955 (45) Permits 22,445,026 22,445,026 22,497,613 52,587 Property Sale Proceeds -- -0 Rental & Other Income 681,604 681,604 682,104 500 OperatingTransfers In 9,938,944 9,938,944 9,938,944 0 TotalW/O SpecialTax 105,331,800 105,331,800 106,551,328 1,219,528 ObjectCodeDescription Sales Tax Addition1/2%49,084,479 49,084,479 49,484,479 400,000 TotalGeneralFund 415,646,119 415,646,119 414,258,572 (1,387,547) The table below presents updated Fund Balance numbers and percentages, based on the proposed changes included in Budget Amendment #4. Please note, at the time of this transmittal, two items are still under consideration from Budget Amendment #3 and are considered in the fund balance calculation below. With the complete adoption of Budget Amendment #4, the available fund balance will adjust to 31.73 percent of the FY 2024 Adopted Budget. The fund balance calculation above has been adjusted to account for the FY 2023 year end numbers after the completion of the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report. FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL Beginning Fund Balance 18,395,660 141,728,022 160,123,682 24,825,461 178,695,454 202,575,741 Budgeted Change in Fund Balance (2,100,608) (20,736,262) (22,836,870) (3,657,641) (29,211,158)(32,868,799) PriorYearEncumbrances (3,162,300) (17,260,909) (20,423,209) (2,592,884) (18,663,765)(21,157,931) Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 13,132,752 103,730,851 116,863,603 18,574,936 130,820,531 148,549,011 BeginningFundBalance Percent 22.79% 25.00% 24.85%35.49% 33.36% 33.42% YearEnd CAFR Adjustments Revenue Changes - -- -- - Expense Changes (Prepaids, Receivable, Etc.) (2,257,746) (2,257,746)(2,484,423) (2,484,423) Fund Balance w/ CAFR Changes 13,132,752 101,473,105 114,605,857 18,574,936 128,336,108 146,064,588 Final FundBalance Percent 22.79% 24.46% 24.37%35.49% 32.72% 32.86% Budget Amendment Use ofFund Balance BA#1 Revenue Adjustment - (475,000) (475,000)- -- BA#1 Expense Adjustment -- -(204,200) (204,200) BA#2 Revenue Adjustment - -- -- - BA#2 Expense Adjustment - -- -763,950 763,950 BA#3 Revenue Adjustment - 6,000,000 6,000,000 - -- BA#3 Expense Adjustment - (6,538,000) (6,538,000)- (1,730,732) (1,730,732) BA#4 Revenue Adjustment - 194,600 194,600 - -- BA#4 Expense Adjustment - (7,584,328) (7,584,328)- (3,860,205) (3,860,205) BA#5 Revenue Adjustment - -- -- - BA#5 Expense Adjustment - (5,940,349) (5,940,349)- -- BA#6 Revenue Adjustment - 19,120,198 19,120,198 - -- BA#6 Expense Adjustment - (11,719,731) (12,219,731)- -- Change in Revenue - -- -- - Change in Expense Fund Balance Budgeted Increase - -- -- - --Adjusted Fund Balance 21,928,113 157,840,137 178,933,386 18,574,936 123,304,921 141,033,401 AdjustedFundBalance Percent 38.05% 38.05% 38.05%35.49% 31.44% 31.73% Projected Revenue 57,634,742 414,859,025 470,299,454 52,338,120 392,166,803 444,504,923 Salt Lake City General Fund TOTAL Fund Balance Projections FY2024 BudgetFY2023 Budget Projected The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $4,464,748.66 in revenue and $9,248,709.66 in expenses. The amendment proposes changes in nine (9) funds, with an increase of three (3) FTEs in the Fleet program. The proposal includes 12 initiatives for Council review and additional housekeeping items. A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council. The budget amendment is separated in eight different categories: A. New Budget Items B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources C. Grants for New Staff Resources D. Housekeeping Items E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources F. Donations G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards I. Council Added Items PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ______ of 2024 (Fourth amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2023-2024) An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 29 of 2023 which adopted the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2023, and Ending June 30, 2024. In June of 2023, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, effective 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, including the amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate any staffing changes specifically stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing document as provided above, 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 of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 29 of 2023. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including any amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate staffing changes 2 specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including any amendments to the employment staffing document described above, 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. SECTION 3. 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, including any amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption. 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 Num b e r /Na m e Fu n d R e v e n u e A m o u n t Ex p e n d i t u r e Am o u n t R e v e n u e A m o u n t Ex p e n d i t u r e Am o u n t On g o i n g o r O n e - ti m e F T E s 1 A i r Qua l i t y In c e n t i v e s P r o gra m Su s t a i n a b i l i t y - 2 3 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 On goi n g - 2 S h o r t - T e r m R e n t a l I d e n t i f i c a t i o n S o f t w a r e G F - 4 9 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 On goi n g - 3 W i t h d r a w n pri o r t o t r a n s m i t t a l 4 I m m e d i a t e N e e d s i n L i b e r t y P a r k - O n g o i n g C o s t s G F - 3 1 , 2 5 0 . 0 0 On g o i n g - 4 Im m e d i a t e N e e d s i n L i b e r t y P a r k - U s e o f V a c a n c y a n d At t r i t i o n S a v i n gs GF - ( 2 8 5 , 1 2 5 . 0 0 ) On e - t i m e - 4 Im m e d i a t e N e e d s i n L i b e r t y P a r k - U s e o f V a c a n c y a n d At t r i t i o n S a v i n gs GF - 2 8 5 , 1 2 5 . 0 0 On e - t i m e - 4 I m m e d i a t e N e e d s i n L i b e r t y P a r k - T r a n s f e r t o C I P C I P 28 5 , 1 2 5 . 0 0 2 8 5 , 1 2 5 . 0 0 On e - t i m e - 5 Pu b l i c L a n d s O n e - t i m e B u d g e t R e a l l o c a t i o n - U s e o f Va c a n c y an d A t t r i t i o n S a v i n gs GF - ( 5 5 8 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 ) On e - t i m e - 5 Pu b l i c L a n d s O n e - t i m e B u d g e t R e a l l o c a t i o n - U s e o f Va c a n c y an d A t t r i t i o n S a v i n gs GF - 2 2 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 On e - t i m e - 5 Pu b l i c L a n d s O n e - t i m e B u d g e t R e a l l o c a t i o n - U s e o f Va c a n c y an d A t t r i t i o n S a v i n gs GF - 3 3 3 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 On e - t i m e - 5 Pu b l i c L a n d s O n e - t i m e B u d g e t R e a l l o c a t i o n - T r a n s f e r to F l e e t Fl e e t 33 3 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 3 3 3 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 On e - t i m e - 6 F i r e S t a t i o n 1 F e n c i n g Im pac t F e e - 1 3 0 , 2 7 5 . 0 0 On e - t i m e - 6 F i r e S t a t i o n 1 F e n c i n g CI P 13 0 , 2 7 5 . 0 0 1 3 0 , 2 7 5 . 0 0 On e - t i m e - 7 I n c r e a s e F l e e t M a i n t e n a n c e C a pac i t y GF - 3 4 8 , 8 0 9 . 0 0 On goi n g - 7 I n c r e a s e F l e e t M a i n t e n a n c e C a p a c i t y G F - 5 1 , 1 0 0 . 0 0 On e - t i m e - 7 I n c r e a s e F l e e t M a i n t e n a n c e C a p a c i t y F le e t 34 8 , 8 0 9 . 0 0 3 4 8 , 8 0 9 . 0 0 On g o i n g 3. 0 0 7 I n c r e a s e F l e e t M a i n t e n a n c e C a p a c i t y F le e t 42 , 1 0 0 . 0 0 4 2 , 1 0 0 . 0 0 On e - t i m e - 7 I n c r e a s e F l e e t M a i n t e n a n c e C a pac i t y IM S 9, 0 0 0 . 0 0 9 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 On e - t i m e - 8 P o l i c e C l e a n N e i ghb o r h o o d s T e a m s G F - 1 , 8 2 9 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 On goi n g - 9 P u b l i c S a f e t y Syst e m s S o f t w a r e IM S - 1 9 4 , 5 4 0 . 0 0 On goi n g - 10 V e r s a t e r m C a s e S e r v i c e GF - ( 4 8 , 9 5 4 . 0 0 ) On e - t i m e - 10 V e r s a t e r m C a s e S e r v i c e IM S - 2 0 3 , 1 4 8 . 0 0 On e - t i m e - 11 O u t s i d e T r a f f i c S i gna l R e pai r GF - 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 On e - t i m e - 12 A P C O I n t e l l i C o m m - E M D P r o t o c o l 911 C o m m - 1 6 5 , 7 93. 0 0 On e - t i m e - 13 C i t y At t o r n e y - O u t s i d e C o u n s e l GF - 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 On e - t i m e - 1 Pl a n n i n g & D e s i g n D i v i s i o n D i r e c t o r R e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n t o Appoi n t e d ( G r a d e 35) GF - - On g o i n g - 2 O n goi n g La n d f i l l P r o jec t s CI P 1,00 0 ,00 0 . 0 0 1 ,00 0 ,00 0 . 0 0 On goi n g - 3 Tr a n s f e r f r o m T r a n s p o r t a t i o n t o D e b t S e r v i c e f o r Ga r a ge L o a n f r o m S t a t e GF - 1 , 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 On e - t i m e - 3 Tr a n s f e r f r o m T r a n s p o r t a t i o n t o D e b t S e r v i c e f o r Ga r a ge L o a n f r o m S t a t e De b t S e r v i c e 1, 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 , 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 On e - t i m e - Se c t i o n E : G r a n t s R e qui r i n g No N e w S t a f f R e s o u r c e s - Fi s c a l Y e a r 2 0 2 3 - 2 4 B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t # 4 - R e v i s e d Co u n c i l A p p r o v e d Ad m i n i s t r a t i o n P r o p o s e d Se c t i o n A : N e w I t e m s Se c t i o n D : H o u s e k e e p i n g Se c t i o n F : D o n a t i o n s Se c t i o n C : G r a n t s f o r N e w S t a f f R e s o u r c e s Se c t i o n B : G r a n t s f o r E x i s t i n g S t a f f R e s o u r c e s 1 Fi s c a l Y e a r 2 0 2 3 - 2 4 B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t # 4 - R e v i s e d Co n s e n t A g e n d a # 3 1 Bl o o m b e r g P h i l a n t h r o p i e s W a k e t h e G r e a t S a l t L a k e Mi s c G r a n t s 1, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 On e - t i m e - 2 St a t e o f U t a h I n c r e a s e H o m e l e s s M i t i gat i o n G r a n t Mi s c G r a n t s 21 6 ,439.6 6 2 1 6 ,439.6 6 On e - t i m e - To t a l o f B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t It e m s 4, 4 6 4 , 7 4 8 . 6 6 9 , 2 4 8 , 7 0 9 . 6 6 - - 3. 0 0 In i t i a t i v e N u m b e r / N a m e Fu n d Re v e n u e A m o u n t Ex p e n d i t u r e Am o u n t R e v e n u e A m o u n t Ex p e n d i t u r e Am o u n t On g o i n g o r O n e - ti m e F T E s To t a l b y Fu n d , Bu d get A m e n d m e n t # 4: Ge n e r a l F u n d GF - 3 , 8 6 0 , 2 0 5 . 0 0 - - - Fl e e t F u n d Fl e e t 72 3 , 9 0 9 . 0 0 7 2 3 , 9 0 9 . 0 0 - - 3. 0 0 CI P F u n d CI P 1, 4 1 5 , 4 0 0 . 0 0 1 , 4 1 5 , 4 0 0 . 0 0 - - - Im p a c t F e e F u n d Im p a c t F e e - 1 3 0 , 2 7 5 . 0 0 - - - Su s t a i n a b i l i t y F u n d Su s t a i n a b i l i t y - 2 3 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 - - - 91 1 C o m m u n i c a t i o n s F u n d 91 1 C o m m - 1 6 5 , 7 9 3 . 0 0 - - - IM S F u n d IM S 9, 0 0 0 . 0 0 4 0 6 , 6 8 8 . 0 0 - - - Mi s c e l l a n e o u s G r a n t s F u n d Mi s c G r a n t s 1, 2 1 6 , 4 3 9 . 6 6 1 , 2 1 6 , 4 3 9 . 6 6 - - - De b t S e r v i c e F u n d De b t S e r v i c e 1, 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 , 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 - - - To t a l o f B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t 4 , 4 6 4 , 7 4 8 . 6 6 9 , 2 4 8 , 7 0 9 . 6 6 - - 3. 0 0 Ad m i n i s t r a t i o n P r o p o s e d Co u n c i l A p p r o v e d Se c t i o n I : C o u n c i l A d d e d I t e m s Se c t i o n G : C o u n c i l C o n s e n t A g e n d a - - G r a n t A w a r d s 2 Fi s c a l Y e a r 2 0 2 3 - 2 4 B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t # 4 - R e v i s e d Cu r r e n t Y e a r B u d get S u m m a r y, pro v i d e d f o r i n f o r m a t i o n o n l y FY 2 0 2 3-2 4 Bu d get , In c l u d i n g Bu d get A m e n d m e n t s Re v e n u e FY 2 0 2 3 - 2 4 A d o p t e d B u d g e t - R e v e n u e BA # 1 T o t a l B A # 2 T o t a l BA # 3 T o t a l B A # 4 T o t a l BA # 5 T o t a l To t a l R e v e n u e Ge n e r a l F u n d ( F u n d 1 0 0 0 ) 44 8 , 5 1 4 , 9 1 8 0 . 0 0 0. 0 0 0 . 0 0 0. 0 0 44 8 , 5 1 4 , 9 1 8 . 0 0 Cu r b a n d G u t t e r ( F C 2 0 ) 3, 0 0 0 3, 0 0 0 . 0 0 DE A T a s k F o r c e F u n d ( F C 4 1 ) 1, 3 9 7 , 3 5 5 1, 3 9 7 , 3 5 5 . 0 0 Mi s c S pec i a l S e r v i c e D i s t r i c t s ( F C 4 6 ) 1, 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 0. 0 0 1, 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 St r e e t L i g h t i n g E n t e r p r i s e ( F C 4 8 ) 4, 6 8 1 , 1 8 5 4, 6 8 1 , 1 8 5 . 0 0 Wa t e r F u n d ( F C 5 1 ) 17 6 , 6 3 7 , 2 8 8 17 6 , 6 3 7 , 2 8 8 . 0 0 Se w e r F u n d ( F C 5 2 ) 28 9 , 9 4 1 , 1 7 8 28 9 , 9 4 1 , 1 7 8 . 0 0 St o r m W a t e r F u n d ( F C 5 3 ) 19 , 8 6 5 , 8 9 2 19 , 8 6 5 , 8 9 2 . 0 0 Ai r p o r t F u n d ( F C 5 4 , 5 5 , 5 6 ) 40 3 , 5 1 3 , 0 0 0 40 3 , 5 1 3 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 Re f u s e F u n d ( F C 5 7 ) 25 , 2 4 0 , 4 5 9 0. 0 0 25 , 2 4 0 , 4 5 9 . 0 0 Go l f F u n d ( F C 5 9 ) 12 , 7 1 0 , 0 6 7 12 , 7 1 0 , 0 6 7 . 0 0 E- 9 1 1 F u n d ( F C 6 0 ) 3, 9 2 5 , 0 0 0 - 3, 9 2 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 Fl e e t F u n d ( F C 6 1 ) 32 , 1 0 8 , 9 6 9 3 6 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 97 5 , 1 7 7 . 0 0 7 2 3 , 9 0 9 . 0 0 33 , 8 4 4 , 8 5 5 . 0 0 IM S F u n d ( F C 6 5 ) 36 , 2 5 4 , 3 5 7 9 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 6, 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 2 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 9, 0 0 0 . 0 0 36 , 2 9 0 , 3 5 7 . 0 0 Co u n t y Q u a r t e r C e n t S a l e s T a x f o r Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n ( F C 6 9 ) 9, 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 9, 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 CD B G O p e r a t i n g F u n d ( F C 7 1 ) 5, 5 9 7 , 7 6 3 - 5, 5 9 7 , 7 6 3 . 0 0 Mi s c e l l a n e o u s G r a n t s ( F C 7 2 ) 8, 9 1 9 , 9 1 7 16 , 1 9 7 , 4 2 3 . 0 0 1 , 7 0 5 , 7 0 0 . 7 9 1, 2 1 6 , 4 3 9 . 6 6 28 , 0 3 9 , 4 8 0 . 4 5 Ot h e r S p e c i a l R e v e n u e ( F C 7 3 ) 40 0 , 0 0 0 62 , 4 1 6 . 0 0 46 2 , 4 1 6 . 0 0 Do n a t i o n F u n d ( F C 7 7 ) 50 0 , 0 0 0 50 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 Ho u s i n g L o a n s & T r u s t ( F C 7 8 ) 14 , 6 5 9 , 0 4 3 14 , 6 5 9 , 0 4 3 . 0 0 De b t S e r v i c e F u n d ( F C 8 1 ) 32 , 3 4 1 , 5 8 6 1, 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 33 , 4 4 1 , 5 8 6 . 0 0 CI P F u n d ( F C 8 3 , 8 4 & 8 6 ) 30 , 1 9 9 , 7 5 6 2 1 8 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 25 , 4 8 5 , 8 9 3 . 2 5 4 1 0 , 1 7 7 . 0 0 1, 4 1 5 , 4 0 0 . 0 0 57 , 7 2 9 , 2 2 6 . 2 5 Go v e r n m e n t a l I m m u n i t y ( F C 8 5 ) 3, 8 8 8 , 5 8 1 3, 8 8 8 , 5 8 1 . 0 0 Ri s k F u n d ( F C 8 7 ) 60 , 9 3 2 , 1 3 7 60 , 9 3 2 , 1 3 7 . 0 0 To t a l o f B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t I t e m s 1, 6 2 3 , 6 3 1 , 4 5 1 2 6 3 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 4 1 , 7 5 1 , 7 3 2 . 2 5 3, 1 0 3 , 0 5 4 . 7 9 4 , 4 6 4 , 7 4 8 . 6 6 - 1, 6 7 3 , 2 1 4 , 7 8 6 . 7 0 3 Fi s c a l Y e a r 2 0 2 3 - 2 4 B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t # 4 - R e v i s e d Ex p e n d i t u r e FY 2 0 2 3 - 2 4 A d o p t e d Bu d get g - E x pen s e BA # 1 T o t a l B A # 2 T o t a l BA # 3 T o t a l B A # 4 T o t a l BA # 5 T o t a l To t a l E x p e n s e Ge n e r a l F u n d ( F C 1 0 ) 44 8 , 5 1 4 , 9 1 8 2 0 4 , 2 0 0 . 0 0 (7 6 3 , 9 5 0 . 0 0 ) 1, 7 3 0 , 7 3 1 . 8 9 3 , 8 6 0 , 2 0 5 . 0 0 45 3 , 5 4 6 , 1 0 4 . 8 9 Cu r b a n d G u t t e r ( F C 2 0 ) 3, 0 0 0 3, 0 0 0 . 0 0 DE A T a s k F o r c e F u n d ( F C 4 1 ) 1, 3 9 7 , 3 5 5 1, 3 9 7 , 3 5 5 . 0 0 Mi s c S pec i a l S e r v i c e D i s t r i c t s ( F C 4 6 ) 1, 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 66 4 , 2 9 3 . 7 0 2, 3 6 4 , 2 9 3 . 7 0 St r e e t L i g h t i n g E n t e r p r i s e ( F C 4 8 ) 6, 0 4 4 , 1 1 9 6, 0 4 4 , 1 1 9 . 0 0 Wa t e r F u n d ( F C 5 1 ) 17 7 , 9 5 3 , 7 8 7 17 7 , 9 5 3 , 7 8 7 . 0 0 Se w e r F u n d ( F C 5 2 ) 30 1 , 8 3 2 , 6 2 2 30 1 , 8 3 2 , 6 2 2 . 0 0 St o r m W a t e r F u n d ( F C 5 3 ) 22 , 9 4 7 , 4 7 4 22 , 9 4 7 , 4 7 4 . 0 0 Ai r p o r t F u n d ( F C 5 4 , 5 5 , 5 6 ) 52 0 , 4 3 8 , 9 9 7 52 0 , 4 3 8 , 9 9 7 . 0 0 Re f u s e F u n d ( F C 5 7 ) 28 , 2 6 3 , 7 9 2 23 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 28 , 4 9 3 , 7 9 2 . 0 0 Go l f F u n d ( F C 5 9 ) 17 , 9 3 8 , 9 8 4 17 , 9 3 8 , 9 8 4 . 0 0 E- 9 1 1 F u n d ( F C 6 0 ) 3, 8 0 0 , 3 8 5 16 5 , 7 9 3 . 0 0 3, 9 6 6 , 1 7 8 . 0 0 Fl e e t F u n d ( F C 6 1 ) 32 , 4 9 8 , 7 5 0 1 4 , 4 6 1 , 7 9 3 . 0 0 97 5 , 1 7 7 . 0 0 7 2 3 , 9 0 9 . 0 0 48 , 6 5 9 , 6 2 9 . 0 0 IM S F u n d ( F C 6 5 ) 38 , 7 0 2 , 1 7 1 9 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 6, 0 0 0 . 0 0 4 , 5 3 1 , 0 8 3 . 0 0 40 6 , 6 8 8 . 0 0 43 , 6 5 4 , 9 4 2 . 0 0 Co u n t y Q u a r t e r C e n t S a l e s T a x f o r Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n ( F C 6 9 ) 9, 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 (2 0 5 , 1 7 7 . 0 0 ) 9, 4 9 4 , 8 2 3 . 0 0 CD B G O p e r a t i n g F u n d ( F C 7 1 ) 5, 5 9 7 , 7 6 3 46 , 6 4 2 . 5 0 5, 6 4 4 , 4 0 5 . 5 0 Mi s c e l l a n e o u s G r a n t s ( F C 7 2 ) 8, 9 1 9 , 9 1 7 16 , 1 9 7 , 4 2 3 . 0 0 2 , 2 3 4 , 4 7 3 . 2 9 1, 2 1 6 , 4 3 9 . 6 6 28 , 5 6 8 , 2 5 2 . 9 5 Ot h e r S p e c i a l R e v e n u e ( F C 7 3 ) 40 0 , 0 0 0 65 , 4 7 2 . 0 0 46 5 , 4 7 2 . 0 0 Do n a t i o n F u n d ( F C 7 7 ) 50 0 , 0 0 0 50 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 Ho u s i n g L o a n s & T r u s t ( F C 7 8 ) 10 , 2 1 2 , 0 4 3 10 , 2 1 2 , 0 4 3 . 0 0 De b t S e r v i c e F u n d ( F C 8 1 ) 34 , 8 9 4 , 9 7 9 5, 7 7 7 , 7 8 4 . 0 0 1 , 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 41 , 7 7 2 , 7 6 3 . 0 0 CI P F u n d ( F C 8 3 , 8 4 & 8 6 ) 29 , 7 0 8 , 2 8 6 2 1 8 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 25 , 4 8 5 , 8 9 3 . 2 5 1, 5 4 5 , 6 7 5 . 0 0 56 , 9 5 7 , 8 5 4 . 2 5 Go v e r n m e n t a l I m m u n i t y ( F C 8 5 ) 3, 3 7 0 , 0 1 2 3, 3 7 0 , 0 1 2 . 0 0 Ri s k F u n d ( F C 8 7 ) 63 , 5 7 4 , 6 5 5 63 , 5 7 4 , 6 5 5 . 0 0 - To t a l o f B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t I t e m s 1, 7 6 8 , 9 1 4 , 0 0 9 1 4 , 8 9 2 , 9 9 3 . 0 0 4 1 , 6 5 5 , 1 3 1 . 9 5 15 , 0 9 0 , 7 1 4 . 6 8 9 , 2 4 8 , 7 0 9 . 6 6 - 1, 8 4 9 , 8 0 1 , 5 5 8 . 2 9 Bu d g e t M a n a g e r An a l yst , C i t y Co u n c i l Co n t i n gen t A ppro pri a t i o n 4 Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #4 - Revised Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 1 Section A: New Items A-1: Air Quality Incentives Program Sustainability $230,000.00 Department: Sustainability Prepared By: Angie Nielsen For questions, please include Debbie Lyons, Angie Nielsen Sustainability proposed the creation of a new Air Quality Community Incentives Program for the FY 2024 budget and requested $230,000 to expand the incentives beyond landscaping equipment to include e-bikes, indoor air purifiers, HVAC filters, and other items to help improve air quality in the community and indoors. The City Council supported creation of the program but requested that Sustainability provide a written proposal of the program policy and goals before releasing funds for the additional incentives. Sustainability recently hired the new FTE approved in FY 2024 and has been working on program design. This budget amendment serves to provide a description of the proposed program and to request additional funding which is needed for Sustainability to move forward with soliciting RFPs, the next critical step in program development. Below is a description of the proposed program. Sustainability is in the process of compiling a separate document detailing the Air Quality Incentives Program Plan, which will be made available to the City Council before the Budget Amendment is briefed. The Department is also currently working with Purchasing on the RFP scope of work but are awaiting budget approval before finalizing and releasing the RFP. 1) E-BIKE PROGRAM ($200,000) Sustainability has collaborated with other City Departments to design the program application, back-end system for the vouchers, the procurement process, and logos and branding design. Sustainability has also met with several local bike shops to get their input on the anticipated program design and contract process. To meet the goal of a Spring launch, it is crucial that an RFP be published as soon as possible so the suppliers can be selected, contracts prepared, and the implementation details finalized. The department anticipates: -Working with up to five bike shops with physical storefronts in Salt Lake City to serve as suppliers for the program. - Vouchers will be made available for cargo bikes ($800 standard voucher/$1,400 income-qualified voucher), commuter bikes ($400 standard/$1,000 income-qualified), and adaptive bikes ($600 standard/$1,200 income-qualified). Off-road bikes will not be eligible. Higher voucher amounts will be available for income-qualified applicants. Discounts will be applied at the time of purchase. 50% of program funds will be reserved for low-income vouchers. -Assuming most applicants select commuter bikes, and 50% of the funds go to low-income applicants, approximately 350 vouchers could be distributed. -Suppliers will be expected to provide a discount on bike safety accessories (helmets, lights, locks, etc), help educate customers on bike safety and etiquette, provide test rides, and provide basic maintenance support. 2) INDOOR AIR QUALITY ($30,000) The department will work with the Housing Stability Division’s Handyman and Home Repair Programs to distribute high- efficiency HVAC filters, air purifiers, and single burner induction cooktops to homeowners served by these programs. Sustainability anticipates reaching approximately 60 homes. This program will also include an educational component to help residents understand how to improve indoor air quality in their homes, such as brochures and in-person consultations. Air quality monitors may also be included as a tool to help residents become aware of how routine activities impact indoor air quality. Sustainability has asked that the E-Bike portion of this item be straw polled to move the RFP process forward. Please reference the attached documents for a program overview. I Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #4 - Revised Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 2 A-2: Short-Term Rental Identification Software GF $49,000.00 Department: CAN Prepared By: Antonio Padilla / Ken Anderson For questions, please include Antonio Padilla, Ken Anderson, Blake Thomas, Tammy Hunsaker and Brent Beck On April 4th, 2023, the City Council approved significant updates to the ADU ordinance. With this ordinance, the council desires to properly monitor and enforce ADUs used as short-term rentals that are non-compliant with city codes. To properly monitor permitted ADUs and ensure compliance, the city would like to contract with a company to identify rental properties used and marketed as short-term rentals accurately. Inspectors are tasked with sifting through large amounts of data to identify a potential non-compliant property manually. It is necessary to implement this strategy as soon as possible to use our resources more efficiently. CAN has coordinated with IMS and the Innovations Team prior to the decision to move forward with an amendment request. However, since this software is specific to Civil Enforcement, the decision was made to house the budget in CAN instead of IMS. The anticipated annual cost of the short-term rental software is $39,000 per year, with a 3-year agreement. Keeping up with the latest enforcement trends is necessary by sending our inspectors for training annually for short-term rental and code enforcement. The cost of training would be approximately $10,000. The total amount needed is $49,000 annually. A-4: Immediate Needs in Liberty Park GF –Ongoing Costs $31,250.00 GF - Use of Vacancy & Attrition Savings ($285,125.00) GF - Use of Vacancy & Attrition Savings $285,125.00 CIP $285,125.00 Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Toby Hazelbaker For questions, please include Kristin Riker, Toby Hazelbaker and Gregg Evans The Department of Public Lands is requesting a budget amendment for Liberty Park needs totaling $316,375. A $285,125 portion of this is slated for one-time use to address the greenhouse and gates CIP needs discussed in the narrative below. This one-time portion will come from this fiscal year’s Public Lands vacancy and attrition savings which will be transferred to CIP for project completion. The remaining $31,250 is being requested from the general fund balance for ongoing costs at Liberty Park. The breakdown of all $316,375 in costs is contained in the table below. Ongoing Costs Greenhouse Costs $31,250 One-time Greenhouse Costs $248,015 One-time Gate Costs $37,110 Total Costs to General Fund for FY 2024 $316,375 The first request is to aid in the displacement of staff and operations at the Liberty Park Greenhouse due to a recent facilities condition assessment that has deemed the greenhouse to be unsafe for City employees. The second is for the purchase of gates to block roads at Liberty Park, due to increased after-hours cars entering the park. Greenhouse –In October 2023, Public Lands received a Facility Condition Assessment contracted by the Facilities Division within Public Services. The assessment identified several concerns, and that structurally, the main house, the south green house and the concrete deck over the underground garage are severely damaged. Staff and operations are no longer using this facility and the department is working on a temporary solution to accommodate operations while design and construction of a new facility is worked out. An FY 2025 CIP application will be submitted for design and to create construction documents for the mitigation and repairs of the facility. Public Lands and Engineering are currently working to secure a contractor for a structural review of the site. Depending on the outcome of that review, the current request for Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #4 - Revised Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 3 funding could be used in one of two ways. The first and most desirable will be to make repairs to the East greenhouse (the West greenhouse and office area are very unlikely to be eligible for repair). The second option will be to purchase hoop houses for the annual plants, fencing to protect the temporary greenhouses, access to water, and to supply power with a new transformer. The current transformer is near capacity and cannot serve this temporary solution. The new transformer will be used for the greenhouse once mitigation or reconstruction is complete in either option. The Department is requesting funds to rent a mobile office with restrooms for the staff based out of the greenhouse.The one-time amount requested has been calculated to cover the cost of the hoop house option, as the structural review is not complete. SLC Trails and Natural Lands will rent underutilized greenhouse space at University of Utah to maintain the native plant program. The City will provide learning opportunities in plant propagation and production, and native plants, for University students. Liberty Park Gates –The open road into Liberty Park is leading to significant afterhours activity. This includes vehicle camping, the sale of drugs, vandalism (wire is being pulled from light posts by attaching the wire to vehicle bumpers), and other crime. In addition, many vehicles remain on site through the night after closing hours. As both Code Enforcement and Police increase efforts to secure the park at closing time, without locked gates, it is not feasible to fully achieve. Exterior gates to the main park loop (both north and south locations) will control vehicle access to the park after hours, where interior gates along the interior loop (both east and west) will help control parking problems as well as late evening vandalism, unpermitted events and illegal event parking issues in the future. The gates selected are simple, stock, tube- steel, black-painted, manual swinging and hand-locked. The historic preservation group is satisfied with the proposed solution. A-5: Public Lands One-time Budget Reallocation GF - Use of Vacancy & Attrition Savings ($558,000.00) GF - Use of Vacancy & Attrition Savings $225,000.00 GF - Use of Vacancy & Attrition Savings $333,000.00 Fleet $333,000.00 Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Gregg Evans For questions, please include Kristin Riker and Gregg Evans The Public Lands Department is requesting a budget amendment to reallocate $558,000 as a one-time move of funds from the department’s existing personnel budget generated by attrition and vacancy savings to other operational expense categories. The Department is proposing to transfer a one-time amount of $333,000 to the Fleet Fund to order critical operational equipment for redundancy purposes, and to reallocate a one-time amount of $225,000 to the operations and maintenance budget to cover one-time contracted services. This item does not include a requested allocation from general fund fund balance. The $333,000 request mentioned above is to procure two (2) additional mowers and an excavator. The large-area mower is in regular use in the Parks division. Mowers range in age from 2010 to 2019, with a median age of 8.5 years where the average retirement age for these mowers is 10 years. At one point during the 2023 season, four of eight wide-area mowers were out of service, and it is not uncommon to have two or three units out of service at any time. Irrigation repairs are another constant in the Parks Division. Staff utilize mini excavators to dig up and repair lines. When this aging excavator equipment fails, there are increased delays in repairing leaks and breaks and a greater chance of dead trees, turf, and shrubs. Based on the latest bids for this equipment the ordering lead time was around 18 months. With lead times this far out, ordering this equipment now will significantly accelerate the purchasing process and delivery of equipment. The $225,000 request mentioned above is to address staff challenges. Hiring full and part-time positions has become increasingly challenging for the Public Lands Department, which has generated attrition and vacancy savings this year. When positions are not filled, a backlog of work accumulates. The Department is proposing to utilize contracted labor in Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #4 - Revised Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 4 this instance to maintain continuity of operations and relieve workloads for existing staff. Without contracted labor, essential maintenance functions cannot be performed as expected by the public and the Council. A-6: Fire Station 1 Fencing Impact Fees $130,275.00 CIP $130,275.00 Department: Public Services and Fire Prepared By: JP Goates / Michael Fox For questions, please include JP Goates, Kimberley Schmeling, Michael Fox, Jorge Chamorro and Karl Lieb Fire Station 1, at 211 South 500 East, is located on the corner of 500 East and 200 South. It has one driveway that enters the parking lot from 500 E. and another that enters from 200 S. The parking lot is not well lit and is secluded. The location, pedestrian traffic, and access from two directions has led to many issues over the years. • People often cut through the parking lot to get to the businesses on 500 E. • Persons experiencing homelessness have set up camping spots in the parking lot. • When returning to the station at night, crews have seen people running out of the parking lot on multiple occasions. • Since 2019, SLC PD has opened 14 cases related to issues in the parking lot. Including vehicle theft, prowling, and property theft. • Since 2018, SLC PD has responded to 45 calls at the station that were not made into active cases. It is the Salt Lake City Fire Department’s priority to provide a safe area to conduct emergency response and for our employees to park and secure their private property while on shift. The department believes that a gated fence to the parking lot would assist in creating a safer area to conduct emergency responses and in preventing crime. The Facilities Division has received estimates for installation of security fencing at the perimeter of Fire Station 1. This will include chain link at the rear perimeter and ornamental fencing and gates at the front of the station and two access points. Fire impact fees excess capacity is proposed to be utilized for this request. A-7: Increase Fleet Maintenance Capacity GF $348,809.00 GF $51,100.00 Fleet $348,809.00 Fleet 42,100.00 IMS 9,000.00 Department: Public Services Prepared By: Julie Crookston / Jorge Chamorro For questions, please include Jorge Chamorro, Julie Crookston, Kimberley Schmeling, Denise Sorensen and Nancy Bean For the last several years the Fleet division has been extremely conservative in its budget requests as leadership was determining how Fleet maintenance needs had changed due to the long-lasting impacts of the pandemic. The pandemic caused drastic changes to the automotive industry, such as increased costs and delivery time for parts and vehicles, with some vehicle orders being completely cancelled. These issues have resulted in an older fleet that has more maintenance needs at the same time the size of the fleet has increased as departments