Loading...
08/10/2015 - Minutes MINUTES CITY&COUNTY BUILDING CONSERVANCY AND USE COMMITTEE Monday, August 10, 2015 Committee Members Present: Interested Guests and Visitors Jerod Johnson, Chairman Jess Peterson, Oregon California Trails Assoc. Terry Wright Terry Welch, Oregon California Trails Assoc. John Phillips Linda Turner, Oregon California Trails Assoc. Mark Vlasic, Vice Chairman Trent Steele, SLC Employee Wellness/Benefits Anne Oliver -----K7k-H4faker, Utah Heritage Foundation Steven Cornell Charles S pherd, VCBO Architects sal['lake Cur,&County dtaiLDiag Ex Officio Members Present: €oaattbantp&Risk Committee Jim Cleland, SLC Facilities niiii9ROVVO Sean Fyfe, SLC Engineering Dawn Wagner, SLC Engineering 9/14/2015 Jaysen Oldroyd, SLC Attorney's Office Jerod Johnson welcomed everyone to today's meeting and called for roll: Jerod Johnson, Chairman; Mark Vlasic, Vice Chairman; Steven Cornell; Jess Petersen, Oregon California Trails Association;Terry Welch, Oregon California Trails, Association; Linda Turner, Oregon California Trails Association;Terry Wright; Sean Fyfe, SLC Engineering; Jim Cleland, SLC Facilities; Dawn Wagner, SLC Engineering; Trent Steele, SLC Employee Wellness/Benefits Specialist; Kirk Huffaker, Utah Heritage Foundation;Anne Oliver. Agenda Item 1: Introduction of new Committee Member, Anne Oliver. Jerod Johnson welcomed Anne Oliver as a new committee member and asked her to take a minute to introduce herself to the committee. Anne Oliver explained that she is a historic preservationist. She has a master's degree in historic preservation and her master's focus was on stone conservation. She noted that she became interested in serving on the committee when she heard about the building's stone renovation project. Anne explained that her first architecture conservation project was restoring some murals in the Allegheny County Courthouse, which is actually a "Richardsonian" building designed by Henry Richardson. Anne had her own consulting firm for several years, she worked for the Park Service as a Conservator before that and now she works for SWCA Environmental Consultants as their Historic Architecture lead. Agenda Item 2: Approval of and Vote on past meeting Minutes: March 9, 2015; May 11, 2015 and June 8, 2015. Jerod noted that we do have a full quorum today so we are in a position that we can now vote on these minutes from past meetings. Jerod asked the committee if anyone had any questions or concerns with the March, May and June minutes that were sent out. Terry asked if these minutes included any previously discussed amendments or changes. Joan confirmed that all amendments were completed and included in these minutes as presented. 1 Terry Wright motioned to accept the minutes for March 9th and May 11th as amended. Terry further suggested that the June 8th minutes be approved separately. Mark Vlasic seconded the motion. Jared Johnson asked if there was any further discussion relative to the motion and the second relative to the March 9 and May 11th minutes. There were none. Jerod called for a vote. Four Committee members (Marc Vlasic,Jerod Johnson, Steve Cornell and Terry Wright)voted to accept the minutes. New Committee Member, Anne Oliver, abstained from voting noting she had not been a committee member at the time of these two meetings. Jared noted there were 5 quorum members present in order to vote and with the four votes represent a majority accepted the minutes. The March 9, 2015 and May 11, 2015 minutes were approved. Jerod suggested the Committee move forward to the June 8, 2015 meeting minutes. Jim Cleland noted that written copies of the June minutes are provided here tonight and also noted that the minutes were emailed to each committee member with the meeting agenda. Mark Vlasic motioned that the committee accept the June 8, 2015 minutes as they are before us. Jerod asked if there was a second. Terry Wright seconded the motion. Jerod asked if there were comments or questions regarding the motion or the second. Terry Wright had a question relative to the Art Gallery selection noting that he was thinking that the Committee had approved three artists, but the minutes only mentioned two artists being approved. Joan explained that she had copies of the actual tally sheets which showed three artists: Anne Penrod, Jeff Favero and Chris Baker chosen by the committee, but, at the end of the discussion, the committee had agreed that Chris Baker's art was a little dark and the committee decided not to include him. Mark Vlasic agreed noting he had pushed to include Chris Baker and then agreed that the art was a little dark. Jerod confirmed explaining that the Committee decided it wanted to set a high standard and so only chose the two. Jerod confirmed that we have a motion and second to accept the minutes as they stand and asked if there is any further discussion. There was none. Jerod called for a vote. Four committee members (Jerod,Johnson, Terry Wright, Mark Vlasic and Steven Cornell)voted to accept the motion and the second and Anne Oliver abstained as previously. The motion to accept the June minutes was approved. Agenda Item 3: Vote on Washington Square Northeast and Northwest Corners. Jim Cleland passed out copies of final drawings and explained that this is the same drawing that was presented in the past two meetings in which there was not a quorum. Jim noted that four of the five committee members reviewed and accepted the drawings but were unable to vote. Jim asked the Committee to take a final look and make sure before you vote. Joan mentioned that the only question that was raised was related to the selection of the dogwood bush and whether it would survive here. Jim reported that Bruce said that they would find a northern variety or they would find something else similar to that. Steve Cornell asked if the benches shown are the same as we have elsewhere. Sean Fyfe confirmed that they have continued with the same style. Steve wanted to confirm that there was no raised curbing it is just coming off the concrete into the planter. Sean confirmed there are no elevations it is flat. Jerod asked if anyone had any further questions or concerns with what is shown in the design drawing. There were none. Jerod asked if there was a motion. Terry Wright moved to accept the preliminary design as now shown. Mark Vlasic seconded the motion. 2 Jerod asked if there is any further discussion. There was none. Jerod called for a vote. The Committee unanimously voted to approve the motion. Agenda Item 4: Vote on Electronic Meeting Resolution. Jerod explained that the Committee has discussed the issue relating to electronic meetings in the past couple of meetings and have accepted it un-officially, because we have not had a quorum, but it is basically allowing electronic participation in these meetings. He explained that Jaysen Oldroyd has put together the legal language in the form of a Resolution that has been sent to all Committee members to review and all that remains is for it to be executed. Jerod concluded that all that remains is for it to be executed, which means he would need to add his signature and then get the attorney from the SLC Attorney's office to sign it as well. Jerod explained that we are just trying to give a little better latitude for Committee members who are remote and just unable to be present, but still want to participate. Terry Wright reminded the Committee that while electronic meetings would allow members to participate in a meeting by electronic means, the Committee would still need to have the majority of the quorum members, at least 3 of the 5 members, present at the physical meeting to be valid. Jerod asked if there was any of the Committee had any issue with this document. There was none. Terry Wright moved to accept the Electronic Meeting Resolution as drafted. Jerod asked if there was a second. Steve Cornell seconded the motion. Jerod asked if there was any further discussion. Mark Vlasic raised a question as to whether not the resolution specified the ability to use something like "Go to Meeting". Jerod explained that the resolution itself does not limit us to a specific platform. Jaysen Oldroyd noted that the resolution says "an electronic meeting may be held if the majority of the people are physically present at the location where the meeting is held", but leaves open the platform by which the meeting is electronically conducted. Joan told the committee that a camera has just recently been installed here in the Cutler room and the City has a "WebEx" meeting/conferencing account that it will allow us to use for electronic meetings. Jaysen further explained that the resolution contains similar language to that used by Salt Lake City in its ordinance language, however the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act requires that the body itself also approve the ability to go to an electronic meeting. Joan has prepared an updated Resolution document based on a copy previously prepared by Jaysen to be signed by Jerod on behalf of the Committee and Jaysen as representative of the Salt Lake City Attorney's office. Jerod asked for a vote on the motion and the second that have been given. The Committee unanimously voted to approve the motion. Jerod and Jaysen both signed the Electronic Meeting Resolution and the original document was given to Joan Swain to keep with the meeting minutes and other papers and documents. Agenda Item 5. Restroom Flyer Proposal: Trent Steele, SLC Human Resources/Employee