[0:00] 5:00 p.m. and we are at the Canyon

[0:02] Community Center for the July 15th

[0:04] meeting the Springdale Planning

[0:06] Commission. From the town we have

[0:08] Eugenie Ya Iikum, Nyall Connelly and

[0:13] April Radits and Tom Dansancy. On the

[0:17] dis we have Jorge Hernandez, Zion

[0:19] National Park representative, Rich

[0:22] Swanson, myself, Jennifer McCulla, Paul

[0:26] Zimmerman, Koshbati, and Melissa Labour.

[0:30] Terry Krushki is out tonight. Caution

[0:32] Melissa, I'd ask I'd like to ask you to

[0:35] vote in tonight's proceedings. Thank

[0:37] you. Is there agent a motion to approve

[0:41] tonight's agenda?

[0:42] >> I move we approve tonight's agenda.

[0:44] Second

[0:45] >> motion by Paul, second by Rich. All in

[0:48] favor?

[0:49] >> Rich I.

[0:50] >> Jennifer I.

[0:51] >> Paul I.

[0:51] >> Hash I.

[0:52] >> Melissa I.

[0:53] >> Motion passes. Are there any general

[0:56] announcements from the town?

[1:06] » I I think most of the planning

[1:08] commissioners are familiar with our two

[1:10] cent events and we are bringing uh The next in our installment of two cents

[1:16] events is the 2acre two cent where we

[1:20] will get your two cents about the 2acre

[1:24] property adjacent to the town hall that

[1:26] the town acquired several years ago. Um

[1:30] the town had been working towards

[1:31] developing a medical clinic on that site

[1:34] and the town council is reconsidering

[1:36] that and is looking for input on um what

[1:40] could be developed on those two acres.

[1:42] So that will be on Thursday, July 30th

[1:46] at 900 a.m. and that will be here. We'll

[1:49] start here in the community center and

[1:51] we'll do a little field trip of the

[1:53] site. So um we'd love to see you there

[1:57] Thursday, July 30th, 9:00 a.m. starting

[2:01] here at the community center.

[2:06] » Any other announcements?

[2:09] Are there any declarations of conflict

[2:12] of interest?

[2:15] There are none. For tonight's agenda, we

[2:18] have two non-action items. The first is

[2:22] a discussion about potential changes to

[2:24] the land use code that will be necessary

[2:26] following adoption of the wildland urban

[2:29] interface zone. Sta staff contact is

[2:32] Eugenia Ekam and Eugenia will be

[2:35] presenting.

[2:38] » Thank you. Uh this item is a

[2:41] continuation of the discussion the

[2:43] planning commission had on its May 1st,

[2:46] 2026 meeting regarding the wildland

[2:49] urban interface code. Uh the purpose of

[2:51] this report today is to highlight

[2:53] potential conflicts between the town's

[2:55] land use ordinance and the WOI code and

[2:58] to present draft ordinance language for

[3:00] the commission's consideration.

[3:03] Following the previous discussion, the

[3:05] staff reviewed the commission's comments

[3:08] and fed evaluated the relevant sections

[3:10] of the code and we prepared a draft

[3:13] ordinance language addressing the

[3:15] potential conflicts that were

[3:17] identified. The report primarily focuses

[3:21] on two discussion topics which is

[3:23] building construction materials and

[3:26] landscape requirements regarding

[3:28] defensible space. for the building

[3:30] materials. Staff uh prepared draft

[3:33] amendments that would prohibit wood roof

[3:36] shingles and roots uh the wood siding

[3:39] and continue to allow timber structural

[3:42] elements while we also uh agreed to add

[3:46] cement board siding as an approved

[3:48] building material for landscaping. Staff

[3:52] presented two options regarding the

[3:54] existing tree replacement requirement

[3:56] that is in the code. uh as well as we

[3:58] propose amendments to the minimum tree

[4:00] planting requirements within the town's

[4:02] adopted RUI zone. So overall, the staff

[4:06] is looking for direction from the

[4:07] commission through this discussion to

[4:09] receive feedback and to determine the

[4:12] preferred way to move forward with this

[4:14] uh in order to prepare a final ordinance

[4:17] amendment. And I'm happy to answer any

[4:19] question from the commission.

[4:22] >> Are there any questions for Eugenia?

[4:27] Okay, planning commission will move into

[4:30] discussion.

[4:44] Just a important discussion. One

[4:46] question on the um let's start with the

[4:49] wood roof. Although I'm not against

[4:51] saying it's not an approved material,

[4:54] but are we trying to limit that or we or

[4:57] should we be focused on requiring new

[5:00] buildings to have a certain ignition

[5:02] rating? Because I think the code doesn't

[5:05] say you can't have a wood roof. It just

[5:07] gives you really bad ignition rating if

[5:09] you do.

[5:17] » Yes, you are correct. The wooi code does

[5:20] give give you options right uh for

[5:24] parameters. Um in discussion with our

[5:27] building inspector

[5:29] um he recommended that wood shingles are

[5:34] particularly problematic in terms of

[5:37] wildfire and it it might be best to just

[5:41] get rid to prohibit them in this

[5:43] instance. But you are correct that the

[5:46] WO code it does give you options. Um but

[5:51] yeah in discussion with him we he

[5:54] recommended that would probably be a

[5:55] good move just to prohibit them. I I

[5:59] have no problem with that. I'm just

[6:00] curious. And then do we add anything

[6:03] ordinance that says we want to require a

[6:05] certain ignition resistance on new

[6:07] building because that would just cover a

[6:09] lot of things but probably a little more

[6:11] headache because it would have to be

[6:12] analyzed by someone.

[6:16] So, our building inspector uh reviews

[6:19] the plans for building code compliance,

[6:22] which is separate from our kind of

[6:25] zoning title 10 stuff that that the

[6:28] planners do and that the planning

[6:29] commission uh is is involved in. So, as

[6:33] far as the details of those ignition

[6:35] resistant materials [snorts]

[6:37] and structure in structures, that's captured by the building code

[6:43] review. And so, the the purpose of this

[6:46] is generally just to to identify

[6:49] situations where there may be a conflict

[6:51] between title 10 and um

[6:56] and the WOOI code.

[7:14] I would say in general I support

[7:19] the removing of the wood shingles,

[7:22] moving move wood sighting from the list.

[7:26] Um, also continuing with the heavy

[7:29] timber structural beams and elements and

[7:31] then actually adding the cement

[7:34] boarding, this cement board siding

[7:37] to the list.

[7:40] So, the only question I have on the wood

[7:41] siding is I know that house that was

[7:44] just built at the end of Kosava, I

[7:47] believe, is wood siding. It's reclaimed

[7:49] wood. Um,

[7:52] and I I look at that as like, okay,

[7:54] that's the I like the looks. It's nice

[7:57] as as long as you're willing to take on

[7:59] a new construction, the added ignition

[8:02] resistance and the added requirements.

[8:04] Do we want to prevent that kind of

[8:06] structure? Is it I I definitely see wood

[8:08] shingles are higher risk because of

[8:12] things falling on them? I'm not sure

[8:14] about wood siding.

[8:17] >> Yeah, sure. So, I think wood wood

[8:20] sighting um is is going to be more

[8:22] flammable than than other materials, of

[8:25] course. And I I think we could keep it

[8:29] in the code and then if if following a

[8:33] review under the building code, a

[8:36] building is not compliant with WOOI, we

[8:38] could, you know, it would stop right

[8:40] there. Um,

[8:44] but if you wanted to kind of go one step

[8:46] further and and remove wood siding from

[8:49] the approved materials, that's an

[8:51] option. So, um, I either way, it's going

[8:56] to get picked up in the building code

[8:57] review. Um, but this this could be a way

[9:01] of maybe nixing some more dangerous

[9:04] materials

[9:06] at at the outset.

[9:10] And I'm mixed on this one. That's why I

[9:11] wanted to bring it up because I the only

[9:14] reason I would like maybe getting rid of

[9:15] it, but I don't know if this would

[9:16] guarantee it is I like the idea of

[9:19] reducing the defensible space.

[9:22] You know, if you have an IR1, I think

[9:24] you can stick to 30 feet. If the wood

[9:27] siding, which IR2, I think that goes to

[9:29] 50 ft.

[9:31] So, by reducing the fencable space, we

[9:33] are probably preserving some more of our

[9:35] trees and greenery,

[9:38] which would be a plus for that. But

[9:40] again, I don't know if wood siding put

[9:42] you over that threshold or not.

[9:46] Yeah. And and I think it kind of it'll

[9:49] come down to sight specific assessments

[9:52] that we'll have to do on on each permit

[9:56] application that comes through. Um so

[10:01] you know you we we could leave it in the

[10:03] code that wood sighting is is approved

[10:06] and then kind of in that sight specific

[10:09] assessment during the building code uh

[10:11] we may determine that it's not going to

[10:13] be appropriate in that case. Um so it's

[10:18] you know either way is a viable route

[10:20] for you.

[10:22] I don't know if I'm giving a lot of

[10:24] input either except just asking

[10:25] questions. But this is why I would what

[10:28] bring it up again. You know, if we could

[10:31] add

[10:33] the idea is if we add an IR requirement

[10:37] to the building that would sort of

[10:39] minimize the defensible space,

[10:43] which I don't know, maybe people don't

[10:45] think that's a good idea, def minimizing

[10:47] defensible space. I'm just thinking that

[10:49] makes it easier. uh and less work will have to be done cleaning

[10:54] up trees in the 30 to 50 feet

[10:59] or 30 to 100 feet if you're really bad.

[11:03] >> I think it's just a good idea anyways to

[11:05] remove it

[11:07] considering the risk.

[11:12] I also want to in addition to that touch

[11:15] on one of Terry's notes which is um

[11:18] potentially removing wood from the list

[11:20] of ex acceptable fence or wall material

[11:32] which to me seems to make sense in the

[11:35] scope of all of this.

[12:01] I I would have to ask, you know,

[12:04] I don't know, a wood fence because

[12:06] they're pretty popular, I think, in some

[12:08] areas.

[12:10] What is the fire risk? Because it's not

[12:13] against your house.

[12:15] It is more fuel for a fire.

[12:20] But I don't understand the risk that

[12:22] would pose to a house.

[12:26] >> Yeah. So I think the Wooie assessment

[12:28] will is kind of based on your your

[12:31] property. Um so

[12:36] I suppose it's kind of similar to to

[12:38] wood siding. I guess the the risk of a

[12:41] wooden fence which is not right by your

[12:44] house is less than wood on your house.

[12:49] So it it's maybe less of a risk. Um but

[12:53] I I think

[12:55] um you know I think it could be a valid

[12:58] thing to to prohibit. I mean, wood is a

[13:02] very popular fencing material, so it may

[13:05] make it challenging for people to more

[13:08] limiting for people to

[13:11] get fencing for their homes. So, that

[13:13] may be something to think about before

[13:16] prohibiting wood as as a fence material.

[13:19] >> That's a good point because it's not

[13:20] only the wood fence, it's finding people

[13:22] to install. A metal fence takes

[13:25] some welding.

[13:28] You know, it's a different set of equip

[13:29] equipment needed

[13:31] acceptable

[13:32] >> or less accessible to customer or people

[13:36] >> which creates another fire hazard.

[13:38] >> What was that?

[13:39] >> Which would create another fire hazard

[13:40] if they're welding the fence.

[13:42] >> That's good point.

[13:44] >> Now, when I was researching this, I ran

[13:47] across something that um I think if I

[13:52] interpreted correctly said that vinyl

[13:53] fencing is not permitted. Is that

[13:55] correct?

[13:58] What kind?

[13:59] >> Vinyl.

[14:01] >> Yeah, that is correct. Yeah. And vinyl

[14:03] siding is is per is prohibited in the

[14:06] code.

[14:07] >> Siding, I understand, but it also

[14:08] extended it to fencing, I think. So, if

[14:12] uh if that's correct then and we take

[14:15] wood off of there, you know, there's not

[14:17] a whole lot of uh you know, it's going

[14:20] to be stone or metal. Um both of which

[14:23] are much more expensive than vinyl or

[14:24] wood. So, um,

[14:28] that'sation.

[14:30] >> Yeah. And actually, in thinking through

[14:31] the fence situation,

[14:33] uh, when we had the fire chief out,

[14:37] he talked a lot about space in between

[14:39] fuel.

[14:41] And so,

[14:45] a fence,

[14:47] you know, if it was if, you know, you

[14:50] wouldn't want brush right up against it.

[14:53] there would have to be it would just

[14:55] become part of the fuel but the fence

[14:58] itself is not actually

[15:01] um you know it's just a linear

[15:05] not a cluster of

[15:07] >> yeah I mean and that's [clears throat] I

[15:08] mean I think that's a good point because

[15:10] a fence typically you've got a single

[15:12] point of contact with the house

[15:13] >> right

[15:14] >> it's a linear extension that you know if

[15:16] it catches fire somewhere else

[15:18] eventually may be a burn but um in

[15:21] wildland fires. I think the the major

[15:25] and it appears to be in the in the WOOI

[15:28] ordinance. The the primary consideration

[15:31] is the the movement of the fire quickly

[15:34] across great expanses. Um and which is

[15:38] big trees and brush and you know large

[15:40] things that are and ching wood shingled

[15:43] roofs that sort of thing where they're

[15:45] large uh either

[15:48] generators of embers that fly or

[15:51] receivers of embers that fly fly that

[15:54] then you know catch fire. So a fence is

[15:57] probably doesn't normally fit into those

[16:00] categories. It will catch fire if

[16:01] there's fire up against it. Um, it may

[16:04] catch fire if an ember lands on it.

[16:07] Maybe not, depending upon the age of the wooden fence and the type of

[16:10] wooden fence. But [clears throat]

[16:12] anyway,

[16:21] so in summary,

[16:24] I'm thinking allow wooden fences.

