sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.ussccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/bds/govstream/BDSvData/non_legac… · 16/06/2009 · SANTA CRUZ COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS INDEX SHEET Creation Date:

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS INDEX SHEET

Creation Date: 611 0/09 Source Code: PLANN Agenda Date: 611 6/09

I NVENUM: 62669

Resol ut ion( s) :

Ordinance(s):

Contract (s) :

Continue Date(s): Index: --Mintue Order dated June 19, 2009

--Letter of the Planning Direcor, dated June 4, 2009 --Appeal letter of Claire Machado, dated February 20, 2009 --Staff response to Appeal --Appeal letter of Claire Machado, dated October 2, 2008 --Correspondence of Clair Machado, dated June I O , 2009

Item: 47. Appeal of the determination that a soils report is required for a Building Permit; Building Permit Application Number: 649476; Assessor's Parcel Number: 075-1 24-21 ; Appellant: Claire Machado; Applicant: Michael Watson; Location: 1 1607 Lake Boulevard, Felton;

Appeal withdrawn by Ms. Machado and Mr. Watson

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ STATE OF CALIFORNIA

AT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING On the Date of June 16,2009

REGULAR AGENDA Item No. 47

Appeal of the determination that a soils report is required for a Building Permit; Building Permit Application Number: 649476; Assessor's Parcel Number: 075-1 24-21 ; Appellant: Claire Machado; Applicant: Michael Watson; Location: 1 1607 Lake Boulevard, Felton;

Appeal withdrawn by Ms. Machado and Mr. Watson

cc: County Administrative Officer County Counsel Planning Department Appellant: Claire Machado Applicant: Michael Watson

State of California, County of Santa Cruz-ss.

I, Susan A. Mauriello, Ex-officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz, State of California, do hereby cedify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the order made and entered in the Minutes of said Board of Supervisors. In witness thereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed tthe seal of said Board of Supervisors.

by , Deputy Clerk ON June 19,2009

MEMORANDUM

Date: June 16,2009 To: Board Members

From: Mark Deming, Plannin

Re: Item # 47; MachadoNVatson Appeal

Planning staff has met with Ms. Machado and Mr. Watson regarding the requirements for the soils report. Mr. Watson has prepared revised building plans that scales back the proposed improvements to the existing residence. Kent Edler, PE and I have reviewed the proposed revisions and have determined that the revised project no longer requires a soils report.

It is, therefore, my understanding that Ms. Machado and Mr. Watson will be submitting a letter withdrawing the appeal as the soils report is no longer an issue to be appealed.

0 7 7 5

(831) 454-2580 FAX: (831) 454-2131 TDD: (831) 454-2123 TOM BURNS, PLANNING DIRECTOR

June 4,2009

AGENDA DATE: June 16,2009

Board of Supervisors County of Santa Cruz 701 Ocean Street Santa Cruz, CA 95060

SUBJECT: Appeal of the determination that a soils report is required for a Building Permit.

Members of the Board:

On June 2, 2009, your Board assumed the role as the local appeals board. As you know, two appeals were pending review at the time you took that action. The materials for review of the appeals had been prepared for the respective hearings but no action was taken on these appeals. Attached to this letter is the Notice of Appeal, the response of staff (in this case, the Planning Department’s Senior Civil Engineer) and all other materials submitted by the appellant/applicant for the Michael Watson appeal.

County Code Section 12.12.060 contains the procedure for the conduct of the appeal, as follows:

a. At the hearing on the appeal, the appellant shall, in the first instance present evidence in support of the grounds enumerated in her/his notice of appeal. The county official shall next present evidence in support of her/his decision, order, or determination. The appellant and the county official shall each have one opportunity to rebut the evidence presented by the other. The hearing shall be de novo in all respects.

Following these presentations, your Board may make a decision to affirm, modlfy or vacate the determination of the county official.

It is, therefore, recommended that your Board conduct the appeal as discussed above.

Planning Director p

0 7 7 6

RECOMMENDED:

SUSAN A. MAURIELLO County Administrative Officer

Attachments: 1. Appeal letter of Claire Machado, dated February 20, 2009

2. Staff response to Appeal

3. Appeal letter of Claire Machado, dated October 2, 2008

TB:mmd\G:\Board Letters\Pending\watson bos Itr

&g 3/27’ 6& 0 7 7 7

February 20,2009**

Mark Deming

County of Santa Cruz Planning Dept

701 Ocean Street, Room 400

Santa Cruz, CA 95060

RE: 075-124-21, Building Permit Application 649476

Dear Mr Deming:

I am in receipt of your letter dated February 6, 2009 regarding my appeat to the Building and Fire Code Appeals Board submitted October 2, 2008 appealing the staff determination regarding a soils report requirement. As your letter states in paragraph 3, number 1, this is not a code requirement under the 2001 Uniform Building Code. The structure has remained in place since 1947 and the plans are not changing the exterior footing of the foundation. Paragraph 3, number 2, states ‘because of known problems with soils in this area’, staff has made a ‘judgment. Other than being in an area that was ’generally mapped’ within the Coopers-Clark slide area. There is absolutely no evidence a t the site location that there is or has ever been any risk of landsliding or slope failure, either above or below the residence, regardless of the angle of the existing slopes.

The retaining wall was proposed to mitigate any such hazard above the residence and has been designed to County standards by a registered Civil Engineer, Bob Patterson. Conservative design standards were utilized, and we do not see a need to become even more so.

We believe the requirement for a soils report in this case is punitive, and cannot agree with the s t a f f s judgment and their respective determinations. hs % C ~ I , we W e [email protected] I ““3 +is D”B”7V-l . By the way, the appeal filed in October 2008 was to the Board of Appeals, not staff, and was found to be valid by your Department upon i ts filing in October 2008. The fact that the Planning Department did not have a standard process to accept appeals and appeal fees and/or didmot have the State required Appeals Board in place to hear my appeal in a timely manner, is not my fault or problem. These issues should be addressed by Planning Management so that other appellants have an easy, straightforward path to appeal to the Board that is required by law to hear the appeal. While I appreciate that you chose to review/reconsider the situation is commendable but the result are the same. I should not have to appeal this new determination, as the appeal for the first one was valid.

Thank you for your time and consideration, I look forward to meeting with the Appeals Board.

Michael Watson, 1160j Lake Blvd, Felton, CA 95018

Cc: Claire Machado

* * Dated per your request

:ATTACHMENT 1

0 7 7 8

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ PLANNING DEPARTMENT

(831) 454-2580 FAX: (831) 454-2131 TDD: (831) 454-2123 701 OCEAN STREET, qTH FLOOR, SANTA CRUZ, C A 95060

TOM BURNS, PLANNING DIRECTOR

April 14, 2009

Building, Accessibility, and Fire Code Appeals Board 701 Ocean Street Santa Cruz, CA, 95060

Subject: Michael Watson Appeal

Members of the Board:

On March 27, 2009, the Planning Department accepted an appeal by Claire Machado for Michael Watson (Attachment 1) of the requirement by the Planning Department that a soils report is required for the construction of a third floor addition and retaining wall for an existing single-family residence located at 11607 Lake Boulevard in Lompico.

Background

In 2004, this property was issued a red-tag by the Code Enforcement section of the Planning Department, due in part because the owner reconstructed the roof and attic to create a 3rd level (story). Since then, the property owner has been working to resolve the violation and has had at least two stipulated agreements with the County. On December 13, 2007, Building Permit Application 649476 was submitted. The permit description is as follows:

Rectify Red-Tag: 1. Recognize as-built roof framing to create a 516sf habitable 2nd floor at an existing I-story

SFD with habitable basement to include: 2 bedrooms (1 relocated from main floor), 1 bath, new exterior deck and new 540sf. stairwell that attaches all floors. Remodel to convert bedroom to living room at main floor. Results in a 2-story SFD with habitable basement to include: 3 bedrooms, 3 baths, kitchen, dining/family room, living room (called laundry/utility room) and decks.

2. Construct concrete retaining wall.

The plans submitted indicate the attic area will become a habitable 3rd floor, the foundation will be upgraded (underpinned) to 24” wide by 18” deep, loading of the retaining wall that supports the upslope portion of the home will be modified and that a new 4’4’’ retaining wall will be constructed upslope of the structure.

B u i Id i ng Permit Review

Because Building Permit Application 649476 was submitted to the Planning Department on December 13, 2007, the California Building Code (CBC) in effect is the 2001 CBC. The first review of the Building Permit application was completed and a deficiency letter sent on January 11, 2008. This deficiency letter identified a number of things from several agencies that had to be added to the plans and

for review before the Building Permit could be approved. The requirement for the soils report 1 s .

7 1

the

On the the 16,

On

was made by the Environmentat Planning staff based on a site visit, a derailed review of the plans for proposed building permit and research of the project site, and stated the following: 0 7 7 9 .

Due to the expansion of the existing home by approximately 1072 square feet of new habitable space, the following reports are required:

7 . A soils (geotechnical) report is required to determine the suitability of the foundation with respect to the steep slope and added loads. This report must include a slope stability analysis for the slope below the home, as it exceeds 50-70%.

2. You have the option of applying for a Geologic Hazard Assessment to determine the extent of geologic hazards on the subject property, or submit a Geologic Report completed by a licensed geologist through a consulting firm. This report must address potential slope instability within the project area, and make necessary recommendations for mitigation of any existing hazard. If you choose to apply for the GHA, the fee is approximately $7 700 and may result in the requirement for the Geologic Report. To apply for the GHA, please bring two sets of the site plan to the Zoning Counter M-F 8-noon.

3. Engineered grading and drainage plans must be prepared for the proposed new driveway and parking area, as this area is extremely steep and subject to potential slope stability problems. The soils engineer must also provide recommendations for design characteristics of the drive way retaining wall.

Please note that lists of consulting firms are available through our website or in person at the Zoning Counter. Once the above items have been completed, please resubmit for review by the department civil engineer, geologist and staff planner. Further comments will be forthcoming once we have received these items.

September 3, 2008, a revised set of plans was submitted in response to various issues identified in deficiency letter. The response from the applicant to the requirement for the soils report was that addition was 484 sf and, therefore, the requirement for a soils report did not apply.’ On September 2008, Environmental Planning staff entered the following comments in reaction to the resubmittal:

There are several thresholds for requiring geotechnical (soils) report. In addition to the square footage that has been added over time (which exceeds 500 square feet according to assessor’s records) soils reports can be required for additions or conversions to habitable space whenever the site is located in an area of steep slopes or potential instability. Additionally, soils reports can be required for any projects that include new retaining walls, such as this application.

Therefore, affer reviewing this project with both the Senior Civil Engineer and the County Geologist, I conclude that the comments contained in the first review on January 16, 2008 are still applicable and must be satisfied before this application can be approved.

October 2, 2008, the applicant submitted a letter appealing the determination of the Environmental Planning staff to the Building and Fire Code Appeals Board. However, the required appeal fee was not included with the appeal letter. As a courtesy, Assistant Planning Director Mark Deming met with the applicant and his representative on October 30, 2008 to discuss the outstanding issues. Following the meeting, Mr. Deming asked Environmental Staff to re-examine the situation. Mr. Deming sent the applicant a letter on February 6, 2009 with his findings and informed the applicant that he had 14 days to file an appeal of the determination to the Building, Accessibility and Fire Code Appeals Board (Attachment 2). Due to an oversight in noticing, additional time was provided to the applicant to file an appeal. The applicant did file an appeal and pay the required fee on February 25, 2009 - within the

’ The 2007 CBC requires that a soils report be prepared for every building permit. Santa Cruz County modified that requirement to exempt additions that are less than 500 sf. As noted above, this version of the CBC does not apply to this building permit application.

