Minutes of the Granite Community Council

Minutes of the Granite Community Council

Minutes of the Granite Community Council

Date: / March 4, 2015
Location: / Metropolitan Water District Offices Conference Room
3430 East Danish Road

Council Members in Attendance:: Jeff Summerhays (District 1 & 2); Michael Braun (Alternate/non-voting, District 1 & 2); Terry Wood, Vice Chair (Districts 1 & 2); Mary Young, Chair (District 3); Ryan Houmand (District 3); Drew Weaver, Treasurer (District 4); Bryce John (District 4); Katie Clayton (Alternate/non-voting, District 4); CatherineKanter, (Alternate, District 5); Don Halverson (District 5); Susie Albertson (District 6); and Bill Clayton (District 6).

Council Members Absent: JoshKanter (Alternate, District 5) and Kelli Kammerer (Alternate, District 6).

Guests Present:

Tod Young and Ron Vance, SLCo Planning Commission

Rita Lund and Patrick Reimherr, Salt Lake County

Brooks Green, Unified Police Department (UPD)

Jen Clancy, Friends of Alta

Noel T. Ballstaedt and Scott Howell, Garbett Homes

Residents: J. Blake Taylor, Joseph Petit, Monte Yedlin, Craig Osterloh, Steve Schaefer, Susan & Doug Vogeler, Gary & Denece Anderson, Susan Wood, Shawn Frye, Mike & Susan Marker, Craig Zimmerman, Ronnie & Lisa Romero, Amy Farnsworth, Sarah Farnsworth, Bret Clayton, Stan Sieverts, Josh Linker, Paul Hansen, Darryl Neider, and Farah Crawford, Giles Florence, Darly Lighter.

Agenda:

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 7:04 pm by Council Chair Mary Young, who welcomed guests and invited them to join in the pledge of allegiance.

Terry Wood moved for approval of minutes from the last meeting of February 4, 2015. The minutes were approved and will be posted on the Council website,

Mary introduced the Mountain Accord discussion andencouraged everyone to keep an open mind and do their own research on canyon transportation issues, particularly regarding assumptions that we naturally make about impacts of changes. She introduced Laynee Jones, Mountain Accord Program Manager:

Laynee explained that people are welcome to comment on the Mountain Accord website( ). Mountain Accord got started a year ago to address future population increase along Wasatch Front and in the Park City and Heber areas. The area of focus for Mountain Accord is the mountains between Parley’s Canyon and Little Cottonwood Canyon. This area is key to future economic sustainability in northern Utah because of the mountain amenities that attract many people to live and work here. 50,000 people access the Mountain Accord core area on a peak winter day. We may expect 7.5 million annual visitors by 2040.

There has been a long history of conflict about the use of the canyons. Issues have typically been resolved via newspaper headlines and lawsuits. The purpose of Mountain Accord is to try a different approach to planning the future of canyon use and access.

The challenges that we face are:public/private land conflicts, watershed threats, canyon crowding, environmental pressures, and economic sustainability.

The tools that the Mountain Accord planners have used include:transportation, land designations, and land adjustments.

Mountain Accord was initiated by many entities coming together. These entities signed an inter-local agreement for funding in the fall of 2013. Funding has also been provided by the legislature and by local municipalities. A charter was signed by all entities involved. The effort was launched in early 2014.

The decision-making process was modeled after Mike Leavitt’s book (Finding Allies Building Alliances).

The plans won’t move forward until consensus among the members of the Mountain Accord group has been achieved.Mountain Accord is not an organization. No formal procedure was established for deciding which groups would be invited to join. Groups were invited to join on an informal basis.

The four main objectives of Mountain Accord:

1 - Prevent new development in the canyons other than at the base of the ski resorts. Land trades, etc. can be used to achieve this.

2 –Establish a regional trail network.

3 - Focus growth in several economic centers identified by Envision Utah. These areas are located in the valleys of the Wasatch Front and in Heber Valley and the Park City area. Higher density in these economic centers can reduce the growth of sprawl.

4 - Mass transit into the Mountain Accord core area that is tied into the current transit network in the valleys. Bus and rail and possible aerial options have been considered for mass transit.

Mountain Accord plans to adopt a blueprint this year, possibly followed by a two-year environmental impact statement (EIS).

Susie Albertson asked whether any groups or individuals received compensation for participating in the process. Laynee responded that they’ve not. Susie would like to extend the comment period to the fall. Laynee says that comments will be accepted through the summer.

The Mountain Accord executive board has no authority to do anything. Individual agencies have authority within their jurisdictions. The executive board can, however, develop a blueprint.

Michael Braun asked about the green hexagons on the Mountain Accord map. Laynee responded that these are areas where land trades have been proposed by a task force that includes USFS, ski resorts, Save Our Canyons, Ben McAdams, Ralph Becker, and others. About 2,000 acres of private property have been offered by the resorts in exchange for more land at the base of the resorts. Salt Lake City would provide water for 100 new residential units at the base of Alta.