Health and Benefits Specialist told the Committee that the Restroom Flyer is a way to drive participation with Salt Lake City's employee base. He explained that there are just over 300 employees in this building and we are looking at better ways to help promote and market our health initiatives.This would be part of an effort to help save our health plan money, our tax payer's money and get our employees as healthy and fit as possible. He explained that this will be a monthly flyer, updated as such with different current events and health information to help promote the different activities and things we do as a Wellness Committee. The Wellness Committee is chaired by different department representatives that meet together on a monthly basis to help drive the 3 health initiatives that the City takes on. The point and purpose to this is just another medium of transportation for: 1)those that don't have access to email, of which we have a large percentage of but not necessarily in this building, but one of the great blessings and curses of electronic media is they don't always bother to read what we are putting out.; 2) advertising statistics have been very favorable and have shown that restroom advertising has a positive benefit and has found that its actually enjoyable for people to have something while they are in a captive state with few distractions, there for a determined amount of time. He indicated they wanted to have them in the stalls on the inside of the doors and just above urinals. We would not put them anywhere else in the area and we would not put them on mirrors nor would there be a stack of them left anywhere. They would be evaluated on a daily basis by members of the wellness committee to make sure they were not on the floor, written on, etc. or we would change them out immediately. Comments, Questions and Answers: • How would these be affixed? • At the moment we are just taping them to the doors and walls so that it can be easily changed out. • I like the idea, but it could be improved in some way rather than just taping it up. Maybe some sort of plexi-glass or something that it could be slipped in and out of. • Part of the problem is that the stall doors are a stile and rail door and so you really don't have a flat surface to anchor a signage type thing as opposed to a typical type of urinal door. • Could it be just a plastic sleeve with sticky on the back. • For this building, our core mandate is to protect it and this is just the beginning of other requests. We should evaluate this really strongly. • Would you put it in every restroom in the building? Or are there employee only restrooms that it could be put in? • The building's restrooms are all considered public restrooms. • Could there be a less intense version of this newsletter that could be put on a bulletin board at the entrance. • Bulletin boards have been in-effective in the past. This bathroom newsletter medium has proven to be the most effective and has been touted throughout many wellness programs that it does make a significant impact on the participation. • Are there staff break rooms where it could be placed on bulletin boards or refrigerator? • The break rooms are full of all the time that nobody reads and they are not in opportune locations. • Once we allow one thing to be posted in the restrooms, we will open the door for all the folks with stuff on the bulletin boards asking to put their messages where they will be read too and all it will do is clutter up the restrooms. • There was great effort when this building was rehabilitated back in the mid-80's to keep it clean and to the historical message of the building • Even though you have an employee base here that you are trying to reach out to it does not mean that it is the best for the building. • I can agree with the need to respect the historic character of the building, however, I kind of distinguish in my mind between the very public spaces and the very back of house spaces and things are already being posted in other locations in the building, that probably did not get the attention from this committee at all, but that's kind of where I would draw the line is at the restroom. It's public space but it's not real prominent space. 4 • I don't think you can call the restrooms back of house. These are part of the building. They are public restrooms and are part of the overall experience of coming to the building. You do capture the employees, but you are also providing useless information to the public. • Would it make a difference if the information was for basic public knowledge of health awareness in general. Jerod Johnson asked if anyone would like to make a motion or put forth anything else to the committee. Terry Wright motioned not to accept the proposal for the restroom flyer as shown to be used in this building. Mark Vlasic seconded the motion. Jerod asked if there is any further discussion. There was none. Jerod asked for a vote. Five Committee members voted to accept the motion and second (Mark Vlasic,Terry Wright, Steve Cornell,John Phillips and Anne Oliver). Jerod Johnson voted against accepting the motion, but noted that there seems to be a consensus and he would support the committee's decision. Trent Steele thanked the committee for their consideration. Anne Oliver asked if there are any guiding documents that she could have a copy of. Joan said that she would email Anne all the documents she has that pertain to the committee and the building. Mark Vlasic also said that he had a master plan that was put together when this building was rehabilitated that he would be happy to send her if Joan did not have a copy. He also mentioned that there is an 0 & M manual as well. Agenda Item 6. Proposed Washington Square Trail Rail Marker: Jesse Peterson from the Oregon California Trails Association provided the Committee a photograph of an existing rail sign and a simple drawing showing the design and dimensions including proposed materials and plans for installation as well as a brief historical explanation for the proposed marker at Washington Square. Mr. Peterson explained that the Oregon California Trails Association is an International organization whose purpose is to protect, preserve and promote the old Oregon California Trails and wagons roads that were used by immigrants to get across the western United States back in the 1840s,50s And 50. Back in 1990 the Association started using a concept we call rail posts because it's made from railroad rail fashioned into a "T". On the T we put a metal plaque that has a quote from someone who traveled the trail who helped to open it up or just to commemorate their experiences in traveling the trail. He explained that since then we have installed about 90 of these in Utah, Idaho and Wyoming. They became interested in Washington Square after finding in some of our recent research in old archives in some of the libraries and research organizations references in documents referring to Immigrant Square and we started looking at that and discovered that Immigrant Square was what turned into Washington Square. The references to Immigrant Square said that during the 1850s and 60s any immigrants coming into Salt Lake City, whether it was their end target or whether they were going on to California, were required to camp in Immigrant Square. Diary quotes mention that this is where they would come and describe how dusty and dirty it was and how they would stay various periods of time, a few days or a few weeks to get their animals in better shape and make purchases from the existing settlers. We felt that it was a good spot for a historical marker so we are here to request for you to consider allowing us to place one of these rail posts somewhere in Washington Square. 5 Jesse introduced two additional people with him today as Terry Welch, President of our OCTAS Utah Chapter and Linda Turner, a member and P.R. person. Mr. Welch reported that another one of things that the researchers found was that when they had these immigrant groups come in someone actually went out and made a roster. He said a lot of these name rosters are not found, but a few are turning up and are very valuable documents. Linda Turner mentioned that Mr. Peterson is a historian and author who has written many books about the Overland Central Stage going from Salt Lake City all the way across Nevada and because of his work and organizing there are markers spread across Utah marking the Overland Central Stage trail which is similar to the Pony Express Trail. She also reported that the Utah Chapter of the organization has about 200 members and about 2000 members nationwide in 11 states. She noted that relative to future tourism in Utah the BLM has a new book"Historical Trail Tour Guide"that people are able to get and people are already visiting these markers. She explained that back in1997 the Mormon Sesquicentennial Wagon Train drove all the way from Missouri to Utah and Washington Square, where it ended. Jesse explained that they believe the best place to put one of these rail post markers would be close to State Street and not too far from the sidewalk, but that decision would be up to the committee. Comments, Questions and Answers: • It's really interesting to know this site was used as an immigration camp. • What is on the actual sign that goes on the rail post? • We usually choose a quote from somebody's diary mentioning their visit to Immigrant Square. • In terms of its design, it's very minimal