2

0 4 00 0

extended timeline provided by the Department. However, the letter that the applicant submitted for the

February 6, 2009 decision. Again,-as a courtesy, the applicant was contacted and informed that the appeal letter needed to address the February 6, 2009 letter and be dated with a contemporary date. Additional time was granted to the applicant to complete the appeal letter. An updated appeal letter was received by the Planning Department on March 27, 2009, and that is the matter now before Your Board (Attachment I).

appeal was the same letter that he had submitted in October 2008 and it was not responsive to the

Appeal Issues

The letter from the appellant describes the reasons for the appeal. The applicant disagrees with the Environmental Planning staffs requirement for a soils report because it is not a code requirement, there is no change to the foundation proposed, the requirement is based on judgment that there are known soils problems in the area and that conservative design standards were used in the design of the proposed retaining wall. The following analysis will address these issues.

Analysis of Appeal Issues

The requirement for a soils report by the Planning Department was required for this application based upon provisions in both the CBC and the County Code.

2001 CBC Requirements

The addition of a 3rd story adds new loads to the foundation. The 2001 CBC indicates that two story structures require a foundation that is 15” wide by 18’’ deep while three story structures require a foundation that is 18” wide by 24” deep (reference table 18-1-C, Attachment 4). Therefore, the entire foundation is required to be upgraded to meet the 2001 CBC and the submitted plans (sheet 12 of 13) and the structural calculations clearly propose new underpinning to deepen and widen the existing foundation to support the additional loads.

Under the 2001 CBC, adding a story and increasing the size of the foundation to meet the requirements of Chapter 18, does not always trigger the requirement for a soils report. However, Section 1804.1 of the 2001 CBC states, “The classification of the soils at each building site shall be determined when required by the building official. The building official may require that this determination be made by an engineer or architect licensed by the state to practice as such.” The Building Official uses a variety of sources to decide whether to impose this requirement and has the authority to make this determination, as stated in the code.

The following information was used in this determination:

I . The site is mapped as falling within a “probable” landslide area on the Cooper-Clark Landslide Maps (see Attachment 5). This mapping is corroborated by a Geologic Hazards Assessment (GHA)(Attachment 6) performed in 1990 on the adjacent property just downslope (west) of this parcel. The GHA states,

“The entire parcel is situated within a “probable” Cooper-Clark mapped landslide. The colluvium exposed in cuts adjacent to the pad and Carrol St. (both its lateral extent and its inferred thickness) support the existence of the mapped landslide feature, at least at and adjacent this parcel. Extensive downslope activity (probably Jan ’83 event) is evident south of the parcel (end of Arbol St.). Hummocky topography and distorted growth patterns in redwoods are prevalent on the parcel. Possible detachment features and elongate basinal depressions are likely east and south of the parcel. The potential hazard for slope failure to impact development on this parcel during the expected lifetime of the structure is, in a

3

7

2.

3.

likelihood, very nigh and needs to be thoroughly evaluated in a geologic 0 7 8 1 investigation.” (Page 3, Item 7)

The presence of a landslide supports the need for a soils report. A soils report will be able to determine the depth required for the foundation to be founded on competent non-landslide materia I .

A soils report (Attachment 7) performed on a parcel 200 feet North of Mr. Watson’s property indicates that the site is underlain by up to IO feet of very loose colluvium. Therefore the need for a soils report is further substantiated to make sure that the foundation is founded below the loose colluvium.

The project plans do not conform to the standard CBC requirements for setbacks from slopes.

Section 1806.5. I, Section 1806.5.3 and Figure 18-1-1 of the 2001 CBC require foundations to be set back from slopes in excess of 33% by a distance of H/3 (where H is the height of the slope), and Mr. Watson’s house is located above slopes of approximately 70%.

Given a slope height of 70 feet and a 70% slope, the required setback from the foundation to the face of slope would be 23 feet. Given that the current structure is only setback from the slope between 2 and 9 feet (based upon field measurements by County staff), the required foundation depth would range from I O feet to 14 feet below the ground surface (see Attachment 8). This is substantially deeper than the 18” as is being proposed on the plans.

Furthermore, Section 1806.5.3 of the 2001 CBC states,

“footing on or adjacent to slope surfaces shall be founded in firm material with an embedment and setback from the slope surface sufficient to provide vertical and lateral support for the footing without differential settlement”.

Section 1806.5.6 goes on to state that the Building Official may approve alternate setbacks and clearances and that, “The building official may require an investigation and recommendation of a qualified engineer to demonstrate that the intent of the section has been satisfied. Such an investigation shall include consideration of material, height of slope, slope gradient, load intensity and erosion characteristics of slope material.”

Therefore, a soils report is needed to assure that the alternate setback is permissible.

The fact that the site is mapped as a “probable” landslide, a geologic hazards investigation of the property just downslope of the property indicate the presence of landslide debris in the slope, a soils report 200 feet to the north of the subject property indicates the presence of up to IO’ of landslide material on the slope, and the foundations do not meet setback requirements from ascending slopes of the CBC all support the need for a soils report for this project.

County Code Requirements

County Code Section 16.10.050 (a) (see Attachment 9) states, “All development is required to comply with the provisions of this chapter” and Section 16.10.050 (e) further states that “additional information (including but not limited to full geologic report, subsurface geologic, hydrologic, geotechnical [emphasis added] or other engineering investigation and reports) shall be required when a hazard or foundation constraint requiring further investigation is identified.”

This project meets the definition of development per section 16.10.040(s) for several reasons:

4

The proposed project increases habitable space by more than SOYO during the lifetim of the structure. (16.10.040 (s)(3)) %782

County Records indicate the original structure built in 1946 was a 320 sf habitable structure. In 1980 a permit was issued to for an addition to make the structure 1,088 sf. The proposed habitable square footage of the structure is 2,070 sf. This represents an approximately 547% increase over the original 1946 structure and a 90% increase in habitable space to the structure as modified per the 1980 building permit.

The proposal upgrades more than 50% of the foundation. (1 6.10.040(~)(6)) A retaining wall is proposed that requires a building permit. (I 6.10.040(s)( 12))

Therefore the requirement for a soils report is justified based on County Code as well as the 2001 CBC.

In summary, the foundation on this structure is affected in various ways. The addition of a third story adds new loads to the foundation. In addition, the structure is located on a mapped landslide and the presence of loose near surface soils existing on a parcel just downslope of Mr. Watson’s parcel as well on a parcel 200 feet to the north support the need for a soils report. Merely upgrading the foundation to 24” wide by 18” deep is not a conservative design since it does not take into account the presence of a landslide, loose soils or the proximity to the adjacent slopes.

The authority to require a soils report exists in the 2001 CBC Code sections referenced above as well as in the County’s Geologic Hazards Ordinance. From staffs perspective, allowing the Building Permit to proceed without the needed geotechnical analysis would raise potentially significant risks for residents of the structure.

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that your Board deny the appeal.

S& ce re I y ,

Annifer Hutchinson

By:,,:

Attachments:

I. Letter of Claire Machado (for Mich el Watson), d 2. Letter of Mark Deming, dated February 6, 2009 3. Project Plans 4. Chapter 18 of the 2001 CBC

ted February 20,2009

5. Location Map Showing Adjacent Studies and Landslide Limits 6. Geologic Hazards Assessment on Parcel 075-124-1 9 7. Soils Report for 1 1677 Lake Blvd. 8. Cross Sections Showing Foundation Setbacks Required per 2001 CBC Section 1806.5 9. County Code Chapter 16. IO - Geologic Hazards Ordinance

5

7

0783

February 20, 2009**

Mark Deming

County of Santa Cruz Planning Dept

701 Ocean Street, Room 408


RE: 075-124-21, Building Permit Application 649476

Dear Mr Deming:

I am in receipt of your letter dated February 6, 2009 regarding my appeal-to the Building and Fire Code Appeals Board submitted October 2, 2008 appealing the s ta f f determination regarding a soils report requirement. As your letter states in paragraph 3, number 1, this is not a code requirement under the 2001 Uniform Building Code. The structure has remained in place since 1947 and the plans are not changing the exterior footing of the foundation. Paragraph 3, number 2, states 'because of known problems with soils in this area', staff has made a 'judgment. Other than being in an area that was 'generally mapped' within the Coopers-Clark slide area. There is absolutely no evidence a t the si te location that there is or has ever been any risk of landsliding or slope failure, either above or below the residence, regardless of the angle of the existing slopes.

The retaining wall was proposed to mitigate any such hazard above the residence and has been designed to County standards by a registered Civil Engineer, Bob Patterson. Conservative design standards were utilized, and we do not see a need to become even more so.

We believe the requirement for a soils report in this case is punitive, and cannot agree with the s t a f f s judgment and their respective determinations. A5 %ch , vdc W e nfpeal I197 --&-I ;s: . By the way, the appeal filed in October 2008 was to the Board of Appeals, not staff, and was found to be valid by your Department upon i ts filing in October 2008. The fact that the Planning Department did not have a standard process to accept appeals and appeal fees and/or did,not have the State required Appeals Board in place to hear my appeal in a timely manner, is not my fault or problem. These issues should be addressed by Planning Management so that other appellants have an easy, straightforward path to appeal to the Board that is required by law to hear the appeal. While I appreciate that you chose to review/reconsider the situation is commendable but the result are the same. I should not have to appeal this new determination, as the appeal for the first one was valid.

Thank you for your time and consideration, I look forward to meeting with the Appeals Board.

Michael Watson, 1160fr Lake Blvd, Felton, CA 95018

Cc: Claire Machado

* * Dated per your request

0 7 8 4

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

(831) 454-2580 FAX: (833) 454-2131 TDD: (831) 454-2123 701 OCEAN STREET, 4M FLOOR, SANTA CRUZ, C A 95060

TOM BURNS, PLANNING DIRECTOR

February 6,2009

Mr. Michael Watson 11 607 Lake Boulevard Felton, CA 95018

RE: Building pennit application 649476 f i P h! 07 5 - (24- Dear Mr. Watson:

This letter is intended to provide you with a written response to the information that you submitted to me as a part of our discussions on October 30*. As you may recall, you had submitted a letter on October 2, 2008, appealing the determination of Robin Bolster following the second review of your Building Permit application. You apparently had not received a n m g from the County regarding that determination and you were, therefore, appealing from the posting of the requirement on the computer system to preserve your appeal rights. When you appealed this determination in October 2008, you did not pay any appeal fee.

We met on October 30fh and discussed the changes you had made to the plans after the first submittal and why you felt that the requirement for a soils report was not warranted for this Building Permit application. The primary reason you stated was that the third floor addition did not exceed the 500-sf threshold for the soils report requirement and that the house was on stable soil, held in place by a number of large Redwoods that were located down-slope of the house. At the conclusion of the meeting, I indicated that I was going to have our geologist and civil engineer take a closer look at the revised plans and possibly visit the site to venfy if a soils report was indeed necessary. In addition, I was going to take a closer look at the plans.

The following conclusions were reached following the additional reviews noted above:

1. The 500-sf threshold does not apply to your Building Pennit application as your application was filed on December 13,2007. The review of your application is under the 2001 California Building Code (CBC), not the 2007 CBC that became effective for applications filed after January 1,2008. Accordingly, there is no requirement for or exception for the requirement for a soils report. The requirement is entirely based on the judgment of the plans checker or, in this case, the environmental planner who consulted with the Department civil engineer to ascertain if a soils report should be required. So, the size of the addition was not a factor in the decision to require a soils report.

