memo To: Mayor and City Council From: Community Development and City Administration CC: Bob Rice Date: March 25, 2011; March 17, 2011 Re: City Staff West Davis Corridor Level II Screening Report - Update Background: During the 1960 s, shortly after I-15 was constructed, community leaders in Davis County recognized the need for additional transportation west of I-15. This roadway has appeared on the Davis County Master Plan since 1962 and has, over time, become known by many as the West Davis Highway. In response to increasing I-15 congestion during the mid to late 90 s, the Utah Legislature appropriated funds for a Western Transportation Corridor Major Investment Study (WTC-MIS). In August 2001, the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) concluded that study on the North Legacy project in Davis and Weber Counties. The single most important purpose of that study was to identify a transportation corridor that could be preserved from development. Local jurisdictions were asked to incorporate this transportation master plan and protect it from development. Following this request, the City took many steps over the next decade to preserve the integrity of this corridor for development of the future highway. Figure 1-2001 West Davis Corridor Map In January of 2010, UDOT commenced an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) along this 2001 corridor and it is anticipated that this study will be completed by 2013, or when the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements are met. NEPA currently provides guidelines on how agencies are to incorporate human, community, cultural,
economic and environmental considerations into their planning efforts. This study is only required to adhere to a few federal and state laws, namely: Agricultural Protection Areas, Air Quality Standards, Wetlands & Waters of the United States, and Community, Historic & Wildlife Resources. On February 8, 2011, UDOT presented their Level II Screening findings to the public. The purpose of this report was to allow the public to comment on the Level II findings and to further aid UDOT in establishing a future corridor alignment that is in the best interest of Syracuse City and other communities throughout the Davis County-Weber County region. On March 8, 2011, City Staff made a presentation to the City Council of information found within this report. Since that time and at the request of the Mayor and City Council, additional research and review regarding comments found herein has taken place. Included with this updated document is a set of photos tied to locations found on Syracuse City s Proposed Alternatives Routes of the West Davis Corridor Map. Additionally, further findings by City Staff have been added to this updated report. Overall, economic conditions over the last several years have perpetuated a climate in which transportation plays a more central role in the quality of life for all that live, work, and play in Syracuse City. The purpose of the city is to preserve and promote the health, safety, convenience, order and the general welfare its present and future inhabitants and the public generally. Over the last 50 years, the City has greatly anticipated the development of this transportation corridor as it would enhance the current quality of life within the City, while establishing additional economic growth opportunities for the City. It is imperative that the leadership of Syracuse City make every effort to thoroughly review, study, and ultimately support a West Davis transportation corridor that is of great benefit to the health, safety, convenience, order, and general welfare of all those who are a part of and contribute to the Syracuse City community. Comments: Key departments of Syracuse City were asked to give their feedback regarding UDOT s Level II Screening results. Below are some excerpts from their comments (their full comments are available for review should these comments be desired by any party): Alternative A & B are running too close to the Davis Sewer District with the many different chemicals they have on site and also the possible access of a potential terror attack. Police Department No interchange at Gentile road gives us limited access to the roadway if the interchange at Antelope Drive is compromised in any way design of the interchange may also require re-routing of the delivery truck that provides chlorine to the sewer plant. Routing the tanker truck through either residential or the roundabouts is not a preferred solution. Fire Department