grow. Additionally, there were drastic changes to vehicle usage during the pandemic, which are now showing lasting consequences. All these factors have necessitated creative measures to maintain adequate Fleet services. During the FY 2024 budget process, the department was hopeful it could continue to maintain its level of services for one more year with the intention to ask for more resources during the FY 2025 budget process. However, this approach is no longer sufficient. Fleet has been sending more and more vehicles to outside vendors for repairs, i.e. sublet and offering Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #4 - Revised Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 5 overtime to existing mechanics, such that 73% of the budget for those items has already been used while only half the year has elapsed. Additionally, multiple departments in the City have experienced operational impacts due to the slow turnaround of vehicles. Unless more resources are dedicated to increased Fleet maintenance capacity, turnaround time for vehicles will continue to increase, causing City operations to be adversely affected as City employees are unable to perform their work without a vehicle. Three new mechanics (FTEs) and minimal sublet funding are being requested. The total amount needed for this request will be $399,909. An amount of $9,000 is also included for IMS to provide the necessary hardware and software for each new hire. A detailed breakdown of expenses is outlined below. Fleet Mechanics (3 FTE)–on-going $91,809 Education & Training –one-time $42,100 IMS Expense (software, hardware) one-time $9,000 Outside Repair –Mechanical (sublet) one-time $257,000 Total Costs to General Fund for FY 2024 $399,909 Adding three (3) new mechanics to the Fleet shop would increase capacity in the long term such that Fleet could maintain service levels while utilizing normal amounts of sublet and overtime funding. The original intent was to request these FTEs in the upcoming budgetary process; however, fleet maintenance capacity needs to be increased more quickly. It is anticipated that these mechanics could be hired between February and March, but until then, Fleet will need to continue subletting at the increased rates utilized so far this year. A-8: Police Clean Neighborhoods Teams GF $1,829,000.00 Department: Police Prepared By: Shellie Dietrich For questions, please include Shellie Dietrich and Chief Brown The Salt Lake City Police Department is requesting $1,829,000 to staff officers (hereby referred to as “mitigation officers”), on overtime, as part of the City’s ongoing efforts to reduce illegal camping, improve park safety, and to enforce the Department’s Downtown Safety Initiative (DSI). Currently, the Department is utilizing two (2) full-time sergeants to coordinate and manage mitigation officers working on overtime focused on enforcing the law, prioritizing public safety, and reducing victimization while simultaneously demonstrating compassion and empathy for the city’s unsheltered community. Due to the sheer volume of calls for service and current staffing levels, the Department does not have the available resources that can be dedicated for mitigation services without the use of overtime. In October 2023, with the increase of shelter bed availability, the Department increased the number of mitigation officers, utilizing overtime from both ARPA grant funding and general fund. These mitigation officers are primarily assigned around the “Temporary Shelter Community” (TSC) in the Rio Grande District but may assist, as needed, in other areas within the City. Within the TSC, a private contractor provides security 24/7 for operational needs. If there is a call for police services, SLCPD officers would respond. The mitigation officers, in addition to regular proactive patrol work, are frequently requested by the Salt Lake County Health Department to assist with enhanced mitigation impact clean ups. Due to fluctuation in officer availability for mitigation overtime shifts and delays in the Department’s staffing retention program, the Department had unspent budget in FY23 from vacancy savings. However, the Department does not anticipate having a large budget savings at the end of FY24 due to its increase in hiring and other financial needs including coverage for patrol calls for service and increased staffing needs for public order events, that may be covered using FY24 vacancy savings. For the remainder of FY24 and FY25, the Department will need to rely on overtime funding to staff mitigation officers, especially during the summer months when the City’s unsheltered population historically increases as the number of I Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #4 - Revised Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 6 shelter beds decreases with the emergency winter shelters closing. The Department anticipates, and is planning for, additional FTEs for the Department to sustain its mitigation efforts. In the future, the Department intends to request additional officers for one (1) sergeant and five (5) officers. This squad will be similar to the Department’s Homeless Resource Center squads but will have a responsibility area that includes the future home of the state’s Micro Community Shelter (MCS). The MCS will qualify as a Tier 1 shelter, and is expecte d to be located on 700 West, just south of Interstate 80. This squad will only be a portion of the needed staffing as it will only cover four-10-hour days out of seven-24-hour periods. The phased deployment will coincide with hiring and training of new officers. Full implementation of the grant funded squad is expected within 15-18 months. A-9: Public Safety Systems Software IMS $194,540.00 Department: Police /IMS Prepared By: Shellie Dietrich / Aaron Bentley For questions, please include Aaron Bentley, Shellie Dietrich, Joseph Anthony and Gloria Cortes This request is for a software solution that provides investigative tools for accessing and extracting electronic data from cell phones, offered by Cellebrite. The current process is very labor and resource intensive. This software will provide the needed tools and reduces costs to IMS in the PC replacement program and software staff. The capability for Police and Fire investigators to utilize data extraction for case investigations is very limited. The current software solution is not functional on the computers that these positions have, which is creating extensive delays in investigations and case resolution. Without this software upgrade, IMS would need to replace currently existing computers with computers that have additional functionality, including more robust storage, and better video and graphic cards. Police has worked closely with IMS in determining the best long-term solution, leading to this recommendation. The amount requested to support this need is $194,540 in ongoing cost. A-10: Versaterm Case Service GF ($48,954.00) IMS $203,148.00 Department: Police / IMS Prepared By: Shellie Dietrich / Aaron Bentley For questions, please include Aaron Bentley, Shellie Dietrich, Joseph Anthony and Gloria Cortes This request is for Versaterm Case Service. Versaterm is the records management system (RMS) and computer aided design (CAD) system utilized by public safety. Case Services is a versaterm product that integrates with the RMS/CAD. It provides an online reporting solution for the community to report non-emergency calls for service online.They’re provided with a case number and routed to the proper area for response. This is a software upgrade that is now required with the Versaterm upgrade to 8.1 that has significant enhancements efficiencies and will provide efficiencies for the public safety departments within the city and improved customer service for the community. This upgrade provides enhanced online reporting including NIBRs data collection and validation and case auto-transcription of general offense reports of non-emergency incident entered through Case Service Reporting. It streamlines the process of receiving reports from Loss Prevention / Shoplift departments with a reporting process for big box retailers. Also significant improvements were made to the Case Service dashboard to provide better insight into quantities, types, and status of all Case Service submissions. This software also provides a phone tree for non-emergency calls to public safety. A-11: Outside Traffic Signal Repair GF $250,000.00 Department: Public Services Prepared By: Julie Crookston For questions, please include Julie Crookston, Jorge Chamorro, Mark Stephens Traffic signals at two separate intersections in the City have been damaged by non-city vehicles. (Gladiola and California signals were damaged by a semi-truck roll over; 200 West 100 South signals were damaged by a grade-all forklift hitting the mast arm and spinning the pole foundation.) The damage is severe enough that they cannot be repaired by our in- house technicians. Street’s staff has obtained quotes for the repairs needed from our contracted vendor. This work will ultimately be paid for by the insurance companies of the outside entities who caused the damage. However, Risk has informed us that best practice is for the repairs to be managed by the City,and then to be reimbursed by the insurance Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #4 - Revised Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 7 companies. This will ensure the City receives full compensation for the damages as the total cost will only be known after the work is complete. Public Services does not have sufficient funding in our budget to cover the cost of repairs. No long- term impact to the general fund is expected as, once the work is completed, Risk will seek reimbursement from the insurance companies, and the money will go back to the general fund. The timing of this reimbursement is unknown and may not be in the same fiscal year as the expenditures are incurred. This request is for $250,000 which includes a 10% contingency on the quotes that we have received. This is a replacement only - no design necessary; no upgrade and no addition to be made and is not a CIP. A-12: APCO IntelliComm –EMD Protocol 911 Comm $165,793.00 Department: 911 Communications Prepared By: Lisa Kehoe For questions, please include Lisa Kehoe, Megan Dickerson and Sandee Moore The City needs to match existing medical dispatch protocol equipment and processes currently being used by the Salt Lake Valley Emergency Communications Center (“VECC”). (Salt Lake City Code subsection 3.24.160(1)(b))-The City’s continued use of ProQA’s dispatching software would also not be conducive to accomplishing the shared CAD requirements expressed by the legislature because continued use of different dispatching protocols, not only slows the City’s dispatch responses down but also hinders dispatch process es throughout Salt Lake County. The Versaterm CAD can only use one medical protocol and the fact that the City and VECC currently use different medical protocols creates unnecessary complications that arise when a 911 call needs to be transferred between the City and VECC. In such situations each agency must take time to change the call to fit the parameters in each dispatch center’s medical protocol before help can be dispatched. By contracting with APCO for medical dispatch services, the City can achieve a genuinely interoperable common CAD system that will eliminate delays in time, allow for the inefficient use of resources, and ease the continuity gaps that currently arise when calls are transferred between dispatch centers. If the department doesn’t move forward with this new equipment, it will be forced to continue with the existing equipment that is inefficient and renew the old contract. The costs shown are all one-time expenditures. Once implemented, the department will have the ability to train its staff members instead of outsourcing through another agency. If industry standards require an update to the protocols, those will not be an additional accrued cost. Funding will come from the E911 fund, which has a fund balance of $5,256,661 as of June. Please see the attached document for further detail. A-13: City Attorney –Outside Counsel GF $250,000 Department: City Attorney Prepared By; Greg Cleary For questions, please include Katie Lewis, Mary Beth Thompson, or Greg Cleary. The City Attorney Department is requesting $250,000 from fund balance (general fund) to support needs for outside counsel. Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section D: Housekeeping D-1: Planning & Design Division Director Reclassification to Appointed (Grade 35) GF $0.00 Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Tyler Murdock Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #4 - Revised Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 8 For questions, please include Kristin Riker, Tyler Murdock and Gregg Evans In FY2024 BA2, Public Lands requested to move four (4) full-time landscape architect positions to Public Lands Department. This was in response to the urgency and high expectations that the City and the public have regarding the 100+ existing parks, trails, and open space capital projects, and particularly the dozens of high profile projects from 2022's Sales Tax Revenue Bond and General Obligation (or GO) Bond. The request included the creation of a Division with a Division Director to oversee and facilitate immediate and efficient project delivery. BA2 was left open with the intent to revisit the request to create an appointed Division Director position. At this time, the Department of Public Lands is requesting a FY24 $0 housekeeping budget amendment to reclassify the Public Lands Department's Planning Manager position (Grade 33) to an appointed Planning & Design Division Director (Grade 35). The cost difference will be made up by the Department's FY 23/24 budget's vacancy savings and the ongoing funding will be included in the department’s general budget request in the following fiscal year (FY 24/25). The updated appointed pay plan provided by HR is also included to reflect this change. D-2: Ongoing Landfill Projects CIP $1,000,000.00 Department: Public Services Prepared By: JP Goates, Mark Stephens For questions, please include JP Goates, Kimberley Schmeling, Mark Stephens and Jorge Chamorro The landfill unallocated CIP account has been receiving revolving funds for various ongoing landfill projects. The funds placed in the account are applied to individual projects and then reimbursed to the General Fund. Module 8 is the next step in the series of landfill modules where refuse will be placed. It is needed to continue the expansion of the landfill to accommodate ongoing growth. Module 8 is approximately 40 acres and has a clay liner and HDPE welded liner underneath to protect the groundwater from the landfill leachate. There have been change orders to Module 8 that require the fund to be replenished. This reimbursable fund also needs to be in place for current and future projects on a revolving basis. Public Services’ Engineering Finance bills the County after services are provided. This is a pass-through cost that used to reside under Waste and Recycling but has since been moved to Engineering. Since Engineering oversees the improvements, it was determined that Public Services should process the pass-through costs as well. D-3: Transfer from Transportation to Debt Service for Garage Loan from State GF $1,100,000.00 Debt Service $1,100,000.00 For questions, please include Mary Beth Thompson, Greg Cleary, Marina Scott, Samantha Kenney and Gabby Ewell This is a housekeeping item related to the State Infrastructure Bond repayment. This item is to transfer the $1.1M received from the State to the Debt Service Fund, to support the approximate $7m State Infrastructure Bond for the construction of a parking garage. Section E: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources Section F: Donations Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #4 - Revised Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 9 Section G: Consent Agenda Consent Agenda G-1: Bloomberg Philanthropies Wake the Great Salt Lake Misc. Grants $1,000,000.00 Department: Salt Lake City Arts Council (ED) Prepared By: Felicia Baca; Amy Dorsey Salt Lake City applied for a grant with Bloomberg Philanthropies. The grant aims to educate and inspire residents and visitors to identify possible solutions and take action locally and nationally. Public art projects will be structured around major themes such as water conservation, air quality, agriculture, industry, environmental and social justice- including indigenous rights and lake ecology. Salt Lake City's proposed project consists of 1) a series of 3-5 significant artworks created by world-renowned artists across the city. These artists will be selected to leverage their notoriety and practice while bringing awareness to our civic issues. 2) a series of temporary public art projects by local and regional artists and organizations in various disciplines, including but not limited to performers, sculptors, painters, muralists, printmakers, filmmakers, poets, new media, etc. By commissioning our local community of artists to create context and site-specific artworks about the Great Salt Lake, our local community will be able to reflect on this crisis in new and compelling ways. Bloomberg Philanthropies is awarding the City $1,000,000 to fund the two-year public art project, Wake the Great Salt Lake. Salt Lake City will be providing a match of $1,060,000 with in-kind staff time and other grant funding. A public hearing was held on April 18, 2023. G-2: State of Utah Increase Homeless Mitigation Grant Misc. Grants $216,439.66 Department: Housing Stability/Police Department (Community and Neighborhoods) Prepared By: Michelle Hoon; Amy Dorsey The State has given the City an increase for the Homeless Mitigation grant. As a reminder, the City was awarded $3,107,201 for FY 2024. This award was for 1) Public Safety staff, program supplies, equipment, and vehicle maintenance, 2) Two sub-awards for Volunteers of America and Downtown Alliance, and 3) 2 HEART Coordinators, a Case Manager, half the salary of a grant’s person along with training, travel,and program supplies. Due to the City hosting overflow beds, the City will receive additional funds for FY 24. In total, the City will receive $650,000. 2/3 of that money will go directly to shelter providers. The City will retain $216,439.66, which is required to be put toward public safety. This money will be used for PD overtime in the Rio Grande area around the new Temporary Shelter Community. A public hearing was held for the Homeless Mitigation Grant on September 19, 2023. Section I: Council Added Items Impact Fees - Summary Confidential Data pulled 07/20/2023 Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area Area Cost Center UnAllocated Cash Notes: Impact fee - Police 8484001 1,402,656$ Impact fee - Fire 8484002 273,684$B Impact fee - Parks 8484003 16,793,487$C Impact fee - Streets 8484005 6,304,485$D 24,774,312$ Expiring Amounts: by Major Area, by Month 202207 (Jul2022)2023Q1 -$-$-$-$-$ 202208 (Aug2022)2023Q1 -$-$-$-$-$ 202209 (Sep2022)2023Q1 -$-$-$-$-$ 202210 (Oct2022)2023Q2 -$-$-$-$-$ 202211 (Nov2022)2023Q2 -$-$-$-$-$ 202212 (Dec2022)2023Q2 -$-$-$-$-$ 202301 (Jan2023)2023Q3 -$-$-$-$-$ 202302 (Feb2023)2023Q3 -$-$-$-$-$ 202303 (Mar2023)2023Q3 -$-$-$-$-$ 202304 (Apr2023)2023Q4 -$-$-$-$-$ 202305 (May2023)2023Q4 -$-$-$-$-$ 202306 (Jun2023)2023Q4 -$-$-$-$-$Current Month 202307 (Jul2023)2024Q1 -$-$-$-$-$ 202308 (Aug2023)2024Q1 -$-$-$-$-$ 202309 (Sep2023)2024Q1 -$-$-$-$-$ 202310 (Oct2023)2024Q2 -$-$-$-$-$ 202311 (Nov2023)2024Q2 -$-$-$-$-$ 202312 (Dec2023)2024Q2 -$-$-$-$-$ 202401 (Jan2024)2024Q3 -$-$-$-$-$ 202402 (Feb2024)2024Q3 -$-$-$-$-$ 202403 (Mar2024)2024Q3 -$-$-$-$-$ 202404 (Apr2024)2024Q4 -$-$-$-$-$ 202405 (May2024)2024Q4 -$-$-$-$-$ 202406 (Jun2024)2024Q4 -$-$-$-$-$ 202407 (Jul2024)2025Q1 -$-$-$-$-$ 202408 (Aug2024)2025Q1 -$-$-$-$-$ 202409 (Sep2024)2025Q1 -$-$-$-$-$ 202410 (Oct2024)2025Q2 -$-$-$-$-$ 202411 (Nov2024)2025Q2 -$-$-$-$-$ 202412 (Dec2024)2025Q2 -$-$-$-$-$ 202501 (Jan2025)2025Q3 -$-$-$-$-$ 202502 (Feb2025)2025Q3 -$-$-$-$-$ 202503 (Mar2025)2025Q3 -$-$-$-$-$ 202504 (Apr2025)2025Q4 -$-$-$-$-$ 202505 (May2025)2025Q4 -$-$-$-$-$ 202506 (Jun2025)2025Q4 -$-$-$-$-$ 202507 (Jul2025)2026Q1 -$-$-$-$-$ 202508 (Aug2025)2026Q1 -$-$-$-$-$ 202509 (Sep2025)2026Q1 -$-$-$-$-$ 202510 (Oct2025)2026Q2 -$-$-$-$-$ 202511 (Nov2025)2026Q2 -$-$-$1,103,628$1,103,628$ 202512 (Dec2025)2026Q2 -$-$-$113,748$113,748$ 202601 (Jan2026)2026Q3 -$-$-$3,960$3,960$ 202602 (Feb2026)2026Q3 -$-$-$26,929$26,929$ 202603 (Mar2026)2026Q3 -$-$-$95,407$95,407$ 202604 (Apr2026)2026Q4 -$-$-$1,065,383$1,065,383$ 202605 (May2026)2026Q4 -$-$-$95,762$95,762$ 202606 (Jun2026)2026Q4 -$-$-$53,972$53,972$ Total, Currently Expiring through Jun 2026 -$-$-$2,558,788$2,558,788$ FY 2 0 2 3 Calendar Month FY 2 0 2 4 FY 2 0 2 5 FY 2 0 2 6 Fiscal Quarter E = A + B + C + D Police Fire Parks Streets Total I Impact Fees Confidential Data pulled 07/20/2023 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC Police Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center Sum of Police Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Police Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Police Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Police Allocation Remaining Appropriation IFFP Contract - Police 8423003 9,000$-$-$9,000$ Grand Total 9,000$-$-$9,000$ A Fire Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center Sum of Fire Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Fire Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Fire Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Fire Allocation Remaining Appropriation Fire Training Center 8417015 (499,533)$-$(499,533)$-$ Fire'sConsultant'sContract 8419202 3,079$3,021$-$58.00 IFFP Contract - Fire 8423004 9,000$-$-$9,000$B IF Excess Capacity - Fire 8423006 2,200,000$-$2,200,000$-$ Grand Total 1,712,546$3,021$1,700,467$9,058.00 Parks Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center Sum of Parks Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Parks Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Parks Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Parks Allocation Remaining Appropriation Fisher Carriage House 8420130 261,187$-$261,187$-$ Emigration Open Space ACQ 8422423 700,000$-$700,000$-$ Waterpark Redevelopment Plan 8421402 16,959$1,705$15,254$-$ JR Boat Ram 8420144 3,337$-$3,337$-$ RAC Parcel Acquisition 8423454 395,442$-$395,442$0$ Park'sConsultant'sContract 8419204 2,638$2,596$-$42$ Cwide Dog Lease Imp 8418002 23,262$23,000$-$262$ Rosewood Dog Park 8417013 1,056$-$-$1,056$ Jordan R 3 Creeks Confluence 8417018 1,570$-$-$1,570$ 9line park 8416005 16,495$855$13,968$1,672$ Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn 8417017 2,946$-$-$2,946$ ImperialParkShadeAcct'g 8419103 6,398$-$-$6,398$ Rich Prk Comm Garden 8420138 12,431$4,328$-$8,103$ FY IFFP Contract - Parks 8423005 9,000$-$-$9,000$ Redwood Meadows Park Dev 8417014 9,350$-$-$9,350$ 9Line Orchard 8420136 156,827$132,168$6,874$17,785$ Trailhead Prop Acquisition 8421403 275,000$-$253,170$21,830$ Marmalade Park Block Phase II 8417011 1,042,694$240,179$764,614$37,902$ IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks 8420406 56,109$-$1,302$54,808$ Green loop 200 E Design 8422408 608,490$443,065$93,673$71,752$C FY20 Bridge to Backman 8420430 156,565$44,791$30,676$81,099$ Fisher House Exploration Ctr 8421401 555,030$52,760$402,270$100,000$ Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420424 254,159$133,125$13,640$107,393$ UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 122,281$-$1,310$120,971$ Three Creeks West Bank NewPark 8422403 150,736$-$-$150,736$ Rose Park Neighborhood Center 8423403 160,819$-$2,781$158,038$ Historic Renovation AllenParK 8422410 420,000$156,146$104,230$159,624$ RAC Playground with ShadeSails 8422415 179,323$-$712$178,611$ Bridge to Backman 8418005 266,306$10,285$4,262$251,758$ 900 S River Park Soccer Field 8423406 287,848$-$-$287,848$ Lighting NE Baseball Field 8423409 300,000$-$678$299,322$ Open Space Prop Acq-Trails 8423453 300,000$-$-$300,000$ SLC Foothills Land Acquisition 8422413 319,139$-$-$319,139$ Parley's Trail Design & Constr 8417012 327,678$-$-$327,678$ Jordan Prk Event Grounds 8420134 428,074$5,593$23,690$398,791$ Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 446,825$18,467$14,885$413,472$ Open Space Prop Acq-City Parks 8423452 450,000$-$-$450,000$ Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathway 8422414 510,000$9,440$34,921$465,638$ Gateway Triangle Property Park 8423408 499,563$-$106$499,457$ RAC Playground Phase II 8423405 521,564$-$-$521,564$ Mem. Tree Grove Design & Infra 8423407 867,962$-$2,906$865,056$ Marmalade Plaza Project 8423451 1,000,000$-$3,096$996,905$ SLCFoothillsTrailheadDevelpmnt 8422412 1,304,682$41,620$62,596$1,200,466$ GlendaleWtrprk MstrPln&Rehab 8422406 3,177,849$524,018$930,050$1,723,781$ Pioneer Park 8419150 3,149,123$69,208$94,451$2,985,464$ Glendale Regional Park Phase 1 8423450 4,350,000$-$-$4,350,000$ Grand Total 24,106,716$1,913,351$4,236,078$17,957,287$ Streets Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center Sum of Street Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Street Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Street Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Street Allocation Remaining Appropriation Transportation Safety Improvem 8417007 1,292$-$1,292$-$ 500/700 S Street Reconstructio 8412001 15,026$11,703$3,323$-$ Trans Safety Improvements 8419007 13,473$-$13,473$-$ 900 S Signal Improvements IF 8422615 70,000$-$70,000$-$ Corridor Transformations IF 8422608 25,398$25,398$-$-$ Trans Master Plan 8419006 13,000$-$13,000$-$ 9 Line Central Ninth 8418011 63,955$-$63,955$-$ Local Link Construction IF 8422606 50,000$-$50,000$-$ Gladiola Street 8406001 16,109$12,925$940$2,244$ Transportatn Safety Imprvmt IF 8422620 44,400$-$38,084$6,316$ Urban Trails FY22 IF 8422619 6,500$-$-$6,500$ Street'sConsultant'sContract 8419203 29,817$17,442$-$12,374$ Complete Street Enhancements 8420120 35,392$-$16,693$18,699$ 500 to 700 S 8418016 22,744$-$-$22,744$D 900 South 9Line RR Cross IF 8422604 28,000$-$-$28,000$ Transp Safety Improvements 8420110 58,780$17,300$11,746$29,734$ 1700S Corridor Transfrmtn IF 8422622 35,300$-$-$35,300$ 200S TransitCmpltStrtSuppl IF 8422602 37,422$-$-$37,422$ 300 N Complete Street Recons I 8423606 40,000$-$-$40,000$ 1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 8416004 42,833$-$-$42,833$ 400 South Viaduct Trail IF 8422611 90,000$-$-$90,000$ Neighborhood Byways IF 8422614 104,500$-$-$104,500$ Transit Cap-Freq Trans Routes 8423608 110,000$-$-$110,000$ TransportationSafetyImprov IF 8421500 281,586$124,068$40,300$117,218$ Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design 8412002 124,593$-$-$124,593$ Bikeway Urban Trails 8418003 181,846$-$542$181,303$ 200 S Recon Trans Corridor IF 8423602 252,000$-$-$252,000$ Street Improve Reconstruc 20 8420125 780,182$46,269$393,884$340,029$ IF Complete Street Enhancement 8421502 625,000$-$-$625,000$ Traffic Signal Upgrades 8421501 836,736$55,846$45,972$734,918$ 700 South Phase 7 IF 8423305 1,120,000$-$166$1,119,834$ 1300 East Reconstruction 8423625 3,111,335$1,192,649$224,557$1,694,129$ Grand Total 8,267,218$1,503,600$987,926$5,775,692$ Total 34,095,480$3,419,972$6,924,471$23,751,037$ E = A + B + C + D TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE 8484002 24,774,312$ 8484003 8484005 16,793,487$ 6,304,485$ $273,684 UnAllocated Budget Amount 8484001 1,402,656$ ~~_________L_____L_______l_________L____J D ~~~ =====-====~-===l===f=~===== -===== -=====-=====-====I ~ I I I I ♦ ~r----=====---==±==+=------==JI______ I I - I I I I I ~ - I I I I I ~ Atachmens A-1 Ver 1/9/2024 Page 1 of 7 Clean Air SLC Initiative The Sustainability Department is developing Clean Air SLC, an initiative that aims to distribute equipment and information to help residents improve air quality in their communities and inside their homes.Clean Air SLC will distribute resources through three incentive programs: E-Bike Rebates, Indoor Air Quality Tools, and Electric Yard Care Equipment. The City Council supported the creation of an Air Quality Incentives Program during the Citywide FY24 budget process. Budget was appropriated to continue offering Electric Yard Care Equipment exchanges and hire a new full-time employee (FTE) to help design and administer a more comprehensive Air Quality Incentives Program tailored for Salt Lakers. During the FY24 budget process, the City Council requested that the Sustainability Department provide a written proposal of the program policy and goals for the Electric Bike Rebates and Indoor Air Quality incentives before approving funding for those two incentives. Summaries of the three Air Quality Incentives Programs are provided below: 1) Electric-Bike (E-bike) Rebate Program will distribute vouchers to encourage the purchase of e-bikes as transportation alternatives to cars. 2) Indoor Air Quality Program will distribute indoor air purifiers, HVAC filters, and induction stoves though the City’s existing housing programs. 3) Electric Yard Care Equipment Program will offer rebate for residents to purchase electric yard care equipment, such as snowblowers, lawn mowers, leaf blowers, etc. The Sustainability Department continues to work closely with the Utah Division of Air Quality on the details of this program. This program is not addressed in this document because the Department is waiting on critical decisions from DAQ before designing this program. The Department is requesting $230,000 to fund the E-bike Rebate and Indoor Air Quality Programs. Funding is needed for the Department to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the E-bike Program and to purchase equipment for the Indoor Air Quality Program, the next critical steps in program development. The purpose of this document is to provide information for the City Council about the currently proposed E-bike Rebate and Indoor Air Quality program design, the programs for which funding is being requested. The proposed program components described here are based on feedback from internal and external stakeholders and research of similar programs in other cities. Program details are still under development and will be finalized this Winter and Spring. The Department looks forward to incorporating the City Council’s feedback into the proposed program design. The Department considers this first round a pilot launch and will adjust future launches according to public needs, lessons learned during the pilot launch, and City policy priorities. The Department plans to e CLEAN &Dfil SLC 0 CLEAN &llfil SLC Ver 1/9/2024 Page 2 of 7 explore available federal and other funding sources to provide supplementary funding for this program in the future. Establishing a successful pilot will be an important step in securing additional funding sources. 1. E-Bike Rebate Program Overview The E-Bike Rebate Program will provide financial incentives for e- bikes purchased as a transportation alternative to reduce vehicle miles traveled. The goal of this program is to make e-bikes more accessible and affordable and inspire residents to embrace a greener and healthier mode of transportation while contributing to the reduction of transportation-related emissions in our city. The Department anticipates using $200,000 of the budget amendment request for the E-bike Rebate Program and aims to launch this program in Summer 2024. The proposed program description provided in this document is based on feedback and information collected from local bike shops, bike organizations, and similar programs. The actual program design may change with additional feedback from stakeholders and depending on the results of the RFP process. Research that informed the proposed program design include: - Bike shops:The Department interviewed five local e-bike suppliers to gather information on the types of bikes provided, warranty options, and educational and service support provided. The Department also collected feedback on key program components, such as anticipated voucher amounts and redemption process, e-bike specifications, and procurement process. The bike shops interviewed represented a range of business types and included a local e-bike manufacturer and retailer, locally owned businesses, a national manufacturer and retailer, and a national retailer. - Bike organizations:The Department gathered feedback and explored partnership opportunities with Bike Utah and other local organizations. Additionally, the Department researched policy documents prepared by national bicycling organizations, such as The League of American Cyclists and People for Bikes. - Other E-Bike Incentives Programs:The Department conducted extensive researched on e-bike incentive programs across the country and have been in close communication with UCAIR about the Magnum+UCAIR E-Bike Incentive Program, which launched Summer 2023. This research was intended to understand different program options, models, and lessons-learned. 1.1. Vouchers and Applicant Eligibility Criteria The Department anticipates vouchers will range from $400 to $1,400 depending on bike type and income. Higher voucher amounts will be available to income-qualified applicants. Vouchers will be used at the point-of-sale to reduce the purchase price of the e-bike. The table below provides a summary of the anticipated voucher amounts: CLEAN~ &Om. SLC \3(C) 0 CLEAN &lll;l SLC Ver 1/9/2024 Page 3 of 7 Bike Type Standard Voucher Income-Qualified Voucher City and Commuter $400 $1,000 Adaptive $600 $1,200 Cargo & Utility $800 $1,400 1.1.1. Eligible E-Bikes Below is a list of the anticipated eligible e-bike types and specifications. Final equipment eligibility is subject to change. 