2. Qe soils report requirement is primarily based on the location of the existing house on a steep &&e (50-75% grade; a slope with an angle of 45 degrees is a 100% grade) and the fact that your engineer has proposed substantial new foundation upgrades to support the added weightlloading of the third floor. While it was recognized that your engineer utilized a conservative factor for

7 AnACHMENT 2

0 7 8 5 soils strength, because of the known problems with soils in this area, additional information is needed to verify if those factors adequately describe the actual soils.

In conclusion, I must agree with the recommendations of staffthat a soils report be provided. Not only is it a matter o f safety and welfare.for you and you family, but also for those who might live in the house in the future. I apologize for the length of time it took to complete this review. If you wish to appeal this determination, you have 14 days fiom the date of service that is attached to submit an appeal letter and fee.

Sincerely,

Mark M. Deming, AICP ' Assistant Planning Director

cc: Claire Machado

' C 0 7 8 6

7

0 7 8 7

7

1 0 7 8 8

-7

ATTACH !/I E U 2No S T O W BEARING WALL

0 7 8 9

-[ - . . . .

I -Nn-

1607 VlKE BLUD. EXISTING FL LOMPICO CA, 95018

'2 90

7

0 7 9 1

x

-_*

.

.h

: .-.. .+?

\

i 9'

E l

F

-

-

p

i :. ,

. - - - . . - __ -. __ . . . _. - _ _ . . . . . __ . . ._ . . . . . . . .- . .. . - . . . - - . . . . .

. . .

i .' 9.- '. .. . . . .. . . . .

1 L

mu 1 C U

1

h’

0 7 9 4

BUILDING RENOVATION PIAN 11607 UKE BLVD. LoMplCO CA. 95018

A AS BUILT FRAMING MAIN FLOOR 8 ATTtC FLOOR 6 ROOF

m I

0 7 9 5

/ I -'-"- ll * *

7'

' I Ii I

I i !

i i I I I

!

! i

I 1 j i

!

. . . _ _ .

_c - - - . . _ -

0 7 9 6 B ' I

t : ! ! r t

--lC

7

. . .. .

Y; 2001 CALIFORNIA BUILDING Cc

0 7 9 9 Chapter 18 is printed in its entirety in Volume 2 of the Uniform Budding Code.

Excerpts from Chapter 18 are reprinted herein.

NOTE: For requirements of applications subject to the approval of DSAISS and OSHPD, see Volume 2.

Excerpts from Chapter 18

FOUNDATIONS AND RETAINING WALLS Division I-GENERAL

C A

SECTION 1801 - SCOPE

1801.1 General. This chapter sets forth requirements for excavation and fills for any building or structure and for foundations and retaining structures.

Reference is made to Appendix Chapter 33 for requirements governing excavation, grading and earthwork construction, including fills and embankments.

1801.2 Standards of Quality. The standards listed below labeled a “UBC Standard” are also listed in Chapter 35, Part IT, and are part of this code.

1. Testing. 2.1 UBC Standard 18-1, Soils Classification 1.2 UBC Standard 18-2, Expansion Index Test

SECTION 1802 - QUALITY AND DESIGN

The quality and design of materials used structurally in excavations, footings and foundations shall conform to the requirements specified in Chapters 16, 19,21, 22 and 23.

Excavations and fills shall comply with Chapter 33. Allowable bearing pressures, allowable stresses and design for-

mulas provided in this chapter shall be used with the allowable stress design load combinations specified in Section 1612.3.

[ForHCD l]EXCEPTION: For limited-density owner-built rural dwelliiigs, pier foundations, stone masonry footings and foundations, pressure-treated lumber, poles, or equivalent foiindation materials or designsmay be usedprovided that the bearing irsuficientfor thepur-

I L C L A L C L A L C L A L A pose intended.

NO7E[ForHCDZJ:Subjectto otherprovisionsoflaw theapplica- C L blesections andsubsections of the Health andSafeFCode are repeated e k

A L C L here for clarit?, and read as follows:

Section 17953. Each city, county, and city and county shall en- act an ordinance which requires a preliminary soil report, pre- 2 b , pared by a civil engineer who is registered by the state, based upon A L adequate test borings or excavations, of every subdivision, where 2 C L k l a tentative andfinal map is repiredpursuant to Section 66426 of A L I the Government Code.

The preliminary soil report may be waived if the building department of the city, county or city and county, or other enforcement agency charged with the administration and enforcement of theprovisions of this part, shall determine that, due to the howl - edge such department has as to the soil qualities of the soil of the

C L A L C L

subdivision or lot, no preliminary analysis is necessary. Section 17954. I f the preliminary soil report indicates thepres- A L

ence of critically expansive soils or other soil problems which, if 2 b not corrected, would lead to structural defects, such ordinance shall require a soil investigation of each lot in the subdivision. i

The soil investigation shall beprepared by a civil engineer who 2 k is registered in this state. It shall recommend corrective action 2 which is likely toprevent structural damage to each dwellingpro- 2 posed to be constructed on the expansive soil.

Section 17955. The building department of each cityl county, or city and county, or other enforcement agency charged with the ad- 2 ministration and enforcement of the provisions of this part, shall 2 approve the soil investigation if it determines that the recom- 2 E mended action is likely to prevent structural damage to each ; dwelling to be constructed. As a condition t o the buildingpernzit, c L

the ordinance shall require that the approved recommended ac- c L tion be incorporated in the construction of each dwelling. Appeal k from such determination shall be to the local appeals board ;

C L A L

A L

SECTION 1803 - SOIL CLASSIFICATION- EXPANSIVE SOIL

1803.1 General. For the purposes of this chapter, the definition and classification of soil materials for use in Table 18-I-A shall be according to UBC Standard 18-1.

1804.2 Investigation. The classification shall be based on observation and any necessary tests of the materials disclosed by borings or excavations made in appropriate locations. Additional studies may be necessary to evaluate soil strength, the effect of moisture variation on soil-bearing capacity, compressibi]ity, liquefaction and expansiveness.

cia], the potential for seismically induced soil liquefaction and soil instability shall be evaluated as described in Section 1504.5.

EXCEPTIONS: 1 . T h e building official m a y waive thisevaluation upon receipt of written opinion of a qualified geotechnical engineer o r geologist that liquefaction is not probable.

2. A detached, single-story dwelling of G r o u p R, Division 3 Occu- pancy with or without attached garages.

3. Group U, Division 1 Occupancies. 4. Fences.

1803.2 Expansive Soil. When the expansive characteristics of a In Seismic Zones and 4~ when required by the building off;- soil are to be determined, the procedures shall be in accordance with UBC Standard 18-2 and the soil shall be classified according to Table 18-I-B. Foundations for structures resting on soils with an expansion index greater than 20, as determined by UBC Standard 18-2, shall require special design consideration. If the soil expansion index vanes with depth, the variation is to be included in the engineering analysis of the expansive soil effect upon the structure.

1804.3 Reports. The soil classification and design-bearing capacity shall be shown on the plans, unless the foundation conforms to Table 18-I-C. The building official may require submission of a written report of the investigation, which shall in - clude, but need not be limited to, the following informarion:

1. A plot showing the location of all test borings and/or excavations.

SECTION 1804 - FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION

1804.1 General. The classification of the soil at each building site shall be determined when required by the building official. The building official may require that this determination be made by an engineer or architect licensed by the state to practice as such.

EXCERPTS FROM CHAPTER 18

EXCEPTIONS: 1. Reports are not required for one-story, wood- frame and light-steel-frame buildings ofrype Vconstricctwn and4,OOO square feet (371 m?) or less in poor area; iwmtructural associated structural or nonrequired srructural alterations arid incidental structural odditiotls o r alterations, and srructirral repairs for other than earthquake damage.

2. A previous Fepor! for a specificsitemay be resubmitted, provided that a reevaluation is made and the reporr is found to be currently appropriate.

2. Descriptions and classifications of the materials encoun-

3. Elevation of the water table, if encountered. 4. Recommendations for foundation type and design criteria,

including bearing capacity, provisions to mitigate the effects of expansive soils, provisions to mitigate the effects of liquefaction and soil strength, and the effects of adjacent loads.

5. Expected total and differential settlement.

1804.4 Expansive Soils. When expansive soils are present, the building official may require that special provisions be made in the foundation design and construction to safeguard against damage due to this expansiveness. The building official may require a special investigation and report to provide these design and con- s tructio n criteria -

tered.

1804.5 Liquefaction Potential and Soil Strength Loss. When required by Section 1804.2, the potential for soil liquefaction and soil strength loss during earthquakes shall be evaluated during the geotechnical investigation. The geotechnical report shall assess potential consequences of any liquefaction and soil strength loss, including estimation of differential settlement, laieral movement or reduction in foundation soil-bearing capacity, and discuss miti- gating measures. Such measures shall be given consideration in the design of the building and may include, but are not limited to, ground stabilization, selection of appropriate foundation type and depths, selection of appropriate structural systems to accommodate anticipated displacements, or any combination of these measures.

The potential for liquefaction and soil strength loss shall be evaluated for a site peak ground acceleration that, as a minimum, conforms to the probability of exceedance specified in Section 1631.2. Peak ground acceleration may be determined based on a site-specific study taking into account soil amplification effects. In the absence of such a study, peak ground acceleration may be assumed equal to the seismic zone factor in Table 16-1.

1804.6 Adjacent Loads. Where footings are placed at varying elevations, the effect of adjacent loads shall be included in the foundation design.

1804.7 Drainage. Provisions shall be made for the control and drainage of surface water around buildings. (See also Section 1806.5.5.)

1804.8 [For OSHPD 21 Engineering Geologic Reports.

1804.8.1 Geologic and earthquake engineering reports shall be required for all proposed construction.

1804.8.2 Thepurpose of the engineering geologic report shall be to identify geologic and seismic conditions that may reqriireproj- ect mitigations. The reports shall contain data which provide an assasment of the nature of the site and potential for earthquake damage based on appropriate investigations of the regional and site geology, project foundation conditions and the potential seismic shaking at the site. The report shall be prepared by n Califor- nia-certified engineering geologist in consultation with a California-registered geotechnical engineer. The engineering geologic r e p o r t shall not contain design criteria, but shall contain

.,-. CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE

basic data to be used for a preliminary earthquake engineering evaluation of the project.

The preparation of the engineering geologic report shall be done in conformance with the most recent Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) Notes 44, 42 and 43; Guidelines for preparing Engineering Geologic Reports, and Guidelines to GeologicfSeis- mic Reports, respectively. Upperbound earthquakes, proposed in the Engineering Geologic Report, must be fi l ly supported by satisfactory data and analysis. In addition, the most recent version of DMGSpecialPublication 42, Fault RuptureHazard Zones in Cal- ifornia, shall be considered for project sites proposed within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone.

The report shall include, but shall not be limited to, the follow-

I. Geologic investigation. ing:

2. Evaluation of the known active andpotentially active faults, both regional and local, including estimates of their upperbound earthquakes andmaximum probable earthquake, as definedDMG Note 43, and estimates of thepeak ground accelerations at the site resulting from these earthquakes.

3. Evaluation ofslopestability at or near the site, and the liqiie- faction and settlement potential of the earth materials in the foundation.

