Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03/10/2026 - Formal Meeting - Meeting Materials
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FORMAL MEETING March 10, 2026 Tuesday 7:00 PM Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in person at the City & County Building. Learn more at tinyurl.com/SLCCouncilMeetings. Council Chambers 451 South State Street, Room 315 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 SLCCouncil.com CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Alejandro Puy, Chair District 2 Erika Carlsen, Vice Chair District 5 Victoria Petro District 1 Chris Wharton District 3 Eva Lopez Chavez District 4 Dan Dugan District 6 Sarah Young District 7 Generated: 12:12:00 Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. WELCOME AND PUBLIC MEETING RULES A.OPENING CEREMONY: 1.Council Member Chris Wharton will conduct the formal meeting. 2.Pledge of Allegiance. 3.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. 4.The Council will approve the work session meeting minutes of September 9, 2025, September 16, 2025, October 7, 2025, and October 14, 2025, as well as the formal meeting minutes of August 19, 2025, October 7, 2025, October 21, 2025, and December 9, 2025. 5.The Council will consider adopting a joint ceremonial resolution with Mayor Mendenhall recognizing March as National Women's History Month in Salt Lake City. 6.The Mayor will present recommendations to the Council on the uses of Federal housing and community grants for the coming year. These include Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding, Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) funding, Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funding, and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) funding budgets. B.PUBLIC HEARINGS: Items B1 – B5 will be heard as one public hearing. 1. Grant Application: Environmental Protection Agency Brownfields 2026 The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Sustainability Department to the Environmental Protection Agency. If awarded, the grant would fund the asbestos remediation portion of the Northwest Pipeline building rehabilitation. This is a resubmission of the Fiscal Year 2024 EPA Brownfields Cleanup application, which was submitted in November 2024. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 10, 2026 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 2. Grant Application: Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Competitive Grants Program The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Police Department to the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance. If awarded, the grant would fund supplies, contracts, travel and training costs. If awarded, the grant period is from October 2025 to September 2028. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 10, 2026 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 3. Grant Application: 2026 Strategic Planning and Caseflow Technical Assistance Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from Salt Lake City Justice Court to the State Justice Institute (SJI). If awarded, the grant would fund technical assistance from the National Center for State Courts (CNSC). Anticipated outcomes include the development of a strategic plan and a Year One operational plan, and the evaluation of calendaring and case processing practices resulting in case flow management recommendations. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 10, 2026 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 4. Grant Application: Sister Cities International U.S. – Japan Global Impact Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Economic Development Department to Sister Cities International. If awarded, the grant would fund travel costs for the Salt Lake City delegation to Matsumoto, Japan. The grant would also fund workshops and roundtable discussions with stakeholders to develop a tourism model that sustains community benefits from the Olympic Games (both short and long-term). FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 10, 2026 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 5. Grant Application: Bureau of Emergency Medical Services Per Capita Fiscal Year 2027 The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Fire Department to the Utah Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services. If awarded, the grant would fund medical supplies used in providing emergency medical services to the public. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 10, 2026 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 6. Ordinance: Rio Grande Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning for 32 properties located in the Rio Grande District, between 200 South and 400 South, and 500 West and 600 West, from G-MU (Gateway-Mixed Use District) to D-4 (Downtown Secondary Central Business District). The proposal would allow for additional building height. The proposal would also amend the Downtown Plan to include the mid-block walkways within the Rio Grande District and update the Implementation Plan. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 2. Petition No.: PLNPCM2025-00180 and PLNPCM2025-00181. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 3, 2026 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 17, 2026 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 10, 2026 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 24, 2026 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 7. Ordinance: Fence and Hedge Height Text Amendment The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend multiple sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code. The first proposal would increase the fence height of front yard fences (between the front lot line and the primary façade of the principal structure) from the required four feet to a maximum of six feet in all M-1 (Light Manufacturing) and M-1A (Northpoint Light Industrial) zoning districts City-wide. A second proposal would clarify the height and location of fences, walls, and hedges in residential districts, in accordance with the defined clear view standards. Currently, fences, walls, and hedges are all regulated the same in the ordinance. Planning staff has recommended removing the word “hedges” to be replaced with the word “landscaping” in the fencing ordinance and the ground mounted utility boxes ordinance. They have also recommended increasing the rear and side yard fence height to a maximum of seven feet. Other sections of Title 21A may also be amended as part of this petition. Petition No.: PLNPCM2025-00045 and PLNPCM2025-00138. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 10, 2026 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 17, 2026 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 10, 2026 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 24, 2026 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 8. Ordinance: Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 527, 537, and 539 South 400 East The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of properties at approximately 527, 537, and 539 South 400 East from RMF-45 (Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District) to MU-5 (Mixed- Use 5 District). The proposal would also amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map from Medium-High Density Residential to High-Density Mixed- Use. The proposed amendments would allow the developer to build a five-story residential building with ground-floor commercial space to complement the neighboring property to the north under the same ownership. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 4. Petitioner: Russ Poulsen with Thrive Development, the property owner. Petition No.: PLNPCM2025-00704 and PLNPCM2025-00984. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 17, 2026 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 17, 2026 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 10, 2026 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 24, 2026 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 9. Ordinance: Recurring Nuisance Properties The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to nuisance private property. The proposal is intended to address persistent nuisance activity occurring on private properties and at commercial businesses where owners have failed to take proactive steps to curb illegal or disruptive conduct, including unruly parties, gatherings, and events on their premises. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 9, 2025, Tuesday, October 14, 2025, and Tuesday, February 17, 2026 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 17, 2026 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 10, 2026 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 24, 2026 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 10. Ordinance: Temporary Street Closure for Temple Square 2027 Reopening The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would temporarily close all or portions of City streets adjacent to the Salt Lake City Temple. The proposal would mitigate unsafe conditions and facilitate public safety and crowd management during the Temple Reopening Celebration. The temporary street closures would occur between March 2027 and October 2027. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 10, 2026 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 3, 2026 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 10, 2026 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 24, 2026 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: NONE. D.NEW BUSINESS: NONE. E.UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE. F.CONSENT: 1. Ordinance: Sugar House Hotel Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments at Approximately 2111 South 1300 East The Council will set the date of Tuesday, March 24, 2026 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of properties at approximately 2111 South 1300 East from MU-3 (Mixed-Use 3 District) to MU-8 (Mixed-Use 8 District). The proposal would also amend the Sugar House Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map from Mixed Use-Low Intensity to Business District Mixed-Use – Town Center Scale. The proposed amendments would allow the developer to build a hotel on the currently vacant site. The property is approximately .80 acres in size and abuts the northwest corner of Sugar House Park. The property has historically been privately owned and is not a part of the Sugar House Park property. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 7. Petitioner: John Potter with Magnus Commercial Properties, representing the property owner. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 17, 2026 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 10, 2026 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 24, 2026 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 7, 2026 Staff Recommendation - Set date. 2. Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 2260, 2270, and 2290 East 1300 South The Council will set the date of Tuesday, March 24, 2026 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of properties at approximately 2260, 2270, and 2290 East 1300 South from R-1-7000 (Single Family Residential District) to MU-3 (Mixed Use 3 District). The proposal is intended to allow for a portion of a 26-unit residential development, which includes eight townhomes and 18 condominiums. Currently, the property contains existing single-family dwellings. 10% of the units are proposed to be set aside as affordable units for buyers who meet 80% of the Area Medium Income (AMI) as the proposed community benefit. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 6. Petitioner: J-Development, LLC representing the property owner. Petition No.: PLNPCM2025-00558. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 17, 2026 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 10, 2026 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 24, 2026 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 7, 2026 Staff Recommendation - Set date. 3. Ordinance: Expiration of Land Use Approvals Text Amendment The Council will set the date of Tuesday, March 24, 2026 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend multiple sections of Title 20 Subdivisions and Title 21A Zoning of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the expiration of land use approvals. The proposal would expand the actions a land use applicant may take to prevent an approved land use application from expiring. The proposal helps clarify the actions a land use applicant may take to satisfy the requirement in Utah Code 10-20-902 for an applicant to implement the approval with reasonable diligence. Other sections of Title 20 and 21A may also be amended as part of this petition. Petition No.: PLNPCM2025-00554. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, March 3, 2026 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 10, 2026 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 24, 2026 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 7, 2026 Staff Recommendation - Set date. 4. Ordinance: Alley Vacation East of 519 East Browning Avenue The Council will set the date of Tuesday, March 24, 2026 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would vacate a City-owned alley adjacent to properties located at 519 and 523-527 East Browning Avenue, 1379 South 500 East, and 1372 and 1378 South Park Street. If approved, this section of the alley would be divided and allocated to the property owners abutting the portion of the alley that is vacated. The applicant has requested the vacation due to the existing detached garage, which appears to be on the applicant’s property, but was built in 1958, making the alley not passable from Browning Avenue to Sherman Avenue since that time. The northern portion of the alley, from Sherman Avenue to the middle of the block, will not be affected by this vacation request and will remain open to all users. Located within Council District 5. Petitioner: Amy and David Beecham, owners of 519 East Browning Avenue. Petition No.: PLNPCM2025-00883. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, March 3, 2026 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 10, 2026 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 24, 2026 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 7, 2026 Staff Recommendation - Set date. 5. Fiscal Year 2026-27 Funding Allocations for Federal Housing and Community Development Grants The Council will set the date of Tuesday, March 24, 2026 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an appropriations resolution that would authorize grant funding to selected applicants and adopt the One-Year Annual Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2026-27. The plan includes Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding, HOME Investment Partnership Program funding, Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funding, and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) funding. The resolution would also approve an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). For more information visit www.tinyurl.com/annualhudgrants. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, March 24, 2026 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 10, 2026 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 24, 2026 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 21, 2026 Staff Recommendation - Set date. 6. Public Hearing: SLC Airport Noise Property Disposition The Council will set the date of Tuesday, March 24, 2026 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment on the disposition of the City-owned property at approximately 840 South Gladiola Street, which is controlled by the Department of Airports. The property was purchased by the City as a “noise mitigation property” with grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). A public hearing was held by the Airport Advisory Board on Feb. 11, 2026. No public comment was received. The Council has elected to hold a second public hearing, which it may do under City Code 2.58.040(D), and the future uses of the property must be restricted under FAA regulations (nonresidential and compatible with the airport operations). No further action is required by the Council. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 10, 2026 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 24, 2026 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Set date. 7. Board Appointment: Airport Board – Jonathan Gardner The Council will consider approving the appointment of Jonathan Gardner, resident of District 6, to the Airport Board for a term ending March 10, 2030. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, March 10, 2026 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 10, 2026 Staff Recommendation - Approve. 8. Board Appointment: Airport Board – Lisa Ramsey Adams The Council will consider approving the appointment of Lisa Ramsey Adams, resident of District 7, to the Airport Board for a term ending March 10, 2030. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, March 10, 2026 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 10, 2026 Staff Recommendation - Approve. 9. Board Reappointment: Airport Board – John Bradshaw The Council will consider approving the reappointment of John Bradshaw, resident of Salt Lake County, to the Airport Board for a term ending March 10, 2030. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 10, 2026 Staff Recommendation - Approve. 10. Board Reappointment: Arts Council – Hannah Nielsen The Council will consider approving the reappointment of Hannah Nielsen, resident of District 1, to the Arts Council for a term ending March 10, 2029. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 10, 2026 Staff Recommendation - Approve. G.COMMENTS: 1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. 2.Comments to the City Council. (This is a one-hour time slot for the public to comment on any City business not scheduled for a public hearing. Each person will have two minutes to talk. General comment registration closes at 7:30 p.m.) H.ADJOURNMENT: CERTIFICATE OF POSTING On or before 5:00 p.m. on _____________________, the undersigned, duly appointed City Recorder, does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1) posted on the Utah Public Notice Website created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701, and (2) a copy of the foregoing provided to The Salt Lake Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any others who have indicated interest. KEITH REYNOLDS 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@slc.gov, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 9, 2025 1 PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Work Session on Tuesday, September 9, 2025. The following Council Members were present: Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young The following Council Members were absent: Eva Lopez Chavez Present Legislative leadership: Jennifer Bruno – Executive Director, Lehua Weaver – Deputy Director, Nick Tarbet – Deputy Director Present Administrative leadership: Mayor Erin Mendenhall, Rachel Otto – Chief of Staff, Jill Love – Chief Administrative Officer Present City Staff: Mark Kittrell – City Attorney, Thais Stewart – Deputy City Recorder, Stephanie Elliott – Minutes & Records Clerk, Allison Rowland – Public Policy Analyst, Kristina Gilmore – Senior Planner, Heather Royall – Housing Stability Division Deputy Director, Kate Fairchild – Justice Courts Administrator, Michael Sanders – Budget & Policy Analyst, Arturo Garcia – Director of Finance Operations, Brian Redd – Chief of Police, Jaysen Oldroyd – Senior City Attorney, Dennis Rutledge – Community Developments Grants Supervisor, Seth Rios – Principal Planner The meeting was called to order at 3:49 p.m. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 9, 2025 2 Work Session Items 1. Summary: Nick Tarbet gave a brief introduction. Jennifer Bruno reminded the Council and public that this item would be on the formal agenda for consideration. Council Members thanked the applicant for continued discussion and commitment to activate the downtown area surrounding the Delta Center. Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment for Delta Center Arena Parking Garage at Approximately 301 West South Temple Follow-Up ~ 4:00 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about a proposal that would approve a Master Development Agreement for the construction of the Delta Center parking garage at approximately 301 West South Temple. The proposal includes the construction of a seven-story parking garage with approximately 452 parking stalls at the southwest corner of the site, which is intended to provide parking for patrons of the Delta Center Arena and improve the site's functionality. The applicant is requesting approval of the development agreement associated with the project, which establishes specific rules for constructing the parking garage at the Delta Center Arena. If approved, the proposed development agreement could supersede several of the City's rules and regulations. Located within Council District 4. Petitioner: Jazz Arena Investors LLC. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 2, 2025 and Tuesday, September 9, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, August 19, 2025 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 2, 2025 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 9, 2025 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 9, 2025 3 2. Council Member Petro left during this item. Summary: Brian Fullmer gave a brief introduction. Seth Rios, Krissy Gilmore, and Philip Wilkes (Applicant) presented the alley vacation and discussed the Planning Commission's positive recommendation, the current state of alley usage or lack thereof, and the need to review the City's process for vacating streets and alleys. Council Requests: Council Member Puy requested a follow-up discussion regarding the final alley inventory report from the Engineering Division. Ordinance: Alley Vacation at Liberty Heights Plat ~ 4:15 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would vacate a portion of City- owned alley between approximately 1430 East and 1500 East, and between 1300 South and Sherman Avenue. The alley segment is not utilized for access by any abutting property and is obstructed at multiple points. Located within Council District 6. Petitioner: Philip Wilkes, adjacent property owner. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 9, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 9, 2025 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 7, 2025 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 21, 2025 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 9, 2025 4 3. Summary: Michael Sanders gave a brief introduction. Kate Fairchild presented the proposal, highlighting criminal case hearing statistics, caseload methodology, and the 2024 court restructuring, which resulted in additional requested resources to support the courts. Council Members, Sim Gill (Salt Lake County District Attorney) and Richard Mauro (Executive Director of the Salt Lake Legal Defender Association) discussed staffing needs, authorizing additional judges from other courts to help administer the increased caseloads, and the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial system. Ordinance: Justice Court Capacity Text Amendment ~ 4:35 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend sections 2.84.020 and 2.84.030 of the Salt Lake City Code to allow for increased capacity of the Salt Lake City Justice Court. The proposal would clarify the City’s ability to expand the number of authorized judgeships, subject to Judicial Council approval. This amendment is intended to ensure the Court has the structural capacity to respond to growth in caseloads and community needs. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 9, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 7, 2025 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 9, 2025 5 4. Summary: Michael Sanders gave a brief introduction. Art Garcia, Jaysen Oldroyd, Mark Kitrell, Police Chief Brian Redd, and Council Members discussed policy terms, disciplinary measures for violations, and how to implement additional regulations to address after-hours calls for businesses and individuals without infringing on private, civilized gatherings. Council Requests: Council Members requested additional information on how this policy would help address concerns and mitigate the public nuisance. Ordinance: Recurring Nuisance Properties and After Hours Alcohol Consumption ~ 4:55 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal pertaining to nuisance private property and after-hours consumption of alcohol in the common areas of commercial establishments and non-residential premises. The ordinance could be used for escalated action for property or business owners for recurring nuisance activity, including unruly parties, gatherings, and events on their premises. The proposal would also prohibit alcohol consumption in common areas of commercial and non-residential properties between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. If approved, the changes would amend Titles 5 and 11 of the Salt Lake City Code. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 9, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 7, 2025 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 9, 2025 6 5. Summary: Allison Rowland, Heather Royall, and Dennis Rutledge presented the item and stated that the next steps for the resolution were the public hearing and comment period. Resolution: Substantial Amendment to the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan ~ 5:15 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a budget-neutral reallocation of $230,306 in U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) HOME-American Rescue Plan (ARP) funds. Since these funds were allocated in 2024, Housing Stability Division staff and the service providers have recognized the need for case management to support some of the households receiving Tenant-Based Rental Assistance. Shifting funds to the Supportive Services category will enable the contracted organizations to provide this additional service while remaining within the City’s existing HUD allocation. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 9, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 9, 2025 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 7, 2025 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 21, 2025 6. Summary: An interview was held, and Council Member Wharton stated that Anthony Wright's name would be on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. Board Appointment: Arts Council – Anthony Wright ~ 5:35 p.m. 5 min. The Council will interview Anthony Wright, resident of District 6, prior to considering appointment to the Arts Council for a term ending September 9, 2028. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 9, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 9, 2025 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 9, 2025 7 7. Summary: An interview was held, Council Member Wharton stated Denise Begue’s name would be on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. Board Appointment: Arts Council – Denise Begue ~ 5:40 p.m. 5 min. The Council will interview Denise Begue, resident of District 3, prior to considering appointment to the Arts Council for a term ending September 9, 2028. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 9, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 9, 2025 8. Council Member Mano left the meeting during this item. Summary: An interview was held, Council Member Wharton stated Pablo Cruz-Ayalo’s name would be on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. Board Appointment: Arts Council – Pablo Cruz-Ayalo ~ 5:45 p.m. 5 min. The Council will interview Pablo Cruz-Ayalo, resident of District 5, prior to considering appointment to the Arts Council for a term ending September 9, 2028. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 9, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 9, 2025 9. Summary: An interview was held, Council Member Wharton stated Nicholas Pedersen’s name would be on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. Board Appointment: Arts Council – Nicholas Pedersen ~ 5:50 p.m. 5 min. The Council will interview Nicholas Pedersen, resident of District 2, prior to considering appointment to the Arts Council for a term ending September 9, 2028. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 9, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 9, 2025 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 9, 2025 8 Standing Items 10. There were no reports from the Chair or Vice Chair. Report of the Chair and Vice Chair - - Report of Chair and Vice Chair. 11. Summary: Jennifer Bruno addressed the vacancy on the Metro Water District Board and asked if Council wished to create a subcommittee to review applications. Council Members Dugan and Puy confirmed their interest in serving on the subcommittee. Report and Announcements from the Executive Director - - Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business, including but not limited to: Metro Water District Board Subcommittee; and Scheduling Items. 12. Item not held. Tentative Closed Session - - The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to: a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual; b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if: (i) public discussion of the transaction would: (A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; (ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale; and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the sale; f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 9, 2025 9 Meeting adjourned at 5:11 p.m. Minutes Approved: _______________________________ City Council Chair – Alejandro Puy _______________________________ City Recorder – Keith Reynolds Please refer to Meeting Materials (available at https://data.slc.gov by selecting City Council Meeting Information) for supportive content including electronic recordings and comments submitted prior to or during the meeting. Websites listed within the body of the Minutes may not remain active indefinitely. This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held Tuesday, September 9, 2025 and is not intended to serve as a full transcript. Please refer to the electronic recording for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52-4-203. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 9, 2025 10 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 9, 2025 11 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 16, 2025 1 PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Work Session on Tuesday, September 16, 2025. The following Council Members were present: Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez Present Legislative leadership: Jennifer Bruno – Executive Director, Lehua Weaver – Deputy Director Present Administrative leadership: Rachel Otto – Chief of Staff Present City Staff: Mark Kittrell – City Attorney, Keith Reynolds – City Recorder, DeeDee Robinson – Minutes & Records Clerk, Taylor Hill – Constituent Liaison/Policy Analyst, Scott Corpany – Staff Assistant, Brian Fullmer – Constituent Liaison, Policy Analyst, Nick Norris – Planning Director, Kate Werrett – Budget & Policy Analyst, Amy Thompson – Planning Manager, Rylee Hall – Principal Planner, Noah Elmore – Principal Planner The meeting was called to order at 3:18 p.m. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 16, 2025 2 Work Session Items 1. Summary: Brian Fullmer provided an introduction to the briefing. Noah Elmore provided an overview of the buildings’ significance and current status on the National Historical Register, qualifications of a local historical site, standards for map amendment having been met, and positive recommendations by Historic Landmark Commission (HLC) and Planning Commission. Council Members and staff discussed benefits of and differences between the National and Local Historical Registries. Annie Ruth Isaacson (Sampson Altadena Homeowners Association) noted all 17 owners/residents endorsed the application for the local historical registry, spoke to the history, lasting legacy, and preservation of the building, and requested the Council support the application. Council Member Mano advocated support for the City to examine additional appropriate zoning incentives and the process involved to apply for the local registry. Ordinance: Local Landmark Site Designation for Sampson- Altadena Apartments ~ 3:00 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would establish the Sampson and Altadena Apartments as a local landmark site. The site consists of two buildings on one lot at approximately 276 East 300 South and 310 South 300 East. Located within Council District 4. Petitioner: The Sampson-Altadena Condominiums Homeowner Association. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 9, 2025 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 7, 2025 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 21, 2025 2.Informational: Avenues Community Plan Update ~ 3:20 p.m. 45 min. The Council will receive an initial briefing about the Avenues Community Plan. The main purpose of the updated plan is to establish a vision for the Avenues Community for the next 10 years and align the plan with Plan Salt Lake. The plan currently in place for the Avenues was adopted in 1987 and is the oldest Neighborhood Plan in the City. This informational briefing provides Council an opportunity to provide input on the public engagement process, stakeholders, and other information relevant to the project . MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 16, 2025 3 Summary: Kate Werrett provided an introduction to the briefing and detailed the policy questions for Council. Amy Thompson and Rylee Hall provided information regarding reasoning for the update (oldest community plan in the City), overview of the update process and implementation for new area plans, historic districts, land-use, and open space within the Avenues, as well as engagement timeline and feedback thus far. Council Members, Nick Norris, and Planning staff discussed the historical development of area plans, the City’s role regarding the LDS Hospital property, the intended use of the plan once approved, quantifying naturally occurring affordable housing in the Avenues, the relationship between this plan and the existing trails plan, and ways other areas of the City could emulate the Avenues. Council Member Lopez Chavez left the meeting and Council Member Wharton joined the meeting during this agenda item. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 3. Written briefing only. No discussion was held. Ordinance: Consolidated Fee Schedule Corrections Written Briefing - The Council will receive a written briefing about an ordinance amending the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule (CFS). During the budget process for fiscal year 2025 -26, the CFS was updated with several changes. After the schedule was approved and adopted by the Council, Departments noticed errors and omissions that needed to be corrected. The changes include adding the Title "Fire Lines" and the Description "Per Inch" to one of the rate tables in the CFS for Public Utilities. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 7, 2025 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 16, 2025 4 Standing Items 4. There was no report. Report of the Chair and Vice Chair - - Report of Chair and Vice Chair. 5. Summary: Lehua Weaver noted the next Council Meeting, held October 7, 2025, would be located at the Sorenson Unity Center located at 1383 South 900 West, Salt Lake City. Report and Announcements from the Executive Director - - Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business, including but not limited to scheduling items. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 16, 2025 5 6. Item not held. Tentative Closed Session - - The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to: a.discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual; b.strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; c.strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; d.strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i)disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (ii)prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; e.strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if: (i)public discussion of the transaction would: (A)disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; (ii)the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale; and (iii)the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the sale; f.discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and g.investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 16, 2025 6 Meeting adjourned at 4:24 p.m. Minutes Approved: _______________________________ City Council Chair – Alejandro Puy _______________________________ City Recorder – Keith Reynolds Please refer to Meeting Materials (available at https://data.slc.gov by selecting City Council Meeting Information) for supportive content including electronic recordings and comments submitted prior to or during the meeting. Websites listed within the body of the Minutes may not remain active indefinitely. This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held Tuesday, September 16, 2025 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. PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Work Session at the Sorensen Unity Center, 1383 South 900 West, Salt Lake City, Utah, on October 7, 2025. The following Council Members were present: Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Eva Lopez Chavez The following Council Members were absent: Sarah Young Present Legislative leadership: Jennifer Bruno – Executive Director, Lehua Weaver – Deputy Director, Nick Tarbet – Deputy Director Present Administrative leadership: Rachel Otto – Chief of Staff, Jill Love – Chief Administrative Officer Present City Staff: Mark Kittrell – City Attorney, Keith Reynolds – City Recorder, Caitlin Carlino – Minutes & Records Clerk, Matthew Brown – Deputy City Recorder, Taylor Hill – District Liaison/Policy Specialist, Scott Corpany – Staff Assistant, Brian Fullmer – Public Policy Analyst, Mary Beth Thompson – Chief Financial Officer, Andrew Johnston – Director of Homelessness Policy and Outreach, Allison Rowland – Public Policy Analyst, Tammy Hunsaker – Community & Neighborhoods Director, Kristina Gilmore – Senior Planner, Julie Crookston – Deputy Director of Public Services, Sophia Nicholas – Sustainability Deputy Director, Laura Briefer – Public Utilities Director, Weston Clark – Mayor's Senior Advisor, Kate Werrett – Budget & Policy Analyst, Andrew Hulka – Senior Planner, Michael Sanders – Budget & Policy Analyst, Michaela Bell – Deputy Planning Director, Jesse Stewart – Public Utilities Deputy Director, Catherine Wyffels – Senior Air Quality and Environmental Program Manager, Austin Kimmel – Public Policy Analyst The meeting was called to order at 2:04 p.m. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 7, 2025 1 Work Session Items 1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 2:00 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive information from the Administration on major items or projects in progress. Topics may relate to major events or emergencies (if needed), services and resources related to people experiencing homelessness, active public engagement efforts, wildfire mitigation, and projects or staffing updates from City Departments, or other items as appropriate. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Recurring Briefing Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Summary: Weston Clark presented updates from the Administration including: • The City’s new feedback site at shape.slc.gov • Parks and open space projects • Salt Lake City Mobility Plan open house on October 8, 2025 at Salt Lake City Main Library • Fall Landscaping Equipment Exchange program details • Arts, Culture and Entertainment (ACE) grant applications accepted through November 1, 2025, and an information session on October 23, 2025 at the Salt Lake City Main Library • July 2025 Millcreek Fire claims details Andrew Johnson provided the homelessness updates including: • Homeless Resource Center utilization of 97% • Encampment Impact Mitigation (EIM) and Rapid Intervention Team (RIT) locations • Resource Fair details • Plans for 2025-26 Winter emergency services • Mobile Hygiene Pilot Program locations • Community Corner at 200 South 700 West Laura Briefer provided information on the historic flooding event that occurred between October 4–5, 2025, which impacted 27 homes in the Rose Park neighborhood and resulted in a Declaration of Emergency on October 6, 2025. Council Members and staff discussed: • Resources for affected residents found at: https://www.slc.gov/utilities/roseparkfloodrecovery/ • The various departments and volunteer groups involved in incident command, response and clean-up of the site MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 7, 2025 2 • The City’s coordination with the County and other entities to monitor and assess potential for future flooding • Salt Lake City Public Utilities and Salt Lake County Flood Control’s roles in the infrastructure and operations of the system 2.Ordinance: RMF-35 and RMF-45 Multi-Family Zoning District Text Amendment ~ 2:15 p.m. 45 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code related to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District) to RMF-45 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District). As part of the proposal a small number of RMF-35 properties would be changed to RMF-45. The proposal aims to remove barriers to new housing developments and facilitate compatible infill within the City’s moderate-density neighborhoods. These proposed updates introduce design standards for new development, reduce minimum lot size requirements, eliminate lot width minimums, permit multiple buildings per lot, and offer a density bonus for preserving existing housing units. Other sections of Title 21A may also be amended as part of this petition. For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/RMFZoneUpdates . FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 7, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 21, 2025 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, November 18, 2025 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 2, 2025 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 7, 2025 3 Summary: Brian Fullmer introduced the item. Michaela Bell and Krissy Gilmore presented the item, emphasizing the amendment’s goals of addressing housing supply by disincentivizing demolition, standardizing zoning codes, and expanding housing options to better align with City planning. Council Members and staff discussed: • Support for aligning zoning with existing mixed-density areas, similar to the Lower Avenues neighborhood • Concerns of reduced setbacks and increased density in already dense areas • Benefits such as flexibility for aging residents, additional rental units, and formalization of practices already in use • Clarification on setback adherence of the current ordinance, last updated in 1995, compared to the proposed amendment standards • The evolution of zoning preferences of the community and comparisons to practices in other high-density cities • The role of the proposed amendment in protecting historic and landmark buildings by facilitating home expansions rather than demolition 3.Ordinance: Patriot Rail Street Vacations at Approximately 6500 West Interstate 80 Eastbound Freeway ~ 3:00 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would close portions of the public right-of-way at approximately 6500 West Interstate 80 Eastbound Freeway. The proposal would allow the petitioner to purchase these portions of right-of-way to include in their property boundary for future railroad-related uses. There are no existing structures on the property. These are areas that were platted and dedicated to the City for use as public streets but were never constructed. Located within Council District 2. Petitioner: Salt Lake Garfield & Western Railway, the property owners. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 7, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 7, 2025 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 21, 2025 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 18, 2025 Summary: Brian Fullmer introduced the item. Andrew Hulka presented the item including the history of the location, lack of use, and Planning Commission's conditional recommendation. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 7, 2025 4 Council Members and staff discussed utility pole/easement details, support for decommissioning certain rail lines, and relocating the rail yard located in the Buena Vista neighborhood. Ashley Peck (Partner at Holland and Hart, representative for Patriot Rail) confirmed the intention to relocated the rail yard to this new location further west. 4.203 West Paxton Avenue Affordable Housing Development Public Hearing ~ 3:20 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive a briefing on the Pax Station Apartment project, a 272-unit affordable housing project at 203 West Paxton Avenue, which would be funded through a tax-exempt private activity bond (PAB) issued by the Public Finance Authority of Wisconsin. The development entails no financial liability for Salt Lake City, but Federal regulations for tax-exempt PABs require the Council to hold what is known as a TEFRA (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act) public hearing on this proposal. No other Council action is required. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 7, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 7, 2025 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 21, 2025 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Summary: Allison Rowland and Mary Beth Thompson presented the item. Jennifer Bruno stated that Private Activity Bonds (PAB) were not unprecedented and that Council Staff sought to create a related policy in the future. Steven Bond (Applicant) explained the financing and project details, including development plans, market study information, and activation. Council Members, staff, and Steven Bond further discussed the following: • Distinction between a PAB and Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LITEC) application in terms of achieving affordability • Concerns of the Area Median Income (AMI) plus small size of the units with leasability • Clarification and benefits of a future TRAX platform built and partially funded through the development • Confirmation of no risk to the City’s bond rating or debt as co-signers 5.Tentative Break ~ 3:35 p.m. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 7, 2025 5 20 min. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Set Public Hearing Date - Hold hearing to accept public comment - TENTATIVE Council Action - 6.Resolution: Salt Lake County Hazard Mitigation Plan ~ 3:55 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about the Salt Lake County Hazard Mitigation Plan, which includes information such as demographics, a hazard profile, and identified necessary/potential mitigation projects to minimize damage and loss of life. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requires these updates every five years for an entity to be eligible for pre-disaster mitigation funds and post-disaster assistance. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 7, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 21, 2025 Summary: Michael Sanders presented the item; there was no further discussion. 7.Informational: Salt Lake City Electrified Transportation and Fleet EV Charging Infrastructure Plans ~ 4:15 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing on the Community Electrified Transportation Study and the Fleet Electrification Charging Infrastructure Study. Sustainability and Public Services will share the findings and request Council feedback on the studies, implementation strategies, and discussion on the existing policy direction from Joint Resolution 45 of 2020. The materials also include a Donation Agreement between the City and the Kiessner Foundation for the donation of up to 100 electric vehicle charging stations. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 7, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 7, 2025 6 TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Summary: Kate Werrett introduced the item. Catherine Wyffels presented the studies and spoke on the need for more charging stations and infrastructure to support an electrified fleet. Julie Crookston presented a proposed phased plan and long-term funding strategy. Council and staff discussed: • Police Department vehicle details and charging demands/capabilities • Considerations regarding the increase in vehicle and charger purchases in the phased plan • Exploring the option of funding infrastructure work first, with chargers and vehicles purchased later • Alternative funding options provided through grant and private donation opportunities Council Requests: Council Member Petro requested a report on fuel and maintenance savings as compared to expected ongoing operations and maintenance costs. Julie Crookston said a report would be provided. 8.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.2 for Fiscal Year 2025- 26 ~ 4:35 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive a briefing about Budget Amendment No.2 for the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and modifications. The proposed amendment includes funding for the Youth & Family Division in support of YouthCity afterschool programs; funding for the National League of Cities Annual Cities Summit being held in November in Salt Lake City; funding for the Inland Port Authority to help fund the expansion of the Trainfo system; funding for additional Green Bike stations; and grant funding to support victims of violent crimes, among other items. For more information visit tinyurl.com/SLCFY26. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 7, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 7, 2025 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 21, 2025 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 18, 2025 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 7, 2025 7 Summary: Jennifer Bruno provided an introduction to Budget Amendment No. 2 for Fiscal Year 2025-26. Item A-1: Youth & Family Funding Due to Loss of Grant Mary Beth Thompson provided information on this item. Council Members stated their support for and importance of these affected afterschool programs. Item A-2: National League of Cities Annual Cities Summit Costs Austin Kimmel provided information on this item. Mary Beth Thompson noted that costs had increased, changing the request from $300,000 to $330,000. •Straw Poll: Support for a budget amendment to increase funding to $330,000 for the National League of Cities. All Council Members present were in favor with Council Member Young absent. Item A-3: Elected Officials Transition Costs: Michael Sanders provided information on this item; there was no further discussion. Item A-4: 122 East Median Restoration 300 South to 500 South Kate Werrett provided information on this item; there was no further discussion. Item A-5: Modification of Appointed Position at Police Michael Sanders presented this item; there was no further discussion. Item A-6: Reclassification of Police Appointed Position to 2.0 Full Time Employees (FTEs) Michael Sanders presented this item. Council Members and staff clarified that this item along with A-5 were budget-neutral with no employee eliminations within Internal Affairs. •Straw Poll: Support for Police Department position changes. All Council Members present were in favor with Council Member Young absent. Item A-7: Utah Inland Port Authority Funding – Transfer to Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Kate Werrett presented this item; there was no further discussion. Item A-8: Airgas Funding to Transportation – Transfer to CIP Kate Werrett presented this item and noted a private donation would partially fund a street modification project aimed at reducing speeding cars. Council Members expressed concerns over inequities in private street modification projects, and benefits of this project reducing street racing in the area. Council Member Petro brought attention to the Port Authority receiving tax revenue of which would otherwise go towards road upgrades, schools and other constituent needs. •Council Request: Council Member Dugan requested a policy around private entities funding street modification projects. Jennifer Bruno stated they could add MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 7, 2025 8 a Legislative Intent in order to track this. Item A-9: Take-Home Vehicle Insurance Policy Premium Adjustment Michael Sanders presented this item; there was no further discussion. Item A-10: Central Business Improvement Assessment Area (CBIA)-25 Budget Austin Kimmel presented this item; there was no further discussion. Item A-11: Assistance for Airport Federal Partners Due to Government Shutdown Mary Beth Thompson presented the item. Council Members expressed concerns about potential consequences for the Salt Lake City International Airport and federal employees resulting from the government shutdown. •Straw Poll: Support for assistance for Airport federal partners due to government shutdown. All Council Members present were in favor with Council Members Young and Mano absent. 9.Board Appointment: Community Development and Capital Improvement Programs Advisory Board – Cooper Fankhauser ~ 5:05 p.m. 5 min. The Council will interview Cooper Fankhuaser, resident of District 5, prior to considering appointment to the Community Development and Capital Improvement Programs Advisory Board for a term ending June 5, 2028. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 7, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 7, 2025 Summary: An interview was held. Council Member Wharton stated their name would be on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. 10.Board Appointment: Community Development and Capital Improvement Programs Advisory Board – Parviz Faiz ~ 5:10 p.m. 5 min. The Council will interview Parviz Faiz, resident of District 3, prior to considering appointment to the Community Development and Capital Improvement Programs Advisory Board for a term ending June 5, 2028. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 7, 2025 9 discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 7, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 7, 2025 Summary: Council Member Wharton stated the applicant could not attend and would be rescheduled to a future meeting. 11.Board Appointment: Community Development and Capital Improvement Programs Advisory Board – Sean Weeks ~ 5:15 p.m. 5 min. The Council will interview Sean Weeks, resident of District 2, prior to considering appointment to the Community Development and Capital Improvement Programs Advisory Board for a term ending June 5, 2028. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 7, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 7, 2025 Summary: An interview was held. Council Member Wharton stated their name would be on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. 12.Board Appointment: Transportation Advisory Board – Samantha DeSeelhorst ~ 5:20 p.m. 5 min. The Council will interview Samantha DeSeelhorst, resident of District 6, prior to considering appointment to the Transportation Advisory Board for a term ending September 25, 2028. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 7, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 7, 2025 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 7, 2025 10 Summary: An interview was held. Council Member Wharton stated their name would be on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. Standing Items 13.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair - - Report of Chair and Vice Chair. No report from the Chair or Vice Chair 14.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director - - Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business, including but not limited to scheduling items. No report or announcements from the Executive Director 15.Tentative Closed Session - - The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to: a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual; b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if: (i) public discussion of the transaction would: (A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 7, 2025 11 (ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale; and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the sale; f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. Item not held MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 7, 2025 12 Meeting adjourned at 5:19 p.m. Minutes Approved: _______________________________ City Council Chair – Alejandro Puy _______________________________ City Recorder – Keith Reynolds Please refer to Meeting Materials (available at https://data.slc.gov by selecting City Council Meeting Information) for supportive content including electronic recordings and comments submitted prior to or during the meeting. Websites listed within the body of the Minutes may not remain active indefinitely. This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held Tuesday, October 7, 2025 and is not intended to serve as a full transcript. Please refer to the electronic recording for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52-4-203. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 7, 2025 13 PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Work Session on Tuesday, October 14, 2025. The following Council Members were present: Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young The following Council Members were absent: Eva Lopez Chavez Present Legislative leadership: Jennifer Bruno – Executive Director, Lehua Weaver – Deputy Director, Nick Tarbet – Deputy Director Present Administrative leadership: Jill Love – Chief Administrative Officer, Lindsey Nikola – Mayor’s Deputy Chief of Staff Present City Staff: Mark Kittrell – City Attorney, Keith Reynolds – City Recorder, Caitlin Carlino – Minutes & Records Clerk, Taylor Hill – District Liaison/Policy Specialist, Scott Corpany – Staff Assistant, Laura Briefer – Public Utilities Director, Austin Kimmel – Public Policy Analyst, Jacob Jorgensen – Public Utilities Senior Financial Analyst The meeting was called to order at 4:43 p.m. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 14, 2025 1 Work Session Items 1.Ordinance: Consolidated Fee Schedule Corrections ~ 5:15 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance amending the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule (CFS). During the budget process for fiscal year 2025-26, the CFS was updated with several changes. After the schedule was approved and adopted by the Council, Departments noticed errors and omissions that needed to be corrected. The changes include adding the Title "Fire Lines" and the Description "Per Inch" to one of the rate tables in the CFS for Public Utilities. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 16, 2025 and Tuesday, October 14, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 21, 2025 Summary: Austin Kimmel and Laura Briefer introduced the item. Jacob Jorgensen presented background information on the fire line rate (noting the rate had been set at $1 per connection since 1961), the significant costs associated with upsizing pipes to support adequate water pressure, and the rate description and title omissions in the Consolidated Fee Schedule (CFS). Council Members and staff discussed: •Clarification of the public hearing and noticing process for this item •The need for fire line installations in buildings with indoor sprinkler systems (typically larger multifamily and commercial buildings) •Fee details, rate impacts, and equity concerns •Fire line fees having been unchanged for 64 years and previously subsidized through other Public Utility charges •Rate increases being essential to align with growing costs •The need for clear public messaging and proactive communication with residents on rate changes •Alternative options such as phasing of the rate increases Council Requests: Council Member Petro requested a policy analysis for alternative solutions to ease the cost burden on residents with increased utility bills. Lehua Weaver clarified and confirmed how best to respond to that request. 2.Informational: Convention and Tourism Assessment Update ~ 5:35 p.m. 30 min. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 14, 2025 2 The Council will receive a briefing from Visit Salt Lake to share an update about the Convention & Tourism Assessment Area (CTAA) performance highlights, including increased hotel revenue, visitor spending, and local economic impact. The Salt Lake County Convention and Tourism Assessment Area (SLCo CTAA) is an assessment area designed to fund district wide development & programming. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 14, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Summary: Krista Parry (Chief Brand and Experience Officer, Visit Salt Lake) introduced the Convention & Tourism Assessment Area’s (CTAA) function, goals, and the resulting efforts of two years’ operation, which included brand-building initiatives, awareness campaigns, and positive economic impacts. Tyson Lybbert (Chief Sales Officer, Visit Salt Lake) presented information on revenue and beneficial effects of funding utilization. Bart Blaisdell (Chief Financial Officer, Visit Salt Lake) and Pina Purpero (General Manager, Hyatt Regency) spoke of further benefits such as equitable hotel goal alignment, creative idea collaboration, and future hotel cooperation. Council Member Young spoke positively of a previous CTAA skijoring event and thanked the group for their work. 3.Resolution: Salt Lake Central Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zone Interlocal Agreement Written Briefing - The Council will receive a written briefing about the proposed Salt Lake Central Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zone (HTRZ) Interlocal Agreement to authorize the sharing of tax increment between Salt Lake City and the Salt Lake City Community Reinvestment Agency (CRA). The State code requires the City and CRA to enter into an interlocal agreement to release funds to the project area. The HTRZ Plan outlines the participating taxing entities, tax increment participation rates, the term of tax increment collection, and the planned utilization of tax increment funds in the project area. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 14, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 21, 2025 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 14, 2025 3 Written briefing only. No discussion was held. This item was also addressed during the CRA meeting earlier in the day. 4.Board Appointment: Transportation Advisory Board – Brian Conley ~ 6:05 p.m. 5 min. The Council will interview Brian Conley, resident of District 5, prior to considering appointment to the Transportation Advisory Board for a term ending September 25, 2028. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 14, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 21, 2025 Summary: An interview was held. Council Member Wharton said their name would be on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. Standing Items 5.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair - - Report of Chair and Vice Chair. There was no report. 6.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director - - Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business, including but not limited to scheduling items. There was no report or announcements. 7.Tentative Closed Session - - MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 14, 2025 4 The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to: a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual. b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining. c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation. d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration, or (ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms. e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if: (i) public discussion of the transaction would: (A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration, or (B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms. (ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale, and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the sale. f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems. g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. Item not held. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 14, 2025 5 Meeting adjourned at 5:46 p.m. Minutes Approved: _______________________________ City Council Chair – Alejandro Puy _______________________________ City Recorder – Keith Reynolds Please refer to Meeting Materials (available at https://data.slc.gov by selecting City Council Meeting Information) for supportive content including electronic recordings and comments submitted prior to or during the meeting. Websites listed within the body of the Minutes may not remain active indefinitely. This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held Tuesday, October 14, 2025 and is not intended to serve as a full transcript. Please refer to the electronic recording for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52-4-203. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 14, 2025 6 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 19, 2025 1 PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Formal Session on Tuesday, August 19, 2025. The following Council Members were present: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro, Eva Lopez Chavez Present Legislative Leadership: Jennifer Bruno – Executive Director, Lehua Weaver – Deputy Director, Nick Tarbet – Deputy Director Present Administrative Leadership: Mayor Erin Mendenhall, Rachel Otto – Chief of Staff Present City Staff: Mark Kittrell – City Attorney, Thais Stewart – Deputy City Recorder, Matthew Brown – Deputy City Recorder, Stephanie Elliott – Minutes & Records Clerk, Taylor Hill – Constituent Liaison/Policy Analyst, Michael Sanders – Budget & Policy Analyst The meeting was called to order at 6:15 p.m. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 19, 2025 2 A. OPENING CEREMONY: 1. Council Member Eva Lopez Chavez will conduct the formal meeting. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Ordinance: Amending the Administrative Hearing Process The Council will accept public comment and consider approving an ordinance that would amend various sections of the Salt Lake City Code to update the general administrative hearing process for civil violations. The process would replace the current Small Claims Court process for formal appeals and create a consistent practice for appeal processing. The proposal also includes adding a fee for formal administrative appeals. The process will apply to the ordinance for parties, gatherings, and events adopted on August 12, 2025. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, August 12, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, August 12, 2025 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, August 19, 2025 at 6 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 19, 2025 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Summary: Michael Sanders gave a brief introduction. There were no public comments. Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Dugan to close the public hearing and adopt Ordinance 50 of 2025, Amending the Administrative Hearing Process. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 19, 2025 3 C. POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: 1. Ordinance: Design Review Standards Amendment The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend Chapter 21A.59 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to Design Review. The proposal would clarify when each section applies to a project, ensure code language clearly communicates the standard’s intent, and delete duplicative standards from the chapter. The proposal would also introduce new design standards to further the purpose of the design review process. Motion: Moved by Council Member Dugan, seconded by Council Member Puy to adopt Ordinance 51 of 2025, Design Review Standards Amendment. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass 2. Resolution: Capital Improvement Program The Council will consider adopting a resolution for project funding allocations in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), which involves the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings, parks, streets or other City-owned physical structures. Generally, projects have a useful life of at least five years and cost $50,000 or more. The Council approves debt service and overall CIP funding in June with the annual budget process, while project-specific funding is approved by September 1 of the same calendar year. For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFY26CIP. Council Remarks: Council Member Puy clarified the process of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), noting that not all proposals were approved during the budget season due to limited funding, but emphasized the importance of public input and encouraged CIP project submittals. Motion: Moved by Council Member Petro, seconded by Council Member Puy to approve Resolution 16 of 2025, adopting the Capital Improvement Program Project-Specific Allocations for Fiscal Year 2025-26 as shown on the attached Exhibit A Funding Log, further moving it was the intent of the Council to address funding for curb, gutter, and irrigation needs on the 1200 East medians (CIP Project #25) with existing funds in Transportation and Public Lands in an upcoming budget amendment, and further moving it was the intent of the Council to examine traffic calming CIP project allocations that are on hold due to S.B. 195 for recapture consideration with a focus on reallocating the funds to school safety projects. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 19, 2025 4 D. COMMENTS: 1. Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. Summary: Council Member Wharton raised questions from the community regarding the July 25, 2025, Millcreek apartment fire, which displaced residents and destroyed housing units, and inquired about Salt Lake City's plan to address the affected residents. Mayor Mendenhall responded that Risk Management, in coordination with Public Utilities, had been working to secure the city-owned land adjacent to the damaged apartments, coordination was being made with affected residents to connect them with City resources, and further clarified that accepting City assistance did not prevent them from pursuing additional assistance or damage claims. Mark Kittrell confirmed Millcreek residents affected by the fire could contact the City's Risk Management Office at (801) 535-7785 for various financial and damage support options. 2. Comments to the City Council. (This is a one-hour time slot for the public to comment on any City business not scheduled for a public hearing. Each person will have two minutes to talk. General comment registration closes at 7:30 p.m.) Public Comments: Ian McCubbin spoke about recent wildfires occurring around the foothills and surrounding mountains, and requested that Public Utilities consult with the Salt Lake City Fire Department to develop a plan for fire mitigation and emergency response. Chris Olsen thanked Council for their efforts to create new recreation trails in and around the Salt Lake Valley and encouraged the development of additional trails despite reported conflicts among different types of trail users. E. NEW BUSINESS: NONE. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 19, 2025 5 F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Resolution: Central Wasatch Commission - Addition of the City of Holladay The Council will consider adopting a resolution that would admit the City of Holladay as a member of the Central Wasatch Commission(CWC). The CWC is charged with implementing the Mountain Accord, and, in particular the major values of environment, recreation, transportation, and economy that are inherent in the Central Wasatch Mountains. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, August 12, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 19, 2025 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Motion: Moved by Council Member Dugan, seconded by Council Member Wharton to adopt Resolution 22 of 2025, approving Holladay’s admission as an additional member of the Central Wasatch Commission. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass 2. Resolution: Legislative Policy for Housing Program Funding The Council will consider adopting a resolution that would update policies for Salt Lake City's Housing Program Funding, as well as establish a new Housing Programs Loan Committee, and a new Tenant and Homeowner Loan Fund. For more information visit www.tinyurl.com/HousingFundPolicies. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 1, 2025 and Tuesday, July 8, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 19, 2025 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Motion: Moved by Council Member Dugan, seconded by Council Member Wharton to adopt Resolution 23 of 2025 for the Salt Lake City Housing Program Funds and adopt a Legislative Intent that the Administration provide their preliminary metrics on these programs to the Council halfway through fiscal year 2026, and at annual intervals thereafter. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 19, 2025 6 3. Resolution: Legislative Policy for the Home Repair Program The Council will consider adopting a resolution that would update Legislative Policy and Budgetary Guidelines for Salt Lake City's Home Repair Program. For more information visit www.tinyurl.com/HousingFundPolicies. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 1, 2025 and Tuesday, July 8, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 19, 2025 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Young to adopt Resolution 24 of 2025, Legislative Policy and Budgetary Guidelines for the Home Repair Program. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass 4. Resolution: Legislative Policy for the Community Land Trust Program The Council will consider adopting a resolution that would update Legislative Policy for Salt Lake City's Community Land Trust Program. For more information visit www.tinyurl.com/HousingFundPolicies. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 1, 2025 and Tuesday, July 8, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 19, 2025 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Motion: Moved by Council Member Wharton, seconded by Council Member Dugan to adopt Resolution 25 of 2025, Legislative Policy for the Community Land Trust Program. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 19, 2025 7 5. Resolution: Legislative Policy for the NOAH Preservation Program The Council will consider adopting a resolution that would update Legislative Policy for Salt Lake City's Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH) Preservation Program. For more information visit www.tinyurl.com/HousingFundPolicies. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 1, 2025 and Tuesday, July 8, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 19, 2025 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Motion: Moved by Council Member Wharton, seconded by Council Member Dugan to adopt Resolution 26 of 2025, Legislative Policy for the NOAH Preservation Program. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass G. CONSENT: 1. Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 247 North 800 West The Council will set the date of Tuesday, September 2, 2025 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning for the properties at approximately 247 North 800 West from R-1/7,000 (Single-Family Residential) and SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential) to R-1/5,000 (Single- Family Residential) and SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential). The proposal would enable development to the west of the existing single-family home. Any new development will be accessed from Hoyt Place, which is a private road. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 2. Petitioner: Bert Holland, representing the property owner. Petition No.:PLNPCM2024-00629. For more information visit www.tinyurl.com/247N800WRezone. 2. Ordinance: Alley Vacation at Approximately 373 West American Avenue The Council will set the date of Tuesday, September 2, 2025 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would vacate a City-owned alley situated adjacent to properties located at approximately 373 West American Avenue. The proposal would close the alley to public use and allow the property owner of three of the four adjacent properties to potentially redevelop this site (the other adjacent property owner also supports the alley vacation.) The alley cannot be used as a mid-block connection because the 900 South viaduct is directly to the south. Located within Council District 5. Petitioner: Jarod Hall. Petition No.: PLNPCM2023-00636. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 19, 2025 8 3. Ordinance: Zoning Text Amendment Public Lands (PL) and Street Vacation - West High School The Council will set the date of Tuesday, September 2, 2025 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting the proposed for Text Amendment and Street Vacation ordinances at approximately 240 West 200 North, related to the reconstruction of West High School. The proposed changes include: Zoning Text Amendment: The amendments alter building height restrictions, buffering requirements, and allowed uses. Additionally, new construction would be exempt from review associated with the Historic Preservation Overlay District. Petition No.: PLNPCM2025-00320. Street Vacation: Street vacation for a 130-foot-wide and 530-foot-long portion of 200 North between 300 West and 200 West, which is currently incorporated into West High School's campus. This application would vacate public ownership and interest of a portion of the street. Petition No.: PLNPCM2025-00321. For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/2fdcpe2z. 4. Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment for Jazz Arena Parking Garage at Approximately 301 West South Temple The Council will set the date of Tuesday, September 2, 2025 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would approve a Master Development Agreement for the construction of the Jazz Arena parking garage at approximately 301 West South Temple. The proposal includes the construction of a seven-story parking garage with approximately 452 parking stalls at the southwest corner of the site, which is intended to provide parking for patrons of the Delta Center Arena and improve the site's functionality. The applicant is requesting approval of the development agreement associated with the project, which establishes specific rules for constructing the parking garage at the Delta Center Arena. If approved, the proposed development agreement could supersede several of the City's rules and regulations. Located within Council District 4. Petitioner: Jazz Arena Investors LLC. Petition No.: PLN PCM2025-00619. 5. Board Appointment: Library Board – Charlotte Dubiel The Council will consider approving the appointment of Charlotte Dubiel to the Library Board for a term ending June 30, 2028. Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Wharton to approve the Consent Agenda. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass H. ADJOURNMENT: MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 19, 2025 9 Meeting adjourned at 6:34 p.m. Minutes Approved: _______________________________ City Council Chair – Alejandro Puy _______________________________ City Recorder – Keith Reynolds Please refer to Meeting Materials (available at https://data.slc.gov by selecting City Council Meeting Information) for supportive content including electronic recordings and comments submitted prior to or during the meeting. Websites listed within the body of the Minutes may not remain active indefinitely. This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the City Council Formal meeting held Tuesday, August 19, 2025 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. PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Formal Session at the Sorensen Unity Center, 1383 South 900 West, Salt Lake City, on October 7, 2025. The following Council Members were present: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Victoria Petro, Eva Lopez Chavez The following Council Members were absent: Sarah Young Present Legislative Leadership: Jennifer Bruno – Executive Director, Lehua Weaver – Deputy Director, Nick Tarbet – Deputy Director Present Administrative Leadership: Rachel Otto – Chief of Staff, Jill Love – Chief Administrative Officer Present City Staff: Mark Kittrell – City Attorney, Keith Reynolds – City Recorder, Caitlin Carlino – Minutes & Records Clerk, Matthew Brown – Deputy City Recorder, Taylor Hill – District Liaison/Policy Specialist, Brian Fullmer – Public Policy Analyst, Allison Rowland – Senior Public Policy Analyst, Scott Corpany – Staff Assistant, Austin Kimmel – Public Policy Analyst, Weston Clark – Mayor’s Senior Advisor The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 7, 2025 1 A.OPENING CEREMONY: 1.Council Member Victoria Petro will conduct the formal meeting. 2.Pledge of Allegiance. 3.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. 4.The Council will approve the work session meeting minutes of May 22, 2025; May 29, 2025; June 5, 2025; June 10, 2025; and August 19, 2025, as well as the Truth-in-Taxation meeting minutes of August 19, 2025. Motion: Moved by Council Member Wharton, seconded by Council Member Dugan to approve the work session meeting minutes of May 22, 2025; May 29, 2025; June 5, 2025; June 10, 2025; and August 19, 2025, as well as the Truth-in- Taxation meeting minutes of August 19, 2025. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro ABSENT: Darin Mano, Sarah Young Final Result: 5 – 0 Pass 5.The Council will consider adopting a joint ceremonial resolution with Mayor Mendenhall declaring the second Monday in October as Indigenous Peoples Day in Salt Lake City. Summary: Council Member Dugan read the Joint Ceremonial Resolution declaring the second Monday in October as Indigenous Peoples Day in Salt Lake City, which recognized Indigenous homelands, honored cultural contributions, and promoted expanding resources and anti‑discrimination efforts. Samantha Eldridge (Director, Center for Native Excellence and Tribal Engagement) accepted the Joint Resolution, thanked the City for recognizing ancestral homelands of Indigenous tribes and emphasized the need for year-round promotion of native-led programs, art, curriculum and culture. Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Wharton to adopt Joint Ceremonial Resolution 31 of 2025 d eclaring the second Monday in October as Indigenous Peoples Day in Salt Lake City. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro ABSENT: Darin Mano, Sarah Young Final Result: 5 – 0 Pass 6.The Council will Recognize Former Salt Lake County Council Member Jim Bradley for his 28 years of Service. Summary: Council Member Puy recognized Jim Bradley for 28 years of dedicated service and MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 7, 2025 2 leadership in the community, highlighting lasting contributions to policymaking, respectful civic engagement, and preservation of Salt Lake City’s cultural fabric. The recognition also noted advocacy for Abravanel Hall and mentorship to others. Council presented a handcrafted wooden bowl made from a tree lost in the 2020 windstorm as a symbol of resilience and renewal. Jim Bradley accepted the gift, thanked the Council for their kind words, reflected on his time as a Salt Lake County Council Member, and encouraged young people to participate in local government. 7.The Council will Recognize The Rose Park Lions Club for over 75 years of Service in Salt Lake City. Summary: Council Member Petro introduced the Rose Park Lions Club and expressed appreciation for their longstanding service to the Rose Park community. She highlighted their commitment to supporting local youth and their example of civic involvement, then presented a plaque recognizing their contributions. A representative of the Lions Club expressed appreciation for the honor and shared information on how community members could join teh organization through the Lion’s Club International website and Facebook page. B.PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Resolution: Public Utilities Bond Anticipation Notes, Series 2025B and Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2025C The Council will accept public comment on a resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of up to $50,000,000 aggregate principal amount of Public Utilities revenue bond anticipation notes, Series 2025B, and up to $50,000,000 aggregate principal amount of Public Utilities revenue refunding bond, Series 2025C. The notes will finance the acquisition, construction, remodeling, and improvement of a campus for Public Utilities. The Bonds will be issued for the purpose of refunding in advance of their maturity all or a portion of the currently outstanding Public Utilities Revenue and Refunding Bonds, Series 2017. Summary: Austin Kimmel introduced the item. There were no public comments. Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Lopez Chavez MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 7, 2025 3 to close the public hearing. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro ABSENT: Sarah Young Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass 2. Resolution: Substantial Amendment to the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting a resolution that would reallocate $230,306 in U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) HOME-American Rescue Plan (ARP) funds. Since these funds were allocated in 2024, Housing Stability Division staff and the service providers have recognized the need for case management to support some of the households receiving Tenant-Based Rental Assistance. Shifting funds to the Supportive Services category will enable the contracted organizations to provide this additional service while remaining within the City’s existing HUD allocation. Summary: Allison Rowland introduced the item. Public Comments: Peter Frost, representing the Asian Association of Utah, spoke in support of the resolution and noted that in their case management work, combining counseling with rental assistance led to better outcomes than counseling alone. Motion: Moved by Council Member Dugan, seconded by Council Member Puy to close the public hearing. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro ABSENT: Sarah Young Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass 3. Ordinance: Changes to Zoning Incentives for Building Preservation/Adaptive Reuse The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code relating to Building Preservation Incentives/Adaptive Reuse. The proposal would expand the types of modifications that can be reviewed administratively through the Design Review and Planned Development process, clarifies design standards for new construction, and introduces the option for applicants to request a one-year time extension of preliminary approval. Other sections of Title 21A may also be amended as part of this petition. Petition No.: PLNPCM2025-00039. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 7, 2025 4 Summary: Brian Fullmer introduced the item. There were no public comments. Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Dugan to close the public hearing and adopt Ordinance 58 of 2025, Incentives for Building Preservation/Adaptive Reuse Zoning Text Amendment. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro ABSENT: Sarah Young Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass 4. Ordinance: Partial Street Vacation at Approximately 1101 West 400 South The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would close a portion of the public right-of-way on both 1100 West and 400 South adjacent to the property located at 1101 West 400 South. The closure would facilitate the future construction of a new single-family residence on the property. The petitioner is requesting to purchase this portion of the right-of-way and include it in their property boundary. The area is approximately five feet between the property boundary and the public sidewalk. The sidewalk would not be impacted by this request. Located within Council District 2. Petitioner: Erik Sansom, property owner. Petition No.: PLNPCM2025- 00178. Summary: Brian Fullmer introduced the item. Council Member Lopez Chavez thanked the applicant for their discussions and expertise, and emphasized the benefits of an upcoming R-1 rezoning which aimed to prevent issues such as these in the future. Public Comments: Barbara Rufenacht spoke in support of the partial street vacation and that a replacement of a neglected home would benefit the neighborhood. Eric Sandstom, Applicant, thanked Council Members Petro, Lopez Chavez and Young for meeting to discuss the issue, stated optimism for a vote in favor of the partial street vacation, and reiterated that rebuilding this home would enhance the neighborhood and MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 7, 2025 5 community. Ricardo Mejias, representing the Poplar Grove Community Council, spoke in favor of the partial street vacation. Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Dugan to close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting . AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro ABSENT: Sarah Young Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass 5. Ordinance: Alley Vacation at Liberty Heights Plat The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would vacate a portion of City-owned alley between approximately 1430 East and 1500 East, and between 1300 South and Sherman Avenue. The alley segment is not utilized for access by any abutting property and is obstructed at multiple points. Located within Council District 6. Petitioner: Philip Wilkes, adjacent property owner. Petition No.: PLNPCM2025-00219. Summary: Brian Fullmer introduced the item. Public Comments: Philip Wilkes, Applicant, spoke in support of the alley vacation in order to continue building a garage and the hope for a vote tonight. Rodney Warole spoke in support of the alley vacation and urged Council to approve the ordinance. Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Lopez Chavez to close the public hearing and adopt Ordinance 59 of 2025, Alley Vacation at 1470 East 1300 South. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro ABSENT: Sarah Young Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass 6. Ordinance: Local Landmark Site Designation for Sampson-Altadena Apartments MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 7, 2025 6 The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting and ordinance that would establish the Sampson and Altadena Apartments as a local landmark site. The site consists of two buildings on one lot at approximately 276 East 300 South and 310 South 300 East. Located within Council District 4. Petitioner: The Sampson-Altadena Condominiums Homeowner Association. Petition No.: PLNHLC2025-00357. Summary: Brian Fullmer introduced the item. Public Comments: Cindy Cromer spoke in support of the ordinance, referenced the buildings’ history, including a past fire and ongoing preservation efforts, and highlighted the current owners’ commitment to maintaining the historic integrity of the buildings. Lauren Funtanilla spoke in support of the ordinance and emphasizing the charm and cultural history of the buildings. Dorothy Hamory spoke in support of the ordinance and highlighted the safe and supportive environment for an adult son with health challenges who was currently living independently in the apartments. Travis Starley, representing the Central City Community Council, spoke in support of the ordinance, described the buildings’ immigrant roots, and emphasized that the local landmark status would provide stronger preservation protections than a national historic designation. Council Remarks: Council Member Mano expressed support for the local landmark designation, noting the well-timed mixed-use (MU) zoning ordinance going into effect the next day, on October 8, 2025, in which 26 commercial and MU zoning districts were combined into six new MU zones. Council Member Lopez Chavez thanked local residents for their education on the history of these buildings. Motion: Moved by Council Member Wharton, seconded by Council Member Lopez Chavez to close the public hearing and adopt Ordinance 60 of 2025, designating 276 East 300 South & 310 South 300 East as Local Landmark Sites. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro ABSENT: Sarah Young MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 7, 2025 7 Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: 1. Ordinance: Zoning Text Amendment Public Lands (PL) and Street Vacation - West High School The Council will consider adopting the proposed Text Amendment and Street Vacation ordinances at approximately 240 West 200 North, related to the reconstruction of West High School. The proposed changes include: •Zoning Text Amendment: The amendments alter building height restrictions, buffering requirements, and allowed uses. This would apply to all PL zoning districts. Additionally, new construction would be exempt from review associated with the Historic Preservation Overlay District. Petition No.: PLNPCM2025-00320. •Street Vacation: Street vacation for a 130-foot-wide and 530-foot-long portion of 200 North between 300 West and 200 West, which is currently incorporated into West High School's campus. This application would vacate public ownership and interest of a portion of the street. Petition No.: PLNPCM2025-00321. For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/2fdcpe2z. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, August 19, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, August 19, 2025 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 2, 2025 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 7, 2025 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Summary: Council Member Wharton stated reasoning for the postponement was due to pending results from a recent meeting between various stakeholders regarding the building. Motion: Moved by Council Member Wharton, seconded by Council Member Puy to postpone action to a future Council meeting. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 7, 2025 8 ABSENT: Sarah Young Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass 2. Ordinances: Alley Vacation at Approximately 373 West American Avenue The Council will consider adopting two separate ordinances that would vacate a City- owned alley situated adjacent to properties at approximately 373 West and 389 West American Avenue. The proposal would close the alley to public use and allow the property owner of three of the four adjacent properties to potentially redevelop this site. The other property owner proposed purchasing the alley segment adjacent to their property for private use. The alley cannot be used as a mid-block connection because the 900 South viaduct is directly to the south. Located within Council District 5. Petitioner: Jarod Hall. Petition No.: PLNPCM2023-00636. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, January 7, 2025 and Tuesday, August 19, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, August 19, 2025 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 2, 2025 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 7, 2025 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Council Remarks: Council Member Petro spoke on the Rose Park flooding event between October 4-5 2025 and commended residents for their resilience. Kevin Park (Vice Chair of the Westside Coalition) described the severe impact of the flooding and encouraged community support through a website found at https://westsideslc.org/floodrelief/. Council Member Puy thanked various departments of the City for bringing the Council meeting to the Westside and the community for engaging in their local government. Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Dugan to adopt Ordinance 61 of 2025, Alley Vacation adjacent to 373 West American Ave and 389 West American Ave. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro ABSENT: Sarah Young Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass D.COMMENTS: 1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 7, 2025 9 Summary: Council Member Petro thanked the Mayor for her swift response to the recent Rose Park flooding event. 2.Comments to the City Council. (This is a one-hour time slot for the public to comment on any City business not scheduled for a public hearing. Each person will have two minutes to talk. General comment registration closes at 7:30 p.m.) Summary: Council Member Wharton commented on the postponement of the After-Hours Alcohol Consumption Ordinance, noting its need for further refinement. Public Comments: Keiko Jones addressed North-South traffic congestion and limited public transit in the Fairpark neighborhood, and suggested the need for urgent transportation solutions. Michael Kroll expressed support for the Rio Grande Plan, a public-led transportation initiative, and further expressed concerns with smaller-scale studies and projects that may not solve the City’s transportation and connection issues. Ricardo Mejias raised concerns about drug use and trafficking at neglected properties in the Chapman and Poplar Grove neighborhoods and asked Council to encourage Police to respond to neighbor complaints and regularly patrol these properties. Margaret Holloway spoke of improved Urban Forestry efforts, which included responding to residents’ calls regarding treating, removing, re-planting and watering City-owned trees, and alerted Council to distressed Sycamore trees along West Temple. Sarah Liebrecht expressed opposition to the After-Hours Alcohol Consumption Ordinance, citing potential government overreach on private gatherings and the importance of nightlife to local culture. Marina Price commented on recent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids and expressed concern for Salt Lake City residents, suggesting measures such as establishing a legal fund. Jason Ehrhart reported a high water bill possibly linked to nearby construction and provided a handout and contact information for follow-up. Allison Musser raised concerns about the impact of a proposed homeless campus in the Northpoint neighborhood and urged consideration of alternative locations. Tony Diaz spoke positively about life in Salt Lake City, City programs and initiatives, MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 7, 2025 10 and the ease of contacting Council Members. Johanna Moreno Winder thanked volunteers for help during the Rose Park flooding event and described current challenges following the initial support. Scott Johnson spoke in opposition of the Delta Center project, citing citizen opposition to the use of tax dollars. Jeri Olsen thanked Council and Police Officers for their work and urged Council to create an enforceable park strip law to improve park strip issues the Fairpark neighborhood. Paul Lloyd spoke to concerns of a neighbor operating a nuisance illegal scrap metal business, requesting rezoning of 800 South 900 West to residential only and code enforcement/cleanup of the property. Josh Scheuerman expressed support for the West-East Connection Study and the potential contribution of local artists. E.NEW BUSINESS: NONE. F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Ordinance: Justice Court Capacity Text Amendment The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend sections 2.84.020 and 2.84.030 of the Salt Lake City Code allow for increased capacity of the Salt Lake City Justice Court. The proposal would clarify the City’s ability to expand the number of authorized judgeships, subject to Judicial Council approval. This amendment is intended to ensure the Court has the structural capacity to respond to growth in caseloads and community needs. Motion: Moved by Council Member Dugan, seconded by Council Member Wharton to adopt Ordinance 62 of 2025, amending the Salt Lake City Code sections 2.84.020 & 2.84.030 to allow for the modification of the capacity of the Salt Lake City Justice Court. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 7, 2025 11 ABSENT: Sarah Young Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass G.CONSENT: 1. 2026-2027 U.S. Housing and Urban Development General Community Development Needs Annual Public Hearing The Council will set the date of Tuesday, October 21, 2025 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment for the 2026-2027 U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) General Community Development needs. Each year Salt Lake City receives several million dollars in grants from HUD for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), HOME Investment Partnership (HOME), and Housing Opportunities for Persons With HIV/AIDS (HOPWA) programs. HUD requires an annual public hearing for the City to hear about community development needs from the public. This feedback helps to prioritize the grant funds between many competing needs. 2. 203 West Paxton Avenue Affordable Housing Development Public Hearing The Council will set the date of Tuesday, October 21, 2025 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment for the Pax Station Apartment project, a 272-unit affordable housing project at 203 West Paxton Avenue, which would be funded through a tax-exempt private activity bond (PAB) issued by the Public Finance Authority of Wisconsin. The development entails no financial liability for Salt Lake City, but Federal regulations for tax-exempt PABs require the Council to hold what is known as a TEFRA (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act) public hearing on this proposal. No other Council action is required. 3. Ordinance: Patriot Rail Street Vacations at Approximately 6500 West Interstate 80 Eastbound Freeway The Council will set the date of Tuesday, October 21, 2025 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would close portions of the public right-of-way at approximately 6500 West Interstate 80 Eastbound Freeway. The proposal would allow the petitioner to purchase these portions of right-of-way to include in their property boundary for future railroad-related uses. There are no existing structures on the property. These are areas that were platted and dedicated to the City for use as public streets but were never constructed. Located within Council District 2. Petitioner: Salt Lake Garfield & Western Railway, the property owners. Petition No.: PLNPCM2025-00432. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 7, 2025 12 4. Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.2 for Fiscal Year 2025-26 The Council will set the date of Tuesday, October 21, 2025 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider an ordinance amending the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document for Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and modifications. The proposed amendment includes funding for the Youth & Family Division in support of YouthCity afterschool programs; funding for the National League of Cities Annual Cities Summit being held in November in Salt Lake City; funding for the Inland Port Authority to help fund the expansion of the Trainfo system; funding for additional Green Bike stations; and grant funding to support victims of violent crimes, among other items. For more information visit tinyurl.com/SLCFY26. 5. Board Appointment: Community Development and Capital Improvement Programs Advisory Board – Cooper Fankhauser The Council will consider approving the appointment of Cooper Fankhuaser, resident of District 5, to the Community Development and Capital Improvement Programs Advisory Board for a term ending June 5, 2028. 6. Board Appointment: Community Development and Capital Improvement Programs Advisory Board – Parviz Faiz The Council will consider approving the appointment of Parviz Faiz, resident of District 3, to the Community Development and Capital Improvement Programs Advisory Board for a term ending June 5, 2028. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 7, 2025 13 7. Board Appointment: Community Development and Capital Improvement Programs Advisory Board – Sean Weeks The Council will consider approving the appointment of Sean Weeks, resident of District 2, to the Community Development and Capital Improvement Programs Advisory Board for a term ending June 5, 2028. 8. Board Appointment: Transportation Advisory Board – Samantha DeSeelhorst The Council will consider approving the appointment of Samantha DeSeelhorst, resident of District 6, to the Transportation Advisory Board for a term ending September 25, 2028. Motion: Moved by Council Member Wharton, seconded by Council Member Lopez Chavez to approve the Consent Agenda, excluding Item #6. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro ABSENT: Sarah Young Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass H.ADJOURNMENT: MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 7, 2025 14 Meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Minutes Approved: _______________________________ City Council Chair – Alejandro Puy _______________________________ City Recorder – Keith Reynolds Please refer to Meeting Materials (available at https://data.slc.gov by selecting City Council Meeting Information) for supportive content including electronic recordings and comments submitted prior to or during the meeting. Websites listed within the body of the Minutes may not remain active indefinitely. This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the City Council Formal meeting held Tuesday, October 7, 2025 and is not intended to serve as a full transcript. Please refer to the electronic recording for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52- 4-203. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 7, 2025 15 PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Formal Session on Tuesday, October 21, 2025. The following Council Members were present: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro The following Council Members were absent: Eva Lopez Chavez Present Legislative Leadership: Lehua Weaver – Deputy Director, Nick Tarbet – Deputy Director Present Administrative Leadership: Jill Love – Chief Administrative Officer, Lindsey Nikola – Deputy Chief of Staff Present City Staff: Mark Kittrell – City Attorney, Keith Reynolds – City Recorder, Caitlin Carlino – Minutes & Records Clerk, Thais Stewart – Deputy City Recorder, Taylor Hill – District Liaison/Policy Specialist, Brian Fullmer – Public Policy Analyst, Sylvia Richards – Public Policy Analyst, Scott Corpany – Staff Assistant, Michael Sanders – Budget & Policy Analyst The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 21, 2025 1 A.OPENING CEREMONY: 1.Council Member Dan Dugan will conduct the formal meeting. 2.Pledge of Allegiance. 3.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. 4.The Council will approve the formal meeting minutes of February 18, 2025, and June 3, 2025. Motion: Moved by Council Member Young, seconded by Council Member Puy to approve the formal meeting minutes of February 18, 2025 and June 3, 2025. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro ABSENT: Eva Lopez Chavez Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass 5.The Council will consider adopting a joint ceremonial resolution with Mayor Mendenhall recognizing October as Italian-American Heritage Month. Summary: Council Member Young presented the resolution recognizing the contributions of Italian Americans, highlighting their cultural, civic, and historical legacy, including their role in forming community events and festivals, and acknowledging the displacement of Italian Americans in Salt Lake City’s history. Nick Fuoco (Honorary Italian Consul) accepted the resolution and spoke with pride of the historical contributions of Italian Americans, their strong values, and the businesses they established while acknowledging a history of discrimination and emphasizing the importance of building cultural bridges. Nick Fuoco then expressed appreciation of Dana Rossi (Director, Festa Italiana) and other members of the Italian-American Civic League. Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Mano to adopt Joint Ceremonial Resolution 32 of 2025 recognizing October as Italian- American Heritage Month. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro ABSENT: Eva Lopez Chavez Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass B.PUBLIC HEARINGS: Items B1 – B4 will be heard as one public hearing. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 21, 2025 2 1. Grant Application: City Creek Daylighting at Folsom Trail Outdoor Recreation Initiative (ORI) Design Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Community Reinvestment Agency to the Utah Division of Outdoor Recreation. If awarded, the grant would increase accessible multi-modal connections, recreational amenities (skate park) and green spaces on the Westside. Funds would also strengthen the Folsom Trail, which connects a TRAX/Frontrunner stop to the Jordan River Trail, and the future Power District. These projects align with the priorities in the Utah Outdoor Recreation Strategic Plan. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 21, 2025 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. B-1 through B-4 heard as one public hearing. Please see item B4 for minute entry. 2. Grant Application: Fiscal Year 2025-26 Local Law Enforcement Grants for Enforcement of Cybercrimes Program The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Police Department to United States Department of Justice (DOJ), Office on Violence Against Women (OVW). If awarded, the grant would fund travel/training costs, overtime for those who are training and attending, emergency housing and transportation for cybercrime victims, and an enhanced response to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, dating violence and trafficking. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 21, 2025 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 21, 2025 3 B-1 through B-4 heard as one public hearing. Please see item B4 for minute entry. 3. Grant Application: Jordan River Water Trail River Restoration and Recreation Outdoor Recreation Initiative (ORI) Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Public Lands Department, Trails and Natural Lands Division to the Utah Division of Outdoor Recreation. If awarded, the grant would fund 36 blocks of debris clearing provided by Diamond Tree Experts. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 21, 2025 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. B-1 through B-4 heard as one public hearing. Please see item B4 for minute entry. 4. Grant Application: Jordan River Corridor Improvement Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Public Lands Department to the Utah DNR Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands. If awarded, the grant would fund the removal of dead trees, branches and debris from the Jordan River Water Trail corridor to enhance safety and accessibility, working from 1700 South to 900 South. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 21, 2025 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. B-1 through B-4 heard as one public hearing. Summary: MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 21, 2025 4 Sylvia Richards presented the grant applications and described the public projects they would fund. Public Comments: Jack Olson spoke on behalf of the Fairpark Community Council in their support of the Folsom Trail grant, citing limited green space on the Westside and growing residential demand for it. Council Remarks: Council Member Puy noted the positive impact of the grants on the Westside and thanked the Administration for bringing these items to the Council. Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Mano to close the public hearing and move items B-1 through B-4 to a future Consent Agenda for action. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro ABSENT: Eva Lopez Chavez Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass 5. Ordinance: Modify Residential Buffer Prohibitions Text Amendment The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code relating to residential buffer prohibitions. The proposal would review the land uses that are subject to, or should be subject to, the 1,000-foot prohibition from residential zoning districts. The proposal also included reviewing whether other land uses should be subject to the provision and clarifying how the distance is measured. Other sections of Title 21A may also be amended as part of this petition. Petition No.: PLNPCM2024-01357. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 2, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 9, 2025 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 21, 2025 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 18, 2025 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Summary: Brian Fullmer introduced the item. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 21, 2025 5 There were no public comments. Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Young to close the public hearing and adopt Ordinance 63 of 2025, Text Amendment to Modify Residential Buffer Prohibitions. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro ABSENT: Eva Lopez Chavez Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass 6. Ordinance: Utility Installation Exemptions Text Amendment The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code relating to utility installation exemptions. The proposal would clarify the application of utility exemptions and standardize the footnotes in related land use tables. Other sections of Title 21A may also be amended as part of this petition. Petition No.: PLNPCM2024-01352. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 2, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 9, 2025 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 21, 2025 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 18, 2025 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Summary: Brian Fullmer introduced the item. Public Comments: Cindy Cromer commented on the public involvement process for utility projects in public parks and suggested that citizens may propose alternative, more effective, and lower-cost solutions. Council Requests: Council Member Wharton requested verbiage on the ordinance stating that the exemptions not apply for a utility structure located in a park. Nick Tarbet said they would work with Planning department staff to draft language for the ordinance to reflect the request. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 21, 2025 6 Council Member Wharton requested more information on design standards for the ordinance. Nick Tarbet replied that the information would be provided. Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Wharton to continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro ABSENT: Eva Lopez Chavez Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass 7. Ordinance: Patriot Rail Street Vacations at Approximately 6500 West Interstate 80 Eastbound Freeway The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would close portions of the public right-of-way at approximately 6500 West Interstate 80 Eastbound Freeway. The proposal would allow the petitioner to purchase these portions of right-of-way to include in their property boundary for future railroad-related uses. There are no existing structures on the property. These are areas that were platted and dedicated to the City for use as public streets but were never constructed. Located within Council District 2. Petitioner: Salt Lake Garfield & Western Railway, the property owners. Petition No.: PLNPCM2025-00432. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 7, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 7, 2025 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 21, 2025 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 18, 2025 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Summary: Brian Fullmer introduced the item. There were no public comments. Council Remarks: Council Member Puy made a statement in support of the ordinance and moving the current rail yard further West. Before the meeting adjourned, Nick Tarbet stated that an incorrect version of the ordinance was provided to Council for adoption. City Staff then conferred and approved the most recent hard-copy version of the ordinance. Chair Dugan stated MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 21, 2025 7 for the record its adoption rather than the online/staff packet version. Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Wharton to close the public hearing and adopt Ordinance 64 of 2025, Patriot Rail Street Vacations. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro ABSENT: Eva Lopez Chavez Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass 8. Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.2 for Fiscal Year 2025-26 The Council will accept public comment and consider an ordinance amending the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document for Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and modifications. The proposed amendment includes funding for the Youth & Family Division in support of YouthCity afterschool programs, funding for the National League of Cities Annual Cities Summit being held in November in Salt Lake City, funding for the Inland Port Authority to help fund the expansion of the Trainfo system, funding for additional Green Bike stations, and grant funding to support victims of violent crimes, among other items. For more information visit tinyurl.com/SLCFY26. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 7, 2025 and Tuesday, October 21, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 7, 2025 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 21, 2025 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 18, 2025 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Summary: Michael Sanders introduced the item. There were no public comments. Council Remarks: Council Member Puy made a statement emphasizing the City’s support for federal workers during the current federal government shutdown. Motion: MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 21, 2025 8 Moved by Council Member Wharton, seconded by Council Member Young to close the public hearing and approve Ordinance 65 of 2025, adopting items A-2, National League of Cities Summit Costs, A-6, Modification of Appointed Position and Police Department, and A-11, Assistance for Airport Federal Partners Due to Government Shutdown as proposed by the Administration, and defer action on remaining items to a future Council meeting. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro ABSENT: Eva Lopez Chavez Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass 9. 2026-2027 U.S. Housing and Urban Development General Community Development Needs Annual Public Hearing The Council will accept public comment for the 2026-2027 U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) General Community Development Needs. Each year Salt Lake City receives several million dollars in grants from HUD for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), HOME Investment Partnership (HOME), and Housing Opportunities for Persons With HIV/AIDS (HOPWA) programs. HUD requires an annual public hearing for the City to hear about community development needs from the public. This feedback helps to prioritize the grant funds between many competing needs. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 7, 2025 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 21, 2025 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Summary: Nick Tarbet introduced the item. There were no public comments. Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Wharton to close the public hearing. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro ABSENT: Eva Lopez Chavez Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 21, 2025 9 10. Public Hearing: 203 West Paxton Avenue Affordable Housing Development The Council will accept public comment for the Pax Station Apartment project, a 272- unit affordable housing project at 203 West Paxton Avenue, which would be funded through a tax-exempt private activity bond (PAB) issued by the Public Finance Authority of Wisconsin. The development entails no financial liability for Salt Lake City, but Federal regulations for tax-exempt PABs require the Council to hold what is known as a TEFRA (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act) public hearing on this proposal. No other Council action is required. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 7, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 7, 2025 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 21, 2025 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Summary: Nick Tarbet introduced the item. There were no public comments. Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Young to close the public hearing. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro ABSENT: Eva Lopez Chavez Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: 1. Resolution: Substantial Amendment to the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan The Council will consider adopting a resolution that would reallocate $230,306 in U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) HOME-American Rescue Plan (ARP) funds. Since these funds were allocated in 2024, Housing Stability Division staff and the service providers have recognized the need for case management to support some of the households receiving Tenant-Based Rental Assistance. Shifting funds to the Supportive Services category will enable the contracted organizations to provide this additional service while remaining within the City’s existing HUD allocation. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 21, 2025 10 Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Wharton to adopt Resolution 33 of 2025, Substantial Amendment to the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan, to relocate a portion of one-time HUD HOME-ARP funding. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro ABSENT: Eva Lopez Chavez Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass 2. Ordinance: Partial Street Vacation at Approximately 1101 West 400 South The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would close a portion of the public right-of-way on both 1100 West and 400 South adjacent to the property located at 1101 West 400 South. The closure would facilitate the future construction of a new single- family residence on the property. The petitioner is requesting to purchase this portion of the right-of-way and include it in their property boundary. The area is approximately five feet between the property boundary and the public sidewalk. The sidewalk would not be impacted by this request. Located within Council District 2. Petitioner: Erik Sansom, property owner. Petition No.: PLNPCM2025-00178. Council Remarks: Council Member Young spoke on the challenging mechanism of the partial street vacation. Council Member Petro commented on considerations of setting precedence versus impeding with development of the property and stated opposition to the motion. Council Member Mano spoke on alternative solutions and support of the motion. Council Member Puy acknowledged the challenges faced by the applicant and noted that developing a comprehensive solution within the code may require additional time. Motion: Moved by Council Member Mano, seconded by Council Member Wharton to adopt Ordinance 66 of 2025, vacating the 1100 West street segment and denying vacating the 400 South street segment adjacent to the applicant’s property. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano NAY: Sarah Young, Victoria Petro ABSENT: Eva Lopez Chavez Final Result: 4 – 2 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 21, 2025 11 D.COMMENTS: 1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. There were no questions to the Mayor. 2.Comments to the City Council. (This is a one-hour time slot for the public to comment on any City business not scheduled for a public hearing. Each person will have two minutes to talk. General comment registration closes at 7:30 p.m.) Public Comments: Cindy Cromer, resident and property owner in the RMF-35 zone, spoke of the 1995 zoning rewrite process and that efforts during that period focused on improving the quality of existing units rather than increasing the number of units. Annie Isaacson spoke on the RMF rezone, interest in preserving local historic properties and appreciation to Council Members for meeting regarding these issues. Erik Sansom, Applicant for Item C-2, commented on challenges in obtaining City approval for a home rebuild and described looking forward to the re-work of the R-1- 5000 zone to address nonconforming units. Josh Scheuerman, reported concerns of a neighbor in a residential area of Millcreek operating an illegal tow truck business and requested City Code enforcement. Supplemental documents were provided to staff and will be included in the Meeting Materials. Jason Seaton made a statement regarding Item C-2, and described challenges experienced with the approval process for rebuilding a home. E.NEW BUSINESS: 1. Ordinance: Economic Development Loan Fund - Rich’s Grub Houses LLC. The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would approve a $40,000 loan for Rich’s Grub Houses LLC doing business as Rich’s Burgers N Grub at 30 East Broadway from the Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF). Rich’s Burgers N Grub is an existing restaurant offering burgers and sandwiches. This loan would pay for machinery and equipment, and leasehold improvements. It would also help create two to four new jobs in the next year and retain eight current jobs. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 21, 2025 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 21, 2025 12 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 21, 2025 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Wharton to adopt Ordinance 67 of 2025, approving a $40,000 loan for Rich’s Grub Houses LLC, doing business as Rich’s Burgers N Grub, from the Economic Development Loan Fund. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro ABSENT: Eva Lopez Chavez Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Resolution: Salt Lake County Hazard Mitigation Plan The Council will consider adopting a resolution that would approve the 2025 Salt Lake County Hazard Mitigation Plan, which includes information such as demographics, a hazard profile, and identified necessary/potential mitigation projects to minimize damage and loss of life. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requires these updates every five years for an entity to be eligible for pre-disaster mitigation funds and post-disaster assistance. Motion: Moved by Council Member Wharton, seconded by Council Member Mano to adopt Resolution 34 of 2025, approving the 2025 Salt Lake County Hazard Mitigation Plan. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro ABSENT: Eva Lopez Chavez Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass 2. Resolution: Salt Lake Central Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zone Interlocal Agreement The Council will consider adopting the proposed Salt Lake Central Housing and Transit MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 21, 2025 13 Reinvestment Zone (HTRZ) Interlocal Agreement to authorize the sharing of tax increment between Salt Lake City and the Salt Lake City Community Reinvestment Agency (CRA). The State code requires the City and CRA to enter into an interlocal agreement to release funds to the project area. The HTRZ Plan outlines the participating taxing entities, tax increment participation rates, the term of tax increment collection, and the planned utilization of tax increment funds in the project area. Motion: Moved by Council Member Wharton, seconded by Council Member Puy to adopt Resolution 35 of 2025 to approve the Salt Lake City Central HTRZ Interlocal Agreement between Salt Lake City and Salt Lake City Community Reinvestment Agency. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro ABSENT: Eva Lopez Chavez Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass G.CONSENT: 1. Ordinance: RMF-35 and RMF-45 Multi-Family Zoning District Text Amendment The Council will set the date of Tuesday, November 18, 2025 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider approving an ordinance that would amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code related to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District) to RMF-45 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District). As part of the proposal a small number of RMF-35 properties would be changed to RMF-45. The proposal aims to remove barriers to new housing developments and facilitate compatible infill within the City’s moderate-density neighborhoods. These proposed updates introduce design standards for new development, reduce minimum lot size requirements, eliminate lot width minimums, permit multiple buildings per lot, and offer a density bonus for preserving existing housing units. Other sections of Title 21A may also be amended as part of this petition. Petition No.: PLNPCM2024-01388. For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/RMFZoneUpdates. 2. Ordinance: Wildland Urban Interface Fire Code Text Amendment The Council will set the date of Tuesday, November 18, 2025 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider an ordinance that would adopt the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Fire Code, a state fire code that the City is required to adopt, along with a map MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 21, 2025 14 that shows where the WUI Fire Code would apply. The proposal would also amend Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code to give precedence to the adopted WUI Code where it conflicts with regulations, with the exception of the Riparian Corridor Overlay. The WUI code regulates certain building materials, construction requirements, building separation, and landscaping provisions to reduce the risk of fire. 3. Board Appointment: Transportation Advisory Board – Brian Conley The Council will consider approving the appointment of Brian Conley, resident of District 5, to the Transportation Advisory Board for a term ending September 25, 2028. 4. Board Appointment: City and County Building Conservation and Use Committee – Nicholas Pedersen The Council will consider approving the appointment of Nicholas Pedersen, resident of District 2, to the City and County Building Conservancy and Use Committee for a term ending July 16, 2029. 5. Board Appointment: Art Design Board – Amanda Stewart The Council will consider approving the appointment of Amanda Stewart, resident of District 7, to the Art Design Board for a term ending October 21, 2028. 6. Board Appointment: Historic Landmark Commission – Taymour Semnani The Council will consider approving the appointment of Taymour Semnani, resident of District 4, to the Historic Landmark Commission for a term ending October 21, 2029. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 21, 2025 15 Motion: Moved by Council Member Mano, seconded by Council Member Wharton to approve the Consent Agenda. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro ABSENT: Eva Lopez Chavez Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass H.ADJOURNMENT: MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 21, 2025 16 Meeting adjourned at 8:07 p.m. Minutes Approved: _______________________________ City Council Chair – Alejandro Puy _______________________________ City Recorder – Keith Reynolds Please refer to Meeting Materials (available at https://data.slc.gov by selecting City Council Meeting Information) for supportive content including electronic recordings and comments submitted prior to or during the meeting. Websites listed within the body of the Minutes may not remain active indefinitely. This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the City Council Formal meeting held Tuesday, October 21, 2025 and is not intended to serve as a full transcript. Please refer to the electronic recording for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52- 4-203. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 21, 2025 17 PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Formal Session on Tuesday, December 9, 2025. The following Council Members were present: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro, Eva Lopez Chavez Present Legislative Leadership: Jennifer Bruno – Executive Director, Lehua Weaver – Deputy Director, Nick Tarbet – Deputy Director Present Administrative Leadership: Mayor Erin Mendenhall, Jill Love – Chief Administrative Officer, Lindsey Nikola – Deputy Chief of Staff Present City Staff: Mark Kittrell – City Attorney, Keith Reynolds – City Recorder, DeeDee Robinson – Minutes & Records Clerk, Taylor Hill – Constituent Liaison/Policy Analyst, Sylvia Richards – Public Policy Analyst, Scott Corpany – Staff Assistant, Michael Sanders – Budget & Policy Analyst The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 9, 2025 1 A.OPENING CEREMONY: 1.Council Member Chris Wharton will conduct the formal meeting. 2.Pledge of Allegiance. 3.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. 4.Recognition of Darin Mano for his service as Council Member for District 5 from January 2020 to December 2025. Summary: Council Members Wharton, Young, Dugan, Lopez Chavez, Petro, Puy, and Mayor Mendenhall recognized Council Member Mano’s service on the Council, expressed appreciation and gratitude for his support, friendship, and commitment to the citizens of Salt Lake City and presented him with a gift. Council Member Mano thanked everyone for their kind words and the gift, expressed gratitude to those who were present for his last meeting, described pride in his accomplishments as a Council Member, and expressed appreciation for the support he received over the course of his term. B.PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act Public Hearing for Sky Harbour Hangar Development The Council will accept public comment on the Sky Harbour hangar development on the east side of the Salt Lake City International Airport that consists of the development of an aircraft storage facility situated on 8.4 acres and will include four box hangars. The project would be funded through a tax-exempt private activity bond (PAB) issued by the Public Finance Authority of Wisconsin. The development entails no financial liability for Salt Lake City, but Federal regulations for tax-exempt PABs require the Council to hold what is known as a TEFRA (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act) public hearing on this proposal. No other Council action is required. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 2, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, November 25, 2025 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, December 9, 2025 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close the Public Hearing. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 9, 2025 2 Summary: Nick Tarbet provided a brief introduction. There were no public comments. Motion: Moved by Council Member Dugan, seconded by Council Member Lopez Chavez to close the public hearing. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass 2. Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.3 for Fiscal Year 2025-26 The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document for Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and modifications. The proposed amendment includes three grants. The first grant would fund license plate reader cameras on major roads to enhance public safety and reduce crime. The second grant would fund the removal of hazardous vegetation from the Jordan River riverbed, banks, and canopy. The third grant would fund expenses relating to homeless shelters, including salary and benefits for existing police officers to maintain public safety in areas surrounding shelters. For more information visit tinyurl.com/SLCFY26. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 2, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, November 25, 2025 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, December 9, 2025 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 9, 2025 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Summary: Council Member Wharton provided clarification on Budget Amendment Item E1 – COPS Technology & Equipment Grant – Subaward from Davis County ($224,000) regarding the proposed license plate reader cameras, explaining who would have access to the proposed license plate reader camera data and how it would be used. Sylvia Richards provided a brief introduction. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 9, 2025 3 Public Comments: Ambreen Kahn spoke in opposition to the Jordan River restoration project noting concerns about disruption to the river’s ecosystem, and to the license plate reader cameras, expressing concerns about the level of detail provided on data access and the effectiveness of the cameras in reducing crime. Olivia Marron spoke in agreement with the previous speaker and expressed opposition to additional funding for police personnel in the City. David Maack spoke in opposition to the installation of license plate reader cameras in the City, citing data security concerns. Charlie Padilla spoke in opposition to the installation of license plate reader cameras in the City, citing data security concerns. Mac McKinley requested the Council carefully consider the installation of surveillance for the protection of the City’s residents and to reject funding for the license plate reader cameras. Esiah Rodriquez spoke in opposition to the license plate reader cameras and the vendor, citing concerns about technological vulnerabilities and potential impacts on personal privacy and civil liberties. Kristina Robb spoke in support of the public safety and police officer funding portion of Budget Amendment No. 3. Ian Furguson spoke in opposition to the installation of license plate readers, citing possible abuse of collected data. Lilah Rosenfield urged the Council to decline further funding for Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) systems, citing concerns of inaccuracies in the City’s public education of their uses. Erik Griffin spoke in opposition of license plate reader cameras and provided information on possible data vulnerabilities. Michaela Leishman spoke to concerns regarding the use of automated license plate readers, citing possible misuse of data and urged the Council to reject the funding for additional cameras. Ben Engel spoke to concerns regarding the installation of license plate reader cameras, citing possible abuse of the data collected. Jacob Johnson spoke in opposition to the installation of additional license plate reader cameras and urged the removal of existing cameras, citing data security concerns. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 9, 2025 4 Council Member Remarks: Council Member Petro clarified that the Jordan River Restoration project, in alignment with the Jordan River Blueprint and efforts similar to those of other municipalities, included removal of invasive species, planting of native species and ongoing environmental stewardship of the river. Council Member Young inquired what further information the Council was seeking related to the deferment of Item E1 – COPS Technology & Equipment Grant – Subaward from Davis County for $224,000. Council Members Lopez Chavez, Petro, and Puy provided reasoning, including: unresolved questions on how the City could end use of the technology, policy refinement that ensured data privacy, further assurances of their scope of use, and the Council’s responsibility to protect its constituents. Council Member Young noted that the City’s future budget and available resources, such as grants, should be considered to ensure fiscal responsibility while continuing to support essential services. Motion: Moved by Council Member Lopez Chavez, seconded by Council Member Puy to close the public hearing and adopt Ordinance 73 of 2025, approving Items E-2 Jordan River Restoration & Recreation Project Grant for $666,000 and Item E-3 FY26 Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant for $3,249,704 as proposed by the Administration, and deferring item E-1 COPS Technology & Equipment Grant – Subaward from Davis County for $224,000 to a future meeting. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Darin Mano, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro NAY: Daniel Dugan, Sarah Young Final Result: 5 – 2 Pass 3. Resolution: Valley Behavioral Health Public Benefit Analysis The Council will accept public comment and consider authorizing the release of Salt Lake City’s reversionary interest in the property currently owned by Valley Behavioral Health at 107 South 800 West. The release would allow for the development of Saltair Lofts, a 68-unit permanent supportive housing project. It would also be executed in exchange for a 50 year Restrictive Use Agreement preserving certain public benefits, most notably, including helping to ensure all units are affordable permanent supportive housing for formerly homeless individuals. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 2, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, November 25, 2025 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, December 9, 2025 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 9, 2025 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 9, 2025 5 Summary: Michael Sanders provided a brief introduction. There were no public comments. Motion: Moved by Council Member Dugan, seconded by Council Member Puy to close the public hearing and adopt Resolution 42 of 2025, authorizing the release of Salt Lake City’s reversionary interest in the property currently owned by Valley Behavioral Health at 107 South 800 West. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: 1. Ordinance: RMF-35 and RMF-45 Multi-Family Zoning District Text Amendment The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code related to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District) to RMF-45 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District). As part of the proposal, a small number of RMF-35 properties would be changed to RMF-45. The proposal aims to remove barriers to new housing developments and facilitate compatible infill within the City’s moderate-density neighborhoods. These proposed updates introduce design standards for new development, reduce minimum lot size requirements, eliminate lot width minimums, permit multiple buildings per lot, and offer a density bonus for preserving existing housing units. Other sections of Title 21A may also be amended as part of this petition. Petition No.: PLNPCM2024-01388. For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/RMFZoneUpdates. Council Remarks: Council Member Wharton expressed appreciation for the dialogue on this topic, spoke to concerns regarding impacts on historic districts, and noted he would not be voting in favor of the ordinances. Council Member Lopez Chavez spoke to remaining concerns regarding Central City and other parts of District 4, particularly parking and the different ways people transport MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 9, 2025 6 themselves in the City, but noted support for the ordinances. Council Member Mano expressed appreciation for the conversations and concerns regarding the zoning changes, noting the complexities of zoning ordinances and land use policies, with an understanding of the differences in viewpoints. Council Member Puy spoke to the balancing of needs and concerns, to the effort made to ensure successful outcomes, and expressed gratitude for all the work done. Clarification was provided in the January 13, 2026 Formal Meeting Consent Agenda identifying the adoption of four ordinances by the Council: Ordinances No. 74A, No. 74B, and No. 74C, amending portions of the Salt Lake City Code, and Ordinance No. 74D, which effectuates certain map amendments. Petition No.: PLNPCM2024-01388. Motion: Moved by Council Member Mano, seconded by Council Member Petro to adopt Ordinances 74A, 74B, 74C, and 74D of 2025 that include eliminating the 100-foot maximum building length and increasing the maximum number of dwelling units per building to 50 in the RMF-45 zoning district. