Loading...
01/10/2006 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JANUARY 10 , 2006 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, January 10, 2006, at 5 : 30 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance : Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler and Soren Simonsen. Also in Attendance : Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; Edward Butterfield, Mayor' s Small Business/Economic Development Manager; LeRoy Hooton, Public Utilities Director; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Jennifer Bruno, Council Policy Analyst; Alison McFarland, Senior Advisor for Economic Development; Lehua Weaver, Council Constituent Liaison; Sam Guevara, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; Jeffrey Niermeyer, Public Utilities Deputy Director; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; Florence Reynolds, Public Utilities Water Quality and Treatment Administrator; Rocky Fluhart, Mayor' s Chief Administrative Officer; Jan Aramaki, Council Constituent Liaison/Research and Policy Analyst; Jamey Knighton, Acting Human Resource Director; Jodi Langford, Human Resources Employee Benefits Administrator; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Lynn Pace, Deputy City Attorney; Craig Peterson, City Lobbyist; Kathy Ricci, Executive Director of the Utah Micro Enterprise Loan Fund; and Beverly Jones, Deputy City Recorder. Councilmember Buhler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5 : 29 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1 . 5 : 29 : 53 PM INTERVIEW SILIVEINUSI M. NIU PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION. View Attachments Councilmember Buhler said Mr. Niu' s name would be forwarded to the Consent Agenda for approval . #2 . 5 : 34 : 33 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A GRANT TO THE UTAH MICRO ENTERPRISE LOAN FUND . View Attachments Gary Mumford, Alison McFarland, Ed Butterfield and Kathy Ricci briefed the Council from the attached handouts . Councilmember Buhler asked Council Members if there were any objections to moving this item forward to the next meeting. All Council Members were in favor. #3 . RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING STREET BANNERS ON UTILITY POLES LOCATED IN THE PUBLIC WAY PURSUANT TO PETITION 400-03-08 .View Attachments 06 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JANUARY 10 , 2006 This item was not discussed. #4 . 5 : 57 : 28 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION IN THE AREA NEAR 700 SOUTH AND 1600 EAST. View Attachments Jeff Niermeyer, LeRoy Hooton and Florence Reynolds briefed the Council from the attached handouts . #5 . 6 : 26 : 15 PM (TENTATIVE) RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A HOUSEHOLD BENEFIT PACKAGE. View Attachments Jennifer Bruno and Jamey Knighton briefed the Council from the attached handout and a power point presentation. Councilmember Buhler asked if Council Members wanted to forward this item to the next formal Council meeting. All Council Members were in favor. Councilmember Buhler asked that the proposed ordinance be completed in time for the next meeting. Councilmember Love asked about the dependent care leave policy. Ms . Knighton said most City employees were on a personal leave plan. She said those employees could use personal leave for any personal situation which involved a domestic partner or parent. She said a small amount of employees were still on the old dependent leave plan. She said language would need to be changed during labor negotiations . #6 . 7 : 19 : 32 PM RECEIVE COMMENTS FROM THE ADMINISTRATION ON LEGISLATIVE ISSUES . View Attachments Lynn Pace and Craig Peterson briefed the Council from the attached handout. Councilmember Buhler said the airport was interested in a bill enabling better background checks at the airport so he had asked Representative Hughes to sponsor the bill . He suggested that Mr. Weeks and Mr. Pace get together and come up with two or three issues they felt were important for the Council to take to the legislative breakfast on Friday. #7 . REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND 8 : 12 : 11 PM ANNOUNCEMENTS . See File M 06-5 for announcements . No report was given. The meeting adjourned at 8 : 23 p.m. Council Chair 06 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JANUARY 10 , 2006 Chief Deputy City Recorder This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes for the City Council Work Session held January 10, 2006 . bj 06 - 3 Board Appointment — Human Rights Commission: Siliveinusi M. Niu INTRODUCTION: Mayor Anderson is recommending Siliveinusi M. Niu, a resident of District 2, to be appointed to the Human Rights Commission. (This will complete the District appointments for this commission) Mr. Niu's term ending date will be drawn by lot to expire on a staggered basis of two, three or four years each. APPLICANT INFORMATION: Mr. Nui is the owner of Ocean Star Electric, LLC and would like to be on this Commission to help his community bring more business jobs and to teach people on the west side to be leaders not followers. Mr. Nui believes in operating his electrical business through quality work and integrity, he is presently attending the Glendale and Pete Suazo's Business monthly meetings. RESPONSE DEADLINE: If you have any objection to this appointment, please let Vicki know by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 29, 2005. CURRENT COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD: According to City ordinance, the Human Rights Commission shall consist of nine members, one representative from each Council District and two from the community who will represent the diversity of the city. All members must be Salt Lake City residents and at least 18 years of age; each will serve a four-year term. Francisca Blanc, District 4; Christina Carver, District 7; Adrian Comollo, District 3; Raymond Gunn, District 6; Orin Howell, District 1; Chris Johnson, District 5; and Patrick Leary, District 5; Jim Tea11, District 4. BOARD STRUCTURE: According to City ordinance, the Human Rights Commission makes recommendations to the Mayor and City Council regarding educational resources on issues of discrimination and equal treatment. Commissioners will review complaints of discrimination involving city departments or services to identify possible sources. Reviews legislation, policies or other action by the city designed to further eliminate prejudice and discrimination. Reviews pending legislation, policy changes or other city action that may impact human rights. Works in partnership to foster positive inter-group relations through educational programs. ti SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: January 6,2006 SUBJECT: Additional Grant to the Utah Microenterprise Loan Fund AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Citywide STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford ADMINISTRATIVE DEFT. Mayor's Office AND CONTACT PERSON: Alison McFarlane KEY ELEMENTS: In May 2003, the City and the Utah Microenterprise Loan Fund entered into an agreement whereby the City provided $250,000 to the Utah Microenterprise Loan Fund for a revolving loan fund program for entrepreneurs of start-up and existing businesses located within Salt Lake City who are unable to obtain conventional financing or qualify for a loan from the City's Small Business Revolving Loan Fund. Under the joint agreement, both entities participate in funding the loans. In August 10, 2004, the City Council authorized additional funding of$250,000 from the City's Small Business Revolving Loan Fund. The Utah Microenterprise Loan Fund has made 26 loans totaling $609,400 under the joint-funded loan program. The average loan size was $23,438. Twenty-four of the loan recipients are still in business. Salt Lake City's portion of the loan funding was $357,150. The Administration is now proposing granting an additional $250,000 to the Utah Microenterprise Loan Fund for a total of$750,000. The funding source for the additional $250,000 is from the$2.5 million balance in the Small Business Revolving Loan Fund. MATTERS AT ISSUE: 1. The Utah Microenterprise Loan Fund is a private, non-profit entity whose mission is to provide financing and management support to entrepreneurs in start up and existing firms that do not have access to traditional funding sources. 2. Regular loans from the Utah Microenterprise Loan Fund are limited to a maximum loan amount of$10,000 per business. In order to allow for somewhat larger loan amounts, the City provided grants to the Utah Microenterprise Loan Fund in 2003 and in 2004 to allow businesses within Salt Lake City to apply for loans of up to $25,000. 3. Under the agreement, the Utah Microenterprise Loan Fund provides up to 50% of the loan amount up to $10,000 and shares risks in the same ratio. 4. Criteria for reviewing applications are the same used by the Utah Microenterprise Loan Fund. 5. A nine-member credit committee, comprised of volunteer bankers and small business owners, makes the loan decision. 6. The interest rate is the prime rate plus 5%. Interest is considered revenue entirely for the Utah Microenterprise Loan Fund for programs and administration. 7. The loans are for a five-year term. Loans of more than$10,000 can be amortized over ten years with a balloon payment due at the end of the five-year term. 8. Money from loan repayments revolves back to the appropriate loan account based on each party's pro-rated participation in the loan and is available to loan out again. 9. Some losses are expected since these applicants usually lack business history and have limited credit or insufficient collateral. One of the 26 loans has been charged off, although the Microenterprise Loan Fund is still negotiating for partial recovery of the $24,374 loan balance. 10. The Utah Microenterprise Loan Fund endeavors to make successful loans by providing technical assistance to borrowers by partnering with business assistance organizations including professionals in the areas of accounting, marketing, graphic design, legal advising and computer technology. All applicants are required to participate in receiving the counseling and technical assistance. The Utah Microenterprise Loan Fund receives $1,000 from the City's grant for each loan it makes to help offset the cost of providing the technical assistance. 11. A loan origination fee is collected from the loan proceeds to help fund programs and administration. The fee is 1%per year of the loan term for a total of 5% on a 5-year loan. 12. Since the joint program began in August 2003, the Utah Microenterprise Loan Fund has considered 56 applications. The Administration's transmittal provides a listing and summary of the 26 loans awarded as well as other information regarding the program. 13. There is$188,000 of City funds remaining in the program,which could fund approximately 11 more loans. The additional$250,000 requested together with the remaining balance will provide funding for approximately 27 more$25,000 loans ($15,000 from City plus$1,000 for technical assistance per loan). OPTIONS: Following the briefing,the Council may wish to consider several options including: a. Provide an additional $250,000 grant to the Utah Microenterprise Loan Fund. b. Wait on any additional funding until the need is more pressing. c. Request additional information. d. Discontinue the program after existing funding is exhausted by not providing additional City funding. (Applicants can continue to apply for loans of up to $10,000.) cc: Rocky Fluhart,Sam Guevara,Alison McFarlane,Louis Zunguze,LuAnn Clark,DJ Baxter tOp 9 2005. COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer Ak-Rii( DATE: November 23, 2005 FROM: Alison McFarlane s• RE: Extension of grant to Utah MicroEnterprise Loan Fund STAFF CONTACT: Alison McFarlane, Senior Advisor for Economic Development LuAnn Clark, HAND Director DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution BUDGET IMPACT: The Small Business Revolving Loan Fund has a balance of $1,748,900 million dollars. The proposed $250,000 grant to the Utah Microenterprise Loan Fund will reduce the balance to $ $1,498,900. (An additional $780,000 from loan payments will be deposited to the loan balance at the next budget opening.) DISCUSSION: The Small Business Revolving Loan Fund was established in 1991 from repayments from an Urban Development Action grand(UDAG). A total of 95 loans have been made to local businesses for development and expansion and to those impacted by light rail construction since then. (Sixty-one small business loans; 19—400 South construction loans; 15 —Main Street construction loans). The loan program was established to stimulate business development and expansion, encourage private investment, promote economic development and enhance neighborhood vitality in the City. The Utah Microenterprise Laon Fund has a proven record of making loans to start up and existing small businesses, many of which are socially and economically disadvantaged and do not have access to traditional funding sources. The UMLF provides financing as well as management support. The City and UMLF entered into an agreement in 2003 whereby the City provided grant funds to the UMLF for a revolving loan fund program for entrepreneurs of start-up and existing businesses located within the corporate limits of Salt Lake City who are unable to qualify for a loan from the City's Small Business Revolving Loan Fund or obtain conventional financing. Since the "Salt Lake City"Microenterprise loan program began in August 2003,the UMLF has considered 56 applications. Of these,26 loans were approved funded totaling $609,400 with an average loan size of$23,438. Ninety two percent of the businesses are encompassed by the service and retail industries ranging from a deli to a clothing retailer to a janitorial company. Half of the loans went to start-ups businesses,just under a third are home-based and 92% are still in business. Further, 50-60% of the businesses are women owned, 24% minority owned and 69% are owned by members of the low/moderate income community. With an extension of the Salt Lake City and UMLF partnership, the UMLF projects lending to at least 20 more"Salt Lake City" businesses over the next year to 18 months. The program has been a wonderful compliment to the Utah Microenterprise Loan Fund's service to new and existing businesses who are unable to access traditional sources of funding. Having approved 28 loans, it has clearly been successful at filling a gap in the need and demand for loans of up to $25,000 for people who do not qualify for the City's revolving loan fund. A new technical assistance component has been integrated to the UMLF's program called the "Micro Business Assessment(MBA)" (see attached description) in which applicants work with a team of private consultants to identify key areas for development and a prioritized set of goals and actions. Clients receive a comprehensive written report with ideas and recommendations, as well as a resource guide to aid them achieving their goals. This process is now required of all applicants and has been offered to all past Salt Lake City Microloan recipients. The City and UMLF recognize that these will be higher-risk loans and that some losses will occur. The UMLF acknowledges that it will endeavor to make successful loans by providing technical assistance to applicants, evaluating their credit history,taking into account their management ability and business experience, and estimating their likelihood of repaying the loans. Budget/Administration The proposal is for the City to extend the UMLF grant program again granting $250,000 to the UMLF for the above referenced revolving loan fund program. The loans will be made to businesses in Salt Lake City,particularly in areas of greatest commercial need, which are unable to qualify for loans from the City's Small Business evu—b irk =_-_- Fund or obtain conventional financing. The City further agrees that the UMLF shall receive $1,000 from the fund for each loan it makes to provide technical assistance to borrowers located in Salt Lake City. Technical assistance shall loan counseling and training from UMLF staff and outside consultants on how to write a r-.3::�k'�i-•:-: n�.;n , >t.' rir x�?.;,�i.cz rC cnps�er•Tt't Fnti to�Fl ).�..t� i'txlt_'t t?pCCcc c;Tt`�_ - _- -'-- -_= - _ ate• x3nfi� r---- — -==`= - ter`- - --- ---=--- - marketing and legal concerns. The UMLF agrees to participate in each loan up to $10,000. This is, any loan up to $20,000 will be made as a 50/50 split between the UMLF and City grant funds. For example, a$14,000 loan will be made with$7,000 from the UMLF and$7,000 from City grant funds. A $25,000 loan will be made with$10,000 from the UMLF and $15,000 from City grant funds. Each loan will be executed by a single promissory note payable to the UMLF. Loan principal payments will revolve back to the appropriate loan accounts based on each party's pro-rated participation in the loan and will be available to be loaned out again. Interest will go to the UMLF for loan administration. The UMLF shall report to the City quarterly on the use of grant funds including the amount of funds remaining,the number of applications received, the number of loans approved,the dollar amount of loans issued, the status of outstanding loans including the number and dollar amount of loans written off and the number of loans and dollar amount that are more than 60 days delinquent. Eligible Applicants/Loan Amounts/Interest Rate/Loan Terms/Loan Origination Fee/Distribution of Losses Eligible applicants shall include entrepreneurs of start-up and existing businesses located within the corporate limits of Salt Lake City who are unable to qualify for a loan from the City's Small Business Revolving Loan Fund or obtain conventional financing. Loan amounts and loan criteria will be determined by the UMLF, but loan amounts shall not exceed $25,000. The interest rate shall be the current prime rate plus 5%. Loans of$10,000 or less will be amortized for a maximum term of five years. Loans of more than$10,000 will be amortized over 5-10 years with a maximum term of five years, and a balloon payment due at the end of the term. At that time, the UMLF can extend the term an additional 1-5 years. The UMLF will charge a loan origination fee of 1%per year of the loan amount(i.e., for a$10,000 loan amortized for a five year term, the fee will be$500). For loan amounts larger than$10,000,the UMLF will charge 1%per year of the loan amount up to a 5% maximum (i.e., for$25,000 loan amortized for a five year term, the fee will be $1,250). The fee will not be greater than the 5% for loans that exceed a five year term. The loan origination fee will be collected from the loan proceeds, and will be used by the UMLF for programs and administration. The UMLF and City will share any losses on a pro-rated basis, based on the structure of the loan (i.e., for a$25,000 loan, any losses will be shared on a 40/60 basis; for a$20,000 loan,any losses will be shared on a 50/50 basis). Salt Lake City Microenterprise Loan Program Program Update Since the "Salt Lake City" Microenterprise loan program began in August 2003, the UMLF has considered 56 applications. Of these, 28 loans were approved and 28 loans were declined. Twenty six loans were closed and funded totaling $609,400 with an average loan size of$23,438. Of these 26 loans: Loans Business Location: Considered 56 Homebased 31% Declined 28 Commercial 69% Approved 28 Closed 26 Industry: Service 54% Total amount loaned and source: $ 609,400 Manufacturing 4% Salt Lake City Pool $ 357,150 59% Retail 38% UMLF General Pool $ 252,250 41% Wholesale 4% Construction 0% Average loan size: $ 23,438 Gender: Loan Status as of 10/14/05: Woman 50% Open Balance 21 loans 81% Male 38% Paid Off 4 loans 15% Male/Female 12% Charged Off* loan 4% Ethnicity: Status at time of loan: White 77% Start up 14 50% Black 4% Existing 14 50% Hispanic 4% Other 15% Business Status: (as of 10/14/05) Open and doing business 24 92% Household Income Status: Sold business 1 4% Low 15% Closed business 1 4° Moderato 54% Middle 31% Upper 0% FUTURE NEED Currently available to lend: (as of 10/14/05) $ 188,000 could fund approximately 11 more loans (up to$25,000) (from Salt Lake City pool) to fund at least 20 more loans(up to$25,000)over next $ 250,000 1-2 years. * One loan has been charged off. The total loan balance was$24,374, with the loss to the Salt Lake City pool portion being$14,625. (Although the borrower has tried to file bankruptcy, we are currently negotiating a 50% repayment which will reduce the Salt Lake City pool portion to $7,312). Utah Microenterprise Loan Fund Salt Lake City Micro-Loan Program Activity October 12,2005 APPROVED and FUNDED: 26 loans 1. H.Investments Corporation received a loan for$25,000 under the new Salt Lake City Microloan Program for the purpose of funding equipment, advertising, insurance,rent,and utilities for an ethnic grocery store. The loan was approved by a vote of 8-0. Collateral will be a UCC on all business assets including those purchased with the loan proceeds, and a deed of trust on the principals primary residence. The principal's sister will also act as co-signor. Borrower Home: 337 East 700 South Business: 1735 So. Redwood Road 2. The Beehive Tea Room and Wedding Library: This was a request for$25,000 under the new Salt Lake City Microloan Program to fund start-up costs of a tea-room and wedding library downtown. The loan was declined as presented by 7-1. The Committee did vote 8-0 to approve the loan if the applicant presented a strong and acceptable co-signor and obtained approval on the SBA loan she had applied for. Collateral will include a general lien on the assets of the business. Business: 12 W. Broadway UMLF FY 2003-04 3. Jessie Collette Merrill/Vivid Imagery: This was a request for$25,000.00 under the Salt Lake City Micro Loan Program to fund equipment,working capital and marketing costs of a new fine art photography business. The loan was approved by a vote of 5-0. Collateral on the loan will be all of the equipment financed with the loan and existing equipment(requiring model and serial numbers),accounts and inventory and a 7 foot Petrov Grand Piano. Home Business: 1127 Alpine Place 4. Catherine Luckette/Bag Lady Boutique: This was a request for$25,000.00 under the Salt Lake City Micro Loan Program to fund the purchase of an existing business($15,000),equipment and working capital. The loan was approved by a vote of 5-0 with an adequate co-maker. Co-maker to be approved by the Credit Committee Chair. Collateral on the loan will be the co-maker and a UCC on all business assets. Business: 241 East 300 South 5. Chris and Veronica Nelson/Child Time,Inc.: This was a request for$25,000.00 under the Salt Lake City microloan program to do improvements to their two preschool centers. The loan was approved by a vote of 6-0 with deed of trust on the company's Avenues location and the personal residence of the principals. Business: 410 Third Avenue 6. Jake Wernett,Steven Nelson,Taylor Parkin,Jacob Packard/Sky Blue Communications: This was a request for$25,000.00 under the Salt Lake City Micro-Loan Program to fund the acquisition of a smaller company to enable the company to expand their geographic base. The loan was approved contingent on review of 2002 financial statements and YTD financial statements(only a summary was provided in the business plan). Collateral on the loan will be a UCC on all business assets and a deed of trust on the personal residence of the Taylor Parkin. Business: 155 North 400 West 7. Walter Lee Nielsen/A Plus Massage and Bodyworks: This was a request for$25,000 to fund remodeling costs,working capital and equipment of a new home based massage therapy business under the Salt Lake City Micro-loan program. The loan was approved for only$15,000 by a vote of 8-1. The Credit Committee felt the applicant was asking for much more than he needed to complete the required remodeling and equipment purchases,plus some working capital. Home Business: 819 East 1300 South 8. Patricia Happi and Frederick Mongue/Mr.Propre Cleaning Solutions: This was a request for $25,000 under the Salt Lake City Microloan program to an existing UMLF borrower to fund additional equipment and working capital to fund the company's continued growth. The loan was approved by a vote of 7-0. Collateral on the loan will be a UCC on all business assets. Business: 455 East 400 South 9. Kate Holland Design: This was a request for$20,000 under the Salt Lake City Microloan program to an existing business which designs and retails jewelry, picture frames,etc. The loan was approved by a vote of 5-1 with a UCC financing statement on all business assets. Home Business: 1942 Berkeley St.(lives with parents) 10. Senior Technology Showcase: This was a request for$25,000 to fund the costs of putting on the Senior Technology Showcase and to re-locate the business to SLC,website development and equipment. The loan was approved by a vote of 5-3 with a deed of trust on the personal residence of the principals as collateral. Home Business: 1073 East 2100 South 11. Ecomoto: This was a request for$25,000 under the Salt Lake City program for initial rent, equipment and inventory for a relatively new company which retails alternative transportation vehicles such as scooters, electric bicycles,etc. The loan was approved by a vote of 6-0 using the business assets as collateral. Business: 358 South 700 East 12. Lunas;Cvnthia Osmun/Gorilla Chills: This was a request for$25,000 under the Salt Lake City Micro Loan Program to fund leasehold improvements,rent, supplies and working capital for a new business proposing to make and sell Italian Ice and other frozen deserts. The loan was approved by a vote of 8-0 using the business assets as collateral and the limited personal guaranty of the minority partner in the business. Business: 2126 So. Highland Drive(now called"Luna's Italian Ice") 13. Leilani Taholo/Child and Family Empowerment Services,LLC: This was a request for$25,000 under the Salt Lake City program to partially fund the start-up costs of a new company offering family mental health services. Funds will be used to cover initial rent, leasehold improvements, supplies and working capital. The loan was approved by a vote of 8-0 with collateral being a UCC on all business assets and a deed of trust on the personal residence of the principal. Business: 1578 West 1700 South 14. Nandra Courtwright/Marketing Strategies: This was a request from an existing UMLF borrower for an additional$16,000.00 under the Salt Lake City microloan program,to purchase a franchise/shares of Adventures in Advertising which is a national purchasing coop for small businesses such as this one,plus working capital for an additional employee and marketing costs. The loan was approved by a vote of 5-1. Collateral will be a UCC on all business assets. Home Business: 829 E.400 So.#114 UPDATE: Borrower has tried to file for bankruptcy. Currently negotiating to receive 50%($12,187.11)of the balance owed($24,374.22). 15. John Prettyman and Scott Adair/the Coffee Mug,Inc.: This was a request for$25,000.00 under the Salt Lake City program to cover construction of a drive-thru kiosk,equipment and working capital to start up a drive-thru coffee facility in downtown Salt Lake City. The loan was approved for a lesser amount ($12,500.00)by a vote of 6-0. The approval is subject to review of a revised cost breakdown and approval of the Credit Committee Chair of the revisions. Collateral will be a UCC filing on all business assets. Business: 3642 W.2100 So 16. Anne Jensen/Coffee Lady Coffee Carts: This was a request for$25,000 to fund the balance of the purchase(applicant has put$5m down from savings)of two existing coffee carts at Primary Children's Hospital and Brighton Ski Resort by a long time employee. The loan was approved by a vote of 7-0(Hydee Willis arrived). Collateral will be a UCC on all equipment, carts, etc. purchased with the loan funds. Prior to closing pictures and serial numbers will be furnished. Business: inside of Primary Children's Hospital 17. Thermal Shield,Matt Lyman,Tim Lyman: This was a request for a$25,000 Salt Lake City Micro-Loan for start-up costs for a liquid siding company. The request was approved with the following conditions: 1.) obtain trust deeds on both residences of applicants. Business: 1899 So.Redwood Rd. 18. Abdirahman H.Farah/Keyr Grocery and Imports: This was a request for$15,000 under the Salt Lake City Program from a previous UMLF borrower for additional inventory and equipment to expand their existing operations. The loan was approved by a vote of 6-0 subject to a review of the company's interim financial statements by the Credit Committee Chair. Collateral will be a UCC on all business assets as well as a deed of trust on the personal residence of the principals. Business: 1735 So.Redwood Rd#120 UMLF FY 2004-05 19. John Lascaris/Renewals Sugarhouse Resale: This was a request for$24,900.00 to fund start-up costs including working capital, inventory and equipment for a proposed second hand store in Sugarhouse. The loan was approved by a vote of 3-2 with one abstention. Collateral on the loan will be a UCC financing statement on all business assets and a deed of trust on the personal residence of the principal. Business: 1088 So. 1100 E. 20. Joni Sorenson/Joni's Deli: This was a request from an existing borrower to increase her loan under the Salt Lake City loan program to the$25,000 maximum to fund additional costs incurred to repair/remodel the facility. The loan was approved by a vote of 5-0. Business: 52 E. 1700 So. 21. Marcus Walker and Ronald Tucker/Foxtrot American Co.: This was a request for$25,000 under the Salt Lake City loan program from an applicant who had been conditionally approved and had not been able to meet required conditions. The proposed company was to set up a retail clothing operation. The request was declined by a vote of 5-0. The Credit Committee still felt the amount available from the UMLF was inadequate to insure success for the venture;(2)the principals have limited industry experience; (3)the principals have limited if any credit history; and(4)no secondary source of repayment. Business: 2132 So.Highland Dr 22 Joni Sorenson/Joni's Deli: This was a request from an existing borrower to increase her loan under the Salt Lake City loan program to the$25,000 maximum to fund additional costs incurred to repair/remodel the facility. The loan was approved by a vote of 5-0. Business: 52 E. 1700 So. 23. Universal Junk Removal(1-800-Got-Junk)received a loan for$25,000 under the Salt Lake City loan program to purchase an additional territory for the junk removal company. Home Business:901 University Village 24. Gonzalo Lastra and Ayriana Lastra/V2GA,LLC: This was a request for$25,000 to fund additional equipment,supplies and working capital for a relatively new contract housekeeping firm owned by a brother and sister team. The request was approved by a vote of 5-0 with a UCC fmancing statement on all business assets and a deed of trust on the personal residence of the principal. Business: 180 So.300 West 215-B 25. Loretta Gale/Infobytes: This request was for$25,000 under the Sale Lake City loan program. Funds are to be used to solve cash flow problems with her existing business and obtain protection for her intellectual property rights. Infobytes has developed and sells website design and management services to municipal service providers. The MBA program identified several areas where Loretta can improve her operations through the use of UMLF loan proceeds. The committee approved$15,000 to be used to help eliminate excessive bank charges by injecting working capital. An additional$10,000 was approved to help secure her intellectual rights and hire additional sales and support personnel contingent on obtaining a satisfactory co-maker. The loan was approved with these parameters by a vote of 8-0. Business: 1115 3`d Ave. 26. Mary Deiss Brown and Gerald Brown/Ciscothirteen LLC- Ciscothirteen LLC is a business located at 362 West Pierpont Avenue that leases virtual office services. They lease the use of a receptionist,mail service,office space,conference room and other office products on a contract or hourly basis. Mary& Gerald purchased the building and used their personal funds and an SBA loan to furnish the building and get the business open. It was derermined that additional funding was not available from other sources due to the SBA lien and high leverage. They need these funds to purchase additional office equipment, marketing and advertising services and provide additional working capital. This loan was approved by a vote of 7 to 0. Collateral will be a 2nd trust deed on the business property. Business: 362 W.Pierpont Ave. APPROVED but NOT FUNDED: 2 loans 27. Kokopellis Inc.,Jessica Brown: This request was for a$25,000 SLC Micro-Loan for the purchase of the assets of an existing private club. This request was approved with the following conditions: 1.)Trust deed on condominium of owner,2.)owner obtaining proof of additional capital(loan from family member),3.) lien on specific equipment. THIS LOAN DID NOT CLOSE. 28. Karen Thomas Weeks and Sally Kadleck/Alpha Beta Child's Success: This was a request for$25,000 under the Providian Childcare Program for playground and facility improvements for an existing childcare facility trying to move to a new location. The loan was conditionally approved by a vote of 6-0. Conditions of approve are: (1)subject to the approval and closing of the SBA 504 loan to purchase the new facility.THIS LOAN NEVER CLOSED. DECLINED: 28 loans 1. Jerome Cliff Moody/Jerome Cliff Moody's Record World II: This was a request for$25,000.00 under the Salt Lake City Micro Loan Program for funding of start-up costs of a new retail music and clothing store in Trolley Square. The loan was declined by a vote of 5-0. The reasons for the adverse action were (1)derogatory credit of the principal; (2)inadequate secondary source of repayment;and(3)the Credit Committee was not convinced of the viability of the project. 2. Nicole Weinberger/The Haight Company,LLC: This was a request for$25,000.00 under the Salt Lake City Microloan program to start-up a specialty ladies accessories store in Sugarhouse. The loan was approved by a vote of 7-0 with a qualified co-maker who would pledge adequate collateral to secure the loan and the suggestion that she might want to reduce the loan amount. However, if she obtains a co-maker and the co-maker pledges adequate collateral and she justifies the need for the full amount we will go ahead at$25m. 3. Malcom Waters/The Waters Group,LLC: This was a request for$25,000.00 under the Salt Lake City Micro-Loan program for additional working capital to expand a relatively new venture of three businesses. The applicant had not determined his SLC location yet but indicated it would be in SLC proper. The request was declined by a vote of 6-0 due to: derogatory credit of the principal including a recent bankruptcy. 4. Karon Greene& Troy Young/Java Connection: This was a request for$25,000 to fund additional inventory and operating expenses to keep open a relatively new coffee shop and interne cafe in SLC. The request was declined by a vote of 6-0 due to: (1)the derogatory credit of the principals; (2)losses shown; (3)uses of funds was to pay back rent plus; (4)the Credit Committee was not convinced of the viability of the project to continue. 5. Kim McGary/Caffe di Gelato: This was a request for$25,000 under the Salt Lake City Micro-Loan Program to purchase additional equipment for an existing Italian Ice Cream store in Crossroads Mall Food Court. The request was declined by a vote of 5-1 due to: (1)the Committee was not convinced of the continued viability of the project;(2)the Committee questioned the management ability of the applicant. 6. Julie Maughan/Paiies,Inc.: This was a request for$25,000 under the Salt Lake City Micro-Loan Program for equipment,working capital and capital for product development and marketing for an existing company which designs,manufactures and sells women's fashions(primarily jackets and vests). The loan was declined by a vote of 9-0. The reasons for the adverse action were(1) limited credit history of the principal; (2)no secondary source of repayment available; (3)the company has been in business since 1981 and has not produced and real income during that period; and(4)the Credit Committee felt the company needed venture or equity capital rather than debt funding at this stage. 7. Troy Bailey Palmer/Achieve Mortgage Solutions: This was a request for$25,000.00 under the Salt Lake Micro-Loan Program to fund start-up costs for a new mortgage brokerage. The loan was declined due to lack of experience in the industry,no marketing plan,and being unlicensed. 8. Audith Sisouvong/lmaii Photo Studio: This was a request for$25,000 to fund start-up costs for a new photo studio under the Salt Lake City Micro-loan program. The loan was declined due to: poor credit, under-capitalization,and lack of viable marketing plan. 9. Sarinda Jones: Sarinda Jones/Reflective Art: This was a request for$25,000.00 under the Salt Lake City Microloan Program to fund equipment and inventory purchases for a relatively new company which does decorative glass art and jewelry. The loan was declined by a vote of 5-0 due to:(1)delinquent credit obligations;(2)Unsatisfactory past debt payment; (3)inadequate collateral/secondary source of repayment; and(4)the Credit Committee was not convinced of the project's viability. 10. Chubba Enterprises Inc.: Ed Schultz/Chubba Enterprises: This was a request for$25,000 under the Salt Lake City program to fund additional equipment and inventory for a company that has been in business for four years selling environmentally safe parts and equipment washing machines and cleansers. The loan was declined by a vote of 7-0 due to: (1)derogatory credit of the principal;(2)inadequate secondary source of repayment/collateral; and(3)the Credit Committee was not convinced of the project's viability due to the lack of sales since inception. 11. Darlene Johnson-Colbert/OYM Publishing: This was a request for$25,000.00 under the Salt Lake City program to fund rent,office equipment, supplies and working capital for a new company which proposed to publish and distribute a minority weekly newspaper aimed at the African-American Community. The loan was declined by a vote of 6-0 due to: (1)derogatory credit history of the principal including bankruptcy;(2) lack of adequate industry experience;(3) limited market;(4)inadequate/no secondary source of repayment. 12. Oliver and Dannika Valenzuela/Nueve Media LLC: This was a request for$25,000 under the Salt Lake City Program to fund the start-up expenses of equipment,working capital and marketing expense for a new multimedia advertising services company. The request was declined by a vote of 6-0(CeCe Mitchell was excused)due to: (1)delinquent credit obligations of the principals(including their personal residence); (2) inadequate or no secondary source of repayment;and(3)the committee was concerned that the new company would produce adequate income to support the applicant's personal needs as well as debt service. 13. Adam and Athena Champneys/Blackout Entertainment LLC dba Frontline: This was a request for $25,000 under the Salt Lake City program for initial supplies,rent and equipment to fund the start-up costs of a proposed mobile paint ball and airsoft facility and retailing of equipment for the two sports. The request was declined by a vote of 8-0 due to the derogatory credit of the principals including a pending foreclosure; inadequate secondary source of repayment/collateral; limited market for this service;and inadequate management experience. 14. Daniel Beck/Heritage Video Services: This was a request for$25,000 under the Salt Lake City Micro Loan Program to fund equipment,rent and working capital for a new company proposing to offer video transfer services converting VHS tapes,etc.to DVDs. The request was declined by a vote of 6-0 due to(1) the Credit Committee was not convince the$25m was adequate funding;and(2)the Credit Committee felt the company needed equity fmancing instead of debt at this point. 15. Michael&Robyn Dahlgren/Relativity Digital Marketing: This was a request for$25,000 under the Salt Lake City program for equipment, supplies,owner's draws and working capital for a new firm proposing to set up digital and e-mail marketing for health care industry professionals beginning with chiropractors. The loan was declined by a vote of 6-0 due to(1)previous delinquent credit of the principals; (2)the Credit Committee was not convinced of the viability of the project. 16. Patrick Greenhalgh/Bur-Bois: This was a request for$25,000 under the Salt Lake City Micro Loan Program to fund rent,equipment,supplies and other start-up costs for a proposed coffee shop and internet café in downtown Salt Lake. The loan was declined by a vote of 6-0 due to:(1)derogatory credit history of the applicant including two bankruptcies; (2)the viability of the project was questioned;(3)no secondary source of repayment; and(4)the available funding appeared inadequate for the proposed project. 17. Darlene Johnson-Colbert/OYM Publishing: This was a request for$25,000.00 under the Salt Lake City program to fund rent, office equipment, supplies and working capital for a new company which proposed to publish and distribute a minority weekly newspaper aimed at the African-American Community. The loan was declined by a vote of 6-0 due to: (1)derogatory credit history of the principal including bankruptcy;(2) lack of adequate industry experience;(3)limited market;(4) inadequate/no secondary source of repayment. 18. Oliver and Dannika Valenzuela/Nueve Media LLC: This was a request for$25,000 under the Salt Lake City Program to fund the start-up expenses of equipment,working capital and marketing expense for a new multimedia advertising services company. The request was declined by a vote of 6-0(CeCe Mitchell was excused)due to: (1)delinquent credit obligations of the principals(including their personal residence); (2) inadequate or no secondary source of repayment;and(3)the committee was concerned that the new company would produce adequate income to support the applicant's personal needs as well as debt service. 19. AirDome Events LLC Air Dome Events/Anthony Mogollon,Kassey Fowler: This request was for $25,000 under the Salt Lake City Program to purchase an inflatable events tent and associated marketing materials. The request was declined by a vote of 2-6 due to(1)insufficient capitalization to start up. (2) Competitive threats posed significant risks. (3)Lack of a secondary source of repayment(we would have a lien on the tent behind an SBA loan. 20. Jeanne's Pizza LLC,David and Jeanne Lott: This was a request for a$25,000 Salt Lake County/Utah Business Lending loan for marketing,equipment upgrades,and debt repayment for an existing business. The loan was declined for the following reasons: 1.)Lack of viable business plan, 2.)consecutive losses, 3.) questionable use of funds. 21. Modified Alternative Music Inc.: This was a request for a$25,000.00 Salt Lake City Micro Loan to fund inventory and marketing for an existing retail/consignment music store. This applicant is currently in Ch. 13 bankruptcy. The request was declined based on: 1.)poor credit/bankruptcy of applicant 2.) lack of secondary source of repayment. 22. Richard Dansie/Rick"The Computer Guy" Inc.: This was a request for$25,000 under the Salt Lake City Program to fund additional inventory and working capital to expand an existing network consulting and computer sales business. Under the UMLF's pre-screening process,the request was declined due to:(1) derogatory credit of the principal; (2)inadequate historical cash flow; and(3)inadequate secondary source of repayment. 23. Andrew L.Bradford/OPTICTOOLS,LLC: This was a request for$25,000 to fund the start-up costs of a proposed new business to sell optometric products. The request was declined under the UMLF's pre- screening process due to: (1)derogatory credit of the principal; (2) lack of actual industry experience;and (3)no secondary source of repayment. 24. Cole Christensen/INFOSolutions& Marketing dba Celestial Apples: This was a request for$25,000 under the Salt Lake City Program to fund inventory, equipment and working capital including bringing payroll current for a relative new company which manufactures candied/caramel apples and candy. The request was declined by a vote of 5-0 due to: (1)principal is not running company(on mission since prior to company forming and father and consultant is managing); (2)losses shown to date;(3)principal has limited business experience; (4)no secondary source of repayment; (5)negative net worth. 