I'd like to call the order the October 22nd, 2024 regular planning commission meeting to order. We'll start with roll call. Mr. Steffler? Mr. Owen? Mr. Hess? Mr. Fernandez? Here. And Rick Brooks is here. If we could all stand and gentlemen to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Great, so we'll move right along to public comment. I don't have any cards. Is there any public comment? Seeing none, we'll move on to the consent calendar. Minutes from the July 23rd, 2024 planning commission meeting. Did everybody get a chance to look at those. Any questions, concerns, changes? Move approval, Mr. Chairman. All right, there's a second. Okay. Roll call, Laura. Ray. Aye. Ross. Greg. Aye. And I approve, moving right along to the community development report. Rapporte do you have a staff report for us on that? Sure, thank you chair and planning commission. So the month of September the building department issued 20 building permits. We took in three co-enforcement complaints and we took in seven stop work ordered issued. We have five development applications that came in. We approved six planning projects. We closed eight construction without permits and I'd left off the closed cases but I believe that was seven code enforcement cases closed and permit fees were right around just under $27,000 for the month of September that we took in. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer. All right. Any questions from any commissioners on the report? Questions? Right? No. No. Laura, any questions on it? Right? No? Ross? I think I'm okay with it as well. So motion to receive and file. Okay. Greg vote? Ross? So Ross, Ray, Laura, and I vote to approve it as well. So moving right along. Administrative item. Are we open this? Is this a public hearing? Do I need to reopen the public hearing for this one, right? It's purely administrative. The applicants are here and I'm sure would care to say something or they're there to answer questions need be the landscape architect is online as well for that. So no requirements for public hearing you don't necessarily have to reopen it for anything but are available if there's questions of the commission. Okay, do you have a staff report for us on this one? Yes. So this item is a landscaping plan for a new residence located on a Roso road right at the intersection of Skyline Drive. This project has been reviewed by the Planning Commission a few times in the past. They received approval for the house a little bit over a year ago and at that time the Planning Commission wanted to see some further changes to the landscaping plans. So it came back to the Planning Commission in May of 2023 with the revised plan. In your packet there, you'll find that as attachment one. Since that time, they have been going through the building plan check process, so they've been processing their construction drawings for the house and also all of their grading and drainage and septic and landscape as well. Landscape has gone through the fuel modification process. They have been reviewed a couple of rounds by us and our consultants at Dennis Carbine Associates to review the landscape and the fuel modification requirements for the property. And through that process, the landscaping plan has changed a little bit. And as you can see, attachment to is the landscaping plan after we completed the review from fire department with them related to fuel modification. Making sure we can meet tree spacing requirements, spacing between shrubs and trees and grouping things in appropriate locations. So they have had to make some modifications to the landscape plans to it. Since this was conditioned by the Planning Commission to come back to the commission before they issue any building permits, this is their time. They've completed all of their reviews are ready for permits with this one. So you can see some of the changes on the landscaping plan. Along the driveway, they had aligned with trees. That would come down the driveway towards the house. They've had to make some changes to those tree spacing and tree sizes. So those have been changed as well. And also some of the trees that are down below the house on the southern end of it. Those trees have been modified. The spacing has been changed to meet our spacing requirements. They have also tried to configure those trees as best as possible to keep them up closer to the house. So you can see where trees have been relocated up the hill a little farther. There were some concerns about screening with some of the neighbors. So they have maintained the spacing for the trees on the west side of the house that are there to help provide some screening between the proposed residents and the neighboring properties to the side of it. Same thing below. There are some trees that are behind the house, between the house and the neighbor that's right on the corner of a row so and And skyline drive up there as well. So they have made some modifications to those It's completed the review process from from staff and fire department received approvals We have a stamped copy from the fire department here from their review. So I Wanted to bring it back to the commission since it was conditioned for you guys to look at it again and come back before the issue in the building permits. Like I said before all of their plans have been approved by all of our departments and they are ready to put permits and start construction on the house from there. So they said the applicants are here. Their landscape architect is on via Zoom if you have any specific conditions, questions for them or for the landscape architect they are available for you as well. Okay. So, basically, if I understand this correctly, referee before bringing it back to the commissioners. This, we had approved the other landscape plan, is that correct? Correct. And this is because of the fire department and the fuel modification plan they had to make these adjustments. Correct. And has this plan basically been approved by Dennis Grubb and associates? It has actually have the approved stamp plan here with us as well tonight. Okay. There's no elevation views here and so the burden is that we still have our 50% screening after five years so it's a little challenging to see whether it's going to meet that or not and the challenge is that the landscape plan still has to be met even though the fire plan, you know, it's one of the things we're trying to make it a little simpler. But right now we have to go by the existing code, correct? Correct. Correct. Okay, so they still have the burden of making sure that they can do both. Correct? Correct. And if they can't do the 50% screening and have the fire department code, then they either have to figure something out or the project is denied. Is that correct? You've conditioned for them to not move forward with permits. So we would hold it at that point. Okay. correct. You've conditioned it for them to not move forward with permits so we would hold it at that point. Okay. So okay so we'll bring it back to the to the planning commission here. And I'll start with you, Mr. Seffler. Do you have any questions and concerns and comments? I do. The mayor or someone, what the chairman just said. So I took upon myself to invite the fire chief to join us tonight. Mitch doesn't appear to be here. So I assume he didn't choose to do that. We're going to have tension, obviously, between our screening requirements and the ordinances and fuel modification requirements. There's going to be no question of be tension. We've never had one of these before, where we had the fire department adding input beyond just the normal fire requirements. In this modification plan, this proposed tonight, there were originally 83 trees, which are the large, which are the predominant screening of the entire lot. They're now down to 33. So those 50 trees have been removed. I frankly don't understand how removal of 50 trees reflects fuel modification since the trees that were in the plan are all fire retolerant trees. And of those there were 20 cherry trees, 36 inch botched cherry trees, which are now down to six. That makes to me no sense at all. I don't know how that could relate to fuel modification. Fuel modification has to do a spacing distance, a defensible area, and often has more to do with ground cover and low shrubbery than it has to do with trees, particularly those like laurel cherries which are fire tolerant. So to me, I don't see any justification for the modification. Absent the fire department, someone coming in telling us specifically why we have to violate our ordinance. So those, this is going to be a problem we're going to be dealing with for years to come. So it's a good thing for us to Raise the issues early so that we have some understanding some better understanding of the input that the fire department gave to To the applicant in this case Well, just to comment on something that you said Greg is We don't know that it's not compliant. There's no elevation views here, so it could meet both. I'm just disappointed that they've got this far along, and I remember going through this with the landscape plan that they needed to cover it so anyway like I said it's you made a comment that is not compliant and I don't know that so I'll take that back that may not be compliant I agree with you without elevations we can't tell. OK. Ross, can you comment? I've driven by this slot many, many times from different angles. And I don't really see this slot as taper and it's up on the point of a hill. I don't see how this amount of trees here you can be compliant for 50% coverage of the screening of the house. Because the house sits up on a kind of a peak. And regardless of the fact of how many trees you're gonna use, you know, I still, I'm agree with Greg. We're gonna get into a pickle here eventually when you're going to fight the fire department and the screening code. So I personally don't see how they're going to screen this thing. Because it's this hillside's tapered on, like tapered on what, like three sides, the front, it's on the south side, it's on the west side, and then the driveway area is kind of, is tapered up. So, anyway, I'm just, I'm gonna wait and see what the rest of, what do we also have to say? Okay, okay. Ray? I have a noisy microphone here. OK. Well, first of all, I don't really agree with this code that you have a screen 50% of your house. I know it's in the code. Nobody follows it. I can take you to half a dozen homes that aren't screened. So I think we're making too big of a deal with this. We're actually going to discuss this tonight, whether that's something that needs to be changed. Then I'll tell you, I'm more interested in fire safety than screening. As we all should be, right? I mean, I'm scared to death of a fire in this city. So if the fire department made them take out all these trees to comply with fuel modification, I'm on board with that. And I'm just really tired of nitpicking people's plans. I mean, enough already. I mean, how much more are we going to put this applicant through? I mean, really, at the end of the day, a year from now, or two years, if people ever get to build this house, you're going to drive by. And you're not going to know whether they had 50% or how many. This type of tree or that other type of tree, I mean it's enough already. I mean as far as the elevation view, I don't believe that's required. So I don't think we should ask the applicant to do an elevation of their trees. What would that solve? The architect can drop a real nice plan and put a lot of bushy trees. Does that mean that's how those trees are going to look in five years. This code has never been enforced in this city as far as I'm aware. I'm talking about the screening. But it's only enforced at this level. I think we need to take a look at everybody's property. The ones that are their trees have grown up so big that they've actually blocked everybody else's