The URL can be used to link to this page

09/01/2022 - Meeting Materials PARKS,NATURAL LANDS,URBAN FORESTRY AND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD of SALT LAKE CITY Formal Meeting Thursday,September 1,2022 5:00 p.m.—7:15 p.m. Join Via Webex: https://saltlakecity.webex.com/saltlakecity/i.php?MTID=ml3eeeO2l857d99ea2O2e72f2dl9ddde7 Or Join at the Public Lands Administrative Building: 1965 W.500 S. Salt Lake City,UT 84104 Upstairs Parks Training Room Join by phone 1-408-418-9388 Access code 2482 499 1456 AGENDA 1—Convening the Meeting 5:00 PM Call to order Chair comments 5 mins 2—Approval of Minutes 5:05 PM Approve August 4, 2022, meeting minutes 5 mins 3—Public Comment Period 5:10 PM Verbal comments are limited to no more than 3 minutes; 15 minutes total. Written comments are welcome. 4—Staff Discussion and Agenda Items 5:25 PM Glendale Regional Park Master Plan Update—Action Item 30 mins 5—Board Discussion and Action Items 5:55 PM N/A (Potential Recess) 20 mins 6—GO Bond 6:15 PM GO Bond Presentation—Jason Swan,Trust for Public Land 45 mins 7—Confirmation of Next Meeting, Board Comments& Future Agenda Items 7:00 PM Board subcommittee updates as needed • Trails subcommittee • Communication subcommittee Board comment and question period Next meeting: October 6, 2022 Request for future agenda items 8—Adjourn 7:15 PM PARKS,NATURAL LANDS,URBAN FORESTRY AND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD of SALT LAKE CITY Formal Meeting Thursday,August 4,2022 5:00 p.m.—7:00 p.m. Join Via Webex: https://saltlakecity.webex.com/saltlakecity/i.php?MTID=mb77987d7del3150afdd5a494dO3eOael Or Join at the Public Lands Administrative Building: 1965 W. 500 S. Salt Lake City,UT 84104 Upstairs Parks Training Room Join by phone 1-408-418-9388 Access code: 2481 910 2502 Minutes (Unapproved) 1—Convening the Meeting 5:00 PM Call to order - Brianna Binnebose - Samantha Finch - Jenny Hewson - Melanie Pehrson - CJ Whittaker - Aaron Wiley Chair comments 5 min Brianna Binnebose called the meeting to order and stated she did not have any chair comments but asked staff to please prompt her if she missed anything procedurally. 2—Approval of Minutes 5:05 PM Approve July 7, 2022, meeting minutes 5 min Ms. Binnebose asked if there were any corrections to the minutes. Ms. Binnebose stated a correction to the minutes where she was mistakenly listed as a member of the Glendale Park Advisory Board in lieu of Melanie Pehrson; Luke Allen recorded the correction. Samantha Finch motioned to approve the July 7, 2022, meeting minutes. CJ Whittaker seconded the motion.The minutes were approved unanimously by the Board. 3—Public Comment Period 5:10 PM Verbal comments are limited to no more than 3 minutes; 15 minutes total. Written comments are welcome. Ms. Binnebose requested that public commentors please introduce themselves with preferred pronouns for the purpose of the minutes. Jim Webster Jim Webster stated that they are interested in hearing the update on Miller Bird Refuge and Nature Park; the neighbors are very concerned about fire in that area. Eugene Arnold Eugene Arnold stated he had recently been riding their bike along the Jordan River Trail and noticed that the water is filthy with trash and tree branches piled up in the water. He expressed interest in knowing whether these issues would soon be addressed. Aaron Wiley asked the public commenter where along the Jordan River Trail they were at when they noticed the debris in the river. Mr.Arnold responded that he had been located between approximately 5t"South and 9`h South. He further explained that he had researched the entities involved in maintaining this space and have also seen staff conducting unhoused camp abatements. At one of the camp abatements, Mr.Arnold asked staff whether they cleaned up the river,to which a staff person replied that they had used to, but at one point had come across a deceased body in the river,whereupon that level of river maintenance had stopped. Mr. Arnold continued, saying he had then walked down to Backman Elementary and noticed the new bridge in the area and learned about the open classroom being built in that space, and had then run into new Park Rangers in the area and had spoken with them, and concluded their statement. Ms. Binnebose thanked Mr. Arnold for sharing their experience along Jordan River Parkway with the board and inquired whether there was any further public comment. Seeing none, Ms. Binnebose moved onto the next agenda item. 4—Staff Discussion and Agenda Items 5:25 PM Seven Greenways Vision Plan Update—Brian Tonetti 10 min Brian Tonetti introduced himself to the Board. Mr.Tonetti works for the nonprofit Seven Canyons Trust, an organization working to uncover and restore the buried and impaired creeks in Salt Lake Valley. Mr.Tonetti explained that Seven Canyons Trust has been working for the past two years on a regional vision plan called the Seven Greenways Vision Plan (the Plan), referencing his presentation to the board. The Plan's mission is to inspire a common vision over the next 100 years to revitalize our waterways, connecting people to our greenways throughout the Salt Lake Valley. The organization had partnered with each of the eight municipalities that border Salt Lake County streams,who all provided matching funds and support for their projects, including Salt Lake City.All eight mayors, including Mayor Erin Mendenhall, have signed the vision plan. Over the past two years, the organization's community engagement around the vision plan has included a regional community survey, pop-up workshops, and an online mapping platform. Mr.Tonetti explained that he would be providing the board with the organization's pathways to implementation presentation and that the best way to engage with the plan is via the organization's website at sevengreenwaysvisionplan.org. The organization identified 21 different opportunity areas in Salt Lake Valley throughout the Plan. Five of these opportunity areas are "big ideas," which illustrate possibilities when applying the goals in a transformational way; two of these big ideas are in Salt Lake City. Water, nature, community, recreation, and urban are the five core elements throughout the plan, amongst which the opportunities were organized.The opportunities are then further organized among increments of time, including 10 to 20-year opportunities that are more short-term and 100-year opportunities that take a lifetime to implement. The first opportunity for Salt Lake City in the Plan is titled North Temple and is designated as a 10-year water opportunity.This opportunity includes daylighting—or uncovering and restoring—City Creek along North Temple, create a trail connection to the Folsom Corridor, and to integrate green infrastructure to control urban runoff. Mr. Tonetti explained that if this opportunity area interests the Board and the City as a partner,the suggested next step would be for the City to inventory parcels adjacent to the corridor, prioritize purchase of properties or easements to facilitate the goals, meet with the LDS Church, Gateway Mall, and other interested landowners to facilitate partnerships that will make the goal happen, to culturally daylight the area via art and signage, and to create a policy that requires or incentivizes developers along this stretch to contribute to the goals. The second opportunity for Salt Lake City in the Plan is titled Folsom Corridor and is designated as a 10-year community opportunity.This opportunity includes revitalizing a rail corridor into a multi-use trail and daylight City Creek, connecting east and west- side neighborhoods. The third opportunity area for Salt Lake City in the Plan is titled Bonneville Shoreline Trail to Miller Park and is designated as a 10-year recreation opportunity.This opportunity includes creating a trail connection between public spaces along Red Butte Creek, forming partnerships with the University of Utah for research, and creating angling opportunities at key locations along the creek. The fourth opportunity area for Salt Lake City in the Plan is titled Bonneville Golf Course and is designated as a 10-year nature opportunity.This opportunity includes creating a protected trail connection along Emigration Creek, restoring riparian habitat and the floodplain, replacing or removing aging infrastructure, and stabilizing streambanks. The fifth opportunity area for Salt Lake City in the Plan is titled Wasatch Hollow to Westminster and is designated as a 10-year recreation opportunity.This opportunity includes creating a trail connection between public spaces along Emigration Creek, forming partnerships with Westminster for research, and creating angling opportunities at key locations. Mr.Tonetti explained that this opportunity is also one of the Plan's "big ideas." Mr. Tonetti went onto present the five strategies for implementing the fifth opportunity, Wasatch Hollow to Westminster, which consists of partnering with community institutions for education and stewardship of the creek, restore riparian habitat and stream meanders, recreate a floodplain and create opportunities for fishing, link a trail through existing parks and open space, reimagine Allen Park as a space for art and community programming, and connect Emigration Creek Trail to the McClelland Trail. Mr.Tonetti also explained the next steps for Wasatch Hollow to Westminster and invited the Board to attend Seven Canyons Trust's five walks during the rest of the summer that will cover the "big ideas" outline in the Plan, of which there are two in Salt Lake City.The recreational big idea walk is scheduled for 6pm on September 15, starting at Wasatch Hollow and finishing at Allen Park.The water big idea walk is scheduled for 6pm on September 29, starting at City Creek Park and ending on Second West. All may be found online at sevengreenwaysvisionplan.org/walks. Mr. Tonetti then returned to presenting the remaining opportunity areas for Salt Lake City. The sixth opportunity area for Salt Lake City in the Plan is titled Herman Franks Park and is designated as a 100-year water opportunity. This opportunity includes daylighting Emigration Creek to activate and enhance the park space, creating a community amenity, and improving connectivity to Liberty Park through a trail and signage. The seventh opportunity area for Salt Lake City in the Plan is titled Sugar House and is designated as a 10-year community opportunity.This opportunity culturally includes daylighting Parley's Creek through signage and are in the Sugar House neighborhood of Salt Lake City. The eighth opportunity area for Salt Lake City in the Plan is titled Ballpark and is designated as a 100-year urban opportunity.This opportunity includes daylighting Red Butte, Emigration, and Parleys Creeks and increasing the urban forest as Salt Lake City's Ballpark neighborhood experiences growth and redevelopment. The ninth opportunity area for Salt Lake City in the Plan is titled 1300 South and is designated as a 100-year water opportunity.This opportunity includes daylighting Red Butte, Emigration, and Parleys Creeks east of the Three Creeks Confluence along 1300 South, enhancing east-west connections to the Jordan River. Mr. Tonetti then briefly covered the "Toolbox" area of the Plan, which can also be found online.The tools included: • Best Management Practices • Design Guidelines • Funding • Policy Recommendations • Partnerships Mr. Tonetti expanded upon the Policy Recommendations tool, which included: • City master plan alignment • Riparian corridor ordinance • Using development time when a site is already undergoing disturbance to implement some of these opportunities • Creek-friendly certification to recognize folks for spearheading opportunities • Transfer of Development Rights • Property Acquisition Brian completed his presentation and asked the Board if there were any questions. Ms. Binnebose asked for more information on the "funding" tool in the Plan. Mr. Tonetti responded that it really depends on the project: the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process is one example, but to really speak in-depth about funding, we need a project to align with the funding tool. Ms. Binnebose and Mr. Tonetti then went on to discuss property acquisition's potential role within future opportunities, including land trusts and easements. Ms. Finch inquired about the past success and experiences regarding the partnerships that Seven Canyons Trust has with all types of entities. Mr. Tonetti responded with one 2014 example of partnering with a group of students, including Mr.Tonetti himself, that ended up serving as the vision plan that ended up creating the nonprofit Seven Canyons Trust. Within that original vision plan,Three Creeks Confluence was a highlighted opportunity that was presented to the City Council at that time, whereupon the opportunity came to fruition over the course of the past seven years. Melanie Pehrson asked what the benefit of daylighting waterways is. Mr.Tonetti stated there are water quality benefits with taking water out of a concrete pipe, exposing it to the natural light and UV rays where vegetation can then grow alongside the waterway and filter the pollutants from the water and air, and serve as beneficial for wildlife. Lastly, removing water from an enclosed concrete canal also provides flood mitigation and recreation opportunities. Jenny Hewson asked the following question: Is this being done in other cities? In the stakeholder process, are different stakeholders generally positive (given the potential impacts during the implementation)? Mr.Tonetti replied that yes,this is being replicated in other cities and that Seven Canyons Trust has so far received very positive feedback throughout all eight municipalities. Ms. Finch asked whether Mr.Tonetti could describe the different types of stakeholders who might express concern over these types of projects versus those who are proponents of them. Mr.Tonetti replied that the largest concern is that these typed of projects are a very expensive process; for example, a recent study by the Rocky Mountain Institute found that stream daylighting per linear foot costs approximately $1,000. Considering there are 21 miles of buried streams in Salt Lake City,the costs add up quickly. Mr.Tonetti expressed that Seven Canyons Trust believes the benefits of daylighting projects far outweigh the costs, so much of this comes down to political will and finding a champion at the local government level. On an individual level, Mr.Tonetti described the biggest concern being safety:there is a large perceived risk of exposing a creek channel, as an even bigger real-life risk that urban dwellers deal with daily are heavily trafficked roadways. Mr. Tonetti also mentioned the comprehensive FAQ page on the Vision Plan for further information. Ms. Finch asked whether the cost was going to be borne by private donations. Mr. Tonetti responded that the funding could be covered by various sources: private, federal, local, and so forth. He then provided another example from Kalamazoo, Michigan, of a stream daylighting project where a large amphitheater was also installed and ended up generating the city$12 million in revenue, covering the costs of the project in one year's time. Mr.Tonetti's point is, if we are just talking about monetary costs,these projects tend to generate economic development in surrounding areas, increased property values adjacent to the projects,while also contributing many benefits to the community and environment. Ms. Binnebose thanked Mr.Tonetti for his presentation and time and moved on to the next agenda item. Capital Investment and Deferred Maintenance Spending—Tyler Murdock ue Tyler Murdock, Public Lands Department Deputy Director—Planning and Ecological Services, encouraged Board members to attend the Big Ideas Walks with Seven Canyons Trust in the coming months. Mr. Murdock stated that, in response to Board member Ginger Cannon's request, he was here to present to the Board the beginning analysis of how Public Lands has historically allocated funding through the CIP process,the Deferred Maintenance Program, and through the Department's annual operating budget how those funds are spent across the City. Mr. Murdock stated that, while there is a narrative that Westside parks have been historically underfunded,the Department is still parsing together data pertaining to its operational spending so that everyone has a more complete picture. Mr. Murdock introduced Owen Koppe an intern who has been working with the Department for the past three months to collect and analyze data regarding how the Department is spending money per Salt Lake City district from an equity lens. Mr. Koppe introduced himself as an Equity Analytics Intern in the Parks Division and provided some background for the Capital Investment and Deferred Maintenance Spending presentation by Mr. Murdock. Mr. Koppe expressed the uniqueness of Salt Lake City as managing a lot of open space, most of which is in the Eastside districts of SLC. Owen emphasized that instead of thinking about public lands maintenance simply in terms of acreage, it's important to note that those districts with the most acreage—which are Districts 3 and 6 with large open spaces—do not require as much attention and maintenance as other parks since they are undeveloped spaces. For example, some parks have more major features and structures to maintain, and thus will need more funding because there are more assets to maintain at these parks. Mr. Koppe stated that the two districts which house Westside parks—Districts 1 and 2—have as many park structures as the four Eastside districts combined. When considering equitable distribution, it is also key to note that Westside parks contain more structures and amenities that require attention and maintenance than Eastside parks do. Mr. Murdock stated that when Mr. Koppe finalizes his report in September around operational expenditures,they will return to the Board to present that as well. Mr. Murdock then provided examples of park amenities, such as drinking fountains, park benches, athletic courts, and fences. Ms. Pehrson asked how the acreage in each Council district compared to the total amount of amenities found within each Council district's parks. Owen replied that he believes the Westside districts have roughly 60,000 residents while the Eastside districts have approximately 100,000. Mr. Murdock began to present the CIP data broken down annually by city council district. The larger outliers on the graph represent recent big project acquisitions such as Allen Park,Three Creeks Confluence, and the Glendale Regional Park. Ms. Binnebose asked whether the tracking includes annual averages for what is being spent, such as median expenditures. Mr. Murdock replied that the majority of what the Public Lands crews does is operational, and that much of the data analysis is preliminary due to the type of tracking that the Department has historically conducted. Mr. Murdock then began presenting on Deferred Maintenance spending by district, emphasizing that the deferred maintenance fees come from the General Fund, whereas CIP funding are dedicated specifically to Parks.The graph outlined deferred maintenance funding expenditures since 2015 by council district. Mr. Murdock once again reminded the Board that these graphs do not include operational expenses. Ms. Finch asked whether Allen Park was CIP funds; Mr. Murdock replied that it was in part impact fees that funded Allen Park, which is the CIP process and which his presented graphs were illustrating. The Board expressed interest in having Owen and Mr. Murdock return when there was more data to present. Ms. Pehrson asked how the data is collected. Owen replied that the CIP and deferred maintenance data is mostly collected from the Public Lands Planning Team and the operational data from Cartegraph. Mr. Murdock stated that folks may find CIP logs online on the City Council website. Ms. Finch asked Mr. Murdock his interpretation of the data and the story it's telling so far. Mr. Murdock replied that he is also interested in understanding amount of service funding per area and mentioned Council District 4—the downtown area—as an outlier in the data in terms of an area not receiving as much attention as others. Ms. Binnebose mentioned that it also might be good for the Board to see the average age of amenities in relation to spending. Carmen Bailey, Public Lands Deputy Director of Operations, added that the data is also not telling the story of time and money spent on responding to vandalism within parks. Mr. Murdock and Ms. Bailey also mentioned the Capital Asset Management Plan. The Board thanked Mr. Murdock and Owen for his time and presentation and Ms. Binnebose moved onto the next agenda item. Miller Park Update—Tyler Murdock 5 min Mr. Murdock explained that of the two update areas—management and capital improvement projects—he would be focusing mostly on management in today's presentation. Mr. Murdock went on to explain that, in terms of vegetation, Public Lands has increased its monitoring of vegetation in Miller Park and has hired an environmental consultant to conduct surveys and monitoring throughout the summer.The Department expects a deliverable from the consultant that provides a better understanding of Miller Park vegetation needs in September. Mr. Murdock stated that his presentation today would focus on two primary updates: management and the capital improvement project, of which he would be mainly focusing on the management update. He also mentioned that Public Lands is on the Yalecrest Community Council agenda in September to discuss the CIP aspect of Miller Park. Mr. Murdock explained that, in response to community feedback and concern, the Public Lands Department has been focused on increased monitoring of Miller Park vegetation through the hiring of an environmental consultant and community surveys. The Department expects a deliverable from the environmental consultant sometime in September that provides a better understanding of the vegetation. The second item that the Department has been