PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
REGULAR SESSION
WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 1988
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in regular session on Wednesday, May 25, 1988, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 324 South State Street.
The following Council Members were present: Florence Bittner Tom Godfrey Wayne Horrocks Roselyn Kirk Sydney Fonnesbeck Willie Stoler Alan Hardman.
Mayor Palmer DePaulis, S. R. Kivett, deputy city recorder, and LaNita Brown, deputy city recorder, were present.
Council Chairperson Godfrey presided at and conducted the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING
I-15 North Temple Interchange.
RE: A public hearing at 6:00 p.m. to obtain comment concerning the possible construction of an Interstate 15 interchange at North Temple Street in Salt Lake City prior to formulating the city’s recommendation to the Wasatch Front Regional Council I-15 Steering Committee.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to continue the hearing to Tuesday, August 2, 1988, at 6:20 p.m., which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck said she had received numerous calls concerning the widening of 2nd and 3rd Avenues, and she had obtained a copy of the Wasatch Front Regional Council’s report that stated the intent was not to widen 2nd and 3rd Avenues at this time. She said it called for making Virginia Street and I Street four-lane streets, but she cautioned that if the interchange was built there might be a great deal of pressure to widen 2nd and 3rd Avenues in the future. Mayor DePaulis said the hearing was for public comment and they would not be making any decisions now. He indicated that he had to leave at 7 p.m. for another commitment but would return.
Mick Crandall, representing the Wasatch Front Regional Council, said that a few years ago the WFRC realized they were developing ‘big city’ problems and they needed to look at more substantial solutions for the transportation problems. He said the most critical problem was the growing traffic congestion in the city and the associated problems of parking and air pollution. He said 5th South and 6th South were rapidly becoming congested and didn’t provide adequate access to the Central Business District (CBD) and he said growing west side development would further aggravate the condition. He said after looking at several plans the only one that would have a significant impact was the North Temple interchange, and both the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) indicated their support, so the three agencies, (WFRC, UDOT, and UTA) began a study, hiring the consulting team of Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade and Douglas for the technical analysis. He said the study offered different alternatives, including a light-rail transit system and freeway expansion, along with the North Temple interchange. He said the federal highway administration had established criteria for placement and separation of interchanges and on and off ramps had to be certain distances apart.
He said the only place in the city that fit that criteria was North Temple. He said there were approximately 50,000 employees in the CBD and projections were for 80,000 by 2010, and travel demand would grow in a like manner. He said they were nearing the completion of the study and would be preparing a formal draft of an environmental impact statement, then hearings would be held and reports given to UDOT and UTA so they would know how to proceed. He said how the city felt about the interchange would be important to both groups as they faced the decisions that existed.
Gerry Blair, representing Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade, and Douglas Consultants, said the interchange was an attempt to provide additional access into the CBD without destroying the area around it. He showed the Council a large drawing of the area saying it was an urban interchange design, and he pointed out how the traffic would enter and leave the freeway. He said the only widening associated with the interchange would be between 6th and 7th West, that 7th West between North Temple and 2nd North would be a one-way street and 4th West would become the main entrance into the CBD. He said they had discussed installing an island on North Temple and State Street that would prohibit eastbound traffic from going through, which would alleviate traffic conditions on 2nd Avenue.
Bret Cunningham, representing the Mayor’s I-15 Committee and the Downtown Retail Merchants Association (DRMA), said they had met many times as the Mayor’s Committee to study the proposed interchange and said the committee could not reach a consensus since six members favored the interchange and five members opposed it. He said the DRMA strongly favored improved access to the downtown area from the freeway system and although the North Temple interchange was not the most ideal location it was the only one that federal approval and funds would be available for.
He said some of the impacts they had identified regarding the interchange were: 1) it should be a CBD traffic issue, ideally to improve access to downtown without creating a negative impact on the neighboring residential area; 2) it would provide the most direct route into the CBD helping to lower transit time and pollution (traffic would be traveling at higher speeds approaching the downtown area and it was the stop and go traffic from other exits that increased pollution); 3) it would improve access to the Triad area; 4) access to the freeway would be improved to residents of the avenues, Capitol Hill, and the west side areas; 5) pressure from gridlocked 5th and 6th South interchanges would be reduced; 6) it would help reduce traffic pressure on the Capitol Hill area created by Beck Street and Victory Road; 7) it would allow alteration of current traffic pattern problems created by University of Utah students and faculty; and 8) signal timings and lane drops would force traffic into the CBD and off North Temple.
