Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
PKT-CC-2020-08-11
AUGUST 11, 2020 PRE -COUNCIL WORKSHOP PRESENTATION - 6:30 P.M. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 P.M. Per Executive Order 2020 -5 issued by Governor Gary R. Herbert on March 18, 2020, this meeting will be conducted electronically and may be viewed on the City'sYouTube channel . An anchor location will not be provided. Pre -Council Workshop: Presentation - 6:30 p.m. Presentation of Greenhouse Gas Inventory for Grand County and the City of Moab agenda summary ghg inventory.pdf grandcounty_communityghginventory_2018.pdf Regular City Council Meeting - 7:00 p.m. Call to Order and Roll Call Attendance COVID -19 Updates Approval of Minutes Minutes: July 28, 2020, Regular Meeting min -cc -2020 -07 -28 draft.pdf Mayor and Council Reports Administrative Reports Budget Update Citizens to Be Heard To have your comments considered for the Citizens to Be Heard portion of the electronic meeting, please fill out the form found here: https://forms.gle/lvcmtlb9rvi6kpnaa You must submit your comments by 7:00 pm on August 11, 2020. Please limit your comments to 400 words. Old Business Presentation on Lionsback MPD lionsback agenda summary 8.11.2020.pdf exhibit 1 lionsback 1 - original approval.jpg exhibit 2 vicinity map.jpg exhibit 3 open space plan.jpg New Business Proposed Resolution 34 -2020: A Resolution Conditionally Approving the Lawrence Minor Subdivision at 479 Bowen Circle, Moab, Utah 8453, As Referred to Council by the Moab Planning Commission Briefing and possible action lawrence minor subdivision cc agenda summary 081020.pdf exhibit 1 resolution 34 -2020 lawrence minor subdivision.pdf exhibit 2 vicinity map.pdf exhibit 3 lawrence minor subdivision plat.pdf Approval of Bills Against the City of Moab Adjournment Special Accommodations: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals needing special accommodations during this meeting should notify the Recorder ’s Office at 217 East Center Street, Moab, Utah 84532; or phone (435) 259 -5121 at least three (3) working days prior to the meeting. Check our website for updates at: www.moabcity.org 1. 1.1. Documents: 2. 2.1. 3. 4. 4.1. Documents: 5. 6. 6.1. 7. 8. 8.1. Documents: 9. 9.1. Documents: 10. 11. AUGUST 11, 2020PRE-COUNCIL WORKSHOP PRESENTATION - 6:30 P.M. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 P.M.Per Executive Order 2020 -5 issued by Governor Gary R. Herbert on March 18, 2020, this meeting will be conducted electronically and may be viewed on the City'sYouTube channel .An anchor location will not be provided.Pre -Council Workshop: Presentation - 6:30 p.m.Presentation of Greenhouse Gas Inventory for Grand County and the City of Moab agenda summary ghg inventory.pdfgrandcounty_communityghginventory_2018.pdfRegular City Council Meeting - 7:00 p.m.Call to Order and Roll Call AttendanceCOVID-19 UpdatesApproval of MinutesMinutes: July 28, 2020, Regular Meetingmin-cc -2020 -07 -28 draft.pdfMayor and Council ReportsAdministrative ReportsBudget UpdateCitizens to Be Heard To have your comments considered for the Citizens to Be Heard portion of the electronic meeting, please fill out the form found here: https://forms.gle/lvcmtlb9rvi6kpnaa You must submit your comments by 7:00 pm on August 11, 2020. Please limit your comments to 400 words. Old Business Presentation on Lionsback MPD lionsback agenda summary 8.11.2020.pdf exhibit 1 lionsback 1 - original approval.jpg exhibit 2 vicinity map.jpg exhibit 3 open space plan.jpg New Business Proposed Resolution 34 -2020: A Resolution Conditionally Approving the Lawrence Minor Subdivision at 479 Bowen Circle, Moab, Utah 8453, As Referred to Council by the Moab Planning Commission Briefing and possible action lawrence minor subdivision cc agenda summary 081020.pdf exhibit 1 resolution 34 -2020 lawrence minor subdivision.pdf exhibit 2 vicinity map.pdf exhibit 3 lawrence minor subdivision plat.pdf Approval of Bills Against the City of Moab Adjournment Special Accommodations: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals needing special accommodations during this meeting should notify the Recorder ’s Office at 217 East Center Street, Moab, Utah 84532; or phone (435) 259 -5121 at least three (3) working days prior to the meeting. Check our website for updates at: www.moabcity.org 1.1.1.Documents:2.2.1.3.4.4.1.Documents:5.6.6.1.7. 8. 8.1. Documents: 9. 9.1. Documents: 10. 11. Moab City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: August 11, 2020 Title: Presentation of Greenhouse Gas Inventory for Grand County and the City of Moab Date Submitted: August 5, 2020 Staff Presenter: Cory Shurtleff, Assistant Planner; Claire Buysse, Consultant Attachment(s): 2018 Inventory of Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions Options: Presentation and Discussion Recommended Motion: N/A Background/Summary: In 2019, ICLEI--Local Governments for Sustainability convened a Mountain Town 2030 GHG Inventory Cohort of which the City of Moab is a member. Participation in the Cohort gave the City access to a tool called ClearPath, which was developed by ICLEI to help local and regional governments develop greenhouse gas emissions footprints for their respective communities. In partnership with Grand County, City staff and a shared consultant participated in this Cohort to develop a GHG Inventory report for the Moab community. This report provides estimates of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from activities in Grand County as a whole in 2018, which will set a baseline for future emissions reductions. Claire Buysse, the consultant who prepared this report, will give a presentation on its findings. This analysis found that the Grand County community was responsible for emitting 597,969 metric tons of CO2e in the base year 2018, with emissions from the transportation contributing the most to this total. The figure below shows a breakdown of these community-wide emissions by sector. For additional detail, please refer to the attached report. Grand County, UT 2018 Inventory of Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions Produced by Claire Buysse with assistance from ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability USA A collaboration between Grand County and the City of Moab Photo Credit: Neal Herbert Grand County Community-Wide GHG Emissions Inventory Page 2 Credits and Acknowledgements Grand County Mila Dunbar-Irwin Zacharia Levine Russell Von Koch (?) Andy Solvig (?) Name, Title, Department 1 City of Moab Carly Castle Nora Shepard Kaitlin Myers Cory Shurtleff Obe (?) Chuck (?) ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA Tom Herrod, Senior Program Officer This report was prepared by Claire Buysse, an independent consultant. The author would like to thank staff at Grand County and the City of Moab for providing much of the insight and local information necessary for the completion of this report. This GHG Inventory Report was developed using a template provided by ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability, USA. This template and its appendices were published in January 2019. © 2019 ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA. All Rights Reserved. Grand County Community-Wide GHG Emissions Inventory Page 3 Consider including letter from Mayor or other elected leader here [Jurisdiction] Community-Wide GHG Emissions Inventory Page 4 Table of Contents Tables and Figures ............................................................................................. 5 List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. 5 List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. 5 Executive Summary ............................................................................................ 6 Key Findings ............................................................................................................................... 6 Next Steps ................................................................................................................................... 7 Climate Change and Our Community ................................................................ 8 Regional and Local Impacts ..................................................................................................... 8 Community Climate Policy ........................................................................................................ 8 Action Framework ...................................................................................................................... 9 Local Sustainability + Climate Change Action ....................................................................... 9 Inventory Methodology .................................................................................... 10 Standardized Protocol ............................................................................................................. 10 Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............................................................................. 10 Sources and Activities ......................................................................................................................... 10 Quantification Methods ....................................................................................................................... 11 Community Emissions Inventory Results ....................................................... 12 A Note on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Equivalents .......................................................................... 12 Significantly Influenced Emissions Frame ........................................................................... 12 Community-Wide Activities Frame ........................................................................................ 14 Household Consumption Frame ............................................................................................ 