Loading...
08/13/2002 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2002 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah met in Work Session on Tuesday, August 13, 2002, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 326, Committee Room, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance: Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love, and Dale Lambert. Absent: Councilmember Dave Buhler Also In Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer; David Nimkin, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; D. J. Baxter, Mayor's Senior Advisor; Lisa Romney, Administrative Assistant for Environmental and Intergovernmental Relations; Diana Karrenberg, Community Affairs Manager; Timothy Harpst, Transportation Director; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Michael Sears, Council Budget and Policy Analyst; Janice Jardine, Council Planning and Policy Analyst; Jan Aramaki, Council Constituent Liaison/Research and Policy Analyst; Lehua Weaver, Council Staff Assistant; LuAnn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Development Director; Margaret Hunt, Community and Economic Development Director; Lynn Pace, Assistant City Attorney; Everett Joyce, Environmental Planning and Urban Design/Ordinances Planner; Joel Paterson, Special Projects Planner; Cheri Coffey, Northwest/Long Range Planner; Randy Isbell, Housing Specialist; Parviz Rokhva, Technical Planner/CIP/Olympics; Nancy Tessman, Library Director; Sarah Wright, Utahns for an Energy Efficient Economy; Richard Collins, Associate Professor of Economics and Finance; Mark Johnson, Civitas, Inc. ; Steve Crane, VCBO Architects; Jeff Burkes, Utah Energy Office Policy Coordinator; and Scott Crandall, Deputy Recorder. Councilmember Christensen presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:33 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. Councilmember Christensen said in September the Council' s formal meetings would begin at 7:00 p.m. Ms. Gust-Jenson said the formal meeting was brief and could be combined with the Work Session. Council Members were in favor of conducting both meetings in Room 326. Ms. Gust-Jenson said Item G-2, Realms of Inquiry petition, was on the Consent Agenda. She said a briefing was scheduled in the Work Session and the Council could delay the vote pending the briefing. See file M 02-5 for announcements. #2. INTERVIEW HELANE LETA PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER RE-APPOINTMENT TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CDAC) . Ms. Leta said she served on the committee for several years. She said the committee' s process had improved and her experience had been positive. She said committee members worked well together and received support from City staff. Councilmember Saxton asked about the frustrations and rewards of serving on the committee. Ms. Leta said there was never enough money to address all the needs. She said she wanted to fund agencies trying new and innovative things but it was important to maintain agencies providing basic services. 02 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2002 Councilmember Christensen asked if the change to the review process had been an improvement. Ms. Leta said the change was made prior to her appointment. She said less time was needed because petitioners did not make presentations to the committee. Councilmember Saxton said when she served on the committee the Mayor's recommendations were given to the committee before a decision was made. She asked what impact that had on the committee's decisions. Ms. Leta said the committee did not receive information ahead of time. She said she understood the Mayor wanted the committee to make independent decisions. She said it might be helpful for the committee chair to meet with the mayor and council to share ideas. #3. INTERVIEW MANNUEL VORHER PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BOARD (CIP) . Mr. Vorher said he was born in Mexico and moved to the United States 42 years ago. He said he served in the military and retired from Kennecott Copper after 35 years. He said he had a part-time job as an interpreter and taught the DUI "Prime for Life" program. He said he wanted to serve the community and learn more about City government. #4. INTERVIEW BILLY CRUZ PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE HOUSING ADVISORY AND APPEAL BOARD (HAAB) . Mr. Cruz said he had been the American Towers Homeowners Association superintendent for eight years. He said the quality of life had improved during his employment. He said he wanted to be involved and use his experience to contribute to the community. #5. INTERVIEW STEVEN SZYKULA PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS RE-APPOINTMENT TO THE GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND ADVISORY BOARD. Mr. Szykula said board members were competent and committed and he had enjoyed serving for the past year. He said the City' s courses were well managed and competitively priced. Councilmember Lambert said he understood play had decreased at County courses and asked what the experience was at City courses. Mr. Szykula said there had been some decline due to the large number of courses available and the weather. Councilmember Lambert asked whom the board advised. Mr. Szykula said comments and suggestions were given to Steve Wetherall, Golf Director. Councilmember Lambert asked if the board was involved in staffing issues regarding how many people were needed on maintenance crews and in clubhouses. Mr. Szykula said yes. He said a complex accounting and management report was reviewed by the committee at their monthly meetings. Councilmember Lambert asked if the committee participated in the interview process for maintenance and clubhouse employees. Mr. Szykula said they participated both formally and informally. He said two golf courses were assigned to each committee member. He said this allowed the committee to become acquainted with the staff and their needs. Councilmember Saxton asked how often the board met. Mr. Szykula said monthly. Councilmember Saxton asked for an example of what issues were on the agenda. Mr. Szykula said over the past several years, the main issues were fees and structuring the frequent golfer program. #6. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A REQUEST BY THE REALMS OF INQUIRY SCHOOL TO AMEND THE CENTRAL COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN AND REZONE PROPERTY AT 1146 SOUTH 900 EAST FROM RESIDENTIAL TO INSTITUTIONAL. View Attachment Janice Jardine and Everett Joyce briefed the Council with the attached handout. 02 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2002 Councilmember Love said the community councils supported the proposal and wanted the housing mitigation fee waived since the property would return to residential if it was not used as a school. Councilmember Christensen said he was concerned about setting a precedent for other non-profits. He asked if a market factor was calculated in the proposal. Mr. Joyce said no. He said the housing mitigation ordinance did not consider market factors. He said a covenant on the property required the land to revert to residential use if the school was discontinued. He said the adjacent property had the same condition. Councilmember Christensen said restrictions could affect the value of the property. He asked about the process for fee waivers. Ms. Gust-Jenson said the ordinance did not provide fee waivers and would have to be re-written. She said the fee did not apply to individual properties. She said the decision to waive fees was determined by the Community and Economic Development Director. Ms. Gust-Jenson said the Planning Commission (PC) made the recommendation to waive the fee. She said the Council could support the recommendation or make a different one. Councilmember Christensen asked if the Administration's position had changed from the initial recommendation. Margaret Hunt, Community and Economic Development Director, said no. Councilmember Jergensen asked if the community supported the master plan amendment. Mr. Joyce said yes. He said their only concern was to ensure the property would revert to residential if the school was discontinued. Councilmember Jergensen asked if the property automatically reverted to residential. Mr. Joyce said no. He said official action would be required to rezone the property. He said the City had the authority to rezone the property if it was no longer used as a school. Councilmember Lambert asked why the Council should waive the fee for this non-profit compared to others. Mr. Joyce said the applicant was willing to pay the fee but the PC felt mitigation would not be necessary. He said the PC made the recommendation based on the restrictive covenants being in place, assuring residential use. Councilmember Saxton asked if the grassy area to the west of the school was part of the same parcel. Mr. Joyce said yes. Councilmember Saxton said there had been some discussion about enlarging the lot to the south. Mr. Joyce said the original recommendation contained an option to rezone and keep the property line in place. He said the PC' s recommendation was to combine the properties. He said if that occurred, a property line adjustment and a four-foot side yard would be required before the property could revert back to residential. Councilmember Saxton asked about the advantages or disadvantages of having four feet added to the side yard. Mr. Joyce said the addition would provide a better side yard for the home. He said the school might not be willing to give up four feet of property. He said some school facilities would have to be adjusted if the four feet was used. Councilmember Saxton said she felt the side yard should be increased now so the property would be ready for residential use in the future. Councilmember Turner asked what the community council vote was. Mr. Joyce said the vote was unanimous by both community councils. Ms. Jardine said another ordinance could be prepared to address Councilmember Saxton' s request for the additional four-foot side yard. She said the adoption of the rezoning ordinance would include the restrictive covenant recordation. #7. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A GRANT REQUEST FOR MILLION SOLAR ROOFS (MSR) PARTNERSHIP. View Attachment 02 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2002 Lisa Romney, Michael Sears, Richard Collins, Jeff Burkes, and Sarah Wright briefed the Council with the attached handout. Councilmember Jergensen said the historical guidelines regarding the installation of solar panels needed consideration. Ms. Romney said residents who wanted to install solar panels would be responsible to understand and follow the regulations. She said the State Legislature approved two new bills. She said one bill approved net metering which allowed a person to have their own power supply. She said any excess power produced could be sold to the power company. Ms. Romney said the other bill allowed power companies to apply an energy efficiency and conservation tariff to their customer' s utility bill. She said the proposed grant would ensure solar technology was included in the tariff. She said the tariff collected by the power companies would be used to subsidize the cost for residents who wanted to purchase solar power. Councilmember Lambert asked if the grant was solely to provide consultants to testify before the Public Service Commission (PCS) . Ms. Romney said the PCS was soliciting public input on how the new laws would impact consumers. She said the PCS's process was too cumbersome for the average citizen to participate in. She said consultants were retained to deal with the PCS and represent citizen concerns. She said the consultants were not lobbying but would provide expert testimony and research to the PCS. Councilmember Lambert said aside from testifying, what other services would the consultants provide. Ms. Romney said the consultants would participate in review and comments on the net metering bill and on PacifiCorp' s integrated resource plan which they were required to present to the PSC. She said the grant included money which would be used to inform the public about decisions being made by the State and PSC and how customers could take advantage of the program. Ms. Romney said the consultants would perform research and participate in formal and informal hearings. She said without the grant the City would be unable to participate in the process and residents would not have a voice in the proceedings. Councilmember Saxton said solar systems were expensive and asked how much could be done considering there was no federal support for the technology. Ms. Romney said the federal allocation for renewable energy was unequal compared to other energy forms. She said the limited amount of money was not enough. She said the grant was intended to seek state and local partnerships to help remove policy and cost barriers relating to solar technology. Councilmember Saxton asked if PacifiCorp was in favor of the issue. Ms. Romney said PacifiCorp wrote a letter of support which was included in the grant proposal. Councilmember Christensen asked why Salt Lake City was the conduit for this grant. Ms. Romney said MSR was looking for a government/citizen partnership and Salt Lake was one of the leaders in the County regarding energy conservation measures. She said governmental involvement would be beneficial in dealing with the complex PSC process. Councilmember Jergensen asked if this proposal would result in a new policy or program. Ms. Romney said yes. Councilmember Jergensen said the public needed to know what the $50,000 grant accomplished and how residents could participate in conservation measures. Ms. Romney said a portion of the grant was dedicated to public notification and education. Mr. Collins said when the proposal was presented to the PSC there was no guaranty the program would be approved. Councilmember Christensen said some expenditures would be made prior to the budget 02 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2002 opening. He said approving the proposal now was a good faith effort by the Council. A straw poll was taken on advancing the proposal. All Council Members were in favor. #8. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE EASTSIDE OF THE LIBRARY BLOCK. View Attachment D.J. Baxter, Russell Weeks, Mark Johnson, and Steve Crane briefed the Council with the attached handout. Mr. Johnson said the Library held public meetings and an open house. He said there was overwhelming public support for open space on Library Square. He said the public did not want the open space to be designed or programmed as an events facility. He said they wanted a park atmosphere with flexibility for neighborhood and daily use. Mr. Johnson said discussion was held on water conservation issues. He said the design was modified reducing the lawn areas. He said he felt those areas could be reduced even further. Mr. Baxter said a budget error was made in the written material regarding the crosswalk proposal. He said he understood the $400, 000 figure included the traffic signal. He said the signal was not included and would cost approximately $100,000. He said after meeting with the designer, several modifications could be made which would bring the cost back to the original $400,000 estimate. Mr. Baxter said the annual maintenance costs for the library block would be approximately $80,000 per year. He said cost savings could be used to finance the first 4-6 years. He said an endowment fund could be used to finance a portion of the annual cost. He said the Administration would present a detailed proposal to the Council at a later date. Mr. Baxter said the Administration was considering ways to furnish the library project with various pieces of art or sculpture. He said the Quest for the Gift of Life Foundation wanted a downtown location where statewide organ donors could be memorialized. He said Utah was a leader in the country for organ donations. Mr. Baxter said he would keep the Council updated. He said the Administration wanted Council feedback and approval regarding the basic open space design. He said the Administration was proposing the use of one-time Olympic revenue to fund the project. He said the Administration needed Council approval to spend approximately $40, 000 from the $1.1 million bond proceeds to start the final design and construction document phase. He said they needed to move into this portion of the project in order to open the space by next summer. Councilmember Lambert asked if the safety aspects of the design had been reviewed by the Police Department. Mr. Johnson said no, but felt that needed to be done. Councilmember Lambert asked if consideration was given to create an area similar to a playground, which could be used by children. Mr. Johnson said that was part of the design. He said they wanted to design a play area but not a typical playground. Mr. Johnson said the space would be open to a variety of possibilities including parabolic reflectors and an interactive sound wall. He said the Science Center was located close by and would provide children' s programs. He said the next level of design would address potential amenities. Councilmember Saxton said Liberty Park had an interactive element which was enjoyed by kids and adults. She said this could be used as an example. Councilmember Lambert asked what the next step was in the public process. Ms. Gust- Jenson said the Council needed to address the Library Block Master Plan. Councilmember Christensen suggested addressing the issue at the end of the briefing. Mr. Baxter 02 - 5 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2002 said the Administration wanted public input when the other design phases where discussed. Councilmember Lambert asked if employees were concerned about the left-hand turn being eliminated to the City and County Building. Mr. Baxter said there had been some discussion. He said angled parking along 500 South would open to the public once employee parking was available at the Library. He said there had been a large reduction in traffic to the City and County Building since the Justice Court moved to its new location. Mr. Baxter said a small percentage of employees would park in the horseshoe and felt the left-hand turn would not be a big concern. He said some design modifications could be made to permit the left turn if the Council wanted. Mr. Baxter said the Administration would come back to the Council with more details. Councilmember Saxton asked about elevation changes in the design. Mr. Johnson said the largest change was approximately 16 feet. Councilmember Saxton said she was concerned about the functionality of the lawn being on a hill. Mr. Johnson said the slope was only 3% and should not be considered a hill. He said there was 3 feet of change in 100 feet of distance. Councilmember Saxton asked about the proposed crosswalk traffic light. Tim Harpst, Transportation Director, said the light would be a regular traffic signal which would remain green until activated by a pedestrian. Mr. Harpst said the light had been designed but the location needed to be determined. Councilmember Saxton asked if the Youth City Government had been given an opportunity to review any of the public comments or provide input. Mr. Baxter said no. He said there were a number of youth who participated in the public process and attended the open house. Councilmember Saxton said they could provide a different perspective and suggested giving them a presentation. Councilmember Love asked what programming was being considered. Mr. Baxter said he felt there would be two or three large events per year. He said for the most part, the space would remain open for the public to enjoy at their own pace. Councilmember Turner said he was concerned the 200 East crosswalk improvements would interfere with parade routes. Mr. Crane said the improvements were designed to accommodate floats. Councilmember Christensen asked if the Administration could check with other float committees to ensure the 200 East design would work. Mr. Baxter said they would. Councilmember Turner asked if the open space would create problems with skaters or sidewalk surfers. Mr. Johnson said he felt the Council needed to make a decision about that issue. He said the choices were: 1) build amenities specifically for skaters, 2) look the other way, or 3) preclude them. He said the current design was not attempting to create a special place for them. Councilmember Jergensen asked about parking ingress and egress. Mr. Johnson said the public would use the 400 South entrance and employees would use 500 South. He said there were several exits. Councilmember Jergensen asked if there were concerns about traffic circulation around the block. Mr. Johnson said traffic issues had been resolved at an earlier stage in the process. Councilmember Jergensen asked where the public transportation free-fair zone ended. Mr. Baxter said at the Library stop. Councilmember Jergensen asked at the next 02 - 6 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2002 briefing, if the Administration would include a cost breakdown of the $3.2 million construction and design total, additional money for the crosswalk, and options relating to the $500,000 figure. Councilmember Christensen asked about the term "Great Lawn". Mr. Johnson said the term was given to the "Great Lawn" in Central Park in 1858. He said the term was used by park designers and recurred in major parks around the world. Councilmember Christensen suggested displaying a narrative about the "Great Lawn". Councilmember Christensen asked about the status of the $2 million of private donations discussed in an earlier budget. Mr. Baxter said the Administration felt donations could be used for art displays and play areas. Councilmember Christensen asked if contributions could be used to offset costs from the first phase. Mr. Baxter said the Administration could look into that but it raised a concern about naming rights. He said the City needed to decide if it wanted major components of the library to have specific names. Councilmember Christensen asked if other gifts would involve naming rights. Mr. Baxter said yes. He said the Administration felt naming contributions for a sculpture or fountain was more appropriate than naming basic infrastructure components. Councilmember Christensen asked if the initial $4 million design included core needs such as electrical outlets which would be needed for large events. Mr. Baxter said yes. He said infrastructure needs were installed to accommodate temporary facilities. He said hard surface access routes were designed to protect lawn areas. Councilmember Christensen asked about the installation of foundations. Mr. Baxter said the foundations on the westside of the block were on a single filtration system. He said additional fountains could not be added to that system. He said due to the expense, the Administration hoped private donations could be used to enhance the east side with fountains. Councilmember Lambert said he was concerned about spending $400,000 for a street level crosswalk. He said he felt the design needed to be reconsidered. Mr. Crane said part of the design was to improve employee and pedestrian safety. Councilmember Christensen asked when a decision needed to be made on 200 East. Mr. Baxter said they wanted to complete the crosswalk improvements about the time employees starting parking at the library. Mr. Baxter said safety and design quality issues needed to be considered. He said he was concerned about the cost and modifications could be made if the Council wanted. Mr. Baxter said the City engineer could review the design to see if costs were in line. Councilmember Love asked if the Council could receive a cost breakdown. Mr. Baxter said he would provide the information. Councilmember Christensen asked about the installation of restrooms in the open space. Mr. Johnson said restrooms were included in the design. Councilmember Turner said barricades were used effectively during the Olympics and asked if they would work on 200 East. He said when an event was scheduled the barricades could be moved to allow the use of the entire street. Mr. Baxter said that idea was discussed and several items of concern were raised: 1) costs involved in moving barricades for special occasions, 2) difficulty of providing temporary irrigation to the mid-block green space, and 3) the quality of a permanent versus a temporary feature. All Council Members were in favor of the open space design and authorizing the $40,000 expenditure from the bond proceeds. Council Members also wanted the cost breakdown for the 200 East crossing proposal. 02 - 7 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2002 The Council discussed holding a public hearing on the Library master plan. Ms. Gust- Jenson said a completed master plan existed which supported the concept of open space. She said the master plan was never officially adopted by the Council. She said the approval portion of the process was bypassed when the Council decided to support open space on the block. Ms. Gust-Jenson said there were two ways to close the issue: 1) hold the hearing and adopt the master plan, or 2) file a letter with the City Recorder' s Office closing the petition. She said a master plan was not required for a block this size but the Planning Commission had already held their public hearing. Councilmember Jergensen asked if a closed master plan had the same effect as an approved master plan. Ms. Gust-Jenson said no. Councilmember Christensen suggested setting a hearing date in early September to adopt the master plan. The majority of the Council was in favor. The meeting adjourned at 8 :26 p.m. sc 02 - 8 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: August 9,2002 SUBJECT: Petition No. 400-01-44—Realms of Inquiry School-request to amend the Central Community Master Plan and rezone property at 1146 South 900 East from Residential R-1/5000 to Institution I. STAFF REPORT BY: Janice Jardine,Land Use and Policy Analyst Document Type Budget-Related Facts Policy-Related Facts Miscellaneous Facts _ Ordinance The main proposal The proposal is The Administration has no budget impact. presented to revise an has clearly stated the The Planning existing ordinance. positive aspects of the Commission's proposal. recommendation that the Housing Loss Mitigation fee be reduced to $1 does reduce funds that otherwise would be paid to the Housing Trust Fund. Key Elements A. Realms of Inquiry is a private school offering an academic curriculum from kindergarten to high school. A half-day preschool program is also provided. B. The proposed master plan amendment and rezoning would facilitate renovation of an existing single- family structure for additional classroom space. In addition,a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions will be recorded that limits the use of the property and establishes provisions for future rezoning,enforcement,amendments. It establishes a time limit of 50 years,and waiver of rights relating to rezoning and non-conforming use status. Please refer to the proposed Ordinance and Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for details.The restrictive covenant would limit the use of the property to the following: 1. Compatible residential uses 2. Private school 3. School grounds,outdoor classrooms,accessory school structures or functions 4. Landscaping C. The existing structure,the Best-Cannon House,is listed as a landmark site on the City's Register of Cultural Resources. (Historic Landmark Commission review would be required for any exterior renovation or demolition.) 1 D. The proposed rezoning requires compliance with City Code, Chapter 18.97 Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss from Rezoning. This section of the City Code requires mitigation of adverse impacts due to the loss of the City's affordable housing stock when zoning changes are requested to accommodate expansion of nonresidential or commercial uses. Please refer to the attached Housing Loss Mitigation Report to the Planning Commission for details relating to this project. The housing loss mitigation process requires a housing mitigation plan or impact statement prepared by the petitioner and a report by the City's Community and Economic Development Director justifying the method of housing mitigation to be submitted to the Planning Commission. (By way of background: the Council has traditionally supported housing loss mitigation in order to discourage commercial/ non-residential uses from expanding into neighborhoods. Prior to the implementation of the ordinance it was perceived that developers had an incentive to purchases houses,allow them to deteriorate and then come to the City to request a re-zoning,rather than purchasing commercial property that was more expensive. In addition,in areas near medical facilities there was an expansion of services in to housing units that resulted in a change in the character of the neighborhood that concerned residents.) Mitigation may be provided by any one of the following three methods: 1. Option A-Replacement housing within the affected Council District or adjoining Council District within a one-mile radius. 2. Option B-Payment to the City Housing Trust Fund of an"in-lieu"contribution based on the difference between housing value and replacement cost. 3. Option C-Payment to the City Housing Trust Fund of an"in-lieu"contribution where deteriorated housing exists not caused by deliberate indifference of the landowner. E. The Administration's transmittal indicates: 1. The CED Director recommended a mitigation"in-lieu"contribution to the Housing Trust Fund of$4,381 based on the petitioner's choice to use Option B. 2. The assessed market value of the existing structure is$122,900.00 3. The replacement value is estimated at$127,281.00 4. The Planning Commission recommended reducing the"in-lieu"contribution to the Housing Trust Fund to$1.00 based on the rationale that the proposed restrictive covenant would limit the use of the property and waive the property owner's right to protest any zoning action initiated by the City to rezone the property. F. The Planning staff report provides findings of fact that support the criteria established in the City's Zoning Ordinance, Sec. 21A.50.050-Standards for General Zoning Amendments. Please refer to the Planning staff report for specific findings of fact and discussion of compliance with individual standards. G. The Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed master plan amendment and rezoning subject to: 1. Combining the property with the adjacent school properties(through a minor subdivision amendment). 2. Final site plan approval by the City's Development Review team regarding traffic and circulation design and mitigation of potential impacts on adjacent properties. 3. Donation of$1.00 to the City's Housing Trust Fund for housing loss mitigation(rather than $4,381 as recommended by the Community and Economic Development Director). 4. Recording a voluntary restrictive covenant for the property. H. The purpose of the Residential R-1/5000 zone is to provide for conventional single-family residential neighborhoods on lots not less than 5,000 square feet in sizes. Private schools are not permitted in the Residential R-1/5000 zone. 2 I. The purpose of the Institutional I zone is to regulate the development of larger public and semipublic uses in a manner harmonious with surrounding uses. The uses regulated by this District are generally those having multiple buildings on a campus-like site. J. In response to an inquiry from a constituent, Council Member Love requested that the Administration review the Planning Commission's condition that would require a subdivision amendment to combine the property with existing school properties. This action was intended to accommodate required parking. The Administration's transmittal notes that it is possible to retain the property line and meet zoning requirements for the conversion to a private school. A new ordinance has been prepared by the City Attorney's office for Council Member's consideration. OPTIONS AND MOTIONS: 1. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance amending the Central Community Master Plan and rezoning property located at 1146 South 900 East from Residential R-1/5000 to Institutional. 2. ("I move that the Council"] Not adopt an ordinance amending the Central Community Master Plan and rezoning property located at 1146 South 900 East from Residential R- 1/5000 to Institutional. MATTERS AT ISSUE/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION: A. In April 2000,the Administration identified the following timeline to complete revisions to the City's Housing Loss Mitigation Ordinance. Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration the status and future timeline for completion of the proposed revisions. • Review and revise current housing mitigation ordinance. Use model ordinances from other communities as appropriate. o Time: May 2000-draft • Solicit support from community groups and developers for new ordinance. o Time: June 2000 and July 2000 -45 day review and board reviews and approvals • Review ordinance with City Attorney's office and City Council. o Time: August 2000—City Attorney review September 2000—City Council review B. Based on recent discussions by the Council regarding incentives to increase housing citywide and attract families into the city,Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration the policy shift to allow conversion of residential structures for nonresidential uses. C. In a related matter,the Zoning Ordinance currently allows conversion of residential structures for nonresidential uses in the Residential Business and Residential Office zoning classifications and through the conditional use process in Historic District Overlay zones. The Council's policy that supports avoiding conversion of homes to business use,"If it looks like a house, it is a house", remains the same. Does the Council wish to revisit this policy? D. The Council may wish to clarify with the Administration whether they will implement the Planning Commission's recommendation for the$1 Housing Loss Mitigation contribution or the Community and Economic Development Director's initial recommended contribution. Council Member Love is 3 recommending that the$1 fee be implemented,'since the house will return to residential use in the future. MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The 1974 Central Community Development Plan Future Land Use Map identifies this area for low- density residential uses. The Master Plan includes the following statements: 1. Principles: a. The need to revitalize and stabilize inner-city neighborhoods. b. Greater recognition of mixed-use areas and their relative permanence. c. Neighborhood revitalization as a remedy for obsolescence and decline. 2. Policies and Proposals: a. Population: Establish a Central Community program to reverse trend of families leaving for the suburbs. b. Urban Design: ...improve the architectural character of neighborhoods. 3. Citizens'Policies and Recommendations: a. Provide an effective means of notifying residents of proposed zoning changes and city activities within their community. b. Organize the City into four block areas each with a citizen representative who will work with City staff in monitoring and reviewing new construction and changes in use of properties within their respective areas. c. Give more consideration to those factors,including residential densities,which give the community a ghetto appearance. d. Establish and enforce architectural controls to preserve the scale and mood of the neighborhoods. B. The City's 1990 Urban Design Element includes statements that emphasize preserving the City's image,neighborhood character and maintaining livability while being sensitive to social and economic realities. Policy concepts include: 1. Allow individual districts to develop in response to their unique characteristics within the overall urban design scheme for the city. 2. Ensure that land uses make a positive contribution to neighborhood improvement and stability and building restoration and new construction enhance district character. 3. Require private development efforts to be compatible with urban design policies of the city regardless of whether city financial assistance is provided. 4. Treat building height,scale and character as significant features of a district's image. 5. Ensure that features of building design such as color,detail,materials and scale are responsive to district character,neighboring buildings,and the pedestrian. C. Land Use and Housing policies adopted by the City Council include the following statements. 1. The Salt Lake City Council supports avoiding conversion of homes to business use. This policy is a corollary to the policy of maintaining the residential population base of the City. "If it looks like a house,it is a house." 2. In zoning cases involving structures that were originally built as single-family homes,the Council has operated under the assumption that property,which was built as residential, should be zoned residential. 3. The Council supports using its zoning power to maintain the residential population base within the City,and to encourage population expansion. 4. On a citywide basis,the Council endorses policies and programs that preserve or replace the City's housing stock including,the requirement of,at a minimum,a unit-for-unit replacement or a monetary contribution by developers to the City's Housing Trust Fund in lieu of replacement. 4 5. The Council supports mixed use and mixed income concepts and projects that achieve vibrant,safe,integrated,walkable neighborhoods through a diverse mix of uses and incomes in areas with established transportation,utilities and related public services that: a. include neighborhood interaction in the design process; b. incorporate affordable housing whenever possible; c. incorporate an assortment of residential,commercial,and professional office uses; d. include a variety of housing types,mixed-income levels,live-work developments,etc. 6. The Council supports policies and programs that preserve housing opportunities as well as business opportunities within the City to ensure the continued existence of a population base and business base. D. The Community Housing Plan notes the goal"to enhance,maintain and sustain a livable community that includes a vibrant downtown integrated with surrounding neighborhoods that offer a wide range of housing choices,mixed uses,and transit oriented design. The City encourages a family friendly urban environment that combines commercial development and housing designs with programs that welcome children." E. The City's Strategic Plan and the Futures Commission Report contain statements that support creating attractive conditions for business expansion including retention and attraction of large and small businesses,but not at the expense of minimizing environmental stewardship or neighborhood vitality. The documents express concepts such as maintaining a prominent sustainable city,ensuring the City is designed to the highest aesthetic standards and is pedestrian friendly,convenient,and inviting. The documents specifically highlight the value of historic preservation and providing options to solve the challenges of restoration and adaptive reuse of historic resources. F. The Council's adopted growth policy states: It is the policy of the Salt Lake City Council that growth in Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if it meets the following criteria: 1. Is aesthetically pleasing; 2. Contributes to a livable community environment; 3. Yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an overriding public purpose is served;and 4. Forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity. G. The housing loss mitigation section of the City Code notes the objective to mitigate adverse impacts due to the loss of the City's affordable housing stock when zoning changes are requested to accommodate an expansion of commercial uses,with due consideration for vested or protected property rights. (City Code, Sec. 18.97.010) CHRONOLOGY: Please refer to the Administration's transmittal for a complete chronology of events relating to the proposed master plan amendment and rezoning request. • February 2001 East Liberty Park Community Council meeting • May 2001 East Central Community Council meeting • December 6,2001 Planning Commission Hearing cc: Rocky Fluhart,Dave Nimkin,DJ Baxter,Steven Allred,Lynn Pace,Margaret Hunt,David Dobbins,Luann Clark,Stephen Goldsmith,Brent Wilde,Cheri Coffey,Everett Joyce,Janne Nielson,Barry Esham File Location: Community and Economic Development Dept.,Planning Division,Rezoning,Realms of Inquiry School, 1146 South 900 East 5 Council Recommended Ordinance SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2002 (Rezoning property located at 1146 South 900 East) AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1146 SOUTH 900 EAST FROM RESIDENTIAL(R-1-5000) TO INSTITUTIONAL (I), PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-01-44. WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, has held public hearings before its own body and before the Planning Commission, and has taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing, and demographic details of the area, long range general plans of the City, and any local master plan as part of its deliberations. Pursuant to those deliberations, the City Council has concluded that the proposed change of zoning for the property located at 1146 South 900 East is appropriate for the development of the community in that area. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Rezoning. The property located at 1146 South 900 East, which is more particularly described on Exhibit"A"attached hereto, shall be and hereby is rezoned from residential (R-1-5000) to institutional (I). SECTION 2. Amendment of 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 consistent with the rezoning identified above. SECTION 3. Amendment of master plan. To the extent necessary, the Central Community Master Plan, as previously approved by the Salt Lake City Council, shall be and hereby is amended consistent with rezoning identified above. SECTION 4. Conditions. The rezoning identified herein shall be subject to the following conditions: a. The property owner shall submit and obtain approval of a final site plan by the City's Development Review Team regarding traffic and circulation design, and impacts on adjacent properties. b. The property owner shall execute and record a voluntary restrictive covenant against the property with the Salt Lake County Recorder. The form of the restrictive covenant shall be reviewed and approved by the Salt Lake City Planning Director. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. The City Recorder is instructed not to publish or record this ordinance until the conditions identified above have been met, and certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Director. SECTION 6. Time. If the conditions identified above have not been met within one year from the date that this ordinance is signed, this ordinance shall become null and void. The City Council may, by resolution, for good cause shown, extend the time period for satisfying the conditions identified above. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2002. