[0:06] It's 5:00 pm and we are at the Canyon

[0:09] Community Center for the September 2nd

[0:11] meeting of the Springdale Planning

[0:13] Commission. From the T town we have Tom

[0:16] Dancy, Eugenia Aam, Nyall Connelly, and

[0:19] April Ratitz. On the dis we have Jorge

[0:24] Hernandez, Zion National Park

[0:25] representative, Katie Mson, Terry

[0:29] Kruski, myself, Jennifer McCulla, Paul

[0:32] Zimmerman, Kosh Bati, and Melissa

[0:35] Labort. Rich Swanson is out tonight.

[0:39] I'd like to ask for a motion to approve

[0:42] tonight's agenda.

[0:43] >> A motion to approve tonight's agenda.

[0:46] >> Second. Motion by Melissa, second by

[0:50] Paul. All in favor.

[0:53] >> I.

[0:54] >> Jennifer I.

[0:55] >> Paul I.

[0:56] >> Melissa I. [snorts]

[0:59] » Motion passes. Uh, let's see. Caut,

[1:02] since Rich is out tonight, I think we

[1:05] need to ask you to vote as well.

[1:08] >> Thank you.

[1:10] And are there any general announcements

[1:12] from the town?

[1:16] Yes, I have one. Um, so just to let you

[1:20] know, uh, going back a few months, the

[1:22] commission talked about, uh, parking

[1:25] standards in the town and potentially

[1:27] reooking at those. Um, you'd instructed

[1:31] us to do some surveys of of parking

[1:34] counts so we'd have some data. Um, with

[1:37] this being Labor Day weekend, we're

[1:40] going to take the opportunity to do some

[1:42] parking counts while it's busy. Uh,

[1:45] we're also going to be doing some

[1:47] parking counts on normal days. So, we

[1:51] have, you know, some comparison with

[1:53] weekdays and other Saturdays. Uh we had

[1:56] actually planned on doing some today

[1:58] although with the flooding and the fact

[2:00] that all the some of the parking spaces

[2:02] are out of commission we're postponed

[2:04] that but we will be doing some parking

[2:07] counts this weekend and then into next

[2:08] week.

[2:12] » Any other announcements?

[2:15] Are there any declarations

[2:17] of conflict of interest

[2:22] for tonight's agenda? We have one

[2:25] non-action item

[2:28] which is a discussion. It's a discussion

[2:30] about potential amendments to clarify

[2:32] chapter 10-15F

[2:34] of the town code geologic hazard

[2:37] specifically clarifying the requirement

[2:40] for geotechnical investigation reports

[2:43] and the geologic hazard study area.

[2:46] Staff contact is Nile and Nile will be

[2:49] presenting.

[2:51] >> Thank you. Um

[2:53] yes. So as you indicated this is a

[2:56] discussion item about the town's

[2:58] geologic hazard ordinance. Uh so chapter

[3:01] 1015F of the code. Um geologic hazards

[3:05] and how we address them through the

[3:07] development process has been a recurring

[3:09] theme at recent meetings. Um and during

[3:13] those discussion

[3:15] discussions, the commission expressed an

[3:18] interest in looking at these again,

[3:20] maybe making some clarifications to help

[3:23] us um

[3:26] know how to uh

[3:29] apply this in every situation.

[3:32] uh in particular uh to clarify the

[3:34] requirement for geotechnical reports for

[3:37] developments in the geologic hazard

[3:40] study areas. So that's areas of uh

[3:44] elevated landslide, rockfall

[3:48] um or liquefaction risks, those areas.

[3:53] Um there may be instances where

[3:55] geotechnical reports are beneficial but

[3:58] aren't at the moment automatically

[4:00] triggered by the code. Um

[4:04] at the same time there may be other more

[4:06] minor types of development where uh

[4:08] geotechnical reports uh could be overly

[4:12] burdensome. So, it's uh an opportunity

[4:15] to to look at our requirements and make

[4:18] sure that they're fit for purpose. Um,

[4:22] in the staff report, I've identified

[4:24] some questions that the commission could

[4:26] use to frame this discussion. Um, in

[4:30] addition, Commissioner Zimmerman has

[4:32] also provided some comments and some

[4:34] suggestions on uh language we could

[4:37] consider. I've got that on the screen

[4:39] there that we can refer to as well if

[4:41] you would like. Um,

[4:44] if it would be helpful, I'm also happy

[4:46] to to talk for a few moments about the

[4:49] geologic hazards in town and how the

[4:52] current ordinance works if that would be

[4:55] helpful. Um, so whatever way you would

[4:58] like to proceed with this uh discussion,

[5:01] I'm I'm happy to help.

[5:04] >> I have a clarifying question. Um,

[5:09] so

[5:11] a if something is a geological hazard

[5:14] study area,

[5:18] does that mean that it would have had

[5:22] a geotechnical investigation?

[5:27] >> No, not in every instance. So it it

[5:30] depends on the

[5:32] do you mean a development that comes

[5:35] forward in for a permit in that area?

[5:37] >> Yeah. So I understand like there the

[5:39] there's the um

[5:42] requirements to have the geotechnical

[5:45] report.

[5:47] So that would have if some so it's

[5:50] possible I guess for there to be an area

[5:53] that's geological hazard study that

[5:57] didn't have that report. Is that

[5:59] correct?

[6:01] >> Potentially. Um,

[6:03] >> that's what I'm having a little bit of a

[6:05] >> Maybe maybe now you could talk about

[6:08] where the town's areas are.

[6:14] » Right.

[6:16] >> Yeah,

[6:17] >> sure. Yeah, I can bring up the maps and

[6:19] uh visual aids and we can talk through

[6:21] them and then h go on to how the code

[6:25] currently is. Okay, let me just

[6:29] get this up here.

[6:32] So, this is on our website. This is our

[6:34] uh geographic information system.