[16:27] >> Yeah, I think I

[16:28] >> Yeah, after talking it through, I

[16:29] >> just want to make sure we're all on the

[16:30] same.

[16:30] >> Yeah. Yeah.

[16:33] the woodsiding. I'm not sure what to

[16:35] say. I would like to say it loud, but

[16:37] I'm I'm very open to that one.

[16:40] >> Well, having personal experience in a

[16:42] wildfire and

[16:46] 70 80% of my neighbors houses burning

[16:48] down, my house being constructed out of

[16:51] wood sighting and my house survived.

[16:54] Nothing else on the property survived,

[16:56] but the house was still standing when we

[16:58] got back. Um, it brought into my mind

[17:01] question about, gee, maybe this stuff

[17:03] isn't as bad as it's made out to be. Um,

[17:07] the wooden shingles, I feel pretty

[17:08] strongly that those are those are

[17:11] problematic. Um, the wooden siding, you

[17:15] know, my personal experience, I said, as

[17:17] I said, you know, it it um while

[17:20] mystifying it, it did a pretty darn good

[17:22] job of not burning the house down. That

[17:25] being said though, about a year later, I

[17:28] tore it all off and replaced it with

[17:29] Stuckco. So, [laughter]

[17:37] I kind of feel torn about the wood

[17:39] sighting, too, because

[17:42] also from personal experience, I know

[17:44] that the

[17:47] riskiest material was what was on the

[17:50] roof, not on the sides of the house.

[17:53] And I see a lot of the modern

[17:55] architecture where they like the wood

[17:57] just not the whole thing is wood, but

[17:59] they use it as an accent. So it it's not

[18:02] covering a lot of the house. So we're

[18:03] taking away that accent from residents

[18:06] and architects.

[18:08] >> I mean, I had potted plants up against

[18:10] the wood siding, contacting the wood

[18:12] siding that were turned to reduced to

[18:14] ash, and the wood siding didn't have a

[18:17] mark on it, which was mystifying. But,

[18:20] you know, a flaming 30ft palm tree about

[18:24] 6 ft away. Again, the wood siding wasn't

[18:27] the windows um cracked and broke from

[18:31] the heat, but the wood siding wasn't

[18:32] affected. So,

[18:33] >> well, that's a pretty strong statement.

[18:35] >> I don't know. It's kind of weird, but I

[18:37] did take it off later.

[18:44] I mean, in general, yeah, wood sighting

[18:47] seems riskier, but does it make sense to

[18:51] like how much more of it of a risk is

[18:53] it? I

[18:56] Yeah,

[19:01] » I mean, I think in general, it's better

[19:02] to make build houses out of

[19:05] non-combustible material, but that's

[19:07] >> right.

[19:07] >> That's either difficult or expensive to

[19:10] do depending on on what it is. there's

[19:12] there are there are better materials now

[19:15] because of the prevalence of these kinds

[19:16] of situations but um yeah I don't know

[19:26] with that said I I will give a thumbs up

[19:28] to the cement board siding so people

[19:30] have that as an option.

[19:32] >> Yeah.

[19:34] >> Say that again.

[19:35] >> I said with that said I still would want

[19:36] to give the cement board siding

[19:39] >> Yeah.

[19:39] >> a thumbs up to make that acceptable.

[19:41] >> Yeah. I think that's true.

[19:49] » Does the staff have um any idea like how

[19:53] much riskier would site like it

[19:58] if the risk outweighs

[20:01] allowing?

[20:05] » Yeah. So, um I I can't admit to being a

[20:10] great expert on this. Um, I would say if you're not comfortable about banning

[20:17] it outright,

[20:19] um, these properties when when we're

[20:23] reviewing the plans, the building

[20:24] inspector and and Eugenia and myself

[20:28] will be reviewing them for WI code

[20:30] compliance, which includes, you know,

[20:33] defensible space and all these other

[20:34] things that you're aware of. So,

[20:37] >> if um [clears throat]

[20:42] Yeah, there there may be circumstances

[20:44] where wood siding is is going to pass

[20:47] the WOOI code because other factors have

[20:49] been met. And so if you're if you're

[20:51] more comfortable with leaving that as an

[20:54] option, it's it's still going to be

[20:57] caught through the building code review

[20:59] if if there potentially would be a

[21:01] problem. So it's just a thought.

[21:03] >> I I'm comfortable with that.

[21:05] >> I'm I'm good with that.

[21:07] >> Um so then

[21:09] >> we we put on Niles. Now it's his

[21:11] problem.

[21:12] >> Yeah. [laughter]

[21:15] Um so with the building material then

[21:18] we're at moving wood roof shingles.

[21:22] Um continue to allow heavy timber

[21:25] structural beams and elements. Continue

[21:27] allowing wood siding and adding cement

[21:30] board siding to the list of approved

[21:32] materials.

[21:34] I should probably have a dumb question.

[21:38] like the 2x4 material that you see the lacked things that I see a lot in

[21:43] like the under ease

[21:46] what are they under the eaves in that is

[21:49] that considered thick

[21:53] not necessarily no um and

[21:57] we did like kind of trim and those sorts

[22:00] of features

[22:02] um yeah we we didn't include those in

[22:07] kind of our assessment of this. Um,

[22:12] so that that is something you could

[22:14] consider um

[22:17] if you wanted to to look at those kind

[22:19] of trim materials.

[22:22] >> I was just wondering what was considered

[22:25] >> the heavy beams kind of.

[22:27] >> Yeah.

[22:28] So th those are more kind of I

[22:31] think that's talking more about those um

[22:35] kind of bigger structural beams and

[22:37] ornamental

[22:39] um

[22:40] >> it's been a while but I thought those

[22:42] thick 2x4 thick

[22:44] >> elements in the the uh the code the

[22:47] woody code were uh considered okay

[22:52] but don't quote me on that. That's from

[22:54] my memory.

[22:56] So I I may need to plead ignorance on

[22:58] that.

[23:00] But uh I I know the bigger the bigger

[23:03] beams are are allowed under the WOI

[23:07] code.

[23:09] So

[23:12] » and what about um trim work around

[23:15] windows?

[23:21] » Yeah. So again, um I probably need to

[23:25] defer to our building inspector on that.

[23:28] Um I think all of these materials you

[23:31] can get fire rated materials and they

[23:34] can you know pass the assessment. Um

[23:39] so okay well we're allowed the siding.

[23:42] So those right now are probably

[23:44] sort of combined with that.

[23:46] >> That's how I was looking at it.

[23:48] >> Yeah. But I was just curious for future

[23:53] Okay, thank you.

[23:56] >> Question. If I have a tree on my

[23:58] property that I have to remove for wooi

[24:01] purpose, you know, guidance or whatever,

[24:04] do I need a

[24:06] permit or replant trees two to one

[24:09] somewhere else or do I just take it out?

[24:13] >> Do you want to talk about that, Eugenia?

[24:15] >> Yeah. So the options that we presented

[24:18] was to uh if it's within the town's

[24:23] boundary wooi boundary we uh had the

[24:26] option of either like you if you take it

[24:29] off you don't have to replace it as the

[24:32] as if you're making a development there

[24:34] and the other option was to um make a

[24:39] let me check the other option is to

[24:42] remove the existing tree requirement

[24:44] from the land ordinance alto together

[24:47] and not have uh

[24:50] not have yeah not have it there. I don't

[24:53] think

[24:54] >> but

[24:55] I read I read that to be though in new

[24:58] construction or remodeling uh purposes

[25:01] is that

[25:02] >> if I've just got a tree there next to my

[25:04] house and I got to take it out do I have

[25:05] a problem or not? So I whether we didn't

[25:08] ask uh the staff we didn't we looked at

[25:11] it just in any kind of a tree

[25:14] replacement in the Wii boundary doesn't

[25:16] have to be replaced. That's how we

[25:18] looked at it. We didn't look at it in

[25:20] terms of uh a renovation or a new

[25:23] development. So as far as it's in the

[25:26] bound within the boundary if it's

[25:27] removed it doesn't have to be replaced.

[25:29] That is one of the options that we

[25:31] presented as that.

[25:32] >> Yeah I realized that.

[25:33] >> Yeah. What what is the current code?

[25:35] Because I see trees disappearing

[25:37] already.

[25:38] >> So, it's right in front of you on this

[25:40] screen is uh is where this requirement

[25:43] is and the pink text here is the

[25:47] suggestion the suggested change that

[25:50] would remove that that requirement. But

[25:53] as the code is at the moment, native

[25:56] vegetation greater than 6 ft in height

[25:59] um

[26:01] if it's removed uh should be replaced

[26:05] 2:1 if it's native vegetation. And

[26:08] that's it doesn't specify in the code.

[26:12] Um well, it just says must be preserved

[26:14] during all grading and construction

[26:17] activities. you were asking about.

[26:19] >> So if I'm cut if I just go out and cut a

[26:20] tree down, that's is that a grading or a

[26:22] construction activity?

[26:29] » I wouldn't interpret as [laughter] maybe

[26:32] I'm confused.

[26:34] >> Yeah. I mean I I think in practical

[26:36] terms we're

[26:38] we don't have the capacity to check

[26:41] everybody's yards for every tree. Um, so

[26:45] th this is generally going to come up on

[26:48] redevelopment.

[26:49] >> Okay.

[26:49] >> Of sites.

[26:50] >> That's kind of what I thought. All

[26:51] right.

[26:51] >> Yeah.

[26:52] >> So I got confused by that. So I

[26:55] understand you can't enforce it,

[26:57] >> but technically according to our law,

[26:59] our ordinance, you should replace it.

[27:03] >> Well, that was my question. I didn't see

[27:06] anywhere in the existing code that said

[27:09] if I just go cut my tree down that I

[27:11] have to do anything about it other than

[27:13] take the trash away.

[27:17] >> So the the verbiage is um these natural

[27:21] features must be preserved during all

[27:22] grading and construction activities.

[27:24] >> Yeah. So cutting my tree down is I

[27:26] wouldn't that to be construction or

[27:28] grading because I'm not moving the dirt.

[27:30] I'm just now if I go um

[27:34] dig the stump up, maybe you could

[27:36] interpret that to be a grading activity.

[27:38] But if I just cut it off the ground,

[27:40] leave the stump there and let it, you

[27:42] know, go away over time.

[27:46] >> Yeah. I mean, I I think it probably

[27:48] envisage more significant

[27:51] kind of construction

[27:54] >> because this is just right now a

[27:56] proposal. This is not changing our code.

[27:58] And I think we're okay. But the reason

[27:59] this is an important question is people

[28:02] are meeting with the fire marshal chief

[28:04] or whatever and he's saying you should

[28:06] take down that tree and they're taking

[28:08] down the tree which is fine. I mean

[28:11] I want to make sure that was not in

[28:13] violation of some code. If so we'd have

[28:15] should change that ASAP but that does

[28:17] not seem to be the case.

[28:20] So

[28:21] yeah, I mean what what this is mostly

[28:23] envisaging is so our WOOI boundary um

[28:27] covers

[28:29] part of a lot of the Anastasia Plateau

[28:31] subdivision and Valley View Drive and

[28:33] that area. Um

[28:36] when new development comes forward in

[28:40] those areas and um Jennifer will know

[28:43] about this personally when she was

[28:45] building her house a few years ago. Um,

[28:47] if there are trees on your lot uh that

[28:50] you have to remove during construction,

[28:52] you have to plant two in replacement.

[28:55] >> And th those pads are are quite limited.

[28:58] Um, and so what often happens is that

[29:02] you to to meet that requirement, you

[29:05] have a lot of replacement trees kind of

[29:07] right around your house. And that's quite an obvious contradiction.

[29:12] And so the the proposed language here is

[29:14] that that that replacement requirement

[29:18] would not exist within the WOI boundary

[29:21] so that you're not kind of running into

[29:22] that conflict.

[29:25] >> I I'm I'm going to agree with that, but

[29:26] I do have a question.

[29:28] Just the red area is the boundaries or

[29:30] is that just a high risk boundary?

[29:34] So the town council adopted

[29:40] this as our WOOI boundary for the town.

[29:42] So this this is the area in this red

[29:45] shaded area is the area where we have to

[29:50] apply the WOOI code um in our plan

[29:53] reviews.

[29:54] >> I think we're going to have to add some

[29:56] verbiage to that. So my question is,

[29:59] what happens if my property is split in

[30:02] half?

[30:04] of it's in, half of it's out. What

[30:07] happens if my house is out, but my

[30:09] accessory building or another house that

[30:12] I'm building is in? How do we deal with

[30:15] those situations?

[30:17] >> Yeah, it might be good to to clarify

[30:19] that in in the language in some way.

[30:25] Yeah, we we can look at how We could

[30:28] tweak the language to make that clear.

[30:30] >> It was hard to tell on this picture. And

[30:31] to to be honest, I'm fully in it, so

[30:33] this does not apply to me, but I did see

[30:36] it, you know, at least one lot, maybe

[30:37] more, that it is split down the middle.

[30:41] Uh we approved the um workhouse overlay

[30:45] zone. I believe that new house would be

[30:49] in the the uh the red area, but the

[30:52] existing house is outside.

[30:54] So, I'm just highlighting this. I think

[30:56] we Yeah,

[30:57] >> you want to clarify some of that.

[30:59] >> I think that's a good a good point that

[31:01] we need to know how we would apply it in

[31:04] those circumstances.

[31:08] » I have a question. Um, remind me the

[31:10] origin of the code stating that it had

[31:14] to be two to one. Was it um an

[31:17] opportunity to enhance landscape or was

[31:20] it that because of the risk that the

[31:23] plant or tree may die?

[31:25] Yeah, my understanding is that when

[31:27] you're um [clears throat] it's kind of

[31:30] the latter. So that when you're

[31:31] replacing plants that the the chances of

[31:34] them establishing and being successful

[31:36] are less and so that the two

[31:39] replacements is to kind of account for

[31:41] that

[31:44] >> because I agree with removing the

[31:47] requirement in the WOI zone.

