Loading...
11/13/2007 - Minutes PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2007 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, November 13, 2007, at 4 : 48 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; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Jennifer Bruno, Council Deputy Director; Janice Jardine, Council Land Use Policy Analyst; George Shaw, Planning Director; Cheri Coffey, Planning Deputy Director; Lynn Pace, Deputy City Attorney; LuAnn Clark; Housing and Neighborhood Development Directory; Len Simon, National Legislative Priorities; Lyn Creswell, Chief Administrative Officer; Sam Guevara, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; and Chris Meeker, Deputy City Recorder. Councilmember Turner presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 4 : 48 p.m. DUE TO EQUIPMENT FAILURE THERE IS NO DIGITAL RECORDING FOR THIS MEETING AGENDA ITEMS #1 . RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE REQUESTING TO REZONE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 360, 362 , 364, 366, AND 376 SOUTH 900 WEST FROM RMF-35 MODERATE DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO RMU-45 RESIDENTIAL/MIXED USE DISTRICT AND AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE WEST SALT LAKE COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN. (PETITION NO' S. 400-07-06 AND 400-07-07) (ITEM C1) See Attachment George Shaw and Janice Jardine briefed the Council with the attached handouts . #2 . RECEIVE A BRIEFING FROM LEN SIMON REGARDING THE CITY' S NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES. Mr. Simon briefed the Council . #3 . HOLD A DISCUSSION REGARDING A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE SUGAR HOUSE BUSINESS DISTRICT AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION. (ITEM F3) See Attachments 07 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2007 Cheri Coffey, Janice Jardine Soren Simonsen, Cindy Gust-Jenson, George Shaw and Lynn Pace briefed the Council with the attached handouts . #4 . RECEIVE A BRIEFING AUTHORIZING A CASH FLOW LOAN ($50,000) FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) HOUSING MATCH FUND TO HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES, INC. FOR THE VALLEY HORIZON II PROJECT. See Attachments LuAnn Clark and Jennifer Bruno briefed the Council with the attached handouts . #5 . RECEIVE A BRIEFING AUTHORIZING A CASH FLOW LOAN ($200,000) FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) HOUSING MATCH FUND FOR A PERMANENT HOUSING PROJECT FOR THE CHRONICALLY HOMELESS. (ROAD HOME 999 SOUTH MAIN ST. ) LuAnn Clark and Jennifer Bruno briefed the Council . #6. HOLD A DISCUSSION REGARDING A RESOLUTION TO DETERMINE MAYOR ANDERSON' S REQUEST OF NON-APPLICABILITY PURSUANT TO SECTION 2 .44 . 180 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE. (ITEM Fl) See Attachments Mayor Anderson briefed the Council with the attached handout . #7 . CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO CLOSED SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF STRATEGY TO DISCUSS TWO MATTERS ON THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE, OR LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY WHEN PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE PUBLIC BODY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS AND TO DISCUSS PENDING OR REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION; PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANN. § 52-4-204, 52-4-205 (1) (c) (d) , AND ATTORNEY-CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANNOTATED §78-24-8 . Councilmember Buhler moved and Councilmember Christensen seconded to enter into Closed Session. A role call vote was taken. Council Members Love, Buhler, Simonsen, Saxton, Christensen, Jergensen and Turner voted aye. See file M 07-2 for Sworn Statement and tape . #8 . REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. Ms . Gust-Jensen presented the Executive Director Report . The meeting adjourned at 8 : 37 p.m. 07 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDA , -NOVEMBER 13, 2007 Council Chair 44 4, ^ Kti t� - r q ( C ief Deputy City Recorder DUE TO EQUIPMENT FAILURE THERE IS NO DIGITAL RECORDING FOR THIS MEETING This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes for the City Council Work Session held November 13, 2007 . cm 07 - 3 (4) - ///I27o7 1' esolixfinn A RESOLUTION REGARDING the SUGAR HOUSE BUSINESS DISTRICT - • WHEREAS,Sugar Ilouse has a longhistoryof prosperous business and industryactivity;and developed - t- P P' "� Y P a as one of Utah's first"street car"neighborhoods with its own independent community identity and character;and WHEREAS,Sugar House community has grown and flourished through development of its residential :11 and commercial areas while maintaining its distinct,charming character and remains,today,a `1 desirable destination for people to visit,shop,work,play and live;and a i WHEREAS,the Sugar House Business District is one of the most unique and thriving business • districts in the region;and • WHEREAS,the Sugar House Community Master Plan calls for preserving the look and feel of the Sugar House Business District as a unique place,part of the image and character of which relies on the older buildings that have made up the core area since early in the 20th Century;and .� `z' ;'t' WHEREAS,the Sugar House Community Master Plan identifies goals.policies and guidelines for the . '' : Sugar House Business District that include: 1. Preserving historic structures and facades as part of the historic fabric. - "'#a 2. Honoring the historic scale and mass of buildings along 2100 South and 1100 East. 3- Providing space for small tenants in the retail and office buildings that are developed. 4. Increasing a residential presence through a mixed land use pattern. `*` 5. Directing development to be transit and pedestrian oriented,based on historic development patterns;and 4 �,'" WHEREAS,maintaining the unique character of the Sugar House Business District requires 'e I preserving the district's historic commercial buildings and natural and cultural resources such as the ' Hidden Hollow Preserve and the Sugar House Monument Plaza and ensuring that new development respects die district's historic development and architectural patterns;and a WHERI'.AS,in 2002,the City funded an historic intensive-level building survey for 10 properties ._,ii resulting in 4 properties being listed on the National Register of Historic Places,and three additional a';u properties determined eligible for listing,including the Granite IDS Tabernacle,the Sugar House LDS Ward building,and the Granite Lwnber Company/ZCMI building on the Grant Block;and , WHEREAS the Utah Heritage Foundation,recently provided a list of potential historic buildings Avd (approximately 70+)in and near the Sugar I louse Business District noting that the different eras of _ buildings give texture to the Business District and have provided economic value and diversity to the area for decades:and am. W HEREAS,:I- .c he Local First lltah organization has identified the Sugar House Business District as one .�1 of the region's most significant examples of a thriving local business district citing numerous studies l and resources demonstrating the important economic benefits to supporting local businesses,that are a i significant part of a balanced economic development portfolio for our city;and WHEREAS.the City allocated approximately$52,000 and hired a consultant to conduct a business $ ' district historic building survey,that includes an historic reconnaissance-level survey and an historic intensive-level survey of buildings within the Sugar House Business District,and to develop design guidelines based on these survt!,.s:and WHEREAS.following the completion of the surveys and creation of design guidelines,the City anticipates recommendations will be provided that identify adequate preservation and conservation tools,options or incentives to protect the historic buildings identified within the Sugar House Business District:and .3 �,; - . , . 24 �,4s1 '4k��i a¢ i�`�' r� fi Y ;+4 --" {. ..',ln•,,. ,. ,. ,'7•s 4- k _ - • A l/i Li� W t dam. .1 5. ', e_ ? .b 5� PY 7C� s 15 2 --' PsDlutwwu WHEREAS,the City Council desires to protect and preserve the unique historic character and historic "` designated or potentiallydesignated structures of the Sugar House Business District;and 6.r g g b ,,t - NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Salt Lake City Council reaffirms the goals,policies ▪-, and recommendations in the Sugar House Community Master Plan adopted on December 13,2005, regarding historic preservation and the Sugar House Business District;and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the Salt Lake city Council encourages land owners,developers 0. , and the City Administration,as it reviews development proposals,to place a strong emphasis on maintaining and creating opportunities for local small businesses to thrive;and 11, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Salt Lake City Council-recognizing that retaining the distinct ., identity of the Sugar House area is an important city policy objective that depends on preservation of j the community's natural resources as well as historic properties,both commercial and residential— ' encourages the CityAdministration to ensure that new design respects the community's historic � , g g P Y , $, development and architectural patterns;and f-*fr BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Salt Lake City Council encourages preservation of historic n buildings,particularly in the area immediately surrounding the Sugar House Monument Plaza,such as the Granite Block,Sterling Furniture buildings and 2100 South storefronts that arc critical to the future potential of creating an historic conservation district;and • BE TT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Salt Lake City Council encourages the use of preservation LI ,,,,,i ' design concepts and options that address to a greater degree compatibility between existing development patterns and new growth;and 11-"1- t r 4• BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Salt Lake City Council affirms,with new development -__ currently occurring in the Sugar House Business District,its commitment to act collaboratively with „y_ _, ,i, the City Administration in proactively working with property owners,developers and the community to find the appropriate means to meet development goals in harmony with the goals of the Sugar House ,,,; ' CommunityMaster Plan and long-term sustainabilityof the Sugar House Business District. g k' " i „ Van Turner,District Two Jill Remington-Love,District Five '{' ;t,,:Y Chair,City Council Vice Chair,City Council » 4, _: ,,,, ACarlton Christensen,District One David L. Buhler,District Six :,,,,-5, 11 r " Eric Jergensen,District Three Soren Simonsen,District Seven A Nancy Saxton,District Four :lir791,73i�; _- u ;W.,.