16 Community Emissions Forecast ............................................................................................ 17 Additional Analyses ................................................................................................................. 18 Interstate and Arches National Park Transportation .......................................................................... 18 Grid Electricity ..................................................................................................................................... 19 Appendix A: Inventory Details ......................................................................... 20 Table A-1: Summary of Included and Excluded Community Emissions .......................... 20 Figure A-1: Residential Energy Forecast .............................................................................. 22 Figure A-2: Commercial Energy Forecast* ........................................................................... 22 Figure A-3: Industrial Energy Forecast ................................................................................. 23 Figure A-4: Transportation Forecast ..................................................................................... 23 Figure A-5: Solid Waste Forecast .......................................................................................... 24 Figure A-6: Wastewater Forecast ........................................................................................... 24 Figure A-7: AFOLU (Agriculture) Forecast ........................................................................... 25 Figure A-8: Process & Fugitive Emissions Forecast........................................................... 25 Grand County Community-Wide GHG Emissions Inventory Page 5 Tables and Figures List of Figures 1 Community-Wide Emissions in Grand County, UT 2 Significantly Influenced Emissions 3 Community-Wide Activity Emissions A-1 Residential Energy Forecast A-2 Commercial Energy Forecast A-3 Industrial Energy Forecast A-4 Transportation Forecast A-5 Solid Waste Forecast A-6 Wastewater Forecast A-7 AFOLU (Agriculture) Forecast A-8 Process & Fugitive Emissions Forecast List of Tables 1 Grand County Community Indicators 2 Significantly Influenced GHG Emissions by Activity and Source 3 Additional Community-Wide Activity GHG Emissions 4 Household Consumption Emissions for Grand County 5 Indicators Used in Emissions Forecast 6 Community Emissions Growth Projections by Sector 7 Difference in Grid Electricity Emissions A-1 Summary of Included and Excluded Community Emissions Grand County Community-Wide GHG Emissions Inventory Page 6 Executive Summary Grand County and the City of Moab recognize that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human activity are catalyzing profound climate change, the consequences of which pose substantial risks to the future health, wellbeing, and prosperity of our community. In addition to mitigating these risks, there are also multiple opportunities to benefit by acting quickly to reduce community GHG emissions , including local green job creation, reduced electricity costs, and improved air quality and health. Earlier this year, Grand County and the City of Moab signed the Mountain Towns 2030 pledge, committing to set bold climate goals to significantly reduce emissions in the county, aiming for net -zero in 2030. Moab City Mayor Emily Niehaus is also a signatory to the US Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement and former Mayor David Sakrison to the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy , demonstrating a commitment to a low-emission, climate-resilient community. Grand County and the City of Moab have already begun the climate action planning process, starting with inventorying emissions. This report provides estimates of greenhouse gas emission s resulting from activities in Grand County as a whole in 2018, which will set a baseline for future emission s reductions. Key Findings This analysis found that the Grand County community as a whole was responsible for emitting 597,969 metric tons of CO2e in the base year 2018, with emissions from the transportation contributing the most to this total. Figure 1 shows a breakdown of these community-wide emissions by sector. A subset of these community- wide emissions is significantly influenced by local governments and is most policy relevant. Despite the exclusion of interstate traffic, transportation remains the largest emissions contributor with ~72% of emissions. The next largest contributor is commercial energy (~8%), followed closely by residential energy (~7%). Actions to reduce emissions in these sectors will be a key part of climate action planning at the city Figure 1: Community-Wide Emissions in Grand County, UT Grand County Community-Wide GHG Emissions Inventory Page 7 and county level. Emissions from industrial energy, solid waste, agriculture, natural gas leakage, and wastewater treatment were responsible for the remainder of significantly influenced emissions. Next Steps Grand County and the City of Moab are continuing to move forward in identifying emission reduction strategies and creating a local climate action plan. Potential climate and sustainability strategies may include energy efficiency, renewable energy, vehicle fuel efficiency, alternative transportation, vehicle trip reduction, land use and transit planning, and waste reduction. With the creation of a 2018 emissions baseline, future inventories will track Grand County’s progress on reducing greenhouse gas emiss ions. Through these efforts and others, the City and County can achieve additional benefits beyond reducing emissions, including creating jobs, saving money, and improving the quality of life in Grand County. Describe your next planned actions, such as se tting an emissions reduction target, creating a formal climate action plan, and specific planned emissions reduction actions. E.g., RMP solar net metering. Solar installation targets? Energy efficiency requirements? Electric vehicle charging? Electrifying tourist infrastructure? Arches shuttle? Grand County Community-Wide GHG Emissions Inventory Page 8 Climate Change and Our Community Naturally occurring gases dispersed in the atmosphere determine the E arth’s climate by trapping solar radiation at the Earth’s surface. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. Overwhelming evidence shows that human activities are increasing the con centration of these greenhouse gases and altering the global climate. The most significant contributor is the burning of fossil fuels for transportation, electricity generation and other purposes, which introduces large amounts o f carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Collectively, these gases intensify the natural greenhouse effect, causing global average surface and lower atmospheric temperatures to rise. Regional and Local Impacts Grand County and the City of Moab are expected to be impacted by the effects of climate change in several ways, including higher summertime temperatures, longer -lasting and more intense droughts, greater frequency and severity of extreme weather events (e.g., intense rainfall and flash flooding), greater risk of forest fires, and increasingly strained water resources. The EPA has recorded a near 3F increase in average temperatures in southeastern Utah. In addition, the EPA has reported consistently declining snowpack across the state in the last several decades , with more than an 80% decrease in the La Sal Mountains.1 Community Climate Policy Many communities in the United States have taken responsibility for addressing climate change at the local level. Since many of the major sources of greenhouse gas emissions are directly or indirectly controlled through local policies, local governments have a strong role to play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions within their boundaries. Through proactive measures around land use patterns, transportation demand management, energy efficiency, green building, waste diversion, and more, local governments can dramatically reduce emissions in their communities. Emissions reduction strategies come with many co -benefits. For example, more energy efficient buildings and electric vehicles reduce utility and transportation costs for residents and businesses. In addition, investment in energy efficiency also creates local jobs and boosts the local economy – and it has been well-documented that more jobs are created in the green economy (clean energy, electrification, and 1 https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/climate-change-ut.pdf Grand County Community-Wide GHG Emissions Inventory Page 9 efficiency) than for the same investment in the fossil fuel industry. Reductions in fossil fuel use also clean up the air, reducing the occurrence and inflammation of respiratory issues and improving all residents’ health. Describe the policy context for your jurisdiction. Include any relevant state, r egional, or local legislation. Action Framework Grand County and the City of Moab are using the ICLEI framework and methodology to identify and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Actions are organized into five major milestones: 1. Conduct an inventory and forecast of local greenhouse gas emissions; 2. Establish a greenhouse gas emissions reduction target; 3. Develop a climate action plan for achieving the emissions reduction target; 4. Implement the climate action plan; and, 5. Monitor and report on progress. This report represents the completion of the first milestone, providing a foundation for future work at the city and county level to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Local Sustainability + Climate Change Action Grand County and the City of Moab have already implemented programs that have or will lead to ancillary benefits in the form of energy conservation and greenhouse gas mitigation. Committing to net-zero emissions