[31:51] Um, but I also wanted to talk about what

[31:56] if it everywhere else it was one to one

[32:01] and I don't know if you see or know like

[32:05] how many actually end up not surviving.

[32:08] I just know on our property

[32:10] we had to remove 11. So we planted 22

[32:13] trees which was a lot and not a single

[32:16] one that has died. they are all alive

[32:19] and and well and

[32:21] >> good job.

[32:22] >> Well, thank you. But at some point

[32:23] they're going to start running into each

[32:25] other and we're going to have to remove

[32:27] things because we are in the high-risisk

[32:29] zone. Um but I'm just wondering if in

[32:32] general

[32:34] um from my experience onetoone might

[32:38] make sense but maybe that's a unique

[32:40] situation that ours survived. I don't

[32:41] know.

[32:44] Yeah, I think um

[32:48] I think in my opinion I think it's um

[32:52] location dependent because in the area

[32:53] you're at where you're constrained in

[32:55] terms as N said earlier and constrained

[32:57] where you can plant those are all

[32:59] compressed into a smaller area it'd be

[33:01] really difficult to meet that as you as

[33:03] you learned. Um there's other places

[33:05] where you know they're large pieces of

[33:07] property where they're doing a small

[33:08] construction over here and they can

[33:10] easily plant trees somewhere else and help us retain a village atmosphere

[33:16] by doing so. Um but you know if you're

[33:20] in the wildland urban interface zone you

[33:23] know and the fire people say you need to

[33:25] take the trees out um it sort of

[33:29] nonsensical to say you got to plant more

[33:31] of them. Um

[33:33] because you know those people are you I

[33:36] mean you know my discussions with the

[33:38] wildland fire

[33:41] captain or whatever that was you know

[33:42] came out and did inspections was you

[33:44] know you don't have to necessarily take

[33:45] the tree out. They recommend you know

[33:47] they they'd like not to have trees there

[33:49] but they recognize the the value of

[33:51] having trees and so sometimes a better

[33:55] solution is to you know um trim the tree

[33:57] up from the ground and thin it at the

[34:00] top so that

[34:02] They they were seem more concerned about

[34:03] because the type of fire that comes here

[34:06] is not the big forest fire where you got

[34:08] high pine trees and that sort of thing,

[34:10] but it's a very fastmoving brush fire

[34:12] that comes through and they want the

[34:14] tree high enough from the ground so that

[34:15] the brush fire moves through. It doesn't

[34:17] catch the crown of the tree on fire and

[34:19] cause greater damages. So, um, yeah,

[34:24] >> I'm actually okay with it maintaining

[34:26] the 2 to one, um, just because of what

[34:30] you said, like it could just be an

[34:31] overall benefit to the community.

[34:33] >> Yeah.

[34:33] >> Because there are some houses in my

[34:34] neighborhood that removed one tree and they planted two and two is nice.

[34:39] >> Yeah. Now, and maybe we want to look

[34:42] further than this and say, "Hey, there's

[34:44] areas where uh we could we could make a

[34:47] change to existing code that says, hey,

[34:48] if you're in an area like Anastasia and

[34:50] you got to plant 22 trees and you only

[34:52] have space to plant 12, um why are we

[34:55] making you do that?"

[34:58] Or maybe we because I think the town is

[35:01] the um

[35:04] conservator on the on the uh greater

[35:08] area there. Maybe we u you know you go

[35:12] to the town and the town allows you to

[35:14] plant part of those 22 trees somewhere

[35:17] in the in the surrounding area. Um I

[35:20] don't know.

[35:22] >> Yeah, it can get complicated very fast.

[35:24] I thought about this a lot.

[35:29] Um so I myself would

[35:35] support just uh maintain the existing

[35:38] tree replacement except for

[35:41] the risk areas.

[35:43] >> Yeah. So option one I guess right?

[35:45] >> Yeah

[35:47] >> I I tend to agree. Now what that does is

[35:50] that basically

[35:54] exonerates Anastasi plateau which you

[35:57] know I think we're saying that's

[35:58] probably a reasonable thing to do maybe.

[36:00] I don't know.

[36:01] >> We have to be careful with that because

[36:03] not the whole plateau is in the zone.

[36:05] >> So we are right

[36:06] >> I mean this is

[36:08] >> this is where we're at but one neighbor

[36:10] might have to replace trees

[36:12] >> and the neighboring lot is exempt.

[36:16] >> Well but it's all in the WOOI. It's

[36:18] >> No, it's not.

[36:19] >> It's not.

[36:21] >> I looked at that last picture. Well,

[36:23] almost all of it, I guess. Maybe I'm

[36:25] missing.

[36:26] >> If you zoom in there, you can see

[36:27] there's structures outside of it in

[36:29] roads.

[36:30] >> Yeah. So, that that scenario that that

[36:33] Rich is talking about is is a

[36:35] possibility that you have somebody

[36:37] across the road that needs 22

[36:39] replacement trees.

[36:41] >> So, that that is true.

[36:45] So there's the whole area

[36:47] on the bottom part of that map.

[36:49] >> I see now.

[36:50] >> Yeah. Where there's a lot of houses. I

[36:52] don't understand it, but

[36:55] >> that's what it is.

[36:56] >> Whole thing doesn't make a lot of sense

[36:57] to me, but

[37:00] >> um

[37:03] yeah. So they would still have the 2 to1

[37:06] requirement.

[37:10] » I don't have enough knowledge. I mean,

[37:12] what you say makes sense to me. I don't

[37:15] know if the town has any other input on

[37:20] the success or

[37:22] heartache of doing 2:1 as a general

[37:25] rule.

[37:27] >> I I think the intention behind the 2:1

[37:31] is is good and I think on the whole it's

[37:33] probably served the town well. H I

[37:35] think, you know, having trees in our

[37:37] properties is has all sorts of benefits.

[37:40] Um but I think this is one instance

[37:43] where uh it's problematic with wildfire

[37:48] mitigation. So

[38:03] I'm not sure to go with that. Jennifer,

[38:05] I I I will say that the re in the the

[38:09] zone, I would definitely say it has to

[38:11] be taken out. Like we said, if if

[38:13] they're saying cut the tree down, you

[38:15] can't say put two more in

[38:19] » and then leaving the [clears throat]

[38:21] two to one for everything else

[38:26] » just because I don't have enough

[38:27] information to make a sound.

[38:29] >> I mean, I am a person like I just said

[38:31] that had to experience planting all of

[38:33] those yet. I still support the two to

[38:36] one because I I I don't believe that I

[38:39] think that that was kind of a unique

[38:41] situation for the most part

[38:47] and I I believe that uh most people in

[38:52] the community support that too

[38:56] from my what I

[39:07] Is everybody

[39:10] caution Melissa? Does that make sense?

[39:13] >> Yeah.

[39:15] >> I'm going on you guys experience. I live

[39:17] in a an apartment. So, um but

[39:23] two different scenarios. I mean,

[39:25] >> yeah.

[39:25] >> One is

[39:29] Yeah,

[39:34] » most of spring bill is unique.

[39:36] >> It's true. [laughter]

[39:39] >> Do you have enough to go on Eugenia with

[39:42] that discussion?

[39:44] >> Yes.

[39:45] >> Any questions of us that could help in

[39:48] moving forward or clarification?

[40:00] Do we hit all the points? That's

[40:02] >> so there's just one additional point you

[40:04] want might want to look at. So this is

[40:06] in the landscape chapter where um we

[40:10] propose some additional language. So um

[40:14] in the

[40:16] there's minimum amounts of trees that

[40:18] are required to be planted in certain

[40:20] zones. Um and so following on in a

[40:25] similar vein, um we've proposed some

[40:28] language here that says these minimum

[40:31] quantities do not apply to properties

[40:33] within the town's adopted wildland urban

[40:36] interface zone. So it's just um where

[40:40] you have um the requirement for one tree

[40:44] for every thousand square feet of

[40:46] landscape area. those requirements to

[40:50] remove those requirements from within

[40:52] the wubby zone kind of for the same

[40:54] reasons that we've discussed.

[40:57] >> I think so.

[40:59] >> I think we have to.

[41:00] >> Yeah.

[41:04] Okay.

[41:06] You guys good?

[41:08] Thank you. Now moving on to the second

[41:11] non-action item, a discussion about

[41:14] potential changes to section 1018 of the

[41:17] code to improve water efficiency and

[41:19] landscape.

[41:20] Staff contact is Nile Connelly. Nile

[41:22] will be presenting.

[41:24] >> Thank you.

[41:26] So this is a new but familiar discussion

[41:30] item. So um water conservation is a

[41:34] perennial issue for communities such as

[41:37] ours. um and it can be a very

[41:40] complicated and potentially overwhelming

[41:43] topic to address. So

[41:47] the intention behind kind of tonight's

[41:51] discussion and the staff report was

[41:53] rather than having a broad discussion

[41:55] about water conservation more generally

[41:58] was to

[42:01] kind of put it into some little

[42:04] bite-sized chunks that that we could

[42:06] maybe address one at a time. And so, um,

[42:11] this specific conversation is focusing

[42:14] on landscaping.

[42:17] Um,

[42:18] and so some potential change changes

[42:21] that we could incrementally make to

[42:23] improve water efficiency and water

[42:25] conservation in our town. Um, so there's

[42:29] a few ideas proposed. Um,

[42:32] not all of them may be practical, but

[42:34] it's it would be great to get your input

[42:36] on this. So, some of the ideas that um

[42:40] were suggested in the report are um

[42:44] removing the prohibition on artificial

[42:46] turf. Um artificial turf is not

[42:49] permitted in the town if it's visible

[42:51] from off the property. Um,

[42:55] so in in some instances, um,

[42:59] you know, a a homeowner or a business

[43:02] that would probably prefer to have

[43:04] artificial turf,

[43:07] um,

[43:08] needs to have real turf and then they're

[43:11] watering it and that kind of thing that

[43:13] it may be worth rethinking that policy.

[43:16] Um, another possibility could be uh

[43:20] limiting the amount of grass that can be

[43:22] used in commercial properties within

[43:24] their landscaping. Um, or even

[43:26] potentially some limitations on grass in

[43:29] residential zones, although there's um,

[43:32] you know, there's other factors to

[43:34] consider there. Uh, we've had some

[43:36] comments from Commissioner Zimmerman and

[43:39] Kushki. Um, and those have been printed.

[43:43] I think you've got copies of those that

[43:46] also raise some valid points. Um,

[43:49] so my recommendation to the commission

[43:53] would be to keep this discussion

[43:59] focused on some simple kind of bite-size

[44:02] adjustments rather than having a wider

[44:05] conversation about water conservation

[44:07] tonight. but just to think about maybe

[44:09] some of these changes to our landscape

[44:11] ordinance that could incrementally

[44:15] um push us in the right direction. Um

[44:18] but I'm happy to answer any questions or address any thoughts you have.

[44:37] We want to start off with what we have

[44:39] here or the other one I would

[44:43] here to discuss would be the um

[44:45] artificial turf.

[44:46] >> Yeah, that's um go ahead because I have

[44:48] some

[44:50] >> so um you know I actually have

[44:53] artificial turf um in my previous house

[44:57] and I haven't I mean honestly it is very

[45:02] nowadays they are very good-looking.

[45:05] Um, I don't see a problem with it for

[45:08] residents that want it is especially if

[45:10] you have animals, it's very durable.

[45:13] Probably a little hot,

[45:16] but I'm looking for a negative.

[45:20] >> Uh, I agree that they're they've come a

[45:23] very long way and there they look great.

[45:27] Um, I'm wondering though if still

[45:30] putting some limitations on it, like

[45:33] some areas have it allowable in the

[45:36] backyard but not the front yard or a

[45:39] certain square footage of it in back or

[45:42] front or just overall.

[45:45] Um,

[45:49] I just don't know that I've seen I've

[45:51] seen small backyards covered in it.

[45:54] Um, I haven't seen like large areas

[45:58] covered in it. And so in my mind, I just don't

[46:04] see a large area

[46:06] looking that great, but I don't I can't

[46:09] picture one.

[46:12] >> I hear what you're saying. That's why I

[46:13] want to bring this up.

[46:14] >> So,

[46:17] like, did you have a small yard that was

[46:20] >> Yeah, it's in San Jose. So, it's a

[46:21] smaller yard

[46:22] >> and I've seen it in small yards and

[46:27] integrated with landscaping and it seems

[46:29] fine.

[46:31] Um,

[46:35] my daughter happens to live in a

[46:36] neighborhood where they there's you can

[46:38] have it in your backyard

[46:40] and I have to say I don't love the yards

[46:43] that have it in the back, but you don't

[46:46] really have to look at it. Um,

[46:50] >> I There's a house that's up this road

[46:53] that has artificial grass and it it

[46:56] looks nice with the landscape. It's not

[46:58] big.

[46:59] >> Small.

[46:59] >> It's small, but it's there for their

[47:01] pets. So,

[47:02] >> yeah,

[47:03] >> I think it's better for them and it

[47:07] looks really nice. I thought it was real

[47:08] at first, but then I noticed that it was

[47:10] artificial.

[47:11] >> Yeah.

[47:12] >> I don't know how to make these rules.

[47:14] The one concern I have is I don't want

[47:16] people just to take it and roll it out

[47:17] and say, "Well, it's allowed. Here it

[47:20] is,

[47:21] >> right? Have a certain standard. And how

[47:23] do how do we state that

[47:25] >> because it can look really bad if not

[47:27] done well.

[47:27] >> Yeah.