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) �r .. Bill No. of 2002. Published: G:\Ordinance 02\Rezoning property at 1146 S 900 E-Aug 8,2002.doc Exhibit "A" Parcel Number: 16-08-327-026 Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 5, of the East Park Subdivision, within Block 18 of the 5 Acre A plat of the Big Field Survey. ti. ,19J\ t Restrictive Covenant WHEN RECORDED RETURN T0: Salt Lake City Corporation Attn:Planning Director 451 South State Street,Room 406 Salt Lake City,UT 84111 DECLARATION OF COVENANTS,CONDITIONS &RESTRICTIONS FOR THE REALMS OF INQUIRY PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1146 SOUTH 900 EAST STREET SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH This Declaration is made this day of ,2002,by Realms of Inquiry, hereinafter referred to as Declarant,in favor of Salt Lake City Corporation. RECITALS A. Declarant is the owner of the real properties more particularly described on Exhibit "A"attached hereto(referred to as the"Primary Property"and the"Accessory Property")located in Salt Lake City,Salt Lake County,Utah. B. Declarant is desirous to obtain greater flexibility in the use of the Accessory Property than is allowed under current zoning,but is also desirous to do so in a manner that will protect and preserve the character of the neighboring residential properties and in a manner that will not adversely impact neighboring residential properties. C. Declarant hereby declares that the Accessory Property shall be improved, maintained,occupied,held,sold,conveyed,leased and used subject to the covenants and restrictions set forth in this Declaration,which are deemed to be covenants running with the land benefiting and burdening each parcel of the Primary and Accessory Properties. D. It is the Declarant's intention in imposing these covenants and restrictions to limit the use of the Accessory Property,and to limit the expansion of any institutional activities onto adjacent residential properties,for its own benefit and for the greater good of all residents of Salt Lake City,and to promote and preserve the compatibility of the use of the Primary and Accessory Properties with the existing uses of other properties in that neighborhood. To further that intent, the covenants and restrictions shall be binding upon the Declarant,its successors,assigns,heirs and lien holders,and may be enforced by the Declarant,any subsequent owner of the Properties and Salt Lake City Corporation. E. Declarant has executed this Declaration voluntarily and without coercion or duress. ARTICLE I USE RESTRICTIONS Declarant covenants that, regardless of what uses may be allowed under applicable zoning, the Accessory Property shall not be used for any institutional purpose other than as an accessory use to the Primary Property. Subject to this general restriction, and any other restrictions imposed by applicable zoning, the following are permitted uses of the Accessory Property: 1. Compatible residential uses; 2. Private school; 3. School grounds, outdoor classrooms, accessory school structures or functions; and/or 4. Landscaping. No other institutional or commercial activity will be conducted on the Accessory Property. Any proposed use of the Accessory Property is subject to review and approval by the Salt Lake City Planning Director. No activity of any kind shall be conducted on the Primary or Accessory Properties which is offensive,noxious, or detrimental to the use of the land in the vicinity of the Properties for private residences, nor shall the Properties be used for any purposes that, as a matter of common experience, tend to create a nuisance. Regardless of what other uses are conducted on the Accessory Property, Declarant agrees that it will install and maintain landscaping on the Accessory Property as approved by the Salt Lake City Planning Director. ARTICLE II GENERAL PROVISIONS Condition Precedent to Validity. Declarant has or will petition Salt Lake City to amend the zoning map for the Accessory Property from a Residential (R-1-5000) to an Institutional (I) classification (the "Petition"). The validity and enforceability of this Declaration are expressly conditioned on approval of the Petition by Salt Lake City. Declarant understands that approval of the Petition will be conditioned upon the recording of this Declaration and upon the compliance with the obligations described herein. If the Petition is denied, this Declaration shall be of no force or effect. 2 Enforcement. Declarant,any subsequent owner and Salt Lake City Corporation shall have the right to enforce,by any proceeding in law or in equity,all covenants and restrictions now or hereafter imposed by the provisions of this Declaration.If Declarant or its successors or assigns violates the terms of this Declaration,which violation is not promptly cured,Salt Lake City shall be entitled to rezone the Accessory Property. In the event of such a rezoning, Declarant,and its successors or assigns,agrees that it will not contest or oppose the proposed rezoning,and agrees that it will not be entitled to claim any damages or non-conforming use rights with respect to the Accessory Property. Notwithstanding the foregoing,Declarant shall retain the right to contest the existence of any alleged violation of this Declaration which shall be determined by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission. Failure to enforce any covenant or restriction shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right to do so at a later date. Amendments. The covenants and restrictions of this Declaration may he amended by duly recording an instrument executed and acknowledged by the owners of the Primary and Accessory Properties and Salt Lake City Corporation. Duration. The covenants and restrictions of this Declaration shall run with and bind the land,and shall inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the Declarant,any subsequent owner and Salt Lake City Corporation for a period of filly(50)years from the date of this Declaration. At the end of the fifty-year period,all owners of the Primary and Accessory Properties and Salt Lake City Corporation shall review the covenants and restrictions in light of conditions existing at that time,and determine whether and for how long the covenants and restrictions shall remain in effect. Cessation of Use. If the Accessory property is no longer used as a private school, Declarant,and any subsequent owner of the Primary or Accessory properties,shall not protest any action by Salt Lake City Corporation to rezone the Accessory Property to residential use,and Salt Lake City Corporation retains the authority to rezone and require re-platting of the Primary and Accessory Properties by adjusting the property line to accommodate a complying interior side yard for the Primary and Accessory Properties in an amount sufficient to meet the minimum sideyard requirements in effect at that time. Zoning. Declarant acknowledges that Salt Lake City retains sole authority as to the zoning of property within the City. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to obligate the City to rezone the Accessory Property. Regardless of whether or not the Accessory Property is rezoned,nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prohibit the City from rezoning the Primary or Accessory Properties at any time. 3 DATED: , 2002. OWNER: REALMS OF INQUIRY By: Title: STATE OF UTAH ) : ss. County of Salt Lake ) On the day of , 2002, personally appeared before me , the of Realms of Inquiry,who duly acknowledged to me that he is authorized to execute the same on behalf of Realms of Inquiry. NOTARY PUBLIC Residing in Salt Lake County, Utah My Commission Expires: .i, i .- _ .., G- 7-oZ G:\PL9984'Realms of Inquiry-June 7,2002.doc 4 — Exhibit A Primary Property Parcel Number: 16-08-327-027 Description: Lots 39 thru 46, Block 5, East Park Subdivision Accessory Property Parcel Number: 16-08-327-026 Description: Lot 1, Block 5, East Park Subdivision noz MARGARET HUNT SALT LAKE'CITY VO1l�O � ,1,053 ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: July 2, 2002 FROM: Mar Hu t CAD ector RE: Petition 40 -01-44. This is a request by the Realms of Inquiry, a private school, to amend the Central Community Master Plan and zoning district map by rezoning the property at 1146 South 900 East from R-1/5000 to Institutional. Staff Contact: Everett L. Joyce, Planning Division 535-7930 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a discussion and schedule a public hearing regarding the proposed master plan and zoning district map amendment to rezone the parcel at 1146 S. 900 East from "R-1/5000"Residential to "I" Institutional as described in the attached ordinance. Optional Condition of the Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommendation and the proposed ordinance places the condition on the rezone approval that the 1 146 South 900 East parcel be connected to the existing school parcel to eliminate the lot line. In response to an inquiry from a constituent, Council Member Love requested review and verification of an option that allows the school with rezoning the property and keeping the lot line in place. The intent is to enhance the ability to revert the property back to residential use when and if the private school no longer uses the property. Reversion of the property back to residential use is a stipulation of the restrictive covenant. After detailed review of the operation proposed by Realms of Inquiry, (limiting the number of high school students and teachers to a combination that requires no more than two off-street parking spaces) it is possible to retain the property line and meet zoning requirements for the conversion to a private school. The use intensity proposed by Realms of Inquiry would allow the private school without removing the property line. In order to utilize this option the Planning Commission recommendation and the proposed ordinance would need to be modified to remove the condition of combining the property with the adjacent school parcel. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE: 801-535-6230 FAX:801-535-6005 ®nccvc..co Pnven DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: Petition 400-01-44 by Realms of Inquiry, a private school, requests rezoning the property at 1146 S. 900 East from R-1-5000 to Institutional. The existing structure, the Best- Cannon House, is listed as a Landmark site on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. This rezoning action is requested so that the structure can be renovated for additional classroom space for the Realms of Inquiry School. The zoning amendment request will also require an amendment to the future land use map of the Central Community Master Plan. The rezoning of the property from residential to Institutional zoning requires approval of a housing mitigation plan since the residential property would be rezoned to a classification that permits non-residential land uses. The existing structure is vacant and the property was on the market for nine months when purchased by Realms of Inquiry. The Realms of Inquiry is a special purpose school for gifted, talented and creative students offering an academic curriculum in kindergarten through grade 12. A half-day preschool program is also provided. Analysis: The 1974 Central Community Development Plan land use policy for this property is for low-density residential uses. The Salt Lake City, City Vision and Strategic Plan, contains a Heritage/Culture objective that states Salt Lake City is recognized for its efforts to restore and adaptively reuse its historic resources. The final report of the Salt Lake City Futures Commission recommends the following: 1)Preserve historic structures, streets and other landmarks in all new development and 2)Assist property owners with solving the challenges of adaptive reuse. The City's Development Review Team has reviewed this petition. The City departments do not have any objection to the proposed rezone. Housing Loss Mitigation Chapter 18.97, Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss from Rezoning requires a housing mitigation plan be submitted to the director of Community and Economic Development. This code provides a mechanism for determining the mitigation value required as part of the approval of rezoning the property to Institutional. The housing stock within this area has remained quite stable. In a ten year period from 1990 to 2000, Census Tract 1035, in which the subject property is located, had a total housing stock change of two additional housing units. Census Tract 1035 boundaries are 900 to 1300 South and 700 to 1300 East. A housing mitigation plan was submitted as part of the Planning Commission staff report. The housing mitigation value based on option B of Chapter 18.97 is $4,381. The Planning Commission recommended that this amount be adjusted to $1.00 since their recommended rezoning approval is subject to the placement of a restrictive covenant that encourages the property to be brought back to residential use when it is no longer used for a school. If the zoning and master plan amendments were approved, a voluntary restrictive covenant would be recorded with the property that states Realms of Inquiry agrees to support and not protest any action by the City to rezone the property to a residential classification if and when a private school is no longer in use on the property. A restrictive covenant would be executed and recorded prior to the publication of the zoning amendment ordinance. Public Process: The request was presented to the East Liberty Park and the East Central community councils. Both community councils unanimously supported the proposed zoning and master plan amendments but they wanted only the school use to be permitted, requesting that the property revert back to residential use if the school use is abandoned. Therefore they desired the restrictive covenant. On December 6, 2001, the Planning Commission approved a motion to forward Petition 400-01-44 with a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed Central Community master plan and zoning district map amendment to change the master plan classification to Institutional and the zoning of the parcel at 1146 S. 900 East from "R-1/5000"Residential to "I"Institutional. Relevant Ordinances: City Code Section 21A.50.050 Standards for General Amendments Utah State Code Section 10-9-403 Amendments and rezonings Utah State Code Section 10-9-304 Amendment of plan Contents Chronology Proposed Ordinance Restrictive Covenant City Council Hearing Notice Notice Mailing List Planning Commission Public Hearing Notice and Postmark Planning Commission Staff Report with attachments Community Council Letters Housing Mitigation Report Site Plan Departmental Review Comments Planning Commission agenda and minutes for December 6, 2001 Original Petition Chronology • Chronology February 2001 Petition request presented to the East Liberty Park Community Council. May 2001 Petition request presented to the East Central Community Council. August 8, 2001 The Planning Division received the petition request. September 5, 2001 Petition reviewed by the City's Engineering, Public Utilities, Transportation and Building Services and Licensing Divisions at the Development Review Team meeting. November 21, 2001 Planning Commission public hearing notice mailed. December 6, 2001 Planning Commission public hearing held. December 10, 2001 Ordinance request sent to City Attorney. December 13, 2001 Planning Commission ratified minutes of December 6, 2001 meeting. June 7, 2002 Received ordinance from the City attorney. June 27, 2002 Revised transmittal cover letter to include an optional condition of the Planning Commission's recommendation. This option allows rezoning without removal of the lot line between the subject rezone parcel and the existing school. Proposed Ordinance SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2002 (Rezoning property located at 1146 South 900 East) AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1146 SOUTH 900 EAST FROM RESIDENTIAL (R-1-5000) TO INSTITUTIONAL (I), PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-01-44. WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, has held public hearings before its own body and before the Planning Commission, and has taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing, and demographic details of the area, long range general plans of the City, and any local master plan as part of its deliberations. Pursuant to those deliberations, the City Council has concluded that the proposed change of zoning for the property located at 1146 South 900 East is appropriate for the development of the community in that area. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Rezoning. The property located at 1146 South 900 East,which is more particularly described on Exhibit "A"attached hereto, shall be and hereby is rezoned from residential (R-1-5000) to institutional (I). SECTION 2. Amendment of 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 consistent with the rezoning identified above. SECTION 3. Amendment of master plan. To the extent necessary, the Central Community Master Plan, as previously approved by the Salt Lake City Council, shall be and hereby is amended consistent with rezoning identified above. SECTION 4. Conditions. The rezoning identified herein shall be subject to the following conditions: a. The property owner must take whatever action may be necessary with the City and/or Salt Lake County to combine this property with the adjacent school properties. The City shall not issue any permits to convert the use of the subject property until such parcels have been combined. b. The property owner shall submit and obtain approval of a final site plan by the City's Development Review Team regarding traffic and circulation design, and impacts on adjacent properties. c. The property owner shall execute and record a voluntary restrictive covenant against the property with the Salt Lake County Recorder. The form of the restrictive covenant shall be reviewed and approved by the Salt Lake City Planning Director. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. The City Recorder is instructed not to publish or record this ordinance until the conditions identified above have been met, and certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Director. SECTION 6. Time. If the conditions identified above have not been met within one year from the date that this ordinance is signed, this ordinance shall become null and void. The City Council may, by resolution, for good cause shown, extend the time period for satisfying the conditions identified above. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2002. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) r5Lz_e 6 - 7- 02 w f3Y 9f..6".221:_L__ Bill No. of 2002. G Published: G:\Ordinance 02\Rezoning property at 1146 S 900 E-June 5,2002.doc Exhibit "A" Parcel Number: 16-08-327-026 Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 5, of the East Park Subdivision, within Block 18 of the 5 Acre A plat of the Big Field Survey. ti 'G �v ra Restrictive Covenant WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Salt Lake City Corporation Attn:Planning Director 451 South State Street,Room 406 Salt Lake City,UT 84111 DECLARATION OF COVENANTS,CONDITIONS &RESTRICTIONS FOR THE REALMS OF INQUIRY PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1146 SOUTH 900 EAST STREET SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH This Declaration is made this day of ,2002,by Realms of Inquiry, hereinafter referred to as Declarant,in favor of Salt Lake City Corporation. RECITALS A. Declarant is the owner of the real properties more particularly described on Exhibit "A"attached hereto(referred to as the"Primary Property"and the"Accessory Property")located in Salt Lake City,Salt Lake County,Utah. B. Declarant is desirous to obtain greater flexibility in the use of the Accessory Property than is allowed under current zoning,but is also desirous to do so in a manner that will protect and preserve the character of the neighboring residential properties and in a manner that will not adversely impact neighboring residential properties. C. Declarant hereby declares that the Accessory Property shall he improved, maintained,occupied,held,sold,conveyed,leased and used subject to the covenants and restrictions set forth in this Declaration,which are deemed to be covenants ramming with the land benefiting and burdening each parcel of the Primary and Accessory Properties. D. It is the Declarant's intention in imposing these covenants and restrictions to limit the use of the Accessory Property,and to limit the expansion of any institutional activities onto adjacent residential properties,for its own benefit and for the greater good of all residents of Salt Lake City,and to promote and preserve the compatibility of the use of the Primary and Accessory Properties with the existing uses of other properties in that neighborhood. To further that intent, the covenants and restrictions shall he binding upon the Declarant,its successors,assigns,heirs and lien holders,and maybe enforced by the Declarant,any subsequent owner of the Properties and Salt Lake City Corporation. E. Declarant has executed this Declaration voluntarily and without coercion or duress. ARTICLE I USE RESTRICTIONS Declarant covenants that, regardless of what uses may be allowed under applicable zoning, the Accessory Property shall not be used for any institutional purpose other than as an accessory use to the Primary Property. Subject to this general restriction, and any other restrictions imposed by applicable zoning, the following are permitted uses of the Accessory Property: 1. Compatible residential uses; 2. Private school; 3. School grounds, outdoor classrooms, accessory school structures or functions; and/or 4. Landscaping. No other institutional or commercial activity will be conducted on the Accessory Property. Any proposed use of the Accessory Property is subject to review and approval by the Salt Lake City Planning Director. No activity of any kind shall be conducted on the Primary or Accessory Properties which is offensive, noxious, or detrimental to the use of the land in the vicinity of the Properties for private residences, nor shall the Properties be used for any purposes that, as a matter of common experience,tend to create a nuisance. Regardless of what other uses are conducted on the Accessory Property, Declarant agrees that it will install and maintain landscaping on the Accessory Property as approved by the Salt Lake City Planning Director. ARTICLE II GENERAL PROVISIONS Condition Precedent to Validity. Declarant has or will petition Salt Lake City to amend the zoning map for the Accessory Property from a Residential (R-1-5000) to an Institutional (I) classification (the "Petition"). The validity and enforceability of this Declaration are expressly conditioned on approval of the Petition by Salt Lake City. Declarant understands that approval of the Petition will be conditioned upon the recording of this Declaration and upon the compliance with the obligations described herein. If the Petition is denied, this Declaration shall be of no force or effect. 2 Enforcement. Declarant,any subsequent owner and Salt Lake City Corporation shall have the right to enforce,by any proceeding in law or in equity,all covenants and restrictions now or hereafter imposed by the provisions of this Declaration. If Declarant or its successors or assigns violates the terms of this Declaration,which violation is not promptly cured,Salt Lake City shall be entitled to rezone the Accessory Property. In the event of such a rezoning, Declarant,and its successors or assigns,agrees that it will not contest or oppose the proposed rezoning,and agrees that it will not be entitled to claim any damages or non-conforming use rights with respect to the Accessory Property. Notwithstanding the foregoing,Declarant shall retain the right to contest the existence of any alleged violation of this Declaration which shall be determined by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission. Failure to enforce any covenant or restriction shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right to do so at a later date. Amendments. The covenants and restrictions of this Declaration maybe amended by duly recording an instrument executed and acknowledged by the owners of the Primary and Accessory Properties and Salt Lake City Corporation. Duration. The covenants and restrictions of this Declaration shall nm with and bind the land,and shall inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the Declarant,any subsequent owner and Salt Lake City Corporation for a period of filly(50)years from the date of this Declaration. At the end of the fifty-year period,all owners of the Primary and Accessory Properties and Salt Lake City Corporation shall review the covenants and restrictions in light of conditions existing at that time,and determine whether and for how long the covenants and restrictions shall remain in effect. Cessation of Use. If the Accessory property is no longer used as a private school, Declarant,and any subsequent owner of the Primary or Accessory properties,shall not protest any action by Salt Lake City Corporation to rezone the Accessory Property to residential use,and Salt Lake City Corporation retains the authority to rezone and require re-platting of the Primary and Accessory Properties by adjusting the property line to accommodate a complying interior side yard for the Primary and Accessory Properties in an amount sufficient to meet the minimum sideyard requirements in effect at that time. Zoning. Declarant acknowledges that Salt Lake City retains sole authority as to the zoning of property within the City. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to obligate the City to rezone the Accessory Property. Regardless of whether or not the Accessory Property is rezoned,nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prohibit the City from rezoning the Primary or Accessory Properties at any time. 3 DATED: , 2002. OWNER: REALMS OF INQUIRY By: Title: STATE OF UTAH ) : ss. County of Salt Lake ) On the day of , 2002,personally appeared before me , the of Realms of Inquiry,who duly acknowledged to me that he is authorized to execute the same on behalf of Realms of Inquiry. NOTARY PUBLIC Residing in Salt Lake County, Utah My Commission Expires: sy G:\PL9984\Realms of Inquiry-June 7,2002.doc 4 - Exhibit A Primary Property Parcel Number: 16-08-327-027 Description: Lots 39 thru 46, Block 5, East Park Subdivision Accessory Property Parcel Number: 16-08-327-026 Description: Lot 1, Block 5, East Park Subdivision Planning Commission Planning Commission Staff Report SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Petition 400-01-44 by Realms of Inquiry December 6, 2001 REQUEST Petition 400-01-44 by Realms of Inquiry = private school requests rezoning the property at 1146 S. 900 East from R-1-5000 to 's_mALL-`-E 'VP- ='=4='� Institutional. This rezoning action is ...n= - -r requested so that the existing structure can be _=5°% Fq ' _- _ -- - used as part of the Realms of Inquiry School FfIrzt z - - for additional classroom space. The zoning = W1 n request willa __�: �=�=" = _�'�-�� _�� --�i--�.��.:as�:. amendment e also require j `=.E_ - amendment to the Central Community Master y s-- 1 Rlati R Plan. The rezoning - _` .`r�_::-� e ���"� _. - - w..� .:.-,:�; =•u. o n of the property from g 1� P Y PRINCETON AVE Subject Property, residential to Institutional zoning will require _ 'RN r0-ice; of - ,a pu.a - 4 housing mitigation because a residential �._s .� i-4Mi „g•ata 'S_ "- C Y f ie�Y�� :?�,.=, 3`6 i`Y_ w'Rz r••�xia--a-=e'£ '?tz�n�.3%F� �' _�ni3�_x:__y--- structure is being rezoned to a classification �A '=3 m.-�, geW that permits non-residential land uses. =- =z F= _ The Realms of Inquiry is a special purpose school for gifted, talented and creative students offering an academic curriculum in kindergarten through grade 12. A half-day preschool program is also provided. COMMUNITY I NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL REVIEW The petition request was presented to the East Liberty Park Community Council in February 2001 and the East Central Community Council in May 2001. Both community councils support the proposed zoning amendment unanimously. A concern brought forward by the Community Councils is the provision of a mechanism to bring the property and structure back into residential use once the private school use is abandoned. GENERAL BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW Applicant: Realms of Inquiry, a private school Purpose of zoning map amendment: To allow the historic Best-Cannon house to be renovated and used for additional classroom space for the school. Petition 400-01-44 Page 1 Previous Case Files: None Existing zoning and overlay districts: Existing zoning district map designation is R-1-5000. The property is also a local historic landmark site. Existing Master Plan Policy: The 1974 Central Community Development Plan depicts the properties in this area for low density residential land uses. Affected area and parcel numbers: The affected property is Sidwell parcel number 16-08-327-026. IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF ISSUES Petition Request The issue before the Planning Commission is a zoning amendment petition and master plan amendment. The site plan is provided for information only and does not require Planning Commission approval. Private schools are permitted uses in the Institutional district. Multiple Parcels The lot that is being rezoned would t , } become part of the school complex. y { L� _ The petitioner will need to combine , ' �` this lot with existing school parcels. � ;, � This will need to be done to accommodate issuance of a building permit. The proposed site plan has the required parking for the structure at K 1146 S. 900 East on the existing E:t5.b school parcel. To allow parking at the 14 °j, ' '� proposed location the parcels will need to be combined together and recorded 8 at the Salt Lake County Recorders Office. Reversion of Property to Residential Zoning As stated earlier the Community Councils are concerned about the reversion of the subject property back to residential use when it is no longer used for a private school. A voluntary restrictive covenant is a mechanism that may bring the property and structure back into a residential use. A voluntary restrictive covenant would be recorded with the property that states Realms of Inquiry would agree to support and not protest any action Petition 400-01-44 Page 2 by the City to rezone the property to a residential classification if and when a private school is no longer in use on the property. The restrictive covenant should be binding on future property owners. The covenant should also include a waiver of nonconfoi,ning use status if a change in use to another Institutional land use where take place. A restrictive covenant would be executed and recorded prior to the publication of the zoning amendment ordinance. The covenant does not obligate a future City Council to rezone the property to residential when the private school use is terminated, however, it restricts any protest by the property owner if the council chooses to rezone the property. This concept has received favorable consideration by the applicant. At the time of printing this staff report the Community Councils had not been able to review and respond to the restrictive covenant concept. Loss of Housing Stock Chapter 18.97, Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss from Rezoning provides a structure for determining the mitigation value required as part of the approval of rezoning the property to Institutional. The housing stock within this area has remained quite stable. In a ten year period from 1990 to 2000 Census Tract 1035, in which the subject property is located, had a total housing stock change of two additional housing units. Census Tract 1035 boundaries are 900 South to 1300 South and 700 East to 1300 East. The table below shows the housing stock changes for the East Central Community from the period from 1990-2000 by Census Tract. ____ - SOUTR TEMPLE ST: 1017 u`1015 -, East Central Community = :? , =zr; Housing Unit .-;qs, :i57 _A} , Change 1990-2000 = r% _._ > Census Tract Change s = 1015 0186' =t 1016:;r _ 9 -4s 1016 -1 ;14gi:WV 74 ...:u _ _ 1018 293 - — £: ._ rD •. 1034 -8 1035 2 __PARK `_ . Total 496 � - _= '-` 41034= :_;,, —_— ._::ors.; <g asi : ;170D 4___ _ a Census Tract Map Petition 400-01-44 Page 3 CODE CRITERIA / DISCUSSION / FINDINGS OF FACT Section 21A.50.050 Standards for general amendments. A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Discussion: The 1974 Central Community Master Plan identifies the subject area for low density residential land uses. Prior to 1995,public schools and private schools with a curriculum similar to public schools were allowed uses and considered compatible in low-density residential areas. In the 1995 citywide zoning rewrite private schools were permitted in an Institutional zoning classification and at that time the existing school property was zoned Institutional. In 1995, the adjacent subject parcel was zoned R-1/5000. The subject parcel is a corner lot. The applicant will retain the historic residential structure and use it for classrooms. Amending the zoning for this corner property would not have a detrimental impazt on the master plan and the surrounding low-density residential area. The proposed zoning amendment would also require amendment to the Central Community Master Plan. The Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan adopted April 2000 contains housing stock preservation policy. The plan identifies the policy statement that the City Council supports policies and programs that preserve or replace the City's housing stock, including the requirement of, at a minimum, a unit-for-unit replacement or a monetary contribution by the applicant to the City's Housing Trust Fund in lieu of replacement. City ordinance Chapter 18.97, Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss from Rezoning, implements this policy. A separate Housing Loss Mitigation Report is submitted along with the rezoning petition that addresses the housing loss issue and recommends a mitigation proposal. This report is attached as Exhibit 2. The 1993, Salt Lake City Vision and Strategic Plan recognizes the City values of the preservation of historic structures without sacrificing economic opportunity and strengthening the City's position as the economic, cultural, educational, and governmental capitol of the region,but not at the expense of minimizing our neighborhood vitality. The proposed conversion of this historic building to a school provides a balanced response to this policy. Findings: With the adoption of a master plan amendment, the requested zoning change will be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the adopted general plans. Amending the property to an institutional land use is consistent with the general plan of Salt Lake City in that public and private schools are located within residential areas. The adjacent property is designated for institutional use with an existing private school. Rezoning the subject property would be consistent with the objective to provide educational land uses within the Petition 400-01-44 Page 4 City because it would allow the expansion of the educational facility, while encouraging preservation of the historical Landmark site. The proposed zoning amendment is consistent with the housing loss mitigation standards set in place by Chapter 18.97 Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss from Rezoning. The applicant will submit a housing loss mitigation fee of $4,381.00 as calculated by Option B of the mitigation ordinance. B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Discussion: The petitioner is proposing to use the existing structure and convert it to classrooms. The school is an existing part of the neighborhood. The change in land use will not be incongruent with the existing character of the area. Realms of Inquiry intends to restore and renovate the building without any major structural changes. The floor plan will remain the same with only a few modifications. The exterior of the structure would remain the same. The additional classrooms are for expanding the elective classes available to students, not for overall expansion of the student population. Findings: The rezoning of the parcel to Institutional will allow incorporation of the property into the school complex and strengthen the preservation potential of the existing structure. Preservation of the historic building will assist in maintaining the character of the area. The change in zoning would be harmonious with the overall character of existing development. C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Discussion: The subject property is a narrow corner property that is adjacent to the existing school to the north and to a single-family zoning district across the alley that is located immediately west of the subject parcel. The conversion of the existing structure to classrooms and expanding the private school will not significantly affect adjacent properties. The Institutional zoning district text recognizes that any expansion of uses can have traffic and parking impacts on nearby residential neighborhoods. To ensure that parking and traffic characteristics do not impair the safety or enjoyment of nearby properties traffic and parking studies may be required in conjunction with expansion of an existing use or expansion of the mapped Institutional district. The property proposed for rezoning consists of 4,160 square feet of lot area with a 2,300 square foot structure. The proposed classroom expansion is for additional classes for the existing student population. The traffic and parking impact study referenced in the Institutional zoning district text is not required due to the minimal intensity increase to the existing school facility. However, the entire site plan and parking calculations will need to be reviewed by the City's Development Review Team at Petition 400-01-44 Page 5 the time of permit issuance to ensure off-street parking is properly located and of sufficient amount to minimize impacts upon adjacent properties. Findings: The expansion of the Institutional district for a 4,160 square foot parcel and the conversion of the structure to provide additional classes for the existing school population not significant enough to require a specific traffic and parking study. The rezoning of the subject parcel from R-1/5000 to Institutional will not adversely affect the adjacent properties. The institutional expansion is D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts, which may impose additional standards. Discussion: The existing structure, the Best-Cannon house is listed as a Landmark Site on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. Therefore, it is within the Historic Preservation overlay zone. Any exterior alterations to the structure or site changes must comply with the provisions of the overlay regulations of the zoning ordinance. Findings: The site is a registered historic landmark site. The Realms of Inquiry School intends to renovate the structure and maintain the historic status. The actual land use of the property does not interfere with maintaining the historic integrity of the site. Any exterior alterations or modifications of the site must comply with the "H"Historic Preservation Overlay Zone including obtaining approvals from the Historic Landmarks Commission or preservation planning staff where applicable. E. 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, storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection. Discussion: The subject site is already developed. The City's Development Review Team has reviewed the proposed zoning change and master plan amendment. Representatives from the Permits, Engineering, Transportation and Public Utilities reviewed the petition proposal. The development review team did not identify any inadequate public facilities to service the subject property. When the proposed change of use is submitted to the City public way improvements will be required at that time. Findings: Public facilities and utilities are adequate to serve the property and/or will be required to be brought to City standards when a building permit is issued. Petition 400-01-44 Page 6 RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings of fact, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to amend the Central Community Master Plan and approve the proposed zoning change from R-1-5000 Residential to I Institutional for the Best-Cannon House site at 1146 South 900 East subject to the following conditions: 1. That the applicant combines the school parcels and subject property together and records this action with the Salt Lake County Recorder prior to issuance of a building permit to convert the structure to classroom spaces, 2. That the final site plan is reviewed and approved by the City's Development Review Team regarding traffic and circulation design and impacts on adjacent properties, 3. That the applicant donates $4,381.00 to the City's Housing Trust Fund for mitigation of the loss of housing, and 4. That a voluntary restrictive covenant be approved by the Planning Director and recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorders Office prior to publication of the ordinance to rezone the property to the Institutional zoning classification. Everett L. Joyce December 6, 2001 Attachments: Exhibit i -Community Council Letters, Exhibit 2-Housing Mitigation Report, Exhibit 3 -Site Plan, and Exhibit 4—Department Review Comments Petition 400-01-44 Page 7 Exhibit 1 Community Council Letters • 8/2/01 Salt Lake City Planning 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 To Whom It May Concern: Please be advised that Jon Hamilton and Nicole Tischmak, representing the interests of Realms of Inquiry, private school, met with the East Central Community Council in May, 2001. The purpose of their visit was to discuss Realms of Inquiry's proposal that the historic Best-Cannon House located at 1146 South 900 East have the zoning amended from R-1-5000 to Institutional. The purpose of the zoning change would be to facilitate Realms of Inquiry using the house for additional classroom space. After discussing the proposal among the community members in attendance, a vote was taken. The East Central Community Council voted unanimously to support Realms of Inquiry in seeking the proposed zoning amendment. Julia Robertson Chairperson East Central Community Council 8/2/01 Salt Lake City Planning 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 To Whom It May Concern: Please be advised that Nicole Tischmak, representing the interests of Realms of Inquiry, private school,met with the East Liberty Park Community Organization in February, 2001. The purpose of her visit was to discuss Realms of Inquiry's proposal that the historic Best-Cannon House located at 1146 South 900 East have the zoning amended from R-1-5000 to Institutional. The purpose of the zoning change would be to facilitate Realms of Inquiry using the house for additional classroom space. After discussing the proposal among the community members in attendance, a vote was taken. The East Liberty Park Community Organization voted unanimously to support Realms of Inquiry in seeking the proposed zoning amendment. ‘---- tri ..