14 - Laserfiche WebLink

2. Level of Detail in Landscape Plan: The Zoning Administrator approved a conceptual landscape plan with requirements for staff approval of plant number, size, and placement in the field, plus the preparation of a detailed as-built plan. Due to the level of controversy that has developed around this application, staff agrees with the Planning Commission that the preparation of a detailed landscape plan in advance of installation is necessary. Staff also notes that such a plan, in this particular case, could also be adequately prepared by a licensed landscape contractor. 3. Restriction on Rear 35 Feet of Back Yard: The Planning Commission imposed this condition as a way to replicate the previous slope in the yard that would have discouraged active use of this area of the yard. While staff believes that such a restriction does accomplish the Planning Commission's goal, staff believes that the original concern of the City was the visual privacy which was previously accomplished by a dense landscape buffer. This buffer can be reestablished. Staff is not convinced the full 35-foot restriction is warranted in this case. A limitation on structures in the rear 25 feet of Mr. Jeffrey's yard would more closely resemble the use of the yard prior to the removal of the trees. 4. Planting on the Retaining Wall: In response to the Johnstons concern about the visibility of the retaining wall from their property, the Planning Commission required that it be landscaped to soften the appearance. Staff concurs that this is an effective way to address the concern and can be accomplished by planting vegetation cascading over the retaining wall. 5. addition of the Commission's Staff supports this ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Projects of this nature are categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Sections 15304(4)(a-c), Minor Alterations to Land, and 15305(5), Minor Alternations in Land Use Limitations. Therefore, no environmental document accompanies this report. CONCLUSION With a few exceptions, staff believes that the Planning Commission resolution of the neighborhood dispute is fair and effective in allowing the Jeffrey family reasonable use of their property while maintaining privacy of the Johnston and Lam families. Staffs recommended conditions of approval provided in Exhibit B of Attachment 1 mirrors the Planning Commission's approval, except that it allows the landscape plans to be prepared by a licensed landscape contractor as an alternative to a landscape architect, and it reduces the depth of the required restricted area across the rear of the yard from 35 feet down to 25 feet. Page 5 of 6