-✓n^"4,>r�_1' .. '.:-.., 'ti,z41, _, .,:,7 -' ;':. ., z.'g1,i: 1 — vri;. From: Isellre111@aol.com [mailto:Isellre111@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:15 PM To: cindygust Jenson@slcgov.com; Love,Jill;Turner,Van; Aramaki,Jan; Saxton, Nancy; Christensen, Carlton; Buhler, Dave; Simonsen, Soren; Jergensen, Eric Subject: Re: Proposed Resolution regarding the Sugar House Business District November 13,2007 To The Members of the Salt Lake City Council Meeting in Closed and Open Session Today: I have just been emailed a copy of a Resolution regarding the Sugar House Business District being proposed and discussed this afternoon by the SL City Council and sponsored by Councilman Soren Simonsen. It is not a resolution that I was aware was being proposed today nor was Councilman Soren Simonsen at our last week's monthly Sugar House Community Council meeting. Therefore, I am writing this email to you as the Chair of the Sugar House Community Council to make you aware of some possible confusion regarding the proposed Resolution: • Our Council two months ago, under the prior Chair-Philip Carlson, listened to and approved the proposed preliminary plan brought to us by Craig Mecham. That plan included the demolition of all buildings owned by Mecham on 21st South including but not limited to the Lumber Store building now used by the Blue Boutique. Councilman Simonsen attended that meeting and made no objection that I recall. • Although we, as the Sugar House Community Council, and I, personally, have spent over 30 years actively fighting to protect our historic buildings and history, and we always hope to be able to preserve our history for ourselves and the Sugar House Community that we represent,we also include owners of properties as members of our community and when no objections are made to their plans brought to us for review and approval, try to support them also. Therefore, I hope that you,the members of the Salt Lake City Council, will consider that the Sugar House Community Council as a whole has already approved the preliminary plans of Craig Mecham.We wait for him to bring his final plans to the Planning Commission and then to your body. Sincerely, Grace Sperry Chair of the Sugar House Community Council Sugar House Business District 9/28/07 Reconnaissance Level Survey 2007 Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah Page 3 Project Objectives The purpose of this Selective Reconnaissance Level survey was to document all of the principal structures in the Sugar House' Business District(SHBD) in Salt Lake City, to update the information files in the statewide database of information on cultural resources in Utah2 created and maintained by the Utah State Historic Preservation Office(SHPO), and to provide recommendations for use by Salt Lake City in planning/preservation efforts within the surveyed area. All properties surveyed were evaluated to determine their current eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places,their current physical condition and their contributing or noncontributing status. This documentation provides a written and photographic record of the historic resources that may be demolished or altered in the future as well as to promote preservation of the buildings and resources documented. Information from the survey will be used to inform the planning process for future preservation and zoning efforts for the area. Survey Boundaries The boundaries of the Sugar House Business District area to be surveyed were determined by the Salt Lake City Planning Department and are shown on the map,Appendix A. The area surveyed covers the SHBD area as well as a number of properties that were omitted from previous surrounding reconnaissance level surveys. The buildings located within the current CSHBD-1 or 2 zoning are covered in this report. Structures outside of the boundaries of the CSHBD-1 or 2 zoning covered in this survey are noted in Appendix G. The City estimated that the area included 85 properties to be surveyed although the actual number of resources surveyed was 159. Outline History of the Sugar House Business District The following outline history of the Sugar House Business District is derived from sources included in the Bibliography and the Sugar House Business District, Multiple Property Submission, prepared in 2002. Additional information was taken from a Reconnaissance Level Survey of the West Sugar House Residential Neighborhoods conducted in 2004. Early Settlement and Industry: 1848-1909 The development of the area now the Sugar House Business District began as an industrial and milling center along Parley's Creek four and a half miles southeast of the downtown area of Salt Lake City and located on land planned for agricultural use in the Big Field Survey. The Mormon 3 pioneers entered the Salt Lake valley in 1847 and the following year the Big Field Survey divided the land around the initial Salt Lake City settlement into five and ten acre plots to be used for farming for the inhabitants of the city.` The major streets in the survey area, 210Q South, 900 East, 1100 East and 1300 East, marked the boundaries of the blocks in the survey. The eponymous sugar mill was built in 1852 at what is now the southeast corner of 1100 East and 2100 South in f ' The name of the area is also spelled Sugarhouse. 2 The Utah Historic Sites Database. 3 LDS or Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 4 The area north of 2100 South was known as Five-Acre Plat A and the area south was the Ten-Acre Plat. Sugar House Business District 9/28/07 • Reconnaissance Level Survey 2007 Salt Lake City,Salt Lake County,Utah Page 4 Salt Lake City. The mill produced molasses,not the granulated white sugar desired,and was soon changed over to other uses:variously a paper mill,a flooring mill,a nail factory,a bucket factory,a stable,a machine shop for the Utah Central Railroad,and offices for the Bambe+ger Coal Company.' Transportation connections were an important element in the early commercial growth of the Sugar House business district. Streetcars,railways,a canal,and Parley's Creek passed through the area. By 1898 two sets of tracks connected Sugar House with Salt Lake City;one along 900 East continuing south,and another along 1100 East turning east on 2100 South towards the state prison at 1500 East and 2100 South. Residential development followed the streetcar tracks,particularly in the southeast section of the city in the 1890s and the first decades of the 20'"century. Streetcar access made it possible to live in outlying areas like the bungalow neighborhoods of Sugar House or Highland Park to the south and get rapidly to and from work in downtown Salt Lake City. The Salt Lake and Eastern Railroad,built 1888-1890,connected Sugar House with Park City to the east via Parleys Canyon. The Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal passes.through Sugar House and crosses Parley's Creek at the western end of the Plaza at 1100 East and 2100 South. It was built in 1864 to transport granite blocks from Little Cottonwood Canyon to the Salt Lake Temple. Both water features,the creek and the canal,are below ground in conduit for most of their route in Sugar House today,although Parley's Creek is visible in Hidden Hollow'and again in a section on the west side of 900 East. The route of the canal can still be seen in the path of McClelland Avenue. The earliest known commercial business in Sugar House was a general merchandise store established in 1866,the Sugar House Co-operative store.' A number of retail businesses grew in the SHBD area at the end of this era. The territorial prison was established in the 1880s to the east of the business district in what is now Sugar House Park at 1450 East and 2100 South. Streetcar lines connected the prison to downtown Salt Lake City. A Citv Within A City,Urban Growth: 1910-1960 By the turn of the century the Sugar House area had changed from its initial industrial and agricultural use to an expanding residential section. The need for lumber,building supplies, services and furniture for the new_houses in the southeastern section of Salt Lake City was met by retail businesses located nearby in Sugar House. At the urging of its organized merchants,Sugar House was annexed by Salt Lake City in 1910. Civic improvements and beautification followed. In 1913-4 the plaza was built at the west side of the intersection of 1100 East and 2100 South,sewer and gas lines were installed,1100 East and 2100 South were paved,and"unsightly"buildings were torn down.' In the 1920s,zoning ordinances confined the business district to a strip along the two major intersecting streets,2100 South and 1100 East. There was one mile of sidewalk in the Sugar House business area by 1921 8 In 1928,plans were being made for a monument on the plaza,the old Sugar House mill was torn down and a new building for the Sprague Branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library was constructed on the western edge of what was then Sugar House Park(2131 S.Highland Drive).10 The Sugar House Monument was built in 1930 on the plaza. 5 Deseret News,April 21,1964,6A. 'Hidden Hollow is a mid-block public park on the block bounded by 2100 South,1300 East,1100 East and Wilmington Avenue. Deseret News,November 27,1920,4,IV. 'Salt Lake Tribune,December 6,1914. °Sugar House Times,April 2,1921,4. 