__91—e-0---(7' 611-'7't2t" Margaret Brady Acting Chairperson East Liberty Park Community Organization For Boris Kurz Chairperson East Liberty Park Community Organization Exhibit 2 Housing Mitigation Report Housing Loss Mitigation Report To The Planning Commission Property at 1146 South 900 East Relating to Petition #400-01-44 Background Petition 400-01-44 by the Realms of Inquiry private school requests rezoning the property at 1146 S. 900 East from R-1-5000 to I Institutional. This rezoning action is requested so that the existing single-family structure can be used as part of the Realms of Inquiry School for additional classroom space. In January 2001, the Realms of Inquiry School purchased the property located at 1146 South 900 East. The subject structure is the Best-Cannon house and is listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources as a landmark site. This property is adjacent to an existing school to the north that serves a private education facility located at 1140 South 900 East. The property was acquired for the purpose of providing additional classrooms for the existing school. However, in order to expand the school, the residential property must be rezoned and the structure converted into classroom space. Current City code requires housing mitigation for the loss of housing when a property is rezoned to a classification that allows non-residential uses. (Chapter 18.97 Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss from Rezoning) The East Central and East Liberty Park Community Councils reviewed the proposal for rezoning and school expansion and unanimously support the proposal. Analysis The Housing Mitigation Ordinance requires the applicant to submit a housing impact statement including the following elements. 1. Identify the essential adverse impacts on the residential character of the area of the subject petition. 2. Identify by address any dwelling units targeted for demolition, following the granting of the petition. 3. State current fair market value. 4. State the square footage of land zoned for residential use that would be rezoned for purposes sought by the petition, other than residential housing and appurtenant uses.And 5. Specify a mitigation plan to address the loss of residential zoned land,residential units or residential character. Impacts on the Residential Character of the Area. The subject property is a corner parcel adjacent to the existing school. The proposed development will keep the historic structure intact and the interior will be remodeled for classrooms without any significant changes to the exterior 1 Petition 400-01-44 Rezoning 1149 South 900 East Housing Mitigation Report of the structure. Retaining the structure will protect the residential character of the area and preserve an important Landmark Site. Occupancy. The home at 1146 South 900 East was not occupied when it was acquired in January 2001. The property was vacant and on the market for nine months without any offers to purchase. The structure has remained vacant from the time of sale. Structures Targeted for Demolition. The structure at 1146 South 900 East is not targeted for demolition by the proposed development. The structure will remain and be converted into classrooms. The structure is a local Landmark Site. Market Value. The current assessed market value (according to the Salt Lake County Assessor) for the structure is $122,900.00. Subject Site Criteria: The proposed lot for rezoning is 4,160 square feet in area. The request is to rezone the lot from R-1/5000 to Institutional zoning. Housing Mitigation Loss Options. The"Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss" Ordinance outlines three options for mitigating housing loss. These options are as follows: A. Replacement Housing B. Fee based on difference between housing value and replacement costs C. Fee,where deteriorated housing exists, not caused by deliberate indifference of the landowner. The applicant is requesting that a fee payment based of the difference between housing value and replacement cost be made under mitigation Option B for the loss of the one dwelling unit within the structure. The reasons for selecting this method of mitigation are as follows: 1. The applicant identified that Option B was the desired housing mitigation approach and this specific situation meets the criteria for Option B. 2. Option B assumes that the cost of replacement housing will be higher than the market value of the housing proposed for removal. In this case the assessed market value of the existing structures is $122,900.00 and the replacement value(average cost, ICBO)would be$127,281.00. Since the replacement value is greater than the market value, a fee of $4,381.00 would be assessed under this option. 3. The petitioner has identified that the existing historic structure will be retained. Total Mitigation Fee The mitigation fee required is $4,381.00. 2 Petition 400-01-44 Rezoning 1149 South 900 East Housing Mitigation Report Findings • The property at 1146 South 900 East was not occupied at the time of its sale to the Realms of Inquiry School but has been vacant since that sale. • The proposed use of the property, expansion of the Realms of Inquiry private school, will help to preserve the Landmark Site. • The East Central and East Liberty Park Community Councils have reviewed the rezoning request and support the proposal to expand the private school into the existing residential structure. • The applicant, Realms of Inquiry, will pay the sum of$4,381.00 into the Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund to assist the City in achieving its goal of replacing housing units lost through rezoning residential property for non-residential development. Determination Of Mitigation The Acting Director of Community and Economic Development, David Dobbins has determined that a fee of$4,381.00 is required to mitigate the loss of the residential dwelling unit in the structure at 1146 South 900 East. This mitigation fee will be deposited into the Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund prior to the publication of an ordinance to change the zoning of the property. The Director recommends that the Planning Commission accept this fee as appropriate mitigation for the loss of housing. David Dobbins, Acting Director Community and Economic Development Dated: /(4v. 2 2001 Attachments: Salt Lake County Auditor Structure Value Salt Lake County Auditor Residential Building Characteristics Building Standards Building Valuation Data Housing Mitigation Ordinance Option B Calculations 3 Petition 400-01-44 Rezoning 1149 South 900 East Housing Mitigation Report • Truth in Tax Report Page 1 of 3 Salt Lake County Auditor 2001 Truth-in-Tax Summary For Parcel #: 1608327026-0000 CURRENT TAX TAX&/OR ADJOINING LEGAL PROPERTY SEARCH NEW SEARCH &VALUE INFO VALUE ENTITY TAXES PROPERTIES DESCRIPTION CHARACTERISTICS HELP HISTORY Subject Property IParcel-Encumbrance: 1608327026-0000 Property Location: 1146 S 900 E 1 Current Tax & Value Information Year Market Value Total Taxes Effective Tax Rate 2000 $182,800 $1,431.59 0.78% Proposed 2001 $159,700 $1,266.41 0.79% % Change -12.64% -11.54% Value Composition Year Land Building Total 2001 $36,800 $122,900 $159,700 Tax & Value History Year Market %Change from Prior Total % Change from Prior Eff.Tax Value Yr Mkt Val Taxes Yr Taxes Rate Proposed $159,700 -12.64% -11.54% 0.79% 2001 $1,266.41 2000 $182,800 8.04% $1,431.59 2.91% 0.78% 1999 $169,200 2.11% $1,391.06 7.60% 0.82% 1998 $165,700 15.87% $1,292.75 12.46% 0.78% 1997 $143,000 -0.56% $1,149.55 -5.91% 0.80% 1996 $143,800 59.78% $1,221.78 50.62% 0.85% 1995 $90,000 21.46% $811.16 -16.62% 0.90% 1994 $74,100 0.00% $972.89 1.14% 1.31% 1993 $74,100 0.00% $961.94 1.26% 1.30% 1992 $74,100 0.00% $949.98 3.74% 1.28% http://www.slcoaud.org/valnotice2001/.../Report.asp?RowID=AAACYHAAbAAAjUeAA 11/23/2001 I UYUV I 'A i 2001 Real Property Characteristics For Parcel #: 1608327026-0000 NEW SEARCH CURRENT TAX& ADJOINING LEGAL SEARCH HELP VALUE INFO PROPERTIES DESCRIPTION Select 4 button for the property characteristics you wish to view. Parcel Land I Improvements Residential Building Characteristics Record 1 of 1 PARCEL 1608327026 VISUAL APPEAL AVERAGE FINISHED BASEMENT GRADE ENCUMB 0000 NUMBER STORIES 1.8 BUILDING STYLE COTTGE/BNGLW YEAR BUILT 1900 NUMBER KITCHENS 1 CENTRAL AC _ EFFECTIVE YEAR 1962 NUMBER 3 CONFORMITY EQUAL-IMPRVD BUILT BEDROOMS MAIN FLOOR AREA 1074 FINISHED 1 HEAT TYPE PRIMRY-CNTRL FIREPLACES UPPER FLOOR AREA 744 METAL 0 PRIMARY KITCHEN BASIC FIREPLACES QUAL BASEMENT AREA 510 CARPORT CAP 0 LIVABILITY AVERAGE FINISHED BASEMENT 0 TOTAL ROOMS 8 MAINTENANCE HIGH AREA A PRIMARY BATH TT GAR SF 0 BASIC OVERALL CONDITION FAIR QUAL BLTN GAR SF 0 FULL BATHS 1 OVERALL GRADE GOOD CARPORT SF 0 3/4 BATHS 0 RAISED ROOF YES BSMT GAR SF 0 HALF BATHS 0 ROOFING WOOD-SHINGLE EXTERIOR WALL TYPE FRAME (Property characteristics data provided by the Salt Lake County Assessor) Contact WebAdmin http://www.slcoaud..../PropChar.asp?StructureCode=Y N N N&theOption=Improvement 11/23/2001 • BUILDING VALUATION DATA " At the request of numerous building officials, Building Standards'" offers the following building valuation data representing average costs for BM most buildings. Because residential buildings are the most common for many cities,two general classes are considered for these,one for"average" P construction and the other for "good."Adjustments should be made for special architectural or structural features and the location of the project. v Higher or lower unit costs may often result. The unit costs are intended to comply with the definition of "valuation" in Section 223 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code'" and - thus include architectural, structural, electrical, plumbing and mechanical work, except as specifically listed below. The unit costs also include Z the contractor's profit, which should not be omitted. - The determination of plan check fees for projects reviewed by the International Conference of Building Officials will be based on valuation computed from these figures, which were established in April 2001. Cost per Square Cost per Square Cost per Square Cost per Square PP Occupancy and Type Foot,Average Occupancy and Type Foot,Average Occupancy and Type Foot,Average Occupancy and Type Foot,Average 1. APARTMENT HOUSES: 7. DWELLINGS: 13.JAILS: 20. RESTAURANTS: re Type I or II ER.* $87.00 Type V-Masonry $74.20 Type I or II F.R. $156.00 Type III-1-Hour $95.50 C •• (Good) $107.10 (Good) $95.00 Type III-1-Hour 142.70 Type IlI-N 92.30 Type V-Masonry Type V-Wood Frame.. 66.00 Type V-i-Hour 107.00 Type V-1-Hour.......... 87.50 API (or Type III) 71.00 (Good) $90.60 14. LIBRARIES: Type V-N 84.00 (Good) $87.00 Basements- Type I or II ER. 114.10 21. SCHOOLS: MN Type V-Wood Frame.. 62.60 Semi-finished 19.70 Type II-1-Hour 83.50 Type I or II FR. 109.00 0 - • (Good) $80.40 (Good) $22.80 yP Type I Basement Garage 36.70 Unfinished 14.30 Type 11-N 79.40 Type II-1-Hour 74.40 2. AUDITORIUMS: (Good) $17.40 Type III-1-Hour 83.80 Type III-1-Hour 76.60 Type III-N 83.80 Type III-N 76.60 Type I or II F.R. 102.80 8. FIRE STATIONS: Type V-1-Hour 82.90 _ Type V-1-Hour 74.60 v Type II-1-Hour 74.40 Type I or II F.R. 112.20 Type V-N 79.40 - Type V-N 71.20 Type II-N 70.40 Type II-1-Hour 73.80 15. MEDICAL OFFICES: 22. SERVICE STATIONS: Type III-1-Hour 78.20 Type II-N 69.60 Type I or II FR.* 117.20 Type II-N Type III-N 74.20 Type III-1-Hour 80.80 YP 65.90 Type II-1-Hour 90.40 Type III-1-Hour 68.70 iiiinmin Type V-i-Hour 74.80 Type Ill-N 77.40 Type V-N 69.80 Type V-1-Hour 75.80 Type I 95.20 Type V-1 Hour 27.50 Type III-1-Hour CPP 1 Hour 95.20 Canopies 27.50 3. BANKS: Type V-N 71.90 TypeIll-N Type I or II ER.* 145.20 9. HOMES FOR THE ELDERLY: Te V-i-Hour 88.40 23. STORES: • Type It-1-Hour 107.00 Type I or II F.R. 101.70 Type V-N 85.30 Type I-i1-Hour our 80.80 Type II-N 103.50 Type II-1-Hour 82.60 16. OFFICES**. Type II- 48.30 Type II-N 48.30 Type III-1-Hour 118.10 Type II-N 79.00 Type III-N 113.80 Type III-1-Hour 86.00 Type I or iI 104.70 Type I 56.40 ' Type V-1-Hour 107.00 Type Ill-N 82 50 Type II-1-Hour 70.10 Type Ill-1 Hour-N 56.40 TypeType II N 66.80 Type V-1-Hour 50.60 V-N 102.50 Type V-1-Hour 83.10 4. BOWLING ALLEYS: Type V-N 80.20 Type III-1 Hour 75.70 Type V-N 46.80 Type Ill-N 72.40 24.THEATERS: • Type II-1-Hour 50.00 10. HOSPITALS: Type V-1-Hour 70.90 Type II-N 46.70 Type I or II FR.* 160.00 Type V-N 66.80 Type I or II F.R. 107.70 Type III-1 Hour 54.40 Type III-1-Hour 132.50 Type III-1-Hour 78.40 • Type III 50.90 Type V-1-Hour 126.40 7. PRIVATE GARAGES: Type III-N 74.70 • Wood Frame 23.130 Type V-1-Hour 73.80 z; Type V-1-Hour 36.70 11. HOTELS AND MOTELS: Masonry 26.90 Type V-N 69.80 K' 5. CHURCHES: Type I or II F.R.* 99.00 Open Carports 16.30 25. WAREHOUSES***Type I or II F.R. 97.30 Type III-1-Hour 85.80 18. PUBUC BUILDINGS: Type I or II F.R. 48.40 Type II-1-Hour 73.00 Type NI-N 81.80• Type I or II F.R.* 121.00 Type II or V-1 Hour... 28.70 • Type I!-N 69.40 Type V-1-Hour 74.70 Type Il-1-Hour 98.00 T Type Ill-1 Hour 79.40 Type V-N 73.20 ype II or V-N 27.00 Type III-N 75.90 Type II-N 93.70 Type III-1-Hour 32.60 12. INDUSTRIAL PLANTS: Type III-1-Hour 101.80 Type III-N 31.00 Type V-i-Hour 74.20 Type I or II ER. 55.80 Type III-N 98.20 Type V-N 69.80 EQUIPMENT Type II-1-Hour 38.80 Type V-1 Hour 93.10 AIR CONDITIONING: • 6. CONVALESCENT HOSPITALS: Type II-N 35.70 Type V-N 89.80 Commercial 4.10 Type I or II ER.* 136.50 Type 111-1-Hour......... 42.80 19. PUBUC GARAGES: Residential 3.40 Type II-1-Hour 94.70 Type III-N 40.30 Type I or II ER.* 48.00 SPRINKLER SYSTEMS.. 2.60 • Type III-1-Hour 97.10 Tilt-up 29.40 Type I or II Open Parking*36.00 Type V-1-Hour 91.50 Type V-1-Hour 40.30 Type Il-N 27.50 Type V-N 36.90 Type III-1-Hour 36.30 i Type III-N 32:30 Type V-i-Hour 33.00 *Add 0.5 percent to total cost for each story over three. **Deduct 20 percent for shell-only buildings. ***Deduct 11 percent for mini-warehouses. • REGIONAL MODIFIERS The following modifiers are recommended for use in conjunction with the building valuation data.Additionally,certain local conditions may require further modifications.To use these modifiers,merely multiply the listed cost per square foot by the appropriate regional modifier.For example,to adjust the cost of a Type III One-hour hotel building of average construction for the Iowa area,select Regional Modifier 0.80 and unit cost from valuation data,$85.80: 0.80 x 85.80 s$68.64 (adjusted cost per square foot) - • Eastern U.S. Modifier Eastern U.S.(cont.) Modifier Central U.S. (cont.)Modifier Western U.S. Modifier • Connecticut 0.95 Pennsylvania Kansas 0.74 Alaska L30 Delaware 0.84 Philadelphia 0.96 Kentucky 0.77 Arizona 0.82 District of Columbia 0.87 Other 0.83 Louisiana 0.78 Califomia Florida 0.74 Rhode Island 0.94 Michigan 0.84 Los Angeles 1.00 Georgia 0.68 South Carolina 0.70 Minnesota 0.86 San Francisco Bay Area... 1.13 • Maine 0.81 Vermont 0.80 Mississippi 0.71 Other 0.94 Maryland 0.79 Virginia 0.73 Missouri 0.78 Colorado 0.81 , Massachusetts 0.94 West Virginia 0.82 Nebraska 0.75 Hawaii 1.14 New Hampshire 0.82 North Dakota 0.80 Idaho 0.80 New Jersey 0.91 Central U.S. Ohio 0.80 Montana 0.79 New York Alabama 0.72 Oklahoma 0.71 Nevada 0.89 eta New York City 1.16 Arkansas 0.70 South Dakota 0.78 New Mexico 0.76 0 Other 0.87 Illinois 0.87 Tennessee 0.72 Oregon 0.83 a oral Carolina 0.70 Indiana 0.82 Texas 0.74 Utah 0.75 Iowa 0.80 Wisconsin 0.85 Washington 0.88 P Wyoming 0.80 0 inig buildingstandards March-April 2001 • 53 Housing Mitigation Calculations 1146 South 900 East Salt Lake City Code-Chapter 18.97 Mitigation of Housing Loss from Rezoning Option B - Fee Based on Difference between Housing Value and Replacement Cost. Housing value The Salt Lake County Auditors 2001 value of the residential structure is$122,900.00. Replacement cost Based on the building valuation data of Building Standards March-April 2001. 1,818 square feet on main and upper floor 1,818 x$ 66.00= 119,988 510 Square feet basement_ 510 x $14.30= 7293 Total replacement cost $127,281 Difference between housing value and replacement cost $127,281.00 122,900.00 $4,381.00 Option B Housing Mitigation fee is$4,381.00. Exhibit 3 Site Plan UTILI(Y POLE r s HYDRANT- q 0 D EAST BOLLARD \ SIGN-\\ SIGN WATER UTILITY POLE VALVES A. ----)-- ..r.. c • o GRASSP. 1� (' 'H r� IMO _I__1_._._.; ! I l T ; Q :o� • iNC ETEWALK i I 1 O S'_5" p 1 vie —' I O GRASS ORNAMENTAL STONE 0 OHAINLINK FENDING RETAINING ' FENCE WALLS GRASS O /// GRASS ,D 9 l pp ,, f Too 4 �� u_V 94� CONCRETE WALK IC) / \ s. !-CHAINLINK O GRASS 0 FENCE / / / 10'• WOOD-CHIP PLAYGROUND AMPHITHEATER 1._ • I O O CP w ORNAMENTAL• LANDSCAPEI1)FENDING ON / EXISTING HOUSE/ i____ eol I O CONCRETE TIMBER FOOTPRINT ^ pp RETAINING WALL p Q i BORDER j - f -/ POAOTGROUND 10 j W p ASPHALT PARKING 4fl�E GRAVEL PLAYGROUND I I r z O- ic) `- O CONCRETE °' W O WALK L CONCRETE ` WOLKRETE <ryti,p �WALLINING I / I. - Q /0.r.,, , i ,iiii,:p1 l h y ON 1(:::) / / ON . o4LAND5CAPE 1,--D ,I- V BORDER p - O p EL . p ASPHALT PAVING CONCRETE , 0 / / O EXISTING SCHOOL FOOTPRINT WALK FENCEL INK 6,- -' O _ _ , (:) Op /T p j/ N H._ STORMWATER ,SPEDi y Ef_.... n/ BASIN '� //� 3� _ _ - a``�\�!� CONCRETE ASPHALT PARKING J 1 ', 1_,... PARKING r _ \ r ALLEY //// • 0S.1TE e • • . ..11M.n120I 2 ! 3 i 1 Exhibit 4 Department Review Comments SALT LAKE CITY BUILDING SERVICES AND LICENSING Zoning Review Correction Sheet Log Number: Preliminary Review Date: September 5, 2001 Project Name: Realms of Inquiry Project Address: 1146 South 900 East Contact Person: Everett Joyce Telephone : 535-7930 E-Mail: everett.joyce@ci.slc.ut.us Zoning District: R-1/5000 Reviewer: Ken Brown Phone#: 535-6179 Comments Please respond in writing to each of the items below to facilitate a quicker follow- up review. Revise the plans where appropriate. 1) It is my understanding that this proposal is to convert this Single Family Dwelling into a School. Since Schools are not a permitted use in this R-1/5000 Zone, a request for Zoning Map change will need to be submitted. 2) If the request for Zoning Map change is to change to a I Zone,which is the classification of the property adjacent to this one in which the existing school is situated, all new proposed principal structures will need to meet the 20-foot front and corner side yard, 20-foot interior side yard and 25-foot rear yard set back and their location will need to be shown on the site plan. 3) The Minimum Lot Size for the I Zone is 20,000 sq. ft. with a Minimum Lot Width of 100 ft. Since this proposal is to request a Zoning Map change and the property is substandard in this regard, the interior property line will need to be removed and the two parcels combined into one parcel with one legal description and one tax parcel number. 4) If for some reason it is determined that the Zoning can be changed without meeting the Minimum Lot Size requirements and the interior lot line remains,plans will need to be submitted showing how the parking for this building will be provided on this lot or application will need to be made for Conditional Use for Off-site Parking. 5) Title 21A.32.080 states that new institutional uses or expansions of existing institutional uses shall not be permitted unless clear and convincing evidence is submitted showing that no significant impacts will occur. This is determined by a Traffic and Parking Study. The Development Review Team may recommend a waiver of this requirement however sufficient information has not yet been provided to make this recommendation. 6) Bicycle parking required (capacity equal to 5% of required parking stalls). Show location and rack detail. Rack design shall support the bicycle frame. 7) Control curbs (6"poured concrete) are required for parking,maneuvering, and landscaped areas. 8) Drive approach radius and/or design shall meet SLC Engineering requirements. This includes removal of all dead drive approaches and placement of curb and gutter in these locations. This work should be coordinated with the current city project for this area. 9) Dumpster location and 6 f3. high solid fence and gate enclosure shall be shown on site plan. 10)Expansion or intensification of a property that increases the floor area and/or parking requirements by 50%shall comply with the landscaping requirements of the SLC Zoning Ordinance, 21A.48. Provide documentation of the percentage of Expansion and/or intensification. 11)Expansion or intensification of any building, structure or premises through the addition of dwelling units, gross floor area, seating capacity, or other units of measurement specified for required parking, shall provide additional parking in the amount by which the requirements for the intensified use exceed those for the existing use. Please provide documentation. 12)Parking and maneuvering areas shall be dimensioned. Provide van accessible stall per UBC Appendix 11. 13)Public way improvements such as existing curb, gutter, sidewalk, and drive approaches require inspection to determine replacement requirements of defective concrete. Phone 535-6169. NOTE: After the building permit is issued, a public way permit will be required from the Engineering Department prior to commencing any work in the public way. Planning Commission Agenda and Minutes NOTE: The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 126 of the City & County Building at 451 South State Street Thursday, December 6,2001, at 5:45 p.m. The Planning Commission will be having dinner at 5:00 p.m., in Room 126. During the dinner, Staff may share planning information with the Planning Commission. This portion of the meeting will be open to the public. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Thursday, November 15, 2001 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING at 5:50 p.m.-Petition No. 410-559, by Qwest Wireless, requesting conditional use approval to allow a wireless telecommunication facility disguised as a 60 foot high flag pole at 1611 West 700 North in a CB Community Business"CB"zoning district. (Staff—Ray McCandless at 535-7282) b. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:00 p.m. -Petition No. 410-537, by Qwest Wireless, requesting conditional use approval to allow an existing 30 foot high monopole antenna to be extended to 60 feet high at 1411 South Redwood Road in a Corridor Commercial"CC"zoning district. (Staff—Ray McCandless at 535-7282) c. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:20 p.m.—Madison Estates Phase 3, Planned Development Subdivision request by Iverson Homes L.C., consisting of: Petition No.400-01-53, requesting that Salt Lake City close a portion (narrowing the right-of-way from 80 to 50 feet)of Utah Street(1605 West) between California Avenue(1330 South) and High Street(1450 South); and, Petition No.410-565, requesting a Conditional Use for a reduced width Public Street, and a Planned Development Subdivision approval request for 27 single-family residential lots on 5.04 acres, in an R-1/7000 Zone, located at 1650 West California Avenue(1330 South). (Staff—Greg Mikolash at 535-7932) d. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:40 p.m.- Petition No. 400-00-57, by the Salt Lake City Housing and Neighborhood Development Division to amend the Residential RMF-75, R-MU and RO; Downtown D-1, D-2, D-3, and D-4; and Gateway GMU zoning district text, to amend Title 5 Business Taxes, Licenses and Regulations, and amend Chapter 5.14 Apartment Houses, to allow Single Room Occupancy(SRO)dwelling types and establish location and design criteria for these uses. The Planning Commission previously approved zoning text changes regarding single room occupancy dwellings. The staff is bringing back text modifications for review that provide consistency with exiting City and State codes and removes the management plan requirement from the proposed SRO text. SRO's would remain limited to one per block face and would only be allowed within the previously approved locations on appropriately zoned properties. (Staff—Everett Joyce at 535-7930) e. PUBLIC HEARING at 7:00 p.m.- Petition No. 400-01-44, by Realms of Inquiry, a private school, requesting to rezone the property at 1146 S. 900 East from R-1-5000 to Institutional. This rezoning action is requested so that the existing structure can be used as part of the Realms of Inquiry School. This rezoning request will also include an amendment to the existing Central Community Master Plan. (Staff— Everett Joyce at 535-7930) 3. OTHER BUSINESS a. Discussion on Emigration Creek issues relative to Petition No. 400-01-39, requesting Salt Lake City to amend the Open Space Master Plan (Staff—Ray McCandless at 535-7282) Salt Lake City Corporation complies with all ADA guidelines. If you are planning to attend the public meeting and,due to a disability,need assistance in understanding or participating in the meeting,please notify the City 48 hours in advance of the meeting and we will try to provide whatever assistance may be required. Please call 535-7757 for assistance. PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES AND PAGERS BEFORE THE MEETING BEGINS. AT YOUR REQUEST A SECURITY ESCORT WILL BE PROVIDED TO ACCOMPANY YOU TO YOUR CAR AFTER THE MEETING. THANK YOU. COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT•PLANNING DIVISION•451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406•SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111 TELEPHONE:801-535-7757•FAX:801-535-6174 5 if Ms.Arnold state ere should be a maximum of tw (2)people per unit. Ms. Noda felt that gen Ily,there wouldn't be alot of people living in a SRO unit. She felt that there woul robably be couples imothers with one or two children per unit. She didn't feel t t it would be"gh o-ised". She felt there could be legal problems if the ordina e defined th umber of people per unit. N. Motion for Case#400-00-57: Mr.Jonas made a motion based o fhe findings of fact,as stated in the staff report,to transmit a favorable rec endation to the City Council,for Petition No. 400-00-57,by the Salt Lake City ous g and Neighborhood Development Division,for the text changes as amend ,with the provision that the issue of including Rooming Houses 'the definition ,be brought back to the Planning Commission at a later tim . Mr.Chambless secon d the motion. Ms.Arno+,Ms. Noda,Mr. Nelson, Mr. Jonas,Mr.Chamble ,Mr.Muir,and Ms.McDon. .h voted"Aye". Ms. Funk voted against the otion. Mr.Daniels,as Chairpers. ,did not vote. The motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING-Petition No.400-01-44,by Realms of Inquiry,a private ii school requesting to rezone the property at 1146 S.900 East from R-1-5000 to Institutional. This rezoning action is requested so that the existing structure can be used as part of the Realms of Inquii School. This rezoning request will also include an amendment to the existin_gCentral Community Master Plan. Mr.Joyce presented the staff report. This rezoning action is requested so that the existing structure can be used as part of the Realms of Inquiry School for additional classroom space. The zoning amendment request will also require amendment to the Central Community Master Plan. The rezoning of the property from residential to Institutional zoning will require housing mitigation because a residential structure is being rezoned to a classification that permits non-residential land uses. The Realms of Inquiry is a special purpose school for gifted,talented and creative students offering an academic curriculum in kindergarten through grade 12. A half-day preschool program is also provided. The lot that is being rezoned would become part of the school complex. The petitioner will need to combine this lot with existing school parcels. Ms. Funk asked what would have to be done if these parcels were to be converted back to residential lots at a later date. Mr.Joyce explained that to bring the parcels back to residential use,four(4)feet of property along the north of the house would have to be given up. i Planning Commission Meeting 19 December 6,2001 Mr. Daniels invited the petitioner to speak to the Planning Commission. , Ross Jones, Headmaster of Realms of Inquiry, stated that the school has become part of the community. The students do volunteer work in the neighborhood. The property needs extensive renovations that are expected to cost about $250,000. He stated that the renovations would be consistent with a home, so there would not be any problem if the property had to revert to residential use. The kitchen would be converted to a science lab. Mr. Nelson asked if there was an intent to increase the number of students. Mr. Jones explained that they could increase the number of students by 2 or 3. They want to maintain a small teacher/student ratio. Mr. Daniels opened the public hearing. Margaret Brady, representing East Liberty Park Community Organization and Central City Community Council, stated they support the petition, but are concerned about losing the dwelling use. They recognize that this is a good use for the parcel. They asked the Planning Commission to approve this petition with the addition of a restrictive covenant. The restrictive covenant would limit the land use of the property to a school use only. When this use is abandoned, the property owner waives the right to protest any rezoning action by the City to bring the property back to a residential use. Cindy Cromer, resident, felt this petition should be addressed under a conditional use process, which is not allowed, as conditional uses are limited as to what they can address. She stated that if a conditional use were an option for this petition, they would not be looking at housing mitigation. She felt that the petitioner should not have to pay the housing mitigation as they are getting a temporary institutional zone. The property is encumbered by the restrictive covenant, and therefore, has less value to the petitioner. She requested that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council, that the housing loss mitigation amount be re- evaluated in the light of the restrictive covenant. Mr. Daniels closed the public hearing. Ms. Arnold agreed with Ms. Cromer, that the petitioner is not being treated fairly because of the housing mitigation. Mr. Jonas asked if a residence can be in an institutional zone. Mr. Joyce stated that a residence cannot be in an institutional zone. • Planning Commission Meeting 20 December 6,2001 Ms.Arnold asked if the Planning Commission could approve the institutional zone ® without a restrictive covenant. Mr.Goldsmith explained that the neighborhood wants to make sure that if another group comes in someday,this property would not be turned into an unsatisfactory use. Mr.Jonas asked why the parcel has to be rezoned,if it has a restrictive covenant. Mr. Joyce explained that a building permit would not be granted if the use would not be allowed in the zone. Mr. Jonas asked why the parcels needed to be joined for the rezoning,then,it would need to be subdivided when the parcels are converted back to residential. Mr.Joyce explained that if the parcels are not joined,the classrooms have to have individual parking. The lots are too small to have the classrooms and the necessary parking stalls to satisfy the ordinance. Motion for Case#400-01-44: Mr.Nelson made a motion based on the findings of fact, as stated in the staff report,for Petition No.400-01-44,to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to amend the Central Community Master Plan and approve the proposed zoning change from R-1-5000 Residential to I Institutional for the Best- Cannon House site at 1 146 South 900 East. Conditions of Approval: 1. The applicant combines the school parcels and subject property together and records this action with the Salt Lake County Recorder prior to issuance of a building permit to convert the structure to classroom spaces. 2. The final site plan is reviewed and approved by the City's Development Review Team regarding traffic and circulation design and impacts on adjacent properties. 3. The applicant donates$1.00 to the City's Housing Trust Fund for mitigation of the loss of housing. 4. A voluntary restrictive covenant,that limits the land use to a school and restricts the property owner from protesting future residential rezoning when the property is no longer used for a school,be approved by the Planning Director and recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorders Office prior to publication of the ordinance to rezone the property to the Institutional zoning classification. Ms.Funk seconded the motion. Planning Commission Meeting 21 December 6,2001 Mr. Jonas offered an amendment. He felt that a restrictive covenant was worth 3 $4,381.00. The housing mitigation was worth $1.00. Mr. Nelson and Ms. Funk accepted the amendment to the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Noda, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Muir, Ms. Funk and Ms. McDonough voted "Aye". Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried. OTHER BUSINESS Discussion on Emigration Creek issues relative to Petition No. 400-01-39, requesting Salt Lake City to amend the Open Space Master Plan. This matter will be brought back to the Planning Commission on the January 3, 2002 agenda. Meeting adjourned at 10:00 pm. • Planning Commission Meeting 22 December 6,2001 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: August 9, 2002 SUBJECT: Million Solar Roofs (MSR) Partnership Grant STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears and Lehua Weaver CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart, Steve Fawcett, David Nimkin, Sherrie Collins, and Lisa Romney Do ument Type Budget-Related Facts Policy-Related Facts Miscellaneous Facts Briefing $64,125 Total Partnership This proposed The Administration budget: $50,000 grant, acceptance of grant and needs verbal or"straw $5,000 financial other funds could make poll" acceptance of this contribution and$9,125 renewable energy program and grant in-kind from City options more widely funds in advance of Attorney's Office/Mayor's available for the entire Budget Amendment#9 Office.The actual budget State of Utah.A to take advantage of an allocation will be resolution accepting the opportunity to testify considered as part of grant awards will be at Public Service Budget Amendment #9. considered at the same Commission The Council could time Budget Amendment proceedings. recognize that the #9 is considered. Administration will be incurring expenditures in advance of the allocation. The Administration is asking that the Council review the Million Solar Roofs (MSR) Partnership Grant and partnership program in advance of Budget Amendment #9. Th complete budget request and accompanying grant acceptance resolution will be contained in the transmittal from the Administration for Budget Amendment #9. To effectively participate in the partnership and use the funds for which they were granted the Administration will need to incur expenses in advance of the allocation of program funds. The U.S. Department of Energy grant funds, State funds from the Utah Energy Office and in-kind service from the Attorney's Office will be used to retain two consultants for their technical expertise to testify in formal and informal regulatory proceedings held before the Utah Public Service Commission (PSC). The proceedings of the PSC will be held before the City Council considers amendments to the fiscal year 2002-2003 budget during Budget Amendment #9. Th City Council may wish to straw poll members to ascertain whether the Council is comfortable allowing the Administration to incur expenses relating to this program in advance of the requested budget allocation on Budget Amendment #9. Page 1 MATTERS AT ISSUE/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION: • The Administration in the transmittal to the City Council indicates that the testimony and intervention in Public Service Commission proceedings will focus on removing financial barriers associated with the installation of solar rooftop photovoltaic systems in Salt Lake City. - Are all other ordinances, zoning requirements and material requirements being addressed by the City to allow the installation of rooftop solar systems? Will the successful removal of financial barriers associated with the installation of solar rooftop systems be adversely affected by City ordinances that may prohibit or restrict the use of such systems? ANALYSIS: The Million Solar Roofs (MSR) Partnership request encourages solar power as a clean and renewable energy source. This partnership grant, which commits $50,000 to Salt Lake City, would provide for two technical consultants. The grant also includes an additional cash commitment of $5,000 from the Utah Energy Office and an in-kind service commitment of$9,125 by Salt Lake City through the Attorney's Office and the Mayor's Office of Environmental Affairs. These two consultant positions would serve as intermediaries between Salt Lake City and the Utah Public Service Commission to overcome financial obstacles of implementing solar energy systems. The Administration indicates that a successful measure of the consultants' mediation would be the Utah Public Service Commission's realization that Photovoltaic (PV) rooftop units satisfy their public service obligation. This would result in financial assistance of the installation for Photovoltaic (PV) rooftop units as a solar energy system; making a more feasible energy option for Salt Lake City residents and businesses. A letter received from Lisa Romney, dated August 5, 2002 stated, "The actions of the MSR Partnership will in no way promote an additional charge to the taxpayer." The Mayor's Office of Environmental Affairs has identified this program as consistent with standards set by the Kyoto protocol, which was signed by the Mayor on February 5 of this year. Additionally, this partnership is in line with other "Salt Lake City Green Initiative" efforts. As noted in Ms. Romney's letter, the legislature passed two bills: HB7, "House Metering of Electricity" and SB152, "Electric Energy Efficiency and Conservation Tariff', both of which concern energy use. The details of these two bills have not been decided. A goal of efforts funded by this grant is to ensure that solar energy use is defined within these bills. Page 2 }+ I1}"._IL'µ' - 7 ROSS C."ROCKY"ANDERSON \ MAYOR .. �,.� '„� �� , SALT LAKE 2002 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Q99 August 5, 2002 `��' Cindy Gust Jenson Executive Director City Council City & County Building - Room 304 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Million Solar Roofs (MSR) Partnership Grant Dear Cindy, Per our phone conversation on Friday August z, zooz, I have prepared a memorandum for the Salt Lake City Council and routed it through Rocky Fluhart. I request the council review this memorandum and allocate $50,000.00 from the general fund prior to the September zooz budget opening. My original correspondence to you regarding the Million Solar Roofs Grant application was sent via email on March ii, zooz. The Department of Energy commitment letter was received in the Mayor's Office on July 22, zooz. Upon receiving this commitment to fund our application and to incur pre- award costs, I was advised by our MSR consultants of an urgent need to begin participation in the Public Service Commission proceedings, as outlined in our grant application. The PSC proceedings have begun. The timeline is fluid. We cannot guarantee adequate involvement if we wait for the September budget opening before allocating funds. Executive Summary:Million Solar Roofs Partnership Grant Application The Mayor's Office applied for and received the Million Solar Roofs Grant for $50,00o from the U.S. Department of Energy. The funds are to be used to retain two consultants for their technical expertise in formal and informal regulatory proceedings held before the Utah Public Service Commission (PSC). The Utah Energy Office has committed additional cash ($5,000), for this partnership with Salt Lake City. In addition, Salt Lake City is providing in-kind service at a value of$9,125.00 in the form of commitments from the city attorney's office. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX 801-535-6331 Testimony and intervention in PSC proceedings will focus on removing financial barriers associated with the installation of solar rooftop photovoltaic systems in Salt Lake City. During the zooz Legislative Session, two bills were passed having impact on the use of renewable energy and home systems in the Utah. HB7, "Net Metering of Electricity" and SB 152, "Electric Energy Efficiency Conservation Tariff." The Utah State Legislature has approved both HB 7 and SB 152. Details determining tariffs and resource plans associated with these two new legislative actions must be reviewed by the PSC. The MSR Partnership will participate in regulatory proceedings to revise the Standards and Guidelines for Integrated Resource Planning, to design Demand-Side Management programs and implement tariffs that are favorable to solar technologies. The actions of the MSR Partnership will in no way promote an additional charge to the taxpayer. Our actions will work to ensure the tariff benefits Salt Lake City businesses and residents by buying down the cost of solar systems and applying solar energy to long-term resource plans. Participation during this current hearing is critical to ensure that regulatory policies recognize the public benefit of renewable energy, particularly the peak shaving capabilities of solar PV units. Enclosed is a copy of the Million Solar Roofs Partnership grant application. Sherrie Collins has included the grant in the September budget proposal and is aware of a need to proceed with this grant before that time. Thank you for your willingness to expedite Council review of the MSR proposal and the DOE award. It will enable Salt Lake City to have a profoundly beneficial affect on energy, economics, and air pollution caused by coal-fired power plants in the future. Sincerely, ---\?-QtA (---( Lisa R. Romney Environmental Affairs Coordinator I OFF D l J 1J Li y—' , ss4 Department of Energy• zGolden Field Office A ,.�` 1617 Cole Boulevard L------- s`rATesC*Pi• Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 OFFICE OF iviAYOR July 19, 2002 Ms. Lisa Romney City of Salt Lake Office of the Mayor 451 S. State Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 SUBJECT: PENDING MILLION SOLAR ROOF INITIATIVE (MSRI) GRANT, SOLICITATION NUMBER DE-PS36-02G092005 Dear Ms. Romney: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) intends to negotiate and award the subject grant to the City of Salt Lake-Mayor's Office. As such, and in accordance with your correspondence dated July 18, 2002, this letter constitutes written approval to incur pre-award costs. Costs that are allowable and allocable under the terms of the agreement, and are incurred on or after July 19, 2002, will be eligible for DOE cost sharing. Therefore, the effective date of the Budget and Project Periods for the award are July 19, 2002. However, DOE does not guarantee or assume any obligation to reimburse costs incurred in the performance of the agreement if, for any reason, the agreement is not awarded or if the award is less than anticipated and inadequate to cover such costs. Questions or comments concerning the above should be directed to me at (303) 275-4744. Sincerely, 7//` J, ames Damm Contracting Officer Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper Million Solar Roofs Partnership Million Solar Roofs Initiative Small Grant Program for State and Local Partnerships Solicitation Number DE-PS36-02G092005 Volume 1 Certifications Business Contact: Lisa Romney, Environmental Affairs Coordinator Office of the Mayor 451 S. State, Room 306 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Phone: (801) 535-7939 Fax: (801) 535-6331 lisa.romney(ulci.slc.ut.us Technical Contact: Sarah Wright, Chair Utahns for an Energy-Efficient Economy(UE3) 917 East 2nd Ave Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Phone: 801-673-7156 swrightutah(a,earthlink.net Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Volume 1. Ceritifcations, Page lof 2 aZL GO-PFI9 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (1/22/02) GOLDEN FIELD OFFICE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PRE-AWARD INFORMATION SHEET Applicant: Salt Lake City Corporation Award/Proposal No.: DE-PS36-02G092005 Amendment No.: A. TYPE OF BUSINESS The Applicant is a: ❑ Individual ❑ Partnership Small Business Large Business X State or Local Government or Indian Tribe If Non Profit—Select one below: A university or other institution of higher education or an organization of the type described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (26 USC 501(c)) and exempt from taxation under Section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC 501(a)); or An organization of the type described in Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (26 USC 501(c)) and exempt from taxation under Section 501(a)of the Internal Revenue Code(26 USC 501(a)); or ❑ An organization of the type described in Section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954(26 USC 501(c)) and exempt from taxation under Section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code(26 USC 501(a)); or I I A nonprofit scientific or educational organization qualified under a State nonprofit organization statute. Please identify the statute below; or n Institution of Higher Education Other B. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY B.1. Applicants who have checked"Large Business" above have the right to request, in advance or within Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Volume 1. Ceritifcations, Page 2of 2 30 days after execution of the grant, in accordance with applicable statutes and DOE Patent Waiver Regulation (10 CFR 784), a waiver of all or any part of the rights of the United States in Subject Inventions. If the Applicant intends to request a waiver to such invention rights pursuant to 10 CFR 784, please indicate: I intend to request an advance waiver in accordance with 10 CFR 784. x I do not intend to request an advance waiver. B.2. RIGHTS IN PROPOSAL DATA It is DOE policy for a grant award based on a proposal that, in consideration of the award, the Government shall obtain unlimited rights in the technical data contained in the proposal unless the Applicant marks those portions of the technical information which he asserts as "proprietary data" or specifies those portions of such technical data which are not directly related to or will not be utilized in the work to be funded under the award. Accordingly, please indicate: X No restrictions on Government rights in the proposal technical data; or n The following identified technical data is proprietary or is not directly related to or will not be utilized in the work to be funded under the award: B.3. IDENTIFICATION OF TECHNICAL DATA WHICH IS PROPRIETARY The Rights in Technical Data clause proposed to be used for this award may not permit the utilization of proprietary data in the performance of this award or, if the use of proprietary data is permitted,may not be adequate to meet programmatic requirements. Use of data which is proprietary may prevent you from meeting the data requirements of the award(including delivery of data). Your attention is particularly drawn to the use of LICENSED COMPUTER SOFTWARE. Please indicate that you have reviewed the requirements in the technical scope of work and to the best of your knowledge: X No proprietary data will be utilized in the performance of this award. n Proprietary data as follows will be utilized in the performance of this award: X No LICENSED COMPUTER SOFTWARE will be utilized in the performance of this award. ❑ LICENSED COMPUTER SOFTWARE as follows will be utilized in the performance of this award:- Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Volume 1. Ceritifcations, Page 3of 2 C. SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER(SSN) If the Applicant does not have an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assigned Employer Identification Number (EIN), Applicant SSN is (See block 5 of Application for Federal Assistance, Standard Form 424.) D. DATA UNIVERSAL NUMBERING SYSTEM (DUNS NUMBER) Applicant DUNS Number is 072957822 . For assistance in obtaining a DUNS Number, call Dunn &Bradstreet at 1-800-333-0505. The Applicant should be prepared to provide the following information to Dunn&Bradstreet: (1) Company name. (2) Company address. (3) Company telephone number. (4) Line of business. (5) Chief executive officer/key manager. (6) Date the company was started. (7)Number of people employed by the company. (8) Company affiliation. E. CIVIL RIGHTS REQUIREMENTS In accordance with 10 CFR 1040, the Applicant is required to appoint a person as the Affirmative Action Officer to be responsible for Civil Rights matters. The person you appoint should be knowledgeable of 10 CFR 1040,Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs. You are also responsible for prominently displaying reasonable numbers of Civil Rights posters at your facility. A copy of 10 CFR 1040 can be found at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx 00/10cfr1040 00.html and the poster(DOE F 1600.4) at http://www.golden.doe.gov/businessopportunities.html Copies can also be obtained from your awarding DOE office. Brenda Hancock has been appointed as the Affirmative Action Officer and has familiarized himself/herself with 10 CFR 1040. DOE Civil Rights posters have been displayed prominently and in reasonable numbers at our facility. F. ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION 1. Has applicant had prior Federal awards? X Yes ❑ No 2. If yes, was applicant required to submit an audit per OMB A-133 circular? ❑ Yes n No 3. Applicant's fiscal year end date is June 30, 2002 4. Identify Cognizant Federal Agency(agency providing the preponderance of Federal funding if not DOE), and provide Agency name, a point of contact, and phone number. Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Volume 1. Ceritifcations, Page 4of 2 5. If applicant has other DOE awards, identify the DOE office providing the preponderance of Federal funding, if not the Golden Field Office, and a point of contact and phone number FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM To qualify for Financial Assistance, financial management system compliance with 10 CFR 600.121 or 10 CFR 600.220 is required. Accounting System Survey Requirements for Financial Assistance to Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, Non Profit Organizations and Commercial Organizations. Mark in Appropriate Column Yes No NA 1. Is your Accounting System in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles X ❑ ❑ applicable to the circumstances? 2. Accounting System provides for: a. Segregation of direct costs from indirect costs. X ❑ ❑ b. Identification and accumulation of direct costs by project. X ❑ c. A logical and consistent method for the allocation of indirect costs to intermediate and X final cost objectives. (Project is final cost objective) d. Accumulation of costs under general ledger control. X ❑ ❑ e. A timekeeping system that identifies employees' labor by intermediate and final cost X ❑ ❑ objectives. f. A labor distribution system that charges direct and indirect labor to appropriate cost X objectives. g. Interim(at least monthly)determination of costs charged to a project through routine x n n posting of books of account. h. Excluding costs charged to Government projects which are not allowable in terms of ❑ X FAR 31, Contract Cost Principles and Procedures,or other provisions. i. Identification of costs by project line item and by units(as if each unit or line item were X ❑ ❑ a separate project) if required by the proposed award. 3. Does the Accounting System provide Financial Information: a. As required by agreements, addressing cost or payment limitations? X ri b. To support requests for advance payments? X ❑ ❑I 4. Is the Accounting System designed,and are the records maintained in such a manner that X ❑ ❑ adequate,reliable data are developed for use in developing cost proposals? Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Volume 1. Ceritifcations, Page 5of 2 5. Is the Accounting System currently in full operation? X U Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Volume 1. Ceritifcations, Page 6of 2 DOE F 1600.5 U.S. Department of Energy OMB Control No. (06-94) Assurance of Compliance 1910-0400 All Other Editions Are Obsolete Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs • OMB Burden Disclosure Statement Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 15 minutes per response,including the time for reviewing instructions,searching existing data sources,gathering and maintaining the data needed,and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,including suggestions for reducing this burden,to Office of Information Resources Management Policy,Plans,and Oversight, Records Management Division,HR-422-GIN,Paperwork Reduction Project(1910-0400),U.S.Department of Energy,1000 Independence Avenue,S.W.,Washington, DC 20585;and to the Office of Management and Budget(OMB),Paperwork Reduction Project(1910-0400),Washington,DC 20503. Salt Lake City Corporation (Hereinafter called the"Applicant") HEREBY AGREES to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964(Pub.L.88-352),Section 16 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974(Pub.L.93-275),Section 401 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974(Pub.L.93-438),Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,as amended,(Pub.L.92-318,Pub.L.93-568,and Pub. L.94-482),Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973(Pub.L.93-112),the Age Discrimination Act of 1977(Pub. L.94-135),Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968(Pub.L.90-284),the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977(Pub. L.95-91),the Energy Conservation and Production Act of 1976,as amended,(Pub. L.94-385)and Title 10,Code of Federal Regulations,Part 1040. In accordance with the above laws and regulations issued pursuant thereto,the Applicant agrees to assure that no person in the United States shall,on the ground of race,color,national origin,sex,age,or disability,be excluded from participation in,be denied the benefits of,or be otherwise subjected do discrimination under any program or activity in which the Applicant receives Federal assistance from the Department of Energy. Applicability and Period of Obligation In the case of any service,financial aid,covered employment,equipment,property,or structure provided,leased,or improved with Federal assistance extended to the Applicant by the Department of Energy,this assurance obligates the Applicant for the period during which Federal assistance is extended. In the case of any transfer of such service,financial aid,equipment,property,or structure,this assurance obligates the transferee for the period during which Federal assistance is extended. If any personal property is so provided. this assurance obligates the Applicant for the period during which it retains ownership or possession of the property. In all other cases,this assurance obligates the Applicant for the period during which the Federal assistance is extended to the Applicant by the Department of Energy. I'mployment Practices Where a primary objective of the Federal assistance is to provide employment or where the Applicant's employment practices affect the delivery of services in programs or activities resulting from Federal assistance extended by the Department,the Applicant agrees not to discriminate on the ground of race,color,national origin,sex,age,or disability,in its employment practices. Such employment practices may include,but are not limited to,recruitment,advertising,hiring,layoff or termination,promotion,demotion,transfer,rates of pay,training and participation in upward mobility programs;or other forms of compensation and use of facilities. Subrecipient Assurance The Applicant shall require any individual,organization,or other entity with whom it subcontracts,subgrants,or subleases for the purpose of providing any service,financial aid,equipment,property,or structure to comply with laws and regulations cited above. To this end,the subrecipient shall be required to sign a written assurance form;however,the obligation of both recipient and subrecipient to ensure compliance is not relieved by the collection or submission of written assurance forms. Data Collection and Access to Records The Applicant agrees to compile and maintain information pertaining to programs or activities developed as a result of the Applicant's receipt of Federal assistance from the Department of Energy. Such information shall include,but is not limited to the following:(1)the manner in which services are or will be provided and related data necessary for determining whether any persons are or will be denied such services on the basis of prohibited discrimination;(2)the population eligible to be served by race,color,national origin,sex,and disability;(3)data regarding covered employment including use or planned use of bilingual public contact employees serving beneficiaries of the program where necessary to permit effective participation by beneficiaries unable to speak or understand English;(4)the location of existing or proposed facilities connected with the program and related information adequate for determining whether the location has or will have the effect of unnecessarily denying access to any person on the basis of prohibited discrimination;(5)the present or proposed membership by race,color,national origin,sex,age and disability in any planning or advisory body which is an integral part of the program;and(6)any additional written data determined by the Department of Energy to be 0-elevant to the obligation to assure compliance by recipients with laws cited in the first paragraph of this assurance. Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Volume 1. Ceritifcations, Page 7of 2 DOE F/600.5 OMB Control No. (06-94) 1910-0400 All Other Editions Are Obsolete The Applicant agrees to submit requested data to the Department of Energy regarding programs and activities developed by the Applicant from the use of Federal assistance funds extended by the Department of Energy. Facilities of the Applicant(including the physical plants,buildings,or other structures)and all records,books,accounts,and other sources of information pertinent to the Applicant's compliance with the civil rights laws shall be made available for inspection during normal business hours of request of an officer or employee of the Department of Energy specifically authorized to make such inspections. Instructions in this regard will be provided by the Director,Office of Civil Rights,U.S.Department of Energy. This assurance is given in consideration of and for the purpose of obtaining any and all Federal grants,loans,contracts(excluding procurement contracts),property,discounts or other Federal assistance extended after the date hereof,to the Applicants by the Department of Energy,including installment payments on account after such data of application for Federal assistance which are approved before such date. The Applicant recognizes and agrees that such Federal assistance will be extended in reliance upon the representations and agreements made in this assurance,and that the United States shall have the right to seek judicial enforcement of this assurance. This assurance is binding on the Applicant,the successors, transferees,and assignees,as well as the person(s)whose signatures appear below and who are authorized to sign this assurance on behalf of the Applicant. Applicant Certification The Applicant certifies that it has complied,or that,within 90 days of the date of the grant,it will comply with all applicable requirements of 10 C.F.R.3 1040.5 (a copy will be furnished to the Applicant upon written request to DOE). Designated Responsible Employee Lisa Romney,Environmental Advisor to the Mayor (801)535-7704 Name and title(Printed or Typed) Telephone Number • April 11,2002 Signature Date • Salt Lake City Corporation (801)535-7704 Applicant's Name Telephone Number 451 South State,Room 306 4/11/02 Address Date Authorized Official: President,Chief Executive Officer or Authorized Designee Ross C.Anderson,Mayor Salt Lake City (801)535-7704 Name and title(Printed or Typed) Telephone Number Salt Lake APPRDC ty DAAttomey's TO FORM Date / April 11,2002 Signature Date Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Volume 1. Ceritifcations. Page 8of 2 Salt Lake City MSR Partnership • CERTIFICATIONS REGARDING LOBBYING;DEBARMENT,SUSPENSION AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS; AND DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE REQUIREMENTS Applicants should refer to the regulations cited below to determine the certification to which they are required to attest. Applicants should also review t instructions for certification included in the regulations before completing this form. Signature of this form provides for compliance with certificati requirements under 34 CFR Part 82, "New Restrictions on Lobbying," and 34 CFR Part 85, "Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement)and Government-wide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace(Grants)." The certifications shall be treated as a material representation of fact upon which reliance will be 'laced when the De.artment of Ener! determines to award the covered transaction,: ant,or coo I erative agreement. - . . - - _ . . _._ ._ . . . . 'lly charged by a government entity(Federal, State or local) with The undersigned certifies,to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph that: (1)(b)of this certification;and x No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid,by or (d) Have not within a three-year period preceding this on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or application/proposal had one or more public transactions attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a (Federal,State or local)terminated for cause or default. Member of Congress,an officer or employee of Congress,or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the (2) Where the prospective primary participant is unable to certify to any awarding of any Federal contract,the making of any Federal grant, of the statements in this certification,such prospective participant the making of any Federal loan,the entering into of any cooperative shall attach an explanation to this proposal. agreement,and the extension,continuation,renewal,amendment, or modification of any Federal contract,grant,loan,or cooperative 3. DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE agreement. Standard Form-LLL not required This certification is required by the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 ❑ Funds than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be (Pub. L. 100-690,Title V, Subtitle D) and is implemented through paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an additions to the Debarment and Suspension regulations,published in the officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an Federal Register on January 31, 1989,and May25, 1990. officer or employee of Congress,or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract,grant,loan,or ALTERNATE I cooperative agreement. If checked,the undersigned shall complete (GRANTEES OTHER THAN INDIVIDUALS) and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,"in accordance with its instructions. (1) The grantee certifies that it will or will continue to provide a drug-free workplace by: The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards (a) Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful at all tiers(including subcontracts,subgrants,and contracts under manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace and subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violation of such prohibition; This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. (b) Establishing an ongoing drug-free awareness program to inform Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering employees about: into this transaction imposed by section 1352,title 31,U.S.Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a (1) The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace; civil penalty of not less than$10,000 and not more than$100,000 for each such failure. (2) The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace; 2. DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, AND OTHER RE- (3) Any available drug counseling,rehabilitation,and employee SPONSIBILITY MATTERS assistance programs;and (I) The prospective primary participant certifies to the best of its (4) The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug knowledge and belief,that it and its principals: abuse violations occurring in the workplace; (a) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for (c) Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the grant be given a copy of the statement debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from required by paragraph(a); covered transactions by any Federal department or agency; (b) Have not within a three-year period receding this proposal (d) Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against (a) that, as a condition of employment under the grant, the them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in employee will: connection with obtaining,attempting to obtain,or (1) Abide by the terms of the statement;and performing a public(Federal,State,or local)transaction under a public transaction;violation of Federal or State (2) Notify the employer in writing of his or her conviction antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement,theft, for a violation of a criminal drug statute occurring in the forgery,bribery,falsification or destruction of records, work-place not later than five calendar days after such making false statements,or receiving stolen property; conviction. FA/CERTS(10/01) Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Volume 1 Ceritifcntions Pnx1e l fhf 4. LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995,SIMPSON-CRAIG (e) Notifying the agency,in writing,within ten calendar days AMENDMENT after receiving notice under subparagraph(d)(2) from an employee or otherwise receiving actual Applicant organizations which are described in Section 501(c)(4)of the notice of such conviction. Employers of convicted Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and engage in lobbying activities after employees must provide notice,including position December 31,1995,shall not be eligible for the receipt of Federal funds title,to energy grant officer or other designee on constituting an award,grant,or loan. Section 501(c)(4)of the Internal whose grant activity the convicted employee was Revenue Code of 1986 covers: working,unless the Federal agency has designated a central point for the receipt of such notices. Notice Civic leagues or organizations not organized forprofit but operated shall include the identification number(s)of each exclusively for the promotion ofsocial welfare,or local associations affected grant; ofemployees,the membership ofwhich is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality,and the (f) Taking one of the following actions,within 30 calendar days net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, of receiving notice under subparagraph(d)(2),with respect to educational,or recreational purposes. any employee who is so convicted: As set forth in the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995(Public Law 104-65, (I) Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, December 19, 1995),as amended ["Simpson-Craig Amendment," see up to and including termination, consistent with the Section 129 of The Balanced Budget Downpayment Act,I(Public Law requirements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,as amended;or 104-99,January 26,1996)],lobbying activities is defined broadly. (See section 3 of the Act.) (2) Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such The undersigned certifies,to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, purposes by a Federal,State,or local health,law enforcement, that: it IS NOT an organization described in section 501(c)(4)of the or other appropriate agency; Internal Revenue Code of 1986;OR that it IS an organization described in section 501(c)(4)of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,which,after (g) Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free December 31, 1995,HAS NOT engaged in any lobbying activities as workplace through implementation of paragraphs(a),(b),(c), defined in the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995,as amended. (d),(e),and(f). ALTERNATE II(GRANTEES WHO ARE INDIVIDUALS) (2) The grantee may insert in the space provided below the site(s) for the performance of work done in connection with the (1)The grantee certifies that,as a condition of the grant,he or she specific grant will not engage in the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substances in Place of Performance: conducting any activity with the grant. (Street address,city,county,state,zip code) (2) If convicted of a criminal drug offense resulting from a violation occurring during the conduct of any grant activity,he or she will report the conviction,in writing,within 10 calendar days of the conviction,to every grant officer or other designee,unless the Federal agency designates a central point for the receipt of such notices. When notice is made to such a central point,it shall include the identification number(s)of each affected grant. ❑Check if there are workplaces on file that are not identified here. As the duly authorized representative of the applicant,I hereby certify that the applicant will comply with the above certifications. NAME OF APPLICANT PR/AWARD NUMBER AND/OR PROJECT NAME Salt Lake City Corporation DE-PS36-02G092005 PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Ross C.Anderson,Mayor Salt Lake City SIGNATURE DATE d. April 11,2002 ----- APPROVED AS TO FORM FA/CERTS(10/01) Salt Lake Ci ttomey's Office Date Y I/ D2-- Salt Lake City MSR Partnership By Vnlnma 1 ('aritifratinnc Paor 1 1 of 7 DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES Approved by OMB Complete this form to disclose lobbying activities pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1352 0348-0046 (See reverse for public burden disclosure.) 1. Type of Federal Action: 2. Status of Federal Action: 3. Report Type: ❑ a. contract X a. bid/ofer/application X a. initial fling x b. grant ❑ b. initial award ❑ b. material change ❑ c. cooperative agreement ❑ c. post-award For Material Change Chly: ❑ d. loan year quarter ❑ e. loan guarantee date of last report ❑ f. loan insurance 4. Name and Address of Reporting Entity. 5. If Reporting Entity in No.4 is Subawardee,Enter Name and Address of Prime: X Prime ❑ Subawardee Tier,if known: Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State,Room 306 Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 Congressional District,if known: Congressional District,if known: 6. Federal Department/Agency.. 7. Federal Program Name/Description: U.S.Department of Energy CFDA Number,if applicable: 8. Federal Action Number,if known: 9. Award Amount,if known: 10.a. Name and Address of Lobbying Registrant b. Individuals Perbrming Services(including address if (if individual,last name, first name,M): different from No. 10A) (last name,first name,M): (attach Continuation Sheet(S)SF-LLL-A,if necessary) 11. 13. 12. 14. 15. 16. Information requested through this brm is authorized by title 31 Signature: U.S.C.section 1352. This disclosure oflobbying activities is a 1 Dp1 material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed Print Name: Lisa Romney by the tier above when this transaction was made or entered into. This disclosure is required pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1352. Titl: Administrative Assistant to the Mapr This information will be reported to the Congress semi-annually Telephone No.: (801)535-7939 Date: and will be available for public inspection. Any person who fails to file the required disclosure shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than$10,000 and not more than$100,000 for each. Fei�erafUs �nly 'fix °; • Authorized for Local Reproduction r�. w. _ , s,s �.. ,�... Standard Form LLL APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Salt Lake)ity Attorneys Office Volume 1. Ceritifcations, Page 12of 2 Date 9. /(AT INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETION OF SF-LLL,DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES This disclosure form shall be completed by the reporting entity,whether subawardee or prime Federal recipient,at the initiation or receipt of a covered Federal action,or a material change to a previous filing,pursuant to title 31 U.S.C.section 1352. The filing of a form is required for each payment or ivgreement to make payment to any lobbying entity for influencing or attempting to influence an officer of any agency,a Member of Congress,an fficer or employee of Congress,or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with a covered Federal action. Complete all items that apply for both the initial filing and material change report. Refer to the implementing guidance published by the Office of Management and Budget for additional information. 1. Identify the type of covered Federal action for which lobbying activity is and/or has been secured to influence the outcome of a covered Federal action. 2. Identify the status of the covered Federal action. 3. Identify the appropriate classification of this report. If this is a follow up report caused by a material change to the information previously reported,enter the year and quarter in which the change occurred. Enter the date of the last previously submitted report by this reporting entity for this covered Federal action. 4. Enter the full name,address,city,state and zip code of the reporting entity. Include Congressional District,if known. Check the appropriate classification of the reporting entity that designates if it is,or expects to be,a prime or subaward recipient. Identify the tier of the subawardee, e.g.,the first subawardee of the prime is the 1st tier. Subawards include but are not limited to subcontracts,subgrants and contract awards under grants. 5. If the organization filing the report in item 4 checks"Subawardee",then enter the full name,address,city,state and zip code of the prime Federal recipient. Include Congressional District,if known. 6. Enter the name of the Federal agency making the award or loan commitment. Include at least one organizational level below agency name,if known. For example,Department of Transportation,United States Coast Guard. 7. Enter the Federal program name or description for the covered Federal action(item 1). If known,enter the full Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance(CFDA)number for grants,cooperative agreements,loans,and loan commitments. 08. Enter the most appropriate Federal identifying number available for the Federal action identified in item 1(e.g.,Request for Proposal(RFP) number;invitation for Bid(IFB)number;grant announcement number;the contract,grant,or loan award number;the application/proposal control number assigned by the Federal agency). Include prefixes,e.g.,"RFP-DE-90-001." 9. For a covered Federal action where there has been an award or loan commitment by the Federal agency,enter the Federal amount of the award/loan commitment for the prime entity identified in item 4 or 5. 10. (a) Enter the full name,address,city,state and zip code of the registrant under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 engaged by the reporting entity identified in item 4 to influence the covered Federal action. (b) Enter the full names of the individual(s)performing services,and include full address if different from 10(a). Enter Last Name, First Name,and Middle Initial(MI). 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. The certifying official shall sign and date the form,print his/her name,title,and telephone number. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 30 minutes per response,including timer reviewing instructions,searching exsting data sources,gathering and maintaining the data needed,and completing and reviving the collection of information. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or anyother aspect of this collection of information,including suggestions br reducing this burden,to the Office of Management and Budget Paperwork Reduction Project(0348-0046),Washington,D.C. 20503. Salt Lake City MSR Partnership v,i,,mn 1 pAriticratinnc Agar, 1 2nf 7 t ILL GO-EFI U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (2/06/02) GOLDEN FIELD OFFICE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (To Be Completed by Potential Recipient) The Department of Energy(DOE) is required by the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) of 1969 as amended(42 U.S.C. 4332(2),40 CFR parts 1500-1508)and DOE implementing regulations(10 CFR 1021)to consider the environmental effects resulting from federal actions, including providing financial assistance. Please provide the following information to facilitate DOE's environmental review. DOE needs to evaluate the requested information as part of your award negotiation. Instructions and Handbook: Terms that appear in blue have more detailed information available to assist you in completing the form. Save the form to your local directory. Leave your internet browser open and open the form in Word from the local directory. Click on the blue term and it will automatically open the handbook at the appropriate place. Click on the back button to return to your form. Or,you may click here to open the handbook. PART I: General Information Project Million Solar Roofs Title: Solicitation Number: DE-PS36-02G092005 1. Please describe the intended use of DOE funding in your proposed project. For example,would the funding be applied to the entire project or only support a phase of the project? Describe the activity as specifically as possible,i.e.planning,feasibility study,design,data analysis,education or outreach activities,construction,capital purchase and/or equipment installation modification. 2. Does any part of your project require review and/or permitting by any other federal,state,regional,local,environmental,or regulatory agency? ❑ Yes x No If yes,please provide a list of required reviews and permits in the appropriate item number in Part II. 3. Has any review(e.g.,NEPA documentation,permits, agency consultations)been completed? ❑ Yes x No If yes, is a finding or report available and how can a copy be obtained? 4. Is the proposed project part of a larger scope of work? ❑ Yes x No If yes,please describe. Do you anticipate requesting additional federal funding for subsequent phases of this project? ❑ Yes x No If yes,please describe. • 5. Does the scope of your project only involve one or more of the following: ❑ Information gathering such as literature surveys, inventories, audits, ❑ Data analysis including computer modeling, ❑ Document preparation such as design,feasibility studies,analytical energy supply and demand studies,or ❑ Information dissemination, including document mailings, publication, distribution, training, conferences, are informational programs. If the scope of your project is limited to the block(s)checked above,please skip to Part III, otherwise, continue to Part II. Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Vnlnme 1 C'eritifraticrns Pa¢e 14of 9 PART II: Environmental Considerations Table A. Please indicate if any of the following conditions or special areas is present,required,or could be affected by your project: Item Specific nature or type of activity or condition. If a No. Description Yes/No consultation, approval, or permit applies, please — describe. 1 Clearing or Excavation (indicate if greater No than 1 acre) 2 Dredge and/or Fill. Specify the number of No acres involved. 3 New or Modified Federal/State Permits No And/or Requests for Exemptions 4 Pre-Existing Contamination No 5 Asbestos No 6 Criteria Pollutants No 7 Non-Attainment Areas No 8 Class I Air Quality Control Region No 9 Navigable Air Space No 10 Areas with Special Designation(e.g., No National Forests,Parks,Trails) 11 Prime,Unique or Important Farmland No 12 Archeological/Cultural Resources No 13 Threatened/Endangered Species and/or No Critical Habitat 14 Other Protected Species(Wild Burros, No Migratory Birds) 15 Floodplains No 16 Special Sources of Groundwater(e.g., Sole No Source Aquifer) 17 Underground Extraction/Injection No (non-hazardous substances) 18 Wetlands No 19 Coastal Zones No 20 Public Issues or Concerns No 21 Noise No 22 Depletion of a Non-Renewable Resource No 23 Aesthetics No Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Volume 1 Ceritifeationc Paw.. 1 Snf 2 Table B. Would your project use, disturb, or produce any chemicals or biological substances? (i.e., pesticides, industrial process, fuels, lubricants,bacteria) If not, skip to Section C. Please indicate if any of the materials or processes listed below applies. Item Description Yes/No Quantity Permit Specific type, use, or No. required? condition • Type? 1 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) No 2 Import, Manufacture, or Processing No of Toxic Substances 3 Chemical Storage, Use, and No Disposal 4 Pesticide Use No 5 Hazardous, Toxic, or Criteria No Pollutant Air Emissions 6 Liquid Effluent No 7 Underground Extraction/Injection No (hazardous substances) 8 Hazardous Waste No 9 Underground Storage Tanks No 10 Biological Materials. Indicate if No genetically altered materials are involved. Table C. Would your project require or produce any radiological materials? If not, skip to Part III. Please indicate if any of the materials listed below applies. Item Description Yes/No Quantity Permit Specific nature of use No. required? Type? 1 Radioactive Mixed Waste No 2 Radioactive Waste No 3 Radiation Exposures No Part III: Contact Information Please provide the name of the preparer of this form and a contact person who can answer questions or provide additional information. Prepare Lisa Romney Telephone Num (801) 535-7939 E-mail Lisa.Romney@ci.slc.ut.us Cont Lisa Romney Telephone Num (801) 535-7939 E-mail Lisa.Romney@ci.slc.ut.us Address Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Volume 1. Ceritifcations, Page 16of 2 Salt Lake City Million Solar Roofs Partnership Million Solar Roofs Initiative Small Grant Program for State and Local Partnerships Solicitation Number DE-PS36-02G092005 Volume 2 — Technical Volume Business Contact: Lisa Romney, Environmental Affairs Coordinator Office of the Mayor 451 S. State,Room 306 Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 Phone: (801) 535-7939 Fax: (801) 535-6331 lisa.romney(aci.slc.ut.us Technical Contact: Sarah Wright, Chair Utahns for an Energy-Efficient Economy (UE3) 917 East 2"d Ave Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Phone: 801-673-7156 Swrightutah(a earthlink.net Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Page 1 of 23 Volume 3 -Technical Proposal Table of Contents Volume 2—Technical Volume 1. Technical Summary 2. Technical Proposal a. Project Description i. Purpose ii. Project Participants iii. Project Duration iv. Expected Results b. Relevance of Proposal to Objectives of MSR c. Leadership, Commitment and Public Participation d. Roles, Capabilities, and Project Organization 3. Statement of Work 4. Letters of Commitment 5. Personal Resumes Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Page 2 of 23 Volume 3 -Technical Proposal 1.0 Technical Summary - Salt Lake City Million Solar Roofs Partnership The Salt Lake City Million Solar Roof Partnership will provide the legal and technical expertise to intervene in a variety of formal and informal regulatory proceedings held before the Utah Public Service Commission. The goal of the intervention is to remove the financial barriers associated with the installation of solar photovoltaic systems in the Salt Lake City area by creating a regulatory environment that recognizes and rewards the public benefits associated with solar energy. Our intent is to provide expert evidence and testimony to the Utah Public Service Commission; the local regulated utility(PacifiCorp), and other regulatory agencies which demonstrates that partial utility funding of private rooftop PV systems is a cost-effective means for the utility to its public service obligation. Current resource planning guidelines fail to recognize and quantify the benefits associated with the installation of rooftop PV units. These benefits include: the ability to shave summer peak demand, mitigation of price volatility, avoided transmission and distribution expenditures, emissions reduction, and improvements in air quality and public health. The Partnership's participation in a series of regulatory proceedings, both formal and informal, provide the unique opportunity to convince PacifiCorp and the regulatory community that utility investment in buying down the cost of roof top PV units is a cost-effective means of meeting the obligation to serve. Cost-effective measures are more assured of cost recovery making such investments attractive to the utility. Utility investment in solar rooftop PV units will lower financial barriers and encourage installation. The Utah Public Service Commission has convened a number of formal and informal proceedings that will investigate resource planning. These include regular meetings of the Energy Efficiency Advisory Group as mandated by Commission order in Docket No. 01-035-01; the review of Integrated Resource Planning Standards and Guidelines in Docket No. 02-035-03; the study and formation of a new IRP and attendant action plan; the implementation of a net metering tariff in a yet to be scheduled docket; well as an informal process to study the implementation of a demand side management tariff. Salt Lake City will provide the legal support for formal intervention into these proceedings. Richard Collins and Sarah Wright will attend the technical conferences and meetings and provide the technical expertise through formal and informal testimony on these issues. We will initiate the filing of the net metering tariff. The Partnership will help craft a regulatory environment that will substantially lower the financial barriers for an individual or business to install PV rooftop units. We foresee an environment that encourages the electric utility to partner with its customers to install PV rooftop units. This coupled with Utah's renewable energy tax credit,the net metering tariff, and potentially funds from the demand side management tariff could substantially reduce the costs of installing rooftop PV systems for an individual. The lowering of costs will greatly reduce the financial barriers to solar installations and facilitate the adoption of this important resource. Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Page 3 of 23 Volume 3 -Technical Proposal • 2.0 Technical Proposal - Salt Lake City Million Solar Roofs Partnership — Background Salt Lake City Corporation is committed to improving our air quality and to meeting Kyoto protocol reductions in CO2. Salt Lake City has an outstanding solar resource and rooftop solar units would be an ideal source to help meet our summer peak electricity needs. The Salt Lake valley is in an EPA designated non-attainment area for PM10 and a maintenance area for ozone. We have a sharp peak load in the summer months, which is largely attributed to air conditioners and cooling units. Two new natural gas simple-cycle peaking facilities are in the process of being built in the valley. One of the reasons sited for installing these in our airshed was related to transmission constraints. Rooftop solar units provide electricity during peak periods -they could serve as cost effective peak shaving, reduce the risk of the Utility having to buy peak power on the spot market,reduce the amount of time the utility would have to run expensive simple-cycle peaking units, and they would provide pollution-free power in a derogated airshed. Project Description Purpose This project will attempt to lower the financial and technical barriers associated with the installation of Photovoltaic (PV) rooftop units in the Salt Lake City area. The goal is to mold and change the regulatory environment so that it recognizes the public interest benefits associated with the installation of PV units. The ultimate goals are to get regulatory approval and Company acceptance of a change in regulatory policy that allows the buy down of the cost of installation of PV and to implement tariffs and procedures that facilitate the investment in solar PV projects. The Salt Lake City Partnership will accomplish this through its intervention and participation in a number of proceedings that will formulate regulatory policy. The implementation of new legislation as well as contemplated changes in regulatory policy provide a unique opportunity to formally recognize and institutionalize the benefits of implementing a solar energy policy. New regulatory policy that will affect the renewable resources is being address now. Opportunities to influence the regulatory and institutional environments are open for the next year or so and must be acted upon quickly. Failure to participate now means forfeiting the opportunity for another five to ten years. During the 2002 session, the Utah Legislature passed two bills, HB7 "Net Metering of Electricity" and SB 152, "Electric Energy Efficiency and Conservation Tariff'. Successful implementation of the two bills could profoundly lower financial barriers associated with PV units. The net metering law mandates that public utilities, in particular, PacifiCorp,must provide a net metering tariff to its customers. The tariff has not yet been submitted for approval to the Utah Public Service Commission. The Partnership will initiate a tariff filing and monitor Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Page 4 of 23 Volume 3 -Technical Proposal the process to insure the tariff is beneficial to PV systems and consistent with the legislative intent. Senate Bill 152 is enabling legislation that allows a separate charge to be placed on a customer's bill to collect money for energy conservation measures. This system benefit charge is envisioned as a source of revenue that will fund primarily demand-side programs. The bill is enabling legislation and must be implemented through a Public Service Commission proceeding. It appears the Commission's initial response will be to set up an informal process to explore the types of programs that may be funded. The Partnership will participate in this process provide evidence to show that PV solar units are equivalent to demand-side measures and thus can be included in the tariff. Current Public Service Commission proceedings and investigations will codify regulatory rules and procedures as they pertain to renewable energy in general and solar energy in particular. First, the Commission is in the process of rewriting their Standards and Guidelines for Integrated Resource Planning(IRP). The old standards were more slanted towards the acquisition of the lowest cost resources and did not fully recognize the risk mitigation benefits of renewable resources. This oversight can be corrected if participation of solar advocates in the technical conferences and the sponsorship of formal testimony into this proceeding are ensured. This yearlong proceeding entails a number of technical conferences open to the public and a formal proceeding before the Commission the technical conferences and the sponsorship of formal testimony into this proceeding are ensured. This yearlong proceeding entails a number of technical conferences open to the public and a formal proceeding before the Commission. The Commission is also requiring PacifiCorp,the only major investor-owned utility within the state to submit a new action plan to its IRP. This provides an opportunity to get the Company to investigate the peak shaving benefits of PV roof panels. PacifiCorp is required by the Commission to submit a report to the Commission on its reevaluation of energy efficiency and distributive generation measures. Comments and participation in the review of this report and attendance of technical conferences on Energy Efficiency Advisory Group will help promote the acceptance of solar roof panels as a legitimate distributed generation source and as a demand-side measure that will cut peak demand. Project Participants The Salt Lake City MSR Partnership has brought together a unique team of collaborators to address local barriers to deployment of solar energy in Salt Lake City. The partnership includes Salt Lake City's Mayor's Office, Utahns for an Energy-Efficient Economy(UE3) and the Utah Energy Office. In addition, the partnership has the support of the local utility, PacifiCorp, and its commitment to work with the team to catalyze market demand for solar PV its Salt Lake City service territory. Salt Lake City will provide project management and coordination of budgeting, accounting,public outreach and legal support to the partnership. UE3 will provide project management of the technical tasks of the partnership and coordinate activities of energy analysts, economist(s)and regulatory expertise necessary to effectively participate in regulatory proceedings and work groups established by the Utah Public Service Commission. Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Page 5 of 23 Volume 3 -Technical Proposal Project Duration Regulatory proceedings are currently under way for the IRP Public Input Meetings and the DSM Advisory Group's design of new DSM programs to address peak load and a tariff rider to allow cost recovery of utility investments in these programs. A formal docket to reexamine IRP guidelines has also been established by the Utah Public Service Commission. Phase 1 of the Salt Lake City MSR Partnership's efforts to address local regulatory, legislative, and financial barriers to solar energy applications is expected to take two years and be completed June 30, 2004. Expected Results The DOE MSR Phase I-- New Partnership Grant will provide the financial resources necessary to sponsor the participation of Salt Lake City and UE3's team of energy analysts and expert witnesses in scheduled regulatory and legislative proceedings. The partnership will work to use recently passed legislation on net metering(HB 7) and tariff riders (SB 152) as vehicles for promoting adoption of solar PV as a cost-effective DSM strategy for reducing peak demand in Salt Lake City. In addition the Partnership will participate in regulatory proceedings to revise the Standards and Guidelines for Integrated Resource Planning; to design Demand-Side Management programs and implement tariffs that are favorable to solar technologies. Participation in these proceedings is critical to ensure that regulatory policies recognize the public benefit of renewable energy,particularly the peak shaving capabilities of solar PV units. These efforts can remove regulatory and financial barriers and establish a level playing field for solar PV technologies to address peak demand shortages the local utility faces in Salt Lake City and the entire Wasatch Front of Utah. This project will provide the catalyst for increasing market demand for solar PV technologies in the largest population center and fastest growing housing market in Utah. Relevance to Objectives of MSR Initiative The Salt Lake City Million Solar Roofs Partnership will build a collaboration between state and Salt Lake officials, Utah's largest electric utility, solar industry vendors and a key public interest group to develop and implement a regulatory, and legislative initiative that will reduce regulatory and financial barriers to the use of solar technologies in Salt Lake City. The team will utilize the media to keep the public informed about the activities and successes of the solar roofs partnership. Through these efforts the partnership intends to lower barriers enough to stimulate local demand for solar energy products and applications and develop a critical mass for a sustained advocacy of public policies in Utah that focus on creating a"market-pull" and a level playing field for these technologies to successfully compete with other resources and DSM measures. Our goal is create a market environment that will lead to installation of at least 500 rooftop PV units in Salt Lake City by 2010 and demonstrate to other communities the economic, environmental, and reliability benefits of solar PV technologies. Leadership, Commitment and Public Participation Salt Lake City is a leader promoting sound, sustainable, environmental practices. Sustainability, renewable power, alternative fuels, and the overall health of the Salt Lake City environment have been priorities for Salt Lake City. The Salt Lake City Green initiative has been widely publicized Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Page 6 of 23 Volume 3 -Technical Proposal and accepted locally and nationally as one of the most comprehensive environmental initiatives being conducted at this level. Salt Lake City has supported businesses that have chosen to purchase renewable"Blue Sky"wind power, offered by PacifiCorp, and plans to purchase a portion of their electricity from wind power in the next budget year. The Million Solar Roofs partnership is a perfect complement to other efforts in Salt Lake City and it is supported by Ross C. Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City. Salt Lake City will keep the public informed through the media and their public relations staff. Roles, Capabilities and Project Organization Project lead for Salt Lake City will be Lisa Romney, Environmental Advisor to Mayor Ross C. Anderson. Lisa will serve as program manager for Salt Lake City and be responsible for coordinating and directing Salt Lake City's participation in project. She will serve as liaison to the Mayor and City Council. She will coordinate project administrative functions including budgeting, accounting, and reporting. Sarah Wright, Chair of Utahns for an Energy-Efficient Economy, will serve as technical staff and act as project director for the partnership. She will oversee management of the technical tasks and coordinate activities of energy analyst(s), economist(s) and regulatory expertise necessary to effectively participate in regulatory proceedings and work groups established by the Utah Public Service Commission. Sarah has strong community support for her advocacy of public policies that support clean energy technologies, energy efficiency,renewable energy. She is a frequent intervener in regulatory proceedings and a witness in legislative hearings testifying in support of energy efficiency and renewable energy in Utah. Sarah has 16 years of project management experience and will be largely responsible for strategic planning, tracking progress, and insuring project milestones are met. Richard Collins, Associate Professor of Economics and Finance,worked for the Utah Public Service Commission for over 12 years as an economic advisor and technical consultant in the areas of Integrated Resource Planning(IRP), Renewable Resources, Demand-Side Resources, Net Metering, and System Benefit Charges. As the Commission's lead analyst on Integrated Resource Planning and Demand-Side Management, Dr. Collins wrote the original Standards and Guidelines for IRP as well as the subsequent orders on acknowledgment of the Company's submitted IRP reports. During his tenure at the Commission, Dr. Collins chaired or co-chaired a variety of advisory committees established by the Commission to investigate the issues noted above. He is the author or co-author of a number of reports and studies submitted to the Utah Commission and the Utah Legislature. For example, Dr. Collins recently co-chaired the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Task Force and co-authored its report to the Commission. This report analyzed green pricing, net metering and distributed generation and recommended the adoption and further study of each. The report and recommendations were instrumental in convincing the Commission and the Legislature to adopt these tariffs. Dr. Collins provides unique credentials and expertise that will represent the interests of the Million Solar Roof Initiative. Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Page 7 of 23 Volume 3 -Technical Proposal • 3.0 Statement of Work -Salt Lake City Million Solar Roofs Partnership The following tasks will be divided amongst the participants in the Salt Lake City Solar Partnership. Task 1: Initiation of a tariff filing before the Utah Public Service Commission to implement the recently passed House Bill 7 "Net Metering of Electricity". This will require legal representation and intervention from Salt Lake City. Once the proceeding is initiated, Richard Collins and/or Sarah Wright will attend technical conferences and prepare and present expert testimony on how the tariff should be structured and implemented. Task 2: Intervention and participation in Docket No. 02-035-03 "In the Matter of the Reexamination of Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) and the Guidelines According to Which it Should Occur". The Partnership's participation is important for establishing the criteria by which PacifiCorp will be required to evaluate alternative new resources and demand side management resources to meet peak load requirements in PacifiCorp's Salt Lake City and Wasatch Front service areas. The reexamination of the guidelines for IRP provides the opportunity to codify the benefits of solar energy investment, to recognize the peak shaving benefits of PV and to allow the Company and regulators to look at the demand—side benefits of investment in solar PV units. This will help secure a formal recognition of the benefits of investment in renewable resources and require that PacifiCorp incorporate these benefits into their analysis and acquisition of future resources. The Partnership will formally intervene in this proceeding and attend the scheduled Technical Conferences to provide informal input into restructuring the Guidelines. Research will be done on the peak shaving benefits on PV in other states and countries, and formal written and oral testimony will be presented to the Commission when requests for formal comments are made. The formal intervention will be by Salt Lake City and the research will be done by Sarah Wright and Richard Collins, with formal testimony written by Richard Collins. Task 3: Participation in the Integrated Resource Planning Meetings. The Commission is requiring PacifiCorp to submit a new Integrated Resource Plan(IRP)by December of 2002. A series of 7-9 meetings are schedule to discuss the criteria and the resources that will be analyzed by the Company. Future acquisition plans should be consistent with the results of the IRP. Participation in this process by the Partnership will provide important public input into the evaluation process and the eventual selection of new generation resources. It is important that the risk mitigation qualities of renewable resources be recognized and the selection process appropriately weight all public interest properties of renewable Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Page 8 of 23 Volume 3 -Technical Proposal resources. In the past, the Commission has requested formal comments on the Company's IRP and the public process. The Partnership will attend the technical conferences and provide oral and written input into the IRP selection process. Richard Collins and/or Sarah Wright will attend meetings. Comments and written testimony will be prepared by both and submitted by Richard Collins. Task 4: Participation in the Utah Public Service Commission's design of a Tariff Rider for demand side resources. The Commission is prepared to open a dialogue with PacifiCorp on how to implement Senate Bill 152 "Electric Energy Efficiency and Conservation Tariff'. This law allows the Commission to approve of an additional charge on utility bills that could fund a variety of conservation and renewable resource programs. The Commission has indicated that it wants public input into how such funds would be allocated among different programs. Participation in this informal process will provide public support for utility ratepayer sponsorship of a pilot PV roof top project. Sarah Wright and Richard Collins will attend the meetings and provide formal comments, when requested by the Commission, prepared by Richard Collins. Task 5: Attendance and participation in the Energy Efficiency Advisory Group. In Docket No. 01-035-01, the last rate case for PacifiCorp, the Commission ordered the Company to hold regular meetings with the Energy Efficiency Advisory Group to discuss how it will evaluate the resources found cost effective in the Tellus Institute's report submitted as testimony in the rate case. This report identified cost effective demand-side and distributed generation resources in the State of Utah. The group will help evaluate PacifiCorp's plan to implement cost-effective resources and provide input into other cost effective DSM resources, including solar rooftop PV as a measure for reducing peak demand in summer. Sarah Wright and/or Richard Collins will participate in this advisory group to insure that PV roof top measures are afforded the benefits associated with their installation. This includes providing capacity at times of peak demand as well as the reduction of load at both peak and off-peak times. In addition the Advisory Group has been ordered by the Utah Commission to "...continue the study of distributed generation and ways that such resources can increase the reliability of the system and lower cost for participants and the system as a whole." Sarah and Richard will be participating and contributing analytical and policy support that investigation. Task 6: Public outreach regarding activities of Salt Lake City MSR Partnership. The team will utilize the media to keep the public informed about the activities and successes of the solar roofs partnership. Sarah Wright has worked closely with the media and has received notable print, television, and radio coverage related to her work with both the Utah Wind Power Campaign and Utahns for an Energy Efficient Economy. Sarah will partner with Lisa Romney of the Salt Lake City Mayor's Office and Salt Lake City's public relations staff to provide public information and outreach about the benefits of solar and also about the developing financial incentives for rooftop installations. Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Page 9 of 23 Volume 3 -Technical Proposal Task 7: Tracking Solar Installations. We will work with the Utah Solar Energy Industry Association, retailers and installers of rooftop solar units to track solar installations in Salt Lake City. We will develop a systematic tracking procedure and system so that solar installations can be tracked into the future. Sarah Wright will be responsible for the development of the tracking system and the tracking of solar installations Task 8: Project Management. Given the complexity and fluidity involved in working on multiple regulatory fronts, project tracking and management are critical aspects of a successful project. Salt Lake City will be directing public outreach efforts, and coordinating the project's administrative functions including budgeting, accounting, and reporting. Sarah Wright, Chair of Utahns for an Energy Efficient Economy,will be project director for the partnership and will oversee management of the technical tasks and coordinate activities of energy analyst(s), economist(s) and regulatory expertise necessary to effectively participate in regulatory proceedings and work groups established by the Utah Public Service Commission. NOTE: The regulatory process is a fluid one and thus difficult to estimate the required effort in order to be effective in influencing public policy. The Partnership has estimated the number of hours that each task will take,but requests that flexibility be written into the contract such that consulting hours for one task can be substituted for another task if warranted. In all proceedings, when formal intervention is required it will be made by the City of Salt Lake. The City will provide the legal intervention and representation to allow the expert testimony of Sarah Wright and Richard Collins to be submitted to the Commission. Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Page 10 of 23 Volume 3 -Technical Proposal 4.0 Letters of Commitment Salt Lake City Million Solar Roofs Partnership This section includes letters of commitment from: Salt Lake City Corporation Utahns for an Energy-Efficient Economy Utah Energy Office PacifiCorp Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Page 11 of 23 Volume 3 -Technical Proposal April 10, 2002 James P. McDermott U.S. Department of Energy — Golden Field Office 1617 Cole Blvd. Golden, CO 80401-3393 Dear Mr. McDermott: As an applicant for the Million Solar Roofs Grant (Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Solicitation Number DEPS36- 02G092005), Salt Lake City commits to give full support towards removing the barriers to using photovoltaic (PV) solar rooftop units in Utah. If awarded the Million Solar Roofs Grant, the City will contribute in-kind project assistance through the Salt Lake City Attorney's Office, public relations staff, and the Mayor's environmental administrative staff. The Million Solar Roofs program is a perfect complement to other efforts in Salt Lake City. The City is currently engaged in developing High Performance Building guidelines for all City built and funded facilities. Salt Lake City has recycled 10% of our waste in the past. We have introduced a new residential program that requires no separation of recyclable materials and has increased recycling (in its first 1/2 year) to 16% of our waste stream. My administration has supported businesses that have chosen to purchase renewable "Blue Sky" power, offered by PacifiCorp, and will make our own large purchase in the next budget year. Sustainability, renewable power, alternative fuels, and the overall health of the Salt Lake City environment have been priorities for my administration. The Salt Lake City Green initiative has been widely publicized and accepted locally and nationally as one of the most comprehensive environmental initiatives being conducted at this level. Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Page 12 of 23 Volume 3 -Technical Proposal During the 2002 legislative session, the Utah Legislature passed two bills that will affect energy efficiency and conservation in the coming years. The ability to influence the affect of these bills, HB7 (Net Metering of Electricity) and SB152 (Electric Energy Efficiency and Conservation Tariff), exists only in the coming year. Salt Lake City must act quickly if we are to assure solar development is included in these institution-based decisions. The actions Salt Lake City will take, through the Million Solar Roofs program, will benefit the entire State of Utah. Our utility companies and our Legislature are ready to support renewable energy options. However, the barriers to PV solar rooftops may exclude solar power from decisions and programs unless concerted efforts, backed by grant monies, are undertaken in the coming year. Salt Lake City is pleased to have the opportunity to apply for the Million Solar Roofs Grant through the Department of Energy. Salt Lake City and the Salt Lake City Solar Partnership will work diligently to move solar power forward within the State of Utah Sincerely, Ross C. Anderson Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake C' ttorney's Office Date </ Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Page 13 of 23 Volume 3 -Technical Proposal • Utahns for an Energy-Efficient Economy (UE3) Sarah Wright,Chair 917 2nd Ave., Salt Lake City,Utah 84103 (801) 673-7028 April 10, 2001 James P. McDermott U.S. Department of Energy Golden Field Office 1617 Cole Boulevard Golden, CO 80401-3393 RE: Million Solar Roofs Grant, Solicitation# DE-PS36-02GO92005 Dear Mr. McDermott: This letter confirms the commitment of Utahns for and Energy-Efficient Economy(UE3) to participate in the Salt Lake Million Solar Roofs Partnership and support the partnership's efforts to address regulatory and financial barriers to grid connected solar PV roof top systems as outlined in our technical proposal. UE3 is a non-incorporated public interest organization that is dedicated to increasing the use renewable energy technology and energy efficiency measures to create a sustainable and economically viable electricity portfolio for Utah.UE3 coordinates interventions, submits comments,and regularly participates in regulatory and legislative proceedings.UE3 understands the importance of including all stakeholders and we strive for consensus rulings that support our mission. For this partnership, Rich Collins and I will be the key representatives for UE3. We are very excited about our project team. Salt Lake City will be a new participant in the regulatory process and given the City's excellent solar potential, air quality and transmission issues, and strong environmental ethic they will have a strong influence on the regulatory process. Richard Collins has over 12 years of experience working as an economic advisor and technical consultant to the Utah Public Service Commission in the areas of Integrated Resource Planning(IRP),Renewable Resources,Demand- Side Resources,Net Metering, and System Benefit Charges. Dr. Collins provides unique credentials, experience,and expertise that will be key in the regulatory process. Additionally, we have the support of the Utah Energy Office and we have a commitment from PacifiCorp(the investor owned electrical utility that serves Salt Lake City)to work with us through this process. (See Letters of Commitment included in this volume.) Thank you for the opportunity to apply for funding through the Million Solar Roofs program. MSR funding would make this exciting partnership possible. Sincerely, Sarah Wright Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Page 14 of 23 Volume 3 -Technical Proposal State of Utah DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Utah Energy Office 1594 West North Temple,Suite 3610 PO Box 164380 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-6480 April 10, 2002 Lisa Romney Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street—Room 306 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Dear Lisa: This letter confirms the commitment of the Utah Energy Office to participate in the Salt Lake Million Solar Roofs Partnership and support the partnership's efforts to address regulatory and financial barriers to grid connected solar PV roof top systems. Should Salt Lake City's application under Solicitation Number DE-PS36-02G092005 be successful, the Energy Office will provide a financial contribution of $5,000 to the partnership as a cost-share. This cost share will be used to support costs associated with accomplishing Tasks 1-7, as outlined in Section 3.0 of the Salt Lake City Million Solar Roof Partnership application. The Utah Energy Office is pleased to be a part of this exciting local government renewable energy initiative. Sincerely, Michael Glenn Manager Utah Energy Office Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Page 15 of 23 Volume 3 -Technical Proposal • V/4PACIFICORP ___ Virinder Singh Environmental Policy PacifiCorp 825 NE Multnomah, Suite 2000 Portland, OR 97232 James P. McDermott U.S. Department of Energy—Golden Field Office 1617 Cole Blvd. Golden, CO 80401-3393 Dear Mr.McDermott: PacifiCorp strongly supports an award from the Million Solar Roofs program to the City of Salt Lake and Utahns for an Energy Efficient Economy(Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Solicitation Number DEPS36-02G092005). PacifiCorp supports the development of solar energy markets in Utah. This grant would help in this development. As the largest utility in Utah, serving over 650,000 Utah customers,PacifiCorp has made real commitments to expanding renewable energy markets. Our generation mix includes 114 MW of non- hydro and run-of-river hydro resources. Further,we have openly supported a federal renewable portfolio standard with meaningful targets to expand U.S.renewable energy markets. Within Utah, we supported the adoption of net metering and will continue to engage on this issue. We also have a DSM Advisory Group within which solar can play a role,as well as an integrated resource planning process that includes renewables and involves renewable energy stakeholders. Finally,through the strong local efforts of Sarah Wright we have successfully built our green pricing product—Blue Sky—to be the 6th largest utility green pricing program in the U.S. PacifiCorp can work with the City of Salt Lake and Utahns for an Energy Efficient Economy to accurately model solar's role in the local grid and determine its role in future resource planning. We believe that it is important to unlock solar's benefit to reduce peak demand,maintain the highest level of reliability for our customers,and reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants in the metropolitan area. We find the Million Solar Roofs program to be consistent with these efforts to diversify our energy portfolio while improving power reliability within our Utah power grid. We look forward to continued work to develop solar in Utah in a way that benefits our customers and the environment. Sincerely, Virinder Singh Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Page 16 of 23 Volume 3 -Technical Proposal 5.0 Personal Resumes Salt Lake City Million Solar Roofs Partnership This section includes personal resumes for: Lisa Romney, Environmental Advisor to the Mayor Rich Collins, Ph.D Sarah Wright, MSPH Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Page 17 of 23 Volume 3 -Technical Proposal Vita Richard S. Collins, Ph. D. 3500 Emigration Canyon Salt Lake City,UT 84108 (801)581-1218 (H) (801) 832-2665 Present Position: Associate Professor of Economics and Finance Westminster College, Salt Lake City, UT September 2001 —Present Education: Ph.D. Economics University of Utah BA Economics Bucknell University Employment History: Utah Public Service Commission Utility Economist and Technical Consultant,Jan. 1991 —Jan. 2002 Wells College, Associate Professor,Dec. 1989-Dec. 1990, Granted Tenure Chair,Division of Social Sciences, Aug. 1988 -Aug. 1990 Assistant Professor,Aug. 1985 -Aug. 1989 Utah Public Service Commission Utility Analyst,Jan. 1984—July 1985 Weber State University Instructor,Dept. of Economics, Sept. 1980—Dec. 1983 Fields of Interest: Utility Regulation Industrial Organization Regional and Environmental Economics Finance Regulatory Responsibilities Integrated Resource Planning(wrote original standards and guidelines) at the Commission: Demand-side Resources Renewable Resources Public Benefit analysis Rate Case analysis Avoided Cost analysis Deregulation Main Advisor to the Commission on areas listed above. Wrote Orders and Reports .- Chaired Committees on various Regulatory Policy Issues Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Page 18 of 23 Volume 3 -Technical Proposal Selected Reports and "Report of the Energy Efficiency and Renewables Task Force" Presented Papers: a report prepared for the Utah Public Service Commission in Docket No. 97-2035-01, December 23, 1999 "Individualized Block Rates" Paper presented at the Committee of Regional Electric Power Cooperation(CREPC)Meeting,April, 2001 Scottsdale,AZ Transmission Constraints and the Impact on Regional Market • Power in the Western Grid: The Implications for Utah,presented at the CREPC Meeting,October 1998 Market Power in Utah,Consideration for Restructuring"Co-authored with Rebecca Wilson,A report submitted to the Utah Legislature's electrical Deregulation and Customer Choice Task Force, Sept. 8 1998. "Consumer Protection",a report submitted to the Utah Legislature's Electrical Deregulation and Customer Choice Task Force, Aug. 1, 1998 "Unbundling Electricity-Related Services", a report submitted to the Utah Public Service Commission in its Electric restructuring Docket No. 96-999-01,June 1, 1998 Systems Benefit Subcommittee report to the Utah Public Service Commission, co-authored with James Galanis,a report submitted to the Commission in it Electric restructuring Docket No. 96-999-01, October 28, 1997 References: James Seidelman Stephen Mecham Dean of the Gore School of Business Chairman,Utah P.S.C. Westminster College 160 East 300 South Salt Lake City,UT 84105 Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Doug Kirk Executive Director,Utah P.S.C. 160 East 300 South Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Page 19 of 23 Volume 3 -Technical Proposal Sarah Wright _. 917 2ND AVE SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84103 (801) 673-7156 swrightutah@earthlink.net SUMMARY 16 years experience working as environmental consultant to the governmental and commercial industrial sectors. Respected by, and have effective working relationship with, electrical utilities, regulators, Utah State Energy Office and the environmental community. Excellent management, analytical, and communication skills. EXPERIENCE Chair and Founder, Utahns for an Energy Efficient Economy (UE3) January 2001 to present • Founder UE3, an organization committed to actively shaping an environmentally and fiscally sound energy future for Utah. • Active participant in Utah Public Service proceedings relating to the electricity sector. • Invited participant of Micheal Leavitt, Utah Governor's Energy Round Table. • Public outreach and education through press events, editorials and an email listserve. • Actively engaged in the creation of consensus State of Utah Legislation—Successes include the renewal of Utah Renewable Energy Tax Credit and the Net Metering Rule. Coordinator, Utah Wind Power Campaign Land and Water Fund of the Rockies June 2001 to present • Effectively market PacifiCorp/Utah Power's Blue Sky wind program to residential and businesses customers;helped make the Blue Sky program the sixth largest utility-based green pricing program in the U.S. • Public education and outreach through editorials, press events, and participation in local events. • Presenter at DOE/Utah Energy Office sponsored Utah Wind Power Workshop. Assisted in the planning, promotion, and execution of the successful, held in October 2001, over 400 participants. • Plan and implement successful press events that have received local, national, and international coverage. • Rural landowner meetings to educate rural communities about wind power. • Develop effective marketing materials and assist PacifiCorp/Utah Power in the reworking of their marketing materials. Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Page 20 of 23 Volume 3 -Technical Proposal Senior Environmental Consultant, IHI Environmental Corporate Headquarters, Salt Lake City, UT August 1986—March 2001 • Provided occupational health and environmental consulting services to a broad range of commercial, industrial, and governmental clients. • Designed and managed all facets of both long-term large projects and fast-track small projects. Assisted clients with compliance issues, acted as liaison between client and regulatory agencies. • Developed successful long-term working relationships with industrial, commercial, and governmental clients and also with regulators. EDUCATION Master of Science in Public Health—Emphasis: Industrial Hygiene University of Utah,Salt Lake City, Utah June 1989 Bachelor of Science, Cum Laude—Geology Bradley University, Peoria, Illinois June 1982 ACCREDITATIONS American Board of Industrial Hygiene Certified Industrial Hygienist(CIH, #6709) ASSOCIATIONS Secretary, Utah Chapter of the American Industrial Hygiene Association (Association includes representatives from a broad range of public and private sector commercial and industrial businesses and governmental agencies throughout Utah.) American Academy of Industrial Hygiene Sierra Club Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Page 21 of 23 Volume 3 -Technical Proposal Lisa R. Romney— Environmental Affairs Coordinator— Salt Lake City Mayor's Office Education Harvard University Utah State University Ricks College Graduate School of (USU): (BYU, Idaho): Design (GSD): Bachelor of Science Associates Masters of Design Honors Degree, Degree, Recreation Studies, Landscape Environmental Studies — Education — Planning and Ecology— 2000, Logan UT 1997, Rexburg ID 2001, Cambridge, MA Educational/Professional Experience Harvard Design School. 2000: Landscape Architecture Graduate Studio, Alternative Futures for West Lake. Hangzhou, China. Visual assessment, ecological evaluation, transportation plan, regional long term growth study . Project and plan to protect and improve the water quality in the urban and natural environment. Designed and completed 3D GIS growth projection models. Led by Dr. Carl Steinitz. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. 2000-2001: Internship to establish online urban forestry course. Lesson designed to educate small lot forest owners on the benefits of forest conservation and the possibilities for forest management. Internet course includes interactive GIS mapping tool and links to other important sites. Utah State University. 1999-2000: Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning Graduate Studio, Alternative futures for the Cub River Watershed. Activity impact and environmental modeling, GIS development projections, risk assessment. Worked cooperatively with planning boards, county commissioners, natural resource agencies, and citizens. Led by professor Richard Toth, LAEP College of Natural Resources USU. 1998-1999: Co-Author/Research Assistant, book chapter"Tourism and Wildlife in African National Parks" in a book on national parks printed by John Wiley and Sons. Original research/survey addressed the effects of tourism on wildlife in African National Parks. Supervised by Dr. Lilieholm. Forest Resources Non-Academic Work Experience The Outer Office, The Shields TW Recreational Heber, UT Corporation, Services, As needed 1994- Colorado Springs, CO Yellowstone National Present Sept. 1997—Aug. 1998 Park Word processing, Realtor Assistant— 1995 and 1996 business services. Secretary to realtors Fishing guide, Customer service, producing over$8 backcountry boat working with a variety of million net in homes operator, gas dock clients. Performing a sold. Computer attendant, and office wide application skills and work regarding boat slip range of secretarial great organizational rentals. Licensed services. demands. Fast paced commercial boat work in a high pressure operator with marina office setting. related responsibilities. Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Page 22 of 23 Volume 3 -Technical Proposal Awards and Honors Studio Distinction, 2000. Harvard Graduate School of Design Outstanding Senior, 2000. Department of Forest Resources, CNR USU Woman of the Year, 1997. Recreation Education Department. Ricks College Departmental Honors Degree, 2000 CNR Utah State University. Quinney Scholarship Recipient. 1998-2000 Top scholarship. CNR USU 3.89 cumulative university GPA. Computer Skills GIS: ArcView 3.2, MFWorks Design/Layout: Photoshop 6, Illustrator, Pagemaker, Quark Statistical Program: SPSS Microsoft Office: Powerpoint, Word, Excel, etc. Contact Information: LISA R ROMNEY 451 South State Rm. 306 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 801.535.7939 Iisa.Romney@slcgov.com Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Page 23 of 23 Volume 3 -Technical Proposal Salt Lake City Million Solar Roofs Partnership Million Solar Roofs Initiative Small Grant Program for State and Local Partnerships Solicitation Number DE-PS36-02G092005 Volume 3 — Budget Business Contact: Lisa Romney, Environmental Affairs Coordinator Office of the Mayor 451 S. State, Room 306 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Phone: (801) 535-7939 Fax: (801) 535-6331 lisa.romnevl')ci.slc.ut.us Technical Contact: Sarah Wright, Chair Utahns for an Energy-Efficient Economy (UE3) 917 East 2"d Ave Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Phone: 801-673-7156 swrightutah(c earthlink.net APPLICATION FOR 2. DATE SUBMITTED Applicant Identifier 4/11/02 FEDERAL ASSISTANCE 3. DATE RECEIVED BY STATE State Application Identifier 1. TYPE OF SUBMISSION Pre-Appllcatlon iiio Application 0 Construction ElConstruction 4. DATE RECEIVED BY FEDERAL AGENCY Federal Identifier 4 Non-Construction ;Non Constructlon 5. APPLICANT INFORMATION Legal Name; Salt Lake City Corporation Organizational Unit: Salt Lake City Address(give city,county,state,and zip code): Name and telephone number of the person to be contacted on matters Salt Lake City Corporation involving application(give area code) 451 South State Street,Room 306 Ross C.Anderson Mayor.Salt lake City,UT Vn1,irrmcl7rdi id apt Pave 1 of 2 �1PaR�litt�lkrslklf!�R PartnPrchin Am_F1s_7010 • Previous Editions Not Usable Standard Form 424 (Rev.7.97) Authorized for Local Reproduction Prescribed by OMB Circular A•102 2 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE SF 424 This is a standard form used by applicants as a required facesheet for preapplications and applications submitted for Federal assistance. It will be used by Federal agencies to obtain applicant certification that States which have established review and comment procedure in response to Executive Order 12372 and have selected the program to be included in their process,have been given an opportunity to review the applicant's submission. Item: Entry: Item: Entry: 1. Self-explanatory. 12. List only the largest political entities affected(e.g.,State, counties, cities). 2. Date application submitted to Federal agency for State if applicable)&applicant's control number(if applicable). 13. Self-explanatory. 3. State use only(if applicable). 14. List the applicant's Congressional District and any District(s)affected by the program or project. 4. If this application is to continue or revise an existing award,enter present Federal Identifier number. If for a 15. Amount requested or to be contributed during the first new project, leave blank. funding/budget period by each contributor. Value of in- kind contributions should be included on appropriate lines 5. Legal name of applicant, name of primary organizational as applicable. If the action will result in a dollar change to unit which will undertake the assistance activity,complete an existing award, indicate only the amount of the change. address of the applicant,and name and telephone For decreases,enclose the amounts in parentheses. If number of the person to contact on matters related to this both basic and supplemental amounts are included,show application. breakdown on an attached sheet. For multiple program funding,use totals and show breakdown using same 6. Enter Employer Identification Number(EIN)as assigned categories as item 15. by the Internal Revenue Service. 