Loading...
02/28/2022 - Minutes MINUTES FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS BOARD MEETING (CDCIP) Monday, February 28, 2022 S:30pm 1. Board Members Board Members Not Present Brooke Young, Chair Alicia Ryans Heidi Steed, Co-Chair Rich Nazzaro Jake Skog Loree Hagen Jenny Bonk Jason Motley Alyson Genovese Elke Opsahl Staff Present Kalli Ruiz, CAN Staff Rachel Molinari, CAN Staff Tammy Hunsaker, CAN Staff Ethan Sellers, Housing Stability Ben Luedtke, Council Staff JP Goates, Public Services Jon Larsen, Transportation Becka Roolf, Transportation Jeff Gulden, Transportation Dan Bergenthal, Transportation Jena Carver, Transportation Constituents Present Beau Burbidge Larry Suggars Brad Christensen Janet Hemming David Osokow Turner Bitton Sarah Woolsey 2. Staff Updates Mr. Sellers explained that CDCIP Board member Alicia Ryans who represented Council District 2 was being excused from her position on the Board. He stated that City staff has not been able to contact her for the past several months and that her various forms of contact have been disconnected. Mr. Sellers expressed appreciation for the time and service Ms. Ryans contributed to the Board but noted that per the Board bylaws she was being excused for missing 3 or more consecutive meetings. He added that City staff would work with the Mayor's office to identify a new member to represent Council District 2. 3. Approval of the Minutes Mr. Skog made a motion to approve the minutes from the February 7, 2022 meeting. Ms. Hagen seconded the motion. The minutes were approved. Ms. Hagen made a motion to approve the minutes from the February 16, 2022 meeting. Ms. Bonk seconded the motion. The minutes were approved. Ms. Steed abstained from the vote for not being present at this meeting. 4. Business A. Welcome & Introductions Ms. Young welcomed the CDCIP members, City staff, and constituents and opened the meeting on February 28, 2022, at 5:33 pm. Individual introductions were offered by the hosts and attendees. B. Questions & Discussions on Proposed CIP Projects Ms. Ruiz reminded the attendees that the first column on the spreadsheet does not represent any priority order as all the submissions in this meeting are solely constituent. She also referenced an additional column containing the constituent's name. Constituent Transportation Applications: 1000 W Fairpark Traffic Circle: Mr. Motley questioned if this was a highly trafficked area. Mr. Osokow stated that there was typically not much traffic,but that drivers go faster than the listed speed limit because of the wide road. He added that events at the Fairpark attract a lot of traffic. Mr. Osokow said his vision for the area would include an art installation in the center of the traffic circle to act as a grand entrance and would slow down traffic and make the intersection safer for pedestrians. Mr. Motley asked if the constituent about a subsequent submission and if he could prioritize one application over the other if only one could be approved for CIP funding. Mr. Osokow stated that the '1000 W Fairpark Traffic Circle' application would have a slightly higher priority over the `1000 W intersection upgrades at 300 N and 400 N because the City had already installed stop signs at 300 N improving that intersection. He added that the street needed attention wholistically and that he has meet with City staff and various stakeholders in the area to make them aware of the needs. Ms. Bonk had a general inquiry about multiple projects in similar areas or projects with similar themes being broken up into multiple requests for different funding levels. She asked if there were specific reasons for how these applications were presented. Ms. Ruiz stated that the CIP requirements specified a minimum funding amount of$50,000 and a maximum of$500,000. She acknowledged that there have been instances in the past that have not met that requirement. Ms. Bonk asked if it was required to request funding for study before asking for funding for project implementation. Ms. Ruiz stated she knew of no such requirement, however that it is typical to have a study done first. She said any study that was previously done would likely be included with the application materials. Ms. Steed inquired if there was consideration made about asking for a traffic circle rather than a traditional intersection stoplight. She asked which would be cheaper. Ms. Steed questioned if a traffic circle would impact the Fire Department's ability to use the street. Ms. Ruiz stated that because this is a constituent's request that she was unsure if there was specific collaboration with the Transportation division on recommending a traffic circle versus a stoplight. Mr. Osokow said there was a study done by Transportation and that it is one of the reasons he is requesting a circle instead of a light. He also explained that the Fire Department would not be impacted by the changes made to the road and that there are similar instances of traffic circles near fire stations in the city that accommodate fire trucks. Mr. Larsen explained that the costs of installing a roundabout significantly vary and that while a traffic signal may be cheaper, the maintenance costs and upkeep are much higher than a traffic circle. He also stated that roundabouts are safer and that if this project were to receive funding the division would design the project to accommodate the Fire Department. Mr. Skog thanked Mr. Osokow for his application but questioned what types of landscaping and irrigation would be included in the median and if that decision would come during the design phase of the project. Mr. Gulden explained that everything Mr. Osokow stated concerning the traffic circle's safety and its amenities was correct and that the division has looked at traffic studies in the area. He noted that the landscaping will be determined in the design phase after collaborating with the Fire Department and the Parks Department for their input and expertise. 