Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
04/16/2024 - Meeting Materials
Board of Directors of the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY AGENDA April 16, 2024 Tuesday 1:00 PM Council Work Room 451 South State Street, Room 326 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 SLCRDA.com 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. This is a discussion among RDA Board Directors and select presenters. The public is welcome to listen, unless otherwise specified as a public comment period. Items scheduled may be moved and / or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting based on circumstance or availability of speakers. Item start times and durations are approximate and are subject to change at the Chair’s discretion. Generated: 12:05:41 A.Comments: 1.General Comments to the Board ~ 1:00 p.m. 5 min. The RDA Board of Directors will receive public comments regarding Redevelopment Agency business in the following formats: 1.Written comments submitted to the RDA Board offices: 451 South State Street, Suite 304, P.O. Box 145476, Salt Lake City, UT. 84114-5476. 2.Comments to the RDA Board of Directors. (Comments are taken on any item not scheduled for a public Hearing, as well as on any other RDA Business. Comments are limited to two minutes.) B.Public Hearing - individuals may speak to the Board once per public hearing topic for two minutes, however written comments are always accepted: 1.Resolution: RDA Budget Amendment No.2 for Fiscal Year 2023- 24 ~ 2:00 p.m. 5 min. The Board will accept public comment for a resolution that would amend the final budget of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2023-24. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments in the Redevelopment Agency’s budget, including proposed project additions and modifications, and staffing changes. The amendment includes re-appropriating funding for several previous projects in the Depot District and Station Center areas. The changes consolidate appropriations to align with the City's new Workday financial system structure. Most of the funding is for public infrastructure improvements in Station Center which is located between 200 South to 400 South and 500 West to 600 West. C.Redevelopment Agency Business - The RDA Board of Directors will receive information and/or hold discussions and/or take action on: 1.Approval of Minutes ~ 1:05 p.m. 5 min. The Board will approve the meeting minutes of February 13, 2024. 2.Resolution: Annual Housing Funding Priorities Fiscal Year 2024-25 ~ 1:10 p.m. 20 min. The Board will receive a briefing about, and consider a resolution that would adopt the Affordable Housing Funding Priorities for Fiscal Year 2024-25. These Funding Priorities guide the upcoming fiscal year’s housing activities including the requirements of the competitive affordable housing Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). 3.Informational: Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan ~ 1:30 p.m. 30 min. The Board will receive a briefing about the Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan. The two-block area is located in the Depot District Project Area between 500 to 600 West and 200 to 400 South. The RDA owns approximately eleven acres in the Rio Grande District and an additional four acres near 600 West and 100 South. The Rio Grande District is envisioned to have new and reconstructed streets, public open spaces, upgraded utilities to allow for taller building heights, a shared parking structure, and a mix of land uses supporting transit-oriented development. The public hearing will be held before item C4 at 2:00 p.m. 4.Resolution: RDA Budget Amendment No.2 for Fiscal Year 2023- 24 ~ 2:05 p.m. 10 min. The Board will consider adopting a resolution that would amend the final budget of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2023-24. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments in the Redevelopment Agency’s budget, including proposed project additions and modifications, and staffing changes. The amendment includes re-appropriating funding for several previous projects in the Depot District and Station Center areas. The changes consolidate appropriations to align with the City's new Workday financial system structure. Most of the funding is for public infrastructure improvements in Station Center which is located between 200 South to 400 South and 500 West to 600 West. 5.Resolution: RDA Budget Amendment No.3 for Fiscal Year 2023- 24 ~ 2:15 p.m. 20 min. The Board will receive a briefing about a resolution that would amend the final budget of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2023-24. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments in the Redevelopment Agency’s budget, including proposed project additions and modifications, and staffing changes. The amendment includes several reallocations related to funding a property acquisition in the North Temple project area, among other items. 6.Resolution: Renaming of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City ~ 2:35 p.m. 20 min. The Board will receive a briefing about, and consider adopting a resolution that would rename the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City to the Salt Lake City Community Reinvestment Agency. The new name would align with changes to state law governing such agencies. 7.Informational: Gallivan Center 20-Year Plaza Plan ~ 2:55 p.m. 20 min. The Board will receive a briefing about developing a Gallivan Center 20-Year Plaza Plan. The interim update includes potential design changes to the plaza, project prioritization and stakeholder feedback. The plan will provide recommendations for future management and operations, programming, and capital improvements. 8.Informational: Sugar House RDA Properties and S-Line Streetcar Extension Updates ~ 3:15 p.m. 20 min. The Board will receive a briefing about extending the S-Line Streetcar one block from McClelland Street to Highland Drive and potential impacts to the adjacent property owned by the RDA. In 2021 the Utah Legislature approved $12 million for the project. 9.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director TENTATIVE 5 min. Report of the Executive Director, including a review of information items, announcements, and scheduling items. The Board of Directors may give feedback or policy input. 10.Report and Announcements from RDA Staff TENTATIVE 5 min. The Board may review Board information and announcements. The Board may give feedback on any item related to City business, including but not limited to: •Request for Proposal Status; •Project Milestones; and •Scheduling Items. 11.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair TENTATIVE 5 min. Report of the Chair and Vice Chair. D.Written Briefings – the following briefings are informational in nature and require no action of the Board. Additional information can be provided to the Board upon request: NONE. E.Consent – the following items are listed for consideration by the Board and can be discussed individually upon request. A motion to approve the consent agenda is approving all of the following items: 1.- Set Date – Resolution: Budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2024-25 - The Board will set the dates of Tuesday, May 21, 2024 and Tuesday, June 4, 2024 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider approving a resolution adopting the final budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2024-25. 2.Set Date – Resolution: RDA Budget Amendment No.3 for Fiscal Year 2023- 24 - - The Board will set the date of Tuesday, May 14, 2024 at 2 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting a resolution that would amend the final budget of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2023-24. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments in the Redevelopment Agency’s budget, including proposed project additions and modifications, and staffing changes. The amendment includes several reallocations related to funding a property acquisition in the North Temple project area, among other items. F.Tentative Closed Session The Board 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: 1.discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual; 2.strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; 3.strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property: (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; 4.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 5.discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and 6.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. Adjournment G. CERTIFICATE OF POSTING On or before 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 11, 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. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238 PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 TEL 801-535-6394 ERINMENDENHALL Mayor MARY BETHTHOMPSON Chief Financial Officer RDABOARDTRANSMITTAL ___________________________________Date Received: ________________ Mayor Erin Mendenhall, Executive Director Date sent to Council: ___________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO:Salt Lake City RDA Board DATE: March 4, 2024 Alejandro Puy, RDA Chair FROM:Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer Danny Walz, RDA Director SUBJECT:RDA Budget Amendment #2, FY 2023-24 SPONSOR: NA STAFF CONTACT:Greg Cleary, Budget Director (801) 535-6394 or Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403 or Mike Burns (801) 535-6461 or Erin Cunningham (801) 535-7246 Danny Walz (801) 535-7209 DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Resolution RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that subsequent to a public hearing, the RDA Board adopt the following amendment to the FY 2023-24 adopted budget. BUDGET IMPACT: The Second Amendment will not affect the Agency's overall budget total. Its purpose is to reappropriate several project budgets and reallocate funds previously appropriated at a program level and into two new project budgets. REVENUE EXPENSE RDAFUND $ 0.00 $ 0.00 TOTAL $ 0.00 $ 0.00 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This amendment proposes the reappropriation of budgets previously earmarked for various projects and reallocating program-level appropriations into two new projects. Identified project budgets are either complete with surplus funds or more effectively integrated into larger projects. It is recommended that program-level appropriations, including "Station Center Infrastructure Funds" and "Depot District Infrastructure Funds," be appropriated to two (2) new projects. The amendment maintains the total budget of appropriations but alters their distribution. There is a total of $10,802,277 in appropriations not currently allocated to projects. Additionally, there are five project budgets available for reappropriation, totaling $1,364,806. The combined total of $12,167,583 is proposed for allocation to two new projects. The staff memo, included below, outlines greater details of project reallocations, and provides additional staff analysis. A summary document outlining the proposed budget change is attached (Attachment C). The Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Board.The budget amendment contains one item in section D Housekeeping Items: 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 ATTACHMENTS: A. RDA Budget Amendment 2 Resolution B. Budget Amendment 2 Staff Memo C. Budget Amendment Summary PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing 1 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY RESOLUTION NO__________ Second Budget Amendment for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY AMENDING THE FINAL BUDGET OF THE RDA FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024. WHEREAS, on June 13, 2023, the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Board of Directors (Board) adopted the final budget of the RDA, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2023, and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 17C-1-601.5 of the Utah Code. WHEREAS, all conditions precedent to amend the RDA's final annual budget have been accomplished. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this resolution is to amend the final annual budget of the RDA, as approved, ratified and finalized by the Board on June 13, 2023. 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments shown on Exhibit A as “Board Approved” are hereby adopted and incorporated into the annual budget of the RDA. 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The Salt Lake City Finance Department, on behalf of the RDA, is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments in the office of the Finance Department, the RDA, and the office of the City Recorder, which amendments shall be available for public inspection. Passed by the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 202 , to be effective upon adoption. ________________________________ , Chair Approved as to form: __________________________________ Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Allison Parks 2 The Executive Director: ____ does not request reconsideration ____ requests reconsideration at the next regular Agency meeting _________________________________ Erin Mendenhall, Executive Director Attest: _________________________ City Recorder 3 EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION [Attach Board’s Final Approved Budget Amendment] REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 118 WWW.SLC.GOV · WWW.SLCRDA.COM P.O. BOX 145518, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5518 TEL 801-535-7240 · FAX 801-535-7245 MAYOR ERIN MENDENHALL Executive Director DANNY WALZ Director STAFF MEMO DATE:March 4, 2024 PREPARED BY:Erin Cunningham, Financial Analyst RE:RDA Budget Amendment #2, FY 2023-2024 REQUESTED ACTION: Discussion and approval of Budget Amendment #2 BUDGET IMPACTS:The Second Amendment will not affect the Agency's overall budget total. Its purpose is to reappropriate several project budgets and reallocate funds previously appropriated at a program level and into two new project budgets. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This amendment proposes the reappropriation of budgets previously earmarked for various projects and reallocating program-level appropriations into two new projects. Identified project budgets are either complete with surplus funds or more effectively integrated into larger projects. It is recommended that program-level appropriations, including "Station Center Infrastructure Funds" and "Depot District Infrastructure Funds," be appropriated to two (2) new projects. The amendment maintains the total budget of appropriations but alters their distribution. There is a total of $10,802,277 in appropriations not currently allocated to projects. Additionally, there are five project budgets available for reappropriation, totaling $1,364,806. The combined total of $12,167,583 is proposed for allocation to two new projects. ANALYSIS & ISSUES: The Agency is in the process of transitioning to the City's new Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software, Workday. In shifting to the new system for project funding, it becomes imperative to recognize that the financial plan for each project must align with designated appropriations. Each appropriation encapsulates details necessary for legal spending, thus ensuring compliance with regulations and policies to which the Agency must adhere. These appropriations represent pools of money set aside for specific purposes, each governed by clear rules regarding expenditure. The elements of each appropriation include the Department (Cost Center), Fiscal Year, Fund, and Project Area (Region). As funds from these appropriations are assigned to various projects, the remaining balance within each appropriation will decrease. Previously, the Agency possessed the flexibility to allocate funds directly from available funding sources to projects. With the adoption of the new system, the Agency's overall budget is perceived as a collection of these appropriations, necessitating that all project budgets derive their funding from them. This arrangement precludes the possibility of projects maintaining their own, independent budgets. The structure now adopts a two-tiered approach: the comprehensive budget comprising all appropriations, and the individual project budgets that must be funded in accordance with these appropriations. Reallocation of Appropriations This budget amendment pertains to the redistribution of funds formerly designated as "Station Center Infrastructure Funds" and "Depot District Infrastructure Funds." The table below illustrates the current appropriations. The amendment proposes to reappropriate funds from two categories: Appropriations with the "Available" status are not currently tied to any projects. Staff is seeking to reallocate $10,802,777 of these appropriations to support two (2) new projects described below. Appropriations and Project Budgets with the "Rescope" status are intended to be detached from their existing assignments and rescoped to support the same two (2) projects. This $1,364,805.62, combined with the amount above totals $12,167,583 Status Appropriation Project Budget Available Prior Year Balances through FY23-DD-Infrastructure Improvements-DD Capital Reserve - Infrastructure Improvements -{Holding Account}- 5,220,186.00 Prior Year Balances through FY23-PIF-Infrastructure Improvements-DD Capital Reserve - Infrastructure Improvements -{Holding Account}- 1,902,535.00 RDA Key Changes FY24-DD- Infrastructure Improvements-DD Capital Reserve - Infrastructure Improvements -{Holding Account}- 3,680,056.00 Available Total 10,802,777.00 Rescope FY23-DD-Infrastructure Improvements-DD Capital Project: PRJ-000002 100 S Underground Powerlines 388,981.00 Capital Project: PRJ-000071 Depot District Environmental Remediation 200,000.00 Capital Project: PRJ-000072 Station Center Shared Parking 275,639.00 Capital Project: PRJ-000073 Central Station 414,121.00 FY23-PIF-Infrastructure Improvements-NPA Capital Project: PRJ-000068 SL Mattress Warehouse 86,064.62 Rescope Total 1,364,805.62 Total 12,167,583 Fund Program Appropriation Current Budget Change Proposed Budget Depot District Infrastructure Improvements RDA-FY24-DD- Infrastructure Improvements-DD 0 3,680,056 3,680,056 Program Income Fund Infrastructure Improvements RDA-FY23-PIF- Infrastructure Improvements-DD 0 301,462 301,462 RDA-FY23-PIF- Infrastructure Improvements-DD (from NPA) 0 86,065 86,065 Total 0 4,067,583 4,067,583 PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: 1. Approval of the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Budget. 2. Approval of the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Budget Amendment #1. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Supplemental Slides. Proposed Budget Changes by Appropriation Appropriation Fund Program Region Current Budget Change Proposed Budget FY23-DD-Infrastructure Improvements-DD Depot District Infrastructure Improvements DD 7,030,240 (6,498,927)531,313 FY23-DD-Infrastructure Studies and Planning-DD Depot District Infrastructure Studies and Planning DD 434,696 -434,696 FY23-DD-Other Housing-DD Depot District Other Housing DD 23,293 -23,293 FY23-PIF-Infrastructure Improvements-DD Program Income Fund Infrastructure Improvements DD 1,902,535 (1,902,535)- FY23-PIF-Infrastructure Improvements-NPA Program Income Fund Infrastructure Improvements NPA 411,836 (86,065)325,772 FY24-DD-Infrastructure Improvements-DD Depot District Infrastructure Improvements DD 3,680,056 (3,680,056)- FY23-DD-Infrastructure Improvements-DD Depot District Infrastructure Improvements DD -1,000,000 1,000,000 FY23-DD-Commercial Property Disposition-DD Depot District Commercial Property Disposition DD -5,498,927 5,498,927 FY23-PIF-Commercial Property Disposition-DD Program Income Fund Commercial Property Disposition DD -1,601,073 1,601,073 FY23-PIF-Infrastructure Improvements-DD Program Income Fund Infrastructure Improvements DD -301,462 301,462 FY23-PIF-Infrastructure Improvements-NPA Program Income Fund Infrastructure Improvements DD -86,065 86,065 FY24-DD-Infrastructure Improvements-DD Depot District Infrastructure Improvements DD -3,680,056 3,680,056 Total 13,482,656 -13,482,656 New Project: Station Center Property Disposition & Site Work RDA-FY23-DD-Commercial Property Disposition-DD 5,498,927 RDA-FY23-DD-Infrastructure Improvements-DD 1,000,000 RDA-FY23-PIF-Commercial Property Disposition-DD 1,601,073 Proposed Appropriation Station Center Property Disposition & Site Work 8,100,000 New Project New Project: Depot District Infrastructure, Design, Construction, & Site Work RDA-FY24-DD-Infrastructure Improvements-DD 3,680,056 RDA-FY23-PIF-Infrastructure Improvements-DD 301,462 RDA-FY23-PIF-Infrastructure Improvements-DD 86,065 Proposed Appropriation Depot District Infrastructure, Design, Construction, & Site Work 4,067,583 New Project Workday Worktags & the RDA Budget Worktags allow for tracking of costs, revenues, and other operational metrics across different dimensions like departments, projects, or geographic locations. The Redevelopment Agency’s budget utilizes the following Worktags: Cost Center: Represents a specific department, unit, or division within an organization that is responsible for certain costs. The RDA is a cost center. Fiscal Year: The original year the funds were appropriated. Fund: Used to categorize and segregate financial transactions based on the origin of the funds, which is crucial for accurate financial reporting and compliance. The RDA has Project Area, Housing, Multi-Use, and Operations funds, with various legal and policy-related requirements that need to be monitored. Program: Enables the segregation and monitoring of financial data, which represents a specific pool of money that needs to be tracked for various legal, policy, or Board-directed initiatives related to RDA programs. The Program Worktags are designed to fit within program hierarchies such as Housing, Commercial, Infrastructure, and Operations programs. Region: Segments expenses based on location, which for the RDA is usually a Project Area. Not all expenses will be associated with a project area, which means this Worktag may not always be used. Appropriation: Combines the elements of Cost Center, Fund, Program, and Region into a single, comprehensive identifier, with the fiscal year as a prefix. Appropriation Cost Center FundFiscal Year Program Region Appropriations & Project Budgets Operations Appropriations Annual appropriations for operational expenses. Considered approved to spend when appropriated. If not spent or encumbered by the end of the fiscal year, drops to fund balance. Typically, these would be for RDA operating expenses. Occasionally may be associated with a project budget (for example, an office remodel). Capital Reserves Appropriations Appropriations for programs that carry forward each year. For instance, in the Housing Development Loan Program, a set amount is allocated for loans. Staff will request additional Board approval to use these funds for specific loan projects. Funds not awarded to projects roll forward to the next year, unless reappropriated by the Board. Project Budgets All project budgets must pull from appropriations. Once project budgets have been approved by the Board, the Agency can move forward with spending. Project budgets may have multiple appropriations. Each appropriation supports either the operations of the Agency or projects associated with its various programs. Redevelopment Agency Funds Project Area Funds Must be used within the boundaries of the project area, except for revenues transferred to Primary Housing (legally required), Secondary Housing (supplemental), Agency Operations (defined by interlocal agreements), or other legal reasons. •Central Business District (CBD) •Block 70 (B70) •Depot District (DD) •Granary District (GD) •North Temple (NT) •North Temple Viaduct (NTV) •Stadler Rail (SR) •Northwest Quadrant (NWQ) •State Street (SS) •9 Line (9L) •Block 67 North (B67N) Housing Funds May be used anywhere in the City, unless otherwise directed by the Board, except for the WCI, which must be used west of I-15. •Primary Housing (1H) •Secondary Housing (2H) •Housing Development Fund (HDF) •West Side Community Initiative (WCI) Multi-Use Funds Can be used across project areas (and potentially city-wide), unless otherwise directed by the Board. •Program Income Fund (PIF) •Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) Agency Operations Fund (OPS) •Receives transfers in from other funds to fund the Agency’s operational expenses. In i t i a t i v e N u m b e r / N a m e P r o j e c t A r e a R e v e n u e A m o u n t E x p e n d i t u r e Am o u n t R e v e n u e Am o u n t E x 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 FT E s 1 RD A R e a l l o c a t i o n o f P r o g r a m - L e v e l A p p r o p r i a t i o n s i n t o Tw o N e w P r o j e c t s De p o t D i s t r i c t - (1 0 , 1 7 8 , 9 8 3 . 0 0 ) On e - t i m e - 1 RD A R e a l l o c a t i o n o f P r o g r a m - L e v e l A p p r o p r i a t i o n s i n t o Tw o N e w P r o j e c t s De p o t D i s t r i c t - 1 0 , 1 7 8 , 9 8 3 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - 1 RD A R e a l l o c a t i o n o f P r o g r a m - L e v e l A p p r o p r i a t i o n s i n t o Tw o N e w P r o j e c t s Pr o g r a m I n c o m e Fu n d - (1 , 9 8 8 , 6 0 0 . 0 0 ) On e - t i m e - 1 RD A R e a l l o c a t i o n o f P r o g r a m - L e v e l A p p r o p r i a t i o n s i n t o Tw o N e w P r o j e c t s Pr o g r a m I n c o m e Fu n d - 1 , 9 8 8 , 6 0 0 . 0 0 O n 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 I t e m s - - - - To t a l b y F u n d , B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t # 1 : Re d e v e l o p m e n t A g e n c y De p o t D i s t r i c t - - - - - Re d e v e l o p m e n t A g e n c y Pr o g r a m I n c o m e Fu n d - - 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 - - - - - Fi s c a l Y e a r 2 0 2 3 - 2 4 R D A B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t # 2 Se c t i o n G : B o a r d C o n s e n t A g e n d a - - G r a n t A w a r d s Se c t i o n I : B o a r d A d d e d I t e m s Se c t i o n A : N e w I t e m 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 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 D : H o u s e k e e p i n g Se c t i o n E : G r a n t s R e q u i r i n g N o N e w S t a f f R e s o u r c e s Se c t i o n F : D o n a t i o n s Bo a r d 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 1 In i t i a t i v e N u m b e r / N a m e P r o j e c t A r e a R e v e n u e A m o u n t E x p e n d i t u r e Am o u n t R e v e n u e Am o u n t E x 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 FT E s Fi s c a l Y e a r 2 0 2 3 - 2 4 R D A B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t # 2 Bo a r d 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 Cu r r e n t Y e a r B u d g e t S u m m a r y , p r o 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 B u d g e t , I n c l u d i n g B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t s To t a l R e v e n u e RD A B A # 1 T o t a l RD A B A # 2 T o t a l To t a l T o - D a t e Re d e v e l o p m e n t A g e n c y 80 , 8 0 3 , 8 4 1 (6 , 4 7 6 , 0 1 4 ) - 7 4 , 3 2 7 , 8 2 7 T o 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 80 , 8 0 3 , 8 4 1 (6 , 4 7 6 , 0 1 4 ) - 7 4 , 3 2 7 , 8 2 7 To t a l E x p e n s e RD A B A # 1 T o t a l RD A B A # 2 T o t a l To t a l T o - D a t e Re d e v e l o p m e n t A g e n c y 80 , 8 0 3 , 8 4 1 (6 , 4 7 6 , 0 1 4 ) - 7 4 , 3 2 7 , 8 2 7 T o 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 80 , 8 0 3 , 8 4 1 (6 , 4 7 6 , 0 1 4 ) - 7 4 , 3 2 7 , 8 2 7 Ce r t i f i c a t i o n Bu d g e t M a n a g e r De p u t y D i r e c t o r , C i t y C o u n c i l / R D A B o a r d Co n t i n g e n t A p p r o p r i a t i o n a n d N o t e s 2 PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) of Salt Lake City met on Tuesday, February 13, 2024. The following Board Members were present: Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Sarah Young, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Eva Lopez Chavez Present Agency Leadership: Mayor Erin Mendenhall, Danny Walz – Director, Cara Lindsley – Deputy Director Present City Staff: Katherine Lewis – City Attorney, Cindy Lou Trishman – City Recorder, Thais Stewart – Deputy City Recorder , DeeDee Robinson – Minutes & Records Clerk, Taylor Hill – Constituent Liaison/Policy Analyst, Scott Corpany – Staff Assistant, Jennifer Bruno – Council Deputy Director, Rachel Otto – Chief of Staff, Allison Rowland – Council Staff, Lindsey Nikola – Deputy Chief of Staff, Tracy Tran – Project Manager, Megan Yuill – Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Director Chair Alejandro Puy presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 2:04 pm. MINUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY Tuesday, February 13, 2024 1 Comments:A. 1.General Comments to the Board ~2:00 p.m. 5 min The RDA Board of Directors will receive public comments regarding Redevelopment Agency business in the following formats: 1.Written comments submitted to RDA Board offices, 451 South State Street, Suite 304, P.O. Box 145476, Salt Lake City, UT. 84114-5476. 2.Comments to the RDA Board of Directors. (Comments are taken on any item not scheduled for a public Hearing, as well as on any other RDA Business. Comments are limited to two minutes.) Brandon Jeanpiere yielded his time and did not have any comments. B.Public Hearing - individuals may speak to the Board once per public hearing topic for two minutes, however written comments are always accepted: NONE. C.Redevelopment Agency Business - The RDA Board of Directors will receive information and/or hold discussions and/or take action on: 1.Approval of Minutes ~ 2:05 p.m. 5 min. The Board will approve the meeting minutes of November 14, 2023; December 12, 2023; and January 9, 2024. Motion: Moved by Director Dugan, seconded by Director Lopez Chavez to approve the meeting minutes of November 14, 2023; December 12, 2023; and January 9, 2024. AYE: Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Sarah Young, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Eva Lopez Chavez Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass 2.Resolution: Housing Development Loan Program (HDLP) Funding Allocation for High Opportunity Areas ~ 2:10 p.m. 30 min. The Board will receive a briefing about and consider adopting a resolution that would approve up to $2.7 million for affordable housing projects located in “high opportunity areas.” These funds are available through a special allocation within the RDA’s HDLP. Two applicants responded to the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA), requesting a MINUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY Tuesday, February 13, 2024 2 total of $5.35 million in low interest loans. Allison Rowland provided an introduction to the resolution and details regarding a past project funded by High Opportunity Area funds, as well as the two new applicants seeking to utilize the funds. Tracy Tran and Danny Walz provided information regarding: Housing Development Loan Program – High Opportunity Area (HOA) Funds Affordable Housing Applications •Background and overview of the HOA funds and the current applications •Map of High Opportunity Areas within City boundaries •All projects needing to meet the Housing Development Loan Program (HDLP) guidelines, including: ◦general requirements ◦threshold requirements ◦project priorities ◦standard loan terms and conditions •Newly incorporated into the HDLP ◦Annual Housing Priority threshold requirement – applicant must meet one of the following: ◾10% of the units must be affordable to those earning 40% Area Median Income (AMI) and below ◾10% of the units must have three bedrooms or more and shall be affordable to those earning 60% AMI and below ◦RDA Sustainable Development Policy – all projects must meet the following: ◾Designed to earn Energy Star score of 90+ ◾100% electric building operation (no onsite fossil fuel combustion) ◾Participation in SLC’s Energy Benchmarking Program •Project priorities for the HDLP – used to evaluate projects and provide interest rate reductions, examples included: ◦Family housing ◦Target populations ◦Home ownership ◦Missing middle and unique housing types •Criteria the applications would be evaluated on based on the HDLP guidelines •Map detailing the locations of the two current applications •Summary of the two applications received, including location of projects, funding requests, terms, units, and weighed points for priorities met •RDA Finance Committee recommendation to fully fund $2.65M for 515 Tower Conversion Phase I •Remaining funding if Perpetual Housing Fund (PHF) application was approved ($50,000) Director Mano inquired if there was a way to project how either project might perform in the competitive Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) next month (would one of them likely be more successful next month than the other). Director Mano added that he MINUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY Tuesday, February 13, 2024 3 wanted to see both projects be successful but wanted to wait until next month so there was ample time to review more information and weigh the two projects. Applicants Rusty Snow (Lincoln Avenue Communities) and Ashley Atkinson (PHF) both indicated that waiting until next month would not be an issue for their proposed projects. Danny Walz noted that the Board had stated as one of its priorities for the High Opportunity fund programs was timeliness of projects and this was a large factor when considering fully funding the 515 Tower Conversion project as it would be ready to begin in a matter of months. 3.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director TENTATIVE 5 min. Report of the Executive Director, including a review of information items, announcements, and scheduling items. The Board of Directors may give feedback or policy input. MINUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY Tuesday, February 13, 2024 4 Item not held. 4.Report and Announcements from RDA Staff TENTATIVE 5 min. The Board may review Board information and announcements. The Board may give feedback on any item related to City business, including but not limited to: •Gallivan Updates; •Project Updates; and •Scheduling Items. Item not held. 5.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair TENTATIVE 5 min. Report of the Chair and Vice Chair. Item not held. D.Written Briefings – the following briefings are informational in nature and require no action of the Board. Additional information can be provided to the Board upon request: NONE. E.Consent – the following items are listed for consideration by the Board and can be discussed individually upon request. A motion to approve the consent agenda is approving all of the following items: NONE. F.Tentative Closed Session The Board 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: 1.discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual; 2.strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; 3.strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property: MINUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY Tuesday, February 13, 2024 5 (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; 4.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 5.discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and 6.investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. Motion: Moved by Director Dugan, seconded by Director Mano to enter into Closed Session for the purposes of strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, disposition, or acquisition of real property, and for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-1-137. AYE: Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Sarah Young, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Eva Lopez Chavez Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass Closed Session Started at 2:45 pm Held via Zoom and in the Work Session Room (location) Board Members in Attendance: Board Members Puy, Mano, Dugan, Petro, Young, Wharton, and Lopez Chavez City Staff in Attendance: Mayor Mendenhall, Danny Walz, Katherine Lewis, Sara Montoya, Rachel Otto, Lindsey Nikola, Megan Yuill, Andrew Wittenberg, Cara Lindsley, Lauren Parisi, Austin Taylor, Tracy Tran, Lucas Goodrich, Erin Cunningham, Kathryn Hackman, Ashley Ogden, Corinne Piazza, Makena Hawley, Eric Holmes, Marcus Lee, Amanda Greenland, Cindy Gust-Jenson, Jennifer Bruno, Ben Luedtke, Nick Tarbet, Allison Rowland, Whitney Gonzalez Fernandez, Matthew Brown, and Cindy Lou Trishman. Closed Session ended at 3:50 pm Motion: Moved by Director Dugan, seconded by Director Lopez Chavez to exit Closed Session. MINUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY Tuesday, February 13, 2024 6 Adjournment AYE: Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Sarah Young, Chris Wharton, Darin Mano, Eva Lopez Chavez ABSENT: Alejandro Puy Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass G. MINUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY Tuesday, February 13, 2024 7 Meeting adjourned at 3:50 pm. Minutes Approved: _______________________________ Redevelopment Agency Chair – Alejandro Puy _______________________________ City Recorder – Cindy Trishman Please refer to Meeting Materials (available at https://data.slc.gov by selecting City Council Meeting Information) for supportive content including electronic recordings and comments submitted prior to or during the meeting. Websites listed within the body of the Minutes may not remain active indefinitely. This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency meeting held Tuesday, February 13, 2024 and is not intended to serve as a full transcript. Please refer to the electronic recording for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52-4-203. MINUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY Tuesday, February 13, 2024 8 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 BOARD STAFF REPORT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of SALT LAKE CITY TO:RDA Board Members FROM:Allison Rowland Budget & Policy Analyst DATE:April 16, 2024 RE: INFORMATIONAL: PROPOSED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUNDING PRIORITIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 ISSUE-AT-A-GLANCE This briefing is designed as a follow-up discussion of the RDA Fiscal Year 2024-25 (FY25) Housing Development Funding Strategy, which the Board considers each year for any potential modifications. The Funding Strategy guides the three steps below, which are completed as part of the annual RDA budget process: 1. Select annual Housing Priorities. 2. Allocate funding for each Housing Activity [for example, the Housing Development Loan Program (HDLP), Assistance for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), and Land Acquisition]. 3. Allocate projected RDA revenue to each of four Housing Funds (Primary Housing Fund, Secondary Fund, Westside Community Initiative Fund, and Housing Development Loan Fund). For FY25, RDA staff proposes maintaining three of the four Housing Priorities that were adopted by the Board last year (with minor modifications), and potentially adding two more, as shown below. FY24 and FY25 Threshold Priorities: Deeply Affordable Housing; Affordable Family Housing; Wealth Building Opportunities. Proposed Additional FY25 Priorities: Neighborhood Commercial and Services; Expand Opportunity. Proposed Removed Priority: The FY24 Missing Middle Housing has been mostly subsumed into the Wealth-Building Opportunities for FY25. Unlike in past years, RDA staff was not able to provide current information on fund balances and encumbered funds within the four Housing Funds, since current and previous year’s accounts are being reconciled in the new Workday system. RDA staff does plan to present their specific funding allocations among the Housing Activities this year (Step 2 in the process above) as a part of the annual budget discussions in May, along with projected revenue for allocations to each of the four RDA Housing Funds. The Board still could consider discussing Item Schedule: Briefing: April 16, 2024 Set Date: N/A Public Hearing: N/A Potential Action: April 16, 2024 Page | 2 allocating funding to these Housing Activities as a preliminary step, for example, by speaking in terms of percentages of the total funding amount for each (see Policy Question 1, below). Both the proposed total funding dedicated to affordable housing projects, and the allocation of this amount among different program categories are subject to Board approval as part of the RDA’s annual budget process. Goal of the briefing: Discuss and consider adopting the proposed Fiscal Year 2025 Housing Priorities and potentially discuss allocation among Housing Activities to provide direction to RDA staff. BACKGROUND AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION A. FY25 Proposed Funding Priorities and FY24 Results. For FY25, RDA staff proposes the following annual Housing Priorities, which include two new Priorities for Board consideration. The annual Priorities are particularly relevant to the HDLP and its annual Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) process. The first two Priorities on the list would again be considered “threshold requirements” for HDLP funding, which means that at least one of the two Priorities must be met for proposed developments to qualify for HDLP funds. In addition, each of the four annual Housing Priorities contribute three points to the score calculated in the NOFA to help assess applications and potentially qualify them for interest rate reductions. 1.Deeply Affordable Housing: This priority would remain the same as in FY24, providing incentives to construct housing units that are affordable to people earning 40% of Area Median Income (AMI) or less. For FY24, RDA loans were awarded to projects that will provide approximately 430 new units priced at 40% AMI or below. 2.Affordable Family Housing with Amenities for Children: This priority would remain basically the same as in FY24, subsidizing the construction of units with three or more bedrooms, and adding the requirement that developments must include “amenities for children.” In FY24, RDA loans will help provide approximately 264 units with three or more bedrooms. There Board may wish to have further discussion about the differences between amenities that would qualify as “for children,” and those that are “family- oriented.” The City’s affordable housing programs generally follow Federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines, and these state that “any group of people that present together for assistance and identify themselves as a family, regardless of age or relationship or other factors, are considered to be a family and must be served together as such.” HUD also notes that discrimination is prohibited “against a group of people presenting as a family based on the composition of the family (e.g., adults and children or just adults), the age of any member’s family, the disability status of any members of the family, marital status, actual or perceived sexual orientation, or gender identity.” 3.Wealth-Building Opportunities: This priority was expanded in FY24 to incorporate both Affordable Homeownership and other ideas aimed at helping increase the wealth of low- to moderate-income residents. As RDA staff researches and compiles information related to wealth- building and shared equity programs, they have refined this category to include supplemental income opportunities, stipends for renters, cooperative housing, and more. Last month, the Board approved an additional $2.65 million for the rehabilitation of the 515 Tower project as part of the FY24 High Opportunity NOFA. The Board may wish to consider discussing in more detail how “wealth building” is identified, given recent examples of potential projects. Page | 3 RDA staff has noted in the past that home ownership projects can fail to qualify for Housing Development Loan Program funding because: “[G]uidelines state that RDA funds should be limited to 10% or less of the project’s financing sources, but homeownership projects tend to need a larger, initial subsidy to reduce a home’s price [to] below market value.” Would the Board like to consider the costs and benefits of changing the percentage of RDA financing allowed for homeownership projects? Alternatively, the Board could request RDA staff analyze options to address this limitation based on recent potential projects, and report back to them in a future meeting. 4.Neighborhood Commercial and Services. This proposed Priority would be a new addition for FY25. It would support neighborhoods by promoting the construction of commercial spaces, like retail, food services, and daycare. The Board indicated preliminary support for this priority in the March 2024 meeting. 5.Expand Opportunity. In the transmittal for the Board’s April meeting, RDA staff proposes adding “Expand Opportunity” to the Priority list as a way to indicate its continued support for expanding affordable housing in Eastside neighborhoods. They note that the FY24 NOFA allocated nearly all the remaining funds that were specifically allocated to this goal in 2016, but the Board may still wish to express its support for these types of projects, as well as provide such projects with additional points in the NOFA. Does the Board wish to modify any items on the proposed list of FY25 Priorities? If not, a strawpoll may be in order. B. Limitations of the Project Scoring Process. In a 2023 discussion, RDA staff noted a limitation in the extent to which annual Priorities are reflected in specific projects proposed by staff to the Board for funding. The highest-ranking Priorities are not necessarily incorporated in project submissions more frequently than other priorities, because of “other important review standards besides the priorities that projects are evaluated against such as having other sources of financing secured.” These review standards are contained in the FY24 Affordable Housing Funds Guidelines and Application Handbook, as follows: 1. Alignment with project priorities. 2. Content and quality of the project narrative. 3. Qualifications and experience of the applicant and development team. 4. Content, effectiveness, and appropriateness of the budget, sources and uses, operating proforma, and related assumptions. 5. The readiness of the project to proceed to construction. 6. Any and all content regarding building and site design. Some Board Members have suggested that re-evaluation of the review standards could reveal ways to address how the apparent mismatch between the more heavily weighted Priorities and other review standards may be remedied, and how to expand opportunities for RDA funding to a wider variety of developers. The Board may wish to ask RDA staff how each review standard is weighted, whether failing to fully meet any standard results in automatic rejection of an application, and other related questions. Alternatively, the Board could request RDA staff conduct a deeper analysis of these issues and report back to them in a future meeting. Page | 4 Some Board Members also have noted that the scoring process may inadvertently skew funding to larger, more experienced developers. The Board may wish to discuss whether it makes sense to have a separate pool of funding and/or scoring criteria that would be available and potentially more appropriate for smaller project developers (particularly those that may be eligible based on the City’s recent Affordable Housing Incentives Ordinance). C. Board Prerogatives. After adopting the annual Housing Development Funding Strategy, the RDA Board retains the option to make policy changes among adopted housing Activities or budget allocations at any time during the year. In addition, the Board reviews and considers each specific loan project proposal before it may be approved for funding, and it can suspend any adopted policies under special circumstances for a specific project proposal. D. Sustainability. All HDLP applicants must comply with the RDA’s Sustainable Development Policy. It requires all new construction and rehab projects receiving $900,000 or more in funding to provide the following: •Energy Star score of 90 or more • 100% electric (no on-site fuel combustion) • Participation in Salt Lake City’s Energy Benchmarking Program Housing Fund Balances. As noted earlier, Housing Fund balances, including encumbered funds, will be discussed as part of the May Board meeting. E. Background. The guiding polices for the annual Affordable Housing Strategy are the Housing Allocation Funds Policy and Housing Development Loan Program (HDLP) Policy, which were adopted by the Board in 2021. As outlined in these policies, RDA staff prepares a proposed Strategy—including a resolution and funding allocations—for the Board’s consideration and approval. During the broader City budget discussions (typically in May) the Board would finalize the funding amounts in the Strategy. 1.Housing Allocation Funds Policy. The Housing Allocation Funds Policy sets up four housing funds: Primary; Secondary; Housing Development Fund; and Westside Community Initiative. RDA staff account for the revenues, expenditures, interest, payments, and repayments for each fund source separately. The annual budgeting process laid out in the policy includes the Housing Development Funding Strategy. Per policy, the Strategy includes: a. a projected revenue amount proposed by RDA staff to be allocated to the Housing Funds, and b. a proposed funding allocation among the Housing Activities (for example, gap financing loans, property acquisition) approved annually by the Board. 2.Housing Development Loan Program (HDLP) Policy. The Housing Development Loan Program (HDLP) Policy defines one of the four typical Activities used to implement the Annual Priorities: the Housing Development Loan Program. The purpose of this program is to provide low- cost financial assistance to incentivize the development and preservation of affordable housing in Salt Lake City. Page | 5 POLICY QUESTIONS 1.Would the Board like to begin a preliminary discussion of funding allocations related to the Housing Activities to simplify discussions during the broader budget discussions in May? The Board could consider discussing this funding by speaking in terms of percentages of the total amount. For example, x% for the Housing Development Loan Program (HDLP) y% for Assistance for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) z% for Land Acquisition 2.Does the Board wish to be informed of updated balances in each of the four Housing Fund before making decisions about allocations? The Board also may wish to ask about the plan for dealing with any surpluses or shortfalls in actual revenue compared to the revenue estimates. Will the RDA staff return to the Board for authorization to make changes to the amounts allocated to each Activity, for example, through budget amendments? 3.The Board may wish to ask for an update from RDA staff on guiding policies for the Westside Community Initiative. 4. For the FY22 Housing Funding Strategy, the Board requested RDA staff research and consider alternative ways to encourage ADU construction across the City. In FY24, RDA staff drafted an RFQ to determine partners and program ideas for an ADU financing program within the 9 Line Project Area. The Board may wish to request updates on this process. In addition, the Board may wish to ask specifically whether RDA staff has found ways to further the City’s equity goals through programs to assist homeowners to build ADUs. Annual HOUSING FUNDING PRIORITIES Fy 2024-25 APRIL 16, 2024 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND WESTSIDE COMMUNITY INITIATIVE FUND SECONDARY HOUSING FUND ADOPTED Q1 2021 YEARLY BOD APPROVAL PRIMARY HOUSING FUND HOUSING ALLOCATION FUNDS POLICY HOUSING FUND ALLOCATIONS ANNUAL HOUSING PRIORITIES HOUSING ACTIVITIES ANNUAL HOUSING FUNDING STRATEGY This policy established guidelines for allocating/directing resources for housing by funding source. Also requires "Annual Housing Funding Strategy" (right) be brought in front of Board every year. To be included in RDA budget For your approval today To be included in RDA budget WEALTH BUILDING OPPORTUNITY recommended annual housing priorities Priorities to focus on this FY; Seeking Board feedback today AFFORDABLE FAMILY HOUSING w/ AMENITIES for CHILDREN DEEPLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND SERVICES HOUSING FUND ALLOCATIONS ANNUAL HOUSING PRIORITIES HOUSING ACTIVITIES ANNUAL HOUSING FUNDING STRATEGY EXPAND OPPORTUNITY UPDATED HIGH OPPORTUNITY AREA MAP 2 3 4 5 6 Source: Census Bureau's 2017-2022 ACS 5-Year Estimates (1,2, 3, 4) Salt Lake County Assessor (5) CoStar Group (6) HIGHER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS MAKING $75K OR MORE HAVE INCREASED WITHIN SALT LAKE CITY THROUGH THE YEARS, LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLD MAKING LESS THAN $50K HAVE DECREASED. NUMBER OF COMMERCIAL PARCELS HAVE DECREASED WITHIN SALT LAKE CITY COMMERCIAL GROWTH RATE IS SLOWING, WHILE OCCUPANCY AND LEASE RATES HAVE INCREASED PERCENTAGE OF FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS HAVE BEEN DECREASING SINCE 2018 AT LEAST 8,431 RENTING HOUSEHOLDS FALL IN THE "EXTREMELY LOW INCOME” LIMIT SET BY HUD FOR FY23. 1 HOMEOWNERSHIP RATE IS GROWING AT A SLOWER PACE THAN RENTAL RATE Data - other metrics Data - current and future slc deed-restricted affordable housing developments map LAND ACQUISITION/ DISPOSITION HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LOAN PROGRAM EQUITY BUILDING NOFA recommended housing ACTIVItIES Tools/programs by which to achieve Priorities; Seeking Board feedback today HOUSING FUND ALLOCATIONS ANNUAL HOUSING PRIORITIES HOUSING ACTIVITIES ANNUAL HOUSING FUNDING STRATEGY housing ACTIVItIES Housing Development Loan Program Competitive NOFA Require affordable family housing and/or deeply affordable housing as threshold Utilize interest rate reduction benchmarks for competitive NOFA (Alignment with RDA's Guiding Framework); annual priorities will have greater ranking weight )064I/( '6/% "--0$"5I0/4 "//6"- )064I/( 13I03I5I&4 HOUSING ACTIVITIES ANNUAL HOUSING FUNDING STRATEGY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND SECONDARYPRIMARY WESTSIDE COMMUNITY INITIATIVE FUND housing fund allocations FY25 ANNUAL HOUSING FUNDING STRATEGY ANNUAL HOUSING PRIORITIES HOUSING ACTIVITIES NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND SERVICES DEEPLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING WEALTH BUILDING OPPORTUNITY AFFORDABLE FAMILY HOUSING HOUSING DEV. LOAN PROGRAM LAND ACQUISITION/ DISPOSITION EQUITY BUILDING NOFA EXPAND OPPORTUNITY next steps The RDA Board may wish to consider the adoption of the FY 25 Annual Housing Priorities RDA staff will present proposed funding allocations to housing activities as a part of the FY 25 budget discussion HOUSING FUND ALLOCATIONS ANNUAL HOUSING PRIORITIES HOUSING ACTIVITIES ANNUAL HOUSING FUNDING STRATEGY 1 MAYOR ERIN MENDENHALL Executive Director REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of SALT LAKE CITY DANNY WALZ Director DATE: March 29, 2024 PREPARED BY: Lauren Parisi & Tracy Tran, RDA Senior Project Managers RE: FY 2024-25 Annual Housing Funding Priorities REQUESTED ACTION: Consider adoption of a resolution to establish the FY 2024-25 Housing Funding Priorities POLICY ITEM: Affordable Housing BUDGET IMPACTS: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City’s (“RDA”) Housing Development Loan Program (“HDLP”) policy requires that the RDA Board of Directors (“Board”) approves housing funding priorities (“Funding Priorities”) on an annual basis. These Funding Priorities guide the upcoming fiscal year’s housing activities including the requirements of the HDLP's competitive affordable housing notice of funding availability (NOFA). At their March 2024 meeting, the Board reviewed and discussed potential Funding Priorities for the upcoming fiscal year 2024-2025 (“FY 25”). More detail regarding the information presented at this meeting can be found within the March RDA Board Memo. The Board seemed to come to a consensus regarding the approval of four priorities including: • Wealth Building Opportunity • Affordable Family Housing with Amenities for Children • Deeply Affordable Housing • Neighborhood Commercial and Services In March 2024, the Board expended nearly all of the remaining high opportunity area funds, which are focused on incentivizing affordable housing in high opportunity areas (east side of Salt Lake City). Since these funds are no longer available, RDA Staff wanted to check if the Board would be interested in adding an Expand Opportunity priority to the list above that could further incentivize affordable housing in high opportunity areas. A map of the high opportunity areas has been included under Attachment A. This memo outlines the intent of each of the four Funding Priorities and a potential fifth priority if the Board would like to include. Two resolution options are included under Attachment B for the Board’s consideration to approve the FY 25 Funding Priorities. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 118 WWW.SLC.GOV · WWW.SLCRDA.COM P.O. BOX 145518, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5518 TEL 801-535-7240 · FAX 801-535-7245 2 ANALYSIS: FY 25 Annual Housing Funding Priorities. The intent of each priority that will be used to guide housing decisions throughout the upcoming fiscal year are described below. 1. Wealth Building Opportunity – Facilitate the ability for low-moderate income households to build wealth through different pathways such as homeownership, supplemental income opportunities, stipends for renters, cooperative housing, and other wealth building models. 2. Affordable Family Housing – Provide opportunities for families to enjoy the many benefits of urban living by encouraging the development of housing that is more conducive to larger household sizes that have at least three or more bedrooms and includes family-oriented amenities. 3. Deeply Affordable Housing – Expand the availability of units for extremely low-income households, thereby providing housing options for individuals or families that are homeless or at risk of homelessness. Deeply affordable housing is generally defined as housing affordable to those earning 40% of the area median income (AMI) or below. 4. Neighborhood Commercial and Services – Promote an array of commercial spaces that support the neighborhoods, such as daycares, restaurants, and retail spaces. This priority ensures that as housing continues to be built throughout the City, residents and neighbors continue to have access to neighborhood services and amenities. 