16. Applicants should contact the State Single Point of �7. Enter the appropriate letter in the space provided. Contact(SPOC)for Federal Executive Order 12372 to determine whether the application is subject to the State 8. Check appropriate box and enter appropriate letter(s)in intergovernmental review process. the space(s)provided: 17. This question applies to the applicant organization, not the -"New"means a new assistance award. person who signs as the authorized representative. Categories of debt include delinquent audit disallowances, -"Continuation"means an extension for an additional loans and taxes. funding/budget period for a project with a projected completion date. 18. To be signed by the authorized representative of the applicant. A copy of the governing body's authorization -"Revision"means any change in the Federal Government for you to sign this application as official representative financial obligation or contingent liability from an existing must be on file in the applicant's office. (Certain Federal obligation. agencies may require that this authorization be submitted as part of the application.) 9. Name of Federal agency from which assistance is being requested with this application. 10. Use the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number and the title of the program under which assistance is requested. 11. Enter a brief descriptive title of the project. If more than one program is involved, you should append an explanation on a separate sheet. If appropriate(e.g., construction or real property projects), attach a map showing project location. For preapplications, use a separate sheet to provide a summary description of this project. SF 424 (REV 4-88) BACK • DOE F4600.4 U.S. Department of Energy OMB Control No. (04-94) 1910-0400 Replaces EIA-459C Federal Assistance Budget Information All Other Editions Are Obsolete OMB Burden Disclosure Statement Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.87 hours per response,including the time for reviewing instructions,searching existing data sources,gathering and maintaining the data needed,and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,including suggestions for reducing this burden,to Office of Information Resources Management Policy,Plans and Oversight,Records Management Division,HR-422-GTN,Paperwork Reduction Project(1910- 0400),U.S.Department of Energy,1000 Independence Avenue,S.W.,Washington,DC 20585;and to the Office of Management and Budget(OMB),Paperwork Reduction Project(1910.0400), Washington,DC 20803. 1. Program/Project Identification No. 2. Program/Project Title 3. Name and Address 4. Program/Project Start Date Salt Lake City June 2002 451 South State, Room 306 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 5. Completion Date June 2004 SECTION A— BUDGET SUMMARY rant Program Estimated Unobligated FundtJew or Revised Budget Funtion Federal Or Activity Catalog No. Federal Non-Federal Federal Non-Federal Total (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) 50,000.00 9,125.00 59,125.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 0.00 0.00 5. TOTALS 0.00 0.00 50,000.00 14,125.00 64,125.0 SECTION B — BUDGET CATEGORIES Grant Program, Function or Activity Total Object Class CatE (1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) a. Personnel 0.00 b. Fringe Benefits 0.00 c. Travel 0.00 d. Equipment 0.00 e. Supplies 0.00 f. Contractual 50,000.00 50,000.00 g. Construction 0.00 h. Other 14,125.00 14,125.00 I. Total Direct Che 50,000.00 14,125.00 0.00 0.00 64,125.00 j. Indirect Charges 0.00 k. TOTALS 50,000.00 14,125.00 0.00 0.00 64,125.0 7. Program Income 0.00 Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Volume 3 Budget, Page 1 of 2 DOE F 4600.4 (04-94) FEDERAL ASSISTANCE BUDGET INFORMATION OMB Control No. Replaces EIA-459C 1910-0400 INSTRUCTIONS Item 1 - Enter the Federal grant or agreement identification period. The amount(s)in Column(g)should be the sum of the number for the current year as it appears in the official amounts in Columns(e)and (f). award, if known. For supplemental awards and changes to existing wards,do not use Columns(c)and (d). Enter in Column(e) Item 2- Enter the Program/Project official title as it appears in the amount of the increase or decrease of Federal funds and the award. enter in Column (f)the amount of increase or decrease of non- Federal funds. In Column (g)enter the new total budgeted Item 3- Enter name and address of the agency or office amount(Federal and non-Federal)which includes the total responsible for coordination and administration of the previous authorized budgeted amounts plus or minus,as Program/Project. appropriate,the amounts shown in Columns(e)and(f). The amount(s)in Column (g)should not equal the sum of the Item 4- Enter the official start date. amounts in Columns(e)and (f). Line 5-Show the totals for all columns used. Item 5- Enter the official completion date as of the latest official modification. Section B. Budget Categories In the column headings(1)through(4),enter the titles Section A. Budget Summary of the same programs,functions,and activities shown on Lines Lines 1-4,Columns(a)and(b). 1-4,Column(a),Section A. When additional sheets were prepared for Section A,provide similar column headings on For application pertaining to a single Federal assistance each sheet. For each program,function or activity,fill in the program(Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog number)and total requirements for funds(both Federal and non-Federal)by are requiring a functional or activity breakdown,enter on Line 1 object class categories. - under Column(a)the catalog program title and the catalog number in Column(b). Item 6a-h Show the estimated amount for each direct cost For applications pertaining to a single program requiring budget(object class)category for each column budget amounts by multiple functions or activities, enter the with program,function or activity heading. _ name of each line in Column(a),and enter the catalog number in Column (b). For applications pertaining to multiple programs Item 6i- Show the totals of Lines 6a to 6h in each column. where none of the programs require a breakdown by function or activity,enter the catalog program title on each line in Column Item 6j- Show the amount of indirect cost. (a)and the respective catalog number on each line in Column (b). Item 6k- Enter the total of amounts on Line 6i and 6j. For For applications pertaining to multiple programs where one all applications for new and continuation awards, or more programs require a breakdown by function or activity, the total amount in Column(5),Line 6k,should prepare a separate sheet for each program requiring the be the same as the total amount shown in breakdown. Additional sheets should be used when one form Section A,Column(g),Line 5. For does not provide adequate space for all breakdown of data supplemental awards and changes to awards, required. However,when more than one sheet is used,the first the total amount of the increase or decrease as page should provide the summary totals by programs. shown in Columns(1)-(4), Line 6k,should be the same as the sum of the amounts in Section Lines 1-4,Columns(c)through (g). A,Columns(e)and(f)on Line 5. When For new applications,leave Columns(c)and (d)blank. For additional sheets were prepared,the last two each line energy in Columns(a)and(b), enter in Columns(e), sentences apply only to the first page with (f),and(g)the appropriate amounts of funds needed to support summary totals. the project. For continuing assistance program applications, Item 7- Enter the estimated amount of income,if any, submit these forms before the end of each funding year if expected to be generated from this project. Do required by Program Manager. Enter in Columns(c)and(d) not add or subtract this amount from the total the estimated amounts of funds which will remain unobligated at project amount. Show under the program the end of the funding period only if the award instructions narrative statement the nature and source of provide for this. Otherwise,leave these columns blank. Enter income. The estimated amount of program in Columns(e)and(f)the amount of funds needed for the income may be considered by the Program upcoming Manager in determining the total amount of the award. 4! THIS REPORT IS REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 42 U.S.C. 7254 AND 40 U.S.C. 471 ET.SEQ. FAILURE TO REPORT MAY RESULT IN CONTRACT TERMINATION OR PENALTIES AS PROVIDED BY LAW. 2 GO-PF20 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (10/04/01) GOLDEN FIELD OFFICE (1‘ BUDGET EXPLANATION Applicant: Salt Lake City Budget Period: 06/01/02-06/30/04 Award/Proposal Number: DE-PS36-02G092005 Amendment Number: ALL INFORMATION REQUESTED ON THIS FORM MUST BE PROVIDED. (THE INFORMATION CAN EITHER BE PROVIDED IN THE APPLICANTS FORMAT OR INCLUDED ON THIS FORM.) 1. BUDGET INFORMATION THE BUDGET MUST INCLUDE ALL PROJECT COSTS (DOE REQUESTED FUNDS PLUS APPLICANT AND PARTICIPANT COST SHARE). a. PERSONNEL— Prime Applicant Only. All other participant costs must be included as contractual (Item 1.f below and on form DOE F 4600.4, Section B, line 6.f. Contractual) 1. Identify, by title and name, each position to be supported under the proposed award. State the amounts of time(i.e., hours) to be expended by each person, their base pay rate and total direct compensation under this project. Position/Person Time X Rate = 2. Provide the amounts of time by tasks as proposed in the Statement of Work. 3. Supply rate verification documentation(e.g., labor distribution report). b. FRINGE BENEFITS —A Federal Indirect Rate Agreement or proposal is required. 1. If an approved Federal fringe rate is in effect or pending,provide a copy and identify the Federal agency point of contact. 2. If a current Federal fringe rate agreement is not in effect or pending, attach a rate proposal including the following: a. List the current total yearly benefit accounts and costs that comprise the total fringe benefits. b. Explain the base used and the amount applied to develop the fringe rate. c. Calculate and apply the fringe benefit rate to the personnel (direct labor) and include on the Federal Assistance Budget Information Form, DOE F 4600.4, Section B, line 6.b. Fringe Benefits. A Sample Rate Proposal, GO-PF20b is available on http://www.golden.doe.gov/businessopportunities.html, click on"Proposal Forms". Salt Lake City MSR Partnership Volume 3 Budget, Page 1 of 2 c. TRAVEL - Identify total Foreign and Domestic Travel as separate items. 1. Identify the purpose(s) of the proposed travel and include the estimated number of trips, number of travelers per trip number of days per trip,point of origin and destination. 2. Provide the proposed cost for each trip, and specify the basis of estimate(e.g., current airline ticket quotes, past trips of a similar nature, federal government or organization travel policy, etc.). 3. Describe, or attach a copy, of your organization's travel policy. d. EQUIPMENT—as defined in 10 CFR 600.101 and 660.202. Definitions can be found at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx 00/10cfr600 00.html 1. Itemize the proposed equipment and briefly justify the need for each item of equipment to be purchased as they apply to the Statement of Work. 2. Indicate the estimated unit cost and number of units for each item to be purchased. 3. Provide the basis for the equipment cost estimate for each item (e.g., vendor quotes, published price lists, prior purchases of similar or like items, etc.). 4. Supply supporting information (e.g., vendor quotes,previous invoices, historical data,published price list, etc.). e. SUPPLIES —as defined in 10 CFR 600.101 and 660.202. Definitions can be found at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_00/10cfr600_00.html 1. Identify the proposed materials and supplies and briefly justify the need as they apply to the Statement of Work. 2. Indicate the estimated cost of items to be purchased. 3. Provide the basis for the material cost estimates (e.g., vendor quotes,prior purchases of similar or like items, published price list, etc.). 2 f. CONTRACTUAL—Include all other Participant (including subcontractor(s), sub-grant(s), and _ consultant(s)) costs including their cost share. 1. List all other Participants and costs. Sarah Wright, MSPH & Richard S. Collins, PhD will act as consultants to Salt Lake City Corporation. See resumes in volume 2 and budget at end of this volume. Hourly rates: Richard S. Collins 2. For each Participant, provide the scope of work, a completed GO-PF20 Budget Explanation, and DOE F 4600.4 Federal Assistance Budget Information. 3. Provide a sole source justification for any Participants not competitively identified. 4. For support for which a Participant has not been identified, provide a scope of work and basis of cost estimate g. CONSTRUCTION — Construction, for the purpose of budgeting, means all types of work done on a particular building, including erecting, altering, or remodeling. 1. Identify the proposed construction costs, identifying the Participant to perform the construction. 2. For each selected participant,provide a Statement of Work and either a cost proposal or a completed GO-PF20 Budget Explanation, and DOE F 4600.4 Federal Assistance Budget Information. 3. Provide a sole source justification for any Participants not competitively identified. 4. For support for which a Participant has not been selected, provide a scope of work and basis of cost estimate. h. OTHER DIRECT COSTS - Include all direct costs not included in the above categories. 1. Identify all other direct costs and briefly justify the need for each relative to the scope of work. 2. Indicate the estimated cost of each item proposed. 3. Provide the basis for the cost estimates (e.g., vendor quotes, prior purchases of similar or like items, published price list, etc.). 3 4. Supply the supporting information (e.g., quotes, previous invoices, historical data', published price list, etc.). i. INDIRECT COSTS - A Federal Indirect Rate Agreement or proposal is required. 1. If approved Federal indirect rates are in effect or pending, provide a copy and identify the Federal agency point of contact. 2. If a current Federal indirect rate agreement is not in effect or pending, attach a rate proposal including the following: a. List the accounts and amounts that comprise the total direct and indirect costs. b. Explain each base used and amount applied to develop each indirect rate per pool . c. Calculate the Indirect Rate(s) and enter the total amount in Section B, line 6.j. Indirect Charges on Form DOE F 4600.4. A Sample Rate Proposal, GO-PF20b is available on http://www.golden.doe.gov/businessopportunities.html, click on"Proposal Forms." 2. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION a. COST SHARE 1. Identify the percentage and amount of cost sharing proposed by the Applicant and each Participant. Cost sharing from other Federal sources cannot be counted as non-Federal Recipient contributions. Non-Federal sources include private, state or local Government, or any sources that were not originally derived from Federal funds. (See attached budget 2. Identify the type of cost share contributions (e.g., in-kind, cash, etc.). Supply funding commitment letters from each contributor. Note that "cost sharing" is not limited to cash. In-kind contributions (e.g., contribution of services or property; donated equipment,buildings, or land; donated supplies; or unrecovered indirect costs) incurred as part of the project may be considered as all or part of the cost share. b. FINANCIAL CAPABILITY The latest Financial Statement including the Balance Sheet and Income Statement of Applicant and Participants will be required prior to award. State and Local Governments and Public Universities are excluded. 4 Proposed Budget: Salt Lake City Solar Partnership Note: The regulatory process is a fluid one and thus difficult to estimate the required effort for each task. The partnership has estimated the amount of time it will take for each task. However, in order to be most effective, the partnership requests flexibility so that consulting time from one task may be substituted for another task if warranted. Additionally, it requests that when appropriate some consulting funds can be used for consultants not yet identified. Salt Lake Cost Cost Rich City Cost Salt Task I Initiation and development of Sarah Sarah Collins Attorney Lake City Net Metering Tariff Wright#of Wright @ Rich Collins @ #of Attorney @ hours $50/hour #of hours $70/hour hours $125/hour Research and review of existing net 15 $750 10 $700 metering tariffs Preliminaries and meetings 15 $750 20 $1,400 Writing submittal of comments 20 $1,400 Testimony 4 $280 4 $500 Total Estimated for Task I $1,500 $3,780 $500 $5,780 Salt Lake Task II Intervention and participation Cost Cost Rich City Cost Salt in Docket No. 02-035-03"In the Sarah Sarah Collins Attorney Lake City Matter of Reexamination of Wright#of Wright @ Rich Collins @ #of Attorney @ Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) hours $50/hour #of hours $70/hour hours $125/hour and the Guidelines According to Which it Should Occur" Review of Activities to Date 20 $1,400 Preliminaries and Meetings 40 $2,000 40 $2,800 Research solar initiatives around US 55 $2,750 40 $2,800 and Europe and research cost effectiveness of Solar to reduce peak load. Research and investigate handling of environmental externalites and risk associated with environmental adders and volatile fuel costs. Writing Testimony 30 $1,500 90 $6,300 Hearings and Testimony 5 $250 10 $700 25 $3,125 Total Estimated for Task II $6,500 $14,000 $3,125 $23,625 Cost Cost Rich Salt Lake Cost Salt Sarah Sarah Collins City Lake City Task III Participation in the Wright#of Wright @ Rich Collins @ Attorney Attorney @ Integrated Resource Planning hours $50/hour #of hours $70/hour #of $125/hour Meetings hours Prepare for and Attend Meetings 30 $1,500 40 $2,800 Written comments 10 $500 20 $1,400 _ Total Estimated for Task III $2,000 $4,200 $6,200 5 Salt Lake' Cost Cost Rich City Cost Salt Task IV Participation in the Sarah Sarah Collins Attorney Lake City Utah Public Service Commission Wright#of Wright @ Rich Collins @ #of Attorney @ informal Demand Side Management hours $50/hour #of hours $70/hour hours $125/hour Tariff Meetings and comments 30 $1,500 55 $3,850 4 $500 Total Estimated for Task IV $1,500 $3,850 $500 $5,850 Salt Lake Cost Cost Rich City Cost Salt Sarah Sarah Collins Attorney Lake City Task V Attendance and participation Wright#of Wright @ Rich Collins @ #of Attorney @ in The Energy Efficiency Advisory hours $50/hour #of hours $70/hour hours $125/hour Group Preliminaries and Meetings 30 $1,500 40 $2,800 Written Comments 10 $500 20 $1,400 Total Estimated for Task V $2,000 $4,200 $6,200 Cost Cost Rich Salt Lake Salt Lake Sarah Sarah Collins City PR City PR Task VI Public Outreach Regarding Wright#of Wright @ Rich Collins @ Staff#of Staff at Activities of Solar Partnership hours $50/hour #of hours $70/hour hours $50/hour fi Utilize media for public outreach, 40 $2,000 $- 60 $3,000 education and updates on solar initiatives Total Estimated for Task V $2,000 $3,000 $5,000 Cost Cost Rich Salt Lake Salt Lake Sarah Sarah Collins City PR City PR Task VII Tracking solar installations Wright#of Wright @ Rich Collins @ Staff#of Staff at in hours $50/hour #of hours $70/hour hours $50/hour Salt Lake City Work with Utah Solar Industry 50 $2,500 Association, solar retailers and installers to develop tracking system and track solar installations in Salt lake City Total Estimated for Task VII $2,500 $2,500 Salt Lake Cost Cost Rich City Salt Lake Sarah Sarah Collins Administr City Admin. Wright#of Wright @ Rich Collins @ ative Staff at Task VIII Project Management hours $50/hour #of hours $70/hour Staff $50/hour iii Manage, track and direct all phases of 70 $3,500 project to ensure most effective use of resources Project Administration 40 $2,000 Total Estimated for Task VIII $3,500 $2,000 $5,500 6 Cost Cost Rich Salt Lake Sarah Wright Sarah Collins @ City In-kind #of hours Wright @ Rich Collins $70/hour Salt Lake Attorney, Totals for Professional Fees $50/hour #of hours City In- PR, and Kind Admin. 430 $21,500 429 $30,030 133 9125 TRAVEL- MAY BE NECESSARY TO TRAVEL FOR SOME MEETINGS Air Fare Hotel Meals Trip 1-two days $400 $170 $80 Trip 2- two days $400 $170 $80 Trip 3-two days $400 $170 $80 Total Estimated for Travel $1,200 $510 $240 $1,950 Printing costs for education and outreach materials $1,500 Summary of Project Expenses Consultant fees $51,530 Travel $1,950 Printing costs for education and $1,500 outreach Salt Lake City In-Kind Services $9,125 Total Project Expenses $64,105 Summary of Proposed Funding DOE Million Solar Roofs $50,000 78.0% Utah Energy Office $5,000 7.8% Salt Lake City(In Kind Services) $9,125 14.2% Total $64,125 100.0% 7 MEMORANDUM• DATE: August 9, 2002 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Briefing: Library Block Open Space CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin,Nancy Tessman, D.J. Baxter,Margaret Hunt, Stephen Goldsmith,Gary Mumford, Alison McFarlane, David Dobbins,Janice Jardine, Michael Sears This memorandum is intended to address issues pertaining to the Administration's transmittal for the briefing on the Library Block open space. The briefing is scheduled for the City Council's meeting August 13.Representatives of Civitas,the design consultants on the project,will be at the meeting to present information and answer questions. ISSUES/QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION 1. The project design consultants are scheduled to present a"hybrid"design that combines elements of their original design and a more informal design suggested by the City Council.If the hybrid design receives support,should another process be undertaken to obtain public comment? 2. According to the Administration,the hybrid design will cost about$800,000 less to construct than the original design. 3. Additional amenities such as chess tables, interactive elements and art are not be included in the construction cost estimate for the hybrid design. Benches,tables and other seating areas are included in the estimate. 4. The Administration proposes that$500,000 of the estimated$800,000 in savings be used as an endowment to help defray maintenance costs for the east side of the Library Block. The endowment is projected to generate about$25,000 a year.The Administration estimates that maintenance costs for the east side of the Library Block at$80,000 a year. Is it sound public policy to allocate$500,000 to generate a sum less than the total cost of maintaining the open space? 5. The Administration proposes that the other$300,000 in estimated savings be used to help finance moving the mid-block crosswalk at 200 East Street, altering the configuration of the entrance of the traffic oval on the east side of the City&County Building, and building landscaped islands on 200 East Street. 6. The Administration indicates that the planned improvements to the 200 East Street crosswalk would not inhibit the use of the street for parades. However, it is Council 1 staffs understanding that it has not been confirmed with the organizations that host parades. 7. Do the designs meet ADA requirements and recommendations of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design,or will those items be addressed in the final design • phase? 8. Should the City Council schedule a Library Block master plan public hearing and vote on the master plan,or should the City Council request that the master plan petition be closed out given the City Council's decision on the use of open space through its April 2, 2002 resolution? DISCUSSIONBACKGROUND The Administration's transmittal addresses three items pertaining to the Library Block: 1. A recommended design for the open space east of the new Main Library. 2. Cost estimates and funding recommendations for the design. 3. The integration of 200 East Street as a link between the Library Block and Washington Square. The Administration is seeking the City Council's informal agreement to allow the use of $40,000 of the$1.1 million in general obligation bonds allocated for improvements to the east side of the Library Block to proceed with"final design refinements and ... preparation of construction drawings."According to the Administration's transmittal,the$40,000 would cover the cost of initial work on a final design until the Administration negotiates a contract with the design consultants to finish a final design. According to the transmittal,the Administration plans to negotiate the contract after a scheduled budget opening September 10. It should be noted that the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10 of 2002 on April 2. Part of the resolution included the following language:(Please see Attachment No. 1.) 1.) The City Council supports the concept of open space for the remaining eastern four acres. The $1.1 million contained in the general obligation bonds previously issued for the Library is approved and authorized to move earth in a manner consistent with an eventual open space use. 2.) The City Council will consider future appropriations with the expectation that the Administration of Salt Lake City will come back during the regular budget process or at some later time with a specific funding proposal including proposed revenue sources for: A.)Design B.)Development C.)Operations and Maintenance D.)Programming E.)Long-term maintenance plans for any significant or specialized Features 3.) That the Administration will provide additional information on revenue sources of a proposed$500,000 identified as necessary to proceed with a more detailed schematic _ 2 plan of phased designs in the study titled,Library Square,by Civitas Inc.and specific information about how the$500,000 would be spent. It should be noted that at the time Resolution No. 10 was adopted,the Administration favored funding the project up through completion of construction documents at a level of $500,000. Because of concerns about the cost the Administration reduced the plans to production of one additional design and public process.The two items were completed for$50,000. It also should be noted that the City's budget for the current fiscal year includes $4 million in one-time funds from Olympics-related revenue in the CIP fund. During Council consideration of the budget the Administration proposed that the$4 million be spent for all phases of open space east of the new Main Library in the following ways: Design: $ 605,380 Construction: $1,594,620 Phase III:final plantings and gardens $1,100,000 Phase IV: band shell $ 700,000 Total: $4,000,000 In accordance with Resolution No. 10 the design consultant prepared a second option"for public and City Council consideration"and held five public meetings to gather comment about the original preliminary design and the second option.According to the transmittal,the design consultant then prepared a third option to recommend to the City Council based on public comments,departmental input,and the consultants'preferences.(Please see Attachments Nos. 2,3,4.) According to the Administration's transmittal,building the third option would cost about $4.3 million total versus a total cost of about$5.1 million for the original proposal.The design consultant is expected to provide more detailed construction and maintenance estimates at the briefing. It should be noted that the second and third options in the Administration transmittal do not contain a band shell.Not having the band shell appears to account for about$700,000 of the estimated$800,000 in savings. The Administration proposes to use the$800,000 in estimated savings in two ways: 1. $300,000 to augment proposed improvements to the 200 East Street crosswalk. 2. $500,000 to use as an endowment to help defray maintenance costs on the eastern four acres of open space on the Library Block. Addressing the second item first,the Administration proposes to use$500,000"to provide an on-going source of funds for maintenance of the Library Commons open space."The Administration estimates that investing the$500,000 in long-term fixed rate bonds would generate about$25,000 a year.The Administration estimates that the total cost to maintain the open space on the east side of the Library Block will cost about$80,000 a year. One issue for the City Council to consider is whether is it sound public policy to allocate $500,000 to generate a sum less than the total cost of maintaining the open space? 3 Addressing the first item,about$100,000 has been earmarked in the current CIP fund to install a traffic light and crosswalk on 200 East Street. The Administration proposes to allocate another$300,000 to move the existing crosswalk from the north side of the east entrance to the City&County Building to the south side, reconfigure curb and gutter at the entrance to create a "true horseshoe,"and build landscaped islands on 200 East Street north and south of the new crosswalk. It should be noted that early plans for the Library Block have included concepts to link the Library Block to Washington Square in some manner.However, it should be noted that the Administration's transmittal acknowledges,"... it is still possible to proceed with a simple signal using the funds allocated."It also should be noted that the transmittal advocates moving the crosswalk,altering the configuration of the entrance,and building the islands,not merely installing a traffic signal. 4 Attachment No. 1 Resolution 10 of 2002/concept of open space for the four eastern acres of the Library Block. RESOLUTION NO. 10 OF 2002 EXPRESSING CITY COUNCIL SUPPORT OF THE CONCEPT OF OPEN SPACE FOR THE FOUR EASTERN ACRES OF THE `LIBRARY BLOCK' BORDERED BY 400 SOUTH, 300 EAST, 500 SOUTH, AND 200 EAST STREETS WHEREAS, Salt Lake City residents in 1998 voted to authorize the issuance of up to$84 million in general obligation bonds to build a new Main Library and to construct and improve library facilities, parking facilities, and related improvements to the City block bordered by 400 South, 300 East, 500 South and 200 East streets; and WHEREAS,the new Main Library is under construction and scheduled to open in January 2003; and WHEREAS,the City Council has determined that open space on the remaining eastern four acres of the block would serve the public interest in the block, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1.) The City Council supports the concept of open space for the remaining eastern four acres. The $1.1 million contained in the general obligation bonds previously issued for the Library is approved and authorized to move earth in a manner consistent with an eventual open space use. 2.) The City Council will consider future appropriations with the expectation that the Administration of Salt Lake City will come back during the regular budget process or at some later time with a specific funding proposal including proposed revenue sources for: A.)Design B.)Development C.)Operations and Maintenance D.)Programming E.)Long-term maintenance plans for any significant or specialized features 3.) That the Administration will provide additional information on revenue sources of a proposed $500,000 identified as necessary to proceed with a more detailed schematic plan of phased designs in the study titled, Library Square, by Civitas Inc. and specific information about how the$500,000 would be spent. 4.) That the Administration will provide two options for public and City Council consideration—one 1 based on the final phase of design in the Library Square study and the other based on a more modest, less formal design than the final design phase in the Library Square study. — 5 .) That the Administration will provide information on the inclusion of an element commemorating the 2002 Winter Olympics within the open space. 6.) That the Administration outline a public process by which the public can evaluate the two options and provide comment about the options to the Administration and the City Council. 7.) That the City Council will not consider issuing more bonds beyond the$84 million in general obligation bonds authorized by Salt Lake City voters for the Main Library project. 8.) That the Administration provide specific information on: • Proposed revenue sources for all four phases of open-space development depicted in the Library Square study • Long-term maintenance and operating costs of minimally developed open space and fully developed open space. • Proposed revenue sources for operating and maintenance costs. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this 2nd day of April 2002. 2 Attachment No.2 Option A Sunken Garden - Mid-Block Entry Crescent Wall _. - Diamond Gardens Parodies pel,Ise a-cee,en = - • -.,, ,— , , . , - .,- — - _ ,,,,... a-rant nekton.datbainet 4/0• — • - • • - • n gar- . .....,. .•, 4-, . _ , — suloure/An Merl, Library Entrance Plaza . '' f,":•-•:.'. ':.-.:--.,f, --.;:,.„ -'.-';;;',.:. . ,f.±.. . _, ,„,‘,.. 'r.;•*:•;,.;',...,-*:tze."' _:.--i-4—- ( e'vt; -"all* Library Rooftop Garden 11.,'OP i:Tgrs:2-.:r---.. i -----__ t .'..7'...;.,le• , -:. ' : .T4`r ' '' re` •4-:1-1.... " I ---... ,..1 .'..-4. ....!!,,,,e; ' Ad$11k Music Lawn Aetwori emede.“ The Shell Readmet on.haute pg0,- IIIIII 1_, -'-, ': - --- Small era•derne, .. . * Fool en usl.:e'r'car-ir ra, ' • .,::,.i. ., .'Milt'' .., Library Chddren's Garden--_i'• .,• „ ...ar... Ingle-Mud,:rude', Om etath,,,-, el.tolo•Plet "'MI •..-e-ro. , . ife-an druo,erour SI,iciii, • • •• ••'rqV.7 ..):- .''''" Library Plaza Garden . le " : - ' . . --41 --- ' • Cultural ate-val, . •- to-_-- • - .‘,.- * .e-', ---,r- ' Smug Ir,id-e aft:0o,tea.1 .", ... Mid B ock Ent People evaultird - -_-an,trlartnet fated. , Thema,etaaerueeee Theater Plaza "Center r.S.,;<...c Are Rod t-Ada' ,*...-lit r.i4lik., '•'''.:;.eZr?,,-15--7:_f-e-,s;;',-1?- Alt.N- 2' IC- — lem 1O1 Pultesea:allace , , , , -k. i ),-- 72,,en.a_t e r nLarr‘w: 1 s‘ Helaine,en du-tun Mid-Block Entry---7 , :IT , "1 _ null cultural ran, ' ----‘) Wedge Diamond Garden " _ .... _,I . ------'---........ "' *- The Overlook _ --..,/ Plering'n!de fuertlen ,. eeett. ' Malang(fecal,I-lulu apeeteranu dupla,Pt rd.',arra I 1..:......., Sating on teal wall , •----1 -- "Center for Science,Art an• , 44 / , _______-- The Bowls _ Culture" Expansion Area, '',:t.'...:;. .. --, - . •. . __ __-- Interim Lawn Terrace . h .,/..i'..:. t7Z1,:..' .,-4f/V...,.:- •. • • --. .-" Diamond Gardens afaseell levee, Future Oda,,,erluole ,I ." ' - '''IS' dondIP"I'eurrdralh'ee!orta , "Center for Science,Art and jr ' , ..".2"'is,., ... • -. '" z, . Heade,or a lut.de Culture" Terrace 0 1° `-......,"-A.V..-F-=,-.:.,-. 7 NI r (mace vela Nova ( '• .. '''-'''..-.,*'-,1 : e - - i' -* '.-- .. 1-- ',Wig' ''''' ---' ' ;-''' ileoerue under a env . Arta uf neuee ,rafo,photop,, \.-i Vt. '' 1 1'4. --.' '- -';'' :'*.:(-11r.' •. ‘C -V* ''''' IF * "*-* 7- *V '-..:1 '. Mid-block Entry • • 0 0 Attachment No.3 • I . 411) Option B Crescent Wall ._ Sunken Garden , Mid-Block Entry Provide.puka.tar.. e_ I '. ,— Diamond Gardens rooftop garden --4 ^folk Fad tint, .: AIIIii,,. 11.dannal I.dat.at,no Library Entrance Plaza .`" 1,---., -•-1-..i-, v-ri•-•;'"..:''il 0`1V- -4% f--- 11,41,..al P1 c'il,& d$.It.• . . . .. . Library Rooftop Garden 1 - . - 1,,,.......... .....-4,..,i-J i,,,,,,,ii.• Great Lawn Att.rk arninit -..._ . :/. l'aane ten...,It Ind,.-,i•I•,n. Strait,$r a berni - • ' h.., Sat Int,..,.., "....Y$ .,•I A,.Ail. -. ,':4.-,i. . •4 --' • rI • ".I.'';',',."7.., 'c.-$.!$.'- • .'I I. 'I..... ) 411% ,.-.. *411- ....{.... . $.... Library Children's Garden - 44..4- r " Inindnd rtad, - .4114 \ ' g444) An 4.-.14.1419. . - ... * ,,,hn, ---.--- ; ' a,4. •t. /,,,,,,,,, .. '-'-' -',Aell / * tees Library Plaza Garden I.V., ' - iir 4,441.,.' • .., C.d.,'fettit ads , •":"4.,:. Nlan a, $ • . ,• [, . ..\ I' . Ptirt team,aita...dm, I ...'''. ' --- lantig 1,the Wt.:,F.Aaill.t .4.. \ ' 7). '714, ...4*-4, 44:1 -- 1, .- -i - sr - • . . . " - 4 ' zt. * Mid-Block Entry Altr-ind frIondt -es illeatcr gall:tap I I . ... Pr.,itented-se.n r Ii-ratv...I - - Theater Plaza ,_ _ _. .. . • . a..•al<$11$r.- `""r -.tite...--".- -iiei- . , ... Polittil rdtte. ' ...le* iiel* . , $1(- .... ,.!... -..n r i it rta.-.J•...,...,• After nurk("V.& 7 .,, ,,...,... - 4.1-4--- Theater Lawn i,,,,,,, kr:ar.I 1.-trira. '-•I' fie ,...e...4'..„"eA; *I';',';i7i'it'IP-L''' e , , •_.,....,...0 .. &Atty.*: Mid-Block Entry Of- ' •..;:...!:'.•":•,':`,::A f F.,‘.c.;.-:.:,:1f,•,z-.,,, / ' , . p,,,,,, Scnacr..t.iert deo,.itlidd. ''.•I''.•4::.•,.e'• ;,.•• .`.•••,..,....,;......, . —.....1 twill rdenrd Wedge Diamond Garden---- -..e: A..: : ii.:.-,-.:,...57.,,,,.77.f..,,:-. 4.-.:,. ,_ , - , . , _ $ • '' Pr p•nkh h., Plamg PI the........te '.-..,/ / I .. / -I.' Diamond Gardens Rating u-der.'..-- .‘::._....•••''S..'4ink•taiII. l'ItI.II..--;:-'.......I.I,VhI.''';Ill.. ..... 3.. ,-1, Hot,.nit.,Ec d sp... Lands...appba.1..$,tax& r.li.ince . . Pe,le vv....hind .,,,I.:: . ,..,,,,,, - D.' \ itteitni at i benen . :$ J.,I i .." '' $ .$' Center for Science,Art and-- ..,, .y., •Culture" Expansion Area/ , -.I;t . . Interim Lawn Terrace i,i 1, •:,., -:' ; . . Ay 4116 g --", --414' paillgathetioto •' - ..44/ .ts -- 1 Fon*pima overinnk I 'A.i.. I " The Waves " 411 . \ &and .. ivant "Center for Science.Art and--- . 4 r . ,_ Culture' Terrace Terrace i___ , ' "1 .an -! .-.'to7 I „ ,..„. , . .-, .",,,../ -.-_- ;‘... .,, -,, T- - - \—Mid-block Entry • 1111 0 • Attachment No.4 )0 Midi Entry Crescent Wall Sunken Garden -block _ ) --b--,- -•,- ----,- 1 r 1.1-- sr 1— --g-' 74-- -—a-- — - -o- / i ,„--'',.. \ ,..„ • , , „. ,,,, r,,, .:-----7'.T,-.7.--,. ---'-<,..;• ---'s\ Library Enya c .,,„ -,-.-2.,. . .„..--, :.---,-,-,,-,--:,..--:--- -....--;%,- 4,-**,.-,-._ `'i t .‘ -.`".:2-°•,.,,,,, --,.__- PJaza The Corner Gardens - ' ' ',,,,• , ,";. 1 Library Rooftop Garden ';,.--,.,-2--;,-..--,, 1 -'-'.›•!----'' ' / ..2...712-,:",‹ ....----.. - > , • •. 14,"- -• .2-1:: N .... .. . '' 1--••'• 1 ,i, •i,t,..4.---..:-.-..,--4.0..., _,,, .--:*,<:: , -\ -'t/ ,,, 4, ; 1,Z.,%'A:.-_-,,, -,--- f..-- >,4:: • , ." , ...: '';',V1\ , ,c-c 04' v ",„,,,,• i, ...1 111 )„,-• - „. ,• 4tr.: ., (#*-- \ • . - - , L. .i., 11", •11 Library Children's G arden rI' ''-••T.l.-I]1,li!1„i1:Emv _ I, ,10.•...--'-- ' -,.';. .„- ,,-„:, ,i Crescent Tree Promenade Great Lawn - 4 : 2 I .,_ Library Plaza Garden Mid-block Entry Mid-block Crosswalk / , , , ---T, • , -. - -.. 1 .4,,. .,:: '-1.,11 -4. ._,, 1 ..1 - ---......!.:,-- 1 -' 11 'r-7 .-.-. 11 i, 1 , . 1 -.... , .. t • I f / k ' , / / Theater Plaza ' f . 4, I , •( 1 , 1 1 , . , 1. Crescent Tree Promenade k / Improvements •, -,_ 1, •1 , '-'••-, -t \• / ', II Mid-block Entry Center for Science 4101‘..* ,The Waves i'd The Corner Gardens #.- , + ' 1 -1-:.-, 1 04 r. z' Art and Culture ',4:- . 1 ...7 I ,? 1 it[--....--Hii 4--V 0. -'" i. '0 4, ,9 Mid-block Entry CIVITAS Moshe Safdie and Associates i-i'HP1,, r i. -..-,I-1\\-\r/7 ( ' - ) , -_--) ( ) - r1 -)-sl, -,:) ) 2 13 August 2002 VCBOArchitects ), . 2 2 Recommended Scheme • -- SJ I �' i3 rp Jr\ •ROSS C."ROCKY"ANDERSON SALT1J C CaPO:r AY •W•Ell,�!I.O. [ SALT LAKE 2002 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR (4'6l TO: Rocky Fluhai lief Administrative Officer DATE: August 6, 2002 FROM: D.J. Baxter for Advisor to the Mayor SUBJECT: Library ommons Open Space Design Recommendation STAFF CONTACT: D.J. Baxter, 535-7735 RECOMMENDATION:That the City Council receive a briefing on the Recommended Design and Cost Estimates for the Library Commons Open Space DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing/Discussion BUDGET IMPACT: The Administration has requested$4 million from the Olympic one- time revenues to fund construction of the open space. If Council approves recommended design, we can reduce that request to $3.2 million. DISCUSSION: Design Process and Public Participation: Approximately $1.2 million of the library bond issue was budgeted for use on the east side of the library block. In January 2002, the City Council approved approximately$100,000 of this money to fund a design effort for an open-space and entertainment venue configuration on the block (Scheme A). After extensive discussion of the pros and cons of an earlier proposal to construct affordable housing on the block, the City Council decided in April 2002 to authorize the Library to spend the remaining $1.1 million in bond proceeds to begin preparing the east side of the library block for an open space use, thereby foreclosing the earlier proposal to build housing on the site. At that time, Council members expressed some concern about the construction and maintenance costs, as well as the impacts to the library and surrounding neighborhood of the entertainment venue design, which featured a peiivanent band shell and a sloping lawn to host up to 5000 people for events. Council members also expressed concerns about the high cost of year- round programming for the site, and asked that another design be prepared and presented to the public that was less focused on programming, and more amenable to daily use by library patrons and neighborhood residents. After consulting with Council staff, the Administration negotiated a scope of services with the designers to prepare a second design, along with cost estimates for both designs, to take the two designs to the public, and, finally, to prepare a recommendation based public input. This scope of services was bid at $50,000. The design consultants prepared a second design(Scheme B) reflecting the Council's wishes for a space less focused on programming, and came to Salt Lake City to conduct a four-hour open 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE:801--553335-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 (T) RECYCLED PAPER house at the downtown main library. Approximately 100 people and four media outlets attended the event, and the members of the public submitted more than 40 written comment cards at the meeting. The Administration conducted four additional open houses, one in each quadrant of the city. These were widely advertised, but poorly attended, likely because most of the interested parties attended the initial open house thinking it would be the only opportunity for input. The Administration also solicited input on the designs on the City's web page, where residents could view color images of both designs. The Administration accepted public comments from June 22 to July 15, 2002 by fax, voice message using the Council's comment line, and email. In total, we received 62 comments, verbatim transcripts of which are attached. The majority of the comments favored Scheme B, the less-programmed design. Members of the public seemed to prefer the flexibility and versatility of a less-programmed space, and expressed more enthusiasm for a quiet, passive, and more intimate space that people could enjoy at their own pace. Many were also attracted to the lower cost of constructing and maintaining Scheme B. There were, however, some aspects of Scheme A that both the public and the designers preferred. One was a grand staircase joining the northern and southern quadrants of the east side of the block. Another was a configuration that would allow, but not rely upon, the presence of a performance stage for special events. Recommended Design: For the recommended scheme, the design team has created a hybrid of the two options, incorporating the best features of each, and adding many of the suggestions offered by the public, City staff, and Council members. The designers will be attending the briefing to present the recommended design, along with cost estimates for construction and maintenance. 