[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.