Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-04-19 Agenda and Supporting Documentation Town Council Evening Meeting Agenda VAIL TO W N C O U N C IL R E G U L AR ME E TIN G Evening Agenda Town Council C hambers and Virtual on Zoom 6:00 P M, April 19, 2022 Meeting to be held in C ouncil Chambers and Virtually on Zoom (access H igh Five Access Media livestream day of the meeting) Notes: Times of items are approximate, subject to c hange, and cannot be relied upon to determine what time C ounc il will consider an item. Public comment will be taken on each agenda item. Citizen participation offers an opportunity for citizens to express opinions or ask questions regarding town services, policies or other matters of community conc ern, and any items that are not on the agenda. Please attempt to keep c omments to three minutes; time limits established are to provide efficienc y in the c onduct of the meeting and to allow equal opportunity for everyone wishing to speak. 1.Citizen Participation (10 min.) 1.1.Citizen Participation 1.2.Vail Resorts Handout given to Council during meeting 2.Any action as a result of executive session 3.Announcement of Grand Prize Winner of E-Bike Following Close of 2022 Town of Vail Community Survey 3.1.Announcement of Grand Prize W inner of E-Bike Following Close of 2022 Town of Vail Community Survey 5 min. Presenter(s): Mayor Langmaid The 2022 Town of Vail Community Survey was conducted between March 21 and April 18 with more than 1,000 participants taking part. As a thank you to community members for their participation, respondents were eligible to win an e-bike in a grand prize drawing on April 19, plus ten $100 Visa gift cards from among the completed surveys. The e-bike grand prize is a Giant Roam E+ thanks to generous support from Venture Sports. Results from the survey will be presented to the Town Council and community on J une 7. 4.Proclamations 4.1.Proclamation No. 4, Series of 2022 50th Anniversary of the Vail Symposium 5 min. Presenter(s): Dale Mosier, Vail Symposium Board Chair, Rob LeVine, Vail Symposium Treasurer, Kathy Kimmel, Vail Symposium Board Member, and Karen Nold, Vail Symposium Board Member April 19, 2022 - Page 1 of 569 Background: The Vail Symposium has continued for 50 years to create year-round, thought-provoking programs encompassing topics such as geopolitics, hot topics, environmental awareness, unlimited adventure, health and well-being, economics, consciousness and more, all with respected and recognized knowledgeable presenters; as such, as an accredited 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, the Vail Symposium has played an important role in the growth of our multi-cultural community. Staff Recommendation: Approve Proclamation No. 4, Series of 2022 50th Anniversary of the Vail Symposium 5.Consent Agenda (5 min.) 5.1.March 1, 2022 Town Council Meeting Minutes 5.2.March 15, 2022 Town Council Meeting Minutes 5.3.Resolution No. 16, Series of 2022, A Resolution Approving an I ntergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Vail and the Colorado Department of Transportation regarding Sediment Control Disposal Area on the North Side of I nterstate 70 at Approximately M.P. 178-179 Background: The Town and the Colorado Department of Transportation wish to enter into an intergovernmental agreement for the construction of a sand/dirt storage facility on I nterstate 70 Right of W ay, in the Town Tracts A & C and Town easement area, with the Bald Mountain Townhomes Association for the purpose of sand/dirt storage and to provide aesthetic and noise mitigation to the surrounding neighbors. Staff Recommendation: Approve, approve with amendments or deny Resolution No. 16, Series of 2022. 5.4.Resolution No. 17, Series of 2022, A Resolution Approving an Agreement between the Town of Vail and the Eagle County Sheriff's Office for the Purchase of K-9 Echo Background: The Vail Police Department hired an Eagle County Sheriff's Deputy that is currently serving as a K-9 officer. The Vail P D would like to buy the K-9 from E C S O to keep the K-9 in service. Staff Recommendation: Approve, approve with amendments or deny Resolution No. 17, Series of 2022. 5.5.Resolution No. 18, Series of 2022, A Resolution of the Town of Vail to J oin the United Nations Global Mountain Partnership Background: The Town’s goals and values are aligned with the mission of the Mountain Partnership, a United Nations voluntary alliance of interested governments and organizations committed to working together with the common goal of achieving Sustainable Mountain Development around the world. Staff Recommendation: Approve, approve with amendments or deny Resolution No. 18, Series of 2022. 5.6.Resolution No. 19, Series of 2022, Fire Free Five Funding Background: At the April 5 Town Council Meeting, the Vail Town Council approved funding for a financial assistance program to assist property owners with creating a 5' non-combustible zone around their property. Funding for this program was included in the second reading of the budget April 19, 2022 - Page 2 of 569 supplemental. This Resolution formally establishes the Fire Free Five Community Assistance Program. Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 19, Series of 2022 establishing the Fire Free Five Community Assistance Program 5.7.Letters of I ntent and I nvitation to Visit Vail (to St. Moritz, Switzerland Officials and St. Anton am Arlberg, Austria Officials) in support of Vail's Peer Resort Exchange Program 5.8.Contract Award to Stone Security to Support the Milestone Camera Software Background: The Milestone camera software system is used to store and review the video footage gathered by over 240 cameras positioned around town. This video has been extensively used by the Police Department to assist with investigations and by the Parking department to track various issues in our structures. The Milestone system has become a critical tool in their day-to-day operations, and this support agreement ensures that the software is kept up to date and functioning effectively. Staff Recommendation: Direct the Town Manger to enter into an agreement in a form approved by the Town Attorney with Stone Security, LLC in the amount of $53,250 to support the town’s Milestone camera software system. 5.9.Contract Award to American Mechanical Services for Police Department Rooftop Unit Replacement Background: There are eight roof top units which provide heating and cooling to the department interior spaces. Over the past two years four out of the eight units have been replaced. This will be year number three and the plan is to replace unit numbers five and six. The new units are state of the art and are much more efficient than the existing units. They utilize condensing cooling eliminating the outdated existing evaporative cooling. Staff Recommendation: Authorize the Town Manager to enter into an agreement, in a form approved by the Town Attorney, with American Mechanical Services to replace the Police Department's rooftop unit in the amount not to exceed $86,034.00. 5.10.Contract Award with Eagle Valley Events for the production of Vail America Days Parade Background: An RF P was published to find an event producer to execute the Vail America Days Parade. Laurie Asmussen of Eagle Valley Events submitted a proposal that was reviewed and approved by the Commission on Special Events. Staff Recommendation: Direct the town manager to enter into an agreement, on a form approved by the town attorney, with Eagle Valley Events for the production of the Vail America Days parade and entertainment in an amount not to exceed $70,000. 6.Town Manager Report (10 min.) 7.Action Items 7.1.Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2022, First Reading, An Ordinance Amending Title 12 of the Vail Town Code to Establish Setbacks from Gore Creek and its Tributaries 45 min. Presenter(s): Peter Wadden, Water Quality and Greg Roy, Senior Planner Action Requested of Council: April 19, 2022 - Page 3 of 569 Approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2022, upon first reading. Background: The Gore Creek Strategic Plan, adopted by Vail Town Council in 2016, identifies the loss of riparian (streamside) vegetation as one of the three main causes of declining water quality in Gore Creek. The Plan recommends Town of Vail “update stream setbacks, riparian zones, vegetative buffer zones and other water quality objectives definitions and maps (Title 12 Review and Amendments).” The Planning and Environmental Commission (P E C) heard this application at seven different meetings and forwarded a recommendation of approval on March 14th, 2022. Staff Recommendation: Approve first reading Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2022 7.2.E RW S D Temporary Construction License Agreement Extension 5 min Presenter(s): Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer Action Requested of Council: Approve extension of Temporary Construction License Background: Last year E RW S D began replacing a 50+ year old sewer main bridge that crosses the Eagle River in Dowd J unction adjacent to the Gore Valley Trail pedestrian bridge. The Town granted E RW S D a temporary construction license agreement to allow E RW S D to use town property for access and staging. T he license expired on November 15, 2021 and ERWSD is requesting to extend the license through October 15, 2022. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approving this request and directing the Town Manager to extend the existing license agreement in a form approved by the Town attorney. 7.3.2022 Ford Park Summer Managed Parking Program 10 min. Presenter(s): Greg Hall, Public W orks Director, Steph Kashiwa Parking Operations Manager Action Requested of Council: I nput and approval requested Background: Each spring the summer activities and events calendar is reviewed by the Ford Park User Groups, including representatives from Town of Vail, Vail Recreation District, Vail Valley Foundation ( GRFA), Betty Ford Alpine Gardens, Bravo! Vail and Walking Mountain Science Center as operators of Vail Nature Center). The proposed managed parking program calendar is attached. Staff Recommendation: Approve the 2022 Ford Park Summer Managed Parking Program 7.4.Contract Award with Fehr & Peers for Vail Mobility & Transportation Master Plan 10 min. Presenter(s): Tom Kassmel, Engineer Action Requested of Council: Ask questions. Background: The Town of Vail has budgeted to complete an update to the 2009 Vail Transportation Master Plan. The new plan will ultimately provide an updated Master Plan for Mobility and Transportation within Vail for the foreseeable future. The Town received 3 proposals. Staff Recommendation: Award the contract to Fehr & Peers in the amount of $300,000 in a form approved by the Town Attorney 8.Public Hearings April 19, 2022 - Page 4 of 569 8.1.Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2022, Second Reading, An Ordinance Amending Various Sections of the Vail Town Code Relating to Alcoholic Beverages, to Reflect Changes in State Law 5 min. Presenter(s): Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk Action Requested of Council: Approve, approve with amendments or deny second reading of Ordinance No. 5, Series 2022. Background: The Colorado General Assembly recently passed, and the Governor recently signed into law, House Bill 18-1023 and House Bill 18- 1025, which will move sections of Title 12 of Colorado Revised States into a new Title 44, effective October 1, 2018 and the Town Council wishes to update the Vail Town Code accordingly. Staff Recommendation: Approve, approve with amendments or deny second reading of Ordinance No. 5, Series 2022. 9.Adjournment 9.1.Adjournment 7:50 pm (estimate) Meeting agendas and materials can be acc es s ed prior to meeting day on the Town of Vail webs ite www.vailgov.com. All town c ouncil meetings will be streamed live by High F ive Ac cess Media and available for public viewing as the meeting is happening. T he meeting videos are als o posted to High F ive Ac cess Media website the week following meeting day, www.highfivemedia.org. P leas e c all 970-479-2136 for additional information. S ign language interpretation is available upon reques t with 48 hour notification dial 711. April 19, 2022 - Page 5 of 569 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: Citizen P articipation AT TAC H ME N TS: Description Citizen Participation April 19, 2022 - Page 6 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Condemnation of Booth Heights Property Date:Thursday, April 14, 2022 4:42:52 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Joe McHugh <mjoemchugh@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 3:46 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Condemnation of Booth Heights Property Ladies / Gentlemen: Please give your wholehearted support to the condemnation proceedings on the Booth Heights property. Clearly, Vail Resorts has never negotiated with the TOV in good faith and the proposed action is entirely justified. Joe McHugh 4014 Bighorn Road Vail, CO 81657 970-331-9038 April 19, 2022 - Page 7 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: VR and employee housing Date:Thursday, April 14, 2022 4:50:19 PM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Mike Beltracchi <mikebeltracchi@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 1:42 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: VR and employee housing If VR is so fired up about building employee housing that is beneficial for everyone, then why don't they build it where it's contiguous with other residential areas on land that they already own, Ever Vail? Employees could walk to Lionshead and mountain jobs and the in town bus route could easily be extended from the Marriott/Hythe to just a bit farther west. -- Mike Beltracchi Edwards, CO 970-471-3519 c April 19, 2022 - Page 8 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Booth Heights project support Date:Thursday, April 14, 2022 5:03:56 PM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Michael Lange <michael.lange@vacasa.com> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 4:43 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Booth Heights project support Hello Vail Town Council, I am writing to express support for the proposed Booth Heights employee housing project in East Vail. As a lodging property manager in Vail, staffing is becoming more and more challenging and expensive each year, due in large part to a lack of affordable housing for front line employees in the Vail Valley. It's been a challenge in Vail since I moved to the valley 30+ years ago and we have now reached a crisis stage. This was the first winter ever where we weren't able to be essentially fully staffed despite offering great pay and benefits for our front line staff and I don't see it getting any easier in the short term. In my opinion, VR is stepping up to improve the situation with this project. This project, while not perfect from an environmental or wildlife perspective, is a positive step in addressing the main issue and helping the overall business community by adding this new employee housing inventory. My understanding is that it is on private land owned by VR and it seems like they April 19, 2022 - Page 9 of 569 have followed all of the appropriate building plans and approval processes from the town. It certainly needs to meet the DRB and building permit requirements as well. This project will help from a transportation and environmental standpoint as well as the staff there can ride a bus into town and minimize parking impacts vs. employees driving from downvalley housing locations. The traffic on I-70 is beginning to feel like the front range during peak drive times and it's only going to increase with more downvalley housing coming online. In addition, I was personally one of hundreds of Vail workers stranded on I-70 this Tuesday for close to three hours due to the Dowd Junction closure. Thankfully our occupancy is down this week as we approach the ski season's end and we have a good base of employees at our property who live in Vail that were able to get to work and service our guests and owners who were in house until the rest of our team got to work around 10:30 am. When these accidents occur during the peak season, the impacts are bigger and we end up with more dissatisfied customers as a result. VR has been criticized on many fronts this winter, including not building enough employee housing, not having enough on mountain staff to open up terrain early on this season, long lift lines and a lack of staffing for the on mountain restaurants at a level that provides the high level of service that our Vail Valley owners and guests in the community expect from a world class resort like Vail. This investment, along with raising their front line staff payscale substantially next season is a good start and commitment from Vail Resorts. I would suggest the town council work closely with Vail Resorts to resolve any differences and make this project happen vs. denying this project and potentially spending town dollars that could be used for more housing to condemn the land and keep it open space. The valley is surrounded by national forest land. If there's truly other building sites more appropriate for employee housing that I keep hearing about, please partner with Vail Resorts to make it happen asap. It's time for action. There is too much at stake for the Town of Vail, the business community and our Vail Valley owners and guests to deny this project at this time. Between this project, the new Residences at Main Vail, the Vail Indeed program and other initiatives, some measurable progress is being made. Much more work needs to be done, but every project and housing unit matters. I realize this is a difficult decision with strong opposing views, but feel that employee housing and ultimately guest service needs to be the highest priority at this time. Thank you. Mike -- Michael Lange Senior General Manager- Vacasa Vail & Beaver Creek Lion Square Lodge 660 Lionshead Place Vail, CO 81657 April 19, 2022 - Page 10 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Vail Resorts Housing Project - Formerly "Booth Heights" Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 9:39:24 AM Attachments:image002.png image003.png image004.png image005.png image006.png image013.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Ryan Kelsey <rkelsey@antlersvail.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 8:59 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Vail Resorts Housing Project - Formerly "Booth Heights" Dear Vail Town Council Members, VRI’s contentious employee housing project in East Vail must move forward, regardless of the impact on local East Vail residents’ inflated opinions and the bighorn sheep herd. This habitat has been continually disrupted by said residents for over 60 years now, and again with routing the I-70 corridor through the area as the primary and overarching impact on the herd and range in this area of East Vail. Tuesday 4/12/22 was a prime example of what can happen when no employees are able to travel April 19, 2022 - Page 11 of 569 past Dowd Junction during main business hours (“opening of the shop” no less) posted by nearly every business in our town. Imagine if this occurred during a busy holiday or during the heart of spring break business. We cannot continue to compete with other resorts communities if we cannot offer the value and service levels demanded by our owners, clientele, and even locals on an everyday basis. The overall value of our community derives from 3 main sources: our local workforce, Vail Mountain, and our businesses. People do not specifically come to Vail to see our bighorn sheep herd, and most have no idea they even exist. As a conservationist, hunter, MBA graduate with a focus on sustainable management, and nephew of the previous head of the US Fish and Wildlife department and current President of Wildlife Management Institute, I find this argument completely ludicrous to continue as prime argument for why not to build this project. Efforts have been made to further limit the impact from the development and should be approved over condemnation. Condemnation will do little but further reward VRI monetarily vs. achieving what our community desperately needs…additional workforce HOUSING in Vail, NOW…not 5-10 years from now as the current convoluted (and in my opinion broken) bureaucratic approval process requires. I ask you to consider, are we more concerned about the future of humans living in Vail or an already depleted and disbursed herd by the very folks who now claim they want to be their champions? By the way, the “it’s the first thing folks will see” argument is baseless and simply silly after years of having to stare at an ugly chain link fence vs. a nicely designed and valuable addition to the landscape. Please allow workforce housing on this parcel we need it more than ever. Sincerely, Ryan W. Kelsey, MBA Director of Sales and Revenue P: 970-476-2471 Ext. 129 | F: 970-476-4146 April 19, 2022 - Page 12 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Booth heights employee housing Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 9:42:33 AM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: kerry@skipperscout.com <kerry@skipperscout.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 7:30 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Booth heights employee housing This is a too late issue as we have employees who want to come work here but have no where to live. You have several vail resort shops that didn’t open this year because of lack of employees. I am a local business owner paying the higher wages so my employees can live here. However non of them can afford to move or buy a place so employee housing is critical to our survival. As a business owner of a vail village based store since 2014, I may decide to close in the next few years as it gets harder to keep employees each year. Paid parking, high rents, high grocery costs etc. Thank you and please consider any and all employee housing! Best, Kerry R Roach Owner/buyer Skipper & Scout @skipperscoutvail Shop is online anytime www.skipperscout.com 970.306.5545 April 19, 2022 - Page 13 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: VR mission statement Letter to Rob Katz Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 10:26:36 AM Attachments:Letter from Cindy Ryerson.pdf image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Cynthia Ryerson <cindyvvss@mac.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 10:08 AM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: VR mission statement Letter to Rob Katz Dear Members of the Town Council of Vail, I am passing this information on as a reminder to please consider the insurmountable impact that building on the Booth Heights property could cause. Please note my letter to Rob Katz with hyperlinks explaining the sensitive nature of this project. Also please note also that Vail Resorts has recently changed their mission statement taking all talk of respecting the environment out of it. We all know there are other places where the desperately needed employing housing can be located. Please do the right thing for our town, it's culture, ethics and everyones future and vote for condemnation/eminent domain on the extremely environmentally sensitive Booth Heights property. Respectfully yours, Cindy Ryerson Old mission statement : cannot now be found on internet but please see hyperlinks in my letter to Rob Katz that explains their old core values. New Mission statement : April 19, 2022 - Page 14 of 569 Cindy Ryerson 4859 Meadow Drive Unit B Vail, Co. 81657 970-390-5759 Sent from my iPhone April 19, 2022 - Page 15 of 569 April 19, 2022 - Page 16 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 11:16:46 AM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Frances Hartogh <frances.hartogh@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 11:13 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am a long-time Town of Vail resident and client of Vail Resorts - over 40 years! I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Our iconic Rocky Mountain bighorns - Colorado’s state animal - are under severe stress. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Thank you. Frances Hartogh 4229 Nugget Lane, Vail April 19, 2022 - Page 17 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 11:17:12 AM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Elizabeth rodriguez <erod8784@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 11:12 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; ++comments@vailresorts.com; +bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose the development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as a wildlife habitat. April 19, 2022 - Page 18 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: FOR Booth Heights Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 11:17:29 AM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: MacKenzie Hanna <mackenzie@craniologie.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 11:11 AM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: FOR Booth Heights I am FOR the Booth Heights project! We as a business community need Vail to build more housing and beds close to the mountain/villages for their employees. This will free up that many beds for our non vail resorts employees. It would be a shame to see this be dismissed. I've been running my stores at 60% staffed because of the HUGE housing shortage here. Please understand how desperate the business community is for this to happen. Thanks for your time. -- MacKenzie Hanna Operations Manager Craniologie Vail and Beaver Creek April 19, 2022 - Page 19 of 569 April 19, 2022 - Page 20 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 11:18:09 AM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Betz, Bill <BILL.BETZ@CUANSCHUTZ.EDU> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 10:52 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep You folks in Eagle County are hammering big ungulates. The elk and deer populations in Vail mid-valley are down 65% in recent years, and Berlaimont proposes further threats. Now comes this threat to critical bighorn sheep winter habitat. Their voices must be heard! The beautiful Bighorn valley is right out your door. Don’t harm the namesake species. Please do the right thing and block the Booth Heights development. Bill Betz April 19, 2022 - Page 21 of 569 April 19, 2022 - Page 22 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 11:18:24 AM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Pam Bradley <bradleypoodles@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 10:50 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Pam Bradley Breckenridge, CO April 19, 2022 - Page 23 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 11:18:38 AM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Patrick Lienin <patrick.lienin@googlemail.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 10:50 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Patrick Lienin April 19, 2022 - Page 24 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 12:24:20 PM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Michael Browning <mfbrowning1952@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 12:24 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am a 45 year resident of Vail and 45 year skier at Vail Mountain. I love both. The Town and VR need to work together to figure out a way to both provide more affordable housing in the Valley for its employees AND protect the Booth Heights parcel for the bighorn sheep. Smart people working together CAN get this done. Some additional points: - This parcel is critical to the survival of our local bighorn sheep herd. Little or no other winter range is available to them. - In the summer the bighorn migrate into the Eagles Nest Wilderness and a key part of that April 19, 2022 - Page 25 of 569 ecosystem - Other parcels exist within the Town upon which VR can build affordable housing. No other winter range is available to the bighorn - VR didn’t even know it owned the parcel until several year’s ago and then they only paid two year’s back taxes to get title.The bighorn have a better claim to use of the parcel since they have grazed their for thousands of years - VR says that it will only develop a portion of the property, but the remainder is the worst habitat and the construction and residential activities will greatly reduce if not eliminate the viability of the site as winter habitat. It is long past time we just give our local wildlife the dregs. Please work together protect this site. If VR is willing to do so, the Town should condemn the parcel. Thank you. Mike Browning 4229A Nugget Lane Vail April 19, 2022 - Page 26 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 12:24:34 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Straight Tail <c185td@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 12:22 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Sent from my iPhone April 19, 2022 - Page 27 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 12:24:49 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Gary Eno <vailcarib@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 12:20 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Gary, Deborah, Kevin, Sean, Abby and Eva, The Eno’s P.O. Box 28 Vail, CO April 19, 2022 - Page 28 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 12:25:24 PM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Cindy Levin <cynlevin@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 12:16 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. It would be so refreshing to see Vail Resorts, for once, take a leadership position in regards to their corporate responsibility to protectect the natural world on which their business depends. Of course there could be a solution that does not come at the expense of these beautiful bighorn sheep which have every right to stay on this piece of land and if Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. April 19, 2022 - Page 29 of 569 Cynthia Levin Breckenridge, Colorado April 19, 2022 - Page 30 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 1:30:53 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: John Reimers <johnreimers@mac.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 1:30 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. John Reimers Sent from my iPhone April 19, 2022 - Page 31 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 1:31:11 PM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Bill Betz <betzw7@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 1:29 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; ++comments@vailresorts.com; +bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. April 19, 2022 - Page 32 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 1:31:37 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: William Gottlieb <wgmd1@icloud.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 1:22 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Please do what you know to be the right thing and don’t sacrifice your morals for short term profits…..THE WORLD IS WATCHING AND WON’T FORGET! Sincerely, William Gottlieb 3021 Booth Falls Road Vail, Colorado Sent from my iPhone April 19, 2022 - Page 33 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: save the East Vail bighorns Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 1:31:51 PM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Andrea Andersson <andianderssonvail@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 1:16 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: save the East Vail bighorns Dear Member of the Town Council, Vail Resorts will cause great harm if not extinction of the East Vail bighorn sheep herd and we should avoid building there at all costs. We should look at Vail Resorts mission statement. ZERO IMPACT TO THE FORESTS AND HABITAT. Best Regards, Andi Andersson April 19, 2022 - Page 34 of 569 -- Andi Life is good! April 19, 2022 - Page 35 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 1:32:17 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Becki Vickers <beckivickers@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 1:11 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing in hopes you all can understand why this is so important. These sheep are part of our lives. We look forward to seeing them and the smiles they bring to our faces. My children have watched them have babies their herd grow over the last few years. What a treat!! They watch us fight to protect them as well. I want them to understand and learn by this! Wildlife is precious and we must protect it to our fullest so we can pass it along for generations to watch!! We don’t have any wildlife left in this valley, so this is crucial you all do the right thing. All children deserve to grow up watching wildlife evolve into bigger families and thriving in their habitat, mostly learning to protect them from harm for all to enjoy in the future. It is our state animal we must think about the future of all!! Thank you!! I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Sent from my iPhone April 19, 2022 - Page 36 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep habitat Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 1:32:39 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Eric Malmborg <e.malmborg@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 1:10 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep habitat I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. Actually, I’m not sure how long the herd has overwintered on this small piece of land, but the fact remains, its where they winter now. With increased development, there is little terrain for the herd as it is, and there is no where else for them to go. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much- needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. I’d encourage Vail Resorts to get on the right side of this issue. Yes, you’ve realized that you haven’t provided enough employee housing, but the answer isn’t to wipe out bighorn habitat to rectify a lack of foresight. Good luck on a tough issue! Eric Malmborg April 19, 2022 - Page 37 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 1:33:08 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Rose Gillett <rose.gillett@me.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 1:09 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Sent from my iPhone April 19, 2022 - Page 38 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 1:33:23 PM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: mike Halpert <mikehalpert79@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 1:01 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; ++comments@vailresorts.com; +bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. April 19, 2022 - Page 39 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 1:33:49 PM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Marty Sophir <mesophir@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 7:01 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; ++comments@vailresorts.com; +bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Martin Sophir April 19, 2022 - Page 40 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 1:34:01 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: ANDREAS SHARI BOESEL <shariandreas@msn.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 12:56 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Andre & Shari Boesel PO Box 595 Vail, CO 81658 Sent from my iPhone April 19, 2022 - Page 41 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 1:34:27 PM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: john nelson <johnfnelson56@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 12:49 PM To: ++comments@vailresorts.com; +bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org; PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. April 19, 2022 - Page 42 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 1:35:00 PM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Mary Kitchen <mgkitchen@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 12:29 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Mary Mary Kitchen Camber Realty April 19, 2022 - Page 43 of 569 Cell / Text 303-520-5607 Mary@CamberRealty.com Camber Realty 290 Fillmore Street, Suite #4 Denver, CO 80206 About Me | Resources | Neighborhoods April 19, 2022 - Page 44 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 1:35:25 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: future1946 <future1946@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 12:40 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Please explore more creative solutions to the affordable housing crisis. Respectfully Howard Hallman Silverthorne, CO Long-time Epic pass holder Sent from my iPhone April 19, 2022 - Page 45 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Booth Heights Proposal Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 1:35:40 PM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Tim Drescher <timdcy@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 12:39 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; ++comments@vailresorts.com Subject: Booth Heights Proposal I am disgusted to see that Vail Resorts is once again proposing to develop bighorn wintering habitat in East Vail. This directly contradicts what Vail Resorts claims in their “Epic Promise” (net zero impact on wildlife) and what the Town of Vail has been doing to protect the last wintering range for Bighorn Sheep in the Gore Creek and Eagle River valley. With all the bad publicity that the “Vail” brand has gotten, especially over the past year, I would have thought that Vail Resorts would have done the right thing and protected this piece of land as open space to save some face. Shame on Vail Resorts for pulling out of negotiations with the town to protect this parcel. It’s time for the Town of Vail to stop being bullied by Vail Resorts and stand up and do the right thing and condemn this parcel of land. Tim Drescher Avon, CO April 19, 2022 - Page 46 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 1:35:49 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Karen E Anderson <karene@vail.net> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 12:37 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. As a 30-year East Vail resident, I am hopeful that we can work together to respect our environment and the love of nature that brings our community together. We need employee housing, but there are better places to build. Thank you, Karen Anderson Sent from my iPhone April 19, 2022 - Page 47 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 1:36:08 PM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: L G <lily.c.grisafi@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 12:28 PM To: comments@vailresorts.com; PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. April 19, 2022 - Page 48 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:02:37 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: greg padgett <padgett126@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 2:02 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Our Big Horn Sheep are a symbol of our state and the wonderful outdoors, the reason so many of us live here. It is great when tourists and locals can catch a glimpse of these magnificent creatures. We have reduced their winter grazing enough already so I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Sincerely, Greg Padgett April 19, 2022 - Page 49 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:14:00 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: ALAN DANSON <adanson@icloud.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 2:13 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Dear friends on the Town Council: I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Alan and Silvia Danson April 19, 2022 - Page 50 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:14:28 PM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: David Brewster <david.l.brewster@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 2:06 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. I volunteer regularly in the Gore Range and Eagles Nest Wilderness and visit Vail summer and winter. At a time when we are spending a lot of money to improve wildlife crossings, this April 19, 2022 - Page 51 of 569 would be a crippling blow to the bighorn sheep population in the area. Our official state animal is already threatened by disease from livestock and the introduction of mountain goats into Colorado several decades ago. Even a partial development of the parcel will very probably eliminate the sheep. Vail Resorts purchased this parcel for very little money. Certainly there must be funding available to compensate Vail Resorts. Thanks you for consideration David L. Brewster PO Box 5293, Dillon CO 80435 432-210-9524 April 19, 2022 - Page 52 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:14:50 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Kaye Ferry <kaye@kayeferry.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 1:59 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Re: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep > On Apr 15, 2022, at 1:57 PM, Kaye Ferry <kaye@kayeferry.com> wrote: > > I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. > > Kaye Ferry 1007 Eagles Nest Circle Vail,Co 81657 > April 19, 2022 - Page 53 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:15:06 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: BETTAN LAUGHLIN <bettan39@aol.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 1:54 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. April 19, 2022 - Page 54 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:15:27 PM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Frank Lilly <copyfrank@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 1:52 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Dear Town Council and Vail Resorts. Please do not develop the Booth Creek parcel. It is the only summer habitat of Bighorn Sheep in the Vail Valley. This development would give Vail, and Vail Resorts a black eye around the world. While employee housing is important, there are many other parcels in Vail that can be developed for this purpose. Thank you for your time and consideration. Frank Lilly April 19, 2022 - Page 55 of 569 April 19, 2022 - Page 56 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:15:40 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Nancy Dowdle <nancy_dowdle@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 1:50 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.<BR> Nancy Dowdle 4288 Nugget Lane Unit A Vail, CO. 81657 Sent from my iPad April 19, 2022 - Page 57 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:15:54 PM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: KAY NORBY FIAL <knorbyfial@me.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 1:47 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. I urge the Town of Vail Council to do everything in their power to protect the critical bighorn sheep winter habitat by acquiring the parcel, by a condemnation action if necessary, and dedicating it to the Town’s open space program, specifying that the parcel will only be used for wildlife habitat purposes. April 19, 2022 - Page 58 of 569 Kay Norby Fial April 19, 2022 - Page 59 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Against Vail Resorts East Vail Employee Housing Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:16:13 PM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Mark Porter <portermark27@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 1:40 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Against Vail Resorts East Vail Employee Housing Vail Town Council, I am against Vail Resorts building Employee Housing on the parcel in East Vail and encourage you to condemn the property. I have 3 main reasons I believe they should not build in East Vail: 1. I am concerned about the Bighorn Sheep and this has been well documented. If representatives from Vail Resorts ever rode the East Vail bus and saw how excited children get when they see the Bighorn Sheep, they might have second thoughts about their site choice. 2. East Vail is a neighborhood that has maintained a “Mountain Feeling” over the years through all the growth. I believe entering the neighborhood with the size and scope of this project at the entrance will negatively impact the whole neighborhood. April 19, 2022 - Page 60 of 569 3. Vail Resorts has plenty of property west of Lionshead, within walking distance to the mountain, to build employee housing. Obviously, their priority is high end development versus solving their employee housing crisis. Thank you for your consideration, Mark Porter East Vail Full Time Resident April 19, 2022 - Page 61 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:16:50 PM Attachments:image008.png image012.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: John Seward <John.Seward@du.edu> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 11:50 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Grateful, John Seward Researcher, Scrviner Institute of Public Policy April 19, 2022 - Page 62 of 569 Assistant COVID Response Coordinator University of Denver (720) 682-4501 www.korbel.du.edu/scrivner www.du.edu/coronavirus April 19, 2022 - Page 63 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:17:00 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Karn Stiegelmeier <karnstieg@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 11:34 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Please, Please protect our fabulous Bighorn sheep, so special to Colorado, and this East Vail herd is iconic for Vail and for Colorado. I don’t think Anyone would respect the development of this area, nor Vail Resorts or the Town of Vail for allowing this to happen. This area has always been a special place for me and I have felt so lucky to hike up near this area, but also assumed it was valued by all. It would be a travesty to see the devastation of our iconic Colorado mammal. It is the opposite of what we all expect from the Town of Vail and from the Epic Promise to protect our environment. Please take all actions to prevent this destructive action. This area is so very obviously in need of permanent protection for wildlife. Thank you for thinking of the future for All of us! Karn Karn Stiegelmeier April 19, 2022 - Page 64 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:17:11 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: David Schimel <daveschimel@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 11:31 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. We have to change the heedless development approach and hold Vail Resorts to a higher standard, I completely support employee housing but doing it on wildlife habitat feels almost like a direct challenge! What are they thinking? David Schimel 1924 Pebble Creek Road Silverthorne April 19, 2022 - Page 65 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:17:26 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Jim Dickie <jimdickie@icloud.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 11:26 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Sent from my iPad April 19, 2022 - Page 66 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Condemnation Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:18:01 PM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Jenn Bruno <jennbruno3@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 2:15 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Condemnation Vail Town Council: We are in the middle of a housing crisis that is currently having negative effects on our guest experience. Restaurants cannot accommodate our guests because they do not have the staff to provide the necessary service. They are operating below capacity because of the employee shortage. I have heard from multiple visitors that they will be skiing in Montana next year because Vail can no longer provide the high value of service they pay for and expect. Eating at 5pm or 9pm because there are no available reservations is not acceptable. Retail shops open late and close early because of the employee shortage. Without greater action, these issues will continue to hurt Vail's guest experience. Covid has given us short term record sales tax revenues. This will not last forever. I am disappointed and shocked that condemnation of Booth Heights is being discussed in the Vail April 19, 2022 - Page 67 of 569 Daily. This is big government at its worst. Property rights no longer matter in the face of personal agendas. Why not include condemnation of the homes on Katsos Ranch Road . Those are not as close to the highway and are certainly in a more valuable part of the habitat. This neighborhood doesn't even need salt licks to attract the sheep. Who cares how much it costs? Vail Resorts is lucky to have the Town of Vail negotiating with them. They will get millions for land they have no intention of building on. I commend them on their astute handling of this situation. They secured their master leases (7-0 vote) and have guaranteed even more money for their land in East Vail. Unfortunately, the people of Vail will pay the price for these desperate negotiations. We deserve better. Please spend the 14 million dollars you planned to spend on the condemnation on habitat rehabilitation above the Katsos Ranch and Vail Mountain School neighborhood. This is how you will save the herd. You won't save the herd by condemning that parcel of land. You will save it by habitat mitigation. I might also suggest demanding the CPW stop offering hunting tags for 2-3 of the bighorn sheep each year. An obvious small solution. Above all, please stop the sanctimonious bull that exists concerning housing in East Vail . We can accommodate the sheep and our homeless community members. The Residences at Main Vail is one small piece of the solution. 144 beds is not enough to keep our valuable middle class and working class in Vail. Our community will soon be extinct if we don't make more of an effort. And unless the sheep learn how to bus tables, so will our resort and business community. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Jenn Bruno Vail, CO April 19, 2022 - Page 68 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Support for Condemnation of Booth Heights Property Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:18:16 PM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: DREW ESSON <desson01@msn.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 2:18 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Support for Condemnation of Booth Heights Property Hello Town Council Members, I'm writing to express support for proceeding with condemnation of the Booth Height Property on which Vail Resorts is proposing to build Employee Housing. I've lived or owned property in East Vail for nearly 35 years. I very much appreciate the need to increase the inventory of employee/affordable housing in the Vail Valley but I believe there are many, better options for projects that would help further this mission. I also believe that the Town of Vail has really tried to work with Vail Resorts to engage in an equitable land swap to keep Vail Resorts 'whole' on the project. For whatever the reason, Vail Resorts has not taken advantage of the opportunities that have been presented to them. Perhaps they are doing so to obtain more negotiating leverage against the town. Regardless, the Booth Heights project is a horrible location for long term employee housing. April 19, 2022 - Page 69 of 569 1. There a complete lack of supporting services for the employees. The East Vail Market is tiny. Going to the West Vail stores would require two bus trips. 2. Ecologically this project will likely stress the Bighorn Sheep herd to the point of extinction. In all honesty, I'm sure all of our residences in the Valley displaced some kind of wildlife but can't we find already built out space that can support employee housing versus building on virgin property that all scientific studies have shown will likely kill off these beautiful animals? 3. The location of the property and the density of residents means that there will be a significant amount of foot traffic on/near the frontage road and more crowded buses. This could create a safety issue especially at night. I know you have heard all of these arguments. I hope my voice as a Valley resident helps you do the right thing in condemning this property and forcing Vail Resorts to engage with TOV to find a better option. Regards, Drew Esson April 19, 2022 - Page 70 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:27:23 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Lynn santo to <lsanyoto@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 2:26 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Kind Regards, Misro and Lynn Sanyoto Sent from my iPhone April 19, 2022 - Page 71 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Letter in Support of Employee Housing Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:55:30 PM Attachments:image008.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Alison Wadey <alisonw@vailchamber.org> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 2:43 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Letter in Support of Employee Housing Dear Vail Town Council Members, I am writing today to urge you to give Booth Heights a chance to be built. We went through this a couple years ago and it was both very exhausting and painful for our community to go through. I think this season has done nothing but prove to us all that we are indeed in an employee shortage crisis and being able to provide affordable housing will help set us up to combat this in the future. There has been lots of talk of "better locations". Show me these locations, but if you do, show me them quick because all those words mean to me is another excuse to put off taking any meaningful action to attacking the problem and making gains. I also caution you with any decisions regarding condemnation. This action would set a disturbing precedent that would open the door to future councils being able to service their own agendas and April 19, 2022 - Page 72 of 569 not what is best for our community. Also condemnation of property is very expensive, can't these dollars be used more effectively to create a real home higher up in National Forest Service land where they will be safe to grow and thrive? Having sheep on Frontage Road and I-70 is not a good sanctuary habitat for them. Booth Heights is the ideal for our employees because it is one bus stop away from town. It is right on an existing bus route and stop. When I moved here 25 years ago and had three jobs, having a place that close to Vail Village would have been amazing! To believe in the false pretenses that his property is not convenient for our workforce is silly and untrue. We have been lucky enough to have a steady influx of guests this past year, but we can't sit back and think that this is going to last forever. We need to make tough decisions now that will secure our infrastructure so that we can continue to provide world class customer service to our guests. There is too much at stake for the Town of Vail, the business community and our Vail Valley owners and guests to deny this project at this time. Between this project, the new Residences at Main Vail, the Vail Indeed program and other initiatives, some measurable progress is being made. Much more work needs to be done, but every project and housing unit matters. I realize this is a difficult decision with strong opposing views, but feel that employee housing and ultimately guest service needs to be the highest priority at this time. Thank you for your consideration on this matter and for your service to our community. Respectfully, Alison C. Wadey Executive Director Vail Chamber & Business Association 241 South Frontage Road Suite 2 Vail, CO 81657 Office: (970) 477-0075 Mobile: (970) 376-1661 www.vailchamber.org Community-Inspired Guest Experience April 19, 2022 - Page 73 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:55:51 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Richard M. Leslie <richardmleslie@me.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 2:37 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. I argued before the Vail Council years ago, when Vail Resorts first discovered they owned these acres and had forgotten about them. I begged the Council NOT to rezone, but rather to find out what Vail Resorts really planned, why, the effect it would have on East Vail citizens, and of course the Sheep.Sadly, that Council did NOT listen, and made the crucial mistake of rezoning. Please don’t make another mistake, instead CONDEMN the parcel by eminent domaine. THANK YOU. April 19, 2022 - Page 74 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:56:02 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Dowdle <stephen@dowdle.net> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 2:37 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Dear Vail Town Council, I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. I live in East Vail and observe the sheep regularly. It is callous and irresponsible behavior of Vail Resorts to have no regard for this important habitat. Vail Resorts should know that once you “pave paradise and build a parking lot” there is no longer a paradise. Instead of “ Vail, like nothing on earth” we will have “Vail, with no regard for earth” Sincerely, Stephen Dowdle April 19, 2022 - Page 75 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:56:22 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: danwilsonuk@gmail.com <danwilsonuk@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 2:35 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. April 19, 2022 - Page 76 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 3:02:58 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: andreas boesel <caminopost@icloud.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 2:31 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep A very bad idea!!! Please, reconsider this very shortsighted resolution to OUR housing shortage and OUR Bighorn sheep. Thank you, Andreas Boesel I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Sent from my iPhone April 19, 2022 - Page 77 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 3:25:07 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: hamfamtexas@hotmail.com <hamfamtexas@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 3:15 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. The proposed action does not support Vail Resorts’ stated commitment to protect the environment. Sincerely, Merry Lynne Hamilton 823 Hunters Circle Frisco, CO Sent from my iPhone April 19, 2022 - Page 78 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 3:25:22 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Dave Donaldson <mcdonaldson@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 3:17 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Sent from my iPad April 19, 2022 - Page 79 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:34:57 AM Get Outlook for iOS From: Cindy Monell <cindymonell@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 4:34:36 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com <comments@vailresorts.com>; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org <bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org> Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Please protect the Bighorn Sheep and the environment!. Cindy Monell Vail, CO April 19, 2022 - Page 80 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:35:38 AM Get Outlook for iOS From: Mary Bolton <mary.bolton@lasp.colorado.edu> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 3:54:11 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com <comments@vailresorts.com>; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org <bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org> Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Thank you for your consideration. Best Regards, Mary Bolton Vail CO April 19, 2022 - Page 81 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:36:14 AM Get Outlook for iOS From: Sally Eggleston <sallyeggleston9@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 3:59:51 PM To: ++comments@vailresorts.com <++comments@vailresorts.com>; +bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org <+bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org>; PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Cherri Eggleston PO Box 742 Frisco, CO 80443 305-823-0433 Sallyeggleston9@gmail.com April 19, 2022 - Page 82 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: Booth Falls Construction project Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:36:51 AM Get Outlook for iOS From: Brooke Chesnut <brooke@brookechesnut.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 4:05:50 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Booth Falls Construction project Dear Vail Town council - As an owner in the Booth Falls neighborhood I would like to respectfully submit my complete opposition to any development in the Big Horn sheep habitat. We are all against this development for employee housing when there are other places in the Valley that can be used and NOT disrupt the Big Horn sheep natural habitat. If our long term goals are to protect the environment of the Vail Valley, then we must act upon what we believe will be very harmful to the Big Horn sheep population. Thank you in Advance, Brooke Chesnut April 19, 2022 - Page 83 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:37:22 AM Get Outlook for iOS From: Rose Gillett <rose.gillett@me.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 6:12:35 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com <comments@vailresorts.com>; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org <bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org> Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Dear Kim Langmaid and Vail Town Council, I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and theTown of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. The first day I came to Vail in the early 70’s I saw the herd of Bighorn Sheep and it is a treasured memory. Our family lived across the interstate from their traditional wintering spot for many years and the sighting of the Bighorn Sheep became a part of a regular anticipation that one of us would see them the next day. To knowingly destroy these magnificent animals that have wintered in the same place for so long is a travesty at the very least. Vail Resorts, you can do better than this…there are other alternatives. Concerned Citizens, Rose and George Gillett April 19, 2022 - Page 84 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: Booth Heights Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:37:44 AM Get Outlook for iOS From: heather s <vailheather@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 6:14:09 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Booth Heights Dear Town Council Members I am a 35 year local, and 32 of those years I’ve lived in East Vail. The development of Booth Heights would not only be an eyesore at the “entrance” to Vail, but it would clog bus lines, create more traffic during school pick ups and drop offs at VMS. Also it is also quite possibly in a dangerous location for rockfall from the cliff above (a GSA), and the most important point being, it will displace and kill our sheep herd. Please keep one of out most precious natural areas, natural. Please deem this area open space and stop this development from EVER happening. Do the right thing! Heather Schultz 5059 Gore Circle Vail, 81657 April 19, 2022 - Page 85 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:38:20 AM Get Outlook for iOS From: Diane Teal <tealinvail@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 6:26:58 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com <comments@vailresorts.com>; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org <bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org> Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. April 19, 2022 - Page 86 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:38:43 AM Get Outlook for iOS From: Maryann Stein <maryann.stein@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 6:59:11 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com <comments@vailresorts.com>; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org <bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org> Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Maryann Stein 18224 Clear Lake Drive Lutz, FL 33548 April 19, 2022 - Page 87 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:39:02 AM Get Outlook for iOS From: Sharon Siler <ssileratremax@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 8:32:46 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Re: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Sharon Siler 110 Lupine Ln Frisco, CO 80443 23 years in the High Country 15+ years volunteering with Eagle Summit Wilderness April 19, 2022 - Page 88 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:39:24 AM Get Outlook for iOS From: Dave Hicks <dave.hicks505@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 9:04:45 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com <comments@vailresorts.com>; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org <bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org> Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. My wife and I live in Frisco and have bought Epic season passes for the past ten years. We ski Vail 8-10 days a year on our passes. However, we love Copper, A-Basin, and Loveland too, and will shift to them in protest, if Vail Resorts continues down this path. Thanks, Dave & Julie Hicks April 19, 2022 - Page 89 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:39:50 AM Get Outlook for iOS From: Sarah Moore <sarahm@swbell.net> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 9:48:12 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com <comments@vailresorts.com>; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org <bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org> Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Thank you, Town of Vail Sarah Moore 713-256-0891 Sent from my iPhone April 19, 2022 - Page 90 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:40:16 AM Get Outlook for iOS From: Martin Herre <hmartin50@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 10:21:37 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; ++comments@vailresorts.com <++comments@vailresorts.com>; +bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org <+bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org> Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. The fact that VR is now claiming that this particular lot is needed to save the employee housing crisis is a testimony of their ignorance and inability to establish a long_term plan which would ensure some minimum level of employee housing. Thx for listening Martin Herre April 19, 2022 - Page 91 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:41:27 AM Get Outlook for iOS From: JACQUI BAGGALEY <jacquibaggaley@blueyonder.co.uk> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 12:52:25 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com <comments@vailresorts.com>; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org <bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org> Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. We own a vacation home in East Vail and it gives us great pleasure to spot the herd as we travel on the TOV bus to ski in Vail. The rental visitors who also rent our property are informed of the exciting presence of the herd in our guest information book. Many of them have written in our guest reviews book about how much they enjoy spotting the herd rooting around for food on their trips into town during their winter vacation. Surely Vail Resort’s pledge to be sympathetic to nature is about to make an EPIC fail to nature in the Vail valley! We have supported Vail Resorts for over 20 years prior to the Epic pass and lately in the past 3 years they don’t seem to be being EPIC to anyone these days overselling the EPIC pass. Typical of anyone with a huge majority. I know they need employee housing urgently but is this really the correct location? Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Kind regards Jacqui Jacqui Baggaley 196 Ferry Road Edinburgh Scotland EH6 4NW United Kingdom Tel Home 0044 131 476 6400 Mobile 00447785370322 jacquibaggaley@blueyonder.co.uk April 19, 2022 - Page 92 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:41:51 AM Get Outlook for iOS From: Christine Oppenheimer <chris81657@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 5:57:58 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com <comments@vailresorts.com>; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org <bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org> Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Please do the right thing. Build employee housing on a more suitable area for the employees and let our bighorn sheep have their area. Do the “epic” right thing. Please!!!! Sent from my iPad April 19, 2022 - Page 93 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:42:48 AM Get Outlook for iOS From: Casey Parliament <cparliament@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 6:56:55 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; ++comments@vailresorts.com <++comments@vailresorts.com>; +bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org <+bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org> Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. Under no circumstance should this development move forward. Vail has been provided with reasonable alternatives which protect interests of all parties and has negotiated in bad faith by exiting from prior discussion with TOV. Vail’s intent has been transparent from initial recognition, regardless of impact or alternative. Our town council has the ability and support from the broader community and visitors alike to protect this precious herd for future generations. Please act to provide permanent protection for the herd and ensure that Vail’s actions do not sacrifice the natural beauty of our valley. Casey Parliament Vail resident Get Outlook for iOS April 19, 2022 - Page 94 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: East Vail Bighorn herd Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:43:25 AM Get Outlook for iOS From: THOMAS LAWSON <broccolliboy@msn.com> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 7:12:28 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: East Vail Bighorn herd Just a short note from a concerned local. Please do your very best in trying to protect our local herd of sheep. We desperately need more affordable housing. There must be a better way than building on this current Booth Heights location. Best regards Tom Lawson April 19, 2022 - Page 95 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:43:57 AM Get Outlook for iOS From: Larry Wolff <rozziek@mac.com> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 7:20:32 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com <comments@vailresorts.com>; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org <bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org> Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Larry Wolff MD. 2724 bald mountain road Sent from my iPhone April 19, 2022 - Page 96 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:44:56 AM Get Outlook for iOS From: Carey Anderson Rash <careyanderson@me.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 7:05:10 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Carey and Todd Rash April 19, 2022 - Page 97 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: Save the Sheep Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:45:18 AM Get Outlook for iOS From: Shelly Gruner <shschatzi@aol.com> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 7:31:11 AM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Save the Sheep Please do the right thing for our community! The future generations are counting on you. Please find an alternative place to build. Thank you very much, Shelly, Hansi and Felix Gruner Sent from my iPhone April 19, 2022 - Page 98 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: Please protect Booth Heights Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:45:42 AM Get Outlook for iOS From: Led Gardner <lgardner@slifer.net> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 7:49:58 AM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Please protect Booth Heights Dear Council, I am writing to say thank you, and to offer my encouragement, regarding your stance on protecting the Booth Heights property. Please stand firm in the face of Vail Resorts’ bullying. The legacy that you leave for Vail’s future will be valued for generations. Thank you, and stay the course! Led Led Gardner Branch Broker / Manager Covered Bridge and Four Seasons Offices Slifer, Smith & Frampton Real Estate, LLC 970-376-0223 lgardner@slifer.net www.vailskiproperties.com Please Note: Due to the growing challenges of email fraud as it pertains to real estate transactions, we do not email wiring instructions. Please call me if you are ever asked to wire money. Thank you. April 19, 2022 - Page 99 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:46:21 AM Get Outlook for iOS From: Mark Cody <mwcody55@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:20:51 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com <comments@vailresorts.com>; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org <bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org> Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Mark Cody Kremmling, CO Sent from my iPhone April 19, 2022 - Page 100 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: sheep habitat Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:46:42 AM Get Outlook for iOS From: cbartmd@aol.com <cbartmd@aol.com> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:39:55 AM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: sheep habitat I am a full time resident of vail and live in the east vail area. I am shocked by the actions of Vail Associates. Do they even consider themselves as residents of Vail? This is our town after all and I think it is high time to put our foot (feet) down concerning the threat to our community. The sheep are and have always been part of our community and we need to speak for them. We the citizens have spoken loudly and rejected the Booth Heights concept! Enough. Please do whatever it takes to end this drama. Sincerely Chris Bartlett 4034 Bighorn road April 19, 2022 - Page 101 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: Save Vail’s Unique Big Horn Sheep Habitat! Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 1:16:28 PM Get Outlook for iOS From: Gina Grisafi <ginagrisafi@comcast.net> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 12:40:18 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Save Vail’s Unique Big Horn Sheep Habitat! Dear Vail Town Council Members, I support the procurement of the booth heights property by eminent domain or by whatever means necessary to preserve Vail’s unique Big Horn Sheep habitat in perpetuity. The pittance payment of back taxes by VR and rezoning of booth heights was done with total disregard of Vail’s unique Big Horn Sheep and their habitat. Housing has no place in destroying this unique wildlife habitat. This land must be saved in perpetuity for Vail’s unique Big Horn Sheep. Regina Grisafi Vail CO April 19, 2022 - Page 102 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: Save Vail’s Front Door Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 1:16:51 PM Get Outlook for iOS From: Carolyn Smith <carolyndsmith8400@icloud.com> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 11:18:08 AM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Save Vail’s Front Door What is we see when we first drive into the Vail valley from the east? Open green welcoming space on both sides of the highway. The golf course on the south the green field on the north. So, take a deep breath. We’re home in this irreplaceable valley. Please leave it that way for us and for our children’s children. Carolyn Smith Sent from my iPhone April 19, 2022 - Page 103 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 1:18:22 PM Get Outlook for iOS From: Anne Esson <alesson055@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 9:46:05 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; ++comments@vailresorts.com <++comments@vailresorts.com>; +bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org <+bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org> Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Anne Esson April 19, 2022 - Page 104 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: The future of Vail Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 1:18:23 PM Get Outlook for iOS From: Jill Zimmerman Rutledge <jillzr@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 9:05:53 AM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: The future of Vail Dear Vail Town Council Members, We would like to express our support of using the RETT funds to purchase the ground that is the natural habitat to our Bighorn Sheep. It could also be possible for individuals and organizations to contribute this noble cause. It is unconscionable that Vail Resorts be allowed to develop in this natural area when they have options for development. Please vote to do the right thing and save these grounds from development. Doing the right thing may be out of the norm these days when there is so much money involved, but the thought of how development will impact our glorious Vail environment will hopefully give you pause, and help you vote to purchase the land instead of sell to Vail Resorts. Jill and Bob Rutledge 4524 Meadow Drive, unit 902 Vail, CO 81657 April 19, 2022 - Page 105 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 1:18:24 PM Get Outlook for iOS From: Helen Barker <habarker@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:48:21 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; ++comments@vailresorts.com <++comments@vailresorts.com>; +bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org <+bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org> Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. I live in Summit cty, and am a volunteer ranger with the eagle summit wilderness alliance. I regularly visit and hike in the vail valley. Vail Resorts is not 'walking' the EpicPromise talk of protecting the environment if they proceed with the proposed development! sincerely helen barker April 19, 2022 - Page 106 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: Booth Heights Date:Sunday, April 17, 2022 6:07:30 PM Get Outlook for iOS From: Deena DiCorpo <ddicorpo@icloud.com> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2022 5:34:42 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Booth Heights Hello all. As a resident of 41 years and a business owner, I am familiar with the problems surrounding employee housing or the lack of… In my opinion, one of the best ways we can spend the towns' money is to spend it on preserving open space and wildlife habitat. Without our wonderful outdoors and the wildlife that makes it special, our valley and quality of life would not be the same. You can purchase buildings and bedrooms until the cows come home, you can never bring back a habitat. First and foremost, put our money where our mouths are, preserve the Bighorn habitat. A great way to move on the path to carbon neutrality. Thank you for your time. Deena M. DiCorpo April 19, 2022 - Page 107 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: Booth Heights Date:Sunday, April 17, 2022 6:07:55 PM Get Outlook for iOS From: Tom Vucich <vucicht@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2022 5:16:25 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Booth Heights We fully support your decision to proceed with condemnation of the Booth Heights parcel. You all are surely aware of our intimate involvement in opposing this development from day one. In 2019 the request from council was for unanimous support of Middle Creek (Children’s Garden) as an “alternative” site for Booth Heights. The community acted in good faith, albeit with reservations, in that support. Vail Resorts has now, as many in the community suspected when they walked away from those good faith negotiations, shown what they truly are--disingenuous and deceitful—and unashamedly so. They, all along, have not wanted a win (TOV)-win(VR), but rather a win(VR)-lose(TOV). It’s obvious they are not to be trusted, but instead, adhere to the notion that the character Gordon Gecko in the 1987 movie Wall Street verbalized that “Greed is good”. Vail Resorts has ignored seriously developing part of the Ever Vail parcel they own and control for workforce housing while relying on taxpayer subsidized efforts instead. Time for us all to say “No more!” Please unanimously proceed with condemnation. You have much, much support from the Vail community. And, preservation of the Bighorn sheep herd will confirm the goals of sustainability this community has embraced. Sincerely, Tom and Blondie Vucich April 19, 2022 - Page 108 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 6:52:17 AM Get Outlook for iOS From: Trish Heisdorffer <cotrigirl@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2022 3:53:30 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com <comments@vailresorts.com> Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep (EVBS) herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. The Rocky Mountain Bighorn is Colorado's iconic official state animal. In the summer, the EVBS herd migrates to the high alpine terrain of the Gore Range, but their sole winter home in the Valley is restricted to the two small, south-facing slopes adjacent to I-70 in East Vail. These sunny slopes offer winter forage, and the cliffs which crown the slopes provide these expert climbers protection from predators. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Patricia Heisdorffer 689A Meadow Dr Frisco, CO 80443 April 19, 2022 - Page 109 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: Access to Booth Heights public comments Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 6:52:19 AM Get Outlook for iOS From: Frances Hartogh <frances.hartogh@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2022 3:45:25 PM To: Tammy Nagel <TNagel@vailgov.com> Subject: Access to Booth Heights public comments Hi Tammy. I’m very interested in the Booth Heights/Bighorn Sheep topic that is scheduled for Council’s consideration this Tuesday. Is there a way for me to view public comments that have been received so far? Thanks, Frances Hartogh 4229 Nugget Lane, Vail 720-320-0749 April 19, 2022 - Page 110 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: Booth Heights Property Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 6:52:25 AM Get Outlook for iOS From: kbenysh@vail.net <kbenysh@vail.net> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2022 2:08:17 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Booth Heights Property I anticipate that Vail Resorts will mount an aggressive campaign for approval of the Booth Heights project. I would like to see the Town Council oppose it just as aggressively. Development of the Booth Heights area will not only destroy our beautiful Bighorn sheep habitat, but it will also put undue strain on the East Vail bus system which is already overcrowded at peak times. Furthermore, the Booth Heights property is not near any services and businesses, so residents will most likely have to use cars to access everyday needs. Allowing this property to be developed flies in the face of everything that the Town and Vail Resorts profess to value. The Ever Vail property is a very viable alternative given its proximity to workplaces and services in an already developed area. Furthermore, a large portion of the property is undesirable for development, namely the Vail Professional Building and the adjacent uniform distribution building which border I-70. These are perfect sites for developing a convenient large-scale employee housing complex. I urge you to do all you can to prevent development of Booth Heights and to persuade, and perhaps even incentivize, Vail Resorts to build a sizeable housing development on the Ever Vail property. Kathryn Benysh April 19, 2022 - Page 111 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 6:54:53 AM Get Outlook for iOS From: Malin Johnsdotter <malin@vail.net> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2022 10:37:09 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com <comments@vailresorts.com>; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org <bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org> Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Vail Town Council, Vail Resorts, I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Malin Malin Johnsdotter malin@vail.net cell 970-376-6526 1779 Sierra Trail #A, Vail, CO 81657 USA April 19, 2022 - Page 112 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: Vail Visitors Love Vail’s Unique Big Horn Sheep! Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 6:54:57 AM Get Outlook for iOS From: Gina Grisafi <ginagrisafi@comcast.net> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2022 9:35:27 AM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Vail Visitors Love Vail’s Unique Big Horn Sheep! Dear Mayor Langmaid, Mayor Pro Tem Coggin, Mr. Davis, Mr.Foley, Ms. Mason, Mr. Seibert, and Mr. Staufer, I support the procurement of the booth heights property by eminent domain or by whatever means necessary to preserve Vail’s unique Big Horn Sheep habitat in perpetuity. The pittance payment of back taxes by VR and rezoning of booth heights was done with total disregard of Vail’s unique Big Horn Sheep and their habitat. Housing has no place in destroying this unique wildlife habitat. This land must be saved in perpetuity for Vail’s unique Big Horn Sheep. Regina Grisafi Vail CO (I would have liked to email you each individually but the captcha feature would not allow sending to your email links on vailgov.com) April 19, 2022 - Page 113 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 6:55:01 AM Get Outlook for iOS From: Victoria Keen <vek80544@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2022 8:46:25 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; ++comments@vailresorts.com <++comments@vailresorts.com>; +bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org <+bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org> Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Victoria Keen, Colorado Native April 19, 2022 - Page 114 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: Booth Heights Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 6:55:05 AM Get Outlook for iOS From: Peter Woods <pcwvail1@msn.com> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2022 8:31:56 AM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Booth Heights Greetings from East Vail, The Woods family-Kara, Peter, Parker and Barrett support your efforts to prevent Vail Resorts from building ANYTHING on the parcel known as Booth Heights. It's shameful that they would continue to move forward with developing anything on a site that shelters our local wildlife and State animal. Please take action! Please protect this land. The Woods 970-470-1194 pcwvail1@msn.com April 19, 2022 - Page 115 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Booth Heights property plans Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 9:19:39 AM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: M Nelson <krischer.nelson@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 8:45 AM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Booth Heights property plans To all Vail Town Council members: I support the condemnation of the Booth Heights property, even though you will use TOV funds to purchase. This land should be protected to preserve the bighorn sheep habitat. The property is also not suitable for employee housing due to the need for car ownership & lack of pedestrian access even to the limited East Vail shopping. Also, I think that geological investigations have shown that there is considerable rockslide danger. The development of this property is not in keeping with TOV climate protection initiatives. As a Vail voter, I hope you act to stop the current development plans. Thank you for your ongoing & thoughtful service to Vail. Margaret Nelson 4682 Meadow Dr, Vail April 19, 2022 - Page 116 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 9:19:55 AM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Krista Hughes <krista.a.hughes@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 8:38 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Thank you, Krista Hughes April 19, 2022 - Page 117 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Booth Heights Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 9:20:26 AM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Kathryn Middleton <katmidds@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 7:57 AM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Booth Heights Good morning Mayor Langmaid and Council Members, I am writing over the concern and outrage I have regarding Vail Resort's (VR) latest announcement to develop the Booth Heights property for so-called "affordable housing investments" in Vail, and three other communities where they operate ski resorts. After all the feedback VR has received against development on the Booth Heights property they have turned a blind eye to what the local community in Vail wants to see, or doesn't want to see on that site. Our natural environment and the bighorn sheep who inhabit the proposed site have flourished of late, I've seen a larger herd there this winter season than I've seen in many years past. It seems obvious that EverVail is the appropriate site to build employee housing as it is an eye-sore and has been primed since the "new dawn" for development. Is there a reason VR doesn't want to build there? I support you all, Mayor Langmaid and Vail Town Council, in condemning the Booth April 19, 2022 - Page 118 of 569 Heights site and hope that VR will open their eyes to their impact on this valley and comply with their value statement to "DO GOOD: Preserve our natural environments and contribute to the success of our local communities". Sincerely, Kathryn Middleton Vail, CO April 19, 2022 - Page 119 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Supporting the effort to save Booth Heights Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 9:20:44 AM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Ifranberg <ifranberg@aol.com> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 7:38 AM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Supporting the effort to save Booth Heights I support the effort to condemn the Booth Heights land in order to never being built on. Ingegerd Franberg Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS April 19, 2022 - Page 120 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 9:21:30 AM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Mary Wolf <marythewolf27@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 7:34 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Mary Merritt Wolf Merritt Communication marythewolf27@gmail.com April 19, 2022 - Page 121 of 569 303-817-2218 — from my iPhone April 19, 2022 - Page 122 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 9:22:26 AM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Kent Johnson <kent1johnson@aol.com> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 7:15 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep To The Vail Town Council: I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Kent Johnson East Vail Resident April 19, 2022 - Page 123 of 569 April 19, 2022 - Page 124 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 9:23:07 AM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Dave Owens <dave@djofrisco.com> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2022 9:51 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to strongly oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd! The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Sincerely, Dave Owens Frisco, Colorado April 19, 2022 - Page 125 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 9:23:24 AM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Patricia Gunckel <psgunckel@comcast.net> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2022 9:37 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much- needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Patricia Gunckel April 19, 2022 - Page 126 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Booth Heights Project/Big Horn Sheep Habitat.. Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 9:23:44 AM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: John Gorsuch <jgorsuch@gorsuch.com> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2022 6:22 PM To: comments@vailresorts.com Cc: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Booth Heights Project/Big Horn Sheep Habitat.. Dear Vail Resorts, I am writing today to ask you all to do whatever it takes to negotiate a resolution with Town of Vail that will avoid development on this parcel of land. As we look to the future of our community, protecting this habitat is of the utmost importance. This is an issue that has become a focal point of who we are as a community and what we stand for. We have a chance to take a bold stand for protecting the natural environment that drew so many of here so many years ago. In your Epic Promise, you state your mission on many issues. I have pasted here your promise April 19, 2022 - Page 127 of 569 regarding forests and habitat; Managing the health and resilience of our forests and habitat takes sound, long-term planning for our critical mountain environments. To protect the beautiful environments we operate in, we are committed to: Minimizing or eliminating the impact of any future resort development. Planting or restoring an acre of forest for every acre of forest displaced by our operations, with the goal of achieving improved species and age diversity—resulting in healthier, more resilient forests. Continuing and expanding our existing commitments to partner with and fund local organizations focused on the health of forests, habitat and wildlife. In 2016, for example, we contributed more than $1 million to 50 environmental stewardship projects through direct grants, to the $1 guest donation initiative, and to the 1 Percent for the Forests commitment—made in partnership with the National Forest Foundation and The Nature Conservancy. Vail Resorts has an opportunity now to boldly stand in that promise. Please resume discussions addressing this vital natural habitat and allow these beautiful animals to continue to grace our valley with their presence. I thank you for your time and consideration! John Gorsuch Gorsuch 263 E. Gore Creek Dr. Vail CO, 81657 www.gorsuch.com April 19, 2022 - Page 128 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Booth Heights Project/Big Horn Sheep Habitat... Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 9:23:57 AM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: John Gorsuch <jgorsuch@gorsuch.com> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2022 6:07 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Booth Heights Project/Big Horn Sheep Habitat... Dear Vail Town Council, I am writing today to ask you all to do whatever it takes to negotiate a resolution with Vail Resorts that will avoid development on this parcel of land. As we look to the future of our community, protecting this habitat is of the utmost importance. This is an issue that has become a focal point of who we are as a community and what we stand for. We have a chance to take a bold stand for protecting the natural environment that drew so many of here so many years ago. We all realize this is a sensitive issue, however this is not the answer to the dire need of staff housing in the Vail Valley. April 19, 2022 - Page 129 of 569 I thank you for your time and consideration! John Gorsuch Gorsuch 263 E. Gore Creek Dr. Vail CO, 81657 www.gorsuch.com April 19, 2022 - Page 130 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 9:24:09 AM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Karen Andries-Lumpe <jklumpe@comcast.net> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2022 6:20 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. April 19, 2022 - Page 131 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 9:52:49 AM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: holly holden <holdenholly@hotmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 10:02 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Sent from my iPhone April 19, 2022 - Page 132 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: URGENT! Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 9:53:15 AM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Greg Kissler <gkissler@summitnet.com> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:08 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: URGENT! Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to urge the Town of Vail and others to support the preservation of the Booth Heights property in East Vail as a permanent open space designated as a wildlife habitat. As full time residents in Vail we are keenly aware of the need to preserve this land for the Bighorn Sheep. As a skier and longtime pass holder at Vail for nearly 5 decades our family has been a part of and watched the development of the town and the resort. I generally support the growth of the resort and the development of our community. Over these years there has not been anything more important in my view than balancing this growth with protecting our unique mountain environment. As wildlife experts and others have studied the specific location of the Booth Heights property is some of the last remaining winter habitat for the Bighorn Sheep. This habitat must be protected and development moved to areas without significant environmental consequences. I agree with many April 19, 2022 - Page 133 of 569 others that Vail needs more housing for those that work here to serve the many guests that visit this special place. I commend the progress the Town of Vail has made including the Chamonix neighborhood, Residence at Main Vail and the Deed Restriction program. Vail Resorts has other property which could be developed for workforce housing which is better located for employees and doesn’t have significant environmental impacts. I’m confident that both the TOV and VR could work together with a common goal to balance the need for employee housing with environmentally conscious development. The Bighorn Sheep that have been here for hundreds of years are counting on us to do the right thing, preserve their remaining winter habitat! Respectfully, Greg Kissler Annegret Kessler April 19, 2022 - Page 134 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: vail bighorn land Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 9:53:16 AM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: christine frank <cefrank@hotmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 2:03 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: vail bighorn land Please do not let this revolting project go through. It is bad enough East Vail has become the dumping ground for poorly chosen sculptures that the town no longer wants—let us get back to being a mountain town—long live the bighorn! Sent from Mail for Windows April 19, 2022 - Page 135 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Booth Heights Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 9:53:20 AM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: wally frank <wbfrank@hotmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 1:32 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Booth Heights I vote in favor of the bighorns ! April 19, 2022 - Page 136 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Save our valley’s Big Horn Sheep Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 11:00:52 AM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: mary ellen anderson <dezinz@mac.com> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 10:58 AM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Save our valley’s Big Horn Sheep Dear Council members, It is imperative that you act effectively to stop VR’s plans to build in East Vail. Debbie Ford, with continued backing from so many of us Vail residents, and Merv Lapin have stated to perfection this issue and the solutions. Please Condemn the property. Save the sheep. Raise the bar of integrity! Thank you. With appreciation, MaryEllen Douglas Anderson April 19, 2022 - Page 137 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Save the Sheep; Condemn Booth Heights Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 11:01:08 AM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Susie Kincade <susie@ebcmarketing.com> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 10:50 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Save the Sheep; Condemn Booth Heights To the Vail Town Council, The Town of Vail is faced with choosing to knowingly exterminate the last population of wild bighorn sheep, vs. standing up for our community and requiring Vail Resorts to spare the sheep habitat and use their massive assets to provide abundant local housing elsewhere, such as in EverVail or Minturn. The Booth Heights land is and has always been designated as Open Space. Vail Resorts lost it, then recovered it for pennies on the dollar – a good scheme. Now they want to build. Please say NO. If VR won’t agree, then condemn the land for human use and return it to the bighorn sheep, who will perish without it, according the wildlife studies. April 19, 2022 - Page 138 of 569 I hope the Town Council has the courage to say enough is enough. Please stand up for the wholeness of our community. Insist that Vail Resorts build ample employee housing elsewhere – they have other more suitable property. If you must condemn the Booth Heights property, please do that. I’m sure you will have support (financial and moral) from the community. You certainly have mine. Susie Kincade Eagle, CO Susie Kincade Eagle County Wilderness Advocate www.thecoreact.org 970-328-5472 April 19, 2022 - Page 139 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Save the Sheep - Condemn Booth Heights Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 11:01:56 AM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Susie Kincade <susie@ebcmarketing.com> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 10:47 AM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Save the Sheep - Condemn Booth Heights Greetings, The Town of Vail is faced with choosing to knowingly exterminate the last population of wild bighorn sheep, vs. standing up for our community and requiring Vail Resorts to spare the sheep habitat and use their massive assets to provide abundant local housing elsewhere, such as in EverVail or Minturn. The Booth Heights land is and has always been designated as Open Space. Vail Resorts lost it, then recovered it for pennies on the dollar – a good scheme. Now they want to build. Please say NO. If VR won’t agree, then condemn the land for human use and return it to the bighorn sheep, who will perish without it, according the wildlife studies. April 19, 2022 - Page 140 of 569 I hope the Town Council has the courage to say enough is enough. Please stand up for the wholeness of our community. Insist that Vail Resorts build ample employee housing elsewhere – they have other more suitable property. If you must condemn the Booth Heights property, please do that. I’m sure you will have support (financial and moral) from the community. You certainly have mine. Susie Kincade Eagle, CO Susie Kincade Eagle County Wilderness Advocate www.thecoreact.org 970-328-5472 April 19, 2022 - Page 141 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Given the circumstances, highly inappropriate public comment. Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 11:27:38 AM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Pete Feistmann <feistmann@earthlink.net> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 11:26 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Given the circumstances, highly inappropriate public comment. https://coloradosun.com/2022/04/18/vail-resorts-mountain-affordable-housing-opposition/? pico=clean George Ruther, the director of the Town of Vail’s housing department, said rising construction costs, interest rates and inflation have made the housing problem in his town even more acute. He’s glad to see Vail Resorts stepping up with a plan, noting that the last housing project built by the resort operator is almost 20 years old. “And that came about purely as an obligation to meet a housing mitigation requirement,” Ruther said. “As the largest employer in Vail, housing solutions from Vail Resorts are much needed and long overdue.” April 19, 2022 - Page 142 of 569 April 19, 2022 - Page 143 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 11:27:52 AM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Joan Carnie <2vailcarnie@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 11:26 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Joan and Jack Carnie April 19, 2022 - Page 144 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Booth Heights/Bighorn sheep Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 1:09:16 PM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Christie Hochtl <cjbhochtl@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 12:55 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Booth Heights/Bighorn sheep Vail Town Council, Please preserve the Booth Heights parcel and save our herd of Bighorn Sheep. Please add our names to Merv Lapin's letter today in the Vail Daily! Please do whatever you can to save the sheep and this parcel of land. Thank you, Christie and Karl Hochtl 890 Red Sandstone Circle Vail, CO 81657 cjbhochtl@gmail.com 970 476 1125 landline April 19, 2022 - Page 145 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Booth Heights Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 1:10:05 PM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: rolvail@aol.com <rolvail@aol.com> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 11:55 AM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Booth Heights Dear Town Council: I would just like to reinforce what those of you who have been on the town council already know; as a 35 year resident I believe the Booth Heights development project is a horrible idea for our town and our neighborhood sheep. I am aware that this is obviously a difficult decision but urge you to protect one of our most valuable wildlife resources which we view enjoy a majority of days during the winter. VR is urging hundreds of employees to pack tomorrow’s meeting and I hope this does not influence the proper course of action, which is to condemn this selfish business proposition of one company at the expense of our beloved town. Thanks so much. Respectfully, April 19, 2022 - Page 146 of 569 Rol Hamelin 5167 Gore Cir. Vail 81657 April 19, 2022 - Page 147 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: Dealing with Vail Resorts Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 4:36:28 PM Get Outlook for iOS From: Pete Feistmann <feistmann@earthlink.net> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 4:48:08 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Dealing with Vail Resorts Dear Council Members, The town is probably at the most difficult point in history in its relations with Vail Resorts. You are said to be considering condemnation of the Booth Heights and Ever Vail properties, and there are serious concerns about parking, mountain crowding and safety. As you all know, this will be a long, complex, and expensive process, one that requires the best possible strategic and legal advice. Harry Frampton, as a former president of Vail Associates and an immensely successful developer, has the best background of anyone in the community for advising you in this process. I know from frequent conversations with him that he is very willing to take that role. We are lucky that he is willing to do that, so I urge you to involve him as extensively as possible ASAP. Pete Pete Feistmann PO Box 2438 Vail, CO 81658 feistmann@earthlink.net April 19, 2022 - Page 148 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: vail bighorn land Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 4:36:31 PM Get Outlook for iOS From: christine frank <cefrank@hotmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 2:02:58 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: vail bighorn land Please do not let this revolting project go through. It is bad enough East Vail has become the dumping ground for poorly chosen sculptures that the town no longer wants—let us get back to being a mountain town—long live the bighorn! Sent from Mail for Windows April 19, 2022 - Page 149 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 4:36:33 PM Get Outlook for iOS From: Georgia stout <geostout7@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 2:02:36 PM To: ++comments@vailresorts.com <++comments@vailresorts.com>; +bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org <+bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org>; PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Georgia Stout April 19, 2022 - Page 150 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: Booth Heights Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 4:36:36 PM Get Outlook for iOS From: wally frank <wbfrank@hotmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 1:32:18 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Booth Heights I vote in favor of the bighorns ! April 19, 2022 - Page 151 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 4:51:43 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Coralie Rogers <coralieerogers@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 4:51 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. April 19, 2022 - Page 152 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Booth Heights support Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 4:53:01 PM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Mike D <garfsoffice@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 3:56 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Booth Heights support To Vail Town Council, I am writing to express our support of the Booth Heights housing project in East Vail. As a multiple restaurant food service operator since 1993 in Vail, we are now in critical condition in our employee housing situation. Not allowing a project that will provide the hospitality workers housing for our hospitality industry will be a regrettable mistake, while only leaving the legacy of a poorly executed decision. The decision to only see the side of a small portion of our populus, full time or part time residents, and having their needs put before the rest of the community is negligible at best. May I remind you of the closed store fronts and partial openings we incurred during the past summer and even this past winter due to lack of human resources? Situations of that sort are detrimental to resort communities and their guests. Even though the argument stands that "they" (workers and why we call them they is ridiculous) should be living down valley, we were reminded on April 12th April 19, 2022 - Page 153 of 569 2022 of why that scenario is not an optimal situation. The impacts of this decision are larger than just a few happy residents. The decision to stop this project will definitely pronounce your stance on diversity, equity and inclusion in our community, which is a statement larger than life itself. Please be rational and forward thinking, "the old days of Vail" ship sailed many years ago. Please take us into the future, a better and well managed future. A future that ALL community needs are taken into consideration and lead us to being a number one ski resort destination town again that supports diversity, equity, inclusion and a chance that someone may be able to better their life here just like the pioneers that came before them. Sincerely, The entire staff of Garfinkel's, El sabor and Colorado Mountain Events. April 19, 2022 - Page 154 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Please condemn Booth Heights Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 4:56:19 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Heather Viola <heatherlviola@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 2:35 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Please condemn Booth Heights Dear Vail town council, Just want to be another voice to let you know we don’t approve of the Booth Heights project. There are alternatives to employee housing but there are NOT alternatives to wildlife and open space. We might as well be Denver if you add the Booth Heights project in the proposed big horn sheep habitat. And there’s nothing special about that. Please do the right thing and vote to condemn Booth Heights. Thank you for listening, Heather and Randy Viola 797 Potato Patch Dr, Vail April 19, 2022 - Page 155 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 4:56:33 PM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Richard Buerman <rbuerman@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 2:32 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Richard Buerman April 19, 2022 - Page 156 of 569 April 19, 2022 - Page 157 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 4:58:46 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Mary Johnson <msjohnson820@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 2:02 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; ++comments@vailresorts.com; +bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Sent from my iPhone April 19, 2022 - Page 158 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 4:59:28 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Cindy Ryerson <ryersoncindy@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 4:56 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Cindy Ryerson 4859 Meadow Drive Unit B Vail, Co. 81657 970-390-5759 Sent from my iPhone April 19, 2022 - Page 159 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: Big horn sheep Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 8:58:03 PM Get Outlook for iOS From: Joanne <joannewaring@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 5:08:14 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Big horn sheep Dear Town Council, Please add my voice to the objection of the Vail Resorts proposal to build employee housing on the Booth Heights area. I am more interested in Vail resorts following its intent on mitigating environmental impact and following the advice of the Colorado Department of Wildlife experts. Please look elsewhere (EverVail?) as options that do not impose such a threat to our beautiful valley and its natural inhabitants. Thank you, Joanne Waring 4862 Meadow Lane Vail Sent from my iPad April 19, 2022 - Page 160 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: East Vail Housing Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 8:53:28 AM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Denise Cheng <denise.cheng@vailresorts.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 8:52 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: East Vail Housing I’m in support of Workforce Housing in East Vail. Please approve housing plan in Booth Heights. Denise Cheng Sr. Referral Specialist-Epic Mountain Rentals The information contained in this message is confidential and intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may be privileged. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender immediately, stating that you have received the message in error, then please delete this e-mail. Thank you. April 19, 2022 - Page 161 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Save the Bighorn Sheep Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 8:54:12 AM Attachments:Bighorn letter to TOV.txt image012.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Grace Poganski <pogansg@bellsouth.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 7:59 AM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Save the Bighorn Sheep April 19, 2022 - Page 162 of 569 Town of Vail Council I applaud the town council for stepping up to try and prohibit Vail Resorts from building on the east Vail property known as Booth Heights. Like the bully on the block who says "it's mine and I can do whatever I want", Vail Resorts has once again defaulted on it's promises to have zero impact on wildlife habitat and their "special obligation" to protect the environment. The facts on the ground have not changed since the first attempt to build on this site. The bighorn sheep still claim it as their habitat. The geology of the land is such that it remains a danger to build on the site without harm. We still see sheep on this hillside, sometimes on a daily basis. Vail Resorts selectively chose to listen to only one misinformed biologist who claimed that the bighorn sheep were noctural and would therefore not be bothered by any construction. The residents of Vail must speak for the sheep, as must the town council. Since Vail Resorts pulled out of any land swap talks, it is time for the Town to take whatever actions are necessary to preserve some of the last remaining natural space in the valley and to save our sheep from extinction. Thank you for going forward to preserve the natural landscape. Grace Poganski April 19, 2022 - Page 163 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 8:54:35 AM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Liz Johnson <elizabethkjohnson@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 7:10 AM To: ++comments@vailresorts.com; +bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org; PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Liz Johnson 4238 Nugget Lane Vail, Co 81657 -- April 19, 2022 - Page 164 of 569 elizabethkjohnson@gmail.com Cell 303.478.1983 April 19, 2022 - Page 165 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 8:54:50 AM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: ldmontan@comcast.net <ldmontan@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 7:07 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Larry Montan 2875 Manns Ranch Road, A2 East Vail April 19, 2022 - Page 166 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Booth Heights Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 8:55:08 AM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: thecarrotlady1@aol.com <thecarrotlady1@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 6:21 AM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Booth Heights Dear Vail Town Council, Just condemn the Booth Heights property and be done with it already! I cannot believe it got this far. So sad what has happened to this valley because of greed. Save the bighorn sheep! Sincerely, Andi Saden April 19, 2022 - Page 167 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 8:56:34 AM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Tony Ryerson <aryerson12@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 8:44 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; ++comments@vailresorts.com; +bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Sincerely, Tony Ryerson April 19, 2022 - Page 168 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 8:56:47 AM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Pat Nixon <patnixon@vail.net> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 8:28 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Sent from my iPhone April 19, 2022 - Page 169 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Stop Booth Heights Development Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 8:57:05 AM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Kim Rider <kimrider123@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 7:54 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Stop Booth Heights Development Please stop the Booth Heights development. Regards, Kimberly Rider 4031 Bighorn Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Please excuse typos and brief communication. I’m typing from my iPhone April 19, 2022 - Page 170 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 8:57:27 AM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Pegasus Rumaine <lecheval5457@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 7:45 PM To: ++comments@vailresorts.com; +bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org; PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. The Booth Heights parcel on which Vail Resorts plans to construct high-density housing is critical winter habitat for a herd of Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep. Our bighorns need all the protection we can provide them, especially during the challenging winter April 19, 2022 - Page 171 of 569 season when food is scarce and female sheep are pregnant. I urge the Town of Vail Council to do everything in their power to protect the critical bighorn sheep winter habitat by acquiring the parcel, by a condemnation action if necessary, and dedicating it to the Town’s open space program, specifying that the parcel will only be used for wildlife habitat purposes. Sincerely and with respect, Pegasus Rumaine 1063 Vail View Dr Unit 1 Vail, CO lechcheval5457@gmail.com April 19, 2022 - Page 172 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 8:57:37 AM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Mark Luzar <goskiwime@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 7:42 PM To: ++coments@vailresorts.com; +bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org; PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. The Booth Heights parcel on which Vail Resorts plans to construct high-density housing is critical winter habitat for a herd of Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep. April 19, 2022 - Page 173 of 569 Our bighorns need all the protection we can provide them, especially during the challenging winter season when food is scarce and female sheep are pregnant. I urge the Town of Vail Council to do everything in their power to protect the critical bighorn sheep winter habitat by acquiring the parcel, by a condemnation action if necessary, and dedicating it to the Town’s open space program, specifying that the parcel will only be used for wildlife habitat purposes. Sincerely and with respect, Mark Luzar 1063 Vail View Dr Unit 21 Vail, CO goskiwime@yahoo.com April 19, 2022 - Page 174 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Please follow through with condemnation of the Booth Heights parcel! Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 9:24:25 AM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Barbara Ruh <ruhskis9713@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 9:18 AM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Please follow through with condemnation of the Booth Heights parcel! -- Bobbie Ruh 78 Mission Place PO Box 1354 Edwards CO 81632 970 479-7333 bobbie@ruhskis.com 303 888-0209 Cell In California: 1643 La Vista del Oceano April 19, 2022 - Page 175 of 569 Santa Barbara CA 93109 805 899-3464 . . . Defenseless under the night our world in stupor lies;Yet, dotted everywhere, ironic points of light Flash out wherever the Just exchange their messages:May I, composed like them of Eros and of dust, Beleaguered by the same negation and despair,Show an affirming flame. W.H. Auden-September 1, 1939 April 19, 2022 - Page 176 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Please follow through with condemnation of the Booth Heights parcel! Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 9:24:25 AM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Barbara Ruh <ruhskis9713@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 9:18 AM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Please follow through with condemnation of the Booth Heights parcel! -- Bobbie Ruh 78 Mission Place PO Box 1354 Edwards CO 81632 970 479-7333 bobbie@ruhskis.com 303 888-0209 Cell In California: 1643 La Vista del Oceano April 19, 2022 - Page 177 of 569 Santa Barbara CA 93109 805 899-3464 . . . Defenseless under the night our world in stupor lies;Yet, dotted everywhere, ironic points of light Flash out wherever the Just exchange their messages:May I, composed like them of Eros and of dust, Beleaguered by the same negation and despair,Show an affirming flame. W.H. Auden-September 1, 1939 April 19, 2022 - Page 178 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Bighorns, April 18, 2022 Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 9:25:13 AM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: CCC <14erhiker@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 9:03 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Fwd: Bighorns, April 18, 2022 >>> >>> Dear Town Council Members, >>> >>> Please preserve the critical habitat for bighorn sheep between Booth and Pitkin Creeks. I have counted them throughout the winter, and one day they numbered sixty-two. >>> April 19, 2022 - Page 179 of 569 >> >>> >>> >>> I took these photos on Monday, April 18th on the way to East Vail. >>> April 19, 2022 - Page 180 of 569 >> >>> >>> >>> Thank you, and thank you for your service to the Town of Vail. >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> Charlyn Canada >>> 2940 Manns Ranch Road >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone April 19, 2022 - Page 181 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 9:27:52 AM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Sally Ryerson <sallyryerson@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 5:46 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Thanks, Sally Ryerson Vail Resorts Employee Sent from my iPhone April 19, 2022 - Page 182 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 9:28:04 AM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Susan Rosenbach <susanrosenbach@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 5:38 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Sent from my iPhone Susan Rosenbach susanrosenbach@gmail.com 203-912-2450 April 19, 2022 - Page 183 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 9:28:23 AM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Rev. Brad Langdon <revbradlangdon@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 5:21 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Animals need a place to live, too. Sincerely, Rev. Brad Langdon April 19, 2022 - Page 184 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Booth Creek Employee Housing Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 9:54:56 AM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Tim Hargreaves <tim@vailwillows.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 9:54 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Booth Creek Employee Housing Dear Town Council, I strongly disagree with Vail Resorts decision to build employee housing on the Booth Creek Parcel. The town allowed the current project to move forward at Children’s Garden as an alternative to this location. Period. Vail has other parcels in town – particularly the Ever Vail area that make much better sense as a location – allowing seasonal employees to access their jobs easily, on foot, without impact to public transport or public parking. It is time to hold Vail Resorts accountable for things that are within their control that have negatively impacted the Vail brand. These include employee housing, but the effects of the Epic Pass are endemic for our Town and the quality of life to those that consider the Eagle Valley their home. The Town needs to address what they can do to right this ship, and there are definitely actions available to you! April 19, 2022 - Page 185 of 569 Regards, Tim Tim Hargreaves Willows at Vail General Manager 970.476.2233 x 107 April 19, 2022 - Page 186 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Booth Heights Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 10:21:00 AM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Drew Riley <drew@slopeenterprises.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 10:19 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Booth Heights Hi Town Council, I am writing to give my full support to the new development at Booth Heights in East Vail. Yes I know there is tons of controversy on this from Bighorn Sheep to buses to Vail being busier. I personally think the pros weigh out the cons in this instance. Vail is continuing to grow and if we want to keep Vail even remotely behaving how it is now we need to continue development within East-West Vail. Yes this will mean some of the wildlife will be displaced but where was that thought with all of the other developments beforehand? The buses will be more crowded but this is going to happen regardless of if this development happens or not. Again, in order to maintain the level of service Vail offers to the tourists (which support all aspects of April 19, 2022 - Page 187 of 569 the Town) we need more affordable housing and ideally in East-West Vail. Employees are imperative and without them you can say goodbye to Vail. Finally, I own businesses in Vail and I can tell you all of my staff was pushed to their limits with how busy it was this year. If we have more employees to work then we have better mental health for everyone throughout the valley. I see it first hand and for my businesses, pay rate is not the issue as the servers make roughly $50/hr. This project should go through and move forward to ensure Vail remains the best ski town/resort in the world. Best, Drew -- Drew Riley Slope Enterprises - Russell's - Los Amigos - Bridge Street Lockers 970.476.0080 April 19, 2022 - Page 188 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 11:46:54 AM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Diane Boyer <dianeboyer@skealimited.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 11:14 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org Cc: Jen Mason <jen@snowsportsmuseum.org>; Jonathan Staufer <jonathanstaufer@gmail.com> Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Dear Vail Town Council, I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Personally, I think it would be appropriate for Vail Resorts to donate the land in East Vail to the April 19, 2022 - Page 189 of 569 Town of Vail open space program to show support of Vail Resort's EPICPROMISE to protect the environment. In my opinion, the former Ever Vail parcel West of Lionshead would be a perfect location for employee housing--walking distance to town and on a short bus route. Vail Resorts owns that parcel of land as well. Thank you for your consideration. Diane Boyer Town of Vail resident for 45 years 804 Potato Patch Dr. Vail Diane Boyer President, SKEA Ltd. dianeboyer@skealimited.com Cell 970-390-1311 Golden Office 303-371-5324 “Follow your passion to your dreams” -SKEA April 19, 2022 - Page 190 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Open Letter to Town Council Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 11:50:59 AM Attachments:Ltr tCouncil 44.19.22.pdf image012.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: pamelas <carbonkopy2010@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 10:35 AM To: vailtowncouncil@vailgov Cc: Tammy Nagel <TNagel@vailgov.com> Subject: Open Letter to Town Council Pamela Stenmark pamelas@vail.net (c) 970-376-1124 April 19, 2022 - Page 191 of 569 Open Letter to Vail Town Council Dear Mayor Langmaid, Members of Council This is to express my support to workforce housing on the EverVail site and NOT on the East Vail Parcel known as Booth Heights. The EverVail location has many attributes that East Vail does not. Sorry to restate what is probably obvious to Council but for clarity and newcomers to the question, doing so seems appropriate. EverVail is: •Located close to jobs; an easy walk or short In-Town bus ride to all of Vail & Lionshead •Near restaurants, entertainment, again within walking distance or on In-Town bus routes •An easy one bus ride to West Vail shopping, restaurants, services, super market •Easily part of the overall community, within walking distance and is not isolated •Not creating an eyesore by bulldozing pristine land at the gateway to Vail •Not requiring building a huge and unsightly berm that can never recover, according to landscape experts •Not destroying an iconic Bighorn Sheep population •Owned by Vail Resorts (VR) for more than 13 years; the site gained development approval but VR let those approvals lapse. Corporate goals change but workforce housing has been a Vail issue since before VR acquired the EverVail site however VR chose to put building the corporation ahead of building a workforce community East Vail/Booth Heights is an inappropriate location because it is: •At least one bus ride or vehicle trip to Vail/Lionshead jobs •Two bus rides each way, or a vehicle trip to West Vail services, market, restaurants, entertainment. With many employees having two or more jobs, who has time to ride two busses each way from East Vail to West Vail for grocery shopping? Simms Market is essentially an expensive convenience store and is not a substitute for a supermarket •Not physically integrated into the Vail community; is isolated without a bus or vehicle trip •Likely to exacerbate existing transportation and parking challenges along the East Vail route and within the core area parking •Controversial due to an approval process flawed by conflicts of interest •Compromised by inaccurate or incomplete traffic and other studies, as revealed during PEC hearings •Creating an eyesore at the gateway to Vail with a huge berm, bulldozing a pristine hillside •Dooming the Bighorn Sheep herd that has occupied the site since long before Vail was developed I call upon Town Council and Vail Resorts to do what is best for the Community long-term. Digging up the East Vail site is destructive and can never be undone. VR should donate the land to be permanently protected and uphold its epic promise to the environment. If VR refuses to be a partner in preservation, The Town of Vail should be ready to act swiftly to acquire the East Vail property by whatever means necessary, and forever preserve the land. Thank you for your consideration and your service, Pam Stenmark April 19, 2022 - Page 192 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Letter from a 20 year Vail Hospitality Veteran in regards to housing Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 3:16:44 PM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Andreas Harl <andreas@vailbeverage.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 2:23 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Letter from a 20 year Vail Hospitality Veteran in regards to housing Dear Town Council Like most of us who’ve lived and worked in town for an extended period of time (20 years living in Vail and working in town), I’ve been following the debate around the East Vail housing project rather closely. Rumor has it that the Town Council wants to approve a rather large amount of tax payers money to condemn the East Vail housing project. Any of you who know me, know what I haven’t used a plastic bag for groceries in 20 years. I refuse to ever buy bottle water in plastic bottles. I eat a 98% plant based diet due to the environment and I care for wildlife and animals more than most humans. Reality is though, that we live and work in a community that is strapped to bare bones when it comes to employee housing. I’ve worked in hospitality in town for almost 20 years and although, the restaurant I’m part of managing has an April 19, 2022 - Page 193 of 569 easier time hiring than most, its not gone unnoticed who mediocre the level of service around town has become due to staffing issues which solely relate to housing. The make a long story short. Please find a way to build this East Vail housing unit. We all know it doesn’t come without controversy but from everything I’ve seen and read, it seems entirely possibly to move that herd of sheep up several hundred feet and get them off the highway and frontage road. In fact, I think the council should find funding to employee somebody to pamper this heard. Give them everything they need but also give us as people who run businesses what we need. Housing! The negative press around VR was deserved this year, but give credit where credit is due. The raised their wages and finally commit to building the beds we so desperately need. And your decision is to condemn it because of a heard of sheep that according to studies will live happily ever after if we move them just a little bit and pamper them as suggested above. We have heated streets, mega mansions and an influx of silicon valley buying up every property there is. We the service industry will not be able to provide any kind of decent service in the community and Vail will fall just as quickly as it rose. Or has it already, and last time I checked, tourism is what matters here. I think we agree this was the worst season in history in terms of service in the valley, but yet we’ll take tax payers money, and a lot of it, to buy out VR to not build. The logic is beyond me and I hope that you as our elected officials will come up with a better creative solution then condemning the project. We all agree Ever Vail needs to turn into employee housing too, but East Vail needs to happen also. Imagine being a hotel trying to hire room service servers. Good luck and I’m lucky im not in that situation. It’s a terrible one to be in. Again, please don’t condemn, build but find a great solution for that herd that all of us care just as much about as we care about the housing project that needs to be built. Furthermore, some ideas on making long term rentals more appealing. How about we take some of the sales tax increase and promise everybody who rents long term to cut their property taxes in half and pay the county back with the sales increase. Also, increase the amount it costs to rent as VRBO. $2500 along with the above idea might just encourage plenty of folks to rent long term instead of the hassle of renting nightly. Your community is looking for bold and creative ideas to make it all work. The town and its service industry is suffering badly, and its only going to get worse if rentals don’t come back on the market soon. Best, Andreas Harl Beverage Director Matsuhisa Vail Owner, Vail Beverage Consulting Advanced Sommelier 970-688-0515 April 19, 2022 - Page 194 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: East Vail Development & Bighorn Sheep Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 4:19:56 PM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Chris Slaughter <chris.slaughter.bha@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 3:41 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: East Vail Development & Bighorn Sheep Hi Town Council, Mayor Langmaid suggested I reach out to you. I sent her a very similar email in support of condemning the East Vail development. I am Backcountry Hunters and Anglers (BHA) Regional Director of the Central Mountains of Colorado. We are a non-profit organization dedicated to the preservation of wildlife and wildlands. See our website at www.backcountryhunters.org/. We have been following Vail Resort's intention of building workforce housing along I-70 in East Vail that will impact the local population of Bighorn Sheep. When will the town be voting to condemn the property? Can we provide a public comment or help in any way to prevent the development from moving forward? April 19, 2022 - Page 195 of 569 We are sensitive to the need for affordable housing in our mountain towns but are very concerned about the impact to wildlife. Thank you for your dedication and support of these animals. Thank you for your time and consideration. Chris Slaughter Backcountry Hunters and Anglers Regional Director - Central Mountains Colorado chris.slaughter.bha@gmail.com April 19, 2022 - Page 196 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 7:26:49 PM Get Outlook for iOS From: Pat Nixon <patnixon@vail.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 6:53:32 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com <comments@vailresorts.com>; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org <bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org> Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Sent from my iPhone April 19, 2022 - Page 197 of 569 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Booth Heights Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 10:21:00 AM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Drew Riley <drew@slopeenterprises.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 10:19 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Booth Heights Hi Town Council, I am writing to give my full support to the new development at Booth Heights in East Vail. Yes I know there is tons of controversy on this from Bighorn Sheep to buses to Vail being busier. I personally think the pros weigh out the cons in this instance. Vail is continuing to grow and if we want to keep Vail even remotely behaving how it is now we need to continue development within East-West Vail. Yes this will mean some of the wildlife will be displaced but where was that thought with all of the other developments beforehand? The buses will be more crowded but this is going to happen regardless of if this development happens or not. Again, in order to maintain the level of service Vail offers to the tourists (which support all aspects of April 19, 2022 - Page 198 of 569 the Town) we need more affordable housing and ideally in East-West Vail. Employees are imperative and without them you can say goodbye to Vail. Finally, I own businesses in Vail and I can tell you all of my staff was pushed to their limits with how busy it was this year. If we have more employees to work then we have better mental health for everyone throughout the valley. I see it first hand and for my businesses, pay rate is not the issue as the servers make roughly $50/hr. This project should go through and move forward to ensure Vail remains the best ski town/resort in the world. Best, Drew -- Drew Riley Slope Enterprises - Russell's - Los Amigos - Bridge Street Lockers 970.476.0080 April 19, 2022 - Page 199 of 569 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: Vail Resorts Handout given to Council during meeting AT TAC H ME N TS: Description V R Handout April 19, 2022 - Page 200 of 569 Bighorn Sheep Winter Range Manns Ranch Rd Under Construction I :A-~,'. t ;, .. _ J..._,_J_, . ·"-.\;' Unit A-5,671 sq ft-$7,950,000 Unit B -4,284 sq ft -$6,500,000 I I Katsos Ranch Rd Built 2021 ~~:. Unit A -5,179 sq ft -$3,390,000 Unit B -4,312 sq ft-$2,999,56~:_ Bighorn Sheep Winter Concentration Area Colorado Parks and Wildlife Species Activity Mapping IOf·/cHtr1a:dv:emfnrun111'2Vk'51Wi1JtOM?IWfl!9'11WZ,.,, Bighorn Sheep Winter Range Development Sources: ColOflldo Path •nd Wildlifa, Eagle County Aue~1or'1 Office, Town of Vail. Zillow CBighom Sheep Winter Range O Bighom Sheep Winter Concentration Area ■Structures in Winter Range □Parcels in Winter Range 0 375 750 1,500Feet Total Structures Total Developed Acres Price Range Existing Approved Development Affordable Housing 107 95.6 acres $1.2 • $9.3 Mi!Hon• ·z-.•of1011-1nwi.....~~-2 acres -· April 19, 2022 - Page 201 of 569 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: A nnouncement of Grand Prize W inner of E -B ike F ollowing Close of 2022 Town of Vail Community S urvey P RE S E NT E R(S ): Mayor L angmaid B AC K G RO UND: The 2022 Town of Vail Community S urvey was conducted between March 21 and April 18 with more than 1,000 participants taking part. A s a thank you to community members for their participation, respondents were eligible to win an e-bike in a grand prize drawing on April 19, plus ten $100 Visa gift cards from among the completed surveys. T he e-bike grand prize is a Giant Roam E+ thanks to generous support from Venture S ports. Results from the survey will be presented to the Town Council and community on J une 7. April 19, 2022 - Page 202 of 569 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: Proclamation No. 4, Series of 2022 50th A nniversary of the Vail S ymposium P RE S E NT E R(S ): Dale Mosier, Vail Symposium Board Chair, Rob L eVine, Vail S ymposium Treasurer, Kathy K immel, Vail S ymposium B oard Member, and Karen Nold, Vail S ymposium B oard Member B AC K G RO UND: The Vail S ymposium has continued for 50 years to create year-round, thought- provoking programs encompassing topics such as geopolitics, hot topics, environmental awareness, unlimited adventure, health and well-being, economics, consciousness and more, all with respected and recognized knowledgeable presenters; as such, as an accredited 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, the Vail S ymposium has played an important role in the growth of our multi- cultural community. S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: A pprove P roclamation No. 4, S eries of 2022 50th Anniversary of the Vail S ymposium AT TAC H ME N TS: Description Proclamation No. 4, Series 2022 April 19, 2022 - Page 203 of 569 PROCLAMATION NO. 4 SERIES OF 2022 Celebrating 50 Years of the Vail Symposium WHEREAS, the Town of Vail, Colorado was established in 1962 with the goals of providing a carefully planned world-class outdoor recreation experience and of creating an environmentally conscious multi-dimensional community; WHEREAS, the Vail Symposium was founded in 1971 and conceived as a once-annual, weekend “think tank” with the active leadership of Town Manager Terry Minger and supported by Mayor John Dobson to formulate goals and ideals for the purpose of guiding future change in the Town of Vail; WHEREAS, the Vail Symposium transitioned from an annual program to 40-45 weekly events designed to provide opportunities for the community to come together to learn, share and stimulate discussion and cooperation; WHEREAS, the Vail Symposium has continued for 50 years to create year-round, thought- provoking programs encompassing topics such as geopolitics, hot topics, environmental awareness, unlimited adventure, health and well-being, economics, consciousness and more, all with respected and recognized knowledgeable presenters; as such, as an accredited 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, the Vail Symposium has played an important role in the growth of our multi-cultural community; WHEREAS, the Vail Symposium has increased its outreach even further in the recent years of the COVID-19 pandemic, with expanded technology including video webinars engaging participation across the nation; such commitment of the Symposium (VailSymposium.org) to the ongoing dialogue between individuals and our community and between our community and world beyond Vail Valley, is exemplary of the goals of our town; and WHEREAS, the Vail Symposium recognizes the contributions and support of the Town of Vail, of the Symposium’s world-class expert presenters, its many donors, volunteers and participants in Eagle County and beyond. NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed, the Vail Town Council recognize the 50th Year Anniversary of the Vail Symposium founded in 1971, with a mission to provide thought-provoking, affordable, and diverse educational programs for the community, and acknowledge the Symposium's long tenure and ongoing promotion of the stimulating culture of Vail. Therefore, the Mayor and Town Council extend their sincerest thanks and appreciation to all those who have been part of the Vail Symposium and its support of the Town of Vail’s vision “to be the premier international mountain resort community.” Dated this 19th day of April 2022. Vail Town Council Attest: Kim Langmaid, Mayor Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk ________________________________ _________________________ April 19, 2022 - Page 204 of 569 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: March 1, 2022 Town Council Meeting Minutes AT TAC H ME N TS: Description Meeting Minutes April 19, 2022 - Page 205 of 569 Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2022 Page 1 Vail Town Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, March 1, 2022 6:00 P.M. Vail Town Council Chambers The regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was called to order at approximately 6:00 P.M. by Mayor Langmaid. Members present: Kim Langmaid, Mayor Travis Coggin, Mayor Pro Tem Barry Davis Kevin Foley Jen Mason Pete Seibert Jonathan Staufer Staff members present: Scott Robson, Town Manager Patty McKenny, Assistant Town Manager Matt Mire, Town Attorney Stephanie Bibbens, Deputy Town Clerk 1. Citizen Participation Matt Morgan, owner of Sweet Basil and Mountain Standard, addressed council about the future of canopies and structures at Mountain Standard. Morgan stated he would eventually like to see the outdoor enclosures that were erected due to COVID become permanent, but in the meantime asked for a year extension on his current enclosure at Mountain Standard. William Schmick, a Vail resident, expressed his concern for the lack of available housing options in the Town of Vail as well as the lack of opportunities for public comment and civic involvement during Town Council afternoon meetings. 2. Any action as a result of executive session Coggin moved to exercise the town’s right of first refusal and purchase the property known as Vail East Lodging, Unit #16, located at 4123 Spruce Way, Vail, Colorado for a purchase price of $565k, and authorized the town manger to execute any necessary documents to effectuate the purchase on a form approved by the town attorney, and further moved to appropriate the necessary funds to complete the purchase, Mason seconded the motion passed (7-0). 3. Proclamations 3.1. Proclamation No. 2 Series of 2022, In Recognition of Vail's Trailblazer Award Recipient Terry Minger Background: Terry Minger was chosen as the seventh recipient of the Vail Trailblazer Award and was recognized with a proclamation at the evening meeting and during the Annual Community Meeting. His vision and municipal leadership during Vail's early years was instrumental in creating the formation of its government and the success Vail has seen over the years. April 19, 2022 - Page 206 of 569 Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2022 Page 2 Coggin made a motion to approve Proclamation No. 2, Series of 2022; Mason seconded motion passed (7-0). 4. Appointments for Boards and Commissions 4.1. Art in Public Places (AIPP) Board Appointments Coggin made a motion to appoint Suzanne Graf and Courtney St. John to serve on the Art in Public Places Board for a one-year term ending March 31, 2023; Mason seconded the motion passed (7-0). Coggin made a motion to appoint Tracy Morrison, Kathy Langwalter, and Lindsea Stowe to serve on the Art in Public Places Board for two-year terms ending on March 31, 2024; Mason seconded the motion passed (7-0). 4.2. Vail Local Housing Authority (VLHA) Appointment Coggin made a motion to appoint Kristin Kenney Williams to serve on the Vail Local Housing Authority for a partial term ending May 31, 2023, Davis seconded the motion passed (7-0). 5. Consent Agenda 5.1. February 1, 2022 Town Council Meeting Minutes Davis made a motion to approve the February 1, 2022 Town Council Meeting Minutes; Foley seconded the motion passed (7-0). 5.2. February 15, 2022 Town Council Meeting Minutes Coggin made a motion to approve the February 15, 2022 Town Council Meeting Minutes; Foley seconded the motion passed (7-0). 5.3. Resolution No. 5 Series of 2022, A Resolution Approving a Memorandum of Understanding between the Town of Vail and the State of Colorado Energy Office Regarding the Energy Performance Contracting Program Background: The Town of Vail and the State of Colorado Energy Office wanted to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding to provide the Town with access to the services and support of the Colorado Energy Office’s Energy Performance Contracting Program. Staff Recommendation: Approve, approve with amendments, or deny Resolution No. 5, Series 2022. Foley made a motion to approve Resolution No. 5, Series of 2022; Staufer seconded motion passed (7-0). 5.4. Contract Award with Hallmark Inc. for Ford Park Pedestrian Bridge (Nature Center Bridge) Rehabilitation April 19, 2022 - Page 207 of 569 Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2022 Page 3 Background: The wood timber deck on the Ford Park Nature Center Bridge was damaged by snow removal operations over the years and will need to be replaced. The wood timber deck will be replaced by a steel pan/concrete deck which will better withstand snow removal operations. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended that the Council direct the Town Manger to enter into a construction contract with Hallmark Inc in the amount of $108,000 for the Ford Park Pedestrian Bridge Rehabilitation Project. Coggin made a motion to direct the Town Manger to enter into a construction contract with Hallmark Inc in the amount of $108,000 for the Ford Park Pedestrian Bridge Rehabilitation Project; Davis seconded the motioned passed (7-0). 5.5. Funding Agreement with Resort Entertainment for Winter 2022 Ambient Entertainment Background: Beginning as a response to the challenges presented by the pandemic in 2020, the Town of Vail began building on its tradition of providing outdoor après music throughout the villages. Throughout 2020 and 2021 several booking agents and artists were engaged to provide an enhanced experience in the villages during both winter and summer/fall to surprise and delight our guests. Guests have been treated to après music in both Vail Village and Lionshead at least three days per week. The entertainment is designed to create a warm and welcoming atmosphere and leave a positive impression on our guests, who have been spending more time outdoors. Staff Recommendation: Approve the contract with Resort Entertainment for the 2022 Winter Ambient Music Davis made a motion to approve the contract with Resort Entertainment for the 2022 Winter Ambient Music, Coggin seconded the motion passed (7-0). 6. Town Manager Report (10 min.) 6.1. Loading and Delivery Program Update Robson informed the council that at the start of ski season 106west had been servicing 18 trucks from the 9 they started with at the beginning of the pilot program, which is about 40% of overall volume. Robson also expressed the positive response the Town has received from the business owners and the public. The sunset date for the pilot program was set for April 24, 2022. Robson suggested that council extend the program six months at an additional cost of approximately $350,000 to be added into the first budget supplemental while staff continues to evaluate funding models. Council was in favor of extending the Loading and Delivery Pilot Program another six months and for the cost to be added into the budget supplemental. 6.2. Peer Resort Exchange Visit (St. Moritz Switzerland and St. Anton Austria) The Town of Vail will send a delegation to St. Moritz, Switzerland and St. Anton, Austria in the next couple of weeks. Robson explained that St. Moritz had been a sister city of Vail since 1994 and the last peer exchange took place in 2018 when a delegation went to Japan. April 19, 2022 - Page 208 of 569 Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2022 Page 4 Robson also spoke about guest activation, specifically Vail America Days, employee end of the year concert, and upcoming spring activation events. Robson explained with fireworks becoming harder and harder to have for the Fourth of July celebration, the Economic Development team explored drone shows. Robson explained 100 drones would cost $50,000.00 and 200 drones would cost $100,000.00. $35,000 was budgeted for the fireworks and due to the drones being more expensive, Robson suggested to supplement the drone show in the budget supplemental. Council had questions regarding what the drone show would look like and asked if the drones would be dependent on weather. Robson stated the drones could operate in the rain but not high winds and offered to have the Economic Development Team give a report during the following meeting with examples what a drone show could look like as well as what their limitations might be. Robson also stated the RFP for the employee celebration concert that had been discussed would be published later in the week. CSE members would be invited the following week to review proposals. The concert would be on April 25th, the day after the mountain was scheduled to close. The concert would be jointly funded by Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail at Ford Park. Robson also stated that the spring activation would kick off on Thursday later this week with a ski movie on International Bridge from Teton Gravity Research, three different activations, one on International Bridge, one at Eagle’s Nest, and the Arrabelle and Friday March 4th, debut concerts with Hassel Miller on the International Bridge, a DJ up on Eagle’s Nest, and Courtney Hampton would be at the Arrabelle ice arena. Robson thanked High Five Access Media’s Arjen Kale for his production work with the Town of Vail and wished him luck in his new endeavors. Lastly, Robson shared the Russian flag will be removed from the Avenue of Flags on the South Frontage Road due to the invasion of Ukraine. 7. Presentations / Discussion 7.1. Presentation on Kayak Crossing Deed Restriction Opportunity Presenter(s): George Ruther, Housing Director, Gerry Flynn, Polar Star Properties and Eric Heil, Town Manager Town of Avon Action Requested of Council: Listen to presentation and provide instruction on whether to continue to pursue an opportunity to acquire a deed restriction interest in the Kayak Crossing Apartments, located at 41900 US Hwy 6 and 24, Eagle-Vail, Colorado. Background: The Town of Vail Housing Department and Vail Local Housing Authority were approached by Eagle-Bend/Dowd Affordable Housing Corporation, the ownership entity of the Kayak Crossing Apartments, regarding an opportunity to acquire deed restrictions on the property in furtherance of its adopted housing goal. In summary, the Board was offering the sale of deed restrictions to the Town of Vail at the Kayak Crossing Apartments to fund a capital improvements project and refinancing opportunity which ensures the long-term availability of deed-restricted homes on the site. April 19, 2022 - Page 209 of 569 Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2022 Page 5 Ruther presented the following three different options to council: 1. Acquire a deed-restriction interest: Ruther explained that this option would be similar to the Solar Vail Project, in that the Town would purchase deed restriction interest on the property in an attempt to fund the gap in the financing. 2. Acquire a deed-restricted interest and a co-municipal sponsor interest in partnership with the Town of Avon: Ruther explained that if this option was chosen, the Town of Vail would contribute 2.5 to 3 million dollars to make improvements in the project. The town would still receive the deed restricted interest and would also share the rights and interests the Town of Avon currently has which are the right to approve any refinancing request, the right to pay off debt at any time and take immediate possession and ownership of the improvements on the property and the right to take ownership of the property once the debt is paid off. The Town of Vail and the Town of Avon would then create a Regional Housing Authority that would be specific to operations, ownership, and management of Kayak Crossing. 3. Acquire a deed-restricted interest as fee title owner of Kayak Crossing: Ruther stated that the Town of Vail would pay off the 15 million of debt on behalf of the Town of Avon and the nonprofit organization. Staufer asked Heil if the initial refinance bond had been paid off by the Town of Avon. Heil explained the 2014 refinanced bond was the current finance. Heil went on to express the Town of Avon’s support for collaborating with the Town of Vail on this project that would share 50% interest and future ownership interest when debts were paid off. He explained this plan gives staff time to come up with a long-range plan for the property and provided a steppingstone to collaborate on more housing projects in the future. Coggin stated he was excited for opportunity Kayak Crossing presented for the town and was most excited about option 3. Coggin felt that the town owning the land and the improvements for the property was the cleanest way to move forward with being sensitive to the Town of Avon’s needs for housing and future participation. Langmaid agreed with Coggin and stated that as improvements were made, she would like to see the Environmental Sustainability Department be brought in to make a long-term transition from gas to electrification. Foley asked Finance Director Kathleen Halloran, if the town could afford to take on the project at $15 million upfront. Halloran stated the funds are there, however, there are many projects on the list that the Town would like to accomplish in the near future, and council would need to make choices and prioritize which projects they would like to see completed. Coggin offered the option to put the money into the project now and refinance and pull-out cash at the rate the town would feel comfortable. Halloran responded that whether it was debt or cash finance, it would be up to council’s priorities and what they would want to be accomplished. April 19, 2022 - Page 210 of 569 Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2022 Page 6 Staufer expressed he would like engineers to take a closer look at the buildings to make sure the town wouldn’t be taking on structural problems or mold, he would like to understand the finances better, but also understood the housing issues were not going away and there were opportunities for potentially more housing within the project but would want more information before moving forward. Seibert asked what the timing was on each of the options. Flynn explained the project was 24 years old, and the commitment had been made to start the improvements this upcoming summer. He told council that Eagle Bend Apartments had 3 million surpluses that can be invested in affordable housing and would move forward regardless of what the town decided to do. He stated with option 2 the Town of Avon would stay involved and would be ideal, and that option 3 presented major hurtles that hadn’t been discussed. The Town of Vail doesn’t have the right to pay off the current debt of 15 million dollars, the Town of Avon does. Heil stated the Avon Town Council wanted to see an appraisal with the partnership approach and would ensure the money stayed within the housing arena. He also stated the Avon Town Council had not discussed selling or transitioning their rights to take ownership and that would need to occur before moving forward. Langmaid stated council would like to move forward with more information with either option 2 or 3 and asked Ruther to come back with more information. Steve Lindstrom, Vail Local Housing Authority Chair, asked council to think about the long-term and how Kayak Crossing could be a similar scenario to Timber Ridge in that a tear-down rebuild would be needed down the road. He asked council to keep the arrangement as simple as possible. 7.2. Parking and Transportation Task Force Make up Discussion Presenter(s): Greg Hall Director of Public Works and Transportation Action Requested of Council: Staff requests Town Council provide direction regarding the Task Force member make up and areas of focus. Background: The purpose of this item was to provide information on the Parking and Transportation Task Force current make up and previous council direction regarding goals, objectives and guidelines, discuss with the Town Council options for possible revisions with additional focus on mobility and receive Town Council direction regarding the Task Force members. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended to modify the current Task Force member make up and areas of focus as recommended in the staff memo. Hall presented to council on the current Parking and Transportation Task Force and stated the need of the task force had changed, and staff would like to start the solicitation process over for the task force that manages the Vail Village and Lionshead Parking Structures that would include a mobility piece. Hall explained staff would ideally like two representatives from the restaurants and retail, one from Vail Village and one from Lionshead Village, one representative from lodging, one from the community at large, one to two representatives from the sustainable April 19, 2022 - Page 211 of 569 Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2022 Page 7 transportation community which could be selected or solicited two representatives from Vail Resorts, one being the COO of Vail Mountain and two Vail Town Council members. Coggin asked what the criteria for the community at large representative would consist of as well as asked why Vail Mountain needed two representatives on the task force. Hall responded that the community at large representative would have no ties to a business in either the Vail or Lionshead Villages and explained there was a Manage of Peak Period agreement that spoke to a community task force with two members from Vail Mountain and two from the Town of Vail. Robson spoke to his support of staff’s recommendation and stated the changes that were presented explained the broader net that the task force needed to focus on. Council members were in support of the proposed change make up in the task force as well as the more clarifying name change from Parking and Transportation Task Force to Parking and Mobility Task Force as well as modify the current Task Force member make up and areas of focus that was recommended by staff. 8. Action Items 8.1. Contract Award with Icon Inc for the installation of the Booth Lake Trailhead restroom facility Presenter(s): Greg Barrie, Senior Landscape Architect Action Requested of Council: 1. Express support for adding $61,000 to the existing restroom budget during the upcoming budget supplemental process on March 15. Formal action will occur during that process. 2. Authorize the Town Manager to enter a contract with Icon, Inc in an amount not to exceed $177,505 to perform the site work required to install a prefabricated restroom facility for the Booth Lake Trailhead. Background: The Booth Lake Trail is one of the busiest trailheads in the area with approximately 40,000 users each year. Given the popularity, the trailhead’s location in a residential neighborhood, and the difficulty of providing clean portable toilet facilities throughout the summer, installation of a toilet facility connected to domestic water/sewer is warranted in this location. Staff Recommendation: move forward with Option A – constructing the restroom facility as designed at a total project cost of $466,00. Moving forward with Option A requires two actions: 1. Supplement the existing restroom budget by adding $61,000 during the upcoming Budget Supplemental process beginning on March 15. 2. Authorize the Town Manager to enter a contract with Icon, Inc in an amount not to exceed $177,505 to perform the site work required to install a prefabricated restroom facility for the Booth Lake Trailhead. April 19, 2022 - Page 212 of 569 Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2022 Page 8 Barrie presented to council and stated the stie work that Icon Inc bid on would cost an additional $61,000 dollars to complete which would bring the total project cost up to $466,000 dollars. Barrie explained why the outlined option A in the memo would be the best option for the area. Coggin asked if there was an environmental or economic benefit to for the bathroom to have a flush-less urinal. Barrie explained a flush-less urinal would not change the valve size required for the bathroom and that those type of urinals had a cartridge that would need to be replaced frequently. Barrie also stated waterless urinals could save $2,000 dollars but there would be more maintenance. Barrie mentioned there could be some water saved by using a waterless urinal. Langmaid felt there was more of a concern to save outside water. Inside water, which would be used in the bathroom goes back into the system. Langmaid explained there was an expense to pump that water back into the system both a monetary cost and cost in electricity, but it sounded like the maintenance would be more expensive. Staufer asked if this was the final budget. Barrie affirmed it was the final budget for this project. There was no public comment. Coggin made a motion to supplement the existing restroom budget by adding $61,000 during the upcoming Budget Supplemental and to authorize the Town Manager to enter into a contract with Icon, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $177, 505 to perform site work required to install a prefabricated restroom facility for the Booth Lake Trailhead, Foley seconded the motion passed (7-0). There being no further business to come before the council, Coggin moved to adjourn the meeting; Foley seconded the motion which passed (7-0) and the meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Attest: __________________________________ Kim Langmaid, Mayor ___________________________________ Stephanie Bibbens, Deputy Town Clerk April 19, 2022 - Page 213 of 569 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: March 15, 2022 Town Council Meeting Minutes AT TAC H ME N TS: Description Meeting Minutes April 19, 2022 - Page 214 of 569 Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 15, 2022 Page 1 Vail Town Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, March 15, 2022 6:00 P.M. Vail Town Council Chambers The regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was called to order at approximately 6:00 P.M. by Mayor Langmaid. Members present: Kim Langmaid, Mayor Travis Coggin, Mayor Pro Tem Barry Davis Kevin Foley Jen Mason Pete Seibert Jonathan Staufer Staff members present: Scott Robson, Town Manager Patty McKenny, Assistant Town Manager Matt Mire, Town Attorney Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk 1. Citizen Participation Taylor Gardarian, Eagle County resident, showed a video about measuring time and distributed a handout regarding the same. Penny Wilson, Vail resident and Vail Rotary Club member, invited council to attend to the Rotary Club meetings held on Wednesday mornings. Stephen Connolly, Vail resident, expressed support for July 4th drone show; getting rid of the Commission on Special Events (CSE); and he would support getting rid of the Vail Local Marketing District (VLMDAC) too. He asked council where the town was on drafting an idling ordinance and a banning of plastic bags ordinance. Bill Hanlon, Vail resident, expressed support for the pilot loading and delivery program and shared it was working well. He recommended council talk to the governor to explain the urgency for the need of employee housing and the impact it has on a resort community. Alison Wadey, Vail Chamber & Business Association representative and Commission on Special Events (CSE) member, stated it would be a huge miss if the town didn’t move forward with an end of season party to recognize employees. 2. Any action as a result of executive session Foley made a motion to direct the Town attorney to work on an employee contract to be approved at the April 5th meeting for Interim Town Manager Stan Zemler; Coggin seconded the motion passed (7-0). 3. Appointments for Boards and Commissions April 19, 2022 - Page 215 of 569 Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 15, 2022 Page 2 3.1. Design and Review Board (DRB) Appointments Presenter(s): Kim Langmaid, Mayor Action Requested of Council: Motion to appoint three members to service on the DRB for a two- year term ending March 31, 2024 Coggin made a motion to appoint Kit Austin, Erin Iba and Kathryn Middleton to serve on the Design Review Board for a two-year term ending on March 31, 2024; Foley seconded the motion passed (7-0). 3.2. Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) Appointments Presenter(s): Kim Langmaid, Mayor Action Requested of Council: Motion to appoint four members to service on the PEC for a two- year term ending March 31, 2024 Coggin made a motion to appoint Bill Jensen, Robert Lipnick, John Rediker and Henry Pratt to serve on the Planning and Environmental Commission for a two-year term ending on March 31, 2024; Foley seconded the motion passed (7-0). 4. Consent Agenda (5 min.) 4.1. Resolution No. 6, Series 2022, Approving a Release of Restrictive Covenant for Lot 12, Spraddle Creek Estates, and an Amendment to Restrictive Covenant for Sunlight North Condominiums Unit Number 8 Action Requested of Council: Approve, approve with amendments or deny Resolution No. 6, Series 2022. Background: The Rose F. Gillett Revocable Trust owns the properties described as Lot 12, Spraddle Creek Estates, also known as 1315 Spraddle Creek Road and Sunlight North Condominiums Unit #8, also known as at 2475 Garmisch Drive, Sunlight North Condominiums, Unit #8. The Town and the Trust now desire to release the Restrictive Covenant associated with the Lot and to amend the Restrictive Covenant to release the Unit from the requirement that it cannot be sold, transferred or conveyed separately from the Lot. Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 6, Series of 2022 Davis made a motion to approve Resolution No. 6, Series of 2022; Mason seconded the motion passed (7-0). 4.2. Resolution No. 7, Series of 2022 A Resolution Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement Between the Town of Vail and Colorado Department of Transportation to Support the Operation of Public Transportation Services Action Requested of Council: Approve, approve with amendments or deny Resolution No. 7, Series of 2022 April 19, 2022 - Page 216 of 569 Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 15, 2022 Page 3 Background: The Town of Vail receives State funding in the amount of $337,234.00 to assist with maintaining of public transportation services. This funding provides support for public transportation services for the performance period from January 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023. Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 7, Series of 2022 Mason made a motion to approve Resolution No. 7, Series of 2022; Davis seconded the motion passed (7-0). 4.3. Contract Award with A-1 Chipseal for 2022 Vail Slurry Seal Project Background: Staff received 2 bids for the 2022 Slurry Seal Project. The project is budgeted with the Capital Street Maintenance budget and is within the engineer’s estimate. Roads included in this year’s asphalt preventive maintenance project are local streets in the Intermountain and Matterhorn neighborhoods. The project is scheduled to be completed by June 17, 2022. Staff Recommendation: Authorize the Town Manager to enter into an agreement, in a form approved by the Town Attorney, with A-1 Chipseal to complete the 2022 Vail Slurry Seal Project in the amount not to exceed $173,675.00. Staufer made a motion to authorize the Town Manager to enter into an agreement with A-1 Chipseal in an amount not to exceed $173,675; Foley seconded the motion passed (7-0). 4.4. Contract Award with GM Asphalt Repair LLC 2022 Vail Overlay Project Background: Staff received 3 bids for the 2022 Vail Overlay Project from GM Asphalt Repair LLC, 360 Paving LLC and United Companies. The project is budgeted with the Capital Street Maintenance budget and is within the engineer’s estimate. Roads included in this year’s asphalt overlay project include Arosa Dr, Davos Trl, Cortina Ln, Garmisch Dr, Vail Valley Dr from Gold Peak to Ptarmigan Rd and the Spraddle Creek Trailhead lot. The project is scheduled to be completed by June 17, 2022. Staff Recommendation: Authorize the Town Manager to enter into an agreement, in a form approved by the Town Attorney, with GM Asphalt Repair LLC to complete the 2022 Vail Overlay Project in the amount not to exceed $565,627.00. Mason made a motion to authorize the Town Manager to enter into an agreement with GM Asphalt Repair in an amount not to exceed $565,627.00; Foley seconded the motion passed (7- 0). 4.5. Contract Award with Rocky Mountain Custom Landscape for Ellefson Park/Lot 5 Turf Reduction Project. Background: The Ellefson Park/Lot 5 Turf Reduction Project is the second major turf reduction project in the Town of Vail. The project was put out to competitive bid on January 31, 2022 with 1 bidder responding on February 3, 2022. The bid of $225,755.11 was submitted by Rocky Mountain Custom Landscape and has been identified as a responsible bid. The 2022 budgeted amount in this account is $150K. The budget shortfall is approximately $76K. The current Supplemental Budget presented to the Town Council includes an additional $41K in the Ellefson Park project account and an additional $35K in the Capital Park Maintenance account. April 19, 2022 - Page 217 of 569 Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 15, 2022 Page 4 Staff Recommendation: Authorize the Town Manger to enter into a construction contract with Rocky Mountain Custom Landscape in the amount of $225,755.11 for the Ellefson Park/Lot 5 Turf Reduction Project. Davis made a motion to authorize the Town Manager to enter into an agreement with Rocky Mountain Custom Landscape in an amount not to exceed $225,755.00; Staufer seconded the motion passed (7-0). 