The URL can be used to link to this page

02/21/2023 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA WORK SESSION February 21, 2023 Tuesday 2:00 PM Council Work Room 451 South State Street Room 326 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 SLCCouncil.com 7:00 pm Formal Meeting Room 326 (See separate agenda) Welcome and public meeting rules In accordance with State Statute and City Ordinance, the meeting may be held electronically. After 5:00 p.m., please enter the City & County Building through the main east entrance. The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters. The public is welcome to listen. Items scheduled on the Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and / or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting based on circumstance or availability of speakers. The Website addresses listed on the agenda may not be available after the Council votes on the item. Not all agenda items will have a webpage for additional information read associated agenda paperwork. Generated: 13:09:13 Note: Dates not identified in the project timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start times and durations are approximate and are subject to change. Work Session Items 1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 2:00 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive information from the Administration on major items or projects in progress. Topics may relate to major events or emergencies (if needed), services and resources related to people experiencing homelessness, active public engagement efforts, and projects or staffing updates from City Departments, or other items as appropriate. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Recurring Briefing Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 2.Ordinance: Northpoint Small Area Plan ~ 2:15 p.m. 45 min. The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would adopt the Northpoint Small Area Plan. The Northpoint Small Area Plan is a land use plan for the land that is located between the Salt Lake City International Airport and the northern boundary of the City along the 2200 West corridor. The updated plan will provide guidance on existing and anticipated development in the area, as well as annexation-related issues. As part of the plan update, the Salt Lake City Major Streets Plan will be amended to reflect recommended roadway alignments. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 21, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 21, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 21, 2023 3.Ordinance: Glendale Regional Park Plan ~ 3:00 p.m. 40 min The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would adopt the Glendale Regional Park Plan to be part of the City’s general plan as a specific plan found in the Westside Master Plan. The Public Lands Department has been working with a consultant, Design Workshop, to develop a plan to guide development of the 17-acre Glendale Regional Park site, formerly known as Raging Waters. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 21, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 21, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 21, 2023 4.Ordinance: Local Business Assistance ARPA Grant Awards ~ 3:40 p.m. 40 min. The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would approve the disbursement of local business assistance grant awards from the City’s American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) fiscal recovery funds. A business needs to show an economic hardship caused by the pandemic and meet other federal requirements to be eligible for these ARPA grants. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 21, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 7, 2023 or Tuesday, March 21, 2023 5.Tentative Break ~ 4:20 p.m. 20 min. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 6.Resolution: Authorizing Execution of an Interlocal Agreement to Transfer a MITS Vehicle to West Valley City ~ 4:40 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a resolution that would authorize the approval of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and West Valley City regarding the transfer of ownership of a tactical vehicle (MITS) from Salt Lake City Corporation to West Valley City. As part of the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) grant, funds were allocated to Salt Lake City to purchase and operate several Mobile Interoperable Tactical Solution Vehicles (“MITS Vehicle”) for use in emergencies and other operations throughout the Wasatch Front urban area and the State of Utah. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 21, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 7, 2023 7.Informational: Water and Snowpack Report ~ 4:55 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive a briefing from the Department of Public Utilities about the status of water runoff, snowpack and water supply projections. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 21, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 8.Board Appointment: Arts Council – Jeff Driggs ~ 5:25 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Jeff Driggs prior to considering appointment to the Arts Council for a term ending February 21, 2026. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 21, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, February 21, 2023 9.Board Appointment: Arts Council – Matthew Coles ~ 5:30 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Matthew Coles prior to considering appointment to the Arts Council for a term ending February 21, 2026. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 21, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, February 21, 2023 10.Board Appointment: Transportation Advisory Board – Justice Morath ~ 5:35 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Justice Morath prior to considering appointment to the Transportation Advisory Board for a term ending September 28, 2026. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 21, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, February 21, 2023 Standing Items 11.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of Chair and Vice Chair. 12.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director - - Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business, including but not limited to scheduling items. 13.Tentative Closed Session - - The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to: a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual; b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if: (i) public discussion of the transaction would: (A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; (ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale; and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the sale; f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. CERTIFICATE OF POSTING On or before 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 16, 2023, the undersigned, duly appointed City Recorder, does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1) posted on the Utah Public Notice Website created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701, and (2) a copy of the foregoing provided to The Salt Lake Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any others who have indicated interest. CINDY LOU TRISHMAN SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda, including but not limited to adoption, rejection, amendment, addition of conditions and variations of options discussed. The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. Administrative Updates February 21, 2023 www.slc.gov/feedback/ Regularly updated with highlighted ways to engage with the City. Community Engagement Highlights Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canSustainabilityslc.gov/sustainability •Food Equity Microgrant •March 6th –Close date •Informational workshop Feb. 23rd 6-7:30 Mayor's Office slc.gov/mayor •Art Healing comment form •Indigenous & Native American working group •Proclamation Plus –this Thursday Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canMayor’s Office slc.gov/mayor Community Office Hours Location Date Time Roots Coffee (774 S 300 W)Tuesday, February 21st 9-11am Patagonia Outlet (2292 Highland Dr.)Tuesday, February 21st 2-4pm Santo Taco (910 N 900 W.)Thursday, February 23rd 12-2pm Corinne & Jack Sweet Branch Library (455 F Street) Thursday, February 23rd 12-2pm HRC / Winter Overflow Utilization •Feb 13-17 94.1% Rapid Intervention/ EIM •None scheduled (weather) •500 W 300 S & Folsom Trail next week •RIT locations: •VOA Outreach Engagement: 10 •RIT Site Rehabilitations: 11 Next Resource Fair: March 10th 9:30-12:30 @ TBD Homelessness Update Miami Model: Sequential Intercept •Intercept 0 Community Services- Crisis Phone line, MCOT, Receiving Center,VOA Detox •Intercept 1-Law Enforcement- Crisis Intervention Training, Unified PD MH Unit, SLC PD Social Workers •Intercept 2-Initial Detention/ Court- Jail Treatment Services, Community Response Teams,Pretrial Services •Intercept 3-Jails/ Courts- Specialty Courts,Case Coordination Coordinator •Intercept 4-Re-entry- Anti-recidivism programs, CORE, Tx Providers •Intercept 5-Community Corrections- AP&P,ACT, Specialized Housing,Community Tx Providers CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Nick Tarbet DATE:February 21, 2023 RE: Northpoint Small Area Master Plan Update PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing: February 21, 2023 Set Date: February 21, 2023 Public Hearing: March 7, 2023 Potential Action: March 21, 2023 ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would adopt the Northpoint Small Area Plan. The Northpoint Small Area Plan is a land use plan for the land that is located between the Salt Lake City International Airport and the northern boundary of the city along the 2200 West corridor. In 2020 the Council allocated $100,000 to update the master plan for this area to help plan for the increased development pressures going on in this area of the city. The updated plan will provide guidance on existing and anticipated development in the area, as well as annexation-related issues. As part of the plan update, the Salt Lake City Major Streets Plan will be amended to reflect recommended roadway alignments. The Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council (7-2) with the following modifications: •The limit on distribution land uses be removed. •The wetland buffer is expanded to up to 300 feet instead of up to 200 feet. Mayor Mendenhall submitted a letter with the transmittal that recommend the City Council consider Planning Staff’s recommendation to limit distribution land uses to prevent the area from becoming primarily a warehouse and distribution center. Page | 2 The mayor noted in her letter “this could be achieved by limiting the development of such uses [distribution] where they are not currently allowed by zoning. This is a vital step to implementing the city’s vision – one that respects the existing residential and agriculture properties, the environment, and wildlife, while allowing for appropriate light-manufacturing development” (Transmittal letter pages 5-6). Key Concepts Identified in the Plan Pages 2-3 of the transmittal letter outlines the key concepts of the plan and potential action items the City can take to implement the plan. •Identifies appropriate future land use and development characteristics for the area that can coexist with the wildlife habitat and natural environment of the Great Salt Lake, and the operations of the Salt Lake City International Airport. •Identifies appropriate buffering, building design, and development characteristics to reduce the impacts on residential and agricultural uses, important wildlife habitats, and other uses within the area. •Recommends design standards to reduce the negative impacts that future land uses may have on air quality, water quality, noise, and light. •Updates future annexation potential for unincorporated land within Salt Lake County. •Amends the Major Streets Plan for the area to include a new north-south collector (2900 W), a future airport road going east to west connecting to 2100 North, and to indicate that 3200 West is to remain an unimproved roadway. •Recommends a Northpoint-specific development code that codifies the recommended design standards and includes incentive-based tools for open space preservation. Changes to Plan noted by Planning Staff. Page 4 of the transmittal letter notes planning staff made a few modifications to the draft forwarded by the Planning Commission. Planning staff brought these up with the Planning Commission and they didn’t express any concerns. •Page 10: “The Plan Area…is nestled between wetland spillover from the Great Salt Lake…” - Deleted the word “spillover” as it implies excess, wasted, low value, and is not an ecological term. •Page 24: Added "and other contrast mitigation building and landscape features" to the sentence addressing building color and materials. While colors that blend in with the natural surroundings are essential, there may be additional contrast mitigation techniques that are necessary and appropriate in specific areas such as the land close to 3200 West. •Page 32: Evaluate the Feasibility of Acquiring Sensitive Lands as City-Owned Open Space - In addition to lands adjacent to the Jordan River mentioned in the text, open land and wetlands along 3200 W was also added as an area for priority open space preservation. •Included the notation on the vision map regarding wetland applicability (jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional) on page 35 as well. Page | 3 Policy Questions Below are some policy questions the Council may wish to consider as you review the draft plan and bring up during the briefing with the Administration. 1.Implementation a. Are there specific implementation steps outlined in the small area plan the Council would like to initiate? See Implementation section below (page 5) for outline of key items and pages 2-3 of the draft plan for details. b. Does the Council wish to take steps to ensure future development will abide by development recommendations outlined in the plan, if any petitions come to the city before the zoning changes are adopted? i. Consider using development agreements for zoning petitions in the process Does the council wish to support initiating any of the key implementation actions recommended in the master plan? 2.Development Standards The Plan identifies design standards that could help reduce the negative impacts development may have (Pages 20-29). a. Some CMs have mentioned conditions included in the Northwest Quadrant Overlay District (21A.34.140) may be a good template to consider for development in this area of the city. b. Some of those standards include: i. Lighting – all lighting shall be shielded to direct light down and away from edges of the property. ii. Roof color – light reflective roofing with minim solar reflective index iii. Landscape – shall consist of native plants, remove noxious weeds, iv. Glass Requirements – use glass design elements to reduce bird collisions. v. Fencing – see through fence that is 50% open. c. Some have asked about the possibility for the city to require solar panels be included in a future development. d. Additionally, in the NWQ overlay, certain permitted uses are limited. Do the development standards outlined in the plan successfully address the council’s concerns about mitigating the impact of development in this area of the city? 3. The mayor recommend that the City Council consider Planning Staff’s recommendation to limit distribution land uses to prevent the area from becoming primarily a warehouse and distribution center. This could be achieved by limiting the development of such uses where they are not currently allowed by zoning. Does the council Mayor’s and Planning staff recommendation to limit distribution uses in this area? Page | 4 Outline of the Draft Small Area Plan Land Use Categories The future land use map includes the categories outlined and shown on the map below. •Natural Open Space •Transitional •Business Park / Industrial •Airport Page | 5 Design Standards The Plan identifies design standards that could help reduce the negative impacts development may have (pages 20-29). These standards include: • Buffering and setbacks for existing residential uses and wildlife and wetland habitat • Standards for new development o Grading limitation, Fencing / Walls, Dark Sky Lighting, • Water Conscious Development o landscaping, stormwater management, • Airport Conflict Mitigation o Noise, land use compatibility • Visual Design • Standards for Transitional Areas o Industrial land use mitigation - noise, odor air quality, traffic, and loading • Standards for Natural Open Space o Wetland Design Standards – planting, trails / boardwalks, Implementation (Chapter 3) The implementation plan identifies three time sensitive actions that should be prioritized (pages 2-3). • Services and Infrastructure o Evaluate funding solutions to redesign 2200 west and Construct 2900 West • Natural Environmental / Preservation o Evaluate the Feasibility of Acquiring Sensitive Lands as City-Owned Open Space • Built Environment/Design o Adopt Development Code Updates Additional implementation actions are identified on pages 34-35. These include items such as creating a local utility plan, updating the major streets plan, environmental impact standards, annexation, etc. Tool Kit The plan includes a variety of tools that will help implement the small area plan (pages 38-53). Some of those tools include: land preservation, regulatory, incentive based, land acquisition, and financial. Public Process The public process started in summer of 2021 up to the planning commission public hearing on December 14, 2022. During that time the outreach included numerous steering committees, community council meetings, online questionnaire, Council update and Planning Commission briefings. The full details are outlined on pages three of the transmittal letter and the chronology is on page 11. City Council Briefing // February 21, 2023 NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN PLNPCM2022-00687 Salt Lake City // Planning Division STUDY AREA 2100 N 3200 N Salt Lake City // Planning Division CONTEXT CURRENT ZONING EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE PLAN OVERVIEW Salt Lake City // Planning Division The key highlights of this Plan include: •Recognizes the intense development pressure the area is under. •Identifies appropriate future land use and development characteristics. •Identifies appropriate buffering, building design, and development characteristics to reduce the impacts on agricultural uses and important wildlife habitats. •Recommends methods to reduce the negative impacts that future land uses may have on air quality, water quality, noise, and light. •Updates future annexation potential. GOALS OF THE PLAN VISION MAP Natural Open Space Areas are those that should be preserved as natural open space and prohibit development. Transitional The purpose of this zone is to mitigate the inevitable impacts of Business Park/Industrial development on residential properties. Business Park/Industrial The majority of the Plan Area may convert to industrial and business properties. Airport Airport owned property Salt Lake City // Planning Division Salt Lake City // Planning Division DESIGN STANDARDS Image 3: Design Standards Examples •Buffering and Setbacks •Maximum Building Frontage •Standards for New Development •Water Conscious Development •Airport Conflict Mitigation •Additional Standards for Transitional Areas •Standards for Natural Open Space IMPLEMENTATION: CRITICAL PATH ITEMS 2900 W/2200 W Redevelopment and Construction Evaluate Feasibility of Acquiring City-Owned Open Spacer •Land adjacent to Jordan River and open land and wetlands adjacent to 3200 W are priority areas. Development Code Updates •Northpoint-specific development code as the preferred implementation path •Review landscaping requirements •Amend Lowland Conservancy Overlay to include canals and drains buffers Salt Lake City // Planning Division IMPLEMENTATION: OTHER ITEMS •Require Local Area Utility Plans •Develop Environmental Impact Standards •Implement Wetland Buffers •Coordinate Police and Fire Service and Infrastructure •Support Annexation of Contiguous Parcels AMEND THE MAJOR STREET PLAN •2900 W – new north-south connector •3200 W – remain unimproved and change from a Collector to a Local Street •Airport road connecting to 2100 N THE TOOLKIT The Land Preservation Tools: •Regulatory: Clustering, Sensitive Landscape Studies •Incentive Based: Conservation Easements, Purchase/Transfer of Development Rights Program •Land Acquisition: Land Exchange Financial tools: •Tax increment areas, public infrastructure districts, special investment areas, impact fees QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS Salt Lake City // Planning Division Krissy Gilmore/ Senior Planner Kristina.Gilmore@slcgov.com Erin Mendenhall DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 445 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145487, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5487 TEL 801.535.7712 FAX 801.535.6269 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: January 17, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: PLNPCM2022-00687 – Northpoint Small Area Plan STAFF CONTACT: Krissy Gilmore, Senior Planner, kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com 801-535-7780 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the Council adopt the Northpoint Small Area Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Northpoint Small Area Plan is a land use plan for the land that is generally located between the Salt Lake City International Airport and the northern boundary of the city along the 2200 West corridor. The Northpoint Small Area Plan was adopted in April 2000. The update of the plan was funded to provide guidance on anticipated development in the area and to address annexation-related issues in the area. The Northpoint Small Area Plan adopted in 2000 includes the following goal: The purpose of the Northpoint Small Area Plan is to eliminate potential land use conflicts with the Salt Lake International Airport while preserving and enhancing the existing agricultural lifestyle. The original plan identifies land use issues related to the airport, agriculture, business park development, the environment, and infrastructure. The plan includes a land use map that identifies most of the land west of 2200 West as Business Park and the majority of the land east of 2200 01-31-2023 01-31-2023 West as Agriculture. The plan includes land that is located outside of the city boundaries for the purpose of future annexations. A 2019 development proposal to develop land in unincorporated portions of Salt Lake County along 2200 West for residential purposes was submitted to Salt Lake County. This proposal triggered an annexation proposal for the land to be annexed into North Salt Lake City because both the county and city land use regulations prohibited residential development so close in proximity to the airport. In response to the proposed annexation, the City Council funded an update to the Northpoint Small Area Plan. The purpose of funding the update was to address development pressure in the plan area and to address potential annexations of unincorporated land. The RFP process started in December 2019. The RFP was scheduled to be published at the end of March 2020. Due to uncertainty related to the pandemic, the RFP was paused and not released to the public. The money was reallocated to the 2020-2021 budget cycle. The RFP process was relaunched in January 2021 utilizing the same RFP document that was produced in 2020. The RFP selection team included representatives from the Planning Division, the Airport, Transportation Division, Engineering Division, and a member of the Westpointe Community Council. After interviews, the selection committee chose Logan Simpson. The contract with the consultant was finalized in May 2021. A transmittal was sent to the City Council in July 2021, to satisfy the process identified in Resolution 14 of 2020. That briefing included the scope of work, timeline, and public engagement plan. SMALL AREA PLAN KEY CONCEPTS: The Northpoint Small Area Plan will guide the future development of the area by presenting a vision map, design standards and guidelines for private development throughout the area. The plan provides action steps the city can implement to mitigate the impact of new development on the surrounding natural habitat and existing residential properties. Key concepts of the draft plan include: • Identifies appropriate future land use and development characteristics for the area that can coexist with the wildlife habitat and natural environment of the Great Salt Lake, and the operations of the Salt Lake City International Airport. • Identifies appropriate buffering, building design, and development characteristics to reduce the impacts on residential and agricultural uses, important wildlife habitats, and other uses within the area. • Recommends design standards to reduce the negative impacts that future land uses may have on air quality, water quality, noise, and light. Image 1: Northpoint general vicinity • Updates future annexation potential for unincorporated land within Salt Lake County. • Amends the Major Streets Plan for the area to include a new north-south collector (2900 W), a future airport road going east to west connecting to 2100 North, and to indicate that 3200 West is to remain an unimproved roadway. • Recommends a Northpoint-specific development code that codifies the recommended design standards and includes incentive-based tools for open space preservation. PROCESS: The plan update process began in 2021 with a series of one-on-one engagement sessions with residents, developers, environmental groups, and city and county-specific staff. The goal of these engagement sessions was to provide attendees with a forum to identify the assets and weaknesses of the plan area and to explore the future of the area. A Steering Committee was also formed to provide specific guidance on the area and to review draft recommendations for the plan. The Steering Committee was comprised of representatives from government agencies, landowners, environmental groups, etc. In addition, the engagement process included a public open house, two community event pop-up tables, Westpointe Community Council presentations, two public questionnaires, and a property owner-specific questionnaire. The Planning Commission met to review the small area plan first through a work session on July 27, 2022, and then again on October 26th, 2022 for a recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Commission tabled the draft plan at that meeting with direction to allow additional time for public input and to consider revisions to the recommended wetland buffer. In response, Planning Staff met with the Westpointe Community Council at their November 9th meeting and engaged with stakeholders through email and one-on-one meetings. Modifications were made to the draft in response to the direction received from the Planning Commission and additional public input. Key changes included the addition of an action item to develop a Northpoint -specific development code, revisions to the wetland buffers that would allow some flexibility in buffer width in exchange for mitigation measures, and the addition of language that would limit distribution and logistical land use and promote manufacturing land uses. The Planning Commission reopened the Public Hearing at their December 14, 2022 meeting. During the meeting, the Planning Commission discussed the proposed limit on distribution land uses, if this limitation was necessary, and if there is a market for the area to be primarily manufacturing land uses. While there was some disagreement among members on this subject, they ultimately voted to remove the limitation on distribution land uses. The Commission also discussed wetland buffers and emphasized that open space preservation around wetlands is of high priority and recommended a 300-foot buffer rather than 200 feet. Planning Staff also recommended some minor changes to the draft in the Staff Report that were brought up in public comments. The Commission did not report concern with these changes, and the conversation generally indicated support. The Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council (7-2) with the following modifications: - The limit on distribution land uses be removed. - The wetland buffer is expanded to up to 300 feet instead of up to 200 feet. Based on the conversation, the Commissioners who voted no did so because one would like to see more open space preserved and does not support the vision for light -industrial development, and the other indicated that they were not in support of removing the limitation on distribution uses. PROPOSED DRAFT: The draft forwarded to the City Council includes modifications to the draft plan that address the conditions of approval by the Planning Commission, as well as the recommended changes proposed by Planning Staff based on public comment: - Page 10: “The Plan Area…is nestled between wetland spillover from the Great Salt Lake…” o Deleted the word “spillover” as it implies excess, wasted, low value, and is not an ecological term. - Page 24: Added "and other contrast mitigation building and landscape features" to the sentence addressing building color and materials. While colors that blend in with the natural surroundings are essential, there may be additional contrast mitigation techniques that are necessary and appropriate in specific areas such as the land close to 3200 West. - Page 32: Evaluate the Feasibility of Acquiring Sensitive Lands as City-Owned Open Space o In addition to lands adjacent to the Jordan River mentioned in the text, open land and wetlands along 3200 W was also added as an area for priority open space preservation. - Included the notation on the vision map regarding wetland applicability (jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional) on page 35 as well. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda for July 27, 2022 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes for July 27, 2022 (Click to Access) c) PC Staff Report for July 27, 2022 (Click to Access) d) PC Agenda for October 26, 2022 (Click to Access) e) PC Minutes for October 26, 2022 (Click to Access) f) PC Staff Report for October 26, 2022 (Click to Access) g) PC Agenda for December 14, 2022 (Click to Access) h) PC Minutes for December 14, 2022 (Click to Access) i) PC Staff Report for December 14, 2022 (Click to Access) EXHIBITS: 1) Chronology 2) City Council Public Hearing Notice 3) Northpoint Small Area Plan Draft 4) Public Comments Received ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 January 30, 2022 Dear City Councilmembers: As you consider adoption of the Northpoint Small Area Plan, per City Code section 2.06.035.C.2, I am submitting a letter for your consideration. Section2.06.035 allows the city administration to provide a different recommendation than the Planning Commission by submitting a letter outlining the mayor’s position as part of the administrative transmittal. The Northpoint Small Area Plan is such a case. On December 14, 2022, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council approve the Northpoint Small Area Plan with two modifications. First, to remove Planning Staff’s recommendation to limit distribution land uses in the plan area; and second, to increase the development buffer from wetlands from 200 feet to 300 feet. I applaud the Planning Commission for their dedication to preserving and protecting wetland areas by increasing the buffer width; however, I am concerned that removing the limit on distribution land uses will negatively impact the existing rural characteristics of the area, potentially increase the amount of air pollution generated by the future use of land in the area, and expand the amount of land in the City that is available for warehouse and distribution uses. The Northpoint plan boundary is unique within Salt Lake City and any future planning should be sensitive to the existing context and rural nature of the area. While development of the area is ongoing and that pressure will likely continue in the future, planning should promote an appropriate transition of land uses that can coexist with the existing rural residential and agricultural uses, as well as minimize impacts to the environment and natural habitat. Planning must also consider appropriate land uses to reduce exposure to air pollution created by airplanes taking off and landing from the Salt Lake City International Airport, especially as the airport considers lengthening existing runways that will further impact the Northpoint area. There are nearly 17,000 acres of land in Salt Lake City that are currently zoned M-1 Light Industrial Zoning District. It is the largest zoning district in the city in terms of acreage, while also one of the least restrictive in permitted and conditional land uses. There are no limitations on warehousing or distribution uses. If more area is allowed to develop with these uses it likely increases the amount of air pollution generated in the city through an increase in semi-truck traffic and requires more resources to maintain city streets. I recommend that the City Council consider Planning Staff’s recommendation to limit distribution land uses to prevent the area from becoming primarily a warehouse and distribution center. This could be achieved by limiting the development of such uses where they are not currently allowed by zoning. This is a vital step to implementing the city’s vision – one that respects the existing residential and agriculture properties, the environment, and wildlife, while allowing for appropriate light-manufacturing development. This vision can be achieved through prioritizing and expanding the recommended Northpoint specific development code, which is identified as a critical action item in the plan. Expansion of ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 the code recommendation could include limiting building footprints, lot coverage, and building height to encourage a greater mix of land uses and prevent large scale buildings that are only suitable for distribution. Additionally, the Council could consider restricting or limiting the uses in the land use tables within the Northpoint development code. In addition to my recommendation above, please consider the Northpoint Small Area Plan guidance for zoning assignment of annexation in the area. In future review of annexation petitions, I request that the Council also consider the recommended Northpoint Small Area Plan policies and development code in any development agreement to ensure the vision for the area is respected and realized. Thank you for your consideration, Erin Mendenhall Mayor SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2023 (Adopting the Northpoint Small Area Plan) An ordinance adopting the Northpoint Small Area Plan as part of Salt Lake City’s general plan. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a hearing on December 14, 2022 on a petition by the City Council to adopt an update to the Northpoint Small Area Plan as a geographically-specific part of Salt Lake City’s general plan required by Part 4 of Utah Code Chapter 10-9a; and WHEREAS, at its December 14, 2022 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said petition; and WHEREAS, after holding a public hearing on this matter, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Adopting the Northpoint Small Area Plan. That the Northpoint Small Area Plan provided in Exhibit “A” attached hereto is adopted as part of Salt Lake City’s general plan as required by Part 4 of Utah Code Chapter 10-9a. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2023. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2023. Published: ______________. Ordinance adopting the Northpoint Small Area Plan APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney December 16, 2022 EXHIBIT “A” Northpoint Small Area Plan 1. CHRONOLOGY Northpoint Small Area Plan Project Chronology PLNPCM2022-00687 May 2021: Contract with the consultant, Logan Simpson, finalized July 22, 2021: City Council briefing August 2021: An informational postcard was mailed to property owners within the study area informing them of the project and stakeholder interview opportunities August 2021: Logan Simpson (consultant) held one-on-one meetings August 2021: Logan Simpson and Salt Lake City Planning Staff attended the Westpointe Night Out event. August 12, 2021: Steering Committee meeting November 10, 2021: Westpointe Community Council presentation February 17, 2022: Steering Committee meeting April 4, 2022: Steering Committee meeting April 29, 2022: An informational postcard was mailed to property owners within the study area informing them of the upcoming workshop and providing them with a QR code to obtain more information and take a property owner questionnaire. March 2 – 30, 2022: Property Owner Questionnaire March 9, 2022: Westpointe Community Council presentation May 16, 2022: Draft Concepts public workshop May 17 – June 30: Draft Concepts Online Questionnaire was available to the public June 27, 2022: Steering Committee meeting July 22, 2022: Draft Plan published and noticed for public review July 27, 2022: Planning Commission briefing August 2, 2022: Logan Simpson and Salt Lake City Planning Staff attended the Westpointe Night Out event. September 20, 2022: City Council briefing on the draft plan October 18, 2022: Revised Draft Plan published for Planning Commission public hearing October 26, 2022: Planning Commission Public Hearing November 9, 2022: Westpointe Community Council presentation November 16, 2022: Revised Draft Plan published for Planning Commission public hearing December 14, 2022: Planning Commission Public Hearing and Recommendation December 15, 2022: Ordinance request sent to City Attorney’s Office December 16, 2022: Signed ordinance received from City Attorney’s Office 2. CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2022-00687 – Northpoint Small Area Plan – A request by the City Council to revise and complete an update to the Northpoint Small Area Plan. The Northpoint Small Area Plan is a land use plan for the land that is generally located between the Salt Lake City International Airport and the northern boundary of the city along the 2200 West corridor. The Northpoint Small Area Plan was adopted in April 2000. The updated plan will provide guidance on existing and anticipated development in the area, as well as annexation-related issues. As part of the plan update, the Salt Lake City Major Streets Plan will be amended to reflect recommended roadway alignments. Information on the proposal can found on the City’s webpage for the proposal at the following link: https://www.slc.gov/planning/2022/10/13/northpoint-small-area-plan/ As part of their review, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held electronically: DATE: TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Krissy Gilmore at 801-535-7780 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at Kristina.Gilmore@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/ , by selecting the “Planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2022-00687. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. (P 19-19) 4. NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN DRAFT NORTHPOINT Small Area Plan Salt Lake City Adoption Draft, January 2023 DRAFT 2 CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction ....................................................4 Location .................................................................................................................6 Plan Context and Purpose .....................................................................................7 Guide to this Plan ...................................................................................................8 Executive Summary .............................................................................................10 Chapter 2 The Vision ....................................................12 Constraints to the Vision .....................................................................................14 Land Use Categories ............................................................................................15 Vision Map ...........................................................................................................16 Design Standards ................................................................................................18 Chapter 3 Implementation ...........................................30 Critical Path Implementation Items ....................................................................32 Additional Implementation Items ........................................................................34 Chapter 4 The Toolkit ....................................................36 Using the Toolkit ..................................................................................................38 Land Preservation Tools .......................................................................................40 Financial Implementation Tools ..........................................................................46 DRAFT Appendix A Existing Conditions Appendix B Public Input Appendix C Constraints Analysis Appendix D Full Financial Analysis Appendix E Major Streets Plan AmendmentDRAFT CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 6 Location The Northpoint Plan Area is located just north of Downtown Salt Lake City, near Farmington Bay and the Great Salt Lake. The Plan Area is bounded to the east by Interstate 215 and is comprised of mainly agricultural, industrial and residential uses. Northpoint lies within the northwest quadrant of Salt Lake City, adjacent to vital environmental resources including the Jordan River and playas and wetlands associated with the Great Salt Lake. Over half of the property in Northpoint is currently under the jurisdiction of Salt Lake County and consists of agricultural uses, business park development, industrial and commercial zoning. Environmental considerations greatly influence the future growth and development of the area. Directly south of Northpoint is Salt Lake City International Airport, which provides opportunities for and constraints to the potential development within Northpoint. The airport continues to expand through ongoing renovations and is currently being guided by the 2022 Salt Lake International Airport Master Plan. Its proximity is a defining factor of the Plan Area. Northpoint is also adjacent to several recreational areas including the Wasatch Mountain Range, with its many trails, the Jordan River OHV State Recreation Area, and the Salt Lake City Regional Athletic Complex. Introduction Overview Graphic 1.1 | Northpoint Plan Area DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 7 Esri,H ERE,Garmin,(c)OpenStreetMapc ontributors,andt he GISu serc ommunity Jurisdiction Plan Context and Purpose In 2000, a Northpoint Small Area Plan was adopted with goals to eliminate potential land use conflicts between the Salt Lake International Airport, future development, and the existing agricultural lifestyle. Other notable planning efforts for this region include the 1992 Northwest and the Jordan River/Airport Plan which address the Northpoint Plan Area, the Great Salt Lake wetlands and Jordan River, the Salt Lake Airport, and surrounding land; the 2020 Blueprint Jordan River Plan which illustrates a cohesive vision for the River as it stretches through multiple jurisdictions; the 2021 Salt Lake City International Airport Master Plan; and the 2021 Salt Lake County West General Plan. The northwest portion of Salt Lake City is limited by multiple layers of constraints, mostly environmental, but also due to airport activity, connectivity, and social equity issues. It is one of the largest growth areas for the City, but quite possibly, the most difficult to develop. This Plan addresses the natural environment, built environment, and community attributes. Many factors contribute to constraints facing the area, however many attributes act as opportunities. The Northpoint Small Area Plan Update is a response to the rapid pace of growth and change in the northwest portion of Salt Lake City and the anticipated new business park and light industrial uses in the area. The key goals of this Plan are to: »Identify appropriate future land use and development characteristics for the area that can coexist with the wildlife habitat and natural environment of the Great Salt Lake, and the operations of the Salt Lake City International Airport. »Update future annexation potential for unincorporated land within Salt Lake County. »Identify appropriate infrastructure requirements, including utilities and roadways, to support the future land use in the area. »Identify appropriate buffering, building design, and development characteristics to reduce the impacts to residential and agricultural uses, important wildlife habitat, and other uses within the plan area. »Recommend methods to reduce the negative impacts that future land uses may have on air quality, water quality, noise, and light. Graphic 1.2 | Northpoint Jurisdictions Salt Lake City Salt Lake County DRAFT 8 Guide to This Plan Plan Salt Lake Northpoint Small Area Plan Land Use Code and Zoning Ordinances Design Standards Incentives Tools and Actions Introduction This document is intended to support Salt Lake City’s overarching vision established in Plan Salt Lake while also providing tailored tools to help the Plan Area grow appropriately. Once the Northpoint Small Area Plan is adopted, its supplemental recommendations will guide applicants to develop within the scope of the Community’s Vision. This plan should be referenced when discretionary land use decisions are being made. These recommendations include, design standards, land acquisition tools, regulatory tools, and incentive based tools. Master plans detail the vision, policy, and framework of the community that will guide growth and development over time. As the plan area transitions from greenfield and rural residential to industrial and business park, this plan outlines specific design standards and action steps the City can implement to mitigate the impact of new development on the surrounding natural habitat and existing residential properties. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 9 Public Process This planning process included one- on-one interviews with residents, developers, environmental groups, and City and ounty staff, a public open house, two public questionnaires, and a property owner- specific questionnaire. With several applications active in the Plan Area at the time this project started, it became apparent early on that habitat preservation and residential quality of life were primary concerns. This shaped the Plan, shifting focus from land use recommendations to tools available to the City to preserve habitat, mitigate impacts of new development on residents, water and air quality, and wildlife, and determine appropriate improvements to existing infrastructure. 195 820 DRAFT 10 Executive Summary The Northpoint Small Area Plan is a detailed master plan for the Northwestern Community of Salt Lake City. The Plan Area contains large amounts of underdeveloped land, nestled between wetlands from the Great Salt Lake to the west and urban growth to the east. Additionally, parts of the Plan Area are fragmented with unincorporated County land and airport-owned property. A clear plan is needed to address the development pressures in the Plan Area, which continue to increase despite natural constraints. The Northpoint Small Area Plan aims to guide future development based on the previously adopted community plans and future land uses that the City has identified as appropriate to the area. While many property owners intend to retain their property as agricultural land, redevelopment and new development is anticipated to be primarily light industrial and manufacturing. The Plan contains three elements to guide growth into the future: Vision Map The Northpoint area has experienced growth that can conflict; industrial development adjacent to agriculture and residential uses, and developments adjacent to or abutting critical habitat areas (i.e. wetlands and upland). Industrial development has begun, and is expected to continue, to creep into this area of Salt Lake City. Understanding this reality, the Northpoint Vision is to balance the anticipated growth of light industrial and manufacturing uses with the existing and continued residential and agricultural uses of the area. This will be accomplished through outlining mitigation strategies for high-impact development directed at preserving quality of life for residents and the natural environment. Design Standards The design standards are directly connected to the anticipated future development in the area. Building and site design have the ability to affect built environments in impactful ways. When applied with a clear vision in mind, design standards can shape development that reduces visual and physical land use conflicts. The standards touch on each land use designation and provide clear direction as to how the area should be built. Although the standards are separately outlined in the plan, they are implied to be implemented with the other action items. Implementation What separates the plan from a design standards manual, is the comprehensive action items that are addressed in the implementation chapter. The action items range from strategies to best preserve open space and critical habitats, recommends further study for service and infrastructure needs, annexation of unincorporated properties within the Plan Area, and funding tools that will help the Plan Area grow responsibly. These elements can be applied to the area as a whole and provide different initiatives aside from traditional zoning regulation guidance. There are three action items identified as “critical path”, being the most critical to complete once this plan is adopted. These action items are: »Services and Infrastructure | Evaluate Funding Solutions to Redesign 2200 W and Construct 2900 W »Built Environment and Design | Adopt Development Code Updates and Codify the Design Standards Herein »Natural Environment and Preservation | Evaluate the Feasibility of Acquiring Sensitive Lands as City-Owned Open Space DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 11 Goals of this Plan »Identify appropriate future land use and development characteristics for the area that can coexist with the wildlife habitat and natural environment of the Great Salt Lake, and the operations of the Salt Lake City International Airport. »Update future annexation potential for unincorporated land within Salt Lake County. »Identify appropriate infrastructure requirements, including utilities and roadways, to support the future land use in the area. »Identify appropriate buffering, building design, and development characteristics to reduce the impacts to residential and agricultural uses, important wildlife habitat, and other uses within the corridor. »Recommend methods to reduce the negative impacts that future land uses may have on air quality, water quality, noise, and light. Vision Map Categories See more on page 16 Key Design Standards See more on page 20 Critical Implementation See more on page 32 NATURAL OPEN SPACE Areas where development is limited to passive recreational amenities TRANSITIONAL Areas that are currently residential. New development will be subject to impact mitigation measures BUSINESS PARK/INDUSTRIAL Areas anticipated to develop as Business Park and Light Industrial AIRPORT Areas owned by the Salt Lake City International Airport Limit maximum building frontage along 2200 W Maintain buffers between new development and existing wetlands, canals, drains, and the Jordan River Maintain a 65-foot buffer between new development and existing residential Allow clustering of buildings to maximize buffers Emphasize appropriate building materials and encourage native landscaping Services and Infrastructure Evaluate funding solutions to redesign 2200 W and construct 2900 W Built Environment and Design Create a Northpoint specific development code and codify the Design Standards Natural Environment/Preservation Evaluate the feasibility of acquiring sensitive lands as city-owned open space How Will We Get There?DRAFT CHAPTER 2 THE VISION 14 Constraints to the Vision As discussed in Chapter 1, the Plan Area consists of several development constraints ranging from sensitive wetland habitat to airport influence zone regulations. Mapping these constraints is a crucial first step in determining the areas most suitable for new development and identifying areas that should be preserved as habitat and open space. The Constraints Map illustrates the results of this analysis and may be used to prioritize sensitive lands for preservation or acquisition. For a detailed analysis of development constraints and opportunities used in this analysis, see Appendix C. Constraints reviewed in this analysis included: »Designated Wetlands »Salt Lake City International Airport-Owned Properties »Utility and Open Space Easements »Airport Influence Zones (A, B, C) »Viable Agriculture »Airport Noise Contours Using the Vision Map and Design Standards The Vision Map in this chapter is intended to show where additional standards are necessary to ensure future development is compatible with existing residential, agricultural, and sensitive habitats. To use this chapter, review the Vision Map and accompanying Design Standards. It is intended that the following design standards be incorporated into Salt Lake City Zoning and Development Code to apply to new development in the Plan Area. The Northpoint Vision Overview Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community ¯ Most suitable for development Least suitable for development NORTHPOINT CONSTRAINTS MAP Graphic 2.1 | Constraints Analysis for Northpoint DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 15 Natural Open Space Purpose: Natural Open Space areas are those that should be preserved as natural open space and prohibit development. The Natural Open Space district aims to connect critical habitats in the least fragmented way possible considering development trends in the Plan Area. Applicability: These areas include designated wetlands, uplands, existing recreational amenities, and areas connecting them. All designated wetlands, uplands, and other sensitive lands fall under the Natural Open Space district. Use Standards: Development in these areas should be limited to passive recreational opportunities, trailheads, and small parking areas to serve recreational uses. Adjacent land uses will be subject to mitigation. Transitional Purpose: The purpose of this zone is to mitigate the impacts of Business Park/Industrial development on residential and agricultural properties. Applicability: New development is anticipated to be primarily light industrial with a focus on manufacturing land uses. There are no properties in the Plan Area that are identified for new residential development. Use Standards: Residential properties shall be subject to natural habitat impact mitigation standards such as buffering critical areas from all development. Should any residential properties transition to BP/Industrial, all BP/Industrial standards will apply. Business Park/Industrial Purpose: Business and light industrial development is anticipated in the Plan Area. The majority of the Plan Area will convert to light industrial, manufacturing, or business properties. Applicability: The BP/I district applies to properties that do not contain significant constraints such as wetlands, uplands, existing residential, or other major limitations. Use Standards: Development in these areas will be reviewed closely for impact to existing residents and sensitive lands and may require additional mitigation designs focused on protecting the natural environment and quality of life of existing residents. Airport Purpose: These areas are owned by the Salt Lake International Airport, though there are no plans currently to develop these areas. Applicability: The Airport district applies to properties that are owned by the Salt Lake International Airport. Use Standards: Development in these areas should be limited to passive recreational opportunities, natural open space, and utility and infrastructure needed for the Salt Lake International Airport. Land Use Categories DRAFT 16 Protected Open Space 22 0 0 W 29 0 0 W W Center St 32 0 0 W ( u n p a v e d ) 3200N 2670N 2100N 1700N 3130N J o r d a n R i v e r R u d y C a n a l Recla i m a t i o n D i t c h Ci t y D r a i n W e s t B r a n c h Le g a c y P k w y Rocky M o u n t a i n Power E a s e m e n t Roc k y M o u n t a i n Pow e r E a s e m e n t 215 215 Graphic 2.2 | Northpoint Vision Map NORTHPOINT VISION MAP Water Designated Wetland* Natural Open Space Business Park / Industrial Transitional Land UsesProtected Open Space 22 0 0 W 29 0 0 W W Center St 32 0 0 W ( u n p a v e d ) 3200N 2670N 2100N 1700N 3130N J o r d a n R i v e r R u d y C a n a l Recla i m a t i o n D i t c h Ci t y D r a i n W e s t B r a n c h Le g a c y P k w y Rocky M o u n t a i n Power E a s e m e n t Roc k y M o u n t a i n Pow e r E a s e m e n t 215 215 Airport *Wetlands include both jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands. The Vision Map is intended as a general guide for wetland areas, but specific wetland delineation should be done when land is developed. Identification of wetlands primarily involves the determination of three factors: the predominance of wetland vegetation, hydric (wetland) soils, and signs of hydrology. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 17 Without Design Standards With Design Standards Smaller buildings facing existing residential and major roadways, largest buildings in the middle of development. Greater attention to building design (i.e. building materials, lighting, landscaping, etc.). Allow clustering of buildings in favor of preserving connected habitat and critical open space. No restrictions on building size near/facing existing residential. Typical industrial development styles can disturb natural habitat with disruptive materials, lighting, hazardous landscaping and fencing, etc. Minimum lot sizes and open space requirements force buildings to be oriented in an inefficient way, taking up more native land than needed. EFFECT OF DESIGN STANDARDS DRAFT 18 Design Standards Land Use Business Park/ Industrial Transitional Minimum Setback of New Development Designated Wetlands up to 300 ft1, 2 75 ft1, 2 Canals and Drains 75 ft 75 ft Jordan River 100 ft1, 2 75 ft1, 2 Existing Residential 65 ft 65 ft Maximum Continuous Building Frontage on 2200 W 400 ft 250 ft 1 | Should preserve uninterrupted connection between wetlands and uplands 2 | Should include and maintain a planted stormwater mitigation element such as a bioswale Setbacks and Buffers Buffers and setbacks are intended to reduce the adverse impacts of adjacent land uses and provide important habitats for wildlife that utilize buffer areas. While setbacks shown in this document are intended to extend from the natural feature (i.e., designated wetland or canal) to any impervious built surface of new development (i.e., sidewalks, parking lots), specific details will be determined when the setback is adopted into code. Setbacks from natural features may include landscaping and stormwater management. Required setbacks for new development adjacent to existing residential are intended to extend from new structure to existing residential structure(s). Setbacks from residential structures may include sidewalks, parking lots, etc. A maximum building length along 2200 West is recommended to reduce the impact of large-scale industrial development on longstanding agricultural and residential uses, as well as maintain habitat connections. Smaller setbacks in the transition area are intended to allow flexibility for residential development under the existing zoning. As development intensity increases with the development of business park or light industrial land uses, the greater setbacks apply. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 19 Preferred Buffer for Development Adjacent to Wetlands/Uplands * When buffer is applied during development of a property the City must consider the potential for a regulatory taking of property. DRAFT 20 Design Standards 1 | Habitat Mitigation Standards 1.1 | Grading Limitations Considering limitations to grading can help minimize impacts to native vegetation. It is important for only areas planned for development to be cleared and graded as it can allow for natural drainage courses to be maintained and reduces the need to manage stormwater flows. ◊ Soil cover or ramps shall be included to allow for movement of wildlife through the drainages. ◊ Excavation methods such as installation of underdrains should be considered. ◊ Vertical drop structures and concrete lined channels should be avoided. ◊ Use of large angular rip-rap for erosion control should be limited. ◊ Non-structural features that also provide riparian habitat should be considered. ◊ Where possible, development should relate the building to the natural site by stepping buildings and avoiding mass leveling of the site. 1.2 | Fencing and Walls Fences and walls can be barriers to wildlife and impede the movement of wildlife between habitat areas. Although fencing can be used to exclude wildlife, it should be applied in very specific areas that do not restrict larger wildlife movement and migration patterns or access to food, water, shelter, or potential mates. ◊ Fencing shall be permeable to allow for the safe passage of animals and facilitate wildlife movement through existing or constructed wildlife corridors. ◊ Natural barriers for privacy purposes shall consist of natural materials where possible, such as boulders, densely-planted vegetation, or rip-rap. ◊ Decorative fencing features that could be hazardous to wildlife shall be prohibited including: »Pointed or narrow extensions at the top of fences. »Wires that may entangle animals. »Hollow fence posts that are open at the top when birds or other small animals may become entrapped in an open cavity. Standards for All New Development Graphic 2.3 | Native Landscaping DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 21 1.3 | Dark Sky Lighting Lighting is an important element in built environments that allows for a perceived sense of safety at night. However, without appropriate design and placement, outdoor light fixtures can sometimes be inefficient. Outdoor lighting in the Plan Area should be designed in a way that benefits the built environment without negatively impacting the natural environment. Artificial lighting can disrupt wildlife’s natural patterns and behaviors. Graphic 2.4 | Dark Sky Friendly Lighting ◊ Lighting in non-functional spaces is prohibited (i.e. architectural and landscape lighting is not necessary for function of built environments). ◊ Light fixtures with motion or heat sensor may be used to keep lights off when lighting is not required. ◊ Lighting should consist of International Dark Sky Association (IDA) approved fixtures. ◊ Electronic message centers (EMC) shall be switched off completely after 11pm (or 30 minutes after the close of business for on-premises signs, whichever is later), and remain off until one hour before sunrise. ◊ EMCs applications for traffic and safety information shall be exempt from curfew. ◊ Light fixtures shall be selectively placed and fully shielded (i.e. light shall only be emitted downward and not above an imaginary horizontal plane passing through the light source). ◊ Lights shall be directed away from natural areas. ◊ Lighting shall use timers to automatically turnoff outside of hours of operation. ◊ Outdoor lighting shall be a color temperature of 3,000 kelvin or less.DRAFT 22 Design Standards 2 | Water Conscious Development 2.1 | Landscaping Regulating native species in landscape design can lead to low-maintenance and water-wise environments that reflect the natural environment in the built environment. Additionally, habitat value can be increased when landscaping isn’t overly manicured. However, weeds and invasive species should be controlled so that they do not compete with native species for necessary water and nutrients. ◊ Landscaped areas shall follow Low Impact Develpoment (LID) principles. ◊ Landscaping shall consist of native, adaptive, and drought-tolerant plantings. ◊ New construction shall follow the Salt Lake City Tree Protection and Preservation Policy. ◊ Landscaping shall not require modifications to the native soil. ◊ Minimize irrigated landscape areas and utilize naturalized swales. ◊ Fertilizers and herbicides shall be prohibited. ◊ Development adjacent to wetlands and uplands shall adhere to the buffer requirements herein and include on-site stormwater management. Graphic 2.5 | Stormwater Runoff Design 2.2 | Stormwater Management As undeveloped land becomes developed with hard surface materials, loss of permeable surfaces will have a direct affect on stormwater runoff. It is essential to avoid stormwater contact with industrial materials and activities and to avoid point-source pollution and degradation of the wetlands, uplands, and other natural habitat. There are comprehensive best management practice guides that can help applicant navigate the best solution for the specific use. ◊ Significant new development resulting in a change of land use shall include environmental impact mitigation measures and align them with current executive orders and master plans. ◊ Embankments and spillways shall be designed and approved by engineers that specialize in stormwater management and ecologically friendly design. ◊ Stormwater systems shall not diminish water flow to wetlands. ◊ Sedimentation systems may be used. »Sediment systems are more efficient with pollutants associated with metals, organic compounds, and other oxygen-demanding substances. There are limitations with sediment systems as small particles do not always settle therefore the substances in the industrial stormwater discharge should be evaluated prior to implementation. ◊ Detention ponds may be utilized with an underdrain to outlet to allow water to slowly release into proper stormwater systems. ◊ Retention ponds may be utilized to regularly contain water on site and via infiltration. ◊ Infiltration systems may be utilized to capture and infiltrate runoff in order to reduce runoff volume. »i.e. Infiltration Trenches, basins, bio-retention systems and underground infiltration tanks. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 23 Graphic 2.9 | Porous Surface Street Edge Graphic 2.8 | Native Landscaping Graphic 2.7 | Bioswale Graphic 2.6 | Bioswale 3 | Airport Conflict Mitigation Aviation adjacent to the Plan Area has been around for many years. Similarly to the rest of Salt Lake Valley, the Airport, too, has grown and anticipates further growth into the future. It is important to account for current and future impacts. 3.1 | Noise Regulation programs like Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 Noise, should be implemented on airport owned properties as to mitigate the impacts of noise. This program was established by the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 and sets forth the measure that a specific airport operator has taken to reduce the impacts of noise. 3.2 | Land Use Compatibility Local land use planning such as this plan can better prepare for the implications of planning around airports, and other airport- related development. Land use decisions around the airport properties should account for the impacts and determine whether the proposed use is appropriate. This can be hindered when multiple jurisdictions regulate the surrounding lands, however, there are tools such as annexation to consolidate regulatory authority and ensure that only appropriate land use decisions are made.DRAFT 24 Graphic 2.10 | Natural Design Elements Graphic 2.11| Natural Building Materials Graphic 2.12 | Interior Courtyard 4 | Visual Design Conscious design can help enhance compatibility between various uses and ensure that development fits in with the surrounding natural environment as best as possible. ◊ Units (and open space required by code) shall be organized or “clustered” in an efficient manner on properties where doing so will allow for larger habitat buffers. ◊ Building frontages along 2200 W shall not exceed 400 ft in length. ◊ Uninterrupted horizontal expanses of 100 ft in length of any opaque material, including opaque glass, shall be prohibited on building frontages visible from public streets. ◊ Natural building materials, colors, and other contrast mitigation building and landscape features shall be included in the exterior of buildings to mitigate the contrast of the built and natural environment. ◊ Mirrored or highly reflective glass is prohibited. ◊ Mechanical systems/equipment shall be shielded with barriers such as foliage and fences. ◊ Common design elements shall be included in Business Park-zoned development. »Designs should have a variety of unit sizes to accommodate different uses and the structural layout should also allow for flexibility.DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 25 Standards for Transitional Areas Development within Transitional Areas will be held to the standards previously mentioned with the following additional standards. 