Commission public hearing. The city appreciates your interest and participation in the public hearing process. The planning commission serves as an advisory board to the city council on land use and zoning matters. The hearing agenda items consist of development applications that require
public hearings. The planning commission considers the item and makes a recommendation for approval or denial to the city council. The city council will make the final decision for or against approval of the application. The agenda consists of the roll call and administrative report, public comment,
approval of minutes from the previous hearing continuences withdrawals consent agenda items, regular agenda items, and non-action items. Citizens wishing to speak on any agenda item will need to fill out a blue speaker card, or
if not willing to speak, they may fill out a yellow comment card and turn at the staff table over here to my right uh before the agenda item is to be discussed. The chair will call your name when it's your turn to speak. When called, please come to the podium, state your name and address, and then begin
speaking. Groups wishing to speak should elect a spokesperson to represent the views of the group. To facilitate the meeting, your comment will be limited to three minutes for individual speakers, one additional minute for each additional individual who is present at the hearing and has contributed their
time to a representative speaker, up to a maximum of 10 minutes. Please format your speech to fit within the allotted time. A light system is installed on the podium for timing presentations. The light will be green for two minutes, yellow for one minute, and red when your time is up. Please conclude your
comments when the red light appears. Thank you for your interest in time. Now we will begin the hearing with a roll call. >> Chair Young, >> here. >> Vice Chair Scarro >> here. >> Commissioner Gonzalez, >> present. >> Commissioner >> here. >> Commissioner Joiner >> here. >> Commissioner Drake
>> here. Commissioner Reid >> here. >> All here. Thank you. >> All right. Very good. Uh we'll move on to the uh administrative report from Mr. Curtis if we've got anything. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Just want to confirm. Um
Jason, we don't have any comment cards, right? Uh from non non-aggenda items. So, um yeah, just want to draw your attention to uh recent correspondence uh regarding item two. I think these are all in support. So, wanted those should
be in front of you. Just want to draw your attention to that. And then just to give you an update, we do uh have items scheduled for the next uh scheduled meeting for April 22nd. And we do anticipate items uh May 13th
as well. That will be the next meeting after. So, uh just hopefully everybody uh can attend and if not, just let us know. But that's the only thing I have for tonight. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Uh we'll move on to the uh approval of the minutes from
March 25th, 2026. Do I have is there any discussion or is there a motion? >> So move. >> Second. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second. Can we get a roll call vote, please? >> Chair Young, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Scar Bro,
>> yes. >> Commissioner Gonzalez, >> yes. >> Commissioner, >> yes. >> Commissioner Joiner, >> yes. >> Commissioner Drake, >> yes. Commissioner Reid. >> Yes. >> Motion passes. Thank you. >> All right. We'll move on to the action items. How the action agenda works. The planning commission may take one vote to
act on all items on the continuence agenda or one vote on all all items on the consent agenda or may remove items for further discussion as appropriate. Planning commission takes separate action on each item on the regular agenda. persons interested in commenting
on any item may complete a comment card as I mentioned earlier for each item and submit it to staff. Um, so we've got, let's see, we got one consent agenda item, item two, up00002-2026, poor decisions cup renewal. Um, is there
any discussion or >> Okay. So, I'll entertain a motion. >> Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion for recommendation of approval to city council for case UP00002 2026 after finding that the cup criteria
have been met and that the proposed conditional use permit is consistent and conforms with the adopted general plan per the attached stipulations. >> Okay, >> I'll second it. >> Second. Is that you, Commissioner? Okay, we have a motion and a second. We'll do
a roll call vote. >> Chair Young, >> yes. Vice Chair Scar Bro, >> yes. >> Commissioner Gonzalez, >> yes. >> Commissioner, >> yes. >> Commissioner Joiner, >> yes. >> Commissioner Drake, >> yes. >> Commissioner Reid, >> yes. >> Motion passes. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh, well, it looks like we don't
have any regular agenda uh items. We just have a non-action item. Uh, number three, 11ta 2000. Number four, ESL text amendment, treatment of fire, defensible space. >> Good evening, Chair Young and members of the planning commission. Uh my name is
Jesus Murio. I'm a planner here with the city and today I'll be presenting in front of you uh like you mentioned 11 TA 2000 number four which is the treatment of fire defensible space within ESL. Um thank you for having me here tonight. Uh staff thought this would be a good
opportunity to kind of go over some overarching elements and plant some seeds for the for the case that you will be hearing in front of you in two weeks at your next meeting. So, uh, please feel free to comment at any time or provide any feedback as you see fit during the presentation. Um, for many of you that are seated at
right now on the dis, you're probably saying, "Wait a minute, didn't we initiate something like this not too long ago?" And the answer is yes. Back in May 10th of 2023, uh, this commission did initiate a text amendment for the overall environmentally sensitive lands
ordinance. Now at that time we specifically were going to be looking at non-conforming properties within ESL that couldn't meet certain type of requirements and as that as such we were also going to look at the remainder of the environmentally sensitive lands ordinance. Uh while we were working
through that, we'd got through one round of comments, had been talking with with our legal department, and that's when the fire department and the city council. Well, the fire department approached us and the city council through conversations with the fire department said, "We feel that the portion of the text amendment that deals
with fire defensible space uh should move a little quicker because as you can imagine with the the large text, it was going to take a little bit of time." And so we we kind of pull that slice of the text of the environment lands out of it to move a little quicker during this
process. So I want to make sure that that you do know that we are still working on that text amendment. Um we're looking and making sure that there's the that there's consistencies and and we took a lot of the feedback that you'd provided at that at that commission meeting to heart. Um so yes, we are
still moving with that. We just wanted to move with this portion a little quicker and that's why we are here tonight. Um, having said that, both through that process and this process, we've heard a lot of great ideas, concerns, and suggestions. Now, having said that, I want to go back to my
previous point is that some of those comments that we've heard are going to be more appropriate for the larger text amendment overall and maybe not specifically for fire defensible space. This text amendment is only looking at the way fire defensible space is applied
directly with natural area open space in close proximity adjacent to walls and structures. That's the only part of the text amendment of the of the sorry that's the only part of the environment to the sensitive lands ordinance that we're looking to modify. And so as such
we want to keep it focused. Like I said, a lot of great comments, late great suggestions, but we feel they're probably more appropriate for the overall text amendment and not for this specific section. >> May I address him ask him a question? >> Uh, >> he said to ask questions during the
present, if that's okay to interrupt you. >> Yes, sir. Okay. Yes, chair. >> Okay. So, one of the things I was confused about and many of the 27 emails I got were confused about is is this applying to existing homes with NAOS or
is this only applying to new construction? >> Uh, so Chair Young and Commissioner Joiner, this will be applied to all properties located within the environmentally sensitive lands, both existing and proposed. Uh typically when a text amendment in the ESL is taken
through. If it is not going to apply retroactively, there's an exceptions table that is located within the ESL ordinance where we then modify the exceptions in that table. And then that codifies that anyone coming in previous
to this text amendment, this will not apply to. But in this instance, it would apply to all properties both existing and the and and future within the environmentally sensitive lands ordinance. >> I'll have a lot of questions at the end.