25. Evan Walker Anderton/W Models/Icon Agency: This was a request for$25,000 under the Salt Lake City loan program to fund advertising and working capital in connection with the expansion and move of the company's facility. The company is a model/talent agency and was proposing to expand into vocal and acting training; a salon; and a VIP only ultra lounge. The loan was declined by a vote of 7-0 due to(1)no secondary source of repayment; (2)the Credit Committee was concerned about the proposed large increase in fixed expenses associated with the proposed move and(3)the Committee was not convinced that the amount available through the UMLF was adequate. 26. Shannon Chrysler/Dynamic Catalyst: This was a request for$25,000.00 under the Salt Lake City loan program to fund equipment and working capital needs for a new business being set up to offer"wellness care". The loan was declined by a vote of 5-0 due to(1)extremely high debt load of principal;(2)no real industry or management experience and(3)the Credit Committee was not convinced of the project's viability. 27. William Shaw/AJ's Mobile Go-Karts: This was a request for$25,000 under the Salt Lake City loan program for start-up cost for a proposed mobile go-kart company which would set up a track and furnish go-karts for private parties. The loan was declined as a pre-screen due to(1)derogatory credit history of the principal including two bankruptcies;(2)we were not convinced of the viability of the project and(3) the potential liability seemed a major threat to the business. 28. Juniper Press/Mark Taylor: This was a request for$25,000 under the Salt Lake City loan program to be used to open a printing and publishing business. Funds were to be used to purchase computer equipment, finance advertising,lease payments and operating capital. The borrower completed the MBA program which provided valuable insight into the challenges that opening a business of this type. Mr.Taylor said that the MBA program was very beneficial. Due to material weaknesses in the marketing plan, insufficient capital, insufficient secondary source of repayment,and poor credit,This request was declined by a vote of 5-0. Micro Business Assessment (MBA) In the spring of 2005,the UMLF modified its service procedure to incorporate the Micro Business Assessment(MBA)process to provide targeted, customized solutions for all levels of business management. The MBA program has two levels: MBA I—is designed to address the challenges facing a company in the introductory planning stages and/or early start-up stages. This facet involves a strategic planning analysis designed to address"next steps"and business development. The final product includes a comprehensive report of consultant findings, a step by step action plan for mapping business goals, and a resources guide to aid in achieving those goals. MBA II—concentrates on the needs of entrepreneurs currently operating on a consistent level. This facet focuses on the evaluation of key business areas, including financial management, strategic marketing, operational management and liability assessment. The MBA II seeks to identify specific areas causing the most significant barriers to business profitability and growth. A customized report is generated as a result of the MBA team's findings that contain specific solutions for removing barriers and actionable recommendations for increasing efficiency and sustainability. For clients: the MBA will be an inexpensive way for them to get help from a seasoned business advisor. Using the UMLF's team of private consultants with entrepreneurial experts covering all aspects of business, clients will receive business advice targeted to their specific needs. They'll meet with a business advisor with expertise in the areas and identify key areas for development and a prioritized set of goals and actions. Clients will also receive a comprehensive written report with ideas and recommendations from the full MBA teams of experts, as well as a resource guide to aid them achieving their goals. For the UMLF: the MBA process will strengthen the UMLF program in a number of ways. First and foremost, the objective is to make `stronger' loans, thus resulting in reduced delinquencies and loan loss rates and increased probability of success for the microentrepreneur. The interpersonal interaction and resulting conclusions from the MBA process will give the UMLF a much deeper understanding of the business as well as the applicant's level of commitment and ability to effectively operate and manage a small business. The incorporation of the MBA process will: • Increase the dollar impact of micro-lending. It will an effective tool used for stronger credit analysis with a high potential of reducing delinquencies and loan loss rates. • Increase scale and scope of business skills development resources offered by the UMLF. Both the MBA I and MBA II provide the clients with a comprehensive report. The potential exists for the UMLF to eventually provide this service to those other than borrowers. • Increase clients' use of technical assistance and training resources. Applicants will be asked to speak to the specific recommendations and steps for implementation in their loan applications. Addressing business challenges identified during assessment may become part of a loan agreement. ° a Grant Agreement Utah Microenterprise Loan Fund Guidelines Eligible Applicants /Loan Amounts / Interest Rate/Loan Terms/Loan Origination Fee/Distribution of Losses Eligible applicants shall include entrepreneurs of start-up and existing businesses located within the corporate limits of Salt Lake City who are unable to qualify for a loan from the City's Small Business Revolving Loan Fund or obtain conventional financing. Loan amounts and loan criteria will be determined by the UMLF, but loan amounts shall not exceed $25,000. The interest rate shall be the current prime rate plus 5%. Loans of$10,000 or less will be amortized for a maximum term of five years. Loans of more than$10,000 will be amortized over 5-10 years with a maximum term of five years, and a balloon payment due at the end of the term. At that time, the UMLF can extend the term an additional 1-5 years. The UMLF will charge a loan origination fee of 1%per year of the loan amount (i.e., for a$10,000 loan amortized for a five year term, the fee will be $500). For loan amounts larger than $10,000, the UMLF will charge 1%per year of the loan amount up to a 5% maximum (i.e., for $25,000 loan amortized for a five year term, the fee will be $1,250). The fee will not be greater than the 5% for loans that exceed a five year term. The loan origination fee will be collected from the loan proceeds, and will be used by the UMLF for programs and administration. The UMLF and City will share any losses on a pro-rated basis, based on the structure of the loan(i.e., for a$25,000 loan, any losses will be shared on a 40/60 basis; for a $20,000 loan, any losses will be shared on a 50/50 basis). I:\ResolutilUtah Microenterprise Loan Fund Guidelines 12-05-05 clean RESOLUTION No. _of 2005 APPROVING A GRANT TO THE UTAH MICROENTERPRISE LOAN FUND 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 renamed the program the Salt Lake City Small Business Revolving Loan Fund and adopted Loan Criteria and Evaluation Matrix in 2002 (Resolution No. 31 of 2002); and WHEREAS, the City approved grants to the Utah Microenterprise Loan Fund of $250,000 in 2003 (Resolution No. 21 of 2003) and of$250,000 in 2004 (Resolution No. 44 of 2004); and WHEREAS, the City desires to make an additional grant of$250,000 to the Utah Microenterprise Loan Fund to stimulate business development and expansion, encourage private investment, promote economic development and enhance neighborhood vitality in the City, said grant to be administered in accordance with the Grant Agreement Utah Microenterprise Loan Fund guidelines attached hereto; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: It hereby approves a grant of$250,000 from the Small Business Revolving Loan Fund to the Utah Microenterprise Loan Fund as provided herein and to execute the necessary documents to make said grant to the Utah Microenterprise Loan Fund in accordance with the Grant Agreement Utah Microenterprise Loan Fund guidelines attached hereto. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2005. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: CHAIR ATTEST: Chief Deputy City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM G:AResolutiAUtah Microenterprise Loan Fund 12-05-O5 clean Sak Lake Ci A neY8 Office Date /2" 5— By �^^ SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT err DATE: January 5,2006 SUBJECT: Petition No.400-03-08 -A request by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to amend section 21A.46.070(K)of the Zoning Ordinance to adopt standards regulating street banners on utility poles in the public way. STAFF REPORT BY: Jennifer Bruno,Policy Analyst AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: City-wide ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT: Community Development Department AND CONTACT PERSON: Lex Traughber,Principal Planner NOTICE REQUIREMENTS: Newspaper advertisement and written notification to surrounding property owners 14 days prior to the Public Hearing KEY ELEMENTS: A. The Administration's transmittal contains an ordinance for Council consideration to amend the Zoning Ordinance to adopt standards regulating street banners on utility poles in the public way. B. The proposed ordinance would allow street banner signs on any utility poles along the arterial and collector streets identified in the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan map, and along Terminal Drive at the Salt Lake City International Airport. (Note: The Administration's transmittal indicates that Terminal Drive was added to the list of streets at the request of the Department of Airports.) A map of these streets is included in the Administration's transmittal. C. The ordinance proposes that street banners be allowed for the limited purpose of encouraging and promoting community identity,community organizations,and community activities and events. 1. The purpose statement reads as follows:the purpose of this chapter is to designate the use of certain utility poles for the display of street banners to benefit local neighborhoods and the City as a whole by street banners for the limited purpose of encouraging and promoting community identity,community organizations, community activities and events. In allowing this limited signage on utility poles,in certain designated locations,the City does not intend to create an open public forum, but rather intents to create a limited forum for the purposes set forth herein. 2. The ordinance lists the following groups as eligible applicants for a permit to display street banners:community organizations,local non-profit organizations,city and county government,the State of Utah,or governmentally owned educational institutions. 3. The ordinance outlines specific display areas,allowable content and design,duration of display,and materials standards. 4. The Transportation Division will handle applications for street banners,unless the City has entered into an agreement with community, government,or educational 1 organizations to manage a coordinate street banner program within a specific geographic area. A current example of this idea is in the downtown,where the signage program is under contract by the City to be managed by the Downtown '- Alliance. The Parks Division has expressed an interest in entering into an inter-city agreement to manage the signage surrounding Liberty Park. The Airport has also expressed an interest in managing the signage on Terminal Drive. D. Key points from the Administration's transmittal are following: 1. The current section of the zoning ordinance pertaining to signs on public property prohibits the location of signs on publicly owned land or inside street rights of way, unless such signs are permitted by an authorized public agency. The interpretation of this current language has been to allow the Mayor to issue executive orders to regulate time,place and manner restrictions on signs in the public way (Executive Order dated August 19,2003,included in the Administration's transmittal). 2. The Administration is proposing this ordinance to codify in the zoning ordinance, the overall policy with relation to street banners,rather than issue a succession of executive orders. 3. Other"street banner" related programs currently in place: i. Downtown: There is currently a downtown banner program,which the City has contractually allowed the Downtown Alliance to administer since 1991 (their standards are included in the Administration's transmittal-Exhibit 2). The area is generally bounded by North Temple,200 East,400 South,and 400 West. This agreement will NOT be superseded by the proposed ordinance, as the Downtown Alliance is under contract with the City to administer the signage. The proposed ordinance was mirrored after the Downtown Alliance's current standards. ii. Neighborhood specific: In response to specific community requests, the City has approved various neighborhood street banners,first in Poplar Grove, then in Sugar House and in various other locations. 4. Because the standards regulating street banners on state roads are much more restrictive (they do not allow any private,non-governmental group),the City proposes that any applicant who wishes to display street banners on a state road first obtain a permit from UDOT. It should be noted that several of the City's state- owned roads are important gateways to the City (State Street, 700 East,400 South, North Temple,etc). 5. The Planning Staff's report found that the proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and goals of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City,that the amendment contains sufficient language to ensure that street banners are harmonious with the overall character of existing development, and that adverse affects on adjacent properties will be limited. 6. An open house to discuss this issue was held on October 10th,2005. Those notified included the Business Advisory Board,Community Council Chairs,City Departments/Divisions,all business groups,and others on the Planning Division's mailing list. Only a representative from the Salt Lake City International Airport attended the open house. E. City Departments and Divisions were contacted for their comments. The Attorney's Office was involved in crafting the proposed ordinance and is aware of the risk of a constitutional ,7) challenge based on the First Amendment. The City Attorneys believe that time,place and manner restrictions,while at risk of being challenged,are a legally acceptable tool to 2 regulate use of a sufficiently limited public forum. The Transportation Division is supportive of the proposed ordinance. F. Community Councils were notified in a letter dated May 29,2003. No comments were received. G. The Arts Council provided several relevant comments in terms of appropriate language and wording clarification,which were incorporated into the draft ordinance. H. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 26,2005. The Commission voted,based on Planning Staffs findings,to transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed text amendment with the following exceptions: elimination of the proposed proximity requirement,and a word change in section E2a from "geographic area" to"management area." The following issues were discussed at the Planning Commission public hearing: 1. A representative from the Sugar House Community Council spoke at the hearing, and stated that banners were an important component to building community and was supportive of the proposed ordinance. 2. Other issues discussed included community input,issues relating to removal of signage,first amendment issues,how long the banners should be allowed to be displayed,and the proximity requirement(which would limit the location of banner signs to within two miles of the permanent location of a community organization or event location). 3. The decision to eliminate the Proximity requirement was due to concerns that it would be"exclusive," and that people on one side of the City would not know about events or locations on the other side of the City. 4. Planning Staff had suggested this provision to eliminate conflicts between various groups that might place street banners in locations that may not be appropriate. This provision was suggested by multiple concerned entities. The example raised is a banner for Hogle Zoo in Liberty Park,which may divert attention from the Tracy Aviary. It has been eliminated from the proposed ordinance before the Council,but was previously section E.2.i. The wording presented to the Planning Commission, but stricken from their recommendation,was as follows: i. Street banners may be placed up to a maximum of 2 miles from the permanent or home location of a community organization,or the location of a specific community activity or community event. MATTERS AT ISSUE: A. The Council may wish to revisit and discuss the issues pertaining to a proximity requirement. The Planning Commission recommended removing this requirement because of concerns that it would be exclusive and that people in one area of the City would not know what was going on in another area. However,planning staff recommended including the proximity requirement because of the concerns of several community entities that likely to use street banners,about conflicting/competing advertising. Planning staff also stated that keeping a proximity requirement also reinforced the idea of community identity. B. The initial proposal(presented to the Planning Commission in June 2003)included a$25 application fee in order to be consistent with the fee currently charged by the Downtown Alliance. The Council may wish to ask the administration why the fee was raised to$50,as latest paperwork obtained from the Downtown Alliance indicates that they still charge$25 for their"application fee." 3 MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. While there are no specific references to implementing a street banner program or codifying street banner regulations in the zoning ordinance,several City Master Plans,including the Urban Design Element,Futures Commission Plan,and various Community Plans, discuss the need to enhance community identity, define neighborhood boundaries,and enhance community gateways using urban design elements. B. The Council has adopted the following statements with regard to Transportation philosophy that are relevant to this petition: 1. The Council considers neighborhoods,residential and commercial,as the building blocks of the community; 2. The Council encourages the preservation and enhancement of living environments, particularly in the Downtown area; 3. The Council discourages through traffic on streets,other than arterial streets,in residential neighborhoods; 4. The Council will make and support transportation decisions that increase the quality of life in the City,not necessarily the quantity of development; 5. The Council supports the creation of a series of linkages to foster appropriate growth in currently defined growth centers; 6. The Council will give all neighborhoods equal consideration in transportation decisions. C. The City's 1990 Urban Design Element includes statements that emphasize preserving the City's image,neighborhood character and maintaining livability while being sensitive to social and economic realities. BUDGET RELATED FACTS: A. The proposed ordinance states that the street banner applicant must pay a$50 application and permit fee. The Administration has not provided an analysis of the overall revenue that the City can expect from this fee should the Council approve the proposed ordinance. CHRONOLOGY: Please refer to the Administration's transmittal for a complete chronology of events relating to the proposed text amendment. • February 12,2003 Planning Commission initiates petition. • March 8,2003 Petition assigned. • June 25,2003 Planning Commission public hearing/subcommittee created to further study the proposal. • October 10,2005 Open House held. • October 26,2005 Planning Commission holds second public hearing. • November 16,2005 Ordinance received from City Attorney's office. • December 1,2005 Transmittal received in City Council Office. cc: Rocky Fluhart,Sam Guevara,Rick Graham,Kevin Bergstrom,Tim Harpst,Louis Zunguze,Alexander Ikefuna,Brent Wilde,Doug Wheelwright,Cheri Coffey,Lex Traughber,Joel Patterson,Kurt Larson,Val Pope,Barry Esham,Marge Harvey,Janice Jardine,Dave Oka,Valda Tarbet File Location:Community Development Dept.,Planning Division,Street Banners Standards Zoning Text Amendment,Planning Commission Request 4 A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE .w.. �� III MBEI l RO88 C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR COUNCIL TRANSMIT TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: No ember t, .105 FROM: Louis Zunguze, Director, Community Development Dep. m ent< RE: Petition 400-03-08,request by the Salt Lake City Planning Commis; 1 s amend section 21A.46.070(K)of the Zoning Ordinance to adopt stand. +s regulating street banners on utility poles in the public way. STAFF CONTACT: Lex Traughber, Principal Planner, at 535-6184 or lex.traughber@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The City Council hold a briefing and schedule a public hearing BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: This petition is a Zoning Ordinance text amendment that has City-wide implications. It is proposed that street banner signs be allowed on any utility pole along the arterial and collector streets identified on the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan(Major Street Plan: Roadway Functional Classification)map or along Terminal Drive at the Salt Lake City International Airport. Issue Origin: In 1995, Salt Lake City adopted a new zoning ordinance which includes Section 12A.46.070(K)—Signs on Public Property. This particular section prohibits the location of signs on publicly owned land or inside street rights of way,unless such signs are erected by permission of an authorized public agency. The City has interpreted this provision by authorizing the Mayor to issue executive orders to regulate signs in the public way, including street banners. The Mayor's Executive Order dated August 19, 2003,concerning authorizing the placement of street banners in the public way currently regulates such signage. Rather than continuing to execute successive executive orders to deal with new requests for street banners,the Administration concluded that the City should review its overall 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 11 TELEPHONE: BO1-535-7105 FAX: 801-535-6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM policy with respect to street banners and incorporate regulations into the Zoning Ordinance. Analysis: The proposed amendment will benefit local neighborhoods and the City as a whole by allowing street banners for the limited purpose of encouraging and promoting community identity, community organizations, and community activities and events. The proposed standards are designed to limit the adverse effects, including safety and maintenance, of street banners on adjacent properties. The proposed text change is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Master Plan Considerations: Although there are no specific references to implementing a street banner program or adopting zoning ordinance regulations, several City Master Plans, such as the Urban Design Element, Futures Commission Plan, and various Community Plans, discuss the need to enhance community identity, define neighborhood boundaries, and enhance community gateways using urban design principles. Adopting zoning ordinance standards regulating the placement and design of street banners is consistent with the policies identified in these plans. PUBLIC PROCESS: An Open House was held on October 10th, 2005. All members of the Business Advisory Board, all Community Council Chairs, City Departments/Divisions, all business groups, and all those on the Planning Division's mailing list were contacted regarding the Open House. Only one person, representing the Salt Lake City International Airport, attended the Open House; he expressed interest by the Department of Airports to be able to install banner signs on Terminal Drive,the street leading to the Airport terminals. The proposed ordinance accommodates the Department of Airports request. These same groups were notified of the Planning Commission public hearing which was held on October 26, 2005. The Planning Commission passed a motion to transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed text amendment with the recommendations as presented in the Planning Staff report,with the exception of the elimination of a proposed proximity requirement(proposed section E2ai) and a word change in section E2a. The Planning Staff had recommended that the banner sign ordinance include a proximity provision. The provision would limit the location of banner signs to within two miles of the permanent location of a community organization or the location of the specific community activity or event being advertised. The purpose of this provision was to eliminate conflicts between various groups or organizations that might place street banners in locations that may not be appropriate, e.g.,placing Hogle Zoo banners on the perimeter of Liberty Park,which may divert attention from the Tracy Aviary located within the park. The Planning Commission recommended that the proximity provision be removed from the ordinance because of concerns that the provision would be Petition 400-03-08—Street Banners Page 2 of 3 exclusive(see pages 5 and 6 of the October 26, 2005 Planning Commission minutes in Exhibit 5c of this transmittal). RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance Section 12A.46.070(K)—Signs on Public Property Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Maps are authorized under Section 21A.50 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, as detailed in Section 21A.50.050. "A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard." It does,however, list five standards, which should be analyzed prior to rezoning property(Section 21A.50.050 A-E). The five standards are as follows and are discussed in detail on page four of the Staff Report: A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives,and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will 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. 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 wastewater and refuse collection. Petition 400-03-08—Street Banners Page 3 of 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. CHRONOLOGY 2. ORDINANCE 3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 4. MAILING LABELS 5. PLANNING COMMISSION A) ORIGINAL NOTICE AND POSTMARK June 25,2003 October 26, 2005 B) STAFF REPORT June 25,2003 October 26, 2005 C) AGENDA AND MINUTES June 25,2003 October 26, 2005 6. ORIGINAL PETITION 1. CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY February 12, 2003 Planning Commission initiates petition. February 28, 2003 Petition delivered to Planning Division. March 8, 2003 Petition assigned to Joel Paterson. June 25, 2003 Planning Commission hearing. Commission forms subcommittee to further study the proposal. May 14, 2004 Planning Commission Subcommittee meets. September 1, 2004 Planning Commission Subcommittee meets. December 7, 2004 Planning Staff meets with Business Advisory Board. June 21, 2005 Petition re-assigned to Lex Traughber. September 14, 2005 Petition presented to Business Advisory Board. Planning Staff entertained questions from members of the Board and provided clarification regarding the proposal. September 23, 2005 Open House notices sent via U.S Mail and email. October 3, 2005 Planning Commission Subcommittee meets. Several suggestions from this meeting were incorporated into the proposal. October 10, 2005 Open House held. A representative from the Salt Lake International Airport was the only attendee. October 11, 2005 Planning Commission hearing notices sent via U.S. Mail and email. October 26, 2005 Planning Commission holds a second public hearing and votes to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. October 27, 2005 Planning Staff requested ordinance from the City Attorney's Office. November 16, 2005 Ordinance received from City Attorney's Office. 2. ORDINANCE SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2005 (Enacting Regulations Pertaining to Street Banners on Utility Poles) AN ORDINANCE ENACTING SECTION 21A.46.170, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO STREET BANNERS ON UTILITY POLES LOCATED IN THE PUBLIC WAY, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-03-08. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed ordinance is in the best interest of the City. Now, Therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 21A.46.170, Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to street banners on utility poles located in the public way be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 21A.46.170 Street Banners on Utility Poles in the Public Way: A. Purpose: The purpose of this chapter is to designate the use of certain utility poles for the display of street banners to benefit local neighborhoods and the City as a whole by allowing street banners for the limited purpose of encouraging and promoting community identity, community organizations, community activities and events. In allowing this limited signage on utility poles, in certain designated locations, the City does not intend to create an open public forum, but rather intends to create a limited forum for the purposes set forth herein. B. Definitions: 1. "Applicant" means any person or organization that makes application for a street banner permit as described herein. 2. "Street Banner"means a temporary secured banner to be located within the area designated for such use as shown on the adopted "Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan (Major Street Plan: Roadway Functional Classification)" map, or along Terminal Drive at the Salt Lake City International Airport, and displayed on a utility pole located in the public way. 3. "Community Organization" means a City recognized, community-based organization, as defined in Section 2.60.020 of the Salt Lake City Code, and/or a local non-profit 501(c)(3) tax exempt status organization. 4. "Sign" means a sign as defined in Section 21A.46.020, Salt Lake City Code. 5. "Logo"means a business trademark or symbol. 6. "Community Event" means a significant occurrence or happening in a given local neighborhood at a given place and time of specific and limited duration. 7. "Community Activity" means a specified pursuit in which a person partakes, in a given local neighborhood at a given place and time of specific and limited duration. C. Authority to Display: In order to encourage and promote community identity, community organizations, and community related activities and events, an eligible participant, as defined herein, may, after applying for and receiving a permit to do so, place street banners on existing utility poles in the public way. D. Eligible Participants: The City will accept applications for a permit to display street banners only from community organizations, local non-profit organizations, city and county government, the State of Utah, or from governmentally owned educational institutions. Applications for political and for-profit promotional street banners will not be accepted. Street banners may be placed on existing utility poles in the public way or public property only for the limited purpose of promoting and encouraging community identity, community organizations, or community activities and community events. Street banners located within the boundaries of a coordinated street banner program as established in paragraph G of this section shall be managed by the respective coordinated street banner program administrators. E. Approved Display Areas: 1. Street banners may be placed on any existing utility poles that are located along designated arterial or collector streets according to the adopted "Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan (Major Street Plan: Roadway Functional Classification)" map,or on utility poles along Terminal Drive at the Salt Lake City International Airport. 2. Location: a. Placement of street banners within locations identified on the"Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan(Major Street Plan: Roadway Functional Classification)" map, or on utility poles along Terminal Drive at the Salt Lake City International Airport, must be reviewed in relationship to proximity and use of other existing or proposed street banners and their sponsoring institutions. In certain locations, such banner uses may have the potential for adverse impacts if located without careful planning. Such impacts may interfere with the enjoyment of adjacent property and uses. b. Street banners approved and managed by a coordinated street banner program as established in paragraph G of this section shall be located within the boundaries of the program's specified management area. F. Display Content and Design 1. Allowable Displays - The following displays are permitted on street banners: • Advertisements or promotions of local non-profit organizations • Advertisements or promotions of community activities and/or community events • Activities sponsored by the City, County, State, or a public educational institution • Community activities or events that are commercially sponsored • Welcome messages, such as those for class reunions, conventions, and conferences, athletic tournament participation, local winner of major event, etc. • Promotion of sales and fund raising events for youth organizations, local non- profit, and community service organizations for their program support • Non-partisan and non-candidate voting information 2. Non-Allowable Displays - The following displays are not permitted on street banners: 2 • Personal messages • Promotion of a commercial "for profit" enterprise, activity, or event • Advertisements for clubs, churches or for profit organizations promoting an event with an admission charge • Advertisements for religious organizations with a message not related to an allowed category • Messages of political parties or political groups that are not related to an allowed category • Advertisements of clubs or organizations for events which would be primarily for listed membership participation. G. Management of Coordinated Street Banner Programs: Salt Lake City may enter into agreements with community, government, and educational organizations to manage a coordinated street banner program within a specified geographic area. Coordinated street banner programs shall be subject to requirements as set forth herein. Such agreements shall be approved by Salt Lake City and may establish regulations governing the application, approval and placement of street banners within the area specified by the agreement. H. Application for Permit: 1. Street banners to be located outside the boundaries of a coordinated street banner program: Any person or entity who desires to display street banners to be located outside of the boundaries of a coordinated street banner program shall submit an application to the City Transportation Division. Application forms are available from and must be submitted to the Transportation Division not more than 6 months before the date the street banners are proposed to be displayed and must contain the following: a. The name, address and telephone number of the applicant, or if an organization, the name address and telephone number of a contact person; b. The name, address and telephone number of any licensed contractor hired to place/remove street banners; c. A photograph, drawing, or other visual representation of the proposed street banners; d. The proposed number of street banners and the proposed locations where the street banners will be placed; e. The proposed dates for placement and removal of the street banners; f. If the City does not own the real property or the utility poles upon which the street banners are proposed to be placed, the applicant must present written permission from the appropriate pole owner(s) consenting to such placement at the time the application form is submitted. g. An application and permit fee of$50.00. 2. Street banners to be located within the boundaries of a coordinated street banner program: Any person or entity who desires to display street banners within the boundaries of a coordinated street banner program listed in paragraph G of this section shall submit an application to the managing entity of the coordinated street banner program. The applicant shall be required to submit any payment or fee required by the coordinated street banner program. 3 • I. Standards for Granting of the Permit: A street banner permit application shall be reviewed on a first come first serve basis by representatives of the City Transportation Division. The City Transportation Division may recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial of an application based on compliance with the standards of this chapter as set forth herein: J. Time for Approval or Disapproval of Application: Within sixty(60)days after receiving the application for a permit, the City Transportation Division shall grant, modify or deny the permit request. K. Street Banner and Hardware Standards: 1. Materials: Street banners must be constructed of a material that can withstand the normal and reasonably expected forces of nature for the period of time they are displayed. Tom or damaged street banners will not be hung and will be promptly replaced by the applicant, if damaged after being hung. 2. Dimensions: a. The street banners shall not exceed an overall length of 96 inches and a width of 30 inches. There shall be a six inch sleeve at the top of the street banner to slide over the bracket. The bottom shall have a two inch hem, and the sides shall have a minimum hem of 0.75 inches. There shall be two grommets at the bottom of the street banner. The graphic area shall not exceed 26 inches by 88 inches. b. Promotional street banners may carry a sponsor's logo. The sponsor logo is limited to the bottom 20% of the banner. Sponsor information shall not exceed 6 inches in height. 3. Banner Hanging Hardware: Any hardware installed on utility poles to hold banners must first be approved by the City Transportation Division. All street banners and hardware shall be installed such that the top of the street banner is at least 18 feet above the ground. If the street banner hangs over the traffic way, the top of the banner must be at least 22 feet above the ground. In the case that the City does not own the utility pole and/or it is not on City property, installation must be approved by the pole owner. L. Duration of Display: The street banners may be permitted to be in place for a period of at least 7 days and not to exceed 30 days. If no other applicant has applied for permission to place street banners in the same location, that initial 30 day maximum display period may be extended for one additional period of 30 days. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City may order that street banners be removed prior to the expiration of any permit period, if such street banners are determined to constitute a safety hazard, blight, or otherwise not meet the requirements of this ordinance. The City reserves the right to remove banners after the display period expires. Should the applicant not remove the banners, the City had the authority to charge the applicant accordingly for removal of the banners. M. Installation, Maintenance and Removal: Street banners, and any hardware necessary to display such street banners, may only be installed by a licensed contractor approved by the City. Except as may be otherwise determined by the City, the applicant is responsible for all costs associated with installation, maintenance and removal of all street banners and any hardware necessary to display such street banners. The applicant is also responsible for any 4 damage which may occur to the street banners, hardware, or utility pole and its contents while the banners are being installed, displayed, or retrieved. Damaged or dirty street banners must be replaced immediately by the applicant. The cleaning and repair of street banners is the responsibility of the applicant. At the expiration of the permit period, the street banners shall be removed within five (5)business days by the applicant. After installation, any hardware installed on utility poles shall become the property of the City, and shall remain on the utility poles after removal of the street banners unless the City Transportation Division instructs the applicant to remove the hardware. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of , 2004. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt La City orney's Office n�� ATTEST: Date �200 • By CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER 5 (SEAL) Bill No. of 2004. Published: 1:\Ordinance 05\Enacting Section 21 A.46.170 Street Banners on Utility Poles in the Public Wuy-11-16-05 clean.doc 6 5. PLANNING COMMISSION B. Staff Reports June 25, 2003 October 26, 2005 5. PLANNING COMMISSION B. Staff Reports June 25, 2003 October 26, 2005 DATE: June 20, 2003 TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission FROM: Joel G. Paterson, AICP Senior Planner Telephone: 535-6141 E-mail: joel.paterson@slcgov.com RE: Staff Report for the June 25, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting CASE#: 400-03-08 APPLICANT: Jeff Jonas, Planning Commission Chair STATUS OF APPLICANT: Section 21A.50.030 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance authorizes the Planning Commission to initiate zoning amendment petitions. PROJECT LOCATION; Street banner signs may be placed on any existing utility pole along the streets identified on the"Salt Lake City Light Pole Banner Program Map" (see map in Attachment 1). COUNCIL DISTRICT: Street banners will be allowed in all seven Council Districts. REQUESTED ACTION: The Planning Commission is requested to forward a recommendation to the City Council to adopt a text amendment to Section 21A.46.070.K of the Zoning Ordinance that will add standards to regulate the use and placement of street banners. PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT: Street banners are allowed under Section 21A.46.070.K of the Zoning Ordinance which allows the location of signs on publicly owned land or inside street rights of way, if such signs are erected by permission of an authorized public agency. This section of the ordinance does not include standards regarding the administration of such signs. Recognizing that it would be beneficial to local neighborhood communities and to the City as a whole to allow street banners in certain locations, the Mayor has issued a number of executive Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-03-08 — 1 — orders establishing time, place and manner restrictions on the location, placement and administration of the street banners. Rather than continuing to execute successive executive orders to deal with new requests for street banners, the administration decided that the City should review its overall policy with respect to street banners and incorporate regulations in the zoning ordinance. The proposed zoning ordinance text amendment is based on the latest executive order issued by the Mayor on May 22, 2003 (see Attachment 1). APPLICABLE LAND USE REGULATIONS: Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance Section 21 A.46.070.K: K. Signs On Public Property: No sign shall be located on publicly owned land or inside street rights of way, except signs erected by permission of an authorized public agency. MASTER PLAN SPECIFICATIONS: Although there are no specific references to adding street banner regulations to the zoning ordinance, several city-wide and community master plans discuss the need to enhance neighborhood identity and create gateway entries using elements of urban design. Adopting zoning ordinance standards regulating the placement and design of street banners is consistent with these plans. HISTORY: • The Downtown Alliance under contract with the City has administered the street banner program in the Salt Lake City Central Business Improvement District since 1991. This contract allows the Downtown Alliance to develop and implement standards for the administration of the street banner program in the improvement district. The Downtown Alliance banner guidelines are included in Attachment 2. The downtown banner program is administered in the area generally located between North Temple, 200 East, 400 South and 400 West. • Salt Lake City adopted a new zoning ordinance in 1995. The ordinance includes Section 21A.46.070.K which allows the location of signs on publicly owned land or inside street rights of way, if such signs are erected by permission of an authorized public agency. This section of the ordinance does not include any standards regarding the administration of such signs. The City uses this provision to authorize the Mayor to issue executive orders to regulate the street banner program. • In response to community requests, the City approved neighborhood street banners, first in Poplar Grove, then in Sugar House and in various other locations. • During the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, the City enacted Olympics related ordinances, which, among other things, authorized the placement of Olympic street banners on many of the major street corridors in the City. Once the Olympics ended, the brackets installed on utility poles became the property of the City. Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-03-08 —2— • Following the Olympics, the City started receiving an increasing number of requests for street banners in new locations. Because of the restrictive nature of the previous executive orders regulating street banners, many requests were denied even though the proposals were for street banners advertising local events, e.g., the St. Patrick's Day Parade. COMMENTS, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: 1. COMMENTS: a) Attorney's Office: The City Attorney's office was involved in drafting the current executive order and is supportive of codifying the street banner regulations. They recognize that there is some risk of a constitutional challenge based on First Amendment rights to free speech. The ordinance will limit who may participate in the street banner program and what types of activities (promoting and encouraging community identity, community organizations or community activities and events) and organizations (local non-profit 501(c)(3) organizations, governmentally owned libraries and educational institutions) may be advertised. Time, place and manner restrictions are always at risk of being challenged in court but are a legally acceptable tool used to create a limited public forum. b) Transportation: The Transportation Division currently administers the street banner program outside of the Salt Lake City Business Improvement District under the provisions of the Mayor's executive orders. The Transportation Division endorses the efforts of the administration to incorporate street banner provisions in the Zoning Ordinance. c) Community Councils: On May 29, 2003, the Planning Staff mailed a letter to all the community council chairs with information regarding the proposed text amendment. In the letter, Staff asked for comments and made an offer to schedule a public open house. No comments or requests for an open house were submitted. d) Planning Division: The Planning Staff raises the following issues regarding street banner regulations: • Free Speech/Public Forum: Allowing street banners does pose a risk of creating a public forum and may be considered a constitutionally protected form of free speech. The intent of the proposed ordinance is to allow signage within certain time,place and manner restrictions to created a limited forum. • Administration of the banner program: Salt Lake City administers the banner program throughout the City with the exception of the Downtown Business Improvement District(BID). The Downtown Alliance administers banners in the BID by agreement with the City. It is not the intent of this proposed ordinance to supercede this program. The City intends to continue this collaboration with the Alliance and incorporate their guidelines for the Downtown Business Improvement District. Other similar groups, such s the Chamber of Commerce and the Westside Alliance may be willing, or have offered, to administer the program in other areas of the City. Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-03-08 —3— • • Eligible participants: The executive order limits participation in the banner program to local non-profit 501(c)(3) organizations, and governmentally owned libraries and educational institutions. The banners may only promote and encourage community identity, community organizations and community activities and events. The list of eligible participants and purposes for the banners are purposefully designed with a narrow scope to limit exposure to free speech issues. The Planning Commission may wish to widen the scope of permitted participants to ensure that all community councils and other governmental entities could participate in the banner program. However, allowing additional participants may create additional exposure to constitutional challenges. • The Light Pole Banner Program Map: The current executive order allows street banners to be place on any existing utility poles within the locations identified on the "Light Pole Banner Program Map." This map is maintained by the Salt Lake City Transportation Division and is included in Attachment 1. This map highlights the streets where street banners have been deemed appropriate. This map is amended periodically when applications for new banners are reviewed by the City and determined to be acceptable. To avoid the need to process an ordinance amendment each time the map is updated, the ordinance will reference the map but not incorporate it. The Planning Commission may wish to include standards for amending the map. Staff recommends that the streets eligible for future street banners be major arterials, collectors or gateway streets identified in community master plans. Private streets such as the portion of Rio Grande Street(455 West) located north of 200 South, Gallivan Avenue (260 South) and Weechquootee Place (15 East) may also be appropriate locations for street banners. • Banners Height and Size: The current executive order limits street banners to a maximum size of 96"X 30" and requires the top of the banner be a minimum of 18 feet above the ground(22 feet if the banner hangs over the traffic way). Assuming that a banner is the maximum size, the bottom of the banner would be a minimum of 10 feet above the ground(14 feet if overhanging the traffic way). In some locations, organizations have chosen to hang smaller banners and the minimum bracket height requirements have made it difficult to read the banners. This was the case in Poplar Grove where smaller banners were installed and because of the minimum height standard for the top of the banner, the banners were too high to be effective. Many of the existing banner brackets do not appear to meet the minimum height standard. Unless there is a compelling safety reason to raise existing non-conforming brackets, the existing brackets will remain in there present location. All new banner signs will be required to meet the ordinance requirements. • Banners on State Roads: There are conflicts between the proposed street banner standards and Utah Department of Transportation(UDOT) standards (see attachment 3). The UDOT banner guidelines are more restrictive than the City's standards in respect to message content and the allowable participants. The State allows only city, Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-03-08 —4— county or other governmental agencies to place banners on State roads. The banners may include the name and dates of an event and related information. UDOT does not permit private, non-governmental/non-profit organization advertising(including logos) or political messages. The proposed City street banner regulations would allow non-profit organizations to advertise events and the banners could include the sponsors logo. The City's proposed standards would require a street banner applicant to obtain a permit from UDOT prior to allowing banners to be installed along a State- owned road. Street banners have been or are currently hanging on State-owned roads such as State Street, 700 East and 400 South. All of these are State roads and seem to be important components of the City's street banner program. Other State roads that that are gateways to the City, such as North Temple, Redwood Road, Foothill Boulevard, 1300 East,may be appropriate locations for street banners. • Appeals of administrative decisions regarding banner requests: City Staff administratively approves street banner requests. If these provisions are incorporated in the zoning ordinance, the Board of Adjustment would hear any appeals submitted by aggrieved parties. • Fees for street banner applications: The current executive order requires an application fee of$50.00. The Downtown Alliance charges a fee of$25.00. Staff recommends that the City and the Downtown Alliance use a standardized fee of $25.00. 2. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS A decision to amend the text of the zoning ordinance or the zoning map is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard. However, in making its decision concerning a proposed amendment, the Planning Commission and the City Council must consider the following factors: 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: Although there are no specific references to implementing a street banner program or adopting zoning ordinance regulations, several city master plans, such as the Urban Design element, Futures Commission plan, Central Community plan and others discuss the need to enhance community identity, define neighborhood boundaries and enhance community gateways using urban design principles. The proposed zoning ordinance text amendment which will codify time, place and manner restrictions for street banners appear to be consistent with the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Findings: The proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-03-08 —5 — B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Discussion: Ensuring that the street banners are compatible with the surrounding community is an important element of the proposed standards. The current executive order includes the following standards to assist in the review of street banner requests (see Attachment 1,pg. 4): 2.5 Granting of the Permit; Standards A. The location and placement of the street banners will not endanger public safety, including motorists and pedestrians by interfering with street lighting, obstructing traffic signs or other control devices, or otherwise creating dangerous distractions; B. The street banner will not cover or blanket any prominent view of a structure or façade of historical or architectural significance; C. The street banners will not materially obstruct the view of users of adjacent buildings to side yards, front yards, or to open space; D. The street banners will not negatively affect the visual quality of a public open space, such as a public recreation facility, square, plaza, courtyard, or the like in any material or substantial way; E. The street banners are compatible with building heights of the existing neighborhood and do not impose a foreign or inharmonious element to an existing skyline; and F. The street banners do not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of the public in any material way, and do not violate building code regulations regarding ingress, egress or fire protection. Findings: The proposed amendment will ensure street banners are harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Discussion: The proposed standards are designed to limit the adverse affects of street banners on adjacent properties. Generally, the street banners that have been placed along streets within Salt Lake City have been well received and relatively few complaints have been submitted. However,problems with, or complaints about,street banners will arise. In residential areas, for example, people may be affected by the noise made by banners blowing in the wind. Where banners are placed too low (bottom of the banner is less that ten feet from the ground) they may cause interference with parked vehicles or create an attractive nuisance. Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-03-08 —6— Findings: Although all adverse affects of street banners on adjacent properties can not be avoided, the proposed standards regulating the design and placement of street banners are intended to limit adverse affects. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Discussion: The placement of street banners will be subject to the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts. Findings: The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. 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 proposed standards for street banners will not create any impact on public services or facilities. Findings: 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 are adequate. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the analysis and the findings presented in this report, the Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve Petition 400-03-08 to amend Section 21A.46.070.K of the zoning ordinance to include street banner standards. Attachments: 1. Executive Order issued on May 22, 2003 2. Downtown Alliance: Downtown Salt Lake City Banner Advertising Guidelines 3. UDOT Banner Guidelines Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-03-08 —7— ATTACHMENT 1 EXECUTIVE ORDER ISSUED ON MAY 22, 2003 Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-03-08 EXECUTIVE ORDER EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 2003 SUBJECT: AUTHORIZING THE PLACEMENT OF STREET BANNERS IN THE PUBLIC WAY. DISTRIBUTION: ALL DEPARTMENTS AUTHORITY SIGNATURE: —t'3 • OSS C. ANDERSON, MAYOR DATE PREFACE Section 21A.46-070.K of the City Code allows the location of signs on publicly owned land or inside street rights of way, if such signs are erected by permission of an authorized public agency. Many existing utility poles are located within the public right-of-way; however, the City has not (with only limited exceptions) allowed the use of such utility poles for any signage or the communication of any messages. The City has determined that it would be beneficial to the City as a whole to allow existing utility poles to be used to display street banners for the limited purpose of encouraging and promoting community identity, community organizations, community activities and events. In allowing this limited signage on utility poles, in certain designated locations, the City does not intend to create a public forums but rather intends to create a limited forum for the purposes set forth herein. S LL— vim° This Executive Order is also intended to prescribe rules to be followed by City employees in determining whether to approve the erection of signs pursuant to said Section 21A.46.070.K and to establish applicable time, place, and manner restrictions. Therefore, the Mayor of Salt Lake City enacts this executive order: 1. Definitions. 1.1 "Applicant" means the applicant for a street banner permit as described herein. 1.2 "Banner" means a public event banner, secured banner or unsecured banner, as defined in Section 21A.46.020 of the Salt Lake City Code. 1.3 "Community Organization" means a local non-profit 501(c)(3) organization. 1.4 "Mayor"means the mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, or the mayor's designee. 1.5 "Sign"means a sign as defined in Section 21A.46.020, Salt Lake City Code. 1.6 "Street Banner" means a banner displayed on a utility pole located in the public way. 2. General Provisions 2.1 Authority to Display In order to encourage and promote community identity, community organizations, and community related activities and events, an eligible participant, as defined herein, may, after applying for and receiving a permit to do so, hang banners on existing utility poles in the public way,provided that such banners contain no commercial content and in no way identify a commercial product or business logo, except that the banners may contain the applicant's logo. 2.2 Eligible Participants The City will accept applications for a permit to display street banners only from local non-profit 501(c)(3)organizations, or from governmentally owned libraries and educational 2 institutions. Street banners may be placed on existing utility poles in the public way only for the limited purpose of promoting and encouraging community identity, community organizations, or community activities and events. 2.3 Approved Display Areas Street banners may be placed on any existing utility poles within the locations identified on the "Street Banner Map" maintained by the City Transportation Division. No street banners shall be allowed outside of those designated areas. 2.4 Application for Permit Any person or entity who desires to display such street banners must first apply for and obtain a permit for such display from the City Transportation Division, who shall provide a form for the application. The application must be submitted to the Transportation Division not less than 10 days and not more than 6 months before the date the street banners are proposed to be displayed and must contain the following: A. The name, address and telephone number of the applicant, or if an organization, the name address and telephone number of a contact person; B. A photograph, drawing, or other visual representation of the proposed street banners; and C. The proposed number of street banners and the proposed locations where the street banners will be placed. D. If the City does not own the real property or the utility poles upon which the street banners are proposed to be placed, the applicant must present written permission from the appropriate pole owner(s) consenting to such placement. E. An application and permit fee of$50.00. 2.5 Granting of the Permit; Standards The permit may be granted by the Transportation Division on a first come first served basis, upon a determination that the application has been properly completed, and that: A. The location and placement of the street banners will not endanger public safety, including motorists and pedestrians by interfering with street lighting, obstructing traffic signs or other control devices, or otherwise creating dangerous distractions; B. The street banners will not cover or blanket any prominent view of a structure or facade of historical or architectural significance; C. The street banners will not materially obstruct the view of users of adjacent buildings to side yards, front yards, or to open space; D. The street banners will not negatively affect the visual quality of a public open space, such as a public recreation facility, square, plaza, courtyard, or the like in any material or substantial way; E. The street banners are compatible with building heights of the existing neighborhood and do not impose a foreign or inharmonious element to an existing skyline; and F. The street banners do not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of the public in any material way, and do not violate building code regulations regarding ingress, egress or fire protection. 2.6 Time for Approval or Disapproval of Application Within 14 days after receiving the application for a permit, the City Transportation Division shall either grant, modify or deny the permit request. 4 2.7 Judicial Review of Denial Any person adversely affected by the granting or denial of the permit may appeal such decision to a court of competent jurisdiction, after receiving notice of the decision. The decision granting or denying the permit shall be effective on the date of the written notice issued by the City Transportation Division, unless the Mayor orders otherwise. 2.8 Banner and Hardware Standards Street banners must be constructed of a material that can withstand the normal and reasonably expected forces of nature for the period of time they are displayed. Torn or damaged street banners will not be hung and will be promptly removed by the applicant, if damaged after being hung. The street banners shall not exceed an overall length of 96 inches and a width of 30 inches. There shall be a 6 inch sleeve at the top of the street banner to slide over the bracket. The bottom shall have a 2 inch h-em, and the sides shall have a minimum hem of inches. There shall be 2 grommets at the bottom of the street banner. The graphic area shall not exceed 26 inches by 88 inches. A diagram outlining these street banner standards is attached hereto. Any hardware installed upon utility poles must first be approved by the City Transportation Division. All street banners and hardware shall be installed such that the top of the street banner is at least 18 feet above the ground. If the street banner hangs over the traffic way, the top of the banner must be at least 22 feet above the ground. 2.9 Duration of Display The street banners may be permitted and be in place for a period not to exceed 30 days. If no other applicant has applied for permission to place street banners in the same location, that initial 30 day display period may be extended for an additional period of 30 days. 5 Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City may order that street banners be removed prior to the expiration of any permit period, if such banners are determined to constitute a safety hazard. 2.10 Installation, Maintenance and Removal Street banners, and any hardware necessary to display such street banners, may only be installed by a licensed contractor approved by the City. Except as may be otherwise determined by the City, the applicant is responsible for all costs associated with installation, maintenance and removal of all street banners and any hardware necessary to display such street banners. The applicant is also responsible for any damage which may occur to the street banners or hardware while they are being installed, displayed, or retrieved. Damaged or dirty street banners must be removed immediately by the applicant. The cleaning and repair of street banners is the responsibility of the applicant. At the expiration of the permit period, the street banners shall be promptly removed by the applicant. After installation, any hardware installed on utility poles shall become property of the City, and shall remain on the utility poles after removal of the street banners. 2.11 Enforcement The City may enforce the terms and limitations of this Executive Order through any lawful means. 3. Waiver The requirements of this Executive Order may be waived or modified by the Mayor, with the advice of the City Attorney. 4. Negative Savings Clause If any portion of this Order is determined to be illegal, invalid, unconstitutional, or superseded, in whole or in part, this entire Order shall forthwitV be voided and terminated, 6 subject to the following provisions: (a) in the event of a judicial, regulatory, or administrative determination that all or some part of this Order is illegal, invalid, unconstitutional, or superseded, such action shall be effective as of the date of a final appealable court order; and (b) in the event of any state legislative action that renders any portion of the Order illegal, invalid, unconstitutional, or superseded, such action shall be effective as of the effective date of such legislative action. This Executive Order may be revoked at any time without notice to any party. No property interest or vested right is created in any person or entity by this Order. If any portion of this Order is determined to be illegal, invalid, unconstitutional, or superseded, any person or entity who has erected any street banners contemplated by this Order shall immediately remove such street banners, after receiving oral or written notice from the Mayor or the City Attorney of such determination. S. Supercedes Previous Executive Order This Executive Order amends and supercedes the previous executive order dated January 21, 2003, which previous order shall now be deemed to be null and void. 4 G:\Executive Orders\COMMUNITY STREET BANNERS-May 21,2003.doc 7 • /;: 1,,1L.1....:.,.,,.4,.?,,‘,,,...1........,.,.„:::.1I 1ii t/1 14 W4 7 i �b l ,�4�) 11' S „... ,4 .....:::1 ,„, if ,...,.. i i ‘:::1:::i:::r:......04_ j f 1 41lI \\ 1 inch equals 1 miles I 'j I II .! 1 % 0 0.5 1 2 tl ` t1� ' [i I{I... 0, 1ii41i Miles f1 t I} II 1 1 I 1I ll M ,' . .1i t !i } 1 11 \�� , l4,;, . r ) ]1+!'1lili , . °o. i I I oY l I 1 �r } \\ (1/fit /r7. j ' I , i 11 -lilt{�l l' : i {r}.� f } 7 ,TT. 1 J N•[j 1_,;,}t Mill l }r4. 1i. .e - : ' ! _ ,. C t 'SOUTH TEMPLE - / I. , \ ' l ', 4-' 7 a. rh ] •< coos, 1 1 �I'7r I i.•._.• ,, iL Y a 1 .l __ 5o0 S` • • II-) . j.- • I 7jI , .E INDIANA -f {C E - F - t- i .: ,_1'Al r-. ..L 7I Aa.. 1...._F -' ..5' f";. o �IY - t r t .i �Li A I` \ \ �4�4-3 _ i1.. .- �-, �- j •,i ..o . � _. (.._• . 111 ( ,� / 'F CALIFORNIA -. '� ,w I' L �-N3 \, :..� ,> ( - +,q - (II i �F ` a , Yl I. 1 { 4 f :+ ri I t hi0osi �� Si 1 � (lik .\ ..�..._. _.... .. ............ :__.-1...-. ._i. t�.� ._ , ,- I i2100{S l - 1..�. s rn j l � r.!, r., Iro 1 rI , 1 I I I_ I' oI 11 I I 1.. ,... �:. _..... i s_ i .........: ` '•\.._. �A, ■AI«CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION LIGHT POLE BANNER PROGRAM DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION 349 SOUTH 200 EAST,SUITE 450 DRAWN BY: K.BELL 5/28/2003 ATTACHMENT 2 DOWNTOWN ALLIANCE: DOWNTOWN SALT LAKE CITY BANNER ADVERTISING GUIDELINES Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-03-08 Rill DowntDwnAlliance SALT LAKE CITY 238 South Main Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 801-359-5118 Fax 801-359-5136 DOWNTOWN SALT LAKE CITY BANNER ADVERTISING GUIDELINES May 1, 2002 The Downtown Alliance manages the rental, installation, and content of the banners displayed on the light poles along the streets of the Salt Lake City Central Business Improvement District. Eligible Participants Only events and activities occurring at a downtown venue that are produced by local non-profit organizations, city and county government or the State of Utah will be accepted. Religious, political and for-profit promotional banners will not be accepted. Organizations, subject matter and banner content must be approved by The Downtown Alliance at least 90 days before the anticipated promotional schedule. Exceptions may be made to the policy concerning eligible participants and subject matter by The Downtown Alliance for events and activities of major civic importance. Subject Matter The content on the banners must be approved 90 days in advance by The Downtown Alliance. Please mail, email or fax banner design to Michelle Higham at the Downtown Alliance address above, email to michelle@downtownslc.org or fax to 801-359-5136. Participants are asked to deliver banners at least two weeks before the display schedule. Please contact Ray Watts at 558-7770 to schedule a drop-off time. The Downtown Alliance reserves the right to approve or reject the content of all banners. Available Space There are many banner locations. Banners on double bracket poles located on both sides of West Temple and State Street from South Temple to 400 South must be eight feet in length. Banners on the single bracket poles located on Main Street, 200 West, 300 West and 200 East between North Temple and 400 South, and on South Temple, 100 South, 200 South, 300 South and 400 South between 300 East and 500 West, must be six feet in length. A minimum contract includes 28 banners that generally cover both sides of the street for one to two blocks depending on the location. The maximum number of locations is limited only by the space available. Space can be reserved up to one year in advance. Call Michelle at the Downtown Alliance for current availability. Cost The cost to install banners is $12.00 per banner for a one week minimum length of time and a maximum length of one month. An additional $5.50 per banner early removal fee will be charged for contracts of less than one week. The cost includes installation and maintenance of the banners (cost of designing, producing, and repairing the banners is the responsibility of the event/organization). Storage fees of$1.00 per banner per month will be invoiced if banners are not picked up within 7 days of removal. The banner locations will be leased on a first- come first-served basis. Sponsorship Standards/Underwriter Acknowledgements Promotional banners may carry a sponsor's logo and positioning statement. The Sponsor logo and positioning statement is limited to the bottom 20% of the banner. Sponsor information that exceeds 6 inches across the bottom of the banner will be refused. Banner Standards Banners must be delivered flat. Call Ray Watts at 558-7770 to schedule a drop-off time. Materials include vinyl, photo/mechanical/digital printing, or screen-printed. Banners must be constructed of a material that can withstand the forces of nature for the period of time they are to be displayed. Torn or damaged banners will not be hung. Banners on State Street and West Temple are to have an overall length of 96 inches and width of 25.5 inches. There is to be a 6 inch sleeve at the top of the banner to slide over the bracket. The bottom is to have a 2 inch hem while the sides are to have a minimum hem of .75 inches. The graphic area is not to exceed 24 inches by 87.5 inches. There must be three grommets on the inside hem of each banner for proper attachment to the poles; for placement refer to attached graphic. Banners for placement in all other locations are to have an overall length of 72 inches and width of 25.5 inches. There is to be a 6 inch sleeve at the top of the banner to slide over the bracket. The bottom is to have a 2 inch hem while the sides are to have a minimum hem of.75 inches. The graphic area is not to exceed 24 inches by 66 inches. There must be three grommets on the inside hem of each banner for proper attachment to the poles; for placement refer to attached graphic. A list of vendors is available from The Downtown Alliance office. This list does not imply endorsement of these companies by The Downtown Alliance. Maintenance and Liability The Downtown Alliance or its subcontractors are not responsible for damage to the banners while they are being installed, displayed or retrieved. Damaged or dirty banners will not be displayed. The cleaning and repair of banner is the responsibility of the contracting organization. The installation contractor following the final date of the display contract will hold banners for pick-up for one week. After that time a storage charge of$1.00 per banner per month will be imposed. Nonpayment for the storage fee will result in disposal of the banners. Payment A, non-refundable, $25.00 reservation fee must accompany the application. The balance due for installation is due within 30 days of the end of the promotional period. A finance charge of 1 1/2% per month will be added to all invoices not paid within 30 days. Outstanding invoices will disqualify an organization from future participation in this program. ram Downtown Affiance SALT LAKE CITY Downtown Banner Application (Retain a copy for your records) Organization: Telephone: Contact: Fax: Address: Event: Date(s) of event: Event Location: _ Please provide a brief description of your event: Preferred street location: Preferred banner display dates: From / / To #of banners: Fees Installation, Maintenance and Removal $12 per banner per month(4 weeks) *Minimum of 5 days and 28 banners Storage $ 1.00 per month per banner if banners are not picked up within 7 days of removal A non-refundable, $25.00 deposit must accompany this application. The balance is due within 30 days of the end of the promotional period. A finance charge of 1% % per month will be added to all invoices not paid within 30 days. * If banner is hung for less than 5 days there is an additional $5.50 fee for banner removal. I understand that this application,as well as banner designs,must be approved by The Downtown Alliance. I agree to pay fees in a timely manner(net 30). Your banners will not be cleaned while in storage. You are responsible for all maintenance while the banners are in storage. I understand that repairs will be billed separately and I am responsible for payment of those repairs. I understand that it is my responsibility to contact Ray Watts(558-7770)7 days in advance of my installation date and deliver the banners to him. I also agree to pick up my banners within 7 days of removal or pay for storage of the banners. I agree to not hold The Downtown Alliance or Ray Watts responsible for any damage to my banners while they are in their possession. I have read and understand all of the information on this application: Signed: Date: DTA Rep: Notes: Send Application to: Downtown Alliance,238 South Main Street,Salt Lake City,UT 84101. A Copy may be faxed to Michelle Higham at 801-359-5136 to tentatively reserve a space,but a hard copy with application fee must be delivered to the Downtown Alliance to have a confirmed reservation. THE DOWNTOWN ALLIANCE Downtown Banner Program Specifications 6 foot Banner 14 255"wide • U Hoi. 3"Sleeve 4 � - grommet I 4"down from top I I I lir I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I 3/4"Hem both sides 38" i I 0 grommet I I 38"down from top I m I I N I I I I I I I I I graphic image width 24" I I I • I I I i I I I I 0 grommet I �— 1.5"Hem bottom THE DOWNTOWN ALLIANCE Downtown Banner Program Specifications 8 foot Banner (State Street & West Temple) 25.5"wide 10.1 1 / 11 3"Sleeve 5 ` V I I Ogrommet I 5"down from top I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I L I I ch I I I I 10 3/4"Hem both sides I I I I Ogrommet I 1 38"up from the bottom I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 46" I graphic image width 24" I I I I I I I I I I 1 I V O grommet i I--lp► 1.5"Hem bottom BANNER DESIGN AND PRODUCTION COMPANIES Nichols Contact: Christopher Fordham 331 South Rio Grande, Suite 206 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 (801) 355.6970 Sign-A-Rama Contact: Shauna Pfaff 56 West 400 South Salt Lake City, UT 84101 (801) 355.4700 Display Business, Inc. Contact: Rocky Raymond 380 W. Pierpont Salt Lake City, UT 84104 (801) 322.1450 06/17/03 08:59 FAX 3595136 DOWNTOWNALLIANCE 0 09 u N N Z T a u N • .7. N c1 0 0 o a c 3 o o o C y o c d tZ1 _ '. c c• c c c _ < n . a -I - y 1 a 3 3 R n n a o v v o na n 3. u - 1a 3 OC .n u ` a t.. ON - e U ^$'',N A O. O .O M N So N O % a. P 1�) N N co N a CO § d O CD W CO .1a 0 C W CO O •=• • W ry R `~ 8 0 o 'o a n 5 h c a a a . a a O a ti n a P. N w a I: uti p v .Z 3. r x L S c1 T rn 0 0 a D x c O 0 S m v m m O g g n 0 a I I 0 7 0 o a a ' i v w a 3C d a C u - o ; ; ; a o . 5 - m 4 4 2 d m • Y 7 7 C -.7 Or CrN �$ c ? 2 0 N - y li a '4 o a a ,2 0 p A v 0 a e° 0 3 3 m g `_, 0 - 3 g ,r'.. ° '° v Z of -4- - •,73 ti b °a 7 a • C ` S i S s o � . tio o . x i e o eo S o vS o is d I _ q 'IS 9 00 00!• g j I O 0 E 1.4 0000000 IFI 000000 I,1 ededrere"reed I •I .""ww. r. PC Pi OmC S 1 I O 0 5 i 090 tl Ol 10mm,00m0� � O � � �00 � m y�06�cm®4 OI IO C,1 p�O ? t lit Im � 51 r OIO p O K d G bO Ci o �. Q le 0 O O C 2 t" co 0_ • _ $` O n 69 .is__ n _ 0� I ad ,1I o e Io >_ \ tl `t, �jGo1 �• p1 Ip I°I¢ q O 00000 ,i 0900G 3 Deeeieecl • 009G0 l 4 1 %OA0000 L F w -w.. 0 , .r....". f I i-15 r...r ^IpO1p0i v�IO� G1pi,GC 10 rlOo I O _O p. "'of io` - 'Q I®', wII-1 If wA� Ip O 0 SJ IA O " ��` o I i s o q 2 e� "I Ei _s j o 1 i„"waoo �1Q99o'omo° �aa®QOQ41 i ' (0000000 r•' le,.....,.. 30 Om — m l to Io o 1. 10 ,. w 19•i o - a 11113 n �I O - LI I re b ° fed` - ®I C I a 9 3 II 0000000 (OOOOoO 1 O- 000 1 •• ®pA ___ a s a ® 60000aoa fI,p00000 li ;aeeeeeeo oo eee'Je 0ea 0e a yee o 110 al el O03 A • N o _ :•• ae tla • S _ 0 a, o t. u :' e ® ® 431 0000mooa moo mrv� °�o� ®o o e ®® �00a000 Q HJPI aWU L OjV a a ��® p O c --, Q ' V:.G ® .J �1 O a 00 0 QO0000 0 gpQQQ wwww000 0000000 00000d2 0,0 --se aoe MOO 00 0et000a 0 aoo oi+o iI 000000a t o000000 000ac00 cos • GI O m w 0 t � '"' .1 ' w O .J` 8n 0 0 v re ,..10 "9 re CI O eR �^ie —0k. wI w " x • <� c \ 9 0 a Q w K ° ti O !FF L A • 200 East ai I 1 l e 0,e 0 1 a O w O I OhwO m c , A ATTACHMENT 3 UDOT BANNER GUIDELINES Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-03-08 BANNER GUIDELINES Effective Date: March 4, 2002 Purpose To establish procedures for the installation of "Banners" that are considered "Official Advertising Devices" over and across or on state highway right of way. To standardize methods of local entities displaying banners for such events such as county fairs, parades, races, art shows where a banner would be placed during the event. This is a temporary banner placed by the city, county or other government agency with the name and date of the event. Authority Utah Act Regulation of Roadside Advertising § 72-7-503. Introduction Requests for temporary banners for special events are not uncommon. Such special events include (but are not limited to) county fairs, parades, races, art shows. Event organizers often have a number of opportunities to provide attendees with promotional materials via flyers, newspaper advertisements, mailings etc., and should be encouraged to do so, thus avoid the need for regular and seemingly continuous displays by banner. Overall, while the use of banners and possible disruptions they bring to the transportation system is discouraged, allowing banners for special events shall be determined by the degree of local support for such devices and the historical use of the devices. Since both state and federal law prohibit commercial advertisements on public rights of way, the purpose of the event banner is limited to announcing the plans for an up coming event of limited duration and frequency and shall not include advertising for any private business or product. The following criteria shall be considered when permitting a"banner" for an"official advertising device" CRITERIA FOR PLACEMENT 1. Height Above Roadway: No part of the banner shall be less than 20 vertical feet above the roadway surface. Where curb and gutter construction exists, the entire structure, including attachments and supports, must clear the sidewalk vertically by at least 9 feet, the outside edge of the structure must be at least 2 feet behind a vertical line extending upward from the face of the curb, and the entire structure must comply with the departments clear zone requirements. (In Urban areas banners placed across the roadway will not be allowed) 2. Timetable: A banner to occupy the right of way for a time not to exceed two weeks before the event and shall be removed not more than two days after the event. Banners will not be allowed to display the same message within 180 days of the last day of its most recent display • period. 3. Appropriate Message: The banner message shall be limited to the name and dates of the event, and /or related information. Banners shall not contain private, non-governmental / non- profit organizations advertising (including logos) nor be of a political nature. 4. Installation by Local Agencies: City or County forces shall be responsible obtaining the permit and the instillation of banners, In lieu of installation by local agency forces, the installation or any part thereof my be performed by a contractor that is designated and approved by the sponsoring local agency. 5. Unallowable Categories of Roadways for Banners: Banners will not be allowed on N/A or L/A routes. 6. Banners Prohibited from State Route Structures: No banners shall be attached to: (a) Traffic control devices such as signal poles; (b) Sign bridges or structures; or (c) Bridges or overpass structures. 7. Sight Obstructions: No decoration, display, flag, banner, colored light, handbill, structure or other advertising or decoration item shall obstruct the normal view of traffic. 8. Obstructing Traffic: No decoration, display structure or other advertising or decoration item shall be placed within the right of way that may obstruct, impede or endanger the normal flow of traffic. 9. Lights and traffic control signs, signals, marking devices : Red or reddish colored decorations or advertising lights may not be permitted within the right of way. Nor should any decoration, display, flag, or banner the same shape, size, color or design to any UDOT traffic control sign, signal, marking or device. 10. Banner Material: A banner shall be made of durable canvas, plastic or cloth-like material that does not conduct electricity. 11. Spacing: Banners shall not be placed within 150 feet from the intersecting streets. (Measured from the stop bar). One banner for each location will be allowed. 12. Liability Insurance Policy: Permittee shall be required to have in force a liability insurance policy, naming UDOT as an additional insurer, the amount of which shall be determined by the UDOT Region Director or his authorized representative 13. Banners placed on poles: These banners must be attached to a utility pole or other such device which is permanently located in the right of way. New poles will not be erected in the right of way for the purpose of displaying banners. PROCEDURES 1. Regions shall act in response to written request from the sponsoring agency within 30 days. 2. To assure the safe placement of the encroachment, the permittee shall provide to and have approved by UDOT a traffic control plan for the construction site. 3. Written permission or a banner release form, from the owner of the existing utility pole within the state right of way, must accompany the banner request. 