1) Eligible E-Bike Types a) Cargo & utility b) City and commuter c) Adaptive d) Mountain and gravel bikes are not eligible 2) Eligible bike classes: Classes 1, 2, and 3 3) Max nominal power output (motor): 750 watts 4) Be newly manufactured or purchased, with original proof of purchase. 5) Have a MSRP of not more than $4,000 6) Manufacturer’s warranty must be available for frame, battery, and components for a period of not less than one (1) year. 7) Electrical drive system must be certified by an accredited testing laboratory for compliance with UL 2849 or EN 15194 1.1.2. Voucher Distribution It is anticipated that the application period will be open for at least one week for the general public. Vouchers will be distributed through a lottery system, ensuring a fair and random allocation among participants. The Department proposes to prioritize vouchers distribution to income-qualified applicants to ensure this program benefits a demographic that may face financial barriers to adopting e-bikes for transportation and welcomes the City Council’s feedback on how to design this prioritization structure. The Department is considering strategies to effectively encourage low-income residents to apply, such as targeted outreach, a longer application period, and bike safety training events. These strategies are further discussed in Section 1.3. Voucher recipients will be able to redeem their vouchers at any of the participating bike shops. The Sustainability Department has been working with IMS to develop a program application and an automated voucher reimbursement process. 1.1.3. Applicant Eligibility Applicants must be residents of Salt Lake City and 18-years of age or older. A valid driver’s license or other State-issued ID card will be required to apply. A utility bill or bank statement will be required to demonstrate proof of residency. Each household will be eligible to receive up to two vouchers. e CLEAN &llfil SLC Ver 1/9/2024 Page 4 of 7 1.1.4. Income-Qualified Applicants To receive an income-qualified voucher, applicant must meet one of the following criteria: 1) Have a household income of less than 80% AMI. See below for income limits amounts per household size. HOUSEHOLD SIZE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LOW INCOME 80% AMI $57,350 $65,550 $73,750 $81,900 $88,500 $95,050 $101,600 $108,150 Source:https://www.slc.gov/housingstability/wp-content/uploads/sites/59/2022/08/HOME-Income-Limits-2022-23.pdf 2) Be currently registered in an approved state or federal income-qualified program. A list of approved programs include: • UTAH Family Employment Program • UTAH Medicaid • UTAH HeadStart • UTAH Home Energy Assistance Training Program HEAT To qualify for the income qualified voucher, applicants can submit one of the following documents: • Tax document (W-2, 1099) for all income-earning members of the household • Employer attestation(s) to verify income • Proof of enrollment in another State or federal income-qualifying assistance program 1.2. E-Bike Suppliers Feedback gathered from potential bike suppliers has been incorporated into a draft RFP. The competitive selection process will be initiated if funding is appropriated by the City Council. The Department anticipates selecting up to 5 suppliers for the e-bike program. Suppliers will be selected based on the quality of bikes sold, proposed bike safety accessory packages, level of maintenance support provided, and staff experience and knowledge of e-bikes. Anticipated bike eligibility requirements and supplier responsibilities are listed below, but all are subject to change. Suppliers must have a storefront within Salt Lake City boundaries and will be responsible for the following: • Voucher Redemption o Verifying identity of holder of the voucher with a valid driver’s license or government-issued identification. o Verifying voucher expiration date, eligibility of the e-bikes with program requirements and/or a list of eligible bike models. o Fulfilling voucher recipients' orders within a 14-day period from purchase. • Voucher Reimbursement e CLEAN &llfil SLC Ver 1/9/2024 Page 5 of 7 o Submitting vouchers to the Sustainability Department’s Program Administrator for reimbursement within 10 business days from date of transaction along with receipts. • Customer Education/Support o Providing a smooth and consistent process for users picking up their e-bikes. Suppliers must explain and set expectations with customers about e-bike maintenance and care. o Sharing cycling and e-bike ownership educational materials provided by Salt Lake City to program participants. o Providing information to support recipients registering their bikes with the manufacturer and the Salt Lake City police department. o Providing an opportunity for voucher recipients to test ride e-bikes before the final sale. • Bike Safety and Maintenance Support o Offering a discount on bike safety accessories, including helmets, lights, patch kits, and locks, to voucher recipients at the time of purchase. o Providing a free 90-day tune-up on bikes sold from their location. o Installing and maintaining on-site flat prevention systems. 1.3. Outreach Strategy The Department is currently developing an outreach plan and tools. The plan will outline details for press releases, social media posts, and other promotions. This plan will also detail strategies to reach low-income residents, such as partnerships with organizations working in these communities, culturally appropriate materials, and bike safety training and bike demonstration events to educate new and inexperienced bike riders. Graphically designed materials are being developed and include logos, social media templates, brochure templates, and other resources, which you can see in this document. The Department will work with IMS’ Civic Engagement and Media Teams and the Transportation Division in the development of the outreach plan and tools.The Department welcomes the City Council’s feedback on the outreach strategy. 1.4. Program Metrics The Department will track metrics to measure the effectiveness and impact of the program. Some of these metrics could include: • Engagement rates with outreach materials • Percentage of applicants that are new to bike riding • Applicant demographics • Percentage of vouchers redeemed • Follow-up survey to gauge usage frequency, miles travelled, car miles replaced, costs to operate, and participant satisfaction with purchased e-bike and the program • Estimated greenhouse gas and air pollutant emission reductions • Number of educational sessions conducted, number of attendees 0 CLEAN &llfil SLC Ver 1/9/2024 Page 6 of 7 1.5. Other Considerations It is important to recognize that bike storage, riding etiquette, parking, and infrastructure are critical considerations that can impact the adoption of cycling as a transportation alternative. While the Department cannot resolve all these issues through a voucher program, we are assessing the challenges and identifying opportunities to incorporate solutions into this program, for example through requiring discounted safety equipment, assistance with registering bikes, analyzing bike storage and security solutions to propose and work with partners to support implementation, and continuing to develop relationships with bike advocacy organizations to assist with education and outreach. Through this program the Department will continue to explore opportunities to work in partnership to address challenges to the adoption of e-bikes as transportation. Recognizing these issues cannot be quickly resolved, this program can be a catalyst to systematically address some of these challenges. 2. Indoor Air Quality Program Research continues to show how the air inside our homes can, at times, be more polluted and harmful to health than the air outside. Furthermore, during high pollution periods, outdoor air can infiltrate homes and buildings, impacting the health of those inside. Thankfully, there are simple equipment and behavioral measures that can significantly improve indoor air quality. For these reasons, the Sustainability Department began an educational campaign in 2022 around indoor air quality, hosting a partnership event to learn about the latest research, and incorporating messaging on the SLCgreen social media platforms, blog posts and website. Under the leadership of Mayor Mendenhall, in the FY24 budget process the Department proposed enhancing the air quality incentives program by providing tools that will directly improve the air inside people’s homes, particularly those who have lower household incomes. To do so, the Department plans to collaborate with the Housing Stability Division’s Handyman and Home Repair programs to distribute high-efficiency HVAC filters, air purifiers, and single-burner induction cooktops. The Department anticipates using $30,000 of the budget amendment request for this Indoor Air Quality program. Based on Housing Stability’s program data from past years, the Department anticipate working with 60 homes over a one-year period. The number of homes served will depend on the number of applicants the housing programs enroll, and types of repairs performed. If funding is approved, the Department will begin working with contractors for the Handyman and Home Repair programs to start distributing indoor air quality tools. 2.1. Indoor Air Quality Assessment For their existing programs, Housing Stability staff conducts a home assessment to assist residents with their applications and evaluate the rehabilitation needs of the home. The Department plans to work with Housing Stability staff to collect information during these assessments to identify the appropriate indoor air quality interventions for each home, such as furnace type and age, stove type (gas vs. electric), age of household members, and health concerns (such as respiratory and heart diseases). CLEAN~ &Dfil SLC _lQ-% 0 CLEAN &llfil SLC Ver 1/9/2024 Page 7 of 7 2.2. Indoor Air Quality Equipment The Department proposes distributing the following interventions: • High-efficiency furnace filters with efficiency ratings of MERV 13 or higher will be offered along with instructions for replacing filters, and reminders for filter replacement. MERV 13 filters are not appropriate in all instances because they can diminish the efficiency and performance of the furnace. An assessment of the age and condition of the furnace will be conducted, and the highest-efficiency option will be provided if a MERV 13 filter is not appropriate. • Air Purifiers will be offered to homes where residents have health conditions exacerbated by poor air quality or where high efficiency filters cannot be installed. • Single-burner induction stoves will be offered to homes that have gas stoves. Stoves fueled by natural gas can result in high levels of indoor air pollution. Program participants will be provided information on the impact of gas stoves on indoor air quality and will be offered a single-burner induction stove along with appropriate cookware. • Indoor Air Quality Monitors will be offered as a tool to increase awareness of how routine activities impact indoor air quality. 2.3. Educational Components This program will also include an educational component to help residents understand how to improve indoor air quality in their homes. The materials will discuss strategies for improving indoor air quality and will include instructions for the materials distributed by our program. These materials will be distributed through the City’s Handyman and Home Repair Programs. Sustainability is also exploring partnerships with other organizations, such as community health workers, to distribute educational materials and promote the City’s Handyman and Home Repair Programs and the Clean Air SLC programs. 2.4. Program Metrics & Outcomes The Department will track metrics to measure the effectiveness and impact of the program. Some of these metrics could include: • Engagement rates with outreach materials • Percentage of applicants interested in these interventions • Types and number of interventions installed • Applicant demographics • Follow-up survey to gauge usage frequency, impact of educational material, and satisfaction with the program 0 CLEAN &llfil SLC Atachmens A-12 REQUEST FOR WAIVER – APCO CONTRACT SalLake Ciy’s E991 Deparmen(he “Deparmen”) hereby asks he SalLake Ciy Corporaon (“Ciy”) ChieProcuremenOcer o waive he sandard procuremenprocess and allow he Deparmen o pursue a conrac or medical dispach proocols and processes wih he Associaon oPublic-Saey Communicaons Ocials Inernaonal, Inc. (“APCO”). A procuremenwaiver is needed in his siuaon because: 1. The Ciy needs o mach exisng medical dispach proocol equipmenand processes currenly being used by he SalLake Valley Emergency Communicaons Cener (“VECC”). (SalLake Ciy Code subsecon 3.24.160(1)(b)) 2. The supplies and services needed o mach VECC’s dispach proocol equipmenand processes is only available rom a sole source, and a soliciaon process would be exremely unlikely o produce a meaningul compeon. (SalLake Ciy Code subsecon 3.24.160(1)(a)) 3. A waiver o he soliciaon process in his siuaon would be in he besinereso he Ciy and he convenience o he public. (SalLake Ciy Code subsecon 3.24.160(1)(d)) BACKGROUND In recenyears,he Uah Sae Legislaure expressed a srong ineresin ensuring he 911 services beween PSAPS are rapid, ecien, and ineroperable. See Uah Code Subsecon 63H-7-302(1). The Ciy’s E911 Deparmenand VECC are he wo primary Public Saey Answering Poins (“PSAPs”)ha provide dispach services or he SalLake Valley. Because he wo enes share he responsibiliy o providing dispach services in he SalLake Valley,hey are consanly working ogeher o provide as and accurae responses o calls seeking emergency dispach services. Using a ruly ineroperable sysem is crucial o providing medical dispach services o he public in a rapid and ecienmanner. In ac,o provide emergency dispach services as quickly and accuraely as possible, and a he urging ovarious Sae governmenenes,he Ciy and VECC use a shared, or common, compuer aided dispach program (“CAD”) known as Versaerm. However,he Ciy and VECC currenly do nouse he same medical dispach proocols. VECC previously issued a reques or proposals relaed o medical dispach proocols and seleced he Associaon oPublic-Saey Communicaons Ocials Inernaonal, Inc (“APCO)o provide VECC’s medical dispach proocols and relaed services. Since moving o APCO, VECC has noed ha he me required o dispach a medical call has signicanly reduced – resulng in help being sen aser han wha he Ciy is currenly experiencing operang using Pro-QA dispach proocols. A highlighed comparison using he sascal CAD repors or Augus1so Augus20h 2023 is aached. The me a call is “In Queue” represens he me a call is waing or sucieninormaon beore ican be dispached on. One reporshows SalLake Ciy Fire (CF) and he oher shows Unied Fire (UF). The me beore dispach services are able begin dispaching any re/medical response is whais highlighed in he “In Queue” column. The aached documens indicae ha he “In Queue”me or SalLake Ciy using ProQA are commonly over a minue or an overall average o1.53 minues. This is under he required 2 minues o sarhelp or a medical call. However,he aached documens also show ha Unied Fire (UF), which is dispached by VECC using APCO’s medical proocol haallows hem o dispach when cerain pieces oinormaon are obained (whereas ProQA’s dispach proocols would normally preven his more rapid dispach approach) resuls in an average oonly 39 seconds “In Queue” beore VECC begins sending help. These resuls indicae ha, even disregarding he eciencies gained by he Ciy and VECC operang oa single proocol sysem,he overall me “In Queue” beore SalLake Ciy Fire could be dispached on medical calls would be much lower using APCO’s medical proocol ha does nohinder he Ciy’s abiliy o begin sending help once he dispaching process reaches a poin where ibecomes clear wha ype ohelp is needed. Currenly he ProQA dispaching sofware prevens he Ciy rom aking acon unl he dispach process is enrely complee. The Ciy’s connued use oProQA’s dispaching sofware would also nobe conducive o accomplishing he shared CAD requiremens expressed by he legislaure because connued use odieren dispaching proocols, noonly slows he Ciy’s dispach responses down bualso hinders dispach processes hroughouSalLake Couny. The Versaerm CAD can only use one medical proocol and he ac ha he Ciy and VECC currenly use dierenmedical proocols creaes unnecessary complicaons haarise when a 911 call needs o be ranserred beween he Ciy and VECC. In such siuaons each agency has o ake me o change he call o  he parameers in each dispach cener’s medical proocol beore help can be dispached. By conracng wih APCO or medical dispach services,he Ciy can achieve a genuinely ineroperable common CAD sysem hawill he eliminae delays in me,he inecienuse oresources, and he connuiy gaps hacurrenly arise when calls are ranserred beween dispach ceners. FIRST BASIS FOR WAIVER: MATCH EXISTING EQUIPMENT AND PROCESSES - CONTRACTING WITH APCO WILL ALLOW THE CITY TO MATCH VECC’S EXISTING EQUIPMENT AND PROCESSES. Conracng wih APCO o provide medical dispach proocol services will allow he Ciy o mach is PSAP parner’s exisng medical dispach proocol equipmenand processes such ha he Ciy and VECC will be able o joinly ulize an ineroperable CAD sysem hapermis calls o he ranserred smoohly and consisenly rom one PSAP o he oher. This ineroperable sysem would be a signicanupgrade rom he currendisjoined approach haprevens eiher VECC or he Ciy rom being able o use he CAD’s ull unconaliy. In conras, I he Ciy obains is medical dispach proocols rom any vendor oher han APCO,he abiliy or he Ciy and VECC o use a ully ineroperable CAD sysem disappears and he currenineciencies inherenin a less-han ineroperable sysem will persis. SECOND BASIS FOR WAIVER: SOLE SOURCE – APCO IS THE SOLE VENDOR THAT THE CITY CAN SELECT IF IT WANTS TO ACHIEVE A FULLY INTEROPERABLE CAD SYSTEM THAT WILL REDUCE DELAYS AND FACILITATE THE RAPID AND EFFICIENT PROVISION OF MEDICAL DISPATCH SERVICES. Moso he raonale supporng his reques or a sole source waiver is already addressed in he preceding paragraph. APCO is he only vendor who can mach VECC’s exisng equipmenand processes, and APCO is hereore he only vendor he Ciy can selec o achieve a genuinely ineroperable CAD sysem haeliminaes he exisng ineciencies and ully mees he Sae governmen’s expecaon ha he enre SalLake Valley will operae on a common CAD THIRD BASIS FOR WAIVER: BEST INTERESTS OF THE CITY – CONTRACTING WITH APCO IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY BECAUSE RESULTS IN AN INTEROPERABLE COMMON CAD SYSTEM AND BECAUSE APCO’S SYSTEM, INDEPENDENT OF ANY INTEROPERABLE EFFICIENCIES, IMPROVES THE CITY’S ABILITY TO TIMELY PROVIDE MEDICAL DISPATCH SERVICES. Having a ully ineroperable common CAD hawill allow or he seamless ransion ocalls and inormaon beween VECC and Ciy is in he besineress o he Ciy and is residens. The mely and compeenprovision omedical dispach services o persons in need omedical assisance is an incredibly imporanservice o he public. However, even setng aside he benes o he ully ineroperable CAD sysem, conracng wih APCO or medical dispach services will bene he public. Afer moving o APCO, VECC noced he signicanimprovemens relaed o he me in which help could be dispached in response o medical emergencies. The circumsances in which SalLake Ciy dispach services operae are very similar o he circumsances presenaVECC, and iis reasonable o conclude hamany o he benes VECC has realized by conracng wih APCO should also be realized by he Ciy. CONCLUSION: For all o he reasons saed above,he Ciy’s E911 Deparmenis requesng ha he ChieProcuremen Ocer waive he sandard procuremenprocess in his siuaon and allow he Ciy o pursue enering ino a conracwih APCO or he provision omedical dispach proocol services. While we believe ha all o he reasons supporng a reques or waiver are jused, any o he hree bases or waiver described above would by iselbe sucien o gran he E911 Deparmen’s waiver reques. Atachmens D-1 911 BUREAU Job Title Grade 911 DISPATCH DIRECTOR 041X 911 COMMUNICATIONS DEPUTY DIRECTOR 032X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X AIRPORT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF AIRPORTS 041X CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, AIRPORT 040X DIRECTOR AIRPORT DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 039X DIRECTOR AIRPORT MAINTENANCE 039X DIRECTOR FINANCE/ACCOUNTING AIRPORT 039X DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT ADMINISTRATION/COMMERCIAL SERVICES 039X DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 039X DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT PLANNING & CAPITAL PROJECTS 039X DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS - AIRPORT 039X DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONAL READINESS & TRANSITION 039X DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 038X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X CITY ATTORNEY CITY ATTORNEY 041X DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY 040X CITY RECORDER 035X LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DIRECTOR 034X CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL MEMBER-ELECT N/A* EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL OFFICE 041X COUNCIL LEGAL DIRECTOR 039X DEPUTY DIRECTOR - CITY COUNCIL 039X ASSOCIATE DEPUTY DIRECTOR COUNCIL 037X LEGISLATIVE & POLICY MANAGER 037X SENIOR ADVISOR CITY COUNCIL 037X SENIOR PUBLIC POLICY ANALYST 033X COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL 031X PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST III 031X COMMUNITY FACILITATOR 031X OPERATIONS MANAGER & MENTOR – CITY COUNCIL 031X PUBLIC POLICY ANALYST 031X POLICY ANALYST/PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT 028X PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST II 028X CONSTITUENT LIAISON/POLICY ANALYST 027X CONSTITUENT LIAISON 026X PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST I 026X ASSISTANT TO THE COUNCIL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 025X COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT/AGENDA 024X COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 021X COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR - COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS 037X DEPUTY DIRECTOR - COMMUNITY SERVICES 037X DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION (ENGINEER)037X PLANNING DIRECTOR 037X BUILDING OFFICIAL 035X DIRECTOR OF HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT 035X DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION (PLANNER)035X YOUTH & FAMILY DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X APPENDIX B – APPOINTED EMPLOYEES BY DEPARTMENT Effective June 25, 2023 EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 037X ARTS DIVISION DIRECTOR 033X BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT DIVISION DIRECTOR 033X FINANCE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 041X CITY TREASURER 039X DEPUTY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 039X CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER 036X FIRE FIRE CHIEF 041X DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF 037X ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF 035X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X HUMAN RESOURCES CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER 041X DEPUTY CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER 037X CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD INVESTIGATOR 035X TRANSITION CHIEF OF STAFF 041X* TRANSITION COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR 039X* TRANSITION EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X* INFORMATION MGT SERVICES CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 041X CHIEF INNOVATIONS OFFICER 039X DEPUTY CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 039X JUSTICE COURTS JUSTICE COURT JUDGE 038X JUSTICE COURT ADMINISTRATOR 037X MAYOR CHIEF OF STAFF 041X CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 041X COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR 039X DEPUTY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 039X DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF 039X SENIOR ADVISOR 039X COMMUNICATIONS DEPUTY DIRECTOR 030X POLICY ADVISOR 029X REP COMMISSION POLICY ADVISOR 029X COMMUNITY LIAISON 026X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X OFFICE MANAGER - MAYOR'S OFFICE 024X COMMUNITY OUTREACH - EQUITY & SPECIAL PROJECTS COORDINATOR 024X COMMUNICATION AND CONTENT MANAGER - MAYOR'S OFFICE 021X ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 019X CONSUMER PROTECTION ANALYST 016X POLICE CHIEF OF POLICE 041X ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE 039X DEPUTY CHIEF POLICE 037X ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR - COMMUNICATIONS 037X ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR - INTERNAL AFFAIRS 037X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X PUBLIC LANDS PUBLIC LANDS DIRECTOR 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PUBLIC LANDS 037X GOLF DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X PARKS DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X URBAN FORESTRY DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICES 041X CITY ENGINEER 039X DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS 038X SAFETY & SECURITY DIRECTOR 037X FACILITIES DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X FLEET DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X STREETS DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X COMPLIANCE DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X PUBLIC UTILITIES DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC UTILITIES 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC UTILITIES 039X FINANCE ADMINISTRATOR PUBLIC UTILITIES 039X CHIEF ENGINEER - PUBLIC UTILITIES 037X WATER QUALITY & TREATMENT ADMINSTRATOR 037X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 037X SUSTAINABILITY SUSTAINABILITY DIRECTOR 041X SUSTAINABILITY DEPUTY DIRECTOR 037X WASTE & RECYCLING DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X Except for a change in job title or reassignment to a lower pay level, no appointed position on this pay plan may be added, remov or modified without approval of the City Council. * Compensation for transitional positions, including city council member‐elect, is set as provided under Chapter 2.03.030 of the Salt Lake City Code. Benefits for transitional employees are equivalent to those provided to full‐time employees. Except for leave time, benefits for city council members‐elect are also equivalent to those provided to full‐time employees. 911 BUREAU Job Title Grade 911 DISPATCH DIRECTOR 041X 911 COMMUNICATIONS DEPUTY DIRECTOR 032X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X AIRPORT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF AIRPORTS 041X CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, AIRPORT 040X DIRECTOR AIRPORT DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 039X DIRECTOR AIRPORT MAINTENANCE 039X DIRECTOR FINANCE/ACCOUNTING AIRPORT 039X DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT ADMINISTRATION/COMMERCIAL SERVICES 039X DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 039X DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT PLANNING & CAPITAL PROJECTS 039X DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS - AIRPORT 039X DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONAL READINESS & TRANSITION 039X DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 038X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X CITY ATTORNEY CITY ATTORNEY 041X DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY 040X CITY RECORDER 035X LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DIRECTOR 034X CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL MEMBER-ELECT N/A* EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL OFFICE 041X COUNCIL LEGAL DIRECTOR 039X DEPUTY DIRECTOR - CITY COUNCIL 039X ASSOCIATE DEPUTY DIRECTOR COUNCIL 037X LEGISLATIVE & POLICY MANAGER 037X SENIOR ADVISOR CITY COUNCIL 037X SENIOR PUBLIC POLICY ANALYST 033X COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL 031X PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST III 031X COMMUNITY FACILITATOR 031X OPERATIONS MANAGER & MENTOR – CITY COUNCIL 031X PUBLIC POLICY ANALYST 031X POLICY ANALYST/PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT 028X PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST II 028X CONSTITUENT LIAISON/POLICY ANALYST 027X CONSTITUENT LIAISON 026X PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST I 026X ASSISTANT TO THE COUNCIL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 025X COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT/AGENDA 024X COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 021X COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR - COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS 037X DEPUTY DIRECTOR - COMMUNITY SERVICES 037X DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION (ENGINEER)037X PLANNING DIRECTOR 037X BUILDING OFFICIAL 035X DIRECTOR OF HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT 035X DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION (PLANNER)035X YOUTH & FAMILY DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X APPENDIX B – APPOINTED EMPLOYEES BY DEPARTMENT Effective June 25, 2023 EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 037X ARTS DIVISION DIRECTOR 033X BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT DIVISION DIRECTOR 033X FINANCE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 041X CITY TREASURER 039X DEPUTY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 039X CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER 036X FIRE FIRE CHIEF 041X DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF 037X ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF 035X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X HUMAN RESOURCES CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER 041X DEPUTY CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER 037X CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD INVESTIGATOR 035X TRANSITION CHIEF OF STAFF 041X* TRANSITION COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR 039X* TRANSITION EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X* INFORMATION MGT SERVICES CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 041X CHIEF INNOVATIONS OFFICER 039X DEPUTY CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 039X JUSTICE COURTS JUSTICE COURT JUDGE 038X JUSTICE COURT ADMINISTRATOR 037X MAYOR CHIEF OF STAFF 041X CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 041X COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR 039X DEPUTY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 039X DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF 039X SENIOR ADVISOR 039X COMMUNICATIONS DEPUTY DIRECTOR 030X POLICY ADVISOR 029X REP COMMISSION POLICY ADVISOR 029X COMMUNITY LIAISON 026X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X OFFICE MANAGER - MAYOR'S OFFICE 024X COMMUNITY OUTREACH - EQUITY & SPECIAL PROJECTS COORDINATOR 024X COMMUNICATION AND CONTENT MANAGER - MAYOR'S OFFICE 021X ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 019X CONSUMER PROTECTION ANALYST 016X POLICE CHIEF OF POLICE 041X ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE 039X DEPUTY CHIEF POLICE 037X ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR - COMMUNICATIONS 037X ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR - INTERNAL AFFAIRS 037X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X PUBLIC LANDS PUBLIC LANDS DIRECTOR 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PUBLIC LANDS 037X GOLF DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X PARKS DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X URBAN FORESTRY DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICES 041X CITY ENGINEER 039X DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS 038X SAFETY & SECURITY DIRECTOR 037X FACILITIES DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X FLEET DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X STREETS DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X COMPLIANCE DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X PUBLIC UTILITIES DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC UTILITIES 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC UTILITIES 039X FINANCE ADMINISTRATOR PUBLIC UTILITIES 039X CHIEF ENGINEER - PUBLIC UTILITIES 037X WATER QUALITY & TREATMENT ADMINSTRATOR 037X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 037X SUSTAINABILITY SUSTAINABILITY DIRECTOR 041X SUSTAINABILITY DEPUTY DIRECTOR 037X WASTE & RECYCLING DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X Except for a change in job title or reassignment to a lower pay level, no appointed position on this pay plan may be added, remov or modified without approval of the City Council. * Compensation for transitional positions, including city council member‐elect, is set as provided under Chapter 2.03.030 of the Salt Lake City Code. Benefits for transitional employees are equivalent to those provided to full‐time employees. Except for leave time, benefits for city council members‐elect are also equivalent to those provided to full‐time employees. A Risk-Based Analysis of General Fund Reserve for Salt Lake City Goals for Today o Review five steps of the project ▪Define “reserves” ▪Define the risks the SLC is subject to ▪Determine exposure to risks ▪Putting together the findings of risk analysis ▪Next steps from here o Gain awareness of how analysis was performed, results, and implications for SLC Step 1 –Define “Reserves” A mental model is a representation of how the real-world works. The real world is complicated. Mental models simplify. What are Reserves? “Reserves” is a budget and policy term that describes the resources