Holiday council keeps wildland-urban interface hearing open after residents raise mapping and access concerns

The Holiday City Council left a public hearing open on Nov. 20 after extensive questions from residents about a proposed wildland-urban interface overlay that would trigger the 2006 Utah Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) code for properties inside the boundary.

Jonathan Tierlink, the city’s community economic development director, told the council the Planning Commission recommended adopting an overlay aligned with the state’s structure exposure score (SCS) and implementing the state WUI code for properties with an SCS of 5 and above. Tierlink said the overlay primarily affects redevelopment and new construction, noting that the state is requiring an adopted boundary for municipalities and that the state-imposed fee applies only to properties meeting the state’s higher-risk threshold.

Residents from Wallace Lane, Canyon Cove and other neighborhoods urged the council to narrow the map or use I‑215 as a clear firebreak. Anna Policelli, who said she lives at 4891 Wallace Lane, told the council that her neighborhood “clearly does not fit the criteria established by the state” and warned that including those parcels could lead to “unforeseen problems for homeowners.” Patrick Boyce of Canyon Cove called the map “hastily drawn” and asked the council to reconsider parcel-level selection instead of broadly covering entire neighborhoods.

Holiday’s fire officials and staff explained the technical basis for the state scoring. Captain Brown described the structure exposure-score model as a simulation that combines wildfire probability, expected fire intensity and ember exposure. “The single biggest advancement … is that 90% of homes are ignited by embers, not the flame itself,” he said, and added that embers can be lofted miles ahead of a flame front — a reason an interstate is not necessarily a reliable firebreak.

Council members pressed two practical points: whether the overlay would force immediate changes for existing homeowners and whether the city’s map would affect insurance premiums. Staff said the state map governs insurance and any state-assessed fees; the city would not assess those fees nor receive the revenue. Staff also said, consistent with their reading of the 2006 Utah WUI code, that most of the building-code requirements are triggered by new construction or redevelopment rather than routine maintenance, though legal counsel will issue a memorandum for clarity.

Rather than vote, the council left the public hearing open and scheduled further consideration for Dec. 4. The council asked staff to provide a legal memorandum on how the WUI code applies to existing structures, to clarify how the city’s overlay lines relate to the state map, and to provide any additional data needed to respond to neighborhood access and interagency maintenance concerns (for example, UDOT and canal easements).