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro NAY: Chris Wharton Final Result: 6 – 1 Pass D.COMMENTS: 1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. There were no questions. 2.Comments to the City Council. (This is a one-hour time slot for the public to comment on any City business not scheduled for a public hearing. Each person will have two minutes to talk. General comment registration closes at 7:30 p.m.) Summary: Michael Christensen spoke regarding their non-profit, Go Unite, the mission of the entity, volunteer and community engagement opportunities, and a petition to prevent companies from integrating humanoid robots into society. Don Ly spoke to abandoned vehicles left on a newly purchased vacant lot for a small business at 1085 South State Street and the costs involved to remove the vehicles, and asked the Council for support/solutions to remedy the issue. Olivia Marron spoke of their renewed involvement in local government issues, interest in amplifying safety and privacy for residents, and reiterated their opposition to license plate reader cameras as an unbalanced use of City resources. . MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 9, 2025 7 Cindy Cromer spoke to working with past Council Members who served three or more terms (Fonnesbeck, Christensen, Godfrey, and Love) and to their post-Council work as they grew onto larger stages and continued public service, noting the relevance to Council Member Mano’s departure and now to Council Member Wharton’s third term on the Council. E.NEW BUSINESS: 1. Ordinance: Enacting Temporary Zoning Regulations - Volunteers of America Youth Resource Center The Council will consider adopting an ordinance enacting a temporary zoning regulation authorizing the Volunteers of America Youth Resource Center at approximately 888 South 400 West to increase the maximum capacity up to fifty individuals, as long as the maximum occupancy meets building and fire code safety standard, for up to 180 days. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 9, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 9, 2025 Staff Recommendation - Suspend the rules and consider motions. Motion: Moved by Council Member Lopez Chavez, seconded by Council Member Petro to adopt Ordinance 72 of 2025, enacting temporary zoning regulations authorizing temporary increase in overnight capacity at the youth homeless resource center at 888 South 400 West. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 9, 2025 8 G.CONSENT: 1. Ordinance: Consolidated Fee Schedule Corrections – Public Utilities The Council will set the date of Tuesday, January 13, 2026 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule (CFS). During the budget process for fiscal year 2025-26, the CFS was updated with several changes. After the schedule was approved and adopted by the Council, Departments noticed errors and omissions that needed to be corrected. The changes include adding the Title "Fire Lines" and the Description "Per Inch" to one of the rate tables in the CFS for Public Utilities. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 16, 2025, Tuesday, October 14, 2025, Tuesday, November 25, 2025, and Tuesday, December 2, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, December 9, 2025 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, January 13, 2026 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 20, 2026 Staff Recommendation - Set date. 2. Board Appointment: Historic Landmark Commission – Mark McGrath The Council will consider approving the appointment of Mark McGrath, resident of District 7, to the Historic Landmark Commission for a term ending December 9, 2029. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 9, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 9, 2025 Staff Recommendation - Approve. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 9, 2025 9 Motion: Moved by Council Member Petro, seconded by Council Member Lopez Chavez to approve the Consent Agenda. AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass H.ADJOURNMENT: MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 9, 2025 10 Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Minutes Approved: _______________________________ City Council Chair – Alejandro Puy _______________________________ City Recorder – Keith Reynolds Please refer to Meeting Materials (available at https://data.slc.gov by selecting City Council Meeting Information) for supportive content including electronic recordings and comments submitted prior to or during the meeting. Websites listed within the body of the Minutes may not remain active indefinitely. This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the City Council Formal meeting held Tuesday, December 9, 2025 and is not intended to serve as a full transcript. Please refer to the electronic recording for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52- 4-203. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 9, 2025 11 JOINT RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING WOMEN’S HISTORY MONTH WHEREAS, Women's History Month, celebrated annually in March, honors the contributions and achievements of women throughout history and in contemporary society; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City acknowledges the invaluable role that women have played in shaping the cultural, economic, and social fabric of our community, contributing to its growth, diversity, and resilience; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City recognizes the importance of promoting gender equality to ensure a more just and equitable society for all; and WHEREAS, the theme for Women's History Month 2026, "Leading the Change: Women Shaping a Sustainable Future," seeks to encourage a long-term vision for our future where women’s leadership is central to thriving communities and a healthy planet; and WHEREAS, Women's History Month serves as a celebration of the progress made in advancing women's rights and a reminder of the ongoing work needed to build a more inclusive future; and WHEREAS, the League of Women Voters of Utah has been a vital part of women’s political power for over 100 years, serving as a nonpartisan, grassroots organization that works to protect and expand voting rights and ensure everyone is represented in our democracy by empowering voters and defending democracy through advocacy, education, and litigation, at the local, state, and national levels ; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City is committed to fostering an inclusive and supportive environment where women are valued, respected, and given equal opportunities to thrive. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Salt Lake City Council and Mayor of Salt Lake City hereby honor and recognize Women’s History Month 2026, encourage all residents to participate in activities and events that celebrate the achievements and contributions of women in Salt Lake City and beyond; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Salt Lake City reaffirms its dedication to advancing gender equality and promoting the empowerment of women and girls in all aspects of life, pledging to continue working towards a more inclusive and equitable society for future generations. Adopted this 10 day of March 2026. Community and Neighborhoods Department Housing Stability Division FY 26-27 HUD & FY 25-26 FOF Applications Mayor’s Recommendation March 10, 2026 HUD | Consolidated Plan Goals Housing Priorities Homeless Services Transportation Business and Workforce Development Consolidated Plan 2025 -2029 Environmental Remediation Community Services Increase Housing Stability Home Ownership & Equity Housing SLC Plan 2023 -2027 FOF | Housing SLC Plan Goals NEXT STEPS •Public Comment Period (Open through April 14) •Mayor’s Funding Recommendations & Con Plan Public Hearing (March 10) •First Funding Briefing (March 24) •Second Funding Briefing (April 7) •Third Funding Briefing, If Needed (April 14) •Council Final Recommendations (April 21) •HUD Submission Deadline (May 15) CDBG Allocations Page 1 CDBG Allocations Page 2 ESG Allocations HOME Allocations HOPWA Allocations FOF Allocations Items B1-B5 Page 1 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst DATE:March 10, 2026 RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING ________________________________________________________________________________ The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion: Motion 1 – Close and Refer I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer items B-1 through B-5 to a future Consent Agenda for action. Project Timeline: NEW GRANT APPLICATIONS No.-0-Funds asbestos remedia- tion, redevelopment and rehabilitation in preparation for affordable housing for low and moderate income households. Needs Public Hearing No.$3,786,335 Environment- al Protection Agency Sustainability No.-0-Funds a crime lab computer and test comparison samples, training for crime lab members and an access station which compares bullet casing evidence to a national database to identify potential matches, connecting crime scenes to identify suspects. Needs Public Hearing No.$254,706 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance Police Dept. Yes. $37,562 Source: 380 hours of in- kind Justice Court staff time -0-Funds technical assistance to transform the Court’s internal systems to achieve operational efficiencies, develop 5-yr strategic plan, 1 yr operational Needs Public Hearing No.$75,000 State Justice Institute (SJI) Salt Lake City Justice Court plan, evaluate calendaring and case processing practices. City Match Required? Number of FTEs Requested Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual Grant Total Grant Amount Funding Agency Requested By 4.Yes. $9,000 Source: Economic Development’s budget -0-Sister Cities Intl. U.S. - Japan Global Impact Grant Note: the $29,000 (grant and match) will fund travel costs for the SLC delegation to Masumoto & Nagano. The delegation consists of 6 individuals. If awarded, the grant would fund travel costs for a Salt Lake City delegation to Matsumoto & Nagano, Japan. The grant would also fund workshops and roundtable discussions with stakeholders to develop a tourism model that sustains community benefits from the Olympic Games (both short and long-term). Needs Public Hearing No.$20,000 Sister Cities International and Visit Salt Lake Economic Development 5.No.-0- FY27 Per Capita Bureau of Emergency Medical Services Funds medical supplies for the Fire Dept. Needs Public Hearing Yes.TBD – usually $10- 15k Utah Dept. of Public Safety- Bureau of Emergency Medical Services Fire Dept. Grant Application Submission Notification Memo TO: Office of the City Council |Krystyn Mace, Linda Sanchez, ccanalysts@slc.gov Office of the Mayor | Erin Mendenhall, Rachel Otto, Jill Love Department of Finance | Ben Luedtke, Mary Beth Thompson, Amy Dorsey, Randy Hillier Office of the City Attorney | Jaysen Oldroyd, Mark Kittrell, SLCRecorder@slcgov.com FROM: Annie Christensen, Management and Grants Analyst DATE: February 3, 2026 SUBJECT: EPA Brownfields 2026 – Northwest Pipeline Building FUNDING AGENCIES: Environmental Protection Agency GRANT PROGRAM: EPA Brownfields Cleanup Grant 2026 PROJECT TITLE: Northwest Pipeline Building Asbestos Remediation Grant REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT: $3,786,335 DEPARTMENT: Sustainability COLLABORATING AGENCIES: DATE SUBMITTED: 1/28/2026 SPECIFICS: Equipment/Supplies Only Technical Assistance Provides Hourly Positions Existing New Overtime Requires Funding After Grant Explanation: Please see below Match Required __$0____________________ In-Kind Services and Cash GRANT DETAILS: This grant project will counter the effects of Brownfield issues by redeveloping a vacant, asbestos-impacted former commercial building into affordable housing for low- and moderate-income households; retaining opportunities to live and work in the Central City neighborhood and take advantage of existing infrastructure and transit-oriented development. The Northwest Pipeline Building (Target Site), a 95,000 square foot, 8½-story office building and former home to the Salt Lake City Public Safety Department, is located just east of the heart of downtown at 315 East 200 South, in the Central City neighborhood. The Target Site is an approximately .4-acre separate parcel associated with an adjoining 2-acre parking lot and annex building which formed the entire campus for the original 1957 building. The EPA Brownfields grant program will fund the asbestos remediation portion of the building rehabilitation, totaling $3,786,335. The budget is comprised of $5,000 travel, $1,010,000 contractual, and $2,771,335 construction. There is no match requirement. This is a resubmission of the FY24 EPA Brownfields Cleanup application, which was submitted in November 2024. Items B1-B5 Page 1 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst DATE:March 10, 2026 RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING ________________________________________________________________________________ The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion: Motion 1 – Close and Refer I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer items B-1 through B-5 to a future Consent Agenda for action. Project Timeline: NEW GRANT APPLICATIONS No.-0-Funds asbestos remedia- tion, redevelopment and rehabilitation in preparation for affordable housing for low and moderate income households. Needs Public Hearing No.$3,786,335 Environment- al Protection Agency Sustainability No.-0-Funds a crime lab computer and test comparison samples, training for crime lab members and an access station which compares bullet casing evidence to a national database to identify potential matches, connecting crime scenes to identify suspects. Needs Public Hearing No.$254,706 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance Police Dept. Yes. $37,562 Source: 380 hours of in- kind Justice Court staff time -0-Funds technical assistance to transform the Court’s internal systems to achieve operational efficiencies, develop 5-yr strategic plan, 1 yr operational Needs Public Hearing No.$75,000 State Justice Institute (SJI) Salt Lake City Justice Court plan, evaluate calendaring and case processing practices. City Match Required? Number of FTEs Requested Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual Grant Total Grant Amount Funding Agency Requested By 4.Yes. $9,000 Source: Economic Development’s budget -0-Sister Cities Intl. U.S. - Japan Global Impact Grant Note: the $29,000 (grant and match) will fund travel costs for the SLC delegation to Masumoto & Nagano. The delegation consists of 6 individuals. If awarded, the grant would fund travel costs for a Salt Lake City delegation to Matsumoto & Nagano, Japan. The grant would also fund workshops and roundtable discussions with stakeholders to develop a tourism model that sustains community benefits from the Olympic Games (both short and long-term). Needs Public Hearing No.$20,000 Sister Cities International and Visit Salt Lake Economic Development 5.No.-0- FY27 Per Capita Bureau of Emergency Medical Services Funds medical supplies for the Fire Dept. Needs Public Hearing Yes.TBD – usually $10- 15k Utah Dept. of Public Safety- Bureau of Emergency Medical Services Fire Dept. Grant Application Submission Notification Memo TO: Office of the City Council |Krystyn Mace, Linda Sanchez, ccanalysts@slc.gov Office of the Mayor | Erin Mendenhall, Rachel Otto, Jill Love Department of Finance | Ben Luedtke, Mary Beth Thompson, Amy Dorsey, Randy Hillier, cc Grants Team Office of the City Attorney | Jaysen Oldroyd, Mark Kittrell, SLCRecorder@slcgov.com FROM: Laura Nygaard DATE: November 6, 2025 SUBJECT: BJA FY25 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Application FUNDING AGENCIES: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance GRANT PROGRAM: FY25 BJA Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement – Competitive Grants Program REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT: $254,706 DEPARTMENT: Police COLLABORATING AGENCIES: N/A DATE SUBMITTED: November 6, 2025 SPECIFICS: Equipment/Supplies Technical Assistance Provides Hourly Positions Existing New Overtime Requires Funding After Grant Explanation: Match Required ______________________ In-Kind Services and Cash GRANT DETAILS: The Salt Lake City Police Department has applied for the FY25 BJA Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Competitive Grant. The application includes a request for funds totaling $254,706 for the following: • Supplies (crime lab computer and test comparison samples) ∼ $8,240 • Contracts (leased NIBIN access station, set up training and subscription) ∼ $158,472 • Travel/training costs (specialized training and certifications for crime lab members) ∼ $87,994 If awarded, grant period is from October 2025 – September 2028. Items B1-B5 Page 1 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst DATE:March 10, 2026 RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING ________________________________________________________________________________ The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion: Motion 1 – Close and Refer I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer items B-1 through B-5 to a future Consent Agenda for action. Project Timeline: NEW GRANT APPLICATIONS No.-0-Funds asbestos remedia- tion, redevelopment and rehabilitation in preparation for affordable housing for low and moderate income households. Needs Public Hearing No.$3,786,335 Environment- al Protection Agency Sustainability No.-0-Funds a crime lab computer and test comparison samples, training for crime lab members and an access station which compares bullet casing evidence to a national database to identify potential matches, connecting crime scenes to identify suspects. Needs Public Hearing No.$254,706 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance Police Dept. Yes. $37,562 Source: 380 hours of in- kind Justice Court staff time -0-Funds technical assistance to transform the Court’s internal systems to achieve operational efficiencies, develop 5-yr strategic plan, 1 yr operational Needs Public Hearing No.$75,000 State Justice Institute (SJI) Salt Lake City Justice Court plan, evaluate calendaring and case processing practices. City Match Required? Number of FTEs Requested Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual Grant Total Grant Amount Funding Agency Requested By 4.Yes. $9,000 Source: Economic Development’s budget -0-Sister Cities Intl. U.S. - Japan Global Impact Grant Note: the $29,000 (grant and match) will fund travel costs for the SLC delegation to Masumoto & Nagano. The delegation consists of 6 individuals. If awarded, the grant would fund travel costs for a Salt Lake City delegation to Matsumoto & Nagano, Japan. The grant would also fund workshops and roundtable discussions with stakeholders to develop a tourism model that sustains community benefits from the Olympic Games (both short and long-term). Needs Public Hearing No.$20,000 Sister Cities International and Visit Salt Lake Economic Development 5.No.-0- FY27 Per Capita Bureau of Emergency Medical Services Funds medical supplies for the Fire Dept. Needs Public Hearing Yes.TBD – usually $10- 15k Utah Dept. of Public Safety- Bureau of Emergency Medical Services Fire Dept. Grant Application Submission Notification Memo TO: Office of the City Council |Krystyn Mace, Linda Sanchez, ccanalysts@slc.gov Office of the Mayor | Erin Mendenhall, Rachel Otto, Jill Love Department of Finance | Ben Luedtke, Mary Beth Thompson, Amy Dorsey, Randy Hillier Office of the City Attorney | Jaysen Oldroyd, Mark Kittrell, SLCRecorder@slcgov.com FROM: Elizabeth Gerhart, Management & Grant Analyst, Salt Lake City Department of Finance DATE: February 2, 2026 SUBJECT: State Justice Institute Grant Program Fiscal Year 2026 FUNDING AGENCIES: State Justice Institute (SJI) GRANT PROGRAM: SJI Grant Program Fiscal Year 2026 PROJECT TITLE: Salt Lake City Justice Court Strategic Planning and Caseflow Technical Assistance REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT: $75,000 DEPARTMENT: Salt Lake City Justice Court COLLABORATING AGENCIES: N/A DATE SUBMITTED: January 31, 2026 SPECIFICS: ☐ Equipment/Supplies Only ☒ Technical Assistance ☐ Provides Full-Time Positions ☐ Existing ☐ New ☐ Overtime ☐ Requires Funding After Grant Explanation: ☒ Match Required __ $37,562___________ ☒ In-Kind ☒ Cash GRANT DETAILS: • Salt Lake City (City) requested $75,000 for the Salt Lake City Justice Court (Court) Strategic Planning and Caseflow Technical Assistance. • The Court is undertaking the Strategic Planning and Caseflow Technical Assistance with the goal of transforming the Court’s internal systems architecture to achieve operational efficiencies that exceed Utah Judicial Council performance benchmarks and bring transparency to the resource needs of a high-volume urban court. • If awarded, the SJI grant funds will be used solely to secure technical assistance from the National Center for State Courts (CNSC). • CNSC in collaboration with the Court will survey stakeholders, conduct focus groups, develop a five-year strategic plan and Year 1 operational plan, and evaluate calendaring and case processing practices resulting in caseflow management recommendations. • The City committed a match totaling $37,562; a cash match of $7,500 and an in-kind match of $30,062. • The $7,500 cash match will fund travel for the CNSC consultant team to perform on-site technical assistance. • The $30,062 in-kind match is the value of an estimated 380 hours of existing Court staff time contributed to work with the NCSC consultant team toward the completion of project tasks. • The source of the match is the Salt Lake City Justice Court fiscal year (FY) 2025-2026 and/or FY 2026-2027 operating budget(s) depending on the timing of a potential grant award. Items B1-B5 Page 1 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst DATE:March 10, 2026 RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING ________________________________________________________________________________ The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion: Motion 1 – Close and Refer I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer items B-1 through B-5 to a future Consent Agenda for action. Project Timeline: NEW GRANT APPLICATIONS No.-0-Funds asbestos remedia- tion, redevelopment and rehabilitation in preparation for affordable housing for low and moderate income households. Needs Public Hearing No.$3,786,335 Environment- al Protection Agency Sustainability No.-0-Funds a crime lab computer and test comparison samples, training for crime lab members and an access station which compares bullet casing evidence to a national database to identify potential matches, connecting crime scenes to identify suspects. Needs Public Hearing No.$254,706 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance Police Dept. Yes. $37,562 Source: 380 hours of in- kind Justice Court staff time -0-Funds technical assistance to transform the Court’s internal systems to achieve operational efficiencies, develop 5-yr strategic plan, 1 yr operational Needs Public Hearing No.$75,000 State Justice Institute (SJI) Salt Lake City Justice Court plan, evaluate calendaring and case processing practices. City Match Required? Number of FTEs Requested Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual Grant Total Grant Amount Funding Agency Requested By 4.Yes. $9,000 Source: Economic Development’s budget -0-Sister Cities Intl. U.S. - Japan Global Impact Grant Note: the $29,000 (grant and match) will fund travel costs for the SLC delegation to Masumoto & Nagano. The delegation consists of 6 individuals. If awarded, the grant would fund travel costs for a Salt Lake City delegation to Matsumoto & Nagano, Japan. The grant would also fund workshops and roundtable discussions with stakeholders to develop a tourism model that sustains community benefits from the Olympic Games (both short and long-term). Needs Public Hearing No.$20,000 Sister Cities International and Visit Salt Lake Economic Development 5.No.-0- FY27 Per Capita Bureau of Emergency Medical Services Funds medical supplies for the Fire Dept. Needs Public Hearing Yes.TBD – usually $10- 15k Utah Dept. of Public Safety- Bureau of Emergency Medical Services Fire Dept. Grant Application Submission Notification Memo TO: Office of the City Council |Krystyn Mace, Linda Sanchez, ccanalysts@slc.gov Office of the Mayor | Erin Mendenhall, Rachel Otto, Jill Love Department of Finance | Ben Luedtke, Mary Beth Thompson, Amy Dorsey, Randy Hillier Office of the City Attorney | Jaysen Oldroyd, Mark Kittrell, SLCRecorder@slcgov.com FROM: Annie Christensen, Management and Grants Analyst DATE: February 3, 2026 SUBJECT: Sister Cities International US-Japan Global Impact Grant FUNDING AGENCIES: Sister Cities International GRANT PROGRAM: U.S.-Japan Global Impact Grant PROJECT TITLE: More than Medals: Facilitating Best Practices for Sustainable Arts and Recreation Tourism Planning Between Matsumoto and Salt Lake City for the Olympics and Beyond REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT: $20,000 DEPARTMENT: Economic Development COLLABORATING AGENCIES: Visit Salt Lake DATE SUBMITTED: SPECIFICS: Travel Technical Assistance Provides Hourly Positions Existing New Overtime Requires Funding After Grant Explanation: Please see below Match Required ________$9,000______________ In-Kind Services and Cash GRANT DETAILS: Sister Cities International (SCI), in partnership with the U.S.-Japan Foundation, is launching the U.S.-Japan Global Impact Grant, a competitive process for U.S. and Japanese partner communities to discuss approaches and solutions to key topics of mutual interest together. Led by Salt Lake City’s Sister Cities program, housed in the City’s Department of Economic Development and its fiscal sponsor Visit Salt Lake in partnership with Matsumoto’s Sister City Committee, the project will bring together key organizations working in the arts, sustainability, and tourism sectors. Salt Lake City participants will engage in a series of collaborative workshops and roundtable discussions held monthly from March to September 2026, followed by a study visit to Matsumoto and Nagano Prefecture in October 2026 to learn from Japan’s internationally recognized successes in sustainable tourism and Olympic legacy planning and to establish connections with artists, museums, and galleries. The meetings and study trip will inform the development of a sustainable tourism framework for Salt Lake City grounded in global best practices. Through this collaborative process, Matsumoto and Salt Lake City will jointly develop a model for inclusive, climate-conscious tourism that ensures communities continue to realize the economic and social benefits of tourism and the Olympic Games both before and long after the Closing Ceremony. The $29,000 total budget ($20,000 SCI funding, $9,000 match) will fund travel costs for the SLC delegation to Matsumoto, Japan. The $9,000 match will be sourced from the Economic Development Sister Cities operating budget. Items B1-B5 Page 1 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst DATE:March 10, 2026 RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING ________________________________________________________________________________ The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion: Motion 1 – Close and Refer I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer items B-1 through B-5 to a future Consent Agenda for action. Project Timeline: NEW GRANT APPLICATIONS No.-0-Funds asbestos remedia- tion, redevelopment and rehabilitation in preparation for affordable housing for low and moderate income households. Needs Public Hearing No.$3,786,335 Environment- al Protection Agency Sustainability No.-0-Funds a crime lab computer and test comparison samples, training for crime lab members and an access station which compares bullet casing evidence to a national database to identify potential matches, connecting crime scenes to identify suspects. Needs Public Hearing No.$254,706 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance Police Dept. Yes. $37,562 Source: 380 hours of in- kind Justice Court staff time -0-Funds technical assistance to transform the Court’s internal systems to achieve operational efficiencies, develop 5-yr strategic plan, 1 yr operational Needs Public Hearing No.$75,000 State Justice Institute (SJI) Salt Lake City Justice Court plan, evaluate calendaring and case processing practices. City Match Required? Number of FTEs Requested Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual Grant Total Grant Amount Funding Agency Requested By 4.Yes. $9,000 Source: Economic Development’s budget -0-Sister Cities Intl. U.S. - Japan Global Impact Grant Note: the $29,000 (grant and match) will fund travel costs for the SLC delegation to Masumoto & Nagano. The delegation consists of 6 individuals. If awarded, the grant would fund travel costs for a Salt Lake City delegation to Matsumoto & Nagano, Japan. The grant would also fund workshops and roundtable discussions with stakeholders to develop a tourism model that sustains community benefits from the Olympic Games (both short and long-term). Needs Public Hearing No.$20,000 Sister Cities International and Visit Salt Lake Economic Development 5.No.-0- FY27 Per Capita Bureau of Emergency Medical Services Funds medical supplies for the Fire Dept. Needs Public Hearing Yes.TBD – usually $10- 15k Utah Dept. of Public Safety- Bureau of Emergency Medical Services Fire Dept. Grant Application Submission Notification Memo TO: Office of the City Council |Krystyn Mace, Linda Sanchez, ccanalysts@slc.gov Office of the Mayor | Erin Mendenhall, Rachel Otto, Jill Love Department of Finance | Ben Luedtke, Mary Beth Thompson, Amy Dorsey, Randy Hillier Office of the City Attorney | Jaysen Oldroyd, Mark Kittrell, SLCRecorder@slcgov.com FROM: Elizabeth Gerhart, Management & Grant Analyst, Salt Lake City Department of Finance DATE: February 2, 2026 SUBJECT: Bureau of Emergency Medical Services Per Capita Fiscal Year 2027 FUNDING AGENCIES: Utah Department of Public Safety-Bureau of Emergency Medical Services GRANT PROGRAM: Per Capita Fiscal Year 2027 PROJECT TITLE: Not applicable REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT: To be determined DEPARTMENT: Fire COLLABORATING AGENCIES: N/A DATE SUBMITTED: January 21, 2026 SPECIFICS: ☒ Equipment/Supplies Only ☐ Technical Assistance ☐ Provides Full-Time Positions ☐ Existing ☐ New ☐ Overtime ☐ Requires Funding After Grant Explanation: ☐ Match Required ☐ In-Kind Services ☐ Cash GRANT DETAILS: • Salt Lake City Fire Department requested to receive funds for fiscal year 2027 from the State’s Bureau of Emergency Medical Services. • The Bureau of Emergency Medical Services uses a per capita formula to allocate funds to Salt Lake City Fire Department to support emergency medical services. • The allocated amount can vary between $10,000 - $15,000 for any given fiscal year. • Salt Lake City Fire Department will expense the funds to purchase medical supplies used in providing emergency medical services to the public. • There are zero dollars in applicant match associated with the funding request. Item B6 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLC.GOV/COUNCIL TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AGENCY of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Kate Werrett Budget & Policy Analyst DATE:March 10, 2026 RE: MOTION SHEET – RIO GRANDE MASTER PLAN AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT MOTION 1 – CLOSE & DEFER ACTION I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future meeting. MOTION 2 – CLOSE & ADOPT I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt the Rio Grande Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment ordinance. MOTION 3 – CONTINUE HEARING I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 02/24/2026 Date Sent to Council: 02/26/2026 From: Department * Community and Neighborhood Employee Name: Younger, Cassie E-mail Casimira.Younger@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 02/26/2026 Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 02/26/2026 Subject: Rio Grande Zoning Map and General Plan Amendment New transmittal or Revision New transmittal Revision Revision Updates: There were errors in the originally transmitted Ordinance. These have been corrected. Additional Staff Contact: Cassie Younger cassie.younger@slc.gov Presenters/Staff Table Cassie Youger, Kelsey Lindquist Document Type Ordinance Budget Impact? Yes No Recommendation: Positive recommendation to City Council Background/Discussion See first attachment for Background/Discussion Public Hearing Is there a City or State statutory requirement to hold a public hearing for this item?* Yes No The City Council reserves the option to hold and notice for a public hearing pursuant to their practices for public engagement. Does the City have a general practice to hold a public hearing for this item?* Yes No Public Process •March 15, 2025 - Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the development were provided early notification of the proposal.•March 17, 2025 – The Downtown Community Council and Granary District Alliance were sent the 45 day required notice for recognized community organizations. The council did not provide comments.•March 18 – Early notification signs were posted on the subject properties by the applicant •March - present – The project was posted to the Online Open House webpage. This page has intentionally been left blank ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Tammy Hunsaker Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The CRA, on behalf of Mayor Mendenhall, has initiated a petition to update the Downtown Plan and amend the Zoning Map of Salt Lake City to better align with recommendations of the recently completed Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan. The Rio Grande Vision & Implementation Plan was completed by the Community Reinvestment Agency and charts the course for creating an urban, transit-oriented neighborhood adjacent to the Salt Lake Central Station transit hub in west downtown. The General Plan Amendment The proposed General Plan Amendment of the Downtown Plan updates the Plan's Depot District “Catalytic project”, currently a Hub Implementation Plan (found on page 106 of the Downtown Plan), and replaces it with the “Rio Grande District.” Additionally, the CRA is seeking to replace the descriptive language for the “Catalytic project.” While many of the concepts remain the same between the two Catalytic Projects, the updated language is based on the Rio Grande Visualization and Implementation Plan, which was approved by the CRA Board in 2024. Both projects prioritize transit-oriented development, walkable blocks, and utilizing 300 South as a Festival Street. The updated Rio Grande District plan further details the visualization of the two blocks, a further emphasis in sustainability, Green Loop incorporation, an Arts Campus, and high-quality urban design. The application also amends the location of the midblock walkways as shown on page 99 of the Downtown Plan. The proposed midblock walkways will be modified to reflect those shown in the Rio Grande Implementation plan. The current and proposed walkways are also shown in the maps below. The amendments to the walkways include creating an additional connection to Eccles Ave, the creation of Pierpont Ave on the north block, and straightening the connection on the south block to better align with property lines and future development. The CRA is the primary property owner within or adjacent to these walkway adjustments and finds the proposed alignments more realistic for future development. Zoning Map Amendment There are 32 properties in the proposed rezone, owned by the CRA and the University of Utah. They are all currently zoned GMU (Gateway Mixed Use) and are proposed to become D4 (Downtown Secondary Central Business District). These zones are very similar in many respects, but the primary purpose of the rezone is for additional building height. The permitted height in the GMU District is 90’ with 180’ allowed with Design Review. Under the D4, the by -right height would be permitted at 200’ with up to 600’ with Design Review. PUBLIC PROCESS: The following is a list of public meetings that have been held and other public input opportunities related to the proposed project since the applications were submitted: • March 17, 2025 – The Downtown Community Council and Granary District Alliance were sent the 45 day required notice for recognized community organizations. Neither community council provided comments. • March 15, 2025 - Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the development were provided early notification of the proposal. • March 18, 2025 – Early notification signs were posted on the subject properties every 500’ by the applicant • March - present – The project was posted to the Online Open House webpage. Notice of the public hearing for the proposal included: • October 9, 2025 o Public hearing notice mailed o Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division list serve • October 10, 2025 o Public hearing notice sign posted on the property every 500’ Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of October 22, 2025 b) PC Minutes of October 22, 2025 c) Planning Commission Staff Report of October 22, 2025 EXHIBITS: 1) Ordinance 2) Project Chronology 3) Notice of City Council Public Hearing 4) Original Petition 5) Public Comments 6) Mailing List 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2026 (Amending the zoning map to rezone multiple parcels located in the Rio Grande District from G- MU Gateway-Mixed Use District to D-4 Downtown Secondary Central Business District and amending the Downtown Plan) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to multiple parcels located approximately between 200 S and 400 S, and 500 W and 600 W from G-MU Gateway-Mixed Use District to D-4 Downtown Secondary Central Business District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2025-00181; and amending the Downtown Plan pursuant to petition numbers PLNPCM2025-00180. WHEREAS, Mayor Mendenhall initiated an application to rezone multiple parcels of property located in the Rio Grande District identified on Exhibit “A” (the “Property”) from G- MU Gateway-Mixed Use District to D-4 Downtown Secondary Central Business District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2025-00181 and to amend the Downtown Plan pursuant to petition numbers PLNPCM2025-00180.. WHEREAS, at its October 22, 2025 meeting, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said applications. WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 2 SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City Zoning Map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the Property identified on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto, shall be and hereby is rezoned from G-MU Gateway-Mixed Use District to D-4 Downtown Secondary Central Business District. SECTION 2. Amending the Downtown Plan. The Downtown Plan’s Midblock Walkway Plan, located approximately between 200 S, 400 S, 500 W, and 600 W, as proposed on page 99, shall be and hereby is amended as provided in Exhibit B; and the language on page 106 of the Downtown Plan, within the Depot District which outlines the “Hub Implementation Strategy,” shall be amended and replaced with the language provided in Exhibit C. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ___ day of ____________, 2026. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR 3 ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2026 Published: ______________. Ordinance Rezoning Parcels in Rio Grande District (final)_v3 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: 2/23/2026________________________ By: ___________________________________ Courtney Lords, Senior City Attorney 4 Exhibit A The Salt Lake City Zoning Map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the following Properties, in their entirety, identified below are rezoned from G-MU Gateway-Mixed Use District to D-4 Downtown Secondary Central Business District: Address Parcel ID Continued on the next page 5 The Salt Lake City Zoning District Map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the portion of the Property identified and described below is rezoned from G-MU Gateway-Mixed Use District to D-4 Downtown Secondary Central Business District: 549 W 300 S, Parcel ID 15-01-153-013-0000: - A Portion of the area along 300 South Closed by Ordinance 26 of 2014, Block 46, Plat A, Salt Lake City Survey more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the westerly right of way of 500 West Street; said point being South 89°46’58” East, along the monument line 34.89 feet to a point at the intersection of 500 West and 300 South Street and South 00°13’54” West, along the road centerline 44.30 feet and North 89°46’06” West, 63.97 feet from a found Street Monument at 500 West and 300 South Street (Basis of Bearing being South 89°46’58” East from the monuments at 600 West 300 South and 500 West 300 South, Salt Lake City, UT); and running thence South 00°13’54” West, along the westerly right of way line of 500 West Street 23.88 feet; thence North 89°47’07” West, 313.58 feet; thence North 00°14’07” East, 23.66 feet to a point on the southerly right of way of 300 South Street; thence South 89°49’31” East, along said southerly right of way 313.58 feet to the point of beginning. Contains: 7,454 Sq. Ft. or 0.17 Acres More or Less 6 Exhibit B Amended Midblock Walkways (as shown on page 99 of the Downtown Plan) on the subject properties to be shown as follows: 7 Exhibit C CATALYTIC PROJECT: RIO GRANDE DISTRICT The Rio Grande District is located in the Depot District of Salt Lake City, within the bounds of 200-400 South and 500-600 West. The site is in a prime location with: • High visibility near prominent entry and exit points to/from the CBD core; • Unparalleled multi-modal transportation options with regional commuter rail, light rail, bus, Amtrak, and Greyhound services available at UTA’s Salt Lake Central Station; and • Close proximity to the city’s many cultural, sports, and entertainment options, such as the Delta Center, home of the Utah Jazz and Utah Mammoth. The Salt Lake City Community Reinvestment Agency (CRA) owns approximately 11 acres of land within the Rio Grande District and, in partnership with neighborhood stakeholders, developed a redevelopment strategy for the area referred to as the Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan. The implementation strategy envisions a vibrant new Downtown destination with a dense, diverse mix of land uses that contribute to a District that is active for 18 hours a day. The site’s unparalleled transit access will be complemented by low-stress pedestrian and bicycle facilities that provide safe and seamless connections to UTA’s Salt Lake Central Station and other nearby stops. Anchored by the iconic Rio Grande Depot building, the neighborhood’s unique public spaces will be an ever-evolving canvas for the wealth of artists, cultural organizations, and non-profits who already call the neighborhood home. Increased density will be leveraged to deliver community benefits that support a more equitable, inclusive, and sustainable downtown for all. The implementation strategy identifies the following 11 principles to guide future development of the Rio Grande District: • Establish Compact, Walkable Blocks • Restore the Site for all Living Things • Enable Low Carbon Mobility • Curate Public Places with Arts, Culture, and Performance • Strengthen Social Fabric • Catalyze Street Life and Mixed-Use Development • Champion the Green Loop • Ensure Functional Roadways • Lead with Shared Parking • Maximize the TOD Potential • Design Sustainable Buildings The Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan is considered an implementation strategy that advances Plan Salt Lake and the Downtown Plan. While the specific details may change, the diagrams on the next page represent the vision for the buildout of the Rio Grande District. As seen on the following diagrams, development of the Rio Grande District includes new mid-block street connections. The mobility network shown on the diagrams below amends the location of the mid-block walkways as shown on page 99 of the Downtown Plan. 8 ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Tammy Hunsaker Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2025-00180 & PLNPCM2025-00181 February 26, 2025 Petition for the zoning map and general plan amendment received by the Salt Lake City Planning Division. March 6, 2025 Petitions assigned to Cassie Younger, Senior Planner March 15, 2025 Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners living within 300 feet of the project site, providing information about the proposal and how to give public input on the project. March 17, 2025 Information about the proposal was sent to the Downtown Community Council and the Granary District Alliance in order to solicit public comments and start the 45-day Recognized Organization input and comment period. March 18, 2025 Early Engagement signs describing the proposal were posted every 500 feet along public street frontage by the applicant. Staff hosted an online Open House to solicit public comments on the proposal. The Online Open House period started on March 18, 2025. The page remains open for review and comments. May 20, 2025 The applicant notified Planning Staff that the petition should be put on hold while the CRA considers potential revisions to the request and master plan amendment language. September 10, 2025, The applicant provided Planning Staff with an updated Memo describing some small modifications to the request and notified the Staff to proceed with the application. October 9, 2025 Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting of October 22, 2025. Public hearing notice mailed. October 10, 2025 Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing on October 22, 2025 was physically posted on the property every 500’. October 22, 2025 The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the items. The Planning Commission voted 8:0 to forward positive recommendations to the City Council. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petitions PLNPCM2025-00180 (General Plan Amendment) and PLNPCM2025-00181 (Zoning Map Amendment) The CRA, on behalf of the Mayor, has initiated a petition to update the Downtown Plan and amend the Zoning Map of Salt Lake City to better align with recommendations of the recently completed Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan. The Vision & Implementation Plan was completed by the Community Reinvestment Agency and charts the course for creating an urban, transit-oriented neighborhood adjacent to the Salt Lake Central Station transit hub in west downtown. The Zoning Map Amendment rezones 32 properties within the Rio Grande District from GMU (Gateway Mixed Use) to D4 (Downtown Secondary Business District). The purpose of the zone change is to allow additional building height. The proposed changes to the Downtown Plan include amending the mid-block walkways within the Rio Grande area and updating the Implementation Plan. The subject property is located within Council District 2, represented by Alejandro Puy. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night as the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in -person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slc.gov. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please contact Cassie Younger at 801-535-6211 or by e-mail at cassie.younger@slc.gov. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slc.gov, by selecting the “Planning” tab and entering the petition numbers PLNPCM2025-00180 and PLNPCM2025-00181. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to participate in this hearing. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slc.gov , 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. RIO GRANDE DISTRICT Master Plan Amendment Zoning Map Amendment Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................................... 3 DISTRICT CONTEXT .......................................................................................................................... 4 The Depot District ..................................................................................................................... 4 The Rio Grande District ............................................................................................................. 5 The Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan .............................................................. 10 MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT ............................................................................................................. 14 Standards for Master Plan Amendments .................................................................................. 17 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT .............................................................................................................. 21 Standards for Zoning Map Amendments .................................................................................. 26 List of Figures 3 OVERVIEW The Mayor has initiated a petition to update the Downtown Plan and amend the Zoning Map of Salt Lake City to better align with recommendations of the recently completed Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan. The petition is intended to implement the vision, goals and policies of the City’s adopted General Plan. The following amendments are the subject of the petition: Downtown Plan Amendment The amendment updates the Depot District section of the Downtown plan to reflect elements of the recently completed Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan. The Vision & Implementation Plan was completed by the Community Reinvestment Agency and charts the course for creating an urban, transit-oriented neighborhood adjacent to the Salt Lake Central Station transit hub in west downtown. Zoning Map Amendment The amendment rezones certain properties within the Rio Grande District from GMU Gateway Mixed Use to D4 Downtown Secondary Business District. The purpose of the zone change is to allow additional building height. The additional building height will transfer the overall development density of the district to taller buildings to support the preservation of land for new streets and plazas, and the adaptive re-use of existing historic buildings. CRA Rio Grande District Team: Wayne Mills - Senior Project Manager Ashley Ogden - Senior Project Manager Kristina Harrold - Project Manager Marcus Lee – Project Coordinator 4 DISTRICT CONTEXT The Depot District The Rio Grande District (area subject to this petition) is located within the Depot District, one of 10 geographic districts that make up the Downtown Plan Area. The Downtown Plan describes the Depot District as “a complete urban neighborhood.” The plan goes on to say that “the future of the Depot District is a dense urban neighborhood that provides a full range of housing options and is served by all modes of transit.” The Depot District is home to regionally significant sports, entertainment and cultural facilities. The district is easily accessed by automobile due to its close proximity to I-15 and high- capacity arterial streets, such as 400 South and 200 South. The Salt Lake Central Station (Intermodal Hub) creates a transit-rich environment with access to TRAX, Frontrunner, local buses, Amtrak, and Greyhound services. The CRA’s involvement in the Depot District began in the late 90’s when the Depot District Redevelopment Project Area was created. Since then, the CRA has made significant investment in the neighborhood, including removing railroad tracks from 500 West, shortening the 400 South viaduct, participation in the development of the Gateway and Asher Adams Hotel, affordable housing development, and acquisition of properties that are subject to the Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan. The CRA recently submitted an application to create a Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zone (HTRZ) that is centered on Salt Lake Central Station, which, if approved, will provide funding to support the buildout of the Rio Grande District, including the planned infrastructure upgrades, streetscapes, public open spaces, adaptive reuse of existing structures, affordable housing, and more, as envisioned in the Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan. Additional information regarding the Depot District can be found in the Downtown Plan and the Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan. Fig. 1: Depot District, Downtown Plan, p. 104 5 The Rio Grande District The Rio Grande District is a two-block area located within the Depot District on the western edge of Downtown. It is bordered 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 CRA owns approximately 11 acres of land within the Rio Grande District. The diagrams on the following pages provide information on land ownership, current zoning, and mobility within the Rio Grande District. More detailed information can be found in the Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan, starting on page 29. Fig. 2: Rio Grande District (aerial) 6 Ownership Fig. 3: Ownership 7 Ownership (cont.) The Rio Grande District consists of a conglomerate of property owners and businesses. Property Owners Acreage Parcels Buildings on Property Community Reinvestment Agency 10.8 acres 29 Fill the Pot / A Place for Your Stuff SDI Printex Salt Lake Mattress Building Intermountain Furniture Building Blue Warehouse Nicholas & Co. 3.3 acres 1 Nicholas & Co. Building Artspace 1.6 acres 3 Artspace City Center Artspace Macaroni Flats Artspace Bridge University of Utah Foundation 1.9 acres 7 Vacant Property ownership and use subject to change Fig. 4: Ownership Table 8 Zoning Fig. 5: Zoning 9 Mobility Fig. 6: Mobility 10 The Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan The CRA owns approximately 11 acres of land within the Rio Grande District. In 2023, the CRA hired a consultant team to prepare a strategy for redeveloping the Rio Grande District according to the vision, goals and objectives of the Downtown Plan. The Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan was endorsed by the CRA Board of Directors (comprised of Salt Lake City Council members) in December 2024, and charts a detailed course for creating a vibrant, transit-oriented neighborhood that capitalizes on the site’s adjacency to the Salt Lake Central Station in west Downtown. During Plan development, 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: 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. 11 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. The diagrams on the following pages are a visual representation of the Rio Grande District vision. The full Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan can be found here - https://rda.slc.gov/home/riograndedistrict/. 12 Fig. 7: Human Centered Public Realm Diagram Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan 13 Fig. 9: Rio Grande District Open Space Diagram Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan 14 MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT The Rio Grande District is located within the boundaries of the Downtown Plan. The Downtown Plan, adopted in 2016, divides the plan area into 10 unique geographic districts and provides a set of initiatives for development of each district. One of the unique districts is the Depot District, which is highlighted as “a complete urban neighborhood” that: • Provides housing choice • Is vibrant and active • Is prosperous • Fosters equity and opportunity • Is connected • Is walkable • Is welcoming and safe • Unites city and nature • Is beautiful Catalytic Project The Downtown Plan identifies a catalytic project for each geographic district that is intended to “unlock the potential of each district and the downtown as a whole.” The catalytic project in the Depot District is the “Hub Implementation Strategy,” a previous iteration of the CRA’s redevelopment plans for the area comprising the Rio Grande District. The following are the key concepts of the Hub Implementation Strategy, which served as the cornerstone for development of the Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan: • Increased use of Frontrunner to and from the area by increasing the office use in the area • Smaller blocks bounded by new streets and walkways • Reduced street widths • Preserved older buildings where possible • Employment-based transit-oriented development • Integrated residential, office and commercial uses • Unique paving, lighting, planting, and other design elements • New pocket parks and plazas • Reimagined “park blocks” along 500 West as usable linear park space The proposed master plan amendment updates the catalytic project of the Depot District to reflect the vision for the Rio Grande District. The proposal amends the language on page 106 and the diagram on page 107 of the Downtown Plan “Hub Implementation Strategy” with the language and diagrams on the following pages: 15 CATALYTIC PROJECT: RIO GRANDE DISTRICT The Rio Grande District is located in the Depot District of Salt Lake City, within the bounds of 200- 400 South and 500-600 West. The site is in a prime location with: • High visibility near prominent entry and exit points to/from the CBD core; • Unparalleled multi-modal transportation options with regional commuter rail, light rail, bus, Amtrak, and Greyhound services available at UTA’s Salt Lake Central Station; and • Close proximity to the city’s many cultural, sports, and entertainment options, such as the Delta Center, home of the Utah Jazz and Utah Hockey Club. The Salt Lake City Community Reinvestment Agency (CRA) owns approximately 11 acres of land within the Rio Grande District and, in partnership with neighborhood stakeholders, developed a redevelopment strategy for the area referred to as the Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan. The implementation strategy envisions a vibrant new Downtown destination with a dense, diverse mix of land uses that contribute to a District that is active for 18 hours a day. The site’s unparalleled transit access will be complemented by low-stress pedestrian and bicycle facilities that provide safe and seamless connections to UTA’s Salt Lake Central Station and other nearby stops. Anchored by the iconic Rio Grande Depot building, the neighborhood’s unique public spaces will be an ever-evolving canvas for the wealth of artists, cultural organizations, and non-profits who already call the neighborhood home. Increased density will be leveraged to deliver community benefits that support a more equitable, inclusive, and sustainable downtown for all. The implementation strategy identifies the following 11 principles to guide future development of the Rio Grande District: • Establish Compact, Walkable Blocks • Restore the Site for all Living Things • Enable Low Carbon Mobility • Curate Public Places with Arts, Culture, and Performance • Strengthen Social Fabric • Catalyze Street Life and Mixed-Use Development • Champion the Green Loop • Ensure Functional Roadways • Lead with Shared Parking • Maximize the TOD Potential • Design Sustainable Buildings The Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan is considered an implementation strategy that advances Plan Salt Lake and the Downtown Plan. While the specific details may change, the diagrams on the next page represent the vision for buildout of the Rio Grande District. 16 17 Standards for Master Plan Amendments Section 19.06.070 of the City Code provides a list of factors the Planning Commission and City Council should consider when considering a General Plan Amendment. The following are the list of factors with the CRA’s response as it relates to the proposed update to the Downtown Plan. 1. Whether the proposal is consistent with citywide policies. Plan Salt Lake is the citywide vision plan and provides the framework for growth in the City through a list of guiding principles. The proposed update to the Downtown Plan is supported by the following Guiding Principles in Plan Salt Lake: Growth: Growing responsibly, while providing people with choices about where they live, how they live, and how they get around. • Locate new development in area with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as transit and transportation corridors; • Encourage a mix of land uses. • Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land. • Accommodate and promote an increase in the City’s population. Housing: Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics. • Ensure access to affordable housing citywide (including rental and very low income). • Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the potential to be people-oriented. • Promote high density residential in areas served by transit. Beautiful City: A beautiful city that is people focused. • Reinforce downtown and the visually dominant center of the city through the use of design standards and guidelines Preservation: Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past. • Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character. • Retain areas and structures of historic and architectural value. • Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth. Economy: A balanced economy that produces quality jobs and fosters an innovative environment for commerce, entrepreneurial local business, and industry to thrive. • Support the economic growth of Downtown, including development of Station Center 18 2. Whether the proposal is consistent with the goals, policies, or implementation actions of the general plan, including applicable element plans. The Downtown Plan charts the course of future growth in the Central Business District and surrounding area and acknowledges that downtown is the center for dense urban living. The Downtown Plan divides the plan area into 10 unique geographic districts and provides a set of initiatives for development of each district. The Rio Grande District is located in the Depot District and a summary of the initiatives established for the Depot District are included in the previous section of this report. The catalytic project in the Depot District is currently referred to as the Hub Implementation Strategy, a previous iteration of the CRA’s redevelopment plans for the area comprising the Rio Grande District. The proposed amendment to the Downtown Plan updates the catalytic project according to the strategies developed in the Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan. These strategies are consistent with the key concepts and goals stated for the Hub Implementation Strategy and help to ensure that future development is consistent with the goals, policies and implementation actions of the Downtown Plan. 3. Whether significant change has occurred that warrants the creation of a new plan or an update to an adopted plan. The change that warrants an update to the Downtown Plan is the completion of the Rio Grande District Vison & Implementation Plan, which was endorsed by the CRA Board of Directors in December 2024. The Downtown Plan references the Hub Implementation Strategy, a previous iteration of CRA’s redevelopment strategy for this area. In 2023, the CRA revisited the Hub Implementation Strategy to ensure that redevelopment plans capitalize on the area’s potential and the Depot District initiatives within the Downtown Plan were used as a foundation for this revised vision/strategy. The proposed amendment updates and refines the Hub Implementation Strategy, essentially replacing it. Amending the Downtown Plan ensures that the update to the redevelopment strategy is reflected in the adopted plans of the City. 4. Whether the goals, policies, or implementation actions of the plan to be amended have been achieved, are no longer relevant to or capable of addressing the current issues or needs of the neighborhood or the city, or are no longer aligned with policies in citywide plans. The proposed plan amendment is not changing the goals or policies of the Downtown Plan. It is updating the plan with more details on how the vision, goals and policies will be implemented. 19 5. For petitions submitted by a property owner, the extent, effectiveness, and proportionality of the public benefit proposed by the petitioner to the increase in development potential if the proposal were to be adopted by the city council. This standard is not applicable because the petition was initiated by the Mayor. 6. The potential for displacement of people who reside in any housing that is within the boundary of the proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. There would be no displacement of residents within the Rio Grande District. In fact, the CRA’s redevelopment strategy calls for the construction of new housing, thereby increasing housing supply in the City. 7. The potential for displacement of any business that is located within the boundary of the proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. The area subject to the proposed master plan amendment is the entire Rio Grande District; however, the properties along 200 South and the Artspace-owned properties along and near 500 West are not targeted for redevelopment. These properties are privately owned, some contain historic structures that have been adaptively reused, and some were recently redeveloped. The remaining properties will be redeveloped and are subject to the proposed rezone discussed later in this report. The CRA owns 29 parcels in the Rio Grande District, with two of the parcels currently occupied by businesses/organizations. The following provides a brief history of the properties and current uses. 502 W 300 South There are two buildings on this parcel. The western building is occupied by SDI Printex, a screen- printing company that produces promotional products. SDI was the original owner of the property and sold it to the CRA with an understanding that the property would be redeveloped as part of the Rio Grande District development strategy. An arrangement was made to allow SDI to lease the building on a month-to-month basis at a rate well below market value. The intent of the reduced lease rate was to allow SDI to build sufficient capital to relocate. The eastern building is currently occupied by two service organizations: Fill the Pot Ministries and A Place for Your Stuff. Fill the Pot Ministries provides meals to individuals in need and A Place for Your Stuff provides personal storage space to people experiencing homelessness. The CRA offered the use of the building at no cost with an understanding that the property will be redeveloped in the future. The Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan provides a phasing plan for development and the land beneath the building occupied by these service organizations is the last phase. This will allow sufficient time for the CRA to work with the organizations on developing a relocation plan. 20 310 S 500 West The property at 310 S 500 West was purchased from the State of Utah in 2022. The building continues to be occupied by the State as office space and a temporary storage location for historical artwork and artifacts while a new facility is being constructed at the State Capitol. When the new facility is complete, the State will vacate the property, and it will be redeveloped by USA Climbing and serve as the home of their headquarters and training center for the national team. 8. The potential impacts to properties in the immediate vicinity of the proposal. The impacts that the proposed update to the Downtown Plan will have are positive. Implementation of the Rio Grande District Plan will result in investment in an area that is ripe for change. The proposed plan update charts a course for implementing redevelopment of this area of the City as envisioned by the Downtown Plan. 9. The potential impacts on the city to provide safe drinking water, storm water, and sewer to the property based on the additional development potential of future development. The CRA has hired a team of consultants to design the street and infrastructure improvements needed to support the increased density envisioned in the Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan. The CRA is also pursuing the funds needed for construction of the infrastructure improvements and is working with a team of representatives from all applicable City departments and divisions to ensure that the improvements comply with applicable codes and policies. 10. The potential impacts to public safety resources created by the increase in development potential that may result from the proposed amendment. The Rio Grande area has a history of public safety issues, largely due to a lack of development activity. Implementation of the Rio Grande District Plan will result in a positive change to the neighborhood as it will provide 24-hour activity in the neighborhood. 11. The potential impacts to any other city service, infrastructure, or resource that may be impacted by the increase in development potential that may result from the proposed amendment. As mentioned previously, the CRA is working with a team of representatives from all applicable City departments and divisions to address services, infrastructure, and resources needed to serve the Rio Grande District. 21 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT Purpose The Rio Grande District is currently in the GMU Gateway Mixed-Use district, and the proposal is to change the zoning of certain properties to D4 Downtown Secondary Business District. Rezoning the Rio Grande District is instrumental in implementing the Rio Grande District Plan. The Plan was developed as a strategy for implementing the Downtown plan and it provides a detailed roadmap for creating a dense, urban, transit-oriented neighborhood that capitalizes on adjacency to the Salt Lake Central Station transit hub. Rezoning the properties to D4 will allow for taller buildings. The increase in allowable building height will increase density, shifting the development potential from being spread out across the entire district to being concentrated on smaller building footprints. It follows the concept of going up instead of out. Allowing buildings to go up will free up land to be used for: • New public streets and midblock connections that break up the large 10-acre blocks • Development of a Festival Street along 300 South Fig. 10: Current Zoning 22 • An Arts Campus Plaza • A new park under the 400 South overpass • Development of a shared parking structure at the perimeter of the District • Preservation/reuse of two historic buildings • Infrastructure improvements that support future development Properties Subject to Rezone There are 35 properties included in the proposed rezone area with 28 of the properties owned by the CRA and seven owned by the University of Utah. The properties along 200 South and the Artspace- owned properties along and near 500 West are not targeted for redevelopment. These properties are privately owned, some contain historic structures that have been adaptively reused, and some were recently redeveloped; therefore, they are not included in the rezoning proposal. Representatives from the CRA have been working with the owner of the property located at the northwest corner of the southern block of the Rio Grande District and offered to include their property in the rezone petition. The property owner is not interested in rezoning their property at this time. Subject Property Ownership Fig. 11: Rezone Area - Ownership 23 Existing and Proposed Zoning - Site and Building Design Comparison The GMU and D4 districts are similar in relation to site and building design regulations. Both districts create a dense urban environment by placing buildings close to the sidewalk, requiring active ground floors along street frontages, and requiring mid-block walkways when identified in the Downtown Plan. The following table provides a generalized comparison of the site and building design regulations between the GMU and D4 zone: GMU (existing zone) D4 (proposed zone) Minimum = None Maximum = 10 feet Maximum = 8 feet (can exceed Side and Rear Building Setbacks % of the street facing ground floor that requires an active use 80% 80% Ground floor = 70% Upper floors = 50% Ground floor = 70% Upper floors = 50% Ground floor = 60% Upper floors = 50% Ground floor = 60% Upper floor = 50% 1 for every 40 feet of building length 1 for every 60 feet of building length 15 feet 20 feet 150 feet 150 feet Both zones allow similar land uses. One specific difference is that the GMU district requires residential uses along 500 West. Rezoning the subject properties to D4 would eliminate this requirement; however, the Rio Grande District Plan identifies two parcels along 500 west for substantial residential development (see pages 106 and 107 of the Rio Grande District Plan). Fig. 12: Zoning Comparison Table 24 Building Height The biggest difference between the existing and proposed zones, and the reason for the rezone request, is building height. The maximum “by-right” building height in the GMU zone is 90 feet with 180 feet of height allowed through the Design Review process. The by-right building height in the D4 district is 200 feet with buildings allowed up to 600 feet through Design Review. The Rio Grande District Plan contains detailed design guidelines with targeted building heights ranging from 75 feet for the future USA Climbing site on the southwest corner of 300 South and 500 West, to 400 feet for a residential/mixed-use tower on the northwest corner of that same intersection. Rezoning the subject properties to D4 is necessary to achieve the density envisioned by the Rio Grande District Plan. To mitigate potential impacts of taller buildings, the Rio Grande District Plan contains design guidelines that are intended to break up the massing of buildings by limiting podium height and requiring upper floors to be stepped back. The plan also includes guidelines related to street level ground floor activation and sustainable building design. The following two diagrams are from the Rio Grande District Plan and provide a visual representation of the podium heights and building massing. The detailed guidelines begin on page 101 of the Rio Grande District Plan. Fig. 12: Building Height Diagram Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan 25 Fig. 13: Building Podium Diagram Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan 26 Standards for Zoning Map Amendments Section 21A.50 of the Zoning Ordinance provides a list of factors the City Council should consider when making a decision to amend the zoning map. The following are the list of factors with the CRA’s response as it relates to the purpose of the zoning amendment stated in the previous section. 1. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with and helps implement the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents Plan Salt Lake is the citywide vision plan and provides the framework for growth in the City through a list of guiding principles. Considering the purpose of the proposed zoning amendment and implementation of the Rio Grande District Plan, the following Guiding Principles in Plan Salt Lake support the rezoning: Growth: Growing responsibly, while providing people with choices about where they live, how they live, and how they get around. • Locate new development in area with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as transit and transportation corridors; • Encourage a mix of land uses. • Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land. • Accommodate and promote an increase in the City’s population. Housing: Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics. • Ensure access to affoCRAble housing citywide (including rental and very low income). • Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the potential to be people-oriented. • Promote high density residential in areas served by transit. Beautiful City: A beautiful city that is people focused. • Reinforce downtown and the visually dominant center of the city through the use of design standards and guidelines Preservation: Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past. • Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character. • Retain areas and structures of historic and architectural value. • Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth. 27 Economy: A balanced economy that produces quality jobs and fosters an innovative environment for commerce, entrepreneurial local business, and industry to thrive. • Support the economic growth of Downtown, including development of Station Center The Downtown Plan charts the course of future growth in the Central Business District and surrounding area and acknowledges that downtown is the center for dense urban living. The Downtown Plan divides the plan area into 10 unique geographic districts and provides a set of initiatives for development of each district. The Rio Grande District is located in the Depot District and a summary of the initiatives established for the Depot District are summarized throughout this report. The Depot District’s catalytic project is the Hub Implementation Strategy, and the Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan is the roadmap for implementing that strategy. Rezoning the Rio Grande District is necessary function of implementing the initiatives established for the Depot District as stated in the Downtown Plan. 2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the applicable purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is stated in Section 21A.02.030. One purpose of zoning is to implement the adopted plans of the City. Rezoning the Rio Grande District to D4 will be a major step in implementing the Rio Grande District plan, which is a key initiative of the Downtown Plan. The purpose of the D4 district is to: “…foster an environment consistent with the area's function as a housing, entertainment, cultural, convention, business, and retail section of the city that supports the Central Business District. Development is intended to support the regional venues in the district, such as the Salt Palace Convention Center, and to be less intense than in the Central Business District. This district is appropriate in areas where supported by applicable master plans. The standards are intended to achieve established objectives for urban and historic design, pedestrian amenities, and land use control, particularly in relation to retail commercial uses.” The Rio Grande District would further the purpose of the D4 district. Rezoning the Rio Grande District will be instrumental in creating a housing, entertainment, cultural, business, and retail hub that supports the Central Business District, as well as the nearby regional venues. 28 3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent and nearby properties due to the change in development potential and allowed uses that do not currently apply to the property. The Rio Grande District is currently zoned GMU, and the proposal is to rezone a portion of the district to D4. The allowed land uses and the design regulations are similar in both zones so there would be no impact on nearby properties regarding property use and design. The main difference between the two districts is building height. The GMU zone allows buildings up to 180 feet in height and the D4 allows 600 feet of building height. Both districts require design review approval to achieve those heights. The Rio Grande District is comprised of two City blocks. There are no existing, permanent land uses on the southern block, so the entire block will be redeveloped. Since the entire block will be redeveloped, there would be no impact on adjacent land uses with the proposed change in zoning. The north block is a mix of developed property and properties targeted for redevelopment. The properties targeted for redevelopment are owned by the CRA and are subject to the proposed zoning amendment. The properties not subject to the rezone include those that front 200 South and the Artspace and Macaroni Flats properties located on 500 West. The CRA acknowledges that a 600-foot building wall could impact adjacent properties. The Rio Grande District Plan provides strategies to mitigate these impacts by stipulating building form standards that will be used when the CRA markets the properties for development. The building form standards begin on page 112 of the Rio Grande District Plan and a summary of the standards is as follows: • Taller building height in the center of the district along 300 South with heights stepping down to the perimeter of the district. • Podium heights that match the height of adjacent structures. • Building stepbacks above the podium. In addition to the building form standards in the Rio Grande Plan, all buildings over 200 feet in height in the D4 district require design review. Design Review requires compliance with the Design Review standards stated in Section 21A.59 of the Zoning Ordinance and requires approval by the Planning Commission. 4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. No overlay zoning districts would be impacted with this petition. 29 5. The potential impacts on the city to provide safe drinking water, storm water, and sewer to the property and other properties based on the additional development potential of future development including any impact that may result in exceeding existing or planned capacities that may be located further away from the subject property. The CRA has hired a team of consultants to design the street and infrastructure improvements needed to support the increased density that would result from the proposed zone change. The CRA is also pursuing the funds needed for construction of the infrastructure improvements and is working with a team of representatives from all applicable City departments and divisions to ensure that the improvements comply with applicable codes and policies. 6. The status of existing transportation facilities, any planned changes to the transportation facilities, and the impact that the proposed amendment may have on the city's ability, need, and timing of future transportation improvements. Existing Transportation Facilities The Rio Grande District is bordered to the north and south by city arterial streets, to the west by the Salt Lake Central Station transit hub and is approximately two blocks from I-15. The existing transportation network provides various options for mobility and is sufficient to support the increase in density and activity as a result of the proposed change in zoning. Planned Transportation Facilities The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) recently completed the TechLink TRAX study, an analysis of alternatives for improving light rail service. The preferred alternative adds a new light rail line along 400 West with a station at 300 South, just one block east of the Rio Grande District. When implemented, the new rail line and station will increase transit options in an already transit-rich neighborhood. The TechLink Study also recommends adding new tracks along 400 South, which is the southern edge of the Rio Grande District. This new line would add a connection to the Salt Lake Central Station for operational redundancy or future transit service. The Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan recognizes a 25-foot easement along the southern edge of the district in anticipation of the future rail line along 400 South. In addition to an increase in transit, implementation of the Rio Grande District plan will result in new local streets that will break up the larger blocks, thereby increasing walkability and bike and automobile circulation. 30 7. The proximity of necessary amenities such as parks, open space, schools, fresh food, entertainment, cultural facilities, and the ability of current and future residents to access these amenities without having to rely on a personal vehicle. The Rio Grande District is within walking distance to Pioneer Park, The Gateway, the Delta Center, and numerous other locations for food, entertainment, and culture. The District is also adjacent to the Salt Lake Central Station transit hub, which will allow future residents to access any amenity in the region that is accessible by transit. In addition to existing amenities, implementation of the Rio Grande District will result in new parks, public plazas, restaurants, and entertainment destinations within the district itself. 8. The potential impacts to public safety resources created by the increase in development potential that may result from the proposed amendment. The Rio Grande area has a history of public safety issues due to a lack of development activity. Rezoning the District is a crucial step in implementing the Rio Grande District Plan and implementation of the plan will result in a positive change to the neighborhood as it will provide 24- hour activity in the neighborhood. 9. The potential for displacement of people who reside in any housing that is within the boundary of the proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. There is no housing on the properties subject to the zoning amendment. 10. The potential for displacement of any business that is located within the boundary of the proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. The properties subject to the proposed zoning amendment are owned by the CRA and University of Utah. The University owned properties are vacant; therefore, there would be no displacement of businesses. The CRA owns 29 parcels in the Rio Grande District, with two of the parcels currently occupied by businesses/organizations. The following provides a brief history of the properties and current uses. 502 W 300 South There are two buildings on this parcel. The western building is occupied by SDI Printex, a screen- printing company that produces promotional products. SDI was the original owner of the property and sold it to the CRA with an understanding that the property would be redeveloped as part of the 31 Rio Grande District development strategy. An arrangement was made to allow SDI to lease the building on a month-to-month basis at a rate well below market value. The intent of the reduced lease rate was to allow SDI to build sufficient capital to relocate. The eastern building is currently occupied by two service organizations: Fill the Pot Ministries and A Place for Your Stuff. Fill the Pot Ministries provides meals to individuals in need and A Place for Your Stuff provides personal storage space to people experiencing homelessness. The CRA offered the use of the building at no cost with an understanding that the property will be redeveloped in the future. The Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan provides a phasing plan for development and the land beneath the building occupied by these service organizations is the last phase. This will allow sufficient time for the CRA to work with the organizations on developing a relocation plan. 310 S 500 West The property at 310 S 500 West was purchased from the State of Utah in 2022. The building continues to be occupied by the State as office space and a temporary storage location for historical artwork and artifacts while a new facility is being constructed at the State Capitol. When the new facility is complete, the State will vacate the property, and it will be redeveloped by USA Climbing and serve as the home of their headquarters and training center for the national team. 11. The community benefits that would result from the proposed map amendment, as identified in Section 21A.50.050.C. The Community Benefit standard applies to petitions initiated by a private property owner. This petition was initiated by the Mayor; therefore, the community benefit standard does not apply. Regardless, rezoning the Rio Grande District to D4 will result in numerous benefits that would not otherwise be provided without the amendment. The overall purpose of the amendment is to shift the development potential from being spread out across the entire district to being concentrated on smaller building footprints. It follows the concept of going up instead of out. Allowing buildings to go up will free up land that will be used for new streets and plazas. It also transfers the development potential from two properties with historic buildings, allowing those properties to be reused. Rezoning the District and implementing the Rio Grande District Plan is consistent with the following community benefits as described in Section 21A.50.050C of the Zoning Ordinance: • Dedication of public open space • Preserving historic structures • Expanding public infrastructure SALT LAKE CITY COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AGENCY MAYOR ERIN MENDENHALL Executive Director DANNY WALZ Director MEMO DATE: September 10, 2025 TO: Cassie Younger, Senior Planner CC: Danny Walz, CRA Director; Cara Lindsley, Deputy CRA Director; Ashley Ogden, CRA Senior Project Manager; File FROM: Wayne Mills, CRA Senior Project Manager RE: Rio Grande District Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments – Request to Schedule Planning Commission Hearing The purpose of this memo is to request that the Planning Division schedule Petitions PLNPCM2025- 00180 and PLNPCM2025-00181 for a Planning Commission public hearing. The petitions were initiated by the Mayor to implement the Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan, and the CRA is acting as the mayor’s representative. As you are aware, the petitions were scheduled for a public hearing on May 28, 2025, and the CRA requested that the Planning Commission postpone its public hearing to allow time for further refinement of the proposal. The CRA has completed additional work on the petitions and would like to make minor revisions, including adding a reference to mid-block walkway requirements in the proposed Downtown Master Plan amendment language and removing a small portion of a parcel from rezoning consideration. The proposed changes are explained below. Master Plan Amendment Petition Revision The petition initiated by the Mayor is an amendment to the Depot District section of the Downtown Master Plan. The master plan highlights the “Hub Implementation Strategy” as the catalytic project in the Depot District, and the Hub Implementation Strategy was a previous iteration of the CRA’s redevelopment plans for the area now called the Rio Grande District. The proposed master plan amendment updates the language to reflect the goals stated in the Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan. A primary objective of the Downtown Plan is to increase connectivity and pedestrian mobility downtown, and page 99 of the plan contains a diagram showing the locations of existing and future mid-block walkways. The mid-block connections identified on the blocks bounded by 200 South, 500 West, 400 South, and 600 West were a result of the CRA’s Station Center Plan, the previous iteration of what is now the Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan. In an effort to ensure consistency between the mid-block street network that will be developed as part of the Rio Grande District redevelopment effort and the mid-block connections identified in the Downtown Plan, we are proposing to add language to the master plan amendment that states that the mid-block walkway plan shown on page 99 of the Downtown Plan is amended to reflect the mobility network as identified in the Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan. To this end, the following replaces the proposed master plan amendment language as stated on pages 15 and 16 of the report submitted with the petition initiation. The new language is underlined. CATALYTIC PROJECT: RIO GRANDE DISTRICT The Rio Grande District is located in the Depot District of Salt Lake City, within the bounds of 200- 400 South and 500-600 West. The site is in a prime location with: • High visibility near prominent entry and exit points to/from the CBD core; • Unparalleled multi-modal transportation options with regional commuter rail, light rail, bus, Amtrak, and Greyhound services available at UTA’s Salt Lake Central Station; and • Close proximity to the city’s many cultural, sports, and entertainment options, such as the Delta Center, home of the Utah Jazz and Utah Mammoth. The Salt Lake City Community Reinvestment Agency (CRA) owns approximately 11 acres of land within the Rio Grande District and, in partnership with neighborhood stakeholders, developed a redevelopment strategy for the area referred to as the Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan. The implementation strategy envisions a vibrant new Downtown destination with a dense, diverse mix of land uses that contribute to a District that is active for 18 hours a da y. The site’s unparalleled transit access will be complemented by low-stress pedestrian and bicycle facilities that provide safe and seamless connections to UTA’s Salt Lake Central Station and other nearby stops. Anchored by the iconic Rio Grande Depot building, the neighborhood’s unique public spaces will be an ever-evolving canvas for the wealth of artists, cultural organizations, and non-profits who already call the neighborhood home. Increased density will be leveraged to deliver community benefits that support a more equitable, inclusive, and sustainable downtown for all. The implementation strategy identifies the following 11 principles to guide future development of the Rio Grande District: • Establish Compact, Walkable Blocks • Restore the Site for all Living Things • Enable Low Carbon Mobility • Curate Public Places with Arts, Culture, and Performance • Strengthen Social Fabric • Catalyze Street Life and Mixed-Use Development • Champion the Green Loop • Ensure Functional Roadways • Lead with Shared Parking • Maximize the TOD Potential • Design Sustainable Buildings The Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan is considered an implementation strategy that advances Plan Salt Lake and the Downtown Plan. While the specific details may change, the diagrams on the next page represent the vision for the buildout of the Rio Grande District. As seen on the following diagrams, development of the Rio Grande District includes new mid-block street connections. The mobility network shown on the diagrams below amends the location of the mid- block walkways as shown on page 99 of the Downtown Plan. Zoning Map Amendment Revision One of the parcels included in the rezone petition is a narrow strip of land located along the south side of 300 South. This strip of land was formerly part of the 300 South right-of-way. The city vacated this portion of 300 South to reduce the width of the street, and the land is intended to be incorporated into the abutting parcels. As stated on page 22 of the report submitted with the zoning amendment petition, the property located at 333 S. 600 West is in the Rio Grande District but is not included in the zoning map amendment. The CRA has been working with the owner of the property, but the owner does not want to rezone their property at this time. Since the narrow strip of land along 300 South is intended to be added to this property, the portion of the strip of land abutting the parcel should be excluded from the rezone petition so as not to create a split-zoned parcel when the properties are combined. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezone proposal, the CRA will provide a legal description of the portion of the strip of land that is subject to the zoning map amendment. In the meantime, the following map replaces the map of the properties subject to the rezone as shown on page 22 in the Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment report. In conclusion, I appreciate your consideration and patience. Please contact me if you have questions or suggestions on further refinements to the proposal. We look forward to working with you on scheduling the petitions for Planning Commission review. From:Cindy Franke To:Younger, Cassie Subject:Re: (EXTERNAL) Comments on Rio Grande District Amendment Date:Wednesday, October 22, 2025 1:56:47 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png You don't often get email from cindy@artspaceutah.org. Learn why this is important Hi Cassie, Thank you for reaching out. Regarding my first comment, I just wanted confirmation that the midblock walkway was not on our property. We did not think that was the intent, and have been working with the SLC CRA on their plans for the block, but wanted to cover our bases due to past experiences. My other comment on the Design Standards was requesting that they be considered for this area so that these historic buildings are not completely lost among the high rises. Artspace and CRA put a lot of money into preserving these structures and we want to ensure their historic character is maintained. Best, Cindy From: Younger, Cassie <cassie.younger@slc.gov> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2025 1:12 PM To: Cindy Franke <cindy@artspaceutah.org> Subject: RE: (EXTERNAL) Comments on Rio Grande District Amendment Hi Cindy, Thank you for your comments. They will be forwarded to the members of the Planning Commission. I’m a little confused by your first comment, since all the midblock walkways shown in the Report should be the same. The ones next to the Artspace property are shown on CRA property You don't often get email from cindy@artspaceutah.org. Learn why this is important Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. As for the other comments, the heights transition Design Standard is only applied “when development is abutting a zone with a height maximum of 35' or less or abutting a local historic landmark site.” The buildings within this development are National – not Local- historic sites. So this Design Standard would not apply. This application does not include development plans so do not know where the CRA intends to put their taller buildings. Hope this helps, Cassie Younger | (she/her) Senior Planner PLANNING DIVISION | SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION Office: 801-535-6211 Email: cassie.younger@slc.gov WWW.SLC.GOV slc.gov/planning From: Cindy Franke <cindy@artspaceutah.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2025 11:57 AM To: Younger, Cassie <cassie.younger@slc.gov> Subject: (EXTERNAL) Comments on Rio Grande District Amendment Hi Cassie, Below are a few comments we have on the proposed Zoning Map and General Plan Amendment for the Rio Grande District: 1. It appears the intent is for the midblock walkway to be on RDA property, but I want to clarify that the midblock walkway does not go on Artspace City Center property where our driveway to our underground parking garage is located. The map on page 56 shows a straight line for the proposed midblock walkway, but on pages 22 and 26 it appears the street jogs around our property as previously discussed with the CRA. 2. We are concerned about the proposed building heights of up to 400' blocking the two historic buildings we have preserved in the area, the historic ZCMI general warehouse/Artspace City Center and the historic Western Macaroni Manufacturing Company factory/Artspace Macaroni Flats (which was completed in partnership with SLC CRA), as well as the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad Station. We are requesting that Salt Lake's Design Standards 21.A.37.050.R. Height Transition regulations be required to better promote transition of scale between buildings of different heights, especially surrounding historic buildings. 3. This concern has previously been voiced, but the proposed building heights also block the solar panels that we have on Macaroni Flats and are currently installing on Artspace Bridge Projects, negating the intent of "Design Moves" #11 of designing sustainable buildings and preventing us from "harnessing of the sun through high performing buildings and renewable energy systems". We ask you to consider developing the larger structures on the southwest corner of the district where there are no existing buildings, and to have more moderate sized buildings adjacent to existing buildings and along the green loop. Thank you, Cindy Franke | Vice President ARTSPACE 230 South 500 West, Suite 235 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 801.534.0231 www.artspaceutah.org OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR OWN_CITY OWN_SOWN_ZIP UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY T AUTHORITY 669 W 200 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 CORNER 64, LLC NER 64, LLC 19 E 200 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SCHOENFELD INVESTMENTS LLC STMENTS LLC 560 W 200 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 SCHOENFELD INVESTMENTS, LLC TMENTS, LLC 2492 S 1500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 REEP-WP GATEWAY TAB JV, LLC TAB JV, LLC 532 E 770 N OREM UT 84097 LP GATEWAY RESIDENCES RESIDENCES 2001 ROSS AVE # 3400 DALLAS TX 75201 530 WEST LLC 30 WEST LLC 111 E BROADWAY ST # 111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 OZ7 OPPORTUNITY FUND, LLC Y FUND, LLC 195 N STATE ST STE 200 LINDON UT 84042 GREYHOUND LINES INC D LINES INC PO BOX 80615 INDIANAPOLIS IN 46280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY T LAKE CITY PO BOX 145518 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 CENTRAL WEST APARTMENTS, LLC TMENTS, LLC 423 W BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 JACKIE YEUNG ACKIE YEUNG 563 W 200 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 LC ZEBRA INVESTMENTS INVESTMENTS 1335 S COLONIAL CIR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 CENTRAL STATION APARTMENTS, LLC TMENTS, LLC 423 W BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 BRIDGE PROJECTS, LLC OJECTS, LLC 230 S 500 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 MACARONI FLATS, LLC FLATS, LLC 230 S 500 W # 235 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY T LAKE CITY 451 S STATE ST # 404 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 ARTSPACE CITY CENTER, LLC CENTER, LLC 230 S 500 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY T LAKE CITY 451 S STATE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 NICHOLAS & CO CHOLAS & CO PO BOX 45005 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84145 BCAL GATEWAY PROPERTY LLC ROPERTY LLC 90 S 400 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 210 RIO LLC 210 RIO LLC 111 E BROADWAY ST # 111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 STATE OF UTAH, THE F UTAH, THE 450 N STATE OFFICE BLDG SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 STATE OF UTAH ATE OF UTAH PO BOX 141160 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION CORPORATION PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 UNIVERSITY OF UTAH RESEARCH FOUNDATION FOUNDATION 303 S CHIPETA WY # 100 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 217 DEVELOPMENT LLC LOPMENT LLC 571 W 400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 217 DEVELOPMENT LLC LOPMENT LLC 130 N MAIN ST BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 217 DEVELOPMENT LLC LOPMENT LLC 130 N MAIL ST BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 217 DEVELOPMENT LLC LOPMENT LLC 130 NORTH MAIN ST BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 WIFCO LC WIFCO LC 1947 E ST MARYS DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 GRB REV TRUST; JKB REV TRUST B REV TRUST 639 MOUNTAIN VIEW CIR NORTH SALT LAKE UT 84054 BAHAJI PROPERTY, LLC OPERTY, LLC 435 S 600 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 NEST@RIOGRANDE, LLC GRANDE, LLC 7233 PURPLE SAGE PARK CITY UT 84098 STATE OF UTAH ATE OF UTAH 450 N STATE OFFICE BLDG SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 THE NEST @ RIO GRANDE, LLC GRANDE, LLC 7041 S 300 E MIDVALE UT 84047 NEST @ RIO GRANDE AFFORDABLE, LLC RDABLE, LLC 7233 PURPLE SAGE PARK CITY UT 84098 PACKAGING CORPORATION OF AMERICA OF AMERICA 1 N FIELD CT LAKE FOREST IL 60045 PACKAGING CORPORATION OF AMERICA OF AMERICA P.O BOX 80615 INDIANAPOLIS IN 46280 UNION PACIFIC RAIL ROAD COMPANY OAD COMPANY 1400 DOUGLAS ST STOP 1640 OMAHA NE 68179 Current Occupant 616 W 200 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 566 W 200 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 554 W 200 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 565 W 100 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 505 W 100 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 550 W 200 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 592 W 200 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 300 S 600 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 231 S 600 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 235 S 600 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 245 S 600 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 275 S 600 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 580 W 300 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 570 W 300 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 562 W 300 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 579 W 200 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 561 W 200 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 549 W 200 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 233 S 600 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 548 W 300 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 552 W 300 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 544 W 300 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 502 W 300 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 511 W 200 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 244 S 500 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 250 S 500 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 527 W 300 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 523 W 300 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 519 W 300 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 310 S 500 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 535 W 300 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 533 W 300 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 551 W 300 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 178 S RIO GRANDE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 205 S 500 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 300 S RIO GRANDE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 270 S RIO GRANDE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 330 S 600 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 570 W 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 568 W 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 560 W 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 550 W 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 546 W 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 542 W 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 540 W 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 334 S 500 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 336 S 500 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 536 W 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 346 S 500 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 567 W 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 561 W 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 559 W 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 551 W 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 549 W 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 543 W 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 537 W 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 535 W 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 420 S 500 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 423 S 600 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 558 W PACIFIC AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 550 W PACIFIC AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 503 W 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 358 S RIO GRANDE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 335 S 500 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 382 S RIO GRANDE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 473 W 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 411 S 500 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 455 W 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 648 W 600 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 520 S 600 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 This page has intentionally been left blank 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2026 (Amending the zoning map to rezone multiple parcels located in the Rio Grande District from G- MU Gateway-Mixed Use District to D-4 Downtown Secondary Central Business District and amending the Downtown Plan) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to multiple parcels located approximately between 200 S and 400 S, and 500 W and 600 W from G-MU Gateway-Mixed Use District to D-4 Downtown Secondary Central Business District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2025-00181; and amending the Downtown Plan pursuant to petition numbers PLNPCM2025-00180. WHEREAS, Mayor Mendenhall initiated an application to rezone multiple parcels of property located in the Rio Grande District identified on Exhibit “A” (the “Property”) from G- MU Gateway-Mixed Use District to D-4 Downtown Secondary Central Business District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2025-00181 and to amend the Downtown Plan pursuant to petition numbers PLNPCM2025-00180.. WHEREAS, at its October 22, 2025 meeting, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said applications. WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 2 SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City Zoning Map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the Property identified on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto, shall be and hereby is rezoned from G-MU Gateway-Mixed Use District to D-4 Downtown Secondary Central Business District. SECTION 2. Amending the Downtown Plan. The Downtown Plan’s Midblock Walkway Plan, located approximately between 200 S, 400 S, 500 W, and 600 W, as proposed on page 99, shall be and hereby is amended as provided in Exhibit B; and the language on page 106 of the Downtown Plan, within the Depot District which outlines the “Hub Implementation Strategy,” shall be amended and replaced with the language provided in Exhibit C. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ___ day of ____________, 2026. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR 3 ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2026 Published: ______________. Ordinance Rezoning Parcels in Rio Grande District (final)_v3 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: 2/23/2026________________________ By: ___________________________________ Courtney Lords, Senior City Attorney 4 Exhibit A The Salt Lake City Zoning Map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the following Properties, in their entirety, identified below are rezoned from G-MU Gateway-Mixed Use District to D-4 Downtown Secondary Central Business District: Address Parcel ID Continued on the next page 5 The Salt Lake City Zoning District Map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the portion of the Property identified and described below is rezoned from G-MU Gateway-Mixed Use District to D-4 Downtown Secondary Central Business District: 549 W 300 S, Parcel ID 15-01-153-013-0000: - A Portion of the area along 300 South Closed by Ordinance 26 of 2014, Block 46, Plat A, Salt Lake City Survey more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the westerly right of way of 500 West Street; said point being South 89°46’58” East, along the monument line 34.89 feet to a point at the intersection of 500 West and 300 South Street and South 00°13’54” West, along the road centerline 44.30 feet and North 89°46’06” West, 63.97 feet from a found Street Monument at 500 West and 300 South Street (Basis of Bearing being South 89°46’58” East from the monuments at 600 West 300 South and 500 West 300 South, Salt Lake City, UT); and running thence South 00°13’54” West, along the westerly right of way line of 500 West Street 23.88 feet; thence North 89°47’07” West, 313.58 feet; thence North 00°14’07” East, 23.66 feet to a point on the southerly right of way of 300 South Street; thence South 89°49’31” East, along said southerly right of way 313.58 feet to the point of beginning. Contains: 7,454 Sq. Ft. or 0.17 Acres More or Less 6 Exhibit B Amended Midblock Walkways (as shown on page 99 of the Downtown Plan) on the subject properties to be shown as follows: 7 Exhibit C CATALYTIC PROJECT: RIO GRANDE DISTRICT The Rio Grande District is located in the Depot District of Salt Lake City, within the bounds of 200-400 South and 500-600 West. The site is in a prime location with: • High visibility near prominent entry and exit points to/from the CBD core; • Unparalleled multi-modal transportation options with regional commuter rail, light rail, bus, Amtrak, and Greyhound services available at UTA’s Salt Lake Central Station; and • Close proximity to the city’s many cultural, sports, and entertainment options, such as the Delta Center, home of the Utah Jazz and Utah Mammoth. The Salt Lake City Community Reinvestment Agency (CRA) owns approximately 11 acres of land within the Rio Grande District and, in partnership with neighborhood stakeholders, developed a redevelopment strategy for the area referred to as the Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan. The implementation strategy envisions a vibrant new Downtown destination with a dense, diverse mix of land uses that contribute to a District that is active for 18 hours a day. The site’s unparalleled transit access will be complemented by low-stress pedestrian and bicycle facilities that provide safe and seamless connections to UTA’s Salt Lake Central Station and other nearby stops. Anchored by the iconic Rio Grande Depot building, the neighborhood’s unique public spaces will be an ever-evolving canvas for the wealth of artists, cultural organizations, and non-profits who already call the neighborhood home. Increased density will be leveraged to deliver community benefits that support a more equitable, inclusive, and sustainable downtown for all. The implementation strategy identifies the following 11 principles to guide future development of the Rio Grande District: • Establish Compact, Walkable Blocks • Restore the Site for all Living Things • Enable Low Carbon Mobility • Curate Public Places with Arts, Culture, and Performance • Strengthen Social Fabric • Catalyze Street Life and Mixed-Use Development • Champion the Green Loop • Ensure Functional Roadways • Lead with Shared Parking • Maximize the TOD Potential • Design Sustainable Buildings The Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan is considered an implementation strategy that advances Plan Salt Lake and the Downtown Plan. While the specific details may change, the diagrams on the next page represent the vision for the buildout of the Rio Grande District. As seen on the following diagrams, development of the Rio Grande District includes new mid-block street connections. The mobility network shown on the diagrams below amends the location of the mid-block walkways as shown on page 99 of the Downtown Plan. 8 This page has intentionally been left blank To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 12/19/2025 Date Sent to Council: 12/24/2025 From: Department * Community and Neighborhood Employee Name: Younger, Cassie E-mail Cassie.Younger@slc.gov Department Director Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Director Signed Date 12/23/2025 Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 12/24/2025 Subject: Rio Grande Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment Additional Staff Contact: Presenters/Staff Table Cassie Younger, cassie.younger@slc.gov Kelsey Lindquist, Kelsey.Lindquist@slc.gov Document Type Ordinance Budget Impact? Yes No Recommendation: Positive recommendation to the City Council Background/Discussion See first attachment for Background/Discussion Public Hearing Is there a City or State statutory requirement to hold a public hearing for this item? * Yes No The City Council reserves the option to hold and notice for a public hearing pursuant to their practices for public engagement. Does the City have a general practice to hold a public hearing for this item? * SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL Yes No Public Process The following is a list of public meetings that have been held and other public input opportunities related to the proposed project since the applications were submitted: •March 17, 2025 – The Downtown Community Council and Granary District Alliance were sent the 45 day required notice for recognized community organizations. Neither community council provided comments. •March 15, 2025 - Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the development were provided early notification of the proposal. •March 18, 2025 – Early notification signs were posted on the subject properties every 500’ by the applicant •March - present – The project was posted to the Online Open House webpage. Notice of the public hearing for the proposal included: •October 9, 2025 - Public hearing notice mailed -Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division list serve •October 10, 2025 -Public hearing notice sign posted on the property every 500’ This page has intentionally been left blank ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Tammy Hunsaker Director CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The CRA, on behalf of Mayor Mendenhall, has initiated a petition to update the Downtown Plan and amend the Zoning Map of Salt Lake City to better align with recommendations of the recently completed Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan. The Rio Grande Vision & Implementation Plan was completed by the Community Reinvestment Agency and charts the course for creating an urban, transit-oriented neighborhood adjacent to the Salt Lake Central Station transit hub in west downtown. The General Plan Amendment The proposed General Plan Amendment of the Downtown Plan updates the Plan's Depot District “Catalytic project”, currently a Hub Implementation Plan (found on page 106 of the Downtown Plan), and replaces it with the “Rio Grande District.” Additionally, the CRA is seeking to replace the descriptive language for the “Catalytic project.” While many of the concepts remain the same between the two Catalytic Projects, the updated language is based on the Rio Grande Visualization and Implementation Plan, which was approved by the CRA Board in 2024. Both projects prioritize transit-oriented development, walkable blocks, and utilizing 300 South as a Festival Street. The updated Rio Grande District plan further details the visualization of the two blocks, a further emphasis in sustainability, Green Loop incorporation, an Arts Campus, and high-quality urban design. The application also amends the location of the midblock walkways as shown on page 99 of the Downtown Plan. The proposed midblock walkways will be modified to reflect those shown in the Rio Grande Implementation plan. The current and proposed walkways are also shown in the maps below. The SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 amendments to the walkways include creating an additional connection to Eccles Ave, the creation of Pierpont Ave on the north block, and straightening the connection on the south block to better align with property lines and future development. The CRA is the primary property owner within or adjacent to these walkway adjustments and finds the proposed alignments more realistic for future development. Zoning Map Amendment There are 32 properties in the proposed rezone, owned by the CRA and the University of Utah. They are all currently zoned GMU (Gateway Mixed Use) and are proposed to become D4 (Downtown Secondary Central Business District). These zones are very similar in many respects, but the primary purpose of the rezone is for additional building height. The permitted height in the GMU District is 90’ with 180’ allowed with Design Review. Under the D4, the by-right height would be permitted at 200’ with up to 600’ with Design Review. PUBLIC PROCESS: The following is a list of public meetings that have been held and other public input opportunities related to the proposed project since the applications were submitted: • March 17, 2025 – The Downtown Community Council and Granary District Alliance were sent the 45 day required notice for recognized community organizations. Neither community council provided comments. • March 15, 2025 - Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the development were provided early notification of the proposal. • March 18, 2025 – Early notification signs were posted on the subject properties every 500’ by the applicant • March - present – The project was posted to the Online Open House webpage. Notice of the public hearing for the proposal included: • October 9, 2025 o Public hearing notice mailed o Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division list serve • October 10, 2025 o Public hearing notice sign posted on the property every 500’ Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of October 22, 2025 b) PC Minutes of October 22, 2025 c) Planning Commission Staff Report of October 22, 2025 EXHIBITS: 1) Ordinance 2) Project Chronology 3) Notice of City Council Public Hearing 4) Original Petition 5) Public Comments 6) Mailing List This page has intentionally been left blank 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2025 (Amending the zoning map to rezone multiple parcels located in the Rio Grande District from G- MU Gateway-Mixed Use District to D-4 Downtown Secondary Central Business District) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to multiple parcels located approximately between 200 S and 400 S, and 500 W and 600 W from G-MU Gateway-Mixed Use District to D-4 Downtown Secondary Central Business District pursuant to petition numbers PLNPCM2025-00180 and PLNPCM2025-00181. WHEREAS, Mayor Mendenhall initiated an application to rezone multiple parcels of property located in the Rio Grande District identified on Exhibit “A” (the “Property”) from G- MU Gateway-Mixed Use District to D-4 Downtown Secondary Central Business District; and WHEREAS, at its October 22, 2025 meeting, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on the application; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the city council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City Zoning District Map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the Property identified on Exhibit “A”, attached 2 hereto, are rezoned from G-MU Gateway-Mixed Use District to D-4 Downtown Secondary Central Business District. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2026. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on . Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2026 Published: . Ordinance Rezoning Parcels in Rio Grande District (final)_v1 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: 12/19/2025 By: Courtney Lords, Senior City Attorney 3 Exhibit “A” The Salt Lake City Zoning District Map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the following Properties, in their entirety, identified below are rezoned from G-MU Gateway-Mixed Use District to D-4 Downtown Secondary Central Business District: Address Parcel ID 4 The Salt Lake City Zoning District Map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the portion of the Property identified and described below is rezoned from G-MU Gateway-Mixed Use District to D-4 Downtown Secondary Central Business District: 549 W 300 S, Parcel ID 15-01-153-013-0000: - A Portion of the area along 300 South Closed by Ordinance 26 of 2014, Block 46, Plat A, Salt Lake City Survey more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the westerly right of way of 500 West Street; said point being South 89°46’58” East, along the monument line 34.89 feet to a point at the intersection of 500 West and 300 South Street and South 00°13’54” West, along the road centerline 44.30 feet and North 89°46’06” West, 63.97 feet from a found Street Monument at 500 West and 300 South Street (Basis of Bearing being South 89°46’58” East from the monuments at 600 West 300 South and 500 West 300 South, Salt Lake City, UT); and running thence South 00°13’54” West, along the westerly right of way line of 500 West Street 23.88 feet; thence North 89°47’07” West, 313.58 feet; thence North 00°14’07” East, 23.66 feet to a point on the southerly right of way of 300 South Street; thence South 89°49’31” East, along said southerly right of way 313.58 feet to the point of beginning. Contains: 7,454 Sq. Ft. or 0.17 Acres More or Less This page has intentionally been left blank P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Tammy Hunsaker Director PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2025-00180 & PLNPCM2025-00181 February 26, 2025 Petition for the zoning map and general plan amendment received by the Salt Lake City Planning Division. March 6, 2025 Petitions assigned to Cassie Younger, Senior Planner March 15, 2025 Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners living within 300 feet of the project site, providing information about the proposal and how to give public input on the project. March 17, 2025 Information about the proposal was sent to the Downtown Community Council and the Granary District Alliance in order to solicit public comments and start the 45-day Recognized Organization input and comment period. March 18, 2025 Early Engagement signs describing the proposal were posted every 500 feet along public street frontage by the applicant. Staff hosted an online Open House to solicit public comments on the proposal. The Online Open House period started on March 18, 2025. The page remains open for review and comments. May 20, 2025 The applicant notified Planning Staff that the petition should be put on hold while the CRA considers potential revisions to the request and master plan amendment language. September 10, 2025, The applicant provided Planning Staff with an updated Memo describing some small modifications to the request and notified the Staff to proceed with the application. October 9, 2025 Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting of October 22, 2025. Public hearing notice mailed. October 10, 2025 Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing on October 22, 2025 was physically posted on the property every 500’. October 22, 2025 The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the items. The Planning Commission voted 8:0 to forward positive recommendations to the City Council. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV This page has intentionally been left blank NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petitions PLNPCM2025-00180 (General Plan Amendment) and PLNPCM2025-00181 (Zoning Map Amendment) The CRA, on behalf of the Mayor, has initiated a petition to update the Downtown Plan and amend the Zoning Map of Salt Lake City to better align with recommendations of the recently completed Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan. The Vision & Implementation Plan was completed by the Community Reinvestment Agency and charts the course for creating an urban, transit-oriented neighborhood adjacent to the Salt Lake Central Station transit hub in west downtown. The Zoning Map Amendment rezones 32 properties within the Rio Grande District from GMU (Gateway Mixed Use) to D4 (Downtown Secondary Business District). The purpose of the zone change is to allow additional building height. The proposed changes to the Downtown Plan include amending the mid-block walkways within the Rio Grande area and updating the Implementation Plan. The subject property is located within Council District 2, represented by Alejandro Puy. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night as the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slc.gov. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please contact Cassie Younger at 801-535-6211 or by e-mail at cassie.younger@slc.gov. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slc.gov, by selecting the “Planning” tab and entering the petition numbers PLNPCM2025-00180 and PLNPCM2025-00181. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to participate in this hearing. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slc.gov , 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. This page has intentionally been left blank RIO GRANDE DISTRICT Master Plan Amendment Zoning Map Amendment 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 DISTRICT CONTEXT........................................................................................................................................... 4 The Depot District ..................................................................................................................................... 4 The Rio Grande District............................................................................................................................. 5 The Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan ....................................................................... 10 MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT ............................................................................................................................ 14 Standards for Master Plan Amendments............................................................................................... 17 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT ............................................................................................................................. 21 Standards for Zoning Map Amendments ............................................................................................... 26 List of Figures 2: Rio Grande District (aerial) ………………………………………………………………………………………. 5 3: Ownership ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6 4: Ownership Table ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7 5: Zoning ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8 6: Mobility ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 9 7: Human Centered Public Realm Diagram …………………………………………………………………… 12 8: Mixed-Use Transit Oriented District Diagram ……………………………………………………………… 12 9: Mixed-Use Transit Oriented District Diagram ……………………………………………………………… 13 10: Current Zoning ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 21 11: Rezone Area – Ownership ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 22 12: Zoning Comparison Table ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 23 12: Building Height Diagram …………………………………………………………………………………………. 24 13: Building Podium Diagram ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 25 3 OVERVIEW The Mayor has initiated a petition to update the Downtown Plan and amend the Zoning Map of Salt Lake City to better align with recommendations of the recently completed Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan. The petition is intended to implement the vision, goals and policies of the City’s adopted General Plan. The following amendments are the subject of the petition: Downtown Plan Amendment The amendment updates the Depot District section of the Downtown plan to reflect elements of the recently completed Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan. The Vision & Implementation Plan was completed by the Community Reinvestment Agency and charts the course for creating an urban, transit-oriented neighborhood adjacent to the Salt Lake Central Station transit hub in west downtown. Zoning Map Amendment The amendment rezones certain properties within the Rio Grande District from GMU Gateway Mixed Use to D4 Downtown Secondary Business District. The purpose of the zone change is to allow additional building height. The additional building height will transfer the overall development density of the district to taller buildings to support the preservation of land for new streets and plazas, and the adaptive re-use of existing historic buildings. CRA Rio Grande District Team: Wayne Mills - Senior Project Manager Ashley Ogden - Senior Project Manager Kristina Harrold - Project Manager Marcus Lee – Project Coordinator 4 DISTRICT CONTEXT The Depot District The Rio Grande District (area subject to this petition) is located within the Depot District, one of 10 geographic districts that make up the Downtown Plan Area. The Downtown Plan describes the Depot District as “a complete urban neighborhood.” The plan goes on to say that “the future of the Depot District is a dense urban neighborhood that provides a full range of housing options and is served by all modes of transit.” The Depot District is home to regionally significant sports, entertainment and cultural facilities. The district is easily accessed by automobile due to its close proximity to I-15 and high- capacity arterial streets, such as 400 South and 200 South. The Salt Lake Central Station (Intermodal Hub) creates a transit-rich environment with access to TRAX, Frontrunner, local buses, Amtrak, and Greyhound services. The CRA’s involvement in the Depot District began in the late 90’s when the Depot District Redevelopment Project Area was created. Since then, the CRA has made significant investment in the neighborhood, including removing railroad tracks from 500 West, shortening the 400 South viaduct, participation in the development of the Gateway and Asher Adams Hotel, affordable housing development, and acquisition of properties that are subject to the Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan. The CRA recently submitted an application to create a Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zone (HTRZ) that is centered on Salt Lake Central Station, which, if approved, will provide funding to support the buildout of the Rio Grande District, including the planned infrastructure upgrades, streetscapes, public open spaces, adaptive reuse of existing structures, affordable housing, and more, as envisioned in the Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan. Additional information regarding the Depot District can be found in the Downtown Plan and the Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan. 5 The Rio Grande District The Rio Grande District is a two-block area located within the Depot District on the western edge of Downtown. It is bordered 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 CRA owns approximately 11 acres of land within the Rio Grande District. Fig. 2: Rio Grande District (aerial) The diagrams on the following pages provide information on land ownership, current zoning, and mobility within the Rio Grande District. More detailed information can be found in the Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan, starting on page 29. 6 Ownership Fig. 3: Ownership 7 Ownership (cont.) The Rio Grande District consists of a conglomerate of property owners and businesses. Property Owners Acreage Parcels Buildings on Property Fill the Pot / A Place for Your Stuff SDI Printex Agency acres 29 Salt Lake Mattress Building Intermountain Furniture Building Blue Warehouse Nicholas & Co. 3.3 acres 1 Nicholas & Co. Building Artspace City Center Artspace 1.6 acres 3 Artspace Macaroni Flats Artspace Bridge University of Utah Foundation 1.9 acres 7 Vacant Property ownership and use subject to change Fig. 4: Ownership Table 8 Zoning Fig. 5: Zoning 9 Mobility Fig. 6: Mobility 10 The Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan The CRA owns approximately 11 acres of land within the Rio Grande District. In 2023, the CRA hired a consultant team to prepare a strategy for redeveloping the Rio Grande District according to the vision, goals and objectives of the Downtown Plan. The Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan was endorsed by the CRA Board of Directors (comprised of Salt Lake City Council members) in December 2024, and charts a detailed course for creating a vibrant, transit-oriented neighborhood that capitalizes on the site’s adjacency to the Salt Lake Central Station in west Downtown. During Plan development, 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: 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. 11 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. The diagrams on the following pages are a visual representation of the Rio Grande District vision. The full Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan can be found here - https://rda.slc.gov/home/riograndedistrict/. 12 Fig. 7: Human Centered Public Realm Diagram Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan Fig. 8: Mixed-Use Transit Oriented District Diagram Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan 13 Fig. 9: Rio Grande District Open Space Diagram Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan 14 MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT The Rio Grande District is located within the boundaries of the Downtown Plan. The Downtown Plan, adopted in 2016, divides the plan area into 10 unique geographic districts and provides a set of initiatives for development of each district. One of the unique districts is the Depot District, which is highlighted as “a complete urban neighborhood” that: • Provides housing choice • Is vibrant and active • Is prosperous • Fosters equity and opportunity • Is connected • Is walkable • Is welcoming and safe • Unites city and nature • Is beautiful Catalytic Project The Downtown Plan identifies a catalytic project for each geographic district that is intended to “unlock the potential of each district and the downtown as a whole.” The catalytic project in the Depot District is the “Hub Implementation Strategy,” a previous iteration of the CRA’s redevelopment plans for the area comprising the Rio Grande District. The following are the key concepts of the Hub Implementation Strategy, which served as the cornerstone for development of the Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan: • Increased use of Frontrunner to and from the area by increasing the office use in the area • Smaller blocks bounded by new streets and walkways • Reduced street widths • Preserved older buildings where possible • Employment-based transit-oriented development • Integrated residential, office and commercial uses • Unique paving, lighting, planting, and other design elements • New pocket parks and plazas • Reimagined “park blocks” along 500 West as usable linear park space The proposed master plan amendment updates the catalytic project of the Depot District to reflect the vision for the Rio Grande District. The proposal amends the language on page 106 and the diagram on page 107 of the Downtown Plan “Hub Implementation Strategy” with the language and diagrams on the following pages: 15 CATALYTIC PROJECT: RIO GRANDE DISTRICT The Rio Grande District is located in the Depot District of Salt Lake City, within the bounds of 200- 400 South and 500-600 West. The site is in a prime location with: • High visibility near prominent entry and exit points to/from the CBD core; • Unparalleled multi-modal transportation options with regional commuter rail, light rail, bus, Amtrak, and Greyhound services available at UTA’s Salt Lake Central Station; and • Close proximity to the city’s many cultural, sports, and entertainment options, such as the Delta Center, home of the Utah Jazz and Utah Hockey Club. The Salt Lake City Community Reinvestment Agency (CRA) owns approximately 11 acres of land within the Rio Grande District and, in partnership with neighborhood stakeholders, developed a redevelopment strategy for the area referred to as the Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan. The implementation strategy envisions a vibrant new Downtown destination with a dense, diverse mix of land uses that contribute to a District that is active for 18 hours a day. The site’s unparalleled transit access will be complemented by low-stress pedestrian and bicycle facilities that provide safe and seamless connections to UTA’s Salt Lake Central Station and other nearby stops. Anchored by the iconic Rio Grande Depot building, the neighborhood’s unique public spaces will be an ever-evolving canvas for the wealth of artists, cultural organizations, and non-profits who already call the neighborhood home. Increased density will be leveraged to deliver community benefits that support a more equitable, inclusive, and sustainable downtown for all. The implementation strategy identifies the following 11 principles to guide future development of the Rio Grande District: • Establish Compact, Walkable Blocks • Restore the Site for all Living Things • Enable Low Carbon Mobility • Curate Public Places with Arts, Culture, and Performance • Strengthen Social Fabric • Catalyze Street Life and Mixed-Use Development • Champion the Green Loop • Ensure Functional Roadways • Lead with Shared Parking • Maximize the TOD Potential • Design Sustainable Buildings The Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan is considered an implementation strategy that advances Plan Salt Lake and the Downtown Plan. While the specific details may change, the diagrams on the next page represent the vision for buildout of the Rio Grande District. 16 17 Standards for Master Plan Amendments Section 19.06.070 of the City Code provides a list of factors the Planning Commission and City Council should consider when considering a General Plan Amendment. The following are the list of factors with the CRA’s response as it relates to the proposed update to the Downtown Plan. 1. Whether the proposal is consistent with citywide policies. Plan Salt Lake is the citywide vision plan and provides the framework for growth in the City through a list of guiding principles. The proposed update to the Downtown Plan is supported by the following Guiding Principles in Plan Salt Lake: Growth: Growing responsibly, while providing people with choices about where they live, how they live, and how they get around. • Locate new development in area with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as transit and transportation corridors; • Encourage a mix of land uses. • Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land. • Accommodate and promote an increase in the City’s population. Housing: Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics. • Ensure access to affordable housing citywide (including rental and very low income). • Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the potential to be people-oriented. • Promote high density residential in areas served by transit. Beautiful City: A beautiful city that is people focused. • Reinforce downtown and the visually dominant center of the city through the use of design standards and guidelines Preservation: Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past. • Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character. • Retain areas and structures of historic and architectural value. • Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth. Economy: A balanced economy that produces quality jobs and fosters an innovative environment for commerce, entrepreneurial local business, and industry to thrive. • Support the economic growth of Downtown, including development of Station Center 18 2. Whether the proposal is consistent with the goals, policies, or implementation actions of the general plan, including applicable element plans. The Downtown Plan charts the course of future growth in the Central Business District and surrounding area and acknowledges that downtown is the center for dense urban living. The Downtown Plan divides the plan area into 10 unique geographic districts and provides a set of initiatives for development of each district. The Rio Grande District is located in the Depot District and a summary of the initiatives established for the Depot District are included in the previous section of this report. The catalytic project in the Depot District is currently referred to as the Hub Implementation Strategy, a previous iteration of the CRA’s redevelopment plans for the area comprising the Rio Grande District. The proposed amendment to the Downtown Plan updates the catalytic project according to the strategies developed in the Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan. These strategies are consistent with the key concepts and goals stated for the Hub Implementation Strategy and help to ensure that future development is consistent with the goals, policies and implementation actions of the Downtown Plan. 3. Whether significant change has occurred that warrants the creation of a new plan or an update to an adopted plan. The change that warrants an update to the Downtown Plan is the completion of the Rio Grande District Vison & Implementation Plan, which was endorsed by the CRA Board of Directors in December 2024. The Downtown Plan references the Hub Implementation Strategy, a previous iteration of CRA’s redevelopment strategy for this area. In 2023, the CRA revisited the Hub Implementation Strategy to ensure that redevelopment plans capitalize on the area’s potential and the Depot District initiatives within the Downtown Plan were used as a foundation for this revised vision/strategy. The proposed amendment updates and refines the Hub Implementation Strategy, essentially replacing it. Amending the Downtown Plan ensures that the update to the redevelopment strategy is reflected in the adopted plans of the City. 4. Whether the goals, policies, or implementation actions of the plan to be amended have been achieved, are no longer relevant to or capable of addressing the current issues or needs of the neighborhood or the city, or are no longer aligned with policies in citywide plans. The proposed plan amendment is not changing the goals or policies of the Downtown Plan. It is updating the plan with more details on how the vision, goals and policies will be implemented. 