available outside of the budget for use if the resources appropriated inside of the budget are insufficient. This offers protection against unplanned, unavoidable costs or losses. What is the Traditional Mental Model for Reserves? The Savings Account •Easy to grasp •Seemingly obvious parallel to our personal lives The Savings Account Mental Model is Limited •Savings is more commonly seen as deferred spending than a way to manage risk •Implies that more is better What is the Alternative? The Insurance Policy •A reserve manages volatility •Risk is a product of volatility •Hence, reserves help manage risk Advantages •Obvious parallel to personal lives •Invites us to think how commercial insurance complements reserves •Implies there is an optimal amount Step 2 –Define Risks SLC is Protecting Against Time Financial Condition Shock Recovery Period is Temporary Time Stress Stress is on-going Stress Stress Shock Versus Stress Reserves are an appropriate tool for shocks because temporary recovery period matches with non-renewable nature of reserves Natural & Human- made Catastrophes Earthquakes Floods Wildfires Tornados & Strong Winds Other Hazards Revenue Instability (Recessions and Pension) Step 3 – Determine Amount of Exposure to the Risks How Did We Analyze Exposure to These Risks? o Monte Carlo computer simulation ▪Has been around since the 1950s ▪Standard practice in industries like insurance ▪Basically, we built a multiverse of Salt Lake City Where the Data Came From o SLC’s own historical experience o Historical experience in the wider region. o SLC finance and public safety staff ▪Calibrated estimators o Third party experts ▪Aon and FirstStreet.org ▪State earthquake experts ▪County flood experts 17The Normal Distribution or “Bell Curve” Average 5’ 9” Height 7’ 1”4’ 5” Frequency S 1 8 Normal (Symmetrical) Distribution in Local Govt SnowpocalypseThe “Tails” of a distribution are often of great interest in risk analysis Frequency Normal Distribution Applied to a County Percentile Snowfall .95 84 .90 78 .80 70 .70 64 .60 59 .50 54 .40 49 Important Feature of Many Catastrophes •Hockey stick shaped loss curve Step 4 – Putting the Findings of Risk Analysis Together Let’s Add Up All the Risks GFOA Analyzed oBut first some important points… ▪Risks don’t add up like you might expect •Interdependencies! ▪SLC will not “do nothing” if a bad thing happens – it will look for savings opportunities. We assumed a willingness to cut the budget by up to 3%. This can be changed. ▪“Critical threshold” is set to zero - your “floor” or the least amount of gas you want in your tank. SLC has the special advantage of robust balances in other funds. S22 Bond Rating Agency Expectations o SLC has a goal of maintaining a AAA bond rating o Moody’s pegs fund balances above 35% across the entire govt as equivalent to AAA. o Because SLC has robust balances in other funds, the burden on the general fund to meet this 35% goal is less than in many other cities. o Further, our analysis is based on “reserves” not all of general fund balance ▪Reserves is the “insurance policy” aspect of fund balance Millions $143.7M (35% of Revenues) Total General Fund Unrestricted Fund Balance $143.7 M “Insurance Policy” (Reserves) The Focus of our Analysis “Savings Account” $89.9M (22% of Revenues) $53.8M (13% of Revenues) Rating agencies care about this because they care about SLC paying back debt We focus here because we care about SLC responding decisively to emergencies. Some Implications o Reducing the “savings account” or the “insurance policy” would make it harder to meeting rating agency expectations o SLC could, in theory, borrow from enterprise funds or internal service funds, in an emergency. Bond ratings focus on ability to repay debt. SLC has broader concerns. o General fund does have role in backstopping some aspects of SLC operations so must be able to stand alone, to an extent. Other Factors Considered… Issue Implication for Risk Aversion Notes FEMA/Other Reimbursement ←→Does not reduce need to hold reserves, but helps replenish faster Commercial Insurance ↓Insurance might provide coverage that substitutes for reserves. FEMA data used accounts for this. Taxbase Impairment ↑Large earthquake (~7.0) could heavily damage many buildings Unknown Unknowns ↑Risk Model Includes “Other Hazards” simulation Opportunity Costs ?What are alternative uses of the funds and how do those benefits compare to insuring against the risks described in this report? Analysis uses Historical Data ↑Historical data does not account for climate risk Spending cuts ↓The City can reduce costs in response to a revenue loss or even in response to an expenditure spike. Cuts of 3% appear reasonable for planning purposes. Annual Surpluses and Deficits ↑Outside of recessions, SLC is likely to generate an annual surplus. Surpluses can replenish the reserves. o City has relatively small chance of reaching critical threshold in coming years o Due to robust financial position SLC should not have difficulty meeting rating agency expectations Exhibit 7.1 – Chance to Reach Critical Threshold Each Year The City has less than a 5% chance of reaching the critical threshold by the 10th year of our analysis period. Exhibit 7.2 –Simulated Remaining Reserve Per Year The critical threshold is equal to zero. On average, SLC’s reserves are simulated to remain stable, with very slight growth over a ten year period. RU LQ FODQFH UHVHUYHV DUH EHORZ WOH JUHHQ OLQH 5HG OLQH LV WOH IORRU On average, the City stays above the critical threshold Assumes: 1) annual surpluses are used to build back the reserve if used, as quickly as possible; 2) SLC will cut budget up 3% in response to recessions Exhibit 7.3 – Cumulative Probability Chart S29 Long tail represents extreme outcomes, like 7.0M quake &XUYHV IODWWHQ RXW ZOHUH PRUH UHVHUYHV QRW DV EHQHILFLDO Step 5 – Where to From Here Our Starting Points o GFOA can’t tell the SLC the exact optimal amount because a policy must incorporate the SLC officials’ risk appetite. o Regardless, the SLC should pick a range of acceptable reserves, rather than a single number ▪Accommodates diverse risk appetites ▪Provides for clear course of action if reserves are off target Golden Cone of Prosperity Next Steps o Take some time to consider your risk appetite as it relates to reserves in light of the information presented. o SLC council and administration determine preferred amount of reserves based on risk appetite and the data presented here. o SLC council and administration can consider a comprehensive reserve policy. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor MARY BETH THOMPSON Chief Financial OffIcer DEPARI:MENTor FINAIVCE CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: ODI / S [ A) A+ Date sent to Council: al [\b{20uFRachel Otto, Chief of Staff TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: February 15, 2024 Victoria Petro, Chair FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer %%ada'”v*n‘ SUBJECT: Risk-Based Analysis and Stress Test of General Fund Reserve Requirements SPONSOR: NA STAFF CONTACT: Andrew Reed (801) 535-7927 or Greg Cleary (801) 535-6394 DOCUMENT TYPE: Informational Update RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the City Council receive and file an update regarding the Risk-Based Analysis and Stress Test of General Fund Reserve Requirements . BUDGET IMPACT: NA (Feb 14, 2024 DEP,+RTXIENT OF FINA\cE POLICY ASD BUDCET DIVISION 451 soLrrH STATE STREET PO BOX 145467. SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 841 14-5455 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City (City) has been considering the financial implications of extreme events, like natural disasters, that could impact the City’s financial condition, particularly its reserve levels for the general fund. The City engaged the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) to produce a recommendation to help determine the appropriate reserve level for the general fund, given the risks from extreme events. “Reserves” are the portion of a local government’s fund balance that are available to respond to the unexpected. Reserves are the cornerstone of financial flexibility, sustainability, continuity of existing service levels and provide a government with options to respond to emergencies. Managing reserves, though, can be a challenge. This assessment intendeds to address 1) How much money should be maintain in a general fund reserve, and 2) How much is enough and when does a reserve become too much? In this analysis, GFOA identified the risks that posed the most clear and present danger to the City’s general fund. Among the major risks examined are: • Recessions and revenue volatility • Earthquakes • Flooding • Wildfires • Tornados Next, for each risk, GFOA calculated the probability that the City would experience the risk over a ten-year period and, if an event were to occur, what the magnitude of the loss would be for the City’s general fund. To calculate the probability and magnitude of events, GFOA: • Analyzed Salt Lake City’s own experience and the experiences of other cities. For example, a wildfire might produce comparable losses in cities of comparable size with comparable exposure to wildfires. • Reviewed research produced by other agencies. For instance, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has data on costs that natural disasters have caused. •Drew from the expertise of City staff. City staff work every day on preparing the City for the risks it faces. For example, City staff helped understand the nuances of natural disaster risks and revenue instability risks in Salt Lake City. The City’s Emergency Operations Plan was also a valuable resource. Although this assessment does not prescribe a specific reserve level or threshold, this assessment and tool is a building block for discussion and evaluation with the input of staff and the City Council. Risk appetite, revenue reliability, natural events or disasters, probability, opportunity cost, and many “unknowns” all factor into the City’s positions on establishing a reserve level and associated policy. A comprehensive report and presentation are attached for more detailed information. Page 1 of 56 Risk-Based Analysis and Stress Test of General Fund Reserve Requirements for the Salt Lake City, Utah 2024 Produced by: The Government Finance Officers Association Page 2 of 56 TableofContents Section 1 - Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................3 Section 2 - Introduction................................................................................................................................6 Section 3 - The Approach to Uncertainty......................................................................................................8 Section 4 - General Fund Revenue Volatility and Pension Risk ..................................................................12 Section 5 - Extreme Events .........................................................................................................................17 Section 6 - Secondary Risks and Comparable Analysis...............................................................................18 Section 7 - Putting it All Together...............................................................................................................44 Appendix 1 – Limitations of GFOA’s Analysis..............................................................................................55 Page 3 of 56 Section 1 - Executive Summary A local government’s “reserves” are the portion of fund balance which serves as a hedge against risk. The City of SLC (“the City” or “SLC”) has asked the questions: “what is the right amount of general fund reserves for us?” and “how resilient would any potential reserve target be to losses?”The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) has helped the City answer this question by examining the risks that it is subject to. First, we identified the risks that posed the most clear and present danger to the City’s general fund. Among the major risks we examined are: 1 • Recessions and revenue volatility • Earthquakes • Flooding • Wildfires • Tornados Next, for each risk, we calculated the probability that the City would experience the risk over a ten-year periodand,ifaneventwere tooccur,whatthemagnitude ofthelosswouldbe forthe City’sgeneralfund. To calculate the probability and magnitude of events, we did the following: • Analyzed SLC’s own experience and the experiences of other cities.For example, a wildfire might produce comparable losses in cities of comparable size with comparable exposure to wildfires. • Reviewed research produced by other agencies.For instance, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has data on costs that natural disasters have caused. • Drew from the expertise of City staff.City staff work every day on preparing the City for the risks it faces. Staff provided their expertise to help us estimate risks. For example, City staff helped us understand the nuances of natural disaster risks and revenue instability risks in SLC. The City’s Emergency Operations Plan was also a valuable resource. Readers interested inhow each riskwas analyzed are invitedto consult Sections4 and 5 ofthe fullreport. We modeled each risk individually and then combined each individual risk into a ten-year model of the City’s reserves. The model is intended to answer the question: what amount of reserves will give SLC sufficient confidence that it will be able to cover the losses from the risks GFOA has analyzed? We combined all the information above to create a ten-year risk model. The City’s goal for this analysis was to find an amount that can give the City sufficient comfort that its reserves will cover its risks. GFOA cannot recommend a precise amount of reserves the City should maintain, but our analysis does provide a clear general direction and the ability to “stress test” different reserve strategies. The reason we cannot make a precise recommendation is that a big part of determining a desirable reserve amount is the “risk appetite” of SLC officials. Officials who are risk averse may prefer more reserves. Those who are less averse and perhaps more sensitive to the opportunity costs of holding reserves may prefer less. 1 We used the City’s Emergency Operations Plan to help identify all of the relevant risks. Page 4 of 56 GFOA should not substituteits own values forthose ofSLC officials. Thus, SLC officials should take time to consider their risk appetite as it relates to reserves in light of the information presented in this report. Here are some of the most important findings of our analysis that could inform SLC’s risk appetite. • There is a less than a 5% chance that the City’s reserve will reach zero over the ten-year analysis period. This assumes that the City is willing to cut up to 3% of its budget during recessions, that the City will use any surpluses it generates in non-recession years to replenish the reserve as quickly as possible, and that FEMA or other forms of reimbursement will be provided for many extreme events within two years of the event. 2 • Over a ten-year period, on average,the City’s reserves will remain relatively stable, given the assumptions above. • The City is likely to remain within the parameters for the size of fund balance associated with a AAA bond rating. It should be noted that the strong fund balances maintained in other SLC funds makes a strong contribution to the City’s ability to stay with in the AAA fund balance parameters. • The City can use the results of this report to optimize the range of general fund reserves it would like to hold. GFOA recommends the City establish a floor and a ceiling amount. Below is an example of a chartproducedbytheGFOAriskmodel.Thisisacumulativeprobabilitychart.Itshowstheconfidence available from varying levels of reserves. The main take-away from this graphic is the reserves have a diminishingreturnatacertainpointbecausetheflatterthelinegets,thelessconfidenceanadditional dollar of reserve “buys” you. This is because the further to the right you go on the graph, the more extreme the events are that must be covered by reserves. This graphic shows that the has reached the point of diminishing returns, if zero is considered the critical threshold. The City would not be as well served by accumulating reserves past the point where the line starts to flatten out,if zero is the critical threshold. So, the City could explore points along the red line and where an appropriate floor and ceiling are, given SLC officials’ risk appetites. 2 The risk model developed by GFOA uses several assumptions to provide realistic simulations of reimbursement. See Section 7 of the report for details on this as well as assumptions on budget cuts and surpluses. Page 5 of 56 This analysis can be used to assist the City in taking the following steps: • SLC council and administration can determine the preferred amount of reserves based on risk appetite and the data presented here. • SLC council and administration can consider a comprehensive reserve policy. • As part of the deliberations on the preferred amount of reserves, take into account the relationshipbetweenthegeneralfundandotherfunds.Thoughthestrongbalancesinotherfunds do help SLC meet bond rating agency expectations, the general fund does have responsibilities for good overall municipal management that go beyond the scope of rating agency expectations. • GFOA has been working with City staff to show them the details of how the model works and will provide the model to the City staff at the end of the project. City staff can update and change assumptions to examine scenarios besides those we focused on in this report. This report also provides several recommendations for how SLC can strengthen its financial position to respond to the risks analyzed in this report. See the end of Section 7 of the full report for details. Page 6 of 56 Section 2 - Introduction “Reserves” are the portion of a local government’s fund balance that are available to respond to the unexpected. Reserves are the cornerstone of financial flexibility, sustainability, and continuity of existing service levels. Reserves provide a government with options to respond to emergencies and provide a buffer against shocks andother formsof risk. Managing reserves, though, can be a challenge. Foremost is the question of how much money to maintain in a general fund reserve. How much is enough and when does a reserve become too much? In2023,SaltLakeCity(theCity)hasbeenconsideringtheimplicationthatseveraltypesofextremeevents, like natural disasters, could have on the City government’s financial condition, particularly its reserve levels for the general fund. The City engaged the GFOA to produce a recommendation to help it decide the appropriate reserve level for the general fund, given the risks from extreme events. GFOA is a non- profit association of more than 21,000 state and local government finance professionals and elected officials from across North America. A key part of GFOA’s mission is to promote best practices in public finance,includingreservepolicies.TheanalysisbyGFOAalsoshedlightonthepotentialbroadereconomic losses to the community, not just City government. GFOA’s approach to reserves does not suppose “one-size-fits-all.” Ideally, a local government’s reserve strategy will be customized to the risk that the local government faces. For example,GFOA’s “Best Practice” on general fund reserves recommends that general-purpose governments maintain reserves of no less than two months of regular operating revenues or regular operating expenditures (i.e., reserves equal to about 16.7 percent of revenues or expenditures), but that local governments should determine a reserve target that is most appropriate for their circumstances. 3 Therefore, GFOA worked with the City to conduct an analysis of the risks influencing the need for reserves as a hedge against uncertainty and loss. A “risk” is defined as the probability and magnitude of a loss,disaster, or other undesirable event. 4 The GFOA’s framework of risk assessment is based on the risk management cycle: identify risk; assess risk; identify risk mitigation approaches; assess expected risk reduction; and select and implement mitigation methods.Ouranalysisfocusesprimarilyonriskretention,orusing reserves,tomanagerisk.However,our analysis also encourages the City to think about how other risk management methods might alleviate the need to hold larger reserves. In other words, can the City manage its risks in some other way besides holding reserves? For example, could insurance or borrowing strategies complement the City’s reserve strategy? A thorough examination of the risk factors should lead to a range of desired reserves and improve the City’s understanding of its overall risk profile.A risk-aware analysis helps the City stress test its reserve strategy. 3 GFOA Best Practice. “Appropriate Level of Unrestricted Fund Balance in the General Fund.” GFOA. 2009. 4 Definition of risk taken from: Douglas W. Hubbard.The Failure of Risk Management: Why It’s Broken and How to Fix It.John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Hoboken, New Jersey. 2009. Page 7 of 56 As a first step to this project, GFOA conducted a review of the risk factors influencing the amount of reserves a municipal government should hold. 5 This review identified the risks on Exhibit 2.1 as the most salient risks to the City’s general fund reserve. Exhibit 2.1 –Primary Risk Factors that Influence Reserve Levels for Berkeley Revenuesourcestability,particularlyasitrelatestothepotentialforrevenuedeclinefromaneconomic downturn Vulnerability to extreme events and public safety concerns, with emphasis on: • Earthquakes • Floods • Wildfires • Tornados • High winds (other than tornados) • Other hazards (primarily human-caused) The next section gives an overview of how we analyze these risks and what you can expect to see in the rest of this report. 5 The risk factors and basic review method were developed and published in the GFOA publication: Shayne C. Kavanagh.Financial Policies. (Government Finance Officers Association: Chicago, IL) 2012. Page 8 of 56 Section 3 - The Approach to Uncertainty Theaccomplishedforecastingscientist,Spyros Makridakis,suggestsa“Triple-A”approachfordealingwith highly uncertain phenomena. 6 1. Accept.First, we must accept that we are subject to uncertainty. For example, the severity and timing of an earthquake is unpredictable. Salt Lake City could go years without experiencing a serious earthquake or one could occur next month! 2. Assess.Next, we must assess the potential impact of the uncertainty, with history providing a useful reference point. The experiences of other local governments are also a good reference point. For example, we used the historical experiences of Salt Lake City and other relevant municipalities to estimate the potential impact of future extreme events. However, historical experiences are not perfectly predictive of the future. That leads us to the next point… 3. Augment.The range of uncertainty we face will almost always be greater than what we initially assess it to be.Therefore, we mustaugment ourunderstanding ofrisk beyondwhatour historical experiences show us. For example, very few people saw the 2008 Great Recession coming or thought it could be as bad as it was. They were unprepared for this historically unprecedented recession. We can augment our understanding of risk using a technique called “Probability Management.”7 Probability Management is an application of modern information processing technology that allows us to simulate thousands of potential events (e.g., floods,recessions, etc.) so that we can observe the probability of events of various magnitudes happening. The statistical technique that Probability Management is based on is called “Monte Carlo analysis.” This technique was established in the late 1940s, but until very recently required special computers and software to use. Modern information technology has made Monte Carlo analysis accessible to anyone with a personal computer. In order to use Probability Management, we express any given type of extreme event as a range of possibilities that the City might experience. This range is called a “distribution.” A distribution is a shape that signifies how frequently the City might expect to experience a certain type of event and/or how severe the event might be. The most common type of distribution is called the “normal distribution,” more popularly known as the “bell curve.” Many phenomena fit a bell curve. To help us understand how to read a distribution, we can start with an example that is related to everyday life: the height of American men. 6 See: Spyros Makridakis, Robin Hogarth, and Anil Gaba.Dance with Chance: Making Luck Work for You. (Oneworld Publications: Oxford, England). 2009. 7 The discipline of “Probability Management” was developed by Dr. Sam Savage, author of The Flaw of Averages. You can learn more about Probability Management at probabilitymanagement.org. Page 9 of 56 Exhibit3.1 showsabellcurvefortheheightofAmericanmen.ThehorizontalaxisofExhibit3.1represents height. The vertical axis represents frequency. The most common height is 5’9”, so it is shown at the top of the curve. Much taller men, like NBA centers, would be found on the right-hand side of the curve. Very short men would be found on the left. Exhibit 3.1 –The Normal Distribution for American Men  Frequency Height➔ The normal distribution can help analyze risk. To illustrate, the severity of an economic downturn is approximately normally distributed. A few downturns are slight, a few are severe, but most are closer to average. Another type of distribution we use in our analysis is an asymmetrical distribution, shown in Exhibit 3.2. Earthquakes fit an asymmetrical distribution. Exhibit 3.2 shows that tremors are the most common. Large earthquakes are relatively rare. The distribution is “asymmetrical” because the frequency with which we will experience these events are not evenly distributed around the middle of the distribution. Put another way, there are far more tremors that are smaller than the “average”earthquake. Yet, there are far fewer earthquakes (“the big one”)that are larger than the average earthquake. Exhibit 3.2 –Sample Asymmetrical Distribution  Frequency of Quake Severity of Quake ➔ 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% Earthquake Tremor "The Big One" Very Short Very Tall Average 5’9” Page 10 of 56 Expressing SaltLakeCity’s vulnerability asdistributionsallowsustocalculate the probabilitythatanevent of a given magnitude will happen. When we associate a dollar amount with that event, we can estimate the probability or chance that Salt Lake City will need to have a given amount of money on-hand to respond. Exhibit 3.3 is not a distribution but is a type of graphic we will use in this report. It is called a “cumulative probability chart.” It shows the economic losses to Salt Lake City from major wildfires over the course of 10 years. Major wildfires are rare events, so over a ten-year period there is a chance that there will be no major wildfires at all. Hence, the red line intersects the vertical axis at about 50% (there is about a 50% chance of no damage from wildfires). We then see the red line go up and to the right from the vertical axis. Thismeans thatthe chance of largerand larger losses become increasingly remote.Forexample, the red line intersects the 70% mark on the vertical axis at about the $100,000 mark on the horizontal axis. This means there is about a 70% chance losses will be less than $100,000 over a ten-year period. Eventually, the curve starts to turn right which is the point at which there is a chance of larger losses. For example, there is a 90% chance of losses less than $500,000 or a 10% chance that losses will be greater. There is a 95% chance that losses will be less than $1.2 million but a 5% chance they could be more. The red line extending almost horizontally 8 to the right means there is a very small chance of extreme (multi- million dollar) losses. 8 Though difficult for the naked eye to perceive, the red line does continue to move slightly upward across the entire horizontal axis. Exhibit 3.3 –Cumulative Chance of Losses to Salt Lake City from Wildfires over 10 Years Chance that damages will be EQUAL TO OR LOWER THAN the amount shown on the graph Damages in Millions of Dollars Page 11 of 56 It is important for the reader of this report to understand that there is never one single, objectively best amount of reserves to hold. The amount of reserves the City will want to hold will partially be a function of the City’s willingness to take on risk. If City officials are willing to take on risk, they might opt for lower reserves and spending more money on current services. If officials are more risk averse, they might opt forhigherreserves.GFOA’srecommendationsareinformedbywherereserves appearto providethebest value or “bang for the buck.”The spot on a cumulative probability chart, like Exhibit 3.3, before where the line begins to flatten out is usually where the best bang for the buck lies. In Section 4, we cover revenue instability owing to economic downturns. In Section 5 of this report, we will review the City’s primary risks posed by extreme events,including earthquakes, floods, wildfires, and more. Section 6 reviews secondary risk factors that have less weighty implications for the City’s reserve strategy. We include Section 6 to highlight the full range of risks that were considered, even if some of them did not seem to present as clear and present a threat to the City’s general fund reserve. After we analyze the individual risks, in Section 7, we will consider the risks holistically. This section will: • Consider the risksover aten-year period.Thisprovides amore complete perspectiveon potential vulnerability and how to use reserves. For example,the numbers shown inExhibit3.3 pertainjust to one year. The potential losses are much greater over a ten-year period. • Consider the potential occurrence of any of the risks we analyzed to occur at the same time. Obviously, if they did occur at the same time, the stress on the City’s reserves would be compounded. Page 12 of 56 Section 4 - Recession Risk:Revenue and Pension Volatility Arecessionisarisk forany localgovernment’sfinances.A recessioncouldcauserevenuestogodownand pensioncosts to go up(dueto poor investment returns). Reserves canbeusedto help alocal government make a “soft landing” in the event of a revenue downturn. In this section of the report, we will analyze the City’s vulnerability to recessions. We will start with revenue downturns and then move onto pension volatility. For our revenue analysis, we divided the City’s revenues into the categories shown in Exhibit 4.1. Sales taxes are, by far, the most important single source, as you can see in Exhibit 4.1. Property tax is also an important source of revenue, so it is also in its own category. For all the other City general fund revenues, we grouped them into one of two categories: revenues that are sensitive to economic downturns and those that are not as sensitive to downturns. Immediately following Exhibit 4.1, we will analyze the risk the City faces in each category. Exhibit 4.1 –Relative Importance of City Revenues, based on 2022 Data Revenue % of Total Sales Taxes 9 40% Property Taxes 10 29% Other Economically Sensitive Revenues 11 9% All Other Revenues 12 22% TOTAL 100% We reviewed the revenues month-by-month, rather than fiscal year by fiscal year. The reason is that a recession could span the boundaries of two fiscal years, essentially “splitting” the revenue loss between two fiscalyears. Thus, looking only at historical revenues losses across the entire fiscal year couldobscure the total size of the downturn. Below we will briefly review key, relevant features about the volatility of each revenue shown in Exhibit 4.1. The purpose of this section is to be clear about the assumptions that go into our simulation of the City’s revenue volatility in the face of recessions. Property Taxes Property taxesare astablesourceof revenue forthe City.They have exhibited asteady upwardtrajectory since 1999, except during the period of the 2008 Great Recession. Of course, the 2008 recession featured a popping property price bubble that was felt across the United States. Even so, we should not discount the possibility that future recessions could also result in declining property values and property tax 9 Excludes energy sales tax. 10 Excludes personal property, vehicle taxes, and RDA revenues. 11 Includes: Fines; Parking Meter Collections; Interest Income; Construction Permits; All other permits 12 Includes everything not in the categories above. Page 13 of 56 revenues. In fact, GFOA’s examination of recessions before1999 shows that housing prices have declined during some of these recessions. So, to model risk we looked at the decline during the Great Recession and found that the largest annual decrease was 3%. We took this as representative of what could happen during severe recessions. During the2001recession,propertyremainedstable.Thisrepresentswhatcouldhappenduringamildrecession, like2001.The2008recessionistheworstrecession,intermsofGDP13 decline,sinceWorldWarIIwhereas the 2001 recession was one of the mildest. Hence, we can use these two recessions rough “boundaries” on the possibilities for future recessions. 