I am concerned about how the city plans the distribution of different types of housing around the city. The Dixon, Franklin, and South Franklin neighborhoods are at or over capacity with low-income/subsidized housing, rentals, apartment complexes, and increasingly taller buildings. I understand the arguments that these types of housing should be close to services and transportation. But what the city council may not anticipate or may be ignoring with these types of planning decisions is the detriment they have on early childhood education and wellbeing, which in turn relates to riskier teenage behavior, crime, community instability, and ultimately a higher price tag for the city as it tries to combat those negative issues in its affected communities. Franklin, Timpanogos, and Spring Creek, all of which are Title 1 schools, are directly affected by the imbalance in low-income housing across the city. Franklin elementary is facing a very real threat of falling under state control (and I imagine potential closure) as its student numbers dwindle, student scores fall, and negative behaviors increase as children try to deal with the stresses they experience in an unstable home and community environment.

Furthermore, there appears to be a lack of oversight from the council on some of the buildings in the Dixon/Franklin neighborhoods. How is it code compliant to allow Vision Real Estate to build a multi-level apartment building only a few feet from an adjacent duplex (see 970 W Center street)? That property is completely overshadowed by the complex. It is an ugly eyesore, especially considering it is located at the gateway of Provo from the freeway. Would that kind of building be allowed in, say, Wasatch, Edgemont, or Canyon Crest neighborhoods?

I see a definite disparity in the quality, size, and density of housing and amenities throughout the city, which has a direct effect on our children. Beautiful, expansive parks like Quail Creek are built on the east side while South Franklin gets a tiny playground in full sun next to a locked soccer field that prevents community access.

Stop cramming these types of housing in our neighborhoods. Start planning proactively by coordinating with the county commission, UDOT, and UTA to create sensible, convenient transportation that would encourage people of all incomes to use. Then you could disperse affordable housing more evenly throughout the city. Please prevent our neighborhoods from becoming slums by making sensible planning decisions and invest in our communities as much as you do the East side.

I oppose the proposed plan to develop the area around slate canyon. In my experience, developers will promise huge benefits to the community when they stand to make huge profits from their proposal. We all know that the land the current splash summit is located on is highly valuable real estate. So not only should the council consider the loss of public land near slate canyon, but also the accumulation of additional incredibly expensive housing on the east side where the park currently sits. The city needs more affordable housing spread throughout the city, not more multi-million dollar homes. I doubt splash summit and the developers behind this proposal would be very keen on selling their current land to build modest housing because they wouldn’t stand to make as much money.

I see no guarantee that the proposed trail enhancements, pump track, and green space would remain free for public use. What are alternative routes the city can use to beautify and conserve the environment around slate canyon that does not involve privatizing the land? How does the city plan to protect the land currently owned by the state hospital?

For many of the same reasons that dredging Utah lake to build islands (again with the proposal of lucrative housing), this is a terrible idea. Please do not approve this plan.

I'm running for the Neighborhood District 5 Executive Board because I want to be more involved in our community and ensure that the voices of my neighbors are heard, represented, and informed. Over the past 2.5 years living in Franklin South, I’ve seen firsthand the needs of our community, whether it’s fixing broken sidewalks, addressing speeding concerns, or securing grants to support community outreach.

I stay actively informed on local issues through city updates and neighborhood Facebook groups, and I’m ready to bring that same level of attention and care to this role. I believe in advocating for practical solutions while using our funds effectively and efficiently.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments regarding the proposed relocation of Splash Summit to the Slate Canyon area. I am writing on behalf of Save Our Canyons, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the beauty and wildness of the Wasatch Mountains since 1972. We oppose this project due to its incompatibility with the ecological integrity of the foothills, its departure from established public land use plans, and its long-term impacts on the surrounding environment.The Slate Canyon foothills represent a rare and diminishing resource along the Wasatch Front—undeveloped public land that holds high ecological, recreational, and scenic value. For years, this land has been designated for future park development under Provo’s General Plan, the Slate Canyon Park Plan, and the Critical Hillsides Report. Rezoning this area for commercial use would disregard those longstanding public processes and commitments.