19 5. For petitions submitted by a property owner, the extent, effectiveness, and proportionality of the public benefit proposed by the petitioner to the increase in development potential if the proposal were to be adopted by the city council. This standard is not applicable because the petition was initiated by the Mayor. 6. The potential for displacement of people who reside in any housing that is within the boundary of the proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. There would be no displacement of residents within the Rio Grande District. In fact, the CRA’s redevelopment strategy calls for the construction of new housing, thereby increasing housing supply in the City. 7. The potential for displacement of any business that is located within the boundary of the proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. The area subject to the proposed master plan amendment is the entire Rio Grande District; however, the properties along 200 South and the Artspace-owned properties along and near 500 West are not targeted for redevelopment. These properties are privately owned, some contain historic structures that have been adaptively reused, and some were recently redeveloped. The remaining properties will be redeveloped and are subject to the proposed rezone discussed later in this report. The CRA owns 29 parcels in the Rio Grande District, with two of the parcels currently occupied by businesses/organizations. The following provides a brief history of the properties and current uses. 502 W 300 South There are two buildings on this parcel. The western building is occupied by SDI Printex, a screen- printing company that produces promotional products. SDI was the original owner of the property and sold it to the CRA with an understanding that the property would be redeveloped as part of the Rio Grande District development strategy. An arrangement was made to allow SDI to lease the building on a month-to-month basis at a rate well below market value. The intent of the reduced lease rate was to allow SDI to build sufficient capital to relocate. The eastern building is currently occupied by two service organizations: Fill the Pot Ministries and A Place for Your Stuff. Fill the Pot Ministries provides meals to individuals in need and A Place for Your Stuff provides personal storage space to people experiencing homelessness. The CRA offered the use of the building at no cost with an understanding that the property will be redeveloped in the future. The Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan provides a phasing plan for development and the land beneath the building occupied by these service organizations is the last phase. This will allow sufficient time for the CRA to work with the organizations on developing a relocation plan. 20 310 S 500 West The property at 310 S 500 West was purchased from the State of Utah in 2022. The building continues to be occupied by the State as office space and a temporary storage location for historical artwork and artifacts while a new facility is being constructed at the State Capitol. When the new facility is complete, the State will vacate the property, and it will be redeveloped by USA Climbing and serve as the home of their headquarters and training center for the national team. 8. The potential impacts to properties in the immediate vicinity of the proposal. The impacts that the proposed update to the Downtown Plan will have are positive. Implementation of the Rio Grande District Plan will result in investment in an area that is ripe for change. The proposed plan update charts a course for implementing redevelopment of this area of the City as envisioned by the Downtown Plan. 9. The potential impacts on the city to provide safe drinking water, storm water, and sewer to the property based on the additional development potential of future development. The CRA has hired a team of consultants to design the street and infrastructure improvements needed to support the increased density envisioned in the Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan. The CRA is also pursuing the funds needed for construction of the infrastructure improvements and is working with a team of representatives from all applicable City departments and divisions to ensure that the improvements comply with applicable codes and policies. 10. The potential impacts to public safety resources created by the increase in development potential that may result from the proposed amendment. The Rio Grande area has a history of public safety issues, largely due to a lack of development activity. Implementation of the Rio Grande District Plan will result in a positive change to the neighborhood as it will provide 24-hour activity in the neighborhood. 11. The potential impacts to any other city service, infrastructure, or resource that may be impacted by the increase in development potential that may result from the proposed amendment. As mentioned previously, the CRA is working with a team of representatives from all applicable City departments and divisions to address services, infrastructure, and resources needed to serve the Rio Grande District. 21 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT Purpose The Rio Grande District is currently in the GMU Gateway Mixed-Use district, and the proposal is to change the zoning of certain properties to D4 Downtown Secondary Business District. Fig. 10: Current Zoning Rezoning the Rio Grande District is instrumental in implementing the Rio Grande District Plan. The Plan was developed as a strategy for implementing the Downtown plan and it provides a detailed roadmap for creating a dense, urban, transit-oriented neighborhood that capitalizes on adjacency to the Salt Lake Central Station transit hub. Rezoning the properties to D4 will allow for taller buildings. The increase in allowable building height will increase density, shifting the development potential from being spread out across the entire district to being concentrated on smaller building footprints. It follows the concept of going up instead of out. Allowing buildings to go up will free up land to be used for: • New public streets and midblock connections that break up the large 10-acre blocks • Development of a Festival Street along 300 South 22 • An Arts Campus Plaza • A new park under the 400 South overpass • Development of a shared parking structure at the perimeter of the District • Preservation/reuse of two historic buildings • Infrastructure improvements that support future development Properties Subject to Rezone There are 35 properties included in the proposed rezone area with 28 of the properties owned by the CRA and seven owned by the University of Utah. The properties along 200 South and the Artspace- owned properties along and near 500 West are not targeted for redevelopment. These properties are privately owned, some contain historic structures that have been adaptively reused, and some were recently redeveloped; therefore, they are not included in the rezoning proposal. Representatives from the CRA have been working with the owner of the property located at the northwest corner of the southern block of the Rio Grande District and offered to include their property in the rezone petition. The property owner is not interested in rezoning their property at this time. Subject Property Ownership CRA University of Utah Fig. 11: Rezone Area - Ownership 23 Existing and Proposed Zoning - Site and Building Design Comparison The GMU and D4 districts are similar in relation to site and building design regulations. Both districts create a dense urban environment by placing buildings close to the sidewalk, requiring active ground floors along street frontages, and requiring mid-block walkways when identified in the Downtown Plan. The following table provides a generalized comparison of the site and building design regulations between the GMU and D4 zone: GMU (existing zone) D4 (proposed zone) Minimum = None Maximum = 10 feet Maximum = 8 feet (can exceed the maximum for plazas) Side and Rear Building Setbacks % of the street facing ground floor that requires an active use % of durable materials along street facing facades fl fl fl fl % of glass on street facing façade fl fl fl fl Minimum number of building entrances along the street length length Maximum length of blank street facing facades Maximum building length along the street Fig. 12: Zoning Comparison Table Both zones allow similar land uses. One specific difference is that the GMU district requires residential uses along 500 West. Rezoning the subject properties to D4 would eliminate this requirement; however, the Rio Grande District Plan identifies two parcels along 500 west for substantial residential development (see pages 106 and 107 of the Rio Grande District Plan). 24 Building Height The biggest difference between the existing and proposed zones, and the reason for the rezone request, is building height. The maximum “by-right” building height in the GMU zone is 90 feet with 180 feet of height allowed through the Design Review process. The by-right building height in the D4 district is 200 feet with buildings allowed up to 600 feet through Design Review. The Rio Grande District Plan contains detailed design guidelines with targeted building heights ranging from 75 feet for the future USA Climbing site on the southwest corner of 300 South and 500 West, to 400 feet for a residential/mixed-use tower on the northwest corner of that same intersection. Rezoning the subject properties to D4 is necessary to achieve the density envisioned by the Rio Grande District Plan. To mitigate potential impacts of taller buildings, the Rio Grande District Plan contains design guidelines that are intended to break up the massing of buildings by limiting podium height and requiring upper floors to be stepped back. The plan also includes guidelines related to street level ground floor activation and sustainable building design. The following two diagrams are from the Rio Grande District Plan and provide a visual representation of the podium heights and building massing. The detailed guidelines begin on page 101 of the Rio Grande District Plan. 25 Fig. 13: Building Podium Diagram Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan Fig. 14: Building Orientation and Massing Diagram Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan 26 Standards for Zoning Map Amendments Section 21A.50 of the Zoning Ordinance provides a list of factors the City Council should consider when making a decision to amend the zoning map. The following are the list of factors with the CRA’s response as it relates to the purpose of the zoning amendment stated in the previous section. 1. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with and helps implement the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents Plan Salt Lake is the citywide vision plan and provides the framework for growth in the City through a list of guiding principles. Considering the purpose of the proposed zoning amendment and implementation of the Rio Grande District Plan, the following Guiding Principles in Plan Salt Lake support the rezoning: Growth: Growing responsibly, while providing people with choices about where they live, how they live, and how they get around. • Locate new development in area with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as transit and transportation corridors; • Encourage a mix of land uses. • Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land. • Accommodate and promote an increase in the City’s population. Housing: Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics. • Ensure access to affoCRAble housing citywide (including rental and very low income). • Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the potential to be people-oriented. • Promote high density residential in areas served by transit. Beautiful City: A beautiful city that is people focused. • Reinforce downtown and the visually dominant center of the city through the use of design standards and guidelines Preservation: Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past. • Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character. • Retain areas and structures of historic and architectural value. • Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth. 27 Economy: A balanced economy that produces quality jobs and fosters an innovative environment for commerce, entrepreneurial local business, and industry to thrive. • Support the economic growth of Downtown, including development of Station Center The Downtown Plan charts the course of future growth in the Central Business District and surrounding area and acknowledges that downtown is the center for dense urban living. The Downtown Plan divides the plan area into 10 unique geographic districts and provides a set of initiatives for development of each district. The Rio Grande District is located in the Depot District and a summary of the initiatives established for the Depot District are summarized throughout this report. The Depot District’s catalytic project is the Hub Implementation Strategy, and the Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan is the roadmap for implementing that strategy. Rezoning the Rio Grande District is necessary function of implementing the initiatives established for the Depot District as stated in the Downtown Plan. 2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the applicable purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is stated in Section 21A.02.030. One purpose of zoning is to implement the adopted plans of the City. Rezoning the Rio Grande District to D4 will be a major step in implementing the Rio Grande District plan, which is a key initiative of the Downtown Plan. The purpose of the D4 district is to: “…foster an environment consistent with the area's function as a housing, entertainment, cultural, convention, business, and retail section of the city that supports the Central Business District. Development is intended to support the regional venues in the district, such as the Salt Palace Convention Center, and to be less intense than in the Central Business District. This district is appropriate in areas where supported by applicable master plans. The standards are intended to achieve established objectives for urban and historic design, pedestrian amenities, and land use control, particularly in relation to retail commercial uses.” The Rio Grande District would further the purpose of the D4 district. Rezoning the Rio Grande District will be instrumental in creating a housing, entertainment, cultural, business, and retail hub that supports the Central Business District, as well as the nearby regional venues. 28 3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent and nearby properties due to the change in development potential and allowed uses that do not currently apply to the property. The Rio Grande District is currently zoned GMU, and the proposal is to rezone a portion of the district to D4. The allowed land uses and the design regulations are similar in both zones so there would be no impact on nearby properties regarding property use and design. The main difference between the two districts is building height. The GMU zone allows buildings up to 180 feet in height and the D4 allows 600 feet of building height. Both districts require design review approval to achieve those heights. The Rio Grande District is comprised of two City blocks. There are no existing, permanent land uses on the southern block, so the entire block will be redeveloped. Since the entire block will be redeveloped, there would be no impact on adjacent land uses with the proposed change in zoning. The north block is a mix of developed property and properties targeted for redevelopment. The properties targeted for redevelopment are owned by the CRA and are subject to the proposed zoning amendment. The properties not subject to the rezone include those that front 200 South and the Artspace and Macaroni Flats properties located on 500 West. The CRA acknowledges that a 600-foot building wall could impact adjacent properties. The Rio Grande District Plan provides strategies to mitigate these impacts by stipulating building form standards that will be used when the CRA markets the properties for development. The building form standards begin on page 112 of the Rio Grande District Plan and a summary of the standards is as follows: • Taller building height in the center of the district along 300 South with heights stepping down to the perimeter of the district. • Podium heights that match the height of adjacent structures. • Building stepbacks above the podium. In addition to the building form standards in the Rio Grande Plan, all buildings over 200 feet in height in the D4 district require design review. Design Review requires compliance with the Design Review standards stated in Section 21A.59 of the Zoning Ordinance and requires approval by the Planning Commission. 4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. No overlay zoning districts would be impacted with this petition. 29 5. The potential impacts on the city to provide safe drinking water, storm water, and sewer to the property and other properties based on the additional development potential of future development including any impact that may result in exceeding existing or planned capacities that may be located further away from the subject property. The CRA has hired a team of consultants to design the street and infrastructure improvements needed to support the increased density that would result from the proposed zone change. The CRA is also pursuing the funds needed for construction of the infrastructure improvements and is working with a team of representatives from all applicable City departments and divisions to ensure that the improvements comply with applicable codes and policies. 6. The status of existing transportation facilities, any planned changes to the transportation facilities, and the impact that the proposed amendment may have on the city's ability, need, and timing of future transportation improvements. Existing Transportation Facilities The Rio Grande District is bordered to the north and south by city arterial streets, to the west by the Salt Lake Central Station transit hub and is approximately two blocks from I-15. The existing transportation network provides various options for mobility and is sufficient to support the increase in density and activity as a result of the proposed change in zoning. Planned Transportation Facilities The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) recently completed the TechLink TRAX study, an analysis of alternatives for improving light rail service. The preferred alternative adds a new light rail line along 400 West with a station at 300 South, just one block east of the Rio Grande District. When implemented, the new rail line and station will increase transit options in an already transit-rich neighborhood. The TechLink Study also recommends adding new tracks along 400 South, which is the southern edge of the Rio Grande District. This new line would add a connection to the Salt Lake Central Station for operational redundancy or future transit service. The Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan recognizes a 25-foot easement along the southern edge of the district in anticipation of the future rail line along 400 South. In addition to an increase in transit, implementation of the Rio Grande District plan will result in new local streets that will break up the larger blocks, thereby increasing walkability and bike and automobile circulation. 30 7. The proximity of necessary amenities such as parks, open space, schools, fresh food, entertainment, cultural facilities, and the ability of current and future residents to access these amenities without having to rely on a personal vehicle. The Rio Grande District is within walking distance to Pioneer Park, The Gateway, the Delta Center, and numerous other locations for food, entertainment, and culture. The District is also adjacent to the Salt Lake Central Station transit hub, which will allow future residents to access any amenity in the region that is accessible by transit. In addition to existing amenities, implementation of the Rio Grande District will result in new parks, public plazas, restaurants, and entertainment destinations within the district itself. 8. The potential impacts to public safety resources created by the increase in development potential that may result from the proposed amendment. The Rio Grande area has a history of public safety issues due to a lack of development activity. Rezoning the District is a crucial step in implementing the Rio Grande District Plan and implementation of the plan will result in a positive change to the neighborhood as it will provide 24- hour activity in the neighborhood. 9. The potential for displacement of people who reside in any housing that is within the boundary of the proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. There is no housing on the properties subject to the zoning amendment. 10. The potential for displacement of any business that is located within the boundary of the proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. The properties subject to the proposed zoning amendment are owned by the CRA and University of Utah. The University owned properties are vacant; therefore, there would be no displacement of businesses. The CRA owns 29 parcels in the Rio Grande District, with two of the parcels currently occupied by businesses/organizations. The following provides a brief history of the properties and current uses. 502 W 300 South There are two buildings on this parcel. The western building is occupied by SDI Printex, a screen- printing company that produces promotional products. SDI was the original owner of the property and sold it to the CRA with an understanding that the property would be redeveloped as part of the 31 Rio Grande District development strategy. An arrangement was made to allow SDI to lease the building on a month-to-month basis at a rate well below market value. The intent of the reduced lease rate was to allow SDI to build sufficient capital to relocate. The eastern building is currently occupied by two service organizations: Fill the Pot Ministries and A Place for Your Stuff. Fill the Pot Ministries provides meals to individuals in need and A Place for Your Stuff provides personal storage space to people experiencing homelessness. The CRA offered the use of the building at no cost with an understanding that the property will be redeveloped in the future. The Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan provides a phasing plan for development and the land beneath the building occupied by these service organizations is the last phase. This will allow sufficient time for the CRA to work with the organizations on developing a relocation plan. 310 S 500 West The property at 310 S 500 West was purchased from the State of Utah in 2022. The building continues to be occupied by the State as office space and a temporary storage location for historical artwork and artifacts while a new facility is being constructed at the State Capitol. When the new facility is complete, the State will vacate the property, and it will be redeveloped by USA Climbing and serve as the home of their headquarters and training center for the national team. 11. The community benefits that would result from the proposed map amendment, as identified in Section 21A.50.050.C. The Community Benefit standard applies to petitions initiated by a private property owner. This petition was initiated by the Mayor; therefore, the community benefit standard does not apply. Regardless, rezoning the Rio Grande District to D4 will result in numerous benefits that would not otherwise be provided without the amendment. The overall purpose of the amendment is to shift the development potential from being spread out across the entire district to being concentrated on smaller building footprints. It follows the concept of going up instead of out. Allowing buildings to go up will free up land that will be used for new streets and plazas. It also transfers the development potential from two properties with historic buildings, allowing those properties to be reused. Rezoning the District and implementing the Rio Grande District Plan is consistent with the following community benefits as described in Section 21A.50.050C of the Zoning Ordinance: • Dedication of public open space • Preserving historic structures • Expanding public infrastructure MAYOR ERIN MENDENHALL Executive Director DANNY WALZ Director SALT LAKE CITY COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AGENCY MEMO DATE: September 10, 2025 TO: Cassie Younger, Senior Planner CC: Danny Walz, CRA Director; Cara Lindsley, Deputy CRA Director; Ashley Ogden, CRA Senior Project Manager; File FROM: Wayne Mills, CRA Senior Project Manager RE: Rio Grande District Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments – Request to Schedule Planning Commission Hearing The purpose of this memo is to request that the Planning Division schedule Petitions PLNPCM2025- 00180 and PLNPCM2025-00181 for a Planning Commission public hearing. The petitions were initiated by the Mayor to implement the Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan, and the CRA is acting as the mayor’s representative. As you are aware, the petitions were scheduled for a public hearing on May 28, 2025, and the CRA requested that the Planning Commission postpone its public hearing to allow time for further refinement of the proposal. The CRA has completed additional work on the petitions and would like to make minor revisions, including adding a reference to mid-block walkway requirements in the proposed Downtown Master Plan amendment language and removing a small portion of a parcel from rezoning consideration. The proposed changes are explained below. Master Plan Amendment Petition Revision The petition initiated by the Mayor is an amendment to the Depot District section of the Downtown Master Plan. The master plan highlights the “Hub Implementation Strategy” as the catalytic project in the Depot District, and the Hub Implementation Strategy was a previous iteration of the CRA’s redevelopment plans for the area now called the Rio Grande District. The proposed master plan amendment updates the language to reflect the goals stated in the Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan. A primary objective of the Downtown Plan is to increase connectivity and pedestrian mobility downtown, and page 99 of the plan contains a diagram showing the locations of existing and future mid-block walkways. The mid-block connections identified on the blocks bounded by 200 South, 500 West, 400 South, and 600 West were a result of the CRA’s Station Center Plan, the previous iteration of what is now the Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan. In an effort to ensure consistency between the mid-block street network that will be developed as part of the Rio Grande District redevelopment effort and the mid-block connections identified in the Downtown Plan, we are proposing to add language to the master plan amendment that states that the mid-block walkway plan shown on page 99 of the Downtown Plan is amended to reflect the mobility network as identified in the Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan. To this end, the following replaces the proposed master plan amendment language as stated on pages 15 and 16 of the report submitted with the petition initiation. The new language is underlined. CATALYTIC PROJECT: RIO GRANDE DISTRICT The Rio Grande District is located in the Depot District of Salt Lake City, within the bounds of 200- 400 South and 500-600 West. The site is in a prime location with: • High visibility near prominent entry and exit points to/from the CBD core; • Unparalleled multi-modal transportation options with regional commuter rail, light rail, bus, Amtrak, and Greyhound services available at UTA’s Salt Lake Central Station; and • Close proximity to the city’s many cultural, sports, and entertainment options, such as the Delta Center, home of the Utah Jazz and Utah Mammoth. The Salt Lake City Community Reinvestment Agency (CRA) owns approximately 11 acres of land within the Rio Grande District and, in partnership with neighborhood stakeholders, developed a redevelopment strategy for the area referred to as the Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan. The implementation strategy envisions a vibrant new Downtown destination with a dense, diverse mix of land uses that contribute to a District that is active for 18 hours a day. The site’s unparalleled transit access will be complemented by low-stress pedestrian and bicycle facilities that provide safe and seamless connections to UTA’s Salt Lake Central Station and other nearby stops. Anchored by the iconic Rio Grande Depot building, the neighborhood’s unique public spaces will be an ever-evolving canvas for the wealth of artists, cultural organizations, and non-profits who already call the neighborhood home. Increased density will be leveraged to deliver community benefits that support a more equitable, inclusive, and sustainable downtown for all. The implementation strategy identifies the following 11 principles to guide future development of the Rio Grande District: • Establish Compact, Walkable Blocks • Restore the Site for all Living Things • Enable Low Carbon Mobility • Curate Public Places with Arts, Culture, and Performance • Strengthen Social Fabric • Catalyze Street Life and Mixed-Use Development • Champion the Green Loop • Ensure Functional Roadways • Lead with Shared Parking • Maximize the TOD Potential • Design Sustainable Buildings The Rio Grande District Vision & Implementation Plan is considered an implementation strategy that advances Plan Salt Lake and the Downtown Plan. While the specific details may change, the diagrams on the next page represent the vision for the buildout of the Rio Grande District. As seen on the following diagrams, development of the Rio Grande District includes new mid-block street connections. The mobility network shown on the diagrams below amends the location of the mid- block walkways as shown on page 99 of the Downtown Plan. Zoning Map Amendment Revision One of the parcels included in the rezone petition is a narrow strip of land located along the south side of 300 South. This strip of land was formerly part of the 300 South right-of-way. The city vacated this portion of 300 South to reduce the width of the street, and the land is intended to be incorporated into the abutting parcels. As stated on page 22 of the report submitted with the zoning amendment petition, the property located at 333 S. 600 West is in the Rio Grande District but is not included in the zoning map amendment. The CRA has been working with the owner of the property, but the owner does not want to rezone their property at this time. Since the narrow strip of land along 300 South is intended to be added to this property, the portion of the strip of land abutting the parcel should be excluded from the rezone petition so as not to create a split-zoned parcel when the properties are combined. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezone proposal, the CRA will provide a legal description of the portion of the strip of land that is subject to the zoning map amendment. In the meantime, the following map replaces the map of the properties subject to the rezone as shown on page 22 in the Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment report. In conclusion, I appreciate your consideration and patience. Please contact me if you have questions or suggestions on further refinements to the proposal. We look forward to working with you on scheduling the petitions for Planning Commission review. This page has intentionally been left blank You don't often get email from cindy@artspaceutah.org. Learn why this is important From: Cindy Franke To: Younger, Cassie Subject: Re: (EXTERNAL) Comments on Rio Grande District Amendment Date: Wednesday, October 22, 2025 1:56:47 PM Attachments: image001.png image002.png Hi Cassie, Thank you for reaching out. Regarding my first comment, I just wanted confirmation that the midblock walkway was not on our property. We did not think that was the intent, and have been working with the SLC CRA on their plans for the block, but wanted to cover our bases due to past experiences. My other comment on the Design Standards was requesting that they be considered for this area so that these historic buildings are not completely lost among the high rises. Artspace and CRA put a lot of money into preserving these structures and we want to ensure their historic character is maintained. Best, Cindy From: Younger, Cassie <cassie.younger@slc.gov> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2025 1:12 PM To: Cindy Franke <cindy@artspaceutah.org> Subject: RE: (EXTERNAL) Comments on Rio Grande District Amendment Hi Cindy, Thank you for your comments. They will be forwarded to the members of the Planning Commission. I’m a little confused by your first comment, since all the midblock walkways shown in the Report should be the same. The ones next to the Artspace property are shown on CRA property Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening As for the other comments, the heights transition Design Standard is only applied “when development is abutting a zone with a height maximum of 35' or less or abutting a local historic landmark site.” The buildings within this development are National – not Local- historic sites. So this Design Standard would not apply. This application does not include development plans so do not know where the CRA intends to put their taller buildings. Hope this helps, Cassie Younger | (she/her) Senior Planner PLANNING DIVISION | SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION Office: 801-535-6211 Email: cassie.younger@slc.gov WWW.SLC.GOV slc.gov/planning From: Cindy Franke <cindy@artspaceutah.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2025 11:57 AM To: Younger, Cassie <cassie.younger@slc.gov> Subject: (EXTERNAL) Comments on Rio Grande District Amendment You don't often get email from cindy@artspaceutah.org. Learn why this is important Hi Cassie, Below are a few comments we have on the proposed Zoning Map and General Plan Amendment for the Rio Grande District: 1. It appears the intent is for the midblock walkway to be on RDA property, but I want to clarify that the midblock walkway does not go on Artspace City Center property where our driveway to our underground parking garage is located. The map on page 56 shows a straight line for the proposed midblock walkway, but on pages 22 and 26 it appears the street jogs around our property as previously discussed with the CRA. 2. We are concerned about the proposed building heights of up to 400' blocking the two historic buildings we have preserved in the area, the historic ZCMI general warehouse/Artspace City Center and the historic Western Macaroni Manufacturing Company factory/Artspace Macaroni Flats (which was completed in partnership with SLC CRA), as well as the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad Station. We are requesting that Salt Lake's Design Standards 21.A.37.050.R. Height Transition regulations be required to better promote transition of scale between buildings of different heights, especially surrounding historic buildings. 3. This concern has previously been voiced, but the proposed building heights also block the solar panels that we have on Macaroni Flats and are currently installing on Artspace Bridge Projects, negating the intent of "Design Moves" #11 of designing sustainable buildings and preventing us from "harnessing of the sun through high performing buildings and renewable energy systems". We ask you to consider developing the larger structures on the southwest corner of the district where there are no existing buildings, and to have more moderate sized buildings adjacent to existing buildings and along the green loop. Thank you, Cindy Franke | Vice President ARTSPACE 230 South 500 West, Suite 235 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 801.534.0231 www.artspaceutah.org This page has intentionally been left blank This page has intentionally been left blank Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning City Council briefing February 3, 2026 PLNPCM2025-00180 & 00181 RIO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN & ZONING MAP AMENDMENT Salt Lake City //Planning Division 1.General Plan Amendment to update portions of the Downtown Plan 2.Zoning Map Amendment to rezone 32 parcels from GMU Gateway Mixed Use to D-4 Secondary Central Business District REQUEST Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning EXISTING CONDITIONS Rio Grande Intermodal Hub Future USA Climbing Training Center Artspace 50 0 W 60 0 W 300 S 200 S 400 S <20 minute Walking distance to: •Gateway •Delta Center •Pioneer Park •Salt Palace Convention Center Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Visual from the proposed Update “Rio Grande District” Current Catalytic Project featured in the Downtown Plan Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning MID BLOCK WALKWAYS Existing Midblock Walkway Plan Proposed Midblock Walkway Plan Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning ZONING MAP AMENDMENT •32 parcels within Rio Grande Area •Owned by CRA or University of Utah •From GMU to D-4 Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning COMPARISON OF GMU & D-4 Zoning Standard GMU D-4 Height Minimum 75’ Design Review over 90’ Maximum 180’ By right up to 200’ 200 through 600’ with DR and D4 Standards Maximum 600’ Fron/ Corner Setbacks Max 10’, Min 10’ for residential 0 Minimum, 8’ maximum Design Standards Identical, except the following: Glass: Upper floors 40 50 Budling entrance (feet between) 40 60 Maximum Blank wall 15 20 Lighting: parking lot X Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning D-4 STANDARDS OVER 200’: Buildings from 200’ to 600’, through Design Review process: Shall include a minimum stepback of five feet (5’) …Located above the first floor and below one hundred twenty feet (120’) The building includes at least one of the following options: 1.Midblock walkway is provided on the property. …and exceeds all the required dimensions by at least five feet; 2.The building is utilizing affordable housing incentives 3.The requirement for enhanced active ground floor uses must be increased to 100% 4.The applicant provides a restrictive covenant on a historic building, a building that is fifty (50) years or older, or a building that is a nationally recognized property, located outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District for the purpose of preserving the structure for a minimum of fifty (50) years; or 5.The proposal includes a privately owned, publicly accessible open space on the property or on another property within the geographic boundaries of the Downtown Plan. Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning STANDARDS FOR ZONING & PLAN AMENDMENTS •No Community Benefit is required for City- initiated Petitions •Consistent with purposes, goals objectives and polices of the city including the Downtown Plan and Plan Salt Lake •Furthers the purpose statement of the ordinance •Status of existing transportation facilities, and the impact that the proposed amendment may have on the city’s transportation improvements •The extent to which it will affect nearby properties due to development potential •Public Safety impacts created by development potential Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission forwarded a unanimous positive recommendation to the City Council on October 22, 2025 Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning Cassie Younger RIO GRANDE DISTRICT Salt Lake Central Station Historic Rio Grande Depot Central Business District Pioneer Park The Gateway Pitt Street Pedestrian Mall - Sydney, Australia Plan Implementation – Next Steps •Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zone (HTRZ) •USA Climbing •Zoning Amendment •Public Improvements •Developer Solicitation WEBSITE cra.slc.gov/home/riograndedistrict/ Item B7 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:March 10, 2026 RE: Fence, Wall and Hedge Height Text Amendment PLNPCM2025-00045, and Fence Height in M-1 and M-1A Zoning Districts Text Amendment PLNPCM2025-00138 MOTION 1 (close and defer) I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 (close and adopt (if the Council would like to adopt tonight)) **If updated ordinance is received** I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt the ordinances. MOTION 3 (continue hearing) I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:March 10, 2026 RE: Fence, Wall and Hedge Height Text Amendment PLNPCM2025-00045, and Fence Height in M-1 and M-1A Zoning Districts Text Amendment PLNPCM2025-00138 BRIEFING UPDATE During a February 10, 2026 briefing Council Members expressed appreciation and general support for the proposed text amendments. The Council supported allowing side and rear yard fences up to seven feet tall. A question was asked about increasing allowed height for front yard fences. Planning staff stated there is not an administrative way to do that and would require in-depth review and a separate text amendment. The following information was provided for the February 10, 2026 briefing. It is included again for background purposes. The Council will be briefed about two text amendments related to fence, wall and hedge heights. Multiple petitions are not typically briefed at the same time but since these are closely related, they are being processed together. The first text amendment related to fence, wall and hedge heights in residential districts was initiated by the City Council in January 2025. The proposal would increase the maximum hedge height on side yard property lines in front of the primary structure’s primary façade to six feet if it does not obstruct clear view standards. The proposal would also increase the maximum fence, wall or hedge height behind the principal structure’s primary façade from six feet to seven feet. (Staff note: Planning staff recommend moving Item Schedule: Page | 2 hedges to the landscaping chapter of City code and not limiting the height. This is discussed further in the additional information section below.) The second proposed text amendment was initiated by the Planning Commission and would extend the increased fence height to six feet of front yard fences allowed in the M-1 zoning district within the International Center to all properties in the M-1 and M-1A zoning districts citywide. The Planning Commission reviewed both proposals at its August 13, 2025 meeting and held public hearings at which no one spoke. The Commission voted 5-3 to forward a positive recommendation to the Council on the fence, wall and hedge height amendment with the exception that rear yard fences remain at a maximum of six feet. The Commission voted 5-3 to forward a positive recommendation for the M-1/M-1A fence proposal with a condition that properties in these zoning districts that abut or are across the street from any zone that allows residential uses have front yard fences that do not exceed four feet. Commissioners who voted in opposition to the motions did not share why they were opposed. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed text amendments and determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposals. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to discuss whether it is still supportive of increasing the maximum height for rear yard fences and walls to seven feet. 2. The Council may wish to discuss whether it is supportive of moving hedges to the landscaping section of City code and eliminate the height limit. 3. The Council may wish to discuss whether it is supportive of extending the six-foot maximum fence height to all properties in the M-1/M-1A zoning districts except for those that abut or are across the street from zoning districts that allow residential uses. In those instances, front yard fences would be limited to four feet. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION For clarity the two text amendments will be discussed separately below. Fence, Wall and Hedge Height When conducting research for the proposal, Planning staff compared maximum allowed fence and hedge heights within the following Utah municipalities: Provo, Ogden, and South Salt Lake. Planning also considered maximum heights in Portland Oregon, Denver Colorado, and Clark County Nevada (Las Vegas area). Allowed front yard hedge heights in the researched municipalities ranged from three to six feet. Some do not define the term “hedge” in code but include hedges as landscaping regulated in their landscaping ordinances. It is Planning’s opinion that hedges, which are not defined in City code, fit better in the Landscaping and Buffers section of code rather than in the fencing ordinance. Defining hedges as vegetation in this section would not limit their height but require them to “be maintained in a live condition to present a reasonably healthy appearance.” The code also does not allow vegetation to block the sight distance triangle, so they won’t obstruct the view of oncoming pedestrians or vehicles. Page | 3 The six municipalities listed above allow maximum rear yard fence heights between six and eight feet. Planning recommends allowing fences and walls in rear yards up to seven feet high. They found benefits for privacy, security, property aesthetics, and additional height could help prevent large game animals from entering private properties. It is worth noting that fences taller than seven feet require engineering drawings which could be a burden for property owners. Key Considerations Planning staff identified three key considerations related to the fence and hedge height proposal, found on pages 6-8 of the Planning Commission staff report for that item, and briefly summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the Planning Commission staff report. Consideration 1 – Compatibility with Master Plan Policies and Initiatives Fences are not required in most zones, so they aren’t discussed in Plan Salt Lake and many neighborhood plans, though they are they are mentioned in some more recent master plans. The Salt Lake City Urban Design Element includes a discussion of land use buffers, including fencing, to separate adverse effects from dissimilar uses. It notes that fencing can deter criminal activity and provide security. Plan Salt Lake and other City master plans discuss protecting the natural environment. Planning staff stated “By considering hedges as “landscaping” and allowing them to grow in any location and at any height, this will help maintain the importance of sustaining vegetation for a healthier natural environment.” Consideration 2 – Key Changes Moving hedges to the landscaping section of City code will allow property owners to determine what height they would like, and they will be responsible for maintenance. Regarding the proposed maximum fence height of seven feet, Planning staff noted additional height will likely be used in new fences or those being fully replaced. Consideration 3 – Additional Text Changes – General Code Cleanup and Update While working on the Council request to review fence and hedge heights Planning staff identified additional proposed changes to the sections of City code related to fences, walls and hedges, and to ground mounted utility boxes listed below. Remove “hedges” from the ordinance. “Hedges” would be considered landscaping and regulated under 21A.48 “Landscaping and Buffers” ordinance. Residential and Non-residential districts have been combined to make the regulation of fences and walls more consistent when possible. Remove or modify most of the provisions listed under the “Double Frontage Lot” section, since most of them are listed in other parts of the zoning ordinance. Remove the word “hedges” from 21A.40.160 to be consistent within the zoning ordinance and replace with “landscaping.” M-1 and M-1A Maximum Fence Height Text Amendment Some Council Members will recall adopting a text amendment in October 2024 requested by Delta Airlines that increased the maximum front yard fence height for properties in the M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zoning district within the International Center. The current proposal would expand that allowed fence height in front of buildings to all properties in the M-1 and M-1A (Northpoint Light Industrial) zoning districts throughout the city, with an exception for these properties that abut or are across the street from Page | 4 zoning districts allowing residential uses. Front yard fences for those M-1 and M-1A properties would be limited to four feet. Notwithstanding Subsection 21A.40.120.E.1.b.(1), in the M-1, M-1A, M-2 and EI zoning districts, fences, walls, or hedges may be up to six (6) feet in height if located between the front lot line and the front building line of the facade of the principal structure that contains the primary entrance, unless the subject property is abutting or across a public street from a zoning district that allows residential use, then the maximum height for a front yard fence is four (4) feet. Key Considerations Consideration 1 – Compatibility with Master Plan Policies and Initiatives Plan Salt Lake and many neighborhood plans, though they are mentioned in some recent master plans. The Salt Lake City Urban Design Element includes a discussion of land use buffers, including fencing, to separate adverse effects from dissimilar uses. It notes that fencing can deter criminal activity and provide security. Consideration 2 – Zoning Districts That Allow Six-foot Fencing in the Front Yard Setback- Use Analysis ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS Page | 5 Factor Finding (fences/walls/hedges) Finding (M-1/M-1A fences) Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. City purposes and goals do not specify fence and hedge heights. Proposal is intended to achieve safety and security. City purposes and goals do not specify fence and hedge heights. Proposal is intended to achieve safety and security. Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies Complies Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Not applicable Not applicable The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current, professional practices of urban planning and design. Complies Complies CITY DEPARTMENT REVIEW During City department and division review of the proposed text amendment, no responding departments and divisions expressed opposition though Public Utilities noted the need to maintain water meter access for their employees. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • February 13, 2025 – Both petitions accepted by Planning Division. • February 25, 2025 – o Petitions assigned to Diana Martinez, Senior Planner. o Early notifications sent to community council chairs citywide. 45-day comment period begins. • May 8, 2025 – Extended 45-day recognized community organization comment period ends. • July 23, 2025 – Planning Commission public hearing notice posted at the Sugar House and Main Libraries. • August 13, 2025 – Planning Commission meeting and public hearing. The Commission votes 5-3 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. • August 28, 2025 – Ordinance requested from the Attorney’s Office. • December 10, 2025 – Ordinance received from the Attorney’s Office. • January 13, 2026 – Transmittal received in City Council Office. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 01/07/2026 Date Sent to Council: 01/13/2026 From: Department * Community and Neighborhood Employee Name: Martinez, Diana E-mail diana.martinez@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 01/12/2026 Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 01/13/2026 Subject: Fence Text Amendments Additional Staff Contact: Jason Berntson, jason.berntson@slc.gov Presenters/Staff Table Jason Berntson, jason.berntson@slc.govJohn Anderson, john.anderson@slc.gov Document Type Ordinance Budget Impact? Yes No Recommendation: Favorable recommendation with modifications to staff's recommendation Background/Discussion See first attachment for Background/Discussion Public Hearing Is there a City or State statutory requirement to hold a public hearing for this item?* Yes No The City Council reserves the option to hold and notice for a public hearing pursuant to their practices for public engagement. Does the City have a general practice to hold a public hearing for this item?* Yes No Provide your perspective on the value of recommending a public hearing State law requires a public hearing. Public Process Complied with State Law and Zoning requirements. Notified all Recognized Community Organization and held online Open House. This page has intentionally been left blank ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Tammy Hunsaker Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: PLNPCM2025-00138 Two zoning text amendments petitions were considered. The first one, PLNPCM2025-00138 is a petition initiated by the Planning Commission, to amend the zoning ordinance to increase the fence height of front yard fences (between the front lot line and the primary façade of the primary façade of the principal structure) from the required four feet to a maximum of six feet in all M-1 (Light Manufacturing) and M-1A (Northpoint Light Industrial) zoning districts city-wide. Currently, front yard fencing between the front property line and the primary façade of the principal structure on a property in the M-1 (Light Manufacturing) Zoning District cannot exceed four feet. The amendment of the ordinance would allow a six-foot fence in the front yard setback to help secure the patrons, buildings, and parking areas. PLNPCM2025-00045 The second zoning text amendment considered, PLNPCM2025-00045, a petition initiated by the City Council, proposes amendments to sections of Title 21A.40.120 “Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges”. The City Council has requested that the planning staff research and draft an ordinance text amendment to update the Salt Lake City Code regarding the height and location of fences, walls, and hedges, in accordance with the defined clear view standards. Currently, fences, walls, and hedges are all regulated the same in the ordinance. Planning staff recommended removing hedges from the fencing ordinance, for hedges to be regulated as landscaping under the Landscaping and Buffers Ordinance 21A.48. The word “hedges” would be taken out of the fencing ordinances as well as out of the Ground Mounted Utility Boxes Ordinance 21A.40.160, to be replaced with the word “landscaping”. Planning staff also recommended increasing the rear and side yard fence height to a maximum of seven (7) feet. PUBLIC PROCESS: • Early Notification—On February 25, 2025, all city-wide Community Council Chairs were sent the 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations. Only two community councils, the Greater Avenues Community Council & Sugar House Community Council, reached out to the planning staff to inquire about the applications. An online open house was posted on the Planning Division’s website from March 3rd, 2025, to an extended period ending May 8th, 2025. • Planning Commission Meeting – o PLNPCM2025-00138- The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the request on August 13, 2025, and voted 5 to 3 to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council with a modification to planning staff’s recommendation stating that M-1 and M-1A zoned properties that are abutting or across a public street from zoning districts that permit residential use, the fence height cannot exceed four (4) feet. o PLNPCM2025-00045- The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the request on August 13, 2025, and voted 5 to 3 to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council with a modification to the planning staff’s recommendation to keep the rear and side yard fence height at a maximum of six (6) feet in height. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) Planning Commission Agenda- August 13, 2025 b) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 13, 2025 c) Staff Report for PLNPCM2025-00138 -Planning Commission August 13, 2025 d) Staff Report PLNPCM2025-00045 - Planning Commission August 13, 2025 EXHIBITS: 1. Project Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Hearing 3. Original Petitions 4. Mailing List 5. Ordinance 6. Transmittal Memo EXHIBITS: 1.PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2.NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3.ORIGINAL PETITION 4.ORDINANCE 5.MAILING LIST 1.PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: February 13, 2025 February 25, 2025 February 25, 2025 May 8, 2025 July 23, 2025 August 13, 2025 PLNPCM2025-00138- Zoning Text Amendment – Petition to amend the zoning ordinance to increase the fence height of front yard fences (between the front lot line and the primary façade of the primary façade of the principal structure) from the required four feet to a maximum of six feet in all M-1 (Light Manufacturing) and M-1A (Northpoint Light Industrial) zoning districts city- wide. The Planning Commission initiated this petition for the Zoning Text Amendment, it was accepted by Salt Lake City Planning Division on this date. Petition PLNPCM2025-00138 was assigned to Diana Martinez, Senior Planner, for staff analysis and processing. Early notification was sent to all Community Council Chairs city- wide, providing information about the proposal and how to give public input on the project. Beginning of 45-day input and comment period. End of extended 45-day Recognized Community Organization notice period. Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing posted at two public libraries: Sugar House Public Library and the Salt Lake City Main Library. The Planning Commission holds a public hearing and votes 5 to 3 to send a favorable recommendation to approve the proposed text amendment. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2025-00045- Zoning Text Amendment – Proposes amendments to sections of Title 21A.40.120 “Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges”. The City Council has requested that the planning staff research and draft an ordinance text amendment to update the Salt Lake City Code regarding the height and location of fences, walls, and hedges, in accordance with the defined clear view standards. February 13, 2025 February 25, 2025 February 25, 2025 May 8, 2025 July 23, 2025 August 13, 2025 The City Council initiated this petition for the Zoning Text Amendment, it was accepted by Salt Lake City Planning Division on this date. Petition PLNPCM2025-00138 was assigned to Diana Martinez, Senior Planner, for staff analysis and processing. Early notification was sent to all Community Council Chairs city-wide, providing information about the proposal and how to give public input on the project. Beginning of 45-day input and comment period. End of extended 45-day Recognized Community Organization notice period. Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing posted at two public libraries: Sugar House Public Library and the Salt Lake City Main Library. The Planning Commission holds a public hearing and votes 5 to 3 to send a favorable recommendation to approve the proposed text amendment. 2.NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2025-00138 to amend the zoning ordinance to increase the fence height of front yard fences (between the front lot line and the primary façade of the primary façade of the principal structure) from the required four feet to a maximum of six feet in all M-1 (Light Manufacturing) and M-1A (Northpoint Light Industrial) zoning districts city-wide. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During these hearings, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance on the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: PLACE: 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held in-person, to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, please visit www.slc.gov/council. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24- Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Diana Martinez at 801-535-7215 or via e-mail at diana.martinez@slc.gov or Jason Berntson at 801-535-6247 or via e-mail at jason.berntson@slc.gov. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2025-00138. The City and County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to participate in this hearing. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com , 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2025-00045 amendments to sections of Title 21A.40.120 “Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges”. The City Council has requested that the planning staff research and draft an ordinance text amendment to update the Salt Lake City Code regarding the height and location of fences, walls, and hedges, in accordance with the defined clear view standards. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During these hearings, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance on the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: PLACE: 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held in-person, to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, please visit www.slc.gov/council. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24- Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Diana Martinez at 801-535-7215 or via e-mail at diana.martinez@slc.gov or Jason Berntson at 801-535-6247 or via e-mail at jason.berntson@slc.gov. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2025-00045. The City and County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to participate in this hearing. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com , 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. ORIGINAL PETITION PLNPCM2025-00138 PLNPCM2025-00045 4. ORDINANCE 1 Project Title: Fence and Hedge Height Amendments Petition Nos.: PLNPCM2025-00045 & PLNPCM2025-00138 Version: Planning Commission Recommended Date Prepared: 8/25/25 Planning Commission Action: Recommended 8/13/25 The proposed ordinance makes the following amendments (for summary purposes only): Amends code references associated with sections of 21A.40.120 and 21A.40.160. Deletes the word “hedges” throughout 21A.40.120. Deletes “hedges” from 21A.40.160 and replaces it with the word “landscaping”. Combines regulations for residential and non-residential zoning districts under: “Height Restrictions and Gates” 21A.40.120.E.1.a-g. Amends 21A.40.120.E.1.a.(1) changes the word “property” to “lot” to be consistent with the zoning ordinance. Also adds a note allowing M-1 properties outside of the Salt Lake International Center to have a six (6) foot fence in the front yard, if not abutting or across the street from a zone that allows residential uses. Amends 21A.40.120.E.1.a.(3) adds wording for if there is no minimum front yard setback, fence placement and height are called out. Amends 21A.40.120.E.1.a.(4) to change the wording from “front property line” to “lot line” and change “front yard setback line” to “front building line of the facade of the principal structure that contains the primary entrance” to be consistent with the ordinance. Removes 21A.40.120.E.1.a.(5), because the section overlaps with other wording in the ordinance. Amends 21A.40.120.E.2 to modify or remove the provisions of the “Double Frontage Lot” section. Amends 21A.40.120 E.4.i., 5.a.& 5.b., and E.6 to remove “hedges”. Amending sections 21A.40.120.E.1.b.(6) adding “M-1A”. Amends section 21A.40.160.C.1.b. & c. to take out “hedge” and replace with “landscaping”. Amends Illustration in 21A.40.120.E.1. “NON-RESIDENTIAL FENCE HEIGHT” Underlined text is new; text with a strikethrough is proposed to be deleted. All other text is existing with no proposed change. 1. Amends the title to Section 21A.40.120 with no other changes to the section, as follows: 1 21A.40.120: REGULATION OF FENCES, AND WALLS AND HEDGES: 2 2. Amends Subsection 21A.40.120.A as follows: 3 4 A. Purpose: Fences, and walls and hedges serve properties by providing privacy and security, defining 5 private space and enhancing the design of individual sites. Fences also affect the public by 6 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: ___________________________ By: ____________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney December 10, 2025 2 impacting the visual image of the streetscape and the overall character of neighborhoods. The 7 purpose of these regulations is to achieve a balance between the private concerns for privacy and 8 site design and the public concerns for enhancement of the community appearance, and to ensure 9 the provision of adequate light, air and public safety. 10 11 3. Amends Subsection 21A.40.120.B as follows: 12 13 B. Location: All fences, and walls or hedges shall be erected entirely within the property lines of the 14 property they are intended to serve. 15 4. Amends Subsection 21A.40.120.E.1 as follows: 16 1. Fences, and walls, and hedges shall comply with the following regulations based on the following 17 zoning districts: 18 a. Residential Zoning Districts: 19 (1) a. Except as permitted in subsection 21A.24.010.P and 21A.40.120.E.4 of this code a fence, 20 or wall, or hedge located between the front property lot line and front building line of the 21 facade of the principal structure that contains the primary entrance shall not exceed four (4) 22 feet in height. 23 (2) b. A fence, or wall, or hedge located at or behind the primary facade of the principal 24 structure shall not exceed six (6) feet in height. 25 (3) c. On developed properties where there is no existing principal structure, the height of a 26 fence, or wall, or hedge shall not exceed four (4) feet in a front yard area or six (6) feet in 27 the rear or side yard areas. If there is no minimum front yard setback in the underlying 28 zoning district, a fence or wall taller than four feet may not be placed closer than ten (10) 29 feet from the front lot line. 30 31 (4) d. All refuse disposal and recycling dumpsters shall be screened on all sides by a solid wood 32 fence, masonry wall, or an equivalent opaque material to a height of not less than 6 feet but 33 not more than 8 feet. 34 3 b. Nonresidential Zoning Districts: 35 (1) A fence, wall, or hedge located between the front property line and front building line of the 36 facade of the principal structure that contains the primary entrance shall not exceed four (4) 37 feet in height. 38 (2) A fence, wall or hedge located at or behind the primary facade of the principal structure 39 shall not exceed six (6) feet in height. 40 4 41 42 43 (3) On developed properties where there is no existing principal structure, the height of a fence, 44 wall, or hedge shall not exceed four (4) feet in a front yard area or six (6) feet in the rear or side yard 45 areas. 46 (4) e. Notwithstanding Subsection 21A.40.120.E.1.b.(1), in the M-1 zoned properties in the Salt 47 Lake International Center, M-1A, M-2, and EI zoning districts, fences, or walls, or hedges 48 may be up to six (6) feet in height if located between the front property lot line and the front 49 yard setback line. front building line of the facade of the principal structure that contains the 50 primary entrance, unless the subject property is abutting or across a public street from a 51 zoning district that allows residential use, then the maximum height for a front yard fence is 52 four (4) feet. 53 (5) If there is no minimum front yard setback in the underlying zoning district, a fence, or wall, 54 or hedge of a maximum six (6) feet in height may be placed no closer than ten (10) feet from 55 the property line. 56 (6) f. Outdoor storage, when permitted in the zoning district, shall be located behind the 57 primary facade of the principal structure and shall be screened with a solid wall or fence 58 and shall comply with the requirements in Section 5.60.120. Outdoor storage in the M-1, 59 M-1A, and M-2 districts are also subject to the provisions of 21A.28.010.B.3. 60 (7) g. All refuse disposal and recycling dumpsters, except those located in the M-2, LO and EI 61 districts shall be screened on all sides by a solid wood fence, masonry wall or an equivalent 62 opaque material to a height of not less than 6 feet but not more than 8 feet. 63 64 5. Amends Subsection 21A.40.120.E.2 as follows (there are no changes to the “Fence in a 65 Double Frontage Lot” illustration): 66 5 2. Double Frontage Lot: A fence, wall, or hedge located on a property where both the front and rear 67 yards have frontage on a street may be a maximum of six (6) feet in height in a front yard provided the 68 fence, wall, or hedge: On properties with more than one front lot line, a fence or wall may be a maximum 69 of six (6) feet when located: 70 a. behind the primary facade of the principal structure; or 71 b. in the front yard that is directly opposite the front yard where the primary entrance to the 72 principal building is located. 73 a. Is located in a provided yard that is directly opposite the front yard where the primary entrance to 74 the principal building is located; 75 b. Is in a location that is consistent with other six (6) seven (7) foot tall fence locations on the 76 block; 77 c. Complies with Sight Distance Triangle requirements of this Title; and 78 d. Complies will all other fence, wall, and hedge requirements of this Title. 79 e. Not exceed six (6) feet in height in a front yard. 80 6. Amends Subsection 21A.40.120.E.4.a as follows: 81 a. When Abutting Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Fences, or walls, or hedges in the FR, SR, and R-l 82 zoning districts shall not exceed six (6) feet in height in the side or rear yard except where they abut a 83 Commercial, Downtown, Manufacturing, or Special Purpose Zoning District. The maximum height shall 84 be eight (8) feet. This exception does not apply to fences, or walls, or hedges in the corner side yard or 85 front yard and only applies where the lot abuts the nonresidential district. 86 7. Amends Subsection 21A.40.120.E.4.i as follows: 87 i. Conditional Uses. A fence, or wall, or hedge may exceed the allowable height requirements of this 88 Chapter where additional fence height is imposed as a reasonable condition to mitigate the anticipated 89 detrimental effects of a conditional use. Where such additional height is imposed as a reasonable 90 condition, such height shall not exceed the minimum height necessary to mitigate the anticipated 91 detrimental effects of the conditional use. 92 8. Amends Subsection 21A.40.120.E.5. as follows: 93 5. Vision Clearance and Safety. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, a fence, or wall, or 94 hedge shall comply with the sight distance triangle requirements of this section. 95 a. Corner Lots; Sight Distance Triangle: No solid fence, or wall or hedge shall be erected to a 96 height in excess of three (3) feet if the fence, or wall or hedge is located within the sight distance triangle 97 extending thirty (30) feet either side of the intersection of the respective street curb lines, or edge lines of 98 roadway where curbing is not provided as noted in Section 21A.62.050, illustration I of this title. 99 b. Intersection of Street and Driveway; Intersection of Alley or Driveway and Sidewalk; Sight 100 Distance Triangle: Solid fences, or walls and hedges shall not exceed thirty (30) inches in height within 101 the sight distance triangle as defined in Section 21A.62.050, illustration I of this title. 102 6 c. Sight Distance Triangle and See Through Fences: Within the area defined as a sight distance 103 triangle, see through fences that are at least fifty percent (50%) open shall be allowed to a height of four 104 (4) feet. 105 d. Alternative Design Solutions. To provide adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys, the 106 zoning administrator, in consulting with the development review team, may require alternative design 107 solutions, including, but not restricted to, requiring increased fence setback and/or lower fence height, to 108 mitigate safety concerns created by the location of buildings, grade change or other preexisting 109 conditions. 110 111 9. Amends Subsection 21A.40.120.E.6 as follows (there are no changes to the “Fence on Top of 112 Retaining Wall” illustration): 113 6. Height Measurement. The height of a fence, or wall, or hedge shall be measured from the finished 114 grade of the site as defined in section 21A.62.040 of this title. In instances of an abrupt grade change at 115 the property line, the height for fences that are located on top of a retaining wall shall be measured from 116 the top of the retaining wall. 117 10. Amends Subsection 21A.40.160.C.1.b as follows: 118 b. Front and Corner Side Yards: The ground mounted utility box shall be located within five feet (5') 119 of the building façade when located in required or provided front or corner side yard and at least one foot 120 from a front or corner side yard property line. Utility boxes in a front or corner side yard shall be screened 121 by a wall, fence, or hedge landscaping of at least equal height not to exceed the maximum height for a 122 wall or fence allowed in the applicable yard. 123 11. Amends Subsection 21A.40.160.C.1.c as follows: 124 c. Ground mounted utility box(es) may be placed in a required landscaped yard if screened by a wall, 125 fence or hedge landscaping of at least equal height not to exceed the maximum height for a wall or fence 126 allowed in the applicable yard. 127 128 12. Effective Date. This ordinance, if passed, shall be effective on the date of its first publication. 129 130 [end] 131 5. MAILING LIST This was a city-wide notice posted at three libraries and sent to all Recognized Community Councils. This page has intentionally been left blank Item B8 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Austin Kimmel Public Policy Analyst DATE:March 10, 2026 RE: ORDINANCE: MASTER PLAN AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT AT APPROXIMATELY 527, 537, AND 539 SOUTH 400 EAST MOTION 1 – CLOSE AND DEFER I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 – CONTINUE HEARING I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Austin Kimmel DATE:March 10, 2026 RE: ORDINANCE: MASTER PLAN AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT AT APPROXIMATELY 527, 537, AND 539 SOUTH 400 EAST NEW INFORMATION Topic Question Answer From Petitioner Item Schedule: Page | 2 Parking Capacity & Demand What is the parking demand at Citizen 1, and will there be adequate capacity for Citizen 2 residents? Total stalls in structure: 284 Current demand at Citizen 1 is 0.7 stalls per unit, equal to the Salt Lake City market average according to the petitioner. When fully leased, Citizen 1 will use about 199 stalls, leaving 86 vacant. Citizen 2 will be required to provide a minimum of 0.5 stalls per unit, or about 60 to 76 stalls, depending on the unit mix. Combined demand is 275 stalls, with 199 for Citizen 1 and up to 76 for Citizen 2, leaving 10 extra stalls. The petitioner feels confident in adequate capacity. Parking Fees How much do tenants pay to park in the parking structure? Open garage parking: $100/month Reserved parking: $150/month EV reserved parking: $200/month Denver Street Parking Egress & Transportation Analysis Was a transportation analysis conducted for the Denver Street parking egress? Why was Denver Street chosen given concerns about the narrow street and congestion? Initial design included egress on both Denver Street and 400 East (preferred by developer) According to the petitioner, Salt Lake City required egress to be located on Denver Street. This pattern is consistent with other nearby developments (Velo on the Boulevard, Encore), which also have main parking egress on Denver Street. According to Planning staff, an associated traffic study for the Citizen 1 planning process could not be found. The following information was provided for the February 17 work session. ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will be briefed on a proposal to amend the Central Community Master Plan's future land use map and the zoning map for three parcels located at 527, 537, and 539 South 400 East in Council District Four. The proposed general plan amendment would amend the Central Community Master Plan’s future land use map from Medium-High Density Residential to High-Density Mixed-Use. The proposed zoning map amendment would rezone the property from RMF-45 (moderate/high density multifamily residential) to MU-5 (mixed use). The applicant’s stated objective is to construct an apartment building called Citizen 2 with studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units, and about 1,100 square feet of ground-floor retail along 400 East. No unit breakdown, renderings, or site plans have been submitted at this stage. The three parcels total 0.41 acres, or 17,724 square feet. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at its December 10, 2025, meeting and held a public hearing, during which three people spoke. Comments included doubt about whether the ground-floor commercial space is a true community benefit, citing mixed results at other projects, a preference for for-sale units instead of Page | 3 rentals, and support from a resident of the neighboring Citizen 1 project. One commenter also raised concerns about the Thriving in Place ordinance broadly, questioning whether the community benefit standard is adequate Page | 3 given the value developers receive from upzoning. They fear developers may choose to pay the fine for noncompliance with the community benefit requirement, thereby limiting the benefit neighborhoods should receive. Planning staff recommended approval, and the Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation for the proposed general plan and zoning map amendment to the City Council. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed general plan and zoning map amendment and determine if the Council supports moving forward. The Council will then hold a public hearing and consider adopting these changes at future meetings. POLICY QUESTIONS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Page | 4 Rezoning the property from RMF-45 to MU- 5 would permit ground-floor commercial use, a one-story height increase (10 feet), and an increase in allowed density, among other changes. As shown in the image on the right, the subject property is adjacent to an existing MU-8 property and is in an area that also features MU-2, MU-6, RMF-75, and other zones. While single-family homes currently occupy the subject property, it does not abut any single-family specific zoning districts. The proposed community benefit includes about 1,100 square feet of ground floor commercial space, or 50% of the ground floor façade. Tenant relocation assistance and unit replacement will be included in the project’s eventual development agreement if the proposed changes are adopted by the Council. If the MU-5 is approved by the Council, the project would fall within the “Urban Center Context” under the City’s Off Street Parking ordinance, since it is about 1/3 mile from a TRAX station. In this context, there are no minimum parking requirements for studios, 0.5 spaces for 1-bedroom units, and 1 space for units with 2 or more bedrooms. Area zoning map with subject parcel outlined in blue. Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division The applicant states residents of the anticipated project will share parking and other amenities with the existing apartment building to the north, Citizen 1, which is the same owner. If the Council adopts the zoning map amendment, there is no guarantee the proposed development will be constructed. The property could be redeveloped with any use allowed within the zone or sold to another party. The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property. Because zoning can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CONDITIONS The proposed ordinance included in the administrative transmittal requires the petitioner to enter into a development agreement with Salt Lake City that includes the following conditions: a. All three demolished residential dwelling units on the Property shall be replaced within the development with at least three 2-bedroom units in accordance with Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.50.050.E1. Page | 5 b. A minimum of 1,100 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor of a building on the Property, which commercial space shall be accessible from 400 East. c. Tenants displaced by the demolition of residential dwelling units on the Property shall be provided with tenant relocation assistance in accordance with Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.50.050.D KEY CONSIDERATIONS In its staff report to the Planning Commission, Planning staff identified three key considerations, summarized below. The complete analysis is on pages 4-12 of the report, linked in the ATTACHMENTS section below. Consideration 1 – How the Proposal Helps Implement City Goals & Policies Identified in Adopted Plans Planning staff found the proposed amendments generally align with the goals identified in adopted plans listed below, including the Central Community Master Plan, which the applicant seeks to amend. Plan Salt Lake (2015): the proposal aligns with the citywide plan in the following areas: o Neighborhoods: adding about 1,100 sq. ft. of ground-floor commercial (50% of the building’s frontage) to promote walkability and social interaction on a stretch of 400 East that currently lacks these amenities. o Growth: concentrates development near existing infrastructure, such as TRAX, bus routes, and bike lanes, and encourages mixed-use infill. o Housing: allows moderate-density housing consistent with the surrounding area, with units ranging from studios to two-bedrooms. Housing SLC (2013): the proposal contributes to the plan’s goal of entitling 10,000 new housing units in the city by increasing units at a site currently occupied by three single-family homes. Central Community Master Plan (2005): the request to amend the plan from medium-high density residential to high-density mixed-use meets the goals for transit-accessible housing and pedestrian-oriented development. The proposal also aligns with other recent development in the area, such as the 2018 approval for a master plan and zoning map amendment that resulted in the six-story project (Citizen 1) to the north. The 2018 project is under the same ownership, and this proposal is intended to complement that neighboring property. 400 South Livable Communities Project – Transit-Oriented Development (2012): the subject property is within one-third mile of the Library TRAX Station, so it is consistent with the plan’s strategy for Transition Areas by allowing mixed-use development with ground-floor commercial. Consideration 2 – Community Benefit, Unit Replacement, and Tenant Displacement Proposals Community Benefit Analysis: Section 21A.50.050.C of Salt Lake City Code requires all private property owner- initiated zoning amendments to identify community benefits that would not otherwise be provided. Planning staff identified the proposed ground-floor commercial space as meeting the requirement. Tenant Displacement and Unit Replacement: three single-family homes (two currently occupied) occupy the three subject parcels and are intended to be demolished. The applicant plans to replace the demolished units in the new development with comparable bedroom counts at the same or lower rent. Additionally, the applicant has submitted a tenant relocation plan that includes moving assistance and reimbursement for deposits and application fees, in accordance with City Code Section 21A.50.050.D. Consideration 3 – RMF-45 and MU-5 Zoning District Comparison Building Height: Increases from 45 feet (4 stories) to 55 feet (5 stories), maintaining an appropriate transition between the taller structures to the north and lower-scale development to the south. Page | 6 Permitted Density and Setbacks: The current RMF-45 zone would allow about 15 units, while the proposed MU- 5 zone has no unit maximum and instead is regulated by bulk and design standards. The setbacks under the proposed MU-5 zone are expected to support pedestrian-oriented design. Design Standards: The current RMF-45 district does not have design standards and the subject properties are not in a historic district. The proposed MU-5 zone would require durable materials, glazing and lighting standards, active ground floors, and limits on blank walls. CURRENT AND PROPOSED ZONING STANDARDS The tables below compare zoning standards for both the current and proposed zones and are found on page 11 of the Planning Commission staff report. ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS Attachment D of the Planning Commission staff report outlines the following general plan amendment and zoning map amendment standards for decision-makers to consider. The standards and findings are summarized in the chart below. General Plan Amendment Factor Finding Whether the proposal is consistent with citywide policies.Complies Whether the proposal is consistent with the goals, policies, or implementation actions of the general plan, including applicable element plans. Complies Whether significant change has occurred that warrants the creation of a new plan or an update to an adopted plan. Complies Whether the goals, policies, or implementation actions of the plan to be amended have been achieved, are no longer relevant to or capable of addressing the Complies Page | 7 current issues or needs of the neighborhood or the city, or are no longer aligned with policies in citywide plans. For petitions submitted by a property owner, the extent, effectiveness, and proportionality of the public benefit proposed by the petitioner to the increase in development potential if the proposal were to be adopted by the city council. Complies The potential for displacement of people who reside in any housing that is within the boundary of the proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. Complies The potential for displacement of any business that is located within the boundary of the proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. N/A The potential impacts to properties in the immediate vicinity of the proposal.Complies The potential impacts on the city to provide safe drinking water, storm water, and sewer to the property based on the additional development potential of future development. Complies The potential impacts to public safety resources created by the increase in development potential that may result from the proposed amendment Complies The potential impacts to any other city service, infrastructure, or resource that may be impacted by the increase in development potential that may result from the proposed amendment. Complies Zoning Map Amendment Factor Finding Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with and helps implement the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Complies Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the applicable purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent and nearby properties due to the change in development potential and allowed uses that do not currently apply to the property. Complies Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. N/A Page | 8 The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. Complies; though the applicant will be required to provide waste- removal facilities with any development application. The status of existing transportation facilities, any planned changes to the transportation facilities, and the impact that the proposed amendment may have on the city’ s ability, need, and timing of future transportation improvements. Complies The proximity of necessary amenities such as parks, open space, schools, fresh food, entertainment, cultural facilities, and the ability of current and future residents to access these amenities without having to rely on a personal vehicle. Complies The potential impacts to public safety resources created by the increase in development potential that may result from the proposed amendment. Complies The potential for displacement of people who reside in any housing that is within the boundary of the proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. Complies The potential for displacement of any business that is located within the boundary of the proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement Complies; no existing businesses on property The community benefits that would result from the proposed map amendment.Complies CITY DEPARTMENT AND DIVISION REVIEW The proposal was reviewed by the Department of Public Utilities and the Housing Stability, Transportation, and Building Services Divisions within the Community and Neighborhoods Department. Responding departments and divisions did not oppose the proposed rezone. Public Utilities and Housing Stability provided recommendations and comments to guide the petitioner as they redevelop the property. Additional details can be found on pages 30-31 of the Planning Commission staff report. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY July 11, 2025 – Application for a Zoning Map Amendment reviewed for pre-screen. July 11, 2025 – Application for a Zoning Map Amendment was accepted. July 21, 2025 – Petition PLNPCM2025-00704 for a zoning map amendment was assigned to Olivia Cvetko, Principal Planner, for staff analysis and processing. October 1, 2025 – Petition for a Master Plan Amendment reviewed for pre-screen. Petition for a Master Plan Amendment was accepted. Petition PLNPCM2025-00984 for a Master Plan Amendment was assigned to Olivia Cvetko, Principal Planner, for staff analysis and processing. Page | 9 Notice was sent to the East Bench Community Council Recognized Community Organization (RCO) informing them of the petitions. Early notification of the project was also sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposal. The proposal was posted for an online open house. The proposal can still be viewed online. An Early Notification sign was posted on the properties by the applicant. The applicant presented their proposal at the Central City Community Council meeting November 15, 2025 – The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations ended. November 26, 2025 – Planning Staff posted notices on City and State websites and sent notices via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting. Public hearing notices were mailed. November 24, 2025 – Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the property. December 4, 2025 – Planning Commission Staff Report was posted. December 10, 2025 – Planning Commission held a public hearing and made a recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed map amendment. December 17, 2025 – Requested Final Draft of Ordinance from Attorney’s Office. January 16, 2026 – Final Draft of Ordinance received from Attorney’s Office. January 23, 2026 – Transmittal received in City Council Office ATTACHMENTS A.Planning Commission Staff Report SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 01/20/2026 Date Sent to Council: 01/23/2026 From: Department * Community and Neighborhood Employee Name: Cvetko, Olivia E-mail Olivia.Cvetko2@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 01/22/2026 Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 01/23/2026 Subject: Citizen 2 General Plan and Zoning Map Amendment Additional Staff Contact:Presenters/Staff Table Document Type Ordinance Budget Impact? Yes No Recommendation: That the City Council Adopt both the general plan and zoning map amendments with the recommended conditions Background/Discussion See first attachment for Background/Discussion Public Hearing Is there a City or State statutory requirement to hold a public hearing for this item?* Yes No The City Council reserves the option to hold and notice for a public hearing pursuant to their practices for public engagement. Does the City have a general practice to hold a public hearing for this item?* Yes No Public Process This page has intentionally been left blank ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Tammy Hunsaker Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114 -5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Thrive Development, the property owner, is requesting approval from Salt Lake City for a Master Plan Amendment and a Zoning Map Amendment for the following properties: 527 S. 400 E; 529 S. 400 E.; and 539 S. 400 E. The site is 0.41 acres (17,724 square feet) in size. If approved, the applicant intends to construct a five-story (55-foot) apartment building with a mix of studio, one-bedroom, and two- bedroom units, along with approximately 1,100 square feet of ground-floor retail along 400 E. A detailed unit breakdown has not yet been provided. To replace the existing single-family homes that will be demolished, the applicant is required to include three two-bedroom units in the project. Additional two-bedroom units are planned, with the remaining units consisting of studios and one-bedroom units. The new multifamily units would share parking and some amenities with The Citizen to the north. No renderings or site plans have been submitted at this stage. General Plan Amendment PLNPCM2025-00984: To support the change in zoning, the applicant is proposing to amend the Central Community Master Plan's future land use map from Medium-High Density Residential to High-Density Mixed-Use. The Medium-High Residential land use category is intended strictly for residential development up to four stories in height and 30-50 units per acre. The proposed land use category, High-Density Mixed-Use, is intended for mixed use development with 50 units or more an acre. The request to amend the Central Community Master Plan Map for the subject properties from Medium-High-Density Residential to the High-Density Mixed-Use future land use category would align with the requested zone change to the MU-5 district. Zoning Map Amendment PLNPCM2025-00704: The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from RMF-45 to MU-5. The MU-5 district will ultimately permit ground floor commercial, a height increase of one story (ten feet), and an increase in allowed density among other differences. Under the newly amended RMF-45 district standards, the minimum lot area per unit would be 750 sq ft, allowing the site to accommodate roughly 29 units. In contrast, the proposed MU-5 designation does not establish a minimum lot area per dwelling or a maximum density, instead regulating development through bulk and design standards. Council Considerations For a general plan and zoning map amendment, council is required to consider the factors outlined in Titles 19 and 21A of the Salt Lake City Code. Included in these factors are consistent with citywide policies, goals, and applicable plans. The applicant must indicate the project’s consistent with efforts by the city to mitigate tenant displacement and unit demolition, along with the proportionality of the community benefit proposed by the petitioner and the increase in the development potential of the site. Section 19.06 of the City Code outlines the process for general plans and amendments and section 19.06.070 lists the factors to consider for amendments to the general plan. Likewise, section 21A.50.040 of the code outlines the process for amending the zoning map and section 21A.50.050 lists the factors to consider for those amendments. A complete analysis of those standards is found in Attachment E of the Staff Report. A decision to amend a plan is ultimately up to the discretion of the City Council. The proposed community benefit includes roughly 1,100 square feet, roughly 50% of the ground floor façade along 400 E., of ground floor commercial designed to serve residents and the local community. Ground floor commercial is not permitted under the current RMF-45 zoning district and is not required along 400 E. under the MU-5 code, however, ground floor commercial is supported by and consistent with adopted city and community plans. Details regarding the community benefit requirements, tenant relocation assistance and unit replacement will need to be finalized as part of the development agreement but have been deemed sufficient to advance to a public hearing. This item was reviewed by the Planning Commission in a public hearing on December 10th, 2025. The Planning Commission Voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation of both the General Plan and Zoning Map Amendment to the City Council. PUBLIC PROCESS: The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related to the proposed project since the applications were submitted: • 10.01.2025 Early Engagement Outreach o The Downtown Community Council was sent the 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations. The council did not provide comments. o Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the development were provided early notification of the proposal. o The project was posted to the Online Open House webpage. • November 26, 2025 Notice of the Planning Commission Public Hearing o Public hearing notice sign posted on the property o Public hearing notice mailed o Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division list serve • December 10, 2025 Planning Commission Public Hearing o The petition was heard by the Planning Commission at a public hearing. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a recommendation of approval for the request, with the following conditions of approval: 1. The following provisions be incorporated into a development agreement for the zoning map amendment: a. Each demolished residential dwelling unit shall be replaced in accordance with 21A.50.050.E. b. The developer shall provide tenant relocation assistance to tenants displaced by the demolition of the residential dwelling units on the subject properties as specified in subsection 21A.50.050.D. The full public meeting can be viewed using this link. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of December 10, 2025 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of December 10, 2025 (Click to Access) c) Planning Commission Staff Report of December 10, 2025 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1. Project Chronology 2. Public Hearing Notice 3. Original Petition 4. Mailing List 5. Ordinances This page has intentionally been left blank ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Tammy Hunsaker Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2025-00704; PLNPCM2025-00984 July 11, 2025 Application for a Zoning Map Amendment reviewed for pre-screen. July 11, 2025 Application for a Zoning Map Amendment was accepted. July 21, 2025 Petition PLNPCM2025-00704 for a zoning map amendment was assigned to Olivia Cvetko, Principal Planner, for staff analysis and processing. October 1, 2025 Petition for a Master Plan Amendment reviewed for pre-screen. October 1, 2025 Petition for a Master Plan Amendment was accepted. October 1, 2025 Petition PLNPCM2025-00984 for a Master Plan Amendment was assigned to Olivia Cvetko, Principal Planner, for staff analysis and processing. October 1, 2025 Notice was sent to the East Bench Community Council Recognized Community Organization (RCO) informing them of the petitions. Early notification of the project was also sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposal. The proposal was posted for an online open house. The proposal can still be viewed online. October 1, 2025 An Early Notification sign was posted on the properties by the applicant. October 1, 2025 The applicant presented their proposal at the Central City Community Council meeting November 15, 2025 The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations ended. November 26, 2025 Planning Staff posted notices on City and State websites and sent notices via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting. Public hearing notices were mailed. November 24, 2025 Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the property. December 4, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report was posted. December 10, 2025 Planning Commission held a public hearing and made a recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed map amendment. December 17, 2025 Requested Final Draft of Ordinance from Attorney’s Office January 16, 2026 Final Draft of Ordinance received from Attorney’s Office This page has intentionally been left blank SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114 -5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petitions PLNPCM2025-00704 and PLNPCM2025-00984 Russ Poulsen with Thrive Development, the property owner, is requesting a Master Plan Amendment and a Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 539 S 400 E. The site is 0.41 acres (17,724 square feet) in size. If approved, the developer intends to build a 5-story residential building with commercial on the ground floor to complement the neighboring property to the north under the same ownership. 1. General Plan Amendment: To support the change in zoning, the applicant is proposing to amend the Central Community Master Plan's future land use map from Medium-High Density Residential to High-Density Mixed-Use. 2. Zoning Map Amendment: The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from RMF-45 to MU-5. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: DATE: PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means while also providing an in-person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at 801.535.7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Olivia Cvetko at 801-535-7285 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or by e-mail at Olivia.Cvetko@slc.gov. The application details can be accessed at https://www.slc.gov/planning/2025/10/17/openhouse2025-00704/ 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@slc.gov, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. This page has intentionally been left blank The Citizen 2, General Plan Amendment Application Requirements A statement declaring the purpose and justification for the proposed amendment. The purpose of this amendment to the General Plan is to request a zone change from RMF-45 to MU-5 zoning. This change will allow a building height of up to 55 feet, enabling the development of a 5-story building. This will require a General Zone Amendment, and General Plan Amendment. The architecture will complement The Citizen (adjacent property owned by the Applicant), maintaining a clean, cohesive look between the properties. This property will be professionally managed. Overall, this project will enhance the neighborhood and provide the community with much-needed, high-quality housing, and commercial use. A written description of the proposed modification to the general plan, including any changes to the future land use map, future land use designation, or description of scale and density/ intensity of the proposed change. Any proposed amendment to the text of the plan shall include the exact proposed text & changes that are proposed in a strike and underline format. The Applicant proposes to modify and change the future land use map. Currently, the area is categorized as medium/high residential (RMF-45). The proposed project requires a mixed-use zone (MU5), and falls under the High Mixed Use category in the Central Community Master Plan. If the request is specific to a property, please list the parcel numbers and a map that shows the current use of the subject property and adjacent properties. Address Parcel Number Parcel 1 527 S 400 E 16064540020000 Parcel 2 537 S 400 E 16064540030000 Parcel 3 539 S 400 E 16064540040000 Directly to the North of the subject property lies The Citizen apartment community. Directly to the East of the subject, lies the Trolley Towns development. Directly to the South are two duplex buildings next to the 4th East Community Garden. Directly to the West of the subject is the Towne Park Condominium community. A written general description of any future development that is planned for the property including the anticipated use, density, scale of development, timing of development, the anticipated impact to existing land uses and occupants of the land subject to the proposal, and any additional land use petitions that may be anticipated to develop the site. Visual renderings and basic site plans may be provided by the applicant. The Applicant plans to redevelop three parcels that we currently own into a 5-story building with some ground floor commercial use facing 400 E, and multifamily uses throughout the rest of the building. The land is approximately 0.42 acres. The multifamily units will share parking and some amenities with the existing apartment community to the north, and there will be street parking for the commercial along 400 E. We intend to begin design work during the rezone process so construction can start promptly once zoning and approvals are complete. A written description regarding the proposed community benefit(s) associated with the amendment. The description shall adequately describe the necessary details to demonstrate that the proposed community benefit is roughly proportionate to the potential increase in development rights if the proposed amendment were to be adopted. See 21A.50.050.C for a list of community benefits that can be proposed. This project will benefit the community in multiple ways. Thrive Development is known for delivering high-quality projects that enhance neighborhoods and attract new residents. We are intentional about selecting sites that strengthen community connections—close to Salt Lake City, within walking distance of TRAX and bus stations, and surrounded by local amenities. By building in these vibrant, accessible locations, we support walkability, encourage public transit use, and contribute to the long-term growth and vitality of the neighborhood. This project is unique for several reasons: First, as the second phase of an existing project next door, this development will feature studio, one- and two-bedroom units to help meet the high demand for cost-effective and attainable housing. The Citizen’s units are already nearly fully occupied, demonstrating the strong market need. This project increases housing density in a walkable neighborhood while replacing three aging, dilapidated homes already surrounded by multifamily uses. Second, we plan to build ground floor commercial on just over 50% of the frontage facing 400 East. Although plans haven’t been started, this is estimated to be at least 1,100 square feet. This commercial will serve as a community gathering place for a future commercial use. In summary, Citizen 2 delivers meaningful community benefits that extend beyond the building itself, adding much-needed cost-effective housing, providing new neighborhood commercial in an area that doesn’t have much of this type of commercial. These features directly support the City’s goals for walkable, transit-oriented, and sustainable development. For residential properties, the following information must be provided: The current or prior number of dwellings; Square footage and number of bedrooms for each dwelling unit; The current cost of rent and the cost of rent for the previous 36 months; The total number of people residing on the property. Current number of Dwellings: 3 Unit 1: 2 Bed 2 Bath 1,023 SFT Rent $1,250/Month People Residing: 2 Unit 2: 2 Bed 1 Bath 891 SFT: Rent: $0 – This home was just purchased by the applicant, and is not rentable. The cost to make it livable would not be recouped by renting it. This home is being boarded up, or demolished. Unit 3: 2 Bed 1 Bath 1,500 SFT: Rent: $2,300 People Residing: 2 Currently sitting vacant but was rented for the last two years. Tenant Relocation Plan: Applicant plans to do the following for the residents of the homes when the time comes to demolish the three homes: a. Moving expenses based on a reasonable estimate provided by the tenant, up to a maximum of $1,500. b. Application fees for the replacement housing. c. If the property owner relocates the displaced tenant into an existing unit that is owned by the applicant within Salt Lake City at the same rental rate the displaced tenant was paying and without an additional applicant fee or deposit, then paragraphs a. and b. do not apply. This page has intentionally been left blank OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR own_unit OWN_CITY OWN_STATE OWN_ZIP 466 SOUTH 400 EAST, LL 466 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 375 EAST 500 SOUTH LLC 466 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 NEXSTEP GROUP, LLC GR 176 N 2200 W # 200 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 AMERICA FIRST FEDERAL PO BOX 9199 OGDEN UT 84409 500 SOUTH LLC 0 SOUTH 2223 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 CITIZEN 2, LLC IZEN 2, LL 7585 S UNION PARK A MIDVALE UT 84047 JAMES N TASULIS S N TA537 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 PARKER WILLEY CDC, LLC 501 E 1700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 WASATCH COMMUNITY 629 E 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 ANTHONY GEORGE HON 561 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 ANDRES JR. PAREDES JR 563 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 CLAUDIA PAREDES DIA P563 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 JON K HALL & MARGERY 579 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 DENVER DELIGHT, LLC EL 465 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 MICHAEL WAHL ICHAEL 407 E 600 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 TRINA MARISA VALDEZ R 415 E 600 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 RONALD B HILL NALD B 12506 S JANICE DR RIVERTON UT 84065 427E, LLC 427E, LLC 391 N WALL ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 JON P ROBERTS N P ROB 431 E 600 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 YOSHI K KONO OSHI K KO559 E VIRGINIA ST MURRAY UT 84107 THE CITIZEN, LLC ITIZEN, 7585 S UNION PARK A MIDVALE UT 84047 DENVER STREET PROPER 2136 S SCENIC DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 NFS MCRAE LLC S MCRA 452 E 500 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 BOB R MANCHEGO R MA539 S DENVER ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MICHAEL J KIRKLAND LIV 541 S DENVER ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 LUIS E MADRID; DELINA 545 S DENVER ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 HAVE A NICE DAY, LLC C 465 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 563 DENVER ST, LLC A SE 6304 W PASSENGER L WEST JORDAN UT 84081 MAYFAIR SLC, LLC IR SLC 7330 W MERCER WY MERCER ISLAND WA 98040 BRYAN POLI; MEGUMI T P O BOX 210050 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94121 VOLUNTEERS OF AMERIC 1875 S REDWOOD RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 JOSEPH MANDL; MARY M 1221 BAYSHORE RD NOKOMIS FL 34275 MAYWOOD INVESTMEN 923 E EXECUTIVE PAR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84117 UTAH DEVELOPMENT GR 4630 S LAKESHORE D TEMPE AZ 85282 451 E 600 S, LLC 600 S, L 465 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 BOMA LC; DON C HALE D 923 E EXECUTIVE PAR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84117 UNIVERSITY FIRST FEDER 3450 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 DAVID B ALLEN VID B AL PO BOX 510818 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84151 DJH REAL ESTATE LLC ES 466 E 500 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 537 DENVER LLC DENVE 881 W STATE RD PLEASANT GROVE UT 84062 SU H KIM SU H KIM 537 S DENVER ST 101 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 TRAVIS & ALLISON JENSE 6296 PARK LN NORTH PARK CITY UT 84098 JOHN W TIMOTHY; ALIC 537 S DENVER ST 103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 LUAT PHAN LUAT PHAN 532 S 500 E 104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 EMMANUEL ANDROULA 532 S 500 E 105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 EMMANUEL ANDROULA 385 E EAGLE RIDGE D NORTH SALT LAKE UT 84054 VILUNE WAGNER; ANDR 532 S 500 E 107 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 LINDA A DOMBKOWSKI 538 S 500 E 111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 TATYANA FEDOROVA; ED 3573 E EASTWOOD D MILLCREEK UT 84109 JOHN D & JUDITH A REIN 656 TRIPLE TREE RD BOZEMAN MT 59715 CLAYTON ANDERSON ON 538 S 500 E 108 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 ELIZABETH J ABEL BETH 530 S 400 E # 2201 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 PATRICIA BRADSHAW; D 530 S 400 E 2202 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 PSF FAM TRUST F FAM T835 E 100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 BELMA BALIC BELMA BA339 N K ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 JONATHAN MARK NATH 530 S 400 E 2205 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 BENJAMIN DEVEDZIC IN 6268 S LORREEN DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84121 DANIEL RANKIN CHAIT A 530 S 400 E 2207 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SETH T PEAVIER H T PEA 530 S 400 E 2208 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 GREGORY GODDARD; KA 530 S 400 E 2209 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 ETHAN DARLING HAN DA530 S 400 E 2210 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 CONNOR JAMES WHITE 530 S 400 E # 2211 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 PILCHER-SAVAGE REVOC 810 E SEVENTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 ILANA V SCHLEMAN V SC530 S 400 E 2301 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 PATRICIA BRADSHAW; D 530 S 400 E 2302 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MOUNTAIN RESIDENCES 1601 HONEYSUCKLE L DRIGGS ID 83422 STEFAN DUTKOWSKI N D530 S 400 E 2304 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MEAGAN M KILBURN N 530 S 400 E 2305 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 RT LIV TRUST T LIV TRUS 530 S 400 E # 2306 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 STEPHEN THOMAS DON 530 S 400 E 2307 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 JENNIFER A.E. EVANS A. 875 E ANGELINA AVE MILLCREEK UT 84106 BRAYTON A WIGHT TON 530 S 400 E 2309 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 THEODORE PETERSON R 530 S 400 E 2310 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED I PO BOX 2732 ELKO NV 89803 KEVIN BARNES EVIN BAR530 S 400 E 2401 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 HEATH D HARRIS TH D H 530 S 400 E # 2402 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 ITF TOWNE LLC F TOWN 299 E OAK FOREST RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 LMDM HOLDINGS LLC O 841 CANTERBURY HIL SAN ANTONIO TX 78209 TOMOHIRO KEMMOCHI 530 S 400 E 2405 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 LYNN & HOLLY WEBSTER 1285 E THIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 BENJAMIN I BAKER MIN 530 S 400 E 2407 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MAID KORKUT MAID KO 530 S 400 E # 2408 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 LIN ZHANG LIN ZHANG 530 S 400 E # 2409 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MAREN LACY MAREN LA530 S 400 E 2410 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SYDNEY HART SYDNEY H 530 S 400 E # 2411 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 KIANA POURAEIN; FARZA 530 S 400 E 2412 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 KRISTIN E HILLER; KENNE 8 DUKE AVENUE CC10 KUNSHAN JIAN SU 21531 PATTE THOMPSON TE TH550 S 400 E 3202 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MICHAEL L COURTNEY L 550 S 400 E 3203 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 VIRGINIA A MAST INIA A 550 S 400 E 3204 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 WILLIAM BAXTER RONEY 550 S 400 E 3205 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 IGAL STEVEN STERIN EVE 550 S 400 E # 3206 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 WILLIAM DAYNE CONRA 550 S 400 E 3207 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 ANASTASIYA BOBROVA 550 S 400 E 3208 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 TODD GREENWAY DD GR550 S 400 E 3301 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 TRAVIS J MITCHELL J MIT550 S 400 E 3302 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 BARBARA A TATE BARA A 550 S 400 E 3303 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 CFR INVESTMENTS LLC S 550 S 400 E 3304 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 CFR INVESTMENTS LLC S 550 S 400 E 3305 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 COURTNEY MOORE YOU 550 S 400 E 3306 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 LEENA BHOITE; NITIN PA 7641 S TIMBERLINE D COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84121 JEFFREY F KREBS; MICHE 550 S 400 E 3308 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 JOHN EVANS JOHN EVANW272N6109 BASHAM SUSSEX WI 53089 ADAM A DEHLAVI M A D550 S 400 E 3310 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 JOHN BOUZEK JOHN BO 407 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 ANTHONY DRAKE MILLE 4502 HI LN DR BILLINGS MT 59106 VICENTE JAVIER ALVARE 550 S 400 E # 3401 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 KELLER HIGBEE LLER HIG550 S 400 E # 3402 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 COLIN F BIRCUMSHAW; 550 S 400 E 3403 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MARLENE F GONZALEZ F 550 S 400 E 3404 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 TRAWICK FAMILY TRUST 550 S 400 E 3405 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 RICHARD S KOPF; GRANT 115 HIGHLAND OAKS SOUTHLAKE TX 76092 JEANNE M LEBER NNE M 550 S 400 E # 3407 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 JAMES FRED JR HARRIS; 550 S 400 E 3408 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MARIA-CRUZ GRAY REVO 1605 S ORCHARD DR BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 MONTE R GRIFFITH; NAN 62 BENCHMARK VILLA TOOELE UT 84074 HYRUM J KERBS RUM J K5806 S MEADOW CRE MURRAY UT 84107 JOHN BLUTH JOHN BLUT550 S 400 E # 3412 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 TOWNE PARK CONDMN 262 E 3900 S # 200 MURRAY UT 84107 BIAN LLC BIAN LLC 7329 PINE RIDGE DR PARK CITY UT 84098 TSUKASA HARRINGTON; 2702 NOTTINGHAM L AUSTIN TX 78704 TAYLOR Y RICHARDS Y R 379 E 600 S # 15 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 NOAH STACKLEATHER; B 379 E 600 S 16 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SETH H STEADMAN H ST 379 E 600 S 17 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 CONNAUGHT PLACE CON PO BOX 2435 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110 B FAM TRUST B FAM TR PO BOX 48 TEASDALE UT 84773 NICK P MATHEWS K P M 520 S 500 E # 102 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 ARTUR ROYZMAN TUR R 520 S 500 E 103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 ALEXANDER AU; BILL MA 3707 W ELK VALLEY L SOUTH JORDAN UT 84009 DON CHAN; DAYMEE CH 520 S 500 E # 105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 ALEXANDRA GERRARD; V 2201 S 2300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 BUHLER HUYNH, LLC HU 3994 S ARCO CIR HOLLADAY UT 84124 ROBERT D TANNER; ALIC 9001 W 67TH ST MERRIAM KS 66202 JOHN P SMITH; PAM T S PO BOX 223 DELTA UT 84624 LAI JIANG; WEI QIU (JT) 520 S 500 E 110 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 WENKAI SUN WENKAI SU520 S 500 E 111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 WYMAN W CHEN (JT) W 520 S 500 E # 112 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 ONE AND NINE LLC ND N 420 N REDWOOD RD NORTH SALT LAKE UT 84054 BERNIE T MORRIS; NADI PO BOX 481 PRICE UT 84501 HENRY LIU HENRY LIU 1117 CONNECTICUT OGDEN UT 84404 HUNG MING LEE; SZU CH 520 S 500 E 116 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 ADAM KAINOA FERGUSO 520 S 500 E 117 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 JULIET CHRISTINE BUCH 520 S 500 E 118 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 JENNIFER CHEN NNIFER 3349 FORNEY WAY SACRAMENTO CA 95816 MICHAEL DICOU; LESLIE 520 S 500 E # 201 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 JOSEPH S INNES EPH S IN520 S 500 E # 202 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 CHRISTINA SOK RISTINA 3112 SE SILVERSPRIN VANCOUVER WA 98683 ZACHARY GIURICICH Y G 520 S 500 E 302 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 ELIZABETH MITCHELL; B 520 S 500 E 303 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 TARIQ LIVING TRUST 11/ 520 S 500 E 304 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 TREVOR VILLALOBOS; JU 520 S 500 E 305 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 JOHN N HO JOHN N HO 520 S 500 E # 306 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 RICHARD GRANT PUGH & 585 E WASSAIL RD SANDY UT 84070 JIAN GAN; LILI ZHANG (J 5035 SHADOW CREEK IDAHO FALLS ID 83401 NGHIA V NGUYEN IA V N520 S 500 E 309 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 CHRISTOPHER A PIEPER 520 S 500 E 311 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 BRIAR SMALES; ROSS SM 520 S 500 E 312 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 WILLIAM HOANG LLIAM 7954 S ENGLISH OAKS SANDY UT 84093 TEARS OF LIFE FOUNDAT 6796 S MANORLY CIR COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84121 XG LIV TR XG LIV TR 249 E GREENBRIER DR EAST PEORIA IL 61611 KELLIE A MADSEN IE A M520 S 500 E # 316 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 CASEY ZAUGG CASEY ZA 14681 S PRISTINE DR DRAPER UT 84020 RACHEL HALL RACHEL HA12 DELGADA LN STANSBURY PARK UT 84074 INNOCENT SHUMBA CEN 520 S 500 E 319 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 BRICE E COFFER CE E CO 520 S 500 E 320 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 BEN SHI; YUNONG SARA 4885 S WASATCH BLV MILLCREEK UT 84124 JLB FAM INT VIV REV TR 520 S 500 E # 322 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 TROLLEY PLACE OWNER 4655 S 2300 E HOLLADAY UT 84117 FAME HOLDINGS LLC OL 978 E WOODOAK LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84117 TROLLEY TOWNS CONDO 978 E WOODOAK LN MURRAY UT 84117 Current Occupant 375 E 500 S SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 461 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 455 E 500 S SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 475 E 500 S SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 370 E 500 S SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 527 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 539 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 545 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 553 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 559 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 575 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 548 S DENVER ST SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 562 S DENVER ST SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 425 E 600 S SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 419 E 600 S SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 421 E 600 S SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 427 E 600 S SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 437 E 600 S SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 515 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 446 E 500 S SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 515 S DENVER ST SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 557 S DENVER ST SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 563 S DENVER ST SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 542 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 550 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 556 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 560 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 570 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 443 E 600 S SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 451 E 600 S SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 457 E 600 S SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 463 E 600 S SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 475 E 600 S SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 490 E 500 S SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 555 S DENVER ST SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 536 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 537 S DENVER ST 102 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 532 S 500 E 106 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 538 S 500 E 110 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 538 S 500 E 109 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 530 S 400 E 2201 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 530 S 400 E 2203 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 530 S 400 E 2204 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 530 S 400 E 2206 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 530 S 400 E 2211 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 530 S 400 E 2212 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 530 E 400 S 2303 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 530 S 400 E 2306 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 530 S 400 E 2308 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 530 S 400 E 2311 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 530 S 400 E 2312 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 530 S 400 E 2402 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 530 S 400 E 2403 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 530 S 400 E 2404 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 530 S 400 E 2406 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 530 S 400 E 2408 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 530 S 400 E 2409 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 530 S 400 E 2411 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 550 S 400 E 3201 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 550 S 400 E 3206 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 550 S 400 E 3307 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 550 S 400 E 3309 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 550 S 400 E 3311 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 550 S 400 E 3312 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 550 S 400 E 3401 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 550 S 400 E 3402 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 550 S 400 E 3406 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 550 S 400 E 3407 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 550 S 400 E 3409 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 550 S 400 E 3410 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 550 S 400 E 3411 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 550 S 400 E 3412 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 550 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 379 E 600 S 13 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 379 E 600 S 14 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 379 E 600 S 15 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 379 E 600 S SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 101 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 102 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 104 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 105 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 106 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 107 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 108 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 109 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 112 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 113 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 114 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 115 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 119 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 201 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 202 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 301 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 306 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 307 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 308 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 310 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 313 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 314 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 315 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 316 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 317 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 318 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 321 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 322 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 544 S DENVER ST 1 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 544 S DENVER ST 2 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 544 S DENVER ST 3 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 544 S DENVER ST 4 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 540 S DENVER ST 5 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 540 S DENVER ST 6 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 540 S DENVER ST 7 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 540 S DENVER ST 8 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 540 S DENVER ST SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT This page has intentionally been left blank 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2026 (Amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at 527, 537 and 539 South 400 East from RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District to MU-5 Mixed-Use 5 District and amending the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at 527, 537 and 539 South 400 East from RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District to MU-5 Mixed-Use 5 District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2025-00704; and amending the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map from Medium-High Density Residential (30-50 dwelling units/acre) to High Density Mixed-Use (50 or more dwelling units/acre) pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2025-00984. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (”Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on December 10, 2025, on applications submitted by the property owner to rezone the property located at 527 South 400 East (Tax ID No. 16-06-454-002-0000) 537 South 400 East (Tax ID No. 16-06-454-003-0000) and 539 South 400 East (Tax ID No. 16-06-454-004- 0000) (collectively, the “Property”) from RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District to MU-5 Mixed-Use 5 District and to amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map from Medium-High Density Residential to High Density Mixed-Use. WHEREAS, at its December 10, 2025, meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said applications. WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 2 SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the Property as more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, shall be and hereby is rezoned from RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi- Family Residential District to MU-5 Mixed-Use 5 District. SECTION 2. Amending the Central Community Master Plan. The Future Land Use Map of the Central Community Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change the future land use designation of the Property from Medium-High Density Residential (30-50 dwelling units/acre) to High Density Mixed-Use (50 or more dwelling units/acre). SECTION 3. Condition. This ordinance is conditioned upon the owner(s) of the Property entering into a development agreement with the city requiring: a. All three demolished residential dwelling units on the Property shall be replaced within the development with at least three 2-bedroom units in accordance with Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.50.050.E1. b. A minimum of 1,100 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor of a building on the Property, which commercial space shall be accessible from 400 East. c. Tenants displaced by the demolition of residential dwelling units on the Property shall be provided with tenant relocation assistance in accordance with Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.50.050.D. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. The Salt Lake City Recorder is instructed to not publish this ordinance until the condition set forth in Section 3 is satisfied as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Director or his designee. SECTION 5. Time. If the condition set forth in Section 3 above has not been met within one year after adoption, then this ordinance shall become null and void. Prior to such one year 3 period, the City Council may, for good cause shown, by resolution, extend the time period for satisfying the condition identified above. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2026. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2026. Published: ______________. 527, 537-539 S 400 E to MU-5 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: _______January 16, 2026_____________ By: ___________________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney 4 EXHIBIT “A” Legal Description of the Property 527 South 400 East (Tax ID No. 16-06-454-002-0000) Commencing 4 1/2 rods North of the Southwest Corner of Lot 5, Block 23, Plat “B”, Salt Lake City Survey; and running thence North 2 rods; thence East 10 rods; thence South 2 rods; thence West 10 rods to the place of beginning. Together with a right of way over the following described land: Commencing 69.25 feet North of the Southwest Corner of Lot 5, Block 23, Plat “B”, Salt Lake City Survey; thence North 10 feet; thence East 10 feet; thence South 10 feet; thence West 10 rods to the point of beginning. 537 South 400 East (Tax ID No. 16-06-454-003-0000) Commencing at a point 2 1/2 rods North of the Southwest corner, Lot 5, Block 23, Plat “B”, Salt Lake City Survey, and running thence North 2 rods; thence East 10 rods; thence South 2 rods; thence West 10 rods to the place of beginning. Together with a right of way over: Commencing at a point 69.25 feet North of the Southwest corner of said Lot 5, and running thence North 10 feet; thence East 165 feet; thence South 10 feet; thence West 165 feet to the place of beginning. 539 South 400 East (Tax ID No. 16-06-454-004-0000) Commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 5, Block 23, Plat “B”, Salt Lake City Survey; thence North 2.5 rods; thence East 10 rods; thence South 2.5 rods; thence West 10 rods to the point of commencement. This page has intentionally been left blank Item B9 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Michael Sanders Budget & Policy Analyst DATE:March 10, 2026 RE:RECURRING NUISANCE PROPERTIES MOTION 1 (close and adopt (if the Council would like to adopt tonight)) I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt the ordinance. MOTION 2 (close and defer) I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 3 (continue hearing) I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY www.slc.gov/council/ TO:City Council Members FROM: Michael Sanders Budget & Policy Analyst DATE:March 10. 2026 RE:RECURRING NUISANCE PROPERTIES NEW INFORMATION The following new information has been obtained since the 02/17/2026 briefing. On 03/02/2026, the Council Office received an updated proposal. This update included several additions outlined below: Some examples of nuisance conduct have been removed o Parking violations o Excessive loud noise Two examples of nuisance conduct have been added o graffiti viewable from any public right of way o idle and unfinished exterior construction activity, including site development work such as excavation or grading, for which there is no active permit(s); Two new examples of possible abatement plan requirements have been added o Installing fencing or other barrier methods in a manner permitted by applicable law o Obtaining required permits and completing their scope of work within a reasonable period of time *Please note that the examples of nuisance conduct and potential abatement plan requirements are “may include but are not limited to” and should not be interpreted to be exhaustive. Additional circumstances may qualify as nuisance conduct, and the specific abatement plan requirements can be determined based on the facts of each case. The original proposal included a 30-day ongoing violation as a qualification for a nuisance. This applied to any ongoing violation of the chapter. The updated proposal narrows that to only apply to specific nuisance conduct categories outlined below (letters match those on lines 48-86 in the proposed ordinance) (k) Litter (m) Open storage of unlicensed, inoperable, unused or abandoned vehicles or vehicle parts, unless the property is licensed for such use PROJECT TIMELINE: 1st Briefing: September 09, 2025 Follow up Briefing: February 17, 2026 Set Date: February 10, 2026 Public Hearing: March 10, 2026 Consideration: March 24, 2026 Page | 2 (n) Open storage of junk, scrap metal, lumber, wastepaper products, building materials, machinery and associated parts, interior household furniture, appliances, tree limbs and cuttings, landscape debris, garbage, industrial waste, other spent, useless, worthless or discarded materials, or materials stored or accumulated for the purpose of discarding materials that have served their original purpose (v) Idle and unfinished exterior construction activity, including site development work such as excavation or grading, for which there is no active permit(s) (w) Graffiti viewable from any public right of way The above categories are also subject to daily fines as shown in the below update fine chart Violation Tier Condition Fine Amount Daily fines for items k, m, n. v. and w 1st Violation Misses corrective action deadline in administrative citation $500 $25 2nd Violation Within 12 months of first violation and no nuisance abatement plan entered $750 $50 3rd Violation Within 12 months of second violation and no nuisance abatement plan entered $1,000 $75 4th+ Violations Within 12 months of third or later violations and no nuisance abatement plan entered $1,000 $100 It was clarified that the City may petition the Administrative Appeals Officer for relief and o Order an abatement plan o Grant an abatement order o Grant the city a judgement in the amount of accumulated civil fines POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to ask the Administration how closely they will be using the list of nuisance conduct examples. What will be the criteria for designating a behavior a nuisance beyond this list be? 2. During the 02/17 briefing, Council Wharton inquired about excessive noise counting as a nuisance. The Council may wish to discuss whether they agree with the removals and additions in the nuisance conduct and potential abatement plan requirements lists. Goal of the briefing: Prepare to consider the ordinance at the March 24, 2026 Formal Meeting. A public hearing is scheduled for March 10,2026. The following information was provided for the February 17 briefing. New information obtained since the 09/09/2025 briefing below. During the September 09, 2025 Work Session, the Council received a briefing on an ordinance which would: 1. Prohibit alcohol consumption in common areas of commercial and non-residential properties between 2:00 AM and 6:00 AM (this has since been removed from the current proposal) 2. Introduce an administrative process to both declare a nuisance and enforce on them Following subsequent discussions, Council Leadership requested that the Administration retransmit their proposal removing provisions related to after-hours alcohol consumption. The current proposal has removed provisions related to City after-hours alcohol consumption prohibitions and only has provisions related to nuisance declaration and enforcement. Page | 3 Please note that it is still unlawful to sell or consume alcohol at a licensed alcohol establishment generally between the hours of 2:00 AM and 10:00 AM.1 Current State Law vs. This Proposal Example – How the Ordinance Could Apply Original 09/09/2025 briefing information below: ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION Proposed Nuisance Declaration Process 1 Utah Code 32B-5-301(7) Page | 4 1. There are at least three separate incidents of nuisance or violent behavior at the property within 180 days. 2. Nuisance behavior keeps happening for at least 30 days in a row 3. A business has five or more police calls for nuisance issues in a single month The ordinance defines a nuisance as behavior that interferes with the health, safety or welfare of the community, materially and repeatedly infringes on the quiet enjoyment of neighboring uses, or results in the harassment of patrons or other persons. Examples of possible nuisance behaviors are included on lines 48-85 of the Legislative Draft. Upon receiving a Declaration of Nuisance or Administrative Citation, the responsible party must either: 1. Show remedial measures were taken, or 2. Enter into a nuisance abatement plan with the City. A Nuisance Abatement Plan must include: A written agreement lasting at least 12 months. Can include measures such as: o Hiring private security. o Installing lights, cameras, or metal detectors. o Changing hours of operation. o Cleaning/litter controls. o Restricting alcohol sales. o Providing camera footage to police. Plans must also identify City remedies if the plan is not followed. (Possible remedies are found on lines 205-250 of the Legislative Draft) Failure to Correct Nuisance - Penalties If no corrective action is taken or a Nuisance Abatement Plan is not place, the City may impose civil fines based on the below table: Violation Tier Condition Fine Amount 1st Violation Misses corrective action deadline in administrative citation $500 2nd Violation Within 12 months of first violation and no nuisance abatement plan entered $750 3rd Violation Within 12 months of second violation and no nuisance abatement plan entered $1,000 4th+ Violations Within 12 months of third or later violations and no nuisance abatement plan entered $1,000 If two citations are issued in any 12-month period, and the business at issue has not entered into and is in compliance with a nuisance abatement plan, then the city may suspend or revoke the associated business license. In the event of an appeal of the Administrative Citation, the Administrative Appeals Officer may Require the business enter into a Nuisance Abatement Plan Grant the City an abatement order Revoke the business license without the right to apply for another license at the property or another business premises for at least six months. Please note that there is an emergency powers clause which permits the City, in cases of imminent life/safety hazards, the ability order immediate abatement without going through the full process. Page | 5 The responsible party has 10 days to appeal the citation in accordance with City Code Chapter 2.75. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 02/27/2026 Date Sent to Council: 03/02/2026 From: Department * Finance Employee Name: Garcia, Arturo E-mail Arturo.Garcia@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 02/27/2026 Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 02/27/2026 Subject: Responsible Owner Ordinance New transmittal or Revision New transmittal Revision Revision Updates: This revision to the Responsible Owner Ordinance is intended to provide clearer standards and procedures. Specifically, the ordinance clarifies nuisance conduct behaviors, refines the nuisance declaration process, and formalizes expectations for nuisance abatement plans. These updates are designed to support consistent, transparent, and effective implementation. Additional Staff Contact: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer, Art Garcia, Director of Finance Operations, Bill Manzanares, Deputy Chief of Police, and Katherine Pasker, Senior City Attorney Presenters/Staff Table Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer, Art Garcia, Director of Finance Operations, Bill Manzanares, Deputy Chief of Police, and Katherine Pasker, Senior City Attorney Document Type Ordinance Budget Impact? Yes No Recommendation: Adopt an ordinance enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code (Public Peace, Morals, Welfare), establishing a “responsible Property Owner” framework that allows the City to identify, manage, and abate nuisance businesses through administrative citations, nuisance abatement plans, and related remedies. Background/Discussion See first attachment for Background/Discussion Public Hearing Is there a City or State statutory requirement to hold a public hearing for this item?