[6:39] So, I'm going to take off the zoning

[6:42] layer.

[6:44] And here we have the geologic hazards.

[6:48] And this drop-own menu, you can bring up

[6:50] the different layers for those those

[6:52] different hazard areas. So, I'll start

[6:55] with landslide.

[6:58] So you can see the red is the very high

[7:01] risk. If I just move over to this legend

[7:04] here, you can see the different

[7:08] um so the red is the very high, this

[7:11] pink is high and and so on down to

[7:14] moderate and then low.

[7:17] So if you the top of the map, this is up

[7:20] near the park entrance. Um, we're here

[7:23] at the community center.

[7:26] So, you can see really on both sides of the river, uh, all of those foothill

[7:31] areas are are generally experiencing

[7:35] those landslide hazards.

[7:38] If I go back and look at the rockfall

[7:40] now,

[7:43] let me go down.

[7:46] So, this is kind of a similar picture,

[7:48] although a little bit different.

[7:52] Um, and again here the red is the high,

[7:56] yellow moderate, and green is low. Um,

[8:01] so the rockfall areas are slightly less

[8:04] big than the landslide ones.

[8:09] And finally

[8:13] the liquefaction

[8:16] covers

[8:18] the valley areas around the river

[8:20] mostly. So the that's kind of

[8:23] collapsible soils is where you know in

[8:26] the event of an earthquake the um those

[8:29] soils are more prone to collapse.

[8:33] Um, I have a geologist here, Tom Danzy,

[8:36] who can correct me if I'm giving

[8:38] incorrect interpretations, but those are

[8:40] our those are our hazard zones in the

[8:43] town. So, you can see they cover between

[8:45] all three of them, they cover fairly

[8:47] extensive areas.

[8:50] Um

[8:53] with the liquefaction zone generally the mitigation there is really

[9:01] about choosing the appropriate

[9:03] foundations and kind of how much over

[9:06] excavation and those sorts of things. So

[9:09] that's that's often how the liquefaction

[9:12] is dealt with. Um the landslides and the

[9:14] rock falls are are a little bit

[9:16] different.

[9:18] Um,

[9:21] so all of these areas, um, we got the the maps or the the definition of

[9:29] the area from the Utah Geological Survey

[9:31] that was referred to in the ordinance.

[9:33] >> Yeah, that's correct.

[9:34] >> So, any property that's in the area in

[9:38] one of these areas wouldn't wouldn't have one automatically until

[9:43] some development is requested or

[9:46] >> Yeah.

[9:46] >> force. Okay.

[9:53] » So, we we Sorry, do you want to say

[9:55] something?

[9:58] Ju just one comment about the maps, and

[9:59] I think this is important for why the ordinance is structured the way it's

[10:04] structured. Um Terry, as you mentioned,

[10:06] the Utah Geologic Survey produced those

[10:09] maps for us. Those maps are produced on

[10:13] uh the very wide scale. So that that

[10:17] hazard map that Nile referenced is a

[10:20] small portion of the hazard map that

[10:22] covers all of eastern Washington County.

[10:25] So it's not as if the Utah Geological

[10:27] Survey was going out to every single

[10:29] property in Springdale and analyzing the

[10:31] sight specific risks. They were using

[10:33] some analysis tools like aerial

[10:35] photography and and um topography and um

[10:41] geologic um mapping and and then and

[10:45] then performing some algorithms and some

[10:47] calculations to come up with those maps.

[10:49] They are not sightspecific analyses of

[10:53] the risks on those properties. And this

[10:55] is important because those maps just

[10:57] generally show based on these factors

[10:59] that we've considered, there is a higher

[11:02] probability than not that there's some

[11:05] kind of geological hazard here. But the

[11:07] extent of of that hazard, the the true

[11:10] nature of that hazard, and frankly

[11:11] whether or not that hazard truly even

[11:13] exists on that property or not, those

[11:14] maps do not say. It just says here are

[11:17] areas that are likely to be subject to

[11:20] these hazards. That's why our ordinance

[11:23] then says okay if development occurs in

[11:28] those areas and a geotechnical report is

[11:31] required one of the components of that

[11:34] geotechnical investigation

[11:37] is to analyze the geo do an initial

[11:39] analysis of geohhazards. Again as a

[11:42] reminder we talked about this last time

[11:43] the geotechnical investigation primarily

[11:46] looks at subsurface soil conditions. How

[11:49] is the um the subgrade going to be

[11:52] prepared and what kind of foundation

[11:53] does a structure need to support itself?

[11:56] Those geotechnical investigations in and

[11:58] of themselves are not designed to

[11:59] address geologic hazards on a sight

[12:02] specific scale. They may address it

[12:03] briefly, but it's not an in-depth

[12:05] analysis. That's why our the way our

[12:07] ordinance is structured. It says, okay,

[12:09] when development is proposed and a

[12:11] geotechnical report is required in one

[12:13] of those geologic hazard study areas,

[12:16] the geotechnical engineer needs to make

[12:18] an initial analysis of the site specific

[12:23] uh geologic hazards on that property and

[12:26] then make a determination whether or not

[12:28] additional study is warranted. So that's

[12:30] just a a a clarification to say that

[12:34] those maps are illustrative only and are

[12:37] a guide, but they don't necessarily mean

[12:40] that if you are in that high hazard

[12:42] area, yes, absolutely you are at risk.

[12:45] It's just there's a greater probability

[12:46] than not that you are at risk and more

[12:49] study is needed. Does that make sense?

[12:51] >> Yeah. So [clears throat] that's kind of

[12:52] what I was getting at. So it could or

[12:56] could not make sense to have a

[12:59] requirement for anybody any property in

[13:02] that area

[13:04] for that to trigger

[13:07] a a geological

[13:09] investigation.

[13:12] That would be something we need to

[13:13] discuss, right? Okay.