10 After the prison was demolished in the early 1950s,the surrounding area became Sugar House Park. Sugar House Business District 9/28/07 Reconnaissance Level Survey 2007 Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah Page 5 Transportation connections, increasingly tied to the automobile, continued to influence the Sugar House commercial area. The Utah section of the nation-spanning Lincoln Highway was constructed in 1918-20. It entered Salt Lake from Kimball Junction through Parley's Canyon and went through the SHBD on 2100 South to State Street and then north to Salt Lake City. This opened 2100 South to interstate auto traffic and spurred the development of businesses that provided goods and services for auto-related travel such as gas stations, auto dealers, repair shops, restaurants, car dealers,and hotels. The highway, later known as interstate U.S.40,was a major east-west road across the United States and routed traffic through the SHBD. The streetcar route contributed to business success along 1100 East. Sugar House was a regional shopping area and its merchants pressed for continued improvements. Its major street, 2100 South,was widened in 1939 to accommodate automobile traffic. The Sugar House merchants agitated for removal of the streetcar and railroad tracks and they were gone in the 1940s. Following the end of World War II, another round of modernization took place. Streetlights were installed and the merchants began retail promotions like"Sugar Days"and the "Miss Sugar House"contest. The nearby state prison was moved to Bluffdale in 1951 and the land of the former prison site was given to Salt Lake City and county for development as Sugar House Park. Sugar House was the only business center competing with the downtown area and prided itself on the fact its business district had no parking meters. In 1950 the business area provided the full spectrum of retail shops and services for the surrounding residential community. There were two movie theatres, restaurants, bars, cleaners and laundries, a roller rink, an ice-skating rink, and a variety of retail shops and services. Most were r locally owned small businesses along 2100 South and 1100 East/Highland Drive. The lumber/hardware and furniture center continued with Granite Furniture, Hyland Lumber, Granite Planing Mill, Sugar House Lumber, and the Sugarhouse planing mill on 2032 10th East. The first automobile-oriented shopping destination in the area was the Sugarhouse Center in 1954. It was located on Simpson Avenue to the south and east of the center of the existing business district between 1300 East and Highland Drive. The buildings of the new center were grouped together, surrounded by open space for parking. Decline and Renewal. 1961-2007 Traffic patterns changed abruptly when, in 1961 and 1962, the Interstate 80 freeway was constructed to the south of the SHBD at approximately 2400 South. The major streets through the SHBD, 2100 South and 1100 East/Highland Drive,were no longer the main traffic thoroughfares and were replaced by 1-80 and 1300 East, accessible from the I-80 exit. Automobile traffic now bypassed the historic commercial district which subsequently experienced an economic slump. A decline in the surrounding neighborhoods followed in the 1960s and 1970s." The economic center of the SHBD shifted from the historic intersection of 2100 South and 1100 East/Highland Drive to the south and east, closer to the 1300 East exits on Interstate 80. Later the historic southeast corner that was the site of the original mill was developed into a shopping center for mostly national chain stores and restaurants,the Sugar House Commons in 1998. These developments reinvigorated the area which led to acute development pressures on the remaining ( historic resources that primarily housed local small retail businesses. 11 Broschinsky,p.8. Sugar House Business District 9/28/07 Reconnaissance Level Survey 2007 Salt Lake City,Salt Lake County,Utah Page 6 Fieldwork Methodology The survey was conducted in accordance with the Utah State Historic Preservation Office(SHPO) Standard Operating Procedures for Reconnaissance Level Surveys,as revised September 2005. Digital photography was used and photographs were taken using a digital 35mm camera. CDs containing digital images of the principal structures in flies by street were provided to both the city and the SHPO. The numbered streets come first,each digit in numeric order,then the alphabetical street names. Both the city and the SHPO received printed copies of the images on the Digital Contact Sheets,(Appendix C)with up to twelve images to a sheet in landscape mode,in color on soft-gloss professional photo paper,and accompanying Architectural Survey Data sheets(Appendix D). A Standard Reconnaissance Level Survey photographs,maps,and documents every principal building encountered In the survey area.Each site was photographed and recorded on the survey map. The survey map was prepared based on an aerial map of the Sugarhouse Business District with lot lines and addresses marked,as provided by the Salt Lake City Planning Department. Information on the estimated construction date,exterior building materials,height,architectural style and type,and use of the property was recorded on the survey forms.The number and eligibility of existing outbuildings(contributing or noncontributing)was also recorded when visible.Current names were included as appropriate for commercial and public buildings. Estimated building construction dates were based on dates noted in the tax records at the Salt Lake County website (www.slpropertvinfo.oro)as well as on building permit records available at the Salt Lake City Planning offices(Alchemy). All buildings surveyed were evaluated using criteria developed by the SHPO to indicate age and integrity and assigned a value of A,B,C,or D. A building receiving an"A"evaluation must be more than fifty years old,retain its historic integrity and also possibly be considered as either historically or architecturally significant. Buildings with a"B"designation retain most of their historic integrity but have some modifications that prevent an"A"evaluation. "B"buildings may be considered for the National Register of Historic Places as part of a multiple property submission or a historic district.They may not have significance on their own but are eligible within a district and can have a very high degree of integrity. Buildings with a"C"designation have lost their architectural integrity as a result of subsequent modifications. A"C"building may not be individually eligible for the National Register but may have important local historical value and be listed on a city register. A, B,and C buildings were constructed during the historic period. A and B buildings are eligible as contributing buildings in a historic district. The National Park Service criteria for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places(1966)state that a property must be at least fifty years old,with some exceptions,to be included. For purposes of the survey,buildings constructed in 1961 or earlier are considered within the historic period. Buildings constructed in 1962 or later are designated with a"D"evaluation on the survey forms and on the map as'Out of Period." A copy of previously entered data for the Salt Lake City database in Microsoft Access data format was provided to the consultant by the SHPO at the beginning of the study. The majority of properties previously entered in the database were because of Historic Site Forms generated during the APS surveys in the early 1980s,other Intensive Level Survey(ILS)work,or because the properties were nominated to the National Register individually or as part of the Multiple Property Submission on the Sugar House Business District. Any existing records were updated and new entries input as each property was examined during the 2007 survey. Sugar House Business District 9/28/07 Reconnaissance Level Survey 2007 Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah Page 7 National Register Properties within the Survey Area The following properties within the survey area were nominated to the National Register individually prior to this survey or as part of the Sugar House Business District Multiple Property Submission in 2002:12 Sugar House Postal Station, 2155 S. Highland Drive Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company Garage, 1075 E. Hollywood Avenue Irving Junior High School, 1179 East 2100 South Utah State Liquor Agency#22, 1983 S. 1000 East Crown Cleaning and Dyeing Company, 1987 S. 1100 East Richardson-Bower Building, 1019 E. 2100 South Sugar House Monument, 1100 E. 2100 South Redman Van &Storage Building, 1240 E.2100 South Sprague Branch Salt Lake City Library, 2131 S. Highland Drive Petty Motor Company Annex at 2030 S. 900 East(Not listed, non-historic alterations) Granite LDS Stake Tabernacle and Lincoln Ward, 2006 S. 900 East(Not listed, owner objection) Granite Lumber Company Building, 1080 E. 2100 South (Not listed,owner objection) The Petty Motor Company Annex at 2030 S. 900 East was nominated but not listed because of non-historic alterations. The Granite LDS Stake Tabernacle and the Granite Lumber Company Building were not listed because of owner objections. The Utah State Liquor Agency#22, the Irving Junior High School, and the Redman Van&Storage Building were determined in 2007 to longer no longer retain their historic integrity because of non- historic alterations and have received"C"evaluations in the survey. The Redman Van&Storage Building was removed (delisted)from the National Register in February of 2007. Summary of Results General Findings The survey documented one hundred forty-one primary structures or resources during the Reconnaissance Level Survey. Of the primary resources, thirty(twenty-one percent)contribute to the historic character of the Sugar House Business District. Of this total, three(two percent)are eligible/significant and twenty-seven (nineteen percent)are eligible/contributing. The remaining thirty-eight(twenty-seven.percent)..histoac-era.resources.are noncontributing: Out-of-period structures(built in 1961 or after)constitute fifty-twO percent (or seventy-three). The statistical summary of the survey data for the contributing buildings only, the Historic Building Report/Counts from RLS Survey, appears as Appendix B. The majority of the buildings surveyed are commercial but there are also other public buildings, indicative of Sugar House's early role as an urban center, as well as a business and shopping area for the surrounding neighborhood. It contains buildings with original uses ranging from a post 12 The Sugar House Ward Chapel at 1950 S. 1200 East was also included in the MPS but is not within the boundaries of the 2007 SHBD study. Sugar House Business District 9/28/07 Reconnaissance Level Survey 2007 Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah Page 8 office,13 fire station, public library, church, school,14 a historic monument and several apartment buildings"in addition to the