* Yes No The City Council reserves the option to hold and notice for a public hearing pursuant to their practices for public engagement. Does the City have a general practice to hold a public hearing for this item?* Yes No Public Process This page has intentionally been left blank ERIN ENDENHALL Mayor MARY BETH THOMPSON Chief Financial Officer DEPARTMENT OF INANCE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 245 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: Jill Love, Chief Administration Officer Date sent to Council: TO: Salt Lake City Council Alejandro Puy, Chair DATE: February 27, 2026 FROM: Arturo Garcia, Director of Finance Operations SUBJECT: Responsible Owner Ordinance Revision STAFF CONTACTS: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer, Art Garcia, Director of Finance Operations, Bill Manzanares, Deputy Chief of Police, and Katherine Pasker, Senior City Attorney DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Adopt an ordinance enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code (Public Peace, Morals, Welfare), establishing a “Responsible Property Owner” framework that allows the City to identify, manage, and abate nuisance businesses through administrative citations, nuisance abatement plans, and related remedies. BUDGET IMPACT: Inapplicable BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Responsible Owner Ordinance is intended to address persistent nuisance activity occurring on private properties and at commercial businesses where owners have failed to take proactive steps to curb illegal or disruptive conduct. In recent years, the City has faced increasing complaints about properties that attract crime, chronic disturbances, and unsafe conditions. The Responsible Owner Ordinance establishes a framework to hold property and business owners accountable when their premises become chronic sources of nuisance. The recommended ordinance introduces a tiered administrative enforcement process that allows for timely intervention, civil penalties, and the ability to require remedial measures or nuisance abatement plans. This comprehensive approach is recommended because it empowers the City to take earlier, ERIN ENDENHALL Mayor MARY BETH THOMPSON Chief Financial Officer DEPARTMENT OF INANCE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 245 more flexible action to address nuisance behavior; imposes accountability on property and business owners; and provides a fair process for correction and appeal. These measures collectively promote public safety, reduce ongoing enforcement burdens, and support the health and welfare of Salt Lake City residents and visitors. This ordinance imposes a legal duty upon business owners and property owners to properly manage their businesses and properties to prevent them from becoming a nuisance to public safety personnel, adjacent public property, neighboring residents or businesses, or deteriorating into havens for crime or the spread of disease. Through the potential imposition of civil fines and other penalties, the City seeks to incentivize property and business owners to work with the City to take reasonable steps to address the identified problems and provide a mechanism for the City to abate the nuisance in the event the business or property owner fails to take remedial measures. Utah Code 10-8-60 authorizes municipalities to define what constitutes a nuisance, to impose fines accordingly, and to facilitate the abatement of such nuisances. Ordinance Highlights Nuisance Conduct & Serious Violent Behavior The ordinance defines nuisance conduct as repeated activity that harms public health, safety, or neighbors’ quiet enjoyment (e.g., drug activity, public intoxication, prostitution, lewd conduct, chronic litter, noise, illegal dumping, or junk storage). Serious violent behavior is defined as the most serious crimes, such as homicide, aggravated assault, and rape. When a property or Business is presumed a Nuisance A property or business is presumed a nuisance if; • There are 3 or more incidents of nuisance conduct or serious violent incidents in 180 days; • For ongoing violations, the Nuisance conduct has continued for 30 days or more; or • There are 5 or more calls for service for nuisance conduct at a business in 30 days. This presumption can be rebutted if the responsible party demonstrates that it took all reasonable steps, including implementing the remedial measures directed by the city, to prevent a recurrence. Citations and Nuisance Abatement Plans Once a nuisance is declared, the City may issue an administrative citation that: • List the incidents and violations ERIN ENDENHALL Mayor MARY BETH THOMPSON Chief Financial Officer DEPARTMENT OF INANCE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 245 • Sets required corrective actions and timelines; and • Explains available remedies the City may pursue if corrective action is not taken, • Advises the responsible party of their appeal rights Owners must either show they have already fixed the problems or enter into a nuisance abatement plan with specific steps (e.g., added security, lighting, cameras, or operational changes). Penalties and Business License Consequences If the Owner does not comply • Civil Fines Escalate from $500 to $750 to $1,000. • After more than two citations in 12 months without compliance, the City may move forward with suspending or revoking the business license, and • An administrative appeals officer may order abatement, allow City-performed abatement with cost recovery, or revoke a license for at least six months. Why is the City interested in pursuing the additional tool if state law already addresses nuisances? Under existing state law, individuals whose property is adversely affected or whose personal enjoyment is diminished by a nuisance are authorized to take legal action. Such claims must be filed in a Utah district court and may seek injunctive relief, including a declaration of nuisance and a court order to cease the conduct or address the conditions that constitute the nuisance. This legal process does not involve civil penalties or allow for the revocation of a business license. Additionally, this process requires significant City resources, and the timeframe for resolution varies based on several factors, including the quantity of cases pending in the state’s already burdened judicial system. The proposed city administrative process is designed to facilitate efficient resolution of nuisance conduct and serious violent behavior that led to the City’s nuisance declaration by authorizing City enforcement officials to work with property and business owners to bring the property into compliance and abate the nuisance. This process involves issuing a notice and citation to the responsible party, outlining the basis for the City’s determination that the property constitutes a nuisance. The notice will specify a reasonable timeframe for the responsible party to address and remediate the issue(s), as detailed therein. The responsible party may elect to comply with the notice and demonstrate remediation, enter into an abatement agreement with the City to undertake necessary measures to eliminate or prevent future nuisances, or appeal the citation. If the responsible party fails to demonstrate compliance, enter into an abatement plan, or pursue an appeal, the city may impose civil fines or pursue other enforcement actions as outlined in the citation. Should the responsible party appeal the citation, they will be provided with notice and an ERIN ENDENHALL Mayor MARY BETH THOMPSON Chief Financial Officer DEPARTMENT OF INANCE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 245 opportunity for a hearing before the city's Administrative Appeal Officer, during which they can contest the city’s findings and any associated fines or required corrective actions. Example: Convenience Store with Chronic Loitering, Drug Activity, and Litter Scenario A neighborhood convenience store with the following experiences: • Regular loitering and suspected street-level drug transactions outside the front entrance. • Public drinking and harassment of passers-by litter (bottles, wrappers, etc.) spilling into the public sidewalks • More than five calls for service in 30 days related to disorderly behavior and suspected drug activity • Refusal from the business owner to work with the city How the ordinance applies Because there are five or more calls for service for nuisance conduct in 30 days, the store is presumed to be a nuisance business. The city issues an administrative citation and requires the owner to show remedial steps already taken or to enter a nuisance abatement plan. Possible remedial measures include • Adding site lighting and cameras at all entry points and/or in the parking area or; • Hiring or assigning staff/security to actively manage loitering and report crime • Installing signage prohibiting loitering, public drinking, and drug activity • Adjusting product mix or store layout to reduce problematic activity • Increasing trash receptacles and frequency of clean-ups around the store If the owner refuses to cooperate or repeatedly fails to meet plan obligations, the city may escalate to fines, and if the business/property owner refuses to cooperate with the city, the city may seek potentially temporary closure or license revocation if problems persist. EXHIBITS: This page has intentionally been left blank 1 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1 No. _____ of 2026 2 3 (Amending the text of Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to nuisance private 4 property) 5 6 An ordinance enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to responsible 7 business and private property ownership to abate nuisances 8 WHEREAS, the city has a significant interest in the timely and effective resolution of 9 public nuisances; 10 WHEREAS, the city acknowledges a significant public safety burden placed on the 11 citizens of the city when business owners and property owners permit nuisance activity or fail to 12 otherwise implement necessary steps to prevent the nuisance activity; 13 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council has determined that the following ordinance 14 promotes the health, safety, and public welfare of the citizens of the city; and 15 WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s 16 best interests. 17 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 18 19 SECTION 1. Enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code. That Chapter 11.18 in 20 Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare), is hereby enacted as 21 follows: 22 CHAPTER 11.18 RESPONSIBLE PROPERTY OWNER 23 11.18.010: DEFINITIONS: 24 25 In the construction of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall be as defined as set 26 forth in this section: 27 2 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICER: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 28 ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 29 ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 30 ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT HEARING: As that term is defined in Section 31 2.75.050. 32 ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ORDER: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 33 BUSINESS OWNER: Any person engaged in business within Salt Lake City. 34 CITY: Salt Lake City, Utah, including the mayor and all other employees of the administrative 35 branch of the city. 36 CRIMINAL CONDUCT: Any criminal offense at a place of business that can be reasonably 37 linked to a patron, invitee, manager, owner, or employee of the business, an occupant of the 38 place of business, or any person in the case of vacant property. 39 EMERGENCY CONDITIONS: One or more conditions that exist in a building or on a 40 property that create the likelihood of imminent danger to the life or safety of anyone who 41 enters or occupies the property or building. 42 ENGAGE IN BUSINESS: To conduct, manage, or carry on any business activity, as owner, 43 officer, agent, manager, employer, or lessee. 44 IMMINENT LIFE SAFETY HAZARD: An y condition that creates a serious and immediate 45 danger to life, property, health, or public safety. 46 ITEMIZED STATEMENT OF COSTS: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 47 NUISANCE CONDUCT: Behavior th at interferes with the health, safety or welfare of the 48 community, materially and repeatedly infringes on the quiet enjoyment of neighboring uses, or 49 results in the harassment of patrons or other persons including, but not limited to: 50 (a) criminal conduct ; 51 (b) disturbance of the peace; 52 (c) illegal consumption or sale of alcoholic beverages ; 53 (d) illegal drug activity; 54 (e) unlawful street or sidewalk obstruction ; 55 (f) gambling and illegal gaming activities ; 56 (g) harassment of passers-by; 57 (h) prostitution; 58 (i) public urination or defecation; 59 (j) lewd conduct; 60 3 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT (k) litter; 61 (l) unlawful discharge of hazardous materials ; 62 (m) open storage of unlicensed, inoperable, unused or abandoned vehicles or vehicle parts, 63 unless the property is licensed for such use ; 64 (n) open storage of junk, scrap metal, lumber, wastepaper products, building materials, 65 machinery and associated parts, interior household furniture, appliances, tree limbs and 66 cuttings, landscape debris, garbage, industrial waste, other spent, useless, worthless or 67 discarded materials, or materials stored or accumulated for the purpose of discarding 68 materials that have served their original purpose; 69 (o) fouling of the air with offensive odors , contaminants, or excessive dust; 70 (p) owning, operating or conducting a vehicle chop shop in any building or structure, 71 including a lot or curtilage, for the purpose of dealing in stolen vehicles or stolen vehicle 72 parts or illegally obtaining and altering vehicles or vehicle identification numbers of 73 vehicle parts; 74 (q) vehicles parked on the sidewalk; 75 (r) use of street parking spaces or sidewalk for open storage, sale, or rental of goods, or 76 storage or repair of inoperable vehicles; 77 (s) unlawful firearms possession by a patron; 78 (t) illegal dumping; 79 (u) unlawful junk dealer operations; 80 (v) idle and unfinished exterior construction activity, including site development work such 81 as excavation or grading, for which there is no active permit(s); 82 (w) graffiti viewable from any public right of way ; 83 (x) obstruction of an investigation of nuisance behavior; 84 (y) repeated or continuing violations of any other city ordinance and/or regulations; or 85 (z) any other activity that constitutes a public nuisance under state law. 86 OBSTRUCTION OF AN INVESTIGATION: Any obstruction of, interference with or other 87 impediment of the investigation of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior by a business 88 owner, property owner, or other responsible person. 89 PERSON: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 90 PLACE OF BUSINESS: A location maintained or operated by a person within the city at 91 which business activities take place. Place of business includes a parking lot owned or leased 92 by the business, parking areas traditionally used by patrons or employees of the business, and 93 the public rights -of-way adjacent to the business premises as it is used by persons attracted to 94 the business. 95 REMEDIAL MEASURES: Specific, verifiable actions taken by a responsible p erson that are 96 substantially likely to reduce, eliminate or prevent recurrence of the nuisance conduct or 97 serious violent behavior at issue. 98 RESPONSIBLE PERSON: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 99 4 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SERIOUS VIOLENT BEHAVIOR. Conduct that would constitute any of the following 100 offenses as defined by state law: homicide, murder, aggravated assault, rape, or sexual assault. 101 11.18.020: PURPOSE AND INTENT: 102 Business owners and property owners shall properly manage their property and place of 103 businesses to prevent them from becoming a nuisance to public safety personnel, adjacent 104 public property, neighboring residents or businesses, or deteriorating into havens for crime or 105 the spread of disease. This chapter creates a system to initiate administrative actions to abate 106 nuisance conduct and serious violent behavior and to impose civil fines or other penalties if a 107 business owner or a property owner fails to take all remedial measures to address the identified 108 nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior . 109 11.18.030: EXISTING LAW CONTINUED: 110 The provisions of this chapter shall not invalidate any other title, chapter, or ordinance of this 111 Code, but shall be read in conjunction with those titles, chapters, and ordinances and shall be 112 used as an additional remedy for enforcement of violations thereof. 113 11.18.040: CRIMINAL OR CIVIL PROSECUTION; EMERGENCY POWERS: 114 A. The city shall have sole discretion in deciding whether to pursue remedies to address 115 nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior under this chapter, to file a civil nuisance action 116 under this chapter or under state law, to bring criminal charges, to order suspension or 117 revocation of business licenses, to order immediate action to terminate or abate nuisance 118 conduct, to pursue administrative enforcement actions for the violation of any of its ordinances 119 or applicable code requirements, or any combination thereof, or to pursue any other remedy 120 available under the law. City officials are permitted to exercise executive discretion in 121 determining which course of enforcement to pursue, taking into consideration the severity of 122 an incident, the culpability of involved parties, the history of the involved property, and 123 whether other circumstances exist that exacerbate the public impact of the nuisance conduct or 124 serious violent behavior . 125 B. The enforcement of the provisions of this chapter does not prevent the city from 126 pursuing other remedies for specific violations, including fines, abatement, suspension, 127 revocation, injunctions, or other penalties. Specific violations may be considered nuisance 128 conduct or serious violent behavior under this chapter, even if the business owner or property 129 owner has already incurred civil or criminal penalties related to that offense. 130 C. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the city from abating nuisance conduct or serious 131 violent behavior that denigrates the public health and welfare in a declared emergency. 132 D. Each day a violation exists shall be considered a separate offense and may give rise to a 133 separate citation, charge or other remedy. 134 5 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 11.18.050: ACTS INCLUDE CAUSING, ATTEMPTING, AIDING, AND ABETTING: 135 Whenever an act, condition, or omission is referred to or made unlawful in this chapter, it shall 136 include causing, attempting to cause, permitting, aiding, or abetting such act, condition, or 137 omission. 138 11.18.060: DUTY TO PROPERLY MANAGE: 139 Every property owner and business owner shall have a duty to properly manage the ir private 140 property or place of business, as applicable, to prevent the creation of a nuisance to 141 neighboring businesses, residents, passers -by, or the public, that results from nuisance conduct 142 or serious violent behavior by patrons, guests, employees, occupants, or those who frequent the 143 business premises or the property, regardless of whether the persons are owners, invitees, or 144 trespassers. 145 11.18.070: NUISANCE DECLARED 146 A. Pursuant to Utah Code Section 10-8-60, the city has determined the quiet enjoyment of 147 property and the general health, safety, and welfare of the community are intolerably 148 impaired—and a public nuisance exists —when nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior 149 occurs at any private property or place of business. 150 B. A business owner or property owner is presumed to have created a nuisance if : 151 1. within 180 consecutive days, not less than 3 separate incidents of nuisance conduct or 152 serious violent behavior occur at or within the property, 153 2. for nuisance conduct subparts (k), (m), (n), (v) and (w) defined in Section 11.18.010, 154 such conditions at the property have persisted for 30 days or more, or 155 3. in connection with a place of business there are 5 or more calls for service for nuisance 156 conduct in a 30 day period . 157 This presumption may be rebutted if the responsible person demonstrates that it took all 158 reasonable steps, including implementing the remedial measures directed by the city, to 159 prevent reoccurrence of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior occurring at or within 160 the property. 161 11.18.080: DECLARATION OF NUISANCE & ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: 162 A. The city may declare the existence of nuisance, as described under Section 11.18.070 at 163 any time. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, a declaration of nuisance may be 164 combined with any other notice from the city to the responsible person. 165 6 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT B. Administrative Citation . Upon a determination that a business or private property has 166 created a nuisance the city may issue a n administrative citation . 167 1. The written citation shall state: 168 169 a. The name and address, if known, of the responsible person; 170 b. The date and location of each violation; 171 c. The nature of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 172 d. That the nuisance must be corrected; 173 e. Provide a specific date by which the corrective action ordered by the 174 enforcement official be taken; 175 f. The remedies, including any civil fines, that the enforcement official intends 176 to pursue if corrective action is not taken; 177 g. Recommendations regarding potential remedial measures and an opportunity 178 for the responsible person to demonstrate use of remedial measures to the city; 179 h. Identification of the procedure to appeal the citation; and 180 i. The signature of the enforcement official. 181 182 2. The enforcement official shall serve the administrative citation on the responsible 183 person by: 184 a. Posting a copy of the administrative citation at the property, and 185 b. By mailing the administrative citation through certified mail or 186 reputable mail tracking service that is capable of confirming delivery. 187 If the responsible person is the property owner of record, then mailing 188 shall be to the last known address appearing on the records of the Salt 189 Lake County Recorder. If the responsible person is any other person or 190 entity other than the owner of record, then mailing shall be to the last 191 known address of the responsible person on file with the city. 192 c. Notwithstanding the foregoing, personal service upon the responsible 193 person shall be sufficient to meet the service requirements of 194 Subsection 11.18.080.B.2.b. 195 196 3. Corrective Action: Following the issuance of an administrative citation the 197 responsible person shall either: 198 a. Demonstrate that remedial measures have been implemented to 199 address the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior that led to the 200 nuisance declaration, or 201 b. Enter into a nuisance abatement plan pursuant to Section 11.18.090. 202 203 4. Failure to Correct: If corrective action has not been undertaken by the deadline 204 identified in the administrative citation, the city may pursue any remedy, 205 including civil fines identified in Section 11.18.110. 206 7 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 11.18.090: NUISANCE ABATEMENT PLANS: 207 A. Any nuisance abatement plan executed by a responsible person and the city shall certify 208 the responsible person’s agreement to take all necessary and appropriate measures to reduce, 209 eliminate or prevent future recurrence of each nuisance conduct and each serious violent 210 behavior giving rise to nuisance declaration. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, 211 the following: 212 213 1. Removal of unlawful items; 214 2. Taking steps to prevent the specific nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior, 215 personally or through an agent such as a private security company; 216 3. Hiring sufficient licensed and insured security personnel to patrol the property 217 and the abutting sidewalks; 218 4. Documenting proactive efforts with the police department regarding nuisance 219 behavior or serious violent behavior activities; 220 5. Participating in regular meetings with community-based organizations at which 221 specific efforts to address nuisance behavior or serious violent behavior are 222 discussed; 223 6. Installing and maintaining improved lighting at each point of entry to and exit 224 from the property and in designated common areas, if any; 225 7. Installing and maintaining surveillance cameras that are at all times: (i) active and 226 operational at each point of entry to and exit from the business or property, in 227 designated common areas and in interior spaces where business operations are 228 conducted, on the street abutting the business, and any other locations where prior 229 nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior has been reported; (ii) disclosed to 230 the public through posted notice on the premises; (iii) illuminated in such a 231 manner so as to enable persons entering and exiting the business or property to be 232 visible and identified on recorded footage; and (iv) maintaining recorded footage 233 for not less than 6 months after the recording occurs; 234 8. Installing metal detectors to screen persons visiting the business; 235 9. Maintaining an internal log or incident reporting system documenting the owner's 236 response to specific incidents of illegal activity inside the property or on the 237 abutting sidewalk; 238 10. Displaying signage identifying prohibited behavior at the property; 239 11. Making specific efforts to address litter and other cleanliness issues, such as 240 additional or larger refuse bins, more frequent or targeted cleaning, signage, 241 enhanced refuse bins, and changing business operations or products to reduce the 242 likelihood of litter creation; 243 12. Installing soundproofing insulation or taking other steps to control noise; 244 13. Changing the hours of operation in a manner designed to reduce the likelihood of 245 nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 246 14. Changing business operations or products sold in a manner designed to reduce the 247 likelihood of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 248 15. Removing any drug paraphernalia offered for sale or display in violation of 249 applicable zoning requirements from the premises; 250 16. Providing surveillance camera footage to law enforcement upon request; 251 8 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 17. Installing fencing or other barrier methods in a manner permitted by applicable 252 law; 253 18. Obtaining required permits and completing their scope of work within a 254 reasonable period of time; and 255 19. Any other measures likely to abate or prevent the recurrence of the nuisance 256 behavior or serious violent behavior. 257 258 B. Term: Executed plans shall be effective for a minimum of 12 months and may be 259 extended by mutual agreement of the city and the responsible person, or if another nuisance is 260 declared at the property prior to expiration of the plan then by order of the administrative appeals 261 officer. 262 263 C. Remedies: All nuisance abatement plans shall identify remedies to the city if the 264 responsible person does not comply with the plan. These remedies may include, but are not 265 limited to: granting the city the ability to enter and abate the nuisance with recovery of costs 266 associated therewith to be made by the responsible person to the city upon presentation of an 267 itemized statement of costs; financial penalties; reduction in business operating hours; temporary 268 closure of the property or business; making some portions of the property inaccessible; and 269 prohibiting all alcohol sales or consumption on the property. 270 11.18.100: APPEALS: 271 A responsible person may appeal an administrative citation within ten (10) days of its issuance 272 pursuant to Chapter 2.75. 273 11.18.110: ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES: 274 A. Remedies Not Exclusive: No remedy set forth below is exclusive of any other remedy. 275 B. Civil Fines: A property or business subject to a nuisance declaration may be subject to a 276 range of penalties that increase in severity. These penalties progress as follows: 277 1. If a responsible person fails to complete a corrective action by the deadline set 278 forth in an administrative citation, then for a first violation a fine shall be 279 assessed in the amount of $500. Nuisances declared pursuant to Section 280 11.18.070.B.2 shall be assessed a daily fine of $25 until the nuisance condition 281 is cured. 282 2. If a responsible person receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a 283 first violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan then a fine shall 284 be assessed in the amount of $750, which shall constitute a second violation. 285 Nuisances declared pursuant to Section 11.18.070.B.2 shall be assessed a daily 286 fine of $50 until the nuisance condition is cured. 287 9 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 3. If a responsible person receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a 288 second violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan, then a fine 289 shall be assessed in the amount of $1,000, which shall constitute a third 290 violation. Nuisances declared pursuant to Section 11.18.070.B.2 shall be 291 assessed a daily fine of $75 until the nuisance condition is cured. 292 4. If a responsible person receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a 293 third or any subsequent violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement 294 plan, then a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $1,000. Nuisances declared 295 pursuant to Section 11.18.070.B.2 shall be assessed a daily fine of $100 until the 296 nuisance condition is cured. 297 B. Revocation of Business License: In the event more than two citations are issued in any 298 12 month period, and the business at issue is not then a party to and in compliance with a 299 nuisance abatement plan, then the city may suspend or revoke the associated business license 300 pursuant to Chapter 5.02. 301 C. Specific Relief & Judgment: The city may petition the administrative appeals officer to: 302 1. Order that the responsible person and the city enter into a nuisance abatement 303 plan consistent with Section 11.18.090 with the measures as directed by the 304 administrative appeals officer. 305 2. Grant the city an abatement order. 306 a. The order of abatement can require the responsible person to correct the 307 nuisance and can authorize the city to abate such nuisance if the 308 responsible person does not timely perform the abatement ; or 309 b. In the event the city proves that nuisance conduct or conditions pose a 310 reasonably imminent danger to human health or human life, unabated, 311 the administrative appeals officer shall order the abatement as requested 312 by the city. In such circumstances the city may perform the abatement of 313 the nuisance at the first possible opportunity. 314 c. The abatement order must permit the city to charge the responsible 315 person for the costs the city incur s in abating the nuisance. The costs may 316 be appealed to the administrative appeals officer pursuant to Section 317 11.18.120. 318 3. Grant the city a judgment in the amount of the accumulated civil fines. 319 11.18.120: CONTINUING SUPERVISION: 320 A. When an administrative citation is not timely appealed or an administrative appeals 321 officer has affirmed the city’s nuisance declaration , the responsible person is subject to 322 10 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT continued supervision by an administrative appeals officer for twelve (12) months or the term 323 of any applicable nuisance abatement plan. During that time, the administrative appeals officer 324 may schedule review hearings to track the responsible person’s compliance with any nuisance 325 abatement plan or abatement order , impose previously suspended penalties, and hold a hearing 326 to consider any claim by the city that a responsible person has not complied with a nuisance 327 abatement plan ordered by the administrative appeals officer pursuant to Section 11.18.110 . 328 B. At a hearing on a failure to comply with a nuisance abatement plan entered pursuant to 329 11.18.110, the administrative appeals officer shall consider the steps taken by the responsible 330 person and determine whether such party has fulfilled its obligations under the nuisance 331 abatement plan. 332 1. During a hearing reviewing a failure to comply with a nuisance abatement plan, 333 the underlying nuisance declaration cannot be disturbed. 334 2. In the event the administrative appeals officer finds that the responsible person 335 failed to comply with any obligation under the nuisance abatement plan, the 336 administrative appeals officer shall impose one or more remedies as set forth in the 337 nuisance abatement plan. 338 C. Each new administrative citation may be appealed. Such appeals are limited to a review 339 of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior identified in the administrative citation and 340 may not address previous administrative citations that were not timely appealed or orders by an 341 administrative appeals officer that were not timely appealed. 342 11.18.130: DECLARATION OR DETERMINATION TO FOLLOW BUSINESS OWNER 343 AND PROPERTY LOCATION: 344 A declaration or determination of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior follows the 345 business owner and/or runs with the property. A declaration or determination of nuisance 346 conduct or serious violent behavior is not eliminated by transferring the property or the 347 business to another person or entity, changing the name of the business, or moving the business 348 to a new location. Transfer of business ownership shall not terminate any nuisance abatement 349 plan in effect with respect to a nuisance business. The acquiring business owner shall be 350 responsible for compliance with any enforcement action pending against the nuisance business 351 and prior business owner. 352 353 SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its 354 first publication. 355 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 356 2026. 357 11 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT ______________________________ 358 CHAIRPERSON 359 360 361 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 362 363 ______________________________ 364 CITY RECORDER 365 366 367 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 368 369 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 370 371 ______________________________ 372 MAYOR 373 ______________________________ 374 CITY RECORDER 375 (SEAL) 376 377 Bill No. ________ of 2026. 378 Published: ______________. 379 Responsible Property Owner Ordinance(legislative)v5 380 381 382 This page has intentionally been left blank 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2026 (Amending the text of Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to nuisance private property) An ordinance enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to responsible business and private property ownership to abate nuisances. WHEREAS, the city has a significant interest in the timely and effective resolution of public nuisances; WHEREAS, the city acknowledges a significant public safety burden placed on the citizens of the city when business owners and property owners permit nuisance activity or fail to otherwise implement necessary steps to prevent the nuisance activity; WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council has determined that the following ordinance promotes the health, safety, and public welfare of the citizens of the city; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code. That Chapter 11.18 in Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare), is hereby enacted as follows: CHAPTER 11.18 RESPONSIBLE PROPERTY OWNER 11.18.010: DEFINITIONS: In the construction of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall be as defined as set forth in this section: 2 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICER: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT HEARING: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ORDER: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. BUSINESS OWNER: Any person engaged in business within Salt Lake City. CITY: Salt Lake City, Utah, including the mayor and all other employees of the administrative branch of the city. CRIMINAL CONDUCT: Any criminal offense at a place of business that can be reasonably linked to a patron, invitee, manager, owner, or employee of the business, an occupant of the place of business, or any person in the case of vacant property. EMERGENCY CONDITIONS: One or more conditions that exist in a building or on a property that create the likelihood of imminent danger to the life or safety of anyone who enters or occupies the property or building. ENGAGE IN BUSINESS: To conduct, manage, or carry on any business activity, as owner, officer, agent, manager, employer, or lessee. IMMINENT LIFE SAFETY HAZARD: Any condition that creates a serious and immediate danger to life, property, health, or public safety. ITEMIZED STATEMENT OF COSTS: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. NUISANCE CONDUCT: Behavior that interferes with the health, safety or welfare of the community, materially and repeatedly infringes on the quiet enjoyment of neighboring uses, or results in the harassment of patrons or other persons including, but not limited to: (a) criminal conduct; (b) disturbance of the peace; (c) illegal consumption or sale of alcoholic beverages; (d) illegal drug activity; (e) unlawful street or sidewalk obstruction; (f) gambling and illegal gaming activities; (g) harassment of passers-by; (h) prostitution; (i) public urination or defecation; (j) lewd conduct; 3 (k) litter; (l) unlawful discharge of hazardous materials; (m) open storage of unlicensed, inoperable, unused or abandoned vehicles or vehicle parts, unless the property is licensed for such use; (n) open storage of junk, scrap metal, lumber, wastepaper products, building materials, machinery and associated parts, interior household furniture, appliances, tree limbs and cuttings, landscape debris, garbage, industrial waste, other spent, useless, worthless or discarded materials, or materials stored or accumulated for the purpose of discarding materials that have served their original purpose; (o) fouling of the air with offensive odors, contaminants, or excessive dust; (p) owning, operating or conducting a vehicle chop shop in any building or structure, including a lot or curtilage, for the purpose of dealing in stolen vehicles or stolen vehicle parts or illegally obtaining and altering vehicles or vehicle identification numbers of vehicle parts; (q) vehicles parked on the sidewalk; (r) use of street parking spaces or sidewalk for open storage, sale, or rental of goods, or storage or repair of inoperable vehicles; (s) unlawful firearms possession by a patron; (t) illegal dumping; (u) unlawful junk dealer operations; (v) idle and unfinished exterior construction activity, including site development work such as excavation or grading, for which there is no active permit(s); (w) graffiti viewable from any public right of way; (x) obstruction of an investigation of nuisance behavior; (y) repeated or continuing violations of any other city ordinance and/or regulations; or (z) any other activity that constitutes a public nuisance under state law. OBSTRUCTION OF AN INVESTIGATION: Any obstruction of, interference with or other impediment of the investigation of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior by a business owner, property owner, or other responsible person. PERSON: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. PLACE OF BUSINESS: A location maintained or operated by a person within the city at which business activities take place. Place of business includes a parking lot owned or leased by the business, parking areas traditionally used by patrons or employees of the business, and the public rights-of-way adjacent to the business premises as it is used by persons attracted to the business. REMEDIAL MEASURES: Specific, verifiable actions taken by a responsible person that are substantially likely to reduce, eliminate or prevent recurrence of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior at issue. RESPONSIBLE PERSON: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 4 SERIOUS VIOLENT BEHAVIOR. Conduct that would constitute any of the following offenses as defined by state law: homicide, murder, aggravated assault, rape, or sexual assault. 11.18.020: PURPOSE AND INTENT: Business owners and property owners shall properly manage their property and place of businesses to prevent them from becoming a nuisance to public safety personnel, adjacent public property, neighboring residents or businesses, or deteriorating into havens for crime or the spread of disease. This chapter creates a system to initiate administrative actions to abate nuisance conduct and serious violent behavior and to impose civil fines or other penalties if a business owner or a property owner fails to take all remedial measures to address the identified nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior. 11.18.030: EXISTING LAW CONTINUED: The provisions of this chapter shall not invalidate any other title, chapter, or ordinance of this Code, but shall be read in conjunction with those titles, chapters, and ordinances and shall be used as an additional remedy for enforcement of violations thereof. 11.18.040: CRIMINAL OR CIVIL PROSECUTION; EMERGENCY POWERS: A. The city shall have sole discretion in deciding whether to pursue remedies to address nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior under this chapter, to file a civil nuisance action under this chapter or under state law, to bring criminal charges, to order suspension or revocation of business licenses, to order immediate action to terminate or abate nuisance conduct, to pursue administrative enforcement actions for the violation of any of its ordinances or applicable code requirements, or any combination thereof, or to pursue any other remedy available under the law. City officials are permitted to exercise executive discretion in determining which course of enforcement to pursue, taking into consideration the severity of an incident, the culpability of involved parties, the history of the involved property, and whether other circumstances exist that exacerbate the public impact of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior. B. The enforcement of the provisions of this chapter does not prevent the city from pursuing other remedies for specific violations, including fines, abatement, suspension, revocation, injunctions, or other penalties. Specific violations may be considered nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior under this chapter, even if the business owner or property owner has already incurred civil or criminal penalties related to that offense. C. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the city from abating nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior that denigrates the public health and welfare in a declared emergency. D. Each day a violation exists shall be considered a separate offense and may give rise to a separate citation, charge or other remedy. 5 11.18.050: ACTS INCLUDE CAUSING, ATTEMPTING, AIDING, AND ABETTING: Whenever an act, condition, or omission is referred to or made unlawful in this chapter, it shall include causing, attempting to cause, permitting, aiding, or abetting such act, condition, or omission. 11.18.060: DUTY TO PROPERLY MANAGE: Every property owner and business owner shall have a duty to properly manage their private property or place of business, as applicable, to prevent the creation of a nuisance to neighboring businesses, residents, passers-by, or the public, that results from nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior by patrons, guests, employees, occupants, or those who frequent the business premises or the property, regardless of whether the persons are owners, invitees, or trespassers. 11.18.070: NUISANCE DECLARED A. Pursuant to Utah Code Section 10-8-60, the city has determined the quiet enjoyment of property and the general health, safety, and welfare of the community are intolerably impaired—and a public nuisance exists—when nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior occurs at any private property or place of business. B. A business owner or property owner is presumed to have created a nuisance if: 1. within 180 consecutive days, not less than 3 separate incidents of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior occur at or within the property, 2. for nuisance conduct subparts (k), (m), (n), (v) and (w) defined in Section 11.18.010, such conditions at the property have persisted for 30 days or more, or 3. in connection with a place of business there are 5 or more calls for service for nuisance conduct in a 30 day period. This presumption may be rebutted if the responsible person demonstrates that it took all reasonable steps, including implementing the remedial measures directed by the city, to prevent reoccurrence of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior occurring at or within the property. 11.18.080: DECLARATION OF NUISANCE & ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: A. The city may declare the existence of nuisance, as described under Section 11.18.070 at any time. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, a declaration of nuisance may be combined with any other notice from the city to the responsible person. 6 B. Administrative Citation. Upon a determination that a business or private property has created a nuisance the city may issue an administrative citation. 1. The written citation shall state: a. The name and address, if known, of the responsible person; b. The date and location of each violation; c. The nature of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; d. That the nuisance must be corrected; e. Provide a specific date by which the corrective action ordered by the enforcement official be taken; f. The remedies, including any civil fines, that the enforcement official intends to pursue if corrective action is not taken; g. Recommendations regarding potential remedial measures and an opportunity for the responsible person to demonstrate use of remedial measures to the city; h. Identification of the procedure to appeal the citation; and i. The signature of the enforcement official. 2. The enforcement official shall serve the administrative citation on the responsible person by: a. Posting a copy of the administrative citation at the property, and b. By mailing the administrative citation through certified mail or reputable mail tracking service that is capable of confirming delivery. If the responsible person is the property owner of record, then mailing shall be to the last known address appearing on the records of the Salt Lake County Recorder. If the responsible person is any other person or entity other than the owner of record, then mailing shall be to the last known address of the responsible person on file with the city. c. Notwithstanding the foregoing, personal service upon the responsible person shall be sufficient to meet the service requirements of Subsection 11.18.080.B.2.b. 3. Corrective Action: Following the issuance of an administrative citation the responsible person shall either: a. Demonstrate that remedial measures have been implemented to address the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior that led to the nuisance declaration, or b. Enter into a nuisance abatement plan pursuant to Section 11.18.090. 4. Failure to Correct: If corrective action has not been undertaken by the deadline identified in the administrative citation, the city may pursue any remedy, including civil fines identified in Section 11.18.110. 7 11.18.090: NUISANCE ABATEMENT PLANS: A. Any nuisance abatement plan executed by a responsible person and the city shall certify the responsible person’s agreement to take all necessary and appropriate measures to reduce, eliminate or prevent future recurrence of each nuisance conduct and each serious violent behavior giving rise to nuisance declaration. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Removal of unlawful items; 2. Taking steps to prevent the specific nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior, personally or through an agent such as a private security company; 3. Hiring sufficient licensed and insured security personnel to patrol the property and the abutting sidewalks; 4. Documenting proactive efforts with the police department regarding nuisance behavior or serious violent behavior activities; 5. Participating in regular meetings with community-based organizations at which specific efforts to address nuisance behavior or serious violent behavior are discussed; 6. Installing and maintaining improved lighting at each point of entry to and exit from the property and in designated common areas, if any; 7. Installing and maintaining surveillance cameras that are at all times: (i) active and operational at each point of entry to and exit from the business or property, in designated common areas and in interior spaces where business operations are conducted, on the street abutting the business, and any other locations where prior nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior has been reported; (ii) disclosed to the public through posted notice on the premises; (iii) illuminated in such a manner so as to enable persons entering and exiting the business or property to be visible and identified on recorded footage; and (iv) maintaining recorded footage for not less than 6 months after the recording occurs; 8. Installing metal detectors to screen persons visiting the business; 9. Maintaining an internal log or incident reporting system documenting the owner's response to specific incidents of illegal activity inside the property or on the abutting sidewalk; 10. Displaying signage identifying prohibited behavior at the property; 11. Making specific efforts to address litter and other cleanliness issues, such as additional or larger refuse bins, more frequent or targeted cleaning, signage, enhanced refuse bins, and changing business operations or products to reduce the likelihood of litter creation; 12. Installing soundproofing insulation or taking other steps to control noise; 13. Changing the hours of operation in a manner designed to reduce the likelihood of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 14. Changing business operations or products sold in a manner designed to reduce the likelihood of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 15. Removing any drug paraphernalia offered for sale or display in violation of applicable zoning requirements from the premises; 16. Providing surveillance camera footage to law enforcement upon request; 8 17. Installing fencing or other barrier methods in a manner permitted by applicable law; 18. Obtaining required permits and completing their scope of work within a reasonable period of time; and 19. Any other measures likely to abate or prevent the recurrence of the nuisance behavior or serious violent behavior. B. Term: Executed plans shall be effective for a minimum of 12 months and may be extended by mutual agreement of the city and the responsible person, or if another nuisance is declared at the property prior to expiration of the plan then by order of the administrative appeals officer. C. Remedies: All nuisance abatement plans shall identify remedies to the city if the responsible person does not comply with the plan. These remedies may include, but are not limited to: granting the city the ability to enter and abate the nuisance with recovery of costs associated therewith to be made by the responsible person to the city upon presentation of an itemized statement of costs; financial penalties; reduction in business operating hours; temporary closure of the property or business; making some portions of the property inaccessible; and prohibiting all alcohol sales or consumption on the property. 11.18.100: APPEALS: A responsible person may appeal an administrative citation within ten (10) days of its issuance pursuant to Chapter 2.75. 11.18.110: ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES: A. Remedies Not Exclusive: No remedy set forth below is exclusive of any other remedy. B. Civil Fines: A property or business subject to a nuisance declaration may be subject to a range of penalties that increase in severity. These penalties progress as follows: 1. If a responsible person fails to complete a corrective action by the deadline set forth in an administrative citation, then for a first violation a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $500. Nuisances declared pursuant to Section 11.18.070.B.2 shall be assessed a daily fine of $25 until the nuisance condition is cured. 2. If a responsible person receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a first violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan then a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $750, which shall constitute a second violation. Nuisances declared pursuant to Section 11.18.070.B.2 shall be assessed a daily fine of $50 until the nuisance condition is cured. 9 3. If a responsible person receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a second violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan, then a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $1,000, which shall constitute a third violation. Nuisances declared pursuant to Section 11.18.070.B.2 shall be assessed a daily fine of $75 until the nuisance condition is cured. 4. If a responsible person receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a third or any subsequent violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan, then a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $1,000. Nuisances declared pursuant to Section 11.18.070.B.2 shall be assessed a daily fine of $100 until the nuisance condition is cured. B. Revocation of Business License: In the event more than two citations are issued in any 12 month period, and the business at issue is not then a party to and in compliance with a nuisance abatement plan, then the city may suspend or revoke the associated business license pursuant to Chapter 5.02. C. Specific Relief & Judgment: The city may petition the administrative appeals officer to: 1. Order that the responsible person and the city enter into a nuisance abatement plan consistent with Section 11.18.090 with the measures as directed by the administrative appeals officer. 2. Grant the city an abatement order. a. The order of abatement can require the responsible person to correct the nuisance and can authorize the city to abate such nuisance if the responsible person does not timely perform the abatement; or b. In the event the city proves that nuisance conduct or conditions pose a reasonably imminent danger to human health or human life, unabated, the administrative appeals officer shall order the abatement as requested by the city. In such circumstances the city may perform the abatement of the nuisance at the first possible opportunity. c. The abatement order must permit the city to charge the responsible person for the costs the city incurs in abating the nuisance. The costs may be appealed to the administrative appeals officer pursuant to Section 11.18.120. 3. Grant the city a judgment in the amount of the accumulated civil fines. 11.18.120: CONTINUING SUPERVISION: A. When an administrative citation is not timely appealed or an administrative appeals officer has affirmed the city’s nuisance declaration, the responsible person is subject to 10 continued supervision by an administrative appeals officer for twelve (12) months or the term of any applicable nuisance abatement plan. During that time, the administrative appeals officer may schedule review hearings to track the responsible person’s compliance with any nuisance abatement plan or abatement order, impose previously suspended penalties, and hold a hearing to consider any claim by the city that a responsible person has not complied with a nuisance abatement plan ordered by the administrative appeals officer pursuant to Section 11.18.110. B. At a hearing on a failure to comply with a nuisance abatement plan entered pursuant to 11.18.110, the administrative appeals officer shall consider the steps taken by the responsible person and determine whether such party has fulfilled its obligations under the nuisance abatement plan. 1. During a hearing reviewing a failure to comply with a nuisance abatement plan, the underlying nuisance declaration cannot be disturbed. 2. In the event the administrative appeals officer finds that the responsible person failed to comply with any obligation under the nuisance abatement plan, the administrative appeals officer shall impose one or more remedies as set forth in the nuisance abatement plan. C. Each new administrative citation may be appealed. Such appeals are limited to a review of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior identified in the administrative citation and may not address previous administrative citations that were not timely appealed or orders by an administrative appeals officer that were not timely appealed. 11.18.130: DECLARATION OR DETERMINATION TO FOLLOW BUSINESS OWNER AND PROPERTY LOCATION: A declaration or determination of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior follows the business owner and/or runs with the property. A declaration or determination of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior is not eliminated by transferring the property or the business to another person or entity, changing the name of the business, or moving the business to a new location. Transfer of business ownership shall not terminate any nuisance abatement plan in effect with respect to a nuisance business. The acquiring business owner shall be responsible for compliance with any enforcement action pending against the nuisance business and prior business owner. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2026. 11 ______________________________ Alejandro Puy, Council Chair ATTEST: ______________________________ Keith Reynolds, City Recorder Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ Erin Mendenhall, Mayor ______________________________ Keith Reynolds, City Recorder (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2026. Published: ______________. Responsible Property Owner Ordinance(final)v5 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Hannah Vickery, Senior City Attorney 2/26/26 This page has intentionally been left blank SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 12/11/2025 Date Sent to Council: 12/19/2025 From: Department * Finance Employee Name: Garcia, Arturo E-mail Arturo.Garcia@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 12/17/2025 Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 12/19/2025 Subject: Responsible Owner Ordinance New transmittal or Revision New transmittal Revision Revision Updates: The Responsible Owner Ordinance will create a framework to hold property and business owners accountable for chronic nuisance conditions through administrative citations, abatement plans, and corrective measures. Revisions have been made to remove the portions related to after-hours alcohol consumption in common areas of commercial establishments. Additional Staff Contact: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer, Art Garcia, Director of Finance Operations, Bill Manzanares, Deputy Chief of Police, and Katherine Pasker, Senior City Attorney Presenters/Staff Table Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer, Art Garcia, Director of Finance Operations, Bill Manzanares, Deputy Chief of Police, and Katherine Pasker, Senior City Attorney Document Type Ordinance Budget Impact? Yes No Recommendation: Adopt an ordinance enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code (Public Peace, Morals, Welfare), establishing a “responsible Property Owner” framework that allows the City to identify, manage, and abate nuisance businesses through administrative citations, nuisance abatement plans, and related remedies. Background/Discussion The Responsible Owner Ordinance is intended to address persistent nuisance activity occurring on private properties and at commercial businesses where owners have failed to take proactive steps to curb illegal or disruptive conduct. In recent years, the City has faced increasing complaints about properties that attract crime, chronic disturbances, and unsafe conditions. The Responsible Owner Ordinance establishes a framework to hold property and business owners accountable when their premises become chronic sources of nuisance. The recommended ordinance introduces a tiered administrative enforcement process that allows for timely intervention, civil penalties, and the ability to require remedial measures or nuisance abatement plans. This comprehensive approach is recommended because it empowers the City to take earlier, more flexible action to address nuisance behavior; imposes accountability on property and business owners; and provides a fair process for correction and appeal. These measures collectively promote public safety, reduce ongoing enforcement burdens, and support the health and welfare of Salt Lake City residents and visitors. This ordinance imposes a legal duty upon business owners and property owners to properly manage their businesses and properties to prevent them from becoming a nuisance to public safety personnel, adjacent public property, neighboring residents or businesses, or deteriorating into havens for crime or the spread of disease. Through the potential imposition of civil fines and other penalties, the City seeks to incentivize property and business owners to work with the City to take reasonable steps to address the identified problems and provide a mechanism for the City to abate the nuisance in the event the business or property owner fails to take remedial measures. Utah Code 10-8-60 authorizes municipalities to define what constitutes a nuisance, to impose fines accordingly, and to facilitate the abatement of such nuisances. Ordinance Highlights Nuisance Conduct & Serious Violent Behavior The ordinance defines nuisance conduct as repeated activity that harms public health, safety, or neighbors’ quiet enjoyment (e.g., drug activity, public intoxication, prostitution, lewd conduct, chronic litter, noise, illegal dumping, or junk storage). Serious violent behavior is defined as the most serious crimes, such as homicide, aggravated assault, and rape. When a property or Business is presumed a Nuisance A property or business is presumed a nuisance if; There are 3 or more incidents of nuisance conduct or serious violent incidents in 180 days; For ongoing violations, the Nuisance conduct has continued for 30 days or more; or There are 5 or more calls for service for nuisance conduct at a business in 30 days. This presumption can be rebutted if the responsible party demonstrates that it took all reasonable steps, including implementing the remedial measures directed by the city, to prevent a recurrence. Citations and Nuisance Abatement Plans Once a nuisance is declared, the City may issue an administrative citation that: List the incidents and violations Sets required corrective actions and timelines; and Explains available remedies the City may pursue if corrective action is not taken, Advises the responsible party of their appeal rights Owners must either show they have already fixed the problems or enter into a nuisance abatement plan with specific steps (e.g., added security, lighting, cameras, or operational changes). Penalties and Business License Consequences If the Owner does not comply Civil Fines Escalate from $500 to $750 to $1,000. After more than two citations in 12 months without compliance, the City may move forward with suspending or revoking the business license, and An administrative appeals officer may order abatement, allow City-performed abatement with cost recovery, or revoke a license for at least six months. Why is the City interested in pursuing the additional tool if state law already addresses nuisances? Under existing state law, individuals whose property is adversely affected or whose personal enjoyment is diminished by a nuisance are authorized to take legal action. Such claims must be filed in a Utah district court and may seek injunctive relief, including a declaration of nuisance and a court order to cease the conduct or address the conditions that constitute the nuisance. This legal process does not involve civil penalties or allow for the revocation of a business license. Additionally, this process requires signi ficant City resources, and the timeframe for resolution varies based on several factors, including the quantity of cases pending in the state’s already burdened judicial system. The proposed city administrative process is designed to facilitate efficient resolution of nuisance conduct and serious violent behavior that led to the City’s nuisance declaration by authorizing City enforcement o fficials to work with property and business owners to bring the property into compliance and abate the nuisance. This process involves issuing a notice and citation to the responsible party, outlining the basis for the City’s determination that the property constitutes a nuisance. The notice will specify a reasonable timeframe for the responsible party to address and remediate the issue(s), as detailed therein. The responsible party may elect to comply with the notice and demonstrate remediation, enter into an abatement agreement with the City to undertake necessary measures to eliminate or prevent future nuisances, or appeal the citation. If the responsible party fails to demonstrate compliance, enter into an abatement plan, or pursue an appeal, the city may impose civil fines or pursue other enforcement actions as outlined in the citation. Should the responsible party appeal the citation, they will be provided with notice and an opportunity for a hearing before the city's Administrative Appeal O fficer, during which they can contest the city’s findings and any associated fines or required corrective actions. Example: Convenience Store with Chronic Loitering, Drug Activity, and Litter Scenario A neighborhood convenience store with the following experiences: Regular loitering and suspected street-level drug transactions outside the front entrance. Public drinking and harassment of passers-by litter (bottles, wrappers, etc.) spilling into the public sidewalks More than five calls for service in 30 days related to disorderly behavior and suspected drug activity Refusal from the business owner to work with the city How the ordinance applies Because there are five or more calls for service for nuisance conduct in 30 days, the store is presumed to be a nuisance business. The city issues an administrative citation and requires the owner to show remedial steps already taken or to enter a nuisance abatement plan. Possible remedial measures include Adding site lighting and cameras at all entry points and/or in the parking area or; Hiring or assigning staff/security to actively manage loitering and report crime Installing signage prohibiting loitering, public drinking, and drug activity Adjusting product mix or store layout to reduce problematic activity Increasing trash receptacles and frequency of clean-ups around the store If the owner refuses to cooperate or repeatedly fails to meet plan obligations, the city may escalate to fines, and if the business refuses to cooperate with the City, the City may seek potentially temporary closure or license revocation if problems persist. Public Hearing Is there a City or State statutory requirement to hold a public hearing for this item?* Yes No The City Council reserves the option to hold and notice for a public hearing pursuant to their practices for public engagement. Does the City have a general practice to hold a public hearing for this item?* Yes No Public Process This page has intentionally been left blank 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2025 (Amending the text of Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to nuisance private property) An ordinance enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to responsible business and private property ownership to abate nuisances. WHEREAS, the city has a significant interest in the timely and effective resolution of public nuisances; WHEREAS, the city acknowledges a significant public safety burden placed on the citizens of the city when business owners and property owners permit nuisance activity or fail to otherwise implement necessary steps to prevent the nuisance activity; WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council has determined that the following ordinance promotes the health, safety, and public welfare of the citizens of the city; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code. That Chapter 11.18 in Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare), is hereby enacted as follows: CHAPTER 11.18 RESPONSIBLE PROPERTY OWNER 11.18.010: DEFINITIONS: In the construction of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall be as defined as set forth in this section: 2 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICER: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT HEARING: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ORDER: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. BUSINESS OWNER: Any person engaged in business within Salt Lake City. CITY: Salt Lake City, Utah, including the mayor and all other employees of the administrative branch of the city. CRIMINAL CONDUCT: Any criminal offense at a place of business that can be reasonably linked to a patron, invitee, manager, owner, or employee of the business, an occupant of the place of business, or any person in the case of vacant property. EMERGENCY CONDITIONS: One or more conditions that exist in a building or on a property that create the likelihood of imminent danger to the life or safety of anyone who enters or occupies the property or building. ENGAGE IN BUSINESS: To conduct, manage, or carry on any business activity, as owner, officer, agent, manager, employer, or lessee. IMMINENT LIFE SAFETY HAZARD: Any condition that creates a serious and immediate danger to life, property, health, or public safety. ITEMIZED STATEMENT OF COSTS: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. NUISANCE CONDUCT: Behavior that interferes with the health, safety or welfare of the community, materially and repeatedly infringes on the quiet enjoyment of neighboring uses, or results in the harassment of patrons or other persons including, but not limited to: (a) criminal conduct; (b) disturbance of the peace; (c) illegal consumption or sale of alcoholic beverages; (d) illegal drug activity; (e) unlawful street or sidewalk obstruction; (f) gambling and illegal gaming activities; (g) harassment of passers-by; (h) prostitution; (i) public urination or defecation; (j) lewd conduct; 3 (k) litter; (l) unlawful discharge of hazardous materials; (m) parking violations; (n) open storage of unlicensed, inoperable, unused or abandoned vehicles or vehicle parts, unless the property is licensed for such use; (o) open storage of junk, scrap metal, lumber, wastepaper products, building materials, machinery and associated parts, interior household furniture, appliances, tree limbs and cuttings, landscape debris, garbage, industrial waste, other spent, useless, worthless or discarded materials, or materials stored or accumulated for the purpose of discarding materials that have served their original purpose; (p) fouling of the air with offensive odors or contaminants, excessive dust, or excessive loud noise; (q) owning, operating or conducting a vehicle chop shop in any building or structure, including a lot or curtilage, for the purpose of dealing in stolen vehicles or stolen vehicle parts or illegally obtaining and altering vehicles or vehicle identification numbers of vehicle parts; (r) vehicles parked on the sidewalk; (s) use of street parking spaces or sidewalk for open storage, sale, or rental of goods, or storage or repair of inoperable vehicles; (t) unlawful firearms possession by a patron; (u) illegal dumping; (v) unlawful junk dealer operations; (w) obstruction of an investigation of nuisance behavior; (x) repeated or continuing violations of any other City ordinance and/or regulations; or (y) any other activity that constitutes a public nuisance under state law. OBSTRUCTION OF AN INVESTIGATION: Any obstruction of, interference with or other impediment of the investigation of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior by a business owner, property owner, or other responsible person. PERSON: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. PLACE OF BUSINESS: A location maintained or operated by a person within the city at which business activities take place. Place of business includes a parking lot owned or leased by the business, parking areas traditionally used by patrons or employees of the business, and the public rights-of-way adjacent to the business premises as it is used by persons attracted to the business. REMEDIAL MEASURES: Specific, verifiable actions taken by a responsible party that are substantially likely to reduce, eliminate or prevent recurrence of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior at issue. RESPONSIBLE PERSON: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. SERIOUS VIOLENT BEHAVIOR. Conduct that would constitute any of the following offenses as defined by state law: homicide, murder, aggravated assault, rape, or sexual assault. 4 11.18.020: PURPOSE AND INTENT: Business owners and property owners shall properly manage their property and place of businesses to prevent them from becoming a nuisance to public safety personnel, adjacent public property, neighboring residents or businesses, or deteriorating into havens for crime or the spread of disease. This chapter creates a system to initiate administrative actions to abate nuisance conduct and serious violent behavior and to impose civil fines or other penalties if a business owner or a property owner fails to take all remedial measures to address the identified nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior. 11.18.030: EXISTING LAW CONTINUED: The provisions of this chapter shall not invalidate any other title, chapter, or ordinance of this Code, but shall be read in conjunction with those titles, chapters, and ordinances and shall be used as an additional remedy for enforcement of violations thereof. 11.18.040: CRIMINAL OR CIVIL PROSECUTION; EMERGENCY POWERS: A. The city shall have sole discretion in deciding whether to pursue remedies to address nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior under this chapter, to file a civil nuisance action under this chapter or under state law, to bring criminal charges, to order suspension or revocation of business licenses, to order immediate action to terminate or abate nuisance conduct, to pursue administrative enforcement actions for the violation of any of its ordinances or applicable code requirements, or any combination thereof, or to pursue any other remedy available under the law. City officials are permitted to exercise executive discretion in determining which course of enforcement to pursue, taking into consideration the severity of an incident, the culpability of involved parties, the history of the involved property, and whether other circumstances exist that exacerbate the public impact of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior. B. The enforcement of the provisions of this chapter does not prevent the city from pursuing other remedies for specific violations, including fines, abatement, suspension, revocation, injunctions, or other penalties. Specific violations may be considered nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior under this chapter, even if the business owner or property owner has already incurred civil or criminal penalties related to that offense. C. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the city from abating nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior that denigrates the public health and welfare in a declared emergency. D. Each day a violation exists shall be considered a separate offense and may give rise to a separate citation, charge or other remedy. 11.18.050: ACTS INCLUDE CAUSING, ATTEMPTING, AIDING, AND ABETTING: 5 Whenever an act, condition, or omission is referred to or made unlawful in this chapter, it shall include causing, attempting to cause, permitting, aiding, or abetting such act, condition, or omission. 11.18.060: DUTY TO PROPERLY MANAGE: Every property owner and business owner shall have a duty to properly manage their private property or place of business, as applicable, to prevent the creation of a nuisance to neighboring businesses, residents, passers-by, or the public, that results from nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior by patrons, guests, employees, occupants, or those who frequent the business premises or the property, regardless of whether the persons are owners, invitees, or trespassers. 11.18.070: NUISANCE DECLARED A. Pursuant to Utah Code Section 10-8-60, the city has determined the quiet enjoyment of property and the general health, safety, and welfare of the community are intolerably impaired—and a public nuisance exists—when nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior occurs at any private property or place of business. B. A business owner or property owner is presumed to have created a nuisance if (1) within 180 consecutive days, not less than 3 separate incidents of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior occur at or within the property, (2) for ongoing violations of this Chapter the nuisance conduct has persisted for 30 days or more, or (3) in connection with a place of business there are 5 or more calls for service for nuisance conduct in a 30 day period. This presumption may be rebutted if the responsible party demonstrates that it took all reasonable steps, including implementing the remedial measures directed by the city, to prevent reoccurrence of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior occurring at or within the property. 11.18.080: DECLARATION OF NUISANCE & ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: A. The city may declare the existence of nuisance, as described under Section 11.18.070 at any time. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, a declaration of nuisance may be combined with any other notice from the city to the responsible party. B. Administrative Citation. Upon a determination that a business or private property has created a nuisance the city may issue an administrative citation. 1. The written citation shall state: a. The name and address, if known, of the responsible party; b. The date and location of each violation; c. The nature of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 6 d. That the nuisance must be corrected; e. Provide a specific date by which the corrective action ordered by the enforcement official be taken; f. The remedies, including any civil fines, that the enforcement official intends to pursue if corrective action is not taken; g. Recommendations regarding potential remedial measures and an opportunity for the responsible party to demonstrate use of remedial measures to the city; h. Identification of the procedure to appeal the citation; and i. The signature of the enforcement official. 2. The enforcement official shall serve the administrative citation on the responsible party by: a. Posting a copy of the administrative citation at the property, and b. By mailing the administrative citation through certified mail or reputable mail tracking service that is capable of confirming delivery. If the responsible party is the property owner of record, then mailing shall be to the last known address appearing on the records of the Salt Lake County Recorder. If the responsible party is any other person or entity other than the owner of record, then mailing shall be to the last known address of the responsible party on file with the city. c. Notwithstanding the foregoing, personal service upon the responsible party shall be sufficient to meet the service requirements of Subsection 11.18.080.B.2.b. 3. Corrective Action: Following the issuance of an administrative citation the responsible party shall either: a. Demonstrate that remedial measures have been implemented to address the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior that led to the nuisance declaration, or b. Enter into a nuisance abatement plan pursuant to Section 11.18.090. 4. Failure to Correct: If corrective action has not been undertaken by the deadline identified in the administrative citation, the city may pursue any remedy, including civil fines identified in Section 11.18.110. 11.18.090: NUISANCE ABATEMENT PLANS: A. Any nuisance abatement plan executed by a responsible party and the city shall certify the responsible party’s agreement to take all necessary and appropriate measures to reduce, eliminate or prevent future recurrence of each nuisance conduct and each serious violent behavior giving rise to nuisance declaration. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Removal of unlawful items; 7 2. Taking steps to prevent the specific nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior, personally or through an agent such as a private security company; 3. Hiring sufficient licensed and insured security personnel to patrol the property and the abutting sidewalks; 4. Documenting proactive efforts with the police department regarding nuisance behavior or serious violent behavior activities; 5. Participating in regular meetings with community-based organizations at which specific efforts to address nuisance behavior or serious violent behavior are discussed; 6. Installing and maintaining improved lighting at each point of entry to and exit from the property and in designated common areas, if any; 7. Installing and maintaining surveillance cameras that are at all times: (i) active and operational at each point of entry to and exit from the business or property, in designated common areas and in interior spaces where business operations are conducted, on the street abutting the business, and any other locations where prior nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior has been reported; (ii) disclosed to the public through posted notice on the premises; (iii) illuminated in such a manner so as to enable persons entering and exiting the business or property to be visible and identified on recorded footage; and (iv) maintaining recorded footage for not less than 6 months after the recording occurs; 8. Installing metal detectors to screen persons visiting the business; 9. Maintaining an internal log or incident reporting system documenting the owner's response to specific incidents of illegal activity inside the property or on the abutting sidewalk; 10. Displaying signage identifying prohibited behavior at the property; 11. Making specific efforts to address litter and other cleanliness issues, such as additional or larger refuse bins, more frequent or targeted cleaning, signage, enhanced refuse bins, and changing business operations or products to reduce the likelihood of litter creation; 12. Installing soundproofing insulation or taking other steps to control noise; 13. Changing the hours of operation in a manner designed to reduce the likelihood of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 14. Changing business operations or products sold in a manner designed to reduce the likelihood of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 15. Removing any drug paraphernalia offered for sale or display in violation of applicable zoning requirements from the premises; 16. Providing surveillance camera footage to law enforcement upon request; and 17. Any other measures likely to abate or prevent the recurrence of the nuisance behavior or serious violent behavior. B. Term: Executed plans shall be effective for a minimum of 12 months, and may be extended by mutual agreement, or if ordered by the administrative appeals officer, if another nuisance is declared at the property prior to expiration of the plan. C. Remedies: All nuisance abatement plans shall identify remedies to the city if the responsible party does not comply with the plan. These remedies may include, but are not limited 8 to: granting the city the ability to enter and abate the nuisance with recovery of costs associated therewith to be made by the responsible party to the city upon presentation of an itemized statement of costs; financial penalties; reduction in business operating hours; temporary closure of the property or business; making some portions of the property inaccessible; and prohibiting all alcohol sales or consumption on the property. 11.18.100: APPEALS: A responsible party may appeal an administrative citation within ten (10) days of its issuance pursuant to Chapter 2.75. 11.18.110: ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES: A. Civil Fines: A property or business subject to a nuisance declaration may be subject to a range of penalties that increase in severity. These penalties progress as follows: 1. If a responsible party fails to complete a corrective action by the deadline set forth in an administrative citation, then for a first violation a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $500. 2. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a first violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan then a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $750, which shall constitute a second violation. 3. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a second violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan, then a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $1,000, which shall constitute a third violation. 4. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a third or any subsequent violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan, then a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $1,000. B. Revocation of Business License: In the event more than two citations are issued in any 12 month period, and the business at issue is not then a party to and in compliance with a nuisance abatement plan, then the city may suspend or revoke the associated business license pursuant to Chapter 5.02. C. Orders by the Administrative Appeals officer: In the event of an appeal of an administrative citation, the administrative appeals officer may: 1. Order that the responsible party and the city enter into a nuisance abatement plan consistent with Section 11.18.090 with the measures as directed by the administrative appeals officer. 9 2. Grant the city an abatement order. a. The order of abatement can require the responsible party to correct the nuisance and can authorize the city to abate such nuisance if the responsible party does not timely perform the abatement. b. In the event the city proves that nuisance conduct or conditions pose a reasonably imminent danger to human health or human life, unabated, the administrative appeals officer shall order the abatement as requested by the city. In such circumstances the city may perform the abatement of the nuisance at the first possible opportunity. c. The abatement order must permit the city to charge the responsible party for the costs the city incurs in abating the nuisance. The costs may be appealed to the administrative appeals officer pursuant to Section 11.70.150. 3. Revoke a business license without the right to apply for another license at the property or another business premises for at least six months. Orders of an administrative appeals officer issued pursuant to this Chapter are each an administrative enforcement order that may be appealed in accordance with 2.75.210. 11.18.120: CONTINUING SUPERVISION: A. When an administrative citation is not timely appealed or an administrative appeals officer has affirmed the city’s nuisance declaration, the responsible party is subject to continued supervision by an administrative appeals officer for twelve (12) months or the term of any applicable nuisance abatement plan. During that time, the administrative appeals officer may schedule review hearings to track the responsible party’s compliance with any nuisance abatement plan or abatement order, impose previously suspended penalties, and hold a hearing to consider any claim by the city that a responsible party has not complied with a nuisance abatement plan ordered by the administrative appeals officer pursuant to Section 11.18.110. B. At a hearing on a failure to comply with a nuisance abatement plan entered pursuant to 11.18.110, the administrative appeals officer shall consider the steps taken by the responsible party and determine whether such party has fulfilled its obligations under the nuisance abatement plan. 1. During a hearing reviewing a failure to comply with a nuisance abatement plan, the underlying nuisance declaration cannot be disturbed. 2. In the event the administrative appeals officer finds that the responsible party failed to comply with any obligation under the nuisance abatement plan, the administrative appeals officer shall impose one or more remedies as set forth in the nuisance abatement plan. 10 C. Each new administrative citation may be appealed. Such appeals are limited to a review of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior identified in the administrative citation and may not address previous administrative citations that were not timely appealed or orders by an administrative appeals officer that were not timely appealed. 11.70.170: DECLARATION OR DETERMINATION TO FOLLOW BUSINESS OWNER AND PROPERTY LOCATION: A declaration or determination of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior follows the business owner and/or runs with the property. A declaration or determination of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior is not eliminated by transferring the property or the business to another person or entity, changing the name of the business, or moving the business to a new location. Transfer of business ownership shall not terminate any nuisance abatement plan in effect with respect to a nuisance business. The acquiring business owner shall be responsible for compliance with any enforcement action pending against the nuisance business and prior business owner. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2025. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR 11 ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2025. Published: ______________. Responsible Property Owner Ordinance(final)v4 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney September 19, 2025 This page has intentionally been left blank 1 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1 No. _____ of 2025 2 3 (Amending the text of Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to nuisance private 4 property) 5 6 An ordinance enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to responsible 7 business and private property ownership to abate nuisances 8 WHEREAS, the city has a significant interest in the timely and effective resolution of 9 public nuisances; 10 WHEREAS, the city acknowledges a significant public safety burden placed on the 11 citizens of the city when business owners and property owners permit nuisance activity or fail to 12 otherwise implement necessary steps to prevent the nuisance activity; 13 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council has determined that the following ordinance 14 promotes the health, safety, and public welfare of the citizens of the city; and 15 WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s 16 best interests. 17 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 18 19 SECTION 1. Enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code. That Chapter 11.18 in 20 Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare), is hereby enacted as 21 follows: 22 CHAPTER 11.18 RESPONSIBLE PROPERTY OWNER 23 11.18.010: DEFINITIONS: 24 25 In the construction of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall be as defined as set 26 forth in this section: 27 2 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICER: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 28 ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 29 ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 30 ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT HEARING: As that term is defined in Section 31 2.75.050. 32 ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ORDER: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 33 BUSINESS OWNER: Any person engaged in business within Salt Lake City. 34 CITY: Salt Lake City, Utah, including the mayor and all other employees of the administrative 35 branch of the city. 36 CRIMINAL CONDUCT: Any criminal offense at a place of business that can be reasonably 37 linked to a patron, invitee, manager, owner, or employee of the business, an occupant of the 38 place of business, or any person in the case of vacant property. 39 EMERGENCY CONDITIONS: One or more conditions that exist in a building or on a 40 property that create the likelihood of imminent danger to the life or safety of anyone who 41 enters or occupies the property or building. 42 ENGAGE IN BUSINESS: To conduct, manage, or carry on any business activity, as owner, 43 officer, agent, manager, employer, or lessee. 44 IMMINENT LIFE SAFETY HAZARD: Any condition that creates a serious and immediate 45 danger to life, property, health, or public safety. 46 ITEMIZED STATEMENT OF COSTS: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 47 NUISANCE CONDUCT: Behavior that interferes with the health, safety or welfare of the 48 community, materially and repeatedly infringes on the quiet enjoyment of neighboring uses, or 49 results in the harassment of patrons or other persons including, but not limited to: 50 (a) criminal conduct; 51 (b) disturbance of the peace; 52 (c) illegal consumption or sale of alcoholic beverages; 53 (d) illegal drug activity; 54 (e) unlawful street or sidewalk obstruction; 55 (f) gambling and illegal gaming activities; 56 (g) harassment of passers-by; 57 (h) prostitution; 58 (i) public urination or defecation; 59 (j) lewd conduct; 60 3 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT (k) litter; 61 (l) unlawful discharge of hazardous materials; 62 (m) parking violations; 63 (n) open storage of unlicensed, inoperable, unused or abandoned vehicles or vehicle parts, 64 unless the property is licensed for such use; 65 (o) open storage of junk, scrap metal, lumber, wastepaper products, building materials, 66 machinery and associated parts, interior household furniture, appliances, tree limbs and 67 cuttings, landscape debris, garbage, industrial waste, other spent, useless, worthless or 68 discarded materials, or materials stored or accumulated for the purpose of discarding 69 materials that have served their original purpose; 70 (p) fouling of the air with offensive odors or contaminants, excessive dust, or excessive 71 loud noise; 72 (q) owning, operating or conducting a vehicle chop shop in any building or structure, 73 including a lot or curtilage, for the purpose of dealing in stolen vehicles or stolen vehicle 74 parts or illegally obtaining and altering vehicles or vehicle identification numbers of 75 vehicle parts; 76 (r) vehicles parked on the sidewalk; 77 (s) use of street parking spaces or sidewalk for open storage, sale, or rental of goods, or 78 storage or repair of inoperable vehicles; 79 (t) unlawful firearms possession by a patron; 80 (u) illegal dumping; 81 (v) unlawful junk dealer operations; 82 (w) obstruction of an investigation of nuisance behavior; 83 (x) repeated or continuing violations of any other City ordinance and/or regulations; or 84 (y) any other activity that constitutes a public nuisance under state law. 85 OBSTRUCTION OF AN INVESTIGATION: Any obstruction of, interference with or other 86 impediment of the investigation of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior by a business 87 owner, property owner, or other responsible person. 88 PERSON: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 89 PLACE OF BUSINESS: A location maintained or operated by a person within the city at 90 which business activities take place. Place of business includes a parking lot owned or leased 91 by the business, parking areas traditionally used by patrons or employees of the business, and 92 the public rights-of-way adjacent to the business premises as it is used by persons attracted to 93 the business. 94 REMEDIAL MEASURES: Specific, verifiable actions taken by a responsible party that are 95 substantially likely to reduce, eliminate or prevent recurrence of the nuisance conduct or 96 serious violent behavior at issue. 97 RESPONSIBLE PERSON: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 98 SERIOUS VIOLENT BEHAVIOR. Conduct that would constitute any of the following 99 offenses as defined by state law: homicide, murder, aggravated assault, rape, or sexual assault. 100 4 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 11.18.020: PURPOSE AND INTENT: 101 Business owners and property owners shall properly manage their property and place of 102 businesses to prevent them from becoming a nuisance to public safety personnel, adjacent 103 public property, neighboring residents or businesses, or deteriorating into havens for crime or 104 the spread of disease. This chapter creates a system to initiate administrative actions to abate 105 nuisance conduct and serious violent behavior and to impose civil fines or other penalties if a 106 business owner or a property owner fails to take all remedial measures to address the identified 107 nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior. 108 11.18.030: EXISTING LAW CONTINUED: 109 The provisions of this chapter shall not invalidate any other title, chapter, or ordinance of this 110 Code, but shall be read in conjunction with those titles, chapters, and ordinances and shall be 111 used as an additional remedy for enforcement of violations thereof. 112 11.18.040: CRIMINAL OR CIVIL PROSECUTION; EMERGENCY POWERS: 113 A. The city shall have sole discretion in deciding whether to pursue remedies to address 114 nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior under this chapter, to file a civil nuisance action 115 under this chapter or under state law, to bring criminal charges, to order suspension or 116 revocation of business licenses, to order immediate action to terminate or abate nuisance 117 conduct, to pursue administrative enforcement actions for the violation of any of its ordinances 118 or applicable code requirements, or any combination thereof, or to pursue any other remedy 119 available under the law. City officials are permitted to exercise executive discretion in 120 determining which course of enforcement to pursue, taking into consideration the severity of 121 an incident, the culpability of involved parties, the history of the involved property, and 122 whether other circumstances exist that exacerbate the public impact of the nuisance conduct or 123 serious violent behavior. 124 B. The enforcement of the provisions of this chapter does not prevent the city from 125 pursuing other remedies for specific violations, including fines, abatement, suspension, 126 revocation, injunctions, or other penalties. Specific violations may be considered nuisance 127 conduct or serious violent behavior under this chapter, even if the business owner or property 128 owner has already incurred civil or criminal penalties related to that offense. 129 C. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the city from abating nuisance conduct or serious 130 violent behavior that denigrates the public health and welfare in a declared emergency. 131 D. Each day a violation exists shall be considered a separate offense and may give rise to a 132 separate citation, charge or other remedy. 133 11.18.050: ACTS INCLUDE CAUSING, ATTEMPTING, AIDING, AND ABETTING: 134 5 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Whenever an act, condition, or omission is referred to or made unlawful in this chapter, it shall 135 include causing, attempting to cause, permitting, aiding, or abetting such act, condition, or 136 omission. 137 11.18.060: DUTY TO PROPERLY MANAGE: 138 Every property owner and business owner shall have a duty to properly manage their private 139 property or place of business, as applicable, to prevent the creation of a nuisance to 140 neighboring businesses, residents, passers-by, or the public, that results from nuisance conduct 141 or serious violent behavior by patrons, guests, employees, occupants, or those who frequent the 142 business premises or the property, regardless of whether the persons are owners, invitees, or 143 trespassers. 144 11.18.070: NUISANCE DECLARED 145 A. Pursuant to Utah Code Section 10-8-60, the city has determined the quiet enjoyment of 146 property and the general health, safety, and welfare of the community are intolerably 147 impaired—and a public nuisance exists—when nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior 148 occurs at any private property or place of business. 149 B. A business owner or property owner is presumed to have created a nuisance if (1) 150 within 180 consecutive days, not less than 3 separate incidents of nuisance conduct or serious 151 violent behavior occur at or within the property, (2) for ongoing violations of this Chapter the 152 nuisance conduct has persisted for 30 days or more, or (3) in connection with a place of 153 business there are 5 or more calls for service for nuisance conduct in a 30 day period. This 154 presumption may be rebutted if the responsible party demonstrates that it took all reasonable 155 steps, including implementing the remedial measures directed by the city, to prevent 156 reoccurrence of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior occurring at or within the 157 property. 158 11.18.080: DECLARATION OF NUISANCE & ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: 159 A. The city may declare the existence of nuisance, as described under Section 11.18.070 at 160 any time. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, a declaration of nuisance may be 161 combined with any other notice from the city to the responsible party. 162 B. Administrative Citation. Upon a determination that a business or private property has 163 created a nuisance the city may issue an administrative citation. 164 1. The written citation shall state: 165 166 a. The name and address, if known, of the responsible party; 167 b. The date and location of each violation; 168 c. The nature of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 169 6 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT d. That the nuisance must be corrected; 170 e. Provide a specific date by which the corrective action ordered by the 171 enforcement official be taken; 172 f. The remedies, including any civil fines, that the enforcement official intends 173 to pursue if corrective action is not taken; 174 g. Recommendations regarding potential remedial measures and an opportunity 175 for the responsible party to demonstrate use of remedial measures to the city; 176 h. Identification of the procedure to appeal the citation; and 177 i. The signature of the enforcement official. 178 179 2. The enforcement official shall serve the administrative citation on the responsible 180 party by: 181 a. Posting a copy of the administrative citation at the property, and 182 b. By mailing the administrative citation through certified mail or 183 reputable mail tracking service that is capable of confirming delivery. 184 If the responsible party is the property owner of record, then mailing 185 shall be to the last known address appearing on the records of the Salt 186 Lake County Recorder. If the responsible party is any other person or 187 entity other than the owner of record, then mailing shall be to the last 188 known address of the responsible party on file with the city. 189 c. Notwithstanding the foregoing, personal service upon the responsible 190 party shall be sufficient to meet the service requirements of Subsection 191 11.18.080.B.2.b. 192 193 3. Corrective Action: Following the issuance of an administrative citation the 194 responsible party shall either: 195 a. Demonstrate that remedial measures have been implemented to 196 address the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior that led to the 197 nuisance declaration, or 198 b. Enter into a nuisance abatement plan pursuant to Section 11.18.090. 199 200 4. Failure to Correct: If corrective action has not been undertaken by the deadline 201 identified in the administrative citation, the city may pursue any remedy, 202 including civil fines identified in Section 11.18.110. 203 11.18.090: NUISANCE ABATEMENT PLANS: 204 A. Any nuisance abatement plan executed by a responsible party and the city shall certify 205 the responsible party’s agreement to take all necessary and appropriate measures to reduce, 206 eliminate or prevent future recurrence of each nuisance conduct and each serious violent 207 behavior giving rise to nuisance declaration. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, 208 the following: 209 210 1. Removal of unlawful items; 211 7 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2. Taking steps to prevent the specific nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior, 212 personally or through an agent such as a private security company; 213 3. Hiring sufficient licensed and insured security personnel to patrol the property 214 and the abutting sidewalks; 215 4. Documenting proactive efforts with the police department regarding nuisance 216 behavior or serious violent behavior activities; 217 5. Participating in regular meetings with community-based organizations at which 218 specific efforts to address nuisance behavior or serious violent behavior are 219 discussed; 220 6. Installing and maintaining improved lighting at each point of entry to and exit 221 from the property and in designated common areas, if any; 222 7. Installing and maintaining surveillance cameras that are at all times: (i) active and 223 operational at each point of entry to and exit from the business or property, in 224 designated common areas and in interior spaces where business operations are 225 conducted, on the street abutting the business, and any other locations where prior 226 nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior has been reported; (ii) disclosed to 227 the public through posted notice on the premises; (iii) illuminated in such a 228 manner so as to enable persons entering and exiting the business or property to be 229 visible and identified on recorded footage; and (iv) maintaining recorded footage 230 for not less than 6 months after the recording occurs; 231 8. Installing metal detectors to screen persons visiting the business; 232 9. Maintaining an internal log or incident reporting system documenting the owner's 233 response to specific incidents of illegal activity inside the property or on the 234 abutting sidewalk; 235 10. Displaying signage identifying prohibited behavior at the property; 236 11. Making specific efforts to address litter and other cleanliness issues, such as 237 additional or larger refuse bins, more frequent or targeted cleaning, signage, 238 enhanced refuse bins, and changing business operations or products to reduce the 239 likelihood of litter creation; 240 12. Installing soundproofing insulation or taking other steps to control noise; 241 13. Changing the hours of operation in a manner designed to reduce the likelihood of 242 nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 243 14. Changing business operations or products sold in a manner designed to reduce the 244 likelihood of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 245 15. Removing any drug paraphernalia offered for sale or display in violation of 246 applicable zoning requirements from the premises; 247 16. Providing surveillance camera footage to law enforcement upon request; and 248 17. Any other measures likely to abate or prevent the recurrence of the nuisance 249 behavior or serious violent behavior. 250 251 B. Term: Executed plans shall be effective for a minimum of 12 months, and may be 252 extended by mutual agreement, or if ordered by the administrative appeals officer, if another 253 nuisance is declared at the property prior to expiration of the plan. 254 255 C. Remedies: All nuisance abatement plans shall identify remedies to the city if the 256 responsible party does not comply with the plan. These remedies may include, but are not limited 257 8 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT to: granting the city the ability to enter and abate the nuisance with recovery of costs associated 258 therewith to be made by the responsible party to the city upon presentation of an itemized 259 statement of costs; financial penalties; reduction in business operating hours; temporary closure 260 of the property or business; making some portions of the property inaccessible; and prohibiting 261 all alcohol sales or consumption on the property. 262 11.18.100: APPEALS: 263 A responsible party may appeal an administrative citation within ten (10) days of its issuance 264 pursuant to Chapter 2.75. 265 11.18.110: ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES: 266 A. Civil Fines: A property or business subject to a nuisance declaration may be subject to a 267 range of penalties that increase in severity. These penalties progress as follows: 268 1. If a responsible party fails to complete a corrective action by the deadline set 269 forth in an administrative citation, then for a first violation a fine shall be 270 assessed in the amount of $500. 271 2. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a 272 first violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan then a fine shall 273 be assessed in the amount of $750, which shall constitute a second violation. 274 3. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a 275 second violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan, then a fine 276 shall be assessed in the amount of $1,000, which shall constitute a third 277 violation. 278 4. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a 279 third or any subsequent violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement 280 plan, then a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $1,000. 281 B. Revocation of Business License: In the event more than two citations are issued in any 282 12 month period, and the business at issue is not then a party to and in compliance with a 283 nuisance abatement plan, then the city may suspend or revoke the associated business license 284 pursuant to Chapter 5.02. 285 C. Orders by the Administrative Appeals Officer: In the event of an appeal of an 286 administrative citation, the administrative appeals officer may: 287 1. Order that the responsible party and the city enter into a nuisance abatement 288 plan consistent with Section 11.18.090 with the measures as directed by the 289 administrative appeals officer. 290 9 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2. Grant the city an abatement order. 291 a. The order of abatement can require the responsible party to correct the 292 nuisance and can authorize the city to abate such nuisance if the 293 responsible party does not timely perform the abatement. 294 b. In the event the city proves that nuisance conduct or conditions pose a 295 reasonably imminent danger to human health or human life, unabated, 296 the administrative appeals officer shall order the abatement as requested 297 by the city. In such circumstances the city may perform the abatement of 298 the nuisance at the first possible opportunity. 299 c. The abatement order must permit the city to charge the responsible party 300 for the costs the city incurs in abating the nuisance. The costs may be 301 appealed to the administrative appeals officer pursuant to Section 302 11.70.150. 303 3. Revoke a business license without the right to apply for another license at the 304 property or another business premises for at least six months. 305 Orders of an administrative appeals officer issued pursuant to this Chapter are each an 306 administrative enforcement order that may be appealed in accordance with 2.75.210. 307 11.18.120: CONTINUING SUPERVISION: 308 A. When an administrative citation is not timely appealed or an administrative appeals 309 officer has affirmed the city’s nuisance declaration, the responsible party is subject to 310 continued supervision by an administrative appeals officer for twelve (12) months or the term 311 of any applicable nuisance abatement plan. During that time, the administrative appeals officer 312 may schedule review hearings to track the responsible party’s compliance with any nuisance 313 abatement plan or abatement order, impose previously suspended penalties, and hold a hearing 314 to consider any claim by the city that a responsible party has not complied with a nuisance 315 abatement plan ordered by the administrative appeals officer pursuant to Section 11.18.110. 316 B. At a hearing on a failure to comply with a nuisance abatement plan entered pursuant to 317 11.18.110, the administrative appeals officer shall consider the steps taken by the responsible 318 party and determine whether such party has fulfilled its obligations under the nuisance 319 abatement plan. 320 1. During a hearing reviewing a failure to comply with a nuisance abatement plan, 321 the underlying nuisance declaration cannot be disturbed. 322 2. In the event the administrative appeals officer finds that the responsible party 323 failed to comply with any obligation under the nuisance abatement plan, the 324 administrative appeals officer shall impose one or more remedies as set forth in the 325 nuisance abatement plan. 326 10 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT C. Each new administrative citation may be appealed. Such appeals are limited to a review 327 of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior identified in the administrative citation and 328 may not address previous administrative citations that were not timely appealed or orders by an 329 administrative appeals officer that were not timely appealed. 330 11.70.170: DECLARATION OR DETERMINATION TO FOLLOW BUSINESS OWNER 331 AND PROPERTY LOCATION: 332 A declaration or determination of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior follows the 333 business owner and/or runs with the property. A declaration or determination of nuisance 334 conduct or serious violent behavior is not eliminated by transferring the property or the 335 business to another person or entity, changing the name of the business, or moving the business 336 to a new location. Transfer of business ownership shall not terminate any nuisance abatement 337 plan in effect with respect to a nuisance business. The acquiring business owner shall be 338 responsible for compliance with any enforcement action pending against the nuisance business 339 and prior business owner. 340 341 342 SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its 343 first publication. 344 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 345 2025. 346 ______________________________ 347 CHAIRPERSON 348 349 350 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 351 352 ______________________________ 353 CITY RECORDER 354 355 356 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 357 358 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 359 360 ______________________________ 361 MAYOR 362 ______________________________ 363 CITY RECORDER 364 11 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT (SEAL) 365 366 Bill No. ________ of 2025. 367 Published: ______________. 368 Responsible Property Owner Ordinance(legislative)v4 369 370 371 This page has intentionally been left blank SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 09/24/2025 Date Sent to Council: 09/26/2025 From: Department * Finance Employee Name: Garcia, Arturo E-mail Arturo.Garcia@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 09/24/2025 Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 09/26/2025 Subject: Responsible Owner Ordinance & After Hours Alcohol Ordinance New transmittal or Revision New transmittal Revision Revision Updates: The proposed provisions previously presented under a single ordinance will now be transmitted as two separate ordinances. The first will address after-hours alcohol restrictions on non-residential and commercial properties, aligning City regulations with state-imposed restrictions on licensed establishments. The second, the Responsible Owner Ordinance, will create a framework to hold property and business owners accountable for chronic nuisance conditions through administrative citations, abatement plans, and corrective measures. Additional Staff Contact: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer, Art Garcia, Director of Finance Operations, Bill Manzanares, Deputy Chief Of Police, and Katherine Pasker, Senior City Attorney Presenters/Staff Table Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer, Art Garcia, Director of Finance Operations, Bill Manzanares, Deputy Chief Of Police, and Katherine Pasker, Senior City Attorney Document Type Ordinance Budget Impact? Yes No Recommendation: The Administration recommends that the City Council adopt amendments to Salt Lake City Chapter 5.51and enact section 11.12.130, Public Peace, Morals and Welfare Offenses Against Public Order. Background/Discussion After-House Alcohol Ordinance The proposed After-Hours Alcohol Ordinance addresses a gap in existing state regulations that limit after-hours alcohol consumption only for licensed retail establishments. While state law requires retail licensees to cease alcohol service by 1:00 am and consumption by 2:00 am, it does not extend these restrictions to non-residential premises or commercial properties operating without state-issued alcohol licenses. This has led to recurring issues where commercial establishments host late-night gatherings with ongoing alcohol consumption well past permitted hours. These activities often generate noise, public safety concerns, and criminal activity that strain City resources and place neighboring residents and businesses at risk. The ordinance would extend after-hours restrictions to non-residential and commercial common areas, mirroring the standards applied to licensed establishments. Aligning local code with state regulations, this gives the City additional enforcement tools to curb nuisance activity, protect neighborhoods, and promote consistent, responsible business practices. This ordinance encourages commercial and non-residential property owners to adopt proactive measures to improve public safety, protect quality of life, and promote fair and consistent regulation across the community. Responsible Owner Ordinance The Responsible Owner Ordinance is intended to address persistent nuisance activity occurring on private properties and at commercial businesses where owners have failed to take proactive steps to curb illegal or disruptive conduct. In recent years, the City has faced increasing complaints about properties that attract crime, chronic disturbances, and unsafe conditions. The Responsible Owner Ordinance establishes a framework to hold property and business owners accountable when their premises become chronic nuisances. The recommended ordinance introduces a tiered administrative enforcement process that allows for timely intervention, civil penalties, and the ability to require remedial measures or nuisance abatement plans. This comprehensive approach is recommended because it empowers the City to take earlier, more flexible action to address nuisance behavior; imposes accountability on property and business owners; and provides a fair process for correction and appeal. These measures collectively promote public safety, reduce ongoing enforcement burdens, and support the health and welfare of Salt Lake City residents and visitors. Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?* Yes No Public Process This page has intentionally been left blank SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 202__ (Amending the text of Titles 5 and 11 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to after-hours consumption of alcohol in the common areas of commercial establishments and non-residential premises) An ordinance amending Chapters 5.51 and 11.12 to prohibit the after-hours consumption of alcohol in the common areas of commercial establishments and non-residential premises. WHEREAS, Utah Code Section 32B-5-301 prohibits the after-hours consumption of alcoholic products and alcoholic beverages on the premises of retail licensees; and WHEREAS, non-residential premises and commercial establishments that do not adhere to the protections and safeguards required of retail licensees are permitting the consumption of alcoholic beverages on their premises long after the retail licensees are required to close; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that prohibiting the after-hours consumption of alcohol in the common areas of commercial establishments and non-residential premises pursuant to standards similar to those that govern the premises of retail licensees reasonably furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Salt Lake City. WHEREAS, criminal activity associated with such after-hours consumption is a threat to the public safety of the city and is a burden on the city’s public safety resources; WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council has determined that the following ordinance promotes the health, safety, and public welfare of the citizens of the city; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the text of Chapter 5.51 of the Salt Lake City Code. That Chapter 5.51 of the Salt Lake City Code (Business Taxes, Licenses and Regulations: Alcohol Establishments and Off Premises Beer Retailers), is hereby amended as follows: CHAPTER 5.51 REGULATIONS RELATED TO ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENTS, NONRESIDENTIAL PREMISES, AND OFF PREMISES BEER RETAILERS 5.51.010: DEFINITIONS: ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENT: Any business that has obtained a license from the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Service. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE: This term has the same meaning as defined in Section 32B-2-102 of Utah Code, or its successor. ALCOHOLIC PRODUCT: This term has the same meaning as defined in Section 32B-2-102 of the Utah Code, or its successor. COMMON AREA: Any portion of a licensee establishment that is generally accessible to all occupants, invitees, guests, or customers; or that is generally intended for the common use of such occupants, invitees, guests or customers. Hotel rooms or employee-only areas are not “common area.” DABS: the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Services. LICENSEE ESTABLISHMENT: The location where any holder of a Salt Lake City business license, obtained for any purpose, operates. OFF PREMISES BEER RETAILER: This term has the same definition as defined in Section 32B-2-102 of Utah Code, or its successor provisions. 5.51.020: LICENSE REQUIRED: Alcohol establishments, licensee establishments, and off premises beer retailers must obtain a business license subject to the general requirements set forth in chapters 5.02 and 5.04 of this title and the requirements included in this chapter. 5.51.025: STATE ISSUED ALCOHOL LICENSES REQUIRED FOR ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENTS: No alcohol establishment may serve alcohol within the city without the appropriate valid license or permit issued by DABS pursuant to title 32B, Utah Code, or its successor provisions. 5.51.027: SPECIAL EVENT ALCOHOL PERMITS: A. Required: A city issued special event alcohol permit is required for all events which are required to obtain from DABS a single event permit or temporary special event beer permit under title 32B, Utah Code or its successor provisions, allowing alcohol to be stored, sold, served and consumed for short term events. B. Application Requirements: In addition to the application requirements set forth in section 5.02.060 of this title, the following information is required: 1. The time, dates, and location of the event. 2. A description of the nature and purpose of the event. 3. A description of the control measures to be imposed by the DABSC and where alcohol will be stored, served and sold. 4. Evidence that the applicant is not disqualified for the license or permit under Utah Code Section 32B-1-304 or its successor provisions or city ordinance. 5. A signed consent form stating that law enforcement and authorized city representatives shall have the unrestricted right to enter and inspect the premises during the event to ensure compliance with state law and city ordinance. C. Operational Restrictions: The permittee is subject to all operational restrictions imposed by the DABS under its state permit. No alcohol may be served at any special event unless the city permittee also obtains the appropriate state permit. D. Nontransferable: Special event alcohol permits are not transferable. E. Time Limits: Special event alcohol permits are subject to the time limitations applicable to DABS single event permits and temporary special event beer permits. F. Fees: Special event alcohol permits are subject to the fees that correspond to chapter 5.04 of this title and to an alcohol concession agreement fee. Such fees are set forth in the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. 5.51.030: ANNUAL LICENSE FEES: Alcohol establishments, licensee establishments, and off premises beer retailers are subject to the license fees set forth in chapter 5.04 of this title. For the purpose of establishing regulatory fees and disproportionate costs for alcohol establishments, the city may separate alcohol establishments into subcategories within schedules 1 and 2 of this title based on the types of alcohol served and the type of business conducted within the alcohol establishment. 5.51.040: RESTRICTIONS GOVENING CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS IN COMMON AREAS: Between 2:00 A.M. and 6:00 A.M. a licensee establishment shall not: A. Furnish an alcoholic beverage or alcoholic product to an individual, nor B. Allow an individual to consume an alcoholic beverage or an alcoholic product in the common area of such establishment. 5.51.050: ENFORCEMENT: In addition to any enforcement procedures set forth in Utah Code Title 32B, any holder of a Salt Lake City business license found in violation of the provisions of this Chapter shall be (1) subject to a $1000 fine per occurrence, and (2) the City may seek to suspend or revoke the associated business license pursuant to the enforcement procedures set forth in Chapter 5.02. SECTION 2. Enacting Section 11.12.070 of the Salt Lake City Code. That Section 11.12.070 (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare: Offenses Against Public Order) is hereby enacted as follows: 11.12.070: UNLAWFUL CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL IN COMMON AREAS OF NON-RESIDENTIAL ESTABLISHMENTS: A. Definitions: ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE: This term has the same meaning as defined in section 32B-2-102 of Utah Code, or its successor provisions. ALCOHOLIC PRODUCT: This term has the same meaning as defined in section 32B-2-102 of Utah Code, or its successor provisions. COMMON AREA: Any portion of a non-residential premises that is generally accessible to all occupants, invitees or licensees; or that is generally intended for the common use of such occupants, invitees or licensees. Hotel rooms or employee-only areas are not “common area.” NON-RESIDENTIAL PREMISES: Premises that do not meet any of the various definitions of dwelling set forth in Section 21A.62.040. B. An individual shall not consume an alcoholic beverage nor an alcoholic product in any common area of non-residential premises during the time period beginning at 2:00 AM and ending at 6:00 AM. C. Operators of non-residential premises shall not permit the consumption of alcoholic beverages or alcoholic products in any common area during the time period between 2:00 AM and 6:00 AM. D. Individuals found in violation of this Section shall be subject to a civil citation and penalty of $500 per occurrence. Operators not otherwise subject to Chapter 5.51 shall be subject to a civil citation and penalty of $1000 per occurrence. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 202__. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 202__. Published: ______________. After Hours Alcohol Ordinance(final)v1 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney September 19, 2025 This page has intentionally been left blank 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1 No. _____ of 202__ 2 3 (Amending the text of Titles 5 and 11 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to after-hours 4 consumption of alcohol in the common areas of commercial establishments and non-residential 5 premises) 6 7 An ordinance amending Chapters 5.51 and 11.12 to prohibit the after-hours consumption 8 of alcohol in the common areas of commercial establishments and non-residential premises. 9 WHEREAS, Utah Code Section 32B-5-301 prohibits the after-hours consumption of 10 alcoholic products and alcoholic beverages on the premises of retail licensees; and 11 WHEREAS, non-residential premises and commercial establishments that do not adhere 12 to the protections and safeguards required of retail licensees are permitting the consumption of 13 alcoholic beverages on their premises long after the retail licensees are required to close; and 14 WHEREAS, the City Council finds that prohibiting the after-hours consumption of 15 alcohol in the common areas of commercial establishments and non-residential premises 16 pursuant to standards similar to those that govern the premises of retail licensees reasonably 17 furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Salt Lake City. 18 WHEREAS, criminal activity associated with such after-hours consumption is a threat to 19 the public safety of the city and is a burden on the city’s public safety resources; 20 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council has determined that the following ordinance 21 promotes the health, safety, and public welfare of the citizens of the city; and 22 WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s 23 best interests. 24 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 25 2 26 SECTION 1. Amending the text of Chapter 5.51 of the Salt Lake City Code. That 27 Chapter 5.51 of the Salt Lake City Code (Business Taxes, Licenses and Regulations: Alcohol 28 Establishments and Off Premises Beer Retailers), is hereby amended as follows: 29 CHAPTER 5.51 REGULATIONS RELATED TO ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENTS, 30 NONRESIDENTIAL PREMISES, AND OFF PREMISES BEER RETAILERS 31 32 5.51.005: PURPOSE: 33 34 The purpose of this chapter is to normalize the regulation of alcoholic beverages by the city by: 35 a) simplifying alcoholic beverage control regulation by not duplicating state regulations, and b) 36 limiting the city's regulatory interests to business licensing and to land use concerns as provided 37 in title 21A of this code. The provisions of this chapter shall be construed to effectuate those 38 purposes. This chapter does not limit in any way the responsibilities of Salt Lake City police 39 officers or Salt Lake City prosecutors under state law. 40 41 5.51.010: DEFINITIONS: 42 43 ALCOHOL: The same meaning as section 32A-1-105(2), Utah Code Annotated (2009), or 44 successor provisions. 45 46 ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENT: Any business that has obtained a license from the Utah 47 Department of Alcoholic Beverage Servicesells alcoholic beverages to patrons for consumption 48 on the premises, as set forth in section 21A.36.300 of this code. 49 50 ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE: This term has the same meaning as defined in Section 32B-2-102 51 of Utah Code, or its successor. 52 53 ALCOHOLIC PRODUCT: This term has the same meaning as defined in Section 32B-2-102 of 54 the Utah Code, or its successor. 55 56 COMMON AREA: Any portion of a licensee establishment that is generally accessible to all 57 occupants, invitees, guests, or customers; or that is generally intended for the common use of 58 such occupants, invitees, guests or customers. Hotel rooms or employee-only areas are not 59 “common area.” 60 61 DABS: the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Services. 62 63 LICENSEE ESTABLISHMENT: The location where any holder of a Salt Lake City business 64 license, obtained for any purpose, operates. 65 66 LICENSE ENFORCEMENT ACTION: The administrative process set forth in 67 section 5.51.070 of this chapter. 68 69 3 OFF PREMISES BEER RETAILER: This term has the same definition as defined in Section 70 32B-2-102 of Utah Code, or its successor provisions.A retail business that sells beer in its 71 original packaging for consumption off the premises, but does not include the sale of beer in 72 sealed containers pursuant to section 32A-10-206(7), Utah Code Annotated (2009), or its 73 successor provision. 74 75 SEASONAL LICENSE: A city business license issued to an alcohol establishment that is valid 76 for a six (6) month period corresponding with the periods provided for "seasonal A" and 77 "seasonal B" licenses issued by the Utah alcoholic beverage control commission, pursuant to title 78 32A, Utah Code Annotated (2009), and its successor provisions. 79 80 81 5.51.020: LICENSE REQUIRED: 82 83 Alcohol establishments, licensee establishments, and off premises beer retailers must obtain a 84 business license subject to the general requirements set forth in chapters 5.02 and 5.04 of this 85 title and the requirements included in this chapter. Alcohol establishments which qualify for a 86 seasonal A or seasonal B license issued by the Utah alcoholic beverage control commission may 87 obtain a seasonal license for the same term for which the state license is issued. 88 89 90 5.51.025: STATE ISSUED ALCOHOL LICENSES REQUIRED FOR ALCOHOL 91 ESTABLISHMENTS: 92 93 No alcohol establishment may serve alcohol within the city without the appropriate valid license 94 or permit issued by DABSthe Utah alcoholic beverage control commission pursuant to title 95 32BA, Utah Code Annotated (2009), orand its successor provisions. 96 97 5.51.027: SPECIAL EVENT ALCOHOL PERMITS: 98 99 A. Required: A city issued special event alcohol permit is required for all events which are 100 required to obtain from DABSthe Utah alcoholic beverage control commission a single event 101 permit or temporary special event beer permit under title 32BA, Utah Code Annotated (2009) or 102 its successor provisions, allowing alcohol to be stored, sold, served and consumed for short term 103 events. 104 105 B. Application Requirements: In addition to the application requirements set forth in 106 section 5.02.060 of this title, the following information is required: 107 1. The time, dates, and location of the event. 108 2. A description of the nature and purpose of the event. 109 3. A description of the control measures to be imposed by the DABSC and where 110 alcohol will be stored, served and sold. 111 4. Evidence that the applicant is not disqualified for the license or permit under Utah 112 Code Section 32B-1-304 or its successor provisions or city ordinance. 113 4 54. A signed consent form stating that law enforcement and authorized city 114 representatives shall have the unrestricted right to enter and inspect the premises during 115 the event to ensure compliance with state law and city ordinance. 116 117 C. Operational Restrictions: The permittee is subject to all operational restrictions imposed 118 by the DABSC under its state permit. No alcohol may be served at any special event unless the 119 city permittee also obtains the appropriate state permit. 120 121 D. Nontransferable: Special event alcohol permits are not transferable. 122 123 E. Time Limits: Special event alcohol permits are subject to the time limitations applicable 124 to DABSC single event permits and temporary special event beer permits. 125 126 F. Fees: Special event alcohol permits are subject to the fees that correspond to chapter 127 5.04 of this title and to an alcohol concession agreement fee. Such fees are set forth in the Salt 128 Lake City consolidated fee schedule. 129 130 131 5.51.030: ANNUAL LICENSE FEES: 132 133 A. Alcohol establishments, licensee establishments, and off premises beer retailers are 134 subject to the license fees set forth in chapter 5.04 of this title. For the purpose of establishing 135 regulatory fees and disproportionate costs for alcohol establishments, the city may separate 136 alcohol establishments into subcategories within schedules 1 and 2 of this title based on the types 137 of alcohol served and the type of business conducted within the alcohol establishment. 138 139 B. The license fee for a seasonal license will be assessed at fifty percent (50%) of the 140 regulatory and disproportionate fee charged for the type of alcohol establishment to be licensed 141 as listed on schedules 1 and 2 of this title, plus the full base license fee provided in 142 section 5.04.070 of this title. 143 144 145 5.51.040: RESTRICTIONS GOVENING CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC 146 BEVERAGES AND ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS IN COMMON AREAS: 147 148 Between 2:00 A.M. and 6:00 A.M. a licensee establishment shall not: 149 150 A. Furnish an alcoholic beverage or alcoholic product to an individual, nor 151 B. Allow an individual to consume an alcoholic beverage or an alcoholic product in the 152 common area of such establishment. 153 154 155 5.51.050100: OFF PREMISES BEER RETAILERS; OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS 156 AND ENFORCEMENT: 157 158 5 A. In addition to any enforcement procedures set forth in Utah Code Title 32B, any holder of 159 a Salt Lake City business license found in violation of the provisions of this Chapter shall be (1) 160 subject to a $1000 fine per occurrence, and (2) the City may seek to suspend or revoke the 161 associated business license pursuant to the enforcement procedures set forth in Chapter 162 5.02requirements under this code, off premises beer retailers are subject to the operational 163 requirements set forth in sections 32A-10-102 and 32A-10-103, Utah Code Annotated (2009), or 164 its successor provisions. 165 166 B. For violations related to underage sale of beer, the enforcement process set forth at 167 section 32A-10-103, Utah Code Annotated (2009), or its successor provisions, applies. 168 169 C. For all other violations, the requirements of chapter 5.02 of this title apply. 170 171 SECTION 2. Enacting Section 11.12.070 of the Salt Lake City Code. That Section 172 11.12.070 (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare: Offenses Against Public Order) is hereby enacted 173 as follows: 174 11.12.070: UNLAWFUL CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL IN COMMON AREAS OF 175 NON-RESIDENTIAL ESTABLISHMENTS: 176 177 A. Definitions: 178 179 ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE: This term has the same meaning as defined in section 32B-2-102 of 180 Utah Code, or its successor provisions. 181 182 ALCOHOLIC PRODUCT: This term has the same meaning as defined in section 32B-2-102 of 183 Utah Code, or its successor provisions. 184 185 COMMON AREA: Any portion of a non-residential premises that is generally accessible to all 186 occupants, invitees or licensees; or that is generally intended for the common use of such 187 occupants, invitees or licensees. Hotel rooms or employee-only areas are not “common area.” 188 189 NON-RESIDENTIAL PREMISES: Premises that do not meet any of the various definitions of 190 dwelling set forth in Section 21A.62.040. 191 192 B. An individual shall not consume an alcoholic beverage nor an alcoholic product in any 193 common area of non-residential premises during the time period beginning at 2:00 AM and 194 ending at 6:00 AM. 195 196 C. Operators of non-residential premises shall not permit the consumption of alcoholic 197 beverages or alcoholic products in any common area during the time period between 2:00 AM 198 and 6:00 AM. 199 200 6 D. Individuals found in violation of this Section shall be subject to a civil citation and 201 penalty of $500 per occurrence. Operators not otherwise subject to Chapter 5.51 shall be subject 202 to a civil citation and penalty of $1000 per occurrence. 203 204 205 SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its 206 first publication. 207 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 208 202__. 209 ______________________________ 210 CHAIRPERSON 211 212 213 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 214 215 ______________________________ 216 CITY RECORDER 217 218 219 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 220 221 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 222 223 ______________________________ 224 MAYOR 225 ______________________________ 226 CITY RECORDER 227 (SEAL) 228 229 Bill No. ________ of 202__. 230 Published: ______________. 