Michael Braun pointed out that the USFS has exclusive authority to make decisions on its own land. Any transit solutions beyond the footprint of the Big and Little Cottonwood Roads would need to be approved by USFS according to Laynee. Focus for transit solutions would be on Little Cottonwood, which sustains more traffic than Big Cottonwood.

Don Halverson asked about including American Fork Canyon, etc. in the Mountain Accord core area. Laynee said that the boundary for the core area was drawn because they did not want to bite off more than they could chew.

Mountain Accord is considering the possibility of lift access from Midway to the top of Little Cottonwood Canyon.

Mary asked about bus vs. rail up Little Cottonwood—mightn’t bus rapid transit be used as an interim measure? Laynee said that a bus option without extra lanes on the highway is the cheapest possibility. Another option is to widen the road to create a bus lane or longer stretches of passing lanes. No additional lanes are being recommended in Big Cottonwood. Another option is rail either on the road or on a separate right of way.

One goal of any transit plan will be to reduce the avalanche index rating on the canyon highway. Avalanche sheds at select locations could reduce the index. Keeping traffic moving reduces the index. Mass transit can reduce the index.

Bryce John asked why the avalanche index is important. Layne advised that it’s to maximize safety.

Public comments:

Doug Vogeler: Encouraged everyone to read the Mountain Accord documents. Asked whether Mountain Accord had already concluded that light rail is the best option.

Laynee: Bus options and rail options are both being proposed. No decision has been made yet with regard to rail. It is not yet known what the most environmentally responsible way is to provide mass transit.

Mary Young asked whether putting a rail line through a canyon would necessarily ruin that canyon.

Laynee: Unknown. However, a single-track light rail system could use a footprint as narrow as 14 feet.

Bret Clayton: Has the public comment period been extended? The purpose of an environmental impact study is to get a permit. How do you do an EIS without first knowing what the tradeoffs and costs are?

Laynee: For transportation proposals, an EIS can be conducted to determine what problems need to be solved, establish what the alternative solutions are, and what the tradeoffs are for each alternative solution. The purpose of the proposed Mountain Accord EIS is to answer questions rather than to get a permit. The EIS itself will serve as the decision-making process for transportation items on the Mountain Accord list.

Laynee will propose at the next executive board meeting that the public comment period be extended through the summer. If they go forward with the EIS, they will study all three transportation options in Little Cottonwood. No decision will be made about rail during the EIS. The EIS will be conducted simply to study the three proposed options.

Craig Osterloh: Has Mountain Accord discussed the carrying capacity of the canyon?

Laynee: The carrying capacity of the canyon not been quantified. USFS has no way to quantify it. This matter will be looked into during the EIS.

Bryce John: What about the possibility of making no changes in Little Cottonwood Canyon?

Laynee: This is an option that will be considered.

Farah Crawford: Who gets to make the final decision on transit in Little Cottonwood?

Laynee: During the EIS, it will be determined which federal agencies need to give approval for any transit projects in Little Cottonwood Canyon.

Farah: Why do we suddenly need avalanche sheds?

Laynee: The avalanche issue has been studied for a long time. No solutions have been implemented because they are hard decisions.

Farah: Given the low rate of avalanche-caused injuries along the highway under the status quo, it’s questionable why we suddenly need to spend lots of money on avalanche sheds.

Farah: Who is funding trips to the Alps being taken by people affiliated with Mountain Accord?

Laynee: Public money has been used for one trip to the Alps for four people.

Farah: Other trips have been made. Who has funded those?

Laynee: Doesn’t know who funded these trips.

Giles Florence: Suggests using I-80 as the main corridor and then putting some sort of transit over the ridge from the Canyons/Park City area to the Cottonwood Canyons.

Laynee: Going that route would be too long a trip for people from the valley. No rail is being proposed for Parley’s Canyon.

Giles: It would be just as fast to take a train to Park City and then over the mountain as opposed to a car up Little Cottonwood. Why choose the LCC corridor for rail?

Laynee: Results of a preliminary study show that rail travel up I-80 would take longer than car travel.

Joe Pettit: Millcreek Canyon used to have unrestricted public access. The canyon was used extensively. Vegetation around the creek and road became trampled. In the 1980’s, the USFS began to charge money to use the canyon. This reduced use dramatically and the canyon has improved greatly since then. How is shoving more people per year into Little Cottonwood going to help preserve the land? We cannot compare our area with Switzerland. Zermatt is like Park City rather than Alta. Switzerland’s solutions might not be Utah’s best solutions. There needs to be a clear assessment of how much visitation the canyons are capable of supporting.

Laynee: There are lots of mountain rail systems in Switzerland that serve small mountain communities. Pricing strategies are being discussed as another option to limit the use of the canyons and/or to limit parking in the canyons and encourage the use of public transit. Another concept under consideration is to designate high, medium, and low-use areas similar to the national parks. The vast majority of visitors to Grand Canyon, for example, set foot on only a tiny percentage of the park’s area, such as the South Rim Village. Other areas or the park, such as the Main Corridor trail, get moderate use, while much of the park gets very little human traffic.