1804.8.3 The engineering geologic report shall be submitted to the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development for review and approval. The review shall determine whether potential geologic problems and haiards are adequately identified and described in order to provide a timely conipletion of the subsequent geotechnical report, described in Section 1804.9.1 .I, The Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, with consultation of its advisors, may require additional information, analysis andlor clarification of potential geologic problem affecting the proposed building site before approval is given. The results of the approved engineering geologic report shall be used as a basis for further investigations for the geotechnical report. Approval of the engineering geologic report by the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development shall be requiredprior to the submission of the geotechnical report.

1804.9 Geotechnical and Supplemental Ground-response Re- ports.

1804.9.1 Geotechnical report.

1804.9.1 .I The geotechnical report shall provide completed evaluations of the foundation conditions of the site and thepoten- tial geologiclseismic hazards affecting the site. The geotechnical report shall include, butshall not be limited to, site-specific evaluations of design criteria related to thenature and extent offounda- tion materials, groundwater conditions, liquefaction potential, settlement potential and slope stability. The report shall contain the results of the analyses ofproblem areas identified in the engineering geologic report. The geotechnical report shall incorporate estimates of the characteristics of site ground motion provided in the engineering geologic report. The estimates of ground motion shall not be structural design criteria, but shall be provided to characterize the seismic environment of the site, with consideration of the upper-bound earthquakes reported in the engineering geologic report. The ground-motion estimates shall include, but shall not be limited to, peak ground motions and predominantperiod. The estimates should be derived by accepted methods of current seismological practice, and fully documented in the geologic report.

The geotechnical report shall beprepared by a geotechnical engineer registered in the state of California wiih the advice of the certified engineering geologist and other technical erperts, as

0 8 0 0

i i 5 i ! 4 s 4 4 A C

C

C

C

C A C A C

C

C

C

C

C

C C A

A

A C

C C A C A

A

A

A

A C

C A .

A

A

A C A C C

C

C A C

C A

A

A

A C A C

C A C

C

C A C A C A C A

A C A

A

A

2001 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE EXCERPTS FROM CHAPTER 18 0801

c necessav. The approved engineering geologic report shall be t submitted with or as part of the geotechnical report.

$ 1804.9.1.2 The geotechnical report shall be submitted to the 2 Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development for review 2 and approval. The review shall determine whether potential geo- $ logic hazards and foundation problems have been adequately c evaluated The Ofice of Statewide Health Planning and Develop- c ment, with the consultation of its advisors, may require additional c information, analysis or clarification of potential geotechnical $ issues affecting the proposed building site before approving the $ geotechnical report-

2 Approval of the geotechnical report by the Oflce of Statewide $ Health Planning and Development shall be requiredprior to the c completion of the supplemental ground-response report, if re- $ quired, as described in Section 1804.9.1.3. The need for a supple- $ mental ground-response report shall be determined during the $ review of the geotechnical report. The results of the geotechnical $ report shall be used as a guide for further investigations for the

2 1804.9.1.3 Supplemental ground-response report. A supple- 2 mental ground-response report may be required, containing a 2 ground-motion element and an advanced geotechnical element.

1804.9-1.3.1 The ground-motion element shall be prepared when e required by the approved geotechnical report, or when required e for dynamic analysis procedure described under Section 1631.2. A The ground-motion element shall be prepared by a registered civil A engineer or geophysicist (depending on the scope of the element) 2 licensed in the state of Calyornia, and having professional spe- 2 cialization in earthquake analyses. The ground-motion element

shall present a detailed characterization of earthquake ground 2 motions for the site, which incorporates data given in the geotech- 2 nical report. The level of ground motion considered by the ground- c motion element shall be as described in Section 1631.2. The ?- characterization of ground motion in the ground-motion element $ shall be given, according to the requirements of the analysis, in $ terms of:

2 I. Peak acceleration, bracketed duration and predominant 2 period. A 2. Elastic structural-response spectra.

$ 3. Time-history plot of predicted ground motion at the site.

2 4. Other analyses in conformance with accepted engineering 2 and seismologica l practice.

e 1804.9.1.3.2 The advanced geotechnical element shall contain e the results of dynamic geotechnical analysis specified by the A approvid geotechnical report.

e The supplemental ground-response report shall be submitted to e the Ofice of Statewide Health Planning and Development for re- t view and approval. The review shall determine whether the e ground-motion response evaluations of the site are adequately $ represented. The Office of Statewide Health Planning and Devel- A opment, under consultation with its advisors, may require addi- A tional information, analysls or clarification of potential A ground-response issues reported in the supplemental ground- 2 response report for the proposed building site.

A

A

A

A

supplemental ground-response report. A

C

C

A

C

C

A

C

c . C

SECTION 1805 - ALLOWABLE FOUNDATION AND LATERAL PRESSURES

The allowable foundation and lateral pressures shall not exceed the values set forth in Table 18-I-A unless data to substantiate the use of higher values are submitted. Table 18-I-A may be used for

design of foundations on rock or nonexpansive soil for Type 11 One-hour, Type U-N and Type V buildings that do not exceed three stones in height or for structures that have continuous footings having a load of less than 2,000 pounds per lineal foot (29.2 kN/m) and isolated footings with loads of less than 50,000 pounds (222.4 kN).

Allowable bearing pressures provided in Table 18-I-A shall be used with the allowable stress design load combinations specified in Section 1612.3. I SECTION 1806 - FOOTINGS

1806.1 General. Footings and foundations shall be constructed of masonry, concrete or treated wood in conformance with Divi- sion I1 and shall extend below the frost line. Footings of concrete and masonry shall be of solid material. Foundations supporting wood shall extend at least 6 inches (152 mm) above the adjacent finish grade. Footings shall have a minimum depth as indicated in Table 15-I-C, unless another depth is recommended by a foundation investigation.

The provisions of this section do not apply to building and foundation systems in those areas subject to scour and water pressure by wind and wave action. Buildings and foundations subject to such loads shall be designed in accordance with approved national standards. See Section 3302 for subsoil preparation and wood form removal.

1806.2 Footing Design. Except for special provisions of Sec- tion 1808 covering the design of piles, ail portions of footings shall be designed in accordance with the structural provisions of this code and shall be designed to minimize differential settlement when necessary and the effects of expansive soils when present.

Slab-on-grade and mat-type footings for buildings located on expansive soils may be designed in accordance with the provisions of Division 111 or such other engineering design based on geotechnical recommendation as approved by the building official.

I

18063 Bearing Walls. Bearing walls shall be supported on masonry or concrete foundations or piles or other approved foundation system that shall be of sufficient size to support all loads. Where a design is not provided, the minimum foundation requirements for stud bearing walls shall be as set forth in Table 18-I-C, unless expansive soils of a seventy to cause differential rnove- ment are known to exist.

EXCEPTIONS: 1.Aone-story wood- ormetal-frame building not used for human occupancy and not over 400 square feet (37.2 m’) in floor area may be constructed with walls supported on a wood foundation plate when approved by the building official.

2. The support of buildings by posts embedded in earth shall be designed as specified in Section 1806.8. Wood posts or poles embedded in earth shall be pressure treated with an approved preservative. Steel posts or poles shall be protected as specified in Section 1507.9.

I

1806.4 Stepped Foundations. Foundations for all buildings where the surface of the ground slopes more than 1 unit vertical in 10 units horizontal (10% slope) shall be level or shall be stepped so that both top and bcttom of such foundation are level.

1806.5 Footings on or Adjacent to Slopes.

1806.5.1 Scope. The placement of buildings and structures on or adjacent to slopes steeper than 1 unit vertical in 3 units horizontal (33.3% slope) shall be in accordance with this section.

1806.5.2 Building clearance from ascending slopes. In gener- a l , buildings below slopes shall be set a sufficient distance from

’ the slope to provide protection from slope drainage, erosion and shallow failures. Except as provided for in Section 1506.5.6 and

EXCERPTS FROM CHAPTER l a 2001 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE 0802

Figure 18-1-1, the following criteria will be assumed to provide this protection. Where the existing slope is steeper than 1 unit vertical in 1 unit horizontal (100% slope), the toe of the slope shall be assumed to be at the intersection of a horizontal plane drawn from the top of the foundation and a plane drawn tangent to the slope at an angle of 45 degrees to the horizontal. Where a retaining wall is constructed at the toe of the slope, the height of the slope shall be measured from the top of the wall to the top of the slope.

1806.5.3 Footing setback from descending slope surface. Footing on or adjacent to slope surfaces shall be founded in firm material with an embedment and setback from the slope surface sufficient to provide vertical and lateral support for the footing without detrimental settlement. Except as provided for in Section 1806.5.6 and Figure 18-1-1, the following setback is deemed adequate to meet the criteria. Where the slope is steeper than 1 unit vertical in 1 unit horizontal (100% slope), the required setback shall be measured from an imaginary plane 45 degrees to the horizontal, projected upward from the toe of the slope.

1806.5.4 Pools. The setback between pools regulated by this code and slopes shall be equal to one half the building footing setback distance required by this section. That portion of the pool wall within a horizontal distance of 7 feet (2134 min) from the top of the slope shall be capable of supporting the water in the pool without soil support.

1806.5.5 Foundation elevation. On graded sites, the top of any exterior foundation shall extend above the elevation of the street gutter at point of discharge or the inlet of an approved drainage de- vice a minimum of 12 inches (305 mm) plus 2 percent. The building official may approve alternate elevations, provided it can be demonstrated that required drainage to the point of discharge and away from the structure is provided at all locations on the site.

1806.5.6 Alternate setback and clearance. The building official may approve alternate setbacks and clearances. The building official may req_uire,an investigation and recommendation of a qualified engineer to demonstrate that the intent of this section has been satisfied. Such an investigation shall include consideration of material, height of slope, slope gradient, load intensity and erosion characteristics of slope material.

1806.6 Foundation Plates or Sills. Wood plates or sills shall be bolted to the foundation or foundation wall. Steel bolts with a minimum nominal diameter of l/2 inch (12.7 mm) shall be used in Seismic Zones 0 through 3. Steel bolts with a minimum nominal diameter of 5/8 inch (16 mm) shall be used in Seismic Zone 4. Bolts shall be embedded at least 7 inches (178 mmj into the concrete or masonry and shall be spaced not more than 6 feet (1529 rnm) apart. There shall be a minimum of two bolts per piece with one bolt located not more than 12 inches (305 mm) or less than seven bolt diameters from each end of the piece. A properly sized nut and washer shall be tightened on each bolt to the plate. Foun- dation plates and sills shall be the kind of wood specified in Section 2306.4.

1806.6.1 Additional requirements in Seismic Zones 3 and 4. The following additional requirements shall apply in Seismic Zones 3 and 4.

1. Sill bolt diameter and spacing for three-story raised wood floor buildings shall be specifically designed.

2. Plate washers a minimum of 2 inch by 2 inch by 3/16 inch (51 mm by 51 m m by 4.8 mm:) thick shal l be used on each bolt.

1806.7 Seismic Zones 3 and 4. In Seismic Zones 3 and 4, hori-

I differential settlement. Foundation reinforcement shall be provided with cover in accordance with Section 1907.7.1.

1806.7.1 Foundations with stemwalls. Foundations with stemwalls shall be provided with a minimum of one No. 4 bar at the top of the wall and one No. 4 bar at the bottom of the footing.

1806.7.2 Slabs-on-ground with turned-down footings. Slabs-on-ground with turned-down footings shall have a minimum of one No. 4 bar at the top and bottom.

EXCEPTION: For slabs-on-ground cast monolithically with a footing, one No. 5 bar may be located at either the top or bottom.

1806.8 Designs Employing Lateral Bearing.

1806.8.1 General. Construction employing posts or poles as columns embedded in earth or embedded i n concrete footings in the earth may be used to resist both axial and lateral loads. The depth to resist lateral loads shall be determined by means of the design criteria established herein or other methods approved by the building official.