by 2032… Describe the local initiatives currently in place that you identify as sustainability or GHG mitigating projects. Considering including the following if your local government has done them: • Formal commitments to climate or sustainability action (e.g. US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement) • Lead-by-example actions to reduce government operations emissions • Business engagement and recognition programs • Recycling and waste reduction programs • Energy efficiency education or incentive programs for residents or businesses Grand County Community-Wide GHG Emissions Inventory Page 10 Inventory Methodology Standardized Protocol The first step toward achieving tangible greenhouse gas emission reductions requires identifyi ng baseline emissions levels, as well as the sources and activities generating emissions in the Grand County community. As local governments have continued to join the climate protection movement, the need for a standardized approach to quantify GHG emissions has proven essential. This inventory uses the approach and methods provided by the Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions Protocol (Community Protocol)2. The Community Protocol was released by ICLEI in October 2012 and represents a new national standard in guidance for U.S. local governments to develop effective community GHG emissions inventories. It establishes reporting requirements for all community GHG emissions inventories, provides detailed accounting guidance for quantifying GHG emissions associated with a range of emission sources and community activities, and provides a number of optional reporting frameworks to help local governments customize their reporting based on local goals and capacities. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions Sources and Activities Communities contribute to greenh ouse gas emissions in many ways. Two central categorizations of emissions are used in the community inventory: 1) GHG emissions that are produced by “sources” located within the community boundary, and 2) GHG emissions produced as a consequence of community “activities”. Source Activity Any physical process inside the jurisdictional boundary that releases GHG emissions into the atmosphere The use of energy, materials, and/or services by members of the community that result in the creation of GHG emissions. By reporting on both GHG emissions sources and activities, local governments can develop and promote a deeper understanding of GHG emissions associated with their communities. A purely source ‐based 2 http://www.icleiusa.org/tools/ghg-protocol/community-protocol Grand County Community-Wide GHG Emissions Inventory Page 11 emissions inventory could be summed to estima te total emissions released within the community’s jurisdictional boundary. In contrast, a purely activity ‐based emissions inventory could provide perspective on the efficiency of the community, even when the associated emissions occur outside the jurisdic tional boundary. Quantification Methods Greenhouse gas emissions can be quantified in two ways : • Measurement-based methodologies refer to the direct measurement of greenhouse gas emissions (from a monitoring system) emitted from a flue of a power plant, wastewater treatment plant, landfill, or industrial facility . • Calculation-based methodologies calculate emissions using acti vity data and emission factors. The following basic equation used: Activity Data x Emission Factor = Emissions o Activity Data refer to the relevant measurement of energy use or other greenhouse gas - generating processes such as fuel consumption by fuel type, metered annual electricity consumption, and annual vehicle miles traveled. o Emissions Factors are used to convert energy usage or other activity data into associated quantities of emissions, based on known or previously measured relationships. Emissions factors are usually expressed in terms of emissions per unit of activity data (e.g., lbs CO2/kWh of electricity). All emissions sources in this inventory are quantified using calculation-based methodologies. Please see Appendix A for a detailed listing of the activity data and emissions factors used in this inventory. Grand County Community-Wide GHG Emissions Inventory Page 12 Community Emissions Inventory Results Following the Community Protocol, emissions can be organized into several frames. Each frame includes a particular set of emissions sources and activities, and each contributes a unique perspective on community emissions. This report looks at Grand County’s community emissions through two frames: emissions significantly influenced by local government (SI) and community -wide activities (CA). A third frame, household consumption (HC), is applied to emissions’ categories with available data. To put emissions inventory data in context, it is helpful to have some basic information about the community such as population and number of households , which is provided in Table 1. Table 1: Grand County Community Indicators Estimated 2018 Population 10,259 Estimated 2018 Households ### GDP $523,773,000 A Note on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Equivalents This inventory reports on the emission of three major greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Each of these greenhouse gases has a different lifetime and ability to trap heat in Earth’s atmosphere. For the sake of comparison, the impacts of these greenhouse gases can be standardized using a 100-year global warming potential (GWP): the impact of a specific greenhouse gas over a 100-year timespan relative to CO2. By definition, CO2 has a GWP of 1; CH4 and N2O have GWPs of 28 and 265, respectively. Despite the greater GWP of non -CO2 greenhouse gases, CO2 is emitted in much greater quantities and has the largest impact on Earth’s climate. Because of these differences, greenhouse gas emissions are often reported in CO2-equivalent (CO2e) emissions, which facilitates a simpler comparison of sources. In addition, emissions factors for some categories are only available in CO2e. In this report, emissions are reported in CO2e unless otherwise stated. Significantly Influenced Emissions Frame Grand County first focuses on emissions over which the city and county governments have significant influence. This frame emphasizes policy relevance, highlighting a set of emission sources and activities that Grand County has the greatest opportunity to address. This frame includes all of the five Basic Emissions Generating Activities required by the community protocol : community electricity use, community fuel use, on-road motor vehicle travel, energy use for water supply and wastewater treatment, Grand County Community-Wide GHG Emissions Inventory Page 13 and generation of solid waste. For Grand County, this frame also includes process emissions from wastewater treatment and emissions from natural gas leakage. Solid waste generation includes only emissions from waste generated in the inventory and excludes process emissions from equipment operation and waste already landfilled. Emissions from septic systems and stationary fuel besides natural gas (wood, liquefied petroleum gas) are roughly estimated for the community but are not included here. Emissions from on-road freight and passenger vehicles on the interstate , as well as agricultural activity (irrigation electricity use, fertilizer use, and livestock) are also excluded. Table 2 and Figure 2 summarize significantly influenced emissions by source and activity. Table 2: Significantly Influenced GHG Emissions by Activity and Source Source or Activity Activity Data Quantity Emissions Factor Emissions (metric tons CO2e) On-road Passenger Vehicle Travel 160,212,222 VMT 70.24 (gasoline) and 73.93 (diesel) kg CO2/MMBtu 73,954 * On-road Freight Vehicle Travel 70,827,044 VMT 117,438 Residential Use of Electricity 43,065,000 kWh 200.41 kg CO2e/MMBtu 29,456 Industrial Use of Electricity 28,159,000 kWh 19,261 Commercial Use of Electricity 55,453,000 kWh 37,930 Use of Electricity in Potable Water Treatment / Distribution 1,739,000 kWh 1,190 Use of Electricity in Wastewater Treatment 1,519,000 kWh 1,039 Residential Stationary Combustion 2,296,852 therms 53.02 kg CO2/MMBtu 0.005 kg CH4/MMBtu 0.0001 kg N2O/MMBtu 12,216 Industrial Stationary Combustion 2,767,280 therms 14,687 Commercial Stationary Combustion 1,934,308 therms 10,288 Use of Stationary Fuel in Wastewater Treatment 9183 therms 49 Generation of Solid Waste 11991 wet short tons 58.7 kg CH4/wet short ton on average 19,719 Natural Gas Leakage 7,007,624 therms 0.062 kg CH4/MMBtu 0.001 kg CO2/MMBtu 1,216 Wastewater Treatment Process ~8750 people served 1.86 (nitrification) and 4.90 (effluent released) kg CO2e/person 59 Total Significantly Influenced Emissions 338,503 *colors correspond to Figure 2 below. Grand County Community-Wide GHG Emissions Inventory Page 14 Grand County will focus on these emissions sources and activities in developing a climate action plan , with the significantly influenced emissions of 338,503 metric tons CO2e providing a baseline for future emissions reductions. Figure 2: Significantly Influenced Emissions Emissions categories are ordered counterclockwise from largest to smallest, starting at the top. Transportation is the largest contributor to emissions over which Grand County has significant influence. This will be an important activity to focus efforts on in developing a climate action plan . Residential and commercial energy use also account for a large part of significantly influence d emissions and will be important to address. Community-Wide Activities Frame A community-wide activities frame is also useful for Grand County. This frame includes emissions that result from the use of energy, materials, and services by all members of the community , regardless of whether the City of Moab or Grand County have significant influence over those emissions. These emissions may be occurring within or