This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2011, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
Maneuvering as "Blueprint Man" four years ago to become Salt Lake City's mayor, Ralph Becker endured jokes about being a wonkish urban planner armed with enough white papers to put an audience to sleep.
Turns out those white papers are "green" — and they're real.
Gearing his trademark bicycle for a re-election drive this year, Becker quietly has planted at City Hall the seeds of a sprawling sustainability agenda — an environmental awakening that has implications for every neighborhood, every new development, indeed the city's future way of life.
Want to bulldoze your home to plant an urban farm? Want to build a mother-in-law apartment or rent out your basement? Want a fruit-and-vegetable stand in your front yard? Want a towering wind turbine or solar panels, even if your home is historic? Ready for windmills along the Bonneville Shoreline Trail? And are you ready to see limited parking and be encouraged to travel instead by bike, streetcar or train?
All this and much more are in the pipeline, slated for a series of formal votes later this year. The first crop of proposed zoning changes — which would allow urban agriculture and renewable-energy sources in neighborhoods — has a public hearing Tuesday.
"Sustainability and green are overused," Becker concedes. "They tend to be a bit amorphous. We're applying some very explicit definition to what that means in the city, and most of it is not regulatory. Most of what we're doing is getting out of the way of what people want to do."
But what if one person's 21st-century agrarian utopia is the neighbor's hippie-era nuisance? What if the mandates on open space, recycling and limited parking deter development? Is Becker's idea of "green" too extreme?
"He has a vision of what a city should look like," City Councilman Stan Penfold says. "It pushes, and that's why we'll get pushback."
Council Chairwoman Jill Remington Love says the city's largest code rewrite in 16 years is "sweeping," but stresses the goal is to hit a "sweet spot."
If the city really wants to be sustainable, she says, here's the chance. And it's much more, Love and Penfold warn, than "warm and fuzzy" lip service.
"Maybe in some cases the trade-offs aren't worth it. Maybe some of these things go to far," Love allows. "But, on the other hand, are we going to be sustainable or not? It's at the point now where we hope the public will engage in the conversation."
—
A pioneering movement •Much of what the mayor envisions has been seen before in the city — albeit long ago. Becker notes early pioneer settlements under Mormon colonizer Brigham Young strived for self-sufficiency.
Returning to those roots won't be simple or swift, given a modern-day culture addicted to cars, convenience stores and backyard play spaces.
City Hall is gambling on a generation more interested than the last on growing local food, cutting down waste and finessing its carbon footprint.
The urban-ag proposal would alter zoning to allow crops anywhere on a residential property (including park strips), permit seasonal farm stands (to be set up and taken down daily) and greenlight community gardens on neighborhood lots. It would let residents tear down a home to grow a farm, and authorize greenhouses, hoop houses, cold frames and chicken coops.
Kyle LaMalfa, founder of the People's Market in Jordan Park, cheers the city for "legitimizing what we already do." A beekeeper, LaMalfa has a half-acre with front-yard vegetables and a hoop house. "That this stuff is against the law is totally ridiculous, just absurd," says LaMalfa, who is running for the west side's City Council District 2 seat.
"It does come across as sounding pretty regulatory," he adds about some proposed rule changes. "But to an insider, they're all common things that you would see."
Well, maybe not a 35-foot or 65-foot wind turbine. Those could be OK'd — on 80-foot-wide and 140-foot-wide lots, respectively — though most homes, with parcels closer to 50 feet, could have only a 20-foot turbine.
City officials don't expect to see many towers since the mountains shield heavy wind. Exceptions come at canyon mouths and on the benches. Turbines also would be allowed on city open space — including popular trails — which could pose a conflict for outdoor-oriented progressives.
"I don't think I would support any proposed wind or solar developments near the Great Salt Lake wetlands," resident Ross Chambless writes on Open City Hall, an online forum geared to gather feedback.
The first package of proposals also would open the prospect of solar panels — visible from the street — along the rooflines of homes in historic districts. All the code changes would apply in the city's six historic districts, though the most drastic elements would require approval from the Historic Landmark Commission.
—
Don't tread on us • For six months, Becker's proposal to permit basement rentals and allow accessory dwelling units — "granny flats" — has created uproar in the Avenues and Yalecrest. Residents fret additional living spaces would ruin the neighborhood's character and clog streets with cars.
