Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council allows xeriscape and culinary-water use at Bringhurst/Brinker's Village, seeks contractual safeguards
Summary
After extended debate about secondary (canal) irrigation availability and city water rights, the Hyde Park City Council approved a revised xeriscape landscaping plan and temporary use of culinary water for the Bringhurst/Brinker's Village mixed‑use project under the city’s water‑dedication ordinance (12.1.150.010); the motion passed 3–2 and council asked staff to document dry piping and consider sunset or development-agreement language to encourage future connection to pressurized secondary water.
Developer representatives presented a water‑efficient, xeriscape landscaping plan for Bringhurst/Brinker's Village and requested that the council allow the use of culinary (city) water in the short term while the canal system is pressurized in the future. Staff explained the ordinance options: mixed‑use zoning requires secondary (canal) water for outdoor watering, but the water‑dedication ordinance includes an option to install a dry piping system for future connection (12.1.150.010).
The developer’s presentation said the closest pressurized irrigation line is roughly 2,193 feet away and pressurization by the canal company is unlikely for several years. The developer reported it had turned over 20 water shares to the Hyde Park Canal Company and would pay fee‑in‑lieu where necessary. Marcus (city staff) warned the council the city’s stock of water rights is being consumed by current approvals and asked the council to consider broader policy implications.
On the council floor, members expressed divergent priorities: some favored allowing the xeriscape and culinary use so construction could proceed and keep housing costs manageable; others said approving an exception undercuts the mixed‑use ordinance and risks future water accounting burdens for the city. Questions included how many additional water shares the project actually needs (estimates ranged and were not fully computed at the meeting), whether escrow or a development‑agreement requirement would create sufficient enforcement "teeth," and what would happen if the canal project never materialized.
Councilmember Dave moved to approve the updated landscaping options and the associated use of culinary water under the water dedication ordinance; Tiffany seconded. The motion carried 3–2. Council directed staff and the developer to document dry piping (so future connections are physically possible), to consider language for a sunset or contractual check‑in, and to return with options for ordinance or code changes so the council can apply consistent rules to other pending/developing sites.