>> Of course. >> Yeah, Commissioner Gonzalez. >> Yes, sir. Mr. from Bio. Um, the one thing that I was kind of wondering because there was it seemed like they were picking apart at one point was the HOAs because the HOAs were their own
type of they were treating it kind of like their own little government type of thing in there. Is it is the ordinance going to be able to surmount HOA uh HOAs into codifying them also into the into the ordinance or are they going to
exempt the HOAs out of it? >> Uh so Chair Young and Commissioner Gonzalez, this ordinance would apply to all NAOS whether it be located on lot or in a tract. HOAs would are over the supervision of a tract. Now, even if the
CCNRs are in place that state something else, right, those are those are more of a civil matter and between HOAs and homeowners, but because before that HOA existed, that plat would have been approved and and recorded under the ESL
ordinance or HD depending on when it was, it would govern them as well. >> Okay. Thank you, sir. >> Mr. tell >> thank you chair uh since it's on the screen uh the third bullet fire defensible space strongly encouraged not
required um but the the um draft that I got uh 0116.1 um it does say strongly encouraged and then the next line it says shall be required if the fire official says so.
So what's What difference does it make if it's just strongly encouraged and not not required when it ends up being required if the government says you have to do it? So, Chair Young and Commissioner Tell, that's a great question. When this
text amendment was first proposed, the fire department was looking to do and and I'll touch on some of these here in the future, was looking to have it be mandated to be a requirement. And then through the course of public interaction and through the course of receiving communications from a variety of
parties, um there were several uh questions arose. Everything from implementation to cost to timing. And so when when the when the when staff got together and discussed these things, they thought for this first phase, we agreed that it should be strongly
encouraged. So, first of all, let me say that one, it's going to be allowed because currently the ordinance doesn't allow for this type of of fire prevention mitigation. So, it would be allowed for those that want to apply it. Second, um it would be strongly encouraged uh so that it would benefit
the fire department and the environment. And then third, in some instances, if someone doesn't feel that that they want to apply the fire defensible space, but it is uh it is reviewed and decided by the fire department that this is a a
hazardous area that they do have the ability to require that property uh to to apply and establish the fire defensible space. And so the ordinance is designed to be able to give the fire a code official or designate uh that
ability. And I'll cover that a little more in the in the slides as we go through. >> All right. Thank you. >> Okay. Seeing no more further questions, we'll we'll continue going on. So covering bullet point number three. Um,
like I said, that was some of the the ideas and thoughts were first to mandate it and then through discussions with the community that was modified to be strongly encouraged and then but required in instances where the fire department where the fire code official or designate felt that that it must be
applied in order to to create uh safer spaces. Um, having said that, the last bullet point you'll see is that we uh staff has tried uh to make sure it's it's abundantly clear that the lands that are located within the McDell sonor and preserve are not going to be
regulated at all by this by the text amendment. Again, this text amendment only modifies fire defensible space in NAOS adjacent to walls and to walls and uh and structures. and uh next next your at your next meeting in two weeks, we'll
cover that a little more in detail. So, thank you. Um so, this is I think a good time to go over some of those goals and hopefully help answer some of those questions. So, first and foremost, staff, as we've been working with the public and with residents for a while, we've always heard residents say that
they wished that there was a little that there was an expansion of fire defensible space and that it could be applied more than what the ordinance currently allows. that um also with um again responding to the to those increases of the threat of wildfires and the needs of the fire department were
some of the two important elements that that uh that brought us to to the current text amendment and also it was initiated by the city council and that's uh what gave us the the direction to to put together the text amendment you see before you here today. Um we also wanted
to make sure that the fire code now housed fire defensible space because before the authorization was under the environmentally sensitive lands ordinance and not underneath the fire code. So what this ordinance what what both of these ordinance changes will do
is it will take the fire defensible space out from the environmentally sensitive lands where the planning commission has purview and it'll put it up under the uh the the fire code itself. So, having said that, once you move things around, you want to make sure that they're consistent, and that's
why we've been working on both those codes and ordinances at the same time. Uh, we also want to make sure that that they reference each other correctly and not more or less than than we wanted to. And we also want to make sure that because it is going to be applied to all properties that is located within the
environmentally sensitive lands ordinance again excluding the preserve is that if someone had already taken uh advantage of the maximum allowable revge that's allowed for NAOS that if now they applied the fire defensible space that they didn't all of a sudden become
non-conforming over something that we wanted to see occur. So, we want to we tried to make sure that we uh wrote into the text the language so that these properties that are now going to implement that that they didn't become non-conforming. And then again, um as previously stated, we wanted to make
sure that the fire department had the authorization to make the call in certain instances where it was deemed more hazardous uh than than a typical situation and was were going to be required to apply versus just allowed or strongly encouraged. Having said all of this, we we want to
make sure that the uh both the commission and the public know that we're still committed to to requiring natural area open space and preserving and protected the NAOS that's there. Now, uh, we did receive some comments about how expanding, uh, the natural
area open space parameters for fire defensible space might compromise a little more NAOS, and we can appreciate that comment again, but it was part of, uh, the discussion of when it comes down to it. The fire department uh, provided needs um, and some dimensions. we
brought it to the public and so yes, it will affect more NAOS than than currently, but as far as that, the remaining um regulations are still in place that protect the rest of of natural area open space and the rural character of the city. Again, this this
text amendment is specifically focused on natural area open space that's adjacent to walls or structures. So, as you see it on the on the screen today is how the overall request will be provided to the city council because they have purview over both the
ordinance and the fire code. But when the request comes before the commission, this is how you will see it as the commission has purview over the environmentally sensitive lands ordinance. Now, um, because currently the environmentally sensitive lands area
does house the fire defensible space and it will be moved, we want to make sure that you see to where it's going to be housed and we want to make sure that we do receive comments, direction, and ideas from the commission even though it will no longer be under your purview. We still want you to provide direction to
uh the city council even um from where it's going to be placed even though that won't specifically be under your purview once it's moved. And again, an example of what the fire code modifications will look like when they go to the council because they will be making two votes.
One for the changes made to the ESL and then again for the changes made to the fire code. So that that concludes my presentation. So, both myself, Jeff Barnes, and the fire chief are here to respond to any questions. >> Thank you, Mr. Mario. Um, I I do have
been signaled by a few commissioners if they have questions. Commissioner Joiner, I think you asked me first, Commissioner Scarro, and then Commissioner Gonzalez, and then Commissioner. >> Thank you for your presentation. I'm um very very sensitive to the fact that
no one in Scottsdale wants to see an a fire event like happened in Los Angeles and in my neighborhood. One of my neighbors actually had both of his daughter's homes burned to the ground. So, I realized that that being said, I
live in a house that has a huge NaOS and in my neighborhood, there are four other homes that share that NaOS and in reading both all the documentation that we were provided,
there was a lot of comments about what's allowed to clean it up or to keep it safe. Um, I read a couple of them that said, you know, you can't remove anything. Now, I can tell you I have my landscape, well, we have our landscapers
twice a year get what I consider to be fire hazards in that because our NaOS that we share is probably uh a good 4 acre plot. So, I don't clean my neighbor's NAOS, but we clean ours.
So, that's one concern I have. I also am not understanding the def definition of fire defensible space that adjoins a wall or structure. So the NAOS doesn't touch my house.