stores, banks, restaurants, warehouses and offices. Several single family houses are included in the survey—all but one has been converted to commercial or multifamily use. Three parks are located near the SHBD. Fairmont Park is located to the west of the survey area and Sugar House Park to the east. Hidden Hollow is within the survey area in the middle of the block bounded by 2100 South, 1300 East,Wilmington Avenue and Highland Drive along Parley's Creek. Findings by Contextual Period Early Settlement and Industry: 1854-1909 There are only three known buildings that remain from the earliest period of settlement. All three are commercial/retail. The Granite Lumber Company building at 1080 E. 2100 South dates from 1900 with subsequent modifications and additions(evaluation code"B", 2007). The building at 2102-42 E. Highland includes a number of separate historic buildings within the 1963 vinyl siding wrap (evaluation code"C", 2007). The structure at 2012 S. 1100 East has a building date of 1908 with subsequent alterations(evaluation code"C",2007). A City Within A City, Urban Growth: 1910-1960 There are twenty-nine buildings that contribute16 to the historic character of Sugar House that date from this period. Residential buildings include The Bradfield, a brick apartment building from 1919 at 1975 S. 1100 East(evaluation code"B", 2007), the 1959 apartment buildings at 2131 S. Lincoln (evaluation code "B", 2007), several single-family bungalows converted to commercial use like Nu- Crisp at 960 E. 2100 South (evaluation code"B", 2007)and the house at 2126 S. 1000 East (evaluation code "B", 2007). The Victorian Eclectic cottage at 2010 S. 1000 East(evaluation code "B", 2007) now houses a business. Both the bungalow at 2019 S. 1000 East(evaluation code "B", 2007)and the World War ii cottage at 2128? S. 1000 East (evaluation code"B", 2007) appear to retain their original single family residential use. The original uses of the other contributing buildings from the era are either commercial or public. Civic structures include the bungalow-style Fire House#377 at 1135 E. 2100 South (evaluation code "A", 2007), the Jacobethan Revival-style Sprague branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library at 2131 S. Highland Drive(NR, 2002)18, the 1940 Colonial Revival Sugar House Postal Station at 2155 S. Highland Drive (NR, 1994),the Jacobethan Revival-style Irving Junior High School main 13 At 2155 S.Highland Drive, The new one is located just to the north of the survey area at 1965 S. 1100 East. No schools are currently located In the survey area. 15 There are also apartment living spaces on the second floor of the two-part block buildings. 16 Contributing resources are those that retain their historic integrity and contribute to the historic character of the area. 17 Note that a new Fire Station#3 was built in 1974 at 1085 E.Simpson Avenue. It is still being used as a working fire station and is not included in the CSHBD zoning. 16 The Sprague branch library is excluded from the CSHBD zoning area and is noted in this report in Appendix G, Supplemental Sugar House Business District RLS 2007. • Sugar House Business District 9/28/07 Reconnaissance Level Survey 2007 Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah Page 9 building at(NR, 1978)t9 and the 1930 Art Deco Sugar House Monument on the plaza at 1100 East and 2100 South (NR, 2002). Decline and Renewal, 1961-2007 There was little new construction in the early decades of this era although seventy-three buildings or fifty-two percent of the buildings surveyed date from this era. In the early 1960s the buildings on the north end of the Granite Block20 were updated with new facades. Granite Furniture received its contemporary space age iconic sign and facade. The group of buildings on the southwest corner of 1100 East and 2100 South were wrapped in vinyl siding and given a faux mansard roof to cover the then unfashionable Victorian facade details. Two small-scale Neo-Expressionism wood-shingled office buildings were constructed on Ashton Avenue near Fairmont Park in the early 1970s. In the 1980s a renewing interest in the Sugar House business district area was signaled by the demolition and subsequent construction of a new bank building by Wells Fargo in 1982 at the northwest corner of the major intersection of 1100 East/Highland Drive and 2100 South. The 1990s saw the development of a large national franchise automobile-oriented shopping center along 1300 East. The remaining buildings from the earlier Sugarhouse Center development were resurfaced as two big box national chain stores, Shopko and Toys R Us, were constructed nearby in 1991, replacing a neighborhood of small houses. The access ramps to Interstate 80 at 1300 East were enhanced in the same period. National franchise fast food restaurants and office buildings were built along 1300 East near the entrance/exits to the freeway. l Public redevelopment tax incentives were used to lure private investors to clear the southeast corner of 2100 South and Highland Drive that was rebuilt as Sugar House Commons21 In 1998. The community had input during the design process and as a result parking is on the.interior of.tbe ... __. block. Franchise restaurants and national chain stores such as Old Navy,Wild Oats, and Bed, Bath and Beyond are located on the exterior streets surrounding the parking areas. The former site of the sugar mill is now a Barnes and Noble book store and the area is a busy shopping destination. The Hidden Hollow Nature Area along Parley's Creek between 1300 East and Highland Drive in the mid-block was Sugar House Park until the State Prison was relocated in the 1950s but was vacant and used as an unofficial dumping ground by the late 1980s. Beginning in 1990, a group of school children from several area elementary and middle schools participated in the Kids Organized to Protect Our Environment(K.O.P.E.) program, which first recognized the potential of green space at Hidden Hollow. Mostly completed by 1999, numerous volunteers continue to maintain the preserve to complement the surrounding commercial development of Sugarhouse Commons. At the time of this report, August of 2007, a demolition order has been filed with Salt Lake City for a number of the historic commercial buildings along the south side of 2100 South and the west side of Highland Drive. These structures are included in the list of structures recommended for Intensive Level Surveys. 19 Now used as the entrance to an apartment complex. 20 This term is used loosely to describe the structures in the block between 2100 South, Highland Drive,Sugarmont Avenue and McClelland Street. 21 Also known as The Commons. Sugar House Business District 9 9/28/07 Reconnaissance Level Survey 2007 Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah Page 10 Recommendations Further Research Recommendation 1: Conduct Intensive Level Surveys on any buildings constructed before 1961 that have not previously been studied and documented at the intensive survey level. This Reconnaissance Level Survey is the first of a three-part project the City has contracted with the consultants to complete; the second part is the completion of 45 intensive level surveys. The buildings to be researched at the intensive level are listed in Appendix F. Background: The area surveyed is under intense development pressure and information on the history and architecture of the various buildings would inform preservation plans for the area. In addition, intensive level research may identify significant structures that cannot be recognized visually because of facade changes, common in commercial buildings. Altered structures with an evaluation of"C"are included in the ILS research as their facades may be again altered to regain aspects of their historic character. Zoning/Land Use Issues Recommendation 2: Establish a conservation district overlay zone which would share boundaries with the Proposed Sugar House Business District(2005). Background: Based on National Register criteria, only 21%of the properties within the geographic boundaries of the survey area retain their integrity. National Register Bulletin 15 asserts, "For a district to retain integrity as a whole, the majority of the components that make up the district's historic character must possess integrity..." 2 Because National Register Historic District and local historic district designations are unlikely, a conservation district is an appropriate option. The Sugar House Master Plan anticipated this approach and concluded, "A conservation rather than a historic district would be more appropriate for the business district, due to the lack of a concentration of contributing buildings.i23 Recommendation 3:Adopt design guidelines 1)to direct future development and 2)to govern the rehabilitation of historic structures in the Sugar House Business District. As mentioned under Recommendation 1, this Reconnaissance Level Survey is the first of a three- part project the City has contracted with the consultants to complete;the third part is the completion of design guidelines for the Sugar House Business District. At the time of this report, the legal basis for the design guidelines has not been determined by the Planning Department and City Council. A clear legal basis for design guidelines will result in a more useful and meaningful document. 22"How to Evaluate the Integrity of a Property."National Register Bulletin 15.Washington, D.C.: National Park Service. 