The URL can be used to link to this page

06/04/2002 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DUNE 4, 2002 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, June 4, 2002, at 6:00 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance: Council Members Carlton Christensen, Eric Jergensen, Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler, Dale Lambert and Van Turner. Also in Attendance: Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson, Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer; Jay Magure, Chief of Staff; D J Baxter, Senior Advisor to the Mayor; Roger Cutler, City Attorney; Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Janice Jardine, Council Planning & Policy Analyst; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Michael Sears, Council Budget & Policy Analyst; Ray McCandless, Northwest Quadrant/Subdivisions Planner; LuAnn Clark, Director of Housing and Neighborhood Development; Doug Wheelwright, Planning Deputy Director; Stephen Goldsmith, Planning Director; Margaret Hunt, Community and Economic Development Director; David Dobbins, Community and Economic Development Deputy Director; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; Brenda Hancock, Human Resource Division Director; and Pam Johnson, Deputy City Recorder. Councilmember Buhler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. Cindy Gust-Jenson said the Council had been provided with an update for the Neighborhood Matching Grant Program. She said the third quarter Housing Report had been restructured to show a breakdown of new housing by Council district and current housing trends in the City. Ms. Gust-Jenson said Council Chair Buhler had requested meeting in June to further discuss the proposed Olympic Cultural Center in Pioneer Park. She said Janice Jardine had researched the zoning and open space issues for that location. She said if rezoning were necessary, the City would not be able to complete the process by June. See File M 02-5 for Council announcements. #2. INTERVIEW JOHN BOGART PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE LAND USE APPEALS BOARD. Mr. Bogart said he had traveled extensively and had the opportunity to see how many Cities handled growth. He said he was impressed with the way Salt Lake City organized and maintained growth in regards to land use. He said volunteering for this board would allow him to be involved and help in its continuing success. Councilmember Christensen said discussion of a process to overturn the Land Use Appeals Board had been brought up several times. He said after Mr. Bogart had an opportunity to serve, he wanted him to give his opinion as to whether this process was necessary. He said if Mr. Bogart felt it was, he wanted him to include suggestions to establish such a process. #3. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING CRITERIA AND EVALUATION MATRIX FOR THE CITY'S SMALL BUSINESS REVOLVING LOAN FUND. View Attachment 02 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DUNE 4, 2002 Mayor Anderson, Gary Mumford and LuAnn Clark briefed the Council from the attached handout. Councilmember Buhler said approving applicants for the City' s Business Loan Fund was an executive function. He said the Administration and the Council sub-committee had worked together to set the criteria and evaluation matrix. He said Council would know each applicant that was approved could meet the same required terms. Mayor Anderson said with plans to revitalize downtown and Main Street, Council might want to consider start-up businesses in the City's Small Business Revolving Loan Fund. He said although they would not have credit history, language could be written to provide a different set of guidelines. Mayor Anderson said a written proposal would be sent to the Council for review. Councilmember Turner asked if current programs which offered loan monies to existing businesses in construction areas, would be eliminated. Ms. Clark said different programs could be rolled into one. She said under the new guidelines, businesses would be offered a better interest rate. Councilmember Saxton asked if the new matrix streamlined the loan process. Ms. Clark said applications would still go before the committee. She said once approved by the committee, they would go directly to the Mayor for his signature. She said currently any loan would still need to go before the Council. Councilmember Jergensen asked who sat on the committee. Ms. Clark said committee members included representatives from Housing and Neighborhood Development, Council staff, Planning Department, City Treasurer, Community and Economic Development, Mayor' s Office and the Attorneys Office. She said the representative from Key Bank had moved, so they were in the process of finding a committee member with commercial lending experience. #4. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING REQUESTS BY THE UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD, INCLUDING: (PETITION NO. 400-02-06) View Attachment a) Amending Table 21A.28.040 of Permitted and Conditional uses for Manufacturing Districts: of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to allow railroad freight terminal facility in the "M-1" zoning district. b) Rezoning 21.979 acres located approximately 800 South, 5600 West from a General Commercial "GC" zoning district to a Light Manufacturing "M-1" zoning district. c) Amending the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan removing 4800 West between 1300 South and 700 South, as an arterial street, and closing a 1200 foot portion of 4800 West. Designating 4400 West between 1300 South and 700 South, as the arterial street. Russell Weeks, D J Baxter, Doug Wheelwright and Ray McCandless briefed the Council from the attached handout. Mr. McCandless said the Planning Department had approved the intermodal freight loading facility with the condition the zoning district was changed, and the Transportation Master Plan was amended. Councilmember Saxton said the petitioner should absorb any costs to re-designate a street. She said an intermodal hub in this location would eliminate any residential growth. Mr. Weeks said due to the flight path of the International Airport, residential building would not take place in this area at all. 02 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DUNE 4, 2002 Councilmember Turner said his constituents were having difficulty separating this issue with the issue of the trains running on the 900 South tracks. He said his district voted 100% against building the freight terminal facility. Councilmember Lambert asked if Union Pacific Railroad had given the City written guarantee train traffic would not increase with the construction of the intermodal hub. Mr. Baxter said the railroad had given the City a letter stating such. He said he did not think the railroad would give their guarantee. A straw poll was taken, with four votes to move this item forward. Councilmember Turner said in representing his district, he would vote against moving this forward. #5. HOLD A DISCUSSION REGARDING UNRESOLVED BUDGET ISSUES, INCLUDING REVIEWING OUTSTANDING LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS AND LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS. View Attachment Michael Sears and Gary Mumford briefed the Council from the attached handout. A lengthy discussion was held on unresolved items on the Mayor' s recommended budget amendments. A straw poll was taken on the elimination of a zoning position. Four Council Members voted for the position and three against. A straw poll was taken on the elimination of the CERT program. Four Council Members voted for a part-time position and three against. A straw poll was taken on the elimination of the Mobile Watch Coordinator position. Council voted in favor of keeping this position. A straw poll was taken on the elimination of one Youth and Family Specialist position. Four Council Members voted for this position and three against. A straw poll was taken on the elimination of the graffiti removal materials. Council voted in favor of keeping this in the budget. Mr. Mumford briefed the Council on annual cash conversion of personal leave per each department, the additional savings in process service costs for the Prosecutor's Office and the Management Services Office, additional savings in Engineering rent and the additional savings in parking meter collection. A straw poll was taken on fund-raising for Boards. Three Council Members voted in favor of funding out of State training and four voted against it. A straw poll was taken on the speed boards. Four Council Members voted for part time positions to place and tally speed board information. A straw poll was taken on the Youth Programs Fund. Four Council Members voted in favor of funding this from one-time funding. A discussion was held on one-time projected revenue and its proposed uses. A discussion was held on one-time and ongoing proposed uses in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) fund. A straw poll was taken on making a budget shift. The majority voted in favor of 02 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DUNE 4 , 2002 transferring Urban Forestry and Street Sweeping from the Refuse Fund to the General Fund. A second straw poll was taken to see if Governmental Immunity issues should be addressed along with the budget shift. This failed to pass. #6. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING PUBLIC SERVICES PROPOSAL AND ESTIMATED BUDGET TO OWN, MANAGE AND OPERATE THE JORDAN RIVER PARKWAY AND GOLF COURSE. View Attachment Rick Graham and Michael Sears briefed the Council with the attached handout. Councilmember Saxton said the proposal was for the City to own this property, not just maintain it. She said the property should be an asset not a liability for the City. Mr. Graham said he was working with the Director of the State's Parks and Recreation Division and it was clear the City required fee title ownership of the property it took over. He said at his last meeting, this had been agreed upon. Ms. Gust-Jenson said documentation had been given to the Council Office stating the opposite. She said she would forward a copy to Mr. Graham. Mr. Graham said he would follow-up with this. The meeting adjourned at 10:04 p.m. pj 02 - 4 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: May 31,2002 SUBJECT: Proposed Criteria for City's Small Business Revolving Loan Program STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford CC: Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin,Margaret Hunt,David Dobbins,LuAnn Clark Document Type Budget-Related Facts Policy-Related Facts Miscellaneous Facts Resolution $4,127,500 is available In 1991,the City established The proposal includes an in the Economic a revolving loan fund to evaluation matrix to be used Development promote development, by the Small Business Loan Revolving Loan Fund. which enhances the vitality Committee for reviewing of the City. loan applications. Following a briefing last fall from the Administration regarding the Small Business Revolving Loan Program, the Council requested that the Administration recommend loan criteria for the Council's consideration and prepare a point-system matrix to be used by the Small Business Loan Committee to evaluate loan applications. The Council established a Council subcommittee to meet with representatives of the Administration during the process of preparing the criteria and matrix. At the recommendation of the City Attorney, the Council also requested that the resolution authorize the Mayor to administer the loan program in accordance with the criteria without Council approval of individual loans. The Council subcommittee, composed of Council Members Turner, Christensen and Buhler, reviewed the proposed criteria and evaluation matrix and recommended that the proposal be forwarded to the Council for consideration. The Small Business Loan Committee will use an evaluation matrix to rank the applicant's credit history, ability to repay the loan, collateral, management experience, neighborhood impacts, crime issues, and fiscal impacts of the loan relating to job creation and tax structure. The criteria proposes that 70 points out of a possible 100 points on the evaluation matrix be required in order to award a loan. OPTIONS Following the briefing, the Council may wish to consider the following options: • Schedule consideration of the resolution in a future Council Meeting. • Request that the Administration revise the loan criteria or evaluation matrix. • Request an annual written report of loan applications and a report on the status of existing loans. -- KEY ELEMENTS: 1. Start-up businesses are not eligible to apply for a loan under the proposed guidelines. Operating statements and tax returns for the past three years are required. Newly created businesses will be encouraged to use other resources such as the Utah Microenterprise Loan Fund, Utah Technology Finance Corporation, Small Business Administration, Small Business Development Center, and the Women's Business Center. Start-up businesses generally have a greater risk of loan default. Lenders have to rely on ideas and personalities for start-up businesses rather than management ability and operational experience. The Council may wish to discuss the exclusion of start-up businesses. 2. The criteria include refmancing of existing business debt as part of the use of loan proceeds when a business is expanding. For example, a business could request $60,000 for expansion of the business and $40,000 to pay off credit card debt. Refinancing of high interest debt allows a business to better afford additional debt for expansion. The Council may wish to discuss whether refinancing of existing business debt is an appropriate use of the City's loan program. 3. The criteria doesn't prohibit loans for relocating from one City neighborhood to another City neighborhood. In the past, the Council has generally not provided funds for relocating from an existing Salt Lake City location. The proposed evaluation matrix provides that up to 10 points can be withheld if there are negative community impacts for vacating an existing location. This approach could limit relocations to only those businesses that rate high in most all other aspects of the evaluation matrix. 4. Businesses in areas of major street reconstruction can apply for City loans. The criteria allow loans for land, buildings, new construction, façade and building renovation, landscape, property improvements, purchases of equipment, and working capital. Since working capital is an acceptable use of loan proceeds, businesses along South Temple or in other areas of major street reconstruction can apply for loans under this program. The Council may wish to consider this loan program as an alternate to expanding the special loan program that the City offered for businesses impacted by light rail construction. 5. Good credit history is required. Applicants with a credit history score of 620 or below will be denied without further evaluation. Points are to be awarded for credit scores over 620 with up to 8 points for a score of 681 and above. The Council may wish to discuss the use of credit scores with the Administration as a means of evaluating the credit history of applicants. 6. Loans may not be fully secured. Loans are to be secured by assets of the business and assets and personal guarantees of the individual borrowers. Those loans fully secured will be awarded 15 points. Marginally secured loans can receive up to 10 points. 2 7. The City encourages participation of private lending institutions. Five points are awarded if the City's loan funds are being matched by a least 10% private investment. In the past, there has been a loan maximum of $100,000. Although the proposed criteria do not contain a maximum loan amount, loans greater than $100,000 require a 2-to-1 ratio of other financing to City funds. For example, a loan of $100,000 does not necessarily require any other fmancing, but a loan of $105,000 would require other fmancing of$210,000. 8. The City encourages businesses in certain target areas. Up to 15 points can be awarded if the business is to be located in a target area for business development or a Community Development Block Grant or Redevelopment Agency area. 9. The criteria encourages job creation and other positive fiscal impacts. Up to 5 points can be awarded for job creation or retention with wages comparable to market. Another 5 points can be awarded for projects that increase property or sales tax revenue. 10. The evaluation criteria awards points for projects that include neighborhood revitalization. Up to 10 points can be awarded for businesses that meet a need or provide a service that is not currently available or contributes to neighborhood revitalization or preservation. 11. The interest rate will be the current prime rate if the application receives 80 points or more on the evaluation matrix. The rate will be prime plus 2% for scores less than 80 points. (A minimum score of 70 points is required.) 12. Loan terms are typically 5 years. Applicants can have up to 7 years to repay loans for equipment and up to 20 years for land and building construction. Loans can be repaid sooner or prepaid at any time. BACKGROUND: The City Council authorized the use of Urban Development Action Grant loan repayments for economic development purposes by making loans available to small businesses in Salt Lake City. Since 1991 when the City's revolving loan program was established, 22 loans have been made to local businesses. In addition, 34 loans were made to businesses impacted by light rail construction. 3 n 6 '>`, % SALT' a MIT COM `° e: Ito MARGARET HUNT �.k : + +►�: ems ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL J TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: May 23, 2002 FROM: Margaret Hunt, CED Director/44 RE: Small Business Revolving Loan Fund Criteria and Evaluation Matrix STAFF CONTACT: LuAnn Clark, HAND Director DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution BUDGET IMPACT: The Small Business Revolving Loan Fund has approximately $3.6 million. The proposed changes are expected to increase the demand for the available funds. DISCUSSION: The proposed loan criteria direct the City's Small Business Loan Committee to rank each application on an evaluation matrix with 100 points possible and a minimum of 70 points required to be recommended to the Mayor for final approval. The matrix ranks an applicant's credit history, the ability of the business to repay the loan, collateral to secure the loan, the applicant's management ability and experience, the neighborhood impacts of the business, crime issues relating to the business, and fiscal impacts of the loan relating to job creation and retention, leverage of public to private funds, and impact on the City's tax structure. No application will be recommended for approval if the applicant's credit history does not verify payment of past obligations, if the business does not demonstrate ability to repay the loan, and if there are crime issues with the business, which the City is not satisfied that it is working to control. The loan criteria do not establish a maximum loan amount but provide that loans greater than $100,000 require a 2-to-1 ratio of other financing to City funds. The interest rate will be the current prime rate if an application receives 80 points or more on the evaluation matrix, and prime plus 2% if it receives less than 80 points. Loan terms are typically five (5) years, but can be up to seven (7) years for equipment and 20 years for acquisition of land and building construction. Loans shall be secured by assets of the business and individual borrower(s) and guaranteed by the business and personally by the borrower(s). The City Council's Small Business Subcommittee has reviewed the loan criteria and evaluation matrix and recommended that they be forwarded to the City Council for final action. The Administration and the City's Small Business Loan Committee have also reviewed and approved the loan criteria and evaluation matrix. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-6230 FAX: B01-535-6005 is L� nccvcco anvcw RESOLUTION NO. OF 2002 AUTHORIZING ADOPTION OF SALT LAKE CITY'S SMALL BUSINESS REVOLVING LOAN FUND CRITERIA AND EVALUATION MATRIX WHEREAS, Salt Lake City established an Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund in 1991 (Resolution No. 93 of 1991) to "promote development which will enhance the vitality of the City"; and WHEREAS, the City earmarked repayments of Urban Development Action Grant loans to fund the program; and WHEREAS, the City now desires to call the program the Salt Lake City Small Business Revolving Loan Fund and to establish certain loan criteria and an evaluation matrix; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1. The Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund established by the City in 1991 shall now be known as the Small Business Revolving Loan Fund. 2. The Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah is hereby authorized to execute and administer the Small Business Revolving Loan Fund as provided in the attached loan criteria and evaluation matrix. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of May, 2002. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: CHAIR ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM Chief Deputy City Recorder Salt Lake Ci Attorneys Office Date r-_ o2.--- By_ Salt Lake City Corporation Small Business Revolving Loan Fund LOAN CRITERIA Purpose • The program is intended to stimulate small business expansion, encourage private investment, promote economic development, and enhance neighborhood vitality in Salt Lake City by making low-interest loans available to businesses. Eligible applicants • Businesses located in or relocating to Salt Lake City. • Businesses must be established and provide tax returns for three years. • Start-up and newly created businesses will be encouraged to use the financial and business resources of agencies such as the Utah Microenterprise Loan Fund, Utah Technology Finance Corporation, Small Business Administration, Small Business Development Center, and the Women's Business Center. City partnerships with private lenders • The City encourages participation of private lending institutions and looks favorably at providing funds to fill the gap between the owner's equity and conventional financing. • The City may subordinate its security interest to the private lender. Use of loan funds • To acquire land and buildings, new construction, facade and building renovation, landscape and property improvements, purchase machinery and equipment, and working capital. • Refinancing existing business debt will only be considered as part of a business expansion. Loan amounts, interest rates, and terms • There is no maximum loan amount. The minimum loan amount is $5,000. • Loans greater than $100,000 require a 2-to-1 ratio of other financing to City funds. • The interest rate will be the current prime rate if the application receives 80 points or more on the loan evaluation matrix, and prime plus 2% if it receives less than 80 points. The loan evaluation matrix has a total of 100 points, and an application must receive at least 70 points to be recommended to the Mayor for final approval. • Loan terms are typically 5-years,Jut can he up_to'-years for_equipment and 79Lyears for acquisition of land and building construction. • The loan may be prepaid, in part or whole, at any time without penalty. Collateral and guarantees • Loans shall be secured by assets of the business and individual borrower(s) and guaranteed by the business and personally by the borrower(s). • In addition, the borrower(s) shall agree to subordinate all officer debt and defer monthly payments to all officers to the City's loan. Insurance requirements • Key person life insurance shall be required on the company's principal(s) for the amount of the loan. The collateral assignment must be assigned and accepted by the life insurance company and submitted to Salt Lake City Corporation in a form acceptable to the City prior to closing. • The Borrower must also provide evidence in a form acceptable to Salt Lake City Corporation of(1)comprehensive general liability insurance with a minimum coverage amount of$1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate, with the City named as an "additional insured"; (2) fire and casualty insurance upon any property, real or personal, owned or used by the Borrower in its operations in an amount at least equal to all indebtedness against the property, with the City named as a"loss payee"; and a certificate of workers compensation insurance sufficient to cover all of the Borrower's employees pursuant to Utah State statutes. All insurance required by the City shall be continuous for the term of the loan. Costs to the Borrower • The Borrower is responsible for the following costs at the time of closing or they are to be deducted from the loan amount: (a) a loan origination fee of 1.00% of the loan amount, (b) interim interest from the date of closing to the end of the month of closing, (c) closing cost, (d) recording fee, (e)Uniform Commercial Code filing fee, (f) appraisal cost, and (g) letter report cost. Required financial information from the applicant • Completed application including a signed personal financial statement, list of business obligations, and a description of assets to secure the loan. • Business plan including a marketing plan, management plan, and financial plan. The financial plan must provide three years financial projections, the first year by month, including balance sheets, income statements, and cash flow statements. Notes and assumption are required. The business plan must also include resumes of key management personnel. • Personal federal and state income tax returns for the previous three years including all schedules and W-2 forms are required. All tax returns must be signed and dated. • Corporate federal and state income tax returns for the previous three years are also required. All tax returns must be signed and dated. • Historical financial statements for the last three years including balance sheets and income statements. A current interim statement less than 60 days old is also required. All financial statements must be signed an dated. • Site information: If purchasing a building or land, a real estate contract is required. If constructing a facility, the specifications and contractor estimates must be included. If leasing, a copy of the existing or proposed lease agreement must be included. • Use of funds: A budget outlining the proposed use of funds is required. If working capital is requested, a proposed working capital budget is required. If funds are requested to purchase equipment, two bids are required. • Organizational: If incorporated, a certificate, articles, by-laws and all minutes reflecting current stockholders and directors must be provided. If a partnership, a partnership — agreement must be provided. If a sole-proprietor, proof of registration must be provided. Loan Evaluation Matrix • The Small Business Loan Committee will use the following loan evaluation matrix to — rank the applicant's credit history, business' ability to repay the loan, collateral to secure the loan, applicant's management ability and experience, neighborhood impacts of the business, crime issues relating to the business, and fiscal impacts of the loan relating to job creation and retention, leverage of public to private funds, and impact on the City's tax structure. An application must receive a minimum of 70 points out of a possible 100 points to be recommended to the Mayor for final approval. • No application will be recommended for approval if the applicant's credit history does not verify payment of past obligations, if the business does not demonstrate ability to repay the loan, and if there are crime issues with the business which the City is not satisfied that it is working to control. Salt Lake City Corporation Small Business Revolving Loan Fund Committee LOAN EVALUATION MATRIX Business Applicant: Date: Individual Applicant: (1) APPLICANT'S CREDIT HISTORY Possible Points Actual Points A. Credit Score 681 and above 8 641-680 5 621-640 2 620 and below Loan Denied 8 A. B. Does the applicant's credit history demonstrate payment of past obligations? _ 7 B. 15 Note: The City will use the Experian credit score. A credit report will be obtained for each individual applying for the loan and each person offering to guarantee it. If any applicant's or guarantor's credit score is 620 or below, the loan will be denied. The applicant may present extenuating circumstances to the Loan Committee, and if the committee finds them acceptable, it may overturn the denial. Where there is more than one personal credit report, the committee will derive a composite score for"A" and`B" above. (2) BUSINESS' ABILITY TO REPAY THE LOAN Possible Points Actual Points A. What is the financial viability of the business_based.on_past_and_current _ tax returns and income statements? 8 A. B. Are the financial projections reasonable based on past and current tax returns and income statements? 7 B. 15 (3) COLLATERAL TO SECURE THE LOAN Possible Points Actual Points Is the loan fully secured? 15 Is the loan marginally secured? 10 Is the loan insufficiently secured? 0 15 (4) APPLICANT'S MANAGEMENT ABILITY AND BUSINESS EXPERIENCE Possible Points Actual Points A. What management ability and operational experience does the applicant have in terms of this type of business? 5 B. Does the business plan thoroughly address the marketing, management and financial operation of the business? 5 10 (5)NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS OF THE BUSINESS Possible Points Actual Points A. Does the business contribute to neighborhood revitalization or preservation? Does the business meet a need or provide a service that is not currently available? Does the business have any negative community impacts? 10 B. Is the business located in a target area for business development or a Community Development Block Grant or Redevelopment Agency area? 15 25 (6) CRIME ISSUES RELATING TO THE • BUSINESS Possible Points Actual Points Police Department Report There have been no significant crime issues with the business. 5 There have been crime issues with the business, but the City is satisfied with its efforts to control them. 2 There have been crime issues with the business, and the City is not satisfied with its efforts to control them. Loan Denied 5 (7) FISCAL IMPACTS OF THE LOAN A. Job creation or retention How many jobs are projected to be created? Are the wages comparable to market wages for similar jobs? Does the loan facilitate retention of existing jobs? 5 B. Leverage of public to private funds Does the ratio of public to private financing demonstrate that the City's loan funds are being matched by at least 10%private investment? 5 C. Impact on the City's tax structure Does projected property and sales tax revenue demonstrate that the City's loan funds are positively contributing to the City's tax base? 5 15 Total 100 s. MEMORANDUM DATE: May 31,2002 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Petitions Related to Locating an Intermodal Freight Loading Facility in an Area Zoned M-1 CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Rocky Fluhart,Margaret Hunt, Stephen Goldsmith,Gary Mumford,Ray McCandless,Janice Jardine This memorandum is intended to address material contained in the Administration transmittal regarding petitions by the Utah Transit Authority and Union Pacific Railroad to: • Amend the City Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of an intermodal freight loading facility in an M-1 (light manufacturing zone). • Rezone a 22-acre piece of property at about 800 South and 5600 West from General Commercial zoning to Light Manufacturing. • Amend the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan to remove 4800 West Street between California Avenue(1300 South)and 700 South Street as an arterial street, designate 4400 West Street between the same two streets as an arterial street,and close and declare as surplus about 1200 feet of the existing 4800 West Street so the northern portion of the street can be included as part of the freight loading facility. The Administration is scheduled to brief the City Council on the petitions June 4,and the City Council is scheduled to adopt a motion setting a July 2 date for a public hearing on the petitions. The purpose of the petitions is to advance the railroad's interest in building an intermodal freight loading facility between roughly 700 South,4600 West, 1000 South and 5600 West streets.The Utah Transit Authority submitted the petitions because locating the proposed facility there would allow UTA to complete a deal with the railroad to buy part of the railroad's right of way to build a commuter rail line between Brigham City and Payson. The process has been expedited for two reasons: 1. There is an August 30 deadline to close an agreement between UTA and the railroad. 2. UTA would like to issue$185 million in bonds to pay for the right of way before the August 30 deadline,according to Planning Commission meeting minutes for May 16. 1 The Planning Commission has approved a related petition approving building the proposed facility as a conditional use. The Commission adopted a motion to approve the facility on May 16. Perhaps most pertinent to the City Council's consideration of the issues is the ordinance 'addressing the third petition involving amending the Transportation Master Plan and closing and abandoning a portion of 4800 West Street. Section No. 2 on pages 2 and 3 of the proposed ordinance contain eight conditions that must be met if the portion of 4800 West Street is to be closed and abandoned. The conditions are: The applicants(Union Pacific Railroad and the Utah Transit Authority)must agree to meet all City departmental requirements and to address the concerns of the City's Public Utility Department • Union Pacific Railroad must agree to allow a future crossing of the spur line for the future road connecting 4400 West to 4800 West. • The applicants must agree to dedicate and construct a cul-de-sac, consistent with all applicable City standards,for the new terminus of 4800 West Street. • The applicants must agree to pay the future construction costs of one half of the road from 4800 West to 5500 West when the road is needed due to future development. • The applicants must agree to construct and dedicate the proposed 1000 South Street between 5500 West and 5600 West to the City and to realign the main access driveway from their project to tie into the new street. • Any proposed improvements to 5600 West must be reviewed and approved by the Utah Department of Transportation. • Union Pacific Railroad must agree to jointly investigate with the City methods to improve the 700 South rail crossing at about 4900 West, including consideration of widening the roadway to the full future width(84 feet),correcting the vertical curve designed to improve sight distances,and upgrading the railroad crossing gates and bathers. • The applicants must make payment to the City for the fair market value of the closed and abandoned portion of the street,or its equivalent,in accordance with Salt Lake City Code Chapter 2.58. The conditions appear to address concerns raised by City departments in consideration of the petitions.In particular,the Public Utilities Department and the Airport Department raised several concerns.According to the Planning Commission staff report,the Public Utilities Department noted that 4800 West Street has been planned as the location for a 16-inch water system loop to connect the 700 South water transmission line to the 1300 South water transmission line and grids to the 2100 South water transmission line. "The railroad and Public Utilities Department will need to find a way to make this grid while considering the cutting of 4800 West,"the report said. 2 The Public Utilities Department also had planned to make 4800 West the main right of way in the area for laying sewer lines. The department has"pointed major utilities"to the 4800 West corridor and has built a sewer trunk line to"take the sewer load from a large portion of the City's west side,"according to the report.The report noted that preliminary examination of the line indicated that relocating the sewer line may not be feasible. "If this is the case,the railroad will have to make provisions and concession to allow 24-hour access to the pipe,"the report said. Public Utilities also voiced concern about two other items. One is that drainage on the proposed site will have to be improved markedly, including construction of "a very large retention pond."Public Utilities and the Airport noted that the retention could attract birds, increasing the potential for birds and airplanes to collide. In addition,Public Utilities voiced concern that 97 acres of the 238-acre site would be a hard surface,possibly asphalt. If asphalt is used, it probably would create a"heat island"—something"that cities are trying to avoid," according to the Commission staff report. Council Members may wish to ask the Administration about the concerns of Public Utilities and the Airport departments at the briefing. It also should be noted that the West Salt Lake and Poplar Grove community councils have said they would support construction of the proposed facility only if Union Pacific Railroad ends the use of its 900 South railroad line. UTA officials have said there is no connection between the proposed facility and the 900 South railroad line. Finally,City Council staff received a telephone call May 31 from the owner of four properties that lie between 700 South Street and the northern edge of the proposed facility. The owner voiced concern about the apparent speed of City consideration of the petitions and about the potential for his property to lose value if the proposed facility is built. 3 MAY 2 3 20112 SALT' € _`CITY CORPORA-'IOI MARGARET HUNT - .��f - - ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer ' DATE: May 23,2002 FROM: Margaret Hunt, CED Director / ,l/�"�� RE: Petition #400-02-06, by Utah Transit Authority/Union Pacific Railroad Co. requesting a text amendment to Table 21A.28.040, Table of Permitted And Conditional Uses for Manufacturing Districts: of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to allow a railroad freight terminal facility in the "M-1" zoning district. Petition #400-02-07, by Utah Transit Authority / Union Pacific Railroad Co. requesting approval to rezone a 21.979 acre piece of property located at approximately 800 South, 5600 West from a General Commercial "GC" zoning district to a Light Manufacturing "M-1"zoning district. Petition #400-02-11, by Utah Transit Authority / Union Pacific Railroad Co. requesting approval to amend the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan by removing 4800 West, between 1300 South (California Ave.) and 700 South as an arterial street and designating 4400 West, between the same two streets, as an arterial street. Also, an approximately 1200 foot portion of the existing 4800 West street is also requested to be closed as a public street, and declared surplus to facilitate that street property being combined into the railroad freight terminal site. STAFF CONTACT: Ray McCandless, Principal Planner 535-7282 Lynn Pace, Deputy City Attorney 535-6613 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) is currently developing plans for a high-speed commuter rail system along the Wasatch Front. Part of the project involves the relocation of two existing intermodal/automobile freight facilities, operated by the Union Pacific Railroad, one in Clearfield City and one on Beck Street, to a vacant 238.75 acre piece of property which is located between approximately 4600 West and 5600 West, and between 700 South and 1000 South as shown on the attached site plan in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission. The property is located east of 5600 West between two existing main-line railroad tracks. The facility will be used for the on and off-loading of shipping containers and new automobiles from trains, for regional distribution. Operations are expected to begin on or before 2005. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-6230 FAX: 801-535-6005 ®RECYCLED PAPER Approximately 97 acres will be hard surfaced and developed for railroad transport containers and automobile storage and related maneuvering space. There will be 1034 stalls for the transport containers and 1821 parking stalls for automobiles. Several rail spurs will be installed to access the container and automobile loading areas as shown on the accompanying site plan. There will be several operations and maintenance buildings on the site. The facility will be operational 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The development triggers several zoning review components: 1) An amendment to the text of the Zoning Ordinance, 2) Zoning amendment (rezoning), 3) An amendment to the City's Transportation Master Plan and Closure of a portion of 4800 West Street and, 4) Conditional use approval. The City Council is the approval body for the Zoning Text Amendment, Rezoning, Transportation Master Plan Amendment and Street Closure. The Planning Commission is the approval body for the Conditional use(Case#410-528). A rail transfer facility is not currently a permitted use in the Light Manufacturing "M-1" zoning district, therefore the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for the "M-1" zoning district must be amended to accommodate the use. The property is split zoned. The western portion of the property fronting 5600 West (approximately 700 feet deep) is zoned General Commercial "CG" and the eastern portion is zoned Light Manufacturing "M-l". The applicants are requesting that the area zoned "CG"be rezoned to "M-1" to make the zoning on the entire parcel consistent. The original request was to rezone 19.61 acres, but the applicants are acquiring more property along 5600 West bringing the total to 21.979 acres. The petitioners are requesting closure of a portion of 4800 West Street to accommodate several new rail spurs on the property which also requires an amendment to the Transportation Master Plan, because the 1996 Major Street Plan designates 4800 West as an arterial street. The use also requires conditional use approval for the project site plan if the"M-1"Ordinance is amended to allow the use. On May 16, 2002, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and recommended approval of the Zoning Text Amendment, Rezoning, Transportation Master Plan / Street Closure and approved the conditional use subject to approval of the Zoning Text Amendment as outlined in the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. It is the recommendation of the Planning Commission that 4800 West Street be downgraded from an arterial to a local street and that the future 1000 South street between 4400 West and 5500 West also be developed as a local street (the section of 1000 South between 5500 and 5600 West would be a collector street). The Planning Commission further recommends that 4400 West Street be upgraded from a local street to either a collector or arterial street. The City Planning and Transportation Divisions recommend that this street be upgraded to a Minor Arterial Street. Findings of Fact: The Planning Commission determined that the proposed Zoning Text Amendment, Rezoning, Transportation Master Plan Amendment and Street Closure are appropriate based on the findings of fact as stated in the Planning Commission meeting minutes of May 16, 2002 (attached). Public Process: On April 3, 2002, a letter was sent to all Community Council Chairpersons requesting their input regarding amending Table 21A.28.040 of the Zoning Ordinance, Table of Permitted And Conditional Uses for Manufacturing Districts. No comments or concerns specific to the letter were received. The applicants met with the West Salt Lake Community Council on March 20, 2002 and with the Poplar Grove Community Council on March 27,2002. Notices also were sent to all Community Council Chairpersons and affected property owners informing them of the May 16, 2002 Planning Commission Hearing. The property also was posted as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Numerous property owners and Community Council representatives attended the Planning Commission hearing. Section 21A.10 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the legislative body hold advertised public hearings prior to amendments to the zoning ordinance or zoning map. Sections 10-9-304 and 305 also requires that the legislative body hold advertised public hearing prior to amendments to master plans or street closures. A draft notice has been provided in this transmittal packet. Relevant Ordinances: Zoning Text Amendment: S.L.C. Zoning Ordinance, Section 21A.10, General Application and Public Hearing Procedures and Section 21A.18.040, Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Manufacturing Districts. Zoning Amendment: S.L.C. Zoning Ordinance, Section 21A 10, General Application and Public Hearing Procedures and Section 21A.50.50. Standards for General Amendments. Transportation Master Section 10-9-304 U.C.A.; Section 10-9-305, U.C.A.; Plan Amendment/ Section 2.58 SLC Code Street Closure: TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Chronology 2. Ordinance 1) Zoning Text Amendment 2) Zoning Map Amendment 3) Transportation Master Plan Amendment and Closure of a Portion of 4800 West Street 3. Planning Commission Agenda 4. Staff Report for Planning Commission 5. Planning Commission Minutes 6. Notice of City Council Public Hearing A. Newspaper Publication Draft B. Notice of City Council Hearing C. Mailing List and Labels 7. Planning Commission Public Hearing Notices 8. Supplemental Information Given to the Planning Commission Prior to the May 16, 2002 Planning Commission Hearing. CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • Jan. 18, 2002 Initial Application Submittal • March 20, 2002 West Salt Lake Community Council Meeting March 27, 2002 Poplar Grove Community Council Meeting • April 9, 2002 Departmental Comments Requested • April 23-25, 2002 Property Owner Consent Letters Received • May 9, 2002 Planning Commission Staff Report Completed and Mailed to Planning Commissioners • May 16, 2002 Planning Commission Hearing • May 20, 2002 City Council Transmittal Preparation and Ordinances Requested From City Attorney • May 22, 2002 Transmittal Packet Completed (Ordinances and Minutes will be Forwarded Separately) • May 22, 2002 Transmittal Packet Forwarded for Deputy Planning Director Review ORDINANCE SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2002 (Amending the Salt Lake City Zoning Code to Allow Railroad Freight Terminal Facilities in Light Manufacturing Zoning Districts) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SALT LAKE CITY ZONING CODE TO ALLOW RAILROAD FREIGHT TERMINAL FACILITIES IN LIGHT MANUFACTURING (M-1) ZONING DISTRICTS, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-02-06. WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Zoning Code contains descriptions of the various allowed uses in each of the designated zoning districts; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, finds after public hearings before its own body and before the Planning Commission that portions of the Salt Lake City Zoning Code should be amended to allow railroad freight teiininal facilities in Light Manufacturing (M-1) zoning districts, and that such amendments are in the best interest of the City; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Section 21A.28.040 of the Salt Lake City Code, which contains the "Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Manufacturing Districts," shall be and hereby is amended to allow railroad freight terminal facilities as conditional uses in M-1 zoning districts. SECTION 2. Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to include the following definition, in alphabetical order: "Railroad Freight Terminal Facility"means: A major railroad track yard area for primary use by railroad employees for regional scale interstate mainline oriented intermodal freight transfers of: (1)multi-modal (sea, rail, truck transport) self-contained cargo containers from train to train, train to semi-truck trailer, and semi-truck trailer to train loading; and (2) for new motor vehicle train transports to semi-truck trailer transports for _ regional distribution purposes. No breakdown of self-contained cargo containers occurs at inter-modal railroad freight terminal facilities. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2002. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on . Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR Lw. S-Z3-oZf By_Ztfle,.6.,C2k ""--N--___ — CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2002. Published: G:\Ordinance 02\Amending Code to allow Railroad Freight Terminal Fac in M-1 Zoning Dist-May 22,2002.doc 3 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2002 (Rezoning Property Located at Approximately 800 South 5600 West) AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATLEY 800 SOUTH 5600 WEST FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL (CG) TO LIGHT MANUFACTURING (M-1), PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400- 02-07. WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, has held public hearings before its own body and before the Planning Commission, and has taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing and demographic details of the area, the long range general plans of the City, and any local master plan as part of its deliberations. Pursuant to these deliberations, the City Council has concluded that the proposed change of zoning for the property located at approximately 800 South 5600 West is appropriate for the development of the community in that area. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That the property located at approximately 800 South 5600 West, which is more particularly described on Exhibit "A"attached hereto, shall be and hereby is rezoned from General Commercial (CG) to Light Manufacturing (M-1). SECTION 2. Amendment of zoning map. Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be, and hereby is amended consistent with the rezoning identified above. SECTION 3. Conditions. The development of the property located at approximately 800 South 5600 West, consistent with the rezoning identified above, will require compliance with all City department requirements, including approval by the Salt Lake City International Airport, the Federal Aviation Administration and the Utah _ Department of Transportation. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2002. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER rip S-Z3- o� (SEAL) Bill No. of 2002. Published: G:\Ordinance 02\Rezoning 800 So 5600 W-May 22,2002.doc 2 ZONING CHANGE DESCRIPTION EAST SIDE OF 5600 WEST STREET A parcel of land situated in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12, Township 1 South, Range 2 West, of the Solt Lake Bose & Meridian, Salt Lake County, State of Utah, Said parcel being more particularly described as follows: Beginning of a point on the East Line of 5600 West Street, said point being situated North 00'O1'14 8' East 352.601 feet along the Section Line, AND South 89'58'45.2" East 40.000 feet from the West 1/4 Corner of said Section 12; Thence North OO'01'14.8" East along said East Line, 1221.004 feet to a point on the South Right of Way Line of the Western Pacific Railroad os defined in that certain Condemnation Order Doted July 3, 1906, and recorded in Book 7-A. Pages 378 & 379; Thence North 7745'43.8- East along said South Right of Woy Line, 756.010 feet to o point; Thence South 00'01'14.8" West 1,370.939 feet to o point; Thence South 89'12'00.0' West 738.848 feet to the East Line of 5600 West Street, and the Point of Beginning. Area = 21.979 Acres. April 8, 2002 4,6 L j 21 t 2 — -— _ - — -— — -—-700—S0{ITFI—S STHNF,ELD PROPERTIES I I [1 H-- -- -- --— I ,ULON INDUSiR:HL 0T-'k NyG I�j I RULON L"•:CL'SRIN, �HP,K NO ! I _ •! I`° � , � • `'HNILOi 'NvESTMENi COMPp.NY. LTD ',. - — - aj , _- —coMp1 oo, FAIL— &37_- oI pACIFIC G g78 ICI ( _ 0.----N 7,A, p.--. - BK Ioj o _--_ o i---- -- NIT 45 • -_ i -_ 756.010 r ! Ni< IW al 5160n u E;l i._•.. 1 ' a o 0 • N 'p IZ 7 a, ___-__-_-_- ___ __� i� -_--__--__ _N,_ _ — — — LOS AIVGELES &_ SALT LAKE RAILROAD t - -- -- — �. ao — — — — — — — — — BK 10—I, PG 142 ao • DpNED _ AP_-- E-RAILROAD__ \ I Poe EON SNORT LN__ _ ___ s89-r2 oo.o-W _ - — �- I `a I, S89'58.45.2"E - --—— /' , 1 •, \ /" 1 I8I PFGPERTY PESEPbE. P;C. /- \ \ /-/ 11 1�2 1/4 COR i , ZONING CHANGE DESCRIPTION EAST SIDE OF 5600 WEST STREET A parcel of land situated in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12, Township I South, Range 2 West, of the Solt Lake Bose & Meridian, Salt Lake County, State of Utah, Said parcel being more particularly described as follows: SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2002 (Amending the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan and Closing and Abandoning a Portion of 4800 West Street) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SALT LAKE CITY TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN AND CLOSING AND ABANDONING A PORTION OF 4800 WEST STREET, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-02-11. WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, has held hearings before its own body and before the Planning Commission as required by Section 10-9-303 of the U.C.A.; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is appropriate under Section 10-9-301, et seq., U.C.A., and in the best interest of the City to amend the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan as set forth herein; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds after public hearings that the City's interest in the portion of the street described below is not necessary for use by the public as a street and the closure and abandonment of this portion of the street will not be adverse to the general public's interest; and WHEREAS, the title to the closed and abandoned portion of the street shall remain with the City until sale for fair market value, or the receipt of equivalent value, in accordance with Salt Lake City Code Chapter 2.58; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. The Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended as follows: a. A future road connecting 4400 West with 4800 West should be added to the major street plan. b. The street classification of 4400 West, between 700 South and California Avenue, should be changed from a local to a collector or arterial street as determined by the transportation division. c. A new street connecting 4800 West and 5600 West at approximately 1000 South should be added. This street will be a local from 4800 West to 5500 West and a collector from 5500 West to 5600 West. d. The street classification of 4800 West North of California Avenue should be changed from an arterial to a local street. SECTION 2. A portion of 4800 West street, located between 700 and 900 South, which is more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, shall be and the same hereby is, closed and abandoned and declared to be no longer needed or available for use as a street, subject to the execution of a development agreement, in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney's Office, which addresses each of the following conditions: a. The applicants (Union Pacific Railroad and the Utah Transit Authority) must agree to meet all City departmental requirements and to address the concerns of the City's Public Utility Department. b. Union Pacific Railroad must agree to allow a future crossing of the spur line for the future road connecting 4400 West to 4800 West. c. The applicants must agree to dedicate and construct a cul-de-sac, consistent with all applicable City standards, for the new terminus of 4800 West street. 2 d. The applicants must agree to pay the future construction costs of one half of the road from 4800 West to 5500 West when the road is needed due to future development. e. The applicants must agree to construct and dedicate the proposed 1000 South street between 5500 West and 5600 West to the City and to realign the main access driveway from their project to tie into the new street. f. Any proposed improvements to 5600 West must be reviewed and approved by the Utah Department of Transportation. g. Union Pacific Railroad must agree to jointly investigate with the City methods to improve the 700 South rail crossing at approximately 4900 West, including consideration of widening the roadway to the full future width (84 feet), correcting the vertical curve designed to improve site distances, and upgrading the railroad crossing gates and barriers. h. The applicants must make payment to the City for the fair market value of the closed and abandoned portion of the street, or its equivalent, in accordance with Salt Lake City Code Chapter 2.58. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. The City Recorder is instructed not to publish or record this ordinance until the conditions identified above have been met, as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Director and the Salt Lake City Property Manager. SECTION 4. Time. If the conditions identified above have not been met within 12 months after the adoption of this ordinance, this ordinance shall become null and void. 3 The City Council may, for good cause shown, by resolution, extend the time period for satisfying these conditions. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2002. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER _S- ?3 -o Z E: ,�:-:_ (SEAL) Bill No. of 2002. Published: G:\Ordinance 02\Amending SLC Trans Master Plan-May 22,2002.doc 4 DESCRIPTION 4800 WEST STREET VACATION A parcel of land situated in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12, Township 1 South, Range 2 West, and the Northwest 1/4 of Section 7, Township 1 South, Ronge 1 West, of the Salt Lake Bose & Mend,on, Salt Lake County, State of Utah, Sold parcel being more particularly described os follows: Beginning at o point on the East Line of 4800 West Street, said point being situated South 00'0723.6" East 284.521 feet along the Section Line, AND North 89'52.36.4" Eost 33.000 feet from the Northeast Corner of said Section 12; Thence South 00'0723.6" East along said East Line, 1,126.192 feet to o point the North Right of Woy Line of the Leamington Cut Off of the Oregon Short Line Railroad, os defined in that certain Warranty Deed doted April 14, 1902, and recorded in Book 6—A, Page 327; Thence South 80'53'32.0" West along said North Right of Way Line, 33.410 feet to a point on the West Line of said Section 7, and o point on the North Right of Woy Line of said Railroad, as defined by that certain Order of the Court doted March 12, 1904, and recorded in Book 3—C, Page 251; Thence South 80'53'32.0" West along said North Right of Woy Line, 33.410 feet to o point on the West Line of said 4800 West Street; Thence North 00'0723.6" West along said West Line, 1,158 181 feet to a point on a circular curve concave to the Southwest, at which point the radius point bears South 17'16'48.1" West 2,914.825 feet; Thence Easterly and to the right 69.432 feet along the arc of said curve, through a central angle of 01'21'533" (Long Chord = South 72'02'15.3" East 69.430 feet), to the East Line of 4800 West Street, and the Point of Beginning. Area = 1.731 Acres. April 8, 2002 • (0jsk ��oti - - l 1 6 — - 33 00 33°° 700 SOUTH STREET 0 r I W I N to n Y I 0"° L =69.432' C.N R =2914.825' N I D =01'21'53.3" I LC=S7Y02'15.3"E 69.430' PO8 N89'52'36.4"E 33.000' m M m 0 nl m cv -. W 0 col NI O 0 0 PPOPE IRTY RESER;E. IC I 4400 W IIIDUSTP L N co m b b N N W b• b M M N I N N O O O O O N �f Z l I 1 T S80'53'32.0"W S80'53'32.0"W — 33.410' I /33.410` 0 0 HOPE OF THE itTJ- - GTON CU INE ILRO_- BK 0-A, P�327 1EAMIN �HOR - _ -- ORS N am - s- _ _ 51 ` -- BK 3 C' PG 2__--( 1 O G Jr r - - 1 STAFF REPORT FOR PLANNING COMMISSION SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Petitions 400-02-06, 400-02-07, 400-02-11 And Case 410-528, UTA and Union Pacific Railroad Co. May 16, 2002 REQUEST Zoning Text Amendment Petition #400-02-06, by Utah Transit Authority / Union Pacific Railroad Co. requesting a text amendment to Table 21A.28.040, Table of Permitted And Conditional Uses for Manufacturing Districts: of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to allow a railroad freight terminal facility in the "M-1" zoning district. Zoning Amendment Petition #400-02-07, by Utah Transit Authority / Union Pacific Railroad Co. requesting approval to rezone a 19.61 acre piece of property located at approximately 800 South. 5600 West from a General Commercial "GC" zoning district to a Light Manufacturing "M-1" zoning district. Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan Amendment /Street Closure/Declaration of Surplus Property Petition #400-02-11, by Utah Transit Authority / Union Pacific Railroad Co. requesting approval to amend the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan by removing 4800 West, between 1300 South and 700 South as an arterial street and designating 4400 West, between the same two streets, as an arterial street. Also, an approximately 1300 foot portion of the existing 4800 West street is also requested to be closed as a public street, and declared surplus to facilitate that street property being combined into the railroad freight terminal site. Conditional Use Case #410-528, by Utah Transit Authority / Union Pacific Railroad Co. requesting Conditional Use approval to develop a new inter-modal railroad freight telniinal facility located at approximately 800 South 5600 West in a Light Manufacturing "M-1" zoning district. Petitions 400-02-06,400-02-07,400-02-11, Case 410-528 By Salt Lake City Planning Division May 16,2002 1 COMMUNITY/NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL REVIEW -" Presentations were made by UTA/UPRR to the West Salt Lake Community Council, March 20, 2002 and to the Poplar Grove Community Council on March 27., 2002 as indicated in the accompanying Memorandum For Record provided by the applicants. The meeting details and community concerns are discussed in the letter. Both Community Councils supported the new facility subject to discontinuation of the 900 South rail line. Although the Poplar Grove Community Council endorsed the proposed facility at their March 27, 2002 meeting, they again discussed the proposal at their April 24, 2002 meeting. They made a motion to oppose the facility until a master plan for the area is completed and impacts of the development on the neighborhood are thoroughly considered (see attached comment sheet). Union Pacific Railroad indicates that "Currently, none of the inteitnodal or auto trains that use the Clearfield or the Beck Street facilities use the 900 South line and there is no plan for these trains to use the 900 South line in the future. However, in the event of an emergency, it is possible that any train could run on any available route on a temporary basis." (see attached letter from Union Pacific Railroad Company dated April 5, 2002). '�� sG" > '^�+... `{„ ,-�s.+f+ f . s tea.... s , ek. . - `ex : q - f� y` st#` 3 ` r :- �a � "� yr% Y --x`°d �. .r � §3, '.s s r �. k cam'a? .X „....,)• r F 3, " � " ,g'- 3" '� r " .rr �_,+i ' ' '� _ t ,,t� 'v 6 s s . L � -�$ _, A. S g" r -. ; ems ", ?“ : r -" '€ ' f‘. z-`y r art N�k t?, 1 -. '. r. V. x: ' :€ ', ., aft °. �,�01 - silo ,, ; b�.a 2- " 2� "' t q' ' sk 1' .. ,, t7: -` R�`sgN:k � r-43 S� Petitions 400-02-06,400-02-07,400-02-11, Case 410-528 By Salt Lake City Planning Division May 16,2002 2 BACKGROUND Property Owner Name And Applicant: Owners: 14-12-300-001 Property Reserve Inc. 14-12-503-001,002 UPRR (Rail Line) 15-07-100-002 Utah Power& Light Co. 15-07-100-007 4800 W. Industrial (SLC) PIP, LP Applicants: Utah Transit Authority/UPRR Purpose of proposal or proposed site changes: Development of a Railroad Freight Terminal Facility Affected Parcel Number(s): 14-12-300-001 Property Reserve Inc. 14-12-503-001,002 UPRR (Rail Line) 15-07-100-002 Utah Power& Light Co. 15-07-100-007 4800 W. Industrial (SLC) PIP, LP Total Acreage: 238.75 acres Previous Case Files: Not applicable Existing Land Use on subject property: Vacant /Agricultural Grazing Existing Zoning and Overlay Districts on subject property: General Commercial "CG", Light Manufacturing "M-1" Airport Influence Zone B Existing Master Plan Land Use Designation: N/A - A Land Use Master Plan has not been adopted for this area. IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF ISSUES The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) is currently developing plans for a high-speed commuter rail system along the Wasatch Front. Part of the project involves relocation of two existing intermodal / automobile facilities, one in Clearfield City and one on Beck Street, to a vacant 238.75 acre piece of property which is located approximately 4600 Petitions 400-02-06,400-02-07,400-02-11, Case 410-528 By Salt Lake City Planning Division May 16,2002 3 West and 5600 West, between 700 South and 1000 South as shown on the attached site plan. The property is located East of 5600 West between two existing rail lines. The facility will be used for on and off-loading of shipping containers and new automobiles from trains for regional distribution. Operations are expected to begin on or before 2005. Surrounding uses include the Brasher Salt Lake Auto Auction facility to the west of 5600 West Street and light industrial / manufacturing uses to the north. The property to the east and south is vacant or in low intensity agricultural use. Approximately 97 acres will be hard surfaced and developed for railroad transport containers and automobile storage and related maneuvering space. There will be 1034 stalls for the transport containers and 1821 parking stalls for automobiles. Several rail spurs will be installed to access the container and automobile loading areas as shown on the accompanying site plan. There will be several operations and maintenance buildings on the site. The facility will be operational 24 hours a day, seven days a week. On 5600 West Street, there are two existing single-track rail crossings. One at approximately 800 South and one at 900 South. These are main-line tracks for UPRR which serve the West coast and Midwest. As part of this project, the south track will be realigned next to the north track west of 5600 West creating one at-grade crossing (with three tracks) at the current crossing at 800 South and will eliminate the existing crossing at approximately 900 South. Although a seemingly simple proposal, the development triggers several zoning review components that must be reviewed by the Planning Commission. A rail transfer facility is not currently a permitted use in the Light Manufacturing "M-1" zoning district, therefore the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for the "M-1" zoning district must be amended to accommodate the use. The property is split zoned. The western portion of the property fronting 5600 West (approximately 700 feet deep) is zoned General Commercial "CG" and the eastern portion is zoned Light Manufacturing "M-1". The applicants are requesting the area zoned "CG" (approximately 19.61 acres) be rezoned to "M-1" to make the zoning on the entire parcel consistent. The petitioners are requesting closure of a portion of 4800 West Street to accommodate several new rail spurs on the property which also requires an amendment to the Transportation Master Plan, because the 1996 Major Street Plan designates 4800 West as an arterial street. The use also will require conditional use approval for the project site plan if the "M-1" Ordinance is amended to allow the use. The review components that are being processed simultaneously include: 1) An amendment to the text of the Zoning Ordinance, 2) Zoning amendment (rezoning), 3) An amendment to the City's Transportation Master Plan and Closure of a portion of 4800 West Street and, 4) Conditional use approval. The Planning Commission's recommendation regarding the ordinance text amendment, rezoning, and amendment to the City's Transportation master plan and street closure will be forwarded to the City Council. The Planning Commission is the review body for the Petitions 400-02-06,400-02-07,400-02-11, Case 410-528 By Salt Lake City Planning Division May 16,2002 4 conditional use. If these matters are approved by the City, Staff will consider some minor subdivision approvals in an Administrative Hearing format, to facilitate the assembly of properties necessary to create the 238.75 acre site. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT The City's Zoning Ordinance does not currently allow as a permitted use, a "railroad freight terminal" in either of the manufacturing zoning districts. Railroad freight terminals are possible in the M-2 zoning district as a conditional use. The petitioners are therefore requesting that Table 21A.28.040, (Table of Permitted And Conditional Uses for Manufacturing Districts: be amended to allow their proposed use within the M-1 zoned area of the City. The main function of a railroad freight terminal is to on and off load rail cargo for regional distribution. The use is not unlike other industrial uses already permitted in the "M-1" or "M-2" zoning districts. The Zoning Ordinance Rewrite Project of 1995 created the current table of permitted and conditional uses. At that time, it was reasoned that large railroad freight terminals needed to be considered on a site specific basis, and therefore, staff selected a conditional use approach within the "M-2" zoning area. Now, with so little area of the City, zoned "M-2", it would seem appropriate to consider such facilities in the "M-1" areas as well. Staff recommends revising table 21A.28.040 as follows: 21A.28.040 Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Manufacturing Districts: *** PARTIAL TABLE *** Manufacturing Uses Photo finishing lab P P Printing plant p Publishing company P P Railroad freight terminal C C Railroad repair shop p Recycling collection station P P Recycling processing center (indoor) P P Recycling processing center (outdoor) C P Petitions 400-02-06,400-02-07,400-02-11, Case 410-528 By Salt Lake City Planning Division May 16,2002 5 The Planning Commission's recommendation regarding the Ordinance amendment will be forwarded to the City Council for review. _ ZONING AMENDMENT The zoning in this area is generally Light Manufacturing "M-1" with the exception of a strip of General Commercial "CG" zoning that extends from Interstate 80, south to 2100 South along the east side of 5600 West Street. The "CG" zoning also extends west of 5600 West around the Brasher Salt Lake Auto Auction facilities as shown on the map below. At the subject property, the "CG" zone extends approximately 700 feet east of the eastern right of-way line on 5600 West Street. The applicants are requesting that the area zoned "CG" be rezoned to. "M-1" to accommodate their proposed use and keep the zoning consistent for the entre facility. '� -' 'ice .g ttr't.,`-� b'u a r., c` -' s, 4 3 fix.:'14. � a .ls `.. 1 'ram` ''':•, y ` : , .t� ,- Z - '�` # ,5' ¢sue }� 3 �� tzK :> x f ,�-= ty - 7$. - '�" 'em` �` a tS �; a .� _ . ate-+:, E 'f ^ ,� e .: % �'P ._' +� } - ' s .;fit " _N� ._ E�±D"- '' .`-' =. a`' +sty r- � s , x, \7 �fiz. ` ` ems xk,< �� -t ,pi s--s--r" 7- ^ - '� . y- , �i1 ` "k+>,,-,-, ': ` " � S '`1 ,<i .a ., �� ''web +`3 r a 3. ,„.. 41 ,. G r -- to a- 4 - ,-' -- - , �� c2 � ems "��r ; �, �,.,,s� T $'� '� s�� ` �� 3 yE + � �� la,:,‘4 ...� i`.ra l 2 r. b" x fit'- a- 5 • .4" ✓z - �s'£u.' i i Fl .,<mA3s �, :�, ,,. ,z. "`� a :sty s • In considering whether the property should be rezoned, the Planning Commission will need to address the following standards: Petitions 400-02-06,400-02-07,400-02-11, Case 410-528 By Salt Lake City Planning Division May 16,2002 6 CODE CRITERIA / DISCUSSION / FINDINGS OF FACT 21A.50.050 Standards for general amendments. A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Discussion: In the 1980's, a draft of the Northwest Quadrant master plan was prepared but was never adopted. It identified the land use for the area between the Bangerter Highway (4000 West) and 5600 West as a "light industrial and commercial region". Along the east side of 5600 West is a "CG" corridor that extends north and south between Interstate 80 and 2100 South. The intent of this zoning corridor was to create a commercial appearance along the 5600 West street frontage that would provide a buffer along this principal arterial street from the heavier industrial uses further to the east. In 1995, the City's Zoning Rewrite Project formalized the strip of commercial zoning along 5600 West Street. In the 1980's, the area was mostly vacant, but since that time, development has occurred that has made the idea of commercial development along 5600 West less likely. Along this segment of 5600 West is the Lee Kay shooting range, a reclaimed landfill, the Legacy Industrial Park, the Brasher Auto Auction, the RC Willey warehouse, and an industrial development on 700 South. In addition, there are two active rail lines that cross the area. Although a land use master plan has not been formally adopted for this area, the proposed rezoning is consistent with other existing land uses in the area. As aircraft routinely fly over this property where noise is an issue an industrial use, such as the one proposed, is consistent with the Airport Master Plan. Findings: Although a land use master plan has not been adopted for this area, the proposed rezoning is consistent with other existing land uses in the area. The rezoning is consistent with the Airport Master Plan. B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Discussion: Given most of the adjoining uses in the area are industrial, manufacturing or landfill related, the proposed "M-1" zoning is consistent with the overall character of existing development in the area. Findings: The proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Petitions 400-02-06,400-02-07,400-02-11, Case 410-528 By Salt Lake City Planning Division May 16,2002 7 C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Discussion: The adjoining uses are or will likely be industrial in the future. Given this, the proposed rezoning will not adversely affect adjacent properties. Findings: The proposed amendment will not adversely affect adjacent properties. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Discussion: The property is located in the Airport Influence Zone B which regulates the height of structures at this location. At this location, according to the Airport Authority, the maximum height of structures if 140 feet. All structures on the property will need to meet this standard. Findings: The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the applicable overlay zoning district. E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection. Discussion: The various City departments have reviewed the proposal and their comments are attached to this Report. Departmental comments applicable to the proposed rezoning include: Roadways - All vehicular access will be from 5600 West Street. 5600 West is a State road and under the jurisdiction of UDOT. Any issues or approvals regarding this road, such as project impacts or access points, must be addressed by UDOT. Proposed improvements to 5600 West also need to be reviewed and approved by UDOT. When the proposed facility begins operations, it is expected to generate 559 daily vehicle trips which will occur on 5600 West Street. 46 trips are expected to be generated during the morning peak hours and 90 during the evening peak hours. The Transportation Division does not foresee any problems with the added vehicular traffic on 5600 West. Parks—Not applicable. Recreational Facilities—Not applicable. Petitions 400-02-06,400-02-07,400-02-11, Case 410-528 By Salt Lake City Planning Division May 16,2002 8 Police - Staff has requested departmental comments several times from the Police Department but no comments have been recei\ed to date. Stall will continue to try to get departmental comments prior to the Planning Commission hearing. However, UPRR will provide its own security for the fenced facility. Fire Protection - The Fire department does not have any concerns with the proposed development. The developer should, however, contact the Fire Prevention Bureau for information regarding and location of required fire hydrants. Schools—Not applicable. Storm Water Drainage, Water Supplies and Waste Water - Public Utilities comments regarding water, storm drainage and sewer availability are as follows: "Water - is available for this project. Ordinance requires that this project extend water mains along its frontage in any public street. There is a 36-inch water transmission line in 5600 West. The RR will be required to run a parallel 12-inch main the entire length of frontage on 5600 West. A similar condition exists in 700 South; there is a 24-inch transmission line that requires a parallel 12-inch main line. If the RR has frontage on 700 S. the RR will be expected to do the extension. Water mains will also be required along any other frontage on a public ROW. A bigger concern is that 4800 West has been planned as the location for a 16-inch loop connecting the 700 South Transmission line to the 1300 South transmission line and grids to the 2100 South transmission line. The RR and PU will need to find a way to make this grid while considering the cutting of 4800 West. The RR will be required to pick up this cost. Sewer - is available for the project in a 27-inch sewer trunk line in 4800 West. The difficult issue here is that, once again, PU planning has been that 4800 West would be the main ROW in the area, so PU has pointed major utilities to that corridor. This sewer trunk line has been designed (and constructed) to take the sewer load from a large portion of the west side. A preliminary look shows that relocation of this pipe may not be feasible because of depths and slopes. If this is the case, the RR will have to make provisions and concessions to allow 24-hour access to the pipe (without notice in a sewer emergency). Casings to protect pipes and manholes will need to be designed and constructed at RR expense. Storm Drainage - Is not currently available to this property. There are some poorly defined ditches through this and neighboring properties, but the capacity is far from adequate to service the RR property. Off-site improvements will be required. This property must also make provisions for natural drainage that has historically flowed from the properties to the south. It is highly unlikely that, even with off-site drainage improvements, this property will be allowed to discharge the typical 0.2 cubic feet per second per acre of stain' water. A very large Petitions 400-02-06,400-02-07,400-02-11, Case 410-528 By Salt Lake City Planning Division May 16,2002 9 detention pond will be needed. The airport will be interested in bird strike potential. Public Utilities will work with the design engineers to resolve the above- mentioned issues. There will be additional typical design matters that will be worked out during the design and permitting phases of this project." Refuse Collection - Staff has made several requests to the Streets & Sanitation Division to get a determination whether refuse collection is an issue but has been unsuccessful in obtaining a response to date. Staff will continue to tr to obtain a response prior to the Planning Commission hearing. Findings: Public Facilities are adequate to service the proposed facility provided approval by the Salt Lake International Airport, Public Utilities Division and Streets & Sanitation Division is obtained. Given the changes in land use over time, and public facilities are adequate or can be designed appropriately, Staff does not foresee any problems with rezoning the property from "CG" to "M-1" as proposed. TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT / STREET CLOSURE / DECLARATION OF SURPLUS PROPERTY In order to accommodate several proposed rail spurs on the property. the applicants are requesting that the City close and declare surplus a 1,220 foot section of 4800 West Street between 700 and 900 South. The Salt Lake City Major Street Plan, an element of the City-wide Transportation Master Plan, identifies 4800 West Street as a minor arterial street. It is an existing 2-lane road that extends from 700 South to the 2100 South frontage road. The street closure would create a 3,060 foot long dead-end street extending from California Avenue (1300 South) north to the applicants property. In closing the street, the Transportation Master Plan must be amended. Transportation Division - The applicants have provided a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the facility which addresses the proposed street closure. The City's Transportation Division has reviewed the TIA. Their comments concerning the proposed street closure are as follows: I. The proposed closure of 4800 West will result in a dead-end road. If approved, the closure will require a cul-de-sac type turn around area be built which meets the city's commercial/industrial standards for a cul-de-sac. Petitions 400-02-06,400-02-07,400-02-11, Case 410-528 By Salt Lake City Planning Division May 16,2002 10 2. From the proposed location of the southern property line of the UPRR Intermodal Facility and the location of the old landfill, there is enough available land for future development. Such development would require the construction of a street connecting 4800 West and 5600 West, in the vicinity of approximately 1000 South. While this road would help mitigate the impacts to the transportation system caused by the closure of 4800 West and the resulting long cul-de-sac, the lack of development in this area doesn't necessitate the construction of a road at this time, Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Transportation Division that a location for this road be deteitnined and that this new road be built from 5500 West to 5600 West as part of the UPRR Intennodal Facility project. The UPRR project access driveway should connect to this road rather than directly to 5600 West. This change would keep only one new access point on 5600 West, but would move the proposed access point farther to the south. UPRR should be required to participate in the future construction costs of half the road from 5500 West to 4800 West when the road is needed due to future development. The Transportation Division is currently updating the City's Transportation Master Plan. If the proposed closure of 4800 West is implemented, the Transportation Division is recommending changes to the roadway classifications of 4400 West and 4800 West Streets. The Transportation Division's comments regarding amending the Transportation Master Plan are as follows: 1. While not a part of this project, as development occurs on the property along the east side of 4800 West between 700 South and California Avenue, a road connecting 4800 West with 4400 West should be included. This connection would help mitigate the impacts to the transportation system caused by the closure of 4800 West. Because of the existing railroad spur line, which provide freight rail service to the Centennial Industrial Park area, a crossing of this spur line would be needed in order for this road to be constructed. Since two main line rail crossings, one on 4800 West and one on 5600 West, would be eliminated if this project is approved, the UPRR should agree to allow a new future crossing of the spur line when this connecting roadway is built. 2. The Transportation Division is in the process of updating the city's Transportation Master Plan. If the proposed closure of 4800 West is approved, the Transportation Division will recommend the following changes / additions to the Major Street Plan as part of the Transportation Master Plan update process: a. The street classification of 4400 West between 700 South and California Avenue be changed from a local to either a collector or arterial street depending on future needs. b. A new street connecting 4800 West and 5600 West at approximately 1000 South be added. This street will be a local from 4800 West to 5500 West and a collector from 5500 West to 5600 West. The drawing below illustrates the recommended street alignments and roadway classification changes as recommended by the Transportation Division. Petitions 400-02-06,400-02-07,400-02-11, Case 410-528 By Salt Lake City Planning Division May 16,2002 11 -te zya a 1 t�aa 77 A 7_ 3 c � � t£x �` - r ',- t :� as ' -, "C30.' s' ,� ' -"` ,,I, "ir't..',- s •=i, -1=`-''''''AVT,'.‘• k:.J i..70 V-5 S. ` ;='z &,:-,,•'s mot ._ '` 4 ' .. :1y fs a� �€ "1-• ..+ - F :1 k ,; t i ' , .i fix. -'7,4,,•.''" •rt, c ,,,fo,,I,::. '-'''.-.'--', ,Z‘Z.- ---:ta-,'-It_ ,i'' t , , a., z n g a s' *" .4 4,14 1. yt a -., $�i- *if*-- O. i- ,, K i sr,; : :7-',li C,%,,, r 3, ' 1�X-._' a. -"=a ,.-- r. t `,:f34:?;.- -ri'7''', 11411;,.:X ,t,-.W.it -,,,k7,. 1='=!.• '''•- t iIiI_ "� t ., #, s'. om- W.?'- .k':tt4_:'=' Z .� - .-A,\.',.1" Engineering Division — The City's Engineering Division also strongly recommends a new street connecting 4800 West with either 4400 West or 5600 West. Public Utilities Department — The Public Utilities Department is "concerned about the closure of 4800 West Street as it will become a significant barrier to current and future north-south utilities. There is an existing 27-inch sewer trunk line in the right of--way. Careful engineering will be required to protect the existing sewer line, including casing under tracks and re-spacing manholes. Agreements are needed allowing 24-hour access, without notice, for Public Utility crews to maintain the pipe. Another option that the developer may choose is to re-route the sewer pipe in an exclusive 50 foot wide easement." Traffic Impact Analysis: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) provided by the applicant proposes the following be implemented on 4800 West Street: 1. Provide a "No Outlet" sign on 4800 West (for northbound traffic) just north of California Avg 1ue and include a "3000 Feet" distance plaque with the sign. 2. The street classification of 4800 West north of California Avenue be changed from an arterial to a local. Impact The City's Departmental recommendations and recommendations of the Traffic Analysis provided by the applicant should be incorporated into the conditions of approval for the street closure. Petitions 400-02-06,400-02-07,400-02-11, Case 410-528 By Salt Lake City Planning Division May 16,2002 12 Planning Division: If the street closure is approved by the City Council, the Planning Commission needs to make a recommendation to the Administration that the street property be declared as surplus property and disposed of in accordance with City Code, Section 2.58. CONDITIONAL USE Conditional use approval for the railroad freight terminal will be required if the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment is adopted by the City. The Planning Commission is the approval body for conditional uses. Conditional use approval should be contingent upon adoption of the text amendment and rezoning. The review standards for Conditional Uses are as follows: CODE CRITERIA / DISCUSSION / FINDINGS OF FACT 21.54.080 Standards for Conditional Uses. A. The proposed development is one of the conditional uses specifically listed in this Title. Discussion: The proposed development will require conditional use approval if the pending zoning text amendment to allow railroad freight terminals in the "M- 1" zoning district and rezoning is approved. Any action on this item should be conditioned upon adoption of the proposed ordinance. Finding: Approval of the proposed facility should be conditioned upon adoption of the zoning ordinance text amendment. B. The proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Z itle and is compatible with and implements the planning goals and objectives of the City, including applicable City master plans. Discussion: A discussion of master plan compatibility is discussed in Section A of the Zoning Amendment section above. Finding: The proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title and is compatible with and implements the planning goals and objectives of the City, including applicable City master plans. C. Streets or other means of access to the proposed development are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic and will not materially degrade the service level on the adjacent streets. Petitions 400-02-06,400-02-C7,400-02-11, Case 410-528 By Salt Lake City Planning Division May 16,2002 13 Discussion: A discussion of vehicular impacts to 5600 West is discussed in the Zoning Amendment Section above. There are rail crossings on both 5600 West and 700 South Streets which need to be considered as part of this development. Impacts of Proposed Rail Improvements on 5600 West Street — The traffic study anticipates the proposed facility will create minor impacts on the adjacent street system and nearby intersections. The study states that "There will be no increase in through train volume at the 5600 West / 800 South combined at-grade crossing due to the proposed facility. The train impact will be a moderate increment of delay that will occur when two trains per day will cross 5600 West at 15 mph to leave the facility. One of these trains will conduct set out and pick up maneuvers across 5600 West Street during the PM peak period." The Traffic Impact Analysis concludes that " The proposed Union Pacific Facility will create minor impacts to the 5600 West roadway, the two intersections at 700 South and California Avenue and the at-grade (rail) crossing at 800 South."... The proposed facility "will not increase the number of trains that are currently entering the Salt lake City area nor does the new facility increase the train traffic that currently crosses 5600 West Street. The only impact is a small increment of delay that will occur when two trains per day will cross 5600 West at 15 mph to leave the facility". The Traffic Impact Analysis also states that "Train switching operations for the facility will be done from the east end of the proposed facility. Limited set outs and pick ups of cars will occur on the west end of the facility but not in a manner that will continuously block the grade crossing during the set out/ pick up operation." Staff does not foresee any short-term problems with this. As mentioned above, 5600 West Street is a State road. UDOT was originally contemplating requiring an over-pass as part of this development, but is now looking at a single at grade crossing on 800 South. The applicants are also proposing improvements to the 5600 West / 1000 South intersection. Protected left hand turn lanes will be provided including a short acceleration lane for south bound trucks leaving the facility. Any improvements on 5600 West will require their approval. As traffic increases on 5600 West in the future, or if the street is improved, a grade separated crossing may be needed. 700 South Crossing — According to the Transportation Division "A number of years ago the city had determined the need to adjust the alignment of 700 South in the vicinity of the existing rail line crossing at approximately 4900 West in order to improve the rail line crossing. This realignment of 700 South entailed both vertical and horizontal design changes. While the current alignment of 700 South and rail line crossing are not directly impacted by the UPRR project, this project does eliminate the ability of the city to realign 700 South as previously determined. However, it is felt at this time that the rail line crossing can be improved by fixing the vertical alignment of 700 South with minimal change to the horizontal alignment. Because of the impacts to the city's transportation network in this area by the closure of 4800 West, it is the recommendation of the Petitions 400-02-06,400-02-07,400-02-11, Case 410-528 By Salt Lake City Planning Division May 16,2002 14 Transportation Division that the City and the UPRR jointly participate in the costs to improve 700 South and the rail crossing at approximately 4900 West." The City's Engineering Division also recommends this crossing be upgraded as part of this project. UPRR and the City Transportation and Engineering Divisions should work together to improve the 700 South rail crossing. Finding: Streets or other means of access to the proposed development are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic and will not materially degrade the services level on the adjacent streets provided UDOT approval is obtained and Transportation and Engineering Departmental concerns are addressed including the recommended improvements for the 700 South railroad grade crossing. D. The internal circulation system of the proposed development is properly designed. Discussion: Interior roads are properly designed for the proposed use. Finding: The internal circulation system of the proposed development is properly designed. E. Existing or proposed utility services are adequate for the proposed development and are designed in a manner that will not have an adverse impact on adjacent land uses or resources. Discussion: The adequacy of utility services is addressed in the Zoning Amendment section above. The Public Utilities Department is concerned about storm drainage outflow on the property and the size of detention area that will be necessary to accommodate storm water runoff. The applicants will need to work closely with thc. Public Utilities Department to address their concerns. Finding: Existing utility services are adequate for the proposed facility and will not have an adverse impact on adjacent land uses or resources, provided departmental concerns can be addressed. F. Appropriate buffering is provided to protect adjacent land uses from light, noise and visual impacts. Discussion: Other adjoining uses are industrial and will not be adversely affected by the proposed use. The proposed facility will not be highly visible to the surrounding area as it is an interior parcel of land. A lighting plan should be submitted to and approved by the Airport/Federal Aviation Administration. Finding: At this location, no significant impacts from light, noise or visual impacts are anticipated. As this facility will operate 24 hours per day, a lighting plan should be provided to and approved by the Airport. Petitions 400-02-06,400-02-07,400-02-11, Case 410-528 By Salt Lake City Planning Division May 16,2002 15 G. Architecture and building materials are consistent with the development and compatible with the adjacent neighborhood. Discussion: The buildings have not been designed to date. Building plans will need to be submitted and approved by the City's Building Permits and Licensing Division. Finding: Architecture and building materials are consistent with the development and compatible with other existing structures in the area. H. Landscaping is appropriate for the scale of the development. Discussion: The applicants are working on a landscaping plan that will need to meet "M-l" zoning standards. .)he landscaping plan should be approved by the Planning Director. Finding: A landscaping plan will need to be provided and approved by the Planning Director. The proposed development preserves historical architectural and environmental features of the property. Discussion: The site is not located in a historic district, therefore, review by the City's Historic Landmarks Commission is not necessary. Finding: The proposed development preserves historical, architectural and environmental features of the property. J. Operating and delivery hours are compatible with adjacent land uses. Finding: Operating and delivery hours are compatible with adjacent land uses. K. The proposed conditional use or, in the case of a planned development, the permitted and conditional uses contained therein, are compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole. The proposed use is compatible with adjoining land uses and will not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood or on the City. Finding: The proposed conditional use is compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole. Petitions 400-02-06,400-02-07,400-02-11, Case 410-528 By Salt Lake City Planning Division May 16,2002 16 L. The proposed development complies with all other applicable codes and ordinances. Discussion:Other departmental requirements and concerns are as follows: Public Utilities: The City's Public Utilities Department has raised the following concerns that will need to be addressed: 1. There are considerable storm drainage issues that need to be resolved. There is not a storm drainage outfall that has capacity to service this property, even at the 0.2 cfs / acre discharged allowed after detention. There is an unnamed ditch on the property that possibly could be improved, both on and off-site. to provide some discharge. Ihis project will be required to provide best management practices for storm water quality. Drainage from properties upstream from this site must also be accommodated by the drainage design for this property. 2. 'Isis project will require a large pond of water for storm water detention. In addition to the drainage design,the airport will be interested in the pond as a bird attractant. 3. Another concern is that this project is estimating the need fbr 97 acres of asphalt surface. This amount of dark surface will create a significant heat island. In the late 1990's, the I/PA launched the studies of heat islands. Salt Lake City was one of five cities chosen for the study. It is hoped that this project gives consideration to mitigation by design. 4. Copies of environmental assessments of the property will also be required for review. Engineering Division: The City's Engineering Division has the following comments: 1. The developer must enter into a subdivision improvement construction agreement for any street improvements required. 2. As new rail crossings over the Brighton Canal are proposed,approval by the owner of the canal is required. Management Services: Management Services concerns are as follows: 1. The project is proposing 97 acres of hard-surface;likely asphalt.Asphalt is dark and will create a large heat island,the type of thing that cities are trying to avoid. Alternatives would he using a lighter-colored concrete, and mandating significant planting in the area. 2. No matter what the hard surface, this much impervious area will create drainage and storm water issues. Public Utilities has more information on this -one alternative that would cover both of these issues would be to Petitions 400-02-06,900-02-07,900-02-11, Case 910-528 By Salt Lake City Planning Division May 16,2002 17 require a peimeable surface to be used. This could be a light color, and would allow water to seep through it into the ground. 3. Large amounts of standing water will attract birds and could be a problem for the airport. Airport: The Salt Lake City Department of Airports is concerned about minimizing areas that will attract birds, including large storm water retention areas and large numbers of trees. Aircraft regularly fly over this site. The Airport recommends that detention areas be built and managed to minimize the water collection areas as bird habitat. The detention areas should allow standing water for only an approximate 48-hour period. It is also recommended that large numbers of trees not be required for this area to assist with reducing bird habitat near the airport's runways. Planning Division: Conditional Use approval should be contingent upon the applicants obtaining subdivision approval through an administrative hearing process. The City is protecting a 1 50' wide right-of-way street corridor along 5600 West. The City also is protecting 84 feet of street right-of-way for future widening of 700 South Street. Property should be dedicated along the property frontages sufficient to accommodate these corridors. An Avigation Easement should be required to allow aircraft over flight as a condition of approval. Approval of the request should be subject to meeting all applicable City, County, State and Federal requirements. City Departmental requirements are attached and are discussed above. A letter from the US Army Corp. Of Engineers should be required as a condition of approval assuring no wetlands will be impacted. Finding: The proposed development must meet all applicable City, County, State and Federal codes and ordinances. General Findings: Finding: The 900 South Railroad issues are not related to this project. Finding: Future commuter rail and light rail transit opportunities will come if these freight facilities are allowed to be relocated. Finding: Mitigation of the railroad impacts to 700 South Street is necessary. Finding: This is the best site for this facility. Petitions 400-02-06,400-02-07,400-02-11, Case 410-528 By Salt Lake City Planning Division May 16,2002 18 Recommendation: Based on the findings contained in this Report,Staff Recommends the following: 1. Ordinance Text Amendment: Staff recommends amending Table 21A28.040, Table of Permitted And Conditional Uses for ManufacturingDistricts: to allow a railroad freight terminal facility as a conditional use in the"M-I"zoning district. 2. Rezoning: Staff recommends that the western portion of the property fronting 5600 West Street be rezoned front"CG"to"M-I"as proposed,subject to meeting all City departmental requirements including approval by the Salt Lake International Airport/FAA and L1DO.f. 3. Transportation Master Plan Amendment /Street Closure /Declaration of Surplus Property: Staff recommends that the Transportation Master Plan be amended as follows: a. A future road connecting 4800 West with 4400 West should be added to the Major Street Plan. b. The street classification of 1400 West between 700 South and California Avenue be changed from a local to a collector or arterial street as determined by the Transportation Division. c. A new street connecting 4800 West and 5600 West at approximately 1000 South be added. 'Ibis street will be a local from 4800 West to 5500 West and a collector front 5500 West to 5600 West. d_ The street classification of 4800 West north of California Avenue be changed from an arterial to a local street. Staff recommends that the City close and declare as surplus property the segment of 4800 West between approximately 700 and 900 South subject to: a. Meeting all departmental requirements and addressing the concerns of the Public Utilities Department. b. UPRR agreeing to allow a future crossing of the spur line for the future road connecting 4800 West to 4400 West. 4800 West Street a. Creating a cul-de-sac to City standards for the new terminus of 4800 West Street. b. Participation in the future construction costs of half the road from 5500 West to 4800 West when the road is needed due to future development. c. Provide a "No Outlet" sign on 4800 West (for northbound traffic)just north of California Avenue and include a "3000 Feet" distance plaque with the sign. d. Construction and dedication of the proposed 1000 South Street between 5600 West and 5500 West and realigning the main access driveway to tie Petitions 400-02-06,900-02-07,400-02-11, Case 410-528 I3y Salt lake City Planning Division May 16,2002 19 into the new street as a driveway or, UPRR entering into an agreement with the City to construct and dedicate the street and realign the driveway when it is needed in the future. 5600 West Street a. Proposed improvements to 5600 West must be reviewed and approved by UDOT. 700 South Rail Crossing a. UPRR and the City jointly investigate improving the 700 South rail crossing at approximately 4900 West by widening the roadway to full future width (84 feet) and correcting the vertical curve design to improve sight distances and upgrading the railroad crossing gates and barriers. 4. Conditional Use: Staff recommends conditional use approval subject to: a. Adoption of the proposed zoning text amendment to allow a rail freight terminal in the "M-1" zoning district. b. Designing the automobile parking and rail freight container storage areas to minimize the potential "heat island" affect. c. Minimizing the need for on-site storm water detention acceptable to the Airport Authority and Public Utilities Departments. d. Subdivision approval including construction agreements on roadways and utilities. e. Obtaining a letter from the Army Corp. of Engineering / verification that any wetlands will not be disturbed or will be mitigated. f. Airport approval of a lighting plan. g. A landscaping plan be submitted and approved by the Planning Director. h. Meeting all applicable City, State and Federal requirements. i. Dedication of property along 5600 West sufficient for a 150' wide right- of-way and dedication of the property frontage on 700 South to 84 feet as required by the Transportation Division. Dedication of street right-of-way for the 5500 West / 1000 South Street connections or, UPRR entering into an agreement with the City to construct and dedicate the street and realign the driveway when it is needed in the future. j. The property owners signing an Avigation Easement. k. Implementation of the recommendations in the Transportation Impact Study. Petitions 400-02-06,400-02-07,400-02-11, Case 410-528 By Salt Lake City Planning Division May 16,2002 20 Exhibit 1 Community Council Letter Petitions 400-02-06,400-02-07,900-02-11, Case 410-528 By Sall Lake City Planning Division May 16,2002 20 Memorandum for Record—UPRR IntermodaIAutomobile Facility at 5600 West Presentations to West Salt Lake Community Council, March 20, 2002 and the Poplar Grove Community Council March 27, 2002. As a part of the process to consider several zoning and related actions by the Salt Lake Planning Commission and the Salt Lake City Council, UTA and UP were asked to present the proposed construction of the 5600 West freight intermodal facility to the West Salt Lake Community Council and the Poplar Grove Community Council. The following persons attended and/or presented material describing the proposed replacement intei„iodal facility at 5600 West Street in Salt Lake City; Name Organization March 20— West March 27 —Poplar Salt Lake Grove Gary Luenenborg UP Yes No Bob Stephan UP Yes Yes Mike Furtney UP Yes Yes P D Kiser— Parsons Parsons Yes Yes Charlie DeWeese Parsons Yes Yes Mike Allegra UTA Yes No Jeff Harris UTA Yes Yes At the West Salt Lake meeting, Mike Allegra described the proposed UTA Commuter Rail Program between Brigham City and Payson and the various rights UTA was in the process of acquiring from UP as part of the Corridor Preservation Program. He referred to large map of the area showing the area between Brigham City and Payson. He specifically identified the need to relocate two UP facilities whose presence prevents the development of commuter rail between Salt Lake City and Ogden. Those facilities are the freight intermodal facility on the north side of Salt Lake City, commonly called Beck Street, and the Clearfield Automobile Unloading Facility. The two facilities will be relocated to a common site at 5600 West. P D Kiser presented the preliminary results of the traffic study being conducted to support various zoning and related applications. He referred to a map showing the greater Salt Lake area and a smaller display showing the layout of the proposed facility. In general, he said that the additional traffic generated by the new facility would be significantly less than the traffic generated by the most likely future land use, industrial and commercial, the historic trend of the area. He estimated that the new facility on 239 acres would generate about 500 trips per day. Commercial and industrial development of that acreage would generate about 15,000 trips per day. Several audience participants asked about the potential routings of trucks on California Avenue, with major concern about truck use east of Redwood Road. Trucks are restricted from using California Avenue east of Redwood Road, except for local deliveries. P D explained that truck traffic generally tends to seek Interstate routes and limited access routes such as I-80 and I-215 and Utah 201. On April 1, P D Kiser notified the city that the truck restriction signs appeared to be missing for eastbound traffic on California Avenue. Many audience participants expressed concern about the recent use of the UP line paralleling 900 South for through freight trains. They view the use as contrary to the Gateway Development plan, specifically Phase 3, which called for a portion of the line to be abandoned. These participants asked whether there was a connection between the 5600 West intermodal facility and the use of the 900 South line. Gary Luenenborg said that there was no connection, and Bob Stephan said that the 900 South line is being used only for manifest trains (general merchandise in box cars, covered hopper cars, tank cars, flat cars, etc) and for coal trains (generally open top hopper cars). Intermodal trains, that would use the proposed new facility, operate to and from the east via Ogden and Cheyenne. The trains using the 900 South line operate to the east via Provo and Helper toward Denver. Two of the trains are BNSF trackage rights trains using UP tracks as a condition of SIB approval of the UP/SP merger. Several audience participants stated that they believe they were misled about Gateway and the 900 South line. There was also concern expressed about UP's haulage of sulphuric acid in tank cars on the line. Bob Stephan explained that the UP has transported the acid for a long time, and that there have been no special problems as a result. After considerable discussion, the West Salt Lake Community Council passed a resolution approving of the new intermodal facility only if use of the 900 South line is discontinued. At the Poplar Grove Community Council Jeff Harris made essentially the same presentation that Mike Allegra had made at the West Salt Lake Community Council meeting the previous week. Questions about the 900 South line came from the audience sooner than the previous week, and more safety issues about the trains. The proximity of the line to schools that area residents attend was discussed, and the need for children to cross the line was discussed. P D Kiser made essentially the same presentation as he had the previous week. Discussion focused more on the 900 South line than on the use of California Avenue by trucks. After discussion, including suggestions as to solution-seeking tactics that the Council could take to mitigate the impacts of the 900 South line, the Poplar Grove Community Council adopted a resolution similar to the one adopted the previous week, approving of the new intermodal facility only if use of the 900 South line is discontinued. E 1'-014_ Vi7-60" n Ke(cf 3 o Z �t2Nk . p li sMItttt<<+) at,p di CI)) TRA luoiL Poplar Grove Community Council passed the following motion unanimously, April 24, 2002: Poplar Grove Community Council opposes the intermodal freight facility planned for the west side of our neighborhood. We are opposed to the addition of any heavy industrial facility to our neighborhood until the city has completed a master plan for this neighborhood, a master plan that takes into consideration the large amount of industry and transportation faciltities that are already hosted by this community. We insist that no project which exceeds existing zoning be approved until a master plan is adopted. As background for the motion above, we believe that the process being used to plan this facility for our neighborhood is too hurried and without study of impacts on the neighborhood, or consideration of the alternative uses the land proposed for rezoning. We expect that planning for large transportation infrastructure development in our city use a process that enables and encourages community involvement in the decision making process.). UTA's attempt to rush the public planning process should be rebuffed. The Poplar Grove Community Council adopted the above motion to address the mayor's staffs concern about the motion that we hurriedly adopted at our March meeting. The concern was that the motion we unanimously adopted connected two issues that are not connected; apparently the decision to locate a freight yard on the west side of our neighborhood swallow'ng and disgorging freight trains onto the tracks that now surround Poplar Grove must be made independently of the fact that the tracks now surround Poplar Grove. We adopted the above motion because we believe that the objection raised frames the issue too narrowly. The issue framed more broadly is that we need a master plan that outlines strategies to improve our community. We adopted the following motion at our March 27th meeting; even though it was adopted hastily, it advances a goal that Salt Lake City's citizen's should strive to achieve: Poplar Grove Community Council endorses the placement of a freight intermodal center between 4400 and 5600 West if the 900 South Passenger Line is abandoned between Redwood Road and 600 West. The Poplar Grove Community Council supports good mass transit, and believes that healthy neighborhoods adjacent to downtown Salt Lake City and its transit hub are critical components of good transportation planning (passed unanimously, 30 votes in favor; March 27, 2002.) While it might be problematic to condition the approval of an intermodal freight facility on the west side of our neighborhood on the abandonment of the 900 South Passenger Line, the planning process should the issues we have raised. Exhibit 2 Aerial Photograph Petitions 400-02-06,400-02-07,400-02-11, Case 410-528 By Salt Lake City Planning Division May 16,2002 21 9 J # _ i _ ty day�'J 3 ii 'a n 4.. y C.. •.. "S 8 W �� ,.mot a a��r `�� c—Z ; � J Y � � xs � 1 n ,.-4--'.. .:,--„:. .%..,,..!! ,. ,-,'2 ..- 1.i--;-.•_`.1-.:'::', - ..,,....,...J.: .-:,...„,'„--„-...„,"/,,4 - .-..--:-::: : ',:::':: %,:ti- s n Q} iffre } 'k X; 3X t• � f 4. 1, ry Z' a H' R 11Z x. 2� `z y �" r �x .,s ,,,e 4-.(4.,,,v4,•,,,t.A-;,!,.-.0.,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,• -,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,,,,,,,, r,,,..........,Kt.,„;,„„...„...,„,..,..,,, a is tf = 7 `r 1 -gI6 F' i e ' '' Zx( ) ' ,r }� �' , a--' .. „ `'* " " " s,h, -C ' Y ` ' • ;d _0 ,ai �> �wt { z?2 _ -.i A-A-44-zil,k,,mcs,;,-.,.!,,g.'%-.'.i:',.:,V.,.:4-_'..,. ,. .A.,;;;.z-t.,,,,,,.,trt :44,,,,,ft.. i.„.I.:-.pi ---,-,,:,-:),.-1,-,- 1,,,: - >aE^ _ �1? y.a i"Ri „, ; }. r 2� -.' s 1. ` 'c ,s : ,t _ r- -...,,;+ o e 4 5 z• '4 '.. kK ' w�� —pit } �f a t 4g 1. e d r ,,:eta •`, .,7 3.' 4 ',: }as4 tyQ' N . , .o 'fC..'y .v 6e"' ,. w.5 `-,^t:ia+s s`a r' a Exhibit 3 Site plan Petitions 400-02-06,400-02-07,400-02-11, Case 410-528 By Salt Lake City Planning Division May 16,2002 22 h l.L y �r I a? k 34.if, Y r,_,:,,,-,,.„1,,,,„,,.,,,, — s ' d.,... f 1'7S ' Z x 42 s- k 11 n ! SCR V 1 ,. y_� y,yL`'//,4, Ohl , ,NrAx'd 4 \ 1 y X I S..r j'/ Z i hb & ,i II /: 1;! I � v� x� ' % I - 1 pry / `� o q ry 1 1P� � v � �1,N .1- Ii •l i �G"'�,'�- i t Ali x dam' � � € 4 - ae Ir Y; fi=- -— — 6,✓ ,V, ,{�w r ram \j kl l \ � ��LL t� 1 Y' Air I�� ¢llrs l` 3�1i' ^�^-v�°-'l�itll A� "ny g,«v i \ o �J`3 .� i vI `� I II IJ J �- o, r 0 cH \ 4 ,/F es) 2� Q� I �! 4 2 q¢ "iQ M/...'' \L 1 '�✓' 7-- -, ;rwy S.i` 4 i'; r ( w �C .' I�y 'I o: I 1 .,, Tl � a+_/ a '�nF. I at x,2'I !'li • W .II II. :f l 1`,0"V�\1. 1 1d A� q�r ,.I • ,C 1 ar✓ r u> ';V ,' �r I + '1,91�� Ii. �o i f` IEh 1 4 � r p� qg 1 Y•v + I -I •, , 91 �I I q� e�,,, '!. I ��hi1� 77.1 , �11-„,,I w a r2t• 6 ? , i ,?1,� " I�11 1, I�h 1 _-,U,. .* „ii r7.1�1 �� 'j I I jg ij iI�� 41 jd 1� ,I '�1 %,_ ,,,km,,;,,,;-,� ✓/1 1 141 FV !I I \\\ ffl l II r s "a v,! ,- r 7 pit 1 A IIf�• I� { te ,� ' 1, of a+ 1 I i17:1 in''')')' ''''' �l I 1 ,ll � �nV6\ ot. Il .,, . . .4,,,,„ ,_,,,,.,7_,..,7,...„7_,;\,.. -.1 \c- \ V 1 ,r I �1,�,D IJ1• J ,:7X)::, 1 ,\y, 4 Yl ,i \\ /,, � • ICIA14 h),l 1 ,,_, . , :,,,,, N 1 �z V,� 9 ,, r� r7 Q1 ,' ,, ` L:JLJL l10� o�a RELOCATED INTERMODAL FACILITY _____.,...:. _„.„ ,_ , .. -�- ..,- .......----- ....„- __. ._..„ .._ ........ . ` p" fir. y.. F� o¢, - .--" � snNc s RAN ExanNc 7(X)SOUTH ..R .'4 ✓••-- '- __. — SS \ S_ - _[ ss SElYER___ l ' - �•.rr�•.w.'• ^®o..aw �._c......, ..._ .9u 9J4.- EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER' _ " I ' - EXIS RNG TIWCX . _ - s ..sm."•r® ` .e•- +� [ •1198.60J7' ...,..... - EXISTING;UP RW `` ..,. 4- . ��`h.•. Q /F �,. t5 � ' "`" "W 6 �••.• N �^"`.` PROPOSED UP PROPERTY ONE lyry•' r•...'. M s!w �'iii._�r RE alvrtoN AREA \`§• +i,�, �`�.,w.• ,T.�� - h .•�^•,n+•. 4iw.1�, Y:a..` (1e 5 ACj Q :`3. _ J11;\� A4 ' EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER so• 1 M yews" EXISTING OKWIFAD r/ - .. \N. ,n Nam+v �j�..�. REEfX.ATED hWK LWE F POWER ,M4f" ' �Q EXISTNG OVERHEAD POWER DOST 50 OVERHEAD POWER N 1' •, •°"� 2v�� SIOItAL,E TRACKS(5) P ` /—EXISTING OVEF°RFAD o R (O➢9 gB�![ _.y- •• B'OWN GM FENCE B'EGAN LWK FEND �� , `� ., 161 SPACES f Ay,I67 SPACES W 1�tyyfjpp� `1 �y��ry�` 7MMER fALET 1 LVE V "� 83xI03 BUILDING !1 I!t!t ri is[Iq IP•pl Nf I6a ,,,;!I'.X••!I 1Je•1 'Kri k{ti.l''!d 11! 1.qi 11.I �,0 4111lt 1�I11(li,.Y lill l'IIf I it LH 1,N,I!Ilxii l�M.11161,11141./.N. l&.,r, ,ILA�I 11U 1�'tlIII i�ll;UIi, ..WWIIt N GL di "IS'IANDSGJWEO =,�� STRUCTURE 1 i 1! 1 ° 1 1 R'I.- l N9 I'•^ 't I I !HIl 0 I 1 YIIN{I 1 n hi I 'f I 'll I7 i{y t\ 1NWERML1nN" -•_:F770)JT YARD �?-Zr^ (/RYA7(AfA)NR NANCE) .,•..•,.. •••�..•.,-••.y .•,.,•., 161 SW'ACES � i67 SPACES �FRAMP pj, �. 