[13:16] >> Yeah. So I I I think that point Tom made

[13:18] is is really helpful actually and kind

[13:22] of to your point that so there's the

[13:24] geotechnical report which is first and

[13:27] then there's the geologic hazard

[13:28] investigation which is step two if

[13:31] there's more significant issues that you

[13:34] know there may be many developments that

[13:37] come forward in the hazard areas that

[13:40] don't actually merit that next step.

[13:43] >> Okay. Thank you.

[13:47] So, I have a a question about these two

[13:50] reports. So, a a geotechnical report as

[13:54] we've defined in our um ordinances, is

[13:57] that sort of a standardized thing? Do

[14:00] most towns

[14:02] require the same kinds of things in

[14:04] their reports or do engineering

[14:07] organizations typically produce a report

[14:10] that's fairly standardized or are they

[14:13] fairly unique to each town or each

[14:15] instance?

[14:18] >> Yeah, they're standardized. They exist.

[14:21] >> So, it's it's a standardized sort of

[14:22] thing. Okay.

[14:27] Um so I guess that brings up the

[14:30] question. So when we add when we added

[14:31] that section that talks about um slope

[14:34] stability and then in that section we

[14:37] say that the geotechnical report has to

[14:39] include comments on slope stability.

[14:42] That would be something we would be

[14:43] requiring them to add to the standard

[14:46] default report.

[14:48] >> Yeah, that's an add-on. Yeah.

[14:55] » Are there any other questions for Nile

[14:56] right now?

[14:59] >> And my understanding is is through the

[15:01] discussion process, we can continue to

[15:04] ask questions and have back and forth

[15:06] dialogue. Correct.

[15:08] >> Absolutely.

[15:08] >> Okay. Yeah. So, we'll move into

[15:10] discussion and

[15:12] >> What's that?

[15:12] >> We can move into discussion, but as we

[15:14] move along, um just any questions that

[15:17] come up. Um, seems like

[15:21] maybe starting with the questions

[15:24] um that were that staff provided for us.

[15:28] We could start going through those if

[15:30] that makes sense to everybody.

[15:33] Um,

[15:34] so the first being does the list of

[15:37] situations where geotechnical report is

[15:39] required 10-15 F5A does that cover all

[15:44] of the situations it should?

[15:48] No,

[15:50] >> I think I agree with what Paul had

[15:52] written that we need to we need to

[15:55] update that section.

[15:56] >> Yeah. And that's where I guess the

[15:58] question comes in about if that makes

[16:01] sense for that

[16:04] to be a requirement

[16:06] for

[16:08] um any property in geological hazard

[16:11] study area.

[16:13] >> Yeah. And I I'd like to clarify um in

[16:17] the the notes that I sent out and we'll

[16:19] get through more detail and talk about

[16:20] that as we go on, but in um I think item

[16:25] uh whatever under 1015 F5A,

[16:30] I suggested adding a five that said any

[16:32] development involving soil disturbance

[16:34] that's in a geohhazard study area

[16:37] described in 1015 F4. Um I didn't look I

[16:41] intended to but didn't get actually get

[16:43] a chance to look at these maps and

[16:45] obviously in the maps pretty much the

[16:47] whole town is is encompassed but we may

[16:50] want to back off of any and and provide

[16:53] a little more you know thought into that

[16:54] and look through that. Um

[16:56] >> yeah, that was going to be my com. Then

[16:57] maybe something a little uh more

[16:59] specific would be important.

[17:02] >> For one, um I'm not sure a geologic soil

[17:07] study. I don't know. Does it make a

[17:09] difference in rockfall how hard the rock

[17:11] lands on you? I

[17:12] >> Well, if it lands on your head, it

[17:14] probably doesn't matter. If it lands

[17:16] next to you, it might. Anyway, but um

[17:19] yeah, and I I think it might be

[17:21] beneficial to make sure we have a common

[17:24] understanding of what the different

[17:25] things are because um what we're talking

[17:27] about is a geotechnical report um which

[17:30] is a a much smaller thing than than the

[17:33] followon which is you know um a full-on

[17:36] study or you know there's a couple of

[17:37] different

[17:38] >> investigation. Yeah.

[17:40] >> Um well I have a couple of I had a

[17:42] couple of ideas. One is whether or not

[17:44] we include all of the geologic hazards

[17:47] such as radon or rockfalls.

[17:50] >> Yeah.

[17:51] >> Um

[17:51] >> right.

[17:52] >> Which may or may not make sense for this

[17:55] particular situation.

[17:56] >> Um the other I would suggest is in in

[17:58] the in the grading um section of the of

[18:02] the ordinance, there's a minimum square

[18:05] footage and a minimum cubic yards of

[18:08] grading that requires a grading permit.

[18:11] So the way you've worded it, you know,

[18:13] even if you took out one cubic yard,

[18:14] you'd still need a geotechnical report.

[18:16] So we may want to say that well, if it

[18:19] reaches the requirement of a grading

[18:21] permit, then you need the report.

[18:23] >> Yeah. I I think though at the same time,

[18:25] it's also important to consider um the

[18:30] surroundings of what's being graded. So,

[18:32] for example, um one of the things I

[18:34] realized as we're going through this

[18:35] that, you know, we we sort of overlooked

[18:37] was the um the words that we added

[18:41] recently in 1015 F9 where you know, if

[18:44] you're digging I think that's the one if

[18:46] you're digging a hole next to a a slope

[18:48] or whatever, you know, we need we need

[18:50] to

[18:51] >> do some, you know, geological study in

[18:53] there, but but also if you're doing uh

[18:56] excavating next to a at the base of a of

[19:00] a the toe of a a significant downs slope

[19:04] um that's sub that's been or that is has

[19:09] been studied a known study to be

[19:12] hazardous even a small amount of

[19:14] excavation at that point may be uh

[19:16] problematic so I'd be careful to say

[19:18] it's got to be a certain size or you

[19:20] know or what that size is I think we

[19:23] should clarify in those kind of cases

[19:26] >> does that make sense

[19:27] >> the thing I'm thinking is that if if you

[19:30] excavate less than the requirement for a

[19:32] grading permit and you're not producing

[19:35] a structure or a building,

[19:37] >> right?