1 | Industrial Land Use Mitigation As industrial developments increase in the Plan Area, it is essential to recognize the compatibility issues associated with industrial land uses and be able to mitigate issues through building and site design. Industrial developments intrinsically contain issues with noise, odor, dust, traffic, light, air quality, and visual/design elements, therefore mitigation is necessary. 1.1 | Noise Industrial uses can have implications on noise that can affect adjacent land uses and also the natural environment. Noise can be classified into two different types: airborne and structure borne. Airborne is from the source to the receiver and can travel in all directions whereas structure-borne is vibrations through materials. Regardless of noise type, mitigation efforts should be in place prior, during, and after development. The following strategies are ways to mitigate the unwanted and unnecessary noise impacts due to industrial development. ◊ Noise impacts shall be mitigated by absorption, barriers, and/or damping. »Absorption works towards dissipating airborne acoustic sound waves. The best sound-absorbing materials are acoustic foam, fabric panels, or underlayment. Common building materials do not absorb most sound whereas softer materials, such as carpet, foam padding, and fiberglass insulation are more efficient in dissipating noise. »Physical barriers such as a berm or spatial separation that account for height, distance, thickness, and material type can contribute to the extent of mitigation. »Damping reduces acoustic vibration within a structure or wall. ◊ Building masses such as U or L shaped forms are preferred as they can contribute to noise mitigation through spatial separation. ◊ Interior courtyards or garden spaces should be incorporated as they can be an effective noise mitigation strategy by providing quiet and light-filled spaces. ◊ Vegetation should be high and dense when used for noise mitigation for significant effectiveness. ◊ Air-conditioning units should be substituted for pressurized plenum space where possible. A plenum is a separate interior space provided for air circulation for heating, ventilation, and air- conditioning. Graphic 2.13 | Existing Residential in the Plan AreaDRAFT 26 Design Standards 1.2 | Odor Unlike other externalities of industrial uses, odor can be difficult to measure due to its subjective nature. However, there are some measures that can be taken to address the duration, frequency, intensity, and location of noxious odors. ◊ Mitigating odor should start at the source of the emitter, such as food operations, traffic emissions, chemical facilities, mechanical equipment pollution, and material handling. Operational and engineering best practices can mitigate odors prior to being released in the environment. ◊ If emissions cannot be prevented, various solutions can be applied such as: »Plantings and trees to absorb and mask unpleasant smells as well as act as visual screening. Additionally, plantings can act as ozone generator which eliminates odorous substances through oxidation and are low maintenance. (Odor mitigation foliage include field maples, peace lily, serviceberry, sansevieria). »Dispersion to reduce consolidated emissions. Dispersion can look like increased separation between odor source and receivers to allow for dilution or contain the dispersion in an enclosure to prevent odors dispersing. »Location of open tanks and storage piles. Limit the presence of smells such as locating open tanks and storage piles away from residential and high-occupancy areas. »Structure design elements. The operability and placement of windows and doors can also prevent intrusion of odors. 1.3 | Air Quality Encouraging and supporting occupants that engage in sustainable processes and produce minimal emissions is the most effective way to mitigate air quality issues. In circumstances where this is unavoidable, exhausting air with ventilation can be effective and dilution can be used to mitigate the impacts ventilation can have on the surroundings. ◊ Apply in-room air cleaners and vegetation barriers to help mitigate localized air pollution. ◊ Use air filters and electronic air cleaners such as ionizers in duct-mounted and portable cleaners. »i.e. activated carbon is an adsorbent media air filter. ◊ Green roofs may be incorporated to address on-site and off-site disturbances. ◊ Extensive venting should be used when possible. ◊ Operable windows should be used to provide direct ventilation where they do not conflict with noise mitigation strategies. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 27 1.4 | Traffic and Loading Industrial development brings different vehicular traffic expectations. The challenge lies in balancing street level, building, and occupant needs. It is essential that industrial land uses contain loading and unloading infrastructure as the traffic associated with the use can have compatibility issues with adjacent non-industrial uses. Certain elements such as parking, loading bays, elevators, access points, noise, and aesthetic can have implications on the area. Establishing design standards can allow for the mitigation of incompatibilities between the movement of people, vehicles, and goods. ◊ Spatial Separation: Land uses that produce heavier traffic scenarios shall be placed away from residential units. ◊ Vertical Stacking: Flat-roof style structures may be implemented for upper-floor parking and loading. ◊ Access: Access shall be allowed from more than one side of a site to allow for better separation of pedestrian, cycling, and vehicle access to reduce the risk of collisions and large distribution vehicles. ◊ Laneways: Laneways shall be sensitive to pedestrian spaces by carving out walkable space in the building mass. This includes vegetation, dark sky-friendly lighting, and amenities for pedestrian use. ◊ Shared lobbies: Mixed-use buildings (including industrial and/or office spaces) may require shared lobbies to foster community and interaction among tenants. »It is important to ensure that there are not substantial conflicts between uses that have safety implications. ◊ Location: Additional considerations for industrial and non-industrial compatibilities includes proximity to future public transit which can reduce parking demands and activate streets for more complete neighborhoods. These locations should be evaluated if public transit plans are implemented in the Plan Area. Graphic 2.14 | SLC Air Quality DRAFT 28 Design Standards Standards for Natural Open Space Natural open space consists of critical habitat, regionally significant agriculture, and connecting open spaces. Development in these areas is restricted to passive recreational amenities. 1 | Wetland Design Standards 1.1 | Planting Wetlands are home to very beneficial habitats that can support carbon sequestration and improve water quality. As development increases, mitigating the impacts on wetlands is essential for the area. Plant species is an example of a simple design standard that can be incorporated into properties in a close proximity to this critical habitat. ◊ Encouraging and/or requiring native plant species can promote healthy wetland habitat in the face of increasing development. ◊ Non-native/invasive species mitigation: Upkeep of vegetated areas should be a continuous effort of property owners. This includes proper management of invasive and non-native plant species that may have a negative impact on the natural wetland habitat. »Utilizing natural mitigation techniques should be encouraged as to avoid run-off from herbicide and pesticide product. Graphic 2.15 | Outdoor Pavilion Graphic 2.16 | Natural Landscaping Graphic 2.17 | Nature-Inspired Design Graphic 2.18 | Birds at the Great Salt Lake Graphic 2.19 | Education Center DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 29 1.2 | Trails and Boardwalks Integrating boardwalks and trails adjacent and into wetlands can provide educational and leisure activities for the community in and beyond the Plan Area. Access to these critical areas must be designed in a way that protects the natural habitat while also providing experiences that are otherwise experienced by only a few individuals. It is important to take inventory of the wetland and partner with ecologists before implementing a trail system. ◊ Working group: Educational and recreational programming is a welcomed amenity, however, start up can be difficult without willing partners and active volunteers. Establishing a working group can help implement a well-rounded, comprehensive wetland program. ◊ Trail Kiosk and Parking: Integrating educational and recreational opportunities with the wetlands can benefit those beyond the Plan Area. Therefore, establishing a trail kiosk and parking area will provide more convenient access to this amenity area. ◊ Connectivity: Connecting the wetlands to the upland environment can help the user experience the relationship between the two environments. ◊ Signage: Creating a recognizable sign program can help users identify the trails and remain on trail. The program can also include interpretive signage that indicates points of interest, or educational information about the wetlands and uplands. ◊ Trail type: It is important to evaluate what type of trails are appropriate in and around the wetland to mitigate the impacts on the natural environment. Purposeful design can also help mitigate unnecessary costs for development and maintenance. »Trails rather than boardwalks are appropriate in areas where there is raised ground through the wetland or around the wetland. Soft-surface trails require little investment. »Boardwalks are needed where adjacent lands are flat (vegetation is tall) and allows for the ground beneath to remain somewhat natural. Graphic 2.23 | Wildlife Viewing and Fishing Access Graphic 2.22 | Informational Signage Graphic 2.21 | Boardwalk-Style Trail Graphic 2.20 | Natural Multiuse Trail DRAFT CHAPTER 3 IMPLEMENTATION 32 Implementing the Vision Implementation refers to the actions Salt Lake City should take to ensure the Plan Area develops in a way that is consistent with the community’s vision. The most time-sensitive implementation actions are included as critical path items. Following the critical path items is a list of additional action items recommended to achieve the vision of this Plan. A critical element in planning for any area is considering water sources and needs. Any development in this area must adhere to Salt Lake City water-related plans and policies. Critical Path Items Critical path items are actions that should be abided by the City prior to and as development occurs. Each critical path item will fall into at least one of the following categories: built environment/design, services and infrastructure, and natural environment/preservation. These categories were identified throughout the planning process and are integrated into the various sections of the Plan. The following items are classified as an immediate need, as development pressures area already present in the Plan Area. Services and Infrastructure Evaluate Funding Solutions to Redesign 2200 W and Construct 2900 W Timeframe: Immediate Responsibility: Various City Departments 2900 W is intended to be developed with the Scannell-Swaner Subdivision and will serve as an additional major arterial road in this Plan Area. The redevelopment of 2200 W and the construction of 2900 W should consider increased vehicle volumes and incorporate pedestrian and biking infrastructure. Below is a list of potential funding opportunities for this action. For a detailed analysis of these tools and their applicability in the Plan Area, see the Financial Implementation Analysis in Appendix D. »Tax Increment Areas »Public Infrastructure Districts (PIDs) »Special Assessment Areas (SAAs) »Impact Fees »Municipal Energy Tax Natural Environment/Preservation Evaluate the Feasibility of Acquiring Sensitive Lands as City-Owned Open Space Timeframe: Immediate Responsibility: Salt Lake City Council There has been a large amount of support for the preservation of open space in the Plan Area, as it serves as a cultural and historical landmark for the region and critical habitat for wildlife. Acquiring and preserving available open space in this area for passive recreation is a high priority. Land adjacent to the Jordan River and open land and wetlands adjacent to 3200 West should be a high priority for preservation. For a list of recommended land acquisition tools, see Chapter 4. Implementation Overview DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 33 Built Environment/Design Adopt Development Code Updates Timeframe: Immediate Responsibility: Salt Lake City Council There are several zoning designations within the Plan Area including Light Manufacturing (M- 1), Business Park (BP), and Agricultural/Rural Residential (AG-2, AG-5, and Salt Lake County A-2). Although some properties will likely remain agricultural or rural residential, it is anticipated that this area will slowly redevelop into primarily light manufacturing with some preserved open space areas. General Development Code Updates The simplest way to encourage development consistent with the City’s vision for the Plan Area is to adopt minor edits to these zoning categories. While the City Council may eventually adopt an overlay for the Plan Area, the following Zoning Code updates are “low-hanging fruit” the City can quickly implement. »Review landscape requirements to prohibit turf lawns and encourage native plantings in keeping with wetland preservation, particularly in interface areas. »Consider a reduction in minimum lot size if clustering for preservation areas. »Reconsider setbacks in the zoning code if preserving native habitat, allow more flexibility of the building envelope. »In the BP zone, eliminate the requirement of an agricultural buffer in favor of an environmental buffer (keep residential proximity protections when agriculture is a residential use). »Amend the Riparian Corridor Overlay zone to include wetland protection buffers. »Amend the Lowland Conservancy Overlay zone to include canals and drains in the Plan Area. Northpoint Specific Development Code The preferred approach to implement the vision for the Plan Area is a Northpoint-specific development code. A Northpoint-specific code should include: »Adopting the Design Standards from Chapter 2 of this document, which includes the recommended setbacks and buffer areas, landscape requirements, building materials and design standards, etc. »Incentive-based tools for preserving open and sensitive lands, such as allowing an increase in the maximum building façade length if preserving a larger amount of open space or buffer area than required. DRAFT 34 Create a local area utility plan Timeframe: Immediate Responsibility: Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities Require a local area utility plan to determine future Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (SLCDPU) service availability and to ensure utility services can be provided based on the anticipated future land use associated with new development. City policy is that upon the development of a property, the developer will be required to identify and provide all utilities necessary to serve their development, including water, sewer, and stormwater. A local area utility plan shall be provided to SLCDPU for review to support any development application, to ensure adequate service availability, and to identify impacts on existing systems. Amend the Major Streets Plan Timeframe: Immediate Responsibility: Salt Lake City Planning Department and Transportation Division Amend the Major Streets Plan to reflect the removal of 3200 W as a major road. While shown as a local road on the proposed amended map, it is anticipated that 3200 W will remain an unimproved dirt road and barrier for adjacent wetlands to the west. New development should be prohibited from facing 3200 West. Additionally, the amended map includes the proposed roadway alignment of 2900 W and the realignment of 2100 North to access the airport. See Appendix E for the recommended amendments. Develop environmental impact standards and align them with current executive orders and master plans. Timeframe: Short Term Responsibility: Salt Lake City Planning Department Create standards for new development that mitigate the impact of said development on nearby habitat and sensitive areas. These standards may include elements such as water saving best practices, dark sky ordinances, landscaping requirements, etc. Additional Implementation Items The following list includes recommended key action items to achieve the vision for the Northpoint Plan Area. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 35 Require a buffer of at least 75 feet between wetlands/uplands and any site development (e.g. buildings, parking, site features, and amenities) within the Northpoint Plan Area. Timeframe: Short Term Responsibility: Salt Lake City Planning Department The Great Salt Lake is a complex and delicate ecosystem and impact to this habitat area by new development should be carefully mitigated. A critical part of this mitigation is ensuring there is an adequate buffer between development and the wetland/upland ecosystem. Wetlands include both jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands. The Plan identifies up to a 300 foot buffer from wetland areas. This should be implemented through either an update to the City’s existing Riparian Overlay Zone or a new Northpoint specific development code. In developing the updated code, the City should consider identifying priority wetland areas and applying the maximum buffer to the highest priority wetlands. Reduced buffer widths may be appropriate based on the condition, function, and goal of the specific wetland buffer. Additionally, the City should allow flexibility of wetland buffers through incentive based tools. For example, the buffer width could be reduced through mitigation measures that include native vegetation restoration. Coordinate with Salt Lake County to provide efficient police and fire services in the Plan Area. Timeframe: Short Term Responsibility: City Council To provide adequate emergency services to this area, the development of a joint Police/Fire station may be required in the Plan Area. Coordinate with the Police and Fire Department to acquire funding and land in the Plan Area for a new shared facility. Support the annexation of contiguous parcels within the Plan Area. Timeframe: Ongoing Responsibility: Salt Lake City Planning Department The City supports the annexation of contiguous parcels in this Plan Area for future development and redevelopment. DRAFT CHAPTER 4 TOOLKIT 38 Using the Toolkit The Northpoint Small Area Master Plan process spanned fifteen months and included one-on-one interviews, workshops, and other public events. As expressed by project participants, key desired outcomes for the future of the Plan Area include: »Create a program to support a variety of incentives to maintain or improve property values while preserving open space. »Identify a future land use plan that allows industrial and business development while maintaining quality of life for existing residential areas and preserving natural habitat. »Locate future development in a manner that can support the efficient provision of city services. »Identify appropriate buffering, building design, and development characteristics to reduce impacts to the environmental features and wildlife habitat associated with the Great Salt Lake. »Recommend methods to reduce the negative impacts that future land uses may have on air quality, water quality, noise, and light. »Recommend tools to acquire and/or preserve open space. »Recommend strategies to improve traffic flow and safety on 2200 W. These desired outcomes suggest that while development in the Plan Area is in high demand, policies and strategies need to ensure that development is designed and arranged in a manner that respects the area’s sensitive landscape. Toolkit Overview DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 39 A variety of tools have been developed to protect natural open space and locate, configure, and design new development in a manner that protects both existing habitat and natural open spaces. The preservation tools described and analyzed in this Chapter represent existing and potential strategies for the protection of habitat and open space in the Plan Area. Tools have been categorized as regulatory, incentive, or land acquisition. This is not an all-inclusive listing of tools, but an inventory that details each potential tool, and provides examples. In addition to land preservation tools, this chapter covers financial tools available to fund improvements to or reconstruction of 2900 W. The benefits and limitations of each tool have been compiled from a number of sources, including university research, other localities’ experiences, practical knowledge, and reports by individuals who have made their own evaluations. The implementation tools presented in this Chapter constitute a menu of options that can be considered to achieve the objectives of this Plan.DRAFT 40 Land Preservation Tools Regulatory based tools may be used to protect sensitive lands and agricultural areas within the Plan Area. These tools could be implemented by Salt Lake City through adoption of new zoning and subdivision ordinances. Development Code Updates Code updates establish supplemental land development requirements within a specific area requiring special attention, such as an environmentally sensitive area. Clustering of Lots and Open Space/Cluster Development Clustering is defined as a development pattern typically for residential use, in which homes are grouped together rather than evenly dispersed over the land as in a conventional development. Benefits Limitations »Easily implemented »Allows flexibility in design for developers »Can apply to multiple areas within a city »Time and cost effective »Additional zoning requirements »Not a permanent solution to protect land from development pressures Benefits Limitations »Protects the natural resources of an area »Creates wider wildlife buffers »Creates opportunity for greater profits by consolidating required open space into larger, more impactful sizes »Reduces impact of development on watersheds »Reduces cost to provide municipal public services depending on how clustering is accomplished »Additional zoning requirements »Not a permanent solution to protect land from development pressures »May not be a mandatory tool; thus there may not be assurance that desired project designs will be implemented by developersDRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 41 Special Standards and Design Guidelines Additional regulations in new development or redevelopment projects can include standards for elements like lighting, landscaping, building materials, noise, and landscape buffers. Benefits Limitations »Helps mitigate impacts of new development on existing habitat and wildlife »Easily implemented »Allows flexibility in site design while preserving area character and sensitive lands »Additional zoning requirements »May not be a mandatory tool; thus there may not be assurance that desired project designs will be implemented by developers »Can be difficult for local officials to enforce unless bonus criteria are clearly spelled out in an ordinance or policy document Sensitive Landscape Studies Studies can determine additional steps that should be taken to mitigate impact of new development to existing habitat. Benefits Limitations »Helps mitigate impacts of new development on existing habitat and wildlife »Easily implemented »Offers insight into specific site requirements for mitigation »Additional zoning requirements »Can be difficult for local officials to enforce because requirements and study results may vary based on specific sites of participants were in support of clustering lots and open space of participants were in support of development code updates of participants were in support of sensitive landscape studies of participants were in support of special standards 47% 30% 62% 37% Regulatory Based Tools DRAFT 42 Incentive Based Tools Conservation Easements Conservation easements are voluntary and legally binding agreements between a landowner (public or private) and a qualifying organization (also public or private), in which permanent limitations are placed on a property’s use and development. Conservation easements limit land to uses identified in the easement, and thus protect it from development. Benefits Limitations »Permanently protects land from development »Landowners may receive income, estate, and/ or property tax benefits »Land remains in private ownership and on the tax rolls »Tax incentives may not provide enough compensation for many landowners »Since program is voluntary, it can be challenging to preserve large tracts of contiguous land or specific areas to be protected Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) TDRs are tools that establish areas within a community for preservation (sending zones), and additional growth (receiving zones). Sending zones can be areas of agricultural land, open space, or other properties important to preserve. Receiving zones are areas that the community has designated as appropriate for additional or increased development. Benefits Limitations »Permanently protects land from development pressures »Landowner is paid to protect their land »Local government can target locations effectively »Utilizes free market mechanisms »Land remains in private ownership and on tax rolls »Can be complex to administer »Receiving area must be willing to accept higher densities »Can be a difficult program to establish, especially in areas without city zoning »May require cooperative agreements among several local governments to establish sending and receiving zones Incentive based tools are voluntary and mostly based on the willingness of the landowner to sell title or an easement on their property. Where public access and use are desired, fee- simple ownership control is preferred through donation, purchase, or bargain sale of land to a government entity, conservation organization, or public charity. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 43 Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) PDRs refer to the purchase of development rights on certain parcels of land by a unit of government or a non-profit entity. Once purchased, a conservation easement is placed on the property. Benefits Limitations »Permanently protects land from development »Landowner is paid to protect their land, while allowing for ongoing use »Local government can target desirable locations effectively »Land remains in private ownership and on the tax rolls »Program is voluntary »Can be costly for local unit of government, therefore land is generally protected at a slower rate »Land remains in private ownership, typically with no public access »Because the program is voluntary, it can be challenging to preserve large tracts of contiguous land Preferred Development Sites Also known as priority or target development areas, these are locations that have been identified by a local government as favored for residential, commercial, and office growth based on adopted growth management policies and plans. Development can involve new construction, redevelopment, and/or adaptive reuse of buildings. Local governments may offer incentives, such as reduced fees or increased housing density to developments in these areas in order to make them more attractive to developers. Benefits Limitations »Land remains in private ownership and on the tax rolls »Local government can target locations effectively »Can be low cost to local unit of government »Can be a difficult program to establish and administer »Not a permanent solution, delays development in sensitive areas »Tax incentives may not provide enough compensation for many landowners of participants were in support of conservation easements of participants were in support of TDR Programs of participants were in support of PDR Programs of participants were in support of Preferred Development Sites 56% 30% 47% 25% DRAFT 44 Land Acquisition Tools Mutual Covenant A mutual covenant is an agreement between adjoining landowners to control future land uses through mutually agreed upon restrictions. Lease A lease is an agreement between agency and landowner to rent the land in order to protect and manage sensitive resources. Benefits Limitations »Permanent covenants can be enforced by any of the landowners or future landowners of the involved properties »Significant incentive to comply with restrictions, since all parties are aware of use controls »Can reduce property taxes »Loss in market value from mutual covenants does not qualify as a charitable deduction for income tax purposes »High cost Benefits Limitations »Low cost approach to site protection »Landowner receives income and retains control of property »An alternative for preservation-minded landowners not ready to commit to sale of permanent easement »Restrictions can be included in the lease to direct the activities of the conservation agency on the land »Short-term protection strategy »Leases are not permanent Acquisition and management of open space can be combined with regulatory measures to broaden the effectiveness of a preservation program. These tools preserve open space and their functions in the long-term. Although typically the most expensive solution, acquisition is the strongest and surest means of protection. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 45 Land Exchange Land exchange is the process by which land sought to be protected may be exchanged for another parcel that is more suitable for development Benefits Limitations »Lower acquisition costs »Scattered properties can be exchanged for a single, larger parcel »Complicated process »Not widely known and rarely used »Subject to IRS regulations »Property owners must be willing to participate, and properties must be of equal value »High cost Land Banking/Land Purchase Land banking occurs when land is purchased and reserved for later use or development. Land could be leased for immediate use (e.g. agriculture or athletic fields) or held for eventual resale with restrictions. The local government functions as a land trust. Benefits Limitations »Local government proactively identifies and purchases resource land »Lowers future preservation costs by working as a defense against future increases in land prices, speculation, and inappropriate development »High cost »Requires large upfront expenditures »Public agency must have staff to handle land trust functions of acquisition, management, lease, or resale of participants were in support of Lease Agreements of participants were in support of Mutual Covenants of participants were in support of Land Banking of participants were in support of Land Exchange 29% 31% 27% 38% DRAFT 46 Financial Tools Overview Northpoint represents an opportunity for Salt Lake City to encourage economic development that is compatible with the unique natural and built environment of the area, including proximity to the Salt Lake City International Airport. This area is best suited for business park and industrial development yet is hampered by the lack of significant infrastructure including transportation options and high-quality fiber broadband to the area. To realize its potential, the area requires substantial infrastructure improvements. Funding options for these improvements are discussed in this section of the report. It is a challenging time to fund infrastructure as construction costs are rising rapidly, along with interest rates. Infrastructure is generally needed before development can occur, which means that revenues generated by the project are not available for funding at the time they are most needed. Rather, other funding means must be identified, with revenue streams generated from development used later as a payback mechanism. Economic development is a key component of generating new revenue streams and is addressed in the full Financial Implementation Report in Appendix D. This chapter contains with the potential funding mechanisms that such development could enable. Market Analysis Northpoint is suitable for industrial and agricultural use, with limited residential. The area is proximate to the Salt Lake City International Airport and, as such, experiences high noise levels that make residential development difficult. The industrial market is strong in Salt Lake County, with a vacancy rate of only 2.2 percent and rising lease rates which have increased from an average (NNN) rate of $0.53 in 4th quarter 2020 to $0.63 in 4th quarter 2021. Total Salt Lake County inventory approximates 135 million square feet, with 9 million square feet of space under construction. In the northwest quadrant of Salt Lake County, the vacancy rate is 2.65 percent, with year-to-date (YTD) absorption of 7.5 million square feet and an average asking rate of $0.60 (NNN). Based on vacant acreage in the Plan Area that the Salt Lake County Assessor’s Office currently classifies as industrial, the area could absorb an additional 650,000 to 1,000,000 square feet of industrial space. This appears reasonable given current absorption patterns and the shortage of industrial space in the market. The biggest obstacles to industrial development appear to be supply chain shortages, rising construction costs and rapidly escalating interest rates.DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 47 Financial Tool | Tax Increment Areas Through the creation of a tax increment area, tax revenues generated within the designated Plan Area are split into two components: »(i)Base Revenues | The amount available before the tax increment area is established. Base revenues are shared among a mix of local governments that have the power to assess taxes such as schools, cities, counties, and special districts; and »(ii)Incremental Revenues | These are tax revenues in excess of the base revenues that are generated by new growth in the Plan Area. If a Plan Area is created, the incremental tax revenues can flow to the Plan Area for a period of time to encourage economic development. Some states, including Utah, allow incremental local sales tax revenues, as well as property taxes, to flow to a Plan Area for a period of time. By giving exclusive use of incremental revenues to the Plan Area, the creation of a successful tax increment area generates a new revenue stream that can be used to pay for projects, provide incentives to developers, or collateralize tax increment bonds. The most common uses of tax increment have been for infrastructure such as roads, utilities, telecommunications, electrical upgrades and burying power lines, and parking structures. Tax increment has also been used for demolition, tenant improvements, land acquisitions, environmental cleanup, trails, lighting, signage, playgrounds, incentives to developers, economic development activities and housing. Utah currently allows for the enactment of three types of tax increment areas: »Community Reinvestment Areas (CRAs) »Transportation Reinvestment Zones (TRZs) »Housing & Transit Reinvestment Zones (HTRZs) Of these three types of tax increment areas, CRAs and TRZs could be used as financing tools for the Plan Area. HTRZs rely on density of housing and this type of development is not suitable for Northpoint. DRAFT 48 Community Reinvestment Areas (CRA) In Utah, tax increment areas have been known by a wide variety of names over time – RDAs, URAs, EDAs, CDAs, and now as CRAs or Community Reinvestment Areas. As of 2016, the Legislature combined all types of Plan Areas—urban renewal, economic development, and community development into a new single “Community Reinvestment Plan Area” (CRA). Existing Plan Areas will be allowed to continue, but all new Plan Areas will be known as CRAs. The CRA Budget may either be approved by a Taxing Entity Committee (TEC) or through Interlocal Agreement with taxing entities, except where the Agency chooses to conduct a blight study to determine the existence of blight and to utilize limited eminent domain powers, which requires the approval of the TEC of both blight and the budget. If there is a finding of blight, 20 percent of the tax increment must be set aside for affordable housing. For all other projects, 10 percent of the tax increment is required to be set aside for affordable housing, if the annual increment is over $100,000. However, housing funds may be spent for affordable housing statewide and are not limited to being spent within a Plan Area. Noticing and hearing requirements apply with the CRA designation. After the tax increment collection period has expired, the tax increment dollars that previously flowed to the CRA will flow to the taxing entities that levy the property taxes within the Plan Area. In most cases, taxing entities receive more property tax revenues annually following expiration of the tax increment collection period than before, as property values are likely to have increased significantly through the redevelopment process. Benefits Limitations »Creates a new revenue stream. »Requires cooperation of other taxing entities. »Relatively easy to create. »10% of revenues must be directed to affordable housing. »Flexible uses of funds. »Revenues may take years to build up as development occurs over time. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 49 Transportation Reinvestment Zone (TRZ) A TRZ is one type of area that can be formed where tax increment can be used to accelerate development within the defined Plan Area. According to Utah Code §11-13-103(22), “Transportation Reinvestment Zone” means an area created by two or more public agencies by interlocal agreement to capture increased property or sales tax revenue generated by a transportation infrastructure project. TRZs are ideal for projects such as Frontrunner, light rail, or major arterials that span multiple jurisdictions. Any two or more public agencies may enter into an agreement to create a transportation reinvestment zone but one of these entities must have land use authority over the TRZ area – in other words, Salt Lake City must be a partner in this endeavor. Benefits Limitations »Creates a new revenue stream. »Revenue directed to transportation projects will not be available to provide other services. »Relatively easy to create. »Requires cooperation between at least two entities. »Projected to produce substantial revenue stream over time. »Must find a nexus with transportation projects to justify use of the increment. »No affordable housing requirement. »Revenues may take years to build up as development occurs over time. DRAFT 50 Tax Increment Bonds Tax Increment Bonds were developed in California in 1952 as an innovative way of raising local matching funds for federal grants. They became increasingly popular in the 1980s and 1990s, when there were declines in subsidies for local economic development from federal grants, state grants, and federal tax subsidies (especially industrial development bonds). Tax Increment Bonds are collateralized by the incremental growth in property taxes within a given Plan Area. They capture the future tax benefits of real estate improvements to pay the present cost of those improvements. It is a financing strategy designed to make improvements to a targeted Plan Area or district without drawing on general fund revenue or creating a new tax. Benefits Limitations »Create a new revenue stream that can fund capital improvements and economic development. »Tend to carry higher interest and costs of issuance. »Creating entity does not have to bear financial burden alone but can share it with other taxing entities within a Plan Area. »Often require the cooperation and agreement of multiple taxing entities to generate sufficient incremental revenues to finance the desired infrastructure. »Tax increment revenues can be used to pay for administrative expenses. »Bonds can’t be sold unless the tax increment is already flowing or is imminent and nearly certain to flow or is enhanced by a government’s credit or other mechanism. »Financial and legal liability is limited by having a redevelopment agency. »Typically take longer from start to finish than other financing types. »Creating entity may gift tax revenues or property to provide incentives for development. »Critics of Tax Increment Bonds sometimes assert that tax increment is just a reallocation of tax revenues by which some municipalities win, and others lose. »Creating entity may be able to encourage or accelerate the timeframe of desired development types through offering tax increment incentives to the developer. »Mortgage on the property can also be given as bond security under Utah law in addition to incremental revenue. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 51 Financial Tool | Public Infrastructure Districts (PIDs) PIDs are generally most successful in larger, undeveloped areas where there are significant infrastructure needs. Because the unanimous consent of all property owners is required for the creation of a PID, it is difficult to establish PIDs in areas with numerous property owners. However, portions of the study area could be included – especially those areas with larger parcels, fewer property owners, and significant infrastructure needs. If created, a PID can be combined with other revenue sources such as tax increment and those revenues could be used to pay the PID bonds. These funding tools may further facilitate development and increase property values, which may in turn provide for more opportunities to fund basic infrastructure (through tax increment financing or general tax collection). The PID tool allows for creation of a separate taxing entity in order to fund public infrastructure. Ultimate users of the property pay for the improvements via the taxing entity through property assessments. These assessments permit for bonding, allowing for covering upfront infrastructure expenses that are repaid over periods typically near 30 years. This tool results in higher property taxes for property owners/users in the defined district. Benefits Limitations »Create a new revenue stream that can fund capital improvements and economic development. »Tend to carry higher interest and costs of issuance. »Any debt issued is not on the books of the local government entity. »Cities may feel it limits public support for future tax rate increases or bond elections due to the perception of already-high rates. »Can raise a significant amount of revenue with legally-allowed tax rates of up to 15 mils. »Requires unanimous support of all taxing entities to put in place. »Accelerates development timeframe through upfront funding for capital costs. »Ongoing PID governance »Can reduce the need for impact fees. »Competitiveness of site with other sites given higher tax rates »Mortgage on the property can also be given as bond security under Utah law in addition to incremental revenue. »Cost is much lower than other development financing. DRAFT 52 Special Investment Areas (SAAs) Special Assessment Areas (“SAAs”), formerly known as Special Improvement Districts or “SID”s, are a financing mechanism that allows governmental entities to designate a specific area for the purpose of financing the costs of improvements, operation and maintenance, or economic promotion activities that benefit property within a specified area. Entities can then levy a special assessment, on parity with a tax lien, to pay for those improvements or ongoing maintenance. The special assessment can be pledged to retire bonds, known as Special Assessment Bonds, if issued to finance construction of a project. Utah Code §11-42 deals with the requirements of special assessment areas. The underlying rationale of an SAA is that only those property owners who benefit from the public improvements and ongoing maintenance of the properties will be assessed for the associated costs as opposed to other financing structures in which all City residents pay either through property taxes or increased service fees. While more information about SAAs is included below, it could be difficult politically for the City to obtain support from a large number of property owners. Benefits Limitations »Bonds are tax-exempt although the interest cost is not as low as a GO or revenue bond »Forty percent of the assessed liability, be it one property owner or many could defeat the effort to create the SAA if they do not want to pay the assessment »No requirement to hold a bond election but the City must hold a meeting for property owners to be assessed before the SAA can be created »Some increased administrative burden for the City although State law permits an additional amount to be included in each assessment to either pay the City’s increased administrative costs or permit the City to hire an outside SAA administrator »Only benefited property owners pay for the improvements or ongoing maintenance »The City cannot assess government-owned property within the SAA »Limited risk to the City as there is no general tax or revenue pledge »Flexibility since property owners may pre-pay their assessment prior to bond issuance or annually thereafter as the bond documents dictate – if bonds are issued DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 53 Impact Fees Impact fees are one-time fees paid by new development to offset the capital costs associated with new development for basic utilities such as water, sewer, storm water, public safety, roads and parks/ trails. In order to collect impact fees, cities must carefully follow the requirements of Utah Code 11- 36a which includes the following major steps. »Prepare and pass a resolution authorizing study of an impact fee »Conduct an impact fee study to determine the appropriate amount of such a fee »Provide public notice of the possible fee 14 days prior to the public hearing »Hold a public hearing to take comment regarding the proposed fee Salt Lake City has already established impact fees that could be used to generate revenues on projects developed within its City boundaries. However, Salt Lake County would need to charge impact fees on the unincorporated areas of North Point. Impact fees collected would need to be spent on capital projects listed in each respective entity’s Impact Fee Facilities Plans (IFFPs). Therefore, careful coordination would need to take place between Salt Lake City and the County to ensure that the costs of needed projects are fairly allocated between the two entities. Benefits Limitations »New development pays for its fair share of the costs incurred by new development »Adds additional costs to development »Impact fees are generally paid when building permits are issued; therefore, funds are often not available upfront when infrastructure needs are greatest »Impact fees cannot be used to cure existing deficienciesDRAFT APPENDIX A EXISTING CONDITIONS 56 Water and Air Quality Air Quality Salt Lake City is often faced with some of the worst air quality in the world. Major declines in air quality typically occur during the summer or winter due to the Salt Lake Valley’s unique geographical makeup and position. In the summer, wildfire smoke often travels east from California, Oregon, and the region’s mountain ranges adding to pollution from cars, industry, and other elements leading to harmful ozone levels. In the winter, close proximity to the Wasatch Mountains leads to temperature inversions in which cold air gets trapped under a layer of warm air, acting like a lid keeping pollutants from escaping. During the winter, air pollution sources are transportation (50%); area sources (e.g. gas stations, auto-body shops, etc.) (35%); and industry (15%). The Plan Area experiences these same seasonal issues with air quality, as well as consistent impacts due to proximity of both the Salt Lake City International Airport, and I-215. I-215 limits connectivity to residential neighborhoods and services in both Salt Lake City and North Salt Lake City. With few daily services, such as grocery stores, within the expanded area, residents contribute to higher trips and higher mile traveled, exacerbating air quality issues. Graphic 1.3 | Regional Air Quality | Source: AirNow.Gov Graphic 1.4 | SLC Air Quality | Source: Scott Winterton Deseret News Existing Conditions DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 57 Water and Wetlands The presence of wetlands adjacent to the Jordan River Delta and at the edge of the Great Salt Lake is the most pertinent environmental issue in the area. Roughly 75% of Utah’s wetlands surround the Great Salt Lake, providing environmental and socioeconomic benefit. The wetlands surrounding the Northpoint Subarea are part of an intricate and diverse ecosystem. Wetlands benefit the environment by acting as sponges to capture, store, and slowly release water, storm buffers, groundwater and aquifer recharge, and sediment traps. Wetlands also serve as critical habitat areas by providing food, shelter, and resting places. Wetland benefits extend to provide recreational and agricultural opportunities. Graphic 1.5 | Wetlands Surrounding Northpoint | Source: National Wetlands Inventory A portion of these wetlands are designated playas, categorized by their dry, hollowed-out form that fill with water during rainstorms and by underlying aquifers. The Great Salt Lake is the largest saltwater lake in the Northern Hemisphere, meaning as the playas fill and eventually evaporate, they leave large salt deposits behind. Freshwater forested and shrub wetlands are found adjacent to the area, and are typically associated with woody plants such as willows. The current historic high water elevation for the Great Salt Lake is 4,211 feet last reached in 1986, and causing dramatic flooding. As of November 2021, the Lake’s water level has dropped to the lowest in recorded history at 4,190 feet, likely due to the extreme drought conditions the state is facing. In response to the unpredictability of the Lake, most planning agencies identify the contour of 4,217 feet, as the limit of safe development. There are no sites within the Plan Area that fall below this elevation. DRAFT 58 Soil Types The soil types within Northpoint vary and provide considerations for the types of development that can be accommodated in the Plan Area. The soil types dominating the area are fine sandy loam, silt loam and silty clay loam. Most of these soils have a water table depth between zero and fifty inches and are subject to the effects of frost. These high water table depths affect drainage and compressibility which impact new development potential. In addition, the soil types that dominate the area can cause problems for septic systems and filter fields, making it harder to maintain water quality. Natural Environment Graphic 1.6 | Recreational and Natural Landmarks Near Northpoint Graphic 1.6 | Prime Agricultural Soil | Source: National Resource Conservation Service DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 59 Hazards The greater Salt Lake City area faces natural hazards that impact rate and location of development. As climate change continues to exacerbate extreme weather events, planning with these common hazards in mind can help maintain the safety and comfort of the community. Clean air and water supply are among the top concerns of Salt Lake residents. In August of 2021, Salt Lake City was ranked the worst air quality of any major city in the world by IQAir.com, prompting residents to take extra precautions. The Salt Lake County Health Department released tips to stay safe during extreme air conditions such as staying indoors with windows shut, avoiding exercise, and wearing masks outdoors. The area, along with many other parts of the state, is currently under exceptional drought conditions, with fire restrictions and irrigation allotment reductions in place. Salt Lake City also experiences threats of extreme heat, wildfire, debris flows, flooding and earthquakes. Graphic 1.7 | Utah Drought Conditions | Source: National Drought Mitigation Center at University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 2021. Summer 2021 Drought Conditions The City of Salt Lake has proposed land use amendments to prevent large water users from being located within The City that may have a significant impact on The City’s water resources. The new limit for industrial and commercial land uses is 300,000 GPD (based on an annual average) of potable/culinary water. The limit applies to existing and new uses on a temporary basis until January 2022. DRAFT 60 Wildlife and Habitat The Great Salt Lake and surrounding wetlands are a crucial habitat for many species of animals. With 400,000 acres of wetlands, birds of regional and national importance are drawn to the area as a sanctuary for breeding and eating. Every year, millions of birds from 338 different species stop here to feed during migrations. Among the most common species observed in the Plan Area are the European Starling, Red-winged Blackbird, Yellow-headed Blackbird, Northern Pintail, and Canada Goose. Although the Farmington Bay area is classified as freshwater, the northern-most regions of the Great Salt Lake can be composed of nearly 28% salt. This creates a wide diversity of habitats for many different plants, invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, birds, and insects such as the Monarch Butterfly which is now on the endangered species list. European Starling DOMINANT BIRD TYPES IN NORTHPOINT Canada Goose. Red-winged Blackbird Yellow-headed Blackbird Northern Pintail DWR Bird Habitat Boundaries Graphic 1.8 | Dominant Bird Species in Northpoint Graphic 1.9 | Bird Habitat | Source: Department of Wildlife Resources GIS Data DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 61 Organizations There are many organizations with interest in the Plan and surrounding areas, including the Duck Clubs, Salt Lake City International Airport, and Friends of the Great Salt Lake. The Friends of Great Salt Lake is a nonprofit organization founded in 1994 to protect the Great Salt Lake ecosystem and increase public awareness and appreciation. The Rudy Duck Club, founded in 1909 and named after the original land owner Frank Rudy, acquired land and associated water rights in the early 1900s to preserve the ecosystem for private duck hunting. Agriculture The top producing crops in Salt Lake City, according to the 2017 Census of Agriculture, are wheat, hay, vegetables, pumpkins, and sweet corn. Within the Plan Area, current residents also own a variety of livestock. The majority of the housing stock supports the agricultural uses surrounding them. Within these lots there has been a pattern of subdividing larger lots into small lots for family members. There is a rich history of the agricultural lifestyle within Northpoint that the community desires to be preserved. According to the State Soil Conservation Service, the Plan Area contains prime farmland located north of 2800 North on the eastern side of 2200 West. Water Related Land Uses Graphic 1.10 | Water-Related Land Uses | Source: ESRI Living Atlas DRAFT 62 Built Environment Airport The Salt Lake International Airport, located just south of the Plan Area, is one of the busiest airports in North America. The airport is also a major hub for Delta airlines and provides approximately 370 flights per day from its location. As the airport inherently produces high noise volumes and air quality issues, it has a significant impact on the surrounding areas and determining appropriate land uses in Northpoint. The Salt Lake Airport recently adopted a new Master Planing process, the first since 1998, to provide guidelines for future airport development and to optimize existing facilities for future aviation demand and increase airport capacity. The resulting strategic vision illustrates locations for a third parallel runway and Concourse C which are not anticipated to be built within the next twenty years. The City has formally regulated the land uses surrounding the airport to protect the greater community and reduce negative impact. In 1971, zoning ordinances were adopted allowed within Northpoint and in 1983, the zoning ordinances were supplemented with regulations that prohibited incompatible uses like residential housing. Development Constraints Existing development within Northpoint experience consequences from their proximity to the airport and overhead flights. Some existing residences face increased risk for airplane crashes and high noise levels from the consistent flights. The Department of Airports recommends limiting the number of new residences allowed in Northpoint to reduce harm for the community in the future. The Federal Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) does not provide any assistance, subsidy or insurance for projects located in Runway Clear Zones, Clear Zones and Accident Potential Zones. As a result, this Plan considers alternative uses within those zones. The Salt Lake International Airport and Salt Lake City own several parcels surrounding the airport that were purchased to preserve as undeveloped. This, along with noise contours and influence zones limits development potential in the Plan Area. Northpoint lies within Influence Zone A/B meaning, the aircraft noise from overhead flights can interfere with daily living activities including sleep, conversations and listening to media. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires that each airport study the noise impacts and create a Noise Compatibility Program associated with alleviating noise issues. The Salt Lake City Noise Compatibility Program has implemented measures to increase compatibility with surrounding land uses Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community NORTHPOINT BOUNDARY SLC Airport-Owned Parcels Graphic 1.11 | Parcels Owned by the Salt Lake City International Airport | Source: Assessors Parcel Data DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 63 including maximization of flight times between 7am and 10pm. It has also implemented adjusted flight routes in pursuit of reduced disruption. As residential uses should be limited in Northpoint because of these constraints, there are other uses and opportunities for development that are more compatible with the airport. Economic Contribution The Salt Lake City International Airport, is a key driver of the local and regional economy. Through protecting airport infrastructure and facilities from adjacent land uses that reduce or eliminate its ability to function at the highest capacity, the Salt Lake City International Airport can continue to act as an asset to the greater community. SLC Airport Noise Contours SLC Airport Protection Overlays Graphic 1.12 | SLC Airport Noise Contours | Source: SLC GIS Data Graphic 1.13 | SLC Airport Overlays | Source: SLC GIS Data DRAFT 64 Land Use Industrial and Business Uses Within the Plan Area, there lies existing manufacturing zoning (M-1) that serves as a buffer between the airport and Interstate 215 (I-215). In July 2016, the City Council changed the zoning of properties located along 2200 W between 2100N and North Temple Street to Light Manufacturing (M-1) to implement area master plans and maximize economic development potential. Light Manufacturing (M-1) allows for light industrial uses that produce little to no impact on neighboring properties and results in a clean, attractive industrial setting. This use is compatible with the adjacent airport and is less impacted by the negative aspects of nearby I-215 than residential uses. The M-1 designation allows more types of business than the Business Park (BP) designations. The more significant differences between the two zoning districts are related to open space and building location requirements. The BP designation requires 15% open space, while M-1 requires no open space. M-1 also has reduced setback requirements. Approximately half of the Plan Area is designated BP. The intent of the BP designation is to provide an attractive environment for modern offices, light assembly and warehouse development, and to create employment and economic development opportunities in a campus-like setting. Graphic 1.14 | SLC and SLCo Zoning | Source: SLC, SLCo, and North Salt Lake GIS Data DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 65 Agricultural and Residential Uses The Plan Area contains several agricultural zones under both City and County jurisdiction, including Salt Lake City’s (SLC) AG-5 and AG-2, and Salt Lake County’s (SLCo) A-2 zone preserves agricultural uses on lots no less than two acres and, similarly, AG-5 provides for agricultural uses on no less than five acres. The A-2 zone allows for low-density residential and supporting agriculture as a conditional use, on a minimum lot size of one acre. Zone Minimum Lot Area Front Setback Primary Uses M-1 (SLC) 10,000 sq.ft.15 ft.Light Manufacturing BP (SLC) 20,000 sq.ft.30 ft.Business/ Office AG-2 (SLC)2 acres 30 ft.Agriculture/ Single-Family AG-5 (SLC)5 acres 30 ft.Agriculture/ Single-Family A-2 (SLCo)1 acre 30 ft.Single-Family Graphic 1.15 | Residential in the Plan Area DRAFT 66 Utilities Broadband The Plan Area is serviced by a mix of fixed wireless and wireline (cable, dsl and fiber)broadband internet. Within the census tract that Northpoint occupies, 10.60% of households are without internet access. The companies serving the area are Centurylink for local exchange, Rocky Mountain Power for electric utility territory and Dominion Energy for natural gas. The Utah Broadband Plan adopted in January 2020 set a goal to “Utilize best practices to encourage continued expansion of broadband deployment and increase speeds for everyone to 25 Mbps or better in communities throughout Utah”. The Plan Area currently has network speeds of 90.47/28.05 Mbps and its max advertised consumer download speeds are 10,000.00 Mbps. Active Building Permits and Recent Development There are currently a few active building permits within Northpoint that congregate along the 2200 W roadway and fall under the M-1 and BP zoning designations. A new development called Moonlake Farms has an active engineering permit and is among one of ten active permits for growing cannabis in Utah. There is also a new Industrial Building being built just north of the Sherwin Williams. Along the 2100N roadway, two new multi-tenant warehouse building have active permits as well. A key development proposal currently is the Swaner Subdivision, a 434-acre master planned development with about 5 million square feet of industrial on the C shaped parcel shown to the right currently zoned BP. This development would likely be cause for improvements on 2200 West to account for new increase in traffic. Another development conversation in this area is an proposed annexation petition for the land in the northeast section of the plan area. This proposed annexation was initiated by the landowners who wish to annex their land into Salt Lake City for the purpose of light industrial. A prior annexation conversation contemplated residential, however, that annexation was not pursued since Salt Lake City has determined that new residential would not be supported in the Plan Area. Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Ut a h I n l a n d Po r t A u t h o r i t y Proposed Swaner Subdivision Proposed North Salt Lake Annexation 22 0 0 W 2100 N 3200 N Graphic 1.16 | Active Applications DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 67 Industrial Wastewater The Salt Lake City Corporation’s pretreatment program oversees industrial wastewater discharged into the City’s sanitary sewer system. Industrial wastewater treatment, to reduce or eliminate conventional and toxic pollutants, prior to discharge into to the POTW (publicly owned treatment works) is required and regulated under the Clean Water Act. Salt Lake City is also undergoing redevelopment of its Water Reclamation Facility. The wastewater system will address new regulation from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Utah’s Department of Water Quality to reduce pollution and transform aging infrastructures. The Water Reclamation Center is located about a mile to the east of Northpoint and is replacing the old structure, which was 55 years old. Service Areas The Salt Lake City Public Utilities service area covers most of Northpoint with the exception of a portion to the north, just south of the Jordan River and a portion on the southern boundary. The remaining area is considered unincorporated territory. Though there are few sewer lines to this area, development is encroaching from the southeast and slowly extending utilities with it. Many residential and agricultural properties in this area rely on septic sewer systems. Street Lighting Public Utilities within Salt Lake manages and maintains more than 15,000 street lights, including those in Northpoint. The few residences and commercial customers within the area support street lighting through a monthly user fee, included in the bill for drinking water, wastewater, stormwater and sanitation services. The initial capital improvement program for street lighting in 2012 included a metric of converting the City’s entire inventory to high-energy efficiency LED lamps by the end of 2021. The continuous lighting maps do not extend into the Plan Area likely due to the lack of development in the area and the irregular Salt Lake City boundary. Irrigation Canals There are several irrigation canals running through Northpoint that serve the greater Salt Lake City area. The Rudy Drain runs diagonally across the study area from its connection to the Greater Salt Lake in the upper northwest quadrant to the lower southeast quadrant. Running along the western boundary is the Salt Lake City Canal Sewage. The southern boundary has a Reclamation ditch just north of the international airport. Graphic 1.17 | Utilities in Northpoint | Source: SLC GIS Data DRAFT 68 Transportation The eastern edge of the Plan Area runs along I-215, which acts as the main transportation route for the larger area. As Northpoint currently has little development beyond a small portion of residential housing to the northwest and light industrial to the south, the transportation routes within the Plan Area consist mainly of gravel roads. 2200 W divides the area into clear sections which suggest an informal development boundary along the roadway. Recent development in the area has almost exclusively been, between the roadway and I-215. Other roads in the 2019 Average Annual Daily Traffic Counts Plan Area include 3200W, a gravel road with minimal traffic that serves as the western boundary of the Plan Area, 3500N at the northern boundary, 2100N at the southern boundary, and several gravel and paved residential and commercial driveways. The main entries to the Plan Area are the exit from I-215 to 2100N from the south, and Center Street/3500N from the north. With increasing development pressure in the Plan Area, it will become increasingly important to make improvements to these interchanges and enhancements to 2200 W. Public Transportation The public transportation options that connect the Plan Area are limited. The 454 Green bus line extends to Airport Station on the south side of Salt Lake City International Airport but does not reach the Plan Area. The closest bus line to the area is the F522 Line running north/south on 2200 W. This bus line reaches the southern boundary and its final stop is near the Boeing warehouse. This bus line offers access to the light industrial and commercial businesses. This accessibility suggests that increasing the amount of industrial and commercial centers within the southern half of Northpoint would be supported by public transportation. Route 200 extends along Redwood Road to the southeast of Northpoint. However, this adjacent route is not Graphic 1.18 | Average Annual Daily Trips | Source: UDOT DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 69 accessible within a 15-minute walk of current homes of businesses within Northpoint. Bike Accessibility The major bikeways extending through the Plan Area are the Jordan River Trail, Parkway Trail, and a bike lane along 2200 W and 2100N. The bikeways along 2200 W and 2100N are designated medium comfort by Bike SLC. The painted bike lane disappears as the surroundings become more rural moving northbound through the Plan Area. These routes do not have high traffic but bikers must share the roads with vehicles in the same lanes. Economic Impact of Transportation Limited access to public transportation and the barrier of I-215 require households in the Plan Area to rely on personal vehicles or rideshare options to commute to and from work, errands, and schools. The Center for Neighborhood Technology recommends a household spend no more than 15% of their annual income on transportation. For a regional-typical household in this area, that means no more than $9,329. Households in this census block spend an average of $16,167- 175% higher than this benchmark. This is also higher than the Salt Lake City average of $13,211. Graphic 1.19 | Annual Driving Costs per Household | Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology Graphic 1.20 | Utah Transit Authority Bus DRAFT 70 Less ResidentsM ore Residents 70 Northpoint Community Demographics Over the last decade, Salt Lake City has grown by roughly 14,000 new residents. Most of this growth has been concentrated in downtown Salt Lake City, Central City, and Sugarhouse, each of which grew by over 2,000 residents between 2010 and 2020. Northpoint falls within the Westpointe Community Council area, which saw a population decrease (-1.6%) over the last decade. Approximately 140 people live within the Plan Area in roughly 60 households. City Council District 1, which encompasses the Plan Area boasts the largest share of Hispanic or Latino Population (48%) of all Council Districts. Economy 105 people are employed within the Plan Area but live elsewhere, and 74 Northpoint residents commute out of the area for work. No residents both live and work within the Plan Area. Of the jobs within the Plan Area boundary, Wholesale Trade (30% of the jobs) and Transportation and Warehousing (22%) are the most common industries. In 2018, about 54% of those jobs within the Plan Area boundary provided less than $40,000 per year in salary, roughly 63% of the median household income for overall Salt Lake City residents at $63,971. 