working on is a vegetation management plan review due to community concerns related to chemical herbaceous and woody treatment and removal within Miller Park. Mr. Murdock explained that the Department uses two documents to guide Miller Park and open spaces managed. One of those is the Noxious Weed Management Plan that was completed by SWCA in 2012, who has been rehired to perform a review of that 2012 plan for the Department, which is expected to be finalized in October and will help guide the Department's annual operating management plan in Miller Park. Mr. Murdock added that he is hopeful that this review will provide the Department with clear vegetation targets and metrics and then share those with the community about Miller Park as well as all City- managed open spaces. Mr. Murdock addressed the fire concerns related to Miller Park that were previously shared by public commenter Jim Webster. Currently, Salt Lake City Public Lands is trying to navigate and balance leaving some woody debris for habitat purposes for birds and wildlife while also mitigating the fire risk. Mr. Murdock stated that the Department has met numerous times with the Fire Department, who has been supportive of this management approach; the Department will also be meeting with the Fire Department on August 17to walk the site again, assess the condition, and identify potential risk and shift the management approach if deemed necessary. One concern that has been raised to Mr. Murdock and the Department is the formulation of several debris piles in Miller Park right now. Mr. Murdock affirmed that these debris piles have not been formed by Public Lands crews and that the Department does not know who is constructing these piles. Mr. Murdock stated that he is aware of Rocky Mountain Power doing a lot of cutting on easements that they have within Miller Park, and that may be a potential source. Regardless, he recognizes that these are potential fire hazards, and that the Department is trying to figure out who is making the debris piles. Ms. Binnebose commented on the innate challenge between managing at least two competing interests that the Department must deal with, which is fire mitigation and habitat preservation. Mr. Murdock confirmed that this is a challenge the Department faces with all its open spaces. He also addressed the community skepticism of past environmental consultants, stating that he understands this, and would like to reach out to Tracy Aviary and other trusted environmental community-based organizations to review the plans and solicit feedback from them as well. CJ Whittaker asked if it was true that there is currently not consensus on what vegetation is invasive or not in Miller Park and in relation to that, which vegetation is holding the riverbanks together and which is not, and how do we manage that?As far as Mr. Whittaker has been hearing,there seems to be some disagreement between university professors and the City about what is invasive. Mr. Murdock responded that he presumes Mr. Whittaker is referring to Black Locust Tree. With regards to the species,that is one specific example of something the City is asking the environmental consultant to review. Mr. Murdock explained that, since 2014 and prior to his tenure with the City,the City has taken the stance that Black Locusts were behaving in an invasive manner, and they have been actively removing them since 2014. Mr. Murdock stated that he believes a question that needs to be addressed is, "What species are behaving in a way that is crowding out other species? "and then determine a vegetation makeup that would be ideal to stabilize the riverbank slopes.These are questions that the Department is addressing with SWCA. Then,to the question of structural stabilization, Mr. Murdock replied that he recognizes the options here as being stabilizing the steep banks with vegetation, which is the preferred manner, or building costly structures to do the stabilizing. Mr. Whittaker thanked Mr. Murdock and stated that his questions were answered. Ms. Finch asked if there was anything specific to Miller Park that makes it more prone to fire danger than other spaces within the city. Mr. Murdock replied that there is probably also significant fire danger at Allen Park, but specifically the natural riparian areas comprised by Miller Park and Wasatch Hollow is the management approach that the City takes in those areas, for if they're natural bird preserves,the City takes a hands-off approach due to wildlife habitat.This is different than in well-manicured public parks such as Memory Grove, Mr. Murdock explained. Ms. Binnebose also surmised that Miller Park's proximity to urban built areas, infrastructure, and utilities, also might make it more prone to fire risk. Mr. Murdock also added that the Department has really good communication with the Community Council right now and is working on several volunteer-based events throughout the space.The challenge remains identifying good areas for irrigation within Miller Park. Ms. Binnebose confirmed that the Board would appreciate receiving another follow-up from staff on Miller Park,to which Mr. Murdock replied that he is happy to continue providing updates to the Board and suggested providing updates in time with the updated plan that SWVCA is working on, which will then inform the Department's updates of its annual operation and maintenance plan. Once the Department can then share the updated annual operation and maintenance plan with fellow community groups for their feedback,that will be a key time to return with an update (approximately September). Continued Discussion of Draft Ordinance Amendment to Section 2.94.040 of the Salt 10 min Lake City Code—Ashley Cleveland—Potential Action Item Ashley Cleveland, Deputy Director of Community Outreach for the Mayor, stated that she is reporting back to the Board on the follow-up meetings that she had with PNUT Board members regarding this agenda item and the draft of amendment to Section 2.94.040. Ms. Cleveland stated that the largest edit to that draft amendment that Board members wanted was an addition of two at-large members to the Board's composition,for a total of 13 members. Ms. Cleveland stated that she has applied the Board's edits to the draft amendments. Ms. Cleveland said that she appreciated the Board's time on this matter and would like it to go onto the City Council for their approval. Luke Allen informed that Board that the change Ms. Cleveland is referring to is on line 19 of the draft amendment. Ms. Binnebose thanked Ms. Cleveland for allowing her and Board member Ginger Cannon to learn more from Ms. Cleveland on this issue. Ms. Binnebose then posed the question to the Board whether they vote on the draft amendment during this meeting since they barely have a quorum. Ms. Hewson asked if she could have a copy of the draft amendment in question,to which Mr. Allen replied that he had just emailed a copy to members a few moments ago. Mr.Allen further explained that it is up to the Board what action they want to take on this draft amendment. Ms. Binnebose asked Ms. Cleveland what her timeline was for the amendment. Ms. Cleveland stated that she is happy with the support she's received from the PNUT Board and provided some timeline options to the Board regarding Indigenous Heritage Month (November) and further community engagement meetings she'll be having. Ms. Cleveland asked staff that if the draft amendment were to be approved as-is in today's meeting by the PNUT Board and Indigenous appointees asked whether some changes could be made to the draft if that would be inconvenient. Mr.Allen and Mr. Murdock stated that staff are happy to work with the Board on whatever is decided. Ms. Cleveland then responded that the Board could approve the draft and she would be happy to invite PNUT Board members to community engagements she is conducting over the next couple of months and then further discuss when they want to take it to City Council. Ms. Pehrson asked whether there was any reason to wait. Ms. Cleveland responded that no, it is up to the Board. M. Pehrson motioned to approve the draft Ordinance Amendment to Section 2.94.040 of the Salt Lake City Code as revised. Ms. Finch seconded the motion. Mr. Whittaker responded in the chat that he was unable to fully hear what was happening due to a poor internet connection. Mr. Allen informed Mr. Whittaker the action that the Board was about to take,to which both Mr. Whittaker and Ms. Hewson typed into the chat that they approved the pending motion. The Board unanimously approved the draft ordinance amendment as revised. Ms. Cleveland and the Board expressed gratitude to one another, and Ms. Binnebose moved onto the next agenda item. 5—Board Discussion and Action Items 6:05 PM N/A N/A 6—Confirmation of Next Meeting, Board Comments& Future Agenda Items 6:05 PM Board subcommittee updates as needed • Trails subcommittee Ms. Binnebose asked Mr. Whittaker if he had anything to report from Trails. Ms. Hewson noted that Mr. Whittaker had typed into the chat that he was still having connection issues. Ms. Hewson, who also serves on the Trails subcommittee, added that the Greater Avenues Community Council met last month and there was a three-way presentation with a good question and answer portion during the meeting where Mr. Murdock, SLC Trail Alliance, and Save our Foothills each presented, and Board member Phil Carroll facilitated. Ms. Hewson added that the presentation really highlighted areas where all the groups can work together and overall that the meeting was greatly helpful. • Communication subcommittee Ms. Binnebose stated that Mr. Allen had spoken with the IT Department on a file sharing system for better access points as well as promoting continuity for the Board. Ms. Binnebose mentioned that this would also allow Board members to maintain some privacy as they would not have to engage with community members via their personal email addresses. Ms. Binnebose also announced on behalf of Mr. Allen that the Department will be bringing on another staff person to act as a liaison for the PNUT Board;this person will be able to support the Board with developing a communications plan and other items. Mr. Allen stated that he would probably be reaching out to Board members for optional bios and pictures to place on the PNUT Board webpage, which may help with community engagement. He added that he and the communications subcommittee are also working on making the meetings more accessible and approachable, be it via livestreaming the meetings or other means. Board comment and question period Ms. Finch thanked Eugene(public commenter)for attending this month's meeting and invited them to return for future meetings. Ms. Finch also explained some of the common practices and protocols (decorum) of the Board, including not addressing public comments during the public comment period, but preserving that space for the Board Comment and Question Period of the agenda. Ms. Finch also recommended a few more groups and organizations, such as the Jordan River Commission, that address the Jordan River area and hold volunteer cleanup events. Mr. Murdock and Mr. Allen also mentioned that the Board holds volunteer debris cleanup of the Jordan River when properly staffed, and there is one cleanup event on Saturday,August 61h starting at Three Creeks Confluence. Mr. Murdock also added that the Department has a contractor that began work doing in-river tree debris removal on Monday, August 1. They started around 1700 South, will backtrack to 2100 South, then will work their way Northward for the rest of the month doing this work. Ms. Binnebose provided an update from her District,from the last Liberty Wells Community Council Meeting. She stated that during that meeting,the council spent a very large chunk of time trying to answer questions on the new Park Rangers Program; there is very little information on the Public Lands website that details this program right now. Ms. Bailey asked for specific questions, and Ms. Binnebose listed them as follows: • What is the purpose of the Ranger program? • If the Rangers are not law enforcement, how is funding towards these positions beneficial to the public? • Will there be more information eventually listed on the website? Ms. Bailey responded that the Department had indeed been cautious about putting out too much information due to the Rangers undergoing extensive training and not being in full uniform yet. She then listed a few examples of the training currently happening. Ms. Binnebose asked if there are other Parks staff within the Department who could begin making the rounds to Community Councils and present about the overall purpose of the Ranger Program while the Rangers are still receiving training and preparation. Ms. Bailey responded that she is still working on hiring a new Park Ranger manager to be the face of the program, but that the Department doesn't necessarily have to wait for that person to be hired if folks desire a quicker response. Mr.Allen also mentioned that the Department is working on a Park Rangers press conference plus an SLC TV video brief on the program for the near future. Ms. Binnebose asked if Mr.Allen could inform the Board of the dates and times of these upcoming activities. Mr.Allen also requested specific questions from the Board so that the Department can ensure that future coverage of the Park Rangers Program addresses those questions. Next meeting: September 1, 2022 Request for future agenda item Mr. Murdock suggested that a future agenda item for the Board might be the General Obligation Bond ballot outcome that is on the City Council's agenda for August 161h Mr. Murdock added that the final Glendale Regional Park Master Plan would also be another good agenda item for the September meeting. 7—Adjourn 1 6:30 PM Ms. Finch motioned to adjourn the August PNUT Board Advisory Meeting.The motion to adjourn the meeting passed unanimously. * INSERT Chat Comments * from Jenny Hewson NASA ESDIS/SSAI to everyone: 5:30 PM Phenomenal process: Is this being done in other cities? In the stakeholder process, are different stakeholders generally positive (given the potential impacts during the implementation)? Creek-friendly certification sounds fabulous! from Jenny Hewson NASA ESDIS/SSAI to everyone: 5:58 PM I think this is incredibly helpful from Jenny Hewson NASA ESDIS/SSAI to everyone: 6:21 PM Luke, I didn't see this in the packet-did I miss it? from Allen, Luke to everyone: 6:21 PM I just emailed it to you a few minutes ago, sorry for the delay! from Jenny Hewson NASA ESDIS/SSAI to everyone: 6:21 PM thank you much from Cleveland,Ashley to everyone: 6:22 PM Hey Jenny! from Cleveland,Ashley to everyone: 6:22 PM <3 from Cleveland,Ashley to everyone: 6:25 PM Lovely! Go 2.94! from CJ to everyone: 6:25 PM I can't really hear what's going on from CJ to everyone: 6:25 PM my connection is very bad from Jenny Hewson NASA ESDIS/SSAI to everyone: 6:25 PM I approve from CJ to everyone: 6:26 PM I votte to approve from Cleveland,Ashley to everyone: 6:26 PM CJ- hugs! from Jenny Hewson NASA ESDIS/SSAI to everyone: 6:26 PM And I appreciate all the work on this from CJ to everyone: 6:26 PM you all sounds like robots. hahahaha - Public Lands C'►SIT Parks I Trails&Natural Lands I Urban Forestry I Golf Staff Responses to Public Comments from the August 4,2022, PNUT Board Meeting Verbal comments are limited to no more than 3 minutes; 15 minutes total. Written comments are welcome. Jim Webster Jim Webster stated that they are interested in hearing the update on Miller Bird Refuge and Nature Park; the neighbors are very concerned about fire in that area. Staff Response: We are aware of this concern and issue. This pile has been accumulating throughout the year and our crews have removed it on at least one occasion this summer. We are not sure who is placing the material at this location. Meeting Yalecrest CC members: Our Deputy Director Tyler Murdock(Tyler)met on site last week with Tom Lund and Jim of the Yalecrest community to discuss this and the past CIP application. Tyler agreed, that leaving large piles of downed branches is certainly not what we want to see happening in our public spaces. We do however want to leave some woody debris within our natural areas for habitat and wildlife purposes. Tyler discussed this management approach with Tom and Jim. Tom agreed with this and volunteered to help the City share this message to discourage future piles from accumulating. We also met last week with Lisa Demmings of SLC Fire to discuss this approach. SLC fire is supportive of this and expressed no concerns about this approach contributing significantly to the fire risk within Miller Park. We discussed several other strategies that our maintenance team can be doing in Miller Park, including reducing ladder fuels, but leaving some woody debris throughout the preserve is something we still plan to do in Miller Park and all natural areas throughout the City. Next Steps: Our crews will remove this current pile in the coming weeks. We also plan to place signage and work with the Community Council to help share messaging that future piles, placed without authorization of the City, will be redistributed throughout the preserve. Once we have some messaging prepared on this, Tyler can share with the Community Council. We discussed this solution last week during our walk with Jim and Tom so both are aware of this. During our walk with SLC Fire last week, they also mentioned that they provide a free service to come to any resident interested in reducing wildfire risk that lives near natural areas within the City. To date, no residents along Miller Park have requested this service, but Tyler thinks it is an excellent resource that we can share with residents along both Miller Park or any other natural area in the City. Once Tyler receives more information from SLC Fire Tyler can share with you both so you can share with concerned residents. Eugene Arnold Eugene Arnold stated he had recently been riding their bike along the Jordan River Trail and noticed that the water is filthy with trash and tree branches piled up in the water. He expressed interest in knowing whether these issues would soon be addressed. Staff Response: Salt Lake City Department of Public Lands has dedicated funds to remove certain trees and other organic matter and debris waste from the Jordan River Water Trail corridor to enhance safe and accessible non- motorized watercraft navigation while minimizing bank erosion and strengthening bank stability. The Salt Lake City segment of the Jordan River(approx. 2100 South to 2400 North)currently has years-worth of deferred maintenance in its water corridor and is eager to complete this task for the health of our environment and communities. Salt Lake City awarded this contract to Diamond Tree Experts based on their experience with high quality urban forest maintenance, their robust inventory of equipment and vehicles that will be required to safely enter the river corridor with minimum impact, and their sustainable green waste processes. Diamond will be using the paved Jordan River Trail on the east bank of the river as its primary access and staging areas. Public Lands staff and the Diamond team have inspected the entire SLC segment of the river to identify trees, deadfall, branches, and debris to be removed. This work started on August 1 and may continue for 2-3 months. Work began from the south and they will continue north to the Davis County line with the priority of clearing unattached organic and waste debris in the streambed as well as any live trees or branches prohibiting safe navigation of the river. Stumps will be left in the riverbanks to minimize erosion unless they are a risk to public safety. Once completed, Diamond will return to the south to sweep the river once again with the goal of clearing the canopy above the water up to 6 feet. The work will be completed south to north, in flow with the river, so as the river clears up, loose debris will flow freely farther downstream. Salt Lake County has an in-river garbage and debris collection boom located at 1200 North in the Jordan River. Garbage is collected at this location and hauled to the landfill, so it does not enter the Great Salt Lake. Be sure to check out the Jordan River Water Trail Tree& Debris Removal project page for updates and progress photos of this project. , Public Lands c 1 T Parks I Trails&Natural Lands I Urban Forestry I Goff Memorandum To: Parks,Natural Lands,Urban Forestry, & Trails Advisory Board From: Katherine Maus, Public Lands Planner Date: August 25, 2022 Re: Glendale Regional Park Master Plan Update Background: Public Lands is finalizing a master plan to guide development of the 17-acre Glendale Regional Park site, formerly known as Raging Waters. Demolition will continue throughout the summer, 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. og v/subjects/lwcf/index.html). To meet this deadline, The City is moving forward with Glendale Park Phase I implementation and is in the process of selecting a consultant to develop detailed design for Phase I with construction of site improvements to follow. The purpose of this particular briefing is to share the preferred Glendale Regional Park Site Plan and Master Plan to the PNUT Board for endorsement as the plan moves through the adoption process. The project team has been working to develop the Glendale Regional Park Master Plan since 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 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 a community-supported vision that reflects the Glendale neighborhood's rich heritage. Over 1300 people responded to a city-wide survey, bringing the total participant count for the project to nearly 1700. Key elements of the master plan were informed by public input and 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 splash pad,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. Public Process: Community engagement for the master 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.goy/parks/parks-division/glendale-waterpark/. 