1000 W intersection upgrades at 300 N and 400 N. Ms. Young inquired about crash data in the area and if that information was documented. Mr. Gulden replied that this information was available, and that staff has been working on reviewing it. He stated that the information could be provided to the Board if needed. Mr. Osokow explained that this was another wide street and that it was the main intersection to the Jordan River and to access Downtown. He restated that stop signs have been added to slow down cars but compared crossing the street in this area to playing Frogger. He added that the Jordan River was very important to the community and that these improvements would make the area safer for everyone. Mr. Osokow thanked the Board for their time. Ms. Young thanked Mr. Osokow for his applications. 400 North Street Improvement: Ms. Hagen voiced concern over the recent development on the southside of the street impacting sight lines and the removal of trees in the area. She said the application gave the impression that residents and business owners have suffered as a result of these changes. Ms. Hagen questioned if the requested funding was impact fee eligible. Ms. Hunsaker replied that there must be a rational nexus between the project being implemented and the growth that has occurred. She added that the City has specific ordinances that are reviewed when building permits are acquired and that any sort of landscape improvements are worked out at that time. Ms. Hunsaker reminded the Board that Transportation division staff reviews all constituent applications to determine impact fee eligibility. Ms. Roolf added in the meeting chat that she did not believe this project would be impact fee eligible because it is not referenced in the Impact Fee Plan. 400 S Safety Improvements: Mr. Motley asked if this was the location where a driver hit two students in September 2021. Mr. Christensen stated that was correct. Mr. Christensen explained that the accident occurred just before the deadline to submit constituent CIP applications. He said the application was encouraged by Council member James Rodgers. Mr. Christensen expressed his opinion about the current school zone rules being the bare minimum to protect kids and that the City could do better. Ms. Young thanked Mr. Christensen and said she appreciated his application. East Bench Traffic Calming and Pedestrian Safety: Ms. Young expressed her appreciation for this application including options for a phased approach and for listing the different elements and how they could be funded. Mr. Burbidge explained that he had worked with Mr. Bergenthal and Ms. Handwerker in Transportation as well as the community council to develop the application and to separate the elements in an a la carte style. He stated that implementing any or all the elements of the project would improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in the neighborhood. Ms. Hagen said that she was familiar with this area and that she appreciated the safety issues raised in the application. She added that she knew residents who have expressed frustration with the speed bumps in the area and wondered how broad the support for the traffic calming elements of the project were. Mr. Burbidge explained that the idea was started by a group of parents in the neighborhood concerned about speeding traffic on their street while their kids play outside. Ms. Hagen recalled hearing complaints from cyclists when the City installed speed bumps on 1500 East and asked Transportation staff if there was something that could be done to slow vehicle traffic but not deter the use for other forms of users. Mr. Bergenthal stated that he remembers when the speed bumps were installed on Wasatch Drive and that there were some cyclist complaints at that time. He noted that there have been no complaints recently and that the speed bumps should not bother a bicycle too much. Mr. Bergenthal explained that a speed cushion has two slots for bicyclists and fire trucks and that this could be an option to address those concerns. Ms. Bonk inquired about the process that takes place to identify best options even if they differ from the original scope of the application. She asked if it could be assumed that the better solution would be in implemented. Mr. Bergenthal stated that in this case Transportation staff would work closely with the Fire Department and seek additional community engagement during the design phase of the project if it were to receive funding, but changes to project scope would have to be approved by City Council. Sugar House Crosswalk Murals: Ms. Steed noted that the application included the cost of the initial painting of the crosswalks but questioned whether the applicant considered the need for maintenance and repainting every 3-5 years. She asked if the applicant had plans for community fundraising in the future to cover these costs. Mr. Gulden replied that he was unaware the constituent's plans for maintenance costs. Ms. Ruiz stated that the CIP team would reach out to the applicant