We support and alignment that utilizes more raw ground and less impact to developments for construction. Public Works Key Findings: Listed below are some key findings of the Level II Screening process. City staff would like to note that these findings are not meant to diminish the efforts made by UDOT for this project, nor those efforts of UDOT s consulting firm(s); furthermore, City Staff has reviewed materials completed by UDOT (namely documents entitled: Wetland Assessment Methodology and Preliminary Wetland Study Results ) and finds that a great deal of the information is in order and accurate. City Staff has made the following observations and conclusions regarding UDOT s efforts and completed materials: 1. Wetland Study: City Staff have found that UDOT s Preliminary Wetland Assessment was not fully comprehensive or all-encompassing of areas where the proposed corridors are located. Study Area: There are areas of alternatives A, B & C that fall well outside of the original wetland study area. Ratings: The wetlands study report rates each wetland into three categories: high, medium, and low. The findings show that 79% of wetlands fall within the medium rating, thus suggesting that there may not be enough categories to adequately categorize each wetland appropriately. 2. Wetland Delineation: Preliminary findings indicate that some of wetland delineation (identification) was not fully comprehensive. Photos: The photographs shown below depict areas within the study area that have either been identified as wetlands or have not been identified as wetlands, but still maintain similar wetlands characteristics. The amount of higher grasses versus lower grasses is directly related to how the land is currently being used (e.g. cattle grazing, horse pastures, open space, etc). Additionally, updated photos taken on March 17, 2011 (following a two-day period of precipitation in the City) have been included at the end of the report and further illustrate this concern regarding UDOT s classification and characterization of wetlands within the Syracuse community. Photo 1. This photo shows wetlands along Bluff Road near Fremont. Photo 2. This photo shows non-wetlands along Antelope Dr (Cook Property). Photo 3. This photo shows wetlands along Fremont Detain Basins.
3. Alternatives: City Staff has reviewed all options previously represented during the March 8, 2011 City Council Meeting and have made the following conclusions about each route: UDOT Proposed Routes: o Options A & B: These routes appear to be penalizing farmers for grooming and maintaining their properties for agricultural use. Further, City Staff is contending that two unidentified wetlands areas are located within this route at photo points 8 and 11, as shown on the map. These routes appear to provide no benefit to Syracuse s City Center retail core and do not appear to be attractive routes for use by the bulk of City residents. o Option C: This route also appears to be penalizing farmers for grooming and maintaining their properties for agricultural use. Additionally, City Staff is strongly contending that the property at photo point 7, as shown on the map, is a significant wetlands area and hasn t been identified correctly; a much larger portion of the area, than has been identified by UDOT, should be classified as wetlands on that property. Engineering Staff has also shown great concern associated with the proposed curvature of the roadway along this option. In relationship to this route, the City Engineer has noted that The minimum curve radius is considered in design when establishing a horizontal alignment at a certain design speed. At 70 mph, horizontal curves less than approximately 2500 feet radius would require super-elevation in the design. Staff feels that these radiuses are too tight as it is shown in option C. The City Engineer has stated that as a result of this curve radius issue, there could be a significant safety risk inherent in the current routing drawn for this corridor. City Proposed Routes: o Option C2: The original 2001 route appears to have some major conflicts that make it quite difficult to justify this alignment. There are significant identified and confirmed wetlands located along this proposed corridor. There would likely be significant impacts to Jensen Park infrastructure, the city roundabout (at the intersection of 2000 West, 2700 South, and Gentile Street), and to the southernmost portion of the Old Immigration Trail. Further, there would likely be a direct impact on the Trailside Park Subdivision and residences located along this corridor route. o Option C3: This route appears to have a minimal level of impacts on the community. Depending on the position or this corridor, four homes may be impacted by this alignment. Additionally, there are some significant wetlands areas identified by UDOT in this option; however, City Staff strongly contends that the wetlands located at photo point 3 on the map needs to be reevaluated as a wetlands area (see photo connected to point 3 for more information). City Staff is under the impression that the areas in point 3 and point 4, as located along this route, are not wetlands areas (see photos for more information).