1 In brief,the engagement process consisted of three engagement windows: 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 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 will be shared with the public in July 2022,with the master plan to follow upon adoption by City Council. The project team will seek formal adoption of the Glendale Regional Park Master Plan by City Council in Summer 2022. Please see below for additional details on engagement events, descriptions, and participation. 2 7 dated Public Engagement Calendar ublic Engagement Events iotes ime Period ommunity and Neighborhood 500 Respondents--Public Survey through the department of 020 epartment Survey ommunity and Neighborhoods to gauge public interest in the future f the park ttps://www.slc.&ov/can/cares/wateMg,rk/ LC Waterpark Commemoration 841 Respondents Public Survey to gauge interest in demolition 020 urvey Report nd re-development of the park. ttps://www.slc.goy/wp-contept/uploads/202 I/OIAVater-Park- urve -Re ort-Nov-2020. df lendale Community Council 1 Participants and 3 Community Council Members visioning a 021 lisioning Exercise otential future for the site itiation of Formal Planning Process ublic Lands initiates a formal city engagement and planning process pring/Summer y Public Lands department Dr the Glendale Regional Park Master Plan supported by Design 021 Vorkshop as project consultant. xternal Stakeholder Engagement: 'arents and students were asked at three community events which all 2021 ommunity Events lements from past surveys should be included in the park.Events eluded:Morning Coffee with 20 respondents;Glendale Scare Fair ith around 50 respondents;Hartland 4 Youth and Family Event with 0 respondents xternal Stakeholder Engagement: )esign exercises were led with 88 middle school and 40 fifth grade all 2021 lendale Middle School and Mountain tudents to gather feedback and input on the future design of the site. iew Elementary he process included on-site meetings with 88 Glendale Middle chool,"Place-It"activity with University Neighborhood Partners, nd collage creation. ttps://multicultural.utah.gov/glendale-youth-as-placemakers/ ommunity Advisory Committee L CAC was created to ensure neighborhood representation in the anuary 2022 eeting 1 referred plan and final master plan documents.These stakeholder eetings ensured engagement with westside communities. The first eeting oriented participants to the project and asked for general ressions on the project. ommunity Advisory Committee Iiis meeting presented two conceptual ideas for the park and sought ebruary 2022 n a ement Meeting 2 pecific feedback on the ideas and amenities for the future site. Plan Your Park"in-person Open Iroject team worked with Glendale Community Council to host an 4arch 16,2022 louse and engagement event at vent with over 100 attendees to share with the community the ommunity Learning Center oncepts that have been generated so far and to launch a public rve . nline Survey ublic survey to gather broader feedback on amenities and concept 4arch 16, lternatives receiving 1361 responses. 022-April 16, 022 ommunity Advisory Committee is meeting shared the results of the broader survey with the pril 12,2022 n a ement Meeting 3 ommittee and solicit feedback and impressions on the data. ommunity Advisory Committee inal preferred plan sharing and feedback from the CAC,as well as 4ay 31,2022 n a ement Meeting 4 x lanation of Phase 1 resentation to Glendale Neighborhood haring of public process and phase 1 implementation projects, un 15,2022 ouncil meline and budget UTURE ENGAGEMENT:Preferred onfirm final preferred plan and share with the public. aly 2022 'Ian Confirmation UTURE ENGAGEMENT:Master oresentation of preferred plan and Master Plan document to City uly 2022 lam presentation and adoption ouncil for adoption. Considerations: The site plan illustrates the full buildout of the 17-acre site and includes programs and amenities prioritized through public engagement. Development of the full site will require multiple phases, defined by future funding allocations. The consultant team proposed a series of phases that represent a strategic development of the site. 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. Recommendations for addressing considerations of the preferred plan 3 are included in the Glendale Regional Park Master Plan draft document Later this summer. Master Plan Review: This master plan explores how this site design reflects the community,restores the site as an ecological asset, and makes recommendations regarding operations, site management,programming, and maintenance. The plan also dives into how the park will fulfill the established goals, including the park vision being led by the community,providing opportunities for safe community gathering and programming, completing the regional connection of open space along the river and enhancing access to nature, and finally improving environmental quality and justice. The plan includes improvements to site access with proposed recommendations for new connections,trails, public transportation access and access across 1700 South. It highlights the ecology of the site and unique characteristics the Jordan River provides, and how the site might be impacted by future climate changes. The plan also makes recommendations on programming opportunities for Public Lands into the future,outlines the types of programming the community desires to see, and how partnerships may be carried out in the future. Finally, it outlines plan metrics to assess the fulfillment of the park goals that were confirmed by the public. Implementation strategy is included in the Glendale Regional Park Master Plan draft and will be contingent on funding availability. The project team intends to minimize the phasing to the greatest extent possible based on funding and has begun work on Phase 1. Management and Maintenance: Recommendations for future management of the site,including programming and partnership needs, are also included in the Master Plan draft document. In order to fulfill the park goal of creating a safe community asset,programming and management into the future will be key. Potential opportunities for addressing management needs including expanding internal Public Lands staff,continue to create and build upon key community partners and stakeholders, engage with community organizations that promote inclusivity, equity and partnerships, and working with local and minority-owned businesses to program elements of the site. Next Steps: a. Project team has shared the plan and site concept with the public and will present to Glendale Community Council on September 21 s`. The CAC as received an additional notice that the plan is available to the public. b. The project team will brief City Council on October 4`'of the progress of the plan. c. The project team,upon closure of a 45 public noticing period,will transmit the final draft of the Glendale Regional Park Master Plan to Planning Commission for public hearing and recommendation, and complete administrative process to receive Mayoral recommendation. d. City Council will receive a recommendation from Planning Commission related to adoption of the Master Plan, as well as a memorandum from Planning Staff and a Mayoral recommendation memorandum. e. Council will conduct adoption process,which will include a public hearing and additional public outreach. Action Requested: The PNUT Board members will have one week to review the attached plan and appendix prior to the meeting on September I". Staff will present an overview of the plan and answer any questions the board may have. The Department of Public Lands will be moving forward with a presentation to the Planning Commission in October, and subsequently City Council, and is requesting endorsement of the Glendale Regional Master Plan by the PNUT Board as the plan moves through the adoption process. Endorsement may take the form of a recommendation letter to the Planning Commission and City Council, 4 or a recommendation to City Council to approve the adoption of the plan. Attachments: 1. Glendale Regional Park Master Plan Draft Document 2. Glendale Regional Park Master Plan Appendix Draft 5 Glendale Regional Park r Master Plan 1 r . POP • t r w L � f .? r i- � i� �� , f K. rn I Y e s is -44 9 _ e _ �� •' i ? gar' .,, -- 6 a,. g;. �z• s x-• WEN Q Qp AGORA TOT, `�� IYE :Public LandsVID EVANS wa PARTNERS 4 DESIGNWORKSHOP •�,�. 'e'f",� 'may. t i �. Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................VI INTRODUCTION.................................................... 1 SITE CONTEXT AND ANALYSIS ......................................5 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT......................................25 THE VISION........................................................39 IMPLEMENTATION.................................................57 APPENDICES ......................................................77 � iii Acknowled4wt Nancy Monteith, Kat Maus, Kristin Riker, Susan Lundmark,Jonathan Goates, Rocio De Maria Torres Mora • : -- Paulo Aguilera, Melanie Pehrson - Noyce, eresa molina, s, Ivis Garcia,Shay Nieser, Elizabeth Montoya,Amy May, Inoke Hafoka,Abdirizak Ibrahim, Marci Bender, Ifa Motuliki, Edward Castro Bennett, Laura Manycattle Claire Hempel,Anna Laybourn, Mary Oliver, .Ishita Ghosh,Conners Ladner, Di Yang -�- • • eah Jaramillo , Molly Wireman �`� •• . ' oward Kozloff, Rodrigo Rodarte '- • • ric McCulley 95 IMP ,,.-tip �-• s,,, �-- ,.>•'"" ' -�;, - ,. - - Team Intro Planning, Design & Storytelling Design Workshop A, TITLETOWN,GREEN BAY,WI n WS Operations, Maintenance & Programming Agora Partners aar Community _ ,Y - � .y Outreach a • Evans Assoc. y'r Ecology and Restoration L River Restoration Acknowledgement v Executive �,L_ summary Glendale Regional Park Process Overview Project Background Salt Lake City Public Lands(SLC Public Lands)has been presented with the opportunity to redevelop the former Raging Waters/Seven Peaks water park site to better serve the • community by providing needed park space and amenities.The water park,defunct and in a state of decay,has no prospective operators and it has become unfeasible to revitalize the _ once-loved space.Public Lands needs to fulfill a directive,established by the requirements _ of the Land and Water Conservation Fund,to provide publicly accessible outdoor recreation to the community by 2024. The chance to develop the park is significant as the Salt Lake City Public Land's Master Plan identifies a need for investment in Westside parks and enhancing park spaces along the Jordan River.The master plan specifically calls for the Glendale Regional Park to be bti e improved to create a regional attraction with characteristics that celebrate and preserve �t community culture and diversity and make water recreation accessible to more people. This document,the Glendale Regional Park Master Plan,shares the planning process, '• research and analysis,community engagement and resulting recommendations to achieve these goals. Site Context Glendale Regional Park is a part of Salt Lake City's Westside neighborhoods.The park is a major link in a long chain of parks and open space which are all connected by the Jordan River Parkway,which positions the park to become a key recreation destination along the fJordan River Parkway Trail along with the nearby Glendale Golf Course,1700 S Park and Glendale Neighborhood Park.The park location also presents an opportunity to increase access to water recreation and improve essential riparian habitat along the Jordan River. WAL ~`~ - vi i Executive Summary Engagement inclusive play features that all ages and all Implementation SITES pre-score assessment,confirmed abilities can enjoy.Community gathering that the Glendale Park project meets the MissionPark A top goal for SLC Public Lands was to with opportunities for food and local The park will be constructed in a series of qualifications to pursue SITES certification. create a park that is a community park performances was also important feedback phases.According to the requirements set Details of the SITES prescore can be found first,and a regional destination as well. that was shared. by the Land and Water Conservation Fund, on pages 69-70 and in Appendix A. Glendale Regional Park will The planning team wanted to be sure they outdoor recreation amenities in the park bean iconic neighborhood received robust input on community needs The Vision must be available to the public by spring park Mission Statement& and desires from members of the local of 2024.This expedited schedule requires ' neighborhood and also gather insights on The Glendale Park Master Plan was that Phase I park features are easily Goals preserves community, park needs from the larger pool of city-wide created through a process of verifying implemented,meet a rapid construction Throughout the process,a Community culture,and residents.A series of engagement activities park features and design concepts with timeline and fit within the current budget Advisory Committee comprised of local regional were conducted from October 2021 to May the community.Park ideas were refined allocated for the park.Park features that community members and leaders helped destination. rdan 2022 including: from initial ideas down to two concept plan are most desired by the community and guide the plan to align with the needs River and Salt Lake CifyFs park Neighborhood and Stakeholder alternatives,which were then refined into a can meet this criteria are being given top and desires of the Glendale community.Engagement: final park plan. priority for inclusion in Phase I. This committee helped to form a mission network. The final desi n strate seeks to create an Next Ste s recreati' n within an arm's Glendale Neighborhood Events:3 g p events,110 participants park that celebrates statement and goals for the park.For full community gathering goal statements,see page 4. reach,the park will • Youth Engagement:Glendale and active recreation with programs and To meet the rapid timeline required to open the natural resources and Middle School and Mountain View activities that are community-driven.The the park with publicly accessible recreation, quality of lives for current Elementary School,128 participants park will be a hub for sharing local food, Phase I design will proceed concurrent and future generations of Community Advisory Committee to Master Plan adoption.Programming art and culture with family,friends and Meetings:3 meetings including 14 opportunities with community partners will Westside residents. participating members neighbors. continue to be developed to ensure that the "Plan Sharing"Glendale Community The park will also be a place to explore park remains an active space upon opening. Council:15 participants nature through hillside trails,along the Citywide Engagement: restored riparian landscapes and through The project team will also begin to Park Goals enhanced access to the Jordan River. rehabilitate the site with riparian and "Plan Your Park"Open House:100 native vegetation to fulfill the park goals attendees The park design strengthens regional of enhancing environmental quality and Public Online Survey:1361 connectivity,connecting Glendale Park to improving environmental justice for the Community Services& participants the larger park system with a proposed Glendale neighborhood.To support these Programming Key takeaways from public input included bridge connection to the Jordan River goals,it is recommended that the project Park Activation&Safety the need for a neighborhood park-like Parkway Trail,improved connections to team pursue certification in a sustainability experience with lots of amenities,the need 1700 South Park such as road narrowing program such as SITES or another Regional Connection for increased safety,and opportunities for and an at-grade pedestrian crossing,and a comparable program.This would ensure Access to Nature free and affordable activities.Other themes recommended multi-use trail connection to sustainable practices are adhered to and Environmental Quality included the desire to have water play in the future Surplus Canal Trail. would highlight the City's investment in the park in the form of a water feature or restorative landscapes,climate resiliency Environmental outdoor pool,a preference for bright and To view the final park plan and park features and equitable environmental investment. colorful park features and a desire for see pages 42-43. During the master planning process,a Executive Summary l vii Introduction Introduction 1 2 Introduction ,. ,��: _ �►New Park for the Glendale Neighborhood - _ Mir- M- - t <� Salt Lake City Public Lands has been presented with the opportunityto redevelop the r — - former Raging Waters/Seven Peaks water park site to better serve the community by providing needed park space and amenities.The water park,defunct and in a state of decay, •. . w4 _ ` "' - •-'y "r has no prospective operators and it has become unfeasible to revitalize the once-loved f space.Public Lands needs to fulfill a directive,established by the site funding requirements of the Land and Water Conservation Fund,to provide publicly accessible outdoor recreation to the community by 2024. The chance to develop the park is significant for several reasons.The Salt Lake City Public Land's Master Plan identifies a need for investment in Westside parks and enhancing park =VolT' >V + t• �� s aces along the Jordan River.The master Ian specifically calls for the Glendale Regional �•'srs'Y- _ '�� — � p 9 P P Y 9� _ Park to be improved to create a regional attraction and event space with characteristics that celebrate and preserve community culture and diversity and make water recreation fr. .• T �_ '" r `> accessible to more people.The Glendale neighborhood is also identified by the Public Lands �` � -� � '�• ��-- Needs Assessment as being a high needs area for park investment with a lower frequency of park visitation than parks on the east side of the city. *rtThe park site is also significant as it presents an opportunity to increase access to water =t _ recreation and improve essential riparian habitat along the Jordan River,one of the city's greatest natural assets in need of restoration efforts and care.In addition,activating the park will enhance regional connectivity by creating a key recreation destination along the Jordan River Parkway Trail along with the nearby Glendale Golf Course,1700 S Park and M ►�• AO- - Glendale Neighborhood Park. it Goals for the new park include creating a safe,active and communal space that embodies `_ natural elements of the Jordan River and provides new opportunities for recreation, activities and events.This document,the Glendale Regional Park Master Plan shares F - the planning process,research and analysis,community engagement and resulting a� recommendations to achieve these goals.It outlines the Master Plan for the development of the former Glendale Water Park;a 17-acre site,to guide capital improvements,site + programming,and operations and maintenance recommendations. u � 1 o hill A f recireatioAIoO 3 Introduction Park Mission Park Goals Statement Glendale -• • Community-Led Ik Access to Nature The park is a space to build a meaningful Park will •• • relationship with nature.Attractive and �, The vision is community led and reflectsGlendale's culture and history.The park will• •• ••• •, !.r offer space for social connections,features, accessible features and free recreationaland services that interest the Westsideactivities provided in the neighborhood's nei •� backyard will combat Nature Deficit that - • • _ community.• Disorder in the community. preserves community, B� • diversity. Community Services& Environmental Quality It will • •- - Programming The park builds upon existing natural assets The park provides equitable access to and enhances the ecological health of the regional destination nature and outdoor recreation.The Westside.Features of the park will work to community can enjoy free and affordable improve the Jordan River's water quality connecting to the classes,events,and entertainment at the and Salt Lake City's air pollution for the " neighborhood's central park. community. Jordan River a • Salt Lake City's park Odp� Park Activation&Safety Environmental Justice network. • • The park is a dynamic destination activated r The park celebrates the Jordan River, nature • recreation by daily use.What happens in the park is integral to the community's identity,and an organic expression of Westside culture. `- y - T enhances local environmental quality.The within an arm's reach, Local community members,organizations, community-led vision will prioritize the and businesses together will create a safe Y quality of life for the Glendale neighborhood the park will improve and welcoming environment. and Westside community. resourcesthe natural • • quality of Regional Connection for • r; The park is a regional destination future combining and connecting to multiple generations • ; neighboring parks.As a gathering place along the Jordan River,the park serves as Westside • _ a recreational gateway between Westside r„ and the larger park systems. Introduction 14 Site Context + Analysis Site Context&Analysis 1 6 Project Context Watershed City-Regional Neighborhood Jordan River Jordan Glendale River WaterPark Neighborhood GreatSalt 1-so Lake Salt Lake City •• 1700 I-215 ............... Industrial 1-15 Areas Glendale Water Park 201 InduslrialAreas Lake Lake Glendale Water Park 7 1 Site Context&Analysis Project Context Watershed and improve water quality in the river.The -a r. 7, Fj park is a major link in a long chain of parks V"I: IV..4 11 J0 Glendale Regional Park is a centerpiece and open space which are all connected by along the Jordan River,a culmination of the Jordan River Parkway.This network of - ■ a seven major tributaries flowing out of �X VI 1Z 'I!Z: :-&-F...