5. Potential Priority: Expand Opportunity – Provide affordable housing within areas that have access to resources that may improve a person’s chances of upward economic mobility as identified on RDA’s High Opportunity Area Map. In previous years, the RDA Board dedicated funding towards areas of high opportunity. With the majority of that funding expended, including this priority maintains that the Board wants to see affordable housing expanded to Salt Lake City’s eastside neighborhoods. Housing Development Loan Program – Competitive NOFA. To utilize the competitive HDLP notice of funding availability (NOFA) to promote the Funding Priorities, RDA staff recommends making affordable family housing with amenities for children and/or deeply affordable housing into thresholds requirements in order for a project to be eligible for funding. To meet the family housing threshold, at least 10% of a project’s units must have three or more bedrooms and be affordable to households earning 60% of the area median income as established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”). To meet the deeply affordable housing threshold, at least 10% of a project’s units must be affordable to those earning 40% AMI or below as established by HUD. Similar to previous years, the priorities the Board approves for the upcoming fiscal year will be weighted more in scoring than other benchmarks. Projects will also be eligible for interest rate reductions for meeting other RDA benchmarks as outlined in the HDLP guidelines. FY 25 Housing Fund Projections. RDA staff will share the housing fund projections for the upcoming fiscal year when it becomes available. 3 NEXT STEPS: • Pursuant to the Housing Development Loan Program Policy, the Board may wish to consider the adoption of the attached resolution to approve the Funding Priorities for FY 25. • RDA staff will present proposed funding allocations to housing activities as a part of the FY 25 budget discussion. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - High Opportunity Area Map and Table Attachment B – Resolution Options: FY 25 Affordable Housing Funding Priorities Resolution 4 ATTACHMENT A – HIGH OPPORTUNITY AREA MAP High opportunity areas are geographical locations within the city that provide conditions that expand a person’s likelihood for social mobility. These areas have been identified through an analysis of a variety of economic, housing, health, and community metrics. With these multiple indicators, a single composite, or standardized score is calculated for each census tract. Scores may range from 0 to 10, with 1 indicating low opportunity and 10 indicating high opportunity. A Census Tract with an Opportunity Index score of 7 or higher shall be designated as an Area of High Opportunity. HIGH OPPORTUNITY AREA MAP 5 HIGH OPPORTUNITY AREA TABLE Tract Opportunity Index Score Tract Opportunity Index Score 1001 3 1028.01 2 1002 5 1028.02 4 1003.06 3 1029 2 1003.07 2 1030 6 1003.08 1 1031 8 1005 1 1032 6 1006 0 1033 7 1007 5 1034 8 1008 5 1035 7 1010 8 1036 10 1011.01 6 1037 8 1011.02 9 1038 7 1012 8 1039 7 1014.01 3 1040 9 1014.02 4 1041 8 1015 8 1042 9 1016 6 1043 6 1017 8 1044 7 1018 4 1047 8 1019 7 1048 5 1020 6 1049 5 1021 7 1118.02 6 1023 5 1140 6 1025.01 4 1141 7 1025.02 6 1145 1 1026 3 1147 3 1027.01 3 1148 8 1027.02 1 SCORING NOTES The High Opportunity Index uses an eleven-point rating scale to evaluate metrics associated with high economic opportunity by census tract. Scores 0-2 indicate very low opportunity, 3-4 indicates low opportunity, 5-6 indicate moderate opportunity, 7-8 indicate high opportunity, and 9-10 indicate very high opportunity. For the methodology, scoring for the Opportunity Index was done by evaluating each tract on the variables in Attachment A as compared to other census tracts in the city. A normalization formula is used to establish the thresholds for scoring in 11 equal scoring ranges (0-10). Each tract’s normalized scores for all variables were then multiplied by their determined weight and aggregated. The aggregate scores are then put through the same normalization formula to determine the overall Opportunity Index score. 6 ATTACHMENT B – RESOLUTIONS: FY 25 AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDING PRIORITIES RESOLUTION 7 Resolution - Option A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY RESOLUTION NO. FY 2024-25 Affordable Housing Funding Priorities RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY ADOPTING HOUSING FUNDING PRIORITIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (Board) adopted the Housing Funds Allocation Policy and the Housing Development Loan Program Policy, which provide that the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (RDA) will present to the Board an overall funding strategy and specific funding priorities (Funding Priorities) for how housing monies should be allocated to the housing funds and housing loan program for the upcoming fiscal year. WHEREAS, the Housing Development Loan Program Policy provides that the specific Funding Priorities shall be subject to approval by the Board. WHEREAS, the Board desires to adopt the Funding Priorities identified in this resolution to direct resources for the development of affordable housing for fiscal year 2024-25. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City hereby adopt following Funding Priorities for fiscal year 2024-25: Funding Priority Objective Deeply Affordable Housing Threshold requirement for Housing Development Loan Program applications Expand the availability of units for extremely low-income households, thereby providing housing options for individuals or families that are homeless or at risk of homelessness. Affordable Family Housing with Amenities for Children Threshold requirement for Housing Development Loan Program applications Provide opportunities for families to enjoy the many benefits of urban living by encouraging the development of housing that is more conducive to larger household sizes that have at least three or more bedrooms and includes family-oriented amenities. Wealth Building Opportunity Facilitate the ability for low-moderate income households to build wealth through different pathways such as homeownership, supplemental income opportunities, stipends for renters, cooperative housing, and other wealth building models. 8 Neighborhood Commercial and Services Promote an array of commercial spaces that support the neighborhoods, such as daycares, restaurants, and retail spaces. Passed by the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, this day of , 2024. Alejandro Puy, Chair Approved as to form: Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Allison Parks The Executive Director: does not request reconsideration requests reconsideration at the next regular Agency meeting. Erin Mendenhall, Executive Director Attest: City Recorder 9 Resolution - Option B REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY RESOLUTION NO. FY 2024-25 Affordable Housing Funding Priorities RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY ADOPTING HOUSING FUNDING PRIORITIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (Board) adopted the Housing Funds Allocation Policy and the Housing Development Loan Program Policy, which provide that the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (RDA) will present to the Board an overall funding strategy and specific funding priorities (Funding Priorities) for how housing monies should be allocated to the housing funds and housing loan program for the upcoming fiscal year. WHEREAS, the Housing Development Loan Program Policy provides that the specific Funding Priorities shall be subject to approval by the Board. WHEREAS, the Board desires to adopt the Funding Priorities identified in this resolution to direct resources for the development of affordable housing for fiscal year 2024-25. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City hereby adopt following Funding Priorities for fiscal year 2024-25: Funding Priority Objective Deeply Affordable Housing Threshold requirement for Housing Development Loan Program applications Expand the availability of units for extremely low-income households, thereby providing housing options for individuals or families that are homeless or at risk of homelessness. Affordable Family Housing with Amenities for Children Threshold requirement for Housing Development Loan Program applications Provide opportunities for families to enjoy the many benefits of urban living by encouraging the development of housing that is more conducive to larger household sizes that have at least three or more bedrooms and includes family-oriented amenities. Wealth Building Opportunity Facilitate the ability for low-moderate income households to build wealth through different pathways such as homeownership, supplemental income opportunities, stipends for renters, cooperative housing, and other wealth building models. 10 Neighborhood Commercial and Services Promote an array of commercial spaces that support the neighborhoods, such as daycares, restaurants, and retail spaces. Expand Opportunity Provide affordable housing within areas that have access to resources that may improve a person’s chances of upward economic mobility as identified on RDA’s High Opportunity Area map. Passed by the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, this day of , 2024. Alejandro Puy, Chair Approved as to form: Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Allison Parks The Executive Director: does not request reconsideration requests reconsideration at the next regular Agency meeting. Erin Mendenhall, Executive Director Attest: City Recorder RIO GRANDE DISTRICT VISION & IMPLEMENTATION PLAN STATION CENTER RIO GRANDE DISTRICT RIO GRANDE DISTRICT: ~11 ACRES 100 SOUTH PROPERTIES: ~4 ACRES Delta Center Rio Grande Depot (State) Central Business District UTA Intermodal Hub THE VISION VISION STATEMENT GUIDING AMBITIONS DESIGN MOVES DESIGN STANDARDS & GUIDELINES VISION STATEMENT 5IFOFPOHMPXPGUIF3JP(SOOEFSJHO SIJOJOHOUPQUIFIJSUPSJDEFQPUJSO CFODPO XFMDPNJOHOMM6UOIOSUPCFOQOSU PGOSPCVSUOFX%PXOUPXOOFJHICPSIPPE MPDOUFEOU6UOISNPSUUSOOSJUSJDI HOUFXOZ 5IF3JP(SOOEF%JSUSJDUQMODFS DPNNVOJUZXFMMOFSSOUUIFIFOSUPGJUS EFSJHOGSONFXPSL GUIDING AMBITIONS 5IF3JP(SOOEF%JSUSJDUJSUIFCFSU USOOSJUPSJFOUFEEFWFMPQNFOUSJUFJO 6UOI 5IF3JP(SOOEF%JSUSJDUJSOOVSCOO OFJHICPSIPPEDPNNJUUFEUPOEWOODJOH DPNNVOJUZXFMMOFSSOOEEFMJWFSJOH FRVJUOCMFPVUDPNFS DESIGN MOVES &45"G-I4)$0.1"$5 8"-,"G-&G-0$,4 $63"5&16G-I$1-"$&48I5) "354 $6-563& "/% 1&3'03."/$& %&4I(/4645"I/"G-& I/'3"4536$563&"/% G6I-%I/(4 $"5"-:;&453&&5-I'&"/% .I9&%64&%&7&-01.&/5 453&/(5)&/40$I"-'"G3I$ &/"G-&-08$"3G0/.0GI-I5: 3&4503&5)&4I5&'03"-- -I7I/(5)I/(4 $)".1I0/5)&(3&&/-001 &/463&'6/$5I0/"-30"%8":4 -&"%8I5)"4)"3&%1"3,I/( 453"5&(: ."9I.I;&5)&50%105&/5I"- DESIGN STANDARDS & GUIDELINES PUBLIC REALM MOBILITY NETWORK LAND USE AND URBAN FORM PUBLIC REALM 300 SOUTH FESTIVAL STREET Pitt Street Pedestrian Mall - Sydney, Australia ARTS CAMPUS ALLEY 500 WEST GREEN LOOP 500 WEST GREEN LOOP UNDERPASS PARK Beneath the 400 South viaduct, looking east from 600 West 9 Line Bike Park MOBILITY NETWORK ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION SHARED PARKING LAND USE & URBAN FORM LAND USES GROUND FLOOR USES BUILDING HEIGHTS SUSTAINABLE DESIGN COMPLIANCE WITH RDA SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT POLICY DECENTRALIZED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT WITH PERMEABLE SURFACES, GREEN ROOFS, AND RAIN GARDENS ALL-ELECTRIC DISTRICT WITH RENEWABLE SOURCES PV PANELS SOLAR CONTROL AND EXTERIOR SHADING MASS TIMBER CONSTRUCTION SAVED EMBODIED CARBON THROUGH ADAPTIVE REUSE Salt Lake Mattress Company Building “Blue Warehouse” COMMUNITY BENEFITS F''03%F#-&)064I/(5)F546110354#0F3%13I03I5I&4 F''03%F#-&41F$&4'03-0$F-#64I/&44&4F/%/0/C130'I54 .F,&341F$&4F/%F354&%6$F5I0/ I/7I5I/(F/%F$5I7&16#-I$1-F;F4 4645FI/F#-&%&7&-01.&/5 803,'03$&%&7&-01.&/50110356/I5I&4 F$$&4450F$5I7&3&$3&F5I0/F/%)&F-5):'00%015I0/4 F$5I7I5I&4'03'F.I-I&4 Salt Lake Mattress Company Building IMPLEMENTATION RDA ROLE IN PROJECT GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK PRIMARY LANDOWNER INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPER PROGRAMMING MANAGER DISTRICT CURATOR QBW BA QǤ GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK FMJHOTUOLFIPMEFST $POEVDUCVTJOFTTRMOOOJOH $POTJEFSUIFEFWFMPRNFOUPG3JP(SOOEF%JTUSJDURPMJDJFT 4VDDFTTGVMHPWFSOOODFTIPVMERSPWJEFDMOSJUZPGMFOEFSTIJR EFDJTJPOCNOLJOH OOESFTPVSDFOMJHONFOUJOPSEFSUPESJWFUPXOSE EFTJSFEPVUDPNFTGPSUIF%JTUSJDU PUBLISH VISION & IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ON PROJECT WEB PAGE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOR TALLER BUILDING HEIGHTS IN G-MU HTRZ APPLICATION - UTA INTERMODAL HUB DEVELOP CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS DEVELOPER RFP FOR NORTH BLOCK SITES NEXT STEPS MAYOR ERIN MENDENHALL Executive Director REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of SALT LAKE CITY DANNY WALZ Director STAFF MEMO DATE: March 29, 2024 PREPARED BY: Ashley Ogden, Senior Project Manager Marcus Lee, Project Coordinator RE: Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan REQUESTED ACTION: No formal action requested. POLICY ITEM: Depot District Project Area BUDGET IMPACTS: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In February 2023, the RDA engaged a consultant team comprising Perkins+Will, HR&A Advisors, Kimley-Horn, and Phil Myrick, placemaking expert, to create a design and redevelopment strategy for approximately 15 acres of RDA-owned property in the Depot District Project Area (“Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan” or “Plan”). The subject properties include 11 acres within the Rio Grande District (“District”) bounds of 500-600 West and 200-400 South, and an additional 4 acres near 600 West and 100 South. Additional adjacent acreage that is not owned by the RDA is also considered, with the permission of the property owners. The Vision piece of the document includes a Vision Statement and Guiding Ambitions for the Rio Grande District, and 11 Design Moves ranging from tangible to programmatic to environmental to social, which were distilled from conversations with the community and form a foundation for the Plan’s design standards and guidelines. This section proposes alignments of new and reconstructed streets, locations of public plazas and open space, land uses, building heights, orientation and massing, sustainable development features, and a District parking strategy, among other considerations. The Implementation piece identifies a development phasing strategy and the RDA’s roles in the planning, development, operations, and long-term success of the Rio Grande District. The Governance Framework builds on this by considering the functional goals of each role, and anticipated funding and staffing needs over time as the project is built out. This section concludes with a recommended set of next steps to initiate an RDA-led governance structure that provides clarity of leadership, decision-making, and resource alignment in order to drive desired outcomes in the District. Now that the Plan is complete, staff is focused on the execution of multiple near-term steps related to site entitlement, design, securing funding for improvements, and deploying select sites for development. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 118 WWW.SLC.GOV · WWW.SLCRDA.COM P.O. BOX 145518, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5518 TEL 801-535-7240 · FAX 801-535-7245 VISION & IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: Project Name Change In 2015, the RDA conducted a comprehensive project branding effort that resulted in the Station Center name. Staff understood the confusion between the many similar names utilized in the area and over the past few months, conducted multiple brainstorming sessions where new names were proposed and shortlisted. The project team decided to rename the project as the Rio Grande District as it pays homage to the iconic Rio Grande Depot building, is a natural fit as a descriptor that is already used for the neighborhood, and is a name that can live on past the life of the redevelopment project. The Rio Grande District name has been incorporated into the final Plan document to avoid confusion as the project progresses. Vision Statement and Guiding Ambitions The Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan presents a long-term development road map that encapsulates the following vision statement: The Rio Grande District places community wellness at the heart of its design framework. The neon glow of the Rio Grande sign shining atop the historic depot is a beacon, welcoming all Utahns to be a part of a robust new Downtown neighborhood located at Utah’s most transit-rich gateway. The design serves the two guiding ambitions that were established at the outset of the planning process: 1. The Rio Grande District is the best transit-oriented development site in Utah. 2. The Rio Grande District is an urban neighborhood committed to advancing community wellness and delivering equitable outcomes. Design Moves Conversations with the community revealed common themes and observations that are important to the users and neighbors of the Rio Grande District, which were distilled into 11 Design Moves that will ensure that future development activities conform with the vision for the neighborhood. These include (in no specific order): 1. Establish compact, walkable blocks by breaking up the typical Salt Lake City block with new streets to ensure a walkable environment while promoting compact urban development. 2. Restore the site for all living things by planting native species and promoting biodiversity, clean air, and water conservation. 3. Enable low carbon mobility via low-stress pedestrian and bicycle facilities that are seamlessly connected to Salt Lake Central Station. 4. Champion the Green Loop as a critical part of the mobility network and an inclusive community open space that will activate the neighborhood at different times of the day and year. 5. Ensure functional roadways by providing two-way travel lanes, on street parking, pick up/drop off points, and ingress and egress for parking and loading. 6. Lead with a shared parking strategy that includes progressive parking ratios, a shared garage for neighborhood users, and opportunities to broker agreements to utilize existing but underutilized parking supply within the Depot District. 7. Curate public places, such as the 300 South Festival Street, Arts Campus, and Green Loop, with arts, culture, and performance. 8. Strengthen social fabric by delivering community benefits that support a more equitable, resilient urban fabric and ensuring that historically marginalized and underrepresented communities are the beneficiaries of this new district. 9. Catalyze street life and mixed-use development with activated ground floor space for shops, restaurants, and maker’s spaces, and an array of other land uses ranging from residential, to space for non-profits, to incubator, lab, and office space for the growing life sciences industry. 10. Maximize the TOD potential by allowing for increased building heights and density. 11. Design sustainable buildings that promote occupant connections to nature, preservation of key buildings to preserve embodied carbon, conservation of water, and harnessing of the sun through high performing buildings and renewable energy systems. RDA Roles in Rio Grande District As master developer, the RDA will serve the following key roles in the planning, development, operations, and long-term success of the Rio Grande District: • Land Owner: As the primary land owner, the RDA will facilitate the development of RDA- owned properties with ground leases. • Infrastructure Developer: The RDA and City will design, construct, manage, and maintain infrastructure and public spaces throughout the District in alignment with the Plan’s vision of walkability and sustainability. • Programming Manager: The RDA will lead the activation and programming of the District, in collaboration with adjacent property owners, tenants, and local organizations. • District Curator: RDA tools may be used to incentivize other parties, including developers and space users, to advance vision and policy goals. Governance Framework The Plan contains a Governance Framework with recommendations for the initiation of an RDA-led governance structure that provides clarity of leadership, decision-making, and resource alignment to drive desired outcomes in the Rio Grande District. The Framework considers the functional goals for each key role in the project, as well as anticipated funding and staffing needs to achieve those goals over time as the project is built out. Please see below for an example of the Governance Framework during Phase I of the project. Governance Next Steps The Plan concludes with a set of recommended next steps to initiate governance of the Rio Grande District and advance the project vision: 1. Align Stakeholders: Initiate discussions with neighborhood property owners, potential programming partners, and relevant City departments regarding involvement in a working group, which could turn into a more formalized governance structure as the District is built out. 2. Conduct Business Planning: Establish the core functions and processes required to manage the day-to-day operations of a successful Rio Grande District. 3. Develop Rio Grande District Policies: Explore the option to develop RDA policies that are specific to the Rio Grande District to support the execution of the Plan. NEAR-TERM NEXT STEPS: Rezone: The RDA is coordinating with the Planning Division to submit a zoning petition to allow for increased building heights in the Rio Grande District, per the Plan. Financing of Public Improvements: As discussed at the December 12, 2023, RDA Board Meeting, staff has developed a preliminary funding strategy for the construction of the public improvements and shared parking structure. The strategy relies on HTRZ tax increment to repay upfront financing options such as a loan from the State Infrastructure Bank or bond. Intermodal Hub HTRZ Application: RDA staff is currently compiling an application to create a new HTRZ that is centered on the UTA Intermodal Hub, which would provide funding that is critical to the buildout of the Rio Grande District public improvements. The RDA plans to submit the application to the State before May 1st, 2024. Public Improvements Design: The RDA has re-engaged the public improvements design consultants to develop construction drawings for upgraded utilities, new and reconstructed streets, public plazas and open space, streetscaping, lighting, etc. The RDA will work with the Engineering Division with the goal of putting the construction project out to bid in early 2025. Parking Structure Design: The RDA has engaged a consultant to develop a conceptual-level design for the shared parking structure on the south block. This will provide a clearer picture of construction costs, which will inform future funding decisions. Request for Proposals (RFP): It is the RDA’s goal to release a RFP from developers in 2024 to develop two sites on the north block. OVERVIEW OF PLANNING PROCESS: Nine virtual focus group meetings were hosted in April/May 2023 to discuss the vision of the project and gauge potential public-private partnerships. Participants were categorized as educational institutions, industry anchors, industry partners, adjacent property interests, public agencies, and City elected officials. To ensure a shared vision that enables community-focused outcomes, two advisory committee meetings were held in May 2023 at Gallivan Hall. Approximately 40 representatives of the following groups/sectors participated: o Downtown, Capitol Hill, Fairpark, and Poplar Grove Community Councils o Salt Lake City Corporation o State of Utah o Adjacent property owners, developers, and tenants o Life sciences, fintech, and economic development entities o Education and healthcare institutions o Nonprofit organizations In August 2023, four virtual meetings were held with adjacent property owners/developers of the Rio Grande District blocks. The project team shared information about the draft urban design framework, proposed right-of-way alignments that will require coordination, intentions to implement a shared parking strategy, and ideas for long-term governance of the neighborhood. At the September 2023 RDA Board Meeting, staff and the consultant team provided an interim progress update and opportunity for Board Members to provide feedback on the project’s trajectory. The conversation was focused on the in-progress urban design framework, as well as consultant recommendations regarding the purview of a Rio Grande District governance entity to oversee the long-term vibrancy of the neighborhood. In September 2023, the project team hosted a workshop to share the draft urban design framework with City Departments and receive their feedback. Special attention was paid to the redesign of the 500 West right-of-way between 200 and 400 South and how that section can be improved in the short term without impeding on other City initiatives, such as the Green Loop. In September 2023, the project team reconvened the advisory committee for an in-person, interactive work session that informed the finalization of the Plan. In October 2023, to address feedback received by the RDA Board regarding district governance, the consultant team organized a series of work sessions with RDA leadership, project staff, and the City Attorney’s Office. At the December 2023 RDA Board Meeting, staff presented a proposed funding strategy for public improvements contained in the Plan, including upgraded utilities, new and reconstructed streets, public open spaces, and a shared parking structure on the south block. During Q1 of 2024, staff received requests from multiple groups to present information about the Plan. High-level previews were provided to representatives of the Rio Grande neighborhood, Downtown Community Council, Downtown Alliance Board of Advisors, Salt Lake City Arts Council, and Salt Lake City School District. PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: On November 10, 2022, the RDA Board adopted a resolution for RDA Budget Amendment No. 2 for FY 2022-23. The budget amendment provided funds for the RDA to contract with the consultant team to develop a planning and implementation strategy for approximately 15 acres of RDA-owned property in the Depot District Project Area. ATTACHMENTS: A. Map of Rio Grande District Area B. Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan ATTACHMENT A. MAP OF RIO GRANDE DISTRICT AREA Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan APRIL 2024 Acknowledgments Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (RDA) Board of Directors Mayor Erin Mendenhall Victoria Petro, District 1 Alejandro Puy, District 2 Chris Wharton, District 3 Eva Lopez-Chavez, District 4 Darin Mano, District 5 Dan Dugan, District 6 Sarah Young, District 7 Salt Lake City Core Team Danny Walz, Director Cara Lindsley, Deputy Director Ashley Ogden, Senior Project Manager Allison Parks, Senior City Attorney Marcus Lee, Project Coordinator Clark Cahoon, Technology and Innovation Strategic Advisor Consultant Team Perkins&Will HR&A Advisors Kimley-Horn & Associates Phil Myrick Placemaking Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan Prepared by Prepared for 4 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 5 Contents Chapter 1 Introduction Chapter 3 The Public Realm Chapter 4 The Mobility Network Chapter 6 Implementation 1.1 Project Vision 12 3.1 Development Blocks 46 4.1 Mobility Overview 74 6.1 Phasing Plan 126 1.2 Transit-Oriented Development 14 3.2 Open Spaces 48 4.2 Active Transportation 76 6.1..1 phase 1 128 1.3 Community Wellness District 16 3.2.1 the Green Loop 50 4.3 Vehicles 78 6.1.2 phase 2 129 1.4 The Design Moves 18 3.2.2 the Festival Street 56 4.4 Street Sections 80 6.1.3 phase 3 130 1.5 Stakeholder Engagement 24 3.2.3 the arts Campus 60 4.4.1 500 West 76 6.1.4 phase 4 131 1.6 Plan Document Structure 26 3.2.4 the Underpass park 66 4.4.2 300 South 78 6.2 RDA Role in Rio Grande District 132 3.3 Planting, Ecology, Habitat 68 4.4.3 Market Street 80 6.2..1 Land Owner 134 3.4 Stormwater Management 69 4.4.4 Woodbine Court 82 6.2.2 Infrastructure Developer 135 Chapter 2 3.5 Paving 70 4.4.5 pierpont avenue 84 6.2.3 programming Manager 136 The Site 3.6 Site Furnishing 71 4.4.6 600 West 86 6.2.4 District Curator 137 2.1 Downtown Context 30 2.2 Transportation Context 32 2.3 Site History 36 2.4 Site Ownership 38 2.5 Site Today 40 2.6 Site Zoning 42 4.5 Shared Parking 96 6.3.2 Staffing and Support 141 6.3.3 Functional Goal 142 6.3.4 phase 1 action Items 143 5.1 Urban Form Overview 102 5.2 Land Use 106 5.3 Ground Floor Uses 108 5.4 Building Heights 112 5.5 Podiums 114 This is an interactive document. When viewed in PDF supported viewers, click on the table of contents above and underlined sections and figures throughout the document to navigate to relevant pages. 5.6 Building Orientation and Massing 116 5.7 Sustainable Design 120 appeNDIX A1 Transportation, Parking, and Circulation Analysis A2 100 South Design Workshop Summary 4.4.7 400 South Frontage 88 6.3 Governance Framework 138 4.4.8 alleyways 89 6.3..1 Funding 140 Chapter 5 6.3.5 phase 2 action Items 144 Land Use and Building Design 6.3.6 Long term action Items 145 6.4 Next Steps 146 6.4..1 Step 1: align Stakeholders 148 6.4.2 Step 2: Business planning 150 6.4.3 Step 3: Develop policies 151 6 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 7 Figure 3.10 Photograph of the neighborhood street converted into a farmers market 59 Figure 3.11 Photograph of the Pitt Street Pedestrian Mall 59 Figure 3.12 The Arts Campus Standards Diagram 60 Figure 3.13 The Arts Campus Guidelines Diagram 62 Figure 3.14 Photograph of temporal public art installations 63 Figure 3.15 Photograph of urban plaza space that can accommodate larger community festivals 63 Figure 3.16 Illustrative rendering of the future Arts Campus plaza 64 Figure 3.17 The Underpass Park Guidelines Diagram 66 Figure 3.18 Photograph of a revitalized underpass park 67 Figure 4.16 Shared Parking District Diagram 96 Figure 4.17 Parking Garage Facade P22a designed by Wulf Architekten 98 Figure 4.18 The Central Parking Garage at the University of Utah 98 Figure 5.1 Urban Form and Land Use Overview Diagram 102 Figure 5.2 Illustrative rendering of the Rio Grande District at full buildout 104 Figure 5.3 Land Use Diagram 106 Figure 5.4 Ground Floor Uses Diagram 108 Figure 5.5 Photograph of elevated residential stoops 110 Figure 5.6 Photograph of ground floor conference/assembly spaces 110 List of Figures Figure 1.1 Rendering of the Green Loop 13 Figure 3.19 Photograph of an urban skatepark 67 Figure 1.2 Project Vision Design Parti 15 Figure 3.20 Photograph of Dense tree canopy 68 Figure 1.3 Community wellness programming in the Arts Campus Plaza 17 Figure 3.21 Photograph of landscape that provides habitat for insects and other fauna 68 Figure 1.4 Human Centered Public Realm Diagram 20 Figure 3.22 Photograph of rain gardens and bioswales help to manage stormwater on site 69 Figure 1.5 Mixed Use Transit-Oriented Downtown District Diagram 22 Figure 3.23 Photograph of landscapes with low-drought plantings 69 Figure 1.6 Photographs from the Stakeholder Engagement Worksessions 25 Figure 3.24 Photograph of paving design and material 70 Figure 1.7 Design Standards and Guidelines User Guide 27 Figure 3.25 Photograph of permeable pavers 70 Figure 2.1 Downtown Context Map 30 Figure 3.26 Photograph of site furnishings 71 Figure 2.2 Transportation Context Map 32 Figure 3.27 Photograph of exterior street lights that adhere to dark sky standards 71 Figure 2.3 Relevant Transportation Capital Projects 35 Figure 4.1 Mobility Network Map 74 Figure 2.4 Historic Photographs of Rio Grande Depot and Salt Lake Mattress 37 Figure 4.2 Active Transportation Network Map 76 Figure 2.5 Historic Site Map from 1911 37 Figure 4.3 Vehicle Network Map 78 Figure 2.6 Site Ownership Diagram 38 Figure 4.4 Street Standards Guide 80 Figure 2.7 Key Map for Site Existing Condition Photographs 40 Figure 4.5 500 West Typical Street Section 83 Figure 2.8 Site Zoning and Historic Properties Map 42 Figure 4.6 300 South Street Section 1 85 Figure 3.1 Development Blocks Diagrams 47 Figure 4.7 300 South Street Section 2 85 Figure 3.2 Rio Grande District Open Spaces Diagram 49 Figure 4.8 Market Typical Street Section 87 Figure 3.3 Green Loop Standards Diagram 51 Figure 4.9 Woodbine Court Street Section 1 89 Figure 3.4 Green Loop Guidelines Diagram 52 Figure 4.10 Woodbine Court Street Section 2 89 Figure 3.5 Photograph of the Ferry Building 53 Figure 4.11 Pierpont Avenue Section 91 Figure 3.6 Photograph of a community playground in Philadelphia 53 Figure 4.12 600 West Street Section 1 93 Figure 3.7 Illustrative rendering of the future Green Loop on 500 West. 54 Figure 4.13 600 West Street Section 2 93 Figure 3.8 Festival Street Standards Diagram 56 Figure 4.14 400 South Frontage Street Section 94 Figure 3.9 Festival Street Guidelines Diagram 58 Figure 4.15 Alleyway Section 95 8 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 9 List of Figures List of Tables Figure 5.7 Photograph of sliding doors on the ground floor 111 Table 1 Relevant Transportation Capital Projects 34 Figure 5.8 Photograph of well-defined lobby entries 111 Table 2 Site Ownership Matrix 38 Figure 5.9 Maximum Height Diagram 112 Table 3 Development Block Matrix 46 Figure 5.10 Building Podium Diagram 114 Table 4 Green Loop Programming Table 52 Figure 5.11 Building Orientation and Massing Diagram 1 116 Table 5 Festival Street Programming Table 54 58 Figure 5.12 Building Orientation and Massing Diagram 2 118 Table 6 The Arts Campus Programming Table 62 Figure 5.13 Sustainable Design Diagram 120 Table 7 The Underpass Park Programming Table 66 Figure 5.14 Rendering of the proposed mass timber Earth Tower 123 Table 8 500 West Street Standards 82 Figure 6.1 Phasing Plan Diagram 126 Table 9 300 South Street Standards 84 Figure 6.2 Phase 1 Proposed Infrastructure and Development 128 Table 10 Market Street Standards 86 Figure 6.3 Phase 2 Proposed Infrastructure and Development 129 Table 11 Woodbine Court Standards 88 Figure 6.4 Phase 3 Proposed Infrastructure and Development 130 Table 12 Pierpont Court Standards 90 Figure 6.5 Phase 4 Proposed Infrastructure and Development 131 Table 13 600 West Standards 92 Figure 6.6 Close up of Arts Campus plaza 133 Table 14 400 South Frontage Standards 94 Figure 6.7 RDA as Land Owner Diagram 134 Table 15 Alleyway Standards 95 Figure 6.8 RDA as Infrastructure Developer Diagram 135 Table 16 Parking and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Strategies Menu 99 Figure 6.9 RDA as Programming Manager Diagram 136 Table 17 Maximum Heights Table 112 Figure 6.10 Close up of Rio Grande District Bird’s Eye View 139 Table 18 Maximum Tower Floorplate Table 116 Figure 6.11 Close up of the Green Loop outdoor coffee kiosk 147 Table 19 Phasing Plan Infrastructure and Development 126 Figure 6.12 Illustrative rendering of the Rio Grande District at full buildout 152 Table 20 Components of Rio Grande District Governance Matrix 138 Table 21 Funding Sources and Needs 140 Table 22 Rio Grande District Dedicated Staffing 141 Table 23 Rio Grande District Staffing Org Chart 141 Table 24 RDA Key Tasks as Master Developer 142 Table 25 Phase 1 Start Up Action Items and Goals 143 Table 26 Phase 2 Start Up Action Items and Goals 144 Table 27 Long Term Growth Action Items and Goals 145 Table 28 Next Steps to Initiate Governance 146 Table 29 Step 1: Align Stakeholders 148 Table 30 Step 2: Conduct Business Planning 150 Table 31 Step 3: Develop Rio Grande District Policies 151 1 Introduction 1.1 Project Vision 12 1.2 Transit-Oriented Development 14 1.3 Community Wellness District 16 1.4 The Design Moves 18 1.5 Stakeholder Engagement 24 1.6 Plan Document Structure 26 Introduction 12 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 13 1.1 Project Vision The Rio Grande District places community wellness at the heart of its design framework. The neon glow of the Rio Grande sign shining atop the historic depot is a beacon, welcoming all Utahns to be a part of a robust new Downtown neighborhood located at Utah’s most transit rich gateway. The Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan presents a long-term development road map that encapsulates the vision statement above and the values memorialized in Salt Lake City’s Downtown Plan to deliver ‘an internationally recognized destination and a vibrant neighborhood defined by mountain beauty and the best quality of life in the country.’ The design framework outlined here serves the two guiding ambitions established at the onset of the planning process: The Rio Grande District is the best transit- oriented development site in Utah. The Rio Grande District is an urban neighborhood committed to advancing community wellness and delivering equitable outcomes. Figure 1.1: Rendering of the Green Loop 2 Introduction 14 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 15 1.2 Transit-Oriented Development The Rio Grande District is the best transit-oriented development (TOD) site in Utah. A magnetic hub that maximizes its downtown location. The Rio Grande District is uniquely positioned to receive a wide range of public and private investments. Most notable is the site’s adjacency to Utah Transit Authority (UTA) Salt Lake Central Station, the City’s premier transit hub. Currently, this station provides service for Frontrunner commuter rail, TRAX light rail, local bus, Amtrak, and Greyhound. Furthermore, UTA is proposing to enhance transit service at this station via the Tech Link TRAX Study. This wealth of existing and future transit service complements parallel projects such as the City’s Green Loop linear park and urban trail, the renovation of the Rio Grande Depot, and the potential future home of a National Governing Body of Sport. A public realm that serves as an armature for future growth. The site’s design framework is founded on a network of walkable, fine grain public spaces that are anchored by notable buildings such as the Rio Grande Depot, the Salt Lake Mattress Building, and Artspace’s Macaroni Flats. 300 South becomes a vibrant festival street that serves as a civic scaled and experience-rich Downtown entrance for Salt Lake Central Station transit patrons, seamlessly connecting to the magnificent Rio Grande Depot. As part of the Green Loop, 500 West becomes a lush urban forest, providing biophilic respite within a downtown setting, while also promoting alternative modes of transportation for a climate positive future. Building on the wealth of artists, cultural organizations, and non- profits located in the Rio Grande District’s Artspace facilities, the Arts Campus becomes an ever-evolving canvas for SLC’s thriving arts, music, and community scene. A new iconic social heart where the past and future converge. At the intersection of the Green Loop and the Festival Street forms the Rio Grande District’s epicenter for public life. From this social heart rise three distinct buildings that represent the district’s past, present and future. To the east is the revitalized Rio Grande Depot, one of Utah’s grandest buildings; to the south is the proposed headquarters and training center for a National Governing Body of Sport; and to the north is a future iconic tower, which will enhance SLC’s evolving skyline while providing expansive views out to SLC’s magnificent natural environs. Figure 1.2: Project Vision Design Parti * Institute for Transportation & Development Policy (ITDP) https://www.itdp.org/library/standards-and- guides/tod3-0/what-is-tod/ Salt Lake Mattress Building Rio Grande Depot Artspace Macaroni Flats What is Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)? TOD means integrated urban places designed to bring people, activities, buildings and public space together with easy walking and cycling connection between them and near-excellent transit service to the rest of the city. It means inclusive access for all to local and citywide opportunities and resources by the most efficient and healthful combination of mobility. Inclusive TOD is a necessary foundation for long- term sustainability, equity, shared prosperity, and civil peace in cities. * Introduction 16 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 17 Figure 1.3: Project Vision Community Wellness Framework 1.3 Community Wellness District The Rio Grande District is an urban neighborhood committed to advancing community wellness and delivering equitable outcomes. An emerging district that reflects the mission of the RDA. The RDA’s mission is to strengthen neighborhoods and business districts by improving livability, creating economic opportunity, and fostering authentic, equitable communities. The RDA is committed to enhancing the City’s housing opportunities, commercial vitality, public spaces, and environmental sustainability. As such, the Rio Grande District’s future built and natural environment upholds this commitment to community wellness by championing inclusive growth and taking a holistic approach to sustainability and resilience. A district committed to delivering social infrastructure that enables all people to thrive. Adopted City and RDA policies will influence the future built form of the Rio Grande District. The adopted Plan Salt Lake (2015) identifies Equity as one of its guiding principles, specifically highlighting access to public amenities and events, to healthy food, housing, employment, education, and recreation. To actualize this principle, the Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan promotes the construction of affordable housing units and commercial spaces, fosters access to active recreation opportunities and healthy food options within new public spaces, expands access to apprenticeship and upward mobility, and invests in physical and programmatic connections to Westside neighborhoods. A national model for climate positive development. Salt Lake City Climate Plan (2017) defines ‘climate positive’ as protecting the health and safety of its residents by ensuring access to clean air, clean water, and a livable environment. Salt Lake City is already experiencing significant impacts of global climate change leading to record heat, drought, and increasingly harmful air pollution. The design framework takes a holistic approach to addressing these pressing environmental issues via building standards for high- performing, biophilic buildings, reducing embodied carbon through preserving and revitalizing existing buildings, on-site stormwater management and re-use for outdoor irrigation, an all-electric district through renewable energy sources, low-carbon transportation options, and an inclusive public realm. Figure 1.3: Community wellness programming in the Arts Campus Plaza Introduction 18 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 19 1.4 The Design Moves The Project Vision is distilled into 11 design moves informing the Vision and Implementation Plan. Establish Compact, Walkable Blocks Strategically break up the typical SLC block with new streets to ensure a walkable environment while promoting compact urban development. Champion the Green Loop A critical part of the neighborhood’s mobility network is the Green Loop on 500 West. The Green Loop is more than just an urban trail, it’s envisioned as an inclusive community open space that activates the neighborhood at different times of the day and year. Restore the Site for All Living Things Streets, parks, plazas, and the spaces between buildings will be designed to heal the site, restoring the land back for all living things with native plants, fostering biodiversity, cleaning air, and water conservation. Ensure Functional Roadways While the Plan leads with people- first streets, it is critical that streets also serve as functional roadways with two way vehicle travel lanes, on street parking, pick up/drop off points, and ingress and egress for parking and loading. Enable Low Carbon Mobility With new streets comes an opportunity to champion low carbon modes of transportation via low-stress pedestrian and bicycle facilities that are seamlessly connected to the Salt Lake Central Station. Lead with Shared Parking The shared parking strategy includes progressive parking ratios for new development, a shared, unbundled garage for all neighborhood uses, and opportunities to broker agreements to utilize existing but underutilized parking supply within the Depot District. Curate Public Places with Arts, Culture, and Performance Building on existing Artspace facilities, the Plan includes an Arts Campus plaza, a place for temporal art, cultural events, performances and maker spaces for emerging artisans. Maximize the TOD Potential The Rio Grande District is the best transit-oriented development (TOD) site in the state of Utah, and therefore development has downtown height allowances to capitalize on this optimal location. Strengthen Social Fabric The Rio Grande District’s horizontal and vertical development should deliver significant community benefits to support a more equitable, resilient urban fabric and ensure that historically marginalized and underrepresented communities are the recipients of this new district. Design Sustainable Buildings The design standards promote occupant connections to nature, preservation of key buildings to preserve embodied carbon; conserving water through outdoor irrigation and greywater systems, and harnessing the power of sun through high performing buildings, and renewable energy. Catalyze Street Life and Mixed-Use Development A calibrated mix of uses fosters vibrant street life with spaces for shops and restaurants along 300 South and the Green Loop. New development consists of an array of different land uses ranging from residential, to tech office, to civic and cultural. 20 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 21 Introduction Figure 1.4: Human-Centered Public Realm Diagram 22 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 23 Introduction Figure 1.5: Mixed-Use Transit-Oriented Downtown District Diagram Introduction 24 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 25 1.5 Stakeholder Engagement Stakeholders representing a diverse cross-section of the SLC community helped shape the Plan. The engagement process led by the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (RDA) included a variety of outreach touchpoints including stakeholder advisory meetings, one-on-one and small group work sessions, and an update to the RDA Board. These conversations revealed a series of common themes and observations that were critical to the users and neighbors of the Rio Grande District. This input ranging from streets, open space, programming, and urban form ideas, guided the development of the urban design framework and placemaking strategy. Stakeholder engagement included the following parties: Elected Officials • Mayor Erin Mendenhall • Salt Lake City Council Property Owners • Artspace • Stack Real Estate (lessee) • University of Utah Educational Partners • Utah System of Higher Education • Utah State University • Salt Lake Community College • STEM Action Center • Salt Lake Education Foundation Industry Anchors • Recursion Pharmaceuticals • Denali Therapeutics • PIVOT Center • Altitude Lab • Intermountain Health • University of Utah Health • Stena Center for Financial Technology Industry Partners • BioHive • BioUtah • Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity (GOEO) • World Trade Center Utah • EDCUtah Salt Lake City • Planning • Transportation • Engineering • Public Lands • Arts Council • Economic Development • Police • Fire • Public Utilities • Housing Stability Government Partners • State of Utah • Utah Transit Authority (UTA) • Utah Department of Cultural and Community Engagement Non-Profits • USA Climbing • Downtown Alliance • Urban Food Connections of Utah • Utah Arts Alliance • Make Salt Lake • Slug Magazine / Craft Lake City • NeighborWorks Salt Lake • Community Development Finance Alliance of Utah Development / Real Estate • W3 Partners • BCG Holdings • Gardner Batt • Hamilton Partners • dbUrban Neighborhood Councils • Poplar Grove • Fairpark • Capitol Hill Figure 1.6: Photographs from the Rio Grande District Stakeholder Engagement Worksessions Introduction 26 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 27 1.6 Plan Document Structure This document contains six chapters, each containing descriptive text, figures, and precedent images to explain and visualize the proposed redevelopment of the Rio Grande District. Chapter 1: Introduction details the project vision for the Vision and Implementation Plan including the design framework big moves and community engagement. Chapter 2: The Site provides an overview of Downtown Salt Lake City context, the historical significance of existing buildings on the site, and existing site conditions including ownership and zoning. Chapters 3,4,5: Design Standards and Guidelines outlines requirements that govern the construction and modification of open spaces, streets, and buildings within the Rio Grande District. Standards are quantifiable or objective requirements whereas guidelines are qualitative or subjective requirements. Each new open space, street, and buildings within the Rio Grande District must meet the standards and guidelines prescribed in these chapters unless modifications to these standards and/or guidelines are approved by the RDA. An annotated example of a typical design standards spread is featured on the right in FIGURE 1.7. Chapter 6: Implementation describes a high level development phasing strategy, RDA’s role in governing the long-term success of the district including programming, funding, and staffing. Figure 1.7: Design Standards and Guidelines User Guide The Public Realm The layout of development blocks at Station Center is critical to establishing a fine grain, human-scaled neighborhood. The development blocks contribute to a successful urban fabric with a functional network of connected public rights-of-way and urban open spaces that provide people with a variety of engaging routes to choose from and encourage pedestrian accessibility and movement. Additionally, the development blocks are the foundation for well-proportioned, visually engaging, and high-performing architecture. As illustrated in FIGURE XX, Station Center has 7 blocks, each identified by a letter for reference within the document. Standards 1. Land Parcelization: New development blocks shall adhere to the following specifications: (FEET) 2. 400 South Frontage Easement: Blocks C and G shall adhere to a 25 foot Figure 06: Future Investment Context easement along 400 South frontage road to accommodate future UTA Map light rail extension. Development Block Easement 3. 300 South Street Vacation: New development on Blocks A, B, E, F development can build in the 23.5 feet street vacation on either side of 300 South. Required Open Space Area Street Vacation Station Center Vision and Implementation Plan 41 Figure Legend and North Sign Figure Number and Caption Standards and Guidelines Introductory Text Figure Section Number and Section Title Chapter Title A 3.27 acres 142,500 SF 450’ x 320’ 470’ x 300’ Yes Yes B 1.96 acres 85,500 SF 300’ x 285’ Yes Yes C 1.79 acres 78,375 SF 275’ x 285‘ No Yes D 1.65 acres 72,000 SF 240’ x 300’ No No E 1.03 acres 45,000 SF 150’ x 300’ No Yes F 2.06 acres 90,000 SF 300’ x 300’ No Yes G 1.89 acres 82,500 SF 275’ x 300’ No Yes Green Loop 6.5 acres 286,150 Sf 1475’ x 194’ Yes No 2 The Site 2.1 Downtown Context 30 2.4 Site Ownership 38 2.2 Transportation Context 32 2.5 Site Today 40 2.3 Site History 36 2.6 Site Zoning 42 The Site 30 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 31 2.1 Downtown Context The Rio Grande District is one of Downtown’s key opportunity sites due to its central location. Site Location The Rio Grande District is located in the Depot District on the western edge of Downtown Salt Lake City. The Rio Grande District is bounded by 400 South to the south, 200 South to the north, 600 West and Salt Lake Central Station to the west, and 500 West and the Rio Grande Depot to the east. The Rio Grande District is within a 10-minute-walk of major destinations such as the Delta Center, The Gateway, Pioneer Park, the West Quarter, and the Salt Palace Convention Center. Recent Development: Within Downtown, The Depot District, The Granary, and Central 9th neighborhoods have seen significant development and investment over the past few years, building thousands of new housing units and new jobs. On the 500 West segment of the Rio Grande District, two projects are either under construction or in the pipeline - The Rio, a seven-story, 210-unit apartment building with ground floor retail and The Nest @ Rio Grande, a 220-unit apartment building. Central Station Plan (UTA) In 2019, UTA and RDA led an area plan for 38 acres of land in and around Salt Lake Central and North Temple Transit Stations. The parcels are identified in yellow in FIGURE 2.1. Rio Grande Depot Renovation In 2020, an earthquake and its subsequent aftershocks damaged the 114-year-old Rio Grande Depot. The building is currently undergoing seismic upgrades and a major renovation with a target reopening in 2026. Pioneer Park Vision Plan Pioneer Park has undergone a comprehensive vision plan encompassing the northern end of the park to include a new playground, plaza, pavilion, ranger station, shade lawn, mist fountain, and habitat area. Phase 1 construction is anticipated in 2025. Figure 2.1: Downtown Context Map Temple Square Union Pacific Depot Delta Center The Gateway Salt Palace Gallivan Center Salt Lake Central Station Rio Grande Depot Rio Grande District City and County Library Building Square Pioneer Park City Fleet Block Site Parks Central Station Properties Major Destinations District 5-Minute Walkshed National Historic Register Sites Downtown Boundary 10-Minute Walkshed Local Historic Register Sites The Site 32 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 33 2.2 Transportation Context The site is located at the convergence of extensive existing and future multi-modal transportation. Transit Connectivity The Rio Grande District is currently served by the TRAX Blue Line, Frontrunner (Ogden to Provo), Amtrak, Greyhound Bus at Salt Lake Central Station; TRAX Blue Line at the Old Greektown Station, and UTA local bus service on 400 South and 200 South. The Green Loop The Downtown Neighborhood Plan proposes a series of major long- range active transportation capital projects. The most prominent is a proposed linear park called the Green Loop. 500 West is currently the western alignment for the Loop, serving as a north-south connection through Downtown. Future of Light Rail Study The Future of Light Rail (FOLR) Study developed a concept design for the Granary District Ballpark Spur to Salt Lake Central via 400 South and 600 West. This allows through running operation, such as interlining of the proposed Orange Line with the existing Green Line or proposed Strategic Blue Line operation. Due to the 400 South viaduct approach crossing the Frontrunner and Union Pacific tracks, there are limited options at this location. Connection to Westside Salt Lake City is currently divided by Interstate 15 and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) mainline and intermodal terminal, a regional north-south corridor that has bi- furcated east-west connectivity, altered community cohesion, and embedded socio-economic inequities, and environmental injustice. * Existing connections to the Westside neighborhoods adjacent to the Rio Grande District include: • 400 South via Viaduct • 200 South at grade • The Folsom Trail via 600 West and North Temple Figure 2.2 Transportation Context Map * Critical Connections: Healing Salt Lake City’s East-West Divide Rio Grande District Site TRAX Lines Folsom Trail The Green Loop District Tech Link Corridor 9 Line Trail Downtown Boundary Frontrunner Jordan River Trail The Site 34 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 35 2.2 Transportation Context The Vision Plan takes into consideration transportation capital projects that are currently being implemented or planned in both Salt Lake City and UTA’s Capital Plans. PROJECT ID CORRIDOR SEGMENT PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTIONS Complete Street 1 200 South 400 West to 900 East / Transit Corridor Reconstruction Transit improvements, Buffered Bicycle Lanes, Pedestrian Improvements, Curbside Parking and Loading Zones 2 400 South Post Street (900 West) to 400 West Viaduct Trail Two-way multi-use trail for pedestrian and bicyclist on south side of 400 South. New barricades between motor vehicles and trail 3 300 South 600 West to 300 West 300 West to 1000 Salt Lake Central Station Bikeway Connection Provide bikeway connection between Salt Lake Central station and existing 300 South bicycle facilities. 4 300 South East n/a Pavement maintenance and bike lane upgrades 5 400 South 300 West to Main Street 400 South Bicycle Lanes Bicycle Lanes are currently in design by Salt Lake City 6 600 West North Temple to 300 South Buffered Bike Lanes Buffered or Protected Bike Lanes Convert existing street space to include more green space and 7 Multiple Multiple Green Loop active transportation options 8 n/a n/a UTA TechLink TRAX Line Improve east-west Downtown and regional transit connectivity. Realign the TRAX Red Line New TRAX Orange line along 400 South 9 n/a n/a Increased Frontrunner Frequency Increase train frequency: Peak from 30 minutes to 15 minutes; Off-peak from 60 minutes to 30 minutes. Table 1: Relevant Transportation Capital Projects Figure 2.3 Relevant Transportation Capital Projects 2 7 Site The Green Loop Project ID Segments The Site 36 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 37 2.3 Site History The Vision and Implementation Plan acknowledges and celebrates the site’s rich history. The area around the Rio Grande District was originally settled by the Fremont Tribe of Native Americans who benefited from the fertile soils in the area. Mormon Pioneers arrived in the Great Salt Lake Basin in 1847 and drew up a plat of the City a couple months later, which brought the Rio Grande District blocks into existence. There were eight original owners on each block, equally divided into 1.25-acre segments. In 1870, the railroad was built on the west side of Salt Lake City, bringing with it a regional commerce connection while also creating a demarcation line between east and west in the City that still exists today. By 1900, the area had been densely settled by a large number of Greek families and other immigrant workers who were mainly laborers for the railroad. Greek-owned businesses began to spring up along 200 South at that time and the area became known as Greek Town. In 1911, the Rio Grande Depot opened its doors and became the city’s central rail station for transporting people, industrial goods, minerals, and agricultural products. This new building replaced two smaller Rio Grande depots that existed where the Salt Lake Central Station now stands. The new Depot connected Salt Lake City to Denver and to the west coast. This building also had the effect of further dividing the City’s more affluent residents on the East from the immigrant communities to the west. The direct connection to the railroad in the district spurred a transition from residential land uses towards manufacturing and industrial uses, which resulted in a jumbled mix of residential and industrial uses intermixed with rail spurs and roads. Businesses located on the two blocks of the Rio Grande District included Utah Ice & Storage, The Jensen Creamery Companies, J.I.Case Implement, Z.C.M.I. General Warehouse, Western Macaroni Manufacturing Company, Salt Lake Mattress and Manufacturing Company and the Z.C.M.I. Stables. By 1949, the rail boom had hit its peak and Interstate 15 was built just to the west in the 1960’s. By 1977, passenger rail ceased operations at this location. This marked a steady decline in the area until the Gateway and Central Station were built in the early 2000’s and signaled a new future for this part of the city.