Loading...
05/27/2003 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 27 , 2003 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah met in Work Session on Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 326, Committee Room, 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 Dale Lambert. Also In Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Gary Mumford, Deputy Council Director; Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson; Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer; David Nimkin, Mayor's Chief of Staff; Joshua Ewing, Mayor's Communication Director; D. J. Baxter, Mayor' s Senior Advisor; Michael Sears, Council Budget and Policy Analyst; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Lehua Weaver, Council Constituent Liaison; Sylvia Jones, Council Research and Policy Analyst/Constituent Liaison; Rosanita Cespedes, Youth and Family Programs Director; Lewis Zunguze, Planning Director; Stephanie Duer, Water Conservation Coordinator; LuAnn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Development Director; Brenda Hancock, Human Resource Management Division Director; Jodi Langford, Employee Benefits Administrator; Steve Fawcett, Management Services Deputy Director; Alison Weyher, Community and Economic Development Director; Steven Allred, Deputy City Attorney; Chris Bramhall, Assistant City Attorney; Lynn Pace, Assistant City Attorney; Jeffrey Rowley, Risk Management Specialist; Timothy Harpst, Transportation Director; Joel Paterson, Special Projects Planner; Gordon Hoskins, Accounting Controller; Randy Hillier, Capital Improvement Program Administrator/Budget and Policy Analyst; Laurie Dillon, Budget Analyst; Linda Cordova, Property Manager; Kay Christensen, Budget Analyst; Sim Gill, City Prosecutor; J. Philip Cook, Real Estate Appraisers and Advisors; and Scott Crandall, Deputy Recorder. Councilmember Christensen presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:34 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. Cindy Gust-Jenson said Item A-9, Executive Session, was tentatively scheduled to address potential legal questions on the Main Street plaza. See file M 03-5 for announcements. #2. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAIN STREET PLAZA, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CLOSING, VACATING, AND ABANDONING A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND PASSAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ON THE FORMER MAIN STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY BETWEEN NORTH AND SOUTH TEMPLE STREETS PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-03-01, AND RELATED MATTERS. View Attachment Mayor Anderson, Ed Rutan, Rosanita Cespedes, Lynn Pace, Russell Weeks, and Philip Cook briefed the Council with the attached handout and a computer presentation. Councilmember Jergensen asked how the loss of access through the plaza was linked to the Sorensen Center expansion. Mayor Anderson said they were not linked. He said the easement could be sold or used as leverage to gain greater benefits for the City. Councilmember Buhler said he felt the proposal needed to be fully understood. He asked if time, place, and manner restrictions allowed people to distribute leaflets across the entire easement. Mayor Anderson said yes. He said there were other restrictions regarding signs and noise levels. Councilmember Buhler asked if the Mayor felt there would be continuous litigation if time, place, and manner restrictions were applied. Mayor Anderson said yes because constitutional guidelines were unclear. 03 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 27 , 2003 Councilmember Lambert asked if the $5 million gift would cover the construction of anticipated facilities. Mayor Anderson said more details were needed concerning which facilities would be constructed or expanded. Councilmember Lambert asked if the new facilities would serve just the Glendale community. Mayor Anderson said the service area would extend to 700 East and include the Poplar Grove Community. Councilmember Lambert asked about ongoing expenses for expanded programs. Mayor Anderson said programming had not been determined but operation and maintenance issues would be included in the recommendations. Councilmember Love asked if concentrating the demonstration area on the south end of the plaza would meet legal requirements. Mayor Anderson said no and felt there would be legal challenges. He said he was told the City needed to allow small demonstrations across the entire length of the easement. He said as long as the City retained the easement, first amendment rights would apply. Councilmember Saxton asked about the appraisal and zoning on the Glendale property. Mr. Cook said the property was currently zoned institutional. He said the subject property was compared with sold properties containing the same use potential in terms of intensity of use with the same zoning. Councilmember Christensen asked about the Planning Commission's negative recommendation. Mayor Anderson said he felt there was a misunderstanding about fencing or walling off the area. He said the church indicated it did not want to do that. He said the City' s restrictions would be included in the agreement with the church. Councilmember Jergensen asked about the value of public access versus property improvements. Mayor Anderson said the City was required by law to receive full and fair value for transferring assets. He said determining the value of pedestrian access was difficult and there was no real way to make comparisons. Councilmember Jergensen said the view corridor provision stated no walls, fences, or structures would be constructed and asked if that was legally defensible. Mayor Anderson said the provision was for esthetic and visibility purposes. Councilmember Lambert asked if there were policy reasons for making a decision prior to a Supreme Court ruling. Mayor Anderson said the issue had gone on for a long time and needed to be resolved for the good of the community. He said regardless of the decision, a lot of time would be wasted and the City could be left in the same position. He said if the decision was reversed the City would go back to the original deal but the opportunity for a community center would be lost. Councilmember Love said another element being considered dealt with rezoning part of the plaza to open space. She asked if property owners with open space zoning could control trespassing. Mr. Paterson said yes. He said open space zoning did not guarantee public access. Mr. Pace said the open space zone on private property denied almost all uses. Councilmember Saxton said she was concerned the proposed community center would not equally benefit children throughout the City. Councilmember Lambert asked if there were restrictions on who could use the Sorensen Center programs. Mayor Anderson said no. He said the facilities were open to anyone in the City. Councilmember Saxton asked why the time, place and manner proposal was not given more consideration. Mayor Anderson said the proposal was still an option but the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) threatened litigation if the City did not allow up to five people to demonstrate across the plaza. Councilmember Buhler asked if the City could impose time, place and manner restrictions on the church without their consent. Mr. Rutan said before time, place, and manner restrictions could be considered both parties needed to agree on the existence of the 03 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 27 , 2003 easement and where the easement was physically located. He said the church believed the Tenth Circuit Court' s decision invalidated the easement. Councilmember Buhler asked if the City faced potential litigation by imposing restrictions. Mr. Rutan said yes. Councilmember Saxton asked if time, place and manner restrictions could be implemented pending the Supreme Court's decision. Mr. Rutan said he felt the City would be in jeopardy without an agreement on the existence and location of the easement. Councilmember Christensen asked when donation documents would be complete. Mr. Rutan said as soon as possible. Councilmember Buhler asked if the documentation was just to verify donations. Mr. Rutan said conditions attached to the donations would be included in the documentation. Councilmember Christensen said additional questions would be addressed at the May 29, 2003 Work Session meeting. He said the public needed to be given an opportunity to comment on the donation documents. #3. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY. View Attachment Lynn Pace, Gary Mumford, Sim Gill, and Steven Allred briefed the Council with the attached handout. Councilmember Turner asked about time savings resulting from implementation of the Justice Court and which other City issues were being worked on. Mr. Gill said implementation was a challenge and they were still working out the problems. Councilmember Turner said part of the change involved lowering expenses and asked for an update. Mr. Gill said additional costs were incurred due to the transition but progress was being made. Mr. Fluhart said revenues exceeded expenses. Mr. Rutan said based on the performance audit, the department planned to develop a matrix which would provide detailed answers for the Council. Councilmember Lambert asked about grant funded employees. Mr. Mumford said expenditures for grant employees were included in a separate Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) account and not in the general fund. Councilmember Lambert asked about citizen screening. Mr. Gill said the proposal allowed citizens to review issues in more detail. Councilmember Lambert asked about the proposal to create one new program per year to address specific criminal conduct. Mr. Gill said they were continually looking for ways to improve their public processes. Councilmember Lambert asked if the prosecutor's office participated in CAT teams. Mr. Gill said their interaction was limited due to the loss of two full-time grant funded prosecutors. Councilmember Saxton asked if a paralegal could be hired for $25,000 per year. Mr. Rutan said no. Councilmember Saxton asked about hiring additional support staff instead of attorneys. Mr. Rutan said attorneys were required due to a legal advice component but additional support staff needed to be added first. Councilmember Saxton asked about the workload. Mr. Allred said over the past six years the amount of litigation had increased along with the complexity of cases. He said he believed the work load would continue to increase. Discussion was held on governmental immunity. Mr. Mumford said State law allowed a separate tax to pay claims. He said the tax levy was .0001 which would generate approximately $1.3 million in revenue. He said the budget would establish a separate levy with an offsetting decrease to the general fund levy. He said he was concerned residents might view this as a new or additional tax. Councilmember Christensen asked if this was revenue neutral. Mr. Hoskins said yes. 03 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 Councilmember Lambert asked if the Attorney' s Office felt this was a good fund. Mr. Allred said yes. He said this was permitted by State law and most municipalities had reserve funds. He said he felt it provided the City with some assurance of having the necessary reserves. He said a few bad claims could wipe out the fund. Councilmember Lambert asked if the fund' s surplus could be used for other things. Mr. Allred said this was a dedicated resource. Councilmember Lambert asked about using fund balance for governmental immunity. Mr. Allred said the City could impose a judgment levy if necessary. Councilmember Saxton asked what the funding level should be. Mr. Rowley said the Council' s goal was three times the average expenditures per year. He said expenditures averaged $900,000 which put the goal at $2.7 million. Councilmember Saxton said she thought the Council had appropriated a specific amount of money over the next few years. Mr. Mumford said $1.3 million was appropriated last year. He said $200,000 was added through a budget amendment in anticipation of a settlement. Councilmember Jergensen asked if a truth-in-taxation hearing was needed. Mr. Allred said no, as long as a net increase did not occur. Councilmember Jergensen asked if the City had considered a private insurance provider. Mr. Rowley said yes, and the market was checked every few years. He said primary coverage and reassuring coverage above $1 million would be reviewed this year. Mr. Allred said typically the insurance deductible was close to the amount the City paid out anyway. Councilmember Lambert asked about carrying excess insurance. Mr. Rowley said an excess policy would be valuable in federal cases where the City was not protected. Ms. Gust-Jenson said a disclaimer was made every year during the budget process stating the City did not have enough in reserves. #4. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR INSURANCE AND RISK MANAGEMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004. View Attachment Ed Rutan, Jeff Rowley, Steven Allred, Gordon Hoskins, and Jodi Langford briefed the Council with the attached handout. Councilmember Buhler asked about self-insurance items. Mr. Mumford said the City was self-insured for workers compensation and property insurance. Mr. Hoskins said the City was also self-insured on health insurance. Councilmember Buhler asked about increases to long-term disability and property insurance. Mr. Hoskins said the Police Department's use of the fund had increased by approximately four times. Councilmember Buhler asked how workers compensation was administered. Mr. Rowley said self-insured employers were required by law to purchase re-insurance which attached at $1 million. He said the City used a third party to administer the program. Councilmember Christensen asked why the Library did not use the City's health insurance program. Mr. Hoskins said the Library gave their part-time employees, full- time benefits which put the City's plan in jeopardy. He said they did not want to change their policy so they were removed from the plan. Councilmember Lambert asked about life insurance. Mr. Hoskins said the benefit was $50, 000. He said anything beyond $50,000 required a tax benefit. Councilmember Lambert asked if there was a maximum on health insurance coverage. Ms. Langford said anything over $100, 000 went to reinsurance which was purchased by Public Employees Health Program (PEHP) . Councilmember Christensen asked if the City had secondary insurance on property coverage. Mr. Rowley said the City was self- insured up to $100, 000 and had a policy through FM Global. Councilmember Christensen asked if their insurance was sufficient. Mr. Rowley said terrorism questions had 03 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 surfaced and the City would be revisiting the coverage when the policy renewed in July. #5. RECEIVE A BRIEFING FROM THE ADMINISTRATION REGARDING THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS RIGHT-OF-WAY. View Attachment Chris Bramhall, Linda Cordova, Gordon Hoskins, and Rocky Fluhart briefed the Council with the attached handout. Councilmember Christensen said a meeting was scheduled with the telecommunication providers to receive their input. Mr. Fluhart said the purpose of the proposal was to raise revenue. He said this was not the same as a franchise fee and companies would be charged for using the City' s right-of-way to provide out-of-state service. He said all telecommunication companies on record were sent a notification. Councilmember Buhler said the City normally based fees on costs and asked if that had been done in this case. Mr. Bramhall said no because fundamentally there was no difference between these companies and other companies which held franchises with the City. He said franchise fees were based on a percentage of a company's gross revenue, not costs. Councilmember Saxton said she felt this would create a hardship for small businesses. Mr. Bramhall said there was a distinction in the ordinance regarding small businesses and large national telecommunication companies. He said large companies did not provide any services within the City. He said a number of the local business would actually see a decrease in their fees. Council Members Saxton and Christensen asked if comparisons were made to other local municipalities. Mr. Hoskins said this was a new concept and no other cities in Utah were charging by the lineal foot. He said the City' s proposal was patterned after the City of Portland. Councilmember Jergensen asked how many companies were involved in running wires through the City. Mr. Bramhall said between 10 and 15. Councilmember Jergensen said one company told him the City would violate state law by adopting the proposed ordinance. He asked if the City needed to be concerned about that. Mr. Fluhart said he felt there was some confusion and the City would discuss the issue with telecommunication providers. Councilmember Jergensen asked about State fees. Mr. Hoskins said their fees ranged from $800 to $12,000 per value of mile. Councilmember Jergensen asked if the fee was based on the value of the land through which the lines ran. Mr. Hoskins said that was correct. Councilmember Jergensen asked if the proposed fee would be in addition to State fees. Mr. Hoskins said the City and the State charged fees for the respective land they owned. Councilmember Turner asked about trenching, road repair, and cable costs. Mr. Fluhart said charges were based on project costs and road repair. He said the City was required to charge a lease rate for allowing companies to install facilities on City owned property. He said the City had broad discretion in setting fees. Councilmember Lambert asked if legal challenges were anticipated. Mr. Bramhall said lawsuits could not be predicted but improvements could be made to the proposal. Councilmember Lambert asked how much revenue was anticipated. Mr. Hoskins said approximately $325,000 to $350,000. Councilmember Christensen asked if the fee applied to private property. Mr. Bramhall said no. Ms. Cordova said the proposed fee applied only to cables that crossed or used City property. She said it was difficult to calculate the different values along the route and the proposal would allow companies to determine costs based on lineal 03 - 5 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 feet. Councilmember Christensen said there were unknown quantities of conduit throughout the City and asked if an effort was being made to collect those. Mr. Hoskins said yes. He said everyone needed to be treated fairly. He said the City had an agreement with a telecommunication auditing firm to work on this issue. He said the audit could produce additional revenue. #6. RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004. Item pulled. #7. RECEIVE A BRIEFING ON BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 13 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003. View Attachment Gordon Hoskins, Randy Hillier, Steven Fawcett, and Michael Sears briefed the Council with the attached handout. Councilmember Christensen said the insurance policy had recently been amended regarding military personnel and asked about the appropriation for the Cawley family. Mr. Fawcett said it was not included in the budget amendment because the current budget had adequate funding. Mr. Fawcett said the City had not received a response from a protest letter filed with PEHP regarding the denial of benefits to the Cawley family. He said any reimbursement from PEHP would go back in the fund. The majority of the Council was in favor of the appropriation. #8. DISCUSS POLICY DIRECTION AND OTHER ISSUES RELATED TO THE BUDGET. View Attachment No discussion was held. #9. CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, IN KEEPING WITH UTAH CODE, TO DISCUSS PENDING OR REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANN. § § 52- 4-4 AND 52-4-5 (1) (a) (iii) . An Executive Session was held. See file M 03-2 for sworn statement and tape. The meeting adjourned at 10:02 p.m. sc 03 - 6 • Topeka, Kansas Sec. 54-135. Picketing of religious events. (a) Definitions. The following words and phrases,when used in this section, shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them: Announced religious event means a religious event regarding which the public has been provided notice of the beginning time and of the duration or ending time of such event by the conspicuous posting of a sign on the property where the event is to be held or by announcement in a newspaper regularly printed on at least a weekly basis within the city. Focused picketing means standing or sitting or walking in a repeated manner past or around a house of worship, by one or more persons while carrying a banner,placard,or sign. House of worship means any church, synagogue,mosque,or other structure that is regularly used for the exercise of religious beliefs. Religious event means any scheduled worship service,wedding, funeral rite, memorial • service for the dead,or other observance of a religious sacrament,ritual, ceremony or celebration that takes place at a house of worship or on the property where a house of worship is situated. (b) Unlawful acts. It is unlawful for any person to engage in focused picketing, during the time period from one-half hour prior to the beginning time of an announced religious event until one-half hour after the ending time of the event, on public property at any of the following locations: (1) On the sidewalk adjoining the property on which a house of worship is situated; or (2) In the street or roadway adjoining or adjacent to the property on which a house of worship is situated;or (3) On the public area between the house of worship and an adjoining or adjacent street or roadway, including but not limited to the curb, drainage, or area between the street and sidewalk(if a sidewalk exists)commonly referred to as the "parking" or"easement";or (4) On any public property within 50 feet of the property line on which a house of worship is situated, if any entrance to the house of worship is located on • that side of the property. (c) Penalty. Any person violating this section may be punished by: • (1) A fine of not more than$499.00; (2) Imprisonment in jail for not more than 179 days; or (3) Both such fine and imprisonment not to exceed the limits set out in subsections (c)(1)and(c)(2). (Ord.No. 16843, §§ 1--3, 7-11-95; Ord. No. 17068, §§ 1--3, 1-28-97) • II) • MEMORANDUM DATE: May 23,2003 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Briefing:Proposed Ordinance Closing,Vacating and Abandoning a Pedestrian and Passage Easement Located on the Former Main Street Between North and South Temple Streets CC: Cindy Gust-Jensen, Ed Rutan, Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin,Alison Weyher, Louis Zunguze,Tim Harpst,Gary Mumford, Steven Allred, Lynn Pace,Joel Paterson This memorandum is intended to address a proposed ordinance to close,vacate and abandon a pedestrian access and passage easement located on the former Main Street right of way between North and South Temple Streets,pursuant to Petition No.400-03-01.Nothing in this memorandum purports to be a legal opinion. The Administration is scheduled to brief the City Council on May 27.The City Council has scheduled a public hearing on the ordinance June 3. It should be noted that this memorandum is intended to focus mainly on the specific proposed • ordinance based on Petition No. 400-03-01. POTENTIAL OPTIONS • Forward proposed ordinance for formal consideration.. • Pursue alternatives including time,place,and manner regulations or amending the ordinance to include zoning the Main Street Plaza as open space. • Delay action until it is clear whether the U.S. Supreme Court will hear an appeal of a ruling by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. ISSUES/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION • According to the City Attorney's Office,the fundamental point of the ordinance is that by relinquishing the pedestrian access easement on the Main Street Plaza the City and public will have no legally guaranteed right of pedestrian access across the plaza and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,as the plaza's private property owner,will have the right to decide not to allow access. • The proposed ordinance also appears to be the first step in the Settlement Agreement (outlined later in this memorandum)that would lead to the construction of community facilities near the Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center at 855 West California Avenue. • Given the above,one question the City Council may wish to consider is: Does the proposed ordinance represent the greater public good in resolving issues associated with the Main Street Plaza? • 1 • The City Attorney's Office has suggested that if the proposed ordinance is forwarded for formal consideration,it should be revised before formal consideration to make clear that adoption of the ordinance is not an implicit endorsement of part of a March 5,2003 letter • from the Salt Lake City Transportation Advisory Board in which the letter said the Board "strongly recommended"that the LDS Church"maintain public access for pedestrians and bicyclists across the Plaza." Again,the City Attorney's Office said it wanted to make clear that the LDS Church as the plaza's owner would be the sole entity to determine public access of the property. • Do each of the conditions outlined in the Settlement Agreement have to occur in sequence?For instance,how would a lawsuit against the City or the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop affect closing the Settlement Agreement? • Would zoning the Main Street Plaza as open space protect the plaza's future use to a greater extent than requirements in the Settlement Agreement and the Amended Special Warranty Deed? • Would the anticipated donations from the Alliance for Unity and James L. Sorenson be enough to provide adequate facilities and services to serve residents in the contemplated geographic service area of those facilities and services,or would additional revenue be required? • Do people from the contemplated service area use the Sorenson Center now? • What forms of transportation are or would be available for people from the contemplated service area to get to and from the expanded facilities? DISCUSSIONBACKGROUND On October 9,2002,the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that speech protected by the Constitution's First Amendment was allowed on the easement addressed in the proposed • ordinance.The ruling observed in part that: The actual purpose and use of the easement here is to provide a pedestrian throughway for the general public.This is not merely the use which the City has in practice permitted,but also the express purpose for which the City retained the easement. The City's stated purposes for promoting and approving the overall project were to increase usable public open space in the downtown area,encourage pedestrian traffic generally,stimulate business activity,and provide a buffer closed to automobile traffic between the residential area to the north of the plaza and the business areas to the south. ... The easement through the plaza was specifically retained in order to preserve and enhance the pedestrian grid in the downtown.(Circuit Court ruling—pages 22 and 23.) The Circuit Court's three-judge panel went on to say,"If it wants an easement, the City must permit speech on the easement.Otherwise, it must relinquish the easement so the parcel becomes entirely private."(Circuit Court ruling—page 37.) PROPOSED ORDINANCE The ordinance proposes to"close,vacate and abandon"the easement on Main Street between North and South Temple streets. The stated purposes of the proposed ordinance are to address the 10th Circuit Court's ruling and to"resolve the legal dispute over the Pedestrian Easement between the City and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop ..."(Proposed Ordinance —Pages 2 and 3)The legal dispute involves whether the 10th Circuit Court ruling voided the easement or whether it voided only the conduct regulations that were in the original Special Warranty Deed recorded on April 27, 1999. Another stated purpose is the potential to build 2 community center near the Sorensen Center located at 855 West California Avenue. (April 9 • Planning Commission meeting minutes—pages 24 and 25). According to the City Attorney's Office,the fundamental point of the ordinance is that by relinquishing the pedestrian access easement on the Main Street Plaza the City and public will have no legally guaranteed right of pedestrian access across the plaza and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,as the plaza's private property owner,will have the right to decide not to allow access. Pared to its elements,the proposed ordinance would close,abandon and vacate the easement"upon fulfillment of the conditions provided in Section 3." Section 3 reads:"This closure,vacation and abandonment are conditioned upon the closing of the transactions pursuant to the terms of a Settlement Agreement between the City and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop substantially in the form of Exhibit A and an Amended Special Warranty Deed substantially in the form of Exhibit B ..." SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT According to the document,the Settlement Agreement's purpose is"to avoid litigation and resolve all of the Disputes ... between the City and the COPB(Corporation of the Presiding Bishop)relating in any way to pedestrian access,pedestrian passage,and the right to control conduct on the Main Street Plaza Property." The document contains 10 points of agreement including: • A mutual release of all claims the City and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop may have in relation to the 10th Circuit Court ruling and the Main Street Plaza pedestrian easement. The transfer of about two acres of land near the Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center from the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop to the City. • The vacation and conveyance of the public access easement on the Main Street Plaza from the City to the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop. • The amendment of the Special Warranty Deed recorded on April 27, 1999. • A division of litigation costs arising from the appeal to the 10th Circuit Court and the Court's ruling. • A list of"Conditions and Events of Closing." The last item contains six conditions of which"each shall be considered a condition precedent to the others."The conditions are: 1. The City Council"shall have"enacted the proposed ordinance,and the ordinance published. 2. "No lawsuit or administrative proceeding shall have been commenced against the City, the COPB, or the officers,agents or affiliates of either challenging the Ordinance,this Settlement Agreement,or any of the transactions or instruments contemplated in this Settlement Agreement." 3. An escrow holder"shall be in receipt"of"at least"$5 million in cash and land from the Salt Lake Alliance for Unity and James L. Sorenson"for construction and, in the City's • discretion, furnishings,fixtures,equipment and maintenance ..." 3 4. The City and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop"shall have executed and delivered"to the escrow holder"the Deed Conveying Easement Rights." • 5. The Corporation of the Presiding Bishop"shall have executed and delivered"to the escrow holder"the Glendale Special Warranty Deed." 6. The escrow holder"shall be irrevocably prepared"to issue the City a title insurance policy for the property at 1385 South 900 West Street, and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop"shall pay the premium"for issuing the insurance policy. AMENDED SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED One key point in the Settlement Agreement involves amending the Special Warranty Deed recorded on April 27, 1999.The amendments include: • Deleting paragraphs Nos. 1.3,2—including its subparagraphs,and 6.3.The first deleted paragraph involves the City's reservation of a pedestrian easement across the Main Street Plaza.Paragraph No.2 involves"conditions, limitations and restrictions"on all City easements across the plaza.Paragraph 6.3 involves how the original warranty deed may be amended. • Adding language to Paragraph No. 1.4 of the original deed to require written approval of the City for the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop to build new"fences,walls or gates" on the plaza. According to the additional language,the intent is to preserve the plaza as a view corridor. However,the requirement"shall terminate"if a court determines that City approval to build those items results in creating"the basis for a First Amendment forum of any kind." • Rewriting Paragraph No.4 of the original deed to state the City would have a right of • reverter if the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop"fails to use and maintain the Property as a landscaped space"and if the Corporation prevents the City access to utility and public safety easements that also run through the plaza. • Adding a new paragraph to terminate the right of reverter.Language in the paragraph says,"If a court... holds ... that the right of reverter in paragraph 4 alone or in combination with any other factor creates ... the basis for a First Amendment forum of any kind,then ... the right of reverter shall immediately and automatically terminate." However, if a court's ruling is reversed by a higher court,"the reverter clause shall immediately and automatically revive." SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED FOR GLENDALE PROPERTY The deed is a one-page document in which the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop would turn over about two acres near the Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center to the City for$1 and "other good and valuable consideration." OTHER DOCUMENTS Property Appraisals—The Administration commissioned two property appraisals in relation to the proposed ordinance—one for the Main Street Plaza pedestrian easement,the other for the roughly two acres of land at 1385 South 900 West.The Main Street Plaza pedestrian • • easement was appraised at$500,000.The land at 1385 South 900 West was appraised at • $275,000. In response to Council Member queries about the property appraisal for the land at 1385 South 900 West,Council staff met with appraiser J.Philip Cook. Mr.Cook said he had arrived at the appraised price using a variety of factors. However,he said that in general neighborhoods display"value patterns"of property bought and sold,and he followed those patterns for the neighborhood where the property is located. He also said he looked at uses allowed under institutional zoning. Some uses allowed on property zoned for institutional use include:day care centers, medical and dental offices,and community and recreation centers. Mr.Cook will attend the May 27 briefing to answer questions Council Members may.have. Pedestrian Traffic Study—The Transportation Division,the Transportation Advisory Board,and the Planning Division staff support vacating and abandoning the easement in part because of a pedestrian traffic study conducted by the Transportation Division in February. It should be noted that a March 5,2003,letter to the Planning Commission Chairman Jeff Jonas from the Transportation Advisory Board said that although the Board viewed the closure of the public easement as having a"minor"effect on the City's public transportation system,the Board "strongly recommended that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints maintain public access for pedestrians and bicyclists across the Plaza." As mentioned previously,The City Attorney's Office has suggested that if the proposed ordinance is forwarded for formal consideration, it should be revised to make clear that adoption of the ordinance is not an implicit endorsement of the Transportation Advisory Board's statement quoted above. Again,the City Attorney's Office said it wanted to make clear that the LDS Church as the plaza's owner would be the sole entity to determine public access of the property. According to the study included in the Administration's transmittal,the Transportation Division counted the number of people walking or riding bicycles through the Main Street Plaza from 6:45 a.m.to 6 p.m. on February 11, 12,and 13—respectively a Tuesday,a Wednesday and a Thursday.The study acknowledged that the count took place in winter,and studies at different times of the year might produce different results. According to the study,an average of 544 people a day used the plaza to get from South Temple Street to North Temple Street and vice versa.The study said an average of 209 people a day people went from South Temple to North Temple Street,and an average of 335 people a day went from North Temple to South Temple. The study concluded that—if the plaza were not open to the public—people who traverse it now would have to walk from zero to two additional blocks, depending on where they started,where they were going,and how they planned to reach downtown destinations or public transportation. Perhaps two things should be noted: I. The study did not include people accessing LDS Church facilities on Temple Square or the Church Office Block east of Temple Square. However,the 10`h Circuit Court ruling on Pages 24 and 25 contains the following: The City and Church contend the purpose of the easement is solely for ingress and egress to Church facilities.They produced evidence in the district court that the vast majority of users were those with church business or tourists whose end destination was the plaza • itself or various Church facilities.This argument is at odds with the publicly and. 5 • legislatively stated purposes of the easement noted above.In addition,to the extent individuals with church business enter onto the plaza,it is not clear they are actually • using the easement because they are not utilizing the plaza for"pedestrian passage"and presumably the Church would permit those with Church business to enter the plaza in the absence of the easement.In other words,providing access to those with church business is more properly characterized as a Church purpose,and does not capture the actual or articulated purpose of the easement,a pedestrian walkway for the public at large. Given that,the"public at large"appears to be represented in the Traffic Division study. II. As recently as a May 19 public meeting hosted by City Council Member Nancy Saxton, representatives of the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop described the future use of the plaza as similar to the Church Office Building Block plaza—a plaza that can be traversed 24 hours a day, seven days week. (Tape of May 19 public meeting.)It should be noted that the LDS Church, as the owner of the Church Office Building Block playa,has sole discretion in determining whether that plaza can be open to public access or closed. Free Speech Study—The Administration has conducted a study of the number of permits issued under City Code section 3.50.020 titled Commercially Related Special Events and Free Expression Activities. The study surveyed the number of permits issued for free expression activities: 1. On the Main Street Plaza from October 18,2002,to April 9,2003. 2. All free expression activities in Salt Lake City during the same time period. 3. Free expression activities in the City in calendar year 1998 before the LDS Church purchased the section of Main Street between North Temple and South Temple streets. According to the study: • 1. Three free speech permits were issued for free expression activities on the Main Street Plaza between October 18,2002,and April 9,2003. 2. Forty-four permits were issued for free expression activities in other areas of the City during the same time period. 3. In 1998 no permits were issued for either side of Main Street between North Temple and South Temple streets,but 52 permits were issued for other areas of the City. The study acknowledges that the City Code does not require people to obtain permits"if one or two people wish to speak or pass out literature,"or if the immediate need for a free expression activity outweighs the length of time it would take to obtain a permit. A Turning Point for Peace—The Administration has used the document in a variety of public meetings regarding the proposed ordinance and settlement agreement.According to the document: An expansion of programs in the Glendale area has been contemplated for several years.Current programs at the Sorenson Center are at capacity,and many have waiting lists.Residents and non-profit organizations have identified substantial needs in early childhood programs,after-school programs,business consulting,legal assistance, and health care.Existing infrastructure for these purposes in the area is minimal and cannot meet the demonstrated needs. The document also notes that the health clinic at the Sorenson Center served 8,144 patients last year but"is at capacity and only serves residents of the 84104 zip code."The 84104 • 6 zip code is bordered by Interstate 80,600 West, 2100 South and 7200 West. Residents in the zip • code area live east of Redwood Road. The area west of Redwood Road is an area largely of commercial and industrial development. • A map in the document outlines a geographical service area for proposed facilities and services near the Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center.The geographical service area is bordered by North Temple on the north, a"staircase"eastern border of 200 West, West Temple, State and 700 East streets,2100 South on the south and Redwood Road on the West. It should be noted that Mayor Ross C. Anderson told the Salt Lake City Planning Commission on April 9 that programs and partnerships involved in expanding facilities and programs at and near the Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center had not yet been decided. A public process to determine residents'needs and expectations for expanded facilities and services would occur after action involving the relinquishment of the public access easement and the transference of property. (April 9 Planning Commission minutes:Page 5.) Given the size of the service area contemplated,Council Members may wish to consider the following questions: • Would the anticipated donations from the Alliance for Unity and James L. Sorenson be enough to provide adequate facilities and services to serve residents in the contemplated geographic service area, or would additional revenue be required? • =:.Do people from the contemplated service area use the Sorenson Center now? • What forms of transportation are or would be available for people from the contemplated service area to get to and from the expanded facilities? 411/ Alternatives Since the 10th Circuit Court ruling about the pedestrian easement on the Main Street Plaza it has been acknowledged that there are two ways to address the ruling:Keep the pedestrian easement but enact time,place and manner restrictions or relinquish the easement. Some City Council members also have considered the merits of relinquishing the easement but zoning the Main Street Plaza as open space. It should be noted that the proposed Settlement Agreement and the Amended special warranty deed address the issue of the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop failing"to use and maintain the Property as a landscaped space."However, one question the City Council may wish to consider is whether zoning the Main Street Plaza as open space would give the plaza added protection if the pedestrian easement is relinquished. After the 10th Circuit Court ruling the Administration proposed its own time,place and manner regulations for the pedestrian easement. However,the Administration chose to pursue the proposed ordinance before the City Council after it became apparent that the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop would not support time,place and manner regulations. One of the main issues involved in time,place and manner regulations was whether the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop would assent to defining areas within a relatively undefined easement for First Amendment speech activities. Nevertheless,retainment of the pedestrian access easement and enacting time,place and • manner regulations continues to generate discussion. Council Member Nancy Saxton hosted a public meeting May 19 to explore the potential for enacting time,place and manner regulations for the easement. • According to an audio tape of the meeting, several alternatives were discussed including: • A review of a proposal by former City Council Member Roger Thompson to create a "Hyde Park"setting near the Salt Lake Base and Meridian marker on South Temple Street. The area would be defined by gates,and the City would relinquish the easement through the plaza in exchange for the Hyde Park area. • Two proposals to separate the easement by grade from the rest of the plaza to define the extent of the pedestrian easement. • A proposal to build a pedestrian walkway between the parking garage below the plaza and the plaza itself. City Council staff's own research has found one municipal ordinance that directly regulates the picketing of"religious events."Topeka, Kansas,adopted an ordinance prohibiting the picketing of religious events citywide"during the time period from one-half hour"before the starting time of an announced religious event until"one-half hour"after the end of an event"on public property." The ordinance defines a religious event as "any scheduled worship service,wedding, funeral rite, memorial service for the dead,or other observance of a religious sacrament, ritual, ceremony or celebration that takes place at a house of worship or on the property where a house of worship is situated." • According to Topeka City Attorney Brenden Long,Topeka enacted the ordinance in the mid-1990s in response to the picketing of church congregations in that city by Topeka Baptist Pastor Fred Phelps.The Rev.Phelps gained national notoriety in 1998 when he and congregation members picketed a memorial service in Laramie, Wyoming,for Matthew Shepard, a gay college student who was beaten to death outside Laramie. Mr.Long said Topeka revised the ordinance after it was twice challenged in Kansas state courts. He said the current ordinance has been an effective means of regulating First Amendment activities of the kind used by the Rev.Phelps for the last seven or eight years. It should be noted that at least portions of the Topeka ordinance were included in the Administration's time,place and manner ordinance that was set aside in favor of pursuing the current ordinance. A copy of the Topeka ordinance is attached. Another alternative suggested recently is to wait until it is clear whether the U.S. Supreme Court will hear an appeal of the 10th Circuit Court ruling regarding the Main Street Plaza. Some have estimated that the Supreme Court will decide in about 30 days whether to hear the appeal. If the Supreme Court decides to hear the appeal,a final decision would be issued in about a year. If the Court declines to hear the case,the proposed ordinance still would be available to consider. A copy of an editorial arguing in favor of delaying action until the Supreme Court makes its intentions known is attached. • 8 The Salt Lake Tribune -- Utah's Statewide Newspaper - rage 1 .01 hriflikrnLiunr Opinionfitrw WEDNESDAY May 21, 2003 ^ out bow { 1 _ I I 1 Quick Search Commentary Today's Headlines: Public Forum Hold for the Justices • For g 's sake T Utah Politics Online Poll a More of Today!. Bagley Gallery Headlines it Public Forum bE Guidelines Front Page The Salt Lake City Council should delay action to a Return to Top contents resolve the Main Street plaza controversy until after the Past Editions U.S. Supreme Court decides whether to hear an appeal of Reader Feedback Search the case by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day We want to Marlton' Archives Saints, yob-onlenpoltant Weather jssM TribTalk This controversy has roiled the community for years. A ?ind out about Obituaries delay of a few weeks while the highest court in the land out Re adevr P►ne1 . Today's Page 1 decides if it will hear the case is only prudent. here. Help Desk Serious First Amendment issues are at stake, involving Marketplace both freedom of expression and freedom of religion, and the Auto Guide Career Guide Supreme Court could change the legal context of the dispute Real Estate if it hears the case. A decision from the justices could alter RVs, Boats,etc. how the city,the church and other parties attempt to resolve Grocery Guru the dispute. Shopping Guide If,on the other hand, the justices decide not to take the Utah City Guide Utah Bride Guide case,the reasoning and ruling of the 10th U.S. Circuit Classifieds Court of Appeals would stand, and the parties could Nation/World proceed on that basis. Utah The City Council is tentatively scheduled to discuss a Business proposed solution May 27, convene a public hearing June 3 Sports Editorials and make a decision. But since the Supreme Court is -commentary expected to decide by the end of June when its current term - Public Forum ends whether to hear the case, a delay of a few weeks is IT Lifestyle insignificant, at least in terms of time. Arts As a matter of law,however,a decision by the City Travel Food Council could have great significance because it could make Health/Science the LDS Church's appeal moot. This would occur if the Body&Soul council were to approve the most likely solution,which would be to sell the city's easement across the plaza in • exchange for a donation of land and funds by the LDS Church to help build an addition to the Sorenson Center in the Salt Lake City community of Glendale. http://www.sltrib.com/2003/May/05212003/opinion/opinion.asp 5/21/2003 The-Salt Lake Tribune -- Utah's Statewide Newspaper- Yage 2 of 2 A sale of the easement is one possible solution to the impasse that the 10th Circuit suggested in its ruling. Another is the adoption of time, place and mannerID restrictions on free speech activities within the easement. The LDS Church favors the first solution and is pressing the City Council to adopt it. However,the American Civil Liberties Union has threatened to take that solution back to court on the ground that it would favor the church's interest, thereby violating the First Amendment prohibition against the establishment of religion by government. The ACLU prevailed in the original suit against the city, which challenged the contract that allowed the church to control behavior and expression on the city's pedestrian easement through the plaza. The plaza was created when the city agreed in 1999 to sell the portion of Main Street between South Temple and North Temple to the church for$8.1 million.The 10th Circuit Court ruled that the city could not preserve the pedestrian easement and still allow the church to limit free expression there. A decision by the Supreme Court not to hear this case could signal how the high court views the appellate court's holding. A decision to hear the case could reverse or modify that ruling. Either way,the City Council should await the • Supreme Court's action before proceeding. ®EMAIL THIS STORY PRINT THIS STORY ©Copyright 2003,The Salt Lake Tribune. All material found on Utah OnLIne is copyrighted The Salt Lake Tribune and associated news services. No material may be reproduced or reused without explicit permission from The Salt Lake Tribune. Front Pape I Contents I Search I World/Nation I Sash I Business I Spode I Editorials I Public Forum Letters I Commenter I Lifestyle I Itovles Mull I Silence I Religion I Archives I Weather I Obituaries Mobll&Editions 12002 Olympics I Photos I Online Poll I Utah Polities ontaot Us I FAQ I Privacy Policy I Print Subscrlotions I Reader Panel I Mewspat ers In Education webmaster©sitrib corn • http://www.sltrib.com/2003/May/05212003/opinion/opinion.asp 5/21/2003 ALISON WEYHERI- t rRs CtY G®RPO 'r; I� '�^�` - �.�. - ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON • DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer Date: May 19, 2003 FROM: Alison Weyher RE: Petition 400-03-1: A request by Mayor Anderson to close, vacate and abandon the pedestrian access and passage easement across the Main Street Plaza located on the former Main Street right-of-way between North Temple and South Temple streets. STAFF CONTACTS: Joel Paterson, Senior Planner(535-6141) e-mail: joel.paterson@slcgov.com Ed Rutan, City Attorney(535-7788) e-mail: ed.rutan@slcgov.com Lynn Pace,Assistant City Attorney(535-6613) e-mail: lynn.pace@slcgov.com • DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: If the City Council approves Petition 400-03-01 to close, vacate and abandon the pedestrian access easement across the Main Street Plaza, the City must receive remuneration equal to or greater than the fair-market value of the easement. An appraisal is being prepared to determine the fair-market value of the pedestrian access and passage easement. Improvements to the Sorensen Multi-cultural Center and the development of the Alliance for Unity Center will be funded in part by a $5 million dollar fundraising effort. The City's budget will be impacted by ongoing operations and maintenance costs and the Administration will provide details as plans for this project are developed. DISCUSSION: The purpose of this petition is to settle legal disputes challenging certain terms of the special warranty deed that conveyed ownership of this section of Main Street to the LDS Church in 1999, as a result of Petition 400-98-79. That petition, submitted by the LDS Church, requested to close the section of Main Street between North and South Temple streets and resulted in the construction of the Main Street Plaza. The Mayor's proposal, if approved, will result in amendments to the special warranty deed that transferred ownership of the Main Street right-of-way to the LDS Church. The language in the deed that reserved a pedestrian access and passage easement will be removed. The effect of this revision would be that the public would no longer have a contractual guarantee of access to or passage across the Main Street Plaza. • 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-6230 FAX: 801-535-6005 `� aecveeo PnPea ISSUE ORIGIN: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)purchased the surface rights to the former Main Street right-of-way between North Temple and South Temple in April 1999, following a public process that culminated in a decision by the Salt Lake City Council to close this section of Main Street. As a condition of approval, the City retained the following easements across the Plaza: • Pedestrian Access and Passage Easement: The City retained an easement that allows pedestrians access and passage across the Main Street Plaza twenty-four hours a day(see Attachment 7—Special Warranty Deed). The deed also states, "nothing in the reservation or use of this easement shall be deemed to create or constitute a pubic forum on the property". Notwithstanding this provision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit(10th Circuit Court) found that, by reason of the City's retention of the easement, First Amendment rights attach to the easement. Therefore, several of the restrictions on expression permitted under the term of the Special Warranty Deed were held to be unconstitutional. • Emergency and Public Safety Easement: This easement retains the right of access and passage by emergency and pubic safety personnel and vehicles without limitation. • Public and Private Utilities Easement: This easement provides for the operation, maintenance,repair, alteration, replacement, enlargement and emergency access, of all existing pubic and private underground utility lines, • including, without limitation, water, sewer, storm drain, telecommunications, electrical, gas, fiber optic and cable lines. • Preservation of View Corridor Easement: In order to preserve the view corridor to the Daughters of the Utah Pioneers Museum and to Ensign Peak, this easement prevents the LDS Church from erecting any occupied buildings on the property except for kiosks and information booths. On November 16, 1999, the American Civil Liberties Union, on the behalf of several plaintiffs, sued Salt Lake City claiming that the restrictions upon speech and conduct contained in the special warranty deed violate First Amendment rights protected by the US Constitution. On October 9, 2002, the l Oth Circuit Court held that the City's access and passage easement across the Main Street Plaza constitutes a public forum for free speech purposes. In effect, the City cannot guarantee access while allowing the LDS Church to impose restrictions on the First Amendment rights of those utilizing the pedestrian and access easement. The combination of these terms in the special warranty deed was found to be unconstitutional. See Exhibit 5b, Planning Commission Staff Report(Attachment 4, Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Memo Outlining Legal Issues). • Transmittal of Petition 400-03-01 —2— • The 10th Circuit Court suggested two possible courses of action for the City: "If it wants an easement,the City must permit speech on the easement [subject to appropriate time,place and manner regulation]. Otherwise it must relinquish the easement so the parcel becomes entirely private." In an attempt to resolve the constitutional issues, Mayor Anderson first developed a proposal to narrowly define the physical location of the pedestrian and access easement on the eastern edge of the former Main Street right-of-way and to impose time, place and manner restrictions. See Exhibit 5b, Planning Commission Staff Report(Attachment 3 titled, "Mayor Anderson's First Proposal") for a description of the time,place and manner restrictions. Mayor Anderson decided not to pursue this option for three reasons: 1. The LDS Church,with whom the Mayor would need to negotiate to revise the special warranty deed, indicated that it was not willing to accept this proposal; 2. The Mayor became convinced that the time,place and manner provisions would cause additional contention within the community; and 3. The Mayor was informed that,without substantial changes, the time, place and manner proposal would be subject to additional legal challenges. Because his first proposal appeared not to be a viable solution, on December 16, 2002, • the Mayor made another proposal to exchange the pedestrian easement for land and other considerations, including the creation of the Alliance for Unity Center(Unity Center) and a Sorenson Multi-cultural Center(855 West California Avenue) expansion in Glendale. The two parts of this proposal are described in detail in Exhibit 5b, Planning Commission Staff Report(Attachment 3, "A Turning Point for Peace,") and are summarized below: PROPOSAL PART 1: THE PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT • Close,Vacate and Abandon the Pedestrian Access and Passage Easement. Extinguishing the easement will allow the LDS Church all rights over the property that any other private property owner enjoys. Extinguishing the easement will resolve the constitutional issue regarding First Amendment rights for the City because the City will no longer have an ownership interest in the Main Street Plaza. This provision also means that the City will have no guarantee to a right of public pedestrian access or passage through the Main Street Plaza. Under this provision,there will be no right to pedestrian access and passage across the Main Street Plaza unless it is allowed by the LDS Church. The LDS Church and the City will not enter into any agreement concerning pedestrian access and passage across the Main Street Plaza. • Severability of the "Reverter Clause". The special warranty deed includes a reverter clause that allows the City to regain ownership of the former Main Street • right-of-way if the Plaza is not used for its intended purpose. If the courts Transmittal of Petition 400-03-01 —3— maintain that the reverter clause constitutes a substantial property interest for the City and, as a result, First Amendment rights still apply to the Plaza, the reverter III clause will automatically be removed from the special warranty deed and become unenforceable. • City and LDS Church Share Legal Fees. As a part of this proposal, Salt Lake City and the LDS Church agree to split the legal fees and costs incurred by the plaintiffs in the litigation over the Main Street Plaza easement. Without this agreement, Salt Lake City would be solely liable for this cost. • No Agreement Regarding Restrictions: If the City Council approves this proposal, Salt Lake City will not participate in the creation of any restrictions on the Plaza. The LDS Church will have the same rights as any other private property owner to impose restrictions on the behavior of visitors to the Plaza. PROPOSAL PART 2: THE ALLIANCE FOR UNITY CENTER • The LDS Church proposes to donate approximately two acres of vacant land at 1385 South 900 West to the City to be used to create the Unity Center. • The Alliance for Unity commits to help raise at least $5 million to create the new Unity Center and aid in the expansion of the Sorenson Center. James Sorenson, John Huntsman and the George S. and Dolores Dore Eccles Foundation have already pledged donations ranging from $500,000 to $1,000,000 in cash and land for this project. See Exhibit 5b, Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment III 3) for a list of the Alliance for Unity members who signed a letter pledging support to raise the needed funds for the Alliance for Unity Center. • The LDS Church agrees to participate financially in the development of the Unity Center. • The City will work with several partners to provide needed services at the Unity Center and at the expanded Sorenson Center. Public Process: Prior to the Planning Commission public hearing on April 9, 2003, the Mayor's Office presented the proposed easement extinguishment and property exchange to six community councils,the Downtown Alliance,the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, and the Transportation Advisory Board and held a public open house at the main branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library. In addition, the proposal as well as related documents and proceedings were posted on the City's web page, which allows people to submit comments. Exhibit 1 includes a chronology of the public process. Exhibit 5b,Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 5) includes transcripts of community council meetings and public comments submitted prior to the Planning Commission hearing. The following is a brief description of the public process: Ill Transmittal of Petition 400-03-01 —4— • 1. Community Councils: • Rio Grande Community Council: The Mayor's Office made a presentation to the Rio Grande Community Council on February 19, 2003. The council further discussed the petition on March 19, 2003, and voted to support the Mayor's proposal. • Capitol Hill Community Council: The Mayor's Office made a presentation to Capitol Hill Community Council on February 19, 2003. On April 16, 2003, approximately 56 members voted to support the Mayor's proposal to vacate the pedestrian easement, 13 voted in favor of imposing time,place and manner restrictions and five voted to leave the Main Street Plaza as is. • West Salt Lake Community Council: The Mayor's Office made a presentation to the West Salt Lake Community Council on February 19, 2003. On March 19, 2003, the council voted to support the Mayor's proposal. • Central Community Council: The Mayor's Office made a presentation to the Central Community Council on March 5, 2003. On April 2, 2003, following a presentation by a representative of the ACLU, the council voted 21-6 to support the Mayor's proposal. • • Greater Avenues Community Council: The Mayor's Office made a presentation to the Greater Avenues Community Council on March 5, 2003. The council voted to support the Mayor's proposal. • People's Freeway Community Council: The Mayor's Office made a presentation to the April 2, 2003. The council voted 9-0 to support the Mayor's proposal. • Community Council Chairs Meeting: The Mayor's Office made a presentation to the Community Council Chairs on March 6, 2003. 2. Business Organizations: • Downtown Alliance: The Mayor's Office made a presentation to the Downtown Alliance on February 18, 2003. The Alliance voted to support the Mayor's proposal. • Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce The Mayor's Office made a presentation to the Board of Directors of the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce on February 25, 2003. The Chamber's Board of Directors voted to support the proposal and to encourage members of the Chamber of Commerce to make donations to the Alliance for Unity to assist with the development of the Alliance for Unity Center. • Transmittal of Petition 400-03-01 —5— 3. Other Forums for Public Input: •• Transportation Advisory Board: The Mayor's Office made a presentation to the Transportation Advisory Board on March 3, 2003. At this meeting, the Transportation Division presented the findings of a Main Street Plaza pedestrian study conducted in February 2003. The study found that on the average, the plaza was used 544 times each day for passage through the Plaza(Temple Square or the Church Administration Block not being the destination). This average includes 335 pedestrians traversing the Plaza in a southbound direction and 209 pedestrian traversing the Plaza going north. The Transportation Advisory Board found that the possible impact to the transportation system if the LDS Church did close the Main Street Plaza to public access would be minor. The Board voted to support the Mayor's proposal. • Open House: The Salt Lake City Administration hosted a public open house on March 27, 2003, at the main branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library. 4. Planning Commission The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 9, 2003. The Commission received comments from approximately 40 members of the public and heard comments from the ACLU, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, various representatives of affected community councils and a representative for the Transportation Advisory Board. Following the hearing, the Planning Commission 0 considered a motion to: 1. Forward a recommendation to the City Council to close, vacate and abandon the pedestrian and passage easement for the purpose of selling the easement for fair-market value to the adjacent property owner, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This recommendation is subject to Salt Lake City receiving remuneration equivalent to the fair-market value of the Main Street Plaza pedestrian access and passage easement as determined by an appraisal acceptable to Salt Lake City Property Management Division. 2. Declare Salt Lake City's interest in the pedestrian access and passage easement surplus. 3. Forward a recommendation to the City Administration to accept certain real property located at 1375 South and 1385 South 900 West as partial payment for the sale of the public pedestrian and access easement. The motion was defeated on a vote of three in favor of the motion and four against. Commissioners Daniels, Funk and Muir voted in favor of the motion. Commissioners Chambless, Diamond, Noda and Seelig voted against the motion. • Transmittal of Petition 400-03-01 —6— After some discussion, the Planning Commission decided to forward this vote to • the City Council rather than consider any alternative motions. In the days following the Planning Commission meeting, it was discovered that Commissioner Chambless did not disclose a potential conflict of interest prior to the public hearing. Commissioner Chambless is currently serving, in a volunteer capacity, as the Vice President of the Board of the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah. Some members of the Planning Commission thought that Commissioner Chambless should have disclosed this affiliation. On April 15, 2003, Commissioner Chambless submitted a letter to the Planning Commission explaining why he did not declare the potential conflict (see Exhibit 8 Relevant Documents). On April 23, 2003, the Planning Commission discussed this issue. A motion was made to declare that Commissioner Chambless had a conflict of interest and should not have participated in the April 9th public hearing. The motion failed on a vote of two in favor and seven against. Subsequently, the Planning Commission ratified the April 9th minutes. Accordingly, the original recommendation by the Planning Commission not to support the Mayor's proposal to extinguish the pedestrian easement across the Main Street Plaza is being forwarded to the City Council. MASTER PLAN CONSIDERATIONS: The concept of closing portions of Main Street has been discussed in Salt Lake City master plans for over forty years. In 1962, the Second Century Plan specified closing Main Street between North and South Temple streets, and creating a plaza that would combine the two LDS Church-owned blocks to develop an LDS Church campus. Other master plans have supported the concept introduced in the Second Century Plan by focusing on creating open spaces and enhancing the landscaping along the street. These plans are R/UDAT (1988), Urban Design Element(1990), Block 57 Master Plan (1990), and the Downtown Master Plan (1995). The following is a summary of relevant master plan policies: 1. CENTRAL COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN(Pending adoption by the City Council) The Central Community Master Plan (recommended by the Planning Commission in September 2002) includes a number of goals and strategies concerning mobility and accessibility(page 3). • Increased pedestrian mobility and accessibility • Promote Walkable development. Transmittal of Petition 400-03-01 —7— 2. CAPITOL HILL MASTER PLAN(November,1999) II The Capitol Hill Master Plan makes the ensuing recommendations on page II 5-3: • Ensure that the impacts associated with new development in the LDS Church Campus, including noise,parking, traffic and overall congestion, are mitigated to minimize the effects and its impact on residential neighborhoods to the north. • Provide for safe, convenient circulation patterns for vehicular and non- vehicular traffic movement(page I-3). • Easements which allow public access through privately owned historic properties, such as the existing public easement through Gordon Place, should be retained(page II-1-9). • Circulation improvements including pedestrian amenities,parking lot egress and ingress, reducing commuter traffic in the Capitol Hill and Avenues residential neighborhoods, and mitigation of adverse impacts that potential land uses may have on the residential neighborhood to the north (page II-1- 11). • Walking has changed from once being the primary mode of circulation to being mostly used for recreational purposes. Although the proximity of the Capitol Hill Community to the Central Business District lends itself well to walking, steep terrain,physical barriers and safety issues, tend to discourage many people who might otherwise walk to Downtown. In addition, high traffic volumes hinder pedestrians from accessing recreation areas and open • spaces. Many of the pedestrians in the Marmalade and Kimball Neighborhoods are tourist who are drawn to the area on a walking tour of the historic resources in the community. (page V-14). 3. FUTURE COMMISSION MASTER(March 1998) Executive Summary: • On Environmental Issues: Protects natural areas from encroachment and degradation and provides open space as a place for recreation, regeneration, and contemplation—always mindful of the changing needs of a growing population (page. II. • Transportation System: Focuses first on pedestrians and bicyclists, second on mass transit, and third on single-occupant automobiles in planning and infrastructure support(page ii). Built Environment subcommittee Assertion E: Streets and thoroughfares have character—each is a patchwork of culture, a destination place for visitors (page 10). Assertion K: We work to preserve and provide access to sensitive habitat, riparian zones, and high quality open space—both natural and manmade. Urban • Transmittal of Petition 400-03-01 —8— design is sensitive to and takes advantage of our spectacular natural setting (page • 12). Economic Subcommittee Travel, Tourism, Convention, and Hospitality Industry 4. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is to be commended for its commitment to ongoing and future investments in visitor attractions and amenities associated with its Temple Square Campus and Family History Library facilities. Temple Square is Utah's number one visitor attraction, drawing over five million visitors annually from all over the world. The LDS Church's presence in the north end of the downtown is a permanent anchor that significantly contributes to downtown vitality. The city, county, state, and other public and private sector components of the Utah travel and tourism industry should encourage and facilitate the Church's plans for further investment and beautification of this critically important and historically significant area of the downtown core (page 19). Neighborhoods Subcommittees Recommendation: 7. Churches—Encourage churches to open their facilities and programs to community residents, regardless of their religious affiliation (page 41). Goal F: The ideal neighborhood will have close and easy access to open space. • 4. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN(April 1996) City Council Transportation Policies (page iii). 2. The Council encourages the preservation and enhancement of living environments, particularly the Downtown. 3. The Council will focus on ways to transport people to their desired destinations, not on moving motorized vehicles at the expense of neighborhoods. 5. The Council will make and support transportation decisions that increase the quality of life in life in the City, not necessarily the quantity of development. 7. The Council supports more public-private partnerships in which all who benefit from capital improvements participate in funding those improvements. Guiding Principles (page 1). • Salt Lake City's transportation system will support and encourage the viability and quality of life of its residential and business neighborhoods. Land Use(page 3). 2.3 Salt Lake City will promote development that is transit,pedestrian and bicycle friendly. • Transmittal of Petition 400-03-01 —9— Bicycles (page 13).. S 8.1 Salt Lake City will make walking more attractive as an alternative transportation mode for short trips,by creating a friendly walking environment, increasing pedestrian access in residential and commercial areas, and improving safety. 5. SALT LAKE CITY DOWNTOWN PLAN(February 1995) MEMORY GROVE EXTENSION/CITY CREEK PARKWAY The City Creek Parkway and the LDS Church Campus will create a physical and psychological boundary between the Avenues and Capitol Hill neighborhood, insuring against encroachment (page 280. 6. SALT LAKE R/UDAT OUR DOWNTOWN FUTURE(1988) Urban Design: Policy (page 12). I. City Creek The objective should be to connect the creek as directly as possible with the urban fabric of downtown. Discussion page 14 The north/south axis is reinforced by Main Street. Main Street is the heart of the shopping area. It should be the most pedestrian-oriented street in the City. The . north/south axis is anchored at the north end by Temple square, adjacent LDS Church facilities and the Crossroads and ZCMI Center shopping malls. This area currently represents the highest concentration of people and activity in the downtown. Transportation: Policy (page 28). L. Develop policies and programs to encourage development of mid-block and street-edge pedestrian corridors and other amenities. 7. CITY CREEK MASTER PLAN (April 1986) City Creek Plan (Page 2) Goals • Create a visual and pedestrian link between the Central Business District and the Memory Grove-Canyon Road area. 8. DOWNTOWN SALT LAKE CITY SECOND CENTURY PLAN (September 1962) Main Street(page 10): It is proposed that Main Street be highly oriented to the pedestrian. North Side LDS Church Campus (page 14). It is proposed that Main Street between the two church blocks either be closed to vehicular traffic or an underpass installed. Transmittal of Petition 400-03-01 — 10— • URBAN DESIGN POLICIES 9. URBAN DESIGN ELEMENT(1990) Salt Lake City has many view corridors which influence both the urban form of the city and the development character of its districts and communities. • Main Street to the Daughters of Utah Pioneers Museum (page 20). 10. URBAN DESIGN WORKSHOP(1997) In January 1997, the Salt Lake City Futures Commission held a Design Workshop to. develop a comprehensive vision for the City. The result of the City Design Workshop included: • having excellence in urban design reflected in the built environment, and witnessed by future generation of residents and visitors; IMPACT OF PETITION 400-01-03 ON EXISTING POLICY DOCUMENTS Although many elements of the City's master plan may be relevant to the closure of Main Street and the importance of providing or enhancing public access to open space and improving the quality of urban design in the downtown area, none specifically address the issue of the extinguishment of the pedestrian access and passage easement across the • Main Street Plaza. The master plan elements cited above provide general guidelines and policy statements that may assist the decision-making bodies as this petition is reviewed. It does not appear, however, that any of the policy documents discussed above need to be amended to approve this petition. In conclusion, Staff finds that: 1. No City master plans specifically address the pedestrian access and passage easement across the Main Street Plaza; 2. City master plans discussed above contain general statements about providing or enhancing public access to public open space and maintaining public easements which could be viewed as being in support of, or in opposition to the proposal to extinguish the pedestrian access and passage easement across the Main Street Plaza. 3. The master plans cited above do not preclude the City Council from making a recommendation to vacate, close and abandon the pedestrian access and passage easement across the Main Street Plaza. Even though the extinguishment of the pedestrian access and passage easement will eliminate any right to continued public access across the Main Street Plaza property, the special warranty deed will still include the easement preserving a view corridor along the • Transmittal of Petition 400-03-01 —11— Main Street Plaza. This easement supports recommendations in the Urban Design Element. 411 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION: The following documents, which were not directly relevant to the Planning Commission process,but which may be useful to the City Council in reviewing the Mayor's Proposal, are attached hereto. Letters from the Alliance for Unity and James L. Sorenson with respect to their contributions will be transmitted in the near future. 1. Correspondence concerning the dispute between the City and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop: Letter dated November 15, 2002 from Mayor Anderson to Bishop Burton; Letter dated December 4, 2002 from Alan L. Sullivan to Edwin P. Rutan, II; and Letter dated December 11, 2002 from Rutan to Sullivan. These letters state the positions of the City and of the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop on the legal effect of the severability clause in the Special Warranty Deed in light of the Court of Appeals ruling. 2. Draft Settlement Agreement Between the City and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop. This is the agreement that the City and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop would sign if the extinguishment of the easement is approved by the City • Council. The following is a discussion of the most important provisions of that document. Both the City and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop agree that neither party is bound until the final documents are executed. Paragraph 3 describes the consideration to be received by the City and states the intent of the parties that the City will have no property interest in the Main Street Property other than the view corridor, emergency vehicle and utility easements and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop's obligation to use and maintain the property as a landscaped space. (See also paragraph 5) In return for conveying the Pedestrian Easement to the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop, the City will receive the following: (i) a deed to the Glendale Property; (ii) $104,586.06 from the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop representing one- half of the attorneys fees and costs to be paid by the City to the Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs'Attorneys pursuant to the Stipulation, unless the City is not yet liable for the payment pursuant to the Stipulation, in which case payment by the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop, if any, shall be due at such later date as may be applicable in accordance with the Stipulation; (iii) $4 million from the Alliance for Unity; • Transmittal of Petition 400-03-01 — 12— • • (iv) $1 million from Jim Sorenson in the fonii of cash and/or land; and (v) a release from the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of its claims relating to Main Street Plaza, including its claim that the Pedestrian Easement was extinguished by the Court of Appeals decision. Paragraph 4 is an acknowledgement by the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop that receipt of the consideration to be provided by the Alliance for Unity and Jim Sorenson as well as the consideration to be provided by the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop is material to the City's decision to enter into the transaction. Paragraph 5 provides for amendments to the 1999 Special Warranty Deed which are discussed in item (3) below. Paragraph 9 provides for a closing and escrow which means that the City will not be obligated to convey the Pedestrian Easement to the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop unless and until it receives in hand each of the items of consideration listed in paragraph 3. Paragraph 10(k) is a severability clause that is different from the severability clause used in the 1999 transaction. This clause provides that in the event that a material tezni of the agreement is held to be invalid, the parties agree to negotiate in good faith a replacement term giving effect to their original intent as closely as legally possible. Paragraph 10(1)provides that in the event of a legal challenge to the transaction the parties will cooperate in the defense. 3. Deed Conveying Easement Rights and Amendment to Special Warranty Deed (Exhibit 4 to Draft Settlement Agreement) This is the document by which the City would transfer the Pedestrian Easement to the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop and would make necessary amendments to the 1999 Special Warranty Deed. The following provisions warrant specific discussion. Landscaped Space. The purpose of the original transaction for the City, in addition to the reserved easements,was that the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop use and maintain the Main Street Property as a landscaped space. That purpose was not explicitly stated in the 1999 Special Warranty Deed. In order to make explicit what was implicit, the phrase "to use and maintain the Property as a landscaped space" has been added to Paragraphs 1(b), 4, and 6.7 of the 1999 Deed as amended for this transaction. • Transmittal of Petition 400-03-01 — 13— Pedestrian Easement. Paragraph 1 conveys the Pedestrian Easement to the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop and states that the parties intend that the III Corporation of the Presiding Bishop own the Main Street Property in fee simple, subject only to the obligation of the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop to use and maintain the Main Street Property as a landscaped space, the easements reserved in Paragraphs 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4 of the 1999 Special Warranty Deed and the right of reverter described below. The City also disclaims any right to regulate expression or conduct on the Main Street Property(other than pursuant to its police powers applicable to private property in general). Deleted Provisions. Reflecting the conveyance of the Pedestrian Easement to the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop,paragraph 1.3 (reservation of the Pedestrian Easement by the City), paragraph 2 (restrictions on conduct, etc.), and 6.3 (amendment without third party consent) are deleted from the 1999 Special Warranty Deed. Other Easements. The Preservation of View Corridor, Emergency and Public Safety, and Public and Private Utilities Easements reserved by the City in the 1999 Special Warranty Deed remain in effect. Fencing. The terms on fencing in the 1999 Special Warranty Deed had both access and aesthetic implications. The language of the original fencing clause has been deleted. Paragraph 1.4 of the Deed, which deals with preservation of the view corridor, has been amended to address fencing with a new provision to make 111 clear that the purpose is now limited to aesthetic considerations. The proposed new provision prohibits any new gates or fences without the approval of the City, which may not be unreasonably withheld. The City's decision is to be based on aesthetic considerations, including preservation of the view corridor, as well as safety and security threats to the Church's property. If a court holds that the fencing provisions create a public forum for First Amendment purposes, the fencing provisions will automatically terminate. Right of Reverter. Because the Pedestrian Easement is being conveyed to the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop, the City's right of reverter no longer applies to the Pedestrian Easement. If a court holds that the City's amended right of reverted creates a public forum for First Amendment purposes, the City's right of reverter will automatically terminate, but in such event, the City's right to equitable or other relief will not be impaired. See paragraphs 4 and 6.7. Severability Clause. See discussion of Settlement Agreement above. 4). Appraisal dated May 2, 2003 by J. Philip Cook &Associates of the Pedestrian Easement (the "Easement Appraisal"). • Transmittal of Petition 400-03-01 — 14— The Easement Appraisal states that it was prepared in accordance with the . UnifoHHu Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (the "USPAP") as promulgated by the Appraisal Foundation and Appraisal Guidelines of the Appraisal Institute. The Easement Appraisal opines that the market value of the Pedestrian Easement is $500,000 as of April 2, 2003. 5. Appraisal dated April 8, 2003 by J. Philip Cook &Associates of 92,347 Square Feet of Vacant Land located at 1385 South 900 West, Salt Lake City, Utah (the "Glendale Appraisal"). This is the appraisal of the so-called "Glendale Property" proposed to be conveyed by the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop to the City. The Glendale Appraisal states that it also was prepared in accordance USPAP and appraisal guidelines as established by the Appraisal Institute. The Glendale Appraisal opines that the market value of the Glendale Property is $275,000. 6. Stipulation Re: Attorneys' Fees and Costs, dated April 24, 2003, entered into by the City and the Plaintiffs in First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City, et al. v. Salt Lake City Corporation, Civil No. 2:99-912 ST(U.S. Dist. Ct. D. Utah). In accordance with federal statute, the plaintiffs as the prevailing parties in this litigation are entitled to the award of their attorneys fees and costs against the City. The City and the plaintiffs and their attorneys have agreed on the amounts • of$200,000 for attorneys fees and $9,172.12 for costs. The Stipulation provides inter alia that payment shall be made by the City within fourteen calendar days from the date that the United States Supreme Court denies the pending petition for certiorari filed by the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop or otherwise issues a final decision in plaintiffs' favor. The Stipulation further provides that the City's obligation to pay is null and void in the event that the Supreme Court enters judgment in favor of the City or the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop or orders further proceedings that result in such a judgment. 7. Free Speech Study, dated April 9, 2003 This study examines free speech activity related to Main Street Plaza in particular and the City in general for which permits were requested from the City. The study notes that not all free speech activity is subject to the permit requirement. One or two people who wish to speak or hand out literature are not required to obtain a permit,nor are larger groups acting on short notice. The study concludes that for the year prior to the construction of Main Street Plaza, no permits were requested for the sidewalks on either side of Main Street between North and South Temple Streets, while 52 permits were requested for other parts of the City. The study also concludes that from October 18, 2002, when the Tenth Circuit decision was issued, through April 9, 2003, three permits • were requested for Main Street Plaza(but none since December 2002). During Transmittal of Petition 400-03-01 — 15— that same period, 44 permits were requested for other parts of the City. [N.B. All permits requested were granted by the City,but not necessarily without . modification.] PROPOSED FINDINGS BY THE CITY COUNCIL The draft ordinance transmitted with this package includes a number of findings proposed to be made by the City Council if the Council approves the transaction. Particular documentary materials that the City Council may wish to consider in deciding whether to make each of those findings are discussed below. Discussion of these particular documentary items is not intended to exclude consideration by the Council of any other information that the Council may wish to consider such as citizen comment at the public hearing. 1. Impact on Pedestrian Traffic The proposed finding is that if following completion of the transaction the Church decided to close the Main Street Property to pedestrian access, the impact on pedestrian traffic would be minor. The Council may wish to consider the recommendation of the Transportation Advisory Board and the Transportation Division's "Pedestrian Impact Study of Part-Time or Full Time Closure of the Main Street Plaza to Through Pedestrians" on which the Board based its recommendation in part. (See discussion at pp. 5-6 110 supra and in the Planning Staff Report.) The Pedestrian Impact Study itself did not present any conclusion,but rather was intended to compile the facts for assessment by the policymakers. There are two aspects to the Pedestrian Impact Study. First, the study counted the number of through pedestrians crossing the Plaza from north to south or vice versa by hourly segments over a three day period in February 2002. (The survey acknowledges a number of limitations. For example, individual pedestrians were not asked their origination and destination locations and the survey was done at only one time of year.) As noted above (pp. 5-6), on average the plaza was used 544 times each day for passage through the plaza— 335 pedestrians heading south and 209 heading north. Second, the survey assesses the impact of closure on particular pedestrian routes crossing the Plaza depending on their origination and destination points. The study concludes that the maximum adverse impact would be a two block detour if the Main Street Property were closed to through traffic. For some routes there would be no adverse impact because alternate routes of equal distance would be available. • Transmittal of Petition 400-03-01 — 16— Based in part on the Pedestrian Impact Study, the Transportation Advisory Board • concluded that the impact on pedestrian traffic would be minor. 2. Impact on Free Speech The City never intended that free speech would be preserved on the Main Street Property as part of the original transaction. However, concern about the free speech implications of the proposed transaction has been raised in the Planning Commission hearing and some of the community council meetings. The proposed finding is that if the Pedestrian Easement is extinguished and the public forum on the Plaza is closed as a result there is ample alternate public forum space available for free speech in the immediate vicinity of the Main Street Plaza along North and South Temple Streets as well as in other areas of the City. The Free Speech Study referenced above presented the following facts: (1) between the date of the Court of Appeals decision in October 2002 and April 9, 2003, three peiinits were requested for the Main Street Plaza area; (2) during that same time period, forty four permits were requested for other parts of Salt Lake City; and (3) during the year prior to the sale of the Main Street Property to the LDS Church, no permits were requested for either side of Main Street between North and South Temple Streets. [N.B. The Free Speech Study of requests for permits does not cover all free speech activity. For example, individuals wishing • to speak or distribute information are not required to apply for a permit, nor are groups engaging in a "spontaneous" demonstration.] There is nothing in the proposed transaction which limits the current availability for speech activity of the North and South Temple sidewalks between State and West Temple. The Free Speech Study indicates that those sidewalks have been requested for speech activity in the past. The Study also shows that numerous other locations throughout the City have been requested and none of those is affected by the proposed transaction. 3. Pedestrian Easement Not Necessary The recommendation by the Transportation Advisory, the Pedestrian Impact Study and the Free Speech Study are relevant to the proposed finding that the Pedestrian Easement is not necessary for use by the public as a sidewalk and that extinguishment of the Pedestrian Easement will not be adverse to the general public's interest. 4. Good Faith Dispute Between the City and the Church The proposed finding is that there is a good faith dispute between the City and the Church over the impact of the Court of Appeals' decision on their original • agreement. The dispute focuses on the impact of the severability clause in the Transmittal of Petition 400-03-01 — 17— Special Warranty Deed. The Church's position is that the City's reservation of the Pedestrian Easement was invalidated by the Court's decision. The City's position IIis that only the restrictions on conduct were invalidated and the City's reservation of the Pedestrian Easement remains valid. The positions of the City and the Church have been stated in various places, including the following correspondence: Letter dated November 15, 2002 from Mayor Anderson to Bishop Burton; Letter dated December 4, 2002 from Alan L. Sullivan to Edwin P. Rutan, II; and Letter dated December 11, 2002 from Rutan to Sullivan. 5. Divisive Effect on the Community The Mayor's view on the divisive effect of the dispute on the community is stated in his introduction to the brochure "A Turning Point for Peace" (Attachment 3 to the Planning Staff Report). The Mayor will also address this in his briefing for the Council. The Council Members themselves have had the opportunity to personally see the impact of the dispute on the community in many ways, including the "public comment" segment of City Council meetings and direct communications from their constituents. 6. Benefit to the Community of the Expanded Facilities A major segment of the briefing to be provided by the Mayor will cover the • benefit to the community of the expanded facilities. In addition, the brochure "A Turning Point for Peace" (Attachment 3 to the Planning Staffs Report) discusses the benefits. 7. Policy Justifications for Extinguishment of the Easement State statute and City Council policy address findings to be made by the Council before approving the closure, vacation and abandonment of a City street or sidewalk. The Utah Municipal Code provides that there be good cause for the closure and that the closure will not be detrimental to the public interest. The City Council's policy on street closures requires that there be sufficient public policy reasons for the closure; that the closure accomplish those public policy reasons and that closure outweighs the benefits of the alternatives. The facts concerning the benefits and the impact on pedestrian traffic and free speech discussed above would be available for the Council to make these determinations. 8. Alternatives (See also Planning Staff Report at pp. 11-15) The three primary alternatives to the current proposal which have been discussed are: (1)maintaining the status quo, (2) potential review of the Court of Appeals decision by the U.S. Supreme Court and (3) "time,place and manner" restrictions • Transmittal of Petition 400-03-01 — 18— on speech in conjunction with a definition of the physical location of the IIIPedestrian Easement. Maintain the Status Quo. The Mayor's position is that maintaining the status quo will not end the divisiveness and therefore is not an acceptable approach. Supreme Court Review. The Corporation of the Presiding Bishop has petitioned the Supreme Court for discretionary review of the Court of Appeals decision (a petition for a writ of certiorari). The City has separately filed in favor of Supreme Court review. On May 19, 2003, the Supreme Court announced that it was holding the Petition for further consideration. While the Court did not state its reason for doing so, it may because the Court is waiting until it decides another case already before it. If so, the Court would likely rule on the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop's petition by the end of June. If the Supreme Court denies review (or grants review, but still affirms the Court of Appeals decision), the parties would remain where they are now. If the Supreme Court grants review and reverses the Court of Appeals decision, the original transaction would stand as the parties had intended. However, such a decision likely would not come until Spring 2004. IIIf the Supreme Court takes the case, it is also possible that rather than deciding the case directly, the Court could return the case to the Court of Appeals for further consideration on specific issues. In that case, it would take considerably longer before a "final"decision were issued. If the City Council approves the proposed transaction, the City and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop would have to decide between entering into the proposed transaction and continuing to seek review by the Supreme Court. If the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop and the City entered into the proposed transaction, the Supreme Court likely would view the dispute as "moot" and would not decide it. Time, Place and Manner Restrictions. The Council was briefed by the Mayor on his time place and manner proposal in December 2002. In addition, the Council has been advised by Randy Dryer on the time,place and manner issues. The Corporation of the Presiding Bishop stated to the Council in the December briefing its opposition to time, place and manner restrictions as a resolution of the dispute. The Utah Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union stated its position in a letter to the Council dated December 17, 2002. 9. Market Value of the Pedestrian Easement. • Transmittal of Petition 400-03-01 — 19— By law, the City must receive at least the market value of City property that is sold. Independent appraisals of the market value of the Pedestrian Easement and 411 of the Glendale Property were commissioned by the City Attorney's office to satisfy that requirement. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Salt Lake City Municipal Code, Chapter 2.58, City-owned Real Property • S Transmittal of Petition 400-03-01 -20- 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. CHRONOLOGY 2. PROPOSED ORDINANCE 3. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION a. Correspondence Concerning the Dispute between the City and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop b. Draft Settlement Agreement between the City and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop c. Deeds 1. Deed Conveying Easement Rights and Amendment to Special Warranty Deed 2. Special Warranty Deed (Glendale Property) d. Appraisal of the Pedestrian Easement e. Appraisal of the Glendale Property f. Stipulation Re: Attorney's Fees and Costs g. Free Speech Study 4. CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE • 5. MAILING LABELS 6. PLANNING COMMISSION a. Hearing Notice and Postmark b. Staff Report c. Agendas/Minutes April 9, 2003 April 23, 2003 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS 8. RELEVANT DOCUMENTS 9. ORIGINAL PETITION • Transmittal of Petition 400-03-01 —21 — • • EXHIBIT 1 CHRONOLOGY Transmittal of Petition 400-03-01 • CHRONOLOGY PETITION 400-03-01 January13,2003 Petition Submitted to the Planning Division January 15,2003 Petition Assigned to Joel Paterson February 18,2003 Presentation made to the Downtown Alliance. The Alliance voted to support the proposal February 19,2003 Presentation made to the Rio Grande Community Council. No vote was taken at this meeting. February 19,2003 Presentation made to the Capitol Hill Community Council. No vote was taken at this meeting. See the transcript of the meeting in Attachment 5. February 19,2003 Presentation made to the West Salt Lake Community Council. The community council did not vote at this meeting. See the transcript of the meeting in Attachment 5. February 25,2003 Presentation made to the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors. The Chamber's Board of Directors voted to support the proposal and to encourage members • of the Chamber of Commerce to contribute to the Alliance for Unity to assist with the development of the Unity Center near the Sorenson Community Center in Glendale. March 3, 2003 Presentation made to the Transportation Advisory Board. The Board voted to support the proposal(see Attachment 6). March 5, 2003 Presentation made to the Greater Avenues Community Council. The community council voted to support the proposal. See the transcript of the meeting in Attachment 5. March 5,2003 Presentation made to the Central City Community Council. No vote was taken. See the transcript of the meeting in Attachment 5. March 6,2003 Petition presented to the Community Council Chairs March 19,2003 The West Salt Lake Community Council voted 38— 19(6 abstained)to support the Mayor's proposal. See the transcript of the meeting in Attachment 5. March 19, 2003 The Rio Grande Community Council voted to support the Mayor's proposal. March 27,2003 Approximately 25 people attended an open house at the main branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library. See the transcript of the meeting in Attachment 5. S Transmittal of Petition 400-03-01 April 2,2003 The Central City Community Council invited the ACLU to discuss the easement . vacation. The community council voted 21-6 in favor of supporting the Mayor's proposal. April 2,2003 Presentation made to the People's Freeway Community Council. The Community Council voted 9-0 in favor of the Mayor's proposal. April 9,2003 The Planning Commission voted three in favor and four against supporting the petition to vacate the pedestrian easement across the Main Street Plaza. April 23,2003 A Planning Commission motion stating that Commissioner Chambless had a conflict of interest was defeated 2-7. The minutes of the April 9,2003 Planning Commission meeting were ratified. • S Transmittal of Petition 400-03-01 • • EXHIBIT 2 PROPOSED ORDINANCE • Transmittal of Petition 400-03-01 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE • No. of 2003 (Closing, vacating and abandoning a pedestrian access and passage easement located on the former Main Street right of way) AN ORDINANCE CLOSING, VACATING AND ABANDONING A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND PASSAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ON THE FORMER MAIN STREET RIGHT OF WAY BETWEEN NORTH AND SOUTH TEMPLE STREETS PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-03-01. WHEREAS, in April 1999 the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah adopted Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 28 of 1999 closing a portion of Main Street between North Temple and South Temple Streets (hereinafter the "Main Street Property") conditioned on sale for fair market value, which Ordinance was • amended in May 2000 by Salt Lake CityOrdinance No. 29 of 2000;, WHEREAS, in accordance with Ordinance No. 28 of 1999, Salt Lake City Corporation (hereinafter the "City") and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (hereinafter the "Corporation of the Presiding Bishop") executed an April 27, 1999 Special Warranty Deed (hereinafter the "Special Warranty Deed") in which inter alia (1) the City transferred its interest in the Main Street Property to the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop; (2) the City reserved an easement over and across the Main Street Property for pedestrian access and passage (hereinafter the "Pedestrian Easement"); (3) the City and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop agreed that • the reservation of the Pedestrian Easement did not create a public forum on the Main Street Property and was not intended to dictate whether the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop allowed or prohibited certain specified conduct enumerated in the Special Warranty Deed (hereinafter the "Restrictions"); and (4) the City also reserved easements for Emergency and Public Safety, Public and Private Utilities and the Preservation of a View Corridor(hereinafter collectively the "Other Easements"); WHEREAS, in November 1999, the First Unitarian Church and others filed suit against the City in the United States District Court for the District of Utah (hereinafter the "Federal Lawsuit") challenging, among other things, the Restrictions in the Special Warranty Deed and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop subsequently intervened in the Federal Lawsuit; •WHEREAS, in October 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the - Tenth Circuit (hereinafter the "Court of Appeals") held that the Pedestrian Easement created a public forum for purposes of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and that the Restrictions in the Special Warranty Deed were unconstitutional; WHEREAS, the Court of Appeals concluded in its decision that the First Amendment prohibited the City and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop from guaranteeing public access through the Pedestrian Easement while at the same time prohibiting expressive activity on the Pedestrian Easement; WHEREAS, in its decision the Court of Appeals further suggested that two of the City's permitted options were: (1) to retain the Pedestrian Easement and • 2 adopt reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on protected expressive • activities; or (2) to relinquish the Pedestrian Easement so that the Main Street Property became entirely private; WHEREAS, the Court of Appeals noted in its opinion that the City and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop disagreed over the impact of the Court's decision that the Restrictions in the Special Warranty Deed were unconstitutional, with the City contending that such a decision would eliminate the Restrictions, but not the Pedestrian Easement reserved by the City, and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop contending that the City would lose the Pedestrian Easement; WHEREAS, following the decision of the Court of Appeals, the City and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop continued to disagree on the impact of the Court's decision on the City's reservation of the Pedestrian Easement; WHEREAS, the Court of Appeals' decision resulted in much controversy and divisiveness in the community; WHEREAS, in order to resolve the legal dispute over the Pedestrian Easement between the City and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop and to bring an end to the divisiveness in the community, Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson proposed on December 16, 2002 that the City and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop settle potential legal claims regarding the existence and the extent of the Pedestrian Easement on the following basis (hereinafter the "Settlement Proposal"): i (1) the Pedestrian Easement would be extinguished; 3 (2) the Special Warranty Deed would be amended to provide that the • right of reverter in the Deed would be extinguished if a court deems restrictions on conduct or other expressive activity imposed by the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop unconstitutional by reason of the right of reverter; - (3) the City and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop will each pay one-half of all costs and attorneys fees assessed in favor of the plaintiffs against the City in the Federal Lawsuit; (4) there would be no agreement by the City and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop regarding any restrictions on conduct or other expressive activities on the Main Street Property; (5) the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop would donate to the City a certain parcel of land consisting of approximately two acres near the Sorenson Center in Glendale (hereinafter the "Glendale Property") for the construction of one or more facilities by the City; (6) the Alliance for Unity would commit to raise at least $4 million, which, combined with $1 million pledged by James Sorenson, will be used for the completion of facilities by the end of 2005 on or near the Glendale Property; (7) The Corporation of the Presiding Bishop also would participate financially in the development of the facilities; and (8) The City potentially would partner with others to provide programs at the facilities; • • 4 • WHEREAS, on January 8, 2003, Mayor Anderson filed Petition 400-03-01 with the Salt Lake City Planning Division to close, vacate and abandon the Pedestrian Easement pursuant to the terms and conditions outlined in the Settlement Proposal; WHEREAS, presentations were made by the Mayor's Office to various community councils and community organizations and the following groups gave their advisory approval of the Settlement Proposal: Downtown Alliance Capitol Hill Community Council West Salt Lake Community Council Chamber of Commerce Greater Avenues Community Council Central City Community Council People's Freeway Community Council • WHEREAS, the City created a website to provide information to the public about the Settlement Proposal, to provide transcripts of the "Question and Answer" segments of the community council meetings and to receive additional public comment; WHEREAS, on or about February 27, 2003, the Salt Lake City Transportation Division prepared a Pedestrian Impact Study of Part-Time or Full Time Closure of the Main Street Plaza to Through Pedestrians, (hereinafter the "Pedestrian Impact Study"); WHEREAS, on March 23, 2003, the Transportation Advisory Board voted to support the Settlement Proposal, concluding in part that the impact on • pedestrian traffic would be minor based in part on the Pedestrian Impact Study; • WHEREAS, in April 2003 the City Planning Staff issued its Report on • Petition 400-003-01, recommending that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council inter alia that the Pedestrian Easement be extinguished and the donation of the Glendale Property be accepted by the City; WHEREAS, on April 9, 2003, following public comment, the Planning Commission voted 4 to 3 not to follow the Planning Staff recommendation; WHEREAS, in accordance with legal requirements, the City Attorney's Office commissioned independent appraisals of the market value of the Pedestrian Easement and of the Glendale Property by J. Phillip Cook& Associates and such appraisals dated May 2, 2003 and April 8, 2003 respectively have been delivered to the City; WHEREAS, by stipulation dated April 24, 2003, the City and the plaintiffs • in the Federal Lawsuit stipulated as to the plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs on the terms and conditions stated therein (hereinafter the "Stipulation"); WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public work session concerning the Settlement Proposal on[date], 2003; has held a public hearing concerning the Settlement Proposal on[date], 2003; heard comments from numerous citizens during the "Public Comment" segment of many City Council Meetings; and received many other written and oral comments from citizens; WHEREAS, the City Council enacts this ordinance pursuant to and in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Utah Code, including §§ 10-8-8 et seq. and of the Salt Lake City Code, including Chapter 2.58; • 6 • WHEREAS, the City Council acknowledges that the closure, vacation, and abandonment of the Pedestrian Easement means there would be no legally enforceable right of public pedestrian access or passage on the Main Street Property; that the Main Street Property would no longer be a part of the public pedestrian transportation grid; and that the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop as the private owner of the Main Street Property would have the right to deny access to the public if it so wished; WHEREAS, the Settlement Proposal is consistent with the City's primary objective in entering into the original transaction: the promotion of tourism and economic development; WHEREAS, appropriation of funds for the construction of new community • facilities will be approved by the City Council pursuant to standard procedure through which the City Council considers inter alia broad benefit to the City and operations and maintenance costs; WHEREAS, based upon the information and evidence presented in the City Council public work sessions, public hearing, staff briefing, and "public comments"; the Planning Commission hearing; and the Community Council meetings; the City Council finds as follows: (1) if, following completion of the transaction, the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop, as the private owner of the Main Street Property, decides to close the Main Street Property to pedestrian access and passage, the impact on • pedestrian traffic would be minor; 7 (2) the City never intended in the original transaction that expressive • activities would be preserved on the Main Street Property; (3) the Court of Appeals decision has left the City with an unintended responsibility to regulate protected expressive activities on the Main Street Plaza, with the attendant risk of litigation; (4) even after the closure, vacation and abandonment of the Pedestrian Easement and resulting closure of the public forum on the Main Street Property, there will be ample alternate public forum space available for protected expressive activities in the immediate vicinity of the Main Street Property along North and South Temple Streets as well as in other areas of the City; (5) during 1998, the year prior to the original transaction, no free speech permits were requested from the City for the Main Street sidewalks between North • and South Temple Streets; (6) the continued existence of the Pedestrian Easement is not necessary for use by the public as a sidewalk or pedestrian thoroughfare and closure, vacation and abandonment of the Pedestrian Easement will not be adverse to the general public's interest; (7) there is a good faith legal dispute between the City and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop over the impact of the Court of Appeals' decision on their original agreement; (8) the controversy over the impact of the decision by the Court of Appeals on the original agreement between the City and the Corporation of the • 8 • Presiding Bishop has had an extremely divisive and harmful effect on the Salt Lake City community; (9) the donation of the Glendale Property by the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop and the donations by the Alliance for Unity and James L. Sorenson will enable the City to construct new and expanded facilities that will provide significant benefits to the community; (10) the benefit of new community facilities in Glendale, promotion of tourism, resolution of divisiveness in the community, and voluntary settlement of the legal dispute between the City and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop provide sufficient public policy reasons for the closure, vacation and abandonment of the Pedestrian Easement, and the closure of the Pedestrian Easement will enable • the City to accomplish those public policy purposes; (11) accomplishment of these public policy purposes through closure, vacation and abandonment of the Pedestrian Easement outweighs the benefits of any alternatives to the closure of the Pedestrian Easement; (12) there is good cause for the closure, vacation and abandonment of the Pedestrian Easement and such action will not be detrimental to the public interest; (13) the closure, vacation and abandonment of the Pedestrian Easement according to the terms of(a ) a Settlement Agreement to be executed by the City and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop substantially in the form of Exhibit A (the "Settlement Agreement"), and (b) a Deed Conveying Easement Rights and • 9 Amendment to Special Warranty Deed substantially in the form of Exhibit B (the • "Amended Special Warranty Deed") is in the best interests of the City as a whole, NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, that: SECTION 1. The Pedestrian Easement located on the Main Street Property, which is more particularly described in Exhibit C attached hereto, be, and the same hereby is closed, vacated and abandoned and declared no longer needed or available for use by the public for any purpose whatsoever, including but not limited to use as a sidewalk or as a pedestrian thoroughfare upon fulfillment of the conditions provided in Section 3. SECTION 2. Reservations and Disclaimers. The above closure, vacation and abandonment expressly does not affect and in no way limits: (1) the • obligation of the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop to use and maintain the Main Street Property as a landscaped space; (2) the Emergency and Public Safety Easement reserved by the City in Section 1.1 of the Amended Special Warranty Deed; (3) the Public and Private Utilities Easement reserved by the City in Section 1.2 of the Amended Special Warranty Deed; and (4) the Preservation of View Corridor Easement reserved by the City in Section 1.4 of the Amended Special Warranty Deed. SECTION 3. Conditions. This closure, vacation and abandonment are conditioned upon the closing of the transactions pursuant to the terms of a Settlement Agreement between the City and the Corporation of the Presiding • 10 Bishop substantially in the form of Exhibit A hereto and an Amended Special • Warranty Deed substantially in the form of Exhibit B hereto. SECTION 4. Transfer of Title. Title to the Pedestrian Easement shall remain with the City until the closing pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. SECTION 5. Amendment of Prior Ordinances. To the extent necessary, Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 28 of 1999 and Ordinance No. 29 of 2000 shall be and hereby are amended consistent with the terms and conditions set forth herein. SECTION 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. • Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this s day of , 2003. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER • 11 Transmitted to Mayor on 41110 Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: • G\Ordinance 03\Main Street Plaza 5-19-03-clean doc • 12 • EXHIBIT 3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION • Transmittal of Petition 400-03-01 • • EXHIBIT 3a CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP • Transmittal of Petition 400-03-01 oSI- c, oxmay'. t.- :1'7,!:,;: --/ •Z' * 1-- 404 iiSS C."ROCKY"Y ANDERSON SARI �'l51 eV iC 1 11iggli �' �� -ti--_�•�[ SALT LAKE 2002 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR i November 15, zooz _ -t 1 ! .it .i i DEC - 5 jt1 The Presiding Bishopric Salt Lake City Attorney t H. David Burton Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 5o East North Temple Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84150-i3oo Dear Gentlemen: This letter is in response to your letter dated November i, zooz concerning the public access easement on the Main Street Plaza. After reviewing your letter, I requested a legal analysis from the City Attorney's Office regarding the issues you raised. I have received and • reviewed that analysis and concur with the conclusions of the City Attorney's office. A copy of the Memorandum is enclosed for your review. As you will note from that Memorandum, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that the pedestrian easement is a public forum, and the limitations and restrictions on the exercise of free speech on that easement are unconstitutional. Contrary to your suggestion, the Court's opinion makes it abundantly clear that the pedestrian easement is valid. Professor John Martinez, who has been retained by the City Council in this matter, concurs in our view that the Court struck down only the restrictions, not the entire easement. In addition, we, and Professor Martinez, also disagree with your assessment that the pedestrian easement and the restrictions are inseparable. The Court of Appeals also disagrees with your assessment. The severability clause contained in the Special Warranty Deed specifically provides that in the event any of the terms, conditions, limitations or restrictions in the deed are deemed unconstitutional, the 410 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306,SALT LAKE CRY,UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 remaining provisions of the Deed would remain binding and enforceable. Thus, the Court's declaration that the limitations and restrictions on • speech are unconstitutional does not affect the continuing existence of the easement. As I have indicated in the past, I have been willing to explore all legitimate, constitutional proposals that would preserve the original benefit of the bargain for both parties. In that connection, we invited the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to provide suggested options to the City Attorney's office. They did so, but the options suggested are subject to serious challenges on constitutional grounds. As I have previously indicated, I am not willing to pursue a remedy that is constitutionally suspect or that would provide the Church of Jesus Christ with the benefit of its bargain only at the expense of the City's. In your letter you suggest that there are "several good options available" pursuant to which the City and the Church of Jesus Christ could receive the benefit of their bargain. To date, those options have not been made known to the City. We will certainly act in good faith to reasonably evaluate those options if they are made available for our consideration. I look forward to further dialogue with you as we address the difficult situation presented to us. I urge you and other leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ to focus your efforts on reducing the divisiveness in this community, rather the increasing the hostilities with demands that I act in abrogation of the terms of the Special Warranty Deed. The Church of Jesus Christ agreed in writing that if the restrictions are deemed by a court to be unconstitutional, then the remaining terms - including the City's retention of the easement - shall remain binding and enforceable. That is not simply a legal technicality; it is a reflection of the importance the City places on keeping what it bargained for - an enforceable assurance of the public's right to access and to pass through the plaza. If a court had held that the easement is invalid, the Church of Jesus Christ would not have voluntarily conveyed the property back to the City or waived the restrictions on expressive conduct. Similarly, it is unfair to expect the City to convey the easement to the Church of Jesus Christ now that the restrictions have been deemed • to be unconstitutional. I implore you to please just live up to the terms of the written agreement and stop ratcheting up the divisiveness in this community. Join with me in bringing people of all faiths together in a demonstration of good will and honor. Best regards, oss C. erson Mayor Enclosure cc: City Council Members • • SM' WI COMMIS STEVEN W. ALLRED LAW DEPARTMENT ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON ACTING CITY ATTORNEY MAYOR MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson FROM: Steven W. Allred Lynn H. Pace Boyd A. Ferguson DATE: November 8, 2002 SUBJECT: Main Street Plaza This Memorandum is in response to your request for an analysis of the matters discussed in the letter dated November 1, 2002, from the Presiding Bishopric(the "Presiding Bishopric letter"), concerning the public access easement on the Main Street Plaza. A copy of that letter is attached. 1. Continuing Validity of the Easement. In its letter,the Presiding Bishopric • contends that the"precise holding"of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is that a public pedestrian easement for access and passage only is unconstitutional, and that the Court declared not merely the restrictions on the City's easement, but rather the easement itself, to be unconstitutional. The Presiding Bishopric letter does not direct us to any specific reference in the Court's decision that supports such a contention, and, in any event,we believe it to be inconsistent with the Court's decision. Section 1.3 of the Special Warranty Deed reserves an easement for pedestrian access and passage, subject to the"conditions, limitations and restrictions" set forth in section 2. Section 2.2 of the Deed states that the parties did not intend to create a public forum on the property, and articulates various free expression and non-free expression limitations and restrictions on the public use of that pedestrian easement. The specific holding of the Court of Appeals is that,notwithstanding the stated intentions of the parties to the contrary,the pedestrian easement constitutes a public forum, and that the free expression limitations and restrictions are invalid. The Court stated: In sum,the easement's history, as well as other contemporary characteristics of the easement discussed above, support the conclusion • • 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 505, SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111 TELEPHONE: 801-5}3s5-7788 FAX: 801-535-7640 W..e.e..e.A.•. that the easement is a public forum.... We reach this conclusion in spite • of the City's express intent not to create a public forum because the City's declaration is at odds with the objective characteristics of the property and the City's express purpose of providing a pedestrian throughway. According, we hold that the easement is a public forum. (See Opinion, p. 35, emphasis added.) Having reached that conclusion, the Court then examined the constitutionality of the enumerated First Amendment limitations and restrictions on the use of the easement. In doing so, the Court stated several times that"the restrictions are invalid." (See Opinion, p. 36, emphasis added. See also p. 9 footnote 2, and p. 39.) Thus,the holding of the Court is that the limitations and restrictions on the exercise of free speech on the easement are unconstitutional. Although the Court acknowledged the difference of opinion between the City and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the impact on the easement if the restrictions were found unconstitutional (see Opinion,p. 24 footnote 8), it did not directly rule on that issue, but it did make it clear that the easement,without the restrictions, is valid and continues to exist. Contrary to the assertions in the Presiding Bishopric letter,nothing in the Court's opinion suggested that the easement itself is invalid. To the contrary, the Court's . discussion of the City's ability to adopt time,place, and manner restrictions to accommodate competing uses of the easement (see Opinion pp. 37-38) compels exactly the opposite conclusion. Similarly, after holding that the easement restrictions are invalid,the Court ruled that the City,not the Church of Jesus Christ,has responsibility for regulating speech"on the easement"(see Opinion,p. 39). That statement necessarily assumes the survival of the easement,and would have been nonsensical if the Court had meant to hold that the easement is invalid. Similarly, the Court held: "If it wants an easement, the City must permit speech on the easement. Otherwise, it must relinquish the easement so the parcel becomes entirely private." (See Opinion p. 37.) The City could not relinquish something it does not possess; therefore,the Court clearly assumed the continuing validity of the easement. Similarly, the Church of Jesus Christ has purportedly requested the City to convey its easement to the Church of Jesus Christ. Such a request seems to imply the continuing existence of the easement; otherwise, there would be nothing to convey. There is no support for the contention of the Presiding Bishopric that the Court's decision extinguished the easement; indeed,the contention is belied throughout the Court's decision. 2. Severability of the Easement and the Restrictions. The Presiding Bishopric letter also asserts that the"access and passage only"provision and the"restrictions" provision in the Special Warranty Deed are inseparable. Again,we disagree. The Severability clause contained in Section 6.2 of the Deed specifically states that in the event "any of the terms, conditions, limitations or restrictions set forth in this instrument are unconstitutional or otherwise unenforceable, the remaining terms, conditions, limitations and restrictions set forth herein shall remain binding and enforceable." In its • opinion, the Court did not invalidate every restriction on the use of the easement, but only those that would restrict the right to free speech. Other enumerated restrictions that do not involve the right of free speech remain valid — as does the easement itself. The Special Warranty Deed could have been drafted to include a"poison pill" provision to provide that if any of the restrictions on the use of the easement were deemed unconstitutional, the easement would immediately vest in the Church of Jesus Christ. No such provision exists. To the contrary, the Deed, signed by both parties, specifically states that if any of the limitations or restrictions are deemed unconstitutional,the remaining provisions of the Deed remain binding and enforceable. The Presiding Bishopric letter argues that the Court's decision results in the Church of Jesus Christ receiving less than it bargained for. That argument ignores the Deed's severability clause that also represents a"bargained for" element of the Deed. Such clause represents the parties' mutual assurance that all provisions of the Deed that are not struck down by the Court will remain viable. Accordingly, the LDS Church may not have received the primary benefit it bargained for,but did receive what it agreed to in the event the restrictions were deemed to be unconstitutional. The suggestion that the easement and the restrictions are"inseparable,"when the specific terms of the Deed explicitly state they are "severable,"is contrary to both the decision of the Court of Appeals and the language of the Deed. • G.\LITIGATI\First Unitarian Church of SLC et ahMerno to Mayor Anderson re Main Street Plaza-Nov 14 2002 doc • REC'D N O V - 6 2002 THE GIIuIzcii of -Jesus Giii,isr car I.,\ErE1?-I>n�- THE PRESIDING BISHOPRIC • -,o I{.�.i '`uuln I „,,, I SII?I I--I ti.\1.i I.AI t November I, 2002 Mayor Ross C. Anderson 451 South State Street, Room 306 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Dear Mayor Anderson: Thank you for your letter of October 24, 2002. I appreciate your kind words and the opportunity to work with you and other civic leaders in searching for an equitable solution to the current controversy involving the new Church Plaza. Please know, however, that the Church does not agree with the decision conveyed in your letter, nor with your interpretation of the severability clause. The precise holding of the Tenth Circuit was that an "access and passage only" easement is unconstitutional under these circumstances. Since the right to access and passage was the only property right that the City had in the first place,what the court found unconstitutional was not merely some restriction on the City's • easement right,but rather the limited easement right itself. The"access and passage only"provision and the"restrictions" provision in the Special Warranty Deed are inseparable. Moreover, I must also respectfully disagree with your suggestion that it would be unprincipled for the City to relinquish the easement. As you have publicly stated,the City bargained for a plaza that would be available to the public for access and passage only, expressly stating that there would be no public forum on the property. The Church bargained and paid for all property rights necessary to establish a peaceful, quiet place, including the right to prevent demonstrations. As I have conveyed to you on several occasions, your decision gives the City far more than it bargained for and the Church far less. Accordingly,it is most appropriate for the Church to insist that the well documented intent of the original bargain be restored. We are convinced that there are several good options available under which both the City's and the Church's interests can be fully preserved. We look forward to working toward this end with you and other City officials. Best regards, The Presiding Bishopric dor .'i1� /.�. . • BY H. Davi i B .-� /1111011 cc. City Council Members -1j,) ECEllWE Snell &Wilmer DEC - 4 200 L.L.P. SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH LAW OFFICES. 15WestSouthTemple,Suite1200 Salt Lake City Attorney PHOENIX,ARIZONA Gateway Tower West Salt Lake City,Utah 84101 TUCSON,ARIZONA (801)257-1900 Fax:(801)257-1800 IRVINE,CALIFORNIA www.swlawcom DENVER,COLORADO Alan L.Sullivan(801)257-1955 LAS VEGAS,NEVADA asullivan@swlaw.com December 4, 2002 BY HAND DELIVERY Ed Rutan, Esq. Salt Lake City Attorney 451 South State Street, Room 505 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Main Street Plaza Dear Mr. Rutan: This firm has been asked to represent the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the • Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in relation to the current dispute over Salt Lake City's pedestrian access and passage easement on Main Street Plaza. I have been asked by H. David Burton, the Presiding Bishop of the Church, to address the legal issues raised in Mayor Anderson's letter to him of November 15, 2002, and other legal issues recently raised by the Mayor in the press. 1. The Severability Clause We respectfully disagree with the conclusion in Mayor Anderson's letter to Bishop Burton that, as the result of the court's decision in First Unitarian Church vs. Salt Lake City, 308 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2002), Main Street Plaza is burdened with an unrestricted public access easement. Specifically, we disagree with the conclusion that the severability clause in Section 6.2 of the Special Warranty Deed (April 27, 1999) from the City to the Church transformed what was, by agreement, a limited easement for pedestrian access and passage into an unlimited easement. The severability clause, of course, has not yet been triggered because the courts have not yet"finally"determined the parties' rights, as required by the severability clause itself. Until all appeals from the Tenth Circuit's decision are exhausted, there will be no final determination of the constitutionality of the restrictions on the City's easement. More importantly, however, we do not believe that the Special Warranty Deed's severability clause would be interpreted to give the City rights for which it never bargained. Our disagreement with Mayor Anderson's interpretation of the severability clause stems . from two related facts. 232375.1 Snell(Wilmer is a member of LEX MUNDI,a leading association of independent law firms. Snell &Wilmer L.L.P. Ed Rutan, Esq. • December 4, 2002 Page 2 First, the restrictions on the easement were an essential part of the parties' agreement. The Church would not have purchased the relevant block of Main Street, and the City would not have been able to sell it to the Church, if the restrictions on public access had been absent from the Special Warranty Deed. In Mayor Anderson's public statement of October 22, 2002, he correctly observed what is clear from the public record--that "the restrictions on conduct and other expressive activities" were among the "essential terms of the agreement between the parties." Second, the City's pedestrian access and passage easement cannot be separated from the restrictions on the easement without doing violence to the intent of the parties. In other words, the Special Warranty Deed's easement and restrictions constituted mutually dependent promises and operated as an integrated whole; they were a single, essential term of the transaction. The City retained no more than a restricted easement. The Church made it clear that it would not buy the property unless the restrictions applied; the City agreed to the limited easement on that basis. Under these circumstances, the Special Warranty Deed's severability clause could not reasonably be interpreted to enlarge the City's easement. Severability clauses have never, to our knowledge, been interpreted to allow parts of an essential provision of an agreement to survive other parts of the same essential provision, especially where, as here, the result would be an . inequality of the benefits or burdens between the parties. In the present situation, a court may well hold that the restricted pedestrian access and passage easement (including the restrictions) is severable from the conveyance of real estate to the Church, but we do not believe that a court would hold the restrictions themselves, standing alone, to be severable from the easement which they limited. Severability clauses are common in contracts and deeds. Their purpose is to make sure that the intent of the parties is carried out, even if non-essential parts of the deal are held to be unenforceable. They provide a mechanism for the survival of the remaining terms of the contract if the essential purposes of the contract can still be realized. In deeds, they ensure that the underlying conveyance does not fail even if non-essential conditions are unenforceable. Such clauses cannot, however, be used to violate the intent of the parties, or to sever mutually dependent obligations. "[A] severability clause is but an aid to construction, and will not justify a court in declaring a clause as divisible when, considering the entire contract, it obviously is not. The crucial question is whether the clauses to be severed are essential to the contract. Essentiality depends on the intent of the parties." Eckles vs. Sharman, 548 F.2d 905, 909 (10th Cir. 1977) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Since the City's pedestrian access and passage easement and the restrictions on that easement operated together as an integrated, essential term, we believe it is extremely unlikely that a court would hold that the Church is now burdened with an unrestricted easement to which • it did not agree, and never would have agreed, in the first place. Many cases have confirmed this 232375.1 Snell&Wilmer L.L.P. . Ed Rutan, Esq. December 4,2002 Page 3 conclusion. See, e.g., John R. Ray & Sons, Inc. v. Stroman, 923 S.W. 2d 80, 86-88 (Tex. Ct. App. 1996) ("[The severability clause] does not have the effect of making an otherwise dependent contract into one whose terms are independent and divisible."); AMB Property, L.P. v. MTS, Inc., 551 S.E. 2d 102, 105 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001) ("[S]evering an essential term of the contract is not allowed.");Eckles v. Sharman, 548 F.2d at 909. These and other authorities confirm the more general principle that severability--with or without a severability clause--depends upon the intent of the parties. In Utah, contract provisions can only be severed if"the primary purpose of the contract could still be accomplished following severance." Sosa v. Paulos, 924 P.2d 357, 363 (Utah 1996). See also Management Services Corp. v. Development Associates, 617 P.2d 406, 408 (Utah 1980); Parents Against Drunk Drivers v. Graystone Pines Homeowners'Association, 789 P.2d 52, 56 (Utah App. 1990). The Restatement (Second) of Contracts provides that terms constituting "an essential part of the agreed exchange" may not be severed, and "[w]hether the performance is an essential part of the agreed exchange depends upon its relative importance in the light of the entire agreement between the parties." Restatement (Second) of Contracts §184(1) & cmt. a (1981). In the same vein, courts refrain from enforcing severability clauses where the result would lead to a material • imbalance in the exchange between the parties with respect to essential terms. See, e.g., Zerbetz v. Alaska Energy Ctr., 708 P.2d 1270, 1282-833 & n.19 (Alaska 1985). We note that in First Unitarian, the Tenth Circuit did not decide how the severability clause should be interpreted, or what consequences its decision would have on other terms of the 1999 transaction. The Tenth Circuit merely noted that the City and the Church disagreed on the issue. See First Unitarian 308 F.3d at 1126 n.8. We believe, in short, that resort to the severability clause does not solve the problem faced by the parties. The clause cannot be interpreted to contravene the clear intent of the parties. More importantly for present purposes, the severability clause should not prevent the parties from endeavoring to find a fair middle ground for resolution of the present dispute. Rather than debating legal issues, we respectfully submit that the parties should seek ways in which the City and the Church could honor the parties' original intent, without violating the requirements of the First Amendment. 2. Litigation Concerning the Severability Clause News reports last weekend suggested that the City and the Church might seek a declaration of the Third District Court for Salt Lake County concerning the correct interpretation of the severability clause. I have been asked to advise you that the Church believes that any such suit for declaratory relief would be premature. As you may know, the Church intends to seek an appeal of the Tenth Circuit's decision in First Unitarian. Beyond that, the parties are still • attempting in good faith to resolve their differences; we are hopeful that they will be able to agree on a way to honor the parties' intent and, at the same time, comply with the requirements 232375.1 Snell &Wilmer L.L.P. Ed Rutan,Esq. • December 4, 2002 Page 4 of the First Amendment. Under these circumstances, we believe little would be gained by initiating another law suit now. If the parties are unable to resolve their differences, we respectfully suggest that, rather than filing a new law suit, the City join with the Church in petitioning the Supreme Court for review of the First Unitarian decision. We call upon the City to defend its agreement with the Church. If you have any questions concerning the Church's positions outlined above, please let me know. Very truly yours, Snell &Wilmer NIEV-1.,,....„ Alan L. Sullivan ALS:kb cc: Members of the Salt Lake City Council: II David Buhler, Chair(by hand delivery) Carlton J. Christensen, Vice-Chair (by hand delivery) Van Blair Turner (by hand delivery) K. Eric Jergensen (by hand delivery) Nancy Saxton (by hand delivery) Jill Remington Love (by hand delivery) Dale Lambert (by hand delivery) Honorable Ross C. ("Rocky")Anderson (by hand delivery) • 232375.1 EDWIN P. RUTAN, II S1 ` iU '` lL , IC CITYATTORNEY "S �. ii ROSS C. 'ROCKY"AN DERSON • LAW DEPARTMENT MAYOR December 11, 2002 By Hand Delivery Alan L. Sullivan, Esq. Snell & Wilmer 15 West South Temple, Suite 1200 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Dear Mr. Sullivan: Thank you for your letter of December 4, 2002 explaining the position of the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the "LDS Church") on the severability clause in the April 27, 1999 Special Warranty Deed (the "Deed"). As discussed below, I respectfully disagree with your analysis. However, I do strongly concur with your suggestion that the City and LDS Church should endeavor "to find a fair middle ground for resolution of the present dispute" and should seek ways to honor the original agreement without violating the requirements of the First Amendment. (Your letter at 3.) It was in that spirit that Mayor Anderson outlined his proposed solution on Friday. The City Council is also addressing this in public meetings last night and next week, as you know. The Mayor explained his proposal in greater detail in his December 10, 2002 letter to Bishop Burton, a copy of which is attached. I believe there are two fundamental errors in your analysis of the legal issues raised in Mayor Anderson's November 15, 2002 letter to Bishop Burton. First, by focusing on the essentials of the transaction from the LDS Church's perspective, you failed to recognize the importance of the reservation of the pedestrian access and passage easement to the City in entering into the transaction. Second, your analysis of the doctrine of severability in general fails to address the very specific nature of the severability clause in the Deed, which was tailored to this particular transaction. Reservation of the Easement. The importance of the easement to the City is made abundantly clear by the official documentation. Section 3 ["Conditions"] of Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 28 of 1999 provided that the partial street closure was conditioned on "compliance with all of the conditions identified by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission, a modified summary of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 'B1". The very 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 505, SALT LAKE CITY, UT B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: B01-535-7788 FAX: 801-535-7640 wRECVCLEU PAPrR first paragraph of Exhibit B provides that "The City shall retain a perpetual easement for a 24-hour public pedestrian and bicycle access..." Section 1.3 of the Deed provides that • the Grantor reserves an easement "for pedestrian access and passage only". Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 29 of 2000, which amended Ordinance No. 28 to clarify the Council's intent, reconfirmed the reservation of the public access and passage easement. Also, in oral argument before the District Court, counsel for the City stated that the City would not have entered into the transaction "but for" the reserved easement. Thus the transactional provisions make clear the importance to the City of reserving the pedestrian access and passage easement.' The LDS Church contends it has received far less than it bargained for as a result of the Tenth Circuit decision. However,the LDS Church's argument that the easement is void as a result of the Tenth Circuit decision would result in the City receiving far less than it had bargained for. The risk that a ruling that the restrictions were unconstitutional could result in one party or the other receiving less than it bargained for is important to a proper understanding of the purpose of the severability clause. Severability. I certainly agree with you that severability clauses are common in contracts and deeds. However, I disagree that their role is limited to situations where "non-essential" terms of a deal are held to be unenforceable. In my commercial experience, severability clauses are frequently used by parties to address the risk that material terms of the transaction may be held to be unenforceable. Such is the case here. The notion that the severability clause in the Deed is to be dismissed as mere "boilerplate" or a "legal technicality," concerning which the parties did not pay attention, is belied by the fact that a very different provision was proposed at one point in the negotiations,but later replaced with the severability clause in the executed Special Warranty Deed. The initial draft "Grant of Easement"prepared and submitted by legal counsel for the LDS Church proposed as follows: 2.3 Termination of Easements in the Event of Unenforceability. In the event that it is finally determined by a court having jurisdiction over Grantor or the Property that any of the conditions, limitations and restrictions set forth in sections 2.1 or 2.2 above are unenforceable, then Grantor reserves the right to terminate the easements for pedestrian access and passage granted in section 1.3 upon thirty days written notice to Grantee. During the course of negotiations, that provision was omitted and the following was inserted in the final Special Warranty Deed: I Because your analysis failed to consider the importance of the reserved easement to the City,I disagree with your suggestion that"a court may well hold that the restricted pedestrian access and passage easement (including the restrictions)is severable from the conveyance of real estate to the Church..."(Your Letter at • 2) 6.2 Severability. In the event that it is finally determined by a court having IIIjurisdiction over Grantee or the Property that any of the terms, conditions, limitations or restrictions set forth in this instrument are unconstitutional or otherwise unenforceable, the remaining terrns, conditions, limitations and restrictions set forth herein shall remain binding and enforceable. Apparently, your client is insisting upon rewriting the agreement to delete the severability clause and write in the provision that was deleted during the course of negotiations. The Deed expressly dealt with the possibility that some of the "conditions, limitations and restrictions" might be found "unconstitutional". The express reference in Section 6.2 to "conditions, limitations and restrictions" is a clear reference to Section 2 of the Deed. Section 6.2 specifically provides that in the event any "conditions, limitations and restrictions" are found "unconstitutional," the "remaining terms", such as the reservation of an easement by the City, "shall remain binding and enforceable". Section 6.2 does not provide that if any "restrictions" are found "unconstitutional," some other term will be unenforceable as a result. The Deed certainly does not say that if the restrictions are found unconstitutional, the easement shall be extinguished. The Deed also included an integration clause providing that: "This instrument contains all of the terms, covenants, conditions and agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matters treated herein." • The history of the negotiations and the combination of Sections 6.1 and 6.2 of the Deed makes it clear that when the transaction was entered into the parties expressly dealt with the possibility that certain provisions might be found unconstitutional and if so, how the transaction would be impacted: "the remaining terms, conditions, limitations and restrictions ... shall remain binding and enforceable.i2 Very truly yo cA2L..... Edwin P. Rutan, II City Attorney Cc: Honorable Ross C. ("Rocky") Anderson Members of the Salt Lake City Council: 2 Because they address neither the type of severability clause nor the transactional context involved here, the cases that you cited are not persuasive. For example,it is not apparent that severability clauses were even involved in Management Services Corp.v.Development Associates, 617 P.2d 406(Utah 1980) and . Parents Against Drunk Drivers v. Graystone Pines Homeowners, 789 P.2d 52(Utah App. 1990). In Sosa, the Court held that if the procedural unconscionability defense failed on remand,the balance of the contract less the invalid clause could be enforced. Eccles v. Sharman, 548 F.2d 905 (10th Cir. 1977)involved the IIIdifferent context of whether the agreement as a whole was enforceable. David Buhler, Chair Carlton J. Christensen • Van Blair Turner K. Eric Jergensen Nancy Saxton Jill Remington Love Dale Lambert G'\RE3332\My Documents\Sullivan 12-11-02 letter doe • • ::• ••w cr 411 •ROSS C."ROM KYY"ANDERSON SALT f` _1 rEj�� � ll>i -.. _..._ r+...�-- �y�+l �-�ll�Ot•+�1! SALT LAKE 2002 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR December io, zooz Bishop David Burton Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 5o E. North Temple, i8th Fl. Salt Lake City, UT 8415o Dear Bishop Burton: I write to express my disappointment that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has not given more consideration to our proposed compromise regarding the Main Street Plaza. The compromise I have proposed allows The Church of Jesus Christ free and clear title to the vast majority of the plaza (about 9o%), and places strict, yet • constitutionally defensible, limitations on expressive activities on the small east sidewalk where the City would retain an easement, thereby guaranteeing public access. Though I understand the desire on behalf of both parties to get everything for which they bargained, that goal cannot be achieved within the bounds of the Constitution. The two major components of the easement, the public access and the restrictions on expressive behavior, are constitutionally incompatible. While your continued calls for extinguishing the easement would require the City to give up a key part of what it bargained for, my proposed compromise presents a way for both sides to receive the vast majority of what they expected. Because it is a compromise and because the two major objectives of the agreement are incompatible, our proposal does not give everyone i00% of what they expected. However, this proposal provides our best opportunity to live up to the spirit of the original deal, while providing a mechanism to bring our community together, ending the divisiveness that this issue has caused. The rejection by The Church of Jesus Christ • of the compromise proposal, without any proposal short of a demand that 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 7• the easement be abandoned by the City, is contrary to the prior repeated calls by you and others for a compromise solution. • Your December 6th letter contained several misrepresentations about the plan. I am concerned that this failure to accurately describe the plan will impede public consideration of its merits, and mislead the City Council regarding what we have proposed. With this letter, I hope to clear up some of the misunderstanding about the proposal and to ask The Church of Jesus Christ to reconsider its opposition to this compromise. The first element of my proposal is that the physical boundaries of the pedestrian access and passage easement be defined to limit it to the east walkway of Main Street Plaza. If the easement were defined in that manner, the Church as the private land owner would be able to enforce the restrictions it desires on roughly go% of Main Street Plaza. The area of the west walkway in front of Temple Square, as well as all of the rest of the Plaza except for the relatively narrow east walkway, would be private property not subject to the easement. Indeed, if the easement were defined as I have proposed, the Church would be able to prohibit demonstrations in front of Temple Square like the one pictured in Monday's Salt Lake Tribune. • The physical delineation of the easement in this manner would go a long way toward meeting the Church's concerns about the regulation of conduct on the Plaza, but this critical element of my proposal is not addressed anywhere in your letter. Apparently, you also have misunderstood the impact of the "time, place and manner" regulations that I proposed. First, these regulations would not apply to all of Main Street Plaza as your letter implies, but only to the east walkway (i.e. the easement). Second, the implication in your letter that we approached the "time, place and manner" regulations for speech-related conduct on the easement the same way we would for any other city sidewalk is erroneous. The Court of Appeals expressly stated that we could consider the "unique location and setting of the easement" and the interests of the Church as the surrounding property owner in formulating the specific "time, place and manner" regulations, and we have done that. The • restrictions we have proposed on the easement go far beyond restrictions generally applicable to other city sidewalks. The United States Supreme Court has said that the critical question is whether the manner of expression is incompatible with the normal activity of the particular place at the particular time. Similarly, the Court of Appeals made it clear that even First Amendment protected speech activity may be regulated to accommodate. other significant government interests such as the tranquility in Main Street Plaza's unique location, the right of people to practice their religion, the right of people to be left alone, and the promotion of tourism. These governmental interests come into play on Main Street Plaza in a unique way not applicable to any other sidewalk in the City and give greater enforcement authority, through regulations, in dealing with "hecklers" or those who "buttonhole" visitors. For example, the proposal provides prohibitions against unreasonable noise (see proposed Article 14.5o.030) and disrupting a procession or gathering, such as a wedding party (see proposed Article 11.12.o3o). After I announced my proposal for a • resolution of this matter, The Church of Jesus Christ released to the media some video footage of a "preacher" yelling through a bullhorn. The implication was that such obnoxious behavior would be permitted to continue. Under my proposal, just the opposite is true. Third, you fail to acknowledge in your letter that the gathering areas for organized protests or demonstrations at either end of the east walkway represent less than zo% of the length of the walkway. Fourth, your letter vastly overstates the challenges of enforcing the "time, place and manner" regulations. A "constant police presence" will not be necessary. My personal observation has been that on a typical day there is no contentious expression and that normal activities on the Plaza such as wedding gatherings proceed without interruption. If contentious expression did occur in violation of the proposed "time, place and manner" regulations, the police could respond just as they do to any other incident today. In closing, I must once again respectfully reject your proposal that • the easement be extinguished. The reserved easement has always been a crucial part of the transaction. The very first condition in the list specified by the City Council in the original ordinance was that the "City1111 shall retain a perpetual easement for a 24-hour public pedestrian access..." I remain open to any proposal that guarantees public access while addressing the concerns of the Church. Best regards, oss C. Anderson Mayor cc: President Gordon B. Hinckley President Thomas S. Monson President James E. Faust Alliance for Unity Members City Council Members • iviayor Anaerson's speech outlining a solution regarding the Main St. Plaza Page 1 of 5 #64140 ASI.T Lf t INFO CENTER CONTACT US SEARCH T 11111 » »t. _'.- l' �T�It.; ,l,t.•• ._.:.1`Z 44:: GOVt`:."NAIENT CITY blRHCTORY Oti1NE STRv10E3 NEWS a iSa[Sts APOIjT flu CITY HLSIOENT3 atiSIHHS3 CIIT LIE Statement of Mayor Ross C. "Rocky"Anderson Regarding Main Street Plaza Proposal December 6, 2002 We are currently hosting about 5,000 municipal officials from around the nation at the National League of Cities Congress of Cities. Last night, the delegates to the Congress were spell-bound by an extraordinary perfoiuiance of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir at the magnificent Conference Center. During that perfoiniance, President Gordon B. Hinckley spoke to the municipal officials, graciously acknowledging the responsibility they have and the tremendous job they do on behalf of cities across the nation. The generosity of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in providing that free concert—and in providing a significant financial contribution toward the cost of putting on the Congress —was typical of • what The Church of Jesus Christ does every day in this community, and around the world. Growing up, I had occasion to work on a stake farm and was well aware of the remarkable ways in which The Church of Jesus Christ cares for its own members in times of need. But only since I have been Mayor have I learned the extent of the humanitarian services provided throughout our community and in many nations by The Church of Jesus Christ. I have canned apple sauce at the Cannery, and I have toured the Humanitarian Center, learning about the astounding efforts of The Church of Jesus Christ to provide clothing, medical supplies, and other necessities to those in need around the world. Many in this community are unaware of much of the good that is done because, in so many ways, The Church of Jesus Christ follows the admonition in the Book of Matthew that when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. • As Mayor—and as an almost-life-long resident of Utah—I am grateful for the spirit of generosity taught and practiced by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is that spirit of generosity that also has • led such great people like Jon Huntsman to contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to make this world a better place. And it is the ethic of treating well the "least of these" that has led many of us in this community to htto://www.ci.sic.ut.u.../Main%20Street%20P1aza%20Solution%20Proposal%20Speech.ht 12/10/2002 mayor Anderson's speech outlining a solution regarding the Main St. Plaza Page 2 of 5 dedicate ourselves to helping those who are most vulnerable and least powerful. In response to such generosity and high-mindedness, I, like so many • others, would like to say "Yes" to any request made by The Church of Jesus Christ. It seems like the least I — and our community — could do. I certainly understand the sentiments of those who recently have said, "The Church of Jesus Christ does so much for this community. Just give them the easement so they can control their own property at the Main Street Plaza." Believe me, I wish it were that easy. These have been an incredibly difficult six weeks, with much misunderstanding — and far too much divisiveness. For any role I have played in that, I apologize. As a community, we are faced with a difficult situation because of an inherent conflict in an agreement reached by The Church of Jesus Christ and the prior administration. That agreement included (1) an easement to be held by Salt Lake City, assuring a perpetual right of pedestrian passage through the Main Street Plaza, and (2) extensive restrictions on conduct and other expressive activities on the Plaza. As explained by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, a governmental entity like Salt Lake City cannot constitutionally guaranty public access and, at the same time, peiiuit such extensive restrictions on the right to freedom of expression. • Because of that conflict, the Court declared some of the restrictions to be unconstitutional. This community is divided among those who believe that the City should simply convey the easement to The Church of Jesus Christ so the Church will own the property outright and be able to control conduct on the Plaza as it sees fit, and those who advocate for the City to keep the easement. The advocates of the latter position refer to a "severability clause" in the written agreement signed by The Church of Jesus Christ and former Mayor Corradini, which provides that if the restrictions are deemed unconstitutional, everything else is to remain the same. We read that clause to mean that although the restrictions have been declared to be in violation of the First Amendment, the City is still to retain the easement. Neither of those resolutions would fulfill the expectations of the parties concerning crucial elements of the initial agreement. First of all, as Roger Cutler, the City Attorney who negotiated and drafted a significant portion of the agreement, stated to a federal judge, the easement was crucial to the City. As Mr. Cutler stated, the agreement would not have been S entered into by the City "but for" the provision reserving the easement to the City. That provision was consistent with promises made to the public httn://www.ci.slc.ut.u.../Main%20Street%20Plaza%20Solution%20Proposal%20Speech.ht 12/10/2002 iviayor rinuerson s speech outlining a solution regarding the Main St. Plaza Page 3 of 5 that perpetual pedestrian access would be assured. Mr. Cutler also stated to the federal judge that under the severability clause, the City was to continue • holding the easement even if the restrictions on conduct were declared to be unconstitutional. On the other hand, it seems abundantly clear that The Church of Jesus Christ would not have entered into the deal had it not been assured of being able to restrict certain conduct and other expressive activities. This does not have to be a win-lose situation for anyone. And it certainly does not have to be a matter that festers, creating divisiveness along religious lines. We can work this matter out, fairly and reasonably, so that (1) the constitutional requirements are met, (2) an easement, guaranteeing public access and passage, is retained by the City, and (3) to the extent constitutionally permissible, restrictions will be imposed that will assure that the Plaza will be a place of peaceful, tranquil beauty. We present this proposal not only to the City Council, which has the power to approve an ordinance enacting this plan, but also to the people of Salt Lake City and everyone who uses and enjoys the Main Street Plaza. We hope for a thorough, respectful, and open discussion of this proposal, and we urge support of this plan as a means of reuniting our community • behind the principles we all share in common — (1) our commitment to the Constitution, (2) our dedication to keeping our promises and written agreements, and (3) our respect for the beliefs and rights of others. The first element of this proposal is the clear definition of the boundaries of the easement held by the City. These boundaries are not described in the Warranty Deed, signed by the City and The Church of Jesus Christ. However, the deed specifically stated that the easement was meant to provide for "access and passage only." The entire Plaza need not be included in the City's easement to preserve this access and passage. Therefore, we propose that only the relatively narrow east walkway on the plaza be included in the City's easement. This small walkway, about the size of a normal city sidewalk, is more than enough to ensure that pedestrians will always have guaranteed passage through the Plaza. With this definition of the easement, The Church of Jesus Christ will have free and clear title to the vast majority of the plaza (approximately 90%), and will have the ability to regulate conduct just as any private property owner would on its own property. Also, that walkway is furthermost from Temple Square. • Salt Lake City government has a significant interest in preserving the r.,. +i, , r r.:.. C'+, .. ,+ D1. .,., i.T,.+ httu://www.ci.slc.ut.u.../Main%20Street%20Plaza%20Solution%20Proposal%20Speech.ht 12/10/2002 rnayut truerson s speecn outlining a solution regaraing me Main JI. riaza rage 4 of 3 ucauLllul, pcal..clul Jcillll6 piuviucu uy Lllc 1v1a111 .)LicGL r laLa. 1VVL ullly uu millions of tourists visit the area each year, but also many Downtown workers and residents seek respite at the Plaza each day. The City also has IDan interest in protecting the rights of people to exercise their right to the free practice of religion, including weddings and other Temple-related activities in and around the Main Street Plaza. To achieve these interests and to ensure that pedestrian passage is not impeded, we propose that group gatherings on the easement be limited to two fairly small gathering areas on the north and south ends of the easement. While demonstrations will be restricted on all other parts of the easement, leafleting and other peaceful individual expressive activities will be allowed. To preserve unimpeded views and the beauty of the Plaza, signs and placards carried on the easement will be limited to a small but reasonable size. In addition to limiting group gatherings, strict limitations will be imposed on noise levels on the plaza. The goal of these restrictions is to protect the peace of those on adjacent properties, including Temple Square, as well as those seeking to enjoy the tranquility of the Plaza itself. Finally, we propose that the easement be subject to all the time, place, and manner restrictions currently imposed on other city sidewalks. These • regulations include prohibitions on loitering, disturbance of religious services and activities, disturbing the peace, posting bills and signs, and obstructing pedestrian access. Together, these regulations provide a comprehensive solution to the conflicts that have arisen with respect to the Plaza. This plan achieves almost all of what the parties bargained for when they signed the Special Warranty Deed in 1999. It is a carefully structured compromise solution that essentially meets the concerns of all parties. No one gets 100% of what they want —but that is a result of the fact that the essential terms of the initial deal are not constitutionally compatible. The plan protects the public right to access and passage, by means of a legally enforceable easement, one of the two major goals of the original agreement. This proposal also provides substantial protections for the peace and tranquility of the Plaza, limiting, to the extent constitutionally possible, disruptions and disturbances on the Plaza. All this is accomplished without betraying the promises that were made to the people of this City and without significant risk of further court challenges. I am committed, as I have been from the very beginning, to give • effect to the parties' intentions, so far as constitutionally possible. Here, we http://www.ci.slc.ut.u.../Main%20Street%20P1a7a%20Solution%20Proposal%20Speech.ht 12/10/2002 iviayor Anaerson's speech outlining a solution regarding the Main St. Plaza Page 5 of 5 have proposed that the easement be defined in an extremely limited manner, that we impose restrictions on conduct and other expressive activities on 41, that easement to the extent we are constitutionally able, and that we maintain the promises made to the people of Salt Lake City that there will be a perpetual right of pedestrian passage through the Pla7a. We are pleased to discuss this matter further and are open to any ideas, so long as we (1) stay true to the promises that there would be a perpetual easement through the Pla7a, (2) promote the peacefulness of the Plaza, and (3) honor the protections of religious liberty and freedom of expression contained in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Whether we agree or disagree as to this proposal— or as to any of the matters relating to the Pla7a—I call upon everyone in this community to be kind, respectful, and more compassionate toward those who hold other views. People of good will and reason can come together and resolve this matter in a way that is honorable — in a way that can bring our community together— and in a way that takes into fair account the interests in maintaining a perpetual right of pedestrian passage through the Plaza, the constitutional requirements, and the clear intentions of the parties that the Plaza be a place of peaceful beauty— a place where we can all find safe and tranquil refuge. • Home J Info Center J Contact Us J What's New J Links I Privacy Statement J Site Info J Text Version Copyright©2002 Salt Lake City Corporation.All Rights Reserved. http://www_ci.slc.ut.u.../Main%20Street%20Plaza%20Solution%20Proposal%20Speech.ht 12/10/2002 overview of Mayor's proposed solution regarding the Main St Plaza Page 1 of 2 Jr�r1 S A. T LAKE y( E --._.� INFO CFNTFR CONTACT US SFAiCH 7■1■I L. _ TI \1\ t 1 4 GOVESNAltN1 t:IT-f CITRIC ORT 0T11N€ St RVICE3 NEWS & ISSUES ABOUT IKE CITY R€Slot NTS 8USINf.SS CUT ETT 0 Proposed Solution £= _ .:2. ssE, Regarding Main }=M � Street Plaza "' € "' 4 Tampia '+u 4 Presented by Mayor Rocky 4 Anderson .r�_y y�_ : t-. . � lcaws,riF1t• '° 'December 6, 2002 •t = S^..ilEtitrtys.a - - - u EM i cr..yA... O.a..i Qrloto Click for larger version. Significant Governmental Interests Furthered by This Plan: • Preserving the unique,peaceful setting provided by the Main Street Plaza • Encouraging and preserving tourism related to Temple Square and the Main Street Plaza •= Protecting the rights of people to exercise their right to the free practice of religion, including religious weddings and other Temple-related activities in and. around the Main Street Plaza •• Protecting the right of visitors to be left alone and to enjoy peace and tranquility on the Main Street Plaza,free of harassment and intimidation Major Components-of"theSolution: Step 1: Define City Easement on Plaza httn://www.ci.slc.ut.us/mayor/oressreleases/plaza%20solution%20overview.htm 12/10/2002 overview of Mayor's proposed solution regarding the Main St Plaza Page 2 of 2 • The original Warranty Deed signed by the City and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did not specify the boundaries of the "access and passage only" • easement on the plaza. • By clarifying the easement, the City can preserve an easement across the east side of the plaza to protect access and passage, while providing that the Church of Jesus Christ shall have free and clear title to the vast majority of the Plaza. • The Church of Jesus Christ will be free to regulate behavior on everything but the limited public easement. Step 2: Limit Group Gatherings on Easement • To prevent pedestrian access from being impeded and to preserve a peaceful environment on the square, group gatherings, demonstrations, and protests will be allowed only in two designated areas at the north and south ends of the easement(see diagram). • Leafleting and some other peaceful individual expressive activities will be permitted on the entire easement, as required by the Constitution. Step 3: Regulate Noise Levels • Noise levels from demonstrations or individuals will be strictly limited to levels . appropriate to the surrounding properties and uses. • Step 4: Subject Easement to Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions applied to other city sidewalks • All regulations that apply to city sidewalks—including restrictions on loitering, disturbance of religious services or activities, disturbing the peace,posting bills, and obstructing pedestrian access—will be made applicable to the easement. Benefits of the Plan: 1. Achieves almost all of what the parties bargained for. 2. Protects the public right of access and passage by means of a legally enforceable easement, an essential part of the original agreement. 3. Creates limitations and restrictions in line with the Constitution of the United States,decreasing the likelihood of further court challenges. 4. Accomplishes everything possible to protect the peace and tranquility of the plaza within the bounds of the Constitution and the promises made to the people of Salt Lake City. Home I Info Center i Contact Us I What's New I Links I Privacy Statement I Site Info Text Version Copyright©2002 Salt Lake City Corporation.All Rights Reserved. httn-//www.ci.sic.ut.us/mavor/nressreleases/nlaza%20solution%20overview.htm 12/10/2002 • • EXHIBIT 3b DRAFT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP • Transmittal of Petition 400-03-01 DRAFT 5/20/03 411 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement is entered into as of the day of , 2003, between SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION (hereinafter the "City") and the CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, a Utah corporation sole (hereinafter"COPB"). Collectively, the City and the COPB will constitute and be referred to as the "Parties." Recitals The Parties jointly represent and acknowledge: A. On or about April 27, 1999, the City executed a Special Warranty Deed (hereinafter the "Special Warranty Deed")to the COPB conveying surface rights in property described in Exhibit A to the Special Warranty Deed(hereinafter the"Main Street Plaza Property"). The Main Street Plaza Property formerly constituted a segment of Main Street in Salt Lake City, Utah, between South Temple Street and North Temple Street. In the Special Warranty Deed, the City reserved several easements on and under the surface of the Main Street Plaza Property, including an easement for pedestrian access and passage only, subject to certain limitations designed to assure that the Main Street Plaza Property would not be dedicated to Mpublic ownership or constitute a First Amendment forum of any kind under the United States Constitution. (The pedestrian access and passage easement, as established and limited in the Special Warranty Deed, will hereafter be called the "Pedestrian Easement.") B. The Special Warranty Deed provided that nothing in the Pedestrian Easement was to be deemed to create or constitute a"public forum"on the Main Street Plaza Property. The Special Warranty Deed also provided that the City and the COPB could teiininate the Pedestrian Easement without the joinder or consent of any other person. The parties to the Special Warranty Deed explicitly intended for the COPB to have the right to regulate or prohibit conduct and activity of persons visiting or passing over the Main Street Plaza Property. C. In June 2000, the First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City, Utahns for Fairness, the Utah National Organization for Women, and Craig S. Axford filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Utah against the City to challenge, among other things, the Special Warranty Deed's restrictions on the Pedestrian Easement. The suit, entitled First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City, et al. vs. Salt Lake City Corporation,will hereinafter be referred to as the "Federal Litigation." The COPB intervened as a party defendant in the Federal Litigation. D. On or about May 4, 2001, the United States District Court for the District of Utah entered summary judgment for the City and the COPB in the Federal Litigation, holding that the restrictions on the Pedestrian Easement in the Special Warranty Deed did not violate the First • Amendment to the United States Constitution. 235783.8 • E. On or about October 9, 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued an order reversing the district court's decision in the Federal Litigation and holding that the Pedestrian Easement created a public forum for First Amendment purposes and, as a result, that the City and the COPB may not prohibit protected speech on the Pedestrian Easement. The Tenth Circuit's decision suggested that the City's relinquishment of the Pedestrian Easement would eliminate the public forum and, therefore,the First Amendment issues associated with the Pedestrian Easement. The COPB has filed a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court in which it seeks review of the Tenth Circuit's decision. F. Following issuance of the Tenth Circuit's decision in the Federal Litigation,the City and the COPB disagreed concerning the decision's impact on the Pedestrian Easement and the right of the COPB to regulate or prohibit conduct on the Main Street Plaza Property. The City took the position that the Pedestrian Easement remains in effect without any of the limitations set forth specifically in the Special Warranty Deed. The COPB took the position that, as the result of the Tenth Circuit's opinion in the Federal Litigation, the Pedestrian Easement is void and, in any event, should be vacated so that the COPB may constitutionally regulate the use of the Main Street Plaza Property in accordance with the original intent of the parties to the Special Warranty Deed. In the face of these differences, the City and the COPB sought a mutually acceptable compromise to avoid protracted and costly litigation between them concerning the future of the Main Street Plaza Property. G. On January 8, 2003, the Mayor of the City (the"Mayor") filed a petition with the • City's Acting Planning Director for approval of a proposal to resolve the disputes referenced in paragraph F of these recitals (all of which disputes are hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Disputes"). A copy of the Petition is annexed hereto as Exhibit 1. On , the City Council approved the Mayor's proposal by Ordinance, a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit 2 (the"Ordinance"). The purpose of this Settlement Agreement, the terms of which have been approved by the City Council, is to avoid litigation and resolve all of the Disputes, including without limitation, all disputes between the City and the COPB relating in any way to pedestrian access,pedestrian passage, and the right to control conduct on the Main Street Plaza Property. It is the intent of the Parties for the City to close, vacate, abandon, and convey to the COPB the Pedestrian Easement in return for consideration including the promises, covenants and agreements set forth herein. H. In implementation of the proposal set forth in Exhibit 1, the Parties and other interested persons intend to undertake a series of transactions and donations that will enable the City to establish one or more community facilities (hereinafter collectively the "Community Facility") located in the Glendale neighborhood for Salt Lake City residents. The land to be conveyed to the City pursuant to paragraph 2 of this Settlement Agreement will provide a location for one such facility. The Alliance for Unity will provide to the City a total of at least Four Million Dollars ($4,000,000) for construction of the Community Facility and, in the City's discretion, furnishings, fixtures, equipment, and maintenance therefor. James L. Sorenson will donate to the City cash and/or land having a value of at least One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for the same purposes. The Foundation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has • 235783.8 2 • contributed Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) to the Alliance for Unity toward its donation. I. By adopting the Ordinance, the Salt Lake City Council has considered this Settlement Agreement and all instruments and transactions referenced by this Settlement Agreement as well as the public comments regarding the Mayor's proposal. Agreement In consideration of the mutual promises and covenants set forth below, the Parties agree as follows: 1. Mutual Release of All Claims—Effective at "Closing," as defined in paragraph 8 below, and subject only to the obligations arising from this Settlement Agreement, the City and the COPB shall release, forgive, and forever discharge each other of and from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, liabilities, damages or losses of any kind whatsoever relating in any way to the Disputes, including, without limitation, those relating to the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in the Federal Litigation, the Pedestrian Easement and limitations thereon in the Special Warranty Deed, use of the Main Street Plaza Property as a public forum, and the COPB's regulation or prohibition of conduct and activity on the Main 410 Street Plaza Property. 2. Transfer of Glendale Property—At Closing, the COPB will convey 2.125 acres of property(hereinafter the "Glendale Property") located at 1385 South 900 West, Salt Lake City, Utah, by executing, delivering and recording a Special Warranty Deed in substantially the form annexed hereto as Exhibit 3 (the "Glendale Special Warranty Deed"). 3. Vacation and Conveyance of Public Access Easement—At Closing, pursuant to the Ordinance, the City will close, vacate, abandon, and convey to the COPB the Pedestrian Easement by executing, delivering and recording a"Deed Conveying Easement Rights and Amendment to Special Warranty Deed" substantially in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit 4 (the "Deed Conveying Easement Rights"). By virtue of the passage of the Ordinance and the execution, delivery and recording of the Deed Conveying Easement Rights, the Parties intend to effectuate the complete extinguishment of the Pedestrian Easement in return for all promises and covenants by the COPB in this Settlement Agreement and all donated funds and land received from the Alliance for Unity and James L. Sorenson. It is further the intent of the Parties that, following implementation of this Settlement Agreement, the City will own no interest whatsoever in the Main Street Plaza Property except those interests arising from the COPB's obligation to use and maintain the Property as a landscaped space and the easements for emergency and public safety services and public and private utilities and the view corridor restrictions, as set forth specifically in Paragraphs 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4 of the Special Warranty Deed, as amended pursuant to this Settlement Agreement. • 235783.8 3 III 4. Other Consideration. The COPB acknowledges that the receipt by the City of the consideration to be provided by the Alliance for Unity and James L. Sorenson is material to the City's decision to enter into this transaction. 5. Amendment of Special Warranty Deed—At Closing, the City and the COPB will execute, deliver and record the Deed conveying Easement Rights, which will amend the Special Warranty Deed as follows: (a) Paragraphs 1.3, 2 (including all subparagraphs thereof), and 6.3 of the Special Warranty Deed will be deleted in their entirety and shall have no further force or effect whatsoever. (b) Paragraph 1.4 of the Special Warranty Deed will be amended to add the following: "To ensure the preservation of the view corridor established in this paragraph 1.4 and the aesthetics of the property and surrounding areas, Grantee may not erect fences, walls or gates on the Property without the written approval of Grantor, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Grantor's approval authority shall be exercised based on aesthetic, safety, and security considerations and the need to preserve the view corridor established in this paragraph. All fences, walls and gates currently in place on the Property have been approved by Grantor. If a court of competent jurisdiction holds (without regard to any right to appeal) that the provisions in this paragraph 1.4 relating to fences, walls and gates, alone or in combination with any other 410 factor, create or establish the basis for a First Amendment forum of any kind, then and thereupon the requirement that Grantee must obtain approval from Grantor to erect fences, walls or gates shall automatically terminate and be of no further force or effect whatsoever." (c) Paragraph 4 of the Special Warranty Deed will be amended in its entirety to read as follows: 4. Right of Reverter. In the event that Grantee fails to use and maintain the Property a s a landscaped space or to permit Grantor access to the Property pursuant to the easements reserved in Paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2, or violates the view corridor and fencing restrictions in Paragraph 1.4, then the Property shall, at Grantor's option exercised in accordance with Paragraph 5, revert to Grantor. Notwithstanding the foregoing, none of the provisions of this paragraph 4, alone or in combination with any other factor, shall be interpreted to create or establish the basis for a First Amendment forum of any kind. (d) Paragraph 6.1 of the Special Warranty Deed will be amended in its entirety to read as follows: 6.1 Integrated Agreement. This instrument is complete and integrated, and constitutes the entire understanding between the Parties with respect to the 4111 subject matter contained herein and supersedes all previous and contemporaneous 235783.8 4 • agreements, understandings, promises, warranties, representations, inducements or conditions, oral or written, except as contained herein and in the Settlement Agreement between the Parties entered into on , 2003. The express terms hereof control and supersede any course of performance inconsistent with any terms hereof. Any revisions, amendments or modifications to this instrument must be in writing and signed by all parties. Any implied and/or oral revisions, amendments or modifications will not be binding on any of the parties. (e) Paragraph 6.2 of the Special Warranty Deed will be amended in its entirety to read as follows: 6.2 Severability. If any term, condition, or provision of this instrument is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable for any reason, all other terms, conditions and provisions of this instrument shall nevertheless remain in full force and effect so long as the primary purposes of the instrument are not thereby affected in any manner materially adverse to any party. Upon such deteilnination that any term, condition or other provision is invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the Parties hereto shall negotiate in good faith to modify this instrument so as to effect as closely as possible the original intent of the Parties in a mutually acceptable manner to the fullest extent permitted by • applicable law. (f) The Special Warranty Deed will be amended by adding the following paragraphs: 6.7 Intent of the Parties. Termination of Right of Reverter. The parties expressly intend and agree that the Property be private property and that Grantee shall have full, complete and absolute control over all activities on and uses of the Property, subject only to its obligation to use and maintain the Property as a landscaped space with the easements reserved in Paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2, the view corridor and fencing restrictions in Paragraph 1.4, and Grantor's police powers applicable to private property in general. Nothing in this Special Warranty Deed, alone or in combination with any other factor, shall be interpreted to create or establish the basis for a First Amendment forum of any kind. If a court of competent jurisdiction holds (without regard to any right to appeal) that the right of reverter in paragraph 4 alone or in combination with any other factor creates or establishes the basis for a First Amendment forum of any kind, then and thereupon the right of reverter shall immediately and automatically terminate and be of no further force or effect whatsoever. If, however, the court's holding is reversed, the reverter clause shall immediately and automatically revive. Any termination of the reverter clause shall not impair the right of Grantor to obtain equitable or other relief should Grantee's obligation to use and maintain the • Property as a landscaped space or the provisions of Paragraphs 1.1, 1.2, or 1.4 be violated, provided that no such right in favor of Grantor , alone or in combination 235783.8 5 • with any other factor, shall be interpreted to create or establish the basis for a First Amendment forum of any kind. 6.8 Notices. Notices will be in writing and will be given by personal delivery or by express delivery service (such as FedEx), freight prepaid. Notices will be delivered or addressed to Grantee and Grantor at the addresses set forth on the first page of this Amendment Deed or at such other address as a party may designate in writing;provided, however, that if the notice is given by personal delivery, delivery, in the case of Grantee, must be to one of the following: and in the case of Grantor,must be to one of the following: . The date notice is deemed to have been given, received and become effective will be (a)the date on which the notice is delivered, if notice is given by personal delivery, (b)the date of actual receipt, if the notice is sent by express delivery service. 6. No Right of Public Access—It is the intent of the Parties to eliminate any right of public access or passage enforceable by the City or by members of the public in relation to the Main Street Plaza Property, and nothing in this Settlement Agreement should be construed otherwise. The Parties do not intend to create any obligation,promise, dedication, servitude, or easement of any kind that would require the COPB to peiniit public access or passage. 7. Division of Litigation Costs—All costs and attorneys' fees awarded at any time • against the City in the Federal Litigation shall be paid one-half by the City and one-half by the COPB, regardless of the party to which those costs may be taxed. 8. Closing—The closing of all of the transactions and deliveries contemplated hereby(the "Closing") shall be held at the offices of Mayor Ross C. ("Rocky")Anderson, 451 South State Street,Room 306, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111, at 10:00 a.m., Salt Lake City time, on or before a date that is no earlier than thirty five (35) days, nor later than sixty(60) days, following(a)the date on which the Ordinance shall have been finally published, or(b)the date on which the Mayor and the COPB execute and deliver this Settlement Agreement,whichever is later, or at such other date and time upon which the parties mutually agree in writing. 9. Conditions and Events of Closing (a) Conditions and Deliveries. For the Closing to occur, each of the following conditions must be met, and each shall be considered a condition precedent to the others: (i) The Ordinance shall have been enacted by the City Council and finally published. (ii) No law suit or administrative proceeding shall have been commenced against the City,the COPB, or the officers, agents or affiliates of either challenging the Ordinance,this Settlement Agreement, or any of the transactions or instruments contemplated in this Settlement Agreement. 235783.8 6 • (iii) First American Title Insurance Company("Escrow Holder") shall be in receipt from the Salt Lake Alliance for Unity and James L. Sorenson of cash (in collected funds) and land with a total value (as determined by the City in its sole discretion, based on an M.A.I. appraisal) of at least Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) (the "Cash and Land") for construction and, in the City's discretion, furnishings, fixtures, equipment and maintenance therefor. (iv) The City and the COPB shall have executed and delivered to Escrow Holder the Deed Conveying Easement Rights. (v) The COPB shall have executed and delivered to Escrow Holder the Glendale Special Warranty Deed. (vi) Escrow Holder shall be irrevocably prepared to issue to the City an ALTA standard coverage owner's policy of title insurance, Faun 10-17-92, in the amount of$ (the "Glendale Title Insurance Policy"), naming the City as the insured and insuring all of the City's right, title and interest to the property described in the Glendale Special Warranty Deed, subject to the normal printed terms and conditions of such policy. The COPB shall pay the premium for the issuance of the Glendale Title Insurance Policy. • (b) Costs; Closing Events. All recording costs for the Deed Conveying Easement Rights and the Glendale Special Warranty Deed shall be paid by the COPB. Escrow Holder's escrow fee shall be divided equally between the City and the COPB. At the Closing, Escrow Holder shall simultaneously(i) record with the Salt Lake County Recorder the Deed Conveying Easement Rights an the Glendale Special Warranty Deed, and (ii) deliver to the City the Cash and Land (with the land portion to be conveyed by Special Warranty Deed in form acceptable to the City in its sole discretion) without condition. As soon as practicable following the Closing, Escrow Holder shall deliver to the City the original Glendale Title Insurance Policy. 10. Miscellaneous (a) The Parties each represent and acknowledge that, in executing this Settlement Agreement, they do not rely and have not relied upon any representation or statement made by each other(except as expressly set forth in the recitals in this Settlement Agreement) or by any agents, representatives, or attorneys of the other with regard to the subject matter,basis, or fact of this Settlement Agreement, or otherwise. (b) Each of the Parties represent and warrant that the persons signing this Settlement Agreement in their representative capacities have been duly authorized to do so by the party for whom he or she has signed. • (c) This Settlement Agreement is complete and integrated, and constitutes the entire understanding between the Parties with respect to the subject matter contained 235783.8 7 • herein and supersedes all previous and contemporaneous agreements, understandings, promises, warranties, representations, inducements or conditions, oral or written, except as contained herein. The express terms hereof control and supersede any course of performance inconsistent with any terms hereof Any revisions, amendments or modifications to this Settlement Agreement must be in writing and signed by all Parties ' hereto. Any implied and/or oral revisions, amendments or modifications will not be binding on any of the Parties. (d) The Parties each acknowledge that they are entering into this Settlement Agreement having fully reviewed the terms hereof, and they are signing this Settlement in consultation with their respective legal counsel. By signing below, the Parties' respective legal counsel each acknowledge that they have reviewed and approved the form and content of this Settlement Agreement in consultation with their respective clients. (e) The Parties each acknowledge and understand that this is a legally binding contract and further acknowledge that prior to signing below they have each fully read and understood all of the terms of this Settlement Agreement. (f) The Parties also acknowledge that they have signed this Settlement Agreement freely and voluntarily, and that they have not been threatened or coerced into making this agreement or releasing any rights hereunder. • (g) This Settlement Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of all of the Parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. No party to the Settlement Agreement may assign its rights or obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the other party hereto. (h) No forbearance of any party to enforce any provision hereof or any rights existing hereunder shall constitute a waiver of such provisions or rights or be deemed to effect an amendment or modification of this Settlement Agreement. (i) This Settlement Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Utah without regard to the principles choice of law of Utah or any other state. (j) In the event any suit is brought to enforce any of the provisions of this Settlement Agreement, in addition to any damages that may be claimed, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred in connection with the prosecution of such action. (k) If any term, condition, or provision of this Settlement Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable for any reason, all other terms, conditions and provisions of this Settlement Agreement shall nevertheless remain in full force and effect so long as the primary purposes of the Settlement • 235783.8 8 • Agreement are not affected in any manner materially adverse to any party. Upon such determination that any term, condition or other provision is invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the parties hereto shall negotiate in good faith to modify this Settlement Agreement so as to effect as closely as possible the original intent of the Parties in a mutually acceptable manner to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law. (1) Unless mutually agreed otherwise, the Parties agree to cooperate in the defense of or prosecution of claims, thorough all levels of appeal, brought by or against the Parties, or either of them, regarding the enforceability of this Settlement Agreement and all covenants and promises made hereunder. Each Party consents to share with the other Party such common communications and other litigation material related to such an action as each Party deems appropriate. The sharing of common communications is not intended to, and shall not be deemed to, constitute a waiver of any privilege or other protection that may pertain to such common communications and other litigation material. • (m) This Settlement Agreement may be executed in counterparts. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have each executed this Settlement Agreement as of the date written below. . SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION By: Ross C. "Rocky"Anderson Mayor ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER- DAY SAINTS, a Utah corporation sole By Kendrick Cowley Salt Lake City Recorder By: H. David Burton Presiding Bishop • 235783.8 9 List of Exhibits 1 Mayor's Petition 2 City Council Ordinance 3 Glendale Special Warranty Deed 4 Deed Conveying Easement Rights 235783.8 1 0 • • EXHIBIT 3 C 1 DEED CONVEYING EASEMENT RIGHTS AND AMENDMENT TO SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED • Transmittal of Petition 400-03-01 DRAFT 5/20/03 • WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO: [Tax Parcel No. ] SNELL & WILMER Gateway Tower West 15 West South Temple, Suite 1200 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Attention: Alan L. Sullivan DEED CONVEYING EASEMENT RIGHTS AND AMENDMENT TO SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED (Main Street Plaza) This DEED CONVEYING EASEMENT RIGHTS AND AMENDMENT TO SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED (the "Amendment Deed") is made and entered into as of , 2003, by and between the CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, a Utah corporation sole, whose address is 50 East North Temple, Suite 1800, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 (the "Grantee") and SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, whose address is 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 (the "Grantor") • RECITALS: A. By Special Warranty Deed, recorded on April 27, 1999, as Entry No. 7335190, in Book , at page , records of Salt Lake County, Utah (the "Original Deed"), Grantor conveyed to Grantee the real property more particularly described on Exhibit A to this Amendment Deed (the "Property"). B. Paragraph 1.3 of the Original Deed reserved a pedestrian access and passage easement over the Property in favor of Grantor. The easement rights reserved by Paragraph 1.3 of the Original Deed are referred to in this Amendment Deed as the "Pedestrian Easement." C. The Pedestrian Easement was limited by the teiins of Paragraph 2 of the Original Deed. The conditions, limitations and restrictions contained in Paragraph 2 of the Original Deed are referred to in this Amendment as the "Pedestrian Easement Restrictions." D. Questions have arisen as to the enforceability of the Pedestrian Easement Restrictions, with the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit holding the Pedestrian Easement Restrictions unconstitutional in First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City, et al. v. Salt Lake City Corporation, 308 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2002). 0 235296.9 E. To settle disputes between them with respect to the Pedestrian Easement and the Pedestrian Easement Restrictions, Grantor and Grantee have entered into a • Settlement Agreement, dated as of_ , 2003 (the "Settlement Agreement"). This Amendment Deed is being executed and delivered pursuant to the terms and conditions oft he S ettlement A greement and pursuant t o the a ctions o f t he Mayor and City Council of Salt Lake City, as described in the Settlement Agreement. F. Pursuant to Salt Lake City Ordinance No. , adopted by the City Council of Salt Lake City on , 2003 and signed by the Mayor of Salt Lake City, Grantor has closed, vacated, and abandoned the Pedestrian Easement, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in such ordinance. Now, therefore, for valuable consideration, as more particularly set forth in the Settlement A greement,the receipt and sufficiency o f w hich are h ereby acknowledged, Grantor and Grantee agree as follows: 1. Conveyance of Pedestrian Easement; Intent; Grantor's Interest. (a) Grantor hereby grants and conveys the Pedestrian Easement and all of its right, title and interest in and to the Pedestrian Easement to Grantee. Grantor hereby warrants the title so granted and conveyed as to all claims or defects arising by, through, or under Grantor , but not otherwise. This grant and conveyance shall be subject to the terms of the Original Deed as amended herein. (b) The parties intend, by this conveyance, that Grantee own fee • simple determinable title (with a right of reverter) to the Property, subject only to Grantee's obligation to use and maintain the Property as a landscaped space, the easements reserved in Paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2 of the Original Deed (collectively, the "Utility and Service Easements"), and the view corridor and fencing restrictions in paragraph 1.4 of the Original Deed, as amended herein (the "View Restriction"). From and after recordation of this Amendment Deed and except for its rights pursuant to the Utility and Service Easements, the View Restriction, and Grantor's obligation to use and maintain the property as a landscaped space, Grantor relinquishes, releases, and disclaims any and all ownership interest in or rights of any kind with respect to the Property. Grantor also disclaims any right or authority to regulate any expression or conduct on the Property other than pursuant to Grantor's police powers applicable to private property in general. 