—. - M public spaces positions the park to become 7M j4 the centerpiece of an oasis of trees in an % 4., the Wasatch Mountain Range to the east and the final conduit in the Jordan River and urban environment,absorbing carbon, j�.. rZ_ off Watershed.The Jordan River is the city's mitigating Salt Lake City's challenging air Ali largest river and flows south to north, pollution,and reducing urban heat island for 51 miles beginning at Utah Lake and draining into the Great Salt Lake.The river's effect.When park improvements and features are complete,the park will be a -;,I�Fl riparian habitat is a rarity in the high desert E �A .1 major recreational node in the city's park FF environment of the Salt Lake valley and system. supports a variety of wildlife as well as many migratory birds along the Pacific Flyway. 1.4 MW Neighborhood % aaal is City-Regional Glendale Regional Park will immediately ob 5 1 ",. serve the Glendale neighborhood.Park - a a) River The park is a part of Salt Lake City's enhancements will create direct and ir Westside neighborhoods.Despite Trail * significant access to the nature that proximity to the natural spaces along the exists directly in the neighborhood's backyard,providing opportunities for free Jordan River,these neighborhoods are a ME sandwiched between the congested 1-15 recreational activities that are nearby R MTli 0 Water corridor and the city's industrial districts. and accessible to all.The park presents Park According to the 2014 Westside Master AP lips. an opportunity to strengthen connections Plan,"compared to other communities d between the adjacent 1700 South Park to E within the city(excepting the industrial the north,Glendale Neighborhood Park Z�I I its- ft districts west of 1-215),the Westside carries to the west,and Jordan River Parkway C- re ,NDAIF ;--011 jl 3 1 M an inequitable share of land dedicated to OLFCOUR3E to the east.The addition of an enhanced mmovii\Ikk . gali manufacturing uses."As measured by - 4 Ncrosswalk across 1700 South,bridge Park the EPA:s environmental justice indexes, connections to the parkway and potential ■ q,, 4b, 14. the neighborhoods surrounding Glendale § Al k I I Regional Park are disproportionately future trail connections to the proposed ' exposed to environmental hazards such Surplus Canal Trail will be key to providing Sol pift 1:■1 %j W, Parley's IrL 7i Trail enhanced park access for the Glendale as air pollution that settles in the valley and neighborhood. ....... ----- increases risk of health complications. ad. However,the park's proximity to the Jordan River offers an opportunity to build upon existing natural assets,creating an Ort ON 1! 1. _1:4.111 ecological park of vegetation and green infrastructure to mitigate local pollutants Site Context&Analysis I 8 Glendale Regional Park - Neighborhood Context Re8.0 •a• • 0 Si 7 :;�: r•... '• • ■ ' .tramno low. i Men Me Men ',^ graw i i ,` .: :r `i- . ND'UNITjY 1- -■r. Ordan CENTER ob R1be It �eroil WE EMR EN Z • .■ ' • m /-■ar.♦ • •ti ii i a E �III 1 ■ � ` . .... ..,p ■idea ♦..., .■mI ■Basin it i ■ '. •.. •'■ / r ■ � � ", _._ `- � - rid _ —, , i � ■ • ■ RI_a I poll The 6F ° E Future _ • Regional - " ,,,, Park � Parley's ■ ■ , i �. � ` � � � ♦ �, � ' • Thad _— _ ' ' -'''� it 9 1 site Context&Analysis _ . _ • _ 1700 S Park F t',�r��"Y� _W'•" ```` '\+ 1.e' �� Re�ram"'" "ttt `➢ ;y� �" C, . f �i� i - t ,1_' '• _-wo Regional Park Site Glendale ` Neighbo ood s . ordan e J River Trail L � '.., ` -.: "• , .�. - Glendale Golf Coursed i d O GRANDVIEW PEAK yy O LOOKOUT PEAK-` r ' TOSTANSBURYISLAND -o ENSIGN PEAK • - - ' '�' DOWNTOWN SLC NortheastViews '` Y O GRANDEUR PEAK t `KESTLER PEAK 0 NO O GOBBLER'S KNOB FARNSWORTH PEAK O iG''� Y ® MT.OLYMPUS to , NELSON PEAK 0 - _ m +j O'SULLIVAN PEAK LQNE PEAK ! CLIPPER PEAK O r r - S ,As. , _X46 , ". LOWE PEAK FLATTOPMOUNTAIN O � i \ Park Views �° - Al 40 i r a FARNSWORTH PEAK STANSBURY ISLAND ENSIGN PEAK GRANDVIEW PEAK GRANDEUR PEAK NELSON PEAK KESTLER PEAK DOWNTOWN SLC LOOKOUT PEAK Lr� r t - _ b. — West Views = Northeast Views LOWE PEAK NELSON PEAK GRANDEUR PEAK GOBBLER'S KNOB O'SULLIVAN PEAK CLIPPER PEAK MT.OLYMPUS LONE PEAK FLAT TOP MTN. FARNSWORTH PEAK 1-tATNE Southwest Views z ��✓ Southeast Views ! . ` . ` site Context&Analysis 112 Transportation - Regional - Rail&Bus Connections r There is a lack of regional public transit .�.,.,�, .° �l�� `• t` i connectivity between Glendale Park and other parts of the City.The closest rail r.•�' _ connection to Glendale Regional Park is "sx o 4 the River Trail Station along the Green � All Line(2340 South 1070 West),which is a 1.3 tosl,s ' eli "s` mile walk away. in Nearby bus routes include the 9 and 217 — aoos o AR- which run every15 minutes,and the 509 - - sons which runs every 30 minutes.The 513 hasfr limited service and only runs during rush �. Il ] fps hour.Yet,as shown on the following page, _ R these routes do not have stops that are -- I s 1 dims�within a comfortable walking distance of _� I' 1 'c TER+ _ I# Glendale Park. „ TN ■ Additional connections to Trax and bus — x ; l'F .�i• ` lines,as well as other modes of public -� _ !� �i ARK v transportation should be explored ` — _ in order to enhance park access and - -ems— sustainable transportation options. Increased public transit connectivity is also an important consideration for <71 facilitating park activities and events. . f ' i f, STATION15 min.service sNu. PUBLICTRANSIT NEAR PARK '1 15 Minute UTA Bus Routes T 30 Minute UTA Bus Routes Limited Service UTA Bus Routes ``� �'� '� —•� ,�•1 _ I 15 Minute UTATRAX Line LEGEND Study Area UTA FrontRunner Water Park • UTA TRAX Stations UTA Bus Routes __. Glendale Regional Park t UTA TRAX Parks and Natural Lands • UTA FrontRunner Stations Public Golf Courses A o 025 05 iMiles 13 I Site Context&Analysis • • ; o 0 Transportation - Neighborhood : - •• • �° - _; ° °° •- -. -........ o0 0. Neighborhood Transit Access o There is a gap in public transportation access for both _ _ .. - - _ • • D « « the Glendale neighborhood and Glendale Regional Park. oQD In contrast to most other Westside parks which are •• `�I r • ARK within walking distance of public transit,the majority { _ u _• o 40 °o of the area is not within a 1/4 mile walk of a bus stop or transit station. :• o - The nearest bus stops are located 1/3 to 1/2 a mile away • ' o 0 0 from park entrances.A bus stop along the 509 sits near ° ` o the golf course entrance. _ �•..� . ° ° It will be important to support enhanced public transit soon ° ° connectivity between the park and surrounding :, — ° o ° neighborhoods.While the majority of the population commutes by private vehicle,8.5%of households in the - I c - 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' 't = - o LEGEND 1700 WEN • 1 United States Census Bureau,2020 American Community Survey UTA Bus Routes PARK �� LENDA ��........... �- • UTA Bus Stops • o 0 0 0 0 0 0� .,-- � � .� UTA FrontRunnerRoute 217 � • • UTA FrontRunner Stations 815 min.service f • —F-- UTA TRAX o • UTA TRAX Stations • Study Area •• , _ _ 3 ,� • Salt Lake City Boundary Quarter Mile Walk from TRAX Stations Adj ace nt•to Quarter Mile Walk from Bus Stops GolfCourse Q _ Li Existing Multipurpose Trail Entrance �J Proposed Multipurpose Trail L. _Water Park 1 I.y I i ■ Q Public Golf Courses _ Parks and Natural Lands Il r 1 Glendale Regional Park A 0 0.25 0:5 1 Miles t_ Walkability - Site Analysis . - South is comparable in width to A� r1r - ` 'I Redwood Road,yet by 2108 counts, z ) ;, V Red experienced only 35%of Redwood Road's ,, �t , r r= traffic along a nearby stretch of the j ' T_ • ,` Redwood Road corridor.Nejill ar Glendale i(• - Regional Park,1700 South's traffic counts are very low for its width,indicating - _ �700 S� - that the road width could be reduced to EM 40 J �---+• � -�� ' _ � .,,� �•� � �• � create safe and comfortable access for - y pedestrians and cyclists. _ R• There are currently only two crosswalks r r• ••• •--.T� p along 1700 South to connect the neighborhood to Glendale Regional Park: y one located near 1300 West,and one at the Jordan River Parkway Trail.The •'' ''' `� p crossings are over 1/4 mile apart and the distance between existing signals couple �. 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 a 2018:12,172 2018:34,566 South as an east-west pedestrian priority - corridor,'and the City's Transportation i 2014:9,9 00 2017:27,6 00 Division is currently evaluating the f 2014:9,980 2014:27,600 potential for improvements here related R Source:2022 Kalibrate Technologies(Q1 2022), p P ESRI Business Analyst to active transportation. { LEGEND 1 SLC_PBMPCompleteDocument(Dec2015)Clickable. lll�-j Water Park pdf(slcdocs.com) 0 50 100 200 Feel 15 1 Site Context&Analysis •r ;R Trails and Recreation - .'- _ .........r t. ... Regional Recreation Connectivity �'� -- •' 1k. Glendale Regional Park is the southern anchor along - ;. • the SLC portion of the Jordan River Parkway.Trailheadx access and parking is currently located at the 1700 S River park. ,.. tad- us— •w■ f . _ The proposed Surplus Canal Trail will be an important addition,providing a direct connection between the `� -• park and residents of western Glendale who currently _ /GPLA R do not live within a 10 minute walk from a park. .� j PARK - • . - 900 s I I, IN AVe 90oi /, � ••. I �.a-"- fir, .r�r, IL • i - - O281i5 1 — I C 1 i•. - _ ._,.� L MULTI-CUL7U¢A. - ;R • LEGEND - 1 - Lf Existing Multipurpose Trail a/ • Ir 1 --- Proposed Multipurpose Trail On-Road Bike Lanes ri / �a _Water Park _ Parks and Natural Lands I j 1 .--------------- 3_ 1 ® Public Golf Courses Glendale Regional Park „ 1�O Trailhead - - - I - i •/ r•ir.i, 0 Trail Access Study Area •l " _. I --__ Salt Lake City Boundary '_t { i ry A 0 - -. • _ 0.25 0.5 1 Miles / V �L �i l~~f � •� _ iiir -- - -- _,"44T _ MC -� - BOATER ACCESS• � Water-based Recreation _ T Gadsby Troilhead ( - Boat Ramp al+i- . _ G7� stir.• �#tl�ita�Y�i�1, iv f' . The Jordan River Water _ 1 I' BQJAIER>?�CCESf= . III t. , Ptlher N►onsion / Trail 6osgtRamp paddling. A, The Jordan River flows from South 10 BOATER Access•�' -Jordan •. - 1 " sHERVIOOD �Ahheimers Park,/ I 1 I - ... to North,beginning at Utah Lake and ^'$, PARK j jr side. emptying into the Great Salt Lake.The 1• - \ - _ . yArea boat ramp at Glendale Regional Park is a Boat Access Restrooms Parking � r i soo'� , �� sops I major access point along the Jordan River Water Trail.This section of river allows 1700 South- 1700 South River Limited at Ramp. N_ • '- •` _ Exchange Club Park I paddlers access to 3.3 miles of beginner Additional - ♦ ' Marina(Glendale Porutlrtt��t I ,•• I � level flatwater floating(about 1-2 hours). Regional Park) Parking at 1700 m : Boss PARR ; Fora quicker trip,boaters can take out South River Park. — — q P+ 1 motAHu nve 1 at the Modesto Park ramp,1.2 miles Modesto Park At Nearby JordanLimited Parking W �_� . . I 1 ,- §�ros; downstream.Paddlers who are willing 3 - r -- RK ` 11• to brave a short section of intermediate Alzheimers Park No Limited Parking �' _ l_ I r,•t, _ obstacles can continue on for another 3.8 ' I rn BO,ATER ACCESS-- •� �. J Fisher Mansion No On-street • Moddsto Park,« 1 C miles of beginner floating until reaching Parking 1 �w•ststa• h' the Riverview takeout at 1800 N. 7 - - joo�13ws W r, I Ott River access can be enhanced by creating nY IORENS easier entry for canoes and kayaks.The I . ., - I U ';S J Muth-cuuuRAkq#ffr r 11 ` 3. 3 1 water quality is an issue,so swimming to +■ i 17 should be discouraged,but as the water �- RIVEC 0 ATER ACCESS-1700 OIEND'AIE: I quality may improve in the future,water �'-•� ',eOweo PAR iSOuth Exchange Club+' uR - ' access should not be completely cut off. r Marina,west side Additional small boat access locations should be evaluated to create a more local scale river recreation circulation pattern. / _ _ Q . The Jordan River also has potential for LEGEND — - T D urban fishing.According to the Utah - — _ — — I- - — • Salt Lake City Boundary R- • Department of Natural Resources,the q •, • . — j _ / + h - -- 1 -- river"provides great opportunities for Boat Access • r) t, -••. -- Stud Area / RECOMMENDED TAKE / catfish,bullhead,carp,white bass and y . r oUT-Joraan River I _ walleye.1 However,according to the Parks and Natural Lands _" I Redwood Troilhead'- -.1 — Park,west side; report Fishes of the Jordan River,"recent Public Golf Courses - 1_i a I � findings of various pollutants common to w t,I P,I k _ IJl i highly urbanized areas like the Salt Lake Glendale Regional Park J Valley suggest that it may not be safe to ——— ., I:.I - - l - z• _ __ eat any fish from the river,especially in • Surplus Canal Dam Hazard ; L I I f downstream areas.."2 ,.��,e•t+st��l,�_ - 1 - 1 https://wildlife.utah.gov/news/utah-wildlife- news/743-4-utah-rivers-that-offer-great- fishing-in-august.htm A 0 0.25 0.5 1 Mies I i .1•� - I 2 http://jordanrivercommission.com/wp-content/ _ Y uploads/2011/04/Fish-Species-of-the-Jordan- River-2011.pdf 17 Site Context&Analysis SOA ;�ATEa 4eCESB pm�R 1 J �.Ma+dhbih f, 1 I 'Pitilfz etas tYwu h"anY� ip��2iM . Site Ecology Local and Regional Migratory Birds-Pacific Flyway Connections The Glendale Regional Park is in a central dean Geese tt`e%Read Duck `to,"n Cranes e�3anser part of Salt Lake City but is also centrally located along the riparian corridor of the Jordan River,which provides a z key connection of riparian habitats for resident and migratory birds.The site is 1' located along the flyway between Utah .ti Lake and Great Salt Lake and provides a potential stopover location for resting migratory birds. �?� There is potential for increased areas '� a, 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 Existing Site Trees of complexity including large trees,small trees and shrubs,grasses,and(orbs [flowers].This multi-layer structure more ,an olive ey 1otust is beneficial for creatinga diverse oa ecosystem that will be more resilient to future changes in climate and ecosystem processes.Surrounding regional areas } ? ,� r yr, '� .`'++"�• <. t � �+ ., that are owned by SLC adjacent to the , golf course and in other open areas offer ' great opportunity to be enhanced for t9 5� Y 9i• ss4 riparian functioning and flood capacity. See Appendix B for a full site ecological f• -:fir �� ,""��" {, assessment. w Site Context&Analysis I 18 Climate Considerations Weather Averages Average High=July 90 degrees Average Low=January 26 degrees Salt Lake CityIs comfortable p p of the year.... .... i ra too hot and v4%,too cold. 88 days per year with precipitation 3059 hours of sunshine II 36.62 8.57 inches precipitation i 2901 47 inches annual snowfall' 121.41 13.80 Additional Site 620 1.Considerations Pig 91 I -16G7 • North to South moderate winds 6AM Overall weather patterns moving I I 211.z2 in from West to East' III 31.83 Little shade/tree cover 2AM + 39A3 Shade/ice in winter due to aspect tan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sop Cxi Nov Doc Cooler temps by Jordan River Universal Inerml Cltmale index(C) 1/1 tc 12/31 between 0 and 23 @1 cly:Sall Lake Cily country:USA Drought Conditions sourc:TM`/-24127 Glendale Park lies within a high desert environment,receiving only 12 AM 8.5 inches of water each year.Water is becoming increasingly scarce, I I with Utah's Governor declaring a PM State of Emergency due to extreme b drought.Recommendations from Utah's Department of Natural Resources to reduce water usage 121'M include implementing water-wise 1 landscaping,a practice that should be applied at Glendale Regional Park to bAM I I condition the greatest extent possible a Comfortable I I I 1 https://www.usciimatedata.com/climate/salt- 17 AM uncomfortable lake-city/utah/united-states/usut0225 tan Feb Mar Apr May tun lul Atiq Sep Oct Nov Doc 2 https://nhmu.utah.edu/sites/ Thermal Comfort(condlllon) default/files/attachments/ 1/1 toll/31 between 0 and 23 @1 city:Sall Lake City SaltLakeValleyweatherPatterns.pdf country:USA 3 https://water.utah.gov/water-data/drought/ source:TMy-24127 d rou g ht-declaration/a:-:text=on%20 April%2021%2 C%202022%2C%20 Spencer,to%20state%20or%20federal%20 resources. 19 1 Site Context&Analysis Site Impervious Surfaces j7-VMV- L Site Surfaces L Asphalt-24% �- Concrete:24% = Pool Features:6% Total Impervious Surfaces:54% Pervious Landscape:46% Impervious surfaces such as roads,pavement,and buildings are often increased , during development.These surfaces contribute to higher runoff,polluting waterways11 -- --- 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 j Water Park the park provides an opportunity to reduce these surfaces through low impact development practices,utilizing green infrastructure to absorb stormwater on site Pervious Landsape 333,167 SF and create ecological benefits.The future park design will reduce the current amount _ Asphalt 176,472 SF of impervious surfaces by 50%.See page 56 for the final park plan's site surface Concrete 176,35o SF percentages. _ Pool Features 46,053 SF A 0 50 100 200 Feet Floodplain = Site Scale Natural Assetsom� ly enhances ---MM M- 1 the local environment.According to FEMA,Floodplain benefits include: — i. ;-'1 T Fish and wildlife habitat protection Natural flood and erosion control Surface water quality maintenance Groundwater recharge Za --t �• o�z5 �' r` f 'F �1 Biological productivity • ,�� P.l Higher quality recreational opportunities(fishing,bird watching, boating,etc.)' • \ i •N. I %.' s To protect critical riparian habitat ;. within the floodplain,Salt Lake City has implemented a Riparian Corridor /4' t- Y, I ' gz3o Overlay District(RCO)which regulates development within 100 feet of a natural I230waterway'sAnnualHighWaterLine.Allimprovements within 100'of the annual I �` high water line of the Jordan River will �� i! • also follow guidelines outlined in the RCO. 1 Developme nt n ear the river corrid o r wi I I �.`� / ,eas • seek to enhance floodplain functions �- �b7A -\ through riparian restoration.Structures, •u _ fi .� } / �- such as boat ramps or docks,will be �- built in accordance with RCO zoningczso„ ordinances? \ < 230 LEGEND A 0 50 10C 2CO I>,I — — 2 foot Contours 1 https://www.fema.gov/floodplain-management/ r�Water Park wildlife-conservation/benefits-natural 2 http://www.slcdocs.com/building/b-riparian- ®100 year Floodplain corridor.pdf Building Footprints 'Buildings on site have been demolished 21 1 site context&Analysis q ij �..e Floodplain - Regional Scaleir Resilient Communities �! sNER„,o,D XZ FEMA Floodmaps highlight areas that are more likely toAeK �� experience flooding.The 100 year floodplain shows areas _ - i that are likely to flood at least one out of every 100 years _L C soon : 9005 (a 1/o or higher chance of flooding)while the 500 year floodplain shows areas likely to flood at least once every PARK 500 years. I�: _ rorLA K i - Floodplain mapshelp to create resilient communities by n - �.: � uroanruntE highlighting which areas are higher and safer ground — as �l ! _ 1( • % 1/ ,1 for structures.Restoration of the floodplain along the Jordan River at Glendale Regional parkwill remove afew - storage and office buildings from the 100 year floodplain, y - , which will mitigate costs that would have been associated 1 - if current structures were damaged.It will also prevent impairments to water quality that would be caused by aLTU compromised structure in the event of a flood.Floodplain — _ I - ; CEW� B B I restoration including planting along the river's edge will g i also slow stormwater runoff,reducing water pollutants trapped in runoff from flowing into the Jordan River, _ i u; Ri00• r, ! ' reducing erosion and improving groundwater retention 1§ L WOALK.!M L7B05 1. on the site. 1 LF LEGEND _— ;!� _ �`,I - _ -,c 1 i rU - -- . � � � ilT` Ml RiparianAreas ® 100 year Floodplain �'.�=T = Qft U 500 year Floodplain i _T,' • _', (f � Parks and Natural Lands Public Golf Courses Study Area —1 1 i _ ✓ �� City Salt LakeBoundary _ 1 Y r _� .• l Water Park Glendale Regional Park a A 11 025 G 5 1 Mks Community Demographics Population Growth Population and Projected Population Growth Percent of Primary Market Under 19 Years Old The planning team analyzed demographics traits of likely park users.This assessment Primary Market Population was broken down into a local assessment,called the primary market area,shown on page a Secondary MarkeVSLC Population 24,and a city-wide assessment,called the secondary market area.See Appendix D for the 222,029 21.77%in SIC full demographic and market study. 204,380 Over the next five years(2021-2026)population in the primary market area is expected to +8.661 — 27.85%in County grow by 3.54 percent,reaching a total population of 30,571 in 2026.The population in the 186,399 63.48% secondary market area is expected to see slightly higher growth over the next five years, +9.65% over 19years old 36.52% growing by 8.65 percent to reach a total population of 222,029 in 2026. under 19years old 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 28,369 29,525 30,571 level of service is maintained and that the community has adequate access to outdoor +4.07% +3.54 recreation and open space. Age 2010 2021 2026 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 Age Group Demographics of Primary Market enter family formation years(30-39)within the next decade. 19.78% While park features and activities seek to accommodate all ages,Glendale Regional Park 20 Primary Market Ages 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. Secondary MarkeVSLC Ages Salt Lake County Ages 15 c 0 ca Z3 0 10 0 0 5 ■ 0 0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 Age Group 23 I Site Context&Analysis Community Demographics Household Income and Wealth Primary Market Study Area ESRI Wealth Index Score _ j 105 + The 2021 median household income in the primary market area is$50,508,which is less _ r. .. r - 1 too County, than that of the secondary market area($63,364)and that of Salt Lake County($80,897). - 85+ �__, •#• SLC/SecondaryMarket The primary market area is also expected to see less growth in median household income _ 50 (12.18 percent)than in the secondary market area(19.14 percent)and Salt Lake County - * a7 (13.59 percent)between 2021 and 2026. �' `" `` PrimaryMarket"� ' �w .. '•s � -•�' 25 The Wealth Index is a metric used to compare overall wealth of communities to the { _ • `�,� � • . Score of 100=National Average national level.The index compares the wealth calculated for selected areas to the average �w ': 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 . ti r - ■, Is - —•.7 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 7- 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 k•. 