and fairly in-obtrusive which bodes well for what we are discussing. • We've had similar requests and what we've tried to do over the years is get something that adds some kind of historic character to this building and site. If this was Immigrant Square for one trail then it was for other trails as well, so in fairness we would probably want to have a site for that. Have it planned and organized so that all these could be organized on the property in a way the least negative impact to what we are trying to do to preserve this place. • This marker does have historical tie to the site, whereas, we have some markers here just because someone donated it. • The rail post has been chosen as our trail marker because a lot of our postings are on the trail out in the desert where there's nobody and many of these monuments get cut off and stolen. This rail post has been proven to be logical for being out on the Pony Express Trail and the Mormon Trails in the middle of the desert. Another point is that OCTA is part of the "Partnership for the National Trails System" so it works in conjunction with the BLM and the National Park Service to preserve these trails and use the rail post. When another trail meets this trail they just add a sticker to the rail post to mark other trails rather than add another marker or monument. • Salt Lake City is preparing a comprehensive signage system and look for their parks. We may want to think about a sign dedicated for the history that has a theme to it and where we can designate a place for other trail markers all in one spot. The sign could direct the public who are interested in trails to a single location and could be designed to fit in with the overall signage system the City is implementing. • If we were allowed to put a rail marker in and you came up with such a plan, we would be willing to move it to fit with whatever plan is developed. 6 • Are there any other options other than the rail sign for your system? • The rail post was chosen for various reasons, but mainly because they are so impervious to vandalism. We do have other types of kiosks around the state and we've got interpretive signs that we put up, but we do these in-conjunction with the rail posts. Funding is also part of reason for these rail posts. They are pretty inexpensive to put in whereas interpretive markers or monuments can cost as much at$4000.00. • Does your association maintain these rail markers? • Yes we paint them. • What we are talking about here is a larger discussion about do we clean up the whole site. There are a number of monuments or markers out on Washington Square now that are not necessarily as appropriate as this marker would be. • This marker is absolutely appropriate. It strikes right at the heart at what this building and the Square is about, but we ought to have an overall plan for this kind of thing. • An interpretive sign that talks about the trails that went to Immigrant Square, if that is what this place was called, and has mention of all the groups together. This could be something that is very powerful. Sean Fyfe was asked if he knew whether or not Washington Square was on the list for some of this interpretive signage. Sean did not know, but noted that it is a historic site so he did not think it was part of that plan. • They are doing most other parks in the City and trails and open space. • The idea that someone is going to come out and say that this is part of the Pony Express Trail and put a sticker on it and then someone else comes and puts a sticker on it and soon there are 20 stickers on the rail post is not acceptable. • There are only 3 trails that go through here (Hastings Cutoff, Mormon Trail and Overland Trail). • The Pony Express came through Salt Lake City, but did not come here. There was a station on Main Street and it went south. • This was unique in that this was an actual element of the trail. It was a campsite. That's significant. It wasn't just a pass-through. • It is important to acknowledge that these people stopped here and appropriate to understand the larger history of this site and the fact that this marker relates to what's happening here is great. We need to evaluate the signage. It sounds as if we have a scattered understanding of what is here so maybe some sort of inventory of what's already here and how do we want to tell the story would be appropriate. . If we were to acknowledge each event that happened here we would have a proliferation of signs, which is our main concern, but understanding what we have and making a master plan. The rail sign may not be something that would serve that need, but we do need to acknowledge the story of that trail here, but within the larger context of history. • There are lots of ways to tell the story, especially in this day and age, through interactive media as well as just a sign with letters. Even something with old photographs of this Square before 7 the construction of the building that tells the whole story rather just on signs scattered throughout the area. Jared summarized the general sentiment being said here, stating: "It seems we need the City to undertake a study or investigation regarding designating a space on this site and doing some kind of a master plan for it regarding what should go in to that area and the appropriateness of elements that may be proposed". • We have struggled over the years relative to our furnishings and our amenities on the site,just to keep them consistent. Each thing that we add here, whether it can be considered a sculpture or a monument, the fact is we've never come up with a master plan. We've talked about bollards, the types of signs and dead trees and it comes back to the fact that we've never had a master plan for site amenities and that should be a major goal because we are just going to keep coming up against it again and again and each new generation is going to interpret it differently. Steve Cornell made a proposal to accept their rail sign proposal until a master plan is carried out and we look at this as a temporary installation. Mark Vlasic explained that we've done temporary placements here before, during the Olympics we had the Native American sculpture here for two or three years. • It's something we can re-visit in a period of time. The study is not going to happen right away. • It needs to get funded and that could take quite a while. John Phillips asked the OCTA guests again if they would be amenable to moving their rail marker if in a year or 18 months or so a master plans was developed and affixing to something a little more informative. Jesse Peterson's response was positive noting that they would like to be involved if possible. • So are we setting some sort of precedence that essentially the criteria for accepting this one as temporary based on it being temporary and reversible and secondly of all it relates to events that actually happened on this site? Would that inform future applications, if people were to come to us with more signs, that they would at least have to meet those two criteria? • We aren't really establishing precedence. Every application that comes to us and we review it on a case by case basis. • What's important is that the event happened on this site. This piece of land was used for these activities. Jerod commented that it sounds like we are willing to grant authorization or our approval for a temporary location of the rail marker and then ultimately have it moved so that it fits within the context of a master plan that gets developed. Steve commented that the whole concept should be revisited at that time because it's not just moving their sign, it's saying how can we integrate that history into the overall plan. Mark Vlasic said he would like to propose another question to the applicants and that is if they would be willing to wait until the study was complete. Jesse Peterson explained that they would be willing to wait, but they would feel like it maybe wouldn't happen. 8 Steve Cornell made a motion to approve this on a temporary basis to be revisited at a future date when we actually start the master planning project and looking at signage and how we are going to talk about and communicate the history of this site. Discussion was held relative to the appropriateness of the rail sign. Jerod explained that we need to get to the point that we are making in that decision as to whether or not a temporary placement is appropriate and then beyond that what to do once a master plan or other program gets developed, in which case it would be moved. Steve Cornell moved that we approve the application as it stands with the caveat that it's meant to be a temporary solution to communicate this history and that we will review this at a future date as to how to integrate it into the overall signage plan that we have on Washington Square. The question was raised relative to if the proposal is approved, how we will locate the temporary installation site. Jerod noted that the Committee's yearly walk through of the grounds is next month in September and we could put this back on our agenda as part of that walk to come up with a couple of proposed locations and get feedback from the applicants after we give them a couple of ideas. Jerod reminded the Committee that there is a motion on the table that Steve has put forth with a caveat that we would next month again revisit the temporary location when we do our yearly walk through of the grounds. Terry asked if we have a motion and then a question on the motion. Steve Cornell said he would amend the motion to say "we will consider the location of such marker at our next meeting." Jerod noted that we have a motion with an amendment as indicated by Steve. Terry asked if the intent of the motion and the amendment to utilize the branding of the rail post marker. Steve Cornell replied yes and re-affirmed the language"as the application stands". John Phillips seconded the motion. Jerod asked if there was any further discussion with the motion and the amendment. There were none. Jerod called for a vote. Four members voted to accept the motion and amendment(Jerod Johnson, Steve Cornell, Anne Oliver and John Phillips) and two members voted to oppose the motion (Terry Wright and Mark Vlasic.) Jerod confirmed that there were 2 opposed and 4 in favor. Jesse Peterson explained that they would go ahead and get a rail post built for the site and get the plaque made and then wait on the committee's decision as to the possible locations. John Phillips commented that the quote should be submitted to the committee for approval prior to completing the rail post. Jesse agreed that they would submit the quote to the committee to be approved at the next meeting. 