[47:30] I mean, and over time it can

[47:31] degrade and and if it's not maintained

[47:34] or replaced, then it can look badly. But

[47:36] my bigger concern with artificial turf,

[47:38] it's been this way for I've felt this

[47:40] way for considerable amount of time and

[47:42] you're seeing more um more about it in

[47:46] the press is that you know especially in

[47:48] an area like this it um taking natural

[47:53] spaces and converting them to artificial

[47:56] turf and I include grasses in natural

[47:59] spaces. Um the grass is is cooling to

[48:02] the environment. artificial turf and

[48:04] cement and hardcapes is not cooling to

[48:07] the environment. And um you know we

[48:09] we've there's been a movement and this

[48:12] movement is about trying to preserve or

[48:14] conserve water. Um I I don't think we've

[48:17] adequately

[48:19] in general addressed the impact of the

[48:23] environmental heating uh as a water

[48:28] um user as much as we probably should be

[48:31] because you know are we really in the in

[48:34] the big bigger picture are we conserving

[48:36] water by uh making things generate more

[48:40] heat around us because we may find that

[48:42] we're not because you we use the water

[48:44] in a different way evaporates or you

[48:46] know not a different consideration. So

[48:49] >> that's a good point. I I think there are

[48:52] artificial turfs out there now that

[48:54] address that. I don't know exactly what

[48:57] that looks like.

[48:59] Um

[49:01] and

[49:03] I would say maybe it's hotter if they

[49:06] put concrete there as opposed I you know

[49:09] I

[49:10] >> um some of the artificial turf I mean

[49:12] you don't want to walk on it barefoot.

[49:14] Yeah,

[49:14] >> especially when it's 100° outside. You

[49:16] don't walk on concrete barefoot. Some of

[49:18] the some of the cool coat uh materials

[49:24] that goes on top of concrete can

[49:26] actually

[49:28] help with that and you where you can

[49:30] walk on it in when it's hot out. But um

[49:33] none of those are as good as having just

[49:35] plain old grass ground because

[49:37] >> um you know plain old grass is is pretty

[49:41] cool especially if it's in the shade.

[49:43] Um, so I'm I'm generally not in favor of

[49:47] moving from grasses to artificial

[49:49] substances whether they

[49:51] >> Well, and also in general it's not

[49:52] really fitting

[49:54] >> in the desert like it's not a natural

[49:58] landscape,

[49:59] >> but then you know um you know you can

[50:02] make the same argument if you're going

[50:04] to take the the um cool grass out and

[50:07] put a bunch of gravel down or something

[50:09] of that nature, you're going to end up

[50:11] with the same kind of problem.

[50:13] I would lean towards allowing

[50:17] a certain amount.

[50:20] I don't know exactly what that amount

[50:22] would be. Just some some

[50:26] small area that would be beneficial for

[50:28] pets or

[50:31] like I said integrated with other

[50:32] landscaping.

[50:37] And

[50:41] I don't know how turf, [clears throat]

[50:43] artificial turf is rated. If we could

[50:45] somehow put some kind of standard

[50:46] attached to it.

[50:49] >> Yeah. So, there's definitely some

[50:51] research we can do. Um I've I've done

[50:53] some preliminary research on artificial

[50:57] turf and it's true. Um it's not all

[51:00] created equally. There is kind of

[51:02] different grades. Um, it has improved a

[51:06] lot over the years. Um, but yeah, it's

[51:10] certainly not a silver bullet. It's not

[51:12] hoay for artificial turf. Everywhere

[51:14] should be artificial turf. It's maybe an

[51:17] option for uh someone um who wants a

[51:23] kind of a zeroscaped landscaped area but

[51:26] wants a little bit of green to

[51:29] lighten it up a little bit. So

[51:33] perhaps um one option could be to for us

[51:37] to go away and [snorts] explore how

[51:41] um yeah we how it could be included in a landscape area but not kind of

[51:48] unlimited sades of it. and and we could

[51:52] also potentially look at if there's

[51:55] different types of gradings of

[51:57] artificial turf or different qualities

[51:59] and see if we could explore how that

[52:03] could address the concerns.

[52:04] >> That would be great.

[52:06] >> Yeah. I'd be curious too on if you look

[52:07] at areas that have a lawn, what kind of

[52:11] shape are they in? Do they look decent?

[52:14] Would it be an improvement for

[52:15] artificial turf or are they all in

[52:19] pretty good shape? and we're not really

[52:21] changing anything besides getting rid of

[52:23] some nice green grass and replacing it

[52:25] with plastic.

[52:26] >> I I think the only advantage really is

[52:29] on water conservation. I think a a real

[52:31] lawn is always going to be nicer for

[52:34] many reasons. It's going to like I I

[52:36] have artificial turf in my in my

[52:38] backyard and it it's fine, but a real

[52:42] lawn would probably be nicer. Um but yeah, if we're kind of looking at

[52:50] this from the perspective of water

[52:51] conservation and maybe giving some

[52:54] options um to reduce water usage, it it

[52:59] could be kind of an option that we could

[53:03] offer to people.

[53:15] um

[53:19] the memo that I sent out um that you've

[53:21] all received, you know, in that I

[53:23] recommended that the planning commission

[53:24] consider combining landscape and water

[53:27] conservation with a review of open space

[53:29] code because they're I think they're

[53:31] very much linked together. you know, the

[53:33] town general plan

[53:36] and open space plan, you know, have have

[53:40] uh stated, you know, basically that it

[53:44] the town wants to retain and promote

[53:46] open spaces and anything we do with

[53:49] regard to conservation, water

[53:50] conservation,

[53:52] um that limits that going to you could

[53:55] be very detrimental to the retention of

[53:56] open spaces over time. So, we have to be

[53:58] very careful in that regard. So to to to

[54:01] look at one independently of the other I

[54:04] think probably might not be the best way

[54:06] of going about it. So anything we do

[54:08] with regard to uh water landscape and

[54:11] water conservation should take all of

[54:13] that into effect because um or

[54:15] consideration because they are

[54:18] >> fall outside of landscaping or is it

[54:21] included in that?

[54:22] >> Well um in you know there's open spaces

[54:26] in the valley residential zone that are

[54:29] um based on um strict interpretation of

[54:34] the way the code's written, you know,

[54:36] it's it's called landscaping. It's not

[54:38] called open space, it's called

[54:39] landscaping. So, if we change, you know,

[54:42] water conservation in landscaped areas,

[54:44] we're indirectly affecting the ability

[54:47] to to maintain or create open spaces

[54:50] over time.

[54:54] And you know I cited some some uh

[54:57] examples of that in my diet tribe but

[55:00] you know

[55:04] » does it make sense just to exclude

[55:08] open space

[55:10] >> in in the scenario that you're talking

[55:12] about does it would you say it would

[55:13] make sense to exclude open space? Well,

[55:16] I I mean that's one way to do it, but I

[55:20] think I think um realistically at some

[55:23] point we're going to have to look at the

[55:24] two together and in in the bigger

[55:26] picture and rather than just do it

[55:28] independently and say, "Okay, we're just

[55:30] going to do this one thing right now."

[55:32] Um because you know I think I you know

[55:35] when I read through um some of this you

[55:39] know I I immediately started to look at

[55:42] things and say well if we do that then

[55:44] um it's going to create this problem

[55:46] over in the open space area and so we we

[55:48] don't want to necessarily do that

[55:50] without doing something about the you

[55:51] know preservation open spaces because

[55:54] and you know I mean even in the even in

[55:56] the intro it says um the overwhelming

[55:59] majority of water usage in Springdale is

[56:00] for irrigation and So, we should review

[56:02] our landscaping standards, see if they

[56:04] can be more effectively promote water

[56:05] conservation. Well, I I would venture to

[56:10] guess that most of that irrigation or a

[56:13] very large part of that irrigation goes

[56:15] to open space properties, properties

[56:18] that are either an agricultural

[56:20] uh whether they be in agricult zoning or

[56:23] their residential zoning under

[56:24] agricultural purposes, which is

[56:26] something we need to think about as

[56:27] well. But um you know there's you know

[56:30] the the um

[56:34] water shares users um predominant usage

[56:37] for them is is in is irrigation of

[56:41] pastures or that sort of thing. And so

[56:44] um if we're you know while it's true the

[56:47] over I think the the ratio of um town

[56:53] user irrigation and

[56:57] um

[57:00] water shares users is about twothirds

[57:02] water shares to one third town. Um and

[57:05] so if twothirds of the of the water goes

[57:08] to watershed users, obviously the

[57:11] overwhelming majority is used for that

[57:13] purpose. Um and then within I think even

[57:17] within the town uh

[57:20] you know what we would think may might

[57:21] be town users are probably some of the

[57:24] large um hotels or that sort of thing.

[57:28] And they've got large expanses of grass or or other landscaped areas

[57:33] there. but they're they're watering

[57:36] those with irrigation water shares as

[57:38] opposed to purchasing water from the

[57:40] town, which is why they can probably do

[57:42] as much as they can in that regard. So

[57:45] again, you know, we have to take all of

[57:47] that in consideration. So

[57:53] I I'm just going to say good job putting

[57:55] all that together and I I totally agree.

[57:57] After I read this, I was very concerned

[57:59] of losing the open space.

[58:00] >> Yeah. But like you said, if if we say,

[58:04] "Well, they're exempt."

[58:06] The next biggest user is probably

[58:08] businesses and hotels.

[58:11] And what are we going to do with them?

[58:12] Because they're probably using most of

[58:13] their waters in

[58:15] >> Well, the the water that the hotels are

[58:18] using that aren't for irrigation

[58:21] is cooler water, which is not what this

[58:24] is about. So, they're that's being

[58:27] that's controlled in a different set of the code. So we can we can look

[58:31] at just the irrigation part of it

[58:33] without impacting their ability to you

[58:36] know feed and and shower and bathe and

[58:40] you know clean the properties but

[58:43] because most of them well I shouldn't

[58:45] say most many of them are using uh well

[58:49] irrigation water for the outside and

[58:52] water shares for most of that

[58:53] >> but I look at as water is water so I

[58:56] guess where I was going is if you take

[58:58] those things away the people we're

[59:00] hurting are the residents that really

[59:01] aren't using that much water anyways.

[59:04] >> You I'm sorry. You think there's not

[59:05] >> So if we say we want open space, which I

[59:07] agree with.

[59:08] >> Yeah.

[59:08] >> So go ahead, water that. We're not going

[59:11] to be able to um restrict internal usage

[59:14] of water.

[59:16] >> So how much water is really left

[59:19] and who are we really

[59:21] >> my understanding is the town did a a

[59:22] study on that in the last number of

[59:24] years and they've determined that

[59:25] there's a lot of water for the next 20

[59:28] years. No, that doesn't

[59:29] >> No, no. I meant how much water usage,

[59:32] meaning that the residents that, you

[59:35] know, live in the town of Springdale.

[59:38] >> I don't see them watering a lot,

[59:40] >> right?

[59:41] >> So, how much water are we saving and all

[59:44] we're doing is inconveniencing a lot of

[59:46] our residents and I don't think we're

[59:47] going to get that far as far as the

[59:49] savings. I think I'm agreeing with you.

[59:52] >> Yeah.

[59:53] So what of the conservation

[59:59] items listed? I mean the one that I see

[1:00:04] would be a benefit for everybody

[1:00:06] including open space irrigation systems

[1:00:09] being designed to water um efficiently

[1:00:11] and avoid overspray and overflow. That's

[1:00:14] not limiting their water. It's probably

[1:00:17] actually helping their watering

[1:00:20] situation.

[1:00:22] Um

[1:00:24] I don't see anything though that really

[1:00:26] is actually limiting the volume.

[1:00:33] » Well, there's a number of things on on

[1:00:35] you know this the staff's uh notes here

[1:00:37] that you know 80% of plants in landscape

[1:00:39] are required to be water conserving

[1:00:41] species. Um

[1:00:44] that's that's a good thing. Um we should

[1:00:47] be doing that. But if you're in if you

[1:00:48] look at it agricultural areas um

[1:00:53] the and if the next bullet says before I

[1:00:56] continue on that the next bullet says

[1:00:58] the town holds a list of approved plants

[1:01:00] approved plant species which are native

[1:01:02] and drought tolerant.

[1:01:03] >> Um and

[1:01:07] that's also true. But if you look at

[1:01:09] some of the pasture areas that are out

[1:01:11] there, you know, there's there's large

[1:01:13] pastures where um

[1:01:18] grasses that are used for forage or food

[1:01:21] for for livestock are, you know, being

[1:01:24] cultivated there. And some of those are

[1:01:26] alalfa. Alfa is not on the list. There's

[1:01:29] other fescues and buffalo grasses that

[1:01:32] are on the list and some of some of the

[1:01:34] pastures use that. But um to try to take

[1:01:38] uh the alalfa, which is a arguably a

[1:01:42] better food source for most of the

[1:01:45] depending on the type of animal you

[1:01:46] have, to try take that away from them,

[1:01:48] it'd be very difficult.

[1:01:50] >> So would there be a way of listing

[1:01:52] exceptions for those types of things you

[1:01:54] just mentioned? Well, it could be and

[1:01:56] that's maybe that's why and that's kind

[1:01:58] of why I'm saying we got to look at them

[1:01:59] together is because one way to do this

[1:02:01] is say, hey, if you know if we're

[1:02:03] looking at um land that's being uh

[1:02:06] that's somehow defined as open space

[1:02:09] within the residential zones, which we

[1:02:12] we'd have to do. there's some some way

[1:02:14] we'd have to figure out how to do that

[1:02:15] and say, okay, they get some certain

[1:02:17] exceptions if they're, you know, if

[1:02:19] they're using those as open spaces uh in

[1:02:23] somehow in an agricultural uh manner,

[1:02:28] you know, it's okay to plant alpha alpha

[1:02:30] or we add alphaalfpha to the list of

[1:02:32] approved plants in in those particular

[1:02:34] types of areas. I'm not saying I don't

[1:02:36] think you'd want to do that everywhere,

[1:02:38] but you could say it in certain areas

[1:02:40] and make it open it up so that they've

[1:02:42] got a a little more leeway there that

[1:02:44] doesn't discourage them from from, you

[1:02:47] know,

[1:02:47] >> I I personally I don't want to limit

[1:02:49] what you can plant on those open areas.

