A three-judge Utah Court of Appeals panel, reviewing a dispute dating to 2022 about lift upgrades sought by Park City Mountain, on Thursday supported an earlier district court ruling in favor of City Hall and three citizens worried about the potential impacts on the community should the improvements be allowed.
The case centers on the resort’s desire to upgrade the Silverlode Express and Eagle lifts.
The effort by Park City Mountain became entangled in controversy about procedural matters and whether the upgrades would lead to Park City Mountain exceeding the comfortable carrying capacity, or CCC, a ski-industry metric measuring the size of crowds that a resort can accommodate.
The Park City Mountain side has argued that the upgrades would not attract additional crowds to the slopes. There is not tourism driven by additional lifts, the resort has claimed.
City Hall staffers initially approved an application administratively, prompting a challenge that was heard by the Park City Planning Commission, who determined Park City Mountain did not meet requirements to process the upgrades through the administrative route, leading to the court case.
An agreement that governs development at the Park City-side base of Park City Mountain outlines that the administrative approval route can be employed should certain criteria be met. The case involved two criteria, including one centered on parking.
One of the key statements regarding parking was made toward the end of the Court of Appeals ruling. It reads:
“In reviewing the totality of the evidence, we cannot say that the proposed improvements would have no impact on parking when the fact was never seriously established or reviewed below. From our reading of the record, there was sufficient evidence presented to the (Park City Planning Commission) to convince a reasonable mind that the Parking Mitigation Plan did not mitigate the impact on parking that the proposed improvements might have had. Thus, the (Planning Commission’s) decision that Criterion Six was not met was supported by substantial evidence, so the decision was not arbitrary or capricious.”
The panel of Court of Appeals judges in April heard arguments in the case. The parking issue was important at that time, as one of the judges inquired whether the district court judge misunderstood the topic regarding the potential increase in parking demand. An attorney representing the Park City Mountain side during that hearing outlined that there was no evidence regarding the parking impact that was not speculative in nature.
Park City Mountain released a prepared statement attributed to Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Deirdra Walsh. It reads:
“We are disappointed by today’s decision, especially after we initially received approval for these lifts after months of work with city staff and community input. Regardless of this outcome, we will resubmit permit applications for both lifts. We are fully committed to the future of Park City Mountain and have invested $144 million in resort improvements to date. Despite the city’s decision to revoke the Eagle and Silverlode permit, we successfully implemented the 2022 parking plan, which, as we expected, has resulted in significant and measurable improvements to the arrival and departure experience at the resort. We will continue to pursue these important projects, and we remain focused on enhancing the guest experience and supporting the long-term vitality of Park City.”
The citizens who challenged the approvals — Angela Moschetta, Clive Bush and Mark Stemler — released a prepared statement. It reads:
“Today’s Utah Court of Appeals ruling in VR CPC Holdings v. Park City Municipal Corporation is a significant step forward in holding ski resorts accountable to the communities they operate in. The court affirmed that Park City’s Planning Commission acted appropriately when it denied Vail Resorts’ fast-track permit application to expand lift capacity at Park City Mountain.
“At the heart of the ruling is a simple but powerful principle: Resorts cannot expand capacity without credible, transparent mitigation of the impacts that follow. For years, Vail Resorts has resisted analysis of its Comfortable Carrying Capacity (CCC) — the measure of how many skiers the mountain can hold in a day. This ruling confirms that CCC is not an abstract or irrelevant number. It directly underpins parking, traffic, and quality-of-life impacts for our community. When CCC math is hidden, unverified, or manipulated, the result is oversold lift tickets, gridlock on our roads, and overcrowding both on- and off-mountain.
“The commission found, and both Third District Court and Appellate Court agreed, that Vail’s parking plan was based on unverified and unreliable CCC numbers. Without credible CCC data, there is no way to measure whether the resort is truly mitigating the impacts of expansion or currently complying with its development agreement.
“The court made clear: ‘Secret math’ won’t cut it. This is more than a Park City issue. Ski towns across the country are grappling with the consequences of unchecked resort growth.
“Today’s decision gives local communities a roadmap: Demand verified CCC numbers, require independent review, and hold resort operators accountable when they oversell their capacity at the expense of residents and visitors alike. We are proud to defend Park City and ski towns everywhere in ensuring growth happens responsibly, with the full impacts disclosed and mitigated.”
Park City Communications Manager Clayton Scrivner said: “The Utah Court of Appeals thoroughly reviewed and upheld the Planning Commission’s decision. We appreciate the court’s thoughtful consideration and the important work of our volunteer Planning Commissions past and present.”