[19:38] >> Then there's nothing really that drives

[19:40] you, I think, to have to come to the

[19:41] town to get permission.

[19:43] >> Well, currently

[19:44] >> currently, yeah,

[19:45] >> but maybe there should be, I guess, is

[19:47] my my thought is depending upon and it

[19:49] depends on what the what those criteria

[19:51] are. or maybe we should discuss those

[19:53] because I'm you know I I don't know what

[19:57] um off the top of my head I'm not I'll

[19:59] be honest I don't recall what the

[20:01] minimum or the minimum grading

[20:03] >> I think the grading from it was like 30

[20:05] yards I think

[20:06] >> 30 yards

[20:07] >> um one question to the staff might be

[20:09] >> what drives those numbers

[20:13] >> how did those numbers get chosen

[20:14] >> right agreed

[20:17] >> it's uh you know we'll end up sort of

[20:19] crossing over these these sir to the the

[20:22] ordinance.

[20:24] >> So I I brought them up on the screen. So

[20:26] the the minimum is required for a

[20:29] grading permit. I don't know the

[20:31] background of those figures. Um are they

[20:36] the 30 cubic yards?

[20:40] Is there any insights you have on that

[20:43] Tom?

[20:45] >> It's just the

[20:48] Yeah. when when the grading when that section was added, the intent

[20:52] was to allow

[20:54] some amount of disturbance because our definition of grading is very broad.

[20:59] >> Yeah.

[21:00] >> It you know basically putting a shovel

[21:02] in the ground is under our definition is

[21:04] a grading

[21:05] >> grading. Um and and so it doesn't make

[21:08] sense that anytime anybody wants to go

[21:09] and and dig in the garden or do some

[21:11] landscaping or things like that that

[21:13] they would need to come and get a permit

[21:15] from the town given extensive nature of

[21:18] our definition of grading. So those

[21:20] figures were chosen to say there's a reasonable amount of of earth

[21:24] moving that's just associated with the

[21:27] normal maintenance and operation of a

[21:29] property that we we probably don't need

[21:32] to be concerned with. But once it

[21:34] exceeds that amount, then you're in a in

[21:37] a position where yes, you're doing

[21:38] things that would trigger the

[21:40] applicability section of the grading

[21:43] ordinance. That is to preserve the uh

[21:46] natural topography and to preserve

[21:48] view-sheds and to preserve hillsides.

[21:50] Once you get get above that 500 square

[21:52] feet or 30 cubic yards of excavation,

[21:55] then you're in in a position where

[21:57] you're potentially impacting those

[21:58] things. And so we want you to have a

[22:00] permit.

[22:00] >> Yeah.

[22:00] >> So maybe that's the requirement.

[22:04] Is that anything that requires a grading

[22:06] permit as per 1015B2?

[22:09] >> Do do we have the latitude to to get

[22:13] some geotechnical expertise to take a

[22:16] look at these numbers and give us some

[22:19] guidance on that?

[22:25] » Do you have the latitude? Um yes, you

[22:28] can ask for that. That's I mean that

[22:31] would be an expense the town would go

[22:32] through to engage a geotechnical

[22:33] consultant to do that.

[22:35] >> Understand?

[22:36] >> I think before we did that we want to

[22:38] know exactly what you're looking for.

[22:41] >> Sure.

[22:43] from a geotechnical standpoint, are they

[22:45] going to say, "Well,

[22:47] does it um

[22:50] does, you know, uh is is it going to

[22:54] impact our geotechnical report if it's

[22:57] 500 square feet versus 499 square feet?"

[23:01] They they may be able to answer that

[23:02] question, but what they won't advise you

[23:04] on is a policy decision. Um, and it's

[23:07] really up to you as a commission to say,

[23:09] "What is our policy decision? how much

[23:11] grading are we okay with on a property

[23:14] um before we want to regulate that?

[23:18] That's a policy decision that's that's

[23:19] up to the up to the commission and a

[23:22] geotechnical consultant isn't going to

[23:24] be able to advise you on that.

[23:27] So for example, we could make a

[23:29] different minimum for a landslide hazard

[23:33] zone or for a geologic hazard zone and

[23:36] versus just general like you know you

[23:38] could make it like instead of 30 yards

[23:40] it's 10 yards or something if it's in a

[23:42] geological hazard zone.

[23:44] Yes, you could. And as a policy

[23:46] decision, you can make that. And and

[23:47] maybe now I'm understanding your

[23:48] question a little bit more, Paul, is to

[23:49] say, does is that supportable? Is that

[23:52] justifiable? Right. To to say,

[23:54] >> yeah, I mean, what I'm looking for is,

[23:55] you know, if you've got a a major

[23:57] downslope that's had some activity up

[23:59] above, um, and somebody wants to come in

[24:01] and, you know, take

[24:04] three or four feet off the bottom of it,

[24:06] but, you know, I mean, that's that's

[24:08] three or four feet that's supporting a

[24:10] big hill. you know, how much is going to

[24:12] be a dramatic impact on the support of

[24:15] the rest of that hill? You know, can

[24:17] yeah, if somebody comes out with a

[24:19] shovel and digs a couple feet away in a

[24:21] very small area, probably not a big

[24:22] deal, but it could be a big deal

[24:24] depending upon, you know, if it's a 100%

[24:28] slope instead of a 60% or a 30% slope,

[24:30] it might be problematic.