* Figure 2.4 Historic Photographs of Rio Grande Depot and Salt Lake Mattress Building. Credit: Utah State Historical Society Figure 2.5 Historic Site Map from 1911. Credit: History of The Hub, Salt Lake City * Summary of Site History from Station Center Design Standards and Guidelines (2015) Brick Wood Frame Adobe / Fire Proof Stone 38 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 39 University of Utah Properties Site Boundary Nicolas & Co. Properties Lines Buildings to be Replaced Properties Salt Lake Central Station The Site 2.4 Site Ownership Today, the Rio Grande District consists of a consortium of property owners and businesses. PROPERTY OWNERS ACREAGE PARCELS BUILDINGS ON PROPERTY Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City 10.8 acres 29 SDI Warehouse SDI Printex Salt Lake Mattress Building Blue Warehouse Nicholas & Co. 3.3 acres 1 Nicolas & Co. Building Artspace 1.6 acres 3 Artspace City Center Artspace Macaroni Flats Artspace Bridge University of Utah Foundation 1.9 acres 7 None Property ownership is subject to change. Table 2: Site Ownership Matrix Figure 2.6: Site Ownership Diagram The Blue Warehouse Artspace City Center Salt Lake Mattress Building Artspace Macaroni Flats 40 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 41 The Site 2.5 Site Today Figure 2.7: Key Map for Site Existing Condition Photographs View of Artspace City Center and Macaroni Flats looking north-east from 300 South. View of 400 South underpass parking area looking east from 600 West. View of the Rio Grande Depot looking east from 300 South. View of WRR Industries building to the east, TRAX on 600 West to the west, and the 400 South viaduct in the background. 1 View of 500 West and 400 South looking west toward the Blue Warehouse. View from Artspace parking lot looking south-east toward 500 West and the Rio Grande Depot View of the existing Salt Lake Mattress Building looking south from 300 South. . View of Eccles Avenue and the Artspace Bridge and City Center buildings looking east toward 500 West. 2 7 42 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 43 The Site 2.6 Site Zoning The two primary blocks are zoned Gateway Mixed- Use. The site is home to three buildings on the historic register. The Rio Grande District area is zoned G-MU Gateway Mixed-Use District. The intended purpose of the G-MU District is as follows: “to…encourage the mixture of residential, commercial and assembly uses within an urban neighborhood atmosphere…the 500 West corridor is intended to be a primary residential corridor from North Temple to 400 South. Development in this district is intended to create an urban neighborhood that provides employment and economic development opportunities that are oriented toward the pedestrian with a strong emphasis on a safe and attractive streetscape. The standards are intended to achieve established objectives for urban and historic design, pedestrian amenities and land use regulation.” The land use intent in the Design Standards and Guidelines is to balance the site with both residential and commercial uses. The areas closest to the Salt Lake Central Station and its extensive transit infrastructure are envisioned to become an office employment center due to the ease of commute via transit from all areas of the city and from large portions of the Wasatch Front. The Zoning Ordinance intends for the 500 West corridor to be primarily residential in nature, and requires structures fronting 500 West to contain residential units that occupy at least 50% of the structure’s gross square footage. All ground-level floors of buildings facing onto the Festival Street at 300 South Street are required to be occupied with retail uses, including restaurants and bars, in order to encourage activity and liveliness along this important corridor. The uses, densities, and design components envisioned in the Rio Grande District Design Standards and Guidelines are intended to conform with objectives outlined in the Salt Lake City Downtown Master Plan (2016), and all proposals must comply with the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. * * Summary of Site History from Station Center Design Standards and Guidelines (2015) Figure 2.8: Site Zoning and Historic Properties Map Rio Grande Railroad Station Historic Register: National and Local Western Macaroni Manufacturing Company Factory Historic Register: National ZCMI General Warehouse Historic Register: National 561 W 200 South Historic Register: National G-MU: Gateway Mixed-Use Zoning OS: Open Space Landmark Sites 3.1 Development Blocks 3.4 Stormwater Management 3 The Public Realm 46 69 3.2 Open Spaces 48 3.5 Paving 70 3.3 Planting, Ecology, Habitat 68 3.6 Site Furnishing 71 The Public Realm 46 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 47 3.1 Development Blocks The layout of development blocks at the Rio Grande District is critical to establishing a fine grain, human-scaled neighborhood. The development blocks contribute to a successful urban fabric with a functional network of connected public rights-of-way and urban open spaces that provide people with a variety of engaging routes to choose from and encourage pedestrian accessibility and movement. Development blocks are the foundation for well-proportioned, visually engaging, and high-performing architecture. As illustrated in FIGURE 3.1, the Rio Grande District has 7 blocks, each identified by a letter for reference within the document. Standards 1. Land Parcelization: New development blocks shall adhere to the following specifications: BLOCK ID ACREAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE (SF) DIMENSIONS (FEET) REQUIRED OPEN SPACE EASEMENT OR STREET VACATION A 3.27 acres 142,500 SF 450’ x 320’ 470’ x 300’ Yes Yes B 1.96 acres 85,500 SF 300’ x 285’ Yes Yes C 1.79 acres 78,375 SF 275’ x 285‘ No Yes D 1.65 acres 72,000 SF 240’ x 300’ No No E 1.03 acres 45,000 SF 130’ x 300’ No Yes F 2.06 acres 90,000 SF 300’ x 300’ No Yes G 1.89 acres 82,500 SF 275’ x 300’ No Yes Green Loop 6.5 acres 286,150 Sf 1475’ x 194’ Yes No Table 3: Development Block Matrix 2. 400 South Frontage Easement: Blocks C and G shall adhere to a 25 foot easement along 400 South frontage road to accommodate future UTA light rail extension. 3. 300 South Street Vacation: New development on Blocks A, B, E, F development can build in the 23.5 feet street vacation on either side of 300 South. Figure 3.1: Development Blocks Diagram Block Easement Street Vacation The Public Realm 48 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 49 3.2.1: The Green Loop 3.2 Open Spaces The integration of various types of public open spaces is critical for successful placemaking and urban development at the Rio Grande District. The public realm sets out a vision for a thriving and healthy community open and engaging for all. The following principles are intended to guide all future public agencies, developers, and designers in the creation of Rio Grande District public spaces: Scale and Rhythm: Fully respect the scale and rhythm of historic buildings and the neighborhood while providing a diversity of open space types. Indoor-Outdoor Interface: Promote active edges between open spaces and buildings for a vibrant community. Biophilia: Consider biophilic design approaches for all the open space areas from programs to material selection. Integrated Infrastructure: Showcase innovative stormwater treatment and other sustainability elements in the public realm for educational purposes. Adaptability and Resiliency: Create resilient landscapes to support a thriving and healthy long-term development. The following spreads provide design standards and guidelines for four major public spaces: 3.2.1 : The Green Loop 3.2.2 : The Festival Street 3.2.3 : The Arts Campus 3.2.4 : The Underpass Park 3.2.4: The Underpass Park 3.2.2: The Festival Street 3.2.3: The Arts Campus Figure 3.2: Rio Grande District Open Spaces Diagram The Public Realm 50 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 51 3.2.1 The Green Loop 500 West is the preferred alignment for the Green Loop, a proposed 5.5 mile urban trail and linear park that connects the Rio Grande District to Downtown SLC. The Rio Grande District segment of the Green Loop is envisioned to be a lush urban forest providing biophilic respite within a dense urban setting. It will foster community wellbeing by promoting alternate modes of mobility to navigate through Downtown and provide options for active outdoor activities. It will create vibrancy with pockets of recreational and passive congregate spaces designed to cultivate a sense of community, support local businesses, and celebrate the arrival to the Rio Grande District. Standards 1. Dimensions and Siting: The park space is 1450 feet long and 101 feet wide and aligned to the eastern edge of 500 West right-of-way. 2. City Coordination and Approval: The street, park and utility design for the green loop shall be in coordination and reviewed by City departments. 3. Pedestrian Promenade: A shared path at least 20 feet wide shall be incorporated into the park design. 4. Vehicular Access: Vehicular access shall be provided to existing developments on the east side of the park. Vehicular access for new development on the eastern edge of 500 West is prohibited. 5. Intersections and Gateways: The intersections of 200 South and 400 South at 500 West are designated as gateways to the Rio Grande District via the Green Loop. Design of intersections shall consolidate various transportation modes for safe and efficient crossing. 6. Rio Grande Depot: A civic plaza, measuring 150 feet by 101 feet, shall be positioned in front of the Rio Grande Depot, ensuring clear visibility and access to the depot structure. It will serve as a gateway to cross over 500 West Street into the Rio Grande District on 300 South, also known as Festival Street. The ground floor of the central bay of the depot structure shall be made public for greater east west porosity on 300 South. 7. Active Edges: All ground floor uses along 500 West shall adhere to the Parkfront Zone Ground Floor Use. Refer to Section 5.3. 8. Secondary Open Spaces: The site design, materiality, and plant selection of secondary open spaces along 500 West, such as the spectator plaza on Block 2, the spaces in front of the Blue Warehouse building, and Artspace City Center on Blocks 1 and 3, respectively, shall be designed as extension of the Green Loop. Figure 3.3: Green Loop Standards Diagram Green Loop Park Area Rio Grande Plaza P Green Loop Shared Trail Crossings Improved Intersections The Public Realm 52 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 53 3.2.1 The Green Loop The Green Loop programming ensures that Rio Grande District residents, workers, and visitors enjoy the benefits of sustainable urban life by having convenient access to a wide array of outdoor spaces and activities. Guidelines 1. Retail Cluster: The park should feature outdoor retail kiosks and additional spaces for shopping and dining, strategically clustered around the Rio Grande Depot. 2. Outdoor Recreation Facilities: To complement the urban trail, the park should include other active uses such as an outdoor gym and sports courts, playground, and dog run. All uses should be located with consideration to adjacent land uses. 3. Programming: The Green Loop may include but are not limited to the following events and activities: EVENTS FREQUENCY Fitness Class Daily Sports Demonstrations Street Performers and Musicians Recharge Stations Community Gardening Classes Community Volleyball Youth Sports Club Weekly Parenting Lunch and Play Movie Night Live Music Mobile Health Clinic Youth, Elite, Collegiate, Para-competitions Monthly Symphony Night at Rio Grande Depot State, National, International Competitions Annual Film Festival Winter Clothing Drive Table 4: Green Loop Programming Table Figure 3.4: Green Loop Guidelines Diagram Figure 3.5: Photograph of the historic Ferry Building in San Francisco, which has spill out space for outdoor dining and a Saturday farmers’ market. Figure 3.6: Photograph of a community playground in Philadelphia which provides outdoor space for families living in the neighborhood. Figure 3.7: Illustrative rendering of the future Green Loop on 500 West. The Public Realm 54 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 55 The Public Realm 56 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 57 Pedestrian Priority Areas Rio Grande Plaza Intermodal Hub Open Spaces Along Festival Street Crossings Curbless Street Improved Intersections Ground Floor Recess 3.2.2 The Festival Street The 300 South Festival Street is a curbless central urban square flanked by shops and restaurants spilling out at the edges. Year-round, the street prioritizes people with generous tree lined pathways and clear views to the historic depot. Standards 1. Dimensions and Siting: The Festival Street is 660 feet long and 84 feet wide segment of 300 South right- of-way between 500 West and 600 West. 2. City Coordination and Approval: The street and utility design for the festival street shall be in coordination and reviewed by City departments. 3. Pedestrian Promenade: A 23.5-foot street vacation is approved along both edges of the 300 South right- of-way. Building construction is permitted in these spaces, on the condition that ground floor uses shall be active and contribute to street-level vibrancy. Uses that deter pedestrian engagement and street activity are prohibited. 4. Vehicular Access: The eastern half of 300 South, extending from Woodbine Court to 500 West, shall feature a curbless design with restricted vehicular access. To enforce this restriction, traffic control measures, including retractable bollards, shall be placed at each end of this section. 5. Intersections: Pedestrian safety at the intersections of Festival Street with 600 West and 500 West shall implement well-marked crosswalks, pedestrian-friendly signals, and raised intersections for traffic calming. 6. Preserve View of the Rio Grande Depot: Direct visual access to the Rio Grande Depot building shall be preserved from the Salt Lake Central Station. 7. Active Edges: Retail frontage that directly interfaces with the public is required on both sides. It may include the storefront, windows, entrance, and any displays or signage. The frontage shall be designed to be inviting, visually appealing, and strategically organized to showcase products or services. The design shall contribute to the overall character and vitality of Festival Street. 8. Gateway on 600 West: To establish a distinctive gateway at 300 South and 600 West intersection, the ground floors of buildings along 600 West shall be recessed as illustrated in FIGURE 3.8. In the defined recess zone, the upper floorplates of the building podium can extend to the property line. See FIGURE 4.12, 4.13 for additional information. Figure 3.8: Festival Street Standards Diagram The Public Realm 58 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 59 3.2.2 The Festival Street The Festival Street is a major shopping street for the Depot District framed by Salt Lake Central Station to the west and the historic Rio Grande Depot to the east. Guidelines 1. Outdoor Spillout Spaces: The Festival Street should be designed to include outdoor dining areas, spaces for outdoor farmers market stalls, and outdoor work environments. 2. Public Art: To convey an innovative and iconic downtown main street, the design of the festival street should include signature urban furnishing, lighting, and public art. 3. Programming: The Festival Street may include but are not limited to the following events and activities: EVENTS FREQUENCY Sidewalk Retail and Dining Daily Public Art Displays Farmers Market Weekly Downtown Arts & Craft Market Food Truck Fridays Urban Flea Market Monthly Holiday Market Annual Illuminate Salt Lake Slug Magazine Brewstillery Skiswap Craft Lake City SLC Table 5: Festival Street Programming Table Figure 3.9: Festival Street Guidelines Diagram Figure 3.10: Photograph of the neighborhood street converted into a farmers market in London, England. Figure 3.11: Photograph of the Pitt Street Pedestrian Mall, a curbless street with unique paving and retail spill out spaces in Sydney Australia. The Public Realm 60 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 61 Curbless Zone Existing buildings View Corridor 3.2.3 The Arts Campus Bounded by the Artspace Macaroni Flats and the Salt Lake Mattress Building, the Arts Campus is a temporal public canvas where SLC artists, makers, students and non-profit organizations come together. Standards 1. Dimensions and Siting: Situated on the east side of Woodbine Court, The Arts Campus plaza encompasses a 180-foot segment on the Southwest part of Block A and a 300-foot segment on the Northwest part of Block B. For precise dimensions and placement details, refer to FIGURE 3.12 illustrating the campus layout. 2. City Coordination and Approval: The plaza, street and utility design for the Arts Campus and Woodbine Court shall be in coordination and reviewed by City departments. 3. Curbless Street: Woodbine Court Street segment between Pierpont Avenue and Market Street shall be curbless prioritizing pedestrians but maintain slow vehicular access. The design shall provide designated loading zones and services spaces to cater to commercial and maker’s needs while fostering a pedestrian- friendly environment. 4. Intersections and Gateways: The intersection of 300 South and Woodbine Court shall be designed to clearly delineate vehicle, freight, and pedestrian movement. 5. View to Salt Lake Mattress and Artspace: Design of plaza shall maintain visual connectivity between Festival Street, Salt Lake Mattress Building (South), and Macaroni Flats (North). Plaza design shall utilize public art, materiality, and vegetation to reinforce the connection between Salt Lake Mattress and Artspace. 6. Ground Floor Uses and Active Edges: All ground floors shall be curated by the RDA to foster the optimal Arts Campus environment. Figure 3.12 The Arts Campus Standards Diagram The Public Realm 62 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 63 3.2.3 The Arts Campus The flexible open grounds create a canvas for surreal sculptures, dynamic art installations, open-air studios, and interactive exhibits. It is also a comfortable hang- out spot for locals with shaded outdoor seating, affordable food options and an eclectic crowd. This artistic hub invites students and visitors to collaborate, and immerse themselves in a vibrant cultural tapestry. Guidelines 1. Public Art: Public art installations and events should be curated by organizations like the Salt Lake City Arts Council. 2. Programming: The Arts Campus may include but are not limited to the following events and activities: EVENTS FREQUENCY Kids Arts Day camp Daily Adult Art Classes and Workshops Kids Storytime Weekly Trivia Night and Happy Hour Private Events and Receptions Studio Tours Monthly Young Innovators Night Writers Workshop Open Zen Meditation Rotating Sculpture Installation International Arts Festival Annual Ice Sculpture Festival Craft Lake City DIY Fest Table 6: The Arts Campus Programming Table Figure 3.13 The Arts Campus Guidelines Diagram Figure 3.14: Photograph of temporal public art installations in Aarhus, Denmark that serve as cultural destinations. Figure 3.15: Photograph of urban plaza space that can accommodate larger community festivals. Figure 3.16: Illustrative rendering of the future Arts Campus plaza. The Public Realm 64 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 65 The Public Realm 66 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 67 3.2.4 The Underpass Park The Underpass Park infuses new life in abandoned infrastructure, providing an active recreation focused community park. The park is a programmatic bridge between the Rio Grande District and the industrial areas south of 400 South. Standards 1. City Coordination: All programs and activities shall comply with the City Transportation Department standards for access to roadway infrastructure. Guidelines 1. Design Elements: Elements may include dog park, rock climbing area, skate park, sports courts, art installations with lights and murals. 2. Programming: The Underpass Park may include but are not limited to the following events: EVENTS FREQUENCY After school Urban Sports Daily Strength Training / Exercise Classes Basketball Tournaments Weekly Skateboarding Clinic Skateboarding or BMX Events Monthly Rotating Mural Event Parkour Workshops Street Art Festival Annual Table 7: The Underpass Park Programming Table Figure 3.17 The Underpass Park Guidelines Diagram Figure 3.18: Photograph of a revitalized underpass park in Toronto with public murals and basketball courts. Figure 3.19: Photograph of an urban skatepark in Venice Beach which is very conducive and can activates these types of underutilized spaces. The Public Realm 68 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 69 3.3 Planting, Ecology, and Habitat Planting elements are integrated in part to support the biophilic design approach of the public realm, to help protect and feed local habitat, to frame public open spaces, and enhance pedestrian comfort. 3.4 Stormwater Management Stormwater management and water conservation is a critical part of supporting landscape resiliency to climate change. Standards 1. City Coordination: Selection of urban forestry and plant palettes for public open spaces shall be coordinated with appropriate SLC departments and other regulatory agencies. Guidelines 1. Native Planting: Native plant species that are well-adapted to an urban site and non-potable irrigation are strongly recommended for the planting palette. Avoid any invasive species. Low water-use plants are strongly preferred. 2. Habitat Support: Plant species throughout the site should provide habitat for biodiverse local wildlife, including food and nesting/shelter sources. 3. Urban Agriculture: Edible gardens, community gardens and other edible plants should be located in zones of imported clean soil and/ or implemented with raised beds isolated from soil. 4. Canopy Trees: Canopy trees and shade structures should be strategically located to ensure shaded plaza areas and streets for comfortable pedestrian movement in the hot summer. Figure 3.20: Tree canopy provides welcome shade in the summer months and critical habitat area for local fauna. Figure 3.21: Landscape that provides habitat for insects and other fauna helps sustain a more robust ecosystem. Standards 1. City Coordination: Design of stormwater facilities for Rio Grande District public open spaces and streets shall be coordinated with SLC Public Lands, Public Utilities, and all other appropriate regulatory agencies. Guidelines 1. Preferred Treatment Methods: Preferred treatment methods should include green roofs, rain gardens, bioswales and flow-through bioretention planters. 2. Water Storage Basin: Design of new public spaces such as the Green Loop should consider an underground stormwater storage tank dedicated for irrigation. 3. Educational Features: Educational and interactive water features should be integrated with public realm design for community engagement with sustainable practices. Figure 3.22: Rain gardens and bioswales help to manage stormwater on site, while also providing new habitat areas. Figure 3.23: Landscapes with low-drought plantings will support district resilience and water conservation. The Public Realm 70 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 71 3.5 Paving Paving design and materials should be the primary element that give identity to the open spaces and help integrate the various parts of outdoor spaces into a distinctive whole. 3.6 Site Furnishing Site furnishings should help to establish the unique identity of the Rio Grande District and help create an inviting, comfortable, and biophilic environment for users. Standards 1. ADA Compliance: ADA compliance shall be required for paving design and materials in all public areas. 2. Emergency Vehicles: All paving and routes which must accommodate emergency vehicles shall comply with SLC Fire Department load-bearing requirements. Guidelines 1. Historic Character: The Green Loop, Festival Street, and The Arts Campus should include pedestrian paving which relates to the character of the historic buildings and respect their geometry and alignment. 2. Permeable Pavers: To promote stormwater infiltration, permeable pavers should be used where appropriate, specifically along the Green Loop. 3. High Albedo: Paving should utilize high-albedo content to reduce the urban heat island effect and promote cooling of the site. 4. Local Sourcing: Local sourcing of paving materials should be encouraged to take advantage of local manufacturers and suppliers and reduce embodied carbon. 5. Intersection Paving: Major crossings such as 600 West and 300 South from Salt Lake Central Station to the Festival Street or 500 West and 300 South to the Rio Grande Depot should incorporate a special paving pattern to emphasize pedestrian priority. Figure 3.24: Paving design and material helps create a sense of place and distinct identity to an open space. Figure 3.25: Permeable pavers can help with stormwater infiltration and reduction of urban heat island. Standards 1. City Coordination: All site furnishings such as exterior light fixtures or benches in the right-of-way shall meet Salt Lake City standards and be approved by all relevant City departments. 2. Full Shielded Exterior Light Fixtures: All exterior light fixtures shall be fully shielded to minimize glare, light trespass and light pollution throughout the Rio Grande District. 3. Dark Sky Compliance: Exterior light fixtures shall meet or exceed applicable energy-efficiency standards while adhering to specifications of the International Dark Sky Association to prevent negative health impacts on humans and wildlife. 4. Key Pedestrian Lighting: Exterior light fixtures shall reinforce key active transportation pathways and shall be scaled to the pedestrian and bicycle experience. Guidelines 1. Complementary Contrast to Existing Buildings: Site furnishings such as benches, trash bins, and exterior light fixtures should consider compatibility or complementary contrast with the character of adjacent historic buildings such as the Rio Grande Depot or the Salt Lake Mattress Building. 2. Material Reuse: Site furnishings should provide an opportunity for material reuse and carbon sequestering within salvaged materials. This could include concrete from old building foundations or interior building materials. 3. Green Loop Coordination: Site furnishings such as light post banners and wayfinding along 500 West should incorporate the Green Loop branding and select elements of the linear park design palette to provide accessible navigability for pedestrians and cyclists along the urban trail. However, the Rio Grande District segment of the Green Loop should celebrate design elements that make it distinctive and unique. Figure 3.26: Site furnishings can be designed to enhance the character of an existing place. Figure 3.27: Exterior street lights that adhere to dark sky standards help mitigate light pollution and disruption of circadian rhythms. 4 Mobility Network 4.1 Mobility Overview 74 4.4 Street Sections 80 4.2 Active Transportation 4.5 Shared Parking 76 96 4.3 Vehicles 78 The Mobility Network 74 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 75 4.1 Mobility Overview Transportation and circulation are critical components of the safe and effective movement of people and goods within the Rio Grande District. The mobility network accommodates all modes of travel with an emphasis on people- powered modes directly connecting to transit. By concentrating high-density development around Salt Lake Central Station with a diversity of uses and a multi-modal network, the Vision and Implementation Plan aims to reduce the reliance on private vehicles, helping to minimize traffic congestion and the amount of land dedicated to parking. The mobility network envisions the following: Pedestrian Priority: An integrated pedestrian network of generous sidewalks, plazas, and curbless streets that put people first. Low Stress Bike Network: Bicycle network that builds upon the existing City plans and capital projects, with routes to Downtown as well as connections to westside neighborhoods via 400 South, the 9-Line Trail, and the Folsom Trail. Transit Connectivity: A circulation plan that prioritizes transit access over private vehicles and supports options such as car share and ride share. Figure 4.1: Mobility Network Map Functional Roadways: A vehicular circulation plan that serves the needs of on-site development and connects to the surrounding arterials and freeways. 300 South (84’ R.O.W.) 500 West (93’ R.O.W.) Woodbine Court (50’ R.O.W. - North of Pierpont Ave.) Market Street (70’ R.O.W.) Alleyways The Mobility Network 76 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 77 Pedestrian Priority Zone Pedestrian Priority Intersections Signalized Intersection Curbless Shared Streets Mobility Hub Pedestrian and Bike Shared Path Alleyways Key Pedestrian Connections Bike Lanes External Pedestrian Connections 4.2 Active Transportation All streets and pathways are designed with people and place in mind. The layout and design of streets include generous sidewalks, buffered bike lanes, and slow streets to improve the safety and convenience of pedestrians and cyclists. Standards 1. Public Rights-of-Way: All public rights-of-way shall comply with SLC Roadway Design Standards. 2. Sidewalks: All existing and new streets shall include a minimal sidewalk width of eight (8) feet. 3. Pedestrian Priority Zones: Specific portions of 500 West, 300 South, Woodbine Court, and 600 West are designated as pedestrian priority zones. Refer to FIGURE 4.2 for the zones of pedestrian priority. 4. Bikeways: The mobility network shall establish a bike network link between the Salt Lake Central Station to 500 West and the Rio Grande Depot. 500 West shall include a low-stress, separated bike facility as part of the future Green Loop and bi-directional bike facilities within the reconfigured roadway. 600 West shall include bi- directional bike facilities for north- south connections to the 9-Line Trail and the Folsom Trail. 5. Mobility Hubs: Mobility hubs are places in a community that brings together public transit, GREENbike, scooters, car sharing, and other ways for people to get where they want to go without a private vehicle. Refer to Figure 4.2 for the location of future mobility hubs. 6. Rio Grande Depot: The Rio Grande Depot shall provide public pedestrian access through the main concourse to create a seamless east-west connection on 300 South. Bicyclists shall be allowed to dismount within the Depot to connect to the existing 300 South buffered bikeway. 7. Intersections and Traffic Calming: All signalized intersections shall Comply with SLC Intersection Design Standards. Where crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections are proposed, an appropriate combination of traffic calming strategies shall be employed to maximize visibility and safe pedestrian crossing. Figure 4.2: Active Transportation Network Map The Mobility Network 78 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 79 4.3 Vehicles The street network has been laid out to serve the needs of the private development blocks for access, parking, servicing, and loading. Standards 1. Vehicle Circulation: All streets shall have two-way traffic circulation, with the exception of 400 South Frontage Road, which shall have one-way traffic in the westbound direction only. 2. Emergency Vehicle Access: In coordination with the Salt Lake City Fire Department, the vehicle network shall be laid out to ensure emergency vehicle access to all necessary points. Emergency vehicles shall be allowed to traverse non-vehicle sections on curbless streets to ensure a rapid response. 3. Curb Zone: The curb zone consists of areas within the roadway for on-street parking, loading, and pick-up/drop-off with the intent that each of these zones is close to the travelers’ intended destination. Refer to Figure 4.3 for locations and recommended lengths of these zones. 4. Service and Loading: Streets within the mobility network have been laid out with sufficient width and turning radii at corners to allow service vehicles to access all portions of the site and buildings that are likely to need servicing and loading facilities. These facilities are restricted to certain sides of buildings and areas of open spaces to minimize their visual intrusion into the public realm. Refer to Figure 4.3 for portions of the site where servicing and loading is allowed. Figure 4.3: Vehicle Network Map Pedestrian Pathways Signalized Intersection Curbless Shared Streets Alleyway Proposed Transit Line Extensions Green Loop Shared Trail 80 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 81 Standards Matrix Typical Street Plan The Mobility Network 4.4 Street Sections The mobility network proposes to redesign existing streets and build new streets in order to align with Salt Lake City’s goals of creating a complete network of people-friendly streets. This includes the reconfiguration of existing public streets within the project site, including 500 West, 300 South, 600 West, and 400 South Frontage Road, as well as extension of public streets such as Market Street, Woodbine Court, and Pierpont Avenue. The proposed typical street sections are based on the standards and guidelines provided in the Salt Lake City Street and Intersection Typologies Design Guide. The typical street sections have been modified to accurately adapt to the Site’s context. Figure 4.4: Street Standards Guide Street Description Key Map Typical Street Section Street Dimensions 82 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 83 The Mobility Network 4.4.1 500 West 500 West is a north-south complete street which accommodates the Green Loop park area on the eastern edge of the street. A double alley of trees shades generous pedestrian and bike paths. The street provides two-way vehicle movement and on-street parking. Standards: Pedestrian Clear Zone 8 Feet Green / Stationary Zone 7 Feet Between Clear Walkway and Southbound Bike lane Bicycle Facility Separated Buffered raised Bike Lanes 6.5 Feet Bike Lane 5 Feet Buffer with tree bed Vehicle Travel Lanes 11 Feet One Lane in each Direction Curb Zone 9 Feet Frontage / Setback 0 Feet Building Entries New development shall provide a primary entry or entries on 500 West. Table 8: 500 West Street Standards Figure 4.5: 500 West Typical Street Section - Looking North 84 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 85 2 The Mobility Network 4.4.2 300 South 300 South is a east-west festival street which links Salt Lake Central Station to the Rio Grande Depot. It is designed as a slow street with two- way vehicular lanes flanked on both sides with generous flexible spaces for parklets, market stalls, on-street parking or loading. Segment 1 between 500 West and Woodbine Court is curbless. Section 2 between Woodbine Court and 600 West has typical curbs. Standards: Figure 4.6: 300 South Street Section 1 - Looking East Ground Floor Spillover 8 Feet Pedestrian Clear Zone 8 Feet Green / Stationary Zone 6 Feet Curb Zone 10 Feet Vehicle Travel Lanes with Bike Sharrows 11 Feet One Lane in each Direction Building Entries New development shall provide a primary entry or entries on 300 South. Table 9: 300 South Street Standards Figure 4.7: 300 South Street Section 2 - Looking East 2 86 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 87 The Mobility Network 4.4.3 Market Street Market Street is a bi-directional east- west local street which connects 600 West to 500 West. The street provides two-way vehicular movement and loading/service access to adjacent blocks. Market Street is the primary entry to the shared parking structure. Standards: Table 10: Market Street Standards Figure 4.8: Market Typical Street Section - Looking East Pedestrian Clear Zone 9 Feet Green / Stationary Zone 6 Feet Vehicle Travel Lanes with Bike Sharrows 11 Feet One Lane in each Direction Curb Zone 9 Feet Frontage / Setback 0 Feet Building Entries New development shall provide entries on Market Street 88 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 89 2 2 The Mobility Network 4.4.4 Woodbine Court Woodbine Court is a north-south local street that runs parallel to the Arts Campus on the western edge of the plaza. The street connects Eccles Avenue and the 400 South Frontage Road. There are two typical cross sections for Woodbine Court determined by adjacency to the Arts Campus plaza. Standards: Pedestrian Clear Zone 8 Feet Green / Stationary Zone alternatively on eastern or Western edge: 5 Feet Vehicle Travel Lanes with Bike Sharrows 11 Feet One Lane in each Direction Curb Zone alternatively on eastern or Western edge: 7 Feet Frontage / Setback None Building Entries Ground Floor Makers Spaces shall have primary entries on Woodbine Court Pedestrian Clear Zone 7 Feet Green / Stationary Zone 4 Feet Vehicle Travel Lanes with Bike Sharrows 11 Feet One Lane in each Direction Curb Zone 8 Feet Frontage / Setback Western edge: none eastern edge: 0 - 90 Feet (arts Campus plaza) Building Entries Ground Floor Makers Spaces shall have primary entries on Woodbine Court Table 11: Woodbine Court Standards Figure 4.9: Woodbine Court Street Section 1 - Looking North Figure 4.10: Woodbine Court Street Section 2 - Looking North The Mobility Network 90 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 91 4.4.5 Pierpont Avenue Pierpont Avenue is a east-west local street which connects 600 West to Woodbine Court. Standards: Pedestrian Clear Zone 9 Feet Green / Stationary Zone 6 Feet Vehicle Travel Lanes with Bike Sharrows 11 Feet One Lane in each Direction Curb Zone 9 Feet Frontage / Setback 0 Feet Building Entries New development shall provide entries on pierpont avenue Table 12: Pierpont Court Standards Figure 4.11: Pierpont Avenue Section - Looking East The Mobility Network 92 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 93 2 4.4.6 600 West 600 West is a major north-south street connecting the Granary District to the Depot District. The Rio Grande District segment of 600 West is in front of Salt Lake Central Station and includes TRAX infrastructure within the right-of-way. The standards only apply to curb zone to building edge. Standards: Pedestrian Clear Zone 8 Feet Landscape / Furniture Zone 7 Feet Bicycle Facility Separated Buffered Bike Lanes 6.5 Feet Bike Lane, 3 Feet Buffer Vehicle Travel Lanes 11 Feet, One Lane in each Direction Curb Zone eastern edge: 9 Feet Frontage / Setback eastern edge: 0 Feet (at eccles ave) to 20 Feet (at 300 South) Ground Floor recess from property Line. Building Entries New development shall provide a primary entry or entries on 600 West. Standards: Pedestrian Clear Zone 8 Feet Landscape / Furniture Zone 7 Feet Bicycle Facility Separated Buffered Bike Lanes 6.5 Feet Bike Lane, 3 Feet Buffer Vehicle Travel Lanes 11 Feet, One Lane in each Direction Frontage / Setback eastern edge: 0 Feet (at Market St.) to 20 Feet (at 300 South) Ground Floor recess from property Line. Building Entries New development shall provide a primary entry or entries on 600 West. Table 13: 600 West Standards Figure 4.12: 600 West Street Section 1 - Looking South Figure 4.13: 600 West Street Section 2 - Looking South 2 94 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 95 The Mobility Network 4.4.7 400 South Frontage 400 South Frontage Road is a westbound street connecting 500 West to 600 West. The street includes a required 25 foot easement to accommodate the potential for a future light rail extension. Standards: 4.4.8 Alleyways Alleyways are shared publicly accessible pathways between buildings without curbs. These pathways create a safe mixing area for all modes of transportation and loading and servicing. * Eccles Avenue is a special condition and will be designed to seamlessly connect with the eastern segment of the street. Standards: Table 14: 400 South Frontage Standards Figure 4.14: 400 South Frontage Street Section - Looking East Table 15: Alleyway Standards Figure 4.15: Alleyway Section Pedestrian Clear Zone 8 Feet Green / Stationary Zone 5 Feet Bicycle Facility n/a Vehicle Travel Lanes 11 Feet Parking / Loading n/a Easement 25 Feet (Northern edge) Building Entries n/a Shared Path 20 Feet Landscape / Furniture Zone 3 Feet Bicycle Facility n/a Parking / Loading No On-Street parking Frontage / Setback n/a Building Entries n/a The Mobility Network 96 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 97 Figure 4.16: Shared Parking District Diagram 4.5 Shared Parking To leverage the Rio Grande District’s location to the Salt Lake Central Station and support the RDA’s sustainable development policy, the design framework outlines a shared parking strategy, including a centralized shared parking garage. A successful approach for district parking at the Rio Grande District adheres to the following: Park Once: A shared parking garage on the southern edge of the site will reduce the presence of automobiles and encourage people to use sustainable modes of transportation such as walking, biking, and transit. Shared Parking: Accommodating on-site demand in a shared parking garage supports the utilization of parking spaces at different times of the day and night. Productive Land Use: The proposed parking strategy transforms land traditionally designated for cars, into more productive spaces for housing, commerce, and community life. Depot District Parking Agreement: RDA proposes a shared parking agreement with surrounding underutilized parking garages within the larger Depot District, which can ensure that near-term parking demand is provided without over parking the site. Shuttle Connector Service: If a shared parking agreement is successful within the Depot District, the Rio Grande District may provide a shuttle connector service to connect the district to available off-site parking. Future studies will confirm the route, frequency, and provider of a sustainable and convenient shuttle service. This is also a future opportunity for an autonomous vehicle shuttle system. Parking Structure Shuttle Line Parking The Mobility Network 98 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 99 4.5 Shared Parking Guidelines Standards 1. Floor Slabs: Floor slabs that are set at CATEGORY STRATEGIES DESCRIPTION BENEFITS 1. District Parking Garage Location: The primary district parking garage shall be located on Block C with access on Market Street, 400 South Frontage Road, and Woodbine Court. 2. Parking Garage Orientation and Height: The parking garage rectilinear footprint shall have the shorter expanse along Market Street to minimize impact on the Salt Lake Mattress building. 3. Rooftop Recreation Area: The rooftop of the district parking garage shall be used as a publicly accessible recreational facility such as a soccer field or outdoor gym. As such, public access to the field shall be provided by elevator and stairs during hours of public use. Signage that is clearly visible shall be posted, directing the public to the field, and indicating its hours of operation and means of access. 4. Pedestrian Connections: The district parking garage shall allow at least one walkway connecting through the building at grade for frontages on Market Street, Woodbine Court, and 400 South Frontage Road. 5. Facade Screening: Due to it’s prime location along 400 South the district parking garage shall be architecturally or artistically screened and designed with attention to detail compatible with adjacent buildings. The facades are an ideal location for interpretive elements, environmental signage, public art, and green walls. Figure 4.17: The Central Parking Garage at the University of Utah is a prime example of rooftop recreation on top of a parking structure. Credit: Hunt Electric a slope, such as speed ramps, should not be expressed at the façade of the parking structure. Where they occur, they should be visually screened. Floor slabs visible from the street must be flat. 2. Ground Floor Materials: Higher quality building materials should be emphasized in the façade design on the ground floor, as well as at pedestrian touch points and in circulation areas. 3. Light Trespass: Light spillage from within the district parking garage should be minimized impacts to the surrounding development, especially residential. Parapet edges of the parking trays should be higher than the vehicle headlights. 4. Wayfinding: Take opportunities to be playful and creative with wayfinding and environmental graphics, particularly on the southern façade facing 400 South and signage directing the public to the rooftop recreational area. 5. Parking and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Strategies: In order to significantly reduce the parking demand for Rio Grande District development, the RDA and development partners should employ Parking TDM Unbundled Parking Reduce parking ratios Shared Parking Agreement Shuttle Connector Service Micromobility Discounted or Subsidized Transit Pass Financial Incentives Cost of parking spaces is separate from cost to lease building space. Utilize parking ratios lower than maximum requirement. Enter shared parking agreement to utilize underutilized parking at nearby developments. Provide first/last mile connection to near-by destinations Utilize shared micromobility (e-scooters, e-bikes) services Provide discounted or subsidized transit passes for residents or employees Provide financial incentives for residents/ employees for using other modes Ensure reserved spaces are being utilized. Lower supply can lead to lower demand Way to provide additional parking inventory for site. Connects the Rio Grande District to other destinations Can be utilized to connect with off-site parking. Convenient mode when traveling across the Rio Grande District or to near-by destinations. Encourage use of transit Encourages use of other modes Figure 4.18: The Parking Garage Facade P22a designed by Wulf Architekten in Koln Germany successfully creates a facade that is light, transparent, and playful, both during the day and night. Credit: Tobias Vollmer parking and transportation demand management (TDM) strategies. Table 16: Parking and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Strategies Menu 5 Land Use and Urban Form 5.1 Urban Form Overview 102 5.2 Land Use 106 5.3 Ground Floor Uses 108 5.4 Building Heights 112 5.5 Podiums 114 5.5 Building Massing and Orientation 116 5.6 Sustainable Design 120 Land Use and Urban Form 5.1 Urban Form Overview The Rio Grande District is a gateway site and a landmark destination serving Salt Lake City and the Wasatch Front. As a highly visible location in Downtown that embraces the future, building design shall embody a bold and expressive urban identity. An inviting urban form, well-balanced between high-density development and a pedestrian-friendly public realm, is critical to the success of delivering a welcoming and inclusive place. The vision for the public and private buildings within the Rio Grande District is to create a distinctive, pedestrian-oriented, high-density, sustainable neighborhood that embodies the following fundamental values: Create a distinct sense of place: Celebrate the unique aspects of the site by designing a memorable destination. Capitalize on transit investments: The existing and future transit investments will generate long-term returns on investments for surrounding transit-oriented development. Celebrate the history: Showcase the history of the Rio Grande District by integrating the existing architectural heritage into an inspiring new development. Maximize the development potential: Establish a balanced mix-of-uses and a high-quality urban environment while maximizing the development potential of the site. Figure 5.1: Urban Form and Land Use Overview Diagram Establish a vibrant district: The mix-of-uses, ground floor activation and public realm will provide the stage for a 24/7 vibrant, engaging, and safe new district. 102 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 103 104 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 105 Figure 5.2: Illustrative rendering of the Rio Grande District at full buildout Land Use and Urban Form 106 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 107 5.2 Land Use The Rio Grande District aims for a diverse, balanced mix-of-uses that invites more people to live, work, play, and learn in the Depot District. Standards 1. Permitted Uses: The Rio Grande District site is within the Gateway Mixed-Use Zoning District. All permitted and conditional land uses shall be governed by 21A.33.060 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Code. 2. Open Spaces: Proposed parks and plaza spaces are included within the land use categories in FIGURE 5.3. Applicants shall adhere to the open space specifications outlined in SECTION 3.2. 3. Parking Garage: The preferred site for the district parking garage is on the west portion of Block C. Refer to SECTION 4.5 for more information on shared parking. Guidelines 1. High-Intensity Employment Hub: Aligned with the G-MU zoning, Blocks E and F bounded by 600 West and 300 South, should be high-intensity commercial use to capitalize on the direct proximity to Salt Lake Central Station. This can include a wide range of commercial uses, including tech headquarters, lab spaces, and creative office. 2. 500 West Residential Corridor: Per the G-MU zoning district, the 500 West corridor is intended to be a primary residential corridor from North Temple to 400 South, as such, Blocks A and C should be high intensity residential mixed-use. 3. Enhancing the Rio Grande Depot: The State of Utah is planning to re-locate several state departments into the renovated Rio Grande Depot as well as potential spaces for high education and cultural programming. To support this civic node, Block B is identified as a civic anchor/regional attraction. 4. Transitioning to the Neighborhood: To support a smooth land use transition to the existing multi-family residential along 200 South and Artspace, Block D is identified as residential mixed use. Figure 5.3: Land Use Diagram Residential Mixed-Use Park Commercial Mixed-Use Parking Potential National Governing Body Land Use and Urban Form 108 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 109 5.3 Ground Floor Uses The ground floor is where the activity of a building meets the public realm, and therefore plays the greatest role in shaping the pedestrian experience. Each building frontage has a role to play in the definition and activation of streets and open spaces. Standards 1. Active Uses: Regardless of building type or use, ground floor active uses shall be required where indicated in FIGURE 5.4. The complete table of permitted and conditional ground floor uses in the Gateway District are found in 21A.33.060 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Code. Rio Grande District active uses are organized by the following character zones: Festival Retail Zone, Parkfront Zone, Transit Street Zone, Maker Spaces Zone, Tech Lake Zone, and Neighborhood Street Zone. 2. Festival Retail Zone: The Festival Retail Zone located along 300 South represents the highest level of intensity of shops, cafes, and retail at the Rio Grande District. The Festival Street and the street corners on 600 West and 500 West shall have a required retail use. A corner shall be measured from the first 30 feet from building edge on either side. 3. Parkfront Zone: The Parkfront Zone shall provide a high level of activity with a mix of building lobbies for upper floor uses, retail, residential, entertainment and sports recreation venues, that enlivens the Green Loop. 4. Maker Spaces Zone: The Maker Spaces Zone fronting on the Arts Campus Plaza shall include light industrial, production, fabrication, manufacturing, and studios for local artists and artisans. 5. Transit Street Zone: The Transit Street Zone shall create a welcoming, pedestrian friendly environment on 600 West for transit patrons. Primary lobbies for upper floor uses shall be placed on 600 West. Ground floors shall include neighborhood uses such as medical offices, daycares, hotels, among other uses. 6. Tech Lake Zone: The Tech Lake Zone shall apply to frontages indicated in Figure 5.4 which allows for ground floor commercial uses such as offices, dry and wet labs, and common spaces and amenities. Figure 5.4: Ground Floor Edges Diagram Festival Retail Zone Neighborhood Street Zone Transit Street Zone Parkfront Zone Potential National Governing Body Makers Spaces Zone Loop UTA Redevelopment Area Land Use and Urban Form 110 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 111 5.3 Ground Floor Uses 7. Neighborhood Street Zone: The Neighborhood Street Zone shall apply residential frontages along streets that are quieter in character, and serve to make up the neighborhood feeling of the Rio Grande District. If the ground floor residential has individual entries, the units shall have elevated stoops. Refer to Section 5.4 for more information on elevated ground floor residential units. 8. Building Servicing and Loading Zone: To minimize the visual impact of back of house operations of buildings such as deliveries, maintenance, and parking shall be located in areas indicated in Figure 5.4. 9. Combine Building Services: Wherever possible, servicing entries shall be combined such as combining a parking entry with a loading dock. 10. Corner Zone: To minimize pedestrian, bike, and vehicular conflicts with servicing activities, servicing entries shall not be located within 30 feet of a block corner. Figure 5.5: Elevated stoops create a semi private space for an intimate social setting. Figure 5.6: Active ground floor uses can also include internal uses such as conference/ assembly spaces where passerbys can look in from the sidewalk. Guidelines 1. Permeable Openings: Active Edges should consider permeable openings such as sliding and folding doors to encourage activity spill out onto the sidewalk and plaza spaces. Roll up doors or other large doors are highly encouraged along the Arts Campus plaza to provide views into makers spaces. 2. Proximity to National Governing Body: Uses along the Parkfront Zone should allow for outdoor spaces that enable event viewing in the National Governing Body spectator plaza. Ground floor spaces along the Green Loop have the opportunity to spill out into the park, activating the edge and taking advantage of the park and view of the Rio Grade Depot. The proximity to the National Governing Body means that food and entertainment uses should be designed to anticipate larger crowds of pedestrians. Figure 5.7: Sliding or roll up doors can facilitate the movement of people, equipment, and goods in and out of the ground floor. Figure 5.8: Well defined lobby entries can help provide visual interest and activity along major streets. Land Use and Urban Form 112 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 113 5.4 Heights Maximum height limits establish a neighborhood fabric that is sculpted, with heights ramping up to the Festival Street and stepping down to the surrounding neighborhood. Standards 1. Maximum Height: The height of buildings shall not exceed the applicable maximum height as shown in Figure 5.9 and Table 17. 2. Ground Floor Heights: Ground floor with non-residential uses shall be a minimum of 15 feet, clear height between finished floor and finished ceiling. Ground floor residential BLOCK ID MAXIMUM HEIGHT ENVELOPES units shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the adjacent sidewalk, with ADA compliant access provided for accessible units. Table 17: Maximum Heights Table Figure 5.9: Maximum Height Diagram Allowable Height Envelope A 400 Feet / 150 Feet B 75 Feet C 150 Feet D 200 Feet E 260 Feet F 300 Feet / 200 Feet G 180 Feet / 120 Feet Land Use and Urban Form 114 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 115 5.5 Podium The building podiums are intended to respect and complement the existing historic structures while creating visual interest and encouraging a diversity of experiences. Standards 1. Podium Heights: Development adjacent to existing structures such as Artspace Macaroni Flats, Salt Lake Mattress Building, and the Rio Grande Depot shall have a podium height that matches the roof datum of the adjacent structure. The podium height shall be measured to the highest point on the identified structure. Block B, C, and G are exempt. 2. 600 West Ground Floor Recess: Ground floors along 600 West shall be recessed as per FIGURE 3.8. The resulting space shall be publicly accessible and be used for amenities for improved pedestrian experience. Guidelines 1. Balconies and Terraces: The inclusion of balconies and terraces are encouraged adjacent to public open spaces such as the Green Loop, Festival Street, and Arts Campus plaza to take advantage of views and allow greater programmatic and visual connection between uses in the buildings and the public realm. 2. Terrace Access: All terraces resulting from stepbacks should be accessible and well-landscaped with amenities such as seating, greenery, and gathering spaces to complement the vibrancy on the ground plane. 3. Podium Modulation: The mass of the podium should be broken down into smaller masses. These massing moves should relate to the overall building design, upper building design, and to other prominent building elements such as fenestration patterns and Figure 5.10: Building Podium Diagram Stepdowns Match Podium Heights Important Open Spaces of Human Scale Existing Buildings building entries. Land Use and Urban Form 116 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 117 5.6 Building Orientation and Massing The upper portions of buildings are important contributing elements to the SLC skyline and project a strong urban identity. Standards 1. Tower Orientation: The longer axis of mid-rise and high-rise building floor plates shall be oriented east-west for maximum solar performance. The exception is Block A, which is designed to be a point tower. 2. Maximum Tower Bulk Controls: Tower floorplate shall adhere to the following controls: LAND USE TOWER MAX DIAGONAL DIMENSION TOWER MAX PLAN DIMENSION Typical Residential Tower 260 Feet 100 Feet Typical Commercial Lower Tower 270 Feet 130 Feet Typical Commercial Upper Tower 180 Feet 100 Feet Mixed-Use Point Tower 130 Feet 100 Feet Table 18: Maximum Tower Floorplate Table Figure 5.11: Building Orientation and Massing Diagram 1 Typical Residential Tower Mixed-Use Point Tower Typical Commercial Upper Tower Land Use and Urban Form 118 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 119 5.6 Building Orientation and Massing Guidelines 1. 600 West Stepdowns: The western facades of towers along 600 West that exceed 200 feet should step down as it approaches the street and Salt Lake Central Station. These stepdowns should serve as vegetated, occupiable terraces which provide a biophilic entry into the City. 2. Views to Natural Environs: Towers exceeding 200 feet should carve out observation balcony areas to surrounding natural features such as the Wasatch Mountains, the Orquirrh Range, and the Great Salt Lake. 3. Preserve view of the Rio Grande Depot from 400 South: Development on Block G should be sculpted to provide a peek of the Rio Grande Depot sign from the 400 South Viaduct. Figure 5.12: Building Orientation and Massing Diagram 2 Green Roofs View Corridor Land Use and Urban Form 120 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 121 5.8 Sustainable Design To support the goals and targets of Salt Lake City’s Climate Plan, the design framework focuses on strategies to shape the urban form for a more comfortable, energy-efficient, and high-performing district that has a rich biophilic experience. Standards 1. RDA Sustainable Development Policy: All new development shall adhere to the RDA Sustainable Development Policy which provides requirements for enhanced energy performance, emission free building operations, and net zero building standards. 