105 People Commute IN for work 74 People Commute OUT for work 0 People Live and Work in the Area Population by TAZ Graphic 1.21 | Commuting Patterns and Population | Source: U.S. Census 2019 Less Residents More Residents DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 71 Within and immediately outside of the Plan Area, major employers include the Salt Lake City International Airport, Amazon, and the Salt Lake Mosquito Abatement Center. Those who live in the Plan Area have a higher median household income than the City as a whole at $75,791 and tend to work in the service industry, transportation and utilities, or manufacturing. Housing There are about 60 homes within the Plan Area and 1,487 housing units in the associated census tract. Housing is concentrated east of 2200 W due to environmental constraints and airport impacts. Housing within the Plan Area is comprised entirely single-family housing units, some of which are agricultural properties. The Plan Area has a high rate of owner-occupied units at 85.4% and an average home value of $438,000. This is higher than the median price for the zip code as a whole at $346,900. The zip code saw a 24% increase in home prices between 2020 and 2021. The Center for Neighborhood Technology estimates that households within the Plan Area are spending on average, 47% of their income on housing and transportation costs every month. As Salt Lake County grows and expands west, combining housing and transportation costs into one number offers an expanded view of affordability by showing the impacts of a longer daily commute on the affordability of a community. The Center for Neighborhood Technology sets a housing and transportation spending benchmark of no more than 45% of a household’s income, rather than using the traditional rule of no more than 30% on housing alone. Funding the Future Salt Lake City Council approved a 0.5% sales tax increase in May 2018. This increase will typically generate about $34 million a year in ongoing funding and is the first part of a funding strategy to address street conditions, affordable housing, public transit, and neighborhood safety. The Plan Area could benefit from funding for an affordable housing program and increased neighborhood safety. 47% Housing: 23% Transportation: 24% Graphic 1.22 | Housing and Transportation Costs as Percent of Income Per Household | Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology DRAFT 72 Community Amenities The Plan Area is bordered by the Jordan River connecting Utah Lake to the Great Salt Lake, and passing through three counties. Many sections of the Jordan River have access trails running parallel to the river and connect nearby parks. Although the Plan Area lies adjacent to the River, the formal trail stops to the to the east of I-215. Directly east of the Plan Area are the Regional Athletic Complex, Jordan River OHV State Recreation Area, Westpointe Park, Northstar Elementary School, and Northwest Middle School. Only one crossing of I-215 allows for access to these areas. As shown below, I-215 severely limits access to community resources like schools, religious organizations, recreation, and other gathering areas. JORDAN RIVER OHV STATE RECREATION AREA JORDA N RIVER CENTER STREET TRAILHEAD COLISEUM FITNESS SPECTRUM ACADEMY FOXBORO ELEMENTARY NORTHWEST MIDDLE SCHOOL NORTHSTAR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ROSEWOOD PARK GUADALUPE SCHOOL SALT LAKE CENTER FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION REGIONAL ATHLETIC COMPLEX UNITY BAPTIST CHURCHWESTPOINTE PARK Graphic 1.23 | Amenities near the Plan Area I 2 1 5 B A R R I E R DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 73 Graphic 1.24 | Trailhead map of the Jordan River DRAFT APPENDIX B PUBLIC INPUT Appendix B: Public Input The public input process included various opportunities for engagement. One-on-one interviews with residents, developers, environmental groups, and city and county staff were conducted throughout the summer of 2021. Over 30 people attended a public open house in the spring of 2022, and two public questionnaires and a property owner-specific questionnaire were distributed over the course of the Northpoint Small Area project. The following is a record of the engagement and materials from the open house and survey results. Open House and Questionnaire Comments Report for Northpoint Property Owner Questionnaire Completion Rate:85.7% Complete 18 Partial 3 Totals: 21 Response Counts 1. What is your relationship with the Northpoint area? (select all that apply) Percent I own property here I live here I own a business here I work here 0 20 40 60 80 100 Value Percent Responses I own property here 100.0%17 I live here 70.6%12 I own a business here 17.6%3 I work here 11.8%2 2. In the Northpoint area how important is the conservation of habitat and ecosystems to you? 77% Highly Important77% Highly Important 6% Somewhat Important6% Somewhat Important 12% Neutral12% Neutral 6% Somewhat Not Important6% Somewhat Not Important Value Percent Responses Highly Important 76.5%13 Somewhat Important 5.9%1 Neutral 11.8%2 Somewhat Not Important 5.9%1 Totals: 17 3. In the Northpoint area how important is commercial and residential development to you? 41% Highly Important41% Highly Important 6% Somewhat Important6% Somewhat Important18% Somewhat Not Important18% Somewhat Not Important 35% Highly Not Important35% Highly Not Important Value Percent Responses Highly Important 41.2%7 Somewhat Important 5.9%1 Somewhat Not Important 17.6%3 Highly Not Important 35.3%6 Totals: 17 4. Would you support conservation methods and tools that could provide financial compensation to landowners for the preservation of natural lands and habitats instead of development? 59% Highly Support59% Highly Support 6% Somewhat Support6% Somewhat Support 24% Neutral24% Neutral 12% Highly Not Support12% Highly Not Support Value Percent Responses Highly Support 58.8%10 Somewhat Support 5.9%1 Neutral 23.5%4 Highly Not Support 11.8%2 Totals: 17 5. Would you support the continuation of existing land uses such as grazing, agriculture, habitat conservation, rural residential, and wildlife? 77% Highly Support77% Highly Support 6% Somewhat Support6% Somewhat Support 12% Neutral12% Neutral 6% Highly Not Support6% Highly Not Support Value Percent Responses Highly Support 76.5%13 Somewhat Support 5.9%1 Neutral 11.8%2 Highly Not Support 5.9%1 Totals: 17 ResponseID Response 4 No. 7 I am highly against any further building on the agricultural land out here. 8 The area is too close to the airport not to take advantage of this proximity to lessen the burden on existing infrastructure and lessen pollution. This can be done preserving habitat closer to the Great Salt Lake. 10 We need clean air and less big heavy trucks in this tiny road. We can't handle it. We pay our taxes just like everyone eon the east side we deserve more from the city. 13 Just because land in the area has always been zoned Business Park, it does not mean it should stay that way. I don't see how it was ever zoned BP or anything other than conservation when it is directly next to ecosystems that will be negatively impacted by development. I appreciate you asking for our opinions and for keeping the survey short, but I am somewhat disappointed in this survey as it feels lacking. It's not ideal to ask double barreled questions in surveys if you want honest answers. For example, my answer to supporting residential development is different than my answer to commercial development, but this survey can't reflect that. 14 I operate a recording studio off of 2200w and construction of anything will shut me down during construction and possibly forever. 15 Construction on 2200w is dangerous without some sort of alternate construction road in place before construction begins. 16 The area of 2200 west to 3200 west and 2100 north to 3300 north is a bird and wildlife refuge and one of the last open spaces in SL county. It needs to be preserved and not just overdeveloped like the rest of the valley is becoming. Thank you for your time. Robert Taylor 17 It would be the advantage of the area and ecology to think about NOT developing every lat inch of open space. This is a sensitive area. There is a high saturation of wildlife, migration and nesting areas here. It's a wetland. In a meet the committee was surprised to hear about the existence of wildlife. We see and experience it everyday. The delineation of preexisting residential areas should be recognized. This area was settled by ranchers and farmers who understood the doom of development. This area is a treasure and should be left alone OR very thoughtfully and carefully developed. The rate with which it is occurring now is always met with contempt and disagreement. There is another way and we should make a plan of best outcomes. 6. Is there anything you'd like to add? 20 I think the area can do both commercial and have some open space.. This area is not for residential? My opinion. I have seen residential next to airports and it's not nice at all.. 21 My family has been here for over 100 years. A lot of the older homes were built by family. Now with the restrictions of building and septic use. You can't let your children build a house on a 1/4 acre lot. I have had to have children move to wood cross to have there own home. The current restrictions render the ground useless for building anything. Yet keeping some space still for AG use. The bigger lots have all ready been sold to developers, the people left will be left with your open space weed patch and no money to move any where. ResponseID Response 7. Are you interested in recieving further information about this project and ways to get involved? 78% Yes please78% Yes please 22% No, thank you22% No, thank you Value Percent Responses Yes please 77.8%14 No, thank you 22.2%4 Totals: 18 Report for Northpoint Small Area Plan Questionnaire Completion Rate:54.7% Complete 41 Partial 34 Totals: 75 Response Counts 1. What is your affiliation with the Northpoint area? Percent I am a resident I work in the area I own property I am interested in owning property I am a business owner I visit the area Other - Write In 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Value Percent Responses I am a resident 29.7%19 I work in the area 17.2%11 I own property 31.3%20 I am interested in owning property 18.8%12 I am a business owner 9.4%6 I visit the area 25.0%16 Other - Write In 14.1%9 2. What is your level of support for special standards and design guidelines as a regulatory conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 3. What is your level of support for requiring sensitive landscape studies as a regulatory conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 10 20 30 40 4. What is your level of support for development code updates as a regulatory conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 5. What is your level of support for the clustering of lots and open space as a regulatory conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 6. What is your level of support for conservation easements as an incentive-based conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 7. What is your level of support for purchase of development rights (PDR) as an incentive-based conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 8. What is your level of support for transfer of development rights as an incentive-based conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 9. What is your level of support for preferred development sites as an incentive-based conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 10 20 30 40 10. What is your level of support for lease agreements as a land acquisition conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 11. What is your level of support for mutual covenants as a land acquisition conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 12. What is your level of support for land banking as a land acquisition conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 10 20 30 40 13. What is your level of support for land exchange as a land acquisition conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 14. What open space interaction elements would you like to see in the Northpoint Area? (select all that apply) 22% amenitizedtrailheads2.jpg22% amenitizedtrailheads2.jpg 49% Multi-Purpose Natural Trails49% Multi-Purpose Natural Trails 59% Fishing Access Along the River 59% Fishing Access Along the River 37% Wildlife Viewing Areas37% Wildlife Viewing Areas 49% Trails Along Natural Resources 49% Trails Along Natural Resources 22% Interpretive/Education Center22% Interpretive/Education Center 27% Interpretive/Educational Signage 27% Interpretive/Educational Signage 29% Boardwalks29% Boardwalks Value Percent Responses amenitizedtrailheads2.jpg 22.0%9 Multi-Purpose Natural Trails 48.8%20 Fishing Access Along the River 58.5%24 Wildlife Viewing Areas 36.6%15 Trails Along Natural Resources 48.8%20 Interpretive/Education Center 22.0%9 Interpretive/Educational Signage 26.8%11 Boardwalks 29.3%12 ResponseID Response My emphasis on maintaining open-space natural area rather than developing a park-like area. None Great ideas for the community. This is such a treasure that is Salt Lake City. The land needs to be preserved for future generations, plus people are not having children there may not be the need for more development such as empty commercial buildings. Once you destroy land for development, you cant reverse the damage. All of the above amenities are wonderful. However, who maintains them and fronts the development costs? The land being discussed does not naturally produce any of the above items pictured. We are old salt flats that grow things with a lot of encouragement. We have been trying to improve the ground for 50 years and have done a lot of good. However, one year of not planting and working hard takes away 50 years of work. The farms out here would not be successful if all of the farmers did not have other larger farms somewhere else or other businesses that help support the farm. I support whatever developments come to this area that give the land owners the best benefits of their property. I know everyone wants what improves their community but don't forget the land owners and the work they have done for lifetimes and they need their rights reserved as well. This ground work for homes and businesses family like the Rudy's .Drechsel's.Swaner's Hinkley's family farmed this ground but it's no longer feasible for making a living and the ground is there retirement you want to take it from them shame on you None - not appropriate in industrial areas. none - not appropriate in industrial areas None. Not applicable for an industrial area. Restrooms. Solar panels on roof. Art. Shade none, not appropriate for industrial area none, not appropriate for industrial area none not appropriate on my land no water or for industrial area Most of these are not appropriate for an industrial area. 15. What open space interaction elements would you like to see in the Northpoint Area? (select all that apply) - comments None, not appropriate for industrial area none-not appropriate for industrial area ResponseID Response 16. When imagining the future of the Northpoint area, how do you want to see 2200 WEST improved or enhanced? Which do you think may be most appropriate to the Northpoint area? (select all that apply) 15% Painted Bike Lane15% Painted Bike Lane 12% Buffered Bike Lane12% Buffered Bike Lane 17% Roundabout with Integrated Trail Alignments 17% Roundabout with Integrated Trail Alignments 22% Street with Flat Drain Pan Edge 22% Street with Flat Drain Pan Edge 49% Street with Porous Surface Edge 49% Street with Porous Surface Edge 29% Parkways Planted with Native and Low-Water Species 29% Parkways Planted with Native and Low-Water Species 5% Crosswalks with Striping and Planters 5% Crosswalks with Striping and Planters 20% Typical Curb and Gutter Street 20% Typical Curb and Gutter Street Value Percent Responses Painted Bike Lane 14.6%6 Buffered Bike Lane 12.2%5 Roundabout with Integrated Trail Alignments 17.1%7 Street with Flat Drain Pan Edge 22.0%9 Street with Porous Surface Edge 48.8%20 Parkways Planted with Native and Low-Water Species 29.3%12 Crosswalks with Striping and Planters 4.9%2 Typical Curb and Gutter Street 19.5%8 ResponseID Response Most of these options do not seem appropriate for 2200 West. What ever the design needs to implemented consistently rather than in piecemeal blocks. Such approach expensive and dangerous. We really don't need curb and gutter or sidewalks unless this area gets over developments by commercial buildings then we will need more for the residents. I do not think traditional curb and gutter are needed for the area, but some sort of drainage is needed. It is a popular biking path that needs more safety for cyclists. 17. When imagining the future of the Northpoint area, how do you want to see 2200 WEST improved or enhanced? Which do you think may be most appropriate to the Northpoint area? (select all that apply) - comments 18. What design elements are appropriate for new business and industrial development in the Northpoint area? 22% Integration of Community Solar or Solar Gardens 22% Integration of Community Solar or Solar Gardens 24% LID/LEED Elements (i.e. Green Roofs) 24% LID/LEED Elements (i.e. Green Roofs) 51% Wildlife-Friendly Lighting51% Wildlife-Friendly Lighting 27% Two-Story Live/Work Industrial Residential 27% Two-Story Live/Work Industrial Residential 29% Increased habitat/Wildlife Buffers 29% Increased habitat/Wildlife Buffers76% Integrated Xeriscape and Native Landscaping 76% Integrated Xeriscape and Native Landscaping 34% Wildlife-Friendly Fencing34% Wildlife-Friendly Fencing 29% Noise Mitigation Design Elements (e.g. textured noise walls) 29% Noise Mitigation Design Elements (e.g. textured noise walls) 22% Thematic Sitting Areas Blended with Landscape 22% Thematic Sitting Areas Blended with Landscape 24% Natural Building Materials24% Natural Building Materials Value Percent Responses Integration of Community Solar or Solar Gardens 22.0%9 LID/LEED Elements (i.e. Green Roofs)24.4%10 Wildlife-Friendly Lighting 51.2%21 Two-Story Live/Work Industrial Residential 26.8%11 Increased habitat/Wildlife Buffers 29.3%12 Integrated Xeriscape and Native Landscaping 75.6%31 Wildlife-Friendly Fencing 34.1%14 Noise Mitigation Design Elements (e.g. textured noise walls)29.3%12 Thematic Sitting Areas Blended with Landscape 22.0%9 Natural Building Materials 24.4%10 ResponseID Response Empyhasis on keeping natural habitat and implementing "green" approaches Wildlife and nature are friendly. dense and limited cars/roads One of the major safety issues would be for the migratory birds, because this area is wetlands that is being destroyed. You would have to put the lights and windows in consideration. Again, all very nice, all of the ideas that have been presented over the last several years get voted down. It seems impossible to present something that people will get on board with. I want the land owners to be able to develop their properties with the highest value and regular farming is just not a viable option economically. Walkable design. Sustainable design. No grass. 19. What design elements are appropriate for new business and industrial development in the Northpoint area? - comments ResponseID Response 5 Place a moratorium on development until the plan is in place. 6 The construction of 2800W to pull traffic off of 2200W 7 3200 West should remain unpaved. There should be a buffer/natural area along the eastern side of 3200 West. 10 Affordable Housing. Salt Lake City is missing a big opportunity to fill the gap in affordable housing by using the acreage in this area. We are in a housing crisis, there is almost no land left to build in Salt Lake, this is a HUGE opportunity that Salt Lake could miss to build more units that are desperately needed. This is not the time for us to complain about open space. Look at the Governor's initiatives and play your part. The mayor and city council of Salt Lake are all about helping the homeless, but if we don't build more housing units the homeless population will only rise. I think the direction that it appears we are heading with this questionnaire needs to be reconsidered to include more, dense residential units for Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County 12 Need to address annexation issues and multi-jurisdictional service coordination issues NEED TO SAVE CROSS E RANCH possibly by having SL County purchase property with funding from a variety of institutional entities including USU, LDS Church, SLCity, Davis County, NSLCity, and Open Lands foundationsl Need 6 mo. moratorium on new development until Northpoint Small Area Plan is completed. 13 Plan is a waste of tax payer dollars. The market will decide the highest and best use of land in the area. 16 Ive researched what has been going on out here over the last few years, with some property owners exploring being annexed into North Salt Lake because of the regulation barriers that Salt Lake City has shown. Find compromise with the landowners or SLC may lose some of this unincorporated land and development opportunity in this area. 19 This is an industrial area and business park zoning already exists and makes sense for this project. There are already protections in place of wetlands and habitats of threatened and endangered species. 2200W is already master planned with a 90' ROW road section. Developers who develop with frontage along 2200W are already required to improve and widen the sections of 2200 W that abut their property. Many of the single family home-owners in this area are already under contract to sell their property to business park developers. There is no reason to plan this area with the preservation of existing single family homes as a goal. 20. What else should the Northpoint Small Area Plan address? 22 The valley and particularly the westside is already saturated with air quality issues. Any commercial development should exclude air pollution inputs. Additionally, water supply and quality are major issues for the state and communities which callks for restrictions on water use and waste. 24 Update the community. 26 density and walkability is best for wildlife 28 Wetlands and the fact that they are endangered. There is becoming less space for wildlife. USDA has programs for Urban Agriculture. 31 Please don't forget about the residents! This survey was focused on business development and none of the questions focused on also preserving the residential zoning in the area. We are already being bullied by developers to sell our land so they can rezone for business. PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW REZONING FOR BUSINESSES IN THE VERY SMALL REMAINING RESIDENTIAL ZONED AREAS. There are plenty of open spaces for developers to build that don't require forcing us out of our homes. 33 Setbacks and landscape areas along major roads. 34 Three points: 1. Leave 3200 West unimproved. 2. Restrictions on zoning changes until master plan is complete 3. Set aside buffer/open space lands clustered east of 3200 West. 37 The small area plan needs to think about both sides. There are a lot of neighbors talking about conservation of their lifestyle but I'm pretty sure none of them is making their living from farming. I love this area more than the average person but, I also know the realities of farming and maintaining a farm and or open space. The county could maintain or develop some trails and require certain landscaping. I know that those kinds of requirements exist in all developments. I prefer they allow the land owners the right to sell/develop their properties. There are many options for good development in this area. Residents (37ish houses) along 2200 west have been against a business park development, industrial, and residential. They want it to remain the same as always. However, that cannot happen nor should it. 39 The homeowner and people that own businesses out there 48 Zoning of specific areas to BP or M1 52 Designate this land as light industrial in the future land use map. 54 Designate this land as light industrial in the future land use map. ResponseID Response 58 This area should be light manufacturing/industrial. With the 435 acres of BP, this whole area should follow suit. More tax basis for city, great area for business, less water usage than farmers, etc. 59 Water use. 60 Designate this land as light industrial in the future land use map 61 Designate this land as light industrial in the future land use map 63 Designate this land as light industrial in the future land use map 64 Designate this land as Business Park and/or Light Industrial 67 With the business park areas that have been approved, it makes the most sense for SLC to default to Business Park zoning for this North Point area. 70 Designate this land as light industrial in the future land use nap 71 Designate this land as light 75 Do we have the water to build more? How will building in this area further impact the Great Salt Lake? Very concerned about maintaining open space and not further taxing our diminishing water systems. ResponseID Response 21. Would you like to stay involved with this planning process? Please leave your email below! APPENDIX C CONSTRAINTS Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Legend NorthPoint_Boundary -9 to -8 -7 to -6 -5 -4 to -3 -2 -1 0 1 to 2 3 to 4 5 to 7 ¯ Northpoint Opportunity Areas Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Legend -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 NorthPoint_Boundary ¯ Northpoint Constraint Areas Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Wetlands (-3)Airport Owned (-3)Easements (-2) Airport Influence Zones (-2, -1)Prime Ag Soil (-1) Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Noise Contours (-1) Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Legend 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NorthPoint_Boundary ¯ Northpoint Opportunity Areas Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Proximity to Services (+3)Underutilized (+2)Vacant (+1) Large Parcels (+1)Access to Transportation (+1) APPENDIX D FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 1 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND FUNDING OPTIONS Northpoint represents an opportunity for Salt Lake City to encourage economic development that is compatible with the unique natural and built environment of the area, including proximity to the Salt Lake City International Airport. This area is best suited for business park and industrial development yet is hampered by the lack of significant infrastructure including transportation options and high-quality fiber broadband to the area. To realize its potential, the area requires substantial infrastructure improvements. Funding options for these improvements are discussed in this section of the report. It is a challenging time to fund infrastructure as construction costs are rising rapidly, along with interest rates. Infrastructure is generally needed before development can occur, which means that revenues generated by the project are not available for funding at the time they are most needed. Rather, other funding means must be identified, with revenue streams generated from development used later as a payback mechanism. Economic development is a key component of generating new revenue streams and is addressed in this report, along with the potential funding mechanisms that such development could enable. MARKET ANALYSIS Northpoint is suitable for industrial and agricultural use, with limited residential. The area is proximate to the Salt Lake City International Airport and, as such, experiences high noise levels that make residential development difficult. The industrial market is strong in Salt Lake County, with a vacancy rate of only 2.2 percent and rising lease rates which have increased from an average (NNN) rate of $0.53 in 4th quarter 2020 to $0.63 in 4th quarter 2021. Total Salt Lake County inventory approximates 135 million square feet, with 9 million square feet of space under construction. In the northwest quadrant of Salt Lake County, the vacancy rate is 2.65 percent, with year-to-date (YTD) absorption of 7.5 million square feet and an average asking rate of $0.60 (NNN).1 Based on vacant acreage in the Northpoint area that the Salt Lake County Assessor’s Office currently classifies as industrial, the area could absorb an additional 650,000 to 1,000,000 square feet of industrial space. This appears reasonable given current absorption patterns and the shortage of industrial space in the market. The biggest obstacles to industrial development appear to be supply chain shortages, rising construction costs and rapidly escalating interest rates. 1 Source: Colliers, Salt Lake County Industrial Market Report 4Q 2021. 2 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 COMBINED COMPONENTS FOR FUNDING OPTIONS The available tools and issuing entities discussed in this report may be combined in a variety of viable options to arrive at the desired funding level for the Northpoint area. Possible funding mechanisms include the following, each of which is discussed in more detail in following sections. Tax Increment Areas o Community Reinvestment Areas (CRAs) o Transportation Reinvestment Zones (TRZs) o Tax Increment Bonds Public Infrastructure Districts (PIDs) Special Assessment Areas (SAAs) Impact Fees Municipal Energy Tax TAX INCREMENT AREAS Through the creation of a tax increment area, tax revenues generated within the designated project area are split into two components: (i)Base Revenues – The amount available before the tax increment area is established. Base revenues are shared among a mix of local governments that have the power to assess taxes such as schools, cities, counties, and special districts; and (ii)Incremental Revenues – These are tax revenues in excess of the base revenues that are generated by new growth in the project area. If a project area is created, the incremental tax revenues can flow to the project area for a period of time to encourage economic development. Some states, including Utah, allow incremental local sales tax revenues, as well as property taxes, to flow to a project area for a period of time. By giving exclusive use of incremental revenues to the project area, the creation of a successful tax increment area generates a new revenue stream that can be used to pay for projects, provide incentives to developers, or collateralize tax increment bonds. The most common uses of tax increment have been for infrastructure such as roads, utilities, telecommunications, electrical upgrades and burying power lines, and parking structures. Tax increment has also been used for demolition, tenant improvements, land acquisitions, environmental cleanup, trails, lighting, signage, playgrounds, incentives to developers, economic development activities and housing. Utah currently allows for the enactment of three types of tax increment areas: Community Reinvestment Areas (CRAs) Transportation Reinvestment Zones (TRZs) Housing & Transit Reinvestment Zones (HTRZs) 3 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 Of these three types of tax increment areas, CRAs and TRZs could be used as financing tools for the Northpoint area. HTRZs rely on density of housing and this type of development is not suitable for Northpoint. COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREAS (CRAS) In Utah, tax increment areas have been known by a wide variety of names over time – RDAs, URAs, EDAs, CDAs, and now as CRAs or Community Reinvestment Areas. As of 2016, the Legislature combined all types of project areas—urban renewal, economic development, and community development into a new single “Community Reinvestment Project Area” (CRA). Existing project areas will be allowed to continue, but all new project areas will be known as CRAs. The CRA Budget may either be approved by a Taxing Entity Committee (TEC) or through Interlocal Agreement with taxing entities, except where the Agency chooses to conduct a blight study to determine the existence of blight and to utilize limited eminent domain powers, which requires the approval of the TEC of both blight and the budget. If there is a finding of blight, 20 percent of the tax increment must be set aside for affordable housing. For all other projects, 10 percent of the tax increment is required to be set aside for affordable housing, if the annual increment is over $100,000. However, housing funds may be spent for affordable housing statewide and are not limited to being spent within a project area. Noticing and hearing requirements apply with the CRA designation. After the tax increment collection period has expired, the tax increment dollars that previously flowed to the CRA will flow to the taxing entities that levy the property taxes within the project area. In most cases, taxing entities receive more property tax revenues annually following expiration of the tax increment collection period than before, as property values are likely to have increased significantly through the redevelopment process. TABLE 1: COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREAS – ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES Advantages Community Reinvestment Areas Disadvantages Community Reinvestment Areas Creates a new revenue stream.Requires cooperation of other taxing entities. Relatively easy to create.10% of revenues must be directed to affordable housing. Flexible uses of funds.Revenues may take years to build up as development occurs over time. The Northpoint area contains roughly 1,323 acres and five tax districts. All of the tax districts are within Salt Lake City, with the exception of Tax District ACT that is found within unincorporated Salt Lake County. 4 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 TABLE 2: NORTH POINT EXISTING MARKET VALUES AND ACREAGE Property Values # of Parcels Total Market Value Residential Market Value Acres Tax District 13 63 $74,752,600 $30,700,900 666.83 Tax District 13 Q 3 $7,927,300 17.37 Tax District 13 I 3 $51,954,200 27.26 Tax District 13 R 14 $21,076,200 $1,529,600 27.01 Tax District ACT 47 $27,957,700 $12,251,900 584.37 TOTAL 130 $183,668,000 $44,482,400 1,322.84 Although there are five separate tax districts, districts 13 and 13Q include the same taxing entities; districts 13I and 13R also have the same taxing entities. The taxing entities and their tax rates are as follows: TABLE 3: TAX DISTRICTS AND TAXING ENTITIES Tax Rate Tax District 13 and 13Q Figure 1: Northpoint Tax Districts 5 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 Tax Rate Salt Lake County 0.001777 Multi-County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000012 County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000196 Salt Lake City School District 0.004809 Salt Lake City 0.003424 Salt Lake City Library 0.000652 Metropolitan Water District Salt Lake 0.000253 Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement 0.000115 Central Utah Water Conservancy District 0.0004 TOTAL 0.011638 Tax District 13I and 13R Salt Lake County 0.001777 Multi-County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000012 County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000196 Granite School District 0.007105 Salt Lake City 0.003424 Salt Lake City Library 0.000652 Metropolitan Water District Salt Lake 0.000253 Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement 0.000115 Central Utah Water Conservancy District 0.0004 TOTAL 0.013934 Tax District - Unincorporated Salt Lake County 0.001777 Multi-County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000012 County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000196 Granite School District 0.007105 Central Utah Water Conservancy District 0.0004 Salt Lake County Municipal-Type Services 0.000051 Unified Fire Service Area 0.001594 Salt Lake Valley Law Enforcement Service Area 0.001973 Salt Lake County Library 0.000474 TOTAL 0.013582 The market value of the property is much higher than the taxable value in the area for several reasons. First, primary residential development is taxed at 55 percent of market value. Agricultural property is in greenbelt status and taxed at extremely low rates, and public properties are tax exempt. Therefore, while the market value is nearly $184 million, taxable value is estimated at roughly $67.9 million. 6 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 TABLE 4: ESTIMATED NORTHPOINT TAXABLE VALUE Estimated Taxable Value Tax Districts 13 and 13Q $37,500,000 Tax Districts 13 I and 13 R $20,400,000 Tax District ACT $10,000,000 Total Taxable Value $67,900,000 Taxable value will increase as development occurs in Northpoint. Of the 1,323 acres in Northpoint, approximately 437 acres are either vacant or held in agricultural use. TABLE 5: VACANT ACRES Vacant Acres Tax Districts 13 and 13Q Tax Districts 13I and 13R Tax District ACT Total Residential 8.34 19.81 28.15 Industrial 17.40 14.19 42.56 74.15 Agricultural 111.68 223.04 334.72 TOTAL Acres 137.42 14.19 285.41 437.01 For purposes of estimating future tax revenues, this study assumes that the residential and industrial vacant acres are developed as residential and industrial respectively and makes no assumptions about future development of the agricultural property. TABLE 6: PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT Amount Residential Development Undeveloped acres 28.15 Units per Acre 2 Units developed 56 Average market value per unit $600,000 Average taxable value per unit $330,000 Total residential taxable value $18,480,000 Industrial Development Undeveloped acres 74.15 Floor area ratio 0.2* Taxable value per sf $200 Estimated taxable value $129,193,733 *If the floor area ratio (FAR) can be increased to 0.3, then the estimated total taxable value would increase to nearly $194 million For purposes of analysis, this report assumes that the majority of the development takes place in the unincorporated County, as it has the largest amount of vacant acres. The table below shows projections of roughly $2 million per year in additional property tax revenues from this area. 7 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 TABLE 7: PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT Tax Rates - ACT Incremental Revenues Generated Salt Lake County 0.001777 $262,416 Multi-County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000012 $1,772 County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000196 $28,944 Granite School District 0.007105 $1,049,222 Central Utah Water Conservancy District 0.0004 $59,069 Salt Lake County Municipal-Type Services 0.000051 $7,531 Unified Fire Service Area 0.001594 $235,392 Salt Lake Valley Law Enforcement Service Area 0.001973 $291,360 Salt Lake County Library 0.000474 $69,997 TOTAL 0.013582 $2,005,705* *If the industrial development assumptions are increased to a FAR of 0.3, rather than 0.2, then annual incremental property tax revenues generated increase to nearly $2.9 million annually. A portion of these revenues could be allocated to a CRA for a period of time in order to pay for needed improvements and infrastructure in the area. TRANSPORTATION REINVESTMENT ZONE (TRZ) A TRZ is one type of area that can be formed where tax increment can be used to accelerate development within the defined project area. According to Utah Code §11-13-103(22), “Transportation Reinvestment Zone” means an area created by two or more public agencies by interlocal agreement to capture increased property or sales tax revenue generated by a transportation infrastructure project. TRZs are ideal for projects such as Frontrunner, light rail, or major arterials that span multiple jurisdictions. Any two or more public agencies may enter into an agreement to create a transportation reinvestment zone but one of these entities must have land use authority over the TRZ area – in other words, Salt Lake City must be a partner in this endeavor. 8 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 A TRZ is much like a Community Reinvestment Area (CRA) in that a portion of tax increment is pledged to the project for a specified period of time. The agreement between the two or more public entities must include the following, as specified in Utah Code §11-13-227(2): Define the transportation need and proposed improvement Define the boundaries of the zone Establish terms for sharing sales tax revenue among the members of the agreement, if sales tax is to be included Establish a base year to calculate the increase of property tax revenue within the zone Establish terms for sharing any increase in property tax revenue within the zone Hold a public hearing regarding the details of the TRZ Property tax revenues that are shared between members of the agreement are required to be incremental (Utah Code §11-13-227(2)(e). In order to identify incremental revenues, a “base year” needs to be established. The law clearly allows for the sharing of both sales tax and property tax revenue among the members of the agreement. There are advantages to governance with TRZs, as compared to CRAs, for projects that span multiple jurisdictions. In fact, there are only a few redevelopment areas in Utah that currently overlap multiple communities. While such are allowed by law, governance can be tricky. For example, in a CRA spanning two cities, each city would have its own redevelopment agency. Who then governs the project area? Joint RDA board meetings can be held, each agency board can meet separately, or there can be a MOU designating one of the RDA boards as the lead agency. Experience dictates that concerns often arise when more tax increment is generated in one jurisdiction of the project area than in another. There are often concerns about equity in spending funds in the same jurisdiction from which they come. Each redevelopment agency involved has to submit its annual report detailing the increment generated and how funds were spent, further exacerbating this concern. The TRZ overcomes many of these problems. First, with a TRZ, there is no requirement for RDA involvement, and therefore no need for RDA meetings. The TRZ is simply governed by an interlocal agreement signed by the parties. TRZs have proven effective in other states when projects cross multiple jurisdictions. With a TRZ there is no requirement to measure in which community increment is generated and where funds are spent. The purpose is simply to achieve an overall project. And only one annual report has to be filed for the TRZ – not separate reports for each participating entity. Another advantage to TRZs is the ability to obtain the commitment of transportation agencies, such as UDOT or UTA, for specific projects. Interlocal agreements between the public entity with the land-use authority and a transportation agency will identify the specific projects associated with the TRZ. This will add another level of certainty to local planning efforts and will give these public entities some additional leverage in prioritizing needed transportation projects. 9 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 Advantages and Disadvantages The following table lists the advantages and disadvantages of funding transportation projects with tax increment generated in Transportation Reinvestment Zones: TABLE 8: TRANSPORTATION REINVESTMENT ZONES AS A FUNDING SOURCE FOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS. Advantages Transportation Reinvestment Zones Disadvantages Transportation Reinvestment Zones Creates a new revenue stream.Revenue directed to transportation projects will not be available to provide other services. Relatively easy to create.Requires cooperation between at least two entities. Projected to produce substantial revenue stream over time. Must find a nexus with transportation projects to justify use of the increment. No affordable housing requirement.Revenues may take years to build up as development occurs over time. TAX INCREMENT BONDS Tax increment Bonds were developed in California in 1952 as an innovative way of raising local matching funds for federal grants. They became increasingly popular in the 1980s and 1990s, when there were declines in subsidies for local economic development from federal grants, state grants, and federal tax subsidies (especially industrial development bonds). Tax Increment Bonds are collateralized by the incremental growth in property taxes within a given project area. They capture the future tax benefits of real estate improvements to pay the present cost of those improvements. It is a financing strategy designed to make improvements to a targeted project area or district without drawing on general fund revenue or creating a new tax. Ratings on tax increment bonds are tied to the performance of the area or district, not to the creating government’s general fund. As a result, the ratings differ from those of the creating entity’s general obligation rating. The rating of tax increment bonds hinges on local economics, trends, and taxpayer diversity, with taxpayer diversity being the most highly correlated statistic. Rating agencies evaluate whether the tax increment revenues could survive the loss of one or more top taxpaying property owners, how debt service could be managed in the case of broad-based decline of assessed value, real estate trends and historical assessed values in the designated area, and the types of properties located or being developed in the tax increment area. The assessed value of hotels is the most volatile, followed by warehouses, commercial, condos, and last residential. Many issuers opt to offer tax increment bonds on a non-rated basis. It is virtually impossible to secure a rating for or sell a tax increment bond before the increment is actually flowing, unless there is recourse to the local government’s credit or some other enhancement. 10 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 Typically, tax increment bonds carry longer terms (anywhere from 10 to 30 years) and are purchased at a fixed rate using larger denominations of $100,000. There is usually no recourse to either the issuer or the developers who may benefit from the bonds. Pledged revenues vary, but a typical pledge is a senior security interest in the tax increment revenues as well as any debt service reserve funds. The bonds are often offered via a limited public offering and most often sold to institutional buyers (primarily mutual funds and occasionally property/casualty insurers) using a limited offering memorandum. It is typical to see interest capitalized for at least two to three years to allow increment to begin flowing before debt service payments are required from that increment. Unspent proceeds, capitalized interest and reserve funds are held by a Trustee. Debt service coverage covenants vary based on type of tax increment revenue and other security features associated with the bonds, but minimum coverage requirements are almost always at least 1.25 times annual debt service. Advantages and Disadvantages The following table lists the advantages and disadvantages of funding with tax increment bonds: TABLE 9: TAX INCREMENT BONDS AS A FUNDING SOURCE Advantages Tax Increment Bonds Disadvantages Tax Increment Bonds Create a new revenue stream that can fund capital improvements and economic development.Tend to carry higher interest and costs of issuance. Creating entity does not have to bear financial burden alone but can share it with other taxing entities within a project area. Often require the cooperation and agreement of multiple taxing entities to generate sufficient incremental revenues to finance the desired infrastructure. Tax increment revenues can be used to pay for administrative expenses. Bonds can’t be sold unless the tax increment is already flowing or is imminent and nearly certain to flow or is enhanced by a government’s credit or other mechanism. Financial and legal liability is limited by having a redevelopment agency.2 Typically take longer from start to finish than other financing types.3 Creating entity may gift tax revenues or property to provide incentives for development. Critics of Tax Increment Bonds sometimes assert that tax increment is just a reallocation of tax revenues by which some municipalities win, and others lose.4 2 An RDA is a separate political subdivision which can enter into agreements with developers and issue the bonds. 3 It is difficult to estimate the time required for the “political” side of the process, which often requires significant information sharing between local government and developers, including a public hearing for approval of the Project Area Plan and Budget. Setting aside the political requirements, the bond issuance process usually takes three to five months. 4 Critics of Tax Increment Bonds sometimes assert that some or all the increment is not attributable to the creation of the tax increment area and that the new property value growth would have occurred anyway. 11 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 Advantages Tax Increment Bonds Disadvantages Tax Increment Bonds Creating entity may be able to encourage or accelerate the timeframe of desired development types through offering tax increment incentives to the developer. Mortgage on the property can also be given as bond security under Utah law in addition to incremental revenue. PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE DISTRICTS (PIDs) PIDs are generally most successful in larger, undeveloped areas where there are significant infrastructure needs. Because the unanimous consent of all property owners is required for the creation of a PID, it is difficult to establish PIDs in areas with numerous property owners. However, portions of the study area could be included – especially those areas with larger parcels, fewer property owners, and significant infrastructure needs. If created, a PID can be combined with other revenue sources such as tax increment and those revenues could be used to pay the PID bonds. These funding tools may further facilitate development and increase property values, which may in turn provide for more opportunities to fund basic infrastructure (through tax increment financing or general tax collection). The PID tool allows for creation of a separate taxing entity in order to fund public infrastructure. Ultimate users of the property pay for the improvements via the taxing entity through property assessments. These assessments permit for bonding, allowing for covering upfront infrastructure expenses that are repaid over periods typically near 30 years. This tool results in higher property taxes for property owners/users in the defined district. Consequently, benefits beyond the improved infrastructure can be included in the area. This can be in the form of better landscaping, street lighting, public spaces, parks, trails, finishes, etc. These benefits aid in creating property appeal, property value increases and in attracting top quality businesses. The PID tool also represents a valuable option for cities who are reticent to bond with property tax revenues in a standard tax increment collection area. Bonding permits for upfront infrastructure costs to be covered, oftentimes expediting development that may not have otherwise occurred. A city may create a PID with no increase in the tax rate and use the PID as a conduit to issue bonds. In this approach, the city is not financially responsible for the bond payments, and the bonding does not affect the city’s credit rating. The process for starting a Public Infrastructure District begins with a citywide policy. This represents a “30,000-foot” view of the tool for the municipality and merely outlines the guidelines as to how a developer should submit for a PID. The PID policy may incorporate specific goals and vision statements of the city. Once a policy is adopted, a developer may submit a letter of intent to create a PID. This is reviewed by the city, and if approved, governing documents are required to be submitted and approved 12 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 by the City Council. The simple passing of a general PID policy does not require the City Council to approve governing documents or letters of intent. Consequently, the PID policy represents another tool that can be used when appropriate. As of 2022, several cities throughout Utah have adopted PID policies and multiple public infrastructure districts have been formed. TABLE 10: PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE DISTRICTS AS A FUNDING SOURCE Advantages PIDs Disadvantages PIDs Create a new revenue stream that can fund capital improvements and economic development.Tend to carry higher interest and costs of issuance. Any debt issued is not on the books of the local government entity. Cities may feel it limits public support for future tax rate increases or bond elections due to the perception of already-high rates. Can raise a significant amount of revenue with legally- allowed tax rates of up to 15 mils. Requires unanimous support of all taxing entities to put in place. Accelerates development timeframe through upfront funding for capital costs.Ongoing PID governance Can reduce the need for impact fees.Competitiveness of site with other sites given higher tax rates Mortgage on the property can also be given as bond security under Utah law in addition to incremental revenue. Cost is much lower than other development financing. The current taxable value of North Point is approximately $68,000,000. The maximum mill rate allowed by Utah law is 0.015; however, districts are choosing to enact much lower rates. Politically, it would be nearly impossible to obtain the consent of the entire Northpoint area to create a PID. However, smaller sections that are wanting to encourage economic development could be developed as PIDs. The table below shows the amount of annual property tax revenues that could be generated for such a district given varying taxable values and varying tax rates up to the maximum of 0.015. TABLE 11: PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE DISTRICT ANNUAL REVENUES BASED ON VARYING MILL RATES AND TAXABLE VALUES Property Taxable Values 0.015 Mill Rate .0075 Mill Rate .004 Mill Rate $10,000,000 $150,000 $75,000 $40,000 $20,000,000 $300,000 $150,000 $80,000 $30,000,000 $450,000 $225,000 $120,000 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREAS (SAAs) Special Assessment Areas (“SAAs”), formerly known as Special Improvement Districts or “SID”s, are a financing mechanism that allows governmental entities to designate a specific area for the purpose of 13 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 financing the costs of improvements, operation and maintenance, or economic promotion activities that benefit property within a specified area. Entities can then levy a special assessment, on parity with a tax lien, to pay for those improvements or ongoing maintenance. The special assessment can be pledged to retire bonds, known as Special Assessment Bonds, if issued to finance construction of a project. Utah Code §11-42 deals with the requirements of special assessment areas. The underlying rationale of an SAA is that only those property owners who benefit from the public improvements and ongoing maintenance of the properties will be assessed for the associated costs as opposed to other financing structures in which all City residents pay either through property taxes or increased service fees. While more information about SAAs is included below, it could be difficult politically for the City to obtain support from a large number of property owners. While not subject to a bond election as is required for the issuance of General Obligation bonds, SAAs may not be created if 40 percent or more of those liable for the assessment payment5 protest its creation. Despite this legal threshold, most local government governing bodies tend to find it difficult to create an SAA if even 10-20 percent of property owners oppose the SAA. Once created, an SAA’s ability to levy an assessment has similar collection priority / legal standing as a property tax assessment. However, since it is not a property tax, any financing secured by that levy would likely be done at higher interest rates than general obligation, sales tax revenue or utility revenue bonds. Interest rates will depend on a number of factors including the ratio of the market value to the assessment bond amount, the diversity of property ownership and the perceived willingness and ability of property owners to make the assessment payments as they come due. Even with the best of special assessment credit structure, if bonds are issued they are likely to be non-rated and therefore would be issued at rates quite a bit higher than similar General Obligation Bonds that would likely be rated. All improvements financed via an SAA must be owned by the City and the repayment period cannot exceed twenty (20) years. Whenever SAAs are created, entities have to select a method of assessment (i.e. per lot, per unit (ERU), per acre, taxable value, market value, by linear foot frontage, etc.) which is reasonable, fair and equitable to all property owners within the SAA. State law does not allow property owned by local government entities such as cities or school districts to be assessed. TABLE 12: SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREAS AS A FUNDING SOURCE Advantages SAAs Disadvantages SAAs Bonds are tax-exempt although the interest cost is not as low as a GO or revenue bond Forty percent of the assessed liability, be it one property owner or many could defeat the effort to create the SAA if they do not want to pay the assessment No requirement to hold a bond election but the City must hold a meeting for property owners to be assessed before the SAA can be created Some increased administrative burden for the City although State law permits an additional amount to be included in each assessment to either pay the City’s increased administrative costs or permit the City to hire an outside SAA administrator 5 Based on the method of assessment selected, i.e., acreage, front footage, per lot, etc. 14 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 Advantages SAAs Disadvantages SAAs Only benefited property owners pay for the improvements or ongoing maintenance The City cannot assess government-owned property within the SAA Limited risk to the City as there is no general tax or revenue pledge Flexibility since property owners may pre-pay their assessment prior to bond issuance or annually thereafter as the bond documents dictate – if bonds are issued IMPACT FEES Impact fees are one-time fees paid by new development to offset the capital costs associated with new development for basic utilities such as water, sewer, storm water, public safety, roads and parks/trails. In order to collect impact fees, cities must carefully follow the requirements of Utah Code 11-36a which includes the following major steps. Prepare and pass a resolution authorizing study of an impact fee Conduct an impact fee study to determine the appropriate amount of such a fee Provide public notice of the possible fee 14 days prior to the public hearing Hold a public hearing to take comment regarding the proposed fee Salt Lake City has already established impact fees that could be used to generate revenues on projects developed within its City boundaries. However, Salt Lake County would need to charge impact fees on the unincorporated areas of North Point. Impact fees collected would need to be spent on capital projects listed in each respective entity’s Impact Fee Facilities Plans (IFFPs). Therefore, careful coordination would need to take place between Salt Lake City and the County to ensure that the costs of needed projects are fairly allocated between the two entities. Advantages and Disadvantages The following table lists the advantages and disadvantages of funding projects with impact fees: TABLE 13: IMPACT FEES AS A FUNDING SOURCE Advantages Impact Fees Disadvantages Impact Fees New development pays for its fair share of the costs incurred by new development Adds additional costs to development Impact fees are generally paid when building permits are issued; therefore, funds are often not available upfront when infrastructure needs are greatest 15 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 Advantages Impact Fees Disadvantages Impact Fees Impact fees cannot be used to cure existing deficiencies MUNICIPAL ENERGY TAX Salt Lake City has enacted the municipal energy tax to the full 6 percent allowed by law on all taxable portions of electric and gas bills. Therefore, any development that takes place in Salt Lake City would generate this additional revenue that could be used to assist with economic development and infrastructure costs in Northpoint. The municipal energy tax applies only to development that occurs in Salt Lake City and not in Salt Lake County. APPENDIX E MAJOR STREETS PLAN AMENDMENT 2100 N ~2900 W 3200 W 2200 W 3300 N 3500 N 2950 N Salt Lake Ci ty Major Street Plan Amendm en t for Nor th p oin t A r ea ¯ Legend Designation Arterials Loc al Streets Propos ed Arterial Streets 0 640 1,280 1,920320 Feet 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED The first public draft of the Northpoint Small Area Plan was online and available for public comment from July 26, 2022 – September 19, 2022. The plan received 685 views and 195 total comments during this time. The majority of the comments were left directly on the draft using the software Konveio and can be viewed by visiting this link: https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:9d257aa8-60d8-39d9-ab70- 8aa9c2005923 All other written public comments are included in either the Staff Report published on October 26, 2022 or the Staff Report published for the December 14, 2022 meeting. Public comments that were received following the publishing of those staff reports are included on the following pages. From:cindy cromer To:Norris, Nick; Oktay, Michaela Cc:Martinez, Diana; Gilmore, Kristina Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fw: request to recall: Northpoint Small Area Plan Date:Tuesday, January 10, 2023 7:39:08 AM Please forward to members of the Planning Commission, via their e mail addresses if possible. To Chairman Bachman and Members of the Salt Lake City Planning Commission From Cindy Cromer RE your vote on the Northpoint Small Area Plan, 12/14 I am asking the Commission to recall its vote on the Northpoint Small Area Plan on 12/14 (5-2) prior to approving the minutes at your meeting on 1/11. I have made a similar request once before, in July 2021, but in that case, the Commission had failed to follow the adopted ordinance. I knew that you had to consider my request and you did. In the case of the Small Area Plan, you have not violated any ordinances but have instead set the stage for consequences in the foreseeable future which I doubt that any of you would support and which I know the overwhelming majority of Salt Lake's voters would not support. There are two issues which have led me to ask you to recall your vote. The first issue is the relationship between Northpoint and the Inland Port. Of greatest concern was the Commission's decision to ignore the staff recommendation regarding distribution centers. That change led me to ask about the history of Northpoint relative to the Inland Port. According to people involved for decades, Northpoint was previously part of the Port. Former City Council Member James Rogers was also the City's representative on the Inland Port and had Northpoint removed. He then initiated the Small Area Plan with funding through the City Council. That must have been in 2019. Inserting distribution centers as an allowed use into the Small Area Plan creates the potential for Northpoint to resemble the Inland Port as it redevelops and be annexed back into the Port by the State. Given what has already happened, this possibility is real. Given the resources that the City has devoted over the past 2 Administrations to protecting the City's interests in the Port, it is unconscionable that the Commission would do anything to facilitate the future expansion of the Port. Secondly, in the executive session a member of the Commission speculated that there was rampant cultivation of alfalfa and significant waste of water in current agricultural uses. So far, I have been able to identify 1 property owner growing alfalfa and the water being used is untreated, not water from Salt Lake City Public Utilities. My criticism of your recommendation began 1/3 at the City Council's meeting and is included below (last paragraph). You have failed to protect Northpoint from predictable overreach by the State government, if not now, then in the foreseeable future. You failed to seek information about the basis for the staff recommendation regarding distribution centers and instead dismissed the staff recommendation. You appeared to accept inflammatory, generic statements about the cultivation of a crop which as far as I can determine is not grown commonly in Northpoint. You failed to verify the relevance of those generic statements to a highly specific planning document. These are shortcomings from my perspective which are not prohibited by the City's ordinances. You can of course ignore my cautions, as you did my comments on 12/14, and persist with your recommendation to the City Council. I am writing to let you know that I too can persist in my objections and will continue to ask the members of the City Council to ignore your recommendation of 12/14. From: cindy cromer Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 4:07 PM To: Petro-Eschler, Victoria <victoria.petro-eschler@slcgov.com>; alejandro.puy@slcgov.com <alejandro.puy@slcgov.com>; dan.dugan@slcgov.com <dan.dugan@slcgov.com>; Fowler, Amy <amy.fowler@slcgov.com>; Mano, Darin <darin.mano@slcgov.com>; Chris Wharton <chris.wharton@slcgov.com>; Valdemoros, Ana <ana.valdemoros@slcgov.com> Cc: Fullmer, Brian <Brian.Fullmer@slcgov.com>; Pantle, Brian <Brian.Pantle@slcgov.com>; Benson, Jenna <Jenna.Benson@slcgov.com>; Tuuao, Priscilla <priscilla.tuuao@slcgov.com>; Thomas, Blake <blake.thomas@slcgov.com>; Gilmore, Kristina <Kristina.Gilmore@slcgov.com>; michaela.oktay@slcgov.com <michaela.oktay@slcgov.com>; cindy gust-jenson <cindy.gust- jenson@slcgov.com> Subject: Fw: Northpoint Small Area Plan: comment to the City Council 1/3/23 40 Years of Showing Up Late or Not at All: The Northwest Quadrant In the late 1980's, the Northwest Quadrant was the only part of the city without a master plan. At some point during the early 1990's, Doug Wheelwright on the Planning staff wrote a proposed plan with traditional single-family houses. Then, Genevieve Atwood presented the findings of her dissertation (published 2006). I was standing next to Doug at the back of the room during Genevieve's presentation. He only said, "This changes everything." Nothing else. Through the 1990's and early 2000's, Salt Lake City still did not have a plan for the Northwest Quadrant. Then the State started talking about relocating the prison. Once again Frank Gray came to the City's rescue and drafted a plan for the Northwest Quadrant adopted in 2016. The State proceeded with the relocation of the prison any way. And then the State decided to locate the Intermodal Hub near the airport. Once again the City mustered its best arguments after the fact. Then James Rogers got the funding for the small area plan, but the effort stalled with the RFP. I am still trying to piece together the City's response to a proposed annexation. My point is that the City has always failed to plan for this area in a timely manner. It shows up late over and over again. At times, it has had talented planners and attorneys assigned to the task. They have attempted to outmaneuver the State. The City has criticized the State for the Inland Port, but now the Planning Commission appears to put its blessing on a similar redevelopment of Northpoint. I am hoping that someone will explain to me how the development of distribution and manufacturing in Northpoint is different from the Inland Port in any way except that the City would retain, only for the immediate future, receipt of the property taxes. That of course assumes that the State doesn't swoop in and claim them, as it has with the Inland Port. I have no doubt that if Northpoint resembles the Inland Port in the future, the State will intervene again. I am asking you to ignore the recommendation from the Planning Commission. The Commissioners seem oblivious of the predictable outcome. 