for clarification and provide a response to the Board. Sunnyside Ave Pedestrian Safety Improvements: Ms. Ruiz stated that since the constituent was unable to attend the meeting that the CIP team would reach out to the applicant with any questions and provide a response to the Board before final recommendations. Ms. Carver, of Salt Lake City's Transportation division, worked on this application with the constituent, stated that Ms. Carbaugh asked her to emphasis that this project was sorely needed due to safety concerns in the area. Ms. Hagen raised a question about the locations noted within the application and asked for an explanation as to why it did not include East High School's athletic field crossing area. She added that there have been some concerns about safety of pedestrians crossing for events at the High School fields. Ms. Carver explained that the project would seek to begin at 1350 East, ending at Guardsman Way and would include 3 crossings located at 1400 East, Roland Hall, and a third location that is to be determined during the design phase. Ms. Hagen inquired as to why the project would need to begin east of 1300 East. Ms. Carver stated that bike lanes were likely the reason behind the project's starting location. Mr. Skog asked if anything like this proposal had been proposed in the past and not implemented after being explored further by the City. Mr. Luedtke stated that there was a similar CIP request in the past for roughly $3M that was seeking pedestrian safety and traffic calming improvements for the entire length of Sunnyside Avenue. He said that the Council's decision to not fund the project was simply due to cost restraints. He noted that the current application being discussed could be viewed as a similar project to the prior one, but in a phased approach. Mr. Luedtke also stated that he believed the constituent, Ms. Carbaugh, was involved with the previously unfunded application. Liberty Wells Traffic Calming($420,000 ask): Ms. Bonk questioned if this application was in any way related to the other `Liberty Wells Traffic Calming' application that was also submitted. She said that she was aware of the location differences referenced by the two applications; one focusing on the east side, and the other on the west side, but wondered if there was a reason the applications were separated. Ms. Genovese asked if there could be any notable cost savings if the proposals were to be combined. Mr. Bergenthal explained that any cost savings would depend on the work being done. He provided the example of a large concrete project in the area being more cost effective than many smaller projects. Ms. Young assured the Board that Ms. Ruiz would contact the constituent for clarification on the application and forward a response to the Board. Follow-up details were emailed to the Board after the meeting. Yalecrest Traffic Calming: Ms. Young asked the constituent to clarify if the attached photos that were provided represented a parking aspect of the application or if the intent was to address traffic in the neighborhood. Ms. Hemming apologized for her photos not accurately representing the main issues. She explained that the application was to address traffic calming in the neighborhood, citing that the adjacent streets, Foothill Drive and Sunnyside Avenue, have exceeded their traffic capacity. Ms. Hemming noted that the future development of Research Park would add to the traffic issues in the area and that more cars would bypass these roads and travel through the neighborhood causing additional safety concerns. She urged the Board and City staff to start addressing this issue now before further stages of development begin. Ms. Young thanked Ms. Hemming for the clarification. Sugar House Safe Side Streets Part 2: Ms. Bonk requested historical context on Phase 1 of the Sugar House Safe Side Streets project. Ms. Woolsey said that no activities have started for the project yet. Mr. Luedtke added that the Council decided to partially fund this project in 2021 for $150,000. He said the reasoning for that decision was that the Council knew a study was needed and asked that the applicant reapply for the remaining funds in FY23. Mr. Gulden explained that after the Council makes its final decision it takes time for the divisions to receive the project funding. He said once the division has received the funding, it is then assigned to a project manager who must add it to their workload. Mr. Gulden noted that this project has progressed quickly, and that Ms. Woolsey would be hearing from Mr. Millar soon to get the study started. Ms. Ruiz noted that the Council has until September 1st each year to approve funding and that it can take 1-2 months for funding to be finalized and disbursed to the appropriate accounts. She emphasized that this project was progressing faster than usual. Ms. Bonk asked if funds being requested for Phase 2 were to implement the ideas that would be addressed in the Phase 1 study. Ms. Woolsey acknowledged that the application encompassed quite a large area with numerous streets and the study may provide many different solutions. She said that everyone involved with the application wanted a collaborative approach to address the concerns of the entire neighborhood. Ms. Woolsey added that Mr. Millar has been very attentive to the needs of this proposal. Ms. Hagen thanked Ms. Woolsey for her thoughtful approach to the application which seeks to provide a wholistic solution for the neighborhood. Liberty Wells Traffic Calming($400,000 ask): Ms. Bonk inquired about the differences in the two `Liberty Wells Traffic Calming' applications and whether they were working together. Ms. Ruiz assured the Board that the CIP team would follow up and provide a response. Follow-up details were emailed to the Board after the meeting. 