9 Jim Cleland suggested that we quickly poll the committee as to the votes so that we have the correct information in the records. Joan confirmed that Mark Vlasic and Terry Wright opposed the motion and the remaining four committee members approved the motion. Discussion was held relative to the cost of such a study. Jim explained that we will have the Park's Department with us on that walk through, which is a really good time to discuss this as they are the ones who are actually doing the signage project for all the parks and plazas. Mark noted that his company is doing the master plan for them. Mark asked about additional funding for a project as extensive as this. Jim and Sean acknowledged that Parks would be the appropriate organization to talk about this with as they would be the organization to fund it. Jerod asked if there was any action we need to make as a committee in that regard. Terry commented that he thinks we need to make a formal motion and proposal so that Parks will know that we made a formal request from them to do something. Jerod asked if anyone wanted to make a proposal. Mark Vlasic said that he would like to make a motion that we move forward with the development of a master plan and request that the master plan be prioritized in order to insure that any temporary signage remains temporary and eventually something becomes permanent. Jerod noted that we have a motion before us and asked if there is any other discussion. There was no further discussion. Terry seconded the motion. Jerod noted the second to the motion and asked if there is any further discussion. There was none. Jerod called for a vote. The committee voted unanimously to approve the motion. John Phillips asked the OCTA people about any potential funds that they may be willing to contribute toward doing a more extensive monument in the future. Mr. Peterson told the Committee that their funds are limited, but they are interested in participating in the future. Agenda Item 7. A Presentation from the Seismic Upgrade and Stone Remediation Project Team: Jerod explained that due to his participation on the team he will recues himself, as Committee Chair, and turn it over to Mark Vlasic as Vice Chair to handle this issue and he will join Charles Shepherd from VCBO Architects who is the Project Manager and Dawn Wagner the Project Manager from SLC Engineering. Mark asked Jerod to explain the context of what they will be presenting today and what you would like to get from this Committee. Jerod explained that Charles is actually the person leading this entire effort and he,Jared, is working as a sub-consultant to Charles for Charles so he will let Charles address that. 10 Sean Fyfe jumped in and explained that this presentation is really only for information at this point. They are not asking for any kind of approval or recommendation, it is just an update on the project and explaining where we are. Jim Cleland noted that this is part of the public engagement portion of this project and so we are really looking for your engagement, your input into the moving along of this project. Sean Fyfe noted that there will be a point in the future where we will want your blessing on the effort. Charles explained that his and Jerod's firms, independently, have been to this Committee presenting the results of studies over the past several years. Charles reported that he was involved in the study of exterior stone condition, assessment and generating repair documents for that study and Jerod was involved in the investigation of the seismic base isolators. We both produced studies and this project has brought together the two proposals under one umbrella project to be constructed ideally during the next two calendar years. Charles provided some slide images on the screen (copy of presentation will be available to view along with final approved minutes from this meeting) and explained that stone remediation involves stonework repairs and flashing upgrades and other water repelling upgrades and the City has added in a repair of the windows basically consisting of painting and caulking and make minor repairs. No window replacements are projected at this time. Mark asked if this is just a design study or is this taking it into implementation. Charles explained that this is taking it to implementation and they are currently producing construction documents at this time. A slide presentation showing some of the stone conditions that were found a few years ago in their study. He explained that the stone carves really well but then it wants to turn into sand so it really needs to be protected from the water and the weathering surfaces as shown are the critical items. There are some cracks in the stone that were identified in the 1980's restoration drawings so we think they've been pinned, but can't be sure and so we are being prudent and when we see a crack we are going to pin across it and then patch and repair that crack so that we know it is structurally sound and functional. He noted there are some "grab-bag" issues related to the seismic joint items. We identify the issues and then the City will decide which ones will be funded and included in any upgrades to be completed. Slide presentation included views of: • Stone deterioration • Seismic joint issues • Window conditions • Some of the documents that have been prepared and that we are continuing utilize and augment and integrate them into the complete set. Charles turned the presentation over to Jerod to explain the seismic portion of the project. Jerod explained that this is a base isolated building and is actually the first major historic base isolation project in the world. It's in text books and is a very interesting project. By base isolated, we simply mean that the building is not rigidly connected to the ground, so the earthquake comes and wants to 11 shake the building somewhat violently and the building just kind of floats above with most of the major accelerations being filtered out. This was deemed the most prudent approach about 30 years ago in the mid 1980's when they did the design. So rather than directly address the forces that the building wanted to attract, they introduced the base isolation system, which greatly diminishes those forces. Jerod explained that he first became connected with the Committee, some years ago, Harvey Wright, a very avid proponent of the base isolation system wanted to make sure that it could perform adequately and there were some concerns with some disparities with some of the tests that had been taken at that point recently on the isolators and so they brought us on board to look at it. The first thing that I was a little bit disconcerted by was the relative size of these isolators. They are about 17 by 17 inches square and about 16 inches tall. Charles and I had recently come off the Utah State Capitol project where isolators are nearly 36 inches in diameter, typically, and owing the proximity between the two, it begged the question why are these isolators so small compared to what we have at the Capitol. It's a simple matter of in the mid 1980's the earth quake that they expected is roughly half of the earthquake that we expect today. To that end, we recommended to the committee that some very serious investigation of these isolators be undertaken, even full scale testing of the isolators and we took four of the spare isolators down to the Charles Lee Powell lab at UCSD and actually tested those isolators all the way to failure so that we could have a good handle on what kind of performance we could actually expect from this isolation system. We ultimately concluded that the isolators are capable, they are highly resilient. They performed much better than I even expected. We do have capability of the isolation system performing well for a minor to moderate earthquake with displacements up to about 14 inches. Our studies and analysis tells us the isolator system probably works just fine. That is a bit more displacement than was anticipated in the 1980's, but still, they are capable of performing beyond the limitations that was set forth in the original design. The concern we have, however, is that we do have the potential for an earthquake that could push the isolation system beyond that threshold. If we get a large rare seismic event, which the geologic history teaches us that we do get a very large seismic event on intervals of ranging from 1500 to 2500 years. In that case, the isolators could roll over and suddenly we don't have a reliable gravity load path for the building and that could be catastrophic. The next slide (Isolator Performance) shows some of the isolators in place and Terry may remember the photo on the right from the construction back in the 1980's and this is one of our tests of the isolators where we pushed them all the way to failure to where they were on that threshold of rolling over and wouldn't have any inherent capability of pulling themselves back. So those tests conclusively demonstrated to us that we could expect 14 inches of displacement when loaded in the orthogonal direction and then 16 inches if its diagonal and if you've seen the plan we have about half of the isolators are orthogonal to the and the other half are diagonal so we have kind of a mix down there. 