4.6. Contract Award for Emerald Witch Productions for Spring Employee Concert and Celebration Background: An RFP was published for the production of an employee and locals concert. Emerald Witch Productions was selected to produce the event. Staff Recommendation: Authorize the Town Manager to enter into an agreement with Emerald Witch Productions LLC in an amount not to exceed $75,000 *This contract was not voted on due to afternoon discussion. 4.7. Contract Award for Vail Mountain School to place a Town of Vail School Resource Officer at VMS Agreement Extension Background: The Vail Police Department and the Vail Mountain School (VMS) will complete the current three-year School Resource Officer contract effective June 2022. We are requesting a one-year extension of this contract for the 2022-2023 school year. The new VMS Headmaster will then determine if the School Resource Officer program will continue beyond June 2023 Staff Recommendation: Authorize the Town Manager to enter into an agreement with Vail Mountain School in an amount not to exceed $70,000 Mason made a motion to authorize the Town Manager to enter into an agreement with Vail Mountain School in an amount not to exceed $70,000; Coggin seconded the motion passed (7- 0). 4.8. Contract Award with ECOS Communications for the Welcome Centers Creative Interpretive Display Installation Background: The Vail Welcome Centers look to upgrade their current displays with new creative and interpretive exhibits. Our Welcome Centers attract more than 158,000 guests annually and are open 365 days a year for guests to relax and learn more about the town, Vail Mountain, and surrounding areas. Staff Recommendation: Authorize the Town Manager to enter into a contract with ECOS Communications in a form approved by the Town Attorney in an amount not to exceed $200,000. Davis made a motion to authorize the Town Manager to enter into an agreement with ECOS Communications in an amount not to exceed $200,000; Coggin seconded the motion passed (7- 0). April 19, 2022 - Page 218 of 569 Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 15, 2022 Page 5 5. Town Manager Report Greg Hall, Public Works Director, spoke to council concerning parking and bus service being extended due to Vail Resorts extending the ski season. Hall stated paid parking would remain in the village structures through the end of the season and efforts would be made to maintain as much bus service as possible. Parking at Red Sandstone Parking structure and Ford Park fields would be free. 6. Presentations / Discussion 6.1. VVF presentation on Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater Capital Upgrade and Expansion Presenter(s): Mike Imhof, Vail Valley Foundation Action Requested of Council: Listen to presentation and provide feedback on steps moving forward. Background: The GRFA has gone through several major capital improvement projects since 1987. This presentation is the current vision the VVF would like to share with the Town Council. Imhof presented a proposed capital upgrade and expansion of the Ford Amphitheater. He stated the Foundation would return to Town Council at a later date to present a request for funding assistance as part of the capital campaign. The upgrades and expansion would occur on the concession stand, dressing rooms, box office to provide more space. The beginning of the capitol program would consist of the addition of solar panels on the roof which the Foundation estimated a return on investment within 7 years. Imhof stated the Foundation would like the Town to consider contributing financially for the project. Langmaid stated the project should be added to the Ford Park Master Plan that was currently being reviewed. Foley asked the Town of Vail to be added to the signage for example the box office. Foley stated he would like to see the town get that recognition of owning the facility. Council had no further comments. 6.2. Short-Term Rental Study - Part 3 Presenter(s): Alex Jakubiec, Town of Vail Revenue Manager; Kathleen Halloran, Town of Vail Finance Director; and Andrew Knudtsen, Economic & Planning Systems Inc Action Requested of Council: Please provide feedback to staff regarding the third phase of short-term rental study. Background: The purpose of this memorandum is to propose policy changes for consideration based on the information gathered by RRC Associates and Economic & Planning Systems Inc. (EPS) during their comprehensive study of the Vail short-term rental (STR) market and provide an opportunity for Council to consider future regulations of STRs. April 19, 2022 - Page 219 of 569 Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 15, 2022 Page 6 Staff Recommendation: Please provide feedback to staff regarding the third phase of short-term rental study. Jakubiec Knudtsen and Cares presented proposed short term rental policy recommendations. Staff recommended the following  Violation: the town’s STR violation structure had four levels of enforcement, with the fourth being a revocation of the STR registration for two years. Staff recommends changing this policy by reducing the maximum number of violations from four to three, increasing the fine amounts for each level and increasing the revocation period from two to three years. Additionally, staff suggested imposing a significant fine of $2,650, the maximum jurisdictional penalty, for any STR found operating without a valid registration.  Late Fees for Renewals: a $250 late fee for renewals not submitted by the annual deadline of February 28 to increase registration renewal compliance.  Tiered Registration Fees: The proposed tiered structure was less impactful to local residents who rent a portion of their property while living in their home/unit or rent their entire home/unit for 30-days or less per year: • Fractional Managed by Owner $25 Per Owner $2,000 • Fractional Managed by Front Desk $150 Per Unit $25,000 • Owner Occupied, Primary Residence • 30-Day Registration $25 $2,500 • Owner Occupied, Primary Residence STR $150 $22,500 • Non-Primary Residence STR $150  Mitigation Fees to Fund Local Housing Initiatives: The calculation accounted for the possibility that a home used as an STR could be occupied by a local resident, and the fee was further based on the difference between the impact of guest spending in the local economy and the baseline impact of local resident spending.  Registration Limits: • Option 1: In Zone 2, no more than 20% of units in a multi-unit building or complex governed by a common HOA with 6 or more units may obtain an STR registration – unless the unit is a fractional property or in a building with a 24/7 front desk present. Jakubiec stated this option would allow full-time local residents to obtain an unlimited STR registration for rentals of individual rooms or approved accessory housekeeping units located within their primary residence. The primary resident/owner would be required to be present during all rentals. Or full-time local residents could obtain a limited 30-day STR registration for the rentals of their entire property while the homeowner was not on site, but it would be required the unit was their primary residence only. • Option 2: Limit the overall number of registrations in Zone 2 (or in specific neighborhood areas) to their current level.  Health and Life Safety Standards: requiring a periodic inspection of all short-term rental units not located in buildings with on-site, 24/7 management and requiring proof of inspection every three years. Additionally, requiring a number of other life safety items such as fire alarms, emergency contact and no outdoor firepits etc. Council asked about the process for STR violations. Jakubiec explained a homeowner and or property managers have an opportunity to correct the complaint prior to receiving a violation ticket. April 19, 2022 - Page 220 of 569 Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 15, 2022 Page 7 Council asked about “caps” on STRs and how that would assist with creating long term rentals. Jakubiec stated there would be incentives to encourage people to rent their home on a long- term basis. Some council members questioned that theory to help achieve the goal to convert STRs to long- term rental. Overall council was supportive of increasing fees to cover administrative expenses and fees to offset housing impacts. Additionally, council was also supportive of the recommended l life safety measures presented and increased insurance requirements as well as increased fines for violations. Jakubiec stated staff would come back to an upcoming meeting council with a draft ordinance updating the policy recommendations for their review. Public Comment: Stephen Connolly suggested breaking the STR locations down to neighborhoods rather than Zones. He also felt all STR’s business fees should be the same for all types of rentals. Public comment was closed. Mayor thanked everyone for the comments and looked forward to the next steps. 7. Action Items 7.1. Booth Creek Fuels Reduction Project NEPA Update Presenter(s): Paul Cada Wildland Program Manager Action Requested of Council: Listen to presentation and ask questions. Background: In 2020 the Town of Vail signed a cooperative agreement with the USFS to fund an environmental analysis for the Booth Creek Fuels Reduction Project. To date, the Town of Vail has spent approximately $120,000 for the environmental analysis. The project is now in the public comment phase. Staff Recommendation: Approve comment letter supporting Booth Creek Fuels Reduction Project Cada reminded council in 2020 the town signed a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Forest Service to fund an environmental analysis for the Booth Creek Fuels Reduction Project. Cada stated the USFS proposed to use a variety of treatment types to reduce fuels on approximately 3,059 acres of national forest system lands within the study area such as mechanized logging equipment, hand thinning with chain saws, pile burning and prescribed burning. He explained the project was now in a 60-day public comment phase. Forest Service would host a public meeting on the Project from 5 to 7pm on April 6 at Grand View. Cada requested council to approve the letter supporting the Project and the additional $49,000 that was associated with the environmental analysis by SE Group. Council had no questions and there was no public comment. April 19, 2022 - Page 221 of 569 Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 15, 2022 Page 8 Davis made a motion to support the comment letter with a few edits and the $49,000; Foley seconded the motion passed (7-0). 7.2. Ordinance No. 2, Series 2022 First Reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 11 of Title 5 of the Vail Town Code to Reduce the Risk of Wildfires in the Town Presenter(s): Paul Cada Wildland Program Manager, Mark Novak Fire Chief Action Requested of Council: Approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2022 Background: In 2020 the Vail Town Council approved the Vail Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). A primary goal of the CWPP was to reduce the risk of a wildland urban disaster within the Town of Vail. An essential element in achieving this goal is to prevent the ignition of structures. The most effective manner to achieve this goal is to require a non-combustible zone around all structures. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2022 on first reading Cada provided an overview of the ordinance to require a five-foot-wide zone of non-combustible landscaping around all buildings in Vail over a 3-year period beginning in 2025. The wildfire situation in the Western US is continuing to grow worse, fueled by climate change, community development and excessive fuel loading. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released “WUI Structure/ Parcel/ Community Fire Hazard Mitigation Methodology” which gathered the most recent research and post fire study of structure loss from wildfire. Cada explained the report stated clear connections in shared risk between structures built within 30 feet of each other. Cada stated the ordinance would require residents to maintain an ignition resistant landscaping from the foundation wall extending 5 feet from the structure. Trees and shrubs would not be allowed to be planted (stem within 5’ zone) within the Fire Free Five area. The Fire Free Five represented the largest area where embers may accumulate during a wildfire and was the most critical part of defensible space. Cada mentioned if the ordinance passed it would not be enforced for 3 years. During this time each property in the Town of Vail would be evaluated, and educational information describing compliance options will be provided to each owner. Novak acknowledged the department had received a mix of support and concerns from community members about the proposed ordinance. Council expressed concern about the cost to the homeowner to remove trees and the removal of heritage trees. Council suggested the application for heritage trees be extended to homeowners and not limited to the villages. Public comment: Penny Wilson explained how their complex worked with the Fire Department for wildfire mitigation. She stated it would be beneficial to have all properties participate Stephen Connolly said he supported the ordinance. He felt there was a resistance to change in the community and the Town Council needs to lead and govern. April 19, 2022 - Page 222 of 569 Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 15, 2022 Page 9 John Rediker, Vail resident, suggested some modifications to the ordinance. He felt the ordinance shouldn't be one size fits all and that some trees, like aspen, are more fire resistant than other trees. He would like to see a variance or exemption process be incorporated. Susan Bird, Eagle County resident, suggested the Fire Free Five proposal be embraced by Eagle County, not just Vail, and should be a joint effort. Public comment was closed. Langmaid would like to see more recognition of the financial resources offered the homeowners. She suggested more community outreach and education. Davis inquired if the fire dept has gone through certain areas in town that might be more of a “hot spot.” Cada stated there had been outreach to those neighborhoods, but there were issues with educating the homeowners in those areas due to second homeowners not being in town. Coggin stated he struggled with the cost burden on the community associated with the ordinance. He was also interested in exploring some of Rediker's ideas. Novak suggested creation of a homeowner match rebate program funded from the town and other sources. Staufer felt the current ordinance being presented was not flexible. He would like to see a revised ordinance at the next meeting. Foley made a motion to table Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2022 be tabled to the April 5th Town Council meeting; Mason seconded the motion passed (7-0). 7.3. Ordinance No. 3, Series 2022, First Reading, An Ordinance Making Adjustments to the Town of Vail General Fund, Capital Projects Fund, Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund, Housing Fund, Marketing Fund, Heavy Equipment Fund, Residences at Main Vail Fund and Dispatch Services Fund Presenter(s): Carlie Smith, Deputy Finance Director Action Requested of Council: Approve or approve with amendments Ordinance No. 3, Series 2022. Background: Please see attached memo. Staff Recommendation: Approve or approve with amendments Ordinance No. 3, Series 2022. Smith started by providing council with a high-level review of 2021 financial results and stated this ordinance was to re-appropriate funds for capital projects budgeted in 2021 and are continuing into this year, or projects that did not begin as planned. There was also adjustments needed to reflect events or decisions that have occurred since the 2022 budget was finalized. General Fund: $43.3 million estimated fund balance by the end of 2022, or 87% of annual revenues in a normal year. The supplemental reflects the staff’s recommendations:  $1,250,000 increase reflected the town’s shift in compensation strategy to reflect a more competitive pay structure April 19, 2022 - Page 223 of 569 Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 15, 2022 Page 10  $10,000 for additional Economic Development staff time needed for the Destination Stewardship Management Plan.  $65,000 for Town Manger recruitment.  $374,000 to continue the Loading and Delivery pilot program in the villages throughout the summer months.  $32,782 for the short-term rental study crossing years but was budgeted in full in 2021.  $7,500 of Economic Development marketing SWAG budgeted in 2021 but delivered in 2022 due to supply chain issues. Capital Projects Fund: an estimated fund balance of $30.2 million by the end of 2022. Staff requested the new adjustments include:  $6,000,000 to move forward from the 2023 budget to order six electric buses for delivery in 2023.  $312,000 to contract for a 5-year subscription with Fischer, the town’s new parking management software.  $100,000 to explore outcomes of the Civic Area Plan.  $100,000 to be moved forward from the 2023 budget to begin design of the Big Horn Road Bridge rails and culvert so that construction can begin in 2023.  $50,000 to move forward from the 2023 budget to beginning planning for new roundabout lighting  $11,000 for police department records management software.  $6,824,698 to the Residences at Main Vail Fund to cover project expenditures exceeding the $25.1M in bond proceeds.  $565,000 to the Housing Fund to purchase East Vail Lodging Unit #16 for town employee housing as approved by Council on March 1st.  $25,000 to the Housing Fund for town employee unit capital maintenance and upgrades. Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) Fund: an estimated fund balance of $17.1 million at the end of 2022. Staff was proposing:  $100,000 per year over five years to update town owned facilities to be in compliance with the new program.  $61,000 of additional funding for the Booth Falls restroom project.  $41,000 of additional funding for the turf reduction project at Ellefson Park and the Town Manger residence.  $35,000 of sidewalk repairs at Ellefson Park to corresponding with the turf reduction project.  $25,000 Solar and Storage Feasibility Study.  $8,000 to analyze the engineering and electrical infrastructure needs for the Electric Vehicle Readiness Plan with a goal of 30% town-wide electric vehicles by 2030 and 100% by 2050.  $5,000 to supply propane for the winter heaters that were added during 2020 and 2021 to allow for more outdoor gatherings during the pandemic.  $250K decrease of AIPP funds to be used towards the Ford Park Art Space Housing Fund: Estimated fund balance of $4.1 million at the end of 2022.  A carryforward of $1,329,334 allocated to the InDEED program.  $25,609 carryforward balance in the Buy Down Housing program.  $2,000,000 for Residences at Main Vail developer fees  $2,000,000 placeholder for the potential purchase of the CDOT owned parcel in east Vail. Marketing Fund: April 19, 2022 - Page 224 of 569 Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 15, 2022 Page 11  $63,935 of additional funding for a 4th of July drone light show to replace a traditional fireworks display.  25,000 for the end of season employee celebration Heavy Equipment Fund:  $45,900 for a loader tire chain. Davis requested more information regarding the collection of lift tax. Foley inquired if Vail Resorts budgeted for the Gore Valley Trail alignment. Smith stated VR has not budgeted for that project. Council had no further questions or comments. There was no public comments. Davis made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2022; Foley seconded the motion passed (7-0). There being no further business to come before the council, Foley moved to adjourn the meeting; Davis seconded the motion which passed (7-0) and the meeting adjourned at 9:43 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Attest: __________________________________ Kim Langmaid, Mayor ___________________________________ Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk April 19, 2022 - Page 225 of 569 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: Resolution No. 16, S eries of 2022, A Resolution Approving an I ntergovernmental A greement between the Town of Vail and the Colorado Department of Transportation regarding S ediment Control Disposal Area on the North Side of I nterstate 70 at Approximately M.P. 178-179 B AC K G RO UND: The Town and the Colorado Department of Transportation wish to enter into an intergovernmental agreement for the construction of a sand/dirt storage facility on I nterstate 70 Right of Way, in the Town Tracts A & C and Town easement area, with the B ald Mountain Townhomes Association for the purpose of sand/dirt storage and to provide aesthetic and noise mitigation to the surrounding neighbors. S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: A pprove, approve with amendments or deny Resolution No. 16, S eries of 2022. AT TAC H ME N TS: Description resolution No. 16 Series 2022 exhibit A April 19, 2022 - Page 226 of 569 RESOLUTION NO. 16 Series of 2022 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF VAIL AND THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGARDING SEDIMENT CONTROL DISPOSAL AREA ON THE NORTH SIDE OF INTERSTATE 70 AT APPROXIMATELY M.P. 178-179 WHEREAS, the Town and the Colorado Department of Transportation (“CDOT”) wish to enter into an intergovernmental agreement for the construction of a sand/dirt storage facility on Interstate 70 Right of Way, in the Town Tracts A & C and Town easement area, with the Bald Mountain Townhomes Association pursuant to the terms set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference (the “IGA”), for the purpose of sand/dirt storage and to provide aesthetic and noise mitigation to the surrounding neighbors. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT: Section 1. The Town Council hereby approves the IGA in substantially the same form as attached hereto as Exhibit A, and in a form approved by the Town Attorney, and authorizes the Town Manager to execute the IGA on behalf of the Town. Section 2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town council of the Town of Vail held this 19th day of April, 2022. Kim Langmaid Town Mayor ATTEST: Tammy Nagel Town Clerk April 19, 2022 - Page 227 of 569 OLA # 331002746 Routing # 22-HA3-XC-00056 Page 1 of 8 ($0.00 Maintenance and Operations) Project Town of Vail Sand Storage REGION 3 - SMW CONTRACT THIS CONTRACT is made this day of 20 by and between the State of Colorado for the use and benefit of the COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (“State” or “CDOT”), and the Town of Vail (“Local Agency”) 1309 Elkhorn Drive, Vail, CO 81657, CDOT Vendor #: 2000003, which may also be referred to herein individually, as a "Party" and collectively as the "Parties." RECITALS 1. Required approval, clearance and coordination have been accomplished from and with appropriate agencies. 2. Pursuant to 43-2-104.5 C.R.S. as amended, the State may contract with Local Agencies to provide maintenance and construction of highways that are part of the state (or local agency) highway system. 3. The parties desire to enter into this Contract to delineate each Parties’ responsibilities for maintenance of (short description of project area), and surrounding area detailed in Exhibits A and B; 4. The State and the Local Agency have the authority, as provided in Sections 29-1-203, 43-1-106, 43- 2-103, 43-2-104, and 43-2-144 CRS, as amended, and in applicable ordinance or resolution duly passed and adopted by the Local Agency, to enter into this Contract with the Local Agency for the purpose of maintaining the I-25 bridges over the Union Pacific Railroad, bus rapid transit access pathways, future Kendal parkway, bus rapid transit parking lot, local transit loop and plaza, temporary roadway connection from LCR 24, and surrounding area ROW as hereinafter set forth; and 5. The Local Agency and State agree to construct a Sand/Dirt Storage Facility with allocations of 30,000 cubic yards, "cy", for the Town and 41,000 cy for CDOT on Interstate 70 Right of Way (ROW), in the Town of Vail on Tracts A & C, as shown in Exhibit A. 6. All labor, material and equipment costs associated with the modification and/or demolition to the Right of Way or Parcel shall be at the requesting Party's expense without any cost or liability to the other Party. 7. The State and the Local Agency have the authority, as provided in Sections 29-1-203, 43-1- 106, 43-2-103, 43-2-104, and 43-2-144 CRS, as amended, and in applicable ordinance or resolution duly passed and adopted by the Local Agency, to enter into this Contract with the Local Agency for the purpose of constructing and maintaining a sand/dirt storage area in the Town of Vail. April 19, 2022 - Page 228 of 569 OLA # 331002746 Routing # 22-HA3-XC-00056 Page 2 of 8 THE PARTIES NOW AGREE THAT: Section 1. Scope of Work The work under this contract shall consist of construction of a sand/dirt storage area in the Town of Vail, Colorado, as more specifically described in Exhibit A. Section 2. Order of Precedence In the event of conflicts or inconsistencies between this Contract and its exhibits, such conflicts or inconsistencies shall be resolved by reference to the documents in the following order of priority 1. This Contract 2. Exhibit A (Scope of Work) 3. Exhibit B (Local Agency Resolution) Section 3. Term This Contract shall be effective upon approval of the Chief Engineer. The term of this Contract shall run until it is modified or terminated in writing by one or both parties, or until December 31, 2022, whichever occurs first. Section 4. State and Local Agency Commitments CDOT and the Local Agency shall be responsible for "highway maintenance and operations" for specific structure and highway segments described herein. Such responsibilities are detailed in Exhibit A. Section 5. Permission to Enter The State grants, bargains and conveys to the Local Agency and its agents permission to enter, occupy, then exit the State’s ROW as necessary for the purpose of maintaining the areas and structures described in Exhibit A to ensure proper working condition as provided herein. The Local Agency grants, bargains and conveys to CDOT and its agents permission to enter, occupy, then exit the Local Agency’s ROW as necessary for the purpose of constructing and inspecting to ensure their proper working condition as provided herein. Section 6. Record Keeping The Parties shall each maintain a complete file of all records, documents, communications, and other written materials, which pertain to the maintenance and operations plans under this Contract. The Parties shall make such materials available for inspection at all reasonable times and shall permit duly authorized agents and employees of the State to inspect the project and to inspect, review and audit maintenance and operations project records. Section 7. Termination Provisions A. This Contract may be terminated by either party upon written notice thereof sent by registered, prepaid mail and received by the non-terminating party. Notwithstanding the above, this Contract may also be subject to: April 19, 2022 - Page 229 of 569 OLA # 331002746 Routing # 22-HA3-XC-00056 Page 3 of 8 B. Termination for Cause. If, through any cause, the Local Agency shall fail to fulfill its obligations under this Contract, or if the Local Agency shall violate any of the covenants, Contracts, or stipulations of this Contract, the State shall thereupon have the right to terminate this Contract for cause by giving written notice to the Local Agency of its intent to terminate and at least ten (10) days opportunity to cure the default or show cause why termination is otherwise not appropriate. Section 8. Legal Authority Both Parties hereto warrant that they possess the legal authority to enter into this Contract and that they have taken all actions required by their respective procedures, by-laws, and/or applicable law to exercise that authority, and to lawfully authorize its undersigned signatories to execute this Contract and to bind their respective entities to its terms. The person(s) executing this Contract on behalf of each Party warrants that such person(s) has full authorization to execute this Contract. Section 9. Representatives and Notice All communications relating to the work shall be exchanged between representatives of the State’s Transportation Region 3 and the Local Agency. Said Region Director will also be responsible for coordinating the State's activities under this Contract and will also issue a "Notice to Proceed" to the Local Agency for commencement of the Work. All communications relating to the day-to-day activities for the work shall be exchanged between representatives of the State's Transportation Region 2 and the Local Agency. All communication, notices, and correspondence shall be addressed to the individuals identified below. Either party may from time to time designate in writing new or substitute representatives. If to State: Kane Schneider Deputy Maintenance Superintendent 606 S. 9th Street Grand Junction, CO 81501 970.250.0401 kane.schneider@state.co.us If to the Local Agency: Chad Salli Senior Town Engineer 1309 Elkhorn Drive Vail, CO 8 I 657 970.479.2169 csalli@vailgov.com Section 10. Successors Except as herein otherwise provided, this Contract shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the Parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. Section 11. Third Party Beneficiaries The waiver of any breach of a term, provision, or requirement of this Contract shall not be construed or April 19, 2022 - Page 230 of 569 OLA # 331002746 Routing # 22-HA3-XC-00056 Page 4 of 8 deemed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of such term, provision, or requirement, or of any other term, provision or requirement. Section 12. Governmental Immunity Notwithstanding any other provision of this Contract to the contrary, no term or condition of this Contract shall be construed or interpreted as a waiver, express or implied, of any of the immunities, rights, benefits, protection, or other provisions of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, §24-10101, et seq., CRS, as now or hereafter amended. The Parties understand and agree that liability for claims for injuries to persons or property arising out of negligence of the State of Colorado, the Local Agency and their respective departments, institutions, agencies, boards, officials and employees is controlled and limited by the provisions of §24-10- 101, et seq., CRS, as now or hereafter amended and the risk management statutes, §§24-30-1501, et seq., CRS, as now or hereafter amended. Section 13. Severability To the extent that this Contract may be executed and performance of the obligati ons of the Parties may be accomplished within the intent of the Contract, the terms of this Contract are severable, and should any term or provision hereof be declared invalid or become inoperative for any reason, such invalidity or failure shall not affect the validity of any other term or provision hereof. Section 14. Waiver The waiver of any breach of a term, provision, or requirement of this Contract shall not be construed or deemed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of such term, provision, or requirement, or of any other term, provision or requirement. Section 15. Entire Understanding This Contract is intended as the complete integration of all understandings between the parties. No prior or contemporaneous addition, deletion, or other amendment hereto shall have any force or effect whatsoever, unless embodied herein by writing. No subsequent novation, renewal, addition, deletion, or other amendment hereto shall have any force or effect unless embodied in a writing executed and approved by both parties. Section 16. Survival of Contract Terms Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the parties understand and agree that all terms and conditions of this Contract and the exhibits and attachments hereto which may require continued performance, compliance or effect beyond the termination date of the Contract shall survive such termination date and shall be enforceable by the State as provided herein in the event of such failure to comply by the Local Agency. Section 17. Modification and Amendment This Contract is subject to such modifications as may be required by changes in federal or State law, or their implementing regulations. Any such required modification shall automatically be incorporated into and be part of this Contract on the effective date of such change as if fully set forth herein. Except as provided above, no modification of this Contract shall be effective unless agreed to in writing by both April 19, 2022 - Page 231 of 569 OLA # 331002746 Routing # 22-HA3-XC-00056 Page 5 of 8 Parties in an amendment to this Contract that is properly executed and approved in accordance with applicable law. Either party may suggest renegotiation of the terms of this Contract, provided that the Contract shall not be subject to renegotiation more often than annually, and that neither Party shall be required to renegotiate. If the Parties agree to change the provisions of this Contract, the renegotiated terms shall not be effective until this Contract is amended/modified accordingly in writing. Section 18. Disputes Except as otherwise provided in this Contract, any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under this Contract which is not disposed of by agreement will be decided by the Chief Engineer of the Department of Transportation. The decision of the Chief Engineer will be final and conclusive unless, within 30 calendar days after the date of receipt of a copy of such written decision, the Local Agency mails or otherwise furnishes to the State a written appeal addressed to the Executive Director of the Department of Transportation. In connection with any appeal proceeding under this clause, the Local Agency shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard and to offer evidence in support of its appeal. Pending final decision of a dispute hereunder, the Local Agency shall proceed diligently with the performance of the Contract in accordance with the Chief Engineer’s decision. The decision of the Executive Director or his duly authorized representative for the determination of such appeals will be final and conclusive and serve as final agency action. This dispute clause does not preclude consideration of questions of law in connection with decisions provided for herein. Nothing in this Contract, however, shall be construed as making final the decision of any administrative official, representative, or board on a question of law. Section 19. Does not supersede other agreements This Contract is not intended to supersede or affect in any way any other contract (if any) that is currently in effect between the State and the Local Agency for other “maintenance and operations services” on State Highway rights-of-way within the jurisdiction of the Local Agency. Section 20. Sub-Local Agencies The Local Agency may enter into a subcontract for any part of the performance required under this Contract, subject to advance written notice to the State. The State understands that the Local Agency may intend to perform some or all of the services required under this Contract through a Sub-contract. The Local Agency agrees not to assign this Contract without the express, written consent of the State which shall not be unreasonably withheld. Except as herein otherwise provided, this Contract shall inure to the benefit of and be binding only upon the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. Section 21. Colorado Special Provisions apply to all Contracts except where noted in italics 1. CONTROLLER'S APPROVAL. CRS §24-30-202(1). [Not applicable if CDOT is not paying the Local Agency for the work and the Parties are each responsible for their own work]. This Contract shall not be valid until it has been approved by the Colorado State Controller or designee. 2. FUND AVAILABILITY. CRS §24-30-202(5.5). Financial obligations of the State payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted, and otherwise made available. April 19, 2022 - Page 232 of 569 OLA # 331002746 Routing # 22-HA3-XC-00056 Page 6 of 8 3. GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY. No term or condition of this Contract shall be construed or interpreted as a waiver, express or implied, of any of the immunities, rights, benefits, protections, or other provisions, of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, CRS §24-10-101 et seq., or the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§1346(b) and 2671 et seq., as applicable now or hereafter amended. 4. INDEPENDENT LOCAL AGENCY. Local Agency shall perform its duties hereunder as an independent Local Agency and not as an employee. Neither Local Agency nor any agent or employee of Local Agency shall be deemed to be an agent or employee of the State. Local Agency and its employees and agents are not entitled to unemployment insurance or workers compensation benefits through the State and the State shall not pay for or otherwise provide such coverage for Local Agency or any of its agents or employees. Unemployment insurance benefits will be available to Local Agency and its employees and agents only if such coverage is made available by Local Agency or a third party. Local Agency shall pay when due all applicable employment taxes and income taxes and local head taxes incurred pursuant to this Contract. Local Agency shall not have authorization, express or implied, to bind the State to any contract, liability or understanding, except as expressly set forth herein. Local Agency shall (a) provide and keep in force workers' compensation and unemployment compensation insurance in the amounts required by law, (b) provide proof thereof when requested by the State, and (c) be solely responsible for its acts and those of its employees and agents. 5. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW. Local Agency shall strictly comply with all applicable federal and State laws, rules, and regulations in effect or hereafter established, including, without limitation, laws applicable to discrimination and unfair employment practices. 6. CHOICE OF LAW. Colorado law, and rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto, shall be applied in the interpretation, execution, and enforcement of this Contract. Any provision included or incorporated herein by reference which conflicts with said laws, rules, and regulations shall be null and void. Any provision incorporated herein by reference which purports to negate this or any other Special Provision in whole or in part shall not be valid or enforceable or available in any action at law, whether by way of complaint, defense, or otherwise. Any provision rendered null and void by the operation of this provision shall not invalidate the remainder of this Contract, to the extent capable of execution. 7. BINDING ARBITRATION PROHIBITED. The State of Colorado does not agree to binding arbitration by any extra-judicial body or person. Any provision to the contrary in this contact or incorporated herein by reference shall be null and void. 8. SOFTWARE PIRACY PROHIBITION. Governor's Executive Order D 002 00. State or other public funds payable under this Contract shall not be used for the acquisition, operation, or maintenance of computer software in violation of federal copyright laws or applicable licensing restrictions. Local Agency hereby certifies and warrants that, during the term of this Contract and any extensions, Local Agency has and shall maintain in place appropriate systems and controls to prevent such improper use of public funds. If the State determines that Local Agency is in violation of this provision, the State may exercise any remedy available at law or in equity or under this Contract, including, without limitation, immediate termination of this Contract and any remedy consistent with federal copyright laws or applicable licensing restrictions. 9. EMPLOYEE FINANCIAL INTEREST/CONFLICT OF INTEREST. CRS §§24-18-201 and 24-50- 507. The signatories aver that to their knowledge, no employee of the State has any personal o r beneficial interest whatsoever in the service or property described in this Contract. Local Agency has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, that would conflict in any manner or April 19, 2022 - Page 233 of 569 OLA # 331002746 Routing # 22-HA3-XC-00056 Page 7 of 8 degree with the performance of Local Agency’s services and Local Agency shall not employ any person having such known interests. 10. VENDOR OFFSET. CRS §§24-30-202 (1) and 24-30-202.4.[Not Applicable to intergovernmental contracts] Subject to CRS §24-30-202.4 (3.5), the State Controller may withhold payment under the State’s vendor offset intercept system for debts owed to State agencies for: (a) unpaid child support debts or child support arrearages; (b) unpaid balances of tax, accrued interest, or other charges specified in CRS §39- 21-101, et seq.; (c) unpaid loans due to the Student Loan Division of the Department of Higher Education; (d) amounts required to be paid to the Unemployment Compensation Fund; and (e) other unpaid debts owing to the State as a result of final agency determination or judicial action. 11. PUBLIC CONTRACTS FOR SERVICES. CRS §8-17.5-101.[Not Applicable to contracts relating to the offer, issuance, or sale of securities, investment advisory services or fund management services, sponsored projects, intergovernmental contracts, or information technology services or products and services] Local Agency certifies, warrants, and agrees that it does not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien who will perform work under this Contract and will confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly hired for employment in the United States to perform work under this Contract, through participation in the E-Verify Program or the Department program established pursuant to CRS §8-17.5-102(5)(c), Local Agency shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Contract or enter into a Contract with a sub-Local Agency that fails to certify to Local Agency that the sub-Local Agency shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Contract. Local Agency (a) shall not use E-Verify Program or Department program procedures to undertake preemployment screening of job applicants while this Contract is being performed, (b) shall notify the sub-Local Agency and the contracting State agency within three days if Local Agency has actual knowledge that a sub-Local Agency is employing or contracting with an illegal alien for work under this Contract, (c) shall terminate the subcontract if a sub-Local Agency does not stop employing or contracting with the illegal alien within three days of receiving the notice, and (d) shall comply with reasonable requests made in the course of an investigation, undertaken pursuant to CRS §8 - 17.5- 102(5), by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. If Local Agency participates in the Department program, Local Agency shall deliver to the contracting State agency, Institution of Higher Education or political subdivision a written, notarized affirmation, affirming that Local Agency has examined the legal work status of such employee, and shall comply with all of the other requirements of the Department program. If Local Agency fails to comply with any requirement of this provision or CRS §8- 17.5-101 et seq., the contracting State agency, institution of higher education or political subdivision may terminate this Contract for breach and, if so terminated, Local Agency shall be liable for damages. 12. PUBLIC CONTRACTS WITH NATURAL PERSONS. CRS §24-76.5-101. Local Agency, if a natural person eighteen (18) years of age or older, hereby swears and affirms under penalty of perjury that he or she (a) is a citizen or otherwise lawfully present in the United States pursuant to federal law, (b) shall comply with the provisions of CRS §24-76.5-101 et seq., and (c) has produced one form of identification required by CRS §24-76.5-103 prior to the effective date of this Contract. The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank April 19, 2022 - Page 234 of 569 OLA # 331002746 Routing # 22-HA3-XC-00056 Page 8 of 8 Section 22. SIGNATURE PAGE THE PARTIES HERETO HAVE EXECUTED THIS CONTRACT THE LOCAL AGENCY Town of Vail Scott Robinson Town of Vail Manager *Signature Date: STATE OF COLORADO Jared S. Polis, GOVERNOR Colorado Department of Transportation Shoshana M. Lewis, Executive Director By: Stephen Harelson, P.E., Chief Engineer Date: * Persons signing for The Local Agency hereby swear and affirm that they are authorized to act on The Local Agency’s behalf and acknowledge that the State is relying on their representations to that effect. April 19, 2022 - Page 235 of 569 Project – Town of Vail Sand Storage Facility REGION 3 – WMA EXHIBIT A – SCOPE SCOPE OF WORK ADDITIONAL CAPACITY TO WEST BERM SEDIMENT CONTROL STORAGE I-70 MP 178.0 – 179.0 CDOT and the Town of Vail are entering into this Intergovernmental Agreement for the construction of the additional capacity of the West berm area on the north side of Interstate 70 at approximate milepost 178-179. The East berm is completed. The West berm will be located on CDOT right-of-way, Tract C, and an easement that was granted to the Town of Vail through a separate agreement with the Bald Mountain Townhome Association and will be shared between CDOT and Town of Vail. The work for the additional capacity of the West Berm area will not be on the easement. East Phase – Completed Initial West phase – Completed West Phase – Additional Capacity •Total additional capacity approximately 17,000 cubic yards o Approximately 16,500 cubic yards (CDOT) in the berm on Tract C and I-70 ROW o Approximately 500 cubic yards (Town of Vail) •The Town will obtain all necessary Town of Vail clearances. No additional CDOT clearances are necessary since the West Phase additional capacity is within the same footprint as the original West Phase work, but outside of the easement area which has been completed. •The Town may not access the berm from I-70 except the Town may haul material in conjunction with CDOT’s operations with prior approval on a limited schedule with Town equipment and forces only. •The construction of the additional capacity within the West Phase will follow the design of the Initial West Phase berm and the work shall remain within the same footprint, but outside of the easement area which has been completed. •CDOT will be responsible for obtaining a construction storm water discharge permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). •CDOT will be responsible for all labor, materials and equipment for revegetating the berm per the approved plans and CDOT’s construction storm water discharge permit and stormwater management plans. EXHIBIT A Scope of Work Exhibit A Page 1 of 2 April 19, 2022 - Page 236 of 569 EXHIBIT A Scope of WorkExhibit A Page 2 of 2April 19, 2022 - Page 237 of 569 EXHIBIT B Local Agency Resolution Exhibit B - Page 1 of 1 April 19, 2022 - Page 238 of 569 EXHIBIT C Expired IGA Exhibit C - Page 1 of 16 April 19, 2022 - Page 239 of 569 EXHIBIT C Expired IGA Exhibit C - Page 2 of 16 April 19, 2022 - Page 240 of 569 EXHIBIT C Expired IGA Exhibit C - Page 3 of 16 April 19, 2022 - Page 241 of 569 EXHIBIT C Expired IGA Exhibit C - Page 4 of 16 April 19, 2022 - Page 242 of 569 EXHIBIT C Expired IGA Exhibit C - Page 5 of 16 April 19, 2022 - Page 243 of 569 EXHIBIT C Expired IGA Exhibit C - Page 6 of 16 April 19, 2022 - Page 244 of 569 EXHIBIT C Expired IGA Exhibit C - Page 7 of 16 April 19, 2022 - Page 245 of 569 EXHIBIT C Expired IGA Exhibit C - Page 8 of 16 April 19, 2022 - Page 246 of 569 EXHIBIT C Expired IGA Exhibit C - Page 9 of 16 April 19, 2022 - Page 247 of 569 EXHIBIT C Expired IGA Exhibit C - Page 10 of 16 April 19, 2022 - Page 248 of 569 EXHIBIT C Expired IGA Exhibit C - Page 11 of 16 April 19, 2022 - Page 249 of 569 PO #: 351001301 Routing #: 16-HA3-XE-00090-M0002 Document Builder Generated Rev. 12/09/2016 Page 1 of 2 STATE OF COLORADO AMENDMENT Amendment #: 1 Project #: SIGNATURE AND COVER PAGE State Agency Department of Transportation Amendment Routing Number 16-HA3-XE-00090-M0002 Local Agency Town of Vail Original Agreement Routing Number 16-HA3-XE-00090 Agreement Maximum Amount Initial term State Fiscal Year Extension terms State Fiscal Year State Fiscal Year State Fiscal Year State Fiscal Year Total for all state fiscal years $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Agreement Performance Beginning Date The later of the effective date or July 20, 2016 Initial Agreement expiration date July 19, 2021 THE PARTIES HERETO HAVE EXECUTED THIS AMENDMENT Each person signing this Amendment represents and warrants that he or she is duly authorized to execute this Amendment and to bind the Party authorizing his or her signature. STATE OF COLORADO Jared S. Polis, Governor Department of Transportation Shoshana M. Lew, Executive Director ___________________________________________ Stephen Harelson, P.E., Chief Engineer Date: _________________________ LOCAL AGENCY Town of Vail ___________________________________________ Signature ___________________________________________ By: (Print Name and Title) Date: _________________________ LOCAL AGENCY (2nd Signature if Necessary) ___________________________________________ Signature ___________________________________________ By: (Print Name and Title) Date: _________________________ DocuSign Envelope ID: A80EE855-E9C6-488E-9162-89916E40BF59 Scott Robson Town Manager 6/26/2020 6/26/2020 EXHIBIT C Expired IGA Exhibit C - Page 12 of 16 April 19, 2022 - Page 250 of 569 PO #: 351001301 Routing #: 16-HA3-XE-00090-M0002 Document Builder Generated Rev. 12/09/2016 Page 2 of 2 1)PARTIES This Amendment (the “Amendment”) to the Original Agreement shown on the Signature and Cover Page for this Amendment (the “Agreement”) is entered into by and between the Local Agency and the State. 2)TERMINOLOGY Except as specifically modified by this Amendment, all terms used in this Amendment that are defined in the Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the Agreement. 3)EFFECTIVE DATE AND ENFORCEABILITY A.Amendment Effective Date This Amendment shall not be valid or enforceable until the Amendment Effective Date shown on the Signature and Cover Page for this Amendment. The State shall not be bound by any provision of this Amendment before that Amendment Effective Date, and shall have no obligation to pay the Local Agency for any Work performed or expense incurred under this Amendment either before or after the Amendment term shown in §3.B of this Amendment B.Amendment Term The Parties’ respective performances under this Amendment and the changes to the Agreement contained herein shall commence on the Amendment Effective Date shown on the Signature and Cover Page for this Amendment and shall terminate on the termination of the Agreement. 4)PURPOSE CDOT and the Town of Vail entered into an Agreement for the Design and Construction of the West berm area, on the north side of Interstate 70 at approximate Milepost 178-179. The original Agreement listed the Total fill for the project approximately 71,000 cubic yard. CDOT was responsible for approximately 41,000 cubic yards and Town of Vail was responsible for approximately 30,000 cubic yards. The parties now wish to change the amount each party will be responsible for filling. Vail will be responsible for filling approximately 44,600 cubic yards and CDOT will be responsible for filling approximately 26,400 cubic yards for a total of approxima tely 71,000 cubic yards. 5)MODIFICATIONS Exhibit A, Scope of Work is removed and replaced in its entirety with Exhibit A-1, Scope of Work attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Upon execution of this Amendment, all references in the Agreeme nt to Exhibit A will be replaced with Exhibit A-1. 6)LIMITS OF EFFECT This Amendment is incorporated by reference into the Agreement, and the Agreement and all prior amendments or other modifications to the Agreement, if any, remain in full force and effect except as specifically modified in this Amendment. Except for the Special Provisions contained in the Agreement, in the event of any conflict, inconsistency, variance, or contradiction between the provisions of this Amendment and any of the provisions of the Agreement or any prior modification to the Agreement, the provisions of this Amendment shall in all respects supersede, govern, and control. The provisions of this Amendment shall only supersede, govern, and control over the Special Provisions contained in the Agreement to the extent that this Amendment specifically modifies those Special Provisions. THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK DocuSign Envelope ID: A80EE855-E9C6-488E-9162-89916E40BF59 EXHIBIT C Expired IGA Exhibit C - Page 13 of 16 April 19, 2022 - Page 251 of 569 Exhibit A-1 Page 1 of 1 Exhibit A-1 SCOPE OF WORK SEDIMENT CONTROL STORAGE 1-70 M.P. 178.0 - 179.0 CDOT and the Town of Vail are entering into this Intergovernmental Agreement for the Design and Construction of the West berm area, on the north side of Interstate 70 at approximate Milepost 178-179. The East berm is completed, the West berm will be located on CDOT right-of-way, Tract C (see Exhibit C) and an easement that was granted to the Town of Vail through a separate agreement with the Bald Mountain Townhome Association and will be shared between CDOT and Town of Vail. East Phase- Completed West Phase •The Town will be responsible for the design of the West berm including drainage, utilities, and retaining walls. CDOT will not participate in the cost, shown on Exhibit B. •Total fill approximately 71,000 cubic yards: o Approximately 26,400 cubic yards (CDOT) in the berm on Tract C and I-70 ROW o Approximately 44,600 cubic yards (Town of Vail) •The Town will obtain all necessary Town of Vail and CDOT clearances. CDOT will assist the Town with the CDOT environmental, ROW, and utility clearance. •The Town cannot begin construction until the design is approved by CDOT. •The Town will conduct operations during one of those years at an accelerated schedule and will be responsible as outlined in the SOW. CDOT can work in conjunction with the town of Vail's operation on a limited schedule. •FHWA will only grant Town access across the A-Line for one construction season. Prior to granting approval, an operational analysis of the traffic impacts caused by the MHT will be completed. •An approved MHT plan must be in place prior to the start of construction. •At any time unsafe traffic operations are brought to the attention of CDOT, Town access across the A- line will be revoked until an appropriate traffic control plan is developed by the Town and CDOT approval is granted. •The Town can work in conjunction with CDOT’s operations on a limited schedule with prior approval. •The Town will conduct operations during one year at an accelerated schedule. CDOT can work in conjunction with the Town’s operation on a limited schedule. Planting trees and all irrigation work shall be accomplished on the 5°' year of this contract. The Town shall only break the A-line during one construction season and only for the purpose of this project. •CDOT will be responsible for all the labor, materials and equipment for grading the berm to the approved plans. •CDOT will be responsible for obtaining a construction storm water discharge permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). •CDOT will be responsible for all the labor, materials and equipment for revegetating the site per the approved plans and CDOT’s construction storm water discharge permit and storm water management plans. •Work will begin on the Bald Mountain Townhome Association easement portion of the berm in 2016 and be completed prior to placement of material on Tract C. •CDOT will be responsible for all labor, materials, and equipment to complete the embankment traffic control, storm water management, rough grading, topsoil and seeding of the West Phase as shown on the grading plan. •CDOT will conduct operations up to a five (5) year time. The Town can still haul material in conjunction with CDOT’s operations on a limited schedule. DocuSign Envelope ID: A80EE855-E9C6-488E-9162-89916E40BF59 EXHIBIT C Expired IGA Exhibit C - Page 14 of 16 April 19, 2022 - Page 252 of 569 OLA #: 351001301 Routing #: 16-HA3-XE-00090-M0005 Document Builder Generated Rev. 12/09/2016 Page 1 of 2 STATE OF COLORADO AMENDMENT Amendment #: 2 Project #: N/A SIGNATURE AND COVER PAGE State Agency Department of Transportation Amendment Routing Number 16-HA3-XE-00090-M0005 Local Agency TOWN OF VAIL Original Agreement Routing Number 16-HA3-XE-00090 Agreement Maximum Amount $0.00 Agreement Performance Beginning Date July 20, 2016 Agreement expiration date December 31, 2021 THE PARTIES HERETO HAVE EXECUTED THIS AMENDMENT Each person signing this Amendment represents and warrants that he or she is duly authorized to execute this Amendment and to bind the Party authorizing his or her signature. STATE OF COLORADO Jared S. Polis, Governor Department of Transportation Shoshana M. Lew, Executive Director ___________________________________________ Stephen Harelson, P.E., Chief Engineer Date: _________________________ LOCAL AGENCY TOWN OF VAIL ___________________________________________ Signature ___________________________________________ By: (Print Name and Title) Date: _________________________ LOCAL AGENCY (2nd Signature if Necessary) ___________________________________________ Signature ___________________________________________ By: (Print Name and Title) Date: _________________________ DocuSign Envelope ID: 9994399A-40EF-492A-A599-2BDDFE7CB5C9 7/15/2021 Town ManagerScott Robson 7/15/2021 EXHIBIT C Expired IGA Exhibit C - Page 15 of 16 April 19, 2022 - Page 253 of 569 OLA #: 351001301 Routing #: 16-HA3-XE-00090-M0004 Document Builder Generated Rev. 12/09/2016 Page 2 of 2 1) PARTIES This Amendment (the “Amendment”) to the Original Agreement shown on the Signature and Cover Page for this Amendment (the “Agreement”) is entered into by and between the Local Agency and the State. 2) TERMINOLOGY Except as specifically modified by this Amendment, all terms used in this Amendment that are defined in the Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the Agreement. 3) EFFECTIVE DATE AND ENFORCEABILITY A. Amendment Effective Date This Amendment shall not be valid or enforceable until the Amendment Effective Date shown on the Signature and Cover Page for this Amendment. The State shall not be bound by any provision of this Amendment before that Amendment Effective Date, and shall have no obligation to pay the Local Agency for any Work performed or expense incurred under this Amendment either before or after the Amendment term shown in §3.B of this Amendment B. Amendment Term The Parties’ respective performances under this Amendment and the changes to the Agreement contained herein shall commence on the Amendment Effective Date shown on the Signature and Cover Page for this Amendment and shall terminate on the termination of the Agreement. 4) PURPOSE CDOT and the Town of Vail entered into an Agreement for the Design and Construction of the West berm area, on the north side of Interstate 70 at approximate Milepost 178-179. The parties now wish to extend the Agreement Expiration Date. 5) MODIFICATIONS This Amendment will extend the Agreement Expiration Date to a new Agreement Expiration Date of December 31, 2021. 6) LIMITS OF EFFECT This Amendment is incorporated by reference into the Agreement, and the Agreement and all prior amendments or other modifications to the Agreement, if any, remain in full force and effect except as specifically modified in this Amendment. Except for the Special Provisions contained in the Agreement, in the event of any conflict, inconsistency, variance, or contradiction between the provisions of this Amendment and any of the provisions of the Agreement or any prior modification to the Agreement, the provisions of this Amendment shall in all respects supersede, govern, and control. The provisions of this Amendment shall only supersede, govern, and control over the Special Provisions contained in the Agreement to the extent that this Amendment specifically modifies those Special Provisions. THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK DocuSign Envelope ID: 9994399A-40EF-492A-A599-2BDDFE7CB5C9 EXHIBIT C Expired IGA Exhibit C - Page 16 of 16 April 19, 2022 - Page 254 of 569 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: Resolution No. 17, S eries of 2022, A Resolution Approving an Agreement between the Town of Vail and the E agle County S heriff's Office for the Purchase of K-9 Echo B AC K G RO UND: The Vail P olice Department hired an E agle County S heriff's Deputy that is currently serving as a K -9 officer. The Vail P D would like to buy the K -9 from E C S O to keep the K -9 in service. S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: A pprove, approve with amendments or deny Resolution No. 17, S eries of 2022. AT TAC H ME N TS: Description Res. 17 series 2022 exhibit A April 19, 2022 - Page 255 of 569 RESOLUTION NO. 17 Series of 2022 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF VAIL AND THE EAGLE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE FOR THE PURCHASE OF K-9 ECHO WHEREAS, the Eagle County Sheriff’s Office (“ECSO”) owns a German Shepard dog known as K-9 Echo (“Echo”); WHEREAS, Rebecca Anderson was a Deputy with the ECSO (“Anderson”) and was assigned as Echo’s handler, and was given the care, custody, and control of Echo. Echo has been specially trained to assist officers in law enforcement tasks and to respond to commands issued specifically by Anderson; WHEREAS, Anderson’s employment with the ECSO ended on April 6, 2022, and Anderson is employed as a police officer by the Town of Vail effective April 11, 2022; and WHEREAS, the ECSO desires to sell, and the Town desires to purchase Echo from the ECSO pursuant to the terms set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference (the “Agreement”), so that Echo can accompany Anderson in her service as a police officer for the Town. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT: Section 1. The Town Council hereby approves the Agreement in substantially the same form as attached hereto as Exhibit A, and in a form approved by the Town Attorney, and authorizes the Town Manager to execute the Agreement on behalf of the Town. Section 2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail held this 19th day of April 2022. _________________________ Kim Langmaid, Town Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk April 19, 2022 - Page 256 of 569 K-9 PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EAGLE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO AND THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO This K-9 Purchase Agreement (the “Agreement”) is made effective this __ day of April 2022, by and between the Eagle County Sheriff’s Office, Eagle County, Colorado, and the Town Vail, a municipal corporation (“Town”). RECITALS WHEREAS, the Eagle County Sheriff’s Office (“ECSO”) owns a German Shepard dog known as K-9 Echo (“Echo”); and WHEREAS, Rebecca Anderson was a Deputy with the ECSO (“Anderson”) and was assigned as Echo’s handler, and was given the care, custody, and control of Echo (“Anderson”). Echo has been specially trained to assist officers in law enforcement tasks and to respond to commands issued specifically by Anderson. WHEREAS, Anderson’s employment with the ECSO ended on April 6, 2022, and Anderson is employed as a police officer by the Town of Vail (“Town”), effective April 11, 2022. WHEREAS, the ECSO desires to sell, and the Town desires to purchase Echo from the ECSO so that Echo can accompany Anderson in her service as a police officer for the Town. AGREEMENT NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual rights and obligations as set forth below, the parties agree as follows: 1. The ECSO hereby sells Echo to the Town for the sum of $2,000.00, payable at the time this Agreement is executed. ECSO warrants that it is the lawful owner of Echo and that Echo is free and clear from all liens and encumbrances as of the date hereof. 2. The Town shall be the owner of Echo as of the effective date hereof and payment to ECSO of the sum of $2,000.00. 3. The ECSO makes no promises concerning the physical or mental health of Echo and the Town’s purchase of Echo is strictly “as is”. The ECSO will provide the Town with copies of documentation evidencing Echo’s certifications and training, upon request from the Town. 4. The Town is fully aware of the nature of the training Echo received and the nature of the work that Echo performed during the period of ownership by the ECSO, and understands April 19, 2022 - Page 257 of 569 the need to provide Echo with suitable shelter and reasonable surroundings in keeping with its training and work experience. The Town hereby agrees to assume ownership and full responsibility for the care, maintenance, food, housing, training, certifications, medical, and any and all other expenses that result from or arise out of Town’s ownership of Echo. The ECSO will have no further responsibility or liability for Echo or Echo’s care following the execution of this Agreement. 5. The Town accepts full responsibility for and agrees to defend and hold harmless the ECSO and Eagle County and its officers, employees, representatives, and agents with respect to any loss, damage, claim, injury, or liability that arises out of, is caused by or is in any way related to, Echo or Deputy’s actions with Echo after the transfer of ownership, which is effective as of the date listed above, and the Town shall reimburse the ECSO and/or Eagle County for reasonable attorney fees and costs, legal and other expenses incurred by the ECSO and/or Eagle County in connection with investigating or defending any such loss, damage, claim, injury or liability. 6. The Town further agrees to release and forever discharge the ECSO and Eagle County, its officers, employees, representatives, and agents from any and all claims for injury, disability, loss, or property destruction that may occur to anyone, as a result of contact with or actions by Echo. 7. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to waive, limit, or otherwise modify any governmental immunity that may be available by law to either party, its officials, employees, contractors’ or agents, or any other person acting on behalf of either party and, in particular, governmental immunity afforded or available pursuant to the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Title 24, Article 10, Part 1 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. This paragraph shall survive termination of this Agreement. 8. No modification or waiver of this Agreement or of any covenant, condition, or provision herein contained shall be valid unless in writing and duly executed by the party to be charged therewith. 9. This written Agreement embodies the whole agreement between the parties hereto and there are no inducements, promises, terms, conditions, or obligations made or entered into either by the ECSO or the Town other than those contained herein. 10. This Agreement does not and shall not be deemed to confer upon or grant to any third party any right to claim damages or to bring any lawsuit, action or other proceedings against either the Town or the ECSO or Eagle County because of any breach hereof or because of any terms, covenants, agreements or conditions contained herein. April 19, 2022 - Page 258 of 569 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and year first above written. THE EAGLE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO By: ______________________________ James Van Beek, Eagle County Sheriff TOWN OF VAIL By:__________________________________ Attest: By: _____________________________ Town Clerk April 19, 2022 - Page 259 of 569 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: Resolution No. 18, S eries of 2022, A Resolution of the Town of Vail to J oin the United Nations Global Mountain Partnership B AC K G RO UND: The Town’s goals and values are aligned with the mission of the Mountain P artnership, a United Nations voluntary alliance of interested governments and organizations committed to working together with the common goal of achieving Sustainable Mountain Development around the world. S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: A pprove, approve with amendments or deny Resolution No. 18, S eries of 2022. AT TAC H ME N TS: Description Memo resolution No. 18 Series 2022 April 19, 2022 - Page 260 of 569 MOUNTAIN PARTNERSHIP GOVERNANCE and STRATEGY 2018-2021 I. Background and History In 1992, the heads of state or government of most of the world’s nations at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED or ‘Rio Earth Summit’) signed a plan for action, ‘Agenda 21’. Its Chapter 13 is entitled ‘Managing Fragile Ecosystems: Sustainable Mountain Development’. Sustainable Mountain Development (SMD) is generally described as “a regionally-specific process of sustainable development that concerns both mountain regions and populations living downstream or otherwise dependent on these regions in various ways” (Price and Kim, 1999). Following the inclusion of Chapter 13 in ‘Agenda 21’, awareness and understanding of the global importance of mountains for the services they provide, but also of the vulnerability of mountain ecosystems and communities increased, particularly through a series of important global and regional meetings (see Appendix 4) among scientists, development agencies and other key stakeholders. A specific outcome was the declaration of the UN General Assembly, in 1998, that 2002 would be the International Year of Mountains. In that year, many activities recognizing the diverse values of mountains and the importance of SMD took place worldwide. In addition, at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 in Johannesburg, the International Partnership for Sustainable Development in Mountain Regions was established, with essential support from the governments of Italy and Switzerland, UNEP, and FAO (the UN Lead Agency for mountains). This partnership, now known as the “Mountain Partnership” (MP), is a “Type II” Partnership, i.e., a voluntary trans-national umbrella alliance of mountain actors (governments, inter-governmental organizations, civil society and private organizations) who are committed to collaborating to advance mountain-specific goals. Like other “Type II” Partnerships, the MP is not a legal entity. FAO was tasked with hosting and implementing a Secretariat to support the MP. Over the 15 years of the existence of the MP (2002-2017), its membership has grown to more than 300 members (as of September 2017), including 57 national governments, 15 inter-governmental organizations, and over 225 civil society and other organizations of great diversity in every respect. Many actions in support of SMD have been accomplished at all levels from global, such as the inclusion of mountains in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), to local. The Mountain Partnership Secretariat (MPS) has played an important role in creating an enabling environment for key actors to work together towards joint goals. The basic elements of the governance of the MP are defined in the document entitled “Mountain Partnership – Organization, Membership and Governance”. This document was drafted after the launch of the MP through a consultative process, finalized in July 2004 and officially endorsed by the MP members during the second Global Meeting in September 2004 in Cusco, Peru. The main principles expressed in the Governance chapter refer to “participation of all members, April 19, 2022 - Page 261 of 569 Mountain Partnership Secretariat info@mountainpartnership.org www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/ 2 accountability, responsiveness, consensus, transparency and flexibility”. The Steering Committee is the supreme governing body of the MP to which the MPS plays a supportive role. From 2004 to 2013 (4th global meeting in Erzurum, Turkey), the MP operated through an informal governance mechanism, the MP Advisory Committee (later renamed the MP Consortium) in which key mountain stakeholders were represented. With the increasing membership and visibility of the MP it was recognized that a more formal and representative governance mechanism was necessary. Accordingly, a Governance and Strategy document for the period 2014-2017 was developed through a step-wise and participatory process, and was approved on the occasion of the 4th global meeting of the MP in Erzurum, Turkey along with the election of the members to the 16 seat Steering Committee. The present Governance and Strategy document covers the period 2018-2021 and consists of a revision of the previous document based on the experiences and lessons learned since the Erzurum conference. II. Vision and Mission VISION: The members of the MP envision a world with increasing public and private sector attention, commitment, engagement and investments in SMD that:  Maintain and enhance the conservation, health, vitality and stewardship of mountain ecosystems for their inherent value and for the benefit of mountain communities and those who live in the surrounding lowlands;  Improve the social and economic well-being and livelihoods of, and opportunities for, both mountain people – particularly the most vulnerable – and those who live in the surrounding lowlands; and  Empower and enable mountain people to be fully engaged in the decision-making processes that determine the future of mountain communities and ecosystems, particularly in light of global climate change and globalization processes. MISSION: The MP is a vibrant voluntary alliance of interested governments and organizations committed to working together with the common goal of achieving SMD around the world. By tapping the wealth and diversity of resources, knowledge, information and expertise of and between its global membership, the MP engages in advocacy and stimulates concrete initiatives at all levels to address threats, improve quality of life and sustain healthy environments in the world’s mountain regions. III. Guiding Principles Activities, events and projects that take place under the auspices of the MP are guided by the following principles:  Mission-driven – MP activities focus on achieving the MP's mission;  Membership-driven – MP members determine the MP's goals and objectives; April 19, 2022 - Page 262 of 569 Mountain Partnership Secretariat info@mountainpartnership.org www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/ 3  Mutual responsibility, inclusiveness and engagement – Membership of the MP comes with responsibilities (see Section V.C) and requires reliability in keeping agreed-upon commitments;  Balanced and representative participation in governance – Balanced and representative participation is achieved both geographically in terms of major mountain regions and with regard to the diverse types of organizations that are MP members;  Transparency and collaboration – MP members vow to operate their partnership in an open, transparent and collaborative manner, including transparency on financial matters related to the MP and collaboration not only between and among MP members but also with entities that are committed to advancing SMD that are not members of the MP;  Consensus-based decision making – MP members strive to make decisions about the future direction of their partnership by consensus (defined in Section VI);  Balance of flexibility and focus – MP members strive to balance the desire to be flexible and result-oriented with the need to stay focused on achieving consensus-based goals and results; and  Building on existing activities -- While defining the bi-annual work plans, MP members strive to maximize synergies, building on current activities/initiatives and member strengths. IV. Functions and objectives (outcomes) The members of the MP intend their partnership to be an active and critically important platform for advancing the global agenda on SMD. As such, membership in the MP should be an added value and not a burden – the MP should enable members to implement their specific mountain-related mandate and initiatives more effectively, visibly and collaboratively and to embed them into the global “mountain agenda”. Below, several functions are listed for which the Partnership has a comparative advantage and which require joint action to be achieved. The specific objectives enumerated under each of these functional areas in section VII.A are fulfilled through projects, events and activities that are undertaken in the context of the MP by members acting independently or jointly, either with other MP members or with non-MP entities. These functions include:  Advocacy -- global attention and awareness for SMD raised and tangible commitments from the international community made to achieve SMD and for mainstreaming SMD into policy processes.  Joint action –joint initiatives which have impact on the ground fostered, and collaborative action among MP members and others on themes of relevance to SMD facilitated.  Knowledge management and communication – (a) growing evidence and body of knowledge and experience about SMD, including traditional/indigenous knowledge as well as scientific and technical knowledge generated, validated and shared to support MP members in contributing to decision-making processes that lead to actions that foster SMD; -(b) information and key messages about activities, events, projects, reports, etc. relevant to SMD effectively communicated to the relevant target audiences (general public, policy makers, media, private sector, scientists) who have the potential to advance the mountain agenda and the larger goal of SMD. April 19, 2022 - Page 263 of 569 Mountain Partnership Secretariat info@mountainpartnership.org www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/ 4  Capacity development and technology transfer –activities and projects fostered aimed at developing, increasing and sharing the capacity of MP members, mountain communities, mountain people, and institutions; activities and projects (such as South-South Cooperation mechanisms) fostered aimed at transferring beneficial technology that can assist other MP members, mountain communities, mountain dwellers, and institutions to achieve SMD.  Innovation –a platform provided for informed and inspiring dialogue, particularly in the face of emerging challenges, so that new ideas can evolve, priorities can be better identified, and innovative solutions can be found and fostered.  Resource mobilization -- critical funding needs, gaps and opportunities for the achievement of the MP’s mission and the larger goal of SMD identified, strategic advice provided and potential resource partners such as governments, donor agencies, private foundations and corporations for financial and in-kind resources actively engaged. In view of the number and diversity of MP members, the expectations and perceptions about what the MP should be and do are equally diverse. It is clear that not all functions have the same importance for all the MP members. This challenge needs to be recognized and requires flexibility and openness for compromise among the MP members. V. Membership A. Criteria The MP is a self-governed voluntary alliance that is open for membership to governments, subnational authorities, and intergovernmental, civil society and private organizations that are actively engaged in and committed to achieving SMD. As such, individuals cannot be members. Governments and organizations that are members of the MP must be committed to advancing SMD. They must also be willing and able to engage in dialogue and collaboration with representatives of other MP members to further SMD. The criteria for establishing and maintaining membership of the MP include:  Endorsement of the vision, mission and guiding principles of the MP;  Active involvement in SMD;  Being a formal entity with a proven level of stability in terms of funding and organizational capacity, and nominating a Focal Point and Alternate Focal Point for regular interaction with members and the MPS;  Willingness to join forces and cooperate with other MP members;  Capacity to fulfill the membership roles and responsibilities, as defined below;  Access to the required information and communication technologies (e.g. computer, e-mail and Internet) to participate effectively in MP activities; and April 19, 2022 - Page 264 of 569 Mountain Partnership Secretariat info@mountainpartnership.org www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/ 5  Access to resources (financial, in-kind or both) within the organization to invest in SMD and to play an active role in the MP. Interested governments and institutions may apply to become members of the MP by submitting a request for membership to the MPS with a brief presentation of the purpose/mission and activities of the government or institution related to SMD, along with a description of the contribution that the organization or governmental unit intends to make for achieving the mission of the MP. The MPS shares the applications received with the relevant Steering Committee members. B. Categories The following is a list of the current categories of MP membership. This list is intended to serve as a guide for ensuring the representativeness of MP members in the governance and other activities of the Partnership, and not to limit the types of organizations that may apply for membership. These categories are not identical to the electoral groups for the Steering Committee, which follow a simpler clustering (see Appendix 5). • Governments – National – Subnational (Provinces, Municipalities, etc.) • Intergovernmental Organizations • Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) – International NGOs – Regional Level (Multi-Country) NGOs/CSOs – National Level NGOs/CSOs – Subnational Level NGOs/CSOs – Foundations • Private Sector Entities and Associations – Large Multi-National Corporations – Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) – Industry Associations • Research / Education Organizations – International Research Organizations – National Level Research Organizations – Universities / University-based Research Centers – Research Networking/Facilitation Organizations – Training Organizations In addition to these different types of organizations, the MP seeks to have representation from all of the major mountainous regions of the world, including but not limited to: 1. North & Central America and the Caribbean; 2. South America; 3. Europe; 4. Asia and Pacific; April 19, 2022 - Page 265 of 569 Mountain Partnership Secretariat info@mountainpartnership.org www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/ 6 5. Central Asia 6. Sub-Saharan Africa; and 7. Middle East and North Africa The clustering of the current members according to the seven regions is available in Appendix 5. C. Responsibilities The members of the MP contribute collaboratively to the achievement of the functions of the MP (see Section IV). They communicate their anticipated engagements for advancing the mission of the MP among the MP members and ensure, as a matter of solidarity and reliability, the implementation of these engagements. This approach to “accountability” to the overall cause is an essential feature of a self-governing voluntary alliance, especially one that includes members that are as diverse as those of a “Type II” Partnership such as the MP. In particular, representatives of MP members are expected to fulfill to the extent possible the following core roles and responsibilities:  Participating in national and international fora, dialogues and negotiations related to SMD;  Raising attention about the importance of prioritizing SMD in national policies and international agreements and of making the voices of mountain communities heard;  Sharing relevant information, expertise and experiences through various channels, including providing links to the websites of MP members and of the MPS;  Contributing success stories, case studies, good practices and/or lessons learned to the MP members and databases, also through the MPS, and participating in virtual discussions and electronic conferences;  Engaging in capacity development activities on SMD in their sphere of influence, both as providers of training and as beneficiaries of capacity development opportunities;  Engaging in brainstorming events, think-tank processes and dialogues on innovation in SMD in response to ongoing changes and in preparation for emerging challenges;  Engaging in the identification and, whenever possible, the mobilization of funds to promote investments in mountain areas;  Raising awareness about the need to prioritize SMD in national budgets; and  Initiating and/or participating in collaborative activities and joint initiatives with other MP members and engaging in technology transfer. If members are inactive for more than one year, the MPS can request the authorization of the relevant SC representatives to inform the member that it will be cancelled from the MP membership. Since individuals cannot be members of the MP, NGOs have a special responsibility in facilitating the participation of informal mountain community groups, such as indigenous people, and ensuring that community voices are heard and receive the required attention. April 19, 2022 - Page 266 of 569 Mountain Partnership Secretariat info@mountainpartnership.org www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/ 7 The Steering Committee during its meeting in Uganda in October 2016 requesThisted the MPS to develop a “membership fees option paper” to analyze the different potential fee options for membership in the MP. The paper has been prepared and will be discussed at the Global Meeting in Rome in 2017. The MP Governance document approved at the 4th Global Meeting (2013, Erzurum Turkey) stated that: “MP members are required to indicate their commitment and contribution to Mountain Partnership activities -- financial, in-kind contributions, or both -- the form of which is at the discretion of each member. Organizations from developed countries are invited to pay a membership fee and are expected, to the extent possible, to make a financial contribution to a Mountain Partnership Facility (see section VII.A) which is being established to provide seed money support to collaborative initiatives by MP members. In-kind contributions can include the costs associated with the participation in MP activities and events, hosting of events by providing local support, providing staff time for capacity development, editorial or translation services, etc. Members are invited to regularly communicate their contributions and engagements to the MPS which in turn will publicise these contributions through the appropriate channels.” Therefore this paragraph will be finalized once a decision will be taken by members at the Global Meeting. VI. Governing Philosophy and Mechanisms A. Philosophy As a self-governed voluntary alliance of governments and organizations committed to SMD, MP members recognize the need for some degree of supporting structure to fulfill the MP’s mission. MP members seek to establish the minimum degree of structure that is consistent with the guiding principles, functions and objectives enumerated above, and necessary to effectively and efficiently achieve the outputs and activities described below. The cost associated with establishing and implementing these governance mechanisms are kept to a minimum in order to ensure that resources devoted to SMD are, to the greatest extent possible, directed towards projects and other activities that are of direct benefit to mountain communities and the ecosystems on which they, and many others, depend. B. Mechanisms The principal mechanisms for governing MP activities, events and projects include: meetings of the full membership of the MP, hereafter referred to as the Global Meeting (GM); a Steering Committee (SC) made up of a representative and balanced subset of MP members; and a Secretariat (the MPS). The roles and functions, composition and lines of accountability of each of these mechanisms are described below. 