views. Rafferty, I have this letter from Stephen Blackden and I think you, Mr. Steffler, that's probably where you're getting some of your talking points from this letter, right? Because it seems like you're bringing up points he's gotten this letter that I have just seen right now and I'll be honest with you. I don't give a rat's, you know what, about this letter because this man, if it was up to him, nothing would ever get approved in this city. So I'm going to throw this word belongs in the trash. Do you okay with this landscape plan? You're the one that's more intimately familiar with it, right? Yeah, I'm the one that has to live and breathe it all the time and work with the applicants and the fire department to get as much screening as possible out of them. When you look at it, we start looking very strategically about tree placements, especially when we get into fuel modification and where those trees get located, how they get located on the property to get to where we can have enough screening. And a lot of it comes down to grouping of trees, so we got to make sure we group trees and have appropriate distances between trees and tree groups, which is a lot of the reason why we've seen a lot of reduction in those trees. Like the cherry trees, there was a solid wall of the cherry trees between the back of the house and the neighbor above. So obviously with spacing requirements, you can't have a solid wall of landscaping like that anymore. You have to work in groups of threes. That's why you see spacing between those to get it to where it would work the best it can. And just adding some numbers to those along the west side of it, you have those two large strawberry trees. Those have a typical gross band of 20 feet, so 30 feet 9, 20 feet in distance. So right there between those two, you have 40. Then the next tree that's in that next grouping next to them is a cedar that gets you an average of 30 feet in span of canopy size for that tree right there. And then just below that is block walnut, which is another 25 feet of canopy spacing. Can't be size that runs along for those particular trees in that area. Suggesting that area right there, you're 80 plus feet of tree canopy along that edge to it. They've looked at placing the taller trees so the deodor cedars which grow at a more rapid pace and are on our list for for approved trees at the lower locations is that that one gets to be 60 feet night so that one's going to grow up pretty tall. So that's the one that's kind of down there a little bit farther to it. So we really try to put those trees in a location that's going to get us to screening get us. You know a lot of the trees if you look at the older plan the trees are a little bit farther down the hill we've especially on that like southwest corner of the house we have pulled some of those trees up closer to the house as the groupings became smaller we had less trees or we're able they're able to pull those trees up closer to the house and keep them up to it they also lost the you know they removed that little promontory deck area that was going to be on the house, has been removed as part of it. So that allowed us to move those trees a little bit closer to the house, because they're a little less things and peniments being closer to the house. So to me, we're getting there. I know, as you get a look down at this property from Skyline from a row so you barely see the property. There's a house right next to it. The trees that run down that driveway are gonna get you a good screening as you come down towards the front of their house. And the trees along the east side of it will help provide that screening along East Road. They're gonna grow up decently and get you some good screening from that. There's also in the center and there's a driveway. There's a large 72 inch box oak tree that's going to fill in that parking courtyard area and get you some additional screening right in front of the house and they've adjusted the trees on that southeast corner a little closer to the house to try to move them up the hill. So as they get taller they're going to provide the screening that we're looking for and we need and still work within the group spacing that we have. Ultimately this is a steep canyon that runs all the way down to East Road and as it anything burns up the hill it would definitely be an issue for not only these owners but the of surrounding owners as well. So my question was, are you okay with this plan? I'm okay with the plan. Okay. I've had to deal with Dennis Crab who approved this plan. I once had to redo my fire sprinkler system because of a head was one inch too close to the ceiling fan. And no matter how much I try to convince him, I had to redo it. If a head was one inch too close to the ceiling fan. And no matter how much I try to convince him, I had to redo it. So I know he's a tough cookie as far as plan check. So if Dennis grubbs okay with this plan, he approves and you're okay with this plan, our highly paid city manager, I'm okay with it too. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. I will comment on that highly paid part. That was a joke. I want to lighten the mood a little bit. Laura, questions, comments, concerns? Sure. I would be interested in hearing from the applicants landscape architect regarding whether it is client with the city's screening requirement. I think we're all assuming it's not. But I'd be interested in finding out how off it is in terms of talking about a significant plan. I think that would play into my decision. And then if it's not possible to comply with both the screening requirement and the fuel abatement requirement, then I think that's important information. I believe the easy answer. Yeah, I'm sure. I'll call him up and amend minute so that you can discuss it. I would like to have my two cents in with it. I too also have a question. Ray, one of the comments that you made was the 50% screening and disagree with the code. I agree as well. Personally, I think that some of these older homes that are run down need to screen more than 50% and the beautiful new homes. I'd love to look at nice new architecture. But unfortunately for me, the code is what the code is and we're working on changing it. So I kind of have to put my personal feelings aside when I make these decisions and try to do what's best for the community. And the intent of the code, as I read it, is that the intent of the landscaping is to soften the impact on the natural surroundings and get it to blend in more. Whether it's block and half the house, the whole idea is to soften it. And the way I see this, I do have a couple of concerns. One is, and I had it before, and now I think it's even more. The trees that go along the back, it says they only get 10 feet high. I don't have the elevation for the house behind them. But I am concerned that whatever trees they put in there grow up to the point that the neighbors, that's I guess, between Mr. Eddinger's house and there, that those trees grow up and block some of their view. And I have that issue. I had someone appeal my case and they lost and they planted some eucalyptus trees and like right afterwards and now 10 years later they're blocking a big part of my view and it's going to be an issue between he and I at some point in the near future but I'd really rather try to protect the property not necessarily the owner of that property but that property whether they move on, that they don't lose their view that they have down that canyon. So, Rafferty, or maybe this is a question for the attorney, is it reasonable to condition the approval of this in that if the property, and I don't have the I don't have the property address next door that if the trees that are planted block into their view that they have the right to pay to have those trees trimmed by a certified arborist, let's say, so that they never lose their view because of this project. Is that something we could condition? Is that reasonable? Yeah, that's something you can condition. It's something you're power. Okay. So that was one of my main concerns here. The second concern is we heard from Mr. Edinger in the past several times and his concern about the old trees that were being replaced and him looking down at the roof of a big project. I think they were big box trees, 48-inch box trees. It appears that those two trees are still remained in pretty much the same location. So I'm okay with that from the two neighbors, the main two neighbors. My other concern that I brought up at the previous meeting was that maybe I got to take another look at this. Rafferty did they do away with that little deck that stuck out the little- They did through the engineering process that doesn't have the little circular tech part that projects out they've that's been removed from the plan. Okay. All right. Well that's good because I was concerned about that. Looking from across the canyon I forget the name of the street across there. Oh, the Sepoda. Is that where the Ferrari's old house was right there. So as you look across the canyon, the house pretty much is going to be just an unobstructed view of the house. And they did break the roof line to try to soften it. But these trees look like they're pretty far down the hill. If I'm reading the elevations correctly, at 980, I'm assuming is the finished floor level somewhere in there. And these are at 940. So this tree is going to is 40 feet down the hill. And I'm going to call it on the south side of the project says one CDO D0 15 gallon tree So and like I said those are 40 feet down the hill So are they ever going to grow up to block the deck that goes around the pool and kind of just soften that because to me that look like that's going to be, as I recall, with the elevation views, that deck starts at kind of ground level on the east side we'll call it and then it goes up as the hill slopes away. Is that correct, Rafferty? So on the deck on the west side of the house you're saying? Yeah, I didn't look at where north is. I turned around here. Closest to Mr. Andrews house. Okay, no, the deck, the deck that would be if north is facing up on the drawing we'll call it. It would be on the south side by the pool. That elevation started kind of at ground level as I recall and they kind of Extended up in the air from there. Is that correct? So that area over there. Where the old platform used to be. The old platform. It was in that like 10 feet off the ground or something. It's a little bit off the ground in that corner there because it's out kind of like over where the flat part of the slope of the lot is today. So there is a bit of retaining in that corner of it where the corner of the pool is close to Mr. Andrews house. There's slope that does go down to that area right there as part of it. So there are a little bit lower down in that particular section there. It is a little bit lower than the main floor level. And then it steps up to the main floor level of the house. Then that cuts back across. And then the back end of the house is cut into the slope. Well, okay. I'm kind of just thinking about the area from the deck that we're talking about at that far corner to the dirt level. It looks like it's down about 10 or 15 feet by the topo lines. So that was one of my concerns is that you got this big deck sticking out and there's some older homes that have been built on the side of the hill where they just sloped it down and put the house up and you get this big mass of area. So anyway, but all in all, I can say that, you know, whether it was 80 trees or 30 trees, the point of the landscape plan is to soften the impact on the community. And while there's less trees, there was a lot of trees that are taken out from the driveway which really had to be no effect on the view from the street of the house. So I would be inclined to approve this with the condition that I had made earlier about the neighbors and help and protect them their view in the future. So with that, Commissioner Hess asked for the landscape architect to come on the line and did you say he was on a Zoom call? He is on a Zoom call. I don't know if he caught all of it. All of our conversations, because sometimes it's a little bit harder to hear what they're mics through the Zoom part of it. So how much you caught, or you missed there, but you can see on the screen there is our landscape architect for the project. What is his name? The landscape architecture, what's your name? Dawn, I believe. Dawn. Okay, can he hear us? Dawn, can he hear us? Don can he hear us? I think in the future we should do a wave of Zoom calls. I've had it with COVID and Zoom and all of this stuff. You know, the architect should be here tonight if he really wanted this project to prove. But go along with it because he's on the line Don can hear us Don can hear us So see Don can hear us. Don. You have a phone number? You have a phone number? You have a phone number? No, you're disabled to get us out. No, it is so wrong, but I can't make out of it. That's the best way to do this. If I do get provided in comment, I have had it that provided you come. I guess we'll be able to. Don. You can hear you. Okay. Question about. I guess. You hear that or no? No, he can't hear that. No, I can't hear. They're asking about the 50% screening in the current plan as proposed. 