4858-3336-8894 NorthPoint Small Area Plan Salt Lake City PETITION IN SUPPORT OF THE NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN DATED OCTOBER 2022. The undersigned supports the amended NorthPoint Small Area Plan as presented to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission on October 26, 2022 and request that the Planning Commission approve such plan on the meeting to be held on December 14, 2022 with no additional limitations on distribution uses. The undersigned attests that they are residents of the NorthPoint Small Area located in Salt Lake City, have personally signed this petition on the date indicated, and reside or work at the stated address. Signature: ____________ ___________________ Address: ________________________________ Date: ________________________________ DocuSign Envelope ID: 568F1AB3-E460-43A1-A68A-1E452DE9445C 12/3/2022 2680 N 2200 W Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Krissy Gilmore Salt Lake City Senior Planner kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com Victoria Petro Eschler Salt Lake City District #1 Councilmember victoria.petro-eschler@slcgov.com RE: SUPPORT FOR THE NORHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN As a resident of the NorthPoint Small Area, I am writing to document my support for the Northpoint Small Area Plan as presented to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission on October 26, 2022. I would highly recommend the Planning Commission approve the plan with no additional limitations to distribution uses in its December 14th meeting and that City Council adopt this plan as currently scheduled in January 2023. The Northpoint Small Area Plan outlines several reasons to transition the land use from agricultural to industrial while allowing landowners to participate in the economic growth of the area. Additionally, to ensure the greatest potential for economic growth in the area, we encourage the Planning Commission and/or City Council remove any limitations on the distribution uses allowed in the area. Not only would these limitations exclude the vast majority of small businesses seeking industrial space, but they would continue to drive rental rates higher for already struggling small businesses. Any limitation imposed on distribution uses would devalue the land, restrict economic growth, and increase rental rates for small businesses in the area. Thank you, Signature: ________________________________ Address: ________________________________ Date: ________________________________ DocuSign Envelope ID: 568F1AB3-E460-43A1-A68A-1E452DE9445C 12/3/2022 2680 N 2200 W Salt Lake City, UT 84116 From:Denise Payne To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) Denise and John Payne 2848 North 2200 West Date:Wednesday, December 14, 2022 2:34:50 PM My husband has lived on 2200 west for 45 years and I have lived here for 33 years. I oppose the transitional land use verbiage in the Master Plan and I oppose the annexation, rezoning or Area Master Plan changes which changes current zoning M1 or BP. This would jeopardize open space along the Jordan River with agriculture becoming industrial areas. Such changes not only significantly impact North Point residents but the residents of surrounding westside neighborhoods. As stated in the Tribune the West side is the highest in air pollution in the area. Industrial zoning around our home condemns is to a lower quality of life, decreases our property value and will force is to move. This does not support new housing at all income levels.” This housing gap/shortage dwarfs the city’s apparent desire for more warehouses and other commercial structures. City Council just approved funding for affordable housing. Approving M1 is going against new affordable housing. Other negative impacts to the entire westside include: Increased air pollution, noise pollution, light pollution Unsustainable traffic Watershed pollution and destruction of natural habitat Reduction of home ownership in the city -- Have an awesome day....... Denise Payne From: To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) Northpoint Small Area Plan Comments for Dec. 14 Date:Wednesday, December 14, 2022 3:26:06 PM Attachments:Northpoint Small Area Plan Comments 12-13-2022.docx Hello, FYI, Attached are the comments I submitted yesterday to Krissy Gilmore. I understand that comments will be read to the planning commission if they are under two minutes. Below are the comments I would like to have read at the meeting tonight. Dear Salt Lake City Planning Commission Members, My name is Wayne Martinson. I worked for National Audubon Society for25 years, retiring in 2016. During this period, I worked extensively onissues regarding the Great Salt Lake, including the Gillmor Sanctuary, thenorthwest quadrant plan and the south shore of Great Salt Lake. Last night I submitted comments to Krissy Gilmore. I hope you considerthose comments in full. The following provides three specific comments: 1. I support the Westpointe Board statement on the Proposed NorthPoint Small Area Plan. In particular, I support their statement in theletter dated January 11, 2022, that the Planning Commission is urged“to continue to table action on the North Point Master Plan until suchcitizen input can be incorporated into the plan.” 2. I support the comments made by Heidi Hoven, ConservationSpecialist, Gillmor Sanctuary, National Audubon, in her letter to you,dated Dec. 2, 2022. The following comments in particular should befully addressed: “The wetlands bordering the west side of Northpoint Small Area shouldbe treated delicately and provided a minimum buffer of 300 feet, whichcan be backed by studies that consider ecological preservation and theother functions that wetlands provide. Likewise, the Jordan Rivershould also be treated as highest priority as it is a major source ofwater to Great Salt Lake and its wetlands with a 300 foot buffer(highest quality buffer recommended in Blueprint Jordan River). 3. Regarding the minimum buffer of 300 feet, it could be useful to puttogether a committee that would fully address this buffer. Thiscommittee could work on the wetland buffer during the same timethat citizen input is being incorporated into the plan. Thank you for considering these comments. Wayne Martinson Dec. 13, 2022 Kristina Gilmore, AICP Senior Planner Planning Division Department of Community and Neighborhoods Salt Lake City Corporation kristina.gillmore@slcgov.com Dear Kristina: Subject: Northpoint Small Area Plan Comments Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Northpoint Small Area Plan The following provides Personal Background and then General and Specific comments. Personal background: From 1991 to 2016, I worked for the National Audubon Society, first as Utah Wetlands Coordinator and then as Utah Important Bird Areas Coordinator. Much of my time was focused on the Great Salt Lake, including working with Ella Sorensen regarding the Gillmor Sanctuary as well as the wetlands on the south shore of Great Salt Lake. I have been a resident of Salt Lake City since 1978. General Comments: Some of the first meetings I attended when starting with National Audubon in the early 1990’s were about the Northwest Quadrant Plan. Some of the last meetings I attended in 2016 were related to the completion of the Northwest Quadrant Plan. It can take a long time to complete a plan. One of the major components addressed in the Northwest Quadrant Plan was developing the Natural Areas. These Natural Areas provide a buffer for the wetlands of the Great Salt Lake, including the areas owned and managed by Kennecott Copper (Inland Sea Shorebird Reserve) National Audubon Society (Gillmor Sanctuary) and the duck clubs. Numerous meetings were held between landowners who wanted to develop and landowners who wanted to preserve the wildlife values before an agreement was reached regarding the Natural Areas. The value of natural areas in or adjacent to the Northpoint Small Area Plan is very high. Often when I was asked about the major issues regarding the Great Salt Lake, my response was (and still is) water quantity, water quality, and preserving wetland and upland buffers for the Great Salt Lake. The Northpoint Small Area Plan has similarities to the Northwest Quadrant Plan. One of them is that development is proposed right next to the wetland and upland areas that are managed for wildlife. Every attempt should be made to become familiar with and supportive of these wetland and upland buffers. Specific Comments: 1. I support the Westpointe Board statement on the Proposed North Point Small Area Plan. In particular, I support their statement in the letter dated January 11, 2022, that the Planning Commission is urged “to continue to table action on the North Point Master Plan until such citizen input can be incorporated into the plan.” 2. I support the comments made by Heidi Hoven, Conservation Specialist, Gillmor Sanctuary, National Audubon Society, in her letter to you, dated Dec. 2, 2022. The following comments in particular should be fully addressed: “The wetlands bordering the west side of Northpoint Small Area should be treated delicately and provided a minimum buffer of 300 feet, which can be backed by studies that consider ecological preservation and the other functions that wetlands provide (e.g., groundwater recharge, improved water quality, flood attenuation, dissipation of noise, motion, and light disturbances to wildlife, and many habitat benefits to wildlife). Likewise, the Jordan River should also be treated as highest priority as it is a major source of water to Great Salt Lake and its wetlands with a 300 foot buffer (highest quality buffer recommended in Blueprint Jordan River). 3. Regarding the minimum buffer of 300 feet, it could be useful to put together a committee that would fully address this buffer. This committee could work on the wetland buffer during the same time that citizen input is being incorporated into the plan. In summary, the Northpoint Small Area Plan should be tabled until citizen input can be more fully considered and incorporated into the plan. Also, the wetland and upland areas that are part of and/or are adjacent to the Northpoint Small Area Plan are an important component of the Great Salt Lake wetlands. Every effort should be made to preserve and protect these areas. Thank you for the opportunity to comment: Sincerely, Wayne Martinson Cc: Heidi Hoven, Conservation Specialist National Audubon Society Ella Sorensen, Gillmor Sanctuary Manager, National Audubon Society Dorothy Owen, Westpointe Community Council Board of Directors Jack Ray, Rudy Duck Club 1 Clark, Aubrey From: Sent:Monday, December 12, 2022 10:49 AM To:Gilmore, Kristina Cc:Norris, Nick; Clark, Aubrey; Petro-Eschler, Victoria; Puy, Alejandro; Dugan, Dan; Otto, Rachel Subject:(EXTERNAL) WESTPOINTE BOARD STATEMENT ON PROPOSED NORTH POINT SMALL AREA PLAN-- for submission to Planning Commission for Dec 14 public hearing Attachments:Westpointe Board of Directors Statement regarding proposed North Point Small Area Master Plan .pdf; house with warehouse.JPG; lovelyhome.JPG Importance:High The Westpointe Community Council Board of Directors has now completed their analysis of the residentspetition and unanimously voted to support their proposed changes to the current draft of the North Point Small Area Master Plan. The attached statement includes this analysis and our comments to the Planning Commission for their Dec 14 public hearing.This augments the Nov 30 th email comments previously sent. Since a picture is worth a thousand words, we are also including a few photosone of a current house at risk and one of a home that reflects the reality of the proposed transition.Additional photos are available but did not want to overwhelm people at this time. Thank you for your assistance and for forwarding this information to the Planning Commission members. While we regret that this review and vote could not be completed sooner, we are pleased with the resulting statement and photos. We hope this will clarify the major issues at stake. We concur with Dr. Luke Garrott assessment that the proposed plan , if implemented, will result in an unsustainable and unwalkable land use-a warehouse and trucking ghetto. (https://buildingsaltlake.com/hot-market-for-warehouses-is-driving-a-trucking-ghetto-into- slcs-last-agricultural-land-and-right-through-the-citys-draft-master-plan/ ). The draft plan seeks to soften this result by identifying lands, implying that mitigation measures will allow current residents to stay in the area and that any change will be a gradual shift. This blatantly contradicts written developer comments that homes will be gone within five years and that many proposed mitigation efforts will be unnecessary as a result. It would be cruelly ironic for Salt Lake City to now adopt such a approach after Councilman James Rogers convinced the Utah State Legislature to withdraw this unique area from the jurisdiction of the Utah Inland Port Authority (UIPA). This allowed North Point to avoid M1 rezoning unlike the remaining UIPA area. We the undersigned residents of North Point, respectfully oppose annexation, rezoning or Area Master recent changes which envision open space along the Jordan River becoming industrial areas. Such changes not only significantly impact North Point residents but the residents of surrounding westside neighborhoods. Industrial zoning around existing homes condemns them to a lower quality of life, decreases their l income developers, especially when taxpayers are already paying for an Inland Port that is designed to house such industries. Other negative impacts to the entire westside include: Increased air pollution, noise pollution, light pollution Unsustainable traffic Watershed pollution and destruction of natural habitat Reduction of home ownership in the city Instead, we are proposing the West side of 2200 West maintain its business park (BP) where it is currently zoned while the East side of 2200 West keep its current AG zoning which allow current residential/agricultural uses as well as future low density residential developments. Name Address CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Allison Rowland Budget & Policy Analyst DATE:February 21, 2023 RE: ORDINANCE: THE GLENDALE REGIONAL PARK PLAN ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will review, and consider adopting, the draft Glendale Regional Park Plan, which aims to provide the guiding vision and design for the future park, as well as establishing a framework for development and programming at the 17-acre site. At full build-out, the project is meant to “represent the unique and diverse culture of the Glendale Community,” serving as a neighborhood park while also providing amenities that create a regional attraction. Like all plans, the Glendale Regional Park Plan sets out aspirations, and the funds for many of the features and activities have not yet been identified. This means that full implementation of the Plan will be contingent on funding availability in the coming years. The Department of Public Lands led the multi-year efforts to prepare the Plan for repurposing the former site of the Glendale Water Park. The Department received Council approval to begin work last summer on “Phase 1” implementation, before the full draft Plan was completed and adopted, because a portion of the park must open by April 2024. This is a requirement of the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, which originally funded the City’s purchase of the site. The Fund requires that active recreation be publicly accessible on-site within three years of beginning to remove existing amenities (see section L below). The full draft of the Glendale Regional Park Plan includes a variety of special considerations because of the complexity of the site. The Plan proposed for Council adoption includes the following items, which are described in more detail in the sections below: Major park elements at full build-out such as an outdoor pool, splash pad, dog park, and roller skating ribbon, among other features, to be considered in phases as budget becomes available. Item Schedule: Briefing: February 21, 2023 Public Hearing: March 7 Potential Action: March 21 Page | 2 Site ecology and restoration. Budget estimates for full build-out, which total $30 million to $50 million, with the acknowledgement this may change given inflation and phasing Maintenance and management recommendations as well as cost estimates (~$620,000 per year). Recommendations on future Park programming. Diversity, equity, and inclusion at the Park. Proposed improvements to site access. Goals and metrics for the Park. Previously completed steps in the planning process include site analysis, conceptual planning, extensive public engagement, and reviews by the Council on May 3, and October 4, 2022. Both the Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry and Trails Advisory Board (PNUT) and the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) reviewed the Plan and provided letters of support. The Community Advisory Committee formed specifically to guide the development of the Plan, also reviewed the full draft Plan and supports it, as does the Glendale Neighborhood Council. The Plan was also unanimously recommended for approval by the Planning Commission, with “the proviso that the City Council pay special attention to operations, maintenance, security, and staffing for the park as it goes into use.” Goal of the briefing: Review the final draft of the Glendale Regional Park Plan and potentially consider adopting it. Page | 3 ADDITIONAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION A.Key Park Elements at Full Build-Out. The key elements of Glendale Regional Park are described and illustrated in pages 41 and 42 of the draft Plan. They include: 1.Community Gathering and Event Spaces: a promenade/community plaza spanning the north central gateway, an event stage and lawn, smaller pavilions and picnic lawns and a riverside beach and boardwalk. 2.Play Places for Everyone: hiking, walking and paved trails, an all-ages and -abilities playground, climbing features, multi-use sport courts, dog park, and sledding hill. 3.Places to Enjoy the Water: a splash pad, kayak rental, access to the Jordan River for recreation, boat dock and ramp, and an outdoor pool. 4.Places to Wheel Around: an ice/roller skating ribbon, skateboarding area, and bike trails. B.Site Ecology and Restoration. The specific location of the Glendale Regional Park site, along the Jordan River, contributes to the complexity of this project but also offers significant opportunities for ecological restoration. This was evident in the demolition and site preparation phases, which took longer, and cost more, than initially anticipated. In addition, the site had “a high level of impervious surfaces, with 54% of the site being covered in asphalt and concrete.” The proposed design would reduce this amount by half through low-impact development practices, using green infrastructure to absorb stormwater and creating additional ecological benefits. To protect critical riparian habitat within the floodplain, improvements proposed in the Plan which fall within 100 feet of the annual high-water line of the Jordan River will follow guidelines outlined in the City’s Riparian Corridor Overlay District (RCO): “Development near the river corridor will seek to enhance floodplain functions through riparian restoration. Structures, such as boat ramps or docks, will be built in accordance with RCO zoning ordinances.” The Plan’s goals include improving wildlife habitat, and it notes that phasing the project’s construction will reduce potential impacts to the site’s current wildlife population, particularly migratory song birds. Specifically, the many invasive Russian olive trees, which currently serve as habitat for many bird species, will be removed in phases rather than all at once, and new riparian plants will be established among the remaining Russian olives for a number of years before those are removed to allow the new plants to develop into a more sustainable forest. As was noted in previous steps of the Glendale Regional Park planning process, the Department recommends pursuing certification through the Sustainable Sites Initiative (known as SITES), or a similar sustainability program, to support goals for ecological restoration and sustainable park development. The Plan notes that “During the master planning process, a SITES prescore assessment confirmed that the Glendale Park project meets the qualifications to pursue SITES certification. As the project consultant moves into the next design phase, this consideration should be integrated into the process to ensure that sustainable practices are adhered to and that the proper documentation is collected to pursue certification.” Projects pursuing certification often incur higher costs in design and construction, however, they consistently return significant long term cost savings related to ongoing operations and maintenance costs. The Plan’s Appendix A includes the full SITES prescore worksheet and assessment for Glendale Regional Park. Page | 4 C.Budget Estimates. The Glendale Regional Park Plan has been developed using $225,000 approved in a Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21) budget amendment. Additional funds became available through the 2022 General Obligation (GO) bond, which was approved by voters last November along with an allocation from CIP in FY 22 and Budget Amendments in FY 21 and 23 (see chart below). The Department of Public Lands is working to identify additional funding opportunities, as well. 1.Current Cost Estimates for Full Plan Implementation. Current estimates of the cost for full build-out of Glendale Regional Park as envisioned in the Plan range from $30 million to $50 million. The figures are necessarily imprecise, especially in the current context of relatively high inflation in the construction industry. Funding availability and Department logistics will be key determinants for the speed at which Park construction can proceed. More precise estimates will be possible as detailed construction designs proceed. 2.Project Phasing. The total number of phases needed for build-out will increase overall costs, even if inflation returns to more typical recent levels. This is because cost-efficiency suffers with each new construction phase added. The Phasing Diagram on page 60 of the Plan includes the Department’s recommended phasing approach, and includes additional information on phasing considerations, like hazards and safety. This diagram also indicates which of the planned features are most costly. 3.Phase 1 Costs. The initial estimates for Phase 1 construction ranged from $3.5 million to $5.5 million dollars. The Plan states that this phase “was designed to maximize usable park features and efficiently utilize funding, as it comprises only approximately 10% of the total park cost yet completes 30% of the full park buildout.” (Additional information on Phase 1 can be found in section K below.) 4.Previous Budget Allocations. In recent years, the Council has approved funding for site preparation and Phase 1 implementation through budget amendments and as part of CIP, as follows. FY21 Budget Amendment #5 Demolition of the waterpark and related infrastructure. Site preparation for redevelopment. $855,000 FY21 Budget Amendment #6 Preparation of the Glendale Regional Park Plan $225,000 FY22 CIP Initially for Phase 1 implementation, but most of this amount had to be used for unexpected demolition and site preparation. $3.20 Million FY23 Budget Amendment #4 Phase 1 Implementation. $4.35 Million 5.Other Funding Sources. The General Obligation (GO) bond that was approved by City voters in November 2022 is currently slated to provide $27 million for capital improvements for Glendale Regional Park. The Department intends to continue to explore relevant grant, donation, and partnership opportunities. Page | 5 6.Ongoing Management and Maintenance Costs. Expected ongoing expenses for full management and maintenance are not provided in the Plan, aside from the Ongoing Programming & Activation Costs noted below. For FY23, the Council agreed to the Administration’s request that parks maintenance become eligible for some of the annual Funding Our Future sales tax revenue, with a $2 million dollar allocation for that year. The Council may wish to ask the Administration for details about how the Funding Our Future allocation was spent in FY23, and whether significant changes in the total amount are expected for coming years. The Council may wish to discuss the historical subsidy of activation/maintenance at other regional City parks such as Liberty Park (see item D below for additional information on this topic). 7. Ongoing Programming & Activation Cost Estimates. Total annual ongoing costs for the programming and activation of Glendale Regional Park, as designed in the Plan, would be a recommended minimum of $613,000, and inflation will likely affect these costs, as well as the others. See chart below, from page 74 of the Plan. 8.Additional Staffing. As alluded to above, the Plan anticipates that additional Public Lands staff will be needed to “support and activate the park to enhance safety and enjoyment of the space.” In addition to recommending one new full-time on-site programming manager, and two part-time, seasonal park “attendants” (see above), in several sections of the Plan there are references to other new tasks recommended for Public Lands staff. It is not clear whether these would require full-time commitment to Glendale Regional Park or could be shared among multiple sites. Examples include: Page | 6 a. an operations manager, to oversee capital projects, major repairs, landscape maintenance, and all third-party contractors. b. a dedicated employee for specialized maintenance and repair needs such as fixing plumbing issues, repairing broken stairs, electrical repairs, building maintenance, etc. This employee could oversee multiple parks with appropriate support staff. c. a marketing employee to maintain a dedicated website and social media accounts that are frequently updated with news and happenings. This website would also be a tool for customer service, a guide for private event permitting, and a place to receive inquiries, comments, and complaints. d. a leasing agent who would focus on partnership agreements, either through the relevant City agency or through a park management entity, and would select the appropriate tenants for any kiosks, café space, river concessions, and any other commercially operable spaces within the park. 9.A Different Park Budgeting Model? Salt Lake City has traditionally funded its parks system primarily through general fund allocations which department spends according to its own priorities. The proposed Glendale Regional Park Plan recommends a different model for this park, “with a dedicated and predictable budget that grows over time through revenue development. The park should be viewed as a business, with profits and losses, except that all profits should be made with the public interest in mind and, thus, reinvested back into the park for the benefit of local residents and visitors.” The Plan includes a graphic and a brief discussion of public/private partnership structure on page 75. This would be a departure from the City’s current park maintenance model, as it is not likely that any park could generate 100% of the revenue needed to staff, program and maintain the space. The Council may wish to discuss the benefits and disadvantages of different funding models, and request information from the Administration about its views on the subject. D.Maintenance and Management Recommendations. Regardless of the funding model, many of the maintenance and management recommendations for Glendale Regional Park, as well as those for its programming (see section D), are predicated on the City’s commitment to building a park that serves the neighborhood as well as acting as a regional draw—on par with Liberty Park, for example, though on a much smaller scale. “To achieve this high standard, the City will need to make special considerations for Glendale Park’s operations staffing required to support the appropriate levels of security, sanitation, public realm maintenance, landscaping, programmatic operations, event needs, park concession leasing, and marketing…” Along with additional Department of Public Lands staff to help meet programming and partnership needs, specific management recommendations include working with key community partners and stakeholders, including organizations that promote inclusivity, equity, and partnerships, and hiring local and minority-owned businesses to program elements of the site (see section D). Recommendations for programming, operations and management in the draft Plan can be found beginning on page 71. A key principle behind this approach is that a park that is well-maintained and clean encourages visitors to treat the park with respect. Park cleanliness will also impact perceptions of safety, which in turn attracts visitors, including families, and increases the overall sense of civic pride and support for the park. Community partnerships are also considered essential to activating the park. Staff note: this may require additional budget considerations beyond typical park maintenance funding. Page | 7 The plan also includes some detailed recommendations for Park management and maintenance that might be generalizable to other Public Lands properties as well, like staffing for park sanitation responsibilities or marketing individual parks. The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether it plans to revamp some of its practices for maintenance for other parks and public lands based on the recommendations in the Glendale Regional Park Plan. E.Recommendations for Future Park Programming. The Plan states that programming and management will be essential to creating a safe community asset. It points out that Salt Lake City residents and visitors are not necessarily accustomed to “robust programming of public spaces,” similar to what is seen in many larger cities, where open space is at a greater premium. It also suggests that “Many parks and plazas have failed to maintain a positive visitor experience because they have not programmed and managed their public realm to exceed local precedents.” To achieve better results at Glendale Regional Park, the Plan recommends establishing a Park programming budget to provide equipment, marketing, outreach, and supplies. The proposed on-site programming manager would need to use this budget to leverage programming partners and interested groups to provide donations of time and materials, sponsorships, and other resources. The Plan also suggests that a baseline programming budget from the Department could improve planning and fund- raising for this purpose, and help it grow over time, as a variety of potential revenue sources are developed from philanthropy, sponsorships, event rentals, food and beverage, programming, and government support. (See section B, above for additional information on the proposed budget.) According to the Plan, successful programming of arts, culture, fitness, entertainment, markets, and community festival events has the power to: define how the park feels. differentiate it from other parks and destinations. provide an active and appealing neighborhood anchor. provide a safe and clean place. capitalize on Glendale’s rich and diverse multicultural environment. capitalize on Salt Lake City’s outdoors orientation. The types of programming the community prefers were pinpointed through the public engagement process (see section J below), and the Plan includes a long list of potential activities that could begin once Phase 1 is complete. Ideas for additional future programming are also included in the Plan on pages 45 to 47. Potential Phase 1 Programming Children/family Family fitness activities All-ability movement Music / literary education Organized play activities Animal education events Outdoor / environmental Nature / meditative walks Birding / wildlife workshops Gardens / horticulture Public art Arts / culture / community Audience area Outdoor movies Lawn games River Programming Safety and awareness Skills workshops Habitat education Volunteer events Arts / culture / community Art cart Arts and crafts Small music / performance Literary events Lectures Board games Fitness / recreation / events Low impact fitness Organized recreation / workshops Community cultural events Outdoor hobbyist activities Sports courts Clinics / lessons All-ability skills training Page | 8 The Plan notes that based on its market studies, Glendale Regional Park will best serve users in nearby neighborhoods through low or no cost activities for both adults and children. It emphasizes that forming and maintaining relationships with key community stakeholders, engaging with community organizations that promote inclusivity, equity, and partnerships, and working with local and minority-owned businesses will be the most enduring strategies to supporting programming of the site. F.Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. The Plan identifies three aspects for an overall program for Glendale Regional Park that would help the City promote equity and ensure the new park is inclusive of all residents: 1. growing minority-owned businesses through concessions and contracts; 2. supporting existing organizations that promote inclusivity and equity through programming partnerships; and 3. partnering with local organizations through internships and job training. Examples of how this program could be implemented can be found on pages 49 to 51 of the Plan. To better understand the benefits and budget needs of these kinds of programs, the Council may wish to request the Administration provide examples from other cities of how these partnerships unfold in practice. G.Proposed Improvements to Site Access and Connections. The proposed Plan includes recommendations for new connections to trails, better public transportation access, and improved pedestrian crossings at 1700 South. The Park’s design deliberately aims to strengthen connections within the neighborhood, including to the 1700 South Park and Glendale Neighborhood Park. It also would facilitate connections to the broader regional park system, with a proposed bridge to the Jordan River Parkway Trail, Glendale Golf Course, and the future Surplus Canal Trail. 1.Transit. The Plan highlights a gap in public transportation access to both Glendale Regional Park and for the broader Glendale neighborhood. The closest rail connection to Glendale Regional Park is the River Trail Station along the Green Line (2340 South 1070 West), which is a 1.3 mile walk. Nearby bus routes do not have stops that are within comfortable walking distance, either. The importance of closing this gap is greater still because the Plan reports that the share of Glendale households without personal vehicles is three to four times higher than it is in the City as a whole. The draft Plan also suggests improving public transportation connections to enhance park access, increase sustainable transportation options, and facilitate park activities and events. 2.Pedestrian and Bicycle Access. The Plan suggests that 1700 South could be narrowed to create safer access to Glendale Regional Park, since vehicle traffic along it is “very low for its width,” and says the Transportation Division is currently evaluating the potential for improvements there related to active transportation. The Plan also proposes an additional crosswalk between the existing ones near 1300 West and at the Jordan River Parkway Trail, which are over 1/4 mile apart. Also, the proposed Surplus Canal Trail would provide a direct connection between the park and residents of western Glendale who currently live beyond a 10-minute walk from a park. The Council may wish to clarify with the Administration whether or not the proposed site access improvements are included in the Plan’s cost estimates for full build-out. The Council may wish to ask the Administration how work among departments and with organizations outside the City could be facilitated to help resolve some of the barriers to connection for this area of the City. Page | 9 H.Goals and metrics for the Park. The section of the draft Plan titled “Goals and Metrics” (pages 53 to 56) focuses on assessing the success of the planning process in meeting the public’s goals but does not explicitly address how the fully built-out Park itself might be assessed. It states, “The draft plan also looks at specific metrics, based on the original park goals, that measure the plan’s success in addressing improvements in ecological function of the site, improvements in access to and within the site, and in creating community spaces for gathering and events. Gauging elements of the final concept plan, through performance-based evaluation, provides a measure to determine if goals set during the beginning of the park planning process are being attained.” As a next step, the Council may wish to request that the Administration work to adapt these goals set in the planning process into a distinct list that can be used to measure progress toward full-build out of the Park and assessing its ongoing performance. I.Park Mission. The mission of Glendale Regional Park, is defined in the Plan as follows: “Glendale Regional Park will be an iconic neighborhood park that celebrates and preserves community, culture, and diversity. It will also be a regional destination connecting to the Jordan River and Salt Lake City’s park network. Making nature and recreation within an arm’s reach, the park will improve the natural resources and quality of lives for current and future generations of Westside residents.” This mission coincides with the Salt Lake City Public Lands Master Plan, adopted by the Council last year, which identified a need for investment in Westside parks, and for enhancing park spaces along the Jordan River. It specifically calls for the Glendale Regional Park to be improved to create a regional attraction and event space that celebrates and preserves community culture and diversity, along with making water recreation accessible to more people. The Glendale neighborhood was identified by the previous Public Lands Needs Assessment as being a high-needs area for park investment whose residents visit parks less frequently than residents of the east side of the city. J.Community Engagement. Community engagement for the master plan process and for the development of the preferred plan began in October 2021. It included youth and stakeholder engagement, development of a Community Advisory Committee (CAC, organized for this project and composed of leaders in the Glendale community to represent a variety of organizations, businesses and affiliations), an online survey and public open house, and in-person engagement events. A detailed description of the public engagement efforts can be found at https://www.slc.gov/parks/parks-division/glendale-waterpark/. The final preferred plan and final draft plan for the site was reviewed by the Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry and Trails Advisory Board (PNUT Board), the Community Advisory Committee, and the Glendale Neighborhood Council. The final preferred plan was made available to the public in July 2022, and the draft plan document became available August 25, 2022, initiating the 45 day- public noticing period required for Planning Commission. K.Site Development Phasing. Implementation of the full Glendale Regional Park Plan will be phased to reflect funding and strategic opportunities, as well as staff capacity and logistics. The Department has stated, “detailed design of each phase will refine the design, construction materials, site character, maintenance requirements, and construction costs. Additionally, specific proposed improvements (such as an outdoor pool) will require additional feasibility studies as well as collaboration with community partners and other City departments and divisions.” Page | 10 1.Deadline for Phase 1. The Public Lands Department adopted an aggressive planning, design, and construction schedule for this site because it was originally funded by the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (https://www.nps.gov/subjects/lwcf/index.htm). This Fund requires that active recreation be publicly accessible on-site within three years of removing existing amenities. This means the first phase of the project must be complete by April 2024. As noted in previous staff reports, to meet this timeline the project team advanced with the detailed design of Phase 1 park elements before the Master Plan has been adopted. This allowed adequate time for the development of construction documents, contracting a construction firm, site preparation, and public notice before construction begins. 2.Phase 1 Strategy. Elements and amenities were selected for Phase 1 based on the following criteria: e. Inclusion of recreational elements that meet the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund requirements; f. Features that can be constructed within the expedited timeline and fit within current budget allocations; g. Connecting Phase 1 to the existing Glendale Neighborhood Park and its amenities (such as the restroom) to maximize park use and access; h. Inclusion of improvements that will not be affected or closed during construction of future phasing; and i. Community support amenities that are typical of a regional park and are eligible for impact fees. 3.Phase 1 Elements and Amenities. Elements and amenities typical of a neighborhood park were identified by the project team for funding using $3.2 million dollars of parks-specific impact fees, which were allocated by the Council in FY22. The team will prioritize design and construction of these items, but because of quickly rising costs the Department may need to request additional impact fee funding to complete the list. The list, in priority order, is as follows: a. Playground with accessible design and assistive technologies for all ages b. Pavilion c. Looped pathways d. Community plaza and gathering space e. Landscaping and site restoration (which is scalable, based on budget) f. Multipurpose sport court g. Parking (existing parking is available if this must be removed from Phase 1) Site restoration, including addressing and managing noxious weeds and invasive vegetation, will begin during Phase 1 construction. In addition, the Department will strive to preserve the health of onsite ecological and environmental assets, including existing trees and canopy. The Glendale Regional Park Master Plan will provide additional recommendations for site management and restoration during and after construction. L.Site Background. The Glendale Regional Park site was known previously as Raging Waters, Seven Peaks, and other names over the years. The water park site was closed in 2018, after the City declined to renew the contract with the most recent vendor. The site has remained closed but was subject to recurrent vandalism and theft of some remaining assets, in spite of fencing and private security contracted by the Department of Public Lands. M.Plan Leadership. Due to the site’s size, location along the Jordan River, and complexity, the Department of Public Lands formed an internal City leadership group, which includes representatives of Public Lands, Page | 11 Engineering, Public Services, Transportation and Sustainability. The City’s consultant on this project, Design Workshop, also collaborates with this group. Design Workshop’s team includes specialized subconsultants, including River Restoration for environmental health and restoration recommendations, David Evans and Associates for public engagement, and Agora Partners for programming and partnerships. Design Workshop was also the consultant for Reimagine Nature, the Twenty-Year Public Lands Master Plan. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. Several potential future budget items are mentioned in this update, including one-time costs for construction that are bond-eligible, and ongoing costs for additional staffing and programming that are not bond eligible. Given that not all of these items are not eligible for impact fee funding or the GO bond approved by voters last year, would the Council like to request the Administration provide information about the strategies it is considering to fund these items? (Note: in the FY 23 budget the Mayor proposed and the Council agreed to add “Parks Maintenance” to the Funding our Future sales tax funding. $2 million was allocated in FY 23 and was deployed in various parks around the City.) 2.The Council may wish to request additional information on the role planned for the Community Advisory Committee once the final version of the Plan is adopted. Does the Administration foresee a continuing role for this group of local community leaders and organizations based in Glendale? Would the Council like to suggest some potential roles to explore? 3. The Plan notes that transit and walking connections are currently inadequate. Given this situation, the Council may wish to are there enough parking spaces to serve users in the shorter term, and how the number of spaces compares to other parks of similar size and function. 4. The Council may wish to ask whether the Administration intends to expand the Park Ranger program to provide coverage to Glendale Regional Park, and whether the recommended seasonal Park “attendants” are intended to take on some of the duties of the Park Rangers. 5. Recommendations on future programming opportunities at Glendale Regional Park would expand the Public Lands Department into some areas of service with which it has relatively little experience. Would the Council like to ask the Administration how it plans to help the Department succeed in this area? ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC LANDS MAYOR KRISTIN RIKER DIRECTOR SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION WWW.SLCGOV.COM 1965 WEST 500 SOUTH TEL: 801-972-7800 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84104 FAX: 801-972-7847 PAGE 1 OF 2 CITYCOUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ____________________________Date Received: _______________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________ TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE: January 4, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM:Kristin Riker, Director, Department of Public Lands ______________________ SUBJECT:Adoption of Glendale Regional Park Plan STAFF CONTACTS: Kat Maus Public Lands Planner Katherine.maus@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE:Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the Glendale Regional Park Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission. BUDGETIMPACT:N/A BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City Public Lands Department has been working with a consultant, Design Workshop, to develop a plan to guide development of the 17-acre Glendale Regional Park site, formerly known as Raging Waters. Demolition is substantially complete, and a portion of the park must be open to public recreation by April 2024 to meet the requirements of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (https://www.nps.gov/subjects/lwcf/index.html). The project team has been working to develop the Glendale Regional Park Plan since Summer of 2021, which will provide the guiding vision and design for the future of the old water park site and establish a framework to guide development and programming of the site into the future. The plan relies heavily on Glendale community input and is aimed at representing the unique and diverse culture of the Glendale Community while also including amenities that will create a regional draw Page 2 of 4 for residents of Salt Lake City. The project team has worked closely with project stakeholders, neighborhood residents, community partners and students at Glendale Middle and Mountain View Elementary Schools to create goals and objectives for the site, and a community-supported vision that reflects the an online city-wide survey, bringing the total participant count for the project to nearly 1,700. Key elements of the plan were informed by public input and at full build out include: Community Gathering and Event Spaces a promenade/community plaza spanning the north central gateway, an event stage and lawn, smaller pavilions and picnic lawns and a riverside beach and boardwalk. Play Places for Everyone - hiking, walking and paved trails, an all-ages and abilities playground, climbing features, multi-use sport courts, dog park, and sledding hill. Places to Enjoy the Water a kayak rental, access to the Jordan River for recreation, boat dock and ramp, and an outdoor pool. Places to Wheel Around - an ice/roller skating ribbon, skateboarding area, and bike trails. success in addressing improvements in ecological function of the site, improvements in access to and within the site, and in creating community spaces for gathering and events. Gauging elements of the final concept plan, through performance-based evaluation, provides a measure to determine if goals set during the beginning of the park planning process are being attained. The Glendale Regional Park Plan draft provides recommendations for site management and restoration during construction, and after, including programming and partnership needs, operations, maintenance, and staffing are also included in the plan draft document. Programming and management will be key to fulfill the park goal of creating a safe community asset. Potential opportunities for addressing management needs include expanding internal Public Lands staff by recommending additional staff to support and activate the park to enhance safety and enjoyment of the space. The plan recommends a full time, on-site programming manager, two part time, seasonal park attendants and allocating associated budget to ensure programming on the site is robust and effective, consisting of programming funds for arts, culture, fitness, entertainment, markets and community festival events. The plan also emphasizes continuing to create and build upon key community partners and stakeholders, engaging with community organizations that promote inclusivity, equity, and partnerships, and working with local and minority-owned businesses to program elements of the site. More information about programming, operations and management recommendations within the plan can be found on page 71 of the draft Master Plan document. PUBLIC PROCESS: Community engagement for the plan process and for the development of the preferred plan used a multi-pronged approach including youth and stakeholder engagement, development of a community advisory committee, online survey and public open house, along with in-person engagement events. The public process began with robust engagement with the Glendale Community and then broadened to a citywide engagement effort. A detailed description of the public engagement efforts can be found at https://www.slc.gov/parks/parks-division/glendale-waterpark/. In brief, the engagement process consisted of three engagement windows: Page 3 of 4 Public Engagement Window 1: The first public engagement window prioritized neighborhood and community stakeholder engagement to ensure the community voice was the guide in establishing the initial vision. Considering the predominately younger population in this area, the project team focused on Glendale Middle School and Mountain View Elementary School students and families, while also engaging community leaders and the Glendale Neighborhood Council. The project team met multiple times with the students, engaged in design charettes and used the direction we received from these 130 students to guide initial plan alternative design. The project team also attended and held several in- person events with the Glendale community and created a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) specifically for this plan creation. The CAC was comprised of members who are considered leaders in the Glendale community and represented a variety of community organizations, businesses and affiliations specifically in the Glendale community. The members of the CAC provided key feedback on the project mission, goals, engagement process and vision for the park and shared information about the planning process with their community. The engagement from Window 1 drove the development of two concept alternatives. Public Engagement Window 2: The two concept alternatives were shared with the public and with City Council. The project team kicked-off broad, citywide public engagement with an open house hosted at the Glendale and Parkview Community Learning Center to open a survey. Residents of Glendale, members of the CAC and the city at large attended the event to orient themselves to the plans. Over 1360 people citywide participated in the survey which informed the development of the final preferred plan for the site. The preferred plan includes community-prioritized features from each of the two concept plans. The project team met again with the CAC to review engagement results and get feedback before moving forward with the final preferred plan. Public Engagement Window 3: The third and final window included sharing out of the final preferred plan and final draft plan for the site with the Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry and Trails Advisory Board (PNUT Board), the CAC and Glendale Neighborhood Council. The final preferred plan was available to the public in July 2022, with the draft plan document becoming available August 25, 2022, initiating the 45 day public noticing period required for Planning Commission. Please see Exhibit B for additional details on engagement events, descriptions, and participation. Additional public comments and responses can be found in the Planning Commission Staff Report of November 9, 2022. Please see Exhibit D for letters of support from the Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry and Trails Advisory Board and Transportation Advisory Board. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Following the presentation of the Glendale Regional Park Plan to the Planning Commission, the public hearing was opened where the following comments were made: After discussion of the plan and public comments by the Planning Commission and staff, Planning Commissioner Brenda Scheer moved to recommend approval of the plan with the following a POSITIVE recommendation to the City Council on the fabulous Glendale Regional Park Master Page 4 of 4 Plan with the PROVISO that the City Council pay special attention to operations, maintenance, Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of November 9, 2022 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of November 9, 2022 (Click to Access) c) Planning Commission Staff Report of November 9, 2022 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: A. Salt Lake City Ordinance B. Public Engagement Chronology C. Glendale Regional Park Plan D. Public Comments Received & Letters of Support EXHIBIT A Salt Lake City Ordinance SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2023 (Adopting the Glendale Regional Park Plan to be part of the city’s general plan as a specific plan found in the Westside Master Plan) An ordinance adopting the Glendale Regional Park Plan pertaining to property located at 1131 West 1700 South, 1181 West 1700 South, and portions of properties with a certified address of 1375 West 1700 South and 1220 West 2100 South. The Glendale Regional Park Plan will be part of the Westside Master Plan, which is a component of the city’s general plan. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on November 9, 2022 on the proposal prepared by the Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands Department to adopt a new Glendale Regional Park Plan as part of the city’s Westside Master Plan; and WHEREAS, at its November 9, 2022 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) to adopt the Glendale Regional Park Plan, and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Adopting the Glendale Park Regional Park Plan. The Glendale Regional Park Plan (Exhibit A) shall be and hereby is adopted to be part of the Westside Master Plan, a component of the city’s general plan as required by Chapter 10-9a of the Utah Code. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2023. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2023. Published: ______________. APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney November 21, 2022 EXHIBIT B Public Engagement Chronology ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor PUBLIC LANDS DEPARTMENT 1965 W 500 S SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84104 www.slc.gov/parks/ PHONE 801-972-7800 FAX 801-972-7847 Project Event Notes Time Period Community and Neighborhood Department Survey 3,500 Respondents-- Public Survey through the department of Community and Neighborhoods to gauge public interest in the future of the park https://www.slc.gov/can/cares/waterpark/ 2020 SLC Waterpark Commemoration Survey Report 3841 Respondents—Public Survey to gauge interest in demolition and re-development of the park. https://www.slc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Water-Park- Survey-Report-Nov-2020.pdf 2020 Glendale Community Council Visioning Exercise 11 Participants and 3 Community Council Members visioning a potential future for the site 2021 Initiation of Formal Planning Process by Public Lands department Public Lands initiates a formal city engagement and planning process for the Glendale Regional Park Master Plan supported by Design Workshop as project consultant. Spring/ Summer 2021 External Stakeholder Engagement: Community Events Parents and students were asked at three community events which elements from past surveys should be included in the park. Events included: Morning Coffee with 20 respondents; Glendale Scare Fair with around 50 respondents; Hartland 4 Youth and Family Event with 40 respondents Fall 2021 External Stakeholder Engagement: Glendale Middle School and Mountain View Elementary Design exercises were led with 88 middle school and 40 fifth grade students to gather feedback and input on the future design of the site. The process included on-site meetings with 88 Glendale Middle School, “Place-It” activity with University Neighborhood Partners, and collage creation. https://multicultural.utah.gov/glendale-youth-as-placemakers/ Fall 2021 Community Advisory Committee Meeting 1 A CAC was created to ensure neighborhood representation in the preferred plan and final master plan documents. These stakeholder meetings ensured engagement with westside communities. The first meeting oriented participants to the project and asked for general impressions on the project. January 2022 Community Advisory Committee Engagement Meeting 2 This meeting presented two conceptual ideas for the park and sought specific feedback on the ideas and amenities for the future site. February 2022 “Plan Your Park” in-person Open House and engagement event at Community Learning Center Project team worked with Glendale Community Council to host an event with over 100 attendees to share with the community the concepts that have been generated so far and to launch a public survey. March 16, 2022 Online Survey Public survey to gather broader feedback on amenities and concept alternatives receiving 1361 responses. March 16, 2022- April 16, 2022 ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor PUBLIC LANDS DEPARTMENT 1965 W 500 S SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84104 www.slc.gov/parks/ PHONE 801-972-7800 FAX 801-972-7847 Community Advisory Committee Engagement Meeting 3 This meeting shared the results of the broader survey with the Committee and solicit feedback and impressions on the data. April 12, 2022 Community Advisory Committee Engagement Meeting 4 Final preferred plan sharing and feedback from the CAC, as well as explanation of Phase 1 May 31, 2022 Presentation to Glendale Neighborhood Council Sharing of public process and phase 1 implementation projects, timeline, and budget Jun 15, 2022 Preferred Plan Confirmation Confirm final preferred plan and share with the public. August- October 2022 Presentation of final plan draft to PNUT Board Share final plan document and phasing plan to PNUT Board and request endorsement September 1, 2022 Presentation of final plan to Glendale Neighborhood Council and public Share final plan document, preferred plan and phasing strategy to the Glendale Community Council and Public; solicit public comment and question September 21, 2022 Presentation of final plan to Transportation Advisory Board Share final plan document and phasing plan to TAB and request endorsement October 1, 2022 City Council Plan Briefing and Process Summary Share final plan document, preferred plan and phasing strategy to City Council as a briefing, and to address comments or questions October 4, 2022 Public Hearing and Planning Commission Presentation and Recommendation Presentation to Planning Commission for plan recommendation to City Council for formal adoption November 9, 2022 FUTURE ENGAGEMENT: Master Plan presentation and adoption Presentation of preferred plan and Master Plan document to City Council for adoption. Projected: Late 2022- Early 2023 EXHIBIT C Glendale Regional Park Plan 13 | Site Context & Analysis 9 217 509 RIVER TRAIL STATION 15 min. service 1.3 Mile Walk to Park 217 9 509 513 Transportation - Regional Rail & Bus Connections There is a lack of regional public transit connectivity between Glendale Park and other parts of the City. The closest rail connection to Glendale Regional Park is the River Trail Station along the Green Line (2340 South 1070 West), which is a 1.3 mile walk away. Nearby bus routes include the 9 and 217 which run every 15 minutes, and the 509 which runs every 30 minutes. The 513 has limited service and only runs during rush hour. Yet, as shown on the following page, these routes do not have stops that are within a comfortable walking distance of Glendale Park. Additional connections to Trax and bus lines, as well as other modes of public transportation should be explored in order to enhance park access and sustainable transportation options. Increased public transit connectivity is also an important consideration for facilitating park activities and events.PUBLIC TRANSIT NEAR PARK 15 Minute UTA Bus Routes 30 Minute UTA Bus Routes Limited Service UTA Bus Routes 15 Minute UTA TRAX Line Chapter Two | 14 Route 50930 min. service1/2 mile walk Route 509 30 min. serviceAdjacent to Golf Course Entrance Route 217 15 min. service 1/3 mile walk Transportation - Neighborhood Neighborhood Transit Access There is a gap in public transportation access for both the Glendale neighborhood and Glendale Regional Park. In contrast to most other Westside parks which are within walking distance of public transit, the majority of the area is not within a 1/4 mile walk of a bus stop or transit station. The nearest bus stops are located 1/3 to 1/2 a mile away from park entrances. A bus stop along the 509 sits near the golf course entrance. It will be important to support enhanced public transit connectivity between the park and surrounding neighborhoods. While the majority of the population commutes by private vehicle, 8.5% of households in the Glendale neighborhood and up to 13.2% of households in the study area do not own a personal vehicle. This is significant, as only 3% of households in Salt Lake City do not own a personal vehicle.1 1 United States Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey 15 | Site Context & Analysis 1 7 0 0 S1700 S Crosswalk to Jordan River Parkway and 1700 S River Park Crosswalk from Glendale Park to Neighborhood Walkability - Site Analysis Pedestrian Connectivity 1700 South is comparable in width to Redwood Road, yet by 2108 counts, experienced only 35% of Redwood Road’s traffic along a nearby stretch of the Redwood Road corridor. Near Glendale Regional Park, 1700 South’s traffic counts are very low for its width, indicating that the road width could be reduced to create safe and comfortable access for pedestrians and cyclists. There are currently only two crosswalks along 1700 South to connect the neighborhood to Glendale Regional Park: one located near 1300 West, and one at the Jordan River Parkway Trail. The crossings are over 1/4 mile apart and the distance between existing signals coupled with the wide street makes pedestrian crossing and access difficult. To create safer crossings and enhanced connectivity between 1700 S Park and Glendale Park, the Glendale Regional Park Plan recommends an additional pedestrian crossing between the two existing crossings (see page 54). Additionally, the Salt Lake City Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan identifies 1700 South as an east-west pedestrian priority corridor,1 and the City’s Transportation Division is currently evaluating the potential for improvements here related to active transportation. 1 SLC_PBMPCompleteDocument(Dec2015)Clickable. pdf (slcdocs.com) .28 miles Glendale Neighborhood Park Glendale Regional Park Site 1700 S Park Glendale Golf Course Jordan River Trail 2-Way Average Daily Traffic Counts 1700 S. TRAFFIC COUNTS REDWOOD RD. TRAFFIC COUNTS 2018: 12,172 2018: 34,566 2017: 12,000 2017: 35,000 2014: 9,980 2014: 27,600 Source: 2022 Kalibrate Technologies (Q1 2022), ESRI Business Analyst Chapter Two | 16 Nearest Trailhead: 1700 S River Park Future Trail Connection Surplus Canal Trail Trails and Recreation Regional Recreation Connectivity Glendale Regional Park is the southern anchor along the SLC portion of the Jordan River Parkway. Trailhead access and parking is currently located at the 1700 S River park. The proposed Surplus Canal Trail will be an important addition, providing a direct connection between the park and residents of western Glendale who currently do not live within a 10 minute walk from a park. 17 | Site Context & Analysis First put-in to access easy-level paddling. Surplus Canal dam hazard. 2 .1 m ile s 2 .1 m ile s 3 . 3 m il e s Surplus Canal Dam Hazard Last take-out easy-level paddling. Water-based Recreation The Jordan River Water Trail The Jordan River flows from South to North, beginning at Utah Lake and emptying into the Great Salt Lake. The boat ramp at Glendale Regional Park is a major access point along the Jordan River Water Trail. This section of river allows paddlers access to 3.3 miles of beginner- level flatwater floating (about 1-2 hours). For a quicker trip, boaters can take out at the Modesto Park ramp, 1.2 miles downstream. Paddlers who are willing to brave a short section of intermediate obstacles can continue on for another 3.8 miles of beginner floating until reaching the Riverview takeout at 1800 N. River access can be enhanced by creating easier entry for canoes and kayaks. The water quality is an issue, so swimming should be discouraged, but as the water quality may improve in the future, water access should not be completely cut off. Additional small boat access locations should be evaluated to create a more local scale river recreation circulation pattern. The Jordan River also has potential for urban fishing. According to the Utah Department of Natural Resources, the river “provides great opportunities for catfish, bullhead, carp, white bass and walleye.”1 However, according to the report Fishes of the Jordan River, “recent findings of various pollutants common to highly urbanized areas like the Salt Lake Valley suggest that it may not be safe to eat any fish from the river, especially in downstream areas.”2 1 https://wildlife.utah.gov/news/utah-wildlife- news/743-4-utah-rivers-that-offer-great- fishing-in-august.html 2 http://jordanrivercommission.com/wp-content/ uploads/2011/04/Fish-Species-of-the-Jordan- River-2011.pdf Jordan River Boater Amenities, Study Area Boat Access Restrooms Parking 1700 South - Exchange Club Marina (Glendale Regional Park) 1700 South River Park Limited at Ramp. Additional Parking at 1700 South River Park. Modesto Park At Nearby Jordan Park Limited Parking Alzheimers Park No Limited Parking Fisher Mansion No On-street Parking Site Context & Analysis | 18 Site Ecology Local and Regional Connections The Glendale Regional Park is in a central part of Salt Lake City but is also centrally located along the riparian corridor of the Jordan River, which provides a key connection of riparian habitats for resident and migratory birds. The site is located along the flyway between Utah Lake and Great Salt Lake and provides a potential stopover location for resting migratory birds. There is potential for increased areas of higher quality riparian habitat along the Jordan River with the creation of an enhanced multi-canopy layer structure. Robust riparian habitats consist of canopies that could have several layers of complexity including large trees, small trees and shrubs, grasses, and forbs [flowers]. This multi-layer structure is beneficial for creating a diverse ecosystem that will be more resilient to future changes in climate and ecosystem processes. Surrounding regional areas that are owned by SLC adjacent to the golf course and in other open areas offer great opportunity to be enhanced for riparian functioning and flood capacity. See Appendix B for a full site ecological assessment. B u f f l e H e a d Duck C r o w n C r a nes M e r g a n s e r R ussian O l i v e El m H one y L o c u s t S ycamore Migratory Birds - Pacific Flyway Existing Site Trees An d e a n G e ese 19 | Site Context & Analysis condition Uncomfortable Comfortable C -39.43 -31.83 -24.22 -16.62 -9.01 -1.41 6.20 13.80 21.41 29.01 36.62 12 AM 6 AM 12 PM 6 PM 12 AM Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Thermal Comfort (condition) 1/1 to 12/31 between 0 and 23 @1 city: Salt Lake Citycountry: USA source: TMY--24127 12 AM 6 AM 12 PM 6 PM 12 AM Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Universal Thermal Climate Index (C) 1/1 to 12/31 between 0 and 23 @1 city: Salt Lake City country: USA source: TMY--24127 Climate Considerations Weather Averages • Average High = July 90 degrees • Average Low = January 26 degrees • 88 days per year with precipitation • 3059 hours of sunshine • 8.57 inches precipitation • 47 inches annual snowfall1 Additional Site Considerations • North to South moderate winds • Overall weather patterns moving in from West to East2 • Little shade/tree cover • Shade/ice in winter due to aspect • Cooler temps by Jordan River Drought Conditions Glendale Park lies within a high desert environment, receiving only 8.5 inches of water each year. Water is becoming increasingly scarce, with Utah’s Governor declaring a State of Emergency due to extreme drought. Recommendations from Utah’s Department of Natural Resources to reduce water usage include implementing water-wise landscaping, a practice that should be applied at Glendale Regional Park to the greatest extent possible.3 1 https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/salt- lake-city/utah/united-states/usut0225 2 https://nhmu.utah.edu/sites/ default/files/attachments/ SaltLakeValleyWeatherPatterns.pdf 3 https://water.utah.gov/water-data/drought/ drought-declaration/#:~:text=on%20 April%2021%2C%202022%2C%20 Spencer,to%20state%20or%20federal%20 resources. 