He said they felt a responsibility to improve access to the CBD and solve some of the traffic problems or the city would become congested and more businesses would leave downtown for the suburbs, setting the stage for deterioration. He said the interchange had become the focal point for a whole list of problems such as quality of life objections, social welfare objections, pollution objections, traffic congestion objections, safety objections and proposals for more studies. He said he hoped the freeway interchange proposal would not become a focal point for general traffic complaints that already plagued the city, for social problems that would remain unresolved, or for personal crusades.
William Littig, representing the Mayor’s I-15 Committee, said the freeway separated the Jackson neighborhood into the Jackson/Guadalupe neighborhood 25 years ago, isolating it and creating many problems. He said the number of cars pouring into downtown weren’t necessarily reflective of shoppers because someone who worked downtown would probably drive home and shop in his own neighborhood. He said the Mayor’s Committee had been given information to read that was narrow in scope and it was hard to make intelligent decisions based on that information. He said they didn’t feel that the interchange would relieve pressure on the Capitol Hills area as people preferred routes without traffic lights, such as the Beck Street, Victory Road route. He said the design of the interchange was not adequate for those living in the northwest quadrant of the city.
Roger Borgenicht, representing the Neighborhood Alliance, said there was a need to develop long-range plans for balanced transportation systems for autos, pedestrians, bicyclists, buses, and rapid transit to insure clean air and an uncongested city for future generations. He said traffic projections for the year 2010 would be quadrupled and he felt they would be asking for trouble if the interchange was allowed.
Mr. Borgenicht made reference to a large drawing that showed the flow of traffic in and out of the city on the existing 5th and 6th South collector routes and the proposed flow with the addition of the North Temple interchange. He said the 6th North interchange was underutilized and he suggested that improvements be made to it rather than create a new one. He said if traffic was directed southbound off the 6th North off ramp instead of east it would reduce the impetus of traffic wanting to flow through the Capitol Hill neighborhoods. He said they should not overlook the possibility of developing the 9th South freeway entrance/exit, also, but he felt the problems would never be solved if people continued to rely on the individual automobile to travel to and from the CBD. Stan Penfold, representing the Neighborhood Transportation Alliance, said that Salt Lake City had something that many other major cities longed for: residential neighborhoods within walking distance. He said the people living in these neighborhoods worked, shopped, ate, and entertained downtown and were the CBD’s best retail customer.
He said the past few years had seen an exodus of the city population to the suburbs and if it continued the city would become a collection of glass office buildings surrounded by boarded up empty neighborhoods. He said they could not allow that to happen, and dumping freeways into residential neighborhoods did not facilitate the rehabilitation of those neighborhoods.
Mr. Penfold read from an addendum to the study consultants report entitled ‘Result Report, Evaluation of Traffic Impacts’ which stated, 1) the construction of a North Temple interchange would have an impact on three adjacent neighborhoods, Jackson, Euclid, and Guadalupe; 2) traffic patterns through the three neighborhoods adjacent to the proposed interchange would change significantly; 3) the construction of an interchange might cause pressure for development in its proximity; 4) traffic along 3rd North, 9th West, and 6th West could expect increases;
5) the Jackson School could be indirectly impacted by increased traffic on 3rd North and 9th West streets; 6) there would be some impact on traffic in neighborhoods to the east; 7) all three of the residential neighborhoods most impacted by this interchange have been, or are now, target areas for city CDBG monies; 8) over the past 5 years, SLC had invested over 4 million dollars in these residential areas; 9) those neighborhoods would not survive as residential if an interchange was built; 10) it was financially foolish to disregard a 4 million dollar investment; and
11) it was a complete reversal of city policy to allow an interchange and subsequent business development in those residential neighborhoods. He said one of the justifications for the proposal was that it might reduce freeway congestion and related pollution, but there was conflict to that theory. He said pollution might be reduced along the freeway for a short period of time, but within a couple of years it would be at or above the level it was before construction.
