14 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

was part of the Conditions of Approval was removed. She indicated that she notified the City that same day and informed staff of all of the conditions of these impact lots and that she was told that the project planner had made an error by processing the application and issuing the permits over the counter. She stated that after she spoke to Mr. Jeffrey, she decided to involve the City for help because there were too many unknowns. Ms. Johnston stated that she was asked by then Planning Director, Jerry Iserson, to have this heard at the Zoning Administrator level instead of at the City Council level as conditioned by the approval. She noted that she and her husband agreed to this after being assured that it would carry the same weight of importance as if it were heard at the Council level. She indicated that they were asked if the pool could proceed as Mr. Jeffrey had contractors lined up and work was being delayed, and they had agreed in an effort to compromise in order to allow the Jeffreys to enjoy their yard, based upon their representation that they would re-install the landscaped buffer immediately and that no significant grading would occur. Ms. Johnston continued that on April 8, 2008, the City received landscape and grading plans from Mr. Jeffrey, and upon reviewing the plans, they noticed that the plans did not accurately depict the nature of the slope bank that was in the southwest corner of the yard closest to them. She then showed pictures of what was submitted by Mr. Jeffrey, where the base of the wall is at the same grade level as the ditch and where the slope of the grade in the southwest corner as viewed from the Johnston home is more than just afour-foot area of fill. She also presented a picture of the final grade currently looks like. She noted that there is a significant difference between what was submitted as Exhibit A and what the final grade actually is, with the actual grade being 50 percent higher than what was submitted to the City. Ms. Johnston stated that they submitted a letter to the City dated April 15, 2008, explaining their concerns about Exhibit A and its inaccuracies. She noted that they attended Zoning Administrator hearings on April 16 and April 30, 2008, but no solution was reached. She stated that following the meeting on April 30`h, she asked to meet with Donna Decker, Principal Planner, and noted that on May 2, 2008, she reiterated their concerns about the grading of the lot and how it negatively impacted their home and lives. She stated that Ms. Decker indicated that she would meet with Mr. Jeffrey to discuss these issues and that she would get back to them when new landscaping plans were submitted. Ms. Johnston noted that they did not hear back from anyone and that about June 26, 2008, work again began at 927 Montevino Drive. She indicated that she sent and email and spoke to Natalie Amos and asked if work had been approved that they were not made aware of. She stated that Ms. Amos replied that nothing had been approved and that Mr. Jeffrey was proceeding without City approval. Ms. Johnston noted that when they returned from vacation on July 6, 2008, the retaining wall was completely installed, and it was to the top of their fence line. She noted that the wall may be four feet tall but that from their home, the wall was a six feet tall. She added that they were unsure at what point the wall went from being permitted in error to being allowed as they never received an explanation. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 10, 2008 Page 9 of 25