[24:32] >> Yeah, good good point. And yes, we we

[24:34] can get some feedback on that. Um we the UG the there's a a geohhazards

[24:40] expert at the Utah Geologic Survey that

[24:42] actually was um really critical in

[24:44] helping us craft the geological hazard

[24:46] ordinance when that whatever that was

[24:48] seven eight years ago.

[24:50] >> Um and he's he's um still with the UGS

[24:52] and is super happy to help us. We can

[24:54] engage him.

[24:55] >> Um again ultimately it's going to come

[24:57] down to a policy decision. understand

[24:58] that

[24:59] >> from the commission about how what what

[25:02] level of risk you're comfortable with

[25:03] because

[25:04] >> he may come back and say hey in some

[25:06] instances even a shovel full of dirt may

[25:08] have an impact and then it's just up to

[25:11] you as a commission to say well are we

[25:13] okay you know policy-wise with the risk

[25:15] of a shovel for full of dirt versus a

[25:18] three to four foot cut

[25:21] » but yes the short answer to your

[25:22] question is yes we can absolutely um get

[25:25] some feedback from from the UGS on that

[25:28] That'd be great. Yeah.

[25:40] » So the the other thing you had you added

[25:42] two items to your list. One one was this

[25:46] sort of any ex grading and then the

[25:48] second one referred to specifically

[25:51] >> to 15

[25:53] F9 um

[25:55] >> right right

[25:56] >> C I think it or C9 um

[26:00] >> they might be overlapping

[26:01] >> what's that

[26:02] >> they might be overlapping

[26:04] >> I think they are to some extent except

[26:05] that the way the the 15 uh F5C9

[26:09] was drafted it says uh it it presumes

[26:13] the the geotechnical report was already

[26:16] done and so

[26:17] >> worked on that. it certainly in my mind

[26:19] I wasn't thinking that well sometimes a

[26:22] geotechnical port wouldn't be required

[26:23] and there

[26:24] >> right not

[26:24] >> but in this but what we're trying to do

[26:26] is say hey we probably we need a geotech

[26:28] report and to me that seemed when I was

[26:29] doing this that seemed like a probably a

[26:31] pretty good I reason for doing it um not

[26:34] I mean a geotech study right I'm sorry

[26:37] geotech report

[26:38] >> yeah geotech yeah

[26:41] >> not necessarily against having both of

[26:42] them they just might be a little bit

[26:44] overlapping but

[26:45] >> I agreed yeah

[26:47] I I was trying to find figure a way to

[26:49] put them together, but I just said to

[26:51] probably just easy to do them separate.

[26:54] >> Maybe the staff can help us with the

[26:55] wording.

[26:56] >> Yeah, because I had the same at first I

[26:57] thought it was redundant as well, but

[26:59] now I see how it can make sense.

[27:05] So, yeah, I think if there was a way to

[27:07] incorporate that,

[27:10] >> yeah, you might be you might be able to

[27:12] incorporate into a single require that

[27:14] might

[27:15] >> make more sense in some ways. Yeah,

[27:17] >> I think that should be simple enough to

[27:19] >> okay

[27:20] >> achieve that.

[27:21] >> I think if to me if we did that and we

[27:23] had some limitation that you know said

[27:26] it's doesn't take just a shovel full but

[27:29] I don't know where that is yet.

[27:30] >> Right.

[27:32] >> Yeah, I agree. Um, since I see my notes

[27:35] are up there on the on the

[27:38] display, maybe it'd be beneficial if I

[27:40] just talk through those a little bit so

[27:41] that at least that way they go on the

[27:43] record because I want to make sure that

[27:44] you know this was the these are my

[27:47] thoughts. I didn't discuss them with

[27:48] anybody. I just sent it out to the rest

[27:49] of the everybody here so we can we can

[27:51] present it and then we can go through

[27:53] it. If that's okay, I'll try to do that

[27:55] quickly.

[27:55] >> That that would be great if you could

[27:56] talk through.

[27:58] >> So, we we talked about, you know, one

[28:00] and two there. Um item three I looked at

[28:04] uh you know should we provide more

[28:06] clarity on what stage of the development

[28:08] process the geotech report is required.

[28:10] Um probably I started to look at that

[28:13] you know three or four or five different

[28:15] times and I keep cut kept getting

[28:17] interrupted and distracted and so I

[28:18] never got finished so it's got question

[28:19] marks on it. Um something we can

[28:21] probably look to. Um 1015 F9 indicates a

[28:26] geotech or geological hazard

[28:28] investigation may be required for any

[28:30] land use entitlement. Is that too broad?

[28:32] Was the question from the staff. Um,

[28:34] should sign permits or fence permits be

[28:36] automatically exempt? When I went and

[28:38] read 1015F9E,

[28:40] it states that quote, "Springale will

[28:42] review any proposed land use requirement

[28:44] that requires preparation of geo

[28:46] geological report under the chapter

[28:48] determine compliance with standards in

[28:50] the chapter as well as other standards

[28:53] uh indicating that anyway um indicating

[28:56] that only proposed land uses that

[28:58] require a geological report are

[29:00] impacted, not all land use entitlements.