1806.8.2 Design criteria.

1806.8.2.1 Nonconstrained. The following formula may be used in determining the depth of embedment required to resist lateral loads where no constraint is provided a t the ground surface, such as rigid floor or rigid ground surface pavement.

I \

WHERE:

A =

b =

d =

h =

P = SI =

s3 =

2 .34P .

diameter of round post or footing or diagonal dimension of square post or footing, feet (mj. depth of embedment in earth in feet (m) but not over 12 feet (3655 mm) for purpose of computing lateral pressure. distance in feet (m) from ground surface lo point of application of “P.” applied lateral force in pounds (kN). allowable lateral soil-bearing pressure as se t forth in Table 18-1-A based on a depth of one third the depth of embedment (kPa). allowable lateral soil-bearing pressure as set forth in Table 18-I-A based on a depth equal to the depth of em bed men t (kPa).

s ,b

1806.8.2.2 Constrained. The following formula may be used to determine the depth of embedment required to resist lateral loads where constraint is provided at the ground surface, such as a rigid floor or pavement-

1806.8.2.3 Vertical load. The resistance to vertical loads is determined by the allowable soil-bearing pressure set forth j, Table 18-I-A.

1806.8.3 Backfill. The backfill in the annular space around columns not embedded in poured f C G h g S shall be by one of the following methods:

I. Backfill shall be of concrete with an ultimate strength of 2,000 pounds per square inch (13.79 MPa) at 28 days. T h e hole shall not be less than 4 inches (102 mm) larger than the diameter of the column at its bottom or 4 inches (102 mrn j larger than the diagonal dimension of a square or rectangular ccjlurnn.

7

2001 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE EXCERPTS FROM CHAPTER 18

0 8 0 3

2. Backfill shall be of clean sand. The sand shall be thoroughly compacted by tamping in layers not more than 8 inches (203 mm) in depth.

1806.8.4 Limitations. The design procedure outlined in this section shall be subject to the following limitations:

The frictional resistance for retaining walls and slabs on silts and clays shall be limited to one half of the normal force imposed on the soil by the weight of the footing or slab.

Posts embedded in earth shall not be used to provide lateral support for structural or nonstructural materials such as plaster, masonry or concrete unless bracing is provided that develops the limited deflection required.

1806.9 Grillage Footings. When grillage footings of structural steel shapes are used on soils, they shall be completely embedded in concrete with at least 6 inches (152 mrn) on the bottom and at least 4 inches (102 mm) at all other points.

1806.10 Bleacher Footings. Footings for open-air seating facilities shall comply with Chapter 18.

EXCEIWONS: Temporary open-air portable bleachers as defined in Section 1008.2 may be supported upon wood sills or steel plates placed directly upon the ground surface, provided soil pressure does not exceed 1,200 pounds per square foot (57.5 Wa).

SECTION 1807 - PILES - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

1807.1 General. Pile foundations shall be designed and installed on the basis of a foundation investigation as defined in Sec- tion 1804 where required by the building official.

The investigation and report provisions of Section 1804 shall be expanded to include, but not be limited to, the following:

3. Recommended pile types and installed capacities.

2. Driving criteria.

3. Installation procedures.

4. Field inspection and reporting procedures (to include procedures for verification of the installed bearing capacity where required).

5. Pile load test requirements.

"he use of piles not specifically mentioned in this chapter shall be permitted, subject to the approval of the building official upon submission of acceptable test data, calculations or other information relating to the properties and load-carrying capacities of such piles.

1807-2 Interconnection. Individual pile caps and caissons of every structure subjected to seismic forces shall be interconnected by ties. Such ties shall be capable of resisting, in tension or compression, a minimum horizontal force equal to 10 percent of the larger column vertical load.

EXCEPTION: Other approved methods may be used where it can

1807.3 Determination of Allowable Loads. The allowable axial and lateral loads on piles shall be determined by an approved formula, by load tests or by a foundation investigation.

1807.4 Static Load Tests. When the allowable axial load of a single pile is determined by a load test, one of the following methods shall be used:

Method 1. It shall not exceed 50percent of the yield point under test load. The yield point shall be defined as that point at which an

be demonstrated that equivalent restraint can be provided.

increase in load produces a disproportionate increase in settlement.

Method 2. It shall not exceed one half of the load which causes a net settlement, after deducting rebound, o f 0.01 inch per ton (0.000565 mm/N) of test load which has been applied for a period of at least 24 hours.

Method 3. It shall not exceed one half of that load under which, during a 40-hour period of continuous load application, no additional settlement takes place.

1807.5 Column Action. All piles standing unbraced in air, water or material not capable of lateral support, shall conform with the applicable column formula as specified i n this code. Such piles driven into firm ground may be considered fixed and laterally supported at 5 feet (1524 mm) below the ground surface and in soft material at 10 feet (3045 mm) below the ground surface unless otherwise prescribed by the building official after a foundation investigation by an approved agency.

1807.6 Group Action. Consideration shall be given to the reduction of allowable pile load when piles are placed in groups. Where soil conditions make such load reductions advisable OT necessary, the allowable axial load determined for a single pile shall be reduced by any rational method OJ formula approved by the building official.

1807.7 Piles in Subsiding Areas. Where piles are driven through subsiding fills or other subsiding strata and derive support from underlying firmer materials, consideration shall be given to the downward frictional forces which may b e imposed on the piles by the subsiding upper strata.

Where the influence of subsiding fills is considered as imposing loads on the pile, the allowable stresses specified in this chapter may be increased if satisfactory substantiating data are submitted.

1807.8 Jetting. Jetting shall not be used except where and as specifically permitted by the building official. When used, jetting shall be carried out in such a manner that the carrying capacity of existing piles and structures shall not be impaired. After with- drawal of the jet, piles shall be driven down until the required resistance is obtained.

1807.9 Protection of Pile Materials. Where the boring records of site conditions indicate possible deleterious action on pile materials because of soil constituents, changing water levels or other factors, such materials shall be adequately protected by methods or processes approved by the building official. The effectiveness of such methods or processes for the particular purpose shall have been thoroughly established by satisfactory service records or other evidence which demonstrates the effectiveness of such protective measures.

1807.10 Allowable Loads. The allowable loads based on soil conditions shall be established in accordance with Section 1807.

EXCEPTION: A n y uncased cast-in-place pile may be assumed to develop a frictional resistance equal to one sixth of the bearing value of the soil material at minimum depth as set forth in Table 18-I-A but not to exceed 500 pounds per square foot (24 kPa) unless a greater valueis allowed by the building official after asoil investigation asspe- cified in Section 1804 IS submitted. Frictional resistance and bearing resistance shall not be assumed to act simultaneously unless recommended after a foundation investigation a s specified in Section 1804.

1807.11 Use of Higher Allowable Pile Stresses. Allowable compressive stresses greater than those specified in Section 18G8 shall be permitted when substantiating data justifying such higher stresses are submitted to and approved by the building official. Such substantiating data shall include a foundation investigation including a report in accordance with Section 1807.1 by a soils en.

EXCERPTS FROM CHAPTER 18 2001 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE 0 8 0 4

gineer defined as a civil engineer experienced and knowledgeable in the practice of soils engineering.

SECTION 1808 - SPECIFIC FILE REQUIREMENTS

1808.1 Round Wood Piles.

1808.1.1 Material. Except where untreated piles are permitted, wood piles shall be pressure treated. Untreated piles may be used only when it has been established that the cutoff will be below lowest groundwater level assumed to exist during the life of the structure.

1808.1.2 Allowable stresses. The allowable unit stresses for round wood piles shall not exceed those set forth in Chapter 23, Division 111, Part I.

The allowable values listed in Chapter 23, Division 111, Part 1, for compression parallel to the grain at extreme fiber in bending are based on load sharing as occurs in a pile cluster. For piles which support their own specific load, a safety factor of 1.25 shall be applied to compression parallel to the grain values and 1.30 to extreme fiber in bending values.

1808.2 Uncased Cast-in-place Concrete Piles.

1808.2.1 Material. Concrete piles cast in place against earth in drilled or bored holes shall be made in such a manner as to ensure the exclusion of any foreign matter and to secure a full-sized shaft. The length of such pile shall be limited to not more than 30 times the average diameter. Concrete shall have a specified compressive strength f’, of not less than 2,500 psi (17.24 m a ) .

EXCEPTION: The length of pile may exceed 30 times the diameter provided the design and installation of the pile foundation is in accordance with an approved investigation report.

1808.2.2 Allowable stresses. The allowable compressive stress in the concrete shall not exceed 0.33yc. The allowable compressive stress of reinforcement shall not exceed 34 percent of the yield strength of the steel or 25,500 psi (175.7 MPa).

1808.3 Metal-cased Concrete Piles.

1808.3.1 Material. Concrete used in metal-cased concrete piles shall have a specified compressive strength fc of not less than 2,500 psi (17.24 MPa).

1808.3.2 Installation. Every metal casing for a concrete pile shall have a sealed tip with a diameter of not less than 8 inches (203 mm).

Concrete piles cast in place in metal shells shall have shells driven for their full length in contact with the surrounding soil and left permanently i n place. The shells shall be sufficiently strong to resist collapse and sufficiently watertight to exclude water and foreign material during the placing of concrete.

Piles shall be driven in such order and with such spacing as to ensure against distortion of or injury to piles already in place. No pile shall be driven within four and one-half average pile diameters of a pile filled with concrete less than 24 hours old unless approved by the building officjal.

2. The casing is seamless or is provided with seams of equal strength and is of a configuration that will provide confinement to the cast-in-place concrete.

3. The specified compressive strength fc shall not exceed 5,000 psi (34.47 MPa) and the ratio of steel minimum specified yield strength fr to concrete specified compressive strength f, shall not be less than 6.

4. The pile diameter is not greater than 16 inches (406 mm).

1808.4 Precast Concrete Piles.

1808.4.1 Materials. Precast concrete piles shall have a specified compressive strength f, of not less than 3,000 psi (20.68 MPa), and shall develop a compressive strength of not less than 3,000 psi (20.68 MPa) before driving.

1808.4.2 Reinforcement ties. The longitudinal reinforcement in driven precast concrete piles shall be laterally tied with steel ties or wire spirals. Ties and spirals shall not be spaced more than 3 inches (76 mm) apart, center to center, .for a distance of 2 feet (610 mm) from the ends and not more than 8 inches (203 mm) else- where. The gage of ties and spirals shall be as follows:

For piles having a diameter of 16 inches (406 mm) or less, wire shall not be smaller than 0.22 inch (5.6 mm) (No. 5 B.W. gage).

For piles having a diameter of more than 16 inches (406 mm) and less than 20 inches (508 mm), wire shall not be smaller than 0.238 inch (6.0 mm) (No. 4 B.W. gage).

For piles having a diameter of 20 inches (508 mm) and larger, wire shall not be smaller than 1/4 inch (6.4 mm) round or 0.259 inch (6.6 mm) (No. 3 B.W. gage).

1808.4.3 Allowable stresses. Precast concrete piling shall be designed to resist stresses induced by handling and driving as well as by loads. The allowable stresses shall not exceed the valuesspe- cified in Section 1808.2.2.

1808.5 Precast Prestressed Concrete Piles (Pretensioned).

1808.5.1 Materials. Precast prestressed concrete piles shall have a specified compressive strengthf, of not less than 5,000 psi (34.48 MPa) and shall develop a compressive strength of not less than 4,000 psi (27.58 MPa) before driving.