From a planning and infrastructure standpoint, the proposed development presents clear challenges. The location lacks adequate transportation capacity to handle the volume of traffic a resort-style facility would bring, and the narrow, residential roads leading to the site were not designed for high-intensity commercial use. The area is also subject to fire and flood risk, and sits adjacent to active trail corridors and natural drainages. Allowing intensive development in this location increases the long-term liability for the city while diminishing the quality and safety of the surrounding environment.

Preserving Slate Canyon and the Provo Foothills as public open space is not only a responsible environmental choice—it is an economically sound one. Open space improves adjacent property values, supports community health, and makes Provo more attractive to employers and residents who value access to nature. A park fulfills a promise; a waterpark forfeits it. I urge the Council to maintain the zoning protections in place and move forward with the originally envisioned Slate Canyon Park—an investment in public benefit, resilience, and long-term value.

Doug Tolman
Senior Policy Associate
Save Our Canyons
[email protected]

Simply put, I do not like this idea. We like Slate Canyon the way it is. The waterpark section will not be used the majority of the year (and already is ignored the majority of the summer) and it will not beautify or enrich the land. People use that area to escape civilization the way it is and this brings that development to the hiking trails. They will much louder and less beautiful.
Please do not approve this proposal. If they can build what they want over there, they can build it in the area they have already. Instead of tearing down a peaceful area, they should expand to the parking lot that is adjacent to them. It does not get used at any point of the year. Whoever owns it does not use it. It is barely utilized.

Also, going into slate canyon would disturb the wildlife that lives there. There are deer in the area and they have already been hurt by the traffic in the area. I don't want to see more dead deer and wait on the line for hours trying to reach someone about clean-up when the deer shouldn't have died in the first place.

I write in strong opposition to any proposal involving the sale or development of public land in and around Slate Canyon to private developers. This decision, if pursued, would not only be shortsighted — it would represent a fundamental failure of stewardship, sacrificing the long-term well-being of the community for short-term private gain.

Natural areas like Slate Canyon are irreplaceable. They are not empty or idle spaces waiting to be "put to use" — they are already serving a vital role in the health and quality of life of Provo residents. These spaces provide opportunities for recreation, reflection, education, and restoration. In a world increasingly dominated by screens, concrete, and sprawl, areas like Slate Canyon are among the few places where people can connect with something larger than themselves — with nature, with community, and with peace.

This is not an abstract concern. According to a 2020 report from the Center for American Progress, 1 in 3 Americans do not live within walking distance of a park or natural area. Access to green space is increasingly a privilege! One we are blessed to have. To consider selling public land to private developers is to further entrench that inequality. Once natural land is developed, it is gone. The loss is permanent.

Moreover, the preservation of green space brings measurable benefits to communities. It raises nearby property values, reduces crime, supports mental and physical health, provides habitat for local wildlife, and contributes to climate resilience by cooling urban areas and reducing flood risk. Natural land is not a liability — it is a community asset. It adds value in ways that no building, parking lot, or gated subdivision ever could.

Perhaps most concerning is the precedent that the sale of public land sets. It signals that private interests can chip away at the commons when it suits their purposes — that the public good can be negotiated away behind closed doors. Each parcel sold weakens our ability to protect what is left. The domino effect is real: development in one canyon opens the door for development in another. What once was wilderness becomes a patchwork of encroachment, erosion, and exclusion.

We are at a tipping point — environmentally, socially, and politically. We need leaders who will champion long-term vision over short-term pressure. The public deserves transparency, a seat at the table, and above all, a commitment to protecting the few remaining natural areas we have left.

Slate Canyon is not for sale.

Please do not disrupt the beautiful natural landscape we have in slate canyon. It’s so rare to have such beauty and so much nature close by our homes. Our streets are not built for the amount of traffic that will
Inevitable come with these major additions to a family friendly neighborhood. Please relocate elsewhere or leave splash summit as is!

Should Splash Summit Move to Slate Canyon?

Building a water park resort with shopping at the valuable, recently-acquired land at the mouth of Slate Canyon does not help Provo. Four major problems of this plan are first, not aligning with the Provo City Master Plan, second, the real need for open, wild places, third risk from
the inability to regain the natural state once it has been developed, fourth the local resident concerns.