It it does touch a fence. And and and again I don't mean to just use my own house, but I that's the best thing I can do to get my point across. So, where does the fire defensible space start? And I saw the drawing in the
application that showed 10 feet. Now, is that 10 ft from the fence or is it 10t from my home wall? So, that needs to be clarified. Um, and in one of the documents I read, it
just said, "This only applies to new construction." What I'm hearing from you is that's not correct. it apply. It's going to be retroactive to everybody. So, that really changed what I wanted to bring forth to the commission and to for consideration of the residents and city
council in my own home. It'll cost us $30,000 to bring our property up to code if I looked at this. So, is there going to be phasing? Will we be be will we be allowed to do phase
one in two years or whatever? So I think that needs to be defined. I don't know what the answer is. Um one person sent me an email and said, "Is the city going to help offset some of the costs of bringing pieces of property like we
have, which is a very large, we don't have a 10- foot NaOS. We've got a oneacre NaO. Um, and then another recommendation that I was given that I just want to put out there is almost many of us have
landscapers and a while the owner of the landscaping company may speak English, a lot of the landscapers that are doing the physical work may or may not. So, is your are are are you going to do a booklet that maybe
has pictures of you can remove this from an NAOS, but you can't remove that? Because to be really honest, I've read this document five or six times. I don't know based on that what I can go out and actually remove.
And then uh what was my last question? Walls and struct define mainly defining that wall and structure. That's what I wanted to find on that. Um, anyway, those are my concerns. So, thank you. >> Thank you. Uh,
>> oh, >> can you answer the question? >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> I thought your 10 foot walls. >> I I thought I thought most of that was just statements rather than questions. >> Really, it's just today we're not doing anything but bringing concerns forward
to consider, get responses on. Is that my understanding? Is that correct? Uh, Chair, Chair Young and Commissioner Joiner. Sure, that's the majority of of the conversation tonight, but if there's something that we can uh respond to today that makes then the presentation
and the understanding of that in two weeks work better, then we're always open to that. >> Okay. Well, maybe you do want to respond to each one of us so we don't repeat each other or maybe you'll answer some questions that someone else had. So, go for it.
>> Sure. Thank you. Uh so chair and commissioners um the ordinance currently and in the future states that it's for NaO it's adjacent to a wall and uh through you know everyone we received many different
uh versions of what they feel would be better some say within some say in proximity and at the end of the day the ordinance states that you know natural area open space has its parameters right it's a dedicated easement therefore it's clearly clearly defined. And so the
ordinance then so the ordinance currently right now specifically only talks about fire defensible space around an inhabitable structure. When you read my report and when you see the presentation in the future, you'll see that currently what the ordinance says and some of those elements that are
actually been done in practice because of an interpretation are a little different. But what we're currently going to be proposing is this is going to be for any natural area open space that is that that's close to adjacent to within because it's broken up into three
areas 10 20 and 10 totaling 40. So if 40 feet in total now, right, what you can do in each one of those in one of those areas is going to be a little different. So really 40 feet from any wall or building that's on your property. You'll be able to apply the fire defensible
space. For the areas that's within 10 ft of your wall or your house, there's certain things you'll be able to do. For the 20 ft outside of the of the wall or structure, you'll be able to do um some other types of of uh fire mitigation.
And then the last 10 ft uh from that wall totaling 40 will be other elements. And like I said, if you want me to get into details, we can do that. But at least right now, I wanted to explain it overall. >> Can you just define whether a fence is considered a wall? >> Yes, a fence is considered a wall.
>> So it would be 10 ft from my fence then. Correct. Correct. >> Not the backyard. >> Correct. Well, and and again, the current ordinance specifically stated around your structure, an inhabitable structure. And so one of the changes that we're making is taking it from inhabitable structure to structures and
walls and fences. >> Okay? And so if you know if your NAOS is 20 feet away from your wall or your fence, then you're only going to be able to use the last 10 feet of the 20 and then 10 ft of the remaining for the rest
because we're looking at having a 40 foot buffer from walls and fences and and some people might not be able to apply um the this specifically to their property if their NAOS is not near their structure. But then at the end of the
day, because this is targeting NAOS, if it's not NaOS, you can apply these measures as long as you're not um violating the native plant inventory or native plant ordinance, which is another conversation that we'll discuss that night. So again, if it's not an AOS,
you'll be able to apply these measures how you see fit. And when it is adjacent to an AOS within that 40 foot buffer, depending on where you at, because some dedicate right up to the wall, some it's a couple feet away. um it will total to that 40 foot buffer and as you can imagine they're every single shape and
form of of of property and NAOS location and so that's why the the the buffer is provided from the fence or the structure. Um, so having said that, phasing and and some other matters like that, those were more of a concern for
staff having a response once it was mandated. At this point in time, because it's strongly encouraged, you can work on applying it at a fa at whatever phasing that fits your budget or your timeline. Um now the only time that you might ask that question is if um it is
deemed by the fire department by the fire code official or designate that this must be applied because this is a hazardous area then that discussion can happen. But at least right now it was more important and that's why the first bullet point on my overall arching
comments was that residents have requested this in the past. So now it'll allow people to do it. it strongly encourages everyone else and then in some instances it might be mandated and once we get the parameters because the
parameters could still change by either your direction or by the city council. Once those parameters are set uh in place and it's codified, we are going to do our best to make sure we put together and update all the pamphlets and web pages that we have now to make sure that
we apply it. Um, since the initiation of staff, uh, Jeff and I have we've gone out to to many of the HOAs and communities and walk properties and pointed and and um, measured off. And so we're we we strongly want to make sure that that even in practice it's
understood and we stay committed to to making sure people understand. We will update those materials. Um, as far as uh, landscapers, again, that's a problem that we'll always have, right? natural area open space is that we're hoping that through through the education of the program and the education of the or
new ordinance that we'll be able to to reach as many people as you know um many landscapers change as as quickly as as as the seasons do and so we're hoping that through this the education for owners will also be there so that they can implement it um we have that problem
now with NAOS in general um just in in it being encroached and so sometimes um we we invoke the assistance of code enforcement to to bring that to people's attention. And we also several times during the year uh we're invited to HOA
meetings to describe what people can and can't do. And so we're hoping that uh all that um uh information will will be put together in time for the implementation of this. We also know that there's going to be some some growing pains. Um, it took us I know
that many things that we heard was I just finally realized that we can't touch NaOS and now you're telling me that we can under these parameters. So, we know it took a while to educate people to get here and we're hoping to to do the same to get them to. >> So, back to the fence real briefly and
then I'll let everybody else talk. Um, there are some areas that ab butt up to the reserve, the preserve, and I'm told that some people have built fences right up to the edge of the preserve. So, they would not be allowed
to go on the other side of the fence and make that a defensible area. Is that correct? >> That is correct. Um, well, before we get to um our ordinances, there's trespass laws. So you wouldn't be able to apply this to your neighbor's property. You wouldn't be able to and which the
preserve obviously is owned by some by the city through through other other efforts. And so the ordinance does have um does have parameters within it that reminds everyone that if you are going to apply apply fire defensible space to the property, it can only be applied to your property.