1808.5.2 Reinforcement. The longitudinal reinforcement shall be high-tensile seven-wire strand. Longitudinal reinforcement shall be laterally tied with steel ties or wire spirals.

Ties or spiral reinforcement shall not be spaced more than 3 inches (76 mm) apart, center to center, for a distance of 2 feet (610 mm) from the ends and not more than 8 inches (203 mm) else- where.

At each end of the pile, the first five ties or spirals shall be spaced 1 inch (25 mmj center to center.

For piles having a diameter of 24 inches (610 mm) or less, wire shall not be smaller than 0.22 inch (5.6 mm) (No. 5 B.W. gage). For piles having a diameter greater than 24 inches (610 mm) but less than 36 inches (914 mm), wire shall not be smaller than 0.238 inch (6.0 mm) (No. 4 B.W. gage). For piles having a diameter

reater than 36 inches (914 mm), wire shall not be smaller than inch (6.4 mm) round or 0.259inch (6.6 rnm) (No. 3 B.W. gage).

1808-3.3 stresses- not ex- 1808.5.3 AJlowable stresses. Precast prestressed piling shall be ceed the values specified in Section 1808.2.2, except that the ai- designed to resist stresses induced by handling and driving as well lowable ‘OnCrete Of as by loads. The effective prestress in the pile shall not be less than

psi (3.79 MPa) for piles up to 50 feet (15 240 mm) in length, and tions: 700 psi (4.83 MPa) for piles greater than 50 feet (15 240 mm) i n length.

may be increased to a 0.40f; for Portion Of the Pile meeting the ‘Ondi- 400 psi (2.76 MPa) for piles up to 30 feet (9144 mm) in length, 550

1. The thickness of the metal casing is not less than 0.068 inch carbon sheet steel gage).

2001 CALIFORNIA BUILDING C i EXCERPTS FROM CHAPTER 18

0 8 0 5

The compressive stress in the concrete due to externally applied

fc = 0.33f: - 0.27fpc

load shall not exceed:

WHERE: f p c = effective prestress stress on the gross section.

Effective prestress shall be based on an assumed loss of 30,000 psi (206.85 MPa) in the prestressing steel. The allowable stress in the prestressing steel shall not exceed the'values specified in Sec- tion 1918.

1808.6 Structural Steel Piles.

1808.6.1 Material. Structural steel piles, steel pipe piles and fully welded steel piles fabricated from plates shall conform to UBC Standard 22-1 and be identified in accordance with Section 2202.2.

1808.6.2 Allowable stresses. The allowable axial stresses shall not exceed 0.35 of the minimum specified yield strength Fys or 12,600 psi (86.88 MPa), whichever is less.

EXCEF'TION: When justified in accordancewith Section 1807.1 1, the allowable axial stress may be increased above 12,600 psi (86.88 MPa) and O.35Fy, but shall not exceed 0.5Fr

1808.6.3 Minimum dimensions. Sections of driven H-piles shall comply with the following:

1. The flange projection shall not exceed 14 times the minimum thickness of metal in either the flange or the web, and the flange widths shall not be less than 80 percent of the depth of the section.

2. T h e nominal depth in the direction of the web shall not be less than 8 inches (203 mm).

3. Flanges and webs shall have a minimum nominal thickness of 3/8 inch (9.5 mm).

Sections of driven pipe piles shall have an outside diameter of not less than 10 inches (254 mm) and a minimum thickness of not less than l/4 inch (6.4 mm).

1808.7 Concrete-filled Steel Pipe Piles.

1808.7.1 Material. The concrete-filled steel pipe piles shall conform to UBC Standard 22-1 and shall be identified in accordance with Section 2202.2. The concrete-filled steel pipe piles shall have a specified compressive strengthf, of not less than 2,500 psi (17.24 MPa).

1808.7.2 Allowable stresses. The allowable axial stresses shail not exceed 0.35 of the minimum specified yield strength Fr of the steel plus 0.33 of the specified compressive strength f c of concrete, provided F' shall not be assumed greater than 36,000 psi (248.22 MPa) for computational purposes.

EXCEPTION: When justified in accordance with Section 2807.11, the allowable stresses may be increased to 0.50 F;.

1808.7.3 Minimum dimensions. Driven piles of uniform section shall have a nominal outside diameter of not less than 8 inches (203 mm).

SECTION 1809 - FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION- SEISMIC ZONES 3 AND 4

1809.1 General. In Seismic Zones 3 and 4 the further requirements of this section shall apply to the design and construction of foundations, foundation components and the connection of superstructure elements thereto.

1809.2 Soil Capacity. The foundation shall be capable of trans- 4 mitting the design base shear and overturning forces prescribed in Section 1630 from the structure into the supporting soil. The short-term dynamic nature of the loads may be taken into account in establishing the soil properties.

1809.3 Superstructure-to-Foundation Connection. The connection of superstructure elements to the foundation shall be adequate to transmit to the foundation the forces for which the elements were required to be designed.

1809.4 Foundation-Soil Interface. For regular buildings, the force F, as provided in Section 1630.5 may be omitted when deter- I mining the overturning moment to be resisted at the foundation-soil interface.

1809.5 Special Requirements for Piles and Caissons.

1809.5.1 General. Piles, caissons and caps shall be designed according to the provisions of Section 1603, including the effects of lateral displacements. Special detailing requirements as described in Section 1809.5.2 shall apply for a length of piles equal to 120 percent of the flexural length. Flexural length shall be considered as a length of pile from the first point of zero lateral deflection to the underside of the pile cap or grade beam.

1809.5.2 Steel piles, nonprestressed concrete piles and prestressed concrete piles.

1809.5.2.1 Steel piles. Piles shall conform to width-thickness ratios of stiffened, unstiffened and tubular compression elements as shown in Chapter 22, Division VIn.

1809.5.2.2 Nonprestressed concrete piles. Piles shall have transverse reinforcement meeting the requirements of Section 1921.4.

EXCEPTION: Transverse reinforcement need not exceed the amount determined by Formula (23-2) in Section 1921.4.4.1 for spiral or circular hoop reinforcement or by Formula (21-4) in Section 3921.4.4.1 for rectangular hoop reinforcement.

1809.5.2.3 Prestressed concrete piles. Piles shall have a minimum volumetric ratio of spiral reinforcement no less than 0.021 for 14-inch (356 mm) square and smaller piles, and 0.012 for 24-inch (610 mm) square and larger piles unless a smaller value can be justified by rational analysis. Interpolation may be used between the specified ratios for intermediate sizes.

-4, . ; i I . .

1-175

EXCERPTS FROM CHAPTER 18 -&I CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE

CLASS OF MATERIALS’

1. Massive crystalline bedrock ,

0 8 0 6

TABLE 18-I-A-ALLOWABLE FOUNDATION AND LATERAL PRESSURE LATERAL BEARING LATERAL SLIDING‘

ALLOWABLE LBS./SO./FT./fl. OF . FOUNDATION IN’TH BELOW Resistance

PRESSURE (pst)2 NATURAL GRADE’ @SO6

x 0.157 tor kPa x 0.0479 per meter Coefficients for kPa x 0.0479 tor kPa

4,000 1,200 0.70

5. Clay, sandy clay, silty clay and clayey silt (CL, ML, M H and CH)

2,000 400 2,000 1 200

1,0007 100 I 130 I 4. Sand, silty sand, clayey sand, silty gravel and clayey gravel (SW, SP, SM, SC, GM

and GC) I 1,500

EXPANSION I N D M

0-20

21-50

5 1-90

91-130

Above 130

POTENTIAL EXPANSION

Very low

LOW

Medium

High

Very high

THICKNESS OF FOUNDATION WALL (inches) . WIDTH OF FOOTING THICKNESS OF

x 25.4 for mm (Inches) FOOTING (inches)

I

DEPTH BELOW UNDISTURBED GROUND SURFACE (inches)

NUMBER OF FLOORS SUPPORTED BY THE FOUNDATION5

1 2 3

IWhere unusual conditions or frost conditions are found, footings and foundations shall be as required in Section 1806.1. ’The ground under the floor may be excavated to the elevation of the top of the footing. 31ntenor siud bearing walls may b e supported by isolared footingc.The footingwidth and length shall be twice thewidth shown in this table and the footingsshall

p j l n Seismic Zone 1, continuous footings shall be provided with a minimurn of one No. 4 bar top and bottom. 5Foundations may support a roof in addition to the stipulated number of floors. Foundations supporting roofs only shall be as required for supporting one floor.

be spaced not more than 6 feet (1829 rnm) on center.

unit Concrete Masonry x 25.4 tor mm

6 6 12 6 32 8 8 15 7 1 8

10 10 18 8 24

2001 CALIFORNIA BUILDING ( i EXCERPTS FROM CHAPTER 18

0 8 0 7

TOP OF SLOPE

' ' ///A\'/// A r J L v

FACE OF STRUCTURE

H / 3 BUT NEED NOT H EXCEED 40 FT. (1 2 192 rnrn) MAX.

4

//A\V// 1

H/2 BUT NEED NOT EXCEED 15 FT. (4572 rnrn) M A X

FIGURE 18-I-1-SETBACK DIMENSIONS

I

1-176.1

0 8 0 8

AnACHMENT 5

7

PLAESNING DEPARTMENT i. . '.

GOVERNMENTAL CENT E R

Permit n": qo-034 J Type of Permit: EM-

0 8 0 9

C O U N T Y O F S A N T A C R U Z

701 OCEAN STREET SANTA C R U Z , CALIFORNIA 95060

Geologic Hazards Assessment

The Geologic Hazards Ordinance (Chapter 16.10) requires evaluation of development t o minimize t h e loss of l i f e , i n j u r y and ddmage due t o geologic hazards such as ear th- quakes, f loods , and l ands l ides .

T h i s f e t t e r i s designed t o provide you w i t h preliminary information about t h e geo- l o g i c condit ions t h a t may a f f e c t your homesite- and a review of maps on f i l e w i t h t h e Planning Department. sessment i s not intended t o be as d e t a i l e d as a f u l l geologic o r geotechnical repor t which a s t a t e- r e g i s t e r e d geo log i s t and/or S o i l s . engineer completes. I f d e t a i l e d geologic o r geotechnical . i n v e s t i g a t i o n by a p r iva te , r eg i s t e red consult ing geologis t and /or - - so i l s engineer i s required p r i o r t o issuance o f any b u i l d i n g permit, t h i s w i l l be indicated i n s e c t i o n number13 , "FollO~-up Inves t igat ion Requirements".

I t i s based on visual inspect ion The scope of t h i s as-

1. 1s the property located w i t h i n one of the following mapped hazard ereas? ( I f yes , see attached map)

Yes No

J S t a t e designated f a u l t zone (Alquist- Priolo Spe- c i a l Study Zone).

J Mapped f a u l t t r a c e t h r o u g h o r w i t h i n 150' o f t h e homesite ( f rom t h e Seismic Safety Element f a u l t map, Hall e t a1 , $974) .

,/ Flood Hazard area as designated by FEMA.

J Mapped l ands l ide (from Cooper, C l a r k , e t a l ,

,/ Mapped f e a t u r e f rom 1989 earthquake.

0 8 1 0

2. ace

3. F i s s u r e s and o the r ground damage from October 17 , 1989 earthquake:

. .