900 West Corridor: Mr. Suggars stated that 900 West is a very busy street, and the intention of this proposal was to receive appropriate lighting for the area. Ms. Bonk questioned the eligibility of the proposal's $1 M funding request, citing the previously mentioned $50-$500k CIP limits. Mr. Suggars mentioned that he would not mind if the project was phased to work within any budget constraints and stated that he has worked with Transportation division staff for the cost estimate. Ms. Ruiz said the CIP staff does not decline constituent applications and that the Mayor and City Council can change the funding amounts as they see fit. Mr. Gulden stated that speed signs and lighting elements could be phased several blocked at a time and additional funding could be requested in the future. Ms. Hagen thanked Mr. Suggars for his proposal and expressed that the Board considers all Eastside and Westside proposals equally and tries to be equitable in the funding allocation recommendations. Ms. Young asked if the light proposed in this application had higher maintenance costs than typical lighting features installed by the City. Mr. Gulden said that the estimate included normal lighting costs similar to other City projects. Ms. Young thanked Mr. Suggars for submitting his proposal. California Avenue Safety Improvement Study: Mr. Bitton stated that the intersections of California Avenue and Concord Street/Glendale Drive are very close together and act as a main throughfare into the Glendale neighborhood. He said they are seeking funding to conduct a study for merging the two intersections, stating the importance of the crossings for the nearby school, library, and senior housing. Mr. Bitton expressed that to the neighbors who collaborated on the proposal, this intersection is the highest priority for reconstruction, over the 900 West and California Avenue intersection. Ms. Young voiced her concern for the safety of children crossing near the library in this area. C. Overview& Expectations of next meeting Ms. Young thanked the constituents for their thoughtful and reasonable funding requests and for caring so much about the city and everyone who lives and works in it. Ms. Ruiz thanked everyone for attending the meeting and expressed gratitude to the Transportation staff for collaborating with the constituents on their proposals. She stated that the CIP Team would follow up on each inquiry that was left unanswered and provide that information to the Board. Ms. Ruiz added that the Board's next homework assignment would be sent out in preparation for the meeting on March 7, 2022. Ms. Hagen expressed concern over the minimal supporting data provided in the proposal materials as compared to what was provided last year. She expressed concern about if the Transportation division looked at the overall pedestrian safety and crash data and developed applications based on that information or if the constituent process was the best way to provide urgency to particular City streets. Ms. Hagen said she was grateful for effort put forth by the constituents and requested details on any efforts made by Transportation staff. Mr. Larsen thanked Ms. Hagen for the question and said that Transportation staff has internal processes for ranking crosswalks and utilize that information when considering the Transportation Safety Improvements application each year. He explained that while the City had an organized traffic calming program in the past that it was disbanded 20 years ago. He said the division hired a consultant to provide a study that resulted in the city streets being divided into 120 zones. This information is provided in Transportation's internal `Livable Streets' application, which will be discussed on March 7, 2022. Mr. Larsen added that there are more needs than staff capacity and available financial resources. He said that the constituent CIP process provides an extra opportunity for community input, something that is important to the Mayor and the City Council. He added that the process can also present new ideas that City staff may not have considered. Ms. Hagen and Ms. Young expressed their appreciation for Mr. Larson's response. 5. Adjournment There being no further business. Ms. Steed made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Bonk seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 6:59 pm. Xr000lue *iv Brooke Young(Mar 18,*iv Brooke MDT) CDCIP Board Chair This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the CDCIP Board meeting held February 28, 2022. Minutes 02.28.2022 Final Audit Report 2022-03-18 Created: 2022-03-17 By: Rachel Molinari(rachel.molinari@slcgov.com) Status: Signed Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAXbO5SzEDrSv4u7bAo6O7yQ741rfHVvsV "Minutes 02.28.2022" History Document created by Rachel Molinari (rachel.molinari@slcgov.com) 2022-03-17-3:01:39 PM GMT Document emailed to Brooke Young (broyou@gmail.com)for signature 2022-03-17-3:02:16 PM GMT ,t Email viewed by Brooke Young (broyou@gmail.com) 2022-03-18-4:09:39 PM GMT Document e-signed by Brooke Young (broyou@gmail.com) Signature Date:2022-03-18-4:09:54 PM GMT-Time Source:server O Agreement completed. 2022-03-18-4:09:54 PM GMT ilk Adobe Sign ,r