>> Okay. Thank you. And and then I I might say that um I know that in the past people have also asked there's always been a question we'll never say no or we'll never say never. But up to this point we are expecting for each homeowner uh to take care of the cost of
implementing the fire defensible space. Right now I currently don't know of of grants. I know we've been asked uh to do that. Again I know that the fire department has stated they're constantly looking for things uh to do. A lot of the times those are more going to be for right away and uh pieces of of of
property that the city owns, but at least I wanted to make sure that I that I covered that comment. So, thank you. >> All right. Uh I think it was Commissioner Scarro was next. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Uh sorry, Chair Young. Uh Mr. Mario, thank you very much
for the presentation. Uh, I really like the idea that this is not mandatory, that this is this is at the discretion or strongly suggested. I definitely don't want fires to occur. I guess my first question is how many fires has Scottsdale
had due to NAOS? And maybe uh Chief Shannon can can answer that question. And and just out of curiosity, you know, if it's a last year, last five years, how many fires has the fire department had to go in and and and
you know, work because NAOS was too abundant with with fire material. >> Mr. Mr. Chair, members of the commission, uh, Commissioner Scarough, a bit of a bit of a swag here for you, but, uh, it would, it actually would surprise you the number of starts that
we have in and around the NOS. Um, there's some terminology here I think that's important and helpful for the broader conversation. The there's a there's a phrase called wildland urban interface that you might hear uh, frequently when we're talking about wildfire management. And here it has a
direct application to essentially the NaOS. The NOS is that perimeter um that abuts uh uh developed or inhabited locations and it is the wildland urban interface and where we find most of our
fires are in the rightways. Um a a common uh human-caused fire uh over the last gosh 5 to 10 years is through the development construction process where we get grinding and cutting um
experiences and we we hit those areas uh every year very heavily with education campaigns. But to answer your question specifically, it's in the tens to hundreds of starts that we get uh every
year. uh in and around the NAOS, whether it be roadways or uh inhabitable places that include NOS. I can get information for you by the next meeting for specific starts in the specific geography that we
would identify to help you, but it actually would surprise you the number of starts we actually we actually have in and around the NAOS. >> Uh Chief Van, I would love to see that information. um the the starts in the rightway is not really my concern here. This is this is something that would be
affecting private citizens and their private property. So, I'd love to to know what the fire starts are specifically for private property since this is something starting out as strongly suggested, but seems like it's on a path to being mandated and at a
cost to the citizens. So, I I would love to know what that data looks like uh while I'm chatting with you. Anyways, um could and maybe this is for Mr. Mario as well, but can can you either one of you help me understand uh how the fire
department discretion on whether it is required versus mandate mandated, how that's bookended or how that is um exemplified or detailed so that it's not just an arbitrary uh inspector decides today everything is
is a danger and now 15 owners are having to do $10,000 worth of, you know, pruning or whatever. So, if you could walk me through what that discretion looks like and how it's outlined, >> Mr. Chair, members of the commission, that's a very fair question. So, uh the
best answer I can give you is we do uh uh hazardous vegetation uh assessments every single year. Um, we identify uh dense uh vegetation whether it be invasive or or native species and we uh
contact uh those property owners to let them know today um what vulnerabilities that might exist. Let's go through a scenario that might uh specifically answer your question. Let's say that um
through fire modeling methods that we use today and that we're investing in uh now heavily as a result of Proposition 490. Let's say that the fire modeling suggests that uh a a a section of a
community is in higher risk of of of fire uh transfer due to the overgrowth and vegetation. uh that might exist inside this proposed ordinance change. But
approximate to that maybe due to topography or uh slope or uh fuel type uh other community other properties don't have that same vulnerability. Through that fire flow modeling, we would go out and do a specific site
inspection. we would engage those uh property owners uh whether they be private property owners, residents or the HOA itself and we would say here's the specific vulnerability and if and if it met frankly my uh my level of concern
that it posed a a transference hazard or uh one property owner's vulnerability impacted another properties owner, we could compel them to take action. It's not necessarily a certainty and and I
would I would bring your attention to and I don't want to take you down the path of your uh of your presentation if you're not ready, but in section 0118 there's some lang language that helps you understand that it we may require ex
uh additional or enhanced uh uh techniques and methods or we may permit lesser standards. Let's say that a a community member is concerned that their neighbor h has overgrowth and vegetation that that could impact them. We would
similarly go do a site inspection and based on fire flow modeling and and uh fire conditions and fuel type and all of those contributing factors, we would do an assessment and determine whether or not that actually posed a real hazard or
it didn't. And then we would take the appropriate action. So, I know that that's awfully vague in the response, but there's a degree of of um specificity to the condition that we're talking about, the property that we're
talking about and the environment in which that property exists, whether it's the density of the vegetation that year or the the the conditions uh climate conditions and weather conditions and all of those things. So we we I I don't
know that I can give you an always or uh never answer but what I can tell you is that it will not be arbitrary or capriccious in terms of our our determining factors that we will use uh solid fuel uh type and fire flow
modeling and we will engage the the uh citizen or the uh property owner directly to help them understand why that's a hazard and why they need to take action. I appreciate that, uh, Chief Shannon, and that's what I want to make sure doesn't happen. I don't want this to be capriccious where one person
has the ability to affectuate property owners unduly. Uh, so if there's a way to add language or some clarity to this, I would I would appreciate it. Um, and and while I have your attention, I apologize, but when you get that data on
this fire starts, could you also add a complexity to it, and that is the severity of the fire? Was it a a small start or a large that turned into a large fire or a small fire? Um I understand that citizens may have asked for this, but I also see this as as
potentially overreaching and pushing other citizens to do on property that they never thought they would have to. If this is natural open area space that they never thought they had to manicure or take care of, they never planned for this expense. And what I do see this
turning into is it's it's a would like to have today, but it's going to turn mandatory at some time or at least that's how it's reading to me at this point. And so that is a that is a massive burden to put on the citizens from a financial perspective. Now, I don't want fires to be started and I and
I love the we we are safe as we can with fires. I I love sprinkler systems in all of our homes. I love it all. But this is where I kind of want to understand the non-conformance properties versus new builds. I get that a lot of these could be new construction and I get that in
new construction there could be new requirements. I guess I'm really struggling on the the existing property owners and those that could be in non-conformance that purchased those properties that did not have any inclin inclination that they'd be having to
take care of whatever it is a quarter acre 4 acres whatever the area of open space is. Now, I know that there's some limitations, but now that we're adding in fence and wall, that that could push it out quite significantly where the the
area that is being suggested now could be mandated later is within a finite space between the livable space and and NOS. But now we're saying that a wall could be 50 feet from that building. Now, that NAOS that's further out is now
going to be protected and become mandatory. So, I get from from a live uh from a livable structure. I'm I'm struggling on why the wall and fence was added. Uh and because I see this turning into mandatory even though it's not today. And that's this is a slippery
slope that I just would love to have a little bit more understanding on. So those are my thoughts and concerns as it stands today. Thank you both for your time. >> All right. I think uh Commissioner Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Commissioner
Gonzalez. Thank you, chair. Um, Chief Shannon, Mr. I want to thank you. You know, every year I go out to northern Scottsdale. I always look at the areas up there. I'm a
realtor basically. So, I'm always out there. I always see the Bush guys running around there, especially around June, July. They're fantastic guys. They're always they're always on the move. And if you need to know anything,
you talk to those guys and they know the area. So, you know, you fantastic group of people out there working that area all the time, especially in the summer. So, I really appreciate what they do. The question I have for you is basically
when we get to this point where first we look at first is the applications of the construction. I understand that we have to kind of really kind of review what the what they're building, where they're building, and stuff like that. What the fire contingencies are. I know a lot of
the big fire starts were people working up north, you know, for whatever reason. They were sawing something, welding something, TIG welding something. There was always something going on. And that's usually where it seems like it could it comes to together for everybody
as far as fires were concerned. But what I I think what I really want to assess is how we going to be able to manage with our limited uh manpower. How are we going to be able to manage these areas?