[1:02:51] If they're feeding animals livestock,

[1:02:55] put what works for them because I think

[1:02:58] if the town character likes the

[1:03:00] livestock.

[1:03:01] >> Well, that's true. But the other thing

[1:03:03] you have to be aware of too is you know

[1:03:05] um the uh the there's significant amount

[1:03:10] of water that is that is needed to

[1:03:14] farm or undertake agriculture or

[1:03:17] whatever. So, if you've got a large

[1:03:19] pasture, say a 5 acre pasture, you need

[1:03:21] about 800,000 gallons a month at a

[1:03:24] minimum to water that um to keep it uh

[1:03:28] the grass, you know, whatever kind of

[1:03:30] grass is.

[1:03:30] >> I'm confused of where you're going with

[1:03:32] this.

[1:03:33] I'm just saying we need to be un we need

[1:03:35] to look at them together and be

[1:03:38] understanding of what some of those

[1:03:40] constraints are as opposed to just

[1:03:41] saying hey we're going to make some

[1:03:43] changes and and then without considering

[1:03:45] that it's going to have a could have a

[1:03:47] significant impact on this other

[1:03:48] >> yeah and I'm agreeing with that that's

[1:03:51] >> but I'm saying you take out the big

[1:03:52] users and I don't want to go through and

[1:03:55] put all kinds of restrictions in for

[1:03:56] someone that's really not using that

[1:03:58] much water like for example the uh spray

[1:04:01] overflow from sprinkler systems. Well,

[1:04:04] that probably occurs with people

[1:04:05] watering lawns. How much of that is

[1:04:08] there? How much are we really how much

[1:04:10] is there to get? You know, I'm not going

[1:04:12] to stop someone, you know, has a field

[1:04:16] that has a big sprint uh sprayer.

[1:04:18] They're going to have overshoot. I know

[1:04:20] it happens. I see it.

[1:04:22] >> Well, there are but you know, at the

[1:04:24] same time, there are things that those

[1:04:25] users can do to to mitigate some of

[1:04:27] that, you know,

[1:04:28] >> but that that's going to be a cost to

[1:04:30] them. It is a cost but it's but it

[1:04:32] >> and I really don't want to burden them

[1:04:34] more.

[1:04:35] >> No, but I I think um you know there's some reasonable things to do. I

[1:04:40] mean you know in you know you know my

[1:04:43] community the community owns a 5 acre 5

[1:04:46] and a half acre parcel that's planted as

[1:04:48] a pasture and one of the things we found

[1:04:50] out was that um we were consuming much

[1:04:53] more water than we really needed to

[1:04:55] because we were manually turning the

[1:04:57] valves on and off and we were relying on

[1:04:59] people to do that. sometimes other

[1:05:00] things got in the way and they didn't

[1:05:02] weren't able to do that. And so we spent

[1:05:04] a you know a significant amount of money

[1:05:07] converting over to an automated system.

[1:05:09] So now it's all you know on timers and

[1:05:12] whatnot. And so the timers want can you

[1:05:15] know control when the water goes on and

[1:05:16] off and we're well within the the uh you

[1:05:21] know requirements for lack of a better

[1:05:22] term of you know what we should be

[1:05:24] doing. we're we're actually using less

[1:05:26] than uh what some of the agricultural

[1:05:30] people are suggesting. I think that's

[1:05:32] part of that's because the the area is

[1:05:35] smaller than what we thought it was.

[1:05:37] But, you know, um we're using probably

[1:05:40] half as much as we used to use 5 years

[1:05:43] ago. And then significant, but now

[1:05:45] you're going to go to the the farmer or

[1:05:46] the person that has, you know, a pasture

[1:05:49] with cattle

[1:05:50] >> and required them to make an investment

[1:05:52] to upgrade their system, which is

[1:05:54] probably going to cost more than yours

[1:05:56] because it's much bigger.

[1:05:57] >> It may it may or it may not. Um, it

[1:06:00] depends. And and some of those, you

[1:06:01] know, I mean, those people are not

[1:06:04] necessarily unwilling to to do that. I

[1:06:06] mean, you know, we all live in this

[1:06:07] earth together and there many of them

[1:06:09] that are willing to conserve and, you

[1:06:10] know, there's benefits to that. some

[1:06:12] farmers are some of the most

[1:06:13] conservation ob you know aware people

[1:06:16] that that I've known. Um so if there are

[1:06:19] you know good

[1:06:21] uh methods or habits that we can

[1:06:23] encourage them to do I think generally

[1:06:25] they'll be willing to adopt that. But so we shouldn't just write it off and

[1:06:30] say hey you got a big user so we're going to you know um

[1:06:36] you know leave you outside the fence and

[1:06:37] you can do whatever you want. I don't

[1:06:39] think that's the right choice either. I

[1:06:40] think we need to do consider both sides.

[1:06:42] So,

[1:06:44] >> could I offer a few suggestions?

[1:06:45] >> Sure.

[1:06:46] >> So, um I I think this is a really good

[1:06:50] conversation because um

[1:06:54] you know those those pastures and those

[1:06:56] kind of semi-aggricultural parts of town

[1:06:58] are a really treasured part of a

[1:07:01] community, right? They're really part of

[1:07:04] the landscape that we all love. Um and

[1:07:08] um those are all with the exception of

[1:07:12] Trees Ranch, those are all zoned valley

[1:07:14] residential.

[1:07:15] >> Yeah. So to Paul's point, if we do

[1:07:19] introduce uh restrictions on turf for

[1:07:23] natural grass in valley residential

[1:07:26] zones, you could you're essentially

[1:07:29] applying them to those areas and that

[1:07:33] could potentially mean that you know

[1:07:35] their ability to stay in that kind of

[1:07:38] semi-aggricultural state may be may be

[1:07:41] difficult. Um, one one thought is

[1:07:46] um you could put the valley residential

[1:07:50] zone to one side for the time being and

[1:07:54] look purely at the commercial

[1:07:57] landscaping

[1:07:58] um requirements. So, um, and introduce

[1:08:04] some greater restrictions on grass

[1:08:07] within the commercial zones, within

[1:08:09] those commercial properties, h

[1:08:11] potentially limit grass to functional

[1:08:14] areas. And there's some ways you could

[1:08:16] define that to recreation or that kind

[1:08:19] of thing. Um

[1:08:22] and

[1:08:23] the benefit of doing something that is

[1:08:25] that when when we do get a um a

[1:08:30] commercial redevelopment of a property

[1:08:32] where the landscape is being redeveloped

[1:08:36] um we can you know get some gains as far

[1:08:39] as water efficiency there. We've had a

[1:08:41] few redevelopments of commercial

[1:08:44] properties in the last few years that um

[1:08:47] they the finished product looks great.

[1:08:49] They're really beautiful projects, but

[1:08:51] there's a lot of there's a lot of grass

[1:08:54] that's just there to look at. Um and

[1:08:59] perhaps they could still look great with

[1:09:03] water-wise landscaping.

[1:09:05] They could look just as nice with water

[1:09:07] wise landscaping as they do with grass.

[1:09:09] and we'd be saving a lot of water. So

[1:09:12] that that could be one area that you

[1:09:14] could focus on that might be a little

[1:09:15] bit easier than

[1:09:18] kind of imposing restrictions in the

[1:09:20] residential zones for the discuss for

[1:09:24] the reasons you've outlined.

[1:09:28] » Do we have an idea of how much water

[1:09:30] that would save?

[1:09:32] >> I don't have any figures to hand.

[1:09:38] So, I mean, we we could look a little

[1:09:40] bit, but I mean, I think if you drive

[1:09:42] through the commercial areas of town,

[1:09:44] you'll see lots of lawns that need

[1:09:47] regular watering. And so, I think

[1:09:50] incrementally as those properties

[1:09:52] redevelop and adjust, um, over time, you

[1:09:56] could make some real savings on water. I

[1:09:58] think

[1:10:05] » is the town is the town on a schedule

[1:10:08] for a water to water the grass?

[1:10:10] >> Yes.

[1:10:12] Well, the the users are on the schedule.

[1:10:15] >> I don't Yeah,

[1:10:16] >> I'm not sure I'm not sure if the

[1:10:19] watershed users are on the same schedule

[1:10:21] or not. Um, my my empirical observation

[1:10:26] is that they kind of water when they

[1:10:27] feel like they can, they want to,

[1:10:29] >> because I I I drive to work every

[1:10:32] morning at 6:00 a.m. and I see the same

[1:10:36] >> grass being watered almost every day.

[1:10:39] So, I'm like,

[1:10:41] is it on a schedule or are they should

[1:10:43] be on a schedule or

[1:10:49] » And the other the other Go ahead, Tom.

[1:10:51] Are you Melissa, are you referring to

[1:10:53] When you say town, are you referring to

[1:10:54] just like town- owned properties or just

[1:10:57] general properties within the town of

[1:10:58] Springdale?

[1:10:59] >> Just general properties. I see them. I

[1:11:01] see the water just every morning, same

[1:11:04] time,

[1:11:06] >> and I'm like I'm not sure if it's on a

[1:11:08] schedule because we're talking about

[1:11:09] this and then I'm a little confused

[1:11:10] because I don't know anything about the

[1:11:13] water schedule or anything because

[1:11:16] again, I live in the apartment and we

[1:11:18] have a drip line. So

[1:11:20] >> yeah, that's a good question and and

[1:11:22] it's a little complex. I think as Paul

[1:11:23] was about to answer that, you know,

[1:11:24] there are some properties that are um

[1:11:26] irrigate with water through the

[1:11:30] irrigation company. They have set

[1:11:32] watering times when they are supposed to

[1:11:34] water. There are other um properties

[1:11:37] that water with um water that they

[1:11:40] purchase through the town. Um and and so

[1:11:43] it just it kind of depends on which

[1:11:45] where you're getting your water and what

[1:11:46] the schedule is. I think the point of

[1:11:48] what Nile is trying to to say is you

[1:11:50] shouldn't be watering your grass every

[1:11:53] day at 6:00 am in the morning. And if

[1:11:55] there's a way that we can encourage

[1:11:57] people not to do that, that's that's the

[1:12:01] goal, right? So that that's that's what

[1:12:04] we're trying to do here.

[1:12:05] >> That clarifies a little bit for me. So

[1:12:08] because I was a little confused,

[1:12:11] >> do you know the does the town what

[1:12:14] schedule does the town adhere to? their

[1:12:16] own schedule or do they have are they

[1:12:19] have they selected one of the others?

[1:12:23] » I should know the answer to that

[1:12:25] question, but I don't.

[1:12:26] >> That's okay.

[1:12:27] >> Um, so I I will find that out for you.

[1:12:29] >> Okay, good.

[1:12:31] >> I'm going to go back to the idea. I

[1:12:33] mean, the the best one of the great way

[1:12:35] to conserve water is to get rid of the

[1:12:37] lawn and just plant native plants,

[1:12:40] but I don't know how we'd want to

[1:12:43] enforce that. you know, we can show

[1:12:46] pictures, examples.

[1:12:48] I mean, it's actually beautiful and it encourages wildlife and everything

[1:12:52] else.

[1:12:54] >> So, we want to go want to like mandate

[1:12:56] that type of landscaping.

[1:12:59] >> So, so I think the way that it work

[1:13:00] would work is if if the town were to

[1:13:04] make amendments to our landscaping

[1:13:05] ordinance to to restrict grass and and

[1:13:10] that kind of thing. Um

[1:13:13] all ordinances are are futurefacing,

[1:13:16] right? So they would only apply as

[1:13:19] people start redeveloping pro

[1:13:22] properties. So it by changing this

[1:13:24] ordinance, it wouldn't mean that all of

[1:13:27] the commercial properties suddenly need

[1:13:29] to get rid of their grass. It would just

[1:13:32] mean that over time as redevelopment

[1:13:34] happens um

[1:13:37] there would be

[1:13:39] you know the landscaping the commercial

[1:13:41] properties would over time become more

[1:13:42] and more

[1:13:44] um

[1:13:45] >> so that's really limiting space you have

[1:13:47] for grass

[1:13:53] » um Rich that's a great question about

[1:13:56] hey if we if we pass all these

[1:13:58] ordinances what really is the impact

[1:14:00] right because we can say no more grass,

[1:14:02] but then we have to wait for all these

[1:14:03] properties to redevelop. And how long is

[1:14:05] that going to take? Well, one of the

[1:14:07] things that that is available to the

[1:14:09] town if you pass an ordinance that has

[1:14:13] certain water conservation elements to

[1:14:15] it, many of which you're discussing

[1:14:17] tonight through the water Washington

[1:14:20] County water conservation district,

[1:14:22] property owners can get a rebate for

[1:14:24] removing their grass. And so then there

[1:14:26] becomes a financial incentive for them

[1:14:28] to get that that or to remove the grass.

[1:14:32] That incentive is only available

[1:14:35] if the town adopts an ordinance that has

[1:14:38] some of these water conservation

[1:14:40] elements to it. So, I think that's

[1:14:41] another reason why um Nile and Eugene,

[1:14:44] you're reading this to you tonight, is

[1:14:46] to perhaps um qualify property owners in

[1:14:50] the town of Springdale to receive that

[1:14:52] incentive from the Washington County

[1:14:54] Water Conservancy District to remove the

[1:14:56] grass. That way, we don't have to wait

[1:14:58] until properties are redeveloped. We can

[1:14:59] get faster action on it.

