14 ATTACHMENT 04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Both parties had expressed an initial interest in mediation; to which the City recommended a professional facilitator with the applicant paying the cost of the facilitator. The Spencer's and the Besso's were also informed that staff may request again that all of the setbacks for pools, spas, and other accessory structures in the Lemoine Ranch Development be reduced in order to be more consistent with what the residents may have already constructed prior to City approval. Please see Exhibit D-2 for staff's a-mail correspondence dated Monday, July 30, 2007 regarding the facilitation and reduced setbacks for the development. Notice of this application was sent to all property owners living within 1,000 feet of the subject property. As of the date this staff report was drafted, staff had not received any addition comments to the proposed project. At Mr. Besso's request, staff met with him again at his property on April 1, 2008 to discuss the proposed application. During this discussion, Mr. Besso offered staff the following summarized his suggestions again for the applicant's proposal; which are as followed: 1) move the pool five additional feet forward, requiring a 10-foot setback from the rear property line; 2) relocated the hot tub to the opposite side of the pool, mirroring the Besso's hot tub; And 3) "tone" down the waterfall feature for noise relief since it is currently proposed near their, the Besso's, bedroom. Please see the correspondence letter from the Besso's dated "Received April 1, 2008" in Exhibit E for further detail regarding the their concerns and suggestions. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Existing facilities consisting of the operation, permitting, licensing, or minor alteration of structures involving no expansion of use beyond that existing are categorically exempt (Section 15301, Class 1 (L)(4)) from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CONCLUSION Staff is sympathetic with the neighbor's concerns and the applicants desires and recommends that the Planning Commission take into consideration what the applicants are trying to achieve along with what the rear yard neighbor's concerns are; as outlined in Exhibit D-2 and Exhibit E. As previously mentioned, the applicant's house pad is higher than the house pad of the neighbors to the rear and although it is not highly visible at the proposed location, the proximity of the pool has raised safety and privacy concerns with the rear yard neighbor. The Besso's PUD-99-Ol-OS, Steven Spencer Planning Commission 10 of 11