Uh we can't expend our our firefighters to go out to all these different locations. Are we going to use a third party to investigate some of these causes or we're going to use uh code enforcement, which would be my thought,
but you know, they're pretty stretched, too. So, I just wanted to kind of understand how we're going to be able to enforce or at least look at these properties. >> Mr. Chair, members of the commission, Commissioner Gonzalez, so if I'm understanding your questions, um it
might be three-fold. So our our mitigation efforts, let's start there. So we mitigate the hazard by the brush patrols that you're referring to every year and uh in the in the peak season, we have four operating for 12 hours every day.
What we have is we also have the local fire uh truck that's in that what we call a firstdue area literally participates in that hazardous vegetation assessment. And so they're taking personal ownership in the geography that is in their first due
area. And so they're you are correct. They are very intimate. They're very aware of what's going on in their in their area. Here's some opportunities for improvement on our side. Um in the plan review process right now there's a
gap between the permit being issued and knowledge of when the activity is taking place. And so what we're proposing later downstream is a 24-hour notice of actual grinding and cutting activity so we can
be frankly quicker to understanding what the vulnerabilities are. So we just don't happen to be by there. Um we have a force multiplier in that our inspectors um who are up in that up in that area particularly in the wildland urban interface or the NAOS area uh
doing their normal daily inspections of businesses and and and the like they're also taking time to visit those contractor sites because the permit may go to the contractor but it's the subcontractor that's doing the grinding and cutting. And so that ma'am is where the disconnect might be. It's not just a
language uh barrier problem. it might just be a simply it's it's two or three times removed in terms of who's actually doing the work. And so we're sensitive to that as well. And then finally um uh the investigative side that has been uh
so there's a carrot and a stick sort of concept here, right? And the investigative side has been an area where we need to uh strongly improve because the causation um is is a struggle point because as you can imagine when a fire starts the the
the greatest concern is to stop the forward progress of that fire. And oftentimes the evidence and the the area around that fire gets disturbed and sometimes it makes it very difficult to have um positive outcomes in terms of
assigning accountability and responsibility. So if we get it on the front end and help them to do grinding cutting safely and then we improve our investigative uh responsiveness and then we get to uh some some uh uh greater
collaboration I think with our legal department uh and code enforcement in terms of uh how we how we actually engage that process and what the consequences are because right now it there is not a stiff penalty. It's it's
literally hundreds of dollars of of penalty for having started a fire and it can have millions of dollars of consequence. And so we've got to we've got to look at that a little bit closer. And so we've got work to do in those two primary areas that I mentioned. But I
think the the place that we're in a in a in in a in a good place is with our uh what we anticipate every year. We've already done our our fire season kickoff where we red we red team and we tabletop
what we think the season looks like based on u the information from the national weather uh uh uh uh uh uh agency our our partners at the department of fire forestry management the tano national forest and all the key players we all sit and we talk about the
fire season and so we red team that process and we say okay what are we going to do just yesterday we talked to the hot shot and we know exactly where they're going going to be in North Scottsdale uh in the Tano area. And so a long answer to a short question, but uh the two primary areas where I think we
need to improve are definitely in the um are in the investigative side and then in the uh on the enforcement side. And I all I can tell you is that uh through this process, we're going to uh um uh I do believe we have the resources to do
the mitigation work. We just need to uh have uh stronger uh in uh a stronger stick on the backside. >> Well, thank you very much. I appreciate your service and and thank you for the explanation. That was really what I was looking for and that that you made my
you know satisfied my questions. So, thank you sir. >> Thank you, Commissioner Gonzalez. Uh Commissioner Tell. >> Thank you, Sher. Um, we talk about prevention and yes, nobody wants fires, certainly not like the LA
fires. I'm not sure exactly how the LA fires would relate to what we have here in Scottsdale. I mean, is it I don't know the similarities. I don't know the differences, but okay, we don't want fires. Um
that in the the draft it talks about prevention but it also talks about access. Um do you really care about access in the NAOS side? I mean, most people would
most fire departments, I would think, would go to the fire hydrant on the street as opposed to climbing back through the uh NaOS. Now, maybe I'm just thinking of my NAOS.
Maybe um uh Commissioner Joiner's NaOS is different. Does the fire department would you expect the fire department to drive through the NAOS to put out a fire? >> There is no access to the NAOS. my house.
>> So clearing 40 feet of dead vegetation uh wouldn't from your perspective perhaps from the chief's perspective be different. Clearing 40 feet wouldn't be helpful in getting fire equipment
>> to the fire. >> Mr. chair and members of the commission. Um it's a broad generalization about what I'm about to say, but we actually use techniques called bump and run where we will uh we will uh the space between this the the uh the wall or or that that
10-ft space is designed specifically to give us a essentially an alleyway to move to move through and to move fire away of from away from potential structures. So the technique of firefighting is literally just to keep pushing the fire away from structures.
And so uh if if you were to observed either the diamond fire or the fires uh uh last year, the gate fire, you would have observed this bump and run technique where our folks are literally on the run with with uh uh trucks that
have uh uh both the the capability to move and pump at the same time. And those firefighters are are literally pulling hose, moving fire and and relocating and relocating and relocating and just literally pushing the fire away
from from structures. And so um the the the techniques of for firefighting generally speaking are to are to use that method just keep things pushing away. So to do that we need space to operate. If you have overgrown
vegetation and we can't make that alleyway, then you will you will be overrun. And so that as as much as I admit that that's a broad generalization, that is the answer to your question in terms of we may uh need access or we may not. That's why I
preface the earliest conversation with sight specific conversations. If you're concerned about your specific property, we would come to your property and say, you know what, I think you're okay here. Both for fire flow and vegetation type and density, we probably could still manage through here. So, I I admit that
that's not um is this is not a good answer for every case, but it is it is generally true. >> Well, what you just said reminds me you said that you would do nothing capricious, and I agree with that. You wouldn't you would use the model. Now, having built
models for a good part of my career, I understand that you can make models do what you want or you can I shouldn't say it that way, but you can make models that give you the results that seem best for you. Um, and it's not being capricious, it's using the model. Um,
so, you know, I have to say the last thing I would do would be to call the fire department and say, "Do you think I need to clear out uh 40 feet behind my house?" uh or a 10-foot behind my house, you know, blade that down so that a
truck can drive through there. Um you know, the risk of you saying, "Well, sure, just blade everything." Uh that would make it much easier uh for us to prevent fires or to put out fires. Um
uh Commissioner um Scarbor asked about how many fires have occurred um in NaOS and I realize that it's not what's happened in the past so much of what's happened in the future but the good way to judge that is to see what's
happened in the past but I wonder how many fires are there um have what's the magnitude of fires that have happened in the preserve. It seems to me like the preserve is the greatest vulnerability.
Um, you know, the 10 or 40 feet behind, well, not behind my house, but be behind my house, behind my pool, and behind the fence, you know, that doesn't seem to be nearly as vulnerable as the preserve. And yet, we're carving out the preserve.