23 Sugar House Master Plan. Salt Lake City Corporation.Adopted 11/13/2001, Revised 12/13/2005. Sugar House Business District 9/28/07 Reconnaissance Level Survey 2007 Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah Page 11 Background:The Sugar House Master Plan includes the appendix, "Business District Design Guidelines Handbook"the intent of which"is to give general design guidance with flexibility to the development of the area.a24 The"Handbook"is a positive beginning, but should 1)be developed in response to the findings of this survey regarding community character, and 2)should more closely adhere to existing design guideline policy documents such as the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts. 24 Ibid. Sugar House Business District 9/28/07 Reconnaissance Level Survey 2007 Salt Lake City,Salt Lake County,Utah Page 12 Bibliography Alexander,Thomas G. and James B.Allen.Mormons and Gentiles,A History of Salt Lake City. Vol.V,The Western Urban History Series. Boulder,Colorado:Pruett Publishing Co.,1984. Anderson,Charles Brooks. "The Growth Pattern of Salt Lake City,Utah,and its Determining Factors." Ph.D.dissertation,New York University,1945. AP Associates Planning and Research. Salt Lake City Architectural/Historical Survey Central/Southem Survey Area. Salt Lake Planning Commission and Salt Lake City Historic • Landmark Committee,1983. Arlington,Leonard J. Great Basin Kingdom:Economic History of the Latter-Day Saints, 1830-1900. Lincoln:University of Nebraska Press,1958. Boyce,Ronald R. "An Historical Geography of Greater Salt Lake City,Utah." Master's thesis, Department of Geography,University of Utah,1957. Broschinsky,Korral. "Sugar House Reconnaissance Level Survey 2004. West Sugar House Neighborhoods."Available at the Salt Lake City Planning and Zoning Division. Carter,Thomas and Peter Goss. Utah's Historic Architecture, 1847-1940. Salt Lake City,UT: University of Utah Graduate School of Architecture and Utah State Historical Society,1991. Goodman,John. As You Pass By:Architectural Musings on Salt Lake City. A Collection of Columns and Sketches from the Salt Lake Tribune. Salt Lake City,UT:University of Utah Press,1995. Historic Site/Structure Forms.Utah Division of State History Office files and/or Salt Lake City Planning Department. Longstreth,Richard. The Buildings of Main Street;A Guide to Commercial Architecture.Updated edition. Walnut Creek,CA:Alta Mira Press,a division of Rowman&Littlefield Publishers, Inc.,2000. Lufkin,Beatrice. Sugar House Business District Multiple Resource Area. National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form,2003. Photographs from the Shipler Collection and others. Utah History Resource Center,Utah State Historical Society,Rio Grande Building. Plat maps,title records. Available at the Salt Lake County Recorders Office. Roper,Roger. "Historic Resources of Salt Lake City:Urban Expansion into the Early Twentieth Century,1890s-1930s." Multiple Property Listing. National Register of Historic Places, 1989. Salt Lake City Directory. Salt Lake City:R.L.Polk and Company,1890-1960. . i Sugar House Business District 9/28/07 Reconnaissance Level Survey 2007 Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah Page 13 Sanbom Map Company. Fire insurance maps of Salt Lake City, Utah. 1911, 1930, 1941, 1950, 1961. Available at the Marriott Library, University of Utah, and/or the Utah History Research Center, Utah State Historical Society. Sillitoe, Linda. A History of Salt Lake County. Salt Lake City: Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake County Commission, 1996. Sugar House Community Master Plan. Adopted, 11/13/2001, Revised 12/13/2005. www.sicoov.com/CED/HLC/content/Maps of Specific Sites.asp (list of landmark sites) www.slpropertyinfo.orq(Salt Lake County property information site) Whiffen, Marcus. American Architecture Since 1780:A guide to the Styles. Revised edition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1992, 1996. Page 1 of 3 CONTRACT PAYMENT FORM 01 S 05 1275 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Salt Lake City Council • VENDOR NUMBER: 02161 VENDOR NAME: OFFICE MAX CONTRACT TITLE: DEPT. PROJECT NUMBER: INVOICE NUMBER: 84716395,716334 GRANT NO.: INVOICE DATE: 11/01/07, 11/02/07 EFFECTIVE DATE: P/F DEPT. NO. COST CENTER OBJECT CODE PROJECT NUMBER AMOUNT P 19 00100 2221 $49.20 P 19 00100 2221 $93.94 PAYMENT TYPE: P—Partial Payment TOTAL AMOUNT PAYABLE: $ 143.14 F—Final Payment to close contract List invoice Amber Nielson November 13,2007 Prepared By. Date Signature Authority Date The above signature indicates that contracted services have been received by the appropriate City representative and Payment is authorized in the amount indicated. ACCOUNTING USE Manual Check Authorization ONLY Accounting Review: _ Date Initial Manual Check No. Date: Approved By: Issued By: DATA ENTRY Entered By: Date: 45 Proposed Sugar House Intensive Level Surveys-9/7/07 By address with business identifier 2010 S. 1000 East-Morgan Wellness - B 2019 bungalow- B 2040 Ace Auto Supply- B 0-S. ' House /b t+ h a This property is zoned RB. YY/ VlAJ111V JJVJ GGLiCfV1IVU LT- 1962 Sugarhouse Laundry- B 1975 The Bradfield Apts. - B 1992 gallery, locksmith (1990-94) - C 1993 Details+ 1997- B 2008 Image Eyes Optical - C 2011 Green Ant- B - C 2012 Soup Kitchen -2016 - C 2015 Richards Consulting- B 2017 Central Book Exchange- B 2021 Plumbing Supply- B 2023 Technique Recovering- B 2051 Sterling Furniture &Madsen Apts. -C 850 E. 2100 South- Snelgrove/Dreyer's complex - B 870 World of Pets - vacant - C 951 Carpet Giant - C 960 Nu-Crisp Popcorn- B 967 Sugarhouse Appliances - C 1011 Kuong Jou Café - C 1027 former Nu-Crisp - C 1033 Golds Gym+1031 - C 1045 vacant-was Millcreek Coffee - C 1049 Caramba! + 1051 - C 1050 Granite Furniture - B 1054 Rockwood Studios (1054-64) - C 1055 vacant+ 1057 - C 1061 S.L. Pizza& Pasta+ 1063 - C 1074 Bakery, Clareo +1076 - C 1090_E,i2100::South-B_lu_e.Bout que Aninex 1111 jewelers (1111-1113) - C 1115 tailor shop (1115-19) - C 1121 photography (rear encased with 1111-19) - C 1123 Karate Center(+1127-1131) - B 1135 Fire House # 3 - A 1137 Adv. Hearing Center - C 2102 S. Highland-Sugarhouse Coffee et al (2102-2142) - C 2144 Southeast Center - C 2168 Tap Room - C 2174 Leisure Living- C 2188 Dixon Building+2198, Sugarhouse Furniture, Fats Grill - C 2305 Rocky Mtn. Grill (2305-15) - B 2314 Zigs Mini Mart - B 2319 Bogus, O.D. offices- B Other potential I c did a 1,.,�..a�« ates '' ,' '' AA 11 �Ka rva vVL v VAf.Laal 1121 24 Hour Fitness 1117 Pibs Exchange bow string truss roof 220_1 S Highl„„ „dance (c, g h r t 2223 String Beads (Sugarhouse Center) 2265 Radio Shack 2007 S. McClclland Street 2009 Barrus pianos 2001 c WLin-ds,.. S+ t 2006 S. 900 East CCNAVVisagc 2120 single story cinder block 2236 S. 1300 East Nordstrom's Rack, etc. (Sugarhouse Center) 1090 E. 2100 South Blue Boutique annex Rationale for determining which properties are the subjects of the 45 ILSes: 1- Zoned C-SHBD 2- Evaluation Code A (which have not been surveyed at intensive level) 3- Evaluation Code B 4- Evaluation Code C + geographic location-proximity to historic Sugarhouse commercial core (2100 South 1100 East) , . SUGAR HOUSE BUSINESS DISTRICT PF( )i,!NIA0.:-ANS-,:i- ?: ,...,,,F.,,,. . J IF--,J..-_,,,, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah --,99,f--.; , 1 ...... - - .._ '-)- , ...-,..,4,,, ,tt.re'. -,..-.,.7:'.. ..:;-•-,.-2.-..,- .•-,'.--. . _ ,. • . . , ...- '.0.-.. ,...:- .-.,..::„: ...,..,... • rt • .. ., . .. :e-dv,-..-:--. t „... ..,. ._.• •• -1. - -.. -.'. '..*,..':-„,3 -",.'-', .• ,,,„.. , . -., - . ..,,-;,.....-',/,;‘: .,--.- .,.--,..,..,,Af•-• ,,,.. ' r - •,, iierippc: .- . . R FP' - -..f • ' , . ''•,•••: ... •:--'''':'..---','' ''''',-,"4-'%'. ••...1:.-.,,, ," . „ ';'•••.•-•'','.:,..,••."7-..--------- - '.•'--.--,--,-, .--•'--1-'1•"''''7--- --- ' , . . ill'— '' , ••,• ','---,•":.'„'•.,i,74',...,...,..,,,..,,,,•%,;,; 4444%.V;:00,:,,,:',N.,,., ,. . '----,,, .,'" 77 '.1. , , . .. . , .. i'''04-•,.,',„.,,,1,...:',' 4,,,,i:.?.). ::..,:t,,,....,,,,,V,...; iiipt 1028 E 2100 SOUTH 1033 E 2100 SOUTH 1045 E 2100 SOUTH 10.4,5,-.) F:, 2-lc soUTt-1 NW OBLIQUE C L.....-„ D , - '.,','A..,.....,....,*;4x.,.:5',:,./.., .. •gie -io,--.7.;.11 „,-,',,,-. .. :';-,-" ,,`,T,,,,,,,,i,,,,.-..•44,4„=',04..,1,t, . if. ,,,111111MEO i ., 3, - , • ',..,,.'-•;.', .."•,,,,t i'1447,,. • i --''114 't.. . "-" ,;:2 .' ' 4 ; , ,-,•.. , .--. • , . ;',,,' 'A l';',,.,': r '' ':',",. '''''"r.,,r•r, re,r,, r•,• ..';',V,'i -r'''."le,"0-',!,,,,„',,.• '';,,,'':1...?•' ,,, ,,,r-W*r,-,:." .r,.;r; r ,...4,1'.: ' boA*Ar'r; ' •-•'''' ' r'rrrk• f'';', ': . •...,,—......-.... .. , ,,' - ,, .:-.„ . —----••-. - . . . , ,,_ , ;' „i. '.':).•-,....'•••, ••.,::-.;,"., tAlli., ..A•,.1,,.. At/W1 It ....-........ . . ••"", ,, - • ",'''.'4: -",''.',.7.4'),::::".; ,,:,, ''t.:,'."'„'`-', .,',::, '? ,ft . ., ,,.......... 1050 E 2100 SOUTH 1054 E 2100 SOUTH 1055 E 2100 SOUTH i01 F„?_100 SOUTH B C C ,',--: -,,,A.. •• ,,, • -,.,*,- ,,...t..-., . , ,, , . . .. , , ..... ,... irji., .-iiii....• lip 9..,' , . ' '':.t L:. .. :! ' '-' 1 "• `i '+-', • '... / {' , :44..r,',..*4'.-ill,;f. - •i• - ..,:,,,,, : , l'' ' ,:..,, 3._,e, - . 4, •.,,,..) ,, . '1: •,417-`*'67,r-- 7' ";4%2:: .' :,',,,,,,. '',:,.•;,. ''' A*,.....''' . j• ‘; • ... lit''''' ' ', ..• ' 7 , -„,.1/4. '.. 1. .. ,.. •4•1: ••'. .•,•,--.,•• :.-$,' •,',:-..'ir.•,-47,. •.. ,•. , •,,:'• : A ., +•:,, \, t• tk,,r' .. r,' 0. ..4. l'' •' • •• ,- • *,,• , ... . ., , , • .= . . .. ,-.. .1 ., - .'- ii . .. ,.... .... , ,•. ".. - ', '-' - v,4.4",:.' '''''-74 '''.' • 1074 E 2100 SOUTH 1080 E 2100 SOUTH 1080 E 2100 SOUT1-1 71090 E 2100 SOUTH 4.." C .. B 1 EAST ADDITiON. /\ SUGAR HOUSE BUSINESS DISTRICT [-.,_, ._•., ;.,.!,/,,,,,,..--.: ,, , il. , , ., „ . , ). ?' '. St Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah _____...... _ .. , . .• . alma 4,-.: • --"` ., in lii '" . ,. ,i.. 4 -t ' ,-- -,. . •A • •- w4+ ••• • ,, •T - ,-e,, - _... . , — „ . . - , • ,. --.....,, 1095 E 2100 SOUTH ?1100 E 11100 SOUTH 1102 FE: 211)0 ,c-,;',nt ,,,,---,7_, ,, , „ „ SE OBLIQUE ,)k 1 I ''s A NW n131,10i, ,P.:7_ D 1.-- Z7firim ,t1( ,....1 , . :-...4....•. , 4/ 1 _''44,:_,,,, „,,,,, . fit ..-1.,.. smillaii*"!--,,,„...---4.t.'. ' '2,-4 ..--•- ,-1,......-44•.,'r..,.,i ;roamer , - - -,-,.. .. . ,......... .,:, : .: .., ..,, : [ , s -:.. . .41-.$0,442,..,....,.....„.... .,-,:., ' ' • ,...•... „., ‘.. __ . -:.....L,r, , • -. rii,..,—.. '7 ,,,k-o4"1111*.4.:... -'"116"*':: • 1115 E 2100 SOUTH 112. 1 E 2100 SOUTH 1123 g. 21 no ,c;,i-NT!-,^, ,, :',".—?:1 7: ,",i clr.,, 1;(:)P4_7!,-,', C C' c, ppli,.- le ..... '......4...:. 7 t' - •• :ti ,,'' '';'i,.., - , ,, , , ,„ •,, \ •:,.-,. ,., , ,,. . __ ,( • , '^A-s.K.". ,4.._ " ..:;." • 'i'5.,' '''. ..1.1;*.e: :',l,,,,:„:3-'.1:„,, . , ,...- •-,---Ii...*-0 -. _ .. .,., •- Nilo ..„4 . . ay.. , . - .. . , # •.„, i . •. Fo-7,74 4111 .., ' : .,1011,10t,t474.. ...c,..;=';4,...--sa.7...--,...". — ' ;,....,,\ '''1,, ..4. -,. *:1_,_ ,.._:;4-. ,- ——-— '7...30144 oi 4k,.,.fe-f,',.•' ,.. ,,..',..•""..-',;!:,',.',',°:',1".:,1"..P:*,: 1134 E 2100 SOUTH 1135 S 2100 EAST 1137 E 2100 ,S0.1)TP,-',, 1'3 f:-..7 •-::: ; .q,011 S'..(1)1_1Thl D 1 2 N 11---• A ,--. . e '....'fi :,r. ''.,'C,,-:\. •—• '..0n7 FE(:(•-li,,,,i,1,6,:-.•,-7,. .-<-,,To.„(--..4--_. -,...i=::, -,,_,_ , , ., SUGAR HOUSE BUSINESS DISTRICT ?---1(iv-. 10 '-)o Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah j: . • -.:•7-70:0:7,7 • -. .. $-, •..• . „ •.*.