o o Staff concedes that the area most to the south of route C3 would likely need some minimal mitigation as would the area at point 5. Option C4: This route also appears to have a minimal level of impacts on the community. Depending on the alignment that would be selected for this route, three homes may be impacted by this alignment. Further, the City Public Works facility is located along this route and may be impacted or need to be relocated as a result of this proposed alignment. In relation to wetlands, depending on the appropriate classification and determination on wetlands on the Syracuse Alternative Routes of the West Davis Corridor Map, this route may have the lowest impacted wetland areas of the proposed C alternatives (out of routes C2, C3, C4, and C5). Please note that there are identified and confirmed wetlands located at photo point 5 that would need to mitigated; however, City Staff is in contention with the claim that photo point 4 is a wetlands area. Option C5: This route additionally appears to have minimal levels of impact on the overall community. However, the curvature on this identified route is of concern to the City Engineer and would be difficult to design and construct. Additionally, wetlands areas along this option seem to be a bit higher than the C4 option and potentially the C3 option. Please note that there are identified and confirmed wetlands located at photo point 5 that would need to mitigated; however, City Staff is in contention with the claim that photo point 4 is a wetlands area. City Staff Recommendation: o Primary Recommendation: City Staff strongly recommends that the Mayor and City Council support option C3 as the preferred route for the West Davis Corridor for reasons as outlined above. As part of this recommendation, Staff recommends that UDOT reevaluate wetlands located at photo points 3 and 4; City Staff contends that these areas are not wetlands area and, thus, no wetlands at these locations would be impacted by this route. o Secondary Recommendation: City Staff recommends that the Mayor and City Council show support for option C4 as the secondary option for the West Davis Corridor for reasons as outlined above. As part of this recommendation, Staff recommends that UDOT reevaluate wetlands located at photo point 4; City Staff contends that this area is not a wetlands area and, thus, no wetlands at this location would be impacted by this route. 4. Interchange: The proposed interchanges play a vital role in this transportation corridor. City Staff recognizes that these interchanges are costly and in some cases an engineering challenge. Below are some key findings of the interchanges in the area. Antelope Drive: o Option A&B: This interchange is located too far west to be a major draw for City residents and would have a significant impact on surrounding neighborhoods.
o Additionally, this interchange does not appear to benefit the City Center commercial and retail areas. Option C: From an engineering perspective, as it is currently drawn, this interchange looks very difficult to design and construct. The curvature of the road appears to be quite sharp and seems to significantly impact the intersection of 1700 South and 3000 West. As a positive attribute of this interchange, it would provide direct access to the City Center retail area for travelers of the proposed West Davis Corridor. Gentile Street: City Staff would like UDOT to consider the addition of an interchange somewhere at or close to Gentile Street and Bluff Road for safety reasons associated with emergency response activities on the West Davis Corridor. City Staff would like to note that this interchange could be located at any point between 500 West and 2000 West, as it links up with the proposed West Davis Corridor route, and would need to be determined through dialogue between Syracuse City officials and UDOT. City Staff asserts that this interchange could also provide key accessibility to the West Davis Corridor for residents located at the southernmost end of the Syracuse community. City Staff contends that UDOT install adequate and appropriate turn-around points along the corridor for emergency vehicles, should this interchange not be installed. SR-193: City Staff is in support of West Point City and their desire to locate this interchange further south to avoid impact on the Schneiter s Bluff Golf Course and to enable better circulation with SR-193. 5. Agricultural Protected Area: City Staff recognizes that land use plays a significant role in identifying the future route of this corridor. City Staff have identified agricultural protection areas to the south that could become heavily impacted by these corridors. These areas are shown on the City s General Plan as future Agricultural zones, once they incorporate into Syracuse City. Those impacted by these alignments have stated that these areas play a vital role in the economic health of the City and the northern area of Davis County. Recommendations: City Staff strongly recommends that UDOT take a closer look at the following areas: Revisit the Preliminary Wetland Study Area and expand the study area to include all areas outside of the original study area that are now potentially being impacted by proposed corridors A, B, and C. An expanded review should seek to identify additional wetlands located in areas not studied in the preliminary analysis that may impact routes identified for proposed corridors A, B and/or C. Reassess and evaluate wetland delineation areas originally identified within the study area, specifically areas identified by City Staff (please refer to the Syracuse City Proposed Alternative Routes of the West Davis Corridor Map ).