29 %Salt Lake City is comfortable of the year . . . . . . . . 7% too hot and 64% too cold . Chapter Two | 20 Site Impervious Surfaces Site Surfaces Asphalt - 24% Concrete: 24% Pool Features: 6% Total Impervious Surfaces: 54% Pervious Landscape: 46% Impervious Surfaces Impervious surfaces such as roads, pavement, and buildings are often increased during development. These surfaces contribute to higher runoff, polluting waterways and depleting groundwater. The site has a high level of impervious surfaces, with 54% of the site being covered in asphalt and concrete. The redevelopment of the park provides an opportunity to reduce these surfaces through low impact development practices, utilizing green infrastructure to absorb stormwater on site and create ecological benefits. The future park design will reduce the current amount of impervious surfaces by 50%. See page 56 for the final park plan’s site surface percentages. 21 | Site Context & Analysis Floodplain - Site Scale * Buildings on site have been demolished Natural Assets Floodplain preservation directly enhances the local environment. According to FEMA, floodplain benefits include: • Fish and wildlife habitat protection • Natural flood and erosion control • Surface water quality maintenance • Groundwater recharge • Biological productivity • Higher quality recreational opportunities (fishing, bird watching, boating, etc.)1 To protect critical riparian habitat within the floodplain, Salt Lake City has implemented a Riparian Corridor Overlay District (RCO) which regulates development within 100 feet of a natural waterway’s Annual High Water Line. All improvements within 100’ of the annual high water line of the Jordan River will follow guidelines outlined in the RCO. Development near the river corridor will seek to enhance floodplain functions through riparian restoration. Structures, such as boat ramps or docks, will be built in accordance with RCO zoning ordinances.2 1 https://www.fema.gov/floodplain-management/ wildlife-conservation/benefits-natural 2 http://www.slcdocs.com/building/b-riparian- corridor.pdf Chapter Two | 22 Floodplain - Regional Scale Resilient Communities FEMA Floodmaps highlight areas that are more likely to experience flooding. The 100 year floodplain shows areas that are likely to flood at least one out of every 100 years (a 1% or higher chance of flooding) while the 500 year floodplain shows areas likely to flood at least once every 500 years. Floodplain maps help to create resilient communities by highlighting which areas are higher and safer ground for structures. Restoration of the floodplain along the Jordan River at Glendale Regional park will remove a few storage and office buildings from the 100 year floodplain, which will mitigate costs that would have been associated if current structures were damaged. It will also prevent impairments to water quality that would be caused by a compromised structure in the event of a flood. Floodplain restoration including planting along the river’s edge will also slow stormwater runoff, reducing water pollutants trapped in runoff from flowing into the Jordan River, reducing erosion and improving groundwater retention on the site. 23 | Site Context & Analysis 0 5 10 15 20 % o f P o p u l a t i o n Age Group Study Area 0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 Salt Lake City Salt Lake County 19.78% Percent Population Under 19 Years Old 63.48%over 19 years old 36.52%under 19 years old 21.77% in SLC 27.85% in County 2010 186,399 204,380 222,029 +8.65% +9.65% +4.07%+3.54% 28,369 29,525 30,571 2021 2026 Community Demographics Population Growth The planning team analyzed demographics traits of likely park users. This assessment was broken down into a local assessment, called the primary market area, shown on page 24, and a city-wide assessment, called the secondary market area. See Appendix D for the full demographic and market study. Over the next five years (2021-2026) population in the primary market area is expected to grow by 3.54 percent, reaching a total population of 30,571 in 2026. The population in the secondary market area is expected to see slightly higher growth over the next five years, growing by 8.65 percent to reach a total population of 222,029 in 2026. Level of service measures the amount of parkland available to the community and is often measured by park acreage per population. As the population grows, Glendale Regional Park will be an important addition to the City’s park system, ensuring that the current level of service is maintained and that the community has adequate access to outdoor recreation and open space. Age The high ratio of children in the primary market area indicates a high concentration of families in the region. The largest age cohort in the secondary market area is between 20 and 29, indicating that there is an overall younger demographic in this region that may enter family formation years (30-39) within the next decade. While park features and activities seek to accommodate all ages, Glendale Regional Park will feature a variety of activities that are targeted to families and young people such as an all-ages playground, a swimming pool, a water play feature and a skating ribbon. Age Group Demographics of Primary Market Population and Projected Population Growth Percent of Primary Market Under 19 Years Old Primary Market Population Secondary Market/SLC Population Primary Market Ages Secondary Market/SLC Ages Salt Lake County Ages 0 5 10 15 20 % o f P o p u l a t i o n Median Income ($) < 15,000 15,000-24,999 25,000-34,999 50,000-74,99935,000-49,999 75,000-99,999 100,000-149,999 150,000-199,999 200,000+ Study Area Salt Lake City Salt Lake County Community Demographics Household Income and Wealth The 2021 median household income in the primary market area is $50,508, which is less than that of the secondary market area ($63,364) and that of Salt Lake County ($80,897). The primary market area is also expected to see less growth in median household income (12.18 percent) than in the secondary market area (19.14 percent) and Salt Lake County (13.59 percent) between 2021 and 2026. The Wealth Index is a metric used to compare overall wealth of communities to the national level. The index compares the wealth calculated for selected areas to the average national wealth levels. Wealth indexes above 100 indicate wealth levels above the national average. The wealth index in the primary market area is 47, indicating that the area has lower amounts of wealth when compared to the national average. Income distributions for both median and disposable income levels are skewed towards lower income levels in the primary market area while those in the secondary market area and Salt Lake County form a more normal distribution around the median income level. This, in addition to a lower primary market Wealth Index, indicates that income levels are lower in the primary market area than the secondary market area or the county. Given this distinction, the park will best serve the primary market through low or no cost activities for both adults and children. There is a need for the implementation of programming such as free fitness classes or facilities that can supplement recreational demands of the community for little to no cost. If concessions are implemented, then they should be priced appropriately.Primary Market Median Income Secondary Market/SLC Median Income Salt Lake County Median Income Median Household Income of Primary Market Primary Market Study Area 2021 ESRI Wealth Index 47Study Area 85SLC 105County 125 100 50 25 ESRI Wealth Index Score Score of 100 = National Average Recommendation: Low & No-Cost Activities The park will best serve the primary market through low or no cost activities for both adults and children. Primary Market Primary Market SLC/Secondary Market County Community Engagement | 26 Community Engagement 27 | Community Engagement Engagement Overview A top goal for SLC Public Lands was to create a park that is a community park first, and a regional destination as well. The planning team wanted to be sure they received robust input on community needs and desires from members of the local neighborhood and also gather insights on park needs from the larger pool of city-wide residents. A series of engagement activities were conducted from October 2021 to May 2022 including: »Neighborhood and Stakeholder Engagement: • Glendale Neighborhood Events: 3 events, 110 participants • Youth Engagement: Glendale Middle School and Mountain View Elementary School, 128 participants • Community Advisory Committee Meetings: 3 meetings including 14 participating members »Citywide Engagement: • “Plan Your Park” Open House: 100 attendees • Public Online Survey: 1361 participants • “Plan Sharing” Glendale Community Council: 15 participants Engagement for the park site began prior to this project’s planning process. Previous public engagement included a City survey and a visioning process led by the Glendale Community Council in 2020-2021, which generated initial ideas about possible amenities and programming options to consider for the site. These ideas were used as a starting point for the engagement activities described in the following pages. Glendale Neighborhood Events The Glendale Regional Park engagement team participated in three community events in early October 2021. The goals for these engagements were to: 1. Share the public feedback being incorporated by the project team to date; 2. Engage the community in adding ideas for amenities and programming not already shown; 3. Engage the community in thinking about the site in relation to existing adjacent open space; and 4. Envision ideas about how existing site features could be repurposed. Participants were invited to share where they go to recreate, in or outside the neighborhood and to consider how the old water park site could interface with the larger open space network around it. Image caption Neighborhood Planning A top goal was to create a park that is community-led and reflects Glendale’s culture and history, offering spaces for social connections, features, and activities that interest the Westside community. Community Engagement | 28 Key Takeaways Need for a neighborhood park-like experience Most participants acknowledged that there were not a lot of amenities in the immediate area and that they were leaving the neighborhood to recreate with families. Some said they use the Jordan River Trail, playground(s) at neighboring schools and the soccer fields at 1700 S Park. Predominantly, people use other existing SLC Parks, including the International Peace Gardens, Jordan Park and Liberty Park for an outside “park experience.” For play amenities like splash pads, playgrounds and dog parks respondents noted they would drive as far as Kearns, Sandy and Bountiful to use those amenities. Safety is a top priority Safety was a priority for most of the adults we spoke with. Many mentioned better street crossings, lighting at the site and other improvements designed to make it an attractive place for people to spend time. This extended to recreation along the Jordan River and the cleanliness of the water. Many people expressed interest in water activities, but not necessarily from the Jordan River in its current state. Even people who mentioned fishing thought a separate pond would be more desirable than the river. Include lots of amenities Across all three engagements, people felt that adding any public amenity would be better than what exists currently. While most identified preferences from the boards, and added a few, most suggested that any or all of the amenities would be a benefit. Free and affordable Cost is important. Some participants were surprised to learn that there would be no entrance fee to use the site. Others suggested that boat/equipment rental and a café/concessions would need to be accessibly priced. Preferred Amenities The amenities provided on the boards were very popular and are listed in priority order from all three events. • Splash Pad/Water feature • Playground • Public Art • Green Open Space/Trail • Sports courts • Community Gathering Space • Skate/Bike park • Boat rental • Fishing (pond) • Performance Venue 128 Students Youth Engagement Glendale Neighborhood Events 3 Events, 110 Participants Community Advisory Committee 4 Meetings - 14 members Public Online Survey 1361 Participants Plan Your Park Open House 100 Participants Glendale Community Council 15 Participants Engagement Activities Community Members at the Plan Your Park Open House (top and bottom) and a Glendale Neighborhod Event (middle). October 2021 December 2021 March - April 2022 November 2021 - June 2022 March 2022 June 2022 29 | Community Engagement Youth Engagement Student Engagement Students participated in a variety of engagement activities, including an asset mapping workshops with Saia Langi (City Library) and with Jarred Martinez who runs Truth Cypher, a storytelling/arts collective. Students also furthered their knowledge of city planning by participating in PlaceIt! Activities with Claudia Loayza who is a graduate student at the University of Utah in City & Metropolitan Planning and the Community Engagement Coordinator with the Utah Division of Multicultural Affairs. As part of PlaceIt! activities, students built environments from found objects that reflect their life-experiences. Students also participated in a soundscape exercise where they listened to park sounds from around the world. Then, they imagined themselves at the new park and wrote poems on leaves which formed collages, displayed in the image to the left. These activities captured a lot of the sounds, sights, smells, tastes, feelings, thoughts and community experiences the students would like to have at the new park. As one of the central engagement activities, students put collages together individually using images of parks. The individual collages were deconstructed and categorized into themes identified by the students. The deconstructed collages were then reorganized into a collective collage. Character images of amenities and features to be used in the park were counted and helped to determine the types of amenities to include in the preferred plan. Students gathered data about what values should be most present in the park. As a result, 38% of the students prioritized safety, 23% said creating a welcoming feeling at the park was most important, and 9% felt like fun was their top value. Other top values mentioned include good vibes, home, loving and open. These values were numerically represented in the collage tree with orange leaves representing safety, purple symbolizing welcoming, yellow symbolizing fun, pink being good vibes, green being home and blue being loving and open. Key Takeaways The collective collage represents the importance of inclusion, unity, diversity and creativity when thinking of park design. We hope the design of the park fosters these values. Black and white photos mixed with color ask us to consider the importance of history (both of the space and the people with roots in the neighborhood) while looking forward with fresh ideas for the future. Creativity in addressing the desires/needs of a wide variety of ages, abilities, interests, species is also represented by the multi-layered project. Put into the shape of a tree, the collage asks us to consider the natural assets that are present such as the Jordan River, birds, insects, mammals and existing trees. Nature is emphasized throughout with flowers and stenciled images of butterflies and aquatic animals, highlighting students’ desires to have water and pollinator friendly spaces be major parts of the park. The tree design also communicates the desire for staying true to the roots of Students display thier collages which represent sights, sounds, features and values they would like to see at Glendale Regional Park. Community Engagement | 30 Variety for all Ages & Abilities Water Feature or Outdoor Pool Food Trucks w/ Global Foods that Represent the Neighborhood Sports & Games Bike & Skate Parks Boat Ramp Pollinator & Animal Friendly Nature Play Youth Engagement 38% of students rated safety as the number 1 value 23% said having the park feel welcoming was their number 1 value VALUES & TOP P AR K F E A T U R E S 9% said fun was their top value. Need lighting and better street crossings Access to the Jordan River our neighborhood while being willing to grow into new forms in the future. This also suggests that priority for input for the new design should be given to those who have established roots in the neighborhood and have helped/are helping to build it. Stenciled flowers are of a tropical variety, suggesting that honoring the knowledge, experiences and cultures who come from around the globe is important as well. The multi-layered approach of the process also asks planners to take their time to listen to a variety of voices. The unique handcrafted 3D structures underline some of the elements that students find most important to have in the park design. The sculpture of the pair of glasses requests the audience to observe deeply and take unconventional perspectives into account with the planning process. Students tallied the numbers of collage images that represent the themes they identified to be included in the park. Sports/games - 112 images: Emphasis was on variety in order to offer something of interest to everyone. Students also highlighted the desire to have activities available in each season with perhaps a space that could be converted to ice skating rink in the winter while functioning as something else in warmer months. Students found it important to have activities available at all times of day so lighting at night is important to them. Bike park, basketball courts, skate park, petting zoo and dog park seem to be popular ideas. A running/walking loop around the park is also valued. Water - 112 images : Students were strong in their opinion that some water elements need to be maintained at the park while also increasing access to water activities on the Jordan River. They prefer to have a pool and made the argument that a pool is much more inclusive and accessible to a wider variety of abilities and ages than a splashpad. They contend that splashpads will only be used by young kids while a pool will be used by their younger siblings, themselves, their parents and grandparents. They would like to have at least a couple slides in the pool. Nature - 74 images: Students would like the landscaping to provide shade, picnic space and natural play areas. They would also prefer a pollinator friendly design to attract butterflies (especially monarchs), bees and birds. Spaces for animals (domestic and wild) are important to foster. They also find it important to have trees that provide food for humans. Adventure - 66 images: Student ideas for adventure included bike and skate parks, ropes courses, zip lines, and a trampoline park. Gathering (seating, picnic, etc .) - 49 images: Students had a lot of ideas about food trucks being a regular presence at the park. They mentioned that food will bring more people to the park and a food truck presence can highlight global foods that are representative of our neighborhood. Picnic & Shade 31 | Community Engagement Community Open House Community Open House The Glendale Regional Park Master Plan Team held an in-person open house at the Glendale Community Learning Center. The purpose of the event was to share park concept plans, which had been created through previous public input. The Glendale community was invited to provide their feedback on different programming elements, amenities and style characteristics while learning more about the project. Concept plans shared at the meeting are shown on pages 37-38. Approximately 150 people participated in the open house, the majority of whom live and/ or work in the Glendale community. Attendees were able to move freely around the event space to talk with their neighbors, the project team, and view concepts plans for the site. Attendees were given stickers as they entered the room which allowed them to identify their preferences on activities, amenities and stylistic themes they would enjoy. Key Takeaways The concept plan with the most votes was the “The Glendale Green”, a concept alternative that was filled with many park features facilitating active recreation and community gathering. The most popular amenities included a water feature such as a pool, a hiking hill/overlook, river access with a kayak rental and boat launch, biking, skating, and skateboarding areas, and a food truck court. Public Online Survey The public online survey was promoted city-wide and was available from March 16 to April 16. It was offered in both English and Spanish and widely advertised. Approximately 1361 people responded to the survey. Who We Heard From Most survey participants (1,102 out of 1,361 participants, or 81%) live or work near Glendale Regional Park. Responses from the Glendale neighborhood were much higher (30% of participants) than any other neighborhood, indicating that we truly are hearing the voice of the local community. The second-largest group of participants (4% of responses) came from the Northwest Salt Lake/Rose Park neighborhood, a community that was also in the primary market area. The largest percentage of responses were from participants between the ages of 31-40 (28% of participants). This was followed by a large number of responses from youth ages 18 and under (22% of participants). This likely reflects substantial participation Glendale Middle School students, who had participated in previous engagement activities and were encouraged to take the survey.The greatest percentage of feedback came from the white, Latino and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander communities, which aligns with the demographic makeup of the Glendale neighborhood. Community members vote for their favorite park features at the Plan Your Park Open House Community Engagement | 32 Q 7- How close do you live or work to Glendale Park? Q 23-What is your age? Q26- What is your ethnicity? Public Survey Feedback 30% of survey respondentslive in the Glendale Neigborhood (84104) Lots of Youth Feedback 30% = 18 and younger. Glendale Middle School participation! Majority of Feedback from white, Hispanic/ Latino & Pacific Islander communities 81% of survey respondentslive or work nearby Who We Heard From 33 | Community Engagement Q3- How satisfied are you with these draft goals? Q1- How satisfied are you with the draft project mission statement? Key Takeaways Overall Support for the Park Overall, there was support for the park Mission statement (68% of participants were satisfied and 25% were very satisfied). Survey participants were also happy with the project goals (64% were satisfied and 30% were very satisfied). Top themes and preferred features from survey participants reflected the desire for a park space that offers a large variety of options for active and passive recreation and places to host community gathering and local events. Bright and Playful While many participants expressed disappointment that the water park could not be revived, there was a desire to include park features and thematic styles that are reminiscent of the former water park. Bright, colorful and playful park features were consistently top choices. Water elements such as an outdoor pool and a water-play plaza or fountain were deemed essential to include in the park design. A “colorful and industrial playground” was the number two playground choice, behind the number one choice “play for all ages” (which also has playful imagery) and the most popular water feature was a colorful, artful fountain. There was less interest in nature play or playgrounds with a natural theme, with less than 12% of respondents choosing either of these features. There is also less interest in natural water features over bright and active elements, with only 17% choosing water play with sand and moveable features, and a natural water feature being lower on the list of preferred park elements. Adaptive and Inclusive Play Inclusive Playgrounds accessible to all skill levels and abilities were important to survey respondents, with an “adaptive and inclusive playground” being the number two choice for playgrounds. Playgrounds at the park should incorporate accessible design with assistive technologies. Gathering & Local Events There was a strong desire to create places that would provide opportunities for community gathering, events, and local performances. Amenities such as food trucks or concessions were also deemed an important component to draw the community in and activate the park. It was important to the local community that the scale of events be appropriate for the neighborhood. Most survey respondents wanted event sizes to host between 500- 5,000 people and did not want to host larger-scale events such as regional concerts. Public Survey Feedback 93% Satisfied or Very Satisfied with Park Mission Statement 94% Satisfied with Project Goals Online Survey Results Community Engagement | 34 Gathering & Local Events Places for gathering, food, & local events were top choices. Inclusive Inclusive Playgrounds accessible to all skill levels and abilities were important to survey respondents. All-Ages Activities All ages activities were very popular and were some of the most-selected items. Bright & Playful Respondents were drawn to bright, colorful features reminiscent of local cultures and the colorful water park. #1 Eve nt S i z e C h o ice #1 Gat he r i n g C h oice #2 Playg r o u n d C h oice All-ages activities are popular All ages activities were also very popular and were some of the most-selected items. “Play for all ages, including grown-ups” was the top choice for playground types and “Climbing and bouldering features for all ages” was the second choice for fitness features, just behind multi-use sports courts, which also serve a variety of age groups. Themes: Online Survey Feedback #1 Fitnes s / S p o r t s C hoice Multi-use Sports Court #1 Playgr o u n d C h o i ce All-ages Play (For adults too!) #1 Water Fe a t u r e C h oice Artful Interactive Fountain #3 Playg r o u n d C h o i ce Colorful / Industrial Playground #2 Fitnes s / S p o r t s C hoice All-ages Bouldering & Climbing Plaza for Food Trucks, Concessions & Festivals 1,000-5,000 Person Event (Like Friendly Island Tongan Festival) Adaptive/ Inclusive Playground 35 | Community Engagement *Top Choice in Both Public Online Survey and Engagement Events Food Trucks Hiking & Biking Trails *Hiking & Hilltop Overlook *Swimming/Outdoor Pool Food Truck Court Ice & Roller Skating Ribbon Water Play Feature & Plaza * Flex Lawn, Community Event & Performance Space *Community Plaza with Concessions* Skateboarding Features*Riverside Features Sledding Hill *Community Pavilion*Enhanced Boat Dock/Kayak Rental*Dog Park *Multi-Use Sports Court* High Interest Features Community Engagement | 36 Top Features Hiking & biking trails with a hill- top overlook, swimming and an outdoor pool were consistently top choices of survey respondents. Skateboarding features, sledding, riverside features (boardwalk, enhanced boat dock, kayak rental) and a community plaza with concessions or food trucks were popular as well. Another top feature was a multi-use sports court and a water play feature. Middle-ground and mixed feedback features Climbing features had mixed feedback. Images of children’s climbing features and interest in rock climbing were lower on the list of selected choices, however the all- ages bouldering feature received a very high number of selections (728). Ice and roller skating features also had mixed feedback. A skating ribbon was the number two choice out of 10 in Concept A but the seventh choice out of 12 in Concept B. Both ice and roller skating were rated in the center of activity interests on a scale of one to seven. Low-Interest Features Least-selected park features included a community garden, bird hides, a fitness station anda community clubhouse. Kid’s drawings of desired park features from the Plan Your Park Open House Community members voted for their preferred park features using stickers and comments at the Plan Your Park Open House Park Feature Feedback L e a s t P o p u l a r L e a s t P o p u l a r M o s t P o p u l a r M o s t P o p u l a r P o p u l a r P o p u l a r • Hiking/Biking Trails & Overlook • Outdoor Pool • Multi-use Sports Court • Sledding • Food Truck Court • Ice & Roller Skating Ribbon • Skateboarding Features • Community Plaza with Concessions • Riverside Boardwalk • Water Play Feature & Plaza • Community Pavilion w/Grills or Warming Kitchen • Enhanced Boat Dock • Flex Lawn, Community Event & Performance Space • Riverside Beach • Kayak Rental Station • Dog Park • Playgrounds • Bouldering Features • Naturalistic Water Feature • Nature Play Playground • Meadow “Lawn” & Natural Planting • Community Garden • Fitness Features • Bird Hides/River Overlook • Volleyball • Community Clubhouse 37 | Chapter Two The Great Outdoors Park Features Park Concept A 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 3 2 1 1 14 13 12 11 Shade Pergola Community Gardens Entry Gateway Nature Play Skating Ribbon Walking / Biking Tower & Trails Parking Lot1 7 2 Kayak Rental and Boat Launch9 Picnic & Seating Lawn 8 3 “Meadow” Lawn and Natural Planting 10 4 Naturalistic Water Feature 11 5 Riverside Boardwalk 12 Water Play Feature 13 6 Bridge14 1700 S. 1700 South Park Glendale Golf Course Glendale Park Jo r d a n R i v e r Jo r d a n R i v e r P a r k w a y T r a i l Nature in your backyard Building on the natural assets of the Jordan River, this option celebrates nature through restoration, education and play while bringing the adventure of the great outdoors to the neighborhood’s backyard. Chapter Two | 38 *Concept with the highest amount of popular features in both public online survey and engagement events The Glendale Green Park Features Outdoor Pool 13 Food Truck Court 2 Parking1 Entry / Main Pavilion 3 Playgrounds4 Skate Area11 Skating Ribbon 7 Dock 14 Riverside Beach 15 Climbing Features 8 Fitness Features 6 Picnic Pavilion and Plaza9 Flex Lawn & Small Performance Stage 12 Dog Park 16 Bridge17 Overlook & Sledding Hill, Hiking & Biking Paths 10 5 Adventure Playgrounds Community connections The hub of the community, this option creates gathering spaces to connect with neighbors and generates vibrant play, exploration and activity for adults and kids alike. Park Concept B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Nature Play 1700 S. 1700 South Park Glendale Golf Course Glendale Park Jo r d a n R i v e r Jo r d a n R i v e r P a r k w a y T r a i l The Vision | 40 The Vision 41 | The Vision Design Strategy Keeping the memory of the water park alive, the park design is bright, colorful and active. It celebrates community gathering and active recreation with an array of park features that generate vibrant play, exploration and activity for adults and kids alike. Bright playground, plaza spaces and pavilions feature art, lighting and styles both reminiscent of the former water park and reflecting the cultures of the local community. The park is active and community-driven. The many park plazas, picnic areas, pavilions and event lawns offer opportunities for local performances and festivals, family gatherings and community classes. The park is a hub for sharing local food, art and culture with family, friends and neighbors. Glendale Regional Park is first a neighborhood park, creating spaces for community gatherings and daily park experiences. A water play feature and outdoor pool create spaces for splashing, swimming and cooling off in the summer heat. Daily trips to the park can bring a game of basketball, family time at the all-ages and abilities playground, or activities with furry friends at the dog park. The park also offers new regional attractions unique to the City’s park system such as a skating ribbon, kayak rental, riverside beach and an event lawn and plaza for local festivals. The park is a place to explore nature through hillside trails and along the restored riparian landscapes of the Jordan River. A circuit of multi-use trails lead to hilltop views of the city or to shaded riverside seating. A kayak rental station and enhanced access to the Jordan River creates a gateway to paddling adventures. Restoration and planting improves the local environment, creating an urban oasis that shades the park with newly planted trees, restores riverside habitat, and blankets the park with a garden of native and climate resilient plants. The park design strengthens regional connectivity, connecting Glendale Park to the larger park system with a proposed bridge connection to the Jordan River Parkway Trail, a recommended pedestrian crossing to 1700 South Park and a recommended multi-use trail connection to the future Surplus Canal Trail. A Community & Regional Park Glendale Regional Park is bright, colorful and active. It celebrates community gathering and active recreation . The Vision | 42 Glendale Regional Park Master Plan Trail Connection Picnic Lawn All Ages & Abilities Playground Pavilion/Shade Structure Full-Court Basketball Ice & Roller Skating Ribbon Kid’s Climbing Feature All Ages Climbing Feature Pavilion Community Plaza / Promendade Parking Lot Hiking & Sledding Hill ADA Accessible, Multi-Use Trail Hilltop Overlook Skateboarding Area Water Feature/Plaza Outdoor Pool Flex Lawn & Performance Space Flex Stage/Plaza Bridge Connection to Jordan River Parkway Dog Park Picnic Areas Riparian Restoration Riverside Boardwalk Riverside Beach & Sand Volleyball Kayak Rental Station Boat Dock Boat Ramp Boat Drop-off Pickleball Courts Park Features 1 2 3 9 14 15 16 17 18 21 20 22 19 24 25 28 29 26 27 23 5 4 10 7 11 8 12 6 13 * * 1 2 3 9 14 15 16 17 18 21 20 22 19 24 25 28 29 26 27 23 5 4 10 7 11 8 12 6 13 1700 S. 1700 South Park Glendale Golf Course Glendale Park Jo r d a n R i v e r Pickleball Courts Jo r d a n R i v e r P a r k w a y T r a i l 43 | The Vision Park Features Trail Connection Picnic Lawn All Ages Playground Shade Structure Full-Court Basketball Ice and Roller Skating Kid’s Climbing Feature Adult Climbing Feature Pavillion Community Plaza Parking Lot Hiking & Sledding Hill ADA Accessible, Multi Use Trail Hilltop Overlook Skate Boarding Area Water Play Feature Outdoor Pool Flex Lawn & Performance Space Flex Stage/ Plaza Bridge Connection Dog Park Picnic Area Riparian Restoration Board Walk Pickleball CourtsRiverside Beach & Sand Volleyball Kayak Rental Station Boat Dock Boat Ramp Boat Drop Off 2 3 9 14 15 16 17 18 2120 2219 24 *25 28 292627 23 54 107 118 12 6 13 1 The Vision | 44 Programming & Activation: Creating Memorable Community Experiences Programming and activation at Glendale Regional Park will seek to capitalize not only on the scale and amenity mix in the new park, but most importantly on the surrounding neighborhood’s character and in-place assets. Glendale is a culturally rich neighborhood with a variety of stories to tell and experiences to share with each other and with Salt Lake City as a whole. While the park’s design and landscape will define the “look,” outdoor programming will define how it feels. Public programming will differentiate it from parks throughout Salt Lake City by providing an environment where residents and visitors want to spend time, and will use amenities and activities to create memorable experiences and emotional connections to Glendale. Today, Salt Lake City residents and visitors don’t necessarily expect robust programming of public spaces. Many parks and plazas have failed to maintain a positive visitor experience because they have not programmed and managed their public realm to exceed local precedents. Visitors to Glendale Regional Park will have expectations for a safe and clean place that provides some sort of basic amenities. Our aim should be to exceed those expectations and surprise them with offerings they can’t find anywhere else in Salt Lake City. There is an innate human desire for a feeling of community, and programming should provide some of this, especially in a rich and diverse multicultural environment like Glendale. Bright and colorful, the playground is filled with features for all abilities and all ages to enjoy - even adults! Glendale Regional Park Vision - Playground for All Ages & Abilities 45 | The Vision Phase 1 Programming Opportunities Children/family Family fitness activities All-ability movement Music / literary education Organized play activities Animal education events Arts / culture / community Art cart Arts and crafts Small music / performance Literary events Lectures Board games Fitness / recreation / events Low impact fitness Organized recreation / workshops Community cultural events Outdoor hobbyist activities River Programming Safety and awareness Skills workshops Habitat education Volunteer events Outdoor / environmental Nature / meditative walks Birding / wildlife workshops Gardens / horticulture Public art Arts / culture / community Audience area Outdoor movies Lawn games Sports courts Clinics / lessons All-ability skills training Undeveloped Hillside Undeveloped Hillside with Native Landscapewith Native Landscape Fenced / Fenced / Restoration AreaRestoration Area Fenced / Fenced / Restoration AreaRestoration Area Protective Fencing Phase 1 Temporary Hillside Restoration Area 1700 S. 1700 South Park Glendale Golf Course Glendale Park Jo r d a n R i v e r Jo r d a n Riv e r P a r k T r a i l *See Phasing Strategies Pg x for full Phase I description . The diagram highlights possibilities for park programming , activities and events. Community partnerships along with City programming will be essential to activating the park. The Vision | 46 Future Phasing Opportunities for Programming Arts/ culture/ community Expanded arts programming Artist talks and performance Artists in residence Concession Dog Park Owner socials Training workshops Mobile grooming Bark bar concession Performance/ events Concerts Theater and dance Community festivals Workshops (stage) Fitness (Stage) Aquatic Programming Swim lessons Safety/ CPR Parent/ child program Senior fitness classes Skate park Lessons Demonstrations Skateboard repair Deck art workshops River Programming Boating recreation Boat skills Bait and tackle Concession River recreation Swim lessons/ safety Tubing Restoration/ cleanup River education events 1700 S. 1700 South Park Glendale Golf Course Glendale Park Jo r d a n R i v e r Jo r d a n R i v e r P a r k T r a i l The diagram highlights possibilities for park programming , activities and events. Community partnerships along with City programming will be essential to activating the park. Programming Will: »Define how the park feels »Differentiate it from other parks and destinations - “the competition” »Provide and active and appealing neighborhood anchor »Provide a safe and clean place »Capitalize on Glendale’s rich and diverse multicultural environment »Capitalize on Salt Lake City’s outdoors orientation 47 | The Vision Programming / Activation Weekends 450 People Special Events 2,ooo People Weekdays 353 People Market Potential Study: Visitation Potential Park Programming Calendar of Events Matrix Example ttfffiflffifl fiflfffffl flffifl ffi ffi fffi fffi ttff fi fl ff fi • ffi fi fffi fiffi fi ffi fl •• • ff • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •- • ••• • € • ‚ ƒ • • • • ff fi ttffi • fiflfffffl ff fi ttffi •ttfffiflffifl Weekday Visitation Potential Before Work 138 People Mid-Morning Lower Use Mid-Afternoon Lower Use After Work 138 People Lunch Hour 77 People The diagrams above display estimated park visitation collected from the planning team’s market analysis. Park Activation for All Seasons and Times of Day Programming, such as depicted in the hypothetical matrices, is broadly categorized as: Arts & Culture, Fitness, Hobbies & Niche Interests, and Live Entertainment. Each category provides a range of options that vary by time of day, seasons, intensity of activity, and, of course, demographic cohort. We consider programming categories across the zones of Glendale Regional Park, establishing a coherent pedestrian experience as one moves from one area to another, while creating distinct environments throughout the park, coordinated with the landscape architecture. The over arching goal is for Glendale Regional Park to feel busy and active and to give all user groups a multitude of reasons to visit at different times through the year, a season, and even their day. While Glendale Regional Park can’t be all things to all people, it can certainly provide a range of experiences. ARTS & CULTURE SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER DAY/ NIGHT DAY PART FREQUENCY Art supplies / art cart X X X X Both All Daily Dance lessons X X Night Peak Weekly Figure drawing classes X X Night Peak Weekly Folk art / crafts X X X Day Off-Peak Weekly Instrument petting zoo X X X Day Weekend Monthly Local author readings X Day Peak Weekly Toddler art program X X X Day Off-Peak Monthly HOBBIES & NICHE INTERESTS Board games cart X X X Daily Book club X X Monthly Bird-watching club X X X X Weekly Kayak / river education activities X X X Monthly Cooking classes X X Monthly Salsa dancing X X Weekly Makers workshops X X X Monthly FITNESS & WELLNESS Biking club X X X Weekly Capoeira X Weekly Family yoga X X X Weekly Walking club X X X X Weekly Hula hoop X Weekly Kickboxing X Weekly Zumba X Weekly LIVE ENTERTAINMENT A cappella X X X Weekly Brass bands X X Monthly Dance performance X X X Monthly Emerging musician series X X Weekly Outdoor movies X Weekly Theater X X Monthly Silent disco X X Monthly The Vision | 48 The hill creates opportunities for seasonal sledding and year-round hiking or biking. A trip to the hilltop overlook offers views of the city, mountains and vibrant Salt Lake sunsets. ARTS & CULTURESPRINGSUMMERFALLWINTERDAY/ NIGHT DAY PART FREQUENCY Art supplies / art cartXXXXBothAllDaily Dance lessonsXXNightPeakWeekly Figure drawing classesXXNightPeakWeekly Folk art / craftsXXXDayOff-PeakWeekly Instrument petting zooXXXDayWeekendMonthly Local author readingsXDayPeakWeekly Toddler art programXXXDayOff-PeakMonthly HOBBIES & NICHE INTERESTS Board games cartXXXDaily Book clubXXMonthly Bird-watching clubXXXXWeekly Kayak / river education activities XXXMonthly Cooking classesXXMonthly Salsa dancingXXWeekly Makers workshopsXXXMonthly FITNESS & WELLNESS Biking clubXXXWeekly CapoeiraXWeekly Family yogaXXXWeekly Walking clubXXXXWeekly Hula hoopXWeekly KickboxingXWeekly ZumbaXWeekly LIVE ENTERTAINMENT A cappellaXXXWeekly Brass bandsXXMonthly Dance performanceXXXMonthly Emerging musician seriesXXWeekly Outdoor moviesXWeekly TheaterXXMonthly Silent discoX XMonthly Glendale Regional Park Vision - Hillside Sledding & Mountain Views 49 | The Vision Partnerships / Activation Market & Festival Diagram The diagram below shows a possible layout for market and event tents along the community plaza. Space for food trucks is stationed along the plaza edge. 20 x 20 Market Tent 10 x 10 Market Tent Food Truck Court Partnerships: Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Opportunities Glendale Regional Park is poised to become the Westside’s “central park,” with the goal of building a loyal base of regular visitors from all corners of the city. While Glendale Regional Park will be a public park that gets used by nearby residents for everyday recreation, it will also become a citywide amenity and driver of tourism and economic development. The efforts to create a new Glendale Regional Park coincides with a national trend where downtowns and neighborhoods are seen as competing over a scarce pool of resources after the economic benefits from downtown development did not reach those neighborhoods in many cities; whereas the political consensus in the 1990s and 2000s was that strong downtowns helped create strong neighborhoods, today it is far more common to hear elected officials emphasize their commitment to neighborhood-based community development and lament that too many public resources have been spent in central business districts. Given the sensitivities of the neighborhood relative to gentrification and public resources, the discussion around park equity must be reframed. The planning team has identified three planks of an overall program for Glendale Regional Park to help the City promote equity and ensure the new park is inclusive of all residents: growing minority-owned businesses through concessions and contracts, supporting existing organizations that promote inclusivity and equity through programming partnerships, and partnering with local organizations through internships and job training. Growing Minority-Owned Businesses Food & Beverage Entrepreneurship Proposed future food and beverage opportunities are an opportunity to support budding entrepreneurs with limited access to capital. An entire program can be formulated with movable structures that come equipped with sinks, small refrigerators, and countertops, so concessionaires only need to purchase electrical appliances, signage, and whatever supplemental FF&E they desire (subject to City approval). This would make the concessions affordable opportunities for new food businesses. A park- or City-focused director of hospitality, or community partner organization, would be qualified to guide these concessionaires with respect to menu design, kitchen operations, merchandising, signage, and the other aspects of running a successful food business that are usually learned through a lot of experience. The City should provide, or work with a community partner to provide, this service/consulting for free. Glendale Regional Park (via the City) would need to establish an application process that would identify the entrepreneurs who would be likely to succeed in the park based on their proposals. Applicants would need to be new business owners. The applicant pool could also include women-owned and immigrant-owned businesses. The Vision | 50 The community plaza is a brightly lit, vibrant promenade that hosts events and festivals as well as food trucks, market booths and community-led activities. Glendale Regional Park Communty Plaza & Promenade Rendering 51 | The Vision Concession Contracting A mobile concession program (which is different than the food program above) should also be addressed. While such a program would not involve the City offering any financial assistance to these concessionaires, the scoring system in an application or request for proposal (RFP) process could take into account whether a business is minority- or woman-owned. Recommendations include adding this component to scoring proposals as part of a larger change that would seek to qualify concessionaires prior to their launch in the park and institute minimum standards for operation. Programming Vendor Contracting There are a variety of types of programming partnerships, but the most straightforward partnership involves the City hiring an individual or business to perform a service (as opposed to a partner providing in-kind services or the City and the partner having a cost-sharing relationship). Common examples are fitness classes, art classes, and the vendors who provide equipment or furnishings for larger events. Similar to the mobile concessions RFP process, the City can make an explicit commitment to prioritizing people of color when it hires artists to teach a watercolor class, fitness instructors to lead classes and other vendors. Programming Partnerships Targeting Underrepresented Audiences In addition to establishing and expanding fee-based programming, the City should create a wide variety of new free programming at Glendale Regional Park that can eventually be sponsored. To launch these programs, the park will need to partner with cultural institutions, small businesses, and nonprofit service providers. The most desirable and reliable partners for Glendale Regional Park will be established organizations with existing constituencies. The loyal followers of these businesses and nonprofits will show up to activities they produce in the park, diminishing the need to promote them and helping to seed a base level of activity. The City can specifically target organizations who primarily work with constituencies that are usually underrepresented at parks, specifically in Glendale. A successful strategy will build these relationships systematically and incrementally; it’s important to be realistic about how many of and how often their audience will travel to the park, and for partnerships to develop organically. A programming partnership might start with one or a few events each year, and grow through successful participation. Building Capacity in Partner Organizations Programming partnerships can also benefit third-party organizations by helping them better fulfill their missions (in the case of nonprofits), exposing them to new audiences, and building their in-house capacity. By working with the City at Glendale Regional Park, nonprofit organizations may be more likely to secure grants or be able to pursue grant opportunities that they may not have otherwise been eligible for. Cost-sharing arrangements make it affordable for some to take on new full-time staff to help grow their businesses or service offerings. The City can identify which organizations are positioned to take advantage of the possible benefits of a programming partnership. Many partners will enter into a discussion at Glendale Regional Park already cognizant of how the partnership fits into their strategic plans, and this should be part of the criteria used when selecting partners. Workforce Development The third part of a strategy for Glendale Regional Park to succeed in community engagement goals of partnering with the City to combat park inequity and advance park inclusivity, is to partner explicitly with a workforce development program and leverage the program as a resource for Glendale. Paid Internships Glendale Regional Park can offer paid internships for in-school youth in a variety of areas. Programming and marketing are two likely sectors where there will be a need for interns and reciprocal interest on the part of students. Work in these two areas can often be broken into discrete, seasonal efforts (i.e., helping to launch or manage specific programs, creating content for specific social media campaigns or events, etc.). In addition, internships could focus on special projects such as building an historic photo archive of Raging Waters that could get incorporated into a future augmented reality component of a mobile app, targeted donor/grant research, or administering and helping to analyze a survey of park visitors. Occupational Training and Employment Glendale Regional Park can also work with a workforce development program to provide work experience for program participants and employment for graduates of their program. For out-of-school youth, Glendale can offer occupational training in grounds maintenance and skilled landscaping and gardening. This could create mutually beneficial opportunities for Glendale, the City, and citywide residents, providing Glendale Regional Park with extra help at a reduced cost and creating a new source of education and job opportunities for emerging gardeners. Whether or not occupational training is a possibility, the City can create pathways to employment for workforce development program graduates, such as prioritizing graduates in the hiring process. An exclusive hiring window should be created for prospective employees referred by a workforce development partner with a commitment on the City’s part to hire qualified applicants from the pool of graduates. Prioritized job opportunities could include positions in sanitation, maintenance, landscaping, hospitality, and customer service. Graduates of workforce development programs typically perform better and are retained by employers at a higher rate than people recruited from public job postings. The Vision | 52 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 53 | The Vision Goals & Metrics How will we know that we achieved what we set out to do? Measuring Progress Gauging elements of the final concept plan through performance-based evaluation provides a measure to determine if goals set during the beginning of the park planning process are being attained. The following metrics evaluate the park design according to original park goals. The Vision | 54 1700 street access Glendale Park trails Jordan river parkway trail Trails Recommendation: Enhanced Public Transit As shown in the analysis on pages 13-14, there is a need for enhanced public transit access to Glendale Park. Partnerships and conversations with UTA and other transit organizations will be required in order to provide equitable and regional access to the site. Park Goa l Hiking Trail New Connections Trails & Connectivity Regional Connection 5 Public Lands spaces connected after all associated trail and crossing recommendations are implemented . 2 New Connections: A new crossing linking to 1700 South Park and a bridge linking to the Jordan River Parkway will connect with the future Surplus Canal Trail and a proposed multi-use path along 1700 South to create a Glendale Trail Triangle . 1700 S. 1700 South Park Glendale Golf Course Glendale Park Jo r d a n R i v e r Jo r d a n R i v e r P a r k w a y T r a i l 55 | The Vision Active Play - High Programming Community Gathering - High Programming Community Spaces Park Goal Park Goal 29 Activities & amenities added to the site . Community Services & Programming 1,713 Community members involved in the planning process . Community-Led Park Goa l 8 new and unique recreation opportunities introduced to the citywide Public Lands’ system . Regional Connection Park Goal 100% Individual elements in the park are ADA accessible Park Activation & Safety Community Spaces - Plan Metrics 1700 S. 1700 South Park Glendale Golf Course Glendale Park Jo r d a n R i v e r Jo r d a n R i v e r P a r k w a y T r a i l The Vision | 56 Environmental - Plan Metrics Native/Water Wise Planting & Turf Riparian Native Grass & Shrubland Hardscape** Soft & Hardscape * See page 20 for previous site surface calculations ** Hardscape includes some impervious crushed granite pathways Park Goal 4 .5 Acres of natural areas added that provide public access Access to Nature Park Goal 1 .7 Acres riparian habitat restored Environmental Quality Park Goal 10 .9 Acres of native & waterwise planting reduces water use Environmental Justice Park Goal Impervious surfaces reduced by 50%, improving water quality and replenishing groundwater* Environmental Quality Site Surfaces Asphalt - 8% Concrete - 13% Park Features/Structures - 6% Site Impervious Surfaces: 27% Planted Landscape - 64% Crushed Granite Paths - 6% Dog Park/Sand Beach - 3% Site Impervious Surfaces: 73% 1700 S. 1700 South Park Glendale Golf Course Glendale Park Jo r d a n R i v e r Jo r d a n R i v e r P a r k w a y T r a i l Implementation | 58 Implementation 59 | Implementation Implementation Phase I The park will be implemented in a series of phases. Many factors are contributing to the decision-making process examining which elements will be included in phase one of park implementation. Most notably, according to the requirements set by the Land and Water Conservation Fund, outdoor recreation amenities in the park must be available to the public by spring of 2024. This expedited schedule requires consideration for park features that are easily implementable, can meet a rapid construction timeline and that fit within the current budget allocated for the park. Other phase one considerations include the need to group park features and improvements into a consolidated area, creating a fully functioning park with a variety of activities and amenities prior to the completion of future phases. Consolidating developed areas of the park allows the remaining undeveloped areas to be strategically fenced, limiting access to hazards left from previous water park infrastructure. The fencing plan also facilitates phasing strategies for vegetative restoration, weed abatement and site preparation for future phases while mitigating exposure to visually unattractive, undeveloped areas. Public input is another consideration shaping phase one features. Some of the top park features that are desired by the neighborhood, such as an outdoor pool, cannot be accommodated in the first phase due to cost, a lengthier construction time frame, and the time required to work through possible partnership logistics. However, park features that are most desired by the community and can meet the criteria mentioned above are being given top priority for inclusion in phase one. This includes a multi-use sports court and an all-ages and abilities playground. Other desired features will be filled by interim elements, such as food trucks being stationed in the parking lot before a formal community plaza is fully built out, access to hiking on the hill before formal trails are installed, and a kayak rental locker included next to the existing boat ramp prior to full enhancements being completed along the Jordan River. Future phases of the park will be implemented as quickly as funding and logistics can be navigated. Grant, donation and partnership opportunities which align with park goals and proposed features and programming will be expeditiously explored to realize the full site design and potential for a regional-quality park in the Westside. Callout text over images, ad quam harum ne maiorpor accum fuga. Et officip saniatas eius reperspernat quiae. Uptate eris nos molorum featured content. Phasing Strategy Phasing strategies ensure safety from site hazards and begin restoring nature to the site while also considering the creative potential of elements from the previous water park. Implementation | 60 Phasing Diagram Segmented Phasing Zones The diagram highlights phase one elements, which will be completed by spring of 2024. All other portions of the park will be completed in future phases. Anticipated future phase elements are segmented into park feature zones for flexible implementation. These smaller zones may be implemented simultaneously or phased incrementally as park funding and partnerships become feasible. The diagram suggests a possible phasing sequence to prioritize park features that are popular with the community while also utilizing park space to the greatest possible extent. This phasing order should be flexible in response to partnership and funding opportunities as well as available funding and the cost to develop each phasing zone. Phase 1Phase 1 Skating Skating Ribbon & Ribbon & PavilionPavilion Parking & Parking & Community Community PlazaPlaza Hill with Hill with Overlook & Overlook & Trails/ Dog Trails/ Dog ParkPark Skateboarding Skateboarding Area Area Water Feature Water Feature Plaza, Flex Plaza, Flex Lawn & Lawn & Performance Performance Space Space Riverside Riverside Beach & Beach & BoardwalkBoardwalk BridgeBridge Outdoor Outdoor Swimming Swimming PoolPool Boat Ramp, Boat Ramp, Dock, Dock, Drop-off, Drop-off, & Rental & Rental StationStation Phasing Considerations • Cost • Potential partnerships • Community input / popular features • Hazards & Safety • Consolidating developed park areas to maximize park functionality and use • Sequencing development for maximized park use and access throughout the construction and development process • Sequencing revegetation and restoration efforts $ $ 1 2 3 3b 3a 456 7 8 $ $ Park Feature Zones Zones to be developed concurrently Higher Cost Features Popular Features Possible Phasing Sequence Phase I Future Phase $ 1 61 | Implementation Phase 1 Park Features Park Amenities and Publicly Accessible Areas Trail Connection Picnic Lawn All Ages & Abilities Playground Pavilion/Shade Structure Full-Court Basketball Community Plaza Parking Lot Parking/Interim Food Truck Area Undeveloped Hill with: • Native Landscape Restoration • Informal Hiking Opportunities • Possible Art Installations Existing Parking Lot Kayak Rental Locker Existing Boat Ramp Phase 1 Elements 1 2 3 5 4 10 9 7 11 8 12 6 Undeveloped Undeveloped Hillside Hillside with Native with Native LandscapeLandscape Maintain Maintain Access to Access to Existing Boat Existing Boat RampRamp Fenced / Fenced / Restoration Restoration AreaArea Fenced / Fenced / Restoration Restoration AreaArea Circulation through Circulation through Existing Parking LotExisting Parking Lot Protective Fencing Phase 1 Temporary Hillside Restoration Area 1700 S. 1700 South Park Glendale Golf Course Glendale Park Jo r d a n R i v e r 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 4 5 3 Jo r d a n R i v e r P a r k w a y T r a i l Implementation | 62 Phase 1 Programming Opportunities Children/family Family fitness activities All-ability movement Music / literary education Organized play activities Animal education events Arts / culture / community Art cart Arts and crafts Small music / performance Literary events Lectures Board games Fitness / recreation / events Low impact fitness Organized recreation / workshops Community cultural events Outdoor hobbyist activities River Programming Safety and awareness Skills workshops Habitat education Volunteer events Outdoor / environmental Nature / meditative walks Birding / wildlife workshops Gardens / horticulture Public art Arts / culture / community Audience area Outdoor movies Lawn games Sports courts Clinics / lessons All-ability skills training Undeveloped Hillside Undeveloped Hillside with Native Landscapewith Native Landscape Fenced / Fenced / Restoration AreaRestoration Area Fenced / Fenced / Restoration AreaRestoration Area Protective Fencing Phase 1 Temporary Hillside Restoration Area 1700 S. 1700 South Park Glendale Golf Course Glendale Park Jo r d a n R i v e r Jo r d a n Riv e r P a r k T r a i l 63 | Implementation Opinion of Probable Cost Phase 1 Costs The project team developed phase one to propose a set of amenities that could be implemented, pending contractor bids, with current funding. These elements include an ambitious set of improvements that can be accomplished for 3.5 to 5.5 million dollars. Phase one was designed to maximize usable park features and efficiently utilize funding as it comprises only approximately 10% of the total park cost yet completes 30% of the full park buildout. Further design and cost estimating is needed to understand the true costs of the proposed amenities. This proposal is based on current construction costs and contracting pricing is likely to be much higher two years from now. Phasing Zone Costs As detailed design is completed for each phase, a true understanding of cost will be established. Some park elements have much higher costs associated with them such as the pool and the skating ribbon and will vary in range of cost depending on the length of time it takes to implement them. See the phasing diagram on page 60 for the recommended phasing approach. Full Park Build Out Costs Full build out of all park elements could range in cost from 30 to 50 million dollars depending on how long it takes to fully implement all park features. The sooner the site is redeveloped and the fewer the phases of development, the more cost efficient it is to construct the park. Phase 1 Opinion of Probable Cost: $3,400,000 - $5,500000 Full Park Build Out Opinion of Probable Cost: $30,000,000 - $55,000,000 Undeveloped Undeveloped Hillside Hillside with Native with Native LandscapeLandscape Maintain Maintain Access to Access to Existing Boat Existing Boat RampRamp Fenced / Fenced / Restoration Restoration AreaArea Fenced / Fenced / Restoration Restoration AreaArea Circulation through Circulation through Existing Parking LotExisting Parking Lot * Protective Fencing Phase 1 Temporary Hillside Restoration Area Phase 1 Full Park Build Out 1 2 3 9 14 15 16 17 18 21 20 22 19 24 25 28 29 26 27 23 5 4 10 7 11 8 12 6 13 1700 S. 1700 South Park Glendale Golf Course Glendale Park Jo r d a n R i v e r 1700 S. 1700 South Park Glendale Golf Course Glendale Park Jo r d a n R i v e r 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 11 124 5 3 Pickleball Courts Jo r d a n R i v e r P a r k w a y T r a i l Jo r d a n R i v e r P a r k w a y T r a i l Implementation | 64 Implementation Phase 1 Restoration Strategy Phase I Ecological Recommendations Phase one ecological improvements include riparian and planting enhancement along the riverside. With exception of consideration for future riverside improvements such as a new boat ramp and boardwalk, these areas will remain largely undeveloped and initial efforts toward a permanent, long-term restoration plan should take place. Public Lands will prioritize restoration efforts based on recommendations to the greatest extent possible, but will also evaluate capacity, management and staffing considerations for prioritization of areas. In the western, developed portions of the park, ornamental plants will be included as part of the park design. The planting selection should consist of native, water- wise and climate adaptive plants that will utilize less water, tolerate heat in a changing climate and provide ecological benefits for birds and pollinators. The remaining portions of the site will be prepared for future phases with transitional restoration efforts. These areas will be seeded with native grasses and wildflowers as an intermediate restoration step, providing a solution for weed mitigation, soil retention, and providing ecological benefits until further site development and restoration efforts are completed. See the full restoration strategy on the following pages for further recommendations on preserving tree canopy. Permanent Habitat/Restoration Russian Olives Removed High Restoration Priority Transitional Restoration Disturbed Areas, Restoration Priority Ornamental Landscape Russian Olives Removed Restoration Priority 65 | Implementation Ecological Recommendations The planning team’s ecological expert, River Restoration, conducted a site visit of the Glendale Regional Park on August 23, 2021, to evaluate the current ecological conditions of the project area and to determine what features should be retained for ecological reasons. This assessment, included in Appendix B, resulted in the identification of trees and habitats that should be retained as possible. Areas for potential enhancement were also identified and include all existing riparian forest and a buffer of 50-300’ from the river. See the restoration diagrams on the following page for recommended restoration areas. Riparian Restoration and Tree Canopy The current state of the riparian forest in and around the project area is in a degraded condition. Some of the existing large trees within the project area have a high value, since they are well established and seem to be healthy. The sycamore trees are of high value and should be considered to protect in place, since they are mature, well-established, and healthy. The existing trees along the park strip at the north of the project area should also be preserved to maintain this important buffer from 1700 South. The remaining groves of trees can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for phased removal or replacement with planted and irrigated multi-layer riparian areas. The diagram on the next page shows areas of existing riparian trees that could be retained. Habitat improvements are a key goal of the Project and phasing the project’s construction will reduce potential impacts to the site’s current wildlife population by limiting the amount of area that will be disturbed at any one time while leaving undisturbed portions to provide habitat. This applies particularly to habitat for migratory song birds. Partners working along the Jordan River Corridor have recommended a phased approach for removal of Russian olives, which serve as habitat for migratory and resident bird species. Russian olive should be left on portions of the site that are not part of the initial phases and riparian plants should be planted into Russian olive stands, where the shade from the existing invasive trees will help with establishment of new forests. Areas where Russian olive was removed should be the top priority for restoration of riparian forests to return the multi-layer canopy for nesting and migratory birds. Site Restoration Treatments See the Phase I Restoration Diagram on page 64 for restoration treatment priority areas. Full recommendations can be found in Appendix C, Restoration Plan. Treatments proposed for summer and fall of 2022 include: • Aggressive chemical control of noxious weeds to follow up on areas treated in 2021. • Aggressive chemical treatment of hoary cress and phragmites in areas along the riverbanks where Russian olive was cut down. • Chemical control of noxious weeds in all disturbance areas. • Seeding of all disturbed areas with an inexpensive grass/forb mix. The park presents an opportunity to enhance important riparian habitat, which is a rarity in the high desert environment of the Salt Lake Valley and is a critical resource to migratory birds along the Pacific Flyway. Restoration Strategy Implementation | 66 Site Preparation Aggressive chemical control of noxious weeds adjacent to all disturbance areas should be a high priority. These are the most likely places for spread of noxious and invasive plants. These areas should also be seeded soon after the disturbance ceases (generally within 2 weeks any time of the year) with an inexpensive grass and forb mix. This should be done any time disturbances occur throughout the project lifecycle to reduce the opportunity for noxious plants to dominate. This is cheap insurance and will reduce the potential need for chemicals to be used on the site in the future. 