My first concern is that the proposal does not align with the Hillside and Canyon Plan of the Provo Master Plan. I was invited to participate in both the work group developing this plan and the Slate Canyon Trailhead Park plan. There is strong rational behind each item in this plan. The Hillside and Canyon Plan outlines the wishes of 62 % of the Provo residents to preserve natural habitat for native species. (Hillside and Canyon Master Plan page 28 and 28) Even more critical than the the noise and light pollution to residents in the area, the plan outlines, the extreme risk from wildfire, earthquake faults, soil erosion and debris flow. Considering these risks, the plan has been established to protect the citizens of Provo from the forces of nature. Additionally, the engineering of the debris flow basins, the high voltage power lines and eight foot diameter underground waterlines, pose gigantic challenges for development.

The second we want to preserve the economic value of natural and wild places. Businesses of Provo tell us their employees move to Provo for access to open space and proximal outdoor recreation. Not developed recreation. We, the local residents, want to thank Provo Parks and Recreation for their partnership with citizens and nonprofit groups to protect and preserve the foothills and mouth of Slate Canyon. Over the past seven years, Provo Parks has used additional staff and resources reducing the garbage in the area and improving safety for biking, hiking and walking. By acquiring parcels to protect the canyon and foothills, Provo has demonstrated they will protect the ecosystems of Slate Canyon.

Third Slate Canyon is a natural oasis, is a treasure that cannot be replaced later. If you have ever attempted the challenge of revegetation and restoration you know only the smallest fraction of the work is successful. Consult Dr. Phil Allen, BYU landscape architecture professor, about his work at Rock Canyon for three decades. We rarely restore what we have destroyed.

The fourth challenge is local citizen concerns. Citizens moved here for proximity to the natural hillside and have been promised a park, not increased traffic to a resort. Today at Utah Valley Pediatrics, there are posters in the exam rooms which describe the local crisis of developmental delays in children. These are attributed to digital use. What the children growing up today need are not more buildings or commercial recreation and stores, but access to open, wild, natural places where they play, discover and learn about the world in healthy ways. The health and developmental benefits of discovering sego lilies in bloom or the flash of orange and yellow as a western tanager flies off a branch are of great value though hard to monetize.

The proposed Marriott resort has visual and economic appeal. The location is a problem. Could the amazing resort property use the Provo Towne Centre Mall site or another site that will aid Provo’s economic growth in an area designed for commerce?

While the developer's proposal shows that traffic would have multiple routes to get to this new location, the reality is that people will take the route that is suggested to them by the navigation software they use. Currently, the suggested route to get to the proposed location is the same for all traffic coming from outside of Provo. Visitors coming from cities north of Provo are directed to 1860 South, to take Slate Canyon drive. Visitors from cities south of Provo are directed to 1860 South, to take Slate Canyon drive. Slate Canyon drive already has major traffic and parking issues. We should not be adding to an already existing problem.

The neighborhood meeting on this topic was decisive and well attended. My takeaways from that meeting were that the residents surrounding this proposed development have thoughtful, systematic, and pragmatic concerns about selling this land, and a valid argument for incremental and community-based development. The community, including those who are most negatively impacted by the current water park's very real location, noise, and parking issues, came out in hundreds to express concerns about this application. I read these neighbors as open to incremental, environmentally-responsible, and community-centered development, pragmatic about Provo's growth and budgeting needs and realities, and desperate in their love and hope for the continuance of accessible green space and open land in East Provo. I would summarize their central concerns as follows.

1) A development of these proportions is much more than an incremental growth that helps current homeowners and residents stay in their homes and grow neighborhood cultures, walkability, and accessibility.

2) Green space, especially up a mountain, is a limited resources and merits being protected and maintained for public use.

3) Emotions run high but they are based in a history of civil and community-centered discussion, planning, and promises made to residents about developing this area as a regional park. These negotiations have been built into the city's master plan, a Slate Canyon Park plan, and the Critical Hillsides report amongst other places.

4) While realizing that the infrastructure to build this park is high, I hope that we can use this momentum to find public support for funding community-centered and phased development of this green space to open its accessiblity and make/maintain it the as the gem that brought the residents here in the first place.