>'-'4';.:".. ,:-.,-;",,; ),...%..'...:A,, ,•, ..- • ' ''.;.t',,,„' ',.',, .,:. , ; . ..t.. r... '-'.'.i :c. . ,,,• . ..... -. ASHTON AVENUE .• ,.. . . • , - ' ',:O.fi'.''',;‘,..,,,;•:, I.,,.1:,,,j - - 1255 E 2160 SOUTH r--- 1100 E ASHTON AVENLIr 1114 E ASHTON AVENUE D NIN OBLIQUE D — .„ sk :. --i..-. ';+•- ,Nif , ', C' .:.-- . 1:',1,',. '1;:. '--:„.,,,r,‘,... l':"'fi.'::'I*E,..v.:'.'. ' '''' ' •:'',••<`,!4'-';'-'4.1"r•i''''•,',::.,•:::.„:*.i%:-:.,,,'',y,-,:,,,,,, :, . • -,t,':1' *-:•e-..., •,- ,1`,;--'''''.''.4.7-- .:1,- fi.. .1',' r,''',(,'.%.-4.0'S''. i A,' g,i,,,;:i '-;',V.,.47f/ri•„:':'..-:10.—it...'":.:.,7,',...:_ , 4 a P . ,A, , .7 tk.-11-2.1 '.... :,,-..'24;4'.'' -•,,,.... "..i.• •II"- .,':•I.1'; !'''--. '- .-i.'-'.- , 4--,iiik- ', w.,-7;,:'.,7.,'7-',7,-1,:-,-,',:'' ANA:74,0„:.• ,„, , - §10 "' •''''''.'':-.-;'.i:',':::,'.;..SZ-VeiVi,"'':',%,../tatittio157 -rc. N, AVENUE ^ r'SZA i\c•-o--r -) 1114 E ASHTON AVENUE 1121 E ASHTON AVENUE 1147E :SHT.-::‘, F.,0-'I1.7 A'‘/.E!1"11.-:1__:' 1 EC C ,...,....._. ......_. ,, ,..- ...... 44-•,.:,.. .. • • . • .„ ., r.. .. . :4,4-•, ...,-,•=.•:,,q;•,-.- ,•:, ' -T-•••'''''''':.' ''1. -.1.:,...r-L...:,.....i.,' . ',.' i .„*''-' .' - ' ', ' 't.:,,i' .','" ,',1, ,,,,,,,,'• 1 . ,r' .; .. , , . .• ELIZABETH ST HIGHLAND DR!‘t,.._, -- —- -- ?2074 S ELIZABETH ST _t ;)102 S HIGHLAND DRIVE /1\ D C SUGAR HOUSE BUSINESS DISTRICT Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah • ..., .7 If-• c 7 i 17.:- V , ,I, ,,, • 4r( I iiii ,* i'•y' - `, , • • t VW,- , , •••., 4 ,-, ' 40 ' i it. . ,. , , , -_-• - ,.,:4,, I/ 1 , i 4,A, - 1 .. .4 . -1%,1 ' ---4' I '•_JNI •• 11"-------1 , ;„ • t _ -- lr- - 1 2102 S HIGHAND DRIVE 2102 5 HIGHI,L\pr- ------1,,-, - •rs- 7 ',--';'-':JJ fv,'-cr, r)P1\11- 2102 S HIGHLAND DRIVE ' (aka 2108 S Highland Drive) (aka 2120 F., iliciro,--)n,-; Tu. ,- '‘' ,', — ', licl','Iv-lip.1 Drvp-\ (aka 2114 S Highland Drive) _ -----,- ." ,,, .... sz - '''C.-It'`,. ., -•'*'-T./0i , . . , tt.• 0 , N . k, . ' •4. k ' i L ,- ---- g Vill ''''-• Aiwa 1 *• vs" , ..4......-..,,,,„,....., . , 0... .,!--7,... . ,.. _,.. . .. ,„,,,.... , 4 ........ t k I 'AN. ,.,.... *xi ip...1111 4ia, . ' r , L -1, • .. . 4, 10.0 4 *:- it- 0 , 2102 S HIGHLAND DRIVE 2102 S HIGHLAND DRIVE 2121 S HIGH,i /).r\lr- nr,,,,,„r,7.- -' -,'. - '_ "'!, t,',' 1- i,';'-, IJ-FI fr5 (aka 2140 S Highland Drive) (aka 2142 S Highland Drive) -7frIfYr -Noi.' %8•• .'s'i$'-: 4 Aktgi ...' . ri •••••,41,,,j . * r ':4.1...10 , .., ..+, ,.... --•iiiiii.'-' - 4 ' t I r ' l' .4 . 3 - ,4` 11,t tt"' '1.1.14 iri"71-T.'I I 1 I if '.1 If'": '-'''.:1 4.-.,.., • ,..„ ,.., , . .. ,, ,- •- .. .. - - o ....„ zz .....---- - -;-- _ --- t,t,„pitttow 2131 S HIGHLAND DRIVE 2144 S HIGHLAND DRIVE 2146 S HIGHLAND npl,Nir 21,-.,n. - ' ,;,(7,!-Ei. Vrir,'', pri\iF 1\1 7 B ( SE OBLIQUE (-, if d ' C : . SUGAR HOUSE BUSINESS DISTRICT RF1,"11\li\ii\r--::-/\1\1, F ; LL ", -^-- . ',r, ' . ." Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah -'acle-_;, _ .•,, ...-.t,;v _ •... ' - lit- ,,,,r. ..• •':-•i; .. ,., -•-:...t7--i-10, , 'D'.:;:i.,...„ siii..;. ,, .., 1 1 . ..* , . ,-, a-•••••• '1 •-4.1,.., -.,„. ,,,, ul * , tat • ' ",,,,, 7./.1e •* , I , g '-z 1 .' .C. „,-•-17,. " -•-•' , ,_ , 1 .., '..1,, 4.1. . •, , -:,‘„•• -- „. , f:',,,,,,..14,-06._2,.2°:-.1kt,:01,i,•:,.."..:4". •`1" I - !AU , ' • '' , „.., •*:-... ,--4. ,:-. .:',•'.'," . , . 2168 S HIGHLAND DRIVE 2174 S HIGHLAND DRIVE ?2182 S HIGHLAND :-_-,r-1.,' 7 g','.4 .. -1j,`-‘4••111_,,/,\HP DPNT.: C NE OBLIQUE r, , . -- C ...„ A _ _ -- 77-74., fr.f•'F ?: ,„ti,'- ,,4„.......' -•••i••-,-- ...- 4,'';,-.i.,„ ff•‘ 011.t':"•,"4., „.., _ , .,,. , •,...,.0,4,„„,..,-, .,.,r• -,7 4 --e.::: r''''' . . .• -,%4‘' ..114 'f,.).„.:..1-- irk, V! '---- 7:' 1: ..e - . I i 0.1419 , 4,,, '' '',: ri, I;• , ',.''''t 4 4'' ,',' 40iiO4 7 r .1 1 1 Jae .1`-L '''' , ''''''" • !vi. -- .-.1 4:-I:',' •-4111.,',?... , , , - .,. , tilt,, ; -2198 S HIGHLAND DRIVE 2200 S HIGHLAND DRIVE 2201 S HIGHLAND DRIVE 2.-2'-':", -_'-'.. HIGHLAND DRIVE rs\ B 4\--- D C<-?...-..1';,„.• ,,..,, ,..., . -,„. sk-.A.-,,,„.4, •-• ...- - ,: ., • -.4:...;. ..s• ,,, ,,,,.-y ,-..,---',,, ..-:.- ...,....;.••,,:, •.,,,...,.. -,. - , .. ._ .dr . . , , : •••4, k • 110 ' '..,1' , ..,„ ,, ; ' .! it .4144,i ,-. e. . , , , --p -'iv o. -' ,43t..•,;'",--49.,,r,,, ....'''',,....- Pwl ,)7, 1 t . 1- -,,$). P. , f ; p, - ' , 11; I ' ''' .,. - _ _ ..lici .wiss;.„,— -_.._4,... T. ... •. 7,::.--,....%,1: _..2 . -r,'.,,v-1,7,:•,, ',, ''',..-,1,- _,.... 2234 S HIGHLAND DRIVE 2262 S HIGHLAND DRIVE 2265 S HIGHLAND DRIVrz: ,").;` 77.', f--:-, IlIGI-11 AND DPI\fr- D D ,-, ..., ,12 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CDATE: November 13,2007 SUBJECT: Salt Lake County Housing Authority request for$50,000 loan from CDBG Housing Match funds for construction Valley Horizon II project STAFF REPORT BY: Jennifer Bruno, Policy Analyst AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: n/a ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT: AND CONTACT PERSON: LuAnn Clark,Housing and Neighborhood Development Director KEY ELEMENTS: A. The Housing Authority of Salt Lake County is requesting a loan of$50,000 from the City's CDBG Housing Match funds in order to construct the Valley Horizon II project. 1. The Valley Horizon II project will provide permanent,supportive housing to 70 chronically homeless seniors. 2. It will be located at 3100 South 3600 West in West Valley City. 3. The total project costs are anticipated to be$8,021,729 4. The funding sources are as follows: Potential Crusade for Homeless $ 100,000 Eccles Foundation $ 300,000 West Valley City $ 200,000 West Jordan City $ 167,036 Salt Lake City $ 50,000 Salt Lake County $ 288,000 Total Potential $ 1,105,036 Committed US Bank $ 5,066,693 Olene Walker $ 1,250,000 SL County $ 500,000 US Bank(loan) $ 100,000 Total Committed $ 6,916,693 Total Funding $ 8,021,729 5. The Council may wish to clarify how the applicant intends to fill gaps if necessary if the potential funding sources are not secured. B. The request is for a$50,000 loan from the CDBG Housing Match Funds line item. 1. Typically the administration requests$100,000 every year from CDBG to contribute to this fund. They have not forwarded these requests in the last two to three years as there have not been many applications for use of these funds. 2. The current balance of this fund is$339,236. If this request is granted,the balance would be$289,236. It should be noted that the Council is considering an additional 1 request for use of these funds in the amount of$200,000,which would bring the balance down to$89,236. 3. Because there are two applications this year which could deplete the fund if granted, the Administraiton has indicated they are forwarding a request for$100,000 in the FY 2009 cycle of CDBG to replenish this fund. 4. The resolution for the loan calls for a 30 year term with a 0% annual interest rate. The resolution allows for the agreement to be renegotiated by both parties at the end of the 30 year term. (Staff note: If the Council were to apply a 3% interest rate to the loan,the total interest earned over the life of the loan would be$26,529) 5. The City's money would be used for acquisition. C. The Housing Authority of Salt Lake County anticipates that approximately 80% of the new tenants will be residents from Salt Lake City who will be referred by partnering nonprofit service providers (including The Road Home,Valley Mental Health,Volunteers of America, and the Fourth Street Clinic). D. On September 10,2007, the Community Development Capital Improvement Programs (CDCIP)board voted unanimously to support the approval of a loan to this project from the City's CDBG Housing Match Fund. E. On September 14,2007,Mayor Anderson reviewed the request and gave his approval. OPTIONS: The Council may wish to consider the following options: 1. Forward the resolution to the next Council Meeting for consideration. 2. Request additional information. 3. Defer consideration of the request until after the Council has reviewed and adopted the Salt Lake City Housing Policy. MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The Council is continuing to finalize the Housing Policy before adoption. Council Members in the past however,have supported the policy of distributing affordable housing throughout the County,and have contributed funds to projects that are not in City boundaries. B. The Council's current adopted Housing Policy (1999) states the following: I.Affordable and Transitional Housing The City Council supports: 1. Salt Lake City residents having access to housing that does not consume more than 30 percent of their gross income. 2. The analysis of the impacts of fees and current zoning on affordable housing. 3. The type of business growth that is compatible with affordable housing needs in the City. 4. Development of programs to meet the housing needs of all individuals employed by and working or living within Salt Lake City. 5. Policies and programs that encourage home ownership without jeopardizing an adequate supply of affordable rental housing. 6. The dispersal of affordable and transitional housing Citywide and valley-wide. In particular. the Council supports the establishment of smaller transitional housing programs, with a minimum of one four-plea per Council District. 7. The citywide development of single room occupancy housing(SROs). 8. The City providing examples of how affordable housing can be built,offering incentives for innovative projects that developers may not initially be willing to undertake and serving as a facilitator/partner to maximize housing opportunities. II.Citywide Cross Section of Housing 2 The City Council supports: I. A citywide variety of residential housing units, including affordable housing. 2. Accommodating different types and intensities of residential development. III. Housing Stock Preservation,Rehabilitation and Replacement The City Council advocates: 1. Policies and programs that preserve or replace the City's housing stock including,the requirement of, at a minimum, a unit-for-unit replacement or a monetary contribution by developers to the City's Housing Trust Fund in lieu of replacement. 2. The City promoting housing safety and quality through adequately funding by fees the City's apartment inspection program and programs that assist home and apartment owners in rehabilitating and maintaining housing units. IV. Funding Mechanisms The City Council supports: l. Increasing the housing stock via public-nonprofit and/or for profit partnerships. 