14 to 16 inches of maximal displacement with a large rare earth quake that could push it just beyond that so we put together a whole series of recommendations for the City to consider. All the way from doing nothing to wholesale replacement of the isolation system and we put together cost estimates for that. The whole isolation replacement option was in the neighborhood of 20 million dollars and of course the do nothing option was nothing. We had some intermediate recommendations as well and one of which was to install a supplemental receiving system that would essentially catch the building in the event of isolator roll-over. This was one that our estimates put it at about 2 million dollars so it seemed to be a very prudent approach to develop the supplemental receiving system at minimal cost and it does add a significant amount of assurance to the building in the event of that big earthquake that could be large enough to push the building off of the isolation system. We have the moat space all the way around the building, which is basically the dedicated space in which the building can displace in the event of the earthquake. So as part of that earlier study, we wanted to 12 characterize, not just the isolation system, but the complete building. We wanted to get a good handle on whether or not the isolation system was effective and whether or not we had the right kind of geometry and properties in the isolators to handle the kind of big earthquake that we expected. One of the things that was done as part of the construction in the late 1980's is that they installed these very heavy duty marine grade bumpers all the way around the perimeter of the building which was never part of the original design intent, but someone with the City had insisted that they be installed. So we actually modeled those and the impact with the bumpers and while it may help prevent the isolation system from rolling over, it reeks havoc with the building sending shock waves and pulses up through the building that we would expect to be very problematic with the unreinforced masonry that exists throughout the structure. Right at the top of our recommendation list was to move those bumpers thereby allowing the system to displace its full capability up to the 14 to 16 inches, but in addition to that, we want to add some supplemental receiving piers that will essentially catch the building in the event of isolator rollover. The typical geometry is show in the upper right of the slide (Isolator Performance). We have isolators relatively close spacing down through that basement area. We simply want to install a "shoulder wall" shown in red, which would be installed nearly tight right up to the concrete beams that are supported by isolators.These shoulder walls roughly measure 14 inches thick and about 8 feet long typically and they would be installed at regular intervals throughout that footprint and they simply will catch the building if the isolators go far enough, then the building hits those receiving piers and we've got a reliable method to catch those loads even though the isolators might be beyond their capable displacing. It's roughly 150 cubic yards of concrete, but it is really tight confined space and difficult for installation. Terry asked if those walls are there and it gets to that point do they just stay on that or is it to the point where isolators can still rebat? Jerod explained that at the point the isolators have really lost all of their restoring capability and so the building would be sitting displaced permanently on to those temporary piers. The ground motion that's large enough to produce that kind of displacement, comes from what we call a near field effect, so it would be an earthquake that is very close that has one big pulse that just hits the building, pushes it and then stops. Jerod explained that the really significant attenuation that you would get is typically from an earthquake that's a lot farther away and those pulses are not nearly as high magnitude so what we would expect from an earthquake that is really far out there, yes it would shake the building, but there would not be a pulse large enough to completely push the building off of the isolators. So this is meant to address that near field of effect. The Seismic Upgrade slides shows: • Examples of some of the numerical modeling • On the plan, all the red areas are the shoulders. The isolators are typically located between each one of those shoulders. • The picture shown with the stub column was a similar idea back in the 1980's to the supplemental receiving system. This big steel load transfer beam and these inverted posts so that if the isolator post rolled over the load is simply going to the beam and then on to those 13 posts. This was a pretty common approach 30 years ago and we are basically just reintroducing that same idea with the shoulder walls that we want to install. Questions, Answers and Comments: • Is this done elsewhere or are you inventing this concept just for this building. • We are inventing it for this building, but it's not an unpresedented concept. The Evans and Sutherland building at Research Park has an idea similar to this concept just different details for it. • Would there be Teflon slideplates on top of those concrete slabs? • I don't think we would go as far as Teflon slide plates because it would be a very costly solution, but we still need to look at the friction level and how much force wants to transmit between the two. If it comes to the point that we think it's prudent, our approach would be to use something like a core lathe bearing pad that minimizes the amount of friction that could develop and it's a fairly cheap solution by comparison to the Teflon slider. • A lot of the areas in between those isolators are scalloped because of core-hole drilling back in the 1980's so they are not smooth. • Jerod confirmed that they have studied these areas out and the demolition plans include having the contractor clean these areas out so the shoulder walls can be installed. Charles addressed the Architect's efforts to approach means and methods and explained initial concepts in conjunction with consultation with contractors. One option for approaching the project with dates updated for our current position. He explained that the thought is that the stone exterior will be addressed in quadrants. We would be doing the work during the warmer months avoiding mid winter construction to avoid having to heat the building and tenting the scaffolding and things like that as well as the impact on curing mortar. This is one option working around the building and including the tower in the second phase. Slide showing some of the schematics and some of the issues that will need to be addressed (Selected Site Issues) • How does the contractor get into the sub-basement • Excavation on the west side on both sides of the stairs to gain access to that. There's likely to be something similar to that on the East side to allow concrete to be pumped in there. • Currently that space is only accessible by one door and 3 access panels and none of these are adequate for the work that needs to be done. • Obviously there's impact to the staging area around there to the nature of the landscaping. • The red orange dots are potential moat interaction locations that we need to be examining • My initial concept is that the primary pedestrian access is maintained through the southeast corner getting everyone to the ADA entrance which we will need to be maintained throughout the project protected from construction activities. • How the construction impacts the East parking area and drop off area and other access to the site is open to contractor input, but there will be sizeable impacts to get material and personnel here Charles presented a rough time line they are projecting (Timeline): • The seismic upgrades would happen most of next calendar year with modest visual impacts to the use of the building, but not inconsequential noise and other impacts to the interior of the 14 building. So looking at options of whether that's night shifts or whatever to make that work happen. • The two phases for the exterior stone remediation and window repairs would basically happen April through October or thereabouts when the contractor can schedule and however the weather responds to the project schedule, but stretching out over 2 calendar years. (Basic Project Goals) • Preservation of a historic building but also a preservation