[1:15:01] >> Yeah. The the unfortunate aspect of that

[1:15:04] is well if it's something that somebody

[1:15:07] wants to do and is budging to do that

[1:15:09] anyway, it's a good uh little extra for

[1:15:13] them. But the cost to replace well to to

[1:15:17] naturalize the land is it's almost

[1:15:20] impossible to take the gr remove the

[1:15:22] grass and replant it to look like the

[1:15:24] natural spaces around us. Um those

[1:15:27] spaces have developed over hundreds of

[1:15:30] years and they're basically because uh

[1:15:34] there's no neighboring properties

[1:15:36] blowing you know outside seeds in the park fights with this all the time.

[1:15:42] They're they're out there trying to kill

[1:15:44] the invasive species and the town is

[1:15:46] doing the same thing. If you try and

[1:15:48] just

[1:15:50] cut take the grass out, you basically

[1:15:52] have to uh sterilize the land almost and

[1:15:54] then come in and and plant new plants

[1:15:57] and it's extremely cost prohibitive to

[1:15:59] do that. Um

[1:16:01] >> I I don't know if I fully agree with

[1:16:02] that. You you rip the grass out, you

[1:16:04] till it, you put in new plants.

[1:16:07] >> Yeah. And then

[1:16:08] >> I can say that that's what I've done.

[1:16:09] the old weeds and the old roots and

[1:16:11] stuff start coming back up and you end

[1:16:13] up with lots of weeds and and it doesn't

[1:16:15] look like the natural spaces around us.

[1:16:18] It can be especially if you're on a if

[1:16:20] you're in a small garden area, you can

[1:16:22] it's it's doable if you're on a large uh

[1:16:24] piece of property. It's very very

[1:16:26] difficult to do that. So

[1:16:27] >> So can that happen anyways without any

[1:16:31] ordinanced

[1:16:33] >> ordinances? Like if they do it, can they

[1:16:35] get

[1:16:35] >> the rebates?

[1:16:36] >> Yeah.

[1:16:37] >> So not at the moment. No, because the

[1:16:39] town would first need to adopt that

[1:16:41] model ordinance from the water

[1:16:43] conservancy district for our town to

[1:16:45] qualify for that.

[1:16:47] >> And um I guess maybe it'd be helpful to

[1:16:51] see the that ordinance, right?

[1:16:55] >> Yeah, we can I I can bring details of

[1:16:57] that

[1:16:58] >> the next time. The the commission

[1:17:00] discussed it a couple of years ago.

[1:17:03] >> Okay. Uh there's so there there's some

[1:17:05] of these standards that we've talked

[1:17:08] about this evening and then there's

[1:17:09] other things like recirculating hot

[1:17:12] water systems for your shower and that

[1:17:14] kind of thing that are are part of it as

[1:17:17] well.

[1:17:22] » I think that would be worthwhile to look

[1:17:23] out and see if it's Yeah.

[1:17:26] The the other question I had is about

[1:17:28] this. Um I feel like there's a conflict

[1:17:32] going on here. So we'd like water

[1:17:36] conserving species, but we also want

[1:17:39] fire resistant species. They typically

[1:17:42] are not the same thing. To be fire

[1:17:43] resistant needs a lot of water contact

[1:17:46] content in the plant, which means you

[1:17:48] have to give it water. If you want low

[1:17:52] drought tolerant, that's going to be a

[1:17:54] drier plant. it's going to be more prone

[1:17:55] to fires. I don't know how to balance

[1:17:58] that.

[1:18:00] >> That's the joy of planning. Lots of

[1:18:02] competing priorities.

[1:18:06] Um,

[1:18:08] so yeah, I don't

[1:18:09] >> right now I'm I'm leaning toward fire

[1:18:11] resistant,

[1:18:13] but that is not going to be good for

[1:18:16] >> I mean there's things you can do to be

[1:18:17] better with water, you know, drip system

[1:18:19] and things like that. I think there are

[1:18:22] a number of options when it comes to

[1:18:24] choosing plants like cactuses or

[1:18:29] um

[1:18:30] >> okay I need a screen because I want to

[1:18:33] get rid of some plants some what are

[1:18:35] they tumeric turmeric or whatever they

[1:18:37] are but I need to replace them with a

[1:18:39] screen so that's not going to be a

[1:18:41] cactus

[1:18:43] >> I don't know all the plant names but I

[1:18:45] know that there there are some that are

[1:18:47] drought

[1:18:48] >> drought tolerant And

[1:18:51] um I know we mostly what we planted

[1:18:53] around our house are drought tolerant.

[1:18:58] Um but they're not like black brush.

[1:19:02] They're not flammable like that. They

[1:19:04] have green leaves and flowers and um but

[1:19:07] they take very little water. So I I

[1:19:10] don't know if there's a lot, but I know

[1:19:12] that there are a number of choices when

[1:19:16] it comes to landscaping like that.

[1:19:18] succulents and those sorts of plants.

[1:19:20] >> Yeah. And even some of the grasses

[1:19:23] um they don't take a lot of water and

[1:19:25] they stay green like the taller grasses

[1:19:28] and they're not again not flammable like

[1:19:31] brush would be

[1:19:34] >> or or junipers.

[1:19:37] >> Rich in in for your specific instance a

[1:19:39] desert willow would be a fantastic

[1:19:41] choice because it has the similar

[1:19:44] screening that your tamarisk do

[1:19:46] currently. It uses much less water and

[1:19:48] it is um not it's it's fire resistant.

[1:19:52] It's not a it's not a combustible

[1:19:53] species. So for your specific location,

[1:19:56] you could you could investigate the

[1:19:57] desert willow.

[1:19:59] Um okay. See, there's always trade-offs.

[1:20:03] So the desert willow may work, it may

[1:20:05] not. There may be things, but the my

[1:20:07] point is is there seem to be this

[1:20:09] conflict. You know, you can't find the

[1:20:12] perfect you might not be able to find

[1:20:13] the perfect plant to do what you need to

[1:20:15] do.

[1:20:18] So when it says you know some things

[1:20:20] were what does it mean to say required

[1:20:24] to be water conserving what does that

[1:20:26] really mean?

[1:20:30] So that this these this these bullet

[1:20:34] points are already actually in our code.

[1:20:37] Um, and so we we have a list of plants

[1:20:42] um that are that are water conserving.

[1:20:46] Um, if people want to use other plants

[1:20:49] um, you know, from a staff perspective,

[1:20:52] we do a little bit of research. You

[1:20:54] know, we're not botists, but we do a

[1:20:56] little bit of research to make sure that

[1:20:57] they're water conserving. And that's kind of you know we do our best

[1:21:02] to to make sure that that we apply that.

[1:21:10] Yeah. So water conserving usually more

[1:21:12] fire

[1:21:14] prone unless you have very limited

[1:21:17] selection the overlap of firerone and

[1:21:22] water conserving the list.

[1:21:24] >> I don't know if that list really exists.

[1:21:30] Sorry. The the approved plant list,

[1:21:33] there's a concern that they're all

[1:21:35] flammable. Is that your

[1:21:37] >> Yeah. Are they all

[1:21:39] >> I I don't know that there's necessarily

[1:21:41] as big of a

[1:21:44] either or. I I think there are plants

[1:21:47] that are drought tolerant that aren't

[1:21:49] necessarily super flammable. Um, that's

[1:21:53] that would be my [snorts] understanding that it it

[1:21:57] doesn't necessarily have to be a black

[1:22:00] or white tradeoff.

[1:22:03] I know when the fire chief came to our

[1:22:04] house, we have a lot of variety of

[1:22:06] plants and he flat out told us that the

[1:22:09] main concern was clearing out the brush

[1:22:13] and and

[1:22:15] um limiting or cutting up the junipers.

[1:22:18] >> Yeah. Beyond that, he was pointing to

[1:22:20] other lots of plants saying, "Not

[1:22:22] worried about that. Not worried about

[1:22:24] that." And it it was quite a few plants,

[1:22:27] different species.

[1:22:31] But I hear you too. There is definitely

[1:22:33] a conflict going on too with some plants

[1:22:35] that do take a lot of water and

[1:22:39] um or not and they're flammable.

[1:22:44] I'm wondering at this point if we should

[1:22:48] like so we have asked for more

[1:22:51] information on the turf

[1:22:53] um and some information

[1:22:56] about um the model of the regulations

[1:23:01] for watering.

[1:23:03] Um, if we want to talk about just some

[1:23:06] of these other potential

[1:23:10] um ideas, limiting grass and lawn areas,

[1:23:14] uh, restricting water features

[1:23:17] and time of day. Does anybody have any

[1:23:20] thoughts on

[1:23:22] those specifically? Any of them? Well,

[1:23:24] the I think I like um

[1:23:27] Nile's idea that we maybe focus on for now we focus on the commercial areas

[1:23:33] because it probably bigger payoff and less complexity in terms of the open

[1:23:38] spaces.

[1:23:39] >> Yeah. No, I agree. I'm just as far as

[1:23:41] >> because if you like grass areas for

[1:23:43] commercial

[1:23:44] >> Well, if you look at if you look at the

[1:23:46] open spaces, those are grass areas.

[1:23:49] >> They're also regulated in terms of time

[1:23:51] of day.

[1:23:52] >> But I'm just saying like if we What

[1:23:54] about for commercial

[1:23:56] limiting grass and lawn areas? What

[1:23:58] would that look like?

[1:23:59] >> Well, there's going to be uh for for new

[1:24:03] com I mean and you know I think one of

[1:24:06] the things that have to be careful of is

[1:24:09] you know this is talking about what's

[1:24:11] going to happen in the future as opposed

[1:24:12] to what's now. So people that have large

[1:24:14] grass areas now are probably not going

[1:24:17] to be necessarily subject to this but

[1:24:19] people that are going to make changes

[1:24:21] for the future would be. So um we want

[1:24:24] we don't want to dissuade desirable

[1:24:27] looking properties. So we have to be

[1:24:29] careful in that regard. But we've got a

[1:24:31] more we have more flexibility in in uh

[1:24:34] looking at that. So for commercial

[1:24:35] properties is probably uh you know if we

[1:24:38] focus on that and try and figure out a

[1:24:40] way to make sense out of that that might

[1:24:41] be real helpful and we and we probably

[1:24:44] will learn some things in that process.

[1:24:46] So because what what I think in doing

[1:24:49] that what what we should do is look at

[1:24:50] what the existing commercial property

[1:24:53] in in some you know examples are and try

[1:24:56] and evaluate are we is that something we

[1:24:59] want to see in the town and if it is

[1:25:00] something we want to see then how are we

[1:25:02] going to craft the code to make that

[1:25:04] happen again in the future as opposed to

[1:25:07] you know if it's something we don't want

[1:25:09] we can dissuade that so we're not going

[1:25:10] to get that but we want to encourage

[1:25:12] something that's going to be more that

[1:25:13] is going to be beneficial and meet the

[1:25:16] requirements. So,

[1:25:16] >> so I guess what I'm wondering at this

[1:25:18] point is what is what is it that we need

[1:25:20] to be considering and what do we need

[1:25:22] what information do we need for the to

[1:25:26] talk about those considerations?

[1:25:30] I think it I think it's a difficult

[1:25:32] question because if you look at um you

[1:25:36] know I don't remember where it says it

[1:25:38] but you know when I look at um

[1:25:41] you know that list uh well for back up

[1:25:45] above the first list says irrigation

[1:25:48] systems must be designed to water

[1:25:50] efficiently and over avoid overspray and

[1:25:53] overflow. um

[1:25:57] how how do we define what's watering

[1:25:59] efficiently? Because the code doesn't

[1:26:01] tell you what watering efficiently

[1:26:03] means. Um you know, somebody could

[1:26:05] interpret that to say, "Well, I dumped a

[1:26:07] lot of water on my grass and it's

[1:26:08] growing really good." So that's pretty

[1:26:09] efficient. You know,

[1:26:11] >> other people are probably going to

[1:26:12] interpret that and the town probably

[1:26:13] interprets that to say, "Well, use less

[1:26:15] water doing that and see if you can get

[1:26:16] it to look just as well." Um

[1:26:18] >> sir, do you think that needs to be

[1:26:19] changed? Well, I you know, I I think um

[1:26:24] the way it's written right now probably

[1:26:27] isn't sufficient for us to regulate very

[1:26:29] well. Uh maybe maybe you've been doing

[1:26:32] that uh or trying to do that, but when I

[1:26:36] look at it, you know, that's the

[1:26:37] statement down the last bullet on the

[1:26:39] screen up there. Um that's pretty much

[1:26:43] straight out of 1089

[1:26:47] and that's so that's the code. So, how

[1:26:50] do you how do you interpret that when

[1:26:52] somebody comes and says, "This is what

[1:26:53] my system's going to look like."

[1:26:56] >> Yeah, it's a good point. It's it's maybe

[1:26:59] not super clear and it's something that

[1:27:00] we could look at. Um,

[1:27:04] >> and maybe that's part of what we do if

[1:27:06] we're looking at at the commercial

[1:27:08] things and say, "Okay, let's let's take

[1:27:10] a look at what that means, you know,

[1:27:12] because it's it is open to some

[1:27:14] interpretation. So if we can look at a

[1:27:16] you know what examples of efficient

[1:27:18] watering systems are and say okay this

[1:27:20] is a good way to do this and we want to

[1:27:23] encourage that much like you know uh

[1:27:26] recirculating water systems where you

[1:27:28] you're reusing this the hot water um is

[1:27:31] beneficial. So there's probably ways to

[1:27:34] do that.

[1:27:37] If you if you talk to

[1:27:39] um

[1:27:42] agricultural people, farmers in

[1:27:45] particular, you know, they have

[1:27:47] developed ways to water very efficiently

[1:27:51] because it's economically beneficial to

[1:27:54] >> Yeah.

[1:27:56] [snorts] So, not to say that those, you

[1:27:59] know, those methods apply necessarily in

[1:28:02] some of the, you know, the places in the

[1:28:05] commercial districts, but maybe they do.