outside of the community boundary. This frame includes the same sources and activities as the previous frame (significantly influenced emissions) as well as residential wood and liquefied petroleum gas fuel use, septic system use, interstate travel, off-road vehicle use, air Grand County Community-Wide GHG Emissions Inventory Page 15 travel, rail use, and process and accumulated waste emissions from landfills. Air travel is estimated using fuel purchased at CNY. Table 3 summarize emissions from community-wide activities that were not included in the significantly influenced emissions frame , and Figure 3 shows emissions from all community-wide activities. Table 3: Additional Community-Wide Activity GHG Emissions Source or Activity Activity Data Quantity Emissions Factor Emissions (metric tons CO2e) Interstate Passenger Vehicle Travel 119,836,802 VMT 70.24 (gasoline) and 73.93 (diesel) kg CO2/MMBtu 52,217 Interstate Freight Vehicle Travel 104,997,723 VMT 173,901 Off-Road Vehicles* MOVES model N/A 1,207 Air Travel (Jet-A) 352,763 gal 9.57 kg CO2/gallon 0.27 kg CH4/gallon 0.31 kg N2O/gallon 3,408 Air Travel (Avgas) 44,460 gal 8.31 kg CO2/gallon 7.04 kg CH4/gallon 0.11 kg N2O/gallon 380 Union Pacific Rail* 563,716 gal diesel 73.9 kg CO2/MMBtu 0.006 kg CH4/MMBtu 0.002 kg N2O/MMBtu 5,807 Residential Wood Burning* 58,346 MMBtu 93.8 kg CO2/MMBtu 0.316 kg CH4/MMBtu 0.004 kg N2O/MMBtu 581 Residential LPG* 14,581 MMBtu 62.98 kg CO2/MMBtu 0.011 kg CH4/MMBtu 0.001 kg N2O/MMBtu 927 Individual Septic Systems* ~1500 people served 121.5 kg CO2e/person 182 Other Electricity Use (Irrigation) 8,394,000 kWh 200.41 kg CO2e/MMBtu 5,742 Livestock 5817 head of livestock 2,141 kg CO2e/head 12,454 Fertilizer Application* 2955 acres 13.7 kg CO2e/acre fertilized 41 Landfill Equipment Emissions 26,651 wet short tons 16.4 kg CO2e/wet short ton 438 Emissions from Waste Accumulation* FOD model N/A 2,182 Total Significantly Influenced Emissions 338,503 Total Community-Wide Activity Emissions 597,969 *estimated based on population data, state downscaling, and/or modeling Grand County Community-Wide GHG Emissions Inventory Page 16 Figure 3: Community-Wide Activity Emissions AFOLU stands for Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use; this category is significantly larger than process and fugitive emissions and is represented by the largest red slice. Looking at the community-wide activities frame shows that, while not completely under local government influence, interstate transportation and livestock emissions are important ways in which the Grand County community contributes to emissions. Households and businesses in Grand County may want to consider all of these activities as they think about how to reduce their own emissions. Household Consumption Frame For sources and activities with available data, Grand County emissions are viewed through a frame of household consumption, which helps to illustrate the impacts of residents’ activities. The following emissions-generating activities are included in the household consumption frame, and those available for this inventory are bolded: electricity use, natural gas use, personal vehicle transportation, use of public transportation, use of water and wastewater services, production of garbage, and use of materials and services. Many of these emissions overlap with those looked at through the local government influence and communitywide activities frames. Notably, communities with small residential populations, limited government presence, and large industrial or tourism activities (businesses serving non ‐resident Grand County Community-Wide GHG Emissions Inventory Page 17 customers) are likely to find their consumption ‐based emissions to be relatively small. Table 4 shows emissions for an average household or person in Grand County. Table 4: Household Consumption Emissions for Grand County Source or Activity Average Energy Use Average Emissions (metric tons CO2e) Number Served Total Emissions (metric tons CO2e) Residential Use of Electricity 27.4 MMBtu per household 5.5 per household 5373 households 29,456 Residential Stationary Combustion 45.6 MMBtu per household 2.4 per household 5042 households 12,216 Wastewater Treatment (energy + process) 0.7 MMBtu per capita 0.13 per capita 8750 people* 1,147 Water Supply (Grand) 1.2 MMBtu per capita 0.23 per capita 3750 people* 891 Water Supply (Moab) 0.3 MMBtu per capita 0.05 per capita 5690 people 299 *estimated Residents who want to learn more about consumption -based emissions from their own household can use an online calculator (available at http://coolclimate.berkeley.edu) to obtain emissions based on their personal energy use, transportation and purchasing, and then compare these to emissions from an average household. Community Emissions Forecast Community-wide emissions were projected for the year 2030 from the 2018 baseline in Grand County using projected changes in population, carbon intensity of grid electricity, and fuel efficiency (gasoline and diesel). Table 5 shows projected changes in these key indicators that were used for forecasting. Table 6 below shows the results of the forecast by individual sector, and separately for two grid electricity scenarios: business-as-usual (BAU) and Rocky Mountain Power (RMP). The RMP scenario uses reductions in carbon intensity as targeted by Rocky Mountain Power. Visual plots for the RMP scenario can be found in Appendix A. Table 5: Indicators Used in Emissions Forecast Indicator 2018 Value 2030 Value Avg. Annual Growth Rate % Change 2018 to 2030 Population 10,259 11,695 1.1% 14% Grid Carbon Intensity (RMP) 0.68 CO2e/MWh 0.33 CO2e/MWh -3.8% -52% Grid Carbon Intensity (BAU) 0.68 CO2e/MWh 0.68 CO2e/MWh 0.0% 0% Passenger Vehicle Carbon Intensity — — -2.4% -25% Grand County Community-Wide GHG Emissions Inventory Page 18 Table 6: Community Emissions Growth Projections by Sector Sector Emissions 2018 2030 BAU Emissions % Change 2018 to 2030 2030 RMP Emissions % Change 2018 to 2030 Residential Energya,b 43,180 49,044 +13.6 32,431 -24.9 Commercial Energya,b 50,495 57,350 +13.6 34,702 -31.3 Industrial Energyb,d 33,948 33,948 0.0 24,384 -28.2 Transportationa,c 427,107 460,305 +7.8 460,305 +7.8 Solid Wastea,d 22,338 25,371 +13.6 25,371 +13.6 Water + Wastewatera 241 274 +13.7 274 +13.7 AFOLU (Agriculture)b,d 18,237 18,237 0.0 15,385 -15.4 Process + Fugitivea 1,216 1,381 +13.6 1,381 +13.6 Total 596,762 645,910 8.2 594,233 -0.4 Units MT CO2e MT CO2e % MT CO2e % Gray shading for the 2030 RMP scenario denotes sectors unchanged from the 2030 BAUl scenario. Superscripts refer to indicators used for each sector forecast and are as follows: a population growth b carbon intensity of the grid (varies for RMP and BAU scenarios) c carbon intensity of passenger vehicles (gasoline or diesel) d no growth Commercial energy includes energy use for city and county buildings, including water and wastewater treatment plants. Transportation does not include ground-based off-road vehicles, which account for a 1,207 MT CO2e difference in emissions for this sector and the total. No growth indicators are used for agricultural activity (energy use, livestock, and fertilizer use), solid waste controls, and industrial energy use. No growth is also applied to grid carbon intensity for the 2030 BAU scenario. Under a business-as-usual scenario (2030 BAU), Grand County’s community-wide emissions will grow by approximately 8.2% by the year 2030, up to 645,910 metric tons CO2e from 596,762 in 2018. Importantly, significant reductions in the carbon intensity of the grid as targeted by Rocky Mountain Power would erase community-wide emissions growth and keep emissions at 594,233, just under 2018 levels. While this forecasting analysis excludes ground -based off-road vehicles (e.g., rail support, lawn and garden, recreation), they are responsible for <1% of emissions in the community and are unlikely to change dramatically by 2030. Additional Analyses Interstate and Arches National Park Transportation While Interstate 70 runs through the center of Grand County, it is largely dislocated from the city of Moab, which is the largest and most densely populated in the county. As a result, much of this traffic is a result of non-residents and is difficult to influence via local policies. In Grand County, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on the interstate account for 225,119 MT CO2e, or ~54%, of on-road vehicle emissions. With Moab serving as a regional tourist hub, some of the local non-interstate traffic is also attributable to non-residents. As an example of this impact, VMT in Arches National Park accounts for 11,963 MT CO2e. This corresponds to 2.9% of total on-road vehicle emissions and 6.3% of non-interstate on-road Grand County Community-Wide GHG Emissions Inventory Page 19 vehicle emissions. Further analysis that accounts for VMT on a seasonal basis may shed more light on the proportion of transportation emissions that are attributable to residents and non -resident tourists. Grid Electricity In compiling this inventory, emissions factors for grid electricity were gather from several sources. Assuming local data from Rocky Mountain Power (RMP) to be the most accurate, this emission factor was applied to the inventory and subsequent analysis. However, state -averaged emissions factors for 2018 provided by the US EPA’s eGrid database and the US Energy Information Administration differ from this RMP emission factor, and these differences are shown in Table 7 below. Table 7: Difference in Grid Electricity Emissions Source Emission Factor Total Inventory Emissions % Difference Rocky Mountain Power 1508 597,969 0.0 eGrid 1609 604,311 +1.1 EIA* 1595 603,430 +0.9 Units lbs CO2e / MWh MT CO2e % *The EIA emission factor includes only CO2 emissions and not CH4 or N2O emissions. This CO 2-only emissions factor for the EIA is similar to that of eGrid, which is 1598 lbs CO2e/MWh. Although the difference between grid electricity emissions