'While the recommended design reflects primarily the landfoiiu,plant massing, and infrastructure, consideration of other amenities, such as chess tables, interactive elements, and art will be included in the next stage of planning and design. Final plant selection, irrigation system design, and final lighting will also be completed in the next stages of the process. Mid-Block Crosswalk: As some Council members may recall, in the years before library construction began, we experienced an increasing number of pedestrian incidents as city employees used the mid-block crossing between the City & County Building and the library block. In 1998, the Transportation Division earmarked approximately$100,000 for design and construction of a traffic signal to allow pedestrians to cross between the blocks safely. When library construction began, that project and its funding were shelved until library block designs were sufficiently definite that the design could be completed in a way that would work well with both sides of 200 East. While it is still possible to proceed with a simple signal using the funds allocated, the library block designs have envisioned connecting the two blocks in a more intimate way, creating the sense of a continuous public gathering place between State Street and 300 East. To enhance this connection between the blocks, and to maximize safety for pedestrians crossing 200 East, designers have recommended a mid-street landscaped pedestrian refuge be built at the crosswalk in conjunction with the new signal. Furthermore, Transportation has recommended a slight 8/6/02 Library Commons Council Briefing 2/3 reconfiguration of the City & County Building traffic oval to decrease the opportunities for vehicle-pedestrian conflicts. These features, of course, increase the cost of the crosswalk, but also increase its attractiveness and effectiveness. The total cost for designing and constructing the enhanced crosswalk improvements will be approximately$400,000. It is imperative that we complete at least some improvements to the crosswalk before the employee parking garage opens beneath the new library, but, of course, we would prefer to complete the entire project at one time. Funding: The Administration has requested $4.0 million in one-time Olympic revenues to finance final design and construction of the open space. We understand that a decision on the Olympic revenues will not be made until September, but an assurance of some funding now will allow us to keep the project moving forward in the meantime. This interim progress is important if we hope to open the area in time for the library's first summer season in 2003. Therefore, if the Council decides to proceed with the recommended design, the Administration would like a straw poll indicating support for expenditure of bond funds to conduct final design refinements and begin preparation of construction drawings. While a detailed proposal has not yet been written for this scope of services, we estimate $40,000 would cover costs for work conducted in the remainder of August and early September until a contract can be negotiated following Council's budget approval in mid-September. At that time, a scope of services will be written and negotiated, with the $40,000 to be deducted from the total design fee. The cost of the recommended scheme is somewhat less than Scheme A, which we estimated at $5.1 million. Approximately $1.1 million is already being spent to prepare the land for an open space design. Thus, to build Scheme A, we requested $4.0 million in Olympic revenues. The construction estimate for the recommended option is $4.3 million, an estimate toward which the $1.1 million already being spent out of the bond proceeds would apply. Therefore, if the Council opts to proceed with the recommended design, the Administration will amend its request for one- time Olympic revenues for library open space construction to $3.2 million. We propose that the savings be devoted to two functions. Of the $800,000 saved by pursuing the recommended design, we request that $300,000 be appropriated for the immediate improvement of the 200 East crosswalk as described above. These funds would augment the $100,000 already allocated for a simple traffic signal, to cover the full project cost of$400,000. We propose that the remainder of the savings ($500,000)be set aside as an endowment to provide an ongoing source of funds for maintenance of the Library Commons open space. We estimate this fund could generate approximately$25,000 annually if we invested today at long-term fixed rate. Given that rates are so low now, this is a very conservative estimate of potential earnings. Public Services has estimated the annual maintenance costs at approximately$80,000. Attachments: 1. Design team process and recommendations memorandum 2. Public comments received 3. Public Services cost estimate for maintenance of recommended option 4. Meeting memo from Jan Aramaki to Council Members regarding Library Crosswalk on 200 East 8/6/02 Library Commons Council Briefing 3/3 Library Commons Open Space Briefing to the Salt Lake City Council Tuesday, August 13, 2002 Attachment 1 : Design team process and recommendations memorandum Memorandum CIVITAS To: DJ Baxter From: JamieMaslyn >Urban Designers >Planners Date: 22 July, 02 >Landscape Architects cc: Nancy Tessman, Salt Lake City Public Library Isaac Franco, MSA Steve Crane,VCBO Subject: Briefing for council The following is a summary of the process and design concepts under the current scope of services for Library Commons. This is for your use in correspondence with Salt Lake City council pertaining to our upcoming presentation,currently scheduled for August 13,2002. Process At the end of the previous scope of services, the design option for the open space showed, among other features, a large amphitheater lawn, permanent band shell, and curvilinear hard surface seat walls. Salt Lake City Council asked that a lower impact option be explored and discussed with the public.The intention of this scheme was to integrate better with the scale of the neighborhood,support fewer major events, and perhaps is less expensive to build. The design team created this alternative scheme and, with city and library staff, conducted five public open houses to receive comment on the two schemes. Public comments were accepted for three weeks. In addition, the design team had some contact with city staff relating to the issues of water use and maintenance. The design team then created the recommended scheme, which is based on public comment, limited city staff comment, the design principles, Library Square tenant programming and design issues, and greater citywide programming issues General themes from public and city staff comments The response from the public was overwhelmingly positive,with many participants simply PRINCIPALS commending the city for committing to open space on this block. Both design schemes were very Erie Anderson well received. Even so,the consultants and city staff spent time with individual participants to Richard C. Farley understand specific preferences. Some general concerns were: Mark o h n s o n • Open space design should be responsive more to a neighborhood park and cultural and Erie P. Mott educational use events, rather than major public events such as festivals and concerts. Todd Mead • The ability to erect a temporary stage was preferred over a permanent band shell. Ann lvl o i l i ns • The use of landform rather than walls was preferred to break down the scale of the site into smaller, more intimate garden areas. • Flexible, seamless spaces were preferred over permanent structures. Gallivan Plaza was used as an example of an inflexible space because of the planters and buildings that divide the space into many parts. • Having multiple ways to move through the site was important. Use of stairs, bridges, and 1200 Bannock Street ramps become interesting activity areas, both for people-watching and access. Denver, Colorado 80204 • The public generally preferred less hardscape spaces for heat and glare issues and suggested planting amply for shade where possible. However, there was a general concern Tel 303 s 71.o o s s over water use. Water wise landscape practices were suggested, possibly using xeric plants, Fax 303 8 2 5.0 4 3 8 more crushed granite pathways, and tapping into an underwater aquifer as a water source W W\v.c i v i t a s i n e.c o m N:\My DocumentslLibrary Block Development\Civitas Council memo-August 02-rev.doc rather than using potable city water.Additionally,some city staff were concerned about water C IV ITAS consumption and long term maintenance of turf areas. One additional suggestion from the city staff was to increase the use of hardscape (plazas, paving, concrete) where traffic patterns may impact turf areas. At the same time, some city staff noted the desire by the city to use this open space as a catalyst for redevelopment in the adjacent neighborhood. The use of conventional plant materials, such as blue grass lawn, shade trees, and flower gardens, provides a familiar, marketable amenity that will help attract multistory housing or mixed-use development that may occur nearby. Goals, Design Principles and Options The following is a summary of the goals of Library Square Open Space,design principles and design options. Illustrative plan view drawings of Option A and B are attached. Illustrative drawings of the recommended scheme will be presented at the August 13 City Council meeting. Goals Library Square is a rare place where the best of civic life is showcased and a commitment to the neighborhood and downtown is demonstrated.The combination of the new Main Library and the new Center for Science,Art and Culture offers an unprecedented opportunity for Salt Lake City to provide a focus that connects people to the spirit of the city. Its adjacency to the City and County Building and Washington Square reinforces its meaning to the citizens. Moreover, public uses on the block assure that no one group makes it their turf. Library Square's form will celebrate the richness of cities. Many cultural and civic activities can occur here. Library Square's size and configuration make it highly adaptable,whereby small spaces can be combined with others so its use can be changed almost on a daily basis. It's designed to be comfortable, handsome and refined so that it's a nice place to be when alone,but durably crafted to support thousands. The public investment in Library Square through the creation of a civic center is a strong message to private developers and property owners:Salt Lake City is committed to a positive residential future in the city center. Combined with completion of the Central Community Plan and subsequent policy and zoning changes that create incentives for infill, mixed-use redevelopment, there is a strong likelihood that a forty-year trend of decline will be reversed. The positive redevelopment impact of a well designed, active,diverse public space will be significant. Design Principles-all schemes Through study of the site and its conditions,the design team established principles that would apply to the design options.These principles are primarily based on site function, building conditions that are fixed,and neighborhood constraints&opportunities.These principles are: 1. Develop a relationship between the corners of the site(at 300 East&400 South and 300 East&500 South)and the adjacent neighborhood. 2. Extend access into the site through mid-block connections 3. Utilize a sloping lawn to cover the roof of the shops adjacent to the crescent wall. 4. Respond to the parking structure ramps 5. Extend the central plaza space into the east portion of the site.This will activate the East Side, making it seem like the"front"rather than the"back." 6. Develop a movement corridor between the southeast corner and the central portion of the site. 7. Plant trees where underground parking garage does not prohibit. Design Option A Design Option A is based primarily on programmatic desires of the new tenants at Library Square and the idea that frequent events of 3,000-4,000 people would be held here.The landforms are simple and materials are durable. Retaining walls are used to compensate for grade changes, and N.IMyDocumenfslLibrary Block DevelopmentlCiwfas Council memo-August 02-rev.doc 2 provide comfortable places to sit for smaller programmed events.The corners of the site are C IV ITAS devoted to more articulated gardens,serving as a transition to the adjacent neighborhood. Major Design Features • The Diamond Gardens-Patterned perennial gardens at the north and south corners along 300 East. • The Overlook-A crescent shaped retaining wall varying in height from two feet to 10 feet high,along the length of 300 East,which serves as an edge for the music lawn and an overlook at the southern portion of the site.A bridge passes over part of the Bowls walkway, creating an attraction from which to people-watch. • The Shell-A permanent band shell,orchestra sized. • The Music Lawn-An open lawn, capable of holding up to 5,000 people for events. • The Bowls-A series of concrete seat steps built into the landscape,which hold 20 to 90 people each in amphitheater style seating(total of 175 people) • Theater Plaza-a stone plaza with multi level concrete seat steps and lawn area surrounding. Capable of holding up to 1350 people. Design Option B The intent of Option B is to create a softer, less event focused open space. Many of the retaining walls of Option A are replaced with sloping landforms and trees,which maintains the grand scale appropriate for the site.Grading variations, in the form of rolling landform, offer variety and pedestrian scaled spaces,while still accommodating for small programs and events. Using smaller scale gardens at the corners of the site reflects a neighborhood character. Major Design Features • The Diamond Gardens-smaller in total area than Option A, but same uses. • The Crescent Trees- a triple row of trees which mimics the crescent building at the new central library, extends along the length of 300 south. This serves as the edge for the Great Lawn and Theater Lawn and creates a shady promenade. • The Great Lawn- an open lawn, which could support a temporary stage for events, capable of holding up to 3000 people for events. • The Waves- rolling lawn-covered landforms are informal gathering and play areas. Capable of supporting up to 100 people. • Theater Plaza- a stone plaza, with informal seating on lawn and seat wall. Capable of supporting up to 1100 people. Recommended Option The recommended option lends itself to more passive, day-to-day users, who may frequent the library, future cultural center, or who live in the neighborhood. There are a variety of spaces: places to seek solitude under a shade tree, gather in small groups for readings or outdoor education,or listen to music or hold rallies in groups of 100 people on a more regular basis. The design supports occasional smaller cultural or civic events up to 1000 people. The once or twice a year festival or event of several thousand can still occur here, but with more up-front staging and post-event restoration required. Temporary stages would need to be set up for these events. Different planting mediums and maintenance strategies should be utilized to minimize event damage to lawn areas. The recommended scheme strengthened the shade planting where possible, and augmented the low water use areas. The number of trees was increased, with a wide array of tree species introduced to provide shade and variety. A greater balance between lawn areas and hardscape and crushed gravel areas was achieved,with 3.5 acres of the entire 10 acre site in hardscape and crushed gravel paving, and 2.4 acres in lawn area, a reduction in .54 acres of lawn, or 17%. Other areas have been designated as available for more drought tolerant plants that may reduce the amount of lawn areas further. N:IMyDocumentslLibrary Block DevelopmenlCivdas Council memo-August 02-rev.doc 3 The number of walkways, ramps and stairs was increased, allowing for easy access to all areas of C IV ITAS the site. Seat walls, fixed benches and furnishings are concentrated along edges and site features.These two improvements allow for increases in activity and visibility, making the space a "place." Major Design Features • The Corner Gardens at 400 South and 500 South were reconfigured to offer generous planting spaces and provide clear access to the interior of the site. While they are currently designed utilizing low-water-use, ornamental grasses for ease in city maintenance, these areas could be "adopted" by adjacent neighborhood users, as demonstration gardens by water-wise plant organizations, or by the new tenants at Library Square in educational purposes. • The Crescent Trees area was widened and changed from lawn underplanting to crushed gravel. Use of different Oak species provides ample shade and beautiful fall color. Fixed benches and tables are arranged in multiple ways for different seating options. • The Great Lawn is now smaller because of the increase in the Crescent Tree area, and supports a wide variety of large shade trees. A temporary stage can be erected at the base of the sloping lawn, and the potential number of users was reduced to about 2000. Access routes to the Great Lawn were added from the north mid block entry and theater plaza. • The Waves use rolling landforms to create informal seating and imaginative play areas. Additional paths and stairs were added at the Waves to provide better access to the upper elevations. The bridge from Option A was modified to be smaller and less opaque, more in keeping with the bridges found in the new Central Library. This bridge activates this part of the site and creates a"place to be." • Theater Plaza uses a low seatwall to provide informal seating along the edge for day-to-day use, while the lawn area seats up to 1100 people for events. The Crescent Tree area activates the upper elevations of the lawn area here, with its fixed benches and tables providing comfortable places to sit in the shade. N:IMyDocumentsllibrary Block DevelopmenbCivitas Council memo-August 02-rev.doc 4 Library Commons Open Space Briefing to the Salt Lake City Council Tuesday, August 13, 2002 Attachment 2 : Public Comments Received Salt Lake City Library Commons Public Comments June-July 2002 Page 1 of 15 A B C D E 1 Comments 1 Name Plan A Plan B Dale Abbott X I would very much like to see the more open-space option (option B). I feel like downtown SLC already 2581 W. Easton St. has enough music venues and built-up space Kearns, UT 84118 2 969-6046 Francis Xavier Lilly X Option B would be the best. It is a more flexible option than option A, which I fear may be overdesigned. 448 S. 500 E. #9 Operations and maintenance for option B would be far more affordable.Impacts to the neighborhood SLC UT 84102 would be less intense. 521-3594 If an amphitheatre is built at Pioneer Park, where it may be a better fit, there would probably not be a 3 need for an amphitheatre of that scale at the Library Commons. Paula Keirnan My suggestion is that you place a metal mesh top about half way down from the top to prevent or 660 S. 300 E. #613 protect would-be suicides from being able to jump to their deaths SLC UT 84111 4 647-5843 Colin Zwiebel X Option B sounds like the most suitable design option. I do wish that the walkway design from option A 214 S. 1200 E. was incorporated. 5 583-7106 Gerald R. Nichols X Scheme B allows flexibility. It allows everything to happen. You can bring stages for 24 hrs but the 1172 Harvard Ave. remaining 364 days can be calm/busy/or just a few people. Green space is very SCARCE in SLC. H-582-2530 6 V-364-9529 __ David A. Moore X Please no"amphitheatre."We need open green spaces. Pathways, trees, green areas are crucial for a 1388 Federal Way downtown. 84102 A small fountain would be very welcome. In summary pavement, amphitheatre are problems. Multi-use 7 landscaped areas are much needed. Joe Arnold X "A"; see if Hobberman stage could work: get rid of parking on W. side of 300 E. 1220 E.400 S. SLC UT 8 582-4148 Salt Lake CityLibraryCommons Public Comments June-Jul 2002 Page 2 of 15 Y g A B C D E Barbara Pioli X After coming to view the options, my mind has been changed. I feel that the"low impact" model is a 1343 Lincoln Street better choice for the library. I have arrived at this conclusion for many reasons. 1-Looking at SLC UT 84105 development in other places in the city, like the band shell that is planned in Liberty park, another 486-7760 amphitheatre that invites frequent, possibly loud events is not necessary. 2-Making this investment is also more costly to build, and 3- more costly to administer and maintain. As long as the"low impact" 9 option offers inviting, intimate spaces to attract people, I am fully behind it. Karen Denton X 1--Keep as open as possible--the waves area has a nice feel that emulates Sugarhouse park. 3099 S. Lincoln St. 2--Resist the temptation to place concrete, permanent structure, sidewalks, bandstands--for as long as SLC, UT 84106 possible to see the natural flow of usage. 487-8927 3--Music--the original twilight concerts were held on the Media ctr. plaza with seating on the grassy amphitheatre. We've lost that with the Gallivan ctr(although i love that setting, too), but it would be nice 10 to return to that smaller feel of 2000 or more. Jean Arnold X 1220 E.400 S. SLC UT 84102 11 582-4148 Jim Jenkin X X North side from A w/o sophisticated permanent stage and w/enhanced ped. Entry from north. South 212 5th Ave side from option B. SLC UT 84103 585-3674 12 H-363-3750 Zachary Walker X Place Bandshell on design B option. 1431 S. 200 E. SLC UT 84115 13 484-1275 Bill Hunt X Plan B makes sense to me--smaller cultural/science uses, with less concrete. I'm in favor of xeriscaping 428 E. Chapman and drought tolerant grass areas. We are lucky the drought has not been worse here. It could easily be SLC UT 84111 much worse in coming years. 14 539-1357 Betty Schoeffler X I prefer option B, because I think downtown needs more green and less structure/hard, square surfaces. 830 S. 1200 E. 15 583-1707 Salt Lake City Library Commons Public Comments June-July 2002 Page 3 of 15 A B C D E Jacob Nuttall X Both plans look great. I would favor option B. 380 W. 200 S. SLC UT 16 541-6335 Patricia Samul X Please remember the need for places of repose, green space and unstructured use in a hectic, noisy 660 S. 300 E#509 urban center. SLC UT 84111 Think oasis. Great libraries do. 17 575-5343 Zona Landau Area--for children to participate in the planting of seeds and trees as they study them--the Elliot Landau 1731 E. 9th S. Childrens Library. SLC UT 84108 18 582-5356 Sam McConnell X I prefer design option A. The bandshell and tree bridge are great ideas. 2301 S. Benchmark Cir. SLC UT 84104 19 467-1958 Roger Clayton X X A mix of A and B. Put in shell and bumps. 1220 12th Ave. 20 359-3899 Mary McConnell X X I like both plans--esp. the bandshell.Very will thought through! 2301 S. Benchmark Cir. SLC UT 84109 21 467-1958 Janus Daniels X How about...leave the grounds cement/sidewalk free. Wait for footpaths to develop naturally, then put in janus©rapidconnections. the walkways; you could have"please walk on grass"signs. corn 22 679-0326 Roger Jones X Plan B with stairs to midblock entry and wooden bridge over SE access looks good to me. 2720 St.Mary's Wy. SLC UT 84108 581-9576 23 Beeper 914-6346 Salt Lake City Library Commons Public Comments June-July 2002 Page 4 of 15 A B C D E Dylan Winslow X Both plans would be good, but plan B would be more attractive when there are no events at the library. 250 S. 900 E. #14C Please make it as water-efficient as possible. Overall, it looks wonderful 24 SLC UT 84102 William Zwiebel X Option B is preferable since we do not need another entertainment-focused park. 214 S. 1200 E. SLC UT 84102 25 583-7106 Mahan Khalsa X Use the great lawn in plan B (no band shell) Use the bowls in plan A. Use Utah stone for plaza. 1949 So. 800 E. SLC UT 84105 26 467-4852 D. Joy Dantini Five star accomodations across the board. PO Box 16261 27 530-7217 Sandy Peck X Unstructured. Plan B better for neighborhood. Put Olympic stage at Gateway. Still places for performing 4819 Kings Row#26 but less traffic SLC UT 84117 28 274-1047 Pat Nielson X Give the arch to Gateway and we take the$$! Arch is white elephant. We do not need it. 1519 S. 19th E. 29 583-6932 Jeff Hatch Sports facilities that attract spectators:sand volleyball, basketball, skateboard, inline skating. 1204 Millcreek Way SLC UT 30 424-4354 _ Cindy Cromer Both options A& B are too complex. Keep it simple--No phoney berms, minimal programmed spaces 355-4115 such as theartes. Think in terms of year-round use--not just the summer months. The designs all need shade from midday and late afternoon sun. Much of space will be unusable during heat of summer months. All lawn should be drought resistance but use different species for contrasting colors and textures. Another message via phone: We should put in a city arboretum. It would fill a gap in our community, and would include both educational and diversity components which would make it quite appropriate for the Library Square space. Also, the placement of the building will provide shade, giving us an opportunity to include more sensitive species of trees and plants. 31 Salt Lake City Library Commons Public Comments June-July 2002 Page 5 of 15 A B C D E M. Ray Kingston X Please: More (& larger trees)shade will attract and soothe people. And no added attractions, nor 1070 E. 400 S. amphitheatres. Gallivan Plaza is a great example of what not to do. Too full of insignificant and often SLC UT 84102 poor art and sculpture. Too busy. And no shady places to sit. It has become a bad theme park--Trees 322-1864 and shade need no activation. 32 Cell-647-9432 Thanks, Ray. Gary Shea I'm already on the mailing list. Just wanted to say thanks for doing this. I was originally put off by the "finished"feel of the designs, but after talking with folks about the design constraints I'm less disturbed. 33 34 Kathryn Stockto n X Shelly White X X I like more green space but I also want more people downtown, so I will say A but I am fine with B as PO Box 58981 well. 35 521-9012 Carol K. Starr X I think they should lose the theatre. Make sure there is plenty of parking Make venue secure. More 287 4th Ave#11 trees. SLC UT 84103 36 534-0949 ----- --- -- ----------------------- --------- Christian Fonnersbech X Less intensive. Use No-Glare, shielded lighting, fauna friendly landscaping 215 A St.SLC ut 84113 363-4848 37 Joan Winslow X Plan B--Less concrete, more usable. Use funds for bands/artists etc. xeriscape and educate--make 250 S 900 E 14C longterm plans Plan A is excessive and not best for daily use, Have you seen the playground surface at 38 531-7666 Faultline Park? Andrew Stillman X I think we should have a stage (a permanent one) on the NE end. 711 2nd Ave SLC, UT 84013 39 403-3099 Sylvia Gray X I vote for design option b with the proviso that a moveable stage be available for special events. 666 9th ave Please remember xeriscaping some of the area too. Thanks for the opportunity to give some input. 40 532-3486 • Salt Lake City Library Commons Public Comments June-July 2002 Page 6 of 15 A B C _ D E Steven Graham X X Great work on both concepts. Please plant trees that provide umbrella shade. Please keep the SLOC 1848 Wilson stage OFF this block. Thanks! SLC UT 84108 41 484-2861 Kathy Rice X I favor the more contemplative, quiet, small-group usage of this land, and, keep stairs wherever possible- 1151 Michigan Ave -and have plenty of benches and tables. The rolling lawn landforms sound good. Think about identification of trees and plants for nature lovers. Thanks! And encourage a sculpture here and there. 42 Debbie Gabrenas X Prefer design option B. 1109 E. Foxcrest Dr. Park City UT 84098 43 435-649-0171 Garry Blake X I strongly favor option A 1598 S. 1000 E. 44 485-6084 John R.Anderson X X Of the two plans for the library square, I would like to see a combination of the two plans. The small 2030 Fardown Ave. performing stepped areas of plan A--That could be used for small performing groups etc., along with the SLC UT 84121 long allee of trees from the second plan. A plan that would have a large garden-like space with smaller 45 278-5247 (bowls)areas, I think would be ideal. Sander lazar X I prefer option A for the sole reason that the main, large stage is larger than Gallivan. Too much 134 F St. redundancy of amphitheatre size is bad. We should also be very sensitive to the over-use of water- SLC UT 84103 intensive turf. 46 322-1848 Salt Lake City Library Commons Public Comments June-July 2002 Page 7 of 15 A B C D E ikernews@msn.com to As a six-year veteran of the SLC Planning Commission and from my dj.baxter@ci.slc.ut.us on current service as a member of the Public Utilities Advisory Council, 7/11/02 it seems that the sparring over the landscaping of parking strips continues unabated. The recent threatened arrest of a citizen for xeriscaping his parking strip invites public skepticism that the City is serious about water conservation. The landscaping of Library Square offers a unique, high-profile, visible opportunity for the City to showcase landscaping which is acceptable to Planning/Zoning enforecement and which conserves precious water. Please consider landscaping concepts--I'd recommend two or three each on 4th and 5th South and on 3rd East--which require low water usage but will not incur the wrath of the Planning enforcers. Interpretive signage could describe the various plants, grasses, and other materials used, illustrate the irrigation system used, and compare required water consumption with conventional Kentucky bluegrass. The latter, by the way, might be left on the 2nd East side, opposite the City & County Building, for comparison purposes.I believe our fellow Salt Lakers are confused--I know I am--and this would be a good way for the City to lead in a constructive, positive way. Plus a photo op for LeRoy Hooten, Steve Goldsmith, and Mayor Rocky, who has already tried to set a good example with the praking strip at his personal home.Thanx for your consideration. 47 X I am writing this e-mail because I am very disappointed in the way in which the Mayor is handling the From:jim koran development of downtown Salt Lake. I have lived downtown for 5 years now and have considered [mailto:fleecies@yahoo.co staying to raise my children. However, after hearing that the Mayor would like to hold late night m] concerts and activities a few blocks from my house at the new library I have changed my mind. During the Olympics I understood that there would be nocturnal activities downtown and I just had to find a way to compensate for the disruption in my sleep. I do not wish to stay up past one o'clock listening to other peoples music and loud behavior. I find it terribly inconsiderate of the Mayor to ignore the neighborhoods that exist downtown. Just because he can leave these areas when he wants to sleep or just wants a quiet night is no reason why my children and family should suffer. Mayor Anderson needs to find another outlet for his anti-family values agenda. Sincerly, Ex-Rocky supporter 48 • Salt Lake City Library Commons Public Comments June-July 2002 Pageof 15 A B C D E Susan Walker X I would like to say that I would prefer high intensity. I would like to see more outdoor concerts. [mailto:Susan.Walker@ph Thanks oenix.edu] Susan Walker Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 9:24 AM To: 'mayor@slcgov.com' Subject: Library open house 49 Roger and Sue McCoy X Dear Mayor Anderson, <rsmccoy@uofu.net> I hope that any development of the new Library block will not include any structures that diminish or take away from the uniqueness of the architecture of the library itself. We need more open space in the city...not like the Gallivan Center, which is no longer visible from the street as "open space" but surrounded by privately owned high-rise structures. I would like to see the area surrounding the new library designed as a truly park-like space, a model of xeriscaping (refer to plantings onthe U of U Marriott Library plaza), and a space inviting people to sit on benchesbeneath constructed shade elements, such as gazebos, or trees. If there must be another amphitheater let it not interfere visually with the building itself. I appreciate your consideration and that of the City Council in determining the environment of the library as a truly inviting public space. Respectfully, Sue McCoy President, the Friends of the Salt Lake City Public Libraries 50 Salt Lake City Library Commons Public Comments June-July 2002 Page 9 of 15 A B C D E From: Saren Fassbinder X Mayor Anderson and City Concil Members: [mailto:sfassbin@yahoo.c om] This email is in response to the article in Saturday's Salt Lake Tribune Sent: Saturday, June 22, asking for the public's response and/or suggestions for the new library block, 2002 9:13 AM Liberty Square. Though I am not able to attend the presentation at the current To: mayor@slcgov.com library today, I would still like to make a comment. Subject: Uses for Liberty Having been a resident of downtown for the past 6 years and being a resident Square apartment manager for the past 4 years at 3 different downtown properties, I think I know downtown pretty well. We only recently moved to Sandy to accept another management job that offered a much larger home for us at a significantly smaller property. There are many things I miss about downtown and the biggest is the easy walking access to almost everything that is downtown. I am disappointed that I will be unable to just walk out of my home and down 3 blocks to the new library complex. We very much enjoyed watching the work in progress. The only suggestion I will make, or ask, is that new library complex, or Liberty Square, not become just another'party place'. This may seem insignificant, but the recent parties on the grounds of the City County Building-especially during the olympics, were a bit bothersom. The parties themselves were fine but it was how late they went and how loud they were which bothered us. We could hear the parties quite well and if we opened our windows we could hear every word spoken or sung over the microphone. At 1 am, trying to sleep-and our children trying to sleep, we could not help but hear the wonderful party going on just 6 block away (during the winter with our windows closed). If I was still the manager of the Caledonian Apartments (at the corner of 600 S. & 500 E.) or lived anywhere within 5-8 blocks of this new Park I would be a bit wary of it being labled as a "party place". Perhaps you only intend the parties to be during the day. That would make a big difference. Please keep in mind that you have been trying to get more people to live downtown. I would LOVE to live downtown again. But, if that meant that I would have to listen to the parties going on just a few blocks away while I, my husband or my children were going to bed and trying to sleep we'd find somewhere else to live. Best wishes on completing the project in the best interests of the residents of Salt Lake-not just those who you wish to attract to visit and use the park. 51 Salt Lake City Library Commons Public Comments June-July 2002 Page 10 of 15 • A B C D E Bart Walker X I would love to see Library Commons have a "high intensity" scheme. Thanks Gallivan Center Rental/Event Supervisor Sincerely, 535-6113 Bart Walker Gallivan Center Rental/Event Supervisor 535-6113 52 From: Library square sounds great, but let me tell you what keeps me in the suburbs. Difficulty and expense Herecomesmarty@aol.co of parking downtown. Why should I fight traffic and pay 6-7 bucks to park when I can go to Fashion m Place Mall and park free? We recreate in the suburbs, load up on culture out here, see movies and [mailto:Herecomesmarty parking is a non-issue. Solve that problem and you'll have us flocking dowtown! @aol.com] Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 8:13 AM To: mayor@slcgov.com Subject: Love your ideas, BUT... 53 Salt Lake City Library Commons Public Comments June-July 2002 Page 11 of 15 A B C D F From: Don S. Anderson Dear Mayor Anderson, [mailto:doninut@xmission. I had just e-mailed Stephen Goldsmith about the issue of amphitheaters and corn] then read the article in the paper about the same subject. This is what I Sent: Saturday, June 22, said to Stephen. 2002 6:04 AM "Word on the street is that there are way too many amphitheaters being To: mayor@slcgov.com built. What with MacNiel's, Thanksgiving Point, and all the others that Subject: Library Square already exist, how many more can the valley support? The theater design class I had with George Izenour said if you can't fill a theater at least 60% of the time, don't build it. Since the Olympic Arch is going to end up someplace, perhaps that should be the new amphitheater for the City. If it doesn't end up at Library Square, perhaps something unique could be done there: a reproducation Greek amphitheater in constant with the ultra-modern library; small outdoor classrooms like the one on Green Space Design's website; story telling gardens; interactive sclupture. It just doesn't make sense for the City to build two new amphitheaters compeating in an already full market. So that's the opinion of someone who isn't even a citizen of Salt Lake City...for what it's worth." In doing inventories of assembly places which already exict in the City, don't forget the amphitheaters at Triad Center and the Salt Lake Art Center. Library Square could be a unique urban green space which serves the mission of the Library. The Arts Festival is great downtown. I worked on the first 10 or so, and it will always lack the"rawness"of those early Festivals, but it seems to work well at the Gallivan Center. Thanks for considering my comments. Don S. Anderson 365 North Main Street Fillmore UT 84631 (435) 743-8137 doninut@xmission.com 54 Salt Lake City Library Commons Public Comments June-July 2002 Page 12 of 15 A B C D E From: Joni Dykstra X Hello Mayor Anderson: [mailto:joni@wfvstrategy.c om] I feel a wonderful addition to our new library would be the preservation of open space Sent: Friday, June 21, with a"low intensity" plan. I feel this lends itself more to the serenity I associate with 2002 5:11 PM a library. I have always enjoyed the experience of sculpture gardens in other cities that To: mayor@slcgov.com I visit and I feel it would be a great addition to have something like this available in Salt Subject: Library Open Lake City. It would also be easy to enjoy for many..I still haven't been to the secret garden Space of Giguland (SP?)...Thank you for considering my input. I attended a public meeting held Importance: Low several months ago,presented by the planner with the discussion of openspace vs. low income housing. I was extremely disappointed to see only 10 or so participants from the community. I occasionally work on public involvement projects and was also very disappointed with the meeting format and the tone that the presenter used. Thanks again- Joni Dykstra 55 From: kirk flannigan I think the square will be a great addition to SLC, but do you really want 6 gardens, and a lawn. I thought [mailto:k_flannigan@msn. the government was suppose to be an example to the rest of us? Doesn't sound as if SLC leaders are corn] worried to much about conserving water. Thanks, Kirk Flannigan Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 2:57 PM To: mayor@slcgov.com Subject: library 56 Salt Lake City Library Commons Public Comments June-July 2002 Page 13 of 15 A B C D E From: X 'Mayor Anderson: Lowweeds@aol.com When I read in the Tribune that yet another amphitheater(in addition to Pioneer [mailto:Lowweeds@aol.co Park, Gallivan Plaza and one in the "hoping"stage for WVC), is being considered m] for the open space on Library Square, I couldn't help wonder why this particular Sent: Saturday, June 22, type of entertainment venue is suddenly so appealing. Sitting on concrete"shelving" 2002 9:14 PM (not to mention being at the mercy of unpredictable weather) is more than sufficient To: mayor@slcgov.com reason for those of us who are no longer 20-anything to bypass even the finest Subject: Library Square entertainment available in such venues. That leaves a LOT of facilities to be filled Input by a very limited (and notoriously fickle)segment of our population. The less-than-robust success of using marginally-talented entertainers on street corners to draw crowds to the downtown area should provide some evidence that similar acts presented in an amphitheater setting could have similar results. And can you imagine how off-putting it would be for those of us who will frequent the new library to find ourselves competing for limited parking with people drawn to Library Square for a less-than-contemplative evening of study. Music of the sort one would expect to be presented in an amphitheater setting would very likely filter into the library, and there will almost certainly be a contingent of concertgoers streaming into the library to use the bathrooms. And they are unlikely to appreciate the need for quiet inside the library if they have just left a decidedly different environment outside. I, for one, would make a concerted effort to avoid using the library on concert nights. I have also wondered why the Hoberman Arch couldn't be installed on the stage area at Gallivan Plaza. That area could use a facelift, and adding something with not only artistic appeal, but sentimental appeal as well, would certainly give the amphitheater some much- needed cachet. Surely one really nice amphitheater in the downtown area would be better than several (almost certainly underused)facilities of the same sort, at least until the demand for more has been clearly proven. Just one last thought Although I would love to see Library Square finished off in a park- like setting, I fear that it might turn into another Pioneer Park, and draw the same crowds. I think that stone benches, fountains, and maybe a water feature similar to the one in Liberty Park would provide an appealing destination for families and would almost certainly draw library patrons into the outdoor areas as part of their visit to Library Square. 57 I Salt Lake City Library Commons Public Comments June-July 2002 Page 14 of 15 A B C D E Kay Terry 2573 Elm X The space be left as open space, no amphitheatre. Avenue 58 Carol Tripp What are the possibilities of placing the Hoberman Arch in the Library Square as opposed to Pioneer Park? 59 467-2864 Stephanie Duer After viewing the preliminary drawings for the proposed Library Block, Water Conservation and after speaking with the Public Utility Advisory Committee, we wish Coordinator to express our view regarding the amount of turf grass included in the Salt Lake City Department current design. of Public Utilities 1530 South West Temple While we see turf grass as being an appropriate choice for certain uses, Salt Lake City UT 84115 we are puzzled by its selection for such a vast area of a public plaza (2.4 801.483.6860 of 4 acres) intended for large-scale events such as art and community stephanie.duer@ci.slc.ut. events and political rallies. Turf grass, under heavy-use situations, requires us more water to maintain its health than does turf with lower use patterns. And as a site receives more use, soil compaction decreases water penetration into the soil profile, making it less likely that turf will establish and maintain a deep root system which in turn will create a situation where the turf will require more frequent watering, and be susceptible to disease and insect damage. Additionally, the seeming dependence on turf as a design element and a functioning surface seems in conflict with the City's interest in being a leader in sustainable design, environmental responsibility, and water conservation. Are we missing an opportunity to demonstrate to our constituency a commitment to sustainable principles? We recognize that the design represents a conceptual rendering of the site and that further planning may articulate some spaces as non-turf. It is our hope that careful consideration be given to the design and plant selection of this site to ensure a Library Block that is beautiful and sustainable. If we can be of any assistence to this end, please do not hesitate to contact us. 60 Salt Lake City Library Commons Public Comments June-July 2002 Page 15 of 15 A B C D E Lisa R. Romney After preliminary review of the site design concepts for the Library Block, and taking into Environmental Affairs consideration concerns raised by other environmental professionals, I urge the City to Coordinator carefully reconsider the amount of turf grass included in the current design options. Office of the Mayor While turf is one valuable component of an urban open space, the inclusion of 2.4 451 S. State Street acres of turf may not efficiently accommodate all possible core uses and will greatly Salt Lake City, UT 84111 conflict with several Salt Lake City environmental goals i.e. High Performance Buildings 801.535.7939 and water conservation. lisa.romney@slcgov.com Additionally, it would be a horrible disservice to continue to create "demonstration" gardens which are set up for people to look at, but not touch. The Library Block is a unique opportunity to create an interactive sustainable landscape. This area could become a model for lush, water efficient, urban landscapes in the arid west. I would like the design team to take a serious and innovative look at the projected uses for the area, and keep turf to a minimum. In areas where turf cannot/should not be eliminated, it is in the best interest of the City to use a low water fescue instead of traditional Kentucky Blue Grass. Realizing considerations at this level of detail will be made after site design approval, it is my utmost concern that all areas of turf be considered and made defensible through expected core use, overall benefit to the site and community, and irrigation technologies that do not adversely impact potable water supply. 