Yes No

are. with-in.30 f e e t b f . t h e existing or proposed hab i t ab le s t r u c t u r e .

a r e located i n f i l l .

a r e forming arcuate p a t t e r n s which could be r e l a t - ed t o . landsl ide p o t e n t i a l .

a r e located on r idge tops .

could cause 9 potenti 'al slope s t a b f l i t y problem. .

houses a r e located below the slope wi th f i s s u r e s . --

Describe Fissures ( s i z e , l e n g t h , number, loca t ion) :

?d Ip

* $

0 8 1 1

4. S l o p e L W € L GrrgDED 9l-B.

h a v e r a g e g r a d i e n t o f p r e g r a d e d h o m e s i t e . (oq % maximum g r a d i e n t abovj or be low homes i t e ; M I S ' .& .' d i s t a n c e to

-. . - s l o p e s . - .

P r c r f i l e across h o m e s i t e : WG-E

- - _ SFD -ALL c m EYms Qk ' c w

5. T o p o g r a p h i c p o s i t i o n :

r i d g e t o p J on a h i l l s i d e 1

n o s e o f m i n o r r i d g e on s l o p e

swale o r c h a n n e l on s l o p e

a t base of h i l l s i d e

f l o o d p l a i n

9. Septic system location considerations:

10. .Access roadway problems:

11. Drainage and runof f consideratjons:

7

0 8 1 4

.

J'

Submit the completed investigation t o the.2oning Counter (b. 400) and pay the. $ 3(J)w fee f o r Geologic Report Review.

A geotechnical . ( so i l s ) investigation completed by a geotechnical engineer i s required. The investigation should include but not necessar- i l y be limited t o the following concerns:

B.

S u b m i t t h e completed investigation t o the Zoning Counter (Rn. 400) and pay t he $ ! 4 ' ) 0 _ 0 fee for Geotechnical Report Review.

TA6 4

081 5

Permit condi t ions w i l l be developed f o r you a f t e r your technica l r e p o r t ( s ) have been reviewed. a requirement t o follow a l l the recommendations contained in t h e r epo r t s .

A t a min imum, however, you can expect

14 . No f u r t h e r profess iona l repor ts a re required t o evaluate t h i s homesite with respec t t o geologic hazards. t i o n f o r regarding geologic i ssues mGst be met:

Before your a?? l i ca - i s approved, t h e following condit ions

1. Grading a c t i v i t i e s rnmt be k e p t t o a m i n i m u m .

15. d

J

2. Drainage from impermeable sur faces such a s the roof and driveway must be co l l ec t ed and properly disposed o f . be allowed t o shee t o f f these arzas on t o t h 2 h i l l s i d ? below i n an uncont ro l led manner.

Runoff should not

3. '

A Declara t ion form acknowledging a poss ib le geologic h a z a r d t o t h e parce l must be completed p r i o r - t o permit issusnce.

- Declara t ion attached concerning:

Grading a c t i v i t i e s must be k e p t t o a minimum. S F F \m p,

Drainage from impermea,ble surfaces such as t h e roof and driveway must be co l l ec t ed and properly disposed o f . Runoff should not be allowed t o sheet o f f ' these areas on t o t h e h i l l s i d e below in an uncontrol led manner.

. . . -

0 8 1 6

-This geo log ic hazards assessment must be made ava i lab le t o t h e geologic consul tan ts and geotechnica l engineers addressing t h e problems indicated i n t h i s assessment. Guidel ines f o r geologic and geotechnical inves t iga t ions , and a l i s t of recommended geologic and geotechnical f i rms a r e enclosed.

Permit app l i ca t ions and bui ld ing plans will be checked t o ver i f y t h a t t he p ro j ec t i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e condi t ions out l ined above p r io r t o issuance of a building per- m i t . geologic i s s u e s i n gene ra l , p l ease contac t me a t 4,*7

If you have any ques t ions regarding the hazards assessment f o r t h i s parcel o r - 046

Sincerely,

For: PETE PARKINSON Environmental Coordinator/ Program Manager Environmental & Technical Review

cc: D ie t e r Beermann (PI anner)CHB/< m v w I

\

7

t-

c

U

c

c

GEOTECHNlC AL INVESTIGATION FOR

11677 LAKE BOULEVARD FELTON, CALIFORNIA

FOR SUSAN AND JOHN WILDER

FELTON, C A L I F O W A

BY STEVEN RAAS & ASSOCLATES, TNC.

CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS

DECEMBER 1995 9 5 83 - SZ25 -E5 2

-ATTACHMENT 7

0 8 2 0

c

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

Purpose and Scope Location and Description Field Investigation Laboratory Investigation Soil Conditions Seismic Hazards

DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5 6 8 9 10

General Site Preparation and Retaining Wall Recommendations Backfill Material and Compaction Recommendations Surface Drainage and Erosion Control Plan Review

LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS

9583-SZ25-ES2 December 22, 1995

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

APPENDIX A

Regional Site Plan Site Plan Showing Test Bonngs Boring Log Explanation Log of Test Borings Surcharge Pressure Diagram

13 14 15 16 17

7

T

I Steven Raas & Associates, Inc. CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS

444 AIRPORT BOULEVARD. SUITE 106 WATSONVILLE. CA 95076 -

c

9583-SZ25-ES2 December 22, 1995

Susan and John Wilder 1 1677 Lake Boulevard Felton, CA 9501 8-9807

(408) 722-9446 FAX (408) 722-9158

Subject: Focused Geotechnical lnvestigation 1 1677 Lake Boulevard Felt on, California

Dear Mr. and Ms. Wilder,

In accordance with your authorization, we have performed a focused geotechnical investigation for your project located in Felton, California.

The accoinpanying report presents our conclusions and recommendations as well as the results of the focused geotechnical investigation on which they are based. I f you have any questions concerning the data, conclusions or recommendations presented in this report, please call our oilice.

Veiy truly yours,

G:\USEWS\D~WOHI>\GW5 8 3 . W

Copies: 2 to Susan and John Wilder 1 to Mesiti-Miller Engineering, Attn: Bill Grizzell

0 8 2 2

9583-SZ25-ES2 December 22, 1595

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGAT30N

c PURPOSE AND SCOPE

This report describes the focused geotechnical investigation and presents results, including

recommendations, for the proposed retaining walls. Our mutually agreed upon scope of

services did not include an analysisxJ&.&ing or potential geologic - hazards which - .-. coutd -1-

affect the site. Our scope of services for this project has consisted of the tasks outlined

below.

-- __-_ - - -- .--- ---

1.

2.

-I

3 .

c

4.

5 .

c 6 .

-

-

We met on site and discussed the project with Bill Grizzell and Carry Edmondson.

We reviewed pertinent published material concerning the site including geologic maps, Santa Cruz County landslide and fault hazard planning maps, site plans, and other available literature.

We performed a subsurface investigation which included the drilling and log,oing of 3 test borings.

Laboratory analysis was performed for samples collected at the site.

Engineering analysis of the field and laboratory results was performed.

We prepared this report documenting our investigation and presenting recommendations for the desiyn of the project.

LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The site is located at 11677 Lake Boulevard in the Lompico area of Santa Cruz, California.

The slopes on the site dip very steeply to the west in the direction of Lompico Creek

approximately 200 feet below. A single family residence is located approximately 25 feet

below Lake Boulevard. The steep slope between the road and the residence is retained with

three approximately 7 foot tall wood retaining walls. All three retaining wall show signs of

c

-

2

0 8 2 3

9 5 83 - SZ25-E52 December 22,1995

distress, and the middle wall has failed completely in a few areas.

the failing retaining walls.

It is proposed to replace

FIELD INVESTIGATION Three 3 inch diameter test borings were drilled on the site on ?$ovemhxJQ- ,4995. The drilling

was performed with a mechanically operated portable rig with continuous flight augers. A

geologist from Steven h a s & Associates, Inc., was present during the drilling operations to

log the soil encountered and to choose soil sampling type and locations.

Relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained at various depths by driving a split spoon

sampler 18 inches into the gound. This was achieved by freely dropping a 70 pound down

donut hammer from a vertical height of 30 inches. The number of blows needed to drive the

sampler for each 6 inch portion is recorded and the total number of blows needed to drive the

last 12 inches is reported as the Blow Count value. The outside diameter of the samplers used

in this investigation was either 3 inches, 2% inches, or 2 inches, and is noted respectively as

“L,”, “M” or “T” on the boring logs. The Blow Count data has not been reduce and should

not be construed for the Standard Penetration Test “N” value. I

Appendix A contains the Site Plan showing the locations of the test borings and the Log of

Test Borings presenting the soil profile explored in each boring, the sample locations, and the

Blow Count values for each sample. Stratification lines on the boring logs are approximate as

the actual transition between soil types may be gradual.

y

3

7

0 8 2 4

9583-SZ25-E52 December 22, 1995

c

c

c

c

c

c

LABORATORY INVESTIGATION

The laboratory testing program was developed to help in evaluating the *inpapacity,

settlement characteristics, swell potential for the soil on the site. Laboratory tests performed

include: -..---. - - r--- - -

a) Moisture Density relationships in accordance with ASTM test D2937.

b) Atterberg Limits tests in accordance with ASTM test D43 18-84.

- 7 c ) Gradation tests in accordance with ASTM test D422.

The results of the laboratory tests are presented on the boring logs opposite the sample tested.

SOIL CONDITIONS

The site is mapped as Tertiary Monterey Formation which consists of mudstone and silty

sandstone (Brabb, 1989). The soil in the vicinity of the retaining walls consisted of

approximately 8 to 10 feet of very loose to loose brownish yellow silty gravelly sand. Below

a depth of approximately 8 to 10 feet, highly weathered sandy siltstone was encountered to

the boring terminations at a maximum depth of approximately 16 1/2 feet. The soil was moist

and no groundwater was encounter in any of the borings.

SEISMIC HAZARDS

Your property and the surrounding area is mapped as potentially being a massive landslide

(Freliminary Map of Landslide Deposits in Santa Cruz County, CA, Cooper-Clark

Associates). Additionally, your site is located approximately 2,000 feet south of the Zayante

Fault Zone. As detailed in our mutually agreed upon scope of services, we did not include an

analysis of existing or potential geologic hazards, including but not limited to landsliding and

faulting, which could affect the site.

4

-7

0825

9 5 83 - S22 5 -E 52 December 22, 1995

DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

P

c

GENERAL

1. The results of our investigation indicate that from a geotechnical engineering standpoint the

existing retaining walls may be replaced provided these recommendations are included in the

design and construction of the project. An appropriate system to retain the slopes should

consist of a retaining wall with a ,deep foundation, ____._ such --.-- as-a saldier--pile_-wa!l.*-- Deep

foundations are recommended for the site as the ~!opes on the site are very steep, and

retaining walls founded in the upper stratum could loose beariny support due to slope creep or

due to the failure of the highly fractured mudstone bedrock below the footings. ---rc -- -e- A-

d- b

2. An appropriate system to retain the steep slopes on the site should include a deep found at ion.

3 . Grading and foundation plans should be reviewed by Steven Raas & Associates, Inc.

during their preparation and prior to contract bidding.

4. Steven Raas Rr. Associates, Inc. should be not ied at least four (4) working days prior to

any site clearing in order to observe the removal and disposal of any oryankally contaminated

material and the existing wood retaining wall, and to coordinate this work with the grading

contractor. During this period, a pre-construction conference should be held on the site, with

at least the contractor, a county representative and one of our engineers present. At this time,

the project specifications and the testing and inspection responsibilities will be outlined and

discussed.