Comprehensively review and analyze the proposed alternative options to route C known as C3 and C4 (please refer to the Syracuse City Proposed Alternative Routes of the West Davis Corridor Map ). Make every effort to establish adequate on-ramping and off-ramping space for access to the West Davis Corridor by emergency vehicles. Provide sufficient and adequate turn-around areas for use by emergency vehicles along the Corridor. Review the issues identified (engineering, cost, and feasibility) at all interchanges presented along the proposed corridors, as has been discussed above, which include: Antelope Drive (1700 South), Gentile Street, and SR-193 Connector. The removal of Alternatives A and B from the remainder of the study. City Staff feels that this option does not provide any perceived benefit to Syracuse City or its residents. Review and reevaluate the Agricultural Protection areas located within the Syracuse City area and the direct impacts that the proposed corridors will have on property owners within these identified corridors. Conclusion: The above findings indicate that wetlands currently exist in and around many areas of Syracuse City, running west of Bluff Road and likely all of the way out to the shores of the Great Salt Lake. It is likely impossible to avoid all of the wetlands that have been and still need to be identified within the proposed corridor areas. City Staff believes that the only option available to UDOT at this time may be the eventual mitigation of some wetlands within any of the corridor areas. City Staff strongly believes that effective mitigation could be achieved by strategically utilizing city owned properties and resources to bring proposed alignment C to a location much closer to the original 2001 North Legacy road alignment. UDOT has stated that a discussion regarding mitigation would not be appropriate at this phase of the process as they are currently working to avoid wetland areas. City Staff contends that UDOT will have great difficulty avoiding wetlands entirely within this area of Syracuse City and is ready and willing (should the Mayor and City Council desire it) to work with UDOT in defining a route that allows for minimal mitigation, while moving closer to the original Bluff Road alignment. This memorandum is a reflection of City Staff s effort thus far in the process. At this time, City Staff continues to work with UDOT on these issues and is committed to completing a comprehensive review and analysis of all issues discussed in this memorandum. City Staff will make every effort to provide the Mayor and City Council with additional information regarding this matter as we continue to study and review the proposed West Davis Corridor routes. Additionally, City Staff continues to review and discuss input received from residents and other community interests within Syracuse City and works to incorporate these comments into the study of this matter.
WETLANDS KEY Please note: Most of the areas that are below the Bluff (or west of Bluff Road) have a thick clay hardpan layer, that layer forces water near the surface. Photos of the locations listed below were taken on March 17, 2011, following two days of major precipitation within the Syracuse City area. 1. This spawning pond, or wetland area shown in the photo, was built as part of the overall construction of Jensen Pond. This area has not been identified by UDOT on their wetland study map, and is only being intended for use as a point of reference for areas within the study area that have not been properly identified. The City contends that UDOT does not need to review this area, given the fact that this area does not affect any of the proposed routes. 2. Two photos are shown in this wetland area and are intended to portray how this particular area of wetland has been created. Photo 2a identifies the water source that currently runs in the county canal and feeds into the general wetland area. The City agrees that UDOT has properly identified this area as wetlands and does not recommend any further review of this area. 3. UDOT has identified this location as having a large quantity of wetlands. This property, for many years, has been heavily used as a grazing field for horses. Many questions have arisen regarding UDOT s classification of this entire area as wetlands. There are, however, parts of this area, located further to the west at this site, that have significant wetland characteristics. The City strongly recommends that UDOT review and reevaluate this wetlands area. The City contends that, while parts of this area likely qualify as wetlands, the entire area (identified by UDOT in its preliminary study) likely does not qualify. 