PC 091008 - Laserfiche WebLink

these decisions, which staff then carry out. She added that on any given day, there are numerous decisions that the Director makes that are not memorialized by notes, and there are no effective minutes of everyday activities taken by staff. In response to Chair Blank's inquiry regarding when the original project planner left the project, Ms. Decker replied that she left the City in March 2008 and that Ms. Amos took over at the end of March or the beginning of April. Chair Blank inquired if a search had been done of Mr. Iserson's emails to see if there is any correspondence which might provide some information. Ms. Decker said no and added that staff typically tries to clean up their emails before they leave. Chair Blank questioned if there was any retention period for emails on City business. Ms. Decker replied that the City does not have a policy as far as retention of emails for correspondence and that staff is currently discussing this matter. Commissioner O'Connor noted that staff first thought the wall should not go forward and then later indicated that it was fine. He added that the Commission also heard tonight that a wall four-foot tall or less does not require permitting. He asked staff if this was something staff did not realize in the past. Ms. Decker replied that the process under question was the grading of the site and the removal of the required screening along that particular boundary. She stated that the screening was previously within the 15-foot drainage easement area adjacent to the existing four-foot tall redwood fence along that boundary. She noted that the approval for both the swimming pool and the retaining wall were given by Planning staff in terms of the site being astraight-zoned parcel rather than a PUD. She added that staff at the counter would not have readily found the conditions of approval associated with a tract map. She stated that what instituted the question of grading is the pool, and staff had received the call in terms of the grading that was happening. She noted that four-foot tall retaining walls are being built all the time within the City. With respect to the question of whether, based on the topography the Commission has seen, this is or is not afour-foot tall retaining wall, she stated that on that corner there are six courses of eight-inch high concrete masonry unit blocks, which equal 48 inches. She added that there is a two- inch concrete cap, which makes the height slightly over four feet tall. Ms. Decker noted that Mr. Jeffrey did, in fact, get a permit but did not need to. In response to the question of whether or not this was a surprise to Ms. Amos, Ms. Decker replied that Ms. Amos did not have the history of this project and was not aware of how it actually evolved from being permitted over the counter when she took over the project in March 2008. She noted that pools are permitted over the counter without design review, and the setbacks as well as the retaining wall and backyard landscaping are checked in terms of the straight-zoning. With respect to the question regarding any of the other landscaping and irrigation on site, Ms. Decker explained that this particular dispute is about grading and excess PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 10, 2008 Page 22 of 33