PC 091008 - Laserfiche WebLink

down to the existing grade, and the fill material is from over-excavation of the pool. She noted that the material shown from the grading and excavation of the pool has actually been off-hauled, and the sliver that was actually placed within the four-foot tall retaining wall is not the amount of material seen in the photograph of the mound of the over-excavation. She noted that the pool is deep; the amount of material is greater than what is shown on the photograph and was actually placed behind the retaining wall. She reiterated that the wall was placed on original grade and was four feet high. Commissioner Fox noted that application plans for re-grading are normally drawn by an engineer or a landscape architect, but the plans for this project are hand-written. She indicated that the Commission has seen plans prepared by engineers for pools as well as structures on unstable slopes along Foothill Road. She stated that she was surprised staff allowed the applicant to submit ahand-drawn diagram and not one prepared by an engineer. Ms. Decker replied that this is not atypical and that the pool plan shown on Exhibit A is typical of a pool plan. She stated that the City has standard civil engineering design and drawings for various depths of pools and that staff has separate engineering drawings for free-form pools that are available through the Building and Safety Division. She noted that this is where the pool plan comes from, and the actual structural plan with standard details is then stamped. With respect to plans prepared by an engineer, Ms. Decker stated that the Building Code does not require a building permit and/or structural engineering for retaining walls that are four feet tall or less; hence, there is no requirement for any engineering for this type of stacked wall. She noted that similar four-foot tall walls consisting of stacked concrete blocks have been constructed elsewhere, but this wall is mortar and a concrete masonry unit wall. Ms. Decker noted that based on the drawings, the wall height varies from approximately two feet at the end next to the existing fence, goes up to four feet toward the corner of the drive isle with access to the drainage area, and then back to zero feet up the driveway. She stated that in effect, there is only a small portion of the retaining wall that is actually four feet in height; the rest of the wall varies from zero to four feet tall on both ends. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Lisa Johnston, with her husband, Greg, Appellants, stated the importance of reviewing the history of this development to help explain their appeal. She noted that when the tract homes on Montevino Drive were first being developed, they attended many meetings of City planners and developers to discuss the homes, lot size, height of the lot, and most importantly, how to maintain the privacy and views of existing residents. She stated that when the development was finally approved, the impact lots, Lots 1-4 and 6-13, were required to place a heavy, dense, broadleaf PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 10, 2008 Page 12 of 33