1. MP Global Meeting Role and Function: GMs serve as the means by which the full membership of the MP develops and expresses its intentions regarding the future direction of the MP. Typically, this is accomplished through the ratification of a four-year Strategy and a biannual overall agenda for the MP prepared by the MPS under the leadership and guidance of the SC. A GM is held at least once every four years April 19, 2022 - Page 267 of 569 Mountain Partnership Secretariat info@mountainpartnership.org www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/ 8 with all members generally expected to participate in person. In case of funding or travel restrictions, every effort will be made to enable virtual participation by members in key decision making sessions of the GM. Every effort is made to ensure that a GM includes not only agenda items to ratify governance and planning documents, such as this Strategic Plan and any future updates to it, but also a wide variety of knowledge sharing and networking activities designed to advance the mission of the MP. Composition: GMs are open to participation from all members of the MP. Consistent with the function of GMs to advance the mission of the MP and SMD in general, as well as the guiding principle of collaboration with entities that are working on SMD who are not MP members, GMs are also open to entities that are not members of the MP. However, only entities that are members of the MP can participate in decisions about the future of the MP. Funding: Members are encouraged to contribute to the organization of GMs and to mobilize resources to support their own and other members’ participation. MPS will also seek resources to ensure that members with financial constraints will be able to participate. 2. Steering Committee Role and Function: The SC serves as a representative body of MP members that oversees the preparation of a four-year Strategy and a two-year general agenda for the MP. The SC also monitors and oversees the work of the MPS and reviews and approves its specific biennial budget and Work Plan which derives from the general agenda of the MP. The Strategy as well as the general agenda are presented to the full MP membership for ratification at a GM. The members of the SC do not represent their own institutions but their regions and/or electoral groups. In addition, they should have the capacity to understand other regions and, accordingly, have a global perspective. The SC meets in person at least once per year and can meet virtually at the discretion of the Chair, or Vice Chair in the absence of the Chair. Composition: The SC shall include no more than 18 people who are representative of the diverse membership of the MP, both in terms of the types of governments and organizations that are current MP members as well as a balanced representation of the world’s numerous mountainous regions (see Section V.B.). The composition of the SC (18 members) is proposed as follows (for the clustering of the current members according to the six regions and electoral groups please refer to Appendix 5):  1 representative of the national government members from each major mountain region (7 members);  1 representative of the civil society from each major mountain region (7 members);  1 representative of Intergovernmental Organizations (1 member);  1 representative of Global Civil Society Organizations (1 member);  1 representative of the donor organizations to the MPS (1 member); and  1 representative of the host institution of the MPS (1 member); April 19, 2022 - Page 268 of 569 Mountain Partnership Secretariat info@mountainpartnership.org www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/ 9 Members who are donor organizations to the MPS move automatically to the donor cluster. They retain observer status in their original electoral groups but do not have voting rights. Similarly, the host institution of the MPS, which automatically receives a place on the SC, may act as an observer in its original electoral group but does not have voting rights. The MPS Coordinator will participate in the SC meetings as Observer. Other Observers (e.g., experts, resource persons) might be invited to SC meetings as required by the agenda of a particular session. The selection of the SC members takes place in the preparation for the GM and the composition of the SC is approved at the GM. The nomination process is carried out within the different electoral groups and may be facilitated, on request, by the MPS. The members within each electoral group are invited to express their interest in becoming a member of the SC. The selection will then be made through a voting system within each electoral group. The SC members will serve for four years and can be re-elected for a second four-year term. The SC members select a Chairperson and one or two Vice-Chair(s). These positions rotate on a two-year basis to ensure active engagement of new leaders and to avoid extended over-reliance on the willingness of just a few MP members to commit the time, energy and resources that are required to fulfill these roles. The Chair is responsible for conducting the meetings of the SC. The Vice-Chair(s) will conduct SC meetings in the absence of the Chair. The detailed ToR of the SC are available in Appendix 1. Accountability: The SC is accountable to the MP members. Funding: Members are encouraged to mobilize their own resources to participate in these meetings also by requesting support to the respective electoral groups. The MPS will seek resources to support the participation of those members with financial constraints. 3. MP Secretariat Role and Function: The MP Secretariat plays an active and supportive role to the MP membership as a whole, and to the SC, providing services that link MP members and initiatives, fostering synergies and complementarities to promote closer collaboration and achieve greater coherence in MP efforts. In this role, the main tasks of the Secretariat are to promote advocacy and capacity development activities, and provide communication and information services, knowledge management and brokering functions by acting as a networking and liaison point for MP members. In addition, the MPS promotes the identification and mobilization of resources and investments for SMD, providing MP members with information about the availability of funds for SMD from all possible sources on an on-going basis. Composition: The staff composition of the MPS is reviewed and, if necessary, revised every two years by the SC. The MPS is managed by a coordinator appointed and funded by FAO who will be ratified by the SC every two years. The detailed ToR of the MPS are available in Appendix 2, the ToR of the MPS Coordinator in Appendix 3. Hosting: The MPS is currently hosted by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), building on its formally designated role as the U.N. Lead Agency for mountains and benefiting in particular from support from FAO Technical Departments and extended network of April 19, 2022 - Page 269 of 569 Mountain Partnership Secretariat info@mountainpartnership.org www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/ 10 regional, sub-regional and national offices. In its current hosting arrangement, the MPS is required to coordinate with FAO with regard to its formal roles, functions and operations. The hosting arrangement of the MPS is reviewed every four years by the SC. Accountability: The MPS is accountable to the SC and ultimately to all MP members. Funding: It is funded through financial and in-kind contributions from MP members. VII. Putting the Mountain Partnership into practice A. Outputs and activities The outputs and activities stated below follow the logic of the functions and objectives of the MP which are presented in section IV. The outputs and activities are for the Mountain Partnership as a whole and are valid for the entire period of this strategy. They provide the key elements for the development of the bi-annual agenda of the MP and the specific work plan of the MPS respectively. The latter typically includes activities and responsibilities for only a subset of the outputs and activities listed below according to the decisions by the MP Steering Committee. Elements which are not covered by the work plan of the MPS might be taken on board by members or group of members who have a particular interest and expertise in those issues. The list of outputs and activities listed below is neither comprehensive nor follows any order of priority. 1. Outputs and activities for function “advocacy” a) Develop a succinct, focused and practical advocacy strategy for SMD; b) Work towards mainstreaming the principles of SMD contained in Chapter 13 of Agenda 21 and the Rio+20 outcome document in global multilateral environmental agreements and their implementation; c) Promote the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and of the Paris Agreement in mountains; d) Prepare MP members for active participation in UN processes (especially Conventions) and other global and regional mechanisms and work towards the mainstreaming of SMD issues in relevant processes; e) Develop key messages, reports, briefs, other promotional and advocacy materials, and tools related to SMD and provide them to member countries to use when formulating their positions for important negotiations, e.g. in the context of the UN Conventions or other international processes; f) Establish and implement ad hoc awareness campaigns for SMD; g) Identify and bring on board well known personalities who are ready to act as “Goodwill ambassadors” or “champions” for SMD; and h) Ensure global support to regional advocacy initiatives. April 19, 2022 - Page 270 of 569 Mountain Partnership Secretariat info@mountainpartnership.org www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/ 11 2. Outputs and activities for function “joint action” a) Develop communities of practice for key mountain challenges (e.g., ecosystem-based climate change adaptation, natural hazard risk management, watershed management, biodiversity conservation, food security, migration) including linkages to existing centers of excellence, networks, etc., to enable MP members to proactively develop and undertake collaborative projects and other activities; b) Promote strategic collaboration among MP members to contribute to SMD and develop joint programmes including several MP members by building on their respective strengths; c) Develop strategies to address the lack of networks in certain regions to work toward MP goals, including fostering regional communities of interest; and d) As an alternative to organizing many low-profile side meetings, collaborate and join forces in the preparation and implementation of single and powerful mountain-specific events at regional and global meetings (e.g. COPs of conventions) which create visibility and impact. 3. Outputs and activities for function “knowledge management and communication” a) Develop and implement a comprehensive and well-structured knowledge management and communications strategy for the MP; b) Undertake analyses and quantitative assessments of mountain natural resource management and conservation issues, and of socio-economic development challenges for mountain societies, as well as of their interactions and wider linkages (e.g., ecosystem services, climate change, poverty reduction, food security, migration), and develop solutions for these challenges (e.g., Eeosystem-based adaptation); c) Facilitate the collection of new and emerging scientific and technical knowledge, as well as traditional knowledge, that can be used to increase the attention to mountains and to work towards SMD, and carry out gap identification and needs assessments; d) Prepare, on a regular basis, national or regional reports on the state of SMD; e) Implement an informative, reliable, and interactive global entry point for mountain- related information (knowledge hub/gateway/portal) and link with the Mountain Forum information portal (and others) to fulfill the needs of MP members from all mountain regions as well as for other users; f) Convene and facilitate exchanges, conferences, fora and other information-sharing mechanisms between MP members and with other stakeholders; g) Mobilize contribution of MP members to global processes, especially those which FAO is tasked by the UN General Assembly to coordinate, such as the International Mountain Day and the preparation, every three years, of the UN Secretary General report; and h) Promote media coverage of SMD and key solution-oriented policy messages (e.g. by undertaking targeted campaigns linked to major events highlighting the Mountain Agenda, creating a network of mountain journalists both at global and regional level, tapping into the UN media, etc.). April 19, 2022 - Page 271 of 569 Mountain Partnership Secretariat info@mountainpartnership.org www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/ 12 4. Outputs and activities for function “capacity development and technology transfer” a) Promote the development of curricula on SMD for different stakeholder groups (school children, high school and university students, project managers, government technicians, etc.) by tapping into and linking the vast experience and initiatives available within the membership of the MP and beyond; b) Develop capacity on SMD (scientific, technical, thematic, negotiation, etc.) among MP members and other stakeholders interested in SMD to enhance their effectiveness and impact, e.g. through the organization of training courses, summer schools, online forums and learning platforms; c) Organize education campaigns on SMD for media in order to increase the effectiveness and impact of communication and outreach activities related to SMD; and d) Identify and share effective technologies, methods (including traditional knowledge) and capacities regarding the management of mountain natural resources and environments, e.g. through South-South cooperation, implementation guidance for Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). 5. Outputs and activities for function “resource mobilization” a) Act as a platform to facilitate donor contacts for MP members who require funds for projects and other initiatives related to SMD; b) Operationalize a Global Mountain Facility (or similar) to which investors (including from the private sector) can contribute in order to support a diverse portfolio of SMD projects from individual members or by a group of members; c) Undertake a campaign to extend the membership of the MP to influential/strategic partners, especially governments from globally important mountainous countries, foundations and the private sector which might be in a position to provide funding for MP activities or to contribute financially to the Global Mountain Facility; d) Work toward ensuring that a portion of climate change adaptation funds are used to support SMD (e.g., by promoting the establishment of a programme of work on mountains within the UNFCCC and submitting proposals to the Green Climate Fund and the Global Environment Facility); e) Advise staff of MP member countries on how to negotiate and earmark national budget allocations for specific mountain-related needs and priorities; and f) Develop innovative ways for members to provide in-kind contributions to MP activities, e.g. through the provision of staff time for translations, graphic designs, hosting of events, technical assistance, etc. April 19, 2022 - Page 272 of 569 Mountain Partnership Secretariat info@mountainpartnership.org www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/ 13 B. Geographical scale of MP action The membership of the MP consists of global, regional, national and local stakeholders. Accordingly, the mandate and action of the MP articulates itself at all these geographical scales. An important role of the MP is to ensure dialogue, negotiation, information flow and exchange of experiences within and across these different levels. How dynamic the MP is within and across these scales depends on the willingness and proactivity of the partners to engage in collaborative action and to promote exchange of information and experiences. The role of the MPS is to facilitate this exchange, negotiation and information flow process. The national level is a key bridging scale for the functioning of the MP. It allows for decentralizing action down to the sub-national and local levels and, at the same time, bringing local and national experience to regional and global attention. The coordination of MP activities at regional level is very challenging. Each region has to develop its own mechanism, possibly including the establishment of sub-regional structures, which best fits to the specific regional circumstances, needs and institutional “landscape”. Whatever coordination mechanism is developed needs to have maximum legitimacy in convening/building more action, exchange and collaboration among partners. Members in a specific region should be involved in regular coordination, information/experience sharing and mutual support so that the regional representatives in the Steering Committee (the representative of the national government members and the representative of civil society members, see section VI.B) can adequately advocate for the interests and realities of the region as well as of their respective electoral group. Regional or sub- regional structures are not only important for the coordination within the regions but also for the support and reinforcement of the outreach activities of the MPS. The main focus of work of the MPS is at the global level. However, the MPS provides support, on request, to regional and national level processes and initiatives and, if the human resources allow, also to local level action. As a service provider, the MPS interacts regularly with all members independently of the geographical scale with which they are engaged. In order to ensure high- quality support to all these needs and processes, liaison staff (e.g. Junior Professional Officers, seconded staff from national agencies, etc.) may be stationed, on request, in offices of MP members at regional or national level. Members are encouraged to provide in-kind or cash contributions to allow for the setup of these regional or sub-regional MP structures. C. Monitoring and evaluation Given the nature of partnerships, the monitoring and evaluation of impacts and the quantification of results are very difficult and challenging. A “light” monitoring and evaluation system for the MP will be strengthened under the responsibility of the SC members, based on a number of criteria and indicators. The objective of this system will be to ensure that the MP fulfills its mission and that MP April 19, 2022 - Page 273 of 569 Mountain Partnership Secretariat info@mountainpartnership.org www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/ 14 members contribute to its achievement. This system will also include templates and guidelines for members for the reporting process on activities and contributions (in-kind and financial). Finally, it will provide for a regular review of the existing membership in order to ensure that the MP includes only partners that wish to actively contribute to its goals. D. Language policy At the global level, English is the communication language for the MP. To the extent possible, key MP communication products will be made available in English, French, Spanish and Russian. At the regional level the most commonly understood language will be used. At the national level members are encouraged to reach out to members and other stakeholders as much as possible in local languages. Support of members for translating key documents from English into other relevant languages is encouraged. E. Use of the Mountain Partnership brand Not every mountain-related initiative of MP members is automatically a MP activity. As a general principle, an initiative should only be marked with the MP brand if it clearly derived from the MP. More specifically, an activity or initiative can be labeled as being implemented within the MP if the following criteria are met:  At least two partners are involved in or contribute to the initiative; and  The initiative is clearly related to SMD and contributes to the MP mission and objectives. It is important that all initiatives which are being implemented under the MP label are reported to the MPS in order to ensure proper communication to the entire membership. Simple visual brand guidelines will be provided in the communication strategy. April 19, 2022 - Page 274 of 569 Mountain Partnership Secretariat info@mountainpartnership.org www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/ 15 List of Appendices Appendix 1: ToR Steering Committee Appendix 2: ToR MP Secretariat Appendix 3: ToR Coordinator of the MPS Appendix 4: Key milestones in the history of the MP Appendix 5: List of MP members April 19, 2022 - Page 275 of 569 Mountain Partnership Secretariat info@mountainpartnership.org www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/ 16 Appendix 1 Terms of Reference Steering Committee of the Mountain Partnership The Steering Committee provides programmatic orientation to the Mountain Partnership and serves as a representative body of its members. Each member of the Steering Committee represents a larger group of members and, accordingly, they are responsible for providing well prepared and consolidated input to the work of the Steering Committee – input which is based on a thorough consultation process with their constituency groups. Whenever possible, the SC will make decisions on the basis of consensus. However, if needed, the Steering Committee will vote and decisions will be approved by a simple majority. For efficiency and cost-effectiveness, the Steering Committee works in English and therefore elected members should have a working knowledge of this language. The Steering Committee carries out the following main responsibilities and tasks:  Elect a Chair and one or two Vice-Chairs of the Steering Committee with a two-year mandate;  Oversee the preparation of a four-year Strategy and a two-year general agenda for the MP;  Monitor the implementation of the MP agenda, the achievements and the impacts of MP activities;  Monitor and oversee the work of the MPS (technical, administrative, financial) and approve its specific biennial Work Plan which derives from the general agenda of the MP;  Ratify the selection of the Coordinator of the Mountain Partnership Secretariat, who is a FAO staff (See appendix 3);  Oversee the recruitment of officers at the Mountain Partnership Secretariat at all levels;  Meet in person at least once a year, preferably in conjunction with any other suitable event to increase synergies, and interact on a regular basis through electronic communication as needed and requested by the Chair;  Define criteria for new membership and review, on a regular basis and with support from the MPS, the current members; and  Address commitment issues of MP members and accountability matters of MPS if and when such issues arise. April 19, 2022 - Page 276 of 569 Mountain Partnership Secretariat info@mountainpartnership.org www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/ 17 Appendix 2 Terms of Reference Mountain Partnership Secretariat The MPS plays an active and supportive role to the MP membership as a whole, and to the SC, providing services that link MP Members and foster synergies and complementarities to promote closer collaboration, avoid duplication, and achieve greater coherence in MP efforts. The work plan of the MPS, which is being developed on a bi-annual basis, derives from the general agenda of the MP and is approved by the Steering Committee. The Secretariat is led by a Coordinator who ensures the functioning of the Secretariat. The Coordinator participates in the meetings of the Mountain Partnership Steering Committee as an observer and supports the Chair of the SC in the organization of the respective meetings. The staff composition in the MPS is reviewed and, if necessary, revised every two years upon approval of its bi-annual work plan. The MPS carries out the following main responsibilities and tasks:  Develop and maintain linkages and provide a supportive structure for MP members and regional initiatives and act as a networking and liaison point for them;  Provide conceptual input to the MP and coordinate and facilitate its activities;  Provide brokerage, capacity development, knowledge management, communication and information services in complement with other MP member’s efforts;  Promote the identification and mobilization of resources for SMD and provide MP members with information about the availability of funds from all possible sources on an on-going basis;  Prepare bi-annual/annual work plans and progress reports as required by the Steering Committee and by donor organizations to the MPS;  Provide technical, administrative and logistical support to the preparation and implementation of meetings (including the meetings of the Steering Committee);  Promote and provide advocacy for SMD and support the representation of MP at key events;  Analyse, on a regular basis, the commitment of MP members and communicate the results to the SC; review new applications for membership and process them according to the criteria defined by the Steering Committee;  Solicit contributions from MP members to the reporting to UN General Assembly (UNGA), the UN Secretary-General, and any other relevant process;  Provide inputs, as requested, to UNSG report and UNGA resolutions on SMD;  Engage MP members in International Mountain Day celebrations; April 19, 2022 - Page 277 of 569 Mountain Partnership Secretariat info@mountainpartnership.org www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/ 18  Liaise with Secretariats of global conventions (e.g. United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD), United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)) and other global initiatives (e.g. in relation to natural disasters, water, forests, etc.); and  Engage MP members in following up actions on the RIO+20 process regarding the mountain paragraphs. April 19, 2022 - Page 278 of 569 Mountain Partnership Secretariat info@mountainpartnership.org www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/ 19 Appendix 3 Terms of Reference Coordinator of the Mountain Partnership Secretariat The MPS is managed by a coordinator provided to the MP as an in-kind contribution by the host organisation. The Coordinator will be endorsed by the SC every two years and will be recruited under the rules and procedures of the host organisation. The Coordinator plans and supervises the implementation of the work of the MPS by carrying out the following main responsibilities and tasks:  Provide leadership to the MPS staff and conceptual input and support on SMD to the MP as a whole;  Participate in developing Terms of Reference for MPS staff and in their selection process;  Coordinate and supervise the work of MPS staff;  Guide the preparation of bi-annual/annual work plans and progress reports in support of the SC;  Provide financial and budgetary oversight for the funds which are established to fund the MPS or which are channeled through the MPS, including carrying out budget holder responsibilities;  In consultation with the Chair of the SC, organize, convene and ensure reporting for regular meetings of the Steering Committee;  Lead resource mobilization activities within the Secretariat, including developing and maintaining linkages with potential donors of Mountain Partnership activities;  Promote, provide advocacy for and support the representation of the MP at key events by MP members;  Provide liaison functions services within the host organisation and ensure full collaboration and integration with related technical services. April 19, 2022 - Page 279 of 569 Mountain Partnership Secretariat info@mountainpartnership.org www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/ 20 Appendix 4 Key Milestones in the History of the MP 1992: UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) or Rio Earth Summit includes Chapter 13, ‘Managing Fragile Ecosystems: Sustainable Mountain Development’ in ‘Agenda 21’, which is signed by heads of state or government of most of the world’s nations. 1993: FAO designated as the Task Manager of Chapter 13 of Agenda 21 and, accordingly, as the UN ‘Lead Agency for mountains.’ 1994-96: Inter-governmental consultations held in Africa, Asia/Pacific, Europe, Latin America, involving representatives of 62 countries and the European Union. 1995: International non-governmental consultation in Lima, Peru, leading to establishment of the Mountain Forum (MF) in 1996. 1998: Resolution for an International Year of Mountains supported by 130 countries in the UN General Assembly (the largest number ever to support such a resolution). 2002: International Year of the Mountains includes national committees in 78 countries and numerous events and other activities worldwide. The Plan of Implementation of the World Summit for Sustainable Development (WSSD) includes Paragraph 42 which is focused on sustainable mountain development. The Mountain Partnership1 established as a "Type II" partnership, with an Interim Secretariat housed at FAO. 2002: Bishkek Global Mountain Summit (Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan). 2003: First Global Meeting of the MP (Merano, Italy); Interim MPS established at FAO. 2004: Second Global Meeting of the MP (Cusco, Peru) with establishment of various thematic and regional ‘Partnership Initiatives.’ 2005: MP Secretariat (MPS) established at FAO. 2007: tri-partite external evaluation of the MPS. 2008: MPS regional hub for Latin America established at CONDESAN; MPS regional hub for Asia/Pacific established at ICIMOD (until 2009) 2010: MPS regional hub for Central Asia established at University of Central Asia (UCA) 2011: Lucerne World Mountain Conference (Lucerne, Switzerland) 1 Initially called the International Partnership for Sustainable Development in Mountain Regions; the shorter name has been used since 2004. April 19, 2022 - Page 280 of 569 Mountain Partnership Secretariat info@mountainpartnership.org www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/ 21 2012: Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development: paragraphs 210-212 of ‘The Future We Want,’ the outcome document, focus on sustainable mountain development. The third Global Meeting of the MP is held on the margins of Rio+20. 2015: the UN adopts three mountain related targets under 2 of the 17 SDGs. These are: Target 6.6. By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes. Target 15.1 By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains and drylands, in line with obligations under international agreements. Target 15.4 By 2030, ensure the conservation of mountain ecosystems, including their biodiversity, in order to enhance their capacity to provide benefits that are essential for sustainable development. April 19, 2022 - Page 281 of 569 Mountain Partnership Secretariat info@mountainpartnership.org www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/ 22 Appendix 5 Mountain Partnership members (320) 6 December 2017 Governments (59) Asia and the Pacific Afghanistan Bangladesh Bhutan India Indonesia Kyrgyzstan Nepal Pakistan Philippines Sri Lanka Europe Andorra Armenia Austria France Georgia Italy Liechtenstein Monaco Romania Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Spain Switzerland The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Turkey Ukraine Middle East and North Africa April 19, 2022 - Page 282 of 569 Mountain Partnership Secretariat info@mountainpartnership.org www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/ 23 Algeria Iran (Islamic Republic of) Jordan Morocco Tunisia Yemen North and Central America and the Caribbean Costa Rica Cuba Dominican Republic Guatemala Jamaica Mexico South America Argentina Bolivia (Plurinational State of) Chile Colombia Ecuador Peru Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) Sub-Saharan Africa Burundi Cameroon Democratic Republic of the Congo Ethiopia Ghana Guinea Kenya Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Swaziland Togo Uganda Subnational authorities (7) April 19, 2022 - Page 283 of 569 Mountain Partnership Secretariat info@mountainpartnership.org www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/ 24 Asia and the Pacific Philippines Province of Negros Occidental Russian Federation Altai Republic Europe Spain Municipality of Dénia Municipality of Campoo de Yuso North and Central America and the Caribbean United States of America City of Aspen City of Basalt City of Orem Intergovernmental Organizations (16) African Ministerial Conference on the Environment (AMCEN) Carpathian Convention Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Permanent Secretariat of the Alpine Convention Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Secretariat of the Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Center (CATIE) United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) United Nations University (UNU) World Bank (WB) World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) Major Groups (238) April 19, 2022 - Page 284 of 569 Mountain Partnership Secretariat info@mountainpartnership.org www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/ 25 Asia and the Pacific Australia CarbonLab, University of Queensland School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Queensland Bangladesh Bangladesh Mountaineering Federation (BMF) Kothowain China Guizhou University of Finance and Economics (GUFE) Journal of Mountain Science Pendeba Society Plateau Perspectives India Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE) Central Himalayan Environment Association (CHEA) Centre for Environment Education (CEE Himalaya) Central Himalayan Institute for Nature and Applied Research (CHINAR) Council for Green Revolution (CGR) Global Himalayan Expedition (GHE) Go Green & Go Organic Institute for Sustainable Development and Research (ISDR) Institute of Himalayan Environmental Research and Education (INHERE) Integrated Mountain Initiative (former Indian Mountain Initiative) Nilgiri Documentation Centre Pan Himalayan Grassroots Development Foundation Prakriti Society for Conserving Planet and Life (COPAL) Society for Natural Resource Management and Community Development (SNRMCD) Switch ON – Onergy Kazakhstan Avalon Historico-Geographical Society Regional Environmental Centre for Central Asia (CAREC) Kyrgyzstan April 19, 2022 - Page 285 of 569 Mountain Partnership Secretariat info@mountainpartnership.org www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/ 26 Agency of Development Initiatives (ADI) AgroLead Public Association Aigine Cultural Research Center Alliance of Central Asian Mountain Communities (AGOCA) Association of Forest and Land Users of Kyrgyzstan (AFLU Kyrgyzstan) “Bio Service” Public Foundation BIOM Ecological Movement CAMP Alatoo Center for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Development (CREEED) Central-Asian Institute for Applied Geosciences (CAIAG) ElEco Youth Environmental Movement EKOIS Farmer Cooperative Alysh Dan Federation of Organic Development Bio-KG Global and Local Information Partnership (GLIP) Institute for Sustainable Development Strategy Public Fund (ISDS) Kyrgyz Association of Fruit Growers Mountain Societies Development Support Programme Muras Bashaty Public Foundation "Ergene" Rural Development Fund “Topchu” Art Group UNISON University of Central Asia (UCA) Yrystan Public Foundation for Sustainable Community Development Mongolia Snow Leopard Conservation Foundation Nepal 3 Sisters Adventure Trekking Dalit Welfare Association (DWA) EcoHimal Nepal ForestAction Nepal Jeunes Volontaires pour l'Environment Nepal Karnali Integrated Rural Development and Research Centre (KIRDARC) Organic World and Fair Future Pvt Ltd. (OWF) Pragya Seeds Nepal (PGSI) Resources Himalaya Foundation New Zealand April 19, 2022 - Page 286 of 569 Mountain Partnership Secretariat info@mountainpartnership.org www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/ 27 New Zealand Alpine Club Pakistan Development Communications Network (DEVCOM-Pakistan) Focus Humanitarian Assistance Pakistan Mountain Areas Conservation and Development Services Mountains & People National Integrated Development Association (NIDA-Pakistan) New World Hope Organization (NWHO) Swat Youth Front Philippines Broad Initiatives for Negros Development (BIND) Indigenous Peoples' International Centre for Policy Research and Education (TEBTEBBA) Russian Federation Foundation for Sustainable Development of Altai (FSDA) Mountain Territories of Dagestan Russian Geographical Society (RGS) Russian Academy of Natural Sciences (RANS) Sustainable Development of Mountain Territories "Mountains" (IISTC "Mountains") Tajikistan CAMP Kuhiston Centre for Climate Change and Disaster Reduction (CCDR) Little Earth Public Organization “Kuhhoi Pomir” Tajik Social and Ecological Union Thailand Highland Research and Development Institute (HRDI) Europe Albania AlbaForest Albanian Alps Alliance Armenia April 19, 2022 - Page 287 of 569 Mountain Partnership Secretariat info@mountainpartnership.org www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/ 28 Convivium Ararat Austria Federal Institute for Less-Favoured and Mountainous Areas (BABF) Institute for Interdisciplinary Mountain Research (IGF) Azerbaijan Environmental Research Center of the Khazar University (ERCKU) Belgium Euromontana European Association of Elected Representatives from Mountain Areas (AEM) Bulgaria Association for Development of Mountain Municipalities in the Republic of Bulgaria (ADMMRB) Bulgarian Association for Development of Mountain Regions (BulMontana) France Centre International de Hautes Etudes Agronomiques Méditerranéennes (CIHEAM) European Mountain Forum (EMF) Mountain Wilderness PlaNet Finance Tignes Developpement World Mountain People Association (WMPA) Georgia Regional Environmental Centre for the Caucasus Germany Ecological Tourism in Europe (ETE) Greece Kavala Institute of Technology (KavTech) Metsovion Interdisciplinary Research Center (M.I.R.C.) UNESCO Club of Serres University of the Mountains (Greece) Hungary April 19, 2022 - Page 288 of 569 Mountain Partnership Secretariat info@mountainpartnership.org www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/ 29 International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation (CIC) Italy Association Ardito Desio Council for Agricultural Research and Agricultural Economics Analysis (CREA) Earth Day Italia Onlus European Academy (EURAC) Ev-K2-CNR Committee Fondazione Courmayeur Mont Blanc International Alliance for Mountain Film Museo Nazionale della Montagna "Duca degli Abruzzi" National Organization of Mountain Municipalities, Communities and Bodies (UNCEM) Slow Food Sports Medicine School Trento Film Festival University of Milan - GE.S.DI.MONT. University of Rome Sapienza - Department of Environmental Biology University of Turin - Department of Agricultural, Forest & Food Sciences (DISAFA) Liechtenstein International Commission for the Protection of the Alps (CIPRA) Norway Norwegian Mountain Research Network Poland Association of the Mountain Cheese Trail "Szlak Oscypkowy" Tatra Agency for Development Promotion and Culture Wojtowice - Back to the Future Portugal Centro de Investigação de Montanha (CIMO) MiratecArts Romania Romanian Mountain Forum ROMONTANA - National Association for Mountains Rural Development Russian Federation April 19, 2022 - Page 289 of 569 Mountain Partnership Secretariat info@mountainpartnership.org www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/ 30 MAB-6 Center Spain gvSIG Association Switzerland Centre for Development and Environment (CDE) Foundation for Sustainable Development in Mountain Regions (FDDM) Global Mountain Action Global Mountain Biodiversity Assessment International Mountaineering and Climbing Federation (UIAA) International Scientific Committee on Research in the Alps (ISCAR) Mountain Research and Development Mountain Research Initiative (MRI) ProMONT-BLANC World Economic Forum World Wildlife Fund International (WWF-International) The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Association for the Development of Mountain Regions in the Republic of Macedonia (MAKMONTANA) Balkan Foundation for Sustainable Development (BFSD) Turkey Association for Sustainability and Governance of Mountainous Areas Bingol University Kastamonu University Turkish Geographical Society United Kingdom Active Remedy Ltd. African Conservation Foundation (ACF) AleeVee8 Centre for Mountain Studies (CMS) International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) Practical Action Middle East and North Africa Egypt April 19, 2022 - Page 290 of 569 Mountain Partnership Secretariat info@mountainpartnership.org www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/ 31 Deraya University Iran (Islamic Republic of) Mountain Damavand Conservation Society Mountain Environment Protection Society (MEPS) University of Tehran Lebanon Lebanon Mountain Trail Association Morocco Migration and Development Oman Sultan Qaboos University North and Central America and the Caribbean Canada International Amenity Migration Centre (IAMC) The Rockies Institute (TRI) Costa Rica Centro Científico Tropical (Tropical Science Center) Coopedota Fundación para el Desarrollo de la Cordillera Volcánica Central (FUNDECOR) National Meteorological Institute of Costa Rica Panama Fundación CoMunidad United States of America Altai Assistance Project, Inc. American Councils for International Education (ACTR/ACCELS) Arctic and Mountain Regions Development Institute (AMRDI) Aspen International Mountain Foundation (AIMF) BioRegions International Dean's Beans Organic Coffee Company Gruppman International Violin Institute April 19, 2022 - Page 291 of 569 Mountain Partnership Secretariat info@mountainpartnership.org www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/ 32 Millennium Institute Mountain Studies Institute (MSI) MountainWorld Productions Snow Leopard Conservancy Tatra Mountains Cultural Foundation Telluride Institute The Mountain Institute (TMI) University of Denver - Western Colorado Master Social Work Utah Valley University (UVU) and Utah-Russia Institute Vista 360° Women Organizing for Change in Agriculture and NRM (WOCAN) South America Argentina Argentinean Environmental Centre (CAMBIAR) Association for Social Development (ADESO) Fundación Agreste Fundación EcoAndina Fundación ProYungas Mountain Duck VICAM: Vicuñas, Camélidos y Ambiente Bolivia (Plurinational State of) Bolivian Mountain Institute Flor de Leche Fundación Participación y Sostenibilidad (PASOS) Irupana Andean Organic Food S.A. Brazil Confederação Brasileira de Montanhismo e Escalada (CBME) Crescente Fértil Chile Fundación Sendero de Chile Colombia Centro de Estudios de Alta Montaña (CEAM) Fundación Ecohabitats Fundación Estación Biológica Guayacanal April 19, 2022 - Page 292 of 569 Mountain Partnership Secretariat info@mountainpartnership.org www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/ 33 Fundación para el Desarrollo Sostenible de las Zonas de Páramo y sus Áreas de Influencia Fundación Pangea Ecuador Fundación Cordillera Tropical Peru Asociacion Oikos Association for Nature and Sustainable Development (ANDES) Consortium for Sustainable Development of the Andean Ecoregion (CONDESAN) HimalAndes Initiative Huayhuash Peru International Potato Center (CIP) Mountain Forum Red de Agroindustria Rural del Perú (REDAR Perú) Yachay Wasi Sub-Saharan Africa Benin Centre de Recherche pour la Gestion de la Biodiversité (CRGB) Burundi Association pour la Protection des Montagnes du Burundi (APMB) Cameroon Cameroon National Network of Associations and NGOs of the Mountain Partnership (RENASONGCAM) Foundation for Environment and Development (FEDEV) Save Your Future Association (SYFA) Ethiopia Ethiopian Wildlife and Natural History Society Ghana Ghana Wildlife Society (GWS) Kenya April 19, 2022 - Page 293 of 569 Mountain Partnership Secretariat info@mountainpartnership.org www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/ 34 International Center of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE) International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) Mara Expeditions Community Based Organization Mount Kenya Trust Volunteers for Africa / ECODECO Partnership Lesotho Rural Self Help Development Association (RSDA) Malawi Institute of Sustainable Development (ISD) Total LandCare Nigeria Environment and Tourism Support (EATS) South Africa Sunrise On Africa's Peaks Togo Les Compagnons Ruraux Plateforme des Organisations de la Société Civile pour la Sauvegarde des Montagnes (PSM) Uganda Albertine Rift Conservation Society (ARCOS) Makerere University SORAINE Uganda Zimbabwe School of Wildlife, Ecology and Conservation, Chinhoyi University of Technology April 19, 2022 - Page 294 of 569 RESOLUTION NO. 18 Series of 2022 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TO JOIN THE UNITED NATIONS GLOBAL MOUNTAIN PARTNERSHIP WHEREAS, the Town’s vision is to be the premier mountain resort community and is a globally recognized certified sustainable destination under criteria set forth by the Global Sustainable Tourism Council, a division of the United Nations; WHEREAS, the Town’s goals and values are aligned with the mission of the Mountain Partnership, a United Nations voluntary alliance of interested governments and organizations committed to working together with the common goal of achieving Sustainable Mountain Development around the world; WHEREAS, the Mountain Partnership envisions a world with increased public and private sector attention, commitments, engagement and investments in sustainable mountain development that: • Maintain and enhance the vitality and stewardship of mountain ecosystems for the crucial services and goods they provide to the planet; • Improve the social and economic wellbeing and livelihoods of and opportunities for mountain peoples – particularly the most vulnerable – and those who live in geographic regions that include mountains; and • Empower and enable mountain peoples to be fully engaged in the decision-making processes that help shape the future of mountain communities and ecosystems, particularly in light of global change and globalization processes; and WHEREAS, the Town is an eligible governmental organization committed to meeting the criteria of the Mountain Partnership, willing to join forces with other Mountain Partnership members and fulfill the roles and responsibilities as defined in the Mountain Partnership Strategy and Governance 2018-2021 document, attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof by this reference. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT: Section 1. The Town Council hereby approves joining the United Nations Global Mountain Partnership and authorizes the Town Manager to execute all documents necessary to effectuate this Resolution. April 19, 2022 - Page 295 of 569 Section 2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail held this 19th day of April 2022. _________________________ Kim Langmaid, Town Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk April 19, 2022 - Page 296 of 569 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: Resolution No. 19, S eries of 2022, F ire Free Five Funding B AC K G RO UND: At the April 5 Town Council Meeting, the Vail Town Council approved funding for a financial assistance program to assist property owners with creating a 5' non-combustible zone around their property. F unding for this program was included in the second reading of the budget supplemental. T his Resolution formally establishes the Fire F ree F ive Community A ssistance Program. S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: A pprove Resolution No. 19, Series of 2022 establishing the Fire F ree F ive Community Assistance P rogram AT TAC H ME N TS: Description Resolution No. 19, Series 2022 exhibit A Sample FF F Funding Application April 19, 2022 - Page 297 of 569 RESOLUTION NO. 19 Series of 2022 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FIRE FREE FIVE COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM WHEREAS, creating a five-foot non -combustible zone is one of the most important actions a property owner can take to reduce the risk of structural loss due to wildland fire; WHEREAS, preventing such loss is particularly important in the Town due to the proximity of structures to each other, which increases risk of a wildland fire initiated wildland-urban conflagration; and WHEREAS, the Town wishes to establish and implement a funding program to reimburse property owners for costs associated with implementing the five-foot non- combustible zone as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference (the “FFF Program”). NOW TH EREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT: Section 1. The Town Council hereby approves the FFF Program in substantially the same form as attached hereto as Exhibit A. Section 2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail held this 19th day of April 2022. _________________________ Kim Langmaid, Town Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk April 19, 2022 - Page 298 of 569 EXHIBIT A Fire Free Five Community Assistance Program This program is intended to provide financial support to property owners who are increasing wildfire resiliency by creating a 5’ non-combustible zone around their building (Fire Free Five). REQUIREMENTS OF ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES • Located within the incorporated boundaries of the Town of Vail (TOV) • Each property is limited to a single reimbursement up to the specified limits based upon property type • Property must fully implement the fire free five around the entire building • Reimbursement is limited to property-owners or their legal representative; renters are not eligible to receive reimbursement. An HOA will be considered a property owner for the purpose of eligibility for common areas owned by the HOA. REIMBURSEMENT • This Program will reimburse property owner 75% of actual costs of materials and labor. Property owner must provide a minimum 25% cash match • Creation of Fire Free Five around outbuildings is an eligible expense but is not eligible for a separate reimbursement • Reimbursement limits are as follows: o Single Family Dwelling: $2,000 o Duplex: $3,000 o Multi-family Dwelling/complex, 1-20 units: $5,000 o Multi-family Dwelling/complex, 21 units or more: $10,000 o Commercial Structure: $5,000 APPLICATION PROCESS 1. Property owner submits a FFFCAP application to Vail Fire and Emergency Services (VFES) 2. VFES staff conducts an evaluation of existing conditions and issues a tree removal permit if necessary a. VFES staff will ensure joint property signoff for projects involving more than one owner b. Staff will provide information on considerations for nesting wildlife 3. Property owner completes activities necessary to create FFF around entire structure 4. VFES staff conducts follow-up evaluation to confirm that FFF implementation is complete 5. Property owner submits receipts for contracted labor and materials to VFES (receipts must be submitted within 90 days of initial FFFCAP site evaluation) 6. TOV Finance Department processes payment to property owner April 19, 2022 - Page 299 of 569 Vail Fire and Emergency Services 2399 North Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Tel: 970-477-3475 www.vailgov.com/fire Application for Fire Free Five Community Assistance Program General Information: The Fire Free Five Community Assistance Program was developed to aid Vail property owners reduce their wildfire risk by installing and maintaining fire resistant landscaping within the first five feet of their building. Funds are available for labor and materials to implement the Fire Free Five around your building. Property Owner: ________________________________________________________________________ Physical Address: _____________________________________________________________________ Mailing Address: _____________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ Phone: ________________________________________________________________________________ Owner’s Signature:______________________________________________________________________ Description of work to be completed: For Office Use Only: Date of Vail Fire Initial Site Visit:________________ Date of Project Approval: _____________________ Vail Fire and Emergency Services Project Approval Signature:_________________________________ •FFCAP will reimburse up to 75% of actual materials and labor expenses. Property owner must provide 25% cash match. •All work must be completed within 90 days of approval of application. Reimbursements submitted more than 90 days after application approval may be denied. •Vail Fire and Emergency Services must approve project before work may begin. Work completed prior to project approval may not be reimbursed. Requested Funding: April 19, 2022 - Page 300 of 569   JOINT PROPERTY OWNER WRITTEN APPROVAL LETTER The applicant must submit written joint property owner approval for applications affecting shared ownership properties such as duplex, condominium, and multi-tenant buildings. This form, or similar written correspondence, must be completed by the adjoining duplex unit owner or the authorized agent of the home owner’s association in the case of a condominium or multi-tenant building. All completed forms must be submitted with the applicants completed application. I, (print name) ______________________________________________, a joint owner, or authority of the association, of property located at _______________________________________________________, provide this letter as written approval of the plans dated __________________________________________ which have been submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for the proposed improvements to be completed at the address noted above. I understand that the proposed improvements include: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ I understand that modifications may be made to the plans over the course of the review process to ensure compliance with the Town’s applicable codes and regulations; and that it is the sole responsibility of the applicant to keep the joint property owner apprised of any changes and ensure that the changes are acceptable and appropriate. Submittal of an application results in the applicant agreeing to this statement. _________________________________________ ____________________________________________ Signature Date Print Name April 19, 2022 - Page 301 of 569 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: L etters of I ntent and I nvitation to Visit Vail (to St. Moritz, Switzerland Officials and S t. A nton am Arlberg, Austria Officials) in support of Vail's Peer Resort Exchange Program AT TAC H ME N TS: Description Letter of Intent St. Moritz Letter of Intent St. Anton April 19, 2022 - Page 302 of 569 April 19, 2022 The Honorable Christian Jott Jenny Kanzlei Via Maistra 12 CH-7500 St. Moritz, Switzerland Dear Mayor Jenny, On behalf of the Town of Vail, we wish to thank you and your representatives for your warm hospitality and unforgettable experience in your exquisite community this March. Our shared values have re-invigorated a long-standing Sister City relationship and the Town of Vail has come to know and love St. Moritz as an international example of a premiere resort community. It is with great pleasure that I invite the delegates of St. Moritz to visit the Town of Vail this upcoming summer or winter 2022, to continue to explore the future of this alliance. To that end, we envision a growing awareness and appreciation of each other’s culture and people. From small beginnings, we hope this partnership will continue for many generations, fostering exchanges in education, sustainability, economic and professional development. Following our upcoming visit with the delegates of St. Moritz in Vail in the coming months, it would be to formalize the peer resort change (aka Sister City) relationship between St. Moritz and the Town of Vail, to encourage bilateral cooperation, to intensify common efforts, and to exchange experiences and the execution of common activities that contribute to the development of both cities. To that end, we propose the following objectives for a future agreement. Areas of Cooperation and Modalities To reach the objective of the Agreement, the Parties are committed to explore and develop cooperative projects, specifically directed, but not limited to the following areas: a) Cultural Exchange: Promote cultural, historical, artistic and sports exchanges to advance the understanding and enjoyment of each community’s cultural attributes, traditions and heritage. b) Promotion of Tourism: Each community will promote the other through their corresponding local tourism office, to raise awareness of the brand, values, guest experience and destination. April 19, 2022 - Page 303 of 569 Town of Vail Page 2 c) Environmental and Sustainability Cooperation: Both communities will share best practices to promote sustainable development, innovation, wildlife and environmental protection, the advancement of best practices in addressing global climate change, promoting pollution prevention policies and practices and encourage environmental education and research. d) Education: Encourage the local school boards to share educational programs and systems. Encourage the development of student exchange programs between the communities. e) Any other area of cooperation that the communities agree upon. Sincerely, Kim Langmaid, Mayor, Town of Vail, on behalf of the Vail Town Council cc: Ulrich Rechsteiner, City of St. Moritz Marijana Jakic, Engadin St. Moritz Tourismus AG April 19, 2022 - Page 304 of 569 April 19, 2022 The Honorable Helmut Mall Dear Mayor Mall, On behalf of the Town of Vail, we wish to thank you and your representatives for your warm hospitality and unforgettable experience in your exquisite community this March. Our shared values have invigorated our intent to create a long-standing Sister City relationship with St. Anton am Arlberg. Our visit certainly provided the opportunity to better understand your history as a leader in the ski industry as well as enjoy your quaint and authentic resort mountain community. It is with great pleasure that I invite the delegates of St. Anton am Arlberg to visit the Town of Vail in 2022 at a time that is convenient to continue to explore the future of this alliance. To that end, we envision a growing awareness and appreciation of each other’s culture and people. From small beginnings, we hope this partnership will continue for many generations, fostering exchanges in education, sustainability, economic and professional development. Following this visit with the delegates of St. Anton am Arlberg, the Town of Vail would express a desire to formalize the Sister City relationship between St. Anton am Arlberg Moritz and the Town of Vail, to encourage bilateral cooperation, to intensify common efforts, and to exchange experiences and the execution of common activities that contribute to the development of both cities. To that end, we propose the following objectives for a future agreement. Areas of Cooperation and Modalities To reach the objective of the Agreement, the Parties are committed to explore and develop cooperative projects, specifically directed, but not limited to the following areas: a) Cultural Exchange: Promote cultural, historical, artistic and sports exchanges to advance the understanding and enjoyment of each community’s cultural attributes, traditions and heritage. b) Promotion of Tourism: Each community will promote the other through their corresponding local tourism office, to raise awareness of the brand, values, guest experience and destination. c) Environmental and Sustainability Cooperation: Both communities will share best practices to promote sustainable development, innovation, wildlife and April 19, 2022 - Page 305 of 569 Town of Vail Page 2 environmental protection, the advancement of best practices in addressing global climate change, promoting pollution prevention policies and practices and encourage environmental education and research. d) Education: Encourage the local school boards to share educational programs and systems. Encourage the development of student exchange programs between the communities. e) Any other area of cooperation that the communities agree upon. Sincerely, Kim Langmaid, Mayor, Town of Vail, on behalf of the Vail Town Council cc: Mr. Martin Ebster, Director, Tourismusverband St. Anton Arlberg Ms. Wilma Himmelfreundpointner; Marketing Director April 19, 2022 - Page 306 of 569 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: Contract Award to S tone S ecurity to Support the Milestone Camera Software B AC K G RO UND: The Milestone camera software system is used to store and review the video footage gathered by over 240 cameras positioned around town. T his video has been extensively used by the Police Department to assist with investigations and by the P arking department to track various issues in our structures. T he Milestone system has become a critical tool in their day-to-day operations, and this support agreement ensures that the software is kept up to date and functioning effectively. S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: Direct the Town Manger to enter into an agreement in a form approved by the Town A ttorney with Stone Security, L L C in the amount of $53,250 to support the town’s Milestone camera software system. AT TAC H ME N TS: Description Memo April 19, 2022 - Page 307 of 569 To: Vail Town Council From: IT Department Date: April 19, 2022 Subject: Milestone Support Agreement with Stone Security I. PURPOSE The purpose of this item is to request the Council to approve an agreement with Stone Security to support our Milestone camera software. II. BACKGROUND The Milestone camera software system is used to store and review the video footage gathered by over 240 cameras positioned around town. This video has been extensively used by the Police Department to assist with investigations and by the Parking department to track various issues in our structures. The Milestone system has become a critical tool in their day-to-day operations, and this support agreement ensures that the software is kept up to date and functioning effectively. III. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL Direct the Town Manger to enter into an agreement in a form approved by the Town Attorney with Stone Security, LLC in the amount of $53,250 to support the town’s Milestone camera software system. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council direct the Town Manger to enter into an agreement in a form approved by the Town Attorney with Stone Security, LLC in the amount of $53,250 to support the town’s Milestone camera software system. April 19, 2022 - Page 308 of 569 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: Contract Award to American Mechanical Services for Police Department Rooftop Unit Replacement B AC K G RO UND: There are eight roof top units which provide heating and cooling to the department interior spaces. Over the past two years four out of the eight units have been replaced. This will be year number three and the plan is to replace unit numbers five and six. T he new units are state of the art and are much more efficient than the existing units. They utilize condensing cooling eliminating the outdated existing evaporative cooling. S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: A uthorize the Town Manager to enter into an agreement, in a form approved by the Town A ttorney, with A merican Mechanical S ervices to replace the P olice Department's rooftop unit in the amount not to exceed $86,034.00. AT TAC H ME N TS: Description Memo April 19, 2022 - Page 309 of 569 To: From: Date: Subject: Town Council Public Works 04/19/2022 Police Department Rooftop Unit Replacement Contract Award I.ITEM/TOPIC Police Department Rooftop Unit Replacement Contract Award II.ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL Authorize the Town Manager to enter into an agreement with American Mechanical Services to replace the Police Department's rooftop unit. III.BACKGROUND There are eight roof top units which provide heating and cooling to the department interior spaces. Over the past two years four out of the eight units have been replaced. This will be year number three and the plan is to replace unit numbers five and six. The new units are state of the art and are much more efficient than the existing units. The new units also utilize condensing cooling eliminating the outdated existing evaporative cooling. Due to the continuing supply chain issue, these unit will not be delivered until early September 2022 and the installation will be done at that time. IV.STAFF RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Town Manager to enter into an agreement, in a form approved by the Town Attorney, with American Mechanical Services to replace the Police Department's rooftop unit in the amount not to exceed $86,034.00. April 19, 2022 - Page 310 of 569 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: Contract Award with E agle Valley E vents for the production of Vail America Days P arade B AC K G RO UND: An R F P was published to find an event producer to execute the Vail America Days Parade. L aurie A smussen of E agle Valley E vents submitted a proposal that was reviewed and approved by the Commission on Special E vents. S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: Direct the town manager to enter into an agreement, on a form approved by the town attorney, with E agle Valley E vents for the production of the Vail A merica Days parade and entertainment in an amount not to exceed $70,000. AT TAC H ME N TS: Description Memo April 19, 2022 - Page 311 of 569 To: Mayor and Town Council From: Economic Development Date: 4/14/2022 Subject: Funding Agreement for Vail America Days Background The Town of Vail has hosted and produced a modified 4th of July event and parade for the last two years due to COVID 19. As COVID-19 has become endemic and less impactful on events and gatherings, the town is bringing back the traditional parade model. An RFP was published to find an event producer to execute the parade and entertainment for Vail America Days. Laurie Asmussen of Eagle Valley Events submitted a proposal to produce the parade. Laurie produced the parade back in the early 2000’s and has produced many other parades in the region. The Commission on Special Events and Town staff reviewed the proposal and has recommended that Town Council enter into an agreement with Eagle Valley Events to produce the event. Budget $70,000 was included in the budget for the Vail America Days Parade and event in the Town Produced Event budget category. The proposal submitted fits within the allocated budget. Action Requested of Council Direct the Town Manager to enter into an agreement with Eagle Valley Events for the production of the Vail America Days Parade on July 4, 2022 in the amount of $70,000 on a form approved by the town attorney. April 19, 2022 - Page 312 of 569 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: Ordinance No. 6, S eries of 2022, F irst Reading, An Ordinance A mending Title 12 of the Vail Town Code to E stablish Setbacks from Gore Creek and its Tributaries P RE S E NT E R(S ): P eter Wadden, Water Quality and Greg Roy, S enior Planner AC T IO N RE Q UE S T E D O F C O UNC I L: A pprove, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2022, upon first reading. B AC K G RO UND: The Gore Creek Strategic P lan, adopted by Vail Town Council in 2016, identifies the loss of riparian (streamside) vegetation as one of the three main causes of declining water quality in Gore Creek. The Plan recommends Town of Vail “update stream setbacks, riparian zones, vegetative buffer zones and other water quality objectives definitions and maps (Title 12 Review and Amendments).” T he P lanning and E nvironmental Commission (P E C) heard this application at seven different meetings and forwarded a recommendation of approval on March 14th, 2022. S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: A pprove first reading Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2022 AT TAC H ME N TS: Description First Reading of Ordinance No. 6 Staff Memo Attachment A. Narrative 4-19-22 Attachment B. Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2022 Attachment C. Comparison of Stream Setback Options 25' Map Attachment D. Community Feedback Attachment E. P E C Meeting Minutes 9-27-21 Attachment F. P E C Meeting Minutes 10-25-2021 Attachment G. P E C Meeting Minutes 1-24-22 Attachment H. P E C Meeting Minutes 2-14-2022 Attachment I. P E C Meeting Minutes 2-28-2022 Attachment J. P E C Meeting Minutes 3-14-22 Stream Corridor Presentation April 19, 2022 - Page 313 of 569 TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 5, 2022 SUBJECT: First reading of an Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2022, an ordinance to amend Town Code pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to establish setbacks from Gore Creek and its tributaries, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21-0043) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Peter Wadden Planner: Greg Roy I. SUMMARY The applicant, Town of Vail, represented by Peter Wadden, is requesting a first reading of Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2022 for a prescribed regulation amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code to establish setbacks from Gore Creek and its tributaries. II. ACTION REQUESTED OF THE TOWN COUNCIL The Vail Town Council shall approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2022, upon first reading. III. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Based on these recommendations from the Town’s Comprehensive Plan and to protect crucial riparian habitat, the proposed changes would establish a “Two-Year Flood Line” (TYFL), where the setback would be measured from. The TYFL will be defined in the code as follows: “Two-Year Flood Line (“TYFL”): The average two-year flood line on Gore Creek and its named tributaries, as established by the data set adopted by the Town Council by resolution.” The TYFL primarily runs along what would be commonly called the “bank” of the creek or watercourse. While the centerline of the creek may change on a daily or weekly basis, the TYFL varies on a longer timescale due to bank erosion and changes to the April 19, 2022 - Page 314 of 569 Town of Vail Page 2 stream channel. It is a static baseline from which to measure the setback and has become the industry standard in the decades since Vail’s original setback ordinance was adopted. A setback measurement based on the TYFL is also more equitable among properties adjacent to reaches of stream of varying widths. The effective setback from the watercourse based on the centerline is wholly dependent on how wide the watercourse is in that location. If the watercourse is one hundred feet (100’) wide in one location the setback would permit building up to the bank of the watercourse. Comparatively, if the watercourse is fifty feet (50’) wide, the effective setback from the bank would be twenty- five feet (25’). As the goal is to protect the watercourse, the best way to achieve that goal is to have a consistent setback from the bank of the watercourse, which can be distinguished by the average two-year flood line. The proposed language would not permit mowing, landscaping, grading, or other disturbance within ten feet (10’) of the TYFL, with exceptions. This ten-foot (10’) wide portion of the setback would be a protected area to remain as native vegetation and natural materials. The Gore Creek Strategic Plan identifies “loss of riparian and streamside vegetation” as one of the three main causes of declining water quality in Gore Creek. The proposed riparian setback seeks to reverse this trend by establishing a contiguous corridor of healthy, native vegetation along Gore Creek and its tributaries. There would be allowances for access to the creek for each property. Each property would be able to maintain a path to the creek with certain limitations outlined in the proposed language. The proposed code change would remove the section on the setbacks from the watercourse from the Supplemental Regulations in Section 14 and the new language would be inserted in Section 21 on Hazards to be consistent with the location of the floodplain regulations. IV. BACKGROUND Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1976 created the streambank setback regulations in place today. They required a minimum setback of thirty feet (30’) from the center of the established creek or stream channel and fifty feet (50’) from the centerline of Gore Creek. The Gore Creek Strategic Plan, adopted by Vail Town Council in 2016, identifies the loss of riparian (streamside) vegetation as one of the three main causes of declining water quality in Gore Creek. The Plan recommends Town of Vail “update stream setbacks, riparian zones, vegetative buffer zones and other water quality objectives definitions and maps (Title 12 Review and Amendments).” The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) heard this application at seven different meetings and forwarded a recommendation of approval on March 14th, 2022. April 19, 2022 - Page 315 of 569 Town of Vail Page 3 The Town Council heard an introduction to this item at the April 5th Town Council meeting and gave staff direction to continue the Ordinance to first reading. V. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and The general purposes of the zoning regulations are for “promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality”. This text amendment is intended to enhance the protection of Gore Creek as part of the town’s natural environment. The current setbacks are measured from the centerline of the creek, but depending on the width of the creek the streambank may or may not be protected. As the preservation of the streambank and its native vegetation is one of the three main ways to improve the water quality, it is wholly important to make sure the regulations ensure that protection. Having the setback measured from the TYFL will ensure that the native vegetation along the river is equally preserved. This application also furthers the specific purpose of the zoning regulations “To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable natural features.” Staff finds that the proposed text amendment conforms to this criterion. 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and The proposed text amendment will further the Town’s adopted goals in the comprehensive plan as noted in the section above. This amendment was specifically recommended in the Gore Creek Strategic Plan as a way to further protect the creek. It also meets the goal of protecting the environment and water quality set forth in the Land Use Plan. The equal protection of the streambank is imperative to preserving and enhancing the water quality throughout the town. By changing the base of the setback measurement from the centerline to the TYFL, the sensitive area of Gore Creek and its tributaries will be consistently protected. Adding the limited disturbance to the first ten feet ensures that the sensitive area adjacent to the water is preserved to the greatest extent possible. This will allow for the natural filtration of water and other processes to take place before reaching the creek. Staff performed further analysis of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and found that the proposal was not contrary to anything adopted in the comprehensive plan. April 19, 2022 - Page 316 of 569 Town of Vail Page 4 Staff finds that the proposed text amendment conforms to this criterion. 3. The text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and The current regulations were set with the best information available in 1976, almost 50 years ago. Since then, new studies and best management practices have evolved and improved. The existing setbacks have no regulation on what can happen inside of the setback. It is now recognized that the area between the development and the creek is vitally important to the health and function of the creek. The proposed code change incorporates the best practices known today to establish an acceptable setback that protects Gore Creek and its water quality. The research that went into the Gore Creek Strategic plan looked at comparable studies and the suggested setbacks to maintain creek health. The findings suggested buffers of anywhere from 30 to 330 feet along the creek. This proposal is a modest setback that attempts to strike a balance between the character of Vail and the protection of its natural resources. Staff finds that the proposed text amendment conforms to this criterion. 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and One of the decision-making factors going into the proposed setback was the relation to the other setbacks throughout the town and crafting a proposal that would be harmonious with other sections of the Town Code. The proposed setback was one of several studied options that rose to the top as the most practical solution that would fit into existing regulations. In reference to Section 14 on design regulations and allowed encroachments into setbacks, the 25-foot setback provided for the encroachments from that section while allowing plenty of room to keep a protected area adjacent to the creeks. Staff further reviewed the development objectives of the Town to find how this proposal would or would not be furthering those objectives. Of the four Land Use and Development goals in the Strategic 2020 plan, one of the goals is “Land use and development decisions will address environmental sustainability as a priority of the community”. The other three goals mention consistency in the development review process, providing deed restricted housing, and updating land use documents. Goal #2 stated above seems to be the only relevant goal to apply to the review of this application. The language suggests that environmental sustainability should be a priority for the community and thus would support an application that furthers that goal. This application furthers environmental sustainability by providing additional protections to Gore Creek in the form of a consistent setback. Staff finds that the proposed text amendment conforms to this criterion. April 19, 2022 - Page 317 of 569 Town of Vail Page 5 5. Such other factors and criteria the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed text amendments Staff will provide additional information as needed should the PEC and/or council determine other factors or criteria applicable to the proposed text amendments. VI. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Should the Vail Town Council choose to approve, Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2022, upon first reading, the Planning and Environmental commission recommends the Town Council pass the following motion: "The Vail Town Council approves, on first reading, Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2022, an ordinance to amend Town Code pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to establish setbacks from Gore Creek and its tributaries, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21-0043)” Should the Vail Town Council choose to approve, Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2022, the Planning and Environmental Commission recommends the Town Council makes the following findings: “Based upon a review of Section VII of the March 14, 2022 staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Vail Town Council finds: 1. That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations outlined in Section 12-1-2, Purpose, Vail Town Code; and 3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality." VII. ATTACHMENTS A. Applicant Narrative, 4-19-2022 B. Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2022 C. Comparison of Stream Setback Options 25’ Map D. Community Feedback April 19, 2022 - Page 318 of 569 Town of Vail Page 6 E. PEC Meeting Minutes 9-27-2021 F. PEC Meeting Minutes 10-25-2021 G. PEC Meeting Minutes 1-24-2022 H. PEC Meeting Minutes 2-14-2022 I. PEC Meeting Minutes 2-28-2022 J. PEC Meeting Minutes 3-14-2022 April 19, 2022 - Page 319 of 569 To: Vail Town Council From: Department of Environmental Sustainability Date: April 19, 2022 Subject: Narrative- Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance The Gore Creek Strategic Plan (The Plan), adopted by the Vail Town Council in 2016, directs staff to “update stream setback, riparian zone, vegetative buffer zone and other water quality definitions and maps” in order to reverse “the loss of riparian and streamside vegetation, which reduces the natural ability of these areas to protect Gore Creek from the effects of land use activities and urban runoff.” To that end, staff has undertaken a thorough review of the scientific literature concerning best practices in riparian buffers, regulations adopted by other communities around the state, and the situation on the ground in Vail to propose an ordinance designed to accomplish the objectives required by The Plan. Goals of proposed Code Changes The proposed Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance seeks to: • Create a clear, comprehensible, and enforceable set of guidelines for building and riparian setbacks on private property in Vail • Promote the establishment of a contiguous riparian buffer along Gore Creek and its tributaries • Limit turfgrass and hardscape and deter excessive chemical use within a delineated buffer zone To be successful, the ordinance must meet the following criteria: 1. Establish a net increase in the amount of riparian buffer o A robust riparian buffer throughout town is the strongest tool available to protect Gore Creek from pollutants such as landscaping chemicals and road runoff 2. Establish a net increase in the distance of buildings and structures from Gore Creek and its tributaries o As Vail developed over the past 60 years, structures were built very close to Gore Creek and its tributaries, leaving little space for riparian habitat. Establishing an adequate and equitable building setback will help resolve this problem over time 3. Have a clear, objective and measurable baseline in the field o The baseline for setbacks must not be subjective or open to interpretation. It needs to be clearly defined in order to be effective. 4. Be consistent, fair and equitable o A setback based on Two-Year Flood Line (TYFL) is more equitable because it does not vary based on the width of the creek. April 19, 2022 - Page 320 of 569 Based on those criteria, and through an extensive stakeholder process, staff have determined that a twenty-five foot (25’) building setback and ten foot (10’) riparian setback from an elevation-based Two-Year Flood Line (TYFL) are the most appropriate for Vail. Scientific and practical basis for a twenty-five-foot (25’) setback from TYFL Town staff undertook extensive review of the likely effectiveness and impacts of setbacks of various widths and determined a twenty-five (25’) foot building setback from TYFL is most appropriate for several reasons. 1. A contiguous buffer of diverse, native riparian vegetation along waterways in Vail is the single greatest tool available to restore Gore Creek. Riparian buffers filter runoff, reduce erosion and sedimentation, shade waterways, and provide crucial habitat for myriad species. While riparian areas make up less than 4% of the habitat area in Colorado, more than 80% of Colorado animal species depend on riparian habitat at some point in their lifecycles. Riparian buffers perform services that cannot be replicated through engineered or manufactured means. Protecting and restoring these buffer zones is the most cost-effective and efficient tool available to a community to protect its waterways. 2. Twenty-five feet (25’) from TYFL is the smallest five-foot increment building setback that would not decrease the area along Vail’s streams and waterways protected from development. A twenty-foot (20’) setback from TYFL would be a step in the wrong direction when it comes to protection of aquatic resources. Setback scenario Number of non- conforming properties Acres protected from development Existing (centerline) 102 26.27 25 feet from TYFL 128 30.83 30 feet from TYFL 165 36.72 Figure 1. Number of non-conforming properties and acres protected from development under various setback scenarios. Importantly, twenty-five feet (25’) best approximates existing, centerline-based setbacks without reducing them. Attached maps show that a twenty -five-foot (25’) setback line from TYFL closely tracks the existing thirty-foot (30’) (tributary) and fifty foot (50’) (Gore Creek) setbacks through mos t of town. 3. A smaller setback would create conflict with existing defensible space recommendations provided by Vail Fire Department. The Town’s Fire Resistant Planting Guide recommends “no coniferous trees within fifteen feet (15’) of the structure.” A twenty-five-foot (25’) setback from TYFL is the minimum building setback required in order to establish a ten-foot (10’) no mow zone from TYFL and not conflict with existing fire wise guidelines. Evergreen tre es are an important part of a healthy riparian habitat. They are also a major concern when establishing defensible space around a structure. A twenty-five-foot (25’) building setback is the smallest available that avoids that conflict. 