231 After Hours Alcohol Ordinance (legislative)v1 232 This page has intentionally been left blank 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2025 (Amending the text of Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to nuisance private property) An ordinance enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to responsible business and private property ownership to abate nuisances. WHEREAS, the city has a significant interest in the timely and effective resolution of public nuisances; WHEREAS, the city acknowledges a significant public safety burden placed on the citizens of the city when business owners and property owners permit nuisance activity or fail to otherwise implement necessary steps to prevent the nuisance activity; WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council has determined that the following ordinance promotes the health, safety, and public welfare of the citizens of the city; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code. That Chapter 11.18 in Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare), is hereby enacted as follows: CHAPTER 11.18 RESPONSIBLE PROPERTY OWNER 11.18.010: DEFINITIONS: In the construction of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall be as defined as set forth in this section: 2 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICER: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT HEARING: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ORDER: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. BUSINESS OWNER: Any person engaged in business within Salt Lake City. CITY: Salt Lake City, Utah, including the mayor and all other employees of the administrative branch of the city. CRIMINAL CONDUCT: Any criminal offense at a place of business that can be reasonably linked to a patron, invitee, manager, owner, or employee of the business, an occupant of the place of business, or any person in the case of vacant property. EMERGENCY CONDITIONS: One or more conditions that exist in a building or on a property that create the likelihood of imminent danger to the life or safety of anyone who enters or occupies the property or building. ENGAGE IN BUSINESS: To conduct, manage, or carry on any business activity, as owner, officer, agent, manager, employer, or lessee. IMMINENT LIFE SAFETY HAZARD: Any condition that creates a serious and immediate danger to life, property, health, or public safety. ITEMIZED STATEMENT OF COSTS: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. NUISANCE CONDUCT: Behavior that interferes with the health, safety or welfare of the community, materially and repeatedly infringes on the quiet enjoyment of neighboring uses, or results in the harassment of patrons or other persons including, but not limited to: (a) criminal conduct; (b) disturbance of the peace; (c) illegal consumption or sale of alcoholic beverages; (d) illegal drug activity; (e) unlawful street or sidewalk obstruction; (f) gambling and illegal gaming activities; (g) harassment of passers-by; (h) prostitution; (i) public urination or defecation; (j) lewd conduct; 3 (k) litter; (l) unlawful discharge of hazardous materials; (m) parking violations; (n) open storage of unlicensed, inoperable, unused or abandoned vehicles or vehicle parts, unless the property is licensed for such use; (o) open storage of junk, scrap metal, lumber, wastepaper products, building materials, machinery and associated parts, interior household furniture, appliances, tree limbs and cuttings, landscape debris, garbage, industrial waste, other spent, useless, worthless or discarded materials, or materials stored or accumulated for the purpose of discarding materials that have served their original purpose; (p) fouling of the air with offensive odors or contaminants, excessive dust, or excessive loud noise; (q) owning, operating or conducting a vehicle chop shop in any building or structure, including a lot or curtilage, for the purpose of dealing in stolen vehicles or stolen vehicle parts or illegally obtaining and altering vehicles or vehicle identification numbers of vehicle parts; (r) vehicles parked on the sidewalk; (s) use of street parking spaces or sidewalk for open storage, sale, or rental of goods, or storage or repair of inoperable vehicles; (t) unlawful firearms possession by a patron; (u) illegal dumping; (v) unlawful junk dealer operations; (w) obstruction of an investigation of nuisance behavior; (x) repeated or continuing violations of any other City ordinance and/or regulations; or (y) any other activity that constitutes a public nuisance under state law. OBSTRUCTION OF AN INVESTIGATION: Any obstruction of, interference with or other impediment of the investigation of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior by a business owner, property owner, or other responsible person. PERSON: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. PLACE OF BUSINESS: A location maintained or operated by a person within the city at which business activities take place. Place of business includes a parking lot owned or leased by the business, parking areas traditionally used by patrons or employees of the business, and the public rights-of-way adjacent to the business premises as it is used by persons attracted to the business. REMEDIAL MEASURES: Specific, verifiable actions taken by a responsible party that are substantially likely to reduce, eliminate or prevent recurrence of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior at issue. RESPONSIBLE PERSON: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. SERIOUS VIOLENT BEHAVIOR. Conduct that would constitute any of the following offenses as defined by state law: homicide, murder, aggravated assault, rape, or sexual assault. 4 11.18.020: PURPOSE AND INTENT: Business owners and property owners shall properly manage their property and place of businesses to prevent them from becoming a nuisance to public safety personnel, adjacent public property, neighboring residents or businesses, or deteriorating into havens for crime or the spread of disease. This chapter creates a system to initiate administrative actions to abate nuisance conduct and serious violent behavior and to impose civil fines or other penalties if a business owner or a property owner fails to take all remedial measures to address the identified nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior. 11.18.030: EXISTING LAW CONTINUED: The provisions of this chapter shall not invalidate any other title, chapter, or ordinance of this Code, but shall be read in conjunction with those titles, chapters, and ordinances and shall be used as an additional remedy for enforcement of violations thereof. 11.18.040: CRIMINAL OR CIVIL PROSECUTION; EMERGENCY POWERS: A. The city shall have sole discretion in deciding whether to pursue remedies to address nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior under this chapter, to file a civil nuisance action under this chapter or under state law, to bring criminal charges, to order suspension or revocation of business licenses, to order immediate action to terminate or abate nuisance conduct, to pursue administrative enforcement actions for the violation of any of its ordinances or applicable code requirements, or any combination thereof, or to pursue any other remedy available under the law. City officials are permitted to exercise executive discretion in determining which course of enforcement to pursue, taking into consideration the severity of an incident, the culpability of involved parties, the history of the involved property, and whether other circumstances exist that exacerbate the public impact of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior. B. The enforcement of the provisions of this chapter does not prevent the city from pursuing other remedies for specific violations, including fines, abatement, suspension, revocation, injunctions, or other penalties. Specific violations may be considered nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior under this chapter, even if the business owner or property owner has already incurred civil or criminal penalties related to that offense. C. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the city from abating nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior that denigrates the public health and welfare in a declared emergency. D. Each day a violation exists shall be considered a separate offense and may give rise to a separate citation, charge or other remedy. 11.18.050: ACTS INCLUDE CAUSING, ATTEMPTING, AIDING, AND ABETTING: 5 Whenever an act, condition, or omission is referred to or made unlawful in this chapter, it shall include causing, attempting to cause, permitting, aiding, or abetting such act, condition, or omission. 11.18.060: DUTY TO PROPERLY MANAGE: Every property owner and business owner shall have a duty to properly manage their private property or place of business, as applicable, to prevent the creation of a nuisance to neighboring businesses, residents, passers-by, or the public, that results from nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior by patrons, guests, employees, occupants, or those who frequent the business premises or the property, regardless of whether the persons are owners, invitees, or trespassers. 11.18.070: NUISANCE DECLARED A. Pursuant to Utah Code Section 10-8-60, the city has determined the quiet enjoyment of property and the general health, safety, and welfare of the community are intolerably impaired—and a public nuisance exists—when nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior occurs at any private property or place of business. B. A business owner or property owner is presumed to have created a nuisance if (1) within 180 consecutive days, not less than 3 separate incidents of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior occur at or within the property, (2) for ongoing violations of this Chapter the nuisance conduct has persisted for 30 days or more, or (3) in connection with a place of business there are 5 or more calls for service for nuisance conduct in a 30 day period. This presumption may be rebutted if the responsible party demonstrates that it took all reasonable steps, including implementing the remedial measures directed by the city, to prevent reoccurrence of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior occurring at or within the property. 11.18.080: DECLARATION OF NUISANCE & ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: A. The city may declare the existence of nuisance, as described under Section 11.18.070 at any time. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, a declaration of nuisance may be combined with any other notice from the city to the responsible party. B. Administrative Citation. Upon a determination that a business or private property has created a nuisance the city may issue an administrative citation. 1. The written citation shall state: a. The name and address, if known, of the responsible party; b. The date and location of each violation; c. The nature of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 6 d. That the nuisance must be corrected; e. Provide a specific date by which the corrective action ordered by the enforcement official be taken; f. The remedies, including any civil fines, that the enforcement official intends to pursue if corrective action is not taken; g. Recommendations regarding potential remedial measures and an opportunity for the responsible party to demonstrate use of remedial measures to the city; h. Identification of the procedure to appeal the citation; and i. The signature of the enforcement official. 2. The enforcement official shall serve the administrative citation on the responsible party by: a. Posting a copy of the administrative citation at the property, and b. By mailing the administrative citation through certified mail or reputable mail tracking service that is capable of confirming delivery. If the responsible party is the property owner of record, then mailing shall be to the last known address appearing on the records of the Salt Lake County Recorder. If the responsible party is any other person or entity other than the owner of record, then mailing shall be to the last known address of the responsible party on file with the city. c. Notwithstanding the foregoing, personal service upon the responsible party shall be sufficient to meet the service requirements of Subsection 11.18.080.B.2.b. 3. Corrective Action: Following the issuance of an administrative citation the responsible party shall either: a. Demonstrate that remedial measures have been implemented to address the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior that led to the nuisance declaration, or b. Enter into a nuisance abatement plan pursuant to Section 11.18.090. 4. Failure to Correct: If corrective action has not been undertaken by the deadline identified in the administrative citation, the city may pursue any remedy, including civil fines identified in Section 11.18.110. 11.18.090: NUISANCE ABATEMENT PLANS: A. Any nuisance abatement plan executed by a responsible party and the city shall certify the responsible party’s agreement to take all necessary and appropriate measures to reduce, eliminate or prevent future recurrence of each nuisance conduct and each serious violent behavior giving rise to nuisance declaration. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Removal of unlawful items; 7 2. Taking steps to prevent the specific nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior, personally or through an agent such as a private security company; 3. Hiring sufficient licensed and insured security personnel to patrol the property and the abutting sidewalks; 4. Documenting proactive efforts with the police department regarding nuisance behavior or serious violent behavior activities; 5. Participating in regular meetings with community-based organizations at which specific efforts to address nuisance behavior or serious violent behavior are discussed; 6. Installing and maintaining improved lighting at each point of entry to and exit from the property and in designated common areas, if any; 7. Installing and maintaining surveillance cameras that are at all times: (i) active and operational at each point of entry to and exit from the business or property, in designated common areas and in interior spaces where business operations are conducted, on the street abutting the business, and any other locations where prior nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior has been reported; (ii) disclosed to the public through posted notice on the premises; (iii) illuminated in such a manner so as to enable persons entering and exiting the business or property to be visible and identified on recorded footage; and (iv) maintaining recorded footage for not less than 6 months after the recording occurs; 8. Installing metal detectors to screen persons visiting the business; 9. Maintaining an internal log or incident reporting system documenting the owner's response to specific incidents of illegal activity inside the property or on the abutting sidewalk; 10. Displaying signage identifying prohibited behavior at the property; 11. Making specific efforts to address litter and other cleanliness issues, such as additional or larger refuse bins, more frequent or targeted cleaning, signage, enhanced refuse bins, and changing business operations or products to reduce the likelihood of litter creation; 12. Installing soundproofing insulation or taking other steps to control noise; 13. Changing the hours of operation in a manner designed to reduce the likelihood of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 14. Changing business operations or products sold in a manner designed to reduce the likelihood of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 15. Removing any drug paraphernalia offered for sale or display in violation of applicable zoning requirements from the premises; 16. Providing surveillance camera footage to law enforcement upon request; and 17. Any other measures likely to abate or prevent the recurrence of the nuisance behavior or serious violent behavior. B. Term: Executed plans shall be effective for a minimum of 12 months, and may be extended by mutual agreement, or if ordered by the administrative appeals officer, if another nuisance is declared at the property prior to expiration of the plan. C. Remedies: All nuisance abatement plans shall identify remedies to the city if the responsible party does not comply with the plan. These remedies may include, but are not limited 8 to: granting the city the ability to enter and abate the nuisance with recovery of costs associated therewith to be made by the responsible party to the city upon presentation of an itemized statement of costs; financial penalties; reduction in business operating hours; temporary closure of the property or business; making some portions of the property inaccessible; and prohibiting all alcohol sales or consumption on the property. 11.18.100: APPEALS: A responsible party may appeal an administrative citation within ten (10) days of its issuance pursuant to Chapter 2.75. 11.18.110: ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES: A. Civil Fines: A property or business subject to a nuisance declaration may be subject to a range of penalties that increase in severity. These penalties progress as follows: 1. If a responsible party fails to complete a corrective action by the deadline set forth in an administrative citation, then for a first violation a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $500. 2. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a first violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan then a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $750, which shall constitute a second violation. 3. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a second violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan, then a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $1,000, which shall constitute a third violation. 4. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a third or any subsequent violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan, then a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $1,000. B. Revocation of Business License: In the event more than two citations are issued in any 12 month period, and the business at issue is not then a party to and in compliance with a nuisance abatement plan, then the city may suspend or revoke the associated business license pursuant to Chapter 5.02. C. Orders by the Administrative Appeals officer: In the event of an appeal of an administrative citation, the administrative appeals officer may: 1. Order that the responsible party and the city enter into a nuisance abatement plan consistent with Section 11.18.090 with the measures as directed by the administrative appeals officer. 9 2. Grant the city an abatement order. a. The order of abatement can require the responsible party to correct the nuisance and can authorize the city to abate such nuisance if the responsible party does not timely perform the abatement. b. In the event the city proves that nuisance conduct or conditions pose a reasonably imminent danger to human health or human life, unabated, the administrative appeals officer shall order the abatement as requested by the city. In such circumstances the city may perform the abatement of the nuisance at the first possible opportunity. c. The abatement order must permit the city to charge the responsible party for the costs the city incurs in abating the nuisance. The costs may be appealed to the administrative appeals officer pursuant to Section 11.70.150. 3. Revoke a business license without the right to apply for another license at the property or another business premises for at least six months. Orders of an administrative appeals officer issued pursuant to this Chapter are each an administrative enforcement order that may be appealed in accordance with 2.75.210. 11.18.120: CONTINUING SUPERVISION: A. When an administrative citation is not timely appealed or an administrative appeals officer has affirmed the city’s nuisance declaration, the responsible party is subject to continued supervision by an administrative appeals officer for twelve (12) months or the term of any applicable nuisance abatement plan. During that time, the administrative appeals officer may schedule review hearings to track the responsible party’s compliance with any nuisance abatement plan or abatement order, impose previously suspended penalties, and hold a hearing to consider any claim by the city that a responsible party has not complied with a nuisance abatement plan ordered by the administrative appeals officer pursuant to Section 11.18.110. B. At a hearing on a failure to comply with a nuisance abatement plan entered pursuant to 11.18.110, the administrative appeals officer shall consider the steps taken by the responsible party and determine whether such party has fulfilled its obligations under the nuisance abatement plan. 1. During a hearing reviewing a failure to comply with a nuisance abatement plan, the underlying nuisance declaration cannot be disturbed. 2. In the event the administrative appeals officer finds that the responsible party failed to comply with any obligation under the nuisance abatement plan, the administrative appeals officer shall impose one or more remedies as set forth in the nuisance abatement plan. 10 C. Each new administrative citation may be appealed. Such appeals are limited to a review of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior identified in the administrative citation and may not address previous administrative citations that were not timely appealed or orders by an administrative appeals officer that were not timely appealed. 11.70.170: DECLARATION OR DETERMINATION TO FOLLOW BUSINESS OWNER AND PROPERTY LOCATION: A declaration or determination of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior follows the business owner and/or runs with the property. A declaration or determination of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior is not eliminated by transferring the property or the business to another person or entity, changing the name of the business, or moving the business to a new location. Transfer of business ownership shall not terminate any nuisance abatement plan in effect with respect to a nuisance business. The acquiring business owner shall be responsible for compliance with any enforcement action pending against the nuisance business and prior business owner. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2025. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR 11 ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2025. Published: ______________. Responsible Property Owner Ordinance(final)v4 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney September 19, 2025 This page has intentionally been left blank 1 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1 No. _____ of 2025 2 3 (Amending the text of Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to nuisance private 4 property) 5 6 An ordinance enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to responsible 7 business and private property ownership to abate nuisances 8 WHEREAS, the city has a significant interest in the timely and effective resolution of 9 public nuisances; 10 WHEREAS, the city acknowledges a significant public safety burden placed on the 11 citizens of the city when business owners and property owners permit nuisance activity or fail to 12 otherwise implement necessary steps to prevent the nuisance activity; 13 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council has determined that the following ordinance 14 promotes the health, safety, and public welfare of the citizens of the city; and 15 WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s 16 best interests. 17 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 18 19 SECTION 1. Enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code. That Chapter 11.18 in 20 Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare), is hereby enacted as 21 follows: 22 CHAPTER 11.18 RESPONSIBLE PROPERTY OWNER 23 11.18.010: DEFINITIONS: 24 25 In the construction of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall be as defined as set 26 forth in this section: 27 2 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICER: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 28 ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 29 ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 30 ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT HEARING: As that term is defined in Section 31 2.75.050. 32 ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ORDER: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 33 BUSINESS OWNER: Any person engaged in business within Salt Lake City. 34 CITY: Salt Lake City, Utah, including the mayor and all other employees of the administrative 35 branch of the city. 36 CRIMINAL CONDUCT: Any criminal offense at a place of business that can be reasonably 37 linked to a patron, invitee, manager, owner, or employee of the business, an occupant of the 38 place of business, or any person in the case of vacant property. 39 EMERGENCY CONDITIONS: One or more conditions that exist in a building or on a 40 property that create the likelihood of imminent danger to the life or safety of anyone who 41 enters or occupies the property or building. 42 ENGAGE IN BUSINESS: To conduct, manage, or carry on any business activity, as owner, 43 officer, agent, manager, employer, or lessee. 44 IMMINENT LIFE SAFETY HAZARD: Any condition that creates a serious and immediate 45 danger to life, property, health, or public safety. 46 ITEMIZED STATEMENT OF COSTS: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 47 NUISANCE CONDUCT: Behavior that interferes with the health, safety or welfare of the 48 community, materially and repeatedly infringes on the quiet enjoyment of neighboring uses, or 49 results in the harassment of patrons or other persons including, but not limited to: 50 (a) criminal conduct; 51 (b) disturbance of the peace; 52 (c) illegal consumption or sale of alcoholic beverages; 53 (d) illegal drug activity; 54 (e) unlawful street or sidewalk obstruction; 55 (f) gambling and illegal gaming activities; 56 (g) harassment of passers-by; 57 (h) prostitution; 58 (i) public urination or defecation; 59 (j) lewd conduct; 60 3 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT (k) litter; 61 (l) unlawful discharge of hazardous materials; 62 (m) parking violations; 63 (n) open storage of unlicensed, inoperable, unused or abandoned vehicles or vehicle parts, 64 unless the property is licensed for such use; 65 (o) open storage of junk, scrap metal, lumber, wastepaper products, building materials, 66 machinery and associated parts, interior household furniture, appliances, tree limbs and 67 cuttings, landscape debris, garbage, industrial waste, other spent, useless, worthless or 68 discarded materials, or materials stored or accumulated for the purpose of discarding 69 materials that have served their original purpose; 70 (p) fouling of the air with offensive odors or contaminants, excessive dust, or excessive 71 loud noise; 72 (q) owning, operating or conducting a vehicle chop shop in any building or structure, 73 including a lot or curtilage, for the purpose of dealing in stolen vehicles or stolen vehicle 74 parts or illegally obtaining and altering vehicles or vehicle identification numbers of 75 vehicle parts; 76 (r) vehicles parked on the sidewalk; 77 (s) use of street parking spaces or sidewalk for open storage, sale, or rental of goods, or 78 storage or repair of inoperable vehicles; 79 (t) unlawful firearms possession by a patron; 80 (u) illegal dumping; 81 (v) unlawful junk dealer operations; 82 (w) obstruction of an investigation of nuisance behavior; 83 (x) repeated or continuing violations of any other City ordinance and/or regulations; or 84 (y) any other activity that constitutes a public nuisance under state law. 85 OBSTRUCTION OF AN INVESTIGATION: Any obstruction of, interference with or other 86 impediment of the investigation of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior by a business 87 owner, property owner, or other responsible person. 88 PERSON: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 89 PLACE OF BUSINESS: A location maintained or operated by a person within the city at 90 which business activities take place. Place of business includes a parking lot owned or leased 91 by the business, parking areas traditionally used by patrons or employees of the business, and 92 the public rights-of-way adjacent to the business premises as it is used by persons attracted to 93 the business. 94 REMEDIAL MEASURES: Specific, verifiable actions taken by a responsible party that are 95 substantially likely to reduce, eliminate or prevent recurrence of the nuisance conduct or 96 serious violent behavior at issue. 97 RESPONSIBLE PERSON: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 98 SERIOUS VIOLENT BEHAVIOR. Conduct that would constitute any of the following 99 offenses as defined by state law: homicide, murder, aggravated assault, rape, or sexual assault. 100 4 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 11.18.020: PURPOSE AND INTENT: 101 Business owners and property owners shall properly manage their property and place of 102 businesses to prevent them from becoming a nuisance to public safety personnel, adjacent 103 public property, neighboring residents or businesses, or deteriorating into havens for crime or 104 the spread of disease. This chapter creates a system to initiate administrative actions to abate 105 nuisance conduct and serious violent behavior and to impose civil fines or other penalties if a 106 business owner or a property owner fails to take all remedial measures to address the identified 107 nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior. 108 11.18.030: EXISTING LAW CONTINUED: 109 The provisions of this chapter shall not invalidate any other title, chapter, or ordinance of this 110 Code, but shall be read in conjunction with those titles, chapters, and ordinances and shall be 111 used as an additional remedy for enforcement of violations thereof. 112 11.18.040: CRIMINAL OR CIVIL PROSECUTION; EMERGENCY POWERS: 113 A. The city shall have sole discretion in deciding whether to pursue remedies to address 114 nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior under this chapter, to file a civil nuisance action 115 under this chapter or under state law, to bring criminal charges, to order suspension or 116 revocation of business licenses, to order immediate action to terminate or abate nuisance 117 conduct, to pursue administrative enforcement actions for the violation of any of its ordinances 118 or applicable code requirements, or any combination thereof, or to pursue any other remedy 119 available under the law. City officials are permitted to exercise executive discretion in 120 determining which course of enforcement to pursue, taking into consideration the severity of 121 an incident, the culpability of involved parties, the history of the involved property, and 122 whether other circumstances exist that exacerbate the public impact of the nuisance conduct or 123 serious violent behavior. 124 B. The enforcement of the provisions of this chapter does not prevent the city from 125 pursuing other remedies for specific violations, including fines, abatement, suspension, 126 revocation, injunctions, or other penalties. Specific violations may be considered nuisance 127 conduct or serious violent behavior under this chapter, even if the business owner or property 128 owner has already incurred civil or criminal penalties related to that offense. 129 C. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the city from abating nuisance conduct or serious 130 violent behavior that denigrates the public health and welfare in a declared emergency. 131 D. Each day a violation exists shall be considered a separate offense and may give rise to a 132 separate citation, charge or other remedy. 133 11.18.050: ACTS INCLUDE CAUSING, ATTEMPTING, AIDING, AND ABETTING: 134 5 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Whenever an act, condition, or omission is referred to or made unlawful in this chapter, it shall 135 include causing, attempting to cause, permitting, aiding, or abetting such act, condition, or 136 omission. 137 11.18.060: DUTY TO PROPERLY MANAGE: 138 Every property owner and business owner shall have a duty to properly manage their private 139 property or place of business, as applicable, to prevent the creation of a nuisance to 140 neighboring businesses, residents, passers-by, or the public, that results from nuisance conduct 141 or serious violent behavior by patrons, guests, employees, occupants, or those who frequent the 142 business premises or the property, regardless of whether the persons are owners, invitees, or 143 trespassers. 144 11.18.070: NUISANCE DECLARED 145 A. Pursuant to Utah Code Section 10-8-60, the city has determined the quiet enjoyment of 146 property and the general health, safety, and welfare of the community are intolerably 147 impaired—and a public nuisance exists—when nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior 148 occurs at any private property or place of business. 149 B. A business owner or property owner is presumed to have created a nuisance if (1) 150 within 180 consecutive days, not less than 3 separate incidents of nuisance conduct or serious 151 violent behavior occur at or within the property, (2) for ongoing violations of this Chapter the 152 nuisance conduct has persisted for 30 days or more, or (3) in connection with a place of 153 business there are 5 or more calls for service for nuisance conduct in a 30 day period. This 154 presumption may be rebutted if the responsible party demonstrates that it took all reasonable 155 steps, including implementing the remedial measures directed by the city, to prevent 156 reoccurrence of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior occurring at or within the 157 property. 158 11.18.080: DECLARATION OF NUISANCE & ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: 159 A. The city may declare the existence of nuisance, as described under Section 11.18.070 at 160 any time. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, a declaration of nuisance may be 161 combined with any other notice from the city to the responsible party. 162 B. Administrative Citation. Upon a determination that a business or private property has 163 created a nuisance the city may issue an administrative citation. 164 1. The written citation shall state: 165 166 a. The name and address, if known, of the responsible party; 167 b. The date and location of each violation; 168 c. The nature of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 169 6 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT d. That the nuisance must be corrected; 170 e. Provide a specific date by which the corrective action ordered by the 171 enforcement official be taken; 172 f. The remedies, including any civil fines, that the enforcement official intends 173 to pursue if corrective action is not taken; 174 g. Recommendations regarding potential remedial measures and an opportunity 175 for the responsible party to demonstrate use of remedial measures to the city; 176 h. Identification of the procedure to appeal the citation; and 177 i. The signature of the enforcement official. 178 179 2. The enforcement official shall serve the administrative citation on the responsible 180 party by: 181 a. Posting a copy of the administrative citation at the property, and 182 b. By mailing the administrative citation through certified mail or 183 reputable mail tracking service that is capable of confirming delivery. 184 If the responsible party is the property owner of record, then mailing 185 shall be to the last known address appearing on the records of the Salt 186 Lake County Recorder. If the responsible party is any other person or 187 entity other than the owner of record, then mailing shall be to the last 188 known address of the responsible party on file with the city. 189 c. Notwithstanding the foregoing, personal service upon the responsible 190 party shall be sufficient to meet the service requirements of Subsection 191 11.18.080.B.2.b. 192 193 3. Corrective Action: Following the issuance of an administrative citation the 194 responsible party shall either: 195 a. Demonstrate that remedial measures have been implemented to 196 address the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior that led to the 197 nuisance declaration, or 198 b. Enter into a nuisance abatement plan pursuant to Section 11.18.090. 199 200 4. Failure to Correct: If corrective action has not been undertaken by the deadline 201 identified in the administrative citation, the city may pursue any remedy, 202 including civil fines identified in Section 11.18.110. 203 11.18.090: NUISANCE ABATEMENT PLANS: 204 A. Any nuisance abatement plan executed by a responsible party and the city shall certify 205 the responsible party’s agreement to take all necessary and appropriate measures to reduce, 206 eliminate or prevent future recurrence of each nuisance conduct and each serious violent 207 behavior giving rise to nuisance declaration. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, 208 the following: 209 210 1. Removal of unlawful items; 211 7 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2. Taking steps to prevent the specific nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior, 212 personally or through an agent such as a private security company; 213 3. Hiring sufficient licensed and insured security personnel to patrol the property 214 and the abutting sidewalks; 215 4. Documenting proactive efforts with the police department regarding nuisance 216 behavior or serious violent behavior activities; 217 5. Participating in regular meetings with community-based organizations at which 218 specific efforts to address nuisance behavior or serious violent behavior are 219 discussed; 220 6. Installing and maintaining improved lighting at each point of entry to and exit 221 from the property and in designated common areas, if any; 222 7. Installing and maintaining surveillance cameras that are at all times: (i) active and 223 operational at each point of entry to and exit from the business or property, in 224 designated common areas and in interior spaces where business operations are 225 conducted, on the street abutting the business, and any other locations where prior 226 nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior has been reported; (ii) disclosed to 227 the public through posted notice on the premises; (iii) illuminated in such a 228 manner so as to enable persons entering and exiting the business or property to be 229 visible and identified on recorded footage; and (iv) maintaining recorded footage 230 for not less than 6 months after the recording occurs; 231 8. Installing metal detectors to screen persons visiting the business; 232 9. Maintaining an internal log or incident reporting system documenting the owner's 233 response to specific incidents of illegal activity inside the property or on the 234 abutting sidewalk; 235 10. Displaying signage identifying prohibited behavior at the property; 236 11. Making specific efforts to address litter and other cleanliness issues, such as 237 additional or larger refuse bins, more frequent or targeted cleaning, signage, 238 enhanced refuse bins, and changing business operations or products to reduce the 239 likelihood of litter creation; 240 12. Installing soundproofing insulation or taking other steps to control noise; 241 13. Changing the hours of operation in a manner designed to reduce the likelihood of 242 nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 243 14. Changing business operations or products sold in a manner designed to reduce the 244 likelihood of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 245 15. Removing any drug paraphernalia offered for sale or display in violation of 246 applicable zoning requirements from the premises; 247 16. Providing surveillance camera footage to law enforcement upon request; and 248 17. Any other measures likely to abate or prevent the recurrence of the nuisance 249 behavior or serious violent behavior. 250 251 B. Term: Executed plans shall be effective for a minimum of 12 months, and may be 252 extended by mutual agreement, or if ordered by the administrative appeals officer, if another 253 nuisance is declared at the property prior to expiration of the plan. 254 255 C. Remedies: All nuisance abatement plans shall identify remedies to the city if the 256 responsible party does not comply with the plan. These remedies may include, but are not limited 257 8 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT to: granting the city the ability to enter and abate the nuisance with recovery of costs associated 258 therewith to be made by the responsible party to the city upon presentation of an itemized 259 statement of costs; financial penalties; reduction in business operating hours; temporary closure 260 of the property or business; making some portions of the property inaccessible; and prohibiting 261 all alcohol sales or consumption on the property. 262 11.18.100: APPEALS: 263 A responsible party may appeal an administrative citation within ten (10) days of its issuance 264 pursuant to Chapter 2.75. 265 11.18.110: ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES: 266 A. Civil Fines: A property or business subject to a nuisance declaration may be subject to a 267 range of penalties that increase in severity. These penalties progress as follows: 268 1. If a responsible party fails to complete a corrective action by the deadline set 269 forth in an administrative citation, then for a first violation a fine shall be 270 assessed in the amount of $500. 271 2. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a 272 first violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan then a fine shall 273 be assessed in the amount of $750, which shall constitute a second violation. 274 3. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a 275 second violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan, then a fine 276 shall be assessed in the amount of $1,000, which shall constitute a third 277 violation. 278 4. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a 279 third or any subsequent violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement 280 plan, then a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $1,000. 281 B. Revocation of Business License: In the event more than two citations are issued in any 282 12 month period, and the business at issue is not then a party to and in compliance with a 283 nuisance abatement plan, then the city may suspend or revoke the associated business license 284 pursuant to Chapter 5.02. 285 C. Orders by the Administrative Appeals Officer: In the event of an appeal of an 286 administrative citation, the administrative appeals officer may: 287 1. Order that the responsible party and the city enter into a nuisance abatement 288 plan consistent with Section 11.18.090 with the measures as directed by the 289 administrative appeals officer. 290 9 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2. Grant the city an abatement order. 291 a. The order of abatement can require the responsible party to correct the 292 nuisance and can authorize the city to abate such nuisance if the 293 responsible party does not timely perform the abatement. 294 b. In the event the city proves that nuisance conduct or conditions pose a 295 reasonably imminent danger to human health or human life, unabated, 296 the administrative appeals officer shall order the abatement as requested 297 by the city. In such circumstances the city may perform the abatement of 298 the nuisance at the first possible opportunity. 299 c. The abatement order must permit the city to charge the responsible party 300 for the costs the city incurs in abating the nuisance. The costs may be 301 appealed to the administrative appeals officer pursuant to Section 302 11.70.150. 303 3. Revoke a business license without the right to apply for another license at the 304 property or another business premises for at least six months. 305 Orders of an administrative appeals officer issued pursuant to this Chapter are each an 306 administrative enforcement order that may be appealed in accordance with 2.75.210. 307 11.18.120: CONTINUING SUPERVISION: 308 A. When an administrative citation is not timely appealed or an administrative appeals 309 officer has affirmed the city’s nuisance declaration, the responsible party is subject to 310 continued supervision by an administrative appeals officer for twelve (12) months or the term 311 of any applicable nuisance abatement plan. During that time, the administrative appeals officer 312 may schedule review hearings to track the responsible party’s compliance with any nuisance 313 abatement plan or abatement order, impose previously suspended penalties, and hold a hearing 314 to consider any claim by the city that a responsible party has not complied with a nuisance 315 abatement plan ordered by the administrative appeals officer pursuant to Section 11.18.110. 316 B. At a hearing on a failure to comply with a nuisance abatement plan entered pursuant to 317 11.18.110, the administrative appeals officer shall consider the steps taken by the responsible 318 party and determine whether such party has fulfilled its obligations under the nuisance 319 abatement plan. 320 1. During a hearing reviewing a failure to comply with a nuisance abatement plan, 321 the underlying nuisance declaration cannot be disturbed. 322 2. In the event the administrative appeals officer finds that the responsible party 323 failed to comply with any obligation under the nuisance abatement plan, the 324 administrative appeals officer shall impose one or more remedies as set forth in the 325 nuisance abatement plan. 326 10 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT C. Each new administrative citation may be appealed. Such appeals are limited to a review 327 of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior identified in the administrative citation and 328 may not address previous administrative citations that were not timely appealed or orders by an 329 administrative appeals officer that were not timely appealed. 330 11.70.170: DECLARATION OR DETERMINATION TO FOLLOW BUSINESS OWNER 331 AND PROPERTY LOCATION: 332 A declaration or determination of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior follows the 333 business owner and/or runs with the property. A declaration or determination of nuisance 334 conduct or serious violent behavior is not eliminated by transferring the property or the 335 business to another person or entity, changing the name of the business, or moving the business 336 to a new location. Transfer of business ownership shall not terminate any nuisance abatement 337 plan in effect with respect to a nuisance business. The acquiring business owner shall be 338 responsible for compliance with any enforcement action pending against the nuisance business 339 and prior business owner. 340 341 342 SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its 343 first publication. 344 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 345 2025. 346 ______________________________ 347 CHAIRPERSON 348 349 350 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 351 352 ______________________________ 353 CITY RECORDER 354 355 356 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 357 358 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 359 360 ______________________________ 361 MAYOR 362 ______________________________ 363 CITY RECORDER 364 11 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT (SEAL) 365 366 Bill No. ________ of 2025. 367 Published: ______________. 368 Responsible Property Owner Ordinance(legislative)v4 369 370 371 This page has intentionally been left blank SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 09/04/2025 Date Sent to Council: 09/04/2025 From: Department * Finance Employee Name: Garcia, Arturo E-mail Arturo.Garcia@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 09/04/2025 Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 09/04/2025 Subject: Responsible Owner Ordinance New transmittal or Revision New transmittal Revision Revision Updates: There were recent changes made to the ordinance that require a revision of the transmittal. The updated documentation below reflects these adjustments to ensure consistency with state law. Additional Staff Contact: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer, Art Garcia, Director of Finance Operations, and Katherine Pasker, Senior City Attorney Presenters/Staff Table Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer, Art Garcia, Director of Finance Operations, and Katherine Pasker, Senior City Attorney Document Type Ordinance Budget Impact? Yes No Recommendation: The Administration recommends that the City Council adopt amendments to Salt Lake City Chapter 5.51and enact section 11.12.130, Public Peace, Morals and Welfare Offenses Against Public Order. Background/Discussion This ordinance originated in response to persistent public nuisance issues and after-hours alcohol consumption in non-residential premises, which have placed significant strain on city resources and negatively impacted neighborhood safety and quality of life. The City has seen repeated incidents of criminal activity, noise disturbances, and hazardous conditions at certain business and private properties, with limited recourse under existing ordinances. The current regulatory framework did not adequately hold property or business owners accountable for recurring nuisance activity on their premises, nor did it address the increasing trend of unauthorized after-hours alcohol consumption in common areas of commercial properties. These gaps led to a disproportionate burden on law enforcement and public safety personnel, while also diminishing the well-being of surrounding communities. The recommended ordinance introduces a tiered administrative enforcement process that allows for timely intervention, civil penalties, and the ability to require remedial measures or nuisance abatement plans. It further amends the City Code to prohibit alcohol consumption in common areas of commercial and non-residential properties between 2:00 AM and 6:00 AM, aligning City regulations with state-imposed restrictions on licensed establishments. This comprehensive approach is recommended because it empowers the City to take earlier, more flexible action to address nuisance behavior; imposes accountability on property and business owners; and provides a fair process for correction and appeal. These measures collectively promote public safety, reduce ongoing enforcement burdens, and support the health and welfare of Salt Lake City residents and visitors. Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?* Yes No Public Process This page has intentionally been left blank 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2025 (Amending the text of Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to nuisance private property and after-hours consumption of alcohol in the common areas of commercial establishments and non-residential premises) An ordinance (1) enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to responsible business and private property ownership to abate nuisances and (2) amending Chapters 11.12 and 5.51 to prohibit the after-hours consumption of alcohol in the common areas of commercial establishments and non-residential premises. WHEREAS, the city has a significant interest in the timely and effective resolution of public nuisances; WHEREAS, the city acknowledges a significant public safety burden placed on the citizens of the city when business owners and property owners permit nuisance activity or fail to otherwise implement necessary steps to prevent the nuisance activity; WHEREAS, Utah Code Section 32B-5-301 prohibits the after-hours consumption of alcoholic products and alcoholic beverages on the premises of retail licensees; and WHEREAS, non-residential premises and commercial establishments that do not adhere to the protections and safeguards required of retail licensees are permitting the consumption of alcoholic beverages on their premises long after the retail licensees are required to close; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that prohibiting the after-hours consumption of alcohol in the common areas of commercial establishments and non-residential premises pursuant to standards similar to those that govern the premises of retail licensees reasonably furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Salt Lake City. 2 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council has determined that the following ordinance promotes the health, safety, and public welfare of the citizens of the city; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the text of Chapter 5.51 of the Salt Lake City Code. That Chapter 5.51 of the Salt Lake City Code (Business Taxes, Licenses and Regulations: Alcohol Establishments and Off Premises Beer Retailers), is hereby amended as follows: CHAPTER 5.51 REGULATIONS RELATED TO ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENTS, NONRESIDENTIAL PREMISES, AND OFF PREMISES BEER RETAILERS 5.51.010: DEFINITIONS: ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENT: Any business that has obtained a license from the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Service. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE: This term has the same meaning as defined in Section 32B-2-102 of Utah Code, or its successor. ALCOHOLIC PRODUCT: This term has the same meaning as defined in Section 32B-2-102 of the Utah Code, or its successor. COMMON AREA: Any portion of a licensee establishment that is generally accessible to all occupants, invitees, guests, or customers; or that is generally intended for the common use of such occupants, invitees, guests or customers. Hotel rooms or employee-only areas are not “common area.” DABS: the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Services. LICENSEE ESTABLISHMENT: The location where any holder of a Salt Lake City business license, obtained for any purpose, operates. OFF PREMISES BEER RETAILER: This term has the same definition as defined in Section 32B-2-102 of Utah Code, or its successor provisions. 3 5.51.020: LICENSE REQUIRED: Alcohol establishments, licensee establishments, and off premises beer retailers must obtain a business license subject to the general requirements set forth in chapters 5.02 and 5.04 of this title and the requirements included in this chapter. 5.51.025: STATE ISSUED ALCOHOL LICENSES REQUIRED FOR ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENTS: No alcohol establishment may serve alcohol within the city without the appropriate valid license or permit issued by DABS pursuant to title 32B, Utah Code, or its successor provisions. 5.51.027: SPECIAL EVENT ALCOHOL PERMITS: A. Required: A city issued special event alcohol permit is required for all events which are required to obtain from DABS a single event permit or temporary special event beer permit under title 32B, Utah Code or its successor provisions, allowing alcohol to be stored, sold, served and consumed for short term events. B. Application Requirements: In addition to the application requirements set forth in section 5.02.060 of this title, the following information is required: 1. The time, dates, and location of the event. 2. A description of the nature and purpose of the event. 3. A description of the control measures to be imposed by the DABSC and where alcohol will be stored, served and sold. 4. Evidence that the applicant is not disqualified for the license or permit under Utah Code Section 32B-1-304 or its successor provisions or city ordinance. 5. A signed consent form stating that law enforcement and authorized city representatives shall have the unrestricted right to enter and inspect the premises during the event to ensure compliance with state law and city ordinance. C. Operational Restrictions: The permittee is subject to all operational restrictions imposed by the DABS under its state permit. No alcohol may be served at any special event unless the city permittee also obtains the appropriate state permit. D. Nontransferable: Special event alcohol permits are not transferable. E. Time Limits: Special event alcohol permits are subject to the time limitations applicable to DABS single event permits and temporary special event beer permits. 4 F. Fees: Special event alcohol permits are subject to the fees that correspond to chapter 5.04 of this title and to an alcohol concession agreement fee. Such fees are set forth in the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. 5.51.030: ANNUAL LICENSE FEES: Alcohol establishments, licensee establishments, and off premises beer retailers are subject to the license fees set forth in chapter 5.04 of this title. For the purpose of establishing regulatory fees and disproportionate costs for alcohol establishments, the city may separate alcohol establishments into subcategories within schedules 1 and 2 of this title based on the types of alcohol served and the type of business conducted within the alcohol establishment. 5.51.040: RESTRICTIONS GOVENING CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS IN COMMON AREAS: Between 2:00 A.M. and 6:00 A.M. a licensee establishment shall not: A. Furnish an alcoholic beverage or alcoholic product to an individual, nor B. Allow an individual to consume an alcoholic beverage or an alcoholic product in the common area of such establishment. 5.51.050: ENFORCEMENT: In addition to any enforcement procedures set forth in Utah Code Title 32B, any holder of a Salt Lake City business license found in violation of the provisions of this Chapter shall be (1) subject to a $1000 fine per occurrence, and (2) the City may seek to suspend or revoke the associated business license pursuant to the enforcement procedures set forth in Chapter 5.02. SECTION 2. Enacting Section 11.12.130 of the Salt Lake City Code. That Section 11.12.130 (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare: Offenses Against Public Order) is hereby enacted as follows: 11.12.130: UNLAWFUL CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL IN COMMON AREAS OF NON- RESIDENTIAL ESTABLISHMENTS. A. Definitions: ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE: This term has the same meaning as defined in section 32B-2-102 of Utah Code, or its successor provisions. 5 ALCOHOLIC PRODUCT: This term has the same meaning as defined in section 32B-2-102 of Utah Code, or its successor provisions. COMMON AREA: Any portion of a non-residential premises that is generally accessible to all occupants, invitees or licensees; or that is generally intended for the common use of such occupants, invitees or licensees. Hotel rooms or employee-only areas are not “common area.” NON-RESIDENTIAL PREMISES: Premises that do not meet any of the various definitions of dwelling set forth in Section 21A.62.040. B. An individual shall not consume an alcoholic beverage nor an alcoholic product in any common area of non-residential premises during the time period beginning at 2:00 AM and ending at 6:00 AM. C. Operators of non-residential premises shall not permit the consumption of alcoholic beverages or alcoholic products in any common area during the time period between 2:00 AM and 6:00 AM. D. Individuals found in violation of this Section shall be subject to a civil citation and penalty of $500 per occurrence. Operators not otherwise subject to Chapter 5.51 shall be subject to a civil citation and penalty of $1000 per occurrence. SECTION 3. Enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code. That Chapter 11.18 in Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare), is hereby enacted as follows: CHAPTER 11.18 RESPONSIBLE PROPERTY OWNER 11.18.010: DEFINITIONS: In the construction of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall be as defined as set forth in this section: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICER: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT HEARING: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 6 ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ORDER: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. BUSINESS OWNER: Any person engaged in business within Salt Lake City. CITY: Salt Lake City, Utah, including the mayor and all other employees of the administrative branch of the city. CRIMINAL CONDUCT: Any criminal offense at a place of business that can be reasonably linked to a patron, invitee, manager, owner, or employee of the business, an occupant of the place of business, or any person in the case of vacant property. EMERGENCY CONDITIONS: One or more conditions that exist in a building or on a property that create the likelihood of imminent danger to the life or safety of anyone who enters or occupies the property or building. ENGAGE IN BUSINESS: To conduct, manage, or carry on any business activity, as owner, officer, agent, manager, employer, or lessee. IMMINENT LIFE SAFETY HAZARD: Any condition that creates a serious and immediate danger to life, property, health, or public safety. ITEMIZED STATEMENT OF COSTS: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. NUISANCE CONDUCT: Behavior that interferes with the health, safety or welfare of the community, materially and repeatedly infringes on the quiet enjoyment of neighboring uses, or results in the harassment of patrons or other persons including, but not limited to: (a) criminal conduct; (b) disturbance of the peace; (c) illegal consumption or sale of alcoholic beverages; (d) illegal drug activity; (e) unlawful street or sidewalk obstruction; (f) gambling and illegal gaming activities; (g) harassment of passers-by; (h) prostitution; (i) public urination or defecation; (j) lewd conduct; (k) litter; (l) unlawful discharge of hazardous materials; (m) parking violations; (n) open storage of unlicensed, inoperable, unused or abandoned vehicles or vehicle parts, unless the property is licensed for such use; (o) open storage of junk, scrap metal, lumber, wastepaper products, building materials, machinery and associated parts, interior household furniture, appliances, tree limbs and cuttings, landscape debris, garbage, industrial waste, other spent, useless, worthless or 7 discarded materials, or materials stored or accumulated for the purpose of discarding materials that have served their original purpose; (p) fouling of the air with offensive odors or contaminants, excessive dust, or excessive loud noise; (q) owning, operating or conducting a vehicle chop shop in any building or structure, including a lot or curtilage, for the purpose of dealing in stolen vehicles or stolen vehicle parts or illegally obtaining and altering vehicles or vehicle identification numbers of vehicle parts; (r) vehicles parked on the sidewalk; (s) use of street parking spaces or sidewalk for open storage, sale, or rental of goods, or storage or repair of inoperable vehicles; (t) unlawful firearms possession by a patron; (u) illegal dumping; (v) unlawful junk dealer operations; (w) obstruction of an investigation of nuisance behavior; (x) repeated or continuing violations of any other City ordinance and/or regulations; or (y) any other activity that constitutes a public nuisance under state law. OBSTRUCTION OF AN INVESTIGATION: Any obstruction of, interference with or other impediment of the investigation of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior by a business owner, property owner, or other responsible person. PERSON: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. PLACE OF BUSINESS: A location maintained or operated by a person within the city at which business activities take place. Place of business includes a parking lot owned or leased by the business, parking areas traditionally used by patrons or employees of the business, and the public rights-of-way adjacent to the business premises as it is used by persons attracted to the business. REMEDIAL MEASURES: Specific, verifiable actions taken by a responsible party that are substantially likely to reduce, eliminate or prevent recurrence of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior at issue. RESPONSIBLE PERSON: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. SERIOUS VIOLENT BEHAVIOR. Conduct that would constitute any of the following offenses as defined by state law: homicide, murder, aggravated assault, rape, or sexual assault. 11.18.020: PURPOSE AND INTENT: Business owners and property owners shall properly manage their property and place of businesses to prevent them from becoming a nuisance to public safety personnel, adjacent public property, neighboring residents or businesses, or deteriorating into havens for crime or the spread of disease. This chapter creates a system to initiate administrative actions to abate nuisance conduct and serious violent behavior and to impose civil fines or other penalties if a 8 business owner or a property owner fails to take all remedial measures to address the identified nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior. 11.18.030: EXISTING LAW CONTINUED: The provisions of this chapter shall not invalidate any other title, chapter, or ordinance of this Code, but shall be read in conjunction with those titles, chapters, and ordinances and shall be used as an additional remedy for enforcement of violations thereof. 11.18.040: CRIMINAL OR CIVIL PROSECUTION; EMERGENCY POWERS: A. The city shall have sole discretion in deciding whether to pursue remedies to address nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior under this chapter, to file a civil nuisance action under this chapter or under state law, to bring criminal charges, to order suspension or revocation of business licenses, to order immediate action to terminate or abate nuisance conduct, to pursue administrative enforcement actions for the violation of any of its ordinances or applicable code requirements, or any combination thereof, or to pursue any other remedy available under the law. City officials are permitted to exercise executive discretion in determining which course of enforcement to pursue, taking into consideration the severity of an incident, the culpability of involved parties, the history of the involved property, and whether other circumstances exist that exacerbate the public impact of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior. B. The enforcement of the provisions of this chapter does not prevent the city from pursuing other remedies for specific violations, including fines, abatement, suspension, revocation, injunctions, or other penalties. Specific violations may be considered nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior under this chapter, even if the business owner or property owner has already incurred civil or criminal penalties related to that offense. C. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the city from abating nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior that denigrates the public health and welfare in a declared emergency. D. Each day a violation exists shall be considered a separate offense and may give rise to a separate citation, charge or other remedy. 11.18.050: ACTS INCLUDE CAUSING, ATTEMPTING, AIDING, AND ABETTING: Whenever an act, condition, or omission is referred to or made unlawful in this chapter, it shall include causing, attempting to cause, permitting, aiding, or abetting such act, condition, or omission. 11.18.060: DUTY TO PROPERLY MANAGE: 9 Every property owner and business owner shall have a duty to properly manage their private property or place of business, as applicable, to prevent the creation of a nuisance to neighboring businesses, residents, passers-by, or the public, that results from nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior by patrons, guests, employees, occupants, or those who frequent the business premises or the property, regardless of whether the persons are owners, invitees, or trespassers. 11.18.070: NUISANCE DECLARED A. Pursuant to Utah Code Section 10-8-60, the city has determined the quiet enjoyment of property and the general health, safety, and welfare of the community are intolerably impaired—and a public nuisance exists—when nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior occurs at any private property or place of business. B. A business owner or property owner is presumed to have created a nuisance if (1) within 180 consecutive days, not less than 3 separate incidents of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior occur at or within the property, (2) for ongoing violations of this Chapter the nuisance conduct has persisted for 30 days or more, or (3) in connection with a place of business there are 5 or more calls for service for nuisance conduct in a 30 day period. This presumption may be rebutted if the responsible party demonstrates that it took all reasonable steps, including implementing the remedial measures directed by the city, to prevent reoccurrence of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior occurring at or within the property. 11.18.080: DECLARATION OF NUISANCE & ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: A. The city may declare the existence of nuisance, as described under Section 11.18.070 at any time. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, a declaration of nuisance may be combined with any other notice from the city to the responsible party. B. Administrative Citation. Upon a determination that a business or private property has created a nuisance the city may issue an administrative citation. 1. The written citation shall state: a. The name and address, if known, of the responsible party; b. The date and location of each violation; c. The nature of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; d. That the nuisance must be corrected; e. Provide a specific date by which the corrective action ordered by the enforcement official be taken; f. The remedies, including any civil fines, that the enforcement official intends to pursue if corrective action is not taken; 10 g. Recommendations regarding potential remedial measures and an opportunity for the responsible party to demonstrate use of remedial measures to the city; h. Identification of the procedure to appeal the citation; and i. The signature of the enforcement official. 2. The enforcement official shall serve the administrative citation on the responsible party by: a. Posting a copy of the administrative citation at the property, and b. By mailing the administrative citation through certified mail or reputable mail tracking service that is capable of confirming delivery. If the responsible party is the property owner of record, then mailing shall be to the last known address appearing on the records of the Salt Lake County Recorder. If the responsible party is any other person or entity other than the owner of record, then mailing shall be to the last known address of the responsible party on file with the city. c. Notwithstanding the foregoing, personal service upon the responsible party shall be sufficient to meet the service requirements of Subsection 11.18.080.B.2.b. 3. Corrective Action: Following the issuance of an administrative citation the responsible party shall either: a. Demonstrate that remedial measures have been implemented to address the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior that led to the nuisance declaration, or b. Enter into a nuisance abatement plan pursuant to Section 11.18.090. 4. Failure to Correct: If corrective action has not been undertaken by the deadline identified in the administrative citation, the city may pursue any remedy, including civil fines identified in Section 11.18.110. 11.18.090: NUISANCE ABATEMENT PLANS: A. Any nuisance abatement plan executed by a responsible party and the city shall certify the responsible party’s agreement to take all necessary and appropriate measures to reduce, eliminate or prevent future recurrence of each nuisance conduct and each serious violent behavior giving rise to nuisance declaration. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Removal of unlawful items; 2. Taking steps to prevent the specific nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior, personally or through an agent such as a private security company; 3. Hiring sufficient licensed and insured security personnel to patrol the property and the abutting sidewalks; Type text here 11 4. Documenting proactive efforts with the police department regarding nuisance behavior or serious violent behavior activities; 5. Participating in regular meetings with community-based organizations at which specific efforts to address nuisance behavior or serious violent behavior are discussed; 6. Installing and maintaining improved lighting at each point of entry to and exit from the property and in designated common areas, if any; 7. Installing and maintaining surveillance cameras that are at all times: (i) active and operational at each point of entry to and exit from the business or property, in designated common areas and in interior spaces where business operations are conducted, on the street abutting the business, and any other locations where prior nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior has been reported; (ii) disclosed to the public through posted notice on the premises; (iii) illuminated in such a manner so as to enable persons entering and exiting the business or property to be visible and identified on recorded footage; and (iv) maintaining recorded footage for not less than 6 months after the recording occurs; 8. Installing metal detectors to screen persons visiting the business; 9. Maintaining an internal log or incident reporting system documenting the owner's response to specific incidents of illegal activity inside the property or on the abutting sidewalk; 10. Displaying signage identifying prohibited behavior at the property; 11. Making specific efforts to address litter and other cleanliness issues, such as additional or larger refuse bins, more frequent or targeted cleaning, signage, enhanced refuse bins, and changing business operations or products to reduce the likelihood of litter creation; 12. Installing soundproofing insulation or taking other steps to control noise; 13. Changing the hours of operation in a manner designed to reduce the likelihood of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 14. Changing business operations or products sold in a manner designed to reduce the likelihood of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 15. Removing any drug paraphernalia offered for sale or display in violation of applicable zoning requirements from the premises; 16. Providing surveillance camera footage to law enforcement upon request; and 17. Any other measures likely to abate or prevent the recurrence of the nuisance behavior or serious violent behavior. B. Term: Executed plans shall be effective for a minimum of 12 months, and may be extended by mutual agreement, or if ordered by the administrative appeals officer, if another nuisance is declared at the property prior to expiration of the plan. C. Remedies: All nuisance abatement plans shall identify remedies to the city if the responsible party does not comply with the plan. These remedies may include, but are not limited to: granting the city the ability to enter and abate the nuisance with recovery of costs associated therewith to be made by the responsible party to the city upon presentation of an itemized statement of costs; financial penalties; reduction in business operating hours; temporary closure 12 of the property or business; making some portions of the property inaccessible; and prohibiting all alcohol sales or consumption on the property. 11.18.100: APPEALS: A responsible party may appeal an administrative citation within ten (10) days of its issuance pursuant to Chapter 2.75. 11.18.110: ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES: A. Civil Fines: A property or business subject to a nuisance declaration may be subject to a range of penalties that increase in severity. These penalties progress as follows: 1. If a responsible party fails to complete a corrective action by the deadline set forth in an administrative citation, then for a first violation a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $500. 2. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a first violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan then a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $750, which shall constitute a second violation. 3. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a second violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan, then a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $1,000, which shall constitute a third violation. 4. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a third or any subsequent violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan, then a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $1,000. B. Revocation of Business License: In the event more than two citations are issued in any 12 month period, and the business at issue is not then a party to and in compliance with a nuisance abatement plan, then the city may suspend or revoke the associated business license pursuant to Chapter 5.02. C. Orders by the Administrative Appeals officer: In the event of an appeal of an administrative citation, the administrative appeals officer may: 1. Order that the responsible party and the city enter into a nuisance abatement plan consistent with Section 11.18.090 with the measures as directed by the administrative appeals officer. 2. Grant the city an abatement order. 13 a. The order of abatement can require the responsible party to correct the nuisance and can authorize the city to abate such nuisance if the responsible party does not timely perform the abatement. b. In the event the city proves that nuisance conduct or conditions pose a reasonably imminent danger to human health or human life, unabated, the administrative appeals officer shall order the abatement as requested by the city. In such circumstances the city may perform the abatement of the nuisance at the first possible opportunity. c. The abatement order must permit the city to charge the responsible party for the costs the city incurs in abating the nuisance. The costs may be appealed to the administrative appeals officer pursuant to Section 11.70.150. 3. Revoke a business license without the right to apply for another license at the property or another business premises for at least six months. Orders of an administrative appeals officer issued pursuant to this Chapter are each an administrative enforcement order that may be appealed in accordance with 2.75.210. 11.18.120: CONTINUING SUPERVISION: A. When an administrative citation is not timely appealed or an administrative appeals officer has affirmed the city’s nuisance declaration, the responsible party is subject to continued supervision by an administrative appeals officer for twelve (12) months or the term of any applicable nuisance abatement plan. During that time, the administrative appeals officer may schedule review hearings to track the responsible party’s compliance with any nuisance abatement plan or abatement order, impose previously suspended penalties, and hold a hearing to consider any claim by the city that a responsible party has not complied with a nuisance abatement plan ordered by the administrative appeals officer pursuant to Section 11.18.110. B. At a hearing on a failure to comply with a nuisance abatement plan entered pursuant to 11.18.110, the administrative appeals officer shall consider the steps taken by the responsible party and determine whether such party has fulfilled its obligations under the nuisance abatement plan. 1. During a hearing reviewing a failure to comply with a nuisance abatement plan, the underlying nuisance declaration cannot be disturbed. 2. In the event the administrative appeals officer finds that the responsible party failed to comply with any obligation under the nuisance abatement plan, the administrative appeals officer shall impose one or more remedies as set forth in the nuisance abatement plan. 14 C. Each new administrative citation may be appealed. Such appeals are limited to a review of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior identified in the administrative citation and may not address previous administrative citations that were not timely appealed or orders by an administrative appeals officer that were not timely appealed. 11.70.170: DECLARATION OR DETERMINATION TO FOLLOW BUSINESS OWNER AND PROPERTY LOCATION: A declaration or determination of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior follows the business owner and/or runs with the property. A declaration or determination of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior is not eliminated by transferring the property or the business to another person or entity, changing the name of the business, or moving the business to a new location. Transfer of business ownership shall not terminate any nuisance abatement plan in effect with respect to a nuisance business. The acquiring business owner shall be responsible for compliance with any enforcement action pending against the nuisance business and prior business owner. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2025. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR Type text here 15 ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2025. Published: ______________. Responsible Property Owner Ordinance(final)v3 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney September 4, 2025 This page has intentionally been left blank 1 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1 No. _____ of 2025 2 3 (Amending the text of Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to nuisance private property 4 and after-hours consumption of alcohol in the common areas of commercial establishments and 5 non-residential premises) 6 7 An ordinance (1) enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to 8 responsible business and private property ownership to abate nuisances and (2) amending 9 Chapters 11.12 and 5.51 to prohibit the after-hours consumption of alcohol in the common areas 10 of commercial establishments and non-residential premises. 11 WHEREAS, the city has a significant interest in the timely and effective resolution of 12 public nuisances; 13 WHEREAS, the city acknowledges a significant public safety burden placed on the 14 citizens of the city when business owners and property owners permit nuisance activity or fail to 15 otherwise implement necessary steps to prevent the nuisance activity; 16 WHEREAS, Utah Code Section 32B-5-301 prohibits the after-hours consumption of 17 alcoholic products and alcoholic beverages on the premises of retail licensees; and 18 WHEREAS, non-residential premises and commercial establishments that do not adhere 19 to the protections and safeguards required of retail licensees are permitting the consumption of 20 alcoholic beverages on their premises long after the retail licensees are required to close; and 21 WHEREAS, the City Council finds that prohibiting the after-hours consumption of 22 alcohol in the common areas of commercial establishments and non-residential premises 23 pursuant to standards similar to those that govern the premises of retail licensees reasonably 24 furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Salt Lake City. 25 2 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council has determined that the following ordinance 26 promotes the health, safety, and public welfare of the citizens of the city; and 27 WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s 28 best interests. 29 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 30 31 SECTION 1. Amending the text of Chapter 5.51 of the Salt Lake City Code. That 32 Chapter 5.51 of the Salt Lake City Code (Business Taxes, Licenses and Regulations: Alcohol 33 Establishments and Off Premises Beer Retailers), is hereby amended as follows: 34 CHAPTER 5.51 REGULATIONS RELATED TO ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENTS, 35 NONRESIDENTIAL PREMISES, AND OFF PREMISES BEER RETAILERS 36 37 5.51.005: PURPOSE: 38 39 The purpose of this chapter is to normalize the regulation of alcoholic beverages by the city by: 40 a) simplifying alcoholic beverage control regulation by not duplicating state regulations, and b) 41 limiting the city's regulatory interests to business licensing and to land use concerns as provided 42 in title 21A of this code. The provisions of this chapter shall be construed to effectuate those 43 purposes. This chapter does not limit in any way the responsibilities of Salt Lake City police 44 officers or Salt Lake City prosecutors under state law. 45 46 5.51.010: DEFINITIONS: 47 48 ALCOHOL: The same meaning as section 32A-1-105(2), Utah Code Annotated (2009), or 49 successor provisions. 50 51 ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENT: Any business that has obtained a license from the Utah 52 Department of Alcoholic Beverage Servicesells alcoholic beverages to patrons for consumption 53 on the premises, as set forth in section 21A.36.300 of this code. 54 55 ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE: This term has the same meaning as defined in Section 32B-2-102 56 of Utah Code, or its successor. 57 58 ALCOHOLIC PRODUCT: This term has the same meaning as defined in Section 32B-2-102 of 59 the Utah Code, or its successor. 60 61 COMMON AREA: Any portion of a licensee establishment that is generally accessible to all 62 occupants, invitees, guests, or customers; or that is generally intended for the common use of 63 3 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT such occupants, invitees, guests or customers. Hotel rooms or employee-only areas are not 64 “common area.” 65 66 DABS: the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Services. 67 68 LICENSEE ESTABLISHMENT: The location where any holder of a Salt Lake City business 69 license, obtained for any purpose, operates. 70 71 LICENSE ENFORCEMENT ACTION: The administrative process set forth in 72 section 5.51.070 of this chapter. 73 74 OFF PREMISES BEER RETAILER: This term has the same definition as defined in Section 75 32B-2-102 of Utah Code, or its successor provisions.A retail business that sells beer in its 76 original packaging for consumption off the premises, but does not include the sale of beer in 77 sealed containers pursuant to section 32A-10-206(7), Utah Code Annotated (2009), or its 78 successor provision. 79 80 SEASONAL LICENSE: A city business license issued to an alcohol establishment that is valid 81 for a six (6) month period corresponding with the periods provided for "seasonal A" and 82 "seasonal B" licenses issued by the Utah alcoholic beverage control commission, pursuant to title 83 32A, Utah Code Annotated (2009), and its successor provisions. 84 85 86 5.51.020: LICENSE REQUIRED: 87 88 Alcohol establishments, licensee establishments, and off premises beer retailers must obtain a 89 business license subject to the general requirements set forth in chapters 5.02 and 5.04 of this 90 title and the requirements included in this chapter. Alcohol establishments which qualify for a 91 seasonal A or seasonal B license issued by the Utah alcoholic beverage control commission may 92 obtain a seasonal license for the same term for which the state license is issued. 93 94 95 5.51.025: STATE ISSUED ALCOHOL LICENSES REQUIRED FOR ALCOHOL 96 ESTABLISHMENTS: 97 98 No alcohol establishment may serve alcohol within the city without the appropriate valid license 99 or permit issued by DABSthe Utah alcoholic beverage control commission pursuant to title 100 32BA, Utah Code Annotated (2009), orand its successor provisions. 101 102 5.51.027: SPECIAL EVENT ALCOHOL PERMITS: 103 104 A. Required: A city issued special event alcohol permit is required for all events which are 105 required to obtain from DABSthe Utah alcoholic beverage control commission a single event 106 permit or temporary special event beer permit under title 32BA, Utah Code Annotated (2009) or 107 its successor provisions, allowing alcohol to be stored, sold, served and consumed for short term 108 events. 109 4 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 110 B. Application Requirements: In addition to the application requirements set forth in 111 section 5.02.060 of this title, the following information is required: 112 1. The time, dates, and location of the event. 113 2. A description of the nature and purpose of the event. 114 3. A description of the control measures to be imposed by the DABSC and where 115 alcohol will be stored, served and sold. 116 4. Evidence that the applicant is not disqualified for the license or permit under Utah 117 Code Section 32B-1-304 or its successor provisions or city ordinance. 118 54. A signed consent form stating that law enforcement and authorized city 119 representatives shall have the unrestricted right to enter and inspect the premises during 120 the event to ensure compliance with state law and city ordinance. 121 122 C. Operational Restrictions: The permittee is subject to all operational restrictions imposed 123 by the DABSC under its state permit. No alcohol may be served at any special event unless the 124 city permittee also obtains the appropriate state permit. 125 126 D. Nontransferable: Special event alcohol permits are not transferable. 127 128 E. Time Limits: Special event alcohol permits are subject to the time limitations applicable 129 to DABSC single event permits and temporary special event beer permits. 130 131 F. Fees: Special event alcohol permits are subject to the fees that correspond to chapter 132 5.04 of this title and to an alcohol concession agreement fee. Such fees are set forth in the Salt 133 Lake City consolidated fee schedule. 134 135 136 5.51.030: ANNUAL LICENSE FEES: 137 138 A. Alcohol establishments, licensee establishments, and off premises beer retailers are 139 subject to the license fees set forth in chapter 5.04 of this title. For the purpose of establishing 140 regulatory fees and disproportionate costs for alcohol establishments, the city may separate 141 alcohol establishments into subcategories within schedules 1 and 2 of this title based on the types 142 of alcohol served and the type of business conducted within the alcohol establishment. 143 144 B. The license fee for a seasonal license will be assessed at fifty percent (50%) of the 145 regulatory and disproportionate fee charged for the type of alcohol establishment to be licensed 146 as listed on schedules 1 and 2 of this title, plus the full base license fee provided in 147 section 5.04.070 of this title. 148 149 150 5.51.040: RESTRICTIONS GOVENING CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES 151 AND ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS IN COMMON AREAS: 152 153 Between 2:00 A.M. and 6:00 A.M. a licensee establishment shall not: 154 155 5 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT A. Furnish an alcoholic beverage or alcoholic product to an individual, nor 156 B. Allow an individual to consume an alcoholic beverage or an alcoholic product in the 157 common area of such establishment. 158 159 160 5.51.050100: OFF PREMISES BEER RETAILERS; OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND 161 ENFORCEMENT: 162 163 A. In addition to any enforcement procedures set forth in Utah Code Title 32B, any holder of 164 a Salt Lake City business license found in violation of the provisions of this Chapter shall be (1) 165 subject to a $1000 fine per occurrence, and (2) the City may seek to suspend or revoke the 166 associated business license pursuant to the enforcement procedures set forth in Chapter 167 5.02requirements under this code, off premises beer retailers are subject to the operational 168 requirements set forth in sections 32A-10-102 and 32A-10-103, Utah Code Annotated (2009), or 169 its successor provisions. 170 171 B. For violations related to underage sale of beer, the enforcement process set forth at 172 section 32A-10-103, Utah Code Annotated (2009), or its successor provisions, applies. 173 174 C. For all other violations, the requirements of chapter 5.02 of this title apply. 175 176 SECTION 2. Enacting Section 11.12.130 of the Salt Lake City Code. That Section 177 11.12.130 (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare: Offenses Against Public Order) is hereby enacted 178 as follows: 179 11.12.130: UNLAWFUL CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL IN COMMON AREAS OF NON-180 RESIDENTIAL ESTABLISHMENTS. 181 182 A. Definitions: 183 184 ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE: This term has the same meaning as defined in section 32B-2-102 of 185 Utah Code, or its successor provisions. 186 187 ALCOHOLIC PRODUCT: This term has the same meaning as defined in section 32B-2-102 of 188 Utah Code, or its successor provisions. 189 190 COMMON AREA: Any portion of a non-residential premises that is generally accessible to all 191 occupants, invitees or licensees; or that is generally intended for the common use of such 192 occupants, invitees or licensees. Hotel rooms or employee-only areas are not “common area.” 193 194 NON-RESIDENTIAL PREMISES: Premises that do not meet any of the various definitions of 195 dwelling set forth in Section 21A.62.040. 196 197 6 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT B. An individual shall not consume an alcoholic beverage nor an alcoholic product in any 198 common area of non-residential premises during the time period beginning at 2:00 AM and 199 ending at 6:00 AM. 200 201 C. Operators of non-residential premises shall not permit the consumption of alcoholic 202 beverages or alcoholic products in any common area during the time period between 2:00 AM 203 and 6:00 AM. 204 205 D. Individuals found in violation of this Section shall be subject to a civil citation and 206 penalty of $500 per occurrence. Operators not otherwise subject to Chapter 5.51 shall be subject 207 to a civil citation and penalty of $1000 per occurrence. 208 209 SECTION 3. Enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code. That Chapter 11.18 in 210 Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare), is hereby enacted as 211 follows: 212 CHAPTER 11.18 RESPONSIBLE PROPERTY OWNER 213 11.18.010: DEFINITIONS: 214 215 In the construction of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall be as defined as set 216 forth in this section: 217 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICER: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 218 ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 219 ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 220 ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT HEARING: As that term is defined in Section 221 2.75.050. 222 ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ORDER: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 223 BUSINESS OWNER: Any person engaged in business within Salt Lake City. 224 CITY: Salt Lake City, Utah, including the mayor and all other employees of the administrative 225 branch of the city. 226 CRIMINAL CONDUCT: Any criminal offense at a place of business that can be reasonably 227 linked to a patron, invitee, manager, owner, or employee of the business, an occupant of the 228 place of business, or any person in the case of vacant property. 229 7 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT EMERGENCY CONDITIONS: One or more conditions that exist in a building or on a 230 property that create the likelihood of imminent danger to the life or safety of anyone who 231 enters or occupies the property or building. 232 ENGAGE IN BUSINESS: To conduct, manage, or carry on any business activity, as owner, 233 officer, agent, manager, employer, or lessee. 234 IMMINENT LIFE SAFETY HAZARD: Any condition that creates a serious and immediate 235 danger to life, property, health, or public safety. 236 ITEMIZED STATEMENT OF COSTS: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 237 NUISANCE CONDUCT: Behavior that interferes with the health, safety or welfare of the 238 community, materially and repeatedly infringes on the quiet enjoyment of neighboring uses, or 239 results in the harassment of patrons or other persons including, but not limited to: 240 (a) criminal conduct; 241 (b) disturbance of the peace; 242 (c) illegal consumption or sale of alcoholic beverages; 243 (d) illegal drug activity; 244 (e) unlawful street or sidewalk obstruction; 245 (f) gambling and illegal gaming activities; 246 (g) harassment of passers-by; 247 (h) prostitution; 248 (i) public urination or defecation; 249 (j) lewd conduct; 250 (k) litter; 251 (l) unlawful discharge of hazardous materials; 252 (m) parking violations; 253 (n) open storage of unlicensed, inoperable, unused or abandoned vehicles or vehicle parts, 254 unless the property is licensed for such use; 255 (o) open storage of junk, scrap metal, lumber, wastepaper products, building materials, 256 machinery and associated parts, interior household furniture, appliances, tree limbs and 257 cuttings, landscape debris, garbage, industrial waste, other spent, useless, worthless or 258 discarded materials, or materials stored or accumulated for the purpose of discarding 259 materials that have served their original purpose; 260 (p) fouling of the air with offensive odors or contaminants, excessive dust, or excessive 261 loud noise; 262 (q) owning, operating or conducting a vehicle chop shop in any building or structure, 263 including a lot or curtilage, for the purpose of dealing in stolen vehicles or stolen vehicle 264 parts or illegally obtaining and altering vehicles or vehicle identification numbers of 265 vehicle parts; 266 (r) vehicles parked on the sidewalk; 267 (s) use of street parking spaces or sidewalk for open storage, sale, or rental of goods, or 268 storage or repair of inoperable vehicles; 269 (t) unlawful firearms possession by a patron; 270 8 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT (u) illegal dumping; 271 (v) unlawful junk dealer operations; 272 (w) obstruction of an investigation of nuisance behavior; 273 (x) repeated or continuing violations of any other City ordinance and/or regulations; or 274 (y) any other activity that constitutes a public nuisance under state law. 275 OBSTRUCTION OF AN INVESTIGATION: Any obstruction of, interference with or other 276 impediment of the investigation of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior by a business 277 owner, property owner, or other responsible person. 278 PERSON: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 279 PLACE OF BUSINESS: A location maintained or operated by a person within the city at 280 which business activities take place. Place of business includes a parking lot owned or leased 281 by the business, parking areas traditionally used by patrons or employees of the business, and 282 the public rights-of-way adjacent to the business premises as it is used by persons attracted to 283 the business. 284 REMEDIAL MEASURES: Specific, verifiable actions taken by a responsible party that are 285 substantially likely to reduce, eliminate or prevent recurrence of the nuisance conduct or 286 serious violent behavior at issue. 287 RESPONSIBLE PERSON: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 288 SERIOUS VIOLENT BEHAVIOR. Conduct that would constitute any of the following 289 offenses as defined by state law: homicide, murder, aggravated assault, rape, or sexual assault. 290 11.18.020: PURPOSE AND INTENT: 291 Business owners and property owners shall properly manage their property and place of 292 businesses to prevent them from becoming a nuisance to public safety personnel, adjacent 293 public property, neighboring residents or businesses, or deteriorating into havens for crime or 294 the spread of disease. This chapter creates a system to initiate administrative actions to abate 295 nuisance conduct and serious violent behavior and to impose civil fines or other penalties if a 296 business owner or a property owner fails to take all remedial measures to address the identified 297 nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior. 298 11.18.030: EXISTING LAW CONTINUED: 299 The provisions of this chapter shall not invalidate any other title, chapter, or ordinance of this 300 Code, but shall be read in conjunction with those titles, chapters, and ordinances and shall be 301 used as an additional remedy for enforcement of violations thereof. 302 11.18.040: CRIMINAL OR CIVIL PROSECUTION; EMERGENCY POWERS: 303 9 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT A. The city shall have sole discretion in deciding whether to pursue remedies to address 304 nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior under this chapter, to file a civil nuisance action 305 under this chapter or under state law, to bring criminal charges, to order suspension or 306 revocation of business licenses, to order immediate action to terminate or abate nuisance 307 conduct, to pursue administrative enforcement actions for the violation of any of its ordinances 308 or applicable code requirements, or any combination thereof, or to pursue any other remedy 309 available under the law. City officials are permitted to exercise executive discretion in 310 determining which course of enforcement to pursue, taking into consideration the severity of 311 an incident, the culpability of involved parties, the history of the involved property, and 312 whether other circumstances exist that exacerbate the public impact of the nuisance conduct or 313 serious violent behavior. 314 B. The enforcement of the provisions of this chapter does not prevent the city from 315 pursuing other remedies for specific violations, including fines, abatement, suspension, 316 revocation, injunctions, or other penalties. Specific violations may be considered nuisance 317 conduct or serious violent behavior under this chapter, even if the business owner or property 318 owner has already incurred civil or criminal penalties related to that offense. 319 C. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the city from abating nuisance conduct or serious 320 violent behavior that denigrates the public health and welfare in a declared emergency. 321 D. Each day a violation exists shall be considered a separate offense and may give rise to a 322 separate citation, charge or other remedy. 323 11.18.050: ACTS INCLUDE CAUSING, ATTEMPTING, AIDING, AND ABETTING: 324 Whenever an act, condition, or omission is referred to or made unlawful in this chapter, it shall 325 include causing, attempting to cause, permitting, aiding, or abetting such act, condition, or 326 omission. 327 11.18.060: DUTY TO PROPERLY MANAGE: 328 Every property owner and business owner shall have a duty to properly manage their private 329 property or place of business, as applicable, to prevent the creation of a nuisance to 330 neighboring businesses, residents, passers-by, or the public, that results from nuisance conduct 331 or serious violent behavior by patrons, guests, employees, occupants, or those who frequent the 332 business premises or the property, regardless of whether the persons are owners, invitees, or 333 trespassers. 334 11.18.070: NUISANCE DECLARED 335 A. Pursuant to Utah Code Section 10-8-60, the city has determined the quiet enjoyment of 336 property and the general health, safety, and welfare of the community are intolerably 337 impaired—and a public nuisance exists—when nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior 338 occurs at any private property or place of business. 339 10 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT B. A business owner or property owner is presumed to have created a nuisance if (1) 340 within 180 consecutive days, not less than 3 separate incidents of nuisance conduct or serious 341 violent behavior occur at or within the property, (2) for ongoing violations of this Chapter the 342 nuisance conduct has persisted for 30 days or more, or (3) in connection with a place of 343 business there are 5 or more calls for service for nuisance conduct in a 30 day period. This 344 presumption may be rebutted if the responsible party demonstrates that it took all reasonable 345 steps, including implementing the remedial measures directed by the city, to prevent 346 reoccurrence of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior occurring at or within the 347 property. 348 11.18.080: DECLARATION OF NUISANCE & ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: 349 A. The city may declare the existence of nuisance, as described under Section 11.18.070 at 350 any time. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, a declaration of nuisance may be 351 combined with any other notice from the city to the responsible party. 352 B. Administrative Citation. Upon a determination that a business or private property has 353 created a nuisance the city may issue an administrative citation. 354 1. The written citation shall state: 355 356 a. The name and address, if known, of the responsible party; 357 b. The date and location of each violation; 358 c. The nature of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 359 d. That the nuisance must be corrected; 360 e. Provide a specific date by which the corrective action ordered by the 361 enforcement official be taken; 362 f. The remedies, including any civil fines, that the enforcement official intends 363 to pursue if corrective action is not taken; 364 g. Recommendations regarding potential remedial measures and an opportunity 365 for the responsible party to demonstrate use of remedial measures to the city; 366 h. Identification of the procedure to appeal the citation; and 367 i. The signature of the enforcement official. 368 369 2. The enforcement official shall serve the administrative citation on the responsible 370 party by: 371 a. Posting a copy of the administrative citation at the property, and 372 b. By mailing the administrative citation through certified mail or 373 reputable mail tracking service that is capable of confirming delivery. 374 If the responsible party is the property owner of record, then mailing 375 shall be to the last known address appearing on the records of the Salt 376 Lake County Recorder. If the responsible party is any other person or 377 entity other than the owner of record, then mailing shall be to the last 378 known address of the responsible party on file with the city. 379 11 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT c. Notwithstanding the foregoing, personal service upon the responsible 380 party shall be sufficient to meet the service requirements of Subsection 381 11.18.080.B.2.b. 382 383 3. Corrective Action: Following the issuance of an administrative citation the 384 responsible party shall either: 385 a. Demonstrate that remedial measures have been implemented to 386 address the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior that led to the 387 nuisance declaration, or 388 b. Enter into a nuisance abatement plan pursuant to Section 11.18.090. 389 390 4. Failure to Correct: If corrective action has not been undertaken by the deadline 391 identified in the administrative citation, the city may pursue any remedy, 392 including civil fines identified in Section 11.18.110. 393 11.18.090: NUISANCE ABATEMENT PLANS: 394 A. Any nuisance abatement plan executed by a responsible party and the city shall certify 395 the responsible party’s agreement to take all necessary and appropriate measures to reduce, 396 eliminate or prevent future recurrence of each nuisance conduct and each serious violent 397 behavior giving rise to nuisance declaration. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, 398 the following: 399 400 1. Removal of unlawful items; 401 2. Taking steps to prevent the specific nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior, 402 personally or through an agent such as a private security company; 403 3. Hiring sufficient licensed and insured security personnel to patrol the property 404 and the abutting sidewalks; 405 4. Documenting proactive efforts with the police department regarding nuisance 406 behavior or serious violent behavior activities; 407 5. Participating in regular meetings with community-based organizations at which 408 specific efforts to address nuisance behavior or serious violent behavior are 409 discussed; 410 6. Installing and maintaining improved lighting at each point of entry to and exit 411 from the property and in designated common areas, if any; 412 7. Installing and maintaining surveillance cameras that are at all times: (i) active and 413 operational at each point of entry to and exit from the business or property, in 414 designated common areas and in interior spaces where business operations are 415 conducted, on the street abutting the business, and any other locations where prior 416 nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior has been reported; (ii) disclosed to 417 the public through posted notice on the premises; (iii) illuminated in such a 418 manner so as to enable persons entering and exiting the business or property to be 419 visible and identified on recorded footage; and (iv) maintaining recorded footage 420 for not less than 6 months after the recording occurs; 421 8. Installing metal detectors to screen persons visiting the business; 422 12 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 9. Maintaining an internal log or incident reporting system documenting the owner's 423 response to specific incidents of illegal activity inside the property or on the 424 abutting sidewalk; 425 10. Displaying signage identifying prohibited behavior at the property; 426 11. Making specific efforts to address litter and other cleanliness issues, such as 427 additional or larger refuse bins, more frequent or targeted cleaning, signage, 428 enhanced refuse bins, and changing business operations or products to reduce the 429 likelihood of litter creation; 430 12. Installing soundproofing insulation or taking other steps to control noise; 431 13. Changing the hours of operation in a manner designed to reduce the likelihood of 432 nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 433 14. Changing business operations or products sold in a manner designed to reduce the 434 likelihood of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 435 15. Removing any drug paraphernalia offered for sale or display in violation of 436 applicable zoning requirements from the premises; 437 16. Providing surveillance camera footage to law enforcement upon request; and 438 17. Any other measures likely to abate or prevent the recurrence of the nuisance 439 behavior or serious violent behavior. 440 441 B. Term: Executed plans shall be effective for a minimum of 12 months, and may be 442 extended by mutual agreement, or if ordered by the administrative appeals officer, if another 443 nuisance is declared at the property prior to expiration of the plan. 444 445 C. Remedies: All nuisance abatement plans shall identify remedies to the city if the 446 responsible party does not comply with the plan. These remedies may include, but are not limited 447 to: granting the city the ability to enter and abate the nuisance with recovery of costs associated 448 therewith to be made by the responsible party to the city upon presentation of an itemized 449 statement of costs; financial penalties; reduction in business operating hours; temporary closure 450 of the property or business; making some portions of the property inaccessible; and prohibiting 451 all alcohol sales or consumption on the property. 452 11.18.100: APPEALS: 453 A responsible party may appeal an administrative citation within ten (10) days of its issuance 454 pursuant to Chapter 2.75. 455 11.18.110: ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES: 456 A. Civil Fines: A property or business subject to a nuisance declaration may be subject to a 457 range of penalties that increase in severity. These penalties progress as follows: 458 1. If a responsible party fails to complete a corrective action by the deadline set 459 forth in an administrative citation, then for a first violation a fine shall be 460 assessed in the amount of $500. 461 13 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a 462 first violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan then a fine shall 463 be assessed in the amount of $750, which shall constitute a second violation. 464 3. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a 465 second violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan, then a fine 466 shall be assessed in the amount of $1,000, which shall constitute a third 467 violation. 468 4. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a 469 third or any subsequent violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement 470 plan, then a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $1,000. 471 B. Revocation of Business License: In the event more than two citations are issued in any 472 12 month period, and the business at issue is not then a party to and in compliance with a 473 nuisance abatement plan, then the city may suspend or revoke the associated business license 474 pursuant to Chapter 5.02. 475 C. Orders by the Administrative Appeals Officer: In the event of an appeal of an 476 administrative citation, the administrative appeals officer may: 477 1. Order that the responsible party and the city enter into a nuisance abatement 478 plan consistent with Section 11.18.090 with the measures as directed by the 479 administrative appeals officer. 480 2. Grant the city an abatement order. 481 a. The order of abatement can require the responsible party to correct the 482 nuisance and can authorize the city to abate such nuisance if the 483 responsible party does not timely perform the abatement. 484 b. In the event the city proves that nuisance conduct or conditions pose a 485 reasonably imminent danger to human health or human life, unabated, 486 the administrative appeals officer shall order the abatement as requested 487 by the city. In such circumstances the city may perform the abatement of 488 the nuisance at the first possible opportunity. 489 c. The abatement order must permit the city to charge the responsible party 490 for the costs the city incurs in abating the nuisance. The costs may be 491 appealed to the administrative appeals officer pursuant to Section 492 11.70.150. 493 3. Revoke a business license without the right to apply for another license at the 494 property or another business premises for at least six months. 495 14 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Orders of an administrative appeals officer issued pursuant to this Chapter are each an 496 administrative enforcement order that may be appealed in accordance with 2.75.210. 497 11.18.120: CONTINUING SUPERVISION: 498 A. When an administrative citation is not timely appealed or an administrative appeals 499 officer has affirmed the city’s nuisance declaration, the responsible party is subject to 500 continued supervision by an administrative appeals officer for twelve (12) months or the term 501 of any applicable nuisance abatement plan. During that time, the administrative appeals officer 502 may schedule review hearings to track the responsible party’s compliance with any nuisance 503 abatement plan or abatement order, impose previously suspended penalties, and hold a hearing 504 to consider any claim by the city that a responsible party has not complied with a nuisance 505 abatement plan ordered by the administrative appeals officer pursuant to Section 11.18.110. 506 B. At a hearing on a failure to comply with a nuisance abatement plan entered pursuant to 507 11.18.110, the administrative appeals officer shall consider the steps taken by the responsible 508 party and determine whether such party has fulfilled its obligations under the nuisance 509 abatement plan. 510 1. During a hearing reviewing a failure to comply with a nuisance abatement plan, 511 the underlying nuisance declaration cannot be disturbed. 512 2. In the event the administrative appeals officer finds that the responsible party 513 failed to comply with any obligation under the nuisance abatement plan, the 514 administrative appeals officer shall impose one or more remedies as set forth in the 515 nuisance abatement plan. 516 C. Each new administrative citation may be appealed. Such appeals are limited to a review 517 of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior identified in the administrative citation and 518 may not address previous administrative citations that were not timely appealed or orders by an 519 administrative appeals officer that were not timely appealed. 520 11.70.170: DECLARATION OR DETERMINATION TO FOLLOW BUSINESS OWNER 521 AND PROPERTY LOCATION: 522 A declaration or determination of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior follows the 523 business owner and/or runs with the property. A declaration or determination of nuisance 524 conduct or serious violent behavior is not eliminated by transferring the property or the 525 business to another person or entity, changing the name of the business, or moving the business 526 to a new location. Transfer of business ownership shall not terminate any nuisance abatement 527 plan in effect with respect to a nuisance business. The acquiring business owner shall be 528 responsible for compliance with any enforcement action pending against the nuisance business 529 and prior business owner. 530 531 532 15 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its 533 first publication. 534 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 535 2025. 536 ______________________________ 537 CHAIRPERSON 538 539 540 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 541 542 ______________________________ 543 CITY RECORDER 544 545 546 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 547 548 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 549 550 ______________________________ 551 MAYOR 552 ______________________________ 553 CITY RECORDER 554 (SEAL) 555 556 Bill No. ________ of 2025. 557 Published: ______________. 558 Responsible Property Owner Ordinance(legislative)v3 559 560 561 This page has intentionally been left blank SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 08/20/2025 Date Sent to Council: 08/20/2025 From: Department * Finance Employee Name: Garcia, Arturo E-mail Arturo.Garcia@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 08/20/2025 Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 08/20/2025 Subject: Responsible Owner Ordinance Additional Staff Contact: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer, Art Garcia, Director of Finance Operations, and Katherine Pasker, Senior City Attorney Presenters/Staff Table Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer, Art Garcia, Director of Finance Operations, and Katherine Pasker, Senior City Attorney Document Type Ordinance Budget Impact? Yes No Recommendation: The Administration recommends that the City Council adopt amendments to Salt Lake City Chapter 5.51and enact section 11.12.130, Public Peace, Morals and Welfare Offenses Against Public Order. Background/Discussion This ordinance originated in response to persistent public nuisance issues and after-hours alcohol consumption in non-residential premises, which have placed significant strain on city resources and negatively impacted neighborhood safety and quality of life. The City has seen repeated incidents of criminal activity, noise disturbances, and hazardous conditions at certain business and private properties, with limited recourse under existing ordinances. The current regulatory framework did not adequately hold property or business owners accountable for recurring nuisance activity on their premises, nor did it address the increasing trend of unauthorized after-hours alcohol consumption in common areas of commercial properties. These gaps led to a disproportionate burden on law enforcement and public safety personnel, while also diminishing the well-being of surrounding communities. The recommended ordinance introduces a tiered administrative enforcement process that allows for timely intervention, civil penalties, and the ability to require remedial measures or nuisance abatement plans. It further amends the City Code to prohibit alcohol consumption in common areas of commercial and non-residential properties between 2:00 AM and 6:00 AM, aligning City regulations with state-imposed restrictions on licensed establishments. This comprehensive approach is recommended because it empowers the City to take earlier, more flexible action to address nuisance behavior; imposes accountability on property and business owners; and provides a fair process for correction and appeal. These measures collectively promote public safety, reduce ongoing enforcement burdens, and support the health and welfare of Salt Lake City residents and visitors. Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?* Yes No Public Process This page has intentionally been left blank 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2025 (Amending the text of Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to nuisance private property and after-hours consumption of alcohol in the common areas of commercial establishments and non-residential premises) An ordinance (1) enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to responsible business and private property ownership to abate nuisances and (2) amending Chapters 11.12 and 5.51 to prohibit the after-hours consumption of alcohol in the common areas of commercial establishments and non-residential premises. WHEREAS, the city has a significant interest in the timely and effective resolution of public nuisances; WHEREAS, the city acknowledges a significant public safety burden placed on the citizens of the city when business owners and property owners permit nuisance activity or fail to otherwise implement necessary steps to prevent the nuisance activity; WHEREAS, Utah Code Section 32B-5-301 prohibits the after-hours consumption of alcoholic products and alcoholic beverages on the premises of retail licensees; and WHEREAS, non-residential premises and commercial establishments that do not adhere to the protections and safeguards required of retail licensees are permitting the consumption of alcoholic beverages on their premises long after the retail licensees are required to close; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that prohibiting the after-hours consumption of alcohol in the common areas of commercial establishments and non-residential premises pursuant to standards similar to those that govern the premises of retail licensees reasonably furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Salt Lake City. 2 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council has determined that the following ordinance promotes the health, safety, and public welfare of the citizens of the city; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the text of Chapter 5.51 of the Salt Lake City Code. That Chapter 5.51 of the Salt Lake City Code (Business Taxes, Licenses and Regulations: Alcohol Establishments and Off Premises Beer Retailers), is hereby amended as follows: CHAPTER 5.51 REGULATIONS RELATED TO ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENTS, NONRESIDENTIAL PREMISES, AND OFF PREMISES BEER RETAILERS 5.51.010: DEFINITIONS: ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENT: Any business that has obtained a license from the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Service. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE: This term has the same meaning as defined in Section 32B-2-102 of Utah Code, or its successor. ALCOHOLIC PRODUCT: This term has the same meaning as defined in Section 32B-2-102 of the Utah Code, or its successor. COMMON AREA: Any portion of a licensee establishment that is generally accessible to all occupants, invitees, guests, or customers; or that is generally intended for the common use of such occupants, invitees, guests or customers. Hotel rooms or employee-only areas are not “common area.” DABS: the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Services. LICENSEE ESTABLISHMENT: The location where any holder of a Salt Lake City business license, obtained for any purpose, operates. OFF PREMISES BEER RETAILER: This term has the same definition as defined in Section 32B-2-102 of Utah Code, or its successor provisions. 3 5.51.020: LICENSE REQUIRED: Alcohol establishments, licensee establishments, and off premises beer retailers must obtain a business license subject to the general requirements set forth in chapters 5.02 and 5.04 of this title and the requirements included in this chapter. 5.51.025: STATE ISSUED ALCOHOL LICENSES REQUIRED FOR ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENTS: No alcohol establishment may serve alcohol within the city without the appropriate valid license or permit issued by DABS pursuant to title 32B, Utah Code, or its successor provisions. 5.51.027: SPECIAL EVENT ALCOHOL PERMITS: A. Required: A city issued special event alcohol permit is required for all events which are required to obtain from DABS a single event permit or temporary special event beer permit under title 32B, Utah Code or its successor provisions, allowing alcohol to be stored, sold, served and consumed for short term events. B. Application Requirements: In addition to the application requirements set forth in section 5.02.060 of this title, the following information is required: 1. The time, dates, and location of the event. 2. A description of the nature and purpose of the event. 3. A description of the control measures to be imposed by the DABSC and where alcohol will be stored, served and sold. 4. Evidence that the applicant is not disqualified for the license or permit under Utah Code Section 32B-1-304 or its successor provisions or city ordinance. 5. A signed consent form stating that law enforcement and authorized city representatives shall have the unrestricted right to enter and inspect the premises during the event to ensure compliance with state law and city ordinance. C. Operational Restrictions: The permittee is subject to all operational restrictions imposed by the DABS under its state permit. No alcohol may be served at any special event unless the city permittee also obtains the appropriate state permit. D. Nontransferable: Special event alcohol permits are not transferable. E. Time Limits: Special event alcohol permits are subject to the time limitations applicable to DABS single event permits and temporary special event beer permits. 4 F. Fees: Special event alcohol permits are subject to the fees that correspond to chapter 5.04 of this title and to an alcohol concession agreement fee. Such fees are set forth in the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. 5.51.030: ANNUAL LICENSE FEES: Alcohol establishments, licensee establishments, and off premises beer retailers are subject to the license fees set forth in chapter 5.04 of this title. For the purpose of establishing regulatory fees and disproportionate costs for alcohol establishments, the city may separate alcohol establishments into subcategories within schedules 1 and 2 of this title based on the types of alcohol served and the type of business conducted within the alcohol establishment. 5.51.040: RESTRICTIONS GOVENING CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS IN COMMON AREAS: Between 2:00 A.M. and 6:00 A.M. a licensee establishment shall not: A. Furnish an alcoholic beverage or alcoholic product to an individual, nor B. Allow an individual to consume an alcoholic beverage or an alcoholic product in the common area of such establishment. 5.51.050: ENFORCEMENT: In addition to any enforcement procedures set forth in Utah Code Title 32B, any holder of a Salt Lake City business license found in violation of the provisions of this Chapter shall be (1) subject to a $1000 fine per occurrence, and (2) the City may seek to suspend or revoke the associated business license pursuant to the enforcement procedures set forth in Chapter 5.02. SECTION 2. Enacting Section 11.12.130 of the Salt Lake City Code. That Section 11.12.130 (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare: Offenses Against Public Order) is hereby enacted as follows: 11.12.130: UNLAWFUL CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL IN COMMON AREAS OF NON- RESIDENTIAL ESTABLISHMENTS. A. Definitions: ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE: This term has the same meaning as defined in section 32B-2-102 of Utah Code, or its successor provisions. 5 ALCOHOLIC PRODUCT: This term has the same meaning as defined in section 32B-2-102 of Utah Code, or its successor provisions. COMMON AREA: Any portion of a non-residential premises that is generally accessible to all occupants, invitees or licensees; or that is generally intended for the common use of such occupants, invitees or licensees. Hotel rooms or employee-only areas are not “common area.” NON-RESIDENTIAL PREMISES: Premises that do not meet any of the various definitions of dwelling set forth in Section 21A.62.040. B. An individual shall not consume an alcoholic beverage nor an alcoholic product in any common area of non-residential premises during the time period beginning at 2:00 AM and ending at 6:00 AM. C. Operators of non-residential premises shall not permit the consumption of alcoholic beverages or alcoholic products in any common area during the time period between 2:00 AM and 6:00 AM. D. Individuals found in violation of this Section shall be subject to a civil citation and penalty of $500 per occurrence. Operators not otherwise subject to Chapter 5.51 shall be subject to a civil citation and penalty of $1000 per occurrence. SECTION 3. Enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code. That Chapter 11.18 in Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare), is hereby enacted as follows: CHAPTER 11.18 RESPONSIBLE PROPERTY OWNER 11.18.010: DEFINITIONS: In the construction of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall be as defined as set forth in this section: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICER: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT HEARING: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 6 ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ORDER: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. BUSINESS OWNER: Any person engaged in business within Salt Lake City. CITY: Salt Lake City, Utah, including the mayor and all other employees of the administrative branch of the city. CRIMINAL CONDUCT: Any criminal offense at a place of business that can be reasonably linked to a patron, invitee, manager, owner, or employee of the business, an occupant of the place of business, or any person in the case of vacant property. EMERGENCY CONDITIONS: One or more conditions that exist in a building or on a property that create the likelihood of imminent danger to the life or safety of anyone who enters or occupies the property or building. ENGAGE IN BUSINESS: To conduct, manage, or carry on any business activity, as owner, officer, agent, manager, employer, or lessee. IMMINENT LIFE SAFETY HAZARD: Any condition that creates a serious and immediate danger to life, property, health, or public safety. ITEMIZED STATEMENT OF COSTS: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. NUISANCE CONDUCT: Behavior that interferes with the health, safety or welfare of the community, materially and repeatedly infringes on the quiet enjoyment of neighboring uses, or results in the harassment of patrons or other persons including, but not limited to: (a) criminal conduct; (b) disturbance of the peace; (c) illegal consumption or sale of alcoholic beverages; (d) illegal drug activity; (e) unlawful street or sidewalk obstruction; (f) gambling and illegal gaming activities; (g) harassment of passers-by; (h) prostitution; (i) public urination or defecation; (j) lewd conduct; (k) litter; (l) unlawful discharge of hazardous materials; (m) parking violations; (n) open storage of unlicensed, inoperable, unused or abandoned vehicles or vehicle parts, unless the property is licensed for such use; (o) open storage of junk, scrap metal, lumber, wastepaper products, building materials, machinery and associated parts, interior household furniture, appliances, tree limbs and cuttings, landscape debris, garbage, industrial waste, other spent, useless, worthless or 7 discarded materials, or materials stored or accumulated for the purpose of discarding materials that have served their original purpose; (p) fouling of the air with offensive odors or contaminants, excessive dust, or excessive loud noise; (q) owning, operating or conducting a vehicle chop shop in any building or structure, including a lot or curtilage, for the purpose of dealing in stolen vehicles or stolen vehicle parts or illegally obtaining and altering vehicles or vehicle identification numbers of vehicle parts; (r) vehicles parked on the sidewalk; (s) use of street parking spaces or sidewalk for open storage, sale, or rental of goods, or storage or repair of inoperable vehicles; (t) unlawful firearms possession by a patron; (u) illegal dumping; (v) unlawful junk dealer operations; (w) obstruction of an investigation of nuisance behavior; (x) repeated or continuing violations of any other City ordinance and/or regulations; or (y) any other activity that constitutes a public nuisance under state law. OBSTRUCTION OF AN INVESTIGATION: Any obstruction of, interference with or other impediment of the investigation of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior by a business owner, property owner, or other responsible person. PERSON: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. PLACE OF BUSINESS: A location maintained or operated by a person within the city at which business activities take place. Place of business includes a parking lot owned or leased by the business, parking areas traditionally used by patrons or employees of the business, and the public rights-of-way adjacent to the business premises as it is used by persons attracted to the business. REMEDIAL MEASURES: Specific, verifiable actions taken by a responsible party that are substantially likely to reduce, eliminate or prevent recurrence of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior at issue. RESPONSIBLE PERSON: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. SERIOUS VIOLENT BEHAVIOR. Conduct that would constitute any of the following offenses as defined by state law: homicide, murder, aggravated assault, rape, or sexual assault. 11.18.020: PURPOSE AND INTENT: Business owners and property owners shall properly manage their property and place of businesses to prevent them from becoming a nuisance to public safety personnel, adjacent public property, neighboring residents or businesses, or deteriorating into havens for crime or the spread of disease. This chapter creates a system to initiate administrative actions to abate nuisance conduct and serious violent behavior and to impose civil fines or other penalties if a 8 business owner or a property owner fails to take all remedial measures to address the identified nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior. 11.18.030: EXISTING LAW CONTINUED: The provisions of this chapter shall not invalidate any other title, chapter, or ordinance of this Code, but shall be read in conjunction with those titles, chapters, and ordinances and shall be used as an additional remedy for enforcement of violations thereof. 11.18.040: CRIMINAL OR CIVIL PROSECUTION; EMERGENCY POWERS: A. The city shall have sole discretion in deciding whether to pursue remedies to address nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior under this chapter, to file a civil nuisance action under this chapter or under state law, to bring criminal charges, to order suspension or revocation of business licenses, to order immediate action to terminate or abate nuisance conduct, to pursue administrative enforcement actions for the violation of any of its ordinances or applicable code requirements, or any combination thereof, or to pursue any other remedy available under the law. City officials are permitted to exercise executive discretion in determining which course of enforcement to pursue, taking into consideration the severity of an incident, the culpability of involved parties, the history of the involved property, and whether other circumstances exist that exacerbate the public impact of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior. B. The enforcement of the provisions of this chapter does not prevent the city from pursuing other remedies for specific violations, including fines, abatement, suspension, revocation, injunctions, or other penalties. Specific violations may be considered nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior under this chapter, even if the business owner or property owner has already incurred civil or criminal penalties related to that offense. C. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the city from abating nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior that denigrates the public health and welfare in a declared emergency. D. Each day a violation exists shall be considered a separate offense and may give rise to a separate citation, charge or other remedy. 11.18.050: ACTS INCLUDE CAUSING, ATTEMPTING, AIDING, AND ABETTING: Whenever an act, condition, or omission is referred to or made unlawful in this chapter, it shall include causing, attempting to cause, permitting, aiding, or abetting such act, condition, or omission. 11.18.060: DUTY TO PROPERLY MANAGE: 9 Every property owner and business owner shall have a duty to properly manage their private property or place of business, as applicable, to prevent the creation of a nuisance to neighboring businesses, residents, passers-by, or the public, that results from nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior by patrons, guests, employees, occupants, or those who frequent the business premises or the property, regardless of whether the persons are owners, invitees, or trespassers. 11.18.070: NUISANCE DECLARED A. Pursuant to Utah Code Section 10-8-60, the city has determined the quiet enjoyment of property and the general health, safety, and welfare of the community are intolerably impaired—and a public nuisance exists—when nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior occurs at any private property or place of business. B. A business owner or property owner is presumed to have created a nuisance if (1) within 180 consecutive days, not less than 3 separate incidents of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior occur at or within the property, (2) for ongoing violations of this Chapter the nuisance conduct has persisted for 30 days or more, or (3) in connection with a place of business there are 5 or more calls for service for nuisance conduct in a 30 day period. This presumption may be rebutted if the responsible party demonstrates that it took all reasonable steps, including implementing the remedial measures directed by the city, to prevent reoccurrence of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior occurring at or within the property. 11.18.080: DECLARATION OF NUISANCE & ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: A. The city may declare the existence of nuisance, as described under Section 11.18.070 at any time. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, a declaration of nuisance may be combined with any other notice from the city to the responsible party. B. Administrative Citation. Upon a determination that a business or private property has created a nuisance the city may issue an administrative citation. 1. The written citation shall state: a. The name and address, if known, of the responsible party; b. The date and location of each violation; c. The nature of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; d. That the nuisance must be corrected; e. Provide a specific date by which the corrective action ordered by the enforcement official be taken; f. The remedies, including any civil fines, that the enforcement official intends to pursue if corrective action is not taken; 10 g. Recommendations regarding potential remedial measures and an opportunity for the responsible party to demonstrate use of remedial measures to the city; h. Identification of the procedure to appeal the citation; and i. The signature of the enforcement official. 2. The enforcement official shall serve the administrative citation on the responsible party by: a. Posting a copy of the administrative citation at the property, and b. By mailing the administrative citation through certified mail or reputable mail tracking service that is capable of confirming delivery. If the responsible party is the property owner of record, then mailing shall be to the last known address appearing on the records of the Salt Lake County Recorder. If the responsible party is any other person or entity other than the owner of record, then mailing shall be to the last known address of the responsible party on file with the city. c. Notwithstanding the foregoing, personal service upon the responsible party shall be sufficient to meet the service requirements of Subsection 11.18.080.B.2.b. 3. Corrective Action: Following the issuance of an administrative citation the responsible party shall either: a. Demonstrate that remedial measures have been implemented to address the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior that led to the nuisance declaration, or b. Enter into a nuisance abatement plan pursuant to Section 11.18.090. 4. Failure to Correct: If corrective action has not been undertaken by the deadline identified in the administrative citation, the city may pursue any remedy, including civil fines identified in Section 11.18.110. 11.18.090: NUISANCE ABATEMENT PLANS: A. Any nuisance abatement plan executed by a responsible party and the city shall certify the responsible party’s agreement to take all necessary and appropriate measures to reduce, eliminate or prevent future recurrence of each nuisance conduct and each serious violent behavior giving rise to nuisance declaration. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Removal of unlawful items; 2. Taking steps to prevent the specific nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior, personally or through an agent such as a private security company; 3. Hiring sufficient licensed and insured security personnel to patrol the property and the abutting sidewalks; 11 4. Documenting proactive efforts with the police department regarding nuisance behavior or serious violent behavior activities; 5. Participating in regular meetings with community-based organizations at which specific efforts to address nuisance behavior or serious violent behavior are discussed; 6. Installing and maintaining improved lighting at each point of entry to and exit from the property and in designated common areas, if any; 7. Installing and maintaining surveillance cameras that are at all times: (i) active and operational at each point of entry to and exit from the business or property, in designated common areas and in interior spaces where business operations are conducted, on the street abutting the business, and any other locations where prior nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior has been reported; (ii) disclosed to the public through posted notice on the premises; (iii) illuminated in such a manner so as to enable persons entering and exiting the business or property to be visible and identified on recorded footage; and (iv) maintaining recorded footage for not less than 6 months after the recording occurs; 8. Installing metal detectors to screen persons visiting the business; 9. Maintaining an internal log or incident reporting system documenting the owner's response to specific incidents of illegal activity inside the property or on the abutting sidewalk; 10. Displaying signage identifying prohibited behavior at the property; 11. Making specific efforts to address litter and other cleanliness issues, such as additional or larger refuse bins, more frequent or targeted cleaning, signage, enhanced refuse bins, and changing business operations or products to reduce the likelihood of litter creation; 12. Installing soundproofing insulation or taking other steps to control noise; 13. Changing the hours of operation in a manner designed to reduce the likelihood of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 14. Changing business operations or products sold in a manner designed to reduce the likelihood of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 15. Removing any drug paraphernalia offered for sale or display in violation of applicable zoning requirements from the premises; 16. Providing surveillance camera footage to law enforcement upon request; and 17. Any other measures likely to abate or prevent the recurrence of the nuisance behavior or serious violent behavior. B. Term: Executed plans shall be effective for a minimum of 12 months, and may be extended by mutual agreement, or if ordered by the administrative appeals officer, if another nuisance is declared at the property prior to expiration of the plan. C. Remedies: All nuisance abatement plans shall identify remedies to the city if the responsible party does not comply with the plan. These remedies may include, but are not limited to: granting the city the ability to enter and abate the nuisance with recovery of costs associated therewith to be made by the responsible party to the city upon presentation of an itemized statement of costs; financial penalties; reduction in business operating hours; temporary closure 12 of the property or business; making some portions of the property inaccessible; and prohibiting all alcohol sales or consumption on the property. 11.18.100: APPEALS: A responsible party may appeal an administrative citation within ten (10) days of its issuance pursuant to Chapter 2.75. 11.18.110: ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES: A. Civil Fines: A property or business subject to a nuisance declaration may be subject to a range of penalties that increase in severity. These penalties progress as follows: 1. If a responsible party fails to complete a corrective action by the deadline set forth in an administrative citation, then for a first violation a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $500. 2. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a first violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan then a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $750, which shall constitute a second violation. 3. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a second violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan, then a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $1,000, which shall constitute a third violation. 4. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a third or any subsequent violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan, then a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $1,000. B. Revocation of Business License: In the event more than two citations are issued in any 12 month period, and the business at issue is not then a party to and in compliance with a nuisance abatement plan, then the city may suspend or revoke the associated business license pursuant to Chapter 5.02. C. Orders by the Administrative Appeals officer: In the event of an appeal of an administrative citation, the administrative appeals officer may: 1. Order that the responsible party and the city enter into a nuisance abatement plan consistent with Section 11.18.090 with the measures as directed by the administrative appeals officer. 2. Grant the city an abatement order. 13 a. The order of abatement can require the responsible party to correct the nuisance and can authorize the city to abate such nuisance if the responsible party does not timely perform the abatement. b. In the event the city proves that nuisance conduct or conditions pose a reasonably imminent danger to human health or human life, unabated, the administrative appeals officer shall order the abatement as requested by the city. In such circumstances the city may perform the abatement of the nuisance at the first possible opportunity. c. The abatement order must permit the city to charge the responsible party for the costs the city incurs in abating the nuisance. The costs may be appealed to the administrative appeals officer pursuant to Section 11.70.150. 3. Revoke a business license without the right to apply for another license at the property or another business premises for at least six months. 4. Revoke a certificate of occupancy without the right to apply for another at the property for at least six months. Orders of an administrative appeals officer issued pursuant to this Chapter are each an administrative enforcement order that may be appealed in accordance with 2.75.210. 11.18.120: CONTINUING SUPERVISION: A. When an administrative citation is not timely appealed or an administrative appeals officer has affirmed the city’s nuisance declaration, the responsible party is subject to continued supervision by an administrative appeals officer for twelve (12) months or the term of any applicable nuisance abatement plan. During that time, the administrative appeals officer may schedule review hearings to track the responsible party’s compliance with any nuisance abatement plan or abatement order, impose previously suspended penalties, and hold a hearing to consider any claim by the city that a responsible party has not complied with a nuisance abatement plan ordered by the administrative appeals officer pursuant to Section 11.18.110. B. At a hearing on a failure to comply with a nuisance abatement plan entered pursuant to 11.18.110, the administrative appeals officer shall consider the steps taken by the responsible party and determine whether such party has fulfilled its obligations under the nuisance abatement plan. 1. During a hearing reviewing a failure to comply with a nuisance abatement plan, the underlying nuisance declaration cannot be disturbed. 2. In the event the administrative appeals officer finds that the responsible party failed to comply with any obligation under the nuisance abatement plan, the 14 administrative appeals officer shall impose one or more remedies as set forth in the nuisance abatement plan. C. Each new administrative citation may be appealed. Such appeals are limited to a review of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior identified in the administrative citation and may not address previous administrative citations that were not timely appealed or orders by an administrative appeals officer that were not timely appealed. 11.70.170: DECLARATION OR DETERMINATION TO FOLLOW BUSINESS OWNER AND PROPERTY LOCATION: A declaration or determination of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior follows the business owner and/or runs with the property. A declaration or determination of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior is not eliminated by transferring the property or the business to another person or entity, changing the name of the business, or moving the business to a new location. Transfer of business ownership shall not terminate any nuisance abatement plan in effect with respect to a nuisance business. The acquiring business owner shall be responsible for compliance with any enforcement action pending against the nuisance business and prior business owner. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2025. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR 15 ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2025. Published: ______________. Responsible Property Owner Ordinance(final)v2 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney August 18, 2025 This page has intentionally been left blank 1 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1 No. _____ of 2025 2 3 (Amending the text of Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to nuisance private property 4 and after-hours consumption of alcohol in the common areas of commercial establishments and 5 non-residential premises) 6 7 An ordinance (1) enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to 8 responsible business and private property ownership to abate nuisances and (2) amending 9 Chapters 11.12 and 5.51 to prohibit the after-hours consumption of alcohol in the common areas 10 of commercial establishments and non-residential premises. 11 WHEREAS, the city has a significant interest in the timely and effective resolution of 12 public nuisances; 13 WHEREAS, the city acknowledges a significant public safety burden placed on the 14 citizens of the city when business owners and property owners permit nuisance activity or fail to 15 otherwise implement necessary steps to prevent the nuisance activity; 16 WHEREAS, Utah Code Section 32B-5-301 prohibits the after-hours consumption of 17 alcoholic products and alcoholic beverages on the premises of retail licensees; and 18 WHEREAS, non-residential premises and commercial establishments that do not adhere 19 to the protections and safeguards required of retail licensees are permitting the consumption of 20 alcoholic beverages on their premises long after the retail licensees are required to close; and 21 WHEREAS, the City Council finds that prohibiting the after-hours consumption of 22 alcohol in the common areas of commercial establishments and non-residential premises 23 pursuant to standards similar to those that govern the premises of retail licensees reasonably 24 furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Salt Lake City. 25 2 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council has determined that the following ordinance 26 promotes the health, safety, and public welfare of the citizens of the city; and 27 WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that 28 adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. 29 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 30 31 SECTION 1. Amending the text of Chapter 5.51 of the Salt Lake City Code. That 32 Chapter 5.51 of the Salt Lake City Code (Business Taxes, Licenses and Regulations: Alcohol 33 Establishments and Off Premises Beer Retailers), is hereby amended as follows: 34 CHAPTER 5.51 REGULATIONS RELATED TO ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENTS, 35 NONRESIDENTIAL PREMISES, AND OFF PREMISES BEER RETAILERS 36 37 5.51.005: PURPOSE: 38 39 The purpose of this chapter is to normalize the regulation of alcoholic beverages by the city by: 40 a) simplifying alcoholic beverage control regulation by not duplicating state regulations, and b) 41 limiting the city's regulatory interests to business licensing and to land use concerns as provided 42 in title 21A of this code. The provisions of this chapter shall be construed to effectuate those 43 purposes. This chapter does not limit in any way the responsibilities of Salt Lake City police 44 officers or Salt Lake City prosecutors under state law. 45 46 5.51.010: DEFINITIONS: 47 48 ALCOHOL: The same meaning as section 32A-1-105(2), Utah Code Annotated (2009), or 49 successor provisions. 50 51 ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENT: Any business that has obtained a license from the Utah 52 Department of Alcoholic Beverage Servicesells alcoholic beverages to patrons for consumption 53 on the premises, as set forth in section 21A.36.300 of this code. 54 55 ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE: This term has the same meaning as defined in Section 32B-2-102 56 of Utah Code, or its successor. 57 58 ALCOHOLIC PRODUCT: This term has the same meaning as defined in Section 32B-2-102 of 59 the Utah Code, or its successor. 60 61 COMMON AREA: Any portion of a licensee establishment that is generally accessible to all 62 occupants, invitees, guests, or customers; or that is generally intended for the common use of 63 3 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT such occupants, invitees, guests or customers. Hotel rooms or employee-only areas are not 64 “common area.” 65 66 DABS: the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Services. 67 68 LICENSEE ESTABLISHMENT: The location where any holder of a Salt Lake City business 69 license, obtained for any purpose, operates. 70 71 LICENSE ENFORCEMENT ACTION: The administrative process set forth in 72 section 5.51.070 of this chapter. 73 74 OFF PREMISES BEER RETAILER: This term has the same definition as defined in Section 75 32B-2-102 of Utah Code, or its successor provisions.A retail business that sells beer in its 76 original packaging for consumption off the premises, but does not include the sale of beer in 77 sealed containers pursuant to section 32A-10-206(7), Utah Code Annotated (2009), or its 78 successor provision. 79 80 SEASONAL LICENSE: A city business license issued to an alcohol establishment that is valid 81 for a six (6) month period corresponding with the periods provided for "seasonal A" and 82 "seasonal B" licenses issued by the Utah alcoholic beverage control commission, pursuant to title 83 32A, Utah Code Annotated (2009), and its successor provisions. 84 85 86 5.51.020: LICENSE REQUIRED: 87 88 Alcohol establishments, licensee establishments, and off premises beer retailers must obtain a 89 business license subject to the general requirements set forth in chapters 5.02 and 5.04 of this 90 title and the requirements included in this chapter. Alcohol establishments which qualify for a 91 seasonal A or seasonal B license issued by the Utah alcoholic beverage control commission may 92 obtain a seasonal license for the same term for which the state license is issued. 93 94 95 5.51.025: STATE ISSUED ALCOHOL LICENSES REQUIRED FOR ALCOHOL 96 ESTABLISHMENTS: 97 98 No alcohol establishment may serve alcohol within the city without the appropriate valid license 99 or permit issued by DABSthe Utah alcoholic beverage control commission pursuant to title 100 32BA, Utah Code Annotated (2009), orand its successor provisions. 101 102 5.51.027: SPECIAL EVENT ALCOHOL PERMITS: 103 104 A. Required: A city issued special event alcohol permit is required for all events which are 105 required to obtain from DABSthe Utah alcoholic beverage control commission a single event 106 permit or temporary special event beer permit under title 32BA, Utah Code Annotated (2009) or 107 its successor provisions, allowing alcohol to be stored, sold, served and consumed for short term 108 events. 109 4 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 110 B. Application Requirements: In addition to the application requirements set forth in 111 section 5.02.060 of this title, the following information is required: 112 1. The time, dates, and location of the event. 113 2. A description of the nature and purpose of the event. 114 3. A description of the control measures to be imposed by the DABSC and where 115 alcohol will be stored, served and sold. 116 4. Evidence that the applicant is not disqualified for the license or permit under Utah 117 Code Section 32B-1-304 or its successor provisions or city ordinance. 118 54. A signed consent form stating that law enforcement and authorized city 119 representatives shall have the unrestricted right to enter and inspect the premises during 120 the event to ensure compliance with state law and city ordinance. 121 122 C. Operational Restrictions: The permittee is subject to all operational restrictions imposed 123 by the DABSC under its state permit. No alcohol may be served at any special event unless the 124 city permittee also obtains the appropriate state permit. 125 126 D. Nontransferable: Special event alcohol permits are not transferable. 127 128 E. Time Limits: Special event alcohol permits are subject to the time limitations applicable 129 to DABSC single event permits and temporary special event beer permits. 130 131 F. Fees: Special event alcohol permits are subject to the fees that correspond to chapter 132 5.04 of this title and to an alcohol concession agreement fee. Such fees are set forth in the Salt 133 Lake City consolidated fee schedule. 134 135 136 5.51.030: ANNUAL LICENSE FEES: 137 138 A. Alcohol establishments, licensee establishments, and off premises beer retailers are 139 subject to the license fees set forth in chapter 5.04 of this title. For the purpose of establishing 140 regulatory fees and disproportionate costs for alcohol establishments, the city may separate 141 alcohol establishments into subcategories within schedules 1 and 2 of this title based on the types 142 of alcohol served and the type of business conducted within the alcohol establishment. 143 144 B. The license fee for a seasonal license will be assessed at fifty percent (50%) of the 145 regulatory and disproportionate fee charged for the type of alcohol establishment to be licensed 146 as listed on schedules 1 and 2 of this title, plus the full base license fee provided in 147 section 5.04.070 of this title. 148 149 150 5.51.040: RESTRICTIONS GOVENING CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES 151 AND ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS IN COMMON AREAS: 152 153 Between 2:00 A.M. and 6:00 A.M. a licensee establishment shall not: 154 155 5 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT A. Furnish an alcoholic beverage or alcoholic product to an individual, nor 156 B. Allow an individual to consume an alcoholic beverage or an alcoholic product in the 157 common area of such establishment. 158 159 160 5.51.050100: OFF PREMISES BEER RETAILERS; OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND 161 ENFORCEMENT: 162 163 A. In addition to any enforcement procedures set forth in Utah Code Title 32B, any holder of 164 a Salt Lake City business license found in violation of the provisions of this Chapter shall be (1) 165 subject to a $1000 fine per occurrence, and (2) the City may seek to suspend or revoke the 166 associated business license pursuant to the enforcement procedures set forth in Chapter 167 5.02requirements under this code, off premises beer retailers are subject to the operational 168 requirements set forth in sections 32A-10-102 and 32A-10-103, Utah Code Annotated (2009), or 169 its successor provisions. 170 171 B. For violations related to underage sale of beer, the enforcement process set forth at 172 section 32A-10-103, Utah Code Annotated (2009), or its successor provisions, applies. 173 174 C. For all other violations, the requirements of chapter 5.02 of this title apply. 175 176 SECTION 2. Enacting Section 11.12.130 of the Salt Lake City Code. That Section 177 11.12.130 (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare: Offenses Against Public Order) is hereby enacted 178 as follows: 179 11.12.130: UNLAWFUL CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL IN COMMON AREAS OF NON-180 RESIDENTIAL ESTABLISHMENTS. 181 182 A. Definitions: 183 184 ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE: This term has the same meaning as defined in section 32B-2-102 of 185 Utah Code, or its successor provisions. 186 187 ALCOHOLIC PRODUCT: This term has the same meaning as defined in section 32B-2-102 of 188 Utah Code, or its successor provisions. 189 190 COMMON AREA: Any portion of a non-residential premises that is generally accessible to all 191 occupants, invitees or licensees; or that is generally intended for the common use of such 192 occupants, invitees or licensees. Hotel rooms or employee-only areas are not “common area.” 193 194 NON-RESIDENTIAL PREMISES: Premises that do not meet any of the various definitions of 195 dwelling set forth in Section 21A.62.040. 196 197 6 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT B. An individual shall not consume an alcoholic beverage nor an alcoholic product in any 198 common area of non-residential premises during the time period beginning at 2:00 AM and 199 ending at 6:00 AM. 200 201 C. Operators of non-residential premises shall not permit the consumption of alcoholic 202 beverages or alcoholic products in any common area during the time period between 2:00 AM 203 and 6:00 AM. 204 205 D. Individuals found in violation of this Section shall be subject to a civil citation and 206 penalty of $500 per occurrence. Operators not otherwise subject to Chapter 5.51 shall be subject 207 to a civil citation and penalty of $1000 per occurrence. 208 209 SECTION 3. Enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code. That Chapter 11.18 in 210 Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare), is hereby enacted as 211 follows: 212 CHAPTER 11.18 RESPONSIBLE PROPERTY OWNER 213 11.18.010: DEFINITIONS: 214 215 In the construction of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall be as defined as set 216 forth in this section: 217 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICER: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 218 ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 219 ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 220 ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT HEARING: As that term is defined in Section 221 2.75.050. 222 ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ORDER: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 223 BUSINESS OWNER: Any person engaged in business within Salt Lake City. 224 CITY: Salt Lake City, Utah, including the mayor and all other employees of the administrative 225 branch of the city. 226 CRIMINAL CONDUCT: Any criminal offense at a place of business that can be reasonably 227 linked to a patron, invitee, manager, owner, or employee of the business, an occupant of the 228 place of business, or any person in the case of vacant property. 229 7 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT EMERGENCY CONDITIONS: One or more conditions that exist in a building or on a 230 property that create the likelihood of imminent danger to the life or safety of anyone who 231 enters or occupies the property or building. 232 ENGAGE IN BUSINESS: To conduct, manage, or carry on any business activity, as owner, 233 officer, agent, manager, employer, or lessee. 234 IMMINENT LIFE SAFETY HAZARD: Any condition that creates a serious and immediate 235 danger to life, property, health, or public safety. 236 ITEMIZED STATEMENT OF COSTS: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 237 NUISANCE CONDUCT: Behavior that interferes with the health, safety or welfare of the 238 community, materially and repeatedly infringes on the quiet enjoyment of neighboring uses, or 239 results in the harassment of patrons or other persons including, but not limited to: 240 (a) criminal conduct; 241 (b) disturbance of the peace; 242 (c) illegal consumption or sale of alcoholic beverages; 243 (d) illegal drug activity; 244 (e) unlawful street or sidewalk obstruction; 245 (f) gambling and illegal gaming activities; 246 (g) harassment of passers-by; 247 (h) prostitution; 248 (i) public urination or defecation; 249 (j) lewd conduct; 250 (k) litter; 251 (l) unlawful discharge of hazardous materials; 252 (m) parking violations; 253 (n) open storage of unlicensed, inoperable, unused or abandoned vehicles or vehicle parts, 254 unless the property is licensed for such use; 255 (o) open storage of junk, scrap metal, lumber, wastepaper products, building materials, 256 machinery and associated parts, interior household furniture, appliances, tree limbs and 257 cuttings, landscape debris, garbage, industrial waste, other spent, useless, worthless or 258 discarded materials, or materials stored or accumulated for the purpose of discarding 259 materials that have served their original purpose; 260 (p) fouling of the air with offensive odors or contaminants, excessive dust, or excessive 261 loud noise; 262 (q) owning, operating or conducting a vehicle chop shop in any building or structure, 263 including a lot or curtilage, for the purpose of dealing in stolen vehicles or stolen vehicle 264 parts or illegally obtaining and altering vehicles or vehicle identification numbers of 265 vehicle parts; 266 (r) vehicles parked on the sidewalk; 267 (s) use of street parking spaces or sidewalk for open storage, sale, or rental of goods, or 268 storage or repair of inoperable vehicles; 269 (t) unlawful firearms possession by a patron; 270 8 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT (u) illegal dumping; 271 (v) unlawful junk dealer operations; 272 (w) obstruction of an investigation of nuisance behavior; 273 (x) repeated or continuing violations of any other City ordinance and/or regulations; or 274 (y) any other activity that constitutes a public nuisance under state law. 275 OBSTRUCTION OF AN INVESTIGATION: Any obstruction of, interference with or other 276 impediment of the investigation of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior by a business 277 owner, property owner, or other responsible person. 278 PERSON: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 279 PLACE OF BUSINESS: A location maintained or operated by a person within the city at 280 which business activities take place. Place of business includes a parking lot owned or leased 281 by the business, parking areas traditionally used by patrons or employees of the business, and 282 the public rights-of-way adjacent to the business premises as it is used by persons attracted to 283 the business. 284 REMEDIAL MEASURES: Specific, verifiable actions taken by a responsible party that are 285 substantially likely to reduce, eliminate or prevent recurrence of the nuisance conduct or 286 serious violent behavior at issue. 287 RESPONSIBLE PERSON: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 288 SERIOUS VIOLENT BEHAVIOR. Conduct that would constitute any of the following 289 offenses as defined by state law: homicide, murder, aggravated assault, rape, or sexual assault. 290 11.18.020: PURPOSE AND INTENT: 291 Business owners and property owners shall properly manage their property and place of 292 businesses to prevent them from becoming a nuisance to public safety personnel, adjacent 293 public property, neighboring residents or businesses, or deteriorating into havens for crime or 294 the spread of disease. This chapter creates a system to initiate administrative actions to abate 295 nuisance conduct and serious violent behavior and to impose civil fines or other penalties if a 296 business owner or a property owner fails to take all remedial measures to address the identified 297 nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior. 298 11.18.030: EXISTING LAW CONTINUED: 299 The provisions of this chapter shall not invalidate any other title, chapter, or ordinance of this 300 Code, but shall be read in conjunction with those titles, chapters, and ordinances and shall be 301 used as an additional remedy for enforcement of violations thereof. 302 11.18.040: CRIMINAL OR CIVIL PROSECUTION; EMERGENCY POWERS: 303 9 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT A. The city shall have sole discretion in deciding whether to pursue remedies to address 304 nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior under this chapter, to file a civil nuisance action 305 under this chapter or under state law, to bring criminal charges, to order suspension or 306 revocation of business licenses, to order immediate action to terminate or abate nuisance 307 conduct, to pursue administrative enforcement actions for the violation of any of its ordinances 308 or applicable code requirements, or any combination thereof, or to pursue any other remedy 309 available under the law. City officials are permitted to exercise executive discretion in 310 determining which course of enforcement to pursue, taking into consideration the severity of 311 an incident, the culpability of involved parties, the history of the involved property, and 312 whether other circumstances exist that exacerbate the public impact of the nuisance conduct or 313 serious violent behavior. 314 B. The enforcement of the provisions of this chapter does not prevent the city from 315 pursuing other remedies for specific violations, including fines, abatement, suspension, 316 revocation, injunctions, or other penalties. Specific violations may be considered nuisance 317 conduct or serious violent behavior under this chapter, even if the business owner or property 318 owner has already incurred civil or criminal penalties related to that offense. 319 C. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the city from abating nuisance conduct or serious 320 violent behavior that denigrates the public health and welfare in a declared emergency. 321 D. Each day a violation exists shall be considered a separate offense and may give rise to a 322 separate citation, charge or other remedy. 323 11.18.050: ACTS INCLUDE CAUSING, ATTEMPTING, AIDING, AND ABETTING: 324 Whenever an act, condition, or omission is referred to or made unlawful in this chapter, it shall 325 include causing, attempting to cause, permitting, aiding, or abetting such act, condition, or 326 omission. 327 11.18.060: DUTY TO PROPERLY MANAGE: 328 Every property owner and business owner shall have a duty to properly manage their private 329 property or place of business, as applicable, to prevent the creation of a nuisance to 330 neighboring businesses, residents, passers-by, or the public, that results from nuisance conduct 331 or serious violent behavior by patrons, guests, employees, occupants, or those who frequent the 332 business premises or the property, regardless of whether the persons are owners, invitees, or 333 trespassers. 334 11.18.070: NUISANCE DECLARED 335 A. Pursuant to Utah Code Section 10-8-60, the city has determined the quiet enjoyment of 336 property and the general health, safety, and welfare of the community are intolerably 337 impaired—and a public nuisance exists—when nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior 338 occurs at any private property or place of business. 339 10 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT B. A business owner or property owner is presumed to have created a nuisance if (1) 340 within 180 consecutive days, not less than 3 separate incidents of nuisance conduct or serious 341 violent behavior occur at or within the property, (2) for ongoing violations of this Chapter the 342 nuisance conduct has persisted for 30 days or more, or (3) in connection with a place of 343 business there are 5 or more calls for service for nuisance conduct in a 30 day period. This 344 presumption may be rebutted if the responsible party demonstrates that it took all reasonable 345 steps, including implementing the remedial measures directed by the city, to prevent 346 reoccurrence of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior occurring at or within the 347 property. 348 11.18.080: DECLARATION OF NUISANCE & ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: 349 A. The city may declare the existence of nuisance, as described under Section 11.18.070 at 350 any time. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, a declaration of nuisance may be 351 combined with any other notice from the city to the responsible party. 352 B. Administrative Citation. Upon a determination that a business or private property has 353 created a nuisance the city may issue an administrative citation. 354 1. The written citation shall state: 355 356 a. The name and address, if known, of the responsible party; 357 b. The date and location of each violation; 358 c. The nature of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 359 d. That the nuisance must be corrected; 360 e. Provide a specific date by which the corrective action ordered by the 361 enforcement official be taken; 362 f. The remedies, including any civil fines, that the enforcement official intends 363 to pursue if corrective action is not taken; 364 g. Recommendations regarding potential remedial measures and an opportunity 365 for the responsible party to demonstrate use of remedial measures to the city; 366 h. Identification of the procedure to appeal the citation; and 367 i. The signature of the enforcement official. 368 369 2. The enforcement official shall serve the administrative citation on the responsible 370 party by: 371 a. Posting a copy of the administrative citation at the property, and 372 b. By mailing the administrative citation through certified mail or 373 reputable mail tracking service that is capable of confirming delivery. 374 If the responsible party is the property owner of record, then mailing 375 shall be to the last known address appearing on the records of the Salt 376 Lake County Recorder. If the responsible party is any other person or 377 entity other than the owner of record, then mailing shall be to the last 378 known address of the responsible party on file with the city. 379 11 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT c. Notwithstanding the foregoing, personal service upon the responsible 380 party shall be sufficient to meet the service requirements of Subsection 381 11.18.080.B.2.b. 382 383 3. Corrective Action: Following the issuance of an administrative citation the 384 responsible party shall either: 385 a. Demonstrate that remedial measures have been implemented to 386 address the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior that led to the 387 nuisance declaration, or 388 b. Enter into a nuisance abatement plan pursuant to Section 11.18.090. 389 390 4. Failure to Correct: If corrective action has not been undertaken by the deadline 391 identified in the administrative citation, the city may pursue any remedy, 392 including civil fines identified in Section 11.18.110. 393 11.18.090: NUISANCE ABATEMENT PLANS: 394 A. Any nuisance abatement plan executed by a responsible party and the city shall certify 395 the responsible party’s agreement to take all necessary and appropriate measures to reduce, 396 eliminate or prevent future recurrence of each nuisance conduct and each serious violent 397 behavior giving rise to nuisance declaration. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, 398 the following: 399 400 1. Removal of unlawful items; 401 2. Taking steps to prevent the specific nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior, 402 personally or through an agent such as a private security company; 403 3. Hiring sufficient licensed and insured security personnel to patrol the property 404 and the abutting sidewalks; 405 4. Documenting proactive efforts with the police department regarding nuisance 406 behavior or serious violent behavior activities; 407 5. Participating in regular meetings with community-based organizations at which 408 specific efforts to address nuisance behavior or serious violent behavior are 409 discussed; 410 6. Installing and maintaining improved lighting at each point of entry to and exit 411 from the property and in designated common areas, if any; 412 7. Installing and maintaining surveillance cameras that are at all times: (i) active and 413 operational at each point of entry to and exit from the business or property, in 414 designated common areas and in interior spaces where business operations are 415 conducted, on the street abutting the business, and any other locations where prior 416 nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior has been reported; (ii) disclosed to 417 the public through posted notice on the premises; (iii) illuminated in such a 418 manner so as to enable persons entering and exiting the business or property to be 419 visible and identified on recorded footage; and (iv) maintaining recorded footage 420 for not less than 6 months after the recording occurs; 421 8. Installing metal detectors to screen persons visiting the business; 422 12 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 9. Maintaining an internal log or incident reporting system documenting the owner's 423 response to specific incidents of illegal activity inside the property or on the 424 abutting sidewalk; 425 10. Displaying signage identifying prohibited behavior at the property; 426 11. Making specific efforts to address litter and other cleanliness issues, such as 427 additional or larger refuse bins, more frequent or targeted cleaning, signage, 428 enhanced refuse bins, and changing business operations or products to reduce the 429 likelihood of litter creation; 430 12. Installing soundproofing insulation or taking other steps to control noise; 431 13. Changing the hours of operation in a manner designed to reduce the likelihood of 432 nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 433 14. Changing business operations or products sold in a manner designed to reduce the 434 likelihood of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 435 15. Removing any drug paraphernalia offered for sale or display in violation of 436 applicable zoning requirements from the premises; 437 16. Providing surveillance camera footage to law enforcement upon request; and 438 17. Any other measures likely to abate or prevent the recurrence of the nuisance 439 behavior or serious violent behavior. 440 441 B. Term: Executed plans shall be effective for a minimum of 12 months, and may be 442 extended by mutual agreement, or if ordered by the administrative appeals officer, if another 443 nuisance is declared at the property prior to expiration of the plan. 444 445 C. Remedies: All nuisance abatement plans shall identify remedies to the city if the 446 responsible party does not comply with the plan. These remedies may include, but are not limited 447 to: granting the city the ability to enter and abate the nuisance with recovery of costs associated 448 therewith to be made by the responsible party to the city upon presentation of an itemized 449 statement of costs; financial penalties; reduction in business operating hours; temporary closure 450 of the property or business; making some portions of the property inaccessible; and prohibiting 451 all alcohol sales or consumption on the property. 452 11.18.100: APPEALS: 453 A responsible party may appeal an administrative citation within ten (10) days of its issuance 454 pursuant to Chapter 2.75. 455 11.18.110: ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES: 456 A. Civil Fines: A property or business subject to a nuisance declaration may be subject to a 457 range of penalties that increase in severity. These penalties progress as follows: 458 1. If a responsible party fails to complete a corrective action by the deadline set 459 forth in an administrative citation, then for a first violation a fine shall be 460 assessed in the amount of $500. 461 13 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a 462 first violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan then a fine shall 463 be assessed in the amount of $750, which shall constitute a second violation. 464 3. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a 465 second violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan, then a fine 466 shall be assessed in the amount of $1,000, which shall constitute a third 467 violation. 468 4. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a 469 third or any subsequent violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement 470 plan, then a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $1,000. 471 B. Revocation of Business License: In the event more than two citations are issued in any 472 12 month period, and the business at issue is not then a party to and in compliance with a 473 nuisance abatement plan, then the city may suspend or revoke the associated business license 474 pursuant to Chapter 5.02. 475 C. Orders by the Administrative Appeals Officer: In the event of an appeal of an 476 administrative citation, the administrative appeals officer may: 477 1. Order that the responsible party and the city enter into a nuisance abatement 478 plan consistent with Section 11.18.090 with the measures as directed by the 479 administrative appeals officer. 480 2. Grant the city an abatement order. 481 a. The order of abatement can require the responsible party to correct the 482 nuisance and can authorize the city to abate such nuisance if the 483 responsible party does not timely perform the abatement. 484 b. In the event the city proves that nuisance conduct or conditions pose a 485 reasonably imminent danger to human health or human life, unabated, 486 the administrative appeals officer shall order the abatement as requested 487 by the city. In such circumstances the city may perform the abatement of 488 the nuisance at the first possible opportunity. 489 c. The abatement order must permit the city to charge the responsible party 490 for the costs the city incurs in abating the nuisance. The costs may be 491 appealed to the administrative appeals officer pursuant to Section 492 11.70.150. 493 3. Revoke a business license without the right to apply for another license at the 494 property or another business premises for at least six months. 495 14 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 4. Revoke a certificate of occupancy without the right to apply for another at the 496 property for at least six months. 497 Orders of an administrative appeals officer issued pursuant to this Chapter are each an 498 administrative enforcement order that may be appealed in accordance with 2.75.210. 499 11.18.120: CONTINUING SUPERVISION: 500 A. When an administrative citation is not timely appealed or an administrative appeals 501 officer has affirmed the city’s nuisance declaration, the responsible party is subject to 502 continued supervision by an administrative appeals officer for twelve (12) months or the term 503 of any applicable nuisance abatement plan. During that time, the administrative appeals officer 504 may schedule review hearings to track the responsible party’s compliance with any nuisance 505 abatement plan or abatement order, impose previously suspended penalties, and hold a hearing 506 to consider any claim by the city that a responsible party has not complied with a nuisance 507 abatement plan ordered by the administrative appeals officer pursuant to Section 11.18.110. 508 B. At a hearing on a failure to comply with a nuisance abatement plan entered pursuant to 509 11.18.110, the administrative appeals officer shall consider the steps taken by the responsible 510 party and determine whether such party has fulfilled its obligations under the nuisance 511 abatement plan. 512 1. During a hearing reviewing a failure to comply with a nuisance abatement plan, 513 the underlying nuisance declaration cannot be disturbed. 514 2. In the event the administrative appeals officer finds that the responsible party 515 failed to comply with any obligation under the nuisance abatement plan, the 516 administrative appeals officer shall impose one or more remedies as set forth in the 517 nuisance abatement plan. 518 C. Each new administrative citation may be appealed. Such appeals are limited to a review 519 of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior identified in the administrative citation and 520 may not address previous administrative citations that were not timely appealed or orders by an 521 administrative appeals officer that were not timely appealed. 522 11.70.170: DECLARATION OR DETERMINATION TO FOLLOW BUSINESS OWNER 523 AND PROPERTY LOCATION: 524 A declaration or determination of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior follows the 525 business owner and/or runs with the property. A declaration or determination of nuisance 526 conduct or serious violent behavior is not eliminated by transferring the property or the 527 business to another person or entity, changing the name of the business, or moving the business 528 to a new location. Transfer of business ownership shall not terminate any nuisance abatement 529 plan in effect with respect to a nuisance business. The acquiring business owner shall be 530 responsible for compliance with any enforcement action pending against the nuisance business 531 and prior business owner. 532 15 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 533 534 SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its 535 first publication. 536 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 537 2025. 538 ______________________________ 539 CHAIRPERSON 540 541 542 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 543 544 ______________________________ 545 CITY RECORDER 546 547 548 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 549 550 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 551 552 ______________________________ 553 MAYOR 554 ______________________________ 555 CITY RECORDER 556 (SEAL) 557 558 Bill No. ________ of 2025. 559 Published: ______________. 560 Responsible Property Owner Ordinance(legislative)v2 561 562 563 This page has intentionally been left blank Item B10 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Nick Tarbet Policy Analyst DATE:March 10, 2026 RE:MOTION SHEET – Temporary Street Closures around Temple Square MOTION 1 I move the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting MOTION 2 I move the Council continue the public hearing to a future council meeting. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Nick Tarbet Policy Analyst DATE:March 10, 2026 RE: Temporary Street Closures around Temple Square View the Administration’s proposal: Ordinance: Temporary Street Closure for Temple Square 2027 Reopening NEW INFORMATION During the February 10 briefing the Council discussed the request to temporarily close streets near Temple Square for the Salt Lake Temple’s reopening in 2027. The temporary closures would help with public safety and crowd management during the open house. Representatives from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints participated in the briefing and expressed their intent to work collaboratively with the city to inform residents about the open house and find ways to mitigate the impacts to traffic for residents, business and commuters. It was discussed this is early in the planning process and they welcome feedback from the community and City Council. The Council discussed a number of potential impacts the temporary street closure may have on the community as well as ways to potentially address them. Some of the ideas discussed included: Providing free UTA passes to all tour-goers and employees to keep thousands of cars off the road. Satellite Park-and-Ride options with dedicated shuttles to the temple. Remote and staggered work schedules for Church employees to flatten peak traffic hours. Temporary permit-only zones in nearby neighborhoods to prevent visitor "overflow" parking. Create specific transit and detour plans to ensure students and downtown workers can commute without major delays. Schedule: Page | 2 Ensure emergency access in and out of impacted neighborhoods Work with the Downtown Alliance to promote local restaurants and shops to the millions of expected visitors. Designate nearby lots specifically for ADA parking and mobility assistance. Community outreach to ensure residents are the first to know about changes early. It was noted this is very early in the planning process. The City and representatives from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints will work together in coming months to coordinate on the planning of the project and continued public outreach. The public hearing is set for March 10. Council Staff has prepared a project website that includes the most current information as the Council considers the temporary street closure request. Additionally, the Administration has a project page that will be used as the central location for city information after the Council approves the temporary street closure. The following information was provided for the February 10 briefing. ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will be briefed on an ordinance that would temporarily close all or portions of City streets adjacent to Temple Square in downtown Salt Lake City for a period of six months in 2027. The proposed temporary closure is intended to facilitate public safety and crowd management during the reopening celebration of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Salt Lake City Temple. The temporary street closures would occur between March 2027 and October 2027. The closure is being considered a year in advance of the temporary closure to give the applicant enough time to address the planning and coordination of the event to ensure public safety. According to Utah code, in order to temporarily close a road a city must make a finding that the closure is necessary to mitigate unsafe conditions, and a public hearing must be held after being notice for at least four weeks. On February 3, the Council set the public hearing date for March 10, 2026. The Administrative Transmittal notes the proposed closures are necessary to ensure the safety and well-being of residents, visitors, and event participants. Based on anticipated attendance, the closure will facilitate orderly crowed management, mitigate traffic congestion and allow for the placement of safety infrastructure such as barricades, emergency access, signage and accessibility accommodations. (Transmittal Letter, Page 2) Goal of the briefing: To brief the Council on the proposed temporary street closures and provide feedback on public engagement strategies. City code includes provisions related to street closures, work in the right-of way and use of City-owned property. To fulfill the city requirements the Church will be required to obtain all applicable permit fees, parking meter fees and lease fees that equate to approximately $2.3 million, based on the consolidate fee schedule. POLICY QUESTIONS Acknowledging the public engagement plan is in its preliminary stages, the Council may wish to provide feedback to the administration regarding potential strategies to enhance outreach both prior to and during the temporary street closure. Items to consider may include: 1. Which stakeholders (businesses, residents, visitors, etc.) have been identified to collaborate with to develop an effective public engagement plan? Page | 3 2. Closures may impact traditional routes for students going to school; how will the school district be involved in the planning process? 3. How does the Administration anticipate businesses will be impacted; how could they be assisted during the temporary closures. 4. How will the city coordinate signage for detours during the project? a. How will both vehicle and pedestrian traffic be considered? 5. How will UTA bus routes be impacted? a. How will the city coordinate public outreach on these detours? 6. Will there be a project website people can go to for updates on the project? SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 01/29/2026 Date Sent to Council: 01/29/2026 From: Department * Community and Neighborhood Employee Name: Hunt, Logan E-mail Logan.Hunt@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 01/29/2026 Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 01/29/2026 Subject: Street closures to facilitate public safety and crowd management during the Temple Reopening Celebration Additional Staff Contact: Tammy Hunsaker Presenters/Staff Table Document Type Ordinance Budget Impact? Yes No Recommendation: To adopt an ordinance to temporarily close certain streets as a necessary measure to mitigate unsafe conditions for the Temple Reopening Celebration. Background/Discussion See first attachment for Background/Discussion Public Hearing Is there a City or State statutory requirement to hold a public hearing for this item?* Yes No The City Council reserves the option to hold and notice for a public hearing pursuant to their practices for public engagement. Does the City have a general practice to hold a public hearing for this item?* Yes No Public Process This page has intentionally been left blank ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Tammy Hunsaker Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Jill Love, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 1/29/2026 __________________________ SUBJECT: Street closures to facilitate public safety and crowd management during the Temple Reopening Celebration ADDITIONAL STAFF CONTACT: Tammy Hunsaker, tammy.hunsaker@slc.gov DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: To adopt an ordinance to temporarily close certain streets as a necessary measure to mitigate unsafe conditions for the Temple Reopening Celebration. BUDGET IMPACT: N/A BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (“Church”) has invited people from around the world to take part in an open house celebration for the Salt Lake Temple, which will occur from April 2027 to October 2027 (the “Temple Celebration”). This event will draw millions of visitors to the City with mass gatherings taking place on the blocks surrounding Temple Square. As such, the Church has requested that the City close certain street segments beginning in March 2027 through the duration of the Temple Celebration with the exact dates to be determined once additional details are finalized. The street closures will only occur between March 2027 and October 2027– refer to Exhibit A for a map and description of the proposed street closures. State and City Requirements for Street Closures Utah Code 72-5-105 dictates the process of when and how the City may temporarily close a street. Generally, state law requires that a street, once established, shall continue to be a street unless a certain action is taken by the City. Section 3(c)(iii) allows cities to temporarily close all or a portion of class C roads if the City makes a finding that temporary closure is necessary to mitigate an unsafe condition. To temporarily close the road, the City will need to hold a public hearing, provide notice to the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), and the City Council will then need to pass an ordinance – refer to Exhibit B for the draft ordinance. In addition to State regulations, City Code includes various provisions relating to street closures, work in the right-of-way, and use of City-owned property. To fulfill the requirements of City Code, the Church will be required to obtain various permits and execute a lease with the City. Applicable permit fees, parking meter fees, and lease fees will equate to approximately $2.3 million and will be based on the fiscal year 2027 consolidated fee schedule. Justification for Street Closures The proposed closures are limited in scope and duration as much as possible and are necessary to ensure the safety and well-being of residents, visitors, and event participants. Based on anticipated attendance, event activities, and traffic volume, the street closures will support orderly crowd management, mitigate traffic congestion, and allow for the proper placement of safety infrastructure such as barricades, emergency access, signage, and accessibility accommodations. Emergency personnel will have controlled access, enabling more effective response in the event of a medical, fire, or security incident. The Administration, including the Police Department, Fire Department, and Community and Neighborhoods, is working with the Church on a closure plan that balances public safety needs with traffic circulation and access for nearby residents and businesses. In addition, the Administration and Church are working with other stakeholders including UDOT, Utah Transit Authority, businesses, and property owners. Advance public notification, detour signage, and traffic control measures will be implemented to support mobility and access throughout the area. Approving these temporary street closures is a proactive and necessary measure to uphold public safety, support emergency preparedness, and ensure the successful and responsible execution of the event while balancing community needs. PUBLIC PROCESS: According to Utah Code 72-5-105, before authorizing a temporary closure, the City shall: a. hold a hearing on the proposed temporary closure; b. provide notice of the hearing by mailing a notice to UDOT; and c. provide notice to the owners of the properties abutting the street for at least four weeks before the day of the hearing. In addition to Utah Code, Section 14.32 of City Code provides that notice shall be delivered to the adjacent properties on the same side of the street as the proposed work, or closure in this instance. EXHIBITS: A. Map and description of the proposed street closures B. Ordinance Exhibit A: Proposed Street Closures Requested Closure Description (City Code (City Code 2.58) (City Code (City Code (City Code SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ________ of 2026 (Temporarily Closing All or Portions of City Streets Adjacent to the Salt Lake City Temple to Mitigate Unsafe Conditions) An ordinance temporarily closing all of North Temple Street between West Temple Street and Main Street, a portion of North Temple Street between 200 West Street and West Temple Street, all of West Temple Street between North Temple Street and South Temple Street, a portion of West Temple Street between 200 North Street and North Temple Street, and a portion of South Temple Street between West Temple Street and Main Street to mitigate unsafe conditions, pursuant Utah Code Section 72-5-105. WHEREAS, from March 1, 2027-October 31, 2027, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints is planning the Temple Reopening Celebration for the extensively renovated Salt Lake City Temple in downtown Salt Lake City and anticipates an unusually large number of visitors to the area during this time; and WHEREAS, Utah Code Section 72-5-105(3) allows a municipality to temporarily close a class C road under certain conditions including if the municipality makes a finding that the temporary closure of all or part of a class C road is necessary to mitigate unsafe conditions; WHEREAS, the City has found that during the Salt Lake City Temple Reopening Celebration from March 1, 2027-October 31, 2027 the temporarily closure of all or portions of certain roads around the Salt Lake City Temple, as more fully depicted on Exhibit A, is necessary to mitigate the unsafe conditions of having an unusually high volume of pedestrian traffic to help prevent pedestrian-vehicle conflict, help with orderly crowd management, mitigate traffic congestion, and allow for the proper placement of safety infrastructure such as barricades, emergency access, signage, and accessibility accommodations; and 2 WHEREAS, during the temporary closure, the City and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will execute a lease agreement for the Church’s exclusive use of a portion of the temporarily closed roads to help mitigate the unsafe conditions; and WHEREAS, during the temporary closure, the City will erect traffic control barricades on portions of the temporarily closed roads to help with traffic control and circulation; and WHEREAS, a temporary closure is allowed after following the procedures specified under Utah Code Section 72-5-105(4)-(5), which requires the City to hold a public hearing on the temporary closure and provide notice to the Utah Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Temporary Closure of City-Owned Right-of-Way. That, in accordance with Utah Code Section 72-5-105(3), all of North Temple Street between West Temple Street and Main Street, a portion of North Temple Street between 200 West Street and West Temple Street, all of West Temple Street between North Temple Street and South Temple Street, a portion of West Temple Street between 200 North Street and North Temple Street, and a portion of South Temple Street between West Temple Street and Main Street, which is more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto, shall be temporarily closed as a public right-of-way during the closure period identified in Section 2. SECTION 2. Temporary Closure Period; Reopening. The planned temporary closure described herein shall be closed as a public right-of-way from March 1, 2027-October 31, 2027, which timeframe may be more particularly defined in the lease. Upon the conclusion of the temporary closure period or termination of the lease between the City and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whichever occurs first, the mayor shall direct that the portions of 3 closed roads described in Exhibit A hereto shall be reopened and all obstructions to vehicular traffic be removed. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its passage. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this _______ day of ______________, 2026. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2026. Published: ______________. APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Allison Parks, Deputy City Attorney January 28, 2026 4 EXHIBIT A Map of the portion of the temporary closures This page has intentionally been left blank SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 12/17/2025 Date Sent to Council: 12/24/2025 From: Department * Community and Neighborhood Employee Name: Roman, Amanda E-mail amanda.roman@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 12/23/2025 Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 12/24/2025 Subject: Sugar House Hotel Master Plan & Zoning Map Amendments - 2111 S 1300 E Additional Staff Contact: Kelsey Lindquist, kelsey.lindquist@slc.gov Presenters/Staff Table Amanda Roman, amanda.roman@slc.gov Document Type Ordinance Budget Impact? Yes No Recommendation: Recommendation to adopt both the General Plan and Zoning Map Amendments. Background/Discussion See first attachment for Background/Discussion Public Hearing Is there a City or State statutory requirement to hold a public hearing for this item?* Yes No The City Council reserves the option to hold and notice for a public hearing pursuant to their practices for public engagement. Does the City have a general practice to hold a public hearing for this item?* Yes No Public Process This page has intentionally been left blank ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Tammy Hunsaker Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: John Potter with Magnus Commercial Properties, representing the property owner, is requesting amendments that would facilitate the redevelopment of the property located at 2111 S 1300 E. The subject property is approximately .80 acres in size and abuts the northwest corner of Sugar House Park. The property has historically been privately owned and is not a part of the Sugar House Park property. The site has been vacant since the former Sizzler restaurant was demolished in 2024. The applicant is seeking a zoning map amendment from MU-3 (Mixed-Use 3) to MU-8 (Mixed-Use 8) and to amend the Sugar House Master Plan to support the proposed rezone. The Planning Commission forwarded a 7:1 positive recommendation for both the General Plan Amendment and the Zoning Map Amendment. The reasons for the recommendation are discussed later in this document. Proposed General Plan Amendment To support the change in zoning, the applicant seeks to the amend the Sugar House Master Plan’s future land use map from Mixed Use-Low Intensity (MULI) to Business District Mixed-Use – Town Center Scale. The amendment to the future land use map would expand the boundary of the Sugar House Business District to the east side of 1300 East. The subject property is the only privately- owned land on the east side, so the business district would not be able to extend further in the future. The policies that that relate to high-intensity mixed-use areas identify that ‘the intent is to support more walkable community development patterns located near transit lines and stops.’ The most intense development in this community should be located within the Town Center Scale subdistrict. The current MULI designation supports small-scale, walkable mixed-use development with one- to two-story buildings, while the proposed Town Center Scale designation allows greater height and intensity consistent with a transit-oriented, pedestrian-friendly corridor. The Sugar House Plan (p.15) specifically supports expanding the Business District along 2100 South to 1300 East and south to I-80 to encourage cohesive, higher-density, mixed-use growth. In part, the plan states, “It is also appropriate to extend the zone southward to Interstate 80 as this area is considered to be part of the Business District. Therefore, the Sugar House Business District zone should be expanded to 1300 East to the east and 900 East on the west along both sides of 2100 South, and to Interstate 80 to the south between 1100 East and 1300 East.” Similar rezonings to MU-6 or MU-8, on land designated on the future land use map as low-intensity (MULI), have already occurred nearby (see map on page 8 of the PC staff report), so this proposal would align with recent zoning and development patterns rather than set a new precedent. Proposed Zoning Map Amendment The proposal seeks to rezone the property from MU-3 to MU-8, both recently adopted under the City’s zoning consolidation project that went into effect on October 8, 2025. The property was previously zoned CB (Community Business) since 1995 and has been commercially zoned since at least 1941. The site’s current MU-3 zoning supports smaller-scale, neighborhood-oriented commercial and residential uses, allowing buildings up to 40 feet tall, but prohibits hotels. In contrast, MU-8 is intended for denser, transit-oriented areas with greater commercial activity and permits buildings up to 90 feet in height, subject to design review for anything above 75 feet. Both zones emphasize walkability and mixed-use design, but MU-8 allows higher intensity development. Community Benefit Proposal & Development Agreement As required by code for amendments initiated by a private-property owner, the applicant submitted a preliminary community benefit proposal for Planning Commission review, which will be formalized in a Development Agreement if the amendments are adopted. Planning staff is recommending any new development at this location be required to have “enhanced active ground floor uses”. Enhanced active ground floor uses are defined in Section 21A.37.050.A.2 as, “retail, restaurants, bars, art studios, civic spaces (theaters, museums, etc.), and other uses determined to be substantially similar by the Planning Director and/or Planning Commission”. The condition retains what is already required at this specific location under the MU-3 zoning, reflecting the new development regulations within Sugar House and along 2100 South. The regulation would be applicable to any new development on the site. The proposed Development Agreement includes the following elements: 1. Community Benefits, as approved by the City Council and detailed below. 2. Gateway Signage: Installation of Sugar House signage along 1300 East, which will not count toward the maximum signage allowances outlined in Chapter 21A.46 (Signs). See PC staff report for details. 3. Enhanced Active Ground Floor Uses: A requirement that new development must provide a minimum of 75% “enhanced active ground floor uses,” as defined in Section 21A.37.050.A.2 (Design Standards). Planning staff reviewed the proposal and believes the proposed benefits meet the new policy requirements. The City Council has full discretion to determine whether these benefits fairly offset the increased development potential granted by the rezone. 1. Below-Market Retail Space for Local Businesses • Proposal: One of two ground-floor retail units (approx. 4,300 SF total) leased to a local business at 25% below market rate. 2. Interest-Free Tenant Improvement Financing • Proposal: Developer (Magnus Commercial Properties) will finance 100% of tenant improvement and build-out costs up to $100/SF (max $430,000) at 0% interest. 3. Free Community Meeting Space • Proposal: 2,000 SF second-floor meeting room available 12 times per year to community or nonprofit groups. 4. New GREENbike Station in Sugar House Park • Proposal: Applicant will fund and maintain a new GREENbike station in partnership with GREENbike and the Sugar House Park Authority. 5. Public Access to Underground Parking • Proposal: 180-stall underground parking garage will be publicly accessible (paid parking). Planning Commission Discussion The proposed amendment to the Sugar House Community Master Plan’s future land use map and the proposed zoning map amendment was supported by the Commission. The Commission voted 7:1 to recommend approval of both amendments based on the following discussion: • Standards of approval have generally been met, and the City Council can decide if the proposed public benefits are appropriate. • The development potential is compatible with the surrounding community, specifically properties directly west, where the maximum building height is 150 feet. • The hotel use is appropriate for this location. The use may maximize benefits and public amenities (retail, meeting space, recreational offerings) on the site that wouldn’t be possible under the existing zoning district. • Salt Lake City is a growing city and while the amendments would expand the Sugar House Business District, it is not expected to “creep” or expand to the north, south or east because the subject property is isolated and unique in nature. • Beneficial to have similar zoning districts located on street corners. PUBLIC PROCESS: The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related to the proposed project: • Early notification notices mailed out July 14, 2025 o Notices were mailed to property owners/residents within ~300 feet of the proposal. • The Planning Division provided a 45-day comment period (emailed on July 11, 2025) notice to the Sugar House Community Council. The Council Chair submitted a letter of opposition on September 11, 2025, which is included in the PC staff report. o The Sugar House Community Council held a public meeting at Highland High School on August 18, 2025. The applicant, residents, and city staff attended the meeting. • An online open house was posted to the Planning Division’s webpage on July 15, 2025 and remains open. The open house webpage was updated on July 31, 2025 with information on the applicant’s updated MU-8 proposal. The project was originally scheduled for the October 8, 2025 Planning Commission meeting. Due to an error on the public notice, the project was rescheduled for the October 22, 2025 meeting. Notice of the public hearing for the proposal included: • Public hearing notice mailed on October 10, 2025 • Public hearing notice posted on October 1, 2025 • Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division list serve on October 10, 2025 Planning Commission (PC) Records: 1) PC Agenda of October 22, 2025 (Click to Access) 2) PC Minutes of October 22, 2025 (Click to Access) 3) Planning Commission Staff Report of October 22, 2025 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1) Ordinance 2) Project Chronology 3) Notice of City Council Public Hearing 4) Original Petition 5) Public Comments 6) Mailing List 7) Hales Engineering Traffic Study This page has intentionally been left blank 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 202__ (Amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at approximately 2111 South 1300 East from MU-3 Mixed-Use 3 District to MU-8 Mixed-Use 8 District and amending the Sugar House Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at approximately 2111 South 1300 East (“Property”) from MU-3 Mixed-Use 3 District to MU-8 Mixed-Use 8 District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2025-00624; and amending the Sugar House Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map from Mixed Use-Low Intensity to Business District Mixed Use – Town Center Scale pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2025-00622. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (”Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on October 22, 2025, on an application submitted by John Potter to rezone the Property from MU-3 Mixed-Use 3 District to MU-8 Mixed-Use 8 District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2025-00624 and to amend the Sugar House Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map from Mixed Use-Low Intensity to Business District Mixed Use – Town Center Scale pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2025-00622. WHEREAS, at its October 22, 2025, meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said applications. WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the Property as more particularly described on Exhibit “A” 2 attached hereto, shall be and hereby is rezoned from MU-3 Mixed-Use 3 District to MU-8 Mixed-Use 8 District. SECTION 2. Amending the Sugar House Community Master Plan. The Future Land Use Map of the Sugar House Community Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change the future land use designation of the Property from Mixed Use-Low Intensity to Business District Mixed Use – Town Center Scale. SECTION 3. Conditions. This ordinance is conditioned upon the following: 1) The owner of the Property shall enter into a development agreement to be recorded against the Property with the following provisions: a. Any new development on the Property must provide a minimum of 75% “enhanced active ground floor uses” as defined in Section 21A.37.050.A.2; b. Installation of Sugar House gateway signage at the Property along 1300 East will not count toward the maximum signage allowances in Chapter 21A.46; c. Lease one unit of ground floor retail (approximately 4,300 square feet) to a local business at 25% below market rental rates; d. Provide interest-free tenant improvement financing: specifically, finance 100% of the construction costs, tenant improvement budget, and business property investments at 0% interest, with a cap of $100 per square foot, up to $430,000; e. Provide a second-floor meeting room (approximately 2,000 square feet) free of charge to nonprofits and community organizations a minimum of 12 times per year; and f. Provide general public access to an underground parking structure. 3 2) The owner of the Property shall enter into an agreement with the Sugar House Park Authority and GREENbike to pay for the installation and maintenance of a new GREENbike station within Sugar House Park. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. The Salt Lake City Recorder is instructed to not publish this ordinance until the conditions set forth in Section 3 are satisfied as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Director or his designee. SECTION 5. Time. If the conditions set forth in Section 3 above have not been met within one year after adoption, then this ordinance shall become null and void. Prior to such one year period, the City Council may, for good cause shown, by resolution, extend the time period for satisfying the conditions identified above. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 202___. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR 4 ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 202__. Published: ______________. 2111 South 1300 East to MU-8 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney December 15, 2025 5 EXHIBIT “A” Address: 2111 S 1300 E Tax ID: 16-20-230-007-0000 Legal Description A PART OF BLOCK 46, 10-ACRE PLAT "A", BIG FIELD SURVEY, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, FURTHER DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 1300 EAST STREET, SAID POINT BEING 66.00 FEET EAST AND 264.00 FEET SOUTH AND 45.05 FEET NORTH 84°15'00" EAST FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 10 OF SAID BLOCK 46; RUNNING THENCE NORTH 0°00'10" WEST 235.41 FEET ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 2100 SOUTH STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING FOUR (4) COURSES: (1) NORTH 89°52'10" EAST 33.31 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; (2) EASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A 766.20 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT A DISTANCE OF 51.16 FEET (CENTRAL ANGLE EQUALS 3°49'33" AND LONG CHORD BEARS NORTH 87°57'24" EAST 51.15 FEET) TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENCY; (3) NORTH 00°01'10"EAST 2.84 FEET; AND (4) SOUTH 89°58'50' EAST 66.58 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST SECTION LINE OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 1 EAST, SALT LAKE BASE & MERIDIAN; THENCE SOUTH 0°14'54" WEST 225.07 FEET ALONG SAID SECTION LINE; THENCE SOUTH 84°16'10" WEST 150.80 FEET TO SAID EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 1300 EAST STREET AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS: 34,648 SQ. FT. OR 0.795 ACRES, MORE OR LESS This page has intentionally been left blank ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Tammy Hunsaker Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2025-00622 & PLNPCM2025-00624 June 19, 2025 Petition for the zoning map and general plan amendment received by the Salt Lake City Planning Division. June 24, 2025 Petitions assigned to Amanda Roman, Urban Designer. July 10, 2025 Early Engagement signs describing the proposal were posted every 500 feet along public street frontage by the applicant. Signage was also posted within Sugar House Park. July 11, 2025 Information about the proposal was sent to the Sugar House Community Council in order to solicit public comments and start the 45-day Recognized Organization input and comment period. July 14, 2025 Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners living within 300 feet of the project site providing information about the proposal and how to give public input on the project. July 15, 2025 Staff hosted an online Open House to solicit public comments on the proposal. The Online Open House period started on July 15, 2025. The page remains open for review and comments. August 18, 2025 The applicant presented the proposal at the Sugar House Community Council public meeting. September 11, 2025 The Sugar House Community Council submitted a letter opposing the amendments. October 1, 2025 Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing on October 22, 2025 was physically posted on the property. October 10, 2025 Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting of October 22, 2025. Public hearing notice mailed. October 22, 2025 The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 22, 2025. The Planning Commission voted 7:1 to forward positive recommendations, with 3 conditions, to the City Council. November 12, 2025 Ordinance requested from the Attorney’s Office December 16, 2025 Ordinance received from the Attorney’s Office This page has intentionally been left blank 13 0 0 E A S T 2100 SOUTH DAM IMPACT AREA WORK PROHIBITED IN DAM AREA 2" 1" 0" 654321 654321 E D C B A DATE REVISION ww w.ffk r.c om ww w.ffk r.c om ww w.ffk r.c om ww w.ffk r.c om 05/ 16/2 016 J WS PROJECT NUMBER 20 2 5 - 0 4 - 2 3 5 : 2 9 : 5 5 P M AS001 SITE PLAN SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L 13 0 0 E . 2 1 0 0 S . S A L T L A K E C I T Y , U T 8 4 1 0 6 Zo n i n g A m e n d m e n t - 2 0 2 5 - 0 4 - 2 3 SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L , L L C 24096 LANDSCAPE PLAN DAM OVERLAY UP 5. 0 0 % 9. 8 1 % 10 5 ' - 7 7 / 8 " 10 5 ' - 7 7 / 8 " 1:12 10 7 ' - 1 7 / 8 " 10 7 ' - 1 7 / 8 " 1.35% UP UP SYMBOL CODE BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME QTY TREES Ao Amelanchier alnifolia 'Obelisk' Standing Ovation™ Serviceberry 4 Gd Gleditsia triacanthos inermis 'Draves' Street Keeper® Honey Locust 9 Gd2 Gymnocladus dioicus 'Espresso' Espresso Kentucky Coffeetree 3 Kp Koelreuteria paniculata Golden Rain Tree 4 Mh Malus x 'Hargozam' Harvest Gold® Crab Apple 6 Pg Picea pungens 'Glauca' Blue Colorado Spruce 1 Ps2 Pinus sylvestris Scotch Pine 1 SHRUBS Pd Pennisetum alopecuroides 'Desert Plains' Desert Plains Prairie Winds® Fountain Grass 55 Ps Pinus mugo 'Slowmound' Slowmound Mugo Pine 87 VINES Lh Lonicera japonica 'Halliana' Halls Honeysuckle Flowering Vine 5 SYMBOL CODE BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SPACING GROUND COVERS Ag Annuals Mix TBD 6" o.c. Pp Poa pratensis Kentucky Bluegrass PLANT SCHEDULE SITE LEVEL OPEN SPACE SUMMARY TOTAL ON-SITE OPEN SPACE AREA 7,492.6 SQFT TOTAL ON-SITE LANDSCAPE AREA 2,365.5 SQFT TOTAL SITE AREA 34,648 SQFT REFERENCE NOTES SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L 21 1 1 S 1 3 0 0 E , S L C , U T A H 8 4 1 0 6 SI T E P L A N R E V I E W - 2 / 1 3 / 2 0 2 5 DATE REVISION 654321 654321 E D C B A 2" 1" 0" PROJECT NUMBER 24096 KEY PLANKEY PLAN A B C D 05/16/2016 JWS LA501 Planting Plan 0'20'40'10'0'40'80'20'0'60'90'30'0'40'80'20' SITE LEVEL01 UP UP SYMBOL CODE BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME QTY SHRUBS Je Juniperus communis 'Effusa' Effusa Common Juniper 127 PLANT SCHEDULE LEVEL 7 OPEN SPACE SUMMARY TOTAL ON-SITE OPEN SPACE AREA 7,492.6 SQFT TOTAL ON-SITE LANDSCAPE AREA 2,365.5 SQFT TOTAL SITE AREA 34,648 SQFT UPUP SYMBOL CODE BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME QTY TREES Ao Amelanchier alnifolia 'Obelisk' Standing Ovation™ Serviceberry 3 SHRUBS Je Juniperus communis 'Effusa' Effusa Common Juniper 5 Pd Pennisetum alopecuroides 'Desert Plains' Desert Plains Prairie Winds® Fountain Grass 6 Tt Taxus x media 'Tauntonii' Taunton's Anglo-Japanese Yew 8 PLANT SCHEDULE LEVEL 2 0'40'80'20' REFERENCE NOTES SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L 21 1 1 S 1 3 0 0 E , S L C , U T A H 8 4 1 0 6 SI T E P L A N R E V I E W - 2 / 1 3 / 2 0 2 5 DATE REVISION 654321 654321 E D C B A 2" 1" 0" PROJECT NUMBER 24096 KEY PLANKEY PLAN A B C D 05/16/2016 JWS LA502 Planting Plan 0'20'40'10'0'40'80'20'0'60'90'30' LEVEL 2 - AMENITY DECK01 LEVEL 7 - AMENITY DECK02 DN DN UP UP UP UP UP UP -B- -B- 3 3 4 4 7 7 8 8 10 10 C C -D- -D- E E F F G G H H J J K K L L -M- -M- N N -Q- -Q- 5 5 12 12 -9--9- 2 2 A A S S 1 1 -6--6- P P R R GM OFFICE 131 VESTIBULE 114 CAFE 102 VALET STAIR 190 RECEIVING MAIN ENTRANCE SALES 119 VESTIBULE 107 STAIR 1.1 109 ACTIVITY 101 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PR O P E R T Y L I N E PROPERTY LINE PR O P E R T Y L I N E PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PR O P E R T Y L I N E HR OFFICE 127 GRAB N' GO ELEV. E1 ELEV. E2 ELEV. E3 RESTAURANT LOBBY 113 5.50% CMU OFFICE 123A OFFICE 125 SALES 121 OPEN OFFICE 123 IDF/MDF 137 OFFICE 129 RETAIL B 130 LOBBY 104 7.00% 13.44% 13.44% EA S E M E N T 4' - 0 " X 5 ' - 0 " CENTER STAIR S3 7.96% 5.50% R2 R1 EA EB EC ED E1 E2 RA RB RC RD RETAIL A 118 2" 1 " 0 " 654321 654321 E D C B A REFERENCE NOTES DATE REVISION w ww .f fkr . com w ww .f fkr . com w ww .f fkr . com w ww .f fkr . com 05 /16/2 016 JW S PROJECT NUMBER 5/ 2 2 / 2 0 2 5 9 : 1 9 : 5 9 A M AP101 PRESENTATION FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 1 SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L 13 0 0 E . 2 1 0 0 S . S A L T L A K E C I T Y , U T 8 4 1 0 6 Zo n i n g A m e n d m e n t - 2 0 2 5 - 0 4 - 2 3 SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L , L L C 24096 SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0"A1 LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN UP UP UP UP 435 SF JUNIOR SUITE 242 326 SF KING 240 336 SF KING 238 346 SF KING 236 351 SF KING 234 343 SF QQ 228 343 SF QQ 226 343 SF QQ 224 325 SF KING 222 325 SF KING 220 456 SF JUNIOR SUITE 230 325 SF KING 218 320 SF KING 216 ? ? STAIR 1.2 S2 MEETING ROOM #1 201 POOL SPA ROOM #1 243 IDF 231 RR 239 32 Training RR 211 STORAGE 237 AV 205 SPA ROOM #2 245 POOL DECK 270 UTILITY CLOSET 213B VESTIBULE 213A PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PR O P E R T Y L I N E PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PR O P E R T Y L I N E PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE ELEV. E1 ELEV. E2 ELEV. E3 STORAGE 212 EA S E M E N T 4' - 0 " X 5 ' - 0 " HYDRATION STATION YOGA EQUIPMENT | TOWELS FITNESS CENTER 219 Room Types Legend JUNIOR SUITE KING QQ VEST. (2) / 435-455 SF (8) / 318-351 SF (3) / 342-345 SF 2" 1 " 0 " 654321 654321 E D C B A DATE REVISION w ww .f fkr . com w ww .f fkr . com w ww .f fkr . com w ww .f fkr . com 05 /16/2 016 JW S PROJECT NUMBER 5/ 2 2 / 2 0 2 5 8 : 4 4 : 3 6 A M AP102 PRESENTATION FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 2 SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L 13 0 0 E . 2 1 0 0 S . S A L T L A K E C I T Y , U T 8 4 1 0 6 Zo n i n g A m e n d m e n t - 2 0 2 5 - 0 4 - 2 3 SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L , L L C 24096 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A1 PRESENTATION LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN UP UP UP VEST. 346 746 SF SUITE 344 330 SF KING 338 309 SF KING 339 309 SF KING 341 320 SF KING ADA 343 348 SF QQ 340 S1 NORTH STAIR 347 SF KING 336 353 SF KING 334 ELEC 331 IDF 329 313 SF KING 337 356 SF QQ 326 356 SF QQ 324 BOH 323 349 SF QQ 306 341 SF KING 308 425 SF KING 302 387 SF JUNIOR SUITE 305 387 SF JUNIOR SUITE 307 388 SF JUNIOR SUITE 309 388 SF JUNIOR SUITE 311 680 SF SUITE 303 S2 SOUTH STAIR 407 SF JUNIOR SUITE 319 363 SF QQ 321 310 SF KING 322 310 SF KING 320 310 SF KING 318 309 SF KING 316 335 SF KING 314 ELEVATOR LOBBY 313416 SF JUNIOR SUITE 317 371 SF QQ ADA 342 ROOF BELOW PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PR O P E R T Y L I N E PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PR O P E R T Y L I N E PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE ELEV. E1 ELEV. E2 ELEV. E3 CORRIDOR 310 EA S E M E N T 4' - 0 " X 5 ' - 0 " 335 SF KING 304 344 SF QQ 312 Room Types Legend JUNIOR SUITE KING KING ADA QQ QQ ADA SUITE VALET STAIRS #2 VEST. 357 SF QQ 328 464 SF JUNIOR SUITE 330 714 SF SUITE 345 (7) / 388-464 SF (15) / 309-424 SF (8) / 344-371 SF (3) / 680-746 SF 2" 1 " 0 " 654321 654321 E D C B A REFERENCE NOTES DATE REVISION w ww .f fkr . com w ww .f fkr . com w ww .f fkr . com w ww .f fkr . com 05 /16/2 016 JW S PROJECT NUMBER 5/ 2 2 / 2 0 2 5 8 : 4 4 : 4 3 A M AP103 PRESENTATION FLOOR PLAN - LEVELS 3-6 SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L 13 0 0 E . 2 1 0 0 S . S A L T L A K E C I T Y , U T 8 4 1 0 6 Zo n i n g A m e n d m e n t - 2 0 2 5 - 0 4 - 2 3 SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L , L L C 24096 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A1 LEVELS 3-6 FLOOR PLAN UP UP -B- -B- 3 3 4 4 7 7 8 8 10 10 C C -D- -D- E E F F G G H H J J K K L L -M- -M- N N -Q- -Q- 5 5 12 12 -9--9- 2 2 A A S S 1 1 -6--6- P P R R STORAGE 716 FURNITURE STORAGE 730 ELECTRICAL 723 N STAIR S2 S STAIR S2 CIRCULATION 734 LIBRARY 721 RESTAURANT 707 8 Dining 3 Counter 3 Lounge 84 Dining 132 Seats UNISEX RR 717 ROOF-TOP TERRACE 701 20 Dining 4 Lounge LOUNGE 706 ELEVATOR LOBBY 713 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PR O P E R T Y L I N E PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PR O P E R T Y L I N E PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE ELEV. E1 ELEV. E2 ELEV. E3 EA S E M E N T 4' - 0 " X 5 ' - 0 " CUSTODIAL 725 REST ROOM 727 BANQUET 750 PRE-FUNCTION 740 LINEN 733 ROOM SERVICE 732 KITCHEN 720 KITCHEN OFFICE 722 DRY STORAGE 728 FREEZER 726 COOLER 724 JANITOR 714 2" 1 " 0 " 654321 654321 E D C B A DATE REVISION w ww .f fkr . com w ww .f fkr . com w ww .f fkr . com w ww .f fkr . com 05 /16/2 016 JW S PROJECT NUMBER 5/ 2 2 / 2 0 2 5 8 : 4 4 : 5 4 A M AP107 PRESENTATION FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 7 SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L 13 0 0 E . 2 1 0 0 S . S A L T L A K E C I T Y , U T 8 4 1 0 6 Zo n i n g A m e n d m e n t - 2 0 2 5 - 0 4 - 2 3 SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L , L L C 24096 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A1 PRESENTATION LEVEL 7 FLOOR PLAN BENCHMARK ENGINEERING CONTACT: ALLISON G. ALBERT, PE DESIGN: TJB CHECK: MCP DATE: 12/17/2024 DRAFT AD DESCRIPTIONDATENo. PRELIMINARY CIVIL PLANS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SITUATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 1 EAST SALT LAKE BASE AND MERIDIAN SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH 2111 S 1300 E, SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106 DATE: XX/XX/2024 DATE: XX/XX/2024 SUGAR HOUSE HOTEL DRAWING INDEX COVER COVER SHEET CGN.01 GENERAL NOTES, LEGEND & ABBREVIATION CGN.02 SALT LAKE PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL NOTES CDP.01 DEMOLITION PLAN CSP.01 SITE PLAN CUP.01 UTILITY PLAN CGD.01 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN CEP.01 EROSION CONTROL PLAN CEP.02 EROSION CONTROL DETAILS CDT.01 DETAILS & NOTES OWNER/DEVELOPER: RON WITZEL SUGAR HOUSE HOTEL, LLC 4700 S HIGHLAND DRIVE, SUITE B MILLCREEK, UT 84117 801.860.9644 ron@rdwitzelconstruction.com VICINITY MAP N.T.S SITE COVER 9138 SOUTH STATE STREET SUITE # 100 SANDY, UTAH 84070 (801) 542-7192 www.benchmarkcivil.com BENCHMARK ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING 1 inch = ft. ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE 020 20 40 20 10 NORTH PROJECT NO.2409146 OF 11 1 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 2111 SOUTH 1300 EAST SUGAR HOUSE HOTEL 13 0 0 E A S T (P U B L I C S T R E E T ) 2100 SOUTH (PUBLIC STREET) LI N C O L N S T 10 0 0 E 11 0 0 E MC C L E L L A N D S T WILLMINGTON AVE SIMPSON AVE 12 0 0 E DO U G L A S S T VI E W S T 14 0 0 E WESTMINSTER AVE 2100 S I-80 17 0 0 E CAUTION NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION AND/OR ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED ON RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES AND, WHERE POSSIBLE, MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD. THE INFORMATION IS NOT TO BE RELIED ON AS BEING EXACT OR COMPLETE. THE CONTRACTOR MUST CALL THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANY AT LEAST 48 HOURS BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION TO REQUEST EXACT FIELD LOCATION OF UTILITIES. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. THE CONTRACTOR AGREES THAT HE SHALL ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR JOB SITE CONDITIONS DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY: THAT THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO THE NORMAL WORKING HOURS; AND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DEFEND, INDEMNIFY, AN HOLD THE OWNER AND THE ENGINEER HARMLESS FROM ANY AND ALL LIABILITY, REAL OR ALLEGED, IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK ON THIS PROJECT, EXCEPTING FOR LIABILITY ARISING FROM SOLE NEGLIGENCE OF THE OWNER OR THE ENGINEER. NEW EXISTING SECTION CORNER (FOUND) SECTION CORNER (NOT FOUND) STREET MONUMENT (FOUND) STREET MONUMENT (NOT FOUND) BRASS CAP MONUMENT POWER POLE & OVERHEAD POWER LIGHT POLE GUY WIRE TELEPHONE MANHOLE SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE STORM DRAIN MANHOLE CATCH BASIN DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE WATER MANHOLE WATER VALVE WATER METER FIRE HYDRANT IRRIGATION VALVE GAS MANHOLE TREE SYMBOLS: NEW EXISTING LINETYPES: NOTE: IN THE EVENT THAT THE CONSTRUCTION NOTES CONFLICT WITH RESPONSIBLE DISTRICT OR AGENCY STANDARDS NOTES AND SPECIFICATIONS, THE DISTRICT OR AGENCY STANDARD NOTES AND SPECIFICATIONS GOVERN. X SECTION LINE PROPERTY LINE ADJACENT PL or LOT LINES RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE CENTERLINE of ROAD EASEMENT LINE CURB & GUTTER EDGE OF ASPHALT FENCE / WALL, STONE FENCE, BLOCK FENCE, BRICK FENCE, CHAIN FENCE, IRON FENCE, VINYL FENCE, WIRE FENCE, WOOD INDEX CONTOUR LINE INTERMEDIATE CONTOUR LINE SPOT ELEVATION SANITARY SEWER LINE STORM DRAIN LINE WATER LINE IRRIGATION LINE OVERHEAD POWER LINE UNDERGROUND POWER LINE GAS LINE TELEPHONE LINE CABLE TELEVISION LINE DRAINAGE / DITCH CENTERLINE TREE LINE EDGE FIBER OPTIC LINE PROPOSED ASPHALT PROPOSED CONCRETE X W H Y D W CATVCATV UGUG OHPOHP IRRIRR WW SDSD SSSS T GAS T GAS ** GENERAL 1. ALL MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RESPONSIBLE DISTRICT OR AGENCY. 2. CONTRACTOR AND APPLICABLE SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL ATTEND ALL PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCES AND PERIODIC PROGRESS MEETINGS. PRIOR TO ANY WORK BEING PERFORMED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT RESPONSIBLE DISTRICT OR AGENCY FOR A PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE. CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO NOTIFY THE APPROPRIATE PROJECT CONTACTS (48) HOURS IN ADVANCE OF SAID MEETING. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL PUBLIC SAFETY AND OSHA STANDARDS. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FAMILIARIZE HIM/HER SELF WITH THE PLANS, THE GEOLOGY REPORTS AND THE SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT THE SITE OF WORK PRIOR TO BIDDING TO SATISFY THEMSELVES BY PERSONAL EXAMINATION OR BY SUCH OTHER MEANS AS THEY MAY PREFER, OF THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED WORK, AND OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS OF AND AT THE SITE OF WORK. CONDITIONS WHICH APPEAR TO THEM TO BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE LETTER OR SPIRIT OF THE PROJECT PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, THEY SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND EXPLANATION BEFORE SUBMITTING THEIR BID. SUBMISSION OF A BID BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSTITUTE ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT, IF AWARDED THE CONTRACT, THEY HAVE RELIED AND ARE RELYING ON THEIR OWN EXAMINATION OF (1) THE SITE OF THE WORK, (2) ACCESS TO THE SITE, AND (3) ALL OTHER DATA AND MATTERS REQUISITE TO THE FULFILLMENT OF THE WORK AND ON THEIR OWN KNOWLEDGE OF EXISTING FACILITIES ON AND IN THE VICINITY OF THE SITE OF THE WORK TO BE CONSTRUCTED UNDER THIS CONTRACT. THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE OWNER OR THE ENGINEER IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A SUBSTITUTE FOR, OR A SUPPLEMENT TO, THE INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION BY THE CONTRACTOR TO THE EXTENT SUCH INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF SITE CONDITIONS IS DEEMED NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE BY THE CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR SHALL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE NOT RELIED SOLELY UPON OWNER OR ENGINEER FURNISHED INFORMATION REGARDING SITE CONDITIONS IN PREPARING AND SUBMITTING THEIR BID. 5. ALL WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION UTAH CHAPTER (APWA) MANUAL OF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 2017 EDITION AND THE MANUAL OF STANDARD PLANS 2017 EDITION. SAID STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND PLANS SHALL BE SUBSIDIARY TO MORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS BY APPLICABLE LOCAL JURISDICTION. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SKILLED AND REGULARLY ENGAGED IN THE GENERAL CLASS AND TYPE OF WORK CALLED FOR IN THE PROJECT PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. THEREFORE, THE OWNER IS RELYING UPON THE EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE OF THE CONTRACTOR, IT SHALL BE EXPECTED THAT THE PRICES PROVIDED WITHIN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS SHALL INCLUDE ALL LABOR AND MATERIALS NECESSARY AND PROPER FOR THE WORK CONTEMPLATED AND THAT THE WORK BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR TRUE INTENT AND PURPOSE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE COMPETENT, KNOWLEDGEABLE AND HAVE SPECIAL SKILLS ON THE NATURE, EXTENT AND INHERENT CONDITIONS OF THE WORK TO BE PERFORMED. CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN REGULAR AND INHERENT CONDITIONS EXISTENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PARTICULAR FACILITIES WHICH MAY CREATE, DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM, UNUSUAL OR PECULIAR UNSAFE CONDITIONS HAZARDOUS TO PERSONS, PROPERTY AND THE ENVIRONMENT. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE AWARE OF SUCH PECULIAR RISKS AND HAVE THE SKILL AND EXPERIENCE TO FORESEE AND TO ADOPT PROTECTIVE MEASURES TO ADEQUATELY AND SAFELY PERFORM THE CONSTRUCTION WORK WITH RESPECT TO SUCH HAZARDS. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL PERMITS AND LICENSES REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT, AND SHALL PERFORM ALL WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF ALL PERMITS AND APPROVALS APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THAT THE NECESSARY RIGHT-OF-WAY, EASEMENTS, AND/OR PERMITS ARE SECURED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN APPROPRIATE PERMITS WHERE APPLICABLE FOR ANY WORK DONE WITHIN RIGHT-OF-WAY OR EASEMENTS FROM THE CITY AND/OR UDOT. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY CITY, COUNTY, AND/OR STATE, 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF COMMUNICATING THE WORK, OR AS REQUIRED BY SAID PERMITS. 8. CONCRETE PLACEMENTS SHALL BE CONTINUOUS BETWEEN CONSTRUCTION JOINTS. CONTRACTION JOINTS SHALL BE PLACED FOR SLAB-ON-GRADE SUCH THAT THE MAXIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN JOINTS IS 20 FEET IN EITHER DIRECTION FOR LIGHT DUTY TRAFFIC AND 12 FEET IN EITHER DIRECTION FOR HEAVY DUTY TRAFFIC. 9. IT IS INTENDED THAT THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REQUIRE ALL LABOR AND MATERIALS NECESSARY AND PROPER FOR THE WORK CONTEMPLATED AND THAT THE WORK BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR TRUE INTENT AND PURPOSE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY REGARDING ANY DISCREPANCIES OR AMBIGUITIES WHICH MAY EXIST IN THE PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS. THE ENGINEER'S INTERPRETATION THEREOF SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY FIELD CHANGES MADE WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE OWNER AND/OR ENGINEER. 10. ALL WORK OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THESE PLANS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RESPONSIBLE DESIGN. THESE PLANS DO NOT REPLACE ANY STRUCTURAL, ARCHITECTURAL, OR MECHANICAL PLANS. SHOULD A DISCREPANCY ARISE BETWEEN THESE PLANS AND ANOTHER PLAN SET, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO CONTACT BOTH PARTIES TO DETERMINE WHAT SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED. 11. ALL STAIRS AND RAILINGS ARE DESIGNED BY OTHERS AND MUST COMPLY WITH THE ADA STANDARDS FOR ACCESSIBLE DESIGN. SAID STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND PLANS SHALL BE SUBSIDIARY TO MORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS BY APPLICABLE LOCAL JURISDICTION. 12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ADEQUATELY SCHEDULING INSPECTION AND TESTING OF ALL FACILITIES CONSTRUCTED UNDER THIS CONTRACT. ALL TESTING SHALL CONFORM TO THE REGULATORY AGENCY'S STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. ALL TESTING AND INSPECTION SHALL BE PAID FOR BY THE OWNER; ALL RE-TESTING AND/OR REINSPECTION SHALL BE PAID FOR BY THE CONTRACTOR. 13. IF EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS NEED TO BE DISTURBED AND/OR REMOVED FOR THE PROPER PLACEMENT OF IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY THESE PLANS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTING EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS FROM DAMAGE. COST OF REPLACING OR REPAIRING EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE UNIT PRICE BID FOR ITEMS REQUIRING REMOVAL AND/OR REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS AND ANYTHING THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSTRUCTED. THERE WILL BE NO EXTRA COST DUE THE CONTRACTOR FOR REPLACING OR REPAIRING EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS. WHENEVER EXISTING FACILITIES ARE REMOVED, DAMAGED, BROKEN, OR CUT IN THE INSTALLATION OF THE WORK COVERED BY THESE PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS, SAID FACILITIES SHALL BE REPLACED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE, AFTER PROPER BACKFILLING AND/OR CONSTRUCTION, WITH MATERIALS EQUAL TO OR BETTER THAN THE MATERIALS USED IN THE ORIGINAL EXISTING FACILITIES. THE FINISHED PRODUCT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE OWNER, THE ENGINEER, AND THE RESPECTIVE REGULATORY AGENCY. 14. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN A NEATLY MARKED SET OF FULL-SIZE AS-BUILT RECORD DRAWINGS SHOWING THE FINAL LOCATION AND LAYOUT OF ALL MECHANICAL; ELECTRICAL AND INSTRUMENTATION EQUIPMENT; PIPING AND CONDUITS; STRUCTURES AND OTHER FACILITIES. THE AS-BUILTS OF THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM SHALL INCLUDE THE STREET LIGHT LAYOUT PLAN SHOWING LOCATION OF LIGHTS, CONDUITS, CONDUCTORS, POINTS OF CONNECTIONS TO SERVICES, PULLBOXES, AND WIRE SIZES. AS-BUILT RECORD DRAWINGS SHALL REFLECT CHANGE ORDERS, ACCOMMODATIONS, AND ADJUSTMENTS TO ALL IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED. WHERE NECESSARY, SUPPLEMENTAL DRAWINGS SHALL BE PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY THE CONTRACTOR. 15. PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROJECT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DELIVER TO ENGINEER. ONE SET OF NEATLY MARKED AS-BUILT RECORD DRAWINGS SHOWING THE INFORMATION REQUIRED ABOVE. AS-BUILT RECORD DRAWINGS SHALL BE REVIEWED AND THE COMPLETE AS-BUILT RECORD DRAWING SET SHALL BE CURRENT WITH ALL CHANGES AND DEVIATION REDLINES AS A PRECONDITION TO THE FINAL PROGRESS PAYMENT APPROVAL AND/OR FINAL ACCEPTANCE. UTILITIES 16. CONTRACTOR TO SPACE UTILITIES TO PROVIDE MINIMUM DISTANCES AS REQUIRED BY LOCAL, COUNTY, STATE, AND INDIVIDUAL UTILITY CODES. 17. ALL UTILITES INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RESPONSIBLE DISTRICTS OR AGENCIES STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 18. COORDINATE ALL SERVICE LATERAL AND BUILDING CONNECTIONS WITH CORRESPONDING ARCHITECTURAL, MECHANICAL OR ELECTRICAL DRAWING FOR LOCATION AND ELEVATION. NOTIFY ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE ENCOUNTERED. 19. ALL STORM DRAIN MANHOLES AND CATCH BASINS ARE TO BE PRECAST CONCRETE FROM APPROVED LOCAL MANUFACTURER UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. AND COMPLY WITH CITY/COUNTY STANDARD 20. ALL STORM WATER CONVEYANCE PIPING TO BE RCP - CLASS 3 OR ADS HDPE PIPE OR EQUAL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 21. ALL ELECTRICAL CONDUITS/LINES TO BE PVC SCH 40 OR BETTER. 22. ALL GAS LINES TO BE HDPE WITH COPPER TRACER WIRE AND DETECTA TAPE. TERMINATE TRACER WIRE AT APPROVED LOCATIONS. 23. ALL GAS LINE TAPS, VALVES AND CAPS TO BE FUSED USING ELECTRO - FUSION TECHNOLOGY. 24. ALL PHONE AND TV CONDUITS TO BE PVC SCH 40 OR BETTER. 25. NO GROUNDWATER OR DEBRIS TO BE ALLOWED TO ENTER THE NEW PIPE DURING CONSTRUCTION. THE OPEN END OF ALL PIPES IS TO BE COVERED AND EFFECTIVELY SEALED AT THE END OF EACH DAYS WORK. 26. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL SHORING, BRACING, SLOPING OR OTHER PROVISIONS NECESSARY TO PROTECT WORKMEN FOR ALL AREAS TO BE EXCAVATED TO A DEPTH OF 4' OR MORE AND SHALL COMPLY WITH INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF UTAH SAFETY ORDERS SECTION 68 - EXCAVATIONS, AND SECTION 69 - TRENCHES, ALONG WITH ANY LOCAL CODES OR ORDINANCES. 27. PRIOR TO OPENING AN EXCAVATION, EFFORT SHALL BE MADE TO DETERMINE WHETHER UNDERGROUND INSTALLATIONS; I.E. SEWER, WATER, FUEL, ELECTRIC LINES, ETC., WILL BE ENCOUNTERED AND IF SO, WHERE SUCH UNDERGROUND INSTALLATIONS ARE LOCATED. WHEN THE EXCAVATION APPROACHES THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SUCH AN INSTALLATION, THE EXACT LOCATION SHALL BE DETERMINED BY CAREFUL PROBING OR HAND DIGGING; AND, WHEN IT IS UNCOVERED, ADEQUATE PROTECTION SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR THE EXISTING INSTALLATION. ALL KNOWN OWNERS OF UNDERGROUND FACILITIES IN THE AREA CONCERNED SHALL BE ADVISED OF PROPOSED WORK AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE START OF ACTUAL EXCAVATION. 28. IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO INSTALL PIPE OF ADEQUATE CLASSIFICATION WITH SUFFICIENT BEDDING TO MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR H-20 LOAD REQUIREMENTS. 29. ACTUAL CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING WATER LINES WILL NOT BE PERMITTED PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF STERILIZATION AND TESTING OF NEW WATER MAINS. ALL EXISTING WATER VALVES TO BE OPERATED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY/COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL ONLY. 30. ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHALL BE IN PLACE INSPECTED, TESTED, AND APPROVED BY AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF CURB, GUTTER, SIDEWALK, AND STREET PAVING. 31. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATION WITH UTILITY COMPANIES FOR THE INSTALLATION OF ALL NEW AND THE REMOVAL, RELOCATION, AND/OR BURIAL OF ALL EXISTING DRY UTILITIES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO POWER, GAS, AND COMMUNICATION LINES. IF THERE IS A CONFLICT WITH AN EXISTING DRY UTILITY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE THE REMOVAL OR RELOCATION OF THE EXISTING UTILITY WITH THE RESPONSIBLE DISTRICT OR AGENCY. ALL WORK FOR DRY UTILITIES SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH AND COMPLETED TO THE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE RESPONSIBLE DISTRICT OR AGENCY. SEWER 32. ALL SEWER LINE TO BE FLUSHED, PRESSURE TESTED TO 5 PSI VIDEO INSPECTED AND OTHERWISE TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DISTRICT STANDARDS PRIOR TO PLACING IN SERVICE. 33. ALL SEWER PIPES ARE TO BE SDR-35 PVC PIPE. 34. SEWER MANHOLES, LATERALS AND CLEANOUTS TO BE INSTALLED PER RESPONSIBLE DISTRICT OR AGENCY STANDARDS. THE UNIT COST OF THE SEWER LATERAL INCLUDES CONNECTION TO THE SEWER MAIN. THE CLEANOUT RISER FOR EACH SERVICE SHALL BE INSTALLED BY THE CONTRACTOR. 35. SEWER CLEANOUTS MUST BE INSTALLED AT A MINIMUM OF EVERY 50 L.F. FOR 4 INCH Ø LATERALS AND EVERY 100 L.F. FOR 6 INCH Ø LATERALS, OR PER THE RESPONSIBLE DISTRICT OR AGENCY STANDARDS, WHICHEVER IS MORE FREQUENT. 36. A SEWER CLEANOUT MUST BE INSTALLED 5 L.F. TO 10 L.F. FROM ANY PROPOSED STRUCTURE, OR PER THE RESPONSIBLE DISTRICT OR AGENCY STANDARDS. 37. ALL SEWER LATERAL BENDS AND ANGLES TO BE INSTALLED AS SWEEPING BENDS WITH SEWER CLEANOUTS. 38. DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE SEWERLINE, WYES NEED TO BE INSTALLED FOR THE LATERALS. LATERALS ARE 4" AND NEED TO COME IN AT THE TOP OF THE PIPE WITH A WYE. (SEE RESPONSIBLE DISTRICT OR AGENCY STANDARDS) 39. IT IS THE INTENT ON THESE PLANS THAT ALL SEWER PIPES SHALL SLOPE TO AN EXISTING SEWER CONNECTION VIA GRAVITY FLOW. CONTRACTOR TO START AT THE LOW END OF GRAVITY UTILITY LINES AND VERIFY THAT ALL INVERT ELEVATIONS PROVE SLOPE TO EXISTING CONNECTION VIA GRAVITY. SLOPES MUST MEET OR EXCEED THE SEWER DISTRICTS MINIMUM STANDARDS. NOTIFY ENGINEER IF THERE ARE DISCREPANCIES THAT WOULD CAUSE THE SEWER UTILITY NOT TO DRAIN VIA GRAVITY ON THE SITE. WATER 40. WATERLINES TO BE PVC C-900. WATER LINES SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 10' HORIZONTALLY FROM SEWER MAINS. CROSSINGS SHALL MEET STATE HEALTH STANDARDS. (MECHANICAL JOINTS REQUIRED WHEN LESS THAN 18" VERTICAL OR TEN FEET HORIZONTAL SEPARATION FROM SEWERLINE 41. ALL WATERLINES SHALL BE 8" MINIMUM SIZE AND SERVICE LATERALS SHALL BE 1-1/2" MINIMUM UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 42. WATER SERVICE LATERALS TO INCLUDE ALL BRASS SADDLE; CORP. STOP LATERAL, DOUBLE CHECK VALVE AND BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE, AND SHUTOFF VALVE IN BOX NEAR BUILDING EDGE. 43. ALL WATERLINES SHALL BE 48" BELOW FINISH GROUND TO TOP OF PIPE. ALL VALVE BOXES AND MANHOLES SHALL BE RAISED OR LOWERED TO FINISH GRADE AND SHALL INCLUDE A CONCRETE COLLAR IN PAVED AREAS. ALL WATER LINES SHALL BE LOOPED AROUND GRAVITY LINES OR ROPED PER RESPONSIBLE DISTRICT OR AGENCY INSPECTOR. 44. CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY RESPONSIBLE DISTRICT OR AGENCY FOR CHLORINE TEST PRIOR TO FLUSHING LINES, CHLORINE LEFT IN PIPE 24 HRS. MINIMUM WITH 25 PPM RESIDUAL. ALL TURNING OF MAINLINE VALVES, CHLORINATION, FLUSHING, PRESSURE TESTING, BACTERIA TESTING, ETC. TO BE COORDINATED WITH RESPONSIBLE DISTRICT OR AGENCY. ALL TESTS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RESPONSIBLE DISTRICT OR AGENCY. 45. BOTTOM FLANGE OF FIRE HYDRANTS TO BE SET TO APPROXIMATELY 4 INCHES ABOVE BACK OF CURB ELEVATION. HYDRANTS TO INCLUDE TEE, 6" LINE VALVE, AND HYDRANT COMPLETE TO MEET RESPONSIBLE DISTRICT OR AGENCY STANDARDS, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON PLANS. EXISTING UTILITIES 46. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL UTILITIES SHOWN OR NOT SHOWN. THE INFORMATION SHOWN ON THE PLANS WITH REGARDS TO THE EXISTING UTILITIES AND/OR IMPROVEMENTS WAS DERIVED FROM FIELD INVESTIGATION AND/OR RECORD INFORMATION. NO REPRESENTATION IS MADE AS TO THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SAID UTILITY INFORMATION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE DUE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES TO PROTECT THE FACILITIES SHOWN AND ANY OTHER FACILITIES NOT OF RECORD OR NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OR FABRICATION, IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S SOLE RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY ALL EXISTING IMPROVEMENT AND TO EXPOSE ALL EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES RELATED TO THE PROJECT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, SEWER, STORM DRAIN, WATER IRRIGATION, GAS, ELECTRICAL, ETC. AND SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IN WRITING FORTY-EIGHT (48) HOURS IN ADVANCE OF EXPOSING THE UTILITIES SO, THAT THE EXACT LOCATION, ELEVATION, MATERIAL, ETC. CAN BE VERIFIED AND DOCUMENTED. THE COST ASSOCIATED TO PERFORM THIS WORK SHALL BE INCLUDED IN EITHER THE LUMP SUMP CLEARING COST OR IN THE VARIOUS ITEMS OF WORK. IF LOCATION AND/OR ELEVATION DIFFERS FROM THAT SHOWN ON THE DESIGN PLANS, PROVISIONS TO ACCOMMODATE NEW LOCATION BE MADE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 47. PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY WORK, IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO HAVE EACH UTILITY COMPANY LOCATE, IN THE FIELD, THEIR MAIN AND SERVICE LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY BLUE STAKES 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF PERFORMING ANY EXCAVATION WORK THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RECORD THE BLUE STAKES ORDER NUMBER AND FURNISH ORDER NUMBER TO OWNER AND ENGINEER PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION. IT WILL BE THE CONTRACTORS SOLE RESPONSIBILITY TO DIRECTLY CONTACT ANY OTHER UTILITY COMPANIES THAT ARE NOT MEMBERS OF BLUE STAKES. IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S SOLE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT ALL EXISTING UTILITIES SO THAT NO DAMAGE RESULTS TO THEM DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS CONTRACT. ANY REPAIRS NECESSARY TO DAMAGED UTILITIES SHALL BE PAID FOR BY THE CONTRACTORS AND UTILITY COMPANIES INSTALLING NEW STRUCTURES, UTILITIES AND SERVICE TO THE PROJECT. 48. ALL MANHOLE RIMS, LAMPHOLES, VALVE BOX COVERS, MONUMENT BOXES AND CATCH BASIN GRATES ARE TO BE ADJUSTED TO FIT THE FINISHED GRADE AFTER PAVING, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. COST FOR THIS WORK SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE UNIT PRICES FOR SAID FACILITIES. 49. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO ASSURE THAT ALL PIPES, WALLS, ETC. ARE ADEQUATELY BRACED DURING CONSTRUCTION. CLEARING AND GRADING 50. CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM EARTHWORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH APWA 2017 STANDARD DRAWINGS AND STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND THE RECOMMENDED EARTHWORK SPECIFICATION FOUND IN THE PROFESSIONALLY PREPARED REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION. 51. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL VEGETATION AND DELETERIOUS MATERIALS FROM THE SITE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE; ALL EXISTING WELLS AND SEPTIC TANKS SHALL BE REMOVED AND/OR ABANDONED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF ALL LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS. THE COST TO PERFORM THIS WORK SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE LUMP SUM CLEARING COST. 52. SUBSOIL INVESTIGATIONS HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED AT THE SITE OF THE WORK. ALL FOOTING, FOUNDATION OR STRUCTURAL WALL CONSTRUCTION MUST ADHERE TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS DETAILED BY THE PROFESSIONAL REPORT OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS, CREATED BY GSH GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 53. SOIL INVESTIGATIONS WERE CONDUCTED BY GSH GEOTECHNICAL, INC FOR DESIGN PURPOSES ONLY, AND THE DATA SHOWN IN THE REPORTS ARE FOR SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS FOUND AT THE TIME OF THE INVESTIGATION. THE OWNER AND ENGINEER DISCLAIM RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE INTERPRETATION BY THE CONTRACTOR OF DATA, SUCH PROJECTION OR EXTRAPOLATION, FROM THE TEST HOLES TO OTHER LOCATIONS ON THE SITE OF THE WORK, SOIL BEARING VALUES AND PROFILES, SOIL STABILITY AND THE PRESENCE, LEVEL AND EXTENT OF UNDERGROUND WATER FOR SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. 54. ALL PROPOSED ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THE GRADING PLAN ARE TO FINISHED SURFACE, THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO DEDUCT THE THICKNESS OF THE PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL SECTION FOR TOP OF SUB GRADE ELEVATIONS. 55. IF AT ANY TIME DURING CONSTRUCTION ANY UNFAVORABLE GEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS ARE ENCOUNTERED, WORK IN THAT AREA WILL STOP UNTIL APPROVED CORRECTIVE MEASURES ARE OBTAINED FROM THE ENGINEER. 56. UNSUITABLE MATERIAL, SUCH AS TOP SOIL, WEATHERED BED ROCK, ETC., SHALL BE REMOVED AS REQUIRED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER (AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST, WHERE EMPLOYED) FROM ALL AREAS TO RECEIVE COMPACTED FILL OR DRAINAGE STRUCTURES. 57. NO TREES SHALL BE REMOVED OR DAMAGED WITHOUT SPECIFIC WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM PROPERTY OWNER. 58. THE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY ON THESE PLANS IS BASED ON A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PERFORMED BY GALLOWAY & COMPANY ON 8/16/2024 AND MAY HAVE BEEN MODIFIED SINCE THIS SURVEY WAS PERFORMED. 59. FILLS IN EXCESS OF 4 FEET IN THICKNESS AND BENEATH ALL FOUNDATIONS OR PAVEMENT SECTIONS SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 95 PERCENT OF THE MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AS DETERMINED BY THE ASTM D-1557 COMPACTION CRITERIA. ALL OTHER STRUCTURAL FILL LESS THAN 4 FEET IN THICKNESS SHOULD BE COMPACTED TO AT LEAST 90 PERCENT OF THE ABOVE CRITERIA. REFERENCE GSH GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. 60. COMPACTION TESTING WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY THE CONTRACTOR, OR THE CONTRACTOR WILL HAVE SUCH TESTING ACCOMPLISHED BY A SEPARATE CONTRACTOR. TEST RESULTS WILL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER TEST. 61. CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT PROCTOR AND/OR MARSHALL TEST DATA 24 HOURS PRIOR TO COMPACTION TESTS. 62. STRAIGHT GRADE SHALL BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN CONTOUR LINES AND SPOT ELEVATIONS UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON PLANS. 63. CUT AND FILL SLOPES SHALL BE NO STEEPER THAN 2 HORIZONTAL TO 1 VERTICAL. ALL SLOPES IN ADJOINING STREETS, DRAINAGE CHANNELS, OR OTHER FACILITIES SHALL BE GRADED NO STEEPER THAN 2 TO 1 FOR CUT AND FILL. 64. GRADES WITHIN ASPHALT PARKING AREAS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO WITHIN 0.10 FEET OF THE DESIGN GRADE. HOWEVER, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN POSITIVE DRAINAGE IN ALL PAVEMENT AREAS AND ALONG ALL CURBS. ALL CURBS SHALL BE BUILT IN ACCORDANCE TO THE PLAN. CURBS AND PAVEMENT AREAS WHICH ARE NOT INSTALLED PER PLAN MUST BE REMOVED AND REPLACED AT THE CONTRACTORS EXPENSE. 65. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING HIS OWN ESTIMATE OF EARTHWORK QUANTITIES. 66. WHERE NEW CURB AND GUTTER IS BEING CONSTRUCTED ADJACENT TO EXISTING ASPHALT OR CONCRETE PAVEMENT, THE FOLLOWING SHALL APPLY: PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF ANY CONCRETE THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE A LICENSE SURVEYOR VERIFY THE ELEVATION AND LOCATION OF THE EXISTING HARDSCAPE TIE-INS AS WELL AS THE CROSS SLOPE TO THE CURB AND GUTTER FORMS, PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF ANY CONCRETE THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE A LICENSE SURVEYOR VERIFY THE GRADE AND CROSS SLOPE OF THE CURB AND GUTTER FORMS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT THE SLOPE AND GRADES TO THE ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF CONCRETE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY OF ANY SECTION WHICH DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE DESIGN OR TYPICAL CROSS SECTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CURB AND GUTTER POURS WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER. 67. SITE WORK SHALL MEET OR EXCEED OWNER'S SITE SPECIFICATIONS. 68. ALL SITE CONCRETE OR CONCRETE ELEMENT NOT SPECIFICALLY SHOWN AND DETAILED ON STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF 28 DAY COMPRESSION STRENGTH OF 4000 PSI. 69. APPROVED PROTECTIVE MEASURES AND TEMPORARY DRAINAGE PROVISIONS MUST BE USED TO PROTECT ADJOINING PROPERTIES DURING THE GRADING PROJECT. 70. ALL DESIGN SLOPES AND TIE-IN SLOPES SHALL CONFORM TO THE FOLLOWING LIMITATIONS. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY CIVIL ENGINEER FOR REDESIGN IF ANY AREAS EXCEED THE FOLLOWING SLOPES PRIOR TO FORMING, POURING OR PAVING ANY HARDSCAPE. 70.1. LANDSCAPING SHALL SLOPE AT A MINIMUM OF 2% AND MAXIMUM OF 33% IN ANY DIRECTION 70.2. ASPHALT SHALL SLOPE AT A MINIMUM OF 1.5% AND MAXIMUM OF 8% IN ANY DIRECTION, SEE 68.6 70.3. CONCRETE FLATWORK SHALL SLOPE AT A MINIMUM OF 1% AND MAXIMUM OF 8% IN ANY DIRECTION, SEE 68.6 70.4. CURB AND GUTTER SHALL SLOPE AT A MINIMUM OF 0.5% AND MAXIMUM OF 8% IN THE LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION 70.5. ROADWAY CROSS SLOPES SHALL BE BETWEEN 2% AND 4% OR WITHIN THE RESPONSIBLE DISTRICT OR AGENCY'S LIMITS 70.6.FINISHED GRADE SHALL SLOPE AWAY FROM ALL BUILDINGS FOR A MINIMUM OF 10 FEET WITH THE FOLLOWING SLOPES: LANDSCAPING AT A MINIMUM OF 5%, AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACES AT A MINIMUM OF 2% 70.7. ALL ADA COMPONENTS SHALL MEET CURRENT ADA AND APWA SLOPE REQUIREMENTS DEWATERING 71. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH, INSTALL, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN ALL MACHINERY, APPLIANCES AND EQUIPMENT TO MAINTAIN ALL EXCAVATIONS FREE FROM WATER DURING CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DISPOSE OF THE WATER SO AS NOT TO CAUSE DAMAGE TO PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY, OR TO CAUSE A NUISANCE OR MENACE TO THE PUBLIC OR VIOLATE THE LAW. THE DEWATERING SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED AND OPERATED SO THAT THE GROUND LEVEL OUTSIDE THE EXCAVATION IS NOT REDUCED TO THE EXTENT WHICH WOULD CAUSE DAMAGE OR ENDANGER ADJACENT STRUCTURES OR PROPERTY. ALL COST FOR DEWATERING SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE UNIT PRICE BID FOR ALL PIPE CONSTRUCTION. THE STATIC WATER LEVEL SHALL BE DRAWN DOWN A MINIMUM OF 1 FOOT BELOW THE BOTTOM OF EXCAVATIONS TO MAINTAIN THE UNDISTURBED STATE OF NATURAL SOILS AND ALLOW THE PLACEMENT OF ANY FILL TO THE SPECIFIED DENSITY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE ON HAND, PUMPING EQUIPMENT AND MACHINERY IN GOOD CONDITION FOR EMERGENCIES AND SHALL HAVE WORKMEN AVAILABLE FOR ITS OPERATION: DEWATERING SYSTEM SHALL OPERATE CONTINUOUSLY UNTIL BACKFILL HAS BEEN COMPLETED TO 1 FOOT ABOVE THE NORMAL STATIC GROUNDWATER LEVEL. 72. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTROL SURFACE WATER TO PREVENT ENTRY INTO EXCAVATIONS. AT EACH EXCAVATION, A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF TEMPORARY OBSERVATION WELLS TO CONTINUOUSLY CHECK THE GROUNDWATER LEVEL SHALL BE PROVIDED. 73. SUMPS SHALL BE NO DEEPER THAN 5 FEET AND SHALL BE AT THE LOW POINT OF EXCAVATION. EXCAVATION SHALL BE GRADED TO DRAIN TO THE SUMPS. 74. THE CONTROL OF GROUNDWATER SHALL BE SUCH THAT SOFTENING OF THE BOTTOM OF EXCAVATIONS, OR FORMATION OF "QUICK" CONDITIONS OR "BOILS", DOES NOT OCCUR. DEWATERING SYSTEMS SHALL BE DESIGNED AND OPERATED SO AS TO PREVENT REMOVAL OF NATURAL SOILS. THE RELEASE OF GROUNDWATER AT ITS STATIC LEVEL SHALL BE PERFORMED IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO MAINTAIN THE UNDISTURBED STATE OF NATURAL FOUNDATION SOILS, PREVENT DISTURBANCE OF COMPACTED BACKFILL, AND PREVENT FLOTATION OR MOVEMENT OF STRUCTURES, PIPELINES AND SEWERS. IF A UPDES (UTAH POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM) PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR DISPOSAL OF WATER FROM CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING ACTIVITIES, IT SHALL BE OBTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO ANY DEWATERING ACTIVITIES. 75. ONE HUNDRED PERCENT STANDBY PUMPING CAPACITY SHALL BE AVAILABLE ON SITE AT ALL TIMES AND SHALL BE CONNECTED TO THE DEWATERING SYSTEM PIPING AS TO PERMIT IMMEDIATE USE. IN ADDITION STANDBY EQUIPMENT AND APPLIANCES FOR ALL ORDINARY EMERGENCIES, AND COMPETENT WORKMEN FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF ALL DEWATERING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE ON SITE AT ALL TIMES. STANDBY EQUIPMENT SHALL INCLUDE EMERGENCY POWER GENERATION AND AUTOMATIC SWITCH OVER TO THE EMERGENCY GENERATOR WHEN NORMAL POWER FAILS. DEWATERING SYSTEMS SHALL NOT BE SHUT DOWN BETWEEN SHIFTS, ON HOLIDAYS, ON WEEKENDS, OR DURING WORK STOPPAGES. SITE SAFETY AND MAINTENANCE 76. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE JOB SITE CONDITIONS, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY, DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT. THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY, AND SHALL NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DEFEND, INDEMNIFY AND HOLD THE OWNER AND THE ENGINEER HARMLESS FROM ANY AND ALL LIABILITY, REAL OR ALLEGED, IN CONNECTION WITH PERFORMANCE OF WORK ON THIS PROJECT. 77. THE CONTRACTOR AGREES THAT: A. THEY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO CLEAN THE JOB SITE AT THE END OF EACH PHASE OF WORK. B. THEY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ALL TRASH, SCRAP AND UNUSED MATERIAL AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE IN A TIMELY MANNER. C. THEY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO MAINTAIN THE SITE IN A NEAT, SAFE AND ORDERLY MANNER AT ALL TIMES. D. THEY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO KEEP MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, AND TRASH OUT OF THE WAY OF OTHER CONTRACTORS SO AS NOT TO DELAY THE JOB. FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN A DEDUCTION FOR THE COST OF CLEAN UP FROM THE FINAL PAYMENT. E. THEY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN SAFETY, TRAFFIC CONTROL, PERMITS, RETESTING AND REINSPECTIONS AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE. F. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ALL EXCESS SOILS AND MATERIALS SHALL BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND SHALL BE LAWFULLY DISPOSED OF OFF SITE AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. G. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL LIGHTS, BARRICADES, SIGNS, FLAGMEN OR OTHER DEVICES NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY. H. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO PROVIDE ALL WATER, POWER, SANITARY FACILITIES AND TELEPHONE SERVICES AS REQUIRED FOR THE CONTRACTORS USE DURING CONSTRUCTION. I. ALL DEBRIS AND FOREIGN MATERIAL SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSED OF AT APPROVED DISPOSAL SITES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN NECESSARY PERMITS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF MATERIAL TO AND FROM THE SITE. 78. FOR ALL WORK WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY OR EASEMENTS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY AND LOCATION OF ANY AND ALL PUBLIC UTILITIES AND PROVIDE THE NECESSARY CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC CONTROL. CONTRACTOR SHALL, THROUGH THE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT PROCESS, VERIFY WITH THE NECESSARY REGULATORY AGENCIES, THE NEED FOR ANY TRAFFIC ROUTING PLAN. IF PLAN IS REQUIRED, CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE PLAN AND RECEIVED PROPER APPROVALS PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. WORK IN EASEMENT AND/OR RIGHTS-OF-WAY IS SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE REGULATORY AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR OPERATION AND/OR MAINTENANCE OF SAID AND/OR RIGHT-OF-WAY. ALL CONSTRUCTION WORK IN UDOT RIGHT- OF -WAY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO INSPECTION BY THE STATE. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO INSURE THAT INSPECTIONS TAKE PLACE WHERE AND WHEN REQUIRED AND TO INSURE THAT ALL WORK IS COMPLETED TO UDOT STANDARDS. SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS: 79. SUBGRADE PREPARATION: SUBGRADE SHALL BE COMPACTED TO A 95% RELATIVE C0MPACTION TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 6" FOR ALL ON-SITE DEVELOPMENT. ALL OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS ARE TO BE DONE PER APWA STANDARDS. 80. AGGREGATE SUB-BASE: AGGREGATE SUB-BASE SHALL BE GRANULAR BACKFILL BORROW. AGGREGATE SUB-BASE MATERIAL SHALL BE CLEAN AND FREE FROM VEGETABLE MATTER AND OTHER DELETERIOUS SUBSTANCE. AGGREGATE SHALL COMPLY WITH THE GUIDELINE REQUIREMENTS FOR PAVEMENTS FOUND IN THE PROFESSIONALLY PREPARED OF THE SOILS INVESTIGATIONS COMPLETED ON THIS SITE. 81. AGGREGATE BASE: AGGREGATE BASE SHALL BE GRADE 3/4 UNTREATED BASE COURSE, AND COMPLY PREPARED REPORT OF THE SOILS INVESTIGATION PREPARED ON THIS SITE. 82. ALL SIDEWALKS AND CROSSINGS TO MEET CURRENT ADA STANDARDS/ APWA STANDARDS. 83. PAYMENT FOR PAVEMENT WILL BE MADE ONLY FOR AREAS SHOWN ON PLANS. REPLACEMENT OF PAVEMENT WHICH IS BROKEN OR CUT DURING THE INSTALLATION OF THE WORK COVERED BY THESE GENERAL NOTES, AND WHICH LIES OUTSIDE OF SAID AREAS, SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE CONTRACTOR'S UNIT PRICE FOR PAVEMENT, AND NO ADDITIONAL PAYMENT SHALL BE MADE FOR SUCH WORK. 84. INSTALLATION OF STREET LIGHTS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS. 85. PRIOR TO FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS BUILT BY THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO COORDINATE WITH THE OWNER, CITY, AND POWER COMPANY TO HAVE THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM AND ALL STREET LIGHTS ENERGIZED. 86. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REMOVAL OF ALL STRIPING AND/OR PAVEMENT MARKINGS NECESSARY TO THE EXISTING STRIPING INTO FUTURE STRIPING. METHOD OF REMOVAL SHALL BE BY GRINDING OR SANDBLASTING. 87. STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH MUTCD & APWA 32 17 23. 88. DURING THE BIDDING PROCESS, CONTRACTOR TO REVIEW DESIGN SLOPES SHOWN FOR PAVEMENT AND WARRANTY THE PAVEMENT TO THE OWNER BASED UPON THE DESIGN SLOPES SHOWN HEREON. CONCERNS WITH SLOPES MUST BE BROUGHT DURING THE BIDDING PROCESS. 89. IT IS THE INTENT ON THESE PLANS THAT ALL PAVEMENT SLOPE TO A CATCH BASIN, INLET BOX OR OUT INTO A STREET. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY FINISH SPOT ELEVATIONS AND NOTIFY ENGINEER IF THERE ARE DISCREPANCIES THAT WOULD CAUSE PUDDLING ON THE SITE. FO FO VERTICAL POINT OF TANGENCY WM WV WATER VALVE WATER METER VPT TOG TOA TBC TMH TR TOP OF GRATE TOP OF ASPHALT TOP BACK OF CURB TELEPHONE MANHOLE TELEPHONE RISER ROW L BC MH SD EOC RR GW HW EOA CB FH FL R/W SSMH STORM DRAIN SEWER MANHOLE RIGHT-OF-WAY FIRE HYDRANT LIP OF CURB MANHOLE HEAD WALL RAILROAD GUY WIRE FLOW LINE EDGE OF CONCRETE CATCH BASIN EDGE OF ASPHALT BAR & CAP OHP RIGHT-OF-WAY OVERHEAD POWER TOW TOF UGP R TOP OF WALL TOP OF FOOTING UNDERGROUND POWER LP D GB LOW POINT LENGTH OF CURVE GRADE BREAK DELTA ANGLE RADIUS OF CURVE TOP TOP OF SLOPE TOC TOP OF CONCRETE I.E.INVERT ELEVATION TOE TOE OF SLOPE FFE FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION VPI VERTICAL POINT OF VPC VERTICAL POINT OF PVI POINT OF INTERSECTION PVC PVT POINT OF CURVATURE POINT OF TANGENCY PP POWER POLE INTERSECTION CURVATURE SECTION CORNERCOR. MONUMENT TO MONUMENTM-M SURVEY MONUMENTMON. LIP ABBREVIATIONS PUE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT EX EXISTING TOC XX.XX CF CUBIC FEET LF LINEAR FEET SF SQUARE FEET CGN.01 GEN. NOTES LEGEND & ABBREV. 2 BOTTOM OF VISIBLE WALLBOW EXISTING GROUNDEG FG FINISHED GRADE 24 0 9 1 4 6 _ S I T E DE S C R I P T I O N DA T E No . SA L T L A K E C I T Y , U T A H 91 3 8 S O U T H S T A T E S T R E E T S U I T E # 1 0 0 S A N D Y , U T A H 8 4 0 7 0 ( 8 0 1 ) 5 4 2 - 7 1 9 2 ww w . b e n c h m a r k c i v i l . c o m BE N C H M A R K EN G I N E E R I N G & LA N D S U R V E Y I N G DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y FI E L D C R E W DA T E DW G . F I L E 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 5 GA L L O W A Y MC P FA C / J H O PROJECT NO.2409146 SC A L E M E A S U R E S 1 - I N C H O N F U L L S I Z E S H E E T S AD J U S T A C C O R D I N G L Y F O R R E D U C E D S I Z E S H E E T S 0 1 0. 5 OF 11 21 1 1 S O U T H 1 3 0 0 E A S T SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L CONSTRUCTION NOTES RESPONSIBLE DISTRICTS OR AGENCIES AND APPLICABLE STANDARDS CITY OR COUNTY- SALT LAKE CITY WATER UTILITY COMPANY- SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC UTILITES SEWER- SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC UTILITES STORM DRAIN/GROUNDWATER- SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC UTILITES ELECTRICAL- ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER TELEPHONE- CENTURY LINK NATURAL GAS- ENBRIDGE GAS UTAH APPLICABLE STANDARDS: APWA 2017 STANDARDS SCO SEWER CLEANOUT FIBER OPTIC PULL BOX FIBER OPTIC MANHOLE FIBER OPTIC CABINET FIBER OPTIC RISER TRAFFIC VAULT / PULL BOX TRAFFIC CABINET TRAFFIC SIGNAL SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL NOTES 1.COMPLIANCE: ALL CONSTRUCTION AND MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND THE MOST RECENT EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING: THE INTERNATIONAL PLUMBING CODE, UTAH DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS, APWA MANUAL OF STANDARD PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND SLC PUBLIC UTILITIES MODIFICATIONS TO APWA STANDARD PLANS AND APPROVED MATERIALS AND SLC PUBLIC UTILITIES APWA SPECIFICATIONS MODIFICATIONS. THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO ADHERE TO ALL OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED DOCUMENTS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED AND APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE SALT LAKE CITY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC UTILITIES. 2.COORDINATION: THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO NOTIFY ALL APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE ENTITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT. THE FOLLOWING MUST BE CONTACTED 48-HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AS APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT: PUBLIC UTILITIES: BACKFLOW PREVENTION - 483-6795 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ENGINEERING - 483-6781 INSPECTIONS, PERMITS, CONTRACTS & AGREEMENTS - 483-6727 PRETREATMENT - 799-4002 STORM WATER - 483-6721 SLC DEPARTMENTS: ENGINEERING - PUBLIC WAY PERMITS AND ISSUES - 535-6248 ENGINEERING - SUBDIVISIONS - 535-6159 FIRE DEPARTMENT - 535-6636 PERMITS AND LICENSING (BLDG SERVICES) - 535-7752 PLANNING AND ZONING - 535-7700 TRANSPORTATION - 535-6630 -ALL OTHER POTENTIALLY IMPACTED GOVERNING AGENCIES OR ENTITIES -ALL WATER USERS INVOLVED IN WATER MAIN SHUTDOWNS -APPLICABLE SEWER, WATER AND DRAINAGE DISTRICTS -BLUESTAKES LOCATING SERVICES - 532-5000 -COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT - 743-7231 -COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL - 468-2779 -COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT - 385-468-3913 -COUNTY PUBLIC WAY PERMITS - 468-2241 -HOLLADAY CITY - 272-9450 -SALT LAKE COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT - 468-3705 OR 468-2156 -THE UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY FOR RE-ROUTING SERVICE - 262-5626 -UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO., SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE - 595-3405 -UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, REGION #2 - 975-4800 -UTAH STATE ENGINEER - 538-7240 3.SCHEDULE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION THE CONTRACTOR WILL PROVIDE, AND WILL UPDATE AS CHANGES OCCUR, A CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS AND SALT LAKE CITY ENGINEERING OR SALT LAKE COUNTY REGULATIONS AS APPLICABLE FOR WORKING WITHIN THE PUBLIC WAY. 4.PERMITS, FEES AND AGREEMENTS CONTRACTOR MUST OBTAIN ALL THE NECESSARY PERMITS AND AGREEMENTS AND PAY ALL APPLICABLE FEES PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. CONTACT SALT LAKE CITY ENGINEERING (535-6248) FOR PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS REQUIRED FOR ANY WORK CONDUCTED WITHIN SALT LAKE CITY'S PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. APPLICABLE UTILITY PERMITS MAY INCLUDE MAINLINE EXTENSION AGREEMENTS AND SERVICE CONNECTION PERMITS. ALL UTILITY WORK MUST BE BONDED. ALL CONTRACTORS MUST BE LICENSED TO WORK ON CITY UTILITY MAINS. CONSTRUCTION SITES MUST BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE UTAH POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (UPDES) STORM WATER PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES (538-6923). A COPY OF THE PERMIT'S STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN MUST BE SUBMITTED TO PUBLIC UTILITIES FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. ADDITIONAL WATER QUALITY AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MAY BE REQUIRED. THE CONTRACTOR MUST ALSO COMPLY WITH SALT LAKE CITY'S CLEAN WHEEL ORDINANCE. 5.ASPHALT AND SOIL TESTING THE CONTRACTOR IS TO PROVIDE MARSHALL AND PROCTOR TEST DATA 24-HOURS PRIOR TO USE. CONTRACTOR IS TO PROVIDE COMPACTION AND DENSITY TESTING AS REQUIRED BY SALT LAKE CITY ENGINEERING, UDOT, SALT LAKE COUNTY OR OTHER GOVERNING ENTITY. TRENCH BACKFILL MATERIAL AND COMPACTION TESTS ARE TO BE TAKEN PER APWA STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, SECTION 330520 - BACKFILLING TRENCHES, OR AS REQUIRED BY THE SLC PROJECT ENGINEER IF NATIVE MATERIALS ARE USED. NO NATIVE MATERIALS ARE ALLOWED WITHIN THE PIPE ZONE. THE MAXIMUM LIFTS FOR BACKFILLING EXCAVATIONS IS 8-INCHES. ALL MATERIALS AND COMPACTION TESTING IS TO BE PERFORMED BY A LAB RECOGNIZED AND ACCEPTED BY SALT LAKE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS AND/OR SALT LAKE CITY ENGINEERING. 6.TRAFFIC CONTROL AND HAUL ROUTES TRAFFIC CONTROL MUST CONFORM TO THE MOST CURRENT EDITION OF SALT LAKE CITY TRAFFIC CONTROL MANUAL - PART 6 OF “MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES” FOR SALT LAKE COUNTY AND STATE ROADS. SLC TRANSPORTATION MUST APPROVE ALL PROJECT HAUL ROUTES (535-7129). THE CONTRACTOR MUST ALSO CONFORM TO UDOT, SALT LAKE COUNTY OR OTHER APPLICABLE GOVERNING ENTITIES REQUIREMENTS FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL. 7.SURVEY CONTROL CONTRACTOR MUST PROVDE A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR OR PERSONS UNDER SUPERVISION OF A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR TO SET STAKES FOR ALIGNMENT AND GRADE OF EACH MAIN AND/OR FACILITY AS APPROVED. THE STAKES SHALL BE MARKED WITH THE HORIZONTAL LOCATION (STATION) AND VERTICAL LOCATION (GRADE) WITH CUTS AND/OR FILLS TO THE GRADE OF THE MAIN AND/OR FACILITY AS APPROVED. IN ADDITION, THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SURVEYOR SHALL PROVIDE TO SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC UTILITIES CUT SHEETS FILLED OUT COMPLETELY AND CLEARLY SHOWING THE PERTINENT GRADES, ELEVATIONS AND CUT/FILLS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FIELD STAKING OF THE MAIN AND/OR FACILITY. THE CUT SHEET FORM IS AVAILABLE AT THE CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS OFFICE AT PUBLIC UTILITIES. ALL MAINS AND LATERALS NOT MEETING MINIMUM GRADE REQUIREMENTS AS SPECIFIED BY ORDINANCE OR AS REQUIRED TO MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FLOWS OR AS APPROVED MUST BE REMOVED AND RECONSTRUCTED TO MEET DESIGN GRADE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL STAKES AND MARKERS UNTIL PUBLIC UTILITY SURVEYORS COMPLETE FINAL MEASUREMENTS. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FURNISHING, MAINTAINING, OR RESTORING ALL MONUMENTS AND REFERENCE MARKS WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE. DEPENDING ON THE LOCATION OF THE PROJECT; CONTACT THE COUNTY SURVEYOR FOR SECTION CORNER MONUMENTS (801-468-2028) AND/OR THE SALT LAKE CITY SURVEYOR (801-535-7973) FOR SALT LAKE CITY MONUMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS. ALL ELEVATIONS SHALL BE REFERENCED TO SALT LAKE CITY DATUM UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON THE PLANS. 8.ASPHALT GUARANTEE THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE, DISPOSE OF, FURNISH AND PLACE PERMANENT ASPHALT PER SALT LAKE CITY ENGINEERING, UDOT, COUNTY, OR OTHER GOVERNMENT STANDARDS AS APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL GUARANTEE THE ASPHALT RESTORATION FOR A PERIOD AS REQUIRED BY THE GOVERNING ENTITY. 9.TEMPORARY ASPHALT IF THE CONTRACTOR CHOOSES TO WORK WITHIN THE PUBLIC WAY WHEN HOT MIX ASPHALT IS NOT AVAILABLE, THE CONTRACTOR MUST OBTAIN APPROVAL FROM THE APPROPRIATE GOVERNING ENTITY PRIOR TO INSTALLING TEMPORARY ASPHALT SURFACING MATERIAL. WITHIN SALT LAKE CITY, WHEN PERMANENT ASPHALT BECOMES AVAILABLE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE THE TEMPORARY ASPHALT, FURNISH AND INSTALL THE PERMANENT ASPHALT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL GUARANTEE THE ASPHALT RESTORATION FOR A PERIOD AS REQUIRED BY THE GOVERNING ENTITY FROM THE DATE OF COMPLETION. 10.SAFETY THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL ASPECTS OF SAFETY OF THE PROJECT AND SHALL MEET ALL OSHA, STATE, COUNTY AND OTHER GOVERNING ENTITY REQUIREMENTS. THE CONTRACTOR IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONFORMING TO LOCAL AND FEDERAL CODES GOVERNING SHORING AND BRACING OF EXCAVATIONS AND TRENCHES, AND FOR THE PROTECTION OF WORKERS. 11.DUST CONTROL THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DUST CONTROL ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNING ENTITY STANDARDS. USE OF HYDRANT WATER OR PUMPING FROM CITY-OWNED CANALS OR STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES IS NOT ALLOWED FOR DUST CONTROL ACTIVITIES WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES DIRECTOR. 12.DEWATERING ALL ON-SITE DEWATERING ACTIVITIES MUST BE APPROVED IN WRITING BY PUBLIC UTILITIES. PROPOSED OUTFALL LOCATIONS AND ESTIMATED FLOW VOLUME CALCULATIONS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO PUBLIC UTILITIES FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. ADEQUATE MEASURES MUST BE TAKEN TO REMOVE ALL SEDIMENT PRIOR TO DISCHARGE. PUBLIC UTILITIES MAY REQUIRE ADDITIONAL MEASURES FOR SEDIMENT CONTROL AND REMOVAL. 13.PROJECT LIMITS THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO KEEP ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE APPROVED PROJECT LIMITS. THIS INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT STAGING, MATERIAL STORAGE AND LIMITS OF TRENCH EXCAVATION. IT IS THE CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO OBTAIN PERMISSION AND/OR EASEMENTS FROM THE APPROPRIATE GOVERNING ENTITY AND/OR INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S) FOR WORK OR STAGING OUTSIDE OF THE PROJECT LIMITS. 14.WATER, FIRE, SANITARY SEWER AND STORM DRAINAGE UTILITIES A. INSPECTIONS - IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO SCHEDULE ANY WATER, SEWER, BACKFLOW AND DRAINAGE INSPECTION 48-HOURS IN ADVANCE TO WHEN NEEDED. CONTACT 483-6727 TO SCHEDULE INSPECTIONS. B. DAMAGE TO EXISTING UTILITIES - THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REPAIRING ANY DAMAGE, CAUSED BY ANY CONDITION INCLUDING SETTLEMENT, TO EXISTING UTILITIES FROM WORK PERFORMED AT OR NEAR EXISTING UTILITIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL MEASURES NECESSARY TO PROTECT ALL EXISTING PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ROADWAY AND UTILITY FACILITIES. DAMAGE TO EXISTING FACILITIES CAUSED BY THE CONTRACTOR, MUST BE REPAIRED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT HIS/HER EXPENSE, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE OWNER OF SAID FACILITIES. C. UTILITY LOCATIONS - CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING AND AVOIDING ALL UTILITIES AND SERVICE LATERALS, AND FOR REPAIRING ALL DAMAGE THAT OCCURS TO THE UTILTIES DUE TO THE CONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES. CONTRACTOR IS TO VERIFY LOCATION, DEPTH, SIZE, MATERIAL AND OUTSIDE DIAMETERS OF UTILITIES IN THE FIELD BY POTHOLING A MINIMUM OF 300-FEET AHEAD OF SCHEDULED CONSTRUCTION IN ORDER TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL CONFLICTS AND PROBLEMS WITH FUTURE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. EXISTING UTILITY INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM SLC PUBLIC UTILITIES' MAPS MUST BE ASSUMED AS APPROXIMATE AND REQUIRING FIELD VERIFICATION. CONTACT BLUE STAKES OR APPROPRIATE OWNER FOR COMMUNICATION LINE LOCATIONS. D. UTILITY RELOCATIONS - FOR UTILITY CONFLICTS REQUIRING MAINLINE RELOCATIONS, THE CONTRACTOR MUST NOTIFY THE APPLICABLE UTILITY COMPANY OR USER A MINIMUM OF 2-WEEKS IN ADVANCE. A ONE-WEEK MINIMUM NOTIFICATION IS REQUIRED FOR CONFLICTS REQUIRING THE RELOCATION OF SERVICE LATERALS. ALL RELOCATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL FROM THE APPLICABLE UTILITY COMPANY AND/OR USER. E. FIELD CHANGES - NO ROADWAY, UTILITY ALIGNMENT OR GRADE CHANGES ARE ALLOWED FROM THE APPROVED CONSTRUCTION PLANS/DOCUMENTS WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE SLC PUBLIC UTILITIES DIRECTOR. CHANGES TO HYDRANT LOCATIONS AND/OR FIRE LINES MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE SALT LAKE CITY OR SALT LAKE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT (AS APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT) AND PUBLIC UTILITIES. F. PUBLIC NOTICE TO PROJECTS IN THE PUBLIC WAY - FOR APPROVED PROJECTS THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO PROVIDE AND DISTRIBUTE WRITTEN NOTICE TO ALL RESIDENTS LOCATED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AT LEAST 72-HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. WORK TO BE CONDUCTED WITHIN COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL AREAS MAY REQUIRE A LONGER NOTIFICATION PERIOD AND ADDITIONAL CONTRACTOR COORDINATION WITH PROPERTY OWNERS. THE WRITTEN NOTICE IS TO BE APPROVED BY THE SLC PUBLIC UTILITIES PROJECT ENGINEER. G. PUBLIC NOTICE FOR WATER MAIN SHUT DOWNS - THROUGH THE SLC PUBLIC UTILITIES INSPECTOR AND WITH THE PUBLIC UTILITIES PROJECT ENGINEER APPROVAL, SLC PUBLIC UTILITIES MUST BE CONTACTED AND APPROVE ALL WATER MAIN SHUTDOWNS. ONCE APPROVED THE CONTRACTOR MUST NOTIFY ALL EFFECTED USERS BY WRITTEN NOTICE A MINIMUM OF 48-HOURS (RESIDENTIAL) AND 72-HOURS (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL) PRIOR TO THE WATER MAIN SHUT DOWN. PUBLIC UTILITIES MAY REQUIRE LONGER NOTICE PERIODS. H. WATER AND SEWER SEPARATION - IN ACCORDANCE WITH UTAH'S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH REGULATIONS, A MINIMUM TEN-FOOT HORIZONTAL AND 1.5-FOOT VERTICAL (WITH WATER ON TOP) SEPARATION IS REQUIRED. IF THESE CONDITIONS CANNOT BE MET, STATE AND SLC PUBLIC UTILITIES APPROVAL IS REQUIRED. ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION MEASURES WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THESE CONDITIONS. I. SALVAGE - ALL METERS MUST BE RETURNED TO PUBLIC UTILITIES, AND AT PUBLIC UTILITIES REQUEST ALL SALVAGED PIPE AND/OR FITTINGS MUST BE RETURNED TO SLC PUBLIC UTILTIES (483-6727) LOCATED AT 1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE. J. SEWER MAIN AND LATERAL CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS - SLC PUBLIC UTILITIES MUST APPROVE ALL SEWER CONNECTIONS. ALL SEWER LATERALS 6-INCHES AND SMALLER MUST WYE INTO THE MAINS PER SLC PUBLIC UTILITIES REQUIREMENTS. ALL 8-INCH AND LARGER SEWER CONNECTIONS MUST BE PETITIONED FOR AT PUBLIC UTILTIES (483-6762) AND CONNECTED AT A MANHOLE. INSIDE DROPS IN MANHOLES ARE NOT ALLOWED. A MINIMUM 4-FOOT BURY DEPTH IS REQUIRED ON ALL SEWER MAINS AND LATERALS. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL INVERT COVERS IN ALL SEWER MANHOLES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE AIR PRESSURE TESTING OF SEWER MAINS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PIPE MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS AND SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC UTILITIES REQUIREMENTS. ALL PVC SEWER MAIN AND LATERAL TESTING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNI-BELL UN-B-6-98 RECOMMENDED PRACTICE FOR LOW PRESSURE AIR TESTING OF INSTALLED SEWER PIPE. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE SEWER LATERAL WATER TESTING AS REQUIRED BY THE SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC UTILITIES PROJECT ENGINEER OR INSPECTOR. A MINIMUM OF 9-FEET OF HEAD PRESSURE IS REQUIRED AS MEASURED VERTICALLY FROM THE HIGH POINT OF THE PIPELINE AND AT OTHER LOCATIONS ALONG THE PIPELINE AS DETERMINED BY THE SLC PUBLIC UTILITIES PROJECT ENGINEER OR INSPECTOR. TESTING TIME WILL BE NO LESS THAN AS SPECIFIED FOR THE AIR TEST DURATION IN TABLE I ON PAGE 12 OF UNI-B-6-98. ALL PIPES SUBJECT TO WATER TESTING SHALL BE FULLY VISIBLE TO THE INSPECTOR DURING TESTING. TESTING MUST BE PERFORMED IN THE PRESENCE OF A SLC PUBLIC UTILITIES REPRESENTATIVE. ALL VISIBLE LEAKAGE MUST BE REPAIRED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SLC PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEER OR INSPECTOR. K. WATER AND FIRE MAIN AND SERVICE CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS - SLC PUBLIC UTILITIES MUST APPROVE ALL FIRE AND WATER SERVICE CONNECTIONS. A MINIMUM 3-FOOT SEPARATION IS REQUIRED BETWEEN ALL WATER AND FIRE SERVICE TAPS INTO THE MAIN. ALL CONNECTIONS MUST BE MADE MEETING SLC PUBLIC UTILITIES REQUIREMENTS. A 5-FOOT MINIMUM BURY DEPTH (FINAL GRADE TO TOP OF PIPE) IS REQUIRED ON ALL WATER/FIRE LINES UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY PUBLIC UTILITIES. WATER LINE THRUST BLOCK AND RESTRAINTS ARE AS PER SLC APPROVED DETAIL DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS. ALL EXPOSED NUTS AND BOLTS WILL BE COATED WITH CHEVRON FM1 GREASE PLUS MINIMUM 8 MIL THICKNESS PLASTIC. PROVIDE STAINLESS STEEL NUTS, BOLTS AND WASHERS FOR HIGH GROUNDWATER/ SATURATED CONDITIONS AT FLANGE FITTINGS, ETC. ALL WATERLINES INSTALLATIONS AND TESTING TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH AWWA SECTIONS C600, C601, C651, C206, C200, C900, C303 AWWA MANUAL M11 AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE AWWA, UPWS, ASTM AND ANSI SPECIFICATIONS RELEVANT TO THE INSTALLATION AND COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. AMENDMENT TO SECTION C600 SECTION 4.1.1; DOCUMENT TO READ MINIMUM TEST PRESSURE SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 200 P.S.I. GAUGED TO A HIGH POINT OF THE PIPELINE BEING TESTED. ALL MATERIALS USED FOR WATERWORKS PROJECTS TO BE RATED FOR 150 P.S.I. MINIMUM OPERATING PRESSURE. CONTRACTOR IS TO INSTALL WATER SERVICE LINES, METER YOKES AND/OR ASSEMBLIES AND METER BOXS WITH LIDS LOCATED AS APPROVED ON THE PLANS PER APPLICABLE PUBLIC UTILITIES DETAIL DRAWINGS. METER BOXES ARE TO BE PLACED IN THE PARK STRIPS PERPENDICULAR TO THE WATERMAIN SERVICE TAP CONNECTION. ALL WATER METERS, CATCH BASINS, CLEANOUT BOXES, MANHOLES, DOUBLE CHECK VALVE DETECTOR ASSEMBLIES, REDUCED PRESSURE DETECTOR ASSEMBLIES AND BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES MUST BE LOCATED OUTSIDE OF ALL APPROACHES, DRIVEWAYS, PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS AND OTHER TRAVELED WAYS UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED ON PLANS. BACKFLOW PREVENTORS ARE REQUIRED ON ALL IRRIGATION AND FIRE SPRINKLING TAPS PER PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SLC FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS. CONTRACTORS SHALL INSTALL BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES ON FIRE SPRINKLER CONNECTIONS. DOUBLE CHECK VALVE ASSEMBLIES SHALL BE INSTALLED ON CLASS 1, 2 AND 3 SYSTEMS. REDUCED PRESSURE PRINCIPLE VALVES SHALL BE INSTALLED ON CLASS 4 SYSTEMS. ALL FIRE SPRINKLING BACKFLOW ASSEMBLIES SHALL CONFORM TO ASSE STANDARD 1048, 1013, 1047 AND 1015. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO PERFORM BACKFLOW PREVENTION TESTS PER SALT LAKE CITY STANDARDS AND SUBMIT RESULTS TO PUBLIC UTILITIES. ALL TESTS MUST BE PERFORMED AND SUBMITTED TO PUBLIC UTILITIES WITHIN 10 DAYS OF INSTALLATION OR WATER TURN-ON. BACKFLOW TEST FORMS ARE AVAILABLE AT PUBLIC UTILITIES' CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS OFFICE. L. GENERAL WATER, SEWER AND STORM DRAIN REQUIREMENTS - ALL WATER, FIRE AND SEWER SERVICES STUBBED TO A PROPERTY MUST BE USED OR WATER AND FIRE SERVICES MUST BE KILLED AT THE MAIN AND SEWER LATERALS CAPPED AT THE SEWER MAIN PER PUBLIC UTILITIES REQUIREMENTS. ALLOWABLE SERVICES TO BE KEPT WILL BE AS DETERMINED BY THE PUBLIC UTILITIES PROJECT ENGINEER. ALL WATER AND FIRE SERVICE KILLS AND SEWER LATERAL CAPS ARE TO BE KILLED AND CAPPED AS DETERMINED AND VISUALLY VERIFIED BY THE ON-SITE PUBLIC UTILITIES INSPECTOR. ALL MANHOLES, HYDRANTS, VALVES, CLEAN-OUT BOXES, CATCH BASINS, METERS, ETC. MUST BE RAISED OR LOWERED TO FINAL GRADE PER PUBLIC UTILITIES STANDARDS AND INSPECTOR REQUIREMENTS. CONCRETE COLLARS MUST BE CONSTRUCTED ON ALL MANHOLES, CLEANOUT BOXES, CATCH BASINS AND VALVES PER PUBLIC UTILITIES STANDARDS. ALL MANHOLE, CATCH BASIN, OR CLEANOUT BOX CONNECTIONS MUST BE MADE WITH THE PIPE CUT FLUSH WITH THE INSIDE OF THE BOX AND GROUTED OR SEALED AS REQUIRED BY THE PUBLIC UTILITIES INSPECTOR. ALL MANHOLE, CLEANOUT BOX OR CATCH BASIN DISCONNECTIONS MUST BE REPAIRED AND GROUTED AS REQUIRED BY THE ON-SITE PUBLIC UTILITIES INSPECTOR. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT ALLOW ANY GROUNDWATER OR DEBRIS TO ENTER THE NEW OR EXISTING PIPE DURING CONSTRUCTION. UTILITY TRENCHING, BACKFILL, AND PIPE ZONE AS PER SLC PUBLIC UTILITIES, “UTILITY INSTALLATION DETAIL.” M. STREETLIGHTS ALL WORK SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MOST CURRENT SALT LAKE CITY STANDARDS AND N.E.C. (NATIONAL ELCTRICAL CODE. A STREET LIGHTING PLAN SHOWING WIRING LOCATION, WIRING TYPE, VOLTAGE, POWER SOURCE LOCATION, CONDUIT SIZE AND LOCATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO SALT LAKE CITY AND BE APPROVED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. NO DEVIATION OF STREETLIGHT, PULL BOXES, CONDUITS, AND ETC. LOCATIONS SHALL BE PERMITTED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE STREEGHT LIGHTING PROGRAM MANGER OR HIS/HER REPRESENTATIVE. STREETLIGHT POLES SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED WITHIN 5 FEET OF A FIRE HYDRANT. THE LOCATION SHALL BE SUCH THAT IT DOES NOT HINDER THE OPERATION OF THE FIRE HYDRANT AND WATER LINE OPERATION VALVES. STREETLIGHTS AND STREETLIGHT POLES SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED WITHIN 5 FEET FROM ANY TREE, UNLESS WRITTEN APPROVAL IS RECEIVED FROM THE STREET LIGHTING PROGRAM MANAGER. BRANCHES MAY NEED TO BE PRUNED AS DETERMINED BY THI INSPECTOR IN THE FIELD AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION. STREETLIGHTS SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED WITHIN 5 FEET FROM THE EDGE OF ANY DRIVEWAY ANTI-SEIZE LUBRICANT SHALL BE USED ON ALL COVER BOLTS AND GROUND BOX BOLTS. ALL EXISTING STREET LIGHTING SHALL REMAIN OPERATIONAL DURING CONSTRUCTION UNLESS APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE STREET LIGHTIN PROGRAM MANAGER. IF APPROVED PLANS REQUIRE REMOVAL OF STREETLIGHT POLES DURING CONSTRUCTION THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE POLES WHILE THEY ARE DOWN. THE POLES SHALL BE STORED IN A SECURE CGN.02 SALT LAKE CITY GENERAL NOTES 3 24 0 9 1 4 6 _ S I T E DE S C R I P T I O N DA T E No . SA L T L A K E C I T Y , U T A H 91 3 8 S O U T H S T A T E S T R E E T S U I T E # 1 0 0 S A N D Y , U T A H 8 4 0 7 0 ( 8 0 1 ) 5 4 2 - 7 1 9 2 ww w . b e n c h m a r k c i v i l . c o m BE N C H M A R K EN G I N E E R I N G & LA N D S U R V E Y I N G DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y FI E L D C R E W DA T E DW G . F I L E 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 5 GA L L O W A Y MC P FA C / J H O PROJECT NO.2409146 SC A L E M E A S U R E S 1 - I N C H O N F U L L S I Z E S H E E T S AD J U S T A C C O R D I N G L Y F O R R E D U C E D S I Z E S H E E T S 0 1 0. 5 OF 11 21 1 1 S O U T H 1 3 0 0 E A S T SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P UG P UG P UG P UG P UG P UG P UG P UGP UGP UGP GA S GA S SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SS SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W OH P OH P OH P OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP EX. SIGN SPEED LIMIT 35 MPH EX. SDMH RIM = 4416.06 INV IN 24"RCP(S) = 4408.96 INV OUT 24"RCP(E) = 4408.86 EX. SDMH RIM = 4415.12 INV IN 12"RCP(N) = 4412.72 EX. SDMH RIM = 4417.47 (COULD NOT OPEN EX. SDMH RIM = 4419.37 (COULD NOT OPEN) EX. SD INLET BOX RIM = 4421.14 (FULL OF DEBRIS) EX. SD INLET BOX RIM = 4415.83 INV IN 6"PVC(E) = 4414.63 INV OUT 12"RCP(W) = 4414.48 EX. SDMH RIM = 4419.10 (COULD NOT OPEN) EX. SDMH RIM = 4415.76 INV IN 12"CPP(W) = 4412.26 INV IN 24"RCP(N) = 4408.16 INV IN 18"RCP(E) = 4410.26 INV OUT 24"RCP(S) = 4407.96 EX. SD INLET BOX RIM = 4415.36 INV OUT 12"CPP(E) = 4413.01 EX. SD INLET BOX RIM = 4415.07 INV OUT 12"RCP(E) = 4411.57 FO EX. SDMH RIM = 4416.92 INV IN 12"RCP(SE) = 4413.62 INV IN 30"RCP(N) = 4408.92 BOTTOM OF BOX = 4408.72 EX. SD INLET BOX RIM = 4420.25 INV IN 6"PVC(W) = 4417.75 INV OUT 6"PVC(N) = 4417.45 EX. SSMH RIM = 4416.05 INV OUT (N) = 4408 25 EX. SDMH RIM = 4415.69 (COULD NOT OPEN) EX. SD INLET BOX RIM = 4418.65 INV OUT (W) 15"RCP= 4415.95 (SOUTH FULL OF DEBRIS) EX. SSMH RIM = 4416.32 INV IN 10"RCP(N) = 4405.62 INV IN 12"RCP(E) = 4405.02 INV IN 8"RCP(S) = 4406.12 INV OUT 12"RCP(W) = 4405.02EX. SDMH RIM = 4415.66 INV IN 24"RCP(N) = 4408.76 INV OUT 24"RCP(S) = 4408.76 EX. SD INLET BOX RIM = 4418.78 (COULD NOT OPEN) EX. SD INLET BOX RIM = 4417 INV OUT 18"RCP(W) = 4411.6 EX. SD INLET BOX RIM = 4414.67 INV OUT 18"RCP(S) = 4410.67 EX. SD INLET BOX RIM = 4414.97 INV IN (W) = 4406.47 INV IN 18"RCP(N) = 4406.77 INV OUT (E) = 4406.37 CDP.01 DEMO PLAN 4 24 0 9 1 4 6 _ S I T E DE S C R I P T I O N DA T E No . SA L T L A K E C I T Y , U T A H 91 3 8 S O U T H S T A T E S T R E E T S U I T E # 1 0 0 S A N D Y , U T A H 8 4 0 7 0 ( 8 0 1 ) 5 4 2 - 7 1 9 2 ww w . b e n c h m a r k c i v i l . c o m BE N C H M A R K EN G I N E E R I N G & LA N D S U R V E Y I N G DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y FI E L D C R E W DA T E DW G . F I L E 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 5 GA L L O W A Y MC P FA C / J H O PROJECT NO.2409146 SC A L E M E A S U R E S 1 - I N C H O N F U L L S I Z E S H E E T S AD J U S T A C C O R D I N G L Y F O R R E D U C E D S I Z E S H E E T S 0 1 0. 5 OF 11 21 1 1 S O U T H 1 3 0 0 E A S T SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L 1 inch = ft. ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE 020 20 40 20 10 NORTH EX. 24" RCP STORM DRAIN MAIN EX. 24" RCP STORM DRAIN MAIN (PROTECT) EX. 24" RCP STORM DRAIN MAIN EX. 30" RCP STORM DRAIN MAIN (PROTECT) (PROTECT) (PROTECT) (PROTECT) (PROTECT) (PROTECT) (PROTECT) (PROTECT) (PROTECT) (PROTECT) (PROTECT) (PROTECT) (PROTECT) (PROTECT) (PROTECT) (REMOVE) (REMOVE) (REMOVE) (PROTECT) EX. UNDERGROUND POWER (CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WITH RMP TO REMOVE OR REUSE) EX. CONCRETE JERSEY BARRIER (REMOVE) (PROTECT) EX. TREE (REMOVE) EX. TREE (REMOVE) EX. TREE (REMOVE) EX. TREE (REMOVE) EX. TREE (REMOVE) EX. TREE (REMOVE) EX. TREE (REMOVE) EX. TREE (REMOVE) EX. TREE (REMOVE) EX. TREE (REMOVE) EX. GAS LINE (REMOVE) EX. GAS LINE (COORDINATE EMBRIGE GAS UTAH TO REMOVE) EX. GAS LINE (PROTECT) EX. WATER MAIN (PROTECT) EX. OVERHEAD POWER LINE (COORDINATE WITH RMP TO REMOVE) EX. POWER POLE & GUY WIRES (COORDINATE WITH RMP TO REMOVE) (REMOVE) EX. COMMERCIAL SIGN (REMOVE) EX. CURB WALL (REMOVE) EX. STRIPING (REMOVE) EX. STRIPING (REMOVE) EX. CURB WALL (REMOVE) EX. DRIVE APPROACH (SAWCUT & REBUILD CURB & GUTTER AS NEEDED) EX. 12" RCP SEWER MAIN (PROTECT) EX. FIBER OPTIC LINE (PROTECT) EX. 8" RCP SEWER MAIN (PROTECT) EX. WATER SERVICE LINE (KILL AT MAIN) EX. CONCRETE JERSEY BARRIER (REMOVE) EX. DRIVE APPROACH (SAWCUT & REBUILD CURB & GUTTER AS NEEDED) EX. DRIVE APPROACH (SAWCUT & REBUILD CURB & GUTTER & PARK STRIP) EX. POWER POLE & GUY WIRE (PROTECT) EX. FIBER OPTIC LINE (REMOVE UP TO PL) EX. CURB WALL (REMOVE) EX. POWER POLE (PROTECT) EX. CURB WALL (REMOVE) EX. CONCRETE JERSEY BARRIER (REMOVE) EX. CURB WALL (REMOVE) EX. LIGHT POLE (REMOVE) EX. STRIPING (REMOVE) EX. ASPHALT PARKING (REMOVE) EX. 12" RCP STORM DRAIN MAIN (PROTECT) EX. POWER POLE (PROTECT) EX. FIBER OPTIC LINE (PROTECT) EX. TRAFFIC LIGHT (PROTECT) EX. WATER METER (PROTECT) EX. GAS LINE (PROTECT) EX. GAS METER (REMOVE) EX. GAS LINE (REMOVE) EX. FIBER OPTIC LINE (CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WITH PROVIDER TO ROUTE AROUND NEW BLDG) EX. SD PIPE (REMOVE) EX. SD PIPE (REMOVE) CSP.01 SITE PLAN 5 NOTE: SLOPE ACROSS THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS & ACCESS ISLE SHALL NOT EXCEED A 1:48 (2.00%) SLOPE, THE MAX GRADE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ASPHALT SURFACE, ACCESSIBLE RAMP, AND SIDEWALK SHALL NOT EXCEED 1/4 INCH VERTICAL OR 1/2 INCH WHEN BEVELED. THE ACCESSIBLE MEANS OF EGRESS INCLUDING THE DRIVEWAY PORTION SHALL NOT EXCEED A SLOPE OF 1:20 (5.0%) & A CROSS SLOPE OF 1:48 (2.0%). ALL EXTERIOR DOOR WAY ACCESS REQUIRE AN EXTERIOR LANDING 60 INCHES IN LENGTH WITH A SLOPE NOT EXCEEDING A 1:48 (2.0%) SLOPE NOTE: SAWCUT WIDTH, LOCATIONS AND TIE-IN ELEVATIONS TO EXISTING GRADE ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY LOCATION, EXTENT OF SAWCUTTING, AND TIE-IN SLOPES TO EXISTING GRADE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. IT IS THE INTENT ON THESE PLANS THAT ALL PAVEMENT SHALL TIE INTO EXISTING GRADE PER SLOPES LISTED ON CGN.01 NOTE 70. SEE NOTES 66, 70, 82, & 83 ON CGN.01 FOR FURTHER DETAIL. CONSTRUCTION KEY NOTE REFERENCE NO.DESCRIPITON DETAIL 1 ASPHALT PAVEMENT WITH GRANULAR BASE 1A/CDT.01 2 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER PER APWA #205 TYPE 'A' 5 SIDEWALK PER APWA #231 4 DRIVE APPROACH PER APWA #222 24 0 9 1 4 6 _ S I T E DE S C R I P T I O N DA T E No . SA L T L A K E C I T Y , U T A H 91 3 8 S O U T H S T A T E S T R E E T S U I T E # 1 0 0 S A N D Y , U T A H 8 4 0 7 0 ( 8 0 1 ) 5 4 2 - 7 1 9 2 ww w . b e n c h m a r k c i v i l . c o m BE N C H M A R K EN G I N E E R I N G & LA N D S U R V E Y I N G DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y FI E L D C R E W DA T E DW G . F I L E 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 5 GA L L O W A Y MC P FA C / J H O PROJECT NO.2409146 SC A L E M E A S U R E S 1 - I N C H O N F U L L S I Z E S H E E T S AD J U S T A C C O R D I N G L Y F O R R E D U C E D S I Z E S H E E T S 0 1 0. 5 OF 11 21 1 1 S O U T H 1 3 0 0 E A S T SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L AREA TABLE PARTICULARS S.F.% BUILDING 17,360 50.1 HARDSCAPE 15,340 44.3 LANDSCAPE 1,942 5.6 TOTAL 34,642 100.0 NOTE: ALL WORK WITHIN PUBLIC ROADS TO BE DONE IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH SLC STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS 1 inch = ft. ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE 020 20 40 20 10 NORTH 16-2 0 - 2 2 9 - 0 6 9 16-2 0 - 2 3 0 - 0 0 4 ENT # 1 3 9 5 4 0 3 7 16-2 1 - 1 0 1 - 0 0 5 ENT # 1 1 9 9 8 1 5 6 16-2 1 - 1 0 1 - 0 0 5 ENT # 1 1 9 9 8 1 5 6 R41 . 5 ' NEW BUILDING 17,360 S.F. EX. CONCRETE SIDEWALK (PROTECT) EX. CONCRETE SIDEWALK (PROTECT) EX. ADA RAMP (PROTECT) EX. TRAFFIC LIGHT (PROTECT) EX. CURB & GUTTER (PROTECT) EX. CURB & GUTTER (PROTECT) EX. CONCRETE SIDEWALK (PROTECT) EX. CURB & GUTTER (PROTECT) 4 STEPS 1 6 6 CONCRETE PAVEMENT WITH GRANULAR BASE 1B/CDT.01 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 4 5 5 2 5 6 5 5 3 7 8 4' WATERWAY PER APWA #211 8 EX. STONE FENCE (REMOVE) 13 0 0 E A S T (P U B L I C S T R E E T ) 2100 SOUTH (PUBLIC STREET) 9 SAWCUT PER SLC STDS* 9 9 9 9 19 3 . 8 ' 121.8' 4. 5 ' 24.7' 25.2' 56 . 6 ' 26.0' 3. 5 ' 54 . 7 ' 6. 4 ' 48 . 6 ' 67.9' 6.0' 6.0' 25 . 5 ' 7. 0 ' 5. 1 ' 7.7' 6.2' 5.3' 4.1' 5.0' 6. 0 ' 8. 0 ' 5.4' 19 7 . 6 ' R30 . 0 ' 24 . 0 ' 14.4' 20.6' 22.3' 124.3' 53.3' 25.4' 24.7' 30.0' 8.0' 54 . 8 ' 2. 2 ' 14.0' 39 . 2 ' 4.0' 4.8' 4. 8 ' 2.0' 29.4' 6. 5 ' 9. 2 ' 1.5' 16 . 6 ' 9. 2 ' 6. 5 ' 1.5' 2.5' 57 . 3 ' 41.1' 15 . 9 ' 5. 3 ' 72 . 8 ' 25 . 3 ' 32 . 0 ' 4.0' 1.0' R23.0 ' R15 . 0 ' 8 9. 0 ' NEW HANDRAIL (DESIGN BY OTHERS) 1 1 6 3 STAMPED CONCRETE PAVEMENT WITH GRANULAR BASE (PER ARCH.)1B/CDT.01 7 BRICK PAVERS PER ARCHITECT 3 WATER FEATURE (DESIGN BY OTHERS) 6.0' 7WALKWAY TO SUGARHOUSE PARK REPLACE PARK STRIP WITH CONCRETE WALKWAY (TYP) 5 REPLACE PARK STRIP WITH CONCRETE WALKWAY (TYP) 5 9 9 12 ADA ACCESSIBLE RAMP 1/CDT.02 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10.0' 5 5 *SAWCUT AND REPLACE ASPHALT 1' OFF LIP OF GUTTER WHERE REMOVING CURB & GUTTER 10 TREE PLANTER W/ GRATE PER SLC URBAN FORESTRY 11 11 2.5' 3. 2 ' 4.0' 7.3' 11 ROCK OR BLOCK RETAINING WALL (DESIGN BY OTHERS) 12 W SS SS SS SS W S SS SS SCO SCO W W W W W W W W W W WW DYHW SS SS SS SS W S SS SS SCO SCO W W W W W W W W W W WW DYH GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SS SS SS SS SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD W W W W W W W W W W W W W WW W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W OHP OHP OHP EX. SSMH RIM = 4416.05 INV OUT (N) = 4408 25 EX. SSMH RIM = 4416.32 INV IN 10"RCP(N) = 4405.62 INV IN 12"RCP(E) = 4405.02 INV IN 8"RCP(S) = 4406.12 INV OUT 12"RCP(W) = 4405.02 DDD SD SD EXISTING UTILITIES NOTE: EXISTING UTILITIES HAVE BEEN NOTED TO THE BEST OF ENGINEERS KNOWLEDGE, HOWEVER IT IS THE OWNER'S AND CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO LOCATE UTILITIES IN FIELD. POTHOLE TO IDENTIFY ANY CONFLICTS BEFORE ANY PIPE INSTALLATION. NOTIFY ENGINEER IF DISCREPANCIES OR CONFLICTS EXIST PRIOR TO CONTINUING ANY CONSTRUCTION. NOTE: PRIOR TO FABRICATION OR CONSTRUCTION, BEGIN AT THE LOW END OF ALL GRAVITY UTILITY LINES AND VERIFY THE INVERT ELEVATION OF THE POINT OF CONNECTION. NOTIFY ENGINEER FOR REDESIGN IF CONNECTION POINT IS HIGHER THAN SHOWN OR IF ANY UTILITY CONFLICTS OCCUR. GRAVITY CONNECTIONS MUST BE DONE PRIOR TO BUILDING FOOTINGS AND ROUGH PLUMBING ARE CONSTRUCTED. CUP.01 UTILITY PLAN 6 CONSTRUCTION KEY NOTE REFERENCE NO.DESCRIPITON DETAIL 1 GATE VALVE PER SLCPU STDS. 2 4" TYPE K COPPER WATER SERVICE LINE 3 4" WATER METER & VAULT PER APWA #523 4 4" POLY WATER SERVICE LINE 5 6" PVC C-900 FIRELINE 6 FIRE HYDRANT PER APWA #511 7 THRUST BLOCK PER APWA #561 8 4" PVC SDR-35 SEWER LATERAL @ 2.0% MIN SLOPE PER APWA #431 24 0 9 1 4 6 _ S I T E DE S C R I P T I O N DA T E No . SA L T L A K E C I T Y , U T A H 91 3 8 S O U T H S T A T E S T R E E T S U I T E # 1 0 0 S A N D Y , U T A H 8 4 0 7 0 ( 8 0 1 ) 5 4 2 - 7 1 9 2 ww w . b e n c h m a r k c i v i l . c o m BE N C H M A R K EN G I N E E R I N G & LA N D S U R V E Y I N G DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y FI E L D C R E W DA T E DW G . F I L E 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 5 GA L L O W A Y MC P FA C / J H O PROJECT NO.2409146 SC A L E M E A S U R E S 1 - I N C H O N F U L L S I Z E S H E E T S AD J U S T A C C O R D I N G L Y F O R R E D U C E D S I Z E S H E E T S 0 1 0. 5 OF 11 21 1 1 S O U T H 1 3 0 0 E A S T SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L 1 inch = ft. ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE 020 20 40 20 10 NORTH EX. 24" RCP STORM DRAIN MAIN EX. 24" RCP STORM DRAIN MAIN (PROTECT) EX. 24" RCP STORM DRAIN MAIN EX. 30" RCP STORM DRAIN MAIN EX. GAS LINE (PROTECT) EX. WATER MAIN (PROTECT)EX. 12" RCP SEWER MAIN (PROTECT) EX. WATER SERVICE LINE (KILL AT MAIN) EX. FIBER OPTIC LINE (CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WITH PROVIDER TO ROUTE AROUND NEW BLDG) EX. POWER POLE (PROTECT) EX. 12" RCP STORM DRAIN MAIN (PROTECT) EX. POWER POLE (PROTECT) EX. FIBER OPTIC LINE (PROTECT) EX. WATER METER (REMOVE) EX. GAS LINE (PROTECT) EX. FIBER OPTIC LINE (PROTECT) FFE=4418.50 128. 8 ' 105.4' 85 L.F. @ 4.8% 23 L.F. @ 5.2% 19 L.F. @ 2.0% 2 L.F. @ 2.0% EX. WATER LATERAL (KILL AT MAIN) IE: 4413.50 NEW GREASE TRAP RIM:4416.50 IE (E):4413.12 IE (W):4412.87 NEW SAMPLING MANHOLE RIM: 4415.95 IE (E):4412.83 IE (W):4412.50 (PROTECT) INV (NEW NE) = 4408.45 NOTE A: 12" OF VERTICAL SEPARATION REQUIRED BETWEEN STORM AND WATER LINES. LOOP WATER MAIN IF IN CONFLICT. NOTE B: 18" OF VERTICAL SEPARATION REQUIRED BETWEEN SEWER AND WATER LINES. CONTACT ENGINEER FOR REDESIGN IF NECESSARY NOTE C: 12" OF VERTICAL SEPARATION REQUIRED BETWEEN SEWER AND STORM. CONTACT ENGINEER FOR REDESIGN IF NECESSARY. A B C A B C 32.5' 1 2 2 3 4 5 5 FIRE RISER ROOM 5 6 7 7 11 1500 GAL SEWER GREASE TRAP PER APWA #441 8 8 9 9 10 10 12 SAMPLING MANHOLE PER APWA #341.2 11 12 9 6" PVC SDR-35 SEWER LATERAL @ 1.0% MIN SLOPE PER APWA #431 10 SEWER CLEANOUT PER APWA #431 TRANSFORMER ACCESS EX. SEWER MAIN (PROTECT) DEMAND CULINARY WATER SEWER 200 GPM 237 GPM FIRE SPRINKLER XXX GPM FIRE FLOW XXX GPM 7. 3 '10.3' 7 GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD 44 1 5 4415 44 2 0 44 2 0 442 0 44 2 5 4425 4425 4414 4414 441 4 44 1 6 44 1 6 4416 44 1 6 44 1 6 44 1 7 44 1 7 441 7 44 1 7 4417 44 1 8 44 1 8 4418 44 1 9 44 1 9 441 9 44 2 1 44 2 1 442 1 44 2 2 44 2 2 442 2 44 2 3 44 2 3 442 3 44 2 4 442 4 4424 44 2 6 44 2 6 442 6 44 2 7 44 2 7 44 2 7 44 2 7 442 7 44 2 8 44 2 8 44 2 9 4410 4415 4411 4412 4413 4414 4416 441 6 441 7 4417 4418 4418 4419 4419 23.16 TOC 23.16 TOC19.56 TOC 19.56 TOC17.85± TOC MATCH EX. 17.79± TOC MATCH EX. 18.50 TOC 17.68± TOC MATCH EX. 17.60± TOC MATCH EX. 18.50 TOC 24.66 TOA 24.66 TOA 23.16 TOA 23.16 TOA 23.16 TOA 23.16 TOA 18.99 TOC 18.48 TOC 18.50 TOC 18.50 TOC 23.16 TOA 18.74 TOC17.69 TOC 18.50 TOC 18.50 TOC 18.47 TOC 18.47 TOC 16.47 FG 17.91 TOC 16.48± TOC MATCH EX. 16.39± TOC MATCH EX. 18.37 TBC 18.34 TBC 18.37 TBC 17.56 TOC17.78 TBC 16.25 TBC-TAPER 15.64± TOC MATCH EX. 16.28 TBC-TAPER 15.72± TOC MATCH EX. 18.54 TBC 19.75 TBC 16.28 EG 19.12 EG 19.75 EG 20.93 EG 27.00 EG 26.77 EG 26.99 EG 20.18 TBC 20.55 TBC 23.26 BOW 24.76 TBC 25.02± TOC MATCH EX.25.84± TOC MATCH EX. 4418.50 FFE 17.56 TOC 18.50 TOC 17.46 FL 17.84 TOC 17.84 TOC 17.74 FL DDD SD NEW OIL/WATER SEPARATOR (#404) RIM:4416.64 IE (SE):4413.70 NEW SDIB (#401) TBC:4417.46 IE (N):4413.76 IE (NW):4413.76 NEW SDIB (#402) TBC:4416.89 IE (S):4413.89 NEW 3'X3' CATCH BASIN (#405) RIM:4415.97 IE (SW):4407.00 EX. SDIB (#406) TBC:4414.97 IE (NE):4406.77 IE (W):4406.47 IE (E):4406.37 12" Ø HDPE SD PIPE 26 L.F. @ 0.50% SLOPE 12" Ø HDPE SD PIPE 12 L.F. @ 0.50% SLOPE 15" Ø RCP CLASS III - SD 23 L.F. @ 1.00% SLOPE 17.89 TOC 17.95 TOC 18.41 TOC 18.41 TOC 21.00 EG 21.00 FG 25.66 EG 25.66 FG 27.06 EG 27.06 FG 27.17 EG 27.17 FG 21.80 FG 26.99 TOW 24.76 BOW 26.77 TOW 23.26 TBC 25.87 TOW 25.87 BOW 22.79 TOW 22.79 BOW 22.79 TBC 19.46 TOC 19.46 TOC 23.16 TOC 23.16 TOC 23.07 TOC 23.06 TOC23.06 TOC 23.06 TOC 20 16 17 18 1916 15 14 16 17 18 25 21 22 23 24 25 21 22 23 24 26 27 20 21 22 17 18 2524 16.27 EG 16.48 FG 19.89 TOC 18.87 EG 24.66 TOC 24.89 EG 17.77 FL 17.15 TOC -5 . 0 % -4 . 3 % -6 . 7 % -7 . 4 % -2.4% -6 . 3 % -4. 5 % -4.6% -4.3% -4.6% -1.0% -1.6% -2.8% -1.9% -1.9% -2.7% -5.4 % -5 . 0 % -4. 3 %-4.0 %-3.1 % -0 . 5 % -0 . 5 % -2.4% -4.1% -4.3% -2.6% -4.1% -25 . 5 % -31.2 % -26.0% -2.9% -0 . 5 % -3 . 8 % -2 . 3 % -6 . 2 % -3 . 8 % -0 . 5 % -2.2% -7 . 7 % -4.3% BENCHMARK: STREET MONUMENT AT 2100 SOUTH AND DOUGLAS AVENUE. NAVD88 ELEVATION = 4401.32' SURVEY CONTROL NOTE: THE CONTRACTOR OR SURVEYOR PERFORMING THE CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT PER THE APPROVED PLANS ONLY. THE SURVEYOR SHALL ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING HORIZONTAL CONTROL FROM THE SURVEY MONUMENTS AND FOR VERIFYING ANY ADDITIONAL CONTROL POINTS SHOWN ON THE SURVEY OR IMPROVEMENTS PLANS OR ON ELECTRONIC DATA PROVIDED BY BENCHMARK ENGINEERING AND LAND SURVEYING. THE SURVEYOR SHALL ALSO USE THE BENCHMARKS AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN, AND VERIFY THEM AGAINST NO LESS THAN THREE EXISTING HARD IMPROVEMENT ELEVATIONS INCLUDED ON THESE PLANS OR ON ELECTRONIC DATA PROVIDED BY BENCHMARK ENGINEERING AND LAND SURVEYING. IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE ENCOUNTERED, THE SURVEYOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ENGINEER AND RESOLVE THE DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH ANY CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING. IT IS ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SURVEYOR TO VERIFY ANY ELECTRONIC DATA WITH THE APPROVED STAMPED AND SIGNED PLANS AND NOTIFY THE ENGINEER WITH ANY DISCREPANCIES. CGD.01 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN 7 GRADING AND DRAINAGE KEY NOTE REFERENCE NO.DESCRIPITON DETAIL 1 GRADE SITE TO ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON PLAN 2 12" DIAMETER HDPE ADS N-12 STORM DRAIN LINE 3 STORM DRAIN INLET BOX 3/CDT.01 4 3'X3' CATCH BASIN 2/CDT.01 24 0 9 1 4 6 _ C G D . 0 1 DE S C R I P T I O N DA T E No . SA L T L A K E C I T Y , U T A H 91 3 8 S O U T H S T A T E S T R E E T S U I T E # 1 0 0 S A N D Y , U T A H 8 4 0 7 0 ( 8 0 1 ) 5 4 2 - 7 1 9 2 ww w . b e n c h m a r k c i v i l . c o m BE N C H M A R K EN G I N E E R I N G & LA N D S U R V E Y I N G DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y FI E L D C R E W DA T E DW G . F I L E 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 5 GA L L O W A Y MC P FA C / J H O PROJECT NO.2409146 SC A L E M E A S U R E S 1 - I N C H O N F U L L S I Z E S H E E T S AD J U S T A C C O R D I N G L Y F O R R E D U C E D S I Z E S H E E T S 0 1 0. 5 OF 11 21 1 1 S O U T H 1 3 0 0 E A S T SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L ALL HDPE/RCP CLASS III PIPE TO HAVE SOIL TIGHT JOINTS NOTE: PRIOR TO FABRICATION OR CONSTRUCTION, BEGIN AT THE LOW END OF ALL GRAVITY UTILITY LINES AND VERIFY THE INVERT ELEVATION OF THE POINT OF CONNECTION. NOTIFY ENGINEER FOR REDESIGN IF CONNECTION POINT IS HIGHER THAN SHOWN OR IF ANY UTILITY CONFLICTS OCCUR. GRAVITY CONNECTIONS MUST BE DONE PRIOR TO BUILDING FOOTINGS AND ROUGH PLUMBING ARE CONSTRUCTED. NOTE: SAWCUT WIDTH, LOCATIONS AND TIE-IN ELEVATIONS TO EXISTING GRADE ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY LOCATION, EXTENT OF SAWCUTTING, AND TIE-IN SLOPES TO EXISTING GRADE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. IT IS THE INTENT ON THESE PLANS THAT ALL PAVEMENT SHALL TIE INTO EXISTING GRADE PER SLOPES LISTED ON CGN.01 NOTE 70. SEE NOTES 66, 70, 82, & 83 ON CGN.01 FOR FURTHER DETAIL. EXISTING UTILITIES NOTE: EXISTING UTILITIES HAVE BEEN NOTED TO THE BEST OF ENGINEERS KNOWLEDGE, HOWEVER IT IS THE OWNER'S AND CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO LOCATE UTILITIES IN FIELD. POTHOLE TO IDENTIFY ANY CONFLICTS BEFORE ANY PIPE INSTALLATION. NOTIFY ENGINEER IF DISCREPANCIES OR CONFLICTS EXIST PRIOR TO CONTINUING ANY CONSTRUCTION. 1 inch = ft. ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE 020 20 40 20 10 NORTH UNDERGROUND CONCRETE STORM WATER STORAGE SYSTEM VOLUME:3800 C.F. (SEE MECHANICAL PLANS FOR DETAILS INCLUDING CONNECTIONS AND EJECTION PUMP) RAMP TO LOWER PARKING GARAGE (SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR ELEVATIONS AND CONTINUATION) (SEE MECHANICAL PLANS FOR CONNECTION AND CONTINUATION) NOTE: STORM WATER TO ENTER CATCH BASIN FROM UNDERGROUND STORAGE SYSTEM VIA EJECTOR PUMP, SEE MECHANICAL PLANS FOR DETAILS. A A 4 STEPS (SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR DETAILS) 6 15" DIAMETER RCP-CLASS III STORM DRAIN LINE 5 OIL-WATER SEPARATOR (OLDCASTLE OR EQUAL) 2 2 3 3 4 5 6 CONTRACTOR TO SAWCUT AND REPLACE CONCRETE AS NECESSARY TO ENSURE 5'X5' CONCRETE PAD OUTSIDE DOORS COMPLIANT WITH ADA STANDARDS 4416 4424 4418 441 9 442 0 442 1 442 2 442 3 4425 442 6 44 2 7 44 2 4 44 2 3 44 2 5 44 2 2 44 2 1 44 2 0 44 1 9 44 1 8 44 1 7 44 1 6 441 4 44 1 7 44 1 9 44 2 0 44 2 1 44 2 2 44 2 3 4424 44 1 6 44 1 7 44 1 7 44 1 6 DDD SD SD CEP.01 EROSION CONTROL PLAN 8 NOTE: CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL EROSION CONTROLS (SILT FENCES, STRAW BALES, ETC) AS REQUIRED BY REGULATORY AGENCIES. SAID CONTROLS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AGENCY STANDARDS AND FOLLOWING BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR ACTUAL PLACEMENT ON SITE. STRAW BALES SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED AS A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT. ADDITIONAL CONTROLS REQUESTED BY AGENCY INSPECTORS SHALL BE REQUIRED. DUST CONTROL SHALL BE PROVIDED AT ALL TIMES, AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE, TO MINIMIZE ANY DUST NUISANCE AND SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. SWPPP KEY NOTES REFERENCE NO.DESCRIPTION DETAIL PROVIDE, INSTALL AND/OR CONSTRUCT THE FOLLOWING PER THE SPECIFICATIONS GIVEN OR REFERENCED AND THE DETAILS NOTED AND AS SHOWN ON THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. 1 CONCRETE WASTE MANAGEMENT 1/CEP.02 3 MATERIALS STORAGE 3/CEP.02 4 PORTABLE TOILETS 4/CEP.02 5 SILT FENCE 6/CEP.02 2 INLET PROTECTION WATTLE 2/CEP.02 6 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 7/CEP.02 24 0 9 1 4 6 _ S I T E DE S C R I P T I O N DA T E No . SA L T L A K E C I T Y , U T A H 91 3 8 S O U T H S T A T E S T R E E T S U I T E # 1 0 0 S A N D Y , U T A H 8 4 0 7 0 ( 8 0 1 ) 5 4 2 - 7 1 9 2 ww w . b e n c h m a r k c i v i l . c o m BE N C H M A R K EN G I N E E R I N G & LA N D S U R V E Y I N G DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y FI E L D C R E W DA T E DW G . F I L E 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 5 GA L L O W A Y MC P FA C / J H O PROJECT NO.2409146 SC A L E M E A S U R E S 1 - I N C H O N F U L L S I Z E S H E E T S AD J U S T A C C O R D I N G L Y F O R R E D U C E D S I Z E S H E E T S 0 1 0. 5 OF 11 21 1 1 S O U T H 1 3 0 0 E A S T SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L 1 inch = ft. ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE 020 20 40 20 10 NORTH 3 1 2 2 6 4 X XXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 SWPPP INFORMATION DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCATION OF THE SWPPP DOCUMENTATION (BINDER AND SITE MAPS) ON THE SITE. 4' (MINIMUM) 4' ( M I N U M U M ) "SWPPP INFORMATION" MUST BE DISPLAYED PROMINENTLY ACROSS THE TOP OF THE SIGN, AS SHOWN IN THE DETAIL. SIGN TO BE CONSTRUCTED OF A RIGID MATERIAL, SUCH AS PLYWOOD OR OUTDOOR SIGN BOARD. SIGN MUST BE CONSTRUCTED IN A MANNER TO PROTECT DOCUMENTS FROM DAMAGE DUE TO WEATHER (WIND, SUN, MOISTURE, ETC.) COPY OF PROJECT NOI COPY OF GENERAL CONTRACTOR NOI TRANSFER FORM OR CO-PERMITEE FORM COPY OF PROJECT CONSTRUCTION SITE NOTICE COPY OF PROJECT PERMIT AUTHORIZATION COPY OF GENERAL CONTRACTOR PERMIT AUTHORIZATION COPY OF STATE SUPPLIED CONSTRUCTION SITE NOTICE NOTES: 1) THE SWPPP INFORMATION SIGN MUST BE LOCATED NEAR THE CONSTRUCTION EXIT OF THE SITE, SUCH THAT IT IS ACCESSIBLE AND VIEWABLE BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC, BUT NOT OBSTRUCTING VIEWS AS TO CAUSE A SAFETY HAZARD. 2) ALL POSTED DOCUMENTS MUST BE MAINTAINED IN A CLEARLY READABLE CONDITION AT ALL TIMES THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION AND UNTIL THE NOTICE-TO TERMINATION (NOT) IS FILED FOR THE PERMIT. 3)CONTRACTOR SHALL POST OTHER STORM WATER AND/OR EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL RELATED PERMITS ON THE SIGN AS REQUIRED BY THE GOVERNING AGENCY. 4) SIGN SHALL BE LOCATED OUTSIDE OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENTS UNLESS APPROVED BY THE GOVERNING AGENCY. 5) CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING STABILITY IF THE SWPPP INFORMATION SIGN. 3' M I N . 3' M I N . C 1994 JOHN McCULLAH NOT TO SCALE INSTALLATION WITHOUT TRENCHING NOTES: 1. SILT FENCE SHALL BE PLACED ON SLOPE CONTOURS TO MAXIMIZE PONDING EFFICIENCY. 2. INSPECT AND REPAIR FENCE AFTER EACH STORM EVENT AND REMOVE SEDIMENT WHEN NECESSARY. 9" (225mm) MAXIMUM RECOMMENDED STORAGE HEIGHT. 3. REMOVED SEDIMENT SHALL BE DEPOSITED TO AN AREA THAT WILL NOT CONTRIBUTE SEDIMENT OFF-SITE AND CAN BE PERMANENTLY STABILIZED. TRENCH DETAIL FLOW STEEL OR WOOD POST 36" (1m) HIGH MAX. EXTRA STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC NEEDED WITHOUT WIRE MESH SUPPORT STEEL OR WOOD POSTATTACH FILTER FABRIC SECURELY TO UPSTREAM SIDE OF POST FLOW 10' (3m) MAXIMUM SPACING WITH WIRE SUPPORT FENCE 6' (1.8m) MAXIMUM SPACING WITHOUT WIRE SUPPORT FENCE 3/4" (20mm) MIN. DRAIN ROCK 8" (2 0 0 m m ) FLOW 12 " M I N . (3 0 0 m m ) PONDING HEIGHT PONDING HEIGHT 4"x6" (100 X 150mm) TRENCH WITH COMPACTED BACKFILL 9" M A X . (2 2 5 m m ) ST O R A G E H T . 12 " M I N . (3 0 0 m m ) REF: FROM C 1994 JOHN McCULLAH REF: FROM FL O W FL O W FLOW PLAN FLOW SECTION A - A NOTES: 1. THE ENTRANCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION THAT WILL PREVENT TRACKING OR FLOWING OF SEDIMENT ONTO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYS. THIS MAY REQUIRE TOP DRESSING, REPAIR AND/OR CLEAN OUT OF ANY MEASURES USED TO TRAP SEDIMENT. 2. WHEN NECESSARY, WHEELS SHALL BE CLEANED PRIOR TO ENTRANCE ONTO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. 3. WHEN WASHING IS REQUIRED, IT SHALL BE DONE ON AN AREA STABILIZED WITH CRUSHED STONE THAT DRAINS INTO AN APPROVED SEDIMENT TRAP OR SEDIMENT BASIN. DIVERSION RIDGE REQUIRED WHERE GRADE EXCEEDS 2% ROADWAY FILTER FABRIC 2% OR GREATER RO A D W A Y NOTE: USE SANDBAGS, STRAW BALES OR OTHER APPROVED METHODS TO CHANNELIZE RUNOFF TO BASIN AS REQUIRED. SPILLWAYSTRAW BALES, SANDBAGS, OR CONTINUOUS BERM OF EQUIVALENT HEIGHT SUPPLY WATER TO WASH WHEELS IF NECESSARY 20' ( 6 m ) R 2"-3" (50-75mm) COURSE AGGREGATE MIN. 6" (150mm) THICK 12 ' M I N . (3 6 m ) DIVERSION RIDGE 50' (15m) MIN. AA C 1994 JOHN McCULLAH REF: FROM SCALE:NTS 2INLET PROTECTION WATTLE SCALE:NTS 6SILT FENCE SCALE:NTS 7CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE/EXIT TEMPORARY GRAVEL SCALE:NTS 1CONCRETE WASTE MANAGEMENT SCALE:NTS 3MATERIALS STORAGE SCALE:NTS 4PORTABLE TOILETS SCALE:NTS 5SPILL CLEAN UP SCALE:NTS 8SWPPP INFORMATION SIGN CEP.02 EROSION CONTROL DETAILS 9 24 0 9 1 4 6 _ S I T E DE S C R I P T I O N DA T E No . SA L T L A K E C I T Y , U T A H 91 3 8 S O U T H S T A T E S T R E E T S U I T E # 1 0 0 S A N D Y , U T A H 8 4 0 7 0 ( 8 0 1 ) 5 4 2 - 7 1 9 2 ww w . b e n c h m a r k c i v i l . c o m BE N C H M A R K EN G I N E E R I N G & LA N D S U R V E Y I N G DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y FI E L D C R E W DA T E DW G . F I L E 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 5 GA L L O W A Y MC P FA C / J H O PROJECT NO.2409146 SC A L E M E A S U R E S 1 - I N C H O N F U L L S I Z E S H E E T S AD J U S T A C C O R D I N G L Y F O R R E D U C E D S I Z E S H E E T S 0 1 0. 5 OF 11 21 1 1 S O U T H 1 3 0 0 E A S T SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L 3" 9" NOTE: 1. FOR REINFORCEMENT DESIGN OF PCC PAVEMENT SECTIONS SEE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER 2. FOR DOWEL DESIGN OF PCC PAVEMENT SECTIONS SEE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. ASPHALT PAVEMENT 5' M A X . 12 " 6" 3'-0" 2'-0"6"6" 6" 3'-11 12" 6"2'-11 12"6" 6" 1 12" 3" CONSTRUCTION JOINT (TYP) (2) #4 x 18" (TYP) DIRECTION OF GUTTER FLOW DROP FLOWLINE PER NOTE 6 FRAME AND GRATE SEE PLAN SD-12 BEGIN WARP TOP OF CURB INVERT OF GUTTER BOTTOM OF CURB #4 REBAR (TYP) SEE NOTE 3 CONCRETE SEE NOTE 4 BACKFILL ALL SIDES SEE NOTE 2 SELECT FILL SEE NOTE 1 & 2 45 °45 ° #4 REBAR SOTH SIDES SEE NOTE 3 12" 8" BEGIN WARP C B C B A A SECTION B-B SECTION C-CSECTION A-A TYPE A - CURB INLET WITH SINGLE GRATE #4 @ 12" O.C. EACH WAY SEE NOTE 3 CURB FACE OPENING SEE NOTE 6 GROUND SURFACE 1. SELECT FILL: USE UNTREATED BASE COARSE GRADE 1 OR GRADE 3 4 PER APWA SECTION 02060. USE OF SEWER ROCK OR RECYCLED AGGREGATE REQUIRES ENGINEER'S WRITTEN APPROVAL. 2. BACKFILL: INSTALL AND COMPACT ALL BACKFILL MATERIAL PER APWA SECTION 02321. 3. REINFORCEMENT: USE ASTM A 615, GRADE 60, DEFORMED STEEL REBAR PER APWA SECTION 03200. 4. CONCRETE: CLASS 4,000 PER APWA SECTION 03304. PLACE PER APWA SECTION 03310. APPLY SEALING/CURING COMPOUND PER APWA SECTION 03390. 5. PIPE LATERALS: THE DRAWING SHOWS ALTERNATE CONNECTIONS TO THE INLET BOX. REFER TO CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS FOR CONNECTION LOCATIONS. 6. CURB FACE OPENING: MAKE OPENING 4 INCHES HIGH. PROVIDE AT LEAST A 2 INCH DROP FROM THE GUTTER FLOWLINE TO THE INVERT OF THE CURB FACE OPENING. SCALE:NTS 1PAVEMENT SECTIONS SCALE:NTS 3CURB INLET W/ SINGLE GRATE CDT.01 DETAIL SHEET 10 COMPACTED AGGREGATE BASE COURSE ASPHALT 6" 5" CONCRETE PAVEMENT COMPACTED AGGREGATE BASE COURSE CONCRETE 24 0 9 1 4 6 _ S I T E DE S C R I P T I O N DA T E No . SA L T L A K E C I T Y , U T A H 91 3 8 S O U T H S T A T E S T R E E T S U I T E # 1 0 0 S A N D Y , U T A H 8 4 0 7 0 ( 8 0 1 ) 5 4 2 - 7 1 9 2 ww w . b e n c h m a r k c i v i l . c o m BE N C H M A R K EN G I N E E R I N G & LA N D S U R V E Y I N G DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y FI E L D C R E W DA T E DW G . F I L E 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 5 GA L L O W A Y MC P FA C / J H O PROJECT NO.2409146 SC A L E M E A S U R E S 1 - I N C H O N F U L L S I Z E S H E E T S AD J U S T A C C O R D I N G L Y F O R R E D U C E D S I Z E S H E E T S 0 1 0. 5 OF 11 21 1 1 S O U T H 1 3 0 0 E A S T SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L B A UV446R UV445R UV444R UV443R UV442R UV441R 6' 5' 4' 3' 2' 1' RISER CODEHEIGHT CODEHEIGHT VAULT CB446 CB445 CB444 6' 5' 4' CB4433' HEIGHT 4" 6" CODE GR304 GR306 180# 270# WEIGHT 2,700# 8,100# 4,050# 5,400# 6,750# WEIGHT 1,350# WEIGHT 7,275# 5,925# 4,575# 3,225# NOTES: 1. CATCH BASINS ARE DESIGNED TO MEET ASTM C858 WITH AASHTO HS-20 LOADING. 2. OPENINGS MAY BE SIZED AND LOCATED AS REQUIRED. 3. OPTIONAL GRATING OR COVER MATERIAL MAY BE CAST IN AS REQUIRED. 4. CHECK HARDWARE SECTION FOR OPTIONAL ACCESSORIES. RING & GRATE RC30RG WT. 405# GRADE RING SCALE:NTS 23'x3' CATCH BASIN 3'x3' CATCH BASIN 4'-0"4'-0" 3'-0" RI S E R H E I G H T VA U L T H E I G H T + 6 " LIFTING INSERTS IN4T 3'x3' FRAME AND GRATE RISER VAULT 12" DIA. KNOCKOUTS TYP. ALL (4) SIDES CDT.02 DETAIL SHEET 11 24 0 9 1 4 6 _ S I T E DE S C R I P T I O N DA T E No . SA L T L A K E C I T Y , U T A H 91 3 8 S O U T H S T A T E S T R E E T S U I T E # 1 0 0 S A N D Y , U T A H 8 4 0 7 0 ( 8 0 1 ) 5 4 2 - 7 1 9 2 ww w . b e n c h m a r k c i v i l . c o m BE N C H M A R K EN G I N E E R I N G & LA N D S U R V E Y I N G DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y FI E L D C R E W DA T E DW G . F I L E 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 5 GA L L O W A Y MC P FA C / J H O PROJECT NO.2409146 SC A L E M E A S U R E S 1 - I N C H O N F U L L S I Z E S H E E T S AD J U S T A C C O R D I N G L Y F O R R E D U C E D S I Z E S H E E T S 0 1 0. 5 OF 11 21 1 1 S O U T H 1 3 0 0 E A S T SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L PARALLEL PEDESTRIAN RAMP A SIDEWALK 6" WIDE MONOLITHIC CURB LANDING RAMP RAM P 4' MI N . 4' MIN 4' MI N . 4' MI N . LANDING OPTIONAL AT THE DISCRETION OF ENGINEER PARK STRIP FLARE FLARE SIDEWALK OPTIONAL AT THE DISCRETION OF ENGINEER PERPENDICULAR PEDESTRIAN RAMP FLARE IS ACCEPTABLE IN LIEU OF FULL HEIGHT CURB SEE LOCAL AGENCY REQUIREMENTS B B RA M P RA M P 4' M I N . 4' MIN. LANDING SIDEWALK CROSS SLOPE 6" WIDE MONOLITHIC CURB FLARE FLARE 2' MIN. NO LIP AT CURB LINE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS RAMP DETAIL SE E NO T E 3 RAMP SEE NOTE 4 C C NOTES: 1. CONFIGURATION OF RAMPS AND LANDINGS MAY BE CHANGED BUT MUST MEET PEDESTRIAN RAMP DIMENSIONS AND SLOPE REQUIREMENTS. SPECIFIC SITE CONDITIONS WILL VARY. THE USE OF FLARES, CURBWALLS, ETC. ARE AT THE DISCRETION OF THE ENGINEER. 2. PERPENDICULAR AND PARALLEL PEDESTRIAN RAMPS SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING ARE ACCEPTABLE FOR USE AT MID BLOCK OR CORNER INSTALLATIONS. 3. PROVIDE DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE FOR FULL WIDTH OF RAMP, LANDING OR CURB CUT. SEE DETAIL A FOR DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE DIMENSIONS. 4. LOCATE DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE SO THAT THE EDGE NEAREST THE STREET IS 4 TO 6 INCHES FROM THE TOP BACK OF CURB. 5. PROVIDE DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE. COLOR SHALL BE YELLOW. 6. USE CLASS AA (AE) CONCRETE. 7. USE 6" MIN. DEPTH OR UNTREATED BASE COURSE UNDER ALL CONCRETE FLATWORK COMPACTED TO 96% MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY. 4' MIN.2' MIN SECTION C-C 6" WIDE MONOLITHIC CURB IF REQUIRED TO CONTAIN LANDSCAPING 6" MIN UNTREATED BASE COURSE LRT DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE NO LIP AT CURB LINE 4' MIN. LR T 2' MIN. DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE NO LIP AT CURB LINE SECTION B-B 6" MIN UNTREATED BASE COURSE SLOPE TABLE ITEM RUNNING SLOPE*CROSS SLOPE L LANDING R RAMP T TRANSITION SIDEWALK 1.5-2% (1V:48H) (b) 8.33% (1V:12H) (c) 5% (1V:20H) (a) 1.5-2% (1V:48H) (b) 1.5-2% (1V:48H) (d) 1.5-2% (1V:48H) (d) 1.5-2% (1V:48H)-- * RUNNING SLOPE IS IN THE DIRECTION OF PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL, WHILE CROSS SLOPE IS PERPENDICULAR TO PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL. (a) TRANSITION RUNNING SLOPE NEEDS TO BE CONSTANT ACROSS ENTIRE CURB CUT. WARP GUTTER PAN TO MEET REQUIRED TRANSITION SLOPE AT CURB CUT (0.10' MAX. ABOVE FLOWLINE.) EXCEPTION: (b) IF SLOPE REQUIREMENTS CAN'T BE ACHIEVED ON MID-BLOCK RAMPS CONTACT THE ENGINEER. (c) PARALLEL RAMPS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO EXCEED 15-FEET IN LENGTH. (d) CROSS SLOPE REQUIREMENT DOES NOT APPLY AT PERPENDICULAR RAMP MID-BLOCK CROSSING. 4' MIN.2' MIN SECTION A-A 6" WIDE MONOLITHIC CURB IF REQUIRED 6" MIN UNTREATED BASE COURSE LT DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE NO LIP AT CURB LINE LIP OF GUTTERTRANSITION DETAIL OVERLAY 5%FEATHER EDGE OF OVERLAY TO 12" MAX. 0. 2 " 50% TO 65% OF BASE DIAMETER TRUNCATED DOME SPACING 1.6" MIN. 2.4" MAX. SP A C I N G 1. 6 " M I N . 2. 4 " M A X TRUNCATED DOME IN SQUARE GRID PATTERN DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE DETAIL A ℄℄ ℄ ℄ THIS DRAWING PRODUCED BY THE U.S. ACCESS BOARD STRIPING SYMBOLS SCALE: N.T.S. THIS DRAWING PRODUCED BY THE U.S. ACCESS BOARD INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OF ACCESSIBILITY DIRECTION OF TRAVEL OR APPROACH THIS DRAWING PRODUCED BY THE U.S. ACCESS BOARD 4' - 0 " SQ U A R E REFLECTORIZED SIGN PANEL MIN. OF 16 GA. GALV. STL. W/PORCELAIN ENAMEL FIN. WHITE IMAGE ON BLUE FIELD BEADED REFLECTORIZED TEXTURE. COLOR #15090 FED. STANDARD 595a. INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL ACCESSIBILITY SIGN W/ LETTERING NO LESS THAN 1" HI. BOLTED TO GALV. STL. TUBE 2" X 2" GALV. STEEL TUBE CONTRACTOR HAS THE OPTION TO USE A PRE-SET SLEEVE AND FILL SOLID W/ GROUT FINISH SURFACE DASHED LINE SHOWS CONC. WALKWAY AND CONC. CURB WHERE OCCURS CONC. FOOTING 6' - 8 " WH E N S I G N I S U S E D 1' - 6 " 6' - 8 " C L E A R 1' - 6 " 1'-0" 1'-0" VAN ACCESSIBLE WITH DISABILITIES FOR PERSONS RESERVED ADA SIGN POST DETAIL SCALE:NTS 1STANDARD ACCESS RAMP TABLE OF DIMENSIONS ELEMENT DIMENSION R C T 4 FEET WIDE MINIMUM 4 FEET SQUARE MINIMUM*L * WHERE LANDING SPACE IS CONSTRAINED ON 2 SIDES, PROVIDE 5 FEET IN THE DIRECTION OF THE CROSSWALK CLEAR SPACE CLEAR SPACE CLEAR SPACE FLARE 10% (1V:10H)-- C CLEAR SPACE 5% (1V:20H) (a)1.5-2% (1V:48H) (d) C C C Sugar House Hotel Project and Rezone Community Benefits To: Salt Lake City Planning Department, Salt Lake City Council, Members of the Sugar House Community From: John Poer, Project Owner and Manager of Sugar House Hotel Development Date: July 14, 2025 Subject: Community Benefits of Proposed Sugar House Hotel Development Our proposed Hotel development at the former Sizzler site in Sugar House seeks a zone change from MU‐3 to the new MU‐11 zone. This document outlines the significant community benefits of this project, demonstrang how it aligns with and enhances the goals for the Sugar House neighborhood. Our aim is to ensure that any new construcon serves not only the project's needs, but also contributes posively to the broader neighborhood. We have categorized the benefits into two main areas: Project‐Driven Benefits (which naturally arise from the hotel's operaon and design that are only possible with rezone) and Community Benefits (per SLC Statute under 21A.50.050), which directly address specific important criteria set forth by Salt Lake City. While there is some overlap, this presentaon helps illustrate the comprehensive posive impacts of the development. These benefits are specifically ed to the proposed zone change and would not be possible under the exisng zoning. Project‐Driven Benefits of MU‐11 Versus Exisng MU‐3 Zoning The proposed hotel development provides significant benefits to the local community and the city, benefits that simply are not possible with the uses and scale allowed under the exisng MU‐3 zoning. Major Economic Boost for Residents and the City: Our project produces several economic benefits that would not be possible, or nearly as large, under exisng zoning o Generates Substanal Tax Revenue: The hotel and its associated restaurants are esmated to generate nearly $25,000,000 in addional sales tax revenue over the first 10 years of operaon, alone. This includes a combinaon of sales tax (8.45%), transient room tax (7.07%), and an addional restaurant food tax (1.0%). Beyond sales tax, the proposed improvements will contribute several hundred thousand dollars in annual property taxes. o Creates High‐Quality Jobs: This project is set to create over 50 Full‐Time Equivalent jobs. These posions will offer an aracve average wage of $25 per hour, with several roles providing salaries exceeding $100,000 annually. All full‐me employees will qualify for comprehensive benefits, including health insurance. o Boosts Local Commerce and Foot Traffic: While we hope guests will enjoy our on‐site dining, the reality is that our 150+ guests per night will acvely frequent and spend money at walkable shops, restaurants, and other local establishments. Many of these businesses are currently facing challenges due to insufficient customer traffic. This hotel use, which necessitates the proposed zoning change, will provide essenal economic smulaon that extends well beyond the project site. o Self‐Funded Development: No public money has been requested or will be used to facilitate the development of this project. o The development team and management of the hotel are local and long‐me residents of to the Salt Lake MSA and returns from the hotel will remain local. Amenies for Local and Guest Use If approved under the new zoning, this project will introduce several key amenies designed to serve both hotel guests and the broader Sugar House community. o Upscale Hotel Rooms: We will offer high‐quality accommodaons that provide a much‐needed opon for residents who have vising friends and family, as well as for business and vacaon travelers to the area. Sugar House currently lacks a hotel of this standard. o Acvity Center with Equipment Rentals: Located conveniently in the lobby, this center will provide equipment rentals such as: bikes, sporng gear, frisbees, etc., encouraging acve use of the adjacent park and surrounding areas. o Lobby Café & Coffee Shop: This inving public space will serve as a vibrant gathering point for hotel guests and residents alike. It is an ideal spot for casual meet‐ups or as a convenient stop while enjoying the park. o 7th‐Floor Rooop Restaurant: This elevated dining experience will offer an upscale culinary opon for the community, complete with breathtaking views of Sugar House Park and the surrounding mountains—a unique feature few venues can offer in the greater Salt Lake City area. o Versale Meeng & Event Space: The hotel will feature flexible rooms available for a wide array of uses, from business meengs and social funcons to government gatherings and community events, serving both hotel patrons and local organizaons. Frontage Acvaon /Encouraging Pedestrian Use/Park and Neighborhood Connecons Our proposed development will serve as a vital link between the Sugar House neighborhood and Sugar House Park, acvely encouraging pedestrian use and creang a welcoming gateway for everyone Gateway to the Park: We recognize our property's unique posion as an entry point to both Sugar House and the park. We embrace the opportunity and responsibility to foster this connecon. We will achieve this in two key ways: First, our building design, layout, and high‐end, locally inspired presentaon, including prominent neighborhood‐welcoming signage, will offer an inving entry point for those using 1300 East. This refined aesthec and improved entry perspecve is not feasible under current zoning due to height and cost limitaons. Second, our design ensures pedestrian connecons on all sides, with improved sidewalks surrounding the building. This effecvely bridges the urban environment on one side with the natural beauty of the park on the other, serving as an unofficial entry point for hotel guests, local pedestrians, and cyclists ulizing the soon‐to‐be‐created bike paths. We have meculously designed the building to minimize un‐acvated rear facades, maximizing this connecon. Vibrant Street Acvaon: The increased height allowed by our MU‐11 zoning request enables us to create aracve first‐floor retail space along the frontage. This will infuse life into the intersecon and energize the enre area. Addionally, the height allows us to dedicate most of the remaining first‐floor space to a bustling lobby, generang significant "buzz" from hotel acvies, publicly access to banquet and meeng spaces, and a ground‐floor café. Lower height, exisng zoning, would produce less acve first floor uses our higher density above will enable. The Unique Benefit of a Hotel Use: A hotel offers a unique and disnctly public benefit compared to other uses like apartments or offices. With those, one oen needs to be a resident or know a tenant to truly "use" the site as part of their experience. A locaon as prominent and special as ours deserves a more public‐engaging use. The various amenies and acvies within our project, such as the coffee shop and restaurant, are open to all members of the community as customers, without requiring them to be hotel guests. Transportaon Benefits The proposed hotel development provides substanal transportao n benefits, directly addressing local needs and promong sustainable travel. Excess Supply of Underground Parking: Our project includes a fully underground parking garage with over 180 spaces (see more details under community benefit). This capacity significantly exceeds the requirements set by our third‐party parking consultant, allowing us to provide ample use for our guests paid parking for the surrounding community. This added capacity will help alleviate exisng parking pressures in the area. Lower Traffic Generaon: A hotel operaon, which requires the proposed height rezone, inherently generates less vehicular traffic compared to smaller, high‐traffic generang retail uses. Hotel guests typically rely less on personal vehicles during their stay and are more inclined to use public transportaon or rideshare services than local patrons, thereby reducing perceived development impact on overall traffic congeson. Opmized Rideshare Area: We have incorporated a well‐designed drop‐off and pick‐up area that is ideal for rideshare services and carpooling, benefing both hotel guests and park or neighborhood visitors. This publicly accessible space enhances convenience and safety, eliminang the need for vehicles to use the park loop road or other potenally hazardous locaons along busy city streets. Promong Mass Transit Use: A notable number of our out‐of‐state guests will likely ulize the S Line, connecng seamlessly from the airport via other TRAX lines. This increased ulizaon of mass transit uses among our guests, compared to other potenal site uses that would aract more local, car‐dependent visitors, will significantly reduce overall traffic impact of our project. Furthermore, future proposed (but not yet adopted) S Line expansion plans are highly synergisc, with a potenal line extension situated to within a quarter‐mile of the site. This strong compability with mass transit directly contributes to alleviang local traffic and parking concerns. Ground Lease Challenges: A Barrier to Future Redevelopment The current ground lease agreement presents a crical challenge to the redevelopment of this site if the requested rezone is denied. With roughly 16 years remaining on the primary term of the underlying ground lease, it is highly probable the property will remain undeveloped for at least that duraon without approval of a project. This stems from the fact that the current leaseholder, Maverik, is contractually obligated to connue making rent payments, effecvely removing any financial incenve for the landlord to invest in or improve the property. Denying this project would not only halt the current proposal but would also likely deter future development iniaves. The site would then be highly viewed as an unfeasible locaon for significant capital investment. Consequently, without a rezone that supports an economically viable project from the perspecve of private developers, the property will most likely persist in its current neglected state. This persistent visual blight, situated at a key entry point to both the neighborhood and Sugar House Park, would undeniably impede the broader neighborhood redevelopment that recent city zoning changes aim to foster in the surrounding and adjacent area. Ul mately, a failure to rezone will lock the property into its exisng condion for an extended period, as the ground lease structure removes any economic incenve for change on behalf of the land owner or perspecve tenant. Community Benefits (as defined per SLC Statute) Our proposed Hotel Development and requested zoning acvely addresses and meets several key criteria arculated within Salt Lake City's Community Benefits statute, Secon 21A.50.050. Housing Needs (secon A of SLC criteria) Our proposed development is housing‐neutral, as it does not displace any exisng long‐term residenal units. The key housing‐related benefit our project delivers is the creaon of 145 short‐term hotel rooms within the neighborhood. This hotel use is only economically viable with the requested rezone to a taller height. Currently, online plaorms like VRBO and Airbnb show several dozens of homes in the area being offered as short‐term rentals, directly diminishing the supply of available housing for permanent residents. This trend is only projected to accelerate, parcularly during large‐scale events such as the Olympics. While we do not suggest our project will completely halt the use of homes for short‐term rentals, by offering a dedicated and substanal supply of such short‐term accommodaon s, our hotel will serve as a crical "release valve." This helps to reduce the incen ve for residenal properes to be diverted into the short‐term rental market, which will, in turn, contribute, at least marginally, to improving housing affordability for the community in a way other development types would not. Commercial Space for Local Benefit (secon B of SLC criteria) The proposed project incorporates three disnct commercial components designed to yield mutual benefits for both the development and the community, with commitments that can be formally secured through an agreement with Salt Lake City during the entlement process. Incenvized Leases for Local Businesses in Retail Spaces o We are planning approximately 3,500 square feet of street‐front retail space, which can be divided into two units. To foster and benefit local economic growth, we propose several favorable contractual terms for local businesses. As an integrated part of the community, our hotel is eager to connect visitors with local offerings, creang a mutually advantageous scenario. Local Tenant Requirement: A minimum of one of the two available first floor retail spaces shall be leased to a local tenant at a rate of at least 25% below prevailing market rent. 0% Interest Financing for Local Tenants: For any space leased to a local tenant (up to 100% of its square footage), the hotel ownership will finance 100% of construcon costs, tenant improvement budgets, and business property investments at a 0% interest rate. The term for principal repayment will be matched to the inial lease term. To migate potenal misuse, a cap of $100 per square foot is proposed for this financing (totaling up to $350,000 interest free loan for the full designated space). Defining "Local": We will collaborate with the Sugar House Community Council, or a designated local group, to establish clear criteria for defining "local tenants." It is a requirement that the tenant possess relevant experience in their field and that their business use be compable with both the hotel operaons and other neighborhood uses (e.g., no vape shops). Implementaon Details: Further specifics will be defined later in this process, incorporang feedback from the community. Dedicated Community Meeng Room o Our approximately 2,000 square foot second‐floor meeng room is ideally suited for business meengs, social gatherings, or community funcons. Its generous size and direct stair access to the lobby (facilitang easy access to the adjacent park and neighborhood) enhance its ulity and convenience. o We commit to entering into an agreement with the city to make this second‐floor meeng room, in either of its potenal configuraons, available free of charge to qualified community groups at least twelve mes per year. We propose that the Sugar House Community Council, or groups officially designated by them, manage the scheduling of these community requests. All groups ulizing the space will be required to observe standard hotel rules and policies regarding noise, room usage, and potenal damages, as applied to all other events. This provision will allow community organizaons to leverage the project's prime locaon and amenies. Lobby Café: Fostering Local Partnerships o We intend to acvely engage with the community to either partner with a local operator or a local brand/supplier for our lobby coffee shop. At a minimum, we commit to priorizing the procurement of local products and flavors for sale within the café. During the design phase, all efforts will be made to idenfy suitable local partners to enable this offering. A locally‐infused café experience within the hotel lobby will undoubtedly enhance the guest experience and provide locals with an addional compelling reason to visit for coffee, parcularly as part of their park experience, creang a clear mutual benefit. Our business model is that our guests value the local experience as part of their stay. Dedicaon of Public Space (secon C of SLC criteria) Given our status as the applicant operang under a ground lease with the landowner, direct land dedicaon is not feasible. Nevertheless, we propose substanal contribuons to public space enhancement as follows: Public Art space and installaon: We commit to developing and installing a prominent public art feature at the center of the hotel's plaza area on the park side. This commitment will be formalized via a development agreement, running for the duraon of our ground lease. Drawing inspiraon from the notable Whale sculpture in the 9th and 9th neighborhood, this large‐format art piece will be chosen through a publicly transparent applicaon and selecon process, managed by the hotel. The hotel will bear the full cost of the arst's work and provide the necessary space for the installaon. Furthermore, the hotel is open to financing periodic replacement projects in the future, ensuring the arsc contribuon remains vibrant and responsive to the evolving neighborhood character. Park Improvements: We have been in conversaons with the Sugar House Park Authority to improve the area of Sugar House Park around the hotel site. This improvement includes regrading of land, new sidewalks/bike area, landscape, irrigao n, grass, and trees that are compable with the park’s arboretum plan. If we can reach agreement with the park, these improvements, paid at hotel expenses, will permanently improve the appearance of and access to north west side of the park for all users. This is not a dedicaon of open space but an improvement on exisng open space. Our conversaons with the Park Authority to this point have been posive and we are opmisc we can reach an agreement. We also plan our site improvements (mandated by city) like widened sidewalks and light, will now be integrated into those park improvements to facilitate the connecon from city and city bike/pedestrian access to the park through our property. This improves the walking infrastructure of the intersecon and area. Expanding Public Infrastructure (secon F of SLC criteria) Our project significantly contributes to expanding public use infrastructure, particularly in the areas of safety and parking. Enhanced Security Presence: Our hotel's 24‐hour occupancy and security presence, made possible by the rezone, will provide a connuous, lighted, and monitored space adjacent to Sugar House Park. We understand from city officials that park safety, including concerns about unhoused individuals, is a priority. While we deeply empathize with their situaon, we are also aware that police occasionally conduct park sweeps, which can lead individuals to gather near our property. Our round‐the‐clock operaons, coupled with 24‐hour camera surveillance, will acvely complement exisng police security plans in the park, enhancing their efforts for the benefit of both locals and law enforcement. At our other managed hotel properes, we rounely welcome police during their rounds, offering amenies like coffee and a safe parking spot, a pracce we intend to connue at this locaon. Substanal Public Use Parking Garage: During our community engagement, we recognized that parking is a major neighborhood concern. We share this concern, as our guests and visitors also need convenient parking without relying on already‐occupied street spaces. Therefore, we designed a large, fully underground garage to accommodate the concern. Despite our third‐party parking feasibility study and Salt Lake City code indicang sufficient capacity, community feedback prompted us to connually increase the garage's size. As it is underground, this expansion creates no negave visual impact. This infrastructure provides several key benefits: Our 180+ space garage offers a significant surplus of parking spots available for non‐ guest paid use. During dayme hours and on most non‐event nights, we will have ample parking to serve community members and support future development on adjacent blocks following recent zoning changes. Even during high‐demand periods, our calculaons confirm sufficient spots for non‐guest parking. This esmated $13 million infrastructure improvement is only feasible with the rezone, which allows us to achieve the necessary surface density. It represents a substanal investment that will greatly benefit the community and the hotel as the area grows and would not be economically possible with lesser density zoning. Integrated Park Improvements: As detailed in the "Dedicaon of Public Space" secon (SLC Criteria Secon C), we are acve ly collaborang with the Sugar House Park Authority on significant park improvements. These enhancements are also directly applicable under this public infrastructure criterion, further bolstering connecvity and public amenies Conclusion The SHH Development represents a unique opportunity to bring substanal, tangible benefits to the Sugar House community. From significant tax revenues and job creaon to a vibrant public art installaon, dedicated public spaces, and crucial parking infrastructure, our project is designed to be a posive catalyst for the neighborhood. We appreciate the City's, and most importantly, the Community's me and consideraon throughout this engagement process. We are certainly looking to formalize, in a legally binding manner, any point raised in this document. We are commied to being a valuable and integrated part of the Sugar House fabric. Thank you John Poer Sugar House Hotel LLC and Magnus Hotel Management This page has intentionally been left blank Telephone - 801.201.0712 | Email - francis.lilly@gmail.com FRANCIS XAVIER LILLY, AICP 916 EAST QUEENSMILL LANE SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84106 14 October 2025 Salt Lake City Planning Commission c/o Amanda Roman, Urban Designer RE: General Plan & Zoning Map Amendment for the Sugar House Hotel at Approximately 2111 S 1300 E Dear members of the Planning Commission, Thank you for the work you do for the community. Know that Salt Lake City is a better place for your efforts. I hope to be able to attend your meeting next Wednesday, but I may not be able to, so I am writing you instead to offer public comment regarding the proposed Sugar House Hotel. I am a Sugar House resident, and I’m generally in favor of the changes our neighborhood has experienced in the last decade or so. I understand these changes are fairly dramatic, but I also notice and commend the significant public investment that has taken place there. I am enjoying the new restaurants and retail opportunities on offer. I also acknowledge that growth is an inevitability in an area as wonderful as ours, and that we need to proceed with care about how we grow. I was opposed to the proposed convenience store because it was a bad use for the corner, and it posed intolerable environmental risks to Sugar House Park. You took the brave and risky decision to deny that conditional use permit, and it was the right call. When I heard about the proposed hotel at this location, I was relieved, even when considering the additional height. The additional height will have virtually no impact on surrounding neighbors, as the site is surrounded entirely by commercial uses, or the park itself. I appreciate the concerns of the Sugar House Park Authority and the Sugar House Community Council about the impacts to the park, but I think that a high-end hospitality use with a restaurant would be a good complement to the park (great parks around the world have hotels like this nearby), and would be a good thing for the neighborhood. I would most likely use it, for guests from out of town, or to enjoy the proposed restaurant uses. Economic development is a legitimate planning purpose, and is essential to placemaking. The hotel will provide jobs, ancillary retail amenities, and a use that could actually engage the park. The transient room tax is also an enormous benefit to the community. I know my neighbors mean well - but there's also downside risk in a neighborhood militating against any land use proposal they see, and I am concerned about the future of the site absent a proposal as solid as this one. I understand that the owner of the property is not motivated to sell, and is happy with a land lease. I also know that the City cannot obtain the property using eminent domain, at least for the use of additional open space. While I suppose, in a perfect world, the land would simply become an extension of Sugar House Park, I do not think that is a realistic prospect given the property owner’s disposition. I also know that eventually, something will happen there, and we have to be mindful about what's the best (or least bad option). As I see it, the options are a) a gas station or something with a drive-through use, b) multifamily of some sort, or c) hospitality. That's what the market wants. In my professional life, I worked as a planner for South Salt Lake. In that time, I navigated the political complexities of a neighborhood that resisted all sorts of change, including owner-occupied townhomes along the Jordan River. They even fought a tree farm that was located between the road and the river, despite the fact the property was zoned agricultural. Fast forward 15 years, every last one of the neighbors who protested these changes are gone, having been bought out by Salt Lake County, when the state and the County made the decision to locate the Pamela Atkinson Men’s Resource Center at that site. This is an extreme case, but I've seen versions of this play out elsewhere, and my sense tells me that the hotel proposal is as close to a win the city will get on this property, unless it were to purchase the property outright and donate it to the Sugar House Park Authority. As a municipal taxpayer, I'm not convinced that acquiring the land is a wise use of our funds. Salt Lake City has social equity needs that demands investment in open space elsewhere, not near Sugar House Park. In other words, by all means spend millions on improving open space in the Ballpark and North Temple neighborhoods. In fact, there's something to be said for promoting economic development in Sugar House, where land values are already high, to fund the city’s efforts to build up neighborhoods that don't have the same advantages we do in Sugar House. I appreciate that there are concerns about changing the Sugar House Master Plan. I note that the plan was approved by the Planning Commission nearly 20 years ago. It is a testament to the plan’s quality that it remains a meaningful guidance document to inform policy decisions, despite significant growth, technological advancement, and changing development pressures. Plans can and should change to adapt to changing circumstances. Two decades ago, Sizzler was a thriving concern on the corner and one could reasonably assume that a restaurant would continue to thrive at that location, and that a low-intensity mixed use designation was the right answer for the property. Times change, and we as a city should not be afraid to consider a change of designation if and when a reasonable proposal is made. I think the hotel is a reasonable proposal. It is a well-thought out site plan that contributes to the other placemaking goals of the Sugar House Master Plan, including many of the design guidelines listed in the plan’s urban design element. I recognize that this property is across the street of what the plan calls the “Business District” – but extending that designation across the street is wise, if it facilitates a project that adds something of value to the community. The proposal of a hotel that is well articulated on all four sides and provides community amenities in the form of a restaurant and ground-level retail opportunities is, to me, worth the trade-off of additional height. My bottom line is that the hotel proposal is light years ahead of the gas station in terms of aesthetic, environmental, and traffic impacts. This adds to the neighborhood, without taking anything significant away. I encourage the Planning Commission to work with the applicant on continuing to refine the design to ensure that the massing and materials are truly excellent, but otherwise I enthusiastically support this change. Sincerely yours, Francis Xavier Lilly, AICP Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From:Lynne Olson To:Roman, Amanda Subject:(EXTERNAL) Opposition to Magnus Hotel Zoning Amendment Request Date:Tuesday, October 7, 2025 2:30:15 PM Attachments:Lttr re Magnus Petition to rezone_FLO_10-7-25.docx October 7, 2025 Amanda Roman, Urban Designer, SLC Planning Division Subject: In Opposition to General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment Request Petition No. PLNPCM2025-00622 & PLNPCM2025-00624 After reading as much as I can about the proposal by Magnus Hotel Management to change the zoning for 2111 S 1300 E. in order to build a seven-story hotel there, I've concluded that this is nothing more than a solution looking for a problem. At the City's website describing the new Mixed Use Zoning Districts, I found the following information: ... This proposal seeks to create a desirable mix of commercial and residential uses, as well as neighborhood focused amenities. ...Within this framework, buildings are scaled to be context appropriate and to enhance neighborhood place-making and walkability. ... All new mixed-use (MU) zones will allow both commercial and residential uses and will maintain a building scale similar to what is currently allowed. The subject site is currently (newly) zoned as MU-3 : This zone would allow buildings up to 35' in height The arguments provided for considering this general plan and zoning amendment are issues that do not currently exist - i. e. the need for another hotel, another restaurant or coffee shop, an event venue and more retail space. All of these currently exist in the SH Business District and they don't need any more competition. The need for more public parking in the Business core is clear. However, the proposed hotel use will simply attract more automobiles and increase traffic at an already over-burdened intersection. Improve Sugar House Park? How? By pouring a new sidewalk or creating a new bike path on public land where they're not currently needed? Under "Transportation Benefits" is the claim that the hotel will lower traffic generation. This statement comes after citing the inclusion of an "excess supply" (180 spaces) in an underground garage. Finally, under the heading "Ground Lease Challenges," the developer contends that denying this rezoning request "would undeniably impede the broader neighborhood redevelopment...." What redevelopment...where? the rest of Sugar House Park? The stable single-family neighborhood north of 2100 South? In short, there are no currently existing conditions or recent changes that require up-zoning the corner only to suit a development of the scale and intensity of the use proposed by Magnus Hotel. The only legitimate complaint regarding this corner is about the unsightly asphalt parking lot on the site, and that can be easily remedied by grading it and planting grass there. Respectfully, Lynne Olson 1878 Lincoln St. (less than a mile from the Draw) From:Vickee Boswell To:Roman, Amanda Subject:(EXTERNAL) Purposed hotel 21st So / 1300 E Date:Sunday, October 5, 2025 8:56:21 PM Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. My concerns: building height, overall size, adequate space for parking. Additional traffic issues at an already congested intersection. Loss of sight line, open view. Pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Too much going on for lot size and location. Question, is there a bus pickup/dropoff located in that area of 13th East? If so what considerations are needed? My wish, while costly, would be for SLC to purchase the lot and incorporate into the park, an opportunity to consider the aesthetic value, expand the beauty and peaceful atmosphere, retain the open view. I appreciate the opportunity to express my thoughts Vickee Boswell, fifty plus year resident of this area. From:Chris Niebuhr To:Roman, Amanda Subject:(EXTERNAL) Re: Sizzler Hotel Date:Sunday, October 19, 2025 5:13:15 PM Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 19, 2025, at 3:00 PM, Chris Niebuhr <csn0838@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello Amanda, > I am emailing to express my disapproval of the proposed hotel at the location of the old sizzler restaurant on the north west corner of sugarhouse park. This is already a very busy intersection and cramming in a hotel will make this even worse. There are better places in sugarhouse for a hotel. If a hotel is even necessary, the corner of 2100 s and 1100 east (old Wells Fargo and parking garage) would be more centrally located and give better access to sugarhouse. I would like to know the occupancy numbers from the next closest hotel to determine if this is even a worthy option. Also, a hotel would be an eye sore from the beautiful park. I propose it being given to the park and see SLC prioritize green space. Another option would be a well designed, single level building with a cafe. A park facing patio would be a nice option for the community. > Thanks > Chris Niebuhr - resident of highland park > Sent from my iPhone Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From:Hunter Stuercke To:Roman, Amanda Subject:(EXTERNAL) 2111 south 1300 east Date:Monday, October 20, 2025 10:27:45 AM Hi Amanda, I am a concerned citizen reaching out regarding the lot at the corner of 1300 east and 2100 south (the former sizzler lot). This lot could have immense community value but if it is turned into a hotel it will 1) block mountain views, 2) lead to a congestion problem, and 3) provide value only to tourists and not the local community. Has the city considered purchasing the lot and renting it to local food truck vendors (and possible beer garden) for a year round food truck park? This would be a better use of the space for the community and has been done in several cities and is highly successful typically. I look forward to hearing back from you and thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Hunter Stuercke Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From:Norris, Nick To:Roman, Amanda Subject:Fwd: (EXTERNAL) Opposed to the hotel in Sugar House Park Date:Tuesday, October 21, 2025 4:06:47 PM Nick Norris Planning Director Salt Lake City sent from my cell phone, please excuse typos Begin forwarded message: From: Jan Hemming > Date: October 21, 2025 at 3:45:29 PM MDT To: "Clark, Aubrey" <Aubrey.Clark@slc.gov> Cc: "cc: Judi Short" <judi.short@gmail.com>, Sugar House Community Council & Salt Lake Community Network <minnesotaute76@gmail.com>, "Dugan, Dan" <Dan.Dugan@slc.gov>, "Norris, Nick" <Nick.Norris@slc.gov>, "Young, Sarah" <sarah.young@slc.gov> Subject: (EXTERNAL) Opposed to the hotel in Sugar House Park Aubrey: Would you please distribute this letter to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission prior to tomorrow night’s Commission meeting. Thank you. October 21, 2025 Dear Salt Lake City Planning Commission Re: Case Number: PLNPCM2025-00622 and Case Number: PLNPCM2025-00624 Please vote against the request from Magnus Hotel Management to build a 95-foot hotel next to the Sugar House Park – on less than an acre of property at one of the busiest street corners and regional freeway interchanges in Salt Lake. This is more than just a project proposal on the east side of Salt Lake. It is, frankly, an insult to those who believe and understand that precious green spaces like Sugar House Park deserve special protection from this city so their intended purposes can thrive. Parks are a retreat from the very urban encroachment that a yes vote from this Commission would impose on this little bit of heaven on Salt Lake’s East side. While we respect Salt Lake City’s planning division and the professionals who work there – rejecting their positive recommendation is not a rejection of them. They just got it wrong this time. Hotels aren’t permitted in an MU-3 zone. The developers are trying to cram something on a space where it doesn’t belong. The developer claimed in a news article this week there is a “gap in the hotel market” and that’s why this new hotel is needed. That is blatantly false. In Sugar House, less than a mile from this very location are two motel properties -- Extended Stay America Suites with 107 rooms, and Spring Hill Suites by Marriott on 1300 East with 125 rooms. Along the nearby Foothill Drive corridor there are three more motel properties with another 404 rooms. Together all these motels offer nearly 640 rooms in close proximity of each other. There are 20,000 hotel/motel rooms in Salt Lake Metro Area and another 5,312 AirBNB and Vrbo properties in Salt Lake alone. Yesterday, the Rocky Mountain Lodging Report announced that Salt Lake’s motel and hotel occupancy rate for 2025 is 70.3% -- that’s a 30% cushion. There is no need for another hotel in Sugar House Park. Not now. Not ever. It’s the wrong project in the wrong place. Lastly, have you ever been stalled in traffic along 2100 South as cars enter and exit the parking lot where the Extended Stay America Suites is located -- just yards from this proposed hotel? It’s maddening. Please be forewarned: This proposed hotel will cause traffic congestion and will cause traffic problems if it’s approved. Anyone on this Commission who thinks that’s not true is simply ignoring reality and ignoring the knowledge of people who live, drive and work in this area. Along with thousands of those who have signed a petition against this project, I hope that when you vote, common sense will prevail, not dollar signs, not a 349-page report from the city Planning staff, not pressure from a developer. Respectfully, Jan Hemming Homeowner, SLC resident, past chair, Yalecrest Neighborhood Council Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From:Jennifer Mallory To:Roman, Amanda Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fwd: STOP THE 95 FOOT HOTEL IN SUGARHOUSE PARK Date:Monday, October 20, 2025 12:46:03 PM Good Afternoon Amanda, I was encouraged to contact you since I will not be able to attend the SLC Council meeting on the 22nd. I have been a long-term resident of Salt Lake and used to run from my home on 1158 Ramona Ave to Sugar House Park almost daily. Almost daily, I would be crossing 2100 South or 1300 East to get there. After several near misses with cars not paying attention, I had to either drive to the park or just stop going. It was too dangerous. Now, imagine how much more dangerous putting a hotel with a blind driveway would be for pedestrians. Imagine how dangerous it will be to access that park during construction with large trucks and materials during the construction. Imagine how dangerous that intersection will be with large service trucks going in and out of that driveway. The following link to a petition with over 1,800 signatures on opposition to the hotel is for your review. Please review it. Please see how over 1,800 users of the park don’t want to see our gem of a park ruined, and are in opposition to a structure that will cause a dangerous intersection to become even more dangerous. All because those on the planning commission won’t believe the actual patrons of users of this intersection and park by are forcing a structure that does not belong there. Please do not allow this hotel to go forward. The petition “STOP THE 95 FOOT HOTEL IN SUGARHOUSE PARK”. Our goal is to reach 2,500 signatures and we need more support. You can read more and sign the petition here: https://c.org/CqHkv2HCcn Thank you, Jennifer Mallory Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From:Judi Short To:Roman, Amanda Subject:(EXTERNAL) Another comment for the Sugar House Hotel Date:Monday, October 20, 2025 2:22:50 PM ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: K Taylor < Date: Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 11:15 AM Subject: Sugarhouse Hotel To: Judi Short > Dear Judi, I read with great concern comments regarding the building of the hotel. I have written several times as have my neighbors and friends regarding how detrimental this will be to the neighborhood. When I look at the letters and comments, the positive ones are not individuals who live in the vicinity. I am opposed to the construction of the hotel and live on Hannibal Street. Accessibility: The corner location is one of the busiest intersections in the city. During school beginning and ending hours, and morning and evening rush hours, cars are backed up 2100 South and it takes several light changes to access I-80. Many drivers will avoid the area by driving through the neighborhood south of I-80. While the location near a major freeway may be an incentive for the hotel builders, you have failed to account for the traffic to Westminster and the University of Utah. Include the construction and remodel of Highland High School and the difficulty accessing businesses with the changes made along 2100 South in your calculations to the impact on the community. While entering the facility is limited to those coming up the slower 2100 South and off NB 1300 East, exiting will have to be east up 2100 adding to the congestion. Accessing through Sugarhouse Park would deteriorate the quality, safety and purpose of the park. I initially thought the road construction that has been ongoing for several years was to address the aging infrastructure of the plumbing system which has created an abundance of business for rotor and plumbing businesses. Why was it necessary to slow traffic and block off access to businesses in this area - were there auto, bicycle or pedestrian accidents? Was speeding a problem? I have not seen any data to suggest these reasons. It seems to me that you are moving to change the family oriented residential neighborhood to a younger, more mass transit or bicycle oriented individual. The number of expensive apartment complexes and existing hotels add to the limited resources.There is limited parking for Sugarhouse businesses, The changes to the road to slow traffic have indeed accomplished that adding navigational difficulties and confusion to driving. We don't go to the restaurants and businesses there because it is a hassle. Have businesses been consulted about this endeavor? Did anyone think about what impact this would have on those who frequent the park. Were considerations made for Highland High. Ultimately, it comes down to is this an area where someone can raise their family, have children walk to school, play in the park, and run errands utilizing local businesses. I don't feel that you see this as a residential neighborhood anymore. Consequently, my property value is decreasing and my standard of living is lessened by a hotel in this area. Karen Zollinger Taylor From:Kathryn Casull To:Roman, Amanda Subject:(EXTERNAL) Hotel at Sugarhouse Park Date:Sunday, October 19, 2025 7:00:15 PM Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Hello. I live in the Sugarhouse/Highland Park neighborhood, and I do not want this hotel to be built on the corner of 1300 E. 2100 s. The hotel is too big for that space and the traffic on 1300 E and 2100 S is too awful for this endeavor. Thanks. Kathryn Casull Sent from my iPhone Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From:Lindsay Anderson To:amanda.roman@sic.gov; Roman, Amanda Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fwd: Sugar house sizzler location Date:Sunday, October 19, 2025 8:22:23 PM ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Lindsay <lins727@gmail.com> Date: Sun, Oct 19, 2025 at 2:16 PM Subject: Sugar house sizzler location To: <amanda.roman@sic.gov> I am begging you not to put a hotel here. This area is so poorly laid out and traffic and parking are impossible. This will be a nightmare for anyone traveling north or south on 1300. Stop overdeveloping sugarhouse! These businesses are lifeless and add nothing to the community. Put something in that will complement the beauty and experience of sugar house park! Sent from my iPhone Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From:lorna anderson To:Roman, Amanda Subject:(EXTERNAL) Sugarhouse Park Sizzler Lot Date:Monday, October 20, 2025 2:49:42 PM Hi Amanda, I would like to put my two cents in for what’s its worth. Sugarhouse has already become so overbuilt from its humble beginnings, I would hate to have one more oversized project added to the already congested streets and to take away from the scenic view that still exists from that northwest corner of our beautiful park. Please take into consideration those of us who live here, have lived here, improved and taken care of our historic properties . There are a great many new and nice apartments and businesses but pausing on expansion or at the very least being moderate and thoughtful for future plans can also be seen as progress. Thank you Lorna Anderson Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From:Lynne Olson To:Roman, Amanda Subject:(EXTERNAL) Comment for Planning Commission Staff Report 10-14-2025 Date:Tuesday, October 14, 2025 8:42:01 PM Attachments:image.png Amanda Roman, Urban Designer, SLC Planning Division Dear Ms. Roman, I would like the Planning Commission to consider the consequences of constructing a 90-ft. building and excavating twenty feet of soil from the proposed Magnus Hotel site. The intersection at 2100 So. & 1300 E. is busy and often congested, with pedestrian as well as auto traffic. I am concerned about the disruption that construction activity will cause at that corner, and the likelihood that all kinds of traffic will be severely impacted if the proposed building construction ever takes place. Sugar House is familiar with this kind of construction. In 2008, Developer Craig Mecham persuaded the City to allow him to demolish buildings in the Sugar House Business center from which several small local businesses had been evicted. The lot was cleared and excavated for underground parking. Then the softening of the economy made the developer nervous, and work stopped. However, the preliminary excavation had created a hole in the ground that would have required 300 truckloads of dirt to fill. The City was concerned about a pit that did not drain and worried about what might happen if unseasonably severe rainstorms caused the infamous "Sugar Hole" to become a swimming pool. The vehicles hauling that dirt away could only access the site from Highland Drive and 2100 South, just as dump trucks will have to come onto the Sizzler site from 1300 East and 2100 South and exit the same way. As we know, the Vue at Sugar House Crossing was eventually built in 2012, followed by other high-rise residential developments that permanently changed the character of the historic Business District. The only justification for a change to MU8 zoning at the Sizzler site is the Project-Driven Benefit of allowing construction of an oversized building that might return enough income to satisfy the applicant's obligation to pay off a 16-year ground lease. The cost to residents and commuters will be just as high. Respectfully, Lynne Olson 1878 Lincoln St, SLC Photo credit: Laurie Bray Photography Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From:Judi Short To:Roman, Amanda Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fwd: LUZ Comment Date:Monday, October 20, 2025 2:42:24 PM Another comment Judi Short 801.864.7387 c ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: SHCC LUZ <comments@sugarhousecouncil.org> Date: Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 10:54 AM Subject: LUZ Comment To: <comments@sugarhousecouncil.org> SHCC Comment Form List of Proposals Sugar House Hotel First Name Suzanne Last Name Eskenazi Email Your Comments for the Planning Commission I have lived in Sugar House for 12 years, during which time I've seen massive growth and neverending construction. One of the places of solitude in the area is Sugar House Park. I am vehemently opposed to the approval of a hotel at the corner of 2100 South and 1300 East. The building is too large for the space and I am concerned about a lack of parking, more traffic, and the disregard for the environment. What we need is to respect the park and the people and community that utilize it, not to construct a multi-story hotel for which there is no need. Please consider the wishes of the community that use the park. Your Street Address 826 E. Garfield Avenue Referral https://sugarhousecouncil.org/aveda-vocational-school-855-garfield/ Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From:Bobbi Gardner To:Roman, Amanda Subject:(EXTERNAL) Nature Conservancy & Sugar House Park Date:Wednesday, October 22, 2025 11:33:11 AM You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Amanda, Thank you for talking with me today about the Sugar House Park meeting today. I am sending the contact information for The Nature Conservancy for your use now or in the future. The Nature Conservancy 4245 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 100 Arlington, VA 22203 nature.org Some years ago I was involved in a real estate transaction whereby they "saved" 2000 acres in Lee Canyon outside of Las Vegas. They acquire land to preserve by trading other land that can be developed by the owner, thus preserving nature. Perhaps the owners of the parcel adjacent to Sugar House Park would like a much larger property to build on rather than less than one acre next to the Park that should be protected rather than developed. Thanks for all your help. Regards, Bobbi Gardner Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From:Jim Catano To:Roman, Amanda Subject:(EXTERNAL) Re: Comment on 2111 S. 1300 E. hotel proposal Date:Wednesday, October 22, 2025 11:45:04 AM You don't often get email from j Learn why this is important The above email is for Case Number: PLNPCM2025-00622 B. Zoning Map Amendment: Requesting to rezone the property from MU-3 to MU-8. Case Number: PLNPCM2025-00624 On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 11:42 AM Jim Catano wrote: I used to go to Sugarhouse regularly but now try to avoid the area due to too much traffic on 13th East and 2100 South. The commission should reject the proposal to build a hotel on that small plot, and the city instead should purchase the land at fair market value through eminent domain and include the land in Sugarhouse Park. James Catano City, UT 84103 Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From:Jim Jenkin To:Planning Public Comments Cc:Norris, Nick; Wharton, Chris; Olivia Erikson Subject:(EXTERNAL) Sugarhouse Hotel re-zone, PLNPCM2025-00622 and Case Number: PLNPCM2025-00624 Date:Wednesday, October 22, 2025 10:30:25 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important October 22, 2025 Dear Salt Lake City Planning Commission Re: Case Number: PLNPCM2025-00622 and Case Number: PLNPCM2025-00624 Please vote against the request from Magnus Hotel Management to build a 95-foot hotel next to the Sugar House Park. Sugarhouse Park represents a unique City amenity, much the same as zoo, or an arboretum, and is beyond the reach the of the general City Planning guidelines that led to a favorable Planning recommendation. If the existing MU-3 Zone is to be changed, it should be to a Special Development district for the Park. The proposed development will: Inappropriately provide a “private entrance” to the public green space for hotel patrons. Negatively impact what is already one of the worst intersections in the city. Discourage Park use near the development by physical shadowing. Discourage Park use by all those sensitive to the socio-economic differences between many Park users and the “privileged class” of Hotel guests. The proposed Public benefit of reduced rent retail space to local vendors is, at best a two edged sword, in that it will suck businesses out of neighborhoods in the quest for tourist dollars. The project sets the wrong precedent for development adjacent to unique public space, which, once established, cannot be undone. Please keep this unique City amenity equally enjoyable to all citizens by retaining the current zone. Respectfully submitted, Jim Jenkin Private Citizen Former Chair, Greater Avenues Community Council Former member, SLC Transportation Advisory Board Current Chair, Land Use Committee, Greater Avenues Community Council Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From:Laurie Bray To:Roman, Amanda Subject:(EXTERNAL) Sugar House Hotel Date:Wednesday, October 22, 2025 11:56:10 AM You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Amanda, I have attached a photo I took from the roof of the building my business is located in when The Vue was being constructed in 2013. The developer did not plan on this water back up and flood. I would like some reassurances that the city will study the water table at the site where the hotel is proposed. How do we know something similar will not happen? In addition the earthen dam, not only a utilitarian piece, but a remarkable piece of public art, could be threatened. As a Sugar House business owner and a frequent user of Sugar House Park, I think it is imperative that a traffic study be done of that corner. It is obvious, from what happened on McClelland south of 2100 2 years ago and the recent redesign, that the traffic division does not always visit the area before they design things. The lack of parking and inconvenience of navigating the area has kept visitors from outside the area away. That has been devastating to local businesses. Apparently the city could buy this property under eminent domain. Is this not a consideration because the city is more interested in tax revenue than what their constituents want? Best Regards Laurie Bray -- Laurie Bray Photography by Laurie 1066 E 2100 S, STE 23 Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Testimony | October 22nd, 2025 Salt Lake City Planning Commission Re: General Plan & Zoning Map Amendment for the Sugar House Hotel at Approximately 2111 S 1300 E By: Richard Layman, board member, Sugar House Park (speaking on my own behalf) 1330 East 2100 South (the address used by the former Sizzler restaurant) isn’t an ordinary lot. It immediately abuts Sugar House Park, a large regional park in both the city and county park systems. The planning staff’s argument appears to ignore this, and treats the parcel no differently than any other commercial lot in the city. It ignores the land use context, that the site abuts and is enveloped by a large 100+ acre park. (See photos on the next page.) My understanding is that the Planning Department didn’t seek comments from the Department of Public Lands, half owner of the park, about this matter. Parks like Central Park, even Fairmont Park, are surrounded by tall buildings. But the buildings are across the street, not on the park parcel. This is true of most urban parks in major cities. Dozens of other examples come to mind, just counting NYC, Washington, DC, Boston, and Chicago. Sugar House Park When the Sugar House Master Plan update was approved, this lot was not included in the Town Center upzone for a reason. Dozens of other examples of intact park spaces come to mind, just counting NYC, Washington, DC, Boston, and Chicago. Central Park When the Sugar House Master Plan update was approved, this lot was not included in the Town Center upzone for a reason. The lot in question abuts the park, the park and site are the gateway to the low density residential district to the north and east. 1300 East is the dividing line of development intensity, until you get to Foothill Boulevard, and even on Foothill, no building is as tall as is allowed in the Sugar House Town Center. The site was zoned as “neighborhood serving” not regionally serving. That’s why the staff report conclusion that the proposal: “aligns with the Sugar House Plan and citywide growth policies, which support higher-density, mixed-use development near transit corridors and key intersections” Is misguided. This isn’t a site within the Town Center, it won’t add housing, it makes a marginal addition to the stock of mixed use development in the city. The nature of the customer type means they are not likely to use transit to get to the property. They will drive. To riff off the writings of the French philosopher Jacques Derrida about analysis of “text and context,” the staff report relies on the analysis of the various planning “texts” guiding the city without adequately considering site context and the cultural landscape of the Park. In my opinion, a hotel would puncture the park landscape in an extremely negative manner. 2. 2100 South / 1300 East isn’t what a commercial real estate agent would call a 100% intersection, because it is on the edge of the district, not within it and because so far all four corners are low density. Instead 1100 East/Highland Drive / 2100 South is the “100% intersection” and it would be more appropriate to add this use to the already existing Town Center geography, rather than extend the intensity of the Town Center outward (which likely would put pressure for upzoning properties on the 1200 block of 1300 East and the 1300-1600 blocks of 2100 South). The staff report says that upzoning these parcels is in keeping with city wide planning goals. There are times when city wide and neighborhood planning goals are incongruent. The Sugar House Master Plan clearly indicated a step down of density as parcels approached the residential district. Spot rezoning upward of these parcels is counter to the master plan neighborhood planning process, which did result in one intensified geographically compact zone. 3. Furthermore, with regard to “key intersections,” as cited from the staff report, from a traffic engineering standpoint, there is only one way in and one way out of the site, creating further pressures on an already failing intersection. This is what I call “designing conflict in” rather than what I believe one of the goals of planning to be, that of “designing conflict out” – making it easier to use a place, not harder, not pushing negative effects and costs onto other streets and properties. 4. Impacts on the Park. Concerns about the project have been expressed by our Park staff. First, they are concerned about parking overflow into the park because of the parking garage being full, oversized vehicles, and that parking in the park is free. It doesn’t seem as if special event planning for the hotel adequately addresses peak parking demand generated by special events beyond average demand generated by normal hotel occupancy.. Second, they expressed concerns about “trespassing.” The park closes at 11pm. Will there be cars parked in the Park overnight because of hotel use? How will those people exit the park when the gates are closed? Also hotel proximity may increase the number of people in the park after hours, and those hours tend to be the most problematic in terms of the potential for vandalism. 5. Regardless of whether or not the rezone is approved, material concessions are required from Sugar House Park, completely independent of any “community benefits” already negotiated by the city. The developer has not been upfront about this, and hasn’t offered compensation which would be typical. Instead, it rolled these concessions into a Letter of Understanding, relying on the city’s agreed community benefits to suffice, even though the concessions are material. To me, this borders on deceptive, and is another reason to oppose the project. 6. Financial costs imposed on Sugar House Park by the project. The legal complexities involved in this case would require Sugar House Park to hire a highly experienced and expensive land use attorney/firm to represent our interests. We do not have significant excess funds to pay for this. In all likelihood, it would wipe out our fund balance, limiting our ability to respond to infrastructure emergencies as they arise, and would mean that we need to seriously consider an increase in pavilion rental fees to begin to restore that balance. Conclusion. These arguments are reasons to not support the upzone for this particular lot. Thank you. Franklin Park, Washington, DC Union Square, San Francisco Grant Park, Chicago This page has intentionally been left blank OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR OWN_CITY VIEW STREET BRE LLC EET BRE LLC 2711 N SEPULVEDA BLVD MANHATTAN BEACH DODO INVESTMENT GROUP SUGARHOUSE LLC ARHOUSE LLC 3690 FORT UNION BLVD #2O4 COTTONWOOD HTS SAMANTHA J DIAMANTI; JOSEPH HERRERA (JT) ERRERA (JT)2025 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY JEFFREY JOHNSTON EY JOHNSTON 2027 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE RAPE CRISIS CENTER INC CENTER INC 2035 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY ORCAS INVESTMENT COMPANY ENT COMPANY 4372 POINT WHITE DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WAYNE LEASING LLC LEASING LLC PO BOX 1610 COCKEYSVILLE HARMAN MANAGEMENT CORP GEMENT CORP 5544 S GREEN ST MURRAY MECHAM PARKVIEW ASSOCIATES, LLC CIATES, LLC PO BOX 521448 SALT LAKE CITY SKM PETERSON LLC ETERSON LLC 3574 N 150 W PROVO SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY RIVERPARK SUGARHOUSE, LLC RHOUSE, LLC 10701 S RIVER FRONT PKWY SOUTH JORDAN ROMNEY FARR PROPERTIES INC PERTIES INC 1052 S OAK HILLS WY SALT LAKE CITY SUGAR HOUSE PARK AUTHORITY INC 6332 S AIRPORT RD WEST JORDAN Current Occupant 1327 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 1355 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 2036 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 2037 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 2071 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 1251 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 1255 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 1269 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 2045 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 1228 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 2150 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 2110 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 2118 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 2120 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 2138 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 1240 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 1316 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 2111 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 2139 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 2155 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 2155 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 1500 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY OWN_STATEOWN_ZIP CA 90266 UT 84121 UT 84105 UT 84105 UT 84105 WA 98110 MD 21030 UT 84123 UT 84152 UT 84604 UT 84114 UT 84095 UT 84108 UT 84084 UT 84105 UT 84105 UT 84105 UT 84105 UT 84106 UT 84106 UT 84106 UT 84106 UT 84105 UT 84106 UT 84106 UT 84106 UT 84106 UT 84106 UT 84106 UT 84106 UT 84105 UT 84105 UT 84105 UT 84105 UT 84105 UT 84105 This page has intentionally been left blank 1220 North 500 West, Ste. 202 Lehi, UT 84043 p 801.766.4343 www.halesengineering.com Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study Salt Lake City, Utah April 18, 2025 UT24-2936 NO. 12890754 Jordi J. Berrett 04/18/2025 Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study addresses the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Sugarhouse Hotel development located in Salt Lake City, Utah. The development is located on the southeast corner of the 1300 East / 2100 South intersection. The purpose of this traffic impact study is to analyze traffic operations at key intersections for existing (2025) and future (2030) conditions with and without the proposed project and to recommend mitigation measures as needed. The morning and evening peak hour level of service (LOS) results are shown in Table ES-1. A site plan of the project is provided in Appendix A. Table ES-1: Peak Hour Level of Service Results SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS Project Conditions · The development will consist of a hotel, retail space, and fine dining restaurant. · The project is anticipated to generate approximately 1,493 weekday daily trips, including 78 trips in the morning peak hour, and 132 trips in the evening peak hour 2025 Background Plus Project Assumptions · None · Signal timing optimized Findings · Acceptable LOS · Excessive NB queuing on 1300 East during the evening peak hour · Poor LOS at the West Access / 1300 East intersection due to NB queuing on 1300 East Mitigations · 1300 East / 2100 South: o Adjust signal timing o City could consider dual NB LT lanes · None Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study ii 2030 Background Plus Project Assumptions · Signal timing optimized · Signal timing optimized Findings · Acceptable LOS · Excessive NB queuing on 1300 East during the evening peak hour · Poor LOS at the West Access / 1300 East intersection due to NB queuing on 1300 East o Project traffic may reroute to the North Access during peak times to avoid excessive delays Mitigations · None · None Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study iii TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... i SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... i TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................. iii LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................................ iv LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................... iv I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1 A. Purpose ................................................................................................................................................. 1 B. Scope .................................................................................................................................................... 2 C. Analysis Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 2 D. Level of Service Standards ................................................................................................................... 2 II. EXISTING (2025) BACKGROUND CONDITIONS............................................................................... 4 A. Purpose ................................................................................................................................................. 4 B. Roadway System .................................................................................................................................. 4 C. Crash Data Summary ............................................................................................................................ 4 D. Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................................................................... 5 E. Level of Service Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 5 F. Queuing Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 6 G. Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................................................. 6 III. PROJECT CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................................... 9 A. Purpose ................................................................................................................................................. 9 B. Project Description ................................................................................................................................ 9 C. Trip Generation ..................................................................................................................................... 9 D. Trip Distribution and Assignment ........................................................................................................ 10 E. Access ................................................................................................................................................. 11 IV. EXISTING (2025) PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS ........................................................................... 14 A. Purpose ............................................................................................................................................... 14 B. Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................................... 14 C. Level of Service Analysis .................................................................................................................... 14 D. Queuing Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 17 E. Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................................ 17 V. FUTURE (2030) BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ............................................................................... 18 A. Purpose ............................................................................................................................................... 18 B. Roadway Network ............................................................................................................................... 18 C. Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................................... 18 D. Level of Service Analysis .................................................................................................................... 18 E. Queuing Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 18 F. Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................................ 21 VI. FUTURE (2030) PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS .............................................................................. 22 A. Purpose ............................................................................................................................................... 22 B. Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................................... 22 C. Level of Service Analysis .................................................................................................................... 22 D. Queuing Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 22 E. Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................................ 22 Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study iv Appendix A: Project Site Plan Appendix B: Turning Movement Counts Appendix C: LOS Results Appendix D: Queuing Results Appendix E: Crash Data Reports LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Level of Service Description .................................................................................................... 3 Table 2: Crash Severity by Intersection ................................................................................................. 4 Table 3: Crash Type by Intersection ...................................................................................................... 5 Table 4: Existing (2025) Background Peak Hour LOS .......................................................................... 6 Table 5: Project Land Uses.................................................................................................................... 9 Table 6: Trip Generation ...................................................................................................................... 10 Table 7: New Trip Distribution.............................................................................................................. 10 Table 8: Existing (2025) Plus Project Peak Hour LOS ........................................................................ 14 Table 9: Future (2030) Background Peak Hour LOS .......................................................................... 21 Table 10: Future (2030) Plus Project Peak Hour LOS ........................................................................ 25 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Vicinity map showing the project location in Salt Lake City, Utah ......................................... 1 Figure 2: Existing (2025) background peak hour traffic volumes .......................................................... 7 Figure 3: Trip assignment for the peak hours ...................................................................................... 12 Figure 4: Existing (2025) plus project peak hour traffic volumes ........................................................ 15 Figure 5: Future (2030) background peak hour traffic volumes .......................................................... 19 Figure 6: Future (2030) plus project peak hour traffic volumes ........................................................... 23 Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study 1 I. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose This study addresses the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Sugarhouse Hotel development located in Salt Lake City, Utah. The proposed project is located on the southeast corner of 1300 East and 2100 South. Figure 1 shows a vicinity map of the proposed development. The purpose of this traffic impact study is to analyze traffic operations at key intersections for existing (2025) and future (2030) conditions with and without the proposed project and to recommend mitigation measures as needed. Figure 1: Vicinity map showing the project location in Salt Lake City, Utah Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study 2 B. Scope The study area was defined based on conversations with the development team. This study was scoped to evaluate the traffic operational performance impacts of the project on the following intersections: · 1300 East / 2100 South · Wilmington Avenue / 1300 East · West Access / 1300 East · North Access / 2100 South C. Analysis Methodology Level of service (LOS) is a term that describes the operating performance of an intersection or roadway. LOS is measured quantitatively and reported on a scale from A to F, with A representing the best performance and F the worst. Table 1 provides a brief description of each LOS letter designation and an accompanying average delay per vehicle for both signalized and unsignalized intersections. The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 7th Edition, 2022 methodology was used in this study to remain consistent with “state-of-the-practice” professional standards. This methodology has different quantitative evaluations for signalized and unsignalized intersections. For signalized, roundabout, and all-way stop-controlled (AWSC) intersections, the LOS is provided for the overall intersection (weighted average of all approach delays). For all other unsignalized intersections, LOS is reported based on the worst movement. Using Synchro/SimTraffic software, which follow the HCM methodology, the peak hour LOS was computed for each study intersection. Multiple runs of SimTraffic were used to provide a statistical evaluation of the interaction between the intersections. The detailed LOS reports are provided in Appendix C. Hales Engineering also calculated the 95th percentile queue lengths for the study intersections using SimTraffic. The detailed queue length reports are provided in Appendix D. Many of the figures in this report are printouts of the Synchro model. These figures are not meant to be a design exhibit for exact lane striping and design, due to the limitations of the Synchro software. Instead, the purpose of these figures is to show assumed peak hour turning movement volumes and the conceptual travel lane configuration of the study roadway network. D. Level of Service Standards For the purposes of this study, a minimum acceptable intersection performance for each of the study intersections was set at LOS D. If levels of service E or F conditions exist, an explanation and/or mitigation measures will be presented. A LOS D threshold is consistent with “state-of-the- practice” traffic engineering principles for urbanized areas. Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study 3 Table 1: Level of Service Description LOS Description of Traffic Conditions Average Delay (seconds/vehicle) Signalized Intersections Unsignalized Intersections A Free Flow / Insignificant Delay £ 10 £ 10 B Stable Operations / Minimum Delays > 10 to 20 > 10 to 15 C Stable Operations / Acceptable Delays > 20 to 35 > 15 to 25 D Approaching Unstable Flows / Tolerable Delays > 35 to 55 > 25 to 35 E Unstable Operations / Significant Delays > 55 to 80 > 35 to 50 F Forced Flows / Unpredictable Flows / Excessive Delays > 80 > 50 Source: Hales Engineering Descriptions, based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 7th Edition, 2022 Methodology (Transportation Research Board) Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study 4 II. EXISTING (2025) BACKGROUND CONDITIONS A. Purpose The purpose of the background analysis is to study the intersections and roadways during the peak travel periods of the day with background traffic and geometric conditions. Through this analysis, background traffic operational deficiencies can be identified, and potential mitigation measures recommended. This analysis provides a baseline condition that may be compared to the build conditions to identify the impacts of the development. B. Roadway System The primary roadways that will provide access to the project site are described below: 1300 East – is a city-maintained minor arterial roadway. The roadway has three travel lanes in each direction narrowing to two in each direction north of 2100 South. The posted speed limit is 35 mph in the study area. 2100 South – is a city-maintained minor arterial roadway. The roadway has two travel lanes in each direction separated by a center raised median except there are three travel lanes eastbound east of 1300 East. The posted speed limit is 30 mph in the study area. C. Crash Data Summary Hales Engineering obtained crash data within 250 feet of the study intersections. Five years of crash data were collected between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2023, and the data is summarized by crash severity in Table 2 and by crash type in Table 3. As shown, there were a total of 74 crashes within the study area. The detailed crash data reports are provided in Appendix E. Due to the use of crash data, this report may be protected by 23 USC 407. There were no suspected serious injury or fatal crashes reported in the study area. Table 2: Crash Severity by Intersection Intersection Crash Severity Total Crashes at Intersection Fatal Suspected Serious Injury Suspected Minor Injury Possible Injury Property Damage Only 1300 East / 2100 South 0 0 4 13 20 37 Wilmington Avenue / 1300 East 0 0 8 8 21 37 TOTAL 0 0 12 21 41 74 Source: UDOT Numetric AASHTOWare, April 2025 Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study 5 Table 3: Crash Type by Intersection Intersection Crash Type Total Crashes at Intersection Front to Rear Single Vehicle Angle Sideswipe Other 1300 East / 2100 South 15 4 15 5 3 37 Wilmington Avenue / 1300 East 10 4 18 3 2 37 TOTAL 23 8 33 8 2 74 Source: UDOT Numetric AASHTOWare, April 2025 Based on the identified trends in the crash data, no mitigations are recommended. D. Traffic Volumes Weekday morning (7:00 to 9:00 a.m.) and evening (4:00 to 6:00 p.m.) peak period traffic counts were performed at the following intersections: · 1300 East / 2100 South · Wilmington Avenue / 1300 East The counts were performed on Thursday, January 29, 2025. The morning peak hour was determined to be between 8:00 and 9:00 a.m., and the evening peak hour was determined to be between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. The evening peak hour volumes were approximately 22% higher than the morning peak hour volumes. Both the morning and evening peak hour volumes were used in the analysis. Detailed count data are included in Appendix B. Hales Engineering made seasonal adjustments to the observed traffic volumes. Monthly traffic volume data were obtained from a nearby UDOT automatic traffic recorder (ATR) on SR-71 (ATR #333). In recent years, traffic volumes in January have been equal to approximately 94.7% of average traffic volumes. The observed traffic volumes were adjusted accordingly to determine average turning movement counts at the study intersections. Figure 2 shows the existing morning and evening peak hour volumes as well as intersection geometry at the study intersections. E. Level of Service Analysis Hales Engineering determined that all study intersections are currently operating at acceptable levels of service during the morning and evening peak hours, as shown in Table 4. These results serve as a baseline condition for the impact analysis of the proposed development during existing (2025) conditions. Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study 6 F. Queuing Analysis Hales Engineering calculated the 95th percentile queue lengths for each of the study intersections. Significant 95th percentile queue lengths during the morning and evening peak hour are summarized as follows: · 1300 East / 2100 South: o Northbound: 900 feet (PM) G. Mitigation Measures The City could consider installing dual northbound left-turn lanes at the 1300 East / 2100 South intersection. These may be feasible by converting one of the southbound receiving lanes into the second northbound left-turn lane north of the pedestrian undercrossing. It is anticipated that this improvement would reduce the northbound queuing from 900 feet to 400 feet during the evening peak hour at the 1300 East / 2100 South intersection. Otherwise, it is recommended that the City consider adjusting the signal timing at the intersection to reduce northbound queueing. Table 4: Existing (2025) Background Peak Hour LOS Intersection LOS (Sec. Delay / Veh.) / Movement1 Description Control Morning Peak Evening Peak 1300 East / 2100 South Signal C (28.0) D (48.4) Wilmington Avenue / 1300 East Signal A (8.0) C (25.1) 1. Movement indicated for unsignalized intersections where delay and LOS represents worst movement. SBL = Southbound left movement, etc. 2. Uppercase LOS used for signalized, roundabout, and AWSC intersections. Lowercase LOS used for all other unsignalized intersections. Source: Hales Engineering, April 2025 11 160 112 SLC Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Morning Peak Hour Existing (2025) Background Figure 2a Hales Engineering 801.766.4343 1220 North 500 West Ste 202, Lehi, UT, 84043 02/28/2025 39 282 172 SLC Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Evening Peak Hour Existing (2025) Background Figure 2b Hales Engineering 801.766.4343 1220 North 500 West Ste 202, Lehi, UT, 84043 02/28/2025 Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study 9 III. PROJECT CONDITIONS A. Purpose The project conditions discussion explains the type and intensity of development. This provides the basis for trip generation, distribution, and assignment of project trips to the surrounding study intersections defined in Chapter I. B. Project Description The proposed Sugarhouse Hotel development is located on the southeast corner of 1300 East / 2100 South. The development will consist of a hotel, retail space, and a fine dining restaurant. A concept plan for the proposed development is provided in Appendix A. The proposed land use for the development has been identified in Table 5. Table 5: Project Land Uses Land Use Intensity Hotel 145 Rooms Retail Space 3,500 sq. ft. Restaurant Space 6,700 sq. ft. C. Trip Generation Trip generation for the development was calculated using trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 11th Edition, 2021. Due to the nature of the hotel land use and the rooftop restaurant space, a 75% internal capture reduction was applied to the restaurant to account for most of the patrons being hotel guests. Trip generation for the proposed project is included in Table 6. The total trip generation for the development is as follows: · Daily Trips: 1,493 · Morning Peak Hour Trips: 78 · Evening Peak Hour Trips: 132 Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study 10 Table 6: Trip Generation The unit count has been updated from the original analysis. The analyses presented in this study still reflect the previous land uses. The previous trip generation included 141 hotel rooms and 3,200 sq. ft. of retail space which had resulted in four fewer trips in both peak hours. However, it is not anticipated that these four trips will have a significant impact on the outcomes of this study. D. Trip Distribution and Assignment Trip distribution percentages for new trips were based on the type of trip and the proximity of project access points to major streets, high population densities, and regional trip attractions. Existing travel patterns observed during data collection were also used to establish these distribution percentages, especially near the site. The assumed distribution of new trips during the morning and evening peak hour is shown in Table 7. Due to the limited access of the project, separate distribution percentages were used for vehicles entering and exiting the project. Table 7: New Trip Distribution Direction % To Project % From Project North 25% 90% South 60% - East - 10% West 15% - Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study 11 These trip distribution assumptions were used to assign the morning and evening peak hour trip generation at the study intersections to create trip assignment for the proposed development. Trip assignment for the development is shown in Figure 3. E. Access The proposed access for the site will be gained at the following locations: 1300 East: · The west project access will be located approximately 220 feet south of the 1300 East / 2100 South intersection. It will access the project on the east side of 1300 East. It is anticipated that the access will be stop-controlled and restricted to a right-in, right-out access due to the existing raised median. 2100 South: · The north project access will be located approximately 135 feet east of the 1300 East / 2100 South intersection. It will access the project on the south side of 2100 South. It is anticipated that the access will be stop-controlled and restricted to a right-in, right- out access due to the existing raised median. 2100 South 0 6 0 SLC Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Morning Peak Hour Trip Assignment Figure 3a Hales Engineering 801.766.4343 1220 North 500 West Ste 202, Lehi, UT, 84043 02/28/2025 2100 South 0 10 0 SLC Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Evening Peak Hour Trip Assignment Figure 3b Hales Engineering 801.766.4343 1220 North 500 West Ste 202, Lehi, UT, 84043 02/28/2025 Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study 14 IV. EXISTING (2025) PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS A. Purpose The purpose of the existing (2025) plus project analysis is to study the intersections and roadways during the peak travel periods of the day for existing background traffic and geometric conditions plus the net trips generated by the proposed development. This scenario provides valuable insight into the potential impacts of the proposed project on background traffic conditions. B. Traffic Volumes Hales Engineering added the project trips discussed in Chapter III to the existing (2025) background traffic volumes to predict turning movement volumes for existing (2025) plus project conditions. Minor signal split time adjustments were assumed at the 1300 East / 2100 South intersection based on the recommended mitigation for the existing (2025) background scenario. Existing (2025) plus project morning and evening peak hour turning movement volumes are shown in Figure 4. C. Level of Service Analysis Hales Engineering determined that all intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable levels of service during the morning and evening peak hours with project traffic added, as shown in Table 8. Table 8: Existing (2025) Plus Project Peak Hour LOS Intersection LOS (Sec. Delay / Veh.) / Movement1 Description Control Morning Peak Evening Peak 1300 East / 2100 South Signal C (26.1) D (47.7) Wilmington Avenue / 1300 East Signal A (5.2) B (14.8) West Access / 1300 East WB Stop d (31.9) / WBR f (>50.0) / WBR East Access / 2100 South NB Stop a (8.3) / WBT a (7.2) / NBR 1. Movement indicated for unsignalized intersections where delay and LOS represents worst movement. SBL = Southbound left movement, etc. 2. Uppercase LOS used for signalized, roundabout, and AWSC intersections. Lowercase LOS used for all other unsignalized intersections. Source: Hales Engineering, April 2025 2100 South 11 166 112 SLC Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Morning Peak Hour Existing (2025) Plus Project Figure 4a Hales Engineering 801.766.4343 1220 North 500 West Ste 202, Lehi, UT, 84043 02/28/2025 2100 South 39 292 172 SLC Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Evening Peak Hour Existing (2025) Plus Project Figure 4b Hales Engineering 801.766.4343 1220 North 500 West Ste 202, Lehi, UT, 84043 02/28/2025 Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study 17 D. Queuing Analysis Hales Engineering calculated the 95th percentile queue lengths for each of the study intersections. Significant 95th percentile queue lengths during the morning and evening peak hour are summarized as follows: · 1300 East / 2100 South: o Northbound: 900 feet (PM) E. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are recommended. It is anticipated that project traffic may reroute to the north access during peak times to avoid excessive delays turning onto 1300 East. Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study 18 V. FUTURE (2030) BACKGROUND CONDITIONS A. Purpose The purpose of the future (2030) background analysis is to study the intersections and roadways during the peak travel periods of the day for future background traffic and geometric conditions. Through this analysis, future background traffic operational deficiencies can be identified, and potential mitigation measures recommended. B. Roadway Network According to the Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) Regional Transportation Plan, there are no projects planned before 2030 in the study area. Therefore, no changes were made to the roadway network for the future (2030) analysis. It was assumed that the signal timing at the 1300 East / 2100 South and Wilmington Avenue / 1300 East intersections was adjusted to better accommodate future volumes. C. Traffic Volumes Hales Engineering obtained future (2030) forecasted volumes from the WFRC / Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG) travel demand model. Peak period turning movement counts were estimated using National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 255 methodologies which utilize existing peak period turn volumes and future average weekday daily traffic (AWDT) volumes to project the future turn volumes at the major intersections. Future (2030) morning and evening peak hour turning movement volumes are shown in Figure 5. D. Level of Service Analysis Hales Engineering determined that all study intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable levels of service during the morning and evening peak hours in future (2030) background conditions, as shown in Table 9. These results serve as a baseline condition for the impact analysis of the proposed development for future (2030) conditions. E. Queuing Analysis Hales Engineering calculated the 95th percentile queue lengths for each of the study intersections. Significant 95th percentile queue lengths during the morning and evening peak hour are summarized as follows: · 1300 East / 2100 South: o Northbound: 775 feet o Southbound: 650 feet 15 165 115 SLC Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Morning Peak Hour Future (2030) Background Figure 5a Hales Engineering 801.766.4343 1220 North 500 West Ste 202, Lehi, UT, 84043 02/28/2025 40 285 175 SLC Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Evening Peak Hour Future (2030) Background Figure 5b Hales Engineering 801.766.4343 1220 North 500 West Ste 202, Lehi, UT, 84043 02/28/2025 Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study 21 Table 9: Future (2030) Background Peak Hour LOS Intersection LOS (Sec. Delay / Veh.) / Movement1 Description Control Morning Peak Evening Peak 1300 East / 2100 South Signal C (29.9) D (49.5) Wilmington Avenue / 1300 East Signal A (9.0) B (17.2) 1. Movement indicated for unsignalized intersections where delay and LOS represents worst movement. SBL = Southbound left movement, etc. 2. Uppercase LOS used for signalized, roundabout, and AWSC intersections. Lowercase LOS used for all other unsignalized intersections. Source: Hales Engineering, April 2025 F. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are recommended. Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study 22 VI. FUTURE (2030) PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS A. Purpose The purpose of the future (2030) plus project analysis is to study the intersections and roadways during the peak travel periods of the day for future background traffic and geometric conditions plus the net trips generated by the proposed development. This scenario provides valuable insight into the potential impacts of the proposed project on future background traffic conditions. B. Traffic Volumes Hales Engineering added the project trips discussed in Chapter III to the future (2030) background traffic volumes to predict turning movement volumes for future (2030) plus project conditions. Signal timing was also assume to be optimized in plus project conditions. Future (2030) plus project morning and evening peak hour turning movement volumes are shown in Figure 6. C. Level of Service Analysis Hales Engineering determined that all intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable levels of service during the morning and evening peak hours in future (2030) plus project conditions, as shown in Table 10. D. Queuing Analysis Hales Engineering calculated the 95th percentile queue lengths for each of the study intersections. Significant 95th percentile queue lengths during the morning and evening peak hour are summarized as follows: · 1300 East / 2100 South: o Northbound: 650 feet o Southbound: 650 feet E. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are recommended. 2100 South 15 165 115 SLC Sugarhouse Hotel Morning Peak Hour Future (2030) Plus Project Figure 6a Hales Engineering 801.766.4343 1220 North 500 West Ste 202, Lehi, UT, 84043 02/28/2025 TIS 2100 South 40 295 175 SLC Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Evening Peak Hour Future (2030) Plus Project Figure 6b Hales Engineering 801.766.4343 1220 North 500 West Ste 202, Lehi, UT, 84043 02/28/2025 Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study 25 Table 10: Future (2030) Plus Project Peak Hour LOS Intersection LOS (Sec. Delay / Veh.) / Movement1 Description Control Morning Peak Evening Peak 1300 East / 2100 South Signal C (31.5) D (48.4) Wilmington Avenue / 1300 East Signal A (5.7) B (14.7) West project access / 1300 East WB Stop c (23.7) / WBR f (>50.0) / WBR East Project Access / 2100 South NB Stop b (11.6) / WBT a (6.1) / NBR 1. Movement indicated for unsignalized intersections where delay and LOS represents worst movement. SBL = Southbound left movement, etc. 2. Uppercase LOS used for signalized, roundabout, and AWSC intersections. Lowercase LOS used for all other unsignalized intersections. Source: Hales Engineering, April 2025 Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study APPENDIX A Site Plan DN DN UP UP UP UP UP UP GM OFFICE 188 VESTIBULE 109 CAFE 104 VALET STAIR 190 RECEIVING MAIN ENTRANCE SALES 92 7.52% VESTIBULE 101 STAIR 1.1 107 ACTIVITY 098 7.52% PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PR O P E R T Y L I N E PROPERTY LINE PR O P E R T Y L I N E PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PR O P E R T Y L I N E HR OFFICE 95 GRAB N' GO ELEV. E1 ELEV. E2 ELEV. E3 RESTAURANT LOBBY 100A 2.08% CMU STORAGE 141 OFFICE 142 SALES 130 OPEN OFFICE 143 IDF/MDF 144 OFFICE 148 RETAIL B 137 STAGING 150 ELEC. 151 TRASH 191 BREAK ROOM 192 LOBBY 140 7.00% 13.44% 13.44% 2.05% EA S E M E N T 4' - 0 " X 5 ' - 0 " CENTER STAIR 139 2.03% 2. 0 8 % 3.53%10.16% 9.50% 6.50% 4.96% 3.99% 2. 0 8 % 2. 0 8 % 3.90% 2.13% 2.05% 2.08% 7.53% 2" 1 " 0 " 654321 654321 E D C B A REFERENCE NOTES DATE REVISION ww w.ffk r.c om ww w.ffk r.c om ww w.ffk r.c om ww w.ffk r.c om 05/ 16/2 016 J WS PROJECT NUMBER 4/ 8 / 2 0 2 5 4 : 1 0 : 2 0 P M AP101 PRESENTATION FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 1 SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L 13 0 0 E . 2 1 0 0 S . S A L T L A K E C I T Y , U T 8 4 1 0 6 SC H E M A T I C D E S I G N - 1 1 . 1 9 . 