My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
01
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2008
>
121608
>
01
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/10/2008 4:41:33 PM
Creation date
12/10/2008 4:41:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
12/16/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
01
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
year he noted several cracks and stressed fractures in the concrete where his pool and spa <br />were located which went to the retaining wall bricks. He distributed pictures to the Council, <br />which he briefly described. The property in the rear drained into the ditch area, there was a 4 <br />foot fence which had been straight up and down, but because of the drainage, it was pushed <br />over 60 degrees. It continued to be an issue, with dirt and mud gathering in the ditch and <br />culvert, and his biggest concerns were erosion, safety, the storm drain system, and the stability <br />of his property. With the desire to install a pool he consulted with a landscape architect who <br />determined that a significant amount of erosion had occurred in the rear, and recommended a <br />concrete retaining wall be installed to eliminate the safety and erosion issue. He said he visited <br />the Planning Department on December 6 and 12, 2007 and was issued a permit for the pool <br />and a 4 foot retaining wall, he noted that the drawing he brought to staff was a conceptual <br />drawing and not to scale. He said the reason he went to the Planning and Permits Departments <br />was to do the correct thing and be a good neighbor, and for staff to make appropriate decisions. <br />Mr. Jeffrey said he believed he went overboard in obtaining a retaining wall permit, which is not <br />required for walls 4 feet and under. He believed he did everything to ensure the project would <br />meet all conditions. Both permits were reviewed by staff and issued over the counter. He <br />discussed his conceptual drawing originally submitted which showed his intent for the retaining <br />wall. Due to the 15 foot easement on his property, he was required to move it back 15 feet from <br />the property line. No backfill was needed or used to do this. He said more dirt was taken out of <br />the backyard due to the footing and construction of the wall, but none was added to that portion, <br />and several truckloads of dirt were off-hauled. He referred to page 2 of the agenda report, last <br />sentence, "the purpose of the retaining wall was to support the excavated material from the pool <br />proposed to be constructed immediately north of the Jeffrey's house." However, there was no <br />excavated material used in making the retaining wall. He also referred to page 3 under Project <br />Description which was also not true; "The appellant has completed construction of an in-ground <br />pool and an approximate 4 foot retaining wall and used excavated pool material to fill a portion <br />of the rear yard behind the retaining wall." He described how the as-built wall was constructed <br />and the height of the wall. Elevation of the wall was derived from the slope of the property, they <br />determined the grade of the original slope of the rear property, and built the wall from the <br />ground down. He said the 4 foot existing fence which was damaged from erosion was also <br />removed. He said the Zoning Administrator's ruling was for a one foot berm which the <br />Johnston's opposed. <br />Councilmember Sullivan questioned and confirmed that the dirt to the right of the retaining wall <br />was not backfill and it was at the original grade. <br />Councilmember McGovern referred to the original drawing of the retaining wall at the bottom of <br />the property and asked Mr. Jeffrey if he knew he had a 15 foot easement from the property line. <br />Mr. Jeffrey said he only learned of it after speaking with the Planning Department. He said the <br />Planner, Ms. Amos required him to draw a diagram of how it would look. His intent was to <br />create as much privacy for himself and his backyard neighbors. <br />Councilmember Cook-Kallio questioned if the land from Mr. Jeffrey's house to the retaining wall <br />existed, and that he did not add any dirt to that area. Mr. Jeffrey said yes; he did not add any <br />dirt and that he dug into the hill for the retaining wall to be put in. <br />Mr. Dolan said it was staffs understanding that the situation was more similar to the previous <br />drawing; that some of the backfill was used behind the retaining wall; however, Mr. Jeffrey <br />states he actually dug down along the distance of 100 feet. <br />City Council Minutes 7 December 2, 2008 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.