4. Twenty-five-feet (25’) from TYFL is the smallest setback adopted by any other community in Colorado. As the Premier Mountain Resort Community in Colorado and a leader in environmental sustainability, this is the absolute least that can be done to protect G ore Creek and its tributaries. The proposed text changes in the attached memorandum have been thoroughly vetted and discussed. As April 19, 2022 - Page 321 of 569 such they allow for some exceptions that other Colorado communities do not accommodate in their riparian and wetland setbacks, including a “creek access path.” Jurisdiction Stream/Wetland Setback Glenwood Springs 35 feet from bank Eagle County 75 feet from bank Pitkin County 100 feet from bank Aspen Additional review within 100 feet of bank Fort Collins Minimum 50 feet from bank Steamboat Springs 100 feet from bank Estes Park Minimum 50 feet from bank Colbran 100 feet from bank Summit County 25 feet from bank Figure 2. Selected setbacks codified by other Colorado municipalities 5. Twenty-five feet (25’) is the minimum recommended buffer zone identified in the Gore Creek Strategic Plan. Scientific literature cited in the Plan recommends that native vegetation within twenty - five feet (25’) of the streambank be “left undisturbed.” Establishment of Two-Year Flood Line (TYFL) in Vail The Two-Year Flood Line proposed in this ordinance is based on specific elevations above sea level. While alternative methods to determine TYFL exist, methods based on bank scouring, vegetation, and erosion are more subjective and can be manipulated. Two surveyors or wetland scientists working in earnest could establish different TYFL delineations along the same reach of stream. An elevation- based TYFL is the better approach if Vail wishes to avoid conflicting delineations and establish a regulation which can be applied fairly, consistently and equitably. Based on the above recommendations from the Town’s Comprehensive Plan and with the intention of protecting crucial riparian habitat the proposed changes would establish a new stream setback and change where the setback is measured from. The new setback would be measured from the “Two-Year Flood Line” (TYFL), which would be defined in the code as follows. “The Two-Year Flood Line (TYFL) is the average 2 year flood line on Gore Creek and its named tributaries, as established by the dataset adopted by Town Council by resolution.” The TYFL is primarily along what would be commonly called the “bank” of the creek or watercourse. While the centerline of the creek may change on a daily or weekly basis, the TYFL varies on a longer timescale due to bank erosion and changes to the stream channel. It is a more static baseline from which to measure the setback and has become the industry standard in the decades since Vail’s setback ordinance was adopted. The TYFL in Vail will be determined on the ground by Professional Land Survey. The procedures for surveying the TYFL are similar to the procedures for surveying the 100-year floodplain line. The Town of Vail will publish elevations for the TYFL that are determined through Professional Engineering and April 19, 2022 - Page 322 of 569 hydraulic modeling procedures. These engineering procedures are similar to those used to develop the Base Flood Elevations (BFE) published by FEMA. Most properties that will require survey of the TYFL also require survey of the 100-yr floodplain line defined by Vail Town Code. A setback measurement based on TYFL is also more equitable among properties adjacent to reaches of stream of varying width. The effective setback from the watercourse based on the centerline is wholly dependent on how wide the watercourse is in that location. If the watercourse is one hundred feet (100’) wide in one location the setback would permit building up to the bank of the watercourse. Comparatively if the watercourse is fifty feet (50’) wide, the effective setback from the bank would be twenty-five feet (25’). As the goal is protect the watercourse, the best way to achieve that goal is to have a consistent setback from the bank of the watercourse, which can be distinguished by the average two-year flood line. The proposed language also includes the addition of a “Riparian Zone”. This ten -foot (10’) wide portion of the setback would be a protected area to remain as native vegetation and natural materials. The Gore Creek Strategic Plan identifies “loss of riparian and streamside vegetation” as one of the three main causes of declining water quality in Gore Creek. The proposed riparian setback seeks to reverse this trend by establishing a contiguous corridor of healthy, native vegetation along Gore Creek and its tributaries. The proposed code change would remove the section on the setbacks from the watercourse from the Supplemental Regulations in Section 14 and the new setback language would be inserted in Section 21 on Hazards to be consistent with the location of the floodplain regulations. Non-conformity to foster change over time Nonconforming status is used to create change over time. It is a natural progression that occurs as a community’s regulations evolve. Non-conformity fosters change without triggering the need for property owners to make an immediate change or upgrade to the property. It has been used with great success in Vail in the past to implement long-term changes for the betterment of the community. One example of an appropriately used nonconforming process is the code language governing wood shake roof shingles. Much of Vail was developed prior to the awareness of the value of protecting streams and water bodies with adequate buffers. In recent years the Vail community has come to recognize the importance of riparian buffers in protecting our waterways from pollution, providing shade and habitat. Adoption of a new building setback which adheres to modern best practices in waterbody protection and is implemented over time through the town’s regulations on non-conforming properties is an equitable way to act on those changing values. In addition to protecting waterways from pollution and erosion, healthy riparian buffers will enhance the resiliency of these ecosystems in the face of a changing climate. Water quality improvement and bank stabilization Addition of vegetation and grading which conform with best management practices would be permitted under the proposed ten foot (10’) vegetative setback. Vail Town Code allows a property owner to add new plants to their landscaping without a permit. Exceptions within the proposed code language below allow the Design Review Board to permit construction of “erosion control measures and stream grade control structures” providing they follow industry best practices. Rain gardens, bioswales and constructed wetlands are typically considered “best management practices” (BMPs) in watershed management, erosion control and stormwater treatment. April 19, 2022 - Page 323 of 569 1 4/13/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\GREG\PEC CASES\21\PEC21-0043\ORDINANCE NO. 6 SERIES OF 2020\STREAM SETBACK-O41322.DOCX ORDINANCE NO. 6 SERIES 2022 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12 OF THE VAIL TOWN CODE TO ESTABLISH SETBACKS FROM GORE CREEK AND ITS TRIBUTARIES WHEREAS, the Town's current stream setback, as established by Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1976, requires a minimum setback of 30 feet from the center of an established creek or stream channel and 50 from the centerline of Gore Creek; WHEREAS, the Gore Creek Strategic Plan adopted by the Town Council in 2016 identifies loss of riparian vegetation as one of the main causes of declining water quality in Gore Creek; and WHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to prevent further deterioration of Gore Creek and its named tributaries by enacting a clear, comprehensible, and enforceable set of guidelines for setbacks from Gore Creek and its tributaries. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Section 12-14-17 of the Vail Town Code is hereby repealed in its entirety. Section 2. Section 12-21-2 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended by the addition of the following new definitions, to appear in alphabetical order: TWO-YEAR FLOOD LINE ("TYFL"): The average two-year flood line on Gore Creek and its named tributaries, as established by the data set adopted by the Town Council by resolution. Section 3. Chapter 21 of Title 12 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new Section 12-21-17, to read as follows: 12-21-17: GORE CREEK SETBACKS: A. Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to protect the public health, safety and welfare by ensuring the resiliency of Gore Creek and its named tributaries and by mitigating hazards associated with the deterioration of Gore Creek and its named tributaries. B. Applicability: This Section shall apply to all property located within twenty-five (25) feet of the TYFL, in whole or in part; provided that this Section shall not apply to any stream tract already protected by Chapter 14 of Title 5 of this Code. April 19, 2022 - Page 324 of 569 2 4/13/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\GREG\PEC CASES\21\PEC21-0043\ORDINANCE NO. 6 SERIES OF 2020\STREAM SETBACK-O41322.DOCX C. Setbacks: 1. No mowing, landscaping, grading or other disturbance shall be permitted within ten (10) feet of the TYFL, other than: a. Removal of noxious weeds pursuant to Section 5-1-6 of this Code; b. With prior approval of the Vail Fire Department, removal of vegetation for purposes of fire mitigation; c. With approval of the Design Review Board, the installation and maintenance of one access path per lot or parcel, of up to four (4) feet in width, consisting of permeable materials including without limitation native soils, sand and gravel, or flagstone set in a permeable base; d. Public roadways, public bridges, public recreational paths and trails, and public parks and open spaces; e. Utility infrastructure within utility easements; f. With approval of the Design Review Board, erosion control measures, stream grade-control structures and riparian restoration activities that conform with bank stabilization best management practices; and g. Buildings, structures, fences, walls, patios, walkways, landscaping features, furniture and similar improvements lawfully existing on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Section, which improvements shall be subject to Chapter 18 of this Title. 2. No building or structure shall be located within twenty-five (25) feet of the TYFL, other than: a. With approval of the Design Review Board, those items listed in Section 14-10-4 of this Code; and b. Buildings and structures lawfully established on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Section, which improvements shall be subject to Chapter 18 of this Title. D. Corrections: 1. If a property owner wishes to correct the location of a designated TYFL affecting such property owner's property, the property owner shall submit sufficient documentation to the Community Development Department to support the property owner's corrected April 19, 2022 - Page 325 of 569 3 4/13/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\GREG\PEC CASES\21\PEC21-0043\ORDINANCE NO. 6 SERIES OF 2020\STREAM SETBACK-O41322.DOCX delineation of the TYFL. The submittal shall comply with all of the following standards: a. The submittal shall include a survey stamped by a licensed Colorado surveyor. b. The survey shall include at least 3 cross sections, perpendicular to the flow of the stream, in the same vertical and horizontal datum as that referenced in the Town's data set, extending from beyond the 100 year flood line on one bank to beyond the 100 year flood line on the opposite bank and including all stream channels. The 3 cross sections shall be taken at each property boundary and the center of the property. c. The survey shall include an adequate number of elevation points for each cross section to accurately reflect the contours of the stream bed. d. The survey shall tie into National Geologic Survey control points. e. The submittal shall include a site map or aerial image showing locations of stream cross sections, and photographs of the location of each stream cross section. f. The submittal shall include a model of the TYFL using the Hydrologic Engineering Center’s River Analysis System ("HEC- RAS"), stamped by a professional engineer. 2. Within 30 days of receipt of a complete submittal, the Town shall correct the location of the TYFL on the property as indicated on the submittal. E. Variances. The setbacks set forth in this Section are subject to the variance process set forth in Chapter 17 of this Title. F. Violation and Penalty: 1. It is unlawful for any person to violate any provision of this Section. 2. It is unlawful for any person to re-channel or modify Gore Creek or any of its named tributaries so as to avoid application of this Section. 3. Each separate act in violation of this Section and each and every day or portion thereof during which any separate act in violation of April 19, 2022 - Page 326 of 569 4 4/13/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\GREG\PEC CASES\21\PEC21-0043\ORDINANCE NO. 6 SERIES OF 2020\STREAM SETBACK-O41322.DOCX this Section is committed, continued or permitted shall be deemed a separate offense. 4. Violations of this Section shall be punishable as provided in Chapter 4 of Title 1 of this Code. Section 4. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 5. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town and the inhabitants thereof. Section 6. The amendment of any provision of the Vail Town Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 7. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. Section 8. This ordinance shall take effect on January 1, 2023. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 19th day of April, 2022 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the ___ day of ____________, 2022, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. _______________________________ Kim Langmaid, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk April 19, 2022 - Page 327 of 569 5 4/13/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\GREG\PEC CASES\21\PEC21-0043\ORDINANCE NO. 6 SERIES OF 2020\STREAM SETBACK-O41322.DOCX READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this ____ day of ________________, 2022. _______________________________ Kim Langmaid, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk April 19, 2022 - Page 328 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 329 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 330 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 331 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 332 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 333 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 334 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 335 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 336 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 337 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 338 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 339 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 340 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 341 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 342 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 343 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 344 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 345 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 346 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 347 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 348 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 349 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 350 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 351 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 352 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 353 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 354 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 355 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 356 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 357 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 358 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 359 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 360 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 361 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 362 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 363 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 364 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 365 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 366 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 367 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 368 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 369 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 370 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 371 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 372 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 373 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 374 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 375 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 376 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 377 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 378 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 379 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 380 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 381 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 382 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 383 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 384 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 385 of 569 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark April 19, 2022 - Page 386 of 569 April 5, 2021 Honorable Dave Chapin Vail Town Council pwadden@vailgov.com Town of Vail transmitted via email 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: Gore Creek Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance Dear Mayor Chapin and Vail Town Council members: The Eagle River Water & Sanitation District applauds the Vail Town Council for supporting staff in moving forward with drafting a stream corridor protection ordinance. The Town of Vail and Eagle River Water & Sanitation District have worked collaboratively on improving Gore Creek water quality since Gore Creek was listed on Colorado’s 303(d) List of impaired water bodies in 2012. Since the listing, our collective staffs have completed the 2012 Gore Creek Water Quality Improvement Plan, the 2016 Gore Creek Strategic Action Plan, and are in the midst of completing the Gore Creek Watershed Source Water Protection Plan. While each plan has built on the previous plan and targeted specific outcomes, they all point to the need for a stream corridor protection ordinance. Increasing the riparian buffer adjacent to Gore Creek and its tributaries, limiting turfgrass and hardscape within the buffer zone, reiterating statewide pesticide regulations in the TOV municipal code, and enforcing the code will greatly enhance what has become the Restore the Gore movement. The long term benefits of the proposed ordinance will be far reaching. Improvement to overall aquatic ecosystem health and habitat are expected to build on, and multiply, the recent successes of the programs noted above. Improved shading will reduce stream temperatures during the critical brown trout spawning season and will promote stream health by maintaining low daytime temperatures. Reduced hardscapes and turfgrass will improve the ability of the floodplain area to store and infiltrate runoff and will benefit both flood volumes and water quality. All forms of recreation experiences will improve; the more natural riparian corridor will be noticed by all who recreate on Gore Creek and its tributaries. As the water and wastewater service provider for the Town of Vail and communities downstream on the Eagle River, we are committed to a sustainable and healthy river system. The District is committed to supporting the Town’s efforts in drafting and implementing the stream corridor ordinance through continued collaboration, education and outreach, and ongoing water quality and macroinvertebrate sampling and monitoring. We are fortunate to live in Colorado’s headwaters and be the first users of the water; preserving the water quality for downstream users as well as future generations directly ties to our organization’s shared value of environmental stewardship. W e are excited with the current momentum behind the Restore the Gore movement and look forward to our continued collaboration and partnership. Sincerely, Linn Brooks General Manager April 19, 2022 - Page 387 of 569 461 Railroad Ave, Unit C PO Box 1477 Gypsum, Colorado 81637 970-827-5406 info@erwc.org www.erwc.org Tax ID#: 20-4448864 Protecting our rivers since 2004 Eagle River Watershed Council is a nonprofit 501(c)3 organization that advocates for the health of the Upper Colorado and Eagle River basins through education, research, and projects. Honorable Dave Chapin Vail Town Council Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 commdev@vailgov.com RE: Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance November 9, 2021 Dear Mayor Chapin and Vail Town Council members: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments regarding the proposed amendments to Town of Vail’s (TOV) municipal code for watercourse setbacks and riparian protection. This action has features and merits that touch on many community-wide issues including our values surrounding streams and the environment, private and public land uses of near-stream areas, and perceived economic impacts to landowners. Our comments remain primarily concerned with anticipated benefits to water quality, ecosystem health, and the long-term and (hopefully) permanent benefits for the town’s citizens and Gore Creek. Eagle River Watershed Council (ERWC) advocates for the health of the Upper Colorado and Eagle River watersheds to protect and enhance the high-quality natural and human values provided by rivers. Vigorously protecting our aquatic ecosystems ensures they will continue to provide their numerous social, economic, and ecosystem benefits in perpetuity. Gore Creek is the largest tributary of the Eagle River, dear to the hearts of everyone in the valley and visitors alike. It has faced numerous water quality and wildlife habitat challenges over time due to urban development and the presence of the interstate corridor. A mountain of work has been invested by the town, community members, and organizational partners like ERWC and Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (ERWSD) in recent years to correct and restore conditions in the stream. More work remains, and the current matter before the town is a vital component to achieving lasting success. Current issues at hand ERWC’s understanding of the current ordinance proposal, based on public information and interactions with town staff, is that staff is recommending the following changes to existing code: • Use of the Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM) instead of centerline as the baseline for measuring setback distance, • Utilization of the 2-year flood elevation, as estimated through industry-standard statistical engineering techniques and hydrologic inundation modelling, as the regulatory representation of the OHWM, • Changing building setbacks from the current 50’ from the stream centerline instead to 25’ from the OHW M, and; April 19, 2022 - Page 388 of 569 Eagle River Watershed Council, Page 2 of 5 • Protecting a naturalized/non-mowed vegetation buffer for the first 10’ of the setback as the riparian zone. ERWC background with Town of Vail riparian protections and Gore Creek water quality ERWC has a long history with Gore Creek issues, working in partnership with TOV and local and regional entities like ERWSD, US Forest Service, US Geological Survey, CO-Dept. of Transportation, and CO-Dept of Public Health & Environment to study water quality impairments on Gore Creek and develop strategies to address and reverse these issues. Local partnerships in the original Urban Runoff Group helped produce both the 2013 Gore Creek Water Quality Improvement Plan and the 2016 Gore Creek Strategic Action Plan. ERWC staff and partners contributed countless hours towards the completion of these efforts, which have culminated in numerous positive actions to-date by TOV to realize the vision laid out by the community. In 2016, the town began the process of implementing town recommendations, identifying nearly $9 million in potential future allocations for stormwater improvements, riparian restorations, and other stream protections. Since that time, the town has ‘walked the walk’ in changing its own land use practices, increasing community fluency on Gore Creek water quality issues through numerous education/outreach campaigns, and undergoing an at-times difficult and contentious social process of reclaiming and naturalizing encroached public stream tract lands. Given the context of this work and the hard lessons learned, ERWC believes the town is well supported by its own history of action to take this next step and institutionalize these strongly- held community water quality values in updated town code. While education/outreach is an important strategy towards public acceptance of permanent solutions like code changes, over time it can become an impossible task without support from regulations. In communities like Vail, where property ownership turnover is very high, and many vacation properties have absentee ownership, constant re-education of the next generation of streamside homeowners is required. While education is one of the primary mandates of ERWC’s mission, we also readily believe that ordinance and code is sometimes where the ‘rubber hits the road’ so to speak in terms of our communities making good on their stated values surrounding environmental protections and functional ecosystems. In the context of all this past work, ERWC supports the maximum possible setback distance as the preferred choice for code adoption. The best-available current science would support an even larger setback if it were likely to be socially and economically acceptable to the community. We further support the maintenance of the initial portion of the setback in a naturalized vegetation state of un-mowed, native plant communities. Preservation of riparian zones for water quality is firmly science-based Science-based research and entities charged with supporting communities nationwide in protecting our water resources, such as the US EPA, have repeatedly advocated the value and function of riparian zones. The proposed amendments are somewhat less than the distances that a significant body of research recommends, which begin around 30 feet and, depending on the desired water quality protective functions, approach 100 feet in many instances. The proposed setback represents a reasonable compromise in the constant push-and-pull between ecosystem health and social uses that has occurred throughout Vail’s development period. It recognizes the difficult situation that overhauling Vail’s existing urban core and neighborhood development footprints already presents to the community’s current leadership. Any dilution and weakening of the proposed setback will reduce its efficacy and likely result in a degraded ability to protect Gore Creek and tributaries. April 19, 2022 - Page 389 of 569 Eagle River Watershed Council, Page 3 of 5 Community-backed action to permanently protect streams The Gore Creek Action Plan identified 27 immediate action items and over 200 total action items to protect and improve stream health. It recommended TOV update its stream setback, riparian zone, vegetative buffer zone, and other water quality objective definitions in its code. Of the 27 items characterized as ‘high priority’, updating this specific code language was recognized in Priority Action 2 and Priority Action 9, and it has significant nexus with Actions 11, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27. This represents nearly 30% of the plan’s High Priority Actions targeting the importance of riparian protections and increasing (over time and only during redevelopment opportunities), the distance that we build structures and landscape from streams. In addition to the multi-year process endured by the town staff, PEC, and council members to study and create these cornerstone environmental guidance documents, a community advisory group of many of the town’s longest residents contributed countless volunteer hours to their completion and vetting. These changes to code represent the full realization of the values and effort embodied in these plans from your own citizens and prior PEC and Council members. The past societal tendency to view streams, including Gore Creek, merely as aesthetic features to be manipulated for architectural desires or purely for the enjoyment of streamside landowners, should be left to the past. By passing this ordinance, the community’s values surrounding our rivers and streams will be locked-in via law, rather than just receiving mention in non-binding visioning documents. Scientific basis for the exchangeability between the Ordinary High-Water Mark and the Two-Year Flood elevation for land use decisions In reviewing the public discourse from PEC meetings and the questions fielded to commissioners and town staff, it is apparent that much confusion may exist regarding the usability of the 2-year flood mark for permitting, and its substitutability for the OHWM. Federal law has established a definition for the OHW M, which has received various legal clarifications over time, and is frequently used by US Army Corps of Engineers in Clean Water Act permitting activities and other agency duties. This definition relies on the presence of physically-identifiable signs such as vegetation changes and soil characteristics that can be reasonably and relatively consistently identified during field investigations. State laws and agencies have generally followed suit with this definition, often with modifications reflective of local needs, to help delineate public-rights-of-way and riparian landowner rights. In practice, these field indicators are typically determined by domain experts (engineers, scientists, landscape architects, planners, etc.) and translated to usable survey and design datasets for development activities. The OHW M also has a strong relationship to the bankfull stage or bankfull flow, a term of importance in the fields of hydrology and fluvial geomorphology. Like OHWM, bankfull stage can also be defined in several ways, but is most-frequently defined as the height of water in its natural channel at its largest flows, just prior to incipient flooding of adjacent floodplains. Bankfull stage is also typically identified by a concurrent set of field observations that consider one or more indicators such as the top of point and lateral bars, changes or inflections in bank slope, vegetation clues, and erosional features. This elevation frequently is then identified at long-term USGS stream gauging stations and correlated with a specific stream discharge value and annual flood return frequency. Flood frequency analysis is a hydrologic or engineering statistical technique used to predict specific return periods or probabilities for a given stream flow value. It involves taking a record of annual high flows from a stream gauge, ranking them in order, fitting them to a statistical distribution curve (distributions often used are Weibull, log- normal, Log-Pearson III, etc.), and using this fitted curve to predict particular flood return April 19, 2022 - Page 390 of 569 Eagle River Watershed Council, Page 4 of 5 probabilities of interest, i.e. the “100-year”, “500-year”, “50-year”, “10-year”, “2-year” return flows. These values are used to determine FEMA floodplains, and similar techniques are also used by engineers to size stream culverts or stormwater appurtenances such as vaults and outflow pipes. These days, the computations are done in complex software that can use the flood return frequencies of interest to produce 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional representations of the land areas that will be inundated at different flows. Return periods for the bankfull flow in Colorado may range from as little as a year to over five years or more in some locations. However, it is accepted in the hydrologic study and planning domains to use 1.5 or 2 years as a proxy for the bankfull stage that is responsible for maintaining the ‘active channel’ portion of the stream channel. The ‘active channel’ is highly analogous to the field-observed OHWM. The most-often used value in fluvial geomorphic work including physical channel restoration design is a 1.5-year return flow. In this regard, the 2-year value proposed by TOV staff is slightly more conservative towards water quality protection, as this will be a slightly higher water surface elevation. As noted above, water surface inundation elevations can be readily modelled in standard software created and used by US Army Corps of Engineers (i.e. HEC-RAS and other modelling packages). Any private civil engineering firm, hydrologic firm, or government planning office that has the technical capacity to perform this variety of work can produce survey-grade mapping outputs from publicly-available datasets that are usable by town staff, surveyors, and private planners. Although the model flood elevation results can be subject to change over time based on the datasets used, in the confined stream channel types present around Vail these changes should be largely insignificant over a multi-decadal time scale, except in cases of rapid or extreme channel re-alignments or avulsions associated with major flooding events, or in large areas of unconfined floodplain such as the Katsos preserve. Since the typical definition of OHWM is generally familiar to many technically-trained staff in the planning and engineering fields and is derived from field observations that are fairly responsive to individual site characteristics and conditions, it can be seen as advantageous for use. However, like most field methods, it can be just as fraught in practice and subject to individual bias or manipulation as any other. Gore Creek is a dynamic system, with annual spring flood magnitudes from snowmelt that are typically two orders of magnitude (100 times) the fall and winter baseflows. The stream system has high sediment transport dynamics (meaning it carries and re-distributes a lot of sand, gravel, and cobbles each year) and has undergone hugely significant human alterations to natural channel shapes between the mid-twentieth century and present day. Bank erosion, shifting gravel bars, and significant episodic lateral channel movements are all ‘typical’ or ‘normal’ within these mountain systems. At times, this can make the classical physically-observable clues for the OHWM difficult to discern and open to changing over time, and therefore potentially unreliable indicators of flow elevations and unreliable for consistent application in land use administration decisions. The modelled 2-year flood elevation, with provisions or a process in place for local adjustment based on individual site circumstances, may serve as a more-consistent and easier to administer benchmark. For the purposes of administering town land use decisions and protecting streamside riparian zones for water quality and habitat function, it appears to ERWC that the proposed definition utilizing a surveyable 2-year flood elevation is functionally and practically equivalent to the current physical-clues definition. If town staff believes that it will be a more-efficient and a relatively more-objective means to administer land use decisions than repeated individual site investigations for OHWM April 19, 2022 - Page 391 of 569 Eagle River Watershed Council, Page 5 of 5 determination, then ERWC supports this approach as it is a technically defensible and functionally adequate (and practical) substitute. Considerations of regulatory takings ERWC provides no claim of thorough understanding of the legal issues involved in what does or does not constitute a regulatory takings, and it is not our intent to provide legal advice to the town about the current issues, only convey our opinion as a community stakeholder. However, it is apparent that some residents (or their attorney representatives) have suggested the proposed ordinance changes represent a regulatory takings, potentially requiring compensation to land owners. It is our observation that town building codes already place a wide variety of requirements and constraints on homeowners that have not been challenged as creating a takings, and it is unclear why this proposal is materially or substantively different than those cases. TOV code examples that restrict, constrain, or control property owner’s development rights on private land currently include: property line setbacks, road setbacks, roofline heights, stylistic and architectural design reviews, limitations on impervious area and developable lot percentages, limitations on parking, specification of landscaping requirements, etc. Any of these items could have been construed to impact property investment values or restrict the exercise of private property rights by landowners, yet none has been successfully challenged as a takings. Those examples of code restrictions derive from a variety of safety and/or aesthetic/social concerns and have been accepted by community members over time. Building regulations associated with the FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area (i.e., the 100-year floodplain) also currently place significant existing constraints on near-stream structures and have not been held as a regulatory takings by courts in any state to our knowledge. Arguments over takings are diverting from the important issues at hand of protection of public environmental assets. Concluding remarks Riparian protections and setbacks are a science-based but socially-adjusted implementation of the values Vail community members and TOV municipal leadership have articulated repeatedly over many years in multiple plans and government actions. Institutionalizing these strongly held community values regarding water quality, stream protections, and ecosystem protection and function is the logical and correct next step in the town’s path to restoration of Gore Creek health and its tributaries. ERWC supports the adoption of the ordinance in full, including the maximum possible setback at 25’ or more, and inclusion of a naturalized vegetation zone of 10’ at water edge. We encourage the PEC to move this matter to Council in its current form and push for adoption in the earliest reasonable timeframe. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter. If you have questions regarding our statements, or require additional information to aid your decision-making process, please contact us at your convenience. Sincerely, Holly Loff Bill Hoblitzell Executive Director Water Resources Program advisory staff loff@erwc.org bill@lotichydrological.com April 19, 2022 - Page 392 of 569 Carrie S. Bernstein csb@ablawcolorado.com 720.460.4203 October 20, 2021 Via E-mail: PWadden@vailgov.com Mr. Peter Wadden Watershed Education Coordinator Town of Vail, Community Development Department 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Town of Vail Application for Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance/Proposed Amendment to Section 12-14-17 and Creation of Section 12-21-17 of Vail Town Code (“Application”) Dear Mr. Wadden: Our firm represents Reggie D. Delponte Residence Trust No. 1 and Reggie D. Delponte Resident Trust No. 2, the owners of property located at 3070 Booth Creek Drive in Vail. We are in receipt of the September 27, 2021, Memorandum concerning the referenced Application and submit the following objections to the Town’s proposal in advance of the public hearing scheduled for October 25, 2021, at 1:00 p.m. We request that you include this objection letter in the packet in advance of the public hearing. As we understand the Application, the Town of Vail (“Town”) is requesting approval of a regulation that will delete the Vail Town Code (“Code”) Section 12-14-17 altogether and add a new regulation, Section 12-21-17, which will significantly “change the waterbody setbacks” of Gore Creek. Initially, the new regulation in Section 12-21-17 is inconsistent with the purpose of Chapter 21 of the Code. The stated purpose of Chapter 21 is: [T]o help protect the inhabitants of the Town from dangers relating to development of floodplains, avalanche paths, steep slopes, wildfire hazard areas and geologically sensitive areas; to regulate the use of land areas which may be subject to wildfire, flooding and avalanche or which may be geologically sensitive; and to further regulate development on steep slopes; to protect the economic and property values of the Town, April 19, 2022 - Page 393 of 569 Alderman Bernstein October 20, 2021 Page 2 to protect the aesthetic and recreational values and natural resources of the Town, which are sometimes associated with floodplains, wildfire hazard areas, avalanche areas and areas of geological sensitivity and slopes; to minimize damage to public facilities and utilities and minimize the need for relief in cleanup operations; to give notice to the public of certain areas within the Town where floodplains, wildfire hazard areas, avalanche areas and areas of geologic sensitivity exist; and to promote the general public health, safety and welfare. The Application was submitted in order to address insufficient “quantify or diversity of insects” in Gore Creek, and “loss of riparian (streamside) vegetation.” See letter from Town, dated August 23, 2021, referencing “Notice of Stream Tract Encroachment,” and Application, page 3. There is no evidence of any concerns in the Gore Creek area related to development of floodplains, avalanche paths, steep slopes, or wildfire hazard areas, and are not part of the Town’s defined “geologically sensitive areas,” as defined in the Code, Section 12-21-13. More problematic, however, is that the proposal will prohibit nearly all use of private property within an undefined and inconsistent area. The proposal states that “no work” may be done within the no disturbance area, including landscaping or “disturbance,” which is undefined. As shown in the aerial photos in the Application, the 25’ use prohibition extends into backyards and existing building footprints in many areas, beyond the existing setback. The Town’s proposal would prohibit any use of these areas. Although certain uses in these areas (“existing features and structures”) might fall under the Town’s nonconforming use regulation (Section 12-18), other continued uses must cease altogether, including mowing and landscaping. That means that the new Section 12-21-17 will be retroactively applied to existing property rights and uses along Gore Creek that existed prior to its enactment. Except for those existing “features and structures” within the 25’ prohibited area, property owners can no longer continue their current landscaping or mowing of 25’ of their property. Colorado law prohibits such retrospective legislation. Further, any changes to existing uses, including structures, that would be permissible under the current Code, are prohibited if the Application is approved. If, for example, our clients wanted to add to or expand their current patio by just one foot or add a firepit, the new Section 12-21-17 prohibits such a change because, on our clients’ property, the 25’ mark extends up to their patio and home. Moreover, the proposed Section 12-21-17 does not describe how landowners are to determine the required non-disturbance areas, as there is no existing and uniform survey of the Original High Water Mark (“OHWM”). The OHWM will change over time and landowners have April 19, 2022 - Page 394 of 569 Alderman Bernstein October 20, 2021 Page 3 no way of complying with use restrictions if the non-disturbance area changes annually or bi- annually. Further, the proposal will impact significantly more property than the Gore Creek beds. The non-disturbance areas do not follow the creek alone, but also circumvent stream banks and eddies that result in significant loss of property rights through use restrictions that are not related to the Gore Creek OHWM. Once again, as shown in the aerial photos in the Application, the 25’ line prohibits use of private property in many areas that are not within 25’ of Gore Creek. Finally, the Application, if approved, will constitute a compensable regulatory taking of private properties. The Town’s proposal imposes a very high interference with private property rights in the area of Gore Creek and its streams and eddies, prohibiting any use of those areas, which constitutes a compensable taking. Animas Valley Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Bd. Of Cty. Comm’rs, 38 P.3d 59, 65 (Colo. 2001). Owners of these properties, such as our clients, have an investment-backed expectation to use and develop their own backyards, which is protected under Colorado law. G&A Land, LLC v. City of Brighton, 233 P.3d 701, 706 (Colo. App. 2010). If the Town is intent on ensuring an area of no disturbance of 25 feet from the banks of Gore Creek, it must acquire those property rights through eminent domain and pay just compensation to property owners, including our clients. Just compensation under these circumstances will be costly to the Town because, for most owners, including our clients, the property will essentially lose its most valuable attribute – frontage along Gore Creek – and the value of such properties may diminish by up to one-half. For the reasons described above, our client opposes the Application, and we urge the Town to deny the request therein. Very truly yours, ALDERMAN BERNSTEIN LLC Carrie S. Bernstein cc: Reggie D. Delponte (via email) April 19, 2022 - Page 395 of 569 From:Pedro Campos To:Peter Wadden Cc:Tim Halbakken; Jesse Gregg; Caroline Schoeller Subject:RE: A request for your input - Zehren and Associates reply and input. Date:Tuesday, April 6, 2021 7:36:09 PM Hi Pete, Thanks for the opportunity to provide input. I’ve asked our staff to review and here is a synopsis of our feedback, compiled by Tim Halbakken: First off we recognize and appreciate your passion for these issues. Tim, Jesse and I have all participated in Restore the Gore presentations you have made and it is clear the Town has the right person tackling these issues. As local invested professionals and residents ‘downstream’ we feel it's an important and interesting cause that the TOV and the environmental and sustainability department is pursuing. All three measures you are pursuing are well supported and well documented by the research. We assume that the Town Council has directed your team to develop these type of ordinances and its seems you are well on your way with the activities planned in May We are particularly supportive of adopting the state pesticide regulations at the local level, thus allowing enforcement by town officials. We can think of a number of offending properties that could be approached and then supported (possibly financially) to turn their riparian edge back to a natural state. As documented, the reduction of pesticides has had the most immediate and direct impact on stream health, and so we strongly support enforcement. It is interesting that the last documented enforcement case was in 2015, possibly an indication that more frequent / periodic audits may be necessary. The centerline offset argument makes a lot of sense as well. From prior experience it's too difficult to define and it makes more sense to do an offset from the normal annual high water mark (AHWM) Initially with the riparian zone requirement, we initially contemplated that the prevalent reaction might be: "that's going to be considered a taking". However, additional research and homework reveals that 5 to 10' would not be considered a legal taking. So if this falls within legal framework we are in support and for the health of the stream and its ecosystem. In short, we support the initiative in full and advocate that the local landscape industry should too. It is likely some landscape companies are offenders of the pesticide regulations. In this regard it might take a fine structure to get any non-compliant groups to endorse and follow the ordinance. One of Tim’s ideas is that perhaps if caught violating the rules these groups should make up for the fine by planting some riparian areas. I hope this summary helps and that you succeed in your efforts on behalf of the Town, and the Gore April 19, 2022 - Page 396 of 569 Creek environment and its ecosystem. Very sincerely on behalf of the Zehren and Associates Landscape Architecture and Land Planning team and importantly as leadership partners in the Town’s Restore the Gore efforts. Pedro Campos, PLA Principal, Landscape Architect & Land Planner O: (970) 949-0257 | F: (970) 949-1080 From: Peter Wadden <PWadden@vailgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 3:47 PM To: Pedro Campos <pedroc@zehren.com> Cc: Tim Halbakken <timh@zehren.com>; Jesse Gregg <jesseg@zehren.com>; Caroline Schoeller <carolines@zehren.com> Subject: RE: A request for your input Thanks Pedro and team! I would really appreciate feedback by the end of March if that seems feasible. I certainly understand it is a lot to review so I would be happy to talk through it with you if that would save you time in wrapping your head around the details. Pete From: Pedro Campos <pedroc@zehren.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 3:32 PM To: Peter Wadden <PWadden@vailgov.com> Cc: Tim Halbakken <timh@zehren.com>; Jesse Gregg <jesseg@zehren.com>; Caroline Schoeller <carolines@zehren.com> Subject: RE: A request for your input Hi Pete, Thank you for reaching out and sharing. We will definitely review and provide comments. In addition to being a local business active in community and environmental planning and design Jesse, Tim, and myself are leadership partners in the Restore the Gore effort from our attendance of past workshops and seminars. It is both important and appropriate for us to weigh in. We will compile our thoughts and ideas into one response. Is there a particular date that would help you receiving our input? Let us know and thanks for taking these issues on! Regards, Pedro April 19, 2022 - Page 397 of 569 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council, We represent the Vail Townhouse Condominium Association (VTCA) as an elected Board of Directors. Our Association includes eleven units with Gore Creek frontage in the Village core at 303 Gore Creek Drive. The membership of VTCA have been watching with interest the proposed changes to the stream setbacks throughout the Town of Vail. Protecting Gore Creek is one of our most important goals. Creek frontage was one of the most important factors in our decisions to purchase at VTCA. We appreciate and commend the Town’s desire to further the protection of critical riparian zones along Gore Creek’s banks. The change of calculation methods is not altogether opposed by our Association; however, we would recommend a revision of the new setback amount from 25 feet to 20 feet from the ordinary high-water mark. This small change would reduce the future impact on our Association as well as our neighbors as the proposed 25 foot setback will make our existing building nonconforming. We believe that this new setback of 20 feet from the ordinary high-water mark still accomplishes the riparian zone protection that we and the Town seek, while preserving future development and expansion possibilities for our owners. We would appreciate the Commission’s and Council’s careful review of our request and welcome any further questions or discussion from the Commission or the Town Council. Respectfully, Dr. Richard Parker, President Vail Townhouse Condominium Association rparkermd@msn.com April 19, 2022 - Page 398 of 569 From:Heather Houston To:Peter Wadden Cc:"Dominic Mauriello"; Sharon Cohn Subject:Vail Stream Setback - Comparison of Methodologies Date:Tuesday, December 28, 2021 4:50:56 PM Attachments:12_16_21 OHWM Methodology Comparison Map.pdf Good Afternoon Peter, I hope you are enjoying the holidays. Our team wanted to provide you with the attached graphic which compares the OHWM based on the two methodologies being discussed for determining the stream setback in Vail. The map shows the Field-Located Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) as well as the 2-year inundation line. The area between these lines is highlighted in orange. As expected, these two lines do not match up well - this is because we do not think the 2-year flood is a good representation of the flow that creates the OHWM in the snowmelt-driven system in Vail. We have been advised it is likely closer to a 1.5-year inundation. As expected, where the banks are steep, there is not much of a lateral shift between the two lines. However, where the bank has a gradual slope or connected floodplain, there will be a much greater difference between the two lines. The hydraulic modeling method relies upon the accuracy of the inputs (topography and flow) to infer where the line might go (through hydraulic modeling calculations). In contrast we marked the line in the field - a direct measurement - and we don't believe this is an arbitrary method as was mentioned in our prior call. In fact, it is a repeatable method that is used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This method is less expensive for a landowner, repeatable, many ecologists are trained to identify it, and does not rely on having accurate topographic or flow data. All that is needed is a qualified professional to flag and then survey the line. In our opinion, the regulatory OHWM and stream setback should be defined by field indicators. You had requested our CAD files - I will pull together an Autocad drawing that includes our linework for the attached graphic and will send it your way. Please let us know if you have questions. Thanks, Heather HEATHER HOUSTON PRESIDENT & SENIOR ECOLOGIST April 19, 2022 - Page 399 of 569 BIRCH ECOLOGY, LLC HEATHER@BIRCHECOLOGY.COM https://link.edgepilot.com/s/adb77133/8EyZwVrZnkSpBhudZf_GoA? u=http://www.birchecology.com/ (720) 350-2530 (mobile) P.O. Box 170 429 Main Street Lyons, CO 80540 April 19, 2022 - Page 400 of 569 Hi Peter, That seems like a pretty mild request compared to what we do on forest. We typically apply 100’ stream protection buffers to Forest Service projects, based on our Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (attached). Melvin or Justin can speak better to that aspect, but I’ve attached a 2006 version of the handbook that I could find. I’m including Justin Anderson, our Forest hydrologist, as he may have a more recent and/or concise version and additional comments. Caveat: Since this is private land, I need to be careful in what I write or say, and realize that we do things very differently on forest than private largely because of the different size and scale, goals, economic drivers, etc. Bigger setbacks that are better able to represent riparian and stream corridors are incredibly important to wildlife. They provide ample water and plant availability for neotropical migratory birds, and the destruction of these areas has been considered the most important reason for bird species declines in the West. From this NRCS handout (about the Great Basin but applicable to Colorado as well): “A healthy riparian buffer protects the stream from influxes of pollution and sediment and protects upland areas by managing stream flow during floods. Plants are critical for stream stabilization and provide food and shelter for wildlife.” nrcs143_010098.pdf (usda.gov) In fact, 80 percent of wildlife species in the West depend on riparian areas for at least some point of their life cycle. Watch: Supporting Colorado’s River Restoration | Audubon Rockies If you need more information on the wildlife-side, let me know. I’ve provided at least some information regarding how important river and stream corridors are for wildlife. Devin may be able to speak to this more, but with hunting season he may be a bit out-of- pocket. Hope this helps, Jen Prusse Wildlife Biologist She/Her/Hers Forest Service White River National Forest, Eagle-Holy Cross Ranger District p: 970-827-5160 jennifer.l.prusse@usda.gov 24747 US HWY 24 Minturn, CO 81645 www.fs.fed.us Caring for the land and serving people April 19, 2022 - Page 401 of 569 From:Crane, James To:Peter Wadden Subject:RE: A request for your input on proposed TOV ordinance to protect Gore Creek. Date:Thursday, March 25, 2021 10:15:52 AM Attachments:image002.jpg image003.jpg Sundial10footandOHWM.pdf Sundial25ohwmexisting.pdf StreamCorridorPresentation030221.pdf Good Morning Pete, Thanks for your email and March 18 phone call explaining how the proposed TOV ordinance to protect Gore Creek would impact Sundial’s streamside property. I shared our phone conversation and the attached information with our Sundial HOA board of directors and am pleased to report that the board is supportive of the proposed ordinance and its goals of restoring streambank habitat and environment. Thank you for sharing the proposed ordinance and inviting public comment. With Best Regards, James Crane, President Sundial HOA From: Peter Wadden <PWadden@vailgov.com> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 9:36 AM To: Crane, James <cranej@wustl.edu> Subject: A request for your input Hi Jim- It was good speaking with you this morning. Thanks again for taking the time to present this proposed Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance to your fellow board members. They may be interested to watch the presentation I made to Vail Town Council on March 2 explaining the vision for this ordinance. The relevant portion of the meeting begins about 1:14:00 into the linked video. I have also attached a .pdf of the slides from that presentation if they want to just click through and read those. There are two maps attached. Each shows the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in blue. As I explained on the phone, our proposed ordinance would not impose any restrictions at this line. That line is just a basis for the 10 foot vegetative and 25 foot building setback I am proposing. You can see that 10 foot “no mow zone” in red on one of the maps. The other map shows our existing building setback (50 feet from Gore Creek centerline) in yellow and contrasts it with the new proposed building setback which would be 25 feet from OHWM in pink. I am happy to field questions or feedback from anyone you share this with. I am hoping to present this proposed code change to the Planning and Environmental Commission in late April or early May. April 19, 2022 - Page 402 of 569 October 21, 2021 TO: Mayor Chapin and Vail Town Council RE: Gore Creek Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance Dear Mayor Chapin and Vail Town Council members, The Climate Action Collaborative (the Collaborative) is writing to voice support for the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance brought forward by the Town of Vail (ToV). The Collaborative is focused on helping Eagle County become sustainable and resilient in the face of climate change. Sustainability is not just reducing carbon emissions, but also involves balancing ecology, human impact, and economics to prolong a thriving community. Maintaining the quality and quantity of the natural resources we are dependent on will help Eagle County stay resilient and adapt to future impacts. Water is a resource that is highly sensitive to the impacts of climate change, and one we must sustain, in all capacities of the word. Our community is heavily dependent on sufficient supply and healthy quality to support our surrounding ecosystems, our people (local and beyond), and our recreation and tourism economies. Increasing the vegetative buffer between development impact and a natural resource is critical to proper restoration of Gore Creek and its tributaries. The Collaborative calls for actions that support water quality and quantity in our 2020 Climate Action Plan (CAP). The CAP aligns its water-related strategies with those of the Eagle County Community Resilience Plan. It includes actions to support water resource improvements, such as restoration of riparian zones and support of “water planning efforts that consider potential population growth in regard to Eagle County’s water resource carrying capacity.” Because the ordinance would also apply to new developments, we believe it is in line with these actions. Additionally, we facilitated a Sustainable Building Code Task Force in early 2020 to recommend local codes that would support the achievement of CAP and other sustainability goals. One of those was a Sensitive Site Setback of buildings to preserve riparian zones and water quality, ensuring new developments and existing buildings minimize disturbances and promote biodiversity. We are committed to supporting efforts that preserve the sustainability of this resource, and consequently, resilience of the community. We thank you for your efforts in reviewing the ordinance, our letter of support, and for continuing your efforts in the Restore the Gore movement. Sincerely, Kimberly Schlaepfer Manager Climate Action Collaborative, Walking Mountains Science Center April 19, 2022 - Page 403 of 569 Climate Action Collaborative Community Partners Town of Avon Town of Basalt Eagle County Town of Minturn Town of Eagle Town of Red Cliff Town of Vail EagleVail Metro District Edwards Metro District Colorado Mountain College – Edwards Campus Eagle County School District Vail Mountain School ECO Transit Eagle River Water & Sanitation District Eagle Valley Land Trust Holy Cross Energy Mountain Recreation RA Nelson R&H Mechanical Traer Creek Metro District Vail Daily Vail Health Vail Honeywagon Vail Resorts Vail Valley Partnership The Community Market Mountain Youth Vail Valley Foundation Walking Mountains Science Center April 19, 2022 - Page 404 of 569 From:Christie Hochtl To:Peter Wadden; Ludik@comcast.net; Kevin Hochtl; Karl Höchtl Subject:Proposed Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance Date:Saturday, October 23, 2021 2:44:40 PM Good Afternoon PEC, Ludwig Kurz, and PeteWadden, Please pass the proposed Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance with the 10 foot no mow zone and the 25 foot setback from the high water mark for buildings. This ordinance will help our efforts to "Restore the Gore" and restore habitat for fish and birds, etc. Thank you, Christie and Karl Hochtl 890 Red Sandstone Circle Vail, CO 81657 970 476 1125 landline 970 376 1893 cjbhochtl@gmail.com April 19, 2022 - Page 405 of 569 To Whom it May Concern As the co-owners of Mountain Organic/Pristine Landscaping, we support the new river corridor setbacks proposed by Pete Wadden and the Town of Vail. All of our clients on Booth Creek currently abide by the 25’ set back. Every client made the decision to follow the suggested guideline on their own accord as they all felt it necessary to do their part to help increase the health of Gore Creek. The increased natural footage with the 25’ set back has enhanced the overall look of our client’s landscaping along Gore Creek, not to mention helping benefit the health and viability of the creek and riparian habitat. Gore Creek is vital to many aspects in the Vail Valley including mammal environs, drinking water, fish habitat and more. By simply increasing native grasslands and planting a few shrubs, we as a collective can start bringing Gore Creek back into EPA standards. Our rivers can no longer support the enormous amounts of pollutants we willfully cast off into our local water systems. As businesses, home owners and government, to increase riparian zones along our much valued creeks and rivers shouldn’t be a big ask, it should be part of our moral obligation. Kelli and Kreston Rohrig April 19, 2022 - Page 406 of 569 From:Kaitlyn Merriman To:Peter Wadden Subject:In Support of the Proposed Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance Date:Monday, October 25, 2021 12:40:26 PM Hi Pete, I am writing to you to officially support the proposal for the stream corridor protection ordinance. Please pass the proposed Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance with the 10 foot no mow zone and the 25 foot setback from the high water mark for buildings. This ordinance will help our efforts to "Restore the Gore" and restore habitat for fish and birds, etc. Thank you, Kaitlyn Merriman April 19, 2022 - Page 407 of 569 From:Dominic Mauriello To:Peter Wadden Cc:Tom Kassmel Subject:Re: A request for your input Date:Monday, March 15, 2021 3:23:35 PM Hi Peter: Thank you again for reaching out to me. I have taken a look at the impact of the proposed setbacks on the Evergreen Lodge, one of my clients. This property was addressed extensively in an amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and was part of a land swap with Vail Health. A lot of work was put into a preliminary design to make sure that Vail health and Evergreen Lodge would each have their needs addressed on Lot F-1. For this analysis Evergreen relied upon the current stream setbacks and zoning setbacks. An increase in these setbacks will have a detrimental impact upon the Evergreen Lodge property. We did a quick study of the current setbacks versus the 25’ setback proposed (attached). One of the major consequences of the proposed setback is that, unlike the centerline setback, there are stream banks and eddies that can affect the impacts to private property. The Evergreen is one of these cases even when you drop the setback to 20’. 20’ certainly works a lot better except where there is a random stream bank especially related to Lot F-1 where literally the wide of the development on the project was planned down to the foot. It seems to me that you can still accomplish many of your goals by leaving the stream setbacks as they are measured today from the centerline but adding in the proposed 10’ natural riparian buffer. Even with the 10’ riparian buffer, you are going to need to provide some exceptions or maybe some performance standards or alternatives that allow for things like the community path that runs along Gore Creek to encroach. Maybe the regulation could be written that the setbacks are 30’ from the centerline of the stream but in no case shall there be a setback of less than 10’ from the OHWM. That way you are always guaranteed that the riparian zone can exist to help protect the creek. I am hoping we can come up with something that will work for the Town and the Evergreen Lodge. The Town's proposal is causing a significant amount of anxiousness based on the millions that were spent to work on the swap with Vail Health. Please let me know the schedule for reviewing this with the Town Council. Thanks, Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP Mauriello Planning Group, LLC PO Box 4777 2205 Eagle Ranch Road Eagle, Colorado 81631 April 19, 2022 - Page 408 of 569 Area 8 – NW Region 0088 Wildlife Way Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P 970.947.2969 | F 970.947.2936 Dan Prenzlow, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Parks and Wildlife Commission: Taishya Adams  Robert W. Bray  Charles Garcia  Marie Haskett Carrie Besnette Hauser  John Howard  Marvin McDaniel, Acting Vice-Chair  Luke B. Schafer  Eden Vardy  James Vigil, Secretary  Michelle Zimmerman, Acting Chair Honorable Dave Chapin October 21, 2021 Vail Town Council Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: Gore Creek Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance Dear Mayor Chapin, Town Council & Planning & Environmental Commission members, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) is responsible for the management and conservation of wildlife resources within the state. Our statutory mission is implemented through our 2015 Strategic Plan, and the goals it embraces are designed to make CPW a national leader in wildlife management, conservation, and sustainable outdoor recreation to inspire current and future generations to serve as stewards of Colorado’s natural resources. In many ecoregions in the west, healthy riparian areas are a resource that is integral for overall water quality and ecosystem health. CPW understands that many of the riparian areas within and adjacent to the town limits of Vail have already been impacted by human development and presence, further emphasizing the need to protect, and restore the remaining corridors. Insulating the riparian zone from continued impacts will help many wildlife species that require these habitats. CPW supports the greatest possible setback in riparian areas, and is supportive of the Town of Vail’s (TOV) proposed no-mow-zone and updated setback requirements. Riparian zones typically comprise a small percentage of the landscape, often less than 1%, yet they frequently harbor a disproportionately high number of wildlife species and perform a disparate number of ecological functions when compared to most upland habitats. Almost all wildlife species that exist in Colorado require riparian habitat to survive. Riparian areas provide food, water, refuge from heat and cold, cover from predators, and breeding and rearing areas for a wide variety of terrestrial, avian, and aquatic species. Much of the native riparian habitat in the state has been altered or removed in some way, be it in the form of housing developments, trail system development, commercial uses, or even agricultural development. Studies have shown that riparian areas act as corridors, and many terrestrial species prefer to move through wider riparian corridors as opposed to more narrow and denuded riparian corridors (Hilty, et al, 2004). In addition, the tighter the corridor is in relation to the length by which it is restricted will deter wildlife use and act to further fragment an already heavily fragmented ecosystem (even a long, tight riparian corridor would act as a barrier to wildlife movement). Furthermore, a healthy riparian zone - the vegetated buffer between the aquatic and upland habitats - can serve to protect and improve water quality. Permanent vegetation functions to trap, and remove various pollutants, contaminants and sediments. Many wildlife species use riparian areas year round, including mammals, amphibians, reptiles, crustaceans, birds, invertebrates, and fish. Other wildlife may only use the area seasonally April 19, 2022 - Page 409 of 569 Dan Prenzlow, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Parks and Wildlife Commission: Taishya Adams  Robert W. Bray  Charles Garcia  Marie Haskett Carrie Besnette Hauser  John Howard  Marvin McDaniel, Acting Vice-Chair  Luke B. Schafer  Eden Vardy  James Vigil, Secretary  Michelle Zimmerman, Acting Chair for a variety of reasons, including moving from summer/fall range to winter grounds, nesting/breeding/rearing young. Various raptor species have been known to use the area for wintering, roosting, and nesting. Furthermore, elk, moose, and deer usually calve and fawn in areas within 400 feet of free flowing water and on hillsides with dense vegetation in the spring, when snow typically precludes movement higher up onto the slope. Protection of any remaining intact riparian areas is essential, as we continue to see significant declines of deer and elk populations in the Gore and Eagle Valleys. Gore Creek is identified as a “Gold Medal” fishery, defined as “a lake or stream that supports a trout standing stock of at least 60 pounds per acre, and contains an average of at least 12 quality trout per acre. Additionally, anglers contribute significantly to the local Eagle County economy ($28.7 million, CPW 2012). Healthy riparian areas that are properly vegetated are a critical contributor to stream health. During low water years, it can shade the stream during hot summer months and provide cover for fish that are more exposed in shallower waters. Riparian areas also provide food input in the form of invertebrates and plant matter utilized by both fish and aquatic macroinvertebrates as food. Impacts to our local fisheries during stressful summer months have recently been documented and are contributing to the local decline of certain species of sportfish. Reductions to the amount of protected riparian cover will only add to the impacts affecting the local fisheries, this could lead to reduced angling opportunity and experience essential to the local economy. The proposed Gore Creek Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance will insulate the creek to continued impacts and provide for improved water quality, stream health and recreational opportunities, all essential to local communities. Vail is known for its beautiful, wild landscapes and diverse wildlife supported by the creek corridors that run through the heart of the town. Not only does the natural surroundings and wildlife draw many visitors to the area, it characterizes the high quality of life that entices people to live here, as well. Our natural resources, supported by protected and healthy riparian areas, are a significant economic driver to our local economy. CPW strongly encourages municipalities to do everything they can to be active stewards of our natural resources when developing their communities. Please consider approving the proposed Gore Creek Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance. CPW appreciates the opportunity to comment on this stream protection ordinance and looks forward to continued work with the town in conserving the natural resource. If you have any questions or concerns please contact District Wildlife Manager Devin Duval at 970-930-5264. Sincerely, Devin Duval District Wildlife Manager – Vail April 19, 2022 - Page 410 of 569 From:Matt Gennett To:Peter Wadden Subject:FW: Proposed Ordinance on Stream Setbacks Date:Tuesday, December 7, 2021 4:34:41 PM FYI – (it is addressed to you but you don’t appear to be listed as a recipient) From: Dominic Mauriello <dominic@mpgvail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 4:28 PM To: Matt Mire <jmm@hpwclaw.com>; Kendra Carberry <klc@hpwclaw.com>; Greg Roy <GRoy@vailgov.com>; Jonathan Spence <JSpence@vailgov.com>; Kristen Bertuglia <KBertuglia@vailgov.com>; Matt Gennett <MGennett@vailgov.com> Cc: Allison Kent <allison@mpgvail.com>; Sharon Cohn <sharon@solarisvail.com>; Heather Houston <heather@birchecology.com>; Matt Wadey <Wadey@alpinecivil.com>; Chad Cusworth <chad@solarisvail.com> Subject: Proposed Ordinance on Stream Setbacks Hello Peter and Town of Vail staff: We have completed a preliminary review of the ordinance that you sent over earlier today. I know you asked that I wait to review another version but we thought it was necessary to express some concerns about this version. Please share this email with the PEC and Town Council. This version goes well beyond the prior versions by heavily restricting what can occur in the new 25’ riparian zone. Previously what was proposed was a 25’ building setback with a 10’ riparian zone. In the prior version things like patios and walkways were allowed within the 25’ setback but not allowed in the 10’ zone. We are very concerned with this change and its impact on properties. We are still troubled with the definition of the Ordinary High Water Line. What you have proposed is not the ordinary high water mark or line but rather a two-year flood line. Those are not the same thing. It has taken us a couple of months to translate and plot the Town’s data in recognized survey system and what your data indicated to us are some very significant deviations between the hydraulic model and field conditions with some deviation as much as 9’ or more. We are concerned that the average landowner is going to find the data very difficult to represent on a plan. The Town’s data set should only be used for a high level indication of a setback line. We don’t believe that there needs to be a hearing with the Town Council to use actual field data especially if verified by the Army Corps. The two methods should be allowed. Section E is very confusing. First as stated above this section should be modified to reflect that either method is allowed for measurement. If there was a need to appeal a decision of staff related to the high water mark, that should be handled by the PEC just like any other appeal. This also allows there to be an appeal of the PEC decision to the Town Council. An appeal of the Town Council decision would mean going straight to court which seems unreasonable. The decision should be less political in nature and handled by the PEC. April 19, 2022 - Page 411 of 569 Additionally, still in Section E you either need to define wetlands scientist or use a more common provision such as a "qualified wetland consultant." This section is confusing as it is unclear if one needs to have both a wetland consultant prepare a report with a verification letter from the Army Corps OR have an engineer provide a hydraulic study or both. I think the intent is to have one or the other and not both. The Army Corps is not going to review and approve a hydrologic model as they use physical parameters from the field. Why is there a need to have the town hire a hydrologist if the Army Corps is verifying the ordinary high water line or mark? is this only necessary if a new hydraulic model is proposed? We also believe, based on the data being proposed by the Town, that the building setback should be 15’ to account the change in methodology being proposed. If using the Army Corps definition of ordinary high water mark, then 20’ may be the more appropriate setback. We previously provided comments related to invasive plant species and the need to need to allow for native landscaping for restoration of the 10’ riparian zone. We note that these comments were not included and we think they should be (reference letter from Birch Ecology). We believe that what is now proposed will have a significant impact on private property rights and impair my client's ability to redevelop the Evergreen property in a reasonable way. We think this ordinance still needs a lot of work and it is apparent that to-date our input is being largely ignored. We are happy to meet and discuss our initial comments further. Thanks, Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP Mauriello Planning Group, LLC PO Box 4777 2205 Eagle Ranch Road Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-376-3318 cell https://link.edgepilot.com/s/d0a9d2ed/OAkUpKhAXEa7cPjjbYipGw? u=http://www.mpgvail.com/ April 19, 2022 - Page 412 of 569 BIRCH ECOLOGY LLC · P.O. BOX 170 · 429 MAIN ST. · LYONS, CO 80540 · 720-350-2530 · WWW.BIRCHECOLOGY.COM October 18, 2021 Peter Wadden & The Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail , CO 81657 RE: Town of Vail Proposed Stream Setback Regulations Dear Peter and Commission Members, On behalf of the project team from the Evergreen Lodge, we have reviewed the Town of Vail's September 27, 2021 proposed revisions to the stream setback regulations, and have a few recommendations and suggestions: 1. Definition of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) The proposed regulations would define the OHWM "based on the average 2-year flood line on Gore Creek and its named tributaries which can be established by survey using elevation data available from the Community Development Department." • For a snowmelt-driven system such as Gore Creek through the Town of Vail, it is our understanding that the 1.5-year flood line is more likely to represent the flow which corresponds to the Ordinary High Water Mark. • For the purposes of Clean Water Act jurisdiction, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers defines the Ordinary High Water Mark as “that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.” 33 CFR 328.3(e) • The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a well-established methodology for defining the Ordinary High Water Mark based on field conditions, as detailed in the attached Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-05. The guidance under Section 3(B) provides a "list of physical characteristics" that "should be considered when making an OHWM determination, to the extent that they can be identified and are deemed reasonably reliable:" April 19, 2022 - Page 413 of 569 BIRCH ECOLOGY LLC · P.O. BOX 170 · 429 MAIN ST. · LYONS, CO 80540 · 720-350-2530 · WWW.BIRCHECOLOGY.COM o Natural line impressed on the bank o Shelving o Changes in the character of the soil o Presence of litter and debris o Wracking o Vegetation matted down, bent or absent o Sediment Sorting o Leaf litter disturbed or washed away o Scour o Deposition o Multiple observed flow events o Bed and banks o Water staining o Change in plant community • Given that there is already a well-established methodology based on the existing physical conditions, which is a direct measure of the OHWM in the field, we recommend the Town of Vail also adopt the Corps' definition and methodology for determining the Ordinary High Water Mark as a basis for establishing the stream setback. • The current methodology for establishing the setback based on the centerline of a stream or creek is to identify the OHWM on both sides, then establish a center between the two banks. This requires the OHWM to be mapped on both sides and the setback distance does not take into account the width of the stream, so a wide channel could end up with only a narrow buffer area. • We agree that the OHWM is a more appropriate baseline for establishing the stream setback vs. the centerline of the channel. It would only need to be located on one side in order to establish the setback and would account for variable channel widths. 2. Riparian Buffer and Stream Setback Distances The proposed stream setback rule would establish a 25-foot setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark and a 10-foot Riparian Zone along the inner edge, which would be a "protected area to remain as native vegetation and natural materials." Certain activities would be restricted within the Riparian Zone to promote the goals of the Gore Creek Strategic Plan - to improve the water quality and habitat conditions of Gore Creek and its tributaries. • In terms of functionality, the 10-foot Riparian Zone is the most valuable component of the 25-foot setback. This is where runoff will be filtered and it will be the most important part for wildlife habitat. April 19, 2022 - Page 414 of 569 BIRCH ECOLOGY LLC · P.O. BOX 170 · 429 MAIN ST. · LYONS, CO 80540 · 720-350-2530 · WWW.BIRCHECOLOGY.COM • Building setbacks are helpful but a difference between 20 or 25 feet is not significant if they both have the same 10-foot wide Riparian Zone with a bluegrass lawn or parking lot for the remainder of the setback width. • One option which should be considered is to allow for a variable building setback if the width of the Riparian Zone is increased correspondingly. For example a building setback could be reduced by up to five feet (from 25 to 20 feet) if the width of the Riparian Zone is increased by up to five feet (from 10 to 15 feet). • This approach could allow some flexibility in setback widths to reduce the number of non- conforming properties. It would still be consistent with the goals to improve water quality and habitat because it would increase the width of the Riparian Zone - where the most important ecological functions would occur - by as much as 50%. 3. Additional Recommendations for the Riparian Zone • The draft language states that "no work, including but not limited to, mowing, landscaping, grading, or disturbance" ... shall be permitted "within the Riparian Zone" ... "with the following exceptions, subject to Design Review Board approval: (a.) Removal and management of State of Colorado listed noxious weeds." • We recommend that this provision be expanded to include "Removal and management of State of Colorado listed noxious weeds and other aggressive, introduced species." There are many examples of introduced plants which should be removed to maintain habitat quality but they are not specifically state-listed noxious weeds, so broadening this language would be consistent with the goal of protecting and improving riparian habitat quality by permitting removal of these plants. • We recommend adding "Native habitat restoration" as one of the exempted activities. • Consider adding language to the Riparian Protection and Waterbody Setback Regulations which states "property owners will be encouraged to conduct native habitat restoration if the Riparian Zone on their property is dominated by non-native species or is in poor condition." • Consider adding language which states "residents will be encouraged to minimize foot paths and vegetation trampling within the Riparian Zone, and to locate creek access paths to avoid the most sensitive areas." This could be coupled with the provision to have a path of no more than 4 feet wide, with a permeable surface, to minimize impacts within the Riparian Zone. April 19, 2022 - Page 415 of 569 BIRCH ECOLOGY LLC · P.O. BOX 170 · 429 MAIN ST. · LYONS, CO 80540 · 720-350-2530 · WWW.BIRCHECOLOGY.COM We would be happy to further discuss these recommendations and look forward to meeting with you. Sincerely, Heather Houston President & Senior Ecologist April 19, 2022 - Page 416 of 569 REGULATORY GUIDANCE LETTER No. 05-05 Date: 7 December 2005 SUBJECT: Ordinary High Water Mark Identification 1. Purpose and Applicability a. Purpose. To provide guidance for identifying the ordinary high water mark. b. Applicability. This applies to jurisdictional determinations for non-tidal waters under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and under Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. 2. General Considerations a. Regulation and Policy. Pursuant to regulations and inter-agency agreement,1 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) determines, on a case-by case basis, the extent of geographic jurisdiction for the purpose of administering its regulatory program. For purposes of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the lateral limits of jurisdiction over non-tidal w bodies extend to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), in the absence of adjacent wetlands. When adjacent wetlands are present, CWA jurisdiction extends beyond the OHWM to the limits of the adjacent wetlands. For purposes of Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the lateral extent of Federal jurisdiction, which is limited to the traditional navigable waters of the United States, extends to the OHWM, whether or not adjacent wetlands extend landward ater of the OHWM. Corps regulations define the term “ordinary high water mark” for purposes of the CWA lateral jurisdiction at 33 CFR 328.3(e), which states: “The term ordinary high water mark means that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.” 1. Memorandum of Agreement between the Department of the Army and Environmental Protection Agency Concerning the Determination of the Geographical Jurisdiction of the Section 404 Program and the Application of the Exemptions under Section 404(f) of the Clean Water Act, January 19, 1989 April 19, 2022 - Page 417 of 569 This definition is virtually identical to the definition of the term “ordinary high water mark” found at 33 CFR Section 329.11(a)(1), describing the lateral extent of Federal jurisdiction over non-tidal traditional navigable waters of the United States subject to Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA). When the definition from 33 CFR Section 329.11(a)(1) was reproduced at 33 CFR 328.3(e), the semi-colons of the former definition were mistakenly changed to commas in the latter definition. Consequently, the definition of “ordinary high water mark” in Part 328 is not as clear in meaning as is the definition of the same term in Part 329, even though the two definitions were to serve the same basic purpose (i.e., establishing the lateral extent of jurisdiction, in the absence of adjacent wetlands).2 Both definitions of the term “ordinary high water mark” begin by discussing physical characteristics that indicate the location of the OHWM on the shore of a water body. Furthermore, both OHWM definitions conclude with the statement the OHWM can be determined using “other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas”.3 Prior to this Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL), neither the Corps nor the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has issued any additional clarifying national guidance for use by Corps regulatory program staff in identifying the location of the OHWM for the CWA on a case-by-case basis.4 b. Practice. In making OHWM determinations, Corps districts generally rely on physical evidence to ascertain the lateral limits of jurisdiction, to whatever extent physical evidence can be found and such evidence is deemed reasonably reliable. Physical indicators include the features listed in the definitions at 33 CFR Sections 328.3(e) and 329.11(a)(1) and other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas. In addition, districts use other methods for estimating the line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water, including, but not limited to, lake and stream gage data, flood predictions, historic records of water flow, and statistical evidence. To the maximum extent practicable, districts generally use more than one physical indicator or other means for determining the OHWM. 3. Guidance. a. In determining the location of the OHWM for non-tidal water bodies under the CWA or the RHA, districts should give priority to evaluating the physical characteristics of the area that are determined to be reliable indicators of the OHWM. Physical evidence to be evaluated includes those items listed in the definitions at 33 CFR Sections 328.3(e) and 329.11(a)(1). Because many types of water bodies occur with varying conditions, including topography, channel morphology and flow dynamics, districts may consider other physical characteristics indicative of the OHWM. 2. CWA jurisdiction extends laterally landward of the OHWM to include all adjacent wetlands wherever such adjacent wetlands are present. This guidance addresses situations where no such adjacent wetlands exist. 3. Changes in the limits of waters of the U.S. are addressed in 33 CFR 328.5. 4 . On 3 June 1983 the Corps of Engineers’ Chief Counsel distributed legal guidance to all Corps district and division counsel offices regarding certain legal questions relating to the geographic jurisdiction of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, including questions relating to the OHWM. 2 April 19, 2022 - Page 418 of 569 3 b. The following physical characteristics should be considered when making an OHWM determination, to the extent that they can be identified and are deemed reasonably reliable: Natural line impressed on the bank Shelving Changes in the character of soil Destruction of terrestrial vegetation Presence of litter and debris Wracking Vegetation matted down, bent, or absent Sediment sorting Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Scour Deposition Multiple observed flow events Bed and banks Water staining Change in plant community This list of OHWM characteristics is not exhaustive. Physical characteristics that correspond to the line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water may vary depending on the type of water body and conditions of the area. There are no “required” physical characteristics that must be present to make an OHWM determination. However, if physical evidence alone will be used for the determination, districts should generally try to identify two or more characteristics, unless there is particularly strong evidence of one. c. Where the physical characteristics are inconclusive, misleading, unreliable, or otherwise not evident, districts may determine the OHWM by using other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas, provided those other means are reliable.5 Such other reliable methods that may be indicative of the OHWM include, but are not limited to, lake and stream gage data, elevation data, spillway height, flood predictions, historic records of water flow, and statistical evidence. d. When making OHWM determinations, districts should be careful to look at characteristics associated with ordinary high water events, which occur on a regular or frequent basis. Evidence resulting from extraordinary events, including major flooding and storm surges, is not indicative of the OHWM. For instance, a litter or wrack line resulting from a 200-year flood event would in most cases not be considered evidence of an OHWM. e. Districts will document in writing the physical characteristics used to establish the OHWM for CWA and/or RHA jurisdiction. If physical characteristics are inconclusive, misleading, unreliable, or not evident, the Districts’ written documentation will include information about the physical characteristics (or lack thereof) and other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas, which it used to determine the OHWM. f. To complete an approved jurisdictional determination, districts will have complete and accurate documentation that substantiates the Corps decision. At a minimum, decisions will be documented using the standardized jurisdictional determination information sheet established by 5. In some cases, the physical characteristics may be misleading and would not be reliable for determining the OHWM. For example, water levels or flows may be manipulated by human intervention for power generation or water supply. For such cases, districts should consider using other appropriate means to determine the OHWM. April 19, 2022 - Page 419 of 569 Headquarters and provided to the districts on August 13, 2004 (or as further amended by Headquarters). Documentation will allow for a reasonably accurate replication of the determination at a future date. In this regard, documentation will normally include information such as data sheets, site visit memoranda, maps, sketches, and, in some cases, surveys and photographs documenting the OHWM. 4. Duration. This guidance remains in effect unless revised or rescinded. 