"It's been overwhelming," Greater Avenues Community Council Chairman Dave Van Langeveld says about the opposition, including his council's vote that went 94 percent against the idea. "In the '70s, we had so many homes cut up into small apartments, and some of this goes back to World War II. We've come a long way."
Langeveld says its nothing against students or mothers-in-law, but Avenues dwellers want to preserve their single-family feel.
Right now, it is illegal to house tenants in basements or garage lofts. The city wants to accommodate empty nesters hoping to downsize, those looking to live near work and transit, and a workforce challenged to find affordable housing.
Feedback from neighborhood councils is mixed, but City Hall is bracing for a fight.
Consider Cabot Nelson, chairman of the Sugar House Community Council. When he hears "sustainability," his "eyes just roll."
"It is a term from the professoriat, academia," Nelson says, noting he is speaking for himself and not the council. "I have been so turned off by the word. It has just become an excuse for a mishmash of leftist ideals."
What's more, Nelson worries the handful of city code enforcers could never police such wide-ranging changes.
Commercial consequences • A slew of other proposals designed to improve air quality and boost walkability would affect business.
New development — private and public — would have to incorporate open space, include bike lockers, provide communal recycling, and preserve mature trees.
Recycling options also might be mandated in schools, offices, restaurants. And to reduce light pollution, the city wants to direct streetlights downward with covers and upgrade bulbs.
To scale back the city's asphalt parking lots, still another ordinance would set a maximum number of stalls, "which is a huge detour," Love notes, "from where we've been."
Yet another radical zoning change: The already adopted transit-oriented rules for North Temple, which outlaw new drive-through windows, would be duplicated on 400 South to foster walk-up shops and eateries. The long-term vision is to shed both thoroughfares of their car-saturated, fast-food hubs.
"That's our hope," Penfold says.
One mandate on developers — to include everything from studio apartments to three bedrooms in housing projects — may be reworked in the face of resistance. The plan could put a pinch on financing, builders say.
Planning Director Wilf Sommerkorn says the city may instead push an incentive-based rule, perhaps laden with tax credits.
—
Balance, not bureaucracy • The city's eco-friendly revolution is more "permissive" than restrictive, city bosses say.
"It's the comprehensiveness of it that is unique," says Frank Gray, director of community and economic development. "Most people do rules and regulations as a reaction."
Some elements have been the norm in places such as Boulder, Colo., and Marin County, Calif., but Salt Lake City is the first to attempt the makeover basically at once. If adopted, sustainability director Vicki Bennett says, the rewrite would elevate the city's image and its "economic competitiveness."
"I hope it will help show the rest of Utah what can be done so they start to emulate us."
Still, it is difficult to gauge the passion level of so much planner-speak.
When Claire Uno, executive director of Wasatch Community Gardens, posted the urban-ag links on Facebook, she got crickets, not clicks.
"No one commented on it," she says. "The folks in our community are supportive, but I don't know if everybody is happy with every single piece."
City officials caution the changes wouldn't happen overnight. Some wouldn't fully develop for 20 years, maybe 50. "It's like turning an oil tanker," Sommerkorn says, before realizing that image may not fit sustainability. "It's like turning a cruise ship."
Sound off on sustainability
Salt Lake City's first "bundle" of three comprehensive code-rewrites — which would permit neighborhood farms, front-yard fruit-and-vegetable stands, wind turbines, greenhouses and more — is scheduled for a public hearing Tuesday. Residents are invited to weigh in on Part 1 of Mayor Ralph Becker's green-living overhaul at 7 p.m. in the third-floor Council Chamber at City Hall, 451 S. State St. To learn more about the sustainability proposals, go to slcgov.com/slcgreen/ —
Other proposed 'green' rules
• Require large developments that generate heavy traffic to reduce vehicle trips by 25 percent. Methods could include giving employees bus passes, telecommuting, carpooling and building on-site day care.
• Dictate that a minimum percentage of landscape materials be drought tolerant. The rule could lead to corn rows in front yards.
• Force all new development to dedicate land for public open space or pay a fine.
• Set a maximum amount of lighting that could be used for apartment buildings or commercial structures. The move would require light shielding to protect night skies and prevent glare and would demand automatic shut-off or reduction of lighting after hours.
• Mandate the separation of structures and limit landscaping for homes built in the foothills as protection against wildfires.