14 In our simulation we did account for the fact that the 2008 recession was unusually weighted towards losses in real estate. This was done in order to avoid overestimating the vulnerability of property taxes to recessions. We looked at how much property values declined, nationally, during a past, more “average” recession and compared that to what happened in 2001 and 2008. This “average” price decline was not exactly in between 2001 and 2008 but was skewed closer to 2001. We included this skew in our simulation, so that an “average” recession would see a property tax decline of 1%. Finally, it is critical to note that due to the nature of the property tax, the revenue losses lag the occurrence of the recession. This is built into our model. This means that the simulation does not presume the revenue losses from recession will happen all at once. Rather, they are spaced out over time. This should make it easier for the City to handle a revenue downturn. Finally, it is worth noting that Salt Lake City does not have a material risk from concentration of the tax base inoneor few taxpayers. An exampleofthis risk would be ifa smallmunicipality hasa largeindustrial property,where that property makesup alargeportion ofthe tax base –ifthe factorywere to close,then it would have abig impacton thetax base. Fortunately, SaltLake City does not appear to have such a risk. The taxpayer with the highest assessed value is the LDS church at about 3.4% of total taxable assessed value. After that is Pacific Corp at 1.7% and Delta Airlines at 1.2%. Though the LDS’s share is material it appears highly unlikely that the church would cease operations in the same way a factory might, given LDS’s long history in Salt Lake City and deep ties to the community. Sales Taxes Sales taxeshave areputation for beingmore responsive to economic downturnsthan property taxes, and thisistrueinSaltLakeCity.Salestaxes declinedby 8%duringthe 2001 recessionandthe worst year-over- year decline during the 2008 recession was 13%. More recently, sales taxes declined in 2020/21 due to COVID-19. This means that the revenue loss was not due to the economy experiencing an underlying weakness, like it would during a recession. When it comes to COVID-19, the federal government provided financial aid to individual citizens during the pandemic, beyond what is normal for an economic downturn. Hence, we should not take 2019 and the subsequent COVID-19 experience as representative of future possible downturns. We used the 2001 and 2008 recessions as our boundaries for the analysis. 13 Gross domestic product, a standard measure of national economic activity. 14 Our simulation method does not treat these as firm boundaries. Rather there were about ten recessions since World War II, the Great Recession was the worst, the 2001 recession the mildest which puts them at the 10 th and 90th percentile. This leaves room for even worse or even milder recessions than these two in our simulations. Page 14 of 56 Finally, we should note that the City appears to experience losses from recessions with about a 1-year delay from the onset of the recession. The simulation reflects this. Other Economically Sensitive Revenues The City hasmanyothersourcesofrevenue besidessalesandpropertytaxes,thoughno individualsource is very large. To analyze them, we grouped together all the categories that exhibited a material decline during the 2001 Recession and/or 2008 Great Recession. This includes: fines; parking meter collections; interest income; construction permits; and all other permits. Though these categories only comprise a relatively small portion of the City’s revenues (9%), they also have exhibited large declines during recessions, as a group. This group declined by about 22% during the 2001 recession and 15% during the 2008 recession. We use these figures are the parameters for our simulation. All Other Revenues The remaining general fund revenue sources (everything not yet covered in this report) comprise about 22% of the City’s revenue. As a group, these revenues are much less sensitive to economic downturns than other revenues we have seen so far. In the 2001 recession this group declined by 12% and declined by 2% during the Great Recession. We used these figures as the parameters for our simulation. These revenues also exhibit a lag from when the economic recession occurs to when the City experiences a revenue decline. Analyzing Revenue Volatility Risk In order to analyze the risk that the City is subject to we used the information presented above to inform our Risk Model. In addition, we used the following information: • We used data on how often recessions have occurred and how long those recessions have lasted. The data we used went from 1950 to the present day to simulate the frequency and duration of future recessions. • As noted above, the losses to property, sales tax, and all other (not economically sensitive) revenues have, historically, lagged the onset of the economic downturn. Thus, we lagged the losses by one year in our simulation. • The model does not include any “baked in”assumptions about what the City might do in response to a recession like cutting expenditures or adding new revenues. However, the simulation does not ignore these possibilities either. The user of the model has the option to define the City’s assumed response to recessions and see how that impacts the City’s financial position. This is discussed in more detail in Section 7 of this report. Exhibit 4.2 below shows the cumulative probability curve for a single year loss, accounting for all the informationdescribedinthissection.Theblue lineshows the losses giventhe chance arecessiondoes OR does not occur –meaning, our simulation of the possible losses from a recession in a given year must account for the fact that there might not be a recession at all. The blue line also accounts for the fact that a recession could not occur at all or last less than the entire year. Note that although the line in Exhibit 4.2 is limited to what could happen in a single year, our simulation also allows for the possibility that a recession could span multiple years. We will discuss the multi-year perspective on all the of the City’s risks that we analyzed in Section 7. Page 15 of 56 In Exhibit 4.2, we can see the blue line remains at zero about 65% of the time, which means that in any given year there is a 65% chance of no losses from recessions. This chance would be higher than 65% if it weren’t for the fact that many of the City’s revenue losses occur after the recession starts. This means that a given year might experience revenue loss from a recession that occurred one year earlier. The blue line slopes up and to the right, which means that as we move to the right the potential losses get higher, but we also get higher and higher confidence that the losses would be less than the indicated amount. For example, on the blue line, we can be 80% confident that losses in a given year will be less than$11million,and20%confidentthatlosseswillbemore. We canalso see theblue lineflattenoutand extend to the right. This shows us that it is possible that there could be historically unprecedented losses from a recession, though this is very unlikely. Exhibit 4.2 –Cumulative Probability Chart for Annual Recession Losses Confidence that losses will be the indicated amount or less Checkpoints ✓ Salestaxisthesinglemostimportantrevenuesourcebutisalsoresponsivetoeconomicconditions. ✓ Property tax is an important source of revenue for the City and is also very stable. ✓ Most other City revenues are relatively stable in recessions, except for: fines; parking meter collections; interest income; construction permits; and all other permits. ✓ In a given year, there is about a 65% chance that there would be no impact at all from a recession. There is an 80% chance losses in a given year would be less than $11 million. ✓ The analysis presented in this section does not take account of any willingness on the part of the City to cut its budget in response to a recession. That is addressed in Section 7. Page 16 of 56 Pension Risk Like many cities throughout the country, SLC has an employee pension plan where part of the plan is a “defined benefit” plan. This means that employees are guaranteed a certain retirement income. Investmentsofmoniesputasideforthepensionmustkeepupwiththebenefitsthathavebeenpromised. Any shortfalls, like when a recession causes pension investments to underperform, must be offset by additional contributions. This potential unplanned, unavoidable expenditure places pressure on City finances. Fortunately, the Utah State Retirement (URS) system appears to be in better shape than many pension plans in the United States, according to an analysis by Pew Trusts, 15 but there still appears to be some risk. First, although the Pew Trust analysis shows the URS is in good shape, the Pew analysis also shows that URS has the second highest historic contribution volatility of the 15 states with the best funded ratio for their pensions. 16 This means taxpayers and budget officials have faced more volatile pension payments, relativetootherstatesinthetop15.Second,whenwelookedathistoricaldata,wefoundthattheaverage year-over-yearincreaseingeneralfundpensioncostswas5%.However,therewereyearswheretheyear- over-year increase was much higher. For our purposes, recession periods are of particular interest. The URS had negative net returns (losses) in 2008 and SLC’s year-over-year pension costs cost went up about 12% in 2011. The URS’s investments also substantially underperformed in 2011 and SLC had a 13% year- over-year increase two years later. This kind of lag between investment underperformance and plan participant contribution increases is not uncommon among the local governments we have worked with. Further, it is good news for SLC’s risk profile because SLC’s revenues tend to underperform during the years of the recession and the year following. If pension increases occur two or three years after the recession, then the revenue decrease is usually not happening at the same time as the pension cost increase. Finally, we should note that although we did control the pension costs for changes in employee headcount, our analysis did not address every possible variable that could have impacted pension costs at SLC. For example, during the great recession the City asked staff to take an across-the-board salary decrease. This could reduce employer contributions. The effect of this kind of strategy is not explicitly included in our risk model, but the model does include a generalized option to include budget cuts in response to financial shocks, like a recession. Thus, cut back strategies are included in the model, in a more general sense. We modeled pension risk by assuming a 12% increase in pension costs represents a particularly bad recession(liketheGreatRecession)andscaledpotentialincreases inpensioncostsfromthere:90%ofthe time the simulation will produce lower increases, and 10% of the time it will produce higher increases. This aligns with the Great Recession’s status as the worst recession after World War 2, but without assuming it represents a “worst case scenario”. Every time the model simulates a recession it then adds 15 According to an analysis performed by Pew Trusts using 2019 data, the URS had one of the highest funded ratios in the country and a positive net amortization, which means that the size of the pension system’s debt is headed in the right direction. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2021/12/pews-fiscal- sustainability-matrix-helps-states-assess-pension-health#7-appendix-a-key-terms 16 Contribution volatility refers to the range between the lowest and highest employer contribution rate over a fixed period. A small range means that pension costs have been predictable and stable for that state; a high range means taxpayers and budget officials have faced volatile pension payments. Page 17 of 56 additional pension costs to the City’s financial burden two years later.Much of the time this does not overlaprevenuelossesfromtherecession,butoccasionallythereissomeoverlap.Themodelalsoincludes assumptions that the City will reduce its spending in response to economic downturns, not just rely on reserves (you can read more about this in Section 7). When you combine the two-year lag between the recession onset and an impact on the City budget with the City’s willingness to cut costs, the overall practicalimpactofpensionvolatility riskon the City’s reserve islow.However,thereissomeimpact when the timing of a recession causes revenue decreases and pension increases to overlap, though this is not common. Finally, we should note that cutting costs to accommodate pension cost increases is, of course, both painful and potentially disruptive to the City’s service priorities, so the results of this analysis should not be interpreted to minimize or dismiss the impact of pension volatility on the City’s budget. Checkpoints ✓ Pensions are a risk for the City because poor performance of the pension investment, due to recessions, will result in a need for increased contributions to make up for losses. Theoretically, a recession could cause both revenue losses and pension cost increases at the same time. However, in practice, pension cost increases tend to lag investment under performance (and recessions) by twoyears,whiletheCity’srevenuesdecrease withinthe sameyearasrecessionorinthenextyear. Occasionally, there could be some overlap between revenue declines and pension cost increases though. ✓ The lag discussed above combined with the City’s willingness to reduce spending to help manage the impacts of a recession mean that the practical impact of pension volatility risk on the City’s reserves appears to be minimal. Section 5 - Extreme Events Although Salt Lake City can receive reimbursement from insurance and public agencies for natural disasters and some human-caused extreme events, having adequate reserves in place is important to quickly and decisively respond to extreme events. For example, FEMA reimbursement will not cover all the costs the City incurs, and it could take months, if not years, to receive reimbursement. Earthquakes and floods are the leading potential catastrophic disaster risks the City faces. Other important extreme events include wildfires, tornados, strong winds (other than tornados), and a variety of man-made extreme events (e.g., terrorism, etc.). The following sub-sections (earthquakes, floods, wildfire, tornados, strong winds, other hazards) will explore the potential economic and budgetary implications that these hazards have for the Salt Lake City generalfundreserve.Thesesectionswillexplainanynotablefeaturesofthedatasetsweusedanddiscuss the range of potential damage the City could experience, as suggested by the data we gathered. FEMA and Reserves The U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)reimburseslocalgovernmentsformoniesspent in response to a federally declared disaster. FEMA reimbursementisonlypartial(typically75percent)and is often not immediate. Therefore, local governments musthavethe financialcapacitytorespondquicklyand decisively, independent of FEMA assistance. Page 18 of 56 A.Earthquakes According to a report prepared by the Utah Chapter of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute for theUtahSeismicSafetyCommission,“earthquakesposethegreatestnaturalthreattoUtah’speople,built environment,andeconomy.”17 SaltLakeCity lies close to the Wasatch fault. Exhibit 5.A.1 shows what is known as the Wasatch Front urban corridor. 18 To address earthquakes,we obtained a data set of simulated earthquakes from Aon 19 for the State of Utah. The simulation includes projected economic losses for earthquakes and estimated total FEMA assistance to governmental entities. This allows us to estimate the losses that governmental entitieswould experience from a quake. We set a limiter in our model to only address quakes above 5.5 in magnitude. United States Geological Survey reports describe the potential damage from a 5.0 quake as “very light.”The model does provide the ability to manually adjust this parameter, so if the City would like to consider quakes below 5.5, it may do so. In order to simulate the financial losses to the City, we started by allocating an amount of FEMA assistance and the local share of losses to governments within the Salt Lake Cityboundary.Basedonmeasureslikeshare ofGDP,population,andproperty values Salt Lake City’s share of statewide activity could be expected to be around 7.5%. Next, we allocated damages to each of the governments that serve people in Salt Lake City, including the county, school district, water district, and the State of Utah. This was based on each entity’s share of government owned capital assets in Salt Lake 17 “Scenario for a Magnitude 7.0 Earthquake on the Wasatch Fault – Salt Lake City Segment”. Prepared by the Utah Chapter of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute for the Utah Seismic Safety Commission. June 4, 2015. 18 Taken from: Scenario for a Magnitude 7.0 Earthquake on the Wasatch Fault – Salt Lake City Segment”. Prepared by the Utah Chapter of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute for the Utah Seismic Safety Commission. June 4, 2015. 19 Aon is a global purveyor of risk information and insurance. Exhibit 5.A.1 - Wasatch Front Urban Corridor Page 19 of 56 City.20 Finally, we allocated damages to the City’s general fund based on the share of the City’s capital assets owned by governmental funds versus other funds. Finally, we compared the results of the simulation to actual losses of California municipal governments from three historical earthquakes. 21 The results of the simulation were relatively consistent with these historical experiences. 22 Exhibit 5.A.2 shows a cumulative probability chart of losses for a ten-year period. It represents the total losses to the Salt Lake City general fund over ten years. Exhibit 5.A.2 - Cumulative Probability Chart of Losses to the City Government General Fund from Earthquakes Over a Ten-Year Period (millions of dollars) Chance Losses will be Equal to or Less Than Dollar Amount on Horizontal Axis Exhibit 5.A.2 shows that there is about 80% chance of no losses at all. But there is also a chance of large losses.Thereisa90%chancethatlosses arelessthan$4millionovera10-yearperiod,whichmeansthere is 10% chance losses could be more. We also see the line extends far to the right, which indicates there is a chance of very large losses. Note that Exhibit 5.A.2 does not include FEMA reimbursement that the City would receive for its losses and nor does it include insurance. These issues will be addressed in Section 7 of this report. 20 This was estimated by takingthe value of capital assets from audited financial statements for each entity andthen determining the amount attributable to constituents in Salt Lake City by looking the share of each government’s debt that Salt Lake City taxpayers are responsible for. 21 We used California local governments because there is a large number of governments for which historical earthquake loss information is available. 22 We can only compare the historical results with simulated earthquakes of similar magnitudes that have occurred historically.However,consistencyat thesemagnitudessuggests thatdamagesareother magnitudesofquakewould reasonable. Further, it should be noted that SLC’s damage does seem to be higher than the California cities, which is not unreasonable given that SLC’s building stock does not appear to be as well adapted to earthquake risk as California’s. Page 20 of 56 Finally,we shouldaddressthefactthatapowerfulearthquake (e.g.,7.0orgreater)couldimpairthe City’s taxbase. Many of the City’s buildings are made of unreinforced masonry. These buildings are at greater risk of being rendered uninhabitable by a powerful earthquake. Uninhabitable retail buildings could not make sales. Uninhabitable residential buildings would not make purchases. Both would result in lower sales taxes, for example. An impaired tax base would result in lower revenues for the City over a multi- year period, which would not be recoverable through FEMA or by property insurance. The risk model accounted for tax base impairment. If the model simulates a 7.0 or greater magnitude quake, then a tax base impairment simulation is activated. The assumptions for this simulation were largely taken from the report: “Scenario for a Magnitude 7.0 Earthquake on the Wasatch Fault–Salt Lake City Segment: Hazards and Loss Estimates” developed by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Utah Chapter on behalf of the Utah Seismic Safety Commission. The information in the report was supplemented with estimates from relevant subject matter experts, such as the State of Utah’s EarthquakeProgramManagerandSaltLakeCity’sbuildingdepartment.Examplesofvariablesthatthetax base impairment model addresses include: • The prevalence of unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings in Salt Lake City. • The degree of damage to buildings that might be expected to buildings from a 7.0 quake. The prevalence of URMs helps explain why estimates produced by outside agencies 23 predict that a majority of buildings in SLC will be extensively damaged or completely destroyed. • The estimated time to rebuild damaged buildings, as provided by SLC building officials. • Short and long-term impacts of tax base impairment and the fact that lost tax revenue is not covered by FEMA assistance. Later in this report (Section 7) we discuss parametric insurance as one way to provide coverage for lost tax revenues, in addition to reserves. • Offsetting increases in sales tax revenue from construction activity to rebuild, including cost of buildings that are materials, percent of materials that are purchased inside SLC, average value of homes, and the additional cost necessary to rebuild a home vs building new. The analysis shows the losses to the general fund could be quite large, perhaps exceeding a third of general fund revenue in the first year, before much rebuilding has taken place.SLC’s building officials estimate that it would take around 8 years to completely replace all the lost buildings. Checkpoints ✓ Earthquakes pose the greatest natural threat to Utah’s people, built environment, and economy. Accordingly, they also present an important risk to the City’s general fund reserve. ✓ Our simulation shows about an 80% chance that losses will be zero over a ten-year period. ✓ There is a 10% chance that losses could be more than $4 million. ✓ Very large losses (in excess of $10 million) are possible, but the chances are small. ✓ The risk model addresses the possibility of an impaired tax base from an earthquake of 7.0 or greater. 23 We are referring to HAZUS estimates. Hazus is a nationally applicable standardized methodology and software program developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the United States. It's primarily used for estimating potential losses from disasters like earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes. Hazus uses Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology to estimate physical, economic, and social impacts of disasters. Page 21 of 56 B.Flooding The City’sEmergency OperationsPlan (EOP) pointsout that floods have potentially high consequences. In the last 20 years, the most notable flood to impact the City was in 2011. This flood was large enough to impact over 20 counties in Utah and cost the City over $600,000 in 2023 dollars. There was also a large flood in 2023 that impacted five counties and was a Presidential Disaster Declaration. To simulate potential future losses from floods, we started with the frequency of floods. Frequency of major floods are often expressed as “recurrence intervals” or “return periods”. For example, a flood may be described as a 100-year flood, which means a flood of that size is expected to happen only once every 100 years. Put another way, there is a 1% chance of such a flood in any given year. To obtain flood frequencies for our model we worked with FirstStreet.org, a purveyor property risk data for floods, fire, wind, and heat. Exhibit 5.B.1 below shows how FirstStreet.org describes flood risk in Salt Lake City. FirstStreet.org provided data on the number of properties inundated for 5-, 20-, 100-, and 500- year floods. Exhibit 5.B.1 –Flood Risk in Salt Lake City, According to FirstStreet.org Data For flood magnitudes, we looked at historical losses that cities have realized from floods. Of course, Salt Lake City’s own historical experience ismost relevant,but it is just one data point. It may help to examine analogous experiences from other cities. To do so, we examined FEMA records from 1998 onwards. We looked at floods in cities between 100,000 and 1 million people. Presumably, cities of this size are more urbanized than smaller cities, so would be representative of the possible impacts of a flood on more urbanized locales. Further, we classified the flooding risk in each city according to the scale used by FirstStreet and used FirstStreet’s analysis to assign the risk. Salt Lake City is considered to be at “major” risk, which is the middle of 5 risk categories established by FirstStreet (see bottom right of Exhibit 5.B.1). Perhaps unsurprisingly, we found the average damage per capita for “major” risk cities was much higher than “moderate, which was much higher than “minor”. There were not enough “severe” or “extreme” Page 22 of 56 riskcities todrawconclusionsabouttheiraveragedamages.Thedamages SaltLake City experiencedfrom the 2011 flood,on a per capita basis, were also right at the average forthe 10 cities we could find that fell into the “major” risk category. This suggests that using the 2011 flood as an analogue for future damages would not risk grossly underestimating or overestimating the damages from a flood. 24 Per capita losses are not the best way to assess flood damages, though. This is because some portion of the population lives in areas of the city that are not at risk of a flood. For this reason, we obtained from First Street an estimate of the number of properties in Salt Lake City what would be inundated by floods at 4 different recurrence intervals (5, 20, 100, 500). This gave us enough information to construct a probabilitydistributionforthenumberofpropertiesthatwouldbeinundatedbyafloodofanyrecurrence interval. We used the 2011 data to establish a standard for damage per property, where we adjusted for the growth that Salt Lake City has experienced since 2011.A critical assumption in our risk model is that the 2011 flood was a “50-year flood” (1 in 50 chance of occurring).Unfortunately, we could not find any official, published analysis to definitively establish what recurrence intervalthe 2011 flood represented. 25 We believe that an assumption of a 50-year flood is conservative, yet reasonable. For example, the aforementionedFEMAdatashowsthatseveralcitieshaveexperiencedmuchlargerlossespercapitathan Salt Lake City from floods in the last 20 years. A 50-year flood is more frequent than the 100- or 500-year floods that are often depicted on FEMA flood maps. Presumably, at least some of the cities that experiencedmuch larger losses experienced floods that areconsideredrarerthana 50-year flood.Hence, assuming 2011 was a 50-year flood gives our risk model more room to simulate more severe floods and, thus,higherdamages.Forexample,ifa100-yearfloodweresimulatedthedamages wouldbehigherthan the 2011 flood.Further,according to UtahState Hazard MitigationPlan the 2011floodfeatured a“record breaking snowpack”, suggesting that the flood was probably somewhat rare –thus classifying the 2011 floodassomethingmore common, like a10-or20-year floodseemedoverly conservative. Finally,we had the opportunity to speak with Kade D. Moncur, PE, CFM, Flood Control Project Manager for Salt Lake County Engineering about the 2011 flood. Mr. Moncur concurred that classifying the 2011 flood as a 50- year flood is the most reasonable recurrence interval to assume. Before moving on, we should acknowledge two other floods in SLC history. First, there was a very large flood in 1983. We did not include this in the analysis because: A) we did not find useful data on the financial impacts; and B) because this flood was so long ago any impacts we might find could be of questionable relevance. For example, many flood mitigation projects were put in place after 1983, so presumably a similar flood today would be less impactful than it was in 1983. Moving on from the 1983 flood,therewasalsoafloodingeventin2023thatcosttheCityabout$500,000.The2011floodcostabout $615,000 in 2023 dollars. Hence, we used the more expensive flood as our analogue. 24 Insufficient data from 2023 flood was available to include in the analysis, but the model can be updated to reflect what can be learned from the 2023 flood. 25 For example, Chapter 7 (Floods) of the Utah State Hazard Mitigation Plan lists the recurrence interval of the 2011 flood as “unknown”. Page 23 of 56 Another important assumption is that the City could handle a 10-year flood, or anything less severe than that, within the City’s existing operating budget. This assumption can also be adjusted by the City. Our model simulates a 10-year flood causing around $250,000 in losses. This analysis resulted in the 10-year cumulative probability chart of losses to the City from floods, shown in Exhibit 5.B.2. Thischart representsthetotal losses to SaltLake City’sgeneral fund reserve before FEMA reimbursement. We see that the red line stays even with zero on the horizontal axis until about the 35% markontheverticalaxis,whichmeansthereisa 3.5 in10 chance thatthe City’slosses to the generalfund reserve from floods will be zero over a ten-year period. You will notice a hitch in the line at that point. This is the point at which we assume the City’s operating budget can no longer absorb the loss and the general fund reserve will be relied upon. The line goes sharply upwards from there, which means there is a good chance that the City’s losses will be low. For example, there is about an 80% chance that losses to the general fund reserve will be less than $1,000,000 over a ten-year period. Eventually, the curve starts to turn right which is the point at which there is a chance of larger losses. For example, there is a 95% chance of losses less than $2,000,000 or a 5% chance that losses will be greater. There is a 99% chance that losses will be less than $4 million but a 1% chance they could bemore. The red line extending almost horizontally to the right means there is a very small chance of extreme (multi-million dollar) losses. Section 7 of this report, “Putting it All Together” combines this analysis with the additional risks we have analyzed (e.g., recessions, earthquakes, etc.), adds in FEMA reimbursement, and introduces additional considerations such as the City’s ability to run budget surpluses, cut costs in other areas, etc. Exhibit 5.B.2 –10-Year Losses from Floods, before FEMA Reimbursement Chance Losses will be Equal to or Less Than Dollar Amount on Horizontal Axis Page 24 of 56 Checkpoints ✓ Floods are an important risk for Salt Lake City. First Street Foundation’s Risk Factor rates the City’s risk as “major.” ✓ We assumed the frequency of a flood that is large enough to impact the general fund reserve is one that is more frequent that 1 in 10 or a 10% annual chance. ✓ The financial consequences (costs) were suggested by the actual experiences of Salt Lake City with its 2011 flood. ✓ There is a high chance (60%) that the City’s losses over a ten-year period will be low –less than $500,000 or even zero. There is a very small chance of multi-million-dollar losses. This space left intentionally blank Page 25 of 56 C.Wildfires According to First Street Foundation’s 26 “Risk Factor” wildfire analysis method, Salt Lake City is at “moderate” risk from wildfire which means that 55% of all properties in Salt Lake City have some risk of being affected by wildfire in the next 30 years. Exhibit 5.C.1 shows a map of Salt Lake City’s risk as produced by Risk Factor. Note that the risk of exposure to wildfire is determined by the color of the dots, not the density of the dots. So, for example, the area to the northeast of the City has darker (riskier) dots because it has more vegetation. The density of dots refers to the density of properties with at least some wildfire risk exposure. Exhibit 5.C.1 –Wildfire Risk According to First Street Foundation’s “Risk Factor” Analysis There are parallels with the City’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), which characterizes the consequences of wildfires as “moderate.” The EOP defines this as: “localized damage may be severe; citywide impact minimal to moderate. Handled with city resources and some mutual aid”. 