Um, I'm not sure why. I mean, I know it's got a lot of, you know, support. It's got a lot of PR. It's got a lot of clout, but it's still a fire hazard. So, if you could let us know also about the not just the number of fires in the
preserve, you know, because there could be one, but it could be humongous as opposed to um something that involves one or two houses adjacent to NaOS. So, if you could let us know about that. Um
the chief you had mentioned slopes and the NOS NAOS that I have it's I'll say maybe behind my fence maybe six feet and then it drops off into a a wash. Um
you know if you if you went 40 feet back there you'd be basically getting rid of um an awful lot of stuff. Um, I realize it says 40 feet for um dead vegetation that it's down on the
ground. Um, and the 30 feet before that um perennial grasses, but also overgrown shrubs. You got to keep three feet between shrubs.
Um, that's quite a bit of of removal. of living plants. Um, it's really kind of destroying the idea of NaOS. Uh, I realize it helps the fire department. Um, but it destroys the
NaOS. Um, there was one other thing. Oh, um, I understand that, you know, government likes to help, but we also have property insurance. I'm not convinced that we
need the government to do things that may or may not prevent fires. When you have insurance companies that, you know, if we're going to ensure your property, you got to do this. As I understand it, the insurance companies will make suggestions to the city of Scottsdale
about highways. Well, you know, you really ought to, you know, put a a barrier here. Um, I don't know that insurance companies have ever said to me, you know, you got to clear out the brush back there. But, you know, that might be something that would be a
better approach. And I don't try to solve a problem that really doesn't exist. Um, potentially may exist, but doesn't exist today. Um, that is all my substantive comments. Um, now allow me
to briefly make some comments. Does, and this is for the lawyers. Do you do you still use Fowlers as a as a style book or anything like that? I read this and it says, and
I know this is petty to most people, but what the hey, I'm a petty guy. It says remove dead branches or branches touching the ground. If it says or, that means either or. It should be saying and I think if that's what you mean or unless I get a choice. My choice is to
remove the dead branches or the branches touching the ground. Um you may want to take a look at that and the punctuation. Uh sometimes you've seem to be using semicolons when you mean colons. You're
initiating a list. But at any rate, I'm getting bored looks so I'll shut up. Thank you very much. Thank you, Commissioner. >> Commissioner Reid, >> thank you. I think I think
the implementation of this with respect to the HOAs and the NAOS is going to going to be present a challenge that if we can address it up front will be very helpful. I live in an HOA that has
approximately 40% of the the um property in NaOS. Half of the residents don't want you to climb over the fence. They don't want to even put your hand over the fence into the NaOS. The other half of the residents want to mow down 500 feet
behind their house because of the potential for a fire. So there's there's significant conflict within the HOA of how to do fire mitigation and everybody has an anecdotal idea about why their
position is correct. So any um any help you could give to how we could implement this and what your experiences have been in making this happen would be really helpful. And to that end, the issue with
respect to the HOA and compliance with these, even if it's a recommendation, would be helpful because if you're asking the HOA to comply with these rules for in our instance about
400 homeowners, it is a lot of money that we have not budgeted for in our HOA um dues. So, we've I don't know how we'd come up with the money, but I can tell you that our residents don't want to have special
assessments to do fire prevention as a whole. So whether you require the HOA to comply with properties or whether you can you require individual homeowners is really important to articulate
if we want to make something happen that's universal and doesn't cause all sorts of conflict between people and what they do or don't want to do with respect to the NaOS. If I could comment on that though, um
>> it still comes down to the homeowners are going to be paying money. >> It either individually or the HOA, but it doesn't reduce the amount of sure >> money, which as you say would be substantial, >> right? Uh, Commissioner Drake
>> and Chief, I I would say uh just a a recommendation. I think after everything eventually the text amendment, whatever uh is ironed out here, uh goes to the city council and gets approval. if there
was some type of social media type of engagement with everybody to to inform the public exactly what this what this means to them and so that uh they can uh
not be confused by by you everybody will be in the same information. They'll have all that given to them and they can make those judgments. A lot of people might not once this is done maybe people will have a better understanding of what
their surroundings entail for taking care of that and that would even mean inside their own property as well and so and then also maybe engage with all the uh HOAs and neighborhoods to uh just have a better engagement with the
public. So that's just my little suggestion there. Okay, Commissioner Gonzalez, you have another question. >> Okay. >> Um, Chief, I wanted to say that, you know, this is not an uncharted u view
for for us because we had almost the same type of questions back in the 1970s about fire extinguishers and fire uh fire sprinklers and uh we had that these these same type of arguments about it. you know who's going to pay for what.
The developers didn't want to pay for anything and nobody wanted to spend any money. But because of because of what the interchange that we're having here, because of the quality of the of the the fire department that we've
had here for the last 50 years, we have the lowest and and your home and owners insurance includes your your fire and and they have a rating and Scottell has the best rating of fire anywhere in the country because we were proactive and we
did a lot of things that we didn't want to spend spend the money for. But because we spent that money, we have the best we save our money in in insurance and we we're able to put out fire hydrants everywhere and close proximity.
And I think, you know, it it'll it will work itself out, but we shouldn't be afraid of spending the money that it takes to do the job correctly now because if we don't spend the money now, later on we'll pay for it later. So, thank you very much and I appreciate
your help. >> Can I comment on that? >> Hang hang on one sec. Uh, I think Commissioner Scar bro had a followup and then Commissioner Tell and then Commissioner Joiner and then I have a question I've been waiting on. >> Thank you, Chair. >> No, I'm giving you all your your your
moments. So, go ahead. Thank you, Chair. Uh, well, since Commissioner Gonzalez brought this up, yes, uh, fire sprinklers are now required. That's for new construction. I've had a 1956 home that didn't require me to put sprinklers in until I did an expansion. And this is my exact point with this. I do not want
this to be mandatory on citizens that were unaware of this expense. Now, if there's some provision that's put in there that makes it mandatory upon doing something new to the property and that becomes a known burden based on that improvement, I get it. I do not support
the idea of making this mandatory for citizens that were not aware of this from the get-go. That's exactly how our sprinkler systems were implemented here in Scottsdale as well. And I don't want us to set precedents of us mandating it differently than we did that. Just my two cents.