factors from Rocky Mountain Power and eGrid is ~7%, the total emissions from this inventory are only changed by ~1%. This is because transportation emissions dominate the community-wide inventory, and a considerable portion of energy across residential, commercial, and industrial sectors is still provided by natural gas. [Jurisdiction] Community-Wide GHG Emissions Inventory Page 20 Appendix A: Inventory Details Table A-1 summarizes the emissions sources and activities included in the community inventory and under which reporting framework they fall. Reporting frameworks are indicated by gold shading and abbreviated as: SI (significantly influenced by local government), CA (community-wide activities), and HC (household consumption). Gray shading indicates sources and/or activities that are not included, with abbreviations IE (included elsewhere), NE (not estimated), NA (not applicable), or NO (not occurring). Figures A-1 through A-8 provide graphs of forecasted community-wide emissions from 2018 to 2030 by sector for the 2030 RMP scenario. Please note the difference in scale on the y -axis between graphs. Table A-1: Summary of Included and Excluded Community Emissions Emissions Type Source or Activity Required? Frameworks: Notes SI CA HC Built Environment Use of fuel in residential and commercial stationary combustion equipment Source + Activity • Industrial stationary combustion sources Source NE no data Electricity Power generation in the community Source NE net-metering Use of electricity by the community Activity • District Heating/ Cooling District heating/cooling facilities in the community Source NO Use of district heating/cooling by the community Activity NO Industrial process emissions in the community Source NE oil + gas activities Refrigerant leakage in the community Source NE no data Transportation and Other Mobile Sources On-road Passenger Vehicles On-road passenger vehicles operating within the community boundary Source On-road passenger vehicle travel associated with community land uses Activity • IE not preferred method On-road Freight Vehicles On-road freight and service vehicles operating within the community boundary Source On-road freight and service vehicle travel associated with community land uses Activity • IE not preferred method On-road transit vehicles operating within the community boundary Source NO Transit Rail Transit rail vehicles operating within the community boundary Source IE total rail Use of transit rail travel by the community Activity NE Freight rail vehicles operating within the community boundary Source includes transit rail Grand County Community-Wide GHG Emissions Inventory Page 21 Emissions Type Source or Activity Required? Frameworks: Notes SI CA HC Marine Marine vessels operating within the community boundary Source NE Use of ferries by the community Activity NO Off-road surface vehicles and other mobile equipment operating within the community boundary Source Use of air travel by the community Activity Solid Waste Solid Waste Operation of solid waste disposal facilities in the community Source Generation and disposal of solid waste by the community Activity • Water and Wastewater Potable Water - Energy Use Operation of water delivery facilities in the community Source Use of energy associated with use of potable water by the community Activity • Use of energy associated with generation of wastewater by the community Activity • Centralized Wastewater Systems - Process Emissions Process emissions from operation of wastewater treatment facilities located in the community Source operated by Moab City Process emissions associated with generation of wastewater by the community Activity NE no data Use of septic systems in the community Source + Activity Agriculture Use of commercial fertilizer in the community Activity Domesticated animal production Source Manure decomposition and treatment Source NE Upstream Impacts of Community-Wide Activities Upstream impacts of fuels used in stationary applications by the community Activity NE Upstream and transmission and distribution (T&D) impacts of purchased electricity used by the community Activity NE Upstream impacts of fuels used for transportation in trips associated with the community Activity NE Upstream impacts of fuels used by water and wastewater facilities for water used and wastewater generated within the community boundary Activity NE Upstream impacts of select materials (concrete, food, paper, carpets, etc.) used by the whole community Activity NE Grand County Community-Wide GHG Emissions Inventory Page 22 Figure A-1: Residential Energy Forecast Figure A-2: Commercial Energy Forecast* *includes energy use for water and wastewater supply Grand County Community-Wide GHG Emissions Inventory Page 23 Figure A-3: Industrial Energy Forecast Figure A-4: Transportation Forecast *Energy Equivalent category includes rail, but not other ground-based off-road vehicles Grand County Community-Wide GHG Emissions Inventory Page 24 Figure A-5: Solid Waste Forecast *The waste generated” categories include lifetime emissions from waste generated in a single year where “all” is municipal solid waste in the Klondike Landfill and “branches” is green waste in the Moab Landfill; “direct emissions” are emissions in a given year from accumulated waste; “total waste processed” is emissions from equipment. Figure A-6: Wastewater Forecast *Here “process N2O population served” represents nitrification process emissions at a treatment plant. Grand County Community-Wide GHG Emissions Inventory Page 25 Figure A-7: AFOLU (Agriculture) Forecast *Electricity use is for irrigation. Figure A-8: Process & Fugitive Emissions Forecast Page 1 of 6 July 28, 2020 MOAB CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JULY 28, 2020 The Moab City Council held its Regular Meeting on the above date. Per Executive Order 2020-5 issued by Governor Gary R. Herbert on March 18, 2020, this meeting was conducted electronically. An anchor location was not provided. An audio recording of the meeting is archived at http://www.utah.gov/pmn/index.html. A video recording is archived at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA35BaF6yog. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 P.M. Regular Meeting—Call to Order and Attendance: Mayor Niehaus called the Regular City Council Meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Participating remotely were Councilmembers Karen Guzman-Newton, Tawny Knuteson-Boyd, Rani Derasary, Mike Duncan, and Kalen Jones. City staff participating remotely were City Manager Joel Linares, Assistant City Manager Carly Castle, City Attorney Laurie Simonson, and City Recorder Sommar Johnson. City Engineer Williams joined the meeting at 7:52 p.m. Planning Director Nora Shepard and Assistant Planner Cory Shurtleff joined the meeting at 8:05 p.m. COVID-19 Update: Mayor Niehaus invited Erica Gaddis, Water Quality Board Executive Director, to provide an update on sewer epidemiology but she was unable to attend. Mayor Niehaus reported on her behalf stating that Moab’s COVID-19 data jumped in the last two weeks and there was a presence of coronavirus detected in the sewer based on the sewer epidemiology data. Approval of Minutes: July 14, 2020, Regular Meeting Motion: Councilmember Guzman-Newton moved to approve the minutes of July 14, 2020. Councilmember Duncan seconded the motion. Discussion: Councilmember Derasary mentioned three corrections that were already made. Vote: The motion passed 5-0 with Councilmembers Jones, Duncan, Knuteson-Boyd, Guzman- Newton, and Derasary voting aye in a roll call vote. Mayor and Council Reports: Mayor Niehaus reported attending a Grand County Economic Development Committee meeting, GOED’s State and Local Resource Committee meeting, and a Water Quality Board meeting. She reported working with V-school, a coding school partnered with UVU, to implement a coding program and working with other mayors to distribute scholarships throughout the state. She also reported on the Market on Center and thanked Councilmember Duncan for attending. Councilmember Derasary reported attending a System of Care Regional Advisory Council meeting on July 15, an EMS Board meeting on July 20, and a UMTRA Moab Tailings Pile Steering Committee meeting on July 28. Councilmember Duncan reported attending a Moab Area Watershed Partnership meeting and planned to attend an Arches Hotspot Region Coordinating Committee meeting in a few days. Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd reported attending a HASU meeting and a Museum Board meeting. Page 2 of 6 July 28, 2020 Councilmember Guzman-Newton reported attending a Chamber Board meeting, Advanced Demand Management and Resort Towns and Communities webinar, a ULCT Town Hall, and an Economic Response Task Force Town Hall. Councilmember Jones reported that he had no committee or board meetings in the last two weeks. Administrative Reports City Manager Linares reported that the School District’s construction on the new middle school requires relocation of the pathway and they are preparing to start the realignment. He said they hope to keep the path open, but it may be closed for a few weeks to a couple of months because there is a limited amount of space for the construction. He reported that Walnut Lane is progressing, and he is working to acquire additional real property in the area. He reported that the bike skills park ground-breaking is scheduled for August 10 and six trees will be removed before then. He reported the MRAC has been open for just over a month and hoped to provide an update on costs versus expenses versus revenues as the next meeting, and reported the highway widening project is still on schedule. City Attorney Simonson reported on the Lionsback litigation and said the developer is not interested in pursuing the changes they were seeking in the zoning status agreement and plans to move forward with their original land use approvals granted in 2009. Councilmembers