1 I,� 8D]&1'RNLDING .: ..y rY1Rr "e� ; _.,. � _-,,:_ .. : �,: _ ,,,m. STRUCTURE ® 'i/TANASE - 10.9 SPACES K9 SPACES •�...._ v moo, - fADAVNISTRAT10N' .. - { Y• p " 4M .• . NI :.TRUCK AcvNTExankE) �+ ...rib',��nuq x! ImI�a vnuBLl l w t 1 - umli (1{l Q t ua Iht liJ�mF{fdfim�il�an yU3ntG6 Mi!I wlStli P _. s� ... � 'e ® • .0 .u 1 w 1 4 1 4.1.11, i !IIJ'1)'(1t!'EI ti lip EXISTING OKRIEAD �f•s .-., ,,, ,• _ P -- POWER .' w1 ,,,SPAIEs - AVID RAW']RACXS(21 62 SPAGX3 I. 4 4q- o l �—DUSTING TRAcx , ^—`-F +"'*'. \`i I. / ..,,.,.,,,,n... Y-W 1�' .%• " ' ExLsnNG r' F'°kE," br `.. '^ , 60'PAVED ACCESS ROAD / ■ J- • t 1J'SANITARY ". SEINER 41 _R: 1 . 1111111111- ' � - -- ''"- _-�I�`111/1��I 11111:: f�A/tF. :' , SEWER,`.. s P i � �� . NS 5600 WEST INTERMODAL FACILII �1^1eG�— 30'''6°.WIIDWG S7R(/CR/RE ANWWE � u 1` "" ' sa.°�°°' S"�"° ® -----°®- -- J PRELIMINARYSITEPLAN 1sL. 30..0'DUIDTAG S• .. A°NIS7RA - ay. IXIS7Arri OVERHEAD FCWER % (AO TReNI 70.3J STA1L$ W{JLE/71L10QAL B'CRaN LINK SECURITY .- " Nwo RUIDING SMUG •, (AOAMKsniv-IOWlli(A�(M4WIENNL� T&4i EtAYSI' AUfO' PROFYJSED t/P MOTET'VW .. SCKE NO SCALE IXISTFVG 36"WATER 0M2'GUARD HE It 508IR11bER 9E LSF - DATE. � 10• ET JOR i LEGEND fl,,71,2,1 : ,A TRUCK PARKING STALLS +>..,..<.. TRUCWCONTAINER LOADINGUNLOADING TRACKS ---••--- PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE (PROPOSED AREA 238.75 AC) ffiflifflilgaxA AUTO PARKING STALLS .+s .. AUTO UNLOADING TRACKS M-1 MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS r='r x=- ) PAVED SURFACE ««««+. RELOCATED MAIN TRACK NONE OREQUIRED FOR INTERIOR SIDE YARD OR REAR YARD Exhibit 3 Departmental Comment Letters Petitions 400-02-06,400-02-07,400-02-11, Case 410-528 By Salt Lake City Planning Division May 16,2002 23 SALT LAKE CITY,OF AI RPORTS Interoffice Memo Date: May 6, 2002 To: Ray McCandless From: Allen McCandless Subject: UTA Union Pacific Railroad Transfer Yard I reviewed the proposed location for the UTA/Union Pacific Railroad transfer yard submitted to our office. The site is approximately 8000 feet southwest from the south end of runway 16R / 34L. Departing and arriving aircraft flights regularly cross over this site. To minimize possible bird strikes and wildlife conflicts with aircraft, the airport has an on-going program to minimize bird and wildlife habitat on airport property. The proposed rail yard site plan indicates 17.7 acres of retention area. Retention areas have the potential for providing attractive areas for birds. The airport recognizes that storm water collection areas are necessary for development. However, due to the proximity to the runways, it is recommended that detention areas be built and managed to minimize the water collection areas as bird habitat. The detention areas should allow standing water for only an approximate 48-hour period. Trees are required for development, but large numbers of new trees will provide resting and roosting areas for birds. It is recommended that large numbers of trees not be required for this area to assist with reducing bird habitat near the airport's runways. Contact me if you need additional information. McCandless, Ray From: Stewart, Brad Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 10:06 AM To: McCandless, Ray Subject: RR Intermodal Freight Facility Ray, Some comments on water, sewer, and storm drainage issues for the Intermodal Freight Facility at about 700 South 4400- 5600 W. Water- is available for this project. Ordinance requires that this project extend water mains along its frontage in any public street. There is a 36-inch water transmission line in 5600 West. The RR will be required to run a parallel 12-inch main the entire length of frontage on 5600 West. A similar condition exists in 700 South; there is a 24-inch transmission line that requires a parallel 12-inch main line. If the RR has frontage on 700 S. the RR will be expected to do the extension. Water mains will also be required along any other frontage on a public ROW. A bigger concern is that 4800 West has been planned as the location for a 16-inch loop connecting the 700 South Transmission line to the 1300 South transmission line and grids to the 2100 South transmission line. The RR and PU will need to find a way to make this grid while considering the cutting of 4800 West. The RR will be required to pick up this cost. Sewer- is available for the project in a 27-inch sewer trunk line in 4800 West. The difficult issue here is that, once again, PU planning has been that 4800 West would be the main ROW in the area, so PU has pointed major utilities to that corridor. This sewer trunk line has been designed (and constructed) to take the sewer load from a large portion of the west side. A preliminary look shows that relocation of this pipe may not be feasible because of depths and slopes. If this is the case, the RR will have to make provisions and concessions to allow 24-hour access to the pipe (without notice in a sewer emergency). Casings to protect pipes and manholes will need to be designed and constructed at RR expense. Storm Drainage - Is not currently available to this property. There are some poorly defined ditches through this and neighboring properties, but the capacity is far from adequate to service the RR property. Off-site improvements will be required. This property must also make provisions for natural drainage that has historically flowed from the properties to the south. It is highly unlikely that, even with off-site drainage improvements, this property will be allowed to discharge the typical 0.2 cubic feet per second per acre of storm water. A very large detention pond will be needed. The airport will be interested in bird strike potential. PU will work with the design engineers to resolve the above-mentioned issues. The purpose of this memo is to highlight the large or unusual conditions of this project. There will be additional typical design matters that will be worked out during the design and permitting phases of this project. Thanks, Brad 1 McCandless, Ray From: Larson, Bradley Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 12:25 PM OTso: McCandless, Ray ubject: UTA/Union Pacific Railroad Transfer Yard Ray, Please consider this note as Fire Department approval for the above named project . Note that additional fire hydrants may be required. The developer should contact the Fire Prevention Bureau for information and location of fire hydrants. Thank you, Brad Larson Deputy Fire Marshal • To: Ray McCandless Planning UTA/Union Pacific Railroad Transfer Yard From: Alicia Orgill/ Salt Lake City Police Date: May 6, 2002 - The Union Pacific Railroad Transfer Yard proposed relocation transfer yard from Beck Street to 5600 West would increase the traffic for that area. The ability to attract other type of business will be decrease the attractiveness of M-1 business to relocation to that location, Once the Zoning Ordnance amendment to a CG zoning district. Other areas of concern are the type of cargo that will be transported through our city by rail; will this cargo expose the neighborhood to dangerous materials for extended lengths of time when in storage at the transfer yard? The Blocked visibility that is assonated with Railroad Yards will increase the vehicular and foot traffic of transients looking for property that maybe discarder or miss-placed by truckers and rail yard employees. Last year Salt Lake City Police investigated an increasing number of Cargo Thefts in the industrial area, which affected many of the trucking companies and rail yard, several CPTED Principles were violated by this business which were contributing factors towards there victimization and loss. We developed specific training material for the trucking industry and a flyer for recommendation in methods to reduce victimization and loss. The lack of diversity in types of business in an industrial area such as West Salt Lake adds to the lack of eyes and ears in the area crating isolation. Adding to this isolation the industrial entrances, blind alleys and expansive parking areas you have the potential for an extremely unsafe environment. The importance of following CPTED Principles is very important when developing plans for building. McCandless, Ray From: Bennett,Vicki Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 10:58 AM o: McCandless, Ray Cc: McCandless, Allen; Stewart, Brad Subject: UTA/Union Pacific Transfer Yard There are a number of environmental concerns with this project; unfortunately, I'm not sure if we have ordinances to protect us at this time. I'm hoping that some of these issues can be handled at the conditional permit stage. Specifically: 1. The project is proposing 97 acres of hard- surface; likely asphalt. Asphalt is dark and will create a large heat island,the type of thing that cities are trying to avoid. Alternatives would be using a lighter-colored concrete, and mandating significant planting in the area. 2. No matter what the hard surface, this much impervious area will create drainage and stor,nwater issues. Brad Stewart has more information on this - one alternative that would cover both of these issues would be to require a permeable surface to be used. This could be a light color, and would allow water to seep through it into the ground. 3. Please be sure to talk to Allen, since large amounts of standing water will attract birds and could be a problem for the airport. Vicki Bennett Senior Environmental Advisor Salt Lake City Corporation 451 S. State St., Room 145 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 1801) 535-6540 i sAir OORK) r F OM LEROY W. HOOTON, JR. �� '�� ' �� -� ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES MAYOR WATER SUPPLY AND WATERWORKS April 24, 2002 WATER RECLAMATION AND STORMWATER Mr. Doug Wheelwright Salt Lake City Planning 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Re: Preliminary comments on UTA/UP Intermodal Freight Facility Dear Doug, The purpose of this letter is to provide Public Utilities comments on the preliminary proposal to construct an intermodal freight facility south of 700 South, from about 5600 to 4600 West. Public Utilities understands that the purpose of this facility is to transfer freight from rail cars to trucks. A significant element of this proposal is closing a portion of 4800 West Street. This project will also become a significant barrier to current and future north— south utilities. There is a 27-inch sewer trunk line in the Right-of-Way. Careful engineering will be required to protect existing sewer, including casings under tracks and re-spacing manholes. Agreements are needed allowing 24-hour access, without notice, for Public Utility crews to maintain the pipe. Another option that the developer may choose is to re-route the sewer pipe in a 50-foot exclusive easement. Storm drainage problems will also require considerable effort to resolve. There is not a storm drainage outfall that has capacity to service this property, even at the 0.2 cfs / acre discharged allowed after detention. There is an unnamed ditch on the property that possibly could be improved, both on-site and off-site, to provide some discharge. This project will be required to provide best management practices for storm water quality. Drainage from properties upstream from this site must also be accommodated by the drainage design for this property. This project will require a large pond of water for storm water detention. I addition to the drainage design criteria the airport will be interested in the pond as a bird attractant. Another concern is that this project is estimating the need for 97 acres of asphalt surface- This amount on dark surface will create a significant heat island. In the late 1990's the EPA launched the studies of Heat Islands. Salt Lake City was one of five City chosen for the study. It is hoped that this project gives consideration to mitigation by design. Copies of environmental assessments of the property will also be required for review. 1 530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 5 TELEPHONE: BO1-4133-6900 FAX: BO1-4B3-6131B Thank you for the opportunity to provide these initial comments. Brad Stewart (483-6733) will coordinate the review phase of this project for Public Utilities. Sincerely, hi/ Vtoo LeRoy W. ooton, Jr. Director LW /BDS cc: Alan McCandless,Airport Planner Vicki Bennett, Environmental Specialist Kevin Young, P.E., Transportation Scott Weiler,P.E., Engineering File SALT ill 12 Q I!IT CO-�- '��RP Q '1`. _ I,ON TIMOTHY P. HARPST, P.E. - �n os- ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION MEMORANDUM TO: Ray McCandless FROM: Kevin J. Young, P.E. Transportation Planning Engineer DATE: April 22, 2002 SUBJECT: Union Pacific Railroad Intermodal Facility The Transportation Division has reviewed the overall project and the traffic impact analysis for this project. Our review comments and recommendations are as follows: 1. 5600 West is a State road and under the jurisdiction of UDOT. Any issues or approvals regarding this road, such as project impacts or access points, must be addressed by UDOT. Proposed improvements to 5600 West must be reviewed and approved by UDOT. 2. The proposed closure of 4800 West will result in a dead-end road nearly 3,000 feet in length, which is about 4.5 times longer than is normally allowed for a dead-end road. If approved, the closure will require a cul-de-sac be built which meets the city's commercial/industrial standards for a cul-de-sac. 3. From the proposed location of the southern property line of the UPRR Intermodal Facility and the location of the old landfill, there is enough available land for future development. Such development would require the construction of a street connecting 4800 West and 5600 West, in the vicinity of approximately 1000 South. While this road would help mitigate the impacts to the transportation system caused by the closure of 4800 West and the resulting long cul-de- sac, the lack of development in this area doesn't necessitate the construction of a road at this time. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Transportation Division that a location for this road be determined and that this new road be built from 5500 West to 5600 West as part of the UPRR Intermodal Facility project. The UPRR project access should connect to this road rather than directly to 5600 West. This change would keep only one new access point on 5600 West,but would move the proposed access point farther to the south. UPRR should be required to participate in the future construction costs of half the road from 5500 West to 4800 West when the road is needed due to future development. 349 SOUTH 200 EAST, SUITE 450, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B4111 TELEPHONE: 801-535-6630 FAX: B01-535-6019 ®Acc.ceo owvcw 4. While not a part of this project, as development occurs on the property along the east side of 4800 West between 700 South and California Avenue, a road connecting 4800 West with 4400 West should be included. This connection would help mitigate the impacts to the transportation system caused by the closure of 4800 West. Because of the existing railroad spur line, a crossing of this spur line would be needed in order for this road to be constructed. Since two main line rail crossings, one on 4800 West and one on 5600 West, would be eliminated if this project is approved, the UPRR should agree to allow a new future crossing of the spur line. 5. A number of years ago the city had determined the need to adjust the alignment of 700 South in the vicinity of the existing rail line crossing at approximately 4900 West in order to improve the rail line crossing. This realignment of 700 South entailed both vertical and horizontal changes. While the current alignment of 700 South and rail line crossing are not directly impacted by the UPRR project, this project does eliminate the ability of the city to realign 700 South as previously determined. However, it is felt at this time that the rail line crossing can be improved by fixing the vertical alignment of 700 South with minimal change to the horizontal alignment. Because of the impacts to the city's transportation network in this area by the closure of 4800 West, it is the recommendation of the Transportation Division that the city and the UPRR jointly participate in the costs to improve 700 South and the rail crossing at approximately 4900 West. 6. The Transportation Division is in the process of updating the city's Transportation Master Plan. If the proposed closure of 4800 West is approved, the Transportation Division will recommend the following changes/additions to the Major Street Plan as part of the Transportation Master Plan update process: — The street classification of 4400 West between 700 South and California Avenue be changed from a local to a collector. — A new street connecting 4800 West and 5600 West at approximately 1000 South be added. This street will be a local from 4800 West to 5500 West and a collector from 5500 West to 5600 West. — The street classification of 4800 West north of California Avenue be changed from an arterial to a local. cc: Barry Walsh Scott Weiler Brad Stewart S .` _ r; ` „ IP� ORPO : 3IOls RICHARD GRAHAM �� —� +c�� ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES MAYOR TO: RAY McCANDLESS, PLANNING 1 FROM: SCOTT WEILER, P.E., ENGINEERING ,SA) APR 1 5 2002 -� DATE: APRIL 15, 2002 PLANNING DIVISIONS SUBJECT: UTA/Union Pacific Railroad Transfer Yard 800 South 5600 West City Engineering review comments are as follows: 1. 5600 West Street is a State road and must receive UDOT approval for the proposed driveway intersection into the project and any track removal or alteration of the existing railroad crossings from the 5600 West Street right-of-way. Any improvement requirements to 5600 West Street as part of this project, such as curb & gutter, will be determined by UDOT. 2. The proposed closure of 4800 West Street between 700 South and 800 South will cause 4800 West Street to become a dead end almost 3,000 feet long between 800 South and 1300 South. A new street connecting 4800 West with either 4400 West to the east or 5600 West to the west, is strongly recommended to decrease the length of the dead end, and to improve access and mobility lost through closure of this arterial street. If construction of this new street is made a condition of the closure of 4800 West, and therefore a condition of the proposed project, subdivision drawings consisting of plan and profile design drawings for the new street must be submitted to SLC Engineering and must comply with Salt Lake City Engineering design regulations. A pavement section design is required and the street section must be shown on the plans. If it is not a condition of the closure, a plan and profile design of the cul-de-sac at the end of 4800 West must be submitted for review and approval. Some of the significant requirements of the design drawings are as follows: Minimum design grade is 0.50%. The profile view for top of curb on each side of the street and centerline must be shown. The horizontal scale shall be 1"=20', l"=30' or 1"=40'. The vertical scale shall be one- tenth the horizontal scale. The minimum size lettering shall be 1/10" and capital letters shall be used. The north arrow shall point toward the top or left of the sheet with stationing progressing from west to east or from north to south. 3. We also recommend that the existing railroad crossing of 700 South Street at approximately 4900 West be upgraded by UDOT and the SLC Transportation Division as part of this project. SALT LAKE CITY ENGINEERING 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, SUITE 310, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B4111 TELEPHONE: B01-535-7961 FAX: BO1-535-6093 �-� necvcco PAncw Ray McCandless UTA/Union Pacific Railroad Transfer Yard Page 2 4. The developer must enter into a subdivision improvement construction agreement for any street improvements required. This agreement requires the payment of a stepped fee starting at 5% based on the estimated cost of constructing the street improvements. A copy of the agreement is attached. The developer should contact Joel Harrison (535- 6234) to discuss insurance requirements for the project. 5. The proposed plan shows several new crossings of relocated tracks over the Brighton Canal. The owner of the Brighton Canal must review and approve any modifications to the canal. 6. Alice Montoya (535-7248) in SLC Engineering will assign an address when a plat is submitted. A certified address is required prior to applying for a building permit. A plat should be submitted as soon as possible to allow the SLC Surveyor to begin his review. 7. The subdivision plat must conform to the requirements on the attached plat checklist. 8. The construction contractor must file a Notice of Intent with the State of Utah to comply with the NPDES permitting process. The Contractor must also submit a pollution prevention plan to the State. 9. At least one member of the concrete finishing crew must be ACI certified. The name of the ACI certified finisher must be provided at the pre-construction meeting for the subdivision. cc: Rick Johnston Brad Stewart Barry Walsh Vault INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Property Management Room 245 23 May 2002 TO: Doug Dansie Planning FROM: Linda Cordova Property Manager REF: Petition 400-02-11, Request to Close a Portion of 4800 West Request Made by UTA and UPRR Property Management has reviewed the referenced petition and has no objection to closure of that portion of 4800 West Street. In view of the commercial use of this area and in compliance with City Policy, it is my recommendation that portion of the street be sold at fair market value. It is the petitioner's responsibility to get and pay for an appraisal report. Please have them contact Property Management for a list of approved appraisers. Thank you. Exhibit 4 Other Petitions 400-02-06,400-02-07,400-02-11, Case 410-528 By Salt Lake City Planning Division May 16,2002 24 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment t �Sf c U SEKaR April 25, 2002 re.S._1- J So�:rsrn r e•o;f-Inc.. Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson ',roma-' eD.nele Mayor, Salt Lake City e.e^Hu-, Jamcs S c^rc:n• 451 South State Street APc 6,"«'hoh Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Jams,I-Kg.e Dcig as-,atSo,In Frverl HIS F'a•d'.^Ore:Jensen Czx id B Iaotren Re: Union Pacific Railroad Company: Application for Text Allen L SALT LAKE CITY OFFICE P Ra0211 Thoroo PO Box 45385 Amendment dated January 18, 2002, as supplemented John P dYn,noen Loin G No^re Salt Lake City,Utah Bruce L CIscn 84 1 4 5-0385 Bohn A Roams Dear Mayor Anderson: Douglas'" MonSOn 36 South State Street Caig Cadre Suite 1400 Ben_I 1' roscano Kevin G Glade Salt Lake City, Utah This is to confirm that Union Pacific Railroad Company formally 84111 Le lei K Ertel s ig Ira B Rubin�eid 801 532-1500 TEL requests that "Railroad Freight Terminal" (which would include the proposed Steven egorylE LindleyWoteonan 801 532-7543 FAX intermodal freight facility) be added as a conditional use in the M-1 zone. Slept-enC ungey John R Modsen WWW rqn corn Keiih A Kelly Michael W Soence PROVO OFFICE Sincerely Mark id Bettilvon 101 North University Ave Rick Rose Rr.,k B Hoggard / Lisa A lerheorch $ 00 Brent D Wnde Utah 1) • n Michael E Blue 8n�612833 CI iJ� LV tiCA )yl Scott A Hagen 't C% Ste•ren W Call 801 342-2400 TEL b Cameron M Hancock 801 375-8379 FAX Elaine A Monson Mark A Cotter Ira B. Rubinfeld R Cam Winger Kelly J Applegate of Ray, Quinney &Nebeker Grant M Sumsion Robert 0 Rice Counsel for Union Pacific Railroad Company Arthur B Berger Frederick B Thaler,Jr Jchn W Mackay McKay M Pearson cc: Christine M. Smith, Esq. (Union Pacific Railroad Company) Mark;,,Pugsley Gary L.tengmore Cary D. Jones, Esq. (Snell & Wilmer) Michael D Creer Samuel C Straight Paul C Broke Elam M Maragakis 648531v1/IBR Melissa Herring Bailey D Zachary Wiseman Michael D Mayfield Chen K Gochberg Scott B F,nlinson Bran K 3asse7 Rod IJ Andreeson Maren t Dames _van R Morison KnsBne M Larsen Gregory` Roberts CF COUNSEL Alonzo W.Watson,_r Stephen B rdeboker Car,B ellen Roben Xl Graham SA John Psnton l<a0e A Eccles Rezoning Receivea0l/16/200210:55AM01:2211l0RKSRVtB000171A01/16/2002 11 01AIFAX3C455C640732 . Pg 2/3 3f84-04-1900 10:36 P.02/03 1 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY •,Y- .yt'1 1, Peon Na._ 2 =<-'' QomPennon '= - ZoningAmendment -' Receipt No. NnuunlS aAN Dais Receved ._ 3 r ,,,, ,hC I ;T - Reviewed by 4 Dale January `C> : 2002 5 Name of Applicant Utah Tr an*JI Authority ____Phone_(ttn11_212_LaLL Address of Applicant c/o Caiy D_Jones. SaeJl_A._htibaer, 15 U ._So_-Teapl..,__So._L200 6 ,�}+.st}� E-mail address of Applicant JonesC'sw 1 a w.c urn Cell/Fax(301 j�7_18nn SI.C, UT 84101 Applicant's Interest in Subject Property Sic att_ac Ito d_flab I l_ ZName of Property Owner_Se e-_attor herica'a3>-2-}-----Phone See attached (Tab 2) 1`71 Address of Subject Property apptoxinately_56t1f1I1rst-1U(LSouth 14-12-300-000] M-1 and CC County Fax Parcel#(Sidwell#) Zoning of Property Existing Use of Property.Vacant except for few exist tog railli lines and parking areas ,/ oAmcnd the text of the Zoning Ordinance by amending Section: 'jAmendtheZoningMapbyreclassifyingthefollowingproperty 660' .trip of land lying east of F .md-abtrir"Ie�, b00 Meet. --- �,:,:1 From a CC classification'oaIll_ _.., dassifi£8tion.- �� Please include with the application: 1.A statement of the text amendment or map aptendrnent describing the purpose for the amendment and the cgiiiikexit,.[language,boundaries end zoning district. es) 2.A complete description of the proposed use of the property where appropriate. 3.Reasons why tire present zoning is not proper for the area. 4.the names and addresses of all property owners within three hundred(300)feet of the subject parcel- exclusive of streets and alleys. The name,address end Sidwell number of each property owner must be ,im, typed or clearly printed on gummed mailing labels. Please Include yourself and the appropriate Community Council Chair. First class postage for each address is due at time of application. hallo 5.Legal description of the properly. 6.Six(6)copies of site plans drawn to scale(where applicable). 7.A signed statement that the petitioner has met with and explained the proposal to the appropriate Community Council. 7.Related materials or data supporting the application as may be determined by the Zoning Administrator. 8.Filing fee of$500.00 plus$100 for each acre over one acre,due at time of application. If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this petition,please contact a member of the Salt Lake City Planning staff(535-7757)prior to submitting the petition. Sidwell maps and names of property owners are available at: Salt Lake County Recorder 2001 South State Street,Roo N1600 ,LP Salt Lake City,UT 84190-1051 Ert Telephone:(801)168-3391 i File the complete application at: Salt take ay Planning _.:: 451 South State Street,Room 406 Salt Lake Gty,LIT 8• 11 telephone:(801) �/'' ).• ."' ,....-.—ww,tk /�/Q � � Signature of Applicant _ C bl or av:horrzad agent TNe of ge 50® 0' 2 1. Applicant's Interest in Subject Property. Utah Transit Authority, a public transit district organized under Title 17A, Chapter 2, Part 10, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended ("UTA"), intends to develop a high-speed commuter rail project along the Wasatch Front. As part of the commuter rail project, UTA intends to use and modify the current Union Pacific Railroad Company ("UP") owned Intermodal Freight Terminal near Beck Street and the Clearfield auto unloading facility. UP will replace its existing intermodal facilities with the new intermodal freight facility (the "Proposed Facility") which UP intends to construct on the property which is the subject of this Application, and which is generally located in the area bounded by 4400 West Street, 5600 West Street, 700 South Street and approximately 1000 South (the "Property"). In that regard, UTA and UP have entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement, which provides, among other things, that UTA is required to assist UP in obtaining all approvals and permits necessary for the development of the Proposed Facility. 17 )re , L cn cIjcTiccr NC,n11047-1n 1 8 4. Description of the Proposed Use of the Property. The CG Portion of the Property will contain the tracks leading to the Proposed Facility, the access roads, parking areas and buildings. The CG Portion will be used for all purposes supportive of the Proposed Facility, including truck use, access to the Proposed Facility, parking and landscaping. The Proposed Facility itself will consist of approximately 200 acres. The Proposed Facility will replace the current UP owned Intermodal Freight Terminal near Beck Street that is used to load and unload tracks and containers from 10-12 trains, as well as the Clearfield auto unloading facility where about one-third of the planned activity is used for loading and unloading autos to and from multilevel rail cars. A significant portion of the Proposed Facility will be dedicated to truck use. Trucking companies that will use the Proposed Facility include: UPS, Roadway, Yellow Freight, Consolidated Freightways, FTE Services, Harrington, Link, LTSP Land Container, ABF Freight Systems, Brumback Trucking LTL, Espenschied Transport, FTE Services, Inc., Mile High Frozen Foods, Matlack, Overnight Transportation Co., Pacer Co., Schneider, Specialized Rail, United States Postal Service, UTAW, Viking Freight Systems, and Woodward Trucking, along with other miscellaneous companies for a total of 200,000 annual lifts. Currently, there is no development on the Property other than existing rail lines. There will be approximately nine tracks in the Proposed Facility. The standing car capacity (based upon the average size rail car of 65 feet) of the Proposed Facility will be approximately 275. • tE (¢1 t EVENSEL\SLC\196374 1 5. Reasons Why the Present Zoning is Not Proper for the Area and Why the Proposed Amendment Should Take Place. Currently, the CG general commercial district in which the CG Portion is located arguably does not include uses supportive of the Proposed Facility. The M-1 Light Manufacturing District, on the other hand, includes uses compatible and consistent with uses supportive of the Proposed Facility, such as "Truck Freight Terminal" and "Railroad `Spur' Delivery Facility." In addition, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission is currently considering the UTA's application requesting a text amendment of the Zoning Ordinance by allowing as a conditional use the "Railroad Freight Terminal" use in the M-1 Light Manufacturing District. The proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes of the general plan of Salt Lake City and will help promote Salt Lake City's Transportation Action Plan in the consolidation of auto and container freight and the trucking involved. In addition, the Proposed Facility, part of which is the CG Portion, is a key factor in allowing the commuter rail to serve Salt Lake City's Central Business District and the Wasatch Front. The Proposed Facility is in harmony with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the Property. Uses found in the surrounding areas include the Salt Lake City Landfill, a power substation, light manufacturing subdivisions, future Salt Lake City sewer treatment plants and other undeveloped land. The closed Deseret Landfill is located just to the south of the Proposed Facility. In addition, the proposed map amendment will not adversely affect adjacent properties since the number of trains currently utilizing the Property, including the CG Portion, will remain the same when the Proposed Facility will be developed and operated. Another consideration is that the washing, servicing or shuffling of train cars will not be performed anywhere on the Property. Also, the main improvements on the CG Portion will be parking, buildings, roads and landscaping. It is important to consider that the use of the CG Portion is compatible with the general purpose of the M-1 Manufacturing District which, according to Section 21A.28.020 of the Code, is "to provide an environment for light industrial uses that produce no appreciable impact on adjacent properties and desire a clean attractive industrial setting." The CG Portion, which is part of the Proposed Facility, will be used for a "lighter industrial use," especially compared to existing rail freight terminals in the area such as the Roper Rail Yard or UP's North Yard. The following are the capacities of the Roper, North Yard and the Proposed Facility. Acreage Tracks Standing Car Capacity (based on the average size rail car of 65 feet) Roper 200 45 2500 North Yard 88 30 2200 Proposed Facility 200 9 275 Finally, with its attractively planned landscaping and parking areas, the CG Portion will provide a more "clean and attractive industrial setting." The use of the CG Portion will be only supportive of the Proposed Facility and as such will be conducive to M-1 zoning standards. EVENSEL\SLC\I96374 1 (11511?"' Transportatic , I Master Plan / Street Closure DEC-14-2001 10:2 P.tJ2�©4 '7 _ '. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY " it- `5 452 Petition No. =7 - Street Closure Receipt No _ Amount 1-_ I-0 'ft7f Dale RgeIved '.,fi , 'k,' Revnewed by -- ` Date January , 2002 Utah Transit Authority c/o CaryD. Pig-Wes ) Name ofAppGcant� Phone (801 257-1811 Address of ApplicantSnell 8 Witmer_15 W. So. Temple, St. 1200, St UT 84101 0 E-mail address of Applicant c jones swlaw_corn _Cell/Fax fax (801) 257-1800 Location of the subject street 4800 West between 700 South and yrproximat e)_90t} South )_..4 Please include with the application: 1.A letter explaining why you are requesting this street closure. Please include a statement explaining why the street closure is consistent with proposed public policy. If applicant is not a property owner adjacent to the Zstreet,please include the applicant's interest in the request. 2.no names and addresses of all property owners within three hundred(300)feet—exclusive of sheets and alleys in any direction--from the border of the subject street. The name,address and Sidwell number of each property owner must be typed or clearly printed on gummed mailing labels. Please include yourself w and the appropriate Community Council Chair.Additional names and addresses may be required. First class Wpostage for each address is due at time of application. 3.The name,address and signatures of all abutting property owners who support the petition. You may use the sample petition accompanying this application or provide your own. Please note that the property owners must sign and not occupants who rent. 4.A property ownership map(known as a Sidwell map)showing the area of the proposed street closure. On `� the map please: a.Highlight the subject section of street b.Indicate with a colored circle or dot the property owners who support the petition '-:rC 5. Filing fee of$300.00,due at time of application. `6' -`, If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this petition,please contact a member of ,�� the Salt Lake City Planning staff(535-7757).prior to submitting the petition. �1 ;, �: Sidwell maps and names of property owners are available at: ' Salt Lake County Recorder a�.:6 2001 South State Street,Room N 1600 - iT'e •- Salt Lake Gty,UT 89 1 90-1 05 1 ' Telephone:(801)168-3391 : . r;�/.*'r. File the complete a ])cation al: ir:._ Salt Lake City Planning :'' r, 951 South Stale Street,Room 406 _ Salt take City,LIT 84111 Telephone:(801)535-7757 :tea ut-ii, {" =1`'' signature of Applicant of-authorized agent - rela of ag rf r, } January 17, 2002 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Utah Transit Authority: Petition for Vacation of Portion of 4800 West (the "Petition") To Whom It May Concern: Utah Transit Authority, a public transit district organized under Title 17A, Chapter 2, Part 10, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended ("UTA"), hereby respectfully requests the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to close a portion of 4800 West (the "Subject Street"), which is marked in yellow on the site map enclosed in Section 4 of the Petition. UTA intends to develop a high-speed commuter rail project which will drastically improve the public transportation system along the Wasatch Front. As part of the • commuter rail project, UTA intends to use the current Union Pacific Railroad Company ("UP") owned Intermodal Freight Terminal near Beck Street and the Clearfield auto unloading facility. UP will replace its existing intermodal facilities with the new intermodal freight facility (the "Proposed Facility") that UP intends to construct on the property generally located in the area bounded by 4400 West Street, 5600 West Street, 700 South Street and approximately 1000 South (the "Property"). Currently, the Property is owned by the following entities: Property Reserve, Inc., 5600 West, L.L.C., Utah Power& Light Company, and 4800 W. Industrial (SLC) PIP, L.P. UP intends to acquire the Property from the foregoing owners, either by sale or long-term leases. On January 17, 2002, UTA and UP have entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement, pursuant to which UTA agreed to assist UP in obtaining all approvals and permits necessary for the development of the Proposed IntermodaI Facility, including vacation of the Subject Street. UTA hereby requests the Planning Commission close the Subject Street because the public will no longer have any use for the Subject Street once the Proposed Facility is developed. In fact, the Subject Street is located within the area on which UP intends to develop and operate the Proposed Facility. The Proposed Facility is a key component in allowing the commuter rail to serve Salt Lake City's Central Business District and along the Wasatch Front. The vacation of the Subject Street is consistent with the public policy of the improvement of public transportation • along the Wasatch Front. By linking a commuter rail system which will service the Wasatch Front metropolitan areas into the Central Business District of Salt Lake City, freeway congestion and resultant safety concerns would be diminished and overall air quality would improve. A progressive transportation system also serves to attract new HALLD\SLC\196452 I businesses into the region and thereby benefit the State's overall economy. By vacating the Subject Street which will subsequently become part of the Proposed Facility, the City • Planning Commission will assure the continued development of the commuter rail project. SNELL & WILMER, LLP Cary D. Jone Esq. Counsel for tah Transit Authority HALLDVSLC\I 96452.I Snell&Wilmer L L.P LAW OFFICES SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 15 West South Temple,Suite 1200 PHOENIX,ARIZONA Gateway Tower West Salt Lake City,Utah 84101 TUCSON,ARIZONA (801)257-1900 Fax:(801)257-1800 IRVINE,CALIFORNIA www.swlaw.com DENVER,COLORADO Cary D.)ones(801) 257-1811 March 12 2002 Bones@swlaw corn Salt Lake City Planning Commission do Ray McCandless Principal Planner Salt Lake City Corporation Community and Economic Development - Planning Division 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 UTA: UP - UP Intermodal Facility (Request to Amend City Transportation Management Plan to Delete a Portion of 4800 West) Dear Members of the Salt Lake City Planning Commission: In connection with the January 18, 2002 applications for Text Amendment, Issuance of Conditional Use Permit, Amendment of Zoning Map, and Petition for Street Closure regarding the Union Pacific Intermodal Facility, as supplemented on March 12, 2002 (collectively, the "Applications"), please consider this letter as a request on behalf of my client, Utah Transit Authority, and by Ira B. Rubinfeld, Esq. of the law firm of Ray Quinney & Nebeker, on behalf of his client, Union Pacific Railroad Company, to amend Salt Lake City's Transportation Management Plan to delete the portion of 4800 West which is the subject of the Petition for Street Closure as part of the Applications. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Very truly yours, Snell & Wilmer Cary D. Jon s CDJ11 cc: Ira B. Rubinfeld, Esq. 202489 I Snell&Wilmer is a member of LEX MUNDI,a leading association of independent law firms. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY JEFFERY H KOCH Room 1206 Vice President-Field Operations 1416 Dodge Street Omaha,Nebraska 68179 UNION (402)271-5423 `PACIFIC FAX(402)271-6319 [pi 11 W IIIII1 April 5, 2002 ' i i , F APR _ g Mr. Douglas Wheelwright :1TY PL . ,Mic C Q1011 Planning Programs Supervisor Salt Lake City Corporation, Planning Division 451 South State Street, Rm 406 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Dear Mr. Wheelwright: This letter is written to outline the Union Pacific's operating plans for the replacement intermodal and auto facility proposed to be located in the 5600 West area. Currently the Union Pacific operates an intermodal facility near Beck Street and an auto unloading facility in Clearfield. In order to accommodate the Utah Transit Authority project, it is necessary to relocate these facilities. The plan is to combine the relocated auto and intermodal facilities at the same location at the 5600 West site. The relocation itself will not increase the train traffic that currently exists. The same number of trains using the same routing that is used today is the operating plan for when the new facilities become operational. Any future growth in the levels of Union Pacific's intermodal and automobile transportation businesses (which could occur regardless of relocation of the facilities) is not reflected in this operating plan. Currently, none of the intermodal or auto trains that use Clearfield or the Beck Street facilities use the 900 South line and there is no plan for these trains to use the 900 South line in the future. However, in the event of an emergency, it is possible that any train could run on any available route on a temporary basis. Sincerely, I \f 4_ 3HK0405.DOC 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Union Pacific Railroad is proposing to build an intermodal/automobile facility on the west side of Salt Lake City, Utah to replace two existing facilities at Beck Street and Clearfield.'These two existing facilities are being purchased by Utah Transit Authority to make room for the future commuter rail corridor between Brigham City and Payson, Utah. The proposed facility will access 5600 West Street and cover approximately 239 acres between 5600 West and 4400 West and between 700 South and approximately 1050 South.The proposed facility will contain several storage tracks,two tracks to serve container freight and two tracks to serve the automobile area. There will be 1,034 stalls for container storage and 1,831 stalls for automobile storage. The proposed facility will operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week and is expected to begin operations on or before 2005. The primary purpose of this study is to address project impacts on the adjacent street system and the at-grade highway/rail crossings on 5600 West. This study also evaluated the impact of vacating a portion of 4800 West Street south of 700 South Street. This study includes specific evaluations for study area intersections and grade crossings as identified by UUOT."Iihese locations are as follows: • 5600 West/700 South • 5600 West/California Avenue • 5600 West/800 South(at-grade crossing) • 5600 West/900 South(at-grade crossing) When the proposed facility begins operation it is expected to generate 559 daily vehicle trips. Of these, 46 and 90 are expected to occur (hiring the AM and I'M peak hours, respectively. The proposed facility will create minor impacts on the adjacent street system and nearby intersections. There will he no increase in through train volume at the 5600 West/800 South combined al-grade crossing due to the proposed facility.The train impact will he a moderate increment of delay that will occur when two trains per clay will cross 5600 West Street at 15 mph to leave the facility. One of these trains will conduct set out and pick up maneuvers across 5600 West Street during the PM peak period. This traffic impact study recommends mitigation measures to facilitate movement of project traffic to and from the facility and reduce its impact on the adjacent street network.The following is a summary of the recommended mitigation measures: • Provide a"high tee"type intersection where the project driveway intersects with 5600 West Street. • Provide street lighting at the project driveway. • Provide a"No Outlet" sign on 4800 West (for northbound traffic)just north of California Avenue and include a"3000 Feet"distance plaque with the sign. • Provide"3 Tracks"signs on the crossbucks at the combined at-grade crossing at 5600 West/800 South. PARSONS 1 4/14/2002 Conditional Use JAN--28-19DH 09:50 P.02,08 `,, i� ,> 1 /l FOR OFFICE US6 ONLY 1\17: .• .% Petition No.— _j' urge Co •nditional Use RecctptNo. Amount -mil—••I'�,'„f►.-!�'�'g sir F,�!�•rarf; Date Received ice"4:;-4�r:If::frl-,_`r - r, 2+-::i / Rev!ewed bY- y4y . Ii +-skr Moll tho proJee requiro 2'.artance7❑Yes D No Railroad Fi ;htTerminal re Type of Conditional Use Requested g Date of Pre-submission Meeting Nam of Applicant Union Pacific Railroad Cot4oany , Phone (801) 5_1?-1 500 • c/o Ira ubinfeld, Esq. Address of Applicant Ray, Quinney & Nebeker - 36 South State. Suite 1400, SIC, Utah 84111 irubinfeld�r n_com (801) 532-7543 0E-mail address of Applicant g Cell/ Fax Address of Subject Property Approximately 5600 Nest 700 South, Salt Lake City. Utah Applicant's Interest In subject Property See attached (Section 1) �4 Application (Tab.2) o orated in UTA Name of Property Owneets incorporated in UTA Phone g rp A tic ion (Tab 2) IC-1 Address of Property OwnerAs incorporated in IJTA Application 'lab As inco orated in UTA Application (Tab 2) - - E mail address of Property Owner Cell/Fax As incorporated}.n UTA Application (Tab 2) iie Existing Use of Property vacant except for few existing rail 1lnec and /larking -.rr-,, ,•1 County Tax#s(Sdwetl #s)_ 14-12-300-0001 • C.L4 Zoning M1 and CG Acreage Opprmrimatr1y200 acres `• =:i: ' Please include with the application: 1.The names and addresses of ail property owners within 300 feet-exclusive of streets and alleys in any direc- tion--from the border of the subject street. The name, address and Sidwell number of each property owner • • ' " must be typed or clearly printed on gummed mailing labels. Please include yourself and the appropriate ' : . ....., Community Council Chair. First class postage for each address is due at time of applicatior�eec aittac �d 2.A signed statement that the applicant has met with and explained the project to the appropriate ivelg orttoo�' `; Organization and/or Community Counal(s). A letter from the Chair may be substituted _ _ 3.A legal description of the subject property See attached (Section 3) • ;":: 4.A preliminary development plan prepared according to the attached guidelines see attached (Section 4) r( ., 4 5.QUestiOns On the back Of this form See attached (Section 5) '�r-- 6.Filingfeeof$300.00plus$100.00peracreInexre sofoneacre. See attached (sec ion 6) • '"' _ If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this petition,please contact a member of r•. the Salt lake City Planning staff(535-7757)prior to submitting the petition. Sidwell maps&names of property owners are available at -', . Salt Lake County Recorder %..3 n s 2001 South State Street, Room N16OD :,✓ Salt Lake City,UT 84190-1051 . • 4 1 Telephone:(801)468-3391 7 i? F File the complete application at: . �.r.4 t. ' Salt Lake City Planning - • 4515outh state Street,Room 406 } Via{ Salt Lake City,UT 84111 R_ Telephone;(801)535-7757 • w 4* ' r _. . 2. , ?</,, Signature of APpiican a- AI-4/C�' r `" (% ` uvLt9' J C2 Ct A c��l'�a� c or authorized event + ? } p" 1-ide of;aunt t f - ea., , �x A!t�l VIE,, N Yk ht tXA _ Attachment to Union Pacific Railroad Company's Application for Issuance of Conditional Use Permit 1. As incorporated in that certain Application for Text Amendment of Zoning Ordinance and For Issuance of Conditional Use Permit submitted by UTA on January 18, 2002 ("UTA Application"). 2. Applicant met with the West Salt Lake Community Council on March 20, 2002 and with the Poplar Grove Community Council on March 27, 2002 to discuss the Application and the proposed facility. 3. See UTA/UP Supplemental Submission dated March 12, 2002, Section 1 and Exhibit A. 4. To be provided. 5. Why The Proposed Facility Is In Harmony With The General Purposes And Intent of The Zoning Ordinance and How the Proposed Facility is Compatible with the Surrounding Neighborhood. UP hereby respectfully requests the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to issue a conditional use permit for"Railroad Freight Terminal"use for the portion of the Property(as defined in Section 1 of the UTA Application) that is located in the M-1 Light Manufacturing District. Currently, the M-1 Manufacturing District in which a portion of the Property is located does not include as a permitted or conditional use"Railroad Freight Terminal." The issuance to UP of a conditional use permit will allow UP to construct and operate the Proposed Facility(as defined in Section 1 of the UTA Application). The construction and operation of the Proposed Facility is consistent with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and is compatible with and implements the planning goals and objectives of the City. Section 21A.28.030 of the Salt Lake City Code entitled "Purpose and Intent"provides that the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is "to promote the health, safety, morals, convenience,order, prosperity and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Salt Lake City, to implement the adopted plans of the City, and to carry out the purposes of the Municipal Land Use Development and Management Act, title 10,of the Utah Code Annotated (the "Municipal Act")." The Municipal Act, in turn,provides that: in order to provide for the health, safety, and welfare, and promote the prosperity, improve the morals,peace and good order, comfort, convenience, and aesthetics of the municipality and its present and future inhabitants and businesses, to protect the tax base, secure economy in governmental expenditures, foster the state's agricultural and other industries,protect both urban and nonurban development, and to protect property values, municipalities may enact all ordinances,resolutions, and rules that they consider necessary for the use and development of land within the municipality,including ordinances,resolutions, and rules governing uses, density, open spaces, structures, buildings, energy efficiency, light and air, air quality,transportation and public or 648794v2 1 alternative transportation, infrastructure, public facilities, vegetation, and trees and landscaping, unless those ordinances, resolutions, or rules are expressly prohibited by law. Municipal Act, U.C.A. § 10-9-102 (2001). In addition, the Zoning Ordinance is intended to: "[I]essen congestion in the streets or roads; . . . [p]rovide adequate light and air; [c]lassify land uses and distribute land development and utilization; [and) [f)oster the City's industrial, business and residential development." Zoning Ordinance, § 21A.28.030. The construction and operation of the Proposed Facility will help promote Salt Lake City's Transportation Action Plan in the consolidation of auto and container freight and the trucking involved. In addition, the Proposed Facility is a key component in allowing commuter rail to serve Salt Lake City's Central Business District and the Wasatch Front. By linking a commuter rail system which will connect the Wasatch Front metropolitan areas into the Central Business District of Salt Lake City, freeway congestion and resultant safety concerns would be diminished and overall air quality would improve. A progressive transportation system would also serve to attract new businesses into the region and thereby would benefit the State's overall economy. By issuing a conditional use permit which will allow UP to construct and operate its Proposed Facility, the City Planning Commission will assure the continued development of the commuter rail project. The use of the Proposed Facility is also compatible with the general purpose of the M-1 Manufacturing District which, according to Section 21A.28.020 of the Code, is "to provide an environment for light industrial uses that produce no appreciable impact on adjacent properties and desire a clean attractive industrial setting."The Proposed Facility will be used for a "lighter industrial use,"especially when compared to existing rail freight terminals in the area such as the Roper Rail Yard or UP's North Yard. The following are the capacities of the Roper Yard, the North Yard and the Proposed Facility. Acreage Tracks Standing Car Capacity Roper 200 45 2500 (based on the average size rail car of 65 feet) North Yard 88 30 2200 (based on the average size rail car of 65 feet) Proposed Facility 200 9 105 automotive rack rail cars of 94 feet, and 105 intermodal articulated cars of 305 feet The Proposed Facility is in harmony with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the Property. Uses found in the surrounding areas include the Salt Lake City Landfill, a power substation, light manufacturing subdivisions, future Salt Lake City sewer treatment plants and other undeveloped land. The closed Deseret Landfill is located just to the south of the Proposed Facility. Compatible uses already exist in the area and the Proposed Facility would "produce no appreciable impact on adjacent properties" and would not adversely affect adjacent properties or 648794v2 2 the City as a whole. The number of trains currently utilizing the Property will generally remain the same once the Proposed Facility is developed and operated. It is projected that the Proposed Facility may grow at three to five percent annually over the next several years, depending on local and national business conditions. Some additional increase at first may result from the facility being new and more convenient for the truck freight industry. The Proposed Facility site is closer to the places where such companies reside. Preliminary estimates show a seven percent decrease of current truck miles from places of business to the Proposed Facility site. Moreover, as indicated on the preliminary development plan, roadways that bound the Property, such as 5600 West Street, 4400 West Street and 700 South Street, are adequate to serve the Proposed Facility. Finally, the Proposed Facility provides a more "clean and attractive industrial setting," one conducive to the distribution of new autos, mail food, and manufactured goods contained in highway trailers. The Proposed Facility is a facility where trains that carry freight, more conducive to M-1 zoning standards, stop and are loaded and unloaded. The rail impacts are minimal with the few tracks that will be placed on the Property. It is also anticipated that the washing or servicing of train cars will not be performed on the Property. It is projected, however, that there may be switching movements of rail cars within the Property, as part of the normal operation of the facility. 6. The filing fees have been waived by the staff of the Planning Commission because several applications were submitted by UTA in connection with the foregoing matter. 648794v2 3 Property Owner Consents Property Reserve,Inc. l 1 10 East South Temple Street Suite 400 Salt Lake City.Utah 84133-1122 Phone 801-240-5862 Fax 801-240-5881 April 22, 2002 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 451 South State Street Room 406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Utah Transit Authority/Union Pacific Railroad Company Application for Text Amendment of Zoning Ordinance and for Issuance of Conditional Use Permit, Application for Amendment of Zoning Map, Petition for Street Closure, and Amendment of Transportation Management Plan — Proposed Union Pacific IntermodaUAutomotive Unloading Facility, 5600 West and 700 South Streets, Salt Lake City, Utah. Dear Members of the Salt Lake City Planning Commission: Please be advised that Property Reserve, Inc. ("Owner") consents to the approvals requested in the above referenced Application dated January 18, 2002, as supplemented March 12, 2002. This consent is subject to and conditioned upon Property Reserve, Inc. and Union Pacific Railroad Company (or its designee) entering into a definitive and binding Agreement for transfer of the property included in the Application. Sincerely, "C(14- (47'1'1'1- Dean M. Davies Vice President 4800 W INDUSTRIAL (SLC) PIP, L.P. c/o Avanti Capital Associates 431 East Horatio Avenue Suite 210 Maitland, Florida 32751 April 23, 2002 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 451 South State Street Room 406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 RE: Utah Transit Authority/Union Pacific Railroad Company Application for Text Amendment of Zoning Ordinance and For Issuance of Conditional Use Permit,Application for Amendment of Zoning Map, Petition for Street Closure, and Amendment of Transportation Management Plan— Proposed Union Pacific Intermodal/Automotive Unloading Facility, 5600 West and 700 South Streets,Salt Lake City, Utah Dear Members of the Salt Lake City Planning Commission: This letter will confirm that 4800 W Industrial (SLC)PIP, L.P. ("4800")consents to the approvals requested in the above-referenced Application dated January 18, 2002, as supplemented March 12, 2002. This consent is subject in all respects, however, to: (a) the terms and conditions of that certain Agreement Regarding Entitlement Application between 4800 and Union Pacific Railroad Company executed as of this date; and (b) the acquisition of the property depicted on Exhibit "A"(the "Property"), attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference,by Union Pacific Railroad Company or its permitted assignee prior to any point at which any matters addressed in the above-referenced Application would become final or binding upon said property. If Union Pacific Railroad Company has not acquired the Property from 4800 on or before October 31, 2002, this consent shall be automatically revoked and null and void. ATLLIBOI 1338808 2 Very truly yours, 4800 W INDUSTRIAL(SLC) PIP,L.P., a Utah limited partnership By: Avanti Capital Associates, formerly known as Avanti Properties Group, LLC, a Florida joint venture, as sole general partner By: Avanti Management Partners, J.V., a Florida joint venture, as sole managing venturer By: Avanti Development Corporation, a Florida corporation, as managing venturer By: Charles Schwartz, President ATLLIBOI 1338808 2 'S.,_R4 SE-C. 7 BdfM ' -�� x „k x o xs� x� " 8o 7 x y�?a;r / �»r,ot,u9•w ' Cl/A/NL/NK FENCE_/ 'a"' cox RA/�R0AD '�+ '`ENC25.ARE >ly r� 1(.0 ENC �O (� ' K£ST PRO A PER F R AST ND WFSI FENCE CAI CR O~W E Co IQ C� `� 5i x ,,,1 BOOK&5 3 p0 f0 EV TRY, •xki 5O v Iv a UN/av p O b. . f x xQ Ito PROPERl-- R4/0 k sr 1 x PARCL-L C' a I I 19 571 ACRES 0 CI ,,,\ ,I, N 0122,41.w o, , O �l 00 -or . x r / iC4 __i_• dl , ly x k /° �I,O rt x A :4 IAN a i' x° 3 .I/ (:,P) sl PA 2 � /P.Ole •O° -iv w xo , •. CI‘'r))z1::-,, I . 