50% screening of what? The structure of the house. Correct. Okay. And what is the issue? It's the code which he should know at this point in the project. All right, Don. They want to know if you feel that the configuration of the trees that you have there today will provide 50% screening of the house as it is today. Ultimately, yes. Okay. You feel like we have enough screening. There's enough screening for there to be able to meet the requirement of 50% screening of the house. Yes. When the trees mature, yes. However, we are, there's constraints on how many trees we can plant and how they're laid out in space and everything else. This what we have right here is a is a very good attempt to provide the 50% for beatings. And the tree selections you've made you've chosen specific and related to what is going to be best for the planting locations on the hillside getting them to grow trees that will grow up and provide a large canopy. Absolutely. The stage of the adora absolutely and we also are we have to follow the trees that are within their approved tree list. Yes. Laura, do you have any direct questions that as long as we have them on the line here? No, I think that that answered my question. Thank you. Okay, I do have one question. On the slope going down the hill, is there any type of ground cover? I see what it looks like, something called a coyote bush or something. Is there any ice plant, my aporom, some kind of ground cover to do from the pool down to the lower property lines. Is that just going to be natural weeds where every year the homeowner is going to have to fight with the fire department and spend thousands of dollars on weed abatement. So could you ask him what the ground cover is for the slope for erosion control and for weed abatement? Done on the plan today, the down slope. So behind the pool that goes down the hill to the south. It's called out for some clarity bush and I think some of my gauves in that area. Is there any other ground cover that's going to be in that area down there to help cover the hill or provide any erosion control or do anything? Well, first of all, the slope is in very solid condition. And then we were instructed to remove plant materials. The trees alone are going to provide very good structure for that slope, okay? And the plant materials are going to dress up everything else, but there's there's native vegetation on there right now. So our instructions were to remove glimitarials. Okay, well, just so the homeowners realize they're going to spend 5,000 or more per year doing weed abatement that could be addressed right now because once they move in the fire department's not going to allow the property and the condition it's in. So any other questions to the landscape architect? Will we have them on the line? No? Okay, tell them, thank you, and we'll move forward here. The owners are very aware of the fuel mod requirements and brush clearance because we've had quite a few conversations not only about their property but one of the adjoining vacant properties as well. So we've got a lot of conversations around brush clearance in this area. And I don't have any problem at my house, but my house is, I'm as vulnerable as anybody where I live, and I never got inspected this year. It's not a problem, I'm not worried about it, but this house is obviously vulnerable, and weed abatement is a big thing, and to take up our time with the fire department continuously arguing with the same properties over and over and over again. And I just don't want the fire department to be in a position where the homeowner is going, hey this is an approved landscape plan and it's a natural terrain and it just creates more problems. So I'd rather try to address them and make it easier on the homeowner than to have them deal with it once they move in and find out how strict the weed abatement really is so Anyway with that is there any other questions or comments before I call for a motion So yes, sir Mr. Chairman a couple of comments. The reason I'm kind of so against this 50% screening requirement is because it is so subjective. What may be 50% screening to the landscape architect in five years may not be 50% screening for Mr. Steffler perhaps or you. So that's a tough one. I mean, who decides, oh, the house is 50% screened now. So that's kind of an issue I have with that besides the fact that there's many homes not screened. I don't quite understand the condition that you want to put, that could you explain that, that they're gonna be able. The property. Yeah, okay, so let me, let me maybe clarify it a little better. The property owner directly behind them that would be on the right as you're coming down the driveway, their view is out past this house and kind of down the canyon and we'll call it a 45 degree angle. And I'm concerned and just I'm trying to protect the property owner for no other reason than to do the right thing for the community is that these trees, if they grow up and they block these people's view, right now our code has nothing to get this property owner for this project to have to trim their trees. So my thought was to help protect that property and even right now the neighbor might go, I don't care about the view, but the next property owner might, to condition it so that if these trees ever grow up into their view, they have the right to hire a certified arborist to come in and pay for it and top the trees so that they can maintain their view. So that's all. Okay, so. And I don't have the elevation of that house, so I don't know how high these 10-foot trees are going to go into their property or the two on the side, the ARB Mars, whatever those are. The strawberry hybrid, those get 30 feet high. So I don't know that it's 30 feet when those reach maturity or 20 feet, are they gonna block those people's view? So that's all, I was just thinking of the neighbor at that point. Okay, I understand your point now. So let me see if I understand correctly. So you want the property owner to the east to be protected, I understand that. And to give that property owner the right to go on this, Mr. I think atwood is in a onto their property to cut the atwood's trees or whoever buys a house. I mean, is that even doable? Can we put a condition like that? I'm not aware we've ever done that. I see your heart is in the right place. Well, I just don't know if you're turning that. That's why it's not up to me. I asked the attorney and he said it was reasonable. If he said it wasn't, then I would have dropped it. So it's not me saying it. I asked the question and he said that it's doable. Okay, so I'll ask the city attorney. This has never been a condition put on a property owner as far as I'm aware. So we're gonna selectively pick this applicant and say it's okay to do it now. Is that what you're saying? My understanding of the chair's condition is that they simply wanna keep the trees to not negate the view of the other property owners within the code. So I don't think that it would be conditioned on going onto the property unilaterally, I think it would be if the views were obstructed by the trees after a certain height. Can I ask a question? Yes. Are you proposing that the neighbor will be paying for the tree? Correct. I don't want to put the burden on this homeowner because otherwise the neighbor would say you have to trim them every year but it just gives the owner of the neighboring owner some protection to trim the trees. I mean, I would pay to have the eucalyptus trees that are blocking part of my view cut easily. That would just be causing a potential dispute between neighbors later on regarding the scope of tree trimming because I can foresee a problem where the property owner might be upset with the whacking down their trees to stuff or something like that where they're not happy with the aesthetics of it because they weren't in control of tree trimming on their own. Well, and that's something that neighbors have to work out and we could if then I know that it's tough when I have three attorneys in the room to try to make a motion that's, you know, there's so many if-thens. We're probably spending more time discussing this. It's probably a moot point that will never even come up. But as we looked at this, it was my concern on the previous project. And now as I look at it again, you know, I'm just trying to protect it. And I guess because I personally have the issue that, and it's of course reasonable. I don't want to write a 30 page amendment to it to where they can only trim it to the base of their property line or whatever. I think two neighbors could get along with it as long as they have the right and the property owner can either accept the condition or they can appeal it or they can not move forward with the project. So they have the property owner that wants to build this project has the right to either accept that as a condition to move forward and pull their permits and start building their dream house or not. So if they accept it now I don't see why it would be an issue at some point in the future should it ever come up. So I'm not going to hold on my ground on this to say I'm not going to vote for it without that. I just think that it's the right thing to do under the circumstances. So that's all. I'll leave it up to whoever makes the motion to approve or deny to put that in or not. Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. Man quietly, city manager. Of course. Roughly, we have a concept in our code about protected views So one of the things we know about that is that if you have a protectable view Then you have the right to keep that view shed alive This seems to be the kind of thing that might Deal with what the chairman's concerned about and so on. If we just let two neighbors start fighting over cutting the tops of trees, we're going to have a terrible mess in the city. And I don't know how to, as a lawyer, I don't know how to craft the words that would give it and make it magically easy. But couldn't we just impose upon any of these, that obligation as a co-compliance matter that if all of a sudden to protect a protected view which the city determines what's a protected view is imperiled then they can seek to have those trees trimmed removed or otherwise modified to restore the view right. Something we could definitely look at we haven't necessarily always gotten in between two neighbors where they had a view issue related to trees being up and blocking their view, their primary view to it. But obviously as I know we're rolling into a larger landscaping discussion and as part of our discussion last time was something similar about being able to restore views and things like that obviously currently today. There's trees on this property that are large and block their view today that are going to be removed as part of the project and will restore some of their view as part of it. But we haven't necessarily always waited into making, I want to say forcing but helping to enforce what that primary view is with existing landscaping between two neighbors. We know the protected view protects construction in the view shed, right? We know that. That's what it's for. Growing a tree is the type of construction, right? I mean, it's something that comes, it's not, that can be modified to protect the view. And I think one of the ways to avoid this kind of conflict that might otherwise occur would be to expand the concept of using protected views for landscaping. Because fine, fine, the protected view is great when we build the building and it's all right. But now the guys building throw has 1580 foot Cypress trees blocking the view. Well, that we've got to address that somehow that's got to be dealt with and the protective view seems to be Embedded in our code is a concept of what we all we need to do is expand it the concept to to landscape as opposed to actually construction, right? Would it be something you would consider for not just property that's under construction, but obviously Chair brought up a similar situation with another neighbor where we might be able to weigh in on that and risk to help restore our practice. I know Orange County and beach communities down there have a like, I think, a look into beach specifically as a whole process and a whole separate committee just for views and trees and landscaping to protect those ocean views and things like that has probably something we could consider. So if we imposed that requirement on this particular approval, that the allowance for these trees, size and growth does not abrogate the right of the joining property owner to enforce their protective view, we might solve the problem pretty easily. I don't think it should just be on this project though. I think it should be something that exists on any project where this is an issue. Maybe we need to do some ordinance revision to make it clearer in the ordinance that we have the authority to do that. But that, but implicitly that would put the burden on the property owner, which I think is where belongs to keep their trees trimmed to keep their view shed open. Anyway, that would be my suggestion. Mr. Chairman, can I finish my comments? Sure. I agree with Mr. Stethler, that great legal mind that worked there. You may remember a few years ago, I was concerned about people losing their views and we had a nice form for the, you know, if there was a dispute between neighbors and fill out and if you got to a certain level, it would go to the city for them to arbitrate to dispute. And then first question on the farm was for the person that was losing their view. Have you talked to your neighbor about this before it even got to the city? And I just go back to what I always say. Let's be good neighbors. There be so many issues solved if people here would be more considerate of their neighbor. And I'm sure the applicant isn't coming to Lahab or Hyde to say, let's see what the biggest tree is that we can plant to ruin the view for everybody around us. Maybe I'm naive, I feel. I believe in the goodness of people. Mr. Chairman, you mentioned that there's going to be an unobstructed view of this house. It'll be from support of there's two homes there. And to that I say, okay, that's probably true. But there's an unobstructed view of Mr. Edager's house. And I say that with a little trepidation because we're not going to require Mr. Eddinger to plan and screen 50% of his house. So it's just not fair. I just believe in fairness. And with that, I'd like to make a motion if nobody else has a comment. I move to approve the landscape plan where you're going to be. I'm going to go ahead and do a little bit of the work. I'm going to go a motion if nobody else has a comment. I move to approve the landscape plan revised of attachment to for the Atwood residents at 1452 Eroso Road. And I would entertain a friendly amendment if Mr. Steffler or Mr. Brooks has one. Well, I'll let Mr. Steffler make that amendment. I don't want to spend a whole lot of time on this, but if you'd like to add an amendment now is the time to try to condition the property. It, um, Well, this would be an obligation that would run with the land. Obviously, so it's going to be in the conditional use for met. So it would say something to the effect that, that the, that the applicant has the obligation to continue to preserve any landscaping that they install under the approved plan in such a way as to not damage diminish or otherwise obstruct a joining property owners protected views as to find in the ordinance. Okay, well, I don't even think we have to have that amendment. That's already in the code. I can look it up for you since we're going to be discussing landscape plans. I don't want to take too much time looking it up, but there's already something in the code that landscape has to be maintained per approved landscape plans. So let's not reinvent the wheel here. That's already in the code. Right, there's nothing in there that says how you maintain landscape plans as their presenter to us only say what's going to be planted. They don't say how you maintain them. It's so that's- I read it today. This is specific. This deals with someone's protected views and landscape intruding on them. It's not in the code. Believe me, ain't there. Yes, you're supposed to maintain your property, but that's a fire issue, a health and safety issue. This would be a simple way to advance the protected view and give people some level of protection they don't presently understand the enjoy. Here it is. Chapter 7.12 section A. Protected views enjoyed by residents shall be protected from unnecessary slash unreasonable obstruction by any new developments, structures or landscape elements. Here's another one for you. Use of landscaping for a screening on site landscape materials must provide at least 50% screening as certified by licensed landscape architect of all elevations, of all structures and fences, and retaining walls visible from the street and from other parcels, within five years founding completion of the project. The screening of structures of the structures shall not adversely impact the distant views, views from the neighboring properties public or private, referred to exhibit 7-6 and 7-8, two places, right off the top of my head that addresses this. So why put more conditions on an applicant? If I could comment on that, right? I can easily make an argument, and I'm not an attorney, that this is an approved plan, and the city approved it. They approved these trees however high they grow, whatever they do, that it's not a violation of the code because this is an approved plan with these trees. So what you just said in my personal opinion is negated because we approved this plan with those trees being there and I could make a good argument that they don't have to do anything. So again, we're spending a lot of time on this. Too much. I don't want to make it a big deal but I think that as we move forward with the landscape plan we need to do more to protect people's views. And because neighbors can have disputes and they can plant trees and block views and create all kinds of problems. So I thought what he said was reasonable. I would go along with that. Apparently you don't. I thought his was softer and easier than mine. So you mentioned that you would entertain it. I thought his was softer and easier than mine. So you mentioned that you would entertain it. There's one, are you gonna entertain it or? I'm thinking about it. I hate government over regulation of people's freedoms. I'm like sick of it to be honest with you. And this is a case. I just read it to you that plants should not obstruct other people's views. So if the neighbor, let's say the atwoods put miracle growing these trees and they grow super fast and they block the view, they could go down to the city and say, right here, look, these people blocked my view. After they talked to the neighbor for, you know. Right, there's no mechanism for enforcing it. There's no mechanism for enforcing it. Would place a mechanism for enforcing it and put the burden on the property owner who has the obstructing views. Okay, well, then you make a simple motion? That was a long thing. I don't know. No, I like it. I like it. It's a lawyer's motion. It's a good one. Yeah, it's something simple that I can live with. I'm a simple guy. Give me something simple. Not a lawyer's stuff. I can punt to the deputy's city attorney. He took down my words. The concepts got to be there and the resolution to be approved. All of the elements are there. And if he, that's what voting is all about, if you don't like it, I'm sorry, but I would move that being included in any subsequent motion for approval. Well, it's his motion to either add it or deny it and it hasn't been seconded yet. Mr. City Attorney, could you maybe give us a simple layman's term version of what you heard and see if that would be acceptable? Just give me one second to formulate it. As you can probably tell, I'm newer at this. I would say applicant has the obligation to preserve the landscaping as approved by the commission at the maturity, so as to not block the views of the neighbor, and then we can insert the facts as far as like to the east or all that stuff. You okay with that right? I just want to move on. I just feel, I don't know how the applicant feels about, I guess, it doesn't matter. It's still not. You're another lawyer, eating me a simple thing. How about this? How about just an amendment? The applicant to main trees to comply with the La Habra Heights Municipal Code. How's that? You find that funny. They get ambiguous. We're already obligated into the law to do that. This doesn't, that didn't change anything. That's surface edge. And this just simply puts the burden of the right person without a, without two naples of swabbling over things. If you don't like it, I'm sorry. You could call, let's call the question things. If you don't like it, Ram, sorry. You can call, let's call a question. Yeah, I don't like it. No. My original motion stands and I'm looking for a second. OK, so no amendments to approve it as is. Is there a motion? Is there a second? OK, well, here we're done, then we need to make another motion. So, Mr. Stepler, if you want to make another motion, that motion is dead. You know, I'd like to see what we can do to get this approved tonight. I move that the application has presented be approved subject to the following condition as well, together with the other normal conditions and conditional use permits. The exceptional condition is as follows. The property owner will have the continuing obligation to maintain the landscape approved plan in such a way as to preserve the protected views of adjoining energy and property owners. I'll second that motion. All right, we have the motion and a second. Any comment before we vote? Questions? No? I'll start with you. Commissioner Hess. Aye. Mr. Fernandez. Aye. Mr. Owen. Yes. Mr. Stephler. Aye. And aye vote aye. Motion is approved. Let's move on to the next item. Sorry, we're not going to have any of that this evening. So item 8, review of landscape standards. Rafferty, do you have? I can't report for us. Yeah, I kind of summarized where we were previously. For this one, we had talked about it a couple of meetings ago related to protecting views and landscaping. Obviously we had a pretty good discussion about that right now. And we wanted to take a look at our code requirements, specifically looking at that 50% screening requirement, so