had several questions about the history, overall size, and previous approvals for the development, and City Manager Linares said a more detailed Lionsback project update could be provided at the next meeting. Citizens to be Heard: Mayor Niehaus summarized the process for submitting Citizens to be Heard comments and said that four comments were received for this meeting. Katherine Hunter said, “Regarding the Bike Skills Park phase 1, 2 & 3 proposal of the Pedestrian Bike Parkway. I have read the grant proposal by Trail Mix for the development of the Parkway into a tourist attraction that the Travel Council intends to advertise worldwide. Transportation and Trails Director Maggie Logowitz denied any comments that the Bike Skills Park would encourage the use of the Parkway as a tourist attraction nor did she offer any information concerning Phase 2 & 3 that intend to develop additional bike recreation sites throughout the parkway including an upgraded Anonymous Park. Yet Trail Mix's Grant Proposal specifies marketing the Parkway to tourists. Ms. Gizler's Travel Council's letter of support corroborate the intention to advertise the Parkway as a feature in their marketing of Moab. Marketing the Bike/Pedestrian Parkway as a tourist attraction during a pandemic seems counter intuitive. Do we really want to invite more tourists to occupy the few green spaces the community has in town? Please don't sell us out to the industrial tourism complex. Zachariah Levine's letter of support suggested the Bike Skills improvements will raise adjacent property values; that is a curious statement to make from someone who owns a triplex within 60 feet of the entrance to the proposed bike skills park. If the benefits are so great why weren't the other adjacent property owners invited to comment? Dave Everett was given free rein to give Trail Mix's proposal the thumbs up but it was the City that gave him that power. Has the City reconsidered the $50,000 cap allocated to the City Administrator to spend without public comment? That $50,000 choice was made by the City. The City spent several hundred thousand on design plans for a parking structure that got canned due to public opposition. Please consider the opposition to Trail Mix's 1,2,3, Phase for the Parkway with as much merit. Mayor Niehaus's letter of support suggested that the Bike Skills Park could have an alternate location. Let's start over with a public review Page 3 of 6 July 28, 2020 that shares the complete grant proposal that Trail Mix has outlined for the Parkway. Kaki Hunter.” Sara Melnicoff said, “I have no real expectation of this being read, and because I have never once received a reply to any comment, especially regarding the killing of wildlife, I don't feel this will be considered, but I will try nonetheless. Given all the information that has come out about the overall plan for our parkway, (which was not presented as a "concept" to the grantor), please halt construction of the BSP at the 100 East location and move it to Anonymous Park, where it was slated to be placed years ago. All ages use Anonymous, peacefully and happily. I see it daily. Others who live nearby report the same. While the sidewalk on 500 West is ADA compliant (a minor hardening of a dirt area is all that is needed to create an accessible entrance to a BSP), the 100 East site isn't ADA compliant in the park area. We were told by the grant writer that that would be addressed later. Imagine that you HAD to move this. Say an archaeological or other reason forced a change. What would you do then? Open up your thinking to creative solutions to this issue that is tearing the community apart. Emily's letter of 2/14/2019 to the grantor says the if the site isn't suitable, it will be placed at another city owned or managed property. The site is NOT suitable. A very large segment of the population is heartbroken about this. Beyond heartbroken. Many are seniors who are feeling the squeeze to make room for more playgrounds in areas not meant for playgrounds. We are losing the last quiet place we can walk in peace. 2% of land in the west is riparian, and those areas suffer greatly from development like this. Has anyone noticed we are living on a dying planet? And that we are killing it bit by bit thought actions like this BSP? Mike Duncan's comments in the Moab Sun News are right on: Duncan thinks that the discrepancies between the grant application version of the park and the version most recently presented to the council could potentially be grounds for the city to consider revoking their permission to use the Parkway location. It is not too late to right a grievous wrong and avoid permanent damage to this beloved area of the parkway.” Marc Thomas said. “Good afternoon, city council and mayor. Today, I want to reiterate my support for the pocket bike skills park adjacent to the Mill Creek parkway. Please remember this pocket park is to teach beginner skills. It is unlikely anyone coming to Moab will spend $100 a day on rental bikes to ride a short track with no advanced features. Most likely, the park will be used 99% by local kids. It is a centralized location within the community, and can be safely accessed from all schools by bike lanes or separated bike paths. According to the park’s FAQ online page, a 2019 survey with over 550 responses identified cares about traffic and safety as the main barriers to people biking instead of driving to Moab destinations. This location, more so than any other, makes bicycling a safe option for the greatest number of families and kids. Parking should not be an issue. While there is parking on 100 E, St, it is more likely that families and their kids will use the excellent access provided by the parkway to bike there. The park planners were responsive to the archaeology report by cutting back its northern boundary and working with the manufacturer to reconfigure the ramps to fit the smaller space. As previously noted, the issue with piggybacking onto Anonymous Park is cost, for a variety of reasons, including making the site ADA-compliant. Furthermore, Anonymous lacks advantages germane to the parkway site: a needed bathroom, a family-friendly area near other family attractions, close to schools, easy access, and isolation from motorized traffic. I still can't figure out why the parkway is to be protected as "riparian" by 100E, but is somehow not "riparian" at Anonymous. It's the same creek flowing near both sites. The individuals losing out if this project isn’t built are those voiceless when it comes to political power - the children. It certainly puts me in mind of the venerable Cat Stevens song, “Where Do The Children Play?” I sure wish I’d had a pocket park like this when I was a kid going from home to school and back.” Paul Spencer said, “To: Moab City Council Citizens to be Heard July 28, 2020 Council - there Page 4 of 6 July 28, 2020 has been a lot of negative press about the kid's bike skills park recently. Unfortunately, many people are still under the mistaken impression that Grand County Trail Mix is somehow involved, or that we have plans to take over the entire Parkway. I would just like to assure the Council and residents of Moab and Grand County that: - the skills park is not, and never has been, a Trail Mix project. While we lend our full support,it has always been a collaborative effort between Grand County and the City of Moab. - this is a 2019 project, and was fully approved and funded in 2019. Costs to the City are minimal (since the majority of the project is funded by a grant, and the rest by Grand County). - the project was never planned for any other location. Certainly, multiple locations were considered; but the best location has always been the current spot on the Parkway. - Trail Mix did not design this project merely to get a bathroom installed on the Parkway. We did not design this project at all; and our group is involved in trails for non- motorized recreation, not restrooms. - Trail Mix is not trying to boost tourism with this project. First, as noted above, we were not involved in the planning or design or advocacy of it; and secondly, this is not a tourist destination. It is aimed at beginner-level kids; if you are involved enough in mountain biking to own your own bike, and to travel to Moab to ride, then this park will be far too small and far too easy for you. - we are not involved in, or have any knowledge of, any future projects along the Parkway of any kind. From everything we know, this is not a "first phase" of anything - it is a complete stand-alone project that is not a stepping stone to future expansion. Thank you for the opportunity to present these points. We are still in full support of the project as approved, and we (along with many kids, and many others) are anxiously awaiting it's completion in the near future. Paul Spencer Chair, Grand County Trail Mix.” New Business: Approval of Change Orders for and Briefing on North Sewer Line Project Construction - Briefing and possible action - Approved Discussion: City Engineer Williams explained that this was the closeout on the north sewer trunk line project and was completed at approximately 4 percent less than budgeted. He said upon completion of the project, two large RV parks connected to the sewer line and disconnected from septic systems which were good from an environmental standpoint and it also allowed the City to collect impact fees to help pay for the project. Councilmember Derasary asked about replacing vented manhole covers with non-vented manhole covers and City Engineer Williams said they should help reduce fumes. Councilmember Duncan asked about properties where eminent domain was filed, and City Engineer Williams said one property owner came around, so the eminent domain was withdrawn, and no one has been able to locate or contact the second property owner. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Guzman-Newton moved to approve the deduct change orders for the north sewer line project for Hank Williams, Inc., and the contract reduction amount of $69,874.96. Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0 with Councilmembers Jones, Derasary, Duncan, Knuteson-Boyd, and Guzman- Newton voting aye in a roll call vote. Improving ADA Accessibility to Downtown Recreation Facilities Project Construction Contract - Approved Discussion: City Engineer Williams explained that we applied for a CDBG grant last year and received $75,000 to install a wheelchair lift system to allow ADA access from the ground floor to the basement and gym levels of the Center Street Gym with a $50,000 cost-share approved by City Council. He said the low bid from Sage Construction was $103,114.51 and felt it was a responsive bid. He said if the City Council awards the contract then construction will begin and take approximately 60-90 days to complete the improvements. City Manager Linares noted that he, City Engineer Williams, and Finance Director York worked through the budget based on the current financial situation and felt it was in the City’s best interest to complete the Page 5 of 6 July 28, 2020 improvements for ADA compliance and also keep grant funding lines open going forward into the future. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Derasary moved to approve the construction contract with Sage Construction Group, LLC, for the construction of the improving ADA accessibility to downtown recreation facilities project in the amount of $103,114.51. Councilmember Knuteson- Boyd seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0 with Councilmembers Jones, Derasary, Knuteson-Boyd, Duncan, and Guzman-Newton voting aye in a roll call vote. Proposed Ordinance 2020-12: An Ordinance Approving a Zoning Map Amendment for property owned by James Nelson, located at 191 Walnut Lane Moab UT 84532, amending the split zoned parcel from R-2 Single-Household and Two-Household Residential Zone and R-4 Manufactured Housing Residential Zone, to Only R-4 Manufactured Housing Residential Zone; and Amending the City of Moab Official Zoning Map - Briefing and possible action - Approved Discussion: Assistant Planner Shurtleff provided a short presentation covering the details of the rezoning application. Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd asked if this property should have been included when the City rezoned their parcel. City Manager Linares explained that unless we are looking at a larger-scale rezoning of property, it is typically up to individual property owners to apply for a rezone. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Jones moved to approve Ordinance 2020-12 based on the findings required by Moab Municipal Code 17.04.060, Map amendment approval criteria. Councilmember Duncan seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0 with Councilmembers Derasary, Duncan, Jones, Guzman-Newton, and Knuteson-Boyd voting aye in a roll call vote. Discussion and Direction - Temporary Outdoor dining due to COVID 19 Planning Director Shepard provided a short presentation about temporary outdoor dining options. She said based on previous discussions with City Council and some internal discussions with staff, they propose having City Manager Linares issue an emergency order due to COVID- 19 and economic hardship to stay some of the land use provisions for outdoor dining. She indicated that she would like to make it an administrative option to allow it to move forward quickly but said there were four items that she needed feedback on from City Council. Those items were hours and days of operation, areas where applications will be accepted, notification, and expiration. Hours/days of operation - Councilmembers generally agreed not to limit the days and hours of operation as long as there were no health or safety issues and businesses were responsible for keeping the areas clean and items left outside were properly anchored to maintain safety and prevent damage. Areas where we will accept applications - Councilmembers generally agreed that applications should be reviewed and evaluated on a case-by-case basis and not specifying individual streets as areas where applications would be accepted. Notification - Councilmembers also generally agreed that staff could provide the radius of adjacent businesses and the applicant would be responsible for contacting those businesses and notifying them of their application to use the right-of-way. Expiration – Councilmembers agreed to a November 30, 2020 expiration date. Councilmember Derasary expressed some additional concerns about fencing, lighting, inspections, noise, and notification to first responders. Request for City Council direction on establishment of City administrative procedures for a change in use of City real property in non-emergency situations Discussion and request for direction City Attorney Simonson explained that staff has some threshold questions to create the Page 6 of 6 July 28, 2020 framework for a process to change the use of City real property in non-emergency situations. The first question was whether a “change in use” is defined as permanent or does it include temporary changes. Councilmembers generally agreed that it should include temporary changes if it exceeds a certain amount of time. The second question was defining “change in use”. Councilmembers discussed a “change in use” to be a change in patterned behavior or changing a space from one use to another or a use in which someone is making money using City property. They also discussed size thresholds and whether changes in use for public health, safety, welfare, or critical services should be exempt. Mayor Niehaus suggested simplifying the process and said in the event that someone wants to use city property, they have to submit a plan and there has to be a public hearing. City Manager Linares explained that the goal of creating this process is to make sure the public is informed, has a say, and knows what is happening. Councilmembers generally agreed that the process should apply to all city-owned property and instead of holding a public hearing, the City Council should hold a town hall meeting to allow two-way communication with the public. City Attorney Simonson stated she would take the feedback from the discussion and work on creating a document for Council review. Approval of Bills Against the City of Moab Motion: Councilmember Knuteson-Boyd moved to approve the bills against the City of Moab in the amount of $64,315.17. Councilmember Guzman-Newton seconded the motion. Vote: The motion passed 5-0 with Councilmembers Guzman-Newton, Derasary, Jones, Knuteson-Boyd, and Duncan voting aye in a roll call vote. Adjournment: Councilmember moved to adjourn the meeting. Councilmember seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Niehaus adjourned the meeting at 9:38 p.m. APPROVED: __________________ ATTEST: ___________________ Emily S. Niehaus, Mayor Sommar Johnson, City Recorder Moab City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: July 14, 2020 Title: Presentation to the City Council on the Lionsback MPD Disposition: This presentation is to give the City Council a brief summary of the Lionsback MPD as it was approved and vested in 2008/2009. Staff Presenter: Nora Shepard. Planning Director Attachment(s): - Exhibit 1: Location Map - Exhibit 2: Approved Preliminary MPD (using the SAR Zoning) - Exhibit 3: Open Space Plan Background: The Lionsback Development has a lengthy and somewhat complicated history with the City of Moab. The following is an abbreviated summary. The property is owned by the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA). The developer is LB Moab Land, LLC. The objective was to create a “more natural” resort experience for Moab visitors than the existing accommodations offered at the time. There was no zoning in place that would allow this type of development in the City. In response, the City developed and adopted a new zoning designation of Sensitive Area Resort Zone (SAR). From 2006-2008, LB Moab removed the former Lionsback campground and closed multiple jeep roads that were being created off of Hells Revenge. In 2007 and early 2008, the developer requested Annexation and Master Planned Development Approval (MPD) under the SAR Zoning. The MPD and Pre-Annexation Agreement were eventually approved in late 2008 and the property was subsequently annexed. After MPD approval, the City was sued over the entitlement process. The City and LB Moab joined forces and were successful in the lawsuit in 2012. After the dismissal of the lawsuit, LB Moab reevaluated the market demand and determined that they wanted to redesign the original hotel concept with a new one. Instead of 50 hotel/condo units spread out in 9 different buildings, they requested an amendment to the MPD to allow a 150 room hotel. The City of Moab confirmed in April 2016 that the 50 three-bedroom hotel/condo units converted to a 150 room hotel met the existing entitlements and the minor modifications would be handled during the final plat approval process. The City and LB Moab were then sued again. That lawsuit was recently decided in favor of the plaintiffs and against the determination made by the City of Moab. At this time, the governing documents for the Lionsback are the Pre-Annexation Agreement recorded in December 2008 and the Development and Phasing Agreement executed in September 2009. The actions taken by the City in 2016 are considered to be invalid. The 2008/2009 approvals remain valid and in place. In essence, the project as approved in 2008/2009 is vested. Project Summary: The entitled project was approved as a Preliminary MPD under the SARS Zoning in December 2008 (see Exhibit 1 Approved MPD site plan). Size and Location • 175.12 gross acres • 48 acres to be developed • 73.28% Open Space • Located and accesses from Sand Flats Road (see Exhibit 2 – Location Map) • Approximate commercial footprint of 54,000sf • Approximate residential