Paul Hansen: Mountain Accord’s proposals appear to be designed to attract more visitors, which is undesirable. Residents’ interests should be given priority. Has anyone given thought to encouraging carpooling in the canyons? Perhaps tolls could be established for non-carpool cars. Mountain Accord should consider various alternatives that enable us to use the existing roads more efficiently. Also, it’s hard to find the details of Mountain Accord’s proposals, which are broad.

Laynee: Incentives such as paid parking are being discussed. If the resorts collaborate with each other, this could help. Zimride[1] is also being considered to encourage carpooling.

Bill Clayton: Has Mountain Accord discussed whether any of its transportation proposals will require the taking of private property via eminent domain?

Laynee: Any eminent domain issues are way down the road and can’t really be addressed until after the EIS has been completed.

Darly Lighter: UTA said that any railroad up the canyon will have to be heavy rail. What is Mountain Accord’s vision for the recreation and activity centers shown on the Mountain Accord map?

Laynee: Cog light rail is being considered. The idea of the recreation and activity centers is to concentrate a large percentage of recreational use in relatively small areas. The base area of Snowbird has 2,000 additional rooms already approved under the status quo. As part of Mountain Accord, proposals have been made that would authorize an additional 100 hotel units plus an additional 8 retail units at the base of Alta.

Tom Frye: Will there be more opportunity for public comment during the EIS? If someone comes up with a new idea during the EIS, is it required that this new idea be adopted?

Laynee: Yes to public comment question. No to the second question.

Craig Osterloh: Allegations have been made there is discord within the Mountain Accord group. Some members have allegedly been threatened by Snowbird that a train must be installed or Snowbird will do a lot more development. How can we be assured that the ski resorts are not driving the Mountain Accord process for their own economic interests?

Laynee: Snowbird has already offered to trade key parcels of land that would be placed off the table for future developments, thereby hemming in the resorts. Water limitations already limit future development. So Snowbird cannot use the threat of over-development as a bargaining chip. However, Snowbird is offering to trade additional land if Mountain Accord produces transportation solutions that are better than the status quo. Early in the negotiations, Snowbird was demanding a rail system up Little Cottonwood, but has since backed down from this demand.

Josh Linker: Are there any proposals to use large parcels at the mouth of the canyon as park and ride facilities, such as the Tree Farm area?

Laynee: There are no specific proposals at the moment.

Craig Zimmerman: What is the impact of the public commentary in the Mountain Accord process? It seems as if public comment does not carry much weight.

Laynee: I’m here listening to you right now, so Mountain Accord very much wants public comment and is trying to give the public a voice in the process. Given that lots of conflicting suggestions are coming from members of the public, the effectiveness of any one person’s comment can get diluted. It is difficult to get the entire public to come to a consensus on everything, so compromises have to be made.

Residents interested in further discussion of Mountain Accord then took their discussion to the lobby of the building to continue questioning Laynee.

Update on Garbett Homes development on old Jeffs property:

Scott Howell noted thatelected officials can be influential in the Mountain Accord process. Congressmen and U.S. Senators have influence, so citizens should establish a good relationship with their congressional delegation. He is here to get comments on the Treseder development. He showed the original designs compared with the new designs of the various models. A few minor changes have been made to the elevations. Two homes will have balconies on the side. These changes were made in response to comments from neighbors. Neighbors in the area around Treseder formed an ad hoc committee which worked directly withGarbett Homes, who responded to the committee by doing modifications. There will be seven exterior colors. Garbett would like the GCC to ratify these changes that the neighborhood committee has asked for.

Mary noted that if the neighborhood committee is happy, GCC is happy as per our original resolution last year.Scott asked for the Council to vote for ratification, whereupon Terry Wood moved that the Council approve the new design. This was seconded by Drew and approved.

Scott noted thatGarbett hopes to have a model for the Parade of Homes.

Community Preservation bill update:

Patrick Reimherr, Govt. Relations Director for Mayor McAdams, was standing in for Patrick Leary. SB199 is the Community Preservation Bill,which haspassed committee and will be heard on the Senate floor this week. If it passes in its current form, street-by-street annexation petitions in the areas of the proposed metro townships would be halted after May 12th[2]. HB351 is the Mountain Planning Bill. Planning and zoning in our mountains is currently done by the County Planning Commission, members of which live in non-township unincorporated areas of Salt Lake County. If the community preservation billpasses, we’ll have up to six new metro townships. These will be municipal entities. The population of the non-township areas of unincorporated county will get a lot smaller and the pool of people eligible to be on the current Planning Commission would shrink. HB351 acknowledges the canyons and mountains as a regional resource and would seek to preserve the status quo by creating a mountain planning commission, members of which could be drawn from anywhere in Salt Lake County[Comment from Bill C: This statement seems inconsistent, as HB351 would not preserve the status quo because people from existing municipalities such as Sandy would become eligible to be on the relevant planning commission under HB351, which they are not under the status quo.] Mayor McAdams is approaching the issue of planning and zoning in the mountains and canyons from a conservation standpoint. There would be seven seats on the proposed Mountain Planning Commission. Appointments to these seats would be made in the same manner as appointments to the existing County Planning Commission. HB351 is a companion bill to community preservation.