where is as commissioner from Ann, as I said, we are requiring applicants to block their own view of their primary view by installing landscaping in those areas. So we've had some discussions related to that. There was a bit of a subcommittee there for a minute with a former Planning Commissioner where they started going down some of that discussions. At the last planning commission meeting we'd kind of look through All of the requirements who attached is our landscaping requirements and also our fuel modification guidelines that gives you the spacing requirements, entry and trubs, listing and along with our regular landscaping requirements that has all of the properties that we have to be able to maintain and screen and get to those particular requirements for it. Some of that discussion was related to adding some additional language potentially to the code that may address kind of what we just had right now today, whereas anything that's being installed is not blocking either the applicant's primary view or a surrounding neighbor's primary view as we kind of see before that last project had two houses stacked right on top of each other, very easily could have some landscaping that would grow up and block that neighbor's view as well. So that's kind of where we left looking at it. They wanted to look a little deeper into any potential code languages where we could make some modifications to our landscaping standards that would put some further protections for applicants and neighbors protecting their primary views and maybe a mechanism to do some of that enforcement. Kind of where we left off with our last meeting and the commission was going to kind of go back and look at those code languages and think about some potential areas where we made make some changes to where we could see if we could formulate an idea or recommendation we take to council law if they would like to initiate a code amendment to make some of those changes permanent in the code. All right. Well, Mr. Fernandez, I'm going to start with you as I believe that you were the one who wanted to bring this up and were on the commission and or on the, did you ever get a chance to talk to Mr. Meyer with some of the ideas that he had. Actually no, because he was, we moved from the Planning Commission shortly thereafter. Okay. So I talked to him at a social event for 10 minutes and that was it. So I think, I don't have to rehash this. I think you all pretty much know how I feel about the percent screening. So let's do this rather than let's not talk about fluff. Let's talk about something specific in here that maybe we can look at some of the wording to move forward with a proposal to take to city council about changing some of the code verbiage. Okay. Well, what I would change is that same paragraph. I read 7.240D. It's in this section, eight, Miss S. That is about the third page, attachment one. I think a simple thing would be to say your primary view does not have to be screened. I mean that's just kind of common sense. If somebody bought the land around me, it's got a nice view and I assume they're going to be building a house. They paid a lot of money for that land more than I would have paid. And I just can't see them building a house. And screening 50% of their primary view. We keep talking about protected primary views. But then we tell the applicant, you got to screen 50% of it. So I think at a minimum, we should say your primary view does not have to be screened. How about that one for a specific? That makes sense to me. And as you know, you've been to my house and I have a view and I've strategically placed trees to where I maintain my view but still it does block, you know, pretty much 50% of the whole front of the house. So I'm perfectly fine with that. The, I think the intent of the code is that we don't want to just build a big house and have no trees and no landscaping and make it look more like a track house, you know, with one little five-gallon tree out there. To help maintain the ruralness of our community. My main concern, I think, is from the street, and whether it's 50% screened or 30% screened, 50% is probably a good number, but for me, it's more, let's just soften so we don't have these big houses that just stand out and So I'm okay with that about not blocking 50% of that of The primary view So what else as far as landscaping goes is there anything else that that you can recommend on I'm doing that or do you think that's a good start? Well, I think that's a good start The 50% screening on the rest of the house doesn't really bother me because like as you see in the next page You don't have to like overpower the house This artist rendering you can see how they have some shrubs around the house. But then here we go again. You've got to comply with security. You don't want to put a bunch of bushes by your house, the windows and things where a burglar can just kind of go behind and break into homes. I remember one time, I was gonna do a track, I don't know about 60 homes or something in Fontana and the fire department and the police department were involved and they made me change the landscaping plan because they said I had too many bushes near the structure where that was a place where a burglar or somebody up to no good could hide. So they had me remove plants and I'm not saying that's the issue here, but I'd be okay with you know 50% screening on the rest of the three sides because I think that's easily done. And I don't think we're ever going to have Mr. Chairman a situation where somebody's just going to plan a five gallon plant. But I hear what you're saying and that's because we have landscape standards. Are you going to still be the planning director or what's the deal? You know, I was always going to be around. I'll also be involved all the way around. I'm working on the process of trying to hire. You or else, you're never going to let somebody give you a plan with no landscaping around it, right? I mean, that's kind of, yeah. That's a given. So we're not going to have that problem. And some cities have that, you know, back in the day, remember you'd buy a track home and it had no landscaping. It was up to the homeowner to landscape the house. So I don't think it's a problem. I would be OK if we just said that the primary view does not to be screened. I'm not saying it does not have to be landscaped. I'm just saying, big trees to block the view. That's basically it. I'd be happy with that. Who determines the primary view? That's in the code, I think the staff decides right? There are requirements in the in the code that describe how a primary view can be determined. It's your biggest and your best view from a couple of locations either like a living room area, a master bedroom kitchen and that will make a determination as to what is the best view. And that might be a tough one, Miss O'Horn, because our chairman here has a tremendous view to the north and south. So who determines? But your primary view would be the front. Which would be the front. The ocean is more primary than the mountains, but my house is built, so I'm not. My primary view would be 280 degrees, I guess I'd pick which side would be better, or maybe the planning director would look and say this is your primary view. But I think it's probably easy to determine what the primary view is. All right, Laura, any comments, concerns, and changes? I think your recommendation is reasonable. I would just maybe suggest we might want to include some kind of provision in there about how primary view is determined. It's already in the code. There's already a whole. All right, well. It's already in the code. There's already a whole Okay, so you're agreeing with me we're gonna be best buddies Mr. Owen My big question I just I'm right on board with what Ray has to say Okay, Mr. Steffler. I'm sort of confused about how you would screen a primary view. That's not what the code says. The code says that you have to screen 50% of the exterior. And as Chairman said earlier, this is about softening the approach of a property to the surrounding folks. Has nothing to do with, in any way, impacting the primary view. It's going to be your adjacent landowners that are going to impact your primary view. The people that are going to go trees in your view share. So to me, 50% includes things like driveways, gates, retaining walls. We have lots of retaining walls in the city. You can get rid of 50% quickly. And I don't have, honestly, don't believe that our planning directors have ever released, since I've been on the Planning Commission over the last 20 years, have ever really held to a 50% standard. What they're looking for is just what this exactly would have said. They're looking to soften the buildings so that it doesn't form this huge bow work that it interrupts everybody's sensibilities. So I don't know that we need any changes to be made at all. I mean, the primary view, how would you screen a primary view? If you have, if your primary view, how would you screen a primary view? If you have, if your primary view is like, I did a raise, and you have 360 degrees of house, you got plenty of room to screen the stuff that's really objectionable, big blank open walls, large retaining walls, driveways and fences that are not screened properly to make them look. Can you keep your microphone up? I'm sorry. So to me, it's, I think we're searching for a solution where problem doesn't exist, but if we aren't, then what would you actually suggest that you change a 50% factor? Or that you simply say that primary views, this does not affect people maintaining their primary view. Well, so I can, I could comment on that in that the project that we just approved, the, we'll call it the south side, that's their view, where their pool is, that slopes down away. Looking at this landscape plan from Sepoda, is that the name of the street across there? There's no coverage of the house. You're gonna see 100% of that side of the house. And this might even been the project where it came up where it's like, well, it's saying that you're supposed to block 50% of the house. So if you block three sides at 75%, you can leave one side open. The code's not clear. There's a lot of arguments in this code that drive me crazy because it says 50%, but 50% of what? Of each side, it doesn't say that. From the front, I'm OK with saying that from the front. So I think that's what Ray's talking about, because technically that came up that they should have trees that grow up taller to screen the house from across the canyon so that it's not there, but those trees could possibly impact that property owners view. So they're blocking their own view to try to meet our code. So it's tough because we live in this community where every project is different, every view is different, and every angle is different. So I just want to make it easier for everybody. And if we're going to take this up to City Council, I want to have a lot more meat on the table than this, because we just seen how I've seen an unnumerous project, how our landscape plan says this, but our fire code says that. And you can't always meet both. And the fire code has to prevail. Because that's more important in screening the house. And so, but there's nothing in our code that says that. So I would be more apt to say, you know, the primary view aside that doesn't necessarily have to be blocked 50 percent, but I would say the maximum screening that meets the fire code. I think that's reasonable terminology so that they put in the maximum amount of screening that meets the fire code. And because they can put in two trees and it meets the fire code but that's not the maximum amount of screening. And the fire code is going to change. And I think these examples that we have in our code need to be changed because I'm looking at exhibit 7.7 There's no page number but Even 7.6 It shows all these trees right up against the house and