4 April 19, 2022 - Page 420 of 569 April 19, 2022 - Page 421 of 569 970.476.8865 CELAW.COM 93 South Frontage Rd W, Suite 222, Vail, CO 81657 January 21, 2022 Via E-mail Only Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail Re. Proposed Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance Dear Commissioners: My firm represents Grand Hyatt Vail (“Grand Hyatt”) located in Cascade Village and on Gore Creek. Please accept this letter as the written comments of Grand Hyatt to the Proposed Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance (“Ordinance”) that is being considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission (“PEC”) at its meeting on January 24th. As further explained below, Grand Hyatt has serious concerns and objections to the new 25-foot no-build setback currently proposed in the Ordinance. As you know, Grand Hyatt has extensive frontage along, and portions of its buildings and other improvements are located close to, Gore Creek. Gore Creek is basically Grand Hyatt’s front yard. It is important to note that Grand Hyatt, its predecessors and their owners and guests have always highly valued Gore Creek, including its environmental health, and understand that Gore Creek helps make the Town of Vail and Grand Hyatt unique, special and exceptionally beautiful. Towards that end, Grand Hyatt support the ten-foot no mow zone which is by far the most important element of the Ordinance. At least one environmental expert in reviewing the Ordinance has recognized that the ten- foot no mow zone is “the most valuable component” of the Ordinance and will do the most to improve the water quality and habitat conditions of Gore Creek and its tributaries. See Birch Ecology letter of October 18, 2021. Unlike the 10-foot no mow zone, the 25-foot no build set back is problematic, unnecessarily expansive, and unworkable. The proposed 25-foot setback in many places throughout the Town would materially expand the current setback and thus no build zone and cause many existing conforming structures to become non-conforming. This is true for the Grand Hyatt as the proposed 25-foot setback expands significantly further onto Grand Hyatt property and appears to actually touch and cross portions of the Grand Hyatt building. Attached is the Town’s rendering of the proposed setbacks with those locations on Grand Hyatt added. The Ordinance would thereby for the very first time effectively render non - conforming, and prohibit any modifications or expansions of, those portions of Grand Hyatt. It appears that would happen to a significant number of other buildings in Vail. The Grand Hyatt, which was originally constructed in the 1980’s, is currently pursing plans to renovate and modestly expand certain guest rooms and suites in those areas that would be effectively prohibited if the 25-foot setback is adopted. Daniel F. Wolf 93 South Frontage Rd W, Suite 222, Vail, CO 81657 970.476.8865| F: 970.476.0446 3107 Iris Ave, Suite 100 Boulder, CO 80301-1915 303.443.8010 | F: 303.440.3967 dwolf@celaw.com www.celaw.com April 19, 2022 - Page 422 of 569 Planning and Environmental Commission January 21, 2022 P a g e | 2 We also have significant concerns that the Ordinance will be unworkable and unnecessarily create uncertainty and confusion going forward for property owners along Gore Creek like Grand Hyatt. Under the Ordinance as currently drafted it appears that Ordinary High Water Line (“OHWL”) and accordingly the setback will change periodically but the Ordinance does not specify when or how often that change will occur, and such change could occur as frequently as every few years. Also the definition of OHWL is unclear, confusing and based on an unidentified data set instead of the established and accepted definition used by the Army Corps of Engineers. These deficiencies will leave property owners along Gore Creek in perpetual limbo as to what they can or cannot do with their property near the 25-foot setback. We also believe the Ordinance as currently proposed may constitute a compensable regulatory taking of private property including of certain valuable Grand Hyatt property. In sum, we have seen no evidence that the proposed 25-foot setback will provide a meaningful improvement to the environmental health of Gore Creek over the current scheme, especially in view of the many problems associated with it. Grand Hyatt accordingly requests that the PEC not recommend adoption of the 25-foot set-back as proposed in the Ordinance and leave the current set-back in place. As mentioned, Grand Hyatt does not oppose the 10-foot now mow zone. Alternatively, Grand Hyatt requests that the PEC amend the Ordinance to address the concerns described above, including by moving the setback on Grand Hyatt property to no further than the existing setback or at a minimum establish the setback at 20 feet instead of 25 feet as has been proposed by several other stakeholders, and adopting a clearer and more established methodology for determining the OHWL. The Ordinance also should be amended to add a more comprehensive grandfathering provision to allow property owners who have commenced development plans, like Grand Hyatt, to proceed under the existing regulations. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, CAPLAN AND EARNEST LLC Daniel F. Wolf DFW/cch cc. Grand Hyatt Vail 4876-5585-8442, v. 3 April 19, 2022 - Page 423 of 569 April 19, 2022 - Page 424 of 569 Proposed line touches the hotel April 19, 2022 - Page 425 of 569 From:Jonathan Spence To:Greg Roy; Peter Wadden; Shelley Bellm Subject:FW: VHA/JFL/JS: Jonathan - Good morning. Please forward this onto the PEC with respect to today"s hearing on Stream Setbacks. Date:Monday, January 24, 2022 12:40:12 PM Attachments:image001.png Jonathan Spence, AICP Planning Manager Community Development Department 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Office: 970.479-2321 vailgov.com From: Jim Lamont <JFLamont@Vail.Net> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 12:39 PM To: Jonathan Spence <JSpence@vailgov.com> Subject: VHA/JFL/JS: Jonathan - Good morning. Please forward this onto the PEC with respect to today's hearing on Stream Setbacks. Planning and Environment Commission: Stream Setbacks. VHA, favors of remediation of streambanks for the purpose of restoring water quality to sustain aquatic habitat in Gore Creek and its tributaries. VHA does not favor the taking of property rights through inverse condemnation or other methods that would preclude property owners from restoring/replacing residential and other similarly related structures that currently exist within the proposed stream setback areas. Thank you. Jim Lamont/VHA April 19, 2022 - Page 426 of 569 January 31, 2022 Dear Planning and Environment Commissioners: These comments on the proposed Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance are submitted by the Eagle Summit Wilderness Alliance (ESWA). ESWA is a local, all volunteer non-profit that works in coordination with the USFS to protect, preserve, and maintain the three Wilderness Areas in Eagle and Summit Counties, including the Eagles Nest Wilderness. ESWA supports the proposed Ordinance, but believes it should be strengthened not weakened. Although the Ordinance may not directly affect the Eagles Nest Wilderness, the riparian areas along Gore Creek are an important part of the overall ecosystem of the Vail Valley, including the tributaries of Gore Creek whose headwaters arise in and flow through the Eagles Nest Wilderness. Many species of wildlife travel between the Wilderness, Gore Creek, and its tributaries. Riparian areas are the pumping heart of ecosystems. They provide habitat, water , and food sources for animals for miles around, including those in the Eagles Nest Wilderness. These benefits are in addition to many others noted by your staff – water quality enhancement, flood protection, a healthy fishery, and aesthetic and recreational benefits. At the public hearing on January 24, 2022, some developers urged the Commission to weaken the provisions of the proposed Ordinance. ESWA urges the Commission to reject these proposals. For instance, the average flood on which the Ordinary High Water Mark is based should not be reduced from two years to 1.5 years. Riparian areas were developed by long-term flood patterns, and such flood patterns must be protected as much as possible if a healthy riparian area is to be maintained. Ideally, the average flood period would be as long as possible. If anything, the staff should consider the cost and benefits of an average five-year flood period. It certainly should not be reduced to 1.5 years. April 19, 2022 - Page 427 of 569 Likewise, the Riparian Zone should be increased from 10 feet to 25 or 50 feet. The scientific studies cited by the staff show that such wider riparian zones are much better than narrower ones. Many areas along Gore Creek and its tributaries do not currently have buildings within 25 or 50 feet of the OHWM. These areas should be protected rather than subjected to possible development. Structures already located within a wider Riparian Zone could be grandfathered. Existing riparian areas should be protected from, not doomed to, ultimate development. In short, ESWA supports the proposed Ordinance but urges the Commission to strengthen it rather than weaken it. This may be Vail’s last chance to protect the remaining riparian areas within its borders. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments, and for your service to our community. Respectfully, /s/ Mike Browning Chair of ESWA 4229A Nugget Lane Vail, CO. 81657 April 19, 2022 - Page 428 of 569 1 Gore Creek Preservation / Restoration January 24, 2022 1. We are homeowners with property fronting on Gore Creek at 4014 Bighorn Road in East Vail. Few, if any, have a greater interest than we and our neighboring homeowners in preserving and enhancing the natural health and biodiversity of Gore Creek. We received no official notification of these proceedings beyond articles in the Vail Daily and letters from the Vail Homeowners Association. 2. We have been good stewards of the natural health of our section of Gore Creek having twice personally financed the permitted restoration of the rocky stream bank washed away by the seasonal runoff, and the planting of numerous Aspen trees and other native vegetation with root systems to support the stream bank. 3. Having worked with the United States Forest Service as a volunteer on a project to assess the extent of cementation of the Gore Creek streambed by deposits of traction sand from I-70, I can say with great confidence that the overwhelming threat to the health and welfare of the aquatic life in Gore Creek is traction sand and magnesium chloride. That threat is magnified by the deposits of same on the various bridges crossing Gore Creek from Bridge Road and East from there. A major degradation of Gore Creek was accomplished by the Town of Vail during the reconstruction of the bridge at Bridge Road and the installation of a new kayak launching and wading / picnicking platform. The proposed property use restrictions will have no impact on reducing or eliminating these major threats while interfering with the homeowners’ peaceful enjoyment of the use of their properties. The proposed property use restrictions now under consideration constitute a “taking” of private property and a substantial diminution of the values of the restricted properties. 4. We are offended by the standard practice of the Town of Vail in exempting itself from the environmental rules and regulations it imposes on private property owners. Joe McHugh Brenda McHugh 4014 Bighorn Road April 19, 2022 - Page 429 of 569 January 23, 2022 Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 82657 Re: Proposed Changes to Stream Setbacks Dear PEC: I am writing you on behalf of the ownership of the Evergreen Lodge, one of the many properties in the Town of Vail that will be affected by the proposed ordinance that drastically changes the way the setbacks are determined and the uses allowed within proposed setback. The changes are a significant departure from the current stream setback regulations that have been in effect for nearly a half a century in Vail. The goals being sought by the Town staff are lofty and admirable. Everyone wants healthy rivers, riparian areas, and with high water quality for all of the reasons that have been documented. My client, and many others that we talk to and you have heard from, take no issue with the desire to create the 10’ native (“no mow zone”) from the bank of the creek. There are huge benefits in creating this zone. The remainder of the ordinance is problematic for several reasons which I will describe below: •Ordinary High Water Line (OHWL). The Town’s proposed ordinance is not really resolving the measurement of of the creeks from the center line to the bank or what the Army Corps of Engineers would define as the Ordinary High Water “Mark.” Instead the town is proposing to adopt a set of maps that establishes a new floodplain which the staff is referring to as the OHWL. In many cases that we have reviewed and in the case of Middle Creek, adjacent to the Evergreen Lodge, the floodplain line being established by the Town can be significantly upland from what the Army Corps of Engineers would map as the OHWM. In the case of the Evergreen Lodge, the town’s new line can be off by as much as 9’. We think the Town should understand the impacts of this on properties throughout the Town before passing this ordinance. We believe the Town should stick with the methodology that has been adopted by the Army Corps for decades and which has been largely used by surveyors in the region for decades. Below is the definition used by the Army Corps and I have attached their field manual. •For the purposes of Clean Water Act jurisdiction, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers defines the Ordinary High Water Mark as “that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.” 33 CFR 328.3(e) 1 PO Box 4777 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970.376.3318 www.mpgvail.com April 19, 2022 - Page 430 of 569 •25 foot setback. The staff is recommending a 25 foot setback from its new floodplain line the OHWL. The setback from the actual stream bank or OHWM could in fact end up being more like 35 feet or more depending on the property in question when you factor in the discrepancy between the OHWL and the OHWM. In the case of Middle Creek, under stream setbacks in the code today, the setbacks create a 60 feet wide corridor of this narrow stream. If you increased that to measuring from the stream bank of the OHWM, you create a corridor that is about 70 feet wide if the average width is about 20 feet wide or 60 feet if the stream is about 10’ wide. If you use the Town’s floodplain line, that corridor in the case of Middle Creek ends up being about 76 feet which now impacts private property in a significant way. The change will cause many more portions of property to be nonconforming which will affect a properties ability to redevelopment to make building additions. We believe the more reasonable approach would be to change the setback to 20 feet and use the Army Corps well established OHWM. If the Town is hell bent on using its new floodplain model, then the setback should like be reduced to 15 feet to account for discrepancies. •Uses within the 20 foot setback. Under the regulations today, the stream setback is treated like any other building setback in the code in terms of the use of the area within the setback. We agree with the restrictions being put in place for the first 10 feet of the riparian zone from the OHWM. Today, there are many uses that one can place within the stream setback as well as a building setback. The Town’s proposal accounts for encroachments of patios, decks, and balconies, but is does not account for other uses typically found in setbacks such as swimming pools, hot tubs, sidewalks, retaining walls, walls and fences, and even parking, all of which are allowed today. Here again, the proposed regulation, will result in many more nonconformities on private property. We believe these uses should be included as they are allowed today. •Grandfather provision. The ordinance does not provide any relief to property owners who are in the process of developing plans for redevelopment and who have been relying on the Town’s current regulation. Even today there is not clear direction about the outcome of the Town’s efforts which puts the planning for redevelopment at huge risk. In the case of the Evergreen Lodge, the applicant has been working towards a project for the last 5 years (master plan amendments, land swaps with Vail Health, etc.). In the last year the Evergreen Lodge ownership has spent over $1 million to develop plans that will result in a submittal to the Town within a month. There needs to be a provision added to the ordinance that gives property owners in this situation the ability to submit and be revised under the current regulations. We have proposed language in the attached redline document to address this concern. What is proposed is not a new concept and has been implemented in other jurisdictions related to local land use regulation. In the spirit of trying to strike a happy medium with what staff has proposed, we have proposed some redline changes to the ordinance that we believe will address our concerns (attached). We are concerned about having any requirement that forces the Army Corps to approve a OHWM on the front end knowing that it can take many months to gain such approval. We have proposed language in the regard. Thank you for taking our comments into consideration. While our comments are definitely related to our specific situation, we believe these proposed changes to the ordinance will help many throughout the Town to reduce unnecessary impacts of the proposed regulations. Sincerely, Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP Principal 2 April 19, 2022 - Page 431 of 569 1 1/18/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\ENVIRONMENTAL\GORE CREEK WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS\RESTORE THE GORE! PW\CODE CHANGES\NOMOWZONE\STREAM SETBACK CODE CHANGES\STREAM SETBACK-O011422.DOCX ORDINANCE NO. SERIES 2022 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12 OF THE VAIL TOWN CODE TO ESTABLISH SETBACKS FROM GORE CREEK AND ITS TRIBUTARIES WHEREAS, the Town's current stream setback, as established by Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1976, requires a minimum setback of 30 feet from the center of an established creek or stream channel and 50 from the centerline of Gore Creek; WHEREAS, the Gore Creek Strategic Plan adopted by the Town Council in 2016 identifies loss of riparian vegetation as one of the main causes of declining water quality in Gore Creek; and WHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to prevent further deterioration of Gore Creek and its named tributaries by enacting a clear, comprehensible, and enforceable set of guidelines for setbacks from Gore Creek and its tributaries. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Section 12-14-17 of the Vail Town Code is hereby repealed in its entirety. Section 2. Section 12-21-2 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended by the addition of the following new definitions, to appear in alphabetical order: ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINETWO YEAR FLOOD LINE ("OHWLTYFL"): The average two-year flood line on Gore Creek and its named tributaries, as established by the data set adopted by the Town Council by resolution. Section 3. Chapter 21 of Title 12 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new Section 12-21-17, to read as follows: 12-21-17: GORE CREEK SETBACKS: A. Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to protect the public health, safety and welfare by ensuring the resiliency of Gore Creek and its named tributaries and by mitigating hazards associated with the deterioration of Gore Creek and its named tributaries. B. Applicability: This Section shall apply to all property located within twenty-five (2520) feet of the OHWLTYFL, in whole or in part; provided that this Section shall not apply to any stream tract already protected by Chapter 14 of Title 5 of this Code. April 19, 2022 - Page 432 of 569 2 1/18/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\ENVIRONMENTAL\GORE CREEK WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS\RESTORE THE GORE! PW\CODE CHANGES\NOMOWZONE\STREAM SETBACK CODE CHANGES\STREAM SETBACK-O011422.DOCX C. Setbacks: 1. No mowing, landscaping, grading or other disturbance shall be permitted within ten (10) feet of the OHWLTYFL, other than: a. Removal of noxious weeds pursuant to Section 5-1-6 of this Code; b. With prior approval of the Vail Fire Department, removal of vegetation for purposes of fire mitigation; c.. With prior approval of the Design Review Board, the installation and maintenance of one access path per lot or parcel, of up to four (4) feet in width, consisting of permeable materials including without limitation native soils, sand and gravel, or flagstone set in a permeable base; d. Public roadways, bridges, recreational paths and trails and public parks and open spaces; e. Utility infrastructure within utility easements; f. With prior approval of the Design Review Board, erosion control measures and stream grade-control structures that conform with bank stabilization best management practices; and g. Buildings, structures, fences, walls, patios, walkways, landscaping features, furniture or and similar improvements lawfully existing on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Section, which improvements shall be subject to Chapter 18 of this Title. 2. No building or structure shall be located within twenty-five (2520) feet of the OHWLTYFL, other than: a. With prior approval of the Design Review Board, architectural projections, decks, balconies, steps and bay windows described in Section 14-10-4 of this Code along with other site improvements including sidewalks, hot tubs, swimming pools, retaining walls, utilities, stormwater facilities, and fences; b. Buildings and structures lawfully existing on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Section, which improvements shall be subject to Chapter 18 of this Title. D. Correction RequestsAlternative Delineation: When Aa property owner may choose to use the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM), as defined by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps), versus the TYFL as defined herein. A property owner wishing to use the OHWM April 19, 2022 - Page 433 of 569 3 1/18/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\ENVIRONMENTAL\GORE CREEK WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS\RESTORE THE GORE! PW\CODE CHANGES\NOMOWZONE\STREAM SETBACK CODE CHANGES\STREAM SETBACK-O011422.DOCX may submit an application to the Community Development Department for approval of the OHWM. The application shall include a statement from a qualified consultant indicating that the OHWM was determined based on the guidance and standards established by the Army Corps and a survey stamped by a professional land surveyor indicating the OHWM. Staff may require a letter of approval from the Army Corps of the OHWM when it is unclear from the data submitted if the OHWM is correct. Noting the potential for administrative delays caused by the Army Corps, such letter of approval from the Army Corps may be provided prior to obtaining a building permit and a development application shall be processed without the Army Corps letter of approval. If it is determined by the Community Development Department the application is complete and accurate, it shall issue an approval of the OHWM and the OHWM shall be substituted for the TYFL for the purpose of these regulations. wishes to correct the location of a designated OHWL affecting such property owner's property, the following procedures shall apply: 1. The applicant shall file a written application with the Department of Community Development, requesting a hearing before the April 19, 2022 - Page 434 of 569 4 1/18/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\ENVIRONMENTAL\GORE CREEK WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS\RESTORE THE GORE! PW\CODE CHANGES\NOMOWZONE\STREAM SETBACK CODE CHANGES\STREAM SETBACK-O011422.DOCX Planning and Environmental Commission. The application shall include the property owner's delineation of the Ordinary High Water Mark ("OHWM"), which delineation shall comply with standards adopted by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The application shall also include a letter from Army Corps of Engineers attesting that the OHWM delineation has been verified. 2. The Planning Commission shall consider the application at a public hearing within thirty (30) days after the Town deems the application complete. 3. At the hearing, the applicant shall be given a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and testimony in support of the application. It shall be the applicant's burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the property owner's delineation of the OHWM should be used to change the location of the OHWL. 4. Following the hearing, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall either order that the OHWL be relocated or order that the OHWL remain in its existing location. The decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission shall be subject to appeal as provided in Section 12-3-3 of this Code. E.D. Violation and Penalty: 1. It is unlawful for any person to violate any provision of this Section. 2. It is unlawful for any person to re-channel or modify Gore Creek or any of its named tributaries so as to avoid application of this Section. 3. Each separate act in violation of this Section and each and every day or portion thereof during which any separate act in violation of this Section is committed, continued or permitted shall be deemed a separate offense. 4. Violations of this Section shall be punishable as provided in Chapter 4 of Title 1 of this Code. E. Appeals. Provisions of this Section are subject to to appeal as provided in Section 12-3-3 of this Code. 4.F. Grandfather Provision. This Section shall not apply to any property where the property owner has in good faith spent substantial time and money in the preparation of development plans to develop its property and where the imposition of requirements of this Section conflict with the regulations in effect April 19, 2022 - Page 435 of 569 5 1/18/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\ENVIRONMENTAL\GORE CREEK WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS\RESTORE THE GORE! PW\CODE CHANGES\NOMOWZONE\STREAM SETBACK CODE CHANGES\STREAM SETBACK-O011422.DOCX at the time of the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Section and adversely affect the development of the owners property. In such a case, the property owner that can show substantial and ongoing expense in the preparation of development plans prior to the adoption of this Section, the property owner shall be afforded one hundred and twenty days (120) days the submit a development application and be accepted by the Town of Vail for review from the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Section and such property and development application shall be reviewed under the regulations existing prior to the adoption of this Section. For the purpose of this Section, “substantial and ongoing expense” shall mean expenses that have been occurring for over four (4) months or more in the preparation and planning for an actual development application to be submitted to the Town and not expenses occurred after the adoption of this Section. Any subsequent related development applications that normally occur after the initial development application shall likewise be exempt from this Section (such as a Design Review application or a subdivision application, that follows the approval of a Planning and Environmental Application). Section 4. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. April 19, 2022 - Page 436 of 569 6 1/18/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\ENVIRONMENTAL\GORE CREEK WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS\RESTORE THE GORE! PW\CODE CHANGES\NOMOWZONE\STREAM SETBACK CODE CHANGES\STREAM SETBACK-O011422.DOCX Section 5. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town and the inhabitants thereof. Section 6. The amendment of any provision of the Vail Town Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 7. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this day of , 2022 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the day of , 2022, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Kim Langmaid, Mayor ATTEST: Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 2022. Kim Langmaid, Mayor ATTEST: Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk April 19, 2022 - Page 437 of 569 REGULATORY GUIDANCE LETTER No. 05-05 Date: 7 December 2005 SUBJECT: Ordinary High Water Mark Identification 1. Purpose and Applicability a. Purpose. To provide guidance for identifying the ordinary high water mark. b. Applicability. This applies to jurisdictional determinations for non-tidal waters under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and under Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. 2. General Considerations a. Regulation and Policy. Pursuant to regulations and inter-agency agreement,1 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) determines, on a case-by case basis, the extent of geographic jurisdiction for the purpose of administering its regulatory program. For purposes of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the lateral limits of jurisdiction over non-tidal w bodies extend to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), in the absence of adjacent wetlands. When adjacent wetlands are present, CWA jurisdiction extends beyond the OHWM to the limits of the adjacent wetlands. For purposes of Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the lateral extent of Federal jurisdiction, which is limited to the traditional navigable waters of the United States, extends to the OHWM, whether or not adjacent wetlands extend landward ater of the OHWM. Corps regulations define the term “ordinary high water mark” for purposes of the CWA lateral jurisdiction at 33 CFR 328.3(e), which states: “The term ordinary high water mark means that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.” 1. Memorandum of Agreement between the Department of the Army and Environmental Protection Agency Concerning the Determination of the Geographical Jurisdiction of the Section 404 Program and the Application of the Exemptions under Section 404(f) of the Clean Water Act, January 19, 1989 April 19, 2022 - Page 438 of 569 This definition is virtually identical to the definition of the term “ordinary high water mark” found at 33 CFR Section 329.11(a)(1), describing the lateral extent of Federal jurisdiction over non-tidal traditional navigable waters of the United States subject to Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA). When the definition from 33 CFR Section 329.11(a)(1) was reproduced at 33 CFR 328.3(e), the semi-colons of the former definition were mistakenly changed to commas in the latter definition. Consequently, the definition of “ordinary high water mark” in Part 328 is not as clear in meaning as is the definition of the same term in Part 329, even though the two definitions were to serve the same basic purpose (i.e., establishing the lateral extent of jurisdiction, in the absence of adjacent wetlands).2 Both definitions of the term “ordinary high water mark” begin by discussing physical characteristics that indicate the location of the OHWM on the shore of a water body. Furthermore, both OHWM definitions conclude with the statement the OHWM can be determined using “other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas”.3 Prior to this Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL), neither the Corps nor the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has issued any additional clarifying national guidance for use by Corps regulatory program staff in identifying the location of the OHWM for the CWA on a case-by-case basis.4 b. Practice. In making OHWM determinations, Corps districts generally rely on physical evidence to ascertain the lateral limits of jurisdiction, to whatever extent physical evidence can be found and such evidence is deemed reasonably reliable. Physical indicators include the features listed in the definitions at 33 CFR Sections 328.3(e) and 329.11(a)(1) and other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas. In addition, districts use other methods for estimating the line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water, including, but not limited to, lake and stream gage data, flood predictions, historic records of water flow, and statistical evidence. To the maximum extent practicable, districts generally use more than one physical indicator or other means for determining the OHWM. 3. Guidance. a. In determining the location of the OHWM for non-tidal water bodies under the CWA or the RHA, districts should give priority to evaluating the physical characteristics of the area that are determined to be reliable indicators of the OHWM. Physical evidence to be evaluated includes those items listed in the definitions at 33 CFR Sections 328.3(e) and 329.11(a)(1). Because many types of water bodies occur with varying conditions, including topography, channel morphology and flow dynamics, districts may consider other physical characteristics indicative of the OHWM. 2. CWA jurisdiction extends laterally landward of the OHWM to include all adjacent wetlands wherever such adjacent wetlands are present. This guidance addresses situations where no such adjacent wetlands exist. 3. Changes in the limits of waters of the U.S. are addressed in 33 CFR 328.5. 4 . On 3 June 1983 the Corps of Engineers’ Chief Counsel distributed legal guidance to all Corps district and division counsel offices regarding certain legal questions relating to the geographic jurisdiction of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, including questions relating to the OHWM. 2 April 19, 2022 - Page 439 of 569 3 b. The following physical characteristics should be considered when making an OHWM determination, to the extent that they can be identified and are deemed reasonably reliable: Natural line impressed on the bank Shelving Changes in the character of soil Destruction of terrestrial vegetation Presence of litter and debris Wracking Vegetation matted down, bent, or absent Sediment sorting Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Scour Deposition Multiple observed flow events Bed and banks Water staining Change in plant community This list of OHWM characteristics is not exhaustive. Physical characteristics that correspond to the line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water may vary depending on the type of water body and conditions of the area. There are no “required” physical characteristics that must be present to make an OHWM determination. However, if physical evidence alone will be used for the determination, districts should generally try to identify two or more characteristics, unless there is particularly strong evidence of one. c. Where the physical characteristics are inconclusive, misleading, unreliable, or otherwise not evident, districts may determine the OHWM by using other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas, provided those other means are reliable.5 Such other reliable methods that may be indicative of the OHWM include, but are not limited to, lake and stream gage data, elevation data, spillway height, flood predictions, historic records of water flow, and statistical evidence. d. When making OHWM determinations, districts should be careful to look at characteristics associated with ordinary high water events, which occur on a regular or frequent basis. Evidence resulting from extraordinary events, including major flooding and storm surges, is not indicative of the OHWM. For instance, a litter or wrack line resulting from a 200-year flood event would in most cases not be considered evidence of an OHWM. e. Districts will document in writing the physical characteristics used to establish the OHWM for CWA and/or RHA jurisdiction. If physical characteristics are inconclusive, misleading, unreliable, or not evident, the Districts’ written documentation will include information about the physical characteristics (or lack thereof) and other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas, which it used to determine the OHWM. f. To complete an approved jurisdictional determination, districts will have complete and accurate documentation that substantiates the Corps decision. At a minimum, decisions will be documented using the standardized jurisdictional determination information sheet established by 5. In some cases, the physical characteristics may be misleading and would not be reliable for determining the OHWM. For example, water levels or flows may be manipulated by human intervention for power generation or water supply. For such cases, districts should consider using other appropriate means to determine the OHWM. April 19, 2022 - Page 440 of 569 Headquarters and provided to the districts on August 13, 2004 (or as further amended by Headquarters). Documentation will allow for a reasonably accurate replication of the determination at a future date. In this regard, documentation will normally include information such as data sheets, site visit memoranda, maps, sketches, and, in some cases, surveys and photographs documenting the OHWM. 4. Duration. This guidance remains in effect unless revised or rescinded. 4 April 19, 2022 - Page 441 of 569 Wayne F. Forman Shareholder 303.223.1120 tel WForman@bhfs.com www.bhfs.com Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 303.223.1100 410 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2200 Denver, Colorado 80202 February 3, 2022 VIA EMAIL: commdev@vailgov.com Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission 75 S. Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 RE: One Willow Bridge Road Homeowners Association: Comments to Proposed Change to Waterbody Setbacks, PEC21-0043 Dear Commissioners: I am writing once again on behalf of One Willow Bridge Road HOA in connection with the proposal pending before you to increase setbacks from Gore Creek, this time to provide our comments on the proposal. We appreciate your time and thoughtful consideration of the comments you have received thus far and request you take these additional comments into account in your deliberations over increasing the setbacks from Gore Creek. 1. Clarify Setback to Exclude Man-Made Drainage Discharge. The mapping of the 25-foot setback within the One Willow Bridge Road property (attached) shows an extensive encroachment of the proposed setback on the southeastern portion of the building. We believe that this reflects not a setback from Gore Creek, but from a side discharge of water entering Gore Creek at that location. That discharge, however, is not part of any natural tributary or water feature. Rather, it comes from a pipe that discharges seepage water from the parking garage of the Solaris condominium building. In speaking with Pete Wadden, he advised that an on-the-ground survey of the elevations of the new modelled setback line through the site would likely ignore this drain pipe discharge, but that if this discharge were included within the modelled setback, the fact that it was coming from a parking garage, as opposed to a natural tributary, would likely be strong grounds to have the setback corrected to ignore this man-made discharge in an appeal proceeding. We appreciate Pete’s advice on this issue and it appears sound. Nevertheless, we request that the Town include in the proposed ordinance an acknowledgement that the enlarged setbacks apply April 19, 2022 - Page 442 of 569 Town of Vail PEC February 3, 2022 Page 2 only to Gore Creek and its natural tributaries or other natural water features and not to artificial discharges of drainage or seepage water from buildings or structures. This clarification, which seems consistent with the intent of the proposal, would provide us with additional comfort that this anomalous setback would be corrected if an appeal of the setback line through the One Willow Bridge site became necessary. 2. Extend Reconstruction Period For Nonconforming Structures. As the Commission is aware, the proposed 25-foot setback from the OWHL will convert a significant number of fully-compliant buildings in the Vail Central Core to “nonconforming” status under the Town Code, including One Willow Bridge Road. Town Code §12-18-9 provides that if a nonconforming structure is destroyed by fire or other calamity, the structure may be restored, “provided the restoration is commenced within one year and diligently pursued to completion.” We understand that the phrase “restoration is commenced within one year” has been interpreted by the Town to mean that the building owner must have submitted a building permit to restore a structure within the one-year timeframe. Even with that interpretation, a one-year time period is too short, given all that an owner must go through to get its site ready for reconstruction, including dealing with insurance companies, clearing debris, surveying the site, and having construction plans prepared, to name a few. We suggest that, in light of the large number of nonconforming structures that will result from the enlargement of the Gore Creek setbacks, the Town make a commensurate amendment to §12-18-9 to extend to two years the time within which reconstruction of a nonconforming structure must be commenced and to memorialize in the Code that commencement of reconstruction means the filing of a building permit with the Town. Thank you for considering these comments. If you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Wayne F. Forman Cc: Oliver Nunnenmacher, Manager, One Willow Bridge Road HOA (oliver@onewillowbridgeroad.com) Stephen A. Best, Esq., President, One Willow Bridge Road HOA (SBest@brownrudnick.com) Greg Roy, Senior Planner, Town of Vail (groy@vailgov.com) Peter Wadden <PWadden@vailgov.com> 23706732.1 April 19, 2022 - Page 443 of 569 MEMO TO: TOWN OF VAIL - PEC COMMISSION FEBRUARY 28, 2022 RE: AGENDA 3.1 SECTION 12-14-17 WATERCOURSE SETBACK CHANGES (PEC21-0043) FROM: RICHARD K. PARKER, MD PRESIDENT VAIL TOWNHOUSE CONDO ASSOCIATION 303 EAST GORE CREEK DRIVE, VAIL, COLORADO Dear Commissioners; I am sending you my written comments on the proposed changes to the above noted regulations regarding the Waterbody Setback. We understand and support the concepts and wishes for reclamation of water quality and streamflow stabilization, as we were the first condominiums developed in Vail in 1963-64. Out of our 10 units, we have 6 of the 10 still owned by the original families and I have been an owner and resident since 1975. We have spent the past 50 years planting trees and shrubs, stabilizing the Mill Creek and Gore Creek banks and creating a environmental riparian area that you are now wanting to prescribe everywhere. However, in your quest to do so, I must point out several areas that will provide unintended consequences that create hardships that you may not have recognized. To help you understand our exact location, we are in the center of the core village just east of the Clock Tower and Gorsuch buildings, just east of Mill Creek and on the south side of Gore Creek. We occupy building lots 1 thru 6 at this site and constitute the west half of the Town House group. My concerns are: 1. With the proposed changes of widening the setback, it places the north west corner of the building in the area as drawn into the NON-CONFORMING category. As we are a Condo Association with the building held in common, that places the entire building of all 10 units into the Non-Conforming status for any project that requires a building permit. This would require any minor or major remodel or rebuild to request a variance for any project large or small. This adds the associated increase in cost, time and uncertainty in review. Over the past 2 1/2 years we have expended over $20,000 with consultants and lawyers as well as our time working with the Zoning/Community Development Departments to re-zone and bring us into a Conforming Status. We had a very positive experience working with the Town of Vail Departments to move us into a Compliant Status and with their encouragement to do so April 19, 2022 - Page 444 of 569 to simplify their required future permitting processes as well. The goal was to get us into Compliance so that any remodel would not require a variance. As we did this it good faith and effort, it is therefore very disheartening for another part of the Town of Vail government moving forward to place us back into the Non-Conforming Status. The Town had created a new zoning category for the core Town House community (of which we were included) to promote improvement and redevelopment in this area and to move all related properties a into Conforming Status. 2. As we are by topography well above the high water mark of a flood status except a small corner of the original building, this problem with the wide set back is entirely for water quality that results in placing us in this predicament. Our building sets up on the elevated bank with the south side of Gore Creek and the west side of Mill Creek creating a low water flood plane. It is also rather frustrating to see that the city still is allowed to mow and utilize the park lands along Mill Creek to the south and Gore Creek to the east and west of us with no restrictions, but the arbitrary restrictions in the core village placed without concern for the effect on the property owners nor consideration of the topography. 3. There is also no mention of probably the greatest problem in the core affecting the quality of the stream water and the fish habitat. That is the human effect on the stream use. Are you going to discuss and propose any regulation on human use and action in the waterways? 4. With the proposed changes we have small patios on the stream side of the building that have been present since 1964 that are in the proposed restricted areas. Around these we have kept and restricted any type of solid or hardscape surfaces and kept a small lawn. As the proposal is described this will place these areas as ‘no mow’ or ‘weed areas’ and that at the time of any remodel, it is entirely possible for future building department reviews to require that these patios and access doors could have to be abandoned or the building be reconstructed with commercial codes as they are in the Non-Conforming area. What you described now in good faith and effort may and often times is interpreted differently in the years to come by other departments. All of these decisions and recommended policy changes will go forward, but I request a thorough consideration of the downstream effects of such policies. You are making recommendations partially on stream flow for flood mitigation and other recommendations based for the reclamation and re-establishment of improved water quality. I would suggest that you consider making a separate setback policy for the core village even though I have heard loud and clear that some of your commission members do not wish to consider separate policies for urban or core areas vs the suburban (East and West Vail) areas. The wider setbacks as proposed will have little or no effect on the up and down stream (suburban) areas, but certainly will place a number of structures in the core areas into the Non-Conforming or Non- Compliant category. I request that you look with your staff at what would the changes be if the set backs were at the 20 foot or 25 foot mark in the core areas before coming up with your final recommendations. I also must point out that I and my fellow home owners in the Vail Townhouses as well as many of us in the Core Village represent a disenfranchised group. Most members of the government, elected April 19, 2022 - Page 445 of 569 officials, commissions, panels and employees of this Town live up and down valley yet those of us in the village core tend to be non-full time residents. As a result we can not vote, are never asked to, nor allowed to serve on commissions or panels for the town but pay our taxes year after year quietly. We appreciate your time and service for the city, but we also ask for your consideration on what are the unintended consequences of your recommendations on proposed policies. Please do not force an easy to apply solution for suburban areas that creates a costly and extremely difficult if not impossible problem on the core village. Simplicity may seem to be a warm and fuzzy answer but please consider the total impact. Thank you for your consideration and deliberations that we do appreciate. Our goals are the same but we do raise questions on how do we get there? Are there any questions about the concerns that I have raised? Richard K. Parker, MD Vail Townhouse Condo Association 303-775-8136 <rparkermd@msn.com> April 19, 2022 - Page 446 of 569 3/22/2022 Hi Peter and Greg: I’d like to suggest another change to the proposed stream setback ordinance. At the PEC hearing on March 14, there was discussion related to one of my prior comments related to provision C2a. I had suggested that this provision was too narrow and did not allow for other improvements like retaining walls and sidewalks. Greg pointed out that those other improvements were in fact allowed by other sections of Title 14, Chapter 10 and would be allowed in the future with this proposed ordinance. C2a states in part: 2. No building or structure shall be located within twenty-five (25) feet of the TYFL, other than: a. With approval of the Design Review Board, those items listed in Section 14-10-4 of this Code; Noting that there are other provisions within Title 14 Chapter 10 that would allow additional improvements within the building setback proposed, I would suggest that provision “a” be changed to: a. With approval of the Design Review Board, those items listed in Chapter 14-10 of this Code; I believe this will more accurately reflect the intent as stated by staff at the PEC hearing and reduce confusion in the future. Thank you for your help and I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the process of developing the proposed ordinance. Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP Mauriello Planning Group, LLC PO Box 4777 2205 Eagle Ranch Road Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-376-3318 cell www.mpgvail.com April 19, 2022 - Page 447 of 569 April 4, 2022 Dear Mayor and Town Council members: I am writing on behalf of my client, the owners of the Evergreen Lodge. We would like to express our support for the proposed Stream Setback Ordinance, as recommended by the Planning Environmental Commission (PEC). The PEC held six hearings over six months on the proposed regulations receiving hours of testimony and input from many members of the public and qualified experts to arrive at its recommendation to the Town Council. We appreciate the hard work of the PEC who managed to balance all of the factors affecting the proposed regulations including private property rights and protecting the environment and the community’s precious water resources. We are happy with the outcome of the PEC hearing process and while we still have some minor concerns, we are fully supportive of the PEC’s recommended ordinance. We see that the staff is proposing to depart from the recommendation of the PEC related to the corrections process. The methodology and the corrections process were discussed at nearly every hearing with the PEC and was one of the critical elements allowing the PEC to feel comfortable to pass along an unanimous approval. We hope that the Town Council will agree with the PEC and not back track on one of the critical elements agreed to by the PEC. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this process. Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP Mauriello Planning Group, LLC PO Box 4777 2205 Eagle Ranch Road Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-376-3318 cell www.mpgvail.com April 19, 2022 - Page 448 of 569 P L ANNI NG AND E NV I RO NM E NTAL C O M M IS S IO N September 27, 2021, 1:00 P M Town Council Chambers 75 S . Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 1.Call to Order 1.1.Register in advance for this webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/W N_QJ ybkNzgQ2eMGMYxH6F E0g 1.2.Attendance Present: Brian Gillette, Rollie Kjesbo, Ludwig Kurz, Karen Perez, Reid Phillips, Henry Pratt, Pete Seibert Absent: None 2.Main Agenda 2.1.A request for the review of a variance from Section 14-10-4: A rchitectural P rojections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, B ay W indows, Etc., Vail Town Code in accordance with the provisions of S ection 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow a balcony roof and associated support to encroach into the required setback, located at 2705 Davos Trail, L ot 14, Block B , Vail Ridge S ubdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21- 0041) 20 min. Applicant:Robbie Baxter & Gibson Watson, represented by V MD A Architects Planner:J onathan Spence Planner Spence gives an introduction to the application. He goes over the extent of the variance request for the setbacks. The applicant is requesting that a roof extend past the allowed 4-foot encroachment. Chris J ergens of V MD A, representing the applicant, goes over their request. He lists the criteria for approval of a variance required by Town Code and how this application meets them. Kjesbo asks what the original setbacks were when the house was built in Eagle County. Spence guesses 20’ on all sides. Pratt asks if similar variances have been granted. Spence does not recall any similar variances being granted. Phillips believes that the house was built as close to the setbacks as possible. April 19, 2022 - Page 449 of 569 J ergens believes they did so because of the topography. Perez says the slope does not have a rational connection to a deck covering. The request for a variance over a nonconforming deck is a special treatment. Gillette asks about the nonconformity. Spence responds the deck is too close to the property line. Perez does not believe a partially covered deck is a hardship. P E C must follow criteria strictly and this does not meet the criteria. J ergens believes they are meeting it. Public comment is opened. No public comment. Rollie Kjesbo moved to deny. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.2.A request for recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for the adoption of the West Vail Master Plan, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-0036) 90 min. Applicant:Town of Vail, represented by S E Group Planner:Matt Gennett Community Development Director, Matt Gennett, goes over the request from the P E C at the end of the previous meeting. He goes over the conditions of approval suggested by staff as a result of the P E C’s discussion at the last meeting that were included in the packet. Ellie Wachtel adds that Fehr and Peers is online if there are any transportation related questions. Kurz appreciates staff’s efforts and thanks them for the hard work being put in. Gillette asks if Gennett sees this going to Council and being kicked back to P E C to solve these conditions. Gennett responds that no, he believes that at the Council meeting Council would direct staff to make these revisions and the Council’s revisions if any, and then come back to Town Council with those amendments for final adoption. Gillette would like to see more description in the items about the deed restrictions and zoning discussion. The written description is a little confusing based on the discussion. “There can be no increase in density without some sort of deed restriction or fee in lieu”. 100% does not need to be deed restricted, but any increase needs to result in some sort of deed restriction or fee in lieu. Gennett says that in the rezoning process the language will be done in a public process at that time. Gillette wants to ensure that as properties redevelop, they need to have some April 19, 2022 - Page 450 of 569 housing aspect to it. The clarity needs to be added in the condition’s language. Phillips asks for clarity. Are we going to allow the same number of units that exist over density today or exist over zoning today? W hich one will trigger the housing requirement? Gillette believes an increase in density above what is allowed today would require the housing component. Phillips says that if someone is tearing down a six-plex then anything over those two allowed units would require some kind of housing? Gillette says, some percentage over that number two, yes. We aren’t imposing any hardship for owners; they had the responsibility to know the zoning and that they were overbuilt. Wachtel adds that an extra E HU unit could be built, but we haven’t seen that happening. Gillette recognizes that and a percentage needs to go towards housing. The parking lots on Chamonix are emptier these days and we’re already losing housing. Pratt has a comment on eliminating GRFA. I f you build to setbacks and height with no GRFA you get boxes. That does not match the character of the neighborhood. W e should look at what Lionshead did and give a 250% increase of GRFA, but eliminating it just gets boxes. Gennett asks whether the existing or proposed dimensional zoning standards would be sufficient or not to control the size of structures. Pratt agrees and says some increase, but not a complete removal. Gillette thinks we should eliminate the Geneva exemption. This area should be treated the same as the other areas in West Vail. Gennett asks about and Gillette confirms the affected conditions he is referring to. Gillette has concerns that the dashed lines were not quite right on the corner of Chamonix and Arosa. The line as drawn needs to be pulled back in to not include lots that front on other roads. Phillips says that is reflected on page 71. Specifics over the corner of Circle Drive and the map are discussed. Gillette thinks Circle Drive is fine with the Primary/Secondary zoning and needs to be left out. Wachtel asks if there are other streets that have a similar issue. Gillette says Circle Drive and Arosa. The Aerial map is brought up for reference of the areas in question. 2289 Chamonix Ln should be the west end of the upper Chamonix. 2449 Chamonix should not be in the east end of lower Chamonix, as well as the duplexes on the east side of Chamonix just past Chamonix chalets. The map is gone through for the corners of the area April 19, 2022 - Page 451 of 569 to ensure the appropriate properties are being included. Slight adjustments are being proposed. Looking on the south side of I 70, the commissioners review the included lots. On the west side of this lower area, the line is drawn to the Town boundary. Gillette is concerned that including properties in this map will lead to inappropriate zoning again. Phillips whether the future re-zonings will come back to them at the P E C. That they’ll have another chance to look at this and make suggestions. This is a conceptual overview plan, not individual zoning, not lot by lot, correct? Gennett confirms. Phillips says we are here to provide some flexibility moving forward. Gennett says there is nothing regulatory about this document. W hen we get to the implementation level, the rezoning process will be much more exact. At this level it is more of a guideline and an expression of the intent. The real detail and fine tuning come in when we go to modify zoning. Planner Spence adds that when staff begins to look at rezoning options, we look at more than existing buildings, including location, size of lots, topography, character etc.… W e’ll be looking more at the intrinsic qualities of the property for any rezoning. More discussion happens on the process of master plan versus zoning and their relation. Pratt does not see any sustainability or environmental recommendation. He would like to see solar or other energy systems be encouraged in new buildings through this plan. He does not like condition #2, and that it is very vague. W ould like to see more specificity with more measured heights and not a build to line. Dominic Mauriello working on behalf of the V L HA. The V LHA submitted a comment to the P E C, and it covers the chapters in the masterplan. He believes it would be a good idea to review. He feels the P E C should do the heavy lifting and it should all be set by the time it gets to Town Council. He would like to see a redlined version rather than going to Town Council with a set of conditions. He gives examples of how he thinks intent could be lost in the process. The plan is wonderful, and they’ve done a really good job. I t’s 100 times better than what we have now. There are really good alternatives included in there. He would encourage the P E C in the next step of rezoning to get that moving so we can see redevelopment. Pratt agrees. Galen Aasland believes that words matter. He believes that one of the purposes of this is to put in an appropriate zoning. He would like to see the masterplan require the new multi-family zone district that is added not be able to do an S D D. Gillette feels uncomfortable with approving this with the conditions. He would like to see the masterplan redlined. Perez agrees with Gillette. A redlined version would be clearer as to what the April 19, 2022 - Page 452 of 569 P E C’s recommendations are. Let’s be clear, lets add language and be specific. Gennett asks if the P E C would like a redlined version? At least four commissioners confirm. Discussion around the dates, times, corrections, and revisions is had. Comments will be color coded based on the recommending body. Gennett requests a tabling to the next meeting on the 11th of October. Karen Perez moved to table to October 11, 2021. Reid Phillips seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.3.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed Regulation Amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-14-17 Setback From Watercourse and add a new Section 12-21-17 Riparian Protection and W aterbody Setback Regulations, Vail Town Code, to change the waterbody setbacks, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-0043) 60 min. Applicant:Town of Vail, represented by Pete W adden Planner:Greg Roy Planner Roy introduces project and begins presentation. He summarizes current waterbody setback requirements as well the proposed language for the new amendment. Gillette asks about the recent release into Gore Creek. Planner Wadden responds there were 120 dead fish. The extent of the problem went to the I nternational Bridge. There was also an absence of algae and other aquatic life in the river. State agencies are also involved with investigating this incident. Gillette asks how big a deal 120 dead fish are? Wadden responds that it isn’t a huge amount if he could determine that that was the full extent of the impacts. They were not able to get water samples until 24 hours after the incident. 2.08 million gallons of potable water was discharged, with an unknown quantity of other water. There were no concerns to drinking water supply. Phillips has received a lot of concerns from the community. Can the P E C request to get a status report from Pete Wadden in two weeks? He would like to invite Eagle River W ater and Sanitation, and Colorado state agencies. He also wants to reach out to Vail Resorts to see if they would come to the status report. Community members saw dead fish at the I nternational Bridge. A news report said not to go in the river at the moment with copper sulfate levels. He says we need to know the damage and the responsible parties, as well as the future plan for river restoration. He wants to make sure that this continues to be checked moving forward. Wadden responds he is happy to address these concerns. Kurz agrees with Phillips. Board is unanimous in requesting an update. April 19, 2022 - Page 453 of 569 Perez asks if the joint commission has met on this. Planner Wadden continues through presentation. He touches on the importance of riparian restoration and the Town’s efforts in recent years. He references the Gore Creek Action plan for strategies to engage private property owners. He outlines the objectives of the Riparian Corridor and the proposed new regulations. He explains the definition of the Ordinary High- Water Mark. Gillette asks how many non-conformities we are creating? Wadden says under the current setbacks there are 111 non-conforming structures. The new recommendation would lead to 142. Of those, 92 are non-conforming under current regulations. Gillette asks how many structures are on the creek. Wadden responds there are close to 400. Gillette asks if we create a non-conforming structure, what does that do to development rights? Roy responds that they would have the same property rights, it would just affect where they could build. Perez says that making the structure non-conforming does affect property rights. Gillette asks about property on Matterhorn Circle. W hat if they would have to rebuild their house? Roy says they would have to meet the standards under the new code. Kjesbo says they got variances to build there originally. Perez says non-conforming status affects insurance for HOAs and financing. She has a problem making so many buildings non-conforming. She says we have to balance the proposal with property rights and impacts on the community. She cites a letter of concern from a local HOA, and says she wants to get this right. Wadden says the HOA in question is currently non-conforming. Perez wants to decrease rather than increase the amount of non-conforming structures. Wadden says other setback distances are an option. 25’ was chosen because it most closely approximated existing setbacks. Gillette asks if you can shorten the setback but increase the riparian buffer. Would this make fewer houses non-conforming? Wadden says the issue is that defensible space would become a problem. People building right to the setback would conflict with fire department recommendations for defensible space. April 19, 2022 - Page 454 of 569 Roy says in regard to design standards it gives property owners some space for landscaping choices before reaching the no-mow zone. 25 feet is the balance between town code, fire department, design standards, and the fewest non-conformities. Gillette asks if property owners been notified? Wadden says not all of them. Gillette says we need to reach out to all of them and get feedback. Perez says it will help to determine the harmony of the various criteria. Wadden recommends taking a look at individual properties on the maps provided. Gillette asks how accurate are they? Wadden says they’re a good approximation. Pratt asks how many non-conforming structures are within the 20’ setback? Wadden says they have the lines on the map but not the exact numbers. Pratt says he is a property owner on the creek and has built his house to existing setback requirements. I t would be good to see the number of non- conforming structures at 20-foot setbacks. Phillips says the 8th fairway on the golf course is a large encroachment. He asks if there has been a conversation with golf course management if they can restructure that area? Wadden says there have been conversations but it’s a debate between playability and resource protection. They are trying to find the balance there. Gillette asks who is present from the fire department? He asks Paul Cada to speak on defensible space. Paul Cada the W ildfire Program Administrator says they have been working with the applicants for a while. W hat is presented today is the compromise between the interests. He says there are allowances for the defensible space. He says when things are wet around the creek the risk is low and cites examples from California fires. He claims the fire department can support what is in the presented language. Wadden says the 20-foot setback establishes 27.1 unbuildable acres. The number of non-conforming structures increasing between existing and proposed regulations may not be statistically significant. Gillette would like to have a better understanding of the effects on a homeowner of becoming non-conforming and how that impacts financing and other factors. Roy says we can look into that, as well as weigh that with the health of Gore April 19, 2022 - Page 455 of 569 Creek. Gillette stresses the importance to make informed decisions. Planner Spence says we have not seen insurance decisions related to zoning non-conformities. Wadden wants to provide funds and resources to property owners undergoing changes. He reiterates staff recommendations relating to the proposed ordinance. Perez would like more information, as well as notifying the public and getting public feedback. Gillette agrees. Wadden says they will increase these efforts. Kurz asks about public notification being marginally effective? Wadden outlines public outreach on Project Rewild. He says at the time, the town council was concerned about providing funds for individual landscaping projects. Perez says she is on the board of an association that would be affected. She wants to notify associations not just property owners that would be impacted. Kurz talks about balancing health of river with individual homeowners. He says we have a moral if not legal obligation to make sure river is as healthy as possible. W e also have to consider the existing property ownership. He says it’s a tricky balance, and we need to address the points that have been made. Gillette says the town should target problem properties rather than issue blanket proclamations. Wadden says there is a list of stream areas that are the most degraded. The process needs to include an equitable approach to homeowners. Pratt asks about flags concerning pesticides in use and the progress on this issue. Wadden says Under Colorado law the buck stops with state. Localities cannot pass more stringent regulations. Town attorneys have advised against action. The Colorado Department of Agriculture did testing for pesticides and herbicides in the creek and the town is awaiting the results. Gillette asks if there are better products for lawncare. Wadden says root treatment is better than sprays. Regarding lawncare, it’s more about lawncare than keeping out pests. The town utilizes organic herbicides and fertilizers. Gillete asks if organic practices are better for the creek? Wadden clarifies organic fertilizers are better but not better than no fertilizer. April 19, 2022 - Page 456 of 569 Gillette asks if we have done outreach to local landscapers? Wadden says from 2015-2019 a local workshop has gathered around 40 landscapers regarding the best practices in Creekside landscaping. I n the last two years, there have been zoom presentations along similar lines. Gillette says there could be more outreach every spring. Wadden says he has produced three videos for the website and landscapers about alternatives to pesticides in landscaping. Gillette wants to add in some bullet points for people who won’t watch the videos. Perez asks if you need two weeks. Wadden says I think we can do this in two weeks. Spence says another cycle would be required for public comment and outreach. Kurz asks for public input. Dominic Mauriello represents Evergreen Lodge. He says he has worked for years with the existing setback of 30’. Having that changed now would have a large impact. He says the maps shown today are not going to be surveying accurate. He applauds the motives and says we’re all in favor of riparian buffer. He cites other studies regarding the cleansing effects of riparian buffers and supports the 10’ riparian buffer. He says changing the stream setback is different. Nothing suggests 25’ is better than 20’. He is glad the P E C is considering the impacts on non- conforming structures. He says it is inaccurate that the centerline moves around a lot. I t would have been better if they had done the high water mark from the beginning, but the town has already been built with the old regulations. He says this will open a can of worms of non-conforming buildings. These buildings do not have a lot of flexibilities with variances. He says the board can’t depend on relief mechanism of variances for new non- conforming buildings. He says the code language needs work. W hat about stormwater management activities that may be beneficial to do in the 10’ buffer? Gillette asks why that would be precluded? Mauriello says it is precluded in the proposal. He wants to think about how non-conforming structures are created and work out the inconsistencies. He says the town can be clearer about how you measure the centerline. I n his analysis, the 20’ setback much more approximates the existing setback today. He says the town could use existing 30’ or proposed 20’, whichever is more restrictive. He also says the definition of high water mark needs some work and the FE MA floodplain information is different from the streambank. He suggests the town work with some of the surveyors to find what they typically use. He suggests incorporating more input from the town attorney and have them look at it before recommendation to town council. He is happy to help with some of the language if that is needed and says he can April 19, 2022 - Page 457 of 569 come back with examples. Gillette asks for an email summarizing these comments. Mauriello says there are other concerns from community members that weren’t able to be here today. Gillette asks if Wadden can meet with a surveyor regarding questions of the high water mark. Wadden confirms. Kurz asks if there is additional public comment? J ohn Rediker wants a better understanding of the language that references two year flood lines, especially regarding a definition and calculation method. He wonders if there are other studies out there, so decisions are based upon science and not anecdotes. He asks where is the evidence that insurance rates will go up for non-conforming structures? Siri Roman is the director of operations for Eagle River Water and Sanitation. She says the decision is hard for the community, but Gore Creek need initiatives like this to get off the 303(d) list of impaired waterways. Vail is a model town with its creek restoration programs. She is also a Vail resident with two kids, who have spent a lot of time in Gore Creek. Her kids would like more wildlife and less tall buildings in town. She asks the board to consider the hard decisions for the future of Vail. Holly Loff is the Executive Director for the Eagle River W atershed Council speaking in support of the ordinance. She has worked successfully with the town on past restoration projects. The riparian areas are critical to water quality and stream health. She says Vail is a leader in the valley and this initiative is the natural next step. She also says the stream health and water quality is worth the effort of addressing these questions. Gillette asks if there are any studies on 20’ versus 25’ setbacks. Loff says the Eagle River watershed plan didn’t have specific numbers for setbacks. The correct number varies by geology and hydrology. She would be happy to look into that more W ith W adden. Gillette asks if hydrologists have been involved? Wadden says that they have been involved in the process. He can look at the difference between 20’ and 25’ buffers. Gillette wants to see difference between 10’ and 15’ riparian buffers and studies to that effect. Wadden says they will have more of that information next time. Bellm says Oct. 25 meeting is the next meeting date to allow for public notification. Motion to table. April 19, 2022 - Page 458 of 569 Karen Perez moved to table to October 25, 2021. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.4.A request for the review of an extension to a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses; Public buildings and grounds, Vail Town Code, to allow the continued use of the yurt at the Vail Nature Center for a period of three (3) years, located at 841 Vail Valley Drive/Unplatted (Ford Park Nature Center) and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-0039) 20 min. Applicant:Town of Vail, represented by Kristen Bertuglia Planner:J onathan Spence 1. Upon the completion of the use of the yurt, or three (3) years from date of this approval, whichever happens earlier, the Applicant shall remove the yurt and foundation and shall revegetate all disturbed soils with native vegetation. Planner Spence presents history of the application and outlines request. Gillette asks about the 3 year timeframe? Spence says we need to hold the town equally responsible as private property owners. Kurz asks if there are any other board questions? Spence clarifies to ask for public comment. Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve with conditions. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.5.A request for the review of a Variance from Section 12-21-12, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance from the maximum percent of lot covered by driveways and surface parking, in accordance with the provision of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, located at 816/826 Forest Road / Lots 14/15, Block 1, Vail Village Filing No. 6 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21- 0045) The applicant has requested this item be tabled to a future date where it will be heard concurrently with a Minor Subdivision and Rezoning application. 2 min. Applicant:Mexamer Forest Road L L C, represented by K H W ebb Architects Planner:J onathan Spence Spence asks for uncertain table date. He will combine the application with other relevant applications. Brian Gillette moved to table. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 3.Approval of Minutes 3.1.September 13, 2021 P E C Results Karen Perez moved to approve. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it April 19, 2022 - Page 459 of 569 passed (7-0). 4.I nformational Update 4.1.Update on W ildlife Fencing in the I -70 Corridor 10 min. Applicant: Planner:Pete W adden Spence provides update on wildlife fencing project. Phillips asks if there is encroachment on private property? Spence says it is within the C D OT right of way. 5.Adjournment Karen Perez moved to adjourn. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspec tion during regular offic e hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site vis its that prec ede the public hearing in the Tow n of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to c hange, and c annot be relied upon to determine at w hat time the Planning and Environmental Commission w ill c onsider an item. Please c all (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department April 19, 2022 - Page 460 of 569 P L ANNI NG AND E NV I RO NM E NTAL C O M M IS S IO N October 25, 2021, 1:00 P M Town Council Chambers and Virtual on Zoom 75 S . Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 1.Call to Order 1.1.Register in advance for this webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/W N_QJ ybkNzgQ2eMGMYxH6F E0g 1.2.Attendance Present: Ludwig Kurz, Brian Gillette, Henry Pratt, Rollie Kjesbo, Karen Perez, Reid Phillips, Pete Seibert Absent: None 2.Main Agenda 2.1.A request for the review of an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to amend the approved conditional use permit to reflect an increase in student enrollment, located at 3000 Booth Falls Road/Lot 1, Vail Mountain School, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C20-0026) 20 min. Applicant:Vail Mountain School Planner:J onathan Spence Kurz says Commissioner Pratt will join after the first item on the agenda. Planning Manager J onathan Spence provides the history of the application and introduces the applicants. Dominic Mauriello represents Vail Mountain School (V MS). He references his memo to the board and asks for a tabling to next summer. He references various ongoing and future studies. He says it doesn’t make sense to do engineering on roadway improvements until studies are complete. Mauriello quickly goes over the items in the memo. The applicants are also looking at other issues on campus like stacking, and ways to address this. The one lane exit on the frontage road could be changed. They are also studying the employee housing property and ingress and egress in that lot. He is asking for a tabling until all issues can be addressed. Kurz is disappointed that we’re so late in resolving a problem that has been there since 2000. Now we’re being asked to kick the can down the road another six months. He would be more upset if Tom Kassmel didn’t think that extra time was necessary. He hopes school and staff make sure that we’re ahead of the game for future reference. Other than that, he is in favor of granting the timeframe. April 19, 2022 - Page 461 of 569 Perez is disappointed, she references the timeline from the original presentation in April. She is discouraged that they had exceeded the limit in 2014 and nothing was done at that time. She is frustrated at the delays; this is not a new issue and the school is well aware of it. I f this didn’t have to do with education, she would want to pull the use permit. V MS thinks the conditions of its permit don’t affect it. I n deference to Tom Kassmel, she understands the extension, but would not want to extend it longer – it is unacceptable Phillips asks when V MS became aware they were non-conforming. Mauriello does not know the exact date, says there is new management at the school. Perez reiterates the 2014 point. Phillips asks for clarification. Spence talks about past applications regarding the parking and greenhouse. Gillette asks when people knew there was an issue with the frontage road? Spence is not certain. Mauriello says everyone was not aware it would need a C D OT Access Permit. The school side did not know it meant millions of dollars. The school wants to do the right thing and are paying attention to this issue. They are trying to address these things correctly. Perez asks what was done in the last 6 months other than forming a committee? Mauriello says they have hired a team of consultants and experts, they talked to van services, are looking at studies, and put together an application for a school zone permit submitted in August. They are coordinating with the town for school zone study. They are taking the issue seriously and trying to do thing immediately and solve long term issues Phillips asks about what specifically was done in 2014? Perez says they knew they were over the condition in 2014. Kurz summarizes the board’s concerns. He says we should go with the extension but there is a clear message to the process needed. Kjesbo agrees and says they will have to modify their plans for what C D OT says anyway. He doesn’t see much choice in the delay. Kurz references a different use for the existing berm. He feels strongly that the berm is not sacred. Mauriello says the berm is in the right of way and they have a permit from C D OT but he takes the point. Amended Motion for continuation with a meeting in J uly of 2022. April 19, 2022 - Page 462 of 569 Board discusses the proper date for the next meeting. Rollie Kjesbo moved to continue to J uly 2022. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Abstain:(1)Pratt 2.2.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed Regulation Amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-15-3 Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code, to add an exemption to allow vaults for car lift systems to be excluded from the GRFA calculation and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-0046) The applicant requests this item be tabled to November 8, 2021. 15 min. Applicant:K H W ebb Architects & Mauriello Planning Group Planner:Greg Roy Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to November 8, 2021. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.3.A request for the review of an Exemption Plat, pursuant to Section 13-12-3, Plat Procedure and Criteria for Review, Vail Town Code, to allow for an adjustment to the location of the platted building envelope for Lot 14, First Amendment to Spraddle Creek Estates, located at 1326 Spraddle Creek Road, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-0049) 20 min. Applicant:S C Mountain Top LLC and TLM Realty Holding LLC, represented by Davis Urban LLC and English & Assoc. Planner:Greg Roy Planner Roy introduces application and goes through presentation. He introduces the applicants. Gillette asks about previous discussion regarding building envelopes here. Roy doesn’t recall that specifically. Spence talks about the past history of the lot, there have been no changes to GRFA or site coverage. Gillette asks if notification to neighbors is required? Spence says the neighbors approved it during the application process. Matt Davis is the applicant; he says he is happy to take questions. Kurz asks for public input. Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.4.