4. If a banner request meets the above criteria, the Region shall permit the banner, including any applicable terms and conditions. • 5. PLANNING COMMISSION B. Staff Reports June 25, 2003 October 26, 2005 DATE: October 20, 2005 TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission FROM: Lex Traughber Principal Planner Telephone: (801)535-6184 Email: lex.traughber@slcgov.com RE: STAFF REPORT FOR THE OCTOBER 26, 2005 MEETING CASE NUMBER: 400-03-08 APPLICANT: Salt Lake City Planning Commission STATUS OF APPLICANT: City Board REQUESTED ACTION: The Planning Commission is requested to forward a recommendation to the City Council to adopt a text amendment to Section 21A.46.070(K) of the Zoning Ordinance that will add standards to regulate street banners on utility poles in the public way. PROJECT LOCATION: This is a Zoning Ordinance text amendment that has implications city wide. It is proposed that street banner signs may be placed on any utility pole along the arterial and collector streets identified on the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan (Major Street Plan: Roadway Functional Classification)map, or along Terminal Drive at the Salt Lake City International Airport. COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Street banners will be allowed in all Council Districts. PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT: Street banners are currently allowed under an interpretation of Section 21A.46.070(K) of the Zoning Ordinance,which prohibits the location of signs on publicly owned land or inside street rights- of-way, unless such signs are erected by permission of an authorized public agency. This section of the ordinance does not currently include standards regarding the administration of such signs. Staff Report,Petition 400-03-08 1 Salt Lake City Planning Division RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Recognizing that it would be beneficial to local neighborhood communities and to the City as a whole to allow street banners in certain locations, the Mayor has issued a number of executive orders establishing time, place, and manner restrictions on the specific location, placement and administration of the street banners. Rather than continuing to execute successive executive orders to deal with new requests for street banners, the administration concluded that the City should review its overall policy with respect to street banners and incorporate regulations into the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed zoning ordinance text amendment is based on the latest executive order issued by the Mayor on August 19, 2003 (Exhibit 1). APPLICABLE LAND USE REGULATIONS: Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance Section 12A.46.070(K) - Signs on Public Property reads, "Except for portable signs authorized pursuant to section 21A.46.055 of this chapter, no sign shall be located on publicly owned land or inside street rights of way except, signs erected by permission of an authorized public agency." APPLICABLE MASTER PLANS: Although there are no specific references to adding street banner regulations to the Zoning Ordinance, several city-wide and community master plans discuss the need to enhance neighborhood identity and create gateway entries using elements of urban design. Adopting zoning ordinance standards regulating the placement and design of street banners is consistent with these plans. PROJECT HISTORY: The Downtown Alliance under contract with the City has administered the street banner program in the Salt Lake City Central Business Improvement District since 1991. This contract allows the Downtown Alliance to develop and implement standards for the administration of the street banner program in the improvement district. The Downtown Alliance banner guidelines are included in Exhibit 2, and are particularly relevant because Planning Staff's proposed text amendment language essentially mirrors the Staff Report,Petition 400-03-08 2 Salt Lake City Planning Division Downtown Alliance's program with some minor differences. The Downtown Alliance's program appears to be very successful, and is located between North Temple, 200 East, 400 South and 400 West. Salt Lake City adopted a new zoning ordinance in 1995. The ordinance includes Section 12A.46.070(K) - Signs on Public Property, which prohibits the location of signs on publicly owned land or inside street rights of way, unless such signs are erected by permission of an authorized public agency. This section of the ordinance does not include any standards regarding the administration of any such signs. The City has interpreted this provision in the Zoning Ordinance to authorize the Mayor to issue executive orders to regulate signs in the public way including street banners. The Mayor's Executive Order dated August 19, 2003, concerning authorizing the placement of street banners in the public way, currently regulates such signage. In response to community requests, the City approved neighborhood street banners, first in Poplar Grove, then in Sugar House and other various locations. During the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, the City enacted Olympics related ordinances, which among other things, authorized the placement of Olympic street banners on many of the major street corridors in the City. Once the Olympics ended, the brackets installed on utility poles became the property of the City. Attached for reference is a map indicating those routes where brackets are located along the public way(Exhibit 3). Following the Olympics, the City started to receive an increasing number of requests for street banners in new locations. Because of the restrictive nature of the previous executive orders regulating street banners, many requests were denied even though the proposals were for street banners advertising local events such as the St. Patrick's Day Parade. DEPARTMENT/DIVISION COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments received from various City Divisions/Departments: 1. Transportation The Transportation Division currently administers the street banner program outside of the Salt Lake City Business Improvement District under the Mayor's executive order dated May 22,2003. It is proposed that the Transportation Division will continue to administer the program under the proposed ordinance should it be adopted. The Transportation Division has been instrumental in providing comment regarding the proposed ordinance throughout the process, and endorses the efforts of the administration to incorporate street banner provisions in the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Parks The Parks Division expressed interest in managing their own street banner program,especially around Liberty Park. Planning Staff notes that the draft Staff Report,Petition 400-03-08 3 Salt Lake City Planning Division ordinance includes a provision to allow individual entities to manage their own program. Should the Parks Department be interested in managing their own program, an inter-City agreement would need to be executed to realize this request. 3. Economic Development Planning Staff presented the proposal to the Business Advisory Board on September 14, 2005. Staff entertained questions during this meeting, however no specific recommendations were received from this group. 4. Mayor's Office Responded in writing with"no comment." 5. City Attorneys Office Did not respond in writing, however the City Attorney's Office supports the enactment of an ordinance to provide a comprehensive city-wide policy for street banners, noting that there are significant legal issues including constitutional rights of free speech and equal protection. Planning Staff has been sensitive to this advice and these issues throughout the draft ordinance development. 6. Arts Council The Arts Council provided relevant comments regarding the proposed draft ordinance, particularly in terms of appropriate and specific language and wording. Planning Staff incorporated these comments into the draft ordinance. 7. Salt Lake City International Airport The Airport expressed interest in managing their own street banner program. Planning Staff notes that the draft ordinance includes a provision to allow individual entities to manage their own program. Should the Airport be interested in managing their own program, an inter-City agreement would need to be executed to realize this request. PUBLIC PROCESS & COMMENT: Planning Staff met with the Planning Commission Sub-Committee for street banners on October 3, 2005. Several insightful suggestions were made by Sub-Committee members that were considered by Planning Staff in the preparation of the proposed ordinance. The only suggestion that was not incorporated into Planning Staff's proposal was the recommendation to drop the"proximity" requirement as found in sub-section E(3) of the proposed ordinance. Planning Staff heard from multiple entities that a proximity requirement should be incorporated. The rationale behind this recommendation is that perhaps said proximity requirement may eliminate conflict between various groups or organizations that would want to place street banners in locations that may not be appropriate. For example,placing Hogle Zoo banners on the perimeter of Liberty Park may create a conflict with placing banners that draw attention to the aviary in the Park. Staff Report,Petition 400-03-08 4 Salt Lake City Planning Division An Open House was held on October 10`h, 2005. All members of the Business Advisory Board, all Community Council Chairs, City Departments/Divisions, and all those on the City's listserve were contacted regarding the Open House. A representative of the airport was the only attendee. ANALYSIS: Because this petition is a modification of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission must review the proposal and forward a recommendation to the City Council based on the following standards for general amendments as noted in Section 21A.50.050 of the Zoning Ordinance. A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Discussion: Although there are no specific references to implementing a street banner program or adopting zoning ordinance regulations, several City master plans, such as the Urban Design Element,Futures Commission Plan, and various Community Plans, discuss the need to enhance community identity, define neighborhood boundaries, and enhance community gateways using urban design principles. The proposed zoning ordinance text amendment which will codify time,place, and manner restrictions for street banners is consistent with the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Finding: The proposed text change is consistent and does not conflict with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Discussion: The proposed amendment is not site specific, but would apply to all street banners across the City on utility poles located in the public way. Finding: The proposed amendment will benefit local neighborhoods and the City as a whole by allowing street banners for the limited purpose of encouraging and promoting community identity, community organizations, community activities and events. C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Discussion: The proposed standards are designed to limit the adverse effects, including safety and maintenance, of street banners on adjacent properties. In general, the street banners that have been placed along streets within Salt Lake City have been well received. Staff Report,Petition 400-03-08 5 Salt Lake City PIanning Division Finding: Although all adverse impacts of street banners cannot be avoided at all times, the proposed standards regulating the content, design, maintenance, and placement of street banners are intended to substantially limit adverse effects. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Discussion: The placement of street banners will be subject to the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning district, including the Historic Preservation Overlay which provides standards regulating the City's historic districts. Finding: The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. 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 wastewater and refuse collection. Discussion: This petition is not site specific and therefore this criteria is not applicable. Finding: Because this petition is not site specific, this criteria is not applicable. However, none of the Departments/Divisions that submitted comments were opposed to the project. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the comments, analysis, and findings of fact noted in this staff report, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to adopt the attached Street Banner language(Exhibit 4) and amend Section 21A.46.070(K) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. Attachments: Exhibit 1 —Mayor's Executive Order(August 19,2003) Exhibit 2—Downtown Alliance street banner guidelines Exhibit 3 —Street banner bracket location map Exhibit 4—Proposed Ordinance Language Exhibit 5—Department/Division comments Staff Report,Petition 400-03-08 6 Salt Lake City Planning Division Exhibit 1 - Mayor's Executive Order / V /Le-L /vc . L "/L/ / D� 17Kald, C RECEIVED / AUG 12 2003 C TRANSPORTATION EXECUTIVE ORDER DIVISION EFFECTIVE DATE: August 19, 2003 SUBJECT: AUTHORIZING THE PLACEMENT OF STREET BANNERS IN THE PUBLIC WAY. DISTRIBUTION: ALL DEPARTMENTS AUTHORITY SIGNATURE: ROSS-C. ANDERSON, MAYOR DATE PREFACE i Section 21A.46.070.K of the City Code allows the location of signs on publicly owned land or inside street rights of way, if such signs are erected by permission of an authorized public agency. Many existing utility poles are located within the public right-of-way; however, the City has not (with only limited exceptions) allowed the use of such utility poles for any signage or the communication of any messages. The City has determined that it would be beneficial to the City as a whole to allow existing utility poles to be used to display street banners for the limited purpose of encouraging and promoting community identity, community organizations, community activities and events. In allowing this limited signage on utility poles, in certain designated locations, the City does not intend to create a public forum, but rather intends to create a limited forum for the purposes set forth herein. ASP -.c,vEDAS TO rt.-. Sall Loire City Attorneys Ocfc' Date —2,—p 3 Gy This Executive Order is also intended to prescribe rules to be followed by City employees in determining whether to approve the erection of signs pursuant to said Section 21A.46.070.K and to establish applicable time, place, and manner restrictions. Therefore, the Mayor of Salt Lake City enacts this executive order: 1. Definitions. 1.1 "Applicant" means the applicant for a street banner permit as described herein. 1.2 "Banner"means a public event banner, secured banner or unsecured banner, as defined in Section 21A.46.020 of the Salt Lake City Code. 1.3 "Community Organization" means neighborhood-based organization, as defined in Section 2.60.020 of the Salt Lake City Code, or a local non-profit 501(c)(3) organization. 1.4 "Mayor"means the mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah,or the mayor's designee. 1.5 "Sign"means a sign as defined in Section 21 A.46.020, Salt Lake City Code. 1.6 "Street Banner"means a banner displayed on a utility pole located in the public way. 2. General Provisions 2.1 Authority to Display In order to encourage and promote community identity, community organizations, and community related activities and events, an eligible participant,as defined herein,may, after applying for and receiving a permit to do so, hang banners on existing utility poles in the public way, provided that such banners contain no commercial content and in no way identify a commercial product or business logo, except that the banners may contain the applicant's logo. 2 2.2 Eligible Participants The City will accept applications for a permit to display street banners only from Community Organizations or from governmentally owned libraries and educational institutions. Street banners may be placed on existing utility poles in the public way only for the limited purpose of promoting and encouraging community identity, community organizations, or community activities and events. 2.3 Approved Display Areas Street banners may be placed on any existing utility poles within the locations identified on the "Street Banner Map"maintained by the City Transportation Division. No street banners shall be allowed outside of those designated areas. 2.4 Application for Permit Any person or entity who desires to display such street banners must first apply for and obtain a permit for such display from the City Transportation Division, who shall provide a form for the application. The application must be submitted to the Transportation Division not less than 10 days and not more than 6 months before the date the street banners are proposed to be displayed and must contain the following: A. The name, address and telephone number of the applicant,or if an organization, the name address and telephone number of a contact person; B. A photograph, drawing, or other visual representation of the proposed street banners; and C. The proposed number of street banners and the proposed locations where the street banners will be placed. 88 3 � t ' D. If the City does not own the real property or the utility poles upon which the street banners are proposed to be placed, the applicant must present written permission from the appropriate pole owner(s) consenting to such placement. E. An application and permit fee of$50.00. 2.5 Granting of the Permit; Standards The permit may be granted by the Transportation Division on a first come first served basis, upon a determination that the application has been properly completed, and that: A. The location and placement of the street banners will not endanger public safety, including motorists and pedestrians by interfering with street lighting, obstructing traffic signs or other control devices, or otherwise creating dangerous distractions; B. The street banners will not cover or blanket any prominent view of a structure or facade of historical or architectural significance; C. The street banners will not materially obstruct the view of users of adjacent buildings to side yards, front yards, or to open space; D. The street banners will not negatively affect the visual quality of a public open space, such as a public recreation facility, square,plaza, courtyard, or the like in any material or substantial way; E. The street banners are compatible with building heights of the existing neighborhood and do not impose a foreign or inharmonious element to an existing skyline; and F. The street banners do not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of the public in any material way, and do not violate building code regulations regarding ingress, egress or fire protection. 4 2.6 Time for Approval or Disapproval of Application Within 14 days after receiving the application for a permit, the City Transportation Division shall either grant, modify or deny the permit request. 2.7 Judicial Review of Denial Any person adversely affected by the granting or denial of the permit may appeal such decision to a court of competent jurisdiction, after receiving notice of the decision. The decision granting or denying the permit shall be effective on the date of the written notice issued by the City Transportation Division, unless the Mayor orders otherwise. 2.8 Banner and Hardware Standards Street banners must be constructed of a material that can withstand the normal and reasonably expected forces of nature for the period of time they are displayed. Torn or damaged street banners will not be hung and will be promptly removed by the applicant, if damaged after being hung. The street banners shall not exceed an overall length of 96 inches and a width of 30 inches. There shall be a 6 inch sleeve at the top of the street banner to slide over the bracket. The bottom shall have a 2 inch hem, and the sides shall have a minimum hem of% inches. There shall be 2 grommets at the bottom of the street banner. The graphic area shall not exceed 26 inches by 88 inches. A diagram outlining these street banner standards is attached hereto. Any hardware installed upon utility poles must first be approved by the City Transportation Division. All street banners and hardware shall be installed such that the top of the street banner is at least 18 feet above the ground. If the street banner hangs over the traffic way, the top of the banner must be at least 22 feet above the ground. i 5 2.9 Duration of Display The street banners may be permitted and be in place for a period not to exceed 30 days. If no other applicant has applied for permission to place street banners in the same location, that initial 30 day display period may be extended for an additional period of 30 days. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City may order that street banners be removed prior to the expiration of any permit period, if such banners are determined to constitute a safety hazard. 2.10 Installation,Maintenance and Removal Street banners, and any hardware necessary to display such street banners,may only be installed by a licensed contractor approved by the City. Except as may be otherwise determined by the City, the applicant is responsible for all costs associated with installation, maintenance and removal of all street banners and any hardware necessary to display such street banners. The applicant is also responsible for any damage which may occur to the street banners or hardware while they are being installed, displayed, or retrieved. Damaged or dirty street banners must be removed immediately by the applicant. The cleaning and repair of street banners is the responsibility of the applicant. At the expiration of the permit period, the street banners shall be promptly removed by the applicant. After installation, any hardware installed on utility poles shall become property of the City, and shall remain on the utility poles after removal of the street banners. 2.11 Enforcement The City may enforce the terms and limitations of this Executive Order through:any lawful means. 6 (.. (^ 3. Waiver The requirements of this Executive Order may be waived or modified by the Mayor, with the advice of the City Attorney. 4. Negative Savings Clause If any portion of this Order is determined to be illegal, invalid, unconstitutional, or superseded, in whole or in part, this entire Order shall forthwith be voided and terminated, subject to the following provisions: (a) in the event of a judicial, regulatory, or administrative determination that all or some part of this Order is illegal, invalid,unconstitutional, or superseded, such action shall be effective as of the date of a final appealable court order; and (b) in the event of any state legislative action that renders any portion of the Order illegal, invalid, unconstitutional, or superseded, such action shall be effective as of the effective date of such legislative action. This Executive Order may be revoked at any time without notice to any party. No property interest or vested right is created in any person or entity by this Order. If any portion of this Order is determined to be illegal, invalid, unconstitutional, or superseded, any person or entity who has erected any street banners contemplated by this Order shall immediately remove such street banners, after receiving oral or written notice from the Mayor or the City Attorney of such determination. 5. Supercedes Previous Executive Order This Executive Order amends and supercedes the previous executive order dated May 22, 2003, which previous order shall now be deemed to be null and void. G.\Exccutive Orders\COMMUNI Y STREET BANNERS-August 19,2003(C ean).doc 7 Exhibit 2 — Downtown Alliance Program DO`r itownAlliance an affiliate of the Salt Lake Chamber !4 175 East 400 South Ste 600, Salt Lake City,UT 84111 801-359-5118 Fax 801-328-5098 DOWNTOWN SALT LAKE CITY BANNER ADVERTISING GUIDELINES February 8, 2005 The Downtown Alliance manages the rental, installation, and content of the banners displayed on the light poles along the streets of the Salt Lake City Central Business Improvement District. Eligible Participants Only events and activities occurring at a downtown venue that are produced by local non-profit organizations, city and county government or the State of Utah will be accepted. Religious, political and for-profit promotional banners will not be accepted. Organizations, subject matter and banner content must be approved by The Downtown Alliance at least 90 days before the anticipated promotional schedule. Exceptions may be made to the policy concerning eligible participants and subject matter by The Downtown Alliance for events and activities of major civic importance. Subject Matter The content on the banners must be approved 90 days in advance by The Downtown Alliance. Please mail, email or fax banner design to Amy Durham at the Downtown Alliance address above, email to amyAdowntownslc.org or fax to 801-328-5098. Participants are asked to deliver banners at least two weeks before the display schedule. Please contact Ray Watts at 558- 7770 to schedule a drop-off time. The Downtown Alliance reserves the right to approve or reject the content of all banners. Available Space There are many banner locations. Banners on double bracket poles located on both sides of West Temple and State Street from South Temple to 400 South must be eight feet in length. Banners on the single bracket poles located on Main Street, 200 West, 300 West and 200 East between North Temple and 400 South,and on South Temple, 100 South, 200 South, 300 South and 400 South between 300 East and 500 West, must be six feet in length. A minimum contract includes 14(for 6ft locations) or 28 (for 8ft locations) banners that generally cover both sides of the street for one block depending on the location. The maximum number of locations is limited only by the space available. Space can be reserved up to one year in advance. Call Amy at the Downtown Alliance for current availability. Cost There is a$25 non-refundable reservation fee required with the attached application form. The cost to install banners is $15.00 per banner for a one week minimum length of time and a maximum length of one month. An additional$6.50 per banner early removal fee will be charged for contracts of less than one week. The cost includes installation and maintenance of the banners (cost of designing, producing, and repairing the banners is the responsibility of the event/organization). Storage fees of$1.00 per banner per month will be invoiced if banners are 175 East 400 South#600 0 Salt Lake City,Utah 841110 801.359.5118^Fax 801.328.5098 www.downtownslc.org • not picked up within 7 days of removal. The banner locations will be leased on a first-come first-served basis. Reservations are accepted beginning one year in advance of installation date. Sponsorship Standards/Underwriter Acknowledgements Promotional banners may carry a sponsor's logo and positioning statement. The Sponsor logo and positioning statement is limited to the bottom 20%of the banner. Sponsor information that exceeds 6 inches across the bottom of the banner will be refused. Banner Standards Banners must be delivered flat. Call Ray Watts at 558-7770 to schedule a drop-off time. Materials include vinyl, photo/mechanical/digital printing, or screen-printed. Banners must be constructed of a material that can withstand the forces of nature for the period of time they are to be displayed. Torn or damaged banners will not be hung. Banners on State Street and West Temple are to have an overall length of 96 inches and width of 25.5 inches. There is to be a 6 inch sleeve at the top of the banner to slide over the bracket. The bottom is to have a 2 inch hem while the sides are to have a minimum hem of.75 inches. The graphic area is not to exceed 24 inches by 87.5 inches. There must be three grommets on the inside hem of each banner for proper attachment to the poles; for placement refer to attached graphic. The inside diameter of the grommets should be 3/8" (#2)or 7/16"(#3). Banners for placement in all other locations are to have an overall length of 72 inches and width of 25.5 inches. There is to be a 6 inch sleeve at the top of the banner to slide over the bracket. The bottom is to have a 2 inch hem while the sides are to have a minimum hem of.75 inches. The graphic area is not to exceed 24 inches by 66 inches.There must be three grommets on the inside hem of each banner for proper attachment to the poles; for placement refer to attached graphic. The inside diameter of the grommets should be 3/8"(#2)or 7/16"(#3). A list of vendors is available from The Downtown Alliance office. This list does not imply endorsement of these companies by The Downtown Alliance. Maintenance and Liability The Downtown Alliance or its subcontractors are not responsible for damage to the banners while they are being installed,displayed or retrieved. Damaged or dirty banners will not be displayed. The cleaning and repair of banner is the responsibility of the contracting organization. The installation contractor following the final date of the display contract will hold banners for pick-up for one week. After that time a storage charge of$1.00 per banner per month will be imposed. Nonpayment for the storage fee will result in disposal of the banners. Payment A, non-refundable, $25.00 reservation fee must accompany the application. The balance due for installation is due within 30 days of the end of the promotional period. A finance charge of 1 1/2%per month will be added to all invoices not paid within 30 days. Outstanding invoices will disqualify an organization from future participation in this program until resolved. 175 East 400 South#600 o Salt Lake City,Utah 84111. 801.359.5118.Fax 801.328.5098 ^ www.downtownslc.org Downtown Banner Application (Retain a copy for your records) Organization: Telephone: Contact: Fax: Address: Event: Date(s) of event: Event Location: Please provide a brief description of your event: Preferred street location: Preferred banner display dates: From / / To / / # of banners: Fees: Installation, Maintenance and Removal $15 per banner per month (4 weeks) *Minimum of 5 days and 28 banners Storage: $ 1.00 per month per banner if banners are not picked up within 7 days of removal A non-refundable, $25.00 application fee must accompany this application. The balance for installation is due within 30 days of the end of the promotional period. A finance charge of 1'Y2 % per month will be added to all invoices not paid within 30 days. * If banner is hung for less than 5 days there is an additional $6.50 fee for banner removal. I understand that this application,as well as banner designs,must be approved by The Downtown Alliance. I agree to pay fees in a timely manner(net 30). Your banners will not be cleaned while in storage. You are responsible for all maintenance while the banners are in storage. I understand that repairs will be billed separately and I am responsible for payment of those repairs. I understand that it is my responsibility to contact Ray Watts(558-7770)7 days in advance of my installation date and deliver the banners to him. I also agree to pick up my banners within 7 days of removal or pay for storage of the banners. I agree to not hold The Downtown Alliance or Ray Watts responsible for any damage to my banners while they are in their possession. I have read and understand all of the information on this application: Signed: Date: DTA Rep: Notes: Send Application to: Downtown Alliance, 175 E 400 South Ste 600,Salt Lake City, UT 84111. A Copy may be faxed to Amy Durham at 801-328-5098 to tentatively reserve a space, but a hard copy with application fee must be delivered to the Downtown Alliance to have a confirmed reservation. 175 East 400 South#600.Salt Lake City,Utah 84111. 801.359.5118.Fax 801.328.5098 . www.downtownslc.org THE DOWNTOWN ALLIANCE Downtown Banner Program Specifications 8 foot Banner (State Street & West Temple) 25.5"wide • / 0 3"Sleeve 5" U Ogrommet 5"down from top r 0o rn 3/4"Hem both sides Ogrommet I 38"up from the bottom 46" I graphic image width 24" 0 grommet i I---111. 1.5"Hem bottom THE DOWNTOWN ALLIANCE Downtown Banner Program Specifications 6 foot Banner I4 25.5"wide Ar !\ 3"Sleeve 4" ` _v 0 grommet 4"down from top I 3/4"Hem both sides 38" V grommet I I 38"down from top rn LE iv I graphic image width 24" I 0 grommet I � 1.5"Hem bottom Exhibit 3 — Street Banner Bracket Location Map N WE P L 7‘ J ■1 LI E 1 Ills=fl iT - lie EIL \WI",v mw11 —I: �N 600 N :A (' ■ % bft EI1II11 .�IE9t� ■. alms -%ipir JrA ti'g-"k"-- tt-fi-ltn rUlaitTN, I O i i■■■_■i■■_■. 1 ...•: 11 L IIII� _ _ i_.■■■i■■_■_■■■■■ ,`� I SOUiTH TEMPLE UI 'r 1Ipbcoerce- tMUM e,qV\\a ■ile ` -�aoo s ,o, _ , 1 .. .: ; ,_ MAN4 7 'ti,�. INDIANA I 1 11m 900 J I -mill SUNNYSIDE( • �'-' F '' ' • MALI WVIIMILIMI 1111 m• _III Piet Er frrYM.. .`'. b jr, _, , ilk „limiti � liii FOR A II 1 H rrn 1300 S li.gulp . , \Ats"031 _4,, ma.sprogirri 0 _:: =_=1.f� !� '� ----- _o �i ,, 1700= -m:_per— ! `t 1, a •. -- Vik4. — __ �i I— - - •-- jU- -- -- E 1� 1 * 9 T I . : 1! ��=____ 0s 1IPIP Lj 1',i'll No Legend 711 'N' -- Banner Streets SALT LAKE CITY LIGHT POLE BANNER PROGRAM Exhibit 4 — Proposed Ordinance ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT PETITION 400-03-08 BANNER SIGN REGULATIONS 21A.46.170 Street Banners on Utility Poles in the Public Way A. Purpose: The purpose of this chapter is to designate the use of certain utility poles for the display of street banners to benefit local neighborhoods and the City as a whole by allowing street banners for the limited purpose of encouraging and promoting community identity, community organizations, community activities and events. In allowing this limited signage on utility poles, in certain designated locations, the City does not intend to create an open public forum, but rather intends to create a limited forum for the purposes set forth herein. B. Definitions: 1. "Applicant" means any person or organization that makes application for a street banner permit as described herein. 2. "Street Banner" means a temporary secured banner to be located within the area designated for such use as shown on the adopted "Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan (Major Street Plan: Roadway Functional Classification)"map, or along Terminal Drive at the Salt Lake City International Airport, and displayed on a utility pole located in the public way. 3. "Community Organization" means a City recognized, community-based organization, as defined in Section 2.60.020 of the Salt Lake City Code, and/or a local non-profit 501(c)(3) tax exempt status organization. 4. "Sign" means a sign as defined in Section 21A.46.020, Salt Lake City Code. 5. "Logo" means a business trademark or symbol. 6. `Community Event" means a significant occurrence or happening in a given local neighborhood at a given place and time (of limited and specific duration). 7. `Community Activity'means a specified pursuit in which an person partakes, in a given local neighborhood at a given place and time of specific and limited duration. C. Authority to Display: In order to encourage and promote community identity, community organizations,and community related activities and events, an eligible participant, as defined herein,may, after applying for and receiving a permit to do so, place street banners on existing utility poles in the public way. D. Eligible Participants: The City will accept applications for a permit to display street banners only from community organizations, local non-profit organizations, city and county government, the State of Utah, or from governmentally owned educational institutions. Applications for political and for-profit promotional street banners will not be accepted. Street banners may be placed on existing utility poles in the public way or public property only for the limited purpose of promoting and encouraging community identity, community organizations, or community activities and community events. Street banners located within Draft October 11,2005 — 1 — the boundaries of a coordinated street banner program as established in paragraph G of this section shall be managed by the respective coordinated street banner program administrators. E. Approved Display Areas: 1. Street banners may be placed on any existing utility poles that are located along designated arterial or collector streets according to the adopted "Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan (Major Street Plan: Roadway Functional Classification)" map, or on utility poles along Terminal Drive at the Salt Lake City International Airport. 2. Location and Proximity: a. Placement of street banners within locations identified on the"Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan(Major Street Plan: Roadway Functional Classification)" map, or on utility poles along Terminal Drive at the Salt Lake City International Airport, must be reviewed in relationship to proximity and use of other existing or proposed street banners and their sponsoring institutions. In certain locations, such banner uses may have the potential for adverse impacts if located without careful planning. Such impacts may interfere with the enjoyment of adjacent property and uses. The permissible locations of street banners shall be determined by geographical proximity, based upon the following criteria: i. Street banners may be placed up to a maximum of two (2) miles from the permanent or home location of a community organization, or the location of a specific community activity or community event. b. Street banners approved and managed by a coordinated street banner program as established in paragraph G of this section shall be located within the boundaries of the program's specified geographic area. F. Display Content and Design 1. Allowable Displays -The following displays are permitted on street banners: • Advertisements or promotions of local non-profit organizations • Advertisements or promotions of community activities and/or community events • Activities sponsored by the City, County, State, or a public educational institution • Community activities or events that are commercially sponsored • Welcome messages, such as those for class reunions, conventions, and conferences, athletic tournament participation, local winner of major event, etc. • Promotion of sales and fund raising events for youth organizations, local non- profit, and community service organizations for their program support • Non-partisan and non-candidate voting information 2. Non-Allowable Displays - The following displays are not permitted on street banners: • Personal messages • Promotion of a commercial "for profit"enterprise, activity, or event • Advertisements for clubs, churches or for profit organizations promoting an event with an admission charge • Advertisements for religious organizations with a message not related to an allowed category Draft October 11,2005 —2— • Messages of political parties or political groups that are not related to an allowed category • Advertisements of clubs or organizations for events which would be primarily for listed membership participation. G. Management of Coordinated Street Banner Programs: Salt Lake City may enter into agreements with community, government, and educational organizations to manage a coordinated street banner program within a specified geographic area. Coordinated street banner programs shall be subject to requirements as set forth herein. Such agreements shall be approved by Salt Lake City and may establish regulations governing the application, approval and placement of street banners within the area specified by the agreement. H. Application for Permit: 1. Street banners to be located outside the boundaries of a coordinated street banner program: Any person or entity who desires to display street banners to be located outside of the boundaries of a coordinated street banner program shall submit an application to the City Transportation Division. Application forms are available from and must be submitted to the Transportation Division not more than 6 months before the date the street banners are proposed to be displayed and must contain the following: a. The name, address and telephone number of the applicant, or if an organization, the name address and telephone number of a contact person; b. The name, address and telephone number of any licensed contractor hired to place/remove street banners; c. A photograph, drawing, or other visual representation of the proposed street banners; d. The proposed number of street banners and the proposed locations where the street banners will be placed; e. The proposed dates for placement and removal of the street banners; f. If the City does not own the real property or the utility poles upon which the street banners are proposed to be placed, the applicant must present written permission from the appropriate pole owner(s) consenting to such placement at the time the application form is submitted. g: An application and permit fee of$50.00. 2. Street banners to be located within the boundaries of a coordinated street banner program:-Any person or entity who desires to display street banners within the boundaries of a coordinated street banner program listed in paragraph G of this section shall submit an application to the managing entity of the coordinated street banner program. The applicant shall be required to submit any payment or fee required by the coordinated street banner program. I. Standards for Granting of the Permit: A street banner permit application shall be reviewed on a first come first serve basis by representatives of the City Transportation Division. The City Transportation Division may recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial of an application based on compliance with the standards of this chapter as set forth herein: Draft October 11,2005 —3— J. Time for Approval or Disapproval of Application: Within sixty(60) days after receiving the application for a permit, the City Transportation Division shall grant, modify or deny the permit request. K. Street Banner and Hardware Standards: 1. Materials: Street banners must be constructed of a material that can withstand the normal and reasonably expected forces of nature for the period of time they are displayed. Torn or damaged street banners will not be hung and will be promptly replaced by the applicant, if damaged after being hung. 2. Dimensions: a. The street banners shall not exceed an overall length of 96 inches and a width of 30 inches. There shall be a six inch sleeve at the top of the street banner to slide over the bracket. The bottom shall have a two inch hem, and the sides shall have a minimum hem of 0.75 inches. There shall be two grommets at the bottom of the street banner. The graphic area shall not exceed 26 inches by 88 inches. b. Promotional street banners may carry a sponsor's logo. The sponsor logo is limited to the bottom 20% of the banner. Sponsor information shall not exceed 6 inches in height. 3. Banner Hanging Hardware: Any hardware installed on utility poles to hold banners must first be approved by the City Transportation Division. All street banners and hardware shall be installed such that the top of the street banner is at least 18 feet above the ground. If the street banner hangs over the traffic way, the top of the banner must be at least 22 feet above the ground. In the case that the City does not own the utility pole and/or it is not on City property, installation must be approved by the pole owner. L. Duration of Display: The street banners may be permitted to be in place for a period of at least 7 days and not to exceed 30 days. If no other applicant has applied for permission to place street banners in the same location,that initial 30 day maximum display period may be extended for one additional period of 30 days. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City may order that street banners be removed prior to the expiration of any permit period, if such street banners are determined to constitute a safety hazard, blight, or otherwise not meet the requirements of this ordinance. The City reserves the right to remove banners after the display period expires. Should the applicant not remove the banners,the City had the authority to charge the applicant accordingly for removal of the banners. M. Installation,Maintenance and Removal: Street banners, and any hardware necessary to display such street banners, may only be installed by a licensed contractor approved by the City. Except as may be otherwise determined by the City, the applicant is responsible for all costs associated with installation,maintenance and removal of all street banners and any hardware necessary to display such street banners. The applicant is also responsible for any damage which may occur to the street banners, hardware, or utility pole and its contents while the banners are being installed, displayed, or retrieved. Damaged or dirty street banners must be replaced immediately by the applicant. The cleaning and repair of street banners is the responsibility of the applicant. At the expiration of the permit period, the street banners shall be removed within five (5) business days by the applicant. After Draft October 11, 2005 -4- installation, any hardware installed on utility poles shall become the property of the City, and shall remain on the utility poles after removal of the street banners unless the City Transportation Division instructs the applicant to remove the hardware. Draft October 11,2005 —5— Exhibit 5 — Department/Division Comments / t..ca La- cy/ ' c u�-- p-•' / cr?- -- • ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT PETITION 400-03-08 BANNER SIGN REGULATIONS 21A.46.170 Street Banners A. Purpose: The purpose of this chapter is to designate the use o .dt,ain utility poles for the display of street banners to benefit local neighborhood co `, `les and the City as a whole by allowing street banners for the limited purpose of en k ' and promoting community identity, community organizations, community activ.Er d ev ;`� , In allowing this limited signage on utility poles, in certain designated loc ,1 a` ,the City do not intend to create an open public forum, but rather intends to creat-. 1 1 'y'ted forum for thsurposes set forth herein. ' . B. Definitions: t� : a, ii,_; ,- I. "Applicant" means any person or dr:ai>; ton that• mikes application for a street banner permit as described herein ' "'� k;, "€ 2. Street Banner" means aitemporary SC,'bred b' r to tetlocated within the area designated for such use/as sho ,in the a o e 'tat Bay°` er Map" and displayed on a r ft szX utility pole located rihe public ..a.y. .f �,. 3. Community Organ ¢yation m s • neight�a ood-based organization, as defined in y'fir. b!�' G . Y Section 2 613r6r the-Salt 0 ; Code, a local non-profit 501(c)(3) organization. 4. "Sign' m'e'ans a sign4as de in Se = 421 •4.6.020, Salt Lake City Code. 5. "Logo"means a busf'1 _ s tralimark or sy'p 06, l-. ,sr " � ,- C. Authority to Display: In ordel to encvuurage and promote community identity, community organizations, andcommunity re .ted a" "ivities and events, an eligible participant, as defined herein, may, after apting for d receiving a permit to do so, place street banners on existing utility poles ini.e '� way. 4 f L D. Eligible Participants: Th.,- ity will accept applications for a permit to display street banners only from community organizations, local non-profit organizations, city and county government, the State of Utah, or from governmentally owned educational institutions.