2. Stormwater Management: New horizontal and vertical development shall employ decentralized strategies to address runoff such as permeable surfaces, green roofs, and rain gardens, to manage and absorb stormwater at its source. This approach minimizes strain on centralized systems, promotes biophilia, mitigates urban flooding and water pollution. 3. Embodied Carbon: Vacant existing structures such as the Salt Lake Mattress Building and Blue Warehouse shall be preserved and retrofitted for new uses. 4. Green Roofs and Terraces: Terraces shall be designed to manage stormwater, alleviate heat island effect, and create aesthetically pleasing and biodiverse outdoor spaces. Rooftop vegetation should optimize building energy efficiency with increased thermal insulation, providing natural shading, and cooling through evapotranspiration and prevent excessive heating and cooling in buildings. Figure 5.13: Sustainable Design Diagram Energy Retrofit Existing Buildings Net Zero Building Systems Stormwater Management Native Landscaping Roofs Mobility Mobility Hubs Land Use and Urban Form 122 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 123 5.8 Sustainable Design Guidelines 1. Bird-Safe Building Design: The Great Salt Lake is part of a vast Great Basin haven for shorebirds migrating along the Pacific Flyway. The vast amount of bird-species in the region paired with a more vegetated public realm and the addition of reflective glass towers can lead to a high risk of bird-strikes. To mitigate the risk of bird-strikes, all development that has facades exceeding 30 percent glazing should utilize bird safe design strategies on the first 60 feet measured from the ground plane. This includes fritted glass, etched glass, UV coated glass, frosted glass, and exterior apparati such as louvers, fins, and mullions. 2. Natural Daylight: Passive lighting and access to natural daylight should be used where possible. Access to natural daylight can improve human health and artificial lighting can be one of the largest demands on building energy. 3. Solar Control and Exterior Shading: Facades that are south- or west- facing can be exposed to greater amounts of thermal energy from the sun, causing heat gain to the building and requiring energy for cooling. Consider using passive means of shading including less glazing, louvers. This will support the bird-safe building design strategy. 4. Photovoltaic Panels: Portions of the roof area with direct solar access should be considered for solar energy or heating systems (including PV panels). Wherever possible, mount solar energy or heating systems over mechanical equipment, or structures over green roofs, or structures used for human shading. Where solar energy systems are combined with green roofs, incorporate shade tolerant species. 5. Mass Timber Construction: Changes in modern building codes are making mass timber structures as tall as 18 stories possible. Development should explore utilizing mass timber elements like cross-laminated timber panels (CLT). Mass timber structures offer significant environmental benefits including long-term carbon sequestration, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, reduced embodied and operational energy footprint. 6. Building Amenities for Wellness: Building amenities should include fitness rooms that are close to and visible to outdoor spaces, indoor bike parking and showers for commercial development. Figure 5.14: At 40 stories, Canada’s Earth Tower will become the world’s tallest hybrid wood tower, dramatically reducing the project’s greenhouse gas emissions through carbon sequestration. 6 Implementation 6.1 Phasing Plan 126 6.2 RDA Role in Rio Grande District 132 6.3 Governance Framework 138 6.4 Next Steps 146 Implementation 126 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 127 6.1 Phasing Plan This ambitious Plan will be built in phases over many years and will be influenced by changing market conditions and funding sources. This section describes a potential phasing scenario. Phase 1 Infrastructure Development Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Market Street Woodbine Court (South Segment) 300 South Arts Campus Plaza (South Segment) Potential National Governing Body Spectator Plaza Pierpont Avenue Woodbine Court (North Segment) 500 West Green Loop Arts Campus Plaza (North Segment) Underpass Park Potential National Governing Body Headquarters and Training Center Salt Lake Mattress Renovation Shared Parking Garage Blue Warehouse Renovation Rio Grande Depot Renovation Mixed-Use Residential Development Renovation of Blue Warehouse Commercial Mixed-Use Development Residential Mixed-Use Landmark Tower Commercial Mixed-Use Development Table 19: Phasing Plan Infrastructure and Development Figure 6.1: Phasing Plan Diagram Phase 4 Phase 2 Phase 3 Implementation 128 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 129 Multi-Family Residential Development Re-opening of the Rio Grande Depot Construction of Pierpont Avenue and Northern Segment of Woodbine Court. Multi-Family Residential Development Construction of transit supported commercial high rise towers Phase 2 Phase 1 6.1.1 Phase 1 Phase 1 infrastructure investment and development is focused on the southeastern portion of the site. 6.1.2 Phase 2 Phase 2 infrastructure investment and development is focused on the re- opening of the Rio Grande Depot and adding housing onto the site. New infrastructure investment includes the following: • Construction of Market Street and a segment of Woodbine Court. • Major mobility and access improvements to the existing 300 South (Festival Street) and 400 South Frontage Road rights-of-way. • Construction of the southern portion of the Arts Campus plaza and the potential National Governing Body spectator plaza fronting along 500 West. Figure 6.2: Phase 1 Proposed Infrastructure and Development Vertical development includes the following: • Potential National Governing Body Headquarters and Training Facility on Block B. • The Salt Lake Mattress Building is proposed to be renovated in Phase 1 as part of the potential National Governing Body project. • A RDA-owned shared parking garage on Block C. • Renovation of the existing Blue Warehouse with an active use such as a brewery or commercial space for workforce development, educational programming. New infrastructure investment includes the following: • Construction of Pierpont Avenue from 600 West to Woodbine Court and the northern segment of Woodbine Court from 300 South to Eccles Avenue. Vertical development includes the following: • Completion of the Rio Grande Depot renovation with State of Utah departments and additional civic tenants moving into the Depot along with a publicly accessible grand concourse with new active uses. Figure 6.3: Phase 2 Proposed Infrastructure and Development • New multi-family residential projects on Block C and Block D, with active uses on the ground floor. • Anticipated construction of commercial mixed-use high- rise tower on Block E. The project can accommodate a tech anchor tenant in an urban campus setting or multiple tenants including allowances for new wet and dry lab spaces to support Tech Lake City initiative. Southern portion of Woodbine Court Improvements to 400 South Frontage Road Renovation of the Blue Warehouse Shared Parking Garage Potential National Governing Body Headquarters and Training Facility Renovation of Salt Lake Mattress Building Construction of Market Street Construction of 300 South Festival Street Southern portion of Arts Campus Potential National Governing Body Spectator Plaza Implementation 130 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 131 Phase 4 Phase 3 6.1.3 Phase 3 Phase 3 infrastructure investment and development is focused on the parcels adjacent to Salt Lake Central Station and the Green Loop. 6.1.4 Phase 4 Phase 4 infrastructure investment and development is focused on the landmark mixed-use residential tower on 500 West and the mixed-use development along the 400 South Overpass. New infrastructure investment includes the following: • Reconfiguration of 500 West as a multi-modal street, including improved intersections at 400 South and 200 South. • The construction of the Green Loop urban trail and linear park on the eastern portion of 500 West. Vertical development includes the following: • Anticipated construction of commercial high-rise towers on Block F. These buildings can accommodate a tech anchor tenant in an urban campus setting or multiple tenants including allowances for new wet and dry lab spaces to support Tech Lake City initiative. New infrastructure investment includes the following: • Construction of the northern portion of the Arts Campus plaza. • Construction of permanent park programming at the 400 South underpass such as dog park and soccer courts. Vertical development includes the following: • Construction of the landmark residential mixed-use tower along 500 West and 300 South on Block A. • Construction of commercial and residential development on Block G. Figure 6.4: Phase 3 Proposed Infrastructure and Development Figure 6.5: Phase 4 Proposed Infrastructure and Development Construction of transit supported commercial high rise towers 500 West redesign and Green Loop urban trail and park Construction of park programming at 400 South underpass Construction of commercial and residential development Construction of landmark residential tower Implementation 132 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 133 6.2 RDA Role in the Rio Grande District The development of the Rio Grande District has the potential to cultivate a vibrant urban district that exemplifies what makes Salt Lake City special and stamps its position as the best transit-oriented district in the State. Several key goals for the development, programming, and positioning of the Rio Grande District have emerged through conversations with stakeholders. Governance can facilitate the following goals: ● Development: establish the rio Grande District as the standard for sustainable transit-oriented development in Salt Lake City and the State of Utah. ● Programming: Create a new urban scale development that leverages local organizations to create a programmed and activated district for art, community health and wellness, and organic economic growth for SLC. ● Positioning: Foster a walkable community that takes advantage of density to create a mixed-use, mixed- income, and inclusive district. The RDA will play a pivotal role in the development operations, and long-term success of the Rio Grande District. The RDA is slated to serve four primary roles: ● Land Owner: as the primary landowner, the rDa should manage and optimize development on the land in perpetuity. ● Infrastructure Developer: the rDa and the City will develop, own, and operate infrastructure and public space throughout the district in alignment with its vision of walkability and transit orientation. ● Programming Manager: the rDa will lead the activation and programming of the rio Grande District, with collaboration from nearby partners and property owners. the rDa will maintain ownership of ground-level space when able. ● District Curator: the rDa may provide incentives to private parties, including developers and space users, to advance rDa policy goals, such as discounted space for start up businesses, participation in programming and activation, and dedicated public space. Figure 6.6: Close up of Arts Campus plaza. RDA will lead the activation and programming of the Rio Grande District such as maintaining ownership of ground level spaces and curating programming in spaces like the Arts Campus plaza. Implementation 134 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 135 6.2.1 Land Owner 6.2.2 Infrastructure Developer As the primary landowner, the RDA should manage and optimize development on the land in perpetuity. The RDA and the City will develop, own, operate infrastructure and public space throughout the district in alignment with its vision of walkability and transit orientation. ● Responsibilities ● Function as the master developer, crafting design guidelines, executing ground leases and development agreements, oversee vision and implementation planning and site planning efforts, and monitoring the execution of vertical development. ● Initiate solicitations for development parcels, in line with a strategic phasing strategy that logically advances development throughout the district. ● Manage ground leases, including ensuring compliance and collecting ground lease revenue. ● refresh district vision and implementation plan periodically to ensure highest and best use of land and optimal development outcomes. ● Related Policies ● real property Disposition policy: Determines the process and method for deploying rDa-owned land for redevelopment. ● Sustainable Development policy: Sets guidelines on the sustainability metrics rDa-supported projects must meet. ● Granary adaptive reuse policy: provides a precedent for how the rio Grande District development can preserve existing structures. ● Opportunities ● rDa will receive ground lease revenue that can support infrastructure investment and other key investments in the district. ● RDA maintains control and influence regarding the types of programming and development that occurs on-site, enabling the rDa to meet policy goals related to affordability, sustainability, etc. ● Risks and Limitations ● rDa assumes some ongoing risk related to the success of development activity (i.e. susceptibility to changes in the real estate market). ● rDa remaining involved in land ownership means that it will need staff capacity in perpetuity to provide oversight of ground lease terms, negotiate future ground leases, and facilitate other land ownership tasks. ● Responsibilities ● Oversee and implement vision and implementation planning efforts, including identifying the funding sources, executing bonds, and budgeting for maintenance and repairs. ● Develop a plan for overseeing the physical assets and hire workers to execute maintenance and repairs. ● Collect and manage revenues from shared facilities and ensure proper debt service. ● Related Policies ● tax Increment reimbursement program policy: provides a mechanism for the rDa to partner with private developers to support on-site infrastructure and other improvements. ● Opportunities ● By maintaining ownership of the infrastructure, the rDa and City can ensure principles of shared parking and shared utilities are maintained throughout the rio Grande District. ● the rDa and City can capture parking revenue and additional revenue from shared agreements and use that revenue to reinvest into rio Grande District infrastructure. ● Risks and Limitations ● the rDa and the City assumes the responsibility for all infrastructure improvements and incurs the cost for all development and repairs. ● rDa will need to hire staff or third-party support to oversee and maintain certain infrastructure. Figure 6.7: RDA as Land Owner Diagram Figure 6.8: RDA as Infrastructure Developer Diagram Update Vision and Implementation Plan to identify new development opportunities. Utilities Implementation 136 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 137 6.2.3 Programming Manager 6.2.4 District Curator The RDA will lead the activation and programming of the Rio Grande District, with collaboration from nearby partners and property owners. The RDA will maintain ownership of ground-level space when able. The RDA may provide incentives to private parties, including developers and space users, to advance RDA policy goals, such as discounted space for startup businesses, participation in programming and activation, and dedicated public space. ● Responsibilities ● the rDa will work with rio Grande District stakeholders to establish a vision for the types of programming and activation efforts at the rio Grande District, develop a plan with responsible parties for executing that vision, and oversee the planning of events and placemaking efforts at the rio Grande District. ● Oversee booking of event space to public and private participants. ● Install and maintain public art exhibits. ● Related Policies ● procurement policy: Sets guidelines for the process to contract third-party entities to support programming and activation efforts at the rio Grande District. ● rDa art policy: provides guidelines for portion of rDa investments to contribute to art installation and for incentives for private partners that provide art investment. ● Opportunities ● the rDa can shape programming and activation efforts to align with its vision for the rio Grande District. ● the rDa can partner with other Salt Lake City government departments, such as SLC parks Division and the arts Council, to host events and advance broader Salt Lake City initiatives. ● Risks and Limitations ● The RDA will need to ensure it has the staffing capacity to oversee and execute district-wide programming and activation activities, including developing a programming schedule, procuring third-party vendors, managing event space and bookings, facilitating planning event set-up and tear-down, etc. ● Responsibilities ● Because the rDa will oversee the development and programming of the rio Grande District, they will play an outsized role in attracting new tenants and companies to the rio Grande District. ● the rDa will either own or master lease space throughout the rio Grande District to provide sub-leases with discounted rents for space users, including non-profits, startup organizations, and mission-oriented partners. ● Negotiate ownership or master leasing of space, prioritizing ground-level space, with the goal of maximizing the rDa’s ability to sub-lease space at a discounted rate for mission-driven and vision- aligned partners. ● Related Policies ● tax Increment reimbursement program policy: Leverages tax increment to attract developers to support redevelopment of rio Grande District. ● housing Development Loan program policy and housing allocation Funds: provides a mechanism for the rDa to meet public policy goals, namely, affordable housing, by leveraging housing allocation Funds for redevelopment efforts. ● Loan program policy: Directs the rDa’s use of gap financing to support private development that advances the rDa’s goals. ● Opportunities ● the rDa gets to establish its vision for how the rio Grande District serves Salt Lake City residents, including the types of jobs created, small business growth, availability of affordable space, and workforce development programming. ● the rDa can utilize ground lease revenue and earned revenue from the rio Grande District to increase the economic vitality of Salt Lake City. ● the rDa has incentive and funding programs at its disposal to support attracting new firms and businesses to the rio Grande District. ● Risks and Limitations ● While rio Grande District can drive economic development efforts in a portion of Downtown Salt Lake City, it cannot replace city-wide economic development initiatives, but rather must complement them. ● The RDA will need to expand its staffing capacity to oversee sub-leasing activity. Figure 6.9: RDA as Programming Manager Diagram Implementation 138 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 139 6.3 Governance Framework The RDA should establish a governance framework for the Rio Grande District that reflects its four key roles in the project and organizes them to drive the vision for the district. An RDA-led governance will require a comprehensive organize of component parts to ensure the district is successfully developed and operated. RDA-led governance should be framed with three distinct lenses to ensure that the development and operations of the Rio Grande District successfully address the project’s vision. ● Funding: the rDa will need to consider short-term and long-term cash encumbrances reflecting the capital and operating needs of the rio Grande District (in the form of annual and 5-year budgets that are approved by the Board). ● Staffing and Support: the rDa will need staff dedicated to the rio Grande District that is built out over time, with initial support from third parties. ● Functional Goal: the rDa should consider itself the master developer of the rio Grande District with a focus on the real estate and economic outcomes listed in the vision. Funding Staffing and Support Functional Goal Land Owner Capital Funding Real Estate Development Staff and Technical Experts Strategy Planning Coordination Investment Partnerships Infrastructure Developer Entitlements Job Creation Programming Manager Operational Funding Activation and Programming Staff and Partners Community Engagement District Curator District Curation Staff and Partners Components of Rio Grande District Governance Table 20: Components of Rio Grande District Governance Matrix Figure 6.10: Close up of the Rio Grande District. RDA governance framework will coordinate funding and operations for horizontal infrastructure like the Green Loop, vertical development like a shared parking garage, and mixed-use development. Implementation 140 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 141 6.3.1 Funding 6.3.2 Staffing and Support The RDA will need consider short-term and long-term cash encumbrances reflecting the capital and operating needs of the Rio Grande District. Sources Uses Land Owner Capital • Land • Ground Lease Income • Bond Funding • tax Increment • Build Infrastructure • Operate and Maintain Infrastructure • Oversee Shared parking • Staff programming and activation • Manage and Maintain Leased Space • provide Incentives and Subsidies Infrastructure Developer Programming Manager Operations • assessment • parking revenue • Ground Floor Subleases • event revenue • philanthropic Donations District Curator Table 21: Funding Sources and Needs The RDA will need staff dedicated to the Rio Grande District that is built over time, with initial support from third parties. Land Owner Infrastructure Developer Programming Manager District Curator Real Estate Director: Manages Rio Grande District portfolio and development phasing Capital Projects Manager: Identifies capital improvements and plans funding and sequencing Activation Manager: Programs and oversees maintenance of public spaces Director District Curation: Identifies and attracts potential Rio Grande District partners Finance Director: Oversees accounting and budgeting of Rio Grande District Maintenance Staff: Maintains and operates all public space Events Manager: Plans and executes events Property Manager: Attracts and supports Rio Grande District tenants and facilitates tenant improvements Parking Manager: Provides day-to-day operational support of shared parking structure Marketing Manager: Builds awareness of Rio Grande District and maintains the Rio Grande District brand Table 22: Rio Grande District Dedicated Staffing RDA Board of Directors Key Roles: Approve policy, vision, and budget for Rio Grande District; Conduct periodic reviews of project status and metrics. RDA Director Key Roles: Oversees team and ensures alignment with RDA and project vision; Coordinates between Rio Grande District staff and other RDA and City resources. Rio Grande District Director Key Roles: Oversees day-to-day implementation of Rio Grande District vision and manages staff; Responsible for project metrics. Operations Staff Key Roles: Executes day-to-day tasks; Provides regular updates to Rio Grande District and RDA directors. Real Estate Director Capital Projects Manager Activation Manager Director of District Operations Finance Director Maintenance Staff Events Manager Property Manager Parking Manager Marketing Manager Table 23: Rio Grande District Staffing Org Chart Implementation 142 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 143 6.3.3 Functional Goal 6.3.4 Phase 1 Action Items and Goals The RDA is overseeing the design process, master planning, deployment of land, and activation of the Rio Grande District. Each phase will include a set of goals needed to successfully implement the redevelopment. The RDA should consider itself the master developer of the Rio Grande District with a focus on the real estate and economic outcomes listed in the vision. Land Owner Infrastructure Developer Programming Manager District Curator • Conduct master planning efforts • establish and maintain design guidelines • execute CC&rs and development agreements • Craft solicitation documents • Solicit developers • Deploy land in the form of ground leases. • assess existing infrastructure capacity and needs • plan capital improvements staging • Float bonds to support infrastructure investment • Develop upgraded utilities, streets, shared district parking and public space • Maintain shared district parking and public spaces • Identify rio Grande District brand to guide programming and activation vision • Formulate programming and activation strategy, including cadence of events • Leverage adjacent property owners to advance programming efforts • attract key anchor industry partners to locate at rio Grande District • Create guidelines for providing discounted leased space to non- profit and start-up organizations • ensure economic development efforts align with rio Grande District vision Table 24: RDA Key Tasks as Master Developer Table 25: Phase 1 Start Up Action Items and Goals Phase 1: Start Up Phase 2: Stabilization Long Term Growth Funding Staffing and Support Functional Goal Land Owner Capital Funding • prepare initial project budgets • Determine level of bond funding necessary and seek legislative approval • Identify 1-2 full-time staff dedicated to moving the development work forward with a focus on early stage financial and development planning. • advance design, planning, and development strategy to facilitate development partnership. • Confirm legal advisory mechanism to support transactions • Complete vision and implementation planning process. • establish design guidelines. • Craft developer solicitation requests (e.g., rFps, rFIs, etc.) • Solicit development partner(s). • Negotiate development transaction. • execute CC&rs and/or development agreements. Infrastructure Developer Operational Funding • provide annual appropriations from rDa to rio Grande District to fund catalytic organizational operations (i.e. staff and 3rd party consultants) Implementation 144 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 145 Phase 1: Start Up Phase 2: Stabilization Long Term Growth Phase 1: Start Up Phase 2: Stabilization Long Term Growth 6.3.5 Phase 2 Action Items and Goals 6.3.6 Long Term Growth Action Items and Goals Funding Staffing and Support Functional Goal Land Owner Capital Funding • Leverage expanded ground lease income from development to invest in new capital projects • Float additional bonds as necessary funding for other capital requirements • Identify 2-3 real estate development staff and third-party technical experts • Initiate additional building development • Continue programming and activation of undeveloped parcels and public spaces • Begin coordination with surrounding parcels for future infrastructure improvements such as transit, parking, and public space Infrastructure Developer Programming Manager Operational Funding • transition from rDa • Identify 3-5 activation and programming staff and partners District Curator appropriations to assessments and earned income from rio Grande District • Identify 2-4 economic development staff and partners. Table 27: Long Term Growth Action Items and Goals Table 26: Phase 2 Stabilization Action Items and Goals Funding Staffing and Support Functional Goal Land Owner Capital Funding • Float initial bond backed by ground lease income and tIF resources. • appropriate rDa funding for other capital requirements. • Identify 1-2 real estate development staff and procure third-party technical experts • Design and implement infrastructure changes, including new streets, utilities, and parking structure • Develop first building and plaza • Conduct programming on undeveloped parcels and other public area Infrastructure Developer Programming Manager Operational Funding • appropriate annual rDa budget for rio Grande District operations • Initiate district assessment. • Collect and earmark earned income. • Identify 1-2 activation and programming staff and partners District Curator • Identify 1-2 district curation staff and partners Implementation 146 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 147 6.4 Next Steps A comprehensive governance structure should provide clarity of leadership, decision-making, and resource alignment in order to drive towards desired outcomes for the Rio Grande District. Here are three steps to initiate governance and advance district vision: ● Step 1 - Align Stakeholders: Begin formalized discussions between industry, academic, and regional partners regarding involvement in a governance structure. ● Step 2 - Conduct Governance Business Planning: establish the core functions and processes required to manage a successful governance structure at rio Grande District. ● Step 3 - Develop Rio Grande District Policies: Develop policies specific to Rio Grande District to ensure the Rio Grande District goals and vision are codified. Funding Staffing and Support Functional Goal Adjacent Land Owners • potential land easements and development partnerships • Coordinate development efforts to support a cohesive district • Facilitate successful development and design of rio Grande District ● Artspace ● Private Developers ● University of Utah ● Utah Transit Authority ● State of Utah • Capital and operating investments • rDa Staff oversee buildout of infrastructure • Leverage public dollars for shared infrastructure Infrastructure Developer ● Private Developers ● Other City Agencies • event Space • plan and support rio Grande District events • Support activation efforts by leveraging existing resources • Workforce development programming • participate in activation and programming partnerships • participation in workforce and economic development efforts • expand organization’s presence and impact in Salt Lake City • attract space users, employees, and customers • establish permanent location in premier Salt Lake City district Programming Partners ● Artspace ● Urban Food Connections ● National Governing Body District Curation ● Industry Anchors Table 28: Next Steps to Initiate Governance Figure 6.11: Close up of the Green Loop outdoor coffee kiosk. Activating 500 West with infrastructure improvements and temporal programming could be a part of next steps in partnership with the potential National Governing Body. Implementation 148 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 149 Organization Resources Needs Potential Benefit from Rio Grande District Land Owners Redevelopment Agency (RDA) • Quasi-governmental organization with the ability to float bonds and distribute public resources • Partners to foster development and programming at Rio Grande District • Funding to support RDA and City goals and initiatives via ground lease revenue and increased tax increment. Artspace • Established programming strategy • Talented artists in residence • Programming partners and opportunities for artists-in- residence • Opportunities for Artists in residence to contribute to programming and activation • Increased visibility that could support increased philanthropic funding • Influence on the structure of the public- private partnership facilitating the district Private Developers • Experienced real estate developer • Access to capital for real estate development • Anchor tenants for commercial uses • Programmatic partnerships to drive demand for commercial space, creating a steady revenue source and de-risking development • Development fee • Public subsidy to facilitate development University of Utah • State funding • Research programming • Resources to expand their Downtown presence • Downtown Salt Lake City presence • Connection of students to economic and workforce development programs Utah Transit Authority • Land • Transit Infrastructure • Cohesive development to support increased ridership • Catalytic development that demonstrates the benefit of transit-oriented development (TOD) and drives ridership. State of Utah • Land • Public Funding • Development and programming partners to drive activation of the site. • Development activity on adjacent parcels to drive interest and increase value of publicly-owned land. Organization Resources Needs Potential Benefit from Rio Grande District Infrastructure Developer Private Developers • Access to capital • Land • Support reducing infrastructure costs to increase feasibility of vertical development • Participation in shared parking structure and/or share facilities Other City Agencies • Bond financing • Public funding • Partners to share the load of infrastructure development • Expansion of departmental programming. For example, agencies such as the SLC Parks Division and the Arts Council could support programming at Rio Grande District Programming Partners Urban Food Connections • Established local food programming and presence near Rio Grande District • Increased space to support their farmer’s market • Permanent space for vendors to transition to storefront space • Permanent home base with built-in infrastructure needs for vendors • Less “build-up, tear-down” expenses National Governing Body • State funding • Unique activation offering • Below market rate land offering • Co-development of shared spaces • Access to shared facilities • A new home base for Olympic training facility • Affordable housing for athletes • Office space for staff and supportive industries • Potential coordination with Pioneer Park District Curation Industry Anchors • Employees who will drive retail consumers to Rio Grande District • Workforce Development opportunities • Talent to drive employment and organizational growth • Interesting office space and amenities to attract workers • Opportunity to share cost of establishing workforce development programs • New home base to establish Downtown presence in a trendy neighborhood 6.4.1 Step 1: Align Stakeholders Each core stakeholder within the respective groups brings unique resources and organizational needs that translate to a range of potential benefits from a successful Rio Grande District project. Table 29: Step 1: Align Stakeholders Implementation 150 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 151 6.4.2 Step 2: Conduct Business Planning 6.4.3 Step 3: Develop Rio Grande District Policies As the RDA advances implementation efforts at the Rio Grande District, it will need to establish key business functions that facilitate day-to-day operations. The RDA should develop a set of policies specific to the Rio Grande District to codify its goals and vision for redevelopment. Table 30: Step 2: Conduct Business Planning Table 31: Step 3: Develop Rio Grande District Policies Operating Budget Programming Strategy Development Partnerships Bonding Strategy • Develop the initial operating budget to be reviewed by the RDA Board. • Budget Categories: • Staff • Programming and events • Third-party support • Create a programming strategy, including planning events and identifying partner organizations. • Gauge developer interest by sharing vision and implementation plan and governance strategy and collecting feedback • Identify potential developer business terms necessary for successful partnership • Establish RDA business terms guidelines for future development partnerships and seek RDA Board approval • Estimate capital cost for catalytic infrastructure. • Determine level of bond funding necessary to support catalytic infrastructure. • Seek legislative authority and approval for bond. Budgeting Policy • Outline budgeting process, including length of approved budgets, guidelines on budget amendments, and accounting practices. Procurement Policy • Determine procurement goals specific to Rio Grande District’s mission. Equity Investments • provide direction on whether the rDa will provide funding as an equity investor in projects and in what cases it will do so. Incentives Revenue Generation Rio Grande District Activities • establish what types of incentives will be provided and the criteria for providing incentives. • Create guidelines for how earned revenue will be used, the degree to which the rio Grande District needs to be revenue neutral, and what degree of subsidies are allowed and under what circumstances. • Identify what types of programming, activation, and development activities are prioritized. Figure 6.12: Illustrative rendering of the Rio Grande District at full buildout Qi SLCRDA Perkins&Will Rio Grande District Appendix a1 transportation, parking, and Circulation analysis a2 100 South Design Workshop Summary APRIL 2024 TRANSPORTATION, PARKING, AND CIRCULATION ANALYSIS RIO GRANDE DISTRICT VISION & IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH JANUARY 2024 Station Center Vision and Implementation Plan Transportation, Parking and Circulation Analysis i TRANSPORTATION, PARKING, AND CIRCULATION ANALYSIS for RIO GRANDE DISTRICT VISION & IMPLEMENATION PLAN SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH January 2024 Prepared for: Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City 451 S State Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Perkins & Will 2 Bryant Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 111 East Broadway, Suite 600 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 KH Project # 09369003 Contents Station Center Vision and Implementation Plan Transportation, Parking and Circulation Analysis ii 1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Description ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Report Organization ...................................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 Infrastructure Analysis .................................................................................................................. 4 Salt Lake City Parking Requirements ......................................................................................................... 4 Transportation Projects ................................................................................................................................ 4 3.0 500 W Opportunites .................................................................................................................... 12 Utilities Conflicts .......................................................................................................................................... 12 Traffic Analysis ............................................................................................................................................ 12 4.0 Parking & Mobility Framework ................................................................................................... 17 Parking Demand.......................................................................................................................................... 17 Potential Parking Demand Strategies....................................................................................................... 19 Appendix .................................................................................................................................................... 23 Appendix A: Synchro Outputs .................................................................................................................... A Appendix B: Shared Parking Outputs ........................................................................................................ B Tables Station Center Vision and Implementation Plan Transportation, Parking and Circulation Analysis iii Table 1: Land Use Concept Quantities .................................................................................................... 2 Table 2: Station Center Parking Garages Summary ............................................................................. 4 Table 3: Salt Lake City Parking Requirements ....................................................................................... 5 Table 4: Relevant Salt Lake City or UTA Transportation Plans or Projects ....................................... 6 Table 5: Station Center Trip Generation ............................................................................................... 14 Table 6: Roadway Segment Capacity Summary ................................................................................. 16 Table 7: Level of Service Summary ....................................................................................................... 16 Table 8: Shared Parking Summary (Baseline, No TDM Reduction) ................................................. 17 Table 9: Potential Parking and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Strategies .............. 20 Table 10: Shared Parking Summary (Reduced Parking Demand) .................................................... 21 Table 11: Approximate Percent Occupancy for The Gateway Garages by Level ........................... 21 Figure 1: Site Plan ...................................................................................................................................... 1 Figure 2: Relevant Transportation Projects ............................................................................................ 7 Figure 3: 200 S Project Boundary ............................................................................................................ 8 Figure 4: Green Loop Concept ............................................................................................................... 10 Figure 5: TechLink Study Area Map ...................................................................................................... 10 Figure 6: UTA Future of Light Rail Study Concept Design ................................................................. 11 Figure 7: Existing Utilities ........................................................................................................................ 13 Figure 8: Weekday Parking Demand by Hour (Baseline, No TDM Reduction) ............................... 18 Figure 9: Weekend Parking Demand by Hour (Baseline, no TDM Reduction) ................................ 18 Figures Station Center Vision and Implementation Plan Transportation, Parking and Circulation Analysis 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE This report documents the parking, transportation, and circulation analysis for the proposed Station Center development in Salt Lake City, Utah. The analysis consists of an overview of potential utility conflicts, an evaluation of traffic impacts and opportunities on 500 W street, and a parking & mobility framework development. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Station Center project site is located between Eccles Avenue and 400 S and between 500 W and 600 W in Salt Lake City, Utah. The Station Center land use concept organizes the site into seven (7) blocks as shown in Figure 1. The blocks are numbered and are referred to in subsequent analysis. Figure 1: Site Plan The Station Center land use concept proposes a combination of residential, office, retail, restaurant, hotel, among other uses. The traffic and parking analysis, documented in this memorandum, is based on land use quantities provided to Kimley-Horn on January 4, 2024, summarized in Table 1. Station Center Vision and Implementation Plan Transportation, Parking and Circulation Analysis 2 Table 1: Land Use Concept Quantities Block Residential (DU)A Office Active Use Maker Space (SF) Hotel (Room)B Indoor Recreation (SF) Parking (Spaces) General Office (SF) Life Science (SF) Incubator Spaces (SF) Retail (SF) Restaurant (SF) Grocery Store (SF) 1 542 - - - - 23,000 - 16,000 - - 300 2 - 5,000 - - 2,500 2,500 - - - 80,000 - 3 156 - - 14,000 - - - - - - 510 4 309 - - - 7,000 - - - - - 215 5 - 316,000 - - - - 27,000 8,000 - - - 6 - 524,000 318,500 - 27,000 - - 16,000 - - - 7 212C - - 82,000 - - - - 358 - - Total 1,219 845,000 318,500 96,000 36,500 25,500 27,000 40,000 358 80,000 1,025 Note: A Assumed approximately 1,000 square feet per residential units B Assumed approximately 500 square feet per hotel room. C Anticipated to be student residential housing. Station Center Vision and Implementation Plan Transportation, Parking and Circulation Analysis 3 REPORT ORGANIZATION This report is divided into the following chapters: • Chapter 2: Infrastructure Analysis – reviews the City’s parking requirements and identifies planned transportation projects that may affect the Station Center site. • Chapter 3: 500 W Opportunities – evaluates the impacts of a reconfiguration of 500 W between 200 S and 400 S. • Chapter 4: Parking & Mobility Framework – evaluates parking demand for the Station Center site and potential parking management strategies that can be implemented to serve all modes of transportation. Station Center Vision and Implementation Plan Transportation, Parking and Circulation Analysis 4 2.0 INFRASTRUCTURE ANALYSIS The infrastructure analysis two elements: • Reviews Salt Lake City parking requirements • Identifies planned transportation projects that may affect the Station Center site. SALT LAKE CITY PARKING REQUIREMENTS The Station Center land use concept includes both on-street parking and off-street parking. On-street parking will be on Eccles Avenue, Woodbine Court, 300 S, and Market Street and will be metered, short- term parking. Long-term parking will be available in three (3) off-street parking structures located in Block 1, 3, and 4 and will provide approximately 1,025 spaces as summarized in Table 2. Table 2: Station Center Parking Garages Summary Block Square Footage Parking Levels Estimated Garage Spaces 1 120,000 3 300 3 204,000 6 510 4 86,000 2 215 Total 410,000 - 1,025 Chapter 21A.44.040A from Salt Lake City’s Municipal code stipulates minimum and maximum off-street parking spaces requirement. For minimum parking, the City follows a contextual approach, where parking requirements vary based land use and zoning. The Station Center site is zoned as Gateway-Mixed Use District (G-MU), which is considered a “Transit Context” and does not have a minimum parking requirement but does have a maximum parking allotment. The minimum and maximum parking requirements are summarized in Table 3.The Station Center land use concept proposes 1,025 off-street parking stalls, significantly less than the maximum allowed range of 6,149 - 7,368 spaces. TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS Kimley-Horn reviewed information Salt Lake City and Utah Transit Authority (UTA) to identify planned transportation projects that may affect the Station Center site. Transportation projects are shown in Figure 2 and summarized in Table 4. Projects or plans/studies that will potentially benefit the Station Center site: • 200 S Complete Street / Transit Corridor Reconstruction • Salt Lake Central Station Bikeway Connection to 300 S • 400 S Bike Lanes / Viaduct Trail • Green Loop • UTA TechLink TRAX Line Additional details for these projects are discussed in the next sections. Table 3: Salt Lake City Parking Requirements Station Center Vision and Implementation Plan Transportation, Parking and Circulation Analysis 5 Land Use Size Units SLC Code Land Use Parking Requirements Maximum Spaces Min Max Residential 1,219 Dwelling Unit(s) Residential Use-Multi- family No Min. Studio/1 bed: 2 spaces per DU 2+ bed: 3 spaces per DU 2,438 – 3,657 Hotel 358 Rooms Lodging Facilities No Min. 1.5 spaces per guest bedroom 537 Office 845.000 1,000 Sq Ft Office, Business, & Professional Services No Min. 2 spaces per 1,000 SF 1,690 Incubator Spaces 96.000 1,000 Sq Ft Office, Business, & Professional Services No Min. 2 spaces per 1,000 SF 192 Life Science Labs 318.500 1,000 Sq Ft Office, Business, & Professional Services No Min. 2 spaces per 1,000 SF 637 Retail 36.500 1,000 Sq Ft Retail Sales & Services- Retail good/service establishment No Min. 2 spaces per 1,000 SF 73 Restaurants 25.500 1,000 Sq Ft Food & Beverage Services - Restaurant No Min. 5 spaces per 1,000 SF indoor tasting/seating area 128 Maker Spaces 40.000 1,000 Sq Ft Community & Cultural Facilities- Studio, Art No Min. 2 spaces per 1,000 SF 80 Grocery Store 27.000 1,000 Sq Ft Retail Sales & Services- Retail good/service establishment No Min. 2 spaces per 1,000 SF 54 Indoor Recreation 80.000 1,000 Sq Ft Recreation & Entertainment-Health & fitness facility No Min. 4 spaces per 1,000 SF 320 TOTAL 6,149 – 7,368 Supply 1,025 Table 4: Relevant Salt Lake City or UTA Transportation Plans or Projects Station Center Vision and Implementation Plan Transportation, Parking and Circulation Analysis 6 Corridor Segment Project Name Description Status 200 S 400 W – 900 E Complete Street / Transit Corridor Reconstruction • Transit improvements • Buffered bicycle lanes, • Pedestrian improvements (mid-block crossings, sidewalk improvements) • Curbside parking and loading zones • Phase 1 under construction • Phase 2 completed by Spring 2024 300 S 300 W – 1000 E Pavement Maintenance & Bike Lane Upgrades - 600 W – 300 W Salt Lake Central Station Bikeway Connection Bikeway connection between Salt Lake Central station and existing 300 S bicycle facilities - 400 S Redwood Rd – Post St (900 W) Surface treatment / Buffered or Protected Bike • Transit improvements • Buffered Bicycle lanes Under construction Post St (900 W) – 400W Viaduct Trail • 2-way multi-use trail for pedestrian and bicyclist on south side of 400 S • New barricades between motor vehicles & trail Construction late 2024 400 W – 300 W - Bicycle Lanes - 300 W – Main St 400 S Bicycle Lanes Bicycle lanes are currently in design by Salt Lake City - 600 W N Temple – 300 S - Buffered or Protected Bike Lanes - Multiple Multiple Green Loop Convert existing street space to include more for green space and active transportation options; final design focus is 200 E. Other segments will be designed in the future. • Fall 2023: Design alternatives • Winter 2023/24 Preliminary design concepts • Spring 2024: Final design concepts 400 S, 600 W - UTA TechLink TRAX Line • Improve east-west downtown & regional transit connectivity • Realign TRAX Red Line • New TRAX Orange line along 400 S • Fall 2023: Develop alternatives • Winter 2023/2024: Screening and preliminary environmental analysis • Spring 2024: Select preferred alternative • Summer 2024: Final environmental report and prepare for NEPA Initiation - - Increased Frontrunner Frequency Increase train frequency: Peak: 30 min 15 min Off-peak: 60 min 30 min. Anticipated schedule change: 2027/2028 Project List Current 1. 200 S Complete Street / Transit Corridor 2. 400 S Surface Treatment Buffered Bike Lanes 3. 400 S Viaduct Trail Proposed 4. 300 Salt Lake Central Bikeway Connection 8 5. 300 S Pavement Mainteance & Bike Lane Upgrade 6. 400 S Bicycle Lanes 7. 400 S Future study for future bicycle improvements 8. 600 W Buffered/Protected Bicycle Lanes 9. Green Loop 10. UTA TechLink TRAX line 11. Increased Frontrunner frequency 9 1 11 4 5 Project 10 Site 2 3 6 7 Esri Community Maps Contributors, County of Salt Lake, Utah Geospatial Resource Center, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA Figure 2. Relevant Transportation Projects Station Center Vision and Implementation Plan Transportation, Parking and Circulation Analysis 8 SALT LAKE CENTRAL STATION BIKEWAY CONNECTION TO 300 S 200 S is one of the highest frequency transit streets in downtown and is used by 10 routes and 34 buses an hour1. Salt Lake City has initiated a program to reconstruct 200 S to include the following improvements as shown in Figure 3: • Transit priority lanes • In-lane bus stop with floating bus boarding platforms • Buffered bicycle lanes channelized behind bus islands with intersection safety upgrades • Sidewalk and curb ramps repairs to meet ADA standards • Midblock crossing with curb extensions and/or refuge island and flashing crosswalk lights • Curbside parking and loading zones • New landscaping trees and repairs to existing plantings Figure 3: 200 S Project Boundary Source: https://www.slc.gov/mystreet/2023/02/16/200south/ The 200 S project is separated into two project phases. Phase 1 improves the eastern segment between 200 E to 900 E and recently completed construction. Phase 2 improves 200 S from 400 W to 200 E and is scheduled to be completed in Spring 2024. 300 S is a popular bicycle corridor due to lower traffic volumes and buffered bicycle lanes between 300 W and 600 E. However, 300 S can be inconvenient for those traveling westbound desiring to access Salt Lake Central, as it ends at Rio Grande Street. Previously, a person riding a bicycle could travel through the parking lot north of the Rio Grande building, but that area has been fenced off. The Salt Lake City Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan recommends further study to identify potential bicycle improvements to connect Salt Lake Central Station with 300 S. 1 200 South Reconstruction – Transit Priority Corridor & Complete Street | MyStreet (slc.gov) 200 S COMPLETE STREET TRANSIT CORRIDOOR RECONSTRUCTION Station Center Vision and Implementation Plan Transportation, Parking and Circulation Analysis 9 Buffered Bicycle Lanes – Redwood Road and Post Street (900 W) Multi-use Viaduct Trail – Post Street (900 W) and 400 W GREEN LOOP UTA TECHLINK TRAX LINE The Salt Lake City Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan recommends the following pedestrian and bicycle improvements on 400 S: • Buffered Bicycle lanes between Redwood Road and Post Street (900 W) • Multi-use viaduct trail between Post Street (900 W) and 400 W • Bicycle lanes between 400 W and 300 W • Buffered or protected bicycle lanes between 300 W and Main Street The first two projects are currently underway while the remaining two have yet to begin. Buffered bicycle lanes will be constructed as part of the 400 South Street Design Change project. This project will also construct in-line boarding islands, improved pedestrian crossings, and pedestrian refuge islands. The project is currently under construction. The 400 S Viaduct Trail project will construct a two-way multi-use trail on the south side of the viaduct and will connect to bicycle lanes on 900 W and the 300 W shared use path. The project will also include sidewalk and pedestrian ramp improvements and a new physical barricade to the separate vehicle from the trail area. Construction is expected in 2024. The Green Loop will construct new trail, park, and green space in the downtown area. Figure 4 shows the concept from the Salt Lake City 2016 Downtown Plan. The concept that shows that 500 W is a potential alignment for the western portion of the loop. Concept study began in Spring 2023. Preliminary design alternatives for 200 E are expected in Fall 2023 and will be completed in Spring 2024. Other segments will be designed in the future. UTA, in partnership with Salt Lake City, University of Utah, Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC), and Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) is conducting a study to improve east-west TRAX connectivity in downtown Salt Lake City. The TechLink study area is shown in Figure 5. The TechLink study is evaluating a new TRAX Orange Line to connect Salt Lake City International Airport with the University of Utah. Part of the new route would run along 400 S adjacent to Station Center. A potential alignment from UTA’s Future of Light Rail Study is shown in Figure 6. 400 S BIKE LANES AND VIADUCT TRAIL Station Center Vision and Implementation Plan Transportation, Parking and Circulation Analysis 10 Figure 4: Green Loop Concept Source: Salt Lake City Downtown Plan Figure 5: TechLink Study Area Map Source: Techlinkstudy.com Station Center Vision and Implementation Plan Transportation, Parking and Circulation Analysis 11 Figure 6: UTA Future of Light Rail Study Concept Design Source: Future of Light Rail Study Station Center Vision and Implementation Plan Transportation, Parking and Circulation Analysis 12 TRIP GENERATION 500 W adjacent to Station Center is a 4-lane divided roadway with on-street parking on the west side of the street. The median width ranges from 13 feet to 80 feet. Station Center envisions that 500 W will be reconfigured to a 2-lane street with on-street parking on the west side of the street. The reconfigured 2-lane street would be contained within the existing southbound travel way and the remaining right-of-way repurposed for open space and the Green Loop. This section evaluates the potential reconfiguration of 500 W. UTILITIES CONFLICTS Kimley-Horn gathered Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities data for existing water, storm drain and sewer lines. Existing utilities within and surrounding the Station Center are shown in Figure 7. There are utilities within the right-of-way of 600 W, 500 W, 200 S, 300 S, and 400 S. These include up to 136-inch storm drain, 20–36-inch water lines, and 8–14-inch sewer lines. A large storm drain (85-166 inches) runs on 200 S and 400 S. Depth of utilities information is not available, and will require records research, survey, and potholing. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Traffic analysis was conducted to evaluate if the proposed 2-lane street can accommodate trips generated by Station Center. Trips to be generated by Station Center were estimated using rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. The following ITE land uses were assumed in the analysis: • Residential: ITE Land Use Code 222 (Multifamily Housing, High-Rise, Close to Transit) • Student Housing: ITE Land Use Code 221 (Multifamily Housing, Mid-Rise, Close to Transit) • Office & Incubator Spaces: ITE Land Use Code 710 (General Office) • Life Science Labs: ITE Land Use Code 760 (Research and Development) • Retail: ITE Land Use Code 822 (Strip Retail Plaza, <40ksf) • Restaurant: ITE Land Use Code 932 (High-Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant) • Grocery Store: ITE Land Use Code 850 (Supermarket) • Maker Space: ITE Land Use Code 140 (Manufacturing) • Hotel: ITE Land Use Code 310 (Hotel) • Indoor Recreation: ITE Land Use Code 434 (Rock Climbing Gym) Trip generation calculations assumed trip reductions for internal capture, pass-by, and transportation demand management, which is discussed in additional detail in the next sections of this report. 