2. Amendment of Original Deed. The Original Deed is amended as follows: (a) Paragraphs 1.3, 2 (including all subparagraphs thereof), and 6.3 of the Original Deed are deleted in their entirety and shall have no further force or effect whatsoever. (b) Paragraph 1.4 of the Original Deed is hereby amended to add the following: "To ensure the preservation of the view corridor established in this paragraph 1.4 and the aesthetics of the Property and surrounding areas, Grantee 1111 235296.9 2 • may not erect fences, walls, or gates on the Property without the written approval of Grantor, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Grantor's approval authority shall be exercised based on aesthetic, safety, and security considerations and the need to preserve the view corridor established in this paragraph. All fences, walls, and gates, currently in place on the Property have been approved b y Grantor. If a court o f c ompetent j urisdiction h olds (without regard to any right to appeal) that the provisions in this paragraph 1.4 relating to fences, walls, and gates, alone or in combination with any other factor, create or establish the basis for a First Amendment forum of any kind, then and thereupon the requirement that Grantee must obtain approval from Grantor to erect fences, walls, and gates shall automatically terminate and be of no further force or effect whatsoever." (c) Paragraph 4 of the Original Deed is amended in its entirety to read as follows: 4. Right of Reverter. In the event that Grantee fails to use and maintain the Property as a landscaped space or to permit Grantor access to the Property pursuant to the easements reserved in Paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2, or violates the view corridor and fencing restrictions in Paragraph 1.4, then the Property shall, at Grantor's option exercised in accordance with Paragraph 5, revert to G rantor. N otwithstanding the foregoing, none of the provisions of this paragraph 4, alone or in combination with any other IIIfactor, shall be interpreted to create or establish the basis for a First Amendment forum of any kind. (d) Paragraph 6.1 o f t he Original Deed i s a mended i n its entirety t o read as follows: 6.1 Integrated Agreement. This instrument is complete and integrated, and constitutes the entire understanding between the Parties with respect to the subject matter contained herein and supersedes all previous and contemporaneous agreements, understandings, promises, warranties, representations, inducements or conditions, oral or written, except as contained herein and in the Settlement Agreement between the Parties entered into on , 2003. The express terms hereof control and supersede any course of performance inconsistent with any terms hereof. Any revisions, amendments or modifications to this instrument must be in writing and signed by all parties. Any implied and/or oral revisions, amendments or modifications will not be binding on any of the parties. (e) Paragraph 6.2 o f t he Original Deed i s amended i n its entirety t o read as follows: • 6.2 Severability. If any term, condition, or provision of this instrument is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal 235296.9 3 or unenforceable for any reason, all other terms, conditions and provisions of this instrument shall nevertheless remain in full force and effect so long III as the primary purposes of the instrument are not thereby affected in any manner materially adverse to any party. Upon such determination that any term, condition or other provision is invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the Parties hereto shall negotiate in good faith to modify this instrument so as to effect as closely as possible the original intent of the Parties in a mutually acceptable manner to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law. (f) The Original Deed shall be amended by adding the following Paragraphs: 6.7 Intent of the Parties. Termination of Right of Reverter. The parties expressly intend and agree that the Property be private property and that Grantee shall have full, complete and absolute control over all activities on and uses of the Property, subject only to its obligation to use and maintain the Property as a landscaped space with the easements reserved in Paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2, the view corridor and fencing restrictions in Paragraph 1.4, and the City's police powers applicable to private property in general. Nothing in this Special Warranty Deed, alone or in combination with any other factor, shall be interpreted to create or establish the basis for a First Amendment forum of any kind. If a court of competent jurisdiction holds (without regard to any right to appeal) that • the right of reverter in paragraph 4 alone or in combination with any other factor creates or establishes the basis for a First Amendment forum of any kind, then and thereupon the right of reverter shall immediately and automatically terminate and be of no further force or effect whatsoever. If, however, the court's holding is reversed, the reverter clause shall immediately and automatically revive. Any teiiiiination of the reverter clause s hall not impair the right o f Grantor t o obtain equitable o r other relief should Grantee's obligation to use and maintain the Property as a landscaped space or the provisions of Paragraphs 1.1, 1.2, or 1.4 be violated, provided that no such right in favor of Grantor, alone or in combination with any other factor, shall be interpreted to create or establish the basis for a First Amendment forum of any kind. 6.8 Notices. Notices will be in writing and will be given by personal delivery or by express delivery service (such as FedEx), freight prepaid. Notices will be delivered or addressed to the COPB and the City at the addresses set forth on the first page of the Amendment Deed or at such other address as a party may designate in writing;provided, however, that if the notice is given by personal delivery, delivery, in the case of the COPB, must be to one of the following: and in the case of the City, must be to one of the following: . The date notice is deemed to have been given, received and become effective will be (a) the date on which • 235296.9 4 • the notice is delivered, if notice is given by personal delivery, (b) the date of actual receipt, if the notice is sent by express delivery service. 3. Ratification. As modified and supplemented by this Amendment Deed, the Original Deed is ratified and confirmed and shall continue in full force and effect. DATED this day of , 2003. THE CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS,a Utah corporation sole By: H. David Burton Presiding Bishop SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah By: Ross C. "Rocky"Anderson 1111 Mayor ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: By Kendrick Cowley Salt Lake City Recorder • 235296.9 5 STATE OF UTAH ) ss • COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2003 by , , of the CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, a Utah corporation sole, on behalf of the corporation. My Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBLIC Residing at STATE OF UTAH ) : ss COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2003 by , the , and • , the of SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah, on behalf of the corporation. My Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBLIC Residing at S 235296.9 6 DRAFT 5/20/03 EXHIBIT A • LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY • • 235296.9 • • EXHIBIT 3c2 SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED (GLENDALE PROPERTY) • Transmittal of Petition 400-03-01 DRAFT 5/1/03 WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO: • SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Attention: SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED (Glendale Property) The CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, a Utah corporation sole, whose address is 50 East North Temple, Suite 1800, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 ("Grantor"), CONVEYS A ND WARRANTS a gainst t hose c laiming b y, through, o r under Grantor, but not otherwise, to SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah, whose address is 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111, for the sum of One and No/100 Dollars ($1.00), and other good and valuable consideration, all of Grantor's right, title and interest as to the real property situated in Salt Lake County, Utah that is described on Exhibit A attached hereto, together with all improvements and fixtures thereon and all rights and privileges appurtenant thereto. • And Grantor hereby binds itself and its successors to warrant and defend the title, as against all acts of Grantor herein and none other, subject to current taxes and assessments not yet due and payable, patent reservations, and all easements, rights-of- way, covenants, conditions, restrictions, and obligations as may appear of record as of the time of recordation of this Special Warranty Deed and to matters that either a physical inspection or accurate survey of the property would disclose. DATED this day of , 2003. THE CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, a Utah corporation By: Name: Title: 235287.1 STATE OF UTAH ) ss 0 COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2003 by , , of the CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, a Utah corporation, on behalf of the corporation. My Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBLIC Residing at • ill 235287.1 2 DRAFT 5/1/03 EXHIBIT A • LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF GLENDALE PROPERTY 235287.1 DRAFT 5/20/03 WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO: [Tax Parcel No. 1 SNELL & WILMER III Gateway Tower West 15 West South Temple, Suite 1200 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Attention: Alan L. Sullivan DEED CONVEYING EASEMENT RIGHTS AND AMENDMENT TO SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED (Main Street Plaza) This DEED CONVEYING EASEMENT RIGHTS AND AMENDMENT TO SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED (the"Amendment Deed") is made and entered into as of , 2003, by and between the CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, a Utah corporation sole, whose address is 50 East North Temple, Suite 1800, Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 (the "Grantee") and SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, whose address is 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 (the "Grantor") RECITALS: • A. By Special Warranty Deed, recorded on April 27, 1999, as Entry No. 7335190, in Book , at page , records of Salt Lake County, Utah (the "Original Deed"), Grantor conveyed to Grantee the real property more particularly described on Exhibit A to this Amendment Deed (the "Property"). B. Paragraph 1.3 of the Original Deed reserved a pedestrian access and passage easement over the Property in favor of Grantor. The easement rights reserved by Paragraph 1.3 of the Original Deed are referred to in this Amendment Deed as the "Pedestrian Easement." C. The Pedestrian Easement was limited by the terms of Paragraph 2 of the Original Deed. The conditions, limitations and restrictions contained in Paragraph 2 of the Original Deed are referred to in this Amendment as the "Pedestrian Easement Restrictions." D. Questions have arisen as to the enforceability of the Pedestrian Easement Restrictions, with the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit holding the Pedestrian Easement Restrictions unconstitutional in First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City, et al. v. Salt Lake City Corporation, 308 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2002). • 235296.9 11111 E. To settle disputes between them with respect to the Pedestrian Easement and the Pedestrian Easement Restrictions, Grantor and Grantee have entered into a Settlement Agreement, dated as of , 2003 (the "Settlement Agreement"). This Amendment Deed is being executed and delivered pursuant to the terms and conditions o f t he Settlement Agreement and pursuant t o the actions o f t he Mayor and City Council of Salt Lake City, as described in the Settlement Agreement. F. Pursuant to Salt Lake City Ordinance No. , adopted by the City Council of Salt Lake City on , 2003 and signed by the Mayor of Salt Lake City, Grantor has closed, vacated, and abandoned the Pedestrian Easement, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in such ordinance. Now, therefore, for valuable consideration, as more particularly set forth in the Settlement A greement, the receipt and sufficiency o f which are h ereby acknowledged, Grantor and Grantee agree as follows: 1. Conveyance of Pedestrian Easement; Intent; Grantor's Interest. (a) Grantor hereby grants and conveys the Pedestrian Easement and all of its right, title and interest in and to the Pedestrian Easement to Grantee. Grantor hereby warrants the title so granted and conveyed as to all claims or defects arising by, through, or under Grantor , but not otherwise. This grant and conveyance shall be subject to the terms of the Original Deed as amended herein. 411 (b) The parties intend, by this conveyance, that Grantee own fee simple determinable title (with a right of reverter) to the Property, subject only to Grantee's obligation to use and maintain the Property as a landscaped space, the easements reserved in Paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2 of the Original Deed (collectively,- the "Utility and Service Easements"), and the view corridor and fencing restrictions in paragraph 1.4 of the Original Deed, as amended herein (the "View Restriction"). From and after recordation of this Amendment Deed and except for its rights pursuant to the Utility and Service Easements, the View Restriction, and Grantor's obligation to use and maintain the property as a landscaped space, Grantor relinquishes, releases, and disclaims any and all ownership interest in or rights of any kind with respect to the Property. Grantor also disclaims any right or authority to regulate any expression or conduct on the Property other than pursuant to Grantor's police powers applicable to private property in general. 2. Amendment of Original Deed. The Original Deed is amended as follows: (a) Paragraphs 1.3, 2 (including all subparagraphs thereof), and 6.3 of the Original Deed are deleted in their entirety and shall have no further force or effect whatsoever. (b) Paragraph 1.4 of the Original Deed is hereby amended to add the 110 following: "To ensure the preservation of the view corridor established in this paragraph 1.4 and the aesthetics of the Property and surrounding areas, Grantee 235296.9 2 may not erect fences, walls, or gates on the Property without the written approval • of Grantor, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Grantor's approval authority shall be exercised based on aesthetic, safety, and security considerations and the need to preserve the view corridor established in this paragraph. All fences, walls, and gates, currently in place on the Property have been approved b y Grantor. If a c ourt o f c ompetent j urisdiction h olds (without regard to any right to appeal) that the provisions in this paragraph 1.4 relating to fences, walls, and gates, alone or in combination with any other factor, create or establish the basis for a First Amendment forum of any kind, then and thereupon the requirement that Grantee must obtain approval from Grantor to erect fences, walls, and gates shall automatically terminate and be of no further force or effect whatsoever." (c) Paragraph 4 of the Original Deed is amended in its entirety to read as follows: 4. Right of Reverter. In the event that Grantee fails to use and maintain the Property as a landscaped space or to permit Grantor access to the Property pursuant to the easements reserved in Paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2, or violates the view corridor and fencing restrictions in Paragraph 1.4, then the Property shall, at Grantor's option exercised in accordance with Paragraph 5, revert to Grantor. N otwithstanding the foregoing, none of the provisions of this paragraph 4, alone or in combination with any other factor, shall be interpreted to create or establish the basis for a First . Amendment forum of any kind. (d) Paragraph 6.1 o f t he Original Deed i s a mended i n its entirety t o read as follows: 6.1 Integrated Agreement. This instrument is complete and integrated, and constitutes the entire understanding between the Parties with respect to the subject matter contained herein and supersedes all previous and contemporaneous agreements, understandings, promises, warranties, representations, inducements or conditions, oral or written, except as contained herein and in the Settlement Agreement between the Parties entered into on , 2003. The express terms hereof control and supersede any course of performance inconsistent with any terms hereof. Any revisions, amendments or modifications to this instrument must be in writing and signed by all parties. Any implied and/or oral revisions, amendments or modifications will not be binding on any of the parties. (e) Paragraph 6.2 o f t he Original D eed i s a mended i n its entirety t o read as follows: 6.2 Severability. If any term, condition, or provision of this 411 instrument is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal 235296.9 3 or unenforceable for any reason, all other terms, conditions and provisions • of this instrument shall nevertheless remain in full force and effect so long as the primary purposes of the instrument are not thereby affected in any manner materially adverse to any party. Upon such determination that any term, condition or other provision is invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the Parties hereto shall negotiate in good faith to modify this instrument so as to effect as closely as possible the original intent of the Parties in a mutually acceptable manner to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law. (f) The Original Deed shall be amended by adding the following Paragraphs: 6.7 Intent of the Parties. Termination of Right of Reverter. The parties expressly intend and agree that the Property be private property and that Grantee shall have full, complete and absolute control over all activities on and uses of the Property, subject only to its obligation to use and maintain the Property as a landscaped space with the easements reserved in Paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2, the view corridor and fencing restrictions in Paragraph 1.4, and the City's police powers applicable to private property in general. Nothing in this Special Warranty Deed, alone or in combination with any other factor, shall be interpreted to create or establish the basis for a First Amendment forum of any kind. If a court of • competent jurisdiction holds (without regard to any right to appeal) that the right of reverter in paragraph 4 alone or in combination with any other factor creates or establishes the basis for a First Amendment forum of any kind, then and thereupon the right of reverter shall immediately and automatically terminate and be of no further force or effect whatsoever. If, however, the court's holding is reversed, the reverter clause shall immediately and automatically revive. Any termination of the reverter clause s hall not impair the right o f Grantor t o obtain equitable o r other relief should Grantee's obligation to use and maintain the Property as a landscaped space or the provisions of Paragraphs 1.1, 1.2, or 1.4 be violated, provided that no such right in favor of Grantor, alone or in combination with any other factor, shall be interpreted to create or establish the basis for a First Amendment forum of any kind. 6.8 Notices. Notices will be in writing and will be given by personal delivery or by express delivery service (such as FedEx), freight prepaid. Notices will be delivered or addressed to the COPB and the City at the addresses set forth on the first page of the Amendment Deed or at such other address as a party may designate in writing;provided, however, that if the notice is given by personal delivery, delivery, in the case of the COPB, must be to one of the following: and in the case of the City, must be to one of the • following: . The date notice is deemed to have been given, received and become effective will be (a) the date on which 235296.9 4 the notice is delivered, if notice is given by personal delivery, (b) the date of actual receipt, if the notice is sent by express delivery service. • 3. Ratification. As modified and supplemented by this Amendment Deed, the Original Deed is ratified and confirmed and shall continue in full force and effect. DATED this day of , 2003. THE CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, a Utah corporation sole By: H. David Burton Presiding Bishop SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah By: Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson Mayor II ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: By Kendrick Cowley Salt Lake City Recorder ill 235296.9 5 STATE OF UTAH ) • : ss COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2003 by , , of the CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, a Utah corporation sole, on behalf of the corporation. My Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBLIC Residing at STATE OF UTAH ) : ss COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 110 , 2003 by the , and the of SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah, on behalf of the corporation. My Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBLIC Residing at • 235296.9 6 DRAFT 5/20/03 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY . i • 235296.9 • • EXHIBIT 3d APPRAISAL OF THE PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT • Transmittal of Petition 400-03-01 L., j PHILIP COOK &ASSOCIATES "' REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS/ADVISORS 1 ' Access and Passage Easement Associated With MAIN STREET PLAZA Located at MAIN STREET BETWEEN NORTH TEMPLE AND SOUTH TEMPLE ' Salt Lake City, UT ID I 11) 1 I I 5107 SOUTH 900 EAST,SUITE ZOO SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84117 1 116' _.m.•mimn.0ui..•..m.m•iI•.m .im..•mii.•.imaI..•.m.m•i •.mmi•.m COMPLETE APPRAISAL SUMMARY REPORT I I Access and Passage Easement Associated With MAIN STREET PLAZA Located at MAIN STREET BETWEEN NORTH TEMPLE AND SOUTH TEMPLE Salt Lake City, UT S PREPARED FOR: Salt Lake City Corporation City Attorney E % Mr. Lynn Pace, Esquire 451 South State Street, 5th Floor Salt Lake City, UT 84111 I FILE NUMBER 03-04-03PC I I EFFECTIVE APPRAISAL DATE: April 2, 2003 I I fp """" PHILIP COOK &ASSOCIATES u. "aQ REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS/ADVISORS J.PHILIP COOK,MAI,CRE MICHELE E.JAKOB,MAI I DARRIN W.LIDDELL,MAI VIRGINIA H.HYLTON RICHARD F. LER JEFFREY S.ALLEN DAVID M. ANDERSON TROY A.LUNT RICHARD C.SLOAN GREGORY R.BESS DAVID L.CHILD KAMMIE L.LEFEVRE ICOREY COOK CARL DIETZ May 2, 2003 111 Mr. Lynn Pace, Esquire 1 City Attorney's Office Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Re: Appraisal-Access and Passage Easement associated with Main Street Plaza, located ra at Main Street between North Temple and South Temple, Salt Lake City, UT. Dear Mr. Pace: 11) At your request I have prepared an appraisal addressin g market value of the above- referenced easement. The attached report contains the bases, data, and analyses upon I which the opinion of value relies. The function of the appraisal is to assist Salt Lake City Corporation with internal planning matters. IAs a complete appraisal - summary report, this presents only summary discussion of the data, reasoning, and analyses that are used in the appraisal process to develop an opinion 111 of value. The depth of discussion contained in this report is specific to the needs of the client and for the intended use stated within this report. The report complies with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice(USPAP) as promulgated by the Appraisal Foundation and Appraisal Guidelines of the Appraisal Institute. PP PP I The property was last inspected on April 2 2003, which th e rtY P pis valuation date. Based on available information, I am of the opinion market value of the noted easement, as defined in the body of the appraisal, is: IFIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000) } 5107 SOUTH 900 EAST,SUITE 200 ♦SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84117 TELEPHONE:801-281-4600 ®FAX:801-281-4601 s E-MAIL:jpc&associates@jpc.biz.com I )1 101 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES Page Two USPAP requires that an estimate of exposure period be made. Exposure is defined as the length of time the property would have been exposed on the market had it sold on the Idate of value. Such an estimate is not particularly meaningful in this case since there are limited prospective buyers, and the most likely buyer is highly motivated. Based on that 1 motivation, an exposure period of less than three months would be anticipated. Despite this motivation, the value estimate reflects consummation of a transaction without undue influence, consistent with the definition of market value. IThe foregoing is made subject to assumptions and limiting conditions contained in the body of the report. I trust the report is sufficient to accomplish its intended function. IISincerely, I gjac--- A . Philip Cook, Al, CRE Utah State-Certified General Appraiser IDCertificate CG37068 Expires 06-30-03 I I I I i I I e• I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY /11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ILOCATION: At Main Street between North Temple and South Temple I PURPOSE OF APPRAISAL: Estimate market value I PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED: All rights of ownership in the Pedestrian Access and I Passage Easement as will be defined in the body of this report. 1 REPORT DATE: May 2, 2003 I VA LUATION DATE: April 2, 2003 lb REGIONAL DESCRIPTION: Slowing economy centered around metropolitan Salt Lake City Ili INEIGHBORHOOD DESCRIPTION: 100 percent commercial location for the Central Business District of downtown Salt Lake City ISITE: - Size 2.037 acres; 88,719 square feet 1 - Topography Gently sloping Zoning UI on the western half and D-1 on the eastern half - Flood Zone Zone "C" HIGHEST AND BEST USE: I - As If Vacant The subject of this appraisal is a pedestrian access and passage easement. Highest and best use of i that property right is for access and passage, which carries the right of use as a public forum. IP MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 I I J. PHI LIP COOK&ASSOCIATES CERTIFICATION 11) The value of the easement is related in part to the value of the underlying land. Highest and best use of this land is limited to plaza use due to various legal constraints. In this regard, the property is currently improved to its highest and best use. VALUE CONCLUSION: $500,000 I I I I b I I I I I I MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES COMPLETE APPRAISAL-SUMMARY REPORT CERTIFICATION I certify that I have made an investigation and analysis of the following property: Access and Passage Easement Associated With MAIN STREET PLAZA Located at MAIN STREET BETWEEN NORTH TEMPLE AND SOUTH TEMPLE Salt Lake City, UT I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief: 1. The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. 2. The reported analyses,opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions,and are my personal,impartial,and unbiased professional analyses,opinions,and conclusions. 3. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal interest with respect to the parties involved. 4. I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment. 5. My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. 111) 6. My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client,the amount of the value opinion,the attainment of a stipulated result,or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal. 7. My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standard of Professional Appraisal Practice(USPAP). 8. I have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. 9. No one provided professional assistance to the persons signing this report. 10. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute, relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. 11. J. Philip Cook has completed the requirements of the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. 12. The value conclusion as well as other opinions expressed herein, are not based on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation,or the approval of a loan. 13. My state appraisal certification/registrations have not been revoked,suspended,canceled,or restricted. 14. The undersigned hereby acknowledges that he has the appropriate education and experience to complete the assignment in a competent manner. The reader is referred to the appraisers'Statement of Qualifications. 15. J. Philip Cook is currently a Certified General Appraiser in the State of Utah#CG37068. Dated: May 2, 2003 deO/L— J. Philip Co , MAI, CRE Utah State-Certified General Appraiser Certificate CG37068 Expires 06-30-03 MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 I $ J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES INTRODUCTION )1 COMPLETE APPRAISAL - SUMMARY REPORT ICLIENT: Mr. Lynn Pace, Esquire City Attorney's Office it Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, UT I APPRAISERS: J. Philip Cook, MAI I J. Philip Cook & Associates, Inc. 5107 South 900 East, Suite 200 Salt Lake City, UT 84117 I SUBJECT: The subject of this appraisal is a pedestrian access and passage easement associated with Main Street Plaza. This Plaza is located at Main Street between North Temple and South Temple. lb PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL: Estimate market value. IDEFINITIONS: IMarket Value IThe most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, Iknowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is consummation of a sale as of a specified date and passing of title from seller to 1 buyer under conditions whereby: I 111) MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 1 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES INTRODUCTION 1. Buyer and seller are typically motivated; 2. Both parties are well-informed or well-advised and each acting in what they consider their own best interest; 3. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; 4. Payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangement comparable thereto; 5. The price represents a normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale.' The foregoing definition stipulates that value reflect cash or cash equivalent terms. The following elaborates on the concept of cash equivalency. In applying this definition of market value, adjustments to the comparables must be made for special or creative financing or sales concessions. No adjustments are necessary for those costs that are normally paid by sellers as a result of tradition or law in a market area; these costs are readily identifiable since the seller pays these costs in virtually all sales transactions. Special or creative financing adjustments can be made to the comparable property by comparison to financing terms offered by a third party financial institution that is not already involved in the property or transaction. Any adjustment should not be calculated on a mechanical dollar for dollar cost of the financing or concession, but the dollar amount of any adjustment should approximate the market's reaction to the financing or concessions based on the appraiser's judgment.' 1111 Complete Appraisal "The act or process of developing an opinion of value or an opinion of value developed without invoking the Departure Rule.i3 I I 'This definition of market value is taken from the final rule issued by the Department of Treasury,Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (12CFR Part 34, August 24, 1990), which are the implementing regulations for Title XI of FIRREA. The definition is also supported by most regulatory agencies as follows: Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System(CFR Parts 208 and 225,July 25,1991); National Credit Union Administration(CFR Parts 701,722,and 741,July 25,1990);Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation(12 CFR Part 323,August 20,1990); Resolution Trust Corporation(12CFR Part 1608,August 22,1990);Office of Thrift Supervision,Treasury(12CFR Parts 506, 545,563, 564,and 571,August 23,1990). This definition has been adopted by the Appraisal Institute in their Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice,and the Appraisal Foundation in the Uniform Standard of Professional Appraisal Practice(June 30,1989, amended April 20,1990 and June 5,1990). 2 Federal National Mortgage Association(FNMA)and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation(FHLMC). 3 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice,Appraisal Foundation,2002 Edition,p.1. MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 2 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES INTRODUCTION Summary Appraisal Report "A written report prepared under Standards Rule 2-2(b) or 8-2(b).i4 INTENDED USE OF THE REPORT: The function of the appraisal is to assist Salt Lake City Corporation with internal planning matters. I INTENDED USER OF THE REPORT: The intended user of this report is Salt Lake City Corporation. INTEREST VALUED: The value estimate is for all rights of ownership pertaining to the Pedestrian Access and Passage Easement identified in Paragraph 1.3 of the Special Warranty Deed conveying ownership of Main Street from Salt Lake City Corporation to the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,subject to modification as addressed below. This easement reads as follows. Subject to the conditions, limitations, and restrictions set forth in section 2 hereinbelow, Grantor reserves an easement over and across the surface of the Property for pedestrian access and passage only, including bicycles, provided that they are walked across the Property, and including dogs on leash. Skate boards, roller blades and roller skates shall not be allowed. The Property shall be available for such pedestrian access and passage at all times, both day and night. Grantee shall not erect any perimeter fences or gates on the Property along the North Temple or South Temple rights of way, 1 but Grantee may erect decorative fencing and similar structures which are commonly used in plazas similar to the Property, with the written approval of Grantor. Grantor may allow the general public to use this easement for pedestrian access and passage I 4 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice,Appraisal Foundation,2002 Edition,p.4. MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 3 I I )111- J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES INTRODUCTION only, but all use of this easement shall be subject to the conditions, limitations and restrictions described hereinbelow." I The easement valued herein is modified from the above for two factors. The first factor relates to the prohibition on perimeter fences or gates. This restriction will be separated from the basic "access and passage" provisions in Paragraph 1.3, and will be modified to allow fences, walls and gates as long as they do not interfere with the view corridor. Construction of fences, walls and gates will require city approval. However,their basis for denial is limited to whether such construction would negatively affect the view corridor. The second factor expands the easement based on the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals - Tenth Circuit specifically relating to the restrictions identified above as being in Section 2 of the Special Warranty Deed. Specifically, Section 2 Paragraph 2.2 expressly precludes certain speech related rights within the easement. The Appeals Court found these restrictions unconstitutional. Therefore, the easement valued herein includes the characterization that it is a public forum, thus allowing speech related activities in addition to pedestrian access and passage. The value of the easement is related in part to the value of the underlying estate, which is less 1 than a fee simple estate because of other easements and restrictions of record that reduce the estate. These easements and restrictions will be detailed in a later section of the report. I Fee simple ownership is defined as, "absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat.i5 I s The Appraisal of Real Estate,Twelfth Edition,The Appraisal Institute,Chicago,Illinois,2001,p.69. MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 4 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES INTRODUCTION )1110 PERSONAL PROPERTY: No personal property, FF&E, or intangibles are included in this valuation. I EFFECTIVE DATE OF APPRAISAL: April 2, 2003,which was the last date of formal inspection. DATE OF THE REPORT: The date noted on the letter of transmittal is the date of this report. I SCOPE: This report is intended to satisfy all requirements of a complete appraisal, summary report. The primary objective is to arrive at a value conclusion that would be considered reasonable and well documented by a disinterested third party. In valuing real property,three primary valuation approaches are employed within the appraisal profession. These are the cost, income capitalization, and sales comparison approaches. The use of each approach depends on the type of property and availability of market data upon which the approach is predicated. The use of more than one approach, and preferably all three, requires a correlation analysis which checks and refines toward a dependable value estimate. If personal property is included, the value estimate is allocated between real and 1 personal property. In the preparation of this appraisal report, a variety of market data were gathered. These include general data applicable to the region and area, specific data relating to the neighborhood, site and improvements, and market data, including land sales. General and specific data were obtained from appropriate government or private agencies, or personal inspection. To the extent possible, market comparables were verified with the buyer, seller, broker, owner, or through public records. I The challenge here is that there are no arm's-length sales of directly analogous properties, i.e., access and pedestrian easements. Easements are traditionally valued as a ratio to fee simple value. To value the fee simple estate the sales comparison approach is applicable. In this MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 5 a I 1110 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES INTRODUCTION approach,sales of land in the downtown area are compared to the Main Street Plaza land,with adjustments applied for differences between this land and the sales. I Fee simple ownership is often depicted as a complete bundle of rights associated with that ownership. A variety of rights make up the bundle, some of the more obvious of which are summarized below. I Inherent in Fee Simple ownership are the rights to: • Develop • Occupy and use • Exclude others • Convey through lease or sale • Grant easements • Restrict use • Mortgage • Devise by will SO • Give away or abandon A property owner may have a fully marketable property despite having conveyed away certain rights. For example,an owner may have leased an income producing property, but can convey that property subject to the encumbering lease. Similarly, easements may have been granted which potentially affect utility and value of the property but still allow for marketability. It is noted that the government maintains certain rights which always exist and therefore do not represent sticks of the bundle. They include police power, eminent domain, taxation, and escheat. The primary issue relative to government control in this case is police power,exercised by zoning. It is important in this case to identify the primary rights or sticks that make up the full bundle of rights, and to clarify the status of ownership of those various rights. Rights that have been transferred to others in this case are reviewed as follows: MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 6 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES INTRODUCTION The second methodology would be to appraise the property under a theoretical condemnation scenario under established guidelines where the value impact of a taking, rather than the value of the taking itself, is the estimate of just compensation. The third methodology is an inverse of the second methodology in that it considers the value enhancement resulting from the extinguishment of the easement. It measures the difference 1 between the property with the easement in place versus the value without the easement. The difference is the value of the easement. I It is noted that the second and third methodologies are very similar. However, the second method is theoretical and is viewed as though the government were to acquire the easement. Therefore, appraisal standards specifically applicable to eminent domain are followed. By contrast, the third method is totally market based without constraint imposed by the rules of eminent domain appraising. It is acknowledged that the three methods are not totally independent. They interrelate to a certain extent which reduces the strength of the final value opinion. However, consistency in analysis can also eliminate some of the subjectivity. That is the intent in this work. All three analyses are employed. It is important in this case to point out that the term market value refers to a generic buyer and not to any specific buyer. The most likely and logical buyer is the adjacent property owner, and that can be taken into account in analyzing market value. However, that the specific buyer in this case is the Church, an entity highly motivated to control the use of the entire Plaza, is not appropriate to consider. The price the Church may be willing to pay is influenced by those non- arms-length motivations, and thus is more accurately categorized as use value or investment value. 1111 MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 8 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES INTRODUCTION IThe report is in compliance with reporting requirements established by the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), and the Appraisal Institute. I APPRAISAL DEVELOPMENT AND REPORTING PROCESS: In preparing this appraisal report, Ithe appraiser: I • inspected the subject site; • gathered, confirmed and analyzed data on comparable land sales; I • applied the sales comparison approach to value the fee simple estate; • developed and reconciled alternative analyses to value the Access and Passage Easement. I DESCRIPTION OF REAL ESTATE APPRAISED: 1 aoLegal Description I The legal description is contained in the Special Warranty Deed conveying ownership of the surface rights to the Church as reproduced in the addenda. 11 Real Estate Tax Information I The underlying property under Church ownership is exempt from property tax. However, the Icounty carries an assessed value on this property of $3,575,000, all allocated to land. 1 Ownership and Property History IMain Street was used as a public street for many years and was under Salt Lake City Corporation ownership. On November 5, 1993, the City entered into an "AGREEMENT FOR IEXCHANGE OF REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS,"wherein they transferred the sub-surface rights MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 9 I I iJ. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES INTRODUCTION ll/ Iunderlying Main Street to Property Reserve, Inc. (PRI), a wholly owned entity of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Church). I The surface rights were retained by the city and were specifically defined to include lands "at Ileast three (3) feet below the elevation points described by elevation and coordinates calls in the Survey...dated September 9, 1993." I The city property was conveyed with certain limitations relating to unrecorded easements. 11 These are depicted on maps presented in the addenda which are part of Exhibit D of the agreement noted above. These easements were probably relocated in conjunction with Isubsequent construction of a parking structure under the street, but the encumbrances continue in any event. I lbThe city also retained the right to place additional easements within the first 12 inches of property conveyed to the LDS Church. Since the conveyance excluded that portion three feet 1 below the elevation points noted on the survey, it is my interpretation (though I have not been provided a legal opinion to support this supposition)that the area envisioned by the "12 inch" 1 description identifies the first 12 inches below the three-foot limit. iThe agreement included first rights of purchase in favor of both parties if either party "decides to sell its interest in the Main Street Property." PRI was granted the right to "purchase the IIISurface at 76.95%...of the appraised value." The City was granted the right to "purchase the...(subsurface property) at 23.05%...of the appraised value." I The conveyance of title under the First Right of Purchase provision was to be without any 1 easements or encumbrances other than those of record. The appraised value was to reflect value of Main Street with the surface and subsurface rights "as if not separate." These 1 instructions imply that the purchase rights involved fee simple value subject only to easements of record, which are those easements described in Exhibit D. MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 10 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES INTRODUCTION • No occupied buildings can be constructed since they would interfere with an anticipated view corridor; • Zoning will be consistent with the zoning on adjacent tracts; • An emergency vehicle access easement will be provided. On April 27, 1999, the City transferred ownership of the surface rights to the Church, with certain reservations in response to and as envisioned by the above-noted conditions. These reservations, detailed in the Reservation of Easement provision of the Special Warranty Deed transferring title, are reproduced in the addenda. They are summarized below. Emergency and Public Safety. This easement provides for perpetual access for emergency vehicles,"...including,without limitation,police,ambulance,paramedicand firefighting personnel and vehicles." I Public and Private Utilities. This is a blanket easement incorporating all existing public and private utility lines and includes the right to maintain those lines. It also precludes construction of any buildings over existing utility lines. Pedestrian Access and Passage. This easement provides for continuous and perpetual access for pedestrians. Bicycles are allowed if walked, but skate boards, roller blades and roller skates are prohibited. This easement also precludes construction of perimeter > fences or gates along the North Temple and South Temple rights-of-way, other than decorative fencing, if approved in writing by the Grantor. The access and passage easement was also subject to certain conditions, limitations and restrictions. Specifically, it was understood between the parties that the property was to be viewed as private. The document states, "The use of the Property by the Public is and shall remain permissive...Grantee shall have the right...to restrict the pedestrian access and passage to sidewalks or walkways intended for that purpose..." f' MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 12 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES INTRODUCTION It was further anticipated that this easement would not"...create or constitute a public forum..." Specifically prohibited activities include, "...loitering, assembling, partying, demonstrating, picketing, distributing literature, soliciting, begging, littering, consuming alcoholic beverages or using tobacco products, sunbathing, carrying firearms...erecting signs or displays, using loudspeakers or other devices to project music, sound or spoken messages,engaging in any illegal,offensive,indecent,obscene,vulgar, lewd or disorderly speech, dress or conduct, or otherwise disturbing the peace." The Church also maintains the right to prohibit habitual violators from access. The foregoing restrictions do not apply to the Church. Preservation of View Corridor. This restriction precludes constructionof permanent pe manent structures in order to preserve the view corridor. The Special Warranty Deed also has a Right of Reverter clause wherein the property reverts to the City if the Church fails to use it for the stated purpose, or fails to maintain the property. I The fee simple value of Main Street (as if not separated between surface and subsurface interests)was established by the parties based on an appraisal completed by Dennis Yarrington, MAI. The city confirmed Yarrington's value by considering the 1990 Cook and Lang appraisals, coupled with a letter I issued addressing value trends affecting the Main Street property through November 1998. My conclusion as noted therein was that values had been increasing at an average annual rate of six percent. This rate of increase would have adjusted the Lang and Cook 1990 values to roughly$11,486,000 and $11,938,000 by April 1999. Assuming the City had adopted the Lang and Cook 1990 values as still reasonable in 1993, the appraised values would have been adjusted between November 1993 and April 1999 to roughly $9,645,000 to $10,023,000. I MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 13 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES INTRODUCTION ill IUltimately, the value placed by the parties on the fee simple estate of Main Street for sale purposes was roughly $10,550,000. I It is pointed out that both the Lang and Cook values, on which the sale of the subsurface rights 1 in 1993 and confirmation of price for the surface rights in 1999 were based, addressed unencumbered fee simple value. The encumbrance of property with utility lines is relatively Icommon, and the utility line easements in place are not viewed as a material encumbrance. By contrast, however,transfer of the surface rights with the emergency access, Pedestrian Access Iand Passage, and the Preservation of View Corridor provisions, and the reverter clause did represent material encumbrances on the property. II While it can be argued that market value is best established by the actual consummation of a sale between buyer and seller, it is my opinion the price paid for the surface rights reflected fee lb simple value, since it was based on appraisals that addressed fee simple value. However, the restrictions placed on the use of the property resulted in a transaction involving less than the Istandard bundle of rights associated with fee simple title. Thus,the price paid was in excess of the value of the asset received. In a general sense this is a moot issue since the transaction is 111 now history. However, it is an important factor with respect to my analysis of market value of the fee simple estate for this report inasmuch as the 1999 purchase of the surface rights is Iconsidered a comparable sale for valuation purposes. IOn May 16, 2000,the City Council adopted "Ordinance No. 29 (Amending Ordinance No. 28 of 1999 Closing a Portion of Main Street Between North Temple and South Temple Streets to IIClarify Intent, Purpose or Action)." This amendment affected Section 3 of Ordinance No. 28, and specified the same 14 conditions noted in Ordinance No. 28. It also included an Exhibit I "A" which is identified in the ordinance as a "...true and correct copy" of a Reservation of Easement which had previously been subject to review by the city council. However, Exhibit I "A" in the copy of Ordinance No. 29 provided to me is noted to be a draft dated April 9, 1999. 1111 MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 14 I I 1111/ J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES INTRODUCTION A lawsuit was ultimately filed challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions of the sale. The plaintiffs were the First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City; Utahns For Fairness; Utah National Organization for Women, and Craig S. Axford. The defendant was Salt Lake City Corporation. It is not important to this work to track the events of the suit, but simply to note the impact of the United States Court of Appeals - Tenth Circuit's decision to reverse and remand an earlier finding by the district court. Inasmuch as said decision effectively modified the Reservation of Easement, it had an impact on the valuation problem addressed herein. 1 Their decision specifically affected restrictions relating to free speech. The court found invalid the restrictions on free speech, concluding that the easement allowing passage is effectively a y� public walkway or sidewalk, which is traditionally a public forum. The restrictions placed on the Pedestrian Access and Passage easement by the Church are 11) reviewed again below, but those provisions likely found to be invalid are highlighted. Please note that I am not a legal expert, and have analyzed the impact strictly from a logical though layman's perspective. Specifically prohibited activities include, "...loitering assembling, partying, demonstrating, picketing,distributing literature,soliciting, begging, littering,consuming alcoholic beverages or using tobacco products, sunbathing, carrying firearms...erecting signs or displays, using loudspeakers or other devices to project music, sound or spoken messages, engaging in any illegal, offensive, indecent, obscene, vulgar, lewd or disorderly speech, dress or conduct, or otherwise disturbing the peace." I It has been proposed that the Pedestrian Access and Passage easement be traded to the Church for other consideration. However, the easement is modified to change the prohibition on fences and gates such that this portion of the easement will be separately set forth and altered 111 to allow fences, walls and gates as long as they don't interfere with the view corridor. It is also 11) modified to reflect the expansion of rights resulting from the Tenth Circuit's decision. The MAIN STREET PLAZA./04-03 PAGE 15 I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES LOCATION AND NEIGHBORHOOD ill Ipurpose of this appraisal is to estimate market value to assist in establishing a price at which the trade could occur. I Location Description I Please see the neighborhood map in the addenda on which the subject location is identified. 1 • lurisdiction and Proximity. The subject is located within the corporate jurisdiction of Salt ILake City within the traditionally market-defined boundaries of the Central Business District (CBD) of downtown Salt Lake. It anchors the northern end of the CBD. The Salt Lake JInternational Airport is located to the west approximately five miles. I • Boundaries and Neighborhood Land Use. A neighborhood can be defined as, "...a portion IP of a larger community, or an entire community, in which there is homogeneous grouping of inhabitants, buildings, or business enterprises." "...Neighborhood boundaries may consist of I well defined natural or man-made barriers or they can be more or less well defined by a distinct change in land use...i6 I The CBD has traditionally a y been considered to extend from North Temple on the north to 400 111 South and from State Street to West Temple. Development activity in recent years has attempted to expand that boundary both south and west. However, areas south of 400 South $ and west of West Temple are still considered to be peripheral to the CBD. IThere are distinct districts within the CBD. The institutional district is at the north end, anchored by Temple Square and the Church Administration block between North Temple and ISouth Temple, and between State Street and West Temple. Other significant institutional uses I 6 Real Estate Appraisal Terminology,The American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers,the Society of Real Estate Appraisers, 1975, p.147. MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 16 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES LOCATION AND NEIGHBORHOOD located in this area comprise the LDS Conference Center, Church History Museum, and Genealogical Library. Courts anchor the south end of the CBD with the federal court building located at 400 South and Main, and district court as well as the Utah States Supreme Court located at 500 South and State Street. This is directly across the street from the Salt Lake City Hall at Washington Square. I The government areas are just outside of the CBD. The Heber M. Wells Building on 200 East and 300 South houses the attorney general's offices as well as a variety of other state agencies. Nearby buildings also house various state agencies. Capitol Hill is located north of the CBD, two blocks north of the subject and on the hillside overlooking the Salt Lake Valley. The retail strength of the CBD has been just south of the institutional area and is comprised primarily of the ZCMI and Crossroads Malls. There is also a retail base in the form of single-level buildings along State Street and Main Street. The malls have suffered in recent years by declining shopping traffic to the downtown area. This problem has been exacerbated by recent development of the Gateway project in the western periphery. Gateway comprises a mixed-use development on two city blocks between 400 and 500 West and from South Temple to 200 South. It also includes the block to the north which will facilitate expansion. The retail development associated with Gateway has been directly competitive with the downtown malls. It opened in November 2001. I The Salt Palace Convention facility is located a block west of the subject between South Temple and 100 South, and from West Temple to 200 West. A number of Class "A" hotels have been built up around this facility. There are also a series of hotels along the primary on/off ramps into 1 the city, with two new hotels constructed downtown. These comprise the Grand America Hotel between Main and State Streets and just outside of the CBD from 500 to 600 South, and the Marriott Hotel within the CBD on the southwest corner of 200 South and State Street. MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 17 I 1 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES LOCATION AND NEIGHBORHOOD The financial district for the CBD has also been strongest near the two malls, from South Temple to 100 South both east and west of Main Street. This has expanded over the last ±10 years to the south with development of One Utah Center and then the Wells Fargo Tower (formerly American Stores corporate headquarters) at 200 South and 300 South, respectively. 1 An attempt in the 1980s to expand the CBD westward resulted in the Triad Center development. Although Triad has generally been a successful project, it did not result in a westward expansion of the CBD. Across the street south of Triad is the Delta Center, home of the Utah Jazz. ILand uses immediately adjacent to the subject include the Temple Square block to the west, the Church Administration block to the east, Gateway West, the KeyBank Tower and Crossroads Mall to the southwest, and Gateway East, Eagle Gate Tower, and ZCMI Center to the southeast. To the northwest is the new LDS Conference Center, and to the northeast is parking followed by residential areas surrounding Capitol Hill. Influences The subject is positivelyinfluenced proximitytheCh urch's e ced by to LDS Church s institutional uses. Temple Square and related facilities attract five million visitors annually, directly benefitting commercial activity in downtown Salt Lake. The downtown area has seen steady growth, though this growth is generally controlled given the relative small size of the economy. tNegative influences are limited primarily to the challenges faced by the retail sector of the CBD. There is a great deal of uncertainty regarding future prospects of both malls, and saving the free- standing retail base extending along Main and State Streets will require significant government intervention, if it is possible to save at all. 111) MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 18 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES LOCATION AND NEIGHBORHOOD In general, property values within the CBD have been stable during declining economies and increasing during growing economic periods. The limited availability of land, presence of a major institutional land owner interested in maintaining the quality and integrity of downtown, and a number of well-entrenched investors in this submarket all influence values in a positive way. Accessibility 1 Accessibility to the downtown area is quite good and has been enhanced in recent years. Interstate 15 is located about one mile west of the CBD core. Major on and off ramps are located at 400 South, 500 South, 600 South, and 600 North. The first three noted above are subject to limitation either with respect to one-way traffic or high occupancy vehicles. 110 Light-rail has been constructed in recent years, running from Sandy in the south end of the valley to downtown, and also east to the University of Utah. It runs in Main Street south of the subject and in South Temple west of the subject. Property Description Please see the property plat outline of the subject developed using the Deed Plotter program, and the Plaza plan presented in the addenda. I The subject comprises a nearly rectangular parcel located between Temple Square and the Church Administration block south of North Temple and north of South Temple. It totals 88,719 square feet or 2.037 acres. There are132.68 front feet along South Temple and 134.07 rfront feet along North Temple. The property is generally level with natural drainage being southerly. All utilities are provided to the property. The western half of the property is zoned UI, an institutional zoning MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 19 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES LOCATION AND NEIGHBORHOOD 2114 I classification.This zone is intended"...to regulate the development of larger public,semi-public, and private institutional uses in an urban context." Permitted uses include community and ' recreation centers, conference centers, professional offices, and hospitals. The eastern half of the property is zoned D-1, a downtown CBD zone encouraging "...an environment consistent with the area's function as the business, retail, and cultural center of the community and the region." This zoning is oriented toward high density office, retail, and residential development. a The property has been improved with an attractive Plaza. Improvements are not valued herein; therefore, a detailed description of these improvements is omitted. I I I I I I I I MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 20 I 1 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES HIGHEST AND BEST USE !ID 111 HIGHEST AND BEST USE Highest and best use is defined as, "...the reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or improved property, which is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and that results in the highest value."' There are four tests of highest and best use implicit within the foregoing definitions. These include: (1) physically possible, (2) legally permitted, (3) financially feasible, and (4) that use 1 which having met the foregoing tests results in the highest present land value. Although the subject of this report is the Pedestrian Access and Passage easement,the following analysis considers highest and best use of the underlying estate of the Main Street property first, both as if vacant and as improved. This is followed by an analysis of highest and best use of the 110 easement specifically. Underlying Estate - As If Vacant. • Physically Suitable. The subject was historically used as a street. It is from 660 to 678 feet long north to south by 132.68 to 134.07 feet wide east to west. It is large enough to accommodate a variety of development options. It has access from North Temple and South Temple and all utilities are available. Other than the fact that it is a deep relative to frontage, which is partially offset by frontage on two streets,there are no material physical limitations to development. I • Legally Permitted. When the street was vacated,zoning was applied based on the existing zoning on properties to the east and west, with the center line of the property becoming the dividing line. The west half allows institutional uses and the east half allows general 7 The Appraisal of Real Estate,Twelfth Edition,Appraisal Institute,Chicago,Illinois,2001,p.305. MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 21 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES HIGHEST AND BEST USE commercial uses. In reality,there is not a material difference in the influence on value these two zones have. Institutionally zoned land usually results from existing institutional uses, and such is clearly the case relative to the west half of the property which is adjacent to Temple Square. At the time land is purchased to accommodate institutional uses, such land 1 is usually zoned consistent with surrounding properties and the zone change is only an after- the-fact occurrence. Thus, the purchases of such land are based on zoning which allows a 1 more typical use within a given neighborhood. For example, in the case of schools,these are usually placed in residential neighborhoods, and the land is generally purchased on the basis 11 of residential highest and best use, despite the intended institutional use. IThe subject is located at the core of the CBD of downtown Salt Lake City. Institutional uses predominate to the north and west because the LDS Church established the Temple site at Ithe beginning of Utah's pioneer history, together with the Lion House, the Church lb Administration Building, and subsequently, the Joseph Smith Building, formerly the Hotel Utah. In more recent years,they solidified the institutional nature of the area by constructing Ithe Church Office Building,the Church History Museum,the Genealogical Library,and, most recently, the Conference Center. Retail us es have generally dominated immediately to the south with the ZCMI and ICrossroads Malls. Both malls, unfortunately, are facing significant challenges, not atypical of many malls around the country. Challenges intensified with the opening of The Gateway Ioutdoor shopping mall in late 2001. The financial district is also considered to begin immediately south of the subject. 1 More limiting on use potential, and therefore value, are restrictions imposed by the Iordinance vacating Main Street, and a supplemental ordinance confirming the same. These ordinances preclude any construction which would block views, and require certain Ireservations to be a part of any deed transferring ownership. They effectively eliminate any MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 22 I I • 16 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES HIGHEST AND BEST USE building development opportunity, relegating the subject to the use for which it was purchased, that is, a private plaza. I As noted earlier, the subject was acquired in two transactions, with subsurface rights first purchased and surface rights subsequently purchased. In both transactions, certain reservations were made, generally taking the form of easements, which also restrict use potential. The impact on use of these reservations is discussed as follows. The transaction involving subsurface rights reserved easements for existing utilities. The second transaction also reserved easements for existing public and private utilities. Presumably, these two reservations cover the same easements. The second transaction reserved emergency access, and confirmed the intent of the No ordinances noted by reserving a view corridor. An easement for pedestrian access and passage was reserved, which, ultimately, also allows for use as a public forum. This easement precluded fences and gates at North and South Temple streets. However, it is proposed to be separated from the access and passage easement and altered to allow fences, walls and gates, subject to city approval. Approval is to be granted as long as the view corridor is maintained. This modification enhances the ability of the owner to secure the premises. 1 Finally, there is a reverter clause which calls for title to revert to the grantor(city) in the event the property is not used for the intended purpose of a private plaza, or not maintained. From a legal perspective,therefore, use potential of the subject has been significantly limited, and is for plaza use subject to reservations. MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 23 I i 16 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES HIGHEST AND BEST USE ' • Economically Feasible. Economic feasibility relates to the use that yields the highest value. In this case use potential is effectively limited to very light intensity, non-income generating 111 uses. Thus, prospective purchasers are few. They are limited to government and non- government institutional users, and possibly environmental organizations. Although it was noted above that such users will often pay values typical of prevailing land values in the immediate area, this may not necessarily be the case when restrictions are placed on a property such that density potential is extremely low. An overriding theory of economics, and specifically economic influences with respect to real estate, is that land value increases as density of use increases. The low intensity use ' potential, coupled with the limited market for this property, suggests that the most economically viable alternative is to utilize the property as a plaza, either public, private, or quasi public. • Highest Present Land Value. Highest present land value is obtained by low intensity p laza development, by either a government or private institutional entity,or environmental group. IUnderlying Estate -As Improved. • Physically Suitable. The Main Street property is currently improved with a plaza known as Main Street Plaza. A continuation of this use is reasonable from a physical perspective. I • Legally Permitted. The existing use is legally permitted in consideration of zoning, restrictions imposed by the vacating ordinances, and various deed restrictions. No other use is legally possible. • Economically Feasible. The primary test of economic feasibility is whether there is more value in the property as improved than in the land alone. In this case,while it is improbable MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 24 I I 16J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES HIGHEST AND BEST USE Ithat the investment cost in improvements would be recoverable in a market transaction,they undoubtedly offer value contribution over and above land value. I • Maximally Productive. Highest and best use as improved is concluded to be a 1 continuation of the intended use. IPedestrian Access and Passage Easement. I • Physically Suitable. The easement at issue is an access and passage easement. The Plaza has been designed with direct passage provided both on the east and west sides in an area Iranging from 13.3 to 32.5 feet wide, but predominately ±20 feet wide on each side. The Ibalance of the Plaza includes meandering walkways, raised and at grade landscaping, reflecting pool and other water features, guidance barriers,and monuments. From a physical b perspective, the intended use of the easement, for passage, is most appropriately accommodated along the east and west sides of the property. I • Legally Permitted. There are basically two documents controlling use of the Access and IPassage Easement. The first is the Special Warranty Deed and specifically paragraphs 1.3 and 2.2. The second is the Circuit Court's decision which addresses primarily paragraph 2.2 of Ithe Special Warranty Deed. IThe easement itself allows for pedestrian "...access and passage only..." involving the surface of the property. This includes bicycles, if walked, and allows dogs to be walked on leash. IThis access/passage is perpetual and continuous, that is, 24 hours a day. IParagraph 2.2 addresses specific restrictions on those using the easement, but many of those restrictions have been eliminated by the court's decision. Those restrictions eliminated relate Ito speech/expression rights associated with a public forum. i' MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 25 I 16 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES HIGHEST AND BEST USE IIt is important to note that the easement does not have a separate legal description attached focusing use on certain portions of the property. It appears to overlay the entire Plaza. IHowever,Section 2.1 of the Special Warranty Deed notes affirmatively that the Grantee has the right"...to restrict the pedestrian access and passage to sidewalks or walkways intended Ifor that purpose, provided that the pedestrian flow across the Property shall not be unreasonably obstructed or limited." The intent of the easement clearly can be Iaccommodated on a portion of the tract, and the court's opinion offers some insight as to whether it is reasonable to delineate portions of the Plaza specifically to accommodate the Ipurposes of the easement. IIn addressing the constitutionality of the restrictions identified in Paragraph 2.2 of the Special Warranty Deed, the court logically affirms that the easement is government property. As Isuch, it is subject to analysis as to whether it would also be considered a public forum. The pa court identified three types of fora;traditional public fora, public fora created by government designation,and non-public fora. They noted the government cannot eliminate a traditional Ipublic forum by simply expressing a prohibition against such. They also cited Justice Kennedy as elaborating certain objective characteristics that facilitate the public forum Ianalysis. These objectives include the following: I1. Whether property shares physical similarities with more traditional public forums 2. Whether government has permitted or acquiesced in broad public access I3. Whether expressive activity would interfere with the uses for which the government has dedicated the property I Applying these criteria, the court concluded that 1) the Access and Passage Easement is Ieffectively a sidewalk which is viewed as a traditional public forum; 2)the easement is clearly available for public use on a perpetual and continuous basis; and 3) The use of the Ieasement for expression would not interfere with the use of the easement for pedestrian IPaccess/passage. MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 26 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES HIGHEST AND BEST USE IThey conclude on Page 34 of the opinion, "In retaining the easement, the city not only retained the most important functions of the property, but also the functions most often Iassociated with speech activities." fThe value of the easement is related to the extent of its coverage. In this regard,the plaintiffs in the case,who ultimately prevailed in summary judgment,argued that the easement"...has Ithe characteristics of a public sidewalk, a traditional public forum." (p. 13) The easement itself relates to pedestrian use which implies a sidewalk as opposed to a larger area such as 1 a street or plaza. The court also notes the plaintiff's argument that the "...easement is a public forum because it is essentially the same sidewalk that ran along the former Main IStreet, which was unquestionably a public forum." (p. 19) IThe court identifies the purpose and use of the easement as being a pedestrian throughway refor the general public. They compared this case to the Venetian Casino, 257 F.3[d] at 944, and quoted that case, ([T]he sidewalk is used to facilitate pedestrian traffic along the Las IVegas Strip generally and not merely to provide access to the Venetian for its patrons.)" (p. 28) 1 The court notes the plaintiff's argument "...that the easement remains a public forum Iprecisely because the property was previously a public forum and it has not been sufficiently altered to destroy that status." (p. 32) The court concurs with that argument where it rejects Ithe defendant's counter-argument, and says, "We disagree that the principal use of the easement has changed." (p. 33) I The foregoing sustains the argument that the easement is reasonably limited to the areas on Ithe east and west sides of the Plaza which provide a direct throughway between North Temple and South Temple, and covers essentially or nearly the same area as the sidewalks Ibefore Plaza construction. IP MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 27 I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES HIGHEST AND BEST USE ii„ IThere are other references in the opinion that could potentially expand that interpretation beyond the corridors noted. For example, citing Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 480 (1988), IThe court quotes, "Public Streets are 'the archetype of a traditional public forum." (p. 17) This reference refers to the entire street right-of-way and not specifically to the sidewalks. IThey also quote Hague v. CIO 307 U.S. 496, 515 (1939) (Roberts,J., concurring) in noting, "Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust 111 for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions." (p. 17) 1 The court notes that the City's purposes for retaining the easement included increasing Iusable public open-space, encouraging pedestrian traffic in a general manner, facilitating business activity, and buffering the residential areas to the north of North Temple from Ibusiness areas south of South Temple. This is a wider purpose than is actually noted in the rio Special Warranty Deed. The court notes, "These circumstances indicate the easement is infused with public purposes even broader than providing a pedestrian walkway." (p. 24) While some argument is made that the easement could be considered to encompass the g p Ientire Plaza, the court's final conclusions and the analysis leading to those conclusions, overwhelmingly suggest that the court viewed the easement as encumbering only that Iportion of the Plaza which previously comprised the sidewalks on either side of the former Main Street. The court states, "The government previously permitted public expression in Ithis area when it was a public sidewalk abutting Main Street..." (p. 31) The court continues, "The purpose of the easement is to provide pedestrian throughway that is part of the city's Itransportation grid, and in this respect it is identical to the purpose the sidewalks along that portion of Main Street previously served." (p. 33) I Based on the foregoing, it is reasonable to conclude that the purposes of the easement can Ibe fully accommodated in the area historically comprising the sidewalks which remain materially unchanged by construction of the Plaza. IF MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 28 I IIIJ. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES HIGHEST AND BEST USE IIOn the basis of this conclusion, the area deemed most affected in order to satisfy the easement requirements comprises two passageways along the east and west property Iboundaries. 111 Alternatively, while it is my opinion the foregoing conclusion is most logical, the other view is also considered, that the easement covers all areas of sidewalk, even those areas that Imeander through the Plaza. 1 • Economically Feasible. Economic feasibility in this case relates to the use which yields the highest value. Physical and legal arguments noted above limit the use of the subject to one Ipurpose,that is, public access/passage which,as concluded by the court, inherently includes I the right of expression. While there may not be a market-wide interest in acquisition of these property rights, there is at least one buyer and thus a sufficient market to conclude that such Nouse yields the highest value. • Highest Present Land Value. Highest present land value is obtained by easement use as interpreted by the court. I I I *'. I I I I' MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 29 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH 0 1 ANALYSIS AND VALUATION: 1 Sales Comparison Approach to Value - Fee Simple Estate IIIThe most reliable approach toward a valuation of the land in fee, unencumbered by any easement or restriction, is a comparison with similar parcels that have recently sold in the open Imarket. A market data search and investigation were therefore made concerning recent land sales having development potential similar to the subject. The results of this search are outlined 111 on following pages. I I I 1 I I I I I 1" MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 30 I 16 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH . ILAND SALE #1 Property Identification I Property Type: Commercial land Address: 128 West 300 South City/County/State: Salt Lake City/Salt Lake/Utah IParcel Number: 15-01-277-027 Transaction Information IRights Transferred: Fee Simple Seller: Squatters I Buyer: David Bernolfo (Painless Parking, LLC) Sales Price: $2,026,246 (see comments) Date of Sale: 10/09/1998 1 Financing Terms: Cash, or cash equivalent Cash Equivalent Price: $2,026,246 Listing Price: N/A I Exposure Time: N/A Land Description bLand Size: 1.08 acres; 47,122 sq. ft. Flood Zone: Zone "C" Zoning: D-1 IFrontage: 98.86' on 300 S.; 49.5' on W. Temple; 170' on Pierpont Ave. Topography: Level IConfiguration: Irregular Street Orientation: Interior I Street Type: Asphalt Paved Street Improvements: Sidewalk, curb, gutter and storm drain I Utilities Sewer: Available Water: Available I Gas: Available Electricity: Available I Units of Comparison Price Per Square Foot: $43.00 Price per Acre: $1,960,200 I i" MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 31 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH is ILand Sale #1, Continued I Verification Edited: Yes Submitted By: Corey A. Cook IVerified With: Marty Plunkett, agent; David Bernolfo Verification Date: 11/07/2002 Phone Number: (801) 947-3900 I Comme nts This property surrounds the Peery Hotel. It is U currently improved with a parking lot. The agent said that there is a non-disclosure agreement for the sales price, but gave us a range which the I property sold for. Another source indicated that the property sold for around $43.00 per square foot. The final sales price is the appraiser's estimate Ubased on these ranges. lb Record Number: CTU1-3328 I I I U I U 11) MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 32 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH I PLAT MAP - SALE #1 h I/ ',I 8 a. 26 4 cv68 1 0 I f t Q. 2ne S. Sr Ia,v 1 ce r I ie,�q ,. _ 1 x t I g t C i I 1 I Io. c t in`� i P�`-t i:h: t M ; 6 al b { 1 I I • P;•t I mt.. I 1 t ; . I I I I �/ I It I I 1 i t 2' I 59 I," 4 t P{.O14 11 O IN RA4r• Ia 7„ �1 } t:r ,J� .P a I FY°¢o p` l 1 0 1 I. ir.,�.t N • SE n y N I N N %L k in _ _L+-w.a. nth- -____pis i__._-.. j . J P1ERPONT 3f 1� AVE9j "mix _._I en_a 1" U=n N°I '''-To----�_.____- .' I E le .otoo` t I o F1 ' t i ' -'-"- • I 1 1 1 .,,. I 1 e_aw' t a Y N S ^I I' _ -ifzo- I .L -ex 1., v I I I y-saw tW r _._..._ � _ ,,....... Nam._ a;--._ :J Iui me S. sr. Y2 I I-. "tom .I- -.1 at Ul } I V I 8 I Q\ � 4 F W n I� � 4—v cd O® .4 T8l' Z q f 2T d u ! 9.-oos �Oa i i .. ,—I,.may .g _ _ _ BCAIE.1•. SO. .t. L .._.._.. .._. -...—1" 15-l-42! 15-1-223 1 MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH LAND SALE #2 Property Identification I Property Type: Commercial land Address: 220 South Main Street City/County/State: Salt Lake City/Salt Lake/Utah I Coordinates: 220 S/0 E Parcel Number: 15-01-280-062, -063 ITransaction Information Rights Transferred: Fee simple Seller: Salt Lake Hotel Associates, LP IBuyer: HP Salt Lake City, LLC Sales Price: $4,500,000 I Date of Sale: 01/08/1999 Financing Terms: Cash, or cash equivalent Cash Equivalent Price: $4,500,000 I Listing Price: $4,500,000 Exposure Time: N/A 10 Land Description Land Size: 1.81 acres; 78,844 sq. ft. Flood Zone: Zone "C" I Zoning: D-1 Frontage: 272.40 feet on Main Street Topography: Near level IConfiguration: Irregular Street Orientation: Interior Street Type: Paved street IIIStreet Improvements: Sidewalk, curb, and gutter Utilities I _ Sewer: Available Water: Available I Gas: Available Electricity: Available I Units of Comparison Price Per Square Foot: $57.07 Price Per Acre: $2,486,188 I IPMAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 34 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH Land Sale #2, Continued Verification Submitted By: Richard Sloan Verified With: Herm Franks (Agent) Verification Date: 10/29/2001 Phone Number: (801) 322-2000 Comments This is the divestiture of excess land by the Salt Lake Hotel Associates. They purchased the land in June 1998 and converted the building on the corner of 200 South and Main into a hotel. This property was purchased by Hamilton Partners with the intent of building a high rise office building. Record Number: CTU1-2793 I I I I I MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 35 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH 11111 PLAT MAP - SALE #2 /5-,-PP2 I v,1g -,i, -7. � ¢y9a.a .e, i i is,' CLARK if ? i OFFICE Ks I2 1 p $ CENTER 1ST I i ` AMO 2• o : ' 1 It 1 ; .:IE,tea ( �' 1 Q e. .... f a ACC ITAINNFtG,uwMb£F/'K[ 2nd S Sr ir.a%to ca � �_— ,-G.aa t_ LAPP-, —tax M.1_ '__Prl -c mr1.33_ y nl -ew a %f bt ' j, r 1-414-. of�R'4!M.._,_ laa it A Q I ............._1�J 0:: ns�,u--- I1 —_.�qt--,- 1 1. p 1c ,n 1 v s ;wa 111111 al N I i, I. tNAi w, pi 2 i ` -osa b K8 V th I f �� 1 65 6„:., 'i 28 ii 1 1 . a - �T ��R�S�I`s -_ osa ;IS �e P h _1�e a .vdo : kljt I .4 tI .. _L i . ,44' _ -„9 l''' �i o- I N.' 4 I B OADWAY 300 SO. ST. W ILI ui ..an: 11-0 1 a I .J a 1 n 1 • e ` Q ,aa '`F1' o° 1 2 { $51 ' 6 _010 V)1►I aA .vvz L j i I 1 1 1 ='� V /5-/-422- ECALE:1`.PO I • 15-1-224 fill . MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 $ I j. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH 10 ILAND SALE #3 Property Identification I Property Type: Commercial land Address: NWC Market Street and Main (250 South) City/County/State: Salt Lake City/Salt Lake/Utah Coordinates: 250 S/ E Parcel Number: 15-01-430-017, -018 ITransaction Information Rights Transferred: Fee Simple I Seller:Buyer: Zions Bank Dan Franks Sales Price: $1,089,000 I Date of Sale: 01/09/1999 Financing Terms: Cash, or cash equivalent Cash Equivalent Price: $1,089,000 I Listing Price: $1,089,000 Exposure Time: N/A all Land Description Land Size: 0.50 acres; 21,780 sq. ft. Flood Zone: Zone "C" I Zoning: D-1 Frontage: 132 feet on Market Street and 165 on Main Street Topography: Near level Configuration: Rectangular Street Orientation: Corner tract I Street Type: Paved Street Improvements: Sidewalk, curb, gutter, and storm drain 11 i Utilities Sewer: Available Water: Available I Gas: Available Electricity: Available I Units of Comparison Price Per Square Foot: $50.00 Price per Acre: $2,178,000 I fr MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 37 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH lio iLand Sale #3, Continued 1 Verification Edited: Yes Submitted By: Richard Sloan Verified With: Dan Franks (Buyer) Verification Date: 10/29/2001 Phone Number: (801) 364-0990 itConfidential: Comments This property is improved with a building,although it is considered obsolete. This price reflects land value only. I Record Number: CTU1-2794 I II I $ I I I I I 1111 MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 38 I I lipJ. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH i PLAT MAP - SALE #3 5v 2Ta w �r _Lbl w.i .GC1 p>/tl 1 „..-_,___; ,, :,..". xa x 1 Ct>5 7.2 -rpp) �pf ADDs r si ! :ioio3 w0 H+ • Q rs3 p wg POST OFFICE 4. PL`§;, S '—i—�.. a 64 1v "Mr 3 i i "'" j 1 g -pzZ P. ' 1 CO 51 i LU I I � li • i irt 1 4/h S OT./66 Sr I Ito -- ,.. , A 6, ,OD 6 .00f 1 I I Pb ! wy ,- ! /.— —_--4 L---.--.4 t 40 Yi o .may -�4, I I s I 1 wF _.1.........-t i e; CD• ,g :1 1 e n, i I .aoa I x'. I a `fit ;, ti �r i i sg 11 , w , I } 4� .cad 'on9 'i1 I:(.11;* ; n ! 1�� _cq'i t1,. .6,,.- , 1a .OD') I iiiiii P I I _ -.. 15-haTa �--. SALT LAKE CO. SCALE:r IE. VI NE.1/4 SE.1/4 SEC. I T.IS. R.IW. 15-1-422 if . MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH lio LAND SALE #4 Property Identification I Property Type: Commercial land Address: 168 West 300 South ICity/County/State: Salt Lake City/Salt Lake/Utah Parcel Number: 15-01-277-015 itTransaction Information Rights Transferred: Fee Simple Seller: Holly Knudson Buyer: Salt Lake County Sales Price: $343,000 I Date of Sale: February 4, 1999 Financing Terms: Cash, or cash equivalent Cash Equivalent Price: $343,000 ILand Description Land Size: 4,865 sq. ft.; 0.11 acre lb Flood Zone: Zone "C" Zoning: D-3 Frontage: 35' on 300 South ITopography: Near level Configuration: Rectangular Street Orientation: Interior Street Type: Paved Street Improvements: Sidewalk, curb and gutter IUtilities Sewer: Available 1 Water:Gas: Available Available Electricity: Available 1 Units of Comparison Price Per Square Foot: $70.50 111 lir MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 40 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH I) Land Sale #4, Continued I Verification Submitted By: Carl Dietz Verified With: Vasilios Priskos (agent), and Salt Lake County 1 Verification Date: March 2003 Comments There was a building on this site that had some fire damage. The seller had an appraisal on the property estimating value at $370,000; the buyer I had an appraisal estimating value at $295,000. One of the differences in value was due to the conflicting fire damage estimates. The two parties I agreed on the sale price of$343,000. The building was razed by the buyer. Demolition costs are not included. The site was purchased for the $ expansion of the Rose Wagner Center. II Record Number: CTU1-3468 I I I 1 I I ID MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 41 I I ill J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH a PLAT MAP - SALE #4 /5-/-2/2 1 1. k 4-. 4 ... :.... A.... *pa p... 9' I wo.06t 40..041. ' t .X... I *"': ..,.... 1 I Tr ,,,,, ....-.... ...... ... _j ¢,E , ......;:y..._............ ..$,01 :‘,..;zt =.= I sr i 2 no s. i ,41.„1 o.„„..,...._... ... .„...___......_ive.:144.4:__,.........,.. - ,,, ,, u •U.O i O ';' ...1„ .: ! I 7,st•, . •. , . • . ' 6 ' z: I co '4 i._ 59,!.......I., ..,5,.;H .., ; '.<:•. ' : 1 '',; a4 ..1. , %, 4..ls • '.: ...P. '....d.t•-14-- -3.4"4.3"isS'''.:1-f'4460:, -."'".! -•'''''• --/44.4 l'FAPIERiiikr Ayr!- : 1 , - • '" ..,_, -- o 'i -------- ---- 1 t , , id 1..,i . .i.1 "2 -I. -4- . Pei -, •' • ',`11 t . • it. :62a t.,ce. - - -—.i ''---7,:'d9.411---L" ) • :CI ; •1,1 i t, ., i P tT.:',..'..-.;;_"..:,,.'7.,..,,-,,!..$..1.4- ,:i J. .i4.,.. '4' t, i , F...?....._;..44._ ....'..1.t......, : I. '• ' 7---7 -—kt---1: I z;4 W xi. '''fY'';2' : :4'''i".1 i •¢ ; :in, • et: , --../ I , Tii I111 ti ,r4:! ; :k1! • ; 1 1 it .. ,t,ti.•-".i---).•--'-4 1-----04-----..-w.;-:-.4,..77-'• . r...?- III , . 3,1d 5 sr - i . . ,....i i' - i, G) : :' 1 i 0 1. t ! -I-, ti -,,,,,, I, 1:4,Rt 1 ;_f I '' 13. .. 1, , 1;961 i&TVA (-149 4 ' ,21 ......._. - M '..i..-..-:.7* -5.41?-487- ,.., ..T. pi ; k 31 -.,,,."4'51 D g 111 g: -I., I .` i. i',",, 4 2 i '''''' 15-I-412' 11,.......• --:.=tt- t i ";—• ` SALT LAKE CO.... IE.I/2 S.W.V4 N.E.I/4 SEC. I t..1$. RM.- IS-1-214 fil MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 I I 1 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH 6 ILAND SALE #5 II Property Identification Property Type: Commercial land Address: SEC West Temple and Broadway (300 South) ICity/County/State: Salt Lake City/Salt Lake/Utah Coordinates: 300 S/100 W Parcel Number: 15-01-281-001 ITransaction Information Rights Transferred: Fee Simple 11 Seller: Zions First National Bank, Trustee Buyer: Post Office Properties I Sales Price: $1,650,145 Date of Sale: June 26, 2000 Financing Terms: Cash, or cash equivalent ICash Equivalent Price: $1,650,145 Land Description 11) Land Size: 12,118 sq. ft.; 0.28 acre Flood Zone: Zone "C" Zoning: D-1 IFrontage: 80' on West Temple, 151' on Broadway Topography: Near level Configuration: Rectangular IStreet Orientation: Corner Street Type: Paved 1 Street Improvements: Sidewalk, curb and gutter Utilities I Sewer: Available Water: Available Gas: Available IElectricity: Available Units of Comparison IPrice Per Square Foot: $136.17 I 1110 MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 43 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH Land Sale#5, Continued I Verification Submitted By: Carl Dietz Verified With: Vasilios Priskos (agent) Verification Date: March 2003 Comments There is a 12,295 square foot buildingon the q property that is reportedly leased below market. The agent said the buyer owns the adjacent land east and wanted to control the corner. The property was sold in a bid process between three very interested bidders. The price was bid up well above market value. I Record Number: CTU1-3469 111) 111 111 I I I I I MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 44 I I 11, J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH IPLAT MAP - SALE #5 � a �_� T-4 ---'4-- :II' { - ''- -}---- N._, --S-- --- ^' ::,...„_,.,...,.....CWRK �"-.. w: w cam. • 3 ? LrAMING ICE , t ( p 1 CENTAmn.ER iST ti "'- j t ; i i A.n...n,3 2. i •oa. _ '''''''''''...1 4�y�g__ ,.. .,;'--ce- 1 tee.• Jz .. "1a. _p >so _Ct. .. _ 1 aeareaswc a/zf (YM/ft/YAMO I 2nd S ..0 wn.`. bi ST. ,r-n M ,- os — .tea not ._ ....4-.. _ ---- -FK'ei Mf . Q 1 ; °t '4 /M t -0�5 OWI i Nf t(( nC' IVt w/' v. ]c;F -. --_1__ __ wr I _.L_-- �s N 0 q_aG I-Aio_ at b AO Xa ' 8i a •e:, AV eID li ...`'' .... ,,,,,*.„..,,..:.._ ,... it dA ' Yi" o Y} H ...2 I 1 i ems- L F.sit; aN qM Ce— I y _r F n rI f „o ti €a- 3 O to�U I ; i j A40ADWAY 300 50 Sr z t W _ io g ....1 a i ° ,�/ '-1 5 3 j o 1 2 I •51 I �O Q oro I V/61 .1' 062 1 _-t 1 _ ' ly_ x i __ /5Y-422 lCACC r•dv • 15-i-224 1' MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 I • I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH 10 ILAND SALE #6 Property Identification IProperty Type: Commercial Land Address: NEC 400 West South Temple City/County/State: Salt Lake City, Salt Lake, Utah 1 Parcel Number: 08-36-377-016 and -019 I Transaction Information Rights Transferred: Fee simple Seller: M&S Triad Center, LP I Buyer: Property Reserve, Inc. Sales Price: $4,150,000 Date of Sale: September 2000 I Financing Terms: Cash Cash Equivalent Price: $4,150,000 I Land Description Land Size: 1.86 acres; 81,022 sq.ft. Flood Zone: Zone "C" • Zoning: D-4 Frontage: 363.52 feet on 400 West; 223.13 feet on South Temple 1 Topography: Level Configuration: Rectangular Street Orientation: Corner IStreet Type: Asphalt paved Street Improvements: Sidewalk, curb, and gutter IUtilities Sewer: Available II Water:Gas: Available Available Electricity: Available 1 Units of Comparison Price Per Square Foot: $51.22 a I I' MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 46 I 1J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH , ILand Sale #6, Continued I Verification Submitted By: Corey A. Cook Verified With: Confidential 1 Comments This site was purchased for a possible high rise 1 condominium project. Record Number: CTU1-2850 I I II I I I I I I I MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 47 I I 111 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH I PLAT MAP - SALE #6 I 8-36-522 I '1•• -—- -11— "—ig r--'•--I-—---- -C.....e?,N,-,- 1 "f,3‘::,,iAD CENT UR AK) I P,8 1 1 1 1 I 1 Is q7.-....a 's' c••71-3 3 97j- ‘2- : • !;;L''4 , 111 i 37' —17' i i I ..1.. 1 .. . '7.,v 1 : '''.; N TEMPLE UT 186 ST.d lb 0 plc; .: 111•7.14 mu., ze 1 : 1 ,.. ---c «.- I -... 84 tm...1...,''1 :r1 • E . *".•'w" 1 $1,./ ,...., „ Vs, 37: ,., i •••••- --rTj,--&3—--- -.4 r----- —0:, 1-- ---1--ii,T7:17n-, 1 -7:7,ris— . , ,1.• 1 1 i 1 i i Fir 1 -.. i Of / _-1--,.:0..- __ I - •vii.,...,. ' ' - 4 4 1 i t - t, - 84 41 2;:3 l''' .i‘ h 1 1 PI 1 Li 4 ,,,,, ,a A , 1 it iI .1 i ; • _____ _...__j_ ., s....TV.,IPL.C. ; ' • --Ar)! • SALT LAKE CO. E.1/2 SE.V4 SW.iiit SEC. 36 T.IN. RiiV 8-36-324 MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 II I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH ILAND SALE #7 Property Identification I Property Type: Commercial land Address: 400 South 23 East City/County/State: Salt Lake City/Salt Lake/Utah IParcel Number: 16-06-302-005 Transaction Information Rights Transferred: Fee simple Seller: 4 South Property Company, LLC I Buyer: Vasilios Priskos Sales Price: $195,000 Date of Sale: July 18, 2001 I Financing Terms: Cash or cash equivalent Cash Equivalent Price: $195,000 I Land Description Land Size: 3,604 square feet Flood Zone: Zone "C" IDZoning: D-1 Frontage: 68 feet on 400 South Topography: Level IConfiguration: Rectangular Street Orientation: Interior block Street Type: Asphalt paved IIStreet Improvements: Concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk I Utilities Sewer: Available Water: Available I Gas: Available Electricity: Available II Units of Comparison Price Per Square Foot: $54.11 I I Ir MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 49 I I 16 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH ILand Sale #7, Continued IVerification Edited: Yes Submitted By: Phil Cook . IVerified With: Vasilios Priskos, buyer Date of Verification: October 17, 2001 IComments This is currently being used as a parking lot. There is a sign on the property providing interim income. IIIRecord Number: CTU1-2010 I I MO I I I I 1 I I i' MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 50 I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH I PLAT MAP - SALE #7 I - /6-6-/!3 ._ ,3T '-'�___ .`n/- µ._ �..._�., 15 .{`�. ,-._-_ice, `1 r __7, _� ty g'o f A,6 f 52 I. .3s_ itR - = �.:s acc. t-._--.__OA--_- 7 laa'Z -�-1t - Ley , ql 4 N, .• .olo d .—P{i,• —,! oI Jn e1-,2 -'�-'- .sir ! ^1:a�'� �.�3 ANwh.- � iy" EXCHANGE PL v g _ .au h �V ...' » 1 1 r� i F V • s_f! I N a o: c. t, .n,. p !p, o T — .._ -1 -w7 t ' t. �.. pd 1 { 77711 _ _I'f,.4_y--- 52 t?1 - ♦ fie 1,d , X' Al r CO r!] .wi 14 F 1. ? 4th S UT/66 ST ' II ,,,„ 1.p iiS _ wT,,K.n W ' L. t 9 6 f'l6 "I" P 7 i � V ! ! W e ------ Tii-¢ W • --7f--J' Q .O.O --_.- i --t r ...4 W ^P----f -`-39- ' ^1 ON - .ti e: w3 .. "e 09 Qzr .-._ „rt . .mot ti Z Q .I N ! Q co .0/6 2 pl o , ` P{/ fE! ` 4_ _I- ..? III SCALE,r• 50. .• II6-6-311 el ., MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 I I 16 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH ILAND SALE #8 Property Identification IProperty Type: Commercial land Address: Between 100 & 200 South and State Street & 200 East ICity/County/State: Salt Lake City/Salt Lake/Utah Parcel Number: 16-06-107-003, -030 & -034 ITransaction Information Rights Transferred: Fee Simple I Seller: Interstate Land Corporation Buyer: QC Utah II, LLC Sales Price: $5,994,938 I Date of Sale: 12/31/2001 Financing Terms: Cash, or cash equivalent Cash Equivalent Price: $5,994,938 I Listing Price: N/A Exposure Time: N/A ID Land Description Land Size: 3.67 acres; 159,865 sq. ft. Flood Zone: Zone "C" IZoning: D-1 Frontage: ±139 feet on State Street; ±334 feet 200 East I Topography: Near level Configuration: Irregular Street Orientation: Interior I Street Type: Asphalt Paved Street Improvements: Sidewalk, curb, gutter, and storm drain 1 Utilities Sewer: Available Water: Available I Gas: Available Electricity: Available I Units of Comparison Price Per Square Foot: $37.50 Price per Acre: $1,633,498 I If MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 52 I I 16 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH ILand Sale #8, Continued IVerification Submitted By: Corey A. Cook Verified With: Brad Baird, seller IVerification Date: 11/07/2002 Phone Number: (801) 324-5000 IComments This was the sale of excess land owned by Questar. Mr. Baird explained that there is a non-disclosure I agreement for the sales price, but gave a range that the property sold within. The final sales price is the appraiser's estimate based on this range. I Record Number: CTU1-3327 . I lb I I 1 I I I I I° MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 53 I I 1110 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH I PLAT MAP - SALE #8 Isr ,1st s ✓$ 1 u° YFD ,3 -I 41 a 0 1 1 I 4 5 P>`-00/ $ �4 l'A w Q h 111 k 1 k i -oar I - 1 f CS/ I( 71 4 ....._ , r's.�F 7PeFs 2 Z' ^� '__ -- --ivR ma Gy--r t Dss �.a.,�--kz�s---= P,�7 I 4` i SCO I r9 0 -002 ��,I. { c-+ a. 4i f.•03a U ros P{-osa P c I -003 ; I �, Pf d �. P 4 e I7 '#B, -.v ��t /. - I -i--- 4 ----4-_ILL_ fl .�. 1 A `03G m.0 ' , all : �� 441 I "it•C404 •1 -i+93 ga1r� c. 1 71 airs • �>aa,'17,« as.s II MY /F.q•./7, 1 h Q Gb I i .p -M/a -�", qz, /IY JOI.NJI/YF 4P4M/M ee 1T , ,� fs Vim O (041.., 1 KN 1� I Crl, % ae� AM yd✓MYd.610• >!f 1 1 9dU Jld.a Gz ;I 7e 44.6 YU h I .. ST ?� � h Znd S. ae 1 WI _oso 's a ow d 1 8,I a E 41 I Ii 1....1.., IJ.a n '9� i T-ir 4 _-o °I-all.. _ova I --- _-- 1 �. ,S "A, o ct or. , .N- 99 /� i w -G05 // O -002 ,tilt -06, T -oM S 1, -OW •0• I _-____o�-___ •00d w 56 -I— +f .ou 1 -a" JOS I' MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 I I 110 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH ILAND SALE #9 Property Identification IProperty Type: Commercial land Address: NWC 100 South and 200 East City/County/State: Salt Lake City/Salt Lake/Utah IParcel Number: 16-06-126-004 1 Transaction Information Rights Transferred: Fee Simple Seller: Utah Technology Finance Corp. I Buyer: Property Reserve, Inc. Sales Price: $665,300 (see comments) Date of Sale: May 23, 2002 I Financing Terms: Cash Cash Equivalent Price: $665,300 I Land Description Land Size: 15,950 sq. ft.; 0.37 acre Flood Zone: Zone "C" 111 Zoning: D-1 Frontage: 110' on 100 South, 145' on 200 East Topography: Near level IConfiguration: Rectangular Street Orientation: Corner Street Type: Asphalt Paved IStreet Improvements: Sidewalk, curb, and gutter I Utilities Sewer: Available Water: Available I Gas: Available Electricity: Available I Units of Comparison Price Per Square Foot: $41.71 I I IP MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 55 I I iJ. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH s Land Sale #9, Continued IVerification Submitted By: Carl Dietz Verified With: Bruce Clayton, Zions Securities IVerification Date: March 2003 Phone Number: (801) 321-8700 IComments The sale price was $575,300, but there were some older buildings on this site that were razed. All of I the buildings were built in 1930 and were office and garage storage use. Above grade floor area was 3,600 sq.ft.; 1,200 sq.ft.; 1,200 sq.ft.; 2,850 sq.ft.; I and 1,050 sq.ft. Demolition costs were reported to be around $40,000. The site required environ mental remediation for underground I storage tanks. The buyer reported this cost to be approximately $50,000. The demolition and remediation costs are added to the sales price. b Record Number: CTU1-3470 I I I I I I I I' . MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 56 I I 131/ J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH I PLAT MAP - SALE #9 I .r./... .' i 1 I I 117 ! ; ',.j Z..j; In '‘i* ,..n i 1 ,", I, I I J iq „1„, t. si .. §rt 4 11 1 N L -'''. • • ,... Al., ......,.... cod L ..,,1-0-2.) 3,11C• '.. :• '' I I •5 1 ' 4_ .e:.1 -\----',, t 4.; .011 • r—74 .-_.II . 1 i... 1 • s, 1 1!..;;•'..;..c.',:,..''...'1. -e.o.. i I ..s, F • il I i i •.. '''1 Tgi -------...__ •— .. .." . T , ; I i Jrr I /fa. A.. ',.. t ..... ;i:4 (••.•I ,3 SOCIAL HALL AVE,5 ...) is----V- ._. 47,,,:, 1 A4 .:." --- S ,. • _,,,. ! 1. i • •,,, 42— `i I 1 1 ,, •0,13 11 . .' WI ... Zi I l' I :11 ..i. 63-T..,1 ___ ______I NI- — 1$ 4 74 4....._.,-..,..„...;7_.._ 4.. :.,.- , rn e:. ',. 1• .0.. i A MO ,: S 121 R-ono 4 o....crto . -1,.. As. . ; vt-• '... ; wt.,. ".... fs4 ... (...) I t 1.41 I 1 ! . I a : ....• 5 Av•°pi \t ! 1 1 :n 1 k I 's i : • : 11 1 • !____.• . .-:-;,7f A. I, . I ..: : Qgz.), 71. , '—',.. _,A '--- ---7----7 .• —7---r ir:4--Q— -.------,--1'4 --- 1..-_r"*rie".44----4 fiA 7 .- .• - 1—Th- - :7474,-,--.• 1, 1 .... ir co 1— Is .-:•• Al. 71,1: I 1 ...? ,..:-............... '' sk, I P.,' il '. ''''''' 31,t .../.•"i.d - . i /..?.: ."i. —- : ' I • 4 ........... ..'i ""."'. ''''L'r ..... -..,..-- • . ,siii-----4--- —.-----'1— 1. l ,1 .,,,,, i 01..4... a 4... "F.S P..%•e.... N. ....... . 