>> Uh, Commissioner Ertel. >> Thank you, Chair. Uh, Commissioner Gonzalez said that we currently have the best fire rating in the country. Um, so the unclearared NaOS hasn't detracted from
that rating. Okay. Well, so we're fine as it is according to the insurance companies. Thank you, >> Commissioner Joiner. >> Chief Scallan, thank you so much for being here. Um, I have all the respect
in the world for what you guys and your team does. Did I hear you say that you'll visit properties and give recommendations? And if that were so, would I then go on a list where somebody was going to come and
say, you know, you didn't cut this tree down or whatever? I mean, what is involved in that? And I'm just sitting here thinking, there's a lot of value in my home because of the landscaping that we've put in over the last 25 years. and the
koi ponds and the shrubs and everything. And I'm I'm sitting here about ready to cry thinking what my land is going to look like if I've complied with all of these things. So,
>> uh Mr. chair, members of the commission, uh commissioner, um alls I can tell you is that and I and I I'll smile and look at my friend Miss Carla uh because she had similar concerns about the vulnerabilities of the preserve >> is that uh the fire department shares
the uh appreciation for the the features and the uh the just the the awesomeness that is Scottsdale. And this is not a an we are not a blade and and and fire break uh uh organization. Um and my my
my u promise and I I I can't even envision a a replacement for me that would come in with some draconian position. Um because sir uh you make a good point
that our fuel type and density is not that of California. the conditions that contributed to California um would be uh in terms of wind uh would be rare and
and could they happen? Sure. The the uh the density and climate conditions and fire behavior vulnerabilities are very real. And so, uh, an interesting fact that you may not be aware of that, uh,
um, Mr. Mario pointed out is that there's actually more acreage in NAOS than there is in preserve. >> And if you think of that as a potential feeder to the preserve, and it was mentioned, uh, why aren't we focusing on
the preserve as for the the financial value that it that we've invested in? Oh, I can assure you we are. But our tactic is to keep fire out of the preserve. The most likely cause of fire in the preserve is fire outside of the
preserve >> because of the way that fire behavior and fire flow would move from the west to the northeast. Um, that is the that is the history of fire in Scottsdale. The Cave Creek complex fire is the best example I can give you. and I'll be able
to bring those documents back for you to show you to show you the actual I'll bring you back some maps so you can actually see the way the fire actually spread. So ma'am, alls I can assure you is that we're not coming for your koi ponds. We're not coming for uh your vegetation
inside your inside your home uh and inside your walls. What we're trying to do is provide as much opportunity for us to stop to keep fire away from inhabitable spaces when required. And that's key. So the I
keep keep wanting to bring you to section 10 0118. The the the concept I really want to leave you with is you may have uh vegetation that is that would uh if you were reading this as an absolute shall
would require uh uh expense. you may invite us out to your home or your or your uh uh neighbor may may tell on you and we may find ourselves at your home >> and we might say you know what based on fire modeling and the conditions at this
location there's no need to to make a change but sir simultaneously we could find ourselves saying you know what this could contribute to fire transference from one property to another and that would compel that person to take an action. So once again, very vague. Um,
you're already kind of on a list in that we do hazardous vegetation assessments for for the entirety of the NOS every year through our through our our our trucks and uh we have wonderful volunteers doing that work. So my the
the proof will be in how we actually apply this this policy and this standard. And I can tell you as long as I am the fire chief, it will not be uh overbearing. It will be very thoughtful. It will be based on science. And it's
going to be let's what problem are we trying to fix here? And we're trying to make sure that we don't have uh vegetation that could contribute to to fire transference to inhabited occupancies or or impacting neighbors. So I I hope that helps.
>> It does. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Joiner. Uh, Commissioner Tell, you have one another followup. >> Yes. >> All right. >> Yes. Um, Chief, you mentioned that um you you wouldn't be blading area. I forget exactly how you said it, but
you're not a blade in something or other. Um would you then work with um u uh Jesus on this uh about um in O 011 and 611
uh a uh it says within the first 10 feet vegetation may be brought down to bare mineral earth boulders and other natural services may be kept provided they do not impede fire department access. Would you work with them on revising that so
that it wouldn't uh wouldn't sound like you're blading? >> Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Absolutely. Yeah. We we work with planning hand inand on making sure that uh and that's the that's really the success story of this conversation. If I
can if I can uh take a minute. Um, we came to them with a uh tactics and strategy problem to to mitigate fire real time. And this is the result. They've helped us kind of pull out the
pieces and and and identify opportunities to uh do more when necessary and do less if we have if if that's permitted. Quite simply. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh, are there any other
comments questions >> Mr. Chairman? Uh, at the end I'd like to offer a couple uh comments, but I'll I'll wait. >> Okay. Commissioner Gonzalez, did you have >> I just had a question for Mr. Curtis. Mr. Curtis, because of the the way that
they're they're bringing uh we're going to re be reviewing this, we're not going to be really voting on this. It's just going to be a recommendation. Am I correct in that? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Gonzalez. Um, keep in mind what we're talking about today and what we provided
to you. Um, three pages deal with the ESL uh and the NAOS of the packet that was provided. Um, 11 pages of what was provided is what's in the fire code
proposed amendment. So what you'll be looking at we got planned in two weeks for action which would be a recommendation to the city council would just be on those three pages that deal with the ESL which is part of the zoning code that's in your purview. The 11
pages that are part of the fire code are complimentary in terms of showing the association between the two. >> I see that helps. And so it's just going to it's just going to be a recommendation to the to the council and
then what is what is the process for that for your department? >> So Mr. Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Gonzalez, similar to other text amendments that you guys worked on most recently because of state law changes and we have to change our zoning code,
you'll be making a recommendation for the city council to approve um the text amendment that was provided um and the language that that pertains to that. Um and it will be and and Jesus showed it on the screen a little bit
earlier just the provisions that pertain to the zoning code which are the ESL which within ESL is the natural area open space and again the fire code changes are more robust and the and the
changes to the ESL regarding NOS is basically saying and Jesus kind of alluded to this is taking the property owners off the hook a little bit in terms of of not being able to touch the NAOS if they need to to remove the fuels
so they won't get into any non-conforming situation or in trouble with the zoning code because they cleared out areas of NOS um to remove the fuels because that's in concert with what the fire code uh has
said for many years and will continue uh in more clarity though with this version of the fire code >> and what do you think the timing is is when we will when this will be presented to council. >> So uh Commissioner Gonzalez, Mr.