6 / x S 31A' .Z�' BAK •ENT • (/L'HT # �', '�0 /P,/ h1® / .. pC 4,7 b w. /L Mf/ r / / h / EASE, 1t; WER p. St NOR'p ON¢CANAL -DINT / � j• 5117 `�j 1 a 416 /�� f POB / 7 R PARCEL B' j� IL - // s a�/ F 6 90/0 zrss Cqp Co. moN.. �� — OBE //� m con. SEC. 3iGl� ion» �x—� ,ilkih _moo. 1 0 .R , W'7 Vichy-pp 'u__IS 1"Z.J : — '_ --- BK 111 OF 'WAY DEED x �a OF DE PG J66 COS N Ot7679'Y 10424 1.- IECEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING _ h rus7 In Room 126 of the City & County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Thursday, May 16, 2002, 5:45p.m. Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Robert "Bip" Daniels, Kay (berger) Arnold, Andrea Barrows, John Diamond, Arla Funk, Jeff Jonas, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, and Kent Nelson. Tim Chambless and Laurie Noda were excused. Present from the Planning Staff were Deputy Planning Directors Brent Wilde and Doug Wheelwright and Planners Melissa Anderson, Doug Dansie, and Ray McCandless. Planning Director Stephen Goldsmith was excused. A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Daniels called the meeting to order at 5:50 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased. Arla Funk left the meeting at 7:35 prior to this matter. PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-02-06, by Utah Transit Authority/Union Pacific Railroad Co. requesting a text amendment to Table 21A.28.040, Table of Permitted And Conditional Uses for Manufacturing Districts: of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to allow a railroad freight terminal facility in the "M-1" zoning district. Petition No. 400-02-07, by Utah Transit Authority/Union Pacific Railroad Co. requesting approval to rezone a 19.61 acre piece of property located at approximately 800 South, 5600 West from a General Commercial "C-G" zoning district to a Light Manufacturing "M- 1" zoning district. Petition No. 400-02-11, by Utah Transit Authority/Union Pacific Railroad Co. requesting approval to amend the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan by removing 4800 West, between 1300 South and 700 South as an arterial street and designating 4400 West, between the same two streets, as an arterial street. Also, an approximately 1300 foot portion of the existing 4800 West street is also requested to be closed as a public street, and declared surplus to facilitate that street property being combined into the railroad freight terminal site. Planning Commission Meeting 1 May 16, 2002 Case No. 410-528, by Utah Transit Authority/Union Pacific Railroad Co. requesting Conditional Use approval to develop a new inter-modal railroad freight terminal facility — located at approximately 800 South 5600 West in a Light Manufacturing "M-1" zoning district. Robert "Bip Daniels noted that this matter is one petition with different parts. He allowed the petitioner to give their presentation first. Mike Allegra, director of transit development at the Utah Transit Authority, provided background information regarding the petition. He explained that the Utah Transit Authority has worked aggressively since the public referendum in 2000 to advance the commitment made to the community. Since then they have provided TRAX, Sunday bus service, and other service extensions. They appreciated the support and cooperation that occurred between UTA, Salt Lake City, and the Department of Transportation during the Olympics. He stated that, while working on these other things, they also worked on the major aspect of the referendum, which was continued expansion of the rail transit program in the Wasatch Front. They spent the past 2-1/2 years working with Union Pacific Railroad to acquire the rights-of-way which are the key elements in developing the transit program. This culminated in a purchase and sale agreement being signed in January 2002 to provide UTA access to 175 miles of railroad right-of-way from Payson to Brigham City with multiple rights-of-way and accesses throughout the Wasatch Front. Mr. Allegra presented a map representing the three distinctions of the acquisition. One area represented where UTA could operate on existing Union Pacific Railroad track. It was noted that the level of freight service north of Ogden is small enough to allow commuter rail and freight rail at different times sharing the same right-of-way. Another right-of-way, representing the predominant acquisition, is an approximately 20-foot right-of-way extending the entire length of the corridor where UTA could construct its own transit facility to provide the advantage of service reliability, schedule frequency, and speed of service. Additional lines on the map represented rights-of-way owned entirely by the Utah Transit Authority. Mr. Allegra explained that, in order to acquire the right-of-way, two major parcels of property were required to satisfy the conditions. One was acquisition of a 60-acre auto transfer facility parcel in Clearfield. The other acquisition is the Beck Street acquisition in North Salt Lake which consists of a piggyback operation where vehicles arrive, are loaded on trucks, and are distributed throughout the valley. Mr. Allegra explained that UTA needed to acquire both parcels to provide a contiguous transit line from Salt Lake to Ogden. Acquisition of these parcels required that UTA find an alternative site to accommodate this multi-modal operation. The site located at approximately 5600 West Planning Commission Meeting 2 May 16, 2002 as . and 700 South is the best and only site that can accommodate this type of operation. It is surrounded by two main line railroad tracks, is in an area with an industrial use, is located in the airport fly zone, and has excellent access to the freeway system. This site provides an excellent opportunity to consolidate these activities, allow the Transit Authority to consummate the deal, and provide a contiguous commuter rail system north and south of Salt Lake. Dave Urrick, representing Union Pacific Railroad, stated that he has been working with UTA on this project from a real estate perspective, and his involvement relates to the corridors and the property required to relocate the two major commercial facilities, which are the subject of this public hearing. Union Pacific consultants and Staff have worked closely with City Staff from various departments in the design of the facility. Union Pacific has also worked with the property owners involved to either acquire a portion of their property or address concerns about operation of the facility after it is built. Mr. Urrick noted that a letter was sent to the Planning Commission from Union Pacific's Chief Engineer of Design addressing some of Union Pacific's concerns related to Staff recommendations for conditions of approval. He provided another letter this evening as an update on where they stand with those issues. He reported that the issue of the connector road on 10`h South between 5600 West and 4800 West had been resolved because Union Pacific reached an agreement with PRI, the adjoining property owner. This agreement takes care of one of the conditions of approval because they will participate and insure that 10th South is built up front along with this facility. Union Pacific has agreed to a cost sharing plan with PRI to make sure this happens. Mr. Urrick addressed concerns related to other conditions, including the Grade Crossing at 700 South. The Staff also identified issues related to heat islands, storm water detention, and utilities that are more fully detailed in the staff report. Mr. Urrick requested that the 700 South Grade Crossing not be a condition of approval because it is not impacted by nor does it relate to the proposed project. Concerning the conditions involving heat islands, utilities, and drainage, he requested that these conditions be general in nature so Union Pacific and the City could have maximum flexibility to deal with them and arrive at workable solutions for both parties. Gary Lunenberg, representing the Union Pacific Engineering Department, discussed the project. He stated that, as Director of Project Design, he is responsible for the design of new construction projects in 23 states. His involvement with this project has been to work with UTA to find a location for the facilities and to work with the consulting engineering firm, Parsons Transportation Group, to develop the design for the relocation facilities. Mr. Lunenberg presented drawings showing how Salt Lake fits into the railroad's inter-modal and auto transportation system. He noted that this project will not increase the amount of train traffic. He Planning Commission Meeting 3 May 16, 2002 explained that an average of nine trains a day stop at Clearfield and Beck Street combined, and with this project, nine trains a day will stop at 5600 West. He explained that a portion of this request is to stub off 4800 West, and he believed that doing so and eliminating the intersection would help with the Staff recommendation to improve the crossing. Mr. Lunenberg discussed access to the facility and noted that the truck and inter-modal facility is a truck/train interface. The trucks that come in and out of the facility will access from 5600 West and go to distribution facilities around town. A traffic study shows that this will happen on the major arterials going to those centers. Planner Ray McCandless explained that this proposal triggers five zoning review processes which are addressed in the staff report. First is a request to amend the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Manufacturing Districts. Currently, railroad freight terminals are only allowed in the M-2 district as a conditional use, and the petitioner is requesting that the City amend the zoning to allow a railroad freight terminal in the M-1 zoning district. The Planning Commission is the recommending body, and this will go on to the City Council. Mr. McCandless explained that the main purpose of a railroad freight facility is to on and off load rail cargo for distribution. Distributing cargo and freight in the M-1 and M-2 zoning district is fairly common. A truck freight terminal is a permitted use in both the M-1 and M-2 zones, but with so little of the City zoned M-2, it seemed appropriate to consider such facilities in the M-1 zoning district. He referred to a partial table of uses contained in the staff report and noted that the Staff recommends that freight facilities become a conditional use in the M-1 zoning district. Mr. McCandless explained that the second request is to rezone the frontage of the applicant's property along 5600 West from a General Commercial Zoning District to a Light Manufacturing Zoning District to bring the entire property under the same zoning. The zoning was initiated in 1995, and at that time the City envisioned a strip of general commercial along the east side of 5600 West to buffer the roadway from heavier manufacturing uses to the east. Since then, a number of changes have occurred along 5600 West which changed the overall appearance and how the area functions. Although a land use master plan has not been formally adopted for this area, the proposed rezone is consistent with existing land uses in the area. Mr. McCandless explained that the third and fourth components are that the City close and declare as surplus property a 1300-foot portion of 4800 West. Part of that request is that the City amend the City Transportation Master Plan. Currently, 4800 West between 700 South and 1300 South is an arterial street, and the applicants would like to remove it as an arterial and make 4400 West the arterial street. Mr. McCandless referred to the area around 4800 West at Planning Commission Meeting 4 May 16,2002 1 14 C m, k---,-,4 2 about 1000 South and explained that, in order to provide access for this area as it develops in the future, the Staff recommended that at some point a street be connected from 4400 West to 5600 West. The petitioners have indicated a willingness to do this. Mr. McCandless noted that two rail lines cross 5600 West at 800 South and 900 South, and the applicants are looking at relocating the 900 South line next to the existing line on 800 South. Mr. McCandless stated that the final review component is the conditional use. The master plan amendment, rezoning, and street closure will all go on to the City Council, but the conditional use component is the purview of the Planning Commission. The Staff report identifies 11 findings that need to be made, and he highlighted the important ones. The airport recognizes the need for storm water detention, but since aircraft routinely fly over the area, they have requested that the storm water collection areas be built and managed to minimize standing water. The Public Utilities Department has significant concerns with protection of and access to an existing 27" sewer trunk line at 4800 West. There are also significant storm drainage issues that need to be resolved. Given that there will be 97 acres of hard surfacing, the Management Services Department has requested that the potential heat island effect be minimized by using a lighter-colored surface material. They recommend either concrete or other light-colored surfacing. The property will be subdivided and assembled from other parcels; therefore, a subdivision review will be required and handled administratively. The Staff recommended dedication of property sufficient for a 150-foot right-of-way on 5600 West and an 84-foot right-of- way on 700 South. The Staff is also looking at recordation of an avigation easement and implementation of recommendations of the transportation impact study. Mr. McCandless noted that the Staff recommendations are detailed in the staff report. Mr. McCandless commented on the issue of the 900 South rail corridor and whether it can be linked to this project. He asked Lynn Pace from the City Attorney's Office to address this issue with the Planning Commission. Prescott Muir asked for clarification that the petitioner took exception to Staff recommendations regarding the 700 South rail crossing, the conditional use heat island, and the on-site storm retention. Mr McCandless explained that reference to the water loop is contained in the Public Utilities Department comments and is part of a general recommendation to meet all department conditions. Lynn Pace, representing the City Attorney's Office, stated that he was asked to address a suggestion made by the Poplar Grove Community Council that approval of this project be Planning Commission Meeting 5 May 16,2002 nr, r, withheld unless Union Pacific agreed to abandon its 900 South rail line. Subsequent to that recommendation, the Community Council recognized that this might be problematic and instead asked that the Planning Commission consider the impacts this facility would have on the amount of train traffic that would use the 900 South line. Mr. Pace explained that it is inappropriate to link approval of a project to something that is unrelated. In their analysis this evening, he suggested that the Planning Commission consider what impact this facility will have on trains and where they may run as well as other traffic concerns. He noted that, in response to this discussion, the Union Pacific representatives have represented that rail traffic serving the replacement inter-modal auto unloading facilities at 5600 West will not be routed over Union Pacific's rail line at 900 South except in an emergency situation. Mr. Daniels asked what would constitute an emergency situation and how often that might occur. Mr. Pace suggested that the Planning Commission discuss this question with the Union Pacific representatives. Mr. Muir asked if a condition requiring improvement of the 700 South overpass would be an inappropriate linkage to the petition. Mr. Pace replied that he was not familiar with the 700 South issue and could not answer without more information. He stated that the Planning Commission can focus on impacts that would be created if Union Pacific brings a facility to this location, but it is inappropriate to address impacts that may already exist from other sources. Ms. Barrows clarified that, because this is a conditional use, the Planning Commission has the opportunity to look at anything that impacts that property. She asked if they would be limited to what is confined within the property boundaries or whether they would be allowed to deal with interface issues such as transportation and access to public rights-of-way. Mr. Pace replied that the Planning Commission has the ability and obligation to look at the broader impact. The question is a matter of reasonableness. Case law requires that anything required of the developer should have a reasonable nexus with what they are proposing. Jeff Jonas asked for an explanation of the time constraints in moving this project forward. Kathryn Pett, Legal Counsel for UTA, explained that UTA is facing two time constraints in this transaction. One is the need to close this transaction consistent with the closing provisions in the contract, which calls for a May 30 closing. They have the ability to extend, but that ability is limited. The closing must occur no later than August 30 under the contract. In order to achieve that closing schedule, UTA must obtain financing of$185 million in bonds, and that has a long lead time. In order for UTA to get the bonds placed in the public markets and achieve the closing date, assuming it is extended to August 30, they need approval from the governing entities, including the Planning Commission and Salt Lake City Council, no later than July 31. Planning Commission Meeting 6 May 16,2002 ror Ms. Barrows stated that she could not find a true definition for a railroad freight facility in the zoning ordinance and asked if there was a definition for this type of facility. Mr. McCandless replied that there is no definition. Ms. Barrows asked if the Planning Commission would have the opportunity at this time to write an appropriate definition, noting that Union Pacific has used examples of the current facilities to show how they might be inappropriate in the M-1 zone, yet they are also freight terminal facilities. She was trying to determine how the Planning Commission could distinguish and identify what they are considering. Mr. McCandless felt the Planning Commission could, as part of their motion, create a definition for a rail freight terminal. Ms. Barrows asked if Mr. Pace could help with the language. Mr. Pace stated that he was not in a position to write a definition. If the Planning Commission moves forward with this approval, he suggested that they not only authorize the text amendment for a railroad freight facility in the M- 1 zone but also recommend that a definition be provided for that facility. Edie Trimmer, Poplar Grove Community Council Chair, stated that the community is looking for something that will help them produce a just, equitable, and sustainable comprehensive plan for everyone's benefit. They want the community, the City, and UTA to benefit. They believe in light rail, but they believe this process is being rushed too fast. Ms. Trimmer stated that she took exception to Mr. Pace's characterization of their second motion. The motion was that there should be a master plan in place and better data before this decision is made, and she believed Mr. Pace mischaracterized that intent. She commented that the Planning Commission is not just to protect the petitioners' rights but to lead the community toward a good and better City for everyone. She believed that, with a good planning process and time for all parties to talk to one another, and if all the issues were brought forward and addressed, the issues could be resolved. She referred to Mr. Pace's comment about the 900 South line being an existing use that the Planning Commission cannot consider and noted that the line has not yet been fully upgraded and feeds directly to the freight inter-modal site. She asked how they could separate rail lines that lead to an inter-modal site and say they are not connected. Ms. Trimmer asked that the process be slowed down to allow time for appropriate study of all the impacts, including the fact that there is not a master plan and that there is a western transportation corridor proposed that runs at 90-degree angles. She did not think that adequate study, data, or answers had been provided. She referred to a May 10 letter from the Community Council to the Planning Commission outlining a number of issues including the fact that this was supposed to be light manufacturing. The letter contains four questions the Community Council wanted to have answered. Ms. Trimmer believed there was a good solution for everyone which might involve Grant's Tower or other alternatives, but she believed it needed better research and review of data. Without traffic and rail data, people are being asked to believe this and accept that there Planning Commission Meeting 7 May 16,2002 :wY FT will not be increased use of the 900 South line. Mark Smedley, a Poplar Grove Community Council board member, echoed Ms. Trimmer's comments. He stated that the process is occurring very fast with little notification. He commented that the community was not notified when different petitions were submitted to the City, and the first they heard about this was when he attended a Transportation Advisory Board meeting the first of March. He felt the information provided at the Community Council meeting was inadequate. He stated that they agree with the intent of the petition, but they would like the City Staff to do some analysis of how it will impact the neighborhood rather than just asserting that it does not. Mr. Smedley believed the staff report was dishonest in saying that the neighborhood would not be impacted and does not address any ways that it could or will. In order to be honest, the staff report should say that commuter rail is needed, and therefore they will put a heavier industrial use in the area than what the zone allows. He believed that would be a fair way to say it up front. Instead, the people are told that it has no effect on their neighborhood. Mr. Smedley remarked that the staff report fails to provide an analysis of how the rail yard will affect train traffic through Grant's Tower. Union Pacific has already said that Grant's Tower is a constriction in their system, and one reason for changing the 900 South rail line to heavy freight use from passenger use was that they needed to reduce or remove the constriction in Grant's Tower. Mr. Smedley believed the City should run an independent analysis of how train traffic coming into the valley will affect train traffic through Grant's Tower and not accept Union Pacific's assertion that it will not have an affect. He commented on a study conducted in collaboration with Union Pacific, RDA, and the City related to upgrading Grant's Tower so Union Pacific could move its trains through that area more quickly. It was a $21 million study to relocate the two main lines adjacent to each other so instead of being on Folsom Street and South Temple they would both be relocated to South Temple and the curves re-figured through Grant's Tower to operate at a higher rate of speed. Mr. Smedley believed the planning process should look at the whole transportation system, not just this one facility as an independent unit, and that they should not decide on a location without a study or consideration of how the effects of this facility on the west side of Salt Lake could be mitigated. David Anthony, representing the Glendale Community Council, stated that, in April, Union Pacific and UTA addressed the community council meeting, and it was voted unanimously not to have this facility at 5600 West. The reasons for denial were traffic impacts and manufacturing and commercial sprawl. He commented that no studies have been done on hazardous material, hazardous material handling, or who will respond to hazardous material incidents. Mr. Anthony stated that 900 South is an issue with the Poplar Grove and Glendale Planning Commission Meeting 8 May 16,2002 _ i rpm Community Councils. Union Pacific runs heavy freight through that area, and Mr. Anthony noted that they identify box cars, flat cars, covered bulk cars, coal cars, etc. He asked what etc. means. He also wanted to know what emergency means. He commented that this will have a great impact on Salt Lake City. He was not against Union Pacific having a yard, but 5600 West is not the place for obvious reasons. He worried about what would happen to the west side neighborhoods, particularly with hazardous materials, and he believed those issues needed to be addressed. He believed the project should be put on hold until they have all the answers, because there was too much at risk. Mr. Anthony stated that the City limits do not end at State Street, and the residents of Salt Lake City need to be addressed; not the industrial residents, but the people who live in Salt Lake. He stated that approving this would be a terrible injustice to Salt Lake City. Chairman Daniels opened the public hearing. Ralph Becker provided comments from a historical perspective when he sat on the Planning Commission. He stated that, a number of years ago when they looked at the downtown plan and Gateway before its inception, they considered the opportunity represented by moving the freight operations and main operations to the west. The Planning Commission did not have a specific area identified at that point. Their interest was in moving the tracks to open up west downtown and move much of the rail traffic away from the downtown area to allow the space and benefits of less rail traffic. At that time it appeared that this would also be a great benefit to Union Pacific. Mr. Becker acknowledged that much had changed since then, but he believed this proposal would be a big step in that direction. He felt the Staff had done a great job of analyzing the proposal. From the community point of view on the west side, the issue of the 900 South rail line has been disastrous. The west side of Salt Lake has been at a disadvantage in the City, and reopening the 900 South line worsened the problem. Mr. Becker felt it was unfortunate that Union Pacific did not work toward another solution that would not further damage a critical residential area on the west side of Salt Lake City. He suggested additional conditions of approval for this facility which has been needed for a long time. One condition would be to require initiation of a long-term plan to relocate all long-distance railroad traffic away from the downtown and residential areas. He stated that he had read in the newspaper about a plan to limit the amount of rail traffic on the 900 South line, and he felt it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to require a commitment that the traffic will not increase. Dan McConkie stated that he is Chairman of the Davis County Commission and Chairman of the Wasatch Front Regional Council, which is the MPO for the five-county area including Planning Commission Meeting 9 May 16, 2002 li f • . h • Tooele, Salt Lake, Davis, Morgan, and Weber Counties representing the mayors, commissioners, and council members. He stated that he was appearing as the Chairman representing that body this evening. He commented that commuter rail is an important ingredient in relieving the congestion in the Great Salt Lake Basin and has been part of the planning for many decades. It is particularly important to Davis and Weber Counties. He referred to the sales tax increase in Davis, Weber, and Salt Lake Counties that the public voted in to support commuter rail. He believed this Union Pacific right-of-way was especially important in giving mobility to the residents of the Wasatch Front and all who visit here. Commuter rail is the important component that the residents of the northern counties look to and count on as a way to find mobility choices. Mr. McConkie asked the Planning Commission for their wisdom and judgment in a speedy resolve to this matter and to support and expedite the Union Pacific rezone so UTA could move forward with this very important project. Jay Ingleby, representing the West Side Community Council, expressed concern about traffic impacts. Four roads run from the facility--North Temple, 700 South, California Avenue, and 2100 South. Roadway Truck Lines is located at 3200 West California Avenue, and they haul a lot of freight for Union Pacific. Roadway trucks go up and down 1300 South every day. If this facility is built at 5600 West, he believed the traffic would increase because the truck drivers would use 1300 South and 700 South as a matter of habit and would not use North Temple or 2100 South. Therefore, the impact on the residential areas would be significant. Mr. Ingleby believed that this facility would be a detriment to the residents and to the location. He commented on wetlands, holding ponds, birds, and other environmental issues and urged the Planning Commission to look at all the issues involved and realize that this is not a good thing for the community. He stated that the west side is sick of getting the short end of the stick because everything is pushed to the west side. He commented on hazardous waste materials and the disaster that would occur if a train derailed in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Ingleby asked the Planning Commission to put a stop to all that is happening and think of the west side as part of Salt Lake City. Donnie Sweazey stated that he is a resident of the west side and owns a piece of property directly across the street from the proposed facility. He was not opposed to this proposal, but if it were rezoned, he believed all adjacent properties should have the same zoning. Bob Fisher, organizer of the Property Rights Foundation of America in Utah, stated that he did not oppose this project. He agreed that it would bring more traffic and commotion and that the people who are already there should get a better benefit. Currently they are zoned M-1, and he Planning Commission Meeting 10 May 16,2002 believed M-2 will provide more development options. He believed people in the State would demand more rail and better ways to get around because the freeways and highways are being saturated with semi-trucks. He stated that he was born and raised around railroad tracks, and although it can be nerve racking at times, it can also be educational. Ila Rose Fife, resident in the Poplar Grove area across the street from the 900 South tracks, stated that the residents have been actively improving their neighborhoods, and she believed their neighborhood was vital to the entire City. She believed it had been a tragedy to have the trains back in their neighborhood. She wondered how much the people in the Glendale and Poplar Grove area could take. The noise, smells, and inconvenience of reactivating 900 South, heavy freight, a change in usage, and the high amount of hazardous materials Union Pacific carries through their neighborhood are all on the backs of children who already have many challenges in their life. Children have no choice where they live, and she questioned why they do this to people who need it the least. She commented that Union Pacific chose to reactivate that line so they could get by with lower standards than putting in a new line somewhere else. Consequently, the children in that area are not as safe as children in other places where Union Pacific has put in new lines. Ms. Fife stated that she could not talk about the new inter-modal hub without worrying that more trains would be running through the neighborhood, along with the probability of more truck traffic. She was not against the hub but felt that the impacts needed more study. She proposed that Union Pacific not send contributions to charitable foundations in the next five years and put that money toward closing the 900 South track between 600 West and Redwood Road as their charitable act to the children who need it most. Janette Gonzales, a resident in the Glendale area, stated that her son's bedroom window is 35 feet from the tracks, and they are kept awake most of the night due to the shaking of their house, the sound of the train, and the horn that blows when trains come through. It is affecting their lives and damaging the foundation and walls of their home. She noted that Union Pacific upgraded the operation from Class Ito Class II, and the train speed has increased from 10 mph to 25 mph. She was concerned about accidents from chemical waste and children playing near the tracks because they have no choice. She stated that she and her husband do not have the resources to move, and it is very sad to have to live that way. The City had no idea what Union Pacific had done to their neighborhood, and it was unfair to allow this to happen to them because they are not rich enough to fight. She stated that she wonders every night why the City would allow this to happen in their neighborhood and urged the Planning Commission to help them. Planning Commission Meeting 11 May 16,2002 tik• Michael Clara agreed with Edie Trimmer that the people are being asked to believe that the 900 South line will not be used or have an increase in traffic. Mr. Clara stated that the community is skeptical because at one point Union Pacific made a mockery of this very body. In 1997 the Planning Commission considered the Railroad Consolidation Plan that indicated that the 900 South line would be removed. Mr. Clara referred to earlier comments by Mr. Becker that the plan was to move tracks out of downtown and out of the Gateway area. Mr. Clara stated that they were also part of the Gateway area. Federal funding was brought into the area, and they were part of that. According to the Railroad Consolidation Plan, the 900 South line was to be removed. Mr. Clara referred to a plan that was adopted by the Planning Commission in 1998, Creating an Urban Neighborhood Gateway District Land Use and Development Master Plan, and noted that several pages of that document contain a map showing a green parkway on the 900 South line. Mr. Clara questioned why Union Pacific had decided to come to the Planning Commission tonight to make an amendment to a transportation master plan. He believed Union Pacific deceived the community and the federal government and let everyone believe that the 900 South line would become a linear parkway to connect their community to downtown. Mr. Clara asked the Planning Commission to take the petition this evening with a grain of salt in light of Union Pacific's past deception. Fred Fife, a resident across the street from the 900 South rail tracks, thanked the Staff for distributing a letter he had written to the Planning Commission. He stated that his letter was his attempt in desperation to have something done to restore the neighborhood he has lived in for more than 30 years. Based on Mr. Pace's comments, Mr. Fife felt he should be trying to find the tie between the reactivation of the 900 South railroad tracks and the proposed location of the inter-modal transfer facility. He believed the reactivation of 900 South was contrary to all the planning work that has been done for that part of the City. The Salt Lake Master Plan, the Rails Consolidation Plan, and the zoning ordinance all call for this rail corridor to be open space and to be converted at some time into a linear park to connect the west side with areas east of the freeway. Mr. Fife pleaded with the Planning Commission to find a way to ask Union Pacific to restore the neighborhood. He believed this had done more damage to the residents and the future of the neighborhood than anything he could envision. Roger Borgenicht, chair of the Salt Lake City Advisory Board, read the motion that board passed concerning this matter on March 4, 2002. The motion endorsed the closure of 4800 West as part of the proposed relocation of the Union Pacific freight inter-modal facility as long as there is a commitment from Union Pacific that the project would not impact the 900 South rail line. He stated that the board realized they were under a quick time frame, and some of the issues were studied more quickly than they would have preferred. On a personal note, He felt Planning Commission Meeting 12 May 16, 2002 that the momentum toward developing transit in this community and in the metropolitan area had turned around 180 degrees in the last two years. Much of that credit goes to UTA and the wisdom of the people in Davis, Weber, and Salt Lake County for voting additional taxes. They realized that more transportation choices will help maintain a quality of life in this region. Mr. Borgenicht was sympathetic to many of the comments from the west side community. He stated that he has been involved with these issues for a long time, and the Railroad Consolidation Plan did contain promises of railroads moving out of neighborhoods. He had heard in meetings that this railroad consolidation would occur and separate some of the division between the east and west. He recalled conversations about reducing the impact of freight rail on communities and increasing the positive impact of passenger rail, and closing the 900 South line was part of that in terms of freight traffic. He hoped the recommendation from the board about getting a commitment from Union Pacific could be met and that the railroad will be able to move toward removing freight traffic from 900 South. Mr. Borgenicht urged the Planning Commission to do whatever is possible to make that commitment real, not just something on a piece of paper. Charlotte Fife Jefferson, a resident in the west side of Salt Lake, stated that she grew up there, and she and her husband chose to buy their first home there. They live there by choice because it is a wonderful, diverse, and close area. As a neighborhood, they are forced to bear the burdens of industry, and now they are being forced to bear the burden of this project. She pleaded with the Planning Commission to look at the broader impacts on the Glendale and Poplar Grove neighborhoods. They are vital neighborhoods, but with all the burdens Union Pacific has placed on their neighborhoods, people who can afford to move out will. She explained that they have been trying to get a Jordan River Parkway trail connection, but they cannot get access with the rail line. Ms. Jefferson stated that asking the residents of these neighborhoods to accept the burdens of this heavy industry for the good of the City is not fair. She asked the Planning Commission to look at the impacts of the inter-modal hub more closely. The residents feel this is being rushed, and they need a more comprehensive plan for the west side or this piecemeal process will kill their neighborhoods. Mr. Daniels asked Ms. Jefferson to elaborate on her comments about the Jordan River trail and the rail tracks. Ms. Jefferson noted that Fred Fife sits on the Jordan River Parkway Foundation and has been involved longer than she has. She asked that he be allowed to answer the question. Mr. Fife explained that the Jordan River Parkway is completed through the City from North Temple to 2100 South in various phases. Where the river goes under the railroad tracks, there is a blockage of the trail continuation due to the inability to have a surface crossing of the trail over the railroad tracks. The City has been working hard to get the trail completed and get approval from the railroad to Planning Commission Meeting 13 May 16,2002 .774 timir cross those tracks. It will be particularly difficult at the reactivated 900 South line because it is becoming a 25-30 mph railroad line. Chairman Daniels closed the public hearing. Mr. Nelson referred to a map showing the railroad coming from the north and south, then turning left into the proposed inter-modal. As the trains come from the south, he could see a natural short cut up 900 South to the inter-modal site, and it would appear to be a natural event to increase the load on that street. He asked the railroad to address that issue, because it impacts the inter-modal issues. He also asked the railroad to expand on what constitutes an emergency. Mr. Lunenberg used a system map to explain the routes coming from Ogden to Salt Lake. Another line runs from Denver to Provo and into Salt Lake, but it is not used for inter-modal and auto traffic because the route is too difficult. He explained what the 900 South line is used for and felt there would be no reason to use the 900 South line for inter-modal traffic. Ms. Barrows asked about chemical loading. Mr. Lunenberg explained that chemicals run through Salt Lake but cannot be stored here. Mr. Nelson clarified that the inter-modal hub will be used exclusively for unloading cars and trucks/trailers. Mr. Lunenberg replied that it would be used the same as Clearfield and Beck Street are today. He reiterated that intermodal and auto traffic does not use 900 South. They have an expedited route that comes through the Midwest to Ogden, into Salt Lake, and goes west at Grant's Tower. Trains run on the 900 South line, but the expedited intermodal/auto traffic will not. Mr. Lunenberg commented on emergency use of that line and stated that it would be very difficult to use. It would take a disaster, such as a flood, to be considered an emergency. Mr. Nelson asked if there would be any reason for trains coming from the south, such as Texas, to use the 900 South rail line. Mr. Lunenberg stated that he could not imagine any market generated for inter-modal or auto coming from Texas toward Salt Lake. He explained that the inter-modal business is primarily from the west coast ports to Chicago and points east. The trains that come through Salt Lake have materials and goods that are used locally and serve the Utah and the greater Salt Lake area. Mr. Nelson commented on the utilities under 4800 South where there are major trunk lines to sewers and noted that the proposed solution is to work it out. Mr. Lunenberg outlined the options they need to evaluate for any existing utilities. The options have been discussed, and Union Pacific needs to decide Planning Commission Meeting 14 May 16,2002 in, IF }Viad) _ - s 63 which one is best. A troublesome issue is the drainage problem. Union Pacific thought they could detain storm water and meet the criteria of 2.2 cubic feet per second of off-site flow. They cannot keep that flow and not detain the water without major changes to the storm drain take- away systems, and they have conflicting information that needs to be worked out. Ms. Barrows was unclear as to how this facility will be used and what it will be used for. She understood that any trains involved with the inter-modal facility would go through Grant's Tower. It appeared to her that 900 South would go directly to the inter-modal facility. Mr. Lunenberg explained that the 900 South line goes by the facility and ties into the same piece of rail that the inter-modal and auto trains will use to get there. Ms. Barrows noted that there is nothing to preclude inter-modal and auto traffic from using 900 South. Mr. Lunenberg reiterated that nothing precludes it except that inter-modal and auto business does not come from that direction. Ms. Barrows asked what Mr. Lunenberg would see as Union Pacific's future growth increase to this inter-modal center. Mr. Lunenberg replied that currently there are 9-12 trains a day. They do not have enough business to run another train, but if business were to grow 2% to 3% per year, they would eventually have enough business to create another train. He noted that they are restricted by train length. He would see that increase as quite a way out. The current plan is to run the same trains they do today and stop at Clearfield with the autos and Beck Street with the inter-modal. Those same trains will go around the corner to Grant's Tower and end up at the facility at 5600 West. Ms. Barrows referred to a letter from Jeff Koch dated April 5 stating that any future growth in the levels of Union Pacific's automobile transportation businesses is not reflected in this transportation operating plan. She asked Mr. Lunenberg to forecast what they will see in the future, because this facility, if approved, will be forever. Mr. Lunenberg replied that if they are fortunate enough that their business grows, they will add a car or two to each train to make them longer. At some point, if the business grows enough, they may have to add another train to that particular service. P. D. Kaiser, representing Parson Transportation Group, stated that they projected to the year 2010 for operation of the facility and explained how that was done. The projected growth is 16% from now to 2010. At the time this was done, Union Pacific did not anticipate additional trains and believed they would only have to add cars to existing trains. A 5,000-foot train may go to 6,500 feet by the year 2010. Mr. Kaiser explained that the impact would be the length of time it would take for the trains to get through the crossings, and the length of time depends on how fast the train is going. They typically run at 60 mph, but when they come into or out of the facility, they would be going 15 mph. He anticipated the traffic delay to be approximately 10 minutes over a 24-hour period. During the 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m. peak periods, an average Planning Commission Meeting 15 May 16, 2002 delays would be seven to eight minutes total. He clarified that trains run 24 hours a day, and out of 34 trains, only four or five occur during a peak period. Ms. Barrows asked if the study considered that fact that 5600 West will not always have peak traffic, and at some point they will have constant traffic. Mr. Kaiser replied that he met with the Utah Department of Transportation to discuss the future plans for 5600 West. UDOT did not have an exact plan and presented him with a number of possibilities. Ms. Barrows asked if UDOT was represented this evening. No one came forward. Mr. Nelson commented on the 700 South crossing and Union Pacific's claim there is no connection between that crossing and the inter-modal facility. Mr. Kaiser explained that they assessed the number of trips generated by the facility, where they go, and how many occur during the peak period. This facility will generate approximately 560 vehicular trips per day over a 24-hour period. The only access to this facility is on 5600 West, and there is no access on 700 South or 4800 West. He identified the existing trucking distribution sites that serve the inter-modal facility and noted that they are the same distribution sites that will serve the new site. Most of the sites are west of 1-215, some are south of State Route 201, and a couple are toward Davis County. Mr. Kaiser noted that the automobile dealerships are destination points for the auto traffic coming through this facility. In order to serve those dealerships, 60% of the truck traffic will make a left turn onto 5600 West, six peak hour trips will use California Avenue, and only one peak hour trip will go onto 700 South. He believed that would represent little or no impact on 700 South. Ms. Barrows stated that her concern was with the impacts on the crossings rather than the actual trucks going out. Mr. Kaiser explained that they looked at the impacts of the train operations on 5600 West, with and without the facility. Without the facility, 34 trains currently go through that area at 55-65 mph. Four to five of those trains occur during the peak period. With the facility, there will be the same 34 trains with 9 to 11 of the trains coming into and out of the facility. Only two of those trains occur during peak traffic periods. Those two trains slowing down to 15 mph were compared with the delays currently caused at 55 miles per hour, and it was found that there is a 10-minute difference between what happens today and what could happen in 2005 when the facility opens. Using the same trains but adding cars would add approximately seven more minutes to the projections for 2010. Mr. Muir asked about the intent for the existing inter-modal sites at Beck Street and Clearfield and asked if the asphalt would remain. Mr. Allegra replied that the Clearfield site is approximately 60 acres and is located next to the rail line. It is paved and lit and has rail Planning Commission Meeting 16 May 16, 2002 FT• �: w access. It has excellent potential for a commuter rail station, but 60 acres of land is not needed for that. Mr. Allegra noted that site is adjacent to two high-density residential areas with great potential for a transit-oriented development. They are just starting the environmental impact statement phase to help identify the stations along the corridor and the activities that would occur at those stations. UTA will let local governments make the decision as to where the stations will be located. UTA does not need that amount of land to make the stations work, and a typical station size is approximately 10 acres. Mr. Allegra explained that it is not anticipated that the Beck Street facility will be used as a commuter rail station. UTA has just started a facilities maintenance study because of this recent acquisition of the facility and these parcels of property as part of the Union Pacific Railroad acquisition and intend to evaluate its usefulness in terms of transit purposes. They are looking at relocating and adding bus maintenance facility uses as part of the referendum commitment to add bus service to the community. They also need space for the commuter rail operations. The intent would be to use the space in a transit development phase that will help them contain costs as they move forward with their transit development projects. Mr. Daniels stated that he intended to follow Mr. Pace's advice and not tie this petition to the abandonment of the 900 South rail line, but he wanted to assure Salt Lake City that it will not be to the detriment or the buildup of the 900 South rail line. He commented on emergency use and the possibilities of floods, train derailments, automobile accidents, and unexpected growth that could lead to expansion of use on the 900 South rail. He understood that it might be unfair to look for an assurance that Union Pacific will never build up traffic on the 900 South line to relieve the inter-modal traffic. He asked how close Union Pacific would come to saying that there will not be additional impacts. Mr. Lunenberg stated that the traffic using the 900 South route today has the same potential growth as stated earlier, but he did not foresee a change in the business that would cause them to use that route for trains coming from the south. He also could not see business coming from the Denver lines over the mountains that would increase that traffic. He commented that an automobile accident or train derailment would not constitute an emergency. It would truly have to be a flood or some type of disaster. John Diamond asked what would happen if Union Pacific did not have use of the 900 South rail and noted a route on the diagram that turns left past Grant's Tower. Mr. Lunenberg replied that there is a route coming from Roper that turns west at Grant Tower. Mr. Diamond asked if there was a relationship between 900 South and what UTA wants to do. Mr. Lunenberg replied that the project proposed at 5600 West and the trains serving that facility will not use the 900 South route, and this is not related in any way to the UTA project. Planning Commission Meeting 17 May 16,2002 FT Ms. Barrows stated that five years ago no one gave them any reason to believe that the 900 South line would be reactivated. Union Pacific says tonight that they cannot anticipate an increase in the inter-modal use, and she was concerned about how good their forecasting is. She was on the Planning Commission during Phase 3 of the Gateway when they planned to remove the line, and she did not understand why 900 South was reactivated. Mr. Lunenberg stated that he was not prepared to speak to that issue since he was not involved in that decision. Kay (berger) Arnold stated that she had a problem with the emergency use language and suggested that the sentence be deleted. She preferred to not leave it to the railroad to determine what constitutes an emergency. Ms. Barrows asked if the City has any control over what the railroad can do and where. Mr. Pace explained that Union Pacific and UTA have asked for certain approvals, and the Planning Commission is debating what conditions should be attached to that approval. Union Pacific has also offered conditions they are willing to abide by in certain commitments. Those take the form of either an offer or acceptance in a contract or a voluntary agreement where the City says if UTA and Union Pacific want this approval, it must be on certain terms, and if they do not agree to those terms, they will not get the approval. Mr. Pace did not think the City had the authority to regulate how rails lines are used, but the City does have authority to approve this project with certain terms. Union Pacific has the choice of agreeing to those terms or walking away from the table. Mr. Muir referred to comments made this evening implying that the railroad has not followed through on previous agreements and asked if this juncture could be an enforcement issue. Mr. Pace stated that it would depend on the nature of those agreements. He was not involved in that process, but he believed they were master plan conceptual documents of what the City hoped to accomplish over time in consolidating and removing rail lines. He was unsure whether the railroad ever agreed in writing to those proposals. In this context, the Planning Commission would be the final decision maker on the conditional use approval. In other parts of the petitions reviewed this evening, the Planning Commission will only be making a recommendation to the City Council. In whatever form that final decision is made, part of it will say that the City grants approval conditioned upon certain elements, and the permit is granted to do what the applicant wants provided they abide by those conditions. If they do not abide by the conditions, the permit is withdrawn, and it becomes an enforcement issue. Mr. Muir felt it would be to the Planning Commission Meeting 18 May 16,2002 MP public's benefit if the City Attorney's Office would investigate those agreements that are binding and inform the City Council as to whether or not they have been abided by. Mr. Pace assured Mr. Muir that other members of his office who have been heavily involved in the litigation over the 900 South line have already done that investigation. Mr. Jonas referred to Mr. Becker's comments and the perspective that a Planning Commission is supposed to plan for the future and plan the best for what they can see happening for this community and for the area. It appeared to Mr. Jonas that the Planning Commission had the opportunity to bring to fruition something that has created a good momentum in terms of commuter rail, mass transit, and alternate transportation forms. They do not have the benefit of a master plan for this area, and as unfortunate as that is, it is where they sit today. However, there is zoning in this area that seems to indicate the intent of the City to push industrial and manufacturing out to the area where this facility is planned. Mr. Jonas referred to Mr. Becker's comments about the intent of the City years ago to move the rail yards out to the west, and this is an opportunity to see that occur. Mr. Jonas preferred to see the facility at 5600 West rather than Beck Street from the standpoint of planning and looking forward to the development of the City. He did not have answers to all the transportation questions and what would happen in the future with 5600 West, but the impacts did not seem that tremendous, and the City has the opportunity now to move forward with a transportation plan. Union Pacific may get the benefit of the momentum created by UTA because they are involved in this transaction, and while they may be considered the bad corporate citizen because they reactivated the 900 South rail, they also helped with Gateway by moving the tracks and making that land available. Mr. Jonas believed this project was far from done because much of the coordination still needs to take place with other departments in the City. However, all the parties are at the table, and as a Planning Commission they are looking at a proposal that requires an action. It may be quicker than everyone would like, but he felt they had to take advantage of this opportunity. Ms. McDonough agreed with Mr. Jonas in terms of supporting the full steam of transportation efforts, but she was disturbed by the timeline, lack of notice to the public, and long-term impacts. She believed this area was the only direction in which the City could grow, and they are hearing from citizens that this master plan and the intent of only manufacturing in this area is ideal and not realistic. If possible, she would like Union Pacific to be obligated to be part of a long-term impact study and commit to responsibility for some impacts by mitigating them either financially or actively. Ms. McDonough noted that, if the Planning Commission continues to look at pieces of this in only a piecemeal fashion without considering the greater obligation of such a major impact, it will continue to not be in the best interest of the City's growth. She suggested Planning Commission Meeting 19 May 16, 2002 an approval subject to integrating a long-term impact study and obligating some mitigation on the part of Union Pacific. Mr. Daniels asked Ms. McDonough if she was suggesting a study for a period longer than 3 to 5 years and possibly 20 years or more. Ms. McDonough replied that was correct. Mr. Jonas stated that he was unclear as to what type of mitigation Ms. McDonough would want, because this area is zoned M-1 and is not intended to be a neighborhood. Ms. McDonough stated that she does not see a mechanism that obligates Union Pacific to be a good citizen. She clarified that her comment was not specific to 5600 West and includes everything from 5600 West to downtown. Ms. Barrows stated that she was comfortable with the petition for a text amendment. On the zoning amendment petition, she would consider changing the zone, but she would also change some of the conditions. Her biggest problem was with the transportation master plan, because UDOT is a partner in this project, but they are not represented this evening. She stated that she had difficulty visualizing changing from an arterial to a commuter to a local. These are huge decisions that determine the where and how of density. She believed the Planning Commission should have a transportation master plan and all the players at the table, and at least a full transportation report should be gone through in detail. She agreed that on the surface they all want commuter rail, and if this is going to facilitate UTA getting commuter rail, they all want to participate. However, this is huge in terms of transportation and how it will effect the entire area, and that is where she believed there was a big hole. Ms. Barrows asked Kevin Young to explain which streets will be arterial and which ones will be local. Mr. Young explained that currently 700 South is an arterial road on the City street map. California Avenue is an arterial, 5600 West is a State road, and Bangerter Highway is a State road. On the map, 4800 West is listed as an arterial. Mr. Young explained the reason for and benefits of closing 4800 West and moving the arterial to 4400 West. Mr. Kaiser further explained that UDOT has given verbal approval for a driveway from the new facility or a new road on 1000 South. The railroad has agreed to realign their driveway to tie into the new 1000 South road so the City can make the connection to 5600 West. Mr. Kaiser believes they would have that approval in writing by the first of the week. Ms. Barrows clarified that the facility access would then be off of 1000 South. She expressed concern about sight distance at the railroad crossing. Mr. Kaiser replied that it will be 800 feet from the crossing, and there is plenty of room for sight distance because it is a flat, straight road. Planning Commission Meeting 20 May 16,2002 i_. Motion for Petition No. 400-02-06 In the matter of Petition 400-02-06 by UTA and Union Pacific requesting a text amendment to Table 21A.28.040 to allow a railroad freight terminal facility in the "M-1" zoning district, Jeff Jonas moved to forward a positive recommendation the City Council to allow the text amendment based upon the findings of fact contained in the Staff report and the testimony herein with an additional condition to include a definition of a railroad freight terminal. Andrea Barrows seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Mr. Nelson voted "Aye." Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, and Ms. Noda were not present for the vote. Robert "Bip" Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried. Motion for Petition No. 400-02-07 In the matter of Petition 400-02-007, a zoning amendment by UTA and Union Pacific Railroad requesting approval to rezone a 21.979 acre piece of property located at approximately 800 South and 5600 West, from a C-G Zoning District to an M-1 Zoning District, Jeff Jonas moved to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council that the property be rezoned from C-G to M-1 subject to meeting the requirements of all City Departments, including approval by the Salt Lake City Airport, the FAA, and UDOT based upon the findings of fact contained in this report and the testimony herein. Andrea Barrows seconded the motion. Findings of Fact - Petition No. 400-02-07 1. Although a land use master plan has not been adopted for this area, the proposed rezoning is consistent with other existing land uses in the area. The rezoning is consistent with the Airport Master Plan. 2. The proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. 3. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect adjacent properties. 4. The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. 5. Public facilities are adequate to service the proposed facility provided approval by the Salt Lake International Airport, Public Utilities Division, and Streets and Sanitation Division is obtained. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Mr. Nelson voted "Aye." Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, and Ms. Noda were not present. Robert "Bip" Daniels, Planning Commission Meeting 21 May 16,2002 as chair, did not vote. The motion carried. Motion for Petition 400-02-11 In the matter of Petition No. 400-02-11 by UTA and Union Pacific Railroad requesting approval to amend the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan by downgrading 4800 West between 1300 South and 700 South from an arterial street to a local street and designating 4400 West between the same two streets as an arterial street and to declare as surplus property an approximately 1300-foot portion of the existing 4800 West Street to be closed as a public street, Jeff Jonas moved to forward a recommendation based on the findings of fact contained in the staff report and the testimony herein that the Transportation Master Plan be amended as follows: a) That a future road connecting 4800 West with 4400 West should be added to the major street plan. b) That the street classification of 4400 West between 700 South and California Avenue be changed from a local to a collector or arterial street as determined by the Transportation Division. c) That a new street connecting 4800 West and 5600 West at approximately 1000 South be added. This street will be a local from 4800 West to 5500 West and a collector from 5500 West to 5600 West. d) The street classification of 4800 West north of California Avenue be changed from an arterial to a local street. The Planning Commission recommends to City Council that the City close and declare as surplus property the portion of 4800 West street between approximately 700 and 900 South subject to: a) Meeting all department requirements and addressing the concerns of the Public Utilities Department. b) Union Pacific Railroad agreeing to allow future crossing of the spur line for the future road connecting 4800 West to 4400 West. Prescott Muir noted that the applicant is challenging the need to extend water lines as addressed in item a) and asked if it would be appropriate to add language to that condition that reads, "directly impacted by the development." Mr. Muir felt that if the utilities are directly impacted, Union Pacific should have to upgrade them. Mr. Nelson liked the intent of Mr. Muir's Planning Commission Meeting 22 May 16, 2002 D-YZ .i- • - language but wondered if it would create an interpretation of"directly impacted"which could result in a judge making that decision. Mr. Jonas pointed out that Union Pacific has asked that the conditions be general in nature so they can negotiate with individual City departments. He was comfortable with that request because, if they cannot come to an agreement with City departments, the petition cannot move forward. Mr. Jonas preferred to leave the language as stated and recommended by Staff. Mr. Wheelwright stated that he was confident that the Public Utilities staff would come to an amenable agreement with Union Pacific. Kent Nelson seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Mr. Nelson voted "Aye." Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, and Ms. Noda were not present. Robert "Bip" Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried. Mr. Jonas realized that he had not finished the motion on the remaining parts of the petition and continued his motion as follows: With regard to 4800 West, the Planning Commission recommended that the Transportation Master Plan be amended as follows: a) Creating a cul-de-sac to City standards for the new terminus of 4800 West Street. b) Participation in the construction of the road between 5500 West and 4800 West at 1000 South. c) Provide a "No Outlet" sign on 4800 West (for northbound traffic)just north of California Avenue and include a "3000 Feet" distance plaque with the sign. d) Construction and dedication of the proposed 1000 South Street between 5600 West and 5500 West and realigning the main access driveway to tie into the new street as a driveway, or, UPRR entering into an agreement with the City to construct and dedicate the street and realign the driveway when it is needed in the future. With regard to 5600 West, the Planning Commission recommends that the Transportation Master Plan be amended as follows: a) Proposed improvements to 5600 West must be reviewed and approved by UDOT. Planning Commission Meeting 23 May 16,2002 With regard to the 700 South Rail Crossing, the Planning Commission recommends that Union Pacific discuss with the City and UDOT the improvement of the crossing. Ms. Barrows suggested adding language to address movement of the existing 700 South line in the event the railroad creates more traffic. She did not know what would happen to 700 South, and since the line will be on Union Pacific property, the City would have no say unless they add language now. Mr. Jonas stated that it is not part of the proposal, and he was unsure how they could connect it to the future. If Union Pacific has committed to improving the crossing, and they have a legal obligation to make all crossings safe, the railroad will be involved in any future improvements to 700 South. Mr. Wheelwright stated that upgrading of crossings is UDOT's responsibility, and to the extent they are City streets, it is a City responsibility. Mr. Muir felt this would be a terrible situation, because Union Pacific has admitted that additional trucks will use that crossing. Mr. Kaiser stated that the impacts would be positive, because there would be fewer trains after the new facility is built. They have identified only one additional vehicle trip per day on 700 South that will go to a trucking facility further east on 500 South. Ms. Barrows favored fewer trains but would like a collaborative effort for the crossing. Ms. Kaiser stated that UDOT is responsible for analyzing any train highway crossing in the State. They use a priority list to determine where money is spent to improve crossings. The list is based on train traffic, vehicular traffic, accidents, etc., and the 700 South crossing is far down on the list. Mr. Kaiser noted that Union Pacific will be eliminating crossings on 5600 West and 4800 West with this project, and he did not see any significant impact to 700 South with the project. Ms. McDonough understood that part of the awkwardness with the crossing was due to the height of the rail, and adjusting the rail higher over time has made that intersection worse. She believed this was a retroactive impact that has become progressively worse. Now that Union Pacific is activating this site, she believed it would be appropriate to obligate the condition suggested by Ms. Barrows. After further discussion, Mr. Jonas felt that anything they do now will only be a band-aid for later, and he was not comfortable amending his motion. Mr. Nelson noted that the language recommended by Staff states that"Union Pacific and the City jointly investigate improving the 700 South Crossing . . . ."which is probably passing the buck, but he felt the language was sufficient. Mr. Jonas agreed to include the following language: a) Union Pacific and the City jointly investigate improving the 700 South rail crossing at approximately 4900 West. Planning Commission Meeting 24 May 16,2002 Kent Nelson seconded the second part of the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Mr. Nelson voted "Aye." Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, and Ms. Noda were not present. Robert "Bip" Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried. Motion for Petition 410-528 In the matter of Petition 410-528 by UTA and Union Pacific Railroad requesting conditional use approval to develop a new inter-modal railroad freight terminal facility located at approximately 800 South and 5600 West in an M-1 zoning district, Jeff Jonas moved to approve the conditional use based on the findings of fact and the testimony herein and subject to conditions a.-k. in the staff report. Mr. Daniels suggested adding Condition I. to read, "Assurance be made that all possible alternatives to diverting any inter—modal traffic on to the 900 South line be used." He commented that the Planning Commission does not have the purview to take the trains off of 900 South, but they do have the purview to say that this project should not adversely affect 900 South. Ms. Arnold stated that it was not clear whether the Planning Commission could take emergency use away from Union Pacific. Mr. Jonas clarified that Condition I. would require Union Pacific to use all possible alternatives other than 900 South in any kind of emergency. He stated that he was comfortable with the amendment to his motion. Mr. Nelson understood that the language as stated by Mr. Daniels would include any inter-modal traffic. Mr. Daniels replied that Union Pacific has already stated that they will not need 900 South for inter-modal trains except in an emergency. Mr. Jonas added the word "emergency" to his condition but explained that he was referring to any kind of inter-modal use. He added Condition m. that the City and Union Pacific should initiate a plan to relocate all long-haul trains away from downtown and residential areas. Kent Nelson seconded the motion. Findings of Fact- Petition 410-528 A. Approval of the proposed facility should be conditioned upon adoption of the zoning ordinance text amendment. Planning Commission Meeting 25 May 16,2002 B. The proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title and is compatible with and implements the planning goals and objectives of the City, including applicable City master plans. C. Streets or other means of access to the proposed development are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic and will not materially degrade the services level on the adjacent streets provided UDOT approval is obtained and Transportation and Engineering Department concerns are addressed. D. The internal circulation system of the proposed development is properly designed. E. Existing utility services are adequate for the proposed facility and will not have an adverse impact on adjacent land uses or resources provided departmental concerns can be addressed. F. At this location, no significant impacts from light, noise, or visual impacts are anticipated. As this facility will operate 24 hours per day, a lighting plan should be provided and approved by the Airport. G. Architecture and building materials are consistent with the development and compatible with other existing structures in the area. H. A landscaping plan will need to be provided and approved by the Planning Director. The proposed development preserves historical, architectural, and environmental features of the property. J. Operating and delivery hours are compatible with adjacent land uses. K. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole. L. The proposed development must meet all applicable City, County, State, and Federal codes and ordinances. Conditions of Approval - Petition 410-528 a. Adoption of the proposed zoning text amendment to allow a rail freight terminal in the "M-1" zoning district. b. Designing the automobile parking and rail freight container storage areas to minimize the potential "heat island" effect. c. Minimizing the need for on-site storm water detention acceptable to the Airport Authority and Public Utilities Departments. d. Subdivision approval including construction agreements on roadways and utilities. e. Obtaining a letter from the Army Corps of Engineering/verification that any wetlands will Planning Commission Meeting 26 May 16,2002 ,J K a) not be disturbed or will be mitigated. f. Airport approval of a lighting plan. g. A landscaping plan be submitted and approved by the Planning Director. h. Meeting all applicable City, State, and Federal requirements. i. Dedication of property along 5600 West sufficient for a 150'wide right-of-way and dedication of the property frontage on 700 South to 84 feet as required by the Transportation Division. Dedication of street right-of-way for the 5500 West/1000 South Street connections or UPRR entering into an agreement with the City to construct and dedicate the street and realign the driveway when it is needed in the future. j. The property owners signing an Avigation Easement. k. Implementation of the recommendations in the Transportation Impact Study. I. Assurances be made that all possible alternatives to diverting any emergency inter- modal traffic onto the 900 South line be used. m. The City and Union Pacific should initiate a plan to relocate all long-haul trains away from downtown and residential areas. Mr. Diamond, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Mr. Nelson voted "Aye." Ms. Arnold and Ms. Barrows voted "Nay." Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, and Ms. Noda were not present. Robert"Bip" Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried. Ms. Barrows noted that some of the findings were based on things such as 700 South, and she asked the Staff to make sure there were no contradictions based on the fact that a conditional use has been approved. To address her concern, Mr. Jonas modified his motion to revise Finding C to read, "Streets or other means of access to the proposed development are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic and will not materially degrade the services level on the adjacent streets provided UDOT approval is obtained and Transportation and Engineering Department concerns are addressed." Kent Nelson seconded the modification to the motion. Ms. Barrows stated that she was troubled by Finding K which indicates that the Conditional Use is compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Diamond, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Mr. Nelson voted "Aye." Ms. Arnold Planning Commission Meeting 27 May 16,2002 i j k rik .,:', and Ms. Barrows voted "Nay." Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, and Ms. Noda were not present. Robert "Bip" Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried. Motion: Mr. Jonas moved to initiate a petition to have a master plan developed for this area which would include a transportation impact study. Ms. McDonough seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Mr. Nelson voted "Aye." Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, and Ms. Noda were not present. Robert"Bip" Daniels, as chair, did not vote. Mr. Nelson stated that he hoped Union Pacific had listened carefully to the comments made tonight and considered the difficulties of the neighborhood on 900 South. Mr. Daniels echoed Mr. Nelson's comment and stated that he was one individual who is closely impacted by the 900 South railroad line as he resides less than 100 feet from it. He took the time in May 1999 to telephone Omaha, Nebraska, to ask someone in the corporate offices about the status of that track. He was told that the track had definitely been abandoned and would not be used again. The next day he signed to by his home. Mr. Daniels stated that his comments are aside from the decision made this evening. Planning Commission Meeting 28 May 16,2002 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION GIVEN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PRIOR TO THE MAY 16, 2002 PLANNNING COMMISSION HEARING Poplar Grove Community Council May 10, 2002 Position of Poplar Grove Community Council on Freight Intermodal Center between 4800 and 5600 West at 800 South We ask for your patience as we recount the history of the Gateway master plan, the 900 South Passenger line conversion from long disuse to heavy freight, the City Creek Restoration Project, before we address the matter now before you—the freight intermodal center. This center is needed to replace two existing Union Pacific Railroad yards so that commuter rail can move forward. We state at the outset, we support good mass transit and commuter rail, but as with all other projects, good and fair planning is key to long-term success. Long-term success is defined as healthy communities and healthy cities, not successful interstate highways or successful commuter rail projects. These corridors should serve us as citizens, not the reverse. Particular care is needed with transportation decisions because these create essentially permanent structures that will decide the quality of life and the direction of development of the city for decades. So this decision deserves proper care and caution, and you as the Planning Commission, will help determine how the city and the region will look for decades to come. The Poplar Grove community has a long and proud history as part of Salt Lake City. We are one of the state's most diverse areas, hosting many young families and newcomers as well as long-time residents. What we as a neighborhood have in common is our desire to build a good place to live for our families, a love and pride for our neighborhood, and an opportunity to create modest wealth for ourselves through investment in our homes and our community. We see ourselves as a community of hard working, tax paying families. We are proud of the many times we come together to work on community projects such as the Jordan River clean up and improvements which Fred Fife and others have organized and spearheaded. As one of the city's Westside neighborhoods, our families have provided the labor for the industries and railroads which have created the prosperity that the entire city enjoys. In short, we are an essential, vibrant and unique part of Salt Lake City. Over the past 130 years, we have hosted more than our fair share of the city's heavy industry and transportation corridors with good grace. As an urban neighborhood, we live close to employment centers and use mass transit. We live in modest houses, in a modest lifestyle, but we are not impoverished. We have believed that the residents of other neighborhoods have in favor of establishing stronger links between the east and west sides of the city. This means to us addressing socio-economic and race differences as well as the physical barriers of the interstate highways and the raillines. The Gateway masterplan, which extends from North Temple to 900 South, was offered to us as a way to shorten viaducts and to soften the division between east and west. The Boyer"Gateway" project as well as other projects in west downtown would extend businesses and the city Page 1 of 1 further west toward us, keeping street and trail connections open between east and west. The 900 South Passenger line, a lightly used line and in recent years, not used at all, would be converted to an urban trail, or possibly along part of its length, housing. This trail would be a strong link between east and west. Bill Wright, planning director when the plan was developed and adopted, has since assured me that this was an important part of the entire Gateway plan, not an expendable part of the Gateway master plan. While many of the transportation elements outlined in the plan, and in more detail in the Railroad Consolidation Plan, have been implemented--offramps and viaducts were shortened, an intermodal hub is designed--the trails linking east and west have not. After using the planning process to enrich itself, Union Pacific Railroad announced that the 900 South line would be reactivated, not for its historical use, passenger rail and infrequent and local freight, but for heavy freight 10-12 times a day, carrying chlorine gas, sulfuric acid and low level radioactive waste (and possibly high level waste when Yucca Mountain or the Skull Valley facility is in place). You probably know the history of the actions by Mayor Anderson, Salt Lake City School District, and our Westside neighborhoods. As a neighborhood we have acted on our own behalf by requesting information on rail crossings and rail inspections, having to resort to an appeal process and Freedom of Information requests to get information that hast to do with this line which has such an impact on our neighborhood. We have had no success. But the hardest for us to accept or understand is that local planning processes are also rushed. In March, Union Pacific and UTA came before the West Salt Lake and the Poplar Grove Community Councils to request the zoning changes and conditional use approvals now before you. These approvals, we have been told, must be approved on a fast track. Also on a fast track public comment process are three of the seven at grade crossings (the other four at Redwood Road, Emery, Navajo, and 900 West, will have no public comment process), and the upgrading of the rail line, with no public process, before the Federal Rail Administration from class 1 (trains can't go faster than 10 mph, although no one seems to have told the railroad that) to class 2 (trains can't go faster than 25 mph). Our response was to unanimously pass the following motion. West Salt Lake Community Council unanimously passed a similar motion: Poplar Grove Community Council endorses the placement of a freight intermodal center between 4400 and 5600 West if the 900 South Passenger Line is abandoned between Redwood Road and 600 West. The Poplar Grove Community Council supports good mass transit, and believes that healthy neighborhoods adjacent to downtown Salt Lake City and its transit hub are critical components of good transportation planning. Poplar Grove Community Council passed the following motion unanimously, April 24, 2002: Poplar Grove Community Council opposes the intermodal freight facility planned for the west side of our neighborhood. We are opposed to the addition of any heavy industrial facility to our neighborhood until the city has completed a master plan for this neighborhood, a master plan that takes into consideration the large amount of industry Page 2 of 2 and transportation faciltities that are already hosted by this community. We insist that no project which exceeds existing zoning be approved until a master plan is adopted. The Poplar Grove Community Council adopted the second motion in April to address the mayor's concern about the motion that we adopted at our March meeting.The concern was that the motion we unanimously adopted connected two issues that are not connected;apparently the decision to locate a freight yard on the west side of our neighborhood swallowing and disgorging freight trains onto the tracks that now surround Poplar Grove must be made independently of the fact that the tracks now surround Poplar Grove.We adopted the above motion because we believe that the March motion frames the issue too narrowly.The issue framed more broadly is that we need a master plan that outlines strategies to improve our community. We believe that the process being used to plan this facility for our neighborhood is too hurried, without study of the immediate impacts on the neighborhood,and without study of the impact on future development patterns. We have been informed by Salt Lake City Planning that a master plan is in place for West Salt Lake which was approved in 1995 but because of problems with printing has not been distributed for the past seven years.It is,they state,in effect even if not easily accessible. This master plan outlines the following planning strategies for our neighborhood: • The protection and preservation of the existing residential land uses; • Strategies for encouraging compatible commercial and industrial development in the community. • Preserve the predominantly low density character and related land use patterns in the residential part of the West Salt Lake Community; • Encourage properly regulated new growth in the areas of anticipated development, especially in the West Salt Lake Industrial District; • Propose a future land use plan that will minimize and eventually eliminate land use conflicts in developed areas. One of the goals of this plan is to"encourage high quality industrial park type of planned development wherever possible in the undeveloped portion of the Community."And the plan recognizes"Environmental constraints in the area such as the high water table,liquefaction potential,poor soil suitability,and airport noise will influence future land use.Because of these constraints,preferable land uses will be limited to light industrial development.Future development in the area may require,in some instances,mitigation of geologic and hydrologic features,including wetlands and wildlife habitats." The West Salt Lake Community Master Plan does not include the area in which the freight intermodal center is proposed,because the west boundary for this planning area is the Bangerter Highway at 4000 West.The proposed intermodal freight yard is in the Northwest Quadrant,for which no plan(except the current zoning)is in place.Even though these are separate planning areas,we believe that there are transportation planning issues involving the entire westside which need to be addressed.We expect that planning for large transportation infrastructure development in our city use a process that enables and encourages community involvement in the decision making process. Even though the master plan for West Salt Lake does not outline Page 3 of 3 planning strategies for the area west of 40th West, it can provide us with some guidance. We pose these questions to our planning staff: How will this proposed freight yard affect future development to the east? Will it help or hinder the Salt lake City's goal to "encourage high quality industrial park type of planned development?" How will relocating Union Pacific's freight yards to the west side of our city change the patterns of train movement through our city? (simply repeating Union Pacific's claim that there is no change in train frequency or route of travel is not an acceptable analysis given UP's habit of dissembling during previous planning meetings. The city should insist that UP provide its planners with the data necessary to verify UP's claim). How will the proposed freight yard affect traffic movement, both from the freight trucks that serve it, and from the impediments that slow moving and stopped trains cause at at- grade crossings?Will the freight yard require separated grade crossings to mitigate effects on traffic flow on 5600 West? And is so how will this affect the development pattern in this commercially zoned corridor? Can the impacts of adding another large transportation infrastructure to our neighborhood (twenty percent of the land in the West Salt Lake Community planning area is used for transportation)be mitigated by improving the Grant's Tower? The City Creek/Union Pacific Railroad Main Line Relocation Feasibility Study (January 2002) outlines improvements to Grant Tower "which would relieve train congestion because train speeds would be increased from 15 mph to 25-30 mph and which could offer an alternative to the 900 South Line shortcut." Included in the $21 million price tag, Union Pacific east-west lines from 600 West to the Jordan River would be consolidated and City Creek raised to the surface). In other words we want community planning that looks at the broad picture. Since the planning process is being driven by regional transportation needs and the need to relocate freight yards to accommodate commuter rail, we believe that the Planning Commission should insist that placement of the intermodal freight hub occur in this broad planning context. Although it may be problematic to condition the approval of an intermodal freight facility on the west side of our neighborhood on the abandonment of the 900 South Passenger Line as passed in our and West Salt Lake Community Council's motions, the planning process should address the issues we have raised. We believe the proposal as offered by Union Pacific and Utah Transit Authority should be tabled until there is a more careful, more honest, and fair consideration of the long term impacts. Because the land under consideration is not now owned by Union Pacific, we do not believe the Surface Transportation Board can intervene in the planning process as it has done with the 900 South Line. This is a plea for how to make our city sustainable, fair, and a good place to live, in a way which will make us proud when our history is told. Edie Trimmer, Chair c4i,L4 246 S 1300 West Salt Lake City UT 84104 Page 4 of 4 Page 2 of 4 BY MARK SMEDLEY Union Pacific Corp.'s plan to convert the 900 South Passenger Line (900SPL) into a heavy freight main line is generating a lot of heat in my neighborhood. Not because west-side residents are opposed to a rail line in our neighborhood, but because we want Union Pacific (U.P.) to continue hauling freight on their main-line corridor that also bisects our neighborhood,just north of Interstate 80. We do not want U.P. to haul freight on a narrow corridor that previously hosted passenger rail, and a few freight cars for businesses adjacent to the passenger line. We want U.P. to abandon the 900SPL. U.P.'s representatives agreed to abandon this line during the public planning process that produced "The Salt Lake City Gateway Area Railroad Consolidation Implementation Plan" and the "Creating an Urban Neighborhood: Gateway District Land Use & Development Master Plan." Robert Starzell, vice president of Union Pacific Railroad's Western Division, stated in a letter addressed to former Salt Lake City Mayor Deedee Corradini and to foinier UDOT Executive Director Tom Warne, Sept. 25, 1997, "[W]e will also abandon the track along 900 South to progress the overall development effort." U.P.'s fraudulent behavior should also generate heat in other forums. It should concern everyone who participates in the public planning process. U.P. participated in a public planning process with Salt Lake City's citizens, elected representatives and staff that resulted in the removal of rail spurs and the Amtrak alignment. Our state transportation planner, UDOT, also participated in the planning process, and consequently was able to design shorter, less expensive Interstate 15 interchanges. U.P. used the planning process to facilitate the sale of more than $30 million of"brown field" real estate. U.P. Vice President Robert Starzell weighed in on the location of the intermodal hub in a letter to Corradini on April 29, 1998: "Selecting the U.P. Depot site would disrupt our sales contract for the property, rewarding us poorly for our cooperation with the Gateway project." Salt Lake City complied with UP's request and located the intermodal hub on 600 West, transferring several million dollars to U.P. for the site. U.P. presented one of its corporate selves in this planning forum. Here it was a community partner meeting with Salt Lake City citizens, elected representatives and planning staff, assisting in a redevelopment project. Here in this public planning process, U.P. acted as the responsible corporate citizen, helping our community to develop regional rail transit, mixed- use development to support the transit, and trails linking neighborhoods and providing for non- motorized access to downtown and to rail transit. In accordance with the Gateway plans, U.P. initiated abandonment of the 900SPL before the federal regulatory board charged with overseeing railroad rights of ways (Surface Transportation Board, February 1998). Less than three years later U.P. presents another of its corporate selves. It acts like a gargantuan provider of rail service so big that the rail operations officers of the corporation cannot be expected to know what the real estate appendage is doing. (This is essentially the claim made by Alex Tice, U.P. Rail Operations officer, during a KCPW interview, Jan. 12, 2002). Through Tice and other employees, U.P. asserts that it has no obligation to honor the agreements its officers made, thumbs its big proboscis at Salt Lake City, and proceeds to railroad the west side. We do not plan to submit to this arrogant bullying. Quoting our popular President George W. Bush (State of the Union speech, January 2002), "Corporate America must be . . . held to the highest standards of conduct." (This is probably a greater standard than we can hope for, given 5/14/2002 I QYJIi J V1 Y the corporate contributions that capitalize political campaigns). Acknowledging that our president was engaging in rhetorical flourish, my neighbors and I are still insisting that our elected leaders hold U.P. to the standard of conduct expected of any citizen that benefits financially from a public planning process. We are insisting that our elected leaders prevent U.P. from defrauding our city. We are insisting that U.P. "stick to the plan [and] honor the — agreement," (District 26 Rep. Fred Fife). As Rep. Fife's voice illustrates, some elected officials understand the issue. The democratic process of planning our communities can only work if all of the participants act honorably, including corporate officers who were supposedly unaware of agreements made by one of the vice presidents. Mayor Rocky Anderson and the Salt Lake City Council also believe that U.P. should honor the agreement. They are using city legal staff and have hired outside council to press the city's case in federal District Court (March 11, 2002) and before the Surface Transportation Board. Gov. Mike Leavitt, on the other hand, declined to hold U.P. to any standard of conduct. When Rep. Fife asked the governor to assist our neighborhood by encouraging U.P. to abandon the 900 South passenger line so that the planned trail could be completed, one of the governor's staff, Bob Linnell, replied "This clearly is a local issue and it appears the locally elected officials are working collectively to respond to the concerns of the neighborhood. We have a long-standing policy of not interjecting the Governor's Office into issues that are the responsibility of the local officials," (correspondence to Rep. Fife, Oct. 5, 2001). Gov. Leavitt's assertion that the issue is a local one ignores the fact that the state's transportation planners participated in the Gateway planning, and that the state received an immediate fiscal benefit. The governor's assertion also raises the larger question: Should citizens expect their chief executive officer to insist that corporations that benefit from a public planning process honor their agreements? Or should we expect that the state's chief planner will twiddle his thumbs while the corporation, one of his campaign contributors, defrauds Utah's citizens?I (and a lot of Enron investors and employees) believe that our elected representatives have a responsibility to insist that corporations refrain from deceitful practices. Leaving aside the argument that the governor should defend the democratic public process, Gov. Leavitt should support the implementation of the Gateway plans, because these plans are the most fiscally responsible planning occurring along the Wasatch Front. The mixed-use development that is occurring in the plan area (from 1-15 east to 300 West and from North Temple south to 900 South)will reduce the demand on the interstate system. This is the most cost-effective means we have for transportation planning, reducing the demand for transportation infrastructure. These plans initiate revitalization of urban neighborhoods on both sides of the I-15 corridor, and embody the kind of development that the Governor's Quality Growth and the Envision Utah planning processes outline as the most cost effective. Implementation of these plans could have a cascading effect, improving air quality, and improving the health of the residents of these neighborhoods and throughout the valley. Apparently Gov. Leavitt supports plans that reduce sprawl in general, but not in the specific case of neighborhood planning adjacent to downtown Salt Lake City, the largest traffic generator in the state. I can only conclude that Gov. Leavitt is frittering away the taxpayer funds used to develop these planning strategies. The trails outlined in the Gateway plans anticipated the Governor's Trails Initiative, and are an essential element of vibrant neighborhoods. They are, in the words of the governor's Executive Summary: Establishing an Olympic Legacy for Trails in Utah, 2002 -- 2004, "an important component of quality growth, community fitness, economic benefit and recreation." The Gateway trail connections provide the future residents of the redeveloping Gateway access to the Jordan River Parkway and other parks,to west-side schools that might serve these 5/14/2002 Page 4 of 4 residents, etc. And they provide west-side residents access to downtown and to the fixed rail transit system in the Gateway. At the signing of an agreement that will transfer more than $175 million from the taxpayers to U.P., Gov. Leavitt emphasized his commitment to providing Utahns with "trails, roads and rails." Apparently the governor supports trails in general, but in the specific case of the trail planned for the 900SPL, he will not ask U.P. to be a responsible corporate citizen. Mark Smedley lives in Salt Lake City. 5/14/2002 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STATE OF UTAH REPRESENTATIVE FRED J. FIFE in *y- . STANDING COMMITTEES:NATURAL RESOURCES, -1 'I AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT,POLITICAL 26TH DISTRICT ` SUBDIVISIONS (SALT LAKE COUNTY) - -% j APPROPRIATIONS:NATURAL RESOURCES 842 WEST 900 SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84 1 04-1 45 1 1_j HOME(801)521-7383/OFFICE(801)521-6440 (� f nn w• FAX(801)521-6456 E-Mail:ff,feiii@aol corn [CITY PLANNING DIVISION May 10, 2002 Dear Honorable Planning Commissioners, RE: Discussion of the 900 South Corridor with relation to the proposed Intermodal Freight Transfer facility. As a matter of coincidence with the proposed Intermodal Freight Transfer facility, the 900 South railroad line has been reactivated by Union Pacific Railroad. The 900 South line provides a shortcut of 2 to 3 miles for trains from the south heading to the location of the proposed Intermodal Freight Transfer facility. Work is presently underway to make the 900 South line a Class 2 railroad track, which allows train speeds up to 30 mph. The 900 South tracks leave the Union Pacific main line at 600 West, heading west through the residential neighborhoods of Glendale and Poplar Grove. After it passes Redwood Road, it veers northwest through the industrial area west of Redwood Road toward the proposed Intermodal Freight Transfer site. The reactivation of the 900 South line—especially in the residential neighborhoods between 600 West and Redwood Road is contrary to all planning work that has been completed for this area of the west side of Salt Lake City. The West Salt Lake Master Plan, The Gateway Rails Consolidation Plan, The Salt Lake City Open Space Plan and the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinances all have other beneficial uses envisioned for the 900 South railroad corridor. Rather than trains traveling through the neighborhoods, these plans call for the conversion of the rail corridor into open space with a linear park and bike path that would connect areas east of I-15 with the Jordan River Parkway in West Salt Lake. 2 Rather than an amenity to the neighborhoods, this reactivation of the 900 South line has brought danger, economic hardship and a sense of entrapment to local residents. Many cannot sell their homes at even 20% below reduced appraisal prices. Their future looks bleak, as many may have to abandon their homes to escape this dilemma. It matters not that the City is struggling to respond to the hopes and needs of the West Salt Lake community. It matters not that property rights of residents are protected against adverse rights imposed on them. What does matter is that our democratic system, based on confidence in the law and visions of an optimistic future has failed the residents of Glendale and Poplar Grove. The railroad has caused damage to the neighborhoods and the residents. It has shattered the hopes and dreams of many. It's continued presence on 900 South will degenereate the progress and revitalization that the neighborhoods have experienced over the last quarter century. How humbling and reassuring it would be to the residents for this reactivation to be reversed—for the trains to be taken back out of the neighborhood. The 900 South line does cut off a few minutes travel time for some of Union Pacific's trains between the main line at 600 West and the location of the proposed Intermadal Freight Transfer facility. However, eliminating the part of these tracks in the residential areas of Glendale and Poplar Grove, between 600 West and Redwood Road, would not interupt any railroad operations. It would only inconvenience a small percentage of their trains (some west bound trains from the south)by a few minutes additional travel time to reach the location of the proposed Intermodal Freight Transfer facility. Industrial customers between Redwood Road and the Intermodal Transfer Facility could still be serviced by the rail line remaining west of Redwood Road, as they have been in the past. Therefore, to preserve the neighborhoods and restore their future, I ask that you consider as a condition for approval of the petition(s) before you, that Union Pacific remove that portion of the 900 South line between 600 West and Redwood Road. a Sincerely, / ` .�I UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY JEFFERY H.KOCH Room 1206 Vice President-Field Operations 1416 Dodge Street Omaha,Nebraska 68179 UNION PACIFIC (402)271-5423 111111 FAX(402)271-6319 May 8, 2002 Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson Mayor, Salt Lake City 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 RE: UTA/SLC Dear Mayor Anderson: As you know, Union Pacific Railroad Company has requested certain City approvals for the proposed new intermodal/auto unloading facilities that will replace the existing facilities being acquired by the Utah Transit Authority. The question has been asked as to whether the new facilities will generate traffic over the rail line at 900 South. As indicated in my April 5 , 2002 letter to Douglas Wheelwright of the City Planning Division, copy attached, rail traffic that will serve the replacement intermodal/auto unloading facilities at 5600 West will not be routed over Union Pacific's rail line at 900 South except in an emergency situation that would require rerouting over 900 South. Because traffic serving the new facilities at 5600 West will originate over Union Pacific's east-west mainline routes from Chicago to Oakland and Los Angeles, any rerouting of this traffic over 900 South would involve significant detouring and consequent delays. Less circuitous alternative routing would be pursued first, and emergency rerouting over 900 South is unlikely ever to occur. A map that depicts the planned routing for the new facilities at 5600 West is attached. If you have any questions or concerns about this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY JEFFERY H NOCH Re,1p6 Vrt Pres.eent-Field Op.,6t0.E •,8 00090 Sbaef Omaha Nabraata 66179 ALM (4,02)221-5423 ) FAX 1402)221g319 April 5,2002 Mr. Douglas Wheelwright Planning Programs Supervisor Salt Lake City Corporation, Planning Division 451 South State Street, Rm 406 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Dear Mr.Wheelwright: This letter is written to outline the Union Pacific's operating plans for the replacement interrnodal and auto facility proposed to be located in the 5600 West area. Currently the Union Pacific operates an intermodal facility near Beck Street and an auto unloading facility in Clearfield. In order to accommodate the Utah Transit Authority project, it is necessary to relocate these facilities. The plan is to combine the relocated auto and intermodal facilities at the same location at the 5600 West site. The relocation itself will not increase the train traffic that currently exists. The same number of trains using the same routing that Is used today is the operating plan for when the new facilities become operational. Any future growth in the levels of Union Pacific's intermodal and automobile transportation businesses(which could occur regardless of relocation of the facilities)is not reflected In this operating plan. Currently, none of the intermodal or auto trains that use Clearfield or the Beck Street facilities use the 900 South line and there is no plan for these trains to use the 900 South line in the future. However,in the event of an emergency,it is possible that any train could run on any available route on a temporary basis. Sincerely, l "c )HK0405 DOC cc: Salt Lake City Planning Department Attention: Douglas Wheelwright, Planning Programs Supervisor 451 South State Street, #406 — Salt Lake City, UT 84111 2 To Oakland \\I OGDEN III \ To Chicago CLEARF I ELD Exsting JI Auto Facility r` v 8 z BECKS -N II Existing lntermodoi Facility l.1') NORTH YARD ____----___,.______.._,. X Proposed Auto/ Intermodal Facility Nr. 5600 West SLG" -O GRANTWER To Oakland s_cw TO To Los Angeles 900 SOUTH ROPER YARD `, SALT LAKE CITY Legend o & VICINITY el lntermodal Train Route �D South Route N. T• S. g 0 05/06/2002 soltloke_voc.dgn SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 126 of the City&County Building 451 South State Street,Salt Lake City,Utah Thursday,May 16,2002,5:45p.m. !VIA? [) '5J Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Robert"Bip"Daniels,Kay(berger) Arnold,Andrea Barrows,John Diamond,Arla Funk,Jeff Jonas,Peggy McDonough,Prescott Muir,and Kent Nelson. Tim Chambless and Laurie Noda were excused. Present from the Planning Staff were Deputy Planning Directors Brent Wilde and Doug Wheelwright and Planners Melissa Anderson,Doug Dansie,and Ray McCandless. Planning Director Stephen Goldsmith was excused. A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr.Daniels called the meeting to order at 5:50 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year,after which they will be erased. Arla Funk left the meeting at 7:35 prior to this matter. PUBLIC HEARING-Petition No.400-02-06,by Utah Transit Authority/Union Pacific Railroad Co.requesting a text amendment to Table 21A.28.040,Table of Permitted And Conditional Uses for Manufacturing Districts: of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to allow a railroad freight terminal facility in the"M-1"zoning district. Petition No.400-02-07,by Utah Transit Authority/Union Pacific Railroad Co.requesting approval to rezone a 19.61 acre piece of property located at approximately 800 South, 5600 West from a General Commercial"C-G"zoning district to a Light Manufacturing"M- 1"zoning district. Petition No.400-02-11,by Utah Transit Authority/Union Pacific Railroad Co.requesting approval to amend the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan by removing 4800 West, between 1300 South and 700 South as an arterial street and designating 4400 West, between the same two streets,as an arterial street. Also,an approximately 1300 foot portion of the existing 4800 West street is also requested to be closed as a public street, and declared surplus to facilitate that street property being combined into the railroad freight terminal site. Planning Commission Meeting 1 May 16,2002 Case No.410-528,by Utah Transit Authority/Union Pacific Railroad Co.requesting Conditional Use approval to develop a new inter-modal railroad freight terminal facility located at approximately 800 South 5600 West in a Light Manufacturing"M-1"zoning district. Robert"Bip Daniels noted that this matter is one project with four(4)petitions with different parts. He allowed the petitioner to give their presentation first,at their request. Mike Allegra,director of transit development at the Utah Transit Authority,provided background information regarding the petition. He explained that the Utah Transit Authority has worked aggressively since the public referendum in 2000 to advance the commitment made to the community. Since then they have provided TRAX,Sunday bus service,and other service extensions. They appreciated the support and cooperation that occurred between UTA,Salt Lake City,and the Department of Transportation during the Olympics. He stated that,while working on these other things,they also worked on the major aspect of the referendum,which was continued expansion of the rail transit program in the Wasatch Front. They spent the past 2-1/2 years working with Union Pacific Railroad to acquire the rights-of-way which are the key elements in developing the transit program. This culminated in a purchase and sale agreement being signed in January 2002 to provide UTA access to 175 miles of railroad right-of-way from Payson to Brigham City with multiple rights-of-way and accesses throughout the Wasatch Front. Mr.Allegra presented a map representing the three distinctions of the acquisition. One area represented where UTA could operate on existing Union Pacific Railroad track. It was noted that the level of freight service north of Ogden is small enough to allow commuter rail and freight rail at different times sharing the same right-of-way. Another right-of-way,representing the predominant acquisition,is an approximately 20-foot right-of-way extending the entire length of the corridor where UTA could construct its own transit facility to provide the advantage of service reliability,schedule frequency,and speed of service. Additional lines on the map represented rights-of-way owned entirely by the Utah Transit Authority. Mr.Allegra explained that,in order to acquire the right-of-way,two major parcels of property were required to satisfy the conditions. One was acquisition of a 60-acre auto transfer facility parcel in Clearfield. The other acquisition is the Beck Street acquisition in North Salt Lake which consists of a piggyback operation where vehicles arrive,are loaded on trucks,and are distributed throughout the valley. Mr.Allegra explained that UTA needed to acquire both parcels to provide a contiguous transit line from Salt Lake to Ogden. Acquisition of these parcels required that UTA find an alternative site to accommodate this multi-modal operation. The site located at approximately 5600 West Planning Commission Meeting 2 May 16,2002 and 700 South is the best and only site that can accommodate this type of operation. It is surrounded by two main line railroad tracks, is in an area with an industrial use, is located in the airport fly zone, and has excellent access to the freeway system. This site provides an excellent opportunity to consolidate these activities, allow the Transit Authority to consummate the deal, and provide a contiguous commuter rail system north and south of Salt Lake. Dave Urrick, representing Union Pacific Railroad, stated that he has been working with UTA on this project from a real estate perspective, and his involvement relates to the corridors and the property required to relocate the two major commercial facilities, which are the subject of this public hearing. Union Pacific consultants and Staff have worked closely with City Staff from various departments in the design of the facility. Union Pacific has also worked with the property owners involved to either acquire a portion of their property or address concerns about operation of the facility after it is built. Mr. Urrick noted that a letter was sent to the Planning Commission from Union Pacific's Chief Engineer of Design addressing some of Union Pacific's concerns related to Staff recommendations for conditions of approval. He provided another letter this evening as an update on where they stand with those issues. He reported that the issue of the connector road on 10th South between 5600 West and 4800 West had been resolved because Union Pacific reached an agreement with PRI, the adjoining property owner. This agreement takes care of one of the conditions of approval because they will participate and insure that 10th South is built up front along with this facility. Union Pacific has agreed to a cost sharing plan with PRI to make sure this happens. Mr. Urrick addressed concerns related to other conditions, including the grade crossing at 700 South. The Staff also identified issues related to heat islands, storm water detention, and utilities that are more fully detailed in the staff report. Mr. Urrick requested that the 700 South grade crossing not be a condition of approval because it is not impacted by nor does it relate to the proposed project. Concerning the conditions involving heat islands, utilities, and drainage, he requested that these conditions be general in nature so Union Pacific and the City could have maximum flexibility to deal with them and arrive at workable solutions for both parties. Gary Lunenberg, representing the Union Pacific Engineering Department, discussed the project. He stated that, as Director of Project Design, he is responsible for the design of new construction projects in 23 states. His involvement with this project has been to work with UTA to find a location for the facilities and to work with the consulting engineering firm, Parsons Transportation Group, to develop the design for the relocation facilities. Mr. Lunenberg presented drawings showing how Salt Lake fits into the railroad's inter-modal and auto transportation system. He noted that this project will not increase the amount of train traffic. He Planning Commission Meeting 3 May 16,2002 explained that an average of nine trains a day stop at Clearfield and Beck Street combined, and with this project, nine trains a day will stop at 5600 West. He explained that a portion of this request is to stub off 4800 West, and he believed that doing so and eliminating the intersection would help with the Staff recommendation to improve the crossing. Mr. Lunenberg discussed access to the facility and noted that the truck and inter-modal facility is a truck/train interface. The trucks that come in and out of the facility will access from 5600 West and go to distribution facilities around town. A traffic study shows that this will happen on the major arterials going to those centers. Planner Ray McCandless explained that this proposal triggers five zoning review processes which are addressed in the staff report. First is a request to amend the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Manufacturing Districts. Currently, railroad freight terminals are only allowed in the M-2 district as a conditional use, and the petitioner is requesting that the City amend the zoning to allow a railroad freight terminal in the M-1 zoning district. The Planning Commission is the recommending body, and this will go on to the City Council. Mr. McCandless explained that the main purpose of a railroad freight facility is to on and off load rail cargo for distribution. Distributing cargo and freight in the M-1 and M-2 zoning district is fairly common. A truck freight terminal is a permitted use in both the M-1 and M-2 zones, but with so little of the City zoned M-2, it seemed appropriate to consider such facilities in the M-1 zoning district. He referred to a partial table of uses contained in the staff report and noted that the Staff recommends that freight facilities become a conditional use in the M-1 zoning district. Mr. McCandless explained that the second request is to rezone the frontage of the applicant's property along 5600 West from a General Commercial Zoning District to a Light Manufacturing Zoning District to bring the entire property under the same zoning. The zoning was