3.0 500 W OPPORTUNITES TRAX-Old Greek Town W W Eccles Ave FrontRunner-Salt Lake Central Station W 300 S W 300 S Greyhound-Salt Lake City Amtrak-Salt Lake City Water W 400 S Storm Drain Sewer W 400 S W 400 ¯ 2 - 8 INCHES 8 - 20 INCHES 20 - 36 INCHES 0 - 36 INCHES 37 - 84 INCHES 85 - 166 INCHES 8 - 14 INCHES 14 - 30 INCHES 30 - 60 INCHES 0 40 80 160 240 Feet Figure 7. Existing Utilities W 400 S W 200 S S n Pa c i f i c S 60 0 Wo od b i n e St S 50 0 W S 50 0 W Station Center Vision and Implementation Plan Transportation, Parking and Circulation Analysis 14 Internal Capture Pass-By Table 5: Station Center Trip Generation Land Use Size Units Daily Trips AM Peak PM Peak Total In Out Total In Out Residential 1,007 Dwelling Unit(s) 4,111 246 92 154 266 145 121 Student Housing 212 Dwelling Unit(s) 550 49 16 33 55 31 24 Office 845.000 1,000 Sq Ft 9,159 1,284 1,131 153 1,217 206 1,011 Incubator Spaces 96.000 1,000 Sq Ft 1,089 146 129 17 138 23 115 Life Science Labs 318.500 1,000 Sq Ft 3,529 328 269 59 312 50 262 Retail 36.500 1,000 Sq Ft 1,987 87 52 35 240 120 120 Restaurant 25.500 1,000 Sq Ft 2,696 244 134 110 231 141 90 Grocery Store 27.000 1,000 Sq Ft 2,534 77 46 31 242 121 121 Maker Space 40.000 1,000 Sq Ft 190 26 20 6 30 10 20 Hotel 358 Room(s) 2,860 165 92 73 211 108 103 Indoor Recreation 80.000 1,000 Sq Ft 9,376 112 37 75 131 75 56 Parking 410.000 1,000 Sq Ft - - - - - - - GRAND TOTAL 38,081 2,764 2,018 746 3,073 1,030 2,043 Total Internal Capture -6,267 -462 -231 -231 -626 -313 -313 Retail Pass-by Reduction -130 0 0 0 -28 -16 -12 Restaurant Pass-by Reduction -452 0 0 0 -38 -29 -9 Grocery Store Pass-by Reduction -164 0 0 0 -31 -18 -13 Total External Trips 31,068 2,302 1,787 515 2,350 654 1,696 TDM Reduction (50%) -15,536 -1,155 -896 -259 -1,179 -329 -850 Total External Vehicle Trips 15,532 1,147 891 256 1,171 325 846 Trips generated internal to the development recognizes that some users are visit more than one land use while on site at Station Center. These trips do not add trips to the adjacent street network. Trips expected to be generated internally were calculated using methods outlined in ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition which applies the NCHRP 684 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool spreadsheet. NCHRP 684 spreadsheet does not calculate daily internal capture, therefore the average percentages of the AM and PM peak hour were assumed. As shown in Table 5, the overall internal capture ranged from 16% to 24%. Many commercial land uses attract pass-by trips, that is, trips that are already on the adjacent roadway but visit the site while already traveling, or as a pass-by, to their destination. Unlike new trips that are assumed to be added to the local roadway network, pass-by trips do not add traffic volume in the study area. As shown in Table 5, pass-by percentages from Pass-by Rates and Data for ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition were referenced. It should be noted that the Pass-by Rates and Data for ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition does not have pass-by percentages for ITE Land Use Code: 822, therefore pass-by percentages for a similar use, ITE Land Use Code: 821, Shopping Center were used. In addition, the pass- by rates and data does not include pass-by reduction for daily trips; therefore, the average percentages of the AM and PM peak hour were assumed. Pass-by percentages were applied after accounting for internal capture reduction. Station Center Vision and Implementation Plan Transportation, Parking and Circulation Analysis 15 Total External Trips VEHICLE TRIP DISTRIBUTION A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) reduction was applied to account for trips made by non- auto modes of transit, walking, or bicycling. Given Station Center’s proximity to transit, it is assumed that TDM strategies will result in 50% of trips to and from Station Center will be completed by non-auto modes including, walking, or bicycling. As shown in Table 5, it is estimated that Station Center will generate 31,068 daily trips, 2,302 AM peak hour trips and 2,350 PM peak hour trips. Accounting for a TDM reduction, it is estimated that Station Center will generate 15,532 daily trips, 1,147 AM peak hour trips, and 1,171 PM peak hour vehicle trips. The distribution of vehicle trips to and from Station Center was based on a review of traffic volumes on the surrounding roadway network and recognizing that new residential and commercial space in the area is likely to draw proportionally from existing local patterns. The vehicle trip distribution consists of: • 10% to/from North o 5% via 600 W o 5% via 500 W • 25% to/from East o 10% via 200 S o 15% via 400 S • 40% to/from South o 5% via 600 W o 35% via 500 W • 25% to/from West o 5% via 200 S o 20% 400 S Roadway segment analysis reviewed the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio for two (2) segments of 500 W: • 500 W north of 300 S • 500 W south of 300 S The analysis used roadway capacity guidance published in the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) 2023 Multimodal Quality/Level of Service Handbook. This reference recommends roadway capacity traffic volume thresholds for characteristics such as area type, number of lanes, speed, etc. This analysis assumed the peak hour direction capacity of a 1-lane urban center roadway as 1,080 vehicle per hour. The roadway analysis considered existing AM peak hour (8-9 AM) and PM peak hour (4-5 PM) hour traffic volumes extracted from Replica, a mobility data source provider, and added the estimated number of trips generated by the site. As a conservative approach, Station Center vehicle trips were added to the existing volumes, which is summarized in Table 6. Following construction of Station Center, the one-directional volumes on 500 W range from 110 to 880 vehicles per hour. Table 6 also summarizes the V/C for roadway segments. With the proposed reconfiguration of 500 W and Station Center trips, the V/C on 500 W ranges from 0.10 to 0.81 (V/C less than 1.0), indicating that the proposed 2-lane roadway will accommodate the projected vehicle trips. Transportation Demand Management Reduction ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS Station Center Vision and Implementation Plan Transportation, Parking and Circulation Analysis 16 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERIVCE ANALYSIS Table 6: Roadway Segment Capacity Summary Segment Northbound Southbound AM PM AM PM Veh V/C Veh V/C Veh V/C Veh V/C North of 300 S Existing Trips 60 0.06 120 0.06 60 0.11 280 0.26 Project Trips 50 - 130 - 150 - 60 - Total Trips 110 0.10 190 0.18 270 0.25 340 0.31 South of 300 S Existing Trips 70 0.06 100 0.05 50 0.09 290 0.27 Project Trips 630 - 230 - 180 - 590 - Total Trips 700 0.65 280 0.26 280 0.26 880 0.81 Note: Volume/Capacity (V/C) ratio is based on 1-lane urban center peak hour directional roadway capacity of 1,080 vehicles per hour. Intersection level of service (LOS) analysis was conducted for the AM and PM peak hour for the following intersections: • 200 S & 500 W • 400 S & 500 W LOS is a qualitative measure used to describe operational performance of the intersection. LOS ranges from A (best), with minimal delay, to F (worst), that represents functional capacity. Levels of service were calculated using Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition (HCM 6) methods within Synchro 11 software. The analysis converted available existing segment volumes into turning movement volumes using the Furness method within Turns W32 software. Station Center turning volumes were added to existing turning movement counts and analyzed in Synchro 11. Table 7 presents results for the analysis that reflects the Station Center project. It is expected that the two intersections will perform at LOS E or better with the addition of Station Center traffic. Synchro outputs are included in Appendix A. Table 7: Level of Service Summary Intersection AM Peak PM Peak Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS 200 S & 500 W 10.5 B 10.4 B 400 S & 500 W 34.6 C 70.3 E Station Center Vision and Implementation Plan Transportation, Parking and Circulation Analysis 17 BASELINE DEMAND 4.0 PARKING & MOBILITY FRAMEWORK This section summarizes anticipated Station Center parking demand and management strategies that can be implemented to reduce parking demand. PARKING DEMAND Kimley-Horn estimated baseline parking demand by applying the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking Calculation Model, which calculates shared parking demand based on methods in ULI’s Shared Parking, 3rd Edition. Parking based is estimated based on land use and parking fluctuation based on month and time of day for each land use. Parking demand results are included in Appendix B. Table 8 summarizes baseline shared parking demand for each block. The peak weekday parking demand of 3,962 spaces occurs between 10 AM and 11 AM. The peak weekend demand of 1,661 spaces occur between 11AM and 12 PM. Both weekday and weekend peak exceed the proposed Station Center supply. Table 8: Shared Parking Summary (Baseline, No TDM Reduction) Block Peak Weekday Demand (10-11 AM) Peak Weekend Demand (12-1 PM) 1 531 418 2 53 102 3 118 108 4 180 213 5 747 173 6 1,850 298 7 483 349 Total 3,962 1,661 Supply 1,025 Figure 8 and Figure 9 illustrate weekday and weekend hourly parking demand, respectively. Weekday parking demand in the early morning is associated with residential uses. This is followed by office uses as the main contributor during the morning and midday. In the evening, parking demand is associated with residential, retail, and restaurant uses. During the weekend, residential parking demand is more consistent throughout day with demand for retail and restaurant uses between midday and nighttime. Station Center Vision and Implementation Plan Transportation, Parking and Circulation Analysis 18 Hour Hour Retail (over 2,000 ksf) Office <25 ksf Fine/Casual Dining Total Supply Supermarket/Grocery Office 100 to 500 ksf Hotel Active Entertainment Office >500 ksf Residential, Urban Retail (over 2,000 ksf) Office <25 ksf Residential, Urban Total Supply Supermarket/Grocery Office 100 to 500 ksf Fine/Casual Dining Active Entertainment Office >500 ksf Hotel 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 Figure 8: Weekday Parking Demand by Hour (Baseline, No TDM Reduction) 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 Figure 9: Weekend Parking Demand by Hour (Baseline, no TDM Reduction) Pa r k i n g St a l l s Pa r k i n g St a l l s Station Center Vision and Implementation Plan Transportation, Parking and Circulation Analysis 19 UNBUNDLE PARKING REDUCED PARKING RATIOS POTENTIAL PARKING DEMAND STRATEGIES Station Center baseline parking demand significantly exceeds the proposed parking supply. As such, the Station Center will implement aggressive parking and transportation demand management (TDM) strategies to manage and reduce parking demand. This section highlights strategies that may be implemented. Potential strategies are summarized in Table 9. Unbundled parking separates the cost of a parking space from the cost to lease occupied building space. In an unbundled parking approach, parking spaces are leased separately from the building lease itself. This strategy reduces under-utilized reserved parking, as those who use the stalls pay for them separately from building leases. A research study conducted by Arlington County, Virginia found that where parking is bundled, or included in the cost of renting or leasing, people driving alone is 12.5 percent higher for commute trips and 40 percent higher for non-commute trips.2 The study concludes that parking cost at work is strongly correlated with choosing to drive alone rather than choosing other modes such as such bus, walking, bicycling, carpooling, or teleworking. Developers may express concern that under an unbundled approach, tenants will feel uncomfortable without a guaranteed reserved space. Salt Lake City will not require minimum parking requirements for Station Center. Station Center proposes lower parking ratios to encourage residents, employees, and patrons to use other transportation modes, in this transit-rich urban environment. Table 10 summarizes peak weekday and weekend parking demand assuming various levels of transportation demand reductions and reduced residential and office parking. The analysis shows that Station Center will need to establish a reduced residential parking ratio to 0.50 spaces per unit, and a reduced office ratio of 0.75 spaces per 1,000 square feet, for parking demand to be less than the proposed parking supply. Furthermore, to reduce weekday peak parking demand to the proposed 1,025 spaces, Station Center would establish a non-auto mode (transit, walking, bicycling) goal of a 50%. Note that Table 10 focuses on reducing residential and office space ratios, as these uses generate the highest parking demand. In addition, these users are most sensitive and responsive to transportation demand management-focused strategies. Station Center will also encourage reducing parking spaces and active mode use for retail and restaurant uses. 2 https://mobilitylab.org/research/building-studies/unbundling-parking-costs-is-a-top-way-to-promote-transportation- options/ Station Center Vision and Implementation Plan Transportation, Parking and Circulation Analysis 20 Table 9: Potential Parking and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Strategies Category Strategies Description Benefits Considerations Notes Parking Unbundle Parking Cost of parking spaces is separate from cost to lease building space High use of reserved spaces Tenants may be hesitant to lease if they do not have guaranteed spaces - Parking Reduce Parking Ratios Utilize parking ratios lower than maximum requirement Lower supply can lead to lower demand Too little parking may make it difficult to find tenants 0.75 space per DU is used in Astra Towers Parking Shared Parking Agreement Enter shared parking agreement to use underutilized parking at nearby developments Supplies additional parking inventory for site • Parking may be inconvenient, especially during inclement weather • No control over shared parking inventory The Gateway development could be a potential partner TDM Shuttle Connector Service Provide first/last mile connection to near-by destinations • Connects Project to other destinations • Can be used to connect with off-site parking • Further study needed to determine # stops or frequency of to make shuttle viable and convenient • Shuttle may require is own dedicated lane Potential shuttle providers: • Golf carts • Glydways • UTA Circulator TDM Micromobility Utilize shared micromobility (e-scooters, e-bikes) services Convenient mode when traveling across Project site or to near-by destinations • Guidance on where devices can be parked • Potential conflicts with pedestrian and bicyclist • Cost to use service Current companies operating in SLC: • GREENbike • Spin • Line TDM Discounted or Subsidized Transit Pass Provide discounted or subsidized transit passes for residents or employees Encourage use of transit Who pays (owner/tenant) for passes Salt Lake Central Station is part of UTA’s Free Fare Zone Parking/ TDM Financial Incentives Provide financial incentives for residents/employees for using other modes Encourages use of other modes Who pays (owner/tenant) for incentives - Station Center Vision and Implementation Plan Transportation, Parking and Circulation Analysis 21 SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT Table 10: Shared Parking Summary (Reduced Parking Demand) Residential Ratio (spaces per unit) Office Ratio (spaces per 1,000 SF) Peak Weekday Concept Plan Demand (parking spaces) Peak Weekend Concept Plan Demand (parking spaces) No TDM Reduction 0.90 (base) 2.0 (base) 3,962 1,661 0.75 2.0 (base) 3,541 1,497 0.50 2.0 (base) 3,312 1,287 50% TDM Reduction 0.9 (base) 2.0 (base) 1,902 873 1.5 1,594 1.0 1,283 0.75 2.0 (base) 1,835 810 1.5 1,526 1.0 1,216 0.50 2.0 (base) 1,719 704 1.5 1,410 1.0 1,098 0.75 949 Station Center may also explore shared parking agreements with nearby developments to optimize use of nearby underutilized parking inventory, such as The Gateway. The Gateway has two parking garages accessible from 400 W or 100 S. On November 1, 2023, Kimley-Horn visited The Gateway garages to observe occupancy during the assumed Station Center peak period of 11:45 AM and 1:00 PM. Field observation showed that overall, The Gateway parking structure was approximately 30% occupied. It was observed that upper levels of below-ground parking have higher occupancy than lower levels. Lower below-ground levels were highly under-utilized. It is estimated that parking occupancy in both the North and South garages is 30% of capacity. Estimates of individual levels are summarized in Table 11. Table 11: Approximate Percent Occupancy for The Gateway Garages by Level Level North Parking Garage South Parking Garage Spaces % Occupied Spaces % Occupied Level 3 0% - Level 2 10% - Level 1 100% - Ground 90% 100% Sub Level 1 15% 50% Sub Level 2 - 10% Sub Level 3 - 15% Station Center Vision and Implementation Plan Transportation, Parking and Circulation Analysis 22 MICROMOBILITY DISCOUNTED OR SUBSIDIZED TRANSIT PASS FINANCIAL INCENTIVES If a shared parking agreement is successful with the Gateway, Station Center may provide a shuttle connector service to connect Station Center to available off-site parking. Future studies will confirm the route, frequency, and provider of a sustainable and convenient shuttle service. GREENbike, Spin, and Lime currently operate in Salt Lake City and provide shared e-scooters or e-bicycle that can be rented to travel within downtown. The Station Center development will include new GREENbike stations. Discounted or subsidized transit passes will encourage residents or employees to use transit in the area. It is important to consider who (owner or tenants) will be responsible for the cost of these passes. Note the Salt Lake Central Station is within UTA’s Free Fare Zone. Station Center will encourage residents, employees, and patrons to make use of transit within the Free Fare Zone. Financial incentives could be provided to tenants that use non-motorized modes. These incentives could include reduced rent, or the possibility of “parking cash-out,” the choice to receive the cash value of the space rather than the space itself. SHUTTLE CONNECTOR SERVICE Station Center Vision and Implementation Plan Transportation, Parking and Circulation Analysis 23 A. Synchro Outputs B. Shared Parking Outputs APPENDIX Station Center Vision and Implementation Plan Transportation, Parking and Circulation Analysis A APPENDIX A: SYNCHRO OUTPUTS HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: 500 W & 200 S 50% TDM Reduction Timing Plan: AM Peak RDA Station Area Plan Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 174 57 121 112 5 20 12 35 14 48 12 Future Volume (vph) 0 174 57 121 112 5 20 12 35 14 48 12 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1583 1770 3518 1770 1655 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.72 1.00 0.72 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1583 1770 3518 1347 1655 1348 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 189 62 132 122 5 22 13 38 15 52 13 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 49 0 2 0 0 31 0 0 0 11 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 189 13 132 125 0 22 20 0 15 52 2 Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.6 7.6 9.0 21.1 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 Effective Green, g (s) 7.6 7.6 9.0 21.1 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.25 0.57 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 732 327 434 2022 242 297 242 335 284 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.07 0.04 0.01 c0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.26 0.04 0.30 0.06 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.16 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 12.2 11.6 11.3 3.4 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.7 12.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 Delay (s) 12.4 11.7 11.7 3.5 12.7 12.6 12.6 12.9 12.4 Level of Service B B B A B B B B B Approach Delay (s) 12.2 7.7 12.6 12.8 Approach LOS B A B B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.31 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 36.7 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Intersection Summary B HCM 2000 Level of Service 10.5 HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2: 500 W & 400 S 50% TDM Reduction Timing Plan: AM Peak RDA Station Area Plan Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 231 2682 50 12 613 146 11 313 12 87 88 95 Future Volume (veh/h) 231 2682 50 12 613 146 11 313 12 87 88 95 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 251 2915 54 13 666 159 12 340 13 95 96 103 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 501 3212 59 81 2904 901 229 365 309 158 195 209 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.62 0.62 0.01 0.57 0.57 0.01 0.19 0.19 0.05 0.24 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5162 95 1781 5106 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 825 886 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 251 1916 1053 13 666 159 12 340 13 95 0 199 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1853 1781 1702 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1711 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.0 75.9 77.6 0.5 10.1 7.5 0.8 27.9 1.0 6.5 0.0 15.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.0 75.9 77.6 0.5 10.1 7.5 0.8 27.9 1.0 6.5 0.0 15.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.52 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 501 2118 1153 81 2904 901 229 365 309 158 0 403 V/C Ratio(X) 0.50 0.90 0.91 0.16 0.23 0.18 0.05 0.93 0.04 0.60 0.00 0.49 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 501 2149 1170 176 3223 1000 326 390 330 183 0 403 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.0 25.5 25.8 32.0 16.7 16.1 49.6 61.8 51.0 48.1 0.0 51.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 5.9 10.8 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.1 28.3 0.1 4.1 0.0 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.6 30.8 35.8 0.3 4.0 2.8 0.4 16.2 0.4 3.1 0.0 6.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.7 31.4 36.6 32.9 16.7 16.2 49.7 90.1 51.0 52.2 0.0 52.5 LnGrp LOS B C D C B B D F D D A D Approach Vol, veh/h 3220 838 365 294 Approach Delay, s/veh 31.6 16.9 87.3 52.4 Approach LOS C B F D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.7 101.6 6.5 41.3 15.0 93.2 12.9 34.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.5 98.5 10.5 31.5 10.5 98.5 10.5 32.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.5 79.6 2.8 17.7 11.0 12.1 8.5 29.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 17.5 0.0 0.9 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 34.6 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: 500 W & 200 S 50% TDM Reduction Timing Plan: PM Peak RDA Station Plan Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 108 56 240 182 37 21 40 89 8 20 3 Future Volume (vph) 0 108 56 240 182 37 21 40 89 8 20 3 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1583 1770 3450 1770 1669 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.74 1.00 0.67 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1583 1770 3450 1384 1669 1244 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 117 61 261 198 40 23 43 97 9 22 3 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 50 0 12 0 0 80 0 0 0 2 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 117 11 261 226 0 23 60 0 9 22 1 Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.8 6.8 11.5 22.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 Effective Green, g (s) 6.8 6.8 11.5 22.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.30 0.59 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 623 278 527 2037 243 294 219 328 278 v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 c0.15 0.07 c0.04 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.19 0.04 0.50 0.11 0.09 0.20 0.04 0.07 0.00 Uniform Delay, d1 13.5 13.2 11.2 3.5 13.3 13.6 13.2 13.3 13.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 Delay (s) 13.7 13.2 11.9 3.5 13.5 13.9 13.3 13.3 13.1 Level of Service B B B A B B B B B Approach Delay (s) 13.5 7.9 13.9 13.3 Approach LOS B A B B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.41 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 38.6 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Intersection Summary B HCM 2000 Level of Service 10.4 HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2: 500 W & 400 S 50% TDM Reduction Timing Plan: PM Peak RDA Station Plan Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 90 1334 112 92 1969 70 33 114 18 228 302 349 Future Volume (veh/h) 90 1334 112 92 1969 70 33 114 18 228 302 349 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 98 1450 122 100 2140 76 36 124 20 248 328 379 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 160 2645 223 238 2818 875 101 378 320 370 199 230 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.55 0.55 0.04 0.55 0.55 0.03 0.20 0.20 0.08 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 4798 404 1781 5106 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 791 914 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 98 1029 543 100 2140 76 36 124 20 248 0 707 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1798 1781 1702 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1706 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 26.6 26.7 3.3 44.3 3.1 2.2 7.8 1.4 10.5 0.0 34.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.3 26.6 26.7 3.3 44.3 3.1 2.2 7.8 1.4 10.5 0.0 34.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.22 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.54 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 160 1877 991 238 2818 875 101 378 320 370 0 429 V/C Ratio(X) 0.61 0.55 0.55 0.42 0.76 0.09 0.36 0.33 0.06 0.67 0.00 1.65 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 229 2395 1265 305 3592 1115 189 470 399 370 0 429 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.7 19.8 19.8 15.9 23.7 14.5 44.4 46.8 44.2 43.4 0.0 51.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.7 0.3 0.5 1.2 0.7 0.0 2.1 0.5 0.1 4.6 0.0 301.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.9 10.4 11.0 1.4 17.3 1.1 1.0 3.7 0.6 3.2 0.0 50.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.5 20.0 20.3 17.1 24.4 14.5 46.5 47.3 44.3 48.0 0.0 353.2 LnGrp LOS C C C B C B D D D D A F Approach Vol, veh/h 1670 2316 180 955 Approach Delay, s/veh 20.7 23.8 46.8 274.0 Approach LOS C C D F Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.8 80.1 8.2 39.0 9.7 80.2 15.0 32.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.5 96.5 10.5 34.5 10.5 96.5 10.5 34.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.3 28.7 4.2 36.5 5.3 46.3 12.5 9.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 17.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 29.4 0.0 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 70.3 HCM 6th LOS E APPENDIX B: SHARED PARKING OUTPUTS Station Center Vision and Implementation Plan Transportation, Parking and Circulation Analysis B Copyright © 2020 All rights reserved. The Urban Land Institute, International Council of Shopping Centers, and National Parking Association. Project: Description: RDA Station Area Plan Base Demand (No TDM Reduction), 0.9 Residential Shared Parking Demand Summary Peak Month: APRIL -- Peak Period: 10 AM, WEEKDAY Weekday Weekend Land Use Project Data Base Ratio Driving Adj Non- Captive Ratio Project Unit For Quantity Unit Ratio Ratio Base Ratio Driving Adj Non- Captive Ratio Project Unit For Peak Hr Adj Ratio Ratio 10 AM Weekday Peak Mo Adj April Estimated Peak Hr Adj Parking Demand 11 AM Weekend Peak Mo Estimated Adj Parking April Demand Retail Retail (over 2,000 ksf) 36,500 sf GLA 2.00 100% 78% 1.55 ksf GLA 2.00 100% 89% 1.78 ksf GLA 60% 67% 23 100% 67% 44 Employee 0.70 100% 96% 0.67 0.80 100% 94% 0.75 75% 77% 14 100% 77% 22 Supermarket/Grocery 27,000 sf GLA 2.00 100% 78% 1.55 ksf GLA 2.00 100% 89% 1.78 ksf GLA 60% 92% 23 100% 92% 44 Employee 0.75 100% 96% 0.72 0.75 100% 94% 0.71 90% 100% 18 100% 100% 20 Food and Beverage Fine/Casual Dining 25,500 sf GLA 5.00 100% 10% 0.50 ksf GLA 5.00 100% 10% 0.50 ksf GLA 15% 94% 2 15% 94% 2 Employee 2.25 100% 96% 2.15 2.50 100% 94% 2.35 90% 100% 50 75% 100% 45 Entertainment and Institutions Active Entertainment 120,000 sf GLA 1.50 100% 81% 1.22 ksf GLA 1.80 100% 82% 1.48 ksf GLA 25% 100% 37 65% 100% 116 Employee 0.15 100% 96% 0.14 0.20 100% 94% 0.19 75% 100% 13 100% 100% 23 Hotel and Residential Hotel-Business keys 1.00 59% 100% 0.59 key 1.00 69% 100% 0.69 key 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Hotel-Leisure 358 keys 1.00 50% 100% 0.50 key 1.00 50% 100% 0.50 key 70% 100% 125 70% 100% 125 Hotel Employees 358 keys 0.15 100% 100% 0.15 key 0.15 100% 100% 0.15 key 100% 100% 54 100% 100% 54 Restaurant/Lounge sf GLA 6.67 63% 90% 3.78 ksf GLA 7.67 54% 30% 1.24 ksf GLA 10% 92% - 5% 92% - Meeting/Banquet (0 to 20 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 68% 70% 0.00 ksf GLA 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Meeting/Banquet (20 to 50 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 68% 70% 0.00 ksf GLA 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Meeting/Banquet (50 to 100 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 68% 70% 0.00 ksf GLA 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Convention (100 to 200 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 5.50 68% 70% 2.62 ksf GLA 100% 55% - 100% 55% - Convention (> 200 sq ft/key) sf GLA 5.50 68% 60% 2.24 ksf GLA 5.50 68% 70% 2.62 ksf GLA 100% 55% - 100% 55% - Restaurant/Meeting Employees sf GLA 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 ksf GLA 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Residential, Urban 0% Studio Efficiency units 0.85 100% 100% 0.85 unit 0.85 100% 100% 0.85 unit 60% 100% - 69% 100% - 1 Bedroom 1,219 units 0.90 100% 100% 0.90 unit 0.90 100% 100% 0.90 unit 60% 100% 659 69% 100% 758 2 Bedrooms units 1.65 100% 100% 1.65 unit 1.65 100% 100% 1.65 unit 60% 100% - 69% 100% - 3+ Bedrooms units 2.50 100% 100% 2.50 unit 2.50 100% 100% 2.50 unit 60% 100% - 69% 100% - Reserved res spaces 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 unit 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 unit 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Visitor 1,219 units 0.10 100% 100% 0.10 unit 0.15 100% 100% 0.15 unit 20% 100% 24 20% 100% 37 Office Office <25 ksf 101,000 sf GFA 0.30 100% 100% 0.30 ksf GFA 0.03 100% 100% 0.03 ksf GFA 100% 100% 31 100% 100% 4 Reserved empl 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Employee 2.00 100% 98% 1.95 0.35 100% 98% 0.34 100% 100% 197 100% 100% 35 Office 100 to 500 ksf 316,000 sf GFA 0.22 100% 100% 0.22 ksf GFA 0.02 100% 100% 0.02 ksf GFA 100% 100% 71 100% 100% 8 Reserved emp 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Employee 2.00 100% 100% 2.00 0.29 100% 100% 0.29 100% 100% 632 100% 100% 91 Office >500 ksf 842,500 sf GFA 0.20 100% 100% 0.20 ksf GFA 0.02 100% 100% 0.02 ksf GFA 100% 100% 169 100% 100% 17 Reserved emp 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Employee 2.00 100% 98% 1.95 0.26 100% 98% 0.25 100% 100% 1,646 100% 100% 215 Additional Land Uses Customer/Visitor 505 Customer 396 Employee/Resident 3,283 Employee/Resident 1,262 Reserved - Reserved - Total 3,788 Total 1,658 Copyright © 2020 All rights reserved. The Urban Land Institute, International Council of Shopping Centers, and National Parking Association. Project: Description: RDA Station Area Plan Base Demand (No TDM Reduction), 0.75 Residential Shared Parking Demand Summary Peak Month: APRIL -- Peak Period: 10 AM, WEEKDAY Weekday Weekend Land Use Project Data Base Ratio Driving Adj Non- Captive Ratio Project Unit For Quantity Unit Ratio Ratio Base Ratio Driving Adj Non- Captive Ratio Project Unit For Peak Hr Adj Ratio Ratio 10 AM Weekday Peak Mo Adj April Estimated Peak Hr Adj Parking Demand 11 AM Weekend Peak Mo Estimated Adj Parking April Demand Retail Retail (over 2,000 ksf) 36,500 sf GLA 1.30 100% 66% 0.86 ksf GLA 1.20 100% 83% 0.99 ksf GLA 60% 67% 13 100% 67% 24 Employee 0.70 100% 96% 0.67 0.80 100% 94% 0.75 75% 77% 14 100% 77% 22 Supermarket/Grocery 27,000 sf GLA 1.25 100% 66% 0.82 ksf GLA 1.25 100% 83% 1.03 ksf GLA 60% 92% 12 100% 92% 26 Employee 0.75 100% 96% 0.72 0.75 100% 94% 0.71 90% 100% 18 100% 100% 20 Food and Beverage Fine/Casual Dining 25,500 sf GLA 2.75 100% 10% 0.28 ksf GLA 2.50 100% 10% 0.25 ksf GLA 15% 94% 1 15% 94% 1 Employee 2.25 100% 96% 2.15 2.50 100% 94% 2.35 90% 100% 50 75% 100% 45 Entertainment and Institutions Active Entertainment 120,000 sf GLA 1.50 100% 82% 1.23 ksf GLA 1.80 100% 83% 1.49 ksf GLA 25% 100% 37 65% 100% 117 Employee 0.15 100% 96% 0.14 0.20 100% 94% 0.19 75% 100% 13 100% 100% 23 Hotel and Residential Hotel-Business keys 1.00 59% 100% 0.59 key 1.00 69% 100% 0.69 key 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Hotel-Leisure 358 keys 1.00 50% 100% 0.50 key 1.00 50% 100% 0.50 key 70% 100% 125 70% 100% 125 Hotel Employees 358 keys 0.15 100% 100% 0.15 key 0.15 100% 100% 0.15 key 100% 100% 54 100% 100% 54 Restaurant/Lounge sf GLA 6.67 63% 90% 3.78 ksf GLA 7.67 54% 30% 1.24 ksf GLA 10% 92% - 5% 92% - Meeting/Banquet (0 to 20 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 68% 70% 0.00 ksf GLA 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Meeting/Banquet (20 to 50 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 68% 70% 0.00 ksf GLA 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Meeting/Banquet (50 to 100 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 68% 70% 0.00 ksf GLA 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Convention (100 to 200 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 5.50 68% 70% 2.62 ksf GLA 100% 55% - 100% 55% - Convention (> 200 sq ft/key) sf GLA 5.50 68% 60% 2.24 ksf GLA 5.50 68% 70% 2.62 ksf GLA 100% 55% - 100% 55% - Restaurant/Meeting Employees sf GLA 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 ksf GLA 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Residential, Urban 0% Studio Efficiency units 0.85 100% 100% 0.85 unit 0.85 100% 100% 0.85 unit 60% 100% - 69% 100% - 1 Bedroom 1,219 units 0.75 100% 100% 0.75 unit 0.75 100% 100% 0.75 unit 60% 100% 549 69% 100% 631 2 Bedrooms units 1.65 100% 100% 1.65 unit 1.65 100% 100% 1.65 unit 60% 100% - 69% 100% - 3+ Bedrooms units 2.50 100% 100% 2.50 unit 2.50 100% 100% 2.50 unit 60% 100% - 69% 100% - Reserved res spaces 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 unit 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 unit 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Visitor 1,219 units 0.10 100% 100% 0.10 unit 0.15 100% 100% 0.15 unit 20% 100% 24 20% 100% 37 Office Office <25 ksf 101,000 sf GFA 0.30 100% 100% 0.30 ksf GFA 0.03 100% 100% 0.03 ksf GFA 100% 100% 31 100% 100% 4 Reserved empl 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Employee 1.70 100% 98% 1.66 0.35 100% 98% 0.34 100% 100% 168 100% 100% 35 Office 100 to 500 ksf 316,000 sf GFA 0.22 100% 100% 0.22 ksf GFA 0.02 100% 100% 0.02 ksf GFA 100% 100% 71 100% 100% 8 Reserved emp 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Employee 1.78 100% 100% 1.78 0.29 100% 100% 0.29 100% 100% 562 100% 100% 91 Office >500 ksf 842,500 sf GFA 0.20 100% 100% 0.20 ksf GFA 0.02 100% 100% 0.02 ksf GFA 100% 100% 169 100% 100% 17 Reserved emp 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Employee 1.80 100% 98% 1.76 0.26 100% 98% 0.25 100% 100% 1,482 100% 100% 215 Additional Land Uses Customer/Visitor 484 Customer 359 Employee/Resident 2,910 Employee/Resident 1,135 Reserved - Reserved - Total 3,393 Total 1,494 Copyright © 2020 All rights reserved. The Urban Land Institute, International Council of Shopping Centers, and National Parking Association. Project: Description: RDA Station Area Plan Base Demand (No TDM Reduction), 0.5 Residential Shared Parking Demand Summary Peak Month: APRIL -- Peak Period: 10 AM, WEEKDAY Weekday Weekend Land Use Project Data Base Ratio Driving Adj Non- Captive Ratio Project Unit For Quantity Unit Ratio Ratio Base Ratio Driving Adj Non- Captive Ratio Project Unit For Peak Hr Adj Ratio Ratio 10 AM Weekday Peak Mo Adj April Estimated Peak Hr Adj Parking Demand 11 AM Weekend Peak Mo Estimated Adj Parking April Demand Retail Retail (over 2,000 ksf) 36,500 sf GLA 1.30 100% 66% 0.86 ksf GLA 1.20 100% 83% 0.99 ksf GLA 60% 67% 13 100% 67% 24 Employee 0.70 100% 96% 0.67 0.80 100% 94% 0.75 75% 77% 14 100% 77% 22 Supermarket/Grocery 27,000 sf GLA 1.25 100% 66% 0.82 ksf GLA 1.25 100% 83% 1.03 ksf GLA 60% 92% 12 100% 92% 26 Employee 0.75 100% 96% 0.72 0.75 100% 94% 0.71 90% 100% 18 100% 100% 20 Food and Beverage Fine/Casual Dining 25,500 sf GLA 2.75 100% 10% 0.28 ksf GLA 2.50 100% 10% 0.25 ksf GLA 15% 94% 1 15% 94% 1 Employee 2.25 100% 96% 2.15 2.50 100% 94% 2.35 90% 100% 50 75% 100% 45 Entertainment and Institutions Active Entertainment 120,000 sf GLA 1.50 100% 82% 1.23 ksf GLA 1.80 100% 83% 1.49 ksf GLA 25% 100% 37 65% 100% 117 Employee 0.15 100% 96% 0.14 0.20 100% 94% 0.19 75% 100% 13 100% 100% 23 Hotel and Residential Hotel-Business keys 1.00 59% 100% 0.59 key 1.00 69% 100% 0.69 key 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Hotel-Leisure 358 keys 1.00 50% 100% 0.50 key 1.00 50% 100% 0.50 key 70% 100% 125 70% 100% 125 Hotel Employees 358 keys 0.15 100% 100% 0.15 key 0.15 100% 100% 0.15 key 100% 100% 54 100% 100% 54 Restaurant/Lounge sf GLA 6.67 63% 90% 3.78 ksf GLA 7.67 54% 30% 1.24 ksf GLA 10% 92% - 5% 92% - Meeting/Banquet (0 to 20 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 68% 70% 0.00 ksf GLA 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Meeting/Banquet (20 to 50 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 68% 70% 0.00 ksf GLA 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Meeting/Banquet (50 to 100 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 68% 70% 0.00 ksf GLA 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Convention (100 to 200 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 5.50 68% 70% 2.62 ksf GLA 100% 55% - 100% 55% - Convention (> 200 sq ft/key) sf GLA 5.50 68% 60% 2.24 ksf GLA 5.50 68% 70% 2.62 ksf GLA 100% 55% - 100% 55% - Restaurant/Meeting Employees sf GLA 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 ksf GLA 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Residential, Urban 0% Studio Efficiency units 0.85 100% 100% 0.85 unit 0.85 100% 100% 0.85 unit 60% 100% - 69% 100% - 1 Bedroom 1,219 units 0.50 100% 100% 0.50 unit 0.50 100% 100% 0.50 unit 60% 100% 366 69% 100% 421 2 Bedrooms units 1.65 100% 100% 1.65 unit 1.65 100% 100% 1.65 unit 60% 100% - 69% 100% - 3+ Bedrooms units 2.50 100% 100% 2.50 unit 2.50 100% 100% 2.50 unit 60% 100% - 69% 100% - Reserved res spaces 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 unit 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 unit 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Visitor 1,219 units 0.10 100% 100% 0.10 unit 0.15 100% 100% 0.15 unit 20% 100% 24 20% 100% 37 Office Office <25 ksf 101,000 sf GFA 0.30 100% 100% 0.30 ksf GFA 0.03 100% 100% 0.03 ksf GFA 100% 100% 31 100% 100% 4 Reserved empl 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Employee 1.70 100% 98% 1.66 0.35 100% 98% 0.34 100% 100% 168 100% 100% 35 Office 100 to 500 ksf 316,000 sf GFA 0.22 100% 100% 0.22 ksf GFA 0.02 100% 100% 0.02 ksf GFA 100% 100% 71 100% 100% 8 Reserved emp 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Employee 1.78 100% 100% 1.78 0.29 100% 100% 0.29 100% 100% 562 100% 100% 91 Office >500 ksf 842,500 sf GFA 0.20 100% 100% 0.20 ksf GFA 0.02 100% 100% 0.02 ksf GFA 100% 100% 169 100% 100% 17 Reserved emp 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Employee 1.80 100% 98% 1.76 0.26 100% 98% 0.25 100% 100% 1,482 100% 100% 215 Additional Land Uses Customer/Visitor 484 Customer 359 Employee/Resident 2,727 Employee/Resident 925 Reserved - Reserved - Total 3,210 Total 1,283 Copyright © 2020 All rights reserved. The Urban Land Institute, International Council of Shopping Centers, and National Parking Association. Project: Description: RDA Station Area Plan 50% TDM Reduction, 0.9 Residential, 1.0 Office Shared Parking Demand Summary Peak Month: APRIL -- Peak Period: 10 AM, WEEKDAY Weekday Weekend Land Use Project Data Base Ratio Driving Adj Non- Captive Ratio Project Unit For Quantity Unit Ratio Ratio Base Ratio Driving Adj Non- Captive Ratio Project Unit For Peak Hr Adj Ratio Ratio 10 AM Weekday Peak Mo Adj April Estimated Peak Hr Adj Parking Demand 11 AM Weekend Peak Mo Estimated Adj Parking April Demand Retail Retail (over 2,000 ksf) 36,500 sf GLA 1.30 50% 66% 0.43 ksf GLA 1.20 50% 83% 0.50 ksf GLA 60% 67% 6 100% 67% 12 Employee 0.70 50% 96% 0.33 0.80 50% 94% 0.38 75% 77% 7 100% 77% 11 Supermarket/Grocery 27,000 sf GLA 1.25 50% 66% 0.41 ksf GLA 1.25 50% 83% 0.52 ksf GLA 60% 92% 6 100% 92% 13 Employee 0.75 50% 96% 0.36 0.75 50% 94% 0.35 90% 100% 9 100% 100% 10 Food and Beverage Fine/Casual Dining 25,500 sf GLA 2.75 50% 10% 0.14 ksf GLA 2.50 50% 10% 0.13 ksf GLA 15% 94% 1 15% 94% - Employee 2.25 50% 96% 1.07 2.50 50% 94% 1.18 90% 100% 25 75% 100% 23 Entertainment and Institutions Active Entertainment 120,000 sf GLA 1.50 50% 82% 0.62 ksf GLA 1.80 50% 83% 0.75 ksf GLA 25% 100% 19 65% 100% 58 Employee 0.15 50% 96% 0.07 0.20 50% 94% 0.09 75% 100% 6 100% 100% 11 Hotel and Residential Hotel-Business keys 1.00 59% 100% 0.59 key 1.00 69% 100% 0.69 key 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Hotel-Leisure 358 keys 1.00 50% 100% 0.50 key 1.00 50% 100% 0.50 key 70% 100% 125 70% 100% 125 Hotel Employees 358 keys 0.15 50% 100% 0.08 key 0.15 50% 100% 0.08 key 100% 100% 27 100% 100% 27 Restaurant/Lounge sf GLA 6.67 63% 90% 3.78 ksf GLA 7.67 54% 30% 1.24 ksf GLA 10% 92% - 5% 92% - Meeting/Banquet (0 to 20 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 68% 70% 0.00 ksf GLA 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Meeting/Banquet (20 to 50 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 68% 70% 0.00 ksf GLA 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Meeting/Banquet (50 to 100 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 68% 70% 0.00 ksf GLA 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Convention (100 to 200 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 5.50 68% 70% 2.62 ksf GLA 100% 55% - 100% 55% - Convention (> 200 sq ft/key) sf GLA 5.50 68% 60% 2.24 ksf GLA 5.50 68% 70% 2.62 ksf GLA 100% 55% - 100% 55% - Restaurant/Meeting Employees sf GLA 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 ksf GLA 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Residential, Urban 0% Studio Efficiency units 0.85 50% 100% 0.43 unit 0.85 50% 100% 0.43 unit 60% 100% - 69% 100% - 1 Bedroom 1,219 units 0.90 50% 100% 0.45 unit 0.90 50% 100% 0.45 unit 60% 100% 329 69% 100% 379 2 Bedrooms units 1.65 50% 100% 0.83 unit 1.65 50% 100% 0.83 unit 60% 100% - 69% 100% - 3+ Bedrooms units 2.50 50% 100% 1.25 unit 2.50 50% 100% 1.25 unit 60% 100% - 69% 100% - Reserved res spaces 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 unit 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 unit 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Visitor 1,219 units 0.10 50% 100% 0.05 unit 0.15 50% 100% 0.08 unit 20% 100% 12 20% 100% 18 Office Office <25 ksf 101,000 sf GFA 0.30 50% 100% 0.15 ksf GFA 0.03 50% 100% 0.02 ksf GFA 100% 100% 16 100% 100% 2 Reserved empl 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Employee 0.70 50% 98% 0.34 0.35 50% 98% 0.17 100% 100% 35 100% 100% 18 Office 100 to 500 ksf 316,000 sf GFA 0.22 50% 100% 0.11 ksf GFA 0.02 50% 100% 0.01 ksf GFA 100% 100% 36 100% 100% 4 Reserved emp 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Employee 0.78 50% 100% 0.39 0.29 50% 100% 0.14 100% 100% 123 100% 100% 46 Office >500 ksf 842,500 sf GFA 0.20 50% 100% 0.10 ksf GFA 0.02 50% 100% 0.01 ksf GFA 100% 100% 85 100% 100% 9 Reserved emp 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Employee 0.80 50% 98% 0.39 0.26 50% 98% 0.13 100% 100% 329 100% 100% 107 Additional Land Uses Customer/Visitor 305 Customer 242 Employee/Resident 891 Employee/Resident 631 Reserved - Reserved - Total 1,195 Total 873 Copyright © 2020 All rights reserved. The Urban Land Institute, International Council of Shopping Centers, and National Parking Association. Project: Description: RDA Station Area Plan 50% TDM Reduction, 0.9 Residential, 1.50 Office Shared Parking Demand Summary Peak Month: APRIL -- Peak Period: 10 AM, WEEKDAY Weekday Weekend Land Use Project Data Base Ratio Driving Adj Non- Captive Ratio Project Ratio Unit For Ratio Base Ratio Quantity Unit Driving Non- Adj Captive Ratio Project Unit For Peak Hr Adj Ratio Ratio 10 AM Weekday Peak Mo Adj April Estimated Peak Hr Adj Parking Demand 11 AM Weekend Peak Mo Estimated Adj Parking April Demand Retail Retail (1,000 ksf to 2,000 ksf) 2,500 sf GLA 1.10 50% 66% 0.36 ksf GLA 1.00 50% 83% 0.41 ksf GLA 60% 67% - 90% 67% 1 Employee 0.90 50% 96% 0.43 1.00 50% 94% 0.47 75% 77% 1 95% 77% 1 Retail (over 2,000 ksf) 34,000 sf GLA 1.30 50% 66% 0.43 ksf GLA 1.20 50% 83% 0.50 ksf GLA 60% 67% 6 100% 67% 11 Employee 0.70 50% 96% 0.33 0.80 50% 94% 0.38 75% 77% 7 100% 77% 10 Supermarket/Grocery 27,000 sf GLA 1.25 50% 66% 0.41 ksf GLA 1.25 50% 83% 0.52 ksf GLA 60% 92% 6 100% 92% 13 Employee 0.75 50% 96% 0.36 0.75 50% 94% 0.35 90% 100% 9 100% 100% 10 Food and Beverage Fine/Casual Dining 25,500 sf GLA 2.75 50% 10% 0.14 ksf GLA 2.50 50% 10% 0.13 ksf GLA 15% 94% 1 15% 94% - Employee 2.25 50% 96% 1.08 2.50 50% 94% 1.18 90% 100% 25 75% 100% 23 Entertainment and Institutions Active Entertainment 120,000 sf GLA 1.50 50% 82% 0.62 ksf GLA 1.80 50% 83% 0.75 ksf GLA 25% 100% 19 65% 100% 58 Employee 0.15 50% 96% 0.07 0.20 50% 94% 0.09 75% 100% 6 100% 100% 11 Hotel and Residential Hotel-Business keys 1.00 59% 100% 0.59 key 1.00 69% 100% 0.69 key 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Hotel-Leisure 358 keys 1.00 50% 100% 0.50 key 1.00 50% 100% 0.50 key 70% 100% 125 70% 100% 125 Hotel Employees 358 keys 0.15 50% 100% 0.08 key 0.15 50% 100% 0.08 key 100% 100% 27 100% 100% 27 Restaurant/Lounge sf GLA 6.67 63% 90% 3.78 ksf GLA 7.67 54% 30% 1.24 ksf GLA 10% 92% - 5% 92% - Meeting/Banquet (0 to 20 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 68% 70% 0.00 ksf GLA 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Meeting/Banquet (20 to 50 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 68% 70% 0.00 ksf GLA 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Meeting/Banquet (50 to 100 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 68% 70% 0.00 ksf GLA 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Convention (100 to 200 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 5.50 68% 70% 2.62 ksf GLA 100% 55% - 100% 55% - Convention (> 200 sq ft/key) sf GLA 5.50 68% 60% 2.24 ksf GLA 5.50 68% 70% 2.62 ksf GLA 100% 55% - 100% 55% - Restaurant/Meeting Employees sf GLA 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 ksf GLA 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Residential, Urban 0% Studio Efficiency units 0.85 50% 100% 0.43 unit 0.85 50% 100% 0.43 unit 60% 100% - 69% 100% - 1 Bedroom 1,219 units 0.90 50% 100% 0.45 unit 0.90 50% 100% 0.45 unit 60% 100% 329 69% 100% 379 2 Bedrooms units 1.65 50% 100% 0.83 unit 1.65 50% 100% 0.83 unit 60% 100% - 69% 100% - 3+ Bedrooms units 2.50 50% 100% 1.25 unit 2.50 50% 100% 1.25 unit 60% 100% - 69% 100% - Reserved res spaces 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 unit 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 unit 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Visitor 1,219 units 0.10 50% 100% 0.05 unit 0.15 50% 100% 0.08 unit 20% 100% 12 20% 100% 18 Office Office <25 ksf 101,000 sf GFA 0.30 50% 100% 0.15 ksf GFA 0.03 50% 100% 0.02 ksf GFA 100% 100% 16 100% 100% 2 Reserved empl 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Employee 1.20 50% 98% 0.59 0.35 50% 98% 0.17 100% 100% 60 100% 100% 18 Office 100 to 500 ksf 316,000 sf GFA 0.22 50% 100% 0.11 ksf GFA 0.02 50% 100% 0.01 ksf GFA 100% 100% 36 100% 100% 4 Reserved emp 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Employee 1.28 50% 100% 0.64 0.29 50% 100% 0.14 100% 100% 202 100% 100% 46 Office >500 ksf 842,500 sf GFA 0.20 50% 100% 0.10 ksf GFA 0.02 50% 100% 0.01 ksf GFA 100% 100% 85 100% 100% 9 Reserved emp 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Employee 1.30 50% 98% 0.63 0.26 50% 98% 0.13 100% 100% 535 100% 100% 107 Additional Land Uses Customer/Visitor 305 Customer 242 Employee/Resident 1,201 Employee/Resident 631 Reserved - Reserved - Total 1,506 Total 873 Copyright © 2020 All rights reserved. The Urban Land Institute, International Council of Shopping Centers, and National Parking Association. Project: Description: RDA Station Area Plan 50% TDM Reduction, 0.9 Residtential, 2.0 Office Shared Parking Demand Summary Peak Month: APRIL -- Peak Period: 10 AM, WEEKDAY Weekday Weekend Land Use Project Data Base Ratio Driving Adj Non- Captive Ratio Project Unit For Quantity Unit Ratio Ratio Base Ratio Driving Adj Non- Captive Ratio Project Unit For Peak Hr Adj Ratio Ratio 10 AM Weekday Peak Mo Adj April Estimated Peak Hr Adj Parking Demand 11 AM Weekend Peak Mo Estimated Adj Parking April Demand Retail Retail (over 2,000 ksf) 36,500 sf GLA 1.30 50% 66% 0.43 ksf GLA 1.20 50% 83% 0.50 ksf GLA 60% 67% 6 100% 67% 12 Employee 0.70 50% 96% 0.33 0.80 50% 94% 0.38 75% 77% 7 100% 77% 11 Supermarket/Grocery 27,000 sf GLA 1.25 50% 66% 0.41 ksf GLA 1.25 50% 83% 0.52 ksf GLA 60% 92% 6 100% 92% 13 Employee 0.75 50% 96% 0.36 0.75 50% 94% 0.35 90% 100% 9 100% 100% 10 Food and Beverage Fine/Casual Dining 25,500 sf GLA 2.75 50% 10% 0.14 ksf GLA 2.50 50% 10% 0.13 ksf GLA 15% 94% 1 15% 94% - Employee 2.25 50% 96% 1.07 2.50 50% 94% 1.18 90% 100% 25 75% 100% 23 Entertainment and Institutions Active Entertainment 120,000 sf GLA 1.50 50% 82% 0.62 ksf GLA 1.80 50% 83% 0.75 ksf GLA 25% 100% 19 65% 100% 58 Employee 0.15 50% 96% 0.07 0.20 50% 94% 0.09 75% 100% 6 100% 100% 11 Hotel and Residential Hotel-Business keys 1.00 59% 100% 0.59 key 1.00 69% 100% 0.69 key 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Hotel-Leisure 358 keys 1.00 50% 100% 0.50 key 1.00 50% 100% 0.50 key 70% 100% 125 70% 100% 125 Hotel Employees 358 keys 0.15 50% 100% 0.08 key 0.15 50% 100% 0.08 key 100% 100% 27 100% 100% 27 Restaurant/Lounge sf GLA 6.67 63% 90% 3.78 ksf GLA 7.67 54% 30% 1.24 ksf GLA 10% 92% - 5% 92% - Meeting/Banquet (0 to 20 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 68% 70% 0.00 ksf GLA 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Meeting/Banquet (20 to 50 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 68% 70% 0.00 ksf GLA 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Meeting/Banquet (50 to 100 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 68% 70% 0.00 ksf GLA 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Convention (100 to 200 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 5.50 68% 70% 2.62 ksf GLA 100% 55% - 100% 55% - Convention (> 200 sq ft/key) sf GLA 5.50 68% 60% 2.24 ksf GLA 5.50 68% 70% 2.62 ksf GLA 100% 55% - 100% 55% - Restaurant/Meeting Employees sf GLA 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 ksf GLA 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Residential, Urban 0% Studio Efficiency units 0.85 50% 100% 0.43 unit 0.85 50% 100% 0.43 unit 60% 100% - 69% 100% - 1 Bedroom 1,219 units 0.90 50% 100% 0.45 unit 0.90 50% 100% 0.45 unit 60% 100% 329 69% 100% 379 2 Bedrooms units 1.65 50% 100% 0.83 unit 1.65 50% 100% 0.83 unit 60% 100% - 69% 100% - 3+ Bedrooms units 2.50 50% 100% 1.25 unit 2.50 50% 100% 1.25 unit 60% 100% - 69% 100% - Reserved res spaces 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 unit 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 unit 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Visitor 1,219 units 0.10 50% 100% 0.05 unit 0.15 50% 100% 0.08 unit 20% 100% 12 20% 100% 18 Office Office <25 ksf 101,000 sf GFA 0.30 50% 100% 0.15 ksf GFA 0.03 50% 100% 0.02 ksf GFA 100% 100% 16 100% 100% 2 Reserved empl 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Employee 1.70 50% 98% 0.83 0.35 50% 98% 0.17 100% 100% 84 100% 100% 18 Office 100 to 500 ksf 316,000 sf GFA 0.22 50% 100% 0.11 ksf GFA 0.02 50% 100% 0.01 ksf GFA 100% 100% 36 100% 100% 4 Reserved emp 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Employee 1.78 50% 100% 0.89 0.29 50% 100% 0.14 100% 100% 281 100% 100% 46 Office >500 ksf 842,500 sf GFA 0.20 50% 100% 0.10 ksf GFA 0.02 50% 100% 0.01 ksf GFA 100% 100% 85 100% 100% 9 Reserved emp 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Employee 1.80 50% 98% 0.88 0.26 50% 98% 0.13 100% 100% 741 100% 100% 107 Additional Land Uses Customer/Visitor 305 Customer 242 Employee/Resident 1,510 Employee/Resident 631 Reserved - Reserved - Total 1,814 Total 873 Copyright © 2020 All rights reserved. The Urban Land Institute, International Council of Shopping Centers, and National Parking Association. Project: Description: RDA Station Area Plan 50% Reduction, 0.75 Residential, 1.0 Office Shared Parking Demand Summary Peak Month: APRIL -- Peak Period: 10 AM, WEEKDAY Weekday Weekend Land Use Project Data Base Ratio Driving Adj Non- Captive Ratio Project Unit For Quantity Unit Ratio Ratio Base Ratio Driving Adj Non- Captive Ratio Project Unit For Peak Hr Adj Ratio Ratio 10 AM Weekday Peak Mo Adj April Estimated Peak Hr Adj Parking Demand 11 AM Weekend Peak Mo Estimated Adj Parking April Demand Retail Retail (over 2,000 ksf) 36,500 sf GLA 1.30 50% 66% 0.43 ksf GLA 1.20 50% 83% 0.50 ksf GLA 60% 67% 6 100% 67% 12 Employee 0.70 50% 96% 0.33 0.80 50% 94% 0.38 75% 77% 7 100% 77% 11 Supermarket/Grocery 27,000 sf GLA 1.25 50% 66% 0.41 ksf GLA 1.25 50% 83% 0.52 ksf GLA 60% 92% 6 100% 92% 13 Employee 0.75 50% 96% 0.36 0.75 50% 94% 0.35 90% 100% 9 100% 100% 10 Food and Beverage Fine/Casual Dining 25,500 sf GLA 2.75 50% 10% 0.14 ksf GLA 2.50 50% 10% 0.13 ksf GLA 15% 94% 1 15% 94% - Employee 2.25 50% 96% 1.07 2.50 50% 94% 1.18 90% 100% 25 75% 100% 23 Entertainment and Institutions Active Entertainment 120,000 sf GLA 1.50 50% 82% 0.62 ksf GLA 1.80 50% 83% 0.75 ksf GLA 25% 100% 19 65% 100% 58 Employee 0.15 50% 96% 0.07 0.20 50% 94% 0.09 75% 100% 6 100% 100% 11 Hotel and Residential Hotel-Business keys 1.00 59% 100% 0.59 key 1.00 69% 100% 0.69 key 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Hotel-Leisure 358 keys 1.00 50% 100% 0.50 key 1.00 50% 100% 0.50 key 70% 100% 125 70% 100% 125 Hotel Employees 358 keys 0.15 50% 100% 0.08 key 0.15 50% 100% 0.08 key 100% 100% 27 100% 100% 27 Restaurant/Lounge sf GLA 6.67 63% 90% 3.78 ksf GLA 7.67 54% 30% 1.24 ksf GLA 10% 92% - 5% 92% - Meeting/Banquet (0 to 20 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 68% 70% 0.00 ksf GLA 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Meeting/Banquet (20 to 50 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 68% 70% 0.00 ksf GLA 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Meeting/Banquet (50 to 100 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 68% 70% 0.00 ksf GLA 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Convention (100 to 200 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 5.50 68% 70% 2.62 ksf GLA 100% 55% - 100% 55% - Convention (> 200 sq ft/key) sf GLA 5.50 68% 60% 2.24 ksf GLA 5.50 68% 70% 2.62 ksf GLA 100% 55% - 100% 55% - Restaurant/Meeting Employees sf GLA 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 ksf GLA 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Residential, Urban 0% Studio Efficiency units 0.85 50% 100% 0.43 unit 0.85 50% 100% 0.43 unit 60% 100% - 69% 100% - 1 Bedroom 1,219 units 0.75 50% 100% 0.38 unit 0.75 50% 100% 0.38 unit 60% 100% 275 69% 100% 316 2 Bedrooms units 1.65 50% 100% 0.83 unit 1.65 50% 100% 0.83 unit 60% 100% - 69% 100% - 3+ Bedrooms units 2.50 50% 100% 1.25 unit 2.50 50% 100% 1.25 unit 60% 100% - 69% 100% - Reserved res spaces 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 unit 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 unit 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Visitor 1,219 units 0.10 50% 100% 0.05 unit 0.15 50% 100% 0.08 unit 20% 100% 12 20% 100% 18 Office Office <25 ksf 101,000 sf GFA 0.30 50% 100% 0.15 ksf GFA 0.03 50% 100% 0.02 ksf GFA 100% 100% 16 100% 100% 2 Reserved empl 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Employee 0.70 50% 98% 0.34 0.35 50% 98% 0.17 100% 100% 35 100% 100% 18 Office 100 to 500 ksf 316,000 sf GFA 0.22 50% 100% 0.11 ksf GFA 0.02 50% 100% 0.01 ksf GFA 100% 100% 36 100% 100% 4 Reserved emp 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Employee 0.78 50% 100% 0.39 0.29 50% 100% 0.14 100% 100% 123 100% 100% 46 Office >500 ksf 842,500 sf GFA 0.20 50% 100% 0.10 ksf GFA 0.02 50% 100% 0.01 ksf GFA 100% 100% 85 100% 100% 9 Reserved emp 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Employee 0.80 50% 98% 0.39 0.26 50% 98% 0.13 100% 100% 329 100% 100% 107 Additional Land Uses Customer/Visitor 305 Customer 242 Employee/Resident 836 Employee/Resident 568 Reserved - Reserved - Total 1,140 Total 810 Copyright © 2020 All rights reserved. The Urban Land Institute, International Council of Shopping Centers, and National Parking Association. Project: Description: RDA Station Area Plan 50% TDM Reduction, 0.75 Residential, 1.50 Office Shared Parking Demand Summary Peak Month: APRIL -- Peak Period: 10 AM, WEEKDAY Weekday Weekend Land Use Project Data Base Ratio Driving Adj Non- Captive Ratio Project Unit For Quantity Unit Ratio Ratio Base Ratio Driving Adj Non- Captive Ratio Project Unit For Peak Hr Adj Ratio Ratio 10 AM Weekday Peak Mo Adj April Estimated Peak Hr Adj Parking Demand 11 AM Weekend Peak Mo Estimated Adj Parking April Demand Retail Retail (over 2,000 ksf) 36,500 sf GLA 1.30 50% 66% 0.43 ksf GLA 1.20 50% 83% 0.50 ksf GLA 60% 67% 6 100% 67% 12 Employee 0.70 50% 96% 0.33 0.80 50% 94% 0.38 75% 77% 7 100% 77% 11 Supermarket/Grocery 27,000 sf GLA 1.25 50% 66% 0.41 ksf GLA 1.25 50% 83% 0.52 ksf GLA 60% 92% 6 100% 92% 13 Employee 0.75 50% 96% 0.36 0.75 50% 94% 0.35 90% 100% 9 100% 100% 10 Food and Beverage Fine/Casual Dining 25,500 sf GLA 2.75 50% 10% 0.14 ksf GLA 2.50 50% 10% 0.13 ksf GLA 15% 94% 1 15% 94% - Employee 2.25 50% 96% 1.07 2.50 50% 94% 1.18 90% 100% 25 75% 100% 23 Entertainment and Institutions Active Entertainment 120,000 sf GLA 1.50 50% 82% 0.62 ksf GLA 1.80 50% 83% 0.75 ksf GLA 25% 100% 19 65% 100% 58 Employee 0.15 50% 96% 0.07 0.20 50% 94% 0.09 75% 100% 6 100% 100% 11 Hotel and Residential Hotel-Business keys 1.00 59% 100% 0.59 key 1.00 69% 100% 0.69 key 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Hotel-Leisure 358 keys 1.00 50% 100% 0.50 key 1.00 50% 100% 0.50 key 70% 100% 125 70% 100% 125 Hotel Employees 358 keys 0.15 50% 100% 0.08 key 0.15 50% 100% 0.08 key 100% 100% 27 100% 100% 27 Restaurant/Lounge sf GLA 6.67 63% 90% 3.78 ksf GLA 7.67 54% 30% 1.24 ksf GLA 10% 92% - 5% 92% - Meeting/Banquet (0 to 20 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 68% 70% 0.00 ksf GLA 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Meeting/Banquet (20 to 50 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 68% 70% 0.00 ksf GLA 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Meeting/Banquet (50 to 100 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 68% 70% 0.00 ksf GLA 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Convention (100 to 200 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 5.50 68% 70% 2.62 ksf GLA 100% 55% - 100% 55% - Convention (> 200 sq ft/key) sf GLA 5.50 68% 60% 2.24 ksf GLA 5.50 68% 70% 2.62 ksf GLA 100% 55% - 100% 55% - Restaurant/Meeting Employees sf GLA 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 ksf GLA 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Residential, Urban 0% Studio Efficiency units 0.85 50% 100% 0.43 unit 0.85 50% 100% 0.43 unit 60% 100% - 69% 100% - 1 Bedroom 1,219 units 0.75 50% 100% 0.38 unit 0.75 50% 100% 0.38 unit 60% 100% 275 69% 100% 316 2 Bedrooms units 1.65 50% 100% 0.83 unit 1.65 50% 100% 0.83 unit 60% 100% - 69% 100% - 3+ Bedrooms units 2.50 50% 100% 1.25 unit 2.50 50% 100% 1.25 unit 60% 100% - 69% 100% - Reserved res spaces 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 unit 