Chairman, the there's been at least four open houses. Um there's been um one big change to the text after some of the open houses based off of addressing those comments. So there's been a lot of
uh activity in the public realm uh communicating this. So there's a big desire to keep this moving forward. So we're thinking that we'll be getting to council uh I typically when things get to uh the planning commission a month
after would get to council. So we're hoping I think you all agree at the end of May try to get to the city council uh with both of these ordinances. Um, and then obviously more outreach and more education and the pamphlets and everything else. Um, we'll be working
through. >> Do you think by the end of summer possibly? >> Yes, I think we'll be moving uh pretty quickly um in terms of getting the council um um to really start deliberating on what you guys have been
deliberating tonight in in that setting because so much has been done thus far. >> Okay. Well, that's that's good. Very good. Thank you, sir. >> All right. I'm not giving anybody else a chance to speak. Um, so I guess my question is it's
regard Well, I guess it is a question. So, in my experience with the NaOS, it's always been off limits. You can't construct anything in it. You can't do anything in it. Um, has there been any thought to alternative means of fire
suppression? say if somebody wanted to put, you know, and maybe I'm Chief Shannon, maybe I'm way off base by even suggesting this. If people wanted to put sprinklers in because you could put rotors in that throw 40, 50, 60 feet. Um, and I realized taking fuel away
because fire needs fuel, but if it may not um put out the fire, but it could possibly deter the fire. So, I don't know if if somebody was opposed to wanting to take out, you know, all their vegetation that there might be alternative ways to alleviate that
concern for fire in that defensible space immediately around the house or structure. So, I I I don't know if that's something that's been considered or if it's even worth discussing from the fire department's perspective. >> U Mr. chair and members of the
commission. Um actually there are some residents now that on the on their side of the fence have actually done just that and we have some um golf uh courses that that have uh specifically done that. Um, and then the in terms of what
can be done to mitigate fire or uh in terms of any other methods or technique, I would defer to Jesus in terms of what can be done on the other side of the fence in terms of um I'll I'll use the word retardants or uh herbicides or things like that and what's permitted or
not permitted. But if it's we're all for uh anything that reduces the chance of fire spreading. And so in the event that that uh a property owner wanted to install uh uh sprinklers to to
essentially move fire away from their property, we would be in full support of that. Um I don't know that so I don't know that that we will ever get to a place where we would mandate anything like that. >> Sure. But I mean for instance like right now you can't do that in NAOS. You can't
build any not there's no >> I'm sorry. >> Yes. Not in the NOS. But but on your property side >> on the property side. But in effect if you've got this 40 foot defensible space that you're allowed to clear and you put rotors out at the edge of that 40t,
you've essentially doubled that area of of being able to suppress fires. So, if you're able to construct, you know, irrigation improvements in there to be able to have rotors or sprinklers to uh to deter the fire, then it could actually increase the defensible space
by not actually encroaching into the space beyond the 40 ft. >> I wouldn't argue the science to that, but I would I would defer to my friends to to say whether that that was was permitted. >> Thank you, Chief. Uh uh Chair Young, um
as mentioned by by Commissioner Drake, there will be a push to make sure that as much education goes out to people on these matters. Um this is also going to be an opportunity for staff to bring up other uh elements of prevention and actually uh kind of in the same thought
but maybe a little uh directed differently the way we were seeing it. As many of you probably know, as soon as NaOS is been disturbed by a development, especially adjacent to a wall, right? No development has a wall adjacent to NAOS
that wasn't at some time uh disturbed in order to construct the the subdivision and then brought back to its natural state. At that point in time, the ordinance says that you must irrigate natural area open space for three years. The first year, you know, fully, the
second year it's cut in half, and the third year once again. The problem that we have found for many communities uh both where they people complain that uh trees are destroying walls and where we found that a lot of people have been complaining about having overgrown
vegetation that they feel is is is fire hazard has been where a lot of these irrigation systems were not pulled out. Therefore, we've got vegetation that is much larger and and much more robust and then eventually does die and and is much
bigger than you would find anywhere in the natural desert. So, as part of this, we're hoping to remind people to go out in their backyards and look and see make sure there's I've done two site visits and one of them it was clear that many of the even though this community has been there 30 40 years, the NaOS was
still being watered. Therefore, you found conditions that normally wouldn't have probably caused a fire hazard, but because the vegetation has been and especially, you know, once invasive grasses come in, um, we have these situations. So, we're actually going to be asking people to see if we can have
that removed. Um, also a lot of people, as you well know, have their planters adjacent to their walls and are watering their those and inadvertently are are causing these mini oasis for for vegetation to and therefore now you've got some really unnatural densities of
vegetation at these locations. So, some of the preventative measures that we've been looking at is actually to be removing uh existing irrigation from from these NAOS areas, especially by HOAs. and you know they've been used to paying the same water bill for 30 40 years that they don't realize that
should have been cut off a long time ago. >> Sure. >> Um we're always willing uh for that's right part of this process has been getting ideas and suggestions for how to how to have these preventative measures. Yeah. Um >> and and not to cut you off but I think we're talking about two different types of irrigation methods. I think what
you're describing is drip irrigation uh which is underground. I'm talking about sprinkler sprinklers like rotors uh like aerial type irrigation. So I I I think I Exactly. Yeah. So I I see where people
probably have done that in the past to make sure that the you know everything that's grown around their house is nice and green and flowering and everything, but this I don't think anybody's going to want to pay that water bill after they're running rotors um to to if they've got a fire coming towards their house. They're going to let that thing
rip while the fire is a threat and then they're going to shut that thing off because I mean it's going to take a lot of water. Um, so I I think the drip irrigation I I get. I think that's a separate issue. This is just for fire mitigation that I'm talking about as an as an alternative to pulling out all the
vegetation. >> Thank you, Chair Chair Young. Uh, as part of that conversation, I would have I was going to add that currently our ordinance doesn't allow for such improvements for irrigation to be located within AOS. So if that is something that you would like us to consider,
>> but that's for temporary irrigation for a period of what's supposed to be 3 years right? >> Correct. Well, after that, no, no irrigation supposed to be located. So if there was, then um those ideas is something we would want to know up front so that we could amend the portions of the ordinance that currently don't allow
any type of of rip wrap or or irrigation of any kind within the within the boundaries of an AOS. >> Okay. Yeah. I mean, I just I was thinking about it. I heard somebody mention sprinklers earlier and I know they were talking about building sprinklers, but I thought, "Wow, what if you could just put in sprinklers outside
and deter that fire?" Um, so anyway, that was just something that dawned on me. >> Chair Young, and just another group that would be interested in that would be our water resources department in terms of extending lines and opportunities for, you know, that water use because that's a very
sensitive topic, too. that would be sure more involved conversation with some other disciplines. >> I think people would argue that they're mill multi-million dollar home is worth more than a few hundred dollar water bill. But anyway, that's neither here nor
neither here nor there. Um I don't have any other requests to speak. So I think that's uh the end of of Mr. Curtis. >> Yeah, just a couple things. Um so the chief mentioned you know we have a lot of um preserve obviously and then we
have a lot of NOS and that's true we do have a lot of NOS and that's a big credit to the environmentally sensitive lands ordinance that requires NOS it's a big credit to property owners that dedicated the NOS on their property and it's a big credit to developers you know
um who um put together the N US their NAS plans when they develop um and it's a credit to the staff that's working with everybody to try to make sure that everybody's complying and getting that NOS and getting those NOS um in the
right location so they provide you know good wildlife corridors and so forth but we don't have as much NAOS as we have preserve however we do have almost uh as much protected open space as the
preserve um in other ways So you add up the NaOS and then you add up drainage easements throughout town that are protected. Um and then you add up the parks that are protected open spaces. Even the indmen wash when you add all that up it really gets close to the
preserve. And so Scottdale is very fortunate to have a lot of protected open space. when you add the preserve and the NAS and the other parks and other open spaces that are out there, um we're almost half of the geographic area
of Scottsdale is somewhat protected open space. Um so it's it's it's really a credit to the community and the planning commissions and everybody else that have worked on that. Um so that's one. And then two, I just wanted food for thought. Um, bringing this topic back to
some of the day-to-day things that the planning commission does when you look at reszoning cases and generally the reasoning cases where um a developer is coming in, they own the property, they want to reszone the property from large lots to smaller lots to build a
subdivision and we're talking more and more about more tracked NOS NOS located in in the tracks as opposed to lot NAOS and that plays a factor in
this too because um if there's more tracked NAOS that are managed by a homeowners association then there's only one group uh or one contact that the fire department will have to work with in terms of dealing with all that NUS as
opposed to you know 60 different individual property owners that all have some NOS in the backyard that they're not quite sure is that my N US I'm not Can I expand and put a pool back there and all that? So, the this this fire
protection uh also comes into consideration when we're looking at planning these subdivisions and getting more of it in attracted NOS that's controlled by one entity instead of like I said 60 different homeowners. So, that's just another thing to think about
as we move forward with uh different cases that come in front of you. So, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Curtis. Um, I think that's the end of the non-action items. So, I think we could bring the meeting to a close if I have a motion. >> So, move to adjourn.
>> All right. Uh, second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> We're adjourned. Thank you, everybody.