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 PrimaryMarket programming such as free fitness classes or facilities that can supplement recreational Median Household Income of Primary Market demands of the community for little to no cost.If concessions are implemented,then they should be priced appropriately. 20 Primary Market Median Income Secondary MarkeVSLC Median Income ------ Salt Lake County Median Income primaryRecommend the ' 15 • c 0 Activities Cz - •. best serve 0 10 ----- • •h low or • cost o activities 01 for both adults ° 5 • children. 0 <15,000 15,000- 25,000- 35,000- 50,000- 75,000- 100,000- 150,000- 200,000+ 24,999 34,999 49,999 74,999 99,999 149,999 199,999 Median Income ($) Community Engagement Community Engagement 1 26 w Engagement Overview Atop 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: -� 9 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 L =�- *- members d » Citywide Engagement: 11 � { "Plan Your Park"Open House:100 attendees Pi 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 dO, 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 I 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. A 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: 1goal was to create apark that is 1. Share the public feedback being incorporated by the project team to date; community-led and reflects Glendale's 2. Engage the community in adding ideas for amenities and programming not already shown; culture and history, offering spaces 3. Engage the community in thinking about the site in relation to existing adjacent open space;and for social connection,features, and 4. Envision ideas about how existing site features could be repurposed. T - Participants were invited to share where they go to recreate,in or outside the activities that interest the Westside _ neighborhood and to consider how the old water park site could interface with the larger open space network around it. 27 1 Community Engagement Engamment �. - . L Activities e . N Key Takeaways Include lots of amenities ,. Glendale Across all three engagements,people felt 1 Neighborhood Events Need for a neighborhood park-like that adding any public amenity would be `9► experience better than what exists currently.While 3 Events,110 Participants most identified preferences from the >r October 2021 Most participants acknowledged that boards,and added a few,most suggested - there were not a lot of amenities in the that any or all of the amenities would be a ' immediate area and that they were benefit. leaving the neighborhood to recreate with "�' Youth Engagement families.Some said they use the Jordan River Trail,playground(s)at neighboring Free and affordable 128 Students schools and the soccer fields at 1700 S Park. Cost is important.Some participants December 2021 Predominantly,people use other existing were surprised to learn that there would 'u 1 v • SLC Parks,including the Internationalf be no entrance fee to use the site.Othersfir;:i , Peace Gardens,Jordan Park and Liberty j suggested that boat/equipment rental Park for an outside"park experience."For '�',�, Public Online Survey ,,, and acafe/concessions would need to be play amenities like splash pads,playgrounds accessibly priced. - ri #` and dog parks respondents noted they ' s 1361 Participants would drive as far as Kearns,Sandy and 1 l a Bountiful to use those amenities. Preferred Amenities - /` March-April 2022. , The amenities provided on the boards were ` Safety isa top priority very popular and are listed in priority order � — ` Community from all three events. �' 7 Advisory Committee Safety was a priority for most of the adults we spoke with.Many mentioned better Splash Pad/Water feature Meetings members street crossings,lighting at the site and Playground other improvements designed to make Public Art November 2021-June 2022 it an attractive place for people to spend Green Open Space/Trail time.This extended to recreation along Sports courts Plan Your Park Open the Jordan River and the cleanliness of the Community Gathering Space e 1 water.Many people expressed interest in Skate/Bike park House water activities,but not necessarily from Boat rental100 Participants the Jordan River in its current state.Even Fishing(pond) March 2022 people who mentioned fishing thought a Performance Venue = separate pond would be more desirable than the river. ---- - - Glendale Community ( Council Community Members at the Plan Your Park Open House(top and bottom) and a Glendale Neighborhod Event(middle). 15 Participants June 2022 Community Engagement 1 28 Youth Engagement _Mwe", Student Engagement OMM Students participated in a variety of engagement activities,including an asset mapping rf 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 e 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 I!-_I 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 1' 0-cmwhich formed collages,displayed in the image to the left.These activities captured a lot t 1rj '' e 7 16 of the sounds,sights,smells,tastes,feelings,thoughts and community experiences the - students would like to have at the new park. { I. ,8TLAs 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 f 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. ►' ,_ 0 " 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. F� Key Takeaways 1 * � ,! 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 { �j /�� the space and the people with roots in the neighborhood)while looking forward with fresh �0i 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 A 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 29 ! Community Engagement Youth Engagement a�*tPURES OCQP 1 ti / - ourneighborhoodwhilebeingwillingto Water-112 images:Students were �� 38% grow into new forms in the future.This strong in their opinion that some water a > of students rated also suggests that priority for input for the elements need to be maintained at the safety new design should be given to those who park while also increasing access to water as The have established roots in the neighborhood activities on the Jordan River.They prefer -- , and have helped/are helping to build it. number 1 value to have a pool and made the argument ♦ ,�y a Stenciled flowers are of a tropical variety, that a pool is much more inclusive and suggesting that honoring the knowledge, accessible to a wider variety of abilities and Need experiences and cultures who come from ages than a splashpad.They contend that lighting and around the globe is important as well.The splashpads will only be used by young kids better street multi-layered approach of the process also while a pool will be used by their younger crossings asks planners to take their time to listen to siblings,themselves,their parents and a variety of voices.The unique handcrafted grandparents.They would like to have at 3D structures underline some of the least a couple slides in the pool. Natu e Pay , elements that students find most important to have in the park design.The sculpture of �� the pair of glasses requests the audience Nature-74 images:Students would like v i i d h id i d l he landscaping to prove sae,picnic \_ to observe deeply and take unconventional t said having the y perspectives into account with the planning space and natural play areas.They would park feel process. also prefer a pollinator friendly design to attract butterflies(especially monarchs), welcoming Students tallied the numbers of collage bees and birds. Spaces for animals was their number 1 images that represent the themes they (domestic and wild)are important to foster. value identified to be included in the park. They also find it important to have trees that r Sports/games-112 images:Emphasis provide food for humans. was on variety in order to offer something of interest to everyone.Students also Adventure-66 images:Student ideas highlighted the desire to have activities for adventure included bike and skate parks, available in each season with perhaps ropes courses,zip lines,and a trampoline a space that could be converted to ice park. : skating rink in the winte r while fu nction i ng Outdoor Pool Animal FriendlAff as something else in warmer months. Gathering(seating,picnic,etc.)-49 Students found it important to have images:Students had a lot of ideas about activities available at all times of day so food trucks being a regular presence at the lighting at night is important to them. Bike park.They mentioned that food will bring park,basketball courts,skate park,petting more people to the park and a food truck zoo and dog park seem to be popular ideas. presence can highlight global foods that are Said fu noat Ramp I v A running/walking loop around the park is representative of our neighborhood. was their fop also valued. value. Community Engagement 30 Community Open House Community Open House The Glendale Regional Park Master Plan Team held an in-person open house at the Glendale r - 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 s�. 1 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 e ` p�c,- - • -- are shown on pages 37-38. ~so,' 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. i 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 9 hill/overlook,river access with a kayak rental and boat launch,biking,skating,and skateboarding areas,and a food truck court. -4 Public Online Survey The public online survey was promoted city-wide and was available from March 16 to April f r , 16.It was offered in both English and Spanish and widely advertised.Approximately 1361 ' i:e,,'' ' -ir 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 b a large number of responses from youth ages p p Y 9 p Y 9 r' 18 and under(22%of participants).This likely reflects substantial participation Glendale Middle School students,who had participated in previous engagement activities and I� ,• ,. .,• '' ;�; ;-' 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. 31 i Community Engagement Public Survey Feedback 30/o Who We Heard From of survey respondents live in the 0�hi')0 Q7-HowclosedoyouliveorworktoGlendale Glendale 84 l Park? _ N21gbOrhOOd 841 7 84129 84054 84123$4105 84081 (84104) t We nearnq ': 8,1410284116 84109 84120 I�r 8411184104 000008410 3 8of 8410684115 f % r M .55 ,� t ,�, Of 84 0 9 5 B 100 200 300 ,� 6 6� 70o eo 9O 1000 survey respondents841248410184108 8IIVe 4401 84096 84112 � i 7 `' 026-What is your ethnicity? Or ,�� `, � ✓`84093`, 84043 - work nearby Black or African , Amerkrr 1 112 Q 23-What is your age? Astir, .39 Younger than 18 267 1 Majority of Feedback 18Q1 '- wsvarac a taarro (0,am rxe) 203 from white,Hispanic/ Latino&Pacific Islander 22a0 zoo Name Haweisn a Pacific IstarWn 138 communities 31-N1 334 V#Ae 631 Lots of Youth 41.50 Prefer not to say -93 Feedback 1 30%=18 and younger. sic° 76 Odw ,32 Glendale Middle School 61 or olEer _64 participation! 0 loo zoo 30o 4W 600 660 0 so l00 lso 200 2W 300 SO Community Engagement 32 Public Survey Feedback Online Survey Results FF Key Takeaways al-How satisfied are you with the Overall Support for the Park also less interest in natural water features over bright and active elements,with only draft project mission statement? or Very Satisfied Overall,there was support for the park 17%choosing water play with sand and Missionwith Park Mission statement(68%of participants moveable features,and a natural water Statement were satisfied and 25%were very satisfied). feature being lower on the list of preferred Survey participants were also happy with park elements. WS"�,d the project goals(64%were satisfied and 30%were very satisfied). Adaptive and Inclusive Play see 925 Top themes and preferred features from Inclusive Playgrounds accessible to all survey participants reflected the desire for skill levels and abilities were important to a park space that offers a large variety of survey respondents,with an"adaptive and options for active and passive recreation inclusive playground"being the number two Vey SaftUd 338 and places to host community gathering choice for playgrounds.Playgrounds at the h� and local events. park should incorporate accessible design 0 A Zee 300 600 700 hoe 900 1000 with assistive technologies. Bright and Playful While many participants expressed Gathering&Local Events disappointment that the water park could not be revived,there was a desire to include There was a strong desire to create places park features and thematic styles that that would provide opportunities for are reminiscent of the former water park. community gathering,events,and local Bright,colorful and playful park features Performances.Amenities such as food 03-How satisfied are you with these %Satisfied with were consistently top choices.Water trucks or concessions were also deemed � elements such as n outdoor pool and a an important component to draw the draft goals. - • , water-play plaza a a fountain were deemed community in and activate the park.It was • _ essential to include in the park design. important to the local community that the scale of events be appropriate for the nasausw ■ A"colorful and industrial playground"was neighborhood.Most survey respondents the number two playground choice,behind wanted event sizes to host between 500- the number one choice"play for all ages" 5,000 people and did not want to host (which also has playful imagery)and the larger-scale events such as regional Setlslkd 873 most popular water feature was a colorful, concerts. artful fountain.There was less interest in nature play or playgrounds with a natural VmSadsftd theme,with less than 12%of respondents choosing either of these features.There is 0 100 zoo 300 +o0 500 600 70D Boo 900 IN 33 Community Engagement Gathering&Local All-Ages Activities <°oo dchoice Bright&Playful Events All ages activities were very -14 � Respondents were Places for gathering, popular and were some of "° _ drawn to bright, food,& local events the most-selected items. colorful features • • • were top choices. p orts chore reminiscent of local • ' '• • • ei�o9Choice ess�S cultures and the •• • • va�r �,° ,�r�- colorful water park. . . _? All-ages Play Seature Choice .. . _ •_ � (Foradultstoo!) et f Sports choice :,r S eS � Multi-use N:° g'` - Plaza for Food Sports Court Trucks,Concessions s - &Festivals Artful Interactive is`,te Choice Fountain I' NIN11111111h, ,44 All-ages Bouldering Jrd,thoice &Climbing <° - achoic ' _\ _ <ou° a Inclusive 1 Inclusive Playgrounds `\ accessible to all 1 1,000-5,000 ".� i skill levels and abilities _ Person Event adaptive/ _ _ were important to Colorful/ TongaFriendlyFestival) Inclusive . survey respondents. Industrial Tongan Festival) Playground - Playground High Interest Features *Top Choice in Both Public Online Survey and Engagement Events Hiking&Biking Trails* Swimming/Outdoor Pool Food Truck Court Ice&Roller Skating Ribbon Hiking&Hilltop Overlook NFPr Flex Lawn,Community Event Community Plaza with Concessions* Water Play Feature&Plaza* Riverside Features Skateboarding Features* &Performance Space rah. � '+ ( Alf7g7C1771 � T - v Multi-Use Sports Court* Sledding Hill Community Pavilion* Enhanced Boat Dock/Kayak Rental* Dog Park 35 Community Engagement Park Feature Feedback Hiking/Biking Trails& 1 Top Features Overlook Hiking&biking trails with a hill- Outdoor Pool 9 top overlook,swimming and an Multi-use Sports Court outdoor pool were consistently top Sledding choices of survey respondents. g � � 7� • Skateboarding features,sledding, Food Truck Court riverside features(boardwalk, ll enhanced boat dock,kayak rental) o�' Ice&Roller Skating Ribbon and a community plaza with Skateboarding Features concessions or food trucks were popular as well.Another top feature �' Community Concessions was Plaza with '1 was a multi-use sports court and a water play feature. Riverside Boardwalk Water Play Feature&Plaza QM',AA Middle-ground and mixed Community Pavilion w/Grills or �,< feedback features Warming Kitchen Climbing features had mixed • Enhanced Boat Dock feedback.Images of children's climbing features and interest in Flex Lawn,Community Event& rock climbing were lower on the list Performance Space of selected choices,however the all- A• Riverside Beach ages bouldering feature received a a very high number of selections & Kayak Rental Station (728). @° • Dog Park Kid's drawings of desired park features from the PlanYourParkOpenHouse Ice and roller skating features also Playgrounds had mixed feedback.A skating Bouldering Features ribbon was the number two choice out of 10 in Concept A but the seventh choice out of 12 in Concept Naturalistic Water Feature +" Y B.Both ice and roller skating were Nature Play Playground rated in the center of activityG°J ^' interests on a scale of one to seven. Meadow"Lawn"&Natural ' !� r_-- � •�-.-:.r nn Planting f� Low-Interest Features O Community Garden � • Fitness Features Least-selected park features included a community garden, G7 Bird Hides/River Overlook bird hides,a fitness station andaJ - community clubhouse. d' Volleyball I Community Clubhouse Community members voted for their preferred park features using stickers and comments at the Plan Your Park Open House Community Engagement I 36 The Great Outdoors Park Concept A Nature in your backyard r- Park Features Building on the natural assets F,�'� 0 Parking Lot of the Jordan River,this option celebrates nature through ©Community Gardens restoration,education and play T 1700 South Park while bringing the adventure - I of the great outdoors to the t y ©Entry Gateway neighborhood's backyard. Ak A p I - �' i O Nature Play ©Skating Ribbon r,il I �— _ �� 3 0 Walking/Biking Tower&Trails OShade Pergola 0 Picnic&Seating Lawn .. , Ifl 0 Kayak Rental and Boat Launch "Meadow"Lawn and Natural Planting r � Naturalistic Water Feature a3 ..•a, ®Riverside Boardwalk > ` water Play Feature Glendale Golf Course �Bridge x a j . .7 is .. +►: 37 I Chapter Two The Glendale Green Park Concept B *Concept with the highest amount of popular features in both public online survey and engagement events Community connections - I '- ° Park Features i The hub of the community,this option creates gathering spaces Parking to connect with neighbors and generates vibrant play, ;� � © Food Truck Court exploration and activity for adults M E and kids alike. Entry/Main Pavilion Playgrounds Adventure Playgrounds - 0 Fitness Features _ _ 0 Skating Ribbon � �: 0 Climbing Features �' � 0 Picnic Pavilion and Plaza Glendale Park - © , 9 ,� Overlook&Sledding Hill, Hiking&Biking Paths LI Skate Area- ,mtlz -:, s 00 ® Flex Lawn&Small Performance Stage ® Outdoor Pool �. Dock X. Riverside Beach _ ` _ � Y Dog Park Bridge Chapter Two 38 The Vision The Vision 1 40 A Community & Regional Park - r - - Design Strategy - Keeping the memory of the water park alive,the park design is bright,colorful and active.It G celebrates community gathering and active recreation with an array of park features that Y _ r-i ? - .� 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 _ * ♦ �'0 * 10 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 —p 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 • xV 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. - - 41 I The Vision Glendale Regional Park Master Plan Park Features ' e ,� i_ r t,� "� 0 Trail Connection © Picnic Lawn 47 a - _ I ; r s• © All Ages&Abilities Playground 0 Pavilion/Shade Structure t -te © Full-Court Basketball €a O Ice&Roller Skating Ribbon k O Kid's Climbing Feature ;.� -►1�' I -y+r - r--� s _— �- o All Ages Climbing Feature o Pavilion Community Plaza/Promendade J' ♦ n r � Parking Lot Q. . . . ® Hiking&Sledding Hill ® ADA Accessible,Multi-Use Trail .. 0 Hilltop Overlook ® Skateboarding Area � � Q Water Feature/Plaza Outdoor Pool ® Flex Lawn&Performance Space 0 Flex Stage/Plaza Bridge Connection to Jordan River Parkway k -., - 0 Dog Park ® Picnic Areas ' ® Riparian Restoration - — ? Q Riverside Boardwalk ® Riverside Beach&Sand Volleyball Kayak Rental Station J ; '.•;' 19 Boat Dock j. 0 Boat Ramp Boat Drop-off r ` Pickleball Courts The Vision I 42 s NEW ail Con nectio 2 Picnic Lawn 3 AIIAgesPlayground 4 ShadeStructur 5 Full-Court Basketball 6 Ice and Roller Skating 71, r - �„' 7 Kid's Climbing Featur 8 AduBClimbingFeatur Pavillion 10 CommunityPlaz 11 ParkingLo 12 Hiking&Sledding Hill 13 ADA Accessible,Multi Use Trai 14 HilltopOverloo 15 Skate Boarding Area 16 Water Play Featur 17 OufdoorPool 18 Flex Lawn&Performance Spac 5AN ♦ 3 19 Flex Stage/Plaz 20 Bridge Connection 21 Dog Par 22 Picnic Are 23 Riparian Restoration 24 Board all E W: , low, 1A 25 Riverside Beach&Sand Volleyball 26 Kayak Rental Station 27 Boat Doc 28 Boat Ram 29 Boat Drop Of * PickleballCou Glendale Regional Park Vision-Playground for All Ages&Abilities Programming&Activation: Creating Memorable Community < ^� Experiences Programming and activation at Glendale Regional Park will seek to capitalize not 49 , Y only on the scale and amenity mix in the .r �* new park,but most importantly on the � t 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 a. :_,• ,,d other and with Salt Lake City as a whole. While the park's design and landscape will try t T ✓ `� define the"look,"outdoor programming will define how it feels.Public programming will differentiate it from parks throughout j�`�e� Ail 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 i : -- public realm to exceed local precedents. a > 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 y - - 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 r. and diverse multicultural environment like i.. Glendale. TheAslon 1 44 Phase 1 Programming Opportunities Children/family rTh. sPgxforfullPhaseId, Family fitness activities AII-ability movement am highlights possibilities for pals programming,activities and events. Music/literary education Community partnerships along with City programming will be essential to Organized playactivities activating the park.&M Animal education events r _ P r River Programming ` - Safety and awareness Skills workshops Habitat education volunteerevents Outdoor/environmental Nature/meditativewalks Birding/wildlife workshops r W s .