[29:03] So the the premise that uh was stated in

[29:07] this is that uh they may be required for

[29:10] all land use uh entitlements. I don't

[29:13] think that's the case. I think based on

[29:14] the way it's worded. So the question

[29:17] kind of answers itself there. I think um

[29:19] number five is it possible to craft the

[29:21] language in such a way that

[29:22] investigations are provided for

[29:23] proposals that create a generating risk

[29:26] while not overburdening lower risk types

[29:28] of development? Yes. And my comment was

[29:31] to see the recommended changes here. Um,

[29:35] and then you know I just tried to put

[29:38] everything in one place so we could look

[29:39] at it. So the next section here is 1015

[29:42] F5A. This is just copied direct out of

[29:45] the code. Um, we don't I don't I won't

[29:47] read through this um unless you want me

[29:50] to, but we can refer to it here. If you

[29:53] continue on to the next

[29:56] um this is a continuation of that. And

[29:59] then we get into 1015F5B

[30:02] uh which talks about the purposes of the

[30:04] geotech report and there to number one

[30:08] identify any problematic soils including

[30:10] subsurface soils that may be encountered

[30:12] during development and which may pose a

[30:14] risk pose a threat to the structural

[30:16] integrity of the proposed development. I

[30:19] recommended adding comma the neighboring

[30:23] properties or the surrounding community

[30:26] to this that particular statement for

[30:28] number one. Um item two goes on to say

[30:32] that provide to provide

[30:34] [cough and clears throat] specific

[30:34] engineering recommendations and I

[30:37] recommend including or the adding uh

[30:41] parenthesized statement including the

[30:43] need or requirement for a geotechnical

[30:45] investigation.

[30:47] close Bren to mitigate the threats posed

[30:50] by any problematic soils identified. And

[30:52] then the last thing or number and that

[30:54] was item three was to conduct an initial

[30:57] geo initial analysis of geological

[30:59] hazards for properties located in

[31:01] geological hazard study area. Um

[31:05] I I added a what I call an illuminating

[31:08] comment here. That's the thing in teal

[31:11] that I think 10155

[31:14] 1015 F5C and 10155 FD

[31:18] were not addressed in our previous

[31:20] meeting. um as those meetings

[31:23] presupposed a geotechnical or these

[31:25] items presupposed a geotechnical report

[31:28] um but the de depth of the excavation

[31:30] into the 30% grade being greater than

[31:32] zero satisfies 1015 F-5

[31:37] C9B

[31:39] um which is in other words any

[31:41] excavation into the slope that is

[31:44] greater than a negative distance from

[31:45] the edge

[31:47] uh should require geotechnical report

[31:49] suggested by uh with the newly proposed

[31:52] addition up that I just mentioned up

[31:53] above number six. Uh so in other words,

[31:56] if you're if you're cutting into a 30%

[31:58] slope and you cut 5 feet or 6 in into

[32:01] that slope, um that's a that that

[32:05] fulfills the requirements of 10 15 FC9B.

[32:11] Um because we're less than or more than

[32:14] half the distance from the edge, we're

[32:16] actually negative distance from the

[32:17] edge. So it sort of jumps out

[32:19] automatically if we include that up

[32:21] above. So one of the reasons it got

[32:22] included up above is you know that's

[32:25] that sort of thing. And then the um

[32:28] the balance of the notes here are just

[32:30] uh again 1015

[32:33] F5C

[32:35] items 9 and 10 and 1015 F5D

[32:40] uh geological uh hazard investigation

[32:42] report when it's required and 1015 F4

[32:45] geological hazard study error. just

[32:47] copied straight out of the town code.

[32:49] So,

[32:57] » thank you.

[33:00] >> We discussed

[33:02] your your input for um for for 5A, you

[33:07] know, 1015 F5A.

[33:11] >> Yeah.

[33:13] Is there any other discussion for

[33:15] anybody else on 1015A on the

[33:18] requirements

[33:26] had a I had a few specific things on

[33:29] some of your ideas and then I had a

[33:31] couple of things of my own.

[33:34] Um

[33:36] so

[33:38] let me see here. Um we talked about the

[33:41] ating ordinance. So we'll get some

[33:44] feedback on maybe numbers that make

[33:46] sense. Um

[33:50] so uh couple other things I had. Um this

[33:53] is actually just a thought a thought

[33:54] that we could discuss um of whether it

[33:56] might make sense to add the geotechnical

[34:00] report and the geologic

[34:04] hazard

[34:06] um report to the definition section. So

[34:10] that it there's a clear definition of

[34:13] the two different reports.

[34:15] >> I like that idea.

[34:18] >> So I think that would make it it

[34:19] certainly would have made it easier for

[34:20] me. I think it would make it easier for

[34:21] other people to understand. Oh, there

[34:23] are two reports and

[34:24] >> see in the definition section what their

[34:26] relationship is.

[34:27] >> I think that could be easy to do and

[34:28] would be helpful. Yeah,

[34:30] >> I think they're I think they're in

[34:31] there. I think they're described

[34:33] somewhere else in the code, but it' be I

[34:34] think it'd be better.

[34:35] >> Yeah, they're described sort of here and

[34:37] there

[34:39] >> definitions that where people will look

[34:41] for it. Yeah.

[34:43] >> Um

[34:45] the other thing that I have here is it's

[34:47] kind of a maybe even a question to the

[34:49] staff. If if if we look at the way this

[34:52] the whole 1015XF

[34:55] sorry 1015F is is written. Um there are

[35:00] it's written around um in some parts

[35:03] it's written around land and lots and in

[35:06] some parts it's written about around

[35:07] buildings. Um for example if you look at

[35:10] 1053A

[35:12] and 3B

[35:15] they discuss lands legal lots parcels

[35:18] inside of Springdale.

[35:20] But if you look at 1015 F3C

[35:24] and D, the exemptions include certain

[35:28] buildings and structures. So, so it

[35:31] applies to land except these buildings.

[35:35] So there's a kind of a logic thing that

[35:38] is a little hard to parse through.

[35:42] >> So that the terms are a little bit um

[35:46] muddled. So in some points we're talking

[35:48] about lots and sometimes we're talking

[35:50] about buildings.

[35:50] >> Sometimes we talk about buildings. Yeah.

[35:52] And structures. And it might be

[35:55] >> good to go through and say where we

[35:56] talk, you know, where we need to talk

[35:58] about buildings and structures. We

[36:00] associate those buildings and structures

[36:02] with the property or the lot that

[36:03] they're on because really the

[36:05] geotechnical report, I think, if I

[36:07] understand correctly, applies to the lot

[36:10] more so than it does the building or the

[36:12] structure.