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 unit 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Visitor 1,219 units 0.10 50% 100% 0.05 unit 0.15 50% 100% 0.08 unit 20% 100% 12 20% 100% 18 Office Office <25 ksf 101,000 sf GFA 0.30 50% 100% 0.15 ksf GFA 0.03 50% 100% 0.02 ksf GFA 100% 100% 16 100% 100% 2 Reserved empl 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Employee 1.20 50% 98% 0.59 0.35 50% 98% 0.17 100% 100% 60 100% 100% 18 Office 100 to 500 ksf 316,000 sf GFA 0.22 50% 100% 0.11 ksf GFA 0.02 50% 100% 0.01 ksf GFA 100% 100% 36 100% 100% 4 Reserved emp 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Employee 1.28 50% 100% 0.64 0.29 50% 100% 0.14 100% 100% 202 100% 100% 46 Office >500 ksf 842,500 sf GFA 0.20 50% 100% 0.10 ksf GFA 0.02 50% 100% 0.01 ksf GFA 100% 100% 85 100% 100% 9 Reserved emp 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Employee 1.30 50% 98% 0.63 0.26 50% 98% 0.13 100% 100% 535 100% 100% 107 Additional Land Uses Customer/Visitor 305 Customer 242 Employee/Resident 1,146 Employee/Resident 568 Reserved - Reserved - Total 1,450 Total 810 Copyright © 2020 All rights reserved. The Urban Land Institute, International Council of Shopping Centers, and National Parking Association. Project: Description: RDA Station Area Plan 50% TDM Reduction, 0.75 Residential, 2.0 Office Shared Parking Demand Summary Peak Month: APRIL -- Peak Period: 10 AM, WEEKDAY Weekday Weekend Land Use Project Data Base Ratio Driving Adj Non- Captive Ratio Project Unit For Quantity Unit Ratio Ratio Base Ratio Driving Adj Non- Captive Ratio Project Unit For Peak Hr Adj Ratio Ratio 10 AM Weekday Peak Mo Adj April Estimated Peak Hr Adj Parking Demand 11 AM Weekend Peak Mo Estimated Adj Parking April Demand Retail Retail (over 2,000 ksf) 36,500 sf GLA 1.30 50% 66% 0.43 ksf GLA 1.20 50% 83% 0.50 ksf GLA 60% 67% 6 100% 67% 12 Employee 0.70 50% 96% 0.33 0.80 50% 94% 0.38 75% 77% 7 100% 77% 11 Supermarket/Grocery 27,000 sf GLA 1.25 50% 66% 0.41 ksf GLA 1.25 50% 83% 0.52 ksf GLA 60% 92% 6 100% 92% 13 Employee 0.75 50% 96% 0.36 0.75 50% 94% 0.35 90% 100% 9 100% 100% 10 Food and Beverage Fine/Casual Dining 25,500 sf GLA 2.75 50% 10% 0.14 ksf GLA 2.50 50% 10% 0.13 ksf GLA 15% 94% 1 15% 94% - Employee 2.25 50% 96% 1.07 2.50 50% 94% 1.18 90% 100% 25 75% 100% 23 Entertainment and Institutions Active Entertainment 120,000 sf GLA 1.50 50% 82% 0.62 ksf GLA 1.80 50% 83% 0.75 ksf GLA 25% 100% 19 65% 100% 58 Employee 0.15 50% 96% 0.07 0.20 50% 94% 0.09 75% 100% 6 100% 100% 11 Hotel and Residential Hotel-Business keys 1.00 59% 100% 0.59 key 1.00 69% 100% 0.69 key 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Hotel-Leisure 358 keys 1.00 50% 100% 0.50 key 1.00 50% 100% 0.50 key 70% 100% 125 70% 100% 125 Hotel Employees 358 keys 0.15 50% 100% 0.08 key 0.15 50% 100% 0.08 key 100% 100% 27 100% 100% 27 Restaurant/Lounge sf GLA 6.67 63% 90% 3.78 ksf GLA 7.67 54% 30% 1.24 ksf GLA 10% 92% - 5% 92% - Meeting/Banquet (0 to 20 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 68% 70% 0.00 ksf GLA 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Meeting/Banquet (20 to 50 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 68% 70% 0.00 ksf GLA 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Meeting/Banquet (50 to 100 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 68% 70% 0.00 ksf GLA 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Convention (100 to 200 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 5.50 68% 70% 2.62 ksf GLA 100% 55% - 100% 55% - Convention (> 200 sq ft/key) sf GLA 5.50 68% 60% 2.24 ksf GLA 5.50 68% 70% 2.62 ksf GLA 100% 55% - 100% 55% - Restaurant/Meeting Employees sf GLA 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 ksf GLA 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Residential, Urban 0% Studio Efficiency units 0.85 50% 100% 0.43 unit 0.85 50% 100% 0.43 unit 60% 100% - 69% 100% - 1 Bedroom 1,219 units 0.75 50% 100% 0.38 unit 0.75 50% 100% 0.38 unit 60% 100% 275 69% 100% 316 2 Bedrooms units 1.65 50% 100% 0.83 unit 1.65 50% 100% 0.83 unit 60% 100% - 69% 100% - 3+ Bedrooms units 2.50 50% 100% 1.25 unit 2.50 50% 100% 1.25 unit 60% 100% - 69% 100% - Reserved res spaces 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 unit 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 unit 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Visitor 1,219 units 0.10 50% 100% 0.05 unit 0.15 50% 100% 0.08 unit 20% 100% 12 20% 100% 18 Office Office <25 ksf 101,000 sf GFA 0.30 50% 100% 0.15 ksf GFA 0.03 50% 100% 0.02 ksf GFA 100% 100% 16 100% 100% 2 Reserved empl 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Employee 1.70 50% 98% 0.83 0.35 50% 98% 0.17 100% 100% 84 100% 100% 18 Office 100 to 500 ksf 316,000 sf GFA 0.22 50% 100% 0.11 ksf GFA 0.02 50% 100% 0.01 ksf GFA 100% 100% 36 100% 100% 4 Reserved emp 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Employee 1.78 50% 100% 0.89 0.29 50% 100% 0.14 100% 100% 281 100% 100% 46 Office >500 ksf 842,500 sf GFA 0.20 50% 100% 0.10 ksf GFA 0.02 50% 100% 0.01 ksf GFA 100% 100% 85 100% 100% 9 Reserved emp 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Employee 1.80 50% 98% 0.88 0.26 50% 98% 0.13 100% 100% 741 100% 100% 107 Additional Land Uses Customer/Visitor 305 Customer 242 Employee/Resident 1,455 Employee/Resident 568 Reserved - Reserved - Total 1,759 Total 810 Copyright © 2020 All rights reserved. The Urban Land Institute, International Council of Shopping Centers, and National Parking Association. Project: Description: RDA Station Area Plan 50% TDM Reduction, 0.5 Residential, 0.75 Office Shared Parking Demand Summary Peak Month: APRIL -- Peak Period: 2 PM, WEEKDAY Weekday Weekend Land Use Project Data Base Ratio Driving Adj Non- Captive Ratio Project Unit For Quantity Unit Ratio Ratio Base Ratio Driving Adj Non- Captive Ratio Project Unit For Peak Hr Adj Ratio Ratio 2 PM Weekday Peak Mo Adj April Estimated Peak Hr Adj Parking Demand 11 AM Weekend Peak Mo Estimated Adj Parking April Demand Retail Retail (over 2,000 ksf) 36,500 sf GLA 1.30 50% 66% 0.43 ksf GLA 1.20 50% 83% 0.50 ksf GLA 95% 67% 10 100% 67% 12 Employee 0.70 50% 96% 0.33 0.80 50% 94% 0.38 100% 77% 10 100% 77% 11 Supermarket/Grocery 27,000 sf GLA 1.25 50% 66% 0.41 ksf GLA 1.25 50% 83% 0.52 ksf GLA 95% 92% 10 100% 92% 13 Employee 0.75 50% 96% 0.36 0.75 50% 94% 0.35 100% 100% 10 100% 100% 10 Food and Beverage Fine/Casual Dining 25,500 sf GLA 2.75 50% 10% 0.14 ksf GLA 2.50 50% 10% 0.13 ksf GLA 65% 94% 2 15% 94% - Employee 2.25 50% 96% 1.07 2.50 50% 94% 1.18 90% 100% 25 75% 100% 23 Entertainment and Institutions Active Entertainment 120,000 sf GLA 1.50 50% 82% 0.62 ksf GLA 1.80 50% 83% 0.75 ksf GLA 95% 100% 70 65% 100% 58 Employee 0.15 50% 96% 0.07 0.20 50% 94% 0.09 100% 100% 9 100% 100% 11 Hotel and Residential Hotel-Business keys 1.00 59% 100% 0.59 key 1.00 69% 100% 0.69 key 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Hotel-Leisure 358 keys 1.00 50% 100% 0.50 key 1.00 50% 100% 0.50 key 70% 100% 125 70% 100% 125 Hotel Employees 358 keys 0.15 50% 100% 0.08 key 0.15 50% 100% 0.08 key 100% 100% 27 100% 100% 27 Restaurant/Lounge sf GLA 6.67 63% 90% 3.78 ksf GLA 7.67 54% 30% 1.24 ksf GLA 33% 92% - 5% 92% - Meeting/Banquet (0 to 20 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 68% 70% 0.00 ksf GLA 65% 100% - 60% 100% - Meeting/Banquet (20 to 50 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 68% 70% 0.00 ksf GLA 65% 100% - 60% 100% - Meeting/Banquet (50 to 100 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 68% 70% 0.00 ksf GLA 65% 100% - 60% 100% - Convention (100 to 200 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 5.50 68% 70% 2.62 ksf GLA 100% 55% - 100% 55% - Convention (> 200 sq ft/key) sf GLA 5.50 68% 60% 2.24 ksf GLA 5.50 68% 70% 2.62 ksf GLA 100% 55% - 100% 55% - Restaurant/Meeting Employees sf GLA 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 ksf GLA 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Residential, Urban 0% Studio Efficiency units 0.85 50% 100% 0.43 unit 0.85 50% 100% 0.43 unit 50% 100% - 69% 100% - 1 Bedroom 1,219 units 0.50 50% 100% 0.25 unit 0.50 50% 100% 0.25 unit 50% 100% 153 69% 100% 210 2 Bedrooms units 1.65 50% 100% 0.83 unit 1.65 50% 100% 0.83 unit 50% 100% - 69% 100% - 3+ Bedrooms units 2.50 50% 100% 1.25 unit 2.50 50% 100% 1.25 unit 50% 100% - 69% 100% - Reserved res spaces 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 unit 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 unit 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Visitor 1,219 units 0.10 50% 100% 0.05 unit 0.15 50% 100% 0.08 unit 20% 100% 12 20% 100% 18 Office Office <25 ksf 101,000 sf GFA 0.30 50% 100% 0.15 ksf GFA 0.03 50% 100% 0.02 ksf GFA 95% 100% 15 100% 100% 2 Reserved empl 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Employee 0.45 50% 98% 0.22 0.35 50% 98% 0.17 95% 100% 21 100% 100% 18 Office 100 to 500 ksf 316,000 sf GFA 0.22 50% 100% 0.11 ksf GFA 0.02 50% 100% 0.01 ksf GFA 95% 100% 34 100% 100% 4 Reserved emp 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Employee 0.53 50% 100% 0.26 0.29 50% 100% 0.14 95% 100% 79 100% 100% 46 Office >500 ksf 842,500 sf GFA 0.20 50% 100% 0.10 ksf GFA 0.02 50% 100% 0.01 ksf GFA 95% 100% 80 100% 100% 9 Reserved emp 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Employee 0.55 50% 98% 0.27 0.26 50% 98% 0.13 95% 100% 215 100% 100% 107 Additional Land Uses Customer/Visitor 359 Customer 242 Employee/Resident 548 Employee/Resident 462 Reserved - Reserved - Total 907 Total 704 Copyright © 2020 All rights reserved. The Urban Land Institute, International Council of Shopping Centers, and National Parking Association. Project: Description: RDA Station Area Plan 50% TDM Reduction, 0.5 Residential, 1.0 Office Shared Parking Demand Summary Peak Month: APRIL -- Peak Period: 2 PM, WEEKDAY Weekday Weekend Land Use Project Data Base Ratio Driving Adj Non- Captive Ratio Project Unit For Quantity Unit Ratio Ratio Base Ratio Driving Adj Non- Captive Ratio Project Unit For Peak Hr Adj Ratio Ratio 2 PM Weekday Peak Mo Adj April Estimated Peak Hr Adj Parking Demand 11 AM Weekend Peak Mo Estimated Adj Parking April Demand Retail Retail (over 2,000 ksf) 36,500 sf GLA 1.30 50% 66% 0.43 ksf GLA 1.20 50% 83% 0.50 ksf GLA 95% 67% 10 100% 67% 12 Employee 0.70 50% 96% 0.33 0.80 50% 94% 0.38 100% 77% 10 100% 77% 11 Supermarket/Grocery 27,000 sf GLA 1.25 50% 66% 0.41 ksf GLA 1.25 50% 83% 0.52 ksf GLA 95% 92% 10 100% 92% 13 Employee 0.75 50% 96% 0.36 0.75 50% 94% 0.35 100% 100% 10 100% 100% 10 Food and Beverage Fine/Casual Dining 25,500 sf GLA 2.75 50% 10% 0.14 ksf GLA 2.50 50% 10% 0.13 ksf GLA 65% 94% 2 15% 94% - Employee 2.25 50% 96% 1.07 2.50 50% 94% 1.18 90% 100% 25 75% 100% 23 Entertainment and Institutions Active Entertainment 120,000 sf GLA 1.50 50% 82% 0.62 ksf GLA 1.80 50% 83% 0.75 ksf GLA 95% 100% 70 65% 100% 58 Employee 0.15 50% 96% 0.07 0.20 50% 94% 0.09 100% 100% 9 100% 100% 11 Hotel and Residential Hotel-Business keys 1.00 59% 100% 0.59 key 1.00 69% 100% 0.69 key 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Hotel-Leisure 358 keys 1.00 50% 100% 0.50 key 1.00 50% 100% 0.50 key 70% 100% 125 70% 100% 125 Hotel Employees 358 keys 0.15 50% 100% 0.08 key 0.15 50% 100% 0.08 key 100% 100% 27 100% 100% 27 Restaurant/Lounge sf GLA 6.67 63% 90% 3.78 ksf GLA 7.67 54% 30% 1.24 ksf GLA 33% 92% - 5% 92% - Meeting/Banquet (0 to 20 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 68% 70% 0.00 ksf GLA 65% 100% - 60% 100% - Meeting/Banquet (20 to 50 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 68% 70% 0.00 ksf GLA 65% 100% - 60% 100% - Meeting/Banquet (50 to 100 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 68% 70% 0.00 ksf GLA 65% 100% - 60% 100% - Convention (100 to 200 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 5.50 68% 70% 2.62 ksf GLA 100% 55% - 100% 55% - Convention (> 200 sq ft/key) sf GLA 5.50 68% 60% 2.24 ksf GLA 5.50 68% 70% 2.62 ksf GLA 100% 55% - 100% 55% - Restaurant/Meeting Employees sf GLA 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 ksf GLA 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Residential, Urban 0% Studio Efficiency units 0.85 50% 100% 0.43 unit 0.85 50% 100% 0.43 unit 50% 100% - 69% 100% - 1 Bedroom 1,219 units 0.50 50% 100% 0.25 unit 0.50 50% 100% 0.25 unit 50% 100% 153 69% 100% 210 2 Bedrooms units 1.65 50% 100% 0.83 unit 1.65 50% 100% 0.83 unit 50% 100% - 69% 100% - 3+ Bedrooms units 2.50 50% 100% 1.25 unit 2.50 50% 100% 1.25 unit 50% 100% - 69% 100% - Reserved res spaces 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 unit 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 unit 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Visitor 1,219 units 0.10 50% 100% 0.05 unit 0.15 50% 100% 0.08 unit 20% 100% 12 20% 100% 18 Office Office <25 ksf 101,000 sf GFA 0.30 50% 100% 0.15 ksf GFA 0.03 50% 100% 0.02 ksf GFA 95% 100% 15 100% 100% 2 Reserved empl 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Employee 0.70 50% 98% 0.34 0.35 50% 98% 0.17 95% 100% 33 100% 100% 18 Office 100 to 500 ksf 316,000 sf GFA 0.22 50% 100% 0.11 ksf GFA 0.02 50% 100% 0.01 ksf GFA 95% 100% 34 100% 100% 4 Reserved emp 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Employee 0.78 50% 100% 0.39 0.29 50% 100% 0.14 95% 100% 117 100% 100% 46 Office >500 ksf 842,500 sf GFA 0.20 50% 100% 0.10 ksf GFA 0.02 50% 100% 0.01 ksf GFA 95% 100% 80 100% 100% 9 Reserved emp 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Employee 0.80 50% 98% 0.39 0.26 50% 98% 0.13 95% 100% 313 100% 100% 107 Additional Land Uses Customer/Visitor 359 Customer 242 Employee/Resident 695 Employee/Resident 462 Reserved - Reserved - Total 1,054 Total 704 Copyright © 2020 All rights reserved. The Urban Land Institute, International Council of Shopping Centers, and National Parking Association. Project: Description: RDA Station Area Plan 50% TDM Reduction, 0.5 Residential, 1.50 Office Shared Parking Demand Summary Peak Month: APRIL -- Peak Period: 10 AM, WEEKDAY Weekday Weekend Land Use Project Data Base Ratio Driving Adj Non- Captive Ratio Project Unit For Quantity Unit Ratio Ratio Base Ratio Driving Adj Non- Captive Ratio Project Unit For Peak Hr Adj Ratio Ratio 10 AM Weekday Peak Mo Adj April Estimated Peak Hr Adj Parking Demand 11 AM Weekend Peak Mo Estimated Adj Parking April Demand Retail Retail (over 2,000 ksf) 36,500 sf GLA 1.30 50% 66% 0.43 ksf GLA 1.20 50% 83% 0.50 ksf GLA 60% 67% 6 100% 67% 12 Employee 0.70 50% 96% 0.33 0.80 50% 94% 0.38 75% 77% 7 100% 77% 11 Supermarket/Grocery 27,000 sf GLA 1.25 50% 66% 0.41 ksf GLA 1.25 50% 83% 0.52 ksf GLA 60% 92% 6 100% 92% 13 Employee 0.75 50% 96% 0.36 0.75 50% 94% 0.35 90% 100% 9 100% 100% 10 Food and Beverage Fine/Casual Dining 25,500 sf GLA 2.75 50% 10% 0.14 ksf GLA 2.50 50% 10% 0.13 ksf GLA 15% 94% 1 15% 94% - Employee 2.25 50% 96% 1.07 2.50 50% 94% 1.18 90% 100% 25 75% 100% 23 Entertainment and Institutions Active Entertainment 120,000 sf GLA 1.50 50% 82% 0.62 ksf GLA 1.80 50% 83% 0.75 ksf GLA 25% 100% 19 65% 100% 58 Employee 0.15 50% 96% 0.07 0.20 50% 94% 0.09 75% 100% 6 100% 100% 11 Hotel and Residential Hotel-Business keys 1.00 59% 100% 0.59 key 1.00 69% 100% 0.69 key 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Hotel-Leisure 358 keys 1.00 50% 100% 0.50 key 1.00 50% 100% 0.50 key 70% 100% 125 70% 100% 125 Hotel Employees 358 keys 0.15 50% 100% 0.08 key 0.15 50% 100% 0.08 key 100% 100% 27 100% 100% 27 Restaurant/Lounge sf GLA 6.67 63% 90% 3.78 ksf GLA 7.67 54% 30% 1.24 ksf GLA 10% 92% - 5% 92% - Meeting/Banquet (0 to 20 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 68% 70% 0.00 ksf GLA 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Meeting/Banquet (20 to 50 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 68% 70% 0.00 ksf GLA 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Meeting/Banquet (50 to 100 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 68% 70% 0.00 ksf GLA 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Convention (100 to 200 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 5.50 68% 70% 2.62 ksf GLA 100% 55% - 100% 55% - Convention (> 200 sq ft/key) sf GLA 5.50 68% 60% 2.24 ksf GLA 5.50 68% 70% 2.62 ksf GLA 100% 55% - 100% 55% - Restaurant/Meeting Employees sf GLA 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 ksf GLA 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Residential, Urban 0% Studio Efficiency units 0.85 50% 100% 0.43 unit 0.85 50% 100% 0.43 unit 60% 100% - 69% 100% - 1 Bedroom 1,219 units 0.50 50% 100% 0.25 unit 0.50 50% 100% 0.25 unit 60% 100% 183 69% 100% 210 2 Bedrooms units 1.65 50% 100% 0.83 unit 1.65 50% 100% 0.83 unit 60% 100% - 69% 100% - 3+ Bedrooms units 2.50 50% 100% 1.25 unit 2.50 50% 100% 1.25 unit 60% 100% - 69% 100% - Reserved res spaces 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 unit 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 unit 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Visitor 1,219 units 0.10 50% 100% 0.05 unit 0.15 50% 100% 0.08 unit 20% 100% 12 20% 100% 18 Office Office <25 ksf 101,000 sf GFA 0.30 50% 100% 0.15 ksf GFA 0.03 50% 100% 0.02 ksf GFA 100% 100% 16 100% 100% 2 Reserved empl 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Employee 1.20 50% 98% 0.59 0.35 50% 98% 0.17 100% 100% 60 100% 100% 18 Office 100 to 500 ksf 316,000 sf GFA 0.22 50% 100% 0.11 ksf GFA 0.02 50% 100% 0.01 ksf GFA 100% 100% 36 100% 100% 4 Reserved emp 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Employee 1.28 50% 100% 0.64 0.29 50% 100% 0.14 100% 100% 202 100% 100% 46 Office >500 ksf 842,500 sf GFA 0.20 50% 100% 0.10 ksf GFA 0.02 50% 100% 0.01 ksf GFA 100% 100% 85 100% 100% 9 Reserved emp 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Employee 1.30 50% 98% 0.63 0.26 50% 98% 0.13 100% 100% 535 100% 100% 107 Additional Land Uses Customer/Visitor 305 Customer 242 Employee/Resident 1,054 Employee/Resident 462 Reserved - Reserved - Total 1,359 Total 704 Copyright © 2020 All rights reserved. The Urban Land Institute, International Council of Shopping Centers, and National Parking Association. Project: Description: RDA Station Area Plan 50% TDM Reduction, 0.5 Residential, 2.0 Office Shared Parking Demand Summary Peak Month: APRIL -- Peak Period: 10 AM, WEEKDAY Weekday Weekend Land Use Project Data Base Ratio Driving Adj Non- Captive Ratio Project Unit For Quantity Unit Ratio Ratio Base Ratio Driving Adj Non- Captive Ratio Project Unit For Peak Hr Adj Ratio Ratio 10 AM Weekday Peak Mo Adj April Estimated Peak Hr Adj Parking Demand 11 AM Weekend Peak Mo Estimated Adj Parking April Demand Retail Retail (over 2,000 ksf) 36,500 sf GLA 1.30 50% 66% 0.43 ksf GLA 1.20 50% 83% 0.50 ksf GLA 60% 67% 6 100% 67% 12 Employee 0.70 50% 96% 0.33 0.80 50% 94% 0.38 75% 77% 7 100% 77% 11 Supermarket/Grocery 27,000 sf GLA 1.25 50% 66% 0.41 ksf GLA 1.25 50% 83% 0.52 ksf GLA 60% 92% 6 100% 92% 13 Employee 0.75 50% 96% 0.36 0.75 50% 94% 0.35 90% 100% 9 100% 100% 10 Food and Beverage Fine/Casual Dining 25,500 sf GLA 2.75 50% 10% 0.14 ksf GLA 2.50 50% 10% 0.13 ksf GLA 15% 94% 1 15% 94% - Employee 2.25 50% 96% 1.07 2.50 50% 94% 1.18 90% 100% 25 75% 100% 23 Entertainment and Institutions Active Entertainment 120,000 sf GLA 1.50 50% 82% 0.62 ksf GLA 1.80 50% 83% 0.75 ksf GLA 25% 100% 19 65% 100% 58 Employee 0.15 50% 96% 0.07 0.20 50% 94% 0.09 75% 100% 6 100% 100% 11 Hotel and Residential Hotel-Business keys 1.00 59% 100% 0.59 key 1.00 69% 100% 0.69 key 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Hotel-Leisure 358 keys 1.00 50% 100% 0.50 key 1.00 50% 100% 0.50 key 70% 100% 125 70% 100% 125 Hotel Employees 358 keys 0.15 50% 100% 0.08 key 0.15 50% 100% 0.08 key 100% 100% 27 100% 100% 27 Restaurant/Lounge sf GLA 6.67 63% 90% 3.78 ksf GLA 7.67 54% 30% 1.24 ksf GLA 10% 92% - 5% 92% - Meeting/Banquet (0 to 20 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 68% 70% 0.00 ksf GLA 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Meeting/Banquet (20 to 50 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 68% 70% 0.00 ksf GLA 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Meeting/Banquet (50 to 100 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 68% 70% 0.00 ksf GLA 60% 100% - 60% 100% - Convention (100 to 200 sq ft/key) sf GLA 0.00 68% 60% 0.00 ksf GLA 5.50 68% 70% 2.62 ksf GLA 100% 55% - 100% 55% - Convention (> 200 sq ft/key) sf GLA 5.50 68% 60% 2.24 ksf GLA 5.50 68% 70% 2.62 ksf GLA 100% 55% - 100% 55% - Restaurant/Meeting Employees sf GLA 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 ksf GLA 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 ksf GLA 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Residential, Urban 0% Studio Efficiency units 0.85 50% 100% 0.43 unit 0.85 50% 100% 0.43 unit 60% 100% - 69% 100% - 1 Bedroom 1,219 units 0.50 50% 100% 0.25 unit 0.50 50% 100% 0.25 unit 60% 100% 183 69% 100% 210 2 Bedrooms units 1.65 50% 100% 0.83 unit 1.65 50% 100% 0.83 unit 60% 100% - 69% 100% - 3+ Bedrooms units 2.50 50% 100% 1.25 unit 2.50 50% 100% 1.25 unit 60% 100% - 69% 100% - Reserved res spaces 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 unit 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 unit 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Visitor 1,219 units 0.10 50% 100% 0.05 unit 0.15 50% 100% 0.08 unit 20% 100% 12 20% 100% 18 Office Office <25 ksf 101,000 sf GFA 0.30 50% 100% 0.15 ksf GFA 0.03 50% 100% 0.02 ksf GFA 100% 100% 16 100% 100% 2 Reserved empl 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Employee 1.70 50% 98% 0.83 0.35 50% 98% 0.17 100% 100% 84 100% 100% 18 Office 100 to 500 ksf 316,000 sf GFA 0.22 50% 100% 0.11 ksf GFA 0.02 50% 100% 0.01 ksf GFA 100% 100% 36 100% 100% 4 Reserved emp 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Employee 1.78 50% 100% 0.89 0.29 50% 100% 0.14 100% 100% 281 100% 100% 46 Office >500 ksf 842,500 sf GFA 0.20 50% 100% 0.10 ksf GFA 0.02 50% 100% 0.01 ksf GFA 100% 100% 85 100% 100% 9 Reserved emp 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 0.00 50% 100% 0.00 100% 100% - 100% 100% - Employee 1.80 50% 98% 0.88 0.26 50% 98% 0.13 100% 100% 741 100% 100% 107 Additional Land Uses Customer/Visitor 305 Customer 242 Employee/Resident 1,363 Employee/Resident 462 Reserved - Reserved - Total 1,668 Total 704 100 South Design Workshop February 2024 2 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 3 100 South Design Workshop Introduction The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (SLC RDA) owns a collection of parcels totaling over 4 acres focused around the segment of 100 South bounded by 600 West and South Dansie Drive. The project site is adjacent to notable cultural uses such as the Metro Music Hall, the Sun Trapp, Utah Arts Alliance - Art Factory, Make Salt Lake, and the Wasatch Community Gardens. The western edge of the site is adjacent to rail tracks for Frontrunner, Amtrak, and other rail service as well as Interstate 15, which serves vehicle and freight movement across the state. The parcels are zoned for Gateway Mixed Use (G-MU) which allows for ‘a mixture of residential, commercial, and assembly uses within an urban neighborhood atmosphere.’ The G-MU zone requires buildings to be at least 75 feet, with a maximum allowable height of 180 feet. Map of RDA owned parcels Wasatch Community Garden Utah Arts Alliance Metro Music Hall BWP Communications Make Salt Lake The Sun Trapp City-Owned and Available for Access Use South 2 6 0 0 W e s t 4 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 5 GREEN LOOP Cultural Amenities JAPANTOWN STREET JAPANTOWN STREET Key Connections Green Loop Transit Site Area Cultural Landmarks and Amenities LOOP SITE JAPANTOWN 100 South Design Workshop District Context Downtown Connections: The 100 South parcels are located within walking distance to a wealth of existing and future transportation infrastructure including both Salt Lake Central Station and North Temple Station, the Folsom Trail, and the future Green Loop on 500 West. Cultural Amenities: The site is located at the heart of the Downtown entertainment and night life including venues such as The Metro Music Hall, The Complex, The Gateway, and the Delta Center. This is complemented by important cultural sites such as the Sun Trapp bar for the LGBTQIA community and Centro Civico for the Hispanic and LatinX community. Residential Development: In recent years, this portion of the Depot District has experience a boom of multi-family residential development. The scale of these buildings are typically in the 4-6 story range. Existing and proposed cultural landmarks and amenities in proximity to 100 South parcels. SITE Key Connections Green Loop Transit Site Area Multi-Family Housing Map of major infrastructure in proximity to the 100 South parcels. Map of recently built and proposed multi-family housing in proximity to the 100 South parcels. Key Connections Green Loop Transit Site Area JAPANTOWN 100 South Design Workshop 6 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 7 Vertical Harvest Vertical Harvest All Housing All Housing Housing and Vertical Harvest Housing and Vertical Harvest Design Workshop Preliminary Design Options Workshop Comments On September 12th, 2023, SLC RDA, Salt Lake City, and Perkins&Will conducted a work session to explore the potential site layout, land uses, and programming for these parcels. Perkins&Will presented 4 preliminary design options to initiate ideation and refinement of a preferred concept. Attendees SLC RDA SLC Planning Division SLC Department of Economic Development SLC Arts Council Perkins&Will Option 1 Option 2 Option 1 focuses on multi-family residential development with buildings oriented to provide a mid-block walkway in the interior the site. Option 2 focuses on multi-family residential development with buildings oriented to provide common green spaces for residents. The mid-block walkway goes through the ground floor of new buildings. Option 3 Option 3 focuses on multi-family residential development on the northern portion of the site with commercial development on the southern portion, including Urban Vertical Farming Use and space for food trucks. Option 4 Option 4 places multi-family residential on both the northern and southern segment of the site; Urban Vertical Farming Use is anchored in the northwest corner to buffer the rail and freeway; The ground floor is lined with active uses. Photographs of comments on the design options from the 9/12 workshop. Multi-Family Multi-Family Multi-Family Retail / Cultural URBAN VERTICAL FARMING Mid-Block Walkway Food Stalls URBAN VERTICAL FARMING Mid-Block Walkway Commercial M u l t i -F a m i l y M u l t i -F a m i l y Mu l t i -Fa m i l y M u l t i -Fa m i l y 100 South Design Workshop 8 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 9 Key Takeaway 1: Establish a Development Framework 1. 100 South: The existing right-of-way for the segment of 100 South between 600 West to Danzie Drive is approximately 120 feet and underutilized. There is an opportunity to reconfigure the street to provide vehicle access, on-street parking, usable open spaces and community programming. 2. Mid Block Walkway: In alignment with the Salt Lake City Downtown Master Plan concept for mid block walkways, the framework proposes a north-south walkway along the western edge of the Metro Music Hall and proposed multi- family residential project along 600 West. 3. 600 West: In the future, 600 West could be redesigned to ensure a safer, more comfortable multi-modal connection to Salt Lake Central Station, North Temple Station, and the Folsom Trail. 4. Loading/Access Zones: Provide loading access routes in the interior of the parcels to service future mixed-use development and provide adequate access for fire trucks. 5. Open Spaces: Identify opportunities for new open space such as the terminus of 100 south as an event plaza, internal green spaces to support future residents, and the easy conversion of the mid-block walkway to support events at the Metro Music Hall. Conceptual bird’s eye diagram of proposed street connections and open spaces. 100 South Design Workshop 10 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 11 Key Takeaway 2: Housing is a Priority 1. Affordable Housing: Housing development should adhere to RDA’s housing priorities including deeply affordable units, opportunities for home-ownership, with a focus on local artists. 2. 5-Over-1: Emphasis on supporting mid-rise development, specifically 5 over 1 multi-family residential. This common construction type is aligned with recent multi-family development within the Depot District and could help facilitate greater affordability. 3. Family Size Housing: There was a question about whether family size housing would be appropriate in this section of Downtown as it is in the heart of a growing entertainment and night life district in addition to its proximity to heavy rail and I-15. This topic will require further consideration by the RDA. Conceptual bird’s eye diagram of proposed multi-family residential development. 100 South Design Workshop 12 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 13 Key Takeaway 3: Arts, Music, and Farming 1. Music Education and Events: Workshop attendees sited a multi-purpose entertainment complex at the terminus of 100 South that could include indoor and outdoor performance spaces, rehearsal rooms, and other relevant music programming. This typology is based on Stage AE located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The right-of-way at the end of the street would be transformed into an outdoor concert venue. Additionally, to better support the Metro Music Hall, the mid-block walkway should be designed to be temporarily closed off for outdoor events. 2. Arts Programming: In lieu of traditional retail spaces lining 100 south, a portion of the ground floor of new residential development could be designated for artist and artisan spaces. 3. Urban Vertical Farming Use: Due to the nature of the site, it was determined that this could be a good location for an urban vertical farming use that could contribute to the mid- rise density of the neighborhood while providing access to fresh produce and potential workforce development opportunities. There are groups across the country that run these types of programs, some of which have expressed interest in establishing a location in Salt Lake City. This type of facility could be sited at the northern end of the property as a way to effectively buffer residential from noise coming from the rail and freeway. Conceptual bird’s eye diagram of proposed arts, music, and vertical farming programming. 100 South Design Workshop 14 Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan 15 Conceptual bird’s eye diagram of the preferred design concept. Redevelopment Agency Budget Amendment #2 Current Appropriation and Project Budgets NPA: Non-Project Area. Funding does not have a legal or Board directed requirement to be spent within a specific project area. Status Appropriation Fund Program Region Project Budget Available FY23-DD-Infrastructure Improvements-DD Depot District Infrastructure Improvements DD Unallocated 5,220,186.00 FY23-PIF-Infrastructure Improvements-DD Program Income Fund Infrastructure Improvements DD Unallocated 1,902,535.00 FY24-DD-Infrastructure Improvements-DD Depot District Infrastructure Improvements DD Unallocated 3,680,056.00 Available Total 10,802,777.00 Rescope FY23-DD-Infrastructure Improvements-DD Depot District Infrastructure Improvements DD PRJ-000002 100 S Underground Powerlines 388,981.00 PRJ-000071 Depot District Environmental Remediation 200,000.00 PRJ-000072 Station Center Shared Parking 275,639.00 PRJ-000073 Central Station 414,121.00 FY23-PIF-Infrastructure Improvements-NPA Program Income Fund Infrastructure Improvements NPA PRJ-000068 SL Mattress Warehouse 86,064.62 Release Total 1,364,805.62 In Use FY23-DD-Infrastructure Improvements-DD Depot District Infrastructure Improvements DD PRJ-000017 Artspace Stormwater Relocation 200,000.00 PRJ-000063 Station Center Design 331,313.11 FY23-DD-Infrastructure Studies and Planning-DD Depot District Infrastructure Studies and Planning DD PRJ-000054 Station Center Vision & Implementation Plan 434,696.00 FY23-DD-Other Housing-DD Depot District Other Housing DD PRJ-000064 Home Inn Rio Grande Maintenance 23,292.68 FY23-PIF-Infrastructure Improvements-NPA Program Income Fund Infrastructure Improvements NPA PRJ-000017 Artspace Stormwater Relocation 320,127.53 PRJ-000068 SL Mattress Warehouse 5,644.00 In Use Total 1,315,073.32 Total 13,482,655.94 Proposed Budget Changes by Appropriation Appropriation Fund Program Region Current Budget Change Proposed Budget FY23-DD-Infrastructure Improvements-DD Depot District Infrastructure Improvements DD 7,030,240 (6,498,927)531,313 FY23-DD-Infrastructure Studies and Planning-DD Depot District Infrastructure Studies and Planning DD 434,696 - 434,696 FY23-DD-Other Housing-DD Depot District Other Housing DD 23,293 - 23,293 FY23-PIF-Infrastructure Improvements-DD Program Income Fund Infrastructure Improvements DD 1,902,535 (1,902,535)- FY23-PIF-Infrastructure Improvements-NPA Program Income Fund Infrastructure Improvements NPA 411,836 (86,065)325,772 FY24-DD-Infrastructure Improvements-DD Depot District Infrastructure Improvements DD 3,680,056 (3,680,056)- FY23-DD-Infrastructure Improvements-DD Depot District Infrastructure Improvements DD - 1,000,000 1,000,000 FY23-DD-Commercial Property Disposition-DD Depot District Commercial Property Disposition DD - 5,498,927 5,498,927 FY23-PIF-Commercial Property Disposition-DD Program Income Fund Commercial Property Disposition DD - 1,601,073 1,601,073 FY23-PIF-Infrastructure Improvements-DD Program Income Fund Infrastructure Improvements DD - 301,462 301,462 FY23-PIF-Infrastructure Improvements-NPA Program Income Fund Infrastructure Improvements DD - 86,065 86,065 FY24-DD-Infrastructure Improvements-DD Depot District Infrastructure Improvements DD - 3,680,056 3,680,056 Total 13,482,656 - 13,482,656 New Project: Station Center Property Disposition & Site Work RDA-FY23-DD-Commercial Property Disposition-DD 5,498,927 RDA-FY23-DD-Infrastructure Improvements-DD 1,000,000 RDA-FY23-PIF-Commercial Property Disposition-DD 1,601,073 Proposed Appropriation Station Center Property Disposition & Site Work 8,100,000 New Project New Project: Depot District Infrastructure, Design, Construction, & Site Work RDA-FY24-DD-Infrastructure Improvements-DD 3,680,056 RDA-FY23-PIF-Infrastructure Improvements-DD 301,462 RDA-FY23-PIF-Infrastructure Improvements-DD 86,065 Proposed Appropriation Depot District Infrastructure, Design, Construction, & Site Work 4,067,583 New Project Workday Worktags & the RDA Budget Worktags allow for tracking of costs, revenues, and other operational metrics across different dimensions like departments, projects, or geographic locations. The Redevelopment Agency’s budget utilizes the following Worktags: Cost Center: Represents a specific department, unit, or division within an organization that is responsible for certain costs. The RDA is a cost center. Fiscal Year: The original year the funds were appropriated. Fund: Used to categorize and segregate financial transactions based on the origin of the funds, which is crucial for accurate financial reporting and compliance. The RDA has Project Area, Housing, Multi-Use, and Operations funds, with various legal and policy-related requirements that need to be monitored. Program: Enables the segregation and monitoring of financial data, which represents a specific pool of money that needs to be tracked for various legal, policy, or Board-directed initiatives related to RDA programs. The Program Worktags are designed to fit within program hierarchies such as Housing, Commercial, Infrastructure, and Operations programs. Region: Segments expenses based on location, which for the RDA is usually a Project Area. Not all expenses will be associated with a project area, which means this Worktag may not always be used. Appropriation: Combines the elements of Cost Center, Fund, Program, and Region into a single, comprehensive identifier, with the fiscal year as a prefix. Appropriation Cost Center FundFiscal Year Program Region Appropriations & Project Budgets Operations Appropriations Annual appropriations for operational expenses. Considered approved to spend when appropriated. If not spent or encumbered by the end of the fiscal year, drops to fund balance. Typically, these would be for RDA operating expenses. Occasionally may be associated with a project budget (for example, an office remodel). Capital Reserves Appropriations Appropriations for programs that carry forward each year. For instance, in the Housing Development Loan Program, a set amount is allocated for loans. Staff will request additional Board approval to use these funds for specific loan projects. Funds not awarded to projects roll forward to the next year, unless reappropriated by the Board. Project Budgets All project budgets must pull from appropriations. Once project budgets have been approved by the Board, the Agency can move forward with spending. Project budgets may have multiple appropriations. Each appropriation supports either the operations of the Agency or projects associated with its various programs. Redevelopment Agency Funds Project Area Funds Must be used within the boundaries of the project area, except for revenues transferred to Primary Housing (legally required), Secondary Housing (supplemental), Agency Operations (defined by interlocal agreements), or other legal reasons. •Central Business District (CBD) •Block 70 (B70) •Depot District (DD) •Granary District (GD) •North Temple (NT) •North Temple Viaduct (NTV) •Stadler Rail (SR) •Northwest Quadrant (NWQ) •State Street (SS) •9 Line (9L) •Block 67 North (B67N) Housing Funds May be used anywhere in the City, unless otherwise directed by the Board, except for the WCI, which must be used west of I-15. •Primary Housing (1H) •Secondary Housing (2H) •Housing Development Fund (HDF) •West Side Community Initiative (WCI) Multi-Use Funds Can be used across project areas (and potentially city-wide), unless otherwise directed by the Board. •Program Income Fund (PIF) •Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) Agency Operations Fund (OPS) •Receives transfers in from other funds to fund the Agency’s operational expenses. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238 PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 TEL 801-535-6394 ERINMENDENHALL Mayor MARY BETHTHOMPSON Chief Financial Officer RDABOARDTRANSMITTAL ___________________________________Date Received: ________________ Mayor Erin Mendenhall, Executive Director Date sent to Council: ___________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO:Salt Lake City RDA Board DATE: March 4, 2024 Alejandro Puy, RDA Chair FROM:Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer Danny Walz, RDA Director SUBJECT:RDA Budget Amendment #2, FY 2023-24 SPONSOR: NA STAFF CONTACT:Greg Cleary, Budget Director (801) 535-6394 or Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403 or Mike Burns (801) 535-6461 or Erin Cunningham (801) 535-7246 Danny Walz (801) 535-7209 DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Resolution RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that subsequent to a public hearing, the RDA Board adopt the following amendment to the FY 2023-24 adopted budget. BUDGET IMPACT: The Second Amendment will not affect the Agency's overall budget total. Its purpose is to reappropriate several project budgets and reallocate funds previously appropriated at a program level and into two new project budgets. REVENUE EXPENSE RDAFUND $ 0.00 $ 0.00 TOTAL $ 0.00 $ 0.00 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This amendment proposes the reappropriation of budgets previously earmarked for various projects and reallocating program-level appropriations into two new projects. Identified project budgets are either complete with surplus funds or more effectively integrated into larger projects. It is recommended that program-level appropriations, including "Station Center Infrastructure Funds" and "Depot District Infrastructure Funds," be appropriated to two (2) new projects. The amendment maintains the total budget of appropriations but alters their distribution. There is a total of $10,802,277 in appropriations not currently allocated to projects. Additionally, there are five project budgets available for reappropriation, totaling $1,364,806. The combined total of $12,167,583 is proposed for allocation to two new projects. The staff memo, included below, outlines greater details of project reallocations, and provides additional staff analysis. A summary document outlining the proposed budget change is attached (Attachment C). The Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Board.The budget amendment contains one item in section D Housekeeping Items: 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 ATTACHMENTS: A. RDA Budget Amendment 2 Resolution B. Budget Amendment 2 Staff Memo C. Budget Amendment Summary PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing 1 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY RESOLUTION NO__________ Second Budget Amendment for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY AMENDING THE FINAL BUDGET OF THE RDA FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024. WHEREAS, on June 13, 2023, the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Board of Directors (Board) adopted the final budget of the RDA, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2023, and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 17C-1-601.5 of the Utah Code. WHEREAS, all conditions precedent to amend the RDA's final annual budget have been accomplished. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this resolution is to amend the final annual budget of the RDA, as approved, ratified and finalized by the Board on June 13, 2023. 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments shown on Exhibit A as “Board Approved” are hereby adopted and incorporated into the annual budget of the RDA. 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The Salt Lake City Finance Department, on behalf of the RDA, is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments in the office of the Finance Department, the RDA, and the office of the City Recorder, which amendments shall be available for public inspection. Passed by the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 202 , to be effective upon adoption. ________________________________ , Chair Approved as to form: __________________________________ Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Allison Parks 2 The Executive Director: ____ does not request reconsideration ____ requests reconsideration at the next regular Agency meeting _________________________________ Erin Mendenhall, Executive Director Attest: _________________________ City Recorder 3 EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION [Attach Board’s Final Approved Budget Amendment] REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 118 WWW.SLC.GOV · WWW.SLCRDA.COM P.O. BOX 145518, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5518 TEL 801-535-7240 · FAX 801-535-7245 MAYOR ERIN MENDENHALL Executive Director DANNY WALZ Director STAFF MEMO DATE:March 4, 2024 PREPARED BY:Erin Cunningham, Financial Analyst RE:RDA Budget Amendment #2, FY 2023-2024 REQUESTED ACTION: Discussion and approval of Budget Amendment #2 BUDGET IMPACTS:The Second Amendment will not affect the Agency's overall budget total. Its purpose is to reappropriate several project budgets and reallocate funds previously appropriated at a program level and into two new project budgets. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This amendment proposes the reappropriation of budgets previously earmarked for various projects and reallocating program-level appropriations into two new projects. Identified project budgets are either complete with surplus funds or more effectively integrated into larger projects. It is recommended that program-level appropriations, including "Station Center Infrastructure Funds" and "Depot District Infrastructure Funds," be appropriated to two (2) new projects. The amendment maintains the total budget of appropriations but alters their distribution. There is a total of $10,802,277 in appropriations not currently allocated to projects. Additionally, there are five project budgets available for reappropriation, totaling $1,364,806. The combined total of $12,167,583 is proposed for allocation to two new projects. ANALYSIS & ISSUES: The Agency is in the process of transitioning to the City's new Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software, Workday. In shifting to the new system for project funding, it becomes imperative to recognize that the financial plan for each project must align with designated appropriations. Each appropriation encapsulates details necessary for legal spending, thus ensuring compliance with regulations and policies to which the Agency must adhere. These appropriations represent pools of money set aside for specific purposes, each governed by clear rules regarding expenditure. The elements of each appropriation include the Department (Cost Center), Fiscal Year, Fund, and Project Area (Region). As funds from these appropriations are assigned to various projects, the remaining balance within each appropriation will decrease. Previously, the Agency possessed the flexibility to allocate funds directly from available funding sources to projects. With the adoption of the new system, the Agency's overall budget is perceived as a collection of these appropriations, necessitating that all project budgets derive their funding from them. This arrangement precludes the possibility of projects maintaining their own, independent budgets. The structure now adopts a two-tiered approach: the comprehensive budget comprising all appropriations, and the individual project budgets that must be funded in accordance with these appropriations. Reallocation of Appropriations This budget amendment pertains to the redistribution of funds formerly designated as "Station Center Infrastructure Funds" and "Depot District Infrastructure Funds." The table below illustrates the current appropriations. The amendment proposes to reappropriate funds from two categories: Appropriations with the "Available" status are not currently tied to any projects. Staff is seeking to reallocate $10,802,777 of these appropriations to support two (2) new projects described below. Appropriations and Project Budgets with the "Rescope" status are intended to be detached from their existing assignments and rescoped to support the same two (2) projects. This $1,364,805.62, combined with the amount above totals $12,167,583 Status Appropriation Project Budget Available Prior Year Balances through FY23-DD-Infrastructure Improvements-DD Capital Reserve - Infrastructure Improvements -{Holding Account}- 5,220,186.00 Prior Year Balances through FY23-PIF-Infrastructure Improvements-DD Capital Reserve - Infrastructure Improvements -{Holding Account}- 1,902,535.00 RDA Key Changes FY24-DD- Infrastructure Improvements-DD Capital Reserve - Infrastructure Improvements -{Holding Account}- 3,680,056.00 Available Total 10,802,777.00 Rescope FY23-DD-Infrastructure Improvements-DD Capital Project: PRJ-000002 100 S Underground Powerlines 388,981.00 Capital Project: PRJ-000071 Depot District Environmental Remediation 200,000.00 Capital Project: PRJ-000072 Station Center Shared Parking 275,639.00 Capital Project: PRJ-000073 Central Station 414,121.00 FY23-PIF-Infrastructure Improvements-NPA Capital Project: PRJ-000068 SL Mattress Warehouse 86,064.62 Rescope Total 1,364,805.62 Total 12,167,583 Fund Program Appropriation Current Budget Change Proposed Budget Depot District Infrastructure Improvements RDA-FY24-DD- Infrastructure Improvements-DD 0 3,680,056 3,680,056 Program Income Fund Infrastructure Improvements RDA-FY23-PIF- Infrastructure Improvements-DD 0 301,462 301,462 RDA-FY23-PIF- Infrastructure Improvements-DD (from NPA) 0 86,065 86,065 Total 0 4,067,583 4,067,583 PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: 1. Approval of the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Budget. 2. Approval of the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Budget Amendment #1. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Supplemental Slides. Proposed Budget Changes by Appropriation Appropriation Fund Program Region Current Budget Change Proposed Budget FY23-DD-Infrastructure Improvements-DD Depot District Infrastructure Improvements DD 7,030,240 (6,498,927)531,313 FY23-DD-Infrastructure Studies and Planning-DD Depot District Infrastructure Studies and Planning DD 434,696 -434,696 FY23-DD-Other Housing-DD Depot District Other Housing DD 23,293 -23,293 FY23-PIF-Infrastructure Improvements-DD Program Income Fund Infrastructure Improvements DD 1,902,535 (1,902,535)- FY23-PIF-Infrastructure Improvements-NPA Program Income Fund Infrastructure Improvements NPA 411,836 (86,065)325,772 FY24-DD-Infrastructure Improvements-DD Depot District Infrastructure Improvements DD 3,680,056 (3,680,056)- FY23-DD-Infrastructure Improvements-DD Depot District Infrastructure Improvements DD -1,000,000 1,000,000 FY23-DD-Commercial Property Disposition-DD Depot District Commercial Property Disposition DD -5,498,927 5,498,927 FY23-PIF-Commercial Property Disposition-DD Program Income Fund Commercial Property Disposition DD -1,601,073 1,601,073 FY23-PIF-Infrastructure Improvements-DD Program Income Fund Infrastructure Improvements DD -301,462 301,462 FY23-PIF-Infrastructure Improvements-NPA Program Income Fund Infrastructure Improvements DD -86,065 86,065 FY24-DD-Infrastructure Improvements-DD Depot District Infrastructure Improvements DD -3,680,056 3,680,056 Total 13,482,656 -13,482,656 New Project: Station Center Property Disposition & Site Work RDA-FY23-DD-Commercial Property Disposition-DD 5,498,927 RDA-FY23-DD-Infrastructure Improvements-DD 1,000,000 RDA-FY23-PIF-Commercial Property Disposition-DD 1,601,073 Proposed Appropriation Station Center Property Disposition & Site Work 8,100,000 New Project New Project: Depot District Infrastructure, Design, Construction, & Site Work RDA-FY24-DD-Infrastructure Improvements-DD 3,680,056 RDA-FY23-PIF-Infrastructure Improvements-DD 301,462 RDA-FY23-PIF-Infrastructure Improvements-DD 86,065 Proposed Appropriation Depot District Infrastructure, Design, Construction, & Site Work 4,067,583 New Project Workday Worktags & the RDA Budget Worktags allow for tracking of costs, revenues, and other operational metrics across different dimensions like departments, projects, or geographic locations. The Redevelopment Agency’s budget utilizes the following Worktags: Cost Center: Represents a specific department, unit, or division within an organization that is responsible for certain costs. The RDA is a cost center. Fiscal Year: The original year the funds were appropriated. Fund: Used to categorize and segregate financial transactions based on the origin of the funds, which is crucial for accurate financial reporting and compliance. The RDA has Project Area, Housing, Multi-Use, and Operations funds, with various legal and policy-related requirements that need to be monitored. Program: Enables the segregation and monitoring of financial data, which represents a specific pool of money that needs to be tracked for various legal, policy, or Board-directed initiatives related to RDA programs. The Program Worktags are designed to fit within program hierarchies such as Housing, Commercial, Infrastructure, and Operations programs. Region: Segments expenses based on location, which for the RDA is usually a Project Area. Not all expenses will be associated with a project area, which means this Worktag may not always be used. Appropriation: Combines the elements of Cost Center, Fund, Program, and Region into a single, comprehensive identifier, with the fiscal year as a prefix. Appropriation Cost Center FundFiscal Year Program Region Appropriations & Project Budgets Operations Appropriations Annual appropriations for operational expenses. Considered approved to spend when appropriated. If not spent or encumbered by the end of the fiscal year, drops to fund balance. Typically, these would be for RDA operating expenses. Occasionally may be associated with a project budget (for example, an office remodel). Capital Reserves Appropriations Appropriations for programs that carry forward each year. For instance, in the Housing Development Loan Program, a set amount is allocated for loans. Staff will request additional Board approval to use these funds for specific loan projects. Funds not awarded to projects roll forward to the next year, unless reappropriated by the Board. Project Budgets All project budgets must pull from appropriations. Once project budgets have been approved by the Board, the Agency can move forward with spending. Project budgets may have multiple appropriations. Each appropriation supports either the operations of the Agency or projects associated with its various programs. Redevelopment Agency Funds Project Area Funds Must be used within the boundaries of the project area, except for revenues transferred to Primary Housing (legally required), Secondary Housing (supplemental), Agency Operations (defined by interlocal agreements), or other legal reasons. •Central Business District (CBD) •Block 70 (B70) •Depot District (DD) •Granary District (GD) •North Temple (NT) •North Temple Viaduct (NTV) •Stadler Rail (SR) •Northwest Quadrant (NWQ) •State Street (SS) •9 Line (9L) •Block 67 North (B67N) Housing Funds May be used anywhere in the City, unless otherwise directed by the Board, except for the WCI, which must be used west of I-15. •Primary Housing (1H) •Secondary Housing (2H) •Housing Development Fund (HDF) •West Side Community Initiative (WCI) Multi-Use Funds Can be used across project areas (and potentially city-wide), unless otherwise directed by the Board. •Program Income Fund (PIF) •Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) Agency Operations Fund (OPS) •Receives transfers in from other funds to fund the Agency’s operational expenses. In i t i a t i v e N u m b e r / N a m e P r o j e c t A r e a R e v e n u e A m o u n t E x p e n d i t u r e Am o u n t R e v e n u e Am o u n t E x 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 FT E s 1 RD A R e a l l o c a t i o n o f P r o g r a m - L e v e l A p p r o p r i a t i o n s i n t o Tw o N e w P r o j e c t s De p o t D i s t r i c t - (1 0 , 1 7 8 , 9 8 3 . 0 0 ) On e - t i m e - 1 RD A R e a l l o c a t i o n o f P r o g r a m - L e v e l A p p r o p r i a t i o n s i n t o Tw o N e w P r o j e c t s De p o t D i s t r i c t - 1 0 , 1 7 8 , 9 8 3 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - 1 RD A R e a l l o c a t i o n o f P r o g r a m - L e v e l A p p r o p r i a t i o n s i n t o Tw o N e w P r o j e c t s Pr o g r a m I n c o m e Fu n d - (1 , 9 8 8 , 6 0 0 . 0 0 ) On e - t i m e - 1 RD A R e a l l o c a t i o n o f P r o g r a m - L e v e l A p p r o p r i a t i o n s i n t o Tw o N e w P r o j e c t s Pr o g r a m I n c o m e Fu n d - 1 , 9 8 8 , 6 0 0 . 