12” of topsoil for the disturbed area will be needed for grasses to establish while “planting pockets” that have soil depths up to 36” will be needed to allow small trees and shrubs to be established. It would be good to add terraces on the hill with up to 3’ of topsoil, allowing for larger shrubs and trees to establish. Ecological Stewardship The local and regional context was evaluated to discover opportunities for ecological enhancement and stewardship. Students from Glendale Middle School have previously provided stewardship for areas just downstream of the project and Jordan River Park. The future stewardship of the natural areas in the vicinity of the project should involve local schools and community partners. There are also opportunities for a broader connection to the river both up and downstream. Development of on- water recreation opportunities is one of the highest values of the site from a stewardship perspective. Site Restoration Strategy Riparian Restoration Native Meadow Restoration Ornamental Landscape Trees to Potentially Retain 67 | Implementation Planting Palette Water-Wise Planting The planting palette shows examples of possible plants for Glendale Park. The plant selection should include native, water-wise and climate adaptive species which use less water and provide habitat for pollinators and wildlife. Riverside Plants Saltgrass, Inland Distichlis spicata Western wheatgrass Pascopyrum smithii Fescue, Sheep Festuca ovina Freemont Cottonwood Populus fremontii Apache Plume Fallugia paradoxa Skunkbush sumac Rhus trilobata Wood’s rose Rosa woodsii Golden currant Ribes aureum Green rabbitbrush Crysothamnus viscidiflorus Marsh milkweed Asclepsia incarnata Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod Wooly sedge Carex pellita Hillside/Meadow Plants Sand Dropseed Sporobolus cryptandrus Blanket Flower Gaillardia Aristata Lewis Blue Flax Linum lewisii Western Wheatgrass Pascopyrum smithii Rocky Mountain Bee Plant Cleome serrulata Bluegrass, Sandberg Poa Sandbergii Scarlet Globemallow Sphaeralcea coccinea Alkali sacaton Sporobolus airoides Sporobo l u s c y p t a n drus Sand Dropseed Pascopy rum s m i t h i i Western Wheatgrass Distichli s s p i c a t a Inland Saltgrass Gaillard ia A r i s t a t a Blanket Flower Cleome se r r u l a t a Rocky Mountain Bee Plant Populus fr e m o n t i i Freemont Cottonwood Linum le wi s i i Lewis Blue Flax Sphaera l c e a c o c c i n ea Scarlet Globemallow Fallugia par a d o x a Apache Plume Implementation | 68 Climate Adaptive Trees Japanese Tree Lilac Syringa reticulata Shademaster Honeylocust Gleditsia triacanthos inermis Gambel Oak Quercus gambelii Catalpa Catalpa speciosa Fairmount Ginkgo Ginkgo biloba ‘Fairmount’ Golden Candle Rain Tree Koelreuteria paniculata ‘Golden Candle’ Bristlecone Pine Pinus aristata Pinyon Pine Pinus edulis Utah Juniper Juniperus osteosperma Water-Wise Shurbs Alderleaf Mountain Mahogany Cercocarpus montanus Apache Plume Fallugia paradoxa New Mexico Privet Forestiera neomexicana Native & Water-Wise Ornamental Plants Ivory Tower Yucca Yucca flacida ‘Ivory Tower’ Desert Four O’Clock Mirabilis multiflora Fire Chalice Zauschneria (Epilobium) californica Palmer’s Penstemon Penstemon palmeri Prairie Winecups Callirhoe involucrata Coneflower Echinacea Hummingbird Mint Agastache ‘Desert Sunrise’ Little Bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium Blonde Ambition Blue Grama Grass Bouteloua gracilis ‘Blonde Ambition’ Shenandoah Switch Grass Panicum virgatum ‘Shenandoah’ Ravenna Grass Saccharum ravennae Graziella Maiden Grass Miscanthus sinensis ‘Graziella’ Mirabilis m u l t i f l o r a Desert Four O-Clock Quercus g a m b e l i i Gambel Oak Panicum vi r g a t u m Shenandoah Switch Grass Penste m o n p a l m e r i Palmer’s Penstemon Gleditsi a t r i a c a n t h os inermis Shademaster Honeylocust Miscant hus s i n e n s i s Graziella Maiden Grass Echinac ea Coneflower Syringa re ti c u l a t a Japanese Tree Lilac Boutelo ua g r a c i l i s Blue Gramma Grass 69 | Chapter Two SITES Certification To support goals for ecological restoration and sustainable park development, it is recommended that the project team pursue certification in a sustainability program such as SITES or another comparable program. The project team has been exploring certification through the Sustainable Sites Initiative (SITES) for the future Glendale Regional Park. SITES (sustainablesites.org/) is a sustainability-focused program based on the understanding that any project has the ability to protect, improve and even regenerate healthy ecosystems by reducing water use, filtering stormwater runoff, providing wildlife habitat, and improving air quality and human health. The SITES certification is managed by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC), the same agency that manages the LEED rating system for buildings. Where LEED addresses buildings and vertical construction, the SITES rating system is used for everything related to the landscape. Projects pursuing certification often incur higher costs in design and construction, however, they consistently return significant long term cost savings related to ongoing operations and maintenance costs. During the master planning process, a SITES pre-score assessment, shown in Table 1, confirmed that the Glendale Park project meets the qualifications to pursue SITES certification. Upon scoring the project, the Glendale Regional Park Site has the potential to certify on the Platinum level if the City elects to pursue certification to the greatest extent. The project team recommends pre-certifying the entire park master plan for the 17-acre site during the design and construction process to ensure that sustainable practices are adhered to and that the proper documentation is collected to pursue certification. The full SITES prescore worksheet for Glendale Regional Park in Appendix A. Pursuing SITES certification at Glendale Regional Park would demonstrate a tangible commitment to environmental quality and justice. With historic underinvestment, lower levels of service and evidence of environmental injustices present in this community in the past, having a SITES certified landscape in the Glendale neighborhood would not only highlight the City’s investment in restorative landscapes and climate resiliency but would also set a standard for site development in the future and begin to show tangible effort towards equitable environmental investment across the City. With SITES certification, Glendale Regional Park would be a model of best practices and environmental achievement both locally and nationwide. Sustainable Practices SITES Certification would guide sustainable development practices, an important consideration that would help improve environmental health in areas such as the riparian habitat along the Jordan River. Chapter Two | 70 SITES Scorecard Summary YES ?NO YES ?NO 1: SITE CONTEXT Possible Points: 13 6: SITE DESIGN - HUMAN HEALTH + WELL-BEING Possible Points: 30 Y CONTEXT P1.1 Limit development on farmland HHWB C6.1 Protect and maintain cultural and historic places 2 to 3 Y CONTEXT P1.2 Protect floodplain functions HHWB C6.2 Provide optimum site accessibility, safety, and wayfinding 2 Y CONTEXT P1.3 Conserve aquatic ecosystems HHWB C6.3 Promote equitable site use 2 Y CONTEXT P1.4 Conserve habitats for threatened and endangered species HHWB C6.4 Support mental restoration 2 CONTEXT C1.5 Redevelop degraded sites 3 to 6 HHWB C6.5 Support physical activity 2 CONTEXT C1.6 Locate projects within existing developed areas 4 HHWB C6.6 Support social connection 2 CONTEXT C1.7 Connect to multi-modal transit networks 2 to 3 HHWB C6.7 Provide on-site food production 3 to 4 HHWB C6.8 Reduce light pollution 4 2: PRE-DESIGN ASSESSMENT + PLANNING Possible Points: 3 HHWB C6.9 Encourage fuel efficient and multi-modal transportation 4 Y PRE-DESIGN P2.1 Use an integrative design process HHWB C6.10 Minimize exposure to environmental tobacco smoke 1 to 2 Y PRE-DESIGN P2.2 Conduct a pre-design site assessment HHWB C6.11 Support local economy 3 Y PRE-DESIGN P2.3 Designate and communicate VSPZs PRE-DESIGN C2.4 Engage users and stakeholders 3 7: CONSTRUCTION Possible Points: 17 Y CONSTRUCTION P7.1 Communicate and verify sustainable construction practices 3: SITE DESIGN - WATER Possible Points: 23 Y CONSTRUCTION P7.2 Control and retain construction pollutants Y WATER P3.1 Manage precipitation on site Y CONSTRUCTION P7.3 Restore soils disturbed during construction Y WATER P3.2 Reduce water use for landscape irrigation CONSTRUCTION C7.4 Restore soils disturbed by previous development 3 to 5 WATER C3.3 Manage precipitation beyond baseline 4 to 6 CONSTRUCTION C7.5 Divert construction and demolition materials from disposal 3 to 4 WATER C3.4 Reduce outdoor water use 4 to 6 CONSTRUCTION C7.6 Divert reusable vegetation, rocks, and soil from disposal 3 to 4 WATER C3.5 Design functional stormwater features as amenities 4 to 5 CONSTRUCTION C7.7 Protect air quality during construction 2 to 4 WATER C3.6 Restore aquatic ecosystems 4 to 6 8. OPERATIONS + MAINTENANCE Possible Points: 22 4: SITE DESIGN - SOIL + VEGETATION Possible Points: 40 Y O+M P8.1 Plan for sustainable site maintenance Y SOIL+VEG P4.1 Create and communicate a soil management plan Y O+M P8.2 Provide for storage and collection of recyclables Y SOIL+VEG P4.2 Control and manage invasive plants O+M C8.3 Recycle organic matter 3 to 5 Y SOIL+VEG P4.3 Use appropriate plants O+M C8.4 Minimize pesticide and fertilizer use 4 to 5 SOIL+VEG C4.4 Conserve healthy soils and appropriate vegetation 4 to 6 O+M C8.5 Reduce outdoor energy consumption 2 to 4 SOIL+VEG C4.5 Conserve special status vegetation 4 O+M C8.6 Use renewable sources for landscape electricity needs 3 to 4 SOIL+VEG C4.6 Conserve and use native plants 3 to 6 O+M C8.7 Protect air quality during landscape maintenance 2 to 4 SOIL+VEG C4.7 Conserve and restore native plant communities 4 to 6 SOIL+VEG C4.8 Optimize biomass 1 to 6 9. EDUCATION + PERFORMANCE MONITORING Possible Points: 11 SOIL+VEG C4.9 Reduce urban heat island effects 4 EDUCATION C9.1 Promote sustainability awareness and education 3 to 4 SOIL+VEG C4.10 Use vegetation to minimize building energy use 1 to 4 EDUCATION C9.2 Develop and communicate a case study 3 SOIL+VEG C4.11 Reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire 4 EDUCATION C9.3 Plan to monitor and report site performance 4 5: SITE DESIGN - MATERIALS SELECTION Possible Points: 41 10. INNOVATION OR EXEMPLARY PERFORMANCE Bonus Points: 9 Y MATERIALS P5.1 Eliminate the use of wood from threatened tree species INNOVATION C10.1 Innovation or exemplary performance 3 to 9 MATERIALS C5.2 Maintain on-site structures and paving 2 to 4 MATERIALS C5.3 Design for adaptability and disassembly 3 to 4 YES ?NO MATERIALS C5.4 Use salvaged materials and plants 3 to 4 TOTAL ESTIMATED POINTS Total Possible Points: 200 MATERIALS C5.5 Use recycled content materials 3 to 4 MATERIALS C5.6 Use regional materials 3 to 5 KEY SITES Certification levels Points MATERIALS C5.7 Support responsible extraction of raw materials 1 to 5 YES Project confident points are achievable CERTIFIED 70 MATERIALS C5.8 Support transparency and safer chemistry 1 to 5 ?Project striving to achieve points, not 100% confident SILVER 85 MATERIALS C5.9 Support sustainability in materials manufacturing 5 NO Project is unable to achieve these credit points GOLD 100 MATERIALS C5.10 Support sustainability in plant production 1 to 5 PLATINUM 135 Table 1: SITES Certification Pre-Score 71 | Implementation Policies, Operations & Maintenance In order to ensure the new Glendale Regional Park stays clean, active, safe and well-loved by the greater Salt Lake City community, it must be maintained and staffed accordingly along with the many amenities, natural features, and programming elements being designed. To achieve this high standard, the City will need to make special considerations for Glendale Park’s operations staffing required to support the appropriate levels of security, sanitation, public realm maintenance, landscaping, programmatic operations, event needs, park concession leasing, and marketing as described below. Security A strong perception and reality of safety in the park will greatly enhance the park’s ability to attract visitors, particularly families, and increase an overall sense of civic pride and support for the park. In keeping with many long established precedents for increasing the “eyes and ears” in the park, it will be important to create many positive reasons for the public to be active in the park throughout the day to dispel any would be antisocial behavior, and actively patrol the park with appropriate levels of official park staff – whether they be City park rangers or, when necessary, police. The “right” levels and types of staff will depend greatly on several design decisions including potential building/concession uses, recreation and aquatic uses, degrees of programming and events, and real time security concerns/ conditions in the neighborhood when the park opens. Many decisions around types and levels of security (and other operations) staff will depend on the ultimate physical plan and associated decisions around park management and governance – i.e., whether the City alone will manage and program the park or whether that it will happen in partnership or coordination with a private management entity (or several). Park rules Because of the many unique features and activities planned, a set of rules should be specifically developed for Glendale Park, incorporating the City’s existing rules and regulations for all public parks. An abbreviated version of those rules should be posted visibly around the park to help regulate the public use and provide clear expectations as to which activities and behaviors are acceptable and which are not. Setting these expectations and messaging them the right way will add to the public’s perception of safety in the park and help park staff to enforce appropriate behavior. PoliciesPolicies, Operations & Maintenance Implementation | 72 During larger events (festivals, musical performances, larger markets) the event producer, park management entity, or the City may need to employ additional, contracted security staff and parking attendants. Janitorial Janitorial and sanitation issues in the public realm are often caused by a shortage of staff, having only one shift of staff, lack of resources/staff that are spread too thin over multiple parks, or a cumbersome and bureaucratic process for addressing issues as they arise. By appropriately staffing the janitorial crew and having more than one shift in the day as necessary (fewer shifts on slow days and more/overlapping shifts on peak days), restrooms can be checked, cleaned, and resupplied often, trash cans can be emptied multiple times a day, litter can be picked up regularly by hand, graffiti can be removed immediately, and other small issues can be addressed in a timely manner before snowballing into more significant, more costly problems. If the park is maintained with a high standard of cleanliness, expectations will be raised and perceptions of care will spread to the public - visitors will treat the park with respect. Park cleanliness will also impact perceptions of safety to the community. Concession staff, if applicable, should augment janitorial staff in the immediate area of the concessions. When there is a slower moment, concession staff should regularly wipe tables, pick up trash, empty trash cans, straighten tables and chairs, and even service restrooms. Concession areas have heavy use and require special attention, which should be provided by the concession workers. These types of services can often be negotiated as part of the operator agreements depending on the specific concession. Giving an operator the option to custom brand the tables, seats, trash cans, or umbrellas within the vicinity of their space (and charging them for the right to do so) will motivate them to keep these areas and the associated furnishings clean. Trash and recycling cans should be located at regular intervals throughout the park, and especially at areas of anticipated heavy traffic such as play areas and picnic areas, so that visitors do not have any trouble finding the receptacle. Trash and recycling should be emptied from cans multiple times a day and taken to a designated collection point, and trash and recycling should be moved off-site at least once a day. Trash and recycling cans should be paired and kept together (or split between one receptacle but clearly distinguished), otherwise park patrons will throw whatever they are disposing into whichever receptacle is closest, regardless of its intended contents. The janitorial staff should take care of minor repairs such as repainting over graffiti, tightening a leaky faucet, or patching a hole in the concrete. Larger maintenance and repair projects will be tasked to the capital projects staff and contractors. Janitorial staff should also be tasked with everyday landscape upkeep including weeding, sweeping up excess leaf litter and plant debris, and reporting irrigation leaks, irrigation malfunction, or poor plant health to a supervisor. Large events may incur the need for additional janitorial staff to clean restrooms, pick up trash, and empty trash and recycling. Repairs/Maintenance There should be a streamlined process to address maintenance issues, one that is not burdened with moving through many chains of command or requiring excess paperwork whenever possible. Staff specifically assigned to Glendale Park, either from the City or contracted through a park management entity, should be empowered to fix smaller problems under a pre-determined threshold promptly without the need for higher levels of approval. Furnishings and other items need to be checked frequently and repaired upon the first sign of an issue. This will ensure broken items do not get worse and more difficult to fix and avoid potential injury/ liability concerns. Fixing them right away also shows the public that furnishings and facilities in the park are cared for and looked after. If visitors observe a well- maintained park, they are more likely to follow suit and take good care of the furnishings and facilities themselves. The janitorial staff will address smaller issues such as replacing broken trash cans, cleaning out the drains of drinking fountains, screwing in a door hinge, replacing light bulbs, and painting over graffiti. An Operations Manager or similar position should oversee capital projects, major repairs, and landscape maintenance. This manager will also oversee third-party contractors who would take care of larger 73 | Implementation within the park. The leasing agents should focus on an operator mix that supports Glendale Park’s overall programming/ activity goals, focuses on local businesses, has a quality/healthful product, delivers on financial objectives, and supports the needs of the surrounding neighborhood. Partnerships or City programs that work independently and/or with leasing agents to support no or low-cost activities will be important to include as regular options for Glendale Park programming. Marketing for Glendale Park offerings should start with a dedicated website and social media accounts (primarily Instagram and Facebook) that are frequently updated with news and happenings. A dedicated online presence is the best way for visitors to find out about programs and events happening in the park and nearby public/ City affairs. The website will also serve as a tool for customer service, a guide for private event permitting, a place to receive inquiries, comments, and complaints. It’s important for these outlets to be the dedicated responsibility of one staff member or contractor, rather than spread to several undefined staff so this important element doesn’t become neglected in favor of staff’s primary responsibilities. and more specialized maintenance and repair needs such as fixing plumbing issues, repairing broken stairs, electrical repairs, building maintenance, etc. Ideally this would be a dedicated person to Glendale Park, or someone who oversees multiple parks with appropriate support staff. During major repairs, trees and plant materials should be protected with fences or other barriers to prevent damage. Heavy equipment should not be left or stored under the branches of trees, as this can cause root damage, or for extended periods on lawn. Landscape/Tree Maintenance and Management Trees and understory require attention on a consistent and on-going basis. The landscape maintenance crew should have demonstrated experience in maintenance of public landscape projects of similar size and scope with owner references, and demonstrated experience with integrated pest management, pest control, soils, fertilizers, and plant identification. Assuming proper installation, trees and understory will need regular inspection by Public Land’s Urban Forestry Division to ensure proper growth. Pruning weak branches and shaping tree crowns will help sustain long-term health, growth, and appearance. As trees and plant material are put in the ground, flow meters should be installed that monitor all irrigation hydrazones for appropriate water application across the site. Tree root ball moisture and shrub and groundcover surrounding soil moisture should be checked weekly and watering cycles adjusted accordingly. Watering records should be kept for all site trees and a yearly water audit should be performed to track the amount of water applied. With this information, Public Lands can determine appropriate water application for site trees after the three-year establishment period ends, in consultation with Urban Forestry’s review of tree health on the site. Irrigation systems will need frequent inspection and cleaning to ensure the system is running properly. Crews should weed planted areas frequently, maintain the depth of mulch to reduce evaporation and inhibit weed growth, and apply fertilizers as needed. Crews will employ principles of Integrated Pest Management to prevent plant pests and diseases. Landscape maintenance should be performed during regular work hours to not disturb the nearby residents with noise. An important part of a maintenance plan for Glendale Park will be a landscape feature/materials inventory with suggested maintenance and a working checklist than can be provided as for the landscape maintenance crew. Leasing/Marketing Leasing and partnership agreements, either through the relevant City agency or through a park management entity, will select the appropriate tenants for any kiosks, café space, river concessions, and any other commercially operable spaces Implementation | 74 Programming & Activation Table 2: Programming & Activation Budget Recommended Minimum DIRECT STAFFING COSTS YEAR 1 On site programming manager $76,000 Base starting salary of $60,000 annually. Budget includes fringe benefits. Park attendants $18,200 16 hrs/wk year round, $17.50 wage plus 25% fully loaded. Overtime allowance $4,550 May also be used for discretionary bonuses Administration / insurance -Assumes covered by City poliices Equipment / supplies $10,000 Laptop for manager, smartphones/tablets for attendant use, general supplies Dedicated staffing subtotal $108,750 HYPOTHETICAL DIRECT PROGRAMMING COSTS YEAR 1 Arts & culture $80,000 Two-thirds of this cost is annual, cutting edge interactive art installations Fitness $30,000 Mostly provided by free businesses seeking to market their classes Hobbies & niche interests $45,000 Includes outdoor dancing, which is about one- third of the total budget Live entertainment $100,000 Does not include production costs, which will be minimal Markets & festivals $100,000 Allowance for self-produced events Direct programming subtotal $355,000 SUPPLEMENTAL PROGRAMMING COSTS YEAR 1 Marketing $50,000 Limited to promotion surrounding public space programs and events Holiday decorations $100,000 Allowance Supplemental programming subtotal $150,000 Programming Budget and Staffing To support a vibrant and dynamic Glendale Regional Park, a dedicated park programming manager should be put in place, as well as a dedicated and predictable budget that grows over time through revenue development. The park should be viewed as a business, with profits and losses, except that all profits should be made with the public interest in mind and, thus, reinvested back into the park for the benefit of local residents and visitors. The park programming manager would be an on-site Public Lands employee, but assigned specifically to Glendale Regional Park on a day-to-day basis with a flexible schedule that likely includes a five-day, Wednesday to Sunday schedule to complement active times in the park. The programming manager will be dedicated to coordinating with programming partners, interacting with park visitors, overseeing day-to-day management of facilities maintenance, and managing vendors and contractors. The park programming manager is the park’s “mayor.” The ideal manager will have experience in events management, and/or marketing, communications, urban planning, and business. The programming manager should also have access to park attendants on a part-time, as needed basis during busier times in the park and special events. As a baseline, the park should also have a dedicated programming budget that allows for a varied experience. Programming budgets are used to provide equipment, marketing, outreach, and supplies. Where budgets fall short, the park programming manager will be able to leverage programming partners and interested groups to provide in-kind donations of time and materials, sponsorships, and other sources that reduce capital outlays. Providing a baseline budget of some amount allows the programming manager to plan accordingly and approach potential partners more efficiently. Over time, the budget hopefully grows, with revenue sources coming from a variety of potential sources: philanthropy, sponsorships, event rentals, food and beverage, programming, and government support. 75 | Implementation Governing Partnership & Management Activation and programming strategies, specifically around revenue development and sponsorship opportunities, benefit greatly by the management structure that is in place. Public agencies will be able to do things the private sector can’t, and vice versa. Exploring existing frameworks and establishing programming and activation guidelines within those constraints will inform optimal programming strategies. Governing Partnerships and ManagementSpectrum of Private/Public Partnership Structures Implementation | 76 Next Steps Creating engaging art, forming partnerships, promoting sustainability, and enhancing the environment are some of the next actions that will take place for Glendale Regional Park. Next Steps To meet the rapid timeline required to open the park with publicly accessible recreation, detailed design and construction of Phase I elements will begin in August of 2022, concurrent to the adoption of the master plan. This process will entail refining specific park features and styles, as well as forming a strategy to re-purpose the old water slides into park features or artwork. Programming opportunities with community partners will continue to be developed to ensure that the park remains an active space upon opening and throughout the development and construction process. The project team will also begin to rehabilitate the site with riparian and native vegetation to fulfill the park goals of enhancing environmental quality and improving environmental justice for the Glendale neighborhood. To support this goal, it is recommended that the project team pursue certification in a sustainability program such as SITES or another comparable program. During the master planning process, a SITES prescore assessment confirmed that the Glendale Park project meets the qualifications to pursue SITES certification. As the project consultant moves into the next design phase, this consideration should be integrated into the process to ensure that sustainable practices are adhered to and that the proper documentation is collected to pursue certification. The full SITES prescore worksheet for Glendale Regional Park is in Appendix A. Appendix | 78 Appendices APPENDIX A | Sites pre-score APPENDIX B | Ecological Assessment APPENDIX C | Restoration Plan APPENDIX D | Market Study Contents Appendix ASITES Pre-Score SITES Certification & Prescore Assessment Glendale Regional Park goals include enhancing environmental quality and improving environmental justice for the Glendale neighborhood. To support this goal, it is recommended that the project team pursue certiﬁcation in a sustainability program such as SITES or another comparable program. SITES, the landscape equivalent of LEED certiﬁcation, is a sustainability framework and program that ensures best practices are adhered to during land development projects, resulting in enhanced ecosystems and landscape beneﬁts such as “climate regulation, carbon storage and ﬂood mitigation.”1 During the master planning process, a SITES prescore assessment conﬁrmed that the Glendale Park project meets the qualiﬁcations to pursue SITES certiﬁcation. As the project consultant moves into the next design phase, this consideration should be integrated into the process to ensure that sustainable practices are adhered to and that the proper documentation is collected to pursue certiﬁcation. Appendix A includes the full SITES prescore worksheet and assessment for Glendale Regional Park. 1 hps://sustainablesites.org/certiﬁcation-guide YE S ?N O YE S ?N O 0 0 0 P ossib le P oints: 1 3 0 0 0 P ossib le P oints: 3 0 Y C O N T E X T P 1 . 1 HHW B C 6 . 1 2 to 3 Y C O N T E X T P 1 . 2 HHW B C 6 . 2 2 Y C O N T E X T P 1 . 3 HHW B C 6 . 3 2 Y C O N T E X T P 1 . 4 HHW B C 6 . 4 2 C O N T E X T C 1 . 5 3 to 6 HHW B C 6 . 5 2 C O N T E X T C 1 . 6 4 HHW B C 6 . 6 2 C O N T E X T C 1 . 7 2 to 3 HHW B C 6 . 7 3 to 4 HHW B C 6 . 8 4 0 0 0 P ossib le P oints: 3 HHW B C 6 . 9 4 Y P R E - DE S I G N P 2 . 1 HHW B C 6 . 1 0 1 to 2 Y P R E - DE S I G N P 2 . 2 HHW B C 6 . 1 1 3 Y P R E - DE S I G N P 2 . 3 P R E - DE S I G N C 2 . 4 3 0 0 0 P ossib le P oints: 1 7 Y C O N S T R UC T I O N P 7 . 1 0 0 0 P ossib le P oints: 2 3 Y C O N S T R UC T I O N P 7 . 2 Y W A T E R P 3 . 1 Y C O N S T R UC T I O N P 7 . 3 Y W A T E R P 3 . 2 C O N S T R UC T I O N C 7 . 4 3 to 5 W A T E R C 3 . 3 4 to 6 C O N S T R UC T I O N C 7 . 5 3 to 4 W A T E R C 3 . 4 4 to 6 C O N S T R UC T I O N C 7 . 6 3 to 4 W A T E R C 3 . 5 4 to 5 C O N S T R UC T I O N C 7 . 7 2 to 4 W A T E R C 3 . 6 4 to 6 0 0 0 P ossib le P oints: 2 2 0 0 0 P ossib le P oints: 4 0 Y O + M P 8 . 1 Y S O I L + V E G P 4 . 1 Y O + M P 8 . 2 Y S O I L + V E G P 4 . 2 O + M C 8 . 3 3 to 5 Y S O I L + V E G P 4 . 3 O + M C 8 . 4 4 to 5 S O I L + V E G C 4 . 4 4 to 6 O + M C 8 . 5 2 to 4 S O I L + V E G C 4 . 5 4 O + M C 8 . 6 3 to 4 S O I L + V E G C 4 . 6 3 to 6 O + M C 8 . 7 2 to 4 S O I L + V E G C 4 . 7 4 to 6 S O I L + V E G C 4 . 8 1 to 6 0 0 0 P ossib le P oints: 1 1 S O I L + V E G C 4 . 9 4 E DUC A T I O N C 9 . 1 3 to 4 S O I L + V E G C 4 . 1 0 1 to 4 E DUC A T I O N C 9 . 2 3 S O I L + V E G C 4 . 1 1 4 E DUC A T I O N C 9 . 3 4 0 0 0 P ossib le P oints: 4 1 0 0 0 B onus P oints: 9 Y M A T E R I A L S P 5 . 1 I N N O V A T I O N C 1 0 . 1 3 to 9 M A T E R I A L S C 5 . 2 2 to 4 M A T E R I A L S C 5 . 3 3 to 4 YE S ?N O M A T E R I A L S C 5 . 4 3 to 4 0 0 0 T otal P ossib le P oints: 2 0 0 M A T E R I A L S C 5 . 5 3 to 4 M A T E R I A L S C 5 . 6 3 to 5 K E Y S I T E S C ertif ic ation levels P oints M A T E R I A L S C 5 . 7 1 to 5 YE S C E R T I F I E D 70 M A T E R I A L S C 5 . 8 1 to 5 ?S I L V E R 85 C ontrol and retain construction p ollutants 6 : S I T E DE S I G N - HUM A N HE A L T H + W E L L - B E I N G 7 : C O N S T R UC T I O N R educe outdoor water use D esig n f unctional stormwater f eatures as amenities C onnect to multi-modal transit network s U se an integ rativ e desig n p rocess Eng ag e users and stak eholders 1 : S I T E C O N T E X T Manag e p recip itation on site U se ap p rop riate p lants C onserv e healthy soils and ap p rop riate v eg etation C reate and communicate a soil manag ement p lan C ontrol and manag e inv asiv e p lants R estore aq uatic ecosy stems Manag e p recip itation b ey ond b aseline R educe water use f or landscap e irrig ation Limit dev elop ment on f armland P rotect f loodp lain f unctions C onserv e aq uatic ecosy stems C onserv e hab itats f or threatened and endang ered sp ecies R edev elop deg raded sites C onserv e and use nativ e p lants C onserv e sp ecial status v eg etation D esig nate and communicate V SP Z s 3 : S I T E DE S I G N - W A T E R 4 : S I T E DE S I G N - S O I L + V E G E T A T I O N R estore soils disturb ed during construction 9 . E DUC A T I O N + P E R F O R M A N C E M O N I T O R I N G P lan f or sustainab le site maintenance U se renewab le sources f or landscap e electricity needs R educe outdoor energ y consump tion P rov ide f or storag e and collection of recy clab les R ecy cle org anic matter Minimiz e p esticide and f ertiliz er use P rotect air q uality during landscap e maintenance 8 . O P E R A T I O N S + M A I N T E N A N C E C ommunicate and v erif y sustainab le construction p ractices Locate p roj ects within ex isting dev elop ed areas 2 : P R E - DE S I G N A S S E S S M E N T + P L A N N I N G R educe lig ht p ollution C onduct a p re-desig n site assessment Encourag e f uel ef f icient and multi-modal transp ortation Minimiz e ex p osure to env ironmental tob acco smok e P rov ide on-site f ood p roduction Sup p ort social connection P rotect and maintain cultural and historic p laces Sup p ort p hy sical activ ity Sup p ort local economy P rov ide op timum site accessib ility , saf ety , and way f inding P romote eq uitab le site use Sup p ort mental restoration 5 : S I T E DE S I G N - M A T E R I A L S S E L E C T I O N R educe the risk of catastrop hic wildf ire D ev elop and communicate a case study 1 0 . I N N O V A T I O N O R E X E M P L A R Y P E R F O R M A N C E P romote sustainab ility awareness and education SITES v2 Scorecard Summary R estore soils disturb ed b y p rev ious dev elop ment D iv ert construction and demolition materials f rom disp osal D iv ert reusab le v eg etation, rock s, and soil f rom disp osal P rotect air q uality during construction Sup p ort transp arency and saf er chemistry Maintain on-site structures and p av ing O p timiz e b iomass P roj ect conf ident p oints are achiev ab le P lan to monitor and rep ort site p erf ormance Innov ation or ex emp lary p erf ormance T O T A L E S T I M A T E D P O I N T S U se v eg etation to minimiz e b uilding energ y use Eliminate the use of wood f rom threatened tree sp ecies P roj ect striv ing to achiev e p oints, not 100% conf ident R educe urb an heat island ef f ects C onserv e and restore nativ e p lant communities D esig n f or adap tab ility and disassemb ly U se salv ag ed materials and p lants U se recy cled content materials U se reg ional materials Sup p ort resp onsib le ex traction of raw materials 7/ 27/ 2022 P ag e 1 of 7 C op y rig ht © 2014 Project Name: _____________________________________________________________________ Project ID#:_______________ Date: __________________ SITES v2 Scorecard Summary MATERIALS C5.9 5 NO GOLD 100 MATERIALS C5.10 1 to 5 PLATINUM 135 Support sustainability in materials manufacturing Project is unable to achieve these credit points Support sustainability in plant production 7/27/2022 Page 2 of 7 Copyright © 2014 YE S ?N O 7 3 0 P ossib le P oints: 1 3 C ase 1: Sites without f armland soils C ase 2: Sites with f armland soils - V SP Z C ase 3: Sites with f armland soils - Mitig ation C ase 1: Sites without f loodp lain C ase 2: P rev iously dev elop ed and b rownf ield sites within f loodp lain C ase 3: Greenf ield sites within f loodp lain C ase 1: Sites without aq uatic ecosy stems C ase 2: Sites with naturally occurring aq uatic ecosy stems C ase 3: Sites with naturally occurring p oor q uality aq uatic ecosy stems C ase 1: Brownf ields and p rev iously dev elop ed sites C ase 2: Greenf ield sites C ase 1: P rev iously dev elop ed sites 3 C ase 2: Brownf ield sites 6 4 C O N T E X T C 1 . 6 Locate p roj ects within ex isting dev elop ed areas 4 4 O p tion 1: P edestrian and b icy cle network 2 O p tion 2: T ransit network 3 3 0 0 P ossib le P oints: 3 Y P R E - DE S I G N P 2 . 1 U se an integ rativ e desig n p rocess Y P R E - DE S I G N P 2 . 2 C onduct a p re-desig n site assessment Y P R E - DE S I G N P 2 . 3 D esig nate and communicate V eg etation and Soil P rotection Z ones 3 P R E - DE S I G N C 2 . 4 Eng ag e users and stak eholders 3 3 0 12 11 P ossib le P oints: 2 3 Y W A T E R P 3 . 1 Manag e p recip itation on site Y W A T E R P 3 . 2 R educe water use f or landscap e irrig ation 80th p ercentile p recip itation ev ent 4 90th p ercentile p recip itation ev ent 5 95th p ercentile p recip itation ev ent 6 O p tion 1: R educe outdoor water use 4 O p tion 2: Sig nif icantly reduce outdoor water use 5 O p tion 3: Eliminate outdoor water use 6 50% of stormwater f eatures 4 100% of stormwater f eatures 5 N o aq uatic ecosy stems p resent on site 30% of the g eog rap hic ex tent 4 60% of the g eog rap hic ex tent 5 C O N T E X T P 1 . 2 P rotect f loodp lain f unctions SITES v 2 Sc o r ec ar d 1 : S I T E C O N T E X T 2 : P R E - DE S I G N A S S E S S M E N T + P L A N N I N G 3 : S I T E DE S I G N - W A T E R 3 6 3 Y C O N T E X T P 1 . 4Y Estimate p oints b elow ( k ey at b ottom) Y Y 5 W A T E R C 3 . 5 D esig n f unctional stormwater f eatures as amenities W A T E R C 3 . 66 C O N T E X T C 1 . 7 R estore aq uatic ecosy stems ( p roj ect must hav e ex isting f eature) C O N T E X T P 1 . 3 C O N T E X T C 1 . 5 W A T E R C 3 . 3 C onserv e hab itats f or threatened and endang ered sp ecies R edev elop deg raded sites 6 W A T E R C 3 . 4 2 to 3 4 to 6 4 to 6 4 to 5 4 to 6 3 to 6 R educe outdoor water use C onserv e aq uatic ecosy stems C O N T E X T P 1 . 1 Limit dev elop ment on f armland C onnect to multi-modal transit network s Manag e p recip itation b ey ond b aseline P R E R E Q UI S I T E O R C R E DI T #T I T L E C A S E / O P T I O N / T HR E S HO L D P O I N T S P O S S I B L E P O I N T S P E R C R E D I T 7/ 27/ 2022 P ag e 3 of 7 © Sustainab le Sites Initiativ e™ Project Name: _____________________________________________________________________ Project ID#:_______________ Date: __________________ YES ?NO SITES v2 Scorecard Estimate points below (key at bottom) PREREQUISITE OR CREDIT #TITLE CASE / OPTION / THRESHOLD PO I N T S PO S S I B L E P O I N T S PE R C R E D I T 90% of the geographic extent 6 0 34 6 Possible Points: 40 Y SOIL+VEG P4.1 Create and communicate a soil management plan Case 1: No invasive plants found on site Case 2: Invasive plants identified on site Y SOIL+VEG P4.3 Use appropriate plants No healthy soils and/or appropriate vegetation present on site 50% of the site's existing vegetated area 4 75% of the site's existing vegetated area 5 95% of the site's existing vegetated area 6 4 SOIL+VEG C4.5 Conserve special status vegetation (project must have existing feature) 4 4 20% total native plant score 3 40% total native plant score 4 60% total native plant score 6 20% total native plant community score 4 40% total native plant community score 5 60% total native plant community score 6 minimal point score 1 low point score 3 mid point score 5 high point score 6 4 SOIL+VEG C4.9 Reduce urban heat island effects 4 4 No buildings present on site Option 1: Reduce energy use - 5% reduction 2 Option 1: Reduce energy use - 7% reduction 4 Option 2: Provide shade structures - 30% shaded 1 Option 2: Provide shade structures - 60% shaded 2 Option 3: Provide a windbreak - one row 1 Option 3: Provide a windbreak - two or more rows 2 Project not in a fire-prone area Project is in a fire-prone area 4 4 0 41 0 Possible Points: 41 Y MATERIALS P5.1 Eliminate the use of wood from threatened tree species No structures or paving present on site 10% of the total existing built surface area 2 20% of the total existing built surface area 3 30% of the total existing built surface area 4 4: SITE DESIGN - SOIL + VEGETATION 5: SITE DESIGN - MATERIALS SELECTION Y 6 6 SOIL+VEG C4.104 SOIL+VEG C4.11 SOIL+VEG C4.6 Conserve and use native plants 6 SOIL+VEG C4.7 Conserve and restore native plant communities SOIL+VEG P4.2 Control and manage invasive plants 6 SOIL+VEG C4.4 Conserve healthy soils and appropriate vegetation (project must have existing feature) SOIL+VEG C4.8 4 Use vegetation to minimize building energy use (project must have building on site) 4 Reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire (project must be located in fire-prone area) Optimize biomass Maintain on-site structures and paving (project must have existing feature) 1 to 4 MATERIALS C5.2 1 to 6 4 to 6 2 to 4 4 to 6 3 to 6 7/27/2022 Page 4 of 7 © Sustainable Sites Initiative™ Project Name: _____________________________________________________________________ Project ID#:_______________ Date: __________________ YES ?NO SITES v2 Scorecard Estimate points below (key at bottom) PREREQUISITE OR CREDIT #TITLE CASE / OPTION / THRESHOLD PO I N T S PO S S I B L E P O I N T S PE R C R E D I T 30% of total materials cost, excluding plants, rocks, and soils 3 60% of total materials cost, excluding plants, rocks, and soils 4 10% of total materials cost, excluding soils 3 20% of total materials cost, excluding soils 4 20% of total materials cost, excluding plants and soils 3 40% of total materials cost, excluding plants and soils 4 30% of total materials cost 3 60% of total materials cost 4 90% of total materials cost 5 Option 1: Advocate for sustainable extraction of raw materials 1 Option 2: Support suppliers that disclose environmental data 3 Option 3: Support suppliers that meet extraction standards 5 Option 1: Advocate for transparency and safer chemistry 1 Option 2: Support manufacturers that disclose chemical data 3 Option 3: Support manufacturers with chemical hazard assessments 5 Option 1: Advocate for sustainable materials manufacturing 1 Option 2: Support manufacturers that disclose data on sustainable practices 3 Option 3: Support manufacturers that achieve sustainable practices 5 Option 1: Advocate for sustainable plant production 1 Option 2: Support producers that disclose data on sustainable practices 3 Option 3: Support producers that achieve sustainable practices 5 2 23 4 Possible Points: 30 No cultural or historic places present on site Option 1: Historic buildings, structures, or objects 2 Option 2: Historic or cultural landscapes 3 2 HHWB C6.2 Provide optimum site accessibility, safety, and wayfinding 2 2 2 HHWB C6.3 Promote equitable site use 2 2 2 HHWB C6.4 Support mental restoration 2 2 2 HHWB C6.5 Support physical activity 2 2 2 HHWB C6.6 Support social connection 2 2 Option 1: Food production 3 Option 2: Food production and regular distribution 4 4 HHWB C6.8 Reduce light pollution 4 4 4 HHWB C6.9 Encourage fuel efficient and multi-modal transportation 4 4 Option 1: Designate smoke-free zones 1 Option 2: Prohibit smoking on site 2 3 HHWB C6.11 Support local economy 3 3 Design for adaptability and disassembly 3 to 4 1 to 2 2 to 3 4 MATERIALS C5.3 MATERIALS C5.4 4 MATERIALS C5.5 MATERIALS C5.7 Support responsible extraction of raw materials 4 5 MATERIALS C5.6 5 Protect and maintain cultural and historic places (project must have existing feature) 5 MATERIALS C5.8 5 MATERIALS C5.9 Support sustainability in materials manufacturing 5 MATERIALS C5.10 2 HHWB C6.1 6: SITE DESIGN - HUMAN HEALTH + WELL-BEING 0 4 HHWB C6.7 2 HHWB C6.10 Minimize exposure to environmental tobacco smoke Support sustainability in plant production Use regional materials 1 to 5 1 to 5 Provide on-site food production Support transparency and safer chemistry Use salvaged materials and plants 3 to 5 1 to 5 Use recycled content materials 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4 1 to 5 7/27/2022 Page 5 of 7 © Sustainable Sites Initiative™ Project Name: _____________________________________________________________________ Project ID#:_______________ Date: __________________ YES ?NO SITES v2 Scorecard Estimate points below (key at bottom) PREREQUISITE OR CREDIT #TITLE CASE / OPTION / THRESHOLD PO I N T S PO S S I B L E P O I N T S PE R C R E D I T 0 17 0 Possible Points: 17 Y CONSTRUCTION P7.1 Communicate and verify sustainable construction practices Y CONSTRUCTION P7.2 Control and retain construction pollutants Y CONSTRUCTION P7.3 Restore soils disturbed during construction low point score 3 mid point score 4 high point score 5 50% of structural materials + 95% of roads / infrastructure materials 3 75% of structural materials + 95% of roads / infrastructure materials 4 100% of land-clearing materials retained for use within 50 miles 3 100% of land-clearing materials retained on site 4 50% total run-time hours from Tier 2 or higher engines 2 50% total run-time hours from Tier 3 or higher engines 3 50% total run-time hours from Tier 4 or higher engines 4 0 22 0 Possible Points: 22 Y O+M P8.1 Plan for sustainable site maintenance Y O+M P8.2 Provide for storage and collection of recyclables 100% of vegetation trimmings recycled / composted off site within 50 miles 3 100% of vegetation trimmings recycled / composted on site 4 100% of vegetation trimmings + food waste recycled / composted on site 5 Option 1: Plant health care plan 4 Option 2: Best management practices for plant health care 5 30% reduction from baseline energy use for outdoor equipment 2 60% reduction from baseline energy use for outdoor equipment 3 90% reduction from baseline energy use for outdoor equipment 4 Option 1: On-site - 50% annual outdoor site electricity 3 Option 1: On-site - 100% annual outdoor site electricity 4 Option 2: Green power - 50% annual outdoor site electricity 3 Option 2: Green power - 100% annual outdoor site electricity 4 Option 1: Scheduled maintenance 2 Option 2: Low-emitting equipment 3 Option 3: Manual or electric powered maintenance equipment 4 0 11 0 Possible Points: 11 Option 1: Educational and interpretive elements 3 Option 2: Additional education 4 3 EDUCATION C9.2 Develop and communicate a case study 3 3 3 to 5 7: CONSTRUCTION 3 to 4 2 to 4 3 to 5 4 to 5 2 to 4 3 to 4 8. OPERATIONS + MAINTENANCE 9. EDUCATION + PERFORMANCE MONITORING 2 to 4 Divert construction and demolition materials from disposal CONSTRUCTION C7.7 5 CONSTRUCTION C7.4 4 CONSTRUCTION C7.5 O+M C8.4 Minimize pesticide and fertilizer use 4 CONSTRUCTION C7.6 4 4 O+M C8.6 Use renewable sources for landscape electricity needs 5 O+M C8.3 5 4 EDUCATION C9.1 Promote sustainability awareness and education Protect air quality during landscape maintenance 4 O+M C8.5 4 O+M C8.7 Protect air quality during construction Divert reusable vegetation, rocks, and soil from disposal Reduce outdoor energy consumption Recycle organic matter Restore soils disturbed by previous development 3 to 4 3 to 4 7/27/2022 Page 6 of 7 © Sustainable Sites Initiative™ Project Name: _____________________________________________________________________ Project ID#:_______________ Date: __________________ YES ?NO SITES v2 Scorecard Estimate points below (key at bottom) PREREQUISITE OR CREDIT #TITLE CASE / OPTION / THRESHOLD PO I N T S PO S S I B L E P O I N T S PE R C R E D I T 4 EDUCATION C9.3 Plan to monitor and report site performance 4 4 0 9 0 Possible Bonus Points: 9 Option 1: Exemplary performance 3 Option 2: Innovation outside the SITES v2 Rating System 3 YES ?NO 12 172 21 Total Possible Points: KEY SITES Certification levels YES CERTIFIED ?SILVER NO GOLD PLATINUM 3 to 9 Points 70 85 100 135 10. INNOVATION OR EXEMPLARY PERFORMANCE 200 TOTAL ESTIMATED POINTS Project is unable to achieve these credit points Project confident points are achievable Project striving to achieve points, not 100% confident 9 INNOVATION C10.1 (BONUS POINTS)Innovation or exemplary performance 7/27/2022 Page 7 of 7 © Sustainable Sites Initiative™ Appendix BEcological Assessment 1 | P a g e Glendale Regional Park – Ecological Assessment Glendale Regional Park Master Plan Ecological Assessment September 21, 2021 RiverRestoration conducted a site visit of the Glendale Regional Park on August 23, 2021, to evaluate the current ecological conditions of the project area and to determine what features should be retained for ecological reasons. This inventory resulted in the identification of mature sycamore within the park, other mature trees along 1700 South, and river edge habitats that should be retained. Areas for potential enhancement were also identified and include all existing riparian forest and a buffer of 50-300’ from the river. Areas closer to the river are likely to be closer to the groundwater, thus representing opportunities for riparian enhancement with less long-term need for irrigation. The irrigation system was tested and determined to be mostly out of commission and in need of replacement. The connection to service was identified in the northeast corner of the project area for future irrigation infrastructure. City staff will evaluate and install a temporary system to existing trees along the park strip on 1700 South. The sycamores and river edge trees are likely to be in contact with the shallow groundwater and it is recommended that a few shallow groundwater monitoring wells be installed when machinery is on site. The local and regional context was evaluated to determine if there are any adjacent City properties that would enhance the ecological functioning of this area and several local enhancement projects were identified. Additionally, students from Glendale Middle School have previously provided stewardship for areas just downstream of the project and Jordan River Park. The future stewardship of the natural areas in the vicinity of the project should involve local schools and community partners. The Jordan River upstream of the project was also observed to identify opportunities for a broader connection to the river both up and downstream. Development of on-water opportunities is one of the highest values of the site from a stewardship perspective. Locations up and downstream of the project were mapped and are provided as a KML file. Photos were taken of the site and noxious weeds were identified for treatment and control. City Natural Open Space staff committed to aggressive treatment of puncturevine across the site and stated they would deploy these resources in August. Plans for the trimming of vegetation and removal of garbage and debris stuck in the Russian olive along the river edge were also discussed and will be completed over the winter by City staff. 1234 South 900 East Salt Lake City, UT 84150 | 970.947.9568 2 | P a g e Glendale Regional Park – Ecological Assessment Current Ecological Conditions The current state of the riparian forest in and around the project area is in a degraded condition. Some of the existing large trees within the project area have a high value, since they are well established and seem to be healthy. The trees along the Jordan River are mostly pioneer invasive trees and shrubs, primarily Russian olives. While these trees are considered invasive, complete removal of these trees would adversely impact riparian birds in the area due to loss of habitat and cover. We propose that the Russian olives along the riverbank be retained until an irrigation system and native riparian forest can be planned and implemented. Any removal of trees should occur outside the nesting season for resident and migratory birds [preferably September through February]. Map 1 shows areas of existing riparian tress that could be retained. Only the sycamore trees should be considered to absolutely protect in place, since they are mature, well-established, and healthy. The remaining groves of trees can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for phased removal or replacement with planted and irrigated multi-layer riparian areas. The demo of existing infrastructure provides opportunity to repurpose the low-lying areas with riparian vegetation, improving the riparian buffer and enhancing ecological education opportunities. We propose that the old wave pool (east side of the project) be repurposed into a wetland/riparian zone. Further opportunities exist to connect the east of the wave pool to the current boat launch/take out with native plant species and interactive and educational signs. The existing trees along the park strip at the north of the project area should be preserved, with the irrigation system re-established to maintain this important buffer from 1700 south. Map 1. Local ecological areas of importance. 1234 South 900 East Salt Lake City, UT 84150 | 970.947.9568 3 | P a g e Glendale Regional Park – Ecological Assessment Local and Regional Connections The Glendale Regional Park is in a central part of Salt Lake City but is also centrally located along the riparian corridor of the Jordan River, which provides a key connection of riparian habitats for resident and migratory birds. The site is located along the flyway between Utah Lake and Great Salt Lake and provides a potential stopover location for resting migratory birds. There is also potential for increased areas of higher quality riparian habitat with a multi-canopy layer structure. Robust riparian habitats consist of canopy’s that could have several layers of complexity including large trees, small trees and shrubs, grasses, and forbs [flowers]. This multi-layer structure is beneficial for creating a diverse ecosystem that will be more resilient to future changes in climate and ecosystem processes. Surrounding regional areas that are owned by SLC adjacent to the golf course and in other open areas offer great opportunity to be enhanced for riparian functioning and flood capacity. Map 2. Regional ecologically important areas 1234 South 900 East Salt Lake City, UT 84150 | 970.947.9568 4 | P a g e Glendale Regional Park – Ecological Assessment Site Preparation We recommend that treatments are conducted on invasive species in preparation for future disturbances. The main focal species for control include puncturevine and Russian olive. Use the proper herbicide to control puncturevine across the hillside. Much of the puncturevine is located up on the hill with the slides. Treatments should occur 2-3 times a year, starting in August 2021 [stated verbally on site with meeting], follow up treatments should be conducted starting in June/July 2022, depending on the weather and phenology of the plants. An initial trimming of the Russian olive along the river should be conducted from a boat in fall 2021 to free up garbage and debris that have become stuck in the low-hanging branches. A floating oil boom or turbidity curtain can be installed across the river at the existing boat ramp to gather and remove floating garbage and debris. Potential Access Areas River access can be developed by creating easier entry for canoes and kayaks. The water quality is an issue, so swimming should be discouraged, but as the water quality may be better in the future, water access should not be completely cut off. Additional small boat access locations should be evaluated to create a more local scale river recreation circulation pattern. The figures below provide some ideas for river access that does not encourage swimming. Figure 1. Jordan River access steps at Big Bend Habitat in West Jordan, UT 1234 South 900 East Salt Lake City, UT 84150 | 970.947.9568 5 | P a g e Glendale Regional Park – Ecological Assessment Figure 2. Jordan River Big Bend Habitat canoe access in West Jordan, UT Figure 3. Price River in Helper, UT river access beach 1234 South 900 East Salt Lake City, UT 84150 | 970.947.9568 6 | P a g e Glendale Regional Park – Ecological Assessment Figure 4. Price River access steps in Helper, UT Figure 5. Ogden River ADA fishing access pier in Ogden, UT 1234 South 900 East Salt Lake City, UT 84150 | 970.947.9568 7 | P a g e Glendale Regional Park – Ecological Assessment Figure 6. Ogden River ADA access ramp in Ogden, UT Figure 6. River overlook in the Pacific Northwest 1234 South 900 East Salt Lake City, UT 84150 | 970.947.9568 8 | P a g e Glendale Regional Park – Ecological Assessment Figure 7. Colorado River overlook in Glendale Springs, CO Conclusion The main conclusions of the site visit provide direction for the near-term management of invasive species on the site in preparation for future disturbance of the project site for development of the regional park. Managing invasive species on the site for 2-3 years before the site disturbance will reduce the number and pervasiveness of invasive species and will also begin to develop a human presence in the area doing maintenance, thus reducing the perception of the area as abandoned. The Glendale Regional Park offers great opportunity to improve and expand the ecological function of the riparian habitat along the Jordan River. Mature vegetation should be protected, irrigation throughout the site reinitiated, and a process to phase out nonnative trees should be implemented in conjunction with planting native riparian plants. The central location of the project site offers great opportunity to connect with the surrounding environment, provide the community areas to recreate in nature, and provide high quality habitat for resident and migratory birds. Appendix CRestortation Plan Glendale Regional Park Restoration & Noxious Weed Management Plan Developed as part of the Jordan River Commission Best Practices for Riverfront Communities Primary Focus Area Glendale Regional Park Project PURPOSE: This document was created to provide guidance for an Adaptive Management Strategy to control noxious and invasive plant species at the Glendale Regional Park Project in Salt Lake City, Utah. This document represents a template that can be used on other sites along the Jordan River in Salt Lake City, where site specific data on noxious weed locations can be used to develop site specific action plans. Overall, our goal is to improve the management of these lands for the benefit of people and wildlife by reducing the cover of noxious and invasive plants and increasing the cover of native and desirable plants. The following recommendations may need to be changed based upon site specific needs and resources that are available. Any and all use of herbicides must be done by licensed applicators and those applicators must read, understand, and follow label requirements for the use of herbicides. Weed Control Instructions and Best Practices: 1. Always use the proper methods to deal with the plant species on your project; 2. Always read the label for any herbicides that will be used and follow specific requirements; 3. Be familiar with the target species, control methods, and appropriate follow up methods to ensure success; 4. Take proper precautions in protecting your personal health and safety and the health of the environment; 5. Ensure weather conditions are appropriate for the use of any herbicides; 6. Post signs were appropriate to alert the public about the use of any herbicides; 7. Collect as much information as possible on treatment areas such as: location of treatments, timing of treatments, follow up actions required to ensure success; 8. AND only use herbicides where you have obtained express consent from the land owner to conduct treatments. HOW TO - Five Step Approach: Prevention Prioritize invasive species control where recent or future land disturbance is anticipated Identify pathways or “vectors” of invasive species introduction and spread and try to understand the potential impact of those species on native ecosystems Work with surrounding land owners to reduce spread from surrounding properties Early detection and rapid response Use this guidance document to improve detection and identification of invasive plant species Document occurrence of new species not included in this plan yearly using EDDMaps Coordinate response efforts to eradicate species before establishment and spread with all stakeholders working within and adjacent to the Big Bend Control and management Follow both short- and long-term recommendations in this Big Bend Restoration Plan to restore and enhance native and desirable plants that will withstand future changes in weather and climate Limit spread of existing infestations by targeted eradication or population suppression (using mechanical, biological, and chemical methods) Implement a variety of methods to improve the outcomes of treatments (i.e. Integrated Pest Management Approach) Work with surrounding land owners to control surrounding invasive species populations Revegetation Select site adapted species of plants that can compete against invasive weeds once established Develop site specific plans for installation of “habitat patches” of riparian plants based upon local soils and access to surface and groundwater Seed any disturbed areas soon after disturbance has ceased and make sure to properly prepare soils for seeding Follow up on any revegetation actions for at least five years to ensure establishment of new plants Monitoring Monitor before and after control methods to ensure progress is being made on controlling existing infestations and new infestations are not becoming established Site Specific Indications for the Glendale Regional Park Based upon site assessments completed in the late summer of 2021 and spring of 2022, it appears that there are only a few areas that need aggressive weed control for hoary cress, Scotch thistle, and puncturevine. The treatments that occurred in 2021 appear to have been effective at reducing the cover and seed production of the puncturevine on the big hill. Additional work was done along the riverbanks to reduce the cover of Russian olives. Treatments proposed for summer and fall of 2022 include follow up on the work completed in 2021 and aggressive treatment of secondary invasion of hoary cress and phragmites in areas along the riverbanks where Russian olive was cut down. The remaining material left from the Russian olive cutting should be retained on site to protect any new plants from wind and sun. The branches remaining can be piled into small windrows and hoary cress and phragmites should be treated as soon as possible. Areas identified for future riparian forests should be planted with container plants with drip irrigation this fall (November 2022). Areas where Russian olive was removed should be the top priority for restoration of riparian forests to return the multi-layer canopy for nesting and migratory birds, while considering issues with transient camps in the area. Aggressive chemical control of noxious weeds adjacent to all disturbance areas should also be a high priority. These are the most likely places for spread of noxious and invasive plants. These areas should also be seeded soon after the disturbance ceases (generally within 2 weeks any time of the year). Seeding with an inexpensive grass and forb mix should be done any time disturbances occur throughout the project lifecycle to reduce the opportunity for noxious and invasive plants to take over and dominate. This is cheap insurance and will reduce the potential need for chemicals to be used on the site in the future. Habitat improvements are a key goal of the Project and phasing the project’s construction will reduce potential impacts to the site’s current wildlife population. Phasing the project will limit the amount of area that will be disturbed at any one time. Portions of the site will be left undisturbed during the initial phases of construction to provide habitat. This applies particularly to habitat for migratory song birds. Partners working along the Jordan River Corridor have recommended a phased approach for removal of Russian olives, which serve as habitat for migratory and resident bird species. Russian olive should be left on portions of the site that are not part of the initial phases and riparian plants should be planted into Russian olive stands, where the shade from the existing invasive trees will help with establishment of new forests. As native plants mature, the remainder of the Russian olives can be removed and replaced with the appropriate native species. There will be an ongoing need for maintenance of the site to prevent Russian olives (and other noxious species) from re-establishing in areas where they have been removed. Secondary invasion of hoary cress and phragmites should also be monitored and treated in these areas. The following noxious and invasive weed species have been observed on or adjacent to the Glendale Regional Park:  Hoary cress  Scotch thistle  Poison hemlock  Houndstongue  Russian olive  Dyer’s woad  Perennial pepperweed  Dalmatian toadflax  Common reed  Tamarisk  Russian knapweed  Puncturevine The primary objective of noxious weed control is to selectively reduce the cover and abundance of noxious and invasive plants across the site. This work is being accomplished mostly by mechanical and chemical control of herbaceous plants and through physical removal of invasive Russian olive and tamarisk trees. Site management should focus on phasing the removal of these trees over several years and installation of native and desirable plant species to retain the beneficial aspects of the riparian cover, i.e. a multi-story canopy. The main objective of this Plan is to reduce the cover of invasive species over time so that the entire site does not have to be treated at the time of major construction. Removal of invasive trees can be conducted at the same time as crews and volunteers are installing native riparian trees, shrubs, forbs, and grasses in small patches. The installation of new plants will reduce the “temporal loss” of riparian habitat in the area during major construction activity phases. The major challenge with this phase is providing sufficient water to the plants to make sure they become established. Another objective of this Plan is to reduce the number of seeds and propagules of noxious plants such as thistle, whitetop, Russian olive, and puncturevine. The following matrix provides some guidance for treatments and timing for each noxious and invasive weed species found on the Glendale Regional Park or along the Jordan River corridor close to the site. Status Responsibility Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Monitoring Vegetation Monitor weedy upland areas X X X X Monitor riparian areas X X X X Count planting success X X Management Water Initial watering of plants X X X X X Irrigation of plants X X X X X X X Vegetation Fencing and Protecting installed vegetation X X X X X Installation of Habitat Patches X X X X X Seeding of areas adjacent to disturbances X X X X X X X X X X Mow annual weeds and thistles X X X X X X X X X X Field meeting with herbicide applicator X X X X X Herbicide use in upland areas X X X X X X X X Herbicide use in riparian areas X X X X X X X X Chemical control hoary cress X X X X X X Chemical control poison hemlock X X X X X X Chemical control thistle X X X X X X X X Chemical control phragmites X X X X Chemical control perennial pepperweed X X Wildlife