Dear Council members:
  I stongly support City efforts to reduce water consumption.  However, I'm unsure the current ideas on lawn size limits is best for Menlo Park. I agree that it would be fairly easy to implement, and for many California suburbs, there is a much over-planting of lawns. How much that applies to Menlo Park, I'm unsure, as well as how much the proposal does for Menlo Park water conservation given expectations for new, not existing, development. Most developers coming to the Planning Commission are well aware of water conservation issues, and design in the latest technologies, minimizing wasteful practices. For single-family residences, I don't recall particularly egregious examples of oversized lawns.   My concern is that the City has limited resources to focus on water conservation, so I'd prefer an option which has potential for greater impact, even if somehwat more uncertain in implementation.   One example would be strong support for grey-water recyling, applying to residences and perhaps to landscaped commercial buildings. Menlo Park may already have some programs for that, I don't know. But these are a popular measure individual cities take up because they have wide application, are embraced by many residents, and cities play an important role in helping navigate the technical, safety, and sanitation issues involved. Since water pricing is a pricipal means used to motivate residential conservation, the cost "payback" is clear too. It also leaves the choice open to individuals to use their water as they see best, just less of it.   In terms of the detail of the current proposal, my understanding is that "landscape" area does not include outdoor patios and hardscape, so a percentage of the remaining "softscape" for lawn may be fairly small. I'm unsure my own modest lawn, compared to the rest of my landscaping minus patio, would qualify in percentage terms. Consider the intent of this detail if you do go ahead with the lawn proposal.
  In any case, it's an important issue, and I 'm glad it's up for discussion.   Sincerely,
 John Kadvany / 1070 College Avenue     Received on Mon Feb 08 2010 - 12:11:52 PST