0 0 O n 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 I t e m s - - - - To t a l b y F u n d , B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t # 1 : Re d e v e l o p m e n t A g e n c y De p o t D i s t r i c t - - - - - Re d e v e l o p m e n t A g e n c y Pr o g r a m I n c o m e Fu n d - - 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 - - - - - Fi s c a l Y e a r 2 0 2 3 - 2 4 R D A B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t # 2 Se c t i o n G : B o a r d C o n s e n t A g e n d a - - G r a n t A w a r d s Se c t i o n I : B o a r d A d d e d I t e m s Se c t i o n A : N e w I t e m 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 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 D : H o u s e k e e p i n g Se c t i o n E : G r a n t s R e q u i r i n g N o N e w S t a f f R e s o u r c e s Se c t i o n F : D o n a t i o n s Bo a r d 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 1 In i t i a t i v e N u m b e r / N a m e P r o j e c t A r e a R e v e n u e A m o u n t E x p e n d i t u r e Am o u n t R e v e n u e Am o u n t E x 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 FT E s Fi s c a l Y e a r 2 0 2 3 - 2 4 R D A B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t # 2 Bo a r d 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 Cu r r e n t Y e a r B u d g e t S u m m a r y , p r o 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 B u d g e t , I n c l u d i n g B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t s To t a l R e v e n u e RD A B A # 1 T o t a l RD A B A # 2 T o t a l To t a l T o - D a t e Re d e v e l o p m e n t A g e n c y 80 , 8 0 3 , 8 4 1 (6 , 4 7 6 , 0 1 4 ) - 7 4 , 3 2 7 , 8 2 7 T o 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 80 , 8 0 3 , 8 4 1 (6 , 4 7 6 , 0 1 4 ) - 7 4 , 3 2 7 , 8 2 7 To t a l E x p e n s e RD A B A # 1 T o t a l RD A B A # 2 T o t a l To t a l T o - D a t e Re d e v e l o p m e n t A g e n c y 80 , 8 0 3 , 8 4 1 (6 , 4 7 6 , 0 1 4 ) - 7 4 , 3 2 7 , 8 2 7 T o 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 80 , 8 0 3 , 8 4 1 (6 , 4 7 6 , 0 1 4 ) - 7 4 , 3 2 7 , 8 2 7 Ce r t i f i c a t i o n Bu d g e t M a n a g e r De p u t y D i r e c t o r , C i t y C o u n c i l / R D A B o a r d Co n t i n g e n t A p p r o p r i a t i o n a n d N o t e s 2 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024 BUDGET AMENDMENT #3 New Project Appropriations Strategic Intervention: $1,721,227 RDA-FY23-NT-Strategic Intervention-NT: $1,397,327 RDA-FY24-NT-Strategic Intervention-NT: $285,490 RDA-FY23-PIF-Strategic Intervention-NT: $38,410 Commercial Assistance Reserves: $1,925,329 RDA-FY24-NT-Commercial Assistance Reserves-NT: $325,959 RDA-FY23-PIF-Commercial Assistance Reserves-NPA: $1,599,370 Housing Property Acquisition: $ 603,444 RDA-FY23-PIF-Housing Property Acquisition-9L Project: PRJ-000011 RDA - 400 S/900W Acquisition: $603,444 Strategic Intervention: $4,250,000 RDA-FY23-NT-Strategic Intervention-NT: $1,397,327 RDA-FY24-NT-Strategic Intervention-NT: $611,449 RDA-FY23-PIF-Strategic Intervention-NPA: $2,202,814 RDA-FY23-PIF-Strategic Intervention-NT: $38,410 New Project: Whipple Property Acquisition Program Income FundNorth Temple Fund Legend: Appropriation Changes Impact Project Program Fund Appropriation Current Budget Change Proposed Budget Available to allocate to projects Commercial Assistance Reserves North Temple RDA-FY24-NT-Commercial Assistance Reserves- NT 543,277 (325,959)217,318 Program Income Fund RDA-FY23-PIF-Commercial Assistance Reserves- NPA 1,599,370 (1,599,370)0 Available to allocate to projects Total 2,142,647 (1,925,329)217,318 PRJ-000011 RDA - 400 S/900W Acquisition Housing Property Acquisition Program Income Fund RDA-FY23-PIF-Housing Property Acquisition-9L 4,000,000 (603,444)3,396,556 PRJ-000011 RDA - 400 S/900W Acquisition Total 4,000,000 (603,444)3,396,556 Total 6,142,647 (2,528,773)3,613,874 Project Program Fund Appropriation Current Budget Change Proposed Budget New Project: Whipple Property Acquisition Strategic Intervention North Temple RDA-FY23-NT-Strategic Intervention-NT 0 1,397,327 1,397,327 RDA-FY24-NT-Strategic Intervention-NT 0 611,449 611,449 Program Income Fund RDA-FY23-PIF-Strategic Intervention-9L 0 603,444 603,444 RDA-FY23-PIF-Strategic Intervention-NPA 0 1,599,370 1,599,370 RDA-FY23-PIF-Strategic Intervention-NT 0 38,410 38,410 New Project: Whipple Property Acquisition Total 0 4,250,000 4,250,000 Total 0 4,250,000 4,250,000 $2,528,773 shifts from Commercial Assistance Reserves and Housing Property Acquisition to Strategic Intervention $4,250,000 New and Existing Strategic Intervention Program allocated to New Project: Whipple Property Acquisition Workday Worktags & the RDA Budget Worktags allow for tracking of costs, revenues, and other operational metrics across different dimensions like departments, projects, or geographic locations. The Redevelopment Agency’s budget utilizes the following Worktags: Cost Center: Represents a specific department, unit, or division within an organization that is responsible for certain costs. The RDA is a cost center. Fiscal Year: The original year the funds were appropriated. Fund: Used to categorize and segregate financial transactions based on the origin of the funds, which is crucial for accurate financial reporting and compliance. The RDA has Project Area, Housing, Multi-Use, and Operations funds, with various legal and policy-related requirements that need to be monitored. Program: Enables the segregation and monitoring of financial data, which represents a specific pool of money that needs to be tracked for various legal, policy, or Board-directed initiatives related to RDA programs. The Program Worktags are designed to fit within program hierarchies such as Housing, Commercial, Infrastructure, and Operations programs. Region: Segments expenses based on location, which for the RDA is usually a Project Area. Not all expenses will be associated with a project area, which means this Worktag may not always be used. Appropriation: Combines the elements of Cost Center, Fund, Program, and Region into a single, comprehensive identifier, with the fiscal year as a prefix. Appropriation Cost Center FundFiscal Year Program Region Appropriations & Project Budgets Operations Appropriations Annual appropriations for operational expenses. Considered approved to spend when appropriated. If not spent or encumbered by the end of the fiscal year, drops to fund balance. Typically, these would be for RDA operating expenses. Occasionally may be associated with a project budget (for example, an office remodel). Capital Reserves Appropriations Appropriations for programs that carry forward each year. For instance, in the Housing Development Loan Program, a set amount is allocated for loans. Staff will request additional Board approval to use these funds for specific loan projects. Funds not awarded to projects roll forward to the next year, unless reappropriated by the Board. Project Budgets All project budgets must pull from appropriations. Once project budgets have been approved by the Board, the Agency can move forward with spending. Project budgets may have multiple appropriations. Each appropriation supports either the operations of the Agency or projects associated with its various programs. Redevelopment Agency Funds Project Area Funds Must be used within the boundaries of the project area, except for money transferred to Primary Housing (legally required), Secondary Housing (supplemental), Agency Operations (defined by interlocal agreements), or other legally obligated reasons. •Central Business District (CBD) •Block 70 (B70) •Depot District (DD) •Granary District (GD) •North Temple (NT) •North Temple Viaduct (NTV) •Stadler Rail (SR) •Northwest Quadrant (NWQ) •State Street (SS) •9 Line (9L) •Block 67 North (B67N) •West Capitol Hill (WCH) Note: Region acronyms are the same as project area acronyms. If there is “NPA” noted in an appropriation, it stands for “Non-Project Area.” Housing Funds May be used anywhere in the City, unless otherwise directed by the Board, except for the WCI, which must be used west of I-15. •Primary Housing (1H) •Secondary Housing (2H) •Housing Development Fund (HDF) •West Side Community Initiative (WCI) Multi-Use Funds Can be used across project areas (and potentially city-wide), unless otherwise directed by the Board. •Program Income Fund (PIF) •Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) Agency Operations Fund (OPS) •Received transfers in from other funds to fund the Agency’s operational expenses. dERIN MENDENHALL Mayor RDA BOARD TRANSMITTAL MARY BETH THOMPSON Chief Financial Officer Date Received: Mayor Erin Mendenhall, Executive Director Date sent to Council: TO: Salt Lake City RDA Board DATE: March 29, 2024 Alejandro Puy, RDA Chair FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer Danny Walz, RDA Director SUBJECT: RDA Budget Amendment #3, FY 2023-24 SPONSOR: NA STAFF CONTACT: Danny Walz (801) 535-7209 or Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403 or Greg Cleary (801) 535-6394 or Mike Burns (801) 535-6461 or Erin Cunningham (801) 535-7246 DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Resolution RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that subsequent to a public hearing, the RDA Board adopt the following amendment to the FY 2023-24 adopted budget. BUDGET IMPACT: The Third Amendment will not affect the Agency's overall budget total. Its purpose is to reappropriate multiple project budgets and reallocate funds previously appropriated at a program level and into a new project budget. REVENUE EXPENSE RDA FUND $ 0.00 $ 0.00 TOTAL $ 0.00 $ 0.00 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238 PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 TEL 801-535-6394 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This amendment proposes using the appropriated $1,721,227 in the Strategic Intervention program within the North Temple and Program Income Funds. In addition, Staff recommends the reallocation of $1,925,329 from the Commercial Assistance Reserves program and $603,444 from the Housing Property Acquisition program to the Strategic Intervention program, also in the North Temple and Program Income Funds. In total, $4,250,000 would be appropriated in the Strategic Intervention program between these two funds and allocated to a new property acquisition project. The staff memo, included below, outlines greater details of project reallocations, and provides additional staff analysis. A summary document outlining the proposed budget change is attached (Attachment C). The Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Board. The budget amendment contains one item in section D Housekeeping Items: 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 ATTACHMENTS: A. RDA Budget Amendment #3 Resolution B. Budget Amendment #3 Staff Memo C. Budget Amendment Summary PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY RESOLUTION NO Third Budget Amendment for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY AMENDING THE FINAL BUDGET OF THE RDA FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024. WHEREAS, on June 13, 2023, the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Board of Directors (Board) adopted the final budget of the RDA, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2023, and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 17C-1-601.5 of the Utah Code. WHEREAS, all conditions precedent to amend the RDA's final annual budget have been accomplished. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this resolution is to amend the final annual budget of the RDA, as approved, ratified and finalized by the Board on June 13, 2023. 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments shown on Exhibit A as “Board Approved” are hereby adopted and incorporated into the annual budget of the RDA. 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The Salt Lake City Finance Department, on behalf of the RDA, is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments in the office of the Finance Department, the RDA, and the office of the City Recorder, which amendments shall be available for public inspection. Passed by the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2024, to be effective upon adoption. , Chair Approved as to form: Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Allison Parks 1 The Executive Director: does not request reconsideration requests reconsideration at the next regular Agency meeting Erin Mendenhall, Executive Director Attest: City Recorder 2 EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION [Attach Board’s Final Approved Budget Amendment] 3 MAYOR ERIN MENDENHALL Executive Director REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of SALT LAKE CITY DANNY WALZ Director STAFF MEMO DATE: March 29, 2024 PREPARED BY: Erin Cunningham, Financial Analyst RE: RDA Budget Amendment #3, FY 2023-2024 REQUESTED ACTION: Discussion and approval of Budget Amendment #3 BUDGET IMPACTS: The Third Amendment will not affect the Agency's overall budget total. Its purpose is to reallocate multiple program appropriations to fund a $4,250,000 property acquisition in the North Temple project area. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This amendment proposes using the existing $1,721,227 in the Strategic Intervention program within the North Temple and Program Income Funds. In addition, Staff recommends the reallocation of $1,925,329 from the Commercial Assistance Reserves program and $603,444 from the Housing Property Acquisition program to the Strategic Intervention program, also in the North Temple and Program Income funds. In total, $4,250,000 would be appropriated in the Strategic Intervention program between these two funds and allocated to a new property acquisition project. ANALYSIS & ISSUES: Project Description: Whipple Property Acquisition The Agency is interested in purchasing approximately 0.53 acres of property located at 961-965 West Folsom Avenue, 47 South 1000 West, and 51 South 1000 West in Salt Lake City. The property is located within the Agency's designated North Temple Project Area and is directly adjacent to the Folsom Corridor, where UTA and Salt Lake City recently completed construction of a multi-use trail. The Agency’s acquisition of this property presents an opportunity to facilitate community-serving redevelopment projects along the Folsom Trail that preserve existing small-scale commercial spaces and adaptively reuse the existing structure to create space for local, independent businesses. Funding of the Project When acquiring property, the Agency strives to use Housing, Commercial, or Infrastructure Property Acquisition programs to keep track of how its funds have been used. However, when the end use of the property has not been determined at the time of the acquisition, the Strategic Intervention program is used. This program’s approved uses include property acquisition, site development costs, and community SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 118 WWW.SLC.GOV · WWW.SLCRDA.COM P.O. BOX 145518, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5518 TEL 801-535-7240 · FAX 801-535-7245 benefits. Since the use of this property acquisition has not been determined yet, Staff recommends utilizing Strategic Intervention program for this project. Existing Strategic Intervention Funds The table below outlines the current appropriations within the Strategic Intervention program, specifically in the North Temple and Program Income funds. While no changes to the appropriations are necessary, the Agency is requesting to allocate the full $1,721,227 to this project. Fund Program Appropriation Project Current Budget Change Proposed Budget North Temple Strategic Intervention RDA-FY23- NT-Strategic Intervention- NT {Capital Reserves Program - Holding Account} 1,397,327 0 1,397,327 RDA-FY24- NT-Strategic Intervention- NT {Capital Reserves Program - Holding Account} 285,490 0 285,490 Program Income Fund Strategic Intervention RDA-FY23- PIF-Strategic Intervention- NT {Capital Reserves Program - Holding Account} 38,410 0 38,410 Total 1,721,227 0 1,721,227 Reallocation of Commercial Assistance Funds to the Strategic Intervention Program The Agency has been restructuring its Commercial Assistance programs and the Board has approved the following appropriations in the North Temple and Program Income funds to a Commercial Assistance Reserves program. As the Commercial Assistance program is being finalized, these funds have not yet been allocated to any projects. The proposal involves using $1,925,329 from these appropriations for this project, leaving $217,318 remaining in the North Temple appropriation. Fund Program Appropriation Project Current Budget Change Proposed Budget North Temple Commercial Assistance Reserves RDA-FY24- NT- Commercial Assistance Reserves-NT {Capital Reserves Program - Holding Account} 543,277 (325,959) 217,318 Program Income Fund Commercial Assistance Reserves RDA-FY23- PIF- Commercial Assistance Reserves-NPA {Capital Reserves Program - Holding Account} 1,599,370 (1,599,370) 0 Total 2,142,647 (1,925,329) 217,318 Reallocation of Housing Property Acquisition Funds / 9-Line Property Acquisition With the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Budget Amendment #3, the Board approved a property acquisition in the 9-Line project area, using $4,000,000 transferred from the City’s General Fund to the Agency’s Program Income Fund in the Housing Property Acquisition Program. This acquisition is happening in phases consisting of three separate assemblages. The first assemblage has been acquired and the third phase is still being negotiated. The second phase negotiations have been completed at a lower price than anticipated, and $603,444 remains from what was originally estimated. This amendment proposes reappropriating the remaining amount to the Strategic Intervention program within the same fund.. Fund Program Appropriation Project Current Budget Change Proposed Budget Program Housing RDA-FY23-PIF- PRJ-000011 RDA Income Property Housing Property - 400 S/900W 4,000,000 (603,444) 3,396,556 Fund Acquisition Acquisition-9L Acquisition New Project Appropriations The proposed amendment aims to consolidate a project budget of $4,250,000 by allocating the available Strategic Intervention program funds, along with reallocating funds from both the Commercial Assistance Reserves and the Housing Property Acquisition appropriations to the Strategic Intervention program. These reallocations will occur within the North Temple and Program Income funds and would result in the following appropriations. Fund Program Appropriation Project Current Budget Change Proposed Budget North Temple Strategic Intervention RDA-FY23-NT- Strategic Intervention-NT New Project: Whipple Property Acquisition 1,397,327 0 1,397,327 RDA-FY24-NT- Strategic Intervention-NT New Project: Whipple Property Acquisition 285,490 325,959 611,449 Program Income Fund Strategic Intervention RDA-FY23-PIF- Strategic Intervention-NPA New Project: Whipple Property Acquisition 0 2,202,814 2,202,814 RDA-FY23-PIF- Strategic Intervention-NT New Project: Whipple Property Acquisition 38,410 0 38,410 Total 1,721,227 2,528,773 4,250,000 PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: 1. Approval of the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Budget. 2. Approval of the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Budget Amendment #1. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Supplemental Slides. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY F I S C A L Y E A R 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 2 4 B U D G E T A M E N D M E N T # 3 Commercial Assistance Reserves: $1,925,329 RDA-FY24-NT-Commercial Assistance Reserves-NT: $325,959 RDA-FY23-PIF-Commercial Assistance Reserves-NPA: $1,599,370 Strategic Intervention: $4,250,000 RDA-FY23-NT-Strategic Intervention-NT: $1,397,327 RDA-FY24-NT-Strategic Intervention-NT: $611,449 RDA-FY23-PIF-Strategic Intervention-NPA: $2,202,814 RDA-FY23-PIF-Strategic Intervention-NT: $38,410 North Temple Fund New Project: Whipple Property Acquisition Legend: New Project Appropriations Strategic Intervention: $1,721,227 RDA-FY23-NT-Strategic Intervention-NT: $1,397,327 RDA-FY24-NT-Strategic Intervention-NT: $285,490 RDA-FY23-PIF-Strategic Intervention-NT: $38,410 Housing Property Acquisition: $ 603,444 RDA-FY23-PIF-Housing Property Acquisition-9L Project: PRJ-000011 RDA - 400 S/900W Acquisition: $603,444 $2,528,773 shifts from Commercial Assistance Reserves and Housing Property Acquisition to Strategic Intervention Project Program Fund Appropriation Current Budget Change Proposed Budget Available to allocate to projects Commercial Assistance Reserves North Temple RDA-FY24-NT-Commercial Assistance Reserves- NT 543,277 (325,959) 217,318 Program Income Fund RDA-FY23-PIF-Commercial Assistance Reserves- NPA 1,599,370 (1,599,370) 0 Available to allocate to projects Total 2,142,647 (1,925,329) 217,318 PRJ-000011 RDA - 400 S/900W Acquisition Housing Property Acquisition Program Income Fund RDA-FY23-PIF-Housing Property Acquisition-9L 4,000,000 (603,444) 3,396,556 PRJ-000011 RDA - 400 S/900W Acquisition Total 4,000,000 (603,444) 3,396,556 Total 6,142,647 (2,528,773) 3,613,874 $4,250,000 New and Existing Strategic Intervention Program allocated to New Project: Whipple Property Acquisition Project Program Fund Appropriation Current Budget Change Proposed Budget New Project: Whipple Property Acquisition Strategic Intervention North Temple RDA-FY23-NT-Strategic Intervention-NT 0 1,397,327 1,397,327 RDA-FY24-NT-Strategic Intervention-NT 0 611,449 611,449 Program Income Fund RDA-FY23-PIF-Strategic Intervention-9L 0 603,444 603,444 RDA-FY23-PIF-Strategic Intervention-NPA 0 1,599,370 1,599,370 RDA-FY23-PIF-Strategic Intervention-NT 0 38,410 38,410 New Project: Whipple Property Acquisition Total 0 4,250,000 4,250,000 Total 0 4,250,000 4,250,000 Appropriation Changes Impact Appropriation Cost Center Fiscal Year Fund Program Region Worktags allow for tracking of costs, revenues, and other operational metrics across different dimensions like departments, projects, or geographic locations. The Redevelopment Agency’s budget utilizes the following Worktags: Cost Center: Represents a specific department, unit, or division within an organization that is responsible for certain costs. The RDA is a cost center. Fiscal Year: The original year the funds were appropriated. Fund: Used to categorize and segregate financial transactions based on the origin of the funds, which is crucial for accurate financial reporting and compliance. The RDA has Project Area, Housing, Multi-Use, and Operations funds, with various legal and policy-related requirements that need to be monitored. Program: Enables the segregation and monitoring of financial data, which represents a specific pool of money that needs to be tracked for various legal, policy, or Board-directed initiatives related to RDA programs. The Program Worktags are designed to fit within program hierarchies such as Housing, Commercial, Infrastructure, and Operations programs. Region: Segments expenses based on location, which for the RDA is usually a Project Area. Not all expenses will be associated with a project area, which means this Worktag may not always be used. Appropriation: Combines the elements of Cost Center, Fund, Program, and Region into a single, comprehensive identifier, with the fiscal year as a prefix. Workday Worktags & the RDA Budget Operations Appropriations Annual appropriations for operational expenses. Considered approved to spend when appropriated. If not spent or encumbered by the end of the fiscal year, drops to fund balance. Typically, these would be for RDA operating expenses. Occasionally may be associated with a project budget (for example, an office remodel). Capital Reserves Appropriations Appropriations for programs that carry forward each year. For instance, in the Housing Development Loan Program, a set amount is allocated for loans. Staff will request additional Board approval to use these funds for specific loan projects. Funds not awarded to projects roll forward to the next year, unless reappropriated by the Board. Each appropriation supports either the operations of the Agency or projects associated with its various programs. Appropriations & Project Budgets Project Area Funds Must be used within the boundaries of the project area, except for money transferred to Primary Housing (legally required), Secondary Housing (supplemental), Agency Operations (defined by interlocal agreements), or other legally obligated reasons. • Central Business District (CBD) • Block 70 (B70) • Depot District (DD) • Granary District (GD) • North Temple (NT) • North Temple Viaduct (NTV) • Stadler Rail (SR) • Northwest Quadrant (NWQ) • State Street (SS) • 9 Line (9L) • Block 67 North (B67N) • West Capitol Hill (WCH) Note: Region acronyms are the same as project area acronyms. If there is “NPA” noted in an appropriation, it stands for “Non-Project Area.” Housing Funds May be used anywhere in the City, unless otherwise directed by the Board, except for the WCI, which must be used west of I-15. • Primary Housing (1H) • Secondary Housing (2H) • Housing Development Fund (HDF) • West Side Community Initiative (WCI) Multi-Use Funds Can be used across project areas (and potentially city-wide), unless otherwise directed by the Board. • Program Income Fund (PIF) • Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) Agency Operations Fund (OPS) • Received transfers in from other funds to fund the Agency’s operational expenses. Redevelopment Agency Funds Fiscal Year 2023-24 RDA Budget Amendment #3 Administration Proposed Board Approved Initiative Number/Name Project Area Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs Section A: New Items Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section D: Housekeeping 1 RDA: Reallocate Multiple Program Appropriations to Commercial Assist Fund Property Acquisition in the N Temple Project Area Reserves 1 RDA: Reallocate Multiple Program Appropriations to PIF Housing Prop Fund Property Acquisition in the N Temple Project Area Acquisition 1 RDA: Reallocate Multiple Program Appropriations to N. Temple Strategic Fund Property Acquisition in the N Temple Project Area Intervention - - - (1,925,329.00) (603,444.00) 2,528,773.00 One-time One-time One-time - - - Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources Section F: Donations - Section G: Board Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards Section I: Board Added Items Total of Budget Amendment Items - 0.00 - - Total by Fund, Budget Amendment #3: Redevelopment Agency Commercial Assist - (1,925,329.00) Reserves Redevelopment Agency PIF Housing Prop - (603,444.00) Acquisition Redevelopment Agency N Temple Strategic - 2,528,773.00 Intervention Total of Budget Amendment Items - - - - - 1 Contingent Appropriation and Notes Fiscal Year 2023-24 RDA Budget Amendment #3 Administration Proposed Board Approved Initiative Number/Name Project Area Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only FY 2023-24 Budget, Including Budget Amendments Total Revenue RDA BA #1 Total RDA BA #2 Total RDA BA #3 Total Total To-Date Redevelopment Agency 80,803,841 (6,476,014) - - 74,327,827 Total of Budget Amendment Items 80,803,841 (6,476,014) - - 74,327,827 Total Expense RDA BA #1 Total RDA BA #2 Total RDA BA #3 Total Total To-Date Redevelopment Agency 80,803,841 (6,476,014) - - 74,327,827 Total of Budget Amendment Items 80,803,841 (6,476,014) - - 74,327,827 Certification Budget Manager Deputy Director, City Council/RDA Board 2 1 MAYOR ERIN MENDENHALL Executive Director REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of SALT LAKE CITY DANNY WALZ Director STAFF MEMO DATE: PREPARED BY: RE: March 29, 2024 Danny Walz, RDA Director Renaming of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City REQUESTED ACTION: Consider adoption of a resolution to rename the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City to the Salt Lake City Community Reinvestment Agency POLICY ITEM: N/A BUDGET IMPACTS: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (“Agency”) is seeking the Board of Director’s (“Board”) consideration on a Resolution that would rename the Agency to the Salt Lake City Community Reinvestment Agency. This name change would align with the legal terminology used in Utah Code Title 17C and more accurately reflect the mission, values, and project prioritization strategy defined within the Agency’s Guiding Framework. ANALYSIS & ISSUES: In 1969, the Agency was founded with a charge to revitalize Utah’s Capital City by fostering economic growth and development. Over the past 55 years, the Agency has invested in more than 300 projects to achieve that goal. During that span of time and especially within the last eight years, the Agency’s goals, priorities, development strategies and overarching mission have undergone significant evolution. During the 2016 Utah Legislative session, SB151 was successfully enacted, amending section 17C of Utah Code and thereby formally redesignating entities previously referred to as “redevelopment agencies” as “community reinvestment agencies.” The amendment also states that any newly created entity will be regarded as a community reinvestment area, and any existing redevelopment agency may change its name through resolution, State noticing, and County recording. In 2019, the Board adopted a Guiding Framework to serve as the Agency’s updated strategic and operational document. This Framework established a new mission statement clarifying the Agency’s purpose, creating core values articulating intended economic, social, and physical project outcomes, and defining livability benchmarks to measure public benefits. It also represented a formalized shift towards prioritizing projects that produce the most public benefits for the community. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 115 WWW.SLC.GOV · WWW.SLCRDA.COM P.O. BOX 145518, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5518 TEL 801-535-7240 · FAX 801-535-7245 2 Integrating the Guiding Framework into its day-to-day operations and communications, the Agency has subsequently created strategies, policies, and programs to further support investment in community- minded projects and initiatives. The proposed renaming now provides an opportunity to reflect these legislative, aspirational, and operational progressions in a context that acknowledges the Agency’s ongoing forward direction. NEXT STEPS: • Upon approval of the resolution, Agency staff will provide notice to the State and County as per statutory requirements and begin implementing the new name in communications, website, materials, etc. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Resolution: Changing the name of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City to the Salt Lake City Community Reinvestment Agency Attachment B – Resolution: Guiding Framework for Mission and Values 3 Attachment A: Changing the name of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City to the Salt Lake City Community Reinvestment Agency Resolution 4 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY RESOLUTION NO. Changing the name of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City to the Salt Lake City Community Reinvestment Agency. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY CHANGING THE NAME OF THE AGENCY TO THE SALT LAKE CITY COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AGENCY. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council established the “Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City” (Agency) by resolution on June 10, 1969. WHEREAS, the Agency was created to transact the business and exercise the powers provided for the Agency in state law. WHEREAS, pursuant to Utah Code Section 17C-1-201.5, the Board of Directors of the Agency (Board) now desires to, by resolution, rename the Agency to be the “Salt Lake City Community Reinvestment Agency.” NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD: Section 1. Pursuant to Utah Code Section 17C-1-201.5, the Board approves changing the name of the Agency to the “Salt Lake City Community Reinvestment Agency.” Section 2. All references to the “Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City” in previously adopted Board resolutions shall be replaced with “Salt Lake City Community Reinvestment Agency.” Additionally, all references to the “Redevelopment Advisory Committee” or “Advisory Committee of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City” shall be replaced with “Reinvestment Advisory Committee” or “Advisory Committee of the Salt Lake City Community Reinvestment Agency.” Section 3. The Agency bylaws are hereby amended such that the name of the Agency is changed to the “Salt Lake City Community Reinvestment Agency.” Additionally, the bylaws are hereby amended such that the name of the Redevelopment Advisory Committee is changed to “Reinvestment Advisory Committee.” A redlined version of the bylaws showing the changes is attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. A clean and updated version of the bylaws, adopting all redline changes, is attached to this resolution as Exhibit B. Section 4. Section 1 of this resolution is effective as of the date it this resolution is passed by the Board. Sections 2 and 3 of this resolution do not take effect until all legal requirements under 17C-1-202.5 have been met, including submitting a notice of name change with the lieutenant governor and recording the notice and certificate of name change with the Salt Lake County Recorder, but in no case may Sections 2 and 3 take effect more than three months from the passage of this resolution. 5 Passed by the Board of Directors, this day of 2024. Chairperson Approved as to form: Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Allison Parks The Executive Director: does not request reconsideration requests reconsideration at the next regular Agency meeting. Erin Mendenhall, Executive Director Attest: City Recorder 6 Exhibit A 7 AMENDED AND RESTATED BYLAWS OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AGENCY Amended and restated on April 16, 2024 Amended on December 12, 2023 Amended on January 10, 2023 Amended and restated on May 10, 2016 Deleted: REDEVELOPMENT Deleted: OF SALT LAKE CITY 8 Table of Contents ARTICLE I – THE AGENCY .......................................................................................................................... 1 Section 1. Name of Agency ................................................................................................................... 1 Section 2. Governing Board ................................................................................................................... 1 Section 3. Executive Director ................................................................................................................. 1 Section 4. Seal of Agency ...................................................................................................................... 1 Section 5. Office of Agency ................................................................................................................... 1 ARTICLE II – GOVERNANCE ....................................................................................................................... 1 Section 1. Governance ................................................................................................................................1 Section 2. The Board of Directors .......................................................................................................... 1 Section 3. Executive Director ................................................................................................................. 1 ARTICLE III – OFFICERS AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR .......................................................................... 2 Section 1. Officers .................................................................................................................................. 2 Section 2. Chairperson ............................................................................................................................ 2 Section 3. Vice-Chairperson ................................................................................................................... 2 Section 4. Additional Duties .................................................................................................................. 2 Section 5. Election .................................................................................................................................. 2 Section 6. Vacancies ............................................................................................................................... 2 Section 7. Executive Director .................................................................................................................2 ARTICLE IV – MEETINGS ............................................................................................................................ 3 Section 1. Annual Meeting .....................................................................................................................3 Section 2. Regular Meetings; Special Meetings .....................................................................................3 Section 3. Quorum..................................................................................................................................3 Section 4. Resolutions and Contracts .....................................................................................................3 ARTICLE V – ADVISORY COMMITTEE ..................................................................................................... 3 Section 1. Advisory Committee Created ................................................................................................3 Section 2. Purpose ..................................................................................................................................3 Section 3. Appointment - Oath of Office ...............................................................................................4 Section 4. Removal from Office ............................................................................................................4 Section 5. Members; Ethics ....................................................................................................................4 Section 6. Eligibility for Membership ....................................................................................................4 Section 7. Meetings ................................................................................................................................4 Section 9. Subcommittees .......................................................................................................................5 Section 10. Responsibilities .................................................................................................................... 5 i 9 Section 11. Staff Support ........................................................................................................................ 6 ARTICLE VI – AMENDMENTS .................................................................................................................... 6 Section 1. Amendments to Bylaws ........................................................................................................ 6 ii 10 ARTICLE I – THE AGENCY Section 1. Name of Agency. The name of the agency shall be the “Salt Lake City Community Reinvestment Agency” (also referred to herein as the “Agency”). Section 2. Governing Board. The governing board of the Agency shall be known as the Board of Directors of the Salt Lake City Community Reinvestment Agency (“Board of Directors”). The Board of Directors shall be comprised of the members of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah. Section 3. Executive Director. The executive director (“Executive Director”) of the Agency shall be the duly elected or appointed Mayor of Salt Lake City Corporation. Section 4. Seal of Agency. The Agency shall have a seal in a form which it shall approve. Section 5. Office of Agency. The office of the Agency shall be at such place in Salt Lake City, Utah, as the Agency may from time to time designate by resolution. ARTICLE II – GOVERNANCE Section 1. Governance. The governing body of the Agency shall be the Board of Directors. Section 2. The Board of Directors. The powers and duties of the Board of Directors shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following policy-making functions: A. Adopt all resolutions, policies and Bylaws of the Agency. B. Approve annual budgets. C. Review all acts of administration. D. Make and enforce any additional rules and regulations for the governance of the Agency, the preservation of order at its meetings, and the transaction of business of the Agency as may be necessary. E. Perform all other duties that may be required by the Board of Directors not inconsistent with these Bylaws or as may be required by law. Section 3. Executive Director. The powers and duties of the Executive Director shall include, but are not limited to, the following executive and administrative functions: A. Implement the resolutions of the Board of Directors. B. Execute the policies adopted by the Board of Directors. C. Utilize such City personnel as may be necessary to exercise the powers, duties, and functions of the Agency as prescribed by the laws of the State of Utah. The selection and compensation of personnel shall be determined by the Executive Director, subject to the policies established by the Board of Directors. D. Attend all meetings of the Board of Directors with the right to take part in all discussions and the responsibility to inform the Board of Directors of the condition and needs of the Agency and to make recommendations and give advice to the Board of Directors. The Executive Director shall not have the right to vote in Agency meetings. 1 Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: of Salt Lake City Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: of Salt Lake City 11 E. Furnish the Board of Directors with reports periodically as determined by the Board of Directors, setting forth the amounts of all budget appropriations, the total disbursements to date from these appropriations, and the amount of indebtedness incurred or contracted against each appropriation, and the percentage of the appropriation encumbered to date. F. Negotiate and execute agreements or contracts within budget appropriations on behalf of the Agency. G. Establish reporting and management structures for the Agency. H. Perform all other duties that may be required by law. ARTICLE III – OFFICERS AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Section 1. Officers. The officers of the Agency shall be a Chairperson and a Vice- Chairperson who shall be elected from the Board of Directors. Section 2. Chairperson. The Chairperson shall preside at all meetings of the Agency. At each such meeting, the Chairperson shall submit such recommendations and information as the Chairperson may consider proper concerning the business, affairs, and policies of the Agency. Section 3. Vice-Chairperson. The Vice-Chairperson of the Agency shall perform the duties of the Chairperson in the absence or incapacity of the Chairperson; and in case of the resignation or death of the Chairperson, the Vice-Chairperson shall perform such duties as are imposed on the Chairperson until such time as the Agency shall elect a new Chairperson. Section 4. Additional Duties. The officers of the Agency shall perform such other duties and functions as may from time to time be required by the Agency or the Bylaws or rules and regulations of the Agency. Section 5. Election. The Chairperson shall be elected at the Annual Meeting of the Agency from among the members of the Board of Directors of the Agency. The Chairperson shall hold office for a term of one year or until their successor is elected and qualified. The Chairperson shall be eligible for reelection and may serve a second successive term as Chairperson. A Chairperson shall not be eligible for reelection for a third term until two years after the expiration of their second successive term. The Vice-Chairperson shall be elected by members of the Board of Directors of the agency at the organization meeting, and thereafter shall be elected at the annual meeting of the Agency from among the members of the Board of Directors of the Agency. The Vice-Chairperson shall hold office for a term of one year or until his or her successor is elected and qualified. A Vice-Chairperson shall be eligible for reelection and may serve one or more successive terms. Section 6. Vacancies. Should the offices of Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson become vacant, the Board of Directors of the Agency shall elect a successor from among the Board of Directors of the Agency at the next regular meeting, and such election shall be for the unexpired term of the vacant office. Should the office of Executive Director become vacant, the office of Executive Director shall be filled with the appointment or election of the new Mayor. Officers elected to fill an unexpired term shall be eligible for election immediately upon completion of the unexpired term. Section 7. Executive Director. The Mayor of Salt Lake City shall serve as the Executive Director and shall exercise his or her executive powers to perform such duties on behalf of the Agency as more fully described in Article III herein and shall, subject to the policy direction of the Board of 2 12 Directors, have general supervision of the administrative and business affairs of the Agency. In order to be effective against the Agency, all resolutions and bylaws must be countersigned by the Executive Director. The Executive Director or his or her designee shall sign all contracts, deeds, orders, and other instruments made by the Agency. The Executive Director may designate in writing the person other than the Executive Director who shall have authority to sign contracts, deeds, orders, and other instruments made by the Agency on behalf of the Executive Director. Such designee must be employed by the City. The Executive Director shall give bond for the faithful performance of the duties of the Executive Director and his/her signatory designee in such amounts as the Board of Directors may determine. ARTICLE IV – MEETINGS Section 1. Annual Meeting. The annual meeting of the Agency shall be held commensurate with the first Regular Meeting of each calendar year. Section 2. Regular Meetings; Special Meetings. Regular meetings of the Agency shall be held monthly by official notice. Any special meetings may be called pursuant to the requirements in the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act, Utah Code 52-4-2, and its successor or replacement. Section 3. Quorum. Four members shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of conducting the Board's business and exercising its powers and for all other purposes. Action may be taken by the Agency upon a vote of a majority of Board of Directors present at a meeting at which a quorum is present. Section 4. Resolutions and Contracts. All resolutions shall be in writing and designated by number, reference to which shall be inscribed in the minutes and an approved copy filed with the Salt Lake City Recorder’s Office. All contracts executed by the Agency shall be filed with the Salt Lake City Recorder’s Office. ARTICLE V – ADVISORY COMMITTEE Section 1. Advisory Committee Created. There is created the Advisory Committee of the Salt Lake City Community Reinvestment Agency, which body shall consist of not less than seven (7) nor more than nine (9) persons appointed as voting members. Members shall be appointed without regard to partisan political affiliation from among citizens of the highest integrity, attainment, and competence. Members appointed to the Advisory Committee may include, but shall not be limited to, the following vocational classifications: finance, construction, law, architecture, and planning. Members shall be appointed on the basis of their individual expertise and not their affiliation with particular groups or organizations or geographic areas. Members of the Advisory Committee shall be residents of the City except that two (2) members may reside outside the boundaries of the City, and providing that a majority of the Advisory Committee members are City residents, an additional two (2) members of the Advisory Committee may reside outside the boundaries of the City provided however, that they own or are employed by an entity holding a current City business license. The Chief Administrative Officer, the Executive Director, and the Director of Economic Development of the City, and such other experts as the Board of Directors may from time to time deemed necessary shall be ex officio, non-voting members of the Advisory Committee. Section 2. Purpose. The purpose of the Salt Lake City Reinvestment Advisory Committee is to advise the Board of Directors concerning the Agency's redevelopment programs, activities and project areas undertaken under the provisions of the Utah Community Development and Renewal Agencies Act 3 Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: of Salt Lake City Deleted: Redevelopment 13 and the Utah Residential Rehabilitation Act as requested by the Board of Directors. The Reinvestment Advisory Committee shall serve only in an advisory role and shall have no power or authority other than that delegated to it by the Board of Directors. Section 3. Appointment - Oath of Office. All appointments of members of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee shall be made by the Executive Director with the advice and consent of the Board of Directors. All appointments to the Reinvestment Advisory Committee shall be made for a four-year term. No member shall serve more than two full four-year terms. Each member’s term of office shall expire on the applicable third Monday in January. Each member shall perform service on a voluntary basis and shall serve without compensation. Members shall be immune from liability with respect to any decision or action taken during the course of those services as provided by Section 63-30b-2, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, or its successor. Members of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee shall sign the oath of office and file the same in the office of the Agency. Every Member who shall fail within a reasonable time after notification of such Member’s appointment to file with the Agency such member’s oath of office to perform faithfully, honestly, and impartially the duties of his or her office, shall be deemed to have refused such appointment, and thereupon another person shall be appointed in the manner prescribed. Vacancies occurring in the membership of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee shall be filled by appointment as described herein for the unexpired term. Section 4. Removal from Office. Members of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee may be removed from office by the Executive Director for cause, prior to the normal expiration of a term for which such member was appointed. Members of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee may also be removed from office if they are absent without excuse from three consecutive regular meetings of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee. Section 5. Members; Ethics. Persons to be considered for appointment as members of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee shall submit to the Agency a public disclosure statement in a form approved by the Agency. Members of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee shall be deemed to be public officers and shall be subject to and bound by the provisions of the Utah Public Officers and Employees Ethics Act, Section 67-16-1, et seq., Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, or its successor legislation. Any violation of the provisions of such act, or as the act shall be from time to time amended, shall be grounds for removal from the Reinvestment Advisory Committee for cause. Members shall not participate in any discussions of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee which will create a direct or substantial conflict of interest between his or her private interests and his or her public duty as a member of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee. Section 6. Eligibility for Membership. To be eligible to be appointed as a member of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee, a person shall meet the following prerequisites: A. Be not less than twenty-one years of age; B. Be a resident of the State of Utah; and C Not also serve as a member of another appointed authority, board, advisory board, council, committee, or commission of the City. Section 7. Meetings. The Reinvestment Advisory Committee shall convene regular meetings to be held not less than monthly throughout the year. Meetings of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act insofar as applicable to the Reinvestment Advisory Committee. Special meetings may be called by a majority of 4 Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: Redevelopment 14 the Members of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee, the chairperson of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee, the Executive Director, the Chief Administrative Officer, or the Chairperson of the Board of Directors. The call for a special meeting must be signed by the members, the chairperson of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee, the Executive Director, the Chief Administrative Officer, or Chairperson of the Board of Directors calling such meeting. Unless waived in writing, each member not joining in the order for such special meeting must be given not less than twenty-four (24) hours’ prior notice of the date, time, and place of the meeting. The notice of special meetings shall be served personally or left at the member’s residence or business office. Meetings shall be held at the office of the Agency or at such other place as may be designated by the Reinvestment Advisory Committee. Half of the members of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee then appointed and having signed the oath of office shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. The Reinvestment Advisory Committee may take official action by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members present at any meeting at which a quorum is present. The Reinvestment Advisory Committee shall cause a written record of its proceedings to be kept which shall be available for public inspection in the office of the Agency. The Reinvestment Advisory Committee shall record in the record the yea and nay votes on the voting of any action taken by it. The Reinvestment Advisory Committee shall adopt a system of rules of procedure under which its meetings are to be held. The Reinvestment Advisory Committee may suspend the rules of procedure by a two-thirds vote of the members of the Committee who are present at any meeting. The Reinvestment Advisory Committee may suspend the rules of procedure beyond the duration of the meeting at which the suspension of the rules occurs. Section 8. Election of Officers. Each year, the Reinvestment Advisory Committee, at its first regular meeting in February, shall elect one of its members to serve as chairperson and another of its members to serve as vice chairperson. The vice chairperson shall perform the duties of the chairperson during the absence or disability of the chairperson. The Agency shall make available a secretary from to assist the Reinvestment Advisory Committee when required. Section 9. Subcommittees. The Reinvestment Advisory Committee may designate subcommittees as it desires to study, consider, and make recommendations on matters that are presented to the Reinvestment Advisory Committee. Subcommittee members may be members of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee, but the Reinvestment Advisory Committee shall have the power to designate such subcommittee members as it deems appropriate and advisable even though they may not be members. Section 10. Responsibilities. The Reinvestment Advisory Committee shall have the following powers and duties: A. Upon request of the Board of Directors in legislative or policy matters, or upon request of the Executive Director in executive or administrative matters, the Reinvestment Advisory Committee shall study, review, or analyze matters or issues affecting the redevelopment programs, activities, and redevelopment project areas and make oral and written recommendations and reports to the Board and the Chief Administrative Officer. B. Determine and establish rules and regulations for the conduct of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee as the members shall deem advisable; provided, however, that such rules and regulations shall not be in conflict with these By-Laws, the policies of the Agency, or any other laws. Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: Redevelopment 5 15 C. If requested by the Board of Directors, the power to hold public hearings to obtain public comment. D. The power to meet with and coordinate the activities of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee with the City's Planning Commission and its staff, or other persons or entities. Section 11. Staff Support. Upon request of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee and approval of the Executive Director, the Agency shall make available to the Reinvestment Advisory Committee staff support, independent consultants, the Agency's attorney or an attorney designated by the Agency to render legal services and such other assistance as may be necessary. ARTICLE VI – AMENDMENTS Section 1. Amendments to Bylaws. Subject to Article V, Section 5, the Bylaws of the Agency may be amended with the approval of at least a majority of the Board of Directors of the Agency at a Regular or Special meeting at which a quorum is present, but no such amendment shall be adopted unless at least seven days’ written notice thereof has been previously given to all members of the Board of Directors of the Agency. Notice shall identify the section or sections of the Bylaws proposed to be amended. 6 Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: Redevelopment Deleted: Redevelopment 16 Exhibit B 17 AMENDED AND RESTATED BYLAWS OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AGENCY Amended and restated on April 16, 2024 Amended on December 12, 2023 Amended on January 10, 2023 Amended and restated on May 10, 2016 i 18 Table of Contents ARTICLE I – THE AGENCY ........................................................................................................................ 1 Section 1. Name of Agency.................................................................................................................. 1 Section 2. Governing Board ................................................................................................................. 1 Section 3. Executive Director ............................................................................................................... 1 Section 4. Seal of Agency .................................................................................................................... 1 Section 5. Office of Agency ................................................................................................................. 1 ARTICLE II – GOVERNANCE ..................................................................................................................... 1 Section 1. Governance ............................................................................................................................... 1 Section 2. The Board of Directors ........................................................................................................ 1 Section 3. Executive Director ............................................................................................................... 1 ARTICLE III – OFFICERS AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ......................................................................... 2 Section 1. Officers ................................................................................................................................ 2 Section 2. Chairperson ......................................................................................................................... 2 Section 3. Vice-Chairperson ................................................................................................................. 2 Section 4. Additional Duties ................................................................................................................ 2 Section 5. Election ............................................................................................................................... 2 Section 6. Vacancies ............................................................................................................................ 2 Section 7. Executive Director ............................................................................................................... 2 ARTICLE IV – MEETINGS ........................................................................................................................... 3 Section 1. Annual Meeting ................................................................................................................... 3 Section 2. Regular Meetings; Special Meetings ................................................................................... 3 Section 3. Quorum ............................................................................................................................... 3 Section 4. Resolutions and Contracts ................................................................................................... 3 ARTICLE V – ADVISORY COMMITTEE .................................................................................................... 3 Section 1. Advisory Committee Created .............................................................................................. 3 Section 2. Purpose ................................................................................................................................ 3 Section 3. Appointment - Oath of Office ............................................................................................. 4 Section 4. Removal from Office ........................................................................................................... 4 Section 5. Members; Ethics .................................................................................................................. 4 Section 6. Eligibility for Membership .................................................................................................. 4 Section 7. Meetings .............................................................................................................................. 4 Section 9. Subcommittees .................................................................................................................... 5 Section 10. Responsibilities ................................................................................................................... 5 ii 19 Section 11. Staff Support ....................................................................................................................... 6 ARTICLE VI – AMENDMENTS.................................................................................................................. 6 Section 1. Amendments to Bylaws ....................................................................................................... 