26 FirstStreetFoundationisanon-profitresearchandtechnologygroupdedicatedto quantifyingandcommunicating those risks by incorporating world class modeling techniques and analysis with the most up to date science available in order to simply, and effectively, inform Americans of their risk today and into the future from all environmental changes. Page 26 of 56 To simulate the potential losses to the City we first need an assumption for how often a wildfire with materialconsequencesforCityfinancesmightoccur.TheEOPdefinesthefrequencyofwildfiresas“high,” which means “annually” according to the EOP. An assumption of annual frequency may be true for wildfires if wildfires are defined to include primarily minor events that can be easily handled within the City’s normal fire suppression budget. However, since we mean to address very large fires that cause extraordinary financial distress then we need a different frequency. The next frequency category in the EOP is “medium” which means “between 1 and 25 years”. Hence, a conservative approach could be to associate damaging wildfires with this frequency category and take a median value within this category of 13 years (halfway between 1 and 25). We also added an assumption that if a wildfire occurs then the annual chance of a subsequent fire is reduced by 1/4. If a fire burns an area, then that area can’t burn so easily in the next few years. A small reduction in the burn chance is intended to represent this reduction in risk. This assumption only makes a small difference in the risk model results, though. Next, we need to simulate the consequences of a fire. To do this we looked at FEMA records for wildfire damages to cities across the United States since 1999. We considered cities with a population between 125,000and1million.Presumably,citiesthislargehaveanurbancharacter,somewhatsimilartoSaltLake City. We also looked up the Risk Factor Score for each of the cities. As we can see in the colored bar beneath the map in Exhibit 5.C.1, there are five categories of risk that could be assigned by Risk Factor. SaltLakeCity’s“moderate”scoreissecondbestscore.Amongthecitiesinthedatasetwelookedat,most of them had a score of major, severe, or extreme. We dropped the cities with severe or extreme scores due to concerns that their exposure to wildfire risk was too different from Salt Lake City. Indeed, when we looked at per capita losses these cities suffered, the losses were much more than those cities in the moderate or major categories. The losses experienced by those cities in the major category were also larger than those cities in the moderate category. We kept the data from the major category to simulate the possibility of extremelosses from a wildfire but did balance outtheobservations so thatobservations from major risk cities did not outweigh those from moderate risk cities. There were no cities in the data set witha“minor” score.Finally,we shouldnotethatbalancingthe moderate andmajorriskobservations probably does still result in a conservative bias in the model. Though the major risk observations do not outnumber the moderate observations, it seems plausible that the major risk observations still may increase the total risk that the model simulates to an amount that might be greater than an optimal representation of the risk Salt Lake City faces. Unfortunately, we do not have access to data that allows us to determine what the optimal representation of risk for Salt Lake City would be. Our approach errson the side of caution by not underestimating the chance of higher damages, but at the same time we took steps to make sure we excluded extreme possibilities that do not seem to be useful analogues for Salt Lake City’s circumstances. Thisanalysisresultedinthe10-yearcumulativeprobabilitychartoflossestotheCityfromwildfires,shown in Exhibit 5.C.2. This chart represents the total losses to Salt Lake City before FEMA reimbursement. We see that the red line stays even with zero on the horizontal axis until about the 45% mark on the vertical axis, which means there is a 4.5 in 10 chance that the City’s losses from wildfires will be zero over a ten - yearperiod.The linegoessharplyupwardsfrom there,whichmeansthere isagoodchance that theCity’s losses will be low. For example, there is about a 70% chance that losses will be less than $100,000 over a ten-year period. Eventually, the curve starts to turn right which is the point at which there is a chance of Page 27 of 56 larger losses. For example,there is a 90% chance of losses less than $500,000 or a 10% chance that losses will be greater. There is a 95% chance that losses willbe less than $1.2million but a 5% chance they could be more. The red line extending almost horizontally to the right means there is a very small chance of extreme (multi-million dollar) losses. Section 7 of this report, “Putting it All Together” combines this analysis with the additional risks we have analyzed (e.g., recessions, earthquakes, etc.), adds in FEMA reimbursement, and introduces additional considerations such as the City’s ability to run budget surpluses, cut costs in other areas, etc. Exhibit 5.C.2 –10-Year Losses from Wildfires, before FEMA Reimbursement Chance Losses will be Equal to or Less Than Dollar Amount on Horizontal Axis Checkpoints ✓ Wildfires are a salient risk for Salt Lake City. First Street Foundation’s Risk Factor rates the City’s risk as “moderate.” ✓ We assumed the frequency of a fire that is potentially large enough to cause large losses is 1 in 13 or about an 8% annual chance. ✓ The financial consequences (costs) were suggested by the actual experiences of other cities with a population between 125,000 and 1 million people, excluding cities with “severe” or “extreme” wildfire risk, according to First Street. We included cities with “major” risk. Though these cities did experience more losses than “moderate” risk cities, we included them in the model but did balance them with the moderate observations. ✓ There is a high chance (70%) that the City’s losses over a ten-year period will be negligible (less than $100,000 or even zero. There is a very small chance of multi-million-dollar losses. D.Tornados The City’s EmergencyOperationsPlan(EOP)pointsoutthattornadoshavepotentiallyhighconsequences, though they occur with low frequency. The only tornado Salt Lake City itself, has experienced since 1950 Page 28 of 56 occurredinAugust 1999.TheEOPtellsusthata tornado toucheddownindowntownSaltLakeCity,killing one person and injuring at least one hundred people. This tornado caused widespread power outages as well as large-scale debris, mainly from downed tree limbs. Estimated damages to the entire community were over $150 million. 27 FEMA reimbursed the City government for over $650,000 in 2023 dollars. Factoring in a local share of 25%, that would be close to $900,000. 28 To simulate potential future losses from tornados, we started by examining the potential frequency of tornados. Exhibit 5.D.1 shows a map of all tornados in the Salt Lake County areas since 1950. Exhibit 5.D.1 - Tornados in Salt Lake County Region Since 1950 29 We see there were fifteen tornados since 1950 or 15 over a 73-year period (1950 to 2023). That equates to an average of 0.2 tornados per year. 30 We used this figure to simulate the number of tornados that 27 Community losses includes losses in the private sector. 28 According to records downloaded from FEMA.gov. These figures only reflect losses the City corporate entity and do not reflect losses to the private sector. 29 https://data.thespectrum.com/tornado-archive/ 30 15 divided by 73 is 0.2. Page 29 of 56 might occur over ten years in the Salt Lake County Region. 31 We also simulated the strength of any given tornado by using past frequency of strengths. Exhibit 5.D.1 shows the strength of the 15 historical tornados. There have never been any EF3 or higher tornados in all of Utah since 1950. 32 However, it may beunwisetoassumeitisimpossiblethataEF3tornadocouldtakeplace.Forthatreason,wealsoincluded a small chance that a tornado could be an EF3 tornado. Number of EF0 Tornados 8 Number of EF1 Tornados 4 Number of EF2 Tornados 3 The final step in estimating likelihood was to estimate the chance a given tornado in the Salt Lake County area would impact Salt Lake City. To do this, we divided the area of Salt Lake City by the County area. We used that to estimate chance given tornado in the county area hits the City (a 13% chance). 33 To estimate possible damages, we examined FEMA records for damages from tornados to cities across the USAsince 1999. We focused mostly on larger cities, but also lookedatmid-sized cities. We used these records to develop ranges of potential damages per capita 34 for each strength of tornado and also adjusted the data for inflation. 35 Because there are only so many historical experiences to draw from, especially for larger cities, we did have to make some assumptions, like using examples of mild damages from EF3 tornados to estimate what might represent high damages from an EF2 tornado. This analysis resulted in the 10-year cumulative probability chart of losses to the City from tornados, shown in Exhibit 5.D.2. The chart shows that there is an almost 9-in-10 chance of no losses at all from tornados over a ten-year period. It shows that the most extreme (though very rare) losses could reach multi-millions of dollars. Finally, note that the losses shown in Exhibit 5.D.2 do not include FEMA reimbursement.FEMAreimbursementisaddressedwhenwecombinealltheriskstheCityfacestogether, along with offsetting circumstances like FEMA reimbursements, the City’s ability to run budget surpluses, etc. We will address the effect of FEMA reimbursement and other mitigations in Section 7 of this report, “Putting it All Together”. 31 Weincludedtheareajustnorth ofSaltLakeCity,eventhoughitis notpartofthecounty.Tornadosobviouslydon’t care about political boundaries and the geographic proximity of this area suggested it should be included in the analysis. Also, we used a type of simulation that accounts for the fact that you could have more than one tornado in a year. 32 According to:https://data.thespectrum.com/tornado-archive/. The Utah State Hazard Mitigation plan shows that there was an “F3” tornado in 1993 in the Uinta Mountains, but F3 is not the same thing as EF3. 33 This included a small adjustment for the areas outside Salt Lake County’s boundaries th at were included in the analysis. 34 The rationale of per capita analysis is that a very small city could more easily have close to its entire population impacted by a tornado, whereas that is highly unlikely with a larger city. 35 We also accounted for the 25% local match that goes along with the customary 75% reimbursement rate. Page 30 of 56 Exhibit5.D.2 –SimulatedLossestoSaltLakeCityfromTornadosOverTenYears(thousandsofdollars) Chance Losses will be Equal to or Less Than Dollar Amount on Horizontal Axis Checkpoints ✓ Tornados are a risk to Salt Lake City. Tornados are very rare, but the most extreme tornados could cause multi-million-dollar losses to the City government ✓ Because tornados are rare, our simulation showed almost a 9-in-10 chance of no losses at all from tornados, over a ten-year period. ✓ Our simulation did include a small allowance for a tornado of historically unprecedented strength for the region, but otherwise the simulation is completely reflective of historical experience. E.Strong Winds (Straight-Line Winds) According to the State of Utah’s Hazard Mitigation Plan, straight-line winds are defined as “all winds produced by a thunderstorm not associated with the rotation of tornadoes. Straight-line winds are responsible for most thunderstorm wind damage…”. Straight line winds can impact SaltLake City, but the risk appears to be relatively moderate. The largest loss to the entire community in the last 30 years was in 1994 when there was a bit over $2 million in damages (in 2023 dollars). 36 That was by far the largest loss. The next largest was in 2010 when there was just under $300,000 in damages to the entire community.More recently, there wasa largewind event in 2020 thatwas astateemergency declaration. To simulate potential losses to City government from straight line winds, we began by simulating the frequency of high wind losses. According to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), there have been 9 years with damage to the community from strong winds out ofthelast30years.Thatequatestoabouta30%chanceofanygivenyearexperiencingdamage(9divided by 30). 36 Community losses includes losses in the private sector. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 Thousands Page 31 of 56 Next, we simulated losses. We looked at all annual historical losses and adjusted them to 2023 dollars. This historical data from NOAA provided the range of potential losses. As mentioned above, most losses were quite small (under $300,000 for the entire community), but 1994 demonstrates that larger losses arepossible.Furthermore,thesimulationdidnotassumethatthe1994experiencerepresentsamaximum possible loss. A statistical analysis of the data suggested that we allow for a 3% chance of larger losses. We only had access to data on losses to the entire community. To translate this to losses to City government, we assumed City government losses would range between 11% and 32% of community losses. This range was suggested by analysis of natural catastrophes procured by GFOA from Aon. 37 This analysis and simulation resulted in the 10-year cumulative probability chartof losses to the City from straight-line winds, shown in Exhibit 5.E.1. The chart shows that there is an almost 9-in-10 chance that totallossestotheCityover10yearswouldbelessthan$500,000.Itshowsthatthemostextreme(though very rare) losses could reach multi-millions of dollars. Further, we should note two important caveats. First, the most common type of loss is from frequent, but low consequence wind events. It is highly likely thattheCitycouldeitherabsorbthecostfromlowconsequenceeventsintheregularbudget(e.g.,routine cleanup work performed by the City’s public works department) or that could be covered by commercial insurance that the City purchases (minor damage to public buildings). These mitigations are not shown in the cumulative probability chart. We, though, address the effect of these mitigations in Section 7 of this report, “Putting it All Together”. 37 Aon is a global insurance and risk management data provider. Page 32 of 56 Exhibit 5.E.1 –SimulatedLossestoSaltLakeCity from Straight-LineWinds OverTenYears(thousands of dollars) Chance Losses will be Equal to or Less Than Dollar Amount on Horizontal Axis Checkpoints ✓ Straight-line winds can impact Salt Lake City ✓ Most straight-line wind events are of low consequence. ✓ Larger events are possible and though several low consequence events could add up, there is a 9 in 10 chance that losses to the City will be less than $500,000 over ten years. Other Hazards In addition to the hazards we have already discussed, the City’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) contemplates several additional hazards such as epidemics, terrorism, and more. These hazards have a few common characteristics: • Many are human-caused, rather than natural hazards. These include hazardous material spills, radiological incidents, utility outages, telecommunications disruptions, urban fires, biological / chemical weapon releases, and terrorism. • There are often few or no historical analogs to draw upon either in Salt Lake City or in other larger cities. For example, there are very few, if any, historical experiences with radiological incidents, terrorism, and biological / chemical weapon releases. Utility outages or telecommunication disruptions severe enough to constitute a “disaster” or “catastrophe” are also very rare in large urban areas in the US, meaning there is limited historical experience to draw upon. Page 33 of 56 • There are very few, if any studies or data sources, concerning the risk posed to urban areas by these events. This contrasts with natural hazards like earthquakes, floods, and wildfires for which there are many studies and data sources, some of which we’ve referenced in this report. To model other hazards, the first step was to determine which hazards to represent in the model. The City’sEOP identifiedjustunder20hazardsasthesubjectoftheplan.Severalofthesehavebeenaddressed elsewhere in this report, such as earthquakes, tornados, and flooding. A few others were deemed by the EOP to have low potential consequences, such as avalanches, landslides, lightning strikes, and transportation accidents. A couple hazards deemed “medium” consequence by the EOP were thought to have minimal potential impact on general fund reserves, with droughts and snowstorms being leading examples.Weignoredtheseandtheremaininghazardswererepresentedinourriskmodelandareshown in Exhibit 5.F.1. Before we move on to analyze the risk posed by other hazards, the reader should note that the intent of thismodelisnottodistinguishbetweentheimpactsofeachoftheparticular hazards describedin5.F.1. Rather, it is to recognize that the City is subject to many different types of hazards, many of which are extremely rare and perhaps even historically unprecedented. Thus, the true purpose of this analysis is to recognize and simulate the potential impact of highly unusual eventsthat could befall the City, regardless of the specific source of that event (e.g., terrorism, fire, etc.). Another way to think about this analysis is that it is intended to account for the “unknown unknowns” or “black swan events” that could befall the City. These terms refer to highly consequential risks that were totally unforeseen before they happened. Earthquakes, for example, are a “known unknown”. We know a large earthquake will eventually happen; we just don’t know when. For some risks in Exhibit 5.F.1, is plausible that Salt Lake City will never experience such an event or at least never experience such an event large enough to have material financial consequences for the City’s general fund. It is also possible the City could experience large costs from some event that doesn’t fit into neatly into categories described in the EOP. For example, in 2020 the City experiencedacivildisordereventthatcost the City $1.2million in2023 dollars. Nevertheless,the categories in the EOP are probably broadly representative enough of the sources that an “unknown unknown” could arise from. Thus, the purpose of this analysis is not to explore thefiner pointsof whatan urban fire, domestic terrorism, or radiological incident might look like. Rather, the purpose is broad exploration of the financial exposure presented by these kinds of other hazards, generally, as a group. Modeling the financial risks to Salt Lake City from these other hazards requires modeling both frequency of the event and magnitude of the associated loss, just as we have done for all risks described in this report. To model frequency, we started with the frequency suggested by the EOP. Many of the hazards shown in Exhibit5.F.1weredescribedintheEOPas“low”frequency,whichmeans“lessthanevery25years”.There were some exceptions. Domestic terrorism and biological / chemical weapons did not have a frequency associated with them, so we assumed these risks would also be “low” frequency. Hazardous materials weredescribedas“medium”frequency,butifwelimitthedefinitionofhazardousmaterialspillstoevents severe enough to requireamajor response from City government,then low frequency seemsreasonable. Page 34 of 56 Next, we translated these qualitative descriptions of frequency into probabilities. The EOP defines “low” as “less than every 25 years”. 1 in 26 years (1/26) would be the most conservative mathematical interpretation of this definition. We shared this interpretation with the City’s Division Chief/Emergency Managerof SLCFDEmergency Management. The Division Chiefshared itwith hiscolleagues for feedback. The feedback we got did not support making a less conservative interpretation of frequency. One exception is epidemics, where we do have an available history of major epidemics in urban areas. History suggests they are rare, so we adjusted the chance to 1 in 50 years. See Exhibit 5.F.1 for frequencies associated with each event. Exhibit X.Y.1 –Other Hazards and their Frequencies Hazard 1 Event in… …Years Frequency* Hazardous materials 1 26 3.8% Radiological incident 1 26 3.8% Utility Outage 1 26 3.8% Telecommunication Disruption 1 26 3.8% Urban Fire 1 26 3.8% Domestic Terrorism 1 26 3.8% Biological / Chemical Weapons 1 26 3.8% Epidemic 1 50 2.0% *Frequencies suggested by City EOP, with exception of epidemic, terrorism, and bio/chem weapons The frequencies above were then used by the risk model to simulate if such a hazard occurs. The model also accommodates the possibility of more than one such hazard happening in a single year, though this would be rare. To determine the magnitude of possible losses, we looked at the consequences of other hazards that the City has experienced. Exhibit 5.F.2 shows the results. This provides us with useful information as it shows that most events are relatively small compared to the largest expense (2021’s COVID costs). This is consistent with the theory of how extreme events work 38 and what we observe in the data for low frequency, high consequence events like earthquakes, floods, and wildfires. It is also important to note that it is quite possible that some of these events could have no material costs for the City government. For example, GFOA performed a similar analysis for a large general-purpose government in southern California, where a larger utility (power) outage had recently occurred. We could not find evidence that the power outage caused material extraordinary costs for that government. That doesn’t mean that a power outage would never cause extraordinary costs, just that we should acknowledge that it is quite possible that the occurrence of a hazard, depending on size, scope and other factors, might not have a material financial impact on the City’s general fund. All of this information was used to develop a 38 Many kinds of extreme events follow a “power law” distribu tion, which means that most observations are relativelysmallincomparisontothoseevents inthe“longtail”exhibitedinthepowerlaw distribution.Youcanlearn more about this phenomenon in the introductory section of this report where we discussed “asymmetrical distributions”. Page 35 of 56 distribution of possible losses from the occurrence of an “other hazard” event, where most occurrences will be around $1 million, a few could be much larger, and some will entail negligible costs. Exhibit 5.F.2 – Summary of City’s Recent Experience with Other Hazards Historical Cost of Misc Risks Total Cost, 2023 Dollars May 2020 Civil Disorder $ 1,172,154 2011 Chevron Hazmat Spill $1,068,916 2020 COVID $ 1,142,914 2021 COVID $ 13,862,252 All COVID $ 15,005,166 Finally,weconsideredthequestionofreimbursementofcostsbyoutsideentities.GFOA’sexperiencewith other governments, and which proved true in SLC, is that reimbursement can vary widely for these kinds of hazards. For example, FEMA involvement for large earthquakes, floods, etc. is common. FEMA involvement in human-caused hazards is irregular. For example, prior to 2020 we could find only 3 examples of FEMA providing reimbursement to local governments for a terrorist, chemical, or biological event (9/11 terrorist attack, Boston marathon bombing, and a 2014 West Virginia chemical spill). 39 If we look at the City’s history of other hazards (the ones in Exhibit 5.F.2), we see that the City received reimbursement for 2 out of the 3. The May 2020 civil disorder did not receive reimbursement. The 2011 hazmat spill was reimbursed by Chevron. COVID costs were reimbursed by special federal legislation. Hence, we built the simulation to provide for a 66% chance that any given occurrence of a hazard will be eligible for reimbursement (2 out of 3 chance of receiving reimbursement). As for the amount of the reimbursement, based on past history and the FEMA standard of 75% support for when FEMA does get involved, we assumed that reimbursement rates will usually be high, including 90% to 100% in some cases. For example, both the 2011 hazardous material costs and COVID costs were fully or almost fully covered by outside entities. We also included some chance of a low reimbursement. The larger point here is that, unlike natural catastrophes, there is no clear precedent for the rate of reimbursement. Furthermore, the costs associatedwith somekindsof human-caused catastrophes might be reimbursable by the perpetrator as was the case with the 2011 Chevron Hazmat. Hence, we reflected this uncertainty in the risk model by allowing for a larger range of potential reimbursements than we assumed for natural catastrophes. This analysis resulted in the 10-year cumulative probability chart of losses to the City from other hazards, shown in Exhibit 5.F.3. The chart shows both gross losses (before reimbursement) and net (after 39 This may be because the authoring legislation for FEMA is oriented more towards natural disasters, rather than human-caused. For example,https://www.fema.gov/disaster/how-declared states “the President can declare a major disaster for any natural event…” (emphasis added). Though this is far from a prohibition against FEMA involvement in human-caused disasters, it does show that FEMA probably more likely to be involved in natural disasters than man-made ones. Page 36 of 56 reimbursement).40 We see that the net (red) line goes more sharply upwards, which means there is a higher chance that the net cost will be lower than the gross cost. The chart shows that there is an 80% chance that net costs will be less than $12.7 million over ten years and 80% chance that gross costs will be less than $21 million over ten years. We can see that reimbursement has a big effect on the financial impact of these other hazards. Section 7 of this report, “Putting it All Together” combines this analysis with the additional risks we have analyzed (e.g., recessions, earthquakes, etc.) and introduces additional considerations such as the City’s ability to run budget surpluses, cut costs in other areas, etc. Exhibit 5.F.3 –Gross and Net 10-Year Total Cost of Other Hazards Chance Losses will be Equal to or Less Than Dollar Amount on Horizontal Axis Checkpoints ✓ Salt Lake City is at risk for a variety of hazards other than those we have analyzed elsewhere in this report. This mostly covers various minds of human-caused catastrophes and is intended to be broadly representative of “unknown unknown” risks. ✓ The frequency of these risks was suggested by the City’s Emergency Operation Plan. ✓ The financial consequences (costs) and potential for reimbursement were both suggested by the City’s past history with idiosyncratic risks like COVID, a 2011 hazardous material spill, and a 2020 civil disorder event. We also used experiences from other large local governments to inform the model. ✓ Reimbursement for these events is more irregular than for natural catastrophes. Hence, we looked at both gross costs over a ten-year period and costs net of reimbursement. The effects of reimbursement can be substantial. For example, the simulation an 80% chance that net costs will be less than $12.7 million over ten years and 80% chance that gross costs will be less than $21 million over ten years. 40 Note that the net line will not include all simulated reimbursements. For example, a simulated event in year 10 that is simulated to be reimbursed 1 or more years in the future will not impact the net cost since the net only includes reimbursements received in years 1 through 10. Page 37 of 56 Section 6 - Secondary Risks and Comparable Analysis Prior sectionsofthisreportreviewedthe risksofthe greatest financialconsequence to SLC. Inthissection we briefly review other risks that were considered, but that did not appear to be as important to SLC’s general fund reserve as the other risks we examined. This is not to say that SLC should not prepare for these risks. It is only to say that these events were not included in the scope of our analysis because of the low potential impact on the general fund. Also, in this section we examine how SLC compares to other cities in terms of indebtedness and the amount of fund balance maintained. A. Secondary Risks We identified several risks that are not primary risks. These risks are not primary risks because they are judged to be of low probability, of low severity, or both. 41 Some of themore notable risks are listed in the table below. Secondary Risks High Heat Snow Fall Cyberattack Because risks like those in the table above are not thought to be primary risks for the City, we did not quantitatively analyze them. However, that is not to say the City shouldn’t be prepared for these risks in some way. Below we discuss these risks in more detail. High Heat According to First Street Foundation’s “Risk Factor” tool for assessing community risk to natural hazards, Salt Lake City is at “moderate” risk from heat. Risk Factor has six categories of risk for heat: Minimal, Minor, Moderate, Major, Severe, and Extreme. When we look at individual properties within city limits, over90%ofproperties inSaltLake City areintheModeratecategory.A little lessthan8%areintheMajor category andahandfulareinthe MinimalorMinorcategory.Noneare inthe SevereorExtreme category. After discussions with City staff, it was judged that the potential financial impact to general fund due to highheatwasminimal.FurtherwediscussedheatriskwiththeCFOoftheCityofChandler,Arizona,which is classified as “extreme”heat risk by First Street. She told us that Chandler’s general fund reserve has seen no impact from responding to high heat events. Thus, if Chandler’s general fund reserve has not been impacted by high heat, it seems reasonable to conclude that the potential impact of high heat on SLC’s reserve is low. 41 This could be low intrinsic risk or because the City has transferred the risk via commercial insurance. Page 38 of 56 Snow Fall High snow fall could cause the City to incur more expenses for snow removal. Discussions with City staff indicate that the City has sufficient financial capacity outside of the general fund reserve to deal with extreme snow seasons. Hence, the potential impact on the general fund reserve is negligible. Cyberattack Local governments are at high risk for cyberattack, particularly ransomware attack. In fact, studies have shown that local governments are the most popular ransomware targets for cybercriminals. The City currently has coverage under a cyber liability program. GFOA is not an insurance expert, and a detailed examinationofthe policy wasoutsidethe scope ofthisproject.However,cyberinsurance isanotablerisk for the general fund reserve for two reasons: • Cyber risk policies are often not straightforward and often include various limitations and exclusions that result in the insured retaining more risk than they expected. GFOA has a publicly available report that outlines the most common issues in cyber insurance the local governments should watch out for: “Cyber Risk Savvy” is available at the GFOA website at https://www.gfoa.org/materials/cyber-risk-savvy. Retained risk is risk that de facto self-insured. • In recent years, cyber coverage has gotten more expensive or even impossible to maintain if certain underwriting standards are not met by the insured. Currently the City has insurance coverage against cyber attacks. But, perhaps self-insurance (partial or full) could become a more economically attractive option in the future, depending on how the market for commercial insurance develops. Besides the risks listed above, other risks that were considered minor include: avalanches, landslides, droughts, lightning, and transportation accidents. All of these were judged to have low potential consequences for the general fund reserve. 42 Finally, it is worth noting that the “primary” risks included an “other hazards” category that was intended to simulate “unknown unknown” risks. So, although we did not quantitatively model the risks described here under “secondary risks”, the “other hazards” simulation does provide for reserve capacity beyond the specific primary risks we modeled like recessions, earthquakes, floods, etc. Secondary Risk Checkpoints ✓ We identified several other risks to be insufficiently likely and/or severe to be categorized as a primary risk. We did not quantitatively model these risks. ✓ TheCityshouldstillpreparefortheserisks,though.Whenitcomestoreserves,the“OtherHazards” simulation we performed under the primary risks does provide some additional reserves capacity. Thus, our reserve recommendation is not limited to just exposure from the specific primary risks we modeled. 