Trees right up against the house like that you you can't even do that the fire department will not let you do that in fact It was when mine went through with the final inspection that all the trees, the canopy had to be a minimum of, I want to say, 10 feet at full growth from the roof line. Is that still the case, rafferty? So I think that we need to update the examples that we have in here because this house right here that it's showing at 7.7 wouldn't pass the fire code. And there's houses in this community where people have let their bushes grow up underneath their eaves and up onto their roof and you know and that's a big fire hazard and for their own property but for their neighbors as well. So I think that we should update our examples so that it's you know being someone who's gone through the process and I thought I was pretty experienced in pulling permits and reading codes, it's difficult. So I want to make it easier for the homeowners to be able to interpret this and the landscape architects to be able to interpret this. When that landscape architect got on and said 50% of what? You know it's like you're this far into the project and you got to ask what you don't understand the code and we've seen it time and time again where the architects come in and think oh I've built houses and Beverly Hills and this and that and we're not Beverly Hills it's we got a weird code and and there's a lot to it. So I want to try to make it easier for folks to be able to improve their property, but make it fire safe and to, and to, you know, meet the fire code. So, so maybe we could take a look at that, is to say, you know, maximum screening that meets the fire code. Does that seem reasonable to everybody? Yeah. So, so also, is it my turn? Did I get a chance to talk to everybody got a chance to rock, right? No. I'm going to think, are you talking about maximum screening, uh, brain freeze, uh, that maximum screening that meets the code, um, what am I trying to say? Well, okay, so the code says 50% screen, right? But the fire code may not allow it on the configuration of the lot in the house and everything. So they have to do as much as they can to screen the house, but still meet the fire code. Fire code has to be met. The fire code has to be met. You don't meet the fire code, they're not gonna get approved, they're not going to get approved. They're not going to get. If you can't meet the 50%. I don't know how you person couldn't meet the 50% screening, that would be difficult. I mean, how they can't meet it? How they can't meet it, I mean, for the entire house. Oh, it's not as easy as you think, trust me. It's hard, you know, you look at our code. I mean, the tree's got to be 30 feet apart, right? I mean, there's triangular patches that you have and they're spacing in between and- You wouldn't even have to do it with all trees. I mean, you just do with shrubbery and stuff like that. That would be screening too. Well, again, I just said that you can't put shrubbery right up against the house. Now they have zone A, zone B, zone C, and zone A, they want basically nothing is where I think it's going. Is that correct, Rapperti? You'll start hearing newer terminology of like zero zones, which is going to be like the first five feet around the house where they realistically are trying to not have anything right up against the house to keep it. So as the fire burns, you're not catching those shrubs and work plants and then on the right of the ground underneath the rafters. Right up against the windows. So, I agree. So, I think the primary view is one. I think meeting the fire code with, you know, maximum screening kind of sums it up. I think that's what they basically achieved with this project, which is why I was okay with it. is who has to do a landscape plan. You know, the property down the street from me on skyline, they pulled a permit, they gutted the house, they added a big patio in the back, and they put up, I don't't know a hundred feet of retaining wall going up their driveway I don't know if you've seen it yet or not and then another retaining wall across the front and to my knowledge they didn't have to do a landscape plan because the amount of structure that they did didn't qualify do that so did they have to you know which property I'm talking about or I don't want to bring up the name or the yeah. So with that if they didn't have to do a landscape plan then can I assume that they didn't have to do a fuel modification plan as well? For that project know a fuel modification required. So, I think we should do what we can to protect our neighbors and the neighborhood by, as people want to do pretty much anything to the exterior of their house, a new roof, a small room addition, patio cover that they have to submit a fuel modification plan to help, you know, to help clean up some of these old growth properties and properties that the fire department's not going to come up and go. You've got a, you know, 50 foot eucalyptus tree 20 feet from your house. The weed abatement guy is not going to make him cut down that tree. But as a matter of safety, it's something that should probably go. Because I just cut down a big 30-foot eucalyptus tree in my front yard because I don't like them. My neighbor just lost a big branch and took out part of my fence and one of his eucalyptus trees. So I'm kind of anti-eucalyptus trees. So anyway, what is the thought on that to say let's increase the Let's increase the conditions that people have to do fuel modification plans That makes sense when I'm trying to say just Because right now it's like they have to add on more than 50% of the existing structure, over 1,000 square feet or a new house, or there's like certain conditions that have to be met before they do that, is that correct, referee? Yeah, typically field modification will kick in if you are doing like something D-Datch structure. So ADU, garage, D-Datch structure. Anything over, I forget the exact square foot footage off the top of my head, addition to a house or expansion to house. A lot of times, expansion a living space of the house, we'll kick in those requirements for needing to do fuel modification, not necessarily just a patio cover, those things. If it is like a deck out of a slope, sometimes that will kick in the requirements for it because they want to protect what's underneath that slope and that deck and not put firefighters in danger of if there's a fire and they're out there and they don't want them on the deck and fire burning up underneath it. So with that, let's use that as an example. So do they only have to do the fuel modification in the affected area where the deck is going, or is it the whole property where they got to cut down the eucalyptus trees and, you know, their pine trees? And whole property. So when those requirements are met and when the triggers are the need for fuel modification, I'm just the whole property. They have to do all three zones. So on the need one of those zones, there's brush clearance that needs to be done. If there's shrubs, they need to be trimmed up. If there's trees that haven't been limbed up, they're required to be limbed up and you gotta comply with tree spacing too. So they're gonna look at your spacing area existing trees that are out there. And some of those existing trees may need to be removed. They're looking for all of the ones that are on the list that are mandatory removals for that. So eucalyptus and some of those other trees, they'll make them remove those trees as part of that fuel mod process and inspection. So would re-roofs fall into that category or should they, because that's a good time to look at the whole, the whole, you know, fire modification plan, whether they got trees too close to their roof with it being the 10-foot setback. So, you know, and I know that there's going to be community people that push back on this, but we also have to be realistic. It's harder and harder to get fire insurance. We're in a high-fire zone. We have to do what we have to do in order to make the community safe. My particular insurance company won't write any new policies and they grandfathered me in, fortunately. And so, but I do notice some people that got canceled and had to search to try to find fire insurance and it's getting more and more expensive. So I think if we want to maintain a rural community, we have to do everything we can in order to maintain that. And part of that is to make sure that we don't burn down like some of these other communities have done with some of the recent fires. So anyway, those are the two or three different things that I had as far as the landscaping plant and making those modifications. So is there any other items that we think? I have one, Mr. Chairman. Yep. I'd like to respond to Commissioner Stetfleur. I think you made a comment that this is a solution in search of a problem. That's one of my favorite sayings. You're copying my one of the things I like to say. But I don't think it's a solution in search of a problem. This has been for years. We've had issues with this. And this could be a simple. I'm going to just reread this for you. The use of landscape for screening and a proposal language that says on site landscape materials must provide at least 50% screening is certified by license, landscape architect of all elevations, of all structures and fences and retaining walls visible from the street and from other parcels within five years following completion of the project. So it says screening of all elevations of all structures and fences. My proposal is The language would be something maybe a simple this this requirement shall not apply, this 50 cents screening requirements shall not apply to the primary view site of the home. And Mr. Stephanie, if you look, you know what we're talking about the landscape plans. And Mr. Chairman, he brought up this exhibit 7-7. If you go and look at exhibit 7.8, where it shows some slopes and things, you see that lower house with the trees right in front of it? That's what I'm trying to avoid. That people have to plant these trees where they're looking at at their view. So that's kind of my take on that. And then this thing, I agree with you, I'm just chairman about, we gotta say something about the field modification requirements and that's more important to me than the screening. And definitely these drawings have to be changed because over here, especially the 6777, which is pretty bad. I don't quite agree with you on expanding the use of a fuel modification plan. I think you mentioned the re-roof. And as you know, we already have a big problem in the city with people doing work without permits. Well, require a fuel modification plan for a re-roof that's probably going to cost, I don't know, $4,000 or $5,000 maybe. You know, you got to draw the whole site plan. And these people want to say they're heck with this. I'm not pulling no permit. I'll do this on Friday and Saturday. So again, I'm trying to make it easier for people to improve their properties because that's a value to all of us. We all want to live in a nicer community. So I don't want to burden them with any more requirements, especially a conditionally, I'm sorry, a few modification plans for a re-roof. And it's pretty clear on the code here when the landscape plan is required and where and the side yards, it's all in there. So my main thing would be just to change that one sentence like I said and add something about the meeting fire department requirements is probably takes precedent over screening. I don't know how to quite say that I'll look to. We have two lawyers on the, if you're a lawyer too, right? Okay. Maybe, maybe you can come up with some language of how I'm just a simple working man. I'm very curious what I asked that question. So anyway, that's kind of, I don't wanna burn people with having to do a few modification plan if they want to do a simple addition. It's pretty clear in the