6 1 20 ARTICLE I – THE AGENCY Section 1. Name of Agency. The name of the agency shall be the “Salt Lake City Community Reinvestment Agency” (also referred to herein as the “Agency”). Section 2. Governing Board. The governing board of the Agency shall be known as the Board of Directors of the Salt Lake City Community Reinvestment Agency (“Board of Directors”). The Board of Directors shall be comprised of the members of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah. Section 3. Executive Director. The executive director (“Executive Director”) of the Agency shall be the duly elected or appointed Mayor of Salt Lake City Corporation. Section 4. Seal of Agency. The Agency shall have a seal in a form which it shall approve. Section 5. Office of Agency. The office of the Agency shall be at such place in Salt Lake City, Utah, as the Agency may from time to time designate by resolution. ARTICLE II – GOVERNANCE Section 1. Governance. The governing body of the Agency shall be the Board of Directors. Section 2. The Board of Directors. The powers and duties of the Board of Directors shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following policy-making functions: A. Adopt all resolutions, policies and Bylaws of the Agency. B. Approve annual budgets. C. Review all acts of administration. D. Make and enforce any additional rules and regulations for the governance of the Agency, the preservation of order at its meetings, and the transaction of business of the Agency as may be necessary. E. Perform all other duties that may be required by the Board of Directors not inconsistent with these Bylaws or as may be required by law. Section 3. Executive Director. The powers and duties of the Executive Director shall include, but are not limited to, the following executive and administrative functions: A. Implement the resolutions of the Board of Directors. B. Execute the policies adopted by the Board of Directors. C. Utilize such City personnel as may be necessary to exercise the powers, duties, and functions of the Agency as prescribed by the laws of the State of Utah. The selection and compensation of personnel shall be determined by the Executive Director, subject to the policies established by the Board of Directors. D. Attend all meetings of the Board of Directors with the right to take part in all discussions and the responsibility to inform the Board of Directors of the condition and needs of the Agency and to make recommendations and give advice to the Board of Directors. The Executive Director shall not have the right to vote in Agency meetings. 2 21 E. Furnish the Board of Directors with reports periodically as determined by the Board of Directors, setting forth the amounts of all budget appropriations, the total disbursements to date from these appropriations, and the amount of indebtedness incurred or contracted against each appropriation, and the percentage of the appropriation encumbered to date. F. Negotiate and execute agreements or contracts within budget appropriations on behalf of the Agency. G. Establish reporting and management structures for the Agency. H. Perform all other duties that may be required by law. ARTICLE III – OFFICERS AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Section 1. Officers. The officers of the Agency shall be a Chairperson and a Vice- Chairperson who shall be elected from the Board of Directors. Section 2. Chairperson. The Chairperson shall preside at all meetings of the Agency. At each such meeting, the Chairperson shall submit such recommendations and information as the Chairperson may consider proper concerning the business, affairs, and policies of the Agency. Section 3. Vice-Chairperson. The Vice-Chairperson of the Agency shall perform the duties of the Chairperson in the absence or incapacity of the Chairperson; and in case of the resignation or death of the Chairperson, the Vice-Chairperson shall perform such duties as are imposed on the Chairperson until such time as the Agency shall elect a new Chairperson. Section 4. Additional Duties. The officers of the Agency shall perform such other duties and functions as may from time to time be required by the Agency or the Bylaws or rules and regulations of the Agency. Section 5. Election. The Chairperson shall be elected at the Annual Meeting of the Agency from among the members of the Board of Directors of the Agency. The Chairperson shall hold office for a term of one year or until their successor is elected and qualified. The Chairperson shall be eligible for reelection and may serve a second successive term as Chairperson. A Chairperson shall not be eligible for reelection for a third term until two years after the expiration of their second successive term. The Vice-Chairperson shall be elected by members of the Board of Directors of the agency at the organization meeting, and thereafter shall be elected at the annual meeting of the Agency from among the members of the Board of Directors of the Agency. The Vice-Chairperson shall hold office for a term of one year or until his or her successor is elected and qualified. A Vice-Chairperson shall be eligible for reelection and may serve one or more successive terms. Section 6. Vacancies. Should the offices of Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson become vacant, the Board of Directors of the Agency shall elect a successor from among the Board of Directors of the Agency at the next regular meeting, and such election shall be for the unexpired term of the vacant office. Should the office of Executive Director become vacant, the office of Executive Director shall be filled with the appointment or election of the new Mayor. Officers elected to fill an unexpired term shall be eligible for election immediately upon completion of the unexpired term. Section 7. Executive Director. The Mayor of Salt Lake City shall serve as the Executive Director and shall exercise his or her executive powers to perform such duties on behalf of the Agency as more fully described in Article III herein and shall, subject to the policy direction of the Board of 3 22 Directors, have general supervision of the administrative and business affairs of the Agency. In order to be effective against the Agency, all resolutions and bylaws must be countersigned by the Executive Director. The Executive Director or his or her designee shall sign all contracts, deeds, orders, and other instruments made by the Agency. The Executive Director may designate in writing the person other than the Executive Director who shall have authority to sign contracts, deeds, orders, and other instruments made by the Agency on behalf of the Executive Director. Such designee must be employed by the City. The Executive Director shall give bond for the faithful performance of the duties of the Executive Director and his/her signatory designee in such amounts as the Board of Directors may determine. ARTICLE IV – MEETINGS Section 1. Annual Meeting. The annual meeting of the Agency shall be held commensurate with the first Regular Meeting of each calendar year. Section 2. Regular Meetings; Special Meetings. Regular meetings of the Agency shall be held monthly by official notice. Any special meetings may be called pursuant to the requirements in the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act, Utah Code 52-4-2, and its successor or replacement. Section 3. Quorum. Four members shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of conducting the Board's business and exercising its powers and for all other purposes. Action may be taken by the Agency upon a vote of a majority of Board of Directors present at a meeting at which a quorum is present. Section 4. Resolutions and Contracts. All resolutions shall be in writing and designated by number, reference to which shall be inscribed in the minutes and an approved copy filed with the Salt Lake City Recorder’s Office. All contracts executed by the Agency shall be filed with the Salt Lake City Recorder’s Office. ARTICLE V – ADVISORY COMMITTEE Section 1. Advisory Committee Created. There is created the Advisory Committee of the Salt Lake City Community Reinvestment Agency, which body shall consist of not less than seven (7) nor more than nine (9) persons appointed as voting members. Members shall be appointed without regard to partisan political affiliation from among citizens of the highest integrity, attainment, and competence. Members appointed to the Advisory Committee may include, but shall not be limited to, the following vocational classifications: finance, construction, law, architecture, and planning. Members shall be appointed on the basis of their individual expertise and not their affiliation with particular groups or organizations or geographic areas. Members of the Advisory Committee shall be residents of the City except that two (2) members may reside outside the boundaries of the City, and providing that a majority of the Advisory Committee members are City residents, an additional two (2) members of the Advisory Committee may reside outside the boundaries of the City provided however, that they own or are employed by an entity holding a current City business license. The Chief Administrative Officer, the Executive Director, and the Director of Economic Development of the City, and such other experts as the Board of Directors may from time to time deemed necessary shall be ex officio, non-voting members of the Advisory Committee. Section 2. Purpose. The purpose of the Salt Lake City Reinvestment Advisory Committee is to advise the Board of Directors concerning the Agency's redevelopment programs, activities and project areas undertaken under the provisions of the Utah Community Development and Renewal Agencies Act 4 23 and the Utah Residential Rehabilitation Act as requested by the Board of Directors. The Reinvestment Advisory Committee shall serve only in an advisory role and shall have no power or authority other than that delegated to it by the Board of Directors. Section 3. Appointment - Oath of Office. All appointments of members of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee shall be made by the Executive Director with the advice and consent of the Board of Directors. All appointments to the Reinvestment Advisory Committee shall be made for a four-year term. No member shall serve more than two full four-year terms. Each member’s term of office shall expire on the applicable third Monday in January. Each member shall perform service on a voluntary basis and shall serve without compensation. Members shall be immune from liability with respect to any decision or action taken during the course of those services as provided by Section 63-30b-2, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, or its successor. Members of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee shall sign the oath of office and file the same in the office of the Agency. Every Member who shall fail within a reasonable time after notification of such Member’s appointment to file with the Agency such member’s oath of office to perform faithfully, honestly, and impartially the duties of his or her office, shall be deemed to have refused such appointment, and thereupon another person shall be appointed in the manner prescribed. Vacancies occurring in the membership of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee shall be filled by appointment as described herein for the unexpired term. Section 4. Removal from Office. Members of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee may be removed from office by the Executive Director for cause, prior to the normal expiration of a term for which such member was appointed. Members of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee may also be removed from office if they are absent without excuse from three consecutive regular meetings of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee. Section 5. Members; Ethics. Persons to be considered for appointment as members of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee shall submit to the Agency a public disclosure statement in a form approved by the Agency. Members of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee shall be deemed to be public officers and shall be subject to and bound by the provisions of the Utah Public Officers and Employees Ethics Act, Section 67-16-1, et seq., Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, or its successor legislation. Any violation of the provisions of such act, or as the act shall be from time to time amended, shall be grounds for removal from the Reinvestment Advisory Committee for cause. Members shall not participate in any discussions of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee which will create a direct or substantial conflict of interest between his or her private interests and his or her public duty as a member of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee. Section 6. Eligibility for Membership. To be eligible to be appointed as a member of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee, a person shall meet the following prerequisites: A. Be not less than twenty-one years of age; B. Be a resident of the State of Utah; and C Not also serve as a member of another appointed authority, board, advisory board, council, committee, or commission of the City. Section 7. Meetings. The Reinvestment Advisory Committee shall convene regular meetings to be held not less than monthly throughout the year. Meetings of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act insofar as applicable to the Reinvestment Advisory Committee. Special meetings may be called by a majority of 5 23 the Members of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee, the chairperson of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee, the Executive Director, the Chief Administrative Officer, or the Chairperson of the Board of Directors. The call for a special meeting must be signed by the members, the chairperson of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee, the Executive Director, the Chief Administrative Officer, or Chairperson of the Board of Directors calling such meeting. Unless waived in writing, each member not joining in the order for such special meeting must be given not less than twenty-four (24) hours’ prior notice of the date, time, and place of the meeting. The notice of special meetings shall be served personally or left at the member’s residence or business office. Meetings shall be held at the office of the Agency or at such other place as may be designated by the Reinvestment Advisory Committee. Half of the members of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee then appointed and having signed the oath of office shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. The Reinvestment Advisory Committee may take official action by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members present at any meeting at which a quorum is present. The Reinvestment Advisory Committee shall cause a written record of its proceedings to be kept which shall be available for public inspection in the office of the Agency. The Reinvestment Advisory Committee shall record in the record the yea and nay votes on the voting of any action taken by it. The Reinvestment Advisory Committee shall adopt a system of rules of procedure under which its meetings are to be held. The Reinvestment Advisory Committee may suspend the rules of procedure by a two-thirds vote of the members of the Committee who are present at any meeting. The Reinvestment Advisory Committee may suspend the rules of procedure beyond the duration of the meeting at which the suspension of the rules occurs. Section 8. Election of Officers. Each year, the Reinvestment Advisory Committee, at its first regular meeting in February, shall elect one of its members to serve as chairperson and another of its members to serve as vice chairperson. The vice chairperson shall perform the duties of the chairperson during the absence or disability of the chairperson. The Agency shall make available a secretary from to assist the Reinvestment Advisory Committee when required. Section 9. Subcommittees. The Reinvestment Advisory Committee may designate subcommittees as it desires to study, consider, and make recommendations on matters that are presented to the Reinvestment Advisory Committee. Subcommittee members may be members of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee, but the Reinvestment Advisory Committee shall have the power to designate such subcommittee members as it deems appropriate and advisable even though they may not be members. Section 10. Responsibilities. The Reinvestment Advisory Committee shall have the following powers and duties: A. Upon request of the Board of Directors in legislative or policy matters, or upon request of the Executive Director in executive or administrative matters, the Reinvestment Advisory Committee shall study, review, or analyze matters or issues affecting the redevelopment programs, activities, and redevelopment project areas and make oral and written recommendations and reports to the Board and the Chief Administrative Officer. B. Determine and establish rules and regulations for the conduct of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee as the members shall deem advisable; provided, however, that such rules and regulations shall not be in conflict with these By-Laws, the policies of the Agency, or any other laws. 6 23 C. If requested by the Board of Directors, the power to hold public hearings to obtain public comment. D. The power to meet with and coordinate the activities of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee with the City's Planning Commission and its staff, or other persons or entities. Section 11. Staff Support. Upon request of the Reinvestment Advisory Committee and approval of the Executive Director, the Agency shall make available to the Reinvestment Advisory Committee staff support, independent consultants, the Agency's attorney or an attorney designated by the Agency to render legal services and such other assistance as may be necessary. ARTICLE VI – AMENDMENTS Section 1. Amendments to Bylaws. Subject to Article V, Section 5, the Bylaws of the Agency may be amended with the approval of at least a majority of the Board of Directors of the Agency at a Regular or Special meeting at which a quorum is present, but no such amendment shall be adopted unless at least seven days’ written notice thereof has been previously given to all members of the Board of Directors of the Agency. Notice shall identify the section or sections of the Bylaws proposed to be amended. 26 Attachment B: Guiding Framework for Mission and Values Resolution 27 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY RESOLUTION NO. 18 Guiding Framework for Mission and Values RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY REPEALING AND REPLACING THE AGENCY'S GUIDING FRAMEWORK FOR MISSION AND VALUES WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City ("Agency") was created to transact the business and exercise the powers provided for in the Community Reinvestment Agency Act under Title 17C of the Utah Code; and WHEREAS, on November 12, 2019, pursuant to Resolution R-22-2019, the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City ("Board") adopted the Guiding Framework for Mission and Values ("2019 Guiding Framework"); and WHEREAS, the Agency has determined that it is important to amend the 2019 Guiding Framework to modify and clarify the Agency's mission and values to guide the Agency's decision-making on projects and expenditures; and WHEREAS, the Board now desires to repeal and replace the 2019 Guiding Framework. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, the 2019 Guiding Framework adopted pursuant to Resolution R-22-2019 is repealed in its entirety and replaced with the Guiding Framework attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Passed by the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, this H day ofDecember 2021. lJa11 lJut1a11 Dan Dugan (DeYlo, 202120:32 MST) Daniel Dugan, Vice Chairperson Transmitted to the Executive Director on Dec 20, 2021 The Executive Director: Ill does not request reconsideration _LJ requests reconsideration at the next regular Agency meeting. Erin Mendenhall, Executive Director 28 Approved as to form: Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Attest: Ci 202119,36MST) City Recorder Guiding Framework This Guiding Framework is a strategic operational document outlining the methodology for evaluating and prioritizing projects requesting RDA financial assistance. The RDA's Mission and Values form the foundation of the Guiding Framework, declaring the RDA'spurpose and the intended economic, social, and physical outcomes expected of RDA projects and partnerships. MISSION: The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City strengthens neighborhoods and business districts to improve livability, create economic opportunity and foster authentic, equitable communities, serving as a catalyst for strategic development projects that enhance the City's housing opportunities, commercial vitality, public spaces, and environmental sustainability. VALUES: Economic Opportunity- We invest in the long-term prosperity and growth of our local economy. Equity & Inclusion- We prioritize people-focused projects and programs that encourage everyone to participate in and benefit from development decisions that shape their communities. Neighborhood Vibrancy- We cultivate distinct and livable places that are contextually sensitive, durable, connected, and sustainable. PROJECT EVALUATION PROCESS: The RDA prioritizes projects that demonstrate a commitment to the Mission and Values,evaluating projects via three steps, which answer the following questions: 1.) Does the project meet the minimum THRESHOLDS required for RDA participation? 2.) To what degree does the project benefit the public by achieving defined LIVABILITY BENCHMARKS, thereby warranting RDA assistance? 3.) Does the project meet the CRITERIA outlined in existing RDA programs and policies, such as the RDA Loan Program or Tax Increment Reimbursement Program? Step 1: THRESHOLDS Alignment with adopted City policies & plans Alignment with RDA Project Area Work Plans* Financial viability with a demonstrated and reasonable need for public assistance Economic Opportunity Equity & Inclusion Neighborhood Vibrancy Public Space Public Art Architecture & Urban Design Sustainability Walkability Building Preservation, rehabilitation, or adaptive reuse Missinq Middle & Unique Buildinq Types Step 2: LIVABILITY BENCHMARKS Leveraging Timeliness Return of Investment Permanent Job Creation & Retention Transit Opportunities Mixed-Income Neighborhoods Neighborhood Safety Community Engagement & Support Affordable Commercial Spaces Ownership Housing for Everyone Displacement Mitigation Affordable Housing Preservation Step 3: PROGRAM CRITERIA Evaluation of project according to respective RDA policies, programs and procedures 'Spannmg a 1-3 year time frame, Project Area Work Plans 1dent1fy redevelopment objectives and strategic redevelopment projects for each project area, along with a correspondmg schedule & budget for each project. The Project Area Work Plans will be based on relevant City policies and plans and the Project Area Plans that were adopted when the project area was created and will provide direction for the annual RDA budget process. 29 11.24.21 Exhibit A to the Resolution row£R£DBY Adobe Sign I 33 RDA Resolution 18 of 2021 - Potential Revisions to the Guiding Framework Final Audit Report 2021-12-28 "RDA Resolution 18 of 2021 - Potential Revisions to the Guiding Framework" History t'.:I Document created by Thais Stewart (thais.stewart@slcgov.com) 2021-12-17 - 6:47:13 PM GMT Document emailed to Allison Parks (allison.parks@slcgov.com) for signature 2021-12-17 - 6:49:35 PM GMT t'.:I Email viewed by Allison Parks (allison.parks@slcgov.com) 2021-12-17 - 8:36:00 PM GMT 0i, Document e-signed by Allison Parks (allison.parks@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2021-12-17 - 8:36:16 PM GMT - Time Source: server Document emailed to Dan Dugan (daniel.dugan@slcgov.com) for signature 2021-12-17- 8:36:18 PM GMT t'.:I Email viewed by Dan Dugan (daniel.dugan@slcgov.com) 2021-12-17-11:50:22 PM GMT 0i, Document e-signed by Dan Dugan (daniel.dugan@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2021-12-21 - 3:32:06 AM GMT - Time Source: server Document emailed to Erin Mendenhall (erin.mendenhall@slcgov.com) for signature 2021-12-21 - 3:32:09 AM GMT t'.:I Email viewed by Erin Mendenhall (erin.mendenhall@slcgov.com) 2021-12-21 - 5:31:00 AM GMT 0i, Document e-signed by Erin Mendenhall (erin.mendenhall@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2021-12-23 - 6:10:09 PM GMT-Time Source: server Created: 2021-12-17 By: Thais Stewart (thais.stewart@slcgov.com) Status: Signed Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAPO0HITazohB6hFP04yipT5jZ2XPozEej row£R£DBY Adobe Sign I 34 Document emailed to Cindy Trishman (cindy.trishman@slcgov.com) for signature 2021-12-23- 6:10:11 PM GMT 0o Document e-signed by Cindy Trishman (cindy.trishman@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2021-12-28 - 2:36:14 AM GMT - Time Source: server 9 Agreement completed. 2021-12-28 - 2:36:14 AM GMT 1 FUTURE OF GALLIVAN 2 WHAT DOES THIS PLAN ACHIEVE? A VISION AND IDENTITY 3 GUIDING PRINCIPLES 4 GUIDING PRINCIPLES 5 GUIDING PRINCIPLES 6 GUIDING PRINCIPLES 7 THE BIG MOVES 8 BIG MOVES 9 BIG MOVES 10 BIG MOVES 11 GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT BIG MOVES 12 THE CONCEPTS 13 14 15 MAYOR ERIN MENDENHALL Executive Director REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of SALT LAKE CITY DANNY WALZ Director DATE: March 29, 2024 PREPARED BY: Lucas Goodrich, RDA Project Coordinator RE: Gallivan Center 20-Year Plaza Plan REQUESTED ACTION: Briefing regarding the Gallivan Center 20-Year Plaza Plan POLICY ITEM: Central Business District BUDGET IMPACTS: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In July of 2023, the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (“RDA”) began working with consultants GSBS Architects, Civitas, and Phil Myrick (“Consultant”) to complete a 20-Year Plaza Plan (“Plan”) for the future of Gallivan. The Gallivan Center, a public plaza and gathering spot in the heart of Salt Lake City's downtown, is situated on Block 57 which is bounded by 200 South, State Street, Main Street and 300 South. Constructed in 1994, Gallivan Plaza has become a hub, not only for the downtown population, but the region, through festivals, public meetings, performances, exhibits, fairs, poetry readings, discussions, and lectures. The Gallivan Plaza Plan reviews existing conditions of the plaza, downtown demographics, summarizes stakeholder feedback conducted as a part of this process, and makes recommendations for future management and operations, programming, and capital improvements. The Plan identifies a new vision for the plaza as the “Mosaic of the Arts”, where different forms of art and celebration come together in one space to form a picture of arts and culture in downtown Salt Lake City. ANALYSIS: The core of the mission for Gallivan Plaza is having numerous activities that are offered at little to no cost. A variety of attractions may be found at the 3.5-acre plaza, which include an outdoor amphitheater with stage construction, an indoor event space called Gallivan Hall, public art, and a seasonal ice rink that doubles as sports courts during the summer months. HISTORY: Prior to the Redevelopment Agency’s involvement in the early 1990’s, the Gallivan Center space was characterized by rundown buildings and surface parking lots. As part of a push to redevelop the area, the RDA began construction on the underground parking lot and plaza in 1992, finishing construction in 1994. The original construction of the Gallivan Plaza included the stage building, an ice rink, and green spaces. After construction of the surrounding buildings, the plaza underwent a change to expand and move the ice rink to its current position in 2010. In 2012, the Gallivan Plaza underwent another big change with the construction of Gallivan Hall along 200 South. The original plans for the building included a restaurant space on the ground floor; however, due to a lack of responses from an RFP process, it was ultimately decided that the space be dedicated to restrooms, event space as well as relocation of ice rink concessions and services. The layout has been in place for the past 10+ years. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 118 WWW.SLC.GOV · WWW.SLCRDA.COM P.O. BOX 145518, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5518 TEL 801-535-7240 · FAX 801-535-7245 2 DESIGN PLAN: As Salt Lake City continues to experience increased amounts of development and growth, the Plan will guide how the Gallivan Center can best serve the needs of the ever-evolving community in an equitable, environmentally sustainable, and fiscally conscious manner over the next 20 years. The Plan focuses on wayfinding enhancements, maintenance and capital projects planning, and programming for the future. The goals for this planning endeavor include exploring ways to: 1. Become an activated, everyday destination that is welcoming, easy-to navigate and accessible to all 2. Reimagine the plaza space and programming to accommodate the needs of Salt Lake City’s growing downtown population 3. Increase revenue to fund ongoing maintenance needs and future design enhancements The Consultant also identified an overarching vision for the plaza as well as central guideposts to guide future design as detailed in Attachment A. Existing Conditions: The Consultant examined and documented the existing conditions, including the organizational structure, budget, historical and current uses, edges (ingress, egress, access), infrastructure, and art. The Plan includes phased recommendations for maintenance, capital improvements, organizational structure, and programming. Stakeholder Engagement: From August 2023 through January 2024, the Consultant met with different stakeholders to discuss their experience at the Gallivan Plaza, give feedback on new concepts, and share ideas. These stakeholders included Gallivan and RDA staff, programming partners such as the Downtown Alliance, Salt Lake City Arts Council, Excellence in the Community, a variety of venue renters ranging in use and size, adjacent businesses, and adjacent residents. The stakeholders expressed that Gallivan Plaza is well loved by the people who own it, staff it, program within it, and work next to it. While beloved by all, many stakeholders expressed a desire for increased amenities, better signage, and increased passive and active programming. Gallivan Plaza (current layout) 3 Proposed Design Changes: In its current state, Gallivan Plaza concentrates landscape features and programmatic activities in its center while its edges are underutilized. The reorganization of the site is intended to infill the outer spaces with a wide range of amenities such as food & beverage, retail, improved landscaping, wayfinding signage, activation/recreation areas, and hold the central plaza open for seasonal events. Bordering amenity zones may still function at full capacity when summer concerts and winter ice skating occupy the center. Furthermore, visible activity around the site’s edges entices passersby to enter the area, utilize year-round amenities, and stop by several food and beverage establishments which anchor all edges of the plaza. Overall, the recommended pivotal design updates include: • Reorienting and enlarging the ice rink • Relocating the Olympic Torch monument • Reducing grade changes to increase accessibility and increase the uses of the central plaza o Leveling the upper terraces of the lawn area o Removing the sundial and central trees to generate more viewing space • Widening walkway from Main Street to direct pedestrian traffic toward the center of the plaza • Adding play structure/s and splash pad • Adding food & beverage anchor/s Proposed Programming Recommendations: The proposed programming recommendations include year- round activities at Gallivan Plaza: • Increased day-to-day activities such as fitness classes, games, roller skating, story telling • Increased winter programming such as a winter village holiday market, craft making, choir festival • Addition of temporary structure for winter programming Current Layout and Improvement Recommendations: 4 Proposed Layout: NEXT STEPS: The Consultant and RDA staff are working to finalize the Plan before the end of the fiscal year and move towards future implementation of key projects and plans as per the Plan’s final recommendations. The Future of Gallivan Plaza Plan looks to build upon the work done by the Block 57 Owner’s Group and the Gallivan Project staff over the last 30 years and look at how the plaza will balance everyday activation by an increasing downtown population and major cultural events. By adding in additional programming elements, rethinking plaza edges, and reconfiguring elements of the plaza, the Gallivan Plaza can strengthen its position as a premier venue and gathering space, thereby serving the community more effectively and securing its financial sustainability for years to come. Please see the proposed Project Prioritization Plan attached to better understand the phased approach and next steps. ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment A– GSBS Executive Summary • Attachment B– Project Prioritization • Attachment C– Proposed Design Updates by Season Relocated and expanded ice rink 5 ATTACHMENT A: GSBS Executive Summary 6 ATTACHMENT B: Project Prioritization List 7 ATTCHMENT C: Proposed Design Updates by Season 8 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SLC SUGAR HOUSE RDA PROPERTIES AND S-LINE UPDATE RDA BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING – APRIL 16, 2024 S-LINE EXTENSION – EXISTING CONDITION S-LINE EXTENSION – PREFERRED ALIGNMENT EXISTING DOUBLE TRACK – 300 E TO 500 E Existing Double Track NEW DOUBLE TRACK – 500 E TO 700 E New Double Track SCHEDULE CONTACT US s-line@rideuta.com tinyurl.com/s-line 833-801-7433 PROPERTY IMPACTS CLOSURE OF SURGARMONT DRIVE RDA PROPERTIES RDA PROPERTIES Next Steps •Demolition of buildings •Public Services maintenance facility re- location •Re-routing utilities •RFP preparation •Mixed use - affordable housing focus •UTA request for restroom and break room •RDA Staff may return to discuss any actions needed to comply with Real Disposition Policy 1 MAYOR ERIN MENDENHALL Executive Director REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of SALT LAKE CITY DANNY WALZ Director STAFF MEMO DATE: March 29, 2024 PREPARED BY: Tracy Tran, Senior Project Manager and Austin Taylor, Project Manager RE: Sugar House RDA Properties and S-Line Extension Updates REQUESTED ACTION: Information only POLICY ITEM: Sugar House Property Disposition and Transit Opportunities BUDGET IMPACTS: n/a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (“RDA”) currently owns the former Sugar House Fire Station property and the former Deseret Industries (“DI”) property located at approximately 1085 E Simpson Avenue and 2234 S Highland Drive (“RDA Properties”), respectively, within the RDA’s former Sugar House Project Area. The RDA purchased the DI property in 2012 and Salt Lake City transferred the adjacent Fire Station property to the RDA in 2020. In 2022, the Fire Station property was re-zoned from PL – Public Lands to CSHBD1 – Sugar House Business District. In 2021, the state legislature allocated $12M towards the extension of the S-line and since then, Utah Transit Authority (“UTA”) and Salt Lake City’s Transportation Division have been studying the options to extend the S-Line. Since the S-Line would extend east, RDA staff paused on redeveloping the RDA Properties until receiving more details on where the S-Line would extend. UTA and Transportation have decided on a preferred alignment that will impact the RDA property and the construction of the extension along with double tracking along the S-Line is anticipated to begin this summer. ANALYSIS AND ISSUES: Given the high costs associated with an extension, the Transportation Division decided that the best location for the extension would be to the south of the RDA Properties along Simpson Avenue. Previous S-Line extension plans would have had the line extend along Sugarmont Drive, which would have taken a larger amount of RDA property to accommodate a turn in the future. The proposed extension would require less developable RDA land than the option running along Sugarmont Drive. The proposed extension would require nearly 14,000 square feet of RDA property along Simpson Avenue. In exchange for the extension cutting into the RDA Properties, a portion of Sugarmont Drive north of the RDA Properties is proposed to be closed and approximately 7,000 square feet of the land within Sugarmont Drive will be given to the RDA. Closing off this portion of Sugarmont Drive will eliminate a complex and unnecessary skewed rail crossing. The closure of Sugarmont Drive is supported by the following City and community master plans: • The Sugar House Master Plan (Pg 5) adopted in November 2001, states “…the existing portion of Sugarmont Drive should be vacated”. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 118 WWW.SLC.GOV · WWW.SLCRDA.COM P.O. BOX 145518, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5518 TEL 801-535-7240 · FAX 801-535-7245 2 • The Sugar House Circulation Study (Pg 25-30, 56) adopted in February 2014, also recommends the closure of the portion of Sugarmont Drive in question. • The Local Link Study (Pg 6) adopted in February 2023, recommends that the Parley’s Trail remain on this portion of Sugarmont Drive The next steps will involve working through the necessary property transfers to allow for the extension of the S-Line, closing a portion of Sugarmont Drive in which Salt Lake City will transfer the land to RDA in exchange for RDA land that will be needed for the S-Line extension, cleaning up the property lines through a subdivision plat, re-routing utilities, finding a location for the Public Services maintenance facility that is currently using a building on site, demolishing the buildings on the RDA Properties, and preparing the site for development through an RFP. After research and discussions with various administrative staff in the City, it was determined that the closure of Sugarmont Drive and cleaning up of the parcel lines could be handled through a subdivision plat since there was no evidence that Sugarmont Drive was dedicated as a public right of way. Staff has notified abutting property owners of the pending closure. As staff works through the details of the S-Line extension, property transfers, and property redevelopment, RDA Staff may return at an upcoming Board meeting to discuss any actions needed to comply with the RDA’s Real Disposition Policy along with any budget impacts. RDA, Transportation Division, and UTA Staff will brief the RDA Board on updates related to the S-Line Extension and property redevelopment at the Board meeting. CITY COORDINATION: RDA Staff will work with the following City Departments/Division to address various components of the related to the S-Line extension and/or the property redevelopment: • Transportation Division: RDA is coordinating with the Transportation Division as they are working closely with UTA on the details of the project to extend the S-line. Part of the S-Line extension project will also include double tracking of the S-Line from 500 East to 700 East. • Public Services: Public Services is currently using a building on the Fire Station site that houses their facility that provides maintenance for the Sugar House Business District. RDA Staff has been coordinating with Public Services throughout this process over the last 3 years and they are aware they will need to vacate the property before construction work on the S-Line Extension can begin. • Planning Division: The RDA and the Transportation Division will coordinate to clean up the property lines and ownership changes through a subdivision plat process. PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: • The Board allocated $550,000 for demolition costs for this project in FY2023-24. ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment A: RDA Sugar House Properties Map • Attachment B: S-Line Extension Map 3 ATTACHMENT A: RDA SUGAR HOUSE PROPERTIES MAP 4 ATTACHMENT B: S-LINE EXTENSION MAP dERIN MENDENHALL Mayor RDA BOARD TRANSMITTAL MARY BETH THOMPSON Chief Financial Officer Date Received: Mayor Erin Mendenhall, Executive Director Date sent to Council: TO: Salt Lake City RDA Board DATE: March 29, 2024 Alejandro Puy, RDA Chair FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer Danny Walz, RDA Director SUBJECT: RDA Budget Amendment #3, FY 2023-24 SPONSOR: NA STAFF CONTACT: Danny Walz (801) 535-7209 or Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403 or Greg Cleary (801) 535-6394 or Mike Burns (801) 535-6461 or Erin Cunningham (801) 535-7246 DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Resolution RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that subsequent to a public hearing, the RDA Board adopt the following amendment to the FY 2023-24 adopted budget. BUDGET IMPACT: The Third Amendment will not affect the Agency's overall budget total. Its purpose is to reappropriate multiple project budgets and reallocate funds previously appropriated at a program level and into a new project budget. REVENUE EXPENSE RDA FUND $ 0.00 $ 0.00 TOTAL $ 0.00 $ 0.00 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238 PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 TEL 801-535-6394 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This amendment proposes using the appropriated $1,721,227 in the Strategic Intervention program within the North Temple and Program Income Funds. In addition, Staff recommends the reallocation of $1,925,329 from the Commercial Assistance Reserves program and $603,444 from the Housing Property Acquisition program to the Strategic Intervention program, also in the North Temple and Program Income Funds. In total, $4,250,000 would be appropriated in the Strategic Intervention program between these two funds and allocated to a new property acquisition project. The staff memo, included below, outlines greater details of project reallocations, and provides additional staff analysis. A summary document outlining the proposed budget change is attached (Attachment C). The Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Board. The budget amendment contains one item in section D Housekeeping Items: 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 ATTACHMENTS: A. RDA Budget Amendment #3 Resolution B. Budget Amendment #3 Staff Memo C. Budget Amendment Summary PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY RESOLUTION NO Third Budget Amendment for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY AMENDING THE FINAL BUDGET OF THE RDA FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024. WHEREAS, on June 13, 2023, the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Board of Directors (Board) adopted the final budget of the RDA, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2023, and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 17C-1-601.5 of the Utah Code. WHEREAS, all conditions precedent to amend the RDA's final annual budget have been accomplished. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this resolution is to amend the final annual budget of the RDA, as approved, ratified and finalized by the Board on June 13, 2023. 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments shown on Exhibit A as “Board Approved” are hereby adopted and incorporated into the annual budget of the RDA. 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The Salt Lake City Finance Department, on behalf of the RDA, is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments in the office of the Finance Department, the RDA, and the office of the City Recorder, which amendments shall be available for public inspection. Passed by the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2024, to be effective upon adoption. , Chair Approved as to form: Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Allison Parks 1 The Executive Director: does not request reconsideration requests reconsideration at the next regular Agency meeting Erin Mendenhall, Executive Director Attest: City Recorder 2 EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION [Attach Board’s Final Approved Budget Amendment] 3 MAYOR ERIN MENDENHALL Executive Director REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of SALT LAKE CITY DANNY WALZ Director STAFF MEMO DATE: March 29, 2024 PREPARED BY: Erin Cunningham, Financial Analyst RE: RDA Budget Amendment #3, FY 2023-2024 REQUESTED ACTION: Discussion and approval of Budget Amendment #3 BUDGET IMPACTS: The Third Amendment will not affect the Agency's overall budget total. Its purpose is to reallocate multiple program appropriations to fund a $4,250,000 property acquisition in the North Temple project area. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This amendment proposes using the existing $1,721,227 in the Strategic Intervention program within the North Temple and Program Income Funds. In addition, Staff recommends the reallocation of $1,925,329 from the Commercial Assistance Reserves program and $603,444 from the Housing Property Acquisition program to the Strategic Intervention program, also in the North Temple and Program Income funds. In total, $4,250,000 would be appropriated in the Strategic Intervention program between these two funds and allocated to a new property acquisition project. ANALYSIS & ISSUES: Project Description: Whipple Property Acquisition The Agency is interested in purchasing approximately 0.53 acres of property located at 961-965 West Folsom Avenue, 47 South 1000 West, and 51 South 1000 West in Salt Lake City. The property is located within the Agency's designated North Temple Project Area and is directly adjacent to the Folsom Corridor, where UTA and Salt Lake City recently completed construction of a multi-use trail. The Agency’s acquisition of this property presents an opportunity to facilitate community-serving redevelopment projects along the Folsom Trail that preserve existing small-scale commercial spaces and adaptively reuse the existing structure to create space for local, independent businesses. Funding of the Project When acquiring property, the Agency strives to use Housing, Commercial, or Infrastructure Property Acquisition programs to keep track of how its funds have been used. However, when the end use of the property has not been determined at the time of the acquisition, the Strategic Intervention program is used. This program’s approved uses include property acquisition, site development costs, and community SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 118 WWW.SLC.GOV · WWW.SLCRDA.COM P.O. BOX 145518, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5518 TEL 801-535-7240 · FAX 801-535-7245 benefits. Since the use of this property acquisition has not been determined yet, Staff recommends utilizing Strategic Intervention program for this project. Existing Strategic Intervention Funds The table below outlines the current appropriations within the Strategic Intervention program, specifically in the North Temple and Program Income funds. While no changes to the appropriations are necessary, the Agency is requesting to allocate the full $1,721,227 to this project. Fund Program Appropriation Project Current Budget Change Proposed Budget North Temple Strategic Intervention RDA-FY23- NT-Strategic Intervention- NT {Capital Reserves Program - Holding Account} 1,397,327 0 1,397,327 RDA-FY24- NT-Strategic Intervention- NT {Capital Reserves Program - Holding Account} 285,490 0 285,490 Program Income Fund Strategic Intervention RDA-FY23- PIF-Strategic Intervention- NT {Capital Reserves Program - Holding Account} 38,410 0 38,410 Total 1,721,227 0 1,721,227 Reallocation of Commercial Assistance Funds to the Strategic Intervention Program The Agency has been restructuring its Commercial Assistance programs and the Board has approved the following appropriations in the North Temple and Program Income funds to a Commercial Assistance Reserves program. As the Commercial Assistance program is being finalized, these funds have not yet been allocated to any projects. The proposal involves using $1,925,329 from these appropriations for this project, leaving $217,318 remaining in the North Temple appropriation. Fund Program Appropriation Project Current Budget Change Proposed Budget North Temple Commercial Assistance Reserves RDA-FY24- NT- Commercial Assistance Reserves-NT {Capital Reserves Program - Holding Account} 543,277 (325,959) 217,318 Program Income Fund Commercial Assistance Reserves RDA-FY23- PIF- Commercial Assistance Reserves-NPA {Capital Reserves Program - Holding Account} 1,599,370 (1,599,370) 0 Total 2,142,647 (1,925,329) 217,318 Reallocation of Housing Property Acquisition Funds / 9-Line Property Acquisition With the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Budget Amendment #3, the Board approved a property acquisition in the 9-Line project area, using $4,000,000 transferred from the City’s General Fund to the Agency’s Program Income Fund in the Housing Property Acquisition Program. This acquisition is happening in phases consisting of three separate assemblages. The first assemblage has been acquired and the third phase is still being negotiated. The second phase negotiations have been completed at a lower price than anticipated, and $603,444 remains from what was originally estimated. This amendment proposes reappropriating the remaining amount to the Strategic Intervention program within the same fund.. Fund Program Appropriation Project Current Budget Change Proposed Budget Program Housing RDA-FY23-PIF- PRJ-000011 RDA Income Property Housing Property - 400 S/900W 4,000,000 (603,444) 3,396,556 Fund Acquisition Acquisition-9L Acquisition New Project Appropriations The proposed amendment aims to consolidate a project budget of $4,250,000 by allocating the available Strategic Intervention program funds, along with reallocating funds from both the Commercial Assistance Reserves and the Housing Property Acquisition appropriations to the Strategic Intervention program. These reallocations will occur within the North Temple and Program Income funds and would result in the following appropriations. Fund Program Appropriation Project Current Budget Change Proposed Budget North Temple Strategic Intervention RDA-FY23-NT- Strategic Intervention-NT New Project: Whipple Property Acquisition 1,397,327 0 1,397,327 RDA-FY24-NT- Strategic Intervention-NT New Project: Whipple Property Acquisition 285,490 325,959 611,449 Program Income Fund Strategic Intervention RDA-FY23-PIF- Strategic Intervention-NPA New Project: Whipple Property Acquisition 0 2,202,814 2,202,814 RDA-FY23-PIF- Strategic Intervention-NT New Project: Whipple Property Acquisition 38,410 0 38,410 Total 1,721,227 2,528,773 4,250,000 PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: 1. Approval of the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Budget. 2. Approval of the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Budget Amendment #1. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Supplemental Slides. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY F I S C A L Y E A R 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 2 4 B U D G E T A M E N D M E N T # 3 Commercial Assistance Reserves: $1,925,329 RDA-FY24-NT-Commercial Assistance Reserves-NT: $325,959 RDA-FY23-PIF-Commercial Assistance Reserves-NPA: $1,599,370 Strategic Intervention: $4,250,000 RDA-FY23-NT-Strategic Intervention-NT: $1,397,327 RDA-FY24-NT-Strategic Intervention-NT: $611,449 RDA-FY23-PIF-Strategic Intervention-NPA: $2,202,814 RDA-FY23-PIF-Strategic Intervention-NT: $38,410 North Temple Fund New Project: Whipple Property Acquisition Legend: New Project Appropriations Strategic Intervention: $1,721,227 RDA-FY23-NT-Strategic Intervention-NT: $1,397,327 RDA-FY24-NT-Strategic Intervention-NT: $285,490 RDA-FY23-PIF-Strategic Intervention-NT: $38,410 Housing Property Acquisition: $ 603,444 RDA-FY23-PIF-Housing Property Acquisition-9L Project: PRJ-000011 RDA - 400 S/900W Acquisition: $603,444 $2,528,773 shifts from Commercial Assistance Reserves and Housing Property Acquisition to Strategic Intervention Project Program Fund Appropriation Current Budget Change Proposed Budget Available to allocate to projects Commercial Assistance Reserves North Temple RDA-FY24-NT-Commercial Assistance Reserves- NT 543,277 (325,959) 217,318 Program Income Fund RDA-FY23-PIF-Commercial Assistance Reserves- NPA 1,599,370 (1,599,370) 0 Available to allocate to projects Total 2,142,647 (1,925,329) 217,318 PRJ-000011 RDA - 400 S/900W Acquisition Housing Property Acquisition Program Income Fund RDA-FY23-PIF-Housing Property Acquisition-9L 4,000,000 (603,444) 3,396,556 PRJ-000011 RDA - 400 S/900W Acquisition Total 4,000,000 (603,444) 3,396,556 Total 6,142,647 (2,528,773) 3,613,874 $4,250,000 New and Existing Strategic Intervention Program allocated to New Project: Whipple Property Acquisition Project Program Fund Appropriation Current Budget Change Proposed Budget New Project: Whipple Property Acquisition Strategic Intervention North Temple RDA-FY23-NT-Strategic Intervention-NT 0 1,397,327 1,397,327 RDA-FY24-NT-Strategic Intervention-NT 0 611,449 611,449 Program Income Fund RDA-FY23-PIF-Strategic Intervention-9L 0 603,444 603,444 RDA-FY23-PIF-Strategic Intervention-NPA 0 1,599,370 1,599,370 RDA-FY23-PIF-Strategic Intervention-NT 0 38,410 38,410 New Project: Whipple Property Acquisition Total 0 4,250,000 4,250,000 Total 0 4,250,000 4,250,000 Appropriation Changes Impact Appropriation Cost Center Fiscal Year Fund Program Region Worktags allow for tracking of costs, revenues, and other operational metrics across different dimensions like departments, projects, or geographic locations. The Redevelopment Agency’s budget utilizes the following Worktags: Cost Center: Represents a specific department, unit, or division within an organization that is responsible for certain costs. The RDA is a cost center. Fiscal Year: The original year the funds were appropriated. Fund: Used to categorize and segregate financial transactions based on the origin of the funds, which is crucial for accurate financial reporting and compliance. The RDA has Project Area, Housing, Multi-Use, and Operations funds, with various legal and policy-related requirements that need to be monitored. Program: Enables the segregation and monitoring of financial data, which represents a specific pool of money that needs to be tracked for various legal, policy, or Board-directed initiatives related to RDA programs. The Program Worktags are designed to fit within program hierarchies such as Housing, Commercial, Infrastructure, and Operations programs. Region: Segments expenses based on location, which for the RDA is usually a Project Area. Not all expenses will be associated with a project area, which means this Worktag may not always be used. Appropriation: Combines the elements of Cost Center, Fund, Program, and Region into a single, comprehensive identifier, with the fiscal year as a prefix. Workday Worktags & the RDA Budget Operations Appropriations Annual appropriations for operational expenses. Considered approved to spend when appropriated. If not spent or encumbered by the end of the fiscal year, drops to fund balance. Typically, these would be for RDA operating expenses. Occasionally may be associated with a project budget (for example, an office remodel). Capital Reserves Appropriations Appropriations for programs that carry forward each year. For instance, in the Housing Development Loan Program, a set amount is allocated for loans. Staff will request additional Board approval to use these funds for specific loan projects. Funds not awarded to projects roll forward to the next year, unless reappropriated by the Board. Each appropriation supports either the operations of the Agency or projects associated with its various programs. Appropriations & Project Budgets Project Area Funds Must be used within the boundaries of the project area, except for money transferred to Primary Housing (legally required), Secondary Housing (supplemental), Agency Operations (defined by interlocal agreements), or other legally obligated reasons. • Central Business District (CBD) • Block 70 (B70) • Depot District (DD) • Granary District (GD) • North Temple (NT) • North Temple Viaduct (NTV) • Stadler Rail (SR) • Northwest Quadrant (NWQ) • State Street (SS) • 9 Line (9L) • Block 67 North (B67N) • West Capitol Hill (WCH) Note: Region acronyms are the same as project area acronyms. If there is “NPA” noted in an appropriation, it stands for “Non-Project Area.” Housing Funds May be used anywhere in the City, unless otherwise directed by the Board, except for the WCI, which must be used west of I-15. • Primary Housing (1H) • Secondary Housing (2H) • Housing Development Fund (HDF) • West Side Community Initiative (WCI) Multi-Use Funds Can be used across project areas (and potentially city-wide), unless otherwise directed by the Board. • Program Income Fund (PIF) • Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) Agency Operations Fund (OPS) • Received transfers in from other funds to fund the Agency’s operational expenses. Redevelopment Agency Funds Fiscal Year 2023-24 RDA Budget Amendment #3 Administration Proposed Board Approved Initiative Number/Name Project Area Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs Section A: New Items Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section D: Housekeeping 1 RDA: Reallocate Multiple Program Appropriations to Commercial Assist Fund Property Acquisition in the N Temple Project Area Reserves 1 RDA: Reallocate Multiple Program Appropriations to PIF Housing Prop Fund Property Acquisition in the N Temple Project Area Acquisition 1 RDA: Reallocate Multiple Program Appropriations to N. Temple Strategic Fund Property Acquisition in the N Temple Project Area Intervention - - - (1,925,329.00) (603,444.00) 2,528,773.00 One-time One-time One-time - - - Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources Section F: Donations - Section G: Board Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards Section I: Board Added Items Total of Budget Amendment Items - 0.00 - - Total by Fund, Budget Amendment #3: Redevelopment Agency Commercial Assist - (1,925,329.00) Reserves Redevelopment Agency PIF Housing Prop - (603,444.00) Acquisition Redevelopment Agency N Temple Strategic - 2,528,773.00 Intervention Total of Budget Amendment Items - - - - - 1 Contingent Appropriation and Notes Fiscal Year 2023-24 RDA Budget Amendment #3 Administration Proposed Board Approved Initiative Number/Name Project Area Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only FY 2023-24 Budget, Including Budget Amendments Total Revenue RDA BA #1 Total RDA BA #2 Total RDA BA #3 Total Total To-Date Redevelopment Agency 80,803,841 (6,476,014) - - 74,327,827 Total of Budget Amendment Items 80,803,841 (6,476,014) - - 74,327,827 Total Expense RDA BA #1 Total RDA BA #2 Total RDA BA #3 Total Total To-Date Redevelopment Agency 80,803,841 (6,476,014) - - 74,327,827 Total of Budget Amendment Items 80,803,841 (6,476,014) - - 74,327,827 Certification Budget Manager Deputy Director, City Council/RDA Board 2