42 This conclusion was reached primarily on the strength of the City’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), which describes the potential consequences of these risks as “low: some citywide impact possible. Usually handled with available city resources”. The exception is drought, which was described “medium” consequence, but discussions with City staff indicate minimal potential impact of the general fund. Page 39 of 56 B. Comparable Analysis This section compares Salt Lake City to other cities on indebtedness and the amount of fund balance they maintain. This information provides context for the City in selecting its own reserve levels. Debt and reserves are both determinants of financial flexibility. A high debt burden means less flexibility, which then would suggest that reserves are especially important for providing flexibility. A lower debt burden would mean the converse. Debt At the end of FY 2021, Salt Lake City’s total direct and overlapping debt amounted to $623.6 million, of which $290.8 million was direct debt. The City’s general obligation bond rating is Aaa from Moody’s and AAA from Fitch Ratings. Exhibit 6.B.1 compares Salt Lake City with the medians of cities with population greater than 50,000 across different Moody’s credit ratings. The top row shows the direct debt a city has relative to its full value or total assessed value. For this indicator, Salt Lake City’s direct debt is 0.63% of itsfullvalue, lowerthanthemedianacrossallratings.Thesecondrowshowsdirectdebtacityhasrelative to itstotaloperatingrevenues.Forthisindicator,SaltLake City is0.69 times itsoperatingrevenues,again, lower than the median across all ratings. Exhibit6.B.1 –ComparisonofSaltLakeCity'sFinancial IndicatorstoCitieswithPopulationGreaterThan 50,000 Salt Lake City Aaa Aa A Baa Ba & Below Direct Debt / Full Value (%) 0.63%0.7% 1.1%2.0% 2.9% 2.1% Direct Debt / Operating Revenues (x) 0.69 0.79 0.78 0.76 1.23 1.14 Source: Moody’s Investors Service, “2021 US Local Government Medians Cities and Counties” To further explore measures of debt, we examined how Salt Lake City compares to a group of peer cities that the City evaluates itself against based on a combination of factors, including demographics and population. Exhibit 6.B.2 provides summary statistics from each of the cities’ FY 2021 annual comprehensive financial report and includes four commonly used measures of indebtedness. The measures are categorized as measures of overall debt and measures of direct debt. Measures of overall debt capture the full burden placed on the public by debt issued by all local governments that overlap the city. Within this category, the first measure, overall debt per capita, shows the burden placed on citizens by municipal indebtedness inclusive of direct and overlapping debt. The second measure, overall debt burden, compares direct debt plus the debt of overlapping jurisdictions as a percent of the full assessed value of properties in the jurisdiction. Page 40 of 56 Measuresofdirectdebtincludedebtservice(inclusiveofprincipalandinterestpayments)asapercentage ofthe city’sexpenditures. This measuregaugesthepressure placedonthe budget by debtpayments.The secondmeasure shows direct debt asa percent ofthe city’s fullvalue to show the debt burden relative to the City’s tax base. Exhibit 6.B.2 – Comparison of Salt Lake City’s Debt Measures with Peer Cities Measures of Overall Debt Measures of Direct Debt Population Overall Debt per Capita Overall Debt Burden (Overall Net Debt as % Full Value) Debt Service as a % of Expenditures Direct Net Debt as % of Full Value Salt Lake City 199,723 $3,122 1.36% 9.05%0.63% Chandler, AZ 280,178 $2,170 1.65% 7.47%0.58% Denver, CO 749,103 $11,784 4.59% 8.12%0.97% Las Vegas, NV 655,489 $3,248 3.29% 5.86%0.79% Orlando, FL 314,506 $2,069 0.97% 4.93%0.64% Portland, OR 652,503 $5,255 2.16% 18.73%0.32% Washington, DC 716,510 $19,585 3.95% 6.50%3.95% Mean 509,716 $6,748 2.57%8.67%1.13% Median 652,503 $3,248 2.16%7.47%0.64% Sources: FY 2021 annual comprehensive financial report of each city and U.S. Census Bureau’s 2020 Decennial Census Among its peers, Salt Lake City’s overall debt per capita is $3,122, which is lower than both the mean and median of the peer cities. Orlando, FL and Chandler,AZ both have slightly lowerdebt per capita at $2,069 and $2,170, respectively. Denver, CO and Washington, DC have significantly higher debt per capita than their peers. It is important to note that both encompass services beyond traditional municipal services. DenveroperatesasthecityandcountyandWashington,DCfunctionslargelyindependentlywithagreater scope of services. With respect to overall debt burden, Salt Lake City is fairly low at 1.36% of full value, with only Orlando, FL recording a lower share. In examining direct debt measures, Salt Lake City is above the mean for debt service as a percentage of expenditures at 9.05%. Only the City of Portland is higher at 18.73%. When considering direct net debt as a percentage of full value, Salt Lake City is near the median at 0.63%, with Chandler, AZ and Portland, OR recording lower figures. Salt Lake City is comparable based on medians of cities with populations of 50,000 or greater. However, comparing figures in Exhibit 6.B.1 to Exhibit 6.B.2, the peer cities maintain a lower level of direct debt. While debt could play a role in the City’s risk mitigation strategy, it should be used cautiously. Claims on Fund Balance It is important to gain an understanding of existing claims on the City’s general fund balance in order to fully see funds available to the City in case of a major, unforeseen expenditure or emergency. Page 41 of 56 To help the City consider the amount of reserves to maintain, Exhibit 6.B.3 provides a table of general fund balances as a percent of general fund revenues for peer cities. Several notes should be made about Exhibit 6.B.3 in order for the readerto fully understand its meaning. First, “fund balance” is an accounting term describing the difference between assets and liabilities in the general fund. “Reserves” (which are the main topic of GFOA’s analysis for Salt Lake City) are the portion of fund balance set aside, by City policy,asahedgeagainstrisk.Hence,notall“fundbalance”isnecessarilyavailableasareserve.Theright- hand section of Exhibit 6.B.3 shows how much each city holds in fund balance as a percentage of general fundrevenues.Eachofthefourcolumnsontherightinthisexhibitexaminefundbalancesfromadifferent perspectivebetweenitsrelationshipstoriskmitigation.Goingfromlefttoright,thecolumnsshowabroad to narrow perspective on funds available for risk mitigation. Thefirstcolumnshows“unrestricted”fundbalanceasapercentageofgeneralfundoperatingrevenues. This column is the broadest perspective of funds available for risk mitigation. It captures the portion of the fund balance that does not have constraints placed on their use by an outside entity (e.g., through a legal agreement) and is spendable (e.g., cash or other liquid assets). An “unrestricted” fund balance may still have constraints placed upon its use, but these constraints would be created by the city government itself. One common constraint is to dedicate some portion of fund balance to hedging against the types of risks described in this report. However, other constraints have nothing to do with risk mitigation—to illustrate: a common self-imposed constraint is setting aside fund balance to pay for a special capital project.TheCitydoeshavesuchaconstraint,includingfundbalanceassignedforcapitalprojectsandpark maintenance improvements, which could be removed and made available for risk mitigation. The second column shows the amount of fund balance available for risk mitigation.Compared to the first column, this column removes portions of the fund balance that have self-imposed restrictions unrelated to risk mitigation. This leaves portions of the fund balance set aside to address a specific risk as well as the portion of fund balance that do not have a dedicated use (unassigned), which could easily be used for responding to emergency events if needed. The third column includes fund balances set aside to address a risk. Compared to the second column, the third column does not include portions of the fund balance that do not have a dedicated use (unassigned fund balance).The thirdcolumnonlycaptures what has been specifically set aside for risk. Of thepeercities,onlySaltLakeCityandLasVegasdonothavefundbalancesspecificallysetasidetoaddress a risk. The risks that peer cities have set aside funds for vary. The City of Chandler has assigned portions of its fundbalanceforself-insurancepurposesaswellasforpensioncontributions.TheCityofDenverrestricted funds for emergency use. 43 The City of Orlando has assigned funds for long-term benefit obligations. The City of Portland committed funds for general fund stabilization. Washington, DC has the largest percentage of general fund revenues dedicated to risk mitigation, which includes contingency and 43 GFOA worked with the City and County of Denver to establish these categories after a similar risk analysis. Denver made the determination on the level of fund balance to maintain for extreme events and economic volatility. Page 42 of 56 emergency cash reserves as mandated by the U.S. Congress and fiscal stabilization and cash flow reserves adopted into the D.C. Code. It should be noted that the analysis in Exhibit 6.B.3 is based only upon the information included in each city’s FY 2021 annual comprehensive financial report. Cities may also have a legislative policy document which might call for maintaining a given amount in fund balance as a reserve without creating an accounting restriction that would show up in the financial report. Several of the peer cities have such a legislative policy in place. The City of Chandler’s policy calls for a general fund contingency reserve equal to 15 percent of general fund operating revenues. The City of Denver’s policy calls for a contingency reserve of no less than 2% of total expenditures, an emergency reserve mandated by the State Constitution of 3% of covered funds, and an unassigned fund balance of at least 10% and target of 15% of total budgeted expenditures. Lastly, the City of Orlando’s reserve policy targets a range of between 15% and 25% of budgeted expenditures for the general fund, a range of between 0% and 20% of budgeted expenditures for other funds, and a range of 10% to 15% of outstanding liability for its risk management fund. Exhibit 6.B.3 – Comparison of Salt Lake City’s General Fund Balance as Percentage of Revenues to Peer Cities City Unrestricted Available for Risk Mitigation Dedicated to Risk Mitigation* Salt Lake City 30.3%30.3% 0.0% Chandler, AZ 83.5%43.5% 10.1% Denver, CO 24.2%23.1% 4.3% Las Vegas, NV 34.6%26.1% 0.0% Orlando, FL 30.7%22.3% 1.0% Portland, OR 20.3%17.6% 8.7% Washington, DC 25.6%15.6% 15.6% Mean 35.6%25.5%5.7% Median 30.3%23.1%4.3% *The figures are based on details identified in each city's annual financial report. A city may have a legislative policy to maintain a certain amount in fund balances as a reserve without creating an accounting restriction. Sources: FY 2021 annual comprehensive financial report As mentioned previously, the columns in Exhibit 6.B.3 provide a broader to a narrower perspective on funds available for risk mitigation going from left to right. The first column shows the broadest view in termsofpercentageofunrestrictedgeneralfundbalance asapercentageofgeneralfundrevenues.Here, SaltLake Cityrepresentsthemedianofpeercitiesat30.3%ofgeneralfundrevenues.Whenwelookmore closely to portions of the fund balance set aside to address a specific risk along with the portion of fund balance that do not have a dedicated use (unassigned) that can be utilized in case of an emergency, the amount Salt Lake City has available for risk mitigation is the second highest, behind the City of Chandler, AZ. The third columntakesa narrower perspectiveonfunds available for riskmitigation and includes only Page 43 of 56 what has been dedicated to a specific risk. As noted previously, Salt Lake City and Las Vegas have not imposed any accounting restrictions for risk mitigation purposes. Compared to its peer cities, Salt Lake City maintains an average level of general fund balance that could be a hedge for risk through the unassigned portion of its fund balance. A more deliberate analysis, such as the approach in this report, will provide greater insights into if such a level is appropriate given the risk factors that the City faces as well as what other peer cities are considering as risks, and if they are using reserves as a way to address such risks. From there, the City could create accounting restrictions on portions of the fund balance to set aside funds for specific risks it faces. Page 44 of 56 Section 7 - Putting it All Together In Sections 4 and 5 we examined individual risks such as recessions, earthquakes wildfires, floods, and more. We examined each of these risks individually to best understand the nature of each risk and the financialimplications.However,toarriveatafinalreservestrategy forthe City,weneedtoconsiderthese risks as a group. Considering the risks as a group has important advantages. The first advantage is that considering risks as a group recognizes the diversity in the risks that the City faces. This diversity is an advantage for City finances! Diversity in risks means we should not simply add together a reserve for each individual risk. This may overstate the amount of reserves that the City really needs. This is because it is unlikely that the City will experience a deep recession, a severe earthquake, and severe flood (or other hazards) all within a short time period. The second advantage of considering all the risks together is that not all of the risks have an equal chance of occurring over a given time period. Recessions are more common than a 100-year flood. The reserve analysis should reflect this fact. We can use relative chance of each of the major risks occurring over a ten-year period to build a model of risks over a long-term time horizon. The final advantage of considering all the risks together is that we can consider “risk interdependencies.” This simply means that the occurrence of one risk could impact the probability and/or magnitude of a related risk.In Salt Lake City’s case, themost important interdependency appearsto bebetween revenue volatility and a powerful earthquake: a large earthquake could impair the City’s taxbase.There are also interdependencies between revenues during a recession. Some revenues decline right away while others take longer to decline. High pension costs are also related to poor economic performance. Other than that, there does not appear to be any critical interdependencies. It is not unusual for local governments GFOA has worked with to not have many interdependencies. To realizetheadvantagesdescribedabove, we builtamodelthatconsiders the City’srisksover aten-year time horizon. The GFOA Risk Model runs hundreds, thousands, or even ten thousand simulations of possiblefuturesfortheCity.Belowarethekeyassumptionsbehindthemodel.Someoftheseassumptions are user-definable so that the City can explore alternative scenarios to those described in the report. Below, we have italicized user definablevariables anddescribed the defaultvalues included in the model. • Probability of an undesirable event.The probability of any undesirable event occurring is consistent with the assumptions in the detailed analysis of each risk. • Magnitude of an undesirable event.Should a simulation show that an undesirable event occurs in a given year, the magnitude is generated randomly in a manner identical to how we described for the risks earlier in this report. • FEMA reimbursement.The City could recoup some of its losses from extreme events, such as earthquakes, floods, and fires from reimbursements from FEMA. The model assumes the reimbursements are received two years after the event occurs.44 The model assumes all large natural catastrophes would be assisted by FEMA. Small ones may not. We also assume the City willbereimbursedatthe customary rateof75% ofincurredcosts byFEMA.We also assume there 44 Our research shows that FEMA reimbursements are completed 18 months after the disaster occurs, on average. So, this is a conservative assumption. Page 45 of 56 is some amount of losses that do not fit into FEMA reimbursement (beyond the 25% local share) that the City will need to bear. The amount varies by type of disaster but ranges from 35% to 50%.45 • The City does cut some spending to help offset the impact of a recession or an extreme event. At least some of the losses from a recession or extreme event could be absorbed by cutting back ontheCity’sregularspending.TheRiskModelprovidestheuserwiththeabilitytosettheamount of spending the City is willing to cut. For the purposes of this report, we assume the City is willing to cut up to 3% of its entire budget in any given year to close a deficit, before using reserves. This is consistent with some past experiences the City has had in balancing its budget. • The City will usually generate budget surpluses in years when there is not a recession.The City has historically generated surpluses in non-recessionary years. Annual surpluses can be used to offset unexpected costs or help pay for capital projects. The Risk Model simulates budget surpluses for non-recessionary years. We started with the City’s historical surpluses and deficits andthenusedtheCitystaff’sjudgement46 toadjusttherangestoaccountforhistoricalanomalies. This resulted in a range of about 6% surplus to 2% deficit for most years in the model. 47 • Critical threshold.This is the amount that the City does not want reserves to go below. For the purposes of this report, we have tied the critical threshold to bond rating agency expectations. The City hasbeenrated atAAA and, according to Fitchratingagency,the ratingreflects“thecity's superior gap-closing capacity, which results from a high level of revenue control and solid reserves, supported by strong financial management practices.”Reserves can help the City maintain its rating. Thus, the model has three settings for the critical threshold. One setting puts the desired minimum at the standard associated withAAA, which according to Moody’s is 35% of revenues for the entire local government.48 The second setting puts the minimum at the amount associated with AA, which is 25%. 49 The third setting puts the minimum at the amount associated with A, which is 15%. Note that these standards refer to not only the general fund, but to SLC as a whole.Salt Lake City’s goal is to maintain a AAA bond rating. Currently, the other funds in SLC have large enough fund balances that, in theory, SLC’s general fund reserve could go below zero and still satisfy rating agency expectations. In practice, of course, rating agencies would probably not look favorably on negative fund balance. So, instead we used zero as the threshold for the purposes of discussion in this report. • City’s starting reserve. The starting reserve assumptions comes in two parts. First there is the general fund unassigned fund balance. That number was taken from the City’s latest annual comprehensive financial report (ACFR), with a deduction for amounts that City has already directed to other spending. Further, not all of the unassigned fund balance was considered part of the “reserve”. The reserve is monies set aside for managing risks. This was set at 13% of expenditures as per Council policy. The second part is fund balance from other funds. 50 This is relevant because Moody’sbond rating is now basedon fund balances across all funds. Therefore, 45 A recent high wind event in the City produced costs that were not reimbursable by FEMA in an amount equal to about 50% of the costs that were. Hence, 50% is not an unrealistic upper limit. 46 City staff went through a calibration training program provided by GFOA to improve staff abilities to make probabilistic judgments. 47 The first year of a model includes a slightly higher (8%) upper limit to account of anticipated difficulty in filling positions and consequently higher potential for vacancy savings in the budget. 48 Moody’s publishes explicit standards for how much fund balance they look for, so we used those standards. 49 The user can also remove the critical threshold entirely or add new threshold options. 50 Technically, proprietary funds do not have “fund balances”. The closest equivalent is “net current assets”, which is used by Moody’s in its calculations. Page 46 of 56 if there are large fund balances in other funds, there is less of a need for general fund balances in order to satisfy bond rating agencies and vice versa. Again, we used the City’s latest ACFR with a deduction for amounts that City has already directed to other spending. We combined all of the information described above to create a ten-year probabilistic risk model. The City’s goalforthisanalysiswas to find an amount thatcan give the City sufficientcomfort that its reserves will cover its risks. We next present a series of graphics based on this risk model. Exhibit 7.1 shows the chance that the City’s current reserve will reach the critical threshold (go below Moody’s expectations) each year. GFOA has observed that many municipalities are comfortable with anything less than a 10% of reaching their critical threshold by the end of the analysis period. We can see SLC is well within this benchmark –the chances are routinely less than 5%. It is important to note that, generally, the blue bars will always get higher the further in the future we look because more bad things can happen. [This space left intentionally blank] Exhibit 7.1 –Chance to Reach Critical Threshold Each Year The City has less than a 5% chance of reaching the critical threshold by the 10 th year of our analysis period. Page 47 of 56 Exhibit7.2 showstheaverage remainingreserveperyear(blue line). Theexhibit showstheCity’sreserves are simulated to remain fairly stable, with slight growth, under “average” conditions. This is sufficient to keep the City well above the critical threshold (dotted red line that is equal to zero). The chart also shows the 20 th percentile (green line), which means the simulation shows reserves to be at or under the green line 20% of the time. This is representative of some of the less favorable outcomes of the simulation. We see that even then, SLC stays well above the critical threshold. This space left intentionally blank] Exhibit 7.2 –Simulated Remaining Reserve Per Year Thecriticalthresholdisequaltozero. Onaverage,SLC’sreservesaresimulatedtoremainstable,with very slight growth over a ten year period. Page 48 of 56 Finally, below is Exhibit 7.3. This is a cumulative probability chart. It shows the confidence available from varying levels of reserves. The main take-away from this graphic is the reserves have a diminishing return at a certain point because the flatter the line gets, the less confidence an additional dollar of reserve “buys” you. This is because the further to the right you go on the graph, the more extreme the events are that must be covered by reserves. This graphic shows that the has reached the point of diminishing returns,if zero isconsidered the critical threshold. This City would not be aswellserved by accumulating reserves past the point where the line starts to flatten out, if zero is the critical threshold. Exhibit 7.3 –Cumulative Probability Chart The implication of the line going flat is that not all points on the line are equally cost effective.Let’s examine Exhibit 7.3. According to the graph, to be 80% confident of staying above the critical threshold requires a reserve of $5.8 million. To be 90% confident requires a reserve of $19.1 million, a difference of about $13.3 million from 80% confidence. To be 95% confident requires $30.4 million, which is about $11.3 millionmore than the amount requiredto be 90% confident. Thus, it costsabout the same to “buy” an increase in confidence of half the size. The City can use the results of this report to optimize the range of general fund reserves it would like to hold. GFOA recommends the City establish a floor and a ceiling amount of reserves. The ceiling is as Page 49 of 56 amount of reserves SLC will try not to exceed and a floor is an amount that SLC will try not to go below and will try to replenish the reserves quickly if they do go below the floor. GFOA cannot recommend a precise amount of reserves the City should maintain, but our analysis does provide a clear general direction and our risk provide provides the ability to “stress test” different reserve strategies. The reason we cannot make a precise recommendation is that a big part of determining a desirable reserve amount is the “risk appetite” of SLC officials. Officials who are risk averse may prefer more reserves. Those who are less averse and perhaps more sensitive to the opportunity costs of holding reserves may prefer less. City officialswillalso want to think aboutotherfactorsto finalizethereserve target range.This is because Exhibit 7.3 cannot account for every possible factor that should go into deciding how much Salt Lake City should keep in its reserve. The numbers shown in the exhibit are what is needed to protect the City from just the risks described in this report and to keep the reserve above zero.Usually,municipal governments have other concerns they expect their reserves to address. Here are examples of such concerns: • The critical threshold is based on what it would take to keep SLC in line with rating agency expectations for how much fund balance a AAA rated city would maintain. There are two important implications here: a. Though, mathematically, SLC has enough fund balance in other funds that it could maintain compliance with rating agency expectation while reserves in the General Fund go to zero. That said, we must also recognize that that the City’s reserves are only about 1/3ofthe City’sgeneralfundunrestrictedfundbalance.That’sthesizenecessarytomeet the councilpolicy ofreserves equalto13% ofexpenditures. So,the reserves goingto zero is not the same as the general fund balance going to zero. b. The model assumes that the fund balance of other funds will remain as robust in the future as they are today. There is no reason we know of today that this will cease to be the case, but the world can change. • There are risks that are sometimes called “unknown unknowns.”These are risks that are totally unanticipated.Ourmodel does includean “other hazards” simulation which should go a long way towards addressing unknown unknowns. • Our Risk Model is based largely on historical data, which, by definition, does not capture the potential future impacts of climate change. It is impossible to say what the future impacts of climate change will be. This might suggest a more “risk averse” approach to reserves (i.e., maintaining more, rather than less). • The City might wish to use fund balances for purposes other than mitigating risks –for example, buildingacapitalprojectusingcashfinancing.TheRiskModelgivestheCitythe abilitytoestimate the cost of potential projects to see the financial impact of redirecting reserves to other uses. 51 More broadly, City officials should consider opportunity costs of holding reserves: what are alternative uses of the funds and how do those benefits compare to self-insuring against the risks described in this report? The considerations above could be reflected by adjusting the “critical threshold”. As described earlier, GFOA’s discussions with the City staff suggest a critical threshold of zero is representative of where the City’s reserves need to stay above to help the City maintain a good reputation with investors in municipal 51 Note that the City has historically done some level of cash financing of projects. The model already accounts for “normal” spending that takes place in the City’s annual budget, so this feature of the Risk Model wo uld be used for larger projects that exceed what might be considered “typical.” Page 50 of 56 debt and maintain a AAA rating. 52 This amount is shown in Exhibit 7.3. The City could choose to vary this critical threshold,which would then change the totalamountof reserves the City would needto maintain in order to achieve a given degree of confidence that reserves would stay above the threshold. Here are some other conclusions we can draw from the graphics presented on the previous pages: • Salt Lake City’s ability to consistently generate surpluses provides a great deal of protection from the impacts of unplanned, unavoidable expenditures over the long-term. • The City should remain mindful of the potential for extreme consequence events. In particular, a large earthquake could impair the taxbase. GFOA found that this caused SLC’s simulation to produce some extreme results. In Exhibit 7.3 the reader will notice that the red line extends very far to the right, past $200 million. This tells us that there is a small chance of some very extreme outcomes. Typically, our risk simulations don’t produce such a long tail, but SLC’s vulnerability to earthquakes and tax base impairment does.Lateron in this document, we will discuss parametric insurance as an alternative to reserves to protect SLC against these extreme cases. So, with this in mind the City might consider taking the following steps: • SLC council and administration can determine the preferred amount of reserves based on risk appetite and the data presented here. • SLCcouncilandadministrationcanconsideracomprehensivereservepolicy (seebelowformore details). • As part of the deliberations on the preferred amount of reserves, take into account the relationship between the general fund and other funds. Though the strong balances in other funds do help SLC meet bond rating agency expectations, the general fund does have responsibilities for good overall municipal management that go beyond the scope of rating agency expectations. • GFOA has been working with City staff to show them the details of how the model works and willprovidethemodeltotheCitystaffattheendoftheproject.Citystaffcanupdateandchange assumptions to examine scenarios besides those we focused on in this report. This report also provides several recommendations for how SLC can strengthen its financial position to respond to the risks analyzed in this report, which are described in the following pages. TheCityshouldadoptarobustreservespolicy.GFOAhasconductedextensiveresearchintowhatittakes for a local government to be financially sustainable. We call this body of work “Financial Foundations for Thriving Communities”(Financial Foundations). This research has shown that local governments require clear decision-making boundaries. A policy on the target level of reserves that the City should maintain, and the acceptable use of those reserves provides clear decision-making boundaries for reserves. Furthermore, GFOA has found that a policy that identifies a floor and ceiling for reserves, rather than just a single target number, may provide more useful guidance. This is because a City government will rarely, if ever, have exactly the amount of reserves called for by its policy. Having a range defines the acceptable tolerances the reserves should stay within. 52 We will reiterate that reserves are a subset of fund balance. We are not suggesting that rating agencies would be sanguine or even just unperturbed by zero fund balance. In fact, they’d probably find such a development concerning, regardless of balances in SLC’s other funds. Page 51 of 56 This City is currently working on a draft policy, in conjunction with GFOA, that includes all the essential features of such a policy. The policy will be presented to the City Council for formal consideration. The City should adopt a mechanism to monitor its own compliance with the policy.GFOA’s Financial Foundations research suggests that boundaries (e.g., financial policies) must be monitored in order to be fully effective. The City of Tempe, Arizona provides a good example of how a reserve policy can be monitored. Tempe’s policy is to maintain the general fund reserve equal to between 20% and 30% of general fund revenues. The general fund reserve policy is combined with Tempe’s five-year financial forecast, where the goal is to keep reserves within the 20% to 30% boundary during the five-year forecast period. This approach originated in 2009 when Tempe had a policy to maintain reserves equal to 25% of general fund revenues. However, Tempe had been maintaining fund balances above 30%, which was causing some to question why Tempe was not in alignment with the policy and whether Tempe had a fund balance that was too large. The City Council and staff agreed to change the policy to set a goal for the reserves to be between 20%and30%ofrevenues.Thisrangewouldprovidemorediscretion,butitwouldalsocreateclearbounds for what Tempe would consider acceptable maximum and minimum reserves. Tempe staff developed a presentation of Tempe’s revenue forecast in the context of this new arrangement and informally called it the “Golden Cone of Prosperity.” Exhibit 7.4 shows the presentation as it was in 2009, where the yellow cone representing the range of desired fund balance widens over the forecast horizon as the new policy is phased in and the black line representing actual fund balance gradually enters the cone. Exhibit 7.4 —Tempe’s Golden Cone of Prosperity in 2009 The meaning of the Golden Cone of Prosperity is straightforward, and its design and name give it a memorable character. As of 2020, Tempe staff still present the Golden Cone twice per year to help public Page 52 of 56 officials to understand the big picture and to show whether Tempe is staying within agreed-upon boundaries. This is a testament to the communicative power of the Golden Cone. Salt Lake City could develop a similar presentation to help make sure the City stays within its agreed upon financial boundaries. Adopt a policy of objective forecasting and conservative budgeting.There are several policies that Salt Lake City could adopt to help make sure its on-going cost structure does not become misaligned with its on-going revenues. Such misalignment would put pressure on the City’s reserves.These policies include: • One-time revenue policy.Limit the use of one-time, non-recurring revenues to one-time, non- recurringexpendituresortopaydownliabilities(e.g.,catchingupondeferredassetmaintenance, like a park,road,etc.). An exampleof aone-time, non-recurring revenue would be proceeds from a lawsuit or the sale of an asset. Another important example is excess reserves: reserves accumulated above the ceiling amount called for in the City’s policy. • Volatile revenue policy.Some revenues, like sales taxes, are recurring, but they can go up and down substantially from year to year. A volatile revenue policy would treat extraordinarily high annual revenues from a volatile source as a one-time revenue. The bulk of the revenue income would be treated like a recurring revenue –it is just the extraordinary amount that would have more limited uses. This protects the City from using peak revenues to over-invest in programs that have to be supported for many years. • Adopt a structurally balanced budget.Cities are required to adopt a balanced budget by law. However, this just means financial sources must be equal to uses. So, for instance, City Hall could be sold off (a non-recurring revenue) and the proceeds used to hire more firefighters (a recurring expenditure). Thiswould,of course, be a bad idea. A structurally balanced budget policy commits the City to balancing its recurring revenues and recurring expenditures and balancing its non- recurring revenues and expenditures, separately. • Adoptaphasedscheduleofspendingonnon-recurring expendituresandconditionspendingon forecasts being met. As part of its budget, the City could adopt a prioritized list of one-time expenditures, in addition to its regular on-going expenditures. The total of the one-time and on- going expenditures would be equal to or less than the City’s projected revenue. The one-time expenditures would then be made throughout the year, in priority order, and conditioned on revenues coming in as projected. If revenues underperform the City’s forecasts, then the lower priority expenditures would not be made. • Adopt flexiblestrategies for providing on-going services.Itis unlikely thatallof the City’s service goalscanbemet throughone-timeexpenditures.Newon-goingservicesmay be needed.TheCity could look for opportunities to adopt flexible service models, where costs can be scaled up or down. For example, contracted services often can provide flexibility that in-house staff cannot. This is not to say that in-house staffing is undesirable. There may be situations where in-house staffing is better, but there may also be opportunities where contracts can provide financial flexibility. • Affirmative reauthorization of spending.The conventional approach to budgeting is that once a new service isauthorizeditis“bakedin” to the budgetandisfundedyearafteryear.Thiscanlead to financial distress when new services are layered on top of old services. An alternative is to require affirmative reauthorization for a new service. This could be especially useful where a new service is intended to achieve some clear public policy goal. At the end of some set period, the City Council could be required to explicitly reauthorize funding based on whether or not the program is achieving its stated goals. Page 53 of 56 The City may need to consider further investments in cybersecurity.Cybersecurity is an emerging and growing threat for local governments. As we described earlier, available data suggests several sobering points: • Local governments are the most attractive targets for cybercriminals and ransomware attacks against local governments are becoming more common. • The amount of damage from an attack appears to only be weakly correlated to the size of the government. Data suggests that the average attack costs around $100,000 but attacks can and have cost local governments many millions of dollars. • Cyber insurance policies have been getting more expensive and harder to come by. Given the points above, the City might consider the following recommendations that have implication for the City’s reserves: • Continue planning for enhanced security and make cost-effective investments in cybersecurity controls that both: A) reduce the likelihood of a successful attack; and B) reduce the potential damages, if an attack succeeds. Because reserves are ultimately a form of self-insurance there could be a strong case for using some of the City’s reserves to strengthen its cybersecurity. This is becauseadollarinvestedinpreventionisusuallygoingtobemoreeffectivethanadollarinvested in remediation. • Be prepared to retain more risk on a cyber insurance policy. If policies get substantially more expensive (or, worst case, unavailable), Salt Lake City could lower the cost by retaining more risk. This could be accounted for in the reserve amount. Fornaturalhazards,particularlyearthquakes,consider“parametric”insuranceinadditiontotraditional indemnity insurance.Indemnity insurance is the type of insurance that most governments have traditionally purchased, where the insurance corresponds to the value of the assets being insured and reimbursementispaidoutafteracertaindeductiblehasbeenmet.Theadvantageoftraditionalindemnity insurance is that there is a known damage threshold past which the City is covered. Parametric insurance is a newer type of insurance for providing coverage for extreme events, having increased in popularity in the last 15 years or so in the public sector but has been in use in the private sector for decades. Parametric coverage provides the policyholder (the City)witha payment amount that is defined ahead of time, should a defined event come to pass (an earthquake larger than a given magnitude). Parametric insurance could be more useful for providing an injection of liquidity because the policyholder receives the defined payment immediately upon verification by a third-party that the given event occurred, which usually would be within a matter of days. For Salt Lake, the most obvious potential application of parametric insurance is for cash payment upon 7.0orgreaterearthquake,53 afterthemagnitudeisverifiedbyathird-party,suchastheUSGS.Thisfeature of parametric insurance also eliminates much of the administrative hassle that would be associated with a traditional indemnity policy (e.g., working with claims adjusters). A final advantage is that the proceeds from the policy payout are completely fungible –the City could use them to fund whatever service it 53 Parametric policies are often developed with scaled payments, so that the City would not be in a position where it would get zero payment upon a 6.9 magnitude quake, for example. Page 54 of 56 deems necessary or to counteract revenue loss from tax base impairment, whereas indemnity policies might require the policyholder to use the funds to repair or replace the asset that was insured. As we discussed earlier, in this report taxbase impairment is a very clear and present danger arising from a very strong earthquake. Lost revenues are not reimbursable by FEMA. Further, because a larger earthquake is a relatively rare event, this should help limit the cost of obtaining such a policy. Parametric policies are not without their drawbacks, though, and are not a substitute for traditional insurance. The City can learn more about parametric policies in the publicly available GFOA research report “Parametric Insurance: An Emerging Tool for Financial Risk Management.” 