61 Mrs Rela B. Ackerman X Tranquility, solitude, quietude--for the new public library outside area. A pleasant refuge 988 Casa Roja Street from the noise and hurry of the downtown streets. Plantings of greenery, shrubs, small Midvale, Utah 84047 trees--and a few taller ones, for shade. A weeping willow wr two, drooping toward a small pool--a pond where birds may stop in for a drink and a quiet dip on a hot afternoon. Only a few flowering plants--to avoid the cost and intrusion for maintenance. A cool place to induce relaxation, to read, study or to enjoy quiet conversation with a friend. This format would harmonize admirably with the purpose of the library and of the science building (the present library). Let Gallivan Plaza have the bands, strolling musicians, food vendors and 62 the noisier public festivities. Make the Library Square"something different." Library Commons p Open S ace Briefing to the Salt Lake City Council Tuesday, August 13, 2002 Attachment 3 : Public Services cost estimate for maintenance of recommended option Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities Parviz Rokhva Cost estimate for Maintenance of Proposed Library Commons Design August 6, 2002 In regards to developing an annual maintenance cost for the library open space project,we have reviewed the latest e-mail from Ms.Maslyn(w/Civitas dated Aug 5th, 2002 outlining 2 large, 2 medium, and 6 small events for the block)with our Parks Managers. We have also reviewed the information contained in the March 15, 2002 memorandum that you supplied to City Council, which addresses some of their questions. Based on these data, we confirm that the information provided in the Memorandum is still a good estimate except for the potential impact of the events on the estimated$75,000.00 Open Space maintenance dollars requested. Typically event sponsors pay for the additional costs associated with planning events in our Parks. These cost include items such as portable restrooms and hand washing facilities, litter pickup, garbage collection charges, damage repairs and electrical needs, to name a few. However, usually our staff are impacted since they need to be present prior to and during set up as well as during take down to assure a successful event as well as protect Parks assets. The additional net impact of these events to our maintenance budget for the recommended library open space design is estimated at: -2 large events (over 10,000 people per day, 4 days long) 2@ $2,000.00 Total $4,000.00 -2 medium events (3,000 people per day, day long) 2@$200.00 Total $400.00 -6 small events (200-500 people per day, day long) 6@ $50.00 Total $300.00 These figures total $4,700.00. rounded up to $5,000.00. As a result we are requesting that the open space maintenance budget be increased from $75,000.00 to a total of$80,000.00. Please call if you may need additional information. Parviz Rokhva x7920 Library Commons Open Space Briefing to the Salt Lake City Council Tuesday, August 13, 2002 Attachment 4: Meeting memo from Jan Aramaki to Council Members regarding Library Crosswalk on 200 East Meeting memo from Jan Aramaki to Council Members regarding Library Crosswalk on 200 East May 30,2002 Meeting Topic: proposed crosswalk mid-block on 200 East between 400 and 500 South Streets Purpose of the proposed crosswalk/signal is to provide an improved/safer connection between the library block and the City& County block. In the past,there were reported pedestrian accidents at this crosswalk. This led City employees to express an interest and support to have a signal installed at the current crosswalk between the library block and the City&County Building. Library block parking: Once the library block is completed, entrance to the underground parking for City employees will be from 500 South. Entrance to the public library parking lot will be from 400 South. Council staff understands that once the City employee's parking lot area becomes full,City employees will have the option to access the public parking lot directly from the City parking lot. However,the public would not have direct access to the City employee parking lot from the public parking lot. A walkway will lead City employees and the public from the library undeground parking lots out onto the west side of the library block, east side of 200 East. City employees will cross 200 East to access the City &County Building grounds. Crosswalk/signal updates: Tim Harpst reported that the Transportation Division has set aside funds (approximately$100,000) for the purpose of installing a crosswalk/signal mid- block on 200 East between 400 and 500 South Streets. The signal was put on hold until the library project could be tied into the crosswalk. Estimated cost to complete the signal/crosswalk is$400,000 (includes irrigation for planting). Steve Crane (VCBO Architecture) presented options for the proposed sidewalk: 1) Relocate the current crosswalk from the north side entrance of the City&County Building circle to the south side entrance of the circle. Brick will be used for the crosswalk. 2) Transform the circle into a"true" horseshoe shape-construction will include reconfiguration of the curb and gutter area at the entrances of the circle. 3) Landscape islands to the south and north side of the crosswalk- down the middle of 200 East. Islands will remain the width of the islands that are currently painted on 200 East. Curb and gutter for islands will be installed. 4) Steve Oliver asked if the proposed plans were presented to the City& County Building Conservancy and Use Committee and the Historic Landmark Commission. Steve Crane reported that he was informed that historic issues located within the City& County Building block (not including the building) is a decision of the City&County Building Conservancy and Use Committee-- not a decision for the Historic Landmark Commission. Steve Crane met with the City&County Building Conservancy and Use Committee. The Committee does not have any concerns about the proposed construction that will impact the circle paved area on the east side of the City&County Building. There is no historical significance connected with the circle. Approval was received from the Historic Committee to move forward with the plans to reconfigure the driveway as per proposed plans for the crosswalk. Steve asked if they have checked with the Administration-there are plans to incorporate drought resistant plants/materials in the landscaped area within the circle on the east side of the City& County Building. Transportation plans to check to see if the crosswalk/signal construction would impact this landscaping. 5) Approximately 1-2 stalls on each side of the circle will be lost as part of the crosswalk construction. 6) Tim Harpst emphasized that it's important to remember that westbound traffic will have limited access to City Hall through the east side circle area. For example,if a driver is traveling west on 400 South, due to TRAX, a left turn is prohibited onto 200 East;in addition, a proposed landscaped island will prohibit northbound drivers from making a left-hand turn into the circle. However, DJ Baxter mentioned that more parking spaces for the public will open up along 500 South once the Library City employee parking lot is completed and the Administrative Court moves to its new location-- public will not depend so much on the circle for parking. 7) Estimated that the best time to start the crosswalk would be in the fall with an estimated completion to be within three months. Questions and uncertainties: • At this time, the Administration needs to determine which department will take the lead on this project. • Where will the remainder of the funds come from? • Is the Council in support of the proposed signal/crosswalk? • Does the Mayor support the proposed signal/crosswalk? • ilik ;ilk i .4.A. 1:*:,:,,,i',,.. -. ,... t 41/4,1, '' r, f• lit• a 4 ' ._ _y _�., • y a• :• .,,•• "� •- ,ter-� 'a +a.:, :� • -i v., ,:.:4, +ad_ / ' ,IF %'+fit r R i • , . ; t,lbs ..try_ .,p. i • • Acknowledgements Mayor's Office Ross C.Anderson,Mayor Jay Magure,Chief of Staff D.1.Baxter,Senior Advisor City Council Carlton Christensen,District One Van Blair Turner,District Two K.Eric Jergensen,District Three Nancy Saxton,District Four Jill Remington Love,District Five David L.Buhler,District Six Dale Lambert,District Seven Russell Weeks,Policy Analyst Library Staff Nancy Tessman,Director Anne Menzies,Capital Improvements Manager • Chip Ward,Assistant Director Deeda Seed,Administrative Assistant City Staff Stephen Goldsmith,Director,Planning Department Rick Graham,Director,Parks Department Val Pope,Division Manager,Parks Department Del Cook,Public Services Department Stephanie Duer,Water Conservation Coordinator Arts and Cultural Groups Joe Andrade,Director,Utah Science Center Leslie G.Kelen,Director,Center for Documentary Arts Kent Miles,Director of Photography,Center for Documentary Arts Elaine S.Harding,Director,Global Artways Sheila Yorkin,Gallivan Center Julie Brown,Gallivan Center Lisa Sewell,Utah Arts Festival Robyn Nelson,Utah Arts Festival Nancy Boskoff,Salt Lake City Arts Council Consultants Civitas Inc. Moshe Safdie and Associates VCBO Architects • Construction Control Corporation • Contents Summary 4 Public Comment Summary 5 Design Issues Summary 6-8 Design Option A 9-10 Design Option B 11-12 Recommend Scheme 13-19 Next Steps 20-21 Appendix I:Public Process • Library Squ re • 1 _.,,k;= Summary With the recent commitment to open space approved by the City Council and Administra- tion of Salt Lake City,Library Square is poised to become the central public realm,or public gathering and cultural space for the entire city of Salt Lake. Many see this idea as the solution to a missing piece of Salt Lake's civic realm and an out- standing message to the citizenry.Library Square and Washington Square together could become the symbolic centerpiece of the city—a Common Ground.Library Square could also demonstrate the city's commitment to refocus its neighborhood revitalization efforts to the central city and the long-forgotten needs of the adjacent community. With this vision,the role of programming for the East Side of the block began to evolve. A mixture of active plaza,passive open space,outdoor performance space,theaters and cultural facilities began to take shape as a place to engage the public in the same diversity and richness of Salt Lake City.Then the question of programming began to emerge-what is the best way to keep in tact the interests of the neighborhood while still retaining the desire to hold cultural events at Library Square? At the end of the previous design study,the option for the open space showed,among other features,a large amphitheater lawn,permanent band shell,and curvilinear hard sur- • face seat walls(that scheme is referred to in this report as Option A).Salt Lake City Council asked that a lower impact option be explored and discussed with the public.The intention of this was to integrate better with the scale of the neighborhood,support fewer major events,and perhaps is less expensive to build. The design team created this alternative scheme(referred to as Option B in this report)and, with city and library staff,held public open houses to receive comment on the two schemes. Public comments were received for three weeks. In addition,the design team had some contact with city staff relating to the issues of water use and maintenance. The design team then created the recommended scheme, which is based on public comment,city staff comment,the ;I, iI I'` desi n rind les,Libra S uare tenant ro rammin and , ' a/' 9 P P ry q P 9 9 f design issues,and greater citywide programming issues. a '... �1 ,i O. 110010.0°' 0 0:.k' , ,,,,, ,;, --,,,,_. . : it 000 01 ---_ - to t4. A' ,,, • - 2r- Current Construction of the new library page 4 • Open House Public Comment Summary With the two options,the design team along with library and city staff,conducted a four-hour open house at the downtown main library.Approximately 100 people and four media outlets attended the event,and the members of the public submitted more than 40 written comment cards at the meeting.The Administration conducted four additional open houses,one in each quadrant of the city. The response from the public was overwhelmingly positive,with many participants simply commending the city for committing to open space on this block.Both design schemes were very well received.Even so,the consultants and city staff spent time with individual participants to understand specific preferences.Some general concerns were: • Open space design should be responsive more to a neighborhood park and cul- tural and educational use events,rather than major public events such as festivals and concerts. • The ability to erect a temporary stage was preferred over a permanent band shell. • The use of landform rather than walls was preferred to break down the scale of the site into smaller,intimate garden areas. • Flexible, seamless spaces were preferred over permanent structures. Gallivan Plaza was used as an example of an inflexible space because of the planters and buildings that divide the space into many parts. • Having multiple ways to move through the site was important. Use of stairs, bridges,and ramps become interesting activity areas,both for people watching and access. • The public generally preferred less hardscape spaces for heat and glare issues and suggested planting amply for shade where possible.However,there was a general concern over water use.Water wise landscape practices were suggested, possibly using xeric plants,more crushed granite pathways,and tapping into an underwater aquifer as a water source rather than using potable city water. At the same time, some city staff noted the desire by the city to use this open space as a catalyst for redevelopment in the adjacent neighborhood.There was a concern about the appearance of drought I tolerant plants and their maintenance needs.The use 7771- of conventional plant materials, such as blue grass lawn, shade trees, and flower gardens, provides a familiar, marketable amenity for possible multistory housing or mixed-use development that may occur • (111:7 W nearby. • June 22,2002 Salt Lake City Library Public Meeting for discussion of two open space design options page 5 • Design Issues Summary Library Square is a rare place where the best of civic life is showcased and a commitment to the neighborhood and downtown is dem- onstrated.The combination of new Central Library and the new Center for Science,Art and Culture offers an unprecedented oppor • - tunity for Salt Lake City,to provide a focus i"icy that connects people to the spirit of the city. ' • Its adjacency to the City and County Building •r G/ and Washington Square reinforces its mean- ing v to the citizens.Moreover,public uses on the block assure that no one group makes it their turf. Library Square's form will celebrate the rich- ness of cities.Many cultural and civic activi- • ties can occur here.Library Square's size and a - configuration make it highly adaptable, —.- _ _ - , • � — • •whereby small spaces can be combined with ` others so its use can be changed almost on The existing library will soon house a dynamic mix of science,art and cultural groups.This a daily basis.It's designed to be comfortable, centralized location will undoubtedly strengthen the image of the adjacent neighborhood. handsome and refined so that it's a nice place to be when alone,but durably crafted to sup- port thousands. The public investment in Library Square through the creation of a civic center is a strong message to private developers and property owners:Salt Lake City is commit- ted to a positive future in the city center. Combined with completion of the Central Community Plan and subsequent policy and zoning changes that create incentives for infill,mixed-use redevelopment,there is a strong likelihood that a forty-year trend of decline will be reversed. The positive rede- velopment impact of a well designed,active, diverse public space will be significant. • page 6 • Activities During the interviews of neighbors,tenants,and constituents,a more specific vision about Library Square began to develop.By basis of comparison to other venues and open spaces in Salt Lake City,people discussed what did and didn't work at those places,and what Library Square could be. Some topics were particularly important to note: + • Programmed Activities.The new library and"Center i ._ for Science,Art,and Culture"tenants are excellent resources for -:,--.....--mix,n providing,coordinating,managing and schedulingprogrammed tit•�. P 9- 9 9 P 9 e." events in conjunction with the city and arts organizations. This !jii`(,. rt ,_( . -,., management coordination is critical to assure that the open space "`\ s not over programmed,so that the open space can still be a place of quiet retreat. Non-programmed Activities. The open space is to be .y .. ���11111 4 '' L • used by the citizenry,and should be open-ended enough so that _. - .- ..— ,., 1 people are free to create and stage their own activities:a political ..`s _ rally,reading under a shade tree,or family picnics.This requires a _i , space that is adaptable in materials and form "'' • Day-by-day Activities.Library Square also serves as the neighborhood open space.Here neighbors can walk the dog • and kids can meet and play. • Amenities. Furnishings such as tables and chairs, '��' -+ } ' trash receptacles,water fountains,etc,must be well designed, 4�' � +.' well considered and durable.Access to public restrooms in one or .. .• .• .,..,.. ....I. : more public buildings should be apart of the plan,with portable tjK '?"'•_ '•- restrooms provided for larger events. Artwork is best showcased + ..,, •,�II , ' , - when integrated with the open space architecture,both in scale • .--'Y., / v:"jrt:Si and placement >.r ,:tt.•t io,, y.. . • Who uses this open space?Senior citizens,women _�� •• •• ' with children,and teens are most likely to be the repeat,daily or ", '.-.,. .,;z•= K _ga weekly users of this space.Special consideration was addressed to i' their needs so for better integration in the design and program- ming• of Library Square. .I • Adaptable spaces allow for multiple kinds of use by a diversified community. page 7 • Design Principles Through study of the site and its conditions, the design team established principles that would apply to the design options. These principles are primarily based on site function, building condi- tions that are fixed, and neighborhood constraints &opportunities. These principles are: 1. Develop a relationship between the corners of the site (at 300 East &400 South and 300 East& 500 South) and the adjacent neighborhood. 2. Extend access into the site through mid-block connections 3. Utilize a sloping lawn to cover the roof of the shops adjacent to the crescent wall. 4. Respond to the parking structure ramps 5. Extend the central plaza space into the east portion of the site. This will activate the East Side, making it seem like the "front" rather than the "back." 6. Develop a movement corridor between the southeast corner to the central portion of the site. 7. Plant trees where underground parking garage does not prohibit. IDCONCEPTUAL DESIGN B A. PRINCIPLES Li ,,.�.--,�-._..,�.- -�-e,",e_ ., .. >- - 1 I-�. . r ii i •, ,,, .� ter" x Develop corner spaces that respond d� i: . ' A. to the surrounding neighborhood F NEW CENTRAL LIBRARY R CONSTRUC -_� - }. Extend mid-block axis for future (`//' pedestrian crossings ' ' 'r �+ ` V Sloping landform to cover roof of ✓ D LIBRARY PLAZA • LT• }:24 ) shop space @ Library Plaza (UNDER CONSTRUCTION) f' x t t E ) Develop access between southeast4 - 4; , C% /I: f , , corner&library plaza y ;' .,.. , Extend library plaza east EXISTING LIBRARY �' (new Center for Science,Art, S �`\ 111 i .�, , &Culture) /� tlitt Acknowledge parking structure I �i i 4 A entrance/exit ramps j eir" 8 CIVRAS 'T+ �r� �`UIr7� ,. 13 August 2002 Moshe UMW and Associates 7[IN C9.1II ' :CjMg® ®Iu®�j]I ;'.)irOdVO® - __ VCBOArMRects �J liff __- Conceptual Diagram " II page 8 • Design Option A Design Option A Design Option A is based primarily on programmatic desires of the new tenants at Library Square and the idea that frequent events of 3,000-4,000 people would be held here.The landforms are simple and materials are durable.Retaining walls are used to compensate for grade changes,and provide comfortable places to sit for smaller programmed events. The corners of the site are devoted to more articulated gardens,serving as a transition to the adjacent neighborhood. CMKent Wal S.1al G.a.l-, 'MibAAc EnIN • Der,Entrance Pa(1 - - J=M'• 1 ^� rr Id.N Rodlpp Gar. - ♦ ! ...w ua.yP c.aen r-11' 1. / .,.. a._ �C ` ,4 Tnala Paza _:-'''.'7..,:i4.r,_:Z.;_;,.e...„, .-i,- MO-Bock Enry J� •`Two_ WaEne OIsnma-Ge.aen ) _ --—_ \ ;// ma O.wbok +, "Canitt.Scien.M an,' / ," -jM 110-Ms .w'vr� — ch.ane Gardens AM . • \—1.1id-block Entry CIYR4me see mt. fa Ana 3002 wowDesign Option A • page 9 • Major Design Features • The Diamond Gardens-Patterned perennial gardens at the north and south corners along 300 East. • The Overlook-A crescent shaped retaining wall varying in height from two feet to 10 feet high,along the length of 300 East,which serves as an edge for the music lawn and an overlook at the southern portion of the site.A bridge passes over part of the Bowls walkway,creating an attraction from which to people watch. • The Shell-A permanent band shell,orchestra sized. • The Music Lawn-An open lawn,capable of holding up to 5,000 people for events. • The Bowls-A series of concrete seat steps built into the landscape,which hold 20 to 90 people each in amphitheater style seating(total of 175 people) • Theater Plaza-a stone plaza with multi level concrete seat steps and lawn area sur- rounding.Capable of holding up to 1350 people. • - - Frev, ' . rfur :1 •.41 legend: M,1 - I L. ti , Design Option A Maximum Potential People:6690 • page 10 • Design Grd o a C Design Option B The intent of Option B is to create a softer, less event focused open space. Many of the retaining walls of Option A are replaced with sloping landforms and trees, which main- tains the grand scale appropriate for the site. Grading variations, in the form of rolling landform, offer variety and pedestrian scaled spaces,while still accommodating for small programs and events. Using smaller scale gardens at the corners of the site reflect a neighborhood character. Crescent Wall - _____—. Sunken Garden - --Mid-Block QM,/ Pexi,in ww.tell I. Diamond Gardens 3' P p ; ;; ; jT1 "'►''`-.�'f \�:j .1 �, . Great Lawn Library Children s Garden ' - • r' � r if 1„^'^"•'"+ - r/ •••1"" -Crescent Trees Library Plaza Garden 7 •.H • h I 1 t I,r,. Sfc�oV P ♦e 1 -''�°"�.I \ Mid-Block Entry re.f..�i., _ .1e "� / I Theater"Plaza, i` ;s i n , _ -..,. -.. I 1 .� .4 ,^Ia -- •.4 Theater Lawr e. ..L Me w. r C i \ e... : " Mlo-Block Entry- t 'r rr :„ ,, .,.ay, „1 •.,. ;,3. ter:,.. Wedge Diamond Garden ,apt \ Diamond Gardens 'Center!or Science.Art and- .� 1 """'''"I"" Culture"Expansion Area, ill Interim Lawn Terrace � Ia_:W�.uc . * All:Si x .1 - .- The Waves Center,for Science.Art and12 "/ \ a w,-iL f''' �.,»,,..;I,. Culture"Terrace - - • a.:•rl�^;.:rn,.,,rA, •. , ;4 to!.-:..r..l^^.:uC•:rlu,:,, Mid-block Entry CIVITAS r '' (� �l r� 22 June 2002 Moshe Sallie and llneoclatas �Ll l bi�a r/ ✓_I,1;1 165-1:J ?1 ,G i pyp n . i rl}l���`a YC110 Nchneete - 11= N Design Option B • page 11 Major Design Features • The Diamond Gardens-smaller in total area than Option A,but same uses. • The Crescent Trees-a triple row of trees which mimics the crescent building at the new central library,extends along the length of 300 south.This serves as the edge for the Great Lawn and Theater Lawn. • The Great Lawn-an open lawn,which could support a temporary stage for events, capable of holding up to 3000 people for events. • The Waves- rolling lawn-covered landforms are informal gathering and play areas. Capable of supporting up to 100 people. • Theater Plaza-a stone plaza,with informal seating on lawn and seat wall.Capable of supporting up to 1100 people. • r c --FNry..-5.- Legend: : [ y' • • 11, 1 No Design Option B Maximum Potential People:4365 • page 12 • Recommended Scheme Recommended Option The recommended option lends itself to more passive, day-to-day users, who may frequent the library, future cultural center, or who live in the neighborhood. There are a variety of spaces: places to seek solitude under a shade tree, gather in small groups for readings or outdoor education, or listen to music or hold rallies in groups of 100 people on a more regular basis. The Great Lawn supports occasional smaller cultural or civic events up to 2500 people. The once or twice a year festival or event of several thousand can still occur here, but with more up-front staging and post-event restoration required. Temporary stages would need to be set up for these events. The recommended scheme strengthened the shade planting where possible, and aug- mented the low water use areas. The number of trees was increased, with a wide variety of tree species introduced to provide shade and variety. A greater balance between lawn areas and hardscape and crushed gravel areas was achieved, Other areas have been designated as available for more drought tolerant plants that may reduce the amount of lawn areas further. The number of walkways, ramps and stairs were increased, allowing for easy access to all • areas of the site. Seat walls, fixed benches and furnishings are concentrated along edges and site features. These two improvements allow for increases in activity and visibility, making the space a "place." page 1:3 • Crescent Wall Sunken Garden Mid-block Entry -Fig T if c T T- i- C- P T,` _ - - -\ ' Library Enttranc ..�%/J' %`i•?i_,i•�j�-'.<j yy, 1 L.1 +,. 1`'` '.'4 1. Plaza ;� '' � �'' cr i Vl\\ - The Corner Gardens Library Rooftop Garden % r '' �(7 I 11 ` � .�%'1... \' • ,, F` S�Gt\SNP Er y >r1 . ,� r. Zg; Crescent Tree Promenade , 41 I2 q Library Children's Garden - - -- S t r k. 11 ; Great Lawn "I T. j , .. i i k. 1 ti �l m moo, ) Ot L'_-1 , ". I LibraryPlaza Garden �� Mid block Entry 1 1 / i , , Theater Plaza f / i t + —`- 1 Crescent Tree Promenade 'Mid-block Crosswalk I I_ t, 1 Improvements l� 1 .44 Mid-block Entry 1/ y i` . The Waves s i The Corner Gardens ,`'Center for Science, i 4 ✓/ Art and Culture �, r yy �y� �► -- #• ` Sic. - Mid-block Entry ID page 14 Recommended Scheme • Library Crescent Tree 300 East Plaza Great Lawn Great Lawn with trees over grade Promenade Streetscape NV v, �� t� \ - r + .. 1 ii,I i 1 ::-- -'— -.---r_ i.- ai__L_LE-- i I; ;; , L _1 • Library 300 East Plaza Theatre/Theater Plaza The Waves Steetscaoe 1 t - ` --- "-- - 1.,1, .+*mil+_ +.a.ua•.s ,...a.,.. 3.tct�a :v._ 4 L � � i t L 1 �1 - _1 t 11 11 lip it !I page 15 Major Features Major Design Features • The Corner Gardens at 400 South and 500 South were reconfigured to offer gener- ous planting spaces and provide clear access to the interior of the site.While they are currently designed utilizing low-water-use,ornamental grasses for ease in city mainte- nance,these areas could be"adopted"by adjacent neighborhood users,as demonstra- tion gardens by water-wise plant organizations,or by the new tenants at Library Square in educational purposes. • The Crescent Trees area was widened and changed from lawn underplanting to crushed gravel.Use of different Oak species provides ample shade and beautiful fall color.Fixed benches and tables are arranged in multiple ways for different seating options. • The Great Lawn is now smaller because of the increase in the Crescent Tree area,and supports a wide variety of large shade trees.A temporary stage can be erected at the base of the sloping lawn,and the potential number of users was reduced to about 2000. Access routes to the Great Lawn were added from the north mid block entry and theater plaza. • The Waves use rolling landforms to create informal seating and imaginative play areas. Additional paths and stairs were added at the Waves to provide better access to the upper elevations.The bridge from Option A was modified to be smaller and less opaque, more in keeping with the bridges found in the new Central Library. This bridge activates this part of the site and creates a"place to be." • Theater Plaza uses a low seatwall to provide informal seating along the edge for day-to- day use,while the lawn area seats up to 1100 people for events.The Crescent Tree area activates the upper elevations of the lawn area here,with its fixed benches and tables providing comfortable places to sit in the shade. page 16 • Great Lawn z rr a",ti I \ s , ---. / .- Iti,:-3,„_ / I X*, i,...:1. ' ''';11 , Vli f -. . ..._� 1. ., •I r � � '� . it ;�. !�, I III 3� 1 r II rl. _ 1 y, I� �� f _ _ _ • The Corner Gardens / „ y i 1 0 li Mid-Block Crosswalk it ..50 it / ` s� • Improvements ! i i v �� { 4 / "` � �, 1 lax ,. a -• -, -1 / ,� ' v ` ' ` �/ =I� 6 f 7:::: I \ l; I # , N ' Crescent Tree Promenade The Waves • % . page 17 Major Features Diagram • ...s......,,,,,,...,,..,....1,..,., 1 '..,'",...,,,.. .. .... „ . . „ ci i '-..- - .,—,,,,. .,. ,...., • ,, : :yew ,, , 9- ,,,,,,_. - . ,,,,,:-.iv=- , , , w.... —,1,.:.:. : .':--,.S.,-,-.•t.-444-,.:. . ,;•,,. - '.. .. ... l. , • .. I, .. .-..,: 4tell ` . ..., •,-. . a. . ----*-- ---,, ".,.....", ..p._.. . •- '..• -4( i.,,t. •,...., ; ..,,,x.4. 4 4,,..:.,.- : . !,,, . - .., ?. . Nfw, - .. .., . , . .. • ,p i,- .• ., It -# , ... - ,-x . f„,i_0 , „„: - .„.., .„..„.... --cv. ....4 .t , ,•,„ . , 1 ., ,. i ,e... ; • .. - • t-it ..• ,.. _._. ... • . . ' .,--. , .. • , ,,,,,, ,. •. . ,, -...-: s :- .., .... —., „-... • , , .., . . . .. ...„, -,,,Amir• . 4....,..to_ ,L ' .t4"•-:•,.".', ..•.,‘ !PC., , ,,*,I •'' --..;-,,,,,",,Itai, ....,,, ,, -•,•:`,/. 4,-;2.• . , 'Is , . . , .• _. . • • 4., i,,A.'... "...:;`,.:14.,- -•• . 44,40,. ,-.,m.,,,,-- - ' . - ...: !.--_, • • , .-- ..„..•. . .. -.— .. •!":-....:_.---- 1 ... .. - • - • .0.,,wilir01-%—.'":" .,-,!-: __, —.0.4.- .., .- ',,, —'.•:14,• ,.. . ', ,1--• „e .. ...w.r-' ' • - .,. . 4 . . ,. • ., , ...,, . . .,• --,imel oalikom.„:4itto ,-. .. -.0 . . . . • lc ... ... .. . .... . . . ... . , .. co . ,. .. ..,:,.....:..7.„:..„....gil,. _.,.. 1111111, , I_ . ,,-;.:..-..,.:10000-, .•., ,.., :4'7/ ,,i' ,. c .„„,L-f - „, t: . , . •- . _ ,..., .„. iifti E ,... Jr .. - , /..9.-"'. ,N... ,... . . :..'... 1 : , . i .. .., ....,., . . ,I • ' da . . • • " •''" . N.'-' . 0 . .,.. .' ...'',C'...•i ' 1.• 0 . ,. .. •- . •• . . . 44% .-1---.••.- ,' ,44...',‘ '''''''' 'r."': ''' (s)•sti .! . . k,,• CD icapri1044- i 444 :,. . C.) . . . . , .6. • .''' ' AO - . .-,..- ' i144 ',-,- '.^ " ,'Ai'.. •‘,. 3 0,)AV *V' 7 ' -40,,..,.„ . . .,. ., . is 4 . 1 i . . , . .% a. .slitt ,.._.... . tfir ',- ' .) --- • ., ,.. 0 .51: ':4>' .-' ,.,. • - ,',...;.''..° :;k`!--„-''''' - - . a).. _....-., , • ' ._.... ,. . , ,-,,,,,, - .. _ ... a .,•. :re . .. . ... . . --+ • •• lfr -- 0 . , 5,,,--- , , co .‘. .. • -•ieo . . -, ,- ,,,,,:.1.: 0. .., . . ,...,- ...... ,„ t . , • . ..,..:. . ..,,,,'„.t. ?..•...'..4.... ., ,it:. .. .... ....7 . . .. .. . , . , -- . i .?.. . .., ,., —.....•-.7 •4 '4 ' ,." ....„.: .. ' • -.,.•-, . 4ii4ALIMIN114-. :..- •-. - ..;?. '`,.• -. ' "" - ...--.:" - 7" 7!..,",,,its,,-: ..• , •.1.,-.. i' . .......4.,g- • •. . , . . ,I. ' --• . ., .,.. -4,--. . . . . ....... 4.4 V It. ''' .• , •• . •• ' ...... litg4aki.V'•..."•.: .• ,Ole • •'Ot 1 ..... . • I'.. . • .f. ., , 0 . . ..,...,..:: , ...,„ 1 - . . . , . ,., • • • '-4.. tv-''''3..:4-'- • -4•.'".• . ...% • .. .....',-.1.,, ,,, •. !.'. •' .IL- ‘iii.. --- .,•-• Ifli, ...,.. - A 'IP iiti .. . .. I .. . . . . . .7. -.... .. . , . . .. .. - - .•tii,,,k,r4,,,,..11,.11.,.., , :.. .... • - ,. - ..„ „,„ ,,,„it OK' • .„. •.., ,• .,. v.:'.,.,..: .. -44 ''3fill':-' 'i'',; .•—- - :* -'''''. .— —— .../14,,, ',7'"-'-'v;.'''; `:--rr, ,•-4- ,. _.. r ... -.4.. ,...el, - . ... ,',„•'. *,., , At 7:' . . ..,.. , , g,. ...-." ' AP, I t( ' • t .. 't'''• .. 1 : .4X . . 'f C '1 1V k' 4,f 4 • ,. .4 •••• ,4,' - . • 4- ' .i.., 9 • I 4 '-‘46.,•. , ... . • . . .. . ? .... .. ,.:: .I.:.r, 1,') . -., •'. ' i „ , •,. . _a .,4.' '- :.Z. -',...t 7„,•.-,. ' ,..---•. .. .. , •'''-.N.,.,t ' ..: ;' ''''I'... ."..',-;",Vflig',.-.-,'-. •'-- '. : ;IV•----- -- ' *t , y"6,' • • O. 'i ., .,•4 '.., .... •I'kt. ..,, 44 I' ‘.1 l't ,, ..1, - ' ' . '!.1,-:,,,•.) . ,•• 'i : • • ‘1 • 4-4-ii. 44-•••414.4, - re, ••,:w . - • t , ,,,,, , . Ai. •:.Fi4t ...., •-!•'• . lir VI --(1) 4) kili '041 - .,•11 ' \. •upt, 4..... .. .., , . . ,„„,. ,...... , — 1 .. ,.. ....... . -:.'.-,"• -- „1,-- . > co / 4fr '- ,. .• . ...„,:„. . .,. NW AI '' • 0 1 W4,. -I.', • . - ,, ': -., , - '- .,--•' .. , 4111001 i . '41.. li • I :"I.'; ' — ,k,'-. . —. • . 1 40 . • . . . .. ,n4 ,''.. • (1) :: ; . . ., ... 0 :, , • ..-45fil--..... :, Z .._ tif 71 - t i ..1 ' 'i • 4-4, • a. (1) J. i lir,''.,,, , ,2.• '.. . 1- 0 •t.• .. . I „„. , t. •. ; 1.T.t ,-,, if 44- ,• $ 4,.. 4.-.•• •. -4, ,.=. ';.. ....' ...•.•- 1,jp, . .6)164:- 11/4 4,,, ..., ; .,.;.-. .,.k...1 k:•.•..-- L.. i, , .. .....,..:,.11... ,- 4,) .- ,,..••,.. • , - t..“1 . .. • 1.7r. !Si ..t !'. ':.,.-- 46P., ' , ., .,. .. da,., .. :.t. . it T. ...tir%fiR • ' • ..',111,.‘ lo . ' .. : t,. • , .. If. ...„. . . .. , • , , . 4 c .4: ., • 4 , ':‘,;.4, ! -.• - • •-• ., ...,•'.,#-A, .',t, . . * •' . ".'' l'el..j . ' ! lor• ,01,14.:At :- :,* ,. •.,,- ,r. • t• IA_ •,,, . . •. •44". ,.. k.,jilt 4,' d, '. :III 14.7: - • '',,' .'. ' -7-... -...:'''''..11 tiai ' .. .. t' *),,, ...4.,. -' . i i I . - '7, .: fii z , / /.. . 1' '• r . . ..,.. . •. - -4, # .•• ., 1!..- ,---' • . 'Av., '' ••:. f".• ,. -. ,.. . .,.. LN... ' ••• .. , i, '., ..‘•J,'. lit -.•. . .. . .,. .. , ... .1 .... . - . • • • • I Next Steps Timing and Process The construction of the new central library is to be complete this winter,including its asso- ciated the public amenities-plazas,fountains,and gardens. With resolution of the design for the East Side of the block,timing could be that Library Square,in its entirety,is com- plete by late summer 2003. The design process should continue with interagency and public collaboration and is antic- ipated to include: • Development of design details and refinements-for example,potential artwork,or possible associations with plant interest groups or botanical centers. • Detailed resolution of event programs in collaboration with all potential user groups and city staff.It is recommended that an informal management group be formed, composed of Library and Center for Science,Art and Culture staff,City staff,local event coordinators,and neighborhood representatives.This group would coordinate the planning,management,and maintenance issues associated with the events at Library Square. • City Council,agency staff,and neighborhood reviews • Construction documents,bidding,and construction implementation Budget Costs Intersection Improvements $423,000 Library Square-East Side Improvements $4.4 million Funds Library Bond Funding $1.2 million Funding need $3.7 million Neighborhood Planning Effort While the design direction for the East Side of Library Square was the purpose of this study,the overall goal of leveraging this open space into private reinvestment into the adjacent neighborhood remains. Developing Library Square as a true civic and cultural center is a very important step in this process. The combination of public investment in the Library,public and private investment in the proposed mix of cultural facilities and the development of active public space can be the catalyst needed. More work is needed in the neighborhood to capitalize on the city investment,however. The Central Area Community Plan is an important beginning. Transit-oriented zoning has been proposed along the 400 South corridor,however an intermediate-planning step may be a benefit to make such zone changes appropriate and effective. This effort may include an area roughly from State Street to 700 East,and from 200 South to 600 South or slightly larger. This is a neighborhood that has suffered from significant policy and economic impacts over many years. The existing zoning and land values have tended to cause a dramatic replacement of once affordable homes and apartments into office,institutional and retail uses.Instead of a dense,mixed-use corridor that could benefit from light rail,the 400 South corridor has become strip retail oriented to the car. As a result the quality of the page 20 • neighborhood has diminished steadily and in many locations residential is almost extin- guished. Neighbors are forced out due to property sale, land value, or simple unwilling- ness to tolerate the situation. Steps should be taken to turn the neighborhood around. The neighborhood meet- ings held during this planning process have shown a group of residents that truly and deeply care about the future, but who are also frustrated with the lack of policy focus and change to support their needs. Even though this administration has begun an active focus on stabilization and revitalization, it will take time and effort to turn the tide firmly toward the positive. This effort will require leadership from within the administration and from within the community. Turning a neighborhood around requires a number of elements. Policies and zoning need to shift to make appropriate, mixed use or residential development profitable for small infill projects that do not over-scale existing buildings. Developers need to become aware of the opportunities. Property owners that have held land for development need certainty regarding land use and value. Neighbors need certainty that these shifts will be a benefit and not a scheme for gentrification. These shifts can only result from a concerted and consistent effort to create a shared vision of stabilization and revitalization. To accomplish this requires an ongoing planning effort focused on creating a Small Area plan. The Small Area Plan should be developed in a process that involves neighbors and city staff in jointly identifying the threats and opportunities that are present, the hopes and fears of the residents and property owners, and the policy objectives of the administration and council. Working in an iterative plan- ning process, the Small Area Plan might include the following: • Land use objectives and plan • Transportation objectives and plan • Schools and community facilities • Public realm, pedestrian areas and open space • Urban design character, street by street • Transit-oriented development objectives • Infill development objectives • Neighborhood and historic preservation objectives • Policy recommendations • Zoning recommendations • Potential development design guidelines The Small Area Plan is an important tool that will build community support for appropri- ate policy and zoning change. In other communities this type of effort has proven to be the foundation of real neighborhood change. The process of building a neighborhood plan is cumbersome, but through it the real balance of community opinion is learned, while the leadership and momentum emerges. Together, these factors create the condi- tions needed for success in changing policies and in attracting the right new investments that will bring the plan into reality. page 21 -�-_--�-----�--- --�----�--mow,��n µ-..-__-_.�,_.--------_--_=�•- -- - -- -- -- - Appendix I: Public Process New Building Outreach April 27,2000 Public Meeting:Architects discussing building and east side of block plan May 3,2000 Central City Community Council Greater Avenues Community Council August 19,2000 Farmer's Market August 24,2000 Fair Park Community Council August 25,2000 Hispanic Festival August 26,2000 Chapman Street Fair September 6,2000 Sugar House Community Council September 9,2000 9'h and 9th Street Fair September 13,2000 Liberty Wells Community Council September 16,2000 Avenues Street Fair September 20,2000 Rio Grande Community Council Indian Hills Community Council September 23,2000 Great Salt Lake Book Fair September 26,2000 Yalecrest Community Council September 27,2000 Poplar Grove Community Council October 11,2000 Jordan Meadows Community Council East Central Community Council October 18,2000 Capitol Hill Community Council November 1,2000 Rose Park Community Council December 3,2000 Hanukkah Festival at JCC December 6,2000 People's Freeway Community Council March 7,2001 Public Presentation:Landscape City Council Presentation:Landscape City Staff Presentation:Landscape June 12,2001 Jordan Meadows Community Council June 16,2001 Asian Pacific Festival June 28,2001 Fair Park Community Council July 7,2001 Slavic Festival August 11,2001 Chapman Street Fair August 24,2001 Celtic Festival Sept.8,2001 9th and 9'h Street Fair Oct.25,2001 Downtown Alliance Breakfast Nov. 18,2001 Hanukkah Bazaar Nov. 19,2001 P.E.O.Meeting New Building/East Side of Block 37 Public Meetings August 5, 1999 Public Invited to Meet with Architects for New Main Library Project February 12,2000 Salt Lake City Unveils Moshe Safdie's Design for New Main Public Library April 27,2000 Public Invited to Meet with Library and Landscape Architects May 31,2000 Public Open House to Discuss Development Options for East Side of New Library Block March 7,2001 Landscape Proposal for New Main Library Public Plaza and Roof Garden Focus of Open House December 17,2001 Public Meeting to Discuss Development Options for East Side of New Library Block January 15,2002 Public Meeting to Discuss Development Options for East Side of New Library Block June 22,2002 Public Open House at the current library for presentation of two open space development schemes July 8,2002 Public Open House at the Sorenson Center for presentation of two open space development schemes July 9,2002 Public Open House at the Sweet Library for presentation of two open space devel- opment schemes July 10,2002 Public Open House at the Day-Riverside library for presentation of two open space development schemes July 11,2002 Public Open House at the Sprague library for presentation of two open space development schemes