of life safety • We need to emphasize again that Jerod's study showed that the base isolation system that's installed worked just as it was designed and the isolators are still performing exactly as they were intended to perform up to a really sizeable earthquake. It is just that with greater understanding we know that we should be planning for that really exceptional earthquake that happens once every few millennia and addressing that so that there's support for this building into the sub-basement. So we are here to communicate, try to plan and to educate. Charles showed some drone footage that was taken flying around the building. Terry mentioned that several years ago they did an energy study of the building and one of the things that we had determined was that the single paned glass ought to be changed out due to the large amount of energy being lost through the windows. He asked Charles if any part of this project is for replacement or is it just a painting and repair. Charles explained that this is basically a paint and repairs. Questions and Answers: • How much of the stone actually needs to be replaced and have you selected who will be doing the replacement or repair? • No to the second question and the first question I have no idea what percentage, but it's a very modest amount of replacement so it's pretty much limited to a few locations at the bases of the colonets and places like that. Some of those were mortar patches in the past and we will be doing more mortar patches again in the future. Not very much new stone will be coming on site. Sean Fyfe noted that they will be pre-qualifying the masons and the generals. • Do you propose any blanket approaches to the stone? In the 1980's was there any water repellant or consolidants applied to the some areas? • The documents show some. When we did out study a few years ago we took cores that we had studied retro graphically or whatever the right term is and they found that one of the problems with the stone is that it delaminates of the face and it fails in flakes off the face and hence any consolidants really isn't going to bridge the fractures that are formed in there and glue the face back on. We do have a few highly decorative areas that we said that we will apply some while we are up here, but there is no wholesale consolidants or cleaning of the building. There is a lot of re-pointing and a lot of additional flashing. • What is the construction budget? • It's about 10 Million dollars for the stone and windows and seismic. • Do those shoulder walls have any ability to withstand after subsequent aftershocks after a major event? • Yes, This is certainly one of the issues we are going to be looking at is once they receive the building what is the potential for more earthquake motion and do they have particularly in their 15 weak direction enough strength to resist forces that could develop. We will be designing them for that scenario. • Question about a past study that caused a concern relative to the distance between the moat edge and the possibility of the isolator touching it and grounding it and creating an active seismic area. • Basically, this was the test of the bumpers impact that was discussed earlier. • Does this committee make an approval of the design at some point or is this just informational? • It's been presented to planning and Historic Landmarks Commission has recommended administration approval to the planning office. • The powers and duties of the Committee are to develop and recommend to the Mayor policies and procedures and review and advise regarding all improvements and repairs so that would not necessarily extends to the engineering plans. • Is the University or USGS still going to supply the sensors? • USGS has agreed to install the equipment, we have to purchase it. Agenda Item 8. Discussion Relative to Additional Committee Members. Jim Cleland reported that he has made inquiries to different organizations in request for more people to volunteer to fill committee positions. We have 8 committee positions to fill and 2 vacant positions. Joan reported that we are missing Arts Council and Architectural positions vacant and currently have 3 candidates willing to serve. Anne just filled the Historical Society position. Jim reported that we have Rob Pett, David Hart and Eva Rinaldi, who was recommended by the Arts Council. All three candidates have made application and are in different stages of process and getting set up to meet with the Council. We have 3 really good candidates and in one year we will have more positions to fill real quick and so we are wondering if we can put somebody as a non-voting member or alternate to hold on to them? Jaysen explained that he does think that we can. He noted that the Ordinance 239.030 specially deals with the creation of the committee and it specifically says that there are 8 appointed members and names the non-voting members as the Mayor, the City Attorney, Support Service Managers and the City Engineer or their designees. It specifically lists the slots for voting members with 4 from specific organizations and 2 at-large members. With what is provided right now there is no provision for additional members. He said that at one point we looked at potentially re-writing 239.030 to create a couple more at large positions because we've been having such a hard time getting a quorum together. Jim asked what the process is and how long does it take. Jaysen explained that the process would be: • Putting together the Ordinance ( he thinks there is a draft out there somewhere so it won't be too difficult) • Create a transmittal to go with it to indicate why we are changing it and why we think it would be useful to do that • It would typically come from a division and they would forward it to David Everett with the Mayor's office and then they would forward it to the Council • They would put it on their agenda in their own time an handle it The fastest he has seen it done is three weeks. The real trick is getting it on the agenda. The transmittal has a spot for a Council sponsor so if we wanted to push that by talking with a Council Member or two and seeing if someone would be interested in taking a sponsor role and moving it through. 16 Mark asked for an overview of what committee members will be coming up. Joan reported that Mark Vlasic, Terry Wright and John Phillips term expires in July 2016 and all three are in their 2nd term. Jaysen was asked if we could we create to alternate members that could be voting members if any of the 8 current members did not show up and then when terms expire there would be members that could take those positions. Jaysen said that we could restructure the ordinance to create this scenario. Jim noted that if there is good time to restructure this ordinance it would be now before we begin this construction so there is a bit of urgency. Jaysen indicated that he would see if he can put one together. Jerod thanked everyone and asked if there was anyone who would like to make a motion to dismiss. Terry motioned to dismiss. Jerod asked if there was and discussion. There was none. Jerod called for a vote. The committee unanimously voted to dismiss. 17 RALPH iECE:c] � RICK GRAHAM Mayor Public Services Director • MEMORANDUM TO: David Everitt, Chief of Staff Art Raymond, Mayor Communication Director Rick Graham, Public Services Department Director Jill Love, CED Department Director Cindy Gust Jensen, Council Staff Director Gina Chamness, Finance Director FROM: Alden Breinholt, Public Services Operation Division Director /( IP 1)17/)'� DATE: July 17, 2015 / RE: City and County Building Seismic Upgrade and Stone Remediation In 2014 the City funded two key projects that would ensure the Historic City & County Building could withstand larger seismic events than was originally designed, and to once again repair, preserve, and where needed replace some of the exterior Kyune sandstone. These projects are essential to maintaining the building to a level that is consistent to its historic significance and to allow for continued use as Salt Lake City's Hall well into the future. The Project Team Members currently are listed below and we would welcome members of the Mayor and Council staff to join the team, if so desired: Public Services Alden Breinholt, PS Operations Division Director Jim Cleland, Facilities Program Director SLC Engineering Sean Fyfe, AIA City Architect Dawn Wagner, Project Manager Project Architect Charles Shepherd, RA, VCBO Architecture, LLC Structural Engineer Jerod Johnson. PE. Reaveley Engineers & Associates The project team has completed the selection process where VCBO and Reaveley Engineering were selected to perform the remaining design and project oversight. We are now to the point of moving forward with the upfront public engagement aspect of the project and reaching out to stakeholders to solicit input and feedback. Although many of the elements of the project are technical, the building will once again be claded in scaffolding and we will want to ensure citizen have the opportunity to become fully aware of the project building requirements. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES Director's Office 451 So State Room 138 WWW SLCGOV COM PO BOX 145470,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5470 TEL 801-535-7922 FAX 801-535-7963 We also welcome the opportunity to brief the Mayor and Staff as well as the City Council and Staff about the project in more detail. Please advise if there is this desire. Communications Plan: The project team has drafted a communications plan to address internal and external stakeholders both during the design and construction phase. At this time presentations are scheduled for the following groups: - Aug 5th—Event Review Committee -Aug 5th—Central City Neighborhood Council - Aug 6th—SLC Historic Landmarks Commission - Aug 10th—Building Conservancy and Use Committee -Aug 20th—Planning Open House—City and County Building employees will be encouraged to visit this open house. Also the team is developing criteria for General Contractor coordination with employees and public, such as signage, informational events, and project website. Schedule: The projected construction periods (to be finalized with General Contractor) are shown below. Because much of the work is on the exterior of the building and Utah winters will impact the ability to work year round without other considerations, and a longer construction period is planned. Jan-Dec 2016 Seismic Upgrades Apr-Nov 2016 Stone Remediation 5/13/16 Start of Living Traditions Festival (stone restoration exhibit) Apr-Nov 2017 Stone Remediation 5/12/17 Start of Living Traditions Festival(stone restoration exhibit II) cc: Dawn Wagner Sean Fyfe Jim Cleland ! / ,; 14-.4%, ,-V., 'i. 1 \ / ? r, 4 • (, lik �•.,, l� e:,.i i . 0 , � -•AIR V • • I I ffl ' .mil • I1� �; SALT LAKE CITY & COUNTY BUILDING /' °� ��� � :� i ��,i�!�. .I STONE REMEDIATION & SEISMIC UPGRADE • y ) s " / ' Investigation &Design: Summer/Fall 2015 may: �� C Construction: Spring 2016 Fall 2017 9 i 3b , ri leL a� i �M `o _ - \ ---- elrr•lf /rrr - . rr i ___________-----;••.• _____- 41._.,,-11! o , i, r ;„,e.,.,,„,,t,..e/ , P,,1, ._.,,v. ..,,..-- E,,_. r - `� ._,;.._- ':",, !; ENGINEERING DIVISION Er ;_0 , (,,, �` COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC ,1_ _._i,_ :. f, :t, ' ' �. l.7bn' z` DEVELOPMENT T"�.: SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION II 1111 i 1 „ » '_ -, •N REAVELEY } ENGINEERS+ASSOCIATES - - - i — ARCHITECTURE Consulting Structural Engineers • • 9RCJ PCT team Reaveley Engineers&Associates ? ........... ."-'..%. Jerod Johnson Mark Thlmmr _.....„ ,(_ , Jay Bollwinkel MGB+A Landscape Architects Salt Lake City , w Sean Onyon Principal in Charge ERoEn " I Buing VCBQ Charles Shepherd nsunts DESIGN/ Project/Historical Architect MANAGEMENT TEAM 401 Karen Ferguson Design Resource VCBO staff as needed Generali ;::jr oo Contractor Health Kris Larson Engineering Construction Control Corporation Mechanical,Electrical, IIIP Plumbing,& Fire Protection CI SEISMIC UPGRADE AND STONE REMEDIATION I SALT LAKE CITY&COUNTY BUILDING I VCBO ARCHITECTURE DROJ FCT ( -q • onents stone, • isolator sub-basement work seismic remedial-Ion access upgrade • seismic joint evaluation • building `umbilical' service • moat bumper removal • stone repairs connectors • flashing repairs/upgrades • seismic bracing of balustrades • moat clearance confirmation • window repairs/repainting • chimney seismic evaluation and • fail-safe piers re-bracing • seismic instrumentation SEISMIC UPGRADE AND STONE REMEDIATION I SALT LAKE CITY&COUNTY BUILDING I VCBO ARCHITECTURE stone HVHDATON . -.!-z__Lwr-- I , A i.:.- : ' I T--�- - - - _ .�� .e +a _, • '� `r_T_ �/ 1� , t — I J 1 _ ,1 I ' • r ' ., I') - ",_.> A .j : ". •1r' — I les+"• 1 � •. `. , .i 1 :v• _ fit:. ,t, rl k', —r_ �;. s h s " �' �',, , ..,' .1,..'01. I ifti Tye r_ I - ' T' ' # •. - �. \ . •,, , . Y .. '1, 4 1 a .yam . ".'',�t' . ,� A SEISMIC UPGRADE AND STONE REMEDIATION I SALT LAKE CITY&COUNTY BUILDING I VCBO ARCHITECTURE seismic J 0 00 1SS,JFS _, o w to , 4. ----11)._ , i 1.6. -„.-..,,,..,- ', .,..,,_ �nail mom ,- '',I., :• -.1"1",- It 001111!_ _ . a __ [01....8b. , . - , .,- RY 1 ..-0.0-- Villiimg— ..:___ ...Ir. SEISMIC UPGRADE AND STONE REMEDIATION I SALT LAKE CITY&COUNTY BUILDING I VCBO ARCHITECTURE window F DA ss �. , ,_, ,..- i a<. 4 „,,,,u,re . - — L - , I, I • r , 1 4 . _ . I , . _ _ ... ., I . . . i 1. ,_, . , . . __. ,1 ,, , , . r- _ _ �. SEISMIC UPGRADE AND STONE REMEDIATION I SALT LAKE CITY&COUNTY BUILDING I VCBO ARCHITECTURE ."s scope p _ A ino, FM t...'3,,c.-„d‘,.o t,. `` . i,.•. , lam+ C �=1,_6_ A 0 ?. 1 - QS „) A ..,"f.' a_: :— a ._. .._.._..._.4_.. ,____...._„.,....,_......_±._._ i yy��� miii Ihi 11 —o 7—�k IIiIMIIII FT,. f1 tiv,s,�. cl , r V, •I•.-.. 'e a© t ,CrDp r.,t—,4W iE.8,'"1.1 1 A•i O— o m * 1 X o 0 o pXI. c J. o ® Ca 03� ® o -17 t ae o "' �'o©is . ( ® 1I 6 ® I in �.-. ,e..r ) .tom®1•IIMBW OA aucip to ®I �— O O �a L9 jNt{(Irll L� . . Q . n 4O LI 9 � rrr: . . . a . I`®© �� 1 1_et. a © o Ia —rrll 1® 1 1117 (PP n) / crIpE (=)*- a (cal-) cw1E) ® Le7®o (mmm) ap <m„„> `\ (amn) ® i�® ems` i 000 �g ARCH END SCUPPER FLASHINd Bµ1 STATE BASE FLASHING ® CLOCK TOWER WEST ELEVATION O CLOCK TOWER SOUTH ELEVATION ecu riae fir' SEISMIC UPGRADE AND STONE REMEDIATION I SALT LAKE CITY&COUNTY BUILDING I VCBO ARCHITECTURE . ,,, ,„, earthcuake recurrence intervc Is (yecrs) , , - ' . . .i)) 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 2 0 D • , BSE-1 c a a� BSE-2 ass 500 year event E o bumper impact a 1300 year event IIIIII lir a / 1500 year event diagonally 4 displacing isolators oc isolator roll-over MI ' a o moat wall impact 2500 year event 0 8" 11" 14" 16" 18" a ooroximcto iso ction system c is o ccomont SEISMIC UPGRADE AND STONE REMEDIATION I SALT LAKE CITY&COUNTY BUILDING I VCBO ARCHITECTURE First historic building to be base isolated, completed 1988. (photo: Forell/Bsesser,SE) . . 11 isolator 3F�FoRVA\ATI a t. i 3 5 . ' • 1.--- - T arm __ y�.�• •_ .... . ...../0"...": lk _ t . - • - _ ,4_ 1 , • =------•.------T.---"..••As....... • 4 ill Installed base isolators Base isolator tested to roll-over SEISMIC UPGRADE AND STONE REMEDIATION I SALT LAKE CITY&COUNTY BUILDING I VCBO ARCHITECTURE ARCHITECTURE sHsvcupgrade CASING CNC_____„<",_ _ , 6,/:// /7/ , / TRANSFE(USING BEAM J C II BAY ISU IG YM ISC ATCR �I —I iW :1 — YEM 1 li CE EW4EWIN lit EWING CAP 10 iRANYFR avI TRANSFER BEAM ' / /4 r 1r' / r I II N NUM� O- III--I� I I I , • I I 1 ,1 EASING MAT j / ��«. FMK /:' . I I Al TYPICAL SHOULDER WALL SECTION O . . I Iii7501 HO SallI I - — II I - I' 1 loml ♦♦ 11 um t I : ' III III . . • - -s- t ,,, P w= ..... 1-1 O &--1i WOW I I 1 : III III • I R _ 1 II I a) re - I I 11 —.1111' - • cn ®� _ _ — 1 . . I . .. 11 as ' ! t I II d ° —r I 1111 iiii 0 0 0 0 t � 1�J 0 !� J A oRN U) m� E ®OVERALL SHOULDER WALLIRECIEVING PIER PLAN xAlc lllY• -a• ,f 11�11 SEISMIC UPGRADE AND STONE REMEDIATION I SALT LAKE CITY&COUNTY BUILDING I VCBO ARCHITECTURE I __ >~ 3 -' = r 200 as-`-= ` 1. . pedes l'I a accr - ate- ' = `i. .t, approximate , staging ,' areas/ , - - -r ,;t - ,, ;: ., . . Cl) 2A 2c 1 r a .ii._ • po o spring 2017 fall 2017 itot � k NIP"- . � I, C.. . 9RFL V \ARY� _` : . -_ 2B - .- __ , 11.)asingT : summer 2017 —_ Sri - _- � " >�:� :,:_ A • r - _ approach ►, summer 2016 fall 2016 h s r . °I , r 1 i • i- ',. (Final sequence and . schedule to be determined :. I rl � N. s��> �' 0 by General Contractor and I. a J. V� . O _ City early 2016) a � a i ...,,, . ;:'.. .) . r • _ -- State Street • u �•■ n• nl .l - - - •■ 802. 1, I'N!! atilt - - Y.O / -1 > ...v ,r7 Kull 11- f, SEISMIC UPGRADE AND STONE REMEDIATION I SALT LAKE CITY&COUNTY BUILDING I VCBO ARCHITECTURE SPLPCTPD site issues visitor parking? 200 East Street iai ti -At in 6. flpisam0 ' iitit 1 .*•:*. MI 1e construction 1 4i_ access illut ,.�i impact to r / II } I ; p P ct ��`� / primary mi pedestrian primary. 92 ill ���e, \� '� access �� fl 0I1 �+Err ' m - a 4 V^ ,d © l m 29 o Z-: . NMI VJ o moat coverills i • . +•-•-• 1 -1,,1 InUralk) �J • isolation impacts— j•CsIn o slip joints,ramps, _Fh ;p 9 0 • etc. , i `o CRC dm- landscape, 1 + $ sl' ' �• ,� i 1 ��, i •-� �U�• • ., irrigation & I Is , site furniture impact i �, O isolator sub-basement 'r0, Mtaccess I ,$ © � 4 i • 4. il k r State Street SEISMIC UPGRADE AND STONE REMEDIATION I SALT LAKE CITY&COUNTY BUILDING I VCBO ARCHITECTURE 2016 2017 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0 0000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 timeline r '714W TIP •r r T, - Seismic upgrades • Spring 201 6-December 2016 11' - Stone and windows phase 1 • • April - November 2016 CrLt - I s , _ . �` Stone and windows phase 2 • A ' r--t I ., , • April - November 2017 ji I 1 , l „ _4*, _ • -tf i R II !W ' �,_': c .*., . lilt. 3. 1I , Ii..; • _._ 4 $ .♦ SEISMIC UPGRADE AND STONE REMEDIATION I SALT LAKE CITY&COUNTY BUILDING I VCBO ARCHITECTURE , 441 -',"/Iik.,,•;4— li, ,-'- , r ..., . _ .,... / -. , •I I - 1 , ----- •-• '-. _ I1 - , ,,,,•,,, ,, ,,,„,. .....„,„:„.,. -, _ -4' fl • ,,,,._,, -,,,,d. , • ,, ' 14,- , ,-- ,fj .,, iii4:.,--: II., ---'-..i:. liJ ' ' _1 1_.,--"--'-'', 044,,,r0 - .1r,.*' fijJ • y 4 . t.A4k PRO CTgOalS ---..1 .:.;•1 JO -'"----- , I :t„:-' - , ,„ .^.0.4 AP479,-,11.• 7" I .;,' , - ----- .- -- ,,,...- ,I_JA... r 7 ,...,4: ---7 , ,i...,,• • .... ,,,,,_,,,.,,•,-,44,17 14 II , ' , .',- - • preserve, protect, enhance- - , -; k •-•.+V.,-.--- Vag -J - .„,), _ - , ...1., ,_ , historic building & users ' 4.• j.--,, . .....„ i 0-'•'-•4--•,V '•• • ' r 0::;:-__C-:----r-r---'1--T --- • plan and communicate to ,... 0 . . • , - , , ..- ir- ., --, minimize impacts . Y 1 .... ., 'e-Ws..'.• • , 4 ) 7 . , ' _ I ' ' . • educate ,..„-----4..„ , ,,- ilk / r r , / , . , t 1, . JL _ v•,, , , i 1 1 i 4,1 1 - 1 i lir•imiliiiii _ . ir 'NI 7.41:71_ J Lir_ ik.„_um, 411.111111r- _,..