No removal of trees to protect nesting birds X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Herbivory check on any planted vegetation X X X X X X 2023Glendale Regional Park Action Plan Summary 2022-2023 2022 Restoration Plants The following species have been selected for seeding or planting in small patches. These species were derived from observations of native riparian habitats by Ty Harrison over the last half- century. Irrigation is needed regularly for successful establishment of these plants. Common Name Scientific Name Fremont Cottonwood Populus fremontii Box Elder Acre negundo Peachleaf Willow Salilx amigdaloides Black Hawthorn Crataegus douglasi Coyote Willow Salix exigua Woods Rose Rosa woodsii Oakleaf Sumac Rhus aromatica var. trilobata Golden Currant Ribes aureum Big Sagebrush Artemisia tridentata var. tridentata Rubber Rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus nauseosus Greasewood Sarcobatus vermiculatus Fourwing Saltbush Atriplex canescens Gardner's Saltbush Atriplex gardneri RIPARIAN TREES AND SHRUBS UPLAND SHRUBS Species Scientific Name Species Common Name Percent desired cover at maturity Typha latifolia Common cattail 40 Scirpus acutis Hardstem or Roundstem bullrush 40 S. americanus American threesquare 10 S. pungens Common threesquare 10 S. maritimus Alkali bullrush 5 Senecio hydrophilus Water groundsel 2 Triglochin sp Arrowgrass 2 Eleocharis palustris Creeping spikerush 20 Juncus torreyi Torrey rush 20 Carex nebrascensis Nebraska sedge 20 C. lanuginosa Wooly sedge 20 Distichlis spicata Inland saltgrass 10 Juncus arcticus Wiregrass or Arctic rush 30 Distichlis spicata Inland saltgrass 10 Pascopyrum smithii Western wheatgrass 30 Sporobolus airoides Alkali saccaton 10 Puccinellia nuttalliana Nuttall's alkaligrass 10 C. praegracilis Black creeper sedge 10 Solidago occidentalis Western goldenrod 10 Pascopyrum smithii Western wheatgrass 30 Leymus cinereus Great Basin wildrye 20 Distichlis spicata Inland saltgrass 10 Poa secunda (sandbergii)Sandberg bluegrass 10 Festuca ovina ‘Covar’Sheep fescue 10 Cleome serrulata Rocky Mountain beeweed 5 Sphaeralcea coccinea Scarlet globemallow 5 Linium lewisii Lewis blue flax 5 Recommended Seed Mixes Emergent Wetland Mix Wet Meadow Mesic Meadow Upland Mix Weed treatment tracking form: OBSERVER LOCATION DATE TREATMENT FOLLOW UP NEEDED WEATHER ACRES DENSITY PHENOLOGY NOTES Appendix DMarket Study This study assesses and analyzes demographic characteristics of the areas surrounding the Glendale Regional Park project site. As part of the process, primary and secondary market areas were defined and confirmed with project stakeholders. These market areas served as the geographic focus area of the analysis and were compared to demographic trends at the County level. Key questions answered through the analysis include: •What is the primary and secondary market area that the Park could expect to draw visitor from? •What are the demographic and populations trends within the primary and secondary market areas? •What is the population that the Park could be serving? •What does recreational trends data inform regarding potential gaps or opportunities? Primary and Secondary Market Area Primary Market Area The primary market area, depicted in Figure 1, is where 60 to 80 percent of all park users are anticipated to be drawn from and includes users who will frequent the Park on a near weekly basis. The primary market area identified for this analysis lies between Interstate 215 and Interstate 15 and extends south of West South Temple Street and north of West 2900 Street. Neighborhoods that fall in the primary market area include Chesterfield, Western Pacific Addition, Redwood Gardens, Klenkes Addition, Wenco Acres, Albert Place, Whaldons Addition, Poplar Grove and Wright Circle. Other parks and public outdoor spaces located in the primary market area include Decker Lake Park, Redwood Nature Area, Redwood Trailhead Park,17th South River Park, Weseman Park, Modesto Park, 9th South River Park, Post Street Tot Lot, Bend-In-The-River, Jordan Park and Peace Gardens, Jordan River Parkway, Poplar Grove Park and Sherwood Park. Figure 1: Primary Market Area. Source: ESRI Business Analyst Glendale Regional Park Demographic and Market Study September, 2021 Page 2 Secondary Market Area The secondary market area, illustrated in Figure 2, is where 20 to 40 percent of all park users are anticipated to be drawn from and includes users who treat the Park as a destination, going there for a specific purpose or activities.Salt Lake City was identified as the secondary market area and was analyzed as a buffer zone to encompass a broader reach of the region and capture residents who may visit the Park less frequently than those in the primary market area. The area north of 2100 South Freeway within the primary market area lies within the Salt Lake City boundary. As a result, data extracted for the secondary market area also includes data within the section of the primary market area north of 2100 South Freeway. The primary and secondary markets were compared to Salt Lake County to better understand the relative demographic differences of the market area in the context of the region. Figure 2: Secondary Market Area. Source ESRI Business Analyst Population and Households Table 1 shows the total population estimates for each area of study in 2010,2021, and 2026 extracted from ESRI Business Analyst. The 2021 total population in the primary market area is 29,525 and the population in the secondary market area is 204,380. Between 2010 and 2021,the population within the primary market area has grown by 4.07 percent while the population in the secondary market area grew by 9.65 percent. Growth within both primary and secondary market areas was less than that of the County, which grew by 17.3 percent since 2010.Over the next five years (2021-2026)population in the primary market area is expected to grow by 3.54 percent, reaching a total population of 30,571 in 2026. The population in the secondary market area is expected to see slightly higher growth over the next five years, growing by 8.65 percent to reach a total population of 222,029 in 2026. Table 1. Total Population Estimates. Source: ESRI Business Analyst. Total household estimates, household size, and family statistics are depicted in Table 2. Between 2010 and 2021 households in the primary market area have grown by 3.7 percent, increasing from 7,982 to 8,277. The growth in households in the primary market area is less than that of the secondary market area (11.68 percent) and that of Salt Lake County (17.1 percent). Household growth between 2021 and 2026 is expected to slow to 3.2 percent in the primary market area, 9.51 percent in the secondary market area and 7.5 percent in Salt Lake County. In 2026 there is projected to be 8,542 total households in the primary market area and 91,106 households in the secondary market area. Current average household size in the primary market area (3.54 persons) is larger than that in the secondary market area (2.4 persons) and that of Salt Lake County (2.97 persons). This is consistent with a higher number of family household within the primary market area (70.63 percent) than in both the secondary market area (49.47 percent) and Population Primary Market Area Secondary Market Area Salt Lake County, UT 2010 Total Population 28,369 186,399 1,029,655 2021 Total Population 29,525 204,380 1,207,807 2026 Total Population 30,571 222,029 1,298,444 Page 3 in Salt Lake County (69.66 percent). Of the families within each area of study, average family sizes are larger in the primary market area (4.1 persons) than the secondary market area (3.27 persons) and Salt Lake County (3.55 persons). The primary market area’s high concentration of families has several implications the future of Glendale Regional Park, including ensuring that park programming, both physical and event, is appropriate for children of varying ages. Table 2. Household and Family Estimates. Source: ESRI Business Analyst. Age The 2021 median age and the distribution of ages for the primary market area, secondar market area, and Salt Lake County is depicted in Table 3. The median age in the primary market area is 29, slightly younger than that of the secondary market area (33) and that of Salt Lake County (33). Median ages in 2026 are expected to be roughly the same as 2021 across all areas of study. The primary market area is significantly younger than the secondary market area and Salt Lake County, with residents 19 and under comprising 36.52 percent of the population. The proportion of the total population that is under 19 in the secondary market area is 21.77 percent, which is lower than the primary market area and Salt Lake County (27.85 percent). The largest age group in the primary market area is between 0 and 9, which consists of 19.78 percent of the total population, followed by age groups between 10 and 19 and between 30 and 39, which consist of 16.74 percent and 16.33 percent of the population, respectively. The high ratio of children in the primary market area indicates a high concentration of families in the region. The largest age cohort in the secondary market area is between 20 and 29, indicating that there is an overall younger demographic in this region that may enter family formation years (30-39) within the next decade. Table 3. Population by Age Group. Source: ESRI Business Analyst. Household Income and Wealth The 2021 median household income, projected median household income growth, and concentration of specific household income brackets are shown in Table 4. The 2021 median household income in the primary market area is $50,508, which is less than that of the secondary market area ($63,364) and that of Salt Lake County ($80,897). The primary market area is also expected to see less growth in median household income (12.18 percent) than in the secondary market area (19.14 percent) and Salt Lake County (13.59 percent) between 2021 and 2026. Table 5 delineates the median disposable income and the percent of the total households in each area of study corresponding to specific disposable income ranges as of 2021. The median disposable income in the primary market area is Households & Families Primary Market Area Secondary Market Area Salt Lake County, UT Total Households 2010 Total Households 7,982 74,493 342,622 2021 Total Households 8,277 83,197 401,195 2026 Total Households 8,542 91,106 431,279 Household Size 2021 Average Household Size 3.54 2.40 2.97 Families 2021 Total Family Households 5,846 41,157 279,462 2021 Total Family Households (%)70.63%49.47%69.66% 2021 Average Family Size 4.10 3.27 3.55 Total Population Primary Market Area Secondary Market Area Salt Lake County, UT 0-9 19.78%12.93%16.17% 10-19 16.74%11.91%14.40% 20-29 15.29%19.05%14.45% 30-39 16.33%17.60%16.72% 40-49 11.40%11.63%12.47% 50-59 8.81%9.80%9.72% 60-69 6.44%8.84%8.60% 70-79 3.54%5.25%4.99% 80+1.67%2.99%2.46% Median Age 28.9 33.1 32.9 Page 4 $42,262, which less than that of the secondary market area ($52,690) and that of Salt Lake County ($63,344). Income distributions for both median and disposable income levels are skewed towards lower income levels in the primary market area while those in the secondary market area and Salt Lake County form a more normal distribution around the median income level. This indicates that income levels are lower in the primary market area than the secondary market area or the county. Given this distinction, the Park will better suit the primary market through low or no cost activities for both adults and children. There is a need for the implementation of programming such as free fitness classes or facilities that can supplement recreational demands of the community for little to no cost. If concessions are implemented, then they should be priced appropriately. Table 4. Household Income Concentrations. Source: ESRI Business Analyst. Table 5. Disposable Income Concentrations. Source: ESRI Business Analyst. Depicted in Table 5 is the Wealth Index for the primary market area, secondary market area, and Salt Lake County. The Wealth Index is a metric used to compare overall wealth of communities to the national level. Esri Business Analyst measures wealth by compiling a variety of metrics that contribute to affluence, including income, average net worth, and material possessions and resources. The index compares the wealth calculated for selected areas to the average national wealth levels. Wealth indexes above 100 indicate wealth levels above the national average, while those below 100 indicate wealth levels below the national average. The wealth index in the primary market area is 47, indicating that the area has lower amounts of wealth when compared to the national average. The secondary market area has a wealth index of 85, which is slightly lower than the national average, while Salt Lake County has a wealth index of 105, which is higher than the national average. This indicates that in terms of income and personal assets, the primary market area holds the lowest level of wealth out of the three areas studied. Given the low wealth index of the primary market area, it is likely that the majority of the population in this region do not have adequate resources to pay for, or use, the same recreational facilities as those of a higher wealth index community. For this reason, programs should not be priced at a level suitable to the other areas of study, instead low cost or free programs should be offered so that those with lower incomes have access to desired recreational facilities and programs. Table 5. Wealth Index. Source: ESRI Business Analyst. 2021 Household Income Primary Market Area Secondary Market Area Salt Lake County, UT Median Household Income $50,508 $63,364 $80,897 2021 to 2026 Median Household Income Growth 12.18%19.14%13.59% $200,000 or greater 1.98%8.43%8.49% $150,000-$199,999 3.25%6.88%10.09% $100,000-$149,999 9.70%15.94%20.91% $75,000-$99,999 15.05%12.51%14.92% $50,000-$74,999 20.67%16.50%17.58% $35,000-$49,999 15.43%11.11%9.96% $25,000-$34,999 11.33%8.39%6.17% $15,000-$24,999 11.31%7.94%5.40% Less than $15,000 11.27%12.29%6.49% 2021 Disposable Income Primary Market Area Secondary Market Area Salt Lake County, UT Median Disposable Income $42,262 $52,690 $63,344 $200,000 or greater 0.85%3.76%3.73% $150,000-$199,999 1.15%4.58%4.75% $100,000-$149,999 7.20%13.30%18.24% $75,000-$99,999 8.13%11.51%15.04% $50,000-$74,999 24.80%20.00%22.57% $35,000-$49,999 18.46%14.23%14.04% $25,000-$34,999 12.50%9.10%7.37% $15,000-$24,999 13.64%9.88%6.82% Less than $15,000 13.27%13.64%7.44% Wealth Index Primary Market Area Secondary Market Area Salt Lake County, UT 2021 Wealth Index 47 85 105 Page 5 Housing Table 6 illustrates the composition of housing units that are either renter or owner occupied as of 2021. Currently there are 8,277 occupied housing units in the primary market area, of which 4,560 (55.09 percent) are owner occupied and 3,717 (44.91 percent) are renter occupied. Compared to the primary market area, there is a higher concentration of renter occupied units in the secondary market area (54.08 percent) and a smaller concentration of renter occupied units in Salt Lake County (33.78 percent). Table 7 depicts the concentration of housing type and number of units in the housing structure within each area of study as of 2019. The majority of housing units in all areas of study are single unit detached structures. Unlike the that of the primary market area and Salt Lake County, the second largest concentration of housing types, making up 14.05 percent of total housing in the secondary market area, consists of buildings that hold 50 or more units. Table 6. Tenure of occupied housing. Source: ESRI Business Analyst. Table 7. Tenure of occupied housing. Source: ESRI Business Analyst. Table 8 delineates the proportion of all housing units as of 2019 by year built. The median year built of housing units within the primary market area is 1968, which is newer than the median home age in the secondary market and older than that of Salt Lake County. The majority of housing units in the primary market (16.89 percent) were built between 1950 and 1959 while the majority of the households within the secondary market (29.08 percent) were built in 1939 or earlier. Salt Lake County holds a higher concentration of buildings built in 1970 or later. Table 8. Tenure of occupied housing. Source: ESRI Business Analyst. Illustrated in Table 9, the median contract rent in the primary market area is $900, which is greater than that of the secondary market area ($889), and less than that of Salt Lake County ($993). Monthly ownership costs as of 2019 for households that pay a mortgage are depicted in Table 10. Of the households with a mortgage, most ownership costs typically lie within 10 to 30 percent of household income. Ownership costs that exceed 50 percent of household income within the primary market area consist of 8.38 percent of total households with a mortgage, which is greater than that Tenure 2021 Primary Market Area Secondary Market Area Salt Lake County, UT Total Occupied 8,277 83,197 401,195 Owner Occupied Housing Units 4,560 38,203 265,687 Renter Occupied Housing Units 3,717 44,994 135,508 2021 Owner Occupied Housing Units (%)55.09%45.92%66.22% 2021 Renter Occupied Housing Units (%)44.91%54.08%33.78% 2019 Housing Type (Percent) Primary Market Area Secondary Market Area Salt Lake County, UT 1 Detached Unit in Structure 60.42%46.42%62.62% 1 Attached Unit in Structure 5.55%3.24%7.19% 2 Units in Structure 7.16%6.57%2.94% 3 or 4 Units in Structure 5.19%6.62%3.91% 5 to 9 Units in Structure 4.35%5.06%4.23% 10 to 19 Units in Structure 8.10%6.90%5.81% 20 to 49 Units in Structure 4.01%9.91%5.31% 50 or More Units in Structure 1.59%14.05%5.99% Housing: Mobile Homes 3.63%0.95%1.94% Housing: Boat/RV/Van/etc.0.00%0.28%0.07% Housing Unit Development Year Primary Market Area Secondary Market Area Salt Lake County, UT Median Year Structure was Built 1968 1959 1981 2014 or Later 0.31%2.98%4.47% 2010-2013 0.41%2.30%4.24% 2000-2009 10.93%6.65%14.92% 1990-1999 12.57%7.36%15.20% 1980-1989 10.39%7.69%12.95% 1970-1979 13.04%12.06%18.90% 1960-1969 12.96%9.97%8.88% 1950-1959 16.89%13.22%8.88% 1940-1949 8.15%8.70%3.55% 1939 or Earlier 14.36%29.08%8.01% Page 6 of the secondary market area (5.56 percent) and that of Salt Lake County (5.75 percent). This indicates that the primary market area is faced with higher housing cost burdens than other areas. Glendale Park can assist households in the primary market area by offering low cost or free programming, thereby eliminating, or reducing recreation related expenses. Table 9. Median Contract Rent. Source: ESRI Business Analyst. Table 10. Housing Costs for Households Owning Property. Source: ESRI Business Analyst. Table 11 displays the 2021 and 2026 median home values for the areas studied. The 2021 median home value in the primary market area is $282,245, which is 34 percent less than that of the secondary market area and 30.6 percent less than that of Salt Lake County. Median home values are expected to grow by 53 percent in the primary market area, 30 percent in the secondary market area and 25 percent in Salt Lake County. Table 11. Median Home Values. Source: ESRI Business Analyst. Race & Ethnicity The distribution of race and ethnicity within the selected areas of study are delineated in Table 12. The highest concentration of race within the primary market area is white, consisting of 48.2 percent of the population. The Hispanic population makes up 53.44 percent of the primary market area population, 24.3 percent of the secondary market area population and 18.36 percent of the Salt Lake County population. Table 12. Race Concentrations. Source: ESRI Business Analyst. Hispanic and White population numbers are not mutually exclusive. Spending Habits Entertainment and recreational spending in 2021 is depicted in Table 13. Spending per household on entertainment and recreation is approximately $2,084, which is 33.57 percent less than that of the secondary market area ($3,137) and 40.34 percent less than that of Salt Lake County ($3,493). The primary market area spends 39.65 percent less on membership fees for social, recreational and health clubs than the secondary market area and 46.57 percent less on Contract Rent Primary Market Area Secondary Market Area Salt Lake County, UT 2019 Median Contract Rent $900 $889 $993 2019 Monthly Ownership Costs of Households with a Mortgage (Percent) Primary Market Area Secondary Market Area Salt Lake County, UT Monthly Owner Costs < 10% of HH Income 4.89%6.34%5.32% Monthly Owner Costs 10-14.9% of HH Income 11.40%12.61%12.69% Monthly Owner Costs 15-19.9% of HH Income 11.51%14.57%16.18% Monthly Owner Costs 20-24.9% of HH Income 11.81%11.54%12.39% Monthly Owner Costs 25-29.9% of HH Income 9.42%6.56%8.49% Monthly Owner Costs 30-34.9% of HH Income 4.48%4.27%4.87% Monthly Owner Costs 35-39.9% of HH Income 6.11%3.92%3.34% Monthly Owner Costs 40-49.9% of HH Income 2.68%3.12%3.47% Monthly Owner Costs 50+% of HH Income 8.38%5.56%5.75% Monthly Owner Costs % of HH Inc Not Computed 0.00%0.15%0.20% Median Home Values Primary Market Area Secondary Market Area Salt Lake County, UT 2021 Median Home Value $282,245 $427,693 $406,810 2026 Median Home Value $431,591 $554,870 $509,442 Race (2021)Primary Market Area Secondary Market Area Salt Lake County, UT White Population 48.20%70.58%78.16% Black/African American Population 4.64%3.67%2.06% American Indian/Alaska Native Population 1.86%1.35%0.93% Asian Population 4.92%6.05%4.51% Pacific Islander Population 6.34%2.14%1.61% Other Race Population 28.45%11.86%8.97% Population of Two or More Races 5.59%4.36%3.76% Ethnicity (2021) Hispanic Population 53.44%24.30%18.36% Non-Hispanic Population 46.56%75.70%81.64% Page 7 those services than Salt Lake County. Given the lower spending habits of individuals within the primary market area on entertainment and recreation, there is an implied lower willingness to pay for this category of products and services. As a result, facilities and programs within the Glendale Regional Park will likely see higher use if programming prices are reduced or eliminated. Table 13. Household Expenditures. Source: ESRI Business Analyst. Per household spending data was calculated from dividing aggregate spending values by the total number of households. Conclusion With a population of 29,525 in the primary market area and 204,380 in the secondary market area, Glendale Regional Park services an urban community which requires outdoor space and recreational opportunities for all residents. The population in the surrounding region is also growing at a rapid rate, which furthers the need for additional park and recreation opportunities. Many of the households within the primary market are families with an average family size that is greater than the surrounding regions. Due to the large family demographic, there is likely a desire for safe public spaces with a variety of programs that can accommodate both the demands of children and adults. As 19.78 percent of the population in the primary market area is children, facilities in the park should tailor to the types of activities that youth desire. Since both the median household income and median disposable income within the primary market area is lower than that of Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County, the primary market may be less capable of spending on recreation as other areas of higher affluence. Housing costs also present a larger financial burden for the primary market than other areas of study. For this reason, recreational programs in the park should be offered free of charge or at low- or no-cost rates to accommodate the primary market’s population, and to provide outdoor opportunities for those that may not have access to those opportunities elsewhere. Household Expenditures (2021)Primary Market Area Secondary Market Area Salt Lake County, UT Entertainment/Recreation $2,084 $3,137 $3,493 Fees for Participant Sports Excluding Trips $72 $111 $134 Fees for Recreational Lessons $87 $131 $160 Sports/Rec/Exercise Equipment $127 $182 $202 Membership Fees for Social/Recreation/Health Clubs $148 $246 $278 EXHIBIT D Public Comments Received & Letters of Support ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor PUBLIC LANDS DEPARTMENT 1965 W 500 S SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84104 www.slc.gov/parks/ PHONE 801-972-7800 FAX 801-972-7847 Public Comments, meeting minutes and responses can be found in the Planning Commission Staff Report of November 9, 2022 and in the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 9, 2022. Please see below for relevant letters of support, which have also been sent directly to the Planning Commission and City Council. TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD Salt Lake City Transportation Division Office ‐ 349 South 200 East, Suite 150 - P.O. Box 145502 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5502 October 28, 2022 Salt Lake City Planning Commission & Salt Lake City Council RE: Letter of Support – Glendale Regional Park Master Plan On behalf of the Salt Lake City Transportation Advisory Board, I write in support of Salt Lake City’s initiative to construct a regional park in the location of the old Raging Waters site. Detailed plans of the proposed park were presented to the Transportation Advisory Board at their October meeting with a great deal of discussion and unquestionable support and enthusiasm, including the proposed three crosswalks along 1700 South. The discussion stressed that planners should work with the SLC Transportation Division to ensure the safety of all visitors and users. Issues to be addressed regarding 1700 South included access by family bicyclists, pedestrian activated stop signs at crosswalks, traffic calming to reduce speed and the issue of on-street parking in case there are not sufficient off-street stalls. The Transportation Division is aware of the proposed plan and already has a project manager assigned to look at 1700 South and has allocated some funds to start a low-cost project to address some these concerns. The park planners should also coordinate with UTA on providing transit service to the park. As the project progresses, the Transportation Advisory Board will provide comments and feedback to ensure that these issues and concerns are addressed. This park would provide a place to recreate for residents of the Glendale community, as well as other westside neighborhoods. It will be constructed in a location that has long been an eyesore for the community, which will improve the neighborhood quality and allow for more access to healthy recreation. The current plans show that the regional park can be accessed using many modes of transportations. This allows for all types of users to be able to enjoy the amenities that this park would provide. The Transportation Advisory Board supports the recommendations in the Glendale Regional Park Master Plan with commitment to addressing the safety issues and concerns presented with the development of this new park. This plan is an opportunity to provide a more equitable distribution of recreation to the residents of Salt Lake City. Sincerely, Greg Sanchez, Chair Transportation Advisory Board Page | 1 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke, Budget & Public Policy Analyst DATE:February 21, 2023 RE: American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Local Business Assistance Grant Awards ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE In April 2022 as part of Budget Amendment #4 of FY2022, the Council approved one-time $2 million from ARPA for local business assistance grant awards managed by the Economic Development Department. If the 31 grants are awarded as recommended, then $1,244,282 would remain for future phases of local business assistance grant awards. Note the Council also approved a separate one-time $2 million from ARPA for nonprofit assistance grant awards managed by the Community and Neighborhood Department (CAN). The Committee is currently reviewing nonprofit applications submitted through CAN’s process. The Community Recovery Committee is recommending $755,718 of ARPA grant awards to 31 local businesses as shown in Attachment 1 - Funding Log. The Mayor made no changes to the Committee’s funding recommendations. The Administration reviewed all applications for eligibility and compliance with federal ARPA guidance. The Council has final decision-making authority over the grant awards including the dollar amounts and uses. Please see “Additional Information” section for more on applications, award limits, scoring, and clarifications about the recommended funding log. Goal of the briefing: Review the recommended grant awards, identify questions and potential modifications to the awards and/or process, and determine whether the Council is comfortable scheduling an adoption vote. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. Questions about Recommended Grant Awards – Does the Council have any questions about the 31 recommended local business assistance grant awards? 2. Award Based on Sliding Scale or Full Eligible Amount – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration why the Committee recommends awarding based on a sliding scale and not the full eligible amount. The difference between the two approaches is $125,475. 3. Requiring Unsuccessful Phase 1 Applications to Reapply in Phase 2 – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration why applicants not recommended for funding in Phase 1 would not be considered in Phase 2 unless they reapply. Would the Council like remaining Phase 1 applications to be considered in Phase 2? 4. Minimum Grant Amount – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration identifying a minimum funding award for individual grants like the $30,000 minimum for annual HUD grants and $50,000 for CIP. Setting a minimum amount is intended to balance the burden of administering the grants with creation of public benefits. Nine of the grant recommendations are less than $10,000 and the smallest #17 is $2,583. Project Timeline: 1st Briefing: February 21, 2023 2nd Briefing: TBD (if needed) Potential Final Vote: March 7, 2023 Page | 2 ADDITIONIAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION Applications: 296 applications were submitted for Phase 1 during the month of September 2022. 157 applications were received from eligible local businesses and 40 from nonprofits. Note at the time of publishing staff was clarifying with the City Attorney’s Office whether nonprofits could also be considered local businesses in the context of this funding. The other 99 applications were ineligible for reasons such as the applicant was located outside of city limits, did not begin operations within the federal time requirements, the application was incomplete, or late. Award Limits: The maximum award is $100,000 for any of the ARPA assistance grants per City Code Chapter 2.20.040(A) (see Attachment 2). There is no minimum award set in ordinance. The City uses minimum awards for other programs such as annual grants from the U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) and the Capital Improvement Program or CIP (See policy question #3). Grant recipients must submit documentation for reimbursements and file quarterly reports with the City. Some local businesses could be ineligible depending on the minimum award amount. Scoring: Eligible applications were scored on a scale of zero to 100 with higher scores being better. Identifying information such as names and addresses were removed from applications before the Community Recovery Committee reviewed and scored them. This was done to improve the integrity of the process. See Attachment 3 for a summary list of all 157 eligible local business applications ordered from highest to lowest combined score. The attachment shows average scores in the second to last column which is an average of all Committee member’s scores who ranked the application. Funding Recommendations: The 31 local business applications are recommended to receive a grant award based on a sliding scale rather than the full eligible funding amount. The Administration provided this example: “if an applicant had an eligible funding amount of $10,000 and received an average Committee score of 90.0, then their final funding amount would be $9,000.” The sliding scale approach results in less funding to applicants but spreads the limited ARPA dollars to more applicants. Future Phases: The Administration reports the 31 local business grant awards recommended to the Council are Phase 1 Group 1. Phase 1 Group 2 will be nonprofit grant award recommendations. Note at the time of publishing staff was clarifying with the City Attorney’s Office whether nonprofits could also be considered local businesses in the context of this funding. Applications for Phase 2 are expected to be accepted during a 30-day window beginning in March. The timing of funding recommendations for Phase 2 applicants will depend upon how many eligible applications are received. No Phase 3 is planned; the full $4 million is expected to be recommended for awards during the two phases. Applications not recommended for funding in Phase 1 would need to reapply in Phase 2 (see policy question #4). Funding Log (Attachment 1): The log shows the 31 local businesses recommended for funding. Note that when an application is listed as “Received other assistance: None” this means the local business received zero financial assistance from any level of government. The columns moving from left to right are: recommended local business number one through 31, local business name, Council District, amount of funding the local business requested, amount of requested funding that is eligible (must shown proven loss and other ARPA requirements), the Community Recovery Committee’s recommended funding, the Council’s funding decisions (uses the Committee’s amount as a starting point), and the category of AB – Arts and Artisan Businesses, SB – Small Business, and TTH – Tourism, Travel, or Hospitality. Several acronyms are spelled out at the end. Spending Deadlines: Under federal guidelines ARPA funds must be obligated by the end of calendar year 2024 and must be fully spent by the end of calendar year 2026. City Code Chapter 2.20.050 (see Attachment 2) sets an earlier spending deadline of December 31, 2024, to provide public benefits at a faster pace. Community Recovery Committee (See Attachment 2 for the ordinance) In April 2022, the Council enacted Chapter 2.20 of Salt Lake City Code creating the time-limited Community Recovery Committee as an official City board. Section 2.20.060 of the ordinance identifies a sunset for the Committee once all the ARPA program funds are expended or the federal spending deadline has passed. The Committee reviews applications and makes funding recommendations to the Mayor and City Council for the ARPA local business and nonprofit assistance grants. The Committee has seven or nine members who also serve on other Page | 3 City boards or committees. Grant Categories (See Attachment 2 for the ordinance) No specific categories are identified for the business assistance grants. These grants are focused on small and local businesses, tourism, travel, or hospitality, and support for artists and artisan businesses. A business must first demonstrate an economic and/or operational hardship caused by the pandemic, and then propose an ARPA eligible use for the grant funds. Specific categories are identified for the nonprofit assistance grants which are: “offering services to retrain displaced workers; providing legal or other assistance for evictions or rent relief; expanding educational opportunities; deploying resources to mitigate the digital divide; supporting parents or children affected by COVID-19 including childcare or after school programs; and providing access to healthcare services including mental health support.” (2.20.040(A)) Note nonprofits may submit applications for programs not listed above. ATTACHMENTS 1. Local Business Assistance ARPA Grants Funding Log 2. Community Recovery Committee Chapter 2.20 of Salt Lake City Code 3. Summary List of Eligible Local Business Assistance ARPA Grant Applications by Average Committee Score ACRONYMS (from this staff report and Attachment 1 Funding Log) AB – Arts and Artisan Businesses ARPA – American Rescue Plan Act BIPOC – Black, Indigenous, and People of Color CAN – Community and Neighborhoods Department CCL – Child Care Licensing CIP – Capital Improvement Program EIDL – Economic Injury Disaster Loan FY – Fiscal Year HUD – United States Housing and Urban Development Department IRC – International Rescue Committee LLC – Limited Liability Company PPP – Federal Paycheck Protection Program SB – Small Business SBDC – Utah Small Business Development Center TBD – To De Determined TTH – Tourism, Travel, or Hospitality LOCAL BUSINESS APPLICANT COUNCIL DISTRICT 2022-2024 REQUESTED FUNDING 2022-2024 ELIGIBLE FUNDING (Proven Loss) 2022-2024 CRC RECOMMENDATION (% Based on Score) COUNCIL FUNDING DECISION CATEGORY 1 Junction Dance Company (63480)5 $50,000.00 $49,000.00 $45,815.00 $45,815.00 AB 2 Zahara, LLC (62879)5 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $6,538.00 $6,538.00 TTH 3 Sugar Space, LLC (63372)2 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $46,250.00 $46,250.00 SB 4 Dream Garden Press/ dba Ken Sanders Rare Books (63434)4 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $46,100.00 $46,100.00 AB 5 Zaater and Zayton (62465)2 $50,000.00 $38,000.00 $34,960.00 $34,960.00 TTH Moroccan pop-up restaurant, that also offers catering services. Business holds community events that last between 2-3 hours where food is served. Owner plans to re-establish their events, and catering services, along with building to transition to a permanent physical location. Type of Business: Restaurant (Sole Proprietor) Disproportionately Impacted: 100%BIPOC owned Use of funds: Purchase of supplies,venue rentals and staff costs. Received other assistance: Business received $2k from the Internation Rescue Committee for business expenses accrued during COVID-19. Business provides dance training, two dance companies, creative space and performance opportunities for youth and professional artists. They cultivate an artistically enriching community thorugh performance and outreach. Type of Business: Dance Studio (Sole Proprietor) Disproportionately Impacted: Women Owned Use of funds: Rent,utilities, and operating costs (pay contracted artists) Business is an arts, events and reception center. They provide space for artists of all disciplines to create and present work and a place for the community to celebrate, learn, share and engage. Type of Business: Event/Reception Center (Sole Proprietor) Disproportionately Impacted: Women Owned Use of funds: Salaries and wages for staff. Received other assistance: Yes, they received under $50k in other assistance with PPP and EIDL. This business sells used, new, and rare books and ephemera. Special focus for this business is Utah and regional history. This business all supports local artista and musicians with regular public events. Type of Business: Bookstore in the City Center (Sole Proprietor) Disproportionately Impacted: None Use of funds: Rent and payroll. Received other assistance: Received aprox. $75k of other assistance with PPP and EIDL Business is a full-service catering company offering a unique blend of traditional Middle Eastern Cuisine and American fusion. Type of Business: Catering Disproportionately Impacted: Women & 100%BIPOC owned Use of funds: Mortgage payment, operational costs and start-up costs Received other assistance: Yes. Received $20k in EIDL Attachment 1 - Local Business Assistance ARPA Grants Funding Log Last Updated February 16, 2023 Page 1 LOCAL BUSINESS APPLICANT COUNCIL DISTRICT 2022-2024 REQUESTED FUNDING 2022-2024 ELIGIBLE FUNDING (Proven Loss) 2022-2024 CRC RECOMMENDATION (% Based on Score) COUNCIL FUNDING DECISION CATEGORY 6 Mestizo, LLC (63831)3 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $45,900.00 $45,900.00 TTH 7 Noor Al Sham LLC (63326)5 $11,000.00 $10,758.00 $9,660.68 $9,660.68 SB 8 Susie M's Gallery of Fine Tattooing (63355)5 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $22,250.00 $22,250.00 SB 9 J Street Productions (60538)7 $26,000.00 $25,000.00 $22,107.14 $22,107.14 AB 10 Arts of the World Gallery (63518)5 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $44,000.00 $44,000.00 AB Writer who writes novels for young readers (middle grades and young adult). Writes nonfictions on the intersection of art and faith, and also consults freelance writers and provides editorial services for other writers. Type of Business: Writer (Home Based, Sole Proprietor) Disproportionately Impacted: Women Owned Use of funds: Salary and Operating Expenses (will have to provide tax documents, etc.) Received other assistance: None Business is a coffee house created by community for community. The founders envisioned a place for civic engagement and sharing art to strengthen community. Type of Business: Coffeehouse (Sole Proprietor) Disproportionately Impacted: None Use of funds: Purchase of supplies, operating costs and wages. Received other assistance: None Business is the local home for global treasures. This business houses traditional (indigenous) arts and crafts and also traditional industries like ceramics in two historic buildings that have been maintained and preserved. Type of Business: Art Gallery (Sole Proprietor) Disproportionately Impacted: Women Owned Use of funds: Utilities, and operating expenses Received other assistance: Yes. Received less than $50k in Salt Lake County grant, and PPP funds Business provides an art studio with retail space, along with tattooing education space. Type of Business: Tattoo Parlor-Retail Space (Sole Proprietor) Disproportionately Impacted: Women owned Use of funds: Rent and payroll. Received other assistance: None Catering business looking to complete start up and expand. Type of Business: Food-Catering (Sole Proprietor) Disproportionately Impacted: 100% BIPOC Owned Use of funds: Start up costs, rent, payroll and operational expenses. Received other assistance: Received under $3,000 in PPP funding. Attachment 1 - Local Business Assistance ARPA Grants Funding Log Last Updated February 16, 2023 Page 2 LOCAL BUSINESS APPLICANT COUNCIL DISTRICT 2022-2024 REQUESTED FUNDING 2022-2024 ELIGIBLE FUNDING (Proven Loss) 2022-2024 CRC RECOMMENDATION (% Based on Score) COUNCIL FUNDING DECISION CATEGORY 11 Premier Paralegal Solutions, LLC (59841)5 $50,000.00 $9,000.00 $7,800.00 $7,800.00 SB 12 Cycling Utah, LLC (63477)4 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $43,166.67 $43,166.67 SB 13 Golden Gyros (63448)5 $50,000.00 $47,000.00 $40,106.67 $40,106.67 TTH 14 Amie Engberg (62853)5 $38,000.00 $38,000.00 $32,110.00 $32,110.00 SB 15 Six Sailor Cider, LLC (63232)4 $50,000.00 $11,000.00 $9,218.00 $9,218.00 TTH Local restaurant in Salt Lake City. One of the first restaurants to close due to COVID-19 trying to keep doors open on their start up business that opened as the pandemic hit. Type of Business: Restaurant Disproportionately Impacted: 100%BIPOC owned Use of funds: Purchase of supplies,wages, and equipment. Received other assistance: None Business makes a variety of flavored apple ciders, non-alcoholic and sparkling hard ciders to be sold in the future. Started their sales in farmer's markets and now expanding into online and retail sales. Type of Business: Brewery (Sole Proprietor) Disproportionately Impacted: None Use of funds: Rent,payroll and startup costs. Received other assistance: None Business provides legal document preparation,tax preparation and some translation services. Services provided to clients with digital equity issues that require in person attention. Type of Business: Legal Services (Sole Proprietor) Disproportionately Impacted: 100%BIPOC owned Use of funds: Rent, payroll,supplies and start-up costs. Received other assistance: Yes, less than $50k in EIDL and PPP Business produces a bicycling magazine and website. They are in their 30th year of business providing information, news, tips and event calendars. They distribute throughout Salt Lake City and the western United States. Type of Business: Magazine (Sole Proprietor) Disproportionately Impacted: None Use of funds: Operating costs and payroll. Received other assistance: Yes. Received less thatn $50k in PPP funds Document preparation and financial education services for chiropractors. Type of Business: Financial Education Services (Home Based & Sole Proprietor) Disproportionately Impacted: Women owned Use of funds: Supplies and salary Received other assistance: None Attachment 1 - Local Business Assistance ARPA Grants Funding Log Last Updated February 16, 2023 Page 3 LOCAL BUSINESS APPLICANT COUNCIL DISTRICT 2022-2024 REQUESTED FUNDING 2022-2024 ELIGIBLE FUNDING (Proven Loss) 2022-2024 CRC RECOMMENDATION (% Based on Score) COUNCIL FUNDING DECISION CATEGORY 16 Bye Phoebe (59674)3 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $4,175.00 $4,175.00 AB 17 Sikkim Momo (59832)2 $49,000.00 $3,100.00 $2,583.33 $2,583.33 TTH 18 Christina's Barber Shop (60332)5 $13,500.00 $14,000.00 $11,596.67 $11,596.67 SB 19 Flamenco del Lago (63429)5 $50,000.00 $13,000.00 $10,768.33 $10,768.33 AB 20 Dayhouse Studio (61894)7 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $41,333.33 $41,333.33 SB Owner is a model, fashion stylist and also makes custom clothing for production companies. Type of Business: Stylist/Clothing (Home Based & Sole Proprietor) Disproportionately Impacted: Women & 100%BIPOC owned Use of funds: Equipment,materials, payroll and startup costs. Received other assistance: Yes received $1,200 from Artist Emergency Fund Business is a catering food business. This entrepreneur is from the Spice Kitchen incubator program of the International Rescue Committee. Type of Business: Catering Disproportionately Impacted: 100%BIPOC owned Use of funds: Purchase of supplies and equipment. Received other assistance: Business received $2k from the Internation Rescue Committee. Business is a barber shop specializing in gentlemen haircuts located on 300 West. Type of Business: Barber shop (Sole Proprietor) Disproportionately Impacted: Women owned Use of funds: Rent, utilities, and operating expenses. Received other assistance: Business received less than $50k from EIDL. Business is a nonprofit under the direction of Katie Sheen-Abbott she's studied Flamenco for many years. She teaches and performs flamenco in Salt Lake City and throughout Utah for all ages and abilities. Type of Business: Dance teacher (Sole Proprietor & Nonprofit) Disproportionately Impacted: Women owned Use of funds: Rent, and equpment costs. Received other assistance: Business received less than $50k in EIDL funding. Business is a biophilic interior design studio specializing in residential and commercial spaces. Improving health, well-being and sustainable practices are at the heart of their work. Type of Business: Interior Design Studio (Home based & Sole Proprietor) Disproportionately Impacted: Women owned Use of funds: Operating costs and payroll. Received other assistance: Business received less than $50k from EIDL. Attachment 1 - Local Business Assistance ARPA Grants Funding Log Last Updated February 16, 2023 Page 4 LOCAL BUSINESS APPLICANT COUNCIL DISTRICT 2022-2024 REQUESTED FUNDING 2022-2024 ELIGIBLE FUNDING (Proven Loss) 2022-2024 CRC RECOMMENDATION (% Based on Score) COUNCIL FUNDING DECISION CATEGORY 21 Seth Ian Photography (62887)3 $15,000.00 $7,000.00 $5,786.67 $5,786.67 AB 22 Worthfull Media, LLC (60612)3 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $20,625.00 $20,625.00 AB 23 Design to Grow, LLC (63108)4 $32,000.00 $32,000.00 $26,133.33 $26,133.33 AB 24 Suzanne May (60330)7 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $8,033.33 $8,033.33 AB 25 The Twist (Kirk's Ship, LLC) (60520)4 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $39,916.67 $39,916.67 TTH Photographer for the performing arts, small businesses, and real estate. Business is also undertaking documentary projects. Type of Business: Photographer (home-based & sole proprietor) Disproportionately Impacted: None Use of funds: Equipment upgrades and project development costs Received other assistance: None Boutique media production house that records, edits, produces, and manages audio and video for small business owners and personal brands. The bulk of business is for podcasters and YouTubers, but includes making related media as well. Type of Business: Media production (home-based & sole proprietor) Disproportionately Impacted: 100%female owned Use of funds: Website upgrades,rent, contract costs Singer/songwriter that also teaches voice and songwriting lessons from home studio. Type of Business: Musician (home-based & sole proprietor) Disproportionately Impacted: 100%female owned Use of funds: Tour and equipment costs. Received other assistance: EIDL $12k, Unemployment $8k Business is a design/build studio that does in house fabrication focused on public art,teaching/workshops,events, and commercial furniture. Type of Business: Design studio (home-based & sole proprietor) Disproportionately Impacted: None Use of funds: Rent,retaining employees Received other assistance: PPP $8.7K, Small Business Impact Grant $9.9k Busines is a Restaurant,Bar & Nightclub Type of Business: Bar/Restaurant Disproportionately Impacted: None Use of funds: Wages, retain employees Received other assistance: PPP & Employee Rention Credit over $50k Attachment 1 - Local Business Assistance ARPA Grants Funding Log Last Updated February 16, 2023 Page 5 LOCAL BUSINESS APPLICANT COUNCIL DISTRICT 2022-2024 REQUESTED FUNDING 2022-2024 ELIGIBLE FUNDING (Proven Loss) 2022-2024 CRC RECOMMENDATION (% Based on Score) COUNCIL FUNDING DECISION CATEGORY 26 Elegant Tailoring, LLC (61865)4 $50,000.00 $21,335.00 $17,025.33 $17,025.33 SB 27 Utah Hispanic Chamber of Commerce (62544)2 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $39,833.33 $39,833.33 SB 28 Utah Fitness Institute (62189)5 $21,502.00 $22,000.00 $17,526.67 $17,526.67 SB 29 Match and Farnsworth, PC (62089)4 $49,000.00 $49,000.00 $38,955.00 $38,955.00 SB 30 Antidote Cosmeceuticals, LLC (60991)6 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $6,304.00 $6,304.00 SB Chamber of Commerce serving Hispanic businesses Type of Business: Chamber of Commerce Disproportionately Impacted: 100%BIPOC owned Use of funds: Wages Received other assistance: None Personal training and wellness retreat business. Type of Business: Fitness Studio (sole proprietor) Disproportionately Impacted:None Use of funds: Rent costs Received other assistance: Salt Lake County grant $22k Business manufactures bottles and sells skin care products. Type of Business: Skin care (sole proprietor) Disproportionately Impacted:None Use of funds: Facility upgrades and payroll Received other assistance: PPP, EIDL, & CCL Stabilization Grant - over $200k Business is a small private law firm that provides representation to individuals who are unable to work due to physical or mental disabilities. Type of Business: Law Firm (sole proprietor) Disproportionately Impacted: 100%female owned Use of funds: Payroll Received other assistance: Business received more than $50k from PPP. Business is a tailoring shop in the heart of downtown. Type of Business: Tailoring Shop (sole proprietor) Disproportionately Impacted: 100%BIPOC owned Use of funds: Payroll and operational expenses. Received other assistance: Business received less than $6,000.00 in PPP funding. Chamber of Commerce serving Hispanic businesses. Type of Business: Chamber of Commerce Disproportionately Impacted: 100%BIPOC owned Use of funds: Wages Received other assistance: None Attachment 1 - Local Business Assistance ARPA Grants Funding Log Last Updated February 16, 2023 Page 6 LOCAL BUSINESS APPLICANT COUNCIL DISTRICT 2022-2024 REQUESTED FUNDING 2022-2024 ELIGIBLE FUNDING (Proven Loss) 2022-2024 CRC RECOMMENDATION (% Based on Score) COUNCIL FUNDING DECISION CATEGORY 31 First Steps, Inc. (60261)1 $50,000.00 $12,000.00 $9,140.00 $9,140.00 SB $1,135,002.00 $881,193.00 $755,718.15 $755,718.15 ACRONYMS AB - Arts and Artisan Businesses BIPOC - Black, Indigenous, and People of Color CCL - Child Care Licensing CRC - Community Recovery Committee EIDL - Economic Injury Disaster Loan IRC - International Rescue Committee LLC - Limited Liability Company PPP - Federal Paycheck Protection Program SB - Small Business SBDC - Utah Small Business Development Center TTH - Tourism, Travel, or Hospitality Note: text in blue was added by Council staff TOTALS Business is a child care center. Type of Business: Daycare Disproportionately Impacted:None Use of funds: Facility upgrades and payroll Received other assistance: PPP, EIDL, & CCL Stabilization Grant - over $200k Attachment 1 - Local Business Assistance ARPA Grants Funding Log Last Updated February 16, 2023 Page 7 2/13/23, 2:29 PM https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/eaa5fce7-9601-4be0-8a48-9cb553893360/download/ https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/eaa5fce7-9601-4be0-8a48-9cb553893360/download/1/2 CHAPTER 2.20 COMMUNITY RECOVERY COMMITTEE SECTION: 2.20.010: Purpose 2.20.020: Responsibilities 2.20.030: Membership 2.20.040: Community Grant Program 2.20.050: Minimum Requirements For Community Grant Program Applications 2.20.060: Sunset 2.20.010: PURPOSE: The Community Recovery Committee will assist with and oversee the distribution of certain Rescue Plan funds under the City's community grant program. Consistent with this Chapter, the Community Recovery Committee will review applications for community grant program funding and make funding recommendations to the Mayor. The Mayor shall review the Community Recovery Committee's recommendations and make a final recommendation on the use of funds to the City Council. (Ord. 17-22, 2022) 2.20.020: RESPONSIBILITIES: The Community Recovery Committee will: A. Advise and make recommendations to the Mayor and City Council on decisions related to the City's community grant program. B. Coordinate with relevant City departments on the review and evaluation of current strategic plans, goals, and policies of the departments' grant programs. C. Review all eligible project proposals submitted by various business, and nonprofit organizations for the community grant program and to make recommendations to the Mayor on such requests for funds. D. Monitor the community grant program and ensure that the program is being implemented as planned and the funds from the program are utilized as recommended and approved by the Council. E. Help ensure that the community grant program goals are consistent with the strategic plans and goals of the City and are consistent with the federal requirements for utilization of Rescue Plan funds. F. Evaluate the overall effectiveness of the community grant program. G. Consider geographic equity in the overall funding recommendations to the Mayor and Council under the community grant program. (Ord. 17-22, 2022) 2.20.030: MEMBERSHIP: A. The Community Recovery Committee shall be made up of a total of seven (7) or nine (9) members, with at least three (3) members from the Human Rights Commission, one (1) member from the Business Advisory Board, up to three (3) members from the Racial Equity in Policing Commission, one (1) member from the Economic Development Loan Fund Committee and one (1) member from the Salt Lake Arts Council. B. Members of the Community Recovery Committee will be appointed by the Salt Lake City Mayor with the advice and consent of the City Council. Individuals appointed to the Community Recovery Committee will be authorized under City Code to serve on two (2) City boards. (Ord. 50-22, 2022: Ord. 17-22, 2022) 2.20.040: COMMUNITY GRANT PROGRAM: The Administration will create the community grant program to efficiently deploy the Rescue Plan community grant program funds utilizing the following policies and objectives: 2/13/23, 2:29 PM https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/eaa5fce7-9601-4be0-8a48-9cb553893360/download/ https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/eaa5fce7-9601-4be0-8a48-9cb553893360/download/2/2 A. No single application for a community grant will exceed one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). B. Any application for a community grant to a nonprofit organization will focus on supporting communities disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, including, but not limited to, by offering services to retrain displaced workers; providing legal or other assistance for evictions or rent relief; expanding educational opportunities; deploying resources to mitigate the digital divide; supporting parents or children affected by COVID-19 including childcare or after school programs; and providing access to healthcare services, including mental health support. C. Any application for a community grant for local business will focus on supporting the business's operations or employees who have been economically affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. (Ord. 17-22, 2022) 2.20.050: MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMUNITY GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATIONS: Community grant program applications for either nonprofit organizations or local businesses will include, at a minimum, the following information to be considered by the Community Recovery Committee: A. The amount of community grant funds the organization is seeking and how the nonprofit organization or local businesses intends to use the proposed funds. B. Affirmation, after consultation with the City's Finance Department, that the proposed use is eligible under the federal Rescue Plan guidelines and that the applicant will be able to spend the funds by December 31, 2024. C. Identification of how the proposed grant will meet the City's objectives of supporting underserved communities, mitigating economic impacts on local businesses or arts organizations, or mitigating the effects of COVID-19 on the community. (Ord. 17-22, 2022) 2.20.060: SUNSET: Upon either full expenditure of the Rescue Plan funds, or expiration of the deadline to expend such funds, the Community Recovery Committee shall cease to exist under City Code, unless the City Council expands the scope of the Community Recovery Committee’s responsibilities, in which case the Community Recovery Committee will remain in effect. (Ord. 17-22, 2022) #Demographic Group Membership ↑ Legal Business Name ↑ Sum of Have you received any other assistance Sum of Change in Number of Employees Sum of Please briefly explain how you were impacted Sum of Please briefly explain your business Sum of Use of Grant Funds Sum of Multiple Owners Score Sum of Recieved Technical Assistance Score Sum of Bonus Score TOTAL SCORE AVG. SCORE Record Count 1 100% female-owned; Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.)Junction Dance Co 60 36 102 110 103 60 60 30 561 93.5 6 2 100% minority owned; Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Zahara LLC 41 47 84 87 88 50 50 20 467 93.4 5 3 100% female-owned Sugar Space LLC 36 44 102 114 109 60 60 30 555 92.5 6 4 Business in the City Center (between North Temple and 400 South, and 200 East to I-15); Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.); Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Dream Garden Press: DBA Ken Sanders Rare Books 13 37 96 95 95 50 50 25 461 92.2 5 5 100% female-owned; 100% minority owned; Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Zaater and Zayton 41 41 93 104 103 60 60 50 552 92.0 6 6 Business in the City Center (between North Temple and 400 South, and 200 East to I-15); Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Mestizo LLC 50 36 96 73 79 50 50 25 459 91.8 5 7 100% minofity owned;Travel, Tourism or Hospitality Noor Al Sham, LLC 44 54 79 106 101 60 60 35 539 89.8 6 8 100% female-owned Susie M's Gallery of Fine Tattooing 60 50 94 99 96 60 60 15 534 89.0 6 9 100% female-owned; Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.) J Street Productions Inc.70 50 127 107 115 60 60 30 619 88.4 7 Attachment 3 - Summary List of Eligible Local Business Assistance ARPA Grant Applications by Average Score Page 1 #Demographic Group Membership ↑ Legal Business Name ↑ Sum of Have you received any other assistance Sum of Change in Number of Employees Sum of Please briefly explain how you were impacted Sum of Please briefly explain your business Sum of Use of Grant Funds Sum of Multiple Owners Score Sum of Recieved Technical Assistance Score Sum of Bonus Score TOTAL SCORE AVG. SCORE Record Count 10 100% female-owned; Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.); Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Arts of the World Gallery 29 54 92 97 86 60 60 50 528 88.0 6 11 100% female-owned; 100% minority owned Premier Paralegal Solutions, LLC 36 40 107 98 89 60 60 30 520 86.7 6 12 NONE of these Cycling Utah, Inc.39 44 112 101 102 60 60 0 518 86.3 6 13 100% minority owned; Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Golden Gyros 60 56 88 69 84 60 60 35 512 85.3 6 14 100% female-owned Amie Engberg 60 47 99 88 93 60 60 0 507 84.5 6 15 Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Six Sailor Cider LLC 50 39 76 68 66 50 50 20 419 83.8 5 16 100% female-owned; 100% minority owned; Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.) Phoebe Davenport 40 50 86 81 79 60 60 45 501 83.5 6 17 100% female-owned; 100% minority owned; Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Sikkim Momo 50 52 83 83 92 30 60 50 500 83.3 6 18 100% female-owned Christina's Barber Shop 27 35 101 100 84 60 60 30 497 82.8 6 19 100% female-owned; Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.)Flamenco del Lago 55 34 88 86 84 60 60 30 497 82.8 6 20 100% female-owned www.DayhouseStudi o.com 35 43 106 83 94 60 60 15 496 82.7 6 21 Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.)Seth Ian Photography 60 46 91 84 80 60 60 15 496 82.7 6 Attachment 3 - Summary List of Eligible Local Business Assistance ARPA Grant Applications by Average Score Page 2 #Demographic Group Membership ↑ Legal Business Name ↑ Sum of Have you received any other assistance Sum of Change in Number of Employees Sum of Please briefly explain how you were impacted Sum of Please briefly explain your business Sum of Use of Grant Funds Sum of Multiple Owners Score Sum of Recieved Technical Assistance Score Sum of Bonus Score TOTAL SCORE AVG. SCORE Record Count 22 100% female-owned; Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.) Worthfull Media LLC 43 39 91 85 87 60 60 30 495 82.5 6 23 Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.)Design to Grow LLC 39 26 95 99 96 60 60 15 490 81.7 6 24 100% female-owned; Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.)Suzanne May 40 49 88 76 79 60 60 30 482 80.3 6 25 Business in the City Center (between North Temple and 400 South, and 200 East to I-15); Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Kirk's Ship, LLC 8 47 109 90 95 60 60 10 479 79.8 6 26 100% minority owned Elegant Tailoring LLC 46 42 96 64 81 60 60 30 479 79.8 6 27 100% minority owned Utah Hispanic Chamber of Commerce 60 58 106 87 92 0 60 15 478 79.7 6 28 NONE of these Utah Fitness Institute 36 53 92 86 91 60 60 0 478 79.7 6 29 100% female-owned Match and Farnsworth, PC 4 60 79 91 93 60 60 30 477 79.5 6 30 NONE of these Antidote Cosmeceuticals 60 41 91 84 77 60 60 0 473 78.8 6 31 First Steps Inc 4 39 97 83 99 60 60 15 457 76.2 6 32 100% minority owned; Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Salaama 60 56 79 88 81 60 60 35 519 86.5 6 Attachment 3 - Summary List of Eligible Local Business Assistance ARPA Grant Applications by Average Score Page 3 #Demographic Group Membership ↑ Legal Business Name ↑ Sum of Have you received any other assistance Sum of Change in Number of Employees Sum of Please briefly explain how you were impacted Sum of Please briefly explain your business Sum of Use of Grant Funds Sum of Multiple Owners Score Sum of Recieved Technical Assistance Score Sum of Bonus Score TOTAL SCORE AVG. SCORE Record Count 33 100% female-owned; Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.) Salt & Honey Market LLC 25 44 104 109 105 30 60 30 507 84.5 6 34 Business is at least 50% minority owned; Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality HK Brewing Collective 39 32 103 99 93 40 60 20 486 81.0 6 35 100% minority owned; Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.)Michael Pugh 70 60 101 89 93 60 60 30 563 80.4 7 36 100% minority owned CathPro Technologies 45 21 99 87 90 60 60 15 477 79.5 6 37 Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.)Sri Whipple 37 41 81 84 83 60 60 30 476 79.3 6 38 Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.)Oskar & Julia Music LLC 60 41 91 92 87 30 60 15 476 79.3 6 39 100% female-owned MAGO LLC DBA Diggity Dog Resort 7 50 92 85 90 60 60 30 474 79.0 6 40 100% minority owned; Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Namash Swahili Cuisine 51 43 74 82 69 60 60 35 474 79.0 6 41 NONE of these Antidote Cosmeceuticals 60 41 91 84 77 60 60 0 473 78.8 6 42 Salt Lake Capoeira & Brazilian Jiu Jitsu 34 40 81 88 91 0 60 0 394 78.8 5 43 100% minority owned; Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality kafe mamai llc 32 40 75 81 87 60 60 35 470 78.3 6 44 100% female-owned Total Body Pilates 60 30 78 84 83 60 60 15 470 78.3 6 Attachment 3 - Summary List of Eligible Local Business Assistance ARPA Grant Applications by Average Score Page 4 #Demographic Group Membership ↑ Legal Business Name ↑ Sum of Have you received any other assistance Sum of Change in Number of Employees Sum of Please briefly explain how you were impacted Sum of Please briefly explain your business Sum of Use of Grant Funds Sum of Multiple Owners Score Sum of Recieved Technical Assistance Score Sum of Bonus Score TOTAL SCORE AVG. SCORE Record Count 45 NONE of these Tippetts Builders LLC 60 58 94 94 89 60 0 15 470 78.3 6 46 100% female-owned; Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Les Madeleines LLC 2 44 93 84 91 60 60 35 469 78.2 6 47 100% minority owned; Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Halab's Jasmine Kitchen 48 38 86 91 80 30 60 35 468 78.0 6 48 NONE of these Utah Brewers Guild 33 35 76 85 86 0 60 15 390 78.0 5 49 100% female-owned; Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.) Utah Arts & Cultural Coalition dba Utah Cultural Alliance Foundation 43 31 93 99 96 0 60 45 467 77.8 6 50 100% minority owned; Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.)Jaguar Occult 60 17 78 77 70 60 60 45 467 77.8 6 51 100% female-owned; Business in the City Center (between North Temple and 400 South, and 200 East to I-15); Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.) Eighteen Percent Gray 3 33 76 90 95 60 60 50 467 77.8 6 52 100% minority owned; Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Delicius 49 52 93 84 92 60 0 35 465 77.5 6 53 100% minority owned; Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Villalba & Rikli LLC 8 47 96 79 78 60 60 35 463 77.2 6 Attachment 3 - Summary List of Eligible Local Business Assistance ARPA Grant Applications by Average Score Page 5 #Demographic Group Membership ↑ Legal Business Name ↑ Sum of Have you received any other assistance Sum of Change in Number of Employees Sum of Please briefly explain how you were impacted Sum of Please briefly explain your business Sum of Use of Grant Funds Sum of Multiple Owners Score Sum of Recieved Technical Assistance Score Sum of Bonus Score TOTAL SCORE AVG. SCORE Record Count 54 100% minority owned; Business in the City Center (between North Temple and 400 South, and 200 East to I-15) U.S. Translation Company 0 39 100 84 84 60 60 35 462 77.0 6 55 100% minority owned; Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Jamaica's Kitchen, LLC 45 17 78 82 84 60 60 35 461 76.8 6 56 Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.) Wasatch Theatre Company of Salt Lake County 60 35 65 71 78 60 60 30 459 76.5 6 57 TANKINZ NOODLE MFG. LLC 2 57 85 100 96 60 60 0 460 76.7 6 58 100% female-owned; Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Custom Travel, LLC 22 32 96 99 96 30 60 20 455 75.8 6 59 Business in the City Center (between North Temple and 400 South, and 200 East to I-15); Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.) Lyman & Brown LLC 60 23 70 75 71 60 60 35 454 75.7 6 60 Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.)Rhythms of Life, LLC 52 26 104 91 90 0 60 30 453 75.5 6 61 100% female-owned; Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality CytyByrd 2 45 104 77 84 60 60 20 452 75.3 6 62 Business in the City Center (between North Temple and 400 South, and 200 East to I-15) Rocky Mountain Innocence Center 60 26 101 101 98 0 60 5 451 75.2 6 Attachment 3 - Summary List of Eligible Local Business Assistance ARPA Grant Applications by Average Score Page 6 #Demographic Group Membership ↑ Legal Business Name ↑ Sum of Have you received any other assistance Sum of Change in Number of Employees Sum of Please briefly explain how you were impacted Sum of Please briefly explain your business Sum of Use of Grant Funds Sum of Multiple Owners Score Sum of Recieved Technical Assistance Score Sum of Bonus Score TOTAL SCORE AVG. SCORE Record Count 63 100% female-owned STAY Design LLC 34 36 87 71 73 60 60 30 451 75.2 6 64 NONE of these Jeremiah Kephart 60 31 76 84 74 60 60 0 445 74.2 6 65 100% minority