4- .R. I Ar.a • -, I 47,---, A.... ••I j•-•., . I 1 .rr & el MAIN STREET NAZA/04-03 I I 1110 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH 1 LAND SALE #10 Property Identification IProperty Type: Commercial land Address: 405 South Main Street City/County/State: Salt Lake City/Salt Lake/Utah IParcel Number: 16-06-306-001 Transaction Information IRights Transferred: Fee Simple Seller: Wells Fargo Bank Northwest I Buyer: Wasatch Plaza Holdings II, LLC Sales Price: $6,000,000 Date of Sale: June 5, 2002 1 Financing Terms: Cash Cash Equivalent Price: $6,000,000 I Land Description Land Size: 82,005 sq. ft.; 1.88 acres Flood Zone: Zone "C" lbZoning: D-1 Frontage: 330' on 400 South; 249' on Main Topography: Near level IConfiguration: Rectangular Street Orientation: Corner Street Type: Asphalt Paved IStreet Improvements: Sidewalk, curb, and gutter I Utilities Sewer: Available Water: Available I Gas: Available Electricity: Available I Units of Comparison Price Per Square Foot: $73.17 Price per Acre: $3,191,489 I I IP . MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 58 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH Land Sale #10, Continued I Verification Edited: Yes Submitted By: Carl Dietz IVerified With: Kip Paul, agent Verification Date: March 2003 Phone Number: (801) 322-2000 I Comments There is an existing 124,853 rentable square foot I building on this site, as well as a 450-car parking garage. The building is vacant and requires renovation. The improvements likely contributed I some value, but probably related to the parking structure rather than the office. IRecord Number: CTU1-3471 11/ I I 1 1,., I I I I" MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 59 I 1 1J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH 11/ PLAT MAP - SALE #10 I rat .aar __ 4 0 :tt =A'�el; ``=' Pf6 `T y C m, ?(!d 3 004 - 52 w:a ---w.x-- -i- - c, I >}..z d! ! # 1 II ., ! 4,2 • ao :: ._.........tea,�- --^€ .3 EXCHANGE p� t 1 - ::: ve t III i .aaa i F�:. ti. ¢ 3 •,07 iti e F,r 4 CIE.).aat"iFf 8 •l.'..l-; ? '`t\! ' 2 0. % F 52 ,. ti ,I Cr .A}▪ f; _ '000 V' .005 �� R U ;Oaa• 11: t , aG i . 1 t 'i 4/A S ur/66 sr 1.`"HI a I Vi tro .1. Y �. •y b e I 1-..i 0 "� z PJ6 •, 1 V n 1 -o,, ,, t • E/I a .'' _.i -of '1%` Q i -oro • w - .ca a! .J • ,v A 1 U .,r 06, -a0B ----y`-39-tal oR `o YN e -arB I —1 - _Jo sr caJ3 -ara 2 o a 33 r,,! SCALE:I-. SC' /' 16-6-311 I' . , MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH I The foregoing sales are summarized in the following table together with adjustments applied to equate these sales to the subject. Explanations for the adjustments follows. I IAND SALES SUMMARY AND ADJUSTMENT GRID NO,1 NO.2 NO.$ NO.4 NO.S NO.6 _ NO.7 NO.8 NO.9 NO.10 I NEC 400 West South&State NWC 100 128 West 220 South NWC Market 168 West SEC West Temple &South 400 South Street-200 South&200 405 South ADDRESS 300 South Main Street Street&Main 300 South &Broadway Temple 23 East East East Main Street SIZE IN SQ.FT. • 47,122 78,844 21,780 4,865 12,118 81,022 3,604 161,608 15,950 82,005 I PRICE •52,026,246 $4,503,030 $1,089,000 $343,000 $1,650,145 $4,150,000 $195,000 $6,060,300 $665,300 $6,000,000 DATE OF SALE Oct-98 Jan-99 Jan-99 Feb-99 Jun-00 Sep-00 Jul-01 Dec-01 May-02 Jun-02 ZONING D-1 D-1 D-1 D-3 D-1 D-4 D-1 D-1 D-1 D-1 SALES PRICFJSQ.FT. $43.00 $57.07 $50.00 $70.50 $136.17 $51.22 $54.11 $37.50 $41.71 $73.17 PROPERTY RIGHTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I ADJUSTS PRICE , $43.00 $57.07 $50.00 $70.50 $136.17 $51.22 $54.11 $37.50 $41.71 $73.17 FINANCING TERMS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ADJUSTED PRICE $43.00 $57.07 $50.00 $70.50 $136.17 $51.22 $54.11 $37.50 $41.71 $73.17 CONDITIONS OF SALE 0 0 0 Downward Downward 0 Downward 0 0 0 I ADJUSTED PRICE(a1Q.EL , $43.00 $57.07 $50.00 $70.50 $136.17 $51.22 $54.11 $37.50 $41.71 $73.17 MARKET{TIME ADJ. 19.75% 18.25% 18.25% 17.75% 9.75% 8.25% 5.00% 3.75% 2.50% 2.25% MARKET PRIC1,USQ.F1. $51.49 $67.49 $59.13 $83.02 $149.45 $55.45 $56.81 $38.91 $42.75 $74.81 OtheMAlustments Lacaaion sure" +++ + + +++ +++ ++ ++ +++ ++ ++ I Site 0 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 Improvements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fvnetional Utility, . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Street Orientation 0 0 - + - - + 0 - - Fijo Use 0 + + 0 0 NET Large Large Large Large Large Large Large Large Large Large ADJUSTMENT Upward Upward Upward Upward Downward Upward Upward Upward Upward Upward I IThe foregoing sales range widely from $37.50 to $136.17 per square foot. Price variances are normally attributed to seven elements of comparison: property rights conveyed, conditions of Isale,financing terms, market conditions(date of sale), location, physical characteristics, and use potential. I fi,.. • Property Rights Conveyed. The value estimate sought at this point is unencumbered fee 1 simple value. All the sales involved fee simple rights and no adjustments are necessary for this factor. I • Conditions of Sale. This refers to less than arm's-length transactions where buyer and/or Iseller were atypically motivated. Most of the sales are considered arm's-length transactions. There are notable exceptions which require specific analysis. 11) MAIN STREET PLAZA/O4-03 PAGE 61 16 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH ISale #4 involved a purchase by Salt Lake County of an improved property next to the Rose Wagner Performing Arts Center. Both parties had appraisals performed which varied Imeasurably. Interestingly, the high appraisal prepared for the property owner included a measurably lower land value ($45.00 per square foot) but a large contributory value estimate Iapplied to improvements. Conversely,the County's appraiser valued the land higher,at$60.00 per square foot which gave no contributory value to improvements. The County said they were Ibasically forced to pay a price closest to what the property owner required but needed the property. This is not considered arm's-length and a downward adjustment for conditions of sale 1 is necessary. 1 Sale #5 involved less than arm's-length conditions. The property was sold under a bid process Iwith three bidders. These included the tenant of the building on the site, the owner of land surrounding this corner tract, and another party with downtown ownership interests. The iosuccessful bidder made it clear that he would buy this property at whatever price was necessary hoping the other bidders would back off. They did not, and the price was bid up to a level Iunsupported by general market activity. This sale requires measurable downward adjustment for conditions of sale. Sale #7 was purchased by a local property owner who needed this site for parking. The price Iappears to be moderately high based on comparison with other data. It requires downward adjustment. I The other sales were considered to be arm's-length transactions and require no adjustment. I • Terms of Sale. Terms of sale relates to the method of payout on a transaction. The market Ivalue definition used herein stipulates cash purchases. All of the transactions involve cash terms and no adjustments are necessary. MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 62 I 1110 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH I • Market Conditions (Date of Sale). Values change over time due to various market forces interacting, particularly supply and demand. To fully understand the basis of the final value 111 conclusion to be made herein, it is useful to understand the trend in real estate values in downtown Salt Lake over the past 10 to 12 years. This is contrasted with trends in the greater metropolitan area but outside of downtown. Following a very difficult decade of the 1980s when property deflation occurred at a significant rate, the economic turn-around in the early 1990s produced significant real estate value increases. In some cases, values quadrupled in a few short years. That level of price increase was not experienced in downtown Salt Lake because property deflation did not occur to the same degree. Real estate values within the CBD remained quite stable during the downturn and increased at a more sustainable rate during the upturn. I previously documented,for Salt Lake City Corporation, land value increases in the CBD during IDmost of the 1990s through November 1998. The average trend based on available information during that time frame equated to roughly six percent per year. Land values tend to increase in a stepped fashion rather than straight-line, and the six percent factor is therefore an average ' that reasonably reflects the overall price appreciation experienced. The sales presented here occurred between October 1998 and June 2002. The question is whether values have continued to increase over the time frame represented by these sales and through to the present date. The general metropolitan area economy was strong through 1999 and land values clearly increased through that date and probably into 2000. However,for certain property types there was a clear slow down in the rate of appreciation. In some cases, values have gone down, though in other cases,specifically in areas of strong development activity,prices have continued to increase, albeit at a slower rate. The sales presented for comparison here are somewhat MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 63 I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH 10 inconclusive as to the trend. The data do not provide an opportunity for a paired sales analysis due to the other variables that mask the time factor. I Interviews with real estate agents and buyers active in the submarket suggest at least some Icontinuing upward trend, approximating the rate of inflation. A six percent annual adjustment is applied through 2000 with a three percent adjustment applied thereafter. I • Location. Location refers to access, exposure, and attractiveness of surrounding properties. 1 The subject is effectively a part of the central business district. Clearly, however, the strength of the CBD weakens when moving north to North Temple. The retail and financial strength of Ithe downtown area traditionally was viewed as being on Main Street between South Temple and First South. Construction of the One Utah Center in the early 1990s formed an anchor at I200 South. Subsequent development of the Wells Fargo Building has extended that anchor bto 300 South. IThe retail strength was solidified in the late 1970s/early 1980s with construction of the Crossroads Mall. Both the Crossroads and ZCMI Malls were thriving as of 1990 when the Iappraisals were completed on which the purchase of the subsurface rights underlying Main Street was based. Those appraisals did not envision development of the Gateway project Ibetween 400 and 500 West and between North Temple and 200 South. It was on those appraisals that the subsequent surface rights sale price was justified after adjustment for time. IIThe subsequent opening of Gateway has had a negative impact on the retail base on Main Street. The financial base is still strong with three of the CBD's top six buildings located along 1 South Temple at or near Main Street. IGood appraisal practice dictates that sales both inferior and superior to the subject be considered so that value can be bracketed. Unfortunately in this case,the best location would Ibe that area between South Temple and 100 South along Main Street. This effectively includes IP MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 64 I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH is Ithe subject. No sales located in a superior area have occurred in Utah, and therefore, there is no upper-end bracketing. I Generally,values increase based on proximity to that core area. Values would therefore decline 1 moving south along Main Street or to the east and west away from Main Street. Although this is logical and supported by a long-term historic view of the downtown area,the sales presented IIoverall are not specifically supportive of this trend. However, it is the three non arm's-length sales, #4, #5, and #7, which disrupt the expectation. Otherwise, the anticipated rule holds. 1 Based on the difficulty of quantifying specific location adjustments,only directional adjustments are made. A brief comparison is made of each sale below. I 111 • Physical Characteristics. Physical factors relate to parcel size, corner versus interior, or mid- block location. The following discussion considers physical differences for each sale. III Sale #1 is located at West Temple and 300 South. It "L"s around the PeeryHotel and was P improved with asphalt surfacing and used for parking at the time of sale. The location is one block west and two blocks south of the core area of the CBD and requires large upward Iadjustment for location in comparison to the subject. ICorner parcels sell for premium values because of higher density use potential, as allowed by downtown zoning, and exposure. The sale parcel excludes the corner. When the subject Iparcel was originally appraised for sale purposes, it was appraised on an across-fence basis as noted, which means that it was considered to be the land adjacent to the east and west. This 1 land comprised a total of four corners and the property was appraised on that basis. At this point, however, it is no longer a corner. Use potential is discussed separately below, and the 1 factor analyzed here is the enhanced exposure from being on a corner. In this case, the sale does not require adjustment for street orientation inasmuch as neither it nor the subject Icomprise corners. 11 MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 65 I 16 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH IThe sale parcel is otherwise a level, well-shaped tract with good physical utility. No other adjustment is necessary. I Sale #2 is located on Main Street just south of 200 South off the corner. There is also a small amount of frontage on 200 South. It is just beyond the core area of the CBD and upward adjustment is required in comparison to the subject. As this lacks corner exposure, no Iadjustment is made for street orientation. This property was improved with several older buildings, two of which were historically significant and potentially could not be razed. Other Iimprovements were razed upon purchase. Demolition costs were nominal and, according to the agent, were not a significant consideration by the buyer. Subsequent to the purchase, the Iowner was obligated to build facades along Main Street, but viewed this as a cost of owning real I estate in downtown Salt Lake. They did not discount the land price because of this issue. NoThe site is well-shaped and has full development utility. No other adjustments for physical factors are required. I Sale #3 is located on Main Street south of Sale #2. It also requires just qu es an upward adjustment Ifor location. This property had improvements which no longer contributed to value. However, they offer interim income and no demolition costs are added. This parcel is located on a Isecondary corner and warrants minor downward adjustment for that factor. ISale #4 is a small parcel located by the county-owned properties where the Rose Wagner Performing Arts facility is located. This is a measurably inferior location in comparison to the Isubject and requires large upward adjustment. The site is a small, interior parcel with limited independent utility. Small sites such as this, despite the difficulty of using the tract Iindependently of other property, will often sell for premium prices on a per square foot basis. They are generally viewed as assemblage tracts. Downward adjustment is therefore made for Isize. It does have narrow frontage which warrants upward adjustment. 1" MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 66 I 16 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH IThis property had improvements which contributed to value. The portion of the price allocated to improvements varied significantly in the buyer's vs. seller's minds. The adjustment at a Iminimum would be $10.50 per square foot of land area. ISale #5 is a small corner parcel purchased by the adjoining property owner. This property was improved with a building used as a club that provided interim income though it probably did Inot contribute to value. The location of this tract on West Temple and 300 South requires upward adjustment in comparison to the subject while the corner location requires a Idownward adjustment. ISale #6 is located on the Triad block just north of the Delta Center and east of Gateway. This location was strengthening at the time of sale but was still inferior to the subject area and Iupward adjustment is made. Physically, it is a well-shaped corner tract that requires a ladownward adjustment in comparison to the subject. 1 Sale #7 is a very small mid-block parcel along 400 South at the southern fringe of the CBD. Location is measurably inferior to the subject. This is an interior block parcel with limited Iindependent utility other than to accommodate parking which is its current use. As with Sale #3, its small size requires downward adjustment. Its relatively narrow interior block frontage Irequires upward adjustment. ISale #8 comprises a relatively large tract with frontage on two streets but with the majority of the property in the center of the block. The location is along State Street and 200 East, outside Iof the eastern boundary of the CBD, and requires upward adjustment. The configuration of the site is similar to the subject as it generally has frontage on the two streets and extends through Ithe block. There are improvements that provide interim income. No adjustment is made for these. I IP' MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 67 I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH le ISale #9 is a corner parcel just east of the CBD at 200 East on 100 South. It is two blocks east of the core area and requires upward adjustment for location. This is a small but well-shaped IIcorner rated physically superior to the subject and downward adjustment is made. 1 Sale #10 is located on the southern fringe of the CBD at 400 South and Main Street. It is located three blocks south of the 100 percent core and requires upward adjustment for 1 location. This property was improved with an office building and parking structure. The office building did not contribute to value, but it is probable the parking structure did. This is a well- 1 shaped corner tract which requires downward adjustment for its physical configuration. I • Density: Typically, value increases as density or intensity of use increases. As discussed earlier, downtown tracts located at corners have a higher density potential due to a more liberal Iheight allowance than interior parcels. The one exception to this is Sale #2 which was I, purchased only after an agreement had been reached with the city allowing for the extra height. Otherwise, corners are more favorable than interior parcels. ISale#4 is zoned D-3 a lower intensitydowntown commercial classification than the traditional I 1 D-1. The same is true for Sale #6 which is zoned D-4. IThe subject zoning is both D-1 (east half) and UI (west half). The U-I zoning is an institutional zoning which is reflective of the Temple Square use. As noted earlier in the report, land in this Imarket is not typically zoned for institutional uses in advance of such a use actually being developed. Land is therefore purchased based on the prevailing land use and zoning in the 1 general area. In this case, sans the institutional use on the Temple Square block, the zoning would likely be D-1. Therefore, it is reasonable to view the subject in its entirety as having high 1 density commercial potential, prior to considering other restrictions that have been placed on the tract. In reality, density potential of the subject is severely limited by reservations placed on Ithe deed transferring title. These will be addressed after concluding a fee simple value of the I" MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 68 I I 16 J. PHI LI P COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH Iland without restriction and no specific adjustment is applied at this time to reflect those restrictions. I Downward adjustments for density differences are applied to the corner parcels and to Sale#2 Iwhich sold with a higher density entitlement. Upward adjustment is applied to Sales #4 and #6, while no adjustments are needed to the remaining three sales. I The qualitative adjustments applied suggest upward adjustments to all but Sale #5. This sale Irequires such a large downward adjustment for conditions of sale as to almost make the transaction meaningless. Given the dearth of sales activity in the downtown market, however, Iit is used. Clearly, value is reasonably concluded below the time adjusted price for this sale of $149.45. Alternatively,value above the upper end of the time adjusted range of all other sales, Ithat is, above $83.00 per square foot is indicated. That results in a relatively wide bracket and additional analysis is required to close the gap. ID IRecall that the 1999 transaction involving the surface rights for the subject property was based on an unencumbered fee simple value estimate of$120 per square foot. (It is acknowledged Ithat the $120 figure was still intact even after a variety of reservations were negotiated. However,this demonstrates the less than arm's-length nature of the transaction. The $120 fee Isimple value was based on a current appraisal and was confirmed by two previous and highly correlated appraisals as adjusted for time. It is a solid indication of market value at that time.) IRecall that the value also was based on an across-the-fence approach which presumed that the subject comprised four corners, whereas the appropriate view today reflects the subject as a Imid-block parcel. IIt could be argued that the subject location is not as strong today as it was in 1999 given the development of Gateway and the negative impact that has had on the retail sector on the block Iimmediately south of the subject. However,the financial strength is still at this location and the IP MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 69 I I IIIJ. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SALES COMPARISON APPROACH llChurch's continued investment in both institutional and investment properties in the immediate area strengthens this core. 1 If a time adjustment is applied to the $120 base figure from the date of the surface rights IItransaction to today,the adjustment would be to $140 per square foot. Downward adjustment must then be made for the lack of the corner and the resulting density difference. 1 This adjustment can be quantified by paired sales. Sale #2 is adjacent to the corner at 200 ISouth and Main. This was a resale of a portion of an earlier transaction involving this property plus the corner. Sale #2 occurred approximately seven months after the original acquisition. IThe original acquisition involved 2.37 acres and was purchased for $58.13 per square foot. I Adjusting this up for time to the January 1999 date when Sale#2 occurred,suggests a total time adjusted price for the earlier transaction of$60.16. If the off-corner portion was worth $57.07 isas implied by Sale#2,the corner itself would have carried a contributory value of$70.14. The price difference between the corner and the adjacent property therefore equates to 19 percent. IRecall, however,that the adjacent property sale occurred only after a development agreement had been concluded with the city allowing higher density than is typically allowed on non- Icorner tracts. Therefore, an overall adjustment in excess of 19 percent is considered appropriate in the subject case. Overall, a 25 percent downward adjustment is considered Ireasonable. 1 Applying a 25 percent downward adjustment for lack of corner to the time adjusted price of the 1999 Main Street Plaza transaction, would indicate a current value of $105 per square foot. 1 This is mid-range between the values noted earlier at something above$83.00 but measurably below $149.00 per square foot. A final unencumbered fee simple value conclusion is made at I $105.00 per square foot. I I" , MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 70 I I cJ. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES EASEMENT VALUATION o I EASEMENT VALUATION IRecall from the scope of the report section presented earlier that three analyses are considered to value the easement. These are noted again as follows: 11 1. Allocation of fee simple value among the various rights of use that make up the vast majority iof value, including the easement. I 2. A theoretical condemnation perspective assuming the easement were to be purchased by an entity with the power of condemnation. I3. Reverse condemnation perspective, that is, considering the value enhancement by extinguishing the easement. I Easement Co verage nt Cove age ID Prior to developing these valuation analyses, it is necessary to understand the extent or the I, coverage of the easement on the Plaza. I • Area Most Directly Impacted. As discussed in highest and best use, it is considered most logical to view the access and passage easement as encumbering two throughways, one on Ithe east and one on the west sides of the property. To ascertain the land area reasonably allocated to this easement, various measurements on the Plaza and nearby walkways were Itaken. The throughways are softly delineated by curbs, walls, elevated planters and platforms, and a reflecting pool. On the west side,the width of this walkway as delineated Iis ±17.3 feet wide at the narrowest point to ±27 feet at the reflecting pool. The typical width is from 19 to 20 feet. On the east side, the throughway ranges from ±13.8 to 32.5 feet; again,the widest area is at the reflectingpool. Thetypical width is somethingless than 20 feet on this side. MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 71 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES EASEMENT VALUATION 10 In comparison, the sidewalk along Main Street between South Temple and 100 South, on both sides of the street, was measured. The width on the east side between building fronts 1 and the front side of the high back curb is 22.5 feet. The west side, however, has much more of a meander to the curbing and the width is from 25 to 37.3 feet, with a typical width 1 of 31.5 feet. 1 On the south side of South Temple between Main Street and West Temple, the sidewalk width, again from the front of the curb, is 20.5 feet. Across the street from this location, adjacent south to Temple Square along South Temple, the total width is 20 feet. This includes sidewalk and park strip. I North of North Temple on the east side of Main Street, the total width of the land area between the front of the curb and one foot behind the sidewalk (a typical location of the 60 right-of-way line) is 21 feet. Much of this is landscaped park strip with a relatively narrow sidewalk. Finally, on the north side of Temple Square, the width is 31.5 feet, comprising a Iwide sidewalk, narrow park strip and narrow concrete walkway leading up to the curb. IThe typical width of the throughway established within the Plaza itself is slightly less than the prevailing width on immediately nearby sidewalks. It should be noted that all sidewalks measured include various obstructions and landscaping in addition to the hardscape. IClearly the court's conclusion expanding the rights of the pedestrian access and passage easement tied closely to the idea that the existing use of the easement is equivalent to the Ihistoric use of the land covered thereby, and specifically pedestrian access and passage. A reasonable assumption of width would be the 20-foot figure which is the prevailing width 1 on the subject. Based on this assumption, approximately 26,760 square feet is directly impacted, equating to 30.2 percent of the Plaza. 1 1110 MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 72 I I 11 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES EASEMENT VALUATION 6 I • Expanded Area of Coverage. It is necessary, however,to consider the extent of coverage if the interpretation resolves to include all sidewalk areas. In this case, the area covered is Ilestimated roughly at 41.4 percent of the Plaza. This is based on calculations made from a reduced, not-to-scale rendering of the Plaza and is subject to engineer's verification. It 1 equates to 36,730 square feet. 1 Component Valuation Analysis 111 This analysis attempts to assign values to various rights of ownership, with those components most easily valued considered first, leaving a residual value to those components more Isubjectively analyzed, including the easement. It is acknowledged that in the real world the I sum of the parts does not necessarily equal the whole. This valuation scenario, however, theorizes that the sum of the parts will equal the whole. toFee value can be likened to apie. Thepie is made upof a number ofpieces of varying sizes. ry g e IVarious rights associated with fee simple ownership were addressed earlier in the report. However, in this specific case,the following pieces account for the vast majority of value. These pieces are not all owned by the underlying fee owner. I — Subsurface rights (retained by the underlying fee owner) — Limitations on use to preserve view corridor, reserve utility easements, and provide I emergency vehicle access (retained by the government) .a — Rights to reversion (retained by the government) 1 — Access rights to adjacent private property (retained by the underlying fee owner) — Architectural and construction control (retained primarily by the underlying fee owner) I — Security/preclude others (originally shared between the underlying fee owner and the government; to be transferred entirely to underlying fee owner) I — Public pedestrian throughway and speech rights (retained by the government) — Other (insignificant as to value influence in this case and not explored) MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 73 I I ).PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES EASEMENT VALUATION Obviously,the focus here is on public pedestrian throughway and speech. However,some of the other rights can be quantified more easily so that the value of the Pedestrian Access and IPassage Easement can be isolated to some extent. The subsurface rights,and the impact on value of both the limitations on use and the reverter clause(the first three items on the list 1 above)are first explored. IThe next four pieces,access rights to private property,architectural and construction control, rights to security and to preclude access by others,and the public pedestrian throughway and 3 speech rights all relate to the land area covered by the easement being valued here. They will then be addressed. I • Underground Subsurface Rights.The subsurface rights were sold in a separate transaction based on a specific formula allocating a ratio of total unencumbered value to the subsurface rights. The ratio was 23.05 percent. III I Although it was Salt Lake City Corporation that negotiated this transaction, the city has utilized a target ratio of 33.0 percent in past negotiations for subsurface rights.Alternatively, R they negotiated one transaction at least ten years ago at 20.5 percent of fee. These relate to shallow underground rights. IDeep underground rights generally carry nominal value as they have almost no impact on the Idevelopability of a given property. For example,the Washington, D.C.Transit Authority (WDTA)was contacted regarding their policies for purchasing subterranean rights associated Nwith subways. These are semi-deep rights that do not preclude development of office buildings and parking structures, etc. The WDTA said they pay nuisance value only, generally enough to compensate a seller for taking the time to show up at a title company to sign the deeds. I I' MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 74 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES EASEMENT VALUATION Utility companies often acquire subterranean rights for power lines, gas lines, communications lines, and other purposes. Utility companies often pay 50 to 60 percent 1 of fee value to acquire these rights, which are shallow underground rights. They disturb the surface, and generally do not allow construction of buildings within the area of the Ieasements. Often, however, they are established along property lines where setback requirements would preclude building development in any event. 1 Questar reported that in certain cases they will pay 100 percent of fee value for subsurface jrights. However, this reflects a policy of litigation avoidance rather than value. 1 As noted earlier, the sum of the various parts makingupa full bundle of rights, if valued g separately, do not necessarily equate to value of the whole. It is appropriate in this analysis to assume that the sum of the parts does equal the q whole as I am simply attempting to I. allocate the fee simple value amongst those various rights/encumbrances. In this sense, the 50 to 60 percent customary payments made by utility companies overstate the true value of Ithe subsurface rights. The most reasonable value range allocable to the subsurface rights would be that established by Salt Lake City in various transactions, which range from 20.5 0 to 33.0 percent. As has been noted, there is typically no better sale than the subject itself as long as other data support the price paid. The 1993 negotiation for subsurface rights at I23.05 percent of fee value is adequately bracketed and makes sense in light of other information considered. This is therefore concluded to be the value of the subject subsurface Irights. 1 • Restriction on Constructing Buildings. Recall that a view corridor is required to be maintained precluding construction of any buildings on the property. This restriction is Irelated in part to the reverter clause (discussed below)which requires that ownership revert to Salt Lake City Corporation in the event the subject is not used as intended, that is, as a Iplaza. This restriction limits density potential substantially. IP MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 75 I I j. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES EASEMENT VALUATION )0 Typically, land value increases as density of use increases. Downtown land values are very high in comparison to land values outside of downtown due in large part to the density of 1 development allowed under zoning. For example,an office site in the suburbs with a density potential measured by a site coverage ratio potential of 40 percent would typically sell in the I $10.00 to $12.00 per square foot range. That is, the building square footage would equate to 40 percent of the land square footage and a buyer could afford to pay a price within the 1 range noted and develop an office on an economically viable basis. In downtown Salt Lake, however, site coverage ratios are in multiples of one, such as 12 times (1200 percent), or Ihigher. Values are, as analyzed earlier, in the $40.00 to $100.00+ per square foot range. The variance between suburban and downtown office land values does not tie entirely to I density. Location obviously has the primaryimpact on value, but densitydoe p splay a measurable role. ii• This would argue for significant downward adjustment to the base unencumbered land value. On the other hand, there are advantages of providing green space around development projects. The LDS Church has provided a large amount of landscaped open- space surrounding their major developments in this area, though that open-space is often Imid-block rather than along the street frontages. Mid-block land is not worth as much as corner or even interior frontage land, so it is argued that land dedicated to open-space is Ioften less valuable than land dedicated to building development. 1 Block 57 in downtown Salt Lake shows an example of high density development occurring at the corners (One Utah Center, Wells Fargo building, Marriott Hotel and reconstruction k and facade restoration of the Brooks Arcade), with much of the balance of the block kept as open space. I In most instances, precluding development on a given property would reduce value I tremendously in the downtown setting to the point of eliminatingalmost all value. I° However, such is not necessarily the case here. There are other advantages gained by MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 76 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES EASEMENT VALUATION 01 ownership of land in this particular submarket that offsets in some measure at least, the negatives associated with the lost density. Unfortunately, measuring the value impact of the Irestriction on development is subjective. Some case studies of value differences between properties with varying density potential will indirectly aid in concluding a value impact factor. These are not directly analogous but are illustrative of reasonable adjustments for density differences. I The following examples involve density comparisons in the West Jordan area of Salt Lake ICounty. Similar analysis could be made in other areas of the county that are witnessing major new development activity. Data in Salt Lake City proper, however, is not readily Iavailable as the city is largely built-up and thus is experiencing limited growth. This I necessitates analyzing data outside the subject's immediate area. Regardless of location,the relationships discussed are generally enerall similar. ODSingle family land with densities near 3.5 units per acre in the eastern portion of the West IJordan market has been selling in the$100,000 per acre range in recent years. Single family density is considered to be quite low and would tend to establish a lower limit of value for developable low intensity land. In contrast, multi-family land in the same market area with I densiti es approximating 16 units per acre, has sold in the $160,000 to $192,000 per acre Irange. Using averages, the difference in value when going from the higher to lower density equates to minus 43 percent. It- :(:,,,, Retail acreage in the same general area of West Jordan sells for approximately$260,000 to 1 $350,000 per acre. Again, using averages,the value difference between a very high density retail use versus low density residential use would average minus 67 percent. Comparing Iretail land to multi-family land suggests a minus 42 percent adjustment. I I) MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 77 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES EASEMENT VALUATION IComparing single family land allowing very low density of one lot per acre in comparison to single family land allowing roughly 3.5 lots per acre, a relatively low density, shows value Idifferences in the 10 to 25 percent range depending on location. IThe subject situation argues for an adjustment above the range indicated by the very low density single family to the low density single family land of 10 to 25 percent. This IIIcomparison shows a measurable value difference with a relatively minor density difference. IOn the other hand, an adjustment at or below the range indicated by the other examples is appropriate. In the case studies cited, buildings are allowed on the sites either at lower 1 or higher densities. Although buildings are not allowed in the subject instance, as noted, there are motivations to buy such property in the submarket despite that restriction. The range of value diminution indicated by the other case studies identifying very large density ID differences, when going from high to low density, is 42 percent to 67 percent. It is my opinion that a reasonable adjustment in the subject case would be below this range because Iof the other advantages associated with ownership downtown. INo conclusion is made yet as the two following restrictions relate in part to this restriction. I • Reverter Clause. There is some argument that the value of land goes down if obligations on use are onerous and if the Grantor is entitled to a reversion of the property in the event 1 those obligations are not met. In this case, the property owner is obligated to use the property as a plaza, which is a low density use. Limitations relate to the same issues Idiscussed above. While a buyer may negotiate a discount to a sale price by reason of offering the reverter clause, if the restrictions tying to the reverter clause are synonymous with those Itying to other reservations, only a small additional discount need be taken. I I° MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 78 II I 1J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES EASEMENT VALUATION , I • Other Restrictions. Other restrictions relate to utilities underlying the Plaza and emergency access. The utility easement is only nominally more encumbering than the Ieasements described above. Therefore,nominal additional discount is applied for this factor. 111 The emergency access specifically encumbers the corridor along the westside of the property and requires that emergency vehicular access be maintained,either without any obstruction, Ior with removable bollards. This property right has some value, but covers only about 15 percent of the site. That portion affected is usable as plaza area except during a case of emergency which would be expected to be a relatively small amount of time over a long- term holding period. Therefore, the impact is less than the 15 percent coverage. I Clearly a measurable discount is warranted due to these restrictions on use. Something above a the range of 10 to 25 percent and below the range of 42 to 67 percent is reasonable. A conclusion is made at 33 percent. This is applied to the surface rights only,and not to the total MP fee value. I Deductingthe subsurface rights at23.05percentof fee and the limitations on use(includingthe g Ireverter) at 33 percent of the remaining surface value implies that 48.4 percent of fee value in total is allocated to these pieces (23.05% + 33% of 76.95%). I • Other Pieces Comprising Value. The following discussion focuses on the remaining material rights which tie more directly to the access easement. ILand dedicated to access and passage,either through easements or publically owned fee rights, exists throughout urban areas. Walkways are a common feature. Sidewalks providing general Ipassage, rather than unique access to one property, are usually considered traditional public fora. They are found adjacentto retail shops,office buildings,churches,public buildings,hotels, Iapartments, homes, etc. We can analyze from a theoretical perspective what would motivate I° MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 79 I I 40 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES EASEMENT VALUATION Iproperty owners in any of these situations to buy the sidewalk area in front of their respective properties, and what they would be willing to pay for these rights. t Public walkways offer the primary advantage of access. Private walkways offer the additional Iadvantage of control. That control would include choice over architectural and construction features (subject only to zoning requirements), the right to preclude access (security) and the 1 right to preclude freedom of expression. It is these factors that make up the majority of value within a walkway. I • Access. Any property in downtown Salt Lake needs to have pedestrian accessibility, Iregardless of the use of the property. Most properties have an open invitation to the public I to visit during regular business hours. Only private apartments or homes lack that open invitation. Except for security factors, it is generally immaterial to these owners that the iiii sidewalks may be in use after hours. IFrom an access perspective, which would be the dominant reason sidewalks exist, there is arguably no motivation on the part of adjacent property owners to have ownership of the 1 sidewalk. Such ownership has the added burden of maintenance. IConsider a typical subdivision of land for commercial, industrial or residential use. A developer purchases a large acreage tract, engineers and subdivides it, providing the Inecessary rights-of-way to accommodate streets and sidewalks. In a traditional subdivision the rights-of-way are dedicated to the local jurisdiction,together with the obligations of long- , term maintenance. The developer is satisfied that the price paid for the land within the right- of-way has been recaptured in the sale of the lots, and he/she no longer has the obligations of ownership. IBuyers of lots are satisfied that they and their guests have access to their property. f' MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 80 I I IIIJ. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES EASEMENT VALUATION IThe developer had to pay the same price for the land underlying the rights-of-way as for the land accommodating lots, but there is little motivation by the end lot buyers to own the Irights-of-way. There has been a transfer of value from the land underlying the rights-of-way to the adjacent properties. I An alternative method of development is a planned unit development (PUD) where the Ihomeowners own the rights-of-way in common. That gives them access as well as total control over the use of the rights-of-way subject only to the government's right of police Ipower. 1 The market offers conflicting evidence of whether buyers will pay premiums for that control. IThe New Haven PUD in Salt Lake County is a 54-lot project. The homeowners spent a fair amount of money and nearly a decade of debate in attempting to turn the rights-of-way over isto the county. They were eventually successful. In other words, they were motivated to eliminate their private property rights. The most important issues debated were security Iversus maintenance obligations. Access was available in either case, and free speech rights were never part of the discussion. I Interestingly,the adjacent subdivision, Shenandoah, is on a public street. The homeowners Iwere discussing petitioning the county to close their street and allow it to be privatized. This never materialized, but many of the owners were willing to spend what would undoubtedly have been a material amount of money to privatize. Their primary motivation was to block throughway traffic and gain security. I Because the primary use of sidewalks is to provide access, it is logically concluded that most iof the value associated with properties dedicated as walkways relates to the access feature (not throughway access but access to the abutting private property). An abutting property owner would be willing to pay a large amount for the right of access if that access would apotherwise be lost. MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 81 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES EASEMENT VALUATION il IIIn the subject case,the underlying rights to access the abutting property are already owned, so the dominant reason for buying the walkway, which carries much of the value, is non- Iexistent. Recalling that 48.4 percent of fee value is allocated elsewhere, with 51.6 percent remaining, and reflecting that access to private property makes up a majority of value of the Isidewalks, then something more than 25 percent of fee is reasonably allocated to this right of ownership (that is, something greater than 50 percent of 51.6 percent). I • Architectural/Construction Control. The right to hardscape and landscape a walkway to Icreate a certain atmosphere and to complement the adjacent property is a value-added right. It is this right that sets the subject apart from the traditional CBD sidewalk. Highest and best IIuse of the subject was concluded earlier to be for plaza use. Legal constraints are such that the plaza use is the only option. This is the case regardless of ownership. The right to Icontrol the hardscaping and landscaping is a very important right of ownership in this case lb because it allows the entire Plaza to be fully integrated. That integration actually connects with the two adjacent blocks, creating a ±22 acre campus. There is only a soft delineation IIIof the throughways. Since this is a very important issue in this case, it stands to reason that a large ratio of the remaining value is allocable to this right. I • Right to Preclude Access. This right primarily relates to security. In the case of New ii. Haven discussed above, such right was held originally, but the homeowners were willing to trade it away to eliminate the maintenance responsibilities. I By contrast, in Shenandoah, the adjacent project to New Haven, the homeowners were Iwilling to take on the maintenance responsibility and pay for the right to preclude access. (What they would pay for this right related to professional fees and the cost of physically Ichanging the road design into a cul-de-sac, and nothing more). ir MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 82 1 I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES EASEMENT VALUATION IIn a non-residential setting, particularly for high profile properties, security is more of a concern, and that concern is expanding. It is reasonable to conclude that property owners Iwould pay for security in the CBD. Recall that the Access and Passage Easement precludes fencing and gates, so security has been accomplished in ways other than locking out the public. This includes video monitoring,security guards,etc. However,the underlying owner has not had the right to preclude users at will, and that right is part of the security issue. I The easement rights valued here include a modification to this right. Specifically, there will Ino longer be a prohibition on fences,walls and gates,except to the extent that city approval must be obtained before construction. Approval will not be withheld, however, unless Iconstruction would impede the view corridor. IClearly, some of the value of the land within the area of the easement is logically assigned tia to the security provision, which is part of the easement valued herein. It has been shared between the property owner and the government. A purchase of the easement, however, Iwill transfer the government's portion of this provision to the owner. The government's residual rights associated with approval of fences, walls and gates relate more directly to Izoning and architectural controls. 111 • Throughway and Speech Rights. These two features of the easement are considered separately. There are two parties to every transaction, a buyer and a seller. A transaction is Iconsummated only after both parties, adequately informed and acting in their own best interest, each comes to a common conclusion of a fair price. The value of the throughway 1 and speech rights is therefore viewed from both perspectives. ILocal government has the obligation of enhancing the quality of life, which carries with it numerous responsibilities, one of which is facilitating economic growth. Creating a Idowntown environment that produces positive results requires prudent land planning. As IP MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 83 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES EASEMENT VALUATION 6 Ipart of their obligation they consider accessability issues, including vehicular access, public transportation and pedestrian access. I The city foresaw a need to provide direct pedestrian access between South Temple and 1 North Temple, and obviously did not see that need with respect to vehicular access. It is reasonably inferred that there is value to the local citizenry to have that access as it helps the Icity achieve its overall obligations. The value, however, is reasonably concluded to be only part of the overall fee value because of the variety of other uses to which the land is put,thus Ilaying claim to some of the value. Nevertheless, from the city's perspective, there is a property right there, and if it is to be sold compensation must be paid. Incidentally, the Iprohibition on fences and gates included in the easement is intertwined with the throughway rights. I . ill The city would argue that if they had to buy the right, they would have to follow eminent domain guidelines. Doing so would be relatively costly, likely a reasonably high ratio of fee Isimple value less that portion allocated to the other components (subsurface rights and limitations on use). In general,the appraisal industry does not delineate between surface and subsurface rights, Ifor example, when appraising easements to be acquired by condemning authorities for pedestrian use. Various government agencies have purchased easements along the Jordan IRiver and the Bonneville shoreline for trails,and along the Duchesne River for fishing access. In those cases there is generally no delineation made of value between surface and Isubsurface rights. However, in such cases, the underground rights are of dubious value. In the downtown setting, alternatively, the underground rights clearly have value and it is appropriate to set them forth separately in this case. IThe condemnation scenario is addressed in the following section of the report. It is not explored in detail here, but it is noted that the seller has an argument that the value of the IP MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 84 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES EASEMENT VALUATION iv Ithis case is subject to others exercising the rights of free speech in front of all other facilities they own. This includes the other three sides of Temple Square and the Church IAdministration block, the Conference Center, and thousands of chapels throughout the country. I It is this unique circumstance where the right of speech is inconsistent with the specific use of the property, that is, as a plaza intended to invite quiet, contemplative use and enjoyment, that the right becomes an issue at all. I It is appropriate to consider value in light of highest and best use of the overall property, Iwhich is as a plaza connecting two blocks to create a campus. If this throughway were identical in feature to any other sidewalk in the CBD,there would be no more than nuisance Ivalue assigned to the speech rights. (The term nuisance value does not imply the nuisance ra created by those exercising their speech rights, but the common definition that condemning agencies use for paying a property owner a nominal amount to transfer a right that is of Inominal value. For example, the State of Utah paid a $1,300 nuisance fee to numerous owners of single family property around Hill Air Force Base in exchange for perpetual Ieasements limiting use to the current use. Since this had no material impact on highest and best use, there was nominal value impact at most, so the nuisance payment compensated Ithe owner for the inconvenience of closing the transaction.) IIn the case of a "private" plaza, there is more value in the speech rights. The seller's position is that they would have to pay a relatively high ratio of 51.6 percent of full fee value (that is, a majority of 100 percent of the value remaining after deducting Isubsurface rights and use limitations). Therefore,they should charge that type of price to give up the rights. 1 IP MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 86 I I 16 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES EASEMENT VALUATION IThe buyer's position is that they have less to gain. Other rights still retained by the government have to be taken into account, including what amounts to architectural control Ion fences, the emergency access provision, and the reversion clause. Also, the fact that access rights have value primarily as they allow access to adjacent private property,and since Ithey already own those rights, the price paid for the easement should be nominal. They shouldn't pay more than nuisance value. I Neither position is entirely logical or fair. The seller's position ignores the other limitations Ion use,specifically the architectural control over fences, emergency access and reversion. It also ignores that the owner has significant rights in the property even with these restrictions Iin place. Alternatively,the buyer's position ignores that the sum of the remaining restrictions are not as valuable as the sum of the throughway, speech and security provisions. I lb In such circumstances, a mid-range solution is generally reached, the mid-way point concluded should reflect the relative strength of the two positions. In this case, mid-range range Iwould be measurably above a nuisance payment of, say, $1,300 as supported by market experience, and a price below 25 percent of fee value. This is arrived at by taking an Iadditional 25 percent discount from fee value for remaining restrictions and various rights the underlying owner still enjoys in this property after adjusting fee value for subsurface and Ilimitations on use factors. IAn exact mid-point is not appropriately concluded, however, as the nuisance payment is unrealistic as a starting point. A reasonable conclusion by this analysis is 15 percent of fee Ivalue for the land reasonably delineated for easement use. This equates to $15.75 per square foot of impacted land area. I I I' MAIN STREET PIAZA/04-03 PAGE 87 I I 116 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES EASEMENT VALUATION ICondemnation Analysis IThis analysis is theoretical to the extent it presumes the easement does not yet exist but is to be acquired by a condemning authority. Under appraisal guidelines for eminent domain Iassignments, a before and after technique is traditionally employed. In this technique, value of the property prior to placement of the easement is first estimated,then value of the property Iafter the easement is in place is estimated. The difference between the two is the estimate of value of the taking, which would be the easement in this case. II • Larger Parcel. Appraising under an eminent domain premise requires a definition of the Ilarger parcel so that severance damages can be properly analyzed. The larger parcel is generally I identified through application of the unity tests. These include unity of ownership, use, and contiguity. In this case,the Plaza connects two city blocks under common ownership,creating fathe 22-acre campus. The unity test of ownership argues that the full 22 acres is the larger parcel. The 22 acres are all entirely contiguous,again suggesting that the larger parcel is the 22- iacre tract. 111 The test of use, however, leads to a different conclusion. The Plaza itself has multiple uses as required in the vesting document(ignoring, however, the Access and Passage Easement). The Iproperty is limited to plaza use because of the heavy restrictions. It is designed for quiet enjoyment and contemplation, and as a landscaped link between the two adjacent blocks. That linkage is the connection that requires consideration of whether the adjacent block should be considered part of the larger parcel. 1 By contrast to the Plaza, the adjacent blocks are not severely limited in their developability. IThe Temple block itself is enclosed by a high wall with gates, and in fact, it is locked after hours. Although the grounds associated with the Temple block are also designed for quiet enjoyment Iand contemplation,other portions of the block are dedicated to a variety of activities which are 110 not allowed on the Plaza. MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 88 I I IllJ. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES EASEMENT VALUATION iThe Administration block includes primarily not-for-profit office activities as well as some for- profit commercial activities. There are landscaped areas which tie in well with the Plaza use. IHowever, much of the block is used for purposes not available on the subject. IThe unity of use test suggests that the larger parcel should be considered just the Plaza itself. It is further noted that the two adjacent blocks had complete utility and operated independent IIof the Plaza for decades. While linking the two with the Plaza is considered to improve the campus, it did not necessarily create any plottage value. Thus, a proposed taking,theoretically, Iof an access easement through the center of the campus would not likely have a diminishing I impact on land value of those adjacent blocks. Due to the differences in use potential and the conclusion that the adjacent blocks would not be damaged in any event, the larger parcel is Idefined as the Plaza itself. lb • Before Value. Before value is typically considered to be the fee simple value. In this case,the before value should reflect the fee simple estate in the surface rights only, less the limitations Ion use which affect highest and best use and therefore value. The appropriate adjustments were analyzed in the above discussion. The before value is summarized as follows based on 111 previous discussion. IUnencumbered Fee Simple Value Per Square Foot: $105.00 Less: Subsurface rights(23.05 percent) ($24.20) I Less: Reservations on development of buildings, reverter clause, emergency access,and utilities(33 percent)of surface value in fee ($26.66) Total Before Value Per Square Foot $54.14 • After Value. In this easement analysis it is theorized that the accessbe y is to acquired from Ithis remaining estate, and that the remaining interest after placement of the pedestrian and access easement is the focus of value. I 11" MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 89 I I 16 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES EASEMENT VALUATION ITo analyze after value it is first necessary to analyze highest and best use of the property as impacted by the taking (the easement). I — Physically, the subject is capable of supporting plaza use, the same as in the before Icondition. I — Legally,all of the restrictions previously analyzed apply,together with the access and passage easement assumed to be taken. Recall that the subject is limited to plaza use in the before Icondition. There are also restrictions on use in place relating to utility easements, emergency I access, and reversion. It is limited to the same use in the after condition. The only material changes under an assumed taking are that the public now has the right to traverse the I property and to exercise their rights of free speech, and the property owner cannot secure the property with fences or gates. II The owner still has the right to design and construct improvements on all parts of the Plaza g g P Ithat are in harmony with the overall plan, as long as adequate throughways are provided. I — Economically, most value is still realized through plaza use of the property. IIn short, there is a moderate difference in highest and best use between the before and after conditions. In the before condition,the property owner had exclusive use and control over the IPlaza, subject to those other reservations detailed earlier. In the after condition, certain . portions of the easement are available for public uses,specifically limited to pedestrian passage, Ifree speech and prohibition on fences and gates. The taking would not give the condemning authority any other rights,such as the right to landscape, hardscape,fence, construct buildings, Iimpede the use of the underlying owner, etc. I IP MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 90 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES EASEMENT VALUATION 6 IValue is tied directly to highest and best use, and a value loss to the remainder is therefore a function of how dramatically highest and best use has been changed. In this case, the effect is Imoderate, in large part because of the other restrictions that have been placed on this property. 111 It would be expected that the use of the subject for a public forum would be more frequent than on any other sidewalk in the downtown area, but not materially so. Alternatively, the Ithroughway would be used on a regular basis, particularly since fences and gates would not be allowed. I • To establish an adjustment to be applied to the before value to arrive at the after value, the 1 following examples are considered. Again, these examples are taken from a wider geographic area due to the nature of the information. bRiverton City has been acquiring easements along the Jordan River in recent years for purposes of constructing park and trail improvements. The use of the property is controlled by the city; Ithe city designs and constructs the park and trail improvements to their satisfaction, and has total control of maintenance. In the before condition this land had residential use potential. IIn the after condition the property owner retains no more rights than the general public despite holding the fee position. In fact, ownership is a negative because of the tax burden. I Arguably the property owner gains from adjacency to a plaza, but this could be viewed as a Ispecial benefit in the state of Utah, which cannot offset the value of the taking but only severance damages. Adjacency also increases security concerns. I In the Riverton case, value loss to the land is considered to approach 90 to 100 percent of fee Ivalue because of a dramatic change to highest and best use of the property in the after condition. 1 f' , MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 91 I I 110 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES EASEMENT VALUATION IRecall in the subject instance that the owner gets full utility of the easement area since the intended use is unimpaired. The owner has design and construction control. These factors Iargue for a measurably lower adjustment to the before value than the 90 to 100 percent indicated by the case study. I Another data set involves conservation easements. Property owners, particularly those owning Ilarge mountain ranches, have been encumbering their lands with conservation easements for tax purposes. These easements restrict use of the property, but the restrictions vary from case Ito case based on negotiation. I have case studies which show a range in value loss from roughly 40 percent to 85 percent depending on how severe the restrictions on use are. For example, Iif an easement restricts any residential development, allowing the property to be used only for 1 ranching and hunting, the value loss is at the upper end of the range due to the significant impact on highest and best use before placement of the easement which would be for second ishome site development. IAlternatively, in a case where three dwellings were allowed, compared to a before condition of dozens of potential dwellings, the value loss was at the lower end of the range, or near 40 Ipercent. IIn both cases, highest and best use is measurably impacted. The subject impact is considered to be less than the lighter scenario noted above, indicating an adjustment below 40 percent. 1 ,, . Utah Power and Light recently acquired right-of-way along 3900 South to expand their cross 1 bars to accommodate additional lines and/or heavier power. The poles were already in place, and all that was acquired really amounted to air space. The encumbered air space was within IIIsetback requirements, so the cross bars would not interfere in any way with development of the impacted land. The power company paid a price equal to approximately 22.5 percent of Ithe before value. I' MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 92 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES EASEMENT VALUATION 6 IThis is a much lighter impact than the subject easement and establishes a lower limit. On this basis, a value diminution is concluded mid-range,at 30 percent of the before value. After value Iis therefore calculated as follows: IBefore Value $ 54.14 Value Loss Factor (30/0) $( 16.24) IAfter Value $ 37.90 IThe after value noted above reflects an adjustment for the impact of the theoretical taking on the land directly affected by the taking. It does not reflect any value loss to the balance of the IPlaza not directly impacted. The question remaining is whether there are severance damages 1 to the balance of the Plaza resulting from acquisition of the easement. riiThis issue was already addressed to a certain extent. There are advantages to property owners to have public access to their properties. It is certainly the property owner's intention in this Icase to invite the public in. Recall, that Temple Square and related facilities attract five million visitors annually. There are public sidewalks around the other three sides of Temple Square Iand around the other three sides of the Church Administration block. The existence of these public sidewalks has had no negative impact on the value of the adjacent private properties. IIt is acknowledged these are perimeter walkways whereas the subject easement extends through the middle of the Plaza. It is reasonably concluded, however,that there is no value loss ito the land other than that directly affected by the easement. The value of the easement under this valuation analysis is the difference between the before and after values, or $16.24 per square foot. I I 11 MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 93 I I 16 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES EASEMENT VALUATION IIIReverse Condemnation Scenario IIn this analysis, the value added to the Plaza property by extinguishing the easement is considered to reflect the market value of the easement. In the previous analysis, before value, Ior the value of the property prior to placement of the easement, was estimated first so that the impact of acquiring the easement could be properly measured. In this case,the after value, or Ithe value of the subject with the easement in place is first estimated. IAgain in contrast to the previous discussion, the after value was concluded as the residual after valuing the impact of the easement. In this case,the value of the Plaza as is,without necessarily Idirectly valuing the easement, is analyzed. This analysis requires consideration again of highest and best use. 111 raRecall that highest and best use with the easement in place is only moderately different from highest and best use without the easement in place. That is, the property can onlybe used as Ia plaza and the area most directly affected by the easement is landscaped and hardscaped to be harmonious with all other areas of the easement. Despite this conclusion, the easement Inegatively affects exclusivity and security, common elements of fee simple ownership. 1 It has already been established that areas not directly covered by the easement are not negatively affected from a valuation perspective. As noted, there are untold numbers of Iproperties adjacent to public throughways that carry the right of free speech, and these properties are not negatively affected thereby. The question then is what would a typically Imotivated buyer be willing to pay for this property given the easement and all other restrictions on use. I The primary concern of ownership subject to the easement would relate to the perpetual and Ifull time throughway provision because of the security concerns it raises. The speech issue 111 would be a secondary concern. This is because of the abundant free speech venues located MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 94 I I ). PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES EASEMENT VALUATION 10 almost everywhere. (It seems to be this land owner most specifically that is sensitive to the speech issues because the Church is a target of demonstrations. In fact, it is targeted in large 1 part because of the significant visitor count their adjacent facilities generate.) Again, case studies are cited for specific support. In this regard,the Church's acquisition of the Plaza with the easement in place is one bit of evidence to suggest the throughway provision Iitself is a nominal consideration. They paid a price I believe to be measurably above market value for the property with all encumbrances. While they were clearly a motivated buyer,the Idifference in price paid versus value as encumbered is so different as to suggest the throughway 1 provisions of the subject easement did not have much influence on price. i I The Nature Conservancy (TNC) purchased 752.82 acres of land in Snake Creek Canyon, Wasatch County in about 1996. This land was encumbered by a throughway easement for bvehicles in the summer months and snowmobiles in the winter. They paid $1,000,000 for the property, or$1,328 per acre. The price was based on a recreational highest and best use, and Ireflected no discount for the public access. Of course the ratio of impacted land in this case is small. I Similarly,they negotiated to purchase Deer Creek Park located just below Deer Creek Reservoir Iin 1999. This property was encumbered by a pedestrian fisherman access. Although they did not close on the transaction, the price they were willing to pay did not show any discount for Ithe access right. _, 4 111 TNC's motivation is to purchase sensitive lands for protection. They traditionally do not make their properties available to the public,though they do occasionally provide visitor centers and Iwalkways on land after they acquire it. That they did not discount the prices in these two deals 1 is suggestive that the public access was not viewed as a material encumbrance. This is due largely to the fact that highest and best use was not changed to any significant degree. MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 95 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES EASEMENT VALUATION 1 These market situations are reasonably analogous to the subject. They suggest no discount is necessary. Logic, however, dictates that total control allowed under fee ownership is superior to limited control. Some discount would be supported if only from a logical view. Such a discount, however, would be relatively small and is somewhat arbitrarily concluded at 10 percent. This implies an after value of $48.72. IBefore value is unchanged from the previous analysis, or $54.14. The value enhancement by extinguishment is therefore $5.42. I I III I I I I I I I I° MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 96 I I 11 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES FINAL RECONCILIATION AND VALUE ESTIMATE 16 I FINAL RECONCILIATION AND VALUE ESTIMATE 1 Three value conclusions were made and were based on the land area directly affected by the easement. While the case is strongest that the affected area comprises a corridor on each of the Ieast and west sides of the Plaza, there is some possibility the more appropriate view is that the affected area comprises all of the sidewalks within the Plaza. Therefore, six total value Icalculations are made. This is shown as follows. IVALUE CONCLUSIONS Area Most Area I Logically Possibly Valuation Square Foot Affected Indicated Affected Indicated Scenario Value (Sq.Ft.) Value (Sq.Ft.) Value One $ 15.75 26,760 $ 421,470 36,730 $ 578,498 I Two $ 16.24 26,760 $ 434,582 36,730 $ 596,495 Three $ 5.41 26,760 $ 145,039 36,730 $ 199,077 Scenario One I Recall that this methodology involved valuing the various pieces of the ownership pie. It is Itheoretical to the extent it assumes the sum of the parts equals the whole, a situation that is not always reflected in the market. Despite this, it is considered to be the most reasonable analysis Iin that it recognizes there are multiple encumbrances and rights,and that each warrant a value allocation. This approach is therefore given heavy weight in the final analysis. I :r:: Scenario Two I This is the theoretical condemnation analysis. It is the least reliable in this case because it Ipresumes a situation that is not reality. While the analysis would be the prudent approach if I the easement were to be acquired,such is not the case here. It is considered to offer reasonable support for the first scenario. I' . MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 97 I I IlioJ. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES FINAL RECONCILIATION AND VALUE ESTIMATE 111 Scenario Three IThis analysis attempts to measure the value enhancement from extinguishing the easement. It is somewhat weak in that the enhancement estimate is really based on a discount analysis, Iassuming the inverse of a discount would be the value enhancement. The case studies did not support any discount. Further, it relies heavily on the other approaches for base information Iand values. This analysis is considered to support a lower limit of value and is given secondary weight. I Plaza Area Affected I I It is my opinion there is strong evidence to support the conclusion that two throughway corridors are all that is affected by the easement. However,the easement itself is not delineated bother than by reference to the owner having control of where that throughway access is provided. This warrants weighting of least versus most area directly affected. A 50-50 weighting Iis considered reasonable. IIIBased on the foregoing,with most consideration given Scenario One,which is bracketed by the other two scenarios, and giving equal weight to the more liberal estimate of how much land is Iactually affected, I am of the opinion fair market value of the subject easement, as of the valuation date noted earlier, is: I FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS I ($500,000) I I IP MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 PAGE 98 I 1 l°i.._._._....i_. 1 1 b ADDENDA I I I I I I I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES ADDENDA lio ','',':',R:,1:1,,,,,-.. ' • 1.-:•;...i I.' ..-,r-.1', •::;•.,.: '..„, ..- ,,,..::-., I,.,v..,,,,:\ ';',.',',"1.:,s titti 1 : . . A '`- . . — s ` lI; ". ' .-- de€ . a : _ ii ‘‘,,i'•!..fli.tif-.:'a4 :,,,t.3_,,,,.:','' -.42,..... 1. c I ar., �. -w; ." bThroughway at Southeast Corner 1 {111 i, 111 ifThroughway at Northeast Corner MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES ADDENDA lio _. 1 , T I I 111 I bThroughway on West -.„,..'= 4 I .*, a.... - f- F 4 ,�_ ttt j E ,�, 'L - t:1,..‘:,iiiii-''''' 4'1,f 44 I I I I elThroughway on West MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 111 I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES ADDENDA Iiip • y 3s .r" ) My°" �s .y s _ £ I bView Easterly at South-end of Plaza pp ,:e$ � � e 1 E d 's _ . ,,,,,,,,....,,...: :,.. ,, '...., 1 ,,,,,,.:- !, ,:: �fiXfit7".Ilfri� , n i4 : y-„;tl � �tdz £._ <lY � } #• ..:f0. '+iffi�'; _ .L .. �. .. wis I M S K ace { v,•,..�-.�-.. ...+a �..� in fffi£ 4 :'. M • ,o .. _ _ y{ b. > r View Southerly of Plaza MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 1 I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES ADDENDA 10 � 1 I s E t,.. t . ,7 +� "'r�" S .. 'II-- € 4tl ; u I isView Northerly of Plaza — ''' kki,*4 I-t i; f:e..4.1 :- 1"1 t,' ;'i {; : LAr4;:--441, € , is A7-it.„ ‘,'37. ',. .1 .,..`a\i, . , ,I „,...4.17,,,-.-,--: k 4, ' '4,-",e---"t-- I ..., �`„ wl. -- a a ' So -'.L-yam'^ I I 1111 Typical View of Plaza MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 I III J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES ADDENDA lo ram I I I 11) View Northerly of Plaza f t , 1, c I I II I View Northerly of Plaza Entrance I' MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 I 1 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES ADDENDA 10 . - tI -. I s� .,y +s '� , '" y "''s 7 S4',�M,,,"vW..$�.ud��°'::-.''N. .>a. 'IeS+++ . .L }I'N.r.-. :. ». I '-'µ f -= p ,per s 4 q g's . _y aw ' ,a ,auw,� �� � tia a`±t I IliView of Entry to Parking Under Plaza °� rs� a '1 1* .:',.t-Y'' f • , k..,,:.*-^ir'[if-1. A I i lU .jc b 3�'It y W f - u, i" • Y r+�+"""tY€.--� fi {i.mow of ,> • �. 1 , �. war 1 z � pry 23 I 3 3 a f ,, I 1 I View of East Sidewalk at Main & South Temple MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 • I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES ADDENDA III m ar zv f...4 RY 1 Y"$3 r I I � n I I MOView of West Sidewalk at Main & South Temple F / ,&, "if . Y F S I _ l I View of South Sidewalk at South Temple & Main p MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES ADDENDA 10 >I` .. q fa v. 1 . �t" � 3 II I31 i 1111) View of North Sidewalk at South Temple & Main -,Eris tt"-�' - . �...r .e'K i k,� hi"" "J E/! Y `� X sI . 7 -.ylf ._. Ii I .r merit . T"PY.a 7 i .,,,,, T View of South Sidewalk at North Temple & Main 111 MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES ADDENDA lib Mr ,�• Syr ';,"ems71 21',;T: e I a I -� r Ia+- ' k r f n . 'vwi kw {✓'i ,;;Ameidplc:','yv,::'4,e. - --r-wa; - .:...--- --,, 7,.. ,,, Ar _ a N R n gE _ ‘ ?#c.'. r��:.a.A.< a111, ?s,_. ��� - '.Yi i,4.; View of East Sidewalk at Main & North Temple I I I I �. I I I ill' MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 1 I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES ADDENDA io PROPERTY PLAT A+aj "6 Q�� "t i G 1 AAny C(WDa f 4.tt'E_s M'xw -OTC t`t 1-Ht`ie JS -7 h — C Rk a.M ]I $ 1 . J -. ®.----'a . _fin_ �oas SI I PY• ., Ij 31, F KIMBALL CONDOMINIUM P.t AMENDED _ rP 1 �J= I Q -�--, 351 1 -ozz ii — ,...J/ ._ 1r-I ; Q t- I,I r•� I fir/ I I I I - - - Y ;�� 1 . ,.....a. i , N TEMPLE LIT.89 5T {I c,, ____,_ Ili ,, j.._ i 1 , _,:, „... l 1 ,45 4- ; 1 ,.. i 1 1 '', I I I I ! 441 •014 ` Gt-011 2 2 F 4 rz ¢ g e as i1 —.4 '1 7-7 T--a: 1 f h Q t 11J g 1 1 `:s§-` ! co 'k9 `-1 . !a ,.— 1 6aE 1 1 aJ 11 2 11A 1 I i ' S TEMPLE ST. ~-� I6-6-Iff I SCALE 1•.50 SALT LAKE CO. 9-31-313 W I/2 SWIM S.W.I/4 SEC. 31 T.i N. R.1 E. I' . MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 1 I 10 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES ADDENDA LEGAL DESCRIPTION EMIIBIT"A" IMAIN STREET PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Salt Beginning at the Southeast cornerof(Block 87, PlatA, Lake City Survey, located in the Southwest quarter of section 31, Township 1 North, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base I Meridian, and running thence North 0O°01'42"west 660 feet along the east line of said block 87 to the Northeast comer of said block 87.Thence North 81°22'22" East 134.07 1 feet to the South right of way line of North Temple Street, a point that is North 00°02'13" West 18 feet from the Northwest Corner of Block 88, Nat A, thence South 00°02'13" East 678 lea'gong the west line of block 88 to the Southwest corner of block 88: thence I South 89°05'14"'West 132.68 feet to the point of beginning. lb . I I 1 I I I f' MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 1 I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES )10 ADDENDA NEIGHBORHOOD MAP I A,_ --Z i _unarm----''- :=:::,,--TE.,_ .4._. _ ___ .1 1.,,,7:Ios!ivt La" 1 : : , : ' 4.„e e. :.:. „.. ....„ .rearraMmsilii4-24°4341* ---2:- .111 ,,, I . ! 1 1 : x S it Lake ICI. lir - I ------+ ----- '1:ri --------,----- Subject .":---rifi4ii!-:t142-- s i .MMfor Centers Rii I ,. . Mormon Temple 1 History And M8 +Temple Square I : ifamily History Library '41. 4ffidijariMorilzunti ;The Tabernacle 44.1371?°r!-:ta91F-- -7:sisarriTTElli,MS-:=-:g.:-•=i-i-'''''.-ii:''''..'iii-ii' IJlans _salt Lake Pit Center * I- Ei i 1 rki .0, ' 4,91:,_...-.7.sp. . • ii I1 , 1 , I i 1 i '4 I RSA Palaceitonvention CenterIi Li t i II ; i i Sit .FoRpti .. ' PorrigtPresf •, I 1 i f: I i i r I 1: 1 i i I r: I i ' 1 i TV, !I i I MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 1 1 1 1 l°_ mm •.sm...mmmmimm..mimmm..mi •i•mim..mmii• 1 1 I PLAZA PLAN ID I I I I I I I r w� �� ailsa NM r MI s M — fall NMI MINI011111 /I D ad Z me an x e Church Office Building �:''""`°.-�-". O fit 1: &... *-..,ri vS.i. YY.. 'E.a1Rx a i �t t'i CII l�r ..' 1 F' ar w € O W ..4iS6 :Yr 4,W 3t'�� ' x •gr` cn • '� �� , " Joseph Smith Memorial Building ` ! i � ` - b '' o r 1' i Relief Society �a� .,• ', � �, r= Building v, , .,''' r 11/ �a 'i;, 'j . s�»lt 1t"r sU� 4 R a Fl., ( r .' , k ,ff 1. mow x* ' ,.,qb•r: , c . 11 $' u �� � ;s,. r.•• •ny '$.• '"tyya -y, 1 ti", •!t o°.y' , s••'; .s 7 _ g V Y'4 r^i pe.. r Temple ' ? c Annex Slit hake ' -� t.1 ' 1 einple i' tr) 1' t , i 0795 LDS Church Plaza 4 Noah o m z v a EXHIBIT 'D' iFrom The November 5, 1993 "AGREEMENT FOR EXCHANGE 111/ OF REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS" I • I I I I I • I , • 111 EXHIBIT "D" ASSESSMENT&LIENS, OR ENCUMBRANCES ' •: EASEMENTS ON CITY REAL PROPERTY RECORDED ITEMS: None . UNRECORDED ITEMS: ' 1. There exist on the City Real Property ythe following unrecorded easements: a. Unrecorded easement for Utah Power and Light Company for Service Holes and Duct Lines. (See attached Map D-1) b. Unrecorded easement for Utah Power and Light Company for 6 Inch Low Pressure Steam Line. (See attached Map D-2) c. Unrecorded easement for Mountain Fuel Supply Company. (See attached Map D-3) d. Unrecorded easement for U.S. West. (See attached Map D-4) • e. Unrecorded easement for Water ' v line in favor of Salt Lake City Corporation. (See attached Map D-5) f. Unrecorded easement for Sewer line in favor of Salt Lake City Corporation. (See attached Map D-6) g. Unrecorded easement for Storm Drain in favor of Salt Lake City Corporation. (See attached Map D-7) 1 .. . .1... • I: , 0 D-7 96". 9'*" 9....1, c`n r '''PL. u- ►'7 L I • L - /� p d • Ql 1+ 4' �S_3g a _. E...... ._— :.__ _ _ ,. ... . .. .... -- /o� 6i — 48 4 1D att Os.%- - EL • 1 . 1 ' i E i:::3 ___. A. - I __ . • .er lb E (...1 - 1 2 161 !a 26 . m III to I ... n _ SA. ��t o � Isir town\mmentsi 18! 1 o iY�.�+�.l,Vil4: • o• 1 iSdr 1 2l 1 STORM DRAIN ' to - . 1— MAP i = # LOCATION �' o��Ilii N p . SW' 114 SEC.31 TlS RlE • or L ' • MAP r 1 r-� • 1 NORTH 88 . .... • , } SCALE 1:300 a • $ , .Pr 30 � o.... 111 - rQ cQ0 SOq yu�1$Efi fi �� ri� t 8:7 TORPHiIJM • 111 µ •f/ . to . it. 140 ,,, Ck j a e • Q f• 1 1 is • 98 _, I _ I L. •1 .1 • • .' . e. ‘ i I 1 1 Lif 1 L_____ 1 to •0 1 *F1RSr NO , ST i - - i • / O 11.1 i 1 . `�c� o GORDON AVE. 4 �g� ( I ' co • 01— ( L a /r a------Q-------17-------z----s- -- i��• •a l o 141 fIIII r� �`�r ie . ? P= '1- ' __ Z ..../ U r s J Q r WM'`t.� it i 6 R+tr . lb ` ) ' e TF'NS PLE4WE. 1-. - ; • C f ;-----------�-----------; ---------; ,CC �-,r— -- WZ ry I id • I Q .. z 0 00 u 1 z ' SOUTH . i. See Sewer Plot Book NQ r • • • • . \....j .....' i . • i.. . • • P . 1 I - .L . i I , 11111 i eV MINI NMI 11111 111111 SIM NMI 1 11111 lir SIN MEI ONO 111111 111111 ION to!ipiipii . . .... 383 • - . 1 300 o a•--- ©155 P33 ' 0 No- Tilhiple • •I— ZNSTA.02 L 1.— t.! ......) Lt.1 •. id _ W .. . , • CC CANYON___ iii . it . • STA. F.. • -VAI 0- • U) LOGY OLD —,_.. W • . Z • I--- C------1 ) C 2 ) 2780 I— o 2 fi l'A 10 U) LA LEJ • 03 •--. • < • • 307 0 Vls EN STA•4 0 I— A 6 359 C .-:...-.7.==.7....- 0 301 l's STA 2 • CD—0.66.9 STA.10 99 . 2 1 . . •. . • I • , o - 4 , 417.1sTA 1 o 0 -- _ —.. 0 0 :•: -' --- 350- 0 9 8 • So. Temple i 385 ... 6 • • 304. : . • (0 •••••• .- • • •• (0. 7: 6 If.e., ti, • scossr.w ki.vs fi rts•artyd pit••SivulW1,1 annuik.s 40.3•1 a attaitramMe.larA'aur.r.:0&I...NM.tii4.4141444,4.1,: • : 1 00 97 A,I51 ,,, 197 •92 rA I IA 4 •.,.,17..- , • ' ,4-,q 0 .I. 0 V-kfj ©16--g--' UTAH POWER AN130 1...101T .COMPANY. .•.••A•1—...-3 a .. - 6 -.. ••••••;• ...1..0- ''' *** • °,5"1111WW767.77:;...;:.:,.. .141 • • _ .•• • - BALT 1...k..he 11111101cm • ..A . 51 ' 3 a'STA-74 iki STA:44. .•: •i , . ! .. 357 .........a....e..............i......................4..a....6.4....4.4.4.1..".0.144Atki4p................,.....,.... • . 6 • . .-.64.- .....6. 5-..i. i • • STA-153. . • • - • . ct. - . 0 .. . 0 • • LOCATION OF MANHOLES Eg H 6 a 0 •1 .sTA.7V . /1 SERVICE H S OLE & DUCT .LINE2 ..• -- .1 • • • . W •. . .• 6 • • . .. 6 • 4 • • 6) • SALT LAKE DIVISION : . 1 ..i • • • • ••'pi 6 UN,Dr;RGRQuNp'. s '..s.-11:E;:i,ip.6::...z • • .. • 4; !,,0. 12.6 • .. .4 0.. '...,•6• :•• 6::; • :, .. • '• - ''•••• 6•6.'C • •• '.....4:14:4:-A,) . 0 : • •• "-- •• . • • •,, }.{.:•..ir. 4 .. •: • . •. IA.7 . , .13-1:1 ' . . . .. .,• 6...• •..,:. - 6,,. .......;:i:yl;•..,..;.! . C • =,.6,v ..,r 6...6.. 6 6. . .. 66: :66:6.4; v::::.:•••, .6.::.........: -6,...c..:s....,:l•.6 .. ....,....6.1..,,,,.6....nr.65...,.........i...1......,.......,...‘......f.:,....,.r.....:....1.....1,...,••tf.t-erft,r 4 , • 7 . • --1:' ...i.• '.::.. • • • r•Vii.Viti. P111:9-Eirc4fu:4 (.;617.222,24445Fttsi'livil tt..i.g.. p 6 • • • - •- • • •• • A .... • -4, 4 .13.1.te•• • . ••: -.. ,.y...; .., I 49Cife. . ' " • " - . • •• • • '• ': • •'••1:.`r i: '.. ...r 57 I . . . •6 • ...: • • • •• Y'-'-.4:.: on A),:'•;•-•=-4.0 : ' 6. • • '.... 1 t16%;:ilt Pf..ii r'‘I°1:4 IC:14,...i::f.. ii rit •"i§11•••Iji1111•112.0.Slittl:.:0• :::* 6. i 0 •• .... . i. :..i? ' .:•••‘i?.e • • - -• 0 • • •"••••; ... .i".11.,•:;-. •• . • 3 3• • ....! ‘..:1.•:.,1,.:.q .00.lihO : . . . • .. . • .. . •••.6 • •.• •• . 6.,.• • .. i . • M iNlirl •• I %.. •. I*4 -; ._ STA..1.te ..:IttliV...1 .•,• ' • 0.-E3$1110.01 • 6 . .6 . • • i'll k.•:.:. 30.. 6, . •6 . . . % . . 6,.. . •.1.•' •. - __...;:- ls,-3...,;:ifi.iiii,........ • • r...1 - • • Li , "..rm a i MU. ..I.LL.c. .••••••;i:giii-.:42:;:::•.• . • . rk-,•1,&......tz.-..1.;x1:',..• . '.'':•2 u3 .v:::•:::. • • • -r • ---------...........:.....L.....:‘.• 7..L........•me.i.,ma.........•••••••...MED means m.o..••••••••••••••••••••.11.M.WNW IMO.emm •••••••e....... Ns .."'..1 I. .....''''..7 , •,-.,: .....v...• -• . .... -...„ ip • t i 4 •-••:./.Z..iek ttL..s /..,_41... ,, tactoi L•0 n e ... • ... . n 1 I •••-..,...6.;,,-t.:tr--..- ,. • - •,•,...-•-•4?,,,,,,..,•—...- -- • .... ••••• 1 ! i .!.....:,:.i....1,......,..,.....;:-„.• .. , • • f1 '. • • • ' . . ii 7 Lrt 1 - .• ...... - = = • ...•.. • . •IrJ 1 1 ' . .. • - . ... . . ›- t 1 • • . • ,y = r- 4 • . • • !I I ' • i • SOUTH VISITOR CENTER • • . 1 • • • • ; ! • c . 4 4 • : •I . . , . isa -L.--ill TEMPLE .. 201 LP . -. .... _ . . • I i i ' :: —-7-------7 .7.-17-77-.'-7.- • ".• 1 . .. • ... . - . • ..........e • . . ..... . , 4 • ' • .• "• .. .•• .• • • • • • . .• . .. •' • • • • . . TN1 . 131.1 • ..• .• . . .. • . . - . . . • . 1 . • • I . • . . • .. . .. • . • . . .. • .. . • . ••. • .• • . •- C, • • • 73 • • •.. . I . . .. . . .. • . . 0 = cn . ' . :•• • ::". • ' • • : •• • • r- co • • . • ,:, • • I . . ,..,., A, • • . , •!•-• = •.• : • • -• .- e - .- • . . I . • • . - . . . . • . . . . .• • 4 .. . . .• • i . : .. . 7. • pi, .• • .. . . * . . • i • . . • • • .• . . • . I' . • . • . . • • • .... . . . .,.... • • . . 1 . .. .606' an ale ea lose i ';+r -N MI MN r • M M_, .- ). 1111111 ! I. I I :} I. I • •;i• • .. 1)) SL:.. 5399 • 0 1, 30 -0 i+33T -I ( d D 2 E\ I 1+32 x 1 ;; •Dot : O `I A 7J09 `� - r. Z 0+63 ill . Iv N p v -..W r + + + MI 0 • 1 1`f`n'{��, • tlit,+..A,12•+Hiroo 0+00 i• 0,00 I �Oy231nY -� I- - , r - oo ,.I00 MAIN STREET •o�\' m.. Ot00 oZ,a-_.fin(�-yt1 r .O O.AO .W�V1 Li U1 + InN �N .9 e 4 S 4' 1HP (P1..o uv. •.0 n .a 1 �1 C) 4' 1t1P 6'CSG (PJ "� or WO 73145 1 WO 73793 OM7 WT l. I L__.__. _---*4� ;1" '11.` 1D f ` 0+55 T �IrIP 1 1•STU . O'W OF WIO • 0+57 2 67188 • oo oo o UIa� 0+60 t °1 T. n & W00 RED 5 w "" O A. t 0+61 ". 03 A-7509• Q • I _ . I . e 2+10 3 0 3+20 A-7309 HOTEL 'JTAH 2+29 • B.20'CSG sL 404107C 2+6q • 0 T.20'CSO 2+90T .i • 'y Z rr I. i 3+ut �PF • C C3+'j ••3'1PF x • • • 1' A-81S09 I '``f1 1 • _'y�1r1 • s� 4+34 • • SL /504 0D P 4+64T LOS CHJRCH.. ..- •.,,... _• .. . .. ,.:so:. _ , .. • 4+71 en' [—Fig-J-78OFf ltE REwortW J • IIII I I I I I if TEMPLE STREET P"g P•33 A••! -- • ----.—7 tab..ail • U. . : r '..1 ......_.... ,.. .�• W a.r.•w• N I • w I C17 -,ems ; lit . • I aqI .—I W I in rill.: a O...• L " .. �� ha•..w•.w • T f► • S EMPlEt' SIRCC !/ .« •x 1• •f: .•. r a••—i.. •�? 43.1 1 i Tl 1...It.'• 11 i • c •,.,f71• V1 C "' ... u5L) s ' ,t Me....■ !N j6Sr ea.. 11.1 . 1... If1..f ".SOU -.1.y,I "",it• — H li . ce._,,, c 1 �;, . - •,,,1T( .y •�Ng 1,1 — I ....II., O • .. .11 1 fff••••.•y����ppppp t� �f• W R �...• ... 2.. 11. ia. !•I.�^�_�.��'T'1'•i_L ".•a6H M q as - 1.1 1 1 •'' . hi.** I..l. , I/ II � _ _ 1--4. �. �•,s� ow.' I 26 n •raw! 2. ..a, Ip I f• tS a.•so ' ...,.a•1 naf I • I Y u.» ~I I 12._ : • gas 0 443 of ..tom. 4.W M�4• '�" of w_�• I 300. SOUTH „ 1.. ..• 4,. .• 1 .u_ t. f r. .a .« w.»Q a•a L a.a1 N J O. tee/•r oel u 3 • W 4l�• 3 » ~ _ il" .... • . /t.aa • Imo_ ® O'er �su•U C 1 c �"PCsr—oe 1cE ,c Az 0 0 N ...O » ,M)I_1 _ N 3../ (. 'if. 11 w. I •.{ C •Ly! ..1i �/» 1! 1 I • • s '{`. `4 h �.s► ; ^► s -_rut ?' •t _ • cw'P. a",.191..4 .T.'-••••11 lc Hr (� . ,,r . I yr 4r t\ t+ ..1 !.:'i. t fi:t :..:•vi: ... •t. s+.•.a; .• . - - . , -. .w, •, tb. • !=i r�.r' ..i.•\F.� •�..„ • E'• .•• • NC pi • i�► 1• - I.�...+'le• ..t,. .• . -•!•?{:y_ -'s- •." Y -•.a..{�,,+y :` •,t...04• E ale-L a` s:. •+t'•,d.'iTaT!{�,�L -...,„I,,,,-- ..,„C: it ": ��'� r. )r.g.4�a_"7t .4!•.:i :'�.:: `� +a •7 r. ...._ •.t I--•—•• •`' , s.,�,�+►,•,�i .'i y rrti i y,w::: q:•fs• • 1+� •� • -./ .s „..•" .. : a ti_ -r• „•: :. l:F`i's'�•:on*F:i=11 "•�.:F Y'., .Y.s,:'..tii„`'. +;!-A• •�.'•y': t. +.=.r.;..t:`r',+�'."' _.. '". .1. •*f,.1.• •;!•' . ..MMs; ,. 'F•l:i,x'• 6. _ �.:ryc ii�"-•. .... .,.:y 'a. T •;".,.• ;,,.+•' -. �i7 +% :2_;�• '�,�•'��� , -?y t�is�te �++y .'.�. it�Ca• �r •�-��.«�'�' •: •,` •r. • •�.aa'y7,T'••►:il:s-, ::: y\ -sw Y._ �. .+•.�['a.ns4=•�r• . .••..t •� ..• •'{ .:x�^: •a'i'•+r1-. :I. '• +-,-._ •. "►T•t•`y:`.. .A. c= a.....--*it 11 • :'. •• i5•i. d:.r'+•- 'nt'!: . . 'tom •. „ ...,� • ._ _4{��r ...4 s'� jrti.- tom- •.. •:�'t ' s.•...-`ter ► t� ����•. w►! .t' _ _+v:.atc� .. ... -;. ~� .. ' •.itt.- y,�w 5.: :.Yf I'j5 :• ;•4 •; ` .+re ti.. '�-. '`."',,:>•f. ..:1. ! •••••.,� ,: �•'k!'Lti?!I:b; i_—s y . r.:�� yan. • �.7 •.. . ^•`. eta .d•I=• :..a. '�' .jJ h''a•yi!j=Y.-'_dy'•: .•_.,,t�� •t:'.r•., `l%�!_':'•�,C-'y'i.i " _ .' _ `ti-.- -N • ! „•�r. s '�.-. '�y. 1y.Q St +• s.. •. ..�.'r'• " : ' 'j•�r+yifi`••6-'„ _ A�/s�i:►1a11L7.!!�' i' .S. �A '• •,.t (el3 jrS �.Jr.S TT !1!!�j* ,,,+Qv • �- ••. •j.w? ` .• t • rs• art}. R..- .sL •'. •..".':;*•--:''''' ''rai ..- • �4•iv..+•_-- ••*'f401..4 l.•1�t -' r1 d 't L- ..r ` ' ��•' - r„ • '� • •Y't _•1 ' •.. : .rimer -'=•ftt:• • ,'y\ - :�..-. v..,a�,y ,►• :.•!r r'.. •�a. 0 :P•;.� t, ;v... •l7sa^-1.• ... ... 7. • �.:.� �(iti �•�. �• y •._',:.• - Ms�.,l.'�'- - :^y + � ;ti.' ^ :�+.Y• ,.a{�9.-!,_ Y tits-.'i.asa • ••1�T•_.G • .. M'j - '`• ;'• •••,•..•• �` • - • •h,•�•1,•-•-t yam, r. w- a � � .i+A•1��3 4/.�C�iYG[tij�ll! 'i•a•'•;L^4 t 1a ' sr tis :.• •it. ':,1- y _ it n� {t . a.,* .. r• .•'• 1 ,.L.' ti•e. " • • • R:Tief,'• _ '. yla -:a, . -^'_•34s>Fi:.•r �.... L sr = i I Ala••.' t Oar• +'••3~':l,. •••;?q;•a sly- .t .aT •ZEE. t• .4?�!.`,�•=•r.:a�+.a�.. • 'Im 111-1 ' •7'L:N :j -_.... - :.... Y .:• .S,, • Dr �FDIl .t • s.. .-.orb ••. .• • •-.• ...... ...• • ,- h. -� - •C ` • - ?Ys ,:`pmo, fr:C+.,�/ • • •-„x s '::.1•. :?�t{ ;.• „� s +•r.`•L s� .,-idprt ., ^ • � da i ^ ". . . • t ` • .. a • ' t � •r�I .. ' •i s _4.,*. et—.• • . " t +:1' �•. , • ,-.1,,.• Syrar - V _ r•� lei -•t• i •f1i•' M• t- . «.w . , i • -. .- , + ' .. . :,•- - t e .': r � � • • - ... .• •~ • �• - „ • a �4• ,i.:.• r • ••. „-.••-••.ram • • L -- • ,i:�.'.tilMa' y4 yam.(�-f„r•1-,`� _ ��'7I?r t• w ...t -1.r�n't�1+.i^- • ', '.aO�• /O mimic. •. •• • n,rw,�.- . - 7� y ... . '- r .. 'S •' •) 1 !t,►..,, „ •-µ -..a.••••.ter. _ - 1 I. j•. - a , » ' `• -•-• '• �" 1. • C .d. +�' • • • • = _ .- �.�� . .1 s, r • r� //� • • ♦ it • ,-,w.a 1: - I • s •s \d t. !3 i • t /it/C� • Y`'.1 ��-gin�. �y a •{ ..... _.. � tL es p • CIn V� C +• ..... I �� ' + } o -t otll. p m a N coNNvo 'e o as o x • • us 1 .S IT v oW N I CV I • 0 •-i• f' I 1 i in im 4- us iin CO TEMPLE VAL. �-�- us ti� m — N o * sp C '_ti +n o t�i N in s 'mN ® q p 3 : s O , C' p+ us "8" 9J"= • 50+23.6,#6"VAL. REIRtEY %'r- f1908) Nam, N "s~;,i ',_ le" CIF! - __ RESURVEY A .oeoe1 2IR•-8II.23,e re,2IR-26A-y63 ,. �3. 7 �21.S-i2 XA6•80. vi r 1'-------•didt.Pa -,-�.—L--- t.-.—____1--- c. 7 — 1—L-- -. 1.— -.--1. cs iii CLASS Btt �t o+ 0+19•S- PII2"x43•ta I. • _ RESUrtIVEY 11908) I I p t6' = `` 1 t0" } I.P. \m _^ -.11; j 12"ca. ! 8"t10,�CR•f�. '\;n 11) SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED ■ 1 :. /,/✓" i; =ram ceC '' ,-- 933f1� AFTER RECORDATION RETURN TO: • Kirton & McConkie c/o Marc N. Mascaro I60 East South Temple, #1800 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 RECORDED . APR 2 7 1999 • ' SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED C' TY RECORDER ISALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah ("GRANTOR"), hereby specially conveys and warrants against all acts of Grantor, I including without limitation any conveyance, alienation, mortgage or other transfer or encumbrance, and not otherwise, pursuant to Petition No. 400-98-79 and Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 28 of 1999, to the CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING ' BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, a Utah corporation, whose mailing address is 50 East North Temple, Suite 1800, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 , ("GRANTEE") for the sum of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) and other 1 good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, all of Grantor's interest in the following described real property located in Salt Lake County,'State of Utah:. SEE EXHIBIT."A" AT TACHED HERETO. ISaid conveyance is subject to the following reservation of easements: 1 . Purpose of Easements. The easements reserved herein are . intended and shall be used for the following purposes only: 1 .1 . Emergency and Public Safety. Grantor hereby .reserves an easement over and across the surface of the Property for access and passage by emergency and public safety personnel and vehicles, including, without limitation, police, ambulance, paramedic and firefighting personnel and vehicles. . 1 .2. Public and Private Utilities Easement. Grantor hereby reserves an easement over, across. and through the Property for operation, maintenance, repair, alteration, replacement, enlargement and emergency access, of all existing public and private underground utility lines, including, without limitation, water, sewer, storm drain, telecommunications, electrical, ' gas, fiber optic and cable lines. Grantor's utility lines may be relocated upon the mutual prior consent of both Grantor and Grantee (which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld), at the expense of the party requesting relocation. Other utility lines may be relocated upon the mutual prior consent of both Grantee and the owner of the utility line (which consent • • shall not be unreasonably withheld), at the expense of the party requesting relocation. Grantee shall not erect any buildings or other permanent structures, including other utility lines, over Grantor's utility lines which would impede Grantor's access to existing utility lines. Grantor shall not be responsible for the cost of restoring any surface improvements on the Property. 1 .3. Pedestrian Access and Passage. Subject to the conditions, limitations, and restrictions set forth in section 2 hereinbelow, Grantor reserves an easement over and across the surface of the Property for pedestrian access and passage only, including bicycles, provided that they are walked across the Property, and including dogs on leash. Skate boards, roller blades and roller skates shall not be allowed. The Property shall be available for such pedestrian access and passage at all times, both day and night. Grantee shall not erect any perimeter fences or gates on the Property along the North Temple or South Temple rights of way, but Grantee may erect decorative fencing and similar structures which are commonly used in plazas similar to the Property, with the written approval of Grantor. Grantor may allow the general public to use this easement for pedestrian access and passage only, but all use of this easement shall be subject to the conditions, b limitations and restrictions described hereinbelow. 1 .4 Preservation of View Corridor. In order to preserve the view corridor to the Daughters of the Utah Pioneers Museum and to Ensign Peak, Grantee shall not erect any occupied buildings on the Property; provided, however, that Grantee may erect and maintain one or more kiosks or information booths which may be occupied by attendants. 2. Conditions. Limitations and Restrictions. Notwithstanding anything to I the contrary in this instrument, the easements reserved herein are subject to the following conditions, limitations and restrictions: • 2.1 . Private Property. The Property is and shall at all times remain the private property of Grantee. Nothing herein shall be deemed to dedicate • the Property to public ownership or use beyond the scope of the reserved easement. The use of the Property by the Public is and shall remain permissive, and neither Grantor nor the public shall acquire any rights to the Property by such use beyond the scope of the easement reserved herein. Neither Grantor nor the public shall be entitled to claim or assert any prescriptive use rights or any right of adverse possession against Grantee. No third party shall be entitled to claim or assert any rights against Grantee or against the Property beyond the use of the easement described herein. Grantee shall have the right to landscape the Property, to improve the -2- 11) Property with gardens and/or other improvements, and to restrict the pedestrian access and passage to sidewalks or walkways intended for that purpose, provided that the pedestrian flow across the Property shall not be unreasonably obstructed or limited. 2.2. Right to Prevent Uses Other Than. Pedestrian Pa 9ssage. Nothing in the reservation or use of this easement shall be deemed to create or constitute a public forum, limited or otherwise, on the Property. Nothing in this easement is intended to permit any of the following enumerated or similar activities ' on the Property: loitering, assembling, partying, • demonstrating, picketing, distributing literature, soliciting, begging, littering, consuming alcoholic beverages or using tobacco products, sunbathing, • carrying firearms (except for police personnel), erecting signs or displays, using loudspeakers or other devices to project music, sound or spoken messages, engaging in any illegal, offensive, indecent, obscene, vulgar, lewd or disorderly speech, dress or conduct, or.otherwise disturbing the peace. Grantee shall have the right to deny access to the Property to persons who are disorderly or intoxicated or engaging in any of the activities identified above. The provisions of this section are intended to apply only to Grantor and other users of the easement and are not intended to limit or restrict 111) Grantee's use of the Property as owner thereof, including, without limitation, the distribution of literature, the erection of signs and displays by Grantee, and the projection 'of music and spoken messages by Grantee. • 2.3. Right to Exclude Habitual Violators. Grantee may prohibit and lawfully prevent access to the Property by individuals who: (a) have threatened or intentionally caused harm to leaders or members of The • Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; or (b) have threatened or • intentionally caused damage to buildings or property owned or used by Grantee or by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; or (c) have on more than one previous occasion entered on the Property and engaged in activities identified in section 2.2 above. 3. Enforcement. Grantee may use all lawful means available to owners of private property to prevent any uses of the easements which are contrary to the provisions of this instrument. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Grantee shall have the right to obtain injunctive relief enforcing the provisions of this instrument. 4. Right of Reverter. In the event that Grantee fails to use the Property for the purposes set forth herein, or fails to maintain the Property thereafter, the ownership of the Property shall, at Grantor's option, revert to Grantor. -3- I . 5. Notice and Opportunity to Remedy Deficiencies. Prior to exercising the right of reverter, Grantor shall give written notice to Grantee of the deficiencies in Grantee's use or maintenance of the Property. Grantee shall thereafter have a period of no less than six months to remedy such deficiencies. If such deficiencies Iare remedied within that six month time period, title to the Property shall remain with Grantee. If such deficiencies are not remedied within that six month time Iperiod, Grantor shall give written notice to Grantee of such failure and title to the Property shall immediately revert to Grantor. 