# 42,, ,.,, /,, i'e igious .olitical and for-profit promotional street banners will not be accepted. Street r IIarmers may be placed on existing utility poles in the public way or public property only for the limited purpose of promoting and encouraging community identity, community organizations, or community activities and events. Street banners located within the Dio? S boundaries of a coordinated street banner program as established in paragraph G of this ikitsection shall be managed by the respective coordinated street banner program administrators. N' Street banners located within the Downtown Business Improvement District shall be 1 atsT �� managed by the Downtown Alliance, or its successor. Draft August 15, 2005 — 1 — E. Approved Display Areas: l. Street banners may be placed on any existing utility poles within the locations identified on the "Street Banner Map" maintained by the City Transportation Division. No street banners shall be allowed outside of those designated areas, unless an amendment to allow such use is granted in accordance with subsection E(2) of this chapter. £L .t- t 4.a v)( ' ? 2. Proposed new street banner locations shall be limited to arterial and >collector d;"��,. te.).1 • streets as shown on the city's major street plan. An amendment to the "Street Banner.' Map" shall be pursuant to the procedures for amending the zoning map in part V, chap.- -' 21 A.50 of this title. Ar›- 3. Location and Proximity: a. Placement of street banners within locations identified on the "Street Banner Map" must be reviewed in relation hip to proximity and use of other existing or proposed street ciA' s. ,✓,r,4! � banners an nstitut ons. in certain locations, such banner uses may have the potential for adverse impacts if located without careful planning. Such impacts may interfere with the enjoyment of adjacent property and uses. The permissible locations of street banners shall be determined by geographical proximity, based upon the following criteria: i. Street banners may be placed up to a maximum of one mile from the location of the community organization, activity or event. b. Street banners approved and managed by a coordinated street banner program as established in paragraph G of this section shall be located within the boundaries of the program's specified geographic area. // F. Display Content and Design �� °''�' y416�sr.,�. : ]. Allowable Displays - The following permitted • Advertisements or promotions of local non-profit organizations • Advertisements or promotions of community activities and/or festivals • Activities sponsored by the City, State, or a public educational institution • Community activities or events that are commercially sponsored • Welcome messages, such as those for class reunions, conventions, and conferences, athletic tournament participation, local winner of major event, etc. • Promotion of sales and fund raising events for youth organizations, local non- profit, and community service organizations for their program support • Non-partisan and non-candidate voting information 2. Non-Allowable Displays -The following are not permitted fer—elisplar-cw • Personal messages • Promotion of a commercial enterprise "for profit" activity • Advertisements for clubs, churches or for profit organizations promoting an event with an admission charge • Advertisements for religious organizations with a message not related to an allowed category • Messages of political parties or political groups that are not related to an allowed category Draft August 15,2005 —2— • Advertisements of clubs or organizations for events which would be primarily for listed membership participation. G. Management of Coordinated Street Banner Programs: Salt Lake City may enter into agreements with community, government, and educational organizations to manage a coordinated street banner program within a specified geographic area. Coordinated street banner programs shall be subject to requirements as set forth herein. Such agreements shall 04. be approved by Salt Lake City and may establish regulations g'$e'rning the application, approval and placement of street banners within the area sp "i�i ed by the agreement. Approval of a coordinated street banner program shallre{t; ' e th samendment of this section. -4144 Coordinated street banner programs approved unde , section ih lude: 1 . Downtown Business Improvement District..a4. "�' . ,i3O H. Application for Permit: . • ` 1. Street banners to be located outside,t�e boundaf-i, kof', ' rdinated str �tbanner program: Any person or entity -s to dis. :. reet banners to be located outside of the boundaries of a coordinated st t ._ +er prat : shall submit n p cation to the City Transportation P '!:.s.in. -=_ pplic ,10 /mus ace.submittG Transportation Divi p'�'' :�° = -_ 4 ,t mo�tt an 6 months before the date the street banners areproposed1; e disp1:. e®k'and ri t.conl'ain the following: a. The name, addr s `and telep he numb' of the apphcant,� or if an organization, the name address.andepho e` ber of a�`ontact person; b. A pitograph® .wing:, 0. et ery t-ial reprentation of the proposed street banners; c. The `;,posed numbe of s t banners and the proposed locations where the street Co�P„P banneros'411%e place o �� YPc -x-t p',�T-- 4,4, �ko�,e- d,P rrrF ts,�,v.-E-4&. gU u+,°✓ d.�the C,tyct oes not ow i e reftroperty or the utility poles upon which the street w 1 pr.of banners are``ppposed to e placed, the applicant must present written permission4from F° the appropriate.'ogle o .'i er(s) consenting to such placement. T# ap in perm ion in n r 1 An application and permit fee of$50.00. fr j 2. Street banners to be located within the boundaries of a coordinated street banner program: Any person or entity who desires to display street banners within the boundaries of a coordinated street banner program listed in paragraph G of this section shall submit an application to the managing entity of the coordinated street banner program. The applicant shall be required to submit any payment or fee required by the coordinated street banner program. I. Standards for Granting of the Permit: A street banner permit application shall be reviewed on a first come first serve basis by representatives of the City Transportation Division. The City Transportation Division may recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial of an application based on the following standards: Draft August 15,2005 —3 — I 1 1 .} The location and placement of the street banners will not endanger public safety, ---- 4) including motorists and pedestrians by interfering with street lighting, obstructing traffic 4 (k signs or other control devices, or otherwise creating dangerous distractions; kk \ 2. The street banners will not cover or blanket any prominent view of a structure or facade of historical or architectural significance; Ayr 3. The street banners will not materially obstruct the view. ; .users of adjacent buildings to �, side yards, front yards, or to open space; , I .4,, 4. The street banners will not ne:ativel affec .• >`;f: I ualit t"E: a public 'peen s pace, ? such as a public recreation facility, square, p1,e,r:' ourtyard, or y like in any material or substantial way; 1,',1,ei 5. The street banners are compatible with buila iN,,heights s the exist' eighborhood an do not impose a foreign or inharm. 'ous eleme ,< o a ;,sting skylin` nd 6. The street banners do not adversel tic. t the hea'k -; • or welfare o ,=`e public in any material way, and do not violat-is,g,i t ,, . code lations regarding ingress, egress or fire�rotection. t ,, 7. Compliance with—the '. lordIftlo. f this stet a et ort `. . erein. 4Ny A//Ett PocrAs pn.c- of,'lEo ., ^0' errs , i f- ? . e , ,-,� / J. Time for Approval o D<asapprova Applt t., ton: WI 90 da . after receiving the application for a permit, h City Tr ',fportatior ®ivision sha grant, modify or deny the permit reque, t`, . s lie t K. Street Banner and Hartw'areStandards 1. Mate aaJs: Street banners i ist be constructed of a material that can withstand the normal and£reasonably pec e orces of nature for the period of time they are displayed Tprn or dam ed street banners will not be hung and will be promptly replaced by th`e,applicanv.fif damaged after being hung. 2. Dimensions: a. The street barners shall not exceed an overall length of 96 inches and a width of 30 inches. There shall be a six inch sleeve at the top of the street banner to slide over the bracket. The bottom shall have a two inch hem, and the sides shall have a minimum hem of 0.75 inches. There shall be two grommets at the bottom of the street banner. The graphic area shall not exceed 26 inches by 88 inches. b. Promotional street banners may carry a sponsor's logo. The sponsor logo is limited to the bottom 20% of the banner. Sponsor information shall not exceed 6 Sq,.-,./6�. inches in height. To N.-w �n��F''►s 3.4'Hardware: Any hardware installed on utility poles must first be approved by the City Transportation Division. All street banners ana hardware shall be installed such that the top of the street banner is at least 18 feet above the ground. If the street • banner hangs over the traffic way, the top of the banner must be at least 22 feet above the ground. In the ase that the City does not own the utility pole and/or it is not on City property,/"> ��mu t be approved by the pole owner. 1 L. Duration of Display: The street banners may be permitted to be in place for a period of at least 7 days and not to exceed 30 days. If no other applicant has applied for permission to place street banners in the same location, that initial 30 day maximum display period may be Draft August 15,2005 —4— extended for one additional period of 30 days. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City may order that street banners be removed prior to the expiration of any permit period, if such street banners are determined to constitute a safet 'hazard ' 0 w//rF A.1 '7 fl 7 rlr88 n nce a d RemovStreet anners and an harisvare necessary t � � nstal atio n,�Vla� t � Y Y display such street banners, may only be installed by a licensed contractor approved by the City. Except as may be otherwise determined by the City, the applicant is responsible for all costs associated with installation, maintenance and removal 91,all street banners and any hardware necessary to display such street banners. The a, , .,. nt is also e ponsible for any damage which may occur to the street banners of-har .white tneuare Bing installed, 4d/n'rncr'��, or retrieved. Damaged or dirty street ba m ,be replaced immediately by the applicant. The cleaning and repair of street ers is th , sponsibility of the applicant. At the expiration of the permit period, the slit' = nners shall b ®romptly removed by the applicant. After installation, any hardwares•s ailed on utility pot...pol...t. all become property of the City, and shall remain on the utility pole f er removal of the st e�t�bannerset,,,.6.w C 7.1 �l cis •yl 4� tS'i ?•.. - 4 f }y a Y`` i .. 'H ., ..,k4. w Yx � 4x e Tn 6 } i L` Draft August 15,2005 —5— rage r or z Traughber, Lex • From: Harpst, Tim Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 6:38 PM To: Traughber, Lex; Larson, Kurt; Pope, Val; Guevara, Sam; Pace, Lynn; Barry, Michael Cc: Coffey, Cheri; Paterson, Joel Subject: RE: Petition 400-03-08, Banner Signs Lex -Thanks for the opportunity to comment. I have been out of town, but just finished reviewing the draft. I will be reviewing it with Kurt and Mike tomorrow morning and we will send you our comments. I note that several comments we made on an earlier draft have not been incorporated and that there are a few items that will still need to be discussed. Although I haven't seen Kurt's and Mike's comments yet, mine are mostly wording clarifications. The items that do need to be addressed is that although I am OK with this office administering this program, I am not comfortable being the sole decision maker since the majority of the criteria listed in the ordinance for approval consideration are items not within the expertise of this office. Examples include health/safety issues, sign code violations, and impacts to visual quality of open space. Although it doesn't need to be referred to in the ordinance, I believe this office should chair a committee of reps from different affected city departments that would review the applications we receive and provide input before approval or denial is issued. Another issue that needs discussion is whether or not there is an appeal for any denials that are issued. Timothy P. Harpst, P.E., PTOE Transportation Director Salt Lake City Transportation Division Phone: 801 535-6630 349 South 200 East,Suite 450 Fax: 801 535-6019 Salt Lake City, Utah 841 1 1 email: tim.harpst@ci.slc.ut.us From: Traughber, Lex Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 8:59 AM To: Harpst,Tim; Larson, Kurt; Pope, Val; Guevara, Sam; Pace, Lynn Cc: Coffey, Cheri; Paterson, Joel Subject: Petition 400-03-08, Banner Signs Good morning, On August 15, 2005, I sent a document(draft zoning ordinance)to you regarding the above referenced petition for your review. I requested that you respond by next Monday, August 29, 2005. The purpose of this email is simply to remind you that if you have comments, I need your response. I have received a request to present the proposal to the Business Advisory Board on 9/14/05, and if your comments require substantial changes I need time to prepare for this meeting. If you do not have any comments could you please let me know as well; a quick email or phone call would be fine. You can call me at 535-6184. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Lex Traughber 8/30/2005 J a c 1 01 1 Traughber, Lex From: Guevara, Sam Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 12:35 PM To: Traughber, Lex Subject: RE: Petition 400-03-08, Banner Signs Categories: Confidential Lex, I have been reviewing the suggestions and have no other revisions. Thanks. Sam Guevara Office of the Mayor Chief of Staff 801-535-7732 From: Traughber, Lex Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 8:59 AM To: Harpst, Tim; Larson, Kurt; Pope, Val; Guevara, Sam; Pace, Lynn Cc: Coffey, Cheri; Paterson, Joel Subject: Petition 400-03-08, Banner Signs Good morning, On August 15, 2005, I sent a document (draft zoning ordinance) to you regarding the above referenced petition for your review. I requested that you respond by next Monday, August 29, 2005. The purpose of this email is simply to remind you that if you have comments, I need your response. I have received a request to present the proposal to the Business Advisory Board on 9/14/05, and if your comments require substantial changes I need time to prepare for this meeting. If you do not have any comments could you please let me know as well; a quick email or phone call would be fine. You can call me at 535-6184. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Lex Traughber Principal Planner Salt Lake City Planning Division 8/26/2005 I .A5 . , 4,1 Traughber, Lex From: Boskoff, Nancy Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 3:48 PM To: Traughber, Lex Subject: RE: Street Banner Petition, Petition 400-03-08 Categories: Program/Policy Hi, Lex — Now we get to interact professionally! I know how long this issue has been discussed so I congratulate you on getting it to this point. I have a few comments that I hope will aid in clarifying the language. Not having been party to the discussion, you may well have good reasons for stating the language as is, so take these comments in the spirit of assistance only: On page 1 of the draft in the second line under"Purpose,"the language states, "to benefit local neighborhood communities . . ." I think perhaps that language is both redundant and confusing. It seems to me that local, neighborhood and community are somewhat interchangeable. Perhaps to clarify the purpose, you might consider saying, "to benefit Salt Lake City neighborhoods and community activities." On page 2, paragraph E.3.a.i., it states that the"banners may be placed up to a maximum of one mile from the location of the community organization, activity or event." To clarify, would you mean that the location of the community organization is their office or center for activity? You might consider saying, "the permanent or home location of the community organization" or something along those lines. Also on page 2, paragraph F.1.second bullet, it states"Advertisements or promotions of community activities and/or festivals." We've found that"events" is a good general word to describe festivals, concerts, literary readings, etc. and would be less limiting than just"festivals." Also on page 2, paragraph F.1.third bullet, it states that allowable displays include "activities sponsored by the City, State . . ." On page 1, paragraph D, second line, it states that"city and county government"are eligible participants. Perhaps these two paragraphs should agree and allow City, County and State activities, if that is the intent. Also on page 2, paragraph 2.second bullet, it states that "promotion of a commercial enterprise'for profit'activity" is non-allowable. There might be a way to clarify this so it is not confused with the fourth bullet in the previous paragraph ("community activities or events that are commercially sponsored"). For example, altho' it says "for profit" activity, you might consider adding "that does not benefit a community organization . . ." hope these comments are helpful, and let me know if you have questions. Good luck with the process. Nancy • From: Traughber, Lex 8/16/2005 Traughber, Lex Subject: Banner Sign Regulation presentation to the Business Advisory Board Location: Room 326 Start: Wed 9/14/2005 8:00 AM End: Wed 9/14/2005 9:00 AM Show Time As: Tentative Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Declined Required Attendees: Traughber, Lex Lex, I know you've always wanted to present to the Business Advisory Board -so here's your chance! The Board consists of 12 members representing a cross section of industries and business organizations in the City. Several of the business organizations (especially the Sugar House Merchants)would like to establish their own"banner program"under the proposed amendment. Also, many have questioned how the proposed amendment will impact their business logos that are placed on the banners when sponsoring a community event. With that in mind, your presence will be greatly appreciated and hopefully you will gain some great insights from the business community on this issue. Regards, Ed Butterfield 1 a UES.. I MI c. Traughber, Lex From: Traughber, Lex Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 12:00 PM To: Pope, Val Cc: Paterson, Joel Subject: RE: Petition 400-03-08, Banner Signs Val, Thank you for the comments. We will consider them in our preparation of the proposed ordinance language, and they will be forwarded verbatim to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration . Lex From: Pope, Val Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 10:14 AM To: Traughber, Lex; Harpst, Tim; Larson, Kurt; Guevara, Sam; Pace, Lynn; Graham, Rick; Bergstrom, Kevin Cc: Coffey, Cheri; Paterson, Joel Subject: RE: Petition 400-03-08, Banner Signs Lex, Before Gordon Haight left employment with the City, He and I had a couple of discussions about the Parks Division managing the banners around the perimeter of Liberty Park and on the Library Plaza. The thought was because of the requests that the Parks Division receives through the special event process to allow banners at these two sites, it would be easier and more accommodating to those special events applicants and others if the Parks Division managed the perimeter of Liberty Park. Gordon was in agreement to allow the Parks Division the management of the banners around the perimeter of Liberty Park. As I read the draft the banners on the Library Plaza do not appear to be affected and remain associated with the Parks Division. To allow the Parks Division to manage the banners around Liberty Park allows for those amenities within the park and the events taking place in the park to be much more visible. We have envisioned that some of the banners would have the City and a Liberty Park logo to add some color and festivity to the Park. Please consider this request. I am sorry for responding after your requested date. Val, From: Traughber, Lex Sent:Thursday, August 25, 2005 8:59 AM To: Harpst,Tim; Larson, Kurt; Pope, Val; Guevara, Sam; Pace, Lynn Cc: Coffey, Cheri; Paterson, Joel Subject: Petition 400-03-08, Banner Signs Good morning, On August 15, 2005, I sent a document(draft zoning ordinance)to you regarding the above referenced petition for your review. I requested that you respond by next Monday, August 29, 2005. The purpose of this email is simply to remind you that if you have comments, I need your response. I have received a request to present the 9/1/2005 rage LVIL proposal to the Business Advisory Board on 9/14/05, and if your comments require substantial changes I need time to prepare for this meeting. If you do not have any comments could you please let me know as well; a quick email or phone call would be fine. You can call me at 535-6184. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Lex Traughber Principal Planner Salt Lake City Planning Division nil iinnc Page 1 of 1 Traughber, Lex From: McCandless, Allen Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 3:59 PM To: Traughber, Lex Cc: Domino, Steve Subject: Street Banners Lex, Thank you for meeting with me regarding the proposed street banner amendment at your open house on October 10, 2005. The airport does not allow banners to be displayed on it's streets unless a very large city-wide or regional event is planned, such as the Olympics. When such large -scale events take place in the future, the airport may need to display street banners for event advertising, for visitor way-finding, or for other event requirements. The airport requests that provisions be made in the ordinance amendment to allow the airport to administratively manage its street banners. I understand the proposed ordinance will allow limited geographical areas to manage their own banner program. As we discussed, airport banners could be allowed under paragraph G entitled, " Management of Coordinated Street Banner Program." This paragraph requires the airport to enter into an agreement with the city to manage its own geographical area. Under this ordinance amendment, the airport can apply for this management status when there is a proposed regional event where street banners are needed. -Allen McCandless Planning Manager 10/17/2005 5. PLANNING COMMISSION C. Agendas & Minutes June 25, 2003 October 26, 2005 5. PLANNING COMMISSION C. Agendas & Minutes June 25, 2003 October 26, 2005 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of Salt Lake City, Utah will hold a regular public meeting on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 at 5:45 p.m. at 451 South State Street,Room 326. The Agenda is as follows: AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City&County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday,June 25,2003,at 5:45 p.m. The Planning Commission will be having dinner at 5:00 p.m., in Room 126. During the dinner, Staff may share planning information with the Planning Commission. This portion of the meeting will be open to the public. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Wednesday, June 11,2003 2. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR a. Discussion of Planning Commission Retreat matters and Long Range Planning Issues. 3. CONSENT AGENDA—Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters: a. Justin Jensen and others/property owners and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department—Property owners of seven single family homes abutting on the North and West sides of the existing Salt Lake City Water Reservoir Site known as"Park Reservoir,"are requesting Salt Lake City Public Utilities to issue revocable permits to allow the home owners to use approximately 30 feet by the width of the seven individual home lots,as part of their private yard space and to preserve existing trees and landscaping. The requested land is part of the Reservoir site property, and the proposed use of the property has been determined by the Public Utilities Department to not conflict with the maintenance of,or the use of the reservoir facilities. The properties are located at 3430,3440, 3450,3460,3470,and 3480, East 3020 South Street and at 3087 South 3380 East Street,in unincorporated Salt Lake County. (Staff—Doug Wheelwright at 535-6178) 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:00 p.m.—Petition No.410-638, by Qwest Wireless, requesting Conditional Use approval to install a wireless telecommunications antenna disguised as a flagpole and the associated electrical equipment at 2205 East 2100 South. The property is located in a Community Business(CB)zoning district. (Staff—Janice Lew at 535-7625) b. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:20 p.m.—Petition No.400-03-08,a zoning text amendment by Jeff Jonas,Planning Commission Chair, requesting to amend Chapter 21A.46 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance by adding standards to regulate the use and placement of street banners within the public way. (Staff—Joel Paterson at 535-6141,or joel.paterson(cilslcgov.com) c. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:40 p.m.—Petition No.410-528,by Mr.Nathan Anderson requesting Planned Development and preliminary subdivision approval of a proposed 6-unit(3 building)twin-home development located at 3027 S. 1100 E.in a Special Development Pattern Residential (SR-1)zoning district. (Staff—Ray McCandless at 535-7282) 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Salt Lake City Corporation complies with all ADA guidelines. If you are planning to attend the public meeting and,due to a disability,need assistance in understanding or participating in the meeting,please notify the City 48 hours in advance of the meeting and we will try to provide whatever assistance maybe required. Please call 535-7757 for assistance. On Friday, June 13, 2003, I personally posted copies of the foregoing notice within the City and County Building at 451 S. State Street at the following locations: Planning Division,Room 406;City Council Bulletin Board,Room 315;Community Affairs,Room 345. A copy of the agenda has also been faxed to all Salt Lake City Public Libraries.--- Signed: C" 0 STATE OF UTAH ) SUBSCRIBED D SWORN before me on Friday,June 13,2003: :ss NOTARY PUBLIC COUNTY OF SALT LAKE "�*�. ,.�` STATE OF UTAH Fi t MyFeb Comm ruaryissi16,on 2Fir006 es � - �.$ LUCILLE H. 1AYLOfl TARP PUBLIC residing in al ke County,Utah 451 South State St. Satt Lake City,Utah 84111 PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES AND PAGERS BEFORE THE MEETING BEGINS. AT YOUR REQUEST A SECURITY ESCORT WILL BE PROVIDED TO ACCOMPANY YOU TO YOUR CAR AFTER THE MEETING. THANK YOU. COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT•PLANNING DIVISION•451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406•SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City&County Building 451 South State Street,Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday,June 25, 2003, 5:45 pm Present from the Planning Commission were Chair Jeff Jonas,Aria Funk, Kay(Berger)Arnold, Tim Chambless, Robert°Bip" Daniels, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig. Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze; Deputy Planning Directors Brent Wilde and Doug Wheelwright;and Planners Janice Lew, Joel Paterson, and Ray McCandless. Petition No.400-03-08.a zoning text amendment by Jeff Jonas.Planning Commission Chair, requesting to amend Chapter 21A.46 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance by adding standards to regulate the use and placement of street banners within the public way. This hearing began at 7:22 p.m. Planner Joel Paterson presented the petition as written in the staff report. The current Salt Lake City zoning ordinance under Chapter 46 that regulates signs has a provision that specifically prohibits the placement of signs within a public right-of-way or on public streets, unless otherwise authorized by a public agency. Since the early 1990's the Downtown Alliance has been administering a street banner program on Main Street,State Street and several streets within the Downtown improvement district. This has been allowed under an agreement between the City and the Downtown Alliance. Prior to the Olympics, SLOC asked the City to allow street banner signs on various streets throughout the City, in an attempt to help with the Olympic movement. The Mayor initiated an executive order that included rather narrow standards to allow street banner signs that were Olympic related on various streets_ Since that was a very successful effort,following the Olympics many organizations have come to the City requesting that they be allowed to place banners along certain streets.' The University of Utah has done it along 400 South. To accommodate those requests, additional executive orders have been issued by the Mayor. As different executive orders were issued,the standards changed to accommodate certain requests that were deemed to be acceptable by the City. The program has become very successful, and the standards have become too narrow to accommodate many of the organizations wanting to place banners. The City has received a number of complaints. In May 2003,the Mayor issued another executive order that broadened the scope of the banner program to allow local non-profit 50I(c)(3)organizations, governmentally owned libraries, and educational institutions to post banner signs on certain streets. Since the City has been operating under those executive orders,the Administration has asked that to avoid that process the City incorporate the standards in the zoning ordinance. The Planning Commission is being asked to consider the standards. Mr. Paterson presented the Commission with following issues to consider(as listed in the staff report) in adopting the standards: 1. Free speech/public forum. Allowing street banners does pose a risk of creating a public forum and may be considered a constitutionally protected form of free speech. However,the intent of the proposed ordinance is to allow signage within certain time, place and manner restrictions to create a Planning Commission Minutes June 25,2003 - 1 - limited forum. The proposed standards do place some limits on the content of the banner signs. They would be for the express purpose of promoting community identity, events and organizations. The City could also be challenged on the equal protection clause of the Constitution because of limiting who may participate In the program. 2. Administration of the banner program. Does the City want to create a uniform street banner policy to be administered city-wide or create separate districts with different standards, e.g., in the Downtown Business Improvement District(BID)where the Downtown Alliance currently administers the street banner program. Other groups, such as the Chamber of Commerce, the Sugar House Business area, and the Westside Alliance have expressed interest, or may be willing, to administer the program in other areas of the City. 3. Who can hang banners? The executive order limits participation in the banner program to local non- profit 501(c)(3) organizations, and governmentally owned libraries and educational institutions. The banners may only promote and encourage community identity, community organizations and community activities and events. The list of eligible participants and purposes for the banners are purposefully designed with a narrow scope to limit exposure to free speech issues. The Planning Commission may wish to widen the scope of permitted participants to ensure that all community councils and other governmental entities could participate in the banner program. However, allowing additional participants may create additional exposure to constitutional challenges. 4. Where should street banners be located? The current executive order allows street banners to be place on any existing utility poles within the locations identified on the "Light Pole Banner Program Map." This map is maintained by the Salt Lake City Transportation Division and is included in Attachment 1. This map highlights the streets where street banners have been deemed appropriate. This map is amended periodically when applications for new banners are reviewed by the City and determined to be acceptable. To avoid the need to process an ordinance amendment each time the map is updated,the ordinance will reference the map but not incorporate it. The Planning Commission may wish to include standards for amending the map. Staff recommends that the streets eligible for future street banners be major arterials, collectors or gateway streets identified in community master plans. Private streets such as the portion of Rio Grande Street(455 West) located north of 200 South, Gallivan Avenue (260 South) and Weechquootee Place (15 East) may also be appropriate locations for street banners. 5. Size and height of street banners. The current executive order limits street banners to a maximum size of 96"X 30"and requires the top of the banner be a minimum of 18 feet above the ground (22 feet if the banner hangs over the traffic way). Assuming that a banner is the maximum size,the bottom of the banner would be a minimum of 10 feet above the ground (14 feet if overhanging the traffic way). In some locations, organizations have chosen to hang smaller banners and the minimum bracket height requirements have made it difficult to read the banners. This was the case in Poplar Grove where smaller banners were installed and because of the minimum height standard for the top of the banner,the banners were too high to be effective. Many of the existing banner brackets do not appear to Meet the minimum height standard. Unless there is a compelling safety reason to raise existing non-conforming brackets,the existing brackets will remain in there present location. All new banner signs will be required to meet the ordinance requirements. The Downtown Alliance standards are slightly different than what is proposed above. Mr. Paterson noted correspondence received from the Downtown Alliance asking the Planning Commission to consider some larger banners they use at the north end of Main Street on their masthead poles. Near the ZCMI Center within the sidewalk the Downtown Alliance has some larger signs that are 143" by 36", on double poles so that there are two banners side by side. Planning Commission Minutes June 25,2003 -2- 6. Does the City require consent of owner before issuing a permit? There are conflicts between the proposed street banner standards and Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT)standards (see attachment 3). The UDOT banner guidelines are more restrictive than the City's standards in respect to message content and the allowable participants. The State allows only city, county or other governmental agencies to place banners on State roads. The banners may include the name and dates of an event and related information. UDOT does not permit private, non-governmental/non- profit organization advertising (including logos) or political messages. UDOT intentionally created very narrow standards in an attempt to avoid legal challenges based on free speech and the establishment clause. • Along certain segments of State roads, the Federal government also has jurisdiction. This occurs on SR-186 (400/500 South, Foothill Boulevard), SR-71 (700 East), SR-266 (500 and 600 South streets between 1-15 and State Street, and SR-270(West Temple from 400 South to I-15). • The proposed City street banner regulations would allow non-profit organizations to advertise events and the banners could include the sponsors'logo. The City's proposed standards would require a street banner applicant to obtain a permit from UDOT prior to allowing banners to be installed along a State-owned road. • Street banners have been or are currently hanging on State-owned roads such as State Street, 700 East and 400 South. All of these are State roads and seem to be important components of the City's street banner program. Other State roads that that are gateways to the City, such as North Temple, Redwood Road, Foothill Boulevard, 1300 East, may be appropriate locations for street banners. 7. Appeals of administrative decisions regarding banner requests. City Staff administratively approve street banner requests. If these provisions were incorporated in the zoning ordinance,the Board of Adjustment would hear any appeals submitted by aggrieved parties. 8. Fees. The current executive order requires an application fee of$50.00 while the Downtown Alliance charges a fee of$25.00. Should the fee be consistent throughout the City? Mr. Paterson believed that standardizing the fees would be the best way to go. The executive order was mailed out to all Community Council Chairs within the City, with the request to gather comments from their respective Councils. The City also offered the possibility of holding a public open house if there was a demonstrated need for that. The City has received no comments from the Community Councils or requests for an open house. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission give them feedback on the important issues, and if the Commission sees fit,to recommend that Staff forward an ordinance to the City Council for their consideration. Mr. Jonas expressed confusion, saying he did not recall seeing a case like this where the Commission was asked to recommend approval of a petition to amend a zoning ordinance when they had no idea what the ordinance was being amended to. Mr.Jonas said this was like an issues only petition, in which case it would be more appropriate to appoint a subcommittee to come back with specific recommendations. He did not wish to spend a lot of time trying to write an ordinance in a public hearing. Mr. Paterson said Administration was recommending that the City incorporate the standards in the executive order. Ms. Funk said the issue of obtaining permission from private road owners should be resolved before looking at the ordinance. She was also concerned about Mr. Paterson making recommendations that were different than those written in the staff report. The Mayor had put forth what he believed is Planning Commission Minutes June 25,2003 -3 - acceptable. She wanted to know if staff was either recommending or not recommending what the Mayor thinks is acceptable. Mr. Paterson reiterated that the executive order does require the approval of UDOT or other owners of streets where the banners may be proposed. UDOT has a different standard, which raises issues. Ms. Funk said the Commission needed to know what UDOT wants and tailor the ordinance to meet that as well. Ms. Funk asked if the map in the staff report listed all of California and Indiana Avenues. Ms. Funk also asked if 600 North discontinued at about 800 West. Mr. Paterson said California Avenue was listed between just east of 900 West and Redwood Road. 600 North is also between 900 West and Redwood Road. Indiana is included between 1-215 and Redwood Road. Mr. Paterson said that could possibly be extended farther east to 1-15. Ms. Funk said it seemed to her that there were streets lacking on the west side of the City. However, she felt there was not enough information to act on the petition. Mr. Jonas said he did not understand that the Mayor's executive order was intended to be the basis for the new ordinance. He wanted to see how the new language would fit into the existing ordinance. Ms. Seelig asked what the criteria were for deeming a street banner appropriate, Mr. Paterson said it was based on earlier executive orders issued by the Mayor. The original one was written prior to the Olympics to allow signage during the Olympics. Ms. Seelig said if the purpose was to encourage and promote community identity, organizations and activities, she was concerned about the lack of streets on the west side as well. She felt she needed more information as well, particularly concerning community groups could be included within the prescribed parameters. Mr. Daniels commented that if they were going to deal primarily with non-profit groups, he would rather have a refundable deposit instead of a uniform fee. A refundable deposit would make the person hanging the banner responsible for taking it back down. Mr. Daniels felt one of the things that puts a blight on the community, both the east and west side, is people being allowed to put up any kind of signage without having to be responsible for taking it down. He still sees signage from people running for office five years ago on the west side of the city. Mr. Daniels was unsure what the criteria is for what signage would be approved or disapproved, but said there were some communities that disallow sponsorship or co-sponsorship from beer and cigarette companies. Mr. Paterson said the standards do regulate that and would not allow any commercial signage to appear on the street banners. It would just be the logo of the sponsoring non-profit organization or community event. Mr. Jonas asked if the Downtown Alliance would still be administering the program should the Commission approve an ordinance amendment. Mr. Paterson said Staff would recommend that the Downtown Alliance do continue to regulate the program. He recommended that the Commission incorporate the Downtown Alliances standards for the Downtown Business Improvement District into an ordinance. Mr. Jonas asked for confirmation that for the rest of the City the program would be administered by the City Transportation Division. Mr. Paterson said that was how it was currently being administrated. Mr. Jonas said the Transportation Division would need to set guidelines in terms of where the banners would be. He also said the Downtown Alliance administered it downtown because it was a promotional tool. The last thing the Transportation Division is worried about is promotion. He felt a more analogous organization,such as Community Economic Development, to administer the program throughout the rest of the city. Mr. Paterson said the executive order includes standards for review to make sure that the banners do not block historic buildings and would have to fit in with the character of the neighborhood in Planning Commission Minutes June 25,2003 -4- terms of building heights. Whichever City department or division that ends up administering the program would not have to be written in the ordinance. Mr. Chambless was concerned about First Amendment rights and asked if the City Attorney's office had looked at the executive order standards. Mr.Zunguze said all the executive orders were drafted out of the City Attorney's office. This has been a complicated issue for the City. It was initially supposed to be a narrowly defined program, but because of the great success of the program,there is demand from groups that are typically beyond promotional elements associated with economic development. The issue is how best does the City handle these demands. The Commission should be concerned about the overall role of land use in the banner program such as size and location. The administration of this ordinance will be in the Department of Community and Economic Development, primarily through the Transportation Office. No particular street will be excluded unless there are specific health and safety issues that are associated with travel along these roads and the location of banners. Mr.Zunguze said that because of the complexity of the issues that have been raised, a subcommittee would be the best way to go. They could work with the City Attomey's office. Mr. Chambless agreed that a subcommittee is necessary. He mentioned a banner at the University of Utah that said "Beat BYU'. He wondered if that might raise a First Amendment question in terms of content. Also, if that banner were left up for several years and became weathered, at what point would that constitute blight. Ms. Seelig agreed that the program has added vibrancy and life to the Downtown area and would like to see it expanded. She felt it was important to do it right. She asked if other cities had been looked at who had benefited from longer term experience with street banners and the potential pitfalls. Mr. Paterson said he had received ordinances from various cities around the country and that he could provide a list of those cities to the Commission with a summary of their ordinances as a part of the subcommittee process. Ms. Seelig said that would be helpful in visualizing the possibilities. She was supportive of a subcommittee. Mr. Jonas then opened the meeting to the public and asked if anyone from the Community Council wished to speak. None were forthcoming. He then asked if anyone from the general public wished to speak. Mr.Arthur Holman,285 West 300 South, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84101, spoke next. He manages the residences by the Marriott Hotel on the corner of 300 West and 300 South. He asked what the current ordinance is for or against banners on private buildings. Mr.Wilde said banners that take the form of temporary advertising are not permitted. The proposed ordinance would also not permit that type of banner. Mr. Holman has been opposed in the past to commercial advertising. He said the 30 day period allowed for banners could be extended another 30 days for a total of 60 days, and felt that was too long. He wondered what type of event could justify banners being up for 60 days. Mr. Daniels gave the example of the Greek Festival. Mr. Daniels agreed that 60 days was too long and that there were probably people in Mr. Holman's neighborhood who put up illegal signs. Ms.Tracy Von Horten, a representative from the Downtown Alliance, spoke next. She addressed the 30 day period standard. She said to actually hang the banners was quite time consuming, and it made more sense administratively to put banners up when they were taking one set down. She said most people who wished to hang banners wanted them in proximity to their event. Most non-profit groups were financially restricted and could not afford very large banners, and that should be taken into consideration. The Commission may want a smaller banner restriction to allow the non-profit groups to afford to produce the banners. To underwrite the costs of a banner, many non-profit groups need underwriters or sponsors. Those sponsors would require a logq displayed on their banners. The Downtown Alliance limits their logo sizes to 20 percent of the overall size of the banner. Planning Commission Minutes June 25,2003 -5- Mr. Jonas asked Ms. Von Horten if she would be willing to serve on a subcommittee. Ms. Von Horten said absolutely. Mr. Paterson said Maria Garcia, Director of Neighborhood Housing Services,wished to say that they believe that North Temple, 900 West and Redwood Road are appropriate locations for banners and would like to see those streets added to the program map. She expressed concerns about UDOT standards because North Temple is a State road. UDOT standards would not allow logos on the banners. She is working with the Northwest Alliance and Utah Power&Light to get banners put up on North Temple. Ms. Garcia believes a consistent fee throughout the City of$25 would be appropriate. Mr. Jonas closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission for discussion. Motion Ms. Funk moved to appoint and accept volunteers for a subcommittee to study the issue further and bring it back to the Commission with recommendations. Mr. Chambless seconded the motion. Mr. Daniels said concerned parties outside of the Planning Commission should be invited to sit on the subcommittee, such as representatives from the Downtown Alliance,the Transportation Division and UDOT. Mr. Jonas called for the vote. Ms. Scott, Ms. Seelig, Ms. Arnold, Mr.Chambless, Ms. Funk and Mr. Daniels voted "Aye." Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried. Subcommittee Volunteers Ms. Kathy Scott, Mr.Tim Chambless, and Ms. Jennifer Seelig volunteered to be on the subcommittee. Mr. Daniels suggested that Mr. Prescott Muir be invited to be on the subcommittee as well, since he already works with the Downtown Alliance. Mr.Jonas agreed. This hearing ended at 8:05 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2003 -6- 5. PLANNING COMMISSION C. Agendas & Minutes June 25, 2003 October 26, 2005 - -- r j AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City & County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday, October 26, 2005, at 5:45 p.m. The Planning Commission will be having dinner at 5:00 p.m., in Room 126. During the dinner, Staff may share general planning information with the Planning Commission. This portion of the meeting will be open to the public. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Wednesday, October 12, 2005. 2. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 3. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 4. PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters a) South Valley Sewer Improvement District and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department- South Valley Sewer District are requesting that two standard utility crossing permits be granted by Public Utilities at two locations along the City owned Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal. One utility crossing permit is for a renewal of a prior crossing permit, located at approximately 50 East, 10000 South Street. The second utility crossing permit is a new request, located at approximately 10100 South State Street. Both utility crossing permits are for buried sewer lines and both locations are within Sandy City. Public Utilities Department staff intends to approve the requested permits. (Staff. Karryn Greenleaf at 801-483-6769 or karryn.greenleaf@stcgov.com or Doug Wheelwright at 801-535-7757 or doug.wheelwright@slcgov.corn). b) Pacificorp and Salt Lake City Property Management Division - Pacificorp, doing business as Utah Power and Light Company, is requesting the relocation of a buried power line easement, which is necessary due to the reconstruction of the Concession Building, located on City property within Liberty Park. The Concession Building is located near the center of the park at approximately 600 East and 1100 South, within the Open Space (OS)zoning district. The new Concession Building is being constructed over a portion of the existing power line easement, and the easement is proposed to be relocated slightly to the south to avoid the new structure. The new easement will be granted in exchange for canceling the conflicting portion of the existing easement, without additional compensation due by either party. Property Management Division staff intends to approve the requested easement relocation request. (Staff. Matt Williams at 801-535-6447or matt.williams@slcgov.com or Doug Wheelwright at 801-535-6178 or doug.wheelwright@slcgov.corn). 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Petition 400-03-08, by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission, requesting approval to amend Chapter 21A.46 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance that will add standards to regulate the use and placement of street banners throughout the City. The purpose of this proposal is to designate the use of certain utility poles for the display of street banners to benefit local neighborhoods and the City as a whole by allowing street banners for the limited purpose of encouraging and promoting community identity, community organizations, community activities and events. (Staff:Lex Traughber at 801-535-6184 orlex.traughber@slcgov.com). b) Petitions No.400-01-32 and Petition No.400-02-08, by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to amend Chapter 21A.26.060 relating to the text of the C-SHBD (Sugar House Business District)zoning district and the corresponding Sugar House Community Zoning Map, as well as the text of the Sugar House Community Master Plan (2001) and corresponding Sugar House Future Land Use Map. In addition, several rezones are proposed for specific properties located adjacent to the area currently zoned C-SHBD (Sugar House Business District). The areas affected by these amendments are located between approximately 2100 South from 900 to 1300 East, and along 1100 East/Highland Drive from Hollywood Avenue to 1-80, including the Granite Furniture block,the Sugar House Commons,'and the Sugar House Center. (Staff: Lex Traughber at 801- 535-6184 or lex.taughber@slcgov.com). Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting October 26, 2005 Commissioner Noda asked if anyone had any questions for Ms. Guy-Sell or Mr. Paterson. No response was heard. Mr. Paterson stated that the question before the Planning Commission was to decide if the Planning Director could approve the modification for a temporary parking lot or if the change would need to have a public hearing. Commissioner Seelig asked that it be put in the record that all letters and information for requests for these types of decisions be presented to the Planning Commission earlier so the Commissioners would have time to study each item and be prepared to respond. It was so entered into the record. Chairperson Noda stated that if there were no objections from the Planning Commission, the modifications presented tonight would be signed by the Planning Director, Mr. Alexander Ikefuna. No objections were heard. PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA— Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters (6:09 P.M.) South Valley Sewer Improvement District and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department—South Valley Sewer District is requesting that two standard utility crossing permits be granted by Public Utilities, at two locations along the City owned Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal. One utility crossing permit is for a renewal of a prior crossing permit, located at 50 East, 10000 South Street. The second utility crossing permit is a new request, located at 10100 South State Street. Both utility crossing permits are for buried sewer lines and both locations are within Sandy City. Public Utilities Department staff intends to approve the requested permits. Pacificorp and Salt Lake City Property Management Division—Pacificorp, doing business as Utah Power and Light Company, is requesting the relocation of a buried power line easement, which is necessary due to the reconstruction of the Concession Building, located on City property within Liberty Park. The Concession Building is located near the center of the park at approximately 600 East and 1100 South, within the Open Space (OS) zoning district. The new Concession Building is being constructed over a portion of the existing power line easement, and is proposed to be relocated slightly to the south to avoid the new structure. The new easement will be granted in exchange for canceling the conflicting portion of the easement, without additional compensation due by either party. Property Management division staff intends to approve the requested easement relocation request. Chairperson Noda asked if the Commissioners had any concerns or questions with regard to the items on the Public Notice Agenda. No response was heard. PUBLIC HEARINGS Petition No. 400-03-08, by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission, requesting approval to amend Chapter 21A.46 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance that will add standards to regulate the use and placement of street banners throughout the City. The purpose of this proposal is to designate the use of certain utility poles for the display of street banners to benefit local neighborhoods and the City as a whole by allowing street banners for the 3 Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting October 26, 2005 limited purpose of encouraging and promoting community identity, community organizations, community activities and events. At 6:11 p.m. Chairperson Noda introduced Petition No. 400-03-08 and Lex Traughber, Principal Planner. Mr. Traughber stated that the Downtown Alliance, under contract with the City, has administered the street banner program in the Salt Lake City Central Business Improvement District since 1991. This contract allows the Downtown Alliance to develop and implement standards for the administration of the street banner program in the improvement district. The Downtown Alliance banner guidelines are included in Exhibit 2, and are particularly relevant because Planning Staffs proposed text amendment language essentially mirrors the Downtown Alliance's program with some minor differences. The Downtown Alliance's program appears to be very successful, and is located between North Temple, 200 East, 400 South and 400 West. Mr. Traughber stated that Salt Lake City adopted a new zoning ordinance in 1995. The ordinance includes Section 12A.46.070(K) - Signs on Public Property, which prohibits the location of signs on publicly owned land or inside street rights of way, unless such signs are erected by permission of an authorized public agency. This section of the ordinance does not include any standards regarding the administration of any such signs. The City has interpreted this provision in the Zoning Ordinance to authorize the Mayor to issue executive orders to regulate signs in the public way including street banners. The Mayor's Executive Order dated August 19, 2003, concerning authorizing the placement of street banners in the public way, currently regulates such signage. Mr. Traughber said that during the 2002 Winter Olympic Games the City enacted Olympics related ordinances, which among other things, authorized the placement of Olympic street banners on many of the major street corridors in the City. When the Olympics ended, the brackets installed on utility poles became the property of the City. He said a reference map was attached for reference indicating those routes where brackets are located along the public way (Exhibit 3). Following the Olympics, the City started to receive an increasing number of requests for street banners in new locations. Because of the restrictive nature of the previous executive orders regulating street banners, many requests were denied even though the proposals were for street banners advertising local events such as the St. Patrick's Day Parade. Mr. Traughber stated that a subcommittee of the Planning Commission had reviewed the project and made recommendations. All of their recommendations have been incorporated into the proposed ordinance except their recommendation to not have a proximity regulation. Mr. Traughber stated that the Planning Staff heard from multiple entities that a proximity requirement should be incorporated. The rationale behind the recommendation was that perhaps said proximity requirement would eliminate conflict between various groups or organizations that would want to place street banners in locations that may not be appropriate. For example, placing Hogle Zoo banners on the perimeter of Liberty Park may create a conflict with placing banners that draw attention to the aviary in the Park. 4 Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting October 26, 2005 Based on the comments, analysis and findings in the staff report, we recommend that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to adopt the Street Banner language that is presented in your staff report amending the Salt Lake City Ordinance. Commissioner Seelig was concerned with the "proximity" requirement as found in sub- section E(3) of the proposed ordinance and felt the "two mile limit" could be exclusive in nature and thus indicate that a person on one side of the valley would not know what was occurring on the other side of the valley. Mr. Traughber further explained the reason for the "proximity" language by stating that complaints about banners being located in areas that conflict with uses in certain locations had been received. He used the example of Hogle Zoo banners being placed around Liberty Park that has an Aviary that is a bird zoo. He stated that could create a conflict because Liberty Park would like to advertise the Aviary in the park. Comments from the Commissioners included statements regarding the purpose and support of tax dollars and questions that asked if Hogle Zoo would be allowed to regulate the banners around that area and what the purpose of the banners really were. Mr. Traughber said the distance requirement was in relationship to the home base of the organization or activity center, and where that particular activity would take place. The purpose of the two mile limit was to minimize conflicts, give a viewer some sense of what was in the neighborhood, and be a source of direction. Ms. Coffey stated that most facilities advertise for events. The two mile radius was not to discriminate or keep certain people from being informed. She said these facilities had many ways of advertising and this was just one way. Chairperson Noda asked if there were any questions for Staff. No response was heard. She opened the public hearing and asked if anyone from a Community Council wished to speak. Helen Peters, resident of Sugar House, stated that banners were an important community building piece in Sugar House and she felt this was a good idea to provide some codification of the banner ordinance. Chairperson Noda asked if anyone else wished to speak. No response heard. She closed the public hearing and asked for discussion and/or a motion. The Planning Commissioners spent considerable time discussing how the banners would be funded, the issue of power and control regarding grass root organizations, small functions versus larger functions and well established companies and corporations. The Commissioners also discussed the Subcommittee recommendations and discussions that involved the sponsorship of the banners, external advantages in partnering with the local businesses in the community and the functions that banners served; esthetic values, good advertising and a directional concept. 5 Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting October 26, 2005 Mr. Traughber stated that the proposed Draft Ordinance at the back of the staff report, Exhibit four, item "G", provided the reasoning for how this came to be an issue. He said the Downtown Alliance is currently the only entity that managed and coordinated the Street Banner Program. All other applicants would apply through the Transportation Division. Mr. Traughber stated that the public had expressed the view that there were entities who were interested in managing their own program and this draft would allow the entities to enter into an agreement with the City. The agreement would be an outline of an entity's program and would closely follow any City regulations. These people could define their own geographic area and program. Mr. Ikefuna stated that one of the entities wishing to control and define a geographic area and program was the Salt Lake City Airport Authority. Given the nature of terrorism and security, Mr. Ikefuna said the Airport Authority had expressed interest in entering into a contract with the City to regulate or control what was done within the Airport district. Mr. Traughber stated that the banners provide cohesiveness to a community in terms of advertising events, activities, and community happenings in a certain area of the city. Commissioner Muir stated that he was familiar with Downtown Alliance issues. A policy and review group was established to adjudicate disputes. He stated the city was trying to absolve itself of refereeing by being regulatory, standing back, and letting it take care of itself but he did not think the City would be able to do that. Those decisions must be handled by a management team that would create a policy that was more flexible and could be adapted over time depending on the issues. Mr. Ikefuna stated that the City Attorney had reviewed concerns regarding freedom of speech and fully supported the enactment of an ordinance to provide a comprehensive city-wide policy for street banners, noting that there were significant legal issues that included constitutional rights of free speech and equal protection. He said the Planning staff had been sensitive to the advice and those issues throughout the draft ordinance development. He stated that the ordinance was not restrictive. Mr. Traughber stated that the Transportation Department administered the program under the executive order to resolve these types of issues. He told the Planning Commissioners that if they did not think the proximity issue was important (Section E.2.1. of the draft ordinance) Coordinated Street Banner Program would work, they could strike it. He said the intent of the Coordinated Street Banner Program was not to alleviate review for the City, although it would do that, but was to give groups that wanted to.manage their own program the ability to do so. Mr. Ikefuna stated that what was in place right now was not working effectively. The proposed program would provide an avenue to manage the conflicts currently being experienced by the City. Further, the executive order issued by the Mayor concerning banners was generic and very restrictive. He said the proposal should be flexible in terms of peoples' ability to hang street banners. It would remove the conflict. Commissioner Diamond asked what the downside would be if banners did not have a boundary stated. Ms. Coffey said one downside would be conflict resulting in more than 6 Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting October 26, 2005 one group wanting to advertise in the same area. He also asked staff to notify various groups about the banner program so they could take advantage of it. He did think many groups knew of the program. Commissioner Scott stated she was inclined to agree with this proposal. Commissioner Seelig said that she was on the subcommittee and the subcommittee as a whole did not recommend the two-mile radius. Chairperson Noda closed the Public Hearing and asked for discussion and/or a motion. Motion for Petition No. 400-03-08 Commissioner Seelig moved for the Planning Commission to approve Petition No. 400-03-08 as it related to the City Street Banner Program based on comments, analysis, findings of fact, and discussion with the staff and Commission Members and forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to adopt the attached Street Banner language with the exception of item "E2ai and E2b" and change the word "geographic" area to "management" area. Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion. Commissioner Chambless. Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Seelig, and Commissioner Scott voted "Aye". Commissioner De Lay and Commissioner Galli were not present. There were none opposed. The motion passed. Petition No. 400-01-32, and Petition No. 400-02-08 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commis 'on to amend Chapter 21A.26.060 relating to the text of the C-SHBD (Sugar House Bus - s District) zoning district and the corresponding Sugar House Community Zoning Map, as -II as the text of the Sugar House Community Master Plan (2001) and corresponding Sug ouse Future Land Use Map. In addition, several rezones are proposed for specific pr. - -rties located adjacent to the area currently zoned C-SHBD (Sugar House Business Dis ' t . The areas affected by these amendments are located between approximately 2100 S. . from 900 to 1300 East, and along 1100 East/Highland Drive from Hollywood Avenue to I-:► . including the Granite Furniture block, the Sugar House Commons, and the Sugar Hous- enter. At 6:51 p.m., Chairperson Noda introduced P- ion No. 400-01-32, Petition No. 400-02-08 and Lex Traughber, Principal Planner. On Septe •er 14th, 2005, a hearing was held by the Planning Commission. The Planning Staff prese -d a PowerPoint presentation in an attempt to summarize and focus on the "big picture" an. qe rationale behind the proposed amendments. Public comment was taken and subsequent e public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. After questions had been posed to th.. Tanning Staff and much discussion and deliberation were completed, a decision was mad- • refer the matter to a subcommittee, comprised of Commissioners Peggy McDonough, La Noda, John Diamond, and Prescott Muir, for further discussion and revision of the p ...•osed amendment materials prepared and presented by the Planning Staff. 7 6. ORIGINAL PETITION PETITION NO. 4 0 -o 3 - a? PETITION CHECKLIST Date Initials Action Required 1,1413 Petition delivered to Planning y 3� Piac -Sod 63 G� Petition assigned to: ( 'TP' 8 /� 210•0 Planning Staff or Planning Commission Action Date Return Original Letter and Yellow Petition Cover 11.t6.o( PAi" Chronology • Property Description (marked with a post it note) p` Affected Sidwell Numbers Included 6t.3,�s Vr Mailing List for Petition, include appropriate Community Councils 1(,'a 3• Mailing Postmark Date Verification tt •(b- Planning Commission Minutes �l,3 Planning Staff Report (-3-05 Cover letter outlining what the request is and a brief description of what action the Planning Commission or Staff is recommending. Ll Ordinance Prepared by the Attorney's Office Ordinance property description is checked, dated and initialed by the Planner. Ordinance is stamped by Attorney. Lc T . €i2 Planner responsible for taking calls on the Petition Date Set for City Council Action Petition filed with City Recorder's Office and Ms. Seelig voted "Aye." Mr. Muir was recused and not present. Chair Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried. Mr. Muir returned to the meeting. LONG RANGE PLANNING ISSUES Chair Jonas called for comments on the summary of the Planning Commission retreat contained in the staff report. Ms. Seelig noted that the Staff had asked for feedback on the retreat from the Planning Commission. Mr. Wilde asked if the Planning Commission would consider a lunch meeting with Lynn Pace to discuss policy and procedures and the retreat issues at the same time. Chair Jonas favored discussing the retreat summary at a lunch meeting rather than this evening. He commended whomever was responsible for having Lynn Pace attend the last meeting. He stated that Mr. Pace's presence was helpful, and he would like him to attend future meetings as often as possible. The Commissioners concurred with having a lunch meeting. Mr. Wilde offered to coordinate a date and place. Mr. Daniels suggested that the Commissioners consider meeting mid-morning on a Saturday. The Commissioners did not favor a Saturday meeting and preferred to meet for lunch. Planning Director Louis Zunguze announced that the City Council has retained Frank Gray to work with the City on the walkable communities ordinance. Mr. Gray will be in town March 25, 26, and 27 and he would like to meet with the Planning Commission to discuss their concerns and hear their feedback. Mr. Zunguze suggested a lunch meeting on March 25 or March 26. Mr. Zunguze noted that the City is receiving an increasing number of requests for street banners. In the past, the administration, through the Mayor, executed executive orders authorizing street banners. Mr. Zunguze suggested considering a more holistic approach. He noted that a section in the zoning ordinance addresses banners but is not comprehensive. He requested that the Planning Commission initiate a petition for the staff to study this issue and initiate proper changes to the ordinance. Chair Jonas agreed to initiate the petition requested by Mr. Zunguze. Mr. Wilde noted that on December 5 the Planning Commission initiated a petition to consider modifying the sign ordinance to look at off-premise and animated signs downtown and along Main Street. KUTV Channel 2 is one of the parties interested in such an animated sign, and as staff puts this together, he suggested that they consider the option to allow the sign Planning Commission Meeting 7 February 12,2003 H --- — ) 4. rt0• rtm tt .v ate. b m0h, n CDoo rn CD'r• rt m ,a I-d m m cn G I-, -• a. v' rt m w I P o P. En — P rt O 0 0 cn• m 0 • a w o 0 1-1 a p m N w N. rt w O , m m 0 0 o 1 o m 'ti rt 1 Era tt o o ; aCD w 0 1-4 n c Co p m 00 MEMORANDUM DATE: January 6,2005 SUBJECT: Groundwater contamination at the area near 700 South 1600 East REPORT BY: Gary Mumford AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: 4,5 and 6 CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Rocky Fluhart,LeRoy Hooton, Jeff Niermeyer,Rick Graham, DJ Baxter, Gary Mumford,Lisa Romney,Florence Reynolds, Lehua Weaver,Sylvia Jones, Annette Daley, Gwen Springmeyer, and Jan Aramaki Last month,Public Utilities brought the issue on groundwater contamination in the area near 700 South and 1600 East to the attention of Council Members.Dave Buhler,Jill Love and Nand Saxton. At this time,the identified groundwater contamination impacts specifically Council District Six, with impacts to sections of Districts Four and Five and with the potential to have city-wide implications. If the groundwater contamination continues to migrate toward a Salt Lake City culinary water well,additional treatment will be required so that the well water can continue to be used. A request has been made of Public Utilities to brief the City Council on this issue. Council Member Buhler has scheduled a District Six Town Meeting for Wednesday,January 11, 2006 at Bonneville Elementary School,1145 South 1900 East at 7:00 p.m. regarding this issue. Attached is a copy of a neighborhood letter and an EPA fact sheet that Council Member Buhler sent to community members within the area of Foothill Drive west to 1300 East and from 1300 South north to Sunnyside,including the University Village residents, along with a background information sheet from Public Utilities. Page 1 JfVM 0v J LEROY W. HOOTON, JR. +..\�.i1_r`.1_NIT 0„�0 0RA TIN BOSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES MAYOR WATER SUPPLY AND WATERWORKS WATER RECLAMATION AND STORMWATER COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL L. To: Rocky J. Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer January 5, 2006 From: LeRoy W. Hooton Jr., Director Public Utilities L / Subject: City Council Briefing on Groundwater Contamina 1 at 700 S. 1600 E. Staff Contact: Jeff Niermeyer, Deputy Director Telephone Number: 483-6785 Recommendation: That the City Council be briefed on the groundwater contamination at 700 South and 1600 East. Document: Briefing/Discussion Budget Impact: None Discussion: Salt Lake City operates a culinary drinking water well located at approximately 500 South and 1500 East. The well discharges directly into a 10-million gallon distribution reservoir located at the same address. The well is used to meet summer peak demands and is generally only turned into the water system during the peak summer demand period. During periods of drought, the well is used more extensively to supplement the City's water supply. The well is currently off and not supplying water to the system. The EPA and State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) have identified and are studying a groundwater contamination in the area near 700 South and 1600 East. The groundwater is contaminated with the solvent perchloroethylene (PCE). This material is used in the dry cleaning process and as a metal degreaser. EPA has set the safe drinking water standard for PCE at 5 parts per billion (ppb). The attached fact sheet summarizes the information developed by EPA and DEQ. The contaminated groundwater is starting to be detected in the City's well. Reading of the PCE levels in the well have been sporadic and well below the EPA Safe Drinking Water Standard. During 2005 the well was only operated during the month of September to facilitate a study by EPA. During that test period the readings of PCE reached a maximum level of 1.8 ppb. PCE levels out of the reservoir entering the drinking water system are negative. The drinking water is safe, however it is expected that the 1 530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 TELEPHONE: 801.483-6900 FAX: 801-483-6818 WWW.SLCGOV.COM try Rccvceo Pnvca groundwater contamination will continue to migrate towards the well. If this occurs, the City will be required to add additional treatment to the well water so that it can continue to be used. In November of 2005, the Department of Public Utilities was invited to a meeting hosted by EPA and DEQ to discuss the possibility of listing the contaminated groundwater plume under the National Priority List sometimes known as the "Superfund list". EPA policy requires support from the local community and the State before it will list a site. The proposed listing will provide a means of funding the groundwater contamination studies and develop alternatives to remediate the contamination. The process also will allow EPA to require the responsible parties that created the contamination to pay for the remediation. The listing on the National Priority List has both positive and negative implications to a community. There are also other approaches to funding the required studies and remediation that the City Council may wish to consider. These include using the State Voluntary Cleanup Program and/or a direct congressional appropriation. The purpose of this briefing is to provide the City Council with information and answer questions to assist the City Council in developing their thoughts on how best to approach the issue. David L. Buhler SAR A\ QJ%'I`�t C�P R MJ f Council Member-District Six OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL dave.buhler@slcgov.com January 3, 2006 Dear Neighbor: Recently,I was advised of an environmental issue relating to contamination of ground water in the area surrounding the coordinates of 700 South and 1600 East. This is near a well that is an important source of Salt Lake City drinking water. Although I have been assured that the drinking water is safe,steps need to be taken to ensure water quality and safety into the future. A couple of options have been presented to address this problem. The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed pursuing designation of it as a federal"super-fund"(National Priorities List)site as a way to access federal funds. I am also pursuing other options for federal funding. (At least one federal agency has been identified as a potentially responsible party.) It is important to me that all residents and property owners are fully informed early in the process, and that I receive your input before the City makes any decisions regarding alternative approaches to addressing this issue. You are invited to join me at a community meeting on Wednesday,January 11 at 7:00 p.m. Bonneville Elementary School, 1145 South 1900 East. Representatives of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality,federal Environmental Protection Agency,and the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities will be present to provide additional information and to answer our questions. The enclosed fact sheet provides some key background information.Frequent testing is being done and there are no harmful levels of any chemicals in the drinking water.The well in the affected area has a measurable level, although it is well below the EPA regulatory levels that would cause a need for additional water processing.I have been advised that the contamination is deep enough beneath the soil surface that there isn't any danger of gas dissipating above ground, such as in basements. Since learning about this issue I have had three priorities. (1)The safety of the City's drinking water must be protected; (2)The problem must be addressed and those responsible should pay for any and all necessary remediation; (3)The public and particularly the immediate neighborhood must be informed, consulted, and involved. This meeting is an important first step in reaching these objectives. I hope you will be able to attend this very important meeting. If you are unable to attend but have questions or comments,please feel free to E-mail me at dave.buhler(a,slcgov.coin or contact the Council Office at 535-7600. Sincerely, David L.Buhler Salt Lake City Council Member District Six 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535.6642 FAX: 801-535-7651 WWW.S LCGOV.COM • 700 South 1600 East unito stave PCE Plume ..4LaAb.. E,wlroniitnt8'Pr n.etIon FACT SHEET Agarcy UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 8 Salt Lake City, Utah December 2005 The US Environmental Protection Agency ensure drinking water standards are met, mean- (EPA) and the Utah Department of Environ- ing your water is safe to drink. mental Quality(UDEQ) are providing this fact sheet to inform you about the potential place- WHAT ARE THE CONCERNS? ment of the 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume (700 S. 1600 E. Plume) on the National Priori- Today, the levels of PCE detected in the mu- ties List(NPL). The listing will enable the nicipal well are low and comply with safe EPA and UDEQ to find all Potentially Respon- drinking water standards.It is likely that con- sible Parties (PRP) for the contamination and to centrations of PCE will increase over time if facilitate cleanup. the groundwater contamination is not ad- dressed. If contamination in the well increased, BACKGROUND the city might have to stop using it as a drink- ing water source. The proposed listing is to The 700 S. 1600 E. Plume is an area of ground- address this complex problem before it gets water contamination deep below the ground's worse. surface. The plume is located generally within the area bounded by 500 South and Sunnyside IS THE WATER IN SALT LAKE CITY Avenue and in the vicinity of Guardsman Way. SAFE TO DRINK? The contaminant of concern is tetrachloroethyl- ene, sometimes called perchloroethylene, PCE Yes,the water supplied by the city is safe to or PERC. PCE is a solvent used for dry clean- drink. The water is routinely monitored to en- ing and metal degreasing. Levels of PCE sure drinking water standards established by ranging from 11 parts per billion(ppb) to 320 the Safe Drinking Water Act(SDWA) are met. ppb have been detected in area monitoring and irrigation wells. The safe drinking water stan- WHO WILL PAY FOR THE CLEANUP dard for PCE is 5 ppb. AND DECIDE HOW IT IS DONE? A deep municipal drinking water supply well is If the plume is listed on the NPL, those deter- located northwest of the plume. In the past, the mined to be responsible for the contamination well showed no detections of contamination. will pay for the cleanup. If the Responsible Recently, routine monitoring revealed low ley- Parties are unable to pay, then Federal Super- els of PCE in the well. The concentration of fund dollars will be used to fund the cleanup. PCE in the well is below levels regulated by The city, cemetery, and homeowners in the the Safe Drinking Water Act. When used, the area are not considered Potentially Responsible water from this well is blended with other Parties (PRPs) for the 700 S. 1600 E. Plume drinking water sources before distribution. Ad- and therefore do not have any financial respon- ditionally, the water is routinely monitored to sibility. „10- MEMORANDUM DATE: January 10,2006 TO: Council Member Love, Council Member Jergensen,and Council Member Buhler FROM: Jennifer Bruno,Policy Analyst RE: Benefits-Household/Adult Designee Proposal This memo details options relating to the Council's plan to provide benefits to a wider array of households-whether they are made up of a City employee living with and supporting/depending on another non-related adult,their sibling,or their parent. OVERALL CITY COSTS If the Council decides to accept these additional people on the plan,the following charts show the amount of premiums that these additional people would pay into the system,if they paid the same premiums as the current City structure dictates. These premiums are not sufficient to cover the"true” costs of these actual people. The City would either need to make up this deficit from one time money,or by raising the premiums for this particular group of people,or for the City as a whole,in order to cover the costs. The "extra" money needed to cover the actual cost could range from$139,624-$224,862. Employee- paid Amount #of Premiums Actual (per pay Employees Generated Medical Cost period) enrolling (per year) (Claims) Difference Higher Range Utilization(3.3%of all employees enroll) Double Coverage $ 85.02 29 $ 58,439 $ 151,840 $ (93,400.65) Family Coverage $ 101.51 67 $ 163,379 $ 294,840 $ (131,461) Total 96 $ 221,818 $ 446,680 Lower Range Utilization (2.0%of all employees enroll) Double Coverage $ 85.02 17 $ 35,504 $ 113,360 $ (77,855.65) Family Coverage $ 101.51 41 $ 98,911 $ 160,680 $ (61.769) Total 58 $ 134,416 $ 274,040 DEFINITION OF ADULT DESIGNEE The plan is triggered by the employee signing an affidavit declaring an"adult designee." The employee and this person must attest to and provide documentation for their financial dependence or interdependence and their cohabitation. The Adult Designee's dependents will also be covered. A dependent,as currently defined by the City is any child (adopted or biological) that is under age 26 and unmarried. An employee who is currently married may not add an adult designee to the City's insurance plan. An"Adult %lbw Designee" is a person who meets the following criteria: 1 Adult Designees Under 65: (a) has resided in the same domicile with the eligible employee for at least the past consecutive 12 months and intends to remain so indefinitely; (b) is at least 18 years of age and has the capacity to enter into a contract; (c) is directly dependent upon,or interdependent with the employee,sharing a common financial obligation. Acceptable documentation is: a. IRS form defining Adult Designee as a dependent; OR b. THREE of the following must be documented: i. Joint loan obligation,mortgage,lease, or joint ownership of a vehicle, ii. Designated as beneficiary under the employee's life insurance policy,retirement benefits account,or will or executor of each other's will, iii. Mutually granted power of attorney(health care or financial management) iv. Status as authorized signatory on bank or credit accounts, v. Joint bank or credit accounts, (d) Agrees to sign a notarized statement with attached documentation to be filed with the Human Resources Division attesting to the above statements. This series of criteria was developed over a period of time and many meetings of the sub- committee. The sub-committee considered many"situations" that an employee could be in(living with and caring for one parent while the other is in a nursing home, living with a sibling or friend to cut living expenses,long-term roommates,etc). This list is"tailored" in order to accommodate the many ways in which people choose to comprise their household. The sub-committee is recommending that employees who are legally married,regardless if their spouse is included on their City health plan,NOT be eligible to declare an adult designee. This is an effort to reduce costs,as well as to avoid health care"shopping" (i.e. deciding to purchase non-city insurance for the spouse because it's cheaper than purchasing it for a sick relative). Adult Designees Over 65: Due to the cost of providing medical coverage for those over 65,and due to the fact that those individuals are already covered by Medicare, Council Staff recommends that any adult designee over 65 would automatically be covered by a Medicare supplement policy, instead of by the City's general insurance policy. The City could contract with an insurance carrier (not PEHP) to provide this coverage at a reduced rate (similar to the City's available automobile insurance),for the employee to elect to purchase for their over-65 adult designee. This would help keep costs manageable for the rest of the City insurance subscribers,ensuring that they would not see a dramatic increase in premiums to cover the cost of elderly subscribers. • Option-The Council's subcommittee recommends that the City's policy could be that if an employee has an adult designee that is over 65,but has no other 2 adult dependents on the City plan,the City would contribute$50 per month '% rr towards the purchase of that Medicare supplement policy. The underlying policy issue is that since we are currently partially subsidizing health insurance for families,it would be equitable to partially subsidize families with an adult supporting and living with their elderly parent. o If the"likely" scenario were to occur (according to PEHP's estimates listed below),approximately 29 employees would enroll a parent. It is safe to assume that the majority of these parents are over 65. The following shows what the City's contribution would be towards this scenario. PEHP estimated that 1-2% of all City employees would enroll a parent over 65. #of Employees enrolling Contribution per month Total City Contribution per year 29 $50 $17,400 Adult Designees over 65 would still have to fit the same criteria list as those under 65 (see above). ENROLLMENT The following chart shows the rates at which PEHP assumed people would enroll an adult designee,separated out by category of who could be considered an adult designee: Adult Designee Category Percent Enrollment # of Employees enrolling Parent 0.75% -1.5% of all subscribers 21 -43 Sibling 1% -2.5% of all subscribers 29-72 Domestic Partner .75%-4% of single subscribers 8-41 The following chart shows the likely scenario (upper end) in terms of enrollment Adult Designee Category Percent Enrollment # of Employees enrolling Parent 1% of all subscribers 29 Sibling 1.8% of all subscribers 52 Domestic Partner 1.5% of single subscribers 16 Total 3.3%of all employees 96 (figures may not add due to rounding) COST-CLAIMS PEHP has estimated a range of the increase in claims that are likely to be experienced as a result of each group. (Note: in this table,the"Parent" column refers only to parents 3 between the ages of 50 and 65. Parents over the age of 65 will be handled with a different City program.) Increase in Claims peryear-Siblings and Domestic Partners w/.5 dependents Parent Sibling Domestic Dependents Total Partner (including 4% admin cost) High(5.4%) $218,000 $201,000 $116,000 $158,500 $721,240 Likely Scenario (3.3%) $146,000 $145,000 $44,000 $94,500 ;$446,680 Underutilization(2.0%) $109,000 $81,000 $22,000 $51,500 $274,040 PEHP provided the following reasoning behind.5 dependents for siblings and Domestic Partners: Rationale behind the 0.5 multiplier for dependents is based on a similar scenario as the analysis of the Mayor's proposal. The options provided there are based on a 20% and 50% utilization of family coverage and the family coverage used a 2.5 multiplier. In this analysis,the primary adult designee is accounted for with the sibling and domestic partner line item. So, the dependent would equate to a 1.5 multiplier. Applied to the 20% and 50% as used in the Mayor's proposal analysis, this equates to 0.3 to 0.75. Therefore, a common factor of 0.5 will be applied. The likely scenario as indicated by PEHP(2.5% of all subscribers will partake),is based on numbers from the US Census Bureau,about the number of people living with a family member that is not a spouse or a child,and the number of people living in unmarried households. The low range (1.5% of all subscribers),is assuming underutilization of the plan, and that not every employee who is living in one of these situations would enroll an adult designee. The high range (4% of all subscribers) is a"worst case" scenario- contemplating abuse/exploitation of the system. COST-PREMIUMS Premium Structure A-partial taxpayer subsidy This premium structure would simply add these adult designees into the existing City insurance structure- their premiums would be determined by the overall City claims experience. Because the City's current insurance structure does to some extent subsidize dependents,these new households would also be subsidized to some extent. In this past fiscal year,because of an increase in claims costs, an extra$1.7 million(9%) in premiums was needed to cover the City's insurance claims. The City elected to cover 75% of this increase ($1.3 million)by"raising" the City-paid employee premiums by$19.25. The remaining 25% ($445,000) was covered by a distributed increase in employee-paid premiums for spouses and dependents. For example,in the Preferred Care plan, Double coverage increased by$9.32 and Family coverage increased by$10.68. The following table shows the previous example of 96 employees enrolling an adult designee and their possible dependents. These employees would themselves be 4 generating"extra" premiums collections,which would offset the true increase in claims cost. Therefore,the true increase to the overall group is$224,862(or a 1% overall increase in City claims costs). "Extra" Current #of Premiums Charge(per Employees Generated pay period) enrolling (per year) Actual Cost Difference Double Coverage $ 85.02 29 $ 58,439 $ 151,840 $ (93,400.65) Familly Coverage $ 101.51 67 $ 163,379 $ 294,840 $ (131,461) Total 96 $ 221,818 $ 446,680 $ (224,862) Pros Cons -Any increase in claims would be absorbed by -Partial taxpayer subsidy(to the extent that the a larger pool of premiums;therefore,increases current City structure subsidizes any dependent) would be smaller/less dramatic -Premiums would be the same as they are for -If the"Adult Designee" idea is abused all current families subscribers would bear the cost -Current subscribers may object to having the pool expanded if it has the ultimate effect of increasing their out-of-pocket costs Premium Structure B -no taxpayer subsidy This structure would keep the subscribers that use the"Adult Designee" classification separate,in terms of premiums paid,from the City subscribers that use the "spouse/dependent" classification(the current City insurance plan). The Adult Designees (and their dependents)would be part of the overall City"group" (to receive insurance at an overall lower cost than in the market),but they would pay premiums on a separate structure, designed to pay 100% of the claims increases as a result of this group. For example,if 96 employees signed up"adult designees" (including.5 dependents for siblings and domestic partners)resulting in an increase in costs of$446,680,their premiums would be structured so that they would cover that increase in claims completely. Pros Cons -Part of the City group insurance-lower rates -Any increase in claims resulting in more premiums needed will be"absorbed"by fewer people-increases will be more dramatic -No taxpayer subsidy -Premiums would be higher for the "Adult Designee" group than for the rest of the City plan,thus not providing equal coverage for all household types. 