footprint of 365,000sf Approved Uses The total number of proposed residential units is 257 units, including: • 50 hotel suites • 30 one story casitas (11300-1500sf) • 30 two story casitas (1300-1500sf) • 40 one story village casitas (1800-2100sf) • 45 two story casitas (1800-2100sf) • 20 one story hillside casitas (2500-3000sf) • 14 two story hillside casitas (2500-3000sf) • 18 employee housing uses • The maximum units that could be allowed in the SAR would be approximately 400 units. Other approved uses • Carwash/repair and maintenance garage • Storage Units • Sports Gazebo with restrooms and picnic area • Picnic Gazebo • Internal trail system • Sports facilities including tennis, platform tennis, volleyball, putting green, golf driving cage, lawn games area, bocce, playground equipment and volleyball/basketball Open Space and Trails (Exhibit 3) • Active, passive and internal open space " O p e n S p a c e t o b e c o n v e y e d a s c o m m o n o p e n s p a c e " N a t u r a l o p e n s p a c e , p a s s i v e r e c r e a t i o n a l o p e n s p a c e , a c t i v e r e c r e a t i o n a l o p e n s p a c e a n d p u b l i c p e d e s t r i a n a m e n i t i e s " T h e c i r c u l a t i o n p l a n i n c l u d e s m o t o r i z e d a n d n o n m o t o r i z e d s t r e e t s , t r a i n s a n d p a r k i n g a r e a s , e m e r g e n c y a c c e s s , p u b l i c p e d e s t r i a n a m e n i t i e s . T h e r e w i l l b e a n e a s e m e n t t o m a i n t a i n t h e H e l l s R e v e n g e T r a i l . P h a s i n g " P r o j e c t t o b e d e v e l o p e d i n f i v e p h a s e s " B o t h t h e P r e - A n n e x a t i o n A g r e e m e n t a n d D e v e l o p m e n t P h a s i n g A g r e e m e n t s p e l l o u t t h e t i m i n g a n d r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r S u b d i v i s i o n I m p r o v e m e n t s f o r e a c h o f t h e 5 p h a s e O t h e r p r o j e c t r e q u i r e m e n t s " I m p r o v e m e n t s t o S a n d F l a t s R o a d " U t i l i t i e s " D r i n k i n g W a t e r S o u r c e P r o t e c t i o n P l a n " L a n d s c a p i n g a n d I r r i g a t i o n p l a n s N e x t S t e p s N o a p p l i c a t i o n h a s b e e n f i l e d b y t h e d e v e l o p e r a t t h i s t i m e . I t i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t t h e f i r s t p h a s e w i l l i n c l u d e t h e f i r s t p h a s e c a s i t a s ( 3 0 - 4 0 u n i t s ) , b u t n o t t h e h o t e l . T h e r e a r e a n u m b e r o f i m p r o v e m e n t s t h a t a r e r e q u i r e d f o r t h e f i r s t p h a s e o f t h e d e v e l o p m e n t . C i t y E n g i n e e r C h u c k W i l l i a m s w i l l b e p r o v i d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n t o t h e C i t y C o u n c i l o n t h e s t a t u s o f S u b d i v i s i o n I m p r o v e m e n t s . L B M o a b a n d t h e C i t y S t a f f h a v e h a d s o m e p r e l i m i n a r y d i s c u s s i o n s a b o u t h o w t o p r o c e e d w i t h t h i s p r o j e c t . E a c h p h a s e w i l l h a v e t o c o m e i n f o r F i n a l P l a t a p p r o v a l . W e h a v e n o t y e t d e t e r m i n e d w h a t t h e p u b l i c p r o c e s s w i l l b e . T h e C i t y C o u n c i l w i l l b e u p d a t e d a s d i s c u s s i o n s c o n t i n u e . Moab City Council Agenda Item Lawrence Minor Subdivision Meeting Date: August 11, 2020 Title: Consideration and Possible Approval of Moab City Resolution #34-2020 – A Resolution Conditionally Approving the Lawrence Minor Subdivision of Property Located at 479 Bowen Circle Moab, Utah 84532. Disposition: Discussion and Possible Action Staff Presenter: Cory P. Shurtleff, Assistant Planner Attachment(s): - Exhibit 1: Draft Moab City Resolution #34-2020 - Exhibit 2: Vicinity Map - Exhibit 3: Draft Plat Options: 1. Approve with or without modifications; or 2. Continue or table item and give specific direction to the applicant and staff as to additional information needed; or 3. Deny with specific findings supporting decision Recommended Motion: I move to approve Moab City Resolution #34-2020 – A Resolution Conditionally Approving the Lawrence Minor Subdivision of property located at 479 Bowen Circle, Moab, UT, subject to the following condition: 1. The existing structure located on Lot 2 of the Lawrence Minor Subdivision must be removed or relocated in compliance with property setbacks within Lot 2 of the Lawrence Minor Subdivision before final recording of the Plat. Applicant: Taylor Lawrence, 479 Bowen Circle, Moab, Utah Background: Applicant and property owner, Taylor Lawrence, submitted the City of Moab Minor Subdivision Application on June 10, 2020, for the two-lot subdivision of property located at 479 Bowen Circle, Moab UT. On June 10, 2020, Staff sent comments regarding required adjustments on the submitted draft plat, to bring existing primary structure into compliance with proposed setbacks. On July 6, 2020, the applicant resubmitted the updated draft plat with appropriate setbacks relating to the existing structure on Lot 1, with new areas for Lot 1 at, 5443 sf, and Lot 2 at, 7357 sf. At this time, the application was submitted for review and recommendation by the Moab Planning Commission. The Moab Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation of Resolution #34-2020. Project Summary: Location: 479 Bowen Circle, Moab UT 84532 Property Owner: Taylor Lawrence Applicant: Taylor Lawrence Parcel Size: 12819.2 sf (.29 acres) Proposed Lot 1: 5443 sf Proposed Lot 2: 7357 sf Zoning: R-2 Single-Household and Two-Household Residential Zone Proposed Use: Residential Narrative Summary: The property owner is proposing to subdivide the existing property, currently used for a primary dwelling residence and accessory dwelling unit residence. As a condition of approval, the property owner would be required to remove or relocate the existing structure on Lot 2, to conform with setback requirements created by the Lot 2 property lines during the subdivision, prior to the Plat being recorded. The property owner’s intention is to remove the existing structure on Lot 2 and develop Lot 2 as a residential use, while continuing to operate the existing dwelling use on Lot 1. When development on Lot 2 is completed, the property owner is planning to remove the existing dwelling on Lot 1 and develop Lot 1 as a residential use. Process: MMC Section 16.08.020 allows for exceptions to the final plat hearing process for minor subdivisions of five lots or less. These applications must be reviewed by the Planning Commission and referred to Council with a recommendation, as noted below. “MMC Section 16.08.020, Exceptions--Final plat, discusses the process and required documents In subdivisions of less than five lots, land may be sold after recording of a plat, if all the following conditions are met: A. The subdivision plan shall have been approved by the planning commission, the planning coordinator, the city engineer, the city attorney, other agencies th e zoning administrator deems necessary, and the city council; B. The subdivision is not traversed by lines of a proposed street, and does not require the dedication of any land for street or other purposes; C. Each lot within the subdivision meets the frontage width and area requirements of the zoning title or has been granted a variance from such requirements by the appeal authority; D. All final plat requirements shall be complied with; E. All provisions of Chapter 16.20 of this title shall be complied with; and F. The water supply and sewage disposal shall have been approved by the utility supervisor CITY OF MOAB RESOLUTION NO. 34-2020 A RESOLUTION CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE LAWERENCE MINOR SUBDIVISION AT 479 BOWEN CIRCLE, MOAB, UT 84532, AS REFERRED TO COUNCIL BY THE MOAB PLANNING COMMISSION WHEREAS, The following describes the intent and purpose of this resolution: a. Taylor Lawrence, (Applicant), have applied for a minor subdivision of the property located at 479 Bowen Circle, Moab, Utah; and b. Applicant submitted to the City of Moab the appropriate application and documents for review and approval of the proposed two-lot minor subdivision as required in MMC Chapter 16.08.020; and c. The property is in the R-2 Single-Household and Two- Household Residential Zone and the proposed uses are allowed as permitted uses; and d. Owner desires to subdivide the parcel into two lots. Lot 1 would be 5,443 sf and lot 2 would be 7,357 sf; and e. The proposed lots satisfy the dimensional requirements of the R-2 Zone; and f. The Moab Planning Commission reviewed the application for the Lawrence Minor Subdivision in a regularly scheduled meeting held on July 23, 2020, and subsequently conditionally recommended approval to the City Council in accordance with MMC Chapter 16.08.020 that allows a minor subdivision of less than five (5) lots to be reviewed without a public hearing; and g. The Moab City Council reviewed the application and considered the Planning Commission and Staff recommendations in a public meeting held on August 10, 2020; and h. Following the consideration of the technical aspects of the pertinent code sections, the Moab City Council, pursuant to Resolution #34-2020, hereby finds, that the subdivision can meet or exceeds the pertinent code requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MOAB CITY COUNCIL, the application for the Lawrence Minor Subdivision is hereby APPROVED, with the following conditions: 1. The existing structure located on Lot 2 of the Lawrence Minor Subdivision must be removed or relocated in compliance with property setbacks within Lot 2 of the Lawrence Minor Subdivision before final recording of the Plat. PASSED AND APPROVED in open Council by a majority vote of the Governing Body of Moab City Council on August 11, 2020. SIGNED: ________________________________ Emily Niehaus, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Sommar Johnson, Recorder