111 6. Miscellaneous Provisions. 6.1 Integrated Agreement. This . instrument contains all of the terms, covenants, conditions and agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matters treated herein. I6.2. Severability. In the event that it is finally determined by a court having jurisdiction over Grantee or the Property that any of the terms, I conditions, limitations or restrictions set forth in this instrument are unconstitutional or otherwise unenforceable, the remaining terms, conditions, limitations '‘and restrictions set forth herein shall remain binding and Mr enforceable. 6.3. Amendments. Although Grantor may allow - use of the Ipedestrian access' easement reserved in section 1.2 by the general public, it is understood and agreed .that this instrument and the easement reserved herein can be amended, modified or terminated by written agreement Ibetween Grantee and Salt Lake City Corporation alone without the joinder or consent of any other person or entity. Any written amendment or modification of this instrument executed by Grantee and by Salt Lake City I Corporation shall become binding immediately on all users of the easements reserved herein. 1 . 6.4 No Agency Relationship. Nothing in this instrument shall create or be construed as creating an agency relationship between Grantor and IGrantee. 6.5 Governing Law. This instrument concerns real property located Iin the State of Utah and shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Utah. I6.6 Interpretation. This instrument shall be interpreted and f° construed only by the contents hereof, and there shall be no presumption or standard of construction in favor of or against either Grantor or Grantee. -4- I I . ill . IIN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor and Grantee have executed this instrument this day of RECORDED1999. I APR ? 7 1999 SAT LAKE CITY C PORATION CITE' RECORDER NTO ATTEST & COUNTERSIGN _` .... 3- _ y ' la, ''t, -.'; ,_'�, It La pityneitt:y's Gttica . i 1 _S ' 'Git'hb — z —9 �• 3 4- - Deput i•�rRecorder � ,„ ��. 'r - �, �RATi:S I .. '. • STATE OF UTAH ) :ss. ounty of Salt Lake • ) • On APR 2 7 • 1999 , personal) appear=d b- •re • D- :•ee C.rradini I and Beverly Jonps being by e duly s • di, s- - they are the . MAYOR and DEPUTY REC• "DER, re • ctiv.- y, •f alt =ke City ICorporation, a municipal corporation of the Sta - of U ah, .nd at -id persons duly acknowledged to me that said - orporation x• cu - : s- e. !>+- RY ' BLIC, resi ink g in • alt Lake County, Utah My Commission Expires: Is .NOTARY KUNZ r, STATrOFUTAH yrce�,:wio�6yilr . Zen-11 'l0.r 1 A� �,L + tiOAL. , t Su*M S a Ea..• 4 L.,7.lNh MUN a IP . I I ,. , L CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF I LATTER-DAY SAINTS GRAN • I • By. Titl I STATE OF UTA H ) :ss. 1 County of Salt Lake ) On u, a7, /ff9' , personally appeared before me I ,6eje, d.. -, personally known to me to be the of the CORPORA-Kegs; OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CH.URC OF J SUS I CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, who acknowledged to me that he/she signed . the foregoing instrument as AUTHORIZED AGENT for the CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDINGBISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, a Utah corporation sole, and that the seal impress d on the within instrument is the seal of said corporation, and the said �!! . 4 .w,e_ acknowledged to me that the said corporation executed the same. . a ,, CONNIE J.ROBERTS ilt— • I •r 6 Notary Public j' �ateaf � NOTARY BLIC, residing in • i... . My Comm.Expires Mar 1.2X0 60ENoMT.mpItlaIMFi8LCUr 6116o Salt Lake County, Utah • III My Commission Expires: . I I. . I 10 G:\PL9984\DOCS\ds special warranty deed.dac -6- I 1. EXHIBIT"A" MAIN STREET PROPERTY DESCRIPTION . 1 Beginning at the Southeast corner of Block 87,Plat A, Salt Lake City Survey, located in Ithe Southwest quarter of section 31, Township 1 North, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base Meridian, and running thence North 00°01'42" west 660 feet along the east line of said block 87 to the Northeast corner of said block 87. Thence North 81°22'22" East 134.07 Ifeet to the South right of way line of North Temple Street, a point that is North 00°02'13" West .18 feet from the Northwest Corner of Block 88, Plat A, thence South 00°02'13" I East 678 feet along the west line of block 88 to the Southwest corner of block 88: thence South 89°05'14"West 132.68 feet to the point of beginning. • '4g1/ - •• • • • � . • • 111 • • • 1 . 1111, ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 1 i illASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS This appraisal has been based on the following limiting conditions: 111 1. For purposes of this appraisal, any marketing program for the sale of the property would assume cash or its equivalent. I 2. No detailed soil studies covering the subject property were available for this appraisal. It is therefore assumed that soil conditions are adequate to support standard construction consistent with highest and best use. I 3. The date of value to which the conclusions and opinions expressed in this report apply,is set forth in the letter of transmittal. Further, the dollar amount of any value opinion rendered in this report is based upon the purchasing power of the American dollar existing on that date. I 4. The appraisers assume no responsibility for economic or physical factors which may affect the opinions in this report which occur after the valuation date. I 5. The appraisers reserve the right to make such adjustments to the analyses, opinions and conclusions set forth in this report as may be required by consideration of additional data or more reliable data that may become available. I 6. No opinion as to title is rendered. Data relating to ownership and legal description was obtained from the client or public records and is considered reliable. Title is assumed to be marketable and free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, easements and restrictions except those specifically discussed in the report. The I property is appraised assuming it to be under responsible ownership and competent management, and available for its highest and best use. 7. If no title policy was made available to the appraisers, they assume no responsibility for such items of record 1110 not disclosed by their customary investigation. 8. The appraisers assume no responsibility for hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures that render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for arranging for engineering Istudies that may be required to discover them. 9. The property is appraised assuming it to be in full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local Ienvironmental regulations and laws, unless otherwise stated. 10. The property is appraised assuming that all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions have been complied with, unless otherwise stated. I11. The property is appraised assuming that all required licenses, certificates of occupancy, consents, or other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state, or national government or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value estimate contained in this report is based, unless otherwise stated. 12. No engineering survey has been made by the appraiser. Except as specifically stated, data relative to size and I area was taken from sources considered reliable and no encroachment of real property improvements is considered to exist. I 13. No opinion is expressed as to the value of subsurface oil, gas or mineral rights or whether the property is subject to surface entry for the exploration or removal of such materials except as is expressly stated. 14. Maps,plats and exhibits included in this report are for illustration only as an aid in visualizing matters discussed I within the report. They should not be considered as surveys or relied upon for any other purpose, nor should they be removed from, reproduced, or used apart from the report. fb . MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 I I 15. No opinion is intended to be expressed for matters which require legal expertise or specialized investigation LI or knowledge beyond that customarily employed by real estate appraisers. 16. Possession of this report, or copy of it, does not carry with it the right of publication. It may not be used for I any purpose by any person other than the party to whom it is addressed without the written consent of the appraiser,and in any event only with proper written qualification and only in its entirety. I 17. Testimony or attendance in court or at any other hearing is not required by reason of rendering this appraisal, unless such arrangements are made a reasonable time in advance. 18. The appraisers have personally inspected the subject property and find no obvious evidence of structural I deficiencies, except as may be stated in this report; however, no responsibility for hidden defects or conformity to specific governmental requirements, such as fire, building and safety, earthquake or occupancy codes can be assumed without provision of specific professional or government inspections. 1 19. Unless otherwise noted, no consideration has been given in this appraisal to the value of the property located on the premises which is considered by the appraisers to be personal property, nor has consideration been given to the cost of moving or relocating such personal property; only the real property has been considered. I20. Information obtained for use in this appraisal is believed to be true and correct to the best of our ability; however, no responsibility is assumed for errors or omissions, or for information not disclosed which might Iotherwise affect the valuation estimate. 21. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the appraisers signing this report have no knowledge concerning the presence or absence of toxic materials in the improvements and/or hazardous waste on the land. No Iresponsibility is assumed for any such conditions or for any expertise or engineering to discover them. 22. Disclosure of the contents of this appraisal report is governed by the Bylaws and Regulations of the Appraisal IIIInstitute. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report(especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of the appraiser or the firm with which he is connected, or any reference to the Appraisal Institute or to the MAI I designation) shall be disseminated to the public through advertising media, public relations media, news media, sales media, or any other public means of communication without the prior written consent and approval of the appraiser. I23. This is a Summary Appraisal Report which is intended to comply with the reporting requirements set forth under Standard Rule 2-2(b)of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice for a Summary Appraisal Report. As such, it might not include full discussions of the data, reasoning, and analyses that were used in I the appraisal process to develop the appraiser's opinion of value. Supporting documentation concerning the data, reasoning, and analyses is retained in the appraiser's file. The information contained in this report is specific to the needs of the client and for the intended use stated in this report. The appraiser is not 1 responsible for unauthorized use of this report. 24. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous substances, including without limitation asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyl, petroleum leakage, or agricultural chemicals, which may or may not be I present on the property, or other environmental conditions, were not called to the attention of nor did the appraisers become aware of such during the appraiser's inspection. The appraisers have no knowledge of the existence of such materials on or in the property unless otherwise stated. The appraisers, however, are not qualified to test such substances or conditions. If the presence of such substances, such as asbestos, urea I formaldehyde foam insulation, or other hazardous substances or environmental conditions, may affect the value the property,the value estimated is predicated on the assumption that there is no such condition on or in the property or in such proximity thereto that it would cause a loss in value. No responsibility is assumed Ifor any such conditions, nor for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. I' MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 I I 25. A ("ADA") became effective January , 1992 I not made a specific 16 coThemplianceAmericans survey with anDisad analysisbilities of ct this property to determine whether or26 not it is in conformity with the various detailed requirements of the ADA. It is possible that a compliance survey of the property, together with a detailed analysis of the requirements of the ADA,could reveal that the property is not in compliance with one I or more of the requirements of the Act. If so, this fact could have a negative effect upon the value of the property. Since I have no direct evidence relating to this issue, I did not consider possible noncompliance with the requirements of ADA in estimating the value of the Property. I 1 I 110 I I I I r = I I I IP MAIN STREET PLAZA/04-03 I QUALIFICATIONS QUALIFICATIONS OF J. PHILIP COOK, MAI,CRE EDUCATION PROFESSIONAL COMMITTEES B.S.degree in Real Estate Finance, University of Utah,June 2002 Board Member- Utah State Appraiser Board 1980 2002 Vice Chair- Utah Chapter Counselors of Real Estate ■ MBA degree, with Finance emphasis, University of Utah, 2001 Board Member; Appraisal Institute Education Trust June 1982 2001 National Education Committee-Counselors of Real Estate 1999 National Nominating Committee PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS& LICENSES 1996-1998 National Board of Directors,Appraisal Institute 1997-98-National Finance Committee, University of Utah • Member Appraisal Institute (MAI), #7000 1995 Regional Representative from Utah, Region II • Member Society of Real Estate Counselors(CRE) Appraisal Institute ■ Certified General Appraiser,State of Utah, #CG37068 1993 President, Utah Chapter of the Appraisal Institute ■ Certified General Appraiser,State of Idaho, #CG111 1992 Vice President and President-Elect, Utah Chapter of • Certified General Appraiser, State of Wyoming, Permit the Appraisal Institute #258 1992 Board Member Utah Association of Appraisers • Member International Right-of-Way Association 1991-1992 Regional Representative from Utah, Region II Appraisal Institute APPRAISAL EXPERIENCE 1991 Second Vice President, Utah Chapter of the Appraisal Institute October 1980 to present - Full-time real estate 1990 Chapter Secretary/Treasurer,American Institute of appraiser/consultant. Founder of J. Philip Cook & Associates, Real Estate Appraisers Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah, and former partner of Appraisal 1990 Unification Committee for the Merger of the Society Associates, Inc.,Salt Lake City, Utah. Specializing in the office, of Real Estate Appraisers and the American Institute of retail,industrial,multi-family,litigation and recreational property Real Estate Appraisers(Chapter level) markets. A full range of commercial real estate appraisal and 1987-1989 Chapter Director,American Institute of Real onsulting services are provided. Estate Appraisers ■ Apartment Projects SPECIALIZED SEMINAR/COURSES COMPLETED ■ Eminent Domain: Road widenings, wetlands mitigation, pedestrian fishing easements, dam and spillway, utility ■ Specialized courses, seminars and exams sponsored by the corridors, airport expansion, and restrictive use easements Appraisal Institute and others. ■ Expert Testimony: Qualified as expert in federal courts in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado, district courts in Salt Lake ■ Courses: 1A-1,1A-2, 1 B-1, 1B-2,1B-3, 2-1,2-2,2-3, and Tooele Counties and 6 • Hotel/Motel: Hotels and motels in the Intermountain ■ Seminars: Highest and Best Use, R41-b, R41-c region ■ Computer Spreadsheets ■ Industrial: Incubator buildings, office/warehouse, large ■ Standards of Professional Practice manufacturing facilities ■ FHLBB Regulations • Office Buildings ■ USPAP and Utah State Law • Retail: Neighborhood, community and regional centers in ■ Expert Testimony the Intermountain region ■ Subdivision Valuation • Ski Resorts: Both operations and land development aspects ■ Environmental Contamination of ski resorts in Utah, Nevada and Montana • Limited Scope Appraisals. • Special Studies: Contingent liability studies and appraisal ■ Eminent Domain Training special use properties management services on a national basis The Appraisal Institute requires 100 hours of recertification TEACHING/COMMITTEES education every five years. I am currently certified through December 31, 2006 ■ Formerly Assistant Professor Adjunct University of Utah, College of Business Department of Finance. (Real Estate Principles and Appraisal and Investment Courses) Instructor, Utah Chapter of the Appraisal Institute teaching Appraisal Principles and USPAP QUALIFICATIONS OF J. PHILIP COOK,MAI, CRE (Continued) itCLIENTS SERVED (Partial list) Clients Served (Continued) FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS/MORTGAGE COMPANIES GOVERNMENT(Continued) I I . Bonneville Mortgage • Ogden City • Bank of America ■ Sandy City • Bank of American Fork • Draper City 1 • Bank of Utah • West Jordan City ■ Bank One Utah • Utah County • • Clawson Group ■ Salt Lake County ■ Comerica I • First Union Bank CORPORATE/OTHER • G. E. Capital • Key Bank(Utah and Idaho) • Audubon Society I ■ Merrill Lynch • Chevron USA ■ Morgan Stanley • Intermountain Health Care • Republic Mortgage • LDS Church I I . Reutche Bank ■ Larry H. Miller Group ■ U.S. Bancorp Real Estate Services, Inc. • Price Development ■ Utah First Credit Union ■ The Boyer Company I . Washington Mutual • The Nature Conservancy ■ Wells Fargo Bank • Zions First National Bank More available upon request INSURANCE/PENSION FUNDS DEPOSITIONS/TESTIMONY(Since 1998) ■ Allstate Insurance ■ Clarica Allianz ■ Utah Department of Transportation v.Green Street lb • Sun Life of Canada Associates 1998 • Skymar Capital • Utah Department of Transportation v. Mark Steel/H & K ■ United of Omaha Truck, 1999 I ■ Utah State Retirement Board • Utah Department of Transportation v. Evans, 2000 • State of Utah v. HAFB PROFESSIONAL FIRMS • Davis County v.Zion's First National Bank,Trustee ■ Intermountain Power Agency v. Millard County ■ Clyde, Snow,Sessions&Swenson • Foster v. Foster,2001 ■ Fabian &Clendenin • Town of Alta v.MSI, Inc. ■ Home, Roberts& Owen • Utah Department of Transportation v. Envirotech Baker I ■ Jones,Waldo, Holbrook&McDonough Hughes) • Kinghorn & Peters • Davis County vs.Max Kerr k ■ Parsons, Behle & Latimer • Utah Department of Transportation v. Mark Steel and ■ Parsons, Parres H&K Truck Equipment ■ Ray Quinney& Nebeker ■ Utah Department of Transportation v.Wildwood Resort • Snow, Christensen&Martineau Company • Stoel Rives • Draper City v. Draper Irrigation Company I ■ Vancott, Bagley, Cornwall &McCarthy • RAS v.Town of Alta • Utah Department of Transportation v. Diamond Bar X i GOVERNMENT Ranch I ■ Bureau of Land Management • ■ Bureau of Reclamation ■ Utah Department of Transportation v.Green Street Associates • Justice Dept. - U.S.Attorney • DCED v.Clarence Birt,et al. I ■ Salt Lake City Corporation • Charles Ross Neely,et al v. Land Lease ■ Salt Lake Department of Airports • Agricultural Business, Inc.2002 i ■ State of Utah (DFCM, DCED) ■ Utah Department of Transportation I i • 0 EXHIBIT 3e APPRAISAL OF THE GLENDALE PROPERTY • Transmittal of Petition 400-03-01 J. PHILIP COOK &ASSOCIATES O. H.Ili REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS/ADVISORS I 92,347 SQUARE FEET OF VACANT LAND 1385 South 900 West Salt Lake City, Utah 11/ 11) I I I 1 I 5107 SOUTH 900 EAST,SUITE ZOO SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84117 C I I jPHILIP COOK &ASSOCIATES u.. � uuu u. REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS/ADVISORS I I I 92,347 SQUARE FEET OF VACANT LAND 1385 South 900 West Salt Lake City, Utah I I I I I I' 1 11) 5107 SOUTH 900 EAST,SUITE 200 SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84117 I I vommoog a,iii ii J PHILIP COOK &ASSOCIATES iiii uw iii „ii, _ P_ REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS/ADVISORS als III J.PHILIP COOK,MAI,CRE MICHELE E.JAKOB,MAI DARRIN W.LIDDELL,MAI VIRGINIA H.HYLTON al RICHARD F.SCHETTLER TROY A. LUNT II DAVID M. ANDERSON• GREGORY R. BESS DAVID C.SLOAN JEFFREY S.ALLEN DAVID L..CHILD KAMMIE L.LEFEVRE COREY COOK CARL DIETZ IApril 8, 2003 I Mr. Lynn Pace, Esquire City Attorney's Office Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street, 5th Floor Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 IRe: Appraisal: 92,347 square feet of vacant land located at 1385 South 900 West, Salt Lake City, Utah. IDDear Mr. Pace: I At your request, we have prepared an appraisal addressing market value of the fee simple estate of the above-referenced property. The attached report contains the bases, data, and analyses upon which the opinion of value relies. The function of the appraisal is to assist I in trade negotiations between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I As a complete appraisal - summary report, this presents only summary discussion of the data, reasoning and analyses that are used in the appraisal process to develop an opinion of value. The depth of discussion contained in this report is specific to the needs of the client and for the intended use stated herein. The report complies with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice(USPAP) Ias promulgated by the Appraisal Foundation and appraisal guidelines as established by the Appraisal Institute. IThe property was last inspected on April 8, 2003, which is the valuation date. Available market data have been carefully considered and analyzed. As supported in the report, we Iare of the opinion market value, as defined herein, is: II TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($275,000) k 5107 SOUTH 900 EAST,SUITE 200 `SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84117 TELEPHONE:801-281-4600 V FAX:801-281-4601 TE-MAIL:jpc&associates@jpc.biz.com I j PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES iii ir=i=- Page Two IReview of the available b e data and conversations with area brokers and listing agents indicate that exposure time (i.e., the length of time the subject property would have to be exposed for sale II on the market had it sold at the market value concluded in this analysis as of the date of this valuation) would have been ±12 months or less. IThe value estimate is subject to assumptions and limiting conditions contained in the report. We trust this is sufficient to accomplish its intended function. Please call if we can be of further Iassistance. Sincerely, I 47616— 11114aLee E , , 1 J. Philip Cook, Al, CRE MiChele E. Jakob, MAI IUtah State-Certified General Appraiser Utah State-Certified General Appraiser Certificate CG37068 Expires 06 30 03 Certificate CG49945 Expires 7-31-03 110 I I I I I I I' I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATESill EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I LOCATION: 1385 South 900 West, Salt Lake City, Utah I PURPOSE OF APPRAISAL: Estimate market value I PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED: Fee simple I REPORT DATE: April 8, 2003 a VALUATION DATE April 8, 2003 I iiiTYPE OF PROPERTY: Vacant land PROPERTY TAXES: I - Serial Numbers: 15-14-204-004 and 005 I - 2002 Property Taxes: $1,354.21 ISITE: - Size 92,347 sq. ft.; 2.12 acres 1 - Topography Near level - Zoning I (Institutional) - Flood Zone Zone "C" (area of minimal flooding); Panel No. 490105 0029B; Dated September 30, 1994 IIMPROVEMENTS: None I IP VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 IHIGHEST AND BEST USE: - As Vacant Mixed-use residential and commercial. I 1 FINAL VALUE ESTIMATE: $275,000 1 I I Op I I I I I 11" VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 I I 5J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES CERTIFICATION 1111 a CERTIFICATION IWe certify that we have made an investigation and analysis of the following property: 92,347 SQUARE FEET OF VACANT LAND Located at 1385 South 900 West, Salt Lake City, Utah Salt Lake County Assessor's Parcel Numbers 15-14-204-004 and 005 I We certify that to the best of our knowledge and belief: 1 1. The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. 2. The reported analyses, opinions and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are our personal,impartial,and unbiased professional analyses,opinions,and conclusions. I 3. We have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report,and we have no personal interest with respect to the parties involved. 4. We have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment. 5. Our engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. 6. Our compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value I or direction in value that favors the cause of the client,the amount of the value opinion,the attainment of a stipulated result,or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal. 110 7. Our analyses,opinions,and conclusions were developed,and this report was prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standard of Professional Appraisal Practice(USPAP). 8. We have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. 9. No one provided professional assistance to the persons signing this report. I 10. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute, relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. 11. J.Philip Cook has completed the requirements of the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. 12. Michele E.Jakob has completed the requirements of the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. I 13. The value conclusion as well as other opinions expressed herein, are not based on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation,or the approval of a loan. 14. Our state appraisal certification/registrations have not been revoked,suspended,canceled,or restricted. I 15. The undersigned hereby acknowledge that they have the appropriate education and experience to complete the assignment in a competent manner. The reader is referred to the appraisers'Statement of Qualifications. 16. J.Philip Cook is currently a Certified General Appraiser in the State of Utah#CG37068. 17. Michele E.Jakob is currently a Certified General Appraiser in the State of Utah#CG49945. IDated: April 8, 2003 e/04---/ ii. F ql_kadv) J. Philip Co MAI CRE 2Jc. JatAI IUtah State-Certified General Appraiser Utah State-Certified General Appraiser Certificate CG37068 Expires 06-30-03 Certificate CG49945 Expires 7-31-03 I 1" VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 II I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES COMPLETE APPRAISAL-SUMMARY REPORT I COMPLETE APPRAISAL - SUMMARY REPORT 1 CLIENT: Mr. Lynn Pace, Esquire City Attorney's Office I Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street, 5th Floor Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 a APPRAISERS: J. Philip Cook, MAI, CRE and 1 Michele E. Jakob, MAI J. Philip Cook & Associates 1 5107 South 900 East, Suite 200 Salt Lake City, Utah 84117 111 SUBJECT: A 92,347 square foot parcel of vacant land located at 1385 South 900 West, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah. MO PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL: Estimate market value. INTENDED USE AND USERS OF THIS REPORT: The function of this report is to assist in trade negotiations between Salt Lake CityCorporation and the Church ofJesus Christof g p Latter-day IISaints. IPROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED: The value estimate is for all rights of ownership in fee simple, subject to easements of record, if any. i Fee simple ownership is defined as, "absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest IIor estate, subject only to the limitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat.i1 I ' Appraisal Institute,The Appraisal of Real Estate,Twelfth Edition,(Chicago,Illinois:Appraisal Institute,2001),69. VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 PAGE 2 I' I 11 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES COMPLETE APPRAISAL-SUMMARY REPORT 10 IVALUATION DATE AND PROPERTY INSPECTION: The property was first inspected on January 9, 2003, and last inspected on April 8, 2003. The valuation date is April 8, 2003. ill DATE OF THE REPORT: As noted in the letter of transmittal. I SCOPE OF ASSIGNMENT: This report is intended to satisfy the requirements of a complete Iappraisal presented in summary narrative format. ,I, This summary appraisal report is a brief recapitulation of the appraisers' data, analyses, and conclusions. Supporting documentation is retained in the appraisers'file and is available to the Iclient during regular business hours, if required. IThe subject is vacant land. Therefore, only the land is valued herein, and only the sales imocomparison approach is applicable. IThis report complies with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) as promulgated by the Appraisal Foundation and appraisal guidelines as established by the 1 Appraisal Institute. iAPPRAISAL DEVELOPMENT AND REPORTING PROCESS: In preparing this appraisal report, the appraisers: I • inspected the subject site; I • gathered information on comparable land sales; • confirmed and analyzed the data and applied the Sales Comparison Approach to Value Iin estimating land value. IDEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE: The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale,the buyer and seller, 10 VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 PAGE 3 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES COMPLETE APPRAISAL-SUMMARY REPORT aeach acting prudently, knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is consummation of a sale as of a specified date and passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: 1. Buyer and seller are typically motivated; 2. Both parties are well-informed or well-advised and each acting in what they consider their own best interest; 3. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; 4. Payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangement comparable thereto; 5. The price represents a normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale.2 The fo regoing definition stipulates that value reflect cash or cash equivalent terms. The following elaborates on the concept of cash equivalency. In applying this definition of market value, adjustments to the comparables must be made for special or creative financing or sales concessions. No adjustments are necessary for those costs that are normally paid by sellers as a result of tradition or law in a market area; these costs are readily identifiable since the seller pays these costs in virtually all sales transactions. Special or creative financing adjustments can be made to the comparable property by comparison to financing terms offered by a third party financial institution that is not already involved in the property or transaction. V Any adjustment should not be calculated on a mechanical dollar for dollar cost of the financing or concession, but the dollar amount of any adjustment should approximate the market's reaction to the financing or concessions based on the appraiser's judgement.' OWNERSHIP AND PROPERTY HISTORY: The subject property is owned by Cannon Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The site has been owned by this entity for over five years. There has been no change of ownership. The site is not currently listed for sale or lease. It is proposed the subject be traded to Salt Lake City Corporation in exchange for the city's Pedestrian Access and Passage Easement across the Main Street Plaza. I 2 This definition of market value is taken from the final rule issued by the Department of Treasury,Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (12CFR Part 34, August 24, 1990), which are the implementing regulations for Title XI of FIRREA. The definition is also supported by most regulatory agencies as follows: Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System(CFR Parts 208 and 225,July 25,1991); National Credit Union Administration(CFR Parts 701,722,and 741,July 25,1990);Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation(12 CFR Part 323,August 20, 1990); Resolution Trust Corporation(12CFR Part 1608,August 22, 1990);Office of Thrift Supervision,Treasury(12CFR Parts 506,545, 563,564,and 571,August 23, 1990). This definition has been adopted by the Appraisal Institute in their Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice,and the Appraisal Foundation in the Uniform Standard of Professional Appraisal Practice(June 30, 1989, amended April 20,1990 and June 5,1990). 3 Federal National Mortgage Association(FNMA)and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation(FHLMC). VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 PAGE 4 I I illJ. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES COMPLETE APPRAISAL-SUMMARY REPORT The subject would then be developed by the Alliance for Unity, which will raise $5 million for a building where the University of Utah and Intermountain Health Care will offer free legal, Ibusiness and medical advice as well as educational opportunities for children and adults. 11 This appraisal is intended to provide the value basis on which the trade can be negotiated. 8 DESCRIPTION OF REAL ESTATE APPRAISED: Legal Description ILegal descriptions were obtained from the Salt Lake County Recorder's Office,and are included 1 in the addenda. Real Estate Tax Information The subject was taxed in 2001 and 2002 as follows.4 I I I I I °Taxes in Utah are calculated by applying a tax rate to taxable value. Taxable value is a percentage of the assessor's estimate of market ill value. The percentage is 100 percent for commercial properties and about 55 percent for primary residential properties. The tax rate varies depending on a given county's budget. VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 PAGE 5 I I 111, J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES COMPLETE APPRAISAL-SUMMARY REPORT I2001 Tax Serial# 15-14-204-004 15-14-204-005 Total Market Value I Land $32,000 $61,600 $93,600 Improvements 0 0 0 Total $32,000 $61,600 $93,600 III Taxable Value $32,000 $61,600 $93,600 Tax Rate x0.014387 x0.014387 N/A Total Taxes $460.38 $886.24 $1,346.62 I 2002 Tax Serial# 15-14-204-004 15-14-204-005 Total Market Value Land $32,000 $61,600 $93,600 1 Improvements 0 0 0 Total $32,000 $61,600 $93,600 Taxable Value $32,000 $61,600 $93,600 ITax Rate x0.014468 x0.014468 N/A frotal Taxes $462.98 $891.23 $1.354.21 I • P Tr easurer's Due Amounts. According to the Salt Lake County Treasurer s Office,taxes for 2001 and 111, 2002 are paid in full. 1 • Equity of Assessment. In comparison to the value estimate from this report, the subject is significantly underassessed. I NEIGHBORHOOD DESCRIPTION: I Please see the neighborhood map and aerial photograph included in the addenda. I • Jurisdiction and Proximity. The subject is located along 900 West Street, just south of ICalifornia Avenue (1300 South) within corporate boundaries of Salt Lake City. The Salt Lake a. Central Business District is approximately four miles northeast. Salt Lake County offices are II located three miles southeast of the subject. The Salt Lake City International Airport is three I miles northwest. West Valley City abuts Salt Lake City to the south, south of the 2100 South Freeway. South Salt Lake abuts Salt Lake City to the southeast, at the Jordan River and 2100 r VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 PAGE 6 I I 11 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES COMPLETE APPRAISAL-SUMMARY REPORT 6 ISouth Street. Interstate 15 is located one-half mile east of the subject. Interstate 215 is one mile west. I • Neighborhood Land Use. A neighborhood can be defined as, "...a portion of a larger 111 community, or an entire community, in which there is homogeneous grouping of inhabitants, buildings, or business enterprises." "...Neighborhood boundaries may consist of well defined inatural or man-made barriers or they can be more or less well defined by a distinct change in land use...i5 I I Neighborhood boundaries are considered to be Indiana Avenue(1100 South)to the north, 700 West Street to the east, Redwood Road to the west, and 1700 South Street to the south. I Development within the defined boundaries comprises commercial, industrial,community, and single and multi-family residential uses. Community uses include the Sorenson Multi-Cultural toCenter to the north, the Sargent Shriver Center further north along the north side of California Avenue, Riley Elementary School to the southeast, and Mountain View Elementary School to Ithe northwest. IIndustrial uses are located east of the subject, between 800 West and Interstate 15, both north and south of California Avenue. Single-family residential uses are located west and south of the Isubject. The Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control is located south of the subject. Commercial uses are located at the intersections of 1700 South and 900 West Streets, and ICalifornia Avenue and Redwood Road. New development in the area includes single-family residential subdivisions along the north and south sides of California Avenue, at approximately I1600 West. The Glendale Shopping Center is located northwest of the subject, north of California Avenue. There are large tracts of vacant land available for development south of the 1 I 110 s Real Estate Appraisal Terminology,The American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, the Society of Real Estate Appraisers, 1975, p.147. VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 PAGE 7 I I 16 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES COMPLETE APPRAISAL-SUMMARY REPORT Isubject, along the west side of 900 West Street, at ±1600 South, and northwest along Redwood Road. I Properties immediately surrounding the subject include single-family residential uses to the Inorth and west, the Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center to the north, vacant land to the east, and Riley Elementary School to the south and southeast. I • Age/Life Trend. Development of the subject neighborhood began with construction of 1 single-family residential uses in the 1930s and 1940s with the most recent development I occurring in 2001. Industrial developments were constructed from the 1950s with the most recent development occurring in 2000. New development includes the California Avenue car Iwash at the southeast corner of Redwood Road and California Avenue, the Madison Estates Subdivision along California Avenue and 1616 West, and the River Glen Subdivision, under IDconstruction east of the California Avenue car wash. Additional commercial development is occurring along Redwood Road at approximately 1160 South Street, and includes a multi- Itenant retail building. 1 • Accessibility. The subject has access along 900 West Street which is a primary north-south transportation route through the neighborhood. It accesses 1700 South and the 2100 South IFreeway to the south. To the north, 900 West Street accesses California Avenue, 800 South, and 400 South Streets. California Avenue is a primary east-west transportation route that Iprovides access to Redwood Road, Interstate 215, and the Bangerter Highway to the west. To the east, California Avenue accesses Interstate 15, State Street, and other north-south Itransportation routes east of Interstate 15. Overall, access to the subject is considered good. I • Influences. The subject is positively influenced by new commercial and residential I development in the area and community uses in the neighborhood. No negative influences were noted on inspection. VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 PAGE 8 I I IIIJ. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES COMPLETE APPRAISAL-SUMMARY REPORT I • Summary. In summary,the subject is well located along 900 West Street, south of California Avenue. Access to primary transportation routes and surrounding support uses is considered Igood. The projection is for an increase in property values over the medium term holding periods. I PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: I Please see the property plat in the addenda, on which the subject site is identified. I The subject is a 92,347 square foot rectangular site with ±216.35 feet of frontage on 900 West IStreet and a maximum depth of ±427.97 feet. The site is at street grade and is near level. All utilities are available. It is located in Flood Zone "C" (areas of minimal hazard), and is in a high liquefaction zone. This is a typical liquefaction zone for properties in the central west portion traof the Salt Lake Valley. IThe site is fully fenced with perimeter chain-link fencing. Curb cut access is available from 900 West Street. I No title report was provided to the appraisers. This analysis assumes that standard utility easements exist to serve the subject. A search of County Records found a perpetual easement granted to U.S.West Communications to construct,reconstruct,operate, maintain and remove Isuch telecommunications facilities as grantee may require upon, over, under and across a portion of the subject site. The easement is six feet in width described by a centerline with Ithree feet on each side. A copy of the easement is retained in the appraisers' file. 1 The subject is zoned I (Institutional) under the jurisdiction of Salt Lake City. The purpose of this zone is, "to regulate the development of larger public and semipublic uses in a manner 11 harmonious with surrounding uses. The uses regulated by this District are generally those 1111 having multiple buildings on a campus-like site." Examples of permitted uses in the I zone VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 PAGE 9 1 I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES COMPLETE APPRAISAL-SUMMARY REPORT Iinclude day care centers, government offices, medical and dental offices, colleges and universities, community and recreation centers, emergency response and medical service Ifacilities including fire stations and living quarters, hospitals, libraries, places of worship, private schools, and museums. A copy of the applicable section of the Salt Lake City zoning map and fthe I zoning ordinance is included in the addenda. IHIGHEST AND BEST USE: Highest and best use is defined as, "...the reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or improved property, which is physically possible, appropriately Isupported, financially feasible, and that results in the highest value.i6 IThere are four tests of highest and best use implicit within the foregoing definition. These Iinclude: (1) physically possible, (2) legally permitted, (3) financially feasible, and (4) that use which having met the foregoing tests results in the highest present land value. As indicated leearlier, the subject represents a vacant site; therefore, only highest and best use "as vacant" is required. 1 As Vacant I • Physically Suitable. The subject is a rectangular site with frontage and access along 900 1 West Street. The site is relatively large at 2.12 acres. It is near level and at grade. All utilities are available. There are no significant physical limitations to development. I • Legally Permitted. Current zoning allows for public and semipublic uses as well as certain Iprivate commercial uses. Surrounding development includes community and single-family residential uses. Industrial uses are located further east and west. Office uses are located south, Inear the 1700 South 900 West intersection. The I zone allows for most types of government uses, medical/dental uses, daycare, and community uses. 111 6 Appraisal Institute,The Appraisal of Real Estate,Twelfth edition,(Chicago, Illinois:Appraisal Institute 2001),305. VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 PAGE 10 I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES COMPLETE APPRAISAL-SUMMARY REPORT 6 IInstitutional zonings are typically an after-the-fact occurrence. That is, institutional users will purchase property which is generally zoned the same as surrounding land and will pay prices Ireflective of zoning of that surrounding land. Once the institutional use is established, the property is often rezoned consistent with that institutional use. The subject was historically Iused as a church site and thus, the institutional zoning. IUltimately, the market drives use, so long as such use is not wholly inconsistent with proper land planning. Now that the subject is vacant, its use potential is influenced by other than 1 simply the institutional zoning. IThe property is adjacent to uses traditionally considered to be residential in orientation, I specifically the school as well as single-family residential along 900 West to the north. It is also influenced by a community facility along California Avenue. Community facilities are often iifound in residential settings. However, they are also found along commercial routes and such is the case here. The subject therefore has potential for either residential or commercial uses Ifrom a legal and neighborhood conformance standpoint. I (Sales of institutionally zoned land are rare for the very reasons cited above, and a market comparison must therefore be made with land zoned residential and commercial, more in line Iwith the subject's use potential without the institutional zoning.) I • Economically Feasible. Salt Lake City has seen strong residential and commercial growth over the past several years. Development has slowed in the past 12 to 18 months but has Iremained steady. The subject area is characterized as a secondary location with well- established residential neighborhoods convenient to schools, services, shopping, and Itransportation networks. IThere is relatively steady demand for residential uses in the subject neighborhood,and the land ipwould be in demand for such use. However, the current institutional zoning which also allows VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 PAGE 11 I I iJ. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES COMPLETE APPRAISAL-SUMMARY REPORT s Isome private commercial uses, and the proximity to the Community Center as well as commercial uses along California Avenue, suggests that commercial development is also a Ipossibility. The site is quite deep relative to its frontage, which limits the commercial potential primarily to the front of the site. It is probable that the site could achieve a mixed-use approval. 111 If an institutional user were to buy the property, zoning would not have to be changed. The price paid would be reflective of the site's potential without the institutional zoning. I The most economically viable use of the subject would be for mixed residential and commercial Ipurposes. I • Highest Present Land Value. Highest present land value is obtained by mixed-use Idevelopment including residential and commercial uses. to LAND VALUATION: IThe valuation of the subject land is made on the basis of its highest and best use as vacant. The most reliable approach toward a separate valuation of the land is a comparison with similar 1 parcels that have recently sold in the open market. A search for recent land sales resulted in the data summarized in the following table. Comparative adjustments are made for variances to 1 arrive at a value estimate for the subject. Explanation of the adjustments follows. Detailed fact sheets are presented in the addenda. I $ I I I) VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 PAGE 12 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES COMPLETE APPRAISAL-SUMMARY REPORT ILAND SALES ADJUSTMENT GRID SUBJECT ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX ADDRESS 1385 South 425 South 925 North 1616 West 1110 West 1512 South 930 West I 900 West Redwood Road Redwood Road California Avenue Mead Avenue 900 West 1700 South Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City AREA(SQ.FT.) 92,347 65,776 36,155 163,481 27,878 63,598 49,223 SALE PRICE N/A $585,000 $53,950 $356,535 $65,000 $150,000 $250,000 N SALE DATE ZONING I N/A Mar-01 CC Mar-01 R-1-7000 Jul-00 Jun-01 Apr-99 Listing CC R-1-5000 R-1-5000 CS . CONFICURATIO Interior Corner Interior Interior Interior Interior Interior SALES PRICEJSQ.Fr. $8.89 $1.49 $2.18 $2.33 $2.36 $5.08 I PROPERTY RIGHTS 0% 0% 0% O% 0% 0% ADJUSTED PRICEtSQ.>2. $8.89 $1.49 $2.18 $2.33 $2.36 $5.08 FlNANCINC TERMS` 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% ADJUSTED PRICE/SQ.FT. $8.89 $1.49. $2.18 $2.33 $2.36 $5.08 0% . CONDITIONS OF SALE .80% 0% 0% -10% ADJUSTED PRICEJSQ.FT. $8.89 $1.49 $2.18 $2.33 $2.36 $4.57 EXPENDITURES AFTER PURCHASE 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% I ADJUSTED PRtCEJSQ,FT, $8.89 $1.49 $2.18 $2.33 $2.36 $4.57 MARKET(TIME)ADI. 0% 0% 3% 0% 10% 0% MARKET PRICE/SQ.Fr.' $8.89 $1.49 $2.25 $2.33 $2.60 $4.57 ADJUSTMENTS Location -15% 20% 0% 10% 0% 5% Size 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Site Utility 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Street Orientation/Exposure -25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Utilities 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Density - -25% 30% 25% 25% 25% -25% Total Adjustments -65% 50% 25% 35% 25% -30% I NET ADJUSTED PRICE $3.11 $2.24 $2.81 $3.15 $3.25 $3;20 ADJUSTED AVERAGE/SQ.ET. $2. i IBefore adjustment the comparable sales show a range in price from $1.49 to $8.89 per square foot. For land, price variances are normally attributed to eight factors: 1) property rights Iconveyed, 2) financing terms, 3) conditions of sale, 4) expenditures made immediately after purchase, 5) market conditions (date of sale), 6) location, 7) physical characteristics, and 8) Idensity potential. Each of these factors is discussed below. II • Property Rights Conveyed. The value estimate sought is the fee simple value. All of the transactions involved the conveyance of fee simple rights. No adjustment is necessary. 1 f' VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 PAGE 13 1 I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES COMPLETE APPRAISAL-SUMMARY REPORT • Financing Terms. The market value definition used in this report stipulates cash purchases. All of the transactions were reported as cash, or its equivalent, and no adjustments are necessary. • Conditions of Sale. Conditions of sale refer to influences surrounding the sale process that result in less than an arm's-length transaction. These could include distressed sellers, highly- motivated buyers, or related entities. All of the sales, except Sale #6, are considered to have occurred at arm's-length and no adjustments are necessary. Sale#6 is a current listing.The site has been available for sale for approximately three years. List prices are typically negotiated downward during the sale process. Based on discussions with listing agents active in the submarket, there has been significant interest in the site. However, Salt Lake City zoning requirements are restrictive on the site. Potential buyers have not been able to get approvals for development. A site adjacent west is listed for$4.51 per square foot. It has also been listed for several years. Large downward adjustment is supported. • Expenditures Made Immediately After Purchase. Expenditures made immediately after purchase may include the cost to demolish and remove any buildings, cost to petition for a zoning change, or cost to remediate environmental contamination. None of the sales, except Sale #5, reported any expenditures after purchase and no adjustments are made. Sale #5 warrants additional discussion. 111 The buyer for Sale#5 indicated that the site was improved with an older home. The home was given no value in the transaction. The buyer indicated nominal cost to raze the home due to development costs associated with the site. No adjustment is made. • Market Conditions (Date of Sale). Values change over time due to various market forces, particularly supply and demand. While there is anticipation for institutional development at the subject site, there are no final plans from specific developers at the present time. There I" have been few similar sales in the subject area over the past 12 to 18 months. The sales that VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 PAGE 14 I I 110 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES COMPLETE APPRAISAL-SUMMARY REPORT Ihave occurred have been zoned for residential or commercial uses. The sales have occurred over the past several years, with the oldest sale occurring in April 1999. Land values have Istabilized in 2001 and 2002. Modest upward adjustment for market conditions is made to Sales #3 and #5, at six percent per year through 2000. I • Location. This refers to access, exposure and quality of surrounding development. The Isubject is well located along 900 West Street, with good access to major freeways and local surface streets. Each of the sales is discussed below. I ISale #1 is located northwest of the subject, along Redwood Road, just south of Interstate 80. Access to transportation routes and traffic counts are superior to the subject. Downward Iadjustment is necessary. lipSale #2 is located northwest of the subject. It is an interior parcel that has frontage along a private lane. Traffic counts and access to transportation routes are inferior. Upward adjustment Ifor comparison is made. ISale #3 is located west of the subject, along California Avenue, east of Redwood Road. Traffic counts along California Avenue are superior to 900 West Street. Surrounding land uses are Iinferior. Offsetting adjustments are made. ISale #4 is located northwest of the subject. This is a secondary area with inferior access to transportation routes. Traffic counts are inferior. Upward adjustment is applied. I Sale #5 is located south of the subject, along 900 West Street. No adjustment is necessary. I Comparable #6 is located south of the subject, along 1700 South Street,just west of 900 West I Street. This is a primary transportation artery with superior traffic counts. Downward lbadjustment is applied. VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 PAGE 15 1 I 16 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES COMPLETE APPRAISAL-SUMMARY REPORT I • Physical Characteristics. Physical characteristics include size, shape and topography, street orientation, and availability of utilities. I - Size: The subject is a 92,347 square foot site. It is of adequate size for numerous Icommercial or residential developments. The comparables range in size from 27,878 to 163,481 square feet. For the sales used, size does not appear to be a value Iinfluencing factor and no adjustment for size is necessary. I - Site Utility: Properties that have irregular shape or other difficulties will typically achieve lower sale prices per square foot in comparison to fully functional parcels. The Isubject is a rectangular parcel. It compares well with all of the comparables. No 1 adjustments are necessary. - Street Orientation: This factor refers to interior versus corner parcels. Corner parcels typically command higher prices due to superior ingress and egress as well as exposure Ifactors. The subject is an interior parcel that compares well with all of the sales, except Sale #1. Sale #1 is a corner parcel. Downward adjustment is made. I - Utilities: All of the parcels are adequately served by all necessary utilities and no Iadjustment are necessary. I • Density Potential. Density potential refers to a property's highest and best use. Properties which have a higher density potential generally command a premium. The subject's highest Iand best use is for a mix of residential and commercial development. Therefore,we have used both residential and commercial land sales. Residential values are less than commercial values, Iso that upward adjustments are required to the residential sales and downward adjustments are made to the commercial sales. Sales#1, #3, and #6 are zoned for commercial uses which Iallow for higher density of development. However,Sale #3 was used residentially. Downward 111 VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 PAGE 16 I I 116 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES COMPLETE APPRAISAL-SUMMARY REPORT Iadjustment is made to Sales #1 and #6. Sales #2, #4, and #5 are zoned for residential uses. Upward adjustment is applied to these sales and to Sale #3. I • Summary. After adjustments, the comparables indicate a range in value from $2.24 to I $3.25, with an adjusted average of$2.96 per square foot. The subject is a well shaped interior site. It is at the upper end of the range of the comparables in size. Its use potential is a Icompromise between commercial use which supports value above the average,and residential I use which supports value below the average. Therefore,a factor atthe mid-range is reasonable. All of the sales are considered good indicators of value. A value of $3.00 per square foot is Iconcluded. Total value is shown below. 1 92,347 square feet x $3.00 = $277,041 Rounded to $275,000 ID I • I I I 1 1 I VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 PAGE 17 I 1 1110 ADDENDA 1 1 1 1 1 I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS 10 ffi Il4- I I I I IView Easterly of Subject Site II A 111110 1. A,.ti : �R x `} `%iliff`".fib � , �id;; I ZP` .. a x *n I IView Southeasterly of Subject Site II VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS ill ;F - s_ a I IView Northeasterly of Subject Site .�} . �, : j ,5 � �, t � SYo- � +�'' k yr � .A -` ham- fr A s - ,< $ i ' ," g ':a mat;..,: - ,Y II IView Westerly Subject Subject Site f' VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 I illj. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS a y ., s -;Vi` r' r- �e n w l r > "r44 , I 3a ' s i rb",, :.o IView Northerly along 900 West Street 110 >- iV '1 . .. ■ View Southerly along 900 West Street if' VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 I I 16 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES ADDENDA I LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS III 15-14-204-004 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION FOR TAXATION PURPOSES ONLY 111 BEG 212.04 FT N & 1.03 FT E FR SW COR OF LOT 9, BLK 5, FIVE ACRE PLAT B, BIG FIELD SUR; E 218.97 FT; N 82.5 FT; W 217.57 FT; S 0-'58'32" W 82.52 FT TO BEG. 0.41 AC I 15-14-204-005 I PROPERTY DESCRIPTION FOR TAXATION PURPOSES ONLY BEG 4.74 RDS N & 1.03 FT E FR SW COR OF LOT 9, BLK 5, FIVE ACRE PLAT B, BIG FIELD SUR; N0-'10'13" E113.96 FT; N0-'58'32" E19.87 FT; E218.97 FT; N82.5 FT; E209FTS I216.33 FT; W 427.97 FT TO BEG. 1.71 AC I IIII I I I I I I IP VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 I 1 1110 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES ADDENDA I NEIGHBORHOOD MAP mr ,-...i-4+d1,.FL - I a y , 4 + '•` V ' t + , . 'I MP, , I.-� !ARAP,AHOE "o I�'xi iz m .:, '•, t .. P - WASATCH S re is li.Pa& 'o -t Ia, to `- NESE ��t' _r. :°.... ._.:_._.: ----- :_-`t- ; _... ` 8O -___.._ . .� c� dm HAiYES -ONT' 1, I ; . -1 li1kETkj'L.:--1—`- f9r I I i t ,.I- I . I I 1' I I I `meAt? ntematio , Z.,„,,Peace Garden; Z ,, v; , � `BROO GLYN' I.,, ... State Pi �',.09 4. PREO T i 41` s ILk.INQIs. GO D j :.oa.`- . ., w 1 yY- j Q, T CY x' SUBJECT +] '.- J . {fit 135'S S '',y I III . .,_ W gi�f'1r �nt..�yT�'ny�'�+ Vv-1400.�3' Y@ '7+?i741.y7 ' t ." R Y x1 —I-Tx I ANDR . -( ' • ,m _ ; i x RIS = z ;4C ' W CO :ua - WW1 ii L �M, .���R T d i i r : CODA `.Y-ON x i JEWELL -UBY o > 1 i fit._.._ .. 1 . , i . .w T"'3 q{� 6 1 .1 r t V M 1 i T r-•-e—-+err'+it ki - - ' NANETTE , .- `. Ol4 '1t$ � � 11� .,f i 4�4.J �[is 2', 20S 0• `an i op-A'n ! - '"� -.:40 S 1 _.._._ 'z. „ R: • .-;k ► 4Cc_ sic II VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 I I 110 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES ADDENDA I AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH -- - .L 7yr, a y x}` } ( t-.,,, 3 .:.: } •,,.sue II �fg � % z. t' 'A P .;. i cJ� $ B' I RFI�"T^a1. ' -'r f f nay" ¥ : 'F1 ` i big 7 � , " ,, �� Vt • b :=:,..., ,,,,, :.1 , ,.... x s . _ x �f:,,.-.;,„r:47 aa`r ts� l �.� .tt i Pr i" >s i rG -! ,� i • �i }-r 'k '. �. ,M ,, - ry a.� tr++ 2. ., r"< ,. €, t` to # <'} �-:,:,...44t.,r*,...i,„... , I ., -, "- - - . , . 1. �., ma' • ". , r�e ,✓,!+i - ri '.,j4` ., -.., /� • } y r. • �.a 4� h 's .• s 'fi=F Of----ie••kikl:f:.: ?:�� t ';. iiti, P`t t i, ' �q✓ of2d, ..e^g x I - ' g, ; - , ,1 ,,,,g4, . ,, .',,, ' .'''',,*••::,, --, ./.7t-.: ••,:: `Yz, .,,ei�, `�. T y r , 4 — ' ._"" . ,fit ''x� 1 ,air x -1 #t2 VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 I I IJ. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES ADDENDA D PROPERTY PLAT MAP I - - /5-//-4/- CAL/FORMA f ----11i 11 /-/ 1 I ...1 . 1.,... r I 1 s,.r _ ..a .1 .so i Irtel W i v 4 01 1 11' — kff to L P:fil i 4..1 ..1 ?VI 11 , .14 MI tr.59"' 115 Ipwr.wr!21— 't7,r-- • rS nwo R a. 1...jys lI..." ... y Q1°dQ---_- y3 AS y CD S -n .k -• aM a.� ±. Pi -I wig.. P+6 .. s 9 -r ▪.4.4 --- ... "'''.... 1 i 3 ma ....-►•T_ 7.- ._— • --'�+ywT--mat..-- W 14FH-Nl i1I i r/ .002 -K1 p 747 •:.--,2mmi-----..,- _____•••"-- ----re.-- __I.i.,,r-it Iii,t r lo .....„! .141° .oef •,i _ass RILEY C/A2tsL 1 •A u -.Uip br. - .. 'i .*/ a �a.vrs. . O i -am "V "1' ' .T- 17 I - -�n . o s� a�f•ma� � a--~ ��_ �wa�- -�-I� 04 .116 evs 1F A!5 s i -am ASO .,44 _._ems—.i.- .. --- .r/ ,r. --- ... m i - .•sr _- J 14 IrAl§ 4 . r -11 W ---r---�---- p P..,. .10 I1.1:M.s ". t-oroo� ! M�_.p w�t t Ng g2 - rt i__ _ I C9 x� W -TIT- t- -! P OD �= of 2 1" • I eoe 1' -- - II I4. .j ,-� 4. ,..-- sr I Qom. _ !TM S I" - - '� _smart .-.-_.._..----..-- --.. VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES ADDENDA 'sip ZONING MAP {' _ .�_--, ■ - I III A _,,,., 1 ,al-- lb# 7 _ fir- - .. m _ __ =- ir1 "I ,Uil'11111111111 L1L*!j =I!mii .T.pmel ___. CA2 :� kip 7!i4 �11•'.. LI���II,1� i .. II I ■01.,I u_==., u1.1,12.J11111 111111111111 I i I_ ll.A mill1111111717 MIMI' I Al11111114-V7�. 1111111111110 lit I Iiii MI Min Wing e.ii1ei'ii;v7:.i; i 2 ;1'1.11 in I 1 _ �1I,I� , LM f Subject ---Z- 117+iri iiz 010,4,_, , ; inat rez lin;Ili; 74 Mal iiI& A! ( w. /IUI'fI� I'y. g-NE al'P ill" m.li AN..:� �■ =ffIM _,l 1lXi +IMMIunnuun =-=`_- 11111IIII8IIIIIIIIII 1 VIZ11II11II I -- I ,/AIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII r C 1111111 um ,• , IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII =_! .. -Dr._____ , , „ , ,_, „ ....min.. ,-- �StI , nn. - ii. ro,..., ._,. I 1_� A L ■ —c 4 :.!.....,..; . Alt -, i _ i' VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES ADDENDA I ZONING ORDINANCE I I I I I 1li I I I I I I I VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 I I1AJ2.U8O I Institutional District: Page 1 of 2 ,1621A.32.080 I Institutional District: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the I Institutional District is to regulate the Idevelopment of larger public and semipublic uses in a manner harmonious with surrounding uses. The uses regulated by this District are generally those having multiple buildings on a campus-like site. IB. Uses: Uses in the I Institutional District as specified in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts found in Section 21A.32.140 of this Chapter, I are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in Section 21A.32.010 of this Chapter and this Section. IC. Minimum Lot Size: The following minimum lot size requirements shall apply to authorized permitted uses. Lot size requirements for conditional uses shall be determined for each conditional use. I Minimum Land Use. Minimum Lot Area Lot Width 1. Places of worship 2 acres 100 2. Other uses 20,000 sq. ft. 100 ft. ID. Maximum Building Height: Building height shall be limited to thirty five feet (35'). Building heights in excess of thirty five feet (35') but not more than seventy five feet (75') may be 111 approved as a conditional use; provided, that for each foot of height over thirty five feet (35'), each required yard shall be increased one foot(1'). I, E. Minimum Open Space: The minimum open space for any use shall not be less than forty percent (40%) of the lot area. IF. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front Yard: Twenty feet(20'). I2. Corner Side Yard: Twenty feet (20'). 1 3. Interior Side Yard: Twenty feet(20'). 4. Rear Yard: Twenty five feet (25'). I5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings s and structures may be located in required yard areas subject to Table 21A.36.020B of this Title. I G. Landscape Yard Requirements: Landscape yards, as specified below, shal l be required for each use in the I Institutional District and shall be improved in conformance with the 1 requirements of Part IV, Chapter 21A.48 of this Title. ill 1. Front Yard: Twenty feet(20'). 2. Corner Side Yard: Twenty feet(20'). I http://66.113.195.234/UT/Salt%20Lake%20City/18017000000011000.htm 1/8/2003 1 21A.32.080 I Institutional District: Page 2 of 2 ill3. Interior Side Yard: Eight feet (8'). 4. Rear Yard: Eight feet (8'). IH. Landscape Buffers: Landscape buffers shall be provided where a use in the I Institutional District abuts a lot in a residential district, as specified in Part IV, Chapter 21A.48 of this ITitle. I. Traffic And Parking Impact: The traffic and parking characteristics of institutional uses can I have a significant impact on the nearby residential neighborhoods. To ensure that these characteristics do not impair the safety or enjoyment of property in nearby areas, a traffic and parking study shall be submitted to the city in conjunction with the site plan review I provisions of this title whenever an expansion of an existing use or an expansion of the mapped district is proposed. New institutional uses or expansions/intensifications of existing institutional uses shall not be permitted unless the traffic and parking study I provides clear and convincing evidence that no significant impacts will occur. The zoning administrator may, upon recommendation of the development review team waive the requirement for a traffic and parking study if site conditions clearly indicate that no impact Iwould result from the proposed development. J. Lighting. All uses and developments shall provide adequate lighting so as to assure safety I and security. Lighting installations shall not have an adverse impact on traffic safety or on surrounding properties and uses. Light sources shall be shielded to minimize light spillover onto adjacent properties. (Ord. 88-95 § 1 (Exh. A)(part), 1995; Ord. 26-95 § 2(16-7), 1995) ID I ' I I I I I i" http://66.113.195.234/UT/Salt%20Lake%20City/18017000000011000.htm 1/8/2003 NM iml.gm ali me 111* am siii Alp or 100 04 tom SIM mg MO limen iiiim CO 21A.32.130 Table of permitted and conditional uses for special purpose districts. N 1 C=Conditional Use LEGEND Permitted and Conditional Uses,By District P=Permitted Use Spedal Purpose Districts Use RP BP FP AG OS A PL I UI MH El a Residential Congregate care facility P P Living quarters for caretakers and security guards P P P P P P ....,� Mobile homes P 1` Multifamily(no maximum density limitations) P Single-family detached dwellings P P (I) Office and Related Uses 0 Accessory offices supporting an institutional use P Adult day care centers P P r-i Child day care centers P P P P P P 0 Financial institutions,including drive-through facilities P P Q. 4 Government offices P P P P P P 40. Medical and dental offices P P P P NOffices,excluding medical and dental offices P P ► Offices,research related P P 00 Veterinary offices,operating entirely within an enclosed building and keeping P animals overnight only for treatment purposes Retail Sales and Services Accessory retail sales and services uses,when located within the principal P P P P P P building and operated primarily for the convenience of employees Institutional Uses Cemeteries and accessory crematoriums P Colleges and universities P P Community and recreation centers P P P P Conference center P P C P tConvention center,with or without hotels C Convents and monasteries P P n Dental laboratories/research facilities P P C Emergency response and medical service facilities including fire stations and C P P Fliving quarters w Exhibition hall C C P 0 i k 2 IMO 11111%lila MIMI — MO — Alla ORI — WOIOWNIMNNM —il` MP t LEGEND Permitted and Conditional Uses,By District n C=Conditional Use Special Purpose Districts 4 P=Permitted Use Use RP BP FP AG OS A PL I UI MH El Institutional Uses 0 Hospitals,including accessory lodging facilities C P P Libraries P P P Medical and dental clinics P P P P Medical research facilities P P Medical/nursing schools P Meeting halls of membership organizations P P P Nursing care facility;sanitariums P P Philanthropic uses P P Places of worship P p - Prison or jail C Religious assembly with exhibit hall C P Research,commercial,scientific,educational P P P 0.4 � Reuse of schools and churches C C C ►N-+ Seminaries and religious institutes P p p tra Schools,K-12 private P P t,`> Schools,K-12 public p y VP Schools,professional/vocational C P P p P CD Recreation,Cultural and Entertainment Arenas,stadiums,fairgrounds C C C v Botanical gardens C Country clubs p 0 Golf courses P P P Museums C P P P St CD Nature preserves/conservation areas,public and private P P Park(public) C p p W Private recreational facilities P p P p Zoological park P I Airport and Related Uses Air cargo terminals and package delivery facilities P P CD Airport operations(including air traffic control,navigational aids,emergency P and maintenance operations) "' 0 CD v 4.6 Ma Ill*IIIIII, Mt IMP NI* nip 111111 MI lir ISO IMO UM 111111 AM WI Wei Oil m ,„ LEGEND Iv C=Conditional Use Permitted and Conditional Uses,By District P=Permitted Use Special Purpose Districts Use RP BP FP AG OS A PL I UI MH EI 0 Airport and Related Uses Airline service and maintenance operations P CI) Airline ticketing and baggage processing P (n Alcoholic beverage consumption establishments(on-premises)(within tenni- P a) nal complex only) "� Automobile rental agencies P P (• Commercial recreation center(within temrinal complex only) P - Financial institutions(within terminal complex only) P (D Fuel storage for on-site distribution _ P C) General aviation facilities P �ti- Heliport C C P C C I.* Light manufacturing p O 1-4 Meeting rooms(within terminal complex only) P Q N Offices P CD►+ Restaurants;other food services P NRetail goods establishments—specialty,primarily for airport customers(with- P C in temrinal complex only) Retail services establishments—primarily for airport customers(within P terminal complex only) Miscellaneous Accessory uses,except those that are otherwise specifically regulated in this P P P P P P P P P P P chapter,or elsewhere in this title Agricultural uses P P Bed and breakfast C. P Bed and breakfast inn C* P Bed and breakfast manor p Communication towers P P C P P P P P tCommunication towers,exceeding the maximum building height C C P C C C C iConcrete or asphalt manufacturing P n Hotels and motels C C P 4' Industrial assembly P P Jewelry fabrication and associated processing P ' Kennels,on lots of five acres or larger P 9 + I w sio Nab so ais sip No ay eat OM lir asi so ow law sei p emir alS t el LEGEND C=Conditional Use Permitted and Conditional Uses,By District P=Permitted Use Special Purpose Districts we Use RP BP FP AG OS A PL I UI MH EI 0 Miscellaneous Local government facilities P P P P P P P P P P P it Mining and extraction of minerals and materials,including ore,stone,sand, P gravel,oil and oil shale Off-site parking P C C C Outdoor storage,accessory P P P Park and ride lots P C Park and side parking,shared with existing use P P P P P P P Parking structure P P P P P P C C P Production related to on-site research P Public/private utility buildings and structures C C C C C P C C C C C Public/private utility transmission wires,lines,pipes and poles^ P P P P P P P P P P P r~-r Seasonal fannstands P Storage of extracted material P tTransportation terminals,including bus,rail and trucking P C N Trucking,repair,storage etc.associated with extractive industries P ►l Warehouse,including mini-storage warehouses P P y Wholesale distribution P P (D Wireless telecommunications facilities(See Table 21A.40.090E) N Qualifying provisions: See Section 21A.02.050B for utility regulations. 0 • When located in a building listed on the Salt Lake City register of cultural resources. _ st CD (Amended during 5/96 supplement; Ord. 85-95 § 1 (Exh. A)(part), 1995: Ord. 84-95 § 1 (Exh. A)(part), 1995; Ord. 26-95 § 2(16-12), 1995) lv r- w A- CD n o m gar alb ipow — ow -t till IN \ Nil r"t. 21A.32.140 Summary table of yard and bulk requirements—Special purpose districts. CD YARD AND BULK REGULATIONS N v `r District District Landscape Symbol Name Minimum Minimum Maximum Maximum Minimum Minimum Minimum Interior Minimum Required Buffer D Lot Area Lot Width Building Height FAR Open Space Front Yard Corner Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Landscape Yard Yards* 0 RP Research 40,000 sf 150' 45' 0.35 30% 30' 30' 20' 25' Front and corner 30' ,.� park Conditional:75' side:30' Interior side and CD rear:8' r^ BP Business 20,000 sf 100' 4 stories/60' 0.40 30% 30' 30' 20' 25' Front and corner 30' par side:30' Interior side and rear:8' FP Foothills 16 acres 140' See Section 20' 20' 75' 75' a protection 21A.24.0100 (D AG Agricultural Residential:10,000 sf 100' Residential: 30' 30' 20' 30' Front and corner ^^ Agricultural:5 acres Conditional:50' 30'or 2'h side yards 1J Conditional:5,000 sf stories Agricultural:45' Conditional:45' n r.,.t A Airport See Sections 0 t .t 21A.34.040F N and R l•+ PL Public lands Schools:S acres Schools:150' Local govern- Schools:30' Schools:30' Schools:50' Schools:100' Front and corner 10' ►> Others:20,000 sf Others:75' mart fecili- Others:30' Others:30' Others:20' Others:30' side yards Nties,prison N or jail,gov- t.) emment of- fices,arenas, stadiums, fairground and exhibi- tion hall:75' Others:35' I Institutional Worship places:2 100' 35'permitted 1.0 40% 20' 20' 20' 25' Front and corner 15'or equal acres 75'conditional side:20' to building Others:20,000 sf (see Section Interior side and height 21A.32.080D) rear:8' UI Urban Places of worship: Places of 75' 20' 15' 15' None 25' Front and corner: 15' institutional 20,000 sf worship:100' Conditional:up Hospitals:30' Hospitals:30' Hospitals: Hospitals:35' 15' Others:1 acre Others:150' to 120' 15' Interior.none t Rear:10' Hospitals:see . Section n 21A.32.090I 4 OS Open space 10,000 sf 50' Exception,see 30' 30' 20' 30' Front and corner 10' Section side:30' 21A.32.100D Interior side and rear.10' I i MI I' 111110 =II Silk Alt Ilia a* IMO 11111111.011i Alp n YARD AND BULK REGULATIONS District District Landscape Symbol Name Minimum Minimum Maximum Maximum Minimum Minimum Minimum Interior Minimum Required Buffer Lot Area Lot Width Building Height FAR Open Space Front Yard Corner Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Landscape Yard Yards* o MH Mobile No minimum No minimum 30'(clubhouse) Common 20' 20' 10' 10' Front and corner 20' home park or 2%stories open space side:20' 15 dwelling 250 sf per Interior side and units dwelling unit rear:3' El Extractive 10 acres 300' 75' 50' 50' 30' 30' The first 30'of 30' industries all required yards Additional regulations: FP district: Maximum disturbed area:2 acres. Slope restriction:30 percent slope. MH district: Minimum district size:10 acres. Maximum density:10 dwelling units per acre. El district: Setback between residential districts shall be 1,000 feet. Footnotes: See Chapter 21A.48,Landscaping and Buffers. r.1 N (Ord. 26-95 § 2(16-13), 1995) tN W 0 m m 13.1 tf Q. 0 I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES ADDENDA 0 ILAND SALE #1 Property identification I Property Type: Commercial Land Address: 425 South Redwood Road City/County/State: Salt Lake City/Salt Lake/Utah ICoordinates: 425 S/ 1700 W Parcel Number: 15-03-402-022 ITransaction Information Rights Transferred: Fee simple J Seller:Buyer: Rafael Gomez (Gomez Properties Inc.) Atlantic Financial Corp. Sales Price: $585,000 1 Date of Sale: 03/09/2001 Financing Terms: Cash, or cash equivalent Cash Equivalent Price: $585,000 I Listing Price: $650,000 Exposure Time: 56 days on market li Land Description Land Size: 1.51 acres; 65,776 square feet Flood Zone: Zone C i Zoning: CC Frontage: 235.02' on Redwood Road I Topography: Near level Configuration: Rectangular Street Type: Paved Street I Street Improvements: Curb, gutter Street Orientation: Corner I Utilities Sewer: Available Water: Available I Gas: Available Electricity: Available I Units of Comparison Price Per Square Foot: $8.89 Price Per Acre: $387,417 111 VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES ADDENDA iLand Sale #1, Continued I Verification Edited: Yes Submitted By: Jeremy Blanck IVerified With: Rafael Gomez (Seller) Verification Date: 06/13/01 1 Comments This is a corner site located along Redwood Road. iRecord Number: TCG1-825 I I iio I I 1 i I $ VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES ADDENDA 1 PLAT MAP - SALE #1 : I 15-3-2/ ,g ; ., }...;' : . 1 . ,--,,. ...? , ,,, •G.1.97 ',..; I . t t l': i i' • ' . , ' . . 4 th s. sr I ... , I 1 _, [ ,,,I''=`;T:T,'2,,X1.------., .--.--"771--.1, 7"--".----"''''.'. j„„, i ..,.- , g ....,,, ' n, . • _,......;..L.,2'5-.., P4,.°"77/ZZ.L.,,P7-4-.l',; 1 :',' I FOUR SEASONS VILLAGE COMO.PROJECT . , I I c,..11:-.132 i , q ce5 it. 11/ 1 I .3 i I . • 4..z• Ili ,,... .;___.,...,.. _,_____ , ,c,..E. .., ..., .," ,, .,_ , 1344, •-•..../.0, ,• . ____-_!....44 ..1. ._ .,...,1,,,,,i., ‘,...),,,,, . 1 ..„ _i„., IOWA,,..,,I , 4..-/A.,.t, ., 6,J'le...,. ‘ ,„ 1'1 . 4..•a,.."%::::4---:':::,-27,j:-.-.:_..4:-..-2)i, -...,-......,,,..._ .. --s=r41."...i.-....=-ay=- ..-.7.7.71-.-..:14 ,.., I i ... i --I'''. t- --1 g I- ----=": 1 ij5 i 19 '',.' 1.V f,t- -- -i • ' • ..,. ,- 31 i ' , , ..m.x , 71, •“,./ , . i `..... _...___ -. a III ;. ..,i _,., , 1 ; ., _ -. , , .1 1 ; ,. ,,, :... •.. ;I: -r :"7.1. -".a- ;• 1?...-,s..5-'„ I i Z' ''.::-4.-.1...-",,-,.1 -,"?.. '•i• I,.1 ':4" I-NI's'47330 TIN iti 1 •"b ;,B .'''. .1, -GO: ..h .. - .,..,,.• ..„1„, , ...,..,/ I .,,,,,.., 1 I "1"....T ".•i .. .5 Q 1.,.-- ....-4 i 1 i '''l -,h 26.i„ % :14' '4 ;-- ,,,e 0 -.., --:5;2 -',....1 ;.:, .r..,,,,„,, :1 - :.-_:.:.- -.L-44...-..zga._-.4,, r1.________•.'4, L...."71;:'...7. I a .,... I 9.. 4; 1 . . . . 1 i30 1 •l' 1"..---':„ . .-2.... ...r.H.2_,_,.&.4.,.....,...p.,,f ' , .•-s , 447 . Z1 ; '''! '.7. i } .3 ! .tv 0• 4 al • -._;.C.I.;•4.. ..,..2 I ; ' ' ' 4 il i '. ''' ' 'II/a It• ' ' ' l'I -02•2 4 t . 4.. a•a. '1 ; k• : .11 ..i ‘,•••',...-a-ir-I., I - - '•ri'Vl ' , , 7 --, i.„..• .-, ;-. ,,,' ,f5.•,_--._"_-. f 1 -4' 1 1 S.,: .• ..'..e.,:i,,,e,;; I 1 i 11 1 , k .4.1 '1,g 1:/',.... ".11 -02 5 4 I , I 1 ‘..., ...w .• , Lie; V,V .?) ....f-4,.i Sr.! 4 . 1 I 11 .a..., irk /..4 i,i ..,..,„ )1 _...1.._L___........._44_t_f { .. -1.----XL-d 3 fmpAy0E..-........-----.:4.7.......-1--- ' , -..—...---.....-.--- ........AvE-...........- - .---, , i /5 /0-2/ SALT LAKE CO. 15-3-41 W.1/z S.E.1/4 SEC. 3 T.IS, RAW., I' VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 _ i I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES ADDENDA ILAND SALE #2 1 Property Identification Property Type: Residential Land Address: 925 North Redwood Road ICity/County/State: Salt Lake City/Salt Lake/Utah Coordinates: 925 N/ 1700 W Parcel Number: 08-27-327-014 I Transaction Information Rights Transferred: Fee simple Seller: Al Munsee I Buyer:Sales Price: Board of Education of Salt Lake City School District $53,950 Date of Sale: 03/06/2001 1 Financing Terms: Cash, or cash equivalent Cash Equivalent Price: $53,950 Listing Price: $79,900 ID Exposure Time: 422 Total Lots Allowed: N/A Entitlement: N/A I Land Description Land Size: 0.83 acre;36,155 square feet Flood Zone: Zone C I Zoning: R-1-7000 Frontage: West, private lane Topography: Near level I Configuration: Rectangular Street Type: Gravel Road Street Orientation: Interior IUtilities Sewer: Available I Water: Available Gas: Available Electricity: Available 111 VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES ADDENDA ILand Sale #2, Continued IUnits of Comparison Price Per Square Foot: $1.49 IPrice Per Acre: $65,000 I Verification Edited: Yes Submitted By: J. Allan Payne, MAI, SRA I Verified With: M. Cad Cauley (Agent) Verification Date: 03/28/02 Phone Number: (801) 680-7653 IConfidential: No Comments This is the purchase of one lot. Additional lots were ipurchased for development of an elementary school. No information on the additional sales was available. MO Record Number: JPA1-611 I I I I I I I l' VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES ADDENDA ill I PLAT MAP — SALE #2 I ,z� •raa g 23,.1 24 ;z3%.zc •,>i w. !- J�s -CMT `¢� >ry I said =. �rfJ � � n OMNJ d 0- J 13 a 1 1 i I . n> . .oa. 9rE�000N sr. .E °�10:.e,t..a.%...-'-."'Its ' C.,.: • 20;�jf Ile 9n SIc °m z I. 4E,Pro t*( o o -all 6L ! 'i., -- T 1 tiV 1 M°s "oy e---_�,•r«ter-- ,. r M . y 3' 4h z' �h I 1 .7 " 1 dl I .us.'afP l0 9q ��.-..'._..r__-.T___ IRS 1 I- 1 1+? +n •°nl no I gip 8 p� p4Q�Liy 1 I boh, p`I 4n 1 p a_-,1 1 , d 1. 1 I • `• 4-' '1: tom.; 1 '--- _.-,".r"__a»I, ,,,,i 1 aJ• .w I.<1 A. 1 , ., 1 9A'l N. r• ---sr N—7 a QII. , i-..F.a_-y .-w---- -w�J r { , i . --, I ,-Oa 1 � F :0 I- 1 r+ 3 22 g.• . J I An r •. la . -12 I OI N IY_I K 71+g \ _ 4 °•' f 1 O,w o S' �� i 1 a 2TO., v.-1.1.:<;-- st,,...: 1- 110 ,.... .;.7-7.--f: 7.7, ....7 u. in..- I. ,..j. q* - =a4G•ti TAR,>. aEst*°a R' .•w"' 33i : .' • b m 7 ni .*: e,..I 1 r JArs�� A NOATM/ S WAY ;,T1,1 --- • ._ •!,3,.��. .ea°i:. ...1FT., 7J„.ba. .1 = I al ao °�' e8 W «Ili.03 6 .`° A _ 111 S ecv M isesit 1 u.i'- gp a. 'a w I 3f 7 aK a „a a 93 Oq �+ .7J M1 {r�o..m 78 � ale«. •I t} ^*t f 1 i 3 ;z"... 'A r I 8 34 I t n� 8 4 oz° S -a � �e 0o N Cr 1 10 are 1 '(� I.o ••y• by .!I i • 1 i d 'f Ellti P6G },?•Heilj4. 61R0 pif1• A„ A 'c.,. a "' Ali a psi 38 7 ?;' a R ss, Y i r - . FeA CENTEMAL FARk F t ..._C. .6...D,s,a,eiket.6(1 •i Za SIR✓•4M<S Na 1-."!,,,_% ..,at sr Sn.512 _..� A'39•.< 1 _ i SALT LAKE CaSCALE II••.00 E,I/2 JW.In IEC, 27 TIN. R.JW 8-27-32 el . VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES ADDENDA is ILAND SALE #3 Property Identification IProperty Type: Residential Land Address: 1616 West California Avenue City/County/State: Salt Lake City/Salt Lake/Utah ICoordinates: 1616 W/1300 S Parcel Number: 15-10-451-040 and 041 I Transaction Information I Rights Transferred: Fee simple Seller: Paul B. and Helen W. Franke Buyer: Iverson Homes, LC I Sales Price: $356,535 Date of Sale: 07/19/00 Financing Terms: Cash, or cash equivalent I Cash Equivalent Price: $356,535 Listing Price: N/A Exposure Time: N/AA ID Total Lots Allowed: 32 Entitlement: N/A ILand Description Land Size: 3.753 acres; 163,481 square feet IFlood Zone: Zone C Zoning: C-C 8 Frontage: Along California Avenue Topography: Near level Configuration: Irregular I Street Type: Paved Street Street Improvements: Curb, gutter and sidewalk Street Orientation: Interior IUtilities Sewer: Available I Water: Available Gas: Available Electricity: Available I 11) VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES ADDENDA ILand Sale #3, Continued IUnits of Comparison Price Per Square Foot: $2.18 IPrice Per Acre: $95,000 Verification I Edited: Yes Submitted By: Michele E. Jakob, MAI Verified With: Melissa Paul, Colliers Commerce CRG J Verification Date: 09/01/01 Phone Number: (801)322-2000 Confidential: No 1 Comments Site was purchased for construction of a 32 lot single- family residential subdivision. IRecord Number: CTU1-3004 11110 I I I I I I I' . VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 I I )IIII/ J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES ADDENDA I PLAT MAP - SALE #3 1 ,,,,.„A'0,00.„.,,, i'.°Ma: ,,,, '-';:'r';'1'.'.'ss,i . it'r.,__.1*•••-1-.^.,„414,_I „_,._ i -A\7 '" • 1 'a.,.e .4,, 4 '-- fi ,,,--s" IA, ___„,..,---4,-;;;. 4 ', le', ''.- - - - :----- ----- I ---, •fi---'..4-Thia et,00,..yil-,---,.g._:•\t1 ,.,.., y.., ,,/, uy u a,, 1' =--' 1 '-.; --1:-.---. ''''i>.1 23,6 4.P,IP'".'"Y"'•ik iii ...,...., OTATI:,f,,,,; ,,,t, Is ,,, , i , .D,, .0, az •-• ,,,, ,.., E 'A II :IAT ' ., 1 ' "" 0 . e- 7_ e4., . .•,,,-- g.,,- 1 14 4`'•.' o•Zi'sdP ii.', `Y-PY"'--(71 i:t -• : .-- •:1:- •,:•• Y e • ' .c, ;•-, .t., I.•:.!,,- si.• ....._. .1....:-.• •,,,,, I • . (CO ..,..,cr -,-.t. ... •••‘:•:../..2. ,A, . Y••••• i A ..-"' 174°' 4- : ' ." ;': 1 I -,- 1 -;,-.., t.,R ,.', , 1,!.. ‘Cts, '/:,•,'2P , ..,:a. •••:- ,.„1,....,/0 .s...-", 1 ,i 1 ! .1.,,,,:.n.'iz„:•_Tt.--,e,•;„.,t,.,,,ta..-',..„ !,,,...z.<, s ,,'0,0' •"--.. 1 ••- : r -.J-- 1 ....-.0'-'---:*7,-.',“x44.`<!-- ".' 7-, .' 1 r-- , ,L. ,---,,,-.4 „.,-.E.-- ,et, ,-/ A\ rif,c, ,:.,i.?'/V1, N. • it fit- .... -.7,, ,„. i-v ..2-.C, Z41 . • 01 '4A)(0.„,NK , , " ,.'.1 ..2.$ ,h' -4.1-7:j--='..1_ -•.?!,,1`..,A.AvAy , <- z.,/;• ?' 't---- -- "11 -.Siz„--r--„,-, ..17.9.2 --, ,, .;4 9' / D''''')-\ ' .•.,f5.,••',.,,.:4 . 1 i ,,1:•,;i••••7.:, .1 ;;!‘:1 .-z-q-7--.....t, ii 69 1-'-i- --:'''''-- 171"-- I --...;:B57.,.; 1 /: -'''' .,-4c...,,,,,.. i,..,.._..,t, I .4. ••• -...7. r.„ ,;.,.; ii,. cv ....,24,11!.... 1----.,,f'.,, ,,,c-,....4)?"-• •,,,, ,,,. ,........- • - ,. , : ' L$ PoosPar ct '41" .•a-0.7 4,,,,e, .,i , t) ......i:'•.p,*,.." \`''..„%.., ,,, :,-. , •`:'2 1 .\-;"..,.',%, '' , lb , , , :..... _,...t ,_.,..., • 1..'2‘.,..,.,,,:'",,10'• 0 ,'''.;,,,,'••\ 1;7%.' s-.0 s ',,,4_•.- ....L.Z.i.......,,,,,?! 1 ss, ..00, ,_1•14..„4. ......1,4-.!..'7•1-_..." .1„_il,....12__ .,,,,,;N .,'. , g.: -',,,, 'n,0„,.„,,,. - •i.,:t•-s; ff.-Leer GI R -;----_-_---.. ..:"" r.,---'''''--- ''le,,4-->-, \ ::'. 4.,..,i. .. ‘,. 3,,„ _i_c7.-r. ,e;••,,,,liVI155 S ..i ep:'• 1 -1- in 2.5,,•S A • ,.ei.....,,, '.!..!• .e..,1-.2-V,'.-, -"v.," .29.` ' a r. II i. . itl'il L,1,,,7,,?!.77,.% 7'17'.-..." ,t.e: '5=-",„.'6'-&---.4 I° /-:-,.., ‘. ; ''''' ''''' "A-9''''t,..7....!... f.2M '7..:f'4 : l'; '1;'"C-!1.'",.,.4,.; 1..',...-'-';''''., ' i P.L.rrav «l*0 5 1 AVE '.i'•1,4;*..1 0,1,, ,*",f?.! " 0;' ,,' ,,.., ...,•.-5,1 0....2-...1 --"J'-±... . ..7'. ' -"...12.. .. 1.-: g, 4 ,,, ..5.0,..1 . „.1. .1..., ,...".......-x....: v."..z, _;,.11 i...., (1,95S1• -----• 4..% 4 ' .P WO t i _ 1.,1 F L)Lisa'CM..4 -•*4--"--. X'. \y" IV --.. -."--;1..;;;...., ...i ..tt •••,-„,.. . • :•.,•• • •• ,,,.. ,‘ ..,.. •li".4,K.,1.,t...1T. -.4-..-6717.1 ';‘,- '22.6..."-I1'""' ..7 '' i i t.; 1 rr )..-'1''."4'.Z..'-xt.'s --'4,7:.; 1 , s.'"•.., 4N 4,.°17\ i I.II -- -- , ----. . ,. ,,,,,;,,, i-.. _,--/-':f"' -,,,,, -:,...01,- ,, .,. ,,,,n-T,, _\,•.- : --,4•6...---\ .„..... ,f 2,INK..E'CM .• I,,,....1.::„.. i 0, ,4„..,,,,.tle, ,. <\,...,..<.,.,1„..' :.1, A _.___,42 i•45 .........X4....... . •.-Ltet....\ ,,„0•1_A. \..„-'4.,-, . . •-• 4 ......F. ; 1 i 1 .I' +-" ,- rlR1b,.=..7ii-7 t., 1_I;. 4A.•;,\', ,,..i '' ;-..,-4,\,.:=44-4--‘,;'.:.. a:','.-., .• :2_-__L__"'-r-, 1-"---iiler, ',.. A ',; ; I , .-4i....43..%,,,,417,..." ---=',-.7..--,,'"-, 1 '.. [7. l' i • .''1:4 ••"..i 1 I ' -••••—• •••• !:::':::P-45'•t•-;- '•-g.,2 *.: ikl 7, t' Z 91.4 1,rl',41??k"''.;‘, 4 ... Az I -.91iir, --7:;:,, ,_,:,<. I f. i : 1 . -..630 24!. .. st it, . •1•Te•44V4';k. '22 it 02 I t t 1 t t I •t... .t.4124.1...7.-22.2•-.:9) 1 a 2 2 1 ••'''r r-- . ,, • f. ,- .'...4..-.-4-'•- •••4-•-•' ' 'r„ ..,. 41. .;;,‘ ..., r.r.1,01 1/41 $r % ..-,' • - ,-4%';..--- , • 141 ,i• ,..4...., it ,-;-.1, ),..,4._i-----.--., .,;•-••44._?..4-i.„..,....„..„.wzi.,_ • ' ' --,•••'','.•-z#2;:,,2 4°•;•',7•4 '4''l,-;f1.`" 1 tl'i ill. 'k„,„'Qi Z1'-lt, K ..m. i 4 , 1 4 A '." R •2:57••••••9.,...•* -• ./r .'.%'''' . n I 2,,,,....;!. /IP tpat,•• G :4 ,,g,v/4t-•-,- ,:43'04 ,.._.,, r:,-.,,i j : i e ,... 4 i•votTA/141. I•••• 4 .A•l, CI,...1., . , I - .21 1 . 4-, : 2--4-4-, 4.g,:',.., --* 2' ------ „•-•-;-"A"-r- r--- 1 -.--_, 4,.. 1/ • i•5_ P 2',..5, ,It •••21 3 .14-.V* , '.! I ,,, ! .2 ••,,/ i ir, ! ':. t • C,4, ''''--.,,,,,..' 1 ' s' 1•••••'-:42'----i'' 11„„liq ii: - !t% -I -- . 1' ' 1'-' 1 ..1 ,14.4 .7 ' ___/ ' ' ''''''L.-.:•' . ,.."'1- 1_1.... ' -.t_ - 2.......1.__ ,.....,„ I 15./.5-2/ SALT LAKE CO. r15-10-41 W.1/2 S.E.1/4 SEC. 10 T.1S. R.1W. VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 I I IIJ. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES ADDENDA 6 ILAND SALE #4 Property Identification IIProperty Type: Residential Land Address: 1110 West Mead Avenue (980 S.) City/County/State: Salt Lake/Salt Lake/Utah IParcel Number: 15-11-326-011 I Transaction Information Rights Transferred: Fee simple Seller: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 1 Buyer: William J. Francis Sales Price: $65,000 Date of Sale: February 6, 2001 I Financing Terms: Conventional Cash Equivalent Price: $65,000 Listing Price: $65,000 IExposure Time: 5 months Land Description ID Land Size: 0.64 acre; 27,878 sq.ft. Flood Zone: Zone "C" Zoning: R-1-5000 IFrontage: 155 feet on Mead Avenue Topography: Fairly level 1 Configuration: Irregular Street Type: Asphalt Street Improvements: None IIStreet Orientation: Interior Utilities I Sewer:Water: Available Available Gas: Available IElectricity: Available Units of Comparison IPrice Per Square Foot: $2.33 per sq.ft. Price Per Acre: $101,563 I I' VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 I I ii• J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES ADDENDA I Land Sale #4, Continued IVerification Edited: Yes I Submitted By: Richard F. Schettler Verified With: MLS #170379 Verification Date: February 2002 IComments Owner received approval in July 2001 to create three paper lots from parcel. Record Number: CTU1-2976 I I lb I I II I I I I VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 I I 111 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES ADDENDA • PLAT MAP — SALE #4 • r � , l14',•M •1 5U1 ; � 5. ;� �3 6 t ; ce-` a: ,;-:'1.� I - : _..: - : . :'''� =it s I --••BROOX4YN- Ci '.a-,'`r.AVEr= .`.7.\ I- - E ta�t�-i, ,_�a`;_'a;{_'4.,:.1 ;1'o:i Rim_::- :•41.•f•ti..'7•.S.,,1 T•,\a' Q 32 F�-'"^t':"- . I' - .:�a'{ ; -l e 327, • ,a4..^.z•x-,4 ".-aa...h -_ /- '1. ., 'i�e'M:�ri.-�y.v�ie„aW,5�'-.!t;+t:':t`t}"-i...- .+„11 - ',.i•., - x+{� k_.�:._ -1:a'-' ;i- _ _ ,(.4;,_`•U J,y'i,.4`i.';_I.!' , ,t,„::, .>[3' ,gi,�i,•"• • • f, CALTON ' - Y F .CVET I` V►!eaa >'` ; 1 •Az y, }' FT .J '4-1 r w 1 ^-ceJ-' • ;^ • •• , v: •t :? '�TMP., •J, • Q ,i � ,.; o I ' rk - - a N,_ • .,, I u7 {,,,,- za,, 1 ,."irF3.7'I ?tti q4 , re'!'-.T.•1'`.••..4 f.'?j':M} {o; ?a ;..1,s$. I •r FRE,fe#r• _ 1 - `-,.i._ .'1�,..iv.l...i. 't;'.,o lk F.,,e_.I..,�`iait.:a 'S i' ✓ --;- tt.� 1 i. -y'a,'M t; �L'p/pie,,mI FREMONT r� Y AVE. ; '1 -«a 1• I'r_..y.a1;�j.tt;-" a . - '* __ a-` r:.z_*-0-3.;rM-=t r, y a_Q .a"w '`} ~� n t.� r-,• ; !;<,• I• ''' `fa4r•c I '33 , ;goy '« �. t �T�,n,.��'+.I'(r$:�a�'.e,-S.Jii i'j;:4 of $M I`> C7.a,e� a J�'�. _ .�- al" , J"{`r:`.tfi���413-1- {M,L. y,•a.<�s 3 Y • -- 'V7I/ GI_ g. :-.:.�'„ p : 1 y ?, ''1^,•',,i !,i.t.y. „ _ • / y•-ve'i M •-:: • 1,1:1T;M 1;,:z�,J1�Ta 1 4',a. .1';'i 31lSt..R. _ ( 1 s } •I. 38 J• 1 .0 'rv' i ' ,,P tarras re '•-5 5.. Cs' AVE; Jv+, M1^OES rTTOi 2 Sy:1r LElw£ qyi `'k ""•.,a ! `n ..1 .-w�, {n ,a _M1 .^ 03i21 "r. ' ,;-„ g , !i • • ••'0 $ + ry 0 14 I � ' . ...'.v 3 r i jj •e,aa ti � 126 F.zi i 19 R yZ�' , t)'- ''C,3 ,..4 „1�,, •' ��'4" _ �R6-'grt ISa.+'L f`N iii0: 23^, .. '� ^:7-i11 �ti�,3 i tx. 1��1 Yid i".faS' � '`; o•:r y,,- ,•f: ! -'' r... v ° .e a j r' ,s I <„.rJ Ions si 2 H w 1y w,1 ; ,J• _-'may r a,yt,, v d� .,,, *i ... ,?.,l g `, - �' i,e .> ,a, i i ?:. 1o_o as L :1 ' 1 l r ;z a .,„ 1j' ,,$!,-; ''':: i."'' tliD :2, ' ' •-* .`.;0 'I" ' L '' ,.'.... "..._ ... ;....,,, • ,„, ..,, _,„:.., ,, ,,,_„,,...,-,-51-?,-,--a-. - -'4•.', ; ' :. --'' ST ',- ii,:, >„ Ix „« Axs o 3rd B 4 1 a Via, .'_ .'' 'T-14-a-a .4 :`. ai 3 d', .Yt S _ y2-V�r'r.ri rr ii 1 Ie,J ( t' " ; .Lj -P. >,a .ca ' .✓,7 xt� 2 t P A' 1.` <t E''+•a`? ��' 4f P G,L;B • I ._ , as ,:-_ E,IL/FORN/A /S-J4-r2 SALT LAKE CO. "4tE F^''°" f' E.t/2 S.W.1/a SEC. II T.IS. RIW. 15-11-32 VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 I I 6J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES ADDENDA ILAND SALE #5 I Property Identification Property Type: Residential Land Address: 1512 South 900 West I City/County/State:Parcel Number: Salt Lake/Salt Lake/Utah 15-14-203-014 and 034, and 15-14-253-056, 057, 058, and 059 IIITransaction Information Rights Transferred: Fee simple I Seller: Rick Nielsen Buyer: Community Development Corporation of Utah Sales Price: $150,000 1 Date of Sale: April 1999 Financing Terms: Cash, or cash equivalent Cash Equivalent Price: $150,000 IListing Price: $150,000 Exposure Time: N/A IIILand Description Land Size: 1.46 acres; 63,598 sq.ft. I Flood Zone: Zone "C" Zoning: R-1-5000 Frontage: 180.04 feet along 900 West Street II Topography: Near level Configuration: Irregular Street Type: Asphalt I Street Improvements: Curb, gutter, sidewalk Street Orientation: Interior I Utilities Sewer: Available Water: Available IGas: Available Electricity: Available 1 Units of Comparison Price Per Square Foot: $2.36 per sq.ft. IPrice Per Acre: $102,740 1' VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 I I J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES ADDENDA 0 Land Sale #5, Continued IVerification Edited: Yes I Submitted By: Michele E.Jakob, MAI Verified With: Mark Lundgren, Community Development Corporation Verification Date: 01/09/03 IPhone Number: (801)994-7222 Comments Purchase involved six parcels. Site is being developed with I the Cannon Place Subdivision. There was a home on the site that was given no value in the sale. 1 Record Number: CTU1-983 I lb I I I I I I I 111 VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 I I 5J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES ADDENDA 0 1 PLAT MAP - SALE #5 I -1-64*.IFORNA 1,! '-'-'---'- 1 1 ad ri w<w:a a!!{ Rue .Li :fa: w � t$L o:ry$° G fi pM:l llL"1$�♦. •a� ' '!Sf �/ ......1, i.T a7,n�--T--a» N.ral i R -rut + COFA et a _ .. . _ a. : - LL IF.H - a 3 Y $ 1 ._! t -aat ----'I.ar1°e q I a,:' / .aa i :e I I. 1 I `I. .aae Vim I i PIZ'or ±.._L a .asn T.a'H', i Vf.B ! 2 � W k-- --�x 13— 3...ii :Um,. I (� -t,7 C-aal i' t -aaf •m i b zy K U 6 'j ..- _ a4 xie_T_�T' ..-_- - -.-_ .laa1--)-- 7,,.t:,...,;-- —_ -Mw 1 I / ./1 I -asr -AO .eKa RILEY cut %.-- -s4u/1 - alit N.rs•a•no•ars, t -e a f;- -o3s 't1O L Z_:a" I af, as . ..4s ^,w \\4 .. . __ - s-�.-L.E_ _,at,'nth` - . ...i/ ..> g�«dn♦ �+/o/f wI I fi ._.L'ANNo AVE' __ M .h• 1 roan =.r.-* I: OKI • -- MO Pf.S . a I , .as au l i.c e -an �2. Jf - xC.O! __ I t - K .aaf I �� "M- 0 -� � "v.4.ra---- �j �fC ;1 -x'iH 4 .eat '."i -aN -1.- 7. LL 12 i $WENCO OR.A x •':If --7,.y� j .ns -. $ I 4 S4 a • it'd --- . Pfie.�. ,__,` E I/MK-q•MsxL .I Z i .sne .If PF.3 ]t L_ L 1 G �_ ayM1—` ��i.e� �Sy—1.._3C�.�— CD t - — .it i is— •.1 aa h t { d It .L----- f '°..aew I '0,1Ji -aa, iY I !..• F ,.:'�' .., a ... l ... 1 .u. " -- as .. i N »n- CEIK,i /7/h S Sr MILE,e•ICY rdW..,.a...w SALT LAKE _ ._ ._..._.___..__.._. co.o 15-14-21 . W.1/2 NE.1/4 SEC. 14 TIS. RIW ili VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 I I 11 J. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES ADDENDA 6 ILAND LISTING #6 IProperty Identification Property Type: Commercial Land Address: 930 West 1700 South ICity/County/State: Salt Lake/Salt Lake/Utah Parcel Number: 15-14-253-024 ITransaction Information Rights Transferred: Fee simple I Seller: Leslie Dejonge, et.al. Buyer: Available • Sales Price: $250,000 I Date of Sale: Current Listing (January 2003) Financing Terms: Cash, or cash equivalent Cash Equivalent Price: $250,000 IListing Price: $250,000 Exposure Time: N/A lbLand Description Land Size: 1.13 acres; 49,223 sq.ft. I Flood Zone: Zone "C" Zoning: CB Frontage: 132 feet along 1700 South Street I Topography: Near level Configuration: Rectangular Street Type: Asphalt III Street Improvements: Curb, gutter, sidewalk Street Orientation: Interior I Utilities Sewer: Available Water: Available I Gas: Available Electricity: Available IUnits of Comparison Price Per Square Foot: $5.08 per sq.ft. IPrice Per Acre: $221,239 I" VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 I I IIIJ. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES ADDENDA 1 Land Listing #6, Continued IVerification Edited: Yes I Submitted By: Michele E. Jakob, MAI Verified With: Brent Haight, Colliers International Verification Date: January 2003 IPhone Number: (801)322-2000 Comments Site is located along 1700 South Street, just west of the 7- 11 convenience store. It has been listed over±three years. Record Number: CTU1-3360 I I I I I I I ir VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 I NJ. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES ADDENDA I I PLAT MAP - SALE #6 I . FORMA --4. - 1 t 45' wemcn',Ott, a~,. c 1 - 1 11 I I LL -/ r, zi f -° N.,.: a "z ens_cc an Fe; ;4 .s4 ..?xl •N I.:A —___-- 41 _rr_ I 7:--17:7i-''''_ ;I: :75,,e,f 11:LI I 1:ra,0 1 1:..i• !.,,,v....../ :n, . • .sa 8 � 1 1 I' i F: oaa CD r7-naa � c I CF �ii� "5 .asp `- ---- Y n C w.L--„` s IL_ w If If-,f-„o•sat —Y _ ee� Al cfe a '1= •� CC 0 Pd7 neN qi r�—uv—r%n—" Jr-'2.:'1 .,. jY— :14 --.a9.--- ' i, ' ` -,' d A...,.....x"na .otf t �- ,v,a a 12 .ee . ' o`' ,3 I ,-.M;44.;.,a-�1 ,y III .Mf N.,,o i ^!7 /sit I .ant - .m RILEY C/N. .-- , alo 5., , .;=.. gg umn- =a ° .._was—__ —.,... � .34 Q { , F P aa kM Y F _—_--0 0s 1 i ...go - — — — _ 11 11 •11 g 1 1 1rrma OR.3 --'-e- cf _ .., -- k .saf ;.,n .'��c.. .Oro (Q./M -de? ` Pr rsumr.ees-.a..~ 'A-N-iF.a— ,vs•�w,n-om- 4 1 •a,n g n as t -orvi a 0h :i'� t t'f 3 CD CO tl, PF Z .,, d i; .j-_~ 3 6 _ ..1.......r s �! -ear k i cat 1 I k 8" ea '$ v I S I .=s g asi A, y MilS sr. St:Alf,r.,vy SALT LAKE O. f' 15-14-21 WIlz kVA SEC.. 14 TIS. RAW. VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 I I 1j. PHILIP COOK&ASSOCIATES ADDENDA 11) I LAND SALES LOCATION MAP # . h - r. ,, W 2G0 ' :� x------- Land sale#1 ..� __ . __ .__ ..__.. — . :' . XIS -{ 8fwxriddP�tlt 'pi :� .�"�t*_"rq • �i :r __ ,� a PACIFIC �� ; 141,11, "- � ..__._._ to- 6t.' R# GILLESPIE m l ;rt W$00S! cn `O m •• .„" 'ARAP A.HOE '+a IC)! gy'MIm; ' '�{. 1/ ,- _ _.. Pit *V' ..._.r .�.r. .- .N 1 I I S. ..._ _if.1k,j, 4 ',^ f'�'.+ WASATCH Soratsetii [ Jy INl IANA 7°Z Land Sale#4 i :! ! ,_ ,!i' SI 4411 ��C�fi ��' I--1: I—II.- ;- I L---.J I i= l tiv ME:P ,,iatternati. __peace Gardens ,,.,+,• 'BROiOKLYN #., , rStttePiadt ` D TON' I • 1 _ 1Y1'Am Land Sale##3 `—*' ' .- 2--"-EREhAO 3m , v ;. • 14U s. 0,0 i- Lao--. 8 `"_f I AODESTO-. ':EXIT - ,i_ �1 UCY�. J I ' ___`_,_ _ ___., ._,"___: . ' SUBJECT '_w I,- = �W 1355-$. F ANTH ONY 1tU 1 A00 Si: Land Sale#5 �. __ rn0 sr, �� � R -- °m 'ANDREWAr t _-1 0 - I ' '53- � k ._ '' � ; Land Sale-#!6 _ tau EEC '?' dU•1700. ! C3 8 tR W 1/00 I 70 I .2 ,.;14''(TET _IDJSTRIAL I tAY '0 �SICICIATED I BY I 1" VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 I . I ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS This appraisal has been based on the following limiting conditions: 1. For purposes of this appraisal, any marketing program for the sale of the property would assume cash or its equivalent. 2. No detailed soil studies covering the subject property were available for this appraisal. It is therefore assumed that soil conditions are adequate to support standard construction consistent with highest and best use. 3. The date of value to which the conclusions and opinions expressed in this report apply,is set forth in the letter of transmittal. Further, the dollar amount of any value opinion rendered in this report is based upon the purchasing power of the American dollar existing on that date. 4. The appraisers assume no responsibility for economic or physical factors which may affect the opinions in this report which occur after the valuation date. 5. The appraisers reserve the right to make such adjustments to the analyses, opinions and conclusions set forth in this report as may be required by consideration of additional data or more reliable data that may become available. 6. No opinion as to title is rendered. Data relating to ownership and legal description was obtained from the client or public records and is considered reliable. Title is assumed to be marketable and free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, easements and restrictions except those specifically discussed in the report. The 1110 property is appraised assuming it to be under responsible ownership and competent management, and available for its highest and best use. 7. If no title policy was made available to the appraisers,they assume no responsibility for such items of record not disclosed by their customary investigation. 8. The appraisers assume no responsibility for hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures that render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for arranging for engineering studies that may be required to discover them. 9. The property is appraised assuming it to be in full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental regulations and laws, unless otherwise stated. 10. The property is appraised assuming that all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions have been complied with, unless otherwise stated. 11. The property is appraised assuming that all required licenses, certificates of occupancy, consents, or other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state, or national government or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value estimate contained in this report is based,unless otherwise stated. 12. No engineering survey has been made by the appraiser. Except as specifically stated, data relative to size and area was taken from sources considered reliable and no encroachment of real property improvements is considered to exist. VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 I I 13. No opinion is expressed as to the value of subsurface oil, gas or mineral rights or whether the property is subject to surface entry for the exploration or removal of such materials except as is expressly stated. .11110 14. Maps,plats and exhibits included in this report are for illustration only as an aid in visualizing matters discussed within the report. They should not be considered as surveys or relied upon for any other purpose, nor should they be removed from, reproduced,or used apart from the report. 15. No opinion is intended to be expressed for matters which require legal expertise or specialized investigation or knowledge beyond that customarily employed by real estate appraisers. 16. Possession of this report, or copy of it, does not carry with it the right of publication. It may not be used for any purpose by any person other than the party to whom it is addressed without the written consent of the appraiser,and in any event only with proper written qualification and only in its entirety. 17. Testimony or attendance in court or at any other hearing is not required by reason of rendering this appraisal, unless such arrangements are made a reasonable time in advance. 18. The appraisers have personally inspected the subject property and find no obvious evidence of structural deficiencies, except as may be stated in this report; however, no responsibility for hidden defects or conformity to specific governmental requirements,such as fire, building and safety, earthquake or occupancy codes can be assumed without provision of specific professional or government inspections. 19. Unless otherwise noted, no consideration has been given in this appraisal to the value of the property located on the premises which is considered by the appraisers to be personal property, nor has consideration been given to the cost of moving or relocating such personal property; only the real property has been considered. 20. Information obtained for use in this appraisal is believed to be true and correct to the best of our ability; however, no responsibility is assumed for errors or omissions, or for information not disclosed which might otherwise affect the valuation estimate. 21. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the appraisers signing this report have no knowledge concerning the presence or absence of toxic materials in the improvements and/or hazardous waste on the land. No responsibility is assumed for any such conditions or for any expertise or engineering to discover them. 22. Disclosure of the contents of this appraisal report is governed by the Bylaws and Regulations of the Appraisal Institute. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report(especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of the appraiser or the firm with which he is connected,or any reference to the Appraisal Institute or to the MAI designation) shall be disseminated to the public through advertising media, public relations media, news media, sales media, or any other public means of communication without the prior written consent and approval of the appraiser. 23. This is a Summary Appraisal Report which is intended to comply with the reporting requirements set forth under Standard Rule 2-2(b)of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice for a Summary Appraisal Report. As such, it might not include full discussions of the data, reasoning, and analyses that were used in the appraisal process to develop the appraiser's opinion of value. Supporting documentation concerning the data, reasoning, and analyses is retained in the appraiser's file. The information contained in this report is specific to the needs of the client and for the intended use stated in this report. The appraiser is not responsible for unauthorized use of this report. VACANT LAND AT 1385 SOUTH 900 WEST/04-03 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 INO QUALIFICATIONS 1 1 1 1 1 1 II QUALIFICATIONS OF J. PHILIP COOK,MAI, CRE 6 EDUCATION PROFESSIONAL COMMITTEES ■ B.S. degree in Real Estate Finance, University of Utah, 2002 Board Member-Utah State Appraiser Board 1 June 1980. 2002 Vice Chair- Utah Chapter Counselors of Real Estate • MBA degree, with Finance emphasis, University of Utah, 2001 Board Member; Appraisal Institute Education Trust June 1982. 2001 National Education Committee-Counselors of Real III Estate. 1999 National Nominating Committee PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS& LICENSES 1996-1998 National Board of Directors, Appraisal Institute 1997-98- National Finance Committee, University of Utah I ■ Member Appraisal Institute(MAI), #7000. 1995 Regional Representative from Utah, Region II / ■ Member Society of Real Estate Counselors (CRE) Appraisal Institute ii • Certified General Appraiser, State of Utah, 1993 President, Utah Chapter of the Appraisal Institute 111 #CG00037068. 1992 Vice President and President-Elect, Utah Chapter of • Certified General Appraiser, State of Idaho, #CG111. the Appraisal Institute. - • Certified General Appraiser, State of Wyoming, Permit 1992 Board Member Utah Association of Appraisers I #258. 1991-1992 Regional Representative from Utah, Region II ■ Member International Right-of-Way Association Appraisal Institute 1991 Second Vice President, Utah Chapter of the Appraisal II APPRAISAL EXPERIENCE Institute 1990 Chapter Secretary/Treasurer,American Institute of October 1980 to present - Full-time real estate Real Estate Appraisers appraiser/consultant. Founder of J. Philip Cook & Associates, 1990 Unification Committee for the Merger of the Society Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah, and former partner of Appraisal of Real Estate Appraisers and the American Institute of Associates, Inc.,Salt Lake City, Utah. Specializing in the office, Real Estate Appraisers(Chapter level) - retail,industrial,multi-family,litigation and recreational property 1987-1989 Chapter Director,American Institute of Real arkets. A full range of commercial real estate appraisal and Estate Appraisers consulting services are provided. SPECIALIZED SEMINAR/COURSES COMPLETED I • Apartment Projects • Eminent Domain: Road widenings, wetlands mitigation, • Specialized courses, seminars and exams sponsored by the pedestrian fishing easements, dam and spillway, utility Appraisal Institute and others. M corridors,airport expansion,and restrictive use easements. I ■ Expert Testimony: Qualified as expert in federal courts in • Courses: 1A-1, 1A-2, 1 B-1, 1B-2, 1 B-3,2-1, 2-2, 2-3, Utah, Wyoming and Colorado, district courts in Salt Lake and 6 1 and Tooele Counties. • Seminars: Highest and Best Use, R41-b, R41-c I • Hotel/Motel: Hotels and motels in the Intermountain ■ Computer Spreadsheets region • Standards of Professional Practice 1 • Industrial: Incubator buildings, office/warehouse, large •■ FHLBB Regulations manufacturing facilities. • USPAP and Utah State Law • Office Buildings • Expert Testimony ■ Retail: Neighborhood,community and regional centers in • Subdivision Valuation Ithe Intermountain region. • Environmental Contamination ■ Ski Resorts: Both operations and land development • Limited Scope Appraisals. aspects of ski resorts in Utah, Nevada and Montana. ■ Eminent Domain Training special use properties 4 I . Special Studies: Contingent liability studies and appraisal management services on a national basis. The Appraisal Institute requires 100 hours of recertification education every five years. I am currently certified through J TEACHING/COMMITTEES December 31, 2006 1 • Formerly Assistant Professor Adjunct University of Utah, 110 College of Business Department of Finance. (Real Estate Principles and Appraisal and Investment Courses) • Instructor, Utah Chapter of the Appraisal Institute teaching Appraisal Principles and USPAP I i I QUALIFICATIONS OF J. PHILIP COOK, MAI,CRE (Continued) CLIENTS SERVED (Partial list)16 Clients Served (Continued) FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS/MORTGAGE COMPANIES GOVERNMENT(Continued) I • Bonneville Mortgage • Ogden City • Bank of America ■ Sandy City I • Bank of American Fork ■ Draper City • Bank of Utah • West Jordan City • Bank One Utah ■ Utah County I I . Clawson Group • Salt Lake County • Comerica • First Union Bank CORPORATE/OTHER ■ G. E. Capital I • Key Bank(Utah and Idaho) • Audubon Society ■ Merrill Lynch ■ Chevron USA • Morgan Stanley • Intermountain Health Care I ■ Republic Mortgage • LDS Church • Reutche Bank ■ Larry H. Miller Group w • U.S. Bancorp Real Estate Services, Inc. • Price Development II Utah First Credit Union • The Boyer Company • Washington Mutual • The Nature Conservancy • Wells Fargo Bank • Zions First National Bank More available upon request 111 INSURANCE/PENSION FUNDS DEPOSITIONS/TESTIMONY(Since 1998) A • Allstate Insurance OD • Clarica Allianz • Utah Department of Transportation v.Green Street • Sun Life of Canada Associates 1998 • Skymar Capital • Utah Department of Transportation v.Mark Steel/H & K • • United of Omaha Truck, 1999 • Utah State Retirement Board • Utah Department of Transportation v. Evans,2000 • State of Utah v. HAFB PROFESSIONAL FIRMS • Davis County v.Zion's First National Bank,Trustee I • Intermountain Power Agency v.Millard County • Clyde,Snow,Sessions&Swenson • Foster v. Foster,2001 4 ■ Fabian &Clendenin • Town of Alta v. MSI, Inc. II I . Home, Roberts &Owen • • Jones,Waldo, Holbrook&McDonough • Utah Department of Transportation v. Envirotech Baker Hughes) • Kinghorn & Peters • Davis County v.Max Kerr 111 • Parsons, Behle& Latimer • Utah Department of Transportation v.Mark Steel and • Parsons, Parres H&K Truck Equipment • Ray Quinney& Nebeker • Utah Department of Transportation v.Wildwood Resort I • Snow, Christensen&Martineau Company I . Stoel Rives • Draper City vs. Draper Irrigation Company • Vancott, Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy • RAS vs.Town of Alta r • Utah Department of Transportation v. Diamond Bar X I GOVERNMENT Ranch • Bureau of Land Management • Utah Department of Transportation v.Green Street • Bureau of Reclamation Associates 1 • Justice Dept.-U.S.Attorney • DCED vs Clarence Birt, et al. • Salt Lake City Corporation • Charles Ross Neely,et al vs. Land Lease el • Salt Lake Department of Airports • Agricultural Business, Inc. 2002 • State of Utah (DFCM, DCED) • Utah Department of Transportation x QUALIFICATIONS OF MICHELE E.JAKOB, MAI IL EDUCATION SPECIALIZED COURSES COMPLETED 1 ■ Bachelor Of Science, University of Utah,March 1995 ■ Highest and Best Use and Market Analysis (520), Appraisal Major: Finance Institute 04/01 • Report Writing and Valuation Analysis(540),Appraisal Institute PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS& LICENSES 10/00 I • Standards of Professional Practice Part C (430), Appraisal • Member Appraisal Institute(MAI), #11997 institute 05/00 • Utah State-Certified General Appraiser, #CG00049945, ■ Advanced Applications(550),Appraisal Institute 10/99 Expires 07/31/03 ■ Advanced Sales Comparison and Cost Approach (530), • Utah Duly Licensed Active Sales Agent, #SA00047531, Appraisal Institute 11/98 Expires 04/30/03 ■ Standards of Professional Practice Part B (420), Appraisal Institute 05/98 I WORK EXPERIENCE ■ Advanced Income Capitalization (510), Appraisal Institute 11/97 I • November 2002 to present - Full time commercial real ■ Basic Income Capitalization (310),Appraisal Institute 10/96 estate appraiser/consultant with J. Philip Cook&Associates, • Appraisal Procedures(120),Appraisal Institute 01/96 z Inc.,Salt Lake City, Utah ■ Standards of Professional Practice Part A (410), Appraisal institute 11/95 ■ December 1997 to June 2002 - Full time commercial real ■ Real Estate Appraisal and Investment, University of Utah, III t estate appraiser/consultant with Appraisal Link, Inc., Salt Winter 1995 Lake City, Utah ■ Real Estate Appraisal Principles, University of Utah, Autumn 1994 • August 1995 to November 1997- Full time commercial real 6 estate appraiser/consultant with Cook,Taylor and Associates, The Appraisal Institute requires 100 hours of recertification III Inc.,Salt Lake City, Utah education every five years. I have completed the requirements under the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. ' CLIENTS SERVED APPRAISAUCONSULTING ASSIGNMENTS(sample) 111 FINANCIAL INSTITUTION/ CORPORATE/OTHER MORTGAGE COMPANIES Automobile Dealerships Industrial I Restaurants Raw Land Bank One Intermountain Healthcare Apartment Office I Clawson Group Retail I GE Capital Research and Development Parks Key Bank Mini Storage 3 Washington Mutual Bank iiiWells Fargo Bank Zions Bank I 4 1 1 I . 1 p • EXHIBIT 3f STIPULATION RE: ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS S Transmittal of Petition 400-03-01 • APR 25 2003 EDWIN P. RUTAN, II, #9615 r STEVEN W. ALLRED, #0060 CITY A►TCEF �'S LYNN H. PACE, #5121 OFFICE BOYD A. FERGUSON, #4036 451 South State Street, Suite 505A Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone: (801) 535-7788 Attorneys for Defendants IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION FIRST UNITARIAN CHURCH OF ) SALT LAKE CITY; UTAHNS FOR ) FAIRNESS; UTAH NATIONAL ) STIPULATION RE: ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN ) ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS and CRAIG S. AXFORD, ) ) Plaintiffs ) ) vs. ) ) SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a ) municipal corporation, ) Civil No. 2:99 CV-912 ST ) Defendant, ) Judge Ted Stewart ) CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING ) BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS ) CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, ) ) Intervenor. ) COMES NOW the Plaintiffs, by and through their attorney, Stephen C. Clark and the Defendant Salt Lake City, by and through its attorney, Steven W. Allred, and stipulate 41/ as follows: • 1. On or about February 19, 2003, an Amended Judgment and Permanent Injunction("Judgment") was entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant Salt Lake City and Intervenor Corporation of the Presiding Bishop. 2. Intervenor has petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari which is supported by the City and opposed by Plaintiffs. Such petition is_ currently pending before the Supreme Court. 3. In the event that the Supreme Court denies the petition or accepts the petition but subsequently affirms the Judgment, Plaintiffs and the City stipulate that the City shall pay to the Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' counsel,jointly, the sum of$200,000, in full and complete settlement of all attorneys' fees due to Plaintiffs and their attorneys including any fees due Plaintiffs as prevailing parties and their attorneys pursuant to 42 40 U.S.C. § 1988. 4. In addition to the payment set forth in paragraph 3 hereof and concurrent therewith, the City shall pay to Plaintiffs and their counsel the sum of$9,172.12 representing the full and complete payment of all recoverable costs and expenses herein. 5. Payment of the amounts set forth in paragraphs 3 and 4 hereof shall be made within fourteen calendar days from the date that the Supreme Court denies the petition or otherwise issues a final decision in Plaintiffs' favor. 6. In the event that the Supreme Court reverses the judgment and enters a final decision in the City's or Intervenor's favor or remands for further proceedings that result in a judgment in favor of the City or Intervenor, this Stipulation shall be null and void. • 2 7. In the event that the Supreme Court remands the matter for further proceedings Upon which Plaintiffs ultimately obtain a final decision in their favor,the amount set forth herein shall constitute the amount due Plaintiffs up to the time of remand but shall not preclude Plaintiffs from seeking additional fees and costs incurred subsequent to such remand. 8. By accepting the payments set forth in paragraphs 3 and 4 hereof, Plaintiffs do not waive any attorney's fees or costs to which they may be entitled, in the future, as a result of actions by the City that may require enforcement of the injunction contained in the Judgment. 9. By accepting the payment set forth in paragraph 3 hereof,Plaintiffs do not • waive any claim for attorneys' fees that they may have against Intervenor,provided, however, the City is presently unaware of any basis upon which such a claim could be made. 10. In the event the payments set forth in paragraphs 3 and 4 hereof is made, and at the time thereof, the City shall pay an additional amount equal to the federal post- judgment interest rate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. Such interest rate shall be set as of the date the Stipulation is approved by the Court. 40 3 DATED this 21-ritY day of April, 2003. PLAINTIFFS 46"1" STEP N C. CLARK JANELLE EURICK Attorneys for Plaintiffs SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION Att ey foralt Lake Cit • • 4 • CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served by U.S. Mail a true and correct copy of the foregoing STIPULATION RE: ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS this 24th day of April 2003, to the following: EDWIN P. RUTAN, II STEVEN ALLRED Salt Lake City Attorney 451 South State Street, Suite 505A Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 VON G. KEETCH Kirton&McConkie 1800 Eagle Gate Tower 60 East South Temple Salt Lake City,UT 84145-0120 • Attorneys for Plaintiffs By: JANE E . EURICK EDWINP. RUTAN, II, #9615 �:LFRlC, U.S FI SEDICT COURT STEVEN W. ALLRED, #0060 9 LYNN H. PACE, #5121 03 AM 9: 20 Fc BOYD A. FERGUSON, #4036 DISTRICT lS TR(C OF FiL�\ 451 South State Street,Suite 505A Q,TT A N1d� Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 • p ,, n CIF B Y Telephone: (801) 535-7788 DEPUT Y CLEF? ( / #9,� '(.12, 5 Attorneys for Defendants �'G 9�. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION FIRST UNITARIAN CHURCH OF ) SALT LAKE CITY; UTAHNS FOR ) FAIRNESS; UTAH NATIONAL ) ORDER APPROVING ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN ) STIPULATION and CRAIG S. AXFORD, ) ) Plaintiffs ) • ) vs. ) ) SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a ) municipal corporation, ) Civil No. 2:99 CV-9I2 ST ) Defendant, ) Judge Ted Stewart ) CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING ) BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS ) CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, ) ) Intervenor. ) The parties having executed and filed their Stipulation Re: Attorneys' Fees and Costs and good cause appearing, it is hereby ORDERED that,pursuant to DUCivR 83-6, the Stipulation is approved. • DATED this day of April, 2003. TED S W T Unite S s District Judge • • 2 • • EXHIBIT 3g FREE SPEECH STUDY 0 Transmittal of Petition 400-03-01 FREE SPEECH STUDY • The three attached Permitted Free Expression Activity Charts include information on permits that have been granted by Salt Lake City. The information in the charts is not inclusive of all free expression activities held in Salt Lake City. Non-permitted Free Expression Activities are also conducted but are not recorded. City ordinance section 3.50.020, "Commercially Related Special Events and Free Expression Activities"defines free speech activities as: 1. "Advanced planned free speech activities"where the activity is scheduled sufficiently in advance of its occurrence, such that the city may lawfully require compliance with certain of the permitting requirements as specified below; and 2. "Short notice free expression activities"which arise out of or are related to events or other public issues which cannot be reasonably anticipated far enough in advance of their occurrence to reasonably allow compliance either requirements for advanced planned free expression activities. An advanced planned free expression activity requires a City permit administered through the Special Events office. A short notice free expression activity does not always require a permit if it is not reasonably possible to obtain a permit in advance of a short- notice free expression activity. Also, if one to two people wish to speak or pass out • literature, a permit is not required. The three charts were designed based on the following information: • Chart A shows the permitted free expression activities on Main Street Plaza from October 18, 2002, the date in which the 10th Circuit Court made the decision to grant free expression activity on Main Street Plaza's City easement, until the current date of April 9,2003. • Chart B reflects all permitted free expression activities in Salt Lake City during the same time period as Chart A. • Chart C shows permitted free expression activity in Salt Lake City during 1998, before the LDS Church purchased Main Street between South Temple and North Temple. Attachments one and two to Chart C are photos taken in 1993, which view the west side of Main Street from South Temple looking towards North Temple. In conclusion, the information provided indicates that from October 18, 2002 until April 9, 2003, three Free Speech permits were granted specific to Main Street Plaza. None have been requested for Main Street Plaza since mid December. Forty-four permits for that same time period were granted in various other locations through out Salt Lake City. During 1998, 52 Free Speech permits were granted. None of these permits were issued for either side of Main Street between North and South Temple. PERMITTED FREE EXPRESSION ACTIVITY ON MAIN STREET PLAZA "CHART A" (OCTOBER 18TH 2002 to APRIL 9TH 2003) Permit# Application Date Event Date Location Event Description Time of Event Number of Participants FS02-66 10/18/2002 12/8/2002 Main St. Plaza Protest No War In Iraq Noon-1:00pm 40 FS02-77 12/2/2002 12/8/2002 Main St. Plaza Thomas Murphy Support Vigil 7:00pm-10:00pm 50 FS02-83 12/12/2002 12/16/2002 Main St. Plaza Free Speech or Private Property 10:00am-11:00am 1 S • III • • • PERMITTED FREE EXPRESSION ACTIVITY "CHART B" (OCTOBER 18TH 2002 to APRIL 9TH 2003) Permit# Event Date Location Event Description Time of Event FS02-67 11/1-12-1 2002 Sidewalks adjacent to Gateway Protest Boyer Company 10:00am-7:OOpm FS02-71 11/14-12/14 2002 450 S. State/Matheson Court Non-Custodial Parents Protest 7:00am-8:OOpm FS02-73 11/26 2002 780 S. Guardsman Way Protest Mayor's action on Main St.Plaza 6:00pm-9:OOpm FS02-72 11/26-12/26 2002 Washingon Square Protest Mayor's action on Main St.Plaza 7:30am-9:OOpm FS02-74 11/28-12/28 2002 569 S. 1300 E./Unitarian Church Protest Church's Actions on Main St. Plaza FS02-75 11/29 2002 Downtown SLC Fur Free Friday 11:30 am-3:OOpm FS02-69 11/7 2002 280 S. 600 W. Protest ground breaking of intermodal hub 2:00pm-3:OOpm FS02-64 11/9 2002 Fiarpark to Liberty Park Freedom Drive 3:00pm-6:OOpm FS02-65 11/9 & 11/10 2002 Liberty Park Freedom Drive Rally 4:00pm-10:OOam FS02-66 11/24 2002 Main St. Plaza No War In Iraq/Protest 11:45am-12:45pm FS02-76 12/10 2002 Washington Square Friends of Main St. Plaza 5:00pm-10:OOpm FS02-83 12/16 2002 Main St. Plaza Free Speech on Private Property 10:00am-10:30am FS02-82 12/17 2002 Washington Square Collect Petition Names/Main St. Plaza 5:30pm-9:OOpm FS02-81 12/24 2002 450 S. Main/Courthouse Bells of Freedom Support Gathering 12:00pm-3:O0pm FS02-79 12/5 2002 134 D.St. & E.St./Sidewalk only Protest Mayor's action on Main St.Plaza 5:30pm-9:OOpm FS02-78 12/6 2002 SLC Cementary Candlelight Vigil at Angel Monument 7:00pm-9:OOpm FS02-77 12/8 2002 Main St. Plaza Thomas Murphy Support RallyNigil 7:00pm-10:OOpm FS02-84 12/14 & 12/15 2002 1320 S. 700 W. Protest Larry Miller Ford Truckland 8:00am-9:OOpm FS02-85 12/17 2002 Washington Square Protest Main St. Plaza 4:00pm-6:30pm FS02-86 12/24 200 Matheson Court House Protest Non-Custodial 7:00am-8:OOpm FS02-80 12/6-12/31 2002 South Temple in front of MSP Protest Main St. Plaza 3:30pm-10:00pm FS03-01 1/18 2003 Washington Square Peace Rally Noon-2:OOpm FS03-03 1/20 2003 City Creek Park/State Capitol Youth Against War 5:00pm-8:OOpm FS03-02 1/21 2003 555 S. Main St. Project Inform 10:00am-3:00pm FS03-05 1/29 2003 Pioneer Park Candlelight Vigil for M. Lawrence 5:45pm-7:OOpm FS03-06 2/15 2003 Washington Square/Westside Middle East Peace Rally 10:00am-3:OOpm FS03-13 2/13-3/13 2003 Matheson Court House Non-Custodial Parents/Children's Rights 7:00am-8:OOpm FS03-07 2/4 2003 Washington Square/Westside Rally to Support Peace Resolution 5:30pm-7:OOpm Permit# Event Date Location Event Description Time of Event FS03-09 2/17 2003 State St./South Temple/Capitol Stand For Decency Rally 11:00am-12:45pm FS03-16 3/5 2003 State St. to Capitol March For Undocumented Workers/MECHA 11:30am-2:30pm FS03-18 3/10 2003 Capitol to Federal Bldg. Peace March For Human Rights 10:00am-11:30am FS03-20 3/14 2003 Sidewalks Of Grand America Hotel Rally For Justice 1:OOpm-2:30pm FS03-21 3/15 2003 Washington Square/Capitol Peace March/Peace is Patriotic 11:OOam-4:OOpm FS03-25 3/16 2003 Liberty Park/Northeast Corner Global Candlelight Vigil 6:OOpm-10:OOpm FS03-27 3/16 2003 Lindsey Gardens Candlelight Vigil For Peace 7:OOpm-8:OOpm FS03-29 3/29 2003 Washingon Square Support American Rally 2:30pm-5:OOpm FS03-30 3/29 2003 300 N. &State St. Rally For Awareness of Back Country 8:OOam-4:OOpm FS03-31 3/29 2003 Washington Square No Immigrate Stands Alone Noon-2:00pm FS03-32 3/29 2003 Washington Square/Capitol Support The Troops 11:00am-1:OOpm FS03-36 4/3 2003 Liberty Park Candlelight Vigil 7:OOpm-8:OOpm FS03-34 4/5 2003 Salt Aire to Jordan Park March For Peace 8:OOam-3:OOpm FS03-33 4/1-4/30 2003 Lindsey Gardens Candlelight Vigil For Peace 8:OOpm-8:35pm FS03-12 4/5&4/6 2003 North Temple Sidewalks Protest Mormon Conference .8:OOam-8:OOpm FS03-04 4/5 &4/6 2003 North Temple Sidewalks Missionary Activity LDS Church 8:30am-5:30pm • 0 0 • S • Permitted Free Expression Activity "CHART C" (January 1998 to December 1998) Permit# Event Date Location Event Description Time of Event 98-054 2/20/1998 180S. & Main Steel Workers Demonstration 1:OOpm-3:00pm 98-058 2/14/1998 ZCMI Center Mall Anti Fur Demonstrations 11:00am-2:00pm 98-092 4/18/1998 50 S. &West Temple Stop Sweat Shops 11:00am-1:30pm 98-251 9/26/1998 ZCMI Center Mall Rally Against Fur Noon-4:OOpm 98-251 10/3/1998 ZCMI Center Mall Rally Against Fur Noon-4:OOpm 98-252 10/10/1998 ZCMI Center Mall Rally Against Fur Noon-4:00pm 98-253 10/17/1998 ZCMI Center Mall Rally Against Fur Noon-4:00pm 98-256 10/3/1998 Temple Square Picket KSL 8:OOam-10:OOpm 98-275 11/27/1998 ZCMI Center Mall Fur Free Friday Noon-10:OOpm 98-291 12/12/1998 ZCMI Center Mall ZCMI Protest unknown 98-291 12/19/1998 ZCMI Center Mall ZCMI Protest unknown 98-291 12/16/1998 ZCMI Center Mall ZCMI Protest unknown 98-291 12/26/1998 ZCMI Center Mall ZCMI Protest unknown 98-032 1/18/1998 City Creek Park to Capitol Human Rights March 1:OOpm-3:OOpm 98-039 1/14/1998 Washington Square/Eastside Protest City Council's Decision 7:00pm 98-057 2/11/1998 Rio Grand Protest Light Rail Display Noon 98-080 2/10/1998 Capitol to Federal Bldg. Tibetian Freedom March 9:30am-Noon 98-090 4/4/1998 Jordan Park/Peace Gardens Season For Non-Violence 9:00am 98-060 4/10/1998 400E./4005./200E/100S. Good Friday Procession 7:00pm 98-093 5/16/1998 City Cemetery Walk With Me 8:OOam-10:OOpm 98-124 4/28-4/30/1998 100 S. & 1000 W. Passing Out Handouts 6:OOam-2:OOpm 98-125 5/2-5/30/1998 515 S. 400 E./Women's Center Rosay For Life Prayer Services unknown 98-113 5/20-5/22/1998 N/T Dupont Ave. & 1700 W. Pass Out Religious Materials 2:OOpm-4:OOpm 98-133 5/16/1998 300 E. & 700 S. Procession to The Virgin Mary unknown 98-144 5/23-5/30/1998 Salt Palace/Sidewalks Protest Uof U P/A Programs unknown 98-157 6/3/1998 Washington Square/Westside Dog Protest 11:30am 98-158 6/7-6/11/1998 Salt Palace/Sidewalks Pro-life Rally 7:00am-Noon 98-162 9/19/1998 Liberty Park March For Muscle 9:30am-Noon Permit# Event Date Location Event Description Time of Event 98-174 6/27/1998 Liberty Park to Federal Bldg. March To Free Leonard unknown 98-183 7/1/1998 458 E. 200 S./MEX Consulate Protest Genocial War unknown 98-192 7/24/1998 Liberty Park Soliciting Ballot Signatures 7:30am 98-202 7/22/1998 Delta Center/Sidewalks Protest The Rodeo 6:30pm 98-211 8/1/1998 Utah State Bar Picket Commissioners and Courthouse unknown 98-215 8/12/1998 250 Bell Plaza Information Rally Noon-1:OOpm 98-228 8/21/1998 St. Vincent DE Paul Homeless/Demonstration 11:30am 98-229 8/28/1998 Little America/Sidewalks Rally Against Fur 8:30am-11:00am 98-232 9/1/1998 400 & 500 S. State St. Month Picket unknown 98-240 9/22/1998 Library Plaza to Pioneer Park Protest Police Brutility 11:OOam-9:OOpm 98-234 9/26/1998 Washington Square to Capitol March Against Cancer 9:00am 98-247 9/23/1998 Pioneer Park Women's Rights Against W.A. unknown 98-257 10/10/1998 Pioneer Park Feed Homeless unknown 98-241 10/22/1998 500 S. between 200E. State St. Protest Support Of Workers Rights 3:30pm-6:30pm 98-265 10/22/1998 440 E. & 100 S. Protest Non-Curriculum in Schools 6:30pm 98-266 10/17/1198 150 E. 500 S. Protest to Stop Sweatshops 11:30am-1:OOpm 98-268 unknown Delta Center/Sidewalks Picket Chief Of Police unknown 98-272 Month of Oct. 4005./5005/State St./200E. Picket Legal System/Courts Daytime hours 98-273 Month of Nov. 4005./5005/State St./200E. Picket Legal System/Courts Daytime hours 98-277 11/8/1998 999 S. & Main St./Hoilday Inn Protest Chinchilla Breeders 11:OOam-1:OOpm 98-278 11/11/1998 Washington Square to Federal March in Memory of Children 6:00pm 98-283 11/20/1998 500S. &1300 E. Protest Uof U Management 8:OOam-8:OOpm 98-285 12/22/1998 Mexican Consulate/Sidewalks Demonstration Memorial Massacre 9:00am-11:00am 98-287 12/6/1998 SLC Cemetery Candlelight Vigil 5:OOpm-8:OOpm 98-292 12/16/1998 451 S. State/Courthouse Protect Court Decision 3:OOpm-6:OOpm 98-293 12/16/1998 Main St. between Malls Light Rail Press Conference 9:30am III • • . • , 'a-.,- - i I • • , I ; 1 I" 1 ..•, . ' 4!ar ,- . . . i a .. rerk ' A , 4., .. A— -'' .:,'. . '' ,',.- .' '..:::,;,,.• . 6,•4.....* 1,ell 14 • ‘' i • i . . . ... .''. • ---;.. • ; P IP .7, .. . • irk • ;t4toi: fr, •. .., • 1 t ..' ‘. . . .,..:-. . a. ., . -,--,-• '' ll ••• •, '- • ..7., ,..1- „ ifi. : ' • .4 . I_ _I. I : . ..; .,•. t , I 1 . - 1 • . . . ., T tli .._z ._,_,, t -•• ' - . . • ;P: , 0 ii:i ... . . . .41G ''. , ', 40 • • It• LC. -•. I Li 4.' , . -.... • • ..41P,• la • . >:. •,••• r$0. - -— • - . Xr.s-C.1-4-`.,' • • , - . — • 116. • • *Iff •.__ - III -- Message from the Alliance for Unity Frequently Asked Questions Message from Mayor Rocky Anderson Q:What will happen to public access on the Plaza? Turning ty When the Alliance for Unitywas formed in the summer of 2001, One hallmark of a great cityis the ability its members pledged to work for unity by fighting division,wherever A:As the private property owner,The Church of Jesus Christ of latter-fie s of its residents to unite to solve problems. ents itself,with regard to religion,race,or other differences day Saints will be able to impose the same limits on access as any o • This process is rarely easy or simple. een people in our community. Our mission statement reads, private property owner. Representatives of The Church of Jesus Christ °Po i1 0 for Pe ace. Often,dialogue is intense and hard Choiin part: Latter-day Saints have indicated in the past that the Plaza will remain1must be made. Yet,in the end,it is our Our Alliance for Unity will seek ways to open to pedestrian use,as is the current practice on Administration riti), ability to look to the future and find corn- Square,subject to restrictions that may be imposed to assert the rights and mon ground that makes our community bring people together for the benefit of all. status of aprivate property owner. better and stronger. The recent controversy We will encourage specific projects of P P tY MAYOR ROCKY ANDERSON'S PROPOSED SOLUTION TO / THE MAIN STREET PLAZA DISPUTE 46N surrounding the Main Street Plaza presents common purpose. Our overriding goal is to Q What restrictions would be imposed on the Plaza? just this sort of opportunity. help people cross boundaries of culture, As Mayor,I have explored every possible resolution of the Main A: If the easement is extinguished,The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- ; - Street Plaza controversy. Good-faithpositions have been expressed on religion,and ethnici0)to better understand day Saints will have the right,just as any private property owner,to decide -':Ai' ;-" - C _ all sides of this conflict. I am now convinced that,although the City and befriend one another. We invite all v what conduct it will allow or not allow on its own property.The City will " .; - has the legal right to keep in public access easement,doing so may UtahnS to join us,pe son-to person, not be involved in any way in dictating or creating regulations on the Plaza. 11 t' -- , only make permanent the divisions and disrespect we have already neighborhood-to-neighborhood,in bringing Ib II..' W ' 1, a�'e experienced.Just as the issue of public access was fundamental to the together all people for the common good. Q3 Is this exchange a fair trade? E1111 f , R" original agreement,so too was the desire of The Church of Jesus A: In exchange for the relinquishment of the easement,the City will J_I �' '� .„r _ Christ agreef ment, Saints to ensure the Plaza would be a place where The resolution of the Main Street Plaza dispute is exactly the sort of _ v certain types of conduct are restricted.No reasonable person could challenge the Alliance was formed to address. Mayor Anderson'spro- receive the following elements of value: r g �� g J expect a religious institution to invest more than$25 million in real posal gives us all the opportunity to be part of a solution to an issue property that would be a noisy,disruptive protest zone adjacent to its 1) The Glendale land that has brought to the surface deep divisions in our community. o ` ,, most sacred place. 2) Half the amount of attorneys'fees and costs awarded by the court Through this proposal,we can help heal these divisions,while creating to the plaintiffs in the Main Street Plaza case —' .; t' ' We need a solution that will end the divisiveness. Otherwise,legal a new community resource that will have lasting impact on many lives. 3) The release of claims against the City relating to the validity of the \ " ii+ aI battles will continue at a high cost to taxpayers;political maneuvering We wholeheartedly commit to see this project to its completion, easement after the Court of Appeals decision _ will go on,even after I am no longer in office;and any legal guarantee with a firm commitment to raise$5 million to aid in the creation of a 4) The pledge to raise at least$5 million by the Alliance for Unity for _ of perpetual public access would be far from secure. Perhaps more • unity center in the Glendale area. Donations to the Alliance for the construction of the new Glendale project,including a importantly,without a resolution of this conflict,the Plaza will seri" will be placed in a special interest-paying trust fund and will be $1 million pledge by Jim Sorenson and pledges of$500,000 e as a constant wedge between members of our community. by Jon M.Huntsman and the Georges S.and Dolores Dore Eccles _ released only when all legal issues have been decided. The types of I have intensely wrestled for several months with what could be Foundation. programs proposed will assist in meeting many pressing needs in our V 4 ':fr done,within the founds of the U.S.Constitution,to provide both the community,benefiting people of all ages and walks of life. - , ,;r ,,,', City and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints what they Q: Is the City selling away First Amendment Rights on the Plaza. r Please join us in supporting this proposal. It truly can become a intended in the agreement reached between the former administration "turning point to peace." A: Mayor Anderson's approach,from the beginning,has been to try to all and The Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints. I have consulted I meet,to the extent constitutionally permissible,the expectations of the with ethicists,community leaders,constitutional law experts,and lead- parties to the agreement in 1999.The City never reserved the easement - u ers of many faiths. Thousands of concerned individuals from around Sincerely, for the purpose of protecting expressive activities;its purpose was to guar- the world have shared their views with us. I have tried every way I antee access only. In fact,the City specifically agreed to the restrictions on could to honor,to the extent possible,two constitutionally incompati- JON M.HuNrshAN,co-CONVENER Ross C.'ROCKY"ANDERSON, conduct described in the Special Warranty Deed. Had former Mayor I ble elements of the initial agreement—public access and extensive CO-CONVENER Corradini not agreed to these restrictions,The Church of Jesus Christ of - r - restrictions on conduct. ROBERT"ARCHIE"ARCIIULETA Latter-day Saints would never have purchased the property -- No solution can give everyone exactly what was initially anticipated. DR.J.BERNARD MACHEN ___ —� PAMetA J.ATIUNSDN Citizens have a constitutional right to exercise free speech on city side- r ma The US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has made that clear. NORMA MATHESON walks because sidewalks area traditional public forum. However,individ- �• y Our proposal endeavors to resolve this matter in a way that honors the ELDER M.RUSSELL BALLARD uals have no constitutional right to determine where city sidewalks are City's earlier agreement concerning control over the Main Sweet Plaza THE MOST REVEREND located. As Justice Kennedy has said,INjo one has understood the pub- Ilk le) _ -I by the property owner,while obtaining a remarkable community facil- REVEREND FRANCE DAVIS GEORGE H.NIEDERAUER lit forum doctrine to prohibit a City from dosing or eliminating a side- / ti ity that will make a real,positive,uplifting difference in the lives of SPENCER E ECCLES JAMES'JAY"SHELLEDY walk." Public sidewalks near the Main Street Plaza,Temple Square,and �'-,' - + young people,adults,families and our entire community. the Conference Center are all available for the exercise of First R.JOHN HUGHES HARRIS H.SIMMONS 1 - 1 Please let us know what you think.Your input and support can Amendment rights. •!f ,- help us achieve a better result—one that demonstrates the strength of THE RIGHT REVEREND SHELLEY THOMAS In deciding whether to extinguish the easement,City officials must y !� - this community and its ability to unite to resolve our problems in CAROIYN Item weigh competing needs.These needs include the interests of tourism and r JUDGE RAYMOND UNO(RET.) _ t peace and understanding. io.c, E.JOHNSON community harmony,as well as the benefits that will accrue as a result - - III DR.ALEXER MDRRISDN, the new Unity Center and the expansion of the Sorenson Center. � ESh'HLR R.LANDA EXECUTIVE UITVE DIRECTOR C_t� A plan to bring about peace and provide a better future for "" young people,adults,families,and our entire community ROSS C."ROCKY"ANDERSON,SALT LAKE CITY MAYOR u _ `."„ , 7I:H ;1 '( x' �`�_ ��M� d I ii 0 ■ ■ �l Zss.' - t tE i ar. • •MainThe Proposal:Part 1 (the easement) to Proposal:Part 2(the Alliance for UnityCenter Facts about the area that would be served by the new facilities at tO Street Plaza Timeline P P and the expansion of the Sorenson Campus) Sorenson Campus: How we got here: Extinguishment of easement: • 11,471 young people under the age of 17 December 1,1998-Former MayorConadini and President Hinckley announce proposal for City to To settle legal disputes and in exchange for the creation of • Land received from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day • 1,988 single moms sell Main Street block for creation of Main Street Plaza. • Ar least 28 different languages spoken community facilities in Glendale,the City will extinguish its Saints south of the Sorenson Center will be used to create a April 1,1999-City Council approves closure of Main Street block • More than 1700 children are currently not served by any early easement on the Main Street Plaza. As a result,The Church ofJesus community center. April 231999-Mayor Gonadial signs Special Warrantee Deed,which provided,unconstitutionally, childhood programs Christ of Latter-day Saints will have all of the rights over the • The Alliance for Unity will commit to help raise at least for(I)City's retention of easement and(2)extensive restrctions on conduct. •Average cost per month for after-school care in the Salt Lake November 16,1999-Salt Lake Cityis sued for allowing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day property that any owner of private property has. $5 million to create the new Unity Center and,perhaps,to aid in g y Metro Area is between$102 and$600 per month. Saints to impose restrictions on the Paza the expansion of the Sorenson Center. •The new facilities would deliver programs at a fraction of the cost January 2000-Mayor Anderson takes office. • The Church ofJesus Christ of Latter-day Saints agrees to Severability of the"Reverter Clause": • The area's only health clinic,at the Sorenson Center, October 9,2002-US Court of Appeals for Tenth Circuit declares restrictions on expressive activities participate financially. The current Special Warranty Deed agreement between the City and Jim Sorenson has pledged 1 million,in cash and land,for an served 8,144 patients last year unconstitutional because of Cib/s retention of easement. • J $ •The clinic is at capacity and serves residents ofthe The Church ofJesus Christ of Latter-daySaints contains a clause p 9' only December 6,2002-Mayor Anderson announces proposal to define easement narrowly and impose expansion •of the Sorenson Center and a new parking lot. 84104 zip code time,place,and manner restrictions.ACLU,which initiallysupported theproposal,later stating that the City could take back the Plaza land if it is not used That pledgehas been matched bypledges of$500,000 each p PP expresses P g reservations. for its intended purpose. If a court rules the First Amendment from Jon M.Huntsman and the George S.and Dolores Dore December16,2002-Mayor Anderson,supported by the Al iance for Unity and urn - Sorenson applies to the Plaza because of the reverter,then the clause will be Eccles Foundation. .o " J proposes exchanging the easement for land and the creation of the Unity Center and a Sorenson dropped from the agreement and be unenforceable. • Several partners will work with Salt Lake City ` to provide needed a ^w Center expansion in Glendale. k a�'�®. Pa services based either at the Unity Center or at the expanded �• y UNIVERSITY Where we hope to go from here: City and the Church of Jesus Christ share legal fees: Sorenson Center. ill,„ f t OFUTAH February-March 2003-Public meetings to solicit citizen input The two parties will split the legal fees and costs incurred by the 8 � ��s • E..E April 9,2003-Planning Commission hearing regarding extinguishment of Plaza easement plaintiffs in the litigation over the plaza easement and restrictions. Why Glendale? Q ®-�& April-May 2003-City Council considers proposal,holds public hearings,and votes regarding (Absent the proposed agreement,the City would be solely responsi- • An expansion of programs in the Glendale area has been contem- ®®®® extinguishment of the easement and settlement of the dispute. ble for the fees and costs.) plated for several years. Current programs at the Sorenson Center are tine 2003-If the City Council approves the plan,Mayor Anderson will amend the Special aipacity,and many have waiting lists. Residents and non-profit ty Deed with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. • iizations have identified substantial needs in early-childhood pro- �-■� • Summer 2003-Community meetings/needs assessment regarding new facilities No agreement regarding restrictions: grams,after-school programs,business consulting,legal assistance,and i s— <,v Fall 2003-Conceptual architectural drawings developed. The City will not be involved in any way in creating restrictions on health care. Existing infrastructure for these purposes in the area is t' ^•'^�^•. Winter 2003/2004-Public open houses to present detailed proposed uses,conceptual design the Plaza. As the private property owner,The Church of Jesus Christ 3 - minimal and cannot meet the demonstrated needs. Spring 2004-City Council vote on plans of Latter-day Saints will have sole responsibility for decisions Summer 2004-Detailed construction plans developed. regarding conduct on the Plaza. Programs&Partners Fall 2004-Community meetings regarding construction g Because of the great need,developing the land received from The (Programs air conceptual only and may change as needs are studied Winter 2004-2005-Construction begins Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and additional land donat- and a business plan is developed Except for the University of Utah, Fall or Winter 2005-Unity Center and Sorenson Center expansion open. ed by Jim Sorenson maximizes the no commitments have been made with respect to partnerships. impact of the community's investment, The organizations listed here are entities that may be involved. • 1 - helping impact many lives in positive, Some may not participate,and others,not listed here,may be The Problem: e ' s - I tangible included in the planningprocess.) Constitutionally Incompatible Terms Iy • g ways. and Community Costs M r • Expanded health clinic,with basic health care,preventive care, 1�s ' r "' daov`- - dental care,and mental health services—Intermountain The Legal Problem:two important a• '°P•- t Health Care interests at odds •' r -.1 I , . `, i•Y■ P p • Business development tools and entrepreneurial lasses— • The U.S.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that government -- t - -__ It ,, � (, University of Utah,Hispanic Chamber of Commerce,Utah cannot legally guarantee access while allowing the imposition of __ f1 I .. % L •- y ! _ Microenterprise Loan Fund unconstitutional restrictions on First Amendment rights. L •_ �- _ 0000" • Legal clinic,providing free legal services and advice— ® __ • The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would not have University of Utah,Legal Services approved the transaction without the restrictions. (• : - •r .-; I • '... 'f to s — it SALT LAKE CITY • Early-childhood and infant care—Head Start,Guadalupe Schools, Neighborhood House • Salt Lake City has a significant interest in access to and passage l • After-school,summer,employment and arts-education programs— through the Plaza for pedestrians. ..-,...e •. The ResultingCosts 2 >: Voicing Your Opinion Yoness an r Global A tways actin - _ Mayor Rocky Anderson: • Fitness and recreation facilities • Community divisiveness ' - Nit,2 (801)Comments s04;mayor@slcgov.com • English language proficiency classes—Guadalupe School City Council:(801)535-7600; (VIP Program) • Financial costs of litigation F L ►'^ — -� council.comments@slcgov.com • Technology education and training • Distraction from other important issues s d'- 4' • a •• Communitymeetingrooms • Without a compromise,dispute could last for ears, ► . . . Comments submitted to the Mayor's Office P P Y I, will be posted on Salt Lake City website with very uncertain outcome ` - - at www.slcgov.com/plara. • • EXHIBIT 4 CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE 0 Transmittal of Petition 400-03-01 • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition 400-03-01 by Mayor Anderson requesting to close,vacate and abandon the public pedestrian access and passage easement across the Main Street Plaza located on the former Main Street right-of-way between North Temple and South Temple streets. As part of their consideration,the City Council will consider: 1. Declaring Salt Lake City's interest in the public pedestrian access and passage easement as surplus; 2. Closing,vacating and abandoning the pedestrian and passage easement for the purpose of selling the easement for fair-market value to the adjacent property owner, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and You are invited to attend the City Council public hearing,which will be held: Date: , 2003 Time: 7:00 p.m.** Location: Room 315 (City Council Chambers) City and County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 **After 5:00 p.m.please use the east entrance. • Additional information on this proposal is available on the internet at www.slcgov.com/mayor/plaza/. If you have any questions or comments concerning this proposal,please contact Joel Paterson at(801)535-6141 between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:00 pm or send e-mail to joel.paterson@slcgov.com. We comply with all ADA guidelines. Assistive listening devices and interpretive services provided upon 24-hour advance request • Transmittal of Petition 400-03-01 • i EXHIBIT 5 MAILING LABELS Transmittal of Petition 400-03-01 . i nuvtu I rteu Jrieet'"" use temptare Tor 516U`y BOND,JOAN A CORP OF PB OF CH JC OF LD FARNSWORTH,WILFORD M,JR Sidwell No.0836438015 Sidwell No.0836438080 Sidwell No.0836438058 46,,,3E OHIO#16 50 E NORTHTEMPLE ST 4450 E CAMELBACK RD#4 NLIDO CA 92027 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150 PHOENIX AZ 85018 BINGHAM,E MARILYN COOK,QUENTIN L EYRE,MARY M;TR Sidwell No.0836438005 Sidwell No.0836438028 Sidwell No.0836438083 241 N VINE ST#104-E 241 N VINE ST#505-E 241 N VINE ST#1107E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 BERCHTOLD,L DON& COOK,MARY G ELEY,NAOMI E(TR) Sidwell No.0836438060 Sidwell No.0836438036 Sidwell No. 0836438040 241 N VINE ST#806E 241 N VINE ST#505-E 2401 MARIPOSA W.#2-E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 LAGUNA HILLS CA 92653 BENNION,C KENT& COOK, RY G EARL,JEAN Sidwell No.0836438031 Sidwell No. 35 Sidwell No.0836438003 241 N VINE ST#A408E 241 N VIN 5-E 241 N VINE ST#102E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SA KE CITY U 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 BELL,THOMAS G& CHATLIN,EUGENE D& DUNN,JOHN T&EILEEN;JT Sidwell No.0836438137 Sidwell No.0836438061 Sidwell No.0836438046 241 N VINE ST 241 N VINE ST#807E 241 N VINE ST#607E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 • BELL,BETTY R;TR ET AL CAWLEY,JOSEPH D& DUFFY,MARY E& Sidwell No.0836438076 Sidwell No.0836438113 Sidwell No.0836438111 68 S MAIN ST#500 8214 S HIGH CT 241 N VINE ST#208W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 LITTLETON CO 80122 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 BASTOW,WENDELL R& CAPLIN,DELIA A DONEY,MERLYN Sidwell No.0836438039 Sidwell No.0836438101 Sidwell No.0836438014 241 N VINE ST#508E 241 N VINE ST#104W 241 N VINE ST#207E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 BARRETT,RICHARD J& BURNETT,LEONE E(TR) DAVIS,JACQUELYNE C Sidwell No.0836438011 Sidwell No.0836438019 Sidwell No.0836438114 241 N VINE ST#204E 241 N VINE ST#304-E 241 N VINE ST#303W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 BALNAP,GLORIA& BREWER,BETTY M;TR DALBY,MAX F& Sidwell No.0836438071 Sidwell No.0836438153 Sidwell No.0836438149 241 N VINE ST#1002E 895 S DONNER CIR#A 241 N VINE ST#706W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 1RM FAMILY LIMITED BOWERBANK,WILLIAM W& CUTILLO,ANTONIO G& Sidwell No.0836438136 Sidwell No.0836438078 Sidwell No.0836438016 310 FAIRWAY CIR 241 N VINE ST#1101E 7532 BRAONWICH CT WASHINGTON UT 84781 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 DALLAS TX 75252 it AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160 ••"' •• • .,••`•`•`, use lerrlptd[e 10f 71bU" HEATON,JON C HYER,MOLLIE C;TR LINDSAY,MARILYN(TR) Sidwell No.0836438098 Sidwell No.0836438146 Sidwell No.0836438072 175 E 400 S#900 1616 SHADOW ROCK DR 241 N VINE ST#1003E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 LAS VEGAS NV 89117 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 • HATCH,PAUL R& HUNT,VILLIE D;ET AL LEE,MARJORIE A;TR Sidwell No.0836438018 Sidwell No.0836438004 Sidwell No.0836438066 952 MULLAGHBOY RD 4343 S HWY 40 241 N VINE ST#904E GLENDORA CA 91741 HEBER UT 84030 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 HAT PAUL R& HUNT,BILLIE LASSON,STACEY J Sidwell No. 83 017 Sidwell No.0836438030 Sidwell No.0836438048 952 MUL OY RD 4343 S HIGHWAY 40 241 N VINE ST#701E GLE RA CA 41 HEBER UT 84032 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 HARRIS,C E&HELEN R HULSE,LOIS Z KRAUSE,LOIS E;TR Sidwell No.0836438140 Sidwell No.0836438007 Sidwell No.0836438154 241 N VINE ST#605W 2854 S 300 W 241 N VINE ST#803W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 HAMMOND,CAROL HULL-TERRY,SANDRA B KRATZER,HAROLD E;TR Sidwell No.0836438112 Sidwell No.0836438037 Sidwell No.0836438152 241 N VINE ST#301W 241 N VINE ST#506A 37 MARBELLA DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 RANCHO MIRAGE CA 92270 • GROSSENBACHER, LILLY HOWARD,F BURTON& KASENBERG,SHIRLEEN& Sidwell No.0836438082 Sidwell No.0836438116 Sidwell No.0836438134 PO BOX 86 47 E SOUTHTEMPLE ST 241 N VINE ST#W507 SALINA UT 84654 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 GEARHEART,CLELL H& HOROWITZ,EDIDTH B;LIFE JW CHILD ENTERPRISES LTD Sidwell No.0836438074 Sidwell No.0836438097 Sidwell No.0836438010 2061 W ATKINSON RD 2757 BUCHANAN AVE 241 N VINE ST#203 OTHELLO WA 99344 ODGEN UT 84403 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 GARDNER,MARGARET L;TR HOOPER,VIVA;ET AL JOHNSON,HAROLD 0&LUCIL Sidwell No.0836438041 Sidwell No.0836438148 Sidwell No.0836438034 241 N VINE ST#602E 8114 S MIRANDA LN 241 N VINE ST#503E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SANDY UT 84093 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 FORREST,ALEXANDER T&OL HENRY,CYNTHIA R& JENNINGS,ADA C Sidwell No.0836438145 Sidwell No.0836438144 Sidwell No.0836438150 241 N VINE ST#702W 241 N VINE ST#701W 241 N VINE ST#707W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 FAY,WINSTON R&DOLORES HEBDON,DOUGLAS B& JARVINEN,PEKKA K& • Sidwell No.0836438067 Sidwell No.0836438143 Sidwell No.0836438107 241 N VINE ST#906-E 241 N VINE ST#608W 241 N VINE ST#204 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 g AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® Smooth Feed Sheets"' Use template for 5160® MUIR,D JEANNE RICHARDS,DON K&PATRICI SCHANTOL,BLANCHE S Sidwell No.0836438118 Sidwell No.0836438102 Sidwell No.0836438024 1 N VINE ST#307W 158 E 1600 S 241 N VINE ST#401 E �LT LAKE CITY UT 84103 BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 MOFFAT,RAY& RICH,GEORGE M& SARGENT,FAY S Sidwell No.0836438106 Sidwell No.0836438022 Sidwell No.0836438023 241 N VINE ST#203W 241 N VINE ST#307E 241 N VINE ST#308E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103. SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 MITTON,JAMES RELYEA,RUSSELL A&MAURE SALT LAKE EXCHANGE Sidwell No.0836438057 Sidwell No.0836438100 Sidwell No.0836438013 1044 E 2500 N 241 N VINE ST#103W 437 PIMLICO DR PROVO UT 84604 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 ST GEORGE UT 84790 MILES,MORRIS T REDD,LLOYD H& S&D ENTERPRISES,LC Sidwell No.0836438025 Sidwell No.0836438068 Sidwell No.0836438147 241 N VINE ST#402E 241 N VINE ST#907E 1803 E COTTONWOOD GLEN CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84117 MILES,MORRIS& PRATT,PARKER F&MARY S, ROGERS,PAUL S Sidwell No.0836438026 Sidwell No.0836438139 Sidwell No.0836438012 241 N VINE ST#403E 4198 SWAIN CT 11075 S STATE ST#14 öLT LAKE CITY UT 84103 RIVERSIDE CA 92507 SANDY UT 84070 MICKELSON, BETTY D;ET AL PETERSEN,PHILIP A& ROCKWOOD,MARIAN B;TR Sidwell No.0836438029 Sidwell No.0836438043 Sidwell No.0836438009 241 N VINE ST#406A 1357 W MEADOW GREEN LN 1991 VILLAGE PARK WAY STE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 GILBERT AZ 85233 ENCINITAS CA 92024 MELJJ PETERSEN,J FARRELL& ROBINSON,WILLIAM E&JEA Sidwell No.0836438081 Sidwell No.0836438079 Sidwell No.0836438141 2230 N UNIV PKWY#2A 1112 GOLDENROD CIR 241 N VINE ST#102W PROVO UT 84604 ST GEORGE UT 84790 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 MEJIA,JUAN A PAGE,MARGOT E ROBINSON,WILLIAM E& Sidwell No.0836438115 Sidwell No.0836438065 Sidwell No.0836438099 241 N VINE ST#304W PO BOX 10904 241 N VINE ST#102W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 BOZEMAN MT 59719 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 MACKEY,THOMAS A NOOT,ARIE JR RICHARDS,MARGARET P& Sidwell No.0836438096 Sidwell No.0836438077 Sidwell No.0836438073 241 N VINE ST#7-E 2508 HUNTWICK DR 8801 BELMART RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 EDMOND OK 73034 POTOMAC MD 20854 WOOLASS A&GAYLE MURRAY,KENENTH W&tCEY, RICHARDS,ELIZABETH W(TR Sidwell No.0836438008 Sidwell No.0836438047 Sidwell No.0836438032 241 N VINE ST#201E 241 N VINE ST#608E 241 N VINE ST#501E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 4 AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® ..mivu`ii I ccu JII L� use template tor 5160w SPENDLOVE,CLIFTON& WALL,MERRILL S& Sidwell No.0836438117 Sidwell No.0836438103 241 N VINE ST#306W 241 N VINE ST#106W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 • SNYDER,CHARLES R VANDERWOOD,JON L ZION SUMMIT HOMEOWNERS AS Sidwell No.0836438104 Sidwell No.0836438070 Sidwell No.0836438109 241 N VINE ST#201W 69 BUSH AVE 241 N VINE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 MALAD CITY ID 83252 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SMITH,GLENN L& TYSON,COY L& ZION SUMMIT CONDOMINIUM Sidwell No.0836438138 Sidwell No.0836438021 Sidwell No.0836438001 241 N VINE ST#603W 241 N VINE ST#306E 241 N VINE ST#103-W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SLATER,JAMES M& TOLBERT,MILDRED V&DAVI YEAMAN,DONALD R& Sidwell No.0836438033 Sidwell No.0836438062 Sidwell No.0836438105 181 WHITE HORSE TRAIL 241 N VINE ST#808E 241 N VINE ST#202B PALM DESERT CA 92211 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SIPES,JAMES E& THOMSON,FRANCES N;TR WRIGHT,CAROL F Sidwell No.0836438069 Sidwell No.0836438108 Sidwell No.0836438042 P O BOX 2366 241 N VINE ST#205W 1835 S HWY 97 WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 REDMOND OREGON 97756 • SIPES,JAMES E& TAYLOR,VIRGINIA C;TR WILSTED,EMMA G(NEAL);E Sidwell No.0836438063 Sidwell No.0836438135 Sidwell No.0836438027 PO BOX 2366 241 N VINE ST#508W 2049 E 9100 S WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SANDY UT 84093 SIMPSON,BETH C;TR SWAN,TULA K&WILLIAM D; WILSON,GEORGE H& Sidwell No.0836438045 Sidwell No.0836438044 Sidwell No.0836438142 241 N VINE ST#606E 920 BONNERS WAY 241 N VINE ST#607W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 ROCK SPRINGS WY 82901 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SHAW,PAULINE L& STODDARD,MARIANNE WHIPPLE,JONATHAN L& Sidwell No.0836438151 Sidwell No.0836438075 Sidwell No.0836438038 241 N VINE ST#708-W 241 N VINE ST#1006N 2392 S SCENIC DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 SCHREINER,ROBERT G& STODDARD,LOREN A&HELEN WATSON,JOHN W&ELLEN T; Sidwell No.0836438006 Sidwell No.0836438084 Sidwell No.0836438059 241 N VINE ST#105E 241 N VINE ST#1201E 4155 PINEWOOD LAKE DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 BAKERSFIELD CA 93309 SCHLUTER,ROBERT A;TR SPIROPOULOS,RAMONA WALL,ROBERT G& 4111 Sidwell No.0836438064 Sidwell No.0836438002 Sidwell No.0836438110 241 N VINE ST#902E 241 N VINE ST#101E P O BOX 289 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 MT.PLEASANT TX 75456 44 AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® ,moots reed neets"°' Use template tor 5160W BRAITHWAITE,LINDA K INOZEMTSEVA,VALENTINA;T MCCULLY,SHARON P Sidwell No.0931307027 Sidwell No.0931307023 Sidwell No.0931307053 HILLSIDE AVE#405 3383 S HONEYCUT RD 2533 E CATALINA DR T LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84121 BOUCHER,SANDRA M HOLIFIELD,JASON A MAUGHAN,MARGITH C Sidwell No.0931307016 Sidwell No.0931307011 Sidwell No.0931307014 SMITH'S PARISH FLO8 8 E HILLSIDE AVE#205 8 E HILLSIDE AVE#208 BERMUDA 88888 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 BO ER,SANDRA M FUSSEK,JULUISZ&DOROTHY MARTI,DAVID Sidwell N . 9313 3 Sidwell No.0931307042 Sidwell No.0931307043 SMITH'S P H FLO8 8 E HILLSIDE AVE#604 8 E HILLSIDE AVE#605 BE A 8888 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 BOUCHER,RICHARD FLETCHER,MICHAEL J MANCINI,VINCENT P;TR Sidwell No.0931307055 Sidwell No.0931307036 Sidwell No.0931307022 7 SKYLINE RD SMITHSPARISH 760 E FIRST AVE 8 E HILLSIDE AVE#801 BERMUDA FLO8 88888 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 BOUCHER,RICHARD C& EKSTROM,GAVIN W MANCINI,VINCENT P;TR ET Sid vael .093 50 Sidwell No.0931307034 Sidwell No.0931307066 7 SKYLI HSPARISH 1805 E SUNNYDALE LN 8 E HILLSIDE AVE#P18 BE DA FLO8 888 8 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 • BOU R,RICHARD C& DIXON,RONA LARSON,HAROLD R&MORINE Sidwell No. 39 Sidwell No.0931307061 Sidwell No.0931307038 SMITH'S IS 08 915 ASHLEY CIR 8 E HILLSIDE AVE#508 BE UDA FL 88888 BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 BO ,RICHA D& DAYHUFF,CRAIG KNUDSEN,ROBERT& Sidwell No. 07040 Sidwell No.0931307004 Sidwell No.0931307018 7 SKYLI D 8 E HILLSIDE AVE#103 2671 W CENTER ST BER DA 1312718 77 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 PROVO UT 84601 BARRETT,RICHARD J& CENTRAL BANK;CUSTODAIN KING,J WARREN,ET AL Sidwell No.0931307058 Sidwell No.0931307010 Sidwell No.0931307012 241 N VINE ST#204E PO BOX 1488 1780E 1400 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 PROVO UT 84603 LOGAN UT 84341 ASHBY,ARMIS J&LELAND H BROWN,DONALD E& JOLLEY,NAOMA P Sidwell No.0931307045 Sidwell No.0931307052 Sidwell No.0931307024 8 E HILLSIDE AVE#702 8 E HILLSIDE AVE#403 8 E HILLSIDE AVE#402 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 •BY,ARMIS J&LELAND H BRIGHT,DON D;TR JEPPSON,LEE R JR& Sidwell No.0931307044 Sidwell No.0931307047 Sidwell No.0931307008 8 E HILLSIDE AVE#701 PO BOX 11911 736 S 1900 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84147 SPRINGVILLE UT 84663 4 AVERY@ Address Labels Laser 5160® ., ' """' ' use Iemplate for 51bU" PEACOCK,SHARON STRASSER,GERARD& Sidwell No.0931307013 Sidwell No.0931307037 2533 E CATALINA DR 8 E HILLSIDE AVE#507 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84121 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 III PANORAMA CONDOMINIUM STODDARD,ALAN E Sidwell No.0931307005 Sidwell No.0931307026 PO BOX 171014 8 E HILLSIDE AVE#404 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84117 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 PANORAMA CONDM OWNER'S AS STEWART,ROY F;TR m c 1 I r 1 CALL v% Sidwell No.0931307062 Sidwell No.0931307007 a �,11 i� PO BOX 171014 PO BOX 10312 O s 4,,,e. iZ t SALT LAKE CITY UT 84117 GLENDALE CA 91209 S LG, tkr c•H J03 PANORAMA APARTMENTS CONDM STEWART,ROY F WARD,LEROY H& Sidwell No.0931307001 Sidwell No.0931307015 Sidwell No.0931307032 8 E HILLSIDE AVE#701 PO BOX 10312 118 S 200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 GLENDALE CA 91209 BRIGHAM CITY UT 84302 OTTESEN,RONALD G& STASSER,GERARD& VAN WEKKEN,NEE E Sidwell No.0931307031 Sidwell No.0931307054 Sidwell No. 9 63 8 E HILLSIDE AVE#501 8 E HILLSIDE AVE#507 8 E HI E #305 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 T LAKE CITY UT • NICHOLS,ELIZABETH L;TR SMITH,STEPHEN T VAN RWEKKEN,NEELTJE M Sidwell No.0931307056 SidweIl No.0931307035 Sidwell . 9313 8 E HILLSIDE AVE#105 2936 E KSEL DR 8 E HILLS #305 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SANDY UT 84092 S KE CITY UT 03 NICHOLS,ELIZABETH L;TR SHERWOOD,CHRISTIAN D THOMPSON,ROGER W Sidwell No.0931307006 Sidwell No.0931307028 SidweIl No.0931307029 8 E HILLSIDE AVE#105 8 E HILLSIDE AVE#406 2353 TROTTER WAY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 WALNUT CREEK CA 94596 MICHELSON,MONT J& REED,PAUL C&EDITH C;J THIRIOT,ETHEL L Sidwell No.0931307067 Sidwell No.0931307002 Sidwell No.0931307059 560 BRENTWOOD CIR 8 E HILLSIDE AVE#101 760 E FIRST AVE BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 MICHELSON,MONT J& RANDALL,C DALE& SYKES,ROBERT B Sidwell No.0931307060 Sidwell No.0931307030 Sidwell No.0931307064 560 BRENTWOOD CIR 570 N 1000 E 989 N EASTCAPITOL BLVD BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 MEMMOTT,MARJORIE M;TR PETERSON,DENNIS N&LEAH SYKES,ROBERT B& • Sidwell No.0931307046 Sidwell No.0931307021 Sidwell No.0931307020 712 SURREY TURN ST 1494 E FOXBORO DR#1 989 N EASTCAPITOL BLVD MOUNT SHASTA CA 96067 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® alumni' reeu Jneets-., Use template for 5160' BRITTINGHAM,LOUIS D& KIMBALL CONDOMINIUM KIMBALL CONDOMINIUM OWNER Sidwell No.0931356106 Sidwell No.0931356157 Sidwell No.0931356074 0 PINNACLE CIR 150 N MAIN ST 150 N MAIN ST SQUITE NV 89027 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 BOULDER CITY PROPERTIES L HANKS,EVELYN N KIMBALL CONDOMINIUM OWNER Sidwell No.0931356160 Sidwell No.0931385019 Sidwell No.0931356073 557 CALIFORNIA ST#150 40 N STATE ST#3C 150 N MAIN ST BOULDER CITY NV 89005 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 BOULDER CITY PROPERTIES L GROVE,JOHN F& KIMBALL CONDOMINIUM OWNER Sidwell No.0931356061 Sidwell No.0931385040 Sidwell No.0931356072 557 CALIFORNIA ST#150 12051 ROSEMOUNT DR 150 N MAIN ST BOULDER CITY NV 89005 FORT MYERS FL 33913 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 BATEMAN,MARILYN S GROVE,JOHN F& KIMBALL CONDOMINIUM OWNER Sidwell No.0931385055 Sidwell No.0931385039 Sidwell No.0931356069 40 N STATE ST#8A 40 N STATE ST#5-A 150 N MAIN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 ATKIN,LEE C& FAUST,JAMES E& KIMBALL CONDOMINIUM OWNER Sidwell No.0931385017 Sidwell No.0931385048 Sidwell No.0931356038 40 N STATE ST#3A 40 N STATE ST#6F 150 N MAIN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 • ASHTON,NORMA B;ET AL FARR,BETH R;TR ET AL KIMBALL CONDOMINIUM OWNER Sidwell No.0931385046 Sidwell No.0931385024 Sidwell No.0931356034 1827 E COTTONWOOD GLEN CT 2822 S 1500 E 150 N MAIN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84117 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 ASHTON,ALAN C& CORP OF THE PRESIDING BIS KIMBALL CONDOMINIUM OWNER Sidwell No.0931385049 Sidwell No.0931385057 Sidwell No.0931356033 251 RIVER PARK DR#350 50 E NORTHTEMPLE ST 150 N MAIN ST PROVO UT 84604 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 ANDREWS,LINDA E;TR CARTER,KERRY E& KIMBALL CONDOMINIUM OWNER Sidwell No.0931385016 Sidwell No.0931356161 Sidwell No.0931356030 124 N CANYON RD 24300 SORREL CT 150 N MAIN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 TEHACHAPI CA 93561 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 A RICHARDS RENTALS LC CALLISTER,REED E& KIMBALL CONDOMINIUM Sidwell No.0931356025 Sidwell No.0931385041 Sidwell No.0931356162 337 N MAIN ST 40 N STATE ST#5E 150 N MAIN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 4111, LTD CALL,KATHLEEN W;ET AL KIMBALL CONDOMINIUM Sidwell No.0931385061 Sidwell No.0931385054 Sidwell No.0931356158 47 E SOUTHTEMPLE ST P 0 BOX 437 150 N MAIN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150 AFTON WY 83110 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 4 AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® JnlVUui reCu JlICCt.s"" use Lemptate 101)IOU" KIMBALL CONDOMINIUM OWNER MARTIN,JOSEPH B& PROPERTY RESERVE INC Sidwell No.0931356142 Sidwell No.0931356060 Sidwell No.0931385002 150 N MAIN ST 1559 OAKCLIFF DR 10 E SOUTHTEMPLE ST#400 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 PROVO UT 84604 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84133 • KIMBALL CONDOMINIUM OWNER LUNCEFORD,KATHRYN W;TR PORTER,MARCA L;TR Sidwell No.0931356122 Sidwell No.0931385035 Sidwell No.0931385036 150 N MAIN ST 40 N STATE ST#4J 847 E APPLE PARK WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 KIMBALL CONDOMINIUM OWNER KIMBALL CONDOMINIUMOWNERS PIEDMONT CONSTRUCTION CO Sidwell No.0931356121 Sidwell No.0931356163 Sidwell No.0931385034 150 N MAIN ST 150 N MAIN ST 6728 S 1520 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 WEST JORDAN UT 84084 KIMBALL CONDOMINIUM OWNER KIMBALL CONDOMINIUM OWNER OGILVIE,JAMES W&SUSAN Sidwell No.0931356119 Sidwell No.0931356154 Sidwell No.0931385031 150 N MAIN ST 150 N MAIN ST 717 COVENTRY LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 EDINA MN 55435 KIMBALL CONDOMINIUM OWNER KIMBALL CONDOMINIUM OWNER NEELEY,JAMES P,JR& Sidwell No.0931356118 Sidwell No.0931356153 Sidwell No.0931385014 150 N MAIN ST 150 N MAIN ST 360 N MAIN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 LOGAN UT 84321 • KIMBALL CONDOMINIUM OWNER KIMBALL CONDOMINIUM OWNER NASH, RODNEY R& Sidwell No.0931356115 Sidwell No.0931356151 Sidwell No.0931356141 150 N MAIN ST 150 N MAIN ST 150 N MAIN ST#433 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 KIMBALL CONDOMINIUM OWNER KIMBALL CONDOMINIUM OWNER MUNSON,PRATT M&GERALD! Sidwell No.0931356114 Sidwell No.0931356150 Sidwell No.0931385023 150 N MAIN ST 150 N MAIN ST 4230 PIEDMONT MESA RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 CLAREMONT CA 91711 KIMBALL CONDOMINIUM OWNER KIMBALL CONDOMINIUM OWNER MORRIS,JOHN R&ANN N;J Sidwell No.0931356113 Sidwell No.0931356147 Sidwell No.0931385005 150 N MAIN ST 150 N MAIN ST 3070 S 975 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 KIMBALL CONDOMINIUM OWNER KIMBALL CONDOMINIUM OWNER MILLER,RONALD K& Sidwell No.0931356110 Sidwell No.0931356146 Sidwell No.0931356133 150 N MAIN ST 150 N MAIN ST 707 ROOSEVELT DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 AMERICAN FALLS ID 83211 KIMBALL CONDOMINIUM OWNER KIMBALL CONDOMINIUM OWNER MELLOS,SAMUEL&HELEN B; • Sidwell No.0931356078 Sidwell No.0931356145 Sidwell No.0931385028 150 N MAIN ST 150 N MAIN ST 1436 WATERFALL WAY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 KAYSVILLE UT 84037 AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® mootn reea aneets Use template for 5160(9 PROPERTY E INC PROPERTY RESERVE INC ROSE,FORD T&BEULAH;TR Sidwell No. 5021 Sidwe o.0931 045 Sidwell No.0931385059 E S THTEMPL ST#400 10 E SOUT PLE ST#400 3692 W BETH CIR LAKE CITY UT 84133 SALT CITY 84133 TAYLORSVILLE UT 84118 PROPE RESERVE INC PROPE RESER INC RICHARDSON,RUTH Sidwell No. 9313 5020 Sidwell No. 5044 Sidwell No.0931385006 10 E SOUTH PLE ST#400 10 E S TE EST#400 40 N STATE ST#1 B SALT LA CI UT 84133 S LAKE CITY UT 4133 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 PROPE TY RESERVE INC PROPE R RVE INC R&N RESOURCES Sidwell No. 931385018 Sidwell . 931385043 Sidwell No.0931385033 10 E SOUTH PLE ST#400 10 OUTH MPLE ST#400 6709 LOOKOUT BEND SALT CITY 84133 ALT LAKE CI T 84133 SAN JOSE CA 95120 PROPER ES VE INC PROPE TY RE ERVE INC PROPERTY RE RVE,INC Sidwell No.0 385012 Sidwell N 1385042 Sidwell .09 385009 10 E SO T PLE ST#400 10 E S T TEMPLE ST#400 10 E SOU MPLE ST#400 SA KE CI UT 84133 SA LAKE C UT 84133 SALT LAK ITY UT 84133 PRO TY RESERVE INC PROPERTY ESERVE INC PROPERTY RES VE,INC Sidwel o.0931385011 Sidwell No.09 1 038 Sidwell No.093 85001 10 E SO MPLE ST#400 10 E SOU LE ST#400 10 E SOUT MPLE ST#1500 SALT E TY UT 84133 SALT KE CITY 84133 SALT LAK CI UT 84133 PROPER ESE VE INC PROPERTY R SERVE NC PROPER RES VE INC Sidwell No.0 5010 Sidwell No.09 1385 Sidwell No. 31 85060 10 E SOU PLE ST#400 10 E SOUTHT LE ST#400 10 E SOUTHT PLE ST#400 SA KE CI UT 84133 SALT LAKE C UT 84133 SALT LAK I T 84133 PROPERTY E ERVE INC PROPERTY R S RVE INC PROPERTY RE ERVE INC Sidwell No. 1385008 Sidwell No.0 385032 Sidwell N 09 1385058 10 E SO HTE PLE ST#400 10 E SOU TE PLE ST#400 10 E SOUT EMPLE ST#400 SAL KE CITY 84133 SALT KE CI UT 84133 SALT CI T 84133 PROPER RESERVE INC PROPERTY RE ERVE INC PROP RTY ESERVE INC Sidwell No. 9 85007 Sidwell No.09 85030 Sidwell o. 931385056 10 E SOU MPLE ST#400 10 E SOU E PLE ST#400 10 E SO HTEMPLE ST#1500 SALT KE CI T 84133 SALT E CITY T 84133 SALT E TY UT 84133 PROPERTY R RVE INC PROPER RE VE INC PROPS TY ESERVE INC Sidwell N 931385004 Sidwell No. 1385027 Sidwell N 931385050 PO BO 51 96 10 E SOU MPLE ST#400 10 E SO H PLE ST#400 SA LAKE CI T 84151 SALT E CI UT 84133 SALT E CITY UT 84133 PERTY R r;SERVE INC PROPE TY RES RVE INC PROP RTY ESERVE INC Sidwell o.09,1385003 Sidwell No. 1385022 Sidwell 0931385047 10 E SOU - EMPLE ST#400 10 E SO HT PLE ST#400 10 E SOU MPLE ST#1500 SALT LAK CI s UT 84133 SALT KE CITY T 84133 SALT E CITY UT 84133 4 AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® .. s . . _d_ U t tei iptdte iut )touv WILSON,CONNIE W;TR Sidwell No.0931356159 464 E 1320 N OREM UT 84097 WILKINSON MANAGEMENT INC Sidwell No.0931356102 150 N MAIN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 WEILENMANN,MILTON L& Sidwell No.0931385015 40 N STATE ST#2J SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 WEEKS,ALVIN E& Sidwell No.0931356065 241 N VINE ST#PH5W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 WARD,THELMA J;TR Sidwell No.0931385025 40 N STATE ST#3J SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 11110 STONE,THOMAS R;TR Sidwell No.0931385053 1101 SYLVAN AVE STE B24 MODESTO CA 95350 SORENSEN,JOHN L Sidwell No.0931385026 47 HASTINGS RD LAGUNA NIGUEL CA 92677 SORENSEN,DAVID S Sidwell No.0931385013 1528 CHAPALA ST SANTA BARBARA CA 93101 SIPHERD,JOHN W& ZIONS SECURITIES CORP Sidwell No.0931356138 Sidwell No.0931385001 150 N MAIN ST#430 10 E SOUTHTEMPLE ST#1500 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84133 SEEDALL,JOHN R&MARJORI YEATES,ROBERT S& Sidwell No.0931385029 Sidwell No.0931356134 40 N STATE ST#4C 150 N MAIN ST#426 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® .7InvvuI reeu 3neeL5"" Use temptate for 516U`=' BENSON,BRANDON G CHARNEY,LINDA A FINLINSON,RICHARD L& Sidwell No. 1606103039 Sidwell No. 1606103022 Sidwell No. 1606103166 0 S STATE ST#303 29 S STATE ST#204 1632 E ELMWOOD ST T LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MESA AZ 85203 BEMENT,DELTA B CAIN,LARRY D& FERGUSON,EDWARD A& Sidwell No. 1606103052 Sidwell No. 1606103134 Sidwell No. 1606103118 2188E 6525 S 524 3RD ST SO PMB 161 241E 870 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84121 NAMPA ID 83651 LOGAN UT 84321 BELVEDERE CONDM AMENDED BURTON,JULIE A EDDINGTON,R LANCE Sidwell No. 1606103001 Sidwell No. 1606103172 Sidwell No. 1606103025 29 S STATE ST#103 29 S STATE ST#712 29 S STATE ST#207 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 BAGLEY,CATHLEEN BULLETT,JOSEPH M DUTKOWSKI,STEFAN Sidwell No. 1606103064 Sidwell No. 1606103171 Sidwell No. 1606103117 PO BOX 750009 504 E TELEGRAPH ST#32 29 S STATE ST#709 TORREY UT 84775 WASHINGTON UT 84780 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 BABCOCK,FRED M&LINDA M BRENNAN,WILLIAM J;TR DIAMOND,KEN E Sidwell No. 1606103061 Sidwell No. 1606103109 Sidwell No. 1606103079 52 E EXCHANGE PL 1093 S 2000 E 29 S STATE ST#507 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 • ARMSTRONG,HERBERT S BREEZE,JAMES H DAVIS,MICHELLE Sidwell No.1606103033 Sidwell No. 1606103053 Sidwell No.1606103050 PO BOX 1510 2990 E RIVERSIDE DR#21 180 S 300 W#313 PARK CITY UT 84060 SAINT GEORGE UT 84790 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 ARAKTINGI,RUDOLPH E BISHOP,A BRUCE&SALLY L DAVIS,BONNIE J Sidwell No. 1606103085 Sidwell No. 1606103021 Sidwell No. 1606103047 8021 S MOUNTAIN OAKS DR PO BOX 236 29 S STATE ST#311 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84121 MENDON UT 84325 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 ANDERSON,MARTHA J BERTELSON,MARGARET S& DANIELS,JEFFREY Sidwell No.1606103049 Sidwell No.1606103132 Sidwell No.1606103129 15138 S WALNUT GROVE DR 44 W BROADWAY ST#403 29 S STATE ST#803 DRAPER UT 84020 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 ALVAREZ,ROSALINDA BERTELSON,MARGARET& CORP OF PB OF CH JC OF LD Sidwell No. 1606103027 Sidwell No. 1606103133 Sidwell No.1606103035 PO BOX 520344 44 W BROADWAY ST#403 50 E NORTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84152 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150 •SCOUGH,DAVID 0 BENSON,SARALYN CHRISTENSON,TYLER M Sidwell No. 1606103073 Sidwell No.1606103038 Sidwell No.1606103140 29 S STATE ST#501 29 S STATE ST#302 111 E SOCIAL HALL AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 4, AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® �. yvv.. I use template Tor)16u" HAWES,GARY T& KINDRED,JOHN MAHONEY,TERRY L Sidwell No. 1606103074 Sidwell No. 1606103057 Sidwell No. 1606103087 3019 BIRCH CIR 29 S STATE ST#403 PO BOX 462 ST GEORGE UT 84790 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MT PLEASANT UT 84647 • GUNN,BECKY C&JOHN F KIMBALL,DONNA P;TR MADSEN,TRUMAN G Sidwell No. 1606103169 Sidwell No. 1606103138 Sidwell No. 1606103099 4615 S BELMOUR WY 29 S STATE ST#813 360 SUMAC LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84117 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 PROVO UT 84604 GRAND BANK(TR) K C S CORPORATION MADSEN,TRUMAN G Sidwell No. 1606103094 Sidwell No. 1606103163 Sidwell No. 1606103098 29610 SOUTHFIELD RD#260 349 S 200 E#330 360 SUMAC LN SOUTHFIELD MI 48076 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 PROVO UT 84604 GONZALES,RICHARD • JOHNSON,DALLAS L& LOCKE,JOHN B JR& Sidwell No. 1606103086 Sidwell No. 1606103020 Sidwell No. 1606103024 29 S STATE ST#514 29 S STATE ST#202 PO BOX 1984 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MESQUITE NV 89024 GODFREY,G CLARK& JENSEN,PAUL D&DONETT; LESIEUR,CEVAN J Sidwell No. 1606103135 Sidwell No. 1606103139 Sidwell No. 1606103056 2352 S 200 E 677 E BUZIANIS WAY 218 E NINTH AVE BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 TOOELE UT 84074 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 111111 GADD,DOUGLAS V JENSEN,MARLIN K& LESIEUR,CEVAN& Sidwell No.1606103108 Sidwell No.1606103083 Sidwell No.1606103028 PO BOX 3024 1500 N 7900 E 3596 S CRESTWOOD DR WENDOVER NV 89883 HUNTSVILLE UT 84317 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 FRENCH,JUDY M;TR JENSE,SARA A LEGGE,JOAN Sidwell No:1606103137 Sidwell No.1606103126 Sidwell No. 1606103019 2214 FILLMORE ST 29 S STATE ST#718 23 W 400 N SAN FRANCISCO CA 94115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 FRENCH,JUDY M;TR JDX LTD LAURITZEN,DAVID K& Sidwell No.1606103136 Sidwell No.1606103065 Sidwell No.1606103096 2214 FILLMORE ST 8719 W UTOPIA RD 36 S STATE ST#1400 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94115 PEORIA AZ 85382 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 FREEMAN,HOLLEY R HYLAND,VICKI K KRUSKOP,KERRY L Sidwell No.1606103141 Sidwell No.1606103164 Sidwell No. 1606103084 29 S STATE ST#816 29 S STATE ST#108 29 S STATE ST#512 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 FLANDRO,ROYCE P& HERBERT,HOWARD S& KOPLIN,RICHARD M& • Sidwell No. 1606103168 Sidwell No.1606103122 Sidwell No. 1606103123 29 S STATE ST#408 1958 POINT DR 1772 S WASATCH DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 ST GEORGE UT 84790 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® mootn reed sneets' i" Use template for 5160 NORAT,PAUL E ROBINSON,KENT J L;TR TALUBA,THERESA R Sidwell No.1606103142 Sidwell No. 1606103031 Sidwell No. 1606103054 OS_ STATE ST#817 29 S STATE ST#213 390 S 100 E T LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 NELSON,CAROL E;TR REX,LESLIE M STRATTON,LESLYE;ET AL Sidwell No. 1606103070 Sidwell No. 1606103041 Sidwell No. 1606103095 29 S STATE ST#416 29 S STATE ST#305 29 S STATE ST#605 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MOODY,ERIKA M RASMUSSEN,JENNIFER K STOTT,LARRY W& Sidwell No. 1606103078 Sidwell No. 1606103081 Sidwell No. 1606103103 29 S STATE ST#506 319 E DRAPER DOWNS DR 29 S STATE ST#613 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 DRAPER UT 84020 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MILLER FAMILY REAL ESTATE RAMSEY,T UPTON&RHODA; STOKER,LESLIE A&CAROLE Sidwell No. 1606103115 Sidwell No. 1606103066 Sidwell No. 1606103067 9350 S 150 E#1000 2012 E BELL TOWER LN 3448 MOQUI DR SANDY UT 84070 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 SAINT GEORGE UT 84770 MICHIE,JAMES R& RADCLIFFE,CLARA L STEINER,DONALD L Sidwell No.1606103114 Sidwell No. 1606103023 Sidwell No. 1606103034 111 E BROADWAY ST#1200 29 S STATE ST#205 29 S STATE ST#216 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 • MENGUCCI,VERA POULTER,LEVI B STATS,BEVERLY B Sidwell No. 1606103173 Sidwell No. 1606103089 Sidwell No.1606103036 29 S STATE ST#801 29 S STATE ST#517 1149E 450 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 MCLAUGHLIN,NANCY L;TR PETTERSON,MARLYS E SMITH,JASON D Sidwell No.1606103165 Sidwell No. 1606103037 Sidwell No.1606103110 29 S STATE ST#117 29 S STATE ST#301 29 S STATE ST#702 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MARTINEZ,N E PEARSON,LOWELL D& SIMMONS,TROY L Sidwell No.1606103125 Sidwell No. 1606103051 Sidwell No.1606103077 29 S STATE ST#717 112 W BURNAM RD 7345 TARA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 COLUMBIA MO 65203 LAS VEGAS NV 89117 MARTIN,ROBERT A;TR PAXTON PRODUCTION TOOLS I SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND Sidwell No.1606103113 Sidwell No.1606103124 Sidwell No.1606103119 67 N'L'ST 1545 E FIELDCREST LN 12240 INWOOD RD#400 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84117 DALLAS TX 75244 *TIN,ROBERT A;TR PACK,ALVIN G&LENA M H; ROUTT,DEBORAH H Sidwell No.1606103026 Sidwell No.1606103170 Sidwell No.1606103058 67 N'L'ST 641 RAYGENE WAY 3748 257TH AVE SOUTH EAST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 NORTH SALT LAKE UT 84054 ISSAQUAH WA 98027 AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® ------_. --- — UJe Lei lipt to IUt DIM"' WOLF,ROSE M Sidwell No. 1606103032 29 S STATE ST#214 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 • WEEKS,E NORDELL&CAROL Sidwell No. 1606103018 PO BOX 207 BOUNTIFUL UT 84011 WARD, ROBERT P Sidwell No. 1606103088 831 10 ST APT 12 MIAMI BEACH FL 33139 WARD,LENA A ZUJOVICH,ALEXANDER P Sidwell No. 1606103143 Sidwell No.1606103072 1762 E YALE AVE PO BOX 597 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 RIVERTON UT 84065 VANOUS,SAMUEL& YEAMAN,RUTH R;TR Sidwell No. 1606103069 Sidwell No.1606103042 29 S STATE ST#414 29 S STATE ST#306 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 VANOUS,SAMUEL& YEAMAN,JACK M&RUTH R; Sidwell No.1606103068 Sidwell No.1606103055 29 S STATE ST#414 29 S STATE ST#307 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 VALDEZ,ANDREW A& YEAMAN,JACK M& Sidwell No.1606103048 Sidwell No. 1606103167 29 S STATE ST#312 29 S STATE ST#307 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 TUCKER,SHARON W YEAMAN,JACK M& Sidwell No. 1606103106 Sidwell No.1606103107 29 S STATE ST#616 29 S STATE ST#617 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 TRIPP,MELANIE YEAMAN,JACK M& Sidwell No. 1606103097 Sidwell No. 1606103044 29 S STATE ST#607 29 S STATE ST#307 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 TANNER,CORTNEY D WOODY,JAMES A& • Sidwell No. 1606103082 Sidwell No.1606103071 29 S STATE ST#510 29 S STATE ST#417 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® bmootn reea sneers vi Use template for 5160'w CORP OF PB OF C JC OF LD JERGENSEN,ERIC& PROPERTY RESE E, INC • Sidwell No. 931 1023 Sidwell No.0931308016 Sidwe No.0836 6055 E NORTHT ST#2200 53 E 200 N 10 E SO H MPLE ST#1500 T LAK ITY UT 84150 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LA UT 84133 CORP OF PB CH JC OF LD JANE F MCCARTHEY FAMILY PROPERTY RE VE, INC Sidwel o.0 1351022 Sidwell No.0931308033 Sidw I No.0 6476045 50 E NOR TEMPLE ST 610 E SOUTHTEMPLE ST#200 10 E SO TEMPLE ST#1500 SALT E C UT 84150 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 SALT E UT 84133 CORP OF PB F CH JC OF LD JANE F MCCARTH Y FAMILY PROPERTY R ERVE INC Sidwel o. 31351021 Sidwell N 09313 012 Sidwel o. 31309032 50 E NOR TEMPLE ST 610 E SOUT MPLE ST#200 10 E SO TEMPLE ST#1500 SALT E C UT 84150 SALT LAKE I T 84102 SALT KE CI UT 84133 CORP OF PB CH JC OF LD HUGHES,J PRESTON;TR PROPERTY SERVE INC Sidwell .0 1309011 Sidwell No.0836476057 Sidwell No. 36476054 50 E NOR TEMPLE ST 1250 E 3900 S#320 10 OU TEMPLE ST#1500 SALT E UT 84150 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84124 SALT CITY UT 84133 CORP OF PB CH JC OF LD HUGHES FAMILY LLC PROPERTY R SERVE INC Sidwell .0 6478021 Sidwell No.0931308026 Sidwell o. 36476053 50 E NORT EMPLE ST#2200 3470 HUNTINGTON DR 10 E SOU TEMPLE ST#1500 SALT LA CI UT 84150 BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 SALT E UT 84133 • CORP OF PB CH JC OF LD HUGH S FA LLC PROPERTY SERVE INC Sidwell .0 6478015 Sidwell 31308025 Sidwel No. 836476017 50 E NO TEMPLE ST 3470 H TI ON DR 10 E S HTEMPLE ST#1500 SALT KE TY UT 84150 BO IFUL UT 84010 SAL K TY UT 84133 COR OF PB F CH JC OF LD HOLCOMBE,PATRICIA ANN MCAULEY,GEORGE E& Sidwell o. 36478014 Sidwell No.0931308013 Sidwell No.0931309020 50 E NOR HTEMPLE ST PO BOX 29 PO BOX 9290 SALT E ITY UT 84150 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110 MAMMOTH LAKES CA 93546 CORP OF PB 0 CH JC OF LD DESERET TITLE HOLDING COR MCA LEY,GEO E E& Sidwell o.08 6478007 Sidwell No.0836478018 Sidwe o.09 309019 50 E NOR EMPLE ST#2200 10 E SOUTHTEMPLE ST#1500 PO BOX SALT E UT 84150 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84133 MAMM ES CA 93546 CONSOLIDATED CAPITOL DE CONDE,KENNETH B LAWSON,JUDY;ET AL Sidwell No.0931308027 Sidwell No.0931309018 Sidwell No.0931309034 65 E 200 N 270 E 100 S 700 N BRAND BLVD#560 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 GLENDALE CA 91203 OPITAL DEVELOPMENT& CORP OF PRES OF CH JC OF KENSINGTON APARTMENTS INC Sidwell No.0931309009 Sidwell No.0931351012 Sidwell No.0931309033 PO BOX 71810 50 E NORTHTEMPLE ST 700 N BRAND BLVD#560 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84171 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150 GLANDALE CA 91203 `4 AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® .......,.,�.. . ....... V..MV�J Li= tC111}iIQLC nu 71UV` SALT LAKE TABERNACLE CORP Sidwell No.0836477030 50 E NORTHTEMPLE ST#2200 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150 • SAL KE TA RNACLE CORP Sidwell 0 6477029 50 E NOR EMPLE ST SA E CI 84150 SALT KE TA RNACLE Sidwell No.0 6479002 50 E NO EMPLE ST#1200 SAL KE CI T 84150 PROPER RE RVE, INC Sidwell No. 9 1309029 10 E SOUT PLE ST#1500 SALT E CITY 84133 PROPERTY R ERVE,INC Sidwell N 0 1309028 10 E SOUT EMPLE ST#1500 SALT CI UT 84133 • PROPERTY R ERVE, INC YOUNG,LAWRENCE D Sidwell .0 1309027 Sidwell No.0931309008 10 E SOU EMPLE ST#1500 52 E 200 N#4 SALT LA CI UT 84133 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 PROPERTY SERVE, INC YOUNG,LAWRENCE D Sidwell .0 31309026 Sidwell No.0931309007 10 E SOU EMPLE ST#1500 52 E 200 N SALT E CI UT 84133 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 PROP TY ESERVE,INC YOUNG,LAWRENCE D Sidwell N 931309025 Sidwell No.0931308014 10 E SOU EMPLE ST#1500 4465 S MATHEWS WY SALT E CI UT 84133 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84124 PROPERTY ESERVE, INC TEMPLE CORP OF CH JC OF L Sidwel o. 931309024 Sidwell No.0836479003 10 E SO TEMPLE ST#1500 50 E NORTHTEMPLE ST SALT KE ITY UT 84133 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150 PROP TY ESERVE,INC SIPPEL INVESTMENTS • Sidwell N 36476056 Sidwell No.0931308015 10 E SOU EMPLE ST#1500 PO BOX 4509 SALT E CI UT 84133 PAGE AZ 86040 46, AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® smooth teed Sheets 1 m Use template tor 516V CORP OF PB OF H JC OF LD CROSSROADS PLAZA ASSOC FIRST SECURITY BANK OF UT Sidwell N 0 1352013 Sidwell No.1501227052 Sidwell No. 1606101009 E NORT TEMPLE ST 50 S MAIN ST#75 PO BOX 30006 T E CI UT 84150 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84144 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84130 CORP 0 B 0 H JC OF LD CRANDALL, ROBERT E;TR FIRST SECURITY ANK OF UT Sidwell No. 31352012 Sidwell No.1501227046 Sidwel No. 160 01008 50 E N H MPLE ST 852 S LE GRAND ST PO BO 0 6 SAL KE CI UT 84150 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 SALT UT 84130 CORP OF B OF CH JC OF LD CORP.0 PRESID T OF CH E&H INVESTMENTS IV,LLC Sidwell No. 1352011 Sidwell No. 3 52001 Sidwell No. 1606105044 50 E N HTEMPLE ST 50 E NORT E ST 827 108TH AVE NE SAL CITY UT 84150 SALT LA CITY UT 4150 BELLVIEW WA 98004 COMMERCIAL TOWER ASSOC CORP OF PRESIDING BISHOP DESERET TITLE HOLDING COR Sidwell No.1501227052 Sidwell No.0931352006 Sidwell No. 1501227001 50 S MAIN ST#75 50 E NORTHTEMPLE ST 50 E NORTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84144 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150 CHRISTIANSEN ENTERPRISES CORP PRES ING BISHOP DESER T TITLE LDING Sidwell No. 1501227045 Sidwell No. 1352004 Sidwell N 15 27052 50 S MAIN ST#75 50 E NOR PLE ST 50 S MAIN #75 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84144 SALT E CITY 150 SALT E C UT 84144 II BROWNSTONE ASSOCIATES LLC CORP OF PRESID G BISHOP DESE T TIT HOLDING Sidwell No.1606105024 Sidwell .0931 2003 Sidwell 1227050 22 E 100 S 50 E NOR MPLE ST 50 S MAI T#75 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LA C T 84150 SALT KE UT 84144 BENEFICIAL LIFE INSURANCE CORP OF PRES F CH JC OF DESERET NEWS PUBLISHING Sidwell No.1606101005 Sidwell .09 352005 Sidwell No. 1606105047 36 S STATE ST 50 E NOR EMPLE ST 30 E 100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84136 SALT E CI T 84150 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 AT&T COMMUNICATIONS OF TH CORP OF PRES (SHOP CH OF CROSSROADS PLAZA ASSOCIAT Sidwell No.1606109002 Sidwell No.15 226001 Sidwell No. 1501227042 70 S STATE ST 50 E NORT MPLE ST#2200 50 S MAIN ST#75 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT CITY 84150 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84144 ARI-SOUTH TEMPLE LLC;E CORP PB OF H JC OF LD CROSS ADS P ASSOCIAT Sidwell No.1606102002 Sidwell N 093 54008 Sidwell No. 27041 27292 CALLE ARROYO#A 50 E NORT MPLE ST#2200 50 S MAIN 75 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO CA 92675 SALT LAK UT 84150 SALT E CI T 84144 OTA CLUB CORP OF PB OF H JC OF LD CROSSROADS P ASSOCIAT Sidwell No.1606102001 Sidwell N 093 52014 Sidwell No. 150 27040 100 E SOUTHTEMPLE ST 50 E NORT MPLE ST 50 S MA N T 75 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAK I UT 84150 SALT LAK TY UT 84144 4 AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® JI IRJUu s reeU ZI leeLS— use template for 5160`" MC INTYRE ASSOCIATES PROP TY RE ERVE INC PROPE TY RE RVE,INC Sidwell No. 1501228008 Sidwell .09 1354009 Sidwell N 15 227027 68 S MAIN ST#800 10 E SOU EMPLE ST#1500 10 E SOUT MPLE ST#1500 • SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 SALT LAK CI T 84133 SALT LA E CITY 84133 LINDSAY,MICHAEL J;TR POWELL,ROGER K;ET AL PROPS R ERVE,INC Sidwell No.0931353032 Sidwell No.1501228004 Sidwell No. 1227008 170 N STATE ST 68 S MAIN ST 10 E SOU T PLE ST#1500 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 SALT LAKE CI UT 84133 HORIZON CAPITAL CORPORATI PETERSON,ARMAN B&BIRGI PROP RTY RES E,INC Sidwell No. 1501228003 Sidwell No.0931353003 Sidwell .09 80031 358 S RIO GRANDE ST 158 N STATE ST 10 E SOU EMPLE ST#1500 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CI UT 84133 HORIZON CAPITAL CORPORATI PANACEA MANAGEMENT,LTD PROPE TY RE RVE,INC Sidwell No. 1501228002 Sidwell No.1501228007 Sidwell N 09 379024 1240 E 2100 S 68 S MAIN ST#600 10 E SOUT EMPLE ST#1500 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 SAL E CI UT 84133 HINTZE,MATTHEW D;ET AL NELSON,MARIE B;TR ET AL PROP RTY RE RVE INC Sidwell No.1501227033 Sidwell No.1501227049 Sidwell . 16 102021 50 S MAIN ST#75 ONE MARRIOT DRIVE 10 E SOU EMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84144 WASHINGTON DC 20058 SALT E UT 84133 • GOODRICH,REECE;TR ET AL MUIR-ROBERTS CO INC PROP RTY SERVE INC Sidwell No.0931353034 Sidwell No.1501228011 Sidwell 606102020 923 EXECUTIVE PARK DR#F PO BOX 328 10 E SO TEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84117 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110 SALT KE C UT 84133 FIRST SECURITY SERVICE CO MUIR-R ER CO INC PROPERTY SERVE INC Sidwell No.1606101007 Sidwell No. 1228010 Sidwell o 606102019 PO BOX 30006 PO BO 28 10 E S HTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84130 SA LAKE CITY UT 84110 SAL KE TY UT 84133 FIRS SECURI SERVICE CO MOUNTAIN BELL SLC MAIN PRO RTY R RVE INC Sidwell o.16 6101006 Sidwell No.1606109001 Sidwell o. 6101017 PO BOX 6 6300 S SYRACUSE WAY#700 10 E S TEMPLE ST#1500 SALT LA UT 84130 ENGLEWOOD CO 80111 SALT LAKE C UT 84133 FIRST SECUR BANK OF UT MCINTYRE ASSOCIATES PROPERTY SERVE INC Sidwel o.1 6101011 Sidwell No. 1501228009 Sid II No. 01227013 PO BOX 06 68 S MAIN ST#800 50 S I ST#75 SALT ITY UT 84130 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 SALT ITY UT 84144 FIR SECUR BANK OF UT MC INTYRE BLDG CONDM 2ND PROPERTY RES VE INC • Sidwell \o.1%1 6101010 Sidwell No.1501228001 Sidwell N 093 80020 PO BOX !'4 06 68 S MAIN ST#800 10 E SOUT MPLE ST#1500 SALT '. C - T 84130 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 SALT LA CI UT 84133 4 AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51600 PROP RTY SERVE,INC THE MOUNTAIN STATES TELEP Sidwell . 606102018 Sidwell No. 1606109003 40E SO EMPLE ST#1500 250E 200 S#611 LT KE CI UT 84133 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 PROPERTY RE RVE, INC THE CITY OF SALT LAKE Sidwell . 16 6101019 Sidwell No. 1606102008 10 E SOU MPLE ST#1500 451 S STATE ST SALT LA CITY UT 84133 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 PROPS R ERVE,INC STANDARD LIFE&CASUALTY Cert. -p„tr_L Sidwell No. 06101018 Sidwell No. 1501228006 t'l�/ 5��i�t 5! 10 E SO MPLE ST#1500 68 S MAIN ST#5 t ,u.1 SALT KE CITY UT 84133 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 S L'C, kT y/j f PROPERTY RE RVE,INC SARGENT,MARY L;ET AL ZIONS FIRST NATIONAL BANK Sidwell o. 16 101016 Sidwell No.1501228005 Sidwell No. 1501229054 10 E SO EMPLE ST#1500 68 S MAIN ST#800 PO BOX 30709 SALT CI UT 84133 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84130 PROPER RE RVE,INC SALT LAKE COUNTY ZIO IRST IONAL BANK Sidwell No 1 6101015 Sidwell No. 1501226002 Sidwell No. 1229031 10 E SOUT TEMPLE ST#1500 2001 S STATE ST#N4500 PO BOX 3 ÔLT E UT 84133 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84190 SALT E CI UT 84130 PROPERTY ESERVE,INC SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATIO ZIONS FIRST ATIONAL BANK Sidwell o. 606101001 Sidwell No. 1501229005 Sidwell o. 501229007 10 E SO HTEMPLE ST#1500 451 S STATE ST#345 PO BOX 09 SALT K ITY UT 84133 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT KE UT 84130 PROPERTY SERVE,INC SALT LA CI CORP ZIONS FIRST TIONAL BANK Sidwe No. 501227051 Sidwell No. 1353029 Sidwell o. 1 1229006 10 E S HTEMPLE ST#1500 451 S STAT T#345 PO BOX 09 SAL CITY UT 84133 SALT LA CI UT 84111 SALT UT 84130 PROPE TY ESERVE,INC PROPE TY R ERVE, INC W J M TOUW Sidwell N . 501227032 Sidwell N 16 6106004 Sidwell No.0931353033 50S MA T#75 10 E SOU EMPLE ST#1500 923 EXECUTIVE PARK DR#F SALT E UT 84144 SALT LAK T 84133 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84117 PR ER RESERVE,INC PR ERTY RE ERVE,INC UTAH WOOLEN MILLS Sidwe N .1501227031 Sidwel o.16 104015 Sidwell No. 1501227044 50 S ST#75 10 E SO TH MPLE ST#1500 50 S MAIN ST#75 SA LA CITY UT 84144 SALT LA CITY UT 84133 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84144 41PRI OPERTY RE RVE,INC PROP TY RE ERVE,INC TRIBE,ROYAL L,TR& Sidw No.15 227030 Sidwell .16 104001 Sidwell No.1501227053 10 E S TH MPLE ST#1500 10 E SOU EMPLE ST#1500 50 S MAIN ST#75 SALT LAK TY UT 84133 SALT LA TY UT 84133 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84144 ® AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® ®09IS aase-1 siagei ssaappy ®A213A11 Wynn Johnson Katherine Gardner Ana Archuleta GREATER AVENUES CAPITOL HILL CENTRAL CITY 852 Northcliffe Drive 606 De Soto Street 204 E Herbert Avenue Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Salt Lake City,Utah 84103 Salt Lake City,Utah 84111• Catherine New Samantha Francis Chris Viavant LIBERTY WELLS PEOPLES FREEWAY RIO GRANDE P.O. Box #521744 70 W. Van Buren Ave. 404 South 400 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84152-1744 Salt Lake City,Utah 84115 Salt Lake City,Utah84101-2201 Dave Mortensen Ellen Reddick Jim Byrne ARCADIA HEIGHTSBENCHMARK BONNEVILLE HILLS FOOTHILL/SUNNYSIDE 2278 Signal Point Circle 2177 Roosevelt Ave 1966 East 900 South Salt Lake City, Utah 84109 Salt Lake City,Utah 84108 Salt Lake City,Utah 841108 Shawn McMillen Mike Zuhl Paul Tayler H ROCK INDIAN HILLS OAK HILLS 1855 South 2600 East 2676 Comanche Dr. 1165 Oakhills Way Salt Lake City,Utah 84108 Salt Lake City,Utah 84108 Salt Lake City,Utah 84108 Doug Foxley Jeffrey Mullins Tim Dee ST. MARY'S SUNNYSIDE EAST ASSOC. SUNSET OAKS 1449 Devonshire Dr. 873 S. Woodruff Way 1575 Devonshire Dr. Salt Lake City,Utah 84108 Salt Lake City,Utah 84108 Salt Lake City,Utah 84108 • Beth Bowman Kenneth L.Neal Tom Bonacci WASATCH HOLLOW ROSE PARK YALECREST 1445 E. Harrison Ave. 1071 North Topaz Dr. 1024 South 1500 East Salt Lake City,Utah 84105 Salt Lake City,Utah 84116 Salt Lake City,Utah 84105 Carol Goode Boris Kurz Angie Vorher EAST CENTRAL EAST LIBERTY PARK JORDAN MEADOWS 823 South 1000 East 1203 South 900 East. 1988 Sir James Dr. Salt Lake City,Utah 84102 Salt Lake City,Utah 84105 Salt Lake City,Utah 84116 John Storrs Jilene Whitby Kadee Nielson POPLAR GROVE STATE FAIRPARK WESTPOINTE 1028 West 500 South 846 W 400 N. 1410 N.Baroness Place. Salt Lake City,Utah 84104 Salt Lake City,Utah 84116 Salt Lake City,Utah 84116 Helen Peters Erin Willson SUGAR HOUSE WEST SALT LAKE To�l �o.-(-a�to-�-� 2803 Beverly Street 1303 South Stewart Street H 51 5 . S liaz 54.41/46 Salt Lake City,Utah 84106 Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 5 LG, ti.T Syl/( Von G. Keetch Alan L. Sullivan III Kirton & McConkie Snell & Wilmer Joel Paterson 60 E. South Temple #1800 15 W. South Temple #1200 2450 E. Lambourne Ave. Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Salt Lake City, UT 84109 ®09IS Jo)aieidwai asn W js1aaLS paaj q oows JnwvUI I CCU .711CCt,...- use template ror)1ou— CROWLEY,VERNAL F& GOATES,BYRON& LOSCHER,HAROLD P;ET AL Sidwell No. 1514228009 Sidwell No. 1511458011 Sidwell No. 1514203017 775 W 1355 S 1495E 3300 S 1403 S 1000 W 41,T LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 COLIN,ALFREDO& GILLETTE,KARL& LOSC R,HA D P.&SHAR Sidwell No. 1514203027 Sidwell No. 1514202008 Sidwell No. 4203001 1454 S 900 W 3580 E HONEYCOMB RD 1403 S 10 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84121 SALT E CITY 84104 CHASE MANHATTAN MORTGAGE GERBIC,IGOR&LEJLA;JT LATTA,ROBERT F. &LUCILL Sidwell No. 1511458008 Sidwell No. 1514203016 Sidwell No. 1511457021 3415 VISION DR 941 W 1400 S 928 W CALIFORNIA AVE COLUMBUS OH 43219 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 CARPENTER,NORMAN& FRITSCH,FRANCES H;TR LANIER,ANDRE& Sidwell No.1514202012 Sidwell No. 1511458009 Sidwell No. 1514203004 1358 S 900 W 3570 E WARR RD 1433 S 1000 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 CANNON CORP OF CH OF JC 0 FOSTER,JULEE L JOHNSON,BARBARA C& Sidwell No. 1514204005 Sidwell No. 1514202023 Sidwell No. 1514202021 50 E NORTHTEMPLE ST 932 W 1400 S 944 W 1400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 • CANNON CORP F CH OF JC 0 EDWARDS,FERN C& INGERSOLL,BRIAN D&KATH Sidw II .1 4204004 Sidwell No.1511457024 Sidwell No. 1514202003 50 E NOR PLE T 5657 W 3640 S 951 W CALIFORNIA AVE SA'T E CITY UT 84150 WEST VALLEY UT 84128 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 BELKA,LEON W&IONA J; DALTON,DAVID I&GEORGIA HURD,MARIA E Sidwell No. 1511457020 Sidwell No.1514202014 Sidwell No. 1514202015 16311 RHONE LN 1380 S 900 W 21104 CATSKILL AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 CARSON CA 90745 BAXENDALE,BERNICE& DALE,RENEE B HOUSING AUTHORITY OF Sidwell No. 1511457025 Sidwell No. 1514203026 Sidwell No. 1511457027 1324 S 900 W 1446 S 900 W 1776 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 ATWOOD,DAVID T D&V PROPERTIES GURR INVESTMENTS, LC Sidwell No. 1514203003 Sidwell No.1514202019 Sidwell No. 1514230017 1425 S 1000 W 2045E 6060 S 51 E 400 S#210 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84121 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 •RI,MAJID& CURE,BARBARA GURR INVESTMENTS, LC Sidwell No.1514228001 Sidwell No.1511458016 Sidwell No. 1514229013 5451 S YORK ST 3450 W 4700 S 51 E 400 S#210 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84117 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84118 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 ,l AVE Y ,. Address Labels Laser 516O MOORE,MAX S&FLORIENE H PROVO-JORDAN RIVER PARKWA SALT LAKE CI CORPORATIO Sidwell No.1514203025 Sidwell No. 1511457009 Sidwel o. 14226001 1440 S 900 W PO BOX 146001 451 S S EST#345 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 SA T KE C T 84111 III MOORE,ERVIN D;TR PRITZKAU,KYLE J&DIANE SALT E CI CORP Sidwell No. 1514203024 Sidwell No. 1514204002 Sidwell N 14204001 1436 S 900 W 1361 S 900 W 451 S ST T T#345 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT KE CITY UT 84111 MONTANO,RANDOLPH& PRITZKAU,DIANE S&KYLE SALT LAKE CITY ORP Sidwell No.1514202020 Sidwell No. 1514204003 Sidwell . 151 79004 950 W 1400 S 1367 S 900 W 451 S STA T#345 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT UT 84111 MCWHORTER,THELMA POLA BEAR HOLDING,LLC SALT LAKE CITY RP Sidwell No. 1514203018 Sidwell No. 1514229012 Sidwell N . 151 9003 933 W 1400 S 789 W 1390 S 451 S STA T#345 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT CI T 84111 MCQUEEN,MIKE PIONEER TIRE INC SALT LAKE CI ORP Sidwell No. 1514202002 Sidwell No. 1511457023 Sidwel o. 1 1479002 959 W CALIFORNIA AVE 781 W FREMONT AVE 451 S ST #345 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT E CITY UT 84111 • MCDERMOTT,WILLIAM F.& PECK,RUSSELL&NORMA ROJAS,EDUARDO&ESTELLA; Sidwell No. 1514202009 Sidwell No. 1514203005 Sidwell No. 1511457026 1389 S 1000 W 1439 S 1000 W 1328 S 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 MCDE OTT, LIAM F, ET OSEGUERA,ANTHONY RAMIREZ,MARCELINO& Sidwell 1 4202016 Sidwell No. 1514203002 Sidwell No. 1511457018 1389 S 1 1409 S 1000 W 956 W CALIFORNIA AVE SALT KE CI UT 84104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 LUNA,SABINO& NIELSEN,ALICE QUALLS,WILLIAM L.&MARI Sidwell No. 1511458014 Sidwell No. 1514203019 Sidwell No. 1514203020 3907 S REDHAWK RD 1408 S 900 W 1414 S 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84119 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 LUN , A O& NGUYEN,LIEM T& PROVO-JORDAN RIVER PARKWA Sidwell . 1511458013 Sidwell No. 1514202001 Sidwell No. 1511457011 3907 HAWK RD 963 W CALIFORNIA AVE PO BOX 146001 SAL LAKE TY UT 84119 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 LOSCHER,TERESA A& NAVA,JOE P&IRENE M; PROVO-J RD RIVER PARKWA • Sidwell No. 1514202006 Sidwell No. 1514202013 Sidwell No. 1 11457010 929 W CALIFORNIA AVE 1362 S 900 W PO BOX 1 01 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT E CI UT 84114 tii.,s4AVEM, -- Address Labels Laser F 51VL` use temptate ror 71bu" VEA,CAPE Sidwell No. 1514202011 1350 S 900 W *LT LAKE CITY UT 84104 VANLEEUWEN,JOHN I& Sidwell No. 1514202007 923 W CALIFORNIA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 TIMOTHY,DAVID M • Sidwell No. 1514202022 938 W 1400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 THOMPSON, ROBERT R&RUTH Sidwell No. 1511457022 924 W CALIFORNIA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF Sidwell No. 1514204006 440 E 100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 • TATAFU,APISAI&KRISTEN; WOOLSEY,BILL&CAROLYN Sidwell No. 1514203021 Sidwell No. 1511458010 1420 S 900 W 846 W CALIFORNIA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SORENSON DEVELOPMENT,INC WOOD,BLANCHE P(TR) Sidwell No. 1511458017 Sidwell No. 1511457019 2511 S WESTTEMPLE ST 950 W CALIFORNIA AVE SOUTH SALT LAKE UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SCHWEMMER,BETTY S VIVAR, ISMAEL& Sidwell No. 1514203015 Sidwell No. 1514202005 1447 S CLAYTON ST 939 W CALIFORNIA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT LAKE COMMNUNITY ACTI VIOLETTE,PETER R Sidwell No. 1511458015 Sidwell No. 1514203022 764 S 200 W 1576 ELVADO DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 SIMI VALLEY CA 93065 it LAKE CITY CORPORATIO VIOLETTE,PETER R AKA elI No. 1514229001 Sidwell No. 1514203023 451 S STATE ST#345 1576 ELVADO DRWAY#6 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SIMI VALLEY CA 93065 G`. i VEi� '� Aud ress L?De(�' Laser `,Sj`' • 0 EXHIBIT 6 PLANNING COMMISSION • Transmittal of Petition 400-03-01 • EXHIBIT 6a PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING NOTICE AND POSTMARK • Transmittal of Petition 400-03-01 A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE ! I , °_fJ �,i` "..©. 4.2 IPA ROSS G. ANDERSON • PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR DOUGLAS L. WHEELWRIGHT, AICP DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION The Salt Lake City Planning Commission is considering Petition 400-03-01 by Mayor Anderson requesting to close, vacate and abandon the public pedestrian access and passage easement across the Main Street Plaza located on the foinier Main Street right-of-way between North Temple and South Temple streets. As part of their consideration, the Planning Commission will consider: 1. Declaring Salt Lake City's interest in the public pedestrian access and passage easement as surplus; 2. Forwarding a recommendation to the City Council to close, vacate and abandon the pedestrian and passage easement for the purpose of selling the easement for fair-market value to the adjacent property owner, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and • 3. Forwarding a recommendation to the City Administration to accept certain real property located at 1375 South and 1385 South 900 West as partial payment for the sale of the public pedestrian and access easement. You are invited to attend the Planning Commission public hearing,which will be held: April 9,2003 5:30 p.m.