54 A robust insurance strategy could make use of both traditional indemnity and parametric insurance. For example, traditional indemnity insurance is used to protect against loss of the City’s assets, while parametric insurance could be used to compensate the City for the losses in tax revenue it would experience from an impaired tax base, for instance. The City could consider a robust internal borrowing policy.There will always be some chance that Salt Lake could find that it needs access to more financial resources than are available in its reserves.GFOA’s research suggests that interfund borrowing could be a practical “last line of defense”in emergency circumstances. Some other funds might be able to make short-term loans to the general fund in case of an emergency.The City could developpolicies to provide the flexibility to use these borrowing toolswhile also providing the necessary guidelines and limitations to ensure that borrowing occurs in a fiscally prudent manner. Salt Lake might consider if a policy could recognize internal borrowing’s role as a supplementary risk management tool.A policy would “pre-position” the City to better respond to an extreme financial catastrophe.This could be especially useful given the robust financial position of many of SLC’s funds.A policy could address the following points: • The rationale for using internal borrowing (reserves may not be able to handle every possible contingency). • When internal borrowing may be used (if reserves are ever exhausted by an extreme event). • Differentiate between short-term (to be paid back within the same fiscal year) and long-term borrowing. • How the interest on the borrowing will be calculated (can have multiple alternatives to be determined on a case-by-case basis); and • General repayment terms (e.g., interest only, fully amortized, duration, etc.). GFOA’s analysis has its limits.It is impossible for any risk analysis to be completely comprehensive of all considerations facing the City. Appendix 1 to this report lists the important limitations of this analysis. 54 Available at:https://www.gfoa.org/parametric-insurance/. Page 55 of 56 Appendix 1 –Limitations of GFOA’s Analysis This section highlights the most important limitations of our analysis. Our analysis is not predictive.GFOA does not forecast future recessions, natural disasters, or other extreme events. Rather, our model generates hundreds or even thousands of different scenarios to show how the future could unfold. This helps the City think more broadly about risk so that it can be more prepared for whatever future event does eventually come to pass. Finally, it is important to note that low probability events are still possible events. Hence, even if our model says an event has a low probability, then that does not mean it won’t occur. GFOA is not a risk management consultant.We worked with the City to find out which risks the City believes are most salient and then modeled those risks quantitatively to judge the potential financial impact. We are not risk managers and it is not our role to tell the City which risks it should be more concerned about or less concerned about or what the best way is to manage those risks. Our analysis is based on historical records.Historical data is often a good way to model potential future outcomes.However,historicaldatamaynotbeperfect.Forexample,globalclimatechangecouldincrease the City’s vulnerability to naturally occurring extreme events. 55 This means that historical data could underestimate the likelihood and/or severity of extreme events in the future. Unfortunately, no one can say precisely what the impact of climate change will be. Hence, GFOA can’t speculate if an upward adjustment to the reserves is necessary and, if so, by how much. However, this does mean that there couldbeacase forreservingahigheramountthantheefficientrangedescribedinourreport(orpursuing other risk management strategies). Also, GFOA’s Microsoft Excel Risk Model provides the City with the ability to adjust the likelihood and/or magnitude of floods. This feature could be used to test different scenarios, including ones where climate change is assumed to increase the likelihood and/or magnitude of extreme events. OuranalysisisnotinclusiveofeveryrisktheCitycouldpossiblyface.WeexaminedtheCity’spasthistory and worked with City staff to identify the risks that posed the most clear and present danger to the City. However, it is possible that the City could experience a shock that no one was expecting. Hence, there is a case for reserving more than our analysis suggest is efficient. This could provide additional protection against risks that no one can foresee. Being prepared for these “unknowable” events is part of the value of the “red line” or critical threshold that our reserve analysis took into account. However, this does not mean that the City doesn’t need to prepare for risks that aren’t included in our model. Our model is focused on general fund reserves as a risk mitigation tool.Other mitigation tools, such as insurance, can provide additional resources to respond to an extreme event. We did not judge the adequacy of the City’s insurance program. 55 According to the Fourth National Climate Assessment created by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP)andreleasedinNovember2018:“morefrequent andextremeweatherandclimate-relatedevents,as well as changesinaverageclimate conditions,areexpectedtocontinuetodamageinfrastructure,ecosystems,andsocial systems.” The report cites climate-related risks to communities “from adverse weather and climate related events such as extreme storms or wildfires.”https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/1/. Page 56 of 56 Good decisions do not always lead to good outcomes.Excel simulation tools can enhances one’s perception and understanding of uncertainty and risk. 56 However, when dealing with uncertainty, even the best decision may not lead to a good outcome, if luck goes against you. 57 To illustrate, imagine an insurancecompanywaswillingtosellSLCaninsurancepolicyagainstbeinghitbyameteorfor$50million. A meteor strike is an extremely remote risk, so spending $50 million on an insurance policy would not be awisedecision.ImaginetheCitydoesthengethitbyameteorthatcauses$100millionindamage.Should you criticize the decision not to buy insurance? No, because the decision was reasonable given the information available at the time and there was no way to predict a meteor hitting the City. Similarly, our model may show that a given amount of reserves is reasonable under most conditions, but the City could encounter a confluence of undesirable events that the reserves are insufficient to address. 56 Tosurviveinan increasingly unpredictableworld,weneedtotrainourbrainstoembrace uncertainty,EmreSoyer, Quartz Magazine, January 9, 2017 https://qz.com/879162/to-survive-in-an-increasingly-unpredictable-world-we- need-to-train-our-brains-to-embrace-uncertainty/. 57 This is oneoftheprimarylessons in:AnnieDuke.Thinking inBets:MakingSmarterDecisionsWhenYouDon’tHave All the Facts. Portfolio. 2019. A R i s k - B a s e d A n a l y s i s o f G e n e r a l Fu n d R e s e r v e f o r S a l t L a k e C i t y Go a l s f o r T o d a y o Re v i e w f i v e s t e p s o f t h e p r o j e c t ▪ De f i n e “ r e s e r v e s ” ▪ De f i n e t h e r i s k s t h e S L C i s s u b j e c t t o ▪ De t e r m i n e e x p o s u r e t o r i s k s ▪ Pu t t i n g t o g e t h e r t h e f i n d i n g s o f r i s k a n a l y s i s ▪ Ne x t s t e p s f r o m h e r e o Ga i n a w a r e n e s s o f h o w a n a l y s i s w a s p e r f o r m a n c e , r e s u l t s , an d i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r S L C St e p 1 – D e f i n e “ R e s e r v e s ” A m e n t a l m o d e l is a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of h o w t h e r e a l - wo r l d w o r k s . Th e r e a l w o r l d i s co m p l i c a t e d . Me n t a l m o d e l s si m p l i f y . Wh a t a r e R e s e r v e s ? “R e s e r v e s ” i s a b u d g e t a n d p o l i c y t e r m t h a t d e s c r i b e s th e r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e ou t s i d e o f t h e b u d g e t fo r u s e if t h e r e s o u r c e s a p p r o p r i a t e d in s i d e o f t h e b u d g e t ar e in s u f f i c i e n t . T h i s o f f e r s p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t un p l a n n e d , u n a v o i d a b l e co s t s o r l o s s e s . Wh a t i s t h e Tr a d i t i o n a l M e n t a l Mo d e l f o r R e s e r v e s ? Th e S a v i n g s A c c o u n t • Ea s y t o g r a s p • Se e m i n g l y o b v i o u s pa r a l l e l t o o u r pe r s o n a l l i v e s Th e S a v i n g s Ac c o u n t M e n t a l Mo d e l i s L i m i t e d • Sa v i n g s i s m o r e c o m m o n l y s e e n as d e f e r r e d s p e n d i n g t h a n a wa y t o m a n a g e r i s k • Im p l i e s t h a t m o r e i s b e t t e r Wh a t i s t h e Al t e r n a t i v e ? Th e I n s u r a n c e P o l i c y • A r e s e r v e m a n a g e s v o l a t i l i t y • Ri s k i s a p r o d u c t o f v o l a t i l i t y • He n c e , r e s e r v e s h e l p m a n a g e r i s k Ad v a n t a g e s • Ob v i o u s p a r a l l e l t o p e r s o n a l l i v e s • In v i t e s u s t o t h i n k h o w c o m m e r c i a l in s u r a n c e c o m p l e m e n t s r e s e r v e s • Im p l i e s t h e r e i s a n o p t i m a l a m o u n t St e p 2 – De f i n e R i s k s S L C i s Pr o t e c t i n g A g a i n s t Ti m e Fi n a n c i a l Co n d i t i o n Sh o c k Re c o v e r y P e r i o d is T e m p o r a r y Ti m e St r e s s St r e s s i s o n - g o i n g St r e s s St r e s s Sh o c k Ve r s u s St r e s s Re s e r v e s a r e a n a p p r o p r i a t e t o o l f o r s h o c k s b e c a u s e t e m p o r a r y r e c o v e r y p e r i o d ma t c h e s w i t h n o n - r e n e w a b l e n a t u r e o f r e s e r v e s Na t u r a l & H u m a n - ma d e Ca t a s t r o p h e s Ea r t h q u a k e s Fl o o d s Wi l d f i r e s To r n a d o s & St r o n g W i n d s Ot h e r H a z a r d s Re v e n u e I n s t a b i l i t y ( R e c e s s i o n s a n d P e n s i o n ) St e p 3 – De t e r m i n e A m o u n t of E x p o s u r e t o t h e R i s k s Ho w D i d W e A n a l y z e E x p o s u r e t o T h e s e R i s k s ? o Mo n t e C a r l o c o m p u t e r si m u l a t i o n ▪ Ha s b e e n a r o u n d s i n c e t h e 1 9 5 0 s ▪ St a n d a r d p r a c t i c e i n i n d u s t r i e s l i k e in s u r a n c e ▪ Ba s i c a l l y , w e b u i l t a m u l t i v e r s e o f Sa l t L a k e C i t y Wh e r e t h e D a t a C a m e F r o m o SL C ’ s o w n h i s t o r i c a l e x p e r i e n c e o Hi s t o r i c a l e x p e r i e n c e i n t h e w i d e r r e g i o n . o SL C f i n a n c e a n d p u b l i c s a f e t y s t a f f ▪ Ca l i b r a t e d e s t i m a t o r s o Th i r d p a r t y e x p e r t s ▪ Ao n a n d F i r s t S t r e e t . o r g ▪ St a t e e a r t h q u a k e e x p e r t s ▪ Co u n t y f l o o d e x p e r t s 16Th e N o r m a l Di s t r i b u t i o n or “ B e l l Cu r v e ” Av e r a g e 5’ 9 ” He i g h t 7’ 1 ” 4’ 5 ” Fr e q u e n c y S 1 7 No r m a l ( S y m m e t r i c a l ) D i s t r i b u t i o n i n L o c a l Go v t Sn o w p o c a l y p s e Th e “ T a i l s ” o f a d i s t r i b u t i o n ar e o f t e n o f g r e a t i n t e r e s t i n ri s k a n a l y s i s Fr e q u e n c y No r m a l D i s t r i b u t i o n A p p l i e d t o a Co u n t y Pe r c e n t i l e S n o w f a l l .9 5 8 4 .9 0 7 8 .8 0 7 0 .7 0 6 4 .6 0 5 9 .5 0 5 4 .4 0 4 9 Im p o r t a n t F e a t u r e o f M a n y C a t a s t r o p h e s • Ho c k e y s t i c k sh a p e d l o s s cu r v e St e p 4 – Pu t t i n g t h e Fi n d i n g s o f R i s k A n a l y s i s To g e t h e r Le t ’ s A d d U p A l l t h e Ri s k s G F O A A n a l y z e d oBu t f i r s t s o m e i m p o r t a n t p o i n t s … ▪ Ri s k s d o n ’ t a d d u p l i k e y o u m i g h t e x p e c t • In t e r d e p e n d e n c i e s ! ▪ SL C w i l l n o t “ d o n o t h i n g ” i f a b a d t h i n g h a p p e n s – it w i l l l o o k f o r sa v i n g s o p p o r t u n i t i e s . W e a s s u m e d a w i l l i n g n e s s t o c u t t h e bu d g e t b y u p t o 3 % . T h i s c a n b e c h a n g e d . ▪ “C r i t i c a l t h r e s h o l d ” i s s e t t o z e r o - yo u r “ f l o o r ” o r t h e le a s t a m o u n t o f g a s y o u w a n t i n y o u r t a n k . SL C h a s t h e s p e c i a l ad v a n t a g e o f r o b u s t b a l a n c e s i n o t h e r f u n d s . S2 1 Bo n d R a t i n g A g e n c y E x p e c t a t i o n s o SL C h a s a g o a l o f m a i n t a i n i n g a A A A b o n d r a t i n g o Mo o d y ’ s p e g s fu n d b a l a n c e s ab o v e 3 5 % a c r o s s t h e e n t i r e go v t a s e q u i v a l e n t t o A A A . o Be c a u s e S L C h a s r o b u s t ba l a n c e s in o t h e r f u n d s , t h e bu r d e n o n t h e g e n e r a l f u n d t o m e e t t h i s 3 5 % g o a l i s l e s s th a n i n m a n y o t h e r c i t i e s . o Fu r t h e r , o u r a n a l y s i s i s b a s e d o n “ re s e r v e s ” n o t a l l o f ge n e r a l f u n d b a l a n c e ▪ Re s e r v e s i s t h e “ i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y ” a s p e c t o f f u n d b a l a n c e Mi l l i o n s $1 4 3 . 7 M (3 5 % o f R e v e n u e s ) To t a l G e n e r a l Fu n d Un r e s t r i c t e d Fu n d B a l a n c e $1 4 3 . 7 M “I n s u r a n c e P o l i c y ” ( R e s e r v e s ) Th e F o c u s o f o u r A n a l y s i s “S a v i n g s A c c o u n t ” $8 9 . 9 M (2 2 % o f R e v e n u e s ) $5 3 . 8 M (1 3 % o f R e v e n u e s ) Ra t i n g a g e n c i e s ca r e a b o u t t h i s be c a u s e t h e y c a r e ab o u t S L C p a y i n g ba c k d e b t We f o c u s h e r e b e c a u s e we c a r e a b o u t S L C re s p o n d i n g d e c i s i v e l y t o em e r g e n c i e s . So m e I m p l i c a t i o n s o Re d u c i n g t h e “ s a v i n g s a c c o u n t ” o r t h e “ i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y ” wo u l d m a k e i t h a r d e r t o m e e t i n g r a t i n g a g e n c y ex p e c t a t i o n s o SL C c o u l d , i n t h e o r y , b o r r o w f r o m a f u n d l i k e t h e a i r p o r t , i n an e m e r g e n c y . B o n d r a t i n g s f o c u s o n a b i l i t y t o r e p a y d e b t . SL C h a s b r o a d e r c o n c e r n s . o Ge n e r a l f u n d d o e s h a v e r o l e i n b a c k s t o p p i n g s o m e a s p e c t s of S L C o p e r a t i o n s s o m u s t b e a b l e t o s t a n d a l o n e , t o a n ex t e n t . Ot h e r F a c t o r s C o n s i d e r e d … Is s u e Im p l i c a t i o n f o r Ri s k A v e r s i o n No t e s FE M A / O t h e r R e i m b u r s e m e n t ←→ Do e s n o t r e d u c e n e e d t o h o l d r e s e r v e s , b u t h e l p s r e p l e n i s h f a s t e r Co m m e r c i a l I n s u r a n c e ↓ In s u r a n c e m i g h t p r o v i d e c o v e r a g e t h a t s u b s t i t u t e s f o r r e s e r v e s . FE M A d a t a u s e d a c c o u n t s f o r t h i s . Ta x b a s e I m p a i r m e n t ↑ La r g e e a r t h q u a k e ( ~ 7 . 0 ) c o u l d h e a v i l y d a m a g e m a n y b u i l d i n g s Un k n o w n U n k n o w n s ↑ Ri s k M o d e l I n c l u d e s “O t h e r H a z a r d s ” si m u l a t i o n Op p o r t u n i t y C o s t s ? W h a t a r e a l t e r n a t i v e u s e s o f t h e f u n d s a n d h o w d o t h o s e b e n e f i t s co m p a r e t o i n s u r i n g a g a i n s t t h e r i s k s d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s r e p o r t ? An a l y s i s u s e s H i s t o r i c a l D a t a ↑ Hi s t o r i c a l d a t a d o e s n o t a c c o u n t f o r c l i m a t e r i s k Sp e n d i n g c u t s ↓ Th e C i t y c a n r e d u c e c o s t s i n r e s p o n s e t o a r e v e n u e l o s s o r e v e n i n re s p o n s e t o a n e x p e n d i t u r e s p i k e . C u t s o f 3 % a p p e a r r e a s o n a b l e f o r pl a n n i n g p u r p o s e s . An n u a l S u r p l u s e s a n d D e f i c i t s ↑ Ou t s i d e o f r e c e s s i o n s , S L C i s l i k e l y t o g e n e r a t e a n a n n u a l s u r p l u s . Su r p l u s e s c a n r e p l e n i s h t h e r e s e r v e s . o Ci t y h a s r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l ch a n c e o f r e a c h i n g c r i t i c a l th r e s h o l d i n c o m i n g y e a r s o Du e t o r o b u s t f i n a n c i a l po s i t i o n S L C s h o u l d n o t ha v e d i f f i c u l t y m e e t i n g ra t i n g a g e n c y ex p e c t a t i o n s Ex h i b i t 7 . 1 – Ch a n c e t o R e a c h C r i t i c a l T h r e s h o l d E a c h Y e a r Th e C i t y h a s l e s s t h a n a 5 % c h a n c e o f r e a c h i n g t h e c r i t i c a l t h r e s h o l d b y t h e 1 0 th ye a r of o u r a n a l y s i s p e r i o d . Ex h i b i t 7 . 2 –Si m u l a t e d R e m a i n i n g R e s e r v e P e r Y e a r Th e c r i t i c a l t h r e s h o l d i s e q u a l t o z e r o . O n a v e r a g e , S L C ’ s r e s e r v e s a r e s i m u l a t e d t o r e m a i n s t a b l e , w i t h ve r y s l i g h t g r o w t h o v e r a t e n y e a r p e r i o d . 20 % o r 1 i n 5 c h a n c e re s e r v e s a r e b e l o w th e g r e e n l i n e Re d l i n e i s t h e f l o o r On a v e r a g e , t h e C i t y s t a y s a b o v e t h e c r i t i c a l t h r e s ho l d As s u m e s : 1 ) a n n u a l su r p l u s e s a r e u s e d t o b u i l d ba c k t h e r e s e r v e i f u s e d , a s qu i c k l y a s p o s s i b l e ; 2 ) S L C wi l l c u t b u d g e t u p 3 % i n re s p o n s e t o r e c e s s i o n s Ex h i b i t 7 . 3 – Cu m u l a t i v e P r o b a b i l i t y C h a r t S2 8 Lo n g t a i l r e p r e s e n t s ex t r e m e o u t c o m e s , li k e 7 . 0 M q u a k e Cu r v e s f l a t t e n o u t w h e r e mo r e r e s e r v e s n o t a s be n e f i c i a l St e p 5 – Wh e r e t o F r o m He r e Ou r S t a r t i n g P o i n t s o GF O A c a n ’ t t e l l t h e S L C t h e e x a c t o p t i m a l a m o u n t b e c a u s e a p o l i c y m u s t i n c o r p o r a t e t h e S L C o f f i c i a l s ’ ri s k a p p e t i t e . o Re g a r d l e s s , t h e S L C s h o u l d p i c k a r a n g e o f a c c e p t a b l e re s e r v e s , r a t h e r t h a n a s i n g l e n u m b e r ▪ Ac c o m m o d a t e s d i v e r s e r i s k a p p e t i t e s ▪ Pr o v i d e s f o r c l e a r c o u r s e o f a c t i o n i f r e s e r v e s a r e o f f t a r g e t Go l d e n C o n e o f P r o s p e r i t y Ne x t S t e p s o Ta k e s o m e t i m e t o c o n s i d e r y o u r r i s k a p p e t i t e a s i t r e l a t e s to r e s e r v e s i n l i g h t o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n p r e s e n t e d . o SL C c o u n c i l a n d a d m i n i s t r a t i o n d e t e r m i n e p r e f e r r e d am o u n t o f r e s e r v e s b a s e d o n r i s k a p p e t i t e a n d t h e d a t a pr e s e n t e d h e r e . o SL C c o u n c i l a n d a d m i n i s t r a t i o n c a n c o n s i d e r a co m p r e h e n s i v e r e s e r v e p o l i c y . ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: 2/6/2024 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 2/6/2024 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 2/6/2024 Victoria Petro, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Racial Equity in Policing Commission STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Racial Equity in Policing Commission RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Alex Vandiver 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 February 6, 2024 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Dear Council Member Petro, Listed below is my recommendation for the membership appointment Racial Equity in Policing Commission. Alex Vandiver to be appointed for a two year term starting from date of City Council advice and consent and ending on Monday, December 28, 2026. 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: 2/6/2024 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 2/6/2024 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 2/6/2024 Victoria Petro, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Racial Equity in Policing Commission STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Racial Equity in Policing Commission RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Detria Taylor 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 February 6, 2024 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Dear Council Member Petro, Listed below is my recommendation for the membership appointment Racial Equity in Policing Commission. Detria Taylor to be appointed for a two year term starting from date of City Council advice and consent and ending on Monday, December 28, 2026. 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: 2/6/2024 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 2/6/2024 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 2/6/2024 Victoria Petro, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Racial Equity in Policing Commission STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Racial Equity in Policing Commission RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Chloe Raymundo 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 February 6, 2024 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Dear Council Member Petro, Listed below is my recommendation for the membership appointment Racial Equity in Policing Commission. Chloe Raymundo to be appointed for a two year term starting from date of City Council advice and consent and ending on Monday, December 28, 2026. 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: 2/6/2024 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 2/6/2024 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 2/6/2024 Victoria Petro, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Racial Equity in Policing Commission STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Racial Equity in Policing Commission RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Diya Oommen 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 February 6, 2024 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Dear Council Member Petro, Listed below is my recommendation for the membership appointment Racial Equity in Policing Commission. Diya Oommen to be appointed for a two year term starting from date of City Council advice and consent and ending on Monday, December 28, 2026. 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: 2/6/2024 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 2/6/2024 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 2/6/2024 Victoria Petro, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Racial Equity in Policing Commission STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Racial Equity in Policing Commission RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Heather Stringfellow 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 February 6, 2024 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Dear Council Member Petro, Listed below is my recommendation for the membership appointment Racial Equity in Policing Commission. Heather Stringfellow to be appointed for a two year term starting from date of City Council advice and consent and ending on Monday, December 28, 2026. 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 ______________________________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Received: 2/6/2024 Date Sent to Council: 2/6/2024 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 2/6/2024 Victoria Petro, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Racial Equity in Policing Commission STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Racial Equity in Policing Commission RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Jason Hinojosa 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 February 6, 2024 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Dear Council Member Petro, Listed below is my recommendation for the membership appointment Racial Equity in Policing Commission. Jason Hinojosa to be appointed for a two year term starting from date of City Council advice and consent and ending on Monday, December 28, 2026. 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: 2/6/2024 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 2/6/2024 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 2/6/2024 Victoria Petro, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Racial Equity in Policing Commission STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Racial Equity in Policing Commission RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Rodrigo Fernandez-Esquivias 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 February 6, 2024 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Dear Council Member Petro, Listed below is my recommendation for the membership appointment Racial Equity in Policing Commission. Rodrigo Fernandez-Esquivias to be appointed for a two year term starting from date of City Council advice and consent and ending on Monday, December 28, 2026. I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor cc: file SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SWORN STATEMENT SUPPORTING CLOSURE OF MEETING I, Victoria Petro, acted as the presiding member of the Salt Lake Council, which met on February 20, 2024 in a hybrid meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Proclamation. Appropriate notice was given of the Council's meeting as required by §52-4-202. A quorum of the Council was present at the meeting and voted by at least a two-thirds vote, as detailed in the minutes of the open meeting, to close a portion of the meeting to discuss the following: §52-4-205(l)(a) discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual; §52 -4-205(1)(b) strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; §52-4-205(l)(c) strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; §52-4-205(l)(d) strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; §52-4-205(l)(e) strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares if: (i) public discussion of the transaction would: (A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; (ii) if the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale; and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the sale; §52-4-205(1)(f) discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and §52-4-205(1)(g) investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A Closed Meeting may also be held for Attorney-Client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code §78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. Other, described as follows: _____________________________________________________________ The content of the closed portion of the Council meeting was restricted to a discussion of the matter(s) for which the meeting was closed. With regard to the closed meeting, the following was publicly announced and recorded, and entered on the minutes of the open meeting at which the closed meeting was approved: (a) the reason or reasons for holding the closed meeting; (b) the location where the closed meeting will be held; and (c) the vote of each member of the public body either for or against the motion to hold the closed meeting. The recording and any minutes of the closed meeting will include: (a) the date, time, and place of the meeting; (b) the names of members Present and Absent; and (c) the names of all others present except where such disclosure would infringe on the confidentiality necessary to fulfill the original purpose of closing the meeting. Pursuant to §52-4-206(6), a sworn statement is required to close a meeting under §52-4-205(1)(a) or (f), but a record by electronic recording or detailed minutes is not required; and Pursuant to §52-4-206(1), a record by electronic recording and/or detailed written minutes is required for a meeting closed under §52-4-205(1)(b),(c),(d),(e),and (g): A record was not made. A record was made by: : Electronic recording Detailed written minutes I hereby swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Presiding Member Date of Signature Victoria Petro (Feb 28, 2024 12:08 MST)Feb 28, 2024 February 20, 2024 Work Session Sworn Statement for Closed Meeting Final Audit Report 2024-02-28 Created:2024-02-27 By:DeeDee Robinson (deedee.robinson@slcgov.com) Status:Signed Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAAMupWaVl6hucDqnDlrCAPwTEaknF6BEVh "February 20, 2024 Work Session Sworn Statement for Closed Meeting" History Document created by DeeDee Robinson (deedee.robinson@slcgov.com) 2024-02-27 - 5:15:33 PM GMT Document emailed to victoria.petro@slcgov.com for signature 2024-02-27 - 5:44:07 PM GMT Email viewed by victoria.petro@slcgov.com 2024-02-28 - 5:16:49 AM GMT Signer victoria.petro@slcgov.com entered name at signing as Victoria Petro 2024-02-28 - 7:08:39 PM GMT Document e-signed by Victoria Petro (victoria.petro@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2024-02-28 - 7:08:41 PM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed. 2024-02-28 - 7:08:41 PM GMT