5 . Field observation and testing must be provided by a representative of Steven Raas &

Associates, Inc., to enable them to form an opinion as to the degree of conformance of the --

I

5

0 8 2 6

9583 -SZ2 5-E52 December 22, 1995

exposed site conditions to those foreseen in this report, regarding the adequacy of the site

preparation, the acceptability of fill materials, and the extent to which the earthwork

construction and the degree of compaction comply with the specification requirements. A n y

work related to grading or foundation construction performed without the full knowledge of,

and not under the direct observation of Steven h a s & Associates, Inc., the GeotechnicaI

Engineer, will render the recommendations of this report invalid.

SITE PREPARATlON AND RETAINING WALL RECO~IR.IENDATIONS

6. The initial preparation of the site will consist of the removal of vegetation as required in

the area of the retaining walls, removal of the existing wood retaining walls, and all associated

debris. This contaminated soil and debris should be removed fiom the site. The required

depth of stripping must be based on visual observations of Steven Raas & Associates, Inc. It -

is anticipated that the depth of striping may be 2 to 4 inches.

- 7. Following the removal of vegetation, the loose soil should be removed from the slope face.

The extent of this soil removal will be designated by a representative of Steven Raas &

&saci .at-es , -€nc-A~fie_ld, This soil may or may not be adequate to use as backfill material

behind the retaining structure. All material that is not acceptable for fill material should be

removed from the construction site.

.-.._- __---._.-.-- ---- --. - __cII---- . --..-. ~ - -1. . - u

-

8. At the time we prepared this report, the retaining wall plans had not be completed and the

wall location and construction details had not been finalized. We request an opportunity to c

review these items during the design stages to determine is supplemental recommendations

7 will be required. -/ ;A:

~ ~ -_ - 9. An appropriate system to retain the slopes will consist of a soldievile wall with timber--

lagging. The soldier piles should be constructed of steel H beams founded in cast-in-place L-

6

0 8 2 7

95 83-SZ25-E52 December 22, 1995

- concrete piers.

CALTRANS Standard Specifications, Section 58.

The timber used as lagging should be preserved in accordance with

-

c 10. The soldier pile retaining wall, with full drainage and horizontal backfill, should be

designed using the following criteria:

i

g-

:?- 2'4. 8 ; Minimum pier embedment should be a minimum of 7 feet into theyellowish "1. .-

Grown weats$aGn*astone bedrock. Depending on the location and

' i'

....*-_YI_._ __- ,,I..*-... r L . - - . . * I ' - - - ' =

approximately 10 to 20 feet. &&a1 depths could ___--.- depen-on ------_I- a Iateral force analysis performed by your structural engineer.

7 1 .-: : r ~ 7 ' I

-.---.-I-- .----..- - ___ .~.- _. - ____ . c ' r ; -

Minimum pier size should be 18 inches in diameter and all pier holes must be free of loose material on the bottom.

.

When walls are fiee to yield an amount sufficient to develop the active earth pressure condition (about !A% of height), design for an active earth pressure of 35 psBA of depth for horizontal backfill, and 54 psf7fi of depth for backfill with a slope of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Should the slope behind the retaining walls be other than horizontal or 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), supplemental design criteria will be provided for the active earth or at rest pressures for the particular siope angle.

Passive pressures of 300 psffft of depth can be developed, acting over a plane 1% times the pier diameter. Neglect passive pressure in the top 2 feet of embedment.

The resultant seismic force on the wall is 20 HZ and acts at a point 0.6H gp from the base of the wall.

Lfgroundwater is present, the piers will need to be cased during drilling. If water is present, the water will either have to be pumped before the steel and concrete placement, or the concrete will have to be placed using a tremie. If the casing is pulled during the concrete pour, it must be pulled slowly with a minimum of 4 feet of casing remaining embedded within the concrete at all times. Lfconcrete is placed via a tremie, the end of the tube must remain embedded a minimum of 4 feet into the concrete at all timeg.

Any live or dead loads which will transmit a force to the wall. Refer to Figure No. 7.

7

,

9 5 83 -SZ2 5 -E52 December 22, 1995

h. All pier construction must be observed by a representative of Steven Raas & Associates, hc . Any piers constructed without the full knowledge and continuous observation of Steven Raas & Associates, Inc., will render the recommendations of this report invalid.

c

c

11. The piers should contain steel reinforcement as determined by the Project Structural

Engineer.

12. The above criteria are based on hlly drained conditions. Therefore, we recommend that

permeab1e material meeting the State of California Standard Specification Section 63- 1.025,

Class 1, Type A, be placed behind the wall, with a minimum width of 12 inches and extending

for the full height of the wall to within 1 foot of the ground surface. The rock should be

covered with Mirafi 140 filter fabric or equivalent and then compacted native soil placed to

the ground surface. A 4 inch diameter perforated rigid plastic or metal drain pipe should be

installed within 3 inches of the bottom of the granular backfill and be to an approved location

away from the footing area.

BACKFILL MATERIAL AND COMPACTION RECONIMENDATIONS

13. The backfill behind the retaining walls may be comprised of approved on site soil or of

imported engineered fill.

14. Should the use of imported fill be necessary on this project, the fill material should be:

c

a. fiee of organics, debris, and other deleterious materials

b. granulai in nature, well graded, and contain sufficient binder to allow trenches to stand open

c . fiee of rocks in excess of 2 inches in size

d. have a Plasticity Index between 4 and 12, and be non-expansive

e. have a minimum Sand Equivalent of 20

8

,

-7

0 8 2 9

9583-SZ25-E52 December 22, 1995

f. have a minimurn Resistance “R’ Value of 30

c

c

P

c

c

15. The backfill material should be compacted to a minimum of 90% of its maximum dry

density. The moisture conditioning procedure will depend on the time of year that the work is

done, but it shouId result in the soils being 1 to 3 percent over their optimum moisture content

at the time of compaction.

Note: If this work i s done during or soon after the rainy season, the on-site soils may be

too wet to be used as engineered fill.

16. The maximum dry density will be obtained from a laboratory compaction curve run in

accordance with ASTM Procedure #D1557-78. This test will aIso establish the optimum

moisture content of the material. Field density testing will be in accordance with ASTM Test

#D2922.

17. Samples of any proposed imported fill planned for use on this project should be submitted

to Steven Raas & Associates, Inc. for appropriate testing and approval not less than 4

working days before the anticipated jobsite delivery.

SURFACE DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL

18. All roof eaves should be guttered, with the outlets fiom the downspouts provided with

adequate capacity to carry the storm water from the structures to reduce the possibility of soil

saturation and erosion. The connection should be in a closed conduit which discharges at an

approved location away from foundations.

19. Slopes should be constructed so that surface water will not be allowed to drain over the

top ofthe retaining wall, or over the crest of exposed slopes. Concentrations of surface water

I,

9

7

0830

c

c

c

c

9583 -SZ25-E52 December 22, 1995

runoff should be transported by paved ditches or other structures needed to carry the water to

an appropriate discharge location.

20. Irrigation activities at the site should not be done in an uncontrolled or unreasonable

manner.

PLAN REVIEW

21. We respecthlly request an opportunity to review the plans during preparation and before

bidding to insure that the recommendations of this report have been included and to provide

additional recommendations, if needed.

10

,,

7

083 1

9583 - SZ25-E5 2 December 22, 1995

L-

c

c

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS

The scope of this investigation was limited to address only the slopes in the retaining wall area. Existing and or potential geologic hazards, including but not limited to faulting and landsliding, were not part of our mutually agreed upon scope of services.

The recommendations of this report are based upon the assumption that the soil and bedrock conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the borings. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that planned at the time, our firm should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given.

This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or his representative, to insure that the information and recommendations contained herein are called to the attention of the Architects and Engineers for the project and incorporated into the plans, and that the necessary steps are taken to insure that the Contractors and Subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field.

The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural process or the works of man, on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated, wholly or partially, by changes outside of our control. This report should therefore be reviewed in light of fixture planned construction and then current applicable codes.

This report was prepared upon your request for our services in accordance with currcntly accepted standards of professional geotechnical engineering practice. No warranty as to the contents of this report is intended, and none shall be inferred from the statements or opinions expressed.

The scope of our services mutually agreed upon for this project did not include any environmental assessment or study for the presence of hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater, or air, on or below or around this site.

11

11

7

0 8 3 2

9 5 8 3 - SZ2 5 -E 5 2 December 22, 1995

APPENDIX A

Regional Site Plan Site Plan Showing Test Borings

Boring Log Explanation Log of Test Borings

Surcharge Pressure Diagram

12

I

7

0 8 3 3 9583- SZ25-E5 2 December 2 2 i , 1 9 9 5

i 1 IN I W

I

n

- u FIGURE NO.: 1 Regional S i t e P l a n 0 Steven Raas & Associates 2 13 WIT' R-155

7

0 8 3 4

December 22, 1995

1 I -I

1 I J I

0 ,/

\ \

50' /

Control P o i n t

N 0 Tree B a s e Map from

-$ Location of T e s t Bo-s Caq I5lxmmdson

FIGURE NO.: 2 Regional Site Plan -

14 WFP A-155

7

9583-SZ25-E52 December 2 2 , 1995

=’ s- e a

0 8 3 5

0

2 ze, 3

5

UNlFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM - ASTM D2488-84

PRIMARY DIVISIONS

M O R E W H A L J O F

MORETHANIULFOF

M A W IS LARGER THANrJ?msIBvEsQE

I;ME G R U M D S O U MORE THAN HALF OF

M A m I ! 3 . s h 4 N L m THxrJm12oosrEvEszE

- - -* - - 3 - - 4 - - 5 - - 6 -

-

- - - - - -

BORING LOG EXPLANATION

1-1 - L

DATE DRILLED BORING DIAMETER BORING NO. I I 1 I I

SILTS AND CLAYS

VERY SOFT SOFT FIRM STIFF

VERY s m HARD

BLOWSEOOT

0-2 2-4 4-8 8-16 16-32

OVER 32

t- Soil Sample Number t- Soil Sampler Sizenype

L = 3 ” Outside Diameter M = 2.5,” Outside Diameter T = 2” Outside Diameter ST = Shelby Tube BAG = Bag Sample

L

SANDS AND GRAVELS BLOWS/FOOT

VERY LOOSE 0 3 LOOSE 4-10

MEDIUM DENSE 10-30 DENSE 30-50

VERY DENSE OVER 50

I I I I Note: All blowsdoat are normalized 1 to 2” putsid; diarjeter syrnplei size

Steven Raas & Associates, Inc.

RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY

FIGURENO.: 3 Boring Log Explanatia

d’

9583-SZ25-E52 December 22 , 1995

0 8 3 6

ncreased density at 8' -I 3rownish yellow Sandy MUDSTONE, very fine grained sad, moist, very dcmc

ncreasing densitv -

1 MISC. LAB RESULTS

9% Passing 200 Sieve

11% Passing #200 Sieve

0837 -

c

c

c

L

c

c

F

P

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

95 83- SZ 2 5-E5 2 December 2 2 , 1995

LOGGEDBY DG DATEDRILLED llno/g5 BORINGDLAMETER 3”SS BORINGNO. 2

I I I

SOIL DESCRIPTION

- - 1’. . a’ Pale brown Silty Gravelly SAND, fine to medium grained, a - .]! angular gravel to 6“ of mudstone, roots, clamp, very loose

- -

Silty SAND with gravel, veq fine 1 to 1 112” of mudstone, moist.

- - - 8 - * .I.:

I-. :. - 9 - :I - . I - -

- -

Brownish yellow Sandy MUDSTONE, partially weathered iron oxide staining, moist, medium dense

- -

- -

- - Yellowish brown Sandy MUDSTONE, moist, medium

-17- Boring Terminated at 16 112’ - - - 1 8 -