5 The following shows a calculation of what would need to be the premiums to cover their claims costs. (note: this is Council Staff's calculations of the premium structure) Total "new people" 129 Per Member Per Month Cost $ 234.48 x months 12 Total Yearly Cost- per person $ 2,813.76 Multiplied by the number of"new people" 129 Total Yearly Cost-Overall (including inflation and admin fee) $ 415,993 Total Monthly Cost $ 34,666 Total Monthly Cost Per Person (premium) $ 268.25 COMPARISON-MAYOR'S EXECUTIVE ORDER The Mayor's Executive Order was intended to provide benefits to "Domestic Partners" and their dependents. The key difference between the Mayor's Executive Order and the Council's proposal is that the Council's proposal extends benefits beyond domestic partners,to include the myriad of ways people choose to comprise their households (i.e. siblings living together,an employee caring for their parent,long-term roommates who have become joined financially,etc). This will expand the availability of benefits for people who have decided to form a"household" with an adult other than a"domestic partner." The following table shows other key differences between the Council's proposal and the Mayor's Executive Order: Council Proposal Mayor's Executive Order Enrollment 58-96 employees 10-22 employees Increased Claims Costs $274,000-$447,000 $38,000-$113,000 Increased Real Cost(after $140,000-$225,000 $17,000-$63,400 employee premiums are collected) Criteria Cohabitation for one year,3 Cohabitation for 6 months,2 out of 5 interdependence out of 3 interdependence documents, or an IRS documents defined dependent The following chart breaks down costs associated with the Mayor's Executive Order (similar to the Chart on page 1 of this memo detailing costs relating to the Council's proposal). 6 Costs associated with Mayors Executive Order(from previous PEHP analysis) Employee- paid Amount #of Premiums Actual (per pay Employees Generated Medical Cost period) enrolling (per year) (Claims) Difference Higher Range Utillization Double Coverage $ 85.02 11 $ 22,445 $ 32,189 $ (9,744) Family Coverage $ 101.51 11 $ 26,799 $ 80,473 $ (53,674) 22 $ 49,244 $ 112,662 ' Lower Range Utillization Double Coverage $ 85.02 8 $ 16,324 $ 23,410 $ (7,087) Family Coverage $ 101.51 2 $ 4,872 $ 14,632 $ (9,759) 10 $ 21,196 $ 38,042 OPTIONS The following are the next steps for the Council to take in order to enact this policy: 1. Decide premium structure A or B (how to handle the increased costs). • The Council's subcommittee recommends option A. The subcommittee recommends that the Council offset the true increased costs (after premiums are collected)with fund balance($140,000-$225,000 depending on utilization). 2. The subcommittee recommends re-writing the bereavement/dependent leave ordinances to include adult designees and their immediate family. • After it is amended,the subcommittee then recommends that the bereavement/dependent leave ordinances be referred to the Citizens Compensation Advisory Committee,for an over-all evaluation of the City's bereavement/ dependent leave approach. The sub-committee recommends that the Council ask the CCAC to compare Salt Lake City's ordinance with other standards from around the country and best practices. The Council could also elect to have an additional briefing before advancing this issue. 7 74t au 0 o P--1 4e ;-4 v o cu f:C) 0 x r V a Cl a 0 cu3-� y U E a) N F 'Z 41 ,f, -1-2) --e1_, o ° O 'b o g Z Cs) 4001 imi ci) -ci ,5 ct ci) 0 ° W b W ► a.) - P-4 � l cd U 0 Si-, U O u a) O go cl Cit a) — ---- o a Q :� °' C� . ' tea EE 'd U o o' a O al Ti cu 4 U Cd 0 CI ' (L) i-1 0 Q ,co V 0 z V 40 cu I iMM) '1 cn Wx . • on! . � Q., , E i ._(2, v'" a Z cd o E •ru•I (4, o bk z O •.- I 4) r .� Cl) 4 �, 0 a) u cn a, 1 U b�A U O .sue +-' CA ct aU 7S 4-4 I% v O p O •- a� a) ODN ¢� 3 .O - ci) 60 1-, v • aO V bi) ct cCS _ O +' $ cci cocn rmilZ 0 '' „, 0 .., +7, ”Ci a) t u •-ci 7:1 ccl v a) cza) U v o O w co CI 745, V cu cn ��, U O N O Q 4 'b — 0 "-4 rii P— • O O ,c v o r - _id, v 0 E u o W .o .o . •— U .c O r, O cts 0 v a) (1.) r-+ N cri mot+ '75 ,_ = U g bt O .- g ima ~ — g O Zv g03 O bC G) ON CA �O -0 E a) 0 CL O O - = E W (, .� O W di W 4 N N 00 4t Gh 0 W (I) a) N V cA I CA '� ,� f a) m v v CD 0 g a • /m1 E cz5 cn b.O a1 ,4. u D p 0 4 v j O O O 5cri tc co �( W r.i \ \ W il Mt ' CI) Cri di V 1_0 I 0 V . c Co I f) 'Cr) OCr)CU p +4 bA Z a) -6'01 V a.) ra EU oco wod s = a IT1 4_, . 0 4.1 Pi Ali o °U C• w v CZ :,� b� cn V .a.+ -� bO � � +� ct '0 O .� � � Cr) A � � Cr) A Es O O O .4- �+ di 00 di 'G •7 CU a) o CA CI) Q, ,� CDCI) tu, ir v CD o o O C o Cl) �c, °�° d+ O C 61) Q U CA Cl) a u � Cl) N O O O U U L N EQP-4 0 o ct czt O CI 4� CD 'II 14 • w Z Uf © �' ~ 71- N U ° P1m1( :I o 0 0 c. '�' o 0 o N 0 4ueu +) Z a) w L) `� N r--i O O •.-+ a..i W � Ct o o U o cl •414 CA � cfi N tj , PO U t U •- 0 c, ., .1 ( 0 •E e• v •' o 'V = CO CO NCO CO LO CO N Q o O d 00 CA N. CO 0 C.) w. ct COcei N CO CO �' U 6F} Ei} EA El4 CU 0al 1.1 ,�.,a _ V ° oo ao co r) cm 0 �' O ilt 4-4 ti o •El r- 0') C6 ri o Fr 4-4o o r" N T' N U CA2• a) v Z 4) cd LEA te c� O N •a O O c- CD Q� � E E .°,.� cc �t r) co O) , p o m (/ •E ° L. Ln CO N C") CA CO CZ 4 al ov� �- 0 4-4 Cl) o o w 0 0 CO ci) 4 a . . c::::, L * a. L. 0 0 'I-. ,CE E E .~ a) a) N o U (�, c� O Can a C N N 00 = >+ .-. o O tf) O tC. E 0>+ o CCU � �() � oar 4� O o Q, o M o0 0 CO o N 4) s� Viz= a Q, `� N p + C +-+ 0 'd ' *"i w a o � � o � c V COE ca N 7j ,) O N �, t6 Et! - N N '� ''i 4� U) M o 4-4 Pmi c 0 o o 0 cc ca CC m >, m >, O L. - O L. .0 '- O QU , OO N I- 3 OO ~ '� 0LL 00U Ct ': ri Ct OD O CLI V t!�- N O �F V ] O O EO = CO CO CD CO M N = Nt r e- Co d O CO r O O f- CO V O r cO O L O r- A. to ( 0) L• O) M M r O CO d M N Co CO M yd to CD `-' 0 co-) r v Et Pm11 FA ESA EA ER Ef3 ER EA En- N O O COO O COC O N Coo) rM CNfl O. NM N ^ ON co coO co CO O ON .— co CO 0 '4 3 _ E r- M CM .0 [f U Ta E N O N M M 4-0 R • Lc) 0) d CO r 4., co . Co CO c- N — M OC) t) N d N C) V _R •- m CD2 69 EA- En- EftE EA EA Efl EA CO O CA Co N? Coco -a in O N Co E O i CO r CO O a- CO d L a O) �f N r O +, co CO CO O �7 E y.. ca �t r N M M O i j, M co ,- to M 2 E j, N co C) CO r- E y tO CO N CO a) Cr) E d N N N C L N `- C L Q. N Q //'1 a v _Ei�J EA EA E!4 EF} a ° `� ER EA EA- EA Cl) 17.. O = L _ d CA EA C a) 0 CS) O O O >+N col j,,- vI� p p 0 SIN CO NI � * p, L O O Q L W d E 72. E W d p a) _a) R 1^I , w N r- R N a- , C N N e- CD 3 .-. p 0 to 6 O Lo CO p ^ O LC) O LO O -a , CD O R 'O �o tc� pT p p M co O a O G Q p M O co O c , O C Cn O Q p .O th N M Q' Q p .O Pmi O E 'O a 0.clq _ 'C Q _ C W Q O EA Ef} O Ef3 EA O W Q 69 EA O E!} Ef} , O R O CO R N N _ __ :.7 0 a) r ^0 • ++ O O 7, O N a) a) N a) N a) /1 CV T. E$ d T. 2 > > Cr) (•j cooVU vU �i-4 m o o E=a ° o WO ° WOO dE O s' O a) N �+ L N 25 �' L QO L� � 3 0O - c� E 3 D E U = J 2aLL Jali C U 1.1.110 Cit X N O `� v V o O � voo o ¢' 44 ,,,X r O am-+ O N W -EA- P 0N O O w O N „ 0 0 i 00 0 CI CO a) 0) U Cl; "I O O O N �', 0 v �, N O '� i,.., "CI O 7t1O N �+ O CD CS • t L. 7t1 +� U 4-+ O U n C\i U 0T° � 31 Al4 a CL al U o 0 Q � . al v 0U 0-4 O otas (t U • ci) ° cu co) U U w 1-4 (1) U U MEMORANDUM DATE: January 6, 2006 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Legislative Items CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Rocky Fluhart, Ed Rutan, Lynn Pace This memorandum contains attached items and two brief synopses of various items involving the 2006 session of the Utah Legislature. The first attachment is a list of bills prepared by the City Attorney's Office. The list is divided into topics and then into bills that have been filed already at the Legislature. The next attachments are three resolutions adopted by the Utah League of Cities & Towns at the League's statewide meeting in September. The resolutions state the League's position on restructuring the state's tax system, redevelopment matters and eliminating the sale of alcoholic beverages to minors. The following items are the legislative priorities of the Wasatch Front Regional Council and the Salt Lake County Council of Governments. WASATCH FRONT REGIONAL COUNCIL The Wasatch Front Regional Council has four priorities for the legislative session, according to Regional Council Public Affairs Director Sam Klemm. • If sales tax on food is repealed, the Regional Council would like municipalities and transit agencies—such at the Utah Transit Authority—held harmless. • The Regional Council would oppose any attempt to cut the one-half cent transit sales tax to a quarter cent and make up the loss by legislative appropriation. It should be noted that sales tax increases for UTA are determined by people voting in a general election within UTA's service area. • The Regional Council supports Governor Jon Huntsman's proposal to appropriate $40 million in on-going revenue and$80 million in one-time revenue for transportation projects. It also supports a proposed $83 million appropriation to finish transportation projects originally identified for funding from the Centennial Highway Fund. • The Regional Council supports a bill sponsored by Orem Rep. Bradley Daw that would allow the Regional Council to continue to use demographic data from the Division of Work Force Services. According to Mr. Klemm the Regional Council uses the data for its population growth model forecasts, but the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics has notified the Division of Work Force Services that the Regional Council does not meet federal 1 standards to use the data. The amendment to Utah law would clear up the issue, Mr. Klemm said. The Regional Council has hired Rob Jolley as a legislative consultant for its issues, he said. SALT LAKE COUNTY COUNCIL OF GOVERMENTS The Salt Lake County Council of Governments has roughly a half-dozen legislative priorities, according to COG Executive Secretary Ed Blaney. • COG opposes any bill that would take away or change the presumption of the authority of municipalities to zone property within their jurisdictions. • COG opposes any bill that would take away the authority of any municipality's residents from choosing the municipality's form of government. • COG supports the provision of adequate resources to operate human services programs. • COG would support a bill that would continue allow the public to seek referenda on issues but that also would require a higher threshold of petition signatures before a referendum could be held. • COG could support a repeal of the sales tax on food—if the repeal would not diminish municipalities' revenue. COG also supports tying property tax increases to the Consumer Price Index. • COG supports increasing funding to build and maintain transportation systems. • COG opposes any bill that would limit any municipality's right to hire professional consultants to petition the federal government on behalf of a municipality. 2 Issues for the 2006 Legislative Session January 6, 2006 Taxes 1. Removal of Sales Tax on Food and Increase in Local Option Tax 2. Single Rate Sales Tax (State-wide or County-wide) 3. Changes to Truth in Taxation Ad Requirements 4. Elimination of 1983 Sales Tax Hold-Harmless Provisions 5. Inflation Adjustment to Property Tax 6. RDA Reform Proposal Water 7. Water Reuse 8. Water Basin Management Plans 9. Changes to Standard for Damages Against Irrigation Companies Transportation 10. Jurisdictional Transfer of Roads 11. Local Funding Participation of Freeway Interchanges 12. Transit System Funding Equalization 13. Acquiring Federal Funds for Transportation Projects Land-Use 14. Impact Fees 15. LUDMA Technical Rewrite 16. Change in Land-Use Presumption Police Issues 17. Concealed and Loaded Firearms in Autos 18. Alcoholic Beverage Amendments - Eliminating Alcohol Sales to Youth 19. Hate Crimes Legislation General Government 20. Tourism Funding (Prohibiting the Use of Tourism Funds for Municipal Recreation Programs) 21. Required City Manger Form of Government 22. GRAMA Taskforce Recommendations 23. Standardizing Building Permits 24. Eminent Domain (Water, RDA's, Prevailing Parties Attorney's Fees) 25. Changes to Workers Compensation Coverage for Firefighters and Drug Task Force Members 26. Changes to Governmental Immunity Limits 27. Funding Mechanisms for Sports Districts and Arts Districts 28. Changes to Open Meetings Law Requirements O O O CD a) a) a) a) a) a) a) C > 0 D D D D (LO i D D D_ (La ` S2 D D P. (1 (`a E QO N 2 d N a y p O p ) Q) a) a) a) a) p p C C C C C C C C C C O C 4- X X X X, X X X X X X C C C c co O (a N O O (a C C O O O (0 O C C O O O O O O O (CO co' (a (a (a (a I N (a CD (a ca N (a (a (a al > > (a (a (a co f2 a) UF- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- JJJJ > C0 > JJ00005UJJ (D00CC W U' 0E- 0E- C C C C i Cl O 0 0 O C O N ‘c-c) C C (n (n — C C E U)a) y o a C O O O a) (a al ca a) -2 -2 O a) co ` a) a >,— — — — co c x a) a) a) m — m a�,i E E o) a) 3 m a) c a) on O ca 2, 3 _ C. O (a 0 U O O O O L O O O 0 0 i ,...(1) _ O _co L ,_a, O (a (a 0 (Da) 0 0 0 (a O c!) < 2 2 2 Z S m m m m 5 U U LL,LL 2 2 D D D D 00 U) 0) F- F- U D 0 U) < < c0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 m a) co c 1 col a U) Fc5 -� a�i c O c u (n (a o a) N c U C E U) o 0 co o o > 3 a) o as E c o is C aa)) , o c Q CD T U C� Q o 'Q� (a o rn� (D c m aci m c`°i c Di cEO D ca O E E c E c (n >ax ac)E ,c E aci N _co u_ c a E O x 0 0 •c c U 0 3 a) (n a) a) E o f >, v H . W E c _ C : 0_ c ca x x Q (n O -a L c E E c) -v }' aci a) c E c) () c a) 0_ cn •(a L C 1 J--r L c 1 o E aa) F-- I-- o ' ac) cca c •= arc) E rn m E o ›' aci E a—�) ate) .0 E E > O E E < C U F- cn• (n a (n x _a g E J O c al (a U E E m Q E o a0i ,_ Q as .� o - n u) O O a) (a O .. L C C C Q O O C c C € O C F- (n O C O O a) w- a) ca (a >, ca < E � c 'c c Q C7 L" a) U c .- J 2 c o a) a) c � � U) = a) E 4- a) : o - a E = = o F- O o Q >,O (o � .0 a) O .ELL > E n.a rn o (n E E ca _ N `) < 2 LL O,2 o N m 1 'C < O "C D Q O W O O C C C o) O C o U O - C .� 5.0 O C C C d ��- cxa a) CD 1 cxa �, .L a O a�i cca o a) a) c`o a) 0 0 0 o a� O > 0 E o 2 �, -o F- E a',F- o O -t ca F- U S a) c J -o U (n E ` E c _ E c .5 -a c U) E C. o o a) E .- c (n Q','(�1 cn •u) a) (n (n m e O .� N c c N c N Li ¢ c O a) co c c) O ca ... y 1_ Q O � 'C N '> U 0 N N C ?� C (a o O co O ca > — = O •-- U)i •- U O O o o '> '� aci c o �- co co :-_ O a) L E L o E E a) E c. E L 0 c) O a) E a- o O - x m Q co m , F- � U w � C� C� � � QUC� � � Qw � wQQSawJ � � OU m r wcnN � � Jacncn,cn 1 c a) N a) Z I cn 4. 0 d 1 , 1 1 �I N c ._ a) a) W m a) a) a) a) a)I a) 2 2, O O $2 a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) as m co (a m c n o can )aa) P. o a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) co N N (n I (n N O co co (a (a co (n cn cn cn cn to cn cn cn (n (a (n (n cn (n (n U) (n (n (n cn (a rMZDDDDDEEEEED = MMM = DMMZcECCEMMMEMMnMnn = MnD O O O O O O O a) a) a) a) a) O O: O O O O O O O O I a) a) a) O O O O O U) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N I 2 2 12 2 ill U) U) U) U) U) I 2 j 2 i 2 1- I I I I 21 U) U)r U) U) U) 2 I 2 U) 2 2 2`2 2 2 2 I I I I I o_ C C 0 0 0 c ao>3 a co °� o 0 cac`nmc`uc`o2Ec`o0222E220- 2Q 2 U) a) a) ma) a) ,_ a) cmmma) a) 0 a) 0 >. a) c c c c c c ;_, c 0 C C C C C (C x C - x x x x x x x x x C x X x a) a) a) a) Cl) a) a) a) 0 a) a) a) a) Cl) 2 Cu a) .— Cu Cu Cu cc) Cu co Cu co Cu a) as Cu as 00 0 0 0 CD201.110 0000 HH0 H5HHF- F- H1- HHH0 I- HH CCCC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a) N N -0 - 0 V) ,_ - - - v C C C C C a) >, > 0 033o0 � a) �UCUCu ) a) o aa)) cua) a) a) U =-0 N `��° > CV aa) c a) m co" Q E �c C m o o Q a O O 0 O = Cu _c N . — > a) a) = = c .0 ca N 0 0 0 0 0 a) ,= O .0 4? 4? 22222ccU) D > > w222YYH5 < QIIziZ 2U) U) U) U) a) -0 c >, >, O >,t a) t o c O a c -- -Oa. E °a. o 0 E a d 0 U o N > �a c IX EC o o) c o O o cu) Ls 0 ~ UO) Y > o_ 2 0 U O CuP. 0 0 c 0ii °) a E ` cXoaH a•° 0 c cCo c d c a wu0i H C 0 ° ° aa)) Tv g)o . U o C o U X c C o v o w E c rn ma' a) Q c cv a) O Z a) t a)) x es_ C aci a Cl) = cco w E E v, H H a) U C w m CD a) = >,•— () ,- = '� 0) 0 � m .� 0) L a) C C 0) xmtOH 0) ow c c 0 L 4 g 8 .0 C s 0 E E CD Cr)o o -• as aa)) c .� o O E I C E E '`-• o rn c) ai ca .c C .- D o- m Q H E m O '- 0Z' EaOi ° o � pac) Ems° °) °) I � Orno ° coat '- •- = E a) CD U 6 as E al ' E v) it °) Q — Q Q 0es c �_ a o '- a) U) •C c a) E S U s C Q f 0 O c -0 m1- 0 coE° N • U c U aa)i O >O a) 2 W o m Q a) a) E a) o c .o — rn o = c x co a) a) E 0 0 4) m O >, E Li 0 O N (0 _p a) o N a) c 2 .O w 0 �' E N C i U) U) O +' > O >' = -0 c U) Q c6 7 X ct X J X •- N 0 X 0 to Eca) a) 0a) (i) 00 a) a- O . .o > QL_ 0 - ca co cu c Cco _ � Q o U 0 o_ o U m Q H H o H o ff (Do- C C o _0 -o to Q U) C E E U) cn C C C N Q >, Q) >,;- >,Q >, t O N >, C C ">, a) 2 0 Y O O n 0 C o 2 '0 s 2 3 (`6 r 0 N 7 N 0 i) 7 .N a) to to n > Q 0 "0 - O 0)-0a) U - O Q 0 C Q Q N Q.V Q O a) O 0 IX 0 E .o ' o a) o fl.. N N = 0 .0) (9 '5. LO a) O` a) O z N •� 2 To ca - U' a5QQ5wra0W W < < 2z —) dwaccCZ2wn.. p_ U) U) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) (i) a) a) a) Cl) a) a) a) 4? o (D 4? a) Q) U) U) U) U) U) U) Cl) U) U) U) Cu a) CU al CO cU (U (U (I) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) Cu Cu Cu (U as (U = 7 = = = 3 = 0 = 0 C C C C C C c C 0 7 7 7 7 0 7 7 c c c c c c 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O a) Cl) Cl) O U) Cl) O U) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) N U) U) U a) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 U) U) U) CO U) U) U) U) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 U) U) U) U) U) U) Resolution: 2005-001 2005 Utah League of Cities and Towns Resolution—2006 Tax Reform Package Resolution submitted by the ULCT Tax Team in support of legislation implementing the Utah League of Cities and Towns 2006 Tax Reform Package We,the members of the Utah League of Cities and Towns, find the following: ➢ The municipal tax structure should be rooted in the principles of fairness, consistency, predictability, stability, sustainability, efficiency,flexibility, and effectiveness. ➢ A one-size tax structure does not fit all municipal situations. ➢ Portions of the current tax structure are obsolete and no longer represent the current economy. ➢ As demographics and economics change municipal services must reflect those changes. ➢ Municipalities'dependence on sales tax revenue creates a situation where day to day needs cannot be met when this revenue decreases unless other services or revenue sources are adjusted. The purpose of the 2006 Tax Reform Package is to bring additional fairness, consistency and sustainability to the municipal revenue sources that are used to provide the services that citizens have come to expect from their local governments. The 2006 Tax Reform Package will: (1)Maintain the current 50/50 distribution formula for the municipal sales tax. (2)Convert the current 1983 local options sales tax hold-harmless from one of an on-going formula to a dollar-figure based on the most recent budget year,where the hold-harmless is phased out naturally. (3)Amend Truth-in-Taxation to allow for a CPI adjustment without going through that process. (4)Amend Truth-In-Taxation to make the newspaper ad more informative and less inflammatory. Now,therefore, be it resolved that we,the members of the Utah League of Cities and Towns, recommend the following: Support the 2006 ULCT Tax Reform package as proposed by the ULCT Tax Team and as outlined in the attached document(See attachment). Resolution: 2005-002 2005 Utah League of Cities and Towns Resolution—Community Development and Renewal Act Concepts Resolution submitted by the ULCT Tax Team and ULCT RDA Subcommittee in support of legislation implementing the Utah Community Development and Renewal Act concepts . We,the members of the Utah League of Cities and Towns, find the following: ➢ Economic development takes collaboration from all levels of government(state, city, county, school, service districts)—Together We Make It Happen!! ➢ Economic development to the State equals "value-added"jobs, and we must craft tools that will assist in achieving Utah's economic development goals. ➢ Community Development is more than "value-added"jobs, we must also craft tools that will assist in our community development goals. ➢ There is a distinction between development and redevelopment, and those two activities must be treated differently. ➢ Quality of Life and Good Infrastructure are crucial in the economic development equation. The purpose of the Community Development and Renewal Act is to align the economic development goals of local government with the economic development goals of the state, effectively address the existence of blight in Utah's communities,and provide community development tools for general municipal development. The Community Development and Renewal Act would: (1)Provide tax increment financing for economic development,redevelopment and community development projects with defined standards,in each situation, as to how tax increment is attained and used. (2)Provide tools under the redevelopment concept for the assemblage of properties in order to remove blight and redevelop the area. (3)Redefine the statutory definition of blight to limit the current use of RDA's to areas where physical blight is present. (4)Implement a"necessary and appropriate"analysis to any EDA or RDA project to ensure that tax increment financing is being use only in situations where without tax assistance the project would not occur. (5)Create a"Community Development"tool to allow municipalities to utilize the municipal portion of the sales and property tax as deemed appropriate by that municipality's governing body and allow for tax increment financing on an"opt-in"basis. Now,therefore, be it resolved that we,the members of the Utah League of Cities and Towns,recommend the following: Support legislation proposed by the ULCT Tax Team and ULCT RDA Subcommittee to implement the Community Development and Renewal Act concepts as outlined in the attached document(See attachment). Resolution 2005-003 2005 Utah League of Cities and Towns Resolutions—Eliminate Alcohol Sales to Youth Program Resolution submitted by the Salt Lake Valley Conference of Mayors in support of legislation implementing a statewide E.A.S.Y. (Eliminate Alcohol Sales to Youth) Program. We, the members of the Utah League of Cities and Towns, find the following: -New research shows alcohol affects a teen brain differently than a mature adult brain. Yet few parents or youth realize that alcohol can damage and interfere with critical brain development during teen years - development that is critical to becoming a mature,thoughtful, responsible adult. -The American Medical Association advises that"damage from alcohol at this time can be long term and irreversible. -Research also shows that 40%of those who start drinking before the age of 15 will become alcohol dependent. Unfortunately, research also shows that the average age a person takes their first drink in Utah is 12.3 years old, with many starting younger. - Cedar City, Springville City, and Utah County adopted similar programs and found dramatic improvements in the first year of the program. The purpose of the E.A.S.Y. program is to limit youth access to alcohol at grocery and convenience stores by: (1) Requiring mandatory and standardized retailer employee training; (2)Providing funds to local law enforcement to conduct alcohol compliance checks; and (3)Providing standardized administrative penalties for sales to minors (current criminal penalties would not be affected). Now, therefore, be it resolved that we, the members of the Utah League of Cities and Towns, recommend the following: Support legislation proposed by the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to implement a statewide E.A.S.Y. (Eliminate Alcohol Sales to Youth)Program (see attached). MEMORANDUM DATE: December 28, 2005 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Proposed Ordinance Amending and Updating Regulations Pertaining to the Operation of Bicycles CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart, Louis Zunguze, Tim Harpst, Ed Rutan, Gary Mumford,Larry Spendlove, Dan Bergenthal This memorandum pertains to proposed amendments to sections of City Code Chapter 12 that pertain to the operation of bicycles in Salt Lake City. The Administration is scheduled to brief the City Council on January 3. The Administration transmittal letter recommended that the City Council hold a public hearing on the proposed amendments, However,it has since been determined that no public hearing is necessary. Given that,the City Council could forward the proposed amendments for formal consideration on any future agenda. OPTIONS • Adopt the proposed amendments. • Do not adopt the proposed amendments. MOTIONS • I move that the City Council adopt the ordinance amending, repealing and enacting sections of City Code Chapter 12 pertaining to the operation of bicycles. • I move that the City Council consider the next item on the agenda. KEY POINTS • Most of the proposed amendments either are designed to mirror Utah laws regulating bicycles or are format changes to make the current ordinances read better. • According to the Administration's transmittal, the proposed amendments would change two ordinances that are stricter than state law so the two codes would match. 1. One amendment to Section 12.44.080 would allow cyclists to ride on the shoulders of limited access roadways such as freeways"except where prohibited by federal or state law or regulation or by an official sign giving notice of such restrictions. As a practical matter,the proposed amendment would allow cyclists to ride on the right-hand shoulders of Interstate 80 west of 5600 West Street 1 within the Salt Lake City limit. Utah Department of Transportation policies allow cyclists to ride there, and a UDOT map identifies the location as a place to ride. 2. The other amendment would allow people to ride bicycles on sidewalks even if there is a bicycle lane available on a roadway. It might be noted that the current and proposed ordinances allow bicycle riders to ride on sidewalks throughout the City except in the"Central Traffic District."The district is defined as the area roughly bordered by North Temple, 200 East, 500 South and 400 West streets. • The proposed amendments are designed to meet the goal of streamlining the application of City ordinances pertaining to bicycles and pedestrians recommended by the Salt Lake City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The proposed amendments largely are designed to bring City Code into conformance with Utah laws regulating the operation of bicycles and to make the City Code sections easier to read. It should be noted that the Administration transmittal letter indicated that Section 12.44.080 described in the Key Points section would allow cyclists to ride on the right-hand shoulders of Interstate 80 in Parley's Canyon.The Administration has since indicated that the proposed amendment would affect only bicycle riders in Salt Lake City on I-80 west of 5600 West Street. UDOT policies appear to allow bicycle riders to ride on the right-hand shoulders of I-80 in Parley's Canyon as well as west of 5600 West Street, but the part of Parley's Canyon open to cyclists is outside the Salt Lake City limits. The Salt Lake City Attorney's Office indicates that because UDOT policies appear to allow bicycle riders to use the right-hand shoulders of I-80 west of 5600 West Street adopting an ordinance allowing the same thing probably does not pose a liability risk to the City. 2 A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE ..� '. ��\�M r COM ISE ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR COUNCIL TRANSMIT AL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer ! • E: October 26, 2005 FROM: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Dire,tor r RE: Salt Lake City Bicycle Ordinances Updates STAFF CONTACT: Dan Bergenthal,Transportation Engineer, at 535-6630 or dan.bergenthal@slcgov.com Tim Harpst, Transportation Director, at 535-6630 or tim.harpst@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council schedule a briefing and hold a public hearing DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: Section 12.44.080 Limited Access Roadways— Use Restrictions and Section • 12.80.070(A)(8)Riding Rules and Regulations— Unlawful Acts of the City Code relating to bicycles are in need of updates to maintain consistency with State Code. Updating these Sections is in keeping with the recently adopted Salt Lake City Bicycle& Pedestrian Master Plan Section 7.10,page 39,which states "Salt Lake City may have ordinances and code language affecting bicycle and pedestrian facilities and circulation that are no longer applicable and may be considered anachronistic. Determining these and either amending or deleting such references will serve to streamline application of codes. " Analysis: Besides modifying current language in the City Code to create consistency with the State Code, Staff proposes two new rule changes to the City Code that will bring it into harmony with best practices. The two rules are exclusive to the City and are stricter than the rules currently found in State Code. The proposed changes are as follows: City Code Section 12.44.080 Limited Access Roadways - Use Restrictions: Currently, City Code does not allow bicyclists to ride on any limited-access roadways within the City. The proposed change reflects State/UDOT policy to allow bicycles to use the shoulders of limited- access roadways except where prohibited by Federal or State law or regulation or by official signs giving notice of such restrictions. The restrictions generally occur in high population areas where there are reasonable alternative routes. UDOT has posted a map on the Internet showing 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 641 1 1 TELEPHONE: 601-535-7105 FAX: H01-535-6005 WWW.SLOGOV.COM RECYCLED PAPER bicycle restrictions on limited access highways in Utah at: http://www.udot.utah.gov/download.php/tid=275BikeSuitabilityMap.pdf. According to the map, within Salt Lake City bicyclists may ride on the shoulders of I-80 west of 5600 West and within Parley's Canyon. City Code Section 12.80.070(A)(8)Riding Rules and Regulations— Unlawful Acts: This Section restricts bicycles from using sidewalks or automobile travel lanes at locations with bicycle lanes. Transportation Staff recommends this wording be removed since City Code 12.80.070(A) and State Code 41-6a-1105(1) already require bicyclists to ride as near as practicable to the right- hand edge of all roadways except when: (a) overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction; (b) preparing to make a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway; (c) traveling straight through an intersection that has a right-turn only lane that is in conflict with the straight through movement; or (d) reasonably necessary to avoid conditions that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand edge of the roadway including: (i) fixed or moving objects; (ii) parked or moving vehicles; (iii) bicycles; (iv) pedestrians; (v) animals; (vi) surface hazards; or (vii) a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane. The wording removal will also allow bicyclists (including young children)to ride their bicycles on sidewalks along roadways with bike lanes. Public Process: The Transportation Advisory Board discussed the proposed code revisions at their meetings on May 5 and August 4, 2003, at which time they endorsed the proposed changes. The Mayor's Bicycle Advisory Committee(MBAC) discussed the proposed code revisions in their monthly meetings over the past two years. At the October 12, 2005, meeting the MBAC finalized their discussion and endorsed the proposed code revisions. Relevant Ordinance: Various—Attachment 1 provides the Legislative Version of the proposed ordinance, which indicates text deletions, additions, and modifications. Attachment 2 provides a clean copy of the proposed final ordinance. Bicycle Ordinance Updates Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT 1 Legislative Version of Ordinance Identifying Changes Lo tsz4 r/ KE CITY ORDINANCE of 2005 Vasiod (Bicycles) ruvrl✓NDING SECTION 12.04.050, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO DEFINITION OF "BICYCLE;" AMENDING SECTION 12.04.610, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO DEFINITION OF "VEHICLE;" ENACTING SECTION 12.28.095, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO LIGHTS AND ILLUMINATING DEVICES; AMENDING SECTION 12.36.010, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO SPEED AND OPERATION TO CONFORM TO EXISTING CONDITIONS; AMENDING SECTION 12.44.080, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO LIMITED ACCESS ROADWAYS; AMENDING SECTION 12.48.040, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO EMERGING FROM OR ENTERING ALLEYS OR DRIVEWAYS; AMENDING SECTION 12.52.100, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO OPENING VEHICLE DOORS IN TRAFFIC; AMENDING SECTION 12.52.140, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO BICYCLE LANES AND VEHICLE RESTRICTIONS; ENACTING SECTION 12.52.145, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE NEAR BICYCLE; AND ENACTING, AMENDING AND REPEALING SPECIFIED SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 12.80, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO BICYCLES. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 12.04.050, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to definition of"bicycle"be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 1 12.04.050 Bicycle: "Bicycle" means every device: (i)propelled by human power; (ii) upon which a person may ride; and (iii) having two tandem wheels. "Bicycle" does not include scooters and similar devices.every device „e"od by hu,ran p "ich person may ride, having two (2) tandem wheels either of which is over twenty inches equipped with more than one front or rear wheel. SECTION 2. That Section 12.04.610,Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to definition of"vehicle"be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 12.04.610 Vehicle: "Vehicle" means every device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, except devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. SECTION 3. That Section 12.28.095,Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to lights and illuminating devices be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 12.28.095 Lights and illuminating devices--Duty to display -- Time. A. The operator of a vehicle shall turn on the lamps or lights of the vehicle on a roadway at any time from a half hour after sunset to a half hour before sunrise and at any other time when, due to insufficient light or unfavorable atmospheric conditions,persons and vehicles on the roadway are not clearly discernible at a distance of 1,000 feet ahead subject to the exceptions for parked vehicles under Section 12.56.090. B. Whenever a requirement is made as to distance from which certain lamps and devices shall render objects visible or within which the lamps or devices shall be visible, the provisions apply during the times specified under Subsection(A) for a vehicle without load on a straight, level,unlighted roadway under normal atmospheric conditions, unless a different time or condition is expressly stated. C. Whenever a requirement is made as to the mounted height of lamps or devices it shall mean from the center of the lamp or device to the level ground upon which the vehicle stands when the vehicle is without a load. 2 SECTION 4. That Section 12.36.010,Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to speed and operation to conform to existing conditions be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 12.36.010 Speed And Operation To Conform To Existing Conditions: Every person driving a vehicle or riding a bicycle on a street or alley shall operate the same at a speed and in a manner which is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing, and every driver of a vehicle, in compliance with legal requirements and the duty to use due care, shall use every reasonable means to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vehicle or other object. SECTION 5. That Section 12.44.080,Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to limited access roadways be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 12.44.080 Limited Access Roadways -Use Restrictions: No pedestrian, bicycle or other nonmotorized traffic, excluding bicyclists, shall use any limited access roadway except for the sole purpose of crossing the same in the shortest and most direct route, and then only at designated crossings, and such traffic shall yield the right of way to any motorized traffic proceeding upon the limited access roadway. Bicyclists may use the right shoulder of limited access highways except where prohibited by federal or state law or regulation or by an official sign giving notice of such restrictions.No driver shall stop a vehicle on any limited access roadway for the purpose of taking on or discharging any passenger. SECTION 6. That Section 12.48.040,Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to emerging from or entering alleys or driveways be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 12.48.040 Sidewalks -Driving Prohibited—Exceptions - Emerging From Or Entering Alleys Or Driveways: A. area except at a permanent or temporary private driveway. Except for a bicycle or device propelled by human power, a person may not operate a vehicle on a sidewalk or sidewalk area. The provisions of this subsection do not apply on a driveway. B. The driver of a vehicle or rider of a bicycle emerging from an alley,private driveway, building or other place shall stop such vehicle or bicycle immediately prior to driving onto a sidewalk or onto the sidewalk area extending across any alley or private 3 driveway, yielding the right of way to any pedestrian or bicycle within or about to enter such sidewalk or sidewalk area as may be necessary to avoid collision and, upon entering the roadway, shall yield the right of way to all vehicles approaching on said roadway. C. The driver of a vehicle or rider of a bicycle entering an alley or private driveway shall yield the right of way to any pedestrian or bicycle within the sidewalk area extending across such alley, or private driveway. D. The driver of a vehicle or rider of a bicycle emerging from an alley or private driveway onto a roadway shall turn such vehicle only to the right, unless a different movement can be made in safety and without interfering with other traffic. SECTION 7. That Section 12.52.100,Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to opening vehicle doors in traffic be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 12.52.100 Opening Vehicle Doors In Traffic: A. No person shall open the door of or enter or emerge from any vehicle in the path of any approaching vehicle or bicycle. A person may not open the door of any vehicle on a side available to moving traffic or emerge from any vehicle unless it can be done safely and without interfering with the movement of other traffic. B. A person may not leave a door open on a side of a vehicle available to moving traffic for a period of time longer than necessary to load or unload passengers. CB. No person shall open any vehicle door at any time when such vehicle is in motion. SECTION 8. That Section 12.52.140, Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to bicycle lanes and vehicle restrictions be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 12.52.140 Bicycle Lanes - Vehicle Restrictions: No motor vehicle shall at any time be driven within or through, or parked or stopped within a marked bicycle lane, except to briefly cross such lane to turn into an intersection, street, alley, driveway or other parking area. Any vehicle so turning must yield the right of way to all bicycles within the lane that are close enough to constitute an immediate hazard. No motor vehicle may use a bicycle lane as a turning lane. On all roads with no bicycle lane,operators of bicycles have the same rights, duties and responsibilities as operators of motor vehicles. SECTION 9. That Section 12.52.145,Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to operation of motor vehicle near bicycle be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 12.52.145 Operation of motor vehicle near bicycle prohibited 4 An operator of a motor vehicle may not knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly operate a motor vehicle within three feet of a moving bicycle, unless the operator of the motor vehicle operates the motor vehicle within a reasonable and safe distance of the bicycle. SECTION 10. That Section 12.80.035, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to bicycle inspections be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 12.80.035 Bicycle inspections -- At request of officer. A peace officer may at any time require a person riding a bicycle to stop and submit the bicycle to an inspection and a test as appropriate if the officer has reasonable cause to believe that: (1) the bicycle is unsafe or not equipped as required by law: or (2) the bicycle's equipment is not in proper adjustment or repair. SECTION 11 That Section 12.80.040, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to bicycle riders subject to traffic regulations be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 12.80.040 ' • • Bicycle and device propelled by human power subject to title-- Exception.: • A. > this title,or its successor, applicable to the driver of a motor vehicle, Except as provided under Subsection (B) or as otherwise specified under this part, a person operating a bicycle or a vehicle or device propelled by human power has all the rights and is subject to the provisions of this title applicable to the operator of any other vehicle except as to special regulations of this code or those provisions which by their nature can have no application. B. A person operating a bicycle or a vehicle or device propelled by human power is not subject to the penalties related to operator licenses under alcohol and drug-related traffic offenses. SECTION 12. That Section 12.80.060, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to brakes, lights and other equipment be, and the same hereby is, repealed. • and to stop and hold such bicycle. B.Every bicycle in use at the times described in section 41 6 118, Utah Code Annotated, 1953, as amended, or its successor, shall be equipped with a lamp on the front emitting a white light visible from a distance of at least five hundred feet (500') to the front, and with a red reflector of a type approved by the department which shall be visible headlamps e otor vehicle C.Every bicycle, when in use at the times described in section 41 6 118 of the Utah Code annotated, ,953, as amended, or its successor, shall be equipped with reflective material of sufficient size and reflectivity to be visible from both sides for five vehicle, or, in lieu of such reflective material, with a lighted lamp visible from both sides from a distance of at least five hundred feet(500'). D.A bicycle or its rider may be equipped with lights or reflectors in addition to tl„>s„r red by subsection „ ! f o L B 7 th' d , SECTION 13. That Section 12.80.061, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to prohibited equipment and requirement of brakes on bicycles be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 12.80.061 Bicycle-- Prohibited equipment-- Brakes required. A. A bicycle may not be equipped with, and a person may not use on a bicycle, a siren or whistle. B. Every bicycle shall be equipped with a brake or brakes which enable its driver to stop the bicycle within 25 feet from a speed of ten miles per hour on dry, level, clean pavement. SECTION 14. That Section 12.80.065,Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to bicycle lamps and reflective material required be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 12.80.065 Bicycles -- Lamps and reflective material required. A. Every bicycle in use at the times described in Section 12.28.095 shall be equipped with a: 1. Lamp of a type approved by the Utah Department of Public Safety which is on the front emitting a white light visible from a distance of at least 500 feet to the front; and 6 2. a. Red reflector of a type approved by the Utah Department of Public Safety which is visible for 500 feet to the rear when directly in front of lawful lower beams of head lamps on a motor vehicle; or b. Red taillight designed for use on a bicycle and emitting flashing or nonflashing light visible from a distance of 500 feet to the rear. B. Every bicycle when in use at the times described in Section 12.28.095 shall be equipped with: 1. Reflective material of sufficient size and reflectivity to be visible from both sides for 500 feet when directly in front of lawful lower beams of head lamps on a motor vehicle; or 2. In lieu of reflective material, a lighted lamp visible from both sides from a distance of at least 500 feet. C. A bicycle or its rider may be equipped with lights or reflectors in addition to those required by Subsections (1) and (2). SECTION 15. That Section 12.80.070,Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to riding rules and regulations be, and the same hereby is, repealed. 