[1:28:08] >> Yeah, I agree. It would be useful for

[1:28:10] there to be more definition to water

[1:28:13] efficiently and avoid overspray and

[1:28:15] overflow. Is that something staff can

[1:28:18] look at some language for?

[1:28:21] I mean, as I stated before, one of the

[1:28:23] >> one of the things that was most helpful

[1:28:26] when, you know, on the the plot we've

[1:28:28] got down there is, you know, looking at

[1:28:31] and saying, "Hey, you know,

[1:28:32] >> the biggest uh waste of water is because

[1:28:36] the gentleman that we, you know, had

[1:28:39] tasked with turning the water on and

[1:28:41] off, uh, he'd turn it on and then he'd

[1:28:44] go to work in the park and then thinking

[1:28:47] he was going to be back three hours

[1:28:49] later and he could turn it off and he'd

[1:28:51] get caught doing something else in the

[1:28:52] park and then he'd uh forget about it

[1:28:55] and on the way home he'd go, "Oh, the

[1:28:56] water's still running down the street."

[1:28:58] And he'd turn the water off after eight

[1:29:00] or nine or 10 hours possibly. And so

[1:29:04] tremendous amount of water was being

[1:29:06] wasted um

[1:29:10] wasted in

[1:29:12] well

[1:29:15] curious how many use cases are like that

[1:29:17] though.

[1:29:17] >> What's that? Most people have cuz most

[1:29:19] of you drive at 6:00 in the morning. You

[1:29:21] see how the sprinklers on, you know

[1:29:22] they're all on timers.

[1:29:23] >> Not necessarily. You'd be surprised.

[1:29:25] Yeah.

[1:29:31] » Is

[1:29:32] >> I I would say many of them are. I'm

[1:29:34] sure.

[1:29:34] >> Is timing something that's we should

[1:29:37] talk about the regulations as time

[1:29:43] or

[1:29:44] >> Yes. But it again that's complicated

[1:29:47] because um and it and the question uh

[1:29:50] that I would ask there is you know the

[1:29:53] commercial users what type of commercial

[1:29:55] user are they are they a irrigation

[1:29:57] waterhares user are they a town

[1:30:00] secondary irrigation user because the large users based on the size of

[1:30:04] your the pipe that you're using um are

[1:30:07] restricted

[1:30:09] >> uh the big it's called big water users

[1:30:11] if you look at the town schedule um

[1:30:13] they're restricted to only water between

[1:30:16] 10:00 a.m. and 6 pm on Thursday and

[1:30:19] Sunday from 10:00 a.m. to Monday at

[1:30:21] 10:00 a.m. So, if you took the and I

[1:30:24] kind of pointed that out in the thing,

[1:30:26] if you took the the recommendation on uh

[1:30:30] on this list to say we're going to

[1:30:31] restrict it so you can't water between

[1:30:33] 10:00 a.m. and 8:00 pm, um that means

[1:30:37] they can't water on Thursday at all.

[1:30:38] They can only water on part of Sunday

[1:30:41] and early Monday. uh and it reduces

[1:30:44] their their watering schedule down to 14

[1:30:47] hours per week. Um that they're able to

[1:30:50] water on only one day and that's not

[1:30:54] going to be sufficient to maintain a

[1:30:56] pasture of any kind. The grass will die

[1:30:58] after two maybe three days. Even even

[1:31:00] the current schedule where it's

[1:31:02] Thursdays and Sundays, you know, the

[1:31:05] grass is getting pretty scorched looking

[1:31:07] >> out for commercial.

[1:31:10] same same thing because if but again

[1:31:13] that's that goes to the question you

[1:31:16] know the first question you have to ask

[1:31:17] for that is what kind of schedule are

[1:31:19] they on are they subject to those same

[1:31:21] restrictions um and and frankly I don't

[1:31:24] know if that schedule's codified or not

[1:31:27] or if it's just a

[1:31:30] suggestion but

[1:31:32] >> I I think it's a really valid point that

[1:31:34] if we are introducing time of day

[1:31:37] limitations that we need to make sure

[1:31:39] that it lines up properly with the

[1:31:41] irrigation schedules and recognizing

[1:31:44] that that's um there's some complexity

[1:31:48] with that because there's different

[1:31:50] water sources. So um yeah, I think if if you think this is a good idea to

[1:31:59] restrict it by day, we can we can kind

[1:32:02] of dive into that detail and see if

[1:32:04] there's any conclusions

[1:32:06] >> or if not then we won't.

[1:32:10] >> I to me it sounds like

[1:32:13] given what both of you were talking

[1:32:15] about like it may not make sense to put

[1:32:19] to have those restrictions on

[1:32:21] To some extent it does. I mean you'll find that you know generally most

[1:32:26] water conser agencies are trying to get

[1:32:29] you to limit or do your watering hours

[1:32:32] or your watering during hours where it's

[1:32:34] not the middle or the heat of the day

[1:32:36] because a lot of water is at lost to

[1:32:38] evaporation.

[1:32:39] >> But are they already doing that?

[1:32:41] >> They may be or may not. You know that's

[1:32:43] why you're you know your observation

[1:32:44] that said 6 in the morning there

[1:32:46] everybody's watering. There's a reason

[1:32:48] for that is because the water is going

[1:32:49] into the ground as opposed to going into

[1:32:51] the air.

[1:32:51] >> So, I guess that would be good

[1:32:53] information for us to have.

[1:32:55] >> Okay. Well, yeah, we can investigate

[1:32:56] whether there's anything that would make

[1:32:58] sense.

[1:32:59] >> Yeah.

[1:33:00] >> With all of those constraints.

[1:33:02] >> Perfect.

[1:33:09] It would be interesting to know where

[1:33:10] our big water usage is to know what to

[1:33:13] target.

[1:33:14] I'm

[1:33:14] >> sort of lost you on like

[1:33:17] Yeah, we can nickel and dime a lot of

[1:33:19] things, but where where where are we

[1:33:21] really using all our water?

[1:33:29] » Yeah.

[1:33:31] So

[1:33:33] in in as Nile mentioned, this this

[1:33:36] topic's been before the commission a

[1:33:39] year or two ago and and we brought some

[1:33:42] data to the commission about where the

[1:33:44] water was using was being consumed and

[1:33:47] which types of users were consuming the

[1:33:49] most amount of water. We can certainly

[1:33:51] bring that again to you. Um I as Nile

[1:33:56] mentioned at the beginning at the outset

[1:33:58] that's all you know good information to

[1:34:00] have as as Nile mentioned at the outset

[1:34:02] what what we're trying to do here is say

[1:34:06] within the context of the land use arena

[1:34:10] which is what the the planning

[1:34:11] commission does with within the context

[1:34:13] of regulating land use are there things

[1:34:16] that can be done to encourage better use

[1:34:19] of water overall so I'm I'm not sure

[1:34:22] that the commission needs needs to

[1:34:24] really get down into the into the

[1:34:26] nitty-gritty of of looking at this

[1:34:29] particular

[1:34:31] use scenario versus this other

[1:34:33] particular use scenario or this this

[1:34:35] type of user versus this type of user.

[1:34:37] Rather, in general, when we're

[1:34:39] regulating land use, what can we do to

[1:34:44] um encourage better water conservation?

[1:34:47] So, yes, we can get you that that that

[1:34:50] figures, those figures, and I'd

[1:34:53] encourage you to kind of think in

[1:34:55] general terms,

[1:34:57] how how can we do a better job of of

[1:35:01] managing and using our water,

[1:35:03] >> okay? And and I get that and I

[1:35:04] appreciate that and I'm not trying to be

[1:35:05] difficult, but like there's a question

[1:35:07] on fountains

[1:35:09] and I'm sitting here going, geez, how

[1:35:10] many people really have fountains? But

[1:35:12] we can go through a bunch of effort to

[1:35:14] try to figure out how to limit

[1:35:15] fountains. What am I gaining for that?

[1:35:18] Is that is that a big use? And then I

[1:35:20] have to look at well where do I see

[1:35:22] fountains? I see it at a an Airbnb.

[1:35:25] Well, do I want to say that they can't

[1:35:27] have that anymore or new Airbnbs can't

[1:35:30] have a feature like that? New

[1:35:31] businesses. And it's hard to answer that

[1:35:34] question without knowing,

[1:35:37] you know, is that really something

[1:35:38] that's using a lot of water?

[1:35:42] Yeah. So, we are definitely not going to

[1:35:44] be able to get you data on how on on

[1:35:47] water use for fountains in the tank.

[1:35:49] Yeah. We we we do not have that granular

[1:35:51] that that level of of granular data. We

[1:35:53] can get you data on in general what a

[1:35:56] residential connection uses, what a

[1:35:58] commercial connection uses, we we can

[1:36:00] provide you that level of data. If

[1:36:02] you're looking for how much do we lose

[1:36:04] from evaporation from pools, how much

[1:36:06] does a a fountain use, we don't have

[1:36:10] that data and and we can't get it.

[1:36:14] >> Some of some of that stuff is in a

[1:36:16] general sense is available for for

[1:36:18] example evaporation of pool pools. you can that's dependent upon the surface area

[1:36:24] of the pool, the heat or the and the uh

[1:36:27] climate, you know, if it's a drought

[1:36:29] area or humid area, that sort of thing.

[1:36:32] Um, and you know, you can you can figure

[1:36:34] make those calculations and so we can

[1:36:36] the difficulty there would be trying to

[1:36:38] figure out how big are the pools around

[1:36:39] town, you know,

[1:36:41] >> this is a pool, this is a fountain.

[1:36:43] >> That's one of my complaints is we allow

[1:36:45] pools,

[1:36:46] >> but we're going to say you can't have a

[1:36:47] fountain. a pool is going to be a lot

[1:36:49] worse than a fountain.

[1:36:50] >> Yeah. And and and again, I think the in

[1:36:52] general, these are the kinds of

[1:36:54] questions to have for the commission,

[1:36:56] right? Is hey, could we save some water

[1:36:58] if we don't allow fountains? Sure, we

[1:37:01] could. is from from your um uh position

[1:37:06] as as the planners for the town of

[1:37:08] Springdale, is that a is this is the

[1:37:11] potential water savings from not having

[1:37:13] a few fountains

[1:37:16] worth the uh community character impacts

[1:37:20] of not having fountains? Those are the

[1:37:22] kind of decisions that you need to make,

[1:37:24] right? and understanding that that

[1:37:29] the the total impact of of removing all

[1:37:32] fountains in Springdale in the grand

[1:37:33] scheme of things is going to be pretty

[1:37:34] minimal in terms of water conservation

[1:37:36] and also every drop saved is is

[1:37:39] important. Right? So those are the kind

[1:37:40] of questions you that I think are

[1:37:42] important to have and I think you can

[1:37:43] have those questions without real hard

[1:37:46] data on the water use because it's

[1:37:49] either going to be estimates as as Paul

[1:37:51] mentioned um you know using some

[1:37:54] algorithm to to come up with them um and

[1:37:57] we're just not going to get really good

[1:37:58] hard data for you on that.

[1:37:59] >> Yeah. Well, and also maybe we don't it

[1:38:02] doesn't I don't think always have to be

[1:38:04] something that's already a problem but

[1:38:06] avoiding

[1:38:08] >> sure

[1:38:09] >> to happen in like so when it comes to

[1:38:10] the water feature thing maybe it's some

[1:38:13] I don't know what the number is but a

[1:38:15] large amount of water you know many

[1:38:17] gallons that you know a property decides

[1:38:21] to wants to put in like a waterfall with

[1:38:25] a river going down to another waterfall

[1:38:27] that goes into a little fish pond or

[1:38:30] something and that's a a lot of water

[1:38:32] and while we're putting um this added

[1:38:36] language in maybe it makes sense just

[1:38:39] you know for future like that that is

[1:38:41] something that's doesn't make sense and

[1:38:45] you know where we're trying to conserve

[1:38:46] where we can

[1:38:47] >> I mean I think lo Las Vegas is a great

[1:38:50] example of that I mean you've got

[1:38:52] properties there that are

[1:38:54] >> huge users of fountains um in a very

[1:38:58] drought out. Uh, [snorts]

[1:39:01] >> so it could just be simple

[1:39:02] >> area,

[1:39:03] >> no water features

[1:39:05] over 100, I don't know, whatever number.

[1:39:08] >> My problem with that is I'm going to say

[1:39:11] you can't have that, but you're going to

[1:39:12] have that big pool.

[1:39:14] >> Well, I I I think we just put in what

[1:39:17] makes sense to to me. It doesn't make

[1:39:19] sense to tell people they can't have

[1:39:21] pools in this area, but one way we could

[1:39:25] save water is limiting water features.

[1:39:29] Yeah, but they're also limiting their

[1:39:31] rights to have a a water feature.

[1:39:34] If it's really beneficial, I could get

[1:39:36] behind it, but I can't say it's really

[1:39:38] beneficial.

[1:39:39] >> Well, I would say it's everything's a

[1:39:40] balance because that's kind of what the

[1:39:43] code is all about is coming up with the

[1:39:45] best balance of what serves the people

[1:39:48] of the community

[1:39:50] best. And

[1:39:53] >> so, because the fountain looks like it's

[1:39:55] using a lot of water, we're going to

[1:39:56] take it out. Well, I don't know if it is

[1:39:59] using a lot of water. My guess is

[1:40:00] >> we can't we can't find that out easily.

[1:40:05] >> I'm to me it's an an area that you could

[1:40:08] save water that I don't think there

[1:40:10] would be a lot of heartache in the town

[1:40:11] about. I mean, maybe somebody would be

[1:40:14] disappointed that was building

[1:40:15] something. I I just think it's something

[1:40:17] to look at when we're putting water. It

[1:40:20] would be interesting to see. I my

[1:40:22] opinion is that's probably a pretty

[1:40:24] common thing that you see is limited

[1:40:27] water features

[1:40:29] or the amount of water in water features

[1:40:34] in areas that are putting together

[1:40:36] ordinances for conserving water.