** Room 326 City and County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 **After 5:00 p.m.please use the east entrance. Additional information on this proposal is available on the internet at www.slcgov.com/mayor/plaza/. If you have any questions or comments concerning this proposal,please contact Joel Paterson at(801) 535-6141 between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:00 pm or send e-mail to joel.paterson@slcgov.com. We comply with all ADA guidelines. Assistive listening devices and interpretive services provided upon 24-hour advance request • 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7757 FAX: 801-535-61 74 y^. RECYCLED P<PER i4‹.1 Maik nts'io NOTICE OF HEARING LI Palerso-n Salt Lake City.Planning Division 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City UT 84111 I‘4 -;;;: • p, fS ori cows!) Reused *temp* Not Known vacant Ntr, such N'04 • • EXHIBIT 6b PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT • Transmittal of Petition 400-03-01 • SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PETITION 400-03-01 BY MAYOR ANDERSON REQUESTING TO CLOSE, VACATE AND ABANDON THE PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND PASSAGE EASEMENT ACROSS THE MAIN STREET PLAZA OVERVIEW Mayor Anderson is requesting that the Salt Lake City Planning Commission consider Petition 400-03-01 (see Attachment 1) to close, vacate and abandon the pedestrian access and passage easement across the Main Street Plaza located on the foinier Main Street right-of-way between North Temple and South Temple streets. The Planning Commission must consider: 1. Forwarding a recommendation to the City Council to close, vacate and abandon the pedestrian and passage easement for the purpose of selling the easement for fair-market value to the adjacent property owner, the Church of Jesus Christ of • Latter-day Saints (LDS Church); 2. Declaring Salt Lake City's interest in the pedestrian access and passage easement as surplus; and 3. Forwarding a recommendation to the City Administration to accept certain real property located at 1375 South and 1385 South 900 West as partial payment for the sale of the public pedestrian and access easement. The purpose of this petition is to settle legal disputes challenging certain terms of the special warranty deed that conveyed ownership of this section of Main Street to the LDS Church in 1999, as a result of Petition 400-98-79. That petition, submitted by the LDS Church, requested to close the section of Main Street between North and South Temple streets and resulted in the construction of the Main Street Plaza. The Mayor's proposal, if approved,will result in amendments to the special warranty deed that transferred ownership of the Main Street right-of-way to the LDS Church. The language in the deed that reserved a pedestrian access and passage easement will be removed. The effect of this revision would be that the public would no longer have a contractual guarantee of access to and passage across the Main Street Plaza. Petitions to close or vacate a City street, or a portion thereof, require the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council, which has final approval authority. The disposal of real property is an administrative function,which requires the III Petition 400-003-01 Planning Commission Public Hearing April 9,2003 —Page 1 — Planning Commission to make a declaration that the property is surplus. Following notification of the City Council by the Property Management Division, the Mayor has the • authority to dispose of the property in exchange for fair-market value. (Chapter 2.58, Salt Lake City Code). BACKGROUND The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) purchased the surface rights to the former Main Street right-of-way between North Temple and South Temple in April 1999, following a public process that culminated in a decision by the Salt Lake City Council to close this section of Main Street. As a condition of approval, the City retained the following easements across the Plaza: • Pedestrian Access and Passage Easement: The City retained an easement that allows pedestrians access and passage across the Main Street Plaza twenty-four hours a day subject to other conditions, limitations and restrictions on the expressive behavior of users of the easement (see Attachment 7—Special Warranty Deed). The deed also states, "nothing in the reservation or use of this easement shall be deemed to create or constitute a pubic forum on the property". This provision of the deed was found to be unconstitutional by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit(10th Circuit Court). • Emergency and Public Safety Easement: This easement retains the right of access and passage by emergency and pubic safety personnel and vehicles without • limitation. • Public and Private Utilities Easement: This easement provides for the operation, maintenance, repair, alteration, replacement, enlargement and emergency access, of all existing pubic and private underground utility lines, including, without limitation, water, sewer, storm drain, telecommunications, electrical, gas, fiber optic and cable lines. • Preservation of View Corridor Easement: In order to preserve the view corridor to the Daughters of the Utah Pioneers Museum and to Ensign Peak, this easement prevents the LDS Church from erecting any occupied buildings on the property except for kiosks and information booths. This petition seeks to abandon only the pedestrian access and passage easement. The other easements described above will remain in force. On November 16, 1999, the American Civil Liberties Union, on the behalf of several plaintiffs, sued Salt Lake City claiming that the restrictions upon speech and conduct contained in the deed violate First Amendment rights protected by the US Constitution. On October 9, 2002, the 10th Circuit Court held that the City's access and passage easement across the Main Street Plaza constitutes a public forum for free speech purposes. In effect, the City cannot guarantee access while allowing the LDS Church to Petition 400-003-01 • Planning Commission Public Hearing April 9,2003 —Page 2— impose restrictions on the First Amendment rights of those utilizing the pedestrian and access easement. The combination of these terms in the special warranty deed was found to be unconstitutional. See Attachment 4, Other Relevant Documents (Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Memo Outlining Legal Issues). In an attempt to resolve the constitutional issues, Mayor Anderson first developed a proposal to narrowly define the physical location of the pedestrian and access easement on the eastern edge of the former Main Street right-of-way and to impose time,place and manner restrictions similar to those applied to other city sidewalks. See Attachment 3 (Mayor Anderson's First Proposal) for a description of the time,place and manner restrictions. Mayor Anderson decided not to pursue this option for three reasons: 1. The LDS Church, with whom the Mayor would need to negotiate to revise the special warranty deed, did not accept this proposal; 2. The Mayor received input that the time,place and manner provisions might cause additional contention within the community; and 3. The Mayor was infoinied that the time, place and manner proposal would be subject to additional legal challenges without substantial changes. On December 16, 2002, the Mayor made another proposal to exchange the easement for land and other considerations, including the creation of the Alliance for Unity Center • (Unity Center) and a Sorenson Multi-cultural Center(855 West California Avenue) expansion in Glendale. The two parts of this proposal are described in detail in Attachment 3, "A Turning Point for Peace," and are summarized below: PROPOSAL PART 1: THE EASEMENT • Close,Vacate and Abandon the Pedestrian Access and Passage Easement. Extinguishing the easement will allow the LDS Church all rights over the property that any other property owner enjoys. Extinguishing the easement will allow the LDS Church to regulate behavior on the Main Street Plaza and resolve the constitutional issue regarding First Amendment rights. This provision also means that the City will have no guarantee to a right of public pedestrian access or passage through the Main Street Plaza. Under this provision,there will be no right to pedestrian access and passage across the Main Street Plaza unless it is allowed by the LDS Church. The LDS Church and the City will not enter into an agreement concerning pedestrian access and passage across the Main Street Plaza. • Severability of the "Reverter Clause". The special warranty deed includes a reverter clause that allows the City to regain ownership of the former Main Street right-of-way if the Plaza is not used for its intended purpose. If the courts maintain that the reverter clause constitutes a substantial property interest for the City and as a result, First Amendment rights still apply to the Plaza, the reverter clause will be removed from the special warranty deed and become Petition 400-003-01 Planning Commission Public Hearing April 9,2003 —Page 3— unenforceable. • City and LDS Church Share Legal Fees. As a part of this proposal, Salt Lake • City and the LDS Church agree to split the legal fees and costs incurred by the plaintiffs in the litigation over the Main Street Plaza easement. Without this agreement, Salt Lake City would be solely liable for this cost. • No Agreement Regarding Restrictions: If the City Council approves this proposal, Salt Lake City will not participate in the creation of any restrictions on the Plaza. The LDS Church will have the same rights as any other private property owner,to impose restrictions on the behavior of visitors to the Plaza. PROPOSAL PART 2: THE ALLIANCE FOR UNITY CENTER • The LDS Church proposes to donate approximately two acres of vacant land at 1385 South 900 West to the City to be used to create the Unity Center. • The Alliance for Unity commits to help raise at least $5 million to create the new Unity Center and aid in the expansion of the Sorenson Center. See Attachment 3 for a list of the Alliance for Unity members who signed a letter pledging support to raise the needed funds for the Alliance for Unity Center. • The LDS Church agrees to participate financially in the development of the Unity Center. • • James Sorenson, John Huntsman and the George S. and Dolores Dore Eccles Foundation have pledged donations ranging from $500,000 to $1,000,000 in cash and land for this project. • The City will work with several partners to provide needed services at the Unity Center and at the expanded Sorenson Center. PUBLIC PROCESS The Mayor's Office presented the proposed easement vacation and property exchange to six community councils, the Downtown Alliance, the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, and the Transportation Advisory Board and held a public open house at the main branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library. In addition, the proposal was posted on the City's web page, which allows people to submit comments. Attachment 2 includes a chronology of the public process. Attachment 5 includes transcripts of community council meetings and comments e-mailed to the City via the web site. • Petition 400-003-01 Planning Commission Public Hearing April 9,2003 —Page 4— • ANALYSIS MASTER PLANS AND URBAN DESIGN POLICIES The concept of closing portions of Main Street has been discussed in Salt Lake City master plans for over forty years. In 1962, the Second Century Plan specified closing Main Street between North and South Temple streets, and creating a plaza that would combine the two LDS Church-owned blocks to develop an LDS Church campus. Other master plans have supported the concept introduced in the Second Century Plan by focusing on creating open spaces and enhancing the landscaping along the street. These plans are R/UDAT (1988), Urban Design Element (1990),Block 57 Master Plan(1990), and the Downtown Master Plan (1995). 1. CENTRAL COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN (Pending adoption by the City Council) The Central Community Master Plan (recommended by the Planning Commission in September 2002) includes a number of goals and strategies concerning mobility and accessibility(page 3). • Increased pedestrian mobility and accessibility • Promote Walkable development. • 2. CAPITOL HILL MASTER PLAN (November, 1999) The Capitol Hill Master Plan makes the ensuing recommendations on page II 5-3: • Ensure that the impacts associated with new development in the LDS Church Campus, including noise, parking, traffic and overall congestion, are mitigated to minimize the effects and its impact on residential neighborhoods to the north. • Provide for safe, convenient circulation patterns for vehicular and non- vehicular traffic movement(page I-3). • Easements which allow public access through privately owned historic properties, such as the existing public easement through Gordon Place, should be retained (page II-1-9). • Circulation improvements including pedestrian amenities, parking lot egress and ingress,reducing commuter traffic in the Capitol Hill and Avenues residential neighborhoods, and mitigation of adverse impacts that potential land uses may have on the residential neighborhood to the north(page II-1- 11). • Walking has changed from once being the primary mode of circulation to being mostly used for recreational purposes. Although the proximity of the Capitol Hill Community to the Central Business District lends itself well to walking, steep terrain,physical barriers and safety issues, tend to discourage • Petition 400-003-01 Planning Commission Public Hearing April 9,2003 —Page 5— many people who might otherwise walk to Downtown. In addition, high • traffic volumes hinder pedestrians from accessing recreation areas and open spaces. Many of the pedestrians in the Marmalade and Kimball Neighborhoods are tourist who are drawn to the area on a walking tour of the historic resources in the community. (page V-14). 3. FUTURE COMMISSION MASTER PLAN(March 1998) Executive Summary: • On Environmental Issues: Protects natural areas from encroachment and degradation and provides open space as a place for recreation, regeneration, and contemplation—always mindful of the changing needs of a growing population (page. II. • Transportation System: Focuses first on pedestrians and bicyclists, second on mass transit, and third on single-occupant automobiles in planning and infrastructure support (page ii). Built Environment subcommittee Assertion E: Streets and thoroughfares have character—each is a patchwork of culture, a destination place for visitors (page 10). Assertion K: We work to preserve and provide access to sensitive habitat, riparian zones, and high quality open space—both natural and manmade. Urban • design is sensitive to and takes advantage of our spectacular natural setting (page 12). Economic Subcommittee Travel, Tourism, Convention, and Hospitality Industry 4. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is to be commended for its commitment to ongoing and future investments in visitor attractions and amenities associated with its Temple Square Campus and Family History Library facilities. Temple Square is Utah's number one visitor attraction, drawing over five million visitors annually from all over the world. The LDS Church's presence in the north end of the downtown is a permanent anchor that significantly contributes to downtown vitality. The city, county, state, and other public and private sector components of the Utah travel and tourism industry should encourage and facilitate the Church's plans for further investment and beautification of this critically important and historically significant area of the downtown core (page 19). Neighborhoods Subcommittees Recommendation: 7. Churches—Encourage churches to open their facilities and programs to community residents, regardless of their religious affiliation (page 41). • Petition 400-003-01 Planning Commission Public Hearing April 9,2003 —Page 6— • Goal F: The ideal neighborhood will have close and easy access to open space. 4. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN(April 1996) City Council Transportation Policies (page iii). 2. The Council encourages the preservation and enhancement of living environments,particularly the Downtown. 3. The Council will focus on ways to transport people to their desired destinations, not on moving motorized vehicles at the expense of neighborhoods. 5. The Council will make and support transportation decisions that increase the quality of life in life in the City, not necessarily the quantity of development. 7. The Council supports more public-private partnerships in which all who benefit from capital improvements participate in funding those improvements. Guiding Principles (page 1). • Salt Lake City's transportation system will support and encourage the viability and quality of life of its residential and business neighborhoods. Land Use (page 3). 2.3 Salt Lake City will promote development that is transit,pedestrian and bicycle friendly. Bicycles (page 13). • 8.1 Salt Lake City will make walking more attractive as an alternative transportation mode for short trips, by creating a friendly walking environment, increasing pedestrian access in residential and commercial areas, and improving safety. 5. SALT LAKE CITY DOWNTOWN PLAN(February 1995) MEMORY GROVE EXTENSION/CITY CREEK PARKWAY The City Creek Parkway and the LDS Church Campus will create a physical and psychological boundary between the Avenues and Capitol Hill neighborhood, insuring against encroachment (page 280. 6. SALT LAKE R/UDAT OUR DOWNTOWN FUTURE(1988) Urban Design: Policy (page 12). I. City Creek The objective should be to connect the creek as directly as possible with the urban fabric of downtown. Discussion page 14 The north/south axis is reinforced by Main Street. Main Street is the heart of the shopping area. It should be the most pedestrian-oriented street in the City. The north/south axis is anchored at the north end by Temple square, adjacent LDS IIChurch facilities and the Crossroads and ZCMI Center shopping malls. This area Petition 400-003-01 Planning Commission Public Hearing April 9,2003 --Page 7— currently represents the highest concentration of people and activity in the • downtown. Transportation: Policy (page 28). L. Develop policies and programs to encourage development of mid-block and street-edge pedestrian corridors and other amenities. 7. CITY CREEK MASTER PLAN (April 1986) City Creek Plan (Page 2) Goals • Create a visual and pedestrian link between the Central Business District and the Memory Grove-Canyon Road area. 8. DOWNTOWN SALT LAKE CITY SECOND CENTURY PLAN (September 1962) Main Street (page 10). It is proposed that Main Street be highly oriented to the pedestrian. North Side LDS Church Campus (page 14). It is proposed that Main Street between the two church blocks either be closed to vehicular traffic or an underpass installed. URBAN DESIGN POLICIES III 9. URBAN DESIGN ELEMENT (1990) Salt Lake City has many view corridors which influence both the urban form of the city and the development character of its districts and communities. • Main Street to the Daughters of Utah Pioneers Museum (page 20). 10. URBAN DESIGN WORKSHOP(1997) In January 1997,the Salt Lake City Futures Commission held a Design Workshop to develop a comprehensive vision for the City. The result of the City Design Workshop included: • having excellence in urban design reflected in the built environment, and witnessed by future generation of residents and visitors; IMPACT OF PETITION 400-01-03 ON EXISTING POLICY DOCUMENTS Although many elements of the City's master plan may be relevant to the closure of Main Street and the importance of providing or enhancing public access to open space and improving the quality of urban design in the downtown area,none specifically address the issue of the closure of the pedestrian access and passage easement across the Main Street Plaza. The master plan elements cited above provide general guidelines and policy statements that may assist the decision-making bodies as this petition is reviewed. It does III Petition 400-003-01 Planning Commission Public Hearing April 9,2003 —Page 8— not appear, however, that any of the policy documents discussed above need to be IIIamended to approve this petition. In conclusion, Staff finds that: 1. No City master plans specifically address the pedestrian access and passage easement across the Main Street Plaza; 2. City master plans discussed above contain general statements about providing or enhancing public access to public open space and maintaining public easements which could be viewed as being in support of, or in opposition to the proposal to vacate the pedestrian access and passage easement across the Main Street Plaza. 3. The master plans cited above do not preclude the Planning Commission from making a recommendation to vacate, close and abandon the pedestrian access and passage easement across the Main Street Plaza. Even though the abandonment of the pedestrian access and passage easement allows the LDS Church greater control over the Main Street Plaza property, the special warranty deed will still include the easement preserving a view corridor along the Main Street Plaza. This easement supports recommendations in the Urban Design Element. CITY COUNCIL STREET CLOSURE POLICIES 4111/ Although no foirnal policy considerations exist to help guide decisions to abandon easements, since the easement is a remnant of the City Street, Staff chose to use the City Council's street closure policies to evaluate this petition. Wording of the policies was amended to reflect that the closure deals with a public pedestrian access and passage easement and not a street closure. 1. There should be sufficient public policy reasons that justify the sale and/or closure of the public pedestrian easement, and it should be sufficiently demonstrated by the petitioner that the sale and/or closure of the easement will accomplish the stated public policy reasons. Discussion: There are two primary public policy reasons justifying the vacation, of the pedestrian easement across the Main Street Plaza discussed during presentations made to community councils and other civic organizations. a. The proposal to vacate the pedestrian access and passage easement will end divisiveness that followed the 10th Circuit Court's ruling and bring peace to the community. Attachment 3 includes a brochure titled "A Turning Point for Peace,"that describes Mayor Anderson's proposed solution to the Main Street Plaza dispute. • Petition 400-003-01 Planning Commission Public Hearing April 9,2003 —Page 9— The Planning Staff clearly acknowledges the merits of this proposal, however, • it has no way of determining whether this will be accomplished or not. b. The City will receive the benefit of a new community facility in Glendale, the expansion of the Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center and needed expansion of the services and programs already available in this community. Details of this proposal are also included in Attachment 3. The City has contemplated the need for additional programs in the Glendale neighborhood for several years. Residents and non-profit organizations have identified substantial needs in early-childhood programs, after-school programs,business consulting,business consulting, legal assistance and health care. The existing infrastructure cannot meet the demonstrated needs of the community. To that end, the Mayor's proposal, with the support of the Alliance for Unity and other charitable organizations, if implemented,will provide the needed infrastructure. The City Code (Chapter 2.58) requires that the City receive fair-market value for the sale of any real property interest such as selling the pedestrian access and passage easement across the Main Street Plaza. An appraisal of the value of the easement is being prepared but is not yet available. Under the Mayor's proposal, in return for the easement, the City will receive: • approximately two acres of vacant land at 1385 South 900 West to the City to be used to create Unity Center. • from the LDS Church fifty percent of all attorney's fees and costs assessed in the lawsuit. • at least $5 million to create the new Unity Center and aid in the expansion of the Sorenson Center. • Financial participation by the LDS Church Foundation to help in the development of the Unity Center. In light of the above, giving up the legal right of access across the Plaza may benefit the City in numerous ways. The City will be able to better serve residents by providing expanded services and creating new opportunities to satisfy other needs of the community. There is also, a potential that the value the City receives in return for the vacation of the easement may substantially exceed the fair-market value of the easement. Finding: Based on the previous discussion, there are sufficient public policy reasons that justify the sale and closure of the public pedestrian access and passage easement across the Main Street Plaza. 2. The City Council should determine whether the stated public policy or policies outweigh alternatives to the sale or closure of the easement. • Petition 400-003-01 Planning Commission Public Hearing April 9,2003 —Page 10— Discussion: The following alternatives were described by the City Attorney's • Office in a memo to Mayor Anderson. The complete memo is included in Attachment 4. The City Attorney's Office identified the following options available to the City in an attempt to comply with the constitutional requirements outlined in the 10th Circuit Court's decision, while also attempting to more closely achieve the benefit of the bargain for both the City and the LDS Church. Other options were explored, but were not deemed worthy of further exploration. 1. Seek Further Judicial Review of the Court of Appeals Decision. The only sure way for both the City and the LDS Church to receive the full benefit of their bargain is if one or both of them prevail in an appeal of the decision by the Court of Appeals. At this point, however, there is no right to any additional appeals. Rather, any further judicial review must occur by petition, which may be granted or denied at the discretion of the reviewing court. If either the Court of Appeals, en banc, or the U.S. Supreme Court accepts the petition for further review and reverses the Court of Appeals panel decision, both the City and the LDS Church would be able to obtain the full benefit of their bargain pursuant to the terms originally contemplated between the parties. A petition for review can be filed by any party. If such a petition is • granted, the parties may present additional legal briefings and additional oral argument. Thus, regardless of which party petitions for further review, if such a petition is granted, the City should participate fully in that appeal in order to protect the City's interests in maintaining the easement. 2. Outright Conveyance of the Easement to the LDS Church. The City could convey the public access easement to the LDS Church without reserving any legal right for public access to the property. As noted above, the Court of Appeals specifically indicated that such a conveyance of the property would eliminate the right to free speech on the property. (See Opinion p. 14.) This approach would give the LDS Church the benefit of its bargain(i.e. the ability to control conduct on the Plaza)but it would not provide the City with one of the benefits it was to receive, i.e., a legally enforceable right to public access. Without the easement, the City would not have a legal right to demand access to the Main Street Plaza. In addition, although the City's conveyance of the easement to the LDS Church would provide the benefit of the bargain to the LDS Church, it would do so only at the expense of the benefit promised to the City. 3. Conveyance of the Easement to the LDS Church Subject to a Possibility of Reverter(or Right of Entry). The Court of Appeals held that the City's public access easement was a sufficiently significant property interest that • Petition 400-003-01 Planning Commission Public Hearing April 9,2003 —Page 11 — free speech rights attached to it. The Court might rule differently if the • City retained a less significant interest. Therefore, the City could convey the easement to the LDS Church, subject to a possibility of reverter if the LDS Church does not allow public access across the property.[2] If continued public access were not allowed, the easement could revert to the City at the City's option, or the City could sue the LDS Church for specific performance. The advantage of this arrangement would be that the City would divest itself of all ownership in the property, except for the possibility of reverter(or right of entry). It is fairly well established that the conveyance of property subject to a possibility of reverter is nonetheless a conveyance of the property in fee. See Helvering v. Hallock, 60 S.Ct. 444, 458 (1940) ("a possibility of reverter is traditionally defined as the interest remaining in a grantor who has conveyed a determinable fee.") See also Sine, Handbook of the Law of Future Interests, § 13 (2t Ed. 1966) (a possibility of reverter"cannot be a reversion because the grantor has conveyed an estate in fee simple...") In addition, the possibility of reverter is not a vested real property interest. Id. In analyzing whether the City's easement was a"significant enough" property interest for free speech rights to attach, the Court of Appeals noted that government condemnations of easements are takings under the Fifth Amendment that entitle the condemnee to compensation. That was evidence that an easement is a"significant"property interest. (See Opinion at 15-16.) In contrast, courts have also held that generally a possibility of reverter is not a significant enough property interest to require compensation under the Fifth Amendment in the event of government condemnation. See Midwestern Developments, Inc. v. City of Tulsa, Oklahoma, 374 F.2d 683 (10th Cir. 1967) (applying Oklahoma law); and First Reformed Dutch Church of Gilboa,N.Y. v. Crosswell, 206 N.Y.S. 132 (N.Y. App. Div. 1974). In its opinion the Court of Appeals indicated that if the City did not wish to preserve free speech on the property, "it must relinquish the easement so the parcel becomes entirely private." (See Opinion at p. 14.) If the transaction were restructured so that the City conveyed the property to the LDS Church, subject only to a possibility of reverter if the LDS Church did not allow continued public access, it could be argued that the LDS Church would then hold title to the entire property in fee and that the property had now become"entirely private." It is not clear if the decision of the Court of Appeals was based upon the particular mechanism by which the City preserved public access (easement vs. possibility of reverter), or upon the prior history of this • Petition 400-003-01 Planning Commission Public Hearing April 9,2003 —Page 12— • property and the fact that the property continues to function as a public thoroughfare. Thus, if by virtue of the City's restrictions on use, the property continues to function as a public thoroughfare, the mere fact that the City has assured that continued public use by virtue of a possibility of reverter, rather than through an easement, may not be significant enough to change the Court's analysis. Although the exercise of this option would provide much for which the City and the LDS Church bargained (restrictions on speech and a conditional assurance of public access), it would surely be challenged for the same reasons that the original transaction was challenged. In addition, under this option, the City would not receive exactly the same as what it had bargained for under the initial transaction because the assurance of access through a public easement would be enforceable by any member of the public. In contrast, the assurance of continued access through a possibility of reverter would likely be enforceable only by the City, and would depend upon the inclination of any particular City administration to enforce it. 4. Conveyance of the Easement to the LDS Church With an Executory Interest in Favor of a Third Party. The City could convey the easement to the LDS Church subject to an executory limitation that if continued public access is not allowed the easement would then vest in a third party, or the • third party could sue the LDS Church for specific performance. Under these scenarios, the City would have relinquished all rights in the easement, which would then render the property entirely private. However, the property would continue to serve the same function (i.e. continued thoroughfare access). In addition, since the purpose of this executory limitation would be for the benefit of the public, one might argue that the transfer of the right to divest from the City to the third party should not alter the court's analysis of this issue. In its opinion, the Court of Appeals indicated that if property is regulated or burdened by the government, the mere fact that it is privately owned may not eliminate the public forum status of the property. See Opinion,pp.7-8. See also Evans v. Newton, 382 U.S. 296 (1966), (property which continued to serve the same public function under private ownership as it had previously served under public ownership (i.e. a public park), was not insulated from constitutional requirements.) 5. Non-Severability Clause. The City could structure one of the alternatives discussed in paragraphs 3 or 4 above together with a non-severability clause providing that if the restrictions on speech and conduct intended by the parties are held to be unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City's possibility of reverter on the property would immediately cease and the property would vest in the LDS Church, • Petition 400-003-01 Planning Commission Public Hearing April 9,2003 —Page 13— without any rights retained by the City at all.[3] The purpose of this approach would be to discourage challenges to the transaction, by the risk • that if a challenge were successful, the right to public access would automatically be extinguished: It is unclear how a court might respond to such a non-severability clause. However, the addition of such a"poison pill"clause would significantly alter the nature of the original transaction. The severability clause in the Special Warranty Deed specifically preserves the City's public access easement, regardless of the constitutionality of the proposed restrictions on speech and conduct. If a non-severability clause were included, the continued existence of the City's easement would then be dependent upon the constitutionality of those restrictions. 6. Time, Place and Manner Restrictions. The Court of Appeals decision clearly indicated that the City could impose content-neutral time, place and manner restrictions on speech on the easement and suggested that the City could, at least to some degree, take into account the nature of the adjacent properties in formulating those restrictions. (See Opinion p.14.) Many such restrictions on the use of public sidewalks already exist in the City Code. However, if the City wishes to impose additional time,place and manner regulations, it must have governmental interests justifying such restrictions. In addition, the formulation of such regulations would not eliminate the right of free speech on the property. • 7. Maintain the Status Quo. In attempting to ensure that the City and the LDS Church both receive, as nearly as constitutionally possible, the benefits of their bargain, it must be noted that the parties anticipated the risk that the restrictions on conduct and other expressive activities might be deemed unconstitutional. For that reason, they agreed to the severability clause contained in paragraph 6.2 of the Special Warranty Deed. The teittis of the Deed clearly reflect that the parties intended the easement to remain in force, even if the restrictions were deemed to be unconstitutional. Thus, if there is no means of keeping the challenged restrictions in effect, other than abandoning the legally enforceable right of public access, the only means of achieving the agreement of the parties is to maintain the status quo, with appropriate time,place and manner restrictions as discussed above. Of the options described above, only three appear to be three viable: • Option 1 —Seek Further Judicial Review. The City could wait to determine what further decisions may be issued by the courts. The LDS Church has petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review the decision of the 10th Circuit Court. The City has filed a brief in support of that petition. There is no guarantee that the Supreme Court will accept the Petition 400-003-01 Planning Commission Public Hearing April 9,2003 —Page 14— • petition, or if it were accepted, what the Supreme Court would decide. • Option 2 —The Current Proposal. This option includes the benefits the City will receive from selling the easement. As described above, these benefits include the potential to bring peace to the community, as well as the development of the Unity Center, expansion of the Sorenson Multi- Cultural Center and the ability to provide additional needed services in the community. • Option 6—Time, Place and Manner Restrictions. As discussed on page 3 of this report, the Mayor considered this option and chose not to pursue it because the LDS Church would not support it, the potential for litigation and a perceived lack of political support. Pursuing this option would not guarantee the City's ability to expand the Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center or add the needed programs in Glendale. After reviewing and evaluating the options available, the Mayor chose to petition the City Council to vacate, close and abandon the pedestrian access and passage easement (see Option 2). Finding: All of the other alternatives leave the problems (divisiveness) unresolved, and this proposal is the only one that would give the City the resources necessary to develop the Glendale facility. Thus, Staff finds that the • benefits of this option outweigh the other alternatives. REVIEW BY CITY DEPARTMENTS Attorney's Office: The Salt Lake City Attorney's Office has reviewed the Mayor's petition and is of the opinion that it is defensible in court. See the discussion above and Attachment 4, which includes a memo describing the 10th Circuit Court's decision and the options available to the City. Transportation Division: Attachment 6 includes a letter to the Planning Commission Chair that describes the position taken by the Transportation Advisory Board and a pedestrian impact study on the possible effects of a closure of the Main Street Plaza pedestrian access and passage easement. The Transportation Advisory Board considered the proposed closure of the pedestrian easement on March 3, 2003. The Board approved a motion: 1. That Mayor Anderson's proposal to extinguish the easement on the Plaza and develop the Glendale (the Alliance for Unit Center)plan is acceptable; 2. That the possible impact to the transportation system if the LDS Church did close the Plaza to public access would be minor; and 3. Strongly recommended that the LDS Church maintain public access across the Plaza for pedestrians and bicyclists. • Petition 400-003-01 Planning Commission Public Hearing April 9,2003 —Page 15— The Transportation Division conducted a study of the impacts of a part-time or full-time closure of the Main Street Plaza between South and North Temple streets on pedestrians • traveling through the plaza from one end to the other. The study was conducted by the Salt Lake City Transportation Division in February 2003. The complete study is included in Attachment 6. The conclusions of the study are presented below. The Pedestrian Study Since the purpose of the study was to address the issue of identifying impacts of closing the plaza to pedestrians desiring to cross through the plaza as opposed to using the plaza to access the Temple Square and Church Office Building blocks, data was collected for pedestrians walking through the plaza from one end to the other. Pedestrian counts were not taken for those using the plaza to enter or leave the Temple Square and Church Office Building blocks. Impacts to "through"pedestrians. There are several user groups of through pedestrians, each of which would experience different impacts should the Plaza be closed part-time or full-time to through movements. In all cases, the impacts range from loss of a walking route option with no additional walking distance to loss of a walking route option and an additional walking distance of at most two blocks. These user groups and associated impacts are identified by their point of origin. 1. Capitol Hill area west of West Temple/Quince Streets. Pedestrians from this area currently walking through the plaza would be able to walk along West Temple to access downtown and vice versa without any additional walking distance involved. 2. Capitol Hill area between West Temple/Quince and State Streets. Pedestrians from this area currently walking through the plaza to and from downtown would experience at most a two-block additional walk. This assumes the shortest route between the Capitol Hill and downtown origin-destination locations involve the use of Main Street. In some cases, the walking routes between this portion of Capitol Hill and downtown are shorter or of equal length using West Temple or State Streets between South and North Temple Streets rather than using the plaza. 3. The Avenues. Avenues pedestrians walking to and from downtown would experience no additional walking distance by using State Street instead of the plaza. 4. Central City, east of State Street. Pedestrians from this area desiring to walk to an area on the other side of the Church Office Building or Temple Square blocks could use State Street or South Temple and not experience a longer walk. 5. Downtown between State and West Temple. Pedestrians from this area desiring to walk to an area on the other side of the Temple Square and Church Office Building blocks would experience, at most, an additional two block walk. This also assumes the walkways on the Church Office Building block would not be available to public use for this purpose. 6. Downtown west of West Temple. Pedestrians from this area desiring to walk to Petition 400-003-01 S Planning Commission Public Hearing April 9,2003 —Page 16— an area on the other side of Temple Square could use West Temple Street and not • experience a longer walk. 7. UTA Trax users. As shown on Map A, the Trax stations nearest to the plaza are located at 50 South Main and at 150 West South Temple. Trax riders entering downtown and desiring to walk to the area directly north of the Temple Square/Church Office Building blocks would have, at most, an additional two- block walk. If their destination is north of the Temple Square/Church Office Building blocks and near or west of West Temple, their walking route from the 150 West South Temple station is equal to or shorter than that from the 50 South Main station. Pedestrians desiring to access Trax and originating from the area directly north of the Temple Square/Church Office Building blocks are the only group that would experience a longer walking distance should the plaza be closed to through pedestrians. The added walking distance would be at most two blocks to the 50 South Main station. There would be no additional walking distance to the 150 West South Temple station. 8. UTA bus users. As shown on Map A,bus stops for nearby bus routes are currently located on the streets surrounding the Temple Square/Church Office Building blocks. Bus riders currently using the stops closest to the plaza and then walking through the plaza can use other stops along the routes, if the plaza is not available, and experience no more than an additional one-half block walk. In some cases, the walking distance would be equal to or less than the current walking distance. 0 Impacts to non-through pedestrians. Pedestrians desiring to access facilities on the Temple Square/Church Office Building blocks currently using the plaza would avail themselves to the other nearby entrances no more than a half-block distance to the plaza entrances. The impact to these pedestrians is zero to no more than one-half block walk. The study found that on the average, the plaza was used 544 times each day for passage through the Plaza(the Plaza or Temple Square not being the destination)the Plaza on an average daily. This average includes 335 pedestrians traversing the Plaza in a southbound direction and 209 pedestrian traversing the Plaza going north. The documents filed by the LDS Church with the court in the Main Street lawsuit indicate that, on a daily basis, 19,000 people visit Temple Square, the Main Street Plaza and the Church Administration Building as a destination. Clearly, the LDS Church campus, including the Main Street Plaza, is a large tourist and visitor generator that benefits the Central Business District. Public Utilities: The proposed petition does not affect the separate public and private utilities easement that exists across the Main Street Plaza. Fire Department: A separate emergency and public safety easement exists across the Main Street Plaza and will not be affected by the Mayor's proposal to extinguish the pedestrian access and passage easement. III Petition 400-003-01 Planning Commission Public Hearing April 9,2003 —Page 17— Engineering Division: The pedestrian access and passage easement across the Main • Street Plaza is located on private property and has no effect on public streets or rights-of- way owned by Salt Lake City. Property Management: Chapter 2.58 of the City Code requires that the City receive fair-market value for the sale of the City's interest in real property. An appraisal is being prepared to determine what the fair-market value of the pedestrian access and passage easement. If this proposal is approved, the City will receive at least the fair-market value of the easement, if not more. RECOMMENDATION Staff cannot guarantee that the Mayor's proposal will end the divisiveness or restore peace to the community. However, as discussed above, there are sufficient public policy reasons to close, vacate and abandon the pedestrian access and passage easement across the Main Street Plaza in exchange for property in Glendale and the provision of additional amenities at the Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center and the proposed Alliance for Unity Center. The following recommendation is based solely on the review of the City's land use, urban design and access policies and guidelines; and the potential community development benefits associated with this proposed easement vacation. Staff finds that there is no significant adverse impact on existing land use and design policies and guidelines. The Transportation Advisory Board found that the possible impact to the transportation system if the LDS Church did close the Main Street Plaza to public access would be minor. Based upon the analysis and findings presented in this report, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Forward a recommendation to the City Council to close, vacate and abandon the pedestrian and passage easement for the purpose of selling the easement for fair- market value to the adjacent property owner, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints. This recommendation is subject to Salt Lake City receiving remuneration equivalent to the fair-market value of the Main Street Plaza pedestrian access and passage easement as determined by an appraisal acceptable to Salt Lake City Property Management Division. 2. Declare Salt Lake City's interest in the pedestrian access and passage easement surplus. 3. Forward a recommendation to the City Administration to accept certain real property located at 1375 South and 1385 South 900 West as partial payment for • Petition 400-003-01 Planning Commission Public Hearing April 9,2003 —Page 18— the sale of the public pedestrian and access easement. • Respectfully submitted, Joel Paterson, AICP Senior Planner April 9, 2003 Attachments: 1. Petition 400-03-01 2. Public Process Chronology 3. A Turning Point for Peace Brochure 4. Other Relevant Documents • SLC Attorney's Office memo outlining legal issues • Meeting the Challenges of the Main Street Plaza Controversy • Mayor Anderson's First Proposal (Time, Place and Manner) 5. Public Input • Community Council Transcripts • Capitol Hill February 19, 2003 • West Salt Lake February 19, 2003 March 19, 2003 • • Central Community March 5, 2003 • Greater Avenues March 5, 2003 • Correspondence 6. Transportation Advisory Board • Letter to Jeff Jonas, Chair of the Salt Lake City Planning Commission and Transportation Advisory Board Minutes of March 3, 2003 • Pedestrian Impact Study of Part-time or Full-time Closure of the Main Street Plaza to Through Pedestrians 7. Supporting Documents Concerning Original Decision to Close Main Street • Special Warranty Deed—Recorded • Ordinance No. 28 of 1999 • Ordinance No. 29 of 2000 • City Council Minutes—April 13, 1999 • Petition 400-003-01 Planning Commission Public Hearing April 9,2003 —Page 19— . • ATTACHMENT 1 PETITION 400-03-01 . Petition 400-003-01 Planning Commission Public Hearing April 9,2003 •• REMARKS Petition rt 400-03-01 By Administration - Mayor Is requesting a petition to close, vacate and abandon the public pedestrian access and passage easement across the Main Street Plaza located on the former Main Street right-of-way between North Temple and South Temple streets. • I � Date Filed Addres.t �r--a � ?� .oss C."ROCKY"ANDERSON SALT ORPO T #,� MAYOR �`Q CITYvas. SALT LAKE 2002 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR ( ) January 8, 2003 Brent Wilde Acting Planning Director Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Main Street Plaza Easement Dear Brent: The purpose of this letter is to initiate a petition to close, vacate • and abandon the public pedestrian access and passage easement across the Main Street Plaza located on the former Main Street right-of-way between North Temple and South Temple streets. As you are aware, in the Special Warranty Deed executed by Mayor Deedee Corradini, on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation (the "City"), and by Richard C. Edgley, on behalf of the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("CPB" or the "LDS Church"), dated April 27, 1999, the City conveyed the real property that constituted the right-of-way of Main Street between North Temple and South Temple streets. The conveyance was made subject to the City's reservation of a public pedestrian access and passage easement across that property. On December 16, 2002, I announced a proposal according to which the City would extinguish the pedestrian access and passage easement across the Main Street Plaza in exchange for numerous benefits to the City. That proposal includes the following elements: • 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 0 RECYCLED RAR[R First, the public access and passage easement across the Main Street Plaza would be extinguished. • Second, the Special Warranty Deed would be amended to provide that in the event that a court deems restrictions on conduct or other expressive activity imposed by the LDS Church to be unconstitutional, in whole or in part, because of the right of reverter, the City's right of reverter would be extinguished. Third, the City and the LDS Church will each pay one-half of all costs and attorneys fees assessed in favor of the plaintiffs in the Main Street Plaza litigation. Fourth, there would be no agreement between the City and the LDS Church regarding any restrictions on conduct or other expressive activities on the Plaza. Fifth, the LDS Church would donate to the City all of its land (approximately 2.17 acres) adjacent or nearly adjacent to the Sorenson Center in Glendale for the construction of •one or more community facilities. Sixth, the Alliance for Unity will commit to raise at least $5 million for completion, by the end of zoos, of one or more facilities on or near the property donated by the LDS Church. James Sorenson has pledged a st million matching gift. The Jon M. Huntsman Family and the George S. and Delores Dore Eccles Foundation have agreed to jointly match that st million gift. Seventh, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Foundation will also participate in the development project. Eighth, the City and the University of Utah will partner together in providing opportunities to west side residents, including such things as early-childhood programs, after-school and summer youth programs, art programs for young people and adults, business mentoring, legal services, • 2 . and adult education classes. In conjunction with Intermountain Health Care, expanded health care services will also be provided at the Sorenson Center or at the new facility. As the owner of North Temple and South Temple Streets, the City is a property owner adjacent to the public access and passage easement. The LDS Church is the owner of the property upon which the easement is located. The initial response to this proposal from the LDS Church has been positive. I request that planning staff initiate the appropriate procedures to process this petition. It is my understanding that inasmuch as the City is initiating this petition, no filing fee is required. It is also my understanding that, by law, the Planning Commission is required to hold a public hearing and to provide recommendations on this proposal. I am submitting this petition in order to initiate and facilitate the public process which is required to evaluate this proposal. I anticipate • that there will be extensive public discussion of all of the issues involved in this proposal at meetings to be held before the local community councils, before the Planning Commission, and ultimately before the City Council. I designate David Nimkin as the spokesperson and representative for the City Administration in connection with this proposal. If you have any questions or need any further information concerning this petition, please contact David directly at 535-7732. Thank you for your assistance in connection with this important matter. Sincerely yours, oss C. An erson 7 Mayor 3 cc: Carlton Christensen, Chairman of Salt Lake City Council David Burton, Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of • Latter-day Saints David Nimkin • • 4 • • ATTACHMENT 2 PUBLIC PROCESS CHRONOLOGY • Petition 400-003-01 Planning Commission Public Hearing April 9,2003 CHRONOLOGY • PETITION 400-03-01 January13, 2003 Petition Submitted to the Planning Division January 15, 2003 Petition Assigned to Joel Paterson February 18, 2003 The Downtown Alliance voted to support the proposal February 19, 2003 Presentation made to the Rio Grande Community Council. No vote was taken at this meeting. February 19, 2003 Presentation made to the Capitol Hill Community Council. No vote was taken at this meeting. See the transcript of the meeting in Attachment 5. February 19, 2003 Presentation made to the West Salt Lake Community Council. The community council did not vote at this meeting. See the transcript of the meeting in Attachment 5. February 25, 2003 Presentation made to the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce Board of • Directors. The Chamber's Board of Directors voted to support the proposal and to encourage members of the Chamber of Council to contribute to the Alliance for Unity to assist with the development of the Unity Center near the Sorenson Community Center in Glendale. March 3, 2003 Presentation made to the Transportation Advisory Board. The Board voted to support the proposal (see Attachment 6). March 5, 2003 Presentation made to the Greater Avenues Community Council. The community council voted to support the proposal. See the transcript of the meeting in Attachment 5. March 5,2003 Presentation made to the Central Community Council. No vote was taken. See the transcript of the meeting in Attachment 5. March 6, 2003 Petition presented to the Community Council Chairs Petition 400-003-01 Planning Commission Public Hearing April 9,2003 • ATTACHMENT 3 A TURNING POINT FOR PEACE BROCHURE • Petition 400-003-01 Planning Commission Public Hearing April 9,2003 • • ATTACHMENT 4 OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS • SLC ATTORNEY'S OFFICE MEMO OUTLINING LEGAL ISSUES • MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF THE MAIN STREET PLAZA CONTROVERSY • MAYOR ANDERSON'S FIRST PROPOSAL (TIME,PLACE AND MANNER) • Petition 400-003-01 Planning Commission Public Hearing April 9,2003 • • SLC ATTORNEY'S OFFICE MEMO OUTLINING LEGAL ISSUES • Petition 400-003-01 Planning Commission Public Hearing April 9,2003 Main Street Plaza Decision Exhibit B Page 1 of / .)All I_ A kF .^i `'5 }` ?KI0 C_NTf7 CCN'ACT ±5 STAACH `racy a ,+,, gar `: .: - IIIm- ...mt.- :;vl`,h,,,IN; :Ir- Jxsc":JNr _NI4l :'k:ICL; ,!Lt733 :_u„s AEr_c:11ILCITY Vtli::1,01 BUt!NH:s CITIli%'L 6t1 ; Exhibit B MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ross C. ("Rocky") Anderson and Members of Main Street Plaza Advisory Group FROM: Steven W. Allred, Lynn H. Pace, Boyd F. Ferguson RE: Main Street Plaza DATE: October 18, 2002 This Memorandum is intended to identify and discuss options available to the City concerning the public pedestrian access across the Main Street Plaza. • BACKGROUND In April 1999, the City closed and sold a one-block segment of Main Street between North Temple and South Temple streets to the LDS Church. During the . negotiations between the parties, the City insisted upon the retention of a public pedestrian easement across the property. The LDS Church insisted upon the ability to control the activities which occurred upon the property. For that reason, the Special Warranty Deed that was executed between the parties reserved "an easement over and across the surface of the property for pedestrian access and passage only." However, the Deed also stated that "nothing in the reservation or use of this [pedestrian] easement shall be deemed to create or constitute a public forum, limited or otherwise, on the property." The Deed also contained several specific restrictions on speech and conduct. Those restrictions upon speech and conduct contained in the Deed were later challenged by the ACLU. TENTH CIRCUIT COURT DECISION In its Opinion dated October 9, 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ("Court of Appeals")held that,notwithstanding the intentions of the parties to the contrary, the City's public access easement across the property constitutes a public forum for free speech purposes. (See Exhibit A attached hereto.) In that Opinion, the Court made several significant statements. First, the Court held that 1111 [F]orum analysis does not require that the government have a possessory interest in or title to the underlying land. Either government ownership or regulation is sufficient for a First Amendment forum of some kind to exist. httn://www.slceov.com/mavor/oressreleases/exhibit%20B.htm 3/28/2003 Indeed,forum analysis does not require the existence of government property at all. Therefore,whether we characterize the casement as a property interest belonging to the government,or as property owned by a private party but burdened by the government,the First Amendment may still apply. • (See Opinion pp.7-8,citations omitted.) Second,the Court rejected arguments that an easement cannot be subject to forum analysis because it does not constitute a significant enough property interest. The Court pointed out that government condemnations of easements are takings under the Fifth Amendment and entitle a grantor to compensation. The Court also noted that public highways or streets arc often easements held for the public,with title to these property interests remaining in the abutting property owners. Public streets are the archetype of a traditional public forum. Because such traditional public fora are often easements,it is evident the property here is not exempt from the First Amendment merely because it is an easement rather than land to which the government holds fee title. (Id.at 8,quotations and citations omitted.) Third,the Court stated that"for property that is or has traditionally been open to the public,objective characteristics are more important and can override express government intent to limit speech." (Id.at 9.) 'The Court then evaluated the objective characteristics of the easement. The purpose of the casement in this case is for pedestrian passage,it forms part of the downtown pedestrian grid,and it is open to the public. The easement therefore shares many of the most important features of • sidewalks that are traditional public fora. This similarity is a persuasive indication that the easement is a traditional public forum. (Id.at 11.) Finally we consider the history of the property. Whether property has traditionally been open to public use is a factor indicating the property is a public forum,although this is not determinative.... A more important factor is whether the property has traditionally been the site of expressive activities by the public. (Id.at 12,citations omitted.) The Court then concluded: In sum,the easement's history,as well as the other contemporary characteristics of the easement discussed above,support the conclusion that the casement is a public forum.... We reach this conclusion in spite of the City's express intent not to create a public forum,because the City's declaration is at odds with the objective characteristics of the property and the City's express purpose of providing a pedestrian throughway. (Id.at 13.) Fourth,the Court slated that if the City wants to assert control over speech or • expressive activities, • http://www.slcgov.com/mayor/pressreleases/exhibit%20B.htm 3/28/2003 Main Street ' laza Decision 1 xinibit 13 rage ., of i it must alter the objective physical character or uses of the property, and bear the attendant costs. We are convinced that the City has attempted to change the forum's status without bearing the attendant costs, by retaining the pedestrian easement but eliminating the speech previously permitted on • the same property. In effect, the City wants to have its cake and eat it too, but it cannot do so under the First Amendment. (Id. at 13, emphasis in original, quotations and citations omitted.) The Court also stated that the City may not provide a public space or passage conditioned on private actor's desire that the space be expression free. The City must bear the attendant costs_ If it wants an easement, the City must peirnit speech on the easement. Otherwise it must relinquish the easement so the parcel becomes entirely private. (Id. at 14, quotations and citations omitted.) Fifth, the Court acknowledged that: As with any public forum, the City may enact reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. Governments routinely pursue public objectives in regulating the time, place and manner of speech on public fora without miming afoul of the Constitution. Such legitimate objectives include public safety, accommodating competing uses of the easement, controlling the level and times of noise, and similar interests. Thus while the purpose of the forum is a pedestrian easement, the City may take the interests of surrounding property owners into account in enacting regulations, and may • seek to accommodate competing uses of the easement. (Id., citations omitted.) However, the Court cautioned that: [T]he City, not the Church, has responsibility for regulating speech on the easement. While the City may legitimately accommodate the unique location and setting of the easement, to the extent the City overly involves the Church in that regulation it will run afoul of the limits on its actions we announce today. (Id. at 14.) OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE CITY We have identified the following options that may be available to the City in an attempt to comply with the constitutional requirements outlined in the Court's decision, while also attempting to more closely achieve the benefit of the bargain for both the City and the LDS Church. Other options were explored,but were not deemed worthy of further exploration. The following options are not intended to be presented in any particular order. 1. Seek Further Judicial Review of the Court of Appeals Decision. The only sure way for both the City and the LDS Church to receive the full benefit of their bargain is if one or both of them prevail in an appeal of the decision by the Court of Appeals. At this point, however, there is no right to any additional appeals. Rather, any further judicial review must occur by petition, which may be granted or denied at the discretion of the reviewing court. If either the Court of Appeals, en banc, or the U.S. Supreme Court accepts the petition for further review and reverses the Court of Appeals panel decision, both the City and the LDS Church would be able to obtain the full benefit of their bargain http://www.slcgov.com/mayor/pressreleases/exhibit%20B.htm 3/28/2003 pursuant to the terms originally contemplated between the parties. A petition for review can be filed by any party. If such a petition is granted,the parties may present additional legal briefings and additional oral argument. Thus, regardless of which party petitions for further review,if such a petition is granted,the City • should participate fully in that appeal in order to protect the City's interests in maintaining the easement.;I] 2. Outright Conveyance of the Easement to the LDS Church. The City could convey the public access easement to the LDS Church without reserving any legal right for public access to the property. As noted above,the Court of Appeals specifically indicated that such a conveyance of the property would eliminate the right to free speech on the property. (See Opinion p. 14.) 'this approach would give the LDS Church the benefit of its bargain(i.e.the ability to control conduct on the Plaza)but it would not provide the City with one of the benefits it was to receive,i.e.,a legally enforceable right to public access. Without the easement,the City would not have a legal right to demand access to the Main Street Plaza. In addition,although the City's conveyance of the easement to the LDS Church would provide the benefit of the bargain to the LDS Church, it would do so only at the expense of the benefit promised to the City. 3. Conveyance of the Easement to the LDS Church Subj ect to a Possibility of Reverter(or Right of Entry). The Court of Appeals held that the City's public access easement was a sufficiently significant property interest that free speech rights attached to it. The Court might vile differently if the City retained a less significant interest. Therefore,the City could convey the easement to the LDS Church,subject to a possibility of reverter if the LDS Church does not allow public access across the property_J j If continued public access were not allowed,the easement could revert to the City at the City's option,or the City could sue the LDS Church for specific performance. The advantage of this arrangement would be that the City would divest itself of all ownership in the property,except for the possibility of reverter(or right of entry). • It is fairly well established that the conveyance of property subject to a possibility of reverter is nonetheless a conveyance of the property in fee. See Helvering v.Ilallock, 60 S.Ct.444,458(1940)("a possibility ofreverter is traditionally defined as the interest remaining in a grantor who has conveyed a determinable fee.") See also Sine f landbook ofthe_L aw of.Fitlureinterests § 13(2nd Ed. 1966)(a.possibility ofreverter"cannot be a reversion)because the grantor has conveyed an estate in fee simple...") In addition,the possibility of reverter is not a vested real property interest. Id. In analyzing whether the City's easement was a"significant enough"property interest for free speech rights to attach,the Court of Appeals noted that government condemnations of easements are takings under the Fifth Amendment that entitle the condemnee to compensation. That was evidence that an easement is a"significant" property interest. (See Opinion at 15-16.) In contrast,courts have also held that generally a possibility of reverter is not a significant enough property interest to require compensation under the Fifih Amendment in the event of government condemnation. See Midwes era�I��vela p_r�enis,Inc.v.City4f�pul�n�a Oklahoma,374 F.2d 683(10th Cir. Ir367j(applymg Oklahoma law);and First 7teformed Dutch Church of Gilboa,N.Y.v. Crosswell,206 N.Y.S. 132(N.Y.App.Div. 1974). In its opinion the Court of Appeals indicated that if the City did not wish to preserve free speech on the property,"it must relinquish the easement so the parcel becomes entirely private." (See Opinion at p. 14.) If the transaction were restructured so that the City conveyed the property to the • LDS Church,subject only to a possibility of reverter if the LDS Church did not allow continued public access,it could be argued that the LDS Church would then hold title.to httpl/www.slcgov.com/mayor/pressreleases/exhibit%20B.htm 3/28/2003 the entire property in fee and that the property had now become "entirely private." It is not clear if the decision of the Court of Appeals was based upon the particular mechanism by which the City preserved public access (easement vs. possibility of reverter), or upon the prior history of this property and the fact that the property continues to function as a public thoroughfare. Thus, if by virtue of the City's restrictions on use, the property continues to function as a public thoroughfare, the mere fact that the City has assured that continued public use by virtue of a possibility of reverter, rather than through an easement,may not be significant enough to change the Court's analysis. Although the exercise of this option would provide much for which the City and the LDS Church bargained (restrictions on speech and a conditional assurance of public access), it would surely be challenged for the same reasons that the original transaction was challenged. In addition, under this option, the City would not receive exactly the same as what it had bargained for under the initial transaction because the assurance of access through a public easement would be enforceable by any member of the public. In contrast, the assurance of continued access through a possibility of reverter would likely be enforceable only by the City, and would depend upon the inclination of any particular City administration to enforce it. 4. Conveyance of the Easement to the LDS Church With an Executory Interest in Favor of a Third Party. The City could convey the easement to the LDS Church subject to an executory limitation that if continued public access is not allowed the easement would then vest in a third party, or the third party could sue the LDS Church for specific perfoiniance. Under these scenarios, the City would have relinquished all rights in the easement, which would then render the property entirely private. However, the property would continue to serve the same function (i.e. continued thoroughfare access). In addition, since the purpose of this executory limitation would be for the benefit of the public, one might argue that the transfer of the right to divest from the City to the third party should not alter the courts analysis of this issue. In its opinion, the Court of Appeals indicated that if property is regulated or burdened by the government, the mere fact that it is privately owned may not eliminate the public forum status of the property. See Opinion, pp.7-8. See also Evans v. Newton, 382 U.S. 296 (1966), (property which continued to serve the same public function under private ownership as it had previously served under public ownership (i.e. a public park), was not insulated from constitutional requirements.) 5. Non-Severability Clause. The City could structure one of the alternatives discussed in paragraphs 3 or 4 above together with a non-severability clause providing that if the restrictions on speech and conduct intended by the parties are held to be unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,the City's possibility of reverter on the property would immediately cease and the property would vest in the LDS Church, without any rights retained by the City at all.(3 j The purpose of this approach would be to discourage challenges to the transaction,by the risk that if a challenge were successful, the right to public access would automatically be extinguished. It is unclear how a court might respond to such a non-severability clause. However, the addition of such a "poison pill"clause would significantly alter the nature of the original transaction. The severability clause in the Special Warranty Deed specifically preserves the City's public access easement, regardless of the constitutionality of the proposed restrictions on speech and conduct. If a non-severability clause were included, the continued existence of the City's easement would then be dependent upon the constitutionality of those restrictions. 6. Time,Place and Manner Restrictions. The Court of Appeals decision clearly indicated that the City could impose content-neutral time,place and manner http://www.slcgov.com/mayor/pressreleases/exhibit%20B.htm 3/28/2003 "6i. vvl / restrictions on speech on the easement and suggested that the City could, at least to some degree, take into account the nature of the adjacent properties in formulating those restrictions. (See Opinion p.14.) Many such restrictions on the use of public sidewalks already exist in the City Code. (See Exhibit B attached hereto.) However, if the City wishes to impose additional time, place and manner regulations, it must have • governmental interests justifying such restrictions. In addition, the foi,nulation of such regulations would not eliminate the right of free speech on the property. . 7. Maintain the Status Quo. In attempting to ensure that the City and the LDS Church both receive, as nearly as constitutionally possible, the benefits of their bargain, it must be noted that the parties anticipated the risk that the restrictions on conduct and other expressive activities might be deemed unconstitutional. For that reason, they agreed to the severability clause contained in paragraph 6.2 of the Special Warranty Deed. The terms of the Deed clearly reflect that the parties intended the easement to remain in force, even if the restrictions were deemed to be unconstitutional. Thus, if there is no means of keeping the challenged restrictions in effect, other than abandoning the legally enforceable right of public access, the only means of achieving the agreement of the parties is to maintain the status quo, with appropriate time,place and manner restrictions as discussed above. NEED TO DEFINE THE EASEMENT Regardless of what other options may be pursued, the City and the LDS Church should amend the easement to include a metes and bounds description of the public access corridor on the Plaza. At present, neither the Special Warranty Deed nor the opinion of the Court of Appeals designates where the easement is located. At the time the deed was executed by the City,the LDS Church had not yet determined what kind of improvements were going to be built upon that property, so the • City merely resew ed an easement for pedestrian access and passage, without defining the exact location of that easement. Defining that location by a specific metes and bounds description would have the advantage of clearly identifying the areas where free speech rights exist, and the areas where they do not. This approach would neither eliminate free speech rights on the easement, nor would it require the City to give up the right to public access; it would simply describe the location of the easement. It would also help to minimize the potential conflict between members of the public exercising free speech rights and other users of the Main Street Plaza. I]] It should be noted that if the reviewing court ultimately upholds the Court of Appeals panel decision, the City would incur additional liability for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.0 § 1988. [2] If the City conveyed the easement to the LDS Church, a new deed would be drafted to include a possibility of reverter. This additional possibility of reverter should not be confused with the existing "right of reverter"clause in paragraph 4 of the original Special Warranty Deed. [3} This non-severability clause should not be confused with the existing "severability" clause in paragraph 6.2 of the original Special Warranty Deed. • http://www.slcgov.com/mayor/pressreleases/exhibit%20B.htm 3/28/2003 • • MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF THE MAIN STREET PLAZA CONTROVERSY • Petition 400-003-0I Planning Commission Public Hearing April 9,2003 Meeting the Challenges of the • Main Street Plaza Controversy Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson Salt Lake City Mayor Boston organized crime boss Gennaro Anguilo once said, "When a man assumes leadership, he forfeits the right to mercy_" Before the Main Street Plaza controversy, I would never have believed that statement, except perhaps in the world of mobsters. I viewed people as generally kind and compassionate, especially when others were doing their good-faith best to resolve problems. I would still like to believe that is true. However, from my recent experience, I fear that Gennaro Anguilo's observation is all too accurate— at least when, together, religion and government are at the core of a community dispute. The Main Street Plaza dispute has, sadly, brought to the surface a divisiveness and mean-spiritedness that we must confront and resolve. On many occasions, there have been vicious attacks against me personally as I worked to bring the issue to rest in a way that respects the interests of all concerned, while recognizing the promises and agreements that were made before I was elected. My predecessor, Deedee Corradini, agreed — with City Council support — to sell a block 11111 of Salt Lake Citv's Main Street to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (For ease of reference, and pursuant to the general protocol of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that organization will be referred to hereafter as "The Church.") That block is between Temple Square, the most sacred place for The Church, and one of its office buildings, the Joseph Smith Memorial Building_ The specific terms of that agreement were not disclosed until just before the City Council voted to close the block of Main Street. The final agreement, in the form of a "Special Warranty Deed"signed by former-Mayor Corradini and a representative of The Church, provided for (I) the retention by the City of an easement for the purposes of pedestrian access and passage only and (2) authority by The Church to deny access to those who engage in certain activities, including "loitering," "assembling," "partying," "demonstrating," "picketing," "distributing literature," "soliciting," "sunbathing," and "carrying firearms," as well as those who engage in "offensive," "indecent," "obscene," "vulgar," or"disorderly speech, dress or conduct." Several people and organizations represented by the American Civil Liberties Union— an organization dedicated to the preservation and vindication of rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution — filed a lawsuit against the City in federal court, claiming the transaction violated the Establishment Clause and the Freedom of Expression Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. The matter was decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit after 1110 I became mayor. The Court of Appeals held that the First Amendment does not permit the City to retain the easement and, at the same time, to permit vast restrictions on conduct and other . 1 expressive activities. Those two provisions of the agreement are, according to the Court of Appeals, constitutionally incompatible. With that opinion, I was faced with an immense dilemma. The parties agreed to one term • that was crucial to The Church (which paid $8.2 million for the land) and another term that was crucial to the City — yet they could not both constitutionally be given effect. Either the restrictions or the easement had to go. Shortly after I perused the Court's opinion on the day it was issued, I was asked by a reporter if I was happy with the decision. (I suppose the reporter was led to this question because of my general support of the mission of the ACLU.) As reported in The Salt Lake Tribune (October 10, 2002), I replied: I'm not happy about it, because a deal was entered into in good faith between two parties and one of those parties didn't get what they bargained for. It would have been far better for the parties to understand the constitutional prohibitions against what they tried to accomplish_ My view always has been that we should endeavor to honor the essential terms of the agreement to the extent constitutionally possible. People and institutions should, to the extent possible, abide by their agreements. A group of advisors— including former City Council members (one of whom voted in favor of the Main Street closure and one of whom voted against it), ethicists, a constitutional law expert, a lawyer with real property expertise, and a variety of religious leaders — agreed that we should pursue a resolution that most closely gives effect to the promises that were made by then-Mayor Corradini and The Church. However, the sticking point • was — and continues to be— that the essential terms of the agreement cannot constitutionally co- exist. After weeks of research, consultations, and drafting and re-drafting of documents, I proposed that we resolve the matter by defining the City's easement as being located on about 10% of the Plaza, along the sidewalk furthermost from Temple Square. With that proposal, The Church would have sole control of 90% of the Plaza, in the same way any private property owner has control over its property. Also, "time, place, and manner" restrictions would be imposed on the City's easement that would govern disruptions and, in most areas, prohibit demonstrations. (That proposal can be found at www.slcgov.com.) That proposal would have required minor compromises on both sides, with the City retaining an easement and most of the restrictions on disruptive conduct being enforced across the Plaza_ However, it appeared, almost immediately, that the proposal was not acceptable to The Church. Several members of the City Council seemed unsupportive. Also, although the ACLU had earlier expressed support for the proposal, one of its lawyers later stated that the City might be sued if we did not allow small protests across the entire length of the Plaza. Faced with growing divisiveness each day, I knew we must reach some resolution in a timely manner. Otherwise, legal battles would continue at a high cost to taxpayers; political maneuvering would go on, even after I am no longer in office; and any legal guarantee of perpetual public access would be far from secure. Perhaps more importantly, without a . 2 resolution of this conflict,the Plaza would serve as a constant wedge between many members of our community. • Although I had been adamant that the City's easement must be retained, it was apparent to me that no resolution was possible as long as the easement existed because First Amendment rights apply to any such easement would permit disruptions and offensive conduct that everyone involved in the initial deal intended to prohibit. The earlier words of Reverend Toni Goldsmith of the First Unitarian Church echoed in my mind— and heart: "If we can't find a solution to this problem, how can we expect peace to be reached in Jerusalem?" Day and night, I contemplated how we could reach a resolution that was fair and which would benefit our community and individual lives for many years in the future. How could we give effect to the conduct restrictions to which the City, through my predecessor, had agreed, while obtaining something of great value for our City? Although I favor the earlier proposal defining the physical dimensions of the City's easement and applying constitutional time,place and manner restrictions to it, I have developed another proposal that appears to have a better chance of acceptance by The Church and the City Council. My responsibility was to find a solution, even if it meant that my earlier demands that the City retain an easement were not met. The second proposal (which can also be found at www.slcgov.com), supported by the Alliance for Unity, The Church, and Jim Sorenson (who has generously pledged $1 million • toward the proposed project),provides that the City would exchange the easement for (I) land owned by The Church near the Sorenson Center in the Glendale area and (2) a pledge by the Alliance for Unity to raise $3 million for the construction of a community center adjacent to of near the Sorenson Center. Jon Huntsman (with whom I co-convened the Alliance for Unity) has been immensely supportive of this proposal, generously joining with the George S. and Dolores Dore Eccles Foundation to contribute a total of$I million toward the project. Although the second proposal will not continue the legally-enforceable guarantee of pedestrian access,representatives of The Church have previously stated that access will be allowed. Also, opportunities for free expression abound on all of the public sidewalks near the Plaza,Temple Square, and the Conference Center. This has been a difficult, complicated challenge. But, as a community, we will be stronger and more unified if we can kindly and compassionately confront our differences and identify a solution that will bring peace to our City. We can bring about positive results, while recognizing that, under the circumstances, the exact terms comprising the earlier unconstitutional agreement cannot be given effect. Leadership is about more than choosing sides or stubbornly advocating for a position. Leadership must bring different sides together—and find solutions. With greater understanding of the facts leading to this dispute—and to the solutions I have proposed—this community can now come together in greater peace and harmony, more respectful of our diversity and of each • other. 3 • • MAYOR ANDERSON'S FIRST PROPOSAL (TIME, PLACE AND MANNER) 0 Petition 400-003-01 Planning Commission Public Hearing April 9,2003 Mayor Anderson's First Proposal: ._ Defining the Easement and Imposing Time, Place, and• u• � _ Manner Restrictions on the Main Street Plaza Step1:Define CityEasement on Plaza bythe Cityand the • The original Warranty Deed signed = - �`�':= __ - - �_�--�k•��Y-�<F= Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-daySaints did not =specify _ the boundaries of the "access and passage only"easement on the plaza. may. • By clarifying the easement, the City can preserve an easement across the east side of the plaza to protect accessclEIV and passage, while providing that the Church of Jesus Christ shall have free and clear title to the vast majority of the Plaza. wK • The Church of Jesus Christ will be free to make decisions regarding behavior on their property. •.Defined Step 2:Limit Group Gatherings on Easement Tetrspt• • CttyEasement • To prevent pedestrian access from being impeded and to preserve a peaceful environment on the square, group gatherings, demonstrations, and protests will be allowed only in two designated areas at the north and south ends of the =' - easement (see diagram). • Leafleting and some other peaceful individual expressive 1 Joseph Smith activities will be permitted on the entire easement, as h • Buil sortet required by the Constitution. • Step 3: Regulate Noise Levels Wig `fitti r a L „'- • Noise Ievels from demonstrations or individuals will be 3�,.. strictly limited to levels appropriate to the surrounding ,- v_ r =- properties and uses. _ _ - _ = Step 4:Subject Easement to Time,Place, and Manner Restrictions LEGEND applied to other city sidewalks to Gathering Area ." Defined City Easement • All regulations that apply to city sidewalks including Church-controlled Area restrictions on loitering, disturbance of religious services or activities, disturbing the peace,posting bills, and obstructing pedestrian access—will be made applicable to the easement. This means that individuals shouting or yelling at wedding parties or otherwise disturbing the peace would not be allowed on the City's easement. Benefits of the Plan: 1_ Achieves almost all of what the parties bargained for in 1999. 2. Protects the public right of access and passage by means of a legally enforceable easement, an essential part of the original agreement. 3. Creates limitations and restrictions in line with the Constitution of the United States, decreasing the likelihood of further court challenges. • 4. Accomplishes everything possible to protect the peace and tranquility of the plaza within the bounds of the Constitution and the promises made to the people of Salt Lake City. • • ATTACHMENT 5 Public Input TRANSCRIPTS • CAPITOL HILL FEBRUARY 19,2003 • WEST SALT LAKE FEBRUARY 19,2003 MARCH 19,2003 • CENTRAL COMMUNITY MARCH 5,2003 • GREATER AVENUES MARCH 5,2003 CORRESPONDENCE 411 Petition 400-003-01 Planning Commission Public Hearing April 9,2003 • 0 TRANSCRIPTS CAPITOL HILL COMMUNITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 19, 2003 • Petition 400-003-01 Planning Commission Public Hearing April 9,2003 a a 1 a8G 1 Vl `+ „x„ 4 a, -.!, �E 'fit 5 4-. 'Y.,'- is 7,�'+`N i gam"` �#' ! n U ii_'-,k-:,,„.c._.,--,1'-4-----,:-0v.A-,, ti1:6.,-„i-,-. --.. ,,'..-,:!---.I/E, _ l,-zt i-, .. -. rzi k T S-1 rp T ?''aI!II] a ..rn:rg :'�I3 s` t' '4 r F,. ` 'S ♦ 4 • ,,,1 y t—rf ;.% Q&A Transcript -- Capitol Hill Community Council The"Turning Point Meeting regarding the Main Street Plaza for Peace" Proposal Background info Documents Citizen: Why is it that you think that the constitutional protections which Input received the people wanted and thought they were getting in this agreement Voice your opinion which you sort of skipped over in your chronology can be traded across the board for the feel good things in Glenwood. I mean, we're talking about Constitution versus projects that can be done at Glenwood with money that people apparently have in their pockets and are willing to give. I mean, this is like going to the grocery store to buy pork chops and having the grocer offer you carrots. They're not comparable. They have no relationship to each other and you people who work for Rocky don't know Rocky as well as we do. And you forgot a few things which was a bit disingenuous. You forgot all the community meetings where people were promised that these restrictions weren't going to be there. And then you forgot, when you said, well the Church didn't get what they thought they were bargaining for,neither did the people. And • you've really glossed over that. Nimkin: Well, I think that's a question many people have. My response to that is, quite honestly in 1999 when this deal was consummated when the City Council sold the land they basically sold the right to do that. It wasn't contemplated at the time that the easement was for expressive behavior. It clearly was not and that would not have been at the core of this deal and would not have been done at that time. It was really for public access. So what Mayor Anderson has tried to do is strive to keep the essential elements of that as closely as possible and try to at least get some kind of benefit whether you regard that as equivalent or not for the community. And I think that's really at the core and heart of this and we're striving ultimately to bring some peace because frankly a constitutional solution that keeps both cannot occur. Citizen: Time,place and manner'—do you want to talk about that? Nimkin: Yes. The Mayor, in fact,had submitted the time, place and manner proposal Citizen: I know, but you [not understandable] • Nimkin: No,in fact I did talk about time,place and manner and we do have the handout that describes that and I think—the proposal before you and the reason,in fact, that we're going to the Planning Commission was because we're talking about the extinguishment of that http://www.slcgov.com/mayor/plaza/capitol%20hill.htm 3/27/2003 easement and that's part of what's required but the time,place and manner proposal was a way of,again,trying to approximate as closely as possible what that deal initiated. And it was not deemed at that time given the experiences that we had that that was going to be supported by the property owner,nor was it likely to be supported by the City Council. But that is not off the table and it's still something that's a viable choice. Citizen: Well,it's a further comment on this very issue because your guiding principle which talks about keeping to the original intent, the only ethical solution that has been proposed to date is the time, manner,place restrictions. That's the only solution that comes close to keeping all the original intentions. So I believe that solution should be pursued even if it fails before jumping into some solution that has nothing at all to do with preserving what was promised to the public. So I don't sec why this rush to this other solution like she says is oranges and apples. Nimkin: If I can say,that was,that is the preferred solution for Mayor Anderson. Citizen: Well,pursue it_ Nimkin: Well,one of the other aspects about being the Mayor is the responsibility for leadership and the responsibility to bring peace, responsibility to find solutions to really taxing and trying problems and that was really what the Mayor was forced to do and consider. And the proposal that has been presented to you was done in that • spirit and it's not—that proposal has to go through the process of being considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council in the same way that time,place and manner restrictions that were submitted before but also need to go to the City Council. Citizen: Yes,then they're abandoned after about a week,as far as bringing that as the main idea. Nimkin: I guess I would question the term abandon. It wasn't abandoned, it's still present but it was also recognized that if this was going to work,if this was going to be a compromise that was going to work, it really needed support of all the participants in the deal and it's in fact the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was not willing to support that it could not approximate the compromise that was needed. Citizen: The aspect of the easement is critical for this neighborhood. I have lived in this neighborhood now for over 12 years and have found the business end of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-days Saints to not be a wonderful neighbor as have the rest of my neighbors been with regard to the construction of the conference building and even when the construction of the Main Street Plaza went in. We need to • have that faith that we're going to be able to have public access through that or else Main Street will be an island to us. We will have no access to it. The easement is critical for our neighborhood http://www.slcgov.com/mayor/plaza/capitol%20hill.htm 3/27/2003 q&ca transcnpt Iron the Lapitol tiltt LL meeting Yage .i of 4 in this regard. If the City abandons the easement we have no guarantee that Main Street will not end up going down the toilet for us and it will be easier for us to go to Bountiful. 110 Nimkin: Well, that is correct. There is no guarantee. As I said, the Church has said in the past that they will maintain that. And I will maybe ask if one of the representatives Alan Sullivan who is counsel for the Church if you could speak a little bit to that question. Sullivan: In the Mayor's proposal there is no guarantee of public access. The Church will have the right that any property owner has to stop public access and passage over the property. The reason for that is a legal reason and it is that if the Church guarantees in some legally enforceable way right of public access, then the thought is, of course, sometime someday will hold that that guaranteed right of public access creates a First Amendment forum which is the issue that we're trying to avoid. The Church has historically since the Main Street Plaza was opened,peiniitted public passage and public access. It intends to do so in the future. It intends to maintain the Main Street Plaza property in precisely the same way that it has maintained the Church administration block immediately to the east for the past several decades. But I have to emphasize that in the structure of this deal there will not be a guaranteed right of public access. Voice: And this is our last question. Now this doesn't mean you can't send • your really hard questions to David at that address. Citizen: The missing ingredient in this discussion that I find talking to my neighbors and friends is a question of civility. And when you talk about First Amendment rights and freedom of expression as one thing but to do it in an uncivilized manner is something altogether different. And I think we need to enter into that discussion. What constitutes civility? I think probably 99% of the people I talk to are for free access but with civil behavior and this doesn't mean we want to burn flags or act in an irresponsible way but can we somehow compromise and find something that incorporates civility and public access? Nimkin: Well, in both instances I think there is hope that that can be achieved. There is no constitutional way to maintain and guarantee public access and at the same time guarantee that you're always going to have civility. You can't do it. And part of what we've been striving for is finding a means to do it. This debate, quite honestly through the Iast six months,has torn open this whole discussion of civility. And I think one of the hopes if we can bring some resolution to this in a way that approximates this deal is it will allow us as a community to find a way to approach that level of 110 civility and discuss this in a sober and responsive way. And I think we need to do that and I know this administration wants to do that but it can't happen,we believe, and I think that part of the question that the Mayor had to wrestle with, if we have the shrillness and the incivility that was sustained. http://www.slcgov.com/mayor/plaza/capitol%20hill.htm 3/27/2003 Voice: Thank you. This has not been easy. There's a lady over here that says in two sentences she would like to make a statement. Citizen: I have to tell you,I know most of you know that I have a suit against the Mayor for a long time on this issue. And I want you to know that the Mayor has shown extreme courage when he brings • about-he comes to bring peace. For those who are against the Mayor,I want you to remember two things,and I am one who exercises my free speech at all times. You can exercise free speech outside the Main Street Plaza anytime,24 hours a day,30 days. They will give you a permit. You do not need to be inside the plaza. Inside the plaza is an act of vengeance and I know the ACLU who has promoted to be able to defend equal rights,there is only one thing the ACLU has forgot to say is yes. They're defending an act of vengeance against the LDS Church for many things-for the Boy Scouts of America and for other things that you do not know. But I want you to know that there is courage to bring peace. And this community needs to bring peace because you can exercise free speech. You're not losing one little sentence. And everyone when there is a difference in agreements they come to the table and they try to sort things out. I think this is what the Mayor did like United Nations and government. They go ahead and resolve a little bit,a little bit and this is why they gave up this peace. Thank you. Voices: [all talking at once) Nimkin: I have the sense that there arc a number of people in the room who wanted to have a chance to say somethintt.publicly and might not be1111 satisfied by just sending in an e-mail. trust wanted to make sure that everybody realizes that this is not your only opportunity to comment in public. In particular,(here is going to be a public open house that's open to all of the City that will be at our new City public library on March 241h. There will also be Planning Commission and public comments to the City Council. So public comments section--at every meeting of the City Council there is the public comment period. So I just want to be sure that people realize that there will be other opportunities for you to make your comments known on a public basis. vi,t4 y f 3 SLC home • htlp://www.slcgov.com/mayor/plaza/capitol%20hill.htm 3/27/2003 • 0 TRANSCRIPTS WEST SALT LAKE COMMUNITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 19, 2003 0 Petition 400-003-01 Planning Commission Public Hearing April 9,2003 q- tea �` .4 'Z s2. _I ° a1$t t 1 prig �, r ...::::;:i%,_1:::::::;;;1.%:.:=,,-,- :4,-%.._; ,_.,, "6.14'.--4'-'4a-- -.;;;;: - . ^ - - - ' '4'''''' . ''' - .--a-zto. -,.is..--,;-, :v.