+�^r ' r; , Gardens/horticulture r ✓D e Public art Arts/culture/community Audiencearea Outdoor movies r, '• V`N sa a� F..ea0 i Lawn games Restoration Area Sports courts «,• , a Clinics/lessons rl a ion A All-ability skills Training b; Arts/culture/community Artcart �► Arts and crafts Small music/performance R - ' Literaryevents 4 � '� Lectures Board games Temporary Hillside 9 •' _ — Fitness/recreation/events RestorationArea r Low impact fitness Protective .� it Organized recreation/workshops A ' Community cultural events Outdoor hobbyist activities O 45 1 TheVlslon Future Phasing Opportunities for Programming Arts/culture/community The diagram highlights possibilities for park programming, Expanded arts programming activities and events.Community partnerships along with City Artisttalksand performance programming will be essential to activating the park. Artists in residence Concession Aquatic Programming w Swim lessons Safety/CPR rParent/child program ei 2i,i Senior fitness classes ' — Skate park � Lessons —— Demonstrations Skateboard repair ® Deck art workshops •> a �.. , River Programming i A � Boating recreation Boatskills Bait and tackle Concession �► �, River recreation Swim lessons/safety Tubing r. Restoration/cleanup River education events _ Dog Park Owner socials Training workshops Programming Will: Mobile grooming g g Bark bar concession Define how the park feels Differentiate it from other parks and destinations-"the Performance/events competition" Concerts Provide and active and appealing neighborhood anchor Theater and dance Provide a safe and clean place Community festivals Capitalize on Glendale's rich and diverse multicultural Workshops(stage) environment Capitalize on Salt Lake City's outdoors orientation Fitness(Stage) The Vision 46 Programming/Activation Park Activation for All Seasons and Times of Day Park Programming Calendar of Events Matrix Example Programming,such as depicted in the hypothetical matrices,is broadly categorized as: ARTS&CULTURE SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER , , DAY , Arts&Culture,Fitness,Hobbies&Niche Interests,and Live Entertainment.Each category NIGHT PART provides a range of options that vary by time of day,seasons,intensity of activity,and,of Art supplies/art cart X X X x Both All Daily course,demographic cohort.We consider programming categories across the zones of Dance lessons x x Night Peak Weekly Glendale Regional Park,establishing a coherent pedestrian experience as one moves from Figure drawing classes x x Night Peak Weekly one area to another,while creating distinct environments throughout the park,coordinated Folk art/crafts x x x Day Off-Peak Weekly with the landscape architecture.The over arching goal is for Glendale Regional Park to feel Instrument petting zoo x x x Day Weekend Monthly busy and active and to give all user groups a multitude of reasons to visit at different times Local author readings X Day Peak Weekly through the year,a season,and even their day.While Glendale Regional Park can't be all Toddler art program x x X Day Off-Peak Monthly things to all people,it can certainly provide a range of experiences. HOBBIES INTERESTS Market Potential Study:Visitation Potential Board games cart x x X Daily Book club X X Monthly Bird-watching club X X X X Weekly Kayak/river education X X X Monthly r1kday's Weekends activities 353 People .ople Cooking classes X X Monthly Salsa dancing X X Weekly Makersworkshops X X X Monthly WELLNESS Weekday Visitation Potential Lunch Hour Biking club X X X Weekly 77 People Capoelra X Weekly Familyyoga X X X Weekly Mid-Morning Mid-Afternoon Walking club X x X x Weekly Lower Use Lower Use Hula hoop X Weekly Morning Afternoon Kickboxing X Weekly Zumba X Weekly Young adults without Young familieswith LIVE kids small children ENTERTAINMENT Seniors and older Preteens and teens Acappella X X X Weekly adults without kids Brass bands X X Monthly Before Work After Work Dance performance X X X Monthly 738 People 138 People Emerging musician series X X Weekly Evening Outdoor movies X Weekly Young adultswithout Theater X X Monthly kids Silent disco X X Monthly The diagrams above display estimated park visitation collected from the planning team's market analysis. 47 The Vision Glendale Regional Park Vision-Hillside Sledding& Mountain Views The hill creates , , , , , sleddinghiking or.biking. i trip to the hilltop overlook offers,views of the city, mountains and vibrant Salt Lake sunsets. L`, ' 4 •c: •n. 7. ..._ ...' �'x�]•'F. i+"'�"ACT�+ir---.��':-- �,.. � __.. - '-. _— ��_ IF � J i ! �" t •, c Jl ` ` • L �,. ` yam. S, .Of 1 �h TheVislon 48 Partnerships/Activation 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 Market&Festival Diagram El 10 x 10 Market Tent also become a citywide amenity and driver of tourism and economic development. The diagram below shows a possible layout for The efforts to create a new Glendale Regional Park coincides with a national trend ❑market and event tents along the Community plaza. 20 x 20 Market Tent 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 Space for food trucks is stationed along the plaza Food Truck Court 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 edge. 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. r4 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 A 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 )4 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,si na e,and whatever Y p Pp� 9 9 a _•h 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. 49 The Vision - - - 6. _• G°t I" The community plaza is a brightly lit, vibrant promenade that hosts events ` r and festivals as well as food trucks, market booths and community-led `w s v 1l+1 a� activities. Concession Contracting programming at Glendale Regional Park to take on new full-time staff to help grow Occupational Training and that can eventually be sponsored.To their businesses or service offerings. Employment A mobile concession program(which is launch these programs,the park will need different than the food program above) to partner with cultural institutions,small The City can identify which organizations Glendale Regional Park can also work should also be addressed.While such program are positioned to take advantage of the with a workforce development businesses,and nonprofit service providers. p p 9 a program would not involve the City The most desirable and reliable partners for Possible benefits of a programming to provide work experience for program offering any financial assistance to these Glendale Regional Park will be established partnership.Many partners will enter into participants and employment for graduates concessionaires,the scoring system in an organizations with existing constituencies. a discussion at Glendale Regional Park of their program.For out-of-school youth, application or request for proposal(RFP) The loyal followers of these businesses and already cognizant of how the partnership Glendale can offer occupational training process could take into account whether fits into their strategic plans,and this p t nonprofits will show up to activities they g p in grounds maintenance and skilled a business is minority-or woman-owned. produce in the park,diminishing the need should be part of the criteria used when landscaping and gardening.This could Recommendations include adding this to promote them and helping to seed a base selecting partners. create mutually beneficial opportunities for component to scoring proposals as part of level of activity. Glendale,the City,and citywide residents, a larger change that would seek to qualify Workforce Development providing Glendale Regional Park with extra concessionaires prior to their launch in the The City can specifically target help at a reduced cost and creating a new park and institute minimum standards for organizations who primarily work The third part of a strategy for Glendale source of education and job opportunities operation. with constituencies that are usually Regional Park to succeed in community underrepresented at parks,specifically engagement goals of partnering with the for emerging gardeners. in Glendale.A successful strategy will City to combat park inequity and advance Whether or not occupational training is a Programming Vendor Contracting park inclusivity,is to partner explicitly with possibility, y pathways build these relationships systematically p y,the City can create athwa s to There are a variety of types of programming and incrementally;it's important to be a workforce development program and employment for workforce development partnerships,but the most straightforward realistic about how many of and how often leverage the program as a resource for program graduates,such as prioritizing partnership involves the City hiring an their audience will travel to the park,and Glendale. graduates in the hiring process.An individual or business to perform a service for partnerships to develop organically.A exclusive hiring window should be created (as opposed to a partner providing in-kind programming partnership might start with Paid Internships for prospective employees referred by services or the City and the partner having one or a few events each year,and grow a workforce development partner with a cost-sharing relationship).Common through successful participation. Glendale Regional Park can offer paid a commitment on the City's part to hire examples are fitness classes,art classes, internships for in-school youth in a variety qualified applicants from the pool of of areas.Programming and marketing graduates.Prioritized job opportunities and the vendors who provide equipment or 9 1 Pp Building Capacity in Partner are two likely sectors where there will be could include positions in sanitation, furnishings for larger events. Organizations a need for interns and reciprocal interest maintenance,landscaping,hospitality,and Similar to the mobile concessions RFP on the part of students.Work in these two customer service.Graduates of workforce process,the City can make an explicit Programming partnerships can also areas can often be broken into discrete, p Y p development programs typically perform benefit third-party organizations by commitment to prioritizing people of color seasonal efforts(i.e.,helping to launch better and are retained by employers at when it hires artists to teach a watercolor helping them better fulfill their missions or manageprograms,specific ,creating(in the case of nonprofits),exposing them p p g g a higher rate than people recruited from class,fitness instructors to lead classes and to new audiences,and building their content for specific social media campaigns publicjob postings. other vendors. or events,etc.).In addition,internships in-house capacity.By working with the could focus on special projects such as Programming Partnerships City at Glendale Regional Park,nonprofit g g P organizations may be more likely to building an historic photo archive of Raging Targeting Underrepresented secure grants or be able to pursue grant Waters that could get incorporated into a Audiences opportunities that they may not have future augmented reality component of a otherwise been eligible for.Cost-sharing mobile app,targeted donor/grant research, In addition to establishing and expanding arrangements make it affordable for some or administering and helping to analyze a fee-based programming,the City survey of park visitors. should create a wide variety of new free 51 The Vision THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK The Vision 1 52 Goals & Measuring Progress Gauging elements of the final concept plan through performance-based evaluation provides 14 +* uro a measure to determine if goals set during the beginning of the park planning process are • w r "'Wml being attained.The following metrics evaluate the park design according to original park goals. r . �: .{:.\{. m `r -,,Wits F. t x !_ -OV ~e - I 53 TheVislon Trails&Connectivity Wrk Goal W7 Regional Connection o, fl00 South Park 5 Public Lands spaces connected -Ar _-.4 _. after all associated trail and crossing recommendations are a , 2 New ' � r • . • —La �i 4 linking to 01 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 - 00 South to create a Glendale Trail Triangle. Glandal.�ark Transit `" ,� need for enhanced public ti transit access to Glendale ,:..� ,, � - �� Park. Partnerships and �►°^da'°°"°°ram UTA and other transit '`Trails - - organizations will be - required in order to 00 street access and Jordan - parkway regional access to the Glend Park trails HikingTrail ale * New - . Community Spaces- Plan Metrics Community-Led , _ To i . 1,713 Community members � �,•, rl-' I � l `_�_ - � _ , involved in the planning process. - 3sCommunity - Programming r , 29 Activities&amenities added to the site. I ActivationPark Safety100%Individual elements in the r ._ park are ADA accessible Regional • - • ^r ' 1 % - 8 new and unique recreation _ = , opportunities introduced to the citywide Public Lands'system. Community Spaces Active Play-High Programming Community Gathering-High Programming 55 1 The Vision Environmental-Plan Metrics i` N = r'`= 4 ,�.ems.. _ �� • Access to Nature 4.5 Acres of natural areas added W �1 S that provide public access Environmental Ouality 1.7 Acres riparian habitat restored !~ Impervious surfaces reduced by �'• ' 50%,improving water quality and replenishing groundwater*al t 4+ Environmental Justice 10.9 Acres of native&waferwise planting reduces wafer use L! Soft&Hardscape Native/Water Wise Planting& *See page 20 for previous site surface Turf calculations Asphalt-8°y° Planted Landscape-64% - Riparian Concrete-13% Crushed Granite Paths-6% **Hardscape includes some Park Features/Structures-6% Dog Park/Sand Beach-3% Native Grass&Shrubland impervious crushed granite pathways Site Impervious Surfaces:27% Site Impervious Surfaces:73% Hardscape** The Vision I 56 Implementation Implementation 1 58 • • _ :0 Implementation Phase I The parkwill 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 t— implementation.Most notably,according to the requirements set by the Land and Water 'A — 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 r budget allocated for the park. ' kkFa '�* Other phase one considerations include the need to group park features and improvements �' , '• �ti _Z! 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 W _ _ 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 r phasing strategies for vegetative restoration,weed abatement and site preparation for a 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 r fi;i• ' accommodated in the first phase due to cost,a lengthier construction time frame,and the �f- _ time required to work through possible partnership logistics. -3 However,park features that are most desired by the community and can meet the criteria .111 fP , = � •''' _�: ,+ mentioned above are being given top priority for inclusion in phase one.This includes a -dill. 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 E �� 'r enhancements being completed along the Jordan River. 4 Future phases of the ark will be implemented as quickly as funding and to istics can be � •• � p P p q Y 9 9� J_ _ 'r 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 2a design and potential for a regional-quality park in the Westside. +r A 1 �►c - ,F-�,. A � ti 1• f'� ' 59 I Implementation Phasing Diagram f +� ,A '�([_ Segmented Phasing Zones • / `�, t -� �' - �,. The diagram highlights phase one elements, which will be completed by spring of tv 2024.All other portions of the park will be •+ t, 1 - r completed in future phases. IAnticipated future phase elements are segmented into park feature zones for _—' flexible implementation.These smaller zones may be implemented simultaneously _WON"— or phased incrementally as park funding ■_-� - '� ' 77 ————————" __o———-1 1 1 1 and partnerships become feasible. Uutydoor © 1 M Swimming 1 - 1 The diagram suggests a possible phasing ool ,♦' 1 1 1 1 © sequence to prioritize park features that 1 Boat Ramp, ; t, are popular with the community while also Alb, p I arking& s�� % / ock, hase 1 Community ♦ J. ro• off, utilizing arks ace to the greatest possible 4 4 1 ♦ � / 9P p 9 1 laza �+► &Rental / extent.This phasing order should be flexible /��♦ - 1 ' % Station / p g / Water Feature ® / in response to partnership and funding N. 1 1 ; laza,Flex ♦Q 1 opportunities as well as available funding AMWI1 / ♦ Lawn& •1 1 and the cost to develop each phasing zone. NO 0 .•{, _+ � �` Perf P cence © ,P.+ 1 p p 9 1 / ♦ �,♦ �j / I Hill withPhasing Considerations �� / �` Overlook&©� Skaeboarding ♦ I / Skating ©L Trails/ og ea • / Ribbon& Park iversidecost •�� /. avilion 1 i � oarcwaPotential partnerships Community • popular features Hazards&Safety Consolidating developed HigherCost 1 0 % park areas to maximize park Future Phas Populart Sequencing development Features -Park Featur =4 and access throughout Zones for maximized park use t. the construction and Sequence development process Zones to be i �•' - — -- -• - • - -•- . • developed restoration •-Mr..Mr.. • Implementation 60 IPE6r — -X mat I7.0 South ParkIF 1• +F�• T y. •/ f 1 •t • • t r� Muk RUN - - - 7 ' • • Clrcul i• I h . a _ 4 �iXlfil l •1 I I '�� 8 ' • - ••• 10 r„ n f. 10 • • • Glendale Park (.. •• .o- 49� • - • �� ii@�� _ ' ��!'tom - • 9' � � • 71 •' • • - n • . • 1.t• Undeveloped • L�1 r ••a � 12 • :•. ' • � '• �• Hillside � '`^ �' - � - �� i _, 2 g • with Native • • ' ~ - a �i+�� •� `' • Landscape � �• ,' 'rim` _ y►. ;\ ,�� , .•� .� •-GI daleGollCourse i ••��i� _ • -- ,• �°� • Temporary Hillside Restoration Area %Protective Fencing Phase 1 v �'' Phase 1 Programming Opportunities Children/family _ Family fitness activities All-ability movement r Music/literary education - Organized play activities F Animal education events r River Programming ` - Safety and awareness i- •., Skills workshops Habitat education volunteerevents Outdoor/environmental _ Nature/meditative walks _ Birding/wildlife workshops r ,.� �'"' �; � ; Gardens/horticulture �--- '� r� ✓D h: e _ ~i-= Public art Ad Arts/culture/community Audience area fpfi '''71 l' Outdoor movies Y �ii'iV itt t.�Ii Fenced/ Lawn games , d' f Restoration Area g 4d Sports courts �'• , Fenc'a/ �. . � Clinics/lessons -rats a �' t ' � 1, � �..'• --/ All-ability skills Training b Arts/culture/community `+ Artcart �► ' - - - - ' Arts and crafts -' '�"• O Small music/performance ' Literary events Glendale"Kourwys '-^ Lectures -F Board games Temporary Hillsidey .' _ — Fitness/recreation/events RestorationArea t Low impact fitness Protective Organized recreation/workshops A S Community cultural events J+k .t Outdoor hobbyist activities Implementation 62 Opinion of Probable Cost Phase 1 Costs Phase 1 ' 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 Phase ambitious set of improvements that can be 1 accomplished for 3.5 to 5.5 million dollars. - Phase one was designed to maximize usable park features and efficiently utilize 2 0 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 S 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 f higher two years from now. Phasing Zone Costs As detailed design is completed for each phase,a true understanding of cost will Full Park Build Out be established.Some park elements have much higher costs associated with them such as the pool and the skating ribbon and r _ y will vary in range of cost depending on the length of time it takes to implement them. BuildFull Park 1 See the phasing diagram on page 60 for the _ 1 recommended phasing approach. b 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Full Park Build Out Costs 4 4r %�.• Full build out of all park elements could © range in cost from 30 to 50 million dollars depending on how Ion it takes to full K _ p 9 9 Y y:. implement all park features.The sooner �'. the site is redeveloped and the fewer the Y phases of development,the more cost �-. efficient it is to construct the park. 63 I Implementation Phase 1 Restoration Strategy ±±± _ c 7 1 Phase I Ecological Recommendations AC - Phase one ecological improvements 1!�' 9_ include riparian and planting enhancement '��• 1 I �� I` yF along the riverside.With exception of consideration for future riverside q. 1 improvements such as a new boat ramp l ��► and boardwalk,these areas will remain largely undeveloped and initial efforts MUMV 0 toward a permanent,long-term restoration plan should take place.Public Lands will prioritize restoration efforts based on i, W !!; recommendations to the greatest extent possible,but will also evaluate capacity, management and staffing considerations b x for prioritization of areas. h - _ —, 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. r' t' The remaining portions of the site will - - be prepared for future phases with transitional restoration efforts.These areas will be seeded with native grasses o. and wildflowers as an intermediate 1 restoration step,providing a solution for weed mitigation,soil retention,and • � providing ecological benefits until further site development and restoration efforts • • are completed. • - fi • �i See the full restoration strategy • R on the following pages for further recommendations on preserving tree ' z canopy. Implementation 64 Restoration Ecological Recommendations A 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 r f the project area and to determine what features should be retained for ecological reasons. StratThis assessment,included in Appendix B,resulted in the identification of trees and habitats !