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed Regulation Amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-14-17 Setback From Watercourse and add a new Section 12-21-17 Riparian Protection and W aterbody Setback Regulations, Vail Town Code, to change the waterbody setbacks, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-0043) 60 min. April 19, 2022 - Page 463 of 569 Applicant:Town of Vail, represented by Pete W adden Planner:Greg Roy Roy goes through a presentation on the history of the proposal and addresses some changes and the criteria for review. He introduces the applicants. Environmental Director Kristen Bertuglia walks through the history of the Gore Creek Strategic Plan. She references the identified sources of impairment of Gore Creek. She talks about the community and stakeholder input in the process, as well as the actions of the Town of Vail in service to the Gore Creek plan. W e’re here today for the last recommended strategy which is regulation. She believes we have arrived at the most appropriate solution and introduces W adden. Watershed Education Coordinator Peter W adden goes through a presentation which addresses the questions the board had from the last meeting. He talks about the goals from the Gore Creek Strategic Plan. He talks about the criteria for an effective regulation. He addresses the effectiveness of setbacks of different widths. He says the centerline setback is inconsistent and ineffective. He talks about how the town has dealt with non-conformity in the past with items like wood shake shingles and the W UI code. He addresses the number of non-conforming properties with the different setback distances. He talks about the actions’ property owners can take. He reviews the public outreach accomplished since the last meeting. He talks about the implications of non-conformity as it relates to the streambank setbacks. He talks about the definition of the ordinary high-water mark (OHW M). Wadden introduces J ason Carey, the Principal River Engineer of River Restoration. Carey talks about his past work and how it relates to Vail. He says the OW HM allows the setbacks to be different in different places. I t is a more logical approach from a healthy river standpoint. He talks about two major federal regulations: FE MA national flood insurance (100-year floodplain), and waters and wetlands defined under the Clean Water Act administer by the Corps of Engineers. He talks about Vail’s goals, and recommends following the FE MA model as a good way to empower local communities. He talks about the F E MA process and how that can be applied at the local level. The goal is to establish a baseline that can be administered and regulated locally. Variances to the line can be requested from the floodplain administrator. He recommends using this model but with two-year elevations. I t would be modeled after the existing process in Vail with the 100 year. Gillette asks if the 2-year mapping has been done. Wadden confirms yes. Gillette asks how the 2-year line relates to the 100-year floodplain? Wadden says the 100-year line is further out than the two years. The 2-year line is based on the two-year average and used to determine the OHW M. Carey says it is a statistical average of historical runoff. Over 30 years of data is evaluated to determine the two-year flood line. April 19, 2022 - Page 464 of 569 Gillette asks if the town is eligible for FE MA flood insurance? Carey confirms. Wadden says the proposal has no impact on the 100-year floodplain. I t is the same process, but the elevations are different. Pratt asks about the letter from Alderman-Bernstein. They are not affected but they raise an interesting point. Wadden clarifies – Pratty says never mind. Gillette asks how are they involved if they’re not affected by the regulation? Roy clarifies that the notification was sent to all property owners in Vail. Pratt asks if their threats were hollow? Wadden says he’s not qualified to comment, but the town attorney is drafting a response. Kurz asks if the proposal has been vetted by the town attorney. Wadden says it has along with the proposed code language. Kjesbo is generally supportive. He asks when issues arise in the future, will this be reviewed by staff? He also references a future project as it relates to stormwater management and impacts. Wadden talks about how other towns handle stormwater impacts. He says we’re not proposing any code changes that would dictate that at this point. Kjesbo says that could be something for future consideration. Gillette asks about the project Kjesbo referenced. He says Public W orks usually keeps good track of that. Kjesbo clarifies the details of the referenced projects. W ith best practices, some will do it, some wont. Wadden says it has been discussed internally, it is something to consider in the future. Roy says in practice when properties are redeveloped around the creek, environmental makes comments on best practices. Phillips says the new proposal puts 26 properties in non-compliance. He asks if they only realize that status during redevelopment. Wadden confirms. Phillips says this doesn’t initiate an immediate hardship on the property. They are non-compliant only in redevelopment. Wadden says there are properties that have remained non-compliant for decades. W hen they rebuild is the only time they must come into compliance. April 19, 2022 - Page 465 of 569 Gillette asks about remodeling a deck that’s non-conforming. Roy says if you start enlarging a deck the conformity would come into play. Gillette asks about different criteria for theoretical deck expansion. Roy explains current regulations. Spence says if a deck is non-conforming, maintenance is the only work that would not require coming into compliance. Gillette asks about non-conforming landscaping. Roy says generally you only have to bring into conformance the area that is non-conforming if that is in the scope of the project. Gillette clarifies if a remodel project is big enough, more compliance issues come into play. Roy says if you’re removing 50% of the GRFA, that comes into play. He talks about other benchmarks like building materials with 500 square foot additions and that there are multiple benchmarks that trigger different requirements. Gillette clarifies that the benchmark here is a voluntary remodel, Roy confirms. Pratt cites a public letter, proposing that you can trade setback distance for increased riparian zone. Wadden says staff has discussed this, and the goal is to create something that is standard and uniform across town. The current regulations can confuse people, there is value in having a standard across town. I t would be difficult to enforce the proposed idea. W e’d run into issues if we were shrinking the distance between setback and riparian zone. Roy says the counsel and public would like more time, so they will be asking for a continuation today. Kurz asks if there are funds available to help homeowners. Wadden says homeowners are not required to do anything that would cost them money. We would ask them to stop mowing within 10’ of the creek. I f the ordinance is adopted by the P E C and Town Council, he will ask for funds to that effect. Kurz asks for public comment. Gillette asks for feedback from the town attorney of any legal ramifications. Roy confirms. Bellm says there are several people online and in the room that would like to speak. Kurz says they will allow three minutes each for public comment and not April 19, 2022 - Page 466 of 569 necessarily engage in back and forth. Linn Brooks is the General Manager of Eagle River Water & Sanitation District. She talks about water sampling done in the past. Gore Creek was significantly impacted, and urbanization was the primary stressor. She talks about the factors that influence this and how Gore Creek was listed on 303D list. She brings up the Urban Runoff group and its actions. The river is getting healthier, and the setback ordinance will allow nature to return the stream to a healthier state. Several years ago the Town Council set the goal of getting Gore Creek off the list and this will require the regulations such as the one here today. For these reasons, E RW S D supports the proposal. J ohn Rediker asks about the definition of the OHW M. How will future drought conditions impact this, and is the calculation always a rolling 30 years? Do we need to define 2 year floodline? Gillette says we’re not answering questions right now but made a note of the questions. Mauriello speaks on behalf of the Evergreen Lodge. He is glad to hear that they’re not asking for a final decision today. He says the proposed language you have has not been fully vetted by Kendra Carberry and hopes they will not take action today. He has three main issues. The first is the OHW M line and where it is located? He doesn’t know if there will be a full dataset to establish this line throughout town. He references the letter to the board, and the methodology of how you determine the OHW M. He says we’re in favor of identifying the OHW M and need to know where that is. He says he is recommending a 20’ setback, but also wonders what a 22’ setback would look like. How it would affect non-conforming structures and acreage. He also brings up the tributaries and says he will submit additional comments in writing. Wendall Porterfield speaks for homeowners in the 11th filing. He has some confusion about how the 2-year floodline is determined and asks for clarification. He also asks about the code language, whether “shall” means has to be. He also asks if projects like deck enlargements can go into the riparian zone? He references the streambank protection ordinance, and whether this would apply to town property equally? He asks if the golf course would be impacted, as they might be one of the primary causes here. Devin Duvall is the District W ildlife Manager for Colorado Parks and W ildlife. He expresses support for the ordinance. He says recent events underscores the need for this type of regulation. He asks the board to look at written comments from his agency. He says riparian zones occupy a small amount of land yet have a disproportionate impact. Most wildlife depends on them, they serve as wildlife corridors and they remove pollutants. Gore Creek is a Gold Medal Fishery, and anglers contribute to Eagle County economy. He reiterates his support for the proposed ordinance. Rodney Linafelter says he is strongly in support of the proposal. As a recreational user of the creek, he has noticed a large amount of non-native sand that is appearing. He used to live on Booth Creek, at one point he was informed he was non-compliant with a structure and landscaping and worked with staff to address this. He references another case he heard where the developers of properties were awarded utilities in exchange for easements. April 19, 2022 - Page 467 of 569 His final question is whether we are addressing Gore Creek or the tributaries as well? Siri Roman is Director of Operations for E RW S D and a resident of Vail. Her children are often in the creek and it means a lot to their family. W hile the ordinance is a takeaway for some, she asks the board to consider the community impacts of a healthier creek. I t will take tough decisions like this to preserve Gore Creek and its tributaries. She says this will be important with increased flooding from climate change and talks about some of the effects of the Mill Creek incident. Carrie Bernstein is an attorney from Alderman Bernstein. She submitted a letter on behalf of her clients; the Delpontes at 3070 Booth Creek Drive. She says the Town of Vail is condemning the portion of his property that is on Gore Creek. I f the case proceeds there is some truth that the client and others will not have creekside property. This buffer will go right up to his building and patio. The impact to private property rights is missing from the discussion today. She says the 10’ zone is a regulatory taking and a significant impact to property rights. She says the Town of Vail should pay compensation for this. J ames Dilzell speaks from Eagle River Watershed Council. The council supports the proposal, and he talks about the importance of the riparian area. He says stormwater runoff is an increasing threat to the river. Property owners often find increased value once the areas are established, this will lessen the degradation of environmental zones. He thinks this is a critical next step. Kurz asks if Wadden would like to comment on questions. Wadden says he will have more detailed data available on the OHW M moving forward. W e are not condemning properties, that is a town-owned parcel. There is no debate about the Delponte property extending to the stream. Pratt asks if he is more than 25’ from the river he is not affected. Wadden says that is correct. The property has not been specifically surveyed but Town maps indicate that the proposed setback lines do not extend as far as Mr. Delponte’s property line. Pratt says he is a homeowner on the creek. He is in favor of the goals but says anything less than 30’ is not as effective so it may be arbitrary numbers at that point. He says he is not a lawyer but thinks creating new non- conforming properties could be considered a taking. He asks staff to consider a system that trades expanded riparian buffer to shrink the building setback. Siebert had these concerns last time regarding takings. But he considered if we don’t do anything, the taking that occurs is that the stream is degraded down the road. There is a benefit the property owners are getting, that should also be considered. Gillette brings up the comment about sand in the river. Wadden says this has been identified by staff. Staff has worked with C D OT April 19, 2022 - Page 468 of 569 to address this, he references the East Vail Exchange, and West Vail Pass Expansion. Black Gore Creek has a healthy bug population with higher sand levels, while Gore Creek has bug populations that do not meet state standards. There are things going on in Vail that impact the creek beyond the traction sand. He says we have to consider the tradeoffs being in a semi-urban environment. Gillette references the comments about the OHW M. Are they moving or fixed metrics? Wadden says they can be updated on a regular timescale, and there is an opportunity for residents to appeal the line. He says increased technology like lidar can help measure this, and streams are dynamic systems. Gillette says we could have more or fewer non-conforming structures in the future. Wadden says if we restore riparian habitat, it’s less likely people will lose land to erosion. W e can’t predict accurately right now if there would be more or less non-conforming properties in the future, streams are always changing. Gillette references a property where 50 feet washed out. Wadden says they haven’t established a timescale for readdressing these numbers. Roy says we don’t have them for the GS A hazards, it could be included in the proposal. Wadden talks about F E MA floodline. Properties that have lost streambank have been permitted to reestablish property they have. Having a line now will establish a baseline of where we are now. Gillette asks if the ordinance discusses reclaiming property. Perez says the ordinance is well intentioned, but there is a lot more that needs to be done to provide clarity. Changing from the centerline method to OHW M we are making things less certain for the community and property owners. There is uncertain language regarding the OHW M. She has concerns about the legal ramifications of this. She asks why we are going from the centerline to the OHW M. She is not sure if it is worth the uncertainty we are potentially creating. Gillette asks why we’re switching to the 2-year floodline? Wadden says equity and uniformity around town are the primary motivations. I t creates a more uniform setback rather than the inconsistency of the centerline. Gillette asks about the two methods and if the centerline moves? Wadden says it does change. The OHW M is sensitive to bank changes and erosion. Perez asks if the OHW M changes every two years? April 19, 2022 - Page 469 of 569 Wadden says it doesn’t change every two years. The 30-year dataset determines the average of the highest waterline in a two-year period. W e could set a timeline to change these numbers as appropriate. Gillette asks when going from the centerline to 2-year high water mark is it harder to determine. I t seems they are equally difficult to determine. Wadden says it is easier to determine the high-water mark. The dataset will be made available soon. Gillette says that dataset should be produced where the public can react to it before the final meeting. Phillips says the centerline of the river has changed significantly. From a consistency standpoint, the OHW M moves less than the centerline. Gillette asks if redevelopment uses off a map that exists. Phillips asks how old is the current map? Wadden is not sure, it could be around 2002. Kjesbo asks about the 2-year high water mark calculation. Wadden clarifies. Gillette asks for further clarification on the calculation. Carey says it is a statistical analysis of flows that happen every year. Kjesbo would like clarification for the board and for the public as well. Carey says the 2-year floodline is analogous to the 100-year floodline. Perez is confused about the calculation like the other board members. She doesn’t understand the 2-year floodline methodology and would like further clarification. Gillette says it is important how often the map is updated. Perez asks if that is true of the centerline and when it was updated. Wadden confirms, says it was last updated a couple decades ago. People could hire a wetlands specialist as part of an appeal of the elevation-based baseline. Perez asks how much this would cost? Wadden says the cost of a surveyor ’s time. Perez says it is shifting the burden to a homeowner. Gillette asks if you can appeal the 100-year marks today? Carey says you can through an involved process. I n order to regulate, Vail needs a baseline to regulate against, which is what this system does. April 19, 2022 - Page 470 of 569 Gillette asks if you can appeal the setbacks of the centerline right now? Wadden thinks you can have them surveyed Pratt says it is similar to the hazard’s maps, an engineer or surveyor can look at the site. Phillips says we all support this effort, but we want to establish standards that are discernable to the public. He says an updated centerline map would help. I t’s important to get a little more data, otherwise we’re spinning our wheels. He says we need to clarify some things for property owners and the town. Gillette asks if the centerline was resurveyed? Wadden says it was not as part of that process, and that he will provide the OHW M dataset. He thanks for board for feedback as the process is making a for a better ordinance. Phillips says the group needs to do due diligence on this. Pratt says he had to survey when he his property went right next to a setback line. Mauriello says the streambank setbacks are happening in real time because the surveyors do it as part of an application. I t has always been incumbent upon property owners to provide that data in real time. There is no regular updating of hazard maps. The only updates he is aware of is when the applicant comes in to apply for such. Gillette asks if the OHW M can be identified visually, why is it a confusing metric? Mauriello says he’s been advocating for surveyors doing it by visual inspection. He wants to allow both methodologies, and the least restrictive on the property owner should be the one that is used. Phillips is not sure that’s a great tradeoff. He says we’re also trying to protect the environmental health of the river. Mauriello suggests increasing the no-mow zone. He says to think about what non-conforming status has done to the entirety of West Vail. People don’t want to redevelop and lose what they have. Gillette asks for W adden’s response. Wadden says the maps do not have regulatory sway. Both methods need to be surveyed on the ground. The elevations establish a baseline that make it easier for surveyors. The method Mauriello referred to is ecologically based. Staff believes the elevation method is more effective as a regulation because it is not open to debate. There is still an opportunity for subjectivity in the visual method. An elevations-based baseline leaves less open for debate. Gillette asks how hard is the appeals process? Wadden says it would go to the Town Council like the hazard maps. April 19, 2022 - Page 471 of 569 Gillette asks if the appeals can come to the P E C? Roy says the proposed language mimics the appeals process for the hazard maps. Gillette says it should be as simple as delineating your wetlands. Spence says the difference is who has adopted the maps. I f we don’t have an adopted map, we would have a different process. Gillette says he is trying to get the right process. Roy says we would need something that is adopted by Town Council. Wadden says the town would have to pay to have wetlands delineations done. I t is much less labor intensive to adopt lidar. Gillette says we don’t have to do it like the hazard maps. Let’s establish a baseline, and if not, they can hire a professional. Gillette says appealing to the town council is not an easy process. Phillips says it should not be easy, it should be an elevated process. Ultimately it falls on council; they adopt the maps we are passing this on for recommendation. Gillette says you are getting a better product if you get eyes on the ground. Phillips asks are we not doing that already? Wadden says what they’ve done is based on stream cross-sections with interpolated data in between. Perez says we don’t have language to allow people to appeal? Wadden says they do, Roy says it is in Subsection E of the proposal. Kurz wants to bring the debate to a close. The robust discussion shows that the protection of Gore Creek and tributaries is a major issue we need to address. I t will not be a perfect solution for everybody, but it’s important to continue moving forward. He wants time to allow staff to address these concerns. Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to November 22, 2021. Reid Phillips seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.5.A request for review of a Minor Subdivision, pursuant to Section 13-4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to adjust property lines in the vicinity of Lots 14 and 15, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 6, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-0050) The applicant has requested this item be tabled November 22, 2021. 2 min. Applicant:Mexamer Forest Road L L C, represented by K H W ebb Architects Planner:J onathan Spence Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to November 22, 2021. Brian Gillette seconded April 19, 2022 - Page 472 of 569 the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.6.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for the rezoning of a portion of Lot 15, Block 1, Vail Village Filing (826 Forest Road) from Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential (P S) to Outdoor Recreation (OR) and to zone a portion of the Forest Road ROW to Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential (P S) and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-0051) The applicant has requested this item be tabled November 22, 2021. 2 min. Applicant:Mexamer Forest Road L L C, represented by K H W ebb Architects Planner:J onathan Spence Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to November 22, 2021. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.7.A request for the review of a Variance from Section 12-21-12, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance from the maximum percent of lot covered by driveways and surface parking, in accordance with the provision of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, located at 816/826 Forest Road / Lots 14/15, Block 1, Vail Village Filing No. 6 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21- 0045) The applicant has requested this item be tabled November 22, 2021. 2 min. Applicant:Mexamer Forest Road L L C, represented by K H W ebb Architects Planner:J onathan Spence Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to November 22, 2021. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.8.A request for the review of a Variance from Section 12-21-12, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance from the maximum percent of lot covered by driveways and surface parking, in accordance with the provision of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, located at 826 Forest Road/Lot 15, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 6 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-0048) The applicant has requested this item be tabled November 22, 2021. 2 min. Applicant:Mexamer Forest Road L L C, represented by K H W ebb Architects Planner:J onathan Spence Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to November 22, 2021. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 3.Approval of Minutes 3.1.October 11, 2021 P E C Results April 19, 2022 - Page 473 of 569 Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 4.Adjournment Rollie Kjesbo moved to adjourn. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspec tion during regular offic e hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site vis its that prec ede the public hearing in the Tow n of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to c hange, and c annot be relied upon to determine at w hat time the Planning and Environmental Commission w ill c onsider an item. Please c all (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department April 19, 2022 - Page 474 of 569 P L ANNI NG AND E NV I RO NM E NTAL C O M M IS S IO N J anuary 24, 2022, 1:00 P M Virtual on Zoom 75 S . Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 1.Call to Order 1.1.Register in advance for this webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/W N_QJ ybkNzgQ2eMGMYxH6F E0g After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. 1.2.Attendance Present: Ludwig Kurz (via phone), J enn Bruno, Brian Gillette, Rollie Kjesbo, Karen Perez, Henry Pratt, Reid Phillips (departed at 4:15pm) Absent: None 2.Executive Session 2.1.C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(b) - to have a conference with the Town Attorney to receive legal advice on specific legal questions regarding proposed code amendments. 10 min. No action as a result of executive session. 3.Main Agenda 3.1.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed Regulation Amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-14-17 Setback From Watercourse and add a new Section 12-21-17 Riparian Protection and W aterbody Setback Regulations, Vail Town Code, to change the waterbody setbacks, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-0043) 90 min. Applicant:Town of Vail, represented by Pete W adden Planner:Greg Roy Karen Perez calls meeting back to order. All members other than Ludwig Kurz are present. Perez says information germane to the executive session was not present in the session. Therefore, the board has decided to hear item 3.1 today but not reach a final decision due to this fact. Pratt and Bruno agree. Planner Roy introduces the proposal. Water Quality Education Coordinator Peter Wadden gives a presentation on the proposal. He talks about the strategic plan and town efforts along the river in the past. He talks about the process of reaching the proposed April 19, 2022 - Page 475 of 569 ordinance. Gillette asks about the science behind the 25’ setback. Wadden says it comes from the 2008 Planners Guide to W etland Buffers. Gillette asks if this is from the Environmental Law I nstitute. Wadden confirms. Wadden continues presentation. He talks about the community input process. He talks about the criteria for an effective regulation and the goals of an effective regulation. Gillette says he wants elaboration on moving from the center line to high- water mark setback. Wadden says this will be addressed in presentation. W adden talks about the number of non-conforming properties in town. He talks about past code changes, non-conforming properties in town, and the grandfathering process. The proposed code language will increase the number of non- conforming properties from 102 to 128. He says non-conforming status has not impacted home insurance rates. Perez asks if multifamily structures were included as they are usually under commercial insurance. She believes this will increase the commercial liability, asks if Wadden can clarify that point. Wadden says he will follow up. He talks about Town Code 12-18-19 Restoration. Gillette and Perez talk about the challenges of providing restoration within one year per non-conforming code section (12-18-19). Bruno agrees, says we need to give people more time. Gillette says we should move forward with the process on getting that language changed. Wadden talks about the reasoning for using the Ordinary High-W ater Line (OHW L). A centerline-based setback is not effective at places where the stream is widest, where the setback is within the waterway. Wadden introduces Bill Hoblitzell with Lotic Hydrological. Hoblitzell gives a presentation about the difference between the Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHW M) and the Ordinary High Water Line (OHW L), as well as the 2-year flood line. He defines the 2-year flood line in hydrological terms. He talks about the 2-year flood, 10-year flood, and 100-year flood measurements for planning and engineering purposes. He talks the process for going from flow rates to inundation maps for planning. Gillette asks about creating cross-sections at Gore Creek as well as the different between the High-W ater Mark and the 2-year flood line. Hoblitzell explains why the 2-year flood line is a great proxy for the active stream channel boundary. He defines bankfull flows, they form the physical April 19, 2022 - Page 476 of 569 marks on the side of the bank. He talks about the US Army Corps of Engineers definition for the OHW M as well as the limitations of the measure. Hoblitzell says the 2-year flood elevation is a good objective baseline. Field surveying will get you a bunch of different elevations from different people. He talks about the safety benefits for larger setbacks. Pratt asks about difference between the Army Corps’ OHW M method and the OHW L. Hoblitzell says the OHW M is based on physical indicators in field surveys. Wadden adds that both measures try and determine the elevation where the stream fills it banks. Gillette says the lines now are a computer simulation, but the proposed ordinance allows homeowners to do a visual survey for the appeals process. Wadden says the OHW L is the best baseline for regulation. He acknowledges that there will be instances where a homeowner can appeal the OHW L to the Planning and Environmental Commission (P E C) by enlisting a qualified professional. Gillette asks if the previous version of the proposal had appeals going to Town Council. Wadden says this was amended and the recent version has the P E C as reviewing body for this kind of appeal. Gillette asks if currently staff cannot make a determination is that correct? Wadden says right now the buck falls to the property owner and surveyor to provide that data. Gillette questions the additional level of review. Wadden says the higher level of review would only kick in during an appeal. Pratt says the proposed ordinance requires a letter from the Army Corps for the appeal. W hy can’t we just rely on the surveyor? Wadden says that is why staff is recommending the OHW L over OHW M. He talks about the subjectivity involved in OHW M determinations. A hired consultant needs to have their lines verified by the Army Corps. Perez asks for clarification between the OHW L and OHW M. Wadden talks about the methodology for determining both measures. Gillette asks about the appeal process, is that using statistical modeling or observation? Wadden says as proposed the town would adopt a series of elevations along the stream based on the OHW L. An applicant could hire a consultant to conduct a OHW M study as part of the appeals process. Perez asks how often the OW HL is recalculated. April 19, 2022 - Page 477 of 569 Wadden says the Town Council can choose to update it when they feel it’s time. Perez asks for clarification about the 2-year floodline. Hoblitzell clarifies the timeframe for change, it is about 30 years for significant change to occur. Gillette asks what the P E C is reviewing during the proposed appeal process? He not qualified to review these, could staff review these appeals? Wadden says the appeals would come to the P E C with a staff recommendation. This is a large enough decision that it rises to a town commission. Wadden continues presentation. The OHW M is an Army Corps methodology that uses field indicators. The OHW L is a FE MA method. The ordinance proposes that the OHW L is used for the baseline and the OHW M for appeals. He talks about the method for finding the centerline-based setback. He talks about the method for determining the OHW L in the proposal. Gillette asks what type of professional can determine the high-water mark. Wadden says it would be a qualified professional. Gillette asks if we want to strengthen that language. Wadden says staff didn’t want to limit the number of people qualified to do this. Perez references the proposed appeal language. W hy are we using the OHW M if it is not a reliable standard as presented? Wadden says the method has drawbacks, but neither model is perfect. The best outcome is to incorporate data from both methods and allow applicants to bring that data into the equation. Additionally, it is important to have the Army Corps verify that data. Gillette asks about the process for verification from the Army Corps. Wadden says there is a regional office, they typically verify in three to six weeks in the summer months. They provide a letter that endorses or doesn’t endorse the surveyor ’s line. Bruno asks about the setbacks of neighboring communities. W hich method do they use? Wadden says it varies, some still use the centerline method. Most recently adopted setbacks have used the OHW L as the basis. Pratt asks about challenging the OHW L. Could I get a surveyor to remap the elevations for the OHW L and get new cross sections? Wadden clarifies could a property owner get specific cross sections for their property. April 19, 2022 - Page 478 of 569 Hoblitzell says the cross-section are used to determine the elevations. I t may be more precise, it’s unlikely it will move the elevation towards or from the stream. Pratt asks if it will give you a different line. Hoblitzell says the engineering models will get a similar line even across different computer programs. Wadden gives a case study on Middle Creek. Two qualified wetland scientists found different delineations using the OHW M methodology. Gillette asks if they’re on same side of stream. Wadden confirms. The difference here is why Staff recommends that the Army Corps verify the lines for appeals. Perez asks if the Army Corps will verify these delineations. Wadden says we have not done that yet, but we could, the Corps could do it in the spring. Phillips asks about the appeal language, and references Aspen’s appeal language. He suggests that the language should require a licensed professional for the appeal. W e can clean up that portion of language of who can make the new determination. He likes the option of an appeal process. He has no problem with the P E C reviewing this because it is elevated to that level. Wadden says he will follow up on that. Gillette asks if the Army Corps has a stipulation on who has to prepare the survey that they review. Wadden says he can look further into it. Gillette says the town language should be congruent with the Corps requirements. Perez references public comment, a memo from Mauriello Planning Group regarding a grandfathering provision. Has staff reviewed this? Wadden says an applicant will need a completed application submitted before the code changes, the laws currently in effect will apply. Gillette disagrees with this. He talks about his past experience; we don’t give people enough time. There should always be some sort of waiting period where people can plan ahead for changes. Wadden says he understand the sentiment. He will need to speak to the town attorney regarding that process. Perez says there is specific language on grandfathering. Wadden says staff opinion is that there should not be. April 19, 2022 - Page 479 of 569 Gillette disagrees and thinks that there should be a grandfathering clause. Like at the Evergreen, these projects take years to plan, there needs to be an allowance. Planning Manager Spence says you could delay the date of enactment. However, we can’t go by applicants claiming maybe they’re thinking about developing, that’s not a legal standard. There’s no grandfathering of properties that might be considered. Pratt agrees and recommends picking a deferred implementation date, maybe J anuary 1, 2023. Gillette wants to keep looking at it and maybe get more public comment. Wadden references images of existing and proposed setbacks in relation to the Evergreen Lodge Gillette says the diagram is not clear without a scale. Phillips says the appeal process is still available to applicants. He doesn’t see a whole lot of difference between the existing and proposed in the images. He says at some point we have to draw a line that allows us to keep the river healthy. I f we keep kicking the can, it doesn’t help us protect one of our greatest assets. I f we continue to allow variances, I don’t think we’re doing much as a commission. Phillips says if the Army Corps has a certain threshold, that is theirs not ours. I f we’re requesting their verification then this is included in their verification, we don’t need that exact language. He likes the fact that they will ask for the Corps verification and put the burden on the homeowners to show evidence. He says there are certain protections that we need to put into place. Gillette says an appeal on the lines may be different than the hardship proposed on the hotel. The grandfathering or the delay is a better tool to deal with these issues. Phillips has no problem with a delay. He doesn’t want to see grandfathering of unverified projects. He agrees with Pratt in terms of delaying the ordinance. Perez says we should continue moving through the Staff presentation. Wadden reiterates the reasons for changing the setback, including the direction from the Gore Creek Strategic Plan. He reiterates why staff is recommending the 25’ building setback from the OHW L. He says these actions could help get Gore Creek off the 303D list of impaired waterways. Perez asks for public comment. Kurz returns. He was listening to the presentation. He would like to ask Perez to continue running the meeting since he does not have video. He says the whole issue is being taken seriously by everybody on the board and community. He says staff is doing an amazing job with presenting the materials. He agrees with comments that Phillips made, we’re losing site a little bit of what we’re trying to do to protect the creek. W e get caught up in April 19, 2022 - Page 480 of 569 individual issues and not looking at protecting the asset that is the creek. Perez asks for a copy of the two presentations. She asks for public comment. She says it is an opportunity for comments but not a question and answer or debate session. Gillette asks if the public can receive these presentations. Bellm says they can be added to the P E C webpage. Dominic Mauriello speaks on behalf of the Evergreen Lodge owners. He talks about the work done by Heather Huston on Mill Creek and that they would have appreciated the opportunity to look at that with the town. The data displayed by the town regarding the setbacks in that area is probably not accurate. He applauds the goals of the proposal and doesn’t have issues with 10 foot no mow area. He references his letter to the P E C and asks what are the things that are allowed within the setback. He says the assumption being made is that the 2-year flood is the accurate measure to be using. He says we need to look at the areas throughout town, the 1.5-year measure might be more accurate for this proposal. The problem is the implementation of this, 5 feet matters, it is not trivial to some people. The point of the grandfathering is what Pratt suggested, giving people time to get their applications in before the changes. He talks about the two methodologies, there should be an allowance that you can go out there and have everyone agree on the marking of the line. He says it would be a good idea to look at the current GI S maps. J essica Hernreich is a Vail Village landowner and citizen. She says if you change the setbacks without a grandfathering clause you are setting up some property owners for failure because they were built under the previous regulations. She would also like to know more about how often the high water line is changed or addressed. How is that reconciled with the purchasing of water rights for snowmaking with Vail Resorts? Wendell Porterfield appears on behalf of property owners in the 11th filing. He wants clarification on how the OHW L is established. W ill the town be required to revisit the dataset used to determine the OHW L? Regarding the setbacks, who makes determination on structures that lawfully exist on a certain date? Blondie Vucich is an East Vail resident of 30 years. She says at one point the creek had gold medal fishing status. Landscaping practices have contributed to the degradation of the creek. The Vucich family reinstituted riparian habitat on their property, they no longer mow or fertilize. The proposed setbacks and moderation are not unreasonable, living here requires coexisting with ecosystems. Perez says the board has read a lot of written public comment that was submitted. Blondie Vucich says this type of shared information is really helpful and not everyone goes back to the record to review the comments. Dan J ohnson is General Manager at the Grand Hyatt Vail. He is thankful for the thorough proposal and the concern they have is that Gore Creek is their front yard. They have been good stewards over the years, they respect the April 19, 2022 - Page 481 of 569 no-mow zone. The conversation about a deferred enactment and defining intent to develop should receive more consideration. Gillette asks what timeframe do you think is appropriate? As a community member how many months do you think is appropriate? J ohnson says four to six months may be appropriate for their projects. I t should be more than 90 days; it also includes the availability of purveyors. Len W right is a Vail resident and Planning and W ater Resources Manager at Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. He thinks staff has done a phenomenal job at addressing the complex topics. He says enhancing riparian vegetation has the benefit of shading and better water temperatures. The OHW L model is deterministic so you get the same answer every time, his advice from a policy perspective is to be objective as possible. He advocates for a fixed objective line, he cautions that a F E MA floodplain model is different than the hydrology of a 2-year model, and advocates for a more detailed modeling survey. Staff addressed the horizontal equity issue but should also consider the vertical equity and the steepness of the banks. I n terms of variances and appeals it would be good to consider locations where you could get closer to the stream based on the vertical height. Gillette asks if you’re suggesting that appeals should not use the Army Corps method? Wright says yes, the subjective piece changes season to season and expert to expert. The real question is the appropriate flow rate to be used. He doesn’t want to get in a situation where you pick your expert, would rather be objective and have it defined from the Town’s perspective Gillette asks where the number should lie. Wright would step back from an opinion on that. He says climate change is also changing the statistics which are referenced. The frequency of intense events is changing. Wayne Forman is an attorney representing 1 W illow Bridge Road. They want more time to evaluate the proposal. The 10’ no mow zone is far less of a concern than the 25’ setback that would put the building in non-conforming status. Tom Hopkins lives on the creek in East Vail. He fears a 25’ setback won’t do much for the environment, it’s a minimal aspiration. Are there stretches along the creek where a bigger setback could be accommodated, the golf course for instance. And if we can do that, let’s take the opportunity before there is a lot of development. Perez asks if we could see how that could impact some of those areas. Richard Strauss is from Arvada and visits Gore Creek and Eagle River for flyfishing. He references his written comments and says the OHW M is the line between public and private lands. He recommends the book “Public Rights on Rivers.” He says that public rights should also be considered. Perez says his forum is now to discuss these issues. She asks if there is anything in particular regarding public or private rights that he would like to reference. April 19, 2022 - Page 482 of 569 Strauss suggests the book and says there are a lot of competing issues regarding water rights. Perez asks about the letter sent by Strauss, to make sure that the board receives his letter. Gillette says this is a legislative item, not a quasi-judicial item. The public is allowed to lobby the P E C, but they need to debate in a public forum. Heather Houston speaks from Birch Ecology. She wants to clarify the mapping they did in the field. She says they did do a good job of representing the high-water mark, it’s important to note that there is a new culvert upstream. The photos shown in the presentation were in an anomalous area. I t is not rocket science to see where there is a distinct change in vegetation. They have to look closely at the banks on both sides, and snow complicates the interpretation. She says the discrepancies shown in the presentation were based on old data. She wanted to provide more context to that section. Gillette asks if she can explain the process with the Army Corps verification. Houston says it’s a wetland delineation report, a verification goes to the bottom of their stack. I t is rare for them to visit delineations these days. They process things more quickly with a wetland permit application, a straight delineation can take some time, she had a process that took more than six months. The three to six weeks timeframe is not consistent with her experience. Gillette asks how she would value the verification. Houston says it depends on the applicant, and the level of scrutiny the Corp applies. Gillette asks what kind of consultant has the expertise to dispute the line. Houston says ecologists do wetlands delineations and there is no one measure you have to look at everything. Gillette asks what other kinds of ecologists? Houston says surveyors have asked her for advice, most of the time its fairly obvious, there’s a distinct change in vegetation and topography. Hydrologists, ecologists, wetland scientists, and surveyors can do the work. She doesn’t think the OHW M is guesstimating, it is a direct measurement in the field. The modeling method is based on the quality of the inputs. Lidar data may or may not be accurate enough for an individual property. Perez asks for Houston to be promoted to be able to share some images on her screen. Houston shows a photo of the bank and explains the placement of her flags. Gillette asks does this accurately depict the 2-year floodplain. Houston says no, the 2-year floodplain is not equal to the OHW M in a place like Vail. The 1.5-year measurement might be more equivalent. April 19, 2022 - Page 483 of 569 Gillette says it’s an important thing to resolve, the closer we can get the line to observation is important. We want to lower the discrepancy down from what you see to what we map. Houston says Black Creek Hydrology agrees on the 1.5-year line. I nstead of speculating what the 2-year line is we should go out and measure it on the ground. She doesn’t feel it is imprecise to measure on the ground. Gillette asks about the cost of the measuring. Houston says depending on the project and the size of the property it may be around $2,000. Pratt clarifies the distance between the 2-year statistical average and the bankfull measurement. Houston says you would expect to see the difference between the 2-year line and the OHW M, as shown in the presentation. Depending on the verticality of the bank, the difference between the 2-year line and OHW M varies. She provides additional examples in photographs. Gillette thanks Houston for the explanation. Hoblitzell reiterates that the benefit of the 2-year line is that it is not typically going to be outside of the bank. I t provides a safety margin that benefits the stream. By picking a conservative flow (2-year) over 1.5 year were putting our intent on the side of stream health, the errors fall towards that side. Russ Craney is the General Manager of Vail Residences at Cascade Village. All homeowners are in favor of the riparian zone proposal but are concerned about the 25’ setback as it pertains to decks and other features. I s there some give and take, can a two-story deck encroachment be offset by a larger riparian zone? Regarding the suggested six month window for a Design Review Board (D RB) submittal, he would suggest closer to a nine month window. J ason Carey is a Principal Engineer at River Restoration and consultant to the Town of Vail. He wants to thank everyone for consideration on this nuanced issue. He says everyone’s comments are generally correct because it’s a dynamic system. He encourages the Town to set up a system that can be regulated and managed by the staff. The task is not to fix a dynamic system but set up a way to regulate and manage that. Staff has done an admirable job of that. Tom Vucich is an East Vail resident and wants to support the comments of Phillips and Kurz. He wants to keep the big picture here and not get burdened down with the minutia of specific properties. He hopes that the P E C will support the effort of preserving the creek. J essica Hernreich says that as a resident in the village, she would appreciate if more consideration could be given to the appeals process which sounds daunting in the given timeframe. Gillette asks about the appropriate timeframe for delaying the enactment. April 19, 2022 - Page 484 of 569 Dominic Mauriello likes the idea of delaying until the end of the year. W e’ve had the current setback for 50 years and another nine months isn’t going to make a difference. A minimum could be 120 days, but until the end of the year could be good. Another thing to think about is separating the core area from other areas of town. Perez talks about her experience on the Denver Planning Board. She says the delay there was 11-12 months but that was for rewriting the entire zoning code, not one section. She says until the end of the year might be appropriate in this case. She says it is a complicated issue and would recommend that form based zoning could be applied. She says the P E C needs to balance environmental and planning considerations. Bruno says no one has had issues with the no-mow zone. W e need to enforce this regulation. She would like to reevaluate 1.5 versus 2-year lines and rethink if the Corps of Engineers is the best backup. A more detailed model should be researched. She has no issues with delaying the adoption of this and thinks that the setbacks should be universal and not have different distances in different zones. Gillette is more comfortable with the 2-year line given that it is conservative. He thinks we should take the Corps verification off the appeals process and should trust the ecologists. People didn’t get into the business to cheat it, they got into the business because they care. Kjesbo agrees with Bruno and Gillette. He agrees on the 2-year line and not needing the Corps verification. He also agrees with delaying implementation and not grandfathering projects. He also agrees 25’ is the minimum setback that should be considered. Gillette agrees with Kjesbo on using mapping for the high-water line and using the surveying method for appeals. Pratt brings up the setbacks for tributaries and would like to hear more discussion on that. He doesn’t want the Army Corps involved in appeals. He is in favor of setbacks and no-mow zone as long as we don’t impact too many people negatively. Kurz agrees on the 2-year line as well as on delaying the implementation but not for too long. He doesn’t want to look at the core areas any different than other areas as would defeat some of the purpose we’re trying to accomplish here. He says the discussion is benefitting the community. Perez is not convinced the OHW L is the right measurement. She is concerned about creating more non-conforming properties. She thinks the current system works fine and is clear. One of the board’s jobs is to make things clear, not more confusing. W e haven’t gotten to the other Takings concerns and if the proposal is clear it will be more easily enforceable. She is also in favor of the no-mow zone. Gillette says we need to give staff direction. Can we agree on delaying implementation to the end of the year? Kurz would prefer that was a shorter time. Bruno says we’ve waited 49 years to fix this, a few extra months won’t hurt. I t is the fair thing to do to not blindside people. This is a long-term plan and April 19, 2022 - Page 485 of 569 J anuary 1, 2023 is a fair date and gets us to our goal. Gillette is also in support of the High-Water Line, with an appeals process. Bruno likes the 2-year line but would like to see if the Army Corps can give a better timeframe on their process. Gillette asks if staff needs clarification on additional items. Wadden lists board comments: who is qualified to perform appeals using the OHW M as well as insurance of multi-family properties and the implications of non-conformity. Perez clarifies Phillips had a family event and had to leave. She says any determinations should include his feedback. Kurz suggests tabling for a month to give staff time for the requested information. Gillette asks for staff input. Wadden recommends returning at the next meeting. Karen Perez moved to table to February 14, 2022. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent:(1)Phillips 4.I nformational Update 4.1.Update on the implementation of the West Vail Master Plan. 30 min. Applicant:Town of Vail Planner:Matt Gennett 5.Approval of Minutes 5.1.J anuary 10, 2022 P E C Results Perez has a correction to the minutes from J anuary 10th. She stated the memo wasn't included in the packet, not that should couldn't read the item in the packet.Ludwig Kurz moved to approve as amended.. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent:(1)Phillips 6.Adjournment The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspec tion during regular offic e hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site vis its that prec ede the public hearing in the Tow n of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to c hange, and c annot be relied upon to determine at w hat time the Planning and Environmental Commission w ill c onsider an item. Please c all (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department April 19, 2022 - Page 486 of 569 P L ANNI NG AND E NV I RO NM E NTAL C O M M IS S IO N F ebruary 14, 2022, 1:00 P M Town Council Chambers and Virtual on Zoom 75 S . Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 1.Call to Order 1.1.Register in advance for this webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/W N_tX L0eRs9QKieoSkwg888J w After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. 1.2.Attendance Present: Ludwig Kurz, Brian Gillette, Rollie Kjesbo, Karen Perez, J enn Bruno, Reid Phillips, Henry Pratt Absent: None 2.Executive Session 2.1.C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(b) - to have a conference with the Town Attorney to receive legal advice on specific legal questions regarding proposed code amendments. 15 min. 3.Main Agenda 3.1.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed Regulation Amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-14-17 Setback From Watercourse and add a new Section 12-21-17 Riparian Protection and W aterbody Setback Regulations, Vail Town Code, to change the waterbody setbacks, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-0043) 60 min. Applicant:Town of Vail, represented by Pete W adden Planner:Greg Roy Peter W adden, the Watershed Education Coordinator begins presentation. He reviews the changes made to the proposal since J anuary 24th. He talks about the Gore Creek Strategic Plan. He mentions that a healthy creek depends on healthy riparian habitat. He talks about the community input process. He talks about the number of non-conforming properties in town under various scenarios. Under the 25-foot setback, there would be an increase of about 5% of non-conforming properties Perez asks if he is counting structures or number of units? Wadden says structures. April 19, 2022 - Page 487 of 569 Perez confirms the number of units could be higher than the number of structures. Wadden says the current numbers are comparing existing non-conforming structures against conditions under the proposed language. Perez wants to be clear that we’re talking structures not units. Phillips asks about properties on Mill Creek, Booth Creek and Buffehr Creek. Wadden says this includes Gore Creek and its tributaries. Wadden did not find anything that insurance rates would be impacted by non-conformity for multi-family and commercial properties. I nsurance agents don’t ask if a property is non-conforming when setting the rate for a policy. Wadden talks about Town Code 12-18-9, Restoration. Commissioners had expressed concern about the one-year period here. Staff did not feel it was appropriate to address this code language as part of this proposal. Gillette and Perez say this needs to change before code goes into effect. Spence says that can be part of the Planning and Environmental Commission’s (P E C) recommendation to Town Council. Pratt asks if this period can be extended. Spence says that is correct, it hasn’t been a regulatory concern in his time at the town. Perez says it could be an issue with a multi-family building, the one-year period will be deficient for that process. Spence says that can be included in any recommendations to Town Council. Bruno recommends extending the time period to 15-months in the recommendation. Wadden says the effective date of the ordinance can also be included in the recommendation. Gillette thought it would be part of the ordinance. Pratt says this applies to all fire damage; the town has been accommodating with this process and it doesn’t need to be changed for the ordinance today. Phillips feels this issue is separate from the ordinance we’re considering today. Spence says the key word is commenced in the language. Kjesbo clarifies that the Town will work with the owners in these cases. Phillips asks if cleaning up is part of that commencement. April 19, 2022 - Page 488 of 569 Perez asks where that is defined. Spence says it is a working policy. Wadden says they would prefer that conversation is a separate discussion and included outside the language of this ordinance. Wadden and staff see no reason not to delay the effective date of the ordinance. On the positive side it would give property owners additional time to prepare for this ordinance. On the negative side, it would likely create additional non-conforming properties near waterways before the new regulations go into effect. Perez asks if the presentation today was included in the packet? Wadden says it was not. Spence says delayed implementation could be included in the recommendation that the P E C forwards. I t is often that the formal ordinance isn’t completed until prior to Council. He says you’re reviewing the changes to the code not the ordinance itself. Wadden clarifies that the Eagle County setback is 75 feet from the bank and the Environmental Protection Agency recommended setback is 100 ft from the bank. He reviews the methodology for the Ordinary High-W ater Mark (OHW M) and the Two Year Floodline (TY F L). He talks about the benefits and drawbacks of each method. The data the town is proposing to use was put together by River Restoration. The benefit of the TY FL is that it is an objective line from which to regulate. Gillette asks about a creekside project and says a survey will include both of those numbers. W hen it comes down to it, you’ll always have a survey, whichever one number benefits them is the one they’ll use. He thinks we’ve spent too much time on this. Pratt thought that the Army Corps method only applies if you want to appeal the TY F L. Wadden says that is correct. Gillette says we almost get a worse product by including this language in the ordinance because applicants will take the better deal. Wadden says ease of enforcement and recognition is the greatest benefit of the objective line. Gillette says the modeling was necessary to craft the ordinance but maybe not to include in the ordinance. Phillips asks how you establish a usable baseline without using one of these methods. Wadden says that is why staff is recommending this approach, it creates a baseline for the regulation. April 19, 2022 - Page 489 of 569 Phillips says in the last meeting there was a big back and forth about which method to go with. He appreciates that staff is recommending one with an appeals process. At some point we have to back up our setback baseline. Wadden says staff’s opinions is that we should have a baseline to regulate from, in this case the TY FL. He says the OHW M methodology would have been more expensive to apply to the whole town. Phillips clarifies that we backed off the 1.5-year floodline. None of the experts actually said that the 2 year floodline benefitted the river more than the 1.5 year floodline. Wadden talks about the appeals process. W hat was hanged from last time is that the property owner would not need their survey verified by the Army Corps. Staff will review these submissions. Gillette asks about the general variance process. He talks about a scenario of a property accessed by a bridge across a creek, which is not allowed in the ordinance. Spence says that could be addressed in a variance process. Wadden talks about the submittal requirements for an appeal. Gillette asks about this specific language in the ordinance right now. Wadden says this was not currently included but will be included at an administrative level. Perez asks for clarification. Wadden says the decision on submittal requirements would be decided at administrative level but the P E C not staff would have the final review. Perez says she is uncomfortable that there are not currently criteria for the P E C review. W hat are their review criteria? Gillette brings up an example. I f a surveyor says this is the line, who are we to say no. He thinks it should be a staff review that could be appealed to the P E C. Perez says this ordinance is incomplete without that review criteria. Spence says it would be similar to other processes, staff accepts documents from a qualified professional with a stamp. However, it does have to go to a governing body. Perez reiterates she would like the review criteria included. Spence says the process is more of a correction than an appeal. Perez says legally it has to be appealed. Spence says it is similar to the other appeals process. Wadden says that the method would have to follow the Army Corps April 19, 2022 - Page 490 of 569 methodology. Gillette asks what is a shapefile? Wadden says it is a GI S file that shows location of the lines in question. Spence says it allows staff to update the map layer. Gillette asks if the GI S map will be updated based on each property that comes back with data. Wadden confirms. He reiterates why staff is recommending a 25 foot setback. He talks about setbacks in neighboring communities. Bruno asks when the current setback was implemented in Eagle County. Wadden says 2006. Town studies show the 25 foot setback best approximates existing setbacks without reducing them. He addresses the 1.5 vs 2-year flood elevation. The 2 year floodline is a slightly more conservative near average baseline. I n places where the bank is steepest, the difference between the two is very small. I n places where the bank is wider, it increases. Wadden asks why change setbacks from 1976? The Gore Creek Strategic Plan instructs staff to do so. Existing setbacks have been ineffective in protecting Gore Creek. Centerline setbacks are also inequitable. Vail has changed a lot in 50 years, that can be addressed through changing regulations. Gillette talks about letter from Berkshire College. W hy didn’t we adopt those items? Wadden says there is an item to allow for control of noxious weeds. Gillette references other items in letter. Wadden says the best way to address invasive species was allowing property owners to remove those species listed as noxious weeds. Gillette asks about the uses of walkways, pools, patios. Perez references the current language in the code. Wadden says they tried to match it to the existing language regarding what is allowed in setbacks. Spence clarifies the existing language in Town Code 14-10-4. Gillette asks if the ordinance would be better off referencing Town Code 14- 10-4. Spence says there was community concern about that. Gillette says we might not want driveways and parking in this setback. Kjesbo likes the idea of relating the ordinance language to Town Code 14- 10-4. April 19, 2022 - Page 491 of 569 Wadden says the intention was to use the same language as is currently in the code. The change would be how the setback is measured, not what is allowed in the setback. Spence says we don’t want to add new language that is only applicable to this setback,k that raises questions about other setbacks. Gillette is concerned that the current language in the ordinance is confusing. Says we should either reference 14-10-4 or spell it all out. Spence suggests we should reference 14-10-4. Perez says the way it is written it seems to limit only those specific items described. Let’s relate it to 14-10-4. Spence says that was staff’s original approach, they support that approach. Perez references. Section C-1-d Does the word “public” modify the other things enumerated, or does it apply to private things as well. Wadden says private bridges would be addressed through the variance process. Spence says the intent is only public, staff can address the language there. Perez references language “buildings lawfully existing subject to chapter 18.” Wadden says that section addresses non-conforming properties. Kjesbo references letters that asked what you can do with existing non- conforming structures. Spence says you can maintain what is existing as it is. Pratt thinks staff did a good job explaining why they want 25 foot setbacks on tributaries. Since the 25 foot number increases the number of non- conforming structures is there a rationale to allow an option of a 20 foot setback, but a 15 foot riparian zone. Gillette says the Fire Department wanted a 15-foot buffer. Wadden says the proposed setback would create uniformity throughout the town. W hat Pratt is proposing could create challenges with fire protection. Regarding tributaries it is valuable to create uniformity across town. Pratt says the filtration occurs in the riparian zone. Kjesbo asks if the town monitors the stream where it enters and exits the town. How does the water quality change? Wadden says the Town monitors nine sites for insects. At the bottom of the pass the stream has healthy bug populations, by the time you get to Bighorn Park it has failed the standards every year but one since 2009. Pratt asks if somebody is talking about changing the state rules on April 19, 2022 - Page 492 of 569 pesticides. Wadden says it is in discussions. Currently local jurisdictions cannot pass more stringent regulations than what the state has passed. Gillette asks about section C-1. Was that better defined elsewhere? Spence says in the current adopted code there is no allowed path, but it has seemed like a good idea. Wadden talks about the Town approach to informal pathways in the past. Gillette asks about restoration of the first 10 feet. Wadden says language addressing restoration is included. Kurz asks for public input. Wayne Forman represents 1 W illow Bridge and the HOA. He references their letter from February 3rd. He asks about an artificial drainage on their property and would like to see that explicitly excluded. Second, regarding one year reconstruction they would like to see that time period extended with this ordinance. He references Paragraph D-3 says the current language is confusing as to a successful appeal and should be clarified; get rid of clear and convincing evidence language. Dan J ohnson represents the Grand Hyatt Vail. He says last time there was a consensus to have the ordinance take effect J an. 1, 2023. He was surprised not to hear that today and would ask for consideration of that delayed ordinance. Dominic Mauriello represents Evergreen Lodge. He agrees with Forman regarding the section update. You need some criteria for review or change when you can have an appeal. You can have an either or standard where you measure from either line, whichever is less restrictive. He understands from staff that the intent is to measure the streambank with the line, so why not use OHW M. The setback today is a building setback, he talks about what is allowed in a setback. He agrees that that section C-a should be made very clear as there are issues with the existing code. Under B add sidewalks. He talks about parking within setbacks. He likes Pratt’s idea of allowing the exchange of setbacks and no-mow zone on tributaries. I t’s not clear that you can do restoration in the no-mow zone, that should be made clear. Last meeting we heard that if an application comes in prior to the effective day of the ordinance it would be processed with the current rules. Spence confirms. Mauriello suggests putting the effective date in the ordinance. He says things can get lost in the process, the proposal should be complete now. He references instances where the 2 year floodline in the town data is off. Gillette asks if it matters. Mauriello says the model is not accurate in some instances. I f we’re flexible why are we concerned about changing the time outlined in the code for the April 19, 2022 - Page 493 of 569 restoration process. He references the Matterhorn I nn. Spence says staff will take any recommendation forwarded by this committee. Mauriello suggests you should include a complete copy of your comments in the recommendation to Council. I t has been identified that the F E MA mapping is off vertically by 4’ on Middle Creek. Should there be a provision that deals with errors in the mapping of the TY FL? Gillette says those errors can be addressed through the appeals process. Spence says over time the layers will get better and better. D M says look at the setbacks on pg. 28, 29, and 30 of the packet. He supports measuring from the streambank but is concerned about the errors in the mapping. Gillette says every lawyer they’ve heard from has had a problem with the language regarding the appeal. He likes the idea of either-or language. J on Rediker says their needs to be an implementation date. He doesn’t see a benefit to delaying, a delay would allow more non-conforming structures to be built. Mauriello references the setback lines shown on pg. 28 of the packet. He shows the examples on pg. 29 and 30 as well. This reinforces the idea that you also need the OHW M included in the ordinance. Pratt says where you pointed is where there’s a beaver dam, that could affect the high water mark. Bill Hoblitzell says the maps are correctly delineated. Gillette asks about the criteria for the appeal process. He likes the idea of either-or language. Bruno agrees. I f you can appeal with the OHW M, we’re already saying it’s an acceptable method. Property owners can choose one of the methods. Gillette says it could be more of a submittal requirement than appeal process. Wadden asks for commission support. Gillette, Kurz, and Bruno support allowing the property owner to choose the method. The commission supports an effective date of J anuary 1, 2023. Kjesbo says they want all the language in there when it is presented to Council. Perez talks about the enumerations in C-2-a and that it should references section 14. April 19, 2022 - Page 494 of 569 Gillette agrees. He asks about best management practices as mentioned in the ordinance. Wadden says that should be left somewhat broad as the standards of the industry change. Spence suggest the language could say “restoration specific with best management practices.” Kristen Bertuglia is the Environmental Sustainability Director at the Town of Vail. She addresses the “either or” provision. That would take out the objectivity that staff is trying to establish. I f we want to guarantee a win for the creek, the only way to do that is to start with this baseline. I f you let the applicant decide, she’s not certain we’ll end up with additional riparian area, it’s something to consider. Bruno says when you allow an appeal process you’re giving that opportunity anyway. Bertuglia agrees but says that the standard is a little bit higher. Bruno asks for some clear criteria on an appeal process. Bertuglia says it’s important that the Army Corps process is followed. Gillette asks for clarification. Spence says if the board directs staff to review, there would be no appeal process to the P E C. Gillette says staff can verify applicants used the proper procedures. Phillips says the less restrictive measure is a treacherous road to go down.. W hy not adopt the more restrictive of the two, it also eliminates the gamesmanship between the two methods. He talks about the appeals process. From him there wasn’t a consensus to go to the lesser standard. We’ve kicked this can down the road, the less restrictive route doesn’t necessarily set a great baseline to repair the health of the creek. Gillette says the modeling was trying to identify the high water mark, the mark you see when you go out to field survey. Perez doesn’t like eliminating going back to the P E C. The whole idea was to have a public process that allows property owners to make their case. I t’s a balancing act. Pratt says whichever line is better is the wrong way to present it. We need some basic criteria which we can base the regulation on. Spence says it would be incorrect to replace surveyors with the commission. Perez says criteria can be established with a scientific, objective approach. We should establish the criteria to give property owners the opportunity for the appeals process. Gillette says the appeals process is referring to the line used for the setback. April 19, 2022 - Page 495 of 569 Perez says the appeals process is to look at how the ordinance might be burdensome. Gillette says that is addressed by the variance language laid out elsewhere. Spence says this is purely numbers. Perez says we should look at some of the memos that have been received. She asks about the point of the appeals process as presented. Wadden says the point is to allow an applicant to appeal the lines and use the OHW M where the TY F L may be in the wrong area. I t only references those considerations. Perez says there is a legal side to this of why there is an appeals process. Gillette says the memo does not make sense. Spence says the word correction could be substituted for an appeal. An appeal could have the connotation of needing deliberation, while this is more of a correction to the data. Phillips agrees it’s a correction or clarification of the high-water mark. That is separate from the variance process Pratt agrees. Wadden confirms the intent of the appeals process. Specific criteria would be based upon the Army Corps methodology. Spence says we don’t necessarily need criteria for a correction. Gillette says you have to use the Army Corps method, we don’t need to enumerate everything. That is a surveyor ’s job. Spence says there will be specific language for restoration processes following best management processes. Gillette asks about the time period for restoration. Wadden says staff doesn’t believe it should be included in the streambank ordinance because of its impact in other areas. Spence says changing the time period can be included in a recommendation to Town Council. The commission is in favor of the 25 foot setback over the 20 foot setback. The commission is in favor of an effective date of J anuary 1, 2023. Perez clarifies criteria is needed for the correction process not an appeal process. She supports the effective dates, recommending to change the restoration time period, and referencing 14-10-4 in C-2. Bruno says its not an appeal process so much as a correction. April 19, 2022 - Page 496 of 569 Perez asks for clarity from Town Attorney if this correction process meets legal requirements. Spence says he will work with the Town Attorney on this. Brian Gillette moved to continue to February 28, 2022. Henry Pratt seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 3.2.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations and Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, to amend the regulations on building design and landscaping in the W ildland Urban I nterface to reduce the risk of wildfire and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C22-0002) 30 min. Applicant:Town of Vail, represented by Paul Cada Planner:Greg Roy Paul Cada is the W ildland Program Manager. Cada gives a presentation on proposed changes to W UI code amendments in Ch. 12 and 14, as well as a separate code proposal for chapter 5. Gillette asks a clarification about the existing exemption for reskins. Gillette is concerned about removing the exemption for additions under 500 square feet. Cada says as written only the part that’s added has to comply. Gillette says from a design standpoint it might not match. Cada says since 2019 we have not encountered a situation where an addition hasn’t met design standards because of that. Gillette gives an example about cedar shakes. Cada says the materials adoption in 2019 doesn’t allow siding with openings. Spence says the exemption doesn’t include prohibited materials. Gillette asks if prior to this was there anything saying you couldn’t use cedar shake. W hy would you have something that didn’t match the rest of the house? Cada clarifies the language from 2019. Gillette says the exemption for tiny additions was there because would burn anyway so why not have it be the same material. Spence says it hasn’t come up in the last two years. Perez says two years might not be enough to say. Gillette agrees with the reskin proposal but doesn’t want to see the exemption changed for additions under 500 square feet. Cada says compliance siding cannot have things like shake. W ill a 250 square foot addition make a difference? Often it includes other things. W hat April 19, 2022 - Page 497 of 569 we;’re trying to do is limit the number of exceptions. The intent as council agreed is how to implement these codes quicker. Spence says if the commission would like to forward a recommendation that this exception is maintained they can do that. Phillips asks for a straw poll. The commission supports maintaining the exemption for additions under 500 square feet. The commission is in favor of the reskin proposal. The commission is in favor of mansard roof proposal. Gillette talks about limits of disturbance, and how often you are required to remove all the trees on site. Cada says that is not true. Gillette asks about a site with 15 foot property lines. Cada references a landscape plan from 272 W Meadow. The Fire Department will work together with projects to identify the best fit. I gnition resistant was non-prescriptive to allow flexibility. Gillette asks if you can have trees withing 15 feet of a house. Cada says on existing structures, existing trees can remain. Spence says there is not a section of the code that says you can’t. I t’s based on the landscape guidelines. Philips says this gives the Fire Department the opportunity to work with homeowners and find the best solution. Spence says staff had the same concerns as Gillette during the initial proposal in 2019 which proved unfounded. Cada talks about the review process with ignition resistant landscape guidelines. No one opposes the landscaping guidelines. Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve, with amendment to keep exemption in 12- 11-3 relating to addition under 500 square feet. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 3.3.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, to amend the regulations on landscaping to clarify how landscaping beneath decks should be considered and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C22- 0001) The applicant requests this item be tabled to the March 14, 2022 P E C Meeting. 2 min. April 19, 2022 - Page 498 of 569 Applicant:Town of Vail Planner:Greg Roy Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to March 14, 2022. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 3.4.A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a major amendment to Special Development District No. 36, Four Seasons, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for reconfiguration of existing accommodation units, fractional fee units and dwelling units, and to amend the Employee Housing Plan to locate a portion of the existing onsite employee housing offsite, located at 1 Vail Road/Lots A-C, Vail Village Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-0059) This item will be renoticed for a later date. 2 min. Applicant:Four Seasons Resort, represented by Andrew Sellnau Planner:J onathan Spence 4.Approval of Minutes 4.1.J anuary 24, 2022 P E C Results Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 5.Adjournment Rollie Kjesbo moved to adjourn. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspec tion during regular offic e hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site vis its that prec ede the public hearing in the Tow n of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to c hange, and c annot be relied upon to determine at w hat time the Planning and Environmental Commission w ill c onsider an item. Please c all (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department April 19, 2022 - Page 499 of 569 April 19, 2022 - Page 500 of 569 P L ANNI NG AND E NV I RO NM E NTAL C O M M IS S IO N F ebruary 28, 2022, 1:00 P M Town Council Chambers and Virtual on Zoom 75 S . Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 1.Call to Order 1.1.Register in advance for this webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/W N_QJ ybkNzgQ2eMGMYxH6F E0g After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. 1.2.Attendance 2.Executive Session 2.1.C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(b) - to have a conference with the Town Attorney to receive legal advice on specific legal questions regarding proposed code amendments. 3.Main Agenda 3.1.