initiated in 1995, and at that time the City envisioned a strip of general commercial along the east side of 5600 West to buffer the roadway from heavier manufacturing uses to the east. Since then, a number of changes have occurred along 5600 West which changed the overall appearance and how the area functions. Although a land use master plan has not been formally adopted for this area, the proposed rezone is consistent with existing land uses in the area. Mr. McCandless explained that the third and fourth components are that the City close and declare as surplus property a 1300-foot portion of 4800 West. Part of that request is that the City amend the City Transportation Master Plan. Currently, 4800 West between 700 South and 1300 South is an arterial street, and the applicants would like to remove it as an arterial and make 4400 West the arterial street. Mr. McCandless referred to the area around 4800 West at Planning Commission Meeting 4 May 16,2002 about 1000 South and explained that, in order to provide access for this area as it develops in the future, the Staff recommended that at some point a street be connected from 4400 West to 5600 West. The petitioners have indicated a willingness to do this. Mr. McCandless noted that two rail lines cross 5600 West at 800 South and 900 South, and the applicants are looking at relocating the 900 South line next to the existing line on 800 South. Mr. McCandless stated that the final review component is the conditional use. The master plan amendment, rezoning, and street closure will all go on to the City Council, but the conditional use component is the purview of the Planning Commission. The Staff report identifies 11 findings that need to be made, and he highlighted the important ones. The airport recognizes the need for storm water detention, but since aircraft routinely fly over the area, they have requested that the storm water collection areas be built and managed to minimize standing water. The Public Utilities Department has significant concerns with protection of and access to an existing 27" sewer trunk line at 4800 West. There are also significant storm drainage issues that need to be resolved. Given that there will be 97 acres of hard surfacing, the Management Services Department has requested that the potential heat island effect be minimized by using a lighter-colored surface material. They recommend either concrete or other light-colored surfacing. The property will be subdivided and assembled from other parcels; therefore, a subdivision review will be required and handled administratively. The Staff recommended dedication of property sufficient for a 150-foot right-of-way on 5600 West and an 84-foot right-of- way on 700 South. The Staff is also looking at recordation of an avigation easement and implementation of recommendations of the transportation impact study. Mr. McCandless noted that the Staff recommendations are detailed in the staff report. Mr. McCandless commented on the issue of the 900 South rail corridor and whether it can be linked to this project. He asked Lynn Pace from the City Attorney's Office to address this issue with the Planning Commission. Mr. Muir asked for clarification that the petitioner took exception to Staff recommendations regarding the 700 South rail crossing, the use heat island, and the on-site storm retention. Mr. McCandless explained that reference to the water loop is contained in the Public Utilities Department comments and is part of a general recommendation to meet all department conditions. Lynn Pace, representing the City Attorney's Office, stated that he was asked to address a suggestion made by the Poplar Grove Community Council that approval of this project be Planning Commission Meeting 5 May 16,2002 withheld unless Union Pacific agreed to abandon its 900 South rail line. Subsequent to that recommendation, the Community Council recognized that this might be problematic and instead asked that the Planning Commission consider the impacts this facility would have on the amount of train traffic that would use the 900 South line. Mr. Pace explained that it is inappropriate to link approval of a project to something that is unrelated. In their analysis this evening, he suggested that the Planning Commission consider what impact this facility will have on trains and where they may run as well as other traffic concerns. He noted that, in response to this discussion, the Union Pacific representatives have represented that rail traffic serving the replacement inter-modal auto unloading facilities at 5600 West will not be routed over Union Pacific's rail line at 900 South except in an emergency situation. Mr. Daniels asked what would constitute an emergency situation and how often that might occur. Mr. Pace suggested that the Planning Commission discuss this question with the Union Pacific representatives. Mr. Muir asked if a condition requiring improvement of the 700 South overpass would be an inappropriate linkage to the petition. Mr. Pace replied that he was not familiar with the 700 South issue and could not answer without more information. He stated that the Planning Commission can focus on impacts that would be created if Union Pacific brings a facility to this location, but it is inappropriate to address impacts that may already exist from other sources. Ms. Barrows clarified that, because this is a conditional use, the Planning Commission has the opportunity to look at anything that impacts that property. She asked if they would be limited to what is confined within the property boundaries or whether they would be allowed to deal with interface issues such as transportation and access to public rights-of-way. Mr. Pace replied that the Planning Commission has the ability and obligation to look at the broader impact. The question is a matter of reasonableness. Case law requires that anything required of the developer should have a reasonable nexus with what they are proposing. Mr. Jonas asked for an explanation of the time constraints in moving this project forward. Kathryn Pett, Legal Counsel for UTA, explained that UTA is facing two time constraints in this transaction. One is the need to close this transaction consistent with the closing provisions in the contract, which calls for a May 30 closing. They have the ability to extend, but that ability is limited. The closing must occur no later than August 30 under the contract. In order to achieve that closing schedule, UTA must obtain financing of$185 million in bonds, and that has a long lead time. In order for UTA to get the bonds placed in the public markets and achieve the closing date, assuming it is extended to August 30, they need approval from the governing entities, including the Planning Commission and Salt Lake City Council, no later than July 31. Planning Commission Meeting 6 May 16,2002 Ms. Barrows stated that she could not find a true definition for a railroad freight facility in the zoning ordinance and asked if there was a definition for this type of facility. Mr. McCandless replied that there is no definition. Ms. Barrows asked if the Planning Commission would have the opportunity at this time to write an appropriate definition, noting that Union Pacific has used examples of the current facilities to show how they might be inappropriate in the M-1 zone, yet they are also freight terminal facilities. She was trying to determine how the Planning Commission could distinguish and identify what they are considering. Mr. McCandless felt the Planning Commission could, as part of their motion, create a definition for a rail freight terminal. Ms. Barrows asked if Mr. Pace could help with the language. Mr. Pace stated that he was not in a position to write a definition. If the Planning Commission moves forward with this approval, he suggested that they not only authorize the text amendment for a railroad freight facility in the M- 1 zone but also recommend that a definition be provided for that facility. Chairman Daniels opened the public hearing. Edie Trimmer, Poplar Grove Community Council Chair, stated that the community is looking for something that will help them produce a just, equitable, and sustainable comprehensive plan for everyone's benefit. They want the community, the City, and UTA to benefit. They believe in light rail, but they believe this process is being rushed too fast. Ms. Trimmer stated that she took exception to Mr. Pace's characterization of their second motion. The motion was that there should be a master plan in place and better data before this decision is made, and she believed Mr. Pace mischaracterized that intent. She commented that the Planning Commission is not just to protect the petitioners' rights but to lead the community toward a good and better City for everyone. She believed that, with a good planning process and time for all parties to talk to one another, and if all the issues were brought forward and addressed, the issues could be resolved. She referred to Mr. Pace's comment about the 900 South line being an existing use that the Planning Commission cannot consider and noted that the line has not yet been fully upgraded and feeds directly to the freight inter-modal site. She asked how they could separate rail lines that lead to an inter-modal site and say they are not connected. Ms. Trimmer asked that the process be slowed down to allow time for appropriate study of all the impacts, including the fact that there is not a master plan and that there is a western transportation corridor proposed that runs at 90-degree angles. She did not think that adequate study, data, or answers had been provided. She referred to a May 10 letter from the Community Council to the Planning Commission outlining a number of issues including the fact that this was supposed to be light Planning Commission Meeting 7 May 16, 2002 manufacturing. The letter contains four questions the Community Council wanted to have answered. Ms. Trimmer believed there was a good solution for everyone which might involve Grant's Tower or other alternatives, but she believed it needed better research and review of data. Without traffic and rail data, people are being asked to believe this and accept that there will not be increased use of the 900 South line. Mark Smedley, a Poplar Grove Community Council board member, echoed Ms. Trimmer's comments. He stated that the process is occurring very fast with little notification. He commented that the community was not notified when different petitions were submitted to the City, and the first they heard about this was when he attended a Transportation Advisory Board meeting the first of March. He felt the information provided at the Community Council meeting was inadequate. He stated that they agree with the intent of the petition, but they would like the City Staff to do some analysis of how it will impact the neighborhood rather than just asserting that it does not. Mr. Smedley believed the staff report was dishonest in saying that the neighborhood would not be impacted and does not address any ways that it could or will. In order to be honest, the staff report should say that commuter rail is needed, and therefore they will put a heavier industrial use in the area than what the zone allows. He believed that would be a fair way to say it up front. Instead, the people are told that it has no effect on their neighborhood. Mr. Smedley remarked that the staff report fails to provide an analysis of how the rail yard will affect train traffic through Grant's Tower. Union Pacific has already said that Grant's Tower is a constriction in their system, and one reason for changing the 900 South rail line to heavy freight use from passenger use was that they needed to reduce or remove the constriction in Grant's Tower. Mr. Smedley believed the City should run an independent analysis of how train traffic coming into the valley will affect train traffic through Grant's Tower and not accept Union Pacific's assertion that it will not have an affect. He commented on a study conducted in collaboration with Union Pacific, RDA, and the City related to upgrading Grant's Tower so Union Pacific could move its trains through that area more quickly. It was a $21 million study to relocate the two main lines adjacent to each other so instead of being on Folsom Street and South Temple they would both be relocated to South Temple and the curves re-figured through Grant's Tower to operate at a higher rate of speed. Mr. Smedley believed the planning process should look at the whole transportation system, not just this one facility as an independent unit, and that they should not decide on a location without a study or consideration of how the effects of this facility on the west side of Salt Lake could be mitigated. David Anthony, representing the Glendale Community Council, stated that, in April, Union Pacific and UTA addressed the community council meeting, and it was voted unanimously not Planning Commission Meeting 8 May 16, 2002 to have this facility at 5600 West. The reasons for denial were traffic impacts and manufacturing and commercial sprawl. He commented that no studies have been done on hazardous material, hazardous material handling, or who will respond to hazardous material incidents. Mr. Anthony stated that 900 South is an issue with the Poplar Grove and Glendale Community Councils. Union Pacific runs heavy freight through that area, and Mr. Anthony noted that they identify box cars, flat cars, covered bulk cars, coal cars, etc. He asked what etc. means. He also wanted to know what emergency means. He commented that this will have a great impact on Salt Lake City. He was not against Union Pacific having a yard, but 5600 West is not the place for obvious reasons. He worried about what would happen to the west side neighborhoods, particularly with hazardous materials, and he believed those issues needed to be addressed. He believed the project should be put on hold until they have all the answers, because there was too much at risk. Mr. Anthony stated that the City limits do not end at State Street, and the residents of Salt Lake City need to be addressed; not the industrial residents, but the people who live in Salt Lake. He stated that approving this would be a terrible injustice to Salt Lake City. Ralph Becker provided comments from a historical perspective when he sat on the Planning Commission. He stated that, a number of years ago when they looked at the downtown plan and Gateway before its inception, they considered the opportunity represented by moving the freight operations and main operations to the west. The Planning Commission did not have a specific area identified at that point. Their interest was in moving the tracks to open up west downtown and move much of the rail traffic away from the downtown area to allow the space and benefits of less rail traffic. At that time it appeared that this would also be a great benefit to Union Pacific. Mr. Becker acknowledged that much had changed since then, but he believed this proposal would be a big step in that direction. He felt the Staff had done a great job of analyzing the proposal. From the community point of view on the west side, the issue of the 900 South rail line has been disastrous. The west side of Salt Lake has been at a disadvantage in the City, and reopening the 900 South line worsened the problem. Mr. Becker felt it was unfortunate that Union Pacific did not work toward another solution that would not further damage a critical residential area on the west side of Salt Lake City. He suggested additional conditions of approval for this facility which has been needed for a long time. One condition would be to require initiation of a long-term plan to relocate all long-distance railroad traffic away from the downtown and residential areas. He stated that he had read in the newspaper about a plan to limit the amount of rail traffic on the 900 South line, and he felt it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to require a commitment that the traffic will not increase. Planning Commission Meeting 9 May 16, 2002 Dan McConkie stated that he is Chairman of the Davis County Commission and Chairman of the Wasatch Front Regional Council, which is the Chair of the Metropolitan Plan Organization for the five-county area including Tooele, Salt Lake, Davis, Morgan, and Weber Counties representing the mayors, commissioners, and council members. He stated that he was appearing as the Chairman representing that body this evening. He commented that commuter rail is an important ingredient in relieving the congestion in the Great Salt Lake Basin and has been part of the planning for many decades. It is particularly important to Davis and Weber Counties. He referred to the sales tax increase in Davis, Weber, and Salt Lake Counties that the public voted in to support commuter rail. He believed this Union Pacific right-of-way was especially important in giving mobility to the residents of the Wasatch Front and all who visit here. Commuter rail is the important component that the residents of the northern counties look to and count on as a way to find mobility choices. Mr. McConkie asked the Planning Commission for their wisdom and judgment in a speedy resolve to this matter and to support and expedite the Union Pacific rezone so UTA could move forward with this very important project. Jay Ingleby, representing the West Side Community Council, expressed concern about traffic impacts. Four roads run from the facility--North Temple, 700 South, California Avenue, and 2100 South. Roadway Truck Lines is located at 3200 West California Avenue, and they haul a lot of freight for Union Pacific. Roadway trucks go up and down 1300 South every day. If this facility is built at 5600 West, he believed the traffic would increase because the truck drivers would use 1300 South and 700 South as a matter of habit and would not use North Temple or 2100 South. Therefore, the impact on the residential areas would be significant. Mr. Ingleby believed that this facility would be a detriment to the residents and to the location. He commented on wetlands, holding ponds, birds, and other environmental issues and urged the Planning Commission to look at all the issues involved and realize that this is not a good thing for the community. He stated that the west side is sick of getting the short end of the stick because everything is pushed to the west side. He commented on hazardous waste materials and the disaster that would occur if a train derailed in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Ingleby asked the Planning Commission to put a stop to all that is happening and think of the west side as part of Salt Lake City. Donnie Sweazey stated that he is a resident of the west side and owns a piece of property directly across the street from the proposed facility. He was not opposed to this proposal, but if it were rezoned, he believed all adjacent properties should have the same zoning. Planning Commission Meeting 10 May 16, 2002 Bob Fisher, organizer of the Property Rights Foundation of America in Utah, stated that he did not oppose this project. He agreed that it would bring more traffic and commotion and that the people who are already there should get a better benefit. Currently they are zoned M-1, and he believed M-2 will provide more development options. He believed people in the State would demand more rail and better ways to get around because the freeways and highways are being saturated with semi-trucks. He stated that he was born and raised around railroad tracks, and although it can be nerve racking at times, it can also be educational. Ila Rose Fife, resident in the Poplar Grove area across the street from the 900 South tracks, stated that the residents have been actively improving their neighborhoods, and she believed their neighborhood was vital to the entire City. She believed it had been a tragedy to have the trains back in their neighborhood. She wondered how much the people in the Glendale and Poplar Grove area could take. The noise, smells, and inconvenience of reactivating 900 South, heavy freight, a change in usage, and the high amount of hazardous materials Union Pacific carries through their neighborhood are all on the backs of children who already have many challenges in their life. Children have no choice where they live, and she questioned why they do this to people who need it the least. She commented that Union Pacific chose to reactivate that line so they could get by with lower standards than putting in a new line somewhere else. Consequently, the children in that area are not as safe as children in other places where Union Pacific has put in new lines. Ms. Fife stated that she could not talk about the new inter-modal hub without worrying that more trains would be running through the neighborhood, along with the probability of more truck traffic. She was not against the hub but felt that the impacts needed more study. She proposed that Union Pacific not send contributions to charitable foundations in the next five years and put that money toward closing the 900 South track between 600 West and Redwood Road as their charitable act to the children who need it most. Janette Gonzales, a resident in the Glendale area, stated that her son's bedroom window is 35 feet from the tracks, and they are kept awake most of the night due to the shaking of their house, the sound of the train, and the horn that blows when trains come through. It is affecting their lives and damaging the foundation and walls of their home. She noted that Union Pacific upgraded the operation from Class Ito Class II, and the train speed has increased from 10 mph to 25 mph. She was concerned about accidents from chemical waste and children playing near the tracks because they have no choice. She stated that she and her husband do not have the resources to move, and it is very sad to have to live that way. The City had no idea what Union Pacific had done to their neighborhood, and it was unfair to allow this to happen to them because they are not rich enough to fight. She stated that she wonders every night why the City Planning Commission Meeting 11 May 16, 2002 would allow this to happen in their neighborhood and urged the Planning Commission to help them. Michael Clara agreed with Edie Trimmer that the people are being asked to believe that the 900 South line will not be used or have an increase in traffic. Mr. Clara stated that the community is skeptical because at one point Union Pacific made a mockery of this very body. In 1997 the Planning Commission considered the Railroad Consolidation Plan that indicated that the 900 South line would be removed. Mr. Clara referred to earlier comments by Mr. Becker that the plan was to move tracks out of downtown and out of the Gateway area. Mr. Clara stated that they were also part of the Gateway area. Federal funding was brought into the area, and they were part of that. According to the Railroad Consolidation Plan, the 900 South line was to be removed. Mr. Clara referred to a plan that was adopted by the Planning Commission in 1998, Creating an Urban Neighborhood Gateway District Land Use and Development Master Plan, and noted that several pages of that document contain a map showing a green parkway on the 900 South line. Mr. Clara questioned why Union Pacific had decided to come to the Planning Commission tonight to make an amendment to a transportation master plan. He believed Union Pacific deceived the community and the federal government and let everyone believe that the 900 South line would become a linear parkway to connect their community to downtown. Mr. Clara asked the Planning Commission to take the petition this evening with a grain of salt in light of Union Pacific's past deception. Fred Fife, a resident across the street from the 900 South rail tracks, thanked the Staff for distributing a letter he had written to the Planning Commission. He stated that his letter was his attempt in desperation to have something done to restore the neighborhood he has lived in for more than 30 years. Based on Mr. Pace's comments, Mr. Fife felt he should be trying to find the tie between the reactivation of the 900 South railroad tracks and the proposed location of the inter-modal transfer facility. He believed the reactivation of 900 South was contrary to all the planning work that has been done for that part of the City. The Salt Lake Master Plan, the Rails Consolidation Plan, and the zoning ordinance all call for this rail corridor to be open space and to be converted at some time into a linear park to connect the west side with areas east of the freeway. Mr. Fife pleaded with the Planning Commission to find a way to ask Union Pacific to restore the neighborhood. He believed this had done more damage to the residents and the future of the neighborhood than anything he could envision. Roger Borgenicht, chair of the Salt Lake City Transportation Advisory Board, read the motion that board passed concerning this matter on March 4, 2002. The motion endorsed the closure of 4800 West as part of the proposed relocation of the Union Pacific freight inter-modal facility Planning Commission Meeting 12 May 16,2002 as long as there is a commitment from Union Pacific that the project would not impact the 900 South rail line. He stated that the board realized they were under a quick time frame, and some of the issues were studied more quickly than they would have preferred. On a personal note, he felt that the momentum toward developing transit in this community and in the metropolitan area had turned around 180 degrees in the last two years. Much of that credit goes to UTA and the wisdom of the people in Davis, Weber, and Salt Lake County for voting additional taxes. They realized that more transportation choices will help maintain a quality of life in this region. Mr. Borgenicht was sympathetic to many of the comments from the west side community. He stated that he has been involved with these issues for a long time, and the Railroad Consolidation Plan did contain promises of railroads moving out of neighborhoods. He had heard in meetings that this railroad consolidation would occur and separate some of the division between the east and west. He recalled conversations about reducing the impact of freight rail on communities and increasing the positive impact of passenger rail, and closing the 900 South line was part of that in terms of freight traffic. He hoped the recommendation from the board about getting a commitment from Union Pacific could be met and that the railroad will be able to move toward removing freight traffic from 900 South. Mr. Borgenicht urged the Planning Commission to do whatever is possible to make that commitment real, not just something on a piece of paper. Charlotte Fife Jefferson, a resident in the west side of Salt Lake, stated that she grew up there, and she and her husband chose to buy their first home there. They live there by choice because it is a wonderful, diverse, and close area. As a neighborhood, they are forced to bear the burdens of industry, and now they are being forced to bear the burden of this project. She pleaded with the Planning Commission to look at the broader impacts on the Glendale and Poplar Grove neighborhoods. They are vital neighborhoods, but with all the burdens Union Pacific has placed on their neighborhoods, people who can afford to move out will. She explained that they have been trying to get a Jordan River Parkway trail connection, but they cannot get access with the rail line. Ms. Jefferson stated that asking the residents of these neighborhoods to accept the burdens of this heavy industry for the good of the City is not fair. She asked the Planning Commission to look at the impacts of the inter-modal hub more closely. The residents feel this is being rushed, and they need a more comprehensive plan for the west side or this piecemeal process will kill their neighborhoods. Mr. Daniels asked Ms. Jefferson to elaborate on her comments about the Jordan River trail and the rail tracks. Ms. Jefferson noted that Fred Fife sits on the Jordan River Parkway Foundation and has been involved longer than she has. She asked that he be allowed to answer the question. Mr. Fife explained that the Jordan River Parkway is completed through the City from North Temple to 2100 South in Planning Commission Meeting 13 May 16, 2002 various phases. Where the river goes under the railroad tracks, there is a blockage of the trail continuation due to the inability to have a surface crossing of the trail over the railroad tracks. The City has been working hard to get the trail completed and get approval from the railroad to cross those tracks. It will be particularly difficult at the reactivated 900 South line because it is becoming a 25-30 mph railroad line. Chairman Daniels closed the public hearing. Mr. Nelson referred to a map showing the railroad coming from the north and south, then turning left into the proposed inter-modal. As the trains come from the south, he could see a natural short cut up 900 South to the inter-modal site, and it would appear to be a natural event to increase the load on that street. He asked the railroad to address that issue, because it impacts the inter-modal issues. He also asked the railroad to expand on what constitutes an emergency. Mr. Lunenberg used a system map to explain the routes coming from Ogden to Salt Lake. Another line runs from Denver to Provo and into Salt Lake, but it is not used for inter-modal and auto traffic because the route is too difficult. He explained what the 900 South line is used for and felt there would be no reason to use the 900 South line for inter-modal traffic. Ms. Barrows asked about chemical loading. Mr. Lunenberg explained that chemicals run through Salt Lake but cannot be stored here. Mr. Nelson clarified that the inter-modal hub will be used exclusively for unloading cars and trucks/trailers. Mr. Lunenberg replied that it would be used the same as Clearfield and Beck Street are today. He reiterated that intermodal and auto traffic does not use 900 South. They have an expedited route that comes through the Midwest to Ogden, into Salt Lake, and goes west at Grant's Tower. Trains run on the 900 South line, but the expedited intermodal/auto traffic will not. Mr. Lunenberg commented on emergency use of that line and stated that it would be very difficult to use. It would take a disaster, such as a flood, to be considered an emergency. Mr. Nelson asked if there would be any reason for trains coming from the south, such as Texas, to use the 900 South rail line. Mr. Lunenberg stated that he could not imagine any market generated for inter-modal or auto coming from Texas toward Salt Lake. He explained that the inter-modal business is primarily from the west coast ports to Chicago and points east. The trains that come through Salt Lake have materials and goods that are used locally and serve the Utah and the greater Salt Lake area. Mr. Nelson commented on the Planning Commission Meeting 14 May 16,2002 utilities under 4800 South where there are major trunk lines to sewers and noted that the proposed solution is to work it out. Mr. Lunenberg outlined the options they need to evaluate for any existing utilities. The options have been discussed, and Union Pacific needs to decide which one is best. A troublesome issue is the drainage problem. Union Pacific thought they could detain storm water and meet the criteria of 2.2 cubic feet per second of off-site flow. They cannot keep that flow and not detain the water without major changes to the storm drain take- away systems, and they have conflicting information that needs to be worked out. Ms. Barrows was unclear as to how this facility will be used and what it will be used for. She understood that any trains involved with the inter-modal facility would go through Grant's Tower. It appeared to her that 900 South would go directly to the inter-modal facility. Mr. Lunenberg explained that the 900 South line goes by the facility and ties into the same piece of rail that the inter-modal and auto trains will use to get there. Ms. Barrows noted that there is nothing to preclude inter-modal and auto traffic from using 900 South. Mr. Lunenberg reiterated that nothing precludes it except that inter-modal and auto business does not come from that direction. Ms. Barrows asked what Mr. Lunenberg would see as Union Pacific's future growth increase to this inter-modal center. Mr. Lunenberg replied that currently there are 9-12 trains a day. They do not have enough business to run another train, but if business were to grow 2% to 3% per year, they would eventually have enough business to create another train. He noted that they are restricted by train length. He would see that increase as quite a way out. The current plan is to run the same trains they do today and stop at Clearfield with the autos and Beck Street with the inter-modal. Those same trains will go around the corner to Grant's Tower and end up at the facility at 5600 West. Ms. Barrows referred to a letter from Jeff Koch dated April 5 stating that any future growth in the levels of Union Pacific's automobile transportation businesses is not reflected in this transportation operating plan. She asked Mr. Lunenberg to forecast what they will see in the future, because this facility, if approved, will be forever. Mr. Lunenberg replied that if they are fortunate enough that their business grows, they will add a car or two to each train to make them longer. At some point, if the business grows enough, they may have to add another train to that particular service. P. D. Kaiser, representing Parson Transportation Group, stated that they projected to the year 2010 for operation of the facility and explained how that was done. The projected growth is 16% from now to 2010. At the time this was done, Union Pacific did not anticipate additional trains and believed they would only have to add cars to existing trains. A 5,000-foot train may go to 6,500 feet by the year 2010. Mr. Kaiser explained that the impact would be the length of time it would take for the trains to get through the crossings, and the length of time depends on Planning Commission Meeting 15 May 16,2002 how fast the train is going. They typically run at 60 mph, but when they come into or out of the facility, they would be going 15 mph. He anticipated the traffic delay to be approximately 10 minutes over a 24-hour period. During the 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m. peak periods, an average delay would be seven to eight minutes total. He clarified that trains run 24 hours a day, and out of 34 trains, only four or five occur during a peak period. Ms. Barrows asked if the study considered that fact that 5600 West will not always have peak traffic, and at some point they will have constant traffic. Mr. Kaiser replied that he met with the Utah Department of Transportation to discuss the future plans for 5600 West. UDOT did not have an exact plan and presented him with a number of possibilities. Ms. Barrows asked if UDOT was represented this evening. No one came forward. Mr. Nelson commented on the 700 South crossing and Union Pacific's claim there is no connection between that crossing and the inter-modal facility. Mr. Kaiser explained that they assessed the number of trips generated by the facility, where they go, and how many occur during the peak period. This facility will generate approximately 560 vehicular trips per day over a 24-hour period. The only access to this facility is on 5600 West, and there is no access on 700 South or 4800 West. He identified the existing trucking distribution sites that serve the inter-modal facility and noted that they are the same distribution sites that will serve the new site. Most of the sites are west of 1-215, some are south of State Route 201, and a couple are toward Davis County. Mr. Kaiser noted that the automobile dealerships are destination points for the auto traffic coming through this facility. In order to serve those dealerships, 60% of the truck traffic will make a left turn onto 5600 West, six peak hour trips will use California Avenue, and only one peak hour trip will go onto 700 South. He believed that would represent little or no impact on 700 South. Ms. Barrows stated that her concern was with the impacts on the crossings rather than the actual trucks going out. Mr. Kaiser explained that they looked at the impacts of the train operations on 5600 West, with and without the facility. Without the facility, 34 trains currently go through that area at 55-65 mph. Four to five of those trains occur during the peak period. With the facility, there will be the same 34 trains with 9 to 11 of the trains coming into and out of the facility. Only two of those trains occur during peak traffic periods. Those two trains slowing down to 15 mph were compared with the delays currently caused at 55 miles per hour, and it was found that there is a 10-minute difference between what happens today and what could happen in 2005 when the facility opens. Using the same trains but adding cars would add approximately seven more minutes to the projections for 2010. Planning Commission Meeting 16 May 16,2002 Mr. Muir asked about the intent for the existing inter-modal sites at Beck Street and Clearfield and asked if the asphalt would remain. Mr. Allegra replied that the Clearfield site is approximately 60 acres and is located next to the rail line. It is paved and lit and has rail access. It has excellent potential for a commuter rail station, but 60 acres of land is not needed for that. Mr. Allegra noted that site is adjacent to two high-density residential areas with great potential for a transit-oriented development. They are just starting the environmental impact statement phase to help identify the stations along the corridor and the activities that would occur at those stations. UTA will let local governments make the decision as to where the stations will be located. UTA does not need that amount of land to make the stations work, and a typical station size is approximately 10 acres. Mr. Allegra explained that it is not anticipated that the Beck Street facility will be used as a commuter rail station. UTA has just started a facilities maintenance study because of this recent acquisition of the facility and these parcels of property as part of the Union Pacific Railroad acquisition and intend to evaluate its usefulness in terms of transit purposes. They are looking at relocating and adding bus maintenance facility uses as part of the referendum commitment to add bus service to the community. They also need space for the commuter rail operations. The intent would be to use the space in a transit development phase that will help them contain costs as they move forward with their transit development projects. Mr. Daniels stated that he intended to follow Mr. Pace's advice and not tie this petition to the abandonment of the 900 South rail line, but he wanted to assure Salt Lake City that it will not be to the detriment or the buildup of the 900 South rail line. He commented on emergency use and the possibilities of floods, train derailments, automobile accidents, and unexpected growth that could lead to expansion of use on the 900 South rail. He understood that it might be unfair to look for an assurance that Union Pacific will never build up traffic on the 900 South line to relieve the inter-modal traffic. He asked how close Union Pacific would come to saying that there will not be additional impacts. Mr. Lunenberg stated that the traffic using the 900 South route today has the same potential growth as stated earlier, but he did not foresee a change in the business that would cause them to use that route for trains coming from the south. He also could not see business coming from the Denver lines over the mountains that would increase that traffic. He commented that an automobile accident or train derailment would not constitute an emergency. It would truly have to be a flood or some type of disaster. Mr. Diamond asked what would happen if Union Pacific did not have use of the 900 South rail and noted a route on the diagram that turns left past Grant's Tower. Mr. Lunenberg replied that there is a route coming from Roper that turns west at Grant Tower. Mr. Diamond asked if there Planning Commission Meeting 17 May 16,2002 was a relationship between 900 South and what UTA wants to do. Mr. Lunenberg replied that the project proposed at 5600 West and the trains serving that facility will not use the 900 South route, and this is not related in any way to the UTA project. Ms. Barrows stated that five years ago no one gave them any reason to believe that the 900 South line would be reactivated. Union Pacific says tonight that they cannot anticipate an increase in the inter-modal use, and she was concerned about how good their forecasting is. She was on the Planning Commission when there was discussion of Phase 3 of the Gateway Railroad Consolidation Study which planned to remove the line, and she did not understand why 900 South was reactivated. Mr. Lunenberg stated that he was not prepared to speak to that issue since he was not involved in that decision. Kay (berger) Arnold stated that she had a problem with the emergency use language and suggested that the sentence be deleted. She preferred to not leave it to the railroad to determine what constitutes an emergency. Ms. Barrows asked if the City has any control over what the railroad can do and where. Mr. Pace explained that Union Pacific and UTA have asked for certain approvals, and the Planning Commission is debating what conditions should be attached to that approval. Union Pacific has also offered conditions they are willing to abide by in certain commitments. Those take the form of either an offer or acceptance in a contract or a voluntary agreement where the City says if UTA and Union Pacific want this approval, it must be on certain terms, and if they do not agree to those terms, they will not get the approval. Mr. Pace did not think the City had the authority to regulate how rails lines are used, but the City does have authority to approve this project with certain terms. Union Pacific has the choice of agreeing to those terms or walking away from the table. Mr. Muir referred to comments made this evening implying that the railroad has not followed through on previous agreements and asked at this juncture could it be an enforcement issue? Mr. Pace stated that it would depend on the nature of those agreements. He was not involved in that process, but he believed they were master plan conceptual documents of what the City hoped to accomplish over time in consolidating and removing rail lines. He was unsure whether the railroad ever agreed in writing to those proposals. In this context, the Planning Commission would be the final decision maker on the conditional use approval. In other parts of the petitions reviewed this evening, the Planning Commission will only be making a recommendation to the City Council. In whatever form that final decision is made, part of it will say that the City grants Planning Commission Meeting 18 May 16,2002 approval conditioned upon certain elements, and the permit is granted to do what the applicant wants provided they abide by those conditions. If they do not abide by the conditions, the permit is withdrawn, and it becomes an enforcement issue. Mr. Muir felt it would be to the public's benefit if the City Attorney's Office would investigate those agreements that are binding and inform the City Council as to whether or not they have been abided by. Mr. Pace assured Mr. Muir that other members of his office who have been heavily involved in the litigation over the 900 South line have already done that investigation. Mr. Jonas referred to Mr. Becker's comments and the perspective that a Planning Commission is supposed to plan for the future and plan the best for what they can see happening for this community and for the area. It appeared to Mr. Jonas that the Planning Commission had the opportunity to bring to fruition something that has created a good momentum in terms of commuter rail, mass transit, and alternate transportation forms. They do not have the benefit of a master plan for this area, and as unfortunate as that is, it is where they sit today. However, there is zoning in this area that seems to indicate the intent of the City to push industrial and manufacturing out to the area where this facility is planned. Mr. Jonas referred to Mr. Becker's comments about the intent of the City years ago to move the rail yards out to the west, and this is an opportunity to see that occur. Mr. Jonas preferred to see the facility at 5600 West rather than Beck Street from the standpoint of planning and looking forward to the development of the City. He did not have answers to all the transportation questions and what would happen in the future with 5600 West, but the impacts did not seem that tremendous, and the City has the opportunity now to move forward with a transportation plan. Union Pacific may get the benefit of the momentum created by UTA because they are involved in this transaction, and while they may be considered the bad corporate citizen because they reactivated the 900 South rail, they also helped with Gateway by moving the tracks and making that land available. Mr. Jonas believed this project was far from done because much of the coordination still needs to take place with other departments in the City. However, all the parties are at the table, and as a Planning Commission they are looking at a proposal that requires an action. It may be quicker than everyone would like, but he felt they had to take advantage of this opportunity. Ms. McDonough agreed with Mr. Jonas in terms of supporting the full steam of transportation efforts, but she was disturbed by the timeline, lack of notice to the public, and long-term impacts. She believed this area was the only direction in which the City could grow, and they are hearing from citizens that this master plan and the intent of only manufacturing in this area is ideal and not realistic. If possible, she would like Union Pacific to be obligated to be part of a long-term impact study and commit to responsibility for some impacts by mitigating them either Planning Commission Meeting 19 May 16,2002 financially or actively. Ms. McDonough noted that, if the Planning Commission continues to look at pieces of this in only a piecemeal fashion without considering the greater obligation of such a major impact, it will continue to not be in the best interest of the City's growth. She suggested an approval subject to integrating a long-term impact study and obligating some mitigation on the part of Union Pacific. Mr. Daniels asked Ms. McDonough if she was suggesting a study for a period longer than 3 to 5 years and possibly 20 years or more. Ms. McDonough replied that was correct. Mr. Jonas stated that he was unclear as to what type of mitigation Ms. McDonough would want, because this area is zoned M-1 and is not intended to be a neighborhood. Ms. McDonough stated that she does not see a mechanism that obligates Union Pacific to be a good citizen. She clarified that her comment was not specific to 5600 West and includes everything from 5600 West to downtown. Ms. Barrows stated that she was comfortable with the petition for a text amendment. On the zoning amendment petition, she would consider changing the zone, but she would also change some of the conditions. Her biggest problem was with the transportation master plan, because UDOT is a partner in this project, but they are not represented this evening. She stated that she had difficulty visualizing changing from an arterial to a collector to a local. These are huge decisions that determine the where and how of density. She believed the Planning Commission should have a transportation master plan and all the players at the table, and at least a full transportation report should be gone through in detail. She agreed that on the surface they all want commuter rail, and if this is going to facilitate UTA getting commuter rail, they all want to participate. However, this is huge in terms of transportation and how it will effect the entire area, and that is where she believed there was a big hole. Ms. Barrows asked Kevin Young to explain which streets will be arterial and which ones will be local. Mr. Young explained that currently 700 South is an arterial road on the City street map. California Avenue is an arterial, 5600 West is a State road, and Bangerter Highway is a State road. On the map, 4800 West is listed as an arterial. Mr. Young explained the reason for and benefits of closing 4800 West and moving the arterial to 4400 West. Mr. Kaiser further explained that UDOT has given verbal approval for a driveway from the new facility or a new road on 1000 South. The railroad has agreed to realign their driveway to tie into the new 1000 South road so the City can make the connection to 5600 West. Mr. Kaiser believes they would have that approval in writing by the first of the week. Ms. Barrows clarified that the facility access would then be off of 1000 South. She expressed concern about sight distance at the Planning Commission Meeting 20 May 16,2002 railroad crossing. Mr. Kaiser replied that it will be 800 feet from the crossing, and there is plenty of room for sight distance because it is a flat, straight road. Motion for Petition No. 400-02-06 In the matter of Petition 400-02-06 by UTA and Union Pacific requesting a text amendment to Table 21A.28.040 to allow a railroad freight terminal facility in the "M-1" zoning district, Mr. Jonas based on the finding of fact contained in the Staff report and the testimony herein moved to forward a positive recommendation the City Council to allow the text amendment with an additional condition to include a definition of a "railroad freight terminal". Andrea Barrows seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Mr. Nelson voted "Aye." Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, and Ms. Noda were not present for the vote. Robert "Bip" Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried. Motion for Petition No. 400-02-07 In the matter of Petition 400-02-007, a zoning amendment by UTA and Union Pacific Railroad requesting approval to rezone a 21.979 acre piece of property located at approximately 800 South and 5600 West, from a C-G Zoning District to an M-1 Zoning District, Mr. Jonas based on the finding of fact contained in the Staff report and the testimony herein moved to forward a positive recommendation the City Council that the property be rezoned from C-G to M-1 subject to meeting the requirements of all City Departments, including approval by the Salt Lake City Airport, the FAA, and UDOT based upon the findings of fact contained in this report and the testimony herein. Andrea Barrows seconded the motion. Findings of Fact- Petition No. 400-02-07 1. Although a land use master plan has not been adopted for this area, the proposed rezoning is consistent with other existing land uses in the area. The rezoning is consistent with the Airport Master Plan. 2. The proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. 3. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect adjacent properties. 4. The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. 5. Public facilities are adequate to service the proposed facility provided approval by the Salt Lake International Airport, Public Utilities Division, and Streets and Sanitation Planning Commission Meeting 21 May 16,2002 Division is obtained. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Mr. Nelson voted "Aye." Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, and Ms. Noda were not present. Robert"Bip" Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried. Motion for Petition 400-02-11 In the matter of Petition No. 400-02-11 by UTA and Union Pacific Railroad requesting approval to amend the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan by downgrading 4800 West between 1300 South and 700 South from an arterial street to a local street and designating 4400 West between the same two streets as an arterial street and to declare as surplus property an approximately 1300-foot portion of the existing 4800 West Street to be closed as a public street, Mr. Jonas moved to forward a recommendation based on the findings of fact contained in the staff report and the testimony herein moved to forward a positive recommendation the City Council that the Transportation Master Plan be amended as follows: a) That a future road connecting 4800 West with 4400 West should be added to the major street plan. b) That the street classification of 4400 West between 700 South and California Avenue be changed from a local to a collector or arterial street as determined by the Transportation Division. c) That a new street connecting 4800 West and 5600 West at approximately 1000 South be added. This street will be a local from 4800 West to 5500 West and a collector from 5500 West to 5600 West. d) The street classification of 4800 West north of California Avenue be changed from an arterial to a local street. The Planning Commission recommends to City Council that the City close and declare as surplus property the portion of 4800 West street between approximately 700 and 900 South subject to: a) Meeting all department requirements and addressing the concerns of the Public Utilities Department. b) Union Pacific Railroad agreeing to allow future crossing of the spur line for the future road connecting 4800 West to 4400 West. Planning Commission Meeting 22 May 16,2002 Prescott Muir noted that the applicant is challenging the need to extend water lines as addressed in item a) and asked if it would be appropriate to add language to that condition that reads, "directly impacted by the development." Mr. Muir felt that if the utilities are directly impacted, Union Pacific should have to upgrade them. Mr. Nelson liked the intent of Mr. Muir's language but wondered if it would create an interpretation of"directly impacted"which could result in a judge making that decision. Mr. Jonas pointed out that Union Pacific has asked that the conditions be general in nature so they can negotiate with individual City departments. He was comfortable with that request because, if they cannot come to an agreement with City departments, the petition cannot move forward. Mr. Jonas preferred to leave the language as stated and recommended by Staff. Mr. Wheelwright stated that he was confident that the Public Utilities staff would come to an amenable agreement with Union Pacific. Kent Nelson seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Mr. Nelson voted "Aye." Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, and Ms. Noda were not present. Robert"Bip" Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried. Mr. Jonas realized that he had not finished the motion on the remaining parts of the petition and continued his motion as follows: With regard to 4800 West, the Planning Commission recommended that the Transportation Master Plan be amended as follows: a) Creating a cul-de-sac to City standards for the new terminus of 4800 West Street. b) Participation in the construction of the road between 5500 West and 4800 West at 1000 South. c) Provide a "No Outlet" sign on 4800 West (for northbound traffic)just north of 1000 South. d) Construction and dedication of the proposed 1000 South Street between 5600 West and 5500 West and realigning the main access driveway to tie into the new street as a driveway, or, UPRR entering into an agreement with the City to construct and dedicate the street and realign the driveway when it is needed in the future. With regard to 5600 West, the Planning Commission recommends that the Transportation Planning Commission Meeting 23 May 16, 2002 Master Plan be amended as follows: a) Proposed improvements to 5600 West must be reviewed and approved by UDOT. With regard to the 700 South Rail Crossing, the Planning Commission recommends that Union Pacific discuss with the City and UDOT the improvement of the crossing. Ms. Barrows suggested adding language to address movement of the existing 700 South line in the event the railroad creates more traffic. She did not know what would happen to 700 South, and since the line will be on Union Pacific property, the City would have no say unless they add language now. Mr. Jonas stated that it is not part of the proposal, and he was unsure how they could connect it to the future. If Union Pacific has committed to improving the crossing, and they have a legal obligation to make all crossings safe, the railroad will be involved in any future improvements to 700 South. Mr. Wheelwright stated that upgrading of crossings is UDOT's responsibility, and to the extent they are City streets, it is a City responsibility. Mr. Muir felt this would be a terrible situation, because Union Pacific has admitted that additional trucks will use that crossing. Mr. Kaiser stated that the impacts would be positive, because there would be fewer trains after the new facility is built. They have identified only one additional vehicle trip per day on 700 South that will go to a trucking facility further east on 500 South. Ms. Barrows favored fewer trains but would like a collaborative effort for the crossing. Mr. Kaiser stated that UDOT is responsible for analyzing any train/highway crossing in the State. They use a priority list to determine where money is spent to improve crossings. The list is based on train traffic, vehicular traffic, accidents, etc., and the 700 South crossing is far down on the list. Mr. Kaiser noted that Union Pacific will be eliminating crossings on 5600 West and 4800 West with this project, and he did not see any significant impact to 700 South with the project. Ms. McDonough understood that part of the awkwardness with the crossing was due to the height of the rail, and adjusting the rail higher over time has made that intersection worse. She believed this was a retroactive impact that has become progressively worse. Now that Union Pacific is activating this site, she believed it would be appropriate to obligate the condition suggested by Ms. Barrows. After further discussion, Mr. Jonas felt that anything they do now will only be a band-aid for later, and he was not comfortable amending his motion. Mr. Nelson noted that the language recommended by Staff states that"Union Pacific and the City jointly investigate improving the 700 South Crossing . . . ."which is probably passing the buck, but he felt the language was sufficient. Planning Commission Meeting 24 May 16, 2002 Mr. Jonas agreed to include the following language: a) Union Pacific and the City jointly investigate improving the 700 South rail crossing at approximately 4900 West. Kent Nelson seconded the second part of the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Mr. Nelson voted "Aye." Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, and Ms. Noda were not present. Robert "Bip" Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried. Motion for Petition 410-528 In the matter of Petition 410-528 by UTA and Union Pacific Railroad requesting conditional use approval to develop a new inter-modal railroad freight terminal facility located at approximately 800 South and 5600 West in an M-1 zoning district, Mr. Jonas moved to approve the conditional use based on the findings of fact and the testimony herein and subject to conditions a.-k. in the staff report moved to forward a positive recommendation the City Council. Mr. Nelson seconded the motion. Mr. Daniels suggested adding Condition I. to read, "Assurance be made that all possible alternatives to diverting any inter—modal traffic on to the 900 South line be used." He commented that the Planning Commission does not have the purview to take the trains off of 900 South, but they do have the purview to say that this project should not adversely affect 900 South. Ms. Arnold stated that it was not clear whether the Planning Commission could take emergency use away from Union Pacific. Mr. Jonas clarified that Condition I. would require Union Pacific to use all possible alternatives other than 900 South in any kind of emergency. He stated that he was comfortable with the amendment to his motion. Mr. Nelson understood that the language as stated by Mr. Daniels would include any inter-modal traffic. Mr. Daniels replied that Union Pacific has already stated that they will not need 900 South for inter-modal trains except in an emergency. Mr. Jonas added the word "emergency" to his condition but explained that he was referring to any kind of inter-modal use. He added Condition m. that the City and Union Pacific should initiate a plan to relocate all long-haul trains away from downtown and residential areas. Planning Commission Meeting 25 May 16,2002 Mr. Nelson accepted the amendments to the motion. Findings of Fact - Petition 410-528 A. Approval of the proposed facility should be conditioned upon adoption of the zoning ordinance text amendment. B. The proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title and is compatible with and implements the planning goals and objectives of the City, including applicable City master plans, current zoning and uses. C. Streets or other means of access to the proposed development are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic and will not materially degrade the services level on the adjacent streets provided UDOT approval is obtained and Transportation and Engineering Department concerns are addressed. D. The internal circulation system of the proposed development is properly designed. E. Existing utility services are adequate for the proposed facility and will not have an adverse impact on adjacent land uses or resources provided departmental concerns can be addressed. F. At this location, no significant impacts from light, noise, or visual impacts are anticipated. As this facility will operate 24 hours per day, a lighting plan should be provided and approved by the Airport. G. Architecture and building materials are consistent with the development and compatible with other existing structures in the area. H. A landscaping plan will need to be provided and approved by the Planning Director. I. The proposed development preserves historical, architectural, and environmental features of the property. J. Operating and delivery hours are compatible with adjacent land uses. K. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole. L. The proposed development must meet all applicable City, County, State, and Federal codes and ordinances. Conditions of Approval - Petition 410-528 a. Adoption of the proposed zoning text amendment to allow a rail freight terminal in the Planning Commission Meeting 26 May 16, 2002 "M-1" zoning district. b. Designing the automobile parking and rail freight container storage areas to minimize the potential "heat island" effect. c. Minimizing the need for on-site storm water detention acceptable to the Airport Authority and Public Utilities Departments. d. Subdivision approval including construction agreements on roadways and utilities. e. Obtaining a letter from the Army Corps of Engineering/verification that any wetlands will not be disturbed or will be mitigated. f. Airport approval of a lighting plan. g. A landscaping plan be submitted and approved by the Planning Director. h. Meeting all applicable City, State, and Federal requirements. i. Dedication of property along 5600 West sufficient for a 150'wide right-of-way and dedication of the property frontage on 700 South to 84 feet as required by the Transportation Division. Dedication of street right-of-way for the 5500 West/1000 South Street connections or UPRR entering into an agreement with the City to construct and dedicate the street and realign the driveway when it is needed in the future. j. The property owners signing an Avigation Easement. k. Implementation of the recommendations in the Transportation Impact Study. I. Assurances be made that all possible alternatives to diverting any emergency inter- modal traffic onto the 900 South line be used. m. The City and Union Pacific should initiate a plan to relocate all long-haul trains away from downtown and residential areas. Mr. Diamond, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Mr. Nelson voted "Aye." Ms. Arnold and Ms. Barrows voted "Nay." Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, and Ms. Noda were not present. Robert"Bip" Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried. Ms. Barrows noted that some of the findings were based on things such as 700 South, and she asked the Staff to make sure there were no contradictions based on the fact that a conditional use has been approved. To address her concern, Mr. Jonas modified his motion to revise Finding C to read, "Streets or other means of access to the proposed development are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic and will not materially degrade the services level on the adjacent streets provided UDOT approval is obtained and Transportation and Engineering Department concerns are addressed." Planning Commission Meeting 27 May 16,2002 Kent Nelson seconded the modification to the motion. Ms. Barrows stated that she was troubled by Finding K which indicates that the Conditional Use is compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Diamond, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Mr. Nelson voted "Aye." Ms. Arnold and Ms. Barrows voted "Nay." Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, and Ms. Noda were not present. Robert"Bip" Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried. Motion: Mr. Jonas moved to initiate a petition to have a master plan developed for this area which would include a transportation impact study. Ms. McDonough seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Mr. Nelson voted "Aye." Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, and Ms. Noda were not present. Robert"Bip" Daniels, as chair, did not vote. Mr. Nelson stated that he hoped Union Pacific had listened carefully to the comments made tonight and considered the difficulties of the neighborhood on 900 South. Mr. Daniels echoed Mr. Nelson's comment and stated that he was one individual who is closely impacted by the 900 South railroad line as he resides less than 100 feet from it. He took the time in May 1999 to telephone Omaha, Nebraska, to ask someone in the corporate offices about the status of that track. He was told that the track had definitely been abandoned and would not be used again. The next day he signed to buy his home. Mr. Daniels stated that his comments are aside from the decision made this evening. Planning Commission Meeting 28 May 16,2002 Salt Lake City Council Office Memo To: Council Members From: Michael Sears,Budget&Policy Analyst Date: May 31,2002 Re: Proposal and Estimated Budget to Own,mange and Operate the Jordan River Parkway and Golf Course File: FY01-02,,FY02-03 Budget The Administration has transmitted briefing material relating to the ownership and operation of the Jordan River Parkway and Golf Course. The Council has discussed this issue briefly. Council staff feels that an additional briefing is not necessary and as such this item is noted as a written briefing on the agenda.The Council may wish to confirm that the City will own the properties in question. CHEW( �(1� RP y� T I,�17 $14d '. 2Q e RICHARD GRAHAM SALT' r• 41 r 3 H 1: ` OR DRAT, \' - '�"� ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart Chief Administration Officer FROM: Rick Graham, Director Department of Public Services SUBJECT: Salt Lake City Proposal and Estimated Budget to Own, Manage and Operate the Jordan River Parkway and Golf Course STAFF CONTACT: Rick Graham, 535-7774 DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing BUDGET IMPACT: Funds will need to be appropriated from the General Fund in 2002/2003 to maintain and manage the Jordan River Parkway and Cottonwood Park. Additionally, funds will need to be appropriated from the Golf Enterprise Fund to fund the Jordan River Golf Course operation. Only the golf course will generate revenue, which will help to offset the annual cost to operate and maintain the course. In the case of golf, grants and private donations will flow to the City to partially offset the cost of sponsoring the 1st Tee-Youth on Course youth program. The division of State Parks and Recreation has offered to pay the City$35,000 annually for five (5) years as an offset toward the maintenance of the parkway and park. The City has made a counter offer of$75,000. The City will expect the State to fund a larger portion of the maintenance cost. The final figure is yet to be negotiated. The State is also willing to transfer maintenance equipment to the City in place of financial support. DISCUSSION: The 2002 State Legislative mandated that the Division of State Parks evaluate parks for closure to meet a $500,000 budget cut for fiscal year 2003. As a result of its evaluation, the State Parks Division chose to close the following facilities in Salt Lake City; Jordan River Trailway between North Temple and the Salt Lake County line; Cottonwood Park; Jordan River Golf Course; and the Model Airport facility. These sites represent approximately 104 acres of developed property, approximately 4 miles of trail and approximately 300 acres of natural openspace. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 148, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7775 FAX: 801-S35-7789 /Q The Division of Sate Parks has held a public meeting (April 4, 2002) and has met with Administration and Council staff. It has also shared financial information with the City. Public Services Department staff has used State financials to develop the maintenance and revenue budgets contained in this briefing report. The budget projections are estimates at best, and should be considered as a starting point, which may need to be adjusted during the upcoming budget year. In evaluating the value and benefit gained by taking ownership of the State property, the Administration made the following conclusions: 1. The City Administration believes in community building and the State seems comfortable pulling away from our community. 2. The State will walk away, and even close these public areas if a government agency or a special interest group does not step forward. 3. Salt Lake City currently lacks green and protected open space and if steps are not taken when opportunities exist, the opportunity to resolve the deficiency will be much greater in the future. 4. Over the past seven (7) years, Salt Lake City has spent hundreds of thousands of capital and maintenance dollars developing a hard surface multi-purpose trail along the Jordan River. This investment has also included the cleaning up and greening up of residential neighborhoods that border the river. 5. Strong evidence exists that shows the public uses the trail system for recreation and public transportation purposes. 6. The Jordan River is a natural wonder and an open-air classroom for education. 7. The City needs additional formal park space for athletic fields, picnic areas, off-leash areas and general public use. 8. With the proper partnerships, the golf course could become a viable and valuable training and education site for the youth of the City. 9. The model airplane airport is a 300-acre site that has future potential, as a regional park and nature preserve, not a model airplane airport. 10. Except for the river trail itself, all the developed property(park, golf course and model airplane airport) could be transformed into other public open space uses. 11. The State has said that it is willing to give the City"Fee Title" to all the property at no cost to the City. Based on these conclusions the Administration believes that it is in the long-term interest of the City to own, manage and maintain the following State sites; the trailway along the Jordan River between North Temple and the north end of Rose Park Golf Course (approximately 2200 North and Redwood Road); Cottonwood Park; and the Jordan River Golf Course. At this time, the Administration would not accept ownership responsibility for the Model Airport facility. In return for taking over these sites the City would expect the State to make the following accommodations: 1. Within one year, or a reasonable amount of time, the State will pass "Fee Title" ownership of all property to the City. 2. In the same period of time as number one, all State land currently leased to the City along the river corridor between 2100 South and North Temple will also pass to City ownership at no cost. 3. The State will deliver the property and facilities to the City in a reasonable condition with all systems repaired and operating. Some repairs to the golf course, Cottonwood Park and along the trail will be required (picnic pavilions, sod, irrigation system, painting and clean up.) 4. The State will seal-coat the trail at the level currently budgeted for in its operation budget for FY 2002. 5. The State will pay the City an annual sum of$75,000, or a negotiated sum, for a five (5) year period, as a contribution toward trailway and park maintenance. Currently, the State has said that it will give the City $35,000 annually. 6. The State will use its best efforts to help the City secure Trailway and River Enhancement Grants for future development and renovation of the trail and parkway. 7. The State will place the City in first position and give it the right-of-first- refusal to obtain ownership of the property currently used as the Model Airplane Airport and ORV training site before it disposes of the property or places it in a long term use agreement. 8. Any grants currently in the hands of the State for the support of the First Tee Golf Program will be transferred to the City or the organization that sponsors the program. 9. The State will grant permission for the City to utilize a reasonable amount of storage space at its regional shop, for the storage of park and golf equipment and supplies. 10. The State will transfer ownership of the golf maintenance equipment that is used for the golf course and that is in good operational condition. 11. The State will grant the City permission to either dedicate or use a portion of the agriculture building parking area as park and trailway parking. 12. The State will transfer all water rights attached to land transferred to the City. Proposed Use Plans And Estimated Budget The City would manage and maintain the trailway and park consistent with its current trailway and park program. At some point, and with the review and support of the local community, changes to Cottonwood Park could be made to make it a facility that meets the best use of the City, i.e. a dog off-leash area, soccer fields, etc. At some point in the next 3 to 5 years, capital funds will need to be invested in the park to upgrade the facilities so that it meets City standards. For example, the dirt trailway between 1000 North and 2200 North may need to be replaced with a hard surface; the playground, restroom and irrigation system at the park will need to be upgraded or replaced. The 2002/2003 estimated budget and one time equipment costs for the trail way and park is estimate to be: Operating Budget: $81,500 Equipment: $47,000 TOTAL $128,500 Capital Improvement funds, that will need to be spent over the next 3 to 5 years is estimated to be: Trail way Surface: $160,000* Playground: $125,000 Restroom: $150,000 Irrigation: $150,000 Misc.: $100,000 TOTAL $685,000 * Optional The Golf Enterprise Fund will take over the entire golf complex and operate it in the same manner and standard of its other seven (7) courses. The 3-par course will be absorbed into the Rose Park Golf Program. The golf professional and greens superintendent will manager the course. Some existing equipment and staff will be shared between the two golf courses. In addition to operating the course as a daily fee public course, this course will used as a youth development site. Current junior golf programs sponsored by the City may now be operated at the course. The City will also partner and allow the 1st Tee and Youth on Course Programs to use the course and name it as its home base. The 2002/2003 budget and one time equipment costs for the golf course is estimated to be: Pro Shop Operation: $42,000 Maintenance Operation: $85,000 Equipment: $97,000* TOTAL $224,000 Green Fee and Program Revenue $80,000 *Does not include the transfer of State equipment, so final cost may be less. The difference between revenue and expenditure, less equipment, is $48,000. This amount will be covered from fund balance, or grants and donations given to support the youth programs. A grant from the USGA for$50,000 has already been received for 2002/03. Golf managers fully expect green fee and program revenues to increase over the next three years as a result of better management practices and strong marketing. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council support the Administration's recommendation to accept the State park and golf property as outlined in this briefing report. • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET AMENDMENT FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 DATE: May 31, 2002 SUBJECT: Unresolved issues with the Mayor's Recommended Budg t Amendment STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears, Gary Mumford cc: Mayor Anderson, Cindy Gust-Jenson, David Nimkin, Rocky Fluhart, Roger Cutler, Rick Graham, LeRoy Hooton,Rick Dinse, Margaret Hunt, Chuck Querry,Tim Campbell, Steve Fawcett, Laurie Dillon, Kay Christensen,Susi Kontgis, Randy Hillier, DJ Baxter The Council received the Mayor's Recommended Budget Amendment on May 7, 2002 and has held budget briefings with each of the City's departments at subsequent meetings. During each of the briefings direction was provided to Council staff concerning which budget amendments the Council was in general agreement. The Council held a Public Hearing on the proposed budget amendments on May 21, 2002 and has communicated additional information to Council staff after receiving public input. Council staff has prepared an attachment, which lists the proposed budget amendments, and those amendments that some Council Members would like changed (Sheet A). Council staff has also attached Sheet B, which is a listing of possible optional cuts and other priorities in which one or more Council Members have expressed an interest. The total of changes to the Mayor's recommended budget amendment on Sheet A needs to be offset by optional cuts on Sheet B. Council staff has included an example to show one possibility for balancing. A blank column is also included for use by Council and staff during the work session discussion. Sheet C lists the one-time revenue and proposed uses. With the exception of a couple of items, Council Members tentatively decided to defer consideration of uses of one-time revenue until after the ongoing budget is adopted. The attachments can be projected onto a screen for the unresolved issues briefing on June 4, 2002. Council Members will note that the format for dealing with the unresolved issues follows the Capital Project and Grant presentation formats. Final adoption of the proposed budget amendments with any changes will take place during the Council Meeting on June 13, 2002. Council staff will prepare budget amendment motion sheets based on the direction given during the briefing on June 4, 2002. Also attached are responses from the Administration on questions posed during department briefings. You will also find a listing of draft legislative intent statements that have been mentioned during work session discussions or by individual Council Members. The Council may wish to discuss these statements and suggest other items to be added to the list of potential intent statements. The following numbered items are items that have been discussed .by Council Members during the budget amendment process. Items that the Council may wish to especially consider during the work session have been shaded on the attached sheets for ease of identification. On-going Revenue and Expenditures Sheet A #2 - Additional city prosecutor - Some Council Members would like to fund this position on a temporary basis for 6 months or one year until additional information is available. Other Council Members may prefer not funding this position until comparative information is presented on a national basis. One Council Member has expressed interest in funding the position on a long-term basis. Sheet A #7 - Eliminate zoning inspector position - Some Council Members would like to find enough revenue to keep the zoning position fully funded for fiscal year 2002-2003. Sheet A #8 - Eliminate dedicated staffing of CERT program (3 FTEs) net f fees - Some Council Members would like to fund a part-time position that would coordinate and administer the CERT program. A part-time position allocation would be $20,500; a full-time position allocation would be $41,000. Interest has also been expressed in maintaining the program to a greater extent. Sheet A #13 - Delete mobile watch coordinator position (balanc of proportional cuts) - Some Council Members would like to fund a part-time position that would coordinate and administer the mobile watch program. A part-time position allocation would be $23,500; a full-time position allocation would be $47,000. Interest has also been expressed in maintaining the program to a greater extent. Sheet A #14 - Delete 2 of 5 youth and family specialists - The original proposal by the Administration included the reduction of 4 specialists in the Youth and Family program. The Mayor has since changed the recommendation to reduce the program by only 2 specialists. The Administration proposes to offset the change by paying for rent for the Engineering Division until it moves into City-owned space using one-time revenue since it will not be an ongoing expense. Some Council Members have indicated that they would like to fund one additional position. Total staffing for this program will be 4 positions if the latter scenario is adopted. Sheet A #23 - Reduce graffiti removal materials (eliminate materials for businesses) - Some Council Members would like to keep the funding for this program. Sheet A #33 - Reduce rent expense ($139,762 + $104,000) - The Administration has changed some recommendations since submitting the budget amendment. Two items are being proposed for reinstatement. One-time revenue is being proposed to cover the reinstatement of the suggested position eliminations. The two reinstatements are the In-House Architect program at a cost of $139,762 and restating two youth and family specialist positions at a cost of$104,000. 2 Sh t B #1 - Annual cash c nversi n of personal 1 av -Actual expenditures for the conversion of personal leave for the past two years are less than the budgeted amounts by about $40,000. Sheet B #2 - Additional savings in process service costs (Pr s cut is Office) -The actual expenditures for the process service function are lower than the budgeted amounts by about $18,000. Sheet B #3 - Additional savings in process service costs (Managem nt Services) - The actual expenditures for the process service function for the Administrative (soon to be Justice) Court by about $40,000. Sheet B #4 - Engineering Division rent for July-Dec Pay (remainder with one-time funds) - If the recommendation for using one-time revenue to cover July-Dec rent is adopted by the Council, $17,194 remains in the on-going budget. This amount can be recaptured and appropriated. Sheet B #5 - Parking meter collection - urge other options of collecting- If the City were to use a different method of colleting parking meter revenue a cost savings of$31,874 can occur. Remaining allocation for the collection of parking meter revenue would be $50,000. Sheet B #6 - Architects (Proper allocation of expenses to capital projects) - During the briefing on the elimination of two licensed architects it was noted that the research still needs to be done to ensure proper cost allocations and consistency within the assignment of engineering costs to capital projects. The positions would remain as the Administration has recommended. The Engineering Division budget would be reduced by $50,000 in anticipation of proper cost allocation to capital projects. Some Council Members have also indicated a desire to include a legislative intent statement asking for an update on the cost allocation review. Sheet B #7 - Fund training for Boards and Commissions - During the Community and Economic Development department briefing some Council Members indicated that they would like to see the training budget for Board and Commissions increased. Council staff has indicated $15,000 as the increase amount. The Administration may have a more specific amount. Sheet B #8 - Fund placement of Speed Boards in community - Some Council Members have indicated that they would like to see the speed boards better utilized. There are several possible ways to ensure that the speed boards are in the neighborhood during the peak travel periods of the day. An amount of $50,000 may cover a contract to distribute the speed boards in the neighborhoods. Sheet B #9 - Fund Youth Programs with on-going revenue not one-time - During the briefmg on non-departmental expenditures, the Administration indicated that the City will need annual seed money to use when seeking grant funding. This expenditure that was proposed, as a one-time expenditure with one-time revenue might be better budgeted as an on-going expenditure, funded with on-going revenue. 3 On -tim Rev nu and Exp nditures Sh t C #4 - Surplus in SID guarant account (Som a ds to r main t use as th City's guarant for issuing d bt) - The proposed one-time revenue sources include $177,957 in SID guarantee funds. The City treasurer will soon be issuing additional SID Debt for the East Liberty Park area. If the full amount is removed, the Treasurer will have to ask for additional funds during a budget opening. Some Council Members have indicated that it would be best to leave a portion of these funds and avoid a future budget request. Sheet C #10 - Houser sculptures - During the budget briefing on non- departmental expenditures the Council indicated that they would like to reduce the proposed expenditure for the purchase of sculptures to $200,000. The Council also indicated that this money would be used as a match for fundraising efforts. Sheet C#14-Fund accumulated liability for vacation/sick leave with on - time rev ($650,000) - The City has an unfunded deferred liability of $11,600,000 for accumulated vacation and sick leave payments for retiring personnel. One Council Member suggested using part of the General Fund balance to begin funding this liability. There is also a concern with that there is not consistency in how vacation and retirement payouts are administered and budgeted. Currently the Police, Fire and Public Services departments have a budgeted amount for retirement expenses. The Administration is recommending that the allocation for Public Services be eliminated to help balance the budget. Budgeting and charging retirement payouts to a separate fund or account would allow for more consistent budgeting and accounting between General Fund departments. The majority of the budget for retirement payouts relates to prior years. Sheet C#21-Appropriate excess in fund balance over 10%to accumulat d liability for vacation/sick leave (ibnd balance of$19.2 million is 12%of on-going General Fund revenue) - Some Council Members recommend that a separate liability fund be created to fund the deferred liability for vacation and sick leave. The unfunded liability is approximately $11,600,000. A reduction in General Fund balance to 10%(reduction of$3,275,000) could be used to begin to fund the deferred liability account. This item relates to the item#14 above. Sheet C #24 - One-time revenue appropriation to CIP Fund - During the briefing on the Capital Improvement Program, Council Members indicated a desire to increase the appropriation level of the local streets reconstruction project and to fund the Yalecrest Triangle park/median. One-time funds of $1,383,806 could be used to bring the CIP projects up to the requested funding levels. (The current recommendation includes an increase of$72,317 to CIP contingency. This amount could be applied to the Yalecrest Triangle park/median. $1,372,123 would go to local streets reconstruction and$84,000 to the Yalecrest project.) Sheet C #25 - Increase General Fund balance - During the department budget briefings Council Members indicated that they would like to delay making an appropriation decision on the proposed uses of one-time revenue. - The Council would make an appropriation of approximately $7,200,047 to General Fund balance and decide the uses of one-time revenue later in the year. 4 1 • Capital Improv m nt Fund R v nu and Exp nditur s Sh t C #26 - Additi nal appr priation to local str t r nstru tion - Council Members indicated a desire to fund this project at the current adopted level, $2,872,123 ($1,500,000 has already been expensed). One-time funds will need to be used. This would augment the 9% on-going allocation to the CIP Fund by $1,372,123 for this project. Sheet C #27 - Appropriation to Yalecrest Triangle Park / Median - Council Members indicated a desire to fund this project and the requested level, $84,000. One-time funds will need to be used. This would augment the 9% on- going allocation to the CIP Fund by $11,683. Sheet C #28 - Reduce appropriation to CIP fiscal year 2002-2003 Contingency (amount over $200,000) - A reduction of the CIP contingency of $72,317 (to bring the balance to $200,000) could be used to fund the majority of the Yalecrest Triangle park/median. 5 5/31/2002 SHEET A S me interest Proposed Amendment to On-Going Budget Pr posed by C until F r C unc' Members in Discussi funding Lin # 1 Pers nal services adjustment(net adjustment for all departments) $ 16,6291, City Att mey's Office Additional city prosecutor 57,535 3 Additional savings in process service costs 154,100) 4 Correction of error(assistant city attorney) (62,000) CED 5 El ctricity savings for street lighting (50,000) 6 Eliminate building inspector position (47,000) Eliminate zoning inspector position (42,000) 42,000 Fire Eliminate dedicated staffing of CERT program(3 FTEs)net of fees (110,000) 20,500 Management Services 9 Reduce Justice Court operating expenses (34,937) 10 Additional amount to pay for parking meter collection by police 4,874 11 P lice Civilian Review Board investigator 90,500 12 Eliminate policy development specialist position (91,704) Police D I to mobile watch coordinator proportional ( )/ position(balance of cuts) 12,160 23,500 Delete 2 of 5 youth and family specialists (104,000) 15 Eliminate 1 of 3 information specialists (31,000) 16 Eliminate 1 of 5 civilian community mobilization specialists (49,000) Public Services • 17 Water for parks 83,000 18 Waste disposal for parks 20,531 19 Pric increase for CBI security 27,514 20 Utility charges for City-owned facilities 90,963 21 Gateway area agreement-water&maintenance 24,000 22 Additional seasonal and part-time staff(0.95 FTE) 33,905 Reduce graffiti removal materials(eliminate materials for businesses) (19,928) 19,928 24 Reduce electrical power on traffic signals (39,624) 25 Eliminate hazardous waste funds (24,996) 26 Transfer all of accountant III to Golf Fund (14,500) 27 Eliminate engineer III (56,340) 28 Eliminate gardening staff at International Peace Gardens (54,696) 29 Eliminate retirement payout budget (230,900) 30 Eliminate equipment operator (45,132) Take over part of Jordan River Trail&Cottonwood Park 103,468 Outsource impound lot operations starting Sept (126,627) 33 Reduce rent expense(Transfer$104,000 to one-time revenue) (243,762) N n-Departmental 34 Property insurance 20,000 35 Retiree insurance increase-City share 33,000 36 Participation In SLCC television project 15,000 37 Use of account balance in Neighborhood Matching Grant (233,000) 38 Decrease in transfer to CIP (1,000,033) Total $ (2,179,778) $ 105,928 $ • 5/31/2002 SHEET B • Example t F r Council • P ssibl Optional Cuts/Oth r Priorities balance with Sheet A Discussion Line# Annual cash conversion of personal leave $ 40,000 Additional savings in process service costs(Prosecutor's Office) 18,000 Additional savings in process service costs(Management Services) 40,000 Engineering Division rent for July-Dec Pay(remainder with one-time funds) 17,194 Parking meter collection-urge other options of collecting 31,874 Architects(Proper allocation of expenses to capital projects)Total cost$139,762 50,000 Fund training for Boards and Commissions (15,000) Fund placement of Speed Boards in community (50,000) Fund Youth Programs with on-going revenue not one-time($150,000) 10 Economic Development Corporation of Utah Reduce contribution to$100,000($32,992) 11 Reduce Police overtime 12 Reduce Fire overtime 13 Crime lab field technicians-Grant(1 FTE$35,500,2 FTE$71,000) 14 Victim advocate position in Police(grant expires December 31)$22,500 for 6 months 15 Fire medical fees(possibly could be reduced$16,000) • 16 Reduce budgeted pay step increases by 0.25%(includes bargaining units)$210,000 Use a small portion of fund balance each year to fund on-going expenses(1/10 of 1%is 17 $159,570) Total $ 132,068 $ 5/31/2002 SHEET C One-Tim Projected R venue and Pr posed Uses Pr posed P ssible F r Cip Chang s Discu Line Revenue 1 Additional 1/64 sales tax reimbursement(actual is$190,863 less) $ 4,209,137 € P (less than originally 't 2 SLOC reimbursement of Salt Lake Sports Complex projected) 2,029,168 >:a ;<�••�'.�: 3 Reimbursement from UTA from sales tax distribution not required for light rail 1,800,000 ' 8 O Xte %5 Surplus in SID guarantee account(problem with this according to City Treasurer) 177,957 77,957 5 One-time savings from refinancing the City&County Building 567,591 ';9:: 6 Excess revenue in fund balance over 10%available for one-time allocation (fund balance of 519.2 million is 12%of on-going General Fund revenue)$3,275,000 Total projected one-time revenue $ 8,783,853 $8,683,853 $ Proposed Uses 7 Library Square improvements $ 4,000,000 8 Youth program endowment 3,000,000 9 Youth program operations 150,000 -;'4 Houser sculptures 400,000 :.<:•,'+ #'*:pgp 11 Olympic legacy projects in neighborhoods 700,000 12 Rent Expense for Engineering Division before moving to city owned space 104,000 13 CIP contingency 429,853 Fund accumulated liability for vacation/sick leave with one-time revenue($650,000) 15 Additional prosecutor-12 months with one-time money(6 months$28,768)$57,535 16 Fund neighborhood watch coordinator for 6 months with one-time revenue$23,500 20 Increase reserves in Governmental Immunity Fund !�Appropriate excess in fund balance over 10%to accumulated liability for vacation/sick leave (fund balance of$19.2 million is 12%of on-going General Fund revenue)$3,275,000 22 Accelerate GIS equipment funding$1,000,000 23 Fund open space endowment fund$1,000,000 One-time revenue appropriation to CIP Fund i attNOW . Increase fund balance to defer discussion of uses of one-time revenue Total proposed uses of one-time revenue $ 8,783,853 $8,883,853 $ - One-Time/On-going Proposed Uses In CIP Fund Possibl For Council Changes Discuss' n f,%Additional appropriation to local street reconstruction f Appropriation to Yalecrest Triangle Park/Median 3 Reduce appropriation to CIP fiscal year 2002-2003 Contingency(amount over$200,000) r<.. Total additional proposed uses of one-time/on-going revenue in CIP Fund. $1,383,806 $ MEMORANDUM To: City Council Members From: Janet Wolf,Di Programs Date: May 31,2002 Re: Responses to questions posed by the City Council regarding funding for youth programs What niche do the City's youth programs fill that is not filled by other government or non-profit agencies? • The first and primary niche or, more correctly stated, gap that the City's youth programs are seeking to fill is the high percentage of children who do not have youth programs available to them. For example, a recent Kids Count survey showed that there are only enough after-school slots for approximately io% of Salt Lake County youths with working parents. Quite frankly, the area of youth programs is not a hugely competitive market were one needs to fill a niche to win new customers. Rather the goal of youth programs, city sponsored or otherwise, must be to provide higher quality programs to a larger number of children. • Beyond the issue of filling service-level gaps, YouthCity programs aim to distinguish themselves from other programs in a number of ways. o Providing programs for children from a range of economic backgrounds ■ Affordable for low-income children ■ Rates adjusted for moderate income levels ■ Higher income families pay full fee o Providing a variety of interesting, engaging alternatives to traditional after-school care ■ Many programs are glorified babysitting ■ Each program has its strength (e.g. sports, tutoring) ■ YouthCity provides class options not available in many other programs and the curriculum is research-based ■ Many YouthCity programs, such as YouthCity Government, Employment, Murals and the Refugee Youth and Family Consortium, are one-of-a-kind opportunities for the City's young people. They are drawing many older youths who are otherwise not engaged during the vulnerable out of school time hours. • Technology, video production, claymation • Employment opportunities • Arts • Dance • Community service o Providing flexible, longer hours - ■ Most programs don't engage youth until the end of the work- day and all day in the summer. • We are able to keep participants until parents are home from work and intend to expand even further, to days when school is not in session. o Serving age groups often overlooked by other programs • Most after-school and summer programs for young people cease around the ages between 12 and 14. This is a difficult group to serve for many reasons. Youth from low-income families may be expected to care for younger siblings during out of school time and youth this age are difficult to capture. By working with the families and other providers, we can provide referrals for the younger siblings while offering interesting and adult supervised activities for youth during these vulnerable adolescent years. ■ The YouthCity after-school and summer program targets youth ages io-i4. Older adolescents are served in the YouthCity Government and Employment programs. o Providing leadership and collaboration opportunities between service providers, community groups, funding sources, and government agencies • City investments in after-school opportunities can have a tremendous impact on young people because of the powerful leverage opportunities implicit in the City's involvement. Many schools and community-based organizations run after- school programs and are important partners in the development of an effective overall after-school system. However, without leadership from municipal officials, they usually cannot forge a community-wide strategy that works for all children. • The City is in a unique position to provide the leadership needed to bring youth program providers together and to fill gaps in program delivery. We have assessed the needs of young people in our city and the resources and community assets available. We are working to establish uplifting, interesting, enriching programs and a sustainable funding source for them. Our inventory of programs has identified every after-school program in Salt Lake City, and we are working with a community-based committee, consisting of program directors, to discuss the various opportunities that exist for collaborations among these programs. ■ The outcome of this effort over the long-term will be: o All of the stakeholders will be linked for joint planning and information sharing. o New relationships will continue to be built. o Leadership will be nurtured amongst providers and stakeholders. o Sufficient numbers of programs will become available and the barriers that prevent access will be addressed. o Program quality will be enhanced. o A community infrastructure will be established to include funding strategies, coordination of training, program evaluation and accountability, and public awareness of where children can be safe and engaged when they are not in school. How do the school district's after-school programs or other programs and non-profits interface with the City's program. • Our programs have brought together individual schools, the school district, foundations, neighborhoods, corporations, non-profits, University of Utah, Salt Lake County, and the State of Utah. • At the County level, we have established collaborations with their Youth Employment Program, Central City's Computer Lab, Northwest Multi- purpose Center, and the AmeriCorps program. • Our first YouthCity after-school program draws youths from 7 elementary schools and 6 middle schools. School personnel are the referral source to the children who participate in our programs. The arts component of our youth program, Global Artways, has been offering after-school and summer programming in schools, libraries and community centers for several years. This effort would not be possible without the support and endorsement of our classes by the District and individual schools. • In light of the termination of federal money for after-school programs in our middle schools, Salt Lake City's youth programs and the School District will be engaged in leveraging funds for future program operations. The funds will be used to maintain and expand opportunities at schools and in community centers during after-school and summer time. An example of this has already occurred with Glendale Middle School. A grant proposal was submitted in early May to the Department of Education for funds to continue their current program, built by zis` Century Funding. If successful, the additional money will be used to fund programs at Glendale, utilizing classes from a variety of providers, including the City's arts education program, Global Artways. • There are numerous other partnerships in place. Some examples include, o Salt Lake County and a local corporation to provide a youth employment and mentoring program. o The University of Utah's Service Learning Program and Department of Sports and Recreation Science offering non-competitive sports programming at YouthCity. The University provides this program at no cost. The University of Utah has also committed to assisting YouthCity with the College Bound program, designed to keep children in school and go to college. o Spy Hop Productions and Artspace Institute for Art and Imagination are two organizations providing interesting and age-appropriate activities to the YouthCity participants. o Americorps has funded our program manager for the past nine months. o TreeUtah will begin teaching courses in Summer zooz, and has donated trees for participants to plant at Central City Community Center. Is the school district's after school programming continuing or is a lack of funding curtailing its after school programming? • During the last five years, Salt Lake City School District has received $8 million in zis` Century funding. The money is a one-time funding source; that is, schools were expected to seek other resources to ensure sustainability. This year marks the third and final year of funding for the middle schools. The School District does not have a plan to extend the programming beyond this grant. We have been working with the schools to assist them in finding additional resources and recently completed a "School Drop Out Prevention Grant" with Glendale Middle School. The elementary schools will lose their funding within the next two years. It is noteworthy that many families did not participate in the after-school programming because it is cost prohibitive. In many schools, the charge is $14 a day for after-school and $z5 dollars a day for all day care. • The District's evaluation of its own programs includes information about the characteristics of the type of young person most likely to stay for after-school programming. Many youths will not stay at school, even if the programs were large enough to accommodate them all. • This is the first year the zist Century money has been available to providers other than the School District. We are working with the Salt Lake City School District to apply for additional funding. The funding will be used to build collaborative, sustainable programs for all of the City's youth, through the YouthCity program. Should the City provide funding to other providers for these programs rather than competing? • YouthCity programs do not compete with other programs. We create programs using the City's numerous assets, and coordinate and collaborate to fill gaps and provide for sustainability. Utah has the youngest population in the United States. We have more children needing affordable, quality after- school activities than we have available slots. Our intent is not to compete, but to fill the existing gaps by collaborating and coordinating with schools and all community partners. • Almost every city and town in America offers some activities for youth during after-school hours. Many cities, such as Boston, spend tens of millions per year on city-run youth programs. They do this not because there are no other programs for their youth (Boston has the same organizations, like the Boys and Girls Club that SLC has), but because they realize the need for the city to take a leadership role and to provide services to a broader range of young people in a variety of ways. • Some municipal governments also provide financial support to community- run programs to supplement other sources of funding such as federal and state grants, private contributions and fees paid by parents. Salt Lake City has been providing funding for community-run youth programs through CDBG funds. Last year, Salt Lake City appropriated $90,00o to Neighborhood House. We have provided over $3 million to the Boys and Girls Club during the last zo years. Both programs have limited physical space. There are programs in place that use volunteers. Shouldn't the City work with these programs that use volunteers? • The City currently works with programs that use volunteers. We also use volunteers in our programs. However the word volunteer can be a misnomer. One program uses Foster Grandparents, AmeriCorps and Vista for staffing. Workers in this program receive a modest stipend. We have been working with AmeriCorps and also with the University of Utah Service Learning Program to provide lower student-to-teacher ratios in our after-school program. The YouthCity Employment Program will work with volunteers from local businesses to provide employment-mentoring services. There are many more opportunities where volunteers will be utilized when programs are expanded and staffing is adequate to manage the volunteers. There is duplication among providers. • There are currently enough after-school slots to serve only a small portion of the City's children. While there are numerous providers of after-school and summer programs, the programs are targeted toward different markets, with varying fee schedules and hours. Often these fee structures are prohibitive for middle and low-income families and the hours do not extend to the end of the workday, every day of the week. We provide the highest quality programming to all families who need it, at an affordable price. • The State Office of Child Care reports a shortage in the number of slots available to working parents. Agencies providing after-school programming that are based on a sliding fee scale report waiting lists. Even with additional staff, the number of children they can serve is limited due to physical space. Also, program quality suffers tremendously when program enrollment grows too large. How should the City get the most out of our limited funding? • By continuing the course we have charted. We are leveraging our resources to obtain funding locally and nationally. We are accountable to the 87% of those City residents polled who believe after-school programs are very or somewhat important to Salt Lake City's future. We are maximizing our limited funding with program development, collaboration, and partnerships. In the short time we have been building youth programs, we have developed amazing out of school time opportunities with very little money, and we have also leveraged over $3 million in gifts. Proposed Legislative Intent Statements (May 31, 2002) The Council may wish to consider the following legislative intent statements: 1. Funding of Compensation Liability - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration work with the Council to begin to accumulate a reserve in a separate fund or account to fund the City's accrued compensation liability for vacation and other payments that employees may receive upon retirement. 2. Retirement Payouts - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration consistently budget for payments of vacation leave and other retirement payouts. The Administration should consider budgeting for these payments in a separate fund or account rather than requiring departments to leave positions vacant or otherwise make cuts in operations to finance these payments. 3. Overtime within the Police Department - It is the intent of the City Council that the Police Department make every effort to keep within its overtime budget ($716,000 for fiscal year 2002-2003) and submit a written report to the Council quarterly on actual overtime incurred and steps taken to reduce reliance on overtime. Specifically, the Council requests that the Administration complete a detailed analysis on approaches to reduce overtime. This analysis should include but not be limited to: a. All options to reduce the number of vacant positions (i.e. hiring officers more frequently; b. All options of workforce scheduling; c. Opportunities to anticipate and accommodate the natural and consistent level of turnover that occurs in the initial months after hiring (including the potential to train more officers than the actual number of positions available); d. Ways in which the Legislative Branch could help address the issue, including the potential of adding positions to allow the Police Department to take approaches as outlined in item "c"above. 4. Overtime within the Fire Department - It is the intent of the City Council that Fire Department continue to take measures to reduce the reliance on overtime and submit quarterly reports to the Council outlining total amount spent for constant staffing at a straight-time rate and amount spent at an overtime rate. 5. Parking Meter Collection - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration consider collecting parking meter revenue using bonded agencies or employees rather than paying overtime rates. 6. Volunteers - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration investigates ways to expand the use of volunteers for providing City services. 7. Process Service - It is the intent of the City Council that the Department of Management Services investigates or tests the service of documents using mail similar to the success reported by the City Prosecutor. 8. Grant Writing Team — It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration complete the centralization of the grant writing function by transferring any remaining grant writer positions to the central team in the Department of Management Services. 9. Grant Monitoring— It is the intent of the Council that the Administration confirm that the grant application and the grant monitoring / management function are appropriately separated in different divisions, to ensure that the grant monitoring and management is conducted by individuals other than those submitting the grants. Further, it is the Council's intent that all grants and requests for funding be tracked in a central location to ensure that the requests are consistent with the City's policies, and to ensure that the applications are submitted in a manner that leaves the City maximum flexibility in determining how the grants will be used. 10. Economic Development Promotion - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration coordinate economic promotion with other entities that provide these services. The Council requests a written report on the overall economic development activities including the Economic Development Corporation of Utah (EDCU), the State Department of Community and Economic Development, the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, and the City's Department of Community and Economic Development. 11. Impacts of Special Events - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration continue to explore the feasibility of charging reimbursement fees for the use of police officers or other City services at special events where a fee is being charged to participants and in other circumstances as appropriate. The Council requests a quarterly report listing special events approved by the City, including police and other City services that are provided. The listing should include: a. Services provided for which a fee was charged, and the amount of the fee; b. The actual cost of the service to the City; c. Services provided for which no fee was charged; d. Other relevant information. Further, the Council requests a listing of special City services provided for events that do not require a permit, including large gatherings at established venues. 2 12. Speed Boards — It is the intent of the City Council that all seven speed boards be placed on City street at least five days per week from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. (except when boards are out of service waiting for parts or otherwise not available). It is the intent of the Council that the Administration consider contracting for this service. 13. Privatization of the Citv's Impound Lot Operations — It is the intent of the City Council that the request for proposals to privatize the impound lot operations be broad enough to allow the existing employees to bid as a group, if they so desire. 14. Youth Programs — It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration provide a written plan of the YouthCity. Further, it is the Council's intent that the Administration seriously consider opportunities to collaborate with existing non- profit agencies rather than build an infrastructure of City employees. It is requested that these approaches be considered prior to grant submission, to ensure that contracting for the service is an alternative to the City actually providing the service. 15. Engineering Costs — It is the intent of the City Council the cost of engineers and architects within the Department of Public Services be more fully allocated to capital improvement projects. The Council requests that the Administration provide a quarterly report to the Council regarding the costs that were allocated compared to total costs. 3 Legislative Action Items (Adopted since Budget adoption in June, 2001) 1. Sidewalk Use Restrictions — Ask the Administration to draft an amendment to existing ordinance regarding sidewalk use restrictions. (Council Member Roger Thompson, adopted September 20, 2001) 2. Update the Open Space Master Plan —Ask the Administration to update the Open Space Master Plan. (Council Member Keith Christensen, adopted November 13, 2001 as a motion adopting the Sugar House Master Plan) 3. Update the City Bicycle Master Plan — Ask the Administration to update the City Bicycle Master Plan. (Council Member Keith Christensen, adopted November 13, 2001 as a motion adopting the Sugar House Master Plan) 4. Bike Helmets — Ask the Administration to draft an ordinance mandating the use of helmets by children when riding a bicycle. (Council Members Roger Thompson and Nancy Saxton, adopted November 27, 2001) Council Status:A sample ordinance was received on April 11, 2002 and has been forwarded to Youth City Government for review. 5. Cat Licensing — Ask the Administration to draft an ordinance requiring that pet owners provide licensing for cats that dwell in or on properties in Salt Lake City. (Council Member Carlton Christensen, adopted December 11, 2001) 6. Curfew Enforcement—Ask the Administration to amend Chapter 9.04, Dancehalls, Restaurants, Taverns and Private Clubs, and Section 11.44.707, Curfew for Minors. (Council Members Roger Thompson, David Buhler and Tom Rogan, adopted December 11, 2001) Council Status: The Youth City Government provided their feedback to the proposed amendments, and the ordinance has been forwarded back to the Attorney's office for further revision. 