owned; Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Sapa LLC 1 47 90 85 81 60 60 20 444 74.0 6 66 100% minority owned; Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Balabe LLC 45 37 70 65 72 60 60 35 444 74.0 6 67 Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.) Salt Lake Music School Foundation DBA Gifted Music School 2 53 94 97 107 0 60 30 443 73.8 6 68 100% female-owned; Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.)Art Haus 34 42 89 88 83 60 0 45 441 73.5 6 69 100% female-owned L.L. Hair & Beauty (Elizabeth Lavoie)40 37 77 78 74 60 60 15 441 73.5 6 70 100% minority owned; Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Nohm, LLC 3 46 101 83 83 30 60 35 441 73.5 6 71 Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Olio Products Co.60 40 66 75 75 60 60 5 441 73.5 6 72 100% female-owned troubadour llc 33 40 76 73 66 60 60 30 438 73.0 6 73 Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Soul Traveler LLC 3 39 98 98 90 30 60 20 438 73.0 6 74 NONE of these Torrent Cycle LLC 35 38 73 94 92 30 60 15 437 72.8 6 75 Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.)John Schaefer 38 35 76 73 79 60 60 15 436 72.7 6 76 100% minority owned; Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.)Lazy Llama Ecowear 33 38 78 67 69 60 60 30 435 72.5 6 77 CUPRO TECHNOLOGIES 47 12 75 93 88 60 60 0 435 72.5 6 Attachment 3 - Summary List of Eligible Local Business Assistance ARPA Grant Applications by Average Score Page 7 #Demographic Group Membership ↑ Legal Business Name ↑ Sum of Have you received any other assistance Sum of Change in Number of Employees Sum of Please briefly explain how you were impacted Sum of Please briefly explain your business Sum of Use of Grant Funds Sum of Multiple Owners Score Sum of Recieved Technical Assistance Score Sum of Bonus Score TOTAL SCORE AVG. SCORE Record Count 78 100% minority owned; Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality African Mini Mart LLC 58 39 95 87 91 30 0 35 435 72.5 6 79 100% minority owned; Business in the City Center (between North Temple and 400 South, and 200 East to I-15); Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Alamarie Twisted Roots 17 30 81 81 81 60 60 25 435 72.5 6 80 100% minority owned Shrimp Shak LLC 60 37 58 63 67 60 60 30 435 72.5 6 81 100% female-owned Kyle George Photography Inc. DBA Rev Physical Therapy 30 33 95 75 74 30 60 30 427 71.2 6 82 100% minority owned The Salt Lake Barber Company LLC 2 37 91 77 84 60 60 15 426 71.0 6 83 Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Pago LLC 0 44 75 80 86 60 60 20 425 70.8 6 84 Business in the City Center (between North Temple and 400 South, and 200 East to I-15); Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.) Copperfield Publishing 0 45 73 88 90 30 60 35 421 70.2 6 85 Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.)The Leonardo 0 48 93 91 99 0 60 30 421 70.2 6 86 100% minority owned; Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Overseas Grocery 27 41 57 73 67 60 60 35 420 70.0 6 Attachment 3 - Summary List of Eligible Local Business Assistance ARPA Grant Applications by Average Score Page 8 #Demographic Group Membership ↑ Legal Business Name ↑ Sum of Have you received any other assistance Sum of Change in Number of Employees Sum of Please briefly explain how you were impacted Sum of Please briefly explain your business Sum of Use of Grant Funds Sum of Multiple Owners Score Sum of Recieved Technical Assistance Score Sum of Bonus Score TOTAL SCORE AVG. SCORE Record Count 87 100% female-owned; Business in the City Center (between North Temple and 400 South, and 200 East to I-15); Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.) Torrey House Press 7 47 81 100 90 0 60 35 420 70.0 6 88 Business in the City Center (between North Temple and 400 South, and 200 East to I-15); Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.); Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Wiseguys Comedy, Inc.0 23 45 69 72 50 50 40 349 69.8 5 89 100% minority owned Joshua Lucero, LLC 34 14 79 72 70 60 60 30 419 69.8 6 90 100% minority owned; Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality MAIZE FOOD TRUCK LLC 11 41 71 96 89 30 60 20 418 69.7 6 91 NONE of these Express Cleaners LLC 19 43 78 73 70 60 60 15 418 69.7 6 92 Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality The Chocolate Conspiracy 50 48 78 71 78 0 0 20 345 69.0 5 93 100% female-owned; Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.) Reflective Art Studio 43 43 76 84 76 60 0 30 412 68.7 6 94 Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.)Salt Lake Film Society 1 38 94 103 99 0 60 15 410 68.3 6 95 100% female-owned; Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Sugar House Coffee 2 39 86 86 87 30 60 20 410 68.3 6 Attachment 3 - Summary List of Eligible Local Business Assistance ARPA Grant Applications by Average Score Page 9 #Demographic Group Membership ↑ Legal Business Name ↑ Sum of Have you received any other assistance Sum of Change in Number of Employees Sum of Please briefly explain how you were impacted Sum of Please briefly explain your business Sum of Use of Grant Funds Sum of Multiple Owners Score Sum of Recieved Technical Assistance Score Sum of Bonus Score TOTAL SCORE AVG. SCORE Record Count 96 100% female-owned; Business in the City Center (between North Temple and 400 South, and 200 East to I-15); Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Iguana LLC DBA Blue Iguana 0 48 69 83 84 60 40 25 409 68.2 6 97 Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.) Pygmalion Productions Inc. dba Pygmalion Theatre Company 59 24 93 94 92 0 15 30 407 67.8 6 98 100% female-owned; Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.) Alexander Cole Investment Group, LLC 3 37 90 87 99 60 0 30 406 67.7 6 99 100% minority owned; Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality GLOBAL PLACE 38 16 64 69 64 60 60 35 406 67.7 6 100 Business in the City Center (between North Temple and 400 South, and 200 East to I-15); Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Salt Lake Bicycle Tours LLC 38 37 68 57 59 60 60 25 404 67.3 6 101 Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality McDonough Enterprises, Inc. (dba brio COFFEE) 34 28 81 72 64 60 60 5 404 67.3 6 102 Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.)Salt Lake Acting Company 0 47 88 95 97 0 60 15 402 67.0 6 103 Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Fice LLC 31 38 82 81 74 30 60 5 401 66.8 6 Attachment 3 - Summary List of Eligible Local Business Assistance ARPA Grant Applications by Average Score Page 10 #Demographic Group Membership ↑ Legal Business Name ↑ Sum of Have you received any other assistance Sum of Change in Number of Employees Sum of Please briefly explain how you were impacted Sum of Please briefly explain your business Sum of Use of Grant Funds Sum of Multiple Owners Score Sum of Recieved Technical Assistance Score Sum of Bonus Score TOTAL SCORE AVG. SCORE Record Count 104 100% female-owned Utah Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce DBA Utah LGBTQ+ Chamber of Commerce 37 4 90 98 97 0 60 15 401 66.8 6 105 Business in the City Center (between North Temple and 400 South, and 200 East to I-15); Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.) Utah Arts Alliance 0 29 87 88 98 0 60 35 397 66.2 6 106 Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.)Art Access 10 24 87 93 91 0 60 30 395 65.8 6 107 Business in the City Center (between North Temple and 400 South, and 200 East to I-15) Array Salon LLC 14 46 72 67 70 60 60 5 394 65.7 6 108 100% female-owned Someday Society LLC (currently, changed from previous CC Collective LLC; before that CC & the Coiffurists 38 31 72 78 78 30 50 15 392 65.3 6 109 NONE of these Inkyn 30 32 77 76 78 55 40 0 388 64.7 6 110 100% female-owned; Business in the City Center (between North Temple and 400 South, and 200 East to I-15); Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Blind Pig, LLC. DBA The Rest 0 30 57 76 78 60 60 25 386 64.3 6 111 100% female-owned Sparkle On, LLC 10 15 72 65 73 60 60 30 385 64.2 6 Attachment 3 - Summary List of Eligible Local Business Assistance ARPA Grant Applications by Average Score Page 11 #Demographic Group Membership ↑ Legal Business Name ↑ Sum of Have you received any other assistance Sum of Change in Number of Employees Sum of Please briefly explain how you were impacted Sum of Please briefly explain your business Sum of Use of Grant Funds Sum of Multiple Owners Score Sum of Recieved Technical Assistance Score Sum of Bonus Score TOTAL SCORE AVG. SCORE Record Count 112 NONE of these Trailside Professional Dry Cleaners 11 50 98 81 84 0 60 0 384 64.0 6 113 100% female-owned; Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.) Madison Briggs Fine Art 43 24 50 51 51 60 60 45 384 64.0 6 114 Pathway Associates 60 0 80 89 93 0 60 0 382 63.7 6 115 Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality LUX Events, Inc 0 54 88 82 77 0 60 20 381 63.5 6 116 100% female-owned; Business in the City Center (between North Temple and 400 South, and 200 East to I-15); Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.) Craft Lake City 1 12 82 79 96 0 60 50 380 63.3 6 117 Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Urban Edge Event Center DBA Venue 6SIX9 57 10 91 81 76 0 60 5 380 63.3 6 118 Business in the City Center (between North Temple and 400 South, and 200 East to I-15) I C D C, Incorporated DBA Dexterity Salon 3 45 64 86 85 30 60 5 378 63.0 6 119 100% female-owned Matrixx Massage Inc 3 46 82 78 79 60 0 30 378 63.0 6 120 100% minority owned; Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality East West Connection, LLC 16 56 94 97 92 0 0 20 375 62.5 6 121 Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Utah Ski Rental Inc./dba Utah Ski & Golf 0 45 75 73 55 60 60 5 373 62.2 6 Attachment 3 - Summary List of Eligible Local Business Assistance ARPA Grant Applications by Average Score Page 12 #Demographic Group Membership ↑ Legal Business Name ↑ Sum of Have you received any other assistance Sum of Change in Number of Employees Sum of Please briefly explain how you were impacted Sum of Please briefly explain your business Sum of Use of Grant Funds Sum of Multiple Owners Score Sum of Recieved Technical Assistance Score Sum of Bonus Score TOTAL SCORE AVG. SCORE Record Count 122 100% minority owned; Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Noor Restaurant 39 33 70 67 69 60 0 35 373 62.2 6 123 Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Church & State Spirits LLC DBA Water Witch Bar 3 37 93 78 80 0 60 20 371 61.8 6 124 Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality BONA PARTE LLC HEMINGWAY CAFE 29 12 67 59 59 60 60 20 366 61.0 6 125 Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.)dear new. orleans llc 1 25 66 60 63 60 60 30 365 60.8 6 126 100% female-owned h2blow Salt Lake City, LLC 27 41 75 72 70 0 0 15 300 60.0 5 127 Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.)Luminaria SLC 48 11 43 84 83 60 0 30 359 59.8 6 128 100% minority owned; Business in the City Center (between North Temple and 400 South, and 200 East to I-15); Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.) Helloo! Digital Media LLC 16 17 40 56 58 60 60 50 357 59.5 6 129 Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.)Visual Art Institute 41 35 93 87 86 0 0 15 357 59.5 6 130 Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.)BD Howes 36 25 49 19 52 50 50 15 296 59.2 5 131 Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Huber Bros Inc/Ottowear 5 34 77 82 77 60 0 20 355 59.2 6 Attachment 3 - Summary List of Eligible Local Business Assistance ARPA Grant Applications by Average Score Page 13 #Demographic Group Membership ↑ Legal Business Name ↑ Sum of Have you received any other assistance Sum of Change in Number of Employees Sum of Please briefly explain how you were impacted Sum of Please briefly explain your business Sum of Use of Grant Funds Sum of Multiple Owners Score Sum of Recieved Technical Assistance Score Sum of Bonus Score TOTAL SCORE AVG. SCORE Record Count 132 100% female-owned; Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Condie's Candy Co Inc 39 22 65 68 66 0 60 35 355 59.2 6 133 Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Blue Copper Coffee Room LLC 11 58 76 88 96 0 0 20 349 58.2 6 134 Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality RoHa Brewing Project, LLC 3 24 80 84 78 0 60 20 349 58.2 6 135 NONE of these Glide Paddlesports LLC 31 46 66 73 70 0 60 0 346 57.7 6 136 Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality ORIGINAL UTAH WOOLEN MILLS 1 26 87 87 79 0 60 5 345 57.5 6 137 Business in the City Center (between North Temple and 400 South, and 200 East to I-15); Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.) Plan-B Theatre 6 35 68 76 65 0 60 35 345 57.5 6 138 Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Topless Tours 33 21 63 50 35 60 60 20 342 57.0 6 139 100% minority owned; Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Purgatory Bar, LLC 2 32 69 85 74 60 0 20 342 57.0 6 140 100% minority owned; Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Pacific Seas Restaurant 0 39 73 64 69 60 0 35 340 56.7 6 141 Business in the City Center (between North Temple and 400 South, and 200 East to I-15) Higher Ground Learning SLC LLC 0 35 58 85 81 60 0 20 339 56.5 6 142 Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Logos Coffee Company LLC 42 28 68 71 65 0 60 5 339 56.5 6 Attachment 3 - Summary List of Eligible Local Business Assistance ARPA Grant Applications by Average Score Page 14 #Demographic Group Membership ↑ Legal Business Name ↑ Sum of Have you received any other assistance Sum of Change in Number of Employees Sum of Please briefly explain how you were impacted Sum of Please briefly explain your business Sum of Use of Grant Funds Sum of Multiple Owners Score Sum of Recieved Technical Assistance Score Sum of Bonus Score TOTAL SCORE AVG. SCORE Record Count 143 100% minority owned; Business in the City Center (between North Temple and 400 South, and 200 East to I-15); Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality TURMERIK LLC (DBA ZIMBU)6 21 75 74 70 0 60 25 331 55.2 6 144 Business in the City Center (between North Temple and 400 South, and 200 East to I-15); Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Beerhive Pub 13 25 53 63 56 50 60 10 330 55.0 6 145 NONE of these Utah Pride Center 1 46 90 80 94 0 0 15 326 54.3 6 146 Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality LUX Hospitality Group, Inc 2 21 82 82 72 0 60 5 324 54.0 6 147 Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Z NECTAR LLC 37 20 59 65 74 0 60 5 320 53.3 6 148 Business in the City Center (between North Temple and 400 South, and 200 East to I-15); Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Colt Cooper Consulting LLC 30 20 77 52 54 60 0 25 318 53.0 6 149 Arts & Culture business (arts, musicians, etc.)select sound entertainment LLC 0 24 46 53 58 60 60 15 316 52.7 6 150 Northstar Builders Inc 1 12 72 60 64 30 60 15 314 52.3 6 151 Business in the City Center (between North Temple and 400 South, and 200 East to I-15); Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Edgeworks Events, LLC 2 25 87 94 85 0 0 10 303 50.5 6 Attachment 3 - Summary List of Eligible Local Business Assistance ARPA Grant Applications by Average Score Page 15 #Demographic Group Membership ↑ Legal Business Name ↑ Sum of Have you received any other assistance Sum of Change in Number of Employees Sum of Please briefly explain how you were impacted Sum of Please briefly explain your business Sum of Use of Grant Funds Sum of Multiple Owners Score Sum of Recieved Technical Assistance Score Sum of Bonus Score TOTAL SCORE AVG. SCORE Record Count 152 Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Fisher Brewing Company LLC 0 40 72 58 70 0 0 5 245 49.0 5 153 NONE of these Pivot RnD, LLC 60 9 0 46 48 60 60 0 283 47.2 6 154 Business in the City Center (between North Temple and 400 South, and 200 East to I-15); Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Ruben James LLC dba Maxwell's East Coast Eatery 0 30 14 71 64 60 0 40 279 46.5 6 155 Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Temple Grounds Coffee Roasters DBA The Bean Whole 60 0 0 62 58 30 60 5 275 45.8 6 156 Business in the City Center (between North Temple and 400 South, and 200 East to I-15) Borboleta Beauty Inc 0 43 45 64 71 0 20 20 263 43.8 6 157 Travel, Tourism, or Hospitality Epic Brewing Company, LLC 0 45 72 60 56 0 0 20 253 42.2 6 Attachment 3 - Summary List of Eligible Local Business Assistance ARPA Grant Applications by Average Score Page 16 ARPA Community Grant Program Phase One Distribution, Group One -Community Recovery Committee Recommendation Request: Approve the Community Recovery Committee’s Recommended List of 31 applicants to receive funding in Phase 1, Group 1. Approve distribution of ARPA Community Grant Funds in the amount of $755,718.00. Background: In April of 2022, Council established the Community Grant Program with a $4 million dollar budget to be administered by both The Department of Economic Development (“DED”) and Community and Neighborhoods (“CAN”). To aid in the program process Council also established the Community Recovery Committee (CRC) to quickly, transparently, and fairly deploy the funds of the program. Funding Categories Department of Economic Development (DED) 1.Small Businesses/Nonprofits 2.Travel, Tourism, & Hospitality 3.Artist-Artisan Businesses 4. Arts & Small Business Recovery Programs (Nonprofit sub-recipient) –Phase 1, Group 2 $2M Community & Neighborhoods Department (CAN) 1.Retraining Displaced Workers 2.Expanded Educational Opportunities 3.Healthcare for Underserved Populations 4.Eviction Assistance (Legal/Other) 5.Mitigating the Digital Divide 6.Mental Health Assistance $2M Program: The Department of Economic Development (DED) created a program that: •Allowed applicants two opportunities to apply. Phase 1 and Phase 2 •Allowed artists and home-based businesses to apply. •Allowed small businesses to be reviewed anonymously. •Provided technical assistance for all applicants. Applicants •229 eligible applications 32 -incomplete applications 157 -Small Business (SB) applications reviewed 40 –Arts & Small Business Recovery Programs (Nonprofit sub-recipient) to be reviewed ARPA Language •Under federal ARPA guidelines applicants are categorized as impacted or disproportionately impacted by the pandemic (Final Rule, Section II.A1) Impacted •Businesses in the Travel, Tourism, & Hospitality sector •Businesses located in the Downtown Corridor (between North Temple and 400 South, and between 200 East and I-15) Disproportionately Impacted •Businesses operating in Qualified Census Tracts (QCTs) •Businesses which are 100% female-owned •Businesses which are 100% BIPOC-owned (Black, Indigenous, or person of color) •Arts & culture businesses Applicant Demographics •45 Applicants-100% Female owned-business. •51 Applicants-100% owned by a member of the BIPOC community (Black, Indigenous, or person of color). Out of 229 eligible applicants, 42%are disproportionately impacted Funding Category Breakdown •61 Applicants-arts business •55 Applicants-small business •77 Applicants-travel, tourism, or hospitality sector •40 Applicants-nonprofit community (applications to be reviewed in Phase 1 Group 2) Equitable distribution between DED’s four funding categories Arts Related Businesses 26% Small Businesses 24% Travel, Tourism, Hospitality 33% Nonprofits 17% (Phase 1 Group 2) Community Recovery Committee (CRC) Review: The Community Recovery Committee is comprised of 7 members who serve on other city boards. 1.Tanya Hawkins -Racial Equity in Policing Commission 2.Jake Maxwell -Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) Board 3.Steve Anjewierden -Racial Equity in Policing Commission 4.Jason Wessel -Human Rights Commission 5.Esther Stowell -Human Rights Commission 6.Sarah Longoria -Salt Lake City Arts Council 7.Pook Carson -Business Advisory Board (BAB) Community Recovery Committee (CRC) Goals: Over the course of 10 review meetings lasting two-hours,the board used the time to cover these key agenda items: •Review and discuss submitted application scores and scoring experience •Request clarification about applications or process •Discuss ways to improve fairness and equity Request: Approve the Community Recovery Committee’s Recommended List of 31 applicants to receive funding in Phase 1, Group 1. Approve distribution of ARPA Community Grant Funds in the amount of $755,718.00. Questions? DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LORENA RIFFO JENSON DIRECTOR ERIN MENDENHALL MAYOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL _______________________ Date Received: ___________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________ __________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: February 3, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Lorena Riffo Jenson, Director, Department of Economic Development SUBJECT: ARPA Community Grant Program Funds-Phase One Distribution - Community Recovery Committee (CRC) Recommendation for Distribution STAFF CONTACTS: Cathie Rigby, ARPA Program Manager, Cathie.Rigby@slcgov.com Todd Andersen, ARPA Project Coordinator, Todd.Andersen@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Review and Approve the $755,718 disbursement of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Community Grant Program Funds for Phase 1. BUDGET IMPACT: Distribution of $755,718 of the $2 million ARPA funding allocated in FY22, BA5. COORDINATION: Community and Neighborhoods (CAN), Mayor’s Office, SLC Finance Department, and other outside organizations. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: On March 11, 2021, the U.S. Government signed into law, a COVID-19 recovery bill, the American Rescue Plan Act (“ARPA”). ARPA was intended to support State and Local recovery from the COVID-19 public health emergency (“COVID-19 Pandemic”) or the negative economic impacts experienced as a result of the pandemic. The U.S. Department of the Treasury released materials associated with the release of funds to Cities and States, known as the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (“SLFRF”) Salt Lake City received approximately $85.4 million in federal funding, which must be committed by December 31, 2024 and spent by December 31, 2026. After extensive community engagement, the Mayor and City Council approved the creation of Lisa Shaffer (Feb 3, 2023 11:45 MST) 02/03/2023 02/03/2023 the Community Grant Program to help small businesses and nonprofits recover from the negative economic impacts of the pandemic. In April of 2022, Salt Lake City code 2.20.040 established the Community Grant Program to be administered by both The Department of Economic Development (“DED”) and Community and Neighborhoods (“CAN”). Both departments were tasked with deploying $2M each of the $85.4 million federal funds granted to the City. Below is an overview of the policies and objectives for these funds that guided the program and application process. Program Overview ●No single application for a community grant will exceed $100,000.00 ●Any application for a community grant to a nonprofit organization will focus on supporting communities disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, including, but not limited to, offering services to retrain displaced workers: providing legal or other assistance for evictions or rent relief: expanding educational opportunities; deploying resources to mitigate the digital divide; supporting parents or children affected by COVID-19 including childcare or after school program; and providing access to healthcare services, including mental health support. ●Any application for a community grant for a local business will focus on supporting the business’s operation or employees who have been economically affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. To aid in the process and establish criteria quickly, transparently, and fairly deploy the fund’s City Council created the Community Recovery Committee (“CRC”) to oversee the process, review the applications and make recommendations for the deployment of funds. The committee is comprised of seven (7) members that serve on the following other boards: Economic Development Loan Fund Racial Equity in Policing (2 members from this board) Human Rights Commission (2 members from this board) Salt Lake Arts Council Business Advisory Board Qualifying Use of Funds To meet the qualifying criteria established by the Department of Treasury and to align our grants with SLFRF expenditure categories DED staff categorized applications into one of the four categories below: ●Small business economic assistance ●Aid to Tourism, Travel or Hospitality ●Aid to Arts and Artisan businesses ●Aid to Nonprofit organizations with programming specific to small businesses or arts and artisan businesses. BU S I N E S S A P P L I C A N T D I S T R I C T 2 0 2 2 - 2 0 2 4 RE Q U E S T E D FU N D I N G 2 0 2 2 - 2 0 2 4 EL I G I B L E F U N D I N G (P r o v e n L o s s ) 2 0 2 2 - 2 0 2 4 C R C RE C O M M E N D A T I O N ( % Ba s e d o n S c o r e ) CA T E G O R Y 1 Ju n c t i o n D a n c e C o m p a n y ( 6 3 4 8 0 ) 5 $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 9 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $4 5 , 8 1 5 . 0 0 AB 2 Za h a r a , L L C ( 6 2 8 7 9 ) 5 $ 7 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 7 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $6 , 5 3 8 . 0 0 TT H 3 Su g a r S p a c e , L L C ( 6 3 3 7 2 ) 2 $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $4 6 , 2 5 0 . 0 0 SB 4 Dr e a m G a r d e n P r e s s / d b a K e n S a n d e r s R a r e B o o k s ( 6 3 4 3 4 ) 4 $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $4 6 , 1 0 0 . 0 0 AB 5 Za a t e r a n d Z a y t o n ( 6 2 4 6 5 ) 2 $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 3 8 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $3 4 , 9 6 0 . 0 0 TT H 6 Me s t i z o , L L C ( 6 3 8 3 1 ) 3 $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $4 5 , 9 0 0 . 0 0 TT H Mo r o c c a n p o p - u p r e s t a u r a n t , t h a t a l s o o f f e r s c a t e r i n g s e r v i c e s . B u s i n e s s h o l d s c o m m u n i t y e v e n t s t h a t l a s t b e t w e e n 2 - 3 h o u r s w h e r e f o o d i s s e r v e d . O w n e r p l a n s t o r e - e s t a b l i s h t h e i r e v e n t s , an d c a t e r i n g s e r v i c e s , a l o n g w i t h b u i l d i n g t o t r a n s i t i o n t o a p e r m a n e n t p h y s i c a l l o c a t i o n . Ty p e o f B u s i n e s s : Re s t a u r a n t ( S o l e P r o p r i e t o r ) Di s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y I m p a c t e d : 10 0 % B I P O C o w n e d Us e o f f u n d s : Pu r c h a s e o f s u p p l i e s , v e n u e r e n t a l s a n d s t a f f c o s t s . Re c e i v e d o t h e r a s s i s t a n c e : Bu s i n e s s r e c e i v e d $ 2 k f r o m t h e I n t e r n a t i o n R e s c u e C o m m i t t e e f o r b u s i n e s s e x p e n s e s a c c r u e d d u r i n g C O V I D - 1 9 . Bu s i n e s s p r o v i d e s d a n c e t r a i n i n g , t w o d a n c e c o m p a n i e s , c r e a t i v e s p a c e a n d p e r f o r m a n c e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r y o u t h a n d p r o f e s s i o n a l a r t i s t s . T h e y c u l t i v a t e a n a r t i s t i c a l l y e n r i c h i n g c o m m u n i t y th o r u g h p e r f o r m a n c e a n d o u t r e a c h . Ty p e o f B u s i n e s s : Da n c e S t u d i o ( S o l e P r o p r i e t o r ) Di s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y I m p a c t e d : Wo m e n O w n e d Us e o f f u n d s : Re n t , u t i l i t i e s , a n d o p e r a t i n g c o s t s ( p a y c o n t r a c t e d a r t i s t s ) Re c e i v e d o t h e r a s s i s t a n c e : No n e Bu s i n e s s i s a n a r t s , e v e n t s a n d r e c e p t i o n c e n t e r . T h e y p r o v i d e s p a c e f o r a r t i s t s o f a l l d i s c i p l i n e s t o c r e a t e a n d p r e s e n t w o r k a n d a p l a c e f o r t h e c o m m u n i t y t o c e l e b r a t e , l e a r n , s h a r e a n d e n g a g e . Ty p e o f B u s i n e s s : Ev e n t / R e c e p t i o n C e n t e r ( S o l e P r o p r i e t o r ) Di s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y I m p a c t e d : Wo m e n O w n e d Us e o f f u n d s : Sa l a r i e s a n d w a g e s f o r s t a f f . Re c e i v e d o t h e r a s s i s t a n c e : Ye s , t h e y r e c e i v e d u n d e r $ 5 0 k i n o t h e r a s s i s t a n c e w i t h P P P a n d E I D L . Th i s b u s i n e s s s e l l s u s e d , n e w , a n d r a r e b o o k s a n d e p h e m e r a . S p e c i a l f o c u s f o r t h i s b u s i n e s s i s U t a h a n d r e g i o n a l h i s t o r y . T h i s b u s i n e s s a l l s u p p o r t s l o c a l a r t i s t a a n d m u s i c i a n s w i t h r e g u l a r pu b l i c e v e n t s . Ty p e o f B u s i n e s s : Bo o k s t o r e i n t h e C i t y C e n t e r ( S o l e P r o p r i e t o r ) Di s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y I m p a c t e d : No n e Us e o f f u n d s : Re n t a n d p a y r o l l . Re c e i v e d o t h e r a s s i s t a n c e : Re c e i v e d a p r o x . $ 7 5 k o f o t h e r a s s i s t a n c e w i t h P P P a n d E I D L Bu s i n e s s i s a f u l l - s e r v i c e c a t e r i n g c o m p a n y o f f e r i n g a u n i q u e b l e n d o f t r a d i t i o n a l M i d d l e E a s t e r n C u i s i n e a n d A m e r i c a n f u s i o n . Ty p e o f B u s i n e s s : Ca t e r i n g Di s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y I m p a c t e d : Wo m e n & 1 0 0 % B I P O C o w n e d Us e o f f u n d s : Mo r t g a g e p a y m e n t , o p e r a t i o n a l c o s t s a n d s t a r t - u p c o s t s Re c e i v e d o t h e r a s s i s t a n c e : Ye s . R e c e i v e d $ 2 0 k i n E I D L 7 No o r A l S h a m L L C ( 6 3 3 2 6 ) 5 $ 1 1 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 1 0 , 7 5 8 . 0 0 $9 , 6 6 0 . 6 8 SB 8 Su s i e M ' s G a l l e r y o f F i n e T a t t o o i n g ( 6 3 3 5 5 ) 5 $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $2 2 , 2 5 0 . 0 0 SB 9 J S t r e e t P r o d u c t i o n s ( 6 0 5 3 8 ) 7 $ 2 6 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $2 2 , 1 0 7 . 1 4 AB 10 Ar t s o f t h e W o r l d G a l l e r y ( 6 3 5 1 8 ) 5 $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $4 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 AB 11 Pr e m i e r P a r a l e g a l S o l u t i o n s , L L C ( 5 9 8 4 1 ) 5 $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 9 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $7 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 SB 12 Cy c l i n g U t a h , L L C ( 6 3 4 7 7 ) 4 $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $4 3 , 1 6 6 . 6 7 SB Wr i t e r w h o w r i t e s n o v e l s f o r y o u n g r e a d e r s ( m i d d l e g r a d e s a n d y o u n g a d u l t ) . W r i t e s n o n f i c t i o n s o n t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n o f a r t a n d f a i t h , a n d a l s o c o n s u l t s f r e e l a n c e w r i t e r s a n d p r o v i d e s e d i t o r i a l se r v i c e s f o r o t h e r w r i t e r s . Ty p e o f B u s i n e s s : Wr i t e r ( H o m e B a s e d , S o l e P r o p r i e t o r ) Di s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y I m p a c t e d : Wo m e n O w n e d Us e o f f u n d s : Sa l a r y a n d O p e r a t i n g E x p e n s e s ( w i l l h a v e t o p r o v i d e t a x d o c u m e n t s , e t c . ) Re c e i v e d o t h e r a s s i s t a n c e : No n e Bu s i n e s s i s a c o f f e e h o u s e c r e a t e d b y c o m m u n i t y f o r c o m m u n i t y . T h e f o u n d e r s e n v i s i o n e d a p l a c e f o r c i v i c e n g a g e m e n t a n d s h a r i n g a r t t o s t r e n g t h e n c o m m u n i t y . Ty p e o f B u s i n e s s : Co f f e e h o u s e ( S o l e P r o p r i e t o r ) Di s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y I m p a c t e d : No n e Us e o f f u n d s : Pu r c h a s e o f s u p p l i e s , o p e r a t i n g c o s t s a n d w a g e s . Re c e i v e d o t h e r a s s i s t a n c e : No n e Bu s i n e s s i s t h e l o c a l h o m e f o r g l o b a l t r e a s u r e s . T h i s b u s i n e s s h o u s e s t r a d i t i o n a l ( i n d i g e n o u s ) a r t s a n d c r a f t s a n d a l s o t r a d i t i o n a l i n d u s t r i e s l i k e c e r a m i c s i n t w o h i s t o r i c b u i l d i n g s t h a t h a v e b e e n ma i n t a i n e d a n d p r e s e r v e d . Ty p e o f B u s i n e s s : Ar t G a l l e r y ( S o l e P r o p r i e t o r ) Di s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y I m p a c t e d : Wo m e n O w n e d Us e o f f u n d s : Ut i l i t i e s , a n d o p e r a t i n g e x p e n s e s Re c e i v e d o t h e r a s s i s t a n c e : Ye s . R e c e i v e d l e s s t h a n $ 5 0 k i n S a l t L a k e C o u n t y g r a n t , a n d P P P f u n d s Bu s i n e s s p r o v i d e s a n a r t s t u d i o w i t h r e t a i l s p a c e , a l o n g w i t h t a t t o o i n g e d u c a t i o n s p a c e . Ty p e o f B u s i n e s s : Ta t t o o P a r l o r - R e t a i l S p a c e ( S o l e P r o p r i e t o r ) Di s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y I m p a c t e d : Wo m e n o w n e d Us e o f f u n d s : Re n t a n d p a y r o l l . Re c e i v e d o t h e r a s s i s t a n c e : No n e Bu s i n e s s p r o v i d e s l e g a l d o c u m e n t p r e p a r a t i o n , t a x p r e p a r a t i o n a n d s o m e t r a n s l a t i o n s e r v i c e s . S e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d t o c l i e n t s w i t h d i g i t a l e q u i t y i s s u e s t h a t r e q u i r e i n p e r s o n a t t e n t i o n . Ty p e o f B u s i n e s s : Le g a l S e r v i c e s ( S o l e P r o p r i e t o r ) Di s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y I m p a c t e d : 10 0 % B I P O C o w n e d Us e o f f u n d s : Re n t , p a y r o l l , s u p p l i e s a n d s t a r t - u p c o s t s . Re c e i v e d o t h e r a s s i s t a n c e : Ye s , l e s s t h a n $ 5 0 k i n E I D L a n d P P P Ca t e r i n g b u s i n e s s l o o k i n g t o c o m p l e t e s t a r t u p a n d e x p a n d . Ty p e o f B u s i n e s s : Fo o d - C a t e r i n g ( S o l e P r o p r i e t o r ) Di s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y I m p a c t e d : 10 0 % B I P O C O w n e d Us e o f f u n d s : St a r t u p c o s t s , r e n t , p a y r o l l a n d o p e r a t i o n a l e x p e n s e s . Re c e i v e d o t h e r a s s i s t a n c e : Re c e i v e d u n d e r $ 3 , 0 0 0 i n P P P f u n d i n g . 13 Go l d e n G y r o s ( 6 3 4 4 8 ) 5 $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 7 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $4 0 , 1 0 6 . 6 7 TT H 14 Am i e E n g b e r g ( 6 2 8 5 3 ) 5 $ 3 8 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 3 8 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $3 2 , 1 1 0 . 0 0 SB 15 Si x S a i l o r C i d e r , L L C ( 6 3 2 3 2 ) 4 $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 1 1 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $9 , 2 1 8 . 0 0 TT H 16 By e P h o e b e ( 5 9 6 7 4 ) 3 $ 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $4 , 1 7 5 . 0 0 AB 17 Si k k i m M o m o ( 5 9 8 3 2 ) 2 $ 4 9 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 3 , 1 0 0 . 0 0 $2 , 5 8 3 . 3 3 TT H 18 Ch r i s t i n a ' s B a r b e r S h o p ( 6 0 3 3 2 ) 5 $ 1 3 , 5 0 0 . 0 0 $ 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $1 1 , 5 9 6 . 6 7 SB Lo c a l r e s t a u r a n t i n S a l t L a k e C i t y . O n e o f t h e f i r s t r e s t a u r a n t s t o c l o s e d u e t o C O V I D - 1 9 t r y i n g t o k e e p d o o r s o p e n o n t h e i r s t a r t u p b u s i n e s s t h a t o p e n e d a s t h e p a n d e m i c h i t . Ty p e o f B u s i n e s s : Re s t a u r a n t Di s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y I m p a c t e d : 10 0 % B I P O C o w n e d Us e o f f u n d s : Pu r c h a s e o f s u p p l i e s , w a g e s , a n d e q u i p m e n t . Re c e i v e d o t h e r a s s i s t a n c e : No n e Ow n e r i s a m o d e l , f a s h i o n s t y l i s t a n d a l s o m a k e s c u s t o m c l o t h i n g f o r p r o d u c t i o n c o m p a n i e s . Ty p e o f B u s i n e s s : St y l i s t / C l o t h i n g ( H o m e B a s e d & S o l e P r o p r i e t o r ) Di s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y I m p a c t e d : Wo m e n & 1 0 0 % B I P O C o w n e d Us e o f f u n d s : Eq u i p m e n t , m a t e r i a l s , p a y r o l l a n d s t a r t u p c o s t s . Re c e i v e d o t h e r a s s i s t a n c e : Ye s r e c e i v e d $ 1 , 2 0 0 f r o m A r t i s t E m e r g e n c y F u n d Bu s i n e s s m a k e s a v a r i e t y o f f l a v o r e d a p p l e c i d e r s , n o n - a l c o h o l i c a n d s p a r k l i n g h a r d c i d e r s t o b e s o l d i n t h e f u t u r e . S t a r t e d t h e i r s a l e s i n f a r m e r ' s m a r k e t s a n d n o w e x p a n d i n g i n t o o n l i n e a n d re t a i l s a l e s . Ty p e o f B u s i n e s s : Br e w e r y ( S o l e P r o p r i e t o r ) Di s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y I m p a c t e d : No n e Us e o f f u n d s : Re n t , p a y r o l l a n d s t a r t u p c o s t s . Re c e i v e d o t h e r a s s i s t a n c e : No n e Bu s i n e s s i s a c a t e r i n g f o o d b u s i n e s s . T h i s e n t r e p r e n e u r i s f r o m t h e S p i c e K i t c h e n i n c u b a t o r p r o g r a m o f t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l R e s c u e C o m m i t t e e . Ty p e o f B u s i n e s s : Ca t e r i n g Di s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y I m p a c t e d : 10 0 % B I P O C o w n e d Us e o f f u n d s : Pu r c h a s e o f s u p p l i e s a n d e q u i p m e n t . Re c e i v e d o t h e r a s s i s t a n c e : Bu s i n e s s r e c e i v e d $ 2 k f r o m t h e I n t e r n a t i o n R e s c u e C o m m i t t e e . Bu s i n e s s p r o d u c e s a b i c y c l i n g m a g a z i n e a n d w e b s i t e . T h e y a r e i n t h e i r 3 0 t h y e a r o f b u s i n e s s p r o v i d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n , n e w s , t i p s a n d e v e n t c a l e n d a r s . T h e y d i s t r i b u t e t h r o u g h o u t S a l t L a k e C i t y an d t h e w e s t e r n U n i t e d S t a t e s . Ty p e o f B u s i n e s s : Ma g a z i n e ( S o l e P r o p r i e t o r ) Di s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y I m p a c t e d : No n e Us e o f f u n d s : Op e r a t i n g c o s t s a n d p a y r o l l . Re c e i v e d o t h e r a s s i s t a n c e : Ye s . R e c e i v e d l e s s t h a t n $ 5 0 k i n P P P f u n d s Do c u m e n t p r e p a r a t i o n a n d f i n a n c i a l e d u c a t i o n s e r v i c e s f o r c h i r o p r a c t o r s . Ty p e o f B u s i n e s s : Fi n a n c i a l E d u c a t i o n S e r v i c e s ( H o m e B a s e d & S o l e P r o p r i e t o r ) Di s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y I m p a c t e d : Wo m e n o w n e d Us e o f f u n d s : Su p p l i e s a n d s a l a r y Re c e i v e d o t h e r a s s i s t a n c e : No n e 19 Fl a m e n c o d e l L a g o ( 6 3 4 2 9 ) 5 $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 1 3 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $1 0 , 7 6 8 . 3 3 AB 20 Da y h o u s e S t u d i o ( 6 1 8 9 4 ) 7 $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $4 1 , 3 3 3 . 3 3 SB 21 Se t h I a n P h o t o g r a p h y ( 6 2 8 8 7 ) 3 $1 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $7 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $5 , 7 8 6 . 6 7 AB 22 Wo r t h f u l l M e d i a , L L C ( 6 0 6 1 2 ) 3 $2 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $2 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $2 0 , 6 2 5 . 0 0 AB 23 De s i g n t o G r o w , L L C ( 6 3 1 0 8 ) 4 $3 2 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $3 2 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $2 6 , 1 3 3 . 3 3 AB 24 Su z a n n e M a y ( 6 0 3 3 0 ) 7 $1 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $8 , 0 3 3 . 3 3 AB Bu s i n e s s i s a b a r b e r s h o p s p e c i a l i z i n g i n g e n t l e m e n h a i r c u t s l o c a t e d o n 3 0 0 W e s t . Ty p e o f B u s i n e s s : Ba r b e r s h o p ( S o l e P r o p r i e t o r ) Di s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y I m p a c t e d : Wo m e n o w n e d Us e o f f u n d s : Re n t , u t i l i t i e s , a n d o p e r a t i n g e x p e n s e s . Re c e i v e d o t h e r a s s i s t a n c e : Bu s i n e s s r e c e i v e d l e s s t h a n $ 5 0 k f r o m E I D L . Bu s i n e s s i s a n o n p r o f i t u n d e r t h e d i r e c t i o n o f K a t i e S h e e n - A b b o t t s h e ' s s t u d i e d F l a m e n c o f o r m a n y y e a r s . S h e t e a c h e s a n d p e r f o r m s f l a m e n c o i n S a l t L a k e C i t y a n d t h r o u g h o u t U t a h f o r a l l ag e s a n d a b i l i t i e s . Ty p e o f B u s i n e s s : Da n c e t e a c h e r ( S o l e P r o p r i e t o r & N o n p r o f i t ) Di s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y I m p a c t e d : Wo m e n o w n e d Us e o f f u n d s : Re n t , a n d e q u p m e n t c o s t s . Re c e i v e d o t h e r a s s i s t a n c e : Bu s i n e s s r e c e i v e d l e s s t h a n $ 5 0 k i n E I D L f u n d i n g . Bu s i n e s s i s a b i o p h i l i c i n t e r i o r d e s i g n s t u d i o s p e c i a l i z i n g i n r e s i d e n t i a l a n d c o m m e r c i a l s p a c e s . I m p r o v i n g h e a l t h , w e l l - b e i n g a n d s u s t a i n a b l e p r a c t i c e s a r e a t t h e h e a r t o f t h e i r w o r k . Ty p e o f B u s i n e s s : In t e r i o r D e s i g n S t u d i o ( H o m e b a s e d & S o l e P r o p r i e t o r ) Di s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y I m p a c t e d : Wo m e n o w n e d Us e o f f u n d s : Op e r a t i n g c o s t s a n d p a y r o l l . Re c e i v e d o t h e r a s s i s t a n c e : Bu s i n e s s r e c e i v e d l e s s t h a n $ 5 0 k f r o m E I D L . Ph o t o g r a p h e r f o r t h e p e r f o r m i n g a r t s , s m a l l b u s i n e s s e s , a n d r e a l e s t a t e . B u s i n e s s i s a l s o u n d e r t a k i n g d o c u m e n t a r y p r o j e c t s . Ty p e o f B u s i n e s s : Ph o t o g r a p h e r ( h o m e - b a s e d & s o l e p r o p r i e t o r ) Di s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y I m p a c t e d : No n e Us e o f f u n d s : Eq u i p m e n t u p g r a d e s a n d p r o j e c t d e v e l o p m e n t c o s t s Re c e i v e d o t h e r a s s i s t a n c e : No n e Bo u t i q u e m e d i a p r o d u c t i o n h o u s e t h a t r e c o r d s , e d i t s , p r o d u c e s , a n d m a n a g e s a u d i o a n d v i d e o f o r s m a l l b u s i n e s s o w n e r s a n d p e r s o n a l b r a n d s . T h e b u l k o f b u s i n e s s i s f o r p o d c a s t e r s a n d Yo u T u b e r s , b u t i n c l u d e s m a k i n g r e l a t e d m e d i a a s w e l l . Ty p e o f B u s i n e s s : Me d i a p r o d u c t i o n ( h o m e - b a s e d & s o l e p r o p r i e t o r ) Di s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y I m p a c t e d : 10 0 % f e m a l e o w n e d Us e o f f u n d s : We b s i t e u p g r a d e s , r e n t , c o n t r a c t c o s t s Re c e i v e d o t h e r a s s i s t a n c e : PP P a n d E I D L f u n d s a r o u n d $ 5 k . Bu s i n e s s i s a d e s i g n / b u i l d s t u d i o t h a t d o e s i n h o u s e f a b r i c a t i o n f o c u s e d o n p u b l i c a r t , t e a c h i n g / w o r k s h o p s , e v e n t s , a n d c o m m e r c i a l f u r n i t u r e . Ty p e o f B u s i n e s s : De s i g n s t u d i o ( h o m e - b a s e d & s o l e p r o p r i e t o r ) Di s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y I m p a c t e d : No n e Us e o f f u n d s : Re n t , r e t a i n i n g e m p l o y e e s Re c e i v e d o t h e r a s s i s t a n c e : PP P $ 8 . 7 K , S m a l l B u s i n e s s I m p a c t G r a n t $ 9 . 9 k 25 Th e T w i s t ( K i r k ' s S h i p , L L C ) ( 6 0 5 2 0 ) 4 $5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $3 9 , 9 1 6 . 6 7 TT H 26 El e g a n t T a i l o r i n g , L L C ( 6 1 8 6 5 ) 4 $5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $2 1 , 3 3 5 . 0 0 $1 7 , 0 2 5 . 3 3 SB 27 Ut a h H i s p a n i c C h a m b e r o f C o m m e r c e ( 6 2 5 4 4 ) 2 $5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $3 9 , 8 3 3 . 3 3 SB 28 Ut a h F i t n e s s I n s t i t u t e ( 6 2 1 8 9 ) 5 $2 1 , 5 0 2 . 0 0 $2 2 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $1 7 , 5 2 6 . 6 7 SB 29 Ma t c h a n d F a r n s w o r t h , P C ( 6 2 0 8 9 ) 4 $4 9 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 9 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $3 8 , 9 5 5 . 0 0 SB 30 An t i d o t e C o s m e c e u t i c a l s , L L C ( 6 0 9 9 1 ) 6 $8 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $8 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $6 , 3 0 4 . 0 0 SB Si n g e r / s o n g w r i t e r t h a t a l s o t e a c h e s v o i c e a n d s o n g w r i t i n g l e s s o n s f r o m h o m e s t u d i o . Ty p e o f B u s i n e s s : Mu s i c i a n ( h o m e - b a s e d & s o l e p r o p r i e t o r ) Di s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y I m p a c t e d : 10 0 % f e m a l e o w n e d Us e o f f u n d s : To u r a n d e q u i p m e n t c o s t s . Re c e i v e d o t h e r a s s i s t a n c e : EI D L $ 1 2 k , U n e m p l o y m e n t $ 8 k Ch a m b e r o f C o m m e r c e s e r v i n g H i s p a n i c b u s i n e s s e s Ty p e o f B u s i n e s s : Ch a m b e r o f C o m m e r c e Di s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y I m p a c t e d : 10 0 % B I P O C o w n e d Us e o f f u n d s : Wa g e s Re c e i v e d o t h e r a s s i s t a n c e : No n e Pe r s o n a l t r a i n i n g a n d w e l l n e s s r e t r e a t b u s i n e s s . Ty p e o f B u s i n e s s : Fi t n e s s S t u d i o ( s o l e p r o p r i e t o r ) Di s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y I m p a c t e d : No n e Us e o f f u n d s : Re n t c o s t s Re c e i v e d o t h e r a s s i s t a n c e : Sa l t L a k e C o u n t y g r a n t $ 2 2 k Bu s i n e s i s a R e s t a u r a n t , B a r & N i g h t c l u b Ty p e o f B u s i n e s s : Ba r / R e s t a u r a n t Di s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y I m p a c t e d : No n e Us e o f f u n d s : Wa g e s , r e t a i n e m p l o y e e s Re c e i v e d o t h e r a s s i s t a n c e : PP P & E m p l o y e e R e n t i o n C r e d i t o v e r $ 5 0 k Bu s i n e s s i s a s m a l l p r i v a t e l a w f i r m t h a t p r o v i d e s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t o i n d i v i d u a l s w h o a r e u n a b l e t o w o r k d u e t o p h y s i c a l o r m e n t a l d i s a b i l i t i e s . Ty p e o f B u s i n e s s : La w F i r m ( s o l e p r o p r i e t o r ) Di s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y I m p a c t e d : 10 0 % f e m a l e o w n e d Us e o f f u n d s : Pa y r o l l Re c e i v e d o t h e r a s s i s t a n c e : Bu s i n e s s r e c e i v e d m o r e t h a n $ 5 0 k f r o m P P P . Bu s i n e s s i s a t a i l o r i n g s h o p i n t h e h e a r t o f d o w n t o w n . Ty p e o f B u s i n e s s : Ta i l o r i n g S h o p ( s o l e p r o p r i e t o r ) Di s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y I m p a c t e d : 10 0 % B I P O C o w n e d Us e o f f u n d s : Pa y r o l l a n d o p e r a t i o n a l e x p e n s e s . Re c e i v e d o t h e r a s s i s t a n c e : Bu s i n e s s r e c e i v e d l e s s t h a n $ 6 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 i n P P P f u n d i n g . Ch a m b e r o f C o m m e r c e s e r v i n g H i s p a n i c b u s i n e s s e s . Ty p e o f B u s i n e s s : Ch a m b e r o f C o m m e r c e Di s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y I m p a c t e d : 10 0 % B I P O C o w n e d Us e o f f u n d s : Wa g e s 31 Fi r s t S t e p s , I n c . ( 6 0 2 6 1 ) 1 $5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $1 2 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $9 , 1 4 0 . 0 0 SB Bu s i n e s s m a n u f a c t u r e s b o t t l e s a n d s e l l s s k i n c a r e p r o d u c t s . Ty p e o f B u s i n e s s : Sk i n c a r e ( s o l e p r o p r i e t o r ) Di s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y I m p a c t e d : No n e Us e o f f u n d s : Fa c i l i t y u p g r a d e s a n d p a y r o l l Re c e i v e d o t h e r a s s i s t a n c e : PP P , E I D L , & C C L S t a b i l i z a t i o n G r a n t - o v e r $ 2 0 0 k Bu s i n e s s i s a c h i l d c a r e c e n t e r . Ty p e o f B u s i n e s s : Da y c a r e Di s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y I m p a c t e d : No n e Us e o f f u n d s : Fa c i l i t y u p g r a d e s a n d p a y r o l l Re c e i v e d o t h e r a s s i s t a n c e : PP P , E I D L , & C C L S t a b i l i z a t i o n G r a n t - o v e r $ 2 0 0 k February 3, 2023 The SLC and WVC fire departments believe it is in the best interests of the citizens served by such fire departments, and the State of Utah as a whole, to have the MITS Vehicles staged at separate locations throughout the Wasatch Front and maintained by separate entities. The Parties wish to enter into an agreement for the disposition of one of the MITS Vehicles so that it may be owned and maintained by WVC and be staged in a manner to best meet the emergency and other needs of the citizens of the Wasatch Front and State of Utah. Michael Fox, Gary Carter, and Jaysen Oldroyd would be available to be at the table during the work session. A clean copy (approved as to form) of the proposed ordinance is included with this transmittal. 1 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF MOBILE INTEROPERABLE TACTICAL SOLUTION VEHICLE This Agreement is made and entered into as of _________________ by and between Salt Lake City Corporation, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah (the “SLC”), and the West Valley City, a political subdivision of the State of Utah (the “WVC”), each individually referred to as a “Party” and collectively referred to as the “Parties.” RECITALS A. Both SLC and WVC were participants in the Urban Areas Security Initiative grant program for the Wasatch Front urban area as established by the United States Department of Homeland Security (the “UASI”). B. As part of the UASI, grant funds were allocated to Salt Lake City to construct and maintain several Mobile Interoperable Tactical Solution Vehicles (individually, a “MITS Vehicle”) for use in emergencies and other operations throughout the Wasatch Front urban area and the State of Utah. C. The vehicles were titled and held in the name of Salt Lake City Corporation as it was the entity primarily responsible for their creation, staffing, and maintenance. However, the grant funds were allocated for the benefit of all participants in the UASI and WVC has participated in the MITS Vehicle program. D. The UASI grant funding for the Wasatch Front has since been terminated. As a result, individual members of the UASI will now become responsible for the maintenance of the assets acquired with grant funds. E. The Parties believe it is in the best interests of the citizens served by both Parties, and the State of Utah as a whole, to have the MITS Vehicles staged at separate locations throughout the Wasatch Front and maintained by separate entities. F. The Parties wish to enter into an agreement for the disposition of one of the MITS Vehicles so that it may be owned and maintained by WVC and be staged in a manner to best meet the emergency and other needs of the citizens of the Wasatch Front and State of Utah. G. The Utah Interlocal Cooperation Act (Utah Code Chapter 11-13) provides a means by which Utah governmental entities can enter into cooperative agreements with other Utah governmental entities. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, the parties to this agreement hereby agree as follows: 1. GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE AGREEMENT. The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the terms and conditions under which the Parties will transfer ownership interest in 2 a MITS Vehicle from SLC to WVC with the expectation that WVC will deploy such MITS vehicle in a manner that benefits the Wasatch Front urban area and the State of Utah. 2. TERM OF THIS AGREEMENT. The term of this Agreement will continue for a period of one year from the effective date of this Agreement unless extended by mutual written agreement between the Parties. 3. INTERLOCAL REQUIREMENTS. A. This Agreement does not create an interlocal entity. B. To the extent any administrative actions are required under this Agreement with respect to the use of the Vehicle, WVC will serve as the administrator of this Agreement and in that role will have sole discretion regarding such actions. C. Each Party will be responsible for acquiring, holding and disposing of any real or personal property that such Party using in facilitating the joint or cooperative purposes of this Agreement. D. Each Party will be responsible for their own costs and expenses incurred under this Agreement and for any corresponding budgeting activities. 4. TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP. SLC hereby agrees to transfer ownership, free of liens or any lawful claims, of one MITS Vehicle, specifically VIN# 1HTMMAAN1AH206018 (the “Vehicle”), to WVC in consideration of WVC’s promise to continue staffing, maintaining, and staging of the Vehicle for emergency response purposes. All equipment installed and associated with the Vehicle shall also be transferred with the Vehicle. Appendix “A,” attached hereto, is a good faith attempt to list the equipment currently installed and associated with the Vehicle and that will be transferred therewith. Any equipment physically on the Vehicle at the time of transfer will also be transferred to WVC regardless of whether it is listed in Appendix “A”. Upon the termination of this Agreement, WVC will retain ownership of the Vehicle and any associated equipment. 2. USE OF VEHICLE. Subsequent to the transfer of ownership, the use of the Vehicle will be at the sole discretion of WVC, and SLC will have no oversight over the use of the Vehicle once ownership is transferred. However, SLC and WVC mutually agree to coordinate their efforts with respect to the use of all MITS Vehicles so as to best serve the emergency needs of the area and beyond. 3. NO ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION. As the funds for the creation of the Vehicle were grant funds to benefit the entire UASI, no additional consideration will be paid from WVC to SLC for the Vehicle. The Parties acknowledge the sufficiency of the consideration contained herein. WVC will be responsible for costs or expenses associated with the Vehicle that are incurred after the transfer of ownership takes place. 3 4. VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT AS-IS. SLC makes no warranties as to the present or future condition of the Vehicle or the equipment contained therein, or their suitability for a particular purpose and is transferring the Vehicle and its attached equipment to WVC “As- Is.” WVC represents and agrees that it has inspected the Vehicle and equipment and takes ownership of the Vehicle and its equipment “As-Is,” without warranty. 5. DOCUMENTATION. Upon full execution of this Agreement, SLC agrees to execute a Bill of Sale in the form of Utah State Tax Commission Form TC-843 and provide the Certificate of Title for the Vehicle. 6. REGISTRATION. Upon receipt of the Bill of Sale and Certificate of Title, WVC agrees to register the Vehicle in its own name and assume full responsibility for the ownership of the Vehicle, including any and all liability for its operations and use. 7. INDEMNIFICATION. WVC agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold SLC harmless for any claims arising out of or related to WVC’s ownership or use of the Vehicle. SLC and WVC are both government entities under the Utah Governmental Immunity Act and neither waives any rights or defenses provided for therein. 8. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement represents the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. 9. AUTHORITY. By his or her signature below, each signatory represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of his or her respective Party. 10. EXECUTION. This Agreement may be executed by electronic means (such as fax or .pdf signatures) and in counterparts. 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have signed this agreement effective as of the date first written above. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION By: ___________________________ Erin Mendenhall Mayor, Salt Lake City ATTEST: _______________________ City Recorder APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: ________________________ Senior City Attorney WEST VALLEY CITY By: ____________________________ Mayor, West Valley City APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: ________________________ City Attorney ATTEST: City Recorder 5 APPENDIX “A” Equipment Inventory Cab Map Book Tire Pressure Gauge Accident Packet Fire Extinguisher Binoculars Left 1 Sledge Hammer Emergency Compressor Kit Reflective Triangles Chock Blocks - 2 Wilburt Mast oil Shore-line electrical cord Cones - 5 Hi-Vis Yellow Bolt Cutters Crow Bar Left 2 Generator - 15Kw fixed mount Right 1 (Working area) Front Wall LCD TV TV Remote Right 1 (Working area) CS counter Computer (w/mouse, keyboard, dual monitors) Blackout window cover CS Cabinet DeWalt Vacuum w/battery Whiteboard Markers Dry-Erase Eraser Flashlight (AA) ACU Handset VHF Ground-plane radials (3) 6 Undercounters 3 Office chairs with bungee cords trash can Tool Box* Rolling Tool Box** 5 Cisco Network Phones (w/cat5 in case) Blue Tub (manuals and software) SS Cabinet Operation Manuals Technical Manuals Printer Paper SS counter Computer (w/mouse, keyboard, dual monitors) Radio/Battery gang charger HP 8500 Pro Printer Blackout window cover DeWalt Battery Chargers - 2 Cisco Wi-Fi phone gang charger (w/4 phones and 4 extra batteries) Right 2 (Packout area) Packout Boxes - 2 *** Outrigger Blue Sky Mast kit Cargo Straps - 6 Fire Extinguisher BigBeam Flashlight - yellow Cisco AP Node w/box Fiber-optic reel - 1000' Right 3 (Battery Comp) Jumper Cables - 4 Ga 8 Ton hydraulic jack 7 *Tool Box Top - small level, Teflon tape, keychain screwdriver, angle screwdriver, cable cutters, drill driver set(DeWalt) drill bit set(DeWalt), 4 inch driver set (westward), Wrench set (2 - westward, open/box SAE and Metric First - Awl, screwdriver set (slotted x11, phillips x8) Second - claw hammer (16oz), crescent wrench set (3pc), ratchet set (proto 5pc metric) Third - Channel lock wrench set (5pc - 2 channel lock, needle nose, dykes, standard), Ratcheting Box wrench set (Westward, 5pc SAE) ** Rolling Tool Box RJ11 and RJ45 ends Velcro straps Crimper (coax and cat5) COAX cable ends Frequency sniffer w/ ac adapt Keys for wall phones corded telephone adapter kit (30 pc) Gaffers tape (Hi-Vis) Flashlight (DeWalt rechargeable) Solder iron kit (butane) Multimeter kit (Extech) Flashlight (Mag AA) Rubber mallet *** Packout Boxes Box 1 MREs (1 box) Antennas (3; 800, UHF, VHF) Extension cord - 25' yellow (2) on reels Box 2 Westward Socket Set Tel-Com tool Kit Cat5e Box DeWalt Drill and Impact Driver (case) Heat gun 1 RESOLUTION NO. _____ OF 2023 Authorizing the approval of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and West Valley City regarding the transfer of ownership of a tactical vehicle from Salt Lake City Corporation to West Valley City. WHEREAS, Utah Code Title 11, Chapter 13 allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements regarding the use of government equipment and corresponding allocation of responsibilities for such equipment; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation (“SLC”) and West Valley City (“WVC”) were participants in the Urban Areas Security Initiative grant program (“UASI”) under which a Mobile Interoperable Tactical Solution (“MITS”) vehicle was obtained using grant funds; and WHEREAS, Title for a MITS vehicle has previously been held by SLC; and WHEREAS, SLC now desires to transfer title and responsible of such MITS vehicle to SLC; and WHEREAS, WVC now desires to accept title to and responsibility for such MITS vehicle; and WHEREAS, SLC and WVC have prepared a proposed interlocal agreement (“Interlocal Agreement”) providing for the transfer title to the MITS vehicle, along with all responsibilities related to the maintenance and operation of such MITS vehicle, to WVC; and WHEREAS, the City Council for WVC has executed a resolution approving the execution of the Interlocal Agreement and the Mayor for WVC has signed the Interlocal Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City Council of SLC has determined that transferring title to the MITS vehicle, along with the responsibilities related to the maintenance and operation of such MITS vehicle, to WVC is in the best interest of SLC; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah as follows: 1. It does hereby approve the execution and delivery of the attached Agreement (attached hereto as Exhibit “A”) regarding the transfer of the MITS vehicle, along with all responsibilities related to the maintenance operation of such MITS vehicle, to WVC: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF MOBILE INTEROPERABLE TACTICAL SOLUTION VEHICLE 2. The effective date of the Agreement shall be the date on which an executed copy of the Agreement has been filed with the keeper of records of each of the parties to the Agreement. 3. Erin Mendenhall, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah or her designee is hereby authorized to approve, execute, and deliver said Agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, in substantially the same form as now before the City Council and attached hereto, subject to such minor changes 2 that do not materially affect the rights and obligations of the City thereunder and as shall be approved by the Mayor, her execution thereof to constitute conclusive evidence of such approval. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of _________, 2023 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: ______________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ___________________________ CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ Jaysen Oldroyd, Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office 3 EXHIBIT A ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________Date Received: 2/6/2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council:2/6/2023 TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE 2/6/2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Arts Council Board STAFF CONTACT:April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Arts Council Board RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Jeff Driggs as a member of the Arts Council Board. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 February 6, 2023 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 Dear Councilmember Mano, Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Arts Council Board. Jeff Driggs be appointed for a three year term, starting from the date of City Council advice and consent. I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Cc: File ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________Date Received: 2/6/2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council:2/6/2023 TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE 2/6/2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Arts Council Board STAFF CONTACT:April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Arts Council Board RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Matthew Coles as a member of the Arts Council Board. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 February 6, 2023 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 Dear Councilmember Mano, Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Arts Council Board. Matthew Coles be appointed for a three year term, starting from the date of City Council advice and consent. I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Cc: File ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: 2/6/2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 2/6/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 2/6/2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT:Board Appointment Recommendation: Transportation Advisory Board STAFF CONTACT:April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Transportation Advisory Board RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Justice Morath as a member of the Transportation Advisory Board. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 February 6, 2023 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 Dear Councilmember Mano, Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Transportation Advisory Board. Justice Morath be appointed for a three year term, starting from the date of City Council advice and consent and ending on September 28, 2026. I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Cc: File SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SWORN STATEMENT SUPPORTING CLOSURE OF MEETING I, ____________ , acted as the presiding member of the _______________________________in which met on _________ Appropriate notice was given of the Council's meeting as required by §52-4-202. A quorum of the Council was present at the meeting and voted by at least a two-thirds vote, as detailed in the minutes of the open meeting, to close a portion of the meeting to discuss the following: §52-4-205(l)(a) discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual; §52 -4-205(1 )(b) strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; §52-4-205(l )(c) strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; §52-4-205( l )(d) strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; §52-4-205(l )(e) strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares if: (i) public discussion of the transaction would: ((A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; (ii) if the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale; and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the sale; §52-4-205(1)(f) discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and §52-4-205(1)(g) investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A Closed Meeting may also be held for Attorney-Client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code §78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. Other, described as follows: ____________________________________________________________ The content of the closed portion of the Council meeting was restricted to a discussion of the matter(s) for which the meeting was closed. With regard to the closed meeting, the following was publicly announced and recorded, and entered on the minutes of the open meeting at which the closed meeting was approved: (a)the reason or reasons for holding the closed meeting; (b)the location where the closed meeting will be held; and (c)the vote of each member of the public body either for or against the motion to hold the closed meeting. The recording and any minutes of the closed meeting will include: (a)the date, time, and place of the meeting; (b)the names of members Present and Absent; and (c)the names of all others present except where such disclosure would infringe on the confidentiality necessary to fulfill the original purpose of closing the meeting. Pursuant to §52-4-206(6),a sworn statement is required to close a meeting under §52-4-205(1)(a) or (f), but a record by tape recording or detailed minutes is not required; and Pursuant to §52-4-206(1), a record by tape recording and/or detailed written minutes is required for a meeting closed under §52-4-205(1)(b),(c),(d),(e),and (g): A record was not made. A record was made by: : Tape recording Detailed written minutes I hereby swear or affin11 under penalty of perjury that the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Presiding Member Date of Signature Salt Lake City CouncilDarin Mano February 21, 2023 4 4 44 02ҝ2чҝ2023 Closed Session - Sworn Statement Final Audit Report 2023-02-28 Created:2023-02-22 By:Michelle Barney (michelle.barney@slcgov.com) Status:Signed Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAAzMeHvPflZtQQCQRhbu4jDyi9ttI0Y4pa "Closed Session - Sworn Statement" History Document created by Michelle Barney (michelle.barney@slcgov.com) 2023-02-22 - 8:35:25 PM GMT Document emailed to Darin Mano (darin.mano@slcgov.com) for signature 2023-02-22 - 8:37:31 PM GMT Email viewed by Darin Mano (darin.mano@slcgov.com) 2023-02-22 - 10:47:30 PM GMT Email viewed by Darin Mano (darin.mano@slcgov.com) 2023-02-24 - 0:32:43 AM GMT Email viewed by Darin Mano (darin.mano@slcgov.com) 2023-02-26 - 7:00:23 AM GMT Email viewed by Darin Mano (darin.mano@slcgov.com) 2023-02-27 - 4:24:12 AM GMT Document e-signed by Darin Mano (darin.mano@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2023-02-28 - 6:42:53 PM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed. 2023-02-28 - 6:42:53 PM GMT