4. As show in the associated photo, this area has been plowed under and is currently being used for cattle grazing. As part of their Preliminary Wetland Study, UDOT has identified this area as wetlands. The City strongly recommends that UDOT review and reevaluate this wetlands area. The City contends that this area does not have the required characteristics to qualify it as wetlands. 5. Many parts of this area have been properly identified by UDOT as wetlands. The developers of the Freemont Estates Subdivision (to the west) mitigated seven (7) acres of wetland in this area and the mitigation area is now being used as a functional detention basin. The City recommends that UDOT review the requirements for mitigated wetlands and verify if it is possible to mitigate a previous mitigation area. Should UDOT verify that this area exceeds the seven (7) acres of affected wetlands (that was previously mitigated), the City recommends that the remaining acreage be properly identified as detention basins. 6. This area has been identified by UDOT as wetlands. The City agrees that UDOT has properly identified this area as wetlands and does not recommend any further review of this area. 1
7. This area, as located in UDOT s preliminary wetland study area, has not been identified as a wetlands location. It is important to note that during the summer months there is approximately 150 head of cattle that grazes on this property. As a result of this grazing activity, the plants at this location (typically associated with wetlands) have not had an adequate growing season. Additionally, please note that at the time this photo was taken, there was a significant amount of water on the surface of this area, likely indicating a higher volume of wetlands. The City has identified a potential impact to this wetlands area by UDOT s proposed Option C route. The City strongly recommends that UDOT reevaluate this entire area as having a higher volume of wetlands. The City contends that the majority of this area (identified on the map) qualifies as wetlands. 8. UDOT has not identified this area as wetlands and this area is currently located outside of UDOT s wetland study area. The cattails, shown in the photo, are currently location is a detention basin for the Tuscany Meadows subdivision (to the north). The area to the west of the detention basins has historically been extremely wet and currently operates as a grazing field. The City strongly recommends that UDOT review and reevaluate this entire area as wetlands. 9. UDOT has not identified this area as wetlands and this area is currently located outside of UDOT s wetland study area. The City has identified a potential impact to this wetlands area by UDOT s proposed Option C route. The City strongly recommends that UDOT review and reevaluate this entire area as wetlands. 10. UDOT has identified this location as having wetlands. This area currently operates in a similar fashion as the location identified in area 3; the terrain at this site has been beaten down by cattle grazing and there currently does not seem to be any indication of standing water in this area. The City strongly recommends that UDOT review and reevaluate this entire area as wetlands. 11. On the southwestern portion of UDOT s proposed Options A & B there is a potential wetlands area that falls well outside of UDOT s preliminary wetland study area. The City has identified a potential impact to this wetlands area by UDOT s proposed Options A & B route. The City strongly recommends that UDOT review and reevaluate this entire area as wetlands. 12. UDOT has identified this area as having wetlands. The City agrees that UDOT has properly identified this area as wetlands and does not recommend any further review of this area. 2
1 Photo 1: Jensen Nature Park (photo taken southwest on 3/17/11 rainstorm on 3/16/11) 2 Photo 2a: Photo taken northeast Photo 2: 3000 South Bluff Road (photo taken southwest on 3/17/11 rainstorm on 3/16/11)
3 Photo 3: 2800 South 2000 West (photo taken west on 3/17/11 rainstorm on 3/16/11) 4 Photo 4: 2250 South Bluff Road (photo taken southwest on 3/17/11 rain storm on 3/16/11)
5 Photo 5: 1900 South Bluff Road (photo taken south on 3/17/11 rainstorm on 3/16/11) 6 Photo 6: 2900 West 1700 South (photo taken north on 3/17/11 rainstorm on 3/16/11)
7 Photo 7: 3100 West 1700 South (photo taken south on 3/17/11 rainstorm on 3/16/11) 8 Photo 8: 3500 West 2700 South (photo taken northwest on 3/17/11 rainstorm on 3/16/11)
9 Photo 9: 3000 South 3000 West (photo taken east on 3/17/11 rainstorm on 3/16/11) 10 Photo 10: 3300 South 2000 West (photo taken west on 3/17/11 rainstorm on 3/16/11)
11 Photo 11: 3300 South 3000 West (photo taken southwest on 3/17/11 rainstorm on 3/16/11) 12 Photo 12: 3300 South Bluff Road (photo taken southwest on 3/17/11 rainstorm on 3/16/11)