7. Commercial Neighborhood zoning district — Ask the Administration to reevaluate the Zoning Ordinance relating to use definitions, standards and parking requirements in the Commercial Neighborhood (CN) zoning districts. (Council Member Jill Remington Love, adopted May 14, 2002.) • Legislative Intent Statements (As adopted on June 14, 2001) Statements Carried Over (with minor updates) from Fiscal Year 2000-01: 1. Funding of Governmental Immunity Reserves - It is the intent of the City Council to support the Administration's proposal to accumulate a reserve in the Governmental Immunity Fund equal to three times the rolling average claim payout. (Attorney) 2. Encourage Safety and Accountability - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration considers adding more departmental accountability to the City's loss control program that encourages and promotes safety. It is also the intent of the City Council that the Council be provided with periodic reports on losses by departments. (Attorney) 3. Home-Buyer Incentive Program - It is the intent of the City Council that a proposal be prepared and submitted to the Council for consideration regarding the development and implementation of a home-buyer incentive program for City employees based on programs offered by other cities and organizations, in collaboration with and in addition to Federal programs or opportunities. (Management Services) 4. Constituent Tracking System - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration investigates the feasibility of a customer service/work order tracking system. (Management Services) 5. National League of Cities Conference - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration develops a budget and staffing plan to address the impact of the National League of Cities conference to be held in Salt Lake City. The plan should be presented to the Council no later than October 2, 2001 and include the City's host duties, anticipated staffing, benefits associated with hosting the conference, estimated expenses to be incurred by Salt Lake City, a proposal to fund the expenses, and a comparison of anticipated expenses in respect to anticipated revenues. Council Staff Note;No update has been received from fundraisers on the status of the December, 2002 Conference. 6. Channel 71 - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration uses Channel 71 to promote City programs and functions including those events sponsored by other organizations that receive City financial support. More emphasis should be placed on making the promotional segments more dynamic and interesting. Further, it is the intent of the City Council that the f Page 4 of 2 Administration explore opportunities for partnering with schools in this endeavor. (Management Services) 7. Water Fund - It is the intent of the City Council that the Department of Public Utilities continues developing secondary water systems for parks and golf courses and considers including a secondary parallel water system in new developments within the Northwest Quadrant. (Public Utilities) 8. Street Reconstruction - It is the intent of the City Council that local street reconstruction be funded within the Capital Improvement Program on an annual basis in accordance with the Council's adopted Five-Year CIP Plan. (Management Services) 9. Set Aside Money for Severance Pay - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration sets aside a portion of severance pay that is estimated to eventually be paid on historical experience or other factors. These moneys should be expensed in the years accrued and recorded as fund liabilities. (Management Services) Proposed Statements: 10. Biennial Budget Submission - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration presents a biennial budget that is balanced in both fiscal years using one-time funds for one-time expenses, with no less than nine percent of ongoing General Fund revenues invested annually in the Capital Improvement Program fund. It is further the intent of the City Council to maintain a healthy fund balance of at least 10% of General Fund revenue. Finally, it is the intent of the City Council that the Administration presents comprehensive budget information to the City Council by the first Tuesday in May of the current fiscal year regarding the second fiscal year of a biennial budget. (Management Services) 11. Fiscal Note on Proposed CIP Projects - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration provides the Council with a fiscal note on proposed capital improvement projects that require additional ongoing operations and maintenance (new parks, additional buildings, etc.). (Management Services) 12. Submission Format for Proposed CIP Projects - It is the intent of the City Council that information relating to proposed Capital Improvement Program projects be submitted in a format similar to that of the comprehensive CDBG reports, including all applications, CIP Citizen Board recommendations, and the Mayor's final CIP recommendations. (Management Services) 13. CIP Budget - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration submits the Capital Improvement Program budget at least thirty days in advance of the r Page 4 of 3 General Fund budget to allow ample time for review, and to ensure that the Council's policy of 9% of ongoing revenue is followed. (Management Services) 14. Street Lighting District - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration briefs the Council regarding the possibility of using accumulated reserves in the street lighting districts for converting assessment districts to the privately-owned streetlight program (at the option of the neighborhood), for upgrading streetlights to more decorative residential oriented lighting, or for reducing assessments to property owners. (Community & Economic Development) 15. Radio-Reading Water Meter Pilot Program - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration briefs the Council on the effectiveness of the radio-reading water meter pilot program after approximately 4,000 hard-to-read meters are replaced with radio reading devices and the Administration calculates the cost versus the benefits of the program including long-term benefits. (Public Utilities) 16. Grant Writing Team - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration evaluates creating a centralized grant writing function that includes all General Fund employees who perform grant writing duties. (Management Services) 17. Community Education in the Fire Department - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration explores the feasibility of training non-sworn civilian staff or volunteers to perform community education services to Salt Lake City schools. (Fire Department) 18. Economic Development Corporation of Utah - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration coordinates with the Economic Development Corporation of Utah to provide semiannual written information to the Council regarding the accomplishments of EDCU that benefits to Salt Lake City. (Community & Economic Development) 19. Impacts of Special Events - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration explores the feasibility of charging reimbursement fees for the use of police officers or other City services at special events where a fee is being charged to participants, and in other circumstances as appropriate. (Management Services) 20. Golf Program - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration briefs the Council during a Work Session meeting in September on the marketing plans for the golf program, including the new incentives created during the fiscal year 2001-02 budget process. (Public Services) 21. Emergency Response Employees - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration present options to the Council regarding a requirement that, as a Page 4 of 4 • condition of employment, any emergency-response personnel hired after August 31, 2001 be required to live within a 10 mile radius of the City & County Building. (Management Services) 22. Semiannual Reports on the Status of Legislative Intent Statements and Action Items - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration provides semiannual reports regarding the status of all active legislative intent statements (including unresolved statements from previous years and statements adopted outside of the official budget process) and all active legislative action items. Provided to the Council by Steve Fawcett on May 22, 2002 DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS 2001 —2002 (none open) ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 2000—2001 (carried over) Funding of Governmental Immunity Reserves - It is the intent of the City Council to support the Administration's proposal to accumulate a reserve in the Governmental Immunity Fund equal to three times the rolling average claim payout. Department Response: A reserve balance within the Governmental Immunity Fund has been building for several years. With the exception of FY 2000, the fund balance has increased each of the last five years. The Administration will maintain a fund balance level that is the higher of the amount required by the external auditors or the three-year rolling average of claim payouts. This may require a transfer from another source into governmental immunity from time to time to maintain this level. Encourage Safety and Accountability- It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration considers adding more departmental accountability to the City's loss control program that encourages and promotes safety. It is also the intent of the City Council that the Council be provided with periodic reports on losses by depai tiuents. Department Response:For several years, Risk Management has worked toward improved administrative efficiencies in an effort to drive down the cost of each workers'compensation and third party liability claim. These efforts have been successful but have not addressed the prevention of the losses. Because of that Risk Management has been formulating a new approach to safety. The FY02 budget includes funding to hire a consultant to begin implementation of a new plan. The new plan will include several elements designed to work together in providing motivation for the Departments to step up their loss control efforts, such as Police Officer accountability for accidents. As the program progresses the elements are expected to be refined and modified to better fit the City's culture. The following list describes the loss control program elements and priorities: Top leadership commitment and visible support for safety. Department accountability for safety performance, including safety performance reviews for the department and division heads. A department specific safety and hazard analysis survey administered by Risk Management. A restructuring of the workers'compensation and governmental immunity budgets to a system that engenders cost accountability and incentives. Citywide safety resources provided by Risk Management including incentive and initiative funding, training opportunities and outside experts. Standardized progress measurements designed to enable benchmarking within the City as well as with other public entities. .Due to the complexity of some of the above elements, the program will be implemented in stages. To begin this process, Risk Management met with the Chief Administrative Officer and the department heads from each of the larger departments in July 2001. During these meetings, Risk Management presented loss data and statistics for the City as a whole and by the specific departments. The data identified the types of incidents or injuries that have a high frequency rate or high costs associated with them. The departments were then expected to formulate a plan to reduce their losses in conjunction with Risk Management's ongoing efforts. The reports provided to the Departments in July will also be presented to the Council for their review. The following timeline reflects the anticipated progress in the loss control program over the coming months. Loss Control Pro am Timeline Jul Au Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar A s r Ma Jun Loss reports provided Citywide Safety Resources Available Loss Control Plan Approval Accountability Establishment Standardized Progress Measurements Implemented G. I. and W. C. Budget Restructuring Hazard Survey Production and Distribution DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 2001 —2002 Street Lighting District- It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration briefs the Council regarding the possibility of using accumulated reserves in the street lighting districts for converting assessment districts to the privately-owned streetlight program(at the option of the neighborhood), for upgrading streetlights to more decorative residential oriented lighting, or for reducing assessments to property owners. Department Response: The Department continues to work on the multiple issues that have arisen from this proposal. The Transportation staff is scheduled to meet with 11 community councils over the next several months. The plan that comes out of the meetings will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and then on to the City Council sometime in the fall of 2002. Economic Development Corporation of Utah - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration coordinates with the Economic Development Corporation of Utah to provide semiannual written information to the Council regarding the accomplishments of EDCU that benefits to Salt Lake City. Department Response: The Department will forward to the Council the semi-annual report it received from the EDCU. FIRE DEPARTMENT City Council Legislative Intent Statements,Action Items and Requests 2001 —2002 Community Education in the Fire Department- It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration explores the feasibility of training non-sworn civilian staff or volunteers to perform community education services to Salt Lake City schools. Department Response: The Fire Department is currently utilizing a non-sworn civilian to perform community education in the Salt Lake City schools. We have utilized him for this specific purpose since February 21st, 1978. He is also utilized in the Citizen Emergency Response Team (CERT) training. He has been involved in other public events such as "Chief Le Matchless and Doctor Ben E. Ficiary"the clown during parades, Fire Prevention week and Emergency Services week He is a frequent guest on local radio programs geared towards children. He is currently able to meet the needs of the City schools and the Fire Department. The department has no plans to change this position from a non-sworn civilian to a firefighter. DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES 2000—2001 (carried over) Street Reconstruction - It is the intent of the City Council that local street reconstruction be funded within the Capital Improvement Program on an annual basis in accordance with the Council's adopted Five-Year CIP Plan. Department Response: The Administration will evaluate local street reconstruction in conjunction with the overall CIP and will solicit input from the Citizens CIP Committee and will make funding recommendations during each budget cycle. Set Aside Money for Severance Pay - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration sets aside a portion of severance pay that is estimated to eventually be paid on historical experience or other factors. These moneys should be expensed in the years accrued and recorded as fund liabilities. Department Response: Severance pay is defined as payment for years of service at involuntary separation from the City of"at will"employees. It does not include purchase of vacation, personal leave, sick leave or retirement/layoff account leave. According to (GAAP) Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, governmental funds like the General Fund cannot accrue for a long-term liability. A long-term liability is one of three months or more. Enterprise and Internal Service funds can accrue for a long-term liability. Likewise, an expenditure of funds cannot occur until a legitimate transaction occurs to require expensing resources: For example, an actual termination and payment of severance benefits. In order to avoid this accounting difference with General Fund severance estimates, the General fund would have to appropriate a transfer of a certain amount to the Risk Management and Insurance Fund in order to create the accrual. When a termination occurs the appropriation in Risk would be expended. The Administration will look at a ten-year history of severance payments and work toward an acceptable solution to this problem. Constituent Tracking System- It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration investigates the feasibility of a customer service/work order tracking system. Department Response: The Constituent Tracking Software has been installed in the Council Offices and is available to the staff. Jan Aramaki is coordinating the effort to build the appropriate pick lists for the "Key Words"to be used to categorize contacts/correspondences and the Actions section that will determine how items flow through the system. Discussion with the Mayor's Community Affairs group is also under way to ensure that the codes developed will meet both groups needs. Channel 71 - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration uses Channel 71 to promote City programs and functions including those events sponsored by other organizations that receive City financial support. More emphasis should be placed on making the promotional segments more dynamic and interesting. Further, it is the intent of the City Council that the Administration explore opportunities for partnering with schools in this endeavor. Department Response: We are in the process of trying to obtain the rights to re-broadcast 2 videos recommended by the Mayor's Office on Diversity in the Workplace. These rights have been sold and resold multiple times and we are having trouble finding the current owner of those rights to obtain permission. Work on this is continuing. Also on the slate are plans to work with City schools to help broadcast Council and other public meetings. We have met with UDOT Officials and their vendor on delivering traffic monitoring capabilities and Traffic-link camera shots via Channel 71. These new features provide information on road construction, accidents, etc. They have prepared a demo of their capabilities for us to view very soon. We are also exploring an option to provide just the traffic link cameras on the Channel during peak drive times as another option. We are preparing to broadcast Traffic-link via Channel 71 in January 2002. We are in the process of performing a major upgrade of the system. This upgrade will allow us to broadcast a greater variety of media with less effort on the part of the IMS people assigned. ATT switched our Channel from 71 to 17. We view this a positive change although the coordination between ATT and IMS was lacking. Steps have been taken to correct this. DOT has backed off from their expected date to deliver a live traffic feed. No new date has been set at this time. We have successfully broadcast the City Council Induction Ceremony and the Mayor's State of the City address and we continue to look for other opportunities to improve the content of channel 17. In the past the Council has expressed hesitancy in broadcasting all Council meetings but technically this is a very real possibility that could be done for a minimal cost in hardware. We have discussed internally making connections with Horizonte, Highland High, and Salt Lake Community College to help us in this on the staffing side. Channel 17 has undergone some significant changes. We have recently completed an upgrade of the hardware supporting the station. That upgrade allows us to do more scheduling of events and handle a wider variety of media. During the Olympics, Channel 17 was used to publish schedules and event information for Washington Square. Videos of the activities around Washington Square were broadcast and the NYSE opening bell from the steps of the City & County Building was sent out live and rebroadcast several times. We continue to solicit new, informative, and useful content for Channel 17. A meeting was held concerning the content on SLCTV(Channel 17) with Josh Ewing from the Mayor's Office. The basic theme of the meeting was to add more pertinent content to SLCTV. There were 3 action items that came out of the meeting. 1. The Mayor's Office will be providing IMS with public interest videos that will be scheduled and broadcast at pre-determined times. 2. IMS is researching software that will make creation of content easier and assist in training of interns in the Mayors Office to publish new information regularly. 3. The Mayor's Office and IMS will create a supervisory committee to ensure that the content on SLCTV is pertinent and useful for the citizen's of Salt Lake. Home-Buyer Incentive Program- It is the intent of the City Council that a proposal be prepared and submitted to the Council for consideration regarding the development and implementation of a home- buyer incentive program for City employees based on programs offered by other cities and organizations, in collaboration with and in addition to Federal programs or opportunities. Department Response: The Administration referred this issue to the Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee for their review and recommendations. We have completed surveys of other jurisdictions regarding this issue. A completed report along with our recommendations was attached to an earlier response. 2001 —2002 Biennial Budget Submission - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration presents a biennial budget that is balanced in both fiscal years using one-time funds for one-time expenses,with no less than nine percent of ongoing General Fund revenues invested annually in the Capital Improvement Program fund. It is further the intent of the City Council to maintain a healthy fund balance of at least 10% of General Fund revenue. Finally, it is the intent of the City Council that the Administration presents comprehensive budget information to the City Council by the first Tuesday in May of the current fiscal year regarding the second fiscal year of a biennial budget. Department Response: The Administration concurs with this legislative intent, except that the Administration believes flexibility should be preserved by dedicating "an amount equal to nine percent of General Fund revenue" invested annually in the Capital Improvement Program fund. Fiscal Note on Proposed CIP Projects - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration provides the Council with a fiscal note on proposed capital improvement projects that require additional ongoing operations and maintenance (new parks, additional buildings, etc.). Department Response: The Administration concurs with this legislative intent and will identify the operational costs associated with each new CIP funding request. Submission Format for Proposed CIP Projects - It is the intent of the City Council that information relating to proposed Capital Improvement Program projects be submitted in a format similar to that of the comprehensive CDBG reports, including all applications, CIP Citizen Board recommendations, and the Mayor's final CIP recommendations. Department Response: The Administration concurs with this legislative intent. We prepared the amendment CIP report in the same general format as the CDBG report. CIP Budget- It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration submits the Capital Improvement Program budget at least thirty days in advance of the General Fund budget to allow ample time for review, and to ensure that the Council's policy of 9% of ongoing revenue is followed. Department Response: The Administration provided the City Council with a preliminary list of all projects submitted and prioritized by City Staff and the CIP Citizen Committee. We will continue to refine his process. Grant Writing Team- It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration evaluates creating a centralized grant writing function that includes all General Fund employees who perform grant writing duties. Department Response: The Administration reviewed the grant writing function and determined that of the three grant writing positions, two of them fit the same profile, that is they research and write grants, make sure the departments responsible are aware of the grant and works with the grant monitor to ensure that all reporting and grant management is arranged. They then go on to other grants and have no further involvement with the grant. The third grant writer, located in the Police Department functions in a role beyond that of the other two. They actually provide management of the grant activities for the department. This entails tracking of the grant requirements and ensuring that they are completed, working with any employees to merge the grant activities into the overall department activities, and work with the grant monitor to ensure that the reporting is completed, etc. The Council amended the budget in October and combined two grant writer positions in Management Services and left one in the Police Department. Impacts of Special Events - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration explores the feasibility of charging reimbursement fees for the use of police officers or other City services at special events where a fee is being charged to participants, and in other circumstances as appropriate. Department Response: The Administration supports and is currently abiding by the current special events ordinance. Emergency Response Employees - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration present options to the Council regarding a requirement that, as a condition of employment, any emergency- response personnel hired after August 31, 2001 be required to live within a 10 mile radius of the City & County Building. Department Response: The Administration referred this issue to the Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee for their review and recommendations. A completed report along with our recommendations was attached to an earlier document. POLICE DEPARTMENT (none open) PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2001 —2002 (none open) 2002 -2003 Golf Program- It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration briefs the Council during a Work Session meeting in September on the marketing plans for the golf program, including the new incentives created during the fiscal year 2001-02 budget process. Department Response: The Public Services Department and Golf Division have prepared the Golf Division's Marketing Plan. This Plan has been approved by the Golf Advisory Board and is currently in the process of submission to the Council for the requested briefing. PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 2000—2001 (carried over) Water Fund - It is the intent of the City Council that the Depai lnnent of Public Utilities continues developing secondary water systems for parks and golf courses and considers including a secondary parallel water system in new developments within the Northwest Quadrant. Department Response: The Administration will continue its current policy of looking for cost- effective ways to use secondary water sources for the greening of public property. The department has completed a review of all green spaces and the cost-effectiveness of implementing secondary water use. The department will continue to promote wise water use with the assistance of Utah State Extension Service. 2001 —2002 Radio-Reading Water Meter Pilot Program- It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration briefs the Council on the effectiveness of the radio-reading water meter pilot program after approximately 4,000 hard-to-read meters are replaced with radio reading devices and the Administration calculates the cost versus the benefits of the program including long-term benefits. Department Response: The department has completed installing over 4,000 meters that can be read by a radio signal in the downtown area. However, the department is still working on software issues and will not be in full implementation of the pilot program until the end of May 2002. Page 1 of 8 Provided to the Council by Steve Fawcett on May 22, 2002 DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS 2001 —'2002 (none open) ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 2000—2001 (carried over) Funding of Governmental Immunity Reserves -It is the intent of the City Council to support the Administration's proposal to accumulate a reserve in the Governmental Immunity Fund equal to three times the rolling average claim payout. Department Response: A reserve balance within the Governmental Immunity Fund has been building for several years. With the exception of FY 2000, the fund balance has increased each of the last five years. The Administration will maintain a fund balance level that is the higher of the amount required by the external auditors or the three-year rolling average of claim payouts. This may require a transfer from another source into governmental immunity from time to time to maintain this level. Encourage Safety and Accountability- It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration considers adding more departmental accountability to the City's loss control program that encourages and promotes safety. It is also the intent of the City Council that the Council be provided with periodic reports on losses by departments. Department Response:For several years, Risk Management has worked toward improved administrative efficiencies in an effort to drive down the cost of each workers'compensation and third party liability claim. These efforts have been successful but have not addressed the prevention of the losses. Because of that Risk Management has been formulating a new approach to safety. The FY02 budget includes funding to hire a consultant to begin implementation of a new plan. The new plan will include several elements designed to work together in providing motivation for the Departments to step up their loss control efforts, such as Police Officer accountability for accidents. As the program progresses the elements are expected to be refined and modified to better fit the City's culture. The following list describes the loss control program elements and priorities: Top leadership commitment and visible support for safety. Department accountability for safety performance, including safety performance reviews for the department and division heads. A department specific safety and hazard analysis survey administered by Risk Management. A restructuring of the workers'compensation and governmental immunity budgets to a system that engenders cost accountability and incentives. Page 2 of 8 Citywide safety resources provided by Risk Management including incentive and initiative funding, training opportunities and outside experts. Standardized progress measurements designed to enable benchmarking within the City as well as with other public entities. Due to the complexity of some of the above elements, the program will be implemented in stages. To begin this process, Risk Management met with the Chief Administrative Officer and the department heads from each of the larger departments in July 2001. During these meetings, Risk Management presented loss data and statistics for the City as a whole and by the specific departments. The data identified the types of incidents or injuries that have a high frequency rate or high costs associated with them. The departments were then expected to formulate a plan to reduce their losses in conjunction with Risk Management's ongoing efforts. The reports provided to the Departments in July will also be presented to the Council for their review. The following timeline reflects the anticipated progress in the loss control program over the coming months. Loss Control Program Timeline Jul Au! Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar A I r Ma Jun Loss reports provided Citywide Safety Resources Available Loss Control Plan Approval Accountability Establishment Standardized Progress Measurements Implemented G. I. and W. C. Budget Restructuring Hazard Survey Production and Distribution DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 2001 —2002 Street Lighting District- It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration briefs the Council regarding the possibility of using accumulated reserves in the street lighting districts for converting assessment districts to the privately-owned streetlight program(at the option of the neighborhood), for upgrading streetlights to more decorative residential oriented lighting, or for reducing assessments to property owners. Page 3 of 8 Department Response: The Department continues to work on the multiple issues that have arisen from this proposal. The Transportation staff is scheduled to meet with 11 community councils over the next several months. The plan that comes out of the meetings will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and then on to the City Council sometime in the fall of 2002. Economic Development Corporation of Utah - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration coordinates with the Economic Development Corporation of Utah to provide semiannual written information to the Council regarding the accomplishments of EDCU that benefits to Salt Lake City. Department Response: The Department will forward to the Council the semi-annual report it received from the EDCU. FIRE DEPARTMENT City Council Legislative Intent Statements, Action Items and Requests 2001 —2002 Community Education in the Fire Department-It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration explores the feasibility of training non-sworn civilian staff or volunteers to perform community education services to Salt Lake City schools. Department Response: The Fire Department is currently utilizing a non-sworn civilian to perform community education in the Salt Lake City schools. We have utilized him for this specific purpose since February 21st, 1978. He is also utilized in the Citizen Emergency Response Team (CERT) training. He has been involved in other public events such as "Chief Le Matchless and Doctor Ben E. Ficiary"the clown during parades, Fire Prevention week and Emergency Services week. He is a frequent guest on local radio programs geared towards children. He is currently able to meet the needs of the City schools and the Fire Department. The department has no plans to change this position from a non-sworn civilian to a firefighter. DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES 2000—2001 (carried over) Street Reconstruction - It is the intent of the City Council that local street reconstruction be funded within the Capital Improvement Program on an annual basis in accordance with the Council's adopted Five-Year CIP Plan. Department Response: The Administration will evaluate local street reconstruction in conjunction with the overall CIP and will solicit input from the Citizens CIP Committee and will make funding recommendations during each budget cycle. Page4of8 Set Aside Money for Severance Pay- It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration sets aside a portion of severance pay that is estimated to eventually be paid on historical experience or other factors. These moneys should be expensed in the years accrued and recorded as fund liabilities. Department Response: Severance pay is defined as payment for years of service at involuntary separation from the City of"at will"employees. It does not include purchase of vacation, personal leave, sick leave or retirement/layoff account leave. According to (GAAP) Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, governmental funds like the General Fund cannot accrue for a long-term liability. A long-term liability is one of three months or more. Enterprise and Internal Service funds can accrue for a long-term liability. Likewise, an expenditure of funds cannot occur until a legitimate transaction occurs to require expensing resources: For example, an actual termination and payment of severance benefits. In order to avoid this accounting difference with General Fund severance estimates, the General fund would have to appropriate a transfer of a certain amount to the Risk Management and Insurance Fund in order to create the accrual. When a termination occurs the appropriation in Risk would be expended. The Administration will look at a ten-year history of severance payments and work toward an acceptable solution to this problem. Constituent Tracking System-It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration investigates the feasibility of a customer service/work order tracking system. Department Response: The Constituent Tracking Software has been installed in the Council Offices and is available to the staff. Jan Aramaki is coordinating the effort to build the appropriate pick lists for the "Key Words"to be used to categorize contacts/correspondences and the Actions section that will determine how items flow through the system. Discussion with the Mayor's Community Affairs group is also under way to ensure that the codes developed will meet both groups needs. Channel 71 - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration uses Channel 71 to promote City programs and functions including those events sponsored by other organizations that receive City financial support. More emphasis should be placed on making the promotional segments more dynamic and interesting. Further, it is the intent of the City Council that the Administration explore opportunities for partnering with schools in this endeavor. Department Response: We are in the process of trying to obtain the rights to re-broadcast 2 videos recommended by the Mayor's Office on Diversity in the Workplace. These rights have been sold and resold multiple times and we are having trouble finding the current owner of those rights to obtain permission. Work on this is continuing. Also on the slate are plans to work with City schools to help broadcast Council and other public meetings. We have met with UDOT Officials and their vendor on delivering traffic monitoring capabilities and Traffic-link camera shots via Channel 71. These new features provide information on road construction, accidents, etc. They have prepared a demo of their capabilities for us to view very soon. We are also exploring an option to provide just the traffic link cameras on the Channel during peak drive times as another option. We are preparing to broadcast Traffic-link via Channel 71 in January 2002. Page 5 of 8 We are in the process of performing a major upgrade of the system. This upgrade will allow us to broadcast a greater variety of media with less effort on the part of the IMS people assigned. ATT switched our Channel from 71 to 17. We view this a positive change although the coordination between ATT and IMS was lacking. Steps have been taken to correct this. DOT has backed off from their expected date to deliver a live traffic feed. No new date has been set at this time. We have successfully broadcast the City Council Induction Ceremony and the Mayor's State of the City address and we continue to look for other opportunities to improve the content of channel 17. In the past the Council has expressed hesitancy in broadcasting all Council meetings but technically this is a very real possibility that could be done for a minimal cost in hardware. We have discussed internally making connections with Horizonte, Highland High, and Salt Lake Community College to help us in this on the staffing side. Channel 17 has undergone some significant changes. We have recently completed an upgrade of the hardware supporting the station. That upgrade allows us to do more scheduling of events and handle a wider variety of media. During the Olympics, Channel 17 was used to publish schedules and event information for Washington Square. Videos of the activities around Washington Square were broadcast and the NYSE opening bell from the steps of the City& County Building was sent out live and rebroadcast several times. We continue to solicit new, informative, and useful content for Channel 17. A meeting was held concerning the content on SLCTV(Channel 17) with Josh Ewing from the Mayor's Office. The basic theme of the meeting was to add more pertinent content to SLCTV. There were 3 action items that came out of the meeting. 1. The Mayor's Office will be providing IMS with public interest videos that will be scheduled and broadcast at pre-determined times. 2. IMS is researching software that will make creation of content easier and assist in training of interns in the Mayors Office to publish new information regularly. 3. The Mayor's Office and IMS will create a supervisory committee to ensure that the content on SLCTV is pertinent and useful for the citizen's of Salt Lake. Home-Buyer Incentive Program- It is the intent of the City Council that a proposal be prepared and submitted to the Council for consideration regarding the development and implementation of a home- buyer incentive program for City employees based on programs offered by other cities and organizations, in collaboration with and in addition to Federal programs or opportunities. Department Response: The Administration referred this issue to the Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee for their review and recommendations. We have completed surveys of other jurisdictions regarding this issue. A completed report along with our recommendations was attached to an earlier response. 2001 —2002 Biennial Budget Submission - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration presents a biennial budget that is balanced in both fiscal years using one-time funds for one-time expenses,with no less than nine percent of ongoing General Fund revenues invested annually in the Capital Improvement Program fund. It is further the intent of the City Council to maintain a healthy fund balance of at least 10%of General Fund revenue. Finally, it is the intent of the City Council that the Administration presents comprehensive budget information to the City Council by the first Tuesday in May of the current fiscal year regarding the second fiscal year of a biennial budget. Page 6 of 8 Department Response: The Administration concurs with this legislative intent, except that the Administration believes flexibility should be preserved by dedicating "an amount equal to nine percent of General Fund revenue"invested annually in the Capital Improvement Program — fund. Fiscal Note on Proposed CIP Projects - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration provides the Council with a fiscal note on proposed capital improvement projects that require additional ongoing operations and maintenance (new parks, additional buildings, etc.). Department Response: The Administration concurs with this legislative intent and will identify the operational costs associated with each new CIP funding request. Submission Format for Proposed CIP Projects - It is the intent of the City Council that information relating to proposed Capital Improvement Program projects be submitted in a format similar to that of the comprehensive CDBG reports, including all applications, CIP Citizen Board recommendations, and the Mayor's final CIP recommendations. Department Response: The Administration concurs with this legislative intent. We prepared the amendment CIP report in the same general format as the CDBG report. CIP Budget- It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration submits the Capital Improvement Program budget at least thirty days in advance of the General Fund budget to allow ample time for review, and to ensure that the Council's policy of 9% of ongoing revenue is followed. Department Response: The Administration provided the City Council with a preliminary list of all projects submitted and prioritized by City Staff and the CIP Citizen Committee. We will continue to refine his process. Grant Writing Team- It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration evaluates creating a centralized grant writing function that includes all General Fund employees who perform grant writing duties. Department Response: The Administration reviewed the grant writing function and determined that of the three grant writing positions, two of them fit the same profile, that is they research and write grants, make sure the departments responsible are aware of the grant and works with the grant monitor to ensure that all reporting and grant management is arranged. They then go on to other grants and have no further involvement with the grant. The third grant writer, located in the Police Department functions in a role beyond that of the other two. They actually provide management of the grant activities for the department. This entails tracking of the grant requirements and ensuring that they are completed, working with any employees to merge the grant activities into the overall department activities, and work with the grant monitor to ensure that the reporting is completed, etc. The Council amended the budget in October and combined two grant writer positions in Management Services and left one in the Police Department. Page 7 of 8 Impacts of Special Events - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration explores the feasibility of charging reimbursement fees for the use of police officers or other City services at special events where a fee is being charged to participants, and in other circumstances as appropriate. Department Response: The Administration supports and is currently abiding by the current special events ordinance. Emergency Response Employees - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration present options to the Council regarding a requirement that, as a condition of employment, any emergency- response personnel hired after August 31, 2001 be required to live within a 10 mile radius of the City & County Building. Department Response: The Administration referred this issue to the Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee for their review and recommendations. A completed report along with our recommendations was attached to an earlier document. POLICE DEPARTMENT (none open) PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2001 —2002 (none open) 2002-2003 Golf Program- It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration briefs the Council during a Work Session meeting in September on the marketing plans for the golf program, including the new incentives created during the fiscal year 2001-02 budget process. Department Response: The Public Services Department and Golf Division have prepared the Golf Division's Marketing Plan. This Plan has been approved by the Golf Advisory Board and is currently in the process of submission to the Council for the requested briefing. PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 2000—2001 (carried over) Water Fund - It is the intent of the City Council that the Department of Public Utilities continues developing secondary water systems for parks and golf courses and considers including a secondary parallel water system in new developments within the Northwest Quadrant. Department Response: The Administration will continue its current policy of looking for cost- — effective ways to use secondary water sources for the greening of public property. The department has completed a review of all green spaces and the cost-effectiveness of Page 8 of 8 implementing secondary water use. The department will continue to promote wise water use with the assistance of Utah State Extension Service. 2001 —2002 Radio-Reading Water Meter Pilot Program- It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration briefs the Council on the effectiveness of the radio-reading water meter pilot program after approximately 4,000 hard-to-read meters are replaced with radio reading devices and the Administration calculates the cost versus the benefits of the program including long-term benefits. Department Response: The department has completed installing over 4,000 meters that can be read by a radio signal in the downtown area. However, the department is still working on software issues and will not be in full implementation of the pilot program until the end of May 2002. 3 K2 Nf RICHARD GRAHAM SALT �,a, �.e:r"�� OP`;s""o:.Iol ROSS C."ROCKY"ANDERSON _ PUBLIC SERVICES or RECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES MAYOR MEMORADUM TO: Michael Sears Salt Lake City Council FROM: Rick Graham i u Public Services Department DATE: May 31,2002 RE: Follow up Information Relating to Public Services Department Budget Reduction Initiatives. The following information is provided as a response to questions the City Council raised during the May 21"budget briefing. Graffiti Removal Does Salt Lake County provide a graffiti removal program? The County does sponsor a graffiti removal program. Its program has two functions. The County's Public Works and Parks Division has its own in-house program that removes graffiti from public property,streets,bridges and facilities. The in-house program does not remove graffiti from private property or residential homes. The County also has a graffiti support function. A County employee operates a volunteer based program that will provide support in the form of free paint,solvents and court offenders (kids and adults to remove graffiti)to homeowners and businesses in the unincorporated County. By ordinance,County property owners are responsible for removing its own graffiti within 10 days of notice. Property owners may ask for and receive the free materials and labor as long as the resources are available. Again,no County workers remove graffiti from personal or business property. Open Space Acquisition What is the feasibility of creating an endowment fund for on-going open space maintenance needs? An endowment fund is an option that could be a solution to the challenge of funding, both on-going maintenance,and the maintenance of new properties that are acquired for 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 14S,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH S4111 TELEPHONE:501-535-7775 FAX:901.53E-7709 future development. A policy shift would be required. Currently, we deal with the funding issue on a case-by-case basis. Having a bank of money is the same as a savings account that we could draw from. From a practical point of view, the Council would have to draw funds away from other, already funded projects or programs, to create the endowment. Before adopting an endowment policy, I recommend that a thorough study be conducted to determine the future need, based on the 20-year CIP Plan, and the level of funding that would be needed to meet the need. Refuse Fund What is the feasibility of changing to a different waste collection schedule'? This would be a real shift from current policy. I am not able to give you an informed answer to this question without studying it in greater detail. I believe a simple answer is yes, we could change the schedule if we choose to, and if it does not conflict with current law. Before we consider this as an option for this budget, we should find answers to the following questions: Why make a change? What operational advantages or savings result? Does the customer(resident) want the change? What County. State or Federal laws come in conflict'? Would the change affect other services or functions provide by the Refuse Fund employees`! How would a refuse schedule change atl'ect the recycling program? What customer service issues would be created? It would take a considerable amount of time to study this issue. Can small businesses participate in the City's Recycling Program? No. Current City policy is for the City not to compete with private enterprise that provides services similar to what the City provides its residents. Residential waste and recycling services are traditionally a government function. Business waste collection and recycling is traditionally handled by private enterprise. At the current time I would not recommend offering our recycling services to private business. Impound Lot What is the Impound Lot doing to get such positive reviews from its customers? The City has worked hard to develop and implement customer service driven processes. The staff is good at what they do. A great deal of improvement has been made to the lot facilities over the past five years. It is clean, orderly and organized. The lot is located within the City, and is both accessible and easily reached. Weekly auctions are held and a private auction company has been hired to professionally conduct the sale. The impound site is fenced properly, has lights and a surveillance camera system that has contributed to a decrease in vandalism and theft. What are some other revenue generating activities that the Impound Lot could do? One opportunity would be to change our current policy of not marketing government services outside the City by competing with private enterprise. If the policy change was made, the City could contact other local municipalities, such as Salt Lake County, Sandy City and West Valley City, all of which contract for most of its impound services, and offer to provide services for a fee. The City could generate new revenue by raising fees. State legislation establishes a limit on the fee that can be charged for daily storage. Currently, the city rate is under the cap. The City could raise the administrative fee it charges to violators who have cars towed. In discussions with the Police Department, fees could be charged to police for the cost of impounding and storing police sensitive vehicles that are involved in a crime. Police state that revenue generated from the sale of narcotic crime vehicles could be passed along to the City. Public Services feels that all revenue generating opportunities, except completing with private enterprise, could and should be done even if the Impound Lot program is outsourced. PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 2002 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Special Session on Tuesday, June 4, 2002 at 4 : 00 p.m. in Room 326, Committee Room, City County Building, 451 South State. The following Council Members were present : Carlton Christensen Van Turner Eric Jergensen Jill Remington Love Dave Buhler Nancy Saxton Dale Lambert Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson; Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer; Jay Magure, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; D J Baxter, Senior Advisor to the Mayor; Roger Cutler, City Attorney; Cindy Gust- Jenson, Executive Council Director; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Janice Jardine, Council Planning & Policy Analyst; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Michael Sears, Council Budget & Policy Analyst; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; Brenda Hancock, Human Resource Division Director; Ray Grant, Salt Lake Olympic Committee Project Director; Robert Findley, Salt Lake Olympic Committee Project Director; Dave Gustafson, Salt Lake Olympic Committee Project Director; and Pam Johnson, Deputy City Recorder. Councilmember Buhler presided at and conducted the meeting. COUNCIL MEMBERS WILL GATHER said the location of the site had TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED USE OF been one of the last items PIONEER PARK AS AN OLYMPIC discussed. He said many issues CULTURAL CENTER such as noise, accessibility, open • space areas, central locality and Mayor Anderson said the Salt historical elements were taken Lake Olympic Organizing Committee into consideration. He said (SLOC) in conjunction with the several City locations as well as United Sates Olympic Committee the Utah State Fairgrounds were (USOC) felt it appropriate, given looked at. He said Pioneer Park the financial success of the 2002 proved to be the most feasible Winter Olympic Games, to dedicate location. He said the park was some of the monies available to safe, centrally located and light fund a special center for the rail made it accessible. people of Salt Lake City and their visitors . He said the center Mayor Anderson said there would be a legacy and would were concerns about the homeless provide world class arts, cultural population in Pioneer Park and the and entertainment events . He said surrounding areas . He said this the proposal included open space was only a proposed location. He amenities, water features, and an said public input was encouraged amphitheater, similar to the and the decision would go through medals plaza at the Olympics . He the public process . 02 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 2002 Ray Grant, Robert Findley and He said the City should take Dave Gustafson briefed the Council advantage of the creativity and on their vision of combining the expertise of the personnel athletic and cultural achievements involved in the Olympics . of the Olympics in an amphitheatre for the public. Councilmember Love asked if the City would own and operate the Mr. Grant said SLOC had center. Mr. Grant said SLOC earmarked between $4 . 5 and $6 wanted to create guidelines million to continue the momentum portraying the Olympic Games, generated by the Olympics . He which would include the sponsor' s said this could be the first step participation. He said SLOC in revitalizing downtown. He said wanted to set some programming SLOC had not choosen Pioneer Park guidelines for the amphitheatre. as the site for the Olympic cultural center and legacy Councilmember Lambert asked amphitheatre . He said after if plans included additional extensive research, the City felt parking needs . Mr. Grant said the the park was the best location. cultural center and amphitheatre would be an additional attraction Mr. Findley and Mr. Gustafson downtown. He said existing briefed the Council from site downtown parking and drawings . Mr. Findley said the transportation options would be goal was to develop an Olympic used. center while maintaining the pioneer legacy of the park. He Councilmember Turner said said about 65% of the park' s other promoters of the Pioneer topography would remain the same. heritage had indicated their He said design of the amphitheatre desire to have the venue located would be the same as the Rice on the opposite end of the SLOC Eccles Stadium. proposal. Mr. Grant said the display was an outline. He said Councilmember Saxton asked noise concerns could determine for a follow-up on the total where some venues would be amount of space that would be used located. He said as the Olympic for the amphitheatre. Mr. Findley cultural center and legacy said the design was for an open amphitheatre was being built, amphitheatre which could archeologists would be on site accommodate 2500 to 7500 people. should any additional Pioneer artifacts be uncovered. Councilmember Jergensen asked if the earmarked monies were only Councilmember Buhler asked if available for a certain period of the amphitheatre would have fixed time. Mr. Grant said there was seating. Mr. Grant said the urgency to maintain 'the positive proposal was for grassy areas flow of the Olympics . He said where families could lay out a financially, SLOC wanted to blanket and enjoy the open space. dissolve by the end of the year. He said portable seating could be 2 02 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 2002 brought in for certain events. Mr. Findley said designs for temporary weather coverings were being looked at as well . Councilmember Buhler said he had additional questions and concerns but was in favor of this proposal . He said he looked forward to additional discussion. The meeting adjourned at 5: 53 p.m. l Council Chair �► Ce4A1/3 Chief Deputy City Recorder 2� pi • 02 - 3