-ft., `N,_.1.,i. IF- ,. z:,,•..i-",*3.4, Is • —, _74-,7c,- ,''" ---- > � a Q&A Transcript -- West Salt Lake Community he"Turning Point Council Meeting regarding the Main Street Plaza for Peace" Proposal Background info Documents Input received Nimkin: We're ready now to answer some of your questions. Voice your opinion Citizen: Marcus Prudan. Given the—the LDS Church foundation plans to participate in the development over here and given the large and ever-growing number of non-LDS residents both living here and moving into this area and given the abundantly demonstrated desire of the LDS Church to control any project that they're part of, what assurances do we have that here on the Westside that some activity scheduled here will conflict with what the LDS Church likes and will attempt to stop thus putting us right back to square one with the constitutional issues being raised right now with regard to the Main Street Plaza and I'm sorry given the selective memory of what was assured and what was promised and what wasn't promised prior to the sale of the Main Street Plaza, I'd like to have those assurances in III writing. Nimkin: Ok. I can speak to part of that and there are representatives from the Church who are here. All of the resources that will be contributed by the philanthropists associated with the Alliance as well as any others as well as the Church itself will be put in trust and will not be committed until this deal is completed and threats of litigation are resolved and that project will be completed at that time. And that's the basis for the trust and the commitment. That's what the Alliance for Unity is contributing their money towards and that's assured. Alan Sullivan, who's counsel for the Church is here and I wonder if you would care to speak to that. Sullivan: I think the question this gentleman has asked is whether the Church has any intention of imposing restriction on the Glendale center once it's expanded or once this project and facility is— the answer to that question is no. I mean, this is a project that will be owned by Salt Lake City. It will be run by Salt Lake City. The Church will have no interest in owning or running it. The Church is donating the land that will be used for the project. It will make a substantial contribution through the Alliance for Unity along with others that will finance the construction of the project and that's in return for the extinguishment of the easement and once that deal is III closed, the Church is not going to be mining the Glendale facility. That will be a City project. Nimkin: Thank you. Yes,you had your hand up. .. . http://www.slcgov.com/mayor/plaza/west%20salt%201ake_htm 3/27/2003 Citizen: My name's Earl. I'm a resident here in Glendale on Emery Street. My first question is, is what is a unity center? What is it going to affect this community because everything you mentioned on the screen is basically is for the Sorenson Center. And secondly, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints easement that's part of • the property, we're still going to get the access. You still need access. Like for example, the— I can't think of the name now— the Salt Palace, where you have a street going underneath the Salt Palace that's still access for the public to go through. You still need to have access for the public to go through. I personally have a property that has three easements, ok. And I'm supposed to take care of those easements to allow public access for anybody to come across my property. That's the same situation with the LDS Church. I'm all for tearing apart people that disgrace the LDS Church in front of their property because that's bad. They should be thrown in jail for that because, you know, it's like for me—if someone goes on my property or my easement, that's bad, that's totally bad because it's my property and I expect them to respect our property. Nimkin: Let me try to respond to those questions. Erin has told me that we're here until ten after nine and then we'll stay to answer questions but the official meeting will be over. First and foremost, the Unity Center is one of the structures that will be built on that property, as proposed on the LDS Church property. The actual uses of that property are really to be defined as part of how all of these different kinds of programs and services could be integrated into the • center. And the existing Sorenson Center would also be expanded and the fact that the Alliance for Unity has made a substantial investment in this is the reason why it's called the Unity Center. The second part of your question related to the easement is that that's the exact reason why the easement is being extinguished and it's because there is no constitutional way, it is not constitutionally possible to retain the easement and at the same time to allow the Church to have— and restrict the kinds of disturbances and expressive activities that we've experienced over the last several months. So that is the reason why the easement is being extinguished. The basis of whether there will be a continuation of public access is not something in this case that the City can control. That is not within our power in this case. And all we can rely on is the representations that have been made by the Church in the past that they will maintain that space open for public access. Let me have someone else ask a question. Citizen: I have one more question here? Can't we just have instead of a diversity center, a library or something to— community for kids to read because all we have here on this site is the Chapman Library and that's an old library and this would be expanded. Nimkin: That's a wonderful suggestion and while we're recording this, these are the kinds of things that we would welcome and welcome all range and types of uses and activity. Let me go back over on this side and we'll•come back,back and forth. Yes sir, this gentleman http://www.slcgov.com/mayor/plaza/west%20salt%20lake.htm 3/27/2003 u6,, vly right here. Citizen: John Saldavar, I live close to 1700 South. I was one of the ones that . I'm a veteran of Korea and Vietnam. I find solace— there are very few places where you can find peace and I don't appreciate anybody screaming at me especially using foul language. If this deal goes through will ACLU and the Unitarian Church still have the opportunity to sue the Church so they can get their own agendas passed? Nimkin: Well, that's a legal question. That's part of what the City Attorney had raised before. I'll let you respond to that, Ed, if you can. Rutan: Well, I certainly can't prevent the ACLU or any other organization from exercising their rights to bring suit. I mean, that's one of the fundamental rights that we have as citizens in this country is to pursue our grievances in the court. I can quickly run through each of those three arguments that I mentioned that they might raise. The first one, there's no case law that supports that position so I don't think that they would prevail on that. And the reason that there's no case law that supports them is this is a situation where the easement is being extinguished. There is no reservation of any kind of public access by the government and there's no agreement by the Church as the private property owner to provide such access. Whatever they do is on their own private decision. On the second point, we don't have a situation here at all like what was involved in the '60's • in those cases. This is pretty clearly not a sham transaction. People may have particular feelings about it but it is not. by any stretch of the imagination, a sham transaction. And then on the third point, on the Establishment Clause, basically the ACLU argument really would say that the City can never do a real property transaction with a religious institution and that's simply not the law. Nimkin: Alan. Sullivan: I'm the lawyer for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I just want to add something and it is that we have an opportunity as a community to put this arrangement together in a way that is absolutely compliant with the law and it is certainly the intention from our perspective and I know it is from the City's perspective that there be no constitutional violations and that this would be a transaction that should not ever be set aside and it should go forward for the very reasons that you've articulated. Nimkin: Yes ma'am, in the back. I'm making it difficult for you Ed, I know. The woman with the child in the back. Citizen: My name is Jimmi Hardy. I live on 1500 West and I think this has been a big waste of my time for the last half hour or more because • what the law is for the Mormon Church and what the law is for the City and county—what they do will be done. And that really isn't what our issue is here. It's what they're going to do because that • will be done: And-our issue is about the property and what should http://www.sicgov.com/mayor/plaza/west%20salt%201ake.htm 3/27/2003 be corning into our area. And it seems this is the perfect example of what the City says,this is what you need and this is what you want and this is what you'll get. And we asked when the Sorenson Center came in we were told it was going to be an adult center 50/50. It was going to be a children's center,an adult center,we would have meeting • rooms,we would have the legal services. That was told to us. All these things that you said that we would have for the adults we were told we would have that and we do not have that and we were not given that and we were not given any meetings rooms. We were given one for a short time which we were quickly booted out because that was needed for youth. Even the clinic came in. And my neighbor,Laverne called to make an appointment and she was told,I'm sorry that's for youth. Well,the City cleared that up when they found out about it and said,no you can't say that. And when it was opened,the youth was given total run. Everybody in here should know that if they were in on that from the beginning. The kids were left to do whatever they pleased. They had over 100 volunteers. Those volunteers were nm off because they were not allowed to say anything about the kids if they were smoking in the halls or pot or anything else because the children-it was their youth center and they were allowed to do whatever they wanted. And this is what it looks like-we're getting an extension of this because the City says that's what you want. And what we have asked for and what we have been asking for is places for kids 18 and older to go--20 year olds where they can do some things- maybe exercise rooms. Yes,we need these things for the single mothers. We need these things for the kids. We need language • centers. We should be using our schools more effectively,opening them at night for these school things. But what about the older people? We need things too. I'd like to see a-that's one of the things I've been asking for for years was a big library over here because,of course,I've been using the one in Poplar Grove,the Chapman Branch but that is really really old. And you've got to get some things Nimkin: If I can comment. There is nothing about what I'm describing here about the expansion of this center that is firm. We are here honestly and earnestly seeking your comments and I've heard from two people the importance of a library and an information center. I've heard as well that you would like some services for people that arc older than 18 and that's exactly what we intend to consider when we come back with a public process to engage residents of this community and do a market study and a business plan that's going to help us to identify that. If I can-if the woman with the child was almost there and ifI can allow you to comment as well. Thank you. Citizen: Thanks. I just want to address what's in the Tribune today talking about this and talking about the pending possibility that the national ACLU might want to pursue this legally and how that may affect the ability to raise the funds. So I want to know legally,what are • the time periods we're looking at here? Are there deadlines? Are there time periods that they have to get whatever filed that they're http://www.slcgov.com/mayor/plaza/west%2Osalt%201ake.htm 3/27/2003 going to file if they're going to pursue this legally? Nimkin: Ed, can you respond to that please? 11) Voice: Could I get your name? Citizen: Oh, I'm son y. Janet Alcala and I live here in the circle—the Glendale Circle or Navajo Street —whatever we call it. Rutan: There are things which are called statutes of limitation which limit the time period within which particular periods—particular kinds of lawsuits have to be brought. Unfortunately, I do not know off the top of my head what the statute of limitations that would be applicable here would be. That's something we could probably put up on the website. Alan, you may have a thought. Citizen: What's that website? Rutan: Well, it would be the City website that's in the brochure where we would be putting a wide range of information. We will get the answer to that and put that up on the website. Nimkin: While you're over there, the woman in the red sweater. Citizen: Thank you. My name is Karen Lyons. I live on Nutona Drive about four blocks from the Sorenson Center. I would like to suggest • that if you do the Unity Center to get all people involved and the young children. They have no access. They have no way of getting there. If we could have a little bus system that says Unity Center, the times—maybe they could have a magazine published of what's going on there. Their moms can take them there, leave them for a couple of hours. Senior citizens—I don't even know where we have a meals on wheels here in Glendale area. There could be something like that there that would service everyone in the community. But I think a bus system would really help a lot. Nimkin: Wonderful suggestion. Thank you. This gentleman over here, I know. I'll come back to you, Jay. This gentleman here. Citizen: My name's Joe Gonzalez. I just have a question and a comment. I know that this is being set up that the funds would come from the private sector and so in doing this, in no way will the development come back on the citizens as far as, for instance, say that don't have enough money to do this so will it fall back on us as taxpayers? And secondly, I'd like to say that I'm all for this. I know this is a very tough situation to be in,weighing it back and forth. But I do believe that the Church paid for this initially and I believe that in the beginning they should have received it totally. I think this would have been a great situation if that would have happened and also the 411) Church was also donating this property. But I do believe this is another situation of the last mayor's administration to where something was_put together and people just didn't get what they believed they were going to get. The one lady mentioned that our http://www.slcgov.com/mayor/plaza/west%20salt%201ake.htm 3/27/2003 community has continuously been deceived saying this is going to happen, this is going to happen, go for it. It doesn't happen. And we just want to say that we need to start focusing more on what's being presented to us and that we follow through on what we're going to get. Nimkin: Recognize that the commitment that has been made • by the Alliance is to build the facility. It is not for ongoing operation and maintenance. That's the importance of building the partnerships. That's the importance of understanding all the different relationships, developing a business plan. I know that when this comes before the City Council that they're going to be looking very very carefully about what the operation and maintenance expenses are going to be. And so before this deal is consummated, we're going to have a business plan and make sure that that happens. You should know that this has been something, really, that would not have happened had the Mayor not really struggled with trying to find a way to bring some resolution of this problem and knowing of the needs at the Sorenson Center and the kinds of programming that doesn't occur there, the kinds of resources that aren't there, felt that this would be a wonderful way for the Alliance for Unity to help support this to happen. So thank you for your comments with that. Voice: It's ten after. We need to adjourn the meeting but if you have more questions please stay. ^E ¢a. .a K v-e�.bL'3 `e_— ,. $i ` - i' r Y�' . . !_mac � G ram-. '�t"�g , ^.k3 ` `' ``-.a ' 1 -g - .tea tO fs:f SLC home S http://www.slcgov.com/mayor/plaza/west%20salt%201ake.htm 3/27/2003 • • TRANSCRIPTS WEST SALT LAKE COMMUNITY COUNCIL MARCH 19, 2003 • Petition 400-003-01 Planning Commission Public Hearing April 9,2003 ow up comments from me west Salt Lakel CC meeting Page 1 of 1 Ufa a ; %� � . Kfir w r r a Follow-up comments from the West Salt Lake The"Turning Point Community Council Meeting regarding the for Peace" Proposal Mahe Street Plaza Background info Documents Input received Comments regarding the Unity Center Proposal from West Salt Lake Community Council Meeting 3-19-03 Voice your opinion • Orient minorities as to zoning rules • Language classes for minorities • Cooking classes for ethnic foods • Library • Study hall • Meeting hall for meetings • About a 3/4 story building • A parking lot nearby • A room for the mobile water that is bigger than a janitor room •Percentage of funds from center to be controlled by the community 411 • Designed to match historic structures downtown • Keep the monument and flag pole • An IHC and dental clinic that served adults and children with reduced rates for neighborhood • A full-fledged fitness center for adults and teens with reduced rates for neighborhood • A large room for Community Council to meet • Spanish language and culture classes • Computers with Internet connections • Boys and Girls' Club activities •Health clinic expansion • Open microphone and folk music nights •A night club for teens and adults open at later times with alcohol served � r a - � - SIC home _ 1.4 110 http://www.slcgov.com/mayor/plaza/west%20salt%201ake%20follow%20up%20comments.htm 3/27/2003 • 0 TRANSCRIPTS CENTRAL COMMUNITY COUNCIL MARCH 5, 2003 • Petition 400-003-01 Planning Commission Public Hearing April 9,2003 ,.. .,u.1,1.,111/ 11,,11 ..,. �.. �,u, „y ,,,.,.,,,,,6 t'age 1 of / _ _ a �. • F;;11;1 '%.7412,::: A.:: Q&A Transcript -- Central City Community The "Turning Paint Council Meetina regarding the Main Street Plaza for Peace" Proposal Background info Documents Central City Community Council Meeting 3/5/03 Input received Voice your opinion Nimkin: With that we'd like to really open it up to questions or comments you do have. Just give us your name if you would. Voice: Thank you. My name is J.R. and I just have a question about the land swap. For the property that the church would be swapping with the City, is there a church that exists there now— a chapel that exists on that property? Nimkin: No, it doesn't exist. We have some representatives from the church who are here. I wonder if they would just comment on that land and maybe what had been there before. Sullivan: I'm Alan Sullivan. I'm a lawyer who represents the church. • There used to be a ward house there. It's no longer there. It's 2.17 acres and is v acant at the present time. Voice: [not understandable] that land was designated for them to have their LDS ward built there. That's what I heard from a couple of the leaders on the Westside. [not understandable] Nimkin: I don't know the answer to that. And I hadn't heard anything like that before either. I can say we were at the Glendale—west Salt Lake community council meeting [not understandable] Voice: Maybe this is a question for you, I don't know. If the challenge of the transaction was to be challenged between the church and the state, would more transactions between the church and the state come about? Would they have to review more because it seems like there's a lot going on between them that was the church's and now the state and that kind of thing. Rut an: Not necessarily. It would depend on the other transaction what was involved in any other transactions, when the transactions occurred, if they had occurred a long time ago a statute of limitations might prohibit any challenge at this point in time so it's • really hard to say whether it would have any impact on any other transaction that the City may have done with any other religious institutions. As you probably do realize there are other situations where the City has transferred property in the past to religious institutions. - http://www.slcgov.com/mayor/plaza/central%20city%20cc.htm 3/27/2003 Voice: Sandra Sterns. I think I understand most of what was said except the reverter clause.Would you explain that to me again. Nimkin: I'll let you do that. Obviously it's a legal • Rutan: The concept of the reverter clause in general is that you have a particular condition that you agreed to and if that condition is violated what a reverter clause does is to bring the property back to the original owner. Now what the provision that David was talking about provides that if the City continues with the right of reverter four things such as the protection of the view corridor which is being retained as part of this agreement and a court down the road were to say because the City has retained the right of reverter to protect the view corridor then we would extinguish the right of reverter,the property would stay with the church,it wouldn't go back to the church and then the City would have to go and enforce its rights in a way that it would do,for example by seeking an injunction,something like that. Voice: The view corridor is? Rutan: Yes,the view corridor was one of the original provisions in the special warranty deed from four years ago. There were actually four casements at that time. One was the access and passage easement which we've been talking about tonight. That's the one that would he extinguished and that's the one that caused all the commotion at the Tenth Circuit. There is also one fbr the • presen aticu of the v icw coiridoi,u Bich fur cvamplc says the church can't build a ten story building on that space which would make it impossible for people to look up towards capitol hill. That easement remains. There's also an easement for emergency vehicles,fire trucks,those kinds of things. That easement remains. And there's also an easement for public utilities services,running electrical wire or sewers or whatever under the space and that casement also remains. Voice: ' My name's Nathaniel Magnusen. If somehow,someway the reverter clause got the easement or the property back over to the City,is there any way that the church would get its money back or would they be forfeited? Anything like that? Just curious. Rutan: If the church violated the conditions then the City would get the property back and the question of whether the church would get its money back is something that we really haven't addressed at this point. Voice: I think you people misunderstood the question. The question was, if the property comes back to the City would the church get its money back. But under this proposal the property would never • come back to the City because if a court ruled that the reverter clause attached to the First Amendment then the reverter clause would be dropped from the agreement and would no longer be in place so under this proposal the property would not come back to http://www.slcgov.com/mayor/plaza/central%20city%20cc.htm 3/27/2003 ire central city cc meeting Page 3 of 7 the City if there was a court challenge. Rutan: That's correct in the context of the access issue,Josh. But if there were a violation of the view corridor easement then you could • conceivably have a situation where the property would come back to the City because that would be the original right of reverter. I misunderstood the question. Josh is correct when you're talking about the First Amendment access casement. Voice: Yes,Tim Was the suit precipitated by an incident where the church denied access or was it simply the fact that they were given the authority to deny access? Voice: Was it an incident? Nirnkin: I don't know that specifically,do you Ed? Rutan: Yes,in constitutional litigation there's a doctrine known as a facial challenge to an ordinance when First Amendment nghts are involved. But in that situation someone is allowed to challenge the ordinance or in this case the property transaction without actually having had an incident. You say that the language itself,the prohibition itself in the transaction is enough for the court to hear the challenge. You don't actually have to have a situation where somebody walked onto the property,tried to exercise their First Amendment rights and was denied them. So there was no actual • incident in this case. Voice: And again,we kind of missed the question a little bit. It wasn't precipitated by an access issue. It was precipitated by a First Amendment issue. No one sued because the church blocked off access to the plaza. They sued potentially because they felt the church didn't have the right to stop people from expressing themselves on the plaza. Nimkin: There was another question here. This gentleman right here. Voice: My name is Gordon Morrison. There's a few statements here tonight that bother me a little bit. The Tenth Circuit Court is not the interpretor of the—an interpretation of the Constitution. it's the Supreme Court. So this issue has not been finally resolved. Secondly,from an economic standpoint the church and Temple Square brings about five million visitors a year into this city. The City is very concerned about the downtown area. If the demonstrations and lack of safety that go along with it continue,that could drop precipitously and have a effect on the downtown area. So economically for the City this proposal makes a lot of sense because people,especially older people that travel a lot do not like to go into areas where they don't feel safe. And you don't feel • safe where there's demonstrations all the time because that leads to other things. I think this is a good proposal. I think the church has been more than generous with their money and the time. And I had a little disagreement here in this where it says that the ACLU,an http://www.slcgov.com/mayor/plaza/central%20eitv°/020ce. m Z/"h000 rage 4 of 7 organization dedicated to the preservation and of their rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution. I was once targeted by the ACLU to be killed because I was running for a school board and I was considered conservative. And in a special meeting they said • that the people had every right to see that I didn't get elected up to and including killing me. And there was another man involved in that too. So the ACLU does not really have individual rights. They have an agenda and the agenda doesn't run with the Constitution. Nimkin: Thank you for your comments. Relative to the significance of tourism and the potential impact for that,honestly that was one of the compelling reasons for finding some resolution and finding resolution as quickly as possible so that the kinds of disruptions would not continue at That site. So thank you for your comment. Rutan: Dave,I might add a quick comment on the Supreme Court. The gentleman is correct that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of constitutional law issues in our country but they are not required to hear this case. The LDS Church has publicly indicated that they're going to request the Supreme Court to take a look at this case but the Supreme Court could decide that they do not want to hear this case. And if that happened,the Tenth Circuit decision does become the final resolution in this matter on the constitutional issues. That's correct,it has not happened yet. Voice: [not understandable] meeting here in September and also the 367th Fighter group is meeting here in September that I personally1111 brought into the City because of the church and the Olympics and such. These people were interested in holding a convention in Salt Lake City. If these demonstrations continue and such,these are all older people,most of which are World War II veterans and they would hack out in a minute. Nimkin: Thank you. We've got time for two more questions,I'm told. Voice: My name is Douglas and I was going to say that as I understand it,one of the things that caused the Mayor to change his mind and to want to swap the easement was because of all the demonstrations and the rudeness by the so-called street preachers. Is that true? Nitnkin: I think that the level of discord and divisiveness in the community was felt by everyone. It was palpable but I also recognize the Mayor's notion to want to find another solution was that the property owner,the church in this case,did not accept the first proposal that was submitted. They had indicated that they weren't supportive of it. And there were also questions,constitutional questions that had been represented by the ACLU about that proposal as well. • Voice: Because at several I've been to I've found out that some of the such a disruption that it could have been one of the factors in the Mayor's changing his mind. http://www.slcgov.com/mayor/plaza/central%2Ocity"/"20cc.htm 3127/20113 ua1tcttp1 11011 utc '.tiara] uty uu meeting Page 5 of 7 Nimkin: I don't think it was about personal individual people. It was really the tenor and tone of what was going on in the community at the time. Thank you. You had a comment? • Voice: I simply want to make a comment in observing what is going on here tonight. Nonntally the neighborhood counsel has not more than four attendees and I look around and I see all of these people and I don't see any of my neighbors. And I wonder if there was inadequate notice to our neighborhood. I have no idea where all of your people are from but I've been coming to meetings in this building from the time it was built and only one or two of you have I ever seen before. So I would question the notice. Voice: [not understandable] The notices went out in the mail and next month they will be coming back because it's a land use issue and they have to come back and present two months in a row for us to take a vote. Voice: You know that what I said is correct. Passionate issue. Voice: And as I said when I walked in [both talking] Voice: major presentation there was nothing in what I received as notice that this week there's a major presentation on this question. Voice: There's more that's coming up on •Nimkin: I appreciate that. There's still some more questions on it. Voice: You know what, we ought to have you do the agenda. We are this issue again next month because we have to vote on this . And next month I was going to give them a little more time and a little more dialog. [not understandable] Next month we will be voting on this issue. That will be the first Wednesday and that will be April, let me get my calendar out Nimkin: While is looking for that let me just also—second of April, ok. Voice: will have to vote on this because it's a land use issue on the first Wednesday. They have to come back to present a second time —two months in a row before we can approve it or disapprove it or support it or not support it. Nimkin: This is part of this process responding to all the community councils and differences they may or may not have in their procedures and how they operate. Recognize that April 9th is the date that the planning commission is going to consider this. In their • consideration of any kind of land use choice they seek out counsel from the community council for that purpose. There will be opportunities at that time. There is an open house on the 27th of • March at the library at 6:00 and certainly I believe the City Council • http://www.slcgov.com/mayor/plaza/central%20city%20cc.htm . 3/27/2003 1 a6L. V kJ / when they consider this will hold public hearings as well so there will be plenty of opportunity for comment. [not understandable] Voice: I can't speak for the administration. I can tell you legally the • decision and the votes from community councils are not binding on the City. The City has set up that when decisions are made for land use, zoning, anything else that it must come through the community councils not only for information but also for feedback. We're going to be having public hearings about this so that people can come and give comment. So the vote, if your question is about a vote here in the community council, this issue, I think, as well as many issues, but this issue probably in particular, the decisions of the community councils and the votes of the people will probably weigh quite heavily on the decision makers would be my guess. But it's important to note that these votes are not binding on the City. We are not bound by those votes. So if that is yes, no—that's as yes,no as I can possibly be. I think you can understand that this is important because look at the City administration that's here. This is very important to them to have this presented and have you input. Voice: So there are two proposals that will be voted upon, is that true? Voice: Well, this proposal they're bringing to us they're taking to the planning commission. It's up to residents here if they want to • support it, central city neighborhood, the council wants to support it or not support it. And usually what happens on a land use issue they come to our council meeting to either get support or non- support. It we vote to support it, we write a letter of support. If we vote not to, we let them know we don't support it. So that where the vote is, it's really within our organization to decide whether we want to support the issue or we don't. For or against . Or we take a position on it. It's mainly dialog. Like I said a minute ago, I want to give it more time because it is a passionate issue in our community and I'd like another perspective to be presented to us as well. Voice: I just want to know if Josh is your clerk or you're clerking for him. I want to know, is it an up or down proposal or can this council come up with another proposal, maybe a better idea,maybe a better way to make better use of our tax dollars. Nimkin: The option is wide open. Obviously we're coming to you for consideration of this proposal. The Mayor has come up with a previous proposal that didn't seem like it was going to be successful with the City Council. It didn't seem like it was being supported by the church. We welcome any and all suggestions for that. Voice: Nancy do you want to speak to that? • Saxton: That proposal never came to the City Council. The Mayor never • http://www.slcgov_com/mayor/plaza/central%20city%20cc.htm 3/2.7/2003 meeting Page 7 of 7 talked to me about it. Never talked,as far as I know,to any member of the City Council as far as time,place and manner. It was presented to us and our opinion was never asked. So to actually show or say that it wasn't going to fly with the City Council,I don't know where you get that information. It's inaccurate. Nimkin: We said it was unlikely to be successful. Saxton: How would you even know that if you don't ask. Nimkin: Well,some of the members of the Council did talk to the Mayor about it. Voice: Ok,can we hear some more dialog then? Voice: I think that something's happening on the 27111 at the library. What's happening and Nimkin: The meetings that we've been having around the connnunity have been with community councils whose area is contiguous to the plaza or to the Glendale center because we want to get a lot of input from a lot of people in the community who want a public open house,the same kind of presentation but we will be encouraging more people more broadly in the community to come to that. There is an auditorium of some 300 people at that. There won't be a vote at that time. We'll be taking public comment,answering questions as best • we can. Voice: The 27th? Nimkin: Of March at 6:00 p.m.at the library. Voice: I had a question last time. Now I'd like to comment. I think that a compromise is imperative. I think what they've come up with seems like a sound compromise. My own personal concern living between Main and West Temple on Third South is my property value. I've invested a lot of money in my home. Like most people it's a major investment in my life. I just don't envision businessmen wanting to invest on Main Street if they can't count on tourists and the like coming in. And if they're not there,I'm going to be in trouble down the line and so are all of my neighbors. So I think this property value business is—and not only that,the state probably won't reduce my property taxes even if I lose my property value. So I think it's imperative that we look at it long and hard. I've heard a lot of people talking about it but I haven't heard anyone say anything that seems more reasonable than what's before us. So I encourage people to look at it favorably. s t # y is ! SLC borne - - - - . http://www.slcgov.com/mayor/plaza/cehtral%20city%20cc.htm "� • • TRANSCRIPTS GREATER AVENUES COMMUNITY COUNCIL MARCH 5, 2003 0 Petition 400-003-01 Planning Commission Public Hearing April 9,2003 sT `r� a �z .� _a- ..-.. orA Q&A Transcript -- Greater Avenues Community The "Turning Point Council Meeting regarding the Main Street Plaza for Peace" Proposal Background info Documents Avenues Community Council Meeting 3/5/03 Input received Voice your opinion Nimkin: We do welcome all of your input for this. I guess with that we'll take questions and comments from residents. Voice: I just wanted to complement you on your presentation. I think we were hoping to hear a lot of things and I've heard everything I thought. It's really been good. Another thing—I want to mention two other things, I'll be very brief This isn't the first time the City's given up a right of way. If you go just two blocks from where we're talking about on First South and you turn to your right to the west you run right into the Salt Palace . And they gave up the right-of-way for the Salt Palace , the whole street from First West. And so this isn't the first time that's been done. Another thing is that I read in the paper a short time ago, I wanted to know who was • going to take the blame and who was going to take the credit for this. Well, since I've been listening here, I don't have any doubt I would want the credit. I can't see any objection to it at all. I seems like the Mayor is really going about it putting a face here and making the proposals that everybody thought they had in the first place. But he's been great, I think and so I don't know who would say they blame for it. I think it's a good proposal and I hope the City Council votes for it. Nimkin: I'll just comment, there really shouldn't be any blame with this. Thank you. Could you all just identify yourself? Voice: My name is John Tutor and I have said before and I say again,this sounds a lot like the definition of shared governance that I've become familiar with this community for the last 25 years. You all can keep talking as long as you want to and we at the top will decide what we're going to do. We did have, as you mentioned and it was mentioned at the end that the above named church would probably not have done this deal if that restriction of public park access had not been taken out of the agreement. It was in the agreement the last time it was discussed in this community council and the next week it was approved by the Mayor and then current City Council without that public park clause being in there and maybe the right • thing should have been not to have done the deal because those others who spoke to it and agreed to it and supported our City Council were not aware that that was going to be changed at the last minute. So, since this is-a final comment I'll just say we're http://www.slcgov.com/mayor/plaza/avenues%20cc.htm 3/27/2003 operating under the Golden Rule—not that one about do unto others,but the one about who has the gold will make the rules. Nimkin: Thank you. • Voice: Hi,I'm Bev Cooper and I have some of the same concerns because I attended every presentation that I could attend before this happened and it didn't come out like the presentations that we received. And I'm wondering what we're going to vote on tonight because reading the community council newsletter that came out and hearing your presentation really does sound like there's a deal already done and so I don't know for sure why we're here and I appreciate that you can hear our comments and then I have a question. I have one question as what are we really voting on and two is,even if the whole five to six million cornea through for this project,what's the whole project going to cost flow far away are you from having completion on this project? I haven't talked to anyone in the Glendale community that's in favor of it. Arid so if they had a presentation like this and felt like it was out of their hands and it's a done deal,maybe you had a different response at that community meeting but none of the people I know that live there thought this was a good idea. Nimkin: Well,first whether this is a done deal,it clearly is not. We welcome both your comments and ultimately would hope that you would vote to support this. This is clearly a proposal that we're bringing to you in hopes that you can support it for the reasons that we represented. Its something that has to go before the planning commission and there will be public hearings there. It's going to have to go before the City Council. There will be public hearings there. If it is something that is not approved for one reason or another,one of the reasons that we represented the first proposal that the Mayor submitted was because that is still a viable option and can be considered. But given reasons that represented in the commentary is that it really wasn't something that was likely to be supported from some of the participants. So,that's one aspect of it. Our presentation over on the Wcstside,for the most part it was very very well received. We had probably a hundred people at that meeting and there were some people that had concerns about the types of programming,the kinds of resources that would be required for this. I think we take very seriously how much it's going to cost. I couldn't come to you today—I'm not sure we'd be able to come to the City Council with any firm number a month from now but we're committed to doing the business plan so that the answer to that question can be established as closely as we possibly can. I hope that answers your question. Voice: I'm Priscilla Kalkami. My question is,is the extinguishment of the •easement automatic,let's say in May when the City Council votes, is that automatic or is that contingent on the money being raised and • like the previous speaker,I have no doubt that it will be voted favorably by the City Council regardless of what happens in community council meetings. Is it automatic at that point or is it • http://www.slcgov.com/mayor/plaza/avenues%20cc.htm 3/27/2003 yoca a ai iac t ipt nun iiic r 'c rou<Th rage a OI I L contingent upon the money being raised and the Sorenson Center-Unity Center expansion being done as the financial trade-off for the legal right of easement? Nimkin: I would ask Ed, would you be able just to respond to that? Rutan: I would be happy to respond to that. The proposal as the Mayor announced it is an eight point proposal that Dave just went through so that the concept in the Mayor's mind is that when the whole thing is done what you have on the one side for the church is that the easement is extinguished. On the other side for the City you have the expanded program and facilities that Dave just went through. Now the details of all that have not been worked out. But that's the basic concept that was in the Mayor's mind when he announced the proposal. Voice: [not understandable] Rutan: Well, I think in the Mayor's mind if you had a situation where the money had all been raised then the easement could be extinguished but as I say, in the Mayor's mind in the proposal in the end when all is said and done, the easement is extinguished, the City has the expanded programs and facilities. Voice: Good evening. My name is Jim . I think that there is a basic principle under attack here. I don't think it's freedom of • religion. I don't think it's freedom of speech. I think it's the basic principle that indiv ideals and institutions should be held to their word when they give it. There was an agreement that allowed the construction of the Main Street Plaza . That agreement can easily be construed as still being in force. That agreement could have been construed easily by the public as a single agreement allowing a single thing which has now happened. To say that you can go back and change pieces of that agreement by the exercise of authority of the City Council may be legally possible. I would argue that it is ethically incorrect. What we have here is a situation where the City and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints made a bad deal. They went too fast. They didn't think hard enough. But that deal is done and rather than try and live with the mistake that they may have made, let the healing process continue and move on with our lives. It has been decided several areas to try and change this. The Mayor responded, I think at first, very appropriately. He's now been swayed by political pressure to find a politically workable decision. But to my mind this is not at it's core of political arguments. This is an ethical argument about whether we are going to uphold the basic principles upon which our society and in fact,on which human civilization is built which is that people and institutions when they give their word,we'd expect to keep it. • Thank you. • Voice: Hi,my name if Mark Stern. I'm new to this neighborhood but I've worked in downtown for the last five years and I've worked in. security throughout all of the malls and the area across the street http://www.slcgov.com/mayor/plaza/avenues%20cc.htm 3/27/2003 from the plaza and I recognize the attitudes of the pedestrians that go through the plaza. In the mall when someone acts up they get a trespass against — they get arrested. I think the City had a general impression of what attitude would be maintained on the property and I think we all pretty much understand how the attitude is based on the last decades • of experience with pedestrians having access to Temple Square as well as we've had with the plaza in the last few months. My point is is that I'd like to make is I think this deal over in Glendale is kind of—I think it's not even on the point of what we're discussing. I think the Mayor is recognizing that they have a good opportunity to sell something that they already sold. The easement should be part of the suit. It should not be considered another advantage. In other words the property was sold. We can't say, ok we've sold this car to this buyer, now we still retain the keys and resell it at another price. We muscle the church out of this other property that they have because it's an advantage to us. I think that we should keep the point where it's at. We shouldn't talk about other properties. We shouldn't say, ok what else can be get out of this buyer. They sold the property for what a good estimate of what the property is worth. The church put a lot more money into it since then but the deal went bad. I think that they should either compensate the church for what they put into it and take the property back but they shouldn't go ahead and say, ok what else can we get out of this deal which is the Glendale property. I think we should keep focused on what the main points are and that is either give up the easement to the church which they thought they were getting, in other words, control over the property but respects the public where the public had access to the plaza or take it all back, which I don't think very • many people are liable to do. That's my opinion. Thank you. Voice: My name is Sally . I liked article in our newsletter very much. When he said when you think about the problems in the world that are facing us and facing our nation this is just a little tempest in a teapot. I think one of the Mayor Anderson's goals has been to fix up the downtown and make it better. And here we have a beautiful peaceful spot to use. people want to have it vanished and gone back to where it was and lose this lovely peaceful spot in the downtown area for doing what he can to intent of the [not understandable] Voice: My name is Dave . I'm a lifelong resident of the City and of the Avenues and I've been trying to think in my mind of any time that there has been a protest on Main Street between North and South Temple . Maybe I'm lacking but I don't recall one. I recall a number of them on South Temple in front of the gates to Temple Square but I really don't remember one there and I don't think that has ever been a protest place. I was strongly opposed to selling of Main Street to the LDS Church and I think from the standpoint of traffic it was a mistake. They have built a beautiful park there. • They have put a lot of effort into it and I knew they would and I think they are good to their word of keeping public access to it. I think it was a mistake to beat each other up, to embarrass couples http://www.slcgov.com/mayor/plaza/avenues%20cc.htln 3/27/2003 q&r.a transcript Iron the Avenues t meeting Page 5 of 12 that have been recently mai lied, the things that have gone on there, I don't think that's a plus to Salt Lake . I think of a neighbor of mine who is very not LDS and not really a fan of the LDS Church in any sense. But • they used to live in the American Towers and their comment was, you know the LDS Church has done a lot to improve Salt Lake City and to beautify it. And I think this is one of those things that has. I'm sorry it was done in many ways but now that it's done I think we ought to accept it and move on and stop beating each other up about it. Voice: I'm Jamie Brown. I've lived here for about 28 years and I too was not happy that they were going to do the Main Street Plaza because I was concerned about Main Street businesses but now that it's here I echo what Dave has just said_ I have three very brief comments to make. First, Jim Jenkins is right about ethics. In my opinion he missed one point. When the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints bought that property, they bought more than just the property. They bought the right to restrict what happens on that property and that was very clearly laid out. They were very clear that was why they bought it. And if they wouldn't have bought— couldn't have had it, they would never have purchased it. And so the church, to say that they no longer have that right is, I think, unethical. Second of all,.I travel a lot and have been to a Iot of different religious sites and I would never be disrespectful of those religious sites. As I was walking down South Temple the other day I was just struck by the rudeness of what was going on. It was • absolutely unfathomable to me that civilized people would treat others in that vv ay. And I said to myself, these people — it's not an issue about Free Speech. They can move a few feet to the right and a few feet to the left and say these same things. What they wanted was in your face, a put down_ And I think that's inappropriate. Third, I work part time at Bryant Intermediate School and we just had a whole group of these students from Jackson Elementary coming to Bryant that we've never had before. And every day I see the tragedy of those families and the needs and they're so intense that I just feel that anybody who would stand up and pretend to trade their free speech rights for the needs of these children who have such intense family needs, I just say wake up to reality. If the churches and people are willing to put money into something wonderful that they need and these children are so desperate for, why don't we just get on board. Thank you. Voice: My name's Roger Davis and I —in response to this fellow's comment about someone being there, I was going into Frank Meyer when those demonstrators were there asserting their First Amendment rights, as it were, and it showed very clearly that there were people, they're fortunately a very minority in the community that did want to not only be there and make their anti-feelings • towards the LDS faith be known,but they were disrupting the very wedding procedures that were taking place there. It was quite ugly and Mayor Anderson echoed those same feelings. He said that just wasn't our design or intent at all. I commend this other man for what he said in terms of it was a bad deal made. Shame on-the http://www.slcgov.com/mayor/plaza/avenues%20cc.htm 3/27/2003 lawyers for the City, shame on the lawyers for the LDS Church . It was a poor deal made. But as many have echoed thus far, what we've got to do is deal with that poor deal, as it were now. I think what Mayor Rocky Anderson has come up with and what the church is willing to respond to, as this lady said, help our community in others ways, especially in an area that has some very critical needs. We ought to step up to that and get beyond the bickering and things. I have no doubt that I will be able to access that area any time, day or night. That's always been true of any part of the property there of the LDS Church . Voice: My name is Douglas . I have a little different feeling about the attorneys and what I've learned from the Council in their investigation of what was actually done in the deal before their administration and I'm really impressed that there was a tremendous amount of good faith effort on the City's part and on the church's part. They decided to go ahead on the deal that might have ramifications and they knew that. But it's just a wonderful thing. I was born about a half a block from that place and I still live a half a block from that place. And I just think it's a wonderful thing to live in a city where you can make a deal and then I can go to a federal court of appeals and they can kind of overturn that thing and then you watch the parties go together and in good faith try and come up with a solution that will benefit everyone concerned. I'm just grateful to live in a city like that. And I don't agree with the previous comment to the extent that I don't think they had such bad legal advice. I think they decided to go ahead with that deal in spite of the ramifications and that they had a trust that there would be • good faith exhibited on either side no matter what happened. And I commend the Mayor for that and I commend the church for that. Thank you. Voice: I'm Ruth Ann Hamilton and I've been living in the Avenues now for four years and have been in Salt Lake and moved here from New York . I've been in Salt Lake for six years so I don't know a lot of history but what I do know is I think that the plaza is a beautiful place for downtown Salt Lake and adds a lot to the town. I did listen to the City Council meetings when they were broadcast on TV and I do think that this proposal, this solution that you suggested is in line with the intent of both parties, at least as I heard the hearings that were conducted by the City Council what both parties really expected to happen when they entered into the agreement. So I just want to let you know that I support what you're doing and I think it's wonderful that support can be given to the Westside where I understand that there really is a need for what you proposed. Voice: My name is Steve and I was born in Salt Lake and grew up and many of you know me from a little boy. I remember • attending Lowell and starting to learn about the Constitution and the rights of people to protest. I always had it understood that it was to • be a peaceful demonstration. I think some of the demonstrations that have been on the plaza have been anything but peaceful and anger,both parties on both sides of the arguments,I think,have . http://www.slcgov.com/mayor/plaza/avenues%20cc.htm 3/27/2003 Y, .,,, 1. ,,,���,,, rage / of 12 fault on that. I think the plaza is now a place for demonstrations because of the media attention. But really, if I were to demonstrate I think the best place would be north on the block to the conference center where I've seen them many times. This area not only has the people leaving the temple but you also have the traffic on North Temple . I support the parties in trying to come to a conclusion and the Mayor and his second proposal here to allow for also community effort made in Glendale . I attended West High and saw some of the needs there and also in Rose Park I was able to work with the younger children and I know having a daughter of my own how important those preschool programs can be. And I support that. Voice: My name is . I want to make two comments. First of all I support the proposal that you brought tonight. It's a good one. But I want to look farther than that. When you look at what we are in character, and in character I look at Henry Clay as being the great compromiser, I think that's the spirit of our nation, not just Salt Lake City . But we look at people who can come together in a room like this on a hot issue and very seldom go into the kind of violence that we see in other parts of the world. I think compromise is a key no matter what our initial positions are. Secondly, I look at this and this is more exciting and that is, we look at west Salt Lake now. This may be a stimulus for us to start paying attention to some needs that we may not have paid attention to without this kind of action. So I'm hoping that from this point forward the City can start looking at the needs for places like Glendale that have 28 different • languages and start tailoring programs through alliances that don't have to be formed because of conflict, but because of harmony and the desire to build people's lives throughout an area. And that's what I wanted to say. It's an exciting time that these things, even though they've made people feel upset initially,I think we'll come out of it with a better city because of who we are. Thank you. Voice: My name's Steve McCartel. I support the proposal. I probably get there for a different reason than a lot of people, so I'll tell you what it is. We can all poke holes in the way this happened and that's a lot of fun but not that productive. If we read the Tenth Circuit's decision and I have, where that leads is if you keep the easement you have to have the City regulate speech on the plaza. You can't keep the easement and not do that. If you do that you end up with some kind of a, as I see it, a Frankenstein monster of the City and church trying to decide these hard questions of how you balance these peoples' interest in making public speech and demonstrations with peoples' free exercise rights on this site which I think we'd all agree is one of the great religious centers of the world,however you view what goes on there. That's a difficult process and I don't think it would lead in the long team to peace. I think it would lead to divisiveness if we had to do that over the long haul. I think it's better if we simply separate the church property from free speech . zones. We don't lack space to conduct free speech activities. I think that that's the central reason we ought to allow the church property to function as it may and not make it—I think Steve Clark had a good phrase for it at the first hearing I heard was not-what http://www.slcgov.com/mayor/plaza/avenues%20cc.htm 3/27/2003 we had created was an attractive First Amendment nuisance by putting this easement on the property. That's what we'll have if we go the direction of creating time and place restrictions and try and put a pulpit right next to the temple where people could come and say whatever they want to say. I think the path toward getting this • resolved is the one you've taken so I thank you for doing it. Voice: I wanted to just —my name is John Sitner— address what I think is kind of a missed point, possibly anyway, that is we seem to be operating on the assumption that the only way of dealing with the problem is by vacating the easement. And I think there is an understanding that there was an exchange. The City expected to retain a view and pedestrian corridor and the church expected to have quiet enjoyment of the plaza and to be able to manage these activities on the plaza. Is it necessary that vacating the easement is the only option? I think under the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals the answer is yes. But that would proscribe that the City has no choice in transferring property other than transfer the whole, that it cannot retain any of those rights. Well, let's take another example of a place. Rio Grande Street , I believe is City property that Boyer Company has an easement over and I would say that I would be very surprised if the Boyer Company would not expect to have control over the conduct of people on that street. The City conveyed that property because it was in the best interest of the City for that development. We have many needs. There are needs all over the country to do that and this Court of Appeals decision would suggest that we can't do that. We have no right to make those partial transfers. Well, what I'm really getting at is what I think the • best next step is not to jump ahead and vacate the easement but rather for the church and the City, not only in our own interest but in the interest of cities around the whole country is to litigate this to the Supreme Court to try to get the Supreme Court to take it on cert and to affirm that the City has the right to make that parcel transfer. If they say no, then we should be back here saying we have no choice other than to make this decision. But if that option exists to be able to make that transfer, I think that's something we ought to be able to know and not to just go ahead and make another exchange. This looks again like we're making a short term—we're getting a short term buy-out for a long term problem. We made a sale because we needed money in a short term that has a very long Jelin impact on the City. To connect a well designed and needed facility to something completely unrelated, I don't think is good policy. Nimkin: John, Alan Sullivan is an attorney for the church and would like to respond to your thought. Sullivan: I'm Alan Sullivan. I'm a lawyer. I represent the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.- I would like to respond to that. One of the options that the church is to file a petition for certiorari before • the U.S. Supreme Court. The deadline for that petition is coming up, I mean,I believe it's next week or the week after. That petition will be filed. The Supreme Court will then decide whether to accept http://www.slcgov.corn/mayor/plaza/avenues%20cc.htm 3/27/2003 11. l„,1,,c,lues c.c.meeting Page 9 of 12 the petition. The Supreme Court has discretion about whether to accept that and there is a process that will proceed through the summer basically on that petition for cert. The church's strong belief though is that this is a local problem that ought to be resolved locally and amicably. • And for that reason it has engaged in an ongoing discussion with Mayor Anderson,with the City Council and with the decision makers in Salt Lake City to try to resolve this on a local basis and would much prefer to do that to having the U.S.Supreme Court make a decision one way or the other on this thing. The church believes that the Mayor's proposal is a good one. It is a constructive way of resolving this thing. There are a lot of details that have to he worked out and that's part of what the public process is about,to have those details worked out and to have input so that when the planning commission considers it in April and when the City Council considers the matter in late April and early May,those details will have been fleshed out through the public process. But the church supports the proposal because the church believes that this really does return the parties to what they originally intended. There was nobody involved in the 1999 transaction that intended for there to he a First Amendment forum on Main Street Plaza. In fact, in the special warranty deed it is explicitly said that both parties agree that there will not be a First Amendment forum. So it was the farthest thing from the parties'minds back in 1999 that that would be the case. We're faced with a situation now that the Tenth Circuit has told us that there is a First Amendment forum by virtue of the easement and as a result we have to try to find another solution. I • think the comment that the Glendale project is a short term, shoueiehted °solution of Me issue jsea 1,e otes the interests of ILc people of Glendale and 1 thine that this is—it is true that the easement for access and passage will be extinguished but in return for that extinguishment the City will get a considerable public asset. It will bring the parties together and I think it's a reasonable solution_ Let me just say one more thing and I'm happy to answer any questions that anybody has. Given the structure of this deal and given the legal history of this whole dispute there cannot be as part of this solution and guaranteed enforceable right of public access and at the end of the day that has to be extinguished from the church's perspective. But there should be no question but that the church intends to allow public access on Main Street Plaza just as it has for the past two or three decades allowed public access at the church administration block. In fact the reason why the church created Main Street Plaza and spent a lot of money on it was to welcome the public to that area. Voice: Ile forgot to mention he's a resident of the Avenues. My name is Damn Eyre and I've only been a resident of the Avenues nine years. I wanted to make three quick points of clarification. First of all I wanted to respond to the letter in the Avenues—newsletter today referring to this matter as a tempest in a teapot. I think all of • life is a tempest in a teapot. Our own family,our own lives,our streets,our families,neighbors and this is the appropriate forum for this discussion so I was sorry to see it diminished in your • newsletter. Also,I wanted to just make the comment that the courts • http://www.slcgov.com/mayor/plaza/avenues%2Occ.htm 3/27/2003 A AAS�, i v V t 1 G and the law and our communities have a time honored way of regulating competing uses on property and the constitutional means of regulating competing uses is to regulate the time and place and the manner of free speech. And in conjunction with that I know at the other community council meetings you passed out a pamphlet on the • other proposals and I was hoping you'd pass that out tonight as well. And it's the Mayor's first plan. I think that that was a very good plan and it was only around for six days. And on the seventh day—I'm getting out of my territory— and on the seventh day the ACLU submitted a letter to the City Council with what we thought were just explaining the law and tweaking that— those time, place and manner regs. The day prior Mayor Anderson had submitted his Westside proposal. So we don't feel Iike the time,place, manner regulations got a real chance. Much of the objectionable speech that's happened on the plaza is subject to regulation. We still urge the City to implement time, place and manner regulations now even while the negotiations likely to go on for weeks and months. And I have a lot of other things to say but I'll stop. Voice: You're the ACLU representative, are you not? You're Danni Eyre. Would you guarantee to us proposal I where it shows and the church agree would the ACLU agree not to sue? In the paper, right of the bat Voice: That's an easy answer Voice: Well, let me finish. Right off the bat Steve Clark said, oh we 41)probably have to sue on that too. Voice: Yeah. That's a simple answer for us. We're not in a position because we represent the constitutional in court, we can't ever agree not to sue on anything ever. It's just the nature of the game because obviously we did not prevail in this case because we are an all powerful local organization. We prevailed because this is what the Constitution called for in this situation and we cannot bargain away the Constitution's affect on a local matter. So anyone can bring an action—any citizen, and I could not make a deal that says no one in this room could bring an action about what's constitutional in the City. It's just legally impossible. In fact, in this situation we've done our best to just comment on what we think the constitutionality is or not. We have no sat down to make deals with anyone and we have not been contacted. All we have done is say this plan looks like it's constitutional. This looks better, this looks closer. This is what's worked and all we do is read the case law and comment accordingly. [not understandable] Voice: My name is John Preston Creer. I was very much involved in the building of the original Salt Palace vacating First South. There was • no protest. There was nobody complaining. I was involved in the church paying one a dollar a year—being paid a dollar a year for the Salt Palace. We used to have a Richards Street we used to walk up . . • http://www.slcgov.com/mayor/plaza/avenues%20cc.htm 3/27/2003 abk, 11 01 IL and down. There's many places in our community that are no longer there that were once easements. I do feel very proud to be part of a group like this who can civilly discuss a matter with such feelings that we have. And I'm very proud of the Mayor and those who have been • participants in forging this decision. I think only a visitor that we had with us at Christmas time who saw the plaza with the lights, all the people there from every religion, every culture, every place loving what they were seeing, enjoying it with their families. It was a beautiful sight. How could we ever get that if the church had not stepped forward. As I said before, they've done more for this community than any church in any city or any state that I'm aware of. I think we should be very proud of what they've done. It will inure to the benefit of all your children and grandchildren down the road and as has properly been said, I see no involvement of people on that particular area to protest in the past. The church should be praised for what they have done. It's a beautiful area. And I suspect many in this room were down there looking at the lights with their families and will be down there again. And I too saw those people protesting and I thought, my goodness, to do what they did in our community is really very difficult for me to understand. I believe this process will go forward and I have involved myself prior with the Glendale community. I know how little they have - and how much they need and I think these men and women have done a wonderful job in coming and fashioning a decision that will help so many and I hope that this all goes through, that peace can be settled here. We've got a lack of peace elsewhere in the world that we ought to be concerned about. And I hope that this plaza is • finally resolved soon. Thank yon. Voice: The Library has been kind enough to let us stay until fifteen after nine . It's thirteen after. But we probably ought to come to some kind of a closure. Is there a motion? Voice: I would like to suggest to the group since we said there would be a vote tonight and there are certainly differences of opinions in the room, that we vote on three things. The first vote will be—if you raise your hand on the first item would be to do nothing at all, let it stand as it is. On the second vote it would be to accept this proposal that's being proposed tonight. The third item would be to reject both of those in favor of a third alternative. Would that be acceptable to you? [not understandable] Voice: First, not do anything at all, leave it as it is. Vote number 2 is to accept Mayor Rocky's proposal. Number 3 would be to accept the proposal that was here this evening. And number 4 to reject those three but you can still vote. [all talking] *Voice: We do have to go. One quick question, I'm just trying to clarify. I think leaving it as it is includes the obligation of the City to invoke time, place and manner restrictions. Would we say that's really number 1? http://www.slcgov.com/mayor/plaza/avenues%20cc.htm 3/27/2003 [not understandable] Voice: Anyone opposed to doing that? All in favor say aye. Opposed? Ok. Voice: What's the difference between point 1 and point 4? • Voice: Point 4 is all other options are not acceptable and there's something else that they'd Voice: What's number I? Voice: Leave it as it is. Not do anything. May I say in closing thank you all for coming. That you all for the tenor of the debate and the courtesy that you've shown the City. Thanks to the City for coming and giving us this opportunity. on your honor only vote if you're a member of the council. Voice: Because there seems to be a lot of uncertainty remaining and indecision because a lot of people maybe feel they don't yet have enough information why don't we have the option to table the vote for this evening and then continue it next month if we want to? Have a written statement. [all talking] Voice: Ok,help me out here. Option number 1 is no position,don't do anything just_ . Number 2 is proposition I which is to • define the casement to approximate the east sidewalk of old Main Street so it's going and then put time,manner and place restrictions on it. That's number 2,Rocky's number 1. Thirteen. Option 3 is what these folks have described to us tonight. I've got sixty three. Number 4 is all of these are unacceptable,go find something else. Thank you all. - SLC home • http://www.slcgov.com/mayor/plaza/avenues%20ce.htm 3/27/2003 • 0 PUBLIC INPUT CORRESPONDENCE 0 Petition 400-003-01 Planning Commission Public Hearing April 9,2003 POLLY SUSAN HART 355 N QUINCE STREET • SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103 801-355-7203 April 2,2003 Jeff Jonas, Chair Salt Lake City Planning Commission 451 S State St. Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Dear Mr. Jonas, I would ask that you and other members of the Planning Commission kindly consider the following sections of the Capitol Hill and Central Community Master Plans when making your recommendation regarding the Main Street Plaza at your April 9th meeting. As you know, the area in question directly abuts the Capitol Hill neighborhood which is highly desirable for its pedestrian access to downtown. Around the clock legal access through the Plaza is crucial for the continued walkability of our neighborhood.While the Plaza is not in the Capitol Hill Master Plan area, our document states that"this plan should be consulted in conjunction with other city-wide master plans and strategic plans as they relate to the Capitol Hill community" (CHMP p.2). Furthermore,the Central Community Master Plan which encompasses the Plaza(recommended September 2002)states that with regard to integration with the larger community, one of the six goals is to"increase mobility and transportation choices" by"promoting walkable development" resulting in "increased pedestran mobility and accessibility"(CCMP p 3). I have abreviated pertinent passages from the Capitol Hill Master Plan in this letter, but I also have included marked copies of both master plan pages so you can read the full text if desired. • The goals of the Capitol Hill Master Plan, which the City adopted following your recommendation November 9. 1999"provide for safe, convenient circulation patterns for vehicular and non-vehicular traffic movement" (p.3). The"pedestrian orientation" of the Kimball neighborhood directly north of the Plaza directs that"the eastern portion of the Kimball Neighborhood is very pedestrian friendly....Because of its proximity to Downtown, many residents are able to walk to work. increasing amenities in the area below the State Capitol Building...should be a priority. in addition, easements which allow public access through privately owned historic properties... should be retained'(p.11). "North Temple and the area surrounding it, is an important gateway into the central core of the City" (p.13). It is crucial to have as many options as possible to turn south into the business district from that gateway,whether on foot or in a vehicle. Because of the long blocks, closure of the Main Street Plaza would create a quarter-mile long impass into central downtown from this very important corridor. Finally, in addressing pedestrian circulation,the master plan states that"although the proximity of the Capitol Hill Community to the Central Business District lends itself well to walking... physical barriers and safety issues tend to discourage many people who might otherwise walk to Downtown" (p.61). Removing the access easement from the Plaza would create the ultimate physical barrier. Forcing pedestrians to walk three blocks around the church campus poses a legitimate safety issue late at night and will discourage able-bodied neighbors from walking while encouraging them to drive. As a Trustee of the Capitol Hill Community Council for six years, I can tell you that your decision will have a grave impact on our community. The city has struggled to get people to move back downtown from the suburbs, but you must remember that without a conveniently walkable city, not only will this fail to happen, but those of us who cherish living downtown will find it increasingly difficult to stay. YoursoVrely Polly S. Hartl 41111 Vice Chair, Capitol Hill Community Council • • ATTACHMENT 6 TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD • LETTER TO JEFF JONAS,CHAIR OF THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION& TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES • PEDESTRIAN IMPACT STUDY OF PART-TIME OR FULL-TIME CLOSURE OF THE MAIN STREET PLAZA TO THROUGH PEDESTRIANS • Petition 400-003-01 Planning Commission Public Hearing April 9,2003 0 LETTER TO JEFF JONAS, CHAIR OF THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION & TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES • Petition 400-003-01 Planning Commission Public Hearing April 9,2003 TIMOTHY P. HARPST, P.E. SALT- i _©` J Offi`f P'1� •",O"'�Ni ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR • DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION March 5, 2003 Mr. Jeff Jonas, Chairman Salt Lake City Planning Commission 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Mr. Jonas: This letter is written to inform you of the recent action by the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) regarding the Main Street Plaza. At the March 3, 2003 TAB meeting, David Nimkin gave the board a presentation on Mayor Anderson's proposal to extinguish the Main Street Plaza easement and create the Alliance for Unity Center and expand the Sorenson Campus. At the end of the Board's discussion of this issue, the board adopted a motion that Mayor Anderson's proposal to extinguish the easement on the Plaza and develop the Glendale plan was acceptable to the board; that the possible impact to the • transportation system if The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints did close the Plaza to public access would be minor; and strongly recommended that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints maintain public access for pedestrian and bicyclists across the Plaza. I have enclosed a draft copy of the minutes from the March 3, 2003 TAB meeting, which includes the motion approved by the board. The minutes will be acted upon at the April 7, 2003 TAB meeting. Sincerely, 140-Ms 46 - Kevin J. ung, P.E. Transportation Planning Engineer cc: Mayor Anderson Ed Rutan David Nimkin Alison Weyher Tim Harpst Louis Zunguze TAB Members file • 349 SOUTH 200 EAST, SUITE 450, SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 841 11 TELEPHONE:801-535-663D FAX: SD1-535-6019 Approved on: Chair III SALT LAKE CITY TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD Minutes of the March 3, 2003 Meeting Present from the Transportation Advisory Board were Roger Borgenicht, Debbie Medina, Suzanne Weaver, Mark Smedley, Mark Garfield, Joe Perrin, Nancy Fillat, Jeanetta Williams, and Tim Harpst. Also present were Kevin Young, Scott Vaterlaus, Dan Bergenthal, Rick Graham, Katherine Gardner, Josh Ewing, Ed Rutan, David Nimkin, Lois Brown, Eric Jergensen, Alan Sullivan, and Heather May. The meeting was called to order at 4:05 p.m. by Vice Chairperson Joe Perrin. David Nimkin, Mayor Anderson's Chief of Staff, gave the board a presentation on Mayor Anderson's proposed solution to the Main Street Plaza dispute. A handout, titled "A Turning Point for Peace", was handed out. Using a power point presentation, David went over the information contained in the handout. The problem with the Main Street Plaza issue is that there are constitutionally incompatible terms and community • costs, resulting in community divisiveness, financial costs of litigation, distraction from other important issues, and a need for a compromise or the dispute could go on for years. David said that the Mayor's first proposal was to define the easement and impose time, place, and manner restrictions, but that proposal has turned out to be unacceptable to many. The current solution the Mayor is proposing has two parts. Part one deals with the easement on the Plaza. With part one, the easement would be extinguished and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints would have all of the rights over the property that any owner of private property has. The reverter clause in the original Special Warranty Deed agreement would be dropped from the agreement. The City and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints would split the legal fees and costs incurred by the plaintiffs. There would be no agreement between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and the City regarding restrictions on the Plaza. Part two of Mayor Anderson's proposal deals with the creation of the Alliance for Unity Center and the expansion of the Sorenson Campus. Land received from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints would be used to create a community center. The Alliance for Unity has committed to raise $5 million to create the new center and aid in the expansion of the Sorenson Center. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day N}\ OCUMENTS\MAIN STREET PLAZA\TAB MINUTES 3-3-03.DOC III Ill Saints has agreed to participate financially. Others have pledged to provide financial or land contributions. The Glendale area was chosen because expansion of existing programs have been contemplated for several years and current programs at the Sorenson Center are at capacity. The need for early-childhood programs, after school programs, business consulting, legal assistance, and health care in this area of the city have been identified. David Nimkin explained the public process and said that public meetings to solicit citizen input will be held through March 2003. On April 9, 2003 the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing regarding the extinguishment of the Plaza easement. In either April or May 2003 the City Council will hold public hearings and vote regarding extinguishment of the Plaza easement. City Attorney Ed Rutan explained some of the possible litigation that could occur in the future and what the impacts could be. If there were to be a successful legal challenge of the extinguishment of the easement, it could unwind the deal. David concluded by stating that the proposal brings peace while creating a valuable community center. City Traffic Engineer Scott Vaterlaus gave a presentation on the Pedestrian Impact study, that was done by the City's Transportation Division, in regards to the Plaza issue and summarized the results of that study. Manual counts were taken over a three day period between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. of pedestrians and cyclists traveling from one end of the Plaza to the other end. There was an average of 335 pedestrians traveling southbound and 209 pedestrians traveling northbound throughout the study period. An average of 12 bicyclists traveled through the Plaza block each day, with all • but two riding their bikes rather than walking them through the Plaza. If the easement were to be extinguished and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints were to close the Plaza to public access, the impact in extra distance pedestrians and bicyclists would have to travel would be no more than two block faces. Because transit users could choose to use another stop location, the impact in additional distance transit riders would have to walk would be no more than1/2 block face. Scott reiterated that there are many more people who use the Plaza, but the purpose of the study was to only count those who travel the entire length of the Plaza corridor. Roger Borgenicht asked about the value of the land with or without the public easement. David Nimkin said an appraisal is being done, but has not yet been completed. Alan Sullivan said that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints paid $8.1 million, which was for the appraised value of the land without an easement. Mark Smedley said the easement is an important element for the Plaza and that the public expected they would have access through the block. Josh Ewing said the existing condition is incompatible. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints doesn't get what it expected and the public doesn't get what they expected. Ed Rutan said that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has indicated no intention of closing the Plaza to public access, but could change their mind. Alan Sullivan said that while there can be no legal guarantee of public access, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has no intention to close the Plaza to public access. Roger asked Council Member Eric Jergensen if he thought Mayor Anderson's proposal was feasible. IIIN 2OCUMENTS\MAIN STREET PLAZA\TAB MINUTES 3-3-03.DOC Eric first said that he was speaking for himself and not for the City Council. Eric said that when he was on the Transportation Advisory Board and discussed the closure of 1111 Main Street and the creation of the Plaza not once during the discussion did the issue of first amendment rights come up. The goal was to create a public space. If The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints were to close the Plaza to public access, only those who live between West Temple and State Street and between North Temple and 300 North would be affected by the extra walking distance. Eric strongly recommends that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints keep the Plaza open to public access. Motion: Mark Garfield moved that Mayor Anderson's proposal to extinguish the easement on the Plaza and develop the Glendale plan was acceptable to the board; that the possible impact to the transportation system if The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints did close the Plaza to public access would be minor; and strongly recommended that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints maintain public access for pedestrians and bicyclists across the Plaza. Suzanne Weaver seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mark Smedley voting against and Nancy Fillat abstaining. Joe Perrin asked for approval of the minutes of the February 3, 2003 meeting. Roger Borgenicht said that on page 2 of the minutes, the question he had asked regarding the 300 South center of the street parking needed to be clarified. This change was noted and made to the minutes. • Motion: Suzanne Weaver moved to approve the minutes of the February 3, 2003 meeting as amended. Mark Smedley seconded the motion. The motion passed . unanimously. Due to a mix up in schedules, the board did not hear an update from UTA on the Medical Center light rail extension project. It was decided to reschedule this update for the April meeting. The board discussed future meeting agenda items. Tim Harpst said that on the cover sheet of the packet was a compilation of items the board or staff has recommended as possible agenda items for future meetings. This list will be kept current and be listed each month. Other items board members suggested included commuter rail, Grant Tower realignment, downtown transit and parking meter token validation program, State Capitol renovation and impact to traffic, and the PRATT coalition regarding 1300 East crossing and the Shoreline Trail to Jordan River Trail connection. These items will be added to the list and scheduled for board meetings based on project schedules. Motion: Mark Smedley moved that the board write a letter to the Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC), UDOT, and the consultant working on the SR-201 project N 2OCUMENTS\MAIN STREET PLAZA\TAB MINUTES 3-3-03.DOC • recommending they plan for bicycle facilities as part of the SR-201 reconstruction 111 project, including 2700 West, if this street is opened to north/south traffic under/over SR-201. Mark Garfield seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The board discussed agenda items for the next meeting, which will be held on Monday, April 7, 2003. It was decided to have a presentation by the new WFRC Director, an update of the WFRC 2030 plan, an update of the last Legislative session, and an update on the Medical Center light rail extension project. Under other business, Tim Harpst passed out a copy of a letter Jess Agraz had sent to Mayor Anderson on behalf of the Transportation Management Association of Utah (TMA/UT) regarding proposed CBD Financial Assistance Grants. In the letter, the (TMA/UT) suggests that the City explore opportunities for promoting and facilitating the use of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies by those businesses who receive these grants. Motion: Roger Borgenicht moved that the board support the ideas and suggestions as outlined in the TMA/UT letter. Debbie Medina seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mark Smedley informed the board that the Airport is proposing to close the bike route on the south side of the airport property and is recommending that the path not be • replaced. Tim Harpst said this was the first he had heard of this and would have staff research it. With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:11 PM. • DOCUMENTS\MAIN STREET PLAZA\TAB MINUTES 3-3-03.DOC • • PEDESTRIAN IMPACT STUDY OF PART-TIME OR FULL-TIME CLOSURE OF THE MAIN STREET PLAZA TO THROUGH PEDESTRIANS • Petition 400-003-01 Planning Commission Public Hearing April 9,2003 • f ,,,,_ ,.. „.„; -� Central Communit ,,,e, c.,,.,ii,,..ii 6. t ..., Master q „......t.:...::::...„,...„:„.„:„:„.... „,......._.....__.,,.. .: `k ki r.,,,r.., s 5 6= »Lt f3 nur+tNrh aT tt.4- E1' ',i Ot1M AM+iA r b 1;fl ' t.-tt.. L t' , ! t. f ...... —y, U6LCH 09SE fC S . g •mot .�-r fix + i is F... • t E$ 1 s 7e l • . t = f a' • • t ta f ji =. • r W YT J .£ ' - 1 is ,�a44,Nit: .1,.:'_...,,.------,-L.--4--EC'S.';i:7-12-:": 7':..1-4t-4-. ..-17:-c•-•::::-;..::". .....r.ci'. ..,1:;-t. 4.1.-:-..f-.:-.--:::"" ..4?*- '--. i .Dice^ 1 ...# i=� .y t�'4- c. EG t f t; : �:1:. .,,y ,4-Ii . -- : i� s r.t - ,•• � _ - .:. . : �ri �""� °€�.•,._` 0 regional planning policy that relates to the Central Community_ The State of Utah has adopted a quality growth strategy of establishing a regional vision as a resource to local community planing efforts. • Envision Utah identified six goals that need to be addressed to protect the environment and maintain economic vitality and the quality of life along the Wasatch Front from anticipated regional growth: l)Enhance air quality, 2)Increase mobility and transportation choices,3) Preserve critical lands,4) Conserve water resources, 5)1 r vide housing opportunities for a range of family and income types; and 6)Provide efficient public and infrastructure investments. Strategies to support these goals include: 1)Promoting walkable development,2)Developing a region-wide transit system,3)Fostering transit-oriented development,4)Developing a network of bikeways and trails for recreation and commuting,5) Supporting mixed-use, mixed-income, walkable neighborhoods,and 6)Preserving open lands and restructuring water bills to encourage conservation. Salt Lake City has also initiated citywide vision statements that contribute to regional planning efforts_The City adopted The City Vision and Strategic Plan for Salt Lake City,(1993).The Final Report of the Salt Lake City Futures Commission, Creating Tomorrow Together,(1998)provides vision statements and recommendations for arts and culture,the built environment,economics, the natural environment,neighborhoods and the social environment.These are referenced guidelines of principles and policies in managing Salt Lake City's growth. The Central Community Master Plan provides local guidelines and direction that assist in managing regional growth impacts by committing to consistent goals,policies and implementation strategies at the community level. The Central Community Master Plan also supports detailed specific plan areas and smaller master plans that are applicable to the community. A Vision for the Central Community Future of the •The intent of this Master Plan is to create a future for the Central Community based on four fundamental goals: • Livable communities and neighborhoods • Vital and sustainable commerce • Unique and active places • Increased pedestrian mobility and accessibility. Future Iand use designations will assist the development and improvement of quality neighborhoods in response to typical city pressures.Designated land use development patterns of the master plan aid in the management of growth,particularly with respect to broader metropolitan sprawl issues.The Future Land Use map,supported through zoning regulations,serves as a guide towards creating a more livable community.A balanced approach towards vehicle and pedestrian mobility,land use,urban design,and regional planning policies will influence the future livability of the community. Livable communities and neighborhoods The plan's vision for livable communities is described by the following criteria: Central Community Master Plan Page 3 II Planning Commission Recommendation September 2002 • CAPITOL HILL . ._ . . . .• . ..... . . . ... ;1;••.,,,,.....,..,.,..,,:„..._,..,.,,....2.,..„,... , . ::::....-..fr--.t•--. _ • -..- . • 4,'.. :,a-•• -a:. ' •t•z.:*"•;-.-..-•,.-a •-- .;- --',::..•••1,;.C.7.1`.-77:7'••••• •11•,• :-.:•• •• • ' --- • . - - •• .•-%:, •.• •-'....''''.•:-.•'-• ••.'• "-•' _:: • .• • ....,-•••-4 V."__••••'• •c:-...' -- .' • - • •.*: -; - • - ---..,- 4'" '''","."'. : •- -- •...:S'',,••• 4,a-• %•"_.,;.45.•7.4.: .. s • • - . .... .......-,..• •.-..r'.•••:. i!..,.. 3 r•.• tVA .' .......!.. . ..1:.'t is.p g ''. ' 1:-i '•-, i . - - -_•••.:7_:"::'....--.: a-.""r:,,:i.........,.., :.",..4••a fi,`.".1.:,i.:,. --,f•,,......,....T, ,s'.ato.‘el; t,,...';.:::-' .. _. :'. -,:;,-;:.•,.-:-:;-..1"!I 4 -.:-..-•..: -. ...--•-',..:...•1....•:.:;=-'•;:.:•:•!•:,4t27•:-_,*4.::4.: ,:-:•••••:-.•-.i..:•:4•:.•-•-'::. :' .or,..c.,44...:-.• -a• ...-:.- _'-...---•-•.-.7.'_.••••;••••:•"-, ,. •.., -........ -- ..--',- ::-.77, •::••;*•",.;-, '--•--'•-.77:.". .:-.'• -- p..c..-,.!Y"...Z.,.z•--..--.„ ..':--....-....7---• ....v" • ,..- f•-•--:'•• -...• ....: .:;i —.•-:.N..-*.-'.:,-;,.--';• ..% -ic.t.e.:,•fi; • ,. -'v."•:":',"..T.... '....as .....:-.24az;c4, ''' ',gik•r7i.". ,;f:af." •"•47 ':'... 1: . . .,-- -:a'...--•' ••••••••'....:-...0-n..-.'- Ns,..ita:. ...• :' -"s51.4.,;a.....1:+r, . • 4 147 ."' ••••0.. ....,7. ...5,:a....,.. 1,11 a"":"•:.•., 4 s,''4..% -.'. .. :* :7...7::...;:=71..1;N, = _ . - .';4.7"......!..-`A::.S. :•••••'..."l•--:t t.."'.:-°.:.::..7t!.-!;•PS: V s:•••tif:r7...,•.w,-1 7-. .7..-..:.'•.. 4,t ••••• , ,..,. •-:. .-- --...•4..--Y!il,.•„......P4.: .7...,,,.;,T.;...3,.:., ., --.. - -.. .. ..1.-:--.!....o.....:-..:‘,... -::: .P.. ...7- ...-.r-----3 r :y. .47%,,,•.;.--;i71 ,*t.z.••z4 •'-1,1,7:y.1 i.:: : ..' ' z -. '-'-`7. •`. ,. - - : ::- :A-- •-* • Ace' 1.- :7 ;•••• •='-: „..•••"--1...i-;- 4\jf 410r i-1-- ----7"...... : 0:;;;.- -=:*•••"=-'-.-fr 1_',f., ! :'....''''-.7"-_ r , 1, .....„....it„., .:.:...„71,.......u... .:..,.. ,:.;_.. ...,-,....eY:.• "."- ..• . ,A.:R=•-•„--„.v..„.•••„%-.11-17--- =--.r • .., ,A... _ • „: .]:,...... i .. . 3,-.7,•::•,,,3,;.-.2t-;=L----sx,..17-. -::'.---, • •-- - ozier • - ' f..z.--: •-, ir • ,`" .713-.--'".-`"--- '!S-:,;:-a._. - ''" - - "' ' '''t*'` ' ' 0.°. r't1,1.a';'-1e.-ki-17-:',•'---- 4 --Ai. tii.ei.asecalw,A7* - • _.—eiP al ••• .r, - - •47:324'-i-a-4,4 4•_•;•%•. ar' ..., -..... 'o•as . ,.-1---_---4.-....e.ta•-, ••••• x,- •••• .37. - • - is • ,a .- ... .,........ ,,A•F•aa -, •- - • - - ... • :-• ,;•'' - -,...,.....a2,70": , .,r .1•:%,,_r_ii-:-.: ..-3 _ ..:.7....fr. - .,- -1/4. .i.. . _ .."r.,24.'"1" .. ... .:;‘,1"14F-: • .•.• •-.3• --,f,pattiiiiiivie.- - - '''•V.:a7..4 ." * xi •' • • :....z. 0 .. •a . I ':; .'. . . . f : :. ,.f......., ;,."`Tr....----- • ; _ i.4,..• ' s.:4.---•• i 4,...1„ ..,,,„..-fly. . . •-.1, F.-2,-...--:. . '....:1`....1 ., r.e...--z, 4-....:.f.,sl —. g,..c•;, ....,5.•:, .7.•.f;,:or -•-•:; !!' • ...I- 4 a' Pl.-- • ,4"..v. ,... . li '.. . • ! t .0L--'*.i*- m.,:-.t----v-r-- , .., _ .011; . ''''' • 404...1 l• -- 17 f - • ...1`.'-'- a• .. 1 • ... R - ;lt P i ...,..-- fs •_ Z. , - ,a i • , - • - •- , -,., Marmalade Hill Center rir-(t cAPrroL MLI.: KAI,/fl.,7 HORTFINEST 0.1,11A NI I OVERVIEW The Capitol Hill Community is one of Salt Lake City's eight IIP planning areas. It is generally bounded by tthaeCie5ntoranl Businessthewest; r • District (North Temple) on the smith; Interste the north City limits on the north; and City Creek Canyon on the east. S 111-u-E.--F4' • • Adopted November 9,1999 - . - - The Capitol Hill Community has the greatest/and use diversity of all of the communities in the City,including the least intensive residential developments in the foothills,the highest intensity industrial uses in the northwestern • portion of the Community and the uses located along the northern edge of Downtown. The Community is home to two regional activity centers including the State Capitol and the world-wide headquarters of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints(LDS Church). The Community includes one of the oldest residential communities in Salt lake City with existing structures dating to when the Mormon Pioneers first entered the valley. The residential neighborhoods include distinct settlements,the character of which is dictated by their location and the topography of the land. The original development of this area consisted primarily of single family homes with smaller rental units consisting mainly of duplexes,triplexes and fourplexes. The Capitol Hill Community is divided into seven(7)distinguishable residential neighborhoods. These include DeSoto/Cortez, Ensign Downs, Guadalupe, Kimball, Marmalade, Swedetown, and West Capitol Hill. A neighborhood plan of the West Capitol Hill area was adopted by the Salt Lake City Council in July 1996 and is included within this plan. PURPOSE This is an updated community master plan which replaces the 1981 Capitol Hill Community Master Plan and is the land use policy document for the Capitol Hill Community. However,the 1981 plan will be retained as a valuable supplemental resource of additional information relating to the community.Land Use,Historic Preservation,Urban i Design,Transportation and Circulation,Environment and Public Facilities are all elements of planning reevaluated ( with regard to established formulated goals and policies. This plan should be consulted in conjunction with other city-wide master plans and strategic plans as they relate to the Capitol Hill Community. A Capital Improvement ? l Program section is also included in this plan as an impetus to implement portions of the plan. GOALS OF THE PLAN This Plan directs future development and identifies programs to implement the Plan's recommendations. The • Community Plan serves as a decision-making tool for the Salt Lake City Council,the Salt Lake City Planning Commission,private sector developers and citizens. The Overall Goal of the Capitol Bill Community is to ensure safe,convenient and desirable residential neighborhoods that preserve quality of life by applying the following goals and objectives: • Encourage appropriate braising opportunities in the community in appropriate locations through renovation of existing structures and compatible infill development and redevelopment. • Provide for commercial establishments which minimize the impacts of non-residential land uses on the residential community. • Encourage neighborhood commercial services. • Provide for appropriate industrial uses which are clean, quiet and attractively developed, buffered from surrounding residential areas. • Provide for institutional development that is compatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods. • Provide for and encourage parks and recreation areas in various forms and locations to enhance residential neighborhoods and the surrounding community. • Provide for the preservation and protection of the historically and architecturally important districts and resources as well as the quality of life inherent in historic areas. Ensure new construction is compatible with the • historic district within which it is located. • Enhance the visual and aesthetic qualities of the community by implementing historic preservation principles, designing public facilities to entrance the established residential character of the Capitol Hill Community and encouraging private property improvements that are visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. • Adopted November 9,1999 2 • GA FiJ� • Provide for safe, convenient circulation patterns for vehicular and non-vehicular traffic movement, while discouraging commuter and commercial traffic on residential streets and restricting industrial traffic to appropriate routes. • Ensure adequate community parking while mitigating adverse effects of parking that comes from outside the community. • Encourage environmental protection and clean up. • Identify the community's unique natural amenities, resources and settings and designate natural areas to be preserved and improved as appropriate. • Provide well-maintained public utilities, buildings and facilities which are visually compatible with the surrounding area;ensure adequate services that are environmentally safe. FUTURE ENVISIONED The Capitol Hill Community is envisioned to continue as a place of diverse activities. • As the north entrance to the City and Downtown, the community will provide opportunities for clean and attractive business and industry along the Beck Street Gateway with commercial development which will service primarily the diverse residential population as well as commuters. • The community will strive to protect and enhance the residential neighborhoods,each with its unique character, as stable and attractive residential and historic neighborhoods which attract diverse populations. • Institutional uses within Capitol Hill will be made more compatible with the residential neighborhoods of the community. • In the Capitol Hill Community, design will be used to carefully reinforce the special identity, human scale and character of the area. Emphasis is placed on providing a human scale and the preservation of structures and places of historic and architectural significance. Steps are taken to ensure new development is compatible with the existing built environment and natural environment_ • • The Capitol Hill Community will have a wide variety of recreational and open space opportunities for both the residents of Capitol Hill and other citizens and tourists. These recreational opportunities are designed to enhance,not disrupt, the community_ • Transportation needs will be balanced with quality of life. Although major transportation corridors bisect the community, they provide important commuter routes to various destinations within the City. Continued improvement and urban design will ensure a safe environment and amenities to the residents adjacent to these transportation corridors. PLANNING PROCESS Updating the Capitol Hill Community Research Report was the first step in the planning process. The Capitol Hill Community Research Report provides basic information from which the Capitol Hill Community can be analyzed. The document will also be used in evaluating the implementation of the master plan. The second step in the planning process was to solicit and receive comments from individual citizens, property owners and business owners who have interests and concerns about the Capitol Hill Community. A management committee was formed to develop and oversee the process of creating this master plan. An advisory committee, made up of representatives from each of the 7 neighborhoods,was formed to represent the community, advise the Planning Staff on issues and review the master plan. This community participation process provided essential public input to the planning process. In addition, several meetings were held in the community to gather information on issues affecting the citizens of the community. The comments collected from community participation were evaluated and the relevant issues were addressed in this plan. The third part of the planning process is the development of the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan. This plan directs future development and identifies programs to implement plan recommendations. • 3 Adopted November 9,1999 Kimball Overview _= • 1 The Kimball Neighborhood is located north of the Central Bu . Street between South Temple and 300 North. This is mainly a r • and high-density residential developments. This neighborhood - - -__ Building was constructed in 1915. The historic developmen - neighborhood. i• This area is a pedestrian oriented neighborhood —— � ' !` characterized by streets lined with mature trees,uniform . ' blocks with alleys, and a mixture of residential housing .- -_-- _i' 'i.• types including single family structures, historic — — mansions including the McCune and Woodruff-Riter- {f Stewart Mansions, duplexes and multi-family dwellings _ including the Kensington Apartments_ The western __ ! i % t `,',_�':�t aTht 't'rTOt1: j portion of the neighborhood includes mostly modern — . :ice;—`s'•t`„ ., Butiflea •J' medium/high and high-density multi-family residential t' —3 uses including Zion Summit Condominiums and - r '=' �. `c! j 1. i.. -: property located within the LDS Church campus. Most - t`._ ._.. a of the residential properties in the Kimball :1.. li ,,. :_11- - r}`;; ; l ;Neighborhood are located within the Capitol Hill •-r-- ilHistoric District_ �� s _ _4w I { ie 7 --- e: * :� ISCIV RE - Ill __i wrr�r— r i a T 1 ia = , • • i ,,'-.....".:!':•,- � dictated by the desirability of the proximity to the `t r Central Business District (CBD). Most of the low to f'� t' ? 1i7 f 9' .` 'l:t; '� Iv. medium density residential land uses exist on the .., �'_� Ati ' _ s blocks directly south of the State Capitol Building 6-'.'T.'4 r x `` --rpm- - and exist in historic structures_ The higher density Ltr v nt- -,cc , . = i• - _ residential uses are mostly modern structures located . ` ..: ;_ on the block between West Temple and Main Street and 200 and 300 North. Woodruff-Riter-Stewart Mansion Planning Issues ' Pedestrian Orientation. The eastern portion of the Kimball Neighborhood is very pedestrian friendly and its proximity to the State Capitol and Travel Council along with its historic character, attracts many visitors. In addition, because of its proximity to Downtown, many residents are able to walk to wor