�+ that should be retained as possible.Areas for potential enhancementwere also identified and include all existing riparian forest and a buffer of 50-300'from the river.See the ayrr f^'" 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 Any. " i ;4yr " ti planted and irrigated multi-layer riparian areas.The diagram on the next page shows areas ' u 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 songbirds.Partners working along the Jordan River Corridor have recommended a phased approach for removal of "t. Russian olives,which serve as habitat for migratory and resident bird species.Russian olive } 7 d should be left on portions of the site that are not part of the initial phases and riparian plants _ V 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 i should be the top priority for restoration of riparian forests to return the multi-layer canopy for nesting and migratory birds. �ii _ =� '--- Site Restoration Treatments -Millis 0 1 1 1 --- = -- 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. ` ,� _ ~• �T" Y Chemical control of noxious weeds in all disturbance areas. — _ Seeding of all disturbed areas with an inexpensive grass/forb mix. 65 Implementation Site Restoration Strategy Site Preparation Aggressive chemical control of noxious weeds adjacent to all disturbance areas -y 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 . k� ., ` -f II • '°' i- 9 of the year)with an inexpensive grass and I d. forb mix.This should be done anytime disturbances occur throughout the project = i l 4 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 l be needed for grasses to establish while ��-.. - ;� �•• 11 planting pockets"that have soil depths up to _ �" o • e 36"will be needed to allow small trees and Ij ^ 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. 7 Ecological Stewardship The local and regional context was evaluated to discover opportunities for ecological enhancement and stewardship. _ f Students from Glendale Middle School have previously provided stewardship for areas just downstream of the project and Jordan '�- River Park.The future stewardship of theRiparian natural areas in the vicinity of the project Restoration should involve local schools and community - partners. MeadowNative Restoration - '+� There are also opportunities fora r Ornamental broader connection to the river both up _1 and downstream.Development of on- water recreation opportunities is one TQ40_ of the highest values of the site from a Retain stewardship perspective. 26 .4 ` Implementation I 66 Planting Palette `�ScypiandrUs J�SMithii Q cata Water-Wise Planting °a° S Q�` ? '.'°w, ram``' ►, 0 0 The planting palette shows examples of Riverside Plants , , possible plants forrass Inland yam :' dyY Glendale Park.The plant , r �! " Distichlisspicata p 3 i.� cam+11\ selection should include r '� Western wheatgrass 1 native,water-wise and a}� Pascopyrumsmithii climate adaptive species Sand Dropseed Western Wheatgrass Fescue,Sheep Inland Saltgrass which use less water Festuca ovina and provide habitat for pollinators and wildlife. Pt;siata t��\a+a FreemontCottonwood e,�,�oni'i ta`a age Populus fremontii it `° Apache Plume Q ' Hillside Meadow Plants o C9 t� Fallugia paradoxa 4 Sand Dropseed Sporobolus cryptandrus Skunkbush sumac Rhus trilobata Blanket Flower ,+t'" Gaillardia Aristata Wood's rose Rosa woodsii , Lewis Blue Flax Linum lewisii Blanket Flower Rocky Mountain Golden currant Freemont Bee Plant Ribes aureum Cottonwood Western Wheatgrass Pascopyrumsmithii coccinea Green b °Xa �,4�� `cea Crysothamhamnus viscidiflorus atad Rocky Mountain Bee Plant Cleomeserrulata ma's Marsh milkweed `� e Asclepsia incarnata ,dg JypMq}Y Bluegrass,Sandberg ✓ Solidago canadensis Poa Sandbergii 1j.J I Canada goldenrod °zy Scarlet Globemallow Wooly sedge Sphaeralcea coccinea Carex pellita Alkalisacaton -t - Sporobolusairoides Lewis Blue Flax Scarlet Globemallow Apache Plume 67 1 Implementation lote`�uia! ,jtlora ,�<9aium y Climate Adaptive Trees Native&Water-Wise Japanese Tree Lilac .' Ornamental Plants l- i yid Syringa reticulata Ivory Tower Yucca ; Shademaster Honeylocust Yucca flacida'Ivory Tower' ' Gleditsia triacanthos inermis Japanese Tree Desert Four O'Clock Desert Four Shenandoah Switch Gambel Oak Mirabilis multiflora Quercus gambelii Lilac O-Clock Grass Fire Chalice Catalpa ,..Canfhos iget Zauschneria(Epilobium)californica pa\tneri S;nensis Catalpa speciosa �a, 00 .pJs apt rz ;% Palmer's Penstemon yti� `a0 Fairmount Ginkgo .4O ,, Penstemon palmeri Ginkgo biloba`Fairmount' �w Prairie Winecups Golden Candle Rain Tree Callirhoe involucrata Koelreuteria paniculata 'Golden Candle' M4 Coneflower Bristlecone Pine Echinacea Pinus aristata Hummingbird Mint Pinyon Pine Shademaster� Agastache'Desert Sunrise' Palmer's Pinus edulis Honeylocust Penstemon Graziella Maiden Little Bluestem Utah Juniper bej ji Schizachyrium scoparium Grass �aojlis Juniperus osteosperma a'I'� Blonde Ambition Blue Grama Grass a`2 NOJ . Boutelouagracilis'BlondeAmbition' Water-Wise Shurbs �� 0 Alderleaf Mountain Mahogany ;° � Shenandoah Switch Grass a Cercocarpus montanus '*. Panicum virgatum'Shenandoah' . Apache Plume a Ravenna Grass Fallugia paradoxa t k Saccharum ravennae `►' ai New Mexico Privet Graziella Maiden Grass " Forestiera neomexicana Gambel OaN Miscanthus sinensis'Graziella' Coneflower Blue Gramma Grass Implementation 68 site during the design and construction ';; SITES Certification process to ensure that sustainable Sustainable h, To support goals for ecological restoration practices are adhered to and that the and sustainable park development,it proper documentation is collected to • ractices ;f; �, is recommended that the project team pursue certification.The full SITES pursue certification in a sustainabilit rescore worksheet for Glendale Regional P Y P 9 program such as SITES or another Park in Appendix A. fcomparable program.The project -tvr �a team has been exploring certification Pursuing SITES certification at Glendale Regional Park would demonstrate a tangible `- �;: V ,!.' / ?"• through the Sustainable Sites Initiative g g commitment to environmental quality and (SITES)for the future Glendale Regional ` - ,z Park.SITES(sustainablesites.org/)is a justice.With historic underinvestment, ti �. .;,,/ r 'b�. lower levels of service and evidence of 4 j ,- . sustainability-focused program based environmental injustices present in this on the understanding that any project community in the past,having a SITES has the ability to protect,improve and certified landscape in the Glendale y. t �•. -�; , , �� - even regenerate healthy ecosystems by neighborhood would not only highlight the + $i� ?�"• ,, . r- ; fo :R reducing water use,filtering stormwater g Y JT , City's investment in restorative landscapes s ¢ runoff,providing wildlife habitat,and quality and climate resiliency but would also set a Y w improvingair ualit and human health. �;:•" x standard for site development in the future J t �.,� k ;. �.�' - The SITES certification is managed by and begin to show tangible effort towards the United States Green Building Council 4X, equitable environmental investment across ri y ^ ti+ W (USGBC),the same agency that manages the City.With SITES certification,Glendale the LEED rating system for buildings. Regional Park would be a model of best fl ice; ; V Where LEED addresses buildings and +J�l' ► practices and environmental achievement •�; }^• _ ! : vertical construction,the SITES rating f (c s '• system is used for everything related to the both locally and nationwide. a landscape.Projects pursuing certification often incur higher costs in design and construction,however,they consistently M ' return significant long term cost savings 41 . t '�° •' 3�'��,iY' related to ongoing operations and maintenance costs. During the master planning process,a �..0 �+ K . r, a~ �• SITES pre-score assessment,shown in ij t� Table 1,confirmed that the Glendale Park ry , `` ;, i X,� r project meets the qualifications to pursue SITES certification.Upon scoring the project,the Glendale Regional Park Site 4 has the potential to certify on the Platinum level if the City elects to pursue certification r to the greatest extent.The project team .� recommends pre-certifying the entire park r F fr master plan for the 17-acre 69 i Chapter Two Table 1:SITES Certification Pre-Score SITES Scorecard Summary YES v NO YES v NO 1:SITE CONTEXT Possible Points: 13 6:SITE DESIGN-HUMAN HEALTH-WELL-BEING Possible Points:: 30 Y CONTEXT PI.1 Limit development on farmland HHWBC6.1 Protect and maintain cultural and historic places 2to3 Y CONTEXT PI.2 Protect fioodplaln functions HHWBC6.2 Provide optimum site accessibility,safety,and wayfinding 2 Y CONTEXT PI.3 Conserve aquatic ecosystems HHWBC6.3 Promote equitable site use 2 Y CONTEXTPI.4 Conserve habitats for threatened and endangered species HHWBC6.4 Support mental restoration 2 CONTEXTCI.5 Redevelop degraded sites 3to6 HHWBC6.5 Support physical activity 2 CONTEXTCI.6 Locate projects within existing developed areas 4 HHWBC6.6 Support social connection 2 CONTEXTCI.7 Connect to multi-modal transit networks 2to3 HHWBC6.7 Provide on-site food production 3t04 HHWBC6.8 Reduce light pollution 4 2:PRE-DESIGN ASSESSM E NT-PLAN NING Possible Points: 3 HHWBC6.9 Encourage fuel efficient and multi-modal transportation 4 Y PRE-DESIGN P2.1 Use an integrative design process HHWBC6.10 Minimize exposure to environmental tobacco smoke IW2 Y PRE-DESIGN P2.2 Conduct a pre-design site assessment HHWBC6.11 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 3to5 WATER C3.3 Manage precipitation beyond baseline 4to6 CONSTRUCTION C7.5 Divert construction and demolition materials from disposal 3to4 WATER C3.4 Reduce outdoor water use 4to6 CONSTRUCTION C7.6 Divert reusable vegetation,rocks,and soil from disposal 3to4 WATER C3.5 Design functional stormwater features as amenities 4to5 CONSTRUCTION C7.7 Protect air quality during construction 2to4 WATER C3.6 Restore aquatic ecosystems 4to6 1 1 Possible Points: OPERATIONS 4:SITE DESIGN-SOIL VEGETATION Possible Points: 40 Y O+M P8.1 Plan forsustalnable 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 3to5 Y SOIL+VEG P4.3 Use appropriate plants O+M C8.4 Minimize pesticide and fertilizer use 4to5 SOIL+VEG C4.4 Conserve healthy soils and appropriate vegetation 4to6 O+M C8.5 Reduce outdoor energy consumption 2to4 SOIL+VEG C4.5 Conserve special status vegetation 4 O+M C8.6 Use renewable sourcesfor landscape electricity needs 3t04 SOIL+VEG C4.6 Conserve and use native plants 3to6 O+M C8.7 Protectair qualityduring landscape maintenance 2to4 SOIL+VEG C4.7 Conserve and restore native plant communities 4to6 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 3to4 SOIL+VEG C4.1O Usevegetation to minimize building energy use 1to4 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 ofwood from threatened tree species INNOVATION C10.1 Innovation or exemplary performance 3t09 MATERIALSC5.2 Maintain on-slte structures and paving 2to4 MATERIALSC5.3 Design for adaptability and disassembly 3to4 YES ? NO MATERIALSC5.4 Use salvaged materials and plants 3t04 TOTAL ESTIMATED POINTS Total F '00 MATERIALS C5.5 Use recycled content materials 3to4 MATERIALS C5.6 Use regional materials 3to5 KEY SITES Certification levels Points MATERIALS C5.7 Support responsible extraction of raw materials 1to5 YES Project confident points are achievable CERTIFIED 70 MATERIALS C5.8 Support transparency and safer chemistry 1to5 Project striving to achieve points,not 100%confidant SILVER 85 MATERIALS C5.9 Support sustainability in materials manufacturing 5 NO Project is unable to achieve these credit points GOLD 100 MATERIALSC5.1O Support sustainability in plant production 1to5 PLATINUM 135 Chapter Two 70 Policies, Operations & • e • e 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 IV 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 k A strop perception and reality of safety In the arkwill greatly enhance the parks ability 9P P Y Y• P 9 Y P Y to attract visitors,particularly families,and increase an overall sense of civic pride and "b support for the park.In keeping with many long established precedents for increasing i ` the"eyes and ears"in the park,it will be important to create many positive reasons for the p ✓ 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. _ a 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 1,r governance-i.e.,whether the City alone will manage and program the park or whether that I-i 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 l - 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. I 71 I Implementation During larger events(festivals,musical attention,which should be provided by Large events may incur the need for ti performances,larger markets)the event the concession workers.These types of additional janitorial staff to clean ti ti producer,park management entity,or services can often be negotiated as part of restrooms,pick up trash,and empty trash >d•i� the City may need to employ additional, the operator agreements depending on the and recycling. contracted security staff and parking specific concession.Giving an operator the attendants. option to custom brand the tables,seats, Repairs/Maintenance trash cans,or umbrellas within the vicinity Janitorial of their space(and charging them for the There should be a streamlined process to right to do so)will motivate them to keep address maintenance issues,one that is -'hW OF Janitorial and sanitation issues in the public these areas and the associated furnishings not burdened with moving through many a! realm are often caused by a shortage of clean. chains of command or requiring excess staff,having only one shift of staff,lack of paperwork whenever possible.Staff resources/staff that are spread too thin Trash and recycling cans should be located specifically assigned to Glendale Park, at regular intervals throughout the park, I' over multiple parks,or a cumbersome and either from the City or contracted through and especially at areas of anticipated heavy bureaucratic process for addressing issues a park management entity,should be as they arise.By appropriately staffing the traffic such as play areas and picnic areas, empowered to fix smaller problems under a ` trouble janitorial crew and having more than one so that visitors do not have any pre-determined threshold promptly without shift in the day as necessary(fewer shifts finding the receptacle.Trash and recycling the need for higher levels of approval. a P on slow days and more/overlapping shifts should be emptied from cans multiple times on peak days),restrooms can be checked, a day and taken to a designated collection Furnishings and other items need to be {J cleaned,and resupplied often,trash cans point,and trash and recycling should be checked frequently and repaired upon can be emptied multiple times a day,litter moved off-site at least once a day.Trash and the first sign of an issue.This will ensure can be picked up regularly by hand,graffiti recycling cans should be paired and kept broken items do not get worse and more can be removed immediately,and other together(or split between one receptacle difficult to fix and avoid potential injury/ small issues can be addressed in a timely but clearly distinguished),otherwise park liability concerns.Fixing them right away manner before snowballing into more patrons will throw whatever they are also shows the public that furnishings significant,more costly problems.If the disposing into whichever receptacle is and facilities in the park are cared for and park is maintained with a high standard closest,regardless of its intended contents. looked after.If visitors observe a well- maintained park,they are more likely of cleanliness,expectations will be raised Thejanitorial staff should take care of minor to follow suit and take good care of the and perceptions of care will spread to the repairs such as repainting over graffiti, public-visitors will treat the park with tightening a leaky faucet,or patching a hole furnishings and facilities themselves. respect.Park cleanliness will also impact in the concrete.Larger maintenance and Thejanitorial staff will address smaller y perceptions of safety to the community. repair projects will be tasked to the capital issues such as replacing broken trash projects staff and contractors.Janitorial cans,cleaning out the drains of drinking Concession staff,if applicable,should augment janitorial staff in the immediate staff should also be tasked with everyday fountains,screwing in a door hinge, area of the concessions.When there is a landscape upkeep including weeding, replacing light bulbs,and painting over slower moment,concession staff should sweeping up excess leaf litter and plant graffiti.An Operations Manager or similar ` regularly wipe tables,pick up trash,empty debris,and reporting irrigation leaks, position should oversee capital projects, trash cans,straighten tables and chairs, irrigation malfunction,or poor plant health major repairs,and landscape maintenance. and even service restrooms.Concession to a supervisor. This manager will also oversee third-party areas have heavy use and require special contractors who would take care of larger Implementation 1 72 and more specialized maintenance and site.Tree root ball moisture and shrub and within the park.The leasing agents should repair needs such as fixing plumbing issues, groundcover surrounding soil moisture focus on an operator mix that supports repairing broken stairs,electrical repairs, should be checked weekly and watering Glendale Park's overall programming/ building maintenance,etc.Ideally this would cycles adjusted accordingly.Watering activity goals,focuses on local businesses, be a dedicated person to Glendale Park,or records should be kept for all site trees and has a quality/healthful product,delivers someone who oversees multiple parks with a yearly water audit should be performed to on financial objectives,and supports the ` ft appropriate support staff. track the amount of water applied.With this needs of the surrounding neighborhood. information,Public Lands can determine Partnerships or City programs that work !�. During major repairs,trees and plant appropriate water application for site trees independently and/or with leasing agents materials should be protected with fences after the three-year establishment period to support no or low-cost activities will be or other barriers to prevent damage.Heavy ends,in consultation with Urban Forestry's important to include as regular options for equipment should not be left or stored review of tree health on the site.Irrigation Glendale Park programming. under the branches of trees,as this can systems will need frequent inspection and cause root damage,or for extended periods Marketing for Glendale Park offerings .�', �, • � cleaning to ensure the system is running ' on lawn. should start with a dedicated website and properly. social media accounts(primarily Instagram + e Crews should weed planted areas and Facebook)that are frequently updated Landscape/Tree frequently,maintain the depth of mulch with news and happenings.A dedicated Maintenance and to reduce evaporation and inhibit weed online presence is the best way for visitors Management growth,and apply fertilizers as needed. to find out about programs and events Crews will employ principles of Integrated happening in the park and nearby public/ Trees and understory require attention on a consistent and on-going basis.The Pest Management to prevent plant pests City affairs.The website will also serve �• ' ',� landscape maintenance crew should have and diseases.Landscape maintenance as a tool for customer service,a guide for f demonstrated experience in maintenance should be performed during regular work private event permitting,a place to receive e of public landscape projects of similar size hours to not disturb the nearby residents inquiries,comments,and complaints. r :4 GI and scope with owner references,and with noise. It's important for these outlets to be demonstrated experience with integrated An important part of a maintenance plan the dedicated responsibility of one staff pest management,pest control,soils, member or contractor,rather than spread p 9 p for Glendale Park will be a landscape � . to several undefined staff so this important fertilizers,and plant identification. feature/materials inventory with suggested a element doesn't become neglected in favor r Assuming proper installation,trees and maintenance and a working checklist of staff's primary responsibilities. understory will need regular inspection than can be provided as for the landscape by Public Land's Urban Forestry Division maintenance crew. to ensure proper growth.Pruning weak branches and shaping tree crowns will Leasing/Marketing �y help sustain long-term health,growth,and appearance. Leasing and partnership agreements, either through the relevant City agency - - As trees and plant material are put in the or through a park management entity, ground,flow meters should be installed will select the appropriate tenants for any that monitor all irrigation hydrazones for kiosks,cafe space,river concessions,and appropriate water application across the any other commercially operable spaces 73 Implementation Programming&Activation Programming Budget and budgets fall short,the park programming Table t:Programming&Activation Budget Recommended Minimum Staffing manager will be able to leverage DIRECT STAFFING COSTS YEARI programming partners and interested On site programming manager $76,000 Base starting salary of$60,000 annually.Budget To support a vibrant and dynamic groups to provide in-kind donations of includes fringe benefits. Glendale Regional Park,a dedicated time and materials,sponsorships,and Park attendants $18,200 16 hrs/wk year round,$17.50 wage plus 25%fully loaded. park programming manager should be other sources that reduce capital outlays. Overtime allowance $4,550 May also be used for discretionary bonuses put in place,as well as a dedicated and Providing a baseline budget of some Administration/insurance - Assumes covered by City poliices predictable budget that grows over time amount allows the programming manager Equipment/supplies $10,000 Laptop for manager,smartphones/tablets for through revenue development.The park to plan accordingly and approach potential attendant use,general supplies should be viewed as a business,with profits partners more efficiently.Over time,the Dedicated staffing subtota and losses,except that all profits should be budget hopefully grows,with revenue made with the public interest in mind and, sources coming from a variety of potential HYPOTHETICAL DIRECT YEAR I thus,reinvested back into the park for the sources:philanthropy,sponsorships,event PROGRAMMING COSTS benefit of local residents and visitors. rentals,food and beverage,programming, Arts&culture $80,000 Two-thirds of this cost is annual,cutting edge and government support. interactive art installations The park programming manager would Fitness $30,000 Mostly provided byfree businesses seeking to be an on-site Public Lands employee, market their classes but assigned specifically to Glendale Hobbies&niche interests $45,000 Includes outdoor dancing,which is about one- Regional Park on a day-to-day basis with third of the total budget a flexible schedule that likely includes a Live entertainment $100,000 Does include production costs,which will be minimal five-day,Wednesday to Sunday schedule to Markets&festivals $100,000 Allowance for self-produced events complement active times in the park.The programming manager will be dedicated to coordinating with programming partners, SUPPLEMENTAL YEAR I interacting with park visitors,overseeing PROGRAMMING COSTS day-to-day management of facilities Marketing $50,000 Limited to promotion surrounding public space maintenance,and managing vendors programs and events and contractors.The park programming Holiday decorations $100,000 Allowance 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 Implementation 74 Spectrum of Private/Public Partnership Structures Governing Partnership& �- Management rs`i r Activation and programming strategies, W. • �_ t �_ w specifically around revenue development and sponsorship opportunities,benefit greatly by the management structure that 1 i is in place.Public agencies will be able to do things the private sector can't,and vice S 0.5 �i_ versa.Exploring existing frameworks and establishing programming and activation j guidelines within those constraints will inform optimal programming strategies. Public Private Public Management Joint Management Private Management with Private Operation with Public Management Support • • • 1 I mow 75 I Implementation f _ 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 y 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 o 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. -+ re 1 engaging forming partnerships-, promoting bility andenhancing the environment some of the next actions place 1 1Regional Implementation i 76 Contents APPENDIX A I Sites pre-score APPENDIX B I Ecological Assessment APPENDIX C I Restoration Plan Appendices APPENDIX D I Market Study Appendix 1 78 Appendix A SITES 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.."' 