[1:40:48] So I think you know

[1:40:51] we can look at that kind those kinds of

[1:40:53] things if it's not something that makes

[1:40:55] sense or there's not a problem so we

[1:40:58] don't feel like we need to address it.

[1:41:03] >> Yeah. I mean I think that's a

[1:41:06] I think that's going to be a hard area

[1:41:08] be for a number of reasons. one, it's

[1:41:10] going to be hard to quantify, but you

[1:41:11] know, but it's also gonna generate a lot

[1:41:15] of

[1:41:17] um emotion,

[1:41:21] >> right? Well, and it could get

[1:41:23] complicated, too.

[1:41:26] >> My pool has a water feature, but it's a

[1:41:29] part of my pool, so

[1:41:30] >> Yeah. So, you got to dig up your pool,

[1:41:33] >> turn it off, you know. I mean, there's

[1:41:35] communities in California that have done

[1:41:37] that sort of thing where basically

[1:41:39] legislate you can't have that anymore.

[1:41:41] It doesn't go over real well, I don't

[1:41:43] think. But, you know, I mean, the parks

[1:41:46] got a whole bunch of water wasting

[1:41:48] features. They had some, you know,

[1:41:49] earlier yesterday or, you know, those

[1:41:51] things called waterfalls. You know, they waste a whole lot of water because

[1:41:55] it all evaporates before it hits the

[1:41:56] ground, you know. So, I don't think

[1:41:59] anybody would want to legislate that,

[1:42:01] though. No.

[1:42:04] What I was looking for is, you know, I

[1:42:06] don't see a big bang for the buck there.

[1:42:08] I do see a bang for the buck, but I

[1:42:10] don't know what to do with it

[1:42:11] >> of trying to maybe change the ordinances

[1:42:14] to

[1:42:16] reduce the amount of um grass to have

[1:42:19] more water resistant

[1:42:22] um landscaping.

[1:42:24] I do see that being a big benefit that's

[1:42:27] worth going after.

[1:42:30] And that's what we're looking for. Which

[1:42:31] one of these have the big which one of

[1:42:33] these should we put time into which

[1:42:35] gives us the biggest benefit?

[1:42:36] >> That's I think that's what we need to

[1:42:38] do, right?

[1:42:39] >> Yeah, I agree.

[1:42:40] >> I mean, figure out a way to get the, you

[1:42:42] know, the people that, you know, turn

[1:42:45] their water on in the morning and don't

[1:42:47] turn off until nighttime because they

[1:42:49] forgot. Figure out a way to help them,

[1:42:52] you know, make do conservation. I don't

[1:42:54] think anybody's going to disagree.

[1:42:56] turn telling somebody that you got to

[1:42:57] turn your fountain off because it use 50

[1:42:59] gallons extra a month is probably not

[1:43:02] worth our time to do it if if we find

[1:43:03] that to be the case. So, and sort the

[1:43:06] hard part is going to be sort of sorting

[1:43:08] through and figuring out what are those,

[1:43:10] you know, low hanging fruit that we can

[1:43:12] attack.

[1:43:13] >> And is there any information that would

[1:43:15] help as in determining

[1:43:18] what that would be? we could follow

[1:43:22] um whatever the 8% of the total lot size

[1:43:26] was. I guess maybe that was St. George.

[1:43:29] >> Uh but it's not is it lot size or the

[1:43:32] required

[1:43:34] um

[1:43:35] landscaping area.

[1:43:37] >> Well, that's a St. George requirement,

[1:43:39] not a spring.

[1:43:40] >> That was an example. So, how how do we

[1:43:42] come up with a number that makes sense?

[1:43:45] >> But, you know, Yeah.

[1:43:51] So I agree that seems like

[1:43:55] an important water conserving effort

[1:43:58] limiting grass and lawn areas.

[1:44:02] >> So yeah, I mean if you've got a 5,000

[1:44:05] square foot lot you building a house on

[1:44:09] you and you can only have 8% of it with

[1:44:12] grass, that's a pretty small lawn.

[1:44:17] We got to be careful those sort of and if you've got a large open space

[1:44:21] that is all grass, how does that factor

[1:44:23] in? If we say, okay, now you can only

[1:44:26] have 8% of that large open space be

[1:44:28] grass. Um I'm not sure what that means

[1:44:31] because I don't know how they're going

[1:44:32] to they're going to stop watering it and

[1:44:34] it's going to turn into weeds. Nobody's

[1:44:36] going to like that. So,

[1:44:38] >> do you know of any information that

[1:44:39] could help us?

[1:44:42] So,

[1:44:44] as far as um

[1:44:46] >> how much grass So, if I could just

[1:44:51] summarize where I I think we're at.

[1:44:53] >> Yes, please. We've been all over the

[1:44:54] map.

[1:44:54] >> No, it's been it's actually been a

[1:44:56] really great conversation. So, um we

[1:44:59] started off talking about artificial

[1:45:01] turf. The general consensus is that we

[1:45:06] should allow it, but we want some

[1:45:09] limitations on that. So, we're going to

[1:45:12] do a little bit of digging into that.

[1:45:15] Um,

[1:45:19] we've decided that for now, as far as

[1:45:23] limiting grass, we're going to focus on

[1:45:25] commercial properties rather than

[1:45:27] residential for now because there's kind

[1:45:31] of bigger problems that could

[1:45:33] potentially arise there.

[1:45:35] Um,

[1:45:38] we're going to look at the WA Washington

[1:45:41] County Water Conservancy District rebate

[1:45:44] program again to to see if that's

[1:45:47] something we want to explore again.

[1:45:50] Um,

[1:45:52] uh, we're going to look at the text

[1:45:55] where it talks about

[1:45:58] irrigation systems being efficient to

[1:46:00] figure out if there's a if that could be

[1:46:02] tightened up in some way.

[1:46:05] Uh we're going to investigate irrigation

[1:46:07] schedules and see if the time of day

[1:46:10] watering restrictions would be feasible

[1:46:13] or worth doing.

[1:46:16] Um

[1:46:18] water features seemed like that was

[1:46:22] maybe something we're not going to look

[1:46:24] at right now. Um and then Okay. And then

[1:46:28] so your your question there about

[1:46:31] the city of St. George uh 8%.

[1:46:36] Um I I would suggest that if we're only

[1:46:40] looking at commercial properties that

[1:46:44] we [snorts]

[1:46:46] the sensible thing might be to only

[1:46:49] allow grass in functional areas and we

[1:46:53] have a definition for that that we can

[1:46:55] work at. So that's you know recreational

[1:46:57] type areas and then we I think the 8% in

[1:47:01] St. George is focused on residential properties in

[1:47:06] recognition that you know it people do

[1:47:10] want a bit of grass. Um I I feel like if we're focusing on commercial

[1:47:14] properties then maybe maybe that

[1:47:16] percentage is not is not actually

[1:47:20] relevant for us. I I could also for the

[1:47:23] next meeting um you know provide some

[1:47:27] examples of water efficient landscaping

[1:47:30] around town just to provide some visuals

[1:47:32] of what things can look like and kind of

[1:47:34] good solutions that if if that would be

[1:47:37] helpful at all.

[1:47:39] >> Yes.

[1:47:40] >> Yeah.

[1:47:42] >> And I agree with the

[1:47:44] functional grass

[1:47:47] and whatever that definition is.

[1:47:51] I'm we don't have any regulations or

[1:47:53] ordinances on watering right now, do we?

[1:47:58] >> On when you can

[1:48:01] or how you can if it's an automated

[1:48:03] system versus a nonuto.

[1:48:06] >> I think there's just the general it

[1:48:09] should be efficient. I I don't know that

[1:48:11] there's anything more than that yet.

[1:48:19] Yeah, I didn't see anything that says it

[1:48:20] needs to be automated either.

[1:48:23] >> That might be something we want to look

[1:48:24] at. You know, if you're going to an

[1:48:26] efficient system would have some sort

[1:48:28] of, you know,

[1:48:29] >> automation,

[1:48:31] >> artificial intelligence for lack of a

[1:48:33] better term associated with it. You

[1:48:34] know, a little timer.

[1:48:41] We do that with lighting, but you know,

[1:48:44] and even that's difficult, but I think

[1:48:46] having in the code would be beneficial

[1:48:48] potentially.

[1:48:52] » Yeah, we can look into that.

[1:48:54] >> And is there any

[1:48:57] So, I'll just give an example. I can go

[1:48:59] by some houses and they have big stakes

[1:49:00] that spray water over the hoses or over

[1:49:03] their plants. Well, I know everyone

[1:49:06] pretty I think anyways that a drip

[1:49:08] system would be more effective.

[1:49:11] But it's hard to make an ordinance

[1:49:12] that's going to require someone to rip

[1:49:14] out what they have and put in a drip

[1:49:15] system. Is there any type of other than

[1:49:18] rebate from Washington County? Is there

[1:49:20] anything else that we can do to promote

[1:49:25] use of, hey, if you go have a drip

[1:49:27] system,

[1:49:28] you get this benefit? But I don't know

[1:49:30] what that is. But I'm trying to figure

[1:49:31] out how to encourage people to do this

[1:49:34] without putting a financial burden on

[1:49:36] them that hey, you have to rip out what

[1:49:37] you have and change it. I'm into I guess

[1:49:40] residential so I apologize but

[1:49:42] >> yeah sure so incentivizing those sorts

[1:49:44] of things. Yeah I think maybe we could uh ponder on some ideas for

[1:49:51] that. I think um

[1:49:54] when we're looking at the details of

[1:49:56] irrigation systems I'm in the back of my

[1:49:59] mind I'm thinking kind of at plan review

[1:50:02] stage that level of detail

[1:50:06] may be quite challenging. Um, so that

[1:50:09] just the practicality of of that may be

[1:50:12] a little bit challenging, but I yeah, I

[1:50:15] think that's I like the idea of trying

[1:50:17] to incentivize

[1:50:19] drip systems and those sorts of things

[1:50:21] that are going to be more efficient. And

[1:50:23] >> I don't know for businesses if because I

[1:50:26] always think residential I have a hard

[1:50:27] time switching to business. Maybe for

[1:50:30] businesses that are remodeling,

[1:50:32] can we put requirements like that in?

[1:50:36] Well, the other the other consideration

[1:50:38] too is that um

[1:50:40] different plants have different

[1:50:42] requirement or different methods of

[1:50:44] taking the water in. So in some in some

[1:50:46] cases the drip systems are very

[1:50:48] efficient and effective. Other types of

[1:50:50] plants you need to spray over a larger

[1:50:52] area because the root extends out. You

[1:50:54] need to get you can't just drip in one

[1:50:56] spot and have the plant absorb the water

[1:50:58] as efficiently. So

[1:51:00] >> well like grass for instance. Well,

[1:51:02] grass is one example, but there's, you

[1:51:03] know, like citrus trees, for example,

[1:51:05] typically they'll have emitters that are

[1:51:07] near the trunk of the tree that spray

[1:51:08] outwards to a larger area because that's

[1:51:10] where

[1:51:11] >> they have rings and that, but again, all

[1:51:13] this costs money, too. And

[1:51:14] >> what's that?

[1:51:15] >> I said there are solutions because they

[1:51:17] have like drip holes that you can put in

[1:51:19] a ring around. But you but you can't

[1:51:21] what you what you don't want to do is

[1:51:22] write something that says you can only

[1:51:23] have a drip system because the strict

[1:51:26] interpretation of that says oh I can't

[1:51:27] have a citrus tree because it's not

[1:51:29] going to it's not going to survive very

[1:51:31] well especially in this climate. So not

[1:51:34] that there's well there are some around

[1:51:36] there's apple trees too. I don't know

[1:51:38] how the apple trees are watered. It'd be

[1:51:40] interesting to find out.

[1:51:44] They're probably on some sort of area

[1:51:47] spray, but in the root area,

[1:51:51] but that can be defined as a as a low

[1:51:54] pressure

[1:51:56] uh system that you know like that uses

[1:52:00] drip type emitter, small small heads,

[1:52:03] small emitters as opposed to ones that

[1:52:05] spray over large vast areas.

[1:52:10] Maybe to the point we can start thinking

[1:52:12] of some of these for the commercial,

[1:52:15] see how they go over before we start

[1:52:17] thinking we're going to put this to the

[1:52:19] residential areas.

[1:52:20] >> I think that was probably took me a

[1:52:22] while to get that.

[1:52:24] >> Yeah, I think we can look at the at how

[1:52:27] we can if there's ways we can require

[1:52:30] irrigation systems to be more water-wise

[1:52:35] and can see how practical that might be.

[1:52:48] thoughts.

[1:52:55] Do you feel like you have enough to go

[1:52:57] on to bring back to us?

[1:52:59] >> Yeah, thank you. That was really

[1:53:01] helpful.

[1:53:02] >> Yeah, thank you.

[1:53:02] >> That's good because I thought we were

[1:53:04] just more confusing than else.

[1:53:07] >> [laughter]

[1:53:09] » It's all good. It's good to hear all the

[1:53:12] different ideas.

[1:53:15] » No more discussion. Is there a motion to

[1:53:18] adjourn?

[1:53:20] >> Motion to adjourn. Let me

[1:53:22] >> second.

[1:53:23] >> Motion by Paul, second I motion by Rich,

[1:53:26] second by Paul. All in favor?

[1:53:29] >> Rich I.

[1:53:29] >> Jennifer I.

[1:53:30] >> All I k I.

[1:53:33] >> Meeting is adjourned.

[1:53:38] Um, hey, just a PSA

[1:53:40] for you all.

07/15/2026 Planning Commission Regular Meeting

Transcript