code when a landscaping plan is required, it's right there. When you modify structure, 50% of the six-thing structure, addition of a thousand feet or more, so it's all in there now. That's it. Okay. Any other things that we can add or change or look to move forward with? I was just going to say that I don't mind if you would like I can draft a proposed amendment to the code for discussions today and present it for discussion in our planning commission meeting. If that's something that people are interested in. As far as the suggestion that we might expand the scope of who has to apply for a fuel modification. I think it's well intentioned. I think there's probably some facts we might want to consider before we. For instance, I was just thinking about what the burden of. The city staff having to review a significant larger number of field modification plans. Early on, it is getting plans to. I might want to hear from the fire department about that too. There's some additional things we could discuss about that. Would it be possible? Dennis Grubb is really the person. The person who does the plan check for the fire department is Dennis Grebin associates. It's still him correct. Yeah, Dennis is getting ready to retire. Okay. But there are a couple of people in a staff that do that that would maybe be able to attend and talk a little more about fuel modification and answer something. So he's an independent contractor for the city that Dennis Greben associates. So he's the one who really approves these plans and then he does the final inspection for fire sprinklers and for the fuel modification plan. And he's tough, Ray, just mentioned about one inch from a ceiling fan and I had my issues with him doing my project as well. So he's to the letter of the law. And I agree, we don't wanna make it so difficult to people not to get permits, but how do we find happy medium where we start to clean up the neighborhood and do it. Maybe it's something we have to look at and weed abatement have to look at and weed you know weed abatement where they look at the trees closer because right now they're looking down and not up so perhaps we address it with that and that I think would be wonderful law of you would do that that would be greatly appreciated to maybe document it and we'll bring it back to the next meeting. And what about fire chief? Could we invite him to the next meeting and we'll move this to the front so that he doesn't have to spend all evening here and kind of get his feedback on weed abatement or I'm sorry, Al, who's the weed abatement officer? Yeah, Al, local days are far martial runs their brush cleanse program. So he's also in the process of getting ready or retired, but we're in the transition, but by our next meeting, he should still be here so we can keep him around and have him join as well. Okay, I don't know that we need both, but one or the other, I think, could answer our questions and concerns on that. So Laura, did you take enough notes? It's on, you can go back and watch it if you want with what we talked about, but. I think I have it. Okay, perfect. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, one quick thing. I heard that you're brilliant legal mind. Why do you need a whole month to draft something? What if we take a five-minute break and you like put something out real quick? I mean don't put off for tomorrow what you can do today. I'd rather take my time because I do want to do what I can do is submit it then to. Okay. Because kind of the process is we kind of develop what we want to see changed and make those recommendations. And we recommend to city staff to take that to city council and then city council reviews it and they make the final decision. So all we're doing is making recommendations and directing staff to move that forward. So but I agree with you Ray I'd like to do that but I'd also like to get out of here at a reasonable time and this meeting's already gone longer than what I had anticipated. So anyway, I think we could do it at the next planning commission meeting. Hopefully it'll be next month because I don't think we have one in December, do we? As we get into this season, it always gets difficult because our next meeting is right close to Thanksgiving and then we fall very close to Christmas. We usually sort of find a date. If we need to move one up, I think we usually have like a November December meeting. Yeah, usually that first week at December is one of those things we look at, kind of bridge the gap. Then a lot of times people will be traveling for Thanksgiving or holiday season so it gets people's schedules book up real quick at that time. I know I'm out the first week of December so in the last week. So okay um so anyway thank you all for your input I think we're making progress and I think it's all positive you know because I have seen projects go months and months and months and months and months being delayed because of the fuel modification. So I think it's a worthwhile effort. So next is review of the Fencing Standards. Mr. Fernandez, I'll let you start on this I'm not sure if you're going to be able to do that. I'm not sure if you're going to be able to do that. I'm not sure if you're going to be able to do that. I'm not sure if you're going to be able to do that. I'm not sure if you're going to be able to do that. I'm not sure if you're going to be able to do that. I'm not sure if you landscape them, but a lot of times people put them up and they don't landscape them. I don't see a problem with them on the side yard. Maybe side yard should be green, because they blend in real nice. That's one. The second one was, I don't like this requirement that a fence, you can't have a solid six foot fence. It has to be open, I think 33% on top with Rhode Island. I don't get that, I really don't. I mean, who came up with that? Why do we have to do that? To me, like on my property, for example, I don't want that, I don't want people coming up the fence and looking into my property and see what's there, what they can steal or something. And it's kind of a pointless requirement. It's one of these things, hey what should we do to make life more difficult for our citizens, oh let's make them do a, a rot iron on top third of the fence. And the truth of the matter is that a lot of these fences wind up getting plants in front of them. And there's no height restriction on that. I mean, to go down East Road around the big curve around the jog at the golf club. And there's bushes at a 20 feet tall We allow that but I don't think I think this is this particular open fence at the front street. Yeah, it's for fire protection Fire protection fire fire for the fire officers to be able to see onto the property I agree that there's probably a lot of stuff junking it up and screening it. But reality, I think you'll see this repetitively in a lot of cities where they want visibility. There's a house down on Hussein de Road in Lahabra on the right-hand side of the road. It looks like it's from the fort of last disaster. You can't even see the house because of the size of the fence and the gates. I think that's got to be very dangerous for law enforcement. I think it's got to be very dangerous for the fireman. I believe Ray that's why it's in there. Yeah. OK, so for the off chance at one time in 20 years, the police has to show up to your house. You're going to make people build something that they don't really wanna do. I mean, you know, I can see that, but hey, like in my house, all they gotta do is walk to the front driveway gate and they can see the house, but I don't want the whole front of the property wide open to everybody. I just think it's a dumb requirement to be honest with you. I dare say we had the police of the Fire Department and you made that statement. It'd probably be news to them of why that's even in the code. I think that was probably put in there as a feel good. Everything's nice and open and you can look into your neighbor's house. People these days, you know, I think one a little more privacy. And I don't know. I just, I think it's a pointless violation. I understand your point, but I don't think that it, I don't think the people who wrote this, code thought about safety and fire and police. I think it was more that they wanted to be able to look further off the street. I've been to third world countries where you drive down the street and they have eight foot high walls and solid gates and that's all you see with no landscaping. And so I think their intent is to keep more of a rural atmosphere without just driving down the street and just having a fence. Case in point, if you go up our shelf, there's a house that's been there forever, but they built a wood fence right on the pavement and it's along there. And I think it looks horrible. I think it should be torn down and be brought up to code. But if everybody did that, it wouldn't be nice. Now, years is offset off the street, six or eight feet, or whatever. And you did a nice wall. But there's also people that'll just take center block six or eight feet or whatever, and you did a nice wall, but there's also people that'll just take center block and make a wall and leave it as a white center block wall, which looks horrible. But so I just wanted to make that comment about what I think the intent was with the code. So as far as fencing goes, Ross, do you have any comments on fencing in this part of the code. So as far as fencing goes, Ross, do you have any comments on fencing in this part of the code that you see? Yeah, I'm more into the solid wall, but I've seen, I know when down East Road that they didn't want us doing, it was a visual thing. They wanted this, everything was set back at least 10, 12 feet and they didn't want any fences more than 42 inches tall. They still talk about this. If you heard anything about the fences mean 42 inches tall up against the street, they don't want the walls up against the street, I know that. Yeah, we're gonna maintain that set back from there than yeah, 42 inches is the max for solid. Yeah, no, I can see that. I don't really have an opinion about this whether it could be solid or it could be open. I don't have a real thing about that. Okay. Greg? I don't have anything to add. I don't disagree with the idea that chain link fence shouldn't be flirting in the streets. I think it should be able to be used around the property appropriately. We planted a boulevard on the chain link fence and surrounds our property, none of it's in the front, and none of it's visible to anybody else. The boulevard makes a beautiful hedge and the fire safe hedge, frankly, is in purpose to fire. So I think I don't disagree with not having a chain like fence. I think I do think we should have a visible, a visible, a well for whatever. And I hope it's safety reasons or the reason of view should view. How is there just prettier with open front areas and they can still be secure? Well, wait, you just argued that we need to block the whole house and now you say we want to leave the fence open so you can see the house. It's kind of kind of big. No, I don't think so. Did I say I wanted to block the house? Oh, you mean with the landscaping? With the landscaping. They've got to put up all these trees to block the house. No. You want to have the fit so you can see the landscaping so that you can't see them. No, I was just picking up on one new set. But I think that's really realistic. I think this looks prettier. But pretty isn't what we do here anyway. I mean, I think the options are fine and as we're developed now, if we want to make a recommendation that we not allow of chain link fences and funding on the public road right away. I would support that. I agree. Laura, any thoughts on Pinsy? No, I agree about the chain link fence and be on the front yard. And as far as solid walls were concerned, I don't really object to it as long as it looks nice. Is that a matter to the