----•-- - SEISMIC UPGRADE AND STONE REMEDIATION I SALT LAKE CITY&COUNTY BUILDING I VCBO ARCHITECTURE WASHINGTON SQUARE RAILPOST MARKER PROJECT The Utah Crossroads Chapter of the Oregon-California Trails Association (OCTA) is seeking the approval that is necessary to place a historic marker in Washington Square. The purpose of the proposed marker would be to point out the fact that during the 1860s and possibly before, this section of property was used as a temporary camping spot for covered wagon emigrants, and as such, it was the beginning point for what has become known as the Central Overland Trail. The Central Overland Trail was opened for travel in 1859 by Captain James H. Simpson of the UA Army's Topographical Corps and was the most direct route between Salt Lake City and Sacramento, California. It was the route that was used by the Overland Stage and the Pony Express, and as recent research has shown, it was also used by significant numbers of California-bound emigrants. Historical research has shown that as early as 1861 this city block was being referred to as Emigration Square and sometimes Emigrant Square. In an article that appeared in The Overland Journal, William G. Hartley wrote; "Wagon trains rolled into the broad Salt lake Valley and made their final stop in Salt Lake City's Emigration Square where the city and county building now stands at Fourth South and State streets. . . . Some slept a day or two in their parked wagons because `there was a shortage of houses to rent.- Professor Hartley was referring to Mormon emigrants, but recent research has turned up a number of diaries written by non-Mormon emigrants who were on their way to California that mentioned Emigrant or Emigration Square. Since 1998 Utah Crossroads has been placing what we call Raippost markers at historically significant sites along the various historic wagon trails that once traveled through the state of Utah. There are currently about 90 of these markers in place. The markers are fabricated from a six foot section of railroad rail with a 16 inch rail crosspiece welded to one end so that the entire marker is in the shape of the letter T. When installed they are placed into a two foot deep hole and secured with concrete, leaving an exposed post that is four feet in height. Attached to the crosspiece will be a metal plate that has been engraved with text that describes the significance of the site and a quotation from the diary of an emigrant or other traveler who stopped at or passed by the site. If Utah Crossroads can obtain the necessary approval for placing a railpost in Washington Square it would be our preference that it be located somewhere along the State Street side of the block. We would expect to provide the labor and material that is needed to install the railpost and would comply with any requirements that you might have for such a project. At the present we do not have a specific date in mind but our goal is to install this railpost sometime during the summer of 2015. Iv\ 9i i'I # � j C- N\6 L , J ti 2f' Drawing of a Utah Crossroads Railpost Historical Marker The marker will be fabricated from steel railroad rail, cut and welded into a "T" form, six feet long with a crosspiece sixteen inches long. An engraved metal plate describing the historic site will be attached to the crosspiece. The post will be placed in a hole approximately two feet deep and secured with concrete. _ ' F á __ SIC"♦ i' ,i fir, f ,y s—„�.y. Ifr 1 ' _. t x ' _'�V+- '^r m d) if , , ar 1 4�' VY�7 =r T10 .} W f 4T4iP ,4' JY' 1 dt'' �; K .i m• h l� '9 `Y FP !l� :. {d ;7`,i 4.' 7 • ,'.fr �y�- ®"IA -� t ,� ('11.6 'R+•' ,,•, ,' j•, . ¢ R e. !rSY+'i�y '� t .t �"IQ# '7:9P71,rat 4li *A 1 • , �� � p rr.'�.- /"1 i4�'�'� '. �+ � �, �1 t..` ! .;f o t, �� � j" � y�e tr. n � 1 �,At^yt J I �t 1 , t ,� 1? , . „t-c i t' W A � ��.� � 4Mr 1 :� J �f �' ..tip Photo of a Utah Crossroads Railpost at Stansbury Park August 2015 Issue: Salt Lake City Corporation has partnered with Liberty BACK 2 SCHOOL Mutual and MetLife to offer employees discounted It is almost time to go Back to School, and part of that process Auto and Home Insurance. In August local Liberty is getting your children in for their annual Back to School Mutual and MetLife agents will be onsite at major Physicals! Your Onsite Care Clinic is a fully functioning department locations to answer insurance related primary care clinic and can take care of that for you, as well as questions and provide insurance coverage quotes. a full review and administration of any needed childhood (and adult)vaccines. Monday,August 17th: Parks Conference Room In addition to well woman and well man adult exams,your Tuesday,August 18th: Public Utilities Shops Training Room Onsite clinic offers the following childhood wellness exams: tn. Wednesday,August 19 : City and County Building#118 • Standard Well Child Physicals • Sports Physicals Thursday,August 20th: Public Safety Building Community • Boy Scout and Girl Scout Physicals Room • LDS Mission Physicals Tuesday,August 25th:Airport Board Room If you haven't scheduled your child for their Back to School physical yet, give your Onsite Care clinic a call today! Midtown Employee Clinic 500 East 230 South , Suite 510 $ Liberty Mutual h'tet Li f e 801-320-5660 INSURANCE www.MidtownEmployeeClinic.com To schedule your appointment contact Trent Steele at We are excited to partner with Mountain Medical's Trent.Steele@slcgov.com or at 801-535-7725. Mobile Mammography to offer our employees and/or your spouse annual screening mammograms at Blood Drive at the City and County Building on convenient City Department locations. In order for Wednesday, August 19' In the Bloodmobile Mountain Medical to bring their Mobile Mammography Unit to our locations we need to have 20 appointments To schedule visit www.arupbloodservices.org scheduled at each location. Help us spread the word! Search Code: G009 Each participant will receive a voucher for a of Baskin-Robbins ice cream! _ALMountain ill Medical MwmaioM ediicalc� r' • f 114L veOea1S Wednesday August 12' Public Utilities Thursday August 13' Airport Friday August 14th City& County Building BLOOD SERVICES Call 801-713-0593 to schedule you appointment. Visit www.MountainMedical.com for more information RESOLUTION OF THE CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING CONSERVANCY AND USE COMMITTEE AUTHORIZING THE USE OF ELECTRONIC MEETINGS WHEREAS, Section 52.4.207 of the Utah Code allows public bodies to convene and conduct an electronic meeting where the public body has adopted a resolution governing the use of electronic meetings; and WHEREAS, Section 2.86.010 of the Salt Lake City Code provides that a committee of the City may hold an electronic meeting only if a majority of the committee is physically present at the physical location from which the electronic meeting originates; and WHEREAS, the City and County Building Conservancy and Use Committee is a public body subject to the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act; and WHEREAS, the City and County Building Conservancy and Use Committee desires to have the option of conducting electronic meetings in appropriate circumstances; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City and County Building Conservancy and Use Committee as follows: 1. For purposes of the Utah open and public meetings act, the City and County Building Conservancy and Use Committee may hold an electronic meeting only if a majority of a quorum of the Committee is physically present at the physical location from which the electronic meeting originates or from which the members of the Committee are connected to the electronic meeting. Passed by the City and County Building Conservancy and Use Committee this 10th day of August, 2015. CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING CONSERVANCY AND USE COMMITTEE By: I N APPROVED AS TO FORM: alt e City Attorney's ice HB_ATTY-#45972-vl-Resolution Authorizing_Electronic_Meetings.DOC 400 SOUTH 400 SOUTH k SCORE JOINT, TYPIG L • rp l • o / 1p C / / RELOCATED MONUMENT Ci / (I OFB)NCH 1- / / NEN Li ILI Li ILI I I� JL Nl k iu Li F „4 o s. i H O ������ )�r�r N O a ��'=�r _� a,_6? PLcANTE- 44416) h,_s . LAWN EDGE 11W- 41111111. pp p .A. •— EXIST. TREE, II IIIIi • '1111111 TYPICAL NORT NORT O' 5' 10' 20' O' 5' 10' 20' 1 • 1 • PLANT LEGEND SYMBOL BOTANTIGAL NAME COMMON NAME TREE Gornus alternifolia PAGODA DOGWOOD SHRUBS OGornus alba 'Baton Rouge' BATON ROUGE REDTWIG DOGWOOD Cotoneaster apiculata CRANBERRY GOTONEASTER Taxus baccata repandans DWARF ENGLISH YEW PERENNIALS Echinacea purpurea 'Amazing Dream' GONEFLOWER thOr Geranium x. 'Rozanne' ROZANNE HARDY GERANIUM 0 Hemerocallis 'Baja' BAJA DAYLILY (i Hemerocallis 'Pardon Me' PARDON ME DAYLILY Heuchera x. 'Melting Fire' MELTING FIRE CORAL BELLS 0 Iris pallida 'Albo Variegate' VARIEGATED IRIS Salvia nemorosa 'Caradonna' CARADONNA PERENNIAL SALVIA 0 Veronica spicata 'Goodness Grows' GOODNESS GROWS VERONICA I . . II. L %, . .......„_______Hill11111‘ Ir `pick i`iiy�: �' ``LLt i�►iy� 'ski ; `�LL�..I. b. , ' - '`R d \ c� d 4.\ • s, i. \ a� , i�t �.- 4�t� it.4 .< j�t� t- OXLL .'.' . N. .: . • , \.\4:\\,,;h:,:ii:t.. i1. :'1r Lait/ ..,- Oct► __.... 07' 3-,-. kil,. .,.. _:. . ,.,\! ,'.f,►t S ri, rw k w L. L.li.�_ - — / V. .ILL.- - L lL ,t i+ ti j� c — �` ■ ■■■ we a �.�^ '� ��■ ■■ ■ ■■■ ].:n ■■ I_ . , .. , ,. ... , - .A. ir, ,, I I , , 6, , _ ...21 , „„ . i _ .., ii r , I i I I It- 61:.."A i I I kii-,-„, 0:- .._ 4,� • M , existing new (proposed 1) new (proposed 2) SALT LAKE CITY, CITY COUNTY BUILDING NEW LAMP POST RENDERING ARcI HII X. GROUP