He said the interchange would create back-up and standing cars at every intersection from State Street to the freeway, creating pollution for the prime pedestrian and tourist neighborhoods of the central city area. He said last year 10,000 people visited temple square then walked across a street to one of the malls, the genealogical building, the LDS Church office building, the symphony, Salt Palace, etc. He said it would create a serious conflict between the pedestrian and the auto if the interchange was built, as the two did not mix well. He said the best way to improve downtown vitality, to increase shopping and reduce visitor frustration, was to get people out of their cars and onto their feet. He said the North Temple interchange would become the busiest freeway interchange in the state and North Temple could not handle the additional traffic so cars would spill out into the adjacent neighborhoods, which would require substantial improvements in order to carry the additional capacity.
He said this was not a neighborhood issue but a Salt Lake City issue, and the Neighborhood Transportation Alliance was determined to see the city survive as an environment for people, not as a home for everyone else’s car. Hermoine Jex, representing the Capitol Hill Community Council, said she first heard of the North Temple interchange some years ago and thought it was just an idea, but found it to be a set plan of operation.
She said in a recent Planning Commission meeting the future of downtown Salt Lake City was being discussed to the effect that the area was no longer the city for people, homes, neighborhoods, schools, churches, stores, gardens, etc., but would be a regional center and people and neighborhoods were of lesser or no importance. She said it was time that everyone took a long look at what was happening and study carefully the road system, trying to visualize what would happen if the I-15 interchange was allowed.
She said there were already many accesses to downtown and with the interchange there would be destruction of neighborhoods and schools, removal of buildings, parking strips, and trees caused by widening. She said that traffic would increase in volume all by itself without the interchange, and asked the Council to address a light rail system and critically needed land use planning.
The following people spoke in favor of the interchange: Gary Hansen, Salt Lake Area Chamber of Commerce; Julie Connary, 427 Oakley Street; Bob Yocom, 794 Oakley Street; Wesley Sine, 640 West North Temple; Thomas H. Cam, 819 West North Temple; Stan Knoles, 916 West Temple.
Those who favored the interchange said that it: 1) was crucial to the vitality of the downtown business district; 2) should have been built at the outset of the freeway system; 3) would revitalize those businesses located on North Temple near or west of the freeway that had been slowly deteriorating; and 4) would provide access to the freeway from the west side where there was no access for 19 blocks.
Mr. Hansen, representing the Chamber of Commerce, said their overall objective was to solve the growing problem of traffic congestion and their focus was on a light rail transit system which they felt should be implemented as soon as possible. Ms. Connary said that young adults needed the jobs that would be created by fast-food businesses that would locate near the interchange. Mr. Yokom said if an interchange was built it should be a full cloverleaf interchange.
The following people spoke in opposition to the interchange: Wilford Kirton, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints; Dick Groen, 1028 Learned Avenue; Rosemarie Rendon, 356 North 600 West; John Adamson, 537 West 500 North; Jerry Miller, 969 Bryan Avenue; Mary Morris, 733 West 300 North; Boyd Ware, Retail Merchants Association; Michael Vetere, 217 2nd Avenue; Dave Kranendonk, 373 North 200 West; Barry Esham, 502 North 1300 West; Bernard Simbari, 111 0 Street; Mike Hardison, 111 0 Street; Derin C. Wester, 820 2nd Avenue; Chuck Clark, 828 2nd Avenue; Ben Fonnesbeck, 215 A Street; Joyce Marder, 780 East Scott Avenue; Neil O’Connor, 89 C Street; Keith Widdison, 521 Arctic Court; Ernest Dixon, 77 C Street; Russ Jacobsen, 851 Ouray Avenue; B. W. Dille, 368 7th Avenue; Deanne Keddington, 827 2nd Avenue; Frank Pignanelli, 480 North Wall Street, #B103; Roly Pearson, 730 West 400 North; Angela Deneris, 881 2nd Avenue; Diana Peterson, 888 3rd Avenue; Qita Woolley, 867 3rd Avenue; Jane Stromquist, 33 C Street; Jennifer Harrington, 480 F Street; Carleen Jiminez, 730 West 400 North; Steve McCardell, 1225 East 2nd Avenue; David Mason, 780 3rd Avenue; Chuck Richardson, 815 4th Avenue; David Stanley, 1059 3rd Avenue; Stephen A. Stroud, 318 3rd Avenue; Larry Livingston, 175 A Street; Frances Farley, 1418 Federal Way; William Burt, 1283 East South Temple; Jerry Erkelens, 524 3rd Avenue; Ranae Pierce, 191 Canyon Road; Robert E. Gallegos, 576 West 3rd Avenue; Blake Ingram, 1504 Federal Heights Drive; Cyndie Hyde, 1010 3rd Avenue; Robert K. Reeve, 314 Quince Street; Dean Jolley, 1166 2nd Avenue; Terry Becker, 1500 Tomahawk; Carrie Jolley, 1166 2nd Avenue; Tom DeVroom, 216 B Street; Steve Tatum, 198 Q Street; Antje F. Curry, 1187 3rd Avenue; Farrell Wankier, 461 2nd Avenue; William Matt Clark, 715 2nd Avenue; Rod Olsen, 739 West 200 North; Mike McCarthy, 557 2nd Avenue; Matthew Barton, 1115 2nd Avenue and David Stillman, 711 2nd Avenue.