2. Establishing a public document that outlines annual sources and uses of funds for housing and housing programs. 3. Maximizing public reviews and input relating to use of City housing monies. • C 3 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: November 13,2007 ✓ SUBJECT: The Road Home request for$200,000 loan from CDBG Housing Match funds for construction of the Palmer Court project, located at 999 South Main St. STAFF REPORT BY: Jennifer Bruno, Policy Analyst AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: n/a ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT: AND CONTACT PERSON: LuAnn Clark,Housing and Neighborhood Development Director KEY ELEMENTS: A. The Road Home is requesting a loan of$200,000 from the City's CDBG Housing Match funds in order to construct the "Palmer Court" project at 999 South Main Street in Salt Lake City. 1. The project will provide 211 single and family apartments for those who have experienced chronic homelessness. There will be 150-175 studio apartments for single men and women,and 25-60 one and two bedroom apartments for families. 2. The Road Home anticipates that this project,with turnover and permanent housing placement could accommodate 325 people throughout the course of a year. 3. The location is a former Holiday Inn,which was in the process of closing when acquired by The Road Home. The Road Home will renovate the building,rather than demolish and re-build, to create the 211 units. 4. The Road Home will provide on-site property management services,and will also arrange for on-side supportive services such as employment resources,mental health services,health care providers,child care programs,and others. 5. The total construction costs (not including land acquisition) are anticipated to be$10 million. 6. Of that$10 million figure,the Road Home has assigned a line item of$357,757 for "overhead and profit." This represents 3.6% of the total project cost. 7. The funding sources for construction are as follows: Funding Sources Tax Credits $ 5,250,000 Olene Walker $ 1,500,000 LDS Church $ 1,000,000 Federal Home Loan Bank $ 400,000 Eccles Foundation $ 750,000 • Crusade for Homeless $ 400,000 Salt Lake County $ 500,000 Salt Lake City $ 200,000 Total Funding Sources $ 10,000,000 B. The request is for a$200,000 loan from the CDBG Housing Match Funds line item. C 1 a. Typically the administration requests$100,000 every year from CDBG to contribute to this fund. They have not forwarded these requests in the last two to three years as there have not been many applications for use of these funds. b. The current balance of this fund is$339,236. If this request is granted, the balance would be$139,236. It should be noted that the Council is considering an additional request for use of these funds in the amount of$50,000,which would bring the balance down to$89,236. c. The resolution for the loan calls for a 30 year term with a 0% annual interest rate. The resolution allows for the agreement to be renegotiated by both parties at the end of the 30 year term. (Staff note: If the Council were to apply a 3% interest rate to the loan,the total interest earned over the life of the loan would be$106,116) d. Because there are two applications this year which could deplete the fund if granted, the Administraiton has indicated they are forwarding a request for$100,000 in the FY 2009 cycle of CDBG to replenish this fund. C. In April of 2007,the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency,committed$3 million in RDA assistance towards land acquisition for this project. D. On September 10,2007,the Community Development Capital Improvement Programs (CDCIP) board voted unanimously to support the approval of a loan to this project from the City's CDBG Housing Match Fund. E. On September 14,2007,Mayor Anderson reviewed the request and gave his approval. OPTIONS: The Council may wish to consider the following options: 1. Forward the resolution to the next Council Meeting for consideration. 2. Request additional information. 3. Defer consideration of the request until after the Council has reviewed and adopted the Salt Lake City Housing Policy. MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The Council is continuing to finalize revisions to the Housing Policy before adoption. B. The Council's current adopted Housing Policy (1999) states the following: I.Affordable and Transitional Housing The City Council supports: I. Salt Lake City residents having access to housing that does not consume more than 30 percent of their gross income. 2. The analysis of the impacts of fees and current zoning on affordable housing. 3. The type of business growth that is compatible with affordable housing needs in the City. 4. Development of programs to meet the housing needs of all individuals employed by and working or living within Salt Lake City. 5. Policies and programs that encourage home ownership without jeopardizing an adequate supply of affordable rental housing. 6. The dispersal of affordable and transitional housing Citywide and valley-wide. In particular,the Council supports the establishment of smaller transitional housing programs, with a minimum of one four-plex per Council District. 7. The citywide development of single room occupancy housing(SROs). 8. The City providing examples of how affordable housing can be built,offering incentives for innovative projects that developers may not initially be willing to undertake and serving as a facilitator/partner to maximize housing opportunities. II. Citywide Cross Section of Housing The City Council supports: 2 1. A citywide variety of residential housing units, including affordable housing. 2. Accommodating different types and intensities of residential development. III.Housing Stock Preservation,Rehabilitation and Replacement The City Council advocates: 1. Policies and programs that preserve or replace the City's housing stock including, the requirement of, at a minimum,a unit-for-unit replacement or a monetary contribution by developers to the City's Housing Trust Fund in lieu of replacement. 2. The City promoting housing safety and quality through adequately funding by fees the City's apartment inspection program and programs that assist home and apartment owners in rehabilitating and maintaining housing units. IV. Funding Mechanisms The City Council supports: 1. Increasing the housing stock via public-nonprofit and/or for profit partnerships. 2. Establishing a public document that outlines annual sources and uses of funds for housing and housing programs. 3. Maximizing public reviews and input relating to use of City housing monies. C. The Council's statement on maintaining a residential base includes the following: "The Council supports using its zoning power to maintain the residential population base within the city,and to encourage population expansion." D. The Council's growth policy notes that growth in Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if it meets the following criteria: 1. Is aesthetically pleasing; 2. Contributes to a livable community environment; 3. Yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an overriding public purpose is served; C and 4. Forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity. E. 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. • 3 MEMORANDUM 2007 TO: City Council FROM: Edwin Rutan, City Attorne Boyd Ferguson, Senior City Attorney art q DATE: November 8, 2007 SUBJECT: Resolution Regarding Determination of Nonapplicablity for Mayor Anderson Salt Lake City Code Section 2.44.080 contains restrictions on the solicitation and receipt of gifts by Salt Lake City officers and employees, and Section 2.44.080B prohibits a City officer or employee from seeking, soliciting, or receiving any gift for the purpose of addressing or dealing with matters not involving official City business. Salt Lake City Code Section 2.44.180(B) authorizes the City Council to grant to the mayor(or vice versa for individual Council members) a determination of nonapplicability of the restrictions on gifts in Section 2.44.080. In a letter to the City Council dated October 30, 2007 (copy attached), Mayor Ross C. Anderson requested from the City Council a determination of nonapplicability with respect to certain soliciting of contributions to for an organization soon to be incorporated ("HumanKind") that would be involved in education and advocacy on human rights and climate change issues. In his letter Mayor Anderson said that the determination of nonapplicability would apply only to (1) contributions to a non-profit organization dedicated to working on human rights and climate change issues; and (2) contributions from foundations, corporations, or persons who do not currently, and are not likely to, have any business dealings with Salt Lake City Corporation or any financial interest in any matters involving Salt Lake City Corporation. Mayor Anderson also said that while he is mayor he would not solicit or receive any funds on behalf of HumanKind from any person or entity doing, or likely to do, business with Salt Lake City Corporation. Mayor Anderson also noted that he will be in office only for another two months, providing further insulation against any risk of improper influence In his letter Mayor Anderson said that he contemplated being on the board of HumanKind, serving as an officer, and working full-time as a compensated employee of HumanKind. City Code City Code Section 2.44.180(B)provides that a determination of nonapplicability must be in writing and maybe given only upon a determination of each of the following requirements: 1. the gift was not given with the intent to influence official action; 2. there exists no substantial likelihood that the gift will influence official action; and 3. the giving of the determination of nonapplicability will not be detrimental to the interests of the City. If the Council believes that the request fails one or more of these requirements, the request must be denied. Attached are two versions of a resolution of the City Council addressing these issues. One version grants Mayor Anderson's request and one version denies it. Paragraph 3 of the version denying the request contains a blank in which the Council may identify why it concluded, if that were the case, that one or more of the requirements listed above were not satisfied. HB_ATTY-#2396-v1-Transmittal_memo_for_determination_of nonapplicability_for_Mayor_Anderson.DOC 