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 https:llsustainablesites.org/certification-guide Glendale N Regional Park t Master Plan SITES v2 Scorecard Summary YES ? NO YES ? NO 0 0 0 1:SITE CONTEXT Possible Points: 13 0 0 0 6:SITE DESIGN-HUMAN HEALTH+WELL-BEING Possible Points: 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 RINI 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 0 0 0 2:PRE-DESIGN ASSESSMENT+PLANNING Possible Points: 3 HHWB C6.9 Encourage fuel efficient and multi-modal transportation 4 Y 9 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 Yj% PRE-DESIGN P2.3 Designate and communicate VSPZs"% PRE-DESIGN C2.4 Engage users and stakeholders 3 0 0 0 7:CONSTRUCTION Possible Points: 17 Y CONSTRUCTION P7.1 Communicate and verify sustainable construction practices 0 0 0 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 0 0 0 8.OPERATIONS+MAINTENANCE Possible Points: 22 0 0 0 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 YFullf%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 PENN 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 0 0 0 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 0 0 0 5:SITE DESIGN-MATERIALS SELECTION Possible Points: 41 0 0 0 10.INNOVATION OR EXEMPLARY PERFORMANCE! Bonus Point 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 vrs ? NO MATERIALS C5.4 Use salvaged materials and plants 3 to 4 0 0 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 Page 1 of 7 7/27/2022 Copyright©2014 Project Name: Project ID#: Date: Scorecard Summary 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 Page 2 of 7 7/27/2022 Copyright©2014 �Glendale� �Regional Park� ��Master Plan� SITES v2 Scorecard v. r Estimate points Z below(key at a r bottom) m ¢ PREREQUISITE OR z U; z YES ? NO CREDIT# TITLE CASE/OPTION/THRESHOLD a a a 7 3 0 1:SITE CONTEXT Possible Points: 13 Case 1:Sites without farmland soils Y CONTEXT P1.1 Limit development on farmland Case 2:Sites with farmland soils-VSPZ - Case 3:Sites with farmland soils-Mitigation Case 1:Sites without floodplain Y CONTEXT P1.2 Protect floodplain functions Case 2:Previously developed and brownfield sites within floodplain Case 3:Greenfield sites within floodplain Case 1:Sites without aquatic ecosystems Y CONTEXT P1.3 Conserve aquatic ecosystems Case 2:Sites with naturally occurring aquatic ecosystems Case 3:Sites with naturally occurring poor quality aquatic ecosystems Conserve habitats for threatened and Case 1:Brownfields and previously developed sites Y CONTEXT P1.4 endangered species Case 2:Greenfield sites Case 1:Previously developed sites 3 3 CONTEXT C1.5 Redevelop degraded sites 3 to 6 Case 2:Brownfield sites 6 4 CONTEXT C1.6 Locate projects within existing developed 4 4 areas Option 1:Pedestrian and bicycle network 2 3 CONTEXT C3.7 Connect to multi-modal transit networks 2 to 3 Option 2:Transit network 3 3 0 0 2:PRE-DESIGN ASSESSMENT+PLANNING Possible Points: 3 Y PRE-DESIGN P2.1 Use an integrative design process Y PRE-DESIGN P2.2 Conduct a pre-design site assessment WAA Y PRE-DESIGN P2.3 Designate and communicate Vegetation and Soil Protection Zones 3 PRE-DESIGN C2.4 Engage users and stakeholders 3 3 0 F12 11 3:SITE DESIGN-WATER Possible Points: 23 Y WATER P3.1 Manage precipitation on site Y WATER P3.2 Reduce water use for landscape irrigation Vag 80th percentile precipitation event 4 6 WATER C3.3 Manage precipitation beyond baseline 90th percentile precipitation event 5 4 to 6 95th percentile precipitation event 6 Option 1:Reduce outdoor water use 4 6 WATER C3.4 Reduce outdoor water use Option 2:Significantly reduce outdoor water use 5 4 to 6 Option 3:Eliminate outdoor water use 6 Design functional stormwater features as 50%of stormwater features 4 5 WATER C3.5 4 to 5 amenities 100%of stormwater features 5 No aquatic ecosystems present on site Restore aquatic ecosystems 30%of the geographic extent 4 6 WATER C3.6 (project must have existing feature) 60%of the geographic extent 5 4 to 6 Page 3 of 7 7/27/2022 ©Sustainable Sites Initiative- Project Name: Project ID#: Date: —Scorecard v. r Estimate points Z below(key at a bottom) m ¢ PREREQUISITE OR z U; z YES ? NO CREDIT# TITLE CASE/OPTION/THRESHOLD y d d 90%of the geographic extent 7T 6 0 F34 F 6 4:SITE DESIGN-SOIL+VEGETATION Possible Points: 40 Y SOIL+VEG P4.1 Create and communicate a soil management plan Case 1:No invasive plants found on site Y SOIL+VEG P4.2 Control and manage invasive plants 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 Conserve healthy soils and appropriate 50%of the site's existing vegetated area 4 6 SOIL+VEG C4.4 vegetation (project must have existing feature) 75%of the site's existing vegetated area 5 4 to 6 95%of the site's existing vegetated area 6 Conserve special status vegetation 4 SOIL+VEG C4.5 4 4 (project must have existing feature) MEW 20%total native plant score 3 6 SOIL+VEG C4.6 Conserve and use native plants 40%total native plant score 4 3 to 6 60%total native plant score 6 20%total native plant community score 4 6 SOIL+VEG C4.7 Conserve and restore native plant 40%total native plant community score 5 4 to 6 communities 60%total native plant community score 6 minimal point score 1 low point score 3 6 SOIL+VEG C4.8 Optimize biomass 1 to 6 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 Use vegetation to minimize building energy 4 SOIL+VEG C4.10 use Option 2:Provide shade structures-30%shaded 1 (project must have building on site) 1 to 4 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 4 SOIL+VEG C4.11 Reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire Project not in a fire-prone area (project must be located in fire-prone area) Project is in a fire-prone area 4 4 0 41 0 5:SITE DESIGN-MATERIALS SELECTION Possible Points: 41 Eliminate the use of wood from threatened Y MATERIALS P5.1 tree species No structures or paving present on site MENEM 4 MATERIALS C5.2 Maintain on-site structures and paving 10%of the total existing built surface area 2 (project must have existing feature) 20%of the total existing built surface area 3 2 to 4 30%of the total existing built surface area 4 Page 4 of 7 7/27/2022 ©Sustainable Sites Initiative- Project Name: Project ID#: Date: —Scorecard v. r Estimate points Z below(key at a bottom) m ¢ PREREQUISITE OR z U; z YES ? NO CREDITq TITLE CASE/OPTION/THRESHOLD y y d 30%of total materials cost,excluding plants,rocks,and soils 3 4 MATERIALS C5.3 Design for adaptability and disassembly 3 to 4 60%of total materials cost,excluding plants,rocks,and soils 4 10%of total materials cost,excluding soils 3 4 MATERIALS C5.4 Use salvaged materials and plants 3 to 4 20%of total materials cost,excluding soils 4 20%of total materials cost,excluding plants and soils 3 4 MATERIALS C5.5 Use recycled content materials 3 to 4 40%of total materials cost,excluding plants and soils 4 30%of total materials cost 3 5 MATERIALS C5.6 Use regional materials 60%of total materials cost 4 3 to 5 90%of total materials cost 5 Option 1:Advocate for sustainable extraction of raw materials 1 Support responsible extraction of raw S MATERIALS C5.7 Option 2:Support suppliers that disclose environmental data 3 1 to 5 materials Option 3:Support suppliers that meet extraction standards 5 Option 1:Advocate for transparency and safer chemistry 1 5 MATERIALS C5.8 Support transparency and safer chemistry Option 2:Support manufacturers that disclose chemical data 3 1 to 5 Option 3:Support manufacturers with chemical hazard assessments 5 Option 1:Advocate for sustainable materials manufacturing 1 Support sustainability in materials S MATERIALS C5.9 Option 2:Support manufacturers that disclose data on sustainable practices 3 1 to 5 manufacturing Option 3:Support manufacturers that achieve sustainable practices 5 Option 1:Advocate for sustainable plant production 1 5 MATERIALS C5.10 Support sustainability in plant production Option 2:Support producers that disclose data on sustainable practices 3 1 to 5 Option 3:Support producers that achieve sustainable practices 5 2 F23 4 6:SITE DESIGN-HUMAN HEALTH+WELL-BEING Possible Points: 30 No cultural or historic places present on site angwzzlzzzzA Protect and maintain cultural and historic EM 2 HHWB C6.1 places Option 1:Historic buildings,structures,or objects 2 (project must have existing feature) 2 to 3 Option 2:Historic or cultural landscapes 3 2 HHWB C6.2 Provide optimum site accessibility,safety,and 2 2 wayfinding 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 0 4 HHWB C6.7 Provide on-site food production 3 to 4 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 4 4 transportation Minimize exposure to environmental tobacco Option 1:Designate smoke-free zones 1 2 HHWB C6.10 smoke 1 to 2 Option 2:Prohibit smoking on site 2 3 HHWB C6.11 Support local economy 3 3 Page 5 of 7 7/27/2022 0 Sustainable Sites Initiative- Project Name: Project ID#: Date: —Scorecard v. r Estimate points Z below(key at a bottom) m ¢ PREREQUISITE OR z U; z YES ? NO CREDIT# TITLE CASE/OPTION/THRESHOLD a a a 0 17 0 7:CONSTRUCTION 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 5 CONSTRUCTION C7.4 Restore soils disturbed by previous mid point score 4 3 to 5 development high point score 5 Divert construction and demolition materials 50%of structural materials+95%of roads/infrastructure materials 3 4 CONSTRUCTION C7.5 3 to 4 from disposal 75%of structural materials+95%of roads/infrastructure materials 4 Divert reusable vegetation,rocks,and soil 100%of land-clearing materials retained for use within 50 miles 3 4 CONSTRUCTION C7.6 3 to 4 from disposal 100%of land-clearing materials retained on site 4 50%total run-time hours from Tier 2 or higher engines 2 4 CONSTRUCTION C7.7 Protect air quality during construction 50%total run-time hours from Tier 3 or higher engines 3 2 to 4 50%total run-time hours from Tier 4 or higher engines 4 8.OPERATIONS+MAINTENANCE Possible Points: Y O+M P8.1 Plan for sustainable site maintenance Y O+M P8.2 Provide for storage and collection of recyclables 300%of vegetation trimmings recycled/composted off site within 50 miles 3 5 O+M C8.3 Recycle organic matter S00%of vegetation trimmings recycled/composted on site 4 3 to 5 S00%of vegetation trimmings+food waste recycled/composted on site 5 Option 1:Plant health care plan 4 5 O+M C8.4 Minimize pesticide and fertilizer use 4 to 5 Option 2:Best management practices for plant health care 5 30%reduction from baseline energy use for outdoor equipment 2 4 O+M C8.5 Reduce outdoor energy consumption 60%reduction from baseline energy use for outdoor equipment 3 2 to 4 90%reduction from baseline energy use for outdoor equipment 4 Option 1:On-site-50%annual outdoor site electricity 3 Use renewable sources for landscape Option 1:On-site-100%annual outdoor site electricity 4 4 O+M C8.6 3 to 4 electricity needs 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 Protect air quality during landscape 4 O+M C8.7 Option 2:Low-emitting equipment 3 2 to 4 maintenance Option 3:Manual or electric powered maintenance equipment 4 11 0 9.EDUCATION+PERFORMANCE MONITORING Possible Points: Promote sustainability awareness and Option 1:Educational and interpretive elements 3 4 EDUCATION C9.1 3 to 4 education Option 2:Additional education 4 3 EDUCATION C9.2 Develop and communicate a case study 3 3 Page 6 of 7 7/27/2022 0 Sustainable Sites Initiative- Project Name: Project ID#: Date: —Scorecard v. r Estimate points Z below(key at a bottom) m ¢ PREREQUISITE OR z U; z YES ? NO CREDIT# TITLE CASE/OPTION/THRESHOLD i y ii 4 EDUCATION C9.3 Plan to monitor and report site performance Em 4 4 0 9 0 1 10.INNOVATION OR EXEMPLARY PERFORMANCE Possible Bonus Points: 9 3 INNOVATION C10.1 Option 1:Exemplary performance 9 BONUS POINTS Innovation or exemplary performance 3 to 9 ( 1 Option 2:Innovation outside the SITES v2 Rating System 3 YES ? NO 12 CM TOTAL ESTIMATED '• 00 KEY SITES Certification levels Points YES Project confident points are achievable CERTIFIED 70 ? Project striving to achieve points,not 100%confident SILVER 85 NO Project is unable to achieve these credit points GOLD 100 PLATINUM 135 Page 7 of 7 7/27/2022 ©Sustainable Sites Initiative- Appendix B Ecological Assessment Glendale Regional Park Master Plan �i 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. 1 1 Page Glendale Regional Park—Ecological Assessment RIVER 1234 South 900 East Salt Lake City, UT 84150 1970.947.9568 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 wedand/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. 2 Page Glendale Regional Park—Ecological Assessment RIVER 1234 South 900 East Salt Lake City, UT 84150 1970.947.9568 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. �. �. -M�i:� • r 4s I u�JF, 1 i N'JI Yr.Y. � 1� ,��w. - Y �• .Y' � r S��r�r- , 1 t � `Sr-r f c t a`•, �311d �i l l��•t � 1pr�l��{ "a Map 2. Regional ecologically important areas 3 Page Glendale Regional Park—Ecological Assessment RIVER 1234 South 900 East Salt Lake City, UT 84150 1970.947.9568 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 4 Page Glendale Regional Park—Ecological Assessment �� IVER 1R234 South 900 East Salt Lake City, UT 84150 1970.947.9568 - Figure 2. Jordan River Big Bend Habitat canoe access in West Jordan, UT WNW T �X y � ` •tam,,, - �: � a. t s�e�'sc�''. _:�. � �.—�ice.•.;,-'� '�` N Figure 3. Price River in Helper, UT river access beach 5 Page Glendale Regional Park—Ecological Assessment RIVER 1234 South 900 East Salt Lake City, UT 84150 1970.947.9568 z 1 t� Figure 4. Price River access steps in Helper, UT v _ IN,. b Ry ft - MI� " Figure S. Ogden River ADA fishing access pier in Ogden, UT 6 Page Glendale Regional Park—Ecological Assessment RFSI'ORATION.ORG • 9 11 East Salt Lake City, UT 84150 1970.947.9568 Figure 6 Ogden River ADA acca5s ramp in Ogden, UT Figure 6 sue, x ! � „• *,� � Tl /Y� K f - •.3?'� Tyr�'!• �. _r- A .� ' �._b�, '� .� �._• � It � ��.- River overlookPacific Page Glendale Regional Park—Ecological RIVER 1234 South 900 East Salt Lake City, UT 84150 1970.947.9568 IF 4. .�-iY°a'y yyw �f - w"SJ`iii'r•��yYu.�'��, �� a. 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. 8 1 Page Glendale Regional Park—Ecological Assessment Appendix C Restortation Plan Glendale Regional Park Master Plan 2022 Glendale Regional Park Restoration Noxious Weed Management a n 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 • Perennial pepperweed • Scotch thistle • Dalmatian toadflax • Poison hemlock • Common reed • Houndstongue • Tamarisk • Russian olive • Russian knapweed • Dyer's woad • 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. Glendale Regional Park Action Plan Summa 2022-2023 2022 2023 d fTC d 3 C N p OZ M phi tTD 3 .6 p�'j C c M p o 0 Status Responsibility c .< _ no 40 < 0 Q .< _ 'o ,. < 0 rm etation 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 I 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 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 I Scientific Name RIPARIAN TREES AND SHRUBS 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 aromatics var. trilobata Golden Currant Ribes aureum UPLAND SHRUBS Big Sagebrush Artemisia tridentate var. tridentata Rubber Rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus nauseosus Greasewood Sarcobatus vermiculatus Fourwing Saltbush Atriplex canescens Gardner's Saltbush Atriplex gardneri Recommended Seed Mixes Species Scientific Name Species Common Name Percent desired cover at maturity Emergent Wetland Mix 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 lWater groundsel 2 Triglochin sp jArrowgrass 2 Wet Meadow 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 Mesic Meadow 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 Upland Mix 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 Weed treatment tracking form: OBSERVER LOCATION DATE TREATMENT FOLLOW UP NEEDED WEATHER ACRES DENSITY PHENOLOGY NOTES Appendix D Market Study =Glendale 0 Regional Park 0%0 Master Plan Glendale Regional Park Demographic and Market Study September, 2021 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. w loos , r 9 IW DON ,� W 600 N a. E 11th A— a ESouth Tangle sf `. Salt W40 ` Lake City E400s =w 5006 - _ =-t sod - ..-.i.. E 6005 � �I _ - WInAina s,ye V1 E 90051 E III S, E Sun4,IaA c - Ca10.11 is Ave m V, 'UoS v E 1300S V11i COS -LL_ - ^ E1700S 'Z '-"1:n 2100Sou1h Fry-- I s E 2100S H South Salt L. L X -- -Lake-- R E ncs lei .. W-3300 0 11�1f y i- - West 4 Valley ! _ city 40OU S - E 3900S m m Ve 41 n0 S Figure 1: Primary Market Area.Source:ESRI Business Analyst 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. Lake >>r H '11+ Pi 5UU v - -- = 9 - Sait w 70o s; 'w too W'4 ». Lake-"aos f GCity _ - E 1300 S - ffffff�lY r n w 1700 E 17 .1'. SaR.�I E 2700S . Laket Magna E3300S West Valley a s000s !-1 city : 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. 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 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 Page 2 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. 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 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. 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 1 33.1 32.9 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 Page 3 $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. 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 1 11.33% 1 8.39% 1 6.17% $15,000-$24,999 11.31% 7.94% 5.40% Less than$15,000 11.27% 12.29% 6.49% Table 4.Household Income Concentrations.Source:ESRI Business Analyst. 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% 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. Wealth Index Primary Market Area Secondary Market Area Salt Lake County,UT 2021 Wealth Index 47 85 105 Table 5.Wealth Index.Source:ESRI Business Analyst. Page 4 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. 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% Table 6.Tenure of occupied housing.Source:ESRI Business Analyst. 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 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/RVA/an/etc. 0.00% 0.28% 0.07% 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. 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% 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 Page 5 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. Contract Rent Primary Market Area Secondary Market Area Salt Lake County,UT 2019 Median Contract Rent $900 $889 $993 Table 9.Median Contract Rent.Source:ESRI Business Analyst. 2019 Monthly Ownership Costs of Households with a Mortgage(Percent) Primary Market Area Secondary Market Area Salt Lake County,UT MonthlyOwner Costs<10%of HH Income 4.89% 6.34% 5.32% MonthlyOwner Costs 10-14.9%ofHHIncome 11.40% 12.61% 12.69% MonthlyOwner Costs 15-19.9%ofHHIncome 11.51% 14.57% 16.18% MonthlyOwner Costs 20-24.9%of HH Income 11.81% 11.54% 12.39% MonthlyOwner Costs 25-29.9%of HH Income 9.42% 6.56% 8.49% MonthlyOwner Costs 30-34.9%ofHHIncome 4.48% 4.27% 4.87% MonthlyOwner Costs 35-39.9%of HH Income 6.11% 3.92% 3.34% MonthlyOwner Costs 40-49.9%of HH Income 2.68% 3.12% 3.47% MonthlyOwner Costs 50+%ofHHIncome 8.38% 5.56% 5.75% MonthlyOwner Costs%of HH Inc Not Computed 0.00% 0.15% 0.20% 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. 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 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. 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% 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 Page 6 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. 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 1 $246 1 $278 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. Page 7