Of those opposing the interchange, the majority were avenues residents who were concerned about the problems that would be created in the avenues by increased traffic. They were concerned about the already heavy traffic on 2nd and 3rd Avenues from commuters to the university and hospitals in the area. They voiced concern that these two streets would eventually have to be widened to accommodate the increased traffic and that trees along those streets would have to be cut down. They were concerned about the safety of school children and other pedestrians who had to cross the busy avenues streets.
Those from the areas west of the freeway said they would be further cut off from the city if the interchange was built and their neighborhoods would become ghettos. Many people were concerned that the project had not been thoroughly studied and felt that an environmental impact study should be done and other solutions looked at. Several people suggested that the 6th North interchange be modified and traffic be diverted southward after leaving the freeway, to alleviate traffic heading towards the Capitol Hills area. Others suggested modifying the 9th South entrance/exit to alleviate some of the problems, and others suggested looking at 2nd South for an interchange. Many people expressed concern about the heightened traffic that would be created on North Temple making it hazardous for pedestrians and bicyclists. Many people expressed concern over the financial burden that would be put on the city in widening streets and making changes to accommodate the additional traffic. Most people felt that the interchange would impact the quality of life in Salt Lake City. Mr. Kirton, representing the LDS Church, said that the state had presented a similar plan 10 years ago to the church for comment and after careful study by the church and the planners it was found to be flawed. He said it would be a detriment to the city.
Mr. Esham asked the Council to consider the CDBG money that had already been spent in the neighborhoods as it would be wasted if the interchange was allowed. Mr. Simbari said it would change the tenure of the avenues, that streets would be thoroughfares to the university and the neighborhoods would deteriorate. Mr. Jacobsen said Mr. Blair had made the statement that because of the urban interchange design it would not be necessary to acquire surrounding right-of-way, that existing buildings would remain intact; He read from a city pamphlet that stated cost estimate for the North Temple interchange would be $6.6 million, including right-of-way purchases.
He questioned which statement was correct. Ms. Keddington said the interchange would be an economic drain on the city during the reconstruction and it was focusing on the needs of commuters living outside the city and not the residents who were the tax payers. Mr. Stanley said a lot of the reasons given in support of the interchange, having to do with the revitalization of downtown, were based on a series of assumptions that were faulty, such as bringing more cars into the downtown area would mean more shoppers, thus a revitalized downtown.
He said building interchanges and new freeways did not help revitalize downtown, and there were plenty of examples littered across the country to prove it; instead you had to develop culture, business, entertainment facilities, and alternate means of transit. Mr. Livingston said a great deal of the argument in favor of the interchange hinged on economic development. He felt the off-ramp was a bad design solution that tied into the problems already existing on North Temple and suggested using the 6th North off-ramp, along with connecting North Temple to 2nd East. He said by doing so you could get around the CBD and onto 2nd East heading south and it would only take 12 seconds.
Ms. Farley said there should be a concerted effort to encourage commuters to car pool which would reduce congestion, pollution, and expense; and some things that could help would be an express lane for car poolers, reduced license fees for car poolers, and a campaign headed by the Mayor and Governor urging good citizenship from everyone. Mr. Barton said the cities with a booming downtown were not those with many arteries of traffic entering them, but those that had good public transportation systems so people could get to town and walk around. Registration cards were received from 204 people who did not wish to speak but wished to express their support or opposition. Of those received, 190 were opposed and 14 were in favor of the inter- change.
(G 88-6)
The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.