2 4 SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L , L L C 24096 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A1 LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN Bell desk reception option a Cars and dashed lanes Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study APPENDIX B Turning Movement Counts Intersection Turning Movement Summary Intersection:1300 East / 2100 South Date:1-29-25, Wed North/South Road:1300 East Day of Week Adjustment:100.0% East/West Road:2100 South Month of Year Adjustment:94.7% Jurisdiction:Salt Lake City Adjustment Station #:333 Project Title:Salt Lake City Sugarhouse Hotel TIS & PS Growth Rate:0.0% Project No:UT25-2936 Number of Years:0 Weather:Clear AM PEAK HOUR PERIOD:8:00 AM-9:00 AM AM PEAK 15 MINUTE PERIOD:8:45 AM-9:00 AM 1751 13 0 0 E a s t AM PHF:0.91 1620 MIDDAY PEAK HOUR PERIOD:- MIDDAY PEAK 15 MINUTE PERIOD:- MIDDAY PHF:831 920 PM PEAK HOUR PERIOD:5:00 PM-6:00 PM 790 830 PM PEAK 15 MINUTE PERIOD:5:15 PM-5:30 PM PM PHF:0.95 21 780 30 7 18 734 38 5 6 12 2100 South Total Entering Vehicles 26 50 746 415 3458 193 372 804 953 1239 698 39 11 585 531 1586 2018 493 283 282 160 4214 782 1065 172 112 2100 South 4 27 8 204 793 584 14 Legend 13 0 0 E a s t 353 831 753 AM 1431 1581 Midday PM 1483 1937 3012 3420 COUNT SUMMARY 1300 East 1300 East 2100 South 2100 South TOTALNorthboundSouthboundEastboundWestbound Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds AM PERIOD COUNTS Period A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P TOTAL 7:00 -7:15 19 128 51 0 4 95 1 2 5 10 22 2 83 17 2 3 437 7:15 -7:30 33 175 58 0 1 149 3 1 8 14 23 2 84 8 3 2 559 7:30 -7:45 42 191 115 2 2 137 3 0 7 21 25 2 106 20 4 3 673 7:45 -8:00 49 222 138 3 6 187 2 0 8 19 20 2 169 49 4 2 873 8:00 -8:15 52 183 125 0 4 187 5 5 2 20 24 4 157 39 8 4 806 8:15 -8:30 40 207 147 4 5 191 5 2 3 39 23 1 118 33 3 1 814 8:30 -8:45 43 180 169 0 21 154 3 2 1 70 40 0 148 52 7 0 888 8:45 -9:00 69 223 143 0 8 202 5 3 5 31 25 3 162 69 8 0 950 MIDDAY PERIOD COUNTS Period A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P TOTAL 9:00 -9:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:15 -9:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:30 -9:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:45 -10:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 -10:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:15 -10:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:30 -10:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:45 -11:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 -11:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:15 -11:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:30 -11:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:45 -12:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 -12:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:15 -12:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:30 -12:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:45 -13:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13:00 -13:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13:15 -13:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13:30 -13:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13:45 -14:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14:00 -14:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14:15 -14:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14:30 -14:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14:45 -15:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:00 -15:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:15 -15:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:30 -15:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:45 -16:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM PERIOD COUNTS Period A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P TOTAL 16:00 -16:15 58 178 193 3 12 203 3 0 26 62 61 6 143 75 7 1 1021 16:15 -16:30 76 177 150 1 8 169 11 3 20 42 63 0 135 87 10 2 948 16:30 -16:45 94 181 155 1 10 164 13 1 18 50 69 4 124 92 14 1 984 16:45 -17:00 77 195 156 2 5 182 12 12 18 43 42 4 159 74 6 3 969 17:00 -17:15 86 204 180 3 8 197 10 5 13 70 51 4 117 125 15 0 1076 17:15 -17:30 95 242 205 3 4 195 2 0 7 70 45 10 153 83 4 3 1105 17:30 -17:45 86 180 192 6 12 195 5 2 5 93 40 8 113 74 12 0 1007 17:45 -18:00 86 205 176 2 6 193 4 0 14 49 36 5 148 90 19 3 1026 Traffic Count Solutions LLC 801.505.9052 N Intersection Turning Movement Summary Intersection:1300 East / Wilmington Avenue Date:1-29-25, Wed North/South Road:1300 East Day of Week Adjustment:100.0% East/West Road:Wilmington Avenue Month of Year Adjustment:94.7% Jurisdiction:Salt Lake City Adjustment Station #:333 Project Title:Salt Lake City Sugarhouse Hotel TIS & PS Growth Rate:0.0% Project No:UT25-2936 Number of Years:0 Weather:Clear AM PEAK HOUR PERIOD:8:00 AM-9:00 AM AM PEAK 15 MINUTE PERIOD:8:45 AM-9:00 AM 3596 13 0 0 E a s t AM PHF:0.89 3021 MIDDAY PEAK HOUR PERIOD:- MIDDAY PEAK 15 MINUTE PERIOD:- MIDDAY PHF:1765 1831 PM PEAK HOUR PERIOD:5:00 PM-6:00 PM 1406 1615 PM PEAK 15 MINUTE PERIOD:5:30 PM-5:45 PM PM PHF:0.95 100 1665 0 8 46 1360 0 0 0 14 Wilmington Avenue Total Entering Vehicles 0 0 293 270 3300 0 0 0 0 686 356 108 31 0 0 0 0 393 86 0 0 4074 0 0 285 55 Wilmington Avenue 0 17 9 224 1584 0 0 Legend 13 0 0 E a s t 193 1723 0 AM 1415 1808 Midday PM 1950 1916 3223 3866 COUNT SUMMARY 1300 East 1300 East Wilmington Avenue Wilmington Avenue TOTALNorthboundSouthboundEastboundWestbound Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds AM PERIOD COUNTS Period A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P TOTAL 7:00 -7:15 22 215 0 0 0 189 6 2 11 0 7 2 0 0 0 1 450 7:15 -7:30 33 273 0 0 0 257 5 0 1 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 576 7:30 -7:45 60 381 0 0 0 286 5 3 5 0 11 1 0 0 0 0 748 7:45 -8:00 40 391 0 0 0 394 13 0 7 0 11 3 0 0 0 0 856 8:00 -8:15 53 334 0 0 0 351 7 2 5 0 8 2 0 0 0 0 758 8:15 -8:30 46 422 0 0 0 280 5 8 8 0 23 4 0 0 0 0 784 8:30 -8:45 43 418 0 0 0 326 14 1 12 0 16 1 0 0 0 0 829 8:45 -9:00 82 410 0 0 0 403 20 3 6 0 8 2 0 0 0 0 929 MIDDAY PERIOD COUNTS Period A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P TOTAL 9:00 -9:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:15 -9:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:30 -9:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:45 -10:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 -10:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:15 -10:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:30 -10:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:45 -11:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 -11:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:15 -11:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:30 -11:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:45 -12:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 -12:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:15 -12:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:30 -12:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:45 -13:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13:00 -13:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13:15 -13:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13:30 -13:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13:45 -14:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14:00 -14:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14:15 -14:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14:30 -14:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14:45 -15:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:00 -15:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:15 -15:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:30 -15:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:45 -16:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM PERIOD COUNTS Period A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P TOTAL 16:00 -16:15 40 354 0 0 0 365 23 1 19 0 88 0 0 0 0 0 889 16:15 -16:30 46 358 0 0 0 404 24 2 24 0 74 4 0 0 0 0 930 16:30 -16:45 54 357 0 0 0 412 13 0 24 0 56 3 0 0 0 0 916 16:45 -17:00 40 375 0 0 0 403 29 3 25 0 64 5 0 0 0 0 936 17:00 -17:15 46 428 0 0 0 382 21 0 20 0 73 6 0 0 0 0 970 17:15 -17:30 53 396 0 0 0 434 36 3 38 0 80 2 0 0 0 0 1037 17:30 -17:45 42 457 0 0 0 453 17 3 31 0 71 4 0 0 0 0 1071 17:45 -18:00 52 442 0 0 0 396 26 2 19 0 61 5 0 0 0 0 996 Traffic Count Solutions LLC 801.505.9052 N Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study APPENDIX C LOS Results SimTraffic LOS Report Project:Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis Period:Existing (2025) Background Time Period:Morning Peak Hour Project #:UT25-2936 Intersection:1300 East & 2100 South Type:Signalized Avg %Avg LOS L 204 206 101 44.5 D T 828 828 100 19.0 B R 584 588 101 7.1 A Subtotal 1,616 1,622 100 17.9 B L 38 39 102 47.0 D T 734 740 101 33.7 C R 18 17 96 24.0 C Subtotal 790 796 101 34.1 C L 11 11 98 58.8 E T 160 159 99 48.3 D R 112 117 105 7.2 A Subtotal 283 287 101 31.9 C L 585 587 100 46.6 D T 193 194 100 26.2 C R 26 27 104 16.2 B Subtotal 804 808 100 40.7 D Total 3,494 3,513 101 28.0 C Intersection:1300 East & Wilmington Avenue Type:Signalized Avg %Avg LOS L 224 225 100 26.1 C T 1,584 1,593 101 5.2 A Subtotal 1,808 1,818 101 7.8 A T 1,386 1,394 101 7.2 A R 46 50 109 5.8 A Subtotal 1,432 1,444 101 7.2 A L 31 34 110 53.1 D R 55 58 106 9.7 A Subtotal 86 92 107 25.7 C Total 3,326 3,354 101 8.0 A Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SB EB WB Approach Movement Demand Volume Approach Movement Demand Volume Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SB EB SimTraffic LOS Report Project:Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis Period:Existing (2025) Background Time Period:Evening Peak Hour Project #:UT25-2936 Intersection:1300 East & 2100 South Type:Signalized Avg %Avg LOS L 353 326 92 199.9 F T 831 828 100 29.7 C R 753 751 100 16.3 B Subtotal 1,937 1,905 98 53.5 D L 30 28 94 54.4 D T 780 779 100 44.0 D R 21 22 104 32.1 C Subtotal 831 829 100 44.0 D L 39 35 90 61.4 E T 282 283 100 44.9 D R 172 169 98 8.9 A Subtotal 493 487 99 33.6 C L 531 529 100 57.9 E T 372 378 102 31.7 C R 50 46 92 25.7 C Subtotal 953 953 100 46.0 D Total 4,214 4,174 99 48.4 D Intersection:1300 East & Wilmington Avenue Type:Signalized Avg %Avg LOS L 193 186 96 68.4 E T 1,829 1,815 99 30.6 C Subtotal 2,022 2,001 99 34.1 C T 1,665 1,661 100 14.3 B R 100 96 96 12.5 B Subtotal 1,765 1,757 100 14.2 B L 108 105 97 43.4 D R 285 289 101 20.5 C Subtotal 393 394 100 26.6 C Total 4,180 4,152 99 25.1 C Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SB EB SB EB WB Approach Movement Demand Volume Approach Movement Demand Volume Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SimTraffic LOS Report Project:Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis Period:Mitigated Existing (2025) Background Time Period:Evening Peak Hour Project #:UT25-2936 Intersection:1300 East & 2100 South Type:Signalized Avg %Avg LOS L 353 366 104 67.5 E T 831 830 100 34.1 C R 753 739 98 16.0 B Subtotal 1,937 1,935 100 33.5 C L 30 30 101 86.2 F T 780 794 102 56.6 E R 21 18 85 44.8 D Subtotal 831 842 101 57.4 E L 39 35 90 57.5 E T 282 290 103 42.8 D R 172 175 102 17.4 B Subtotal 493 500 101 34.9 C L 531 546 103 49.3 D T 372 374 101 27.1 C R 50 50 100 21.0 C Subtotal 953 970 102 39.3 D Total 4,214 4,247 101 39.8 D Intersection:1300 East & Wilmington Avenue Type:Signalized Avg %Avg LOS L 193 189 98 42.4 D T 1,829 1,832 100 9.2 A Subtotal 2,022 2,021 100 12.3 B T 1,665 1,682 101 17.3 B R 100 103 103 16.1 B Subtotal 1,765 1,785 101 17.2 B L 108 102 94 49.4 D R 285 299 105 31.8 C Subtotal 393 401 102 36.3 D Total 4,180 4,207 101 16.6 B Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SB EB SB EB WB Approach Movement Demand Volume Approach Movement Demand Volume Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SimTraffic LOS Report Project:Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis Period:Existing (2025) Plus Project Time Period:Morning Peak Hour Project #:UT25-2936 Intersection:1300 East & 2100 South Type:Signalized Avg %Avg LOS L 204 206 101 41.3 D T 856 863 101 21.0 C R 584 582 100 3.7 A Subtotal 1,644 1,651 100 17.4 B L 53 55 104 50.8 D T 734 744 101 35.8 D R 18 16 90 30.2 C Subtotal 805 815 101 36.7 D L 11 11 98 57.0 E T 166 167 100 47.9 D R 112 108 97 9.8 A Subtotal 289 286 99 33.9 C L 585 590 101 38.1 D T 193 199 103 24.6 C R 26 29 112 18.8 B Subtotal 804 818 102 34.1 C Total 3,543 3,570 101 30.2 C Intersection:1300 East & Wilmington Avenue Type:Signalized Avg %Avg LOS L 224 216 96 23.2 C T 1,610 1,617 100 3.0 A Subtotal 1,834 1,833 100 5.4 A T 1,361 1,368 101 4.3 A R 46 48 105 3.2 A Subtotal 1,407 1,416 101 4.3 A L 31 30 97 49.3 D R 55 58 106 9.3 A Subtotal 86 88 102 22.9 C Total 3,326 3,337 100 5.4 A Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SB EB SB EB WB Approach Movement Demand Volume Approach Movement Demand Volume Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SimTraffic LOS Report Project:Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis Period:Existing (2025) Plus Project Time Period:Morning Peak Hour Project #:UT25-2936 Intersection:1300 East & West Project Access Type:Unsignalized Avg %Avg LOS T 1,615 1,625 101 2.5 A R 26 26 100 1.0 A Subtotal 1,641 1,651 101 2.5 A T 1,431 1,442 101 1.5 A Subtotal 1,431 1,442 101 1.5 A R 29 31 107 21.4 C Subtotal 29 31 107 21.4 C Total 3,102 3,124 101 2.2 A Intersection:North Project Access & 2100 South Type:Unsignalized Avg %Avg LOS R 3 2 67 3.7 A Subtotal 3 2 67 3.7 A T 783 781 100 0.6 A R 21 24 116 0.7 A Subtotal 804 805 100 0.6 A T 804 815 101 9.3 A Subtotal 804 815 101 9.3 A Total 1,610 1,622 101 5.0 A Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB EB WB SB WB Approach Movement Demand Volume Approach Movement Demand Volume Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SimTraffic LOS Report Project:Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis Period:Existing (2025) Plus Project Time Period:Evening Peak Hour Project #:UT25-2936 Intersection:1300 East & 2100 South Type:Signalized Avg %Avg LOS L 353 330 93 86.4 F T 886 874 99 21.6 C R 753 743 99 9.7 A Subtotal 1,992 1,947 98 28.0 C L 46 44 96 61.4 E T 780 771 99 42.8 D R 21 20 94 36.6 D Subtotal 847 835 99 43.6 D L 39 38 98 60.0 E T 292 304 104 44.6 D R 172 172 100 12.4 B Subtotal 503 514 102 35.0 C L 531 529 100 48.7 D T 372 358 96 28.0 C R 50 50 100 23.0 C Subtotal 953 937 98 39.4 D Total 4,296 4,233 99 47.7 D Intersection:1300 East & Wilmington Avenue Type:Signalized Avg %Avg LOS L 193 192 99 35.9 D T 1,870 1,848 99 11.3 B Subtotal 2,063 2,040 99 13.6 B T 1,665 1,659 100 13.7 B R 100 103 103 11.3 B Subtotal 1,765 1,762 100 13.6 B L 108 106 98 45.9 D R 285 284 100 19.8 B Subtotal 393 390 99 26.9 C Total 4,221 4,192 99 14.8 B Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SB EB SB EB WB Approach Movement Demand Volume Approach Movement Demand Volume Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SimTraffic LOS Report Project:Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis Period:Existing (2025) Plus Project Time Period:Evening Peak Hour Project #:UT25-2936 Intersection:1300 East & West Project Access Type:Unsignalized Avg %Avg LOS T 1,937 1,904 98 26.6 D R 41 38 93 4.4 A Subtotal 1,978 1,942 98 26.2 D T 1,484 1,472 99 1.9 A Subtotal 1,484 1,472 99 1.9 A R 55 48 87 95.4 F Subtotal 55 48 87 95.4 F Total 3,517 3,462 98 16.9 C Intersection:North Project Access & 2100 South Type:Unsignalized Avg %Avg LOS R 6 6 100 7.2 A Subtotal 6 6 100 7.2 A T 1,065 1,067 100 0.8 A R 26 24 91 0.9 A Subtotal 1,091 1,091 100 0.8 A T 953 939 99 4.5 A Subtotal 953 939 99 4.5 A Total 2,050 2,036 99 2.5 A Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB EB WB SB WB Approach Movement Demand Volume Approach Movement Demand Volume Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SimTraffic LOS Report Project:Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis Period:Future (2030) Background Time Period:Morning Peak Hour Project #:UT25-2936 Intersection:1300 East & 2100 South Type:Signalized Avg %Avg LOS L 205 197 96 60.8 E T 851 863 101 24.6 C R 620 627 101 8.5 A Subtotal 1,676 1,687 101 22.8 C L 40 38 94 52.5 D T 755 754 100 38.5 D R 20 19 96 25.0 C Subtotal 815 811 100 38.8 D L 15 16 105 110.0 F T 165 160 97 40.4 D R 115 109 95 7.2 A Subtotal 295 285 97 31.6 C L 620 620 100 40.2 D T 195 198 101 20.9 C R 30 29 97 13.2 B Subtotal 845 847 100 34.8 C Total 3,632 3,630 100 29.9 C Intersection:1300 East & Wilmington Avenue Type:Signalized Avg %Avg LOS L 225 232 103 24.0 C T 1,645 1,664 101 5.6 A Subtotal 1,870 1,896 101 7.9 A T 1,440 1,424 99 9.8 A R 50 49 98 9.8 A Subtotal 1,490 1,473 99 9.8 A L 30 32 107 34.9 C R 55 54 99 9.8 A Subtotal 85 86 101 19.1 B Total 3,445 3,455 100 9.0 A Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SB EB SB EB WB Approach Movement Demand Volume Approach Movement Demand Volume Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SimTraffic LOS Report Project:Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis Period:Future (2030) Background Time Period:Evening Peak Hour Project #:UT25-2936 Intersection:1300 East & 2100 South Type:Signalized Avg %Avg LOS L 355 336 95 136.1 F T 861 867 101 28.0 C R 800 791 99 14.2 B Subtotal 2,016 1,994 99 40.7 D L 35 34 98 93.1 F T 805 816 101 81.6 F R 25 27 107 66.7 E Subtotal 865 877 101 81.6 F L 40 35 88 82.8 F T 285 287 101 46.7 D R 175 175 100 9.2 A Subtotal 500 497 99 36.0 D L 560 561 100 53.7 D T 380 369 97 32.3 C R 55 59 107 25.6 C Subtotal 995 989 99 44.0 D Total 4,375 4,357 100 49.5 D Intersection:1300 East & Wilmington Avenue Type:Signalized Avg %Avg LOS L 195 198 101 42.1 D T 1,905 1,882 99 14.2 B Subtotal 2,100 2,080 99 16.9 B T 1,725 1,727 100 16.4 B R 100 98 98 14.4 B Subtotal 1,825 1,825 100 16.3 B L 110 113 103 31.9 C R 290 291 100 19.6 B Subtotal 400 404 101 23.0 C Total 4,326 4,309 100 17.2 B Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SB EB SB EB WB Approach Movement Demand Volume Approach Movement Demand Volume Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SimTraffic LOS Report Project:Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis Period:Future (2030) Plus Project Time Period:Morning Peak Hour Project #:UT25-2936 Intersection:1300 East & 2100 South Type:Signalized Avg %Avg LOS L 205 199 97 37.0 D T 879 894 102 21.0 C R 620 634 102 3.9 A Subtotal 1,704 1,727 101 16.6 B L 40 39 97 57.4 E T 755 758 100 38.2 D R 20 19 96 26.1 C Subtotal 815 816 100 38.8 D L 15 16 105 69.4 E T 165 173 105 50.7 D R 115 119 104 9.3 A Subtotal 295 308 104 35.7 D L 620 605 98 40.6 D T 196 195 100 25.8 C R 30 30 100 17.7 B Subtotal 846 830 98 36.3 D Total 3,660 3,681 101 31.5 C Intersection:1300 East & Wilmington Avenue Type:Signalized Avg %Avg LOS L 225 219 97 22.4 C T 1,671 1,692 101 3.4 A Subtotal 1,896 1,911 101 5.6 A T 1,440 1,441 100 4.9 A R 50 50 101 3.4 A Subtotal 1,490 1,491 100 4.8 A L 30 32 107 43.4 D R 55 54 99 11.0 B Subtotal 85 86 101 23.1 C Total 3,471 3,488 100 5.7 A Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SB EB SB EB WB Approach Movement Demand Volume Approach Movement Demand Volume Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SimTraffic LOS Report Project:Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis Period:Future (2030) Plus Project Time Period:Morning Peak Hour Project #:UT25-2936 Intersection:1300 East & West Project Access Type:Unsignalized Avg %Avg LOS T 1,675 1,697 101 2.6 A R 26 27 104 1.4 A Subtotal 1,701 1,724 101 2.6 A T 1,490 1,486 100 1.6 A Subtotal 1,490 1,486 100 1.6 A R 29 28 97 23.7 C Subtotal 29 28 97 23.7 C Total 3,220 3,238 101 2.3 A Intersection:North Project Access & 2100 South Type:Unsignalized Avg %Avg LOS R 3 2 67 7.6 A Subtotal 3 2 67 7.6 A T 806 824 102 0.6 A R 21 22 106 0.6 A Subtotal 827 846 102 0.6 A T 845 838 99 11.6 B Subtotal 845 838 99 11.6 B Total 1,674 1,686 101 6.1 A Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB EB WB SB WB Approach Movement Demand Volume Approach Movement Demand Volume Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SimTraffic LOS Report Project:Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis Period:Future (2030) Plus Project Time Period:Evening Peak Hour Project #:UT25-2936 Intersection:1300 East & 2100 South Type:Signalized Avg %Avg LOS L 355 344 97 73.1 E T 915 935 102 22.6 C R 800 797 100 8.8 A Subtotal 2,070 2,076 100 25.7 C L 51 52 102 94.7 F T 805 799 99 76.9 E R 25 26 103 58.6 E Subtotal 881 877 100 77.4 E L 40 39 98 88.5 F T 295 302 102 47.7 D R 175 175 100 12.2 B Subtotal 510 516 101 38.7 D L 560 562 100 46.1 D T 380 386 101 29.2 C R 55 59 107 25.0 C Subtotal 995 1,007 101 38.4 D Total 4,457 4,476 100 48.4 D Intersection:1300 East & Wilmington Avenue Type:Signalized Avg %Avg LOS L 195 194 99 38.3 D T 1,946 1,941 100 11.2 B Subtotal 2,141 2,135 100 13.7 B T 1,725 1,721 100 14.3 B R 100 102 102 12.6 B Subtotal 1,825 1,823 100 14.2 B L 110 114 104 34.0 C R 290 283 98 18.8 B Subtotal 400 397 99 23.2 C Total 4,366 4,355 100 14.7 B Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SB EB SB EB WB Approach Movement Demand Volume Approach Movement Demand Volume Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SimTraffic LOS Report Project:Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis Period:Future (2030) Plus Project Time Period:Evening Peak Hour Project #:UT25-2936 Intersection:1300 East & West Project Access Type:Unsignalized Avg %Avg LOS T 2,016 2,017 100 15.0 B R 41 40 98 5.3 A Subtotal 2,057 2,057 100 14.8 B T 1,540 1,545 100 2.0 A Subtotal 1,540 1,545 100 2.0 A R 55 54 98 75.8 F Subtotal 55 54 98 75.8 F Total 3,652 3,656 100 10.3 B Intersection:North Project Access & 2100 South Type:Unsignalized Avg %Avg LOS R 6 5 83 6.1 A Subtotal 6 5 83 6.1 A T 1,120 1,127 101 0.8 A R 26 25 95 0.7 A Subtotal 1,146 1,152 101 0.8 A T 995 1,016 102 5.5 A Subtotal 995 1,016 102 5.5 A Total 2,148 2,173 101 3.0 A Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB EB WB SB WB Approach Movement Demand Volume Approach Movement Demand Volume Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study APPENDIX D 95th Percentile Queue Length Reports SimTraffic Queueing Report Project: Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis: Existing (2025) Background Time Period: Morning Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queue Length (feet) - Rounded Up to Nearest Multiple of 25 ft Project #: UT25-2936 Intersection L R T L T TR L R T TR L T TR 01: 1300 East & 2100 South 225 175 275 150 375 325 50 --150 75 325 275 150 02: 1300 East & Wilmington Avenue 175 --225 --200 200 75 75 ---------- NB SB EB WB SimTraffic Queueing Report Project: Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis: Existing (2025) Background Time Period: Evening Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queue Length (feet) - Rounded Up to Nearest Multiple of 25 ft Project #: UT25-2936 Intersection L R T L T TR L R T TR L T TR 01: 1300 East & 2100 South 600 425 900 150 400 375 75 --200 100 325 325 225 02: 1300 East & Wilmington Avenue 275 --825 --300 325 125 200 ---------- NB SB EB WB SimTraffic Queueing Report Project: Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis: Mitigated Existing (2025) Background Time Period: Evening Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queue Length (feet) - Rounded Up to Nearest Multiple of 25 ft Project #: UT25-2936 Intersection L R T L T TR L R T TR L T TR 01: 1300 East & 2100 South 275 400 325 150 525 475 100 --225 125 300 300 225 02: 1300 East & Wilmington Avenue 200 --300 --350 375 175 275 ---------- NB SB EB WB SimTraffic Queueing Report Project: Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis: Existing (2025) Plus Project Time Period: Morning Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queue Length (feet) - Rounded Up to Nearest Multiple of 25 ft Project #: UT25-2936 Intersection L R T TR L T TR L R T TR L R T TR 01: 1300 East & 2100 South 225 150 250 --175 375 350 50 --150 100 200 --100 125 02: 1300 East & Wilmington Avenue 175 --200 ----175 175 75 75 ------------ 03: 1300 East & West Project Access ----50 ------------------75 ---- 04: North Project Access & 2100 South --------------------------225 -- NB SB EB WB SimTraffic Queueing Report Project: Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis: Existing (2025) Plus Project Time Period: Evening Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queue Length (feet) - Rounded Up to Nearest Multiple of 25 ft Project #: UT25-2936 Intersection L R T TR L T TR L R T TR L R T TR 01: 1300 East & 2100 South 300 300 275 --175 400 375 100 --200 150 225 --150 200 02: 1300 East & Wilmington Avenue 200 --350 ----325 325 150 200 ------------ 03: 1300 East & West Project Access ----525 225 ----------------125 ---- 04: North Project Access & 2100 South --------------------------125 -- NB SB EB WB SimTraffic Queueing Report Project: Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis: Future (2030) Background Time Period: Morning Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queue Length (feet) - Rounded Up to Nearest Multiple of 25 ft Project #: UT25-2936 Intersection L R T L T TR L R T TR L T TR 01: 1300 East & 2100 South 275 225 300 150 375 350 50 --150 75 300 175 100 02: 1300 East & Wilmington Avenue 200 --250 --225 225 75 75 ---------- NB SB EB WB SimTraffic Queueing Report Project: Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis: Future (2030) Background Time Period: Evening Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queue Length (feet) - Rounded Up to Nearest Multiple of 25 ft Project #: UT25-2936 Intersection L R T L T TR L R T TR L T TR 01: 1300 East & 2100 South 575 375 775 150 650 600 100 --200 100 325 325 225 02: 1300 East & Wilmington Avenue 225 --450 --325 325 125 200 ---------- NB SB EB WB SimTraffic Queueing Report Project: Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis: Future (2030) Plus Project Time Period: Morning Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queue Length (feet) - Rounded Up to Nearest Multiple of 25 ft Project #: UT25-2936 Intersection L R T TR L T TR L R T TR L R T TR 01: 1300 East & 2100 South 200 175 275 --150 400 350 50 --175 100 200 --100 125 02: 1300 East & Wilmington Avenue 150 --200 ----175 200 75 75 ------------ 03: 1300 East & West Project Access ----75 ------------------75 ---- 04: North Project Access & 2100 South --------------------------225 -- NB SB EB WB SimTraffic Queueing Report Project: Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis: Future (2030) Plus Project Time Period: Evening Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queue Length (feet) - Rounded Up to Nearest Multiple of 25 ft Project #: UT25-2936 Intersection L R T TR L T TR L R T TR L R T TR 01: 1300 East & 2100 South 275 275 275 --175 650 600 125 --225 150 225 --175 200 02: 1300 East & Wilmington Avenue 200 --325 ----325 325 125 200 ------------ 03: 1300 East & West Project Access ----375 200 ----------------125 ---- 04: North Project Access & 2100 South --------------------------150 -- NB SB EB WB Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study APPENDIX E Crash Data Reports CRASH SUMMARY REPORT 2100 South & 1300 East Created on February 28, 2025 Created by Jordi Berrett Data extents: January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2023 Applied Filters Total Crashes 37 Fatal Crashes 0 UDOT Crash Summary Crashes 37 100.00% 32 86.49% 5 13.51% Shape: Circle 250 ft K A B C O Total Crashes Intersection Related CMV Involved © Mapbox © OpenStreetMap © Maxar 5 13.51% 3 8.11% 3 8.11% 1 2.70% 1 2.70% 1 2.70% Crash Verified Crashes 37 100.00% Crash Severity Crashes 20 54.05% 13 35.14% 4 10.81% 0 0% Injury Level People 85 79.44% 17 15.89% 5 4.67% 0 0% Manner of Collision Crashes 15 40.54% 13 35.14% 4 10.81% 4 10.81% 1 2.70% 0 0% Crash Date Time (Year)Crashes 3 8.11% 13 35.14% 6 16.22% 8 21.62% 7 18.92% 0 0% Distracted Driving Roadway Depar ture Speed Related DUI Motorcycle Involved + 5 more True False 0 0.00% No injury/PDO Possible injury Suspected Minor Injury + 2 more No injury Possible injury Suspected Minor Injury + 3 more Angle Front to Rear Not Applicable/Single Vehicle Sideswipe Same Direction Sideswipe Opposite Direction + 7 more 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 + 11 more V1 & V2 Movement & Direction (Crash Level Only)Crashes 4 10.81% 3 8.11% 2 5.41% 2 5.41% 2 5.41% 1 2.70% 1 2.70% 1 2.70% 17 45.90% Roadway Surface Condition Crashes 33 89.19% 3 8.11% 1 2.70% 0 0% Weather Condition Crashes 29 78.38% 5 13.51% 2 5.41% 1 2.70% 0 0% Most Harmful Event Vehicle 73 94.81% 1 1.30% 1 1.30% 1 1.30% 1 1.30% 0 0% Light Condition Crashes 25 67.57% 12 32.43% 0 0% Countermeasures Crashes 7 18.92% Turning Left (Nor thbound) & Straight Ahead (Southbound) Straight Ahead (Eastbound) & Stopped in Traffic Lane (Eastbound) Straight Ahead (Eastbound) & Straight Ahead (Southbound) Straight Ahead (Northbound) & Straight Ahead (Nor thbound) Straight Ahead (Northbound) & Straight Ahead (Westbound) Changing Lanes (Southbound) & Straight Ahead (Southbound) Changing Lanes (Westbound) & Stopped in Traffic Lane (Westbound) Leaving Traffic Lane (Southbound) & Straight Ahead (Southbound) + 992 more Dry Wet Ice/Frost + 12 more Clear Cloudy Rain Sleet, Hail + 8 more Collision With Other Motor Vehicle in Transport Other Fixed Object* Pedestrian Tree/Shrubbery Utility Pole/Light Support + 51 more Daylight Dark - Lighted + 7 more Countermeasure: Left Turn Lane 6 16.22% 2 5.41% 1 2.70% 1 2.70% 1 2.70% 0 0% Countermeasure: Left Turn Phase Change Countermeasure: Roundabout or Signal Countermeasure: Active Transportation Improvement Countermeasure: Clear Zone Improvements Countermeasure: Right Turn Lane + 9 more CRASH SUMMARY REPORT Wilmington Ave & 1300 East Created on February 28, 2025 Created by Jordi Berrett Data extents: January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2023 Applied Filters Total Crashes 37 Fatal Crashes 0 UDOT Crash Summary Crashes 37 100.00% 34 91.89% 3 8.11% Shape: Circle 250 ft K A B C O Total Crashes Intersection Related Pedestrian Involved © Mapbox © OpenStreetMap © Maxar 1 2.70% 1 2.70% 1 2.70% 1 2.70% 0 0% Crash Verified Crashes 37 100.00% Crash Severity Crashes 21 56.76% 8 21.62% 8 21.62% 0 0% Injury Level People 80 75.47% 17 16.04% 9 8.49% 0 0% Manner of Collision Crashes 18 48.65% 10 27.03% 4 10.81% 2 5.41% 2 5.41% 1 2.70% 0 0% Crash Date Time (Year)Crashes 3 8.11% 6 16.22% 15 40.54% 4 10.81% 9 24.32% 0 0% CMV Involved Distracted Driving Motorcycle Involved Pedalcycle Involved + 6 more True False 0 0.00% No injury/PDO Possible injury Suspected Minor Injury + 2 more No injury Possible injury Suspected Minor Injury + 3 more Angle Front to Rear Not Applicable/Single Vehicle Head On (front-to-front) Sideswipe Same Direction Sideswipe Opposite Direction + 6 more 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 + 11 more V1 & V2 Movement & Direction (Crash Level Only)Crashes 10 27.03% 5 13.51% 5 13.51% 2 5.41% 2 5.41% 1 2.70% 1 2.70% 1 2.70% 5 13.50% Roadway Surface Condition Crashes 34 91.89% 2 5.41% 1 2.70% 0 0% Weather Condition Crashes 33 89.19% 3 8.11% 1 2.70% 0 0% Most Harmful Event Vehicle 72 93.51% 3 3.90% 1 1.30% 1 1.30% 0 0% Light Condition Crashes 27 72.97% 10 27.03% 0 0% Countermeasures Crashes 15 40.54% 14 37.84% 4 10.81% Turning Left (Nor thbound) & Straight Ahead (Southbound) Straight Ahead (Southbound) & Stopped in Traffic Lane (Southbound) Turning Left (Westbound) & Straight Ahead (Southbound) Straight Ahead (Northbound) & Stopped in Traffic Lane (Northbound) Straight Ahead (Southbound) & Straight Ahead (Southbound) Making U-turn (Northbound) & Straight Ahead (Southbound) Star ting to Move in Traffic Lane (Eastbound) & Slowing in Traffic Lane (Eastbound) Straight Ahead (Southbound) & Making U-turn (Nor thbound) + 992 more Dry Wet Slush + 12 more Clear Cloudy Rain + 9 more Collision With Other Motor Vehicle in Transport Pedestrian Over turn/Rollover Pedacycle + 52 more Daylight Dark - Lighted + 7 more Countermeasure: Left Turn Lane Countermeasure: Left Turn Phase Change Countermeasure: Active Transportation Improvement 2 5.41% 1 2.70% 0 0% Countermeasure: Right Turn Lane Countermeasure: Roundabout or Signal + 10 more This page has intentionally been left blank NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petitions PLNPCM2025-00622 (General Plan Amendment) and PLNPCM2025-00624 (Zoning Map Amendment) John Potter with Magnus Commercial Properties, representing the property owner, is requesting amendments that would facilitate the redevelopment of the property at approximately 2111 South 1300 East. The property is approximately .80 acres in size. If approved, the developer intends to build a hotel on the currently vacant site. The applicant is requesting to amend the Sugar House Community Master Plan's future land use map from Mixed Use-Low Intensity to Business District Mixed-Use – Town Center Scale. The second request is for a zoning map amendment that would change the zoning of the property from MU-3 to MU-8. The subject property is located within Council District 7, represented by Sarah Young. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night as the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in -person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slc.gov. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please contact Amanda Roman at 801-535-7660 or by e-mail at amanda.roman@slc.gov. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slc.gov, by selecting the “Planning” tab and entering the petition numbers PLNPCM2025-00622 and PLNPCM2025-00624. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to participate in this hearing. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slc.gov , 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. This page has intentionally been left blank SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 01/13/2026 Date Sent to Council: 01/22/2026 From: Department * Community and Neighborhood Employee Name: Olson, Brooke E-mail brooke.olson@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 01/21/2026 Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 01/22/2026 Subject: Zoning Map Amendment - 2260, 2270, and 2290 E 1300 S Additional Staff Contact:Presenters/Staff Table Brooke Olson, brooke.olson@slc.gov Amy Thompson, amy.thompson@slc.gov Document Type Ordinance Budget Impact? Yes No Recommendation: The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a recommendation of approval for the request, with conditions. Background/Discussion See first attachment for Background/Discussion Public Hearing Is there a City or State statutory requirement to hold a public hearing for this item?* Yes No The City Council reserves the option to hold and notice for a public hearing pursuant to their practices for public engagement. Does the City have a general practice to hold a public hearing for this item?* Yes No Provide your perspective on the value of recommending a public hearing City Council public hearing required for zoning map amendments per City Code 21A.50 Public Process Planning Commission held a public hearing and made a recommendation to the City Council. Next Steps: Once transmitted to the Council Office, the City Council will schedule a briefing and public hearing regarding the matter. This page has intentionally been left blank ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Tammy Hunsaker Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: J-Development, LLC property owner representative, is requesting approval of a zoning map amendment petition for three properties located at approximately 2260, 2270, and 2290 E 1300 S. The proposal is to rezone the properties from R-1-7000, Single Family Residential to MU-3, Mixed Use 3 District. Each property is currently occupied by a single-family dwelling. The MU-3 district allows for greater density, height and a wider range of uses than permitted in the R-1- 7000 zoning district. If the zoning map amendment is approved, the applicant intends to apply for a lot consolidation to combine the subject properties with the property to the south which is zoned MU-3 and construct a residential development consisting of approximately 26 residential units including 8 townhomes and 18 condominiums. Approximately 12 of the units would be constructed on the subject properties including the 8 townhome units and 3-4 condominium units. 10% of the units are proposed to be set aside as affordable units for buyers who meet 80% of the Area Medium Income (AMI) as the proposed community benefit. The subject properties are located in the boundaries of the East Bench Community Master Plan within a “Community Node” and located on the fringe of the “Neighborhoods” future land use area where a variety of medium density housing types and a mix of neighborhood serving uses are appropriate. COUNCIL CONSIDERATIONS: The proposed community benefit is intended to provide housing that aligns with the general plan by dedicating 10% of the new for sale housing units to those with incomes at 80% of the AMI. The applicant Current Zoning Map anticipates both the market rate and affordable unit mix would consist of 2-3 bedroom units. The applicant has also been coordinating with a community group that has a Capitol Improvement Program (CIP) application in for review regarding public right of way improvements along 1300 S including along the subject property frontages. The applicant is considering including public right of way improvements in addition to the community benefit of providing affordable for sell housing units during the City Council review of the petition. Details regarding the community benefit requirements, tenant relocation assistance and unit replacement will need to be determined as part of the development agreement. PUBLIC PROCESS: • Early Notification – On July 9, 2025, notice of the proposal was mailed to all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the property. The East Bench Community Council a was sent the 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations. Staff and the applicant attended the August 21, 2025, community council meeting. An online open house has been posted on the Planning Division’s website since July 2025. • Planning Commission Meeting – The petition was heard by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on November 12, 2025. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a recommendation of approval for the request, with the following conditions of approval: 1) Council review the components of Thriving in Place to ensure they are all represented in the potential rezone. 2) The following provisions be incorporated into a development agreement for the zoning map amendment: a. Each demolished residential dwelling unit shall be replaced in accordance with 21A.50.050.E. b. A minimum of 3 housing units, or 10% of all housing units (whichever is greater) constructed within the boundaries of the zoning map amendment, shall be affordable homeownership units for households earning at or below 80% of the area median income (AMI). The affordable units shall be comparable to the market rate units in terms of unit size, and number of bedrooms. c. The applicant shall not use the proposed community benefit of providing affordable units for the zoning amendment to count toward the eligibility requirements for any future Affordable Housing Zoning Incentives applications to the City. d. The developer shall provide tenant relocation assistance to tenants displaced by the demolition of the residential dwelling units on the subject properties as specified in subsection 21A.50.050.D. The full public meeting can be viewed using this link starting at 21.32. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of November 12, 2025 b) PC Minutes of November 12, 2025 c) PC Staff Report of November 12, 2025 EXHIBITS: 1. Project Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3. Original Petition 4. Mailing List 5. Ordinance This page has intentionally been left blank EXHIBITS: 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING 3. ORIGINAL PETITION 4. MAILING LIST 5. ORDINANCE 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Tammy Hunsaker Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2025-00558 May 3, 2025 Application for a Zoning Map Amendment reviewed for pre-screen. May 30, 2025 Application for a Zoning Map Amendment was accepted. June 6, 2025 Petition PLNPCM2025-00558 was assigned to Brooke Olson, Senior Planner, for staff analysis and processing. July 9, 2025 Notice was sent to the East Bench Community Council Recognized Community Organization (RCO) informing them of the petition. Early notification of the project was also sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposal. The proposal was posted for an online open house. The proposal can still be viewed online. July 16, 2025 An Early Notification sign was posted on the properties by the applicant. August 21, 2025 The applicant presented their proposal at the Central City Community Council meeting August 23, 2025 The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations ended. October 8, 2025 The MU zoning consolidation went into effect. This changed the existing zoning of the subject property, and the applicant’s request from CB (Community Business) to MU-3. October 29, 2025 Planning Staff posted notices on City and State websites and sent notices via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting. Public hearing notices were mailed. November 1, 2025 Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the property by the applicant. November 6, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report was posted. November 12, 2025 Planning Commission held a public hearing and made a recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed map amendment. November 21, 2025 Requested Final Draft of Ordinance from Attorney’s Office January 12, 2025 Final Draft of Ordinance received from Attorney’s Office 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2025-00558 . J-Development, LLC property owner representative, is requesting approval of a zoning map amendment petition for the properties at approximately 2260, 2270, and 2290 E 1300 S. The proposal is to rezone the properties from R-1-7000, Single Family Residential to MU-3, Mixed Use District 3. The subject properties contain existing single-family dwellings. The proposed rezone is intended to allow for a portion of a 26-unit residential development, which includes 8 townhomes and 18 condominiums. 10% of the units are proposed to be set aside as affordable units for buyers who meet 80% of the Area Medium Income (AMI) as the proposed community benefit. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: DATE: PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means while also providing an in-person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at 801.535.7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Brooke Olson at 801-535-7118 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or by e-mail at brooke.olson@slc.gov. The application details can be accessed at https://www.slc.gov/planning/2025/07/08/openhouse2025-00558/ . 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@slc.gov, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. ORIGINAL PETITION 3816 S. Highland Drive, Suite 101 Millcreek, Utah 84106 jdevutah.com October 15, 2025 RE: J Development Rezone Application Questions (Revised) RE: 2260, 2270, 2290 East 1300 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84108 Submittal Requirements Checklist 1. A statement declaring the purpose and justification for the proposed amendment. Our rezone request stems from the desire to complete the continuity and overall integration of our property with the recent surrounding MU-3 zone adjustments by Salt Lake City. This rezone from R-1-7000 to MU-3 will provide Salt Lake City, the Foothill & St. Mary neighborhood residents, and our property, the cohesiveness for needed housing and retail patrons. This amendment will complement the aging neighborhood housing demands while providing retail support for ongoing upgrades to the nearby Foothill Village Community. 2. A written general description of any future development that is planned for the property including the anticipated use, density, scale of development, timing of development, the anticipated impact to existing land uses and occupants of the land subject to the proposal, and any additional land use petitions that may be anticipated to develop the site. Visual renderings and basic site plans may be provided by the applicant. The petition rezone request stems from the desire to provide future housing options for the immediate Foothill and St Mary’s neighborhoods. This housing focused, community concept, would include approximately 28 total condominium and brownstone townhome units. Our vision is to dedicate ten percent (10%) units for affordable buyers who meet the 80% AMI requirements of the surrounding area. This threshold meets the required city ordinance of providing 10% of total units at 80% AMI for affordable purchase. Timing of the development is early and conceptual with guidance from Salt Lake City’s planning team. We have met with area Councilman, Dan Dugan, neighbors, and the East bench Community Council organization. We are arranging other leadership meetings with other neighbors and business leaders for feedback and direction. We are currently engaging nearby community and neighborhood residents for comment. This project will maintain all building standards and continuity contained in Salt Lake City’s newly reformed MU-3 zoning code. 3816 S. Highland Drive, Suite 101 Millcreek, Utah 84106 jdevutah.com Visual renderings and conceptual site plans have and will be provided to planners and city leadership as requested. 3. Is the request amending the Zoning Map? If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed and a map that shows the current use of the subject property and adjacent properties. The request is focused on the following (3) parcels which are currently zoned, R -1-7000. The request is to amend and provide continuity with these parcels to the MU-3 zone, so that they fully integrate with the larger surrounding land block. Parcel: 16-10-379-004 Parcel: 16-10-379-005 Parcel: 16-10-379-006 4. Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance? If so, please include language and the reference to the Zoning Ordinance to be changed. Text that is proposed to be added shall be underlined and text that is proposed to be deleted shall be shown with a strikethrough line. N/A. The request is to amend the zoning ordinance only in accordance with Salt Lake City newly adopted MU-3 zoning code and ordinance. Community Benefit 5. A written description regarding the proposed community benefit(s) associated with the amendment. The description shall adequately describe the necessary details to demonstrate that the proposed community benefit is roughly proportionate to the potential increase in development right if the proposed amendment were to be adopted. See 21A.50.050.C for a list of community benefits that can be proposed. The project currently titled, The Residences at Foothill, provides exceptional community benefits for the surrounding commercial and residential area, including the following and specifically: A. The amendment will provide the ability for the project to construct ~28 new, for sale, units/homesites for the area. 3816 S. Highland Drive, Suite 101 Millcreek, Utah 84106 jdevutah.com B. Ten percent (10%) of the units will be dedicated for 80% AMI market area for affordability. C. An ancillary benefit will expand the uses of eliminating an underutilized parking lot and while providing the community increased tax base and retail support to a newly renovated nearby Foothill Village Shopping Center. D. A contribution to the fulfillment of Salt Lake City’s goals of providing over 10,000 new units and 2,000 new affordable units within the area. E. An additional community benefit will be to improve the sidewalk and walkability of 1300 South and 2300 East with improved sidewalks and park strips, with the potential to add speed bumps to mitigate speeding. F. Enhanced landscaping along 1300 South and 2300 East will provide a beautiful gateway to Saint Mary’s. 3816 S. Highland Drive, Suite 101 Millcreek, Utah 84106 jdevutah.com October 14, 2025 Brooke Olsen, AICP Principal Planner Planning Division | Salt Lake City Corp. RE: Petition Number: PLNPCM2025-00558 To Whom It May Concern: Please find below additional context, as requested by Principal Planner, Brooke Olsen, explaining the following renderings and rezone petition PLNPCM2025-00558 questions: i. Please specify the anticipated impact the existing land uses and occupants of the land subject to the proposal in the written general description. “The existing subject parcels contain three older single-family houses. Our future proposal replaces the adjacent underutilized parking lot as defined with structured underground and secure parking stalls for residents’ use while replacing the existing houses with an overall community of 28 total residential units…exceeding the lost homes replacement and adding a net of 25 new, for sale, homes for the neighborhood. Proposed housing unit breakdowns are as follows: 8 market-rate townhouses and 20 stacked condominiums and ten percent (10%) affordable units based on 80% area AMI within the project (community benefit), as well as resident amenities such as a gym, club room, outdoor patios, and enhanced landscaped yards and open space. Our proposal maintains the existing number of parking stalls (transferring underground) and adds 28 for-sale dwelling units. These preliminary numbers and unit counts are based on our good faith effort to comply with the nuanced and newly released MU-3 zoning code and regulations. City planning has advised us best of their ability…realizing additional regulations and ordinances may need to be understood and applied with the new zoning code.” ii. Please see following attached visual renderings and basic site plan for future consideration. *Conceptual and preliminary. # # # Petitioner Contact: Matt Knight, Joe Johnsen, J Development, Millcreek UT. matt@jdevutah.com Site Conditions The Residences At Foothill N 1300 S Fo o t h i l l D r EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS 3 SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES MU-3 R-1-7000 23 0 0 E EXISTING SURFACE PARKING methodstudio The Residences At Foothill N 1300 S 266’ Fo o t h i l l D r PROPOSED SITE PLAN 8 PROPOSED TOWNHOMES GARAGE ENTRY GARAGE ENTRY RESIDENT AMENITIES MID-BLOCK WALK LANDSCAPED AREAS MAIN ENTRY 20 PROPOSED CONDOMINIUMS (1 0 % affordable) 20 Condominiums 8 Townhomes 23 0 0 E methodstudio 3816 S. Highland Drive, Suite 101 Millcreek, Utah 84106 jdevutah.com October 14, 2025 Brooke Olson, AICP Senior Planner Salt Lake City Corporation RE: Standards for General Amendments Insights J Development Rezone application: 2260, 2270, 2290 East 1300 South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Hello Brooke, As requested, please find the following insights into our rezone petition specifically addressing sections “B” and “C” found in Salt Lake City’s Standards for General Amendments. SECTION B – Standards for General Amendments B. In making a decision to amend the zoning map, the city council should consider the following: 1. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with and helps implement the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents; a. The proposed rezone amendment for the subject properties is consistent with the entire block between 2300 E and Foothill Blvd. This amendment will enhance the existing residential uses of the three subject properties by providing increased density in an appropriate location. Our clear objective is taking 3 dwelling units and turn them into 8 dwelling units. The current housing situation is critical for Utahns and Salt Lake City’s overall housing plans goals for 2023-2027 to provide 10,000 new units and 2,000 affordable units throughout the city is a massive effort. Identifying locations such as this are key to the city’s redevelopment efforts. This location is an appropriate designated area to adjust and make consistent for housing as it is surrounded by the newly adopted MU-3 zone. Our proposal will help implement the purposes and goals of the city to provide critical housing in an approved and accepted zoning district which encourages multi-family housing options. 2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the applicable purpose statements of the zoning ordinance; 3816 S. Highland Drive, Suite 101 Millcreek, Utah 84106 jdevutah.com a. The proposed rezone amendment is appropriate and furthers the applicable purpose of the newly adopted zoning ordinance, MU-3, adjacent to the subject properties. Per the MU-3 zoning ordinance specification sheet, it states, “…the goal of these residential building forms is to promote the efficient use of space….while providing a variety of housing options.” *MU -3 Informational Spec Sheet (v4.24.25) – Salt Lake City. 3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent and nearby properties due to the change in development potential and allowed uses that do not currently apply to the property; a. The proposed rezone amendment will enhance nearby existing residential properties values by creating a new, updated, and modern styled multifamily community. This property will improve efficiencies, infrastructure, safety, and build qualities from the 1940’s era to modern date. This location is highly visible and considered by locals the “gateway” to the St Mary’s neighborhood. This visual and functional neighborhood improvement will increase value and functionality for all approaching and utilizing this critical MU -3 designated property. By updating the zoning for these three subject properties, it establishes consistency and unity with the surrounding island block which is currently zoned MU-3. There is added benefits of inclusion and use if these three outlying lots are merged as one with the newly updated MU-3 zoning. 4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; and a. The proposed rezone amendment is consistent with the current and future anticipated overlay zoning districts and in line with those standards. 5. The potential impacts on the city to provide safe drinking water, storm water, and sewer to the property and other properties based on the additional development potential of future development including any impact that may result in exceeding existing or planned capacities that may be located further away from the subject property. a. The proposed rezone amendment has been preliminarily reviewed by various utility and engineering departments with Salt Lake City. Additional public utility correspondence has been initiated by the petitioner for serviceability and feasibility. There have been no immediate concerns for servicing or utility connections from city departments to date. 3816 S. Highland Drive, Suite 101 Millcreek, Utah 84106 jdevutah.com 6. The status of existing transportation facilities, any planned changes to the transportation facilities, and the impact that the proposed amendment may have on the city's ability, need, and timing of future transportation improvements. a. The proposed rezone amendment is under review and will have an independent traffic study analysis and report prior to planning commission and city council meetings. Preliminary review(s) by Salt Lake City transportation departments , we assume, will be reviewed and completed in a timely manner prior to such meetings, providing additional insights. 7. The proximity of necessary amenities such as parks, open space, schools, fresh food, entertainment, cultural facilities, and the ability of current and future residents to access these amenities without having to rely on a personal vehicle. a. The proposed rezone amendment and future community will provide various connecting sidewalks, open space, and gathering areas for future residents. All proposed areas are accessible without vehicle use. Proximity to critical services such as shopping, dining, and entertainment at Foothill Village is accessible by pedestrian walking. Proximity to major corridor, Foothill Drive, encourages public transit use to employment hubs such as the University of Utah and Hospital networks. 8. The potential impacts to public safety resources created by the increase in development potential that may result from the proposed amendment. a. The proposed rezone amendment will have minor to limited impact to public safety resources as a private, secure, and professionally maintained community with the added benefit of 28 new homes and living units. Salt Lake City Police Departments initial review of the proposal yielded no concerns with the addition. 9. The potential for displacement of people who reside in any housing that is within the boundary of the proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. a. The proposed rezone amendment will enhance the existing residential use of the three subject properties by providing increased density and new, for sale, housing units critical for Utahns and Salt Lake City’s overall housing plans to provide 10,000 new units and 2,000 affordable units in the short term. Currently, the three subject properties are rental homes which have various renters and tenants occupying. The new townhome community will replace these older outdated homes (built in the 19 40s) with the latest architecture, safety and technology features, and with improved infrastructure to support home ownership. The net effect of the proposal is to provide updated housing options for the existing tenants and encourage home ownership in the same location. 3816 S. Highland Drive, Suite 101 Millcreek, Utah 84106 jdevutah.com In addition, the proposal aims to provide needed for -sale housing options on the East Bench which will encourage and serve various demographic and economic profiles in the area…including, but not limited to, empty-nester active-adults, working adults and families, and those seeking affordable housing options. 10. The potential for displacement of any business that is located within the boundary of the proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. a. This is not applicable with this rezone petition. 11. The community benefits that would result from the proposed map amendment, as identified in Section 21A.50.050. a. The proposed rezone amendment will provide exceptional community benefits for the surrounding commercial and residential area, including, but not limited, to the following researched needs specifically: i. The amendment will provide the ability for the project to construct much needed for sale housing units for the Salt Lake East Bench community. The proposed project is to construct ~28 new, for sale, condominium and townhome units which would provide homeowner opportunities on the East Bench for a wide range of demographics. It will also provide opportunities for current residents in the area who desire to remain in the area to move from larger estate homes and open inventory for move -up families. This project aligns with the Governor’s mandate to increase housing options in appropriate areas for Utahns. ii. This location aligns perfectly for new multifamily product type in conjunction with the recently adopted MU-3 zoning by Salt Lake City Corporation. The rezone will bring consistency to the entire island between 2300 E and Foothill Drive. iii. Affordability component. 10% of the units will be dedicated for 80% AMI for area affordability. Critical to accommodate Utah’s housing market. iv. This amendment will help address a HUGE gap in the housing market for older senior neighbors residing in the St. Mary’s neighborhood who want to downsize from generational single -family homes but want to remain in their communities. This product type will allow them to move freeing up homes for families and younger professionals to move to the East Bench. v. An ancillary benefit will expand the uses of eliminating an underutilized parking lot and while providing the community increased tax base and retail support to a newly renovated nearby Foothill Village Shopping Center. vi. An additional community benefit will be to improve the sidewalk and walkability of 1300 S and 2300 E with improved sidewalks and park strips, with the potential to add speed bumps to mitigate speeding on 1300 S. vii. Enhanced landscape along 1300 S and 2300 E will provide a beautiful gateway to Saint Mary’s. 3816 S. Highland Drive, Suite 101 Millcreek, Utah 84106 jdevutah.com viii. These condo units will provide housing opportunities for families looking to relocate aging parents to keep them close to their communities. ix. Underground, secured parking encouraging parking off streets. SECTION C – Standards for General Amendments C. Community Benefit. Each petition for a zoning amendment that is initiated by a private property owner shall identify a community benefit(s) provided by the proposal that would not otherwise be provided without the amendment as provided for in this section. 1. The proposed community benefit(s) shall be within any of the following categories: a. Providing housing that aligns with the current or future needs of the community as determined by the general plan. Needs could include the level of affordability in excess of the number of dwellings that exist on the site, size in terms of number of bedrooms, or availability of housing for purchase; The proposed rezone amendment will provide exceptional community benefits for the surrounding commercial and residential area, including, but not limited, to the following researched specifically: i. The amendment will provide the ability for the project to construct ~28 new, for sale, and affordable units/homesites for the area. This petition ultimately encourages primary home ownership and management. This project aligns with the State of Utah mandate to increase new housing options in appropriate areas for Utahns. ii. Location aligns perfectly for new multifamily product types, uses, and availability in conjunction with the recently adopted MU-3 zoning by Salt Lake City Corporation. iii. Ten percent (10%) of units will be dedicated for 80% AMI for area affordability. Critical to accommodate Utah’s housing market demands. iv. Our team has researched and believes this amendment will provide needed housing options for older senior neighbors residing in the St. Mary’s neighborhood who want to downsize from generational single - family homes, while remaining near friends and neighbor s. This will “free-up” much needed housing inventory in St Mary’s for younger and move-up ready families and buyers. j. Providing commercial space for local businesses or charitable organizations; 3816 S. Highland Drive, Suite 101 Millcreek, Utah 84106 jdevutah.com a. This is not applicable with this rezone petition. k. Providing a dedication of public open space; a. The amendment would provide improved, landscaped, interior and exterior open space and enhanced landscaping to the subject properties on both the private and public right of ways. Park strip and common areas will be enhanced with Urban Forestry planting direction. l. Providing a dedication or other legal form of protection from future development of land that is adjacent to a river, creek, wetland, floodplain, wildlife habitat, or natural lands; a. This is not applicable with this rezone petition. m. Preserving historic structures not otherwise protected; a. This is not applicable with this rezone petition. n. Expanding public infrastructure that expands capacity for future development. a. This is subject to Salt Lake City’s engineering and public works departments which ownership recognizes and will be subject to within good faith and reason. 2. The proposed community benefit may be evaluated based on the following, if applicable: a. For proposals that are intended to increase the housing supply, the level of affordability of the additional density that may be allowed if the proposal were to be adopted; a. This is considered and will be adopted within the community proposal based on city codes and ordinances. b. The percentage of space allocated to commercial use compared to the total ground floor area that could be developed on the site; a. This is not applicable with this rezone petition. c. The size of the public open space compared to the total developable area 3816 S. Highland Drive, Suite 101 Millcreek, Utah 84106 jdevutah.com of the lot, exclusive of setbacks, required landscaped yards, and any open space requirement of the proposed zoning district; a. This is noted by the petitioner and has/will be met based on city codes and ordinances. d. The relative size and environmental value of any land that is to be dedicated; a. This is not applicable with this rezone petition. e. The historic significance of the structures proposed to be preserved; a. This is not applicable with this rezone petition. f. The amount of development that could be accommodated due to the increase in public infrastructure capacity compared to the general need for the area; a. This is noted by the petitioner. g. The input received related to the community benefit during the 45 -day engagement period; a. This is noted by the petitioner. h. Policies in the general plan that support the proposed community benefit. a. This is noted by the petitioner. 3. The community benefit shall be subject to public input as part of the required 45 - day public input period. a. This is noted by the petitioner. 4. The planning commission may make a recommendation to the city council regarding accepting the proposed public benefit. a. This is noted by the petitioner. 3816 S. Highland Drive, Suite 101 Millcreek, Utah 84106 jdevutah.com 5. The city council has final authority regarding requiring a public benefit. The city council may accept the proposed public benefit, modify the benefit, require a different public benefit, or waive the public benefit based on the merits of the proposal. a. This is noted by the petitioner. 6. Any future development where a public benefit is required shall be subject to a development agreement to ensure that the agreed upon public benefit is provided prior to a certificate of occupancy being issued for any building within the future development. a. This is noted by the petitioner. 7. A violation of the development agreement that includes not providing the agreed to public benefit shall require the property owner to pay a fine that is equal to the fair market value of the public benefit in the development agreement plus the f ines identified in Section 21A.20.040. a. This is noted by the petitioner. # # # Conceptual Design The Residences at Foothill methodstudio 10/14/25Page: 1 Northeast Corner View Conceptual Design The Residences at Foothill methodstudio 10/14/25Page: 2 Entrance on 2300 East Conceptual Design The Residences at Foothill methodstudio 10/14/25Page: 3 Street side of 2300 East Conceptual Design The Residences at Foothill methodstudio 10/14/25Page: 4 Street side of 2300 East Conceptual Design The Residences at Foothill methodstudio 10/14/25Page: 5 Corner of 1300S and 2300E Conceptual Design The Residences at Foothill methodstudio 10/14/25Page: 6 Northwest Corner Conceptual Design The Residences at Foothill methodstudio 10/14/25Page: 7 North Elevation East Elevation Conceptual Design The Residences at Foothill methodstudio 10/14/25Page: 8 South Elevation West Elevation Site Conditions The Residences At Foothill N 1300 S Fo o t h i l l D r EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS 3 SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES MU-3 R-1-7000 23 0 0 E EXISTING SURFACE PARKING methodstudio The Residences At Foothill N 1300 S 266’ Fo o t h i l l D r PROPOSED SITE PLAN 8 PROPOSED TOWNHOMES GARAGE ENTRY GARAGE ENTRY RESIDENT AMENITIES MID-BLOCK WALK LANDSCAPED AREAS MAIN ENTRY 20 PROPOSED CONDOMINIUMS (1 0 % affordable) 20 Condominiums 8 Townhomes 23 0 0 E methodstudio 3816 S. Highland Drive, Ste 101 Millcreek, UT 84106 jdevutah.com Date: October 28, 2025 Attn: Brooke Olsen, SLC Planning RE: Petition Number: PLNPCM2025-00558 – Tenant Displacement Plan 21A.50.050: STANDARDS FOR GENERAL AMENDMENTS: D. Displaced Tenants Resulting from Demolition of Housing: If a proposed amendment submitted by a property owner includes the likely demolition of any dwelling, the city council may require the petitioner to provide relocation assistance for the current tenant(s), or a replacement dwelling as required by this section for each demolished dwelling within a future development. 1. This subsection may be applied by the city council when a proposal for a property owner initiated zoning map amendment is likely to result in an existing housing unit being demolished due to the increase in development rights that may result from the proposed amendment. 2. For the purpose of this section, any term that is used in the singular shall be interpreted to include the plural of the term. 3. A petitioner may not terminate a lease or evict a tenant for the purpose of evading the obligation to provide tenant relocation assistance and other requirements set forth in this section. A: Noted. The J Development Team and property ownership group anticipates providing adequate and legal noticing to existing residents well in advance of demolition and construction initiation. The J Development Team has other nearby rental assets that will be communicated to tenants as possible relocation properties if they so choose. J Development will NOT prematurely terminate any existing leases outside of lease contractual timelines. Most tenants of subject properties are currently on month -to-month leases. 4. Tenant Relocation Assistance: When a petition is likely to result in the demolition of a dwelling unit, the property owner may be required to provide the tenant with relocation assistance to supplement the costs of leasing a comparable replacement dwelling. The rental relocation assistance includes the following: a. Moving expenses based on a reasonable estimate provided by the tenant, up to a maximum of $1,500. 3816 S. Highland Drive, Ste 101 Millcreek, UT 84106 jdevutah.com b. Application fees for the replacement housing. c. The deposit that the displaced tenant would have to pay to secure replacement housing. d. Monthly Rental Assistance Payment. The rental assistance payment is based on the difference, if any, between the cost of the monthly rent of the demolished housing and a comparable unit. The rental payment total amount paid shall not be more than $7,200. A: Noted. The J Development Team and property ownership group are willing to explore the best path forward with the city to ensure points a -d with tenant relocation assistance is addressed either by assistance or a fee in leau of. e. If the property owner relocates the displaced tenant into an existing unit that is owned by the applicant within Salt Lake City at the same rental rate the displaced tenant was paying and without an additional applicant fee or deposit, then paragraphs b, c, and d do not apply. A: Noted. The J Development Team and property ownership group anticipates providing adequate and legal notice to existing residents well in advance of demolition and construction initiation. The J Development Team has other nearby rental assets that will be communicated to tenants as possible relocation properties if they so choose. f. Any and all payments should be received by the tenant 24 hours in advance of leaving the unit to be demolished. g. Tenant Relocation Assistance Exemptions: If the project is receiving identified federal funds and subject to the Uniform Relocation Assistance (URA) and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, 42. U.S.C 4601-4655. The relocation assistance rules for the developer/tenant under that act will govern and the Tenant Relocation Assistance outlined in this section will not apply. The developer shall inform the city if they are subject to URA and details of assistance to be provided. Tenants who receive tenant relocation assistance from this section are not eligible to receive relocation benefits from the city. A: Noted, however, this is not applicable to this petition. 3816 S. Highland Drive, Ste 101 Millcreek, UT 84106 jdevutah.com E. Demolished Unit Replacement. The future development may be required to replace the demolished housing unit within the new development. The replacement housing unit shall have the same number of bedrooms. In addition, the applicant shall propose one of the options listed in this section. The city council has the authority to waive or modify this requirement. A: Noted. The proposed project in concept currently has scheduled over 70 beds within the entire community. We are replacing and adding well above the existing 12 beds lost within the existing 3 residential homes. ***A reminder that our proposal is NOT a rental community. We are proposing a FOR SALE community and home ownership which the neighborhood and community are looking for. 1. The replacement unit shall be rented at the same amount as the demolished unit with no more than a 3% annual increase on the rental rate for a period of 20 years. A: This option is not applicable as the petitioner is proposing replacing existing rental units with market rate and affordable for-sale units. As a result, changing the existing housing unit type and encouraging home ownership. 2. The applicant may propose a payment to the city in lieu of the rental restriction on the new unit to go toward the city's housing fund to offset the loss of affordable housing. The payment shall be equal to the monthly rent of the unit prior to demolition multiplied by the number of months between the time the unit is vacated prior to demolition until a certificate of occupancy for the replacement dwelling is issued. A: This option does not appear applicable as the petitioner is proposing replacing existing rental units with market rate and affordable for-sale units. As a result, changing the existing housing unit type and encouraging home ownership. # # # Best, J Development Millcreek, UT Attn: Brooke Olsen RE: Email Response from 10/29/25 Brooke, please find our responses to your questions from your email dated 10.29.25. Thank you, Matt & Joe J Development 1. Tenant relocation assistance – Tenant relocation assistance obligations will be negotiated at the Council level, however, please note that paying a fee to the city in lieu of relocation assistance is not specifically listed as an option. Noted. Sounds like this item is a decision that we are at the mercy of the council with and negotiated. We anticipate this recommendation will be utilized in a fair and evaluated manner. We note the council reserves the right to mandate tenant relocation assistance from us if the tenants decide to move and pursue other lodging. 2. Your narrative states the existing 12 bedrooms will be replaced, however, the data you submitted regarding the number of bedrooms in each existing single family dwelling equates to a total of 10 bedrooms (two three bedroom homes and one four bedroom home). Does each single family home contain 4 bedrooms? If so please correct the data you have submitted. According to the document we previously submitted with our application, and dated May 22, 2025, the owner information we have on the existing homes is as follows: • Dwelling Unit 2260: 3056 square feet. 4 bedrooms • Dwelling Unit 2270: 2788 square feet. 3 bedrooms • Dwelling Unit 2290: 2270 square feet. 3 bedrooms So, if we mentioned 12 recently, then we misspoke. It appears a total of 10 bedrooms are across all three existing homes. 3. Your narrative should address the plan for replacing demolished units within the boundaries of the zoning map amendment, rather than the anticipated project site which includes land outside of the boundaries of the amendment. We are anticipating the 3 existing older homes, currently within the boundaries of the zoning map amendment , will be replaced with a total of 8 new townhome(s) product. All new units will be constructed within the boundaries of the zoning map amendment . We anticipate a total of 22 bedrooms across all new townhomes which we note will all lie within the boundaries of the zoning map amendment. As a note, our greater cohesive community plan will also have cross-over of a few condominium units (3-4) which will also reside within the boundaries of the zoning map amendment property. 4. The narrative should also address how the existing 3 units will be replaced in terms of bedroom count for each replacement unit, rather than number of bedrooms proposed for the entire site. Please note the regulations specifically state “The replacement housing unit shall have the same number of bedrooms.” The replacement housing bedroom count within the zoning map amendment boundaries WILL exceed the existing housing bedroom count. With an anticipated total of 8 new townhome units…with the following bedroom breakdown by unit. *This is conceptual but a good faith number for our petition. (2) Large Townhomes: 6 beds total. (3 beds per unit) (4) Medium Townhomes: 12 beds total. (3 beds per unit) (2) Small Townhomes: 4 beds total. (2 beds per unit) Total New Beds Across Zoning Map Amendment Area: 22 beds *Anticipated Condominium Bedrooms: 6 – 12 total between 3 – 4 condominium units also residing within the boundaries of the zoning map amendment property. 5. How many bedrooms do you anticipate will be provided in the affordable units? 10% of units (3 units out of 26 total units within project ) at 80% AMI will be affordable. Of those 3 units, we ANTICPATE anywhere from 7 – 9 bedrooms will be available and deemed affordable. # # # 4. MAILING LIST OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR OWN_CITY OWN_STATE OWN_ZIP FIRST SECURITY BANK OF UTAH, N A F UTAH, N A PO BOX 2609 CARLSBAD CA 92018 KSD TRUST KSD TRUST 2241 E LAIRD WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 ERIC R SWANSON C R SWANSON 2249 E LAIRD WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 KATHRYN LINDQUIST; JRMT QUIST; JRMT 2253 E LAIRD WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 BRADLEY D RUSSELL; AMY H RUSSELL (JT) USSELL (JT)2259 E LAIRD WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 RALPH L. GOCHNOUR; ROSETTA S GOCHNOUR S GOCHNOUR 2289 E 1300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 ANNE-MARIE WRIGHT LAMPROPOULOS TRUST 05/18/2007 05/18/2007 2211 E LAIRD WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 CHENGJIAN CHE; JINQIU KUANG (JT) KUANG (JT)1221 S FOOTHILL DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 JAMES H DEMET MES H DEMET 1227 S FOOTHILL DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED IDENTIFIED 1233 S FOOTHILL DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 DONALD J JONES; KRISTY W JONES (JT) JONES (JT)2223 E 1300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED IDENTIFIED 2235 E 1300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 STEVEN M LYNCH; JOANNA MASI-LYNCH (JT) -LYNCH (JT)2228 E LAIRD WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 WALTER Y COWIE; NANCY J COWIE (JT) COWIE (JT)2236 E LAIRD WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 JODY W GROW; RICHARD F GROW (JT) F GROW (JT)623 N CAPITOL PARK AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 CHARLES E WEBB; ANNETTE WEBB (JT) E WEBB (JT)2252 E LAIRD WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 RELIANCE BUILDING COMPANY ING COMPANY 3591 E COVEPOINT DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 TJDD PROPERTIES, LLC ERTIES, LLC 4222 S WANDER LN HOLLADAY UT 84124 TJDD PROPERTIES, LLC ERTIES, LLC 348 E 6400 S # 200 MURRAY UT 84107 FOREST CORPORATION CORPORATION 5330 S 900 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84117 SIS 010, LLC IS 010, LLC 5330 S 900 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84117 DEE'S FOOTHILL INVESTMENTS LLC STMENTS LLC 1136 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 LAURA G GAYLORD LIVING TRUST 5/27/2001 T 5/27/2001 2321 E 1300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 260 E SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 AP FOOTHILL VILLAGE, LLC ILLAGE, LLC 1616 CAMDEN RD # 210 CHARLOTTE NC 28203 CD BONNEVILLE LLC; THOMAS A DUFFIN AS A DUFFIN 4222 S WANDER LN HOLLADAY UT 84124 MICHAEL J KATZOURAKIS KATZOURAKIS 1375 S 2300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 ALEXANDRA LONGE; DASHIELL LONGE (JT) LONGE (JT)2315 E SHERIDAN RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 DANIEL FELDMAN; KRISTINA J FELDMAN (JT) ELDMAN (JT)2323 E SHERIDAN RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 1290 S FOOTHILL DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 2241 E LAIRD WAY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 2249 E LAIRD WAY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 2253 E LAIRD WAY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 2259 E LAIRD WAY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 2315 E 1300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 1229 S FOOTHILL DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 2228 E LAIRD WAY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 2236 E LAIRD WAY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 2244 E LAIRD WAY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 2252 E LAIRD WAY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 1300 S FOOTHILL DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 1304 S FOOTHILL DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 2260 E 1300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 2270 E 1300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 2290 E 1300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 1310 S 2300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 1309 S FOOTHILL DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 1313 S FOOTHILL DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 1345 S FOOTHILL DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 2350 E 1300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 1400 S FOOTHILL DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 1375 S FOOTHILL DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 5. ORDINANCE 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2026 (Amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at 2260, 2270 & 2290 E 1300 S from R-1-7000 Single Family Residential District to MU-3 Mixed Use 3 District) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to properties located at 2260, 2270 & 2290 E 1300 S from R-1-7000 Single Family Residential District to MU-3 Mixed Use 3 District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2025-00558. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on November 12, 2025 to consider a petition by J-Development, LLC, representing the property owners, to rezone the parcels located at 2260 E 1300 S (Tax ID No. 16- 10-379-004-0000) 2270 E 1300 S (Tax ID No. 16-10-379-005-0000) and 2290 E 1300 S (Tax ID No. 16-10-379-006-0000) (collectively, the “Property) from R-1-7000 Single Family Residential District to MU-3 Mixed Use 3 District; and WHEREAS, at its November 12, 2025, meeting the Planning Commission voted in favor of transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said petition; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the Property, as more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, shall be and hereby is rezoned from R-1-7000 Single Family Residential District to MU-3 Mixed Use 3 District. 2 SECTION 2. Condition. This map amendment is conditioned upon the owner(s) of the Property entering into a development agreement with the city requiring: a. Each demolished residential dwelling unit on the Property shall be replaced in accordance with Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.50.050.E. b. A minimum of 3 housing units or 10% of all housing units, whichever is greater, constructed within the boundaries of the Property shall be affordable homeownership units for households earning at or below 80% of the area median income. The affordable units shall be comparable to the market rate units in terms of unit size and number of bedrooms. c. The affordable units required pursuant to Section 2.b shall not count towards the eligibility requirements for any future affordable housing zoning incentive applications to the city. d. Tenants displaced by the demolition of residential dwelling units on the Property shall be provided with tenant relocation assistance in accordance with Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.50.050.D. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. The Salt Lake City Recorder is instructed to not publish this ordinance until the condition set forth in Section 2 is satisfied as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Director or his designee. SECTION 4. Time. If the condition set forth in Section 2 above has not been met within one year after adoption, then this ordinance shall become null and void. Within such one year period the City Council may, for good cause shown, by resolution, extend the time period for satisfying the condition identified above. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2026. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER 3 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2026. Published: ______________. Ordinance rezoning 2260, 2270, & 2290 E 1300 S to MU-3 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date January 12, 2026_______________ By: ___________________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney 4 EXHIBIT “A” Legal Descriptions of Property 2260 E 1300 S (Tax ID No. 16-10-379-004-0000) Beginning at a point on the South property line of 13th South Street which point is North 89º53’42” West 156.5 feet from the Northeast corner of Lot 12, Block 15, Five Acre Plat “C”, Big Field Survey, and running thence South 0º02’52” East 110.0 feet; thence North 89º53’42” West 91.5 feet; thence North 0º02’52” West 110.0 feet; thence South 89º53’42” East along the South property line of 13th South Street 91.5 feet to the point of beginning. 2270 E 1300 S (Tax ID No. 16-10-379-005-0000) Beginning at a point on the South property line of 13th South Street which point is North 89º53’42” West 88.0 feet from the Northeast corner of Lot 12, Block 15, Five Acre Plat “C”, Big Field Survey, and running thence South 0º02’52” East 110.0 feet; thence North 89º53’42” West 68.5 feet; thence North 0º02’52” West 110.0 feet; thence South 89º53’42” East along the South property line of 13th South Street 68.5 feet to the point of beginning. 2290 E 1300 S (Tax ID No. 16-10-379-006-0000) Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 12, Block 15, Five Acre Plat “C”, Big Field Survey, and running thence East 8 feet; thence South 0º02’52” W East 114 feet; thence West 96 feet; thence North 0º02’52” W West 114 feet; thence East 88 feet to the point of beginning. This page has intentionally been left blank SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 01/16/2026 Date Sent to Council: 01/22/2026 From: Department * Community and Neighborhood Employee Name: Norris, Nick E-mail nick.norris@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 01/21/2026 Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 01/22/2026 Subject: PLNPCM2025-00554 Expiration of Land Use Approvals Text Amendment Additional Staff Contact:Presenters/Staff Table Nick Norris Document Type Ordinance Budget Impact? Yes No Recommendation: That the City Council adopt the proposal consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation. Background/Discussion See first attachment for Background/Discussion Public Hearing Is there a City or State statutory requirement to hold a public hearing for this item?* Yes No The City Council reserves the option to hold and notice for a public hearing pursuant to their practices for public engagement. Does the City have a general practice to hold a public hearing for this item?* Yes No Provide your perspective on the value of recommending a public hearing Required by city code. Public Process 45-day public engagement period, online open house on planning division open house webpage, public hearing with the planning commission. This page has intentionally been left blank ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Tammy Hunsaker Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This text amendment is intended to update Title 20 Subdivisions and Title 21A Zoning to expand the actions an applicant for an approved land use application can take to prevent their approval from expiring. Utah Code 10-20-902(1)(f) states that an approved land use application is valid if the applicant moves to implement the approval with “reasonable diligence.” State code does not define reasonable diligence. Salt Lake City has placed timeframes for implementation of an approved land use application, which usually requires submitting a building permit. However, there are other actions that an applicant can take, and sometimes is required to take, that would likely be considered acting with reasonable diligence. This text amendment expands actions that can be taken to avoid an approval expiring. In Title 20 Subdivisions, final plats do not have an expiration date. Once a final plat, if required, is submitted, it can sit indefinitely before being recorded. This proposal would add a requirement that the final plat be recorded within 18 months of submitting the application. An applicant can request a 12- month extension. If the plat is not recorded within 18 months due to actions of the city, the dealing is automatically extended by the amount of time the city action delayed the recording. In Title 21A, conditional use, planned development, and design review approvals expire in 12 months unless a building permit is submitted. However, there are other actions often associated with these types of approvals that demonstrate that the applicant is acting with due diligence. Conditional uses do not always require a building permit and may just need a business license if the use is occupying an existing space that does not require any construction. A planned development or design review may require recording a subdivision that has to be recorded before a building permit can be issued. The proposed amendments expand the actions that can start the implementation of approval based on the type of land use application as outlined in the ordinance. Each of these types of applications already includes an opportunity to ask for an extension. However, this text amendment limits the extension to a single, 12- month extension. This text amendment also includes a new provision to address what happens if one of the actions that can prevent a land use approval from expiring, also expires. For example, if a building permit submitted with a conditional use expires, the conditional use approval would also expire. Building permits expire if the permit has not been acted on for 180 days. It should be noted that there may be other actions an applicant can take that may satisfy the state code requirement for implementing an approval with reasonable diligence. An example may be that closing on the purchase of a property being delayed by a legal issue that does not involve the city or a lawsuit involving the property that is not resolved within the deadlines in city code. In those instances, the city would likely have to decide whether the applicant is still acting with reasonable diligence. However, the possibilities of what may be considered reasonable diligence are too many to codify into city code. It is rare that an approval expires without some action being taken by the applicant and the Planning Division does not expect many applications to face this type of situation. PUBLIC PROCESS: This proposal included a 45-day public engagement period that started on July 10, 2025 and extended through August 24, 2025. All recognized organizations received notice of the 45-day public input period, as did all entities and people who have signed up to receive email notification of Planning Commission items that are subject to an online open house. The Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was mailed on August 15, 2025 for the public hearing held on August 27, 2025. Please note, city code does allow a notice for a public hearing to occur within the 45-day public engagement period, provided the recommendation from the Planning Commission is made after the 45-day public input period. No public comment was received during the 45-day engagement period. One public comment was received prior to the public hearing, but after the staff report had been published. The comment was from the Sugar House Community Council, who indicated they supported the proposed changes. During the public hearing, here was public input made during the public hearing, which suggested that a requested extension not be granted if the property currently had any outstanding code violations. That suggestion was discussed by the commission and guidance was provided by staff that a requirement like that violated state code because the presence of a code violation is not related to the land use approval and is not related to the applicant acting with reasonable diligence. This item is a general text amendment that is not applicable to specific properties and has no geographic area. Furthermore, no one has indicated that they would like to receive written notice of any future public meetings or hearings on this matter. Therefore, there is not a mailing list associated with this item. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of August 27, 2025 b) PC Minutes of August 27, 2025 c) Planning Commission Staff Report of August 27, 2025 EXHIBITS: The following is a list of attachments/files to be included in the final transmittal via Laserfiche. These files do not need to be combined into a single PDF; they can be uploaded as separate attachments. Please ensure that each Exhibit is saved with the exact file name specified below. 1) Ordinance 2) Project Chronology 3) Notice of City Council Public Hearing 4) Public Comment Received after the Planning Commission Staff Report was Published 5) Original Petition This page has intentionally been left blank 1. ORDINANCE V1 Project Title: Expiration of Land Use Approvals Petition No.: PLNPCM2025-00554 Version: 1 Date Prepared: September 4, 2025 Planning Commission Action: Recommended August 27, 2025 This proposed ordinance makes the following amendments (for summary purposes only): Modifies Subsection 20.16.080 by adding an expiration time for final plat approvals. Adds section 20.22.060 to create an expiration date for approvals of street dedication plats. Modifies Subsection 21A.54.120 to clarify the expiration time for conditional use approvals. Modifies Subsection 21A.55.080 to clarify the expiration time for planned development approvals. Modifies Subsection 21A.59.080 to clarify the expiration time for design review applications. Underlined text is new; text with strikethrough is proposed to be deleted. Modifications made as part of the Planning Commission recommendation are highlighted in yellow. All other text is existing with no proposed change. 1. Amends section 20.16.080.F by adding an expiration time for final plat approvals. 1 20.16.080: FINAL PLAT REVIEW PROCESS: 2 A. After preliminary subdivision approval has been granted, the subdivider may submit all requirements 3 for a final plat under Chapter 20.10. The final plat documents shall be consistent with the approved 4 preliminary subdivision documents and shall be approved if it complies with applicable provisions of this 5 title, matches the preliminary approval, includes all conditions of preliminary approval, and all applicable 6 provisions of Utah Code Chapter 10-9a. All final plat applications shall be submitted within eighteen (18) 7 months of preliminary approval except for: 8 1. A subdivision that was indicated during preliminary approval to be phased; in which case the final 9 plat shall be consistent with the phasing plan approved as part of the preliminary approval. Each 10 phase shall require a separate final plat application; and 11 2. Condominiums where the subdivider desires to complete the framing of the building to ensure the 12 interior dimensions of the condominium as shown on the final plat are consistent with the built 13 dimensions of the building. In this case, the final plat shall be submitted within thirty (30) days of 14 final framing inspection. 15 B. City Review: City review processes and timelines shall be consistent with Utah Code Chapter 10-9a, 16 Part 6 or its successor. 17 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: __9/4/2025___________________ By: _/s/ Courtney Lords________________ Courtney Lords, Senior City Attorney V1 C. Subdivision Improvement Construction Agreement: The subdivider and the city shall finalize an 18 agreement regarding the construction of all public improvements required or proposed as part of the 19 subdivision. The agreement shall be finalized prior to the city engineer signing the final subdivision plat. 20 D. The final plat to be recorded shall be on typical mylar material or the common material for plats at 21 the time. The printing or reproduction process used shall not incur any shrinkage or distortions, and the 22 reproduced copy furnished shall be of good quality, to true dimension, clear and readable, and in all 23 respects comparable to the approved final plat. The mylar plat shall be signed separately by all required 24 and authorized parties and shall contain the information set forth in this chapter. 25 E. Prior to the filing of the final plat with the mayor, the subdivider shall file the necessary tax lien 26 certificates and documents. 27 F. Final Plat Applications Expiration: A final plat application shall be submitted within 18 months of the 28 date of preliminary approval. A final plat that is not recorded within 18 months of the date the final plat 29 application is submitted shall be considered expired and become void. All preliminary approvals 30 associated with the final plat shall also be considered expired. If the final plat application is not recorded 31 within 18 months due to the failure of the city to complete a review in a timeline required by applicable 32 laws, the expiration period shall be extended by the number of additional days that it takes the city to 33 complete the review. An applicant may request a one-time extension of 12 months by submitting a written 34 request to the planning director prior to the expiration of the final plat application. 35 2. Creates section 20.22.060 Expiration of Street Dedication Plan to read: 36 20.22.060: EXPIRATION OF STREET DEDICATION PLAT 37 A street dedication plat shall expire in 180 days from the date of approval if not recorded with the Salt 38 Lake County Recorder’s Office. 39 3. Amends section 21.54.120 to clarify the expiration time for conditional use approvals. 40 21A.54.120: LIMITATIONS ON CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL: 41 Subject to an extension of time granted by the planning commission, or, in the case of administrative 42 conditional uses, the planning director or designee, no conditional use shall be valid for a period longer 43 than one year unless a building permit has been issued or complete building plans have been submitted to 44 the division of building services and licensing within that period and is thereafter diligently pursued to 45 completion, or unless a certificate of occupancy is issued and a use commenced within that period, or 46 unless a longer time is requested and granted by the planning commission, or, in the case of 47 administrative conditional uses, the planning director or designee. Any request for a time extension shall 48 be required not less than thirty (30) days prior to the twelve (12) month time period. The approval of a 49 proposed conditional use by the planning commission, or, in the case of administrative conditional uses, 50 the planning director or designee, shall authorize only the particular use for which it was issued and shall 51 be valid subject to this section. 52 A. All conditional use approvals expire 12 months from the date of approval unless one of the following 53 occurs before the approval expires: 54 V1 1. A complete building permit application to construct or modify a building or property where the 55 conditional use will be located has been submitted to the city; 56 2. The conditional use is associated with a development agreement, if authorized by Utah Code and 57 City Code, and the development agreement is signed and executed between the owner of the property 58 and the city; 59 3. If a subdivision is required as part of the conditional use, a complete final plat application is 60 submitted to the city. For the purpose of this section, a subdivision includes a subdivision 61 amendment; 62 4. If no building permit is required, a business license is issued for the conditional use on the subject 63 project; or 64 5. If none of the above are required, the applicant notifies the planning director in writing that the 65 conditional use has been established, and all conditions of approval have been satisfied. 66 B. If one of the actions listed above expires, the conditional use shall also be considered expired. 67 C. A one-time, one-year extension may be granted by the planning commission, or planning director for 68 administrative conditional use, if a written request for an extension is submitted by the applicant to the 69 planning director prior to the expiration of the conditional use. Extensions authorized by this section only 70 apply to the conditional use approval and not to any other required applications or approvals. 71 D. If one of the actions listed in Subsection A is satisfied, the conditional use shall be considered 72 established and the conditional use shall be allowed to continue until it ceases provided the conditional 73 use complies with applicable regulations, the plans approved as part of the conditional use, and all 74 conditions of approval or the conditional use is revoked as provided for in this section. 75 E. If the property owner, or someone authorized to act on the owner’s behalf, establishes a different, 76 allowed use on the property, the conditional use approval shall be considered voluntarily terminated by 77 the property owner. 78 4. Amends section 21.55.080 to clarify the expiration time for planned development approvals. 79 21A.55.080: TIME LIMIT ON APPROVED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT: 80 No planned development approval shall be valid for a period longer than one year unless a building 81 permit has been issued or complete building plans have been submitted to the Division of Building 82 Services and Licensing. The planning commission or planning director in the case of an administrative 83 planned development, may grant an extension of a planned development for up to one additional year 84 when the applicant is able to demonstrate no change in circumstance that would result in an unmitigated 85 impact. Extension requests must be submitted prior to the expiration of the planned development 86 approval. 87 A. A planned development approval expires in 12 months from the date of approval unless one of the 88 following occurs before the approval expires: 89 1. A complete building permit application to construct at least one of the principal buildings approved 90 as part of the planned development is submitted to the city; 91 V1 2. A development agreement, if authorized by Utah Code and City Code, is signed and executed 92 between the owner of the property and the city; or 93 3. A complete final plat application is submitted to the city if the planned development included 94 approval of a preliminary subdivision application. For the purpose of this section, a subdivision 95 includes a subdivision amendment if the planned development is located in an existing subdivision. 96 B. If one of the actions listed above expires, the planned development shall also be considered expired. 97 C. A one-time, one-year extension may be granted by the planning commission, or planning director for 98 administrative planned developments if a written request for an extension is submitted by the applicant to 99 the planning director prior to the expiration of the planned development. Extensions authorized by this 100 section only apply to the planned development approval and not to any other required applications or 101 approvals. 102 D. If the property owner, or someone authorized to act on the owner’s behalf, submits a building permit, 103 subdivision application, or other development authorized by city code that complies with the applicable 104 regulations and is different than the approved planned development application, the approved planned 105 development shall be considered voluntarily terminated by the property owner. 106 5. Amends section 21.59.060 to clarify the expiration time for design review approvals. 107 21A.59.060: TIME LIMIT ON APPROVED APPLICATIONS FOR DESIGN REVIEW: 108 No design review approval shall be valid for a period longer than one year from the date of approval 109 unless a building permit is issued or a complete building plans and building permit applications have been 110 submitted to the Division of Building Services and Licensing. An extension of one year may be granted 111 by the entity that approved the application. Extension requests must be submitted prior to the expiration 112 of the design review approval. 113 A. A design review approval expires in one year from the date of approval unless one of the following 114 occurs before the approval expires: 115 1. A complete building permit application to construct at least one of the principal buildings approved 116 as part of the design review is submitted to the city; 117 2. A development agreement, if authorized by Utah Code or City Code, is signed and executed 118 between the owner of the property and the city; or 119 3. A complete final plat application is submitted to the city if the design review application is 120 associated with a preliminary subdivision application. For the purpose of this section, a subdivision 121 includes a subdivision amendment. 122 B. If one of the actions listed above expires, the design review shall also be considered expired. 123 C. A one-time, one-year extension may be granted by the planning commission, or planning director for 124 administrative design reviews, if a written request for an extension is submitted by the applicant to the 125 planning director prior to the expiration of the design review. Extensions authorized by this section only 126 apply to the design review approval and not any of the actions listed in section A. 127 V1 D. If the property owner or someone authorized to act on the owner’s behalf, submits a building permit, 128 subdivision application, or other development authorized by city code that complies with the applicable 129 regulations and is different than the approved design review application, the approved design review shall 130 be considered voluntarily terminated by the property owner. 131 This page has intentionally been left blank 2. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Chronology May 23, 2025 Petition initiation signed by Mayor Erin Mendenhall. July 10, 2025 45-day public engagement period started. August 15, 2025 Notice of Planning Commission public hearing posted on Utah Public Notice website, city website, and provided through Planning Division email listserve. August 24, 2025 45-day public engagement period ended. August 27, 2025 Planning Commission public hearing held. This page has intentionally been left blank 3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2025-00554 – Expiration of Land Use Approval Text Amendment – Mayor Erin Mendenhall has initiated a petition for a zoning text amendment to expand the actions a land use applicant may take to prevent an approved land use application from expiring. The proposal helps clarify the actions a land use applicant may take to satisfy the requirement in Utah Code 10-20-902(1)(f) for an applicant to implement the approval with reasonable diligence. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. DATE: TIME: 7:00 pm PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing an in- person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including Zoom connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Nicholas Norris at 801-535-6173 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at nick.norris@slc.gov. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2025-00554. 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. This page has intentionally been left blank 4. PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED AFTER STAFF REPORT PUBLICATION This page has intentionally been left blank 5. Original Petition SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLC.GOV PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-535-7757 FAX 801-535-6174 PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Erin Mendenhall Cc: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff; Tammy Hunsaker, Department of Community and Neighborhoods Director; Michaela Oktay, Deputy Planning Director; Mark Kittrell, City Attorney. From: Nick Norris, Planning Director Date: May 23, 2025 Re: Initiation of a text amendment to modify the time limit for land use approvals The Planning Division is requesting that you initiate a text amendment to the city code that would standardize the time limit for approvals of conditional uses, planned developments, design reviews, and final subdivision plats. Conditional uses, planned developments, and design reviews all expire within one year unless building permit plans are submitted or a time extension is granted. This code change would clarify that the time limit to submit a building permit be modified to also include approvals associated with a development agreement or a subdivision plat, which are both legally binding documents that establish some degree of entitlement for a property owner that the city code does not currently include. These two options would only applicable if either is legally authorized. Under the Utah Code, for example, the use of development agreements is limited and not all applications include a proposed subdivision. The proposal would also clarify that if a building permit has expired, the conditional use, planned development, or design review would also expire. In addition, in 2024 when the city adopted new subdivision regulations, the expiration timeline for recording a final plat was inadvertently left out of the ordinance adopted by the City Council. This proposed amendment would add a requirement that a final plat be recorded within 18 months of submitting the final plat application. The amendments may include modifying additional regulations that are related to the expiration of land use applications to improve administration of the code and consistency. The proposal will go through the typical public engagement process, with a minimum of 45-days public input period with notice to all recognized organizations and the division’s email distribution list. It is anticipated that the planning commission will hold a public hearing in late summer, and the item will then be transmitted to the City Council for a decision. This memo includes a signature block to initiate the petition if that is the decided course of action. If the decided course of action is not to initiate the application, the signature block can remain blank. Please notify the Planning Division when the memo is signed or if the decision is made to not initiate the petition. Please contact me at 801-535-6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com if you have any questions. Thank you. Concurrence to initiate the zoning text amendment petition as noted above. ______________________________________ _________________ Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Date This page has intentionally been left blank SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 02/04/2026 Date Sent to Council: 02/10/2026 From: Department * Community and Neighborhood Employee Name: Martinez, Diana E-mail diana.martinez@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 02/06/2026 Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 02/10/2026 Subject: Alley Vacation Request - Portion east of 519 E. Browning Avenue Additional Staff Contact: John Anderson // john.anderson@slc.gov Presenters/Staff Table Diana Martinez // diana.martinez@slc.govJohn Anderson // john.anderson@slc.gov Document Type Ordinance Budget Impact? Yes No Recommendation: Recommendation that the City Council approve the alley vacation application. Background/Discussion See first attachment for Background/Discussion Public Hearing Is there a City or State statutory requirement to hold a public hearing for this item?* Yes No The City Council reserves the option to hold and notice for a public hearing pursuant to their practices for public engagement. Does the City have a general practice to hold a public hearing for this item?* Yes No Provide your perspective on the value of recommending a public hearing State law requires a public hearing for this type of application. Public Process Noticing for public hearing. This page has intentionally been left blank ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Tammy Hunsaker Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: PLNPCM2025-00883 is an alley vacation petition submitted by Amy and David Beecham. The applicants live to the west of the alleyway. The applicants purchased their property at 519 E. Browning Avenue in July of 2024. In an attempt to replace a fence along the east property line of what they thought was their property, they discovered a discrepancy in their title report. They learned that the alley was platted along the east side of what they believed was their property, which also includes their detached garage. The alley was created through the Watkins Addition Subdivision Plat in April 1890. The alley was originally platted to go North to South from Sherman Avenue to Browning Avenue, between the east blocks of Park Street and 500 East. Historic aerial photographs show that sometime before 1958, the existing detached garage -which appears to be on the applicant’s property- was built, and that the alley has not been passable from Browning Avenue to Sherman Avenue since that time. The northern portion of the alley, from Sherman Avenue to the middle of the block, will not be affected by this vacation request and will remain open to all users. Yellow line= portion of alley requested to be vacated Red outline= properties abutting the alley that are affected by the possible vacation PUBLIC PROCESS: • Early Notification— o On September 9, 2025, the Liberty Wells Community Council Chair was sent the 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations. The planning staff received no comments. o Notice was sent to all property owners and occupants within 300’ of the portion of the alley requested to be vacated. • Planning Commission Meeting – The Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 10, 2025, and voted 4 to 2 to recommend approval of the application to the City Council. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) Planning Commission Agenda - December 10, 2025 b) Planning Commission Approved Minutes - December 10, 2025 c) Planning Staff Report - December 10, 2025 d) YouTube Video of December 10, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting: Starting at 1:11:42 EXHIBITS: 1. Transmittal Memo 2. Project Chronology 3. Notice of City Council Hearing 4. Original Petitions 5. Ordinance 6. Mailing List EXHIBITS: 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. ORIGINAL PETITION 4. ORDINANCE 5. MAILING LIST 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2025-00883- Alley Vacation - Amy & David Beecham, the applicants, are requesting approval for an alley vacation, located to the east of 519 E. Browning Avenue, to vacate (or to give up public ownership of) a portion of a public alley approximately 16 feet by 187.43 feet, starting from Browning Avenue. If approved, this section of the alley would be divided and allocated to the property owners abutting the portion of the alley that is vacated. September 3, 2025 Petition for the Zoning Text Amendment was accepted by Salt Lake City Planning Division. September 8, 2025 Petition PLNPCM2025-00883 was assigned to Diana Martinez, Senior Planner, for staff analysis and processing. September 9, 2025 Early notification was sent to the Liberty Wells Community Council Chair, providing information about the proposal and how to give public input on the project. Beginning of the 45- day input and comment period. No comments was received from the community council. Notice sent to all property owners and occupants within 300’ of the subject property. October 24, 2025 End of extended 45-day Recognized Community Organization notice period. November 28, 2025 Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing posted at on the subject property. December 5, 2025 Public notice posted on City and State websites, and Planning Division listserv. December 10, 2025 The Planning Commission holds a public hearing and votes 4 to 2 to send a favorable recommendation to approve the proposed text amendment. 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2025-00883, which requests an Alley Vacation. Amy & David Beecham, the applicants, are requesting approval for an alley vacation located to the east of 519 E. Browning Avenue to vacate (or give up public ownership of) a portion of a public alley approximately 16 feet by 187.43 feet, starting at Browning Avenue. If approved, this section of the alley would be divided and allocated to the property owners abutting the portion of the alley that is vacated. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During these hearings, anyone wishing to address the City Council on this issue may speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance on the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: PLACE: 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held in-person, to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, please visit www.slc.gov/council. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Diana Martinez at 801-535-7215 or via e-mail at diana.martinez@slc.gov. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/ by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2025-00883. The City and County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours before the hearing to participate. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801- 535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. ORIGINAL PETITION 4. ORDINANCE 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2026 (Vacating a city-owned alley situated adjacent to properties located at 519 and 523-527 E. Browning Avenue, 1379 S. 500 E., 1372 and 1378 S. Park Street) An ordinance vacating an unnamed city-owned alley adjacent to properties located at 519 and 523-527 E. Browning Avenue, 1379 S. 500 E., 1372 and 1378 S. Park Street pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2025-00883. WHEREAS the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on December 10, 2025 to consider a request made by Amy & David Beecher to vacate an unnamed city-owned alley adjacent to properties located at 519 and 523-527 E. Browning Avenue, 1379 S. 500 E., 1372 and 1378 S. Park Street; and WHEREAS, at its December 10, 2025 hearing, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation on said petition to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”); and WHEREAS, the City Council finds after holding a public hearing on this matter that there is good cause for the vacation of the alley and neither the public interest nor any person will be materially injured by the proposed vacation. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 2 SECTION 1. Closing and Vacating City-Owned Alley. That an unnamed, city-owned alley, which is more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, hereby is vacated and declared not presently necessary or available for public use. SECTION 2. Reservations and Disclaimers. The above vacation is expressly made subject to all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities of any and every description now located on and under or over the confines of this alley, and also subject to the rights of entry thereon for the purposes of maintaining, altering, repairing, removing or rerouting said utilities, including the city’s water and sewer facilities. Said vacation is also subject to any existing rights-of-way or easements of private third parties. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this _______ day of ______________, 2026. ______________________________ Alejandro Puy, Council Chair ATTEST: ______________________________ Keith Reynolds, City Recorder Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ Erin Mendenhall, Mayor 3 ______________________________ Keith Reynolds, City Recorder (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2026 Published: ______________. Ordinance Vacating Alley Near 519 Browning Ave APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__February 3, 2026__________________ By: ___________________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney 4 EXHIBIT “A” Legal description of the unnamed, city-owned alley to be vacated: A PARCEL OF LAND, SITUATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 1 EAST, SALT LAKE BASE MERIDIAN, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE STREET MONUMENT AT THE INTERSECTION OF PARK STREET AND BROWNING AVENUE, A FOUND BRASS CAP; THENCE NORTH 01° 12' 40" EAST, ALONG THE PARK STREET MONUMENT LINE, A DISTANCE OF 33.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89° 52' 59" WEST A DISTANCE OF 173.20 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE ALLEY PARCEL AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG THE SAID ALLEY PARCEL THE FOLLOWING (4) FOUR COURSES: 1. NORTH 89° 52' 59" WEST A DISTANCE OF 16.00 FEET; 2. NORTH 01° 17 46" EAST A DISTANCE OF 187.43 FEET; 3. SOUTH 89° 52' 59" EAST A DISTANCE OF 16.00 FEET; 4. SOUTH 01° 17 46" WEST A DISTANCE OF 187.43 FEET MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE TOTAL AREA OF THE ALLEY PARCEL AS DESCRIBED ABOVE IS 2999 SQUARE FEET 0.069 ACRES MORE OR LESS. BASIS OF BEARING IS NORTH 01° 12' 40" EAST A DISTANCE OF 571.81 FEET (RECORD 571.50 FEET) BETWEEN FOUND BRASS CAP MONUMENTS MARKING THE INTERSECTION OF PARK STREET AND BROWNING AVENUE AND THE INTERSECTION OF PARK STREET AND SHERMAN AVENUE. 5. MAILING LIST OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR own_unit OWN_CITY OWN_STATE OWN_ZIP STEVE A BRUSH EVE A BRUSH 1141 E MICHIGAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 PAUL KARAHALIOS KARAHALIOS 11769 S LITTLER RD SANDY UT 84092 DOWNTOWN RESORT PROPERTIES-UTAH, LLC; JSR PROPERTIES-UTAH, LLC S-1240 E 2100 S # 600 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 Current Occupant 1349 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1350 S PARK ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1354 S PARK ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 MURIEL J LEE; WAYNE L LEE (JT) L LEE (JT)1355 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 JACOB VOEGELE; SARA DRYDEN (JT) DRYDEN (JT)1355 S PARK ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1358 S PARK ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1359 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1359 S PARK ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 ERIN BROOKS; JAMEN BROOKS (JT) BROOKS (JT)1360 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 DELINA MCCANN; JAMES EMMETT BANKSTON (JT) NKSTON (JT)1362 S PARK ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 KATHRYN LUCAS; BRANDON S WEIRICH (JT) EIRICH (JT)1364 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 K ZENDINA MOSTERT INA MOSTERT 1367 S PARK ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 CHRISTOPHER D SCHOTT; DEANNE L BRADSHAW (JT) ADSHAW (JT)1368 S PARK ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1369 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 NATALIE JOAN AVERY & MARY ANGELA ELEGANTE REVOCABLE TRUST 11/13/2 1370 S PARK ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 CHRISTOPHER GUIDO; ROBERT GUIDO (JT) GUIDO (JT)1371 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 DEBRA J LEEFLANG; EDUWARD F, SR. LEEFLANG (JT) EFLANG (JT)1371 S PARK ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 TESA D JAMES ESA D JAMES 1372 S PARK ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1376 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 JAMES D ADAMSON S D ADAMSON 1377 S PARK ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 BRITA K MANZO; WILLIAM R, II MANZO (JT) MANZO (JT)1378 S PARK ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 TODD D DEETZ ODD D DEETZ 1379 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 CHARLES W MADSEN; MARCIA GUNNELL MADSEN; ROBERT K MADSEN (JT) MAD 1383 S PARK ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 MAZIAR ALEXANDER BEHTASH; ERICA MORRISSEY BEHTASH (JT) EHTASH (JT 1384 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 MICHAEL BARRY COKER; SHALYN KAY HUETTER (JT) UETTER (JT)1386 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 WEEKS FAMILY TRUST 11/19/2020 11/19/2020 1389 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 BRYCE JOLLEY; FAITH JOLLEY (JT) JOLLEY (JT)1389 S PARK ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1390 S PARK ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1394 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 MATHIAS F RICHARDS; DESIREE RICHARDS (TC) CHARDS (TC)1395 S PARK ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 BOND JOHNSON LIVING TRUST 02/26/2019 02/26/2019 1397 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 ESTER MELGAREJO; DAYVE HUAPPAYA (JT) APPAYA (JT)1398 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 STEVEN E NIELSEN; DAVID NIELSEN (JT) IELSEN (JT)13982 S HAWBERRY RD DRAPER UT 84020 JAMES JOLLY; LAUREN JOLLY (JT) JOLLY (JT)1406 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SHARLENE P REVIE ENE P REVIE 1411 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 PAULA J BRALEY; KALEN J BRALEY (JT) BRALEY (JT)1412 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1415 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RICHARD T TRUSSELL T TRUSSELL 1416 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 TRACY HITE TRACY HITE 1417 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1426 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 GORDON H ROWE; SYDNEY JO SELL (JT) O SELL (JT)1429 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED IDENTIFIED 1435 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 LARRY L PETERSEN TRUST 09/29/2021 09/29/2021 1451 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 CHRISTOPHER J HAYES LIVING TRUST 01/21/2014; GINA LEWIS LIVING TR 159 W BROADWAY ST # 310 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 TOM P PEZELY OM P PEZELY 1901 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED IDENTIFIED 2020 E 1700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 GARRON W BENTLEY N W BENTLEY 2525 E CAPRICORN WY HOLLADAY UT 84124 KEUMYEO KIM KEUMYEO KIM 2546 S FILMORE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 Diana Martinez -Senior Planner 451 S. State St. 406 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 Current Occupant 474 E HARRISON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 CLEVELAND HOLDINGS LLC OLDINGS LLC 475 E CLEVELAND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 JARED LYNN GARCIA; ANITA P MATA (JT) P MATA (JT)4767 S 6450 W HOOPER UT 84315 Current Occupant 515 E BROWNING AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 AMY BEECHAM; DAVID M BEECHAM (JT) EECHAM (JT)519 E BROWNING AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 GRETCHEN B FAULK HEN B FAULK 519 E CLEVELAND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 TYLER M ANDERSON; ROSEMARY C WINTERS (JT) INTERS (JT)520 E BROWNING AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 523 E BROWNING AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RVD LIV TRUST D LIV TRUST 524 E BROWNING AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 529 E CLEVELAND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 LJP LIVING TRUST 09/24/2008 09/24/2008 530 E BROWNING AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 533 E CLEVELAND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RAY L HAGEN; ANNA M HAGEN (JT) HAGEN (JT)535 E BROWNING AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 CHASE NYE; LAUREN M NYE (JT) M NYE (JT)535 E CLEVELAND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 MICHAEL B SMITH; STARR A SMITH (JT) SMITH (JT)536 E BROWNING AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 WENDY LOWDER ENDY LOWDER 539 E CLEVELAND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 EMILY SULLIVAN; BRENT MITCHELL (JT) TCHELL (JT)542 E BROWNING AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 CFJ LIV TRUST J LIV TRUST 543 E CLEVELAND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 TARA CHEN; STEPHEN CHARLES CHEN (JT) S CHEN (JT)544 E BROWNING AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SARAH HARWARD (JT) ARWARD (JT)548 E BROWNING AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED IDENTIFIED 549 E CLEVELAND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 GARY J BOWERS; CAROLE BOWERS (JT) BOWERS (JT)556 E BROWNING AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 TRACY FINANCIAL, INC ANCIAL, INC 5949 S 450 E MURRAY UT 84107 BB TRUST BB TRUST 7740 S SHARENE CIR MIDVALE UT 84047 CALFA REAL ESTATE LLC ESTATE LLC 888 E 3900 S MURRAY UT 84107 LEE A BROWN; CHRISTINA BROWN (JT) BROWN (JT)948 S 800 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 BROWNING DUPLEX, LLC DUPLEX, LLC PO BOX 91126 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 This page has intentionally been left blank SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 02/24/2026 Date Sent to Council: 02/26/2026 From: Department * Airport Employee Name: Wyatt,Bill E-mail Bill.Wyatt@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 02/25/2026 Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 02/25/2026 Subject: SLC Airport Noise Property Sale Additional Staff Contact: Shane Andreasen Shane.Andreasen@slc.gov Presenters/Staff Table Document Type Information Item Budget Impact? Yes No Recommendation: Request Council’s determination whether a second public hearing is necessary for the sale of the Noise Property. Department administration posted public notices on the Utah Public Notice and City websites, and on the a ffected parcel in accordance with the State code. 63G-30-102 in advance of the February 11, 2026, Airport Advisory Board meeting. Department staff presented the disposition during the February Advisory Board meeting. There was not any public comment. Background/Discussion See first attachment for Background/Discussion Public Hearing Is there a City or State statutory requirement to hold a public hearing for this item?* Yes No The City Council reserves the option to hold and notice for a public hearing pursuant to their practices for public engagement. Does the City have a general practice to hold a public hearing for this item?* Yes No Provide your perspective on the value of recommending a public hearing The Department of Airports held a public hearing at the Airport Advisory Board meeting on February 11, 2026, there were no public comments however council may request a second hearing. Based on the nature of the sale the Department of Airports does not recommend a second public hearing unless Council prefers. Public Process Department administration posted public notices on the Utah Public Notice and City websites, and on the affected parcel in accordance with the State code. 63G-30-102 in advance of the February 11, 2026, Airport Advisory Board meeting. Department staff presented the disposition during the February Advisory Board meeting. There was not any public comment.The public process for the conveyance of the Noise Property has been adhered to, and the Department will proceed with the sale as outlined herein. This page has intentionally been left blank ERIN MENDENHALL OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Mayor SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL _____________________________ Date Received: ________________ Jill Love, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: February 24, 2026 Alejandro Puy, Chair FROM: Bill Wyatt, Executive Director, Department of Airports SUBJECT: Approve of the disposition of surplus real property controlled by the Department of Airports (“Department”) as required under Salt Lake City Code 2.58.1 The Department desires to dispose of a property purchased by the City as “noise mitigation property” with grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”), located at approximately 840 South Gladiola Street, Salt Lake City, Utah (the “Noise Property”). The Department desires to dispose of the Noise Property for reasons and through the methods specified below. STAFF CONTACT: Shane Andreasen, Director, Airport Real Estate and Commercial Development DOCUMENT TYPE: Written briefing RECOMMENDATION: Request Council’s determination whether a second public hearing is necessary for the sale of the Noise Property. Department administration posted public notices on the Utah Public Notice and City websites, and on the affected parcel in accordance with the State code. 63G-30-102 in advance of the February 11, 2026, Airport Advisory Board meeting. Department staff presented the disposition during the February Advisory Board meeting. There was not any public comment. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The purpose of this transmittal is to proceed with the process of disposing of a significant parcel of real property. 1 City Policy 53-21-9, Surplus Property, also describes a process for disposition of surplus property, but does not contemplate disposition of property by enterprise funds. The Department acquired the Noise Property in approximately 1987 with funds from the FAA specifically for the purpose of acquiring residential properties in areas with high noise exposure. The Noise Property, and property acquired with noise land grants from FAA generally, is meant to be used or disposed of (with appropriate land use restrictions) as part of a noise compatibility program. In the case of the Noise Property, it was acquired contingent upon the City allowing the then-current owner to lease back the property. The lessee, however, is no longer living in the home and has terminated the lease. Both adjacent property owners have expressed interest in purchasing the property to expand their land uses, which are consistent with the current zoning as light industrial, and airport operations. The Department recommends allowing the two adjacent property owners to bid for the property to gain the best value for the City with the least administrative costs. The Department has acquired an appraisal that complies with FAA requirements regarding fair market property valuation. In no event will the Noise Property be sold for less than the appraised fair market value. As a threshold matter, the Noise Property is not zoned open space or governed by City Code 2.90,2 and may not be utilized for other City purposes due to federal restrictions on the use of airport revenue and the use of grant funds when purchased.3 In addition, FAA regulations apply to the disposition, which will be addressed through a separate process. The Noise Property is also a “significant” parcel under City Code 2.58.035C, and that process is being followed. The Department obtained approval on September 23, 2025, from Chirs Jennings, the Chief Procurement Officer, identifying the Noise Property as surplus and authorized the disposition methodology. PUBLIC PROCESS: The public process for the conveyance of the Noise Property has been adhered to, and the Department will proceed with the sale as outlined herein. EXHIBITS: A. The Noise Property to be conveyed. 2 The definition of “open space lands” under City Code “does not include land acquired through or managed by the city's department of public utilities or department of airports.” City Code 2.90.020. 3 Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue, 64 FR 7696 (February 16, 1999) (the “Revenue Use Policy”). The Revenue Use Policy defines airport revenue as all “fees, charges, rents, or other payments received by or accruing to the sponsor for,” among other things, “revenue received for the activitie s of others or the transfer of rights to others relating to the Revenue from air carriers, tenants, lessees, purchasers of airport properties, airport permittees making use of airport property and services, and other parties.” 64 FR 7716. Therefore, if ano ther City department wanted to use the properties for other purposes, the General Fund must transfer the appraised fair market value amount for the property to the Airport Enterprise Fund. Exhibit A – Noise Property This page has intentionally been left blank SALT LAKE CITY BOARD MEMBER TRANSMITTAL To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 02/18/2026 Date Sent To Council: 02/18/2026 From: Otto, Rachel Subject: Board appointment Recommendation: Airport Board Recommendation: The Administration recommends the Council approve the appointment of Jonathan Gardner to the Airport Board for a 4 year term starting on the date of City Council advice and consent . Jonathan Gardner currently lives in District 6. Approved:* Otto, Rachel SALT LAKE CITY BOARD MEMBER TRANSMITTAL To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 02/18/2026 Date Sent To Council: 02/18/2026 From: Otto, Rachel Subject: Board appointment Recommendation: Airport Board Recommendation: The Administration recommends the Council approve the appointment of Lisa Ramsey Adams to the Airport Board for a 4 year term starting on the date of City Council advice and consent . Lisa Ramsey Adams currently lives in District 7. Approved:* Otto, Rachel SALT LAKE CITY BOARD MEMBER TRANSMITTAL To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 02/10/2026 Date Sent To Council: 02/12/2026 From: Otto, Rachel Subject: Board reappointment Recommendation: Arts Council Recommendation: The Administration recommends the Council approve the reappointment of Hannah Nielsen to the Arts Council for a 3 year term starting on the date of City Council advice and consent . Hannah Nielsen currently lives in District 1. Approved:* Otto, Rachel Mar 1, 2026 Laura Briefer - Director Salt Lake City Dept. of Public Utilities 1530 S. West Temple Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 Dear Ms. Briefer, As the leaders and membership of the Poplar Grove Community Council, we are writing to request that you immediately pause construction of the forced sewer ventilation project at 1020 W. Pierpont Avenue (aka ‘500 South Biofilter Project’, formerly ‘500 South Biotower Project’). At the most recent PGCC meeting on February 25, 2026, one representative from your department and one from a hired public relations firm stated that they would be holding a meeting to address the neighborhood residents’ project safety concerns. The representatives indicated that SLCDPU would be moving forward with the project regardless of any future feedback given. Some residents had initiated a GRAMA request and an agreement was made to hold the meeting after there was time to review the materials. Two days later, it was communicated that the safety meeting would take place prior to the fulfillment of the GRAMA request, against the wishes of the residents. In addition to being sited in a residential neighborhood, the project is also one block from Franklin Elementary School and near St. Patrick Church and Neighborhood House. Of the concerns raised, one is the release of methane and other toxins in unknown concentrations and flow rates. Normally, these gases would be detectable by smell. The proposed treatment would remove the odor, but not the hazard. In the previous month’s meeting, a different SLCDPU employee dismissed air sensors as an option. Wind flow patterns are likely disrupted by I-80 and I-15, but air pollution modeling was not based on site-specific measurements. Another concern is that the engineers may not have formally assessed alternatives, such as diverting treated gases back into the sewer pipe or liner placement with proper upgradient ferric dosing. In response to the comment that our safety input would be ignored, the membership voted to send this letter asking you directly to pause the project and that we would forward this to the other parties below. We ask that this pause remain in effect until the requested materials have been reviewed and a subsequent public meeting allows the membership to take an informed vote regarding the project (or an alternative). We appreciate your thoughtful consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Daniel Tuutau, DMA Chair, Poplar Grove Community Council Attachment 1 - Page 1 Anne Ruth Isaacson Revised: 9 March 2026 To: City Council Member Erika Carlsen City Council Member Eva Lopez Chavez City Council Member Dan Dugan City Council Member Victoria Petro City Council Member Alejandro Puy City Council Member Chris Wharton City Council Member Sarah Young Re: Wade Building Rezone – 256 East 300 South Dear City Council, In reviewing the application to rezone the Wade-owned property from the newly established MU-8 Residential/Mixed Use zoning district to the D-1 Central Business zoning district 4, I thought it would be helpful to first share with you a little about the state of build in this area, as it looks much different than the MU-8 district one might expect just viewing a zoning map. The area proposed for the Wade Building Rezone is currently a neighborhood of predominantly smaller scale buildings which house restaurants, shops, a drycleaner, carwash, exercise studios, beauty services and physician offices. The residence buildings house residents of all demographics, including families with young children and the elderly. The upzoning of this block, just a few months ago, to the MU-8, Form Based, Mixed-use Zoning District, in and of itself, does not change the presence of the mainstay of smaller structures including buildings listed on both the Local and the National Registry of Historic Places. Some specific examples of preexisting properties, which do not reflect the MU-8 upzoning, include those at the corner of 300 E and 300 S: 1.The Sampson-Altadena Condominiums on the Local and National Registry of Historic Places are located at 276 E. 300 S and 310 S 300 E, the South-West corner of 3rd and 3rd. These are 3.5 story structures, with individually owned residence flats. These structures were built in 1905/6 on sandstone foundations. 2. Attachment 2 - Page 1 3.Killa Restaurant, located at the North-West corner of 300 S and 300 E inhabits a building built in 1906 and was previously the Salt Lake Antiques Shop and a Ford Car Dealership before that. In the same structure are Burger.Lab and Salt & Olive, in the ambiance of a 2-story building, which make this block popular amongst foodies and those wishing to enjoy the corner’s ambiance. 4.Ute’s Carwash and the Paradise Palm are located at the North-East corner of 3rd and 3rd. These are both 1-2 story structures. Ute’s Carwash is a favorite in Salt Lake City, drawing a reliable clientele, keeping their wheels clean. Paradise Palm is a premier spot for people in Salt Lake looking for unique pieces of interior landscape. 5.The Peter M. and Paula Green Johnson Building which houses the YWCA, is located at the South- East Corner of 3rd and 3rd, designed by architect Julia Morgan (January 20, 1872-February 2, 1957) and listed on the National Registry of Historic Places. Residences on the site top off at 3-stories and, more than anywhere else in the city, house an abundance of young families. It also provides daytime care for community babies and toddlers. Attachment 2 - Page 2 Looking at the SLC D-1 Central Business District Zone in relationship to this established neighborhood: •The Purpose of the D-1 Central Business District is to provide for commercial and economic development within Salt Lake City’s most urban and intense areas. The area of the city this Zoning is proposed for, as shown above, is neither the most urban nor the most intense. This zoning type, by definition, is not intended for this area of the city. •A broad range of uses, including very high-density housing, are intended to foster a twenty-four (24) hour activity environment consistent with the area’s function as the business, retail, entertainment, cultural and tourist center of the region. The area of the city this Zoning is proposed for, as shown above, is of significantly lower density, predominantly housing full-time residents who enjoy the quiet of the night, enabled by businesses which do not foster twenty-four (24) hour activity. Considering the number of children, families and elderly in this neighborhood, this proposed use is both incompatible and undesirable. •Building Heights: No building shall be less than one hundred feet (100’). There is no maximum building height. The height allowances for this zoning type are incompatible with the surrounding architecture. The current Zoning height maximum for the MU-8 district is 75’(or 90 feet with design review). Particularly at a midblock location, such a structure would permanently create a massive wall, center block, in a neighborhood of significantly smaller structures. These height allowances are inappropriate for this area of the city. Summary of Input: •Summary of potential issues, or community concerns with the proposal: o The architectural rendering depicted does not fit within the character of the existing neighborhood and is not accurately shown to the scale of the building listed on the application at 180 feet plus parapet height. Additionally, the applicant has modified the height to “not to exceed 225 feet” in the package to City Council, also not depicted in the applicant-provided rendering. The architecture and scale is not in keeping with the scale and style of buildings on the block, and it’s mid-block location, at the proposed heights would create a visual barrier, leaving buildings to the East and West to face a windowless 18 to 22-story wall, casting a shadow on neighboring buildings and blocking out the sky. o D-1 zoning not only requires a 100’ minimum building height, but it also allows for a “limitless” building height. Such zoning puts the applicant in a position to come back later with an even higher, more obtrusive design. o As a neighborhood, with appropriately scaled and scheduled restaurants, neighborhood shops and services, we are concerned as a community that the proposed building will bring undesirable changes to this peaceful area. With the introduction of such a densely packed building, catering to visitors with a 24-7 operation, we are worried about becoming natural magnates for after-hours violence, like other areas of the city densely packed for entertainment. Attachment 2 - Page 3 •The rendering provided in the application is misleading: The first image below, is what is included in the application. It is rendered at approximately 75-78’ in total height, which would align with MU-8 Zoning, the newly established code for this site. However, the applicant has requested an 185 (180+ parapet) foot or a 225 foot “maximum-height building, each depicted below: o As you can see from the renderings which show the scale correctly, the scale is not in character with the neighborhood and would create a barrier bisecting the block, creating a barrier to the community. •Recommendations to mitigate potential issues, impacts, or community concerns: o The property owner is looking for a use for their lot, which is understandable… to develop it beyond a parking lot. However, there is no higher demand in this city than housing, as such, residential or a residential mixed use property would best fit this location and ideally be developed within the recently approved MU-8 Zoning. o The design should show exhibit a design continuum with the most immediate neighboring buildings, by material and by scale. o Build a building 75 feet (90 feet with design review). Provide fenestration that one can be seen from inside and from outside. Work within the guidelines of the current zoning, code, and design regulations. o The building, on the long narrow lot, should have windows to have viable living +/or working spaces. This necessitates that the building step back from the side yard property lines, so that the adjacent landowners may also build to their side yard property lines. The applicant’s proposal that it will have “transparent stone” in lieu of windows does not negate the need to step back from the side yard property line so that windows will not be blocked by future adjacent construction deeming the building obsolete. In Summation: Considering its’ scale and high-family occupancy, the neighborhood where the Wade Building Rezone is proposed is incompatible with D-1 Central Business Zoning. The Wade Building is proposed as a hotel with multiple uses which appears intended to draw a great deal of human and vehicular traffic. The D-1 Zoning change proposed is out of character with this residential mixed-use zone and could negatively impact it. I strongly urge the city to reject the Wade Building Rezone application and recommend the applicant work within the MU-8 zoning restrictions. Sincerely, Anne Ruth Isaacson Attachment 2 - Page 4 Central City Neighborhood Council (CCNC) centralcityslc.wordpress.com/ccnc/ | CentralCityCouncil@gmail.com 2 In this case, the Planning Commission forwarded a negative recommendation on the requested zoning change from MU-8 to D-1, reflecting concerns about the appropriateness of extending Central Business District zoning to this location. It is also important to note that zoning decisions typically outlast individual development proposals. While the current application references a potential hotel project, approval of the requested zoning would establish long-term development rights for the property that could enable a wide range of future uses permitted within the D-1 district. For this reason, CCNC encourages the Council to evaluate the requested zoning change based on its long-term planning implications and compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods, rather than solely on the current conceptual proposal. Neighborhood Context The block surrounding 256 East 300 South contains a mix of residential buildings and small- scale neighborhood businesses that contribute to the character of this part of Central City. Nearby examples include the Sampson-Altadena Condominiums, which are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the YWCA building designed by architect Julia Morgan, and longstanding neighborhood-serving businesses along 300 South and 300 East such as restaurants, cafés, and specialty shops. While the site is located near the downtown core, the surrounding block remains characterized by predominantly 2–4 story buildings and a neighborhood-scale streetscape, rather than the high-intensity development typically associated with the D-1 Central Business District.The intensity of a 24-hour and 185-foot D-1 use is at odds with the mid-scale character of this block. Consistency with Adopted Plans The Central Community Master Plan emphasizes protecting neighborhood character while allowing appropriate mixed-use development and encourages thoughtful transitions between the downtown core and surrounding residential areas. The plan also recognizes that redevelopment pressures can sometimes produce buildings that are out of scale with their surroundings, underscoring the need to consider compatibility when evaluating zoning changes. For these reasons, CCNC does not support extending D-1 zoning to this mid-block location and encourages the Council to carefully consider whether a zoning designation more consistent with the surrounding neighborhood context would be appropriate. Community Benefits and Responsible Development CCNC recognizes the property owner’s interest in redeveloping the site and is not opposed to development. The neighborhood council supports responsible and thoughtful development that aligns with adopted plans and provides clear benefits to the surrounding community. Attachment 3 - Page 2 Central City Neighborhood Council (CCNC) centralcityslc.wordpress.com/ccnc/ | CentralCityCouncil@gmail.com 3 At this time, the proposed zoning change does not include clearly defined community benefits associated with the requested increase in development intensity. The project does not propose community benefits commensurate with such a large upzone such as for-sale housing, public space, or significant ground-floor retail. When zoning changes increase development capacity, they are often paired with clearly defined community benefits. Recent projects in the Central City neighborhood demonstrate how development can successfully balance neighborhood compatibility with meaningful public benefit. For example, the recently announced project at 343 South Denver Street proposes redevelopment within the existing MU-8 zoning district and includes clearly defined community benefits such as significant ground-floor retail and five percent low-income housing. CCNC believes that when additional development capacity is requested through zoning changes, clear and enforceable community benefits — such as housing affordability, active ground-floor uses, for-sale housing, public space, or other neighborhood-serving elements should accompany that increased entitlement. Zoning Transition Considerations Given the Planning Commission’s recommendation and the surrounding development pattern, CCNC does not support an upzone to D-1 at this mid-block location due to the scale and uses proposed. The Council may wish to consider: ●Whether D-1 zoning is appropriate at this location, given the surrounding mix of mid- scale buildings ●Whether an alternative zoning district with similar mixed-use characteristics but a smaller scale than D-1 may better align with surrounding development patterns ●How zoning decisions at this site could influence future development patterns along 300 South and within the Central City neighborhood. Conclusion Central City continues to experience significant redevelopment pressure. Thoughtful zoning decisions are essential to ensure that growth supports the needs and character of surrounding neighborhoods. CCNC requests that the City Council reject this application for an upzone to D- 1. Sincerely, Attachment 3 - Page 3 Central City Neighborhood Council (CCNC) centralcityslc.wordpress.com/ccnc/ | CentralCityCouncil@gmail.com 4 Travis Starley Travis Starley, Land Use Committee: tgstarley@gmail.com Central City Neighborhood Council (CCNC) As supported by the CCNC Board Members: Austin Taylor, Chair – Jenny Starley, Vice Chair – Anne Ruth Isaacson, Secretary – Ben Engel, Treasurer – Seth Brown, Board Member At-Large – Attachment 3 - Page 4