[36:14] Um, and that might help a little bit

[36:16] clarify.

[36:18] I know for me I had to read several

[36:20] times to sort of get the sense of why

[36:22] we're talking about land here, but we're

[36:24] talking about buildings there.

[36:26] Um,

[36:30] let's see.

[36:33] Oh, and then where you uh want to add

[36:35] that parenthetical statement about uh

[36:38] requiring a ge whether or not a

[36:40] geotechnical investigation is required.

[36:43] Um, we should reference the 1015F5D

[36:48] that talks about that. Um, because

[36:50] that's that's the section that that

[36:52] talks about whether or not that

[36:54] requirement is needed. So, we should

[36:55] just reference that section if we're

[36:58] going to put that parenthetical

[36:59] statement in there.

[37:01] So I think um when I look at I mean

[37:04] you're bringing up good points Terry but

[37:06] when I look at uh 105 F3B

[37:09] um it seems to be limiting

[37:14] in that

[37:16] hazard must be mitigated in order to

[37:17] provide a buildable area with acceptable

[37:19] and reasonable access must be mitigated.

[37:22] Um, so it doesn't talk about anything

[37:26] but buildable areas

[37:28] and that may be problematic.

[37:32] >> Yeah. Again, it sort of refers to

[37:34] buildings and structures and I think

[37:35] that's part of what we've had trouble

[37:37] with

[37:38] >> when we're working on something that's

[37:41] excavation but not a building.

[37:43] >> Correct. Right.

[37:44] >> Yeah. because because the you know at

[37:46] first we're talking about you know in

[37:47] 1015

[37:49] F uh where I forget where it was but you

[37:52] know we're talking about um

[37:55] you know we want to the reason we're

[37:56] doing it is to be safe for the community

[37:59] in general and you know it doesn't

[38:01] necessarily only apply to building or

[38:05] when we're doing buildings if you're

[38:06] doing other kinds of greetings

[38:09] >> problem could be a problem too

[38:10] >> could be a problem too yeah and I think

[38:12] that's where we added you know adding

[38:14] other item to that um section A that

[38:18] says, you know, here's here's something

[38:20] that's not a building that actually that

[38:22] doesn't require a building to actually

[38:25] click off.

[38:27] >> Um

[38:28] and then and then maybe something in in

[38:31] this area. I don't know specifically,

[38:33] but maybe we can ask the staff to sort

[38:36] of come up with some ideas to help us in

[38:38] wording on that.

[38:41] Um

[38:45] and then we talked about minimum

[38:47] grading. Um those were the main things I

[38:49] have.

[38:50] >> I thought it might be useful to

[38:55] elaborate on uh number four, the

[38:58] structure intended for human occupancy.

[39:00] There seemed to be a lot of um

[39:05] questions about what was human

[39:06] occupancy. So either reference a

[39:08] definition or

[39:11] um or wherever that is stated so that

[39:13] it's really

[39:15] um easy to identify what that means.

[39:19] >> Yeah.

[39:33] Um if [clears throat] anybody doesn't

[39:36] have any other input on

[39:39] uh clarity or language

[39:43] um

[39:45] we can talk about the code providing

[39:47] more clarity on what stage of the

[39:49] development process the geotechnical

[39:51] report is required.

[39:57] seemed to me we would want we would need

[39:59] to get it before a grading permit I

[40:02] would think.

[40:04] I mean in some cases it may not re you

[40:07] know you may be able to do grading and

[40:09] it's really if it's not in certain zones

[40:11] it may just be the structure that's of

[40:14] concern but I think we've run into

[40:16] problems where

[40:18] grading even before you build a

[40:19] structure raises a concern.

[40:23] So my under my guess would be that

[40:25] before any permit either a building

[40:27] permit or a grading permit if it's

[40:30] required under the ordinances it would

[40:32] be done before the permit.

[40:37] » I agree with that.

[40:40] >> Okay. Any other thoughts on that?

[40:45] And then

[40:48] I believe we've

[40:50] addressed number four.

[40:53] Um,

[40:55] unless there's any other thoughts on

[40:57] that. We're waiting for some feedback on

[41:00] that. Um, which to me ties into

[41:04] number five.

[41:11] » I think we're doing that.

[41:12] >> Yeah.

[41:13] So, it all seems like that's what

[41:15] Yeah.

[41:20] Nile, do you think there's anything else

[41:21] we need to address right now?

[41:25] >> Yeah, this this is a good discussion.

[41:27] Um, if I just run over what I think

[41:30] you've told me and then if there's

[41:33] things I've missed, please let me know.

[41:35] >> Um, okay. So, I think the general

[41:39] consensus is that there does need to be

[41:41] some clarification

[41:43] um in this chapter.

[41:46] Um there's a discussion about

[41:50] uh the minimum requirements for a

[41:53] grading permit what what those are

[41:56] currently whether it should be adjusted

[42:00] in instances

[42:03] for whether there should be a lower

[42:04] threshold I suppose for grading in

[42:07] higher hazard areas. So we're going to

[42:09] investigate that a little bit more. Um

[42:13] we talked about getting some expertise

[42:16] from um from the geologic

[42:22] uh survey people. We we do have some

[42:25] contacts there that we can bounce ideas

[42:27] off. So that will be helpful.

[42:30] um

[42:32] the requirement for

[42:36] a geotechnical

[42:38] study. So the or geotechnical report. So

[42:42] the these five here we want to add in um

[42:48] a requirement for that anytime the slope

[42:51] stability

[42:53] requirement kicks in. uh that that

[42:56] ordinance revision that the commission

[42:58] worked on a year or two ago. So that should be plugged in here so that

[43:03] it doesn't get missed. Um

[43:08] okay. Um

[43:11] we wanted to um

[43:17] yeah may add clearer definitions or add

[43:20] definitions to the definition section on

[43:22] geotech report and geo geologic hazard

[43:26] investigations. So, they're kind of more

[43:28] at hand and easier to to pinpoint what

[43:31] they mean. Um, we need to look at some

[43:34] of the terms. So, where we're talking

[43:37] about buildings and structures and when

[43:39] we're talking about land and property

[43:41] that

[43:43] to look at those those terms and make

[43:45] sure that it's consistent and clear what

[43:48] we're referring to here and make that easier to follow.