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed Regulation Amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-14-17 Setback From Watercourse and add a new Section 12-21-17 Riparian Protection and W aterbody Setback Regulations, Vail Town Code, to change the waterbody setbacks, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-0043) 20 min. Applicant:Town of Vail, represented by Pete W adden Planner:Greg Roy Planner Roy introduces the item. Peter W adden is the Watershed Education Coordinator. He gives a presentation recapping changes made since the last meeting based on feedback from the Planning and Environmental Commission (P E C) and public comment. He addresses proposed changes to the corrections process since the last meeting. I n the previous meeting, the P E C directed the change from an appeal process to a corrections process. The proposed corrections process will use the same methodology as original process using the Two-Year Flood Line. He outlines the proposed corrections process. He addresses public comment from One W illow Bridge. Wadden gives a diagram of the proposed ordinance and how cross-sections would work in the proposed corrections process. He contrasts this with previously proposed Army Corps Methodology which could create inconsistency in setbacks between neighboring properties. April 19, 2022 - Page 501 of 569 He talks about the Gore Creek Strategic Plan Policy. Existing setbacks have not adequately protected Gore Creek. Perez thanks Staff for making changes. She finds the text amendment somewhat deficient. The effective date the P E C recommended is not in the text amendment, it should be in there. Kendra Carberry says it is in the actual ordinance in Section 8. Roy says it will be in the language of the ordinance before Town Council. Perez says we should add it in proposed recommendation. Make it clear to Town Council that that is in our recommendation. Gillette says the date was in the text in the code in another section. Roy clarifies those are used in a different manner. Perez addresses the two-year period for rebuilds. She is wondering about getting that language changed. Phillips says changing that language within the building department code would be problematic. Changing that could have considerable consequences within the building code. Gillette says it needs to be a separate process but done concurrently with this process. Perez is concerned that issue was not addressed on the agenda. The original charts showed the number of non-conforming structures but not units, so she is concerned about multi-family properties. The number of properties impacted is higher, do you have that number? Wadden says he has the number of structures. Perez says this wasn’t addressed by Town attorneys. W e need to know the numbers of other areas around town that will be impacted. Wadden says it’s difficult to parse out individual units within a multifamily development. W hen it redevelops, you’re not taking away the property rights of an individual property. Perez says that is not her concern. Her concern is the criteria under which the P E C is asked to make a recommendation. She cites Criteria #2 and #4. We have focused purely on the environmental issues, so she wants to balance the other considerations. The number of properties versus structures ties into development objectives and master plans. This is why she wants the numbers. This is not a personal concern this a community concern. Wadden cites the numbers regarding structures. Perez talks about structures with multiple units. The numbers are magnified in multi-unit buildings. She would like to know the numbers of individual properties impacted. She’s in favor of the no-mow zone and concept but feels like we don’t yet have a clear picture. April 19, 2022 - Page 502 of 569 Perez cites Section C-1-G, line. She cites the “or/and” language. Wadden says it should be and/or. Perez asks what is the intent? Can we get some clarity on this section? Wadden defers to attorneys on code language. Gillette says with duplexes or townhomes, this ordinance could impact some property owners on a lot but not all of them depending on the location. Wadden says when non-conformity comes into play when it is torn down and rebuilt the whole building is impacted. Perez asks what about cases of fire? W hat is the intent for language in C-1- G? Matt Mire thinks the language is and/or. I t was probably a typo. Perez asks which one is it? Mire assumes it is and/or but will clarify it. Perez says this a text amendment, so we have to nitpick the details. Gillette likes the idea that with the three cross-sections you can get rid of some of the anomalies that would otherwise occur. Do we know if the 2-year high water mark is correct? W ith the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHW M) you’re not approximating it, you’re finding it in the field. W ith the floodlines we’re approximating the high-water mark. W hat we really want to do is start the setback from the actual edge of the creek. W hy don’t we look and see what’s there? Wadden says the 2-year floodline is not visible but is present and immutable. Gillette has asked surveyors who says the cross-sections can be more expensive than finding the high-water mark. You’re not gaining consistency moving from the high water mark to floodlines. Wadden says he does not agree with that point. Gillette questions how accurate the cross-sections would be as proposed. Wadden clarifies the minimum requirements in the proposed corrections process. Gillette talks about an anomaly at Mill Creek Circle. A situation like that could throw off a cross-section. Wadden says this could be addressed by taking more cross-sections. Kjesbo says you could take additional cross-sections to address those situations. Phillips says last time we agreed on the Two-Year Flood line (TY F L). The modeling is not arbitrary, it provides at least a baseline for the setback. April 19, 2022 - Page 503 of 569 Kjesbo says Staff wants one baseline not either or, then there is a consistent baseline. Gillette asks what if baseline is wrong? Perez says last time we asked for criteria for the corrections process. The current criteria are muddying the waters more. Phillips says the cross-section points are not arbitrary, they are at both property lines and the center. Wadden says staff discussed this point so that property owners could not cluster them where they want. The more data we have the better the model gets. The corrections we receive will also change the line for adjacent property owners. Perez says the property line for the structure is not the same as a unit. This is why we need more fine-tuning. Wadden says it’s shared property in the case of multi-family. Perez cites examples of areas she is concerned about. This effects the entire town, it’s a good start to the criteria but it’s still not finalized because it could be manipulated. Wadden says it is less easily manipulated than the OHW M. Gillette says the correction process will make the town modeling more precise. But if the TY F L is wrong, it’s not going to correct for that error. Wadden says it may not be precisely the bank in all cases. I t’s more important to have a clear baseline for the regulation. Gillette says the corrections process should address that by finding the bank in the field. Wadden says the intent is finding a clear and equitable baseline. Gillette asks what if it is giving you less of a setback? Wadden says the TY F L is more equitable because it doesn’t differ based on the width of the creek at that point. The TY FL will always be the same no matter who calculates it. Gillette asks how is there human error identifying the OHW M but not the TY FL? Wadden says there is subjectivity to the OHW M process. Different surveyors can find different results. Environmental Sustainability Director Kristen Bertuglia says staff has discussed some of these concerns. The TY FL is an actual elevation that exists. W hereas with the OHW M there is more subjectivity. The TY F L can’t be wrong, the more refined it is the better it is. Gillette wants whichever method protects the creek better. Now you’re April 19, 2022 - Page 504 of 569 saying your neighbor can change your lines based on their cross-sections. Wadden says corrections should refine the line and improve it. The TY FL is most susceptible to inaccuracy where it is farthest from a cross-section. More cross-sections will make the model more accurate. Phillips asks which process is more arbitrary. Wadden says the OHW M is more subjective. Phillips confirms that experts have said that the TY F L is the more consistent mark. Water flow can change the OHW M measurement. He wants a consistent baseline for citizens to look at. There is a corrections process if they find inconsistencies. Surveyors say year to year the OHW M is all over the place. Wadden says Staff shares that opinion and proposed the TY F L as a more objective baseline. Bruno agrees with Phillips. We have to look at science and what is most consistent and reliable. She appreciates that people have a chance to make corrections. We’re heading in the right direction; our creek needs us to act. Gillette clarifies that finding the OHW M is no longer in the proposed corrections process. Bertuglia says the corrections process now uses the same methodology as the TY F L, rather than using the OHW M which is more subjective. The proposed corrections process provides a way to correct it, but it’s not using either/or method. The OHW M line moves year to year so we would end up with checkerboard regulations. The variance process allows for people whose property has special circumstances. Gillette clarifies that the TY FL moves just as much as the OHW M year to year? Wadden says there is such imprecision in the OHW M process, the centerline moved by 50 feet between one application and the next. Gillette says there is human error in a cross-section. I t’s silly to say that one is more accurate than the other. Wadden says there could be error in both processes but that there is more in the OHW M methodology. Kurz cites section D-1-A, where the language is unclear. Wadden says “which” will be added. Gillette asks about the corrections process. Wadden says some individuals might have more wherewithal to go through corrections process with the OHW M as previously proposed. Kurz asks for public comment. Heather Houston says there is a lot of confusion between the TY FL and April 19, 2022 - Page 505 of 569 OHW M. The TY FL relies on a lot of assumptions, it’s not fair to say it’s more accurate than the OHW M. I t relies on specific topographic data and vegetation. There are a lot of inputs in the model that rely on assumptions. I t is estimating something that can be found in the field. The two sets of flagging that were presented make that method seem more imprecise than it actually is. She questions the assertion that the two studies show the OHW M is more imprecise. The differences are a few inches in most cases. The OHW M is not arbitrary, there is some interpretation but something within six inches of each other is a pretty good result. The 2-year floodline model depends on the accuracy of the inputs. The cross-sections are more expensive than a survey. Dick Parker references a memo he sent the P E C. He is a resident of Vail Rowhouses since 1975. He represents the owners on the west half who are in one building. His concern is that the proposed ordinance moves their building into non-compliance, after they just went through the process of the Vail Village Rezoning. W e’ve corrected one thing and we’ve moved to another. We haven’t discussed topography in this discussion. On our site, the aerial measurement is different than the linear measurement on grade. We all have the same interests in mind, but this regulation as proposed would put this building in non-compliance. He asks for consideration of the unintended consequences of regulations as written. Kurz says we only received your memo today. Parker asks are we going to regulate human activity of using the stream, which is a big factor. The city parks are mowed up to the stream. The big factor is consideration, he appreciates Ms. Perez’s comments. He is concerned about putting buildings into non-compliance. Perez asks that the memo from today is put into the record. Kjesbo asks about the concerns on non-conformity. Roy says you only need variance if you’re looking to expand the portion that is non-conforming. You do not need a variance to improve any other parts of the building. Kjesbo says you don’t need a variance unless you’re making the non- conformity worse. Perez asks about the example of redoing a patio. Roy says you could maintain a non-conforming patio. Gillette asks about a deck that is non-conforming, could you replace a rotted deck? Roy says removing and replacing it would require a variance. Perez is concerned that replacing a rotted deck for safety would require a variance. The language is lawfully existing, once you become non- conforming you’re no longer lawfully existing. Kjesbo says this point has to be clarified. Parker says in the past non-conforming comes to interpretation of the April 19, 2022 - Page 506 of 569 individual person working within the building department. Wadden addresses the property that Mr. Parker is referring to. Kjesbo says there must be a definition. You should be able to rebuild something for safety without needing a variance. Perez echoes that concern and cites the existing language. Mike Smith talks about One W illow Bridge. He talks about the mapping lines on this property. He understands that this could be a mapping issue and not the data itself. He appreciates Staffs’ consideration of this issue. He still has concerns; it’s not assured that the corrections process will address this issue. They are also concerned about the cross-sections process in this case. The variance process also does not provide comfort to property owners. Significant uncertainty remains. The map should be revised to remit the TY F L at 1 W illow Bridge. The 25’ setbacks will convert complying buildings to non-conformance and the 1 year timeframe should be extended from one to two years. Dominic Mauriello speaks on behalf of Evergreen Lodge. Last time the P E C said there needs to be a OHW M opportunity for people to question the TY FL. That is no longer in the proposed ordinance, there is no longer a provision for the OHW M. The OHW M does not change year to year. The surveyors he talked to have been comfortable using the Army Corps methodology. The corrections process is not as simple as represented. He cites examples of variable data from past meeting. He says property lines aren’t smooth and it’s hard to have a smooth line between those. Relying on an engineered model is what’s causing the inconsistencies rather than going out and measuring it in the field. W hat is the new lidar data that’s coming? He appreciates that the effective date is not until the end of the year, does that give more time to consider the new lidar data and take some OHW M measurements? Kurz asks for commissioner comments. Phillips agrees with Gillette and Perez regarding the corrections process. Surveyors are not agreeing on this issue across the valley. Perhaps the OHW M could be in the corrections process rather than the latest proposed method. He wants to find a baseline; we can’t keep kicking the can down the road. W e need to seize the moment, and try to find some continuity with a baseline that still provides the owners an option. I f you live on the river you probably have the resources to go through the corrections process. W e’ve sacrificed this creek too long. Gillette says going back to the OHW M in the corrections process solves a lot of these issues. I t’s a simple process that would happen anyways. He is curious whether the Army Corps methodology eliminates problem with man- made drainages. The concerns about clarifying what can be rebuilt is important. W e need more definition before this ordinance goes into effect. He agrees with Perez that we need to see progress on this before we forward a recommendation. I t will have ramifications on day one of the effective date. Kjesbo says this will put more properties into non-conformance and we have to have a remedy. I f something isn’t safe the owners need a way to rebuild. He understands Staff’s desire for consistency in the regulation. Maybe we April 19, 2022 - Page 507 of 569 should look at things this summer now that we’ve settled on an effective date. He agrees with Perez, how does the number of individual structures impact individual units? Gillette asks if each individual owner on the creek was notified? Wadden says in the case of HOAs, they were sent to HOAs. Gillette asks if we should notify every single owner. Pratt says being on the other side, it’s easier to notify the HOAs. Perez says there’s no one size fits all but has concerns that about the notification. Bellm says we can’t email, the county provides addresses not emails. Perez asks about other outreach efforts. Spence says notice requirements are legal requirements that are part of the town code. They are required by law, not subject to review by the P E C. Staff will continue to do this until directed otherwise by Town Council. Pratt is concerned one size doesn’t fit all. Everyone in this process has had an example of a non-conformity. I t bothers him that they are going down that road. W e all agree on the 10’ no-mow zone, why not pass a recommendation to Town Council to enact that now. Then we could take time on the setback issue. I f 25’ is good for Gore Creek, it seems excessive for the tributaries, 20’ could be good for those. He agrees the OHW M should be part of the corrections process and also understands Staff’s desire for a consistent baseline. Bruno leaves the meeting. Perez agrees there haven’t been concerns about the no-mow zone. She says the environmental concerns are important, but we need to look at the units affected by non-conformity. She also wants to address the non- conforming time period concurrently, as well as the language for rebuilds. She knows the code section is complex and appreciates Staff’s efforts. She says artificial drainageways should be an exclusion to the setback. She thanks staff for the hard work, let’s take the time that it needs to get it right. Kurz says the P E C has shown respect for both the public and the process, as well as property owners. By delaying implementation, the P E C has shown concern for the issue. He had hoped for a conclusion before some Commission members terms run out. He is concerned about kicking the can, we potentially weaken the outcome of what we want to do. Because of the input in the process, we’ve come a long way in getting to the right place, even if we’re not quite there yet. He commends Staff and Wadden during this process. Eventually this will be a star in the cap of this community. He asks for a tabling so that comments from today can be incorporated moving today. Gillette asks about the date for term limits. Bellm says end of March. April 19, 2022 - Page 508 of 569 Pratt asks if it’s possible to split the 10’ mow-zone from this and get that approved. Roy says we can’t discuss an ongoing application with Town Council unless we get a recommendation today. Perez reminds Wadden about the language changes in C-1-G, D-1-A. Roy says Staff is asking for a vote not a tabling today. Gillette doesn’t think that is appropriate. W e’re supposed to vet legislation, we shouldn’t vote until that is complete. The comments from the P E C need to be submitted to the Council. Perez says if you want an up or down vote today, it won’t be a good vote. Roy says the P E C comments would be included in report to Council. Gillette says not all of the P E C’s concerns from last meeting were included in the latest proposal. Perez says the proposal is still unclear, we’re not there yet and would like to see this through to completion. Perez moves to table. Gillette seconds. Kurz asks for further discussion of the motion. Wadden says he won’t interrupt the process. I f this commission wants to table, he won’t interrupt. Pratt says it cannot be discussed with Council until the P E C votes. Phillips would like Council to know where the process is, we’re close to finishing this up. Bellm says Council will get the minutes from this meeting. Spence says staff will provide Council with an update. W e won’t discuss the specifics but will make them aware of the status of the application. He clarifies that Staff can’t look for direction from them out of order. The minutes will also be available to them. Gillette clarifies does the creek have gold medal trout status. Wadden says gold medal status is present from Red Sandstone Creek to Eagle River. C D P HE status is not there on the whole creek. Phillips says Gold Medal status was lost on the upper creek in the mid- eighties. 4.Approval of Minutes 4.1.February 14, 2022 P E C Results Perez has a clarification on page two that she asked for the number of units April 19, 2022 - Page 509 of 569 5.I nformational Update 5.1.Aquatic Entomologist, Dave Rees, will provide an update on macro invertebrate populations in Gore Creek as surveyed in September 2020. 40 min. Applicant:Town of Vail Planner:Pete W adden 6.Adjournment The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspec tion during regular offic e hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site vis its that prec ede the public hearing in the Tow n of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to c hange, and c annot be relied upon to determine at w hat time the Planning and Environmental Commission w ill c onsider an item. Please c all (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department Published in the Vail Daily February 25, 2022 April 19, 2022 - Page 510 of 569 P L ANNI NG AND E NV I RO NM E NTAL C O M M IS S IO N M arch 14, 2022, 1:00 P M Town Council Chambers and Virtual on Zoom 75 S . Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 1.Call to Order 1.1.Register in advance for this webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/W N_tX L0eRs9QKieoSkwg888J w After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. 1.2.Attendance Present: Ludwig Kurz, Brian Gillette, Rollie Kjesbo, Karen Perez, Henry Pratt, Reid Phillips Absent:J enn Bruno 2.Site Visits 2.1.Four Seasons 3.Main Agenda 3.1.A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a major amendment to Special Development District No. 36, Four Seasons, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for reconfiguration of existing accommodation units, fractional fee units and dwelling units, and to amend the Employee Housing Plan to locate a portion of the existing onsite employee housing offsite, located at 1 Vail Road/Lots A-C, Vail Village Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-0059) 60 min. Applicant:Four Seasons Resort, represented by Andrew Sellnau Planner:J onathan Spence Planner Spence introduces the project and gives a short verbal introduction on what is included in the staff report. He goes over how since the 2017, when an S D D was last amended, there was only some buildout of what was approved at that time. The floor plans submitted with that amendment were not followed and other units were converted instead of the approved units. The applicant is proposing to amend the unit mix and move Employee Housing Units (E HU) off-site and out of town. The applicants are looking for a decision today, but staff is recommending this item be continued to a future meeting to allow for revision and a holistic approach to the E HU replacement. Perez wants to know why these units are underutilized. I f we allow these units to move out of town how does the Town enforce the deed restrictions? April 19, 2022 - Page 511 of 569 Spence answers that deed restrictions and housing plans are usually very specific and include a specific unit in question but due to the size of the request that is not available at this time. Perez says she will wait until after the presentation to ask more questions. Kurz compliments the narrative and says he still has concerns to be brought up. Andrew Sellnau asks that Gary Barnett starts the presentation off. Gary Barnett goes over how they came to own the property, the improvements they made, and how it is now one of the finest hotels in Vail. One of the lingering issues they have not tackled is the E HUs on the site and how they have been underutilized. Employees come with families or pets and do not want to go in double occupancy rooms. They believe the units would be better utilized as hotel rooms and housing would be better for employees outside of town. They believe they’ve worked well with the town and would like approval as they are getting close to construction season. Sellnau starts off with the history of the S D D in 2001 and as amended in ’03, ’05, and ’17. The E HUs were conceived and built to house 56 employees. They have not seen dorm rooms used in other areas of town. Town code currently has a minimum of 200S F per employee, these dorm rooms are 166S F per person and don’t meet the current code as it was changed after their original approval. The dorms don’t have kitchens, so employees have to cook in the microwave, or they can use the on-site employee cafeteria for their meals. Three meals are provided daily. The dorms have J ack/J ill bathrooms between units, so they service four employees per bathroom. Pre-covid and post-covid the dorm rooms are used and desired by J -1 program employees but have not been found to be desired by those that come with families or pets. These units are useful for visa employees throughout the year, so we plan to keep half of them on-site. The dorms will house about 12% of the employees who are more transient than the majority of employees. W here these units are not useful is for year-round and long- term employees. Looking at options for how to repurpose them the best way to develop them is into hotel rooms. I f they were to be repurposed into alternative employee units, they would significantly restrict in unit configuration and number of replacements. The price has been maintained at $600/mo per employee and that amount has not changed over the years. Sellnau goes over the chart of the utilization. They have never been able to meet the requirement of having a full 56 employee occupying the units. They would like to see the utilization at 100% but are significantly short of that. They would like to achieve three things, come up with a solution of unit utilization, change the unit mix of the hotel, and find units off-site to meet their employee housing requirement. They’ve met with the V LHA on three occasions and made amendments to the plan accordingly. They’ve looked at this over the last five years as the units have not been fully occupied and believe that Vail has changed over the time since these units were built. That at one point Vail was very seasonal and hotels could run off of seasonal employees, but now that Vail is April 19, 2022 - Page 512 of 569 more year-round, a need for year-round employees and housing for them, has emerged. The proposal that has gone through three iterations. First was replacing the 16 units on site with 16 bedrooms offsite, from Vail all the way to Edwards through master leases on those bedrooms. The feedback was that master leases was not a good idea and difficult to ensure that was provided on a consistent basis. The second proposal was to replace 16 units with 16 deed restricted bedrooms. The V LHA said that the replacement should be based on employees not bedrooms. Now the latest, and current, iteration is to replace 32 employees with 32 employees based on the bedroom equivalency chart in town code. To abide by this chart the change from dorm rooms to bedrooms would come with an increase in square footage. Sellnau goes over how town code has changed since these units were originally developed and currently how larger square footage is required. I n addition to looking at replacing these in the Town Four Seasons needs to look outside of the town in order to make this successful. They believe it would be a significant challenge to find this amount of deed restrictions within Town limits. Numbers from the Vail I ndeed program are given in relation to the success of the program. The applicant believes Vail Health struggled with this and thus paid a fee in lieu. They relate to recent Town ballots and Council questions about whether money or units could be used or found outside of Town. Four Seasons is not proposing to remove all the units outside of town, just 16 out of 28. The other 12 would remain in the building. They plan to ask employees if they could purchase deed restrictions on the homes that the employees currently own. They could also try to provide a down payment assistance to employees that are currently renting so that they could move into a home that would then be deed restricted. I f units were still needed, they would then go to outside owners to purchase a deed-restriction and, hopefully, getting a master lease on those units if they came up for rent. Approximately 70% of their employees live outside of Vail and in order to get deed restrictions on their homes Four Seasons would need to be able to provide deed restrictions outside of Vail. Limiting it to the Town of Vail would be unworkable and would not solve the underlying issue that is faced. They would like to find a solution immediately. The proposal is that up-to 32 employees would be able to be provided off-site. Sellnau gives examples of how the numbers would work on a rolling basis. As units are provided off-site the on-site equivalency would be able to be remodeled into accommodation units. The purpose of doing it through an S D D process is because they are in an S D D and must do so. I t also allows for some leniency through the S D D process, and their proposal can be flexible. Goes over some of the criteria for an S D D amendment and how the proposal is meeting the stated criteria. Allowing them to go off-site would be a chance to preserve units in the valley for employees rather than short term rentals. They are unaware of other properties that have attempted to move this many units off-site and the challenges that provides. For that reason, using the deed-restriction program that requires a multiplier should not be applicable in this situation. More criteria are gone through and how this proposal is meeting them. Going from unoccupied and underutilized dorm rooms to new deed restricted housing will not increase foot or vehicle traffic. I f the units were occupied it would be increasing traffic, but as they were empty, it would not actually increase the traffic from how it exists today. April 19, 2022 - Page 513 of 569 A slide is shown on the “summary and benefits” of the proposal. The net effect of this is that the square footage will increase and the misconception of how employees will be housed in the 2020s will be corrected. Applicant presentation is over. Perez found the presentation was disturbing as they have been checking the box that they were meeting the deed restriction when the units were sitting vacant for more than three months, which is the maximum allowed in Town Code. W hy did they wait so long to come to the Town to fix the situation if it has been going on for five years? Sellnau says that they were preoccupied with fixing the interior issues to the hotel and to fix the other units to get ready to sell them and fix the unit mix from hotel keys to produce occupancy. They also thought perhaps that the underutilization was due to the lack of business at the hotel. But saw as business picked up the occupancy of the E HUs did not follow suit. Perez asks why not reconfigure the existing on-site E HUS. Perez is concerned with decreasing onsite and in the building housing. Have you used “best efforts” instead of what you said you did, which is that a “reasonable” effort was made? Sellnau said it is impossible to reconfigure the E HUs without significant reduction in hotel rooms. Perez says you’re essentially asking for a variance. One of the things you’re looking at is providing housing for families. Your units now would provide housing for two employees and you’ll be going to one with a family and be housing less of your employees. I t makes Perez uncomfortable that the Town would not have jurisdiction to require these deed restrictions to be followed. We would like you to go back and develop a more comprehensive plan that says we’ve approached employees and have solutions compared to just ideas of how this will be accomplished. The proposal is not sufficiently definite to show that you are able to meet the requirements. Barnett says that they would only end up with 3 or 4 units that would work with reconfiguration of the existing units. W e still have on-site housing, but it would be a shame to not increase the value or utilization of the units by changing them. Perez says the housing crisis isn’t new and that this should be an “and” solution and not an “either/or”. Saying we aren’t adding car trips because they are underutilized isn’t an argument because the existing units should currently be utilized. Pratt asks if the S D D requirement is based on beds, units, or square footage? Spence says it mixed over time, it was based on square footage and beds with previous code language but was always an employee requirement in essence. The difference was how it was calculated. The choice to go from dorm to a larger unit with multiple bedrooms adds square footage per the table but is not above and beyond the requirement. Staff watched the V LHA meeting, and the V L HA said they would come back with a written recommendation, but that was not presented or approved at subsequent April 19, 2022 - Page 514 of 569 meetings. Pratt asks if the E HUS turned to A Us would be accessed by the existing balcony or from inside the hotel. Sellnau states that they would be accessed from the inside. Pratt, if the original requirement was based on square footage, and you remodeled to different units, but kept the same square footage, that he would be in favor of that approach. Sellnau, believes that is not how the S D D reads, and that they have to provide 28 type 3 E HUs and have to provide housing for 56 employees. The square footage amount was removed in 2003 and switched to employees. Pratt would be in favor of keeping the same square footage and just mixing the type of units provided. Sellnau seems to think there would be a significant requirement still left over. Perez adds that it would be an “and” solution and would be in addition to other units. Barnett asks whether that would be the best use or not. Perez adds that having fewer units occupied would be an improvement from where you said you are today. Barnett said that the costs could be too much for the benefit received. The remodel would cost too much for too little gain. Pratt asks about the multiplier for an E HU conversion as mentioned in the staff report. Spence adds that the deed restriction exchange program is there for the review of relocating existing E HUS to different location. He explains the idea of core area housing, core to core movement of E HUs is mitigated at a square foot ratio of 2:1, core to outside core is a ratio of 3:1 that must be provided. Kjesbo asks that when an application is proposing a major amendment to an S D D do they have to come into compliance with current code? Spence states that the current code is the barometer we use to review applications and make recommendations. Kjesbo, so the dorm units today wouldn’t meet the requirement today? Spence, correct. Kjesbo was on P E C in ’03 and’05. The benefits when P E C approved the Four Seasons S D D was the housing on site. Now the proposal is to move 57% as far down valley as Edwards. The rules have changed, and the adjustments needs to meet code. Highline was just approved with dorm rooms and if we approve this, they could come in with an application to do the same thing and move their required housing down valley. W e approved 5000sf of housing on site and that was the major benefit of the S D D. April 19, 2022 - Page 515 of 569 Kurz was in this same chair 20 years ago when this was approved. He remembers how after serious negotiations the town was all happy with the results. I t put employees in the middle of town with no need for cars and was self-sustained. They thought this would make a huge impact and he believes it did. W e applaud you on sticking with those negotiations, but now we are turning this around by having people live as far away as Edwards. By moving more people down valley there is a direct impact with parking and transportation. I understand the upgrade of the units is important, but the proposed cost would be significant. He looked at the schedules and it could have been a management issue as to why employees didn’t stay in the units. There could have been things done different to allow them to stay. Offsite as far as Edwards is not in the best interest of the community. He agrees that Vail has changed. Pratt asks about some of the A Us going to D Us and how the proposal states that they will be in the rental program, are they required to be? Sellnau responds that they are not required to be. Out of the 12 D Us from last time that were converted they have 11 that are still in the rental program. More guests are looking to stay in condos or homes similar to Airbnb and V RB O. They find that guests still like the amenities of the hotel mixed with those more livable units. The concern that the condos would be sitting there empty has not been realized. Pratt says how they alluded to Vail Health used the pay in lieu, and that should be an option here as well. Agrees that the remodel of the on-site units would be best. Phillips says how you’ve made no accommodation for employee parking on site. Sellnau employees either carpool or use public transportation. Phillips asks if employee parking is provided on site? Sellnau says there is no parking dedicated to employees on site. Phillips says that this proposal is basically to create an E HU pathway for some of your employees with houses down valley to restrict them as E HUS, correct? Sellnau says yes, they live there today but they could sell to someone else or create a V RB O tomorrow and it would no longer be employee housing. Perez, the proposal is basically to utilize what is already there, not adding the housing stock. Sellnau says that’s true, but no guarantee that those non-deed restricted homes will not be sold to someone who is not an employee. W e see tremendous turnover and people cycle from hotel to hotel and place to place. We see a fair amount of turnover year in and year out and if they relocate, they’ll sell their home. Pratt, they could sell the deed restricted housing to people that work someone else, and that housing is gone for the Four Season and possibly the town. April 19, 2022 - Page 516 of 569 Sellnau whoever lives there would have to work in the town. Perez it doesn’t meet the Four Season obligation then. These units are for Four Seasons employees. Barnett, we intend to provide that housing to put less burden on the housing base in the Town of Vail. Pratt corrects the record that there was a housing problem 44 years ago, not just 20. Kjesbo concurs. Kurz asks how likely that inventory is available for deed restrictions? As a further example of another option Spence says you can buy a deed restriction or you can buy a house, put a deed restriction on it and hold the house as a financial asset and use it for employee housing. Barnett asks if anyone looked at what it costs to buy in Vail lately. Sellnau, said they could do that in the proposal as it is stated today. Perez says it would be more palatable. Barnett says it would be difficult to do except outside of Vail. Public comment is opened and closed with no public comment. Pratt clarifies that the motion is based on what was presented today. Karen Perez moved to send a recommendation of denial. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). Abstain:(1)Gillette Absent:(1)Bruno 3.2.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed Regulation Amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-14-17 Setback From Watercourse and add a new Section 12-21-17 Riparian Protection and W aterbody Setback Regulations, Vail Town Code, to change the waterbody setbacks, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-0043) 45 min. Applicant:Town of Vail, represented by Pete W adden Planner:Greg Roy Planner Roy introduces the item and summarizes the changes from the previous meeting. Peter W adden is the Watershed Education Coordinator. Wadden summarizes the changes made from the last meeting. He talks about the objectives of the stream corridor protection ordinance. He talks about the proposed corrections process. He talks about the policy in the Gore Creek Strategic Plan. He talks about the number of non-conforming buildings and acres protected under various scenarios. He talks about why staff recommends a 25’ setback. April 19, 2022 - Page 517 of 569 Pratt asks about the corrections process. I s there a vehicle for the Town to challenge a surveyor ’s word? Wadden says at previous meetings the P E C had indicated that they did not want staff making qualitative reviews. Pratt notes that half of the increased acreage is on the tributaries. He would not have expected that. Kjesbo asks about a 20’ setback on tributaries. I t would take a lot of units out of non-conformity. A 25’ setback on tributaries adds many more units into non-conformity. Wadden says it is a large number of units but a small number of structures. Roy says they are most likely multifamily structures which couldn’t develop individually. Kjesbo says an individual owner can get permission to renovate their unit if their HOA agrees. Phillips thanks staff. The scientific recommendation is a 25’ minimum setback, we’re at the lowest threshold compared to other resort towns in the west. 20’ on tributaries might be a palatable compromise. Given the corrections process, it is a stamped surveyor that must provide that information. The town could invalidate it if that requirement is not met. Some people will keep hiring surveyors until they get the right result. He would like a provision for peer review of a surveyor ’s result. Gillette thinks that might be available already. Staff already reviews applications for compliance, he doesn’t think this is different. Wadden says in the larger code there is a mechanism for staff to challenge submitted surveys. Phillips is content as long as we have a backstop for these concerns. Pratt wants to protect public interests as well as private. Gillette clarifies the difference in non-conforming structures with 20’ versus 25’ setback. Pratt says W adden has done an outstanding job with this. He hasn’t previously seen a controversial application handled this well. Perez agrees. C-1-G, C-2-B, “lawfully existing” language. She still has concerns about the term “lawfully existing” in the proposed language, as well as the timeframe allowed to rebuild non-conforming structures. Roy says the proposed language is lawfully established. Perez asks about the recommended revision on 12-18-9? Roy says that it’s in the memo to Town Council. Perez says the P E C recommendation was these be presented simultaneously. April 19, 2022 - Page 518 of 569 Roy says we will bring this to Town Council. Perez asks if this is in the memo? Roy says it was attached to it. Pratt wants a strong recommendation to Council that they evaluate the one- year timeframe to rebuild in 12-18-9. Gillette says the language in the existing code is inadequate in describing what is allowed in setbacks. He thinks an amendment to that section of the code should be made. Roy clarifies the sections in Title 14 regarding setbacks that address these issues. Dick Parker is a resident of the Vail rowhouses. He thinks Wadden has done a good job with the presentation. He has one point of concern left. The proposal is talking about an aerial view and not topography. He asks for a corrections provision if the aerial view differs from the linear measurement and puts a building in non-compliance. Pratt asks about the science of aerial view versus linear measurement. Wadden says if we allow choice between these, applications could take the measurement which would reduce the area protected by this ordinance. Roy says setbacks look at a site plan view and not topography. I t would be inconsistent with the rest of the town code to do so. Gillette says the 10’ no mow zone will be better on a flat parcel versus steep. Wayne Forman speaks on behalf of the One W illow Bridge Road HOA. They would like to see that it’s not the intent of setbacks to be drawn from artificial discharges, just to make that clear. He asks about the language in D-1 regarding the owner. Kelli Rohrig owns a landscaping business in the valley. She says we need to protect our waterways. She has seen the degradation to the creek as a result of landscaping practices in the last two years. The setback will help this issue, she agrees with the proposed ordinance. Pratt asks about the code’s definition of property owner. Roy says someone representing the property owners can act in this regard. Kjesbo says the health of Gore Creek is the most important factor. He would like Council to know the comment that it would be putting more units into non-compliance. But the protection of the creek is ultimately the most important thing. Kurz says we have been working to produce a perfect ordinance, which is impossible. W hat we have today gets the closest we can to that, it balances various interests and protects the waterways. Motion of approval with the comments from the P E C. The first is that the April 19, 2022 - Page 519 of 569 timeframe to rebuild a non-conforming structure in the event of calamity be extended from one year to two years. The second is that the proposed language “lawfully existing” be changed to “lawfully established”. They also recommend being able to replace non-conforming structures in the event of a safety issue. Pratt says council should also be made aware of the number of non- conformities created. Rollie Kjesbo moved to recommendation of approval. Henry Pratt seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent:(1)Bruno 3.3.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, to amend the regulations on landscaping to clarify how landscaping beneath decks should be considered and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C22- 0001) 20 min. Applicant:Town of Vail Planner:Greg Roy Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to April 11, 2022. Henry Pratt seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent:(1)Bruno 3.4.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, Title 12 Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, and Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code to correct out of date references and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C22-0003) 2 min. The applicant requests this item be tabled to the March 28, 2022 meeting. Applicant:Town of Vail Planner:J onathan Spence Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to April 11, 2022. Henry Pratt seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent:(1)Bruno 4.Approval of Minutes 4.1.February 28, 2022 P E C Results Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve as presented. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent:(1)Bruno 5.Adjournment April 19, 2022 - Page 520 of 569 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspec tion during regular offic e hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site vis its that prec ede the public hearing in the Tow n of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to c hange, and c annot be relied upon to determine at w hat time the Planning and Environmental Commission w ill c onsider an item. Please c all (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department Published in the Vail Daily March 11, 2022 April 19, 2022 - Page 521 of 569 Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance Vail Town Council April 19, 2022 970.479.2144 | lovevail.org Pete Wadden Watershed Education Coordinator pwadden@vailgov.com April 19, 2022 - Page 522 of 569 Gore Creek Strategic Plan Goals Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. “The Gore Creek Strategic Plan (Plan) provides a framework ……………designed to address current water quality impairments and aquatic health issues affecting Gore Creek and its tributaries. Because these impairments are not attributed to a single pollutant through extensive research by many entities, actions target the three known causes of degradation: 1.Pollutants from land use activities 2.Drainage from impervious surfaces 3.The loss of riparian and streamside vegetation, reducing the natural ability of these areas to protect Gore Creek from effects of land use activities and urban runoff” April 19, 2022 - Page 523 of 569 Gore Creek Strategic Plan Policy Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. To that end the plan recommends Town of Vail: •“Update stream setback, riparian zone, vegetative buffer zone and other water quality definitions and maps” April 19, 2022 - Page 524 of 569 How was the proposed ordinance developed? Lovevail.org .ittle intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Began with GCSP Policy Recommendations Review of the best science on the subject •EPA recommends 100 foot, three zone buffer-considers 25 feet the minimum for inner zone Review of setbacks in peer communities across Colorado and reality on the ground in Vail •25 feet is the smallest adopted by any community in CO Community outreach and input PEC Recommendation of Adoption to Town CouncilApril 19, 2022 - Page 525 of 569 Community input process Lovevail.org .ittle intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Stakeholder Sessions via zoom April 26, 2021 April 28, 2021 TYFL Dataset available Jan. 2022 Map application available Jan. 2022 Direct Mailings to all Vail Property Owners Press Releases Vail Daily Articles Facebook Nextdoor Digest Twitter Vail Homeowners Association Newsetter April 19, 2022 - Page 526 of 569 Gore Creek Strategic Plan Policy Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Update Titles 8, 9, 12 and 14 to establish a Stream Protection and Overlay/ Hazard Zone to achieve riparian and buffer objectives defined by this Plan. Restrict land uses in near stream zones to preserve or reestablish important vegetated buffers, reduce impervious cover, and eliminate potential sources of pollutants to the stream. Model zoning overlays and associated land use restrictions after EPA recommendations for a three-zone Riparian/Forested Buffer April 19, 2022 - Page 527 of 569 Goals of an effective regulation Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. •Create a clear, comprehensible, and enforceable set of guidelines for building and riparian setbacks on private property in Vail •Promote the establishment of a contiguous riparian buffer along Gore Creek and its tributaries •Limit turfgrass and hardscape and deter excessive chemical use within a delineated buffer zone April 19, 2022 - Page 528 of 569 Criteria for an effective regulation Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. To be successful this ordinance must: 1.Establish a net increase in the amount of riparian buffer 2.Establish a net increase in the distance of buildings and structures from Gore Creek and its tributaries 3.Have a clear, objective and measurable baseline in the field 4.Be consistent, fair and equitable April 19, 2022 - Page 529 of 569 Selected building setbacks from around Colorado Lovevail.org Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Jurisdiction Stream setback Glenwood Springs 35 feet from bank Eagle County 75 feet from high water line Pitkin County 100 feet from bank Aspen Additional review within 100 feet of bank Fort Collins Minimum 50 feet from bank Steamboat Springs 100 feet from bank Estes Park Minimum 50 feet from bank Colbran 100 feet from bank Summit County 25 feet from bankApril 19, 2022 - Page 530 of 569 Existing centerline based setbacks Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. •50 feet on Gore Creek •30 Feet on tributaries April 19, 2022 - Page 531 of 569 Centerline setbacks can be ineffective and inequitable Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Gore Creek varies in width from about 25 feet to about 100 feet 50 feet April 19, 2022 - Page 532 of 569 Centerline setbacks can be ineffective and inequitable Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Gore Creek varies in width from about 25 feet to about 100 feet 50 feet April 19, 2022 - Page 533 of 569 Achieving equity and consistency through a setback from TYFL Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. In places where the creek is widest, a centerline- based setback is ineffective. Gore Creek varies in width from about 25 feet to about 100 feet April 19, 2022 - Page 534 of 569 Effective regulation needs an established baseline Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Two Year Flood Line= FEMA methodology •Same process used to model FEMA 100 year floodplain •Location determined by town provided data (Lidar and field-verified elevation data) •Surveyor uses elevation data to find the line in the field •Objective-Line in the field will be consistent no matter who surveys it April 19, 2022 - Page 535 of 569 Change to Building Setback Lovevail.org Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Setback Scenario Number of acres protected from development Existing 26.27 25 feet from TYFL 30.83 30 Feet from TYFL 36.72 Number of non-conforming buildings Existing-102 25 Feet from TYFL-128 30 Feet from TYFL-165 April 19, 2022 - Page 536 of 569 Corrections process-Forwarded from PEC 1.Property owner wishes to have TYFL corrected 2.Property owner hires qualified professional to delineate OHWM using Army Corps methodology 3.Property owner submits correction request including: •Delineation stamped by state licensed surveyor •Photos of cross of flags or other markers used to delineate OHWM 4.Community Development Director will review and approve application a.If submittal criteria are met, basis for setbacks on that property will move to OHWM 5.Should property owner feel they have a hardship –variance process applies as in every other setbackApril 19, 2022 - Page 537 of 569 Staff recommends clarity and continuity in corrections copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Clear, consistent, objective baseline •Goal of TYFL = establish a baseline for regulation that approximates the stream bank •Goal of the Corrections Process = Allow property owners to refine modeling and/or mapping discrepancies Corrections process should use same methodology –Why? •Equity •Consistency of regulation •Consistency of measurement •Ability to update maps according to corrections •As more granular data are available, if a property owner submitted a correction=improved accuracy of overall data set April 19, 2022 - Page 538 of 569 Corrections process-Staff Recommendation 1.Property owner wishes to have TYFL corrected 2.Property owner hires surveyor to survey a minimum of three cross sections on property 3.Cross sections are used by an engineer to model 2-year flood elevation 4.Property owner submits correction request including: •Stamped letter from engineer stating 2-year flood elevation •Photos of cross sections •Lat/long or UTM locations of cross sections •GIS shapefile delineating location of 2-year flood line 5.Community Development Director will review and approve application a.If submittal criteria are met, line will be moved and recorded in town’s data set 6.Should property owner feel they have a hardship –variance process applies as in every other setback April 19, 2022 - Page 539 of 569 Cross Sections copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. April 19, 2022 - Page 540 of 569 Corrections process should be consistent, objective Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. OHWM= Army Corps Methodology •Requires surveyor to look for changes in vegetation, cut banks and erosive marks •Corrections process would be a change in methodology from baseline •Subjective-two qualified experts have been shown to delineate different lines on the same stream TYFL= FEMA methodology •Same process used to model FEMA 100 year floodplain •Corrections process introduces new data of the same type •Objective-Line in the field will be consistent no matter who surveys it April 19, 2022 - Page 541 of 569 Why change setbacks that have been in place since 1976? Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. •Adopted GSP policy instructs staff to “Update stream setback, riparian zone, vegetative buffer zone and other water quality definitions” •Existing setbacks have proven ineffective in protecting Gore Creek •Existing setbacks are not equitable April 19, 2022 - Page 542 of 569 Vail has changed a lot in 60 years Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Vail achieved urban density along Gore Creek in less than 50 years- much of that development occurred before there was any stream setback.April 19, 2022 - Page 543 of 569 A Creek is more than water in a channel Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. It is a living, ever- changing ecosystem. If Vail wants a healthy creek, the community needs to give it some space. April 19, 2022 - Page 544 of 569 Is the Town Council comfortable with Ordinance Number 6 Series of 2022 as proposed? Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. April 19, 2022 - Page 545 of 569 Lovevail.org Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Pete Wadden Watershed Education Coordinator pwadden@vailgov.com April 19, 2022 - Page 546 of 569 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: E RW S D Temporary Construction L icense Agreement Extension P RE S E NT E R(S ): Tom Kassmel, Town E ngineer AC T IO N RE Q UE S T E D O F C O UNC I L: A pprove extension of Temporary Construction L icense B AC K G RO UND: L ast year E RW S D began replacing a 50+ year old sewer main bridge that crosses the Eagle River in Dowd J unction adjacent to the Gore Valley Trail pedestrian bridge. The Town granted E RW S D a temporary construction license agreement to allow E RW S D to use town property for access and staging. T he license expired on November 15, 2021 and ERWSD is requesting to extend the license through October 15, 2022. S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: S taff recommends approving this request and directing the Town Manager to extend the existing license agreement in a form approved by the Town attorney. AT TAC H ME N TS: Description Staff Memo E RW S D Request April 19, 2022 - Page 547 of 569 To: Town Council From: PW Department Date: 4/19/22 Subject: ERWSD Temporary Construction Access and Staging License Agreement Extension I. SUMMARY Last year ERWSD began replacing a 50+ year old sewer main bridge that crosses the Eagle River in Dowd Junction adjacent to the Gore Valley Trail pedestrian bridge. The Town granted ERWSD a temporary license agreement on town property to allow ERWSD and their contractor to access the river via the Gore Valley Trail and utilize an existing gravel road and area that leads down to the river as access and staging. The granted license expired on November 15, 2021 and ERWSD is requesting to extend this license through October 15, 2022 to complete the project. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approving this request and directing the Town Manager to extend the existing license agreement in a form approved by the Town attorney. April 19, 2022 - Page 548 of 569   April 13, 2022 Tom Kassmel, P.E. Town of Vail 1309 Elkhorn Drive Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mr. Kassmel, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (ERWSD) is requesting an extension of the Temporary Construction License Agreement, dated February 12, 2021 for use of Town of Vail property in Dowd Junction for construction of the West Vail Interceptor. Supply chain delays and interruptions in 2021 beyond the control of the contractor or ERWSD delayed procurement of the bridge and ductile iron pipe, ultimately pushing out the construction schedule for the new utility bridge and related utility work until late summer/fall 2022. The original agreement and Exhibit has been included herein for your reference in review of this request. The original agreement expired in November 15, 2021, the District requests that the Agreement is extended to expire on October 15, 2022. The Contractor will continue to utilize the staging area northeast of the pedestrian/bike trail for staging and construction of the remaining project components. The Contractor will be accessing the staging and construction area across the existing pedestrian bridge. The temporary trail that was constructed last year will remain in place to separate construction and pedestrian traffic until all other work is complete. The temporary trail will be removed, and the site will be returned to its original state prior to the Contractor demobilizing from the site in October of 2022. The District and its Contractor will continue coordination with the Town of Vail related to the staging area and any impacts to the trail for construction activities in the 2022 construction season, beginning in late May 2022. Thank you for consideration of this request and for your ongoing coordination with the District to ensure a successful completion of these critical utility improvements. Sincerely, Jenna Beairsto, P.E. Project Manager April 19, 2022 - Page 549 of 569 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION LICENSE AGREEMENT THIS TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION LICENSE AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made and entered into this / 2-tn day of f(h:uo..r~ , 2021 (the "Effective Date"), by and between the Town of Vail, a Colorado municii;aT corporation with a principal place of business at 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 (the "Town"), and the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, with a principal place of business at 846 Forest Road, Vail, Colorado, 81657 ("Grantee") (each individually a "Party" and collectively the "Parties"). In and for the consideration of the mutual promises and agreements set forth herein, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows : 1. Grant of License . The Town hereby grants to Grantee a temporary non-exclusive license (the "License") to enter, re-enter and use for construction access and construction staging purposes the real property described as Eagle County Assessor's Parcel No. 2103-222-00-001, a portion of land within Section 22, Township 5, Range 81, known as the 'Dowd Junction Parcel" (the "Property") as shown on the attached Exhibit A, to facilitate the Dowd Junction Collection System Improvements, West Vail Interceptor Aerial Crossing (the "Project") in, upon or adjacent to the Property . The License shall be used only for gaining access to and for construction staging for the Project by Grantee, its contractors, architects, engineers and agents, and thereafter restoring the surrounding property. 2 . Term. Grantee shall have and exercise the right to ingress and egress in, to, over and across the Property for any lawful purpose needful for the full enjoyment of the rights granted by the Town to Grantee hereunder for the period commencing on April 1, 2021 and terminating on November 15, 2021 . Should construction not be completed within said period, the Parties may extend the term of the License by mutual agreement. 3. Grantee's Obligations. a. Grantee agrees that it shall cause any portion of the Property which is disturbed during construction of Project to be returned to its original condition existing at the time of Grantee's entry thereon, all at the expense of Grantee or its contractors or agents, no later than November 15, 2021. b. Grantee agrees that it shall provide safe and separate trail access to and across the existing bridge as identified in the Exhibit A. c . Grantee agrees that it or its general contractor will procure an insurance policy which includes and covers the Property that is the subject of this License, and to name the Town as an additional insured thereon. Such insurance policy shall at a minimum include liability and property damage insurance, with a combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage of $1,000,000 per person and $2,000,000 per occurrence. A Certificate of Insurance showing the Town as an additional insured shall be provided to the Town within 30 days of the Effective Date, and annually thereafter. (00806689 .DOCX 13 )212/2021 /:\DOWD JUNCTION COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 201B\3.0 PERMITS\TOV\TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION LICENSE AGREEMENT(OOB06689-3_XAF7F5)).DOCX April 19, 2022 - Page 550 of 569 The failure to provide the Certificate of Insurance shall be grounds for immediate termination of this License by the Town . d. While the License is in effect, Grantee , at its own expense, shall provide for all required maintenance of the Property , including snow removal. 4 . Indem nificat io n. To the extent permitted by law and subject to Sections 15 and 17 below , Grantee agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Town and its officers , insurers , volunteers , representative , agents, employees, heirs and assigns from and against all cla ims , liability, damages , losses, expenses and demands , including attorney fees, on account of injury, loss, or damage , including without lim itation claims arising from bodily injury , personal injury , sickness , disease , death, property loss or damage, or any other loss of any kind whatsoever, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this Agreement or the License granted herein if such injury , loss , or damage is caused in whole or in part by , the act, omission , error, professional error, mistake , negligence , or other fault of Grantee , any subcontractor of Grantee, or any officer, employee , representative , or agent of Grantee . This obligation shall survive term ination of the License. 5. Town's Rights. The Town retains the right to the undisturbed use and occupancy of the Property insofar as such use and occupancy is consistent with and does not impa ir any grant herein contained . 6 . Warranty . The Town warrants that it has the full right and legal authority to make the grant of the License. 7. Bindi ng Effe ct. Each and every one of the benefits and burdens of th is Agreement shall inure to and be binding upon the respective legal representatives , heirs , successors and assigns of the parties hereto, provided however that the rights granted to Grantee hereunder shall terminate on the date specified in Section 2 hereof. 8 . No Waiv er. Delays in enforcement or the waiver of any one or more defaults or breaches of this Agreement by the Town shall not constitute a waiver of any of the other terms or obligation of this Agreement. 9 . Integ rat io n. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties , superseding all prior oral o r written communications . 1 O. Third Pa rt ies. There are no intended third-party beneficiaries to this Agreement. 11 . Notice . Any notice under this Agreement shall be in writing , and shall be deemed sufficient when directly presented or sent pre-paid, first class U.S. Mail to the Party at the address set forth on the first page of this Agreement. 12. Seve rabil ity . If any provision of this Agreement is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful or unenforceable for any reason , the remaining provisions hereof shall remain in full force and effect. {00806689 .DOCX / 3 }2 2/'212021 April 19, 2022 - Page 551 of 569 13 . Modification. This Agreement may only be modified upon written agreement of the Parties . 14. Assignment. Neither this Agreement nor any of the rights or obligations of the Parties hereto shall be assigned by either Party without the written consent of the other. 15 . Governmental Immunity. Each Party and its officers , attorneys and employees , are relying on, and do not waive or intend to waive by any provision of this Agreement , the monetary limitations or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S . § 24-10-101, et seq., as amended, or otherwise available to each Party and its officers or employees. 16. Rights and Remedies. The rights and remedies of the Town under this Agreement are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law . The expiration of this Agreement shall in no way limit the Town's legal or equitable remedies, or the period in which such remedies may be asserted . 17. Subject to Annual Appropriation. Consistent with Article X, § 20 of the Colorado Constitution , any financial obligation of a Party not performed during the current fiscal year is subject to annual appropriation , shall extend only to monies currently appropriated , and shall not constitute a mandatory charge , requirement, debt or liability beyond the current fiscal year. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement on the date first set forth above . [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] {00806689 .DOCX / 3 }3 2/212021 April 19, 2022 - Page 552 of 569 STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF EAGLE L, COLORADO a corporation L~ EAGLE RIVER WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT By : ~814~4 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 11: day of h:-At1, 1t~t V , 2021 , by ,.;J. L 11 ru gpu.Sb as 4,etllttA--L... ./YJeroltti'~- of The Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. My commission expites: tJ/4 -/o•MA <" ,---..LJI'~ y~ ~~ Notary Public {00806689.O0CX / 3 }4 21212021 April 19, 2022 - Page 553 of 569 Exhibit A-Temporary Access and Staging Area April 19, 2022 - Page 554 of 569 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: 2022 Ford P ark S ummer Managed P arking Program P RE S E NT E R(S ): Greg Hall, Public Works Director, S teph K ashiwa P arking Operations Manager AC T IO N RE Q UE S T E D O F C O UNC I L: I nput and approval requested B AC K G RO UND: E ach spring the summer activities and events calendar is reviewed by the Ford P ark User Groups, including representatives from Town of Vail, Vail Recreation District, Vail Valley Foundation ( G R FA ), B etty F ord A lpine Gardens, Bravo! Vail and Walking Mountain S cience Center as operators of Vail Nature Center). The proposed managed parking program calendar is attached. S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: A pprove the 2022 Ford P ark S ummer Managed P arking P rogram AT TAC H ME N TS: Description 2022 Summer Calendar April 19, 2022 - Page 555 of 569 Date Event Name Start Time End Time Location Express Buses Managed/Paid  Parking Wed ‐ 5/11/22 CEO Spring Drive Training  (HOLD) 1:00pm 4:00pm Ford Park  Lot Ford lot Reserved Hard to Recycle Event Ford Park  Lot Ford lot Reserved Sat ‐ 5/21/22 AEG ‐ Trey Anastasio Band 5:30pm 11:00pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐ 11:00pm Paid Parking  3:30pm‐8:00pm Wed ‐ 5/25/22 BMHS Graduation  Rehearsal 12:30pm 3:30pm GFA Managed Parking  12:00pm‐3:30pm Thu ‐ 5/26/22 VMS Graduation 2:00pm 5:00pm GFA Bus (1) 1:30pm‐ 5:30pm Managed Parking  1:30pm‐3:30pm  Fri ‐ 5/27/22 BMHS Graduation 4:00pm 8:00pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐ 8:30pm Managed Parking  3:00pm‐6:00pm Sat ‐ 5/28/22 Memorial GFA Bus (1) Managed Parking Sun ‐ 5/29/22 AEG ‐ Jake Owen 6:30pm 11:00pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐ 11:00pm Paid Parking  4:30pm‐8:30pm Mon ‐ 5/30/22 HOLD AEG ‐ Ben Harper &  Stephen Marley GFA Bus (?) Paid Parking? Wed ‐ 6/1/22 AEG ‐ JRAD 5:30pm 11:00pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐ 11:00pm Paid Parking  3:30pm‐8:30pm Thu ‐ 6/2/22 AEG ‐ JRAD 5:30pm 11:00pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐ 11:00pm Paid Parking  3:30pm‐8:30pm Fri ‐ 6/3/22 Plant Sale 10:00am 4:00pm Managed Parking AEG ‐ Michael Franti and  Spearhead 6:30pm 11:00pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐ 11:00pm Paid Parking  4:30pm‐8:30pm Thu ‐ 6/9/22 GoPro Mountain Games  (GMG) Bus (3) 7:30am‐ 3:30pm Managed Parking  7:00am‐4:00pm Mountain Games Music ‐  Twiddle, Mihali & G. Love 5:30pm 10:30pm GFA Bus (3) 3:30pm‐ 10:30pm Paid Parking  4:00pm‐8:00pm Fri ‐ 6/10/22 GoPro Mountain Games  (GMG) Bus (3) 7:30am‐ 3:30pm Managed Parking  7:00am‐4:00pm Mountain Games Music ‐  Govt Mule/Warren/Grace  Potter 5:30pm 10:30pm GFA Bus (3) 3:30pm‐ 10:30pm Paid Parking  4:00pm‐8:00pm Sat ‐ 6/11/22 GoPro Mountain Games  (GMG) Bus (3) 7:30am‐ 3:30pm Managed Parking  7:00am‐4:00pm Mountain Games Music ‐  Mishka (opener)/Julian  Marley & the Wailers 5:30pm 10:30pm GFA Bus (3) 3:30pm‐ 10:30pm Paid Parking  4:00pm‐8:00pm Sun ‐ 6/12/22 Mountain Games Bus (3) 7:30am‐ 5:00pm Wed ‐ 6/15/22 CO Children's Chorale  Performance 7:00pm 8:30pm GFA Bus (1) 3:30pm‐ 8:30pm Managed Parking  4:00pm‐8:00pm Fri ‐ 6/17/22 King of the Mountain  Volleyball all day Ford Park &  VAF Bus (2) 6:30am‐ 7:30pm Managed Parking  (Ford) 7:00am‐ 7:00pm Vail Craft Beer Classic 4:00pm 7:00pm Lower  Bench Sat ‐ 6/18/22 King of the Mountain  Volleyball all day Ford Park &  VAF Bus (2) 6:30am‐ 7:30pm Managed Parking  (Ford) 7:00am‐ 7:00pm Vail Craft Beer Classic 12:00pm 8:00pm Lower  Bench Sun ‐ 6/19/22 Farmers' Market Bus (1) 9:30am‐ 3:30pm King of the Mountain  Volleyball all day Ford Park &  VAF Bus (2) 6:30am‐ 4:00pm Managed Parking  (Ford) 7:00am‐ 4:30pm 2022 Ford Park Parking Calendar April 19, 2022 - Page 556 of 569 Date Event Name Start Time End Time Location Express Buses Managed/Paid  Parking AEG ‐ Umphreys McGee 5:45pm 11:00pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐ 11:00pm Paid Parking  4:30pm‐8:30pm Tue ‐ 6/21/22 Vail Lacrosse Tournament  (youth) all day Ford Park &  VAF Bus (2) 6:30am‐ 4:00pm Managed Parking  7:00am‐4:30pm HSN ‐ The High Hawks 5:30pm 9:00pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐ 9:00pm Paid Parking  4:30pm‐8:00pm Wed ‐ 6/22/22 Vail Lacrosse Tournament  (youth) all day Ford Park &  VAF Bus (2) 6:30am‐ 5:30pm Managed Parking  7:00am‐5:00pm Thu ‐ 6/23/22 Vail Lacrosse Tournament  (youth) usually half  day Ford Park &  VAF Bus (2) 6:30am‐ 3:00pm Managed Parking  7:00am‐3:30pm Bravo ‐ St. Paul Chamber #1 5:00pm 8:30pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐ 8:30pm Paid Parking  3:30pm‐8:00pm Sat ‐ 6/25/22 Vail Lacrosse Shootout all day Ford Park &  VAF Bus (2) 6:30am‐ 3:00pm Managed Parking  7:00am‐3:30pm Bravo ‐ St. Paul Chamber #2 5:00pm 8:45pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐ 8:30pm Paid Parking  3:30pm‐8:00pm Sun ‐ 6/26/22 Farmers' Market Bus (1) 9:30am‐ 3:30pm Vail Lacrosse Shootout all day Ford Park &  VAF Bus (2) 6:30am‐ 3:00pm Managed Parking  7:00am‐3:30pm Bravo ‐ St. Paul Chamber #3 5:00pm 8:30pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐ 8:30pm Paid Parking  3:30pm‐8:00pm Mon ‐ 6/27/22 Vail Lacrosse Shootout all day Ford Park &  VAF Managed Parking  7:00am‐7:00pm Tue ‐ 6/28/22 Vail Lacrosse Shootout all day Ford Park &  VAF Bus (2) 6:30am‐ 4:00pm Managed parking  7:00am‐4:30pm HSN ‐ Jocyln & Chris 5:30pm 9:00pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐ 9:00pm Paid Parking  4:30pm‐8:00pm Wed ‐ 6/29/22 Vail Lacrosse Shootout all day Ford Park &  VAF Bus (2) 6:30am‐ 3:00pm Managed parking  7:00am‐3:30pm Bravo ‐ DSO #1 5:00pm 8:30pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐ 8:30pm Paid Parking  3:30pm‐8:00pm Thu ‐ 6/30/22 Vail Lacrosse Shootout all day Ford Park &  VAF Bus (2) 6:30am‐ ?pm Managed parking  7:00am‐3:30pm Bravo ‐ DSO #2 5:00pm 8:30pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐ 8:30pm Paid Parking  3:30pm‐8:00pm Fri ‐ 7/1/22 Vail Lacrosse Shootout all day Ford Park &  VAF Bus (2) 6:30am‐ 3:00pm Managed parking  7:00am‐3:30pm Bravo ‐ DSO #3 5:00pm 8:30pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐ 8:30pm Paid Parking  3:30pm‐8:00pm Sat ‐ 7/2/22 Vail Lacrosse Shootout all day Ford Park &  VAF Bus (2) 6:30am‐ 3:00pm Managed parking  7:00am‐3:30pm Bravo ‐ DSO #4 5:00pm 8:45pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐ 8:30pm Paid Parking  3:30pm‐8:00pm Sun ‐ 7/3/22 Farmers' Market Bus (1) 9:30am‐ 3:30pm Vail Lacrosse Shootout all day Ford Park &  VAF Bus (2) 6:30am‐ 7:00pm Managed Parking  7:00am‐7:00pm Mon ‐ 7/4/22 Vail Lacrosse Shootout all day Ford Park &  VAF Bus (3) 6:30am‐ 7:30pm Managed Parking  7:00am‐7:00pm Bravo ‐ DSO #5 Patriotic  Concert 12:30pm 4:30pm GFA Tue ‐ 7/5/22 HSN ‐ TUSK, Feetwood Mac  Tribute 5:30pm 9:00pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐ 9:30pm Paid Parking  4:30pm‐8:00pm  Fri ‐ 7/8/22 Bravo ‐ TPO #1 5:00pm 8:30pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐ 9:00pm Paid Parking  3:30pm‐8:30pm Sat ‐ 7/9/22 Bravo ‐ TPO #2 5:00pm 8:30pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐ 9:00pm Paid Parking  3:30pm‐8:30pm Sun ‐ 7/10/22 Farmers' Market Bus (1) 9:30am‐ 3:30pm April 19, 2022 - Page 557 of 569 Date Event Name Start Time End Time Location Express Buses Managed/Paid  Parking Bravo ‐ TPO #3 (Movie  Night) 6:30pm 9:30pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐ 10:00pm Paid Parking  4:30pm‐8:00pm  Tue ‐ 7/12/22 Stars Variety Show Managed Parking Thu ‐ 7/14/22 Bravo ‐ TPO #4 5:00pm 8:45pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐ 9:00pm Paid parking  3:30pm‐8:00pm  Fri ‐ 7/15/22 Bravo ‐ TPO #5 5:00pm 8:45pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐ 9:00pm Paid parking  3:30pm‐8:00pm  Sat ‐ 7/16/22 Bravo ‐ TPO #6 5:00pm 8:45pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐ 9:00pm Paid parking  3:30pm‐8:00pm  Sun ‐ 7/17/22 Farmers' Market Bus (1) 9:30am‐ 3:30pm Tue ‐ 7/19/22 HSN ‐ Hayes Carll 5:30pm 9:00pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐ 9:00pm Paid Parking  4:30pm‐8:00pm Wed ‐ 7/20/22 Bravo ‐ NYP #1 5:00pm 8:30pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐ 9:00pm Paid parking  3:30pm‐8:00pm  Fri ‐ 7/22/22 Bravo ‐ NYP #2 5:00pm 8:45pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐ 9:00pm Paid parking  3:30pm‐8:00pm  Sat ‐ 7/23/22 Vail Invitational Soccer  Tournament 8:00am 3:00pm Ford Park &  VAF Managed Parking  7:00am‐3:30pm Bravo ‐ NYP #3 5:00pm 8:30pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐ 9:00pm Paid Parking  3:30pm‐8:00pm Sun ‐ 7/24/22 Farmers' Market Bus (1) 9:30am‐ 3:30pm Vail Invitational Soccer  Tournament 8:00am 3:00pm Ford Park &  VAF Managed Parking  7:00am‐3:30pm Bravo ‐ NYP #4 5:00pm 8:30pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐ 9:00pm Paid Parking  3:30pm‐8:00pm Tue ‐ 7/26/22 Bravo ‐ NYP #5 5:00pm 8:30pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐ 9:00pm Paid Parking  3:30pm‐8:00pm Wed ‐ 7/27/22 Bravo ‐ NYP #6 5:00pm 8:30pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐ 9:00pm Paid Parking  3:30pm‐8:00pm Thu ‐ 7/28/22 3v3 Soccer Youth all day Ford Park &  VAF Bus (2) 6:30a‐ 8:30pm Paid Parking  7:00am‐7:00pm Fri ‐ 7/29/22 3v3 Soccer Youth all day Ford Park &  VAF Bus (2) 6:30a‐ 4:00pm Paid Parking  7:00am‐4:30pm VDF Opening Night 6:30pm 9:30pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐ 10:00pm Paid Parking  4:30pm‐7:00pm Sat ‐ 7/30/22 3v3 Soccer Youth all day Ford Park &  VAF Bus (2) 6:30a‐ 4:00pm Paid Parking  7:00am‐4:30pm VDF NYCB: Moves 6:30pm 10:00pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐ 10:30pm Paid Parking  4:30pm‐7:00pm Sun ‐ 7/31/22 Farmers' Market Bus (1) 9:30am‐ 3:30pm 3v3 Soccer Youth all day Ford Park &  VAF Bus (2) 6:30a‐ 4:30pm Paid Parking  7:00am‐4:00pm Mon ‐ 8/1/22 VDF ‐ Limon Dance  Company 6:30pm 9:30pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐ 10:00pm Paid Parking  4:30pm‐8:00pm  Wed ‐ 8/3/22 VDF ‐ UpClose: New Works 5:00pm 9:00pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐ 9:30pm Paid Parking  3:30pm‐8:00pm  Fri ‐ 8/5/22 VDF ‐ IED I 6:30pm 10:00pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐ 10:30pm Paid Parking  4:30pm‐8:00pm Transrockies (Camp  overnight on field) VAF Sat ‐ 8/6/22 Transrockies (Camp  overnight on field) 12:00am 12:15pm VAF VDF ‐ IED II x2 Bus (2) 2:30pm‐ 10:00pm Paid Parking  3:00pm‐8:00pm Sun ‐ 8/7/22 Farmers' Market Bus (1) 9:30am‐ 3:30pm Mon ‐ 8/8/22 VDF ‐ Now: Premieres 6:30pm 10:00pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐ 10:30pm Paid Parking  4:30pm‐8:00pm  Tue ‐ 8/9/22 VDF ‐ Closing Night Dance  for $20.22 6:30pm 9:30pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐ 8:30pm Paid Parking  4:30pm‐8:00pm Fri ‐ 8/12/22 Vail Wine Classic all day VAF AEG ‐ Primus 6:00pm 11:00pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐ 11:00pm Paid Parking  4:30pm‐8:30pm Sat ‐ 8/13/22 Vail Wine Classic all day VAF AEG ‐ Primus 6:00pm 11:00pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐ 11:00pm Paid Parking  4:30pm‐8:30pm Sun ‐ 8/14/22 Farmers' Market Bus (1) 9:30am‐ 3:30pm April 19, 2022 - Page 558 of 569 Date Event Name Start Time End Time Location Express Buses Managed/Paid  Parking AEG ‐ Amos Lee & CO  Symphony 6:00pm 11:00pm GAF Bus (2) 4:00pm‐ 11:00pm Paid Parking  4:30pm‐8:30pm Tue ‐ 8/16/22 AEG ‐ Maren Morris & the  Lone Bellow 6:00pm 11:00pm GAF Bus (2) 4:00pm‐ 11:00pm Paid Parking  4:30pm‐8:30pm Wed ‐ 8/17/22 AEG ‐ Andy Grammer & Fitz  & The Tantrums 6:30pm 11:00pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐ 9:00pm Paid Parking  4:30pm‐8:30pm Thu ‐ 8/18/22 HSN ‐ Grupo Fantasmo 5:30pm 8:30pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐ 9:00pm Paid Parking  4:30pm‐8:30pm Fri ‐ 8/19/22 Triple Bypass Load In Ford Park (HOLD) AEG ‐ Lettuce Bus (2) 4:00pm‐ 9:00pm Paid Parking  4:30pm‐8:30pm Sat ‐ 8/20/22 Triple Bypass Ford Park AEG ‐ Nate Bergatze 7:00pm 10:30pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐ 11:00pm Paid Parking  4:30pm‐8:30pm Sun ‐ 8/21/22 Farmers' Market Bus (1) 9:30am‐ 3:30pm Triple Bypass Load Out Ford Park CO Ski Museum Event 3:00pm 10:00pm GFA Bus (1) 2:00pm‐ 10:00pm Managed Parking  2:30pm‐6:00pm  Tue ‐ 8/23/22 HSN ‐ Elellovators 5:30pm 8:30pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐ 9:00pm Paid Parking  4:30pm‐8:30pm Sun ‐ 8/28/22 Farmers' Market Bus (1) 9:30am‐ 3:30pm (HOLD) Vail Pioneer Days 11:00am 7:00pm Managed Tue ‐ 8/30/22 HSN ‐ North Miss Allstars 5:30pm 8:30pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐ 8:30pm Paid Parking  4:30pm‐8:00pm  Sun ‐ 9/4/22 Farmers' Market Bus (1) 9:30am‐ 3:30pm Sun ‐ 9/11/22 Farmers' Market Bus (1) 9:30am‐ 3:30pm Sun ‐ 9/18/22 Farmers' Market Bus (1) 9:30am‐ 3:30pm Sun ‐ 9/25/22 Farmers' Market Bus (1) 9:30am‐ 3:30pm Sun ‐ 10/2/22 Farmers' Market Bus (1) 9:30am‐ 3:30pm April 19, 2022 - Page 559 of 569 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: Contract Award with Fehr & Peers for Vail Mobility & Transportation Master Plan P RE S E NT E R(S ): Tom Kassmel, E ngineer AC T IO N RE Q UE S T E D O F C O UNC I L: A sk questions. B AC K G RO UND: The Town of Vail has budgeted to complete an update to the 2009 Vail Transportation Master Plan. The new plan will ultimately provide an updated Master Plan for Mobility and Transportation within Vail for the foreseeable future. The Town received 3 proposals. S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: Award the contract to Fehr & Peers in the amount of $300,000 in a form approved by the Town A ttorney AT TAC H ME N TS: Description Staff Memo April 19, 2022 - Page 560 of 569 To: Town Council From: Public Works Department Date: April 19, 2022 Subject: Vail Mobility & Transportation Master Plan Contract Award I. SUMMARY The Town of Vail has budgeted $300,000 to complete an update to the 2009 Vail Transportation Master Plan. The new plan will ultimately provide an updated Master Plan for Mobility and Transportation within Vail for the foreseeable future. The plan will update traffic, transit, and parking projections and provide implementation recommendations for each; as well as provide updates on other past transportation related topics such as traffic speeds and traffic calming, noise, loading & delivery, special event logistics, AGS/rail, and tunneling/capping I-70. The new master plan will specifically focus on all modes of mobility and explore emerging technologies that will enhance mobility and transportation experiences throughout Vail. The Town advertised a Request For Proposals (RFP) for this work in February and received three proposals in March. Fehr & Peers $300,000 Toole Design $325,000 Felsberg, Holt, & Ullevig $475,000 After the thorough review of each proposal and interviews with both Fehr & Peers and Toole Design, town staff is recommending the town proceed with Fehr & Peers. The proposal cost is within budget; however it is anticipated that there will be additional costs for third party venders for “Big Data” collection, and additional costs for marketing and public engagement. The budget was set several years ago and with inflation the current budget does not accommodate these additional expected future project cost s. As this is a multi-year project, staff recommends that Council award the contract and reevaluate supplemental budget needs this fall during the 2023 budgeting process. II. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends awarding the contract to Fehr & Peers in the amount of $300,000 in a form approved by the Town Attorney. April 19, 2022 - Page 561 of 569 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: Ordinance No. 5, S eries of 2022, Second Reading, A n Ordinance Amending Various S ections of the Vail Town Code Relating to A lcoholic Beverages, to Reflect Changes in S tate L aw P RE S E NT E R(S ): Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk AC T IO N RE Q UE S T E D O F C O UNC I L: A pprove, approve with amendments or deny second reading of Ordinance No. 5, Series 2022. B AC K G RO UND: The Colorado General Assembly recently passed, and the Governor recently signed into law, House B ill 18-1023 and House Bill 18-1025, which will move sections of Title 12 of Colorado Revised S tates into a new Title 44, effective October 1, 2018 and the Town Council wishes to update the Vail Town Code accordingly. S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: A pprove, approve with amendments or deny second reading of Ordinance No. 5, Series 2022. AT TAC H ME N TS: Description Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2022 April 19, 2022 - Page 562 of 569 Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2022 ORDINANCE NO. 5 SERIES 2022 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE VAIL TOWN CODE RELATING TO ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, TO REFLECT CHANGES IN STATE LAW WHEREAS, the Colorado General Assembly recently passed, and the Governor recently signed into law, House Bill 18-1023 and House Bill 18-1025, which will move sections of Title 12 of Colorado Revised States into a new Title 44, effective October 1, 2018; and WHEREAS the Town Council wishes to update the Vail Town Code accordingly. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Section 3-5-2 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as follows: 3-5-2: LOCAL AUTHORITY DESIGNATED: Pursuant to the provisions of Colorado Revised Statutes section 12-46- 103(4), section 12-47-103(9) C.R.S. §§ 44-4-103(4), 44-3-103(27), and the Town Charter § 8.6, there is designated a Local Licensing Authority of the Town (the "Authority"), a commission composed of five members appointed by the Town Council, for the licensing of locations within the town to sell alcoholic liquors and fermented malt beverages and for the local administration of the Colorado Liquor Code of 1935, and the Colorado Beer Code Fermented Malt Beverages Act, in accordance with said statutes. Section 2. Section 3-5-8 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as follows: 3-5-8: CONDUCT OF PROCEEDINGS AND HEARINGS: The Local Licensing Authority shall conduct its proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Colorado Liquor Code of 1935 and the Colorado Beer Code Fermented Malt Beverages Act. In order to ensure due process of law the Local Licensing Authority shall conduct its hearings and make its determinations as nearly as practicable in accordance with the procedures set forth in Colorado Revised Statutes section C.R.S. § 24-4-105, as amended. Written records of its proceedings shall be maintained, which shall be open to public inspection. Section 3. Section 4-2-1 of the Vail Town Code is hereby repealed in its entirety. April 19, 2022 - Page 563 of 569 Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2022 Section 4. Section 4-2-2 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as follows: 4-2-2: STANDARDS FOR ISSUANCE OF OPTIONAL PREMISES LICENSE: The following standards for the issuance of optional premises licenses or for optional premises for a hotel and restaurant license are hereby adopted pursuant to the provisions of Colorado Revised Statutes section 12-47- 135.5 C.R.S. § 44-3-310, as amended. * * * B. Eligible Facilities: 1. An optional premises may only be approved when that premises is located on or adjacent to an "outdoor sports and recreational facility" as defined in Colorado Revised Statutes section 12-47-103(13.5)(b) C.R.S. § 44-3-103(33)(b), as amended. The types of outdoor sports and recreational facilities which may be considered for an outdoor premises license include the following: a. Country club. b. Golf courses and driving ranges. c. Ice skating areas. d. Ski areas. e. Swimming pools. * * * E. Advanced Notification. Pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes section 12-47-135(6) and (7) C.R.S. § 44-3-310(3) and (4), as amended, no alcoholic beverages may be served on the optional premises until the licensee has provided written notice to the state and local licensing authorities forty eight (48) hours prior to serving alcoholic beverages on the optional premises. Such notice must contain the specific days and hours on which the optional premises are to be used . In this regard, there is with no limitation on the number of days which a licensee may specify in each notice. However, no notice may specify any date of use which is more than one hundred eighty (180) days from the notice date. April 19, 2022 - Page 564 of 569 Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2022 Section 5. Section 4-2-3.A of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as follows: 4-2-3: TEMPORARY PERMITS: A. Statutory Authority Authorization. This Section is enacted in accordance with Colorado Revised Statutes sections 12-46-106.5 and 12- 47-106.5 C.R.S. § 44-3-303 which authorize a local licensing authority, at its discretion, to issue a temporary permit to a transferee of a fermented malt beverage license or a liquor license issued by the state licensing authority. Section 6. Section 4-2-4 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as follows: 4-2-4: BED AND BREAKFAST PERMIT: A. Statutory Authority. This Section is enacted in accordance with Colorado Revised Statutes section 12-47-118.5 C.R.S. § 44-3-412, as amended, which authorizes a Local Licensing Authority, at its option, to issue a bed and breakfast permit to a person operating a bed and breakfast establishment. * * * E. Cancellation. A bed and breakfast permit may be suspended or revoked in accordance with Colorado Revised Statutes section 12-47-110 C.R.S. § 44-3-412, as amended, if the permittee violates any provision of Colorado Revised Statutes article 47 C.R.S. Title 44 Article 3, or any rule adopted pursuant to said Colorado Revised Statutes article 47 C.R.S. Title 44 Article 3, or fails truthfully to furnish any required information in connection with a permit application. Section 7. Section 4-2-5 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as follows: 4-2-5: ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE TASTINGS: Pursuant to section 12-47-301(10)(a), Colorado Revised Statutes C.R.S. § 44-3-301(10)(a), the Town hereby authorizes alcoholic beverage tastings at licensed retail liquor stores and liquor licensed drugstores in the Town, subject to the limitations contained in section 12-47-301(10), Colorado Revised Statutes C.R.S. § 44-3-301(10), and subject to the approval by the local licensing authority of a tastings permit. Section 8. Section 4-2-6 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as follows: 4-2-6: SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS: A. Pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes section 12-48-107(5)(a) C.R.S. § 44-5-107(5)(a), the local licensing authority ("Authority") elects not April 19, 2022 - Page 565 of 569 Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2022 to notify the state licensing authority to obtain the state licensing authority's approval or disapproval of applications for special event permits. * * * C. Upon receipt of an application for a special event permit, the Authority shall, as required by Colorado Revised Statutes section 12-48- 107(5)(c) C.R.S. § 44-5-107(5)(c), access information made available on the state licensing authority's website to determine the statewide permitting activity of the organization applying for the permit. The Authority shall consider compliance with the provisions of Colorado Revised Statutes section 12-48-105(3) C.R.S. § 44-5-105(3), which restricts the number of permits issued to an organization within a calendar year to fifteen (15), before approving any application. * * * E. Each application for a special event permit shall be accompanied by an application fee in an amount equal to the maximum local licensing fee established by Colorado Revised Statutes section 12-48-107(2) C.R.S. § 44-5-107(2)(c). Section 9. Section 5-13-7.B. of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as follows: 5-13-7: EXEMPTIONS: * * * B. A retail liquor store, as defined in Colorado Revised Statutes section 12-47-103(31) C.R.S. § 44-3-103(48), may provide a disposable paper bag to a customer with no fee if the disposable paper bag is provided for the containment of carry out alcoholic beverages as defined in Colorado Revised Statutes section 12-47-103(2) C.R.S. § 44-3-103(2). Section 10. Section 6-3C-4.A. of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as follows: 6-3C-4: DRINKING IN PUBLIC: A. Prohibited: It is unlawful for any person to drink any malt, vinous, or spirituous liquors upon any street, alley, sidewalk, public building or public parking lot in the Town or within any vehicle upon the streets, alleys, sidewalks or public parking lots in the Town except by written authorization of the Town Council. It is unlawful for any person to possess in or upon any street, alley, sidewalk, public building or public parking lot in the Town, any malt, vinous, or spirituous liquors in any container of any kind or description which is not sealed or upon which the seal is broken. The word "sealed" April 19, 2022 - Page 566 of 569 Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2022 means the regular seal applied by the United States government over the cap of all malt, vinous or spirituous liquors. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is shall not be unlawful for any person to have in his or her their possession or under his or her their control one open container of vinous liquor removed from a licensed premises pursuant to and subject to the limitations set forth in compliance with Colorado Revised Statutes section 12-47-411(3.5) C.R.S. § 44-3-423, as amended. Section 11. Section 6-3C-5.C.1 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as follows: 6-3C-5. SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS: C. Illegal Possession or Consumption of Liquor By Underage Persons: 1. As used in this subsection, unless the context otherwise requires: * * * PRIVATE PROPERTY: Any dwelling and its curtilage which is being used by a natural person or natural persons for habitation and which is not open to the public, and privately-owned real property which is not open to the public. "Private property" shall not include: a. Any establishment which has or is required to have a license pursuant to article 46, 47, or 48 of title 12, Colorado Revised Statutes C.R.S. Title 44, Article 3, 4, or 5; or * * * Section 12. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsect ion, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 13. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town and the inhabitants thereof. Section 14. The amendment of any provision of the Vail Town Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. April 19, 2022 - Page 567 of 569 Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2022 Section 15. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 5th day of April, 2022 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance is set for the 19th day of April, 2022, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. _____________________________ Kim Langmaid, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 19th day of April, 2022. _____________________________ Kim Langmaid, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk April 19, 2022 - Page 568 of 569 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: Adjournment 7:50 pm (estimate) April 19, 2022 - Page 569 of 569