most to me? And I've seen some that look really gorgeous. So I'm fine with it I just I don't know if there's any way we could It's like you'd mentioned somebody might put in a Center block wall that would look terrible and take advantage of That X that don't really comport with I if we allow yeah well i'd you know it'd be tough to say that if you put up a block wall you have to stuck with the color of the house and then have some kind of wall cap at the top but that's really the right way to do a wall but without it somebody would just put up a wall with no wall cap and grace in her block and looks horrible. So if we wanted to talk about allowing a solid wall, then I agree we're going to have to craft some language to make it look nice. And my retaining walls that I do have are stuck out and they match the house coloring. And so I can give you a language for that, because I agree that somebody could just put an ugly send a block wall. We could say that this requirement of the top of the wall has to be open with the exception of a solid, masonry wall that's either stuccoed to match the house or a what do you call like split face, you know those. But not I don't want a wood fence making the old front of a house because they deteriorate pretty quickly they warp and stuff they don't look good and I would further add if it's this gives the homeowner an option if they want to do a block wall with stucco that it has to be landscape the front has to be landscape to front, has to be landscape like what I did with my house. I have star jasmine bushes for another row up against the wall and it's growing in beautifully. So my wall turns into white flowers certain times of the year and I have two rows of bushes and I'm about 12 feet back I think from the from the road so. Well the problem I have with that is that the best example is avocado crest and Hossie Enda. It's not the front of their house, it's the side of their house and it's chain link and they have some kind of white stuff on it and at one time there was some plants on it, and it's all dead. And quite frankly, it really bothers me. That house and then passed the park on the left-hand side, they just took like black tarp and just put it over their fence and say, well, it's scream and it looks horrible. I mean, that's our community as you drive through our main artery of our community. You look at things like that. So I agree with no chain link in the front of the house but I don't think it should be facing any road. I would add that you know so if you're on a corner those two streets no chain link fence. If it's a private driveway, it's another story, but if it's a road, actually a designated road, no chain link fence with it covered or not. And as far as split face goes, I have to disagree. The neighbor down the street put in a different split face and It's honestly not that attractive, but both of his gate pillars. He put nice stone veneer on it and his pillars look great You know, so I would say that they covered it in stone or stucco I would be fine with it But I wouldn't want to add split face because the old brown split face stuff from the seventies is still up. That's what came to mind when I was trying to think of something else. I'll tell you a funny story. We don't have time for a story. I don't want to cut your short range. City once made me put split face around a whole development, which is very expensive, but then they require me to put ivy in front of it because when they graffiti the split face, it's hard to get to graffiti. And I said, this is stupid. Why would I spend all this money for a split face and then cover it up with fine paint? What can I say? Okay, so I think if somebody's no wood fence in the front of the property, I'm okay. Or plastic. Plastic either. Or plastic that white vinyl stuff. Especially here that's a fire hazard and technically the wood fence is a fire hazard too, right? Rappity isn't there something in the code that it has to be fire resistant or something. Not for just fencing we don't put that requirement on just the property line fencing. Okay. So then just to make sure that Laura will you do this one as well as long as you're on a roll? All right. So we talked about no chain-linked fence in the front of the property or facing any street. No wood fences in the front, or I would say facing the street, which we could argue about vinyl looks better than wood, but only if it's put in right. And that in the front of the house, if they wanna build a solid wall six foot, it has to be within the proper setbacks and that the wall be stuck out to match the house or covered with stone veneer and have a decorative wall cap. So I think that says there any other comment or questions on the fencing? No, all right. Well, thank you all moving along. Public comments. One minute not on the agenda. I saw you folks come in. Do you have a comment? Do you want to speak? You have one minute. State your name in your street. My name is Rich Atwood. I am with my wife. We're the owners of the 1452 aeroso property. Okay. And we just want to say thank you for the approval tonight. We're very grateful. Grateful for championing our project. We're excited to move forward. And it's been a long road of four years to try to get this thing to fruition. So we finally made it and says something for intestinal fortitude, right? So thank you. Thank you. And thanks to staff too. Rafferty and his team were great through the whole process. All right. Moving right along. Staff comments? I just thought we kind of hit hit we're in the holiday season so we'll reach out with some dates for the commission to see if we can't put a meeting on the books that can accommodate holiday schedules That kind of we get into in November and December so we'll have those ones out here for you guys shortly and figure out some timelines That's all. Rafferty, could you just make a quick public comment that there was a fire on the other side of the hill and they actually got to use our heli hydrant? Yes, so last Friday afternoon, I guess afternoon. I did get a call from Councillor Marbara Pisa who was listening to some of the fire watch radio and chatter and they picked up that there was a fire burning in Shaburra Park. So we called and we weren't added to the ticket for it from the county side. So I put a call into the chief and he was he was in his truck with the radio zone and he hadn't heard any of the radio chatter. Our our our the Hobber Heights crew was actually running a medical call. They were at train. They were transporting a patient at the time. But Chief called into dispatch and we found out pretty quickly that there was a fire burning over in Shpar and Park. And from there, then we were able to link into the command channel and the chiefs were able to get us up and running and going from there. They did bring in some air operations for it. So we saw the schnick, so the big twin engine helicopter that drops a lot of water was out there along with a couple of black hawks that did fly in a fixed-wing airplane too. So some of you late in Friday afternoon might have seen a big plane doing some pretty interesting maneuvers over there. That was the big fixed-wing they brought in to drop some retardant to try to slow any progress our direction and keep it fully in Sparrow Park and not get it over the hill into Powder Canyon. I was actually picking up my daughter from school and all that went down and circled back around and picked up my keys, my work keys from home and then made my way in. We went to first off, we'll just check the Healy Hydrant to make sure it was already activated. The air ops activated it from the air so they turned on let it start fillings when I was there was full and then Councilmember Bergman and Mary and go hard were there with another resident kind of just checking to see if it was gonna get used or Or not so we were able to kind of talk for a little bit and soon as we all started to leave I was the last car out and you heard the helicopter coming in and so I backed up as quick as I could and sure enough Yeah, helicopter came in sat right down on it and Took some took some water out of the tank Continue back over to the fire side of it So we're we're in the process of you know debriefing with air ops to see how it went to make sure that Tank fills okay was activated okay from the air We always have to check on the clearance from the trees. There's a lot of trees and shrubbery around it. So obviously when they bring in, it was a big black-off helicopter that was there when I was there, so we need to make sure that there's enough clearance for those big helicopters to be able to come in and take water out of the tank and leave me that helicopter nearly parked itself right on top of the tank that that pilot was able to get really low down and over over the tank and take some water out of it. So it's good to see it being in use. This is the first time we kind of know that it was activated from the air as part of an inter. So we would like to continue to work with the county and the water district on line replacement over there to help the fill times get a little better as we go along. There's an old line that runs to it and we'll continue to work with the habitat of the wordy on making sure we can keep appropriate screening and and land all the trees and shrubs down to make it safe for the helicopter to be able to utilize it. So it was it was good to see it in action and out there in the wild as far as we know this is the first time that it was activated and done and utilized totally without any interaction from us. We didn't activate it and it turned on and worked and went from there so it was good to see that in use. Good yeah because it was a small fire they knocked it out quick and so you know so anyway thank you for that. Planning Commissioner comments. Laura? None? Ray? Greg? Greg, any final comments? No? No, my only comment was about, I'm glad that we did the Helle hydrant and it worked and you know it was a small fire that could have turned into a big one without the air assets so it's good. So Raffty have one more? I want to put one more mention in for its Halloween time. So we're in October, we're coming up to the Halloween Haunt time. So improvement association will be doing Halloween Haunt this year at the park. So starting at 6 p.m. if you have trick-or-treaters they can go and they have little trick-or-treat stands and games and other fun activities for kids since it's it is kind of hard to trick or treat in our neighborhood so it's a nice event that the Appridden Association puts on there at the gym so that will be going on on Halloween. They ask you donate a bag of candy per kid that comes. I'm to it, so it is a fun event. And it's a lot of, it's a lot of excitement for the kids. I know my daughter always enjoys it when she's been a few times and has a good time there for it. And then as soon as that is done, we are an election season. So the gym will be open for early voting. I believe on November 2nd. And I forget exactly. But we will be open for a couple of days. I believe that the Monday and Tuesday ahead of it. So there will be a couple of additional days. We're going to have some of that stuff come up in Guac-Toc, where the gym will actually be open for a couple of days of early voting. County will be setting. As soon as Halloween haunt is out out that Monday I believe they they come in and set up for voting so that will open up a couple of days early so residents can go and vote early. There's also in front of City Hall here is a ballot drop box as well so if you have your vote by mail ballots and want to put it in the drop box there's a drop box located in the turnout right in front of City Hall. The county comes by daily and picks up all the ballots out of those ballot boxes. So utilize those couple of resources for election time. Great. Thank you. Well with that, I'll say meeting adjourned. Thank you.