2 ROSS C."ROCKY"ANDERSON Sid aJ�„ THY( �dn 1PO 1IOI� MAYOR mos. ( OFFICE OF THE MAYOR October 3o, zoo7 Dear Members of the City Council: I am writing to seek a determination of non-applicability, pursuant to Salt Lake City Corporation Ordinance Section z.44.18oB, of the prohibition against seeking or receiving "any gift for the purpose of addressing or dealing with . . . matters not involving official city business." Section z.44.o8oB. My request is in connection with contributions I hope to solicit and receive for a non-profit organization dedicated to education and advocacy on human rights and climate change issues. As you know, from the beginning of my term as mayor, I have imposed a strict ban on any gifts to all city employees. I strongly believe that no personal gifts should be received by any elected officials from anyone who does, or seeks to do, business with any governmental entity over which the elected officials have any authority. I am asking for a determination of non-applicability, which would apply only to (I) contributions to a non-profit organization dedicated to working on human rights and climate change issues; and (z) contributions from foundations, corporations, or persons who do not currently, and are not likely to, have any business dealings with Salt Lake City Corporation or any financial interest in any matters involving Salt Lake City Corporation. I am requesting the determination of non-applicability in order that I can make initial requests for funding for an organization that will soon be incorporated. If trademark issues can be resolved, the name of the organization will be HumanKind Education Fund, Inc. ("HumanKind"). 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 www.slcgov.com ® RECYCLED PAPER Although I have been able to spend only a very limited amount of time in the formation of HumanKind (hence the fact that it is not even incorporated at present), I am hoping to have everything in place, including some initial funding, so that I can commence work immediately after I leave office on January 7, zoo8. A delay in obtaining seed funding will set the effort back significantly. I contemplate being on the board, serving as an officer, and working full-time as a compensated employee of HumanKind. All contributions will go directly to HumanKind for the purpose of grassroots education and advocacy on human rights and climate change issues. Also, while I am mayor, I will not solicit or receive any funds on behalf of HumanKind from any person or entity doing, or likely to do, business with Salt Lake City Corporation. Section z.I44.18oB provides that a determination of non- applicability shall be in writing and shall only be given upon a determination that: (I) the gift was not given with the intent to influence official action; (z)there exists no substantial likelihood that the gift will influence official action; and (3)the giving of the determination of nonapplicability will , not be detrimental to the interests of the City. Because I would not be soliciting (or accepting) contributions during my tenure as Mayor from people or businesses doing business with Salt Lake City or likely to do so, each of these conditions will be satisfied. Moreover, the fact that I will be in office only for another two months provides further insulation against any risk of improper influence. I appreciate your consideration of this request. Sincerel , ---'1"-----E:7 oss . Anderson ..,-..- Mayor RESOLUTION NO. OF 2007 GRANTING A DETERMINATION OF NON-APPLICABILITY PURSUANT TO SALT LAKE CITY CODE SECTION 2.44.180 WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Code Section 2.44.080 contains restrictions on the solicitation and receipt of gifts by Salt Lake City officers and employees, and Section 2.44.080B prohibits a City officer or employee from seeking, soliciting, or receiving any gift for the purpose of addressing or dealing with matters not involving official City business; WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Code Section 2.44.180(B) authorizes the City Council to grant to the Mayor a deteiniination of nonapplicability of the restrictions on gifts in Section 2.44.080; WHEREAS, in a letter to the City Council dated October 30, 2007 (a copy of which is attached hereto), Mayor Ross C. Anderson requested a determination of nonapplicability with respect to certain soliciting of contributions to an organization soon to be incorporated ("HumanKind") that would be involved in education and advocacy on human rights and climate change issues; WHEREAS, in his letter Mayor Anderson said that the determination of nonapplicability would apply only to (1) contributions to a non-profit organization dedicated to working on human rights and climate change issues; and (2) contributions from foundations, corporations, or persons who do not currently, and are not likely to, have any business dealings with Salt Lake City Corporation or any financial interest in any matters involving Salt Lake City Corporation, and that while he is mayor he would not solicit or receive any funds on behalf of HumanKind from any person or entity doing, or likely to do, business with Salt Lake City Corporation; and WHEREAS, in his letter Mayor Anderson said that he contemplated being on the board of HumanKind, serving as an officer, and working full-time as a compensated employee of HumanKind; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 1. Based on Mayor Anderson's representations, the City Council hereby determines that the gifts anticipated by Mayor Anderson will be gifts of money. However, because such gifts have not yet been given, it is currently impossible to describe their estimated value. 2. Based on Mayor Anderson's representations, the City Council hereby determines, with respect to any gift received by Mayor Anderson as described above and in his letter to the City Council, that: (a) the gift would not be given with the intent to influence official action; (b) there exists no substantial likelihood that the gift would influence official action; and (c) the giving of this determination of nonapplicability will not be detrimental to the interests of Salt Lake City. 3. The City Council makes such determinations because: (a) the gifts will relate to Mayor Anderson's activities with HumanKind rather than to his mayoral functions; (b) the Mayor's fundraising would involve only contributions from foundations, corporations, or person who do not currently, and are not likely to, have any business dealings with the City or any financial interest in any matters involving the City; (c) while he is mayor, Mayor Anderson will not solicit or receive any funds on behalf of HumanKind from any person or entity doing, or likely to do,business with the City; and (d) Mayor Anderson will be in office only for another two months, providing further insulation against any risk of improper influence. 4. Pursuant to Salt Lake City Code Section 2.44.180B, the City Council hereby grants the determination of nonapplicability requested by Mayor Anderson. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2007. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM: —7S: 1( q SENIOR CITY ATT RNEY HB_ATTY-#2391-vl-Resolution_re_determination_of non-applicability_re_mayor_s_fundraising.DOC 2 RESOLUTION NO. OF 2007 DENYING A REQUEST FOR A DETERMINATION OF NON-APPLICABILITY PURSUANT TO SALT LAKE CITY CODE SECTION 2.44.180 WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Code Section 2.44.080 contains restrictions on the solicitation and receipt of gifts by Salt Lake City officers and employees, and Section 2.44.080B prohibits a City officer or employee from seeking, soliciting, or receiving any gift for the purpose of addressing or dealing with matters not involving official City business; WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Code Section 2.44.180(B) authorizes the City Council to grant to the Mayor a determination of nonapplicability of the restrictions on gifts in Section 2.44.080; WHEREAS, in a letter to the City Council dated October 30, 2007 (a copy of which is attached hereto), Mayor Ross C. Anderson requested a determination of nonapplicability with respect to certain soliciting of contributions to an organization soon to be incorporated ("HumanKind") that would be involved in education and advocacy on human rights and climate change issues; WHEREAS, in his letter Mayor Anderson said that the determination of nonapplicability would apply only to (1) contributions to a non-profit organization dedicated to working on human rights and climate change issues; and (2) contributions from foundations, corporations, or persons who do not currently, and are not likely to, have any business dealings with Salt Lake City Corporation or any financial interest in any matters involving Salt Lake City Corporation, and that while he is mayor he would not solicit or receive any funds on behalf of HumanKind from any person or entity doing, or likely to do, business with Salt Lake City Corporation; and WHEREAS, in his letter Mayor Anderson said that he contemplated being on the board of HumanKind, serving as an officer, and working full-time as a compensated employee of HumanKind; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: l. Based on Mayor Anderson's representations, the City Council hereby determines that the gifts anticipated by Mayor Anderson will be gifts of money. However, because such gifts have not yet been given, it is currently impossible to describe their estimated value. 2. The City Council hereby determines, with respect to any gift described above and in Mayor Anderson's letter to the City Council, that Mayor Anderson has failed to satisfy the City Council that: (a) the gift would not be given with the intent to influence official action; (b) there exists no substantial likelihood that the gift would influence official action; or (c) the giving of a determination of nonapplicability would not be detrimental to the interests of Salt Lake City. 3. The City Council makes the determination described in Paragraph 2 because 4. Pursuant to Salt Lake City Code Section 2.44.180B, the City Council hereby denies Mayor Anderson's request for a determination of nonapplicability. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2007. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM: SENIO CITY ATT RNEY HB_ATTY-#2391-v2-Resolution_re_determination_of non-applicability_re_mayor_s_fundraising.DOC 2