[43:53] Um,

[43:56] let's see. We wanted a little bit more

[43:59] clarity on what um, a structure intended

[44:04] for human occupancy actually is.

[44:07] Um,

[44:09] and then there's discussion about what

[44:11] stage in the development process

[44:14] uh, these requirements apply to. And it

[44:20] I think it's already pretty clear that a

[44:22] design development review on those sorts

[44:24] of applications it's a requirement. Um

[44:28] but the feedback is that it should also

[44:31] apply to situations where grading is

[44:33] happening that these um these

[44:36] assessments should be required in those

[44:37] instances too.

[44:40] Is there anything I've missed or gone

[44:43] wrong there?

[44:46] I don't think you've missed anything.

[44:55] Is there any other discussion?

[45:02] If everybody has

[45:06] no more comments, then is there a motion

[45:08] to adjurnn?

[45:15] thought that's

[45:16] >> I mean I think I think that we probably

[45:18] need to and maybe it's not tonight maybe

[45:20] we need to get some go away and think

[45:23] about it or whatever and come back but I

[45:25] think we need to talk more about you

[45:27] know the you know what's the the scope

[45:30] it's not everything so how do we limit

[45:32] that and is grading you know how much we

[45:34] how much is being graded or whatever is that sufficient or is there other

[45:38] things because one of the things I

[45:39] mentioned in my Um item five that I was

[45:43] adding was any development involving

[45:46] soil disturbance or unnatural soil soil

[45:48] loading whether it be grading,

[45:50] excavation, tunneling, drilling,

[45:52] compaction or other similar activities

[45:54] in a known hazard geohhazard study area.

[45:58] Um

[46:01] >> I assume

[46:01] >> grading grading you know if you come in

[46:03] and you put a huge weight on the soil to

[46:05] compact it which which has done in some

[46:08] cases in development particularly if the

[46:10] you know it's been

[46:11] >> disturbed in the past um and that

[46:13] happens to be at the top of a a major

[46:15] slope. Is there a is there a problem

[46:17] with that? And do we need to have a a

[46:19] geo study to

[46:20] >> But there's there's also these vibrating

[46:22] compactors. They'll vibrate the heck out

[46:25] of a slope,

[46:25] >> right? So there's, you know, there's a

[46:27] bunch of different, you know, if you

[46:28] were to if you were to take, again on

[46:30] the top of a slope, if you tunnel to the

[46:32] bottom of or somewhere out the side of

[46:33] the slope and put a put a tube in there,

[46:37] um, and don't seal it, you know, because

[46:39] you want to provide drainage down

[46:40] through there, there's a potential that,

[46:42] you know, if it's not sealed properly at

[46:44] the top and and the bottom, uh, the

[46:46] drainage becomes not through the tube

[46:48] because it gets plugged, but around the

[46:50] tube, through the middle of the earth,

[46:51] and next thing you know, the whole the

[46:53] whole slope disappears around the thing.

[46:54] And so there's there's considerations

[46:56] that that I don't have the the

[46:59] necessarily

[47:01] engineering technical geo engineering

[47:03] technical expertise to answer all those

[47:05] questions but um I think that they're

[47:07] important for us to consider and maybe

[47:09] we should look at them. So,

[47:11] >> so, so maybe you know if you get

[47:13] whatever feedback you can get from the

[47:14] engineering

[47:16] >> if we can get information on things like

[47:17] that is

[47:19] >> um you know what maybe what kinds of

[47:21] development activities you know putting

[47:24] tunneling or you know other things that

[47:26] we maybe should think about um or how

[47:30] you know

[47:30] >> and you know this I provided just a very

[47:32] simple list that you know could probably

[47:36] be expanded upon a good deal but you

[47:38] know somebody knowledge of

[47:40] in indepth knowledge of the subject. You

[47:42] know, I don't think we need to go out

[47:44] and spend a bazillion dollars trying to

[47:46] figure out, you know, to re-engineer all

[47:48] this stuff. I'm sure it's been thought

[47:49] about a lot before, but um we might be

[47:52] able to get some clarity that would help

[47:54] us figure things out.

[47:56] >> And and again, you know, we have an

[47:57] opportunity for the DCD to say, you

[48:00] know, this particular situation requires

[48:02] it. So I think we should leave leave

[48:04] that in for things where you know we

[48:07] just we can't think of everything in

[48:09] front ahead.

[48:10] >> Sure. Right.

[48:11] >> But at the same time we want to put

[48:12] enough meat into it so that if somebody

[48:15] just does it

[48:16] >> Yeah.

[48:16] >> without asking about it, you know,

[48:18] because they don't know any better or

[48:20] because we don't address it anywhere

[48:22] that, you know, we have some some sort

[48:24] of a catch that that gives the DCD the

[48:26] opportunity to say, "Whoa, wait a

[48:28] minute. We need to get a a study done

[48:29] before you go off and do this." So yeah,

[48:39] » anything else?

[48:42] >> We adjourn.

[48:46] >> There a second.

[48:46] >> I will second.

[48:48] >> Motion by Paul, second by Terry. All in

[48:50] favor?

[48:51] >> Terry? I

[48:52] >> Jennifer I.

[48:53] >> Paul I.

[48:54] >> Hash I.

[48:54] >> Alis I.

[48:55] >> Meeting is adjourned.

09/02/2026 Planning Commission Work Meeting

Agenda

Transcript