12.80.070 Riding R„les Anil R„gulations-Unlawf,1 n„ts. A.It is unlawful for operators of bicycles: 1. When riding upon a sidewalk to fail to yield the right of way to pedestrians and sound a warning device before overtaking or passing any pedestrian; 2. To ride more than two (2) abreast upon any street; 3. To proceed other than single file upon any sidewalk; 1. To carry extra passengers or carry any packages, bundles or articles which would require the removal of the hand or hands from the handlebars of the bicycle; To p rmit the bicycle ch er t r ; riding t„ be towed by another vehicle or bicycle; 6. To ride any bicycle upon any sidewalk within the "central traffic district", as defined in section 12.04.090 of this title, or its successor, and as described in schedule 1 of this title, set out in chapter 12.101 of this title, or its successor, and made a part hereof by reference, er en any-ether a „here prohibited by „s, r ide,d, however the 7. To carry more persons at a time than the number for which the bicycle is designed to carry on seats firmly attached thereto; S. When riding upon a roadway marked with a bicycle lane to ride upon the sidewalk or any portion of the roadway outside the marked bicycle lane except when making a left turn. B.A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as n ar as practicable to the right hand edge of the roadway except when: 1. Overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction, 2. Preparing to make a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway, 3. Traveling straight through an intersection that has a right turn only lane that is in conflict with, the straight through m nt 7 , 1.icy to and . chicle tom. Irayel s fly side by side . ithin the lane, or way traffic and which has two (2) o. arked traffic lanes_ in which case such person may ride as near to the left side of the left through lane as is safe. of traffic. SECTION 16. That Section 12.80.075, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to carrying more persons than design permits be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 12.80.075 Carrying more persons than design permits prohibited-- Exception. A. Except as provided in Subsection B, a bicycle may not be used to carry more persons at one time than the number for which it is designed or equipped. B. An adult rider may carry a child securely attached to the adult rider's person in a back pack or sling. SECTION 17. That Section 12.80.085,Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to persons on bicycles, skates and sleds not to attach to moving vehicles be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 12.80.085 Persons on bicycles, skates and sleds not to attach to moving vehicles -- Exception. (1) A person riding a bicycle, coaster, skateboard, roller skates, sled, or toy vehicle may not attach it or a person to any moving vehicle on a roadway. (2) This section does not prohibit attaching a trailer or semitrailer to a bicycle if that trailer or semitrailer has been designed for attachment. SECTION 18. That Section 12.80.095, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to operation of bicycles on and use of roadway be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 12.80.095 Operation of bicycle on and use of roadway--Duties, prohibitions. A. A person operating a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as near as practicable to the right-hand edge of the roadway except when: 8 1. overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction; 2. preparing to make a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway; 3. traveling straight through an intersection that has a right-turn only lane that is in conflict with the straight through movement; or 4. reasonably necessary to avoid conditions that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand edge of the roadway including: a. fixed or moving objects; b. parked or moving vehicles; c. bicycles; d. pedestrians; e. animals; f. surface hazards; or g. a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane. B. A person operating a bicycle on a roadway shall operate in the designated direction of traffic. C. 1. A person riding a bicycle on a roadway may not ride more than two abreast with another person except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. 2. If allowed under Subsection C(1), a person riding two abreast with another person may not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and shall ride within a single lane. D. If a usable path for bicycles has been provided adjacent to a roadway, a bicycle rider may be directed by a traffic-control device to use the path and not the roadway SECTION 19. That Section 12.80.105, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to bicycles and human powered vehicles to yield right-of-way be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 12.80.105 Bicycles and human powered vehicle or device to yield right-of-way to pedestrians on sidewalks, paths, or trails -- Uses prohibited -- Negligent collision prohibited -- Speed restrictions -- Rights and duties same as pedestrians. A. A person operating a bicycle or a vehicle or device propelled by human power shall: 1. Yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian; and 2. Give an audible signal before overtaking and passing a pedestrian. B. A person may not operate a bicycle or a vehicle or device propelled by human power on a sidewalk, path, or trail, or across a roadway in a crosswalk, where prohibited by a traffic-control device or ordinance. C. A person may not operate a bicycle or a vehicle or device propelled by human power in a negligent manner so as to collide with a: 9 1. Pedestrian; or 2. Person operating a: a. Bicycle; or b. Vehicle or device propelled by human power. D. A person operating a bicycle or a vehicle or device propelled by human power on a sidewalk,path, or trail, or across a driveway, or across a roadway on a crosswalk may not operate at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions, giving regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing. E. Except as provided under Subsections A and D, a person operating a bicycle or a vehicle or device propelled by human power on a sidewalk, path, or trail, or across a roadway on a crosswalk, has all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances. F. A person operating a bicycle or a vehicle or device propelled by human power on a sidewalk shall proceed only in single file. SECTION 20. That Section 12.80.110, Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to bicycles —carrying bundles be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 12.80.110 Bicycles - Carrying bundle -- One hand on handlebars. A. A person operating a bicycle may not carry any package, bundle, or article which prevents the use of both hands in the control and operation of the bicycle. B. A person operating a bicycle shall keep at least one hand on the handlebars at all times. SECTION 21 That Section 12.80.120, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to bicycles parking on sidewalk or roadway be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 12.80.120 Bicycles -- Parking on sidewalk, roadway--Prohibitions. A. A person may park a bicycle on a sidewalk unless prohibited or restricted by a traffic-control device. B. A bicycle parked on a sidewalk may not impede the normal and reasonable movement of pedestrian or other traffic. C. A bicycle may be parked on the roadway at any location where parking is allowed: 1. At any angle to the curb or edge of the roadway; and 2. Abreast of another bicycle or bicycles near the side of the roadway. D. A bicycle may not be parked on a roadway in a manner as to obstruct the movement of a legally parked motor vehicle. E. In all other respects, bicycles parked anywhere on a roadway shall conform with the provisions of Chapter 12.56, regarding the parking of vehicles. 10 SECTION 22. That Section 12.80.130, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to bicycles, turns and designated lanes be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 12.80.130 Bicycles -- Turns -- Designated lanes. A. A person riding a bicycle and intending to turn left shall comply with Section 12.44.120 or Subsection B. B. 1. A person riding a bicycle intending to turn left shall approach the turn as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway. 2. After proceeding across the intersecting roadway, to the far corner of the curb or intersection of the roadway edges, the bicyclist shall stop, as far out of the way of traffic as practical. 3. After stopping, the bicyclist shall yield to any traffic proceeding in either direction along the roadway he had been using. 4. After yielding and complying with any traffic-control device or peace officer regulating traffic, the bicyclist may proceed in the new direction. C. 1. Notwithstanding Subsections A and B, the city transportation engineer may place traffic-control devices that require and direct turning bicyclists to travel a specific course. 2. When the devices are placed under Subsection C(l), a person may not turn a bicycle other than as directed by the devices. SECTION 23. That Section 12.80.140, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to bicycle turn signals be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 12.80.140 Bicycles -- Turn signals -- Exceptions. A. Except as provided in this section, a person riding a bicycle shall comply with Section 12.44.140 regarding turn signals and turning. B. A person is not required to signal by hand and arm continuously if the hand is needed in the control or operation of the bicycle. C. A person operating a bicycle who is stopped in a lane designated for turning traffic only is not required to signal prior to making the turning movement. D. A person operating a bicycle may give the required hand and arm signal for a right turn by extending the right hand and arm horizontally to the right. SECTION 24. That Section 12.80.150, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to operation of bicycle on one-way roadway be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 11 12.80.150 Operation of bicycle on one-way roadway On a roadway, other than a limited access highway, designed and signposted for one-way traffic and which has two (2) or more marked traffic lanes, a person operating a bicycle may ride as near to the left side of the left through lane as is safe. SECTION 25. That Section 12.80.160, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to central traffic district bicycle riding restriction be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 12.80.160 Central Traffic District bicycle ridini restriction It is unlawful for operators of bicycles to ride any bicycle upon any sidewalk within the "central traffic district", as defined in section 12.04.090 of this title, or its successor, and as described in schedule 1 of this title, set out in chapter 12.104 of this title, or its successor, and made a part hereof by reference, or on any other area where prohibited by signs, provided, however, the foregoing shall not apply to police officers in the scope and course of their employment; SECTION 26. That Section 12.80.170, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to bicycle racing be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 12.80.170 Bicycle racing-- When approved-- Prohibitions --Exceptions -- Authorized exemptions from traffic laws. A. Bicycle racing on roadways is prohibited under Section 12.36.040, except as authorized in this section. B. 1. Bicycle racing on a roadway is permitted when a racing event is approved by the city transportation engineer on a roadway under its jurisdiction. 2. Approval of bicycle roadway racing events may be granted only under conditions: a. Which assure reasonable safety for all race participants, spectators, and other roadway users; and b. Which prevent unreasonable interference with traffic flow which would seriously inconvenience other roadway users. C. Participants in an approved bicycle roadway racing event may be exempted from compliance with any traffic laws otherwise applicable: 1. By agreement with the city; and 2. If traffic control is adequate to assure the safety of all roadway users. 12 SECTION 27. That Section 12.80.080, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to alteration of license or frame number be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 12.80.1080 Alteration Of License Or Frame Number Prohibited: No person shall wilfully or maliciously destroy, mutilate or alter the number of any bicycle frame number, any bicycle license issued pursuant to this code or remove, destroy or mutilate any license decal while the same is valid, or operate any vehicle without having attached thereto a valid license decal issued as provided in this code. SECTION 28. That Section 12.80.090, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to bicycle license suspension or revocation be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 112.80.1090 License- Suspension Or Revocation When - Impoundment: A._The city judges or judges of juvenile courts who hear traffic cases are hereby empowered to revoke or suspend the license of any bicycle when it appears that the owner of any bicycle is not the licensee of record, or that the owner of the bicycle or the licensee thereof has used or knowingly permitted the bicycle to be used in violation of this code. B._The police department is hereby directed and authorized to impound any bicycle so used in violation of this code for a reasonable period of time pending investigation of any alleged violation of this code, or until such bicycle is registered and licensed by the owner thereof and equipped as herein provided. SECTION 29. That Section 12.80.100, Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to bicycle violations and penalties be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 112.80.2100 Violation - Penalty: An operator of a bicycle who violates any of the provisions of this chapter shall be punished as an infraction in accordance with subsection 12.12.010B of this title, or its successor. SECTION 30. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of , 2005. 13 CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2005. Published: 1:\Ordinance 05\Amending Chapter 12.80 et al re Bicycles 10-10-05 draft 14 ATTACHMENT 2 Clean Version of Proposed Ordinance with All Changes Incorporated SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1` No. of 2005 Val -St&Ai (Bicycles) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 12.04.050, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO DEFINITION OF "BICYCLE;" AMENDING SECTION 12.04.610, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO DEFINITION OF "VEHICLE;" ENACTING SECTION 12.28.095, SALT LAKE CITY CODE,RELATING TO LIGHTS AND ILLUMINATING DEVICES; AMENDING SECTION 12.36.010, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO SPEED AND OPERATION TO CONFORM TO EXISTING CONDITIONS; AMENDING SECTION 12.44.080, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO LIMITED ACCESS ROADWAYS; AMENDING SECTION 12.48.040, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO EMERGING FROM OR ENTERING ALLEYS OR DRIVEWAYS; AMENDING SECTION 12.52.100, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO OPENING VEHICLE DOORS IN TRAFFIC; AMENDING SECTION 12.52.140, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO BICYCLE LANES AND VEHICLE RESTRICTIONS; ENACTING SECTION 12.52.145, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE NEAR BICYCLE; AND ENACTING, AMENDING AND REPEALING SPECIFIED SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 12.80, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO BICYCLES. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 12.04.050, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to definition of"bicycle"be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 1 12.04.050 Bicycle: "Bicycle" means every device: (i) propelled by human power; (ii) upon which a person may ride; and (iii) having two tandem wheels. "Bicycle" does not include scooters and similar devices. SECTION 2. That Section 12.04.610, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to definition of"vehicle" be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 12.04.610 Vehicle: "Vehicle" means every device in, on or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, except devices used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks. SECTION 3. That Section 12.28.095, Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to lights and illuminating devices be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 12.28.095 Lights and illuminating devices -- Duty to display-- Time. A. The operator of a vehicle shall turn on the lamps or lights of the vehicle on a roadway at any time from a half hour after sunset to a half hour before sunrise and at any other time when, due to insufficient light or unfavorable atmospheric conditions, persons and vehicles on the roadway are not clearly discernible at a distance of 1,000 feet ahead subject to the exceptions for parked vehicles under Section 12.56.090. B. Whenever a requirement is made as to distance from which certain lamps and devices shall render objects visible or within which the lamps or devices shall be visible, the provisions apply during the times specified under Subsection (A) for a vehicle without load on a straight, level, unlighted roadway under normal atmospheric conditions, unless a different time or condition is expressly stated. C. Whenever a requirement is made as to the mounted height of lamps or devices it shall mean from the center of the lamp or device to the level ground upon which the vehicle stands when the vehicle is without a load. SECTION 4. That Section 12.36.010, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to speed and operation to conform to existing conditions be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 12.36.010 Speed And Operation To Conform To Existing Conditions: Every person driving a vehicle on a street or alley shall operate the same at a speed and in a manner which is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having 2 regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing, and every driver of a vehicle, in compliance with legal requirements and the duty to use due care, shall use every reasonable means to avoid endangering or colliding with any person,vehicle or other object. SECTION 5. That Section 12.44.080,Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to limited access roadways be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 12.44.080 Limited Access Roadways-Use Restrictions: No pedestrian or other nonmotorized traffic, excluding bicyclists, shall use any limited access roadway except for the sole purpose of crossing the same in the shortest and most direct route, and then only at designated crossings, and such traffic shall yield the right of way to any motorized traffic proceeding upon the limited access roadway. Bicyclists may use the right shoulder of limited access highways except where prohibited by federal or state law or regulation or by an official sign giving notice of such restrictions.No driver shall stop a vehicle on any limited access roadway for the purpose of taking on or discharging any passenger. SECTION 6. That Section 12.48.040,Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to emerging from or entering alleys or driveways be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 12.48.040 Sidewalks-Driving Prohibited—Exceptions-Emerging From Or Entering Alleys Or Driveways: A. Except for a bicycle or device propelled by human power, a person may not operate a vehicle on a sidewalk or sidewalk area. The provisions of this subsection do not apply on a driveway. B. The driver of a vehicle emerging from an alley,private driveway, building or other place shall stop such vehicle immediately prior to driving onto a sidewalk or onto the sidewalk area extending across any alley or private driveway, yielding the right of way to any pedestrian or bicycle within or about to enter such sidewalk or sidewalk area as may be necessary to avoid collision and, upon entering the roadway, shall yield the right of way to all vehicles approaching on said roadway. C. The driver of a vehicle entering an alley or private driveway shall yield the right of way to any pedestrian or bicycle within the sidewalk area extending across such alley, or private driveway. D. The driver of a vehicle emerging from an alley or private driveway onto a roadway shall turn such vehicle only to the right, unless a different movement can be made in safety and without interfering with other traffic. 3 SECTION 7. That Section 12.52.100, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to opening vehicle doors in traffic be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 12.52.100 Opening Vehicle Doors In Traffic: A. A person may not open the door of any vehicle on a side available to moving traffic or emerge from any vehicle unless it can be done safely and without interfering with the movement of other traffic. B. A person may not leave a door open on a side of a vehicle available to moving traffic for a period of time longer than necessary to load or unload passengers. C. No person shall open any vehicle door at any time when such vehicle is in motion. SECTION 8. That Section 12.52.140, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to bicycle lanes and vehicle restrictions be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 12.52.140 Bicycle Lanes -Vehicle Restrictions: No motor vehicle shall at any time be driven within or through, or parked or stopped within a marked bicycle lane, except to briefly cross such lane to turn into an intersection, street, alley, driveway or other parking area. Any vehicle so turning must yield the right of way to all bicycles within the lane that are close enough to constitute an immediate hazard. No motor vehicle may use a bicycle lane as a turning lane. SECTION 9. That Section 12.52.145, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to operation of motor vehicle near bicycle be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 12.52.145 Operation of motor vehicle near bicycle prohibited An operator of a motor vehicle may not knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly operate a motor vehicle within three feet of a moving bicycle,unless the operator of the motor vehicle operates the motor vehicle within a reasonable and safe distance of the bicycle. SECTION 10. That Section 12.80.035, Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to bicycle inspections be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 12.80.035 Bicycle inspections -- At request of officer. A peace officer may at any time require a person riding a bicycle to stop and submit the bicycle to an inspection and a test as appropriate if the officer has reasonable cause to believe that: 4 (1) the bicycle is unsafe or not equipped as required by law; or (2) the bicycle's equipment is not in proper adjustment or repair. SECTION 11 That Section 12.80.040, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to bicycle riders subject to traffic regulations be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 12.80.040 Bicycle and device propelled by human power subject to title-- Exception.: A. Except as provided under Subsection(B) or as otherwise specified under this part, a person operating a bicycle or a vehicle or device propelled by human power has all the rights and is subject to the provisions of this title applicable to the operator of any other vehicle except as to special regulations of this code or those provisions which by their nature can have no application. B. A person operating a bicycle or a vehicle or device propelled by human power is not subject to the penalties related to operator licenses under alcohol and drug-related traffic offenses. SECTION 12. That Section 12.80.060,Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to brakes, lights and other equipment be, and the same hereby is,repealed. SECTION 13. That Section 12.80.061, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to prohibited equipment and requirement of brakes on bicycles be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 12.80.061 Bicycle-- Prohibited equipment--Brakes required. A. A bicycle may not be equipped with, and a person may not use on a bicycle, a siren or whistle. B. Every bicycle shall be equipped with a brake or brakes which enable its driver to stop the bicycle within 25 feet from a speed of ten miles per hour on dry, level, clean pavement. SECTION 14. That Section 12.80.065, Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to bicycle lamps and reflective material required be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 5 12.80.065 Bicycles -- Lamps and reflective material required. A. Every bicycle in use at the times described in Section 12.28.095 shall be equipped with a: 1. Lamp of a type approved by the Utah Department of Public Safety which is on the front emitting a white light visible from a distance of at least 500 feet to the front; and 2. a. Red reflector of a type approved by the Utah Department of Public Safety which is visible for 500 feet to the rear when directly in front of lawful lower beams of head lamps on a motor vehicle; or b. Red taillight designed for use on a bicycle and emitting flashing or nonflashing light visible from a distance of 500 feet to the rear. B. Every bicycle when in use at the times described in Section 12.28.095 shall be equipped with: 1. Reflective material of sufficient size and reflectivity to be visible from both sides for 500 feet when directly in front of lawful lower beams of head lamps on a motor vehicle; or 2. In lieu of reflective material, a lighted lamp visible from both sides from a distance of at least 500 feet. C. A bicycle or its rider may be equipped with lights or reflectors in addition to those required by Subsections (1) and (2). SECTION 15. That Section 12.80.070, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to riding rules and regulations be, and the same hereby is, repealed. SECTION 16. That Section 12.80.075, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to carrying more persons than design permits be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 12.80.075 Carrying more persons than design permits prohibited-- Exception. A. Except as provided in Subsection B, a bicycle may not be used to carry more persons at one time than the number for which it is designed or equipped. B. An adult rider may carry a child securely attached to the adult rider's person in a back pack or sling. SECTION 17. That Section 12.80.085, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to persons on bicycles, skates and sleds not to attach to moving vehicles be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 6 12.80.085 Persons on bicycles, skates and sleds not to attach to moving vehicles -- Exception. (1) A person riding a bicycle, coaster, skateboard, roller skates, sled, or toy vehicle may not attach it or a person to any moving vehicle on a roadway. (2) This section does not prohibit attaching a trailer or semitrailer to a bicycle if that trailer or semitrailer has been designed for attachment. SECTION 18. That Section 12.80.095,Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to operation of bicycles on and use of roadway be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 12.80.095 Operation of bicycle on and use of roadway--Duties,prohibitions. A. A person operating a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as near as practicable to the right-hand edge of the roadway except when: 1. overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction; 2. preparing to make a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway; 3. traveling straight through an intersection that has a right-turn only lane that is in conflict with the straight through movement; or 4. reasonably necessary to avoid conditions that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand edge of the roadway including: a. fixed or moving objects; b. parked or moving vehicles; c. bicycles; d. pedestrians; e. animals; f. surface hazards; or g. a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane. B. A person operating a bicycle on a roadway shall operate in the designated direction of traffic. C. 1. A person riding a bicycle on a roadway may not ride more than two abreast with another person except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. 2. If allowed under Subsection C (1), a person riding two abreast with another person may not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and shall ride within a single lane. D. If a usable path for bicycles has been provided adjacent to a roadway, a bicycle rider may be directed by a traffic-control device to use the path and not the roadway 7 SECTION 19. That Section 12.80.105, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to bicycles and human powered vehicles to yield right-of-way be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 12.80.105 Bicycles and human powered vehicle or device to yield right-of-way to pedestrians on sidewalks, paths, or trails -- Uses prohibited -- Negligent collision prohibited -- Speed restrictions -- Rights and duties same as pedestrians. A. A person operating a bicycle or a vehicle or device propelled by human power shall: 1. Yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian; and 2. Give an audible signal before overtaking and passing a pedestrian. B. A person may not operate a bicycle or a vehicle or device propelled by human power on a sidewalk,path, or trail, or across a roadway in a crosswalk, where prohibited by a traffic-control device or ordinance. C. A person may not operate a bicycle or a vehicle or device propelled by human power in a negligent manner so as to collide with a: 1. Pedestrian; or 2. Person operating a: a. Bicycle; or b. Vehicle or device propelled by human power. D. A person operating a bicycle or a vehicle or device propelled by human power on a sidewalk, path, or trail, or across a driveway, or across a roadway on a crosswalk may not operate at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions, giving regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing. E. Except as provided under Subsections A and D, a person operating a bicycle or a vehicle or device propelled by human power on a sidewalk, path, or trail, or across a roadway on a crosswalk, has all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances. F. A person operating a bicycle or a vehicle or device propelled by human power on a sidewalk shall proceed only in single file. SECTION 20. That Section 12.80.110, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to bicycles —carrying bundles be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 12.80.110 Bicycles - Carrying bundle -- One hand on handlebars. A. A person operating a bicycle may not carry any package, bundle, or article which prevents the use of both hands in the control and operation of the bicycle. B. A person operating a bicycle shall keep at least one hand on the handlebars at all times. 8 SECTION 21 That Section 12.80.120,Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to bicycles parking on sidewalk or roadway be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 12.80.120 Bicycles -- Parking on sidewalk, roadway -- Prohibitions. A. A person may park a bicycle on a sidewalk unless prohibited or restricted by a traffic-control device. B. A bicycle parked on a sidewalk may not impede the normal and reasonable movement of pedestrian or other traffic. C. A bicycle may be parked on the roadway at any location where parking is allowed: 1. At any angle to the curb or edge of the roadway; and 2. Abreast of another bicycle or bicycles near the side of the roadway. D. A bicycle may not be parked on a roadway in a manner as to obstruct the movement of a legally parked motor vehicle. E. In all other respects,bicycles parked anywhere on a roadway shall conform with the provisions of Chapter 12.56, regarding the parking of vehicles. SECTION 22. That Section 12.80.130, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to bicycles, turns and designated lanes be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 12.80.130 Bicycles -- Turns --Designated lanes. A. A person riding a bicycle and intending to turn left shall comply with Section 12.44.120 or Subsection B. B. 1. A person riding a bicycle intending to turn left shall approach the turn as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway. 2. After proceeding across the intersecting roadway, to the far corner of the curb or intersection of the roadway edges, the bicyclist shall stop, as far out of the way of traffic as practical. 3. After stopping, the bicyclist shall yield to any traffic proceeding in either direction along the roadway he had been using. 4. After yielding and complying with any traffic-control device or peace officer regulating traffic, the bicyclist may proceed in the new direction. C. 1. Notwithstanding Subsections A and B, the city transportation engineer may place traffic-control devices that require and direct turning bicyclists to travel a specific course. 2. When the devices are placed under Subsection C (1), a person may not turn a bicycle other than as directed by the devices. 9 SECTION 23. That Section 12.80.140, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to bicycle turn signals be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 12.80.140 Bicycles -- Turn signals-- Exceptions. A. Except as provided in this section, a person riding a bicycle shall comply with Section 12.44.140 regarding turn signals and turning. B. A person is not required to signal by hand and arm continuously if the hand is needed in the control or operation of the bicycle. C. A person operating a bicycle who is stopped in a lane designated for turning traffic only is not required to signal prior to making the turning movement. D. A person operating a bicycle may give the required hand and arm signal for a right turn by extending the right hand and arm horizontally to the right. SECTION 24. That Section 12.80.150, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to operation of bicycle on one-way roadway be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 12.80.150 Operation of bicycle on one-way roadway On a roadway, other than a limited access highway, designed and signposted for one-way traffic and which has two (2) or more marked traffic lanes, a person operating a bicycle may ride as near to the left side of the left through lane as is safe. SECTION 25. That Section 12.80.160, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to central traffic district bicycle riding restriction be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 12.80.160 Central Traffic District bicycle riding restriction It is unlawful for operators of bicycles to ride any bicycle upon any sidewalk within the "central traffic district", as defined in section 12.04.090 of this title, or its successor, and as described in schedule 1 of this title, set out in chapter 12.104 of this title, or its successor, and made a part hereof by reference, or on any other area where prohibited by signs, provided, however, the foregoing shall not apply to police officers in the scope and course of their employment; SECTION 26. That Section 12.80.170, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to bicycle racing be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 10 12.80.170 Bicycle racing-- When approved -- Prohibitions--Exceptions-- Authorized exemptions from traffic laws. A. Bicycle racing on roadways is prohibited under Section 12.36.040, except as authorized in this section. B. 1. Bicycle racing on a roadway is permitted when a racing event is approved by the city transportation engineer on a roadway under its jurisdiction. 2. Approval of bicycle roadway racing events may be granted only under conditions: a. Which assure reasonable safety for all race participants, spectators, and other roadway users; and b. Which prevent unreasonable interference with traffic flow which would seriously inconvenience other roadway users. C. Participants in an approved bicycle roadway racing event may be exempted from compliance with any traffic laws otherwise applicable: 1. By agreement with the city; and 2. If traffic control is adequate to assure the safety of all roadway users. SECTION 27. That Section 12.80.080, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to alteration of license or frame number be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 12.80.180 Alteration Of License Or Frame Number Prohibited: No person shall wilfully or maliciously destroy, mutilate or alter the number of any bicycle frame number, any bicycle license issued pursuant to this code or remove, destroy or mutilate any license decal while the same is valid, or operate any vehicle without having attached thereto a valid license decal issued as provided in this code. SECTION 28. That Section 12.80.090, Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to bicycle license suspension or revocation be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 12.80.190 License- Suspension Or Revocation When -Impoundment: A. The city judges or judges of juvenile courts who hear traffic cases are hereby empowered to revoke or suspend the license of any bicycle when it appears that the owner of any bicycle is not the licensee of record, or that the owner of the bicycle or the licensee thereof has used or knowingly permitted the bicycle to be used in violation of this code. B. The police department is hereby directed and authorized to impound any bicycle so used in violation of this code for a reasonable period of time pending 11 investigation of any alleged violation of this code, or until such bicycle is registered and licensed by the owner thereof and equipped as herein provided. SECTION 29. That Section 12.80.100, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to bicycle violations and penalties be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 12.80.200 Violation - Penalty: An operator of a bicycle who violates any of the provisions of this chapter shall be punished as an infraction in accordance with subsection 12.12.010B of this title, or its successor. SECTION 30. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of , 2005. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2005. APPROVED AS TO FORM Published: Salt Lake CI meyie Office Date 1° __ I\Ordinance 05\Amending Chapter 12.80 et al re Bicycles 10-10-05 clean p.. d,t/42_ 12