Wildfires don't wait for traffic to clear. 

Anyone who sat in gridlock during the Lake Christine Fire understands that our valley’s roads are vital safety lifelines.

Since the fire, El Jebel has continued to grow, yet our emergency routes remain the same. 

Funneling significant new development traffic onto these overburdened roads compromises emergency response times when seconds count. 

Save Mid-Valley unites local residents to demand land-use decisions that preserve our evacuation corridors and keep our families safe.

Q1 What is the current status of the El Jebel Crossing proposal?

A1 The proposed project across Parcels #2391-343-18-002 and #2391-343-18-001 is currently undergoing a technical completeness review by Eagle County planners. Following an April 30, 2026 pre-application directive, developer Aspen One withdrew its initial conceptual application and submitted a new package that combines Sketch and Preliminary Subdivision Plans with a 1041 Major Impact Permit and a Variance from Improvement Standards (VIS). Aspen One is also seeking a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) under a separate application to begin early dirt-moving and landscape berm construction.

Q2 How has the development plan changed?

A2 The developer transitioned the site from an isolated 111-unit rental concept into a 163-unit residential subdivision on the 20.5-acre site, marking a 46% increase in overall density.

Q3 What safety code waivers (VIS Permit) is Aspen One requesting?

A3 Because a 163-unit density violates standard Eagle County safety rules, Aspen One is requesting that local regulators legally grant four key safety code variances

Q4 What is the "Land Bank" strategy and how does management work?

A4 Aspen One plans to divide the 20.5-acre parcel into 17 distinct lots to sell to independent public or regional entities (such as CDOT, RFTA, or local fire/police districts) so those groups can construct their own employee housing. While Aspen One intends to manage the master HOA, selling off individual lots creates fragmented tenant oversight, making lease compliance and neighborhood integration harder to regulate.

Q5 When will public hearings take place?

A5 Formal public hearings before the Eagle County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners are anticipated no earlier than September 2026, once county staff determines the submittal package is technically complete. UNTIL THE APPLICATION IS POSTED, PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE NOT ACCEPTED. PREVIOUS PUBLIC COMMENT WILL NEED TO BE REVISED AND RESUBMITTED!

Key points against EJ Crossing, emphasizing infrastructure limits and lack of adequate egress in a natural disaster.

Dangerous Wildfire Evacuation Bottlenecks: The revised 163-unit plan funnels all traffic through a single primary exit at JW Drive while keeping secondary access points (Gillespie Drive and Jaci Lane) locked behind emergency breakaway gates. In a fast-moving wildfire, forcing hundreds of residents through a single-access funnel creates a lethal bottleneck, trapping not only the new residents but also those evacuating from Missouri Heights above.

Failing Infrastructure (Level of Service F): The local intersections, specifically JW Drive and Highway 82, are already officially documented as operating at a failing capacity, or "Level of Service (LOS) F." Adding an estimated 1,000+ daily vehicle trips to a dead-stop intersection will gridlock the corridor, delaying fire engines and ambulances when seconds count. 

The Synchronized "Workforce Surge": The developer’s traffic studies rely on generic suburban family models that deflate the true impact on local infrastructure. In reality, high-density workforce housing creates a "workforce surge," where hundreds of commuters hit the exact same failing intersection during synchronized up-valley shift windows, worsening the gridlock.

Dangerous Requests to Waive Safety Codes: Because the infrastructure cannot handle the density, the developer is requesting a "Variance from Improvement Standards" (VIS) to bypass critical Eagle County safety codes. This includes asking to narrow internal streets below the 30-foot minimum required for emergency vehicle clearance, and placing 28 units on a dead-end street (violating the county's strict 25-unit safety cap for turnarounds).

Irresponsible 46% Density Increase: Aspen One recently pulled their 111-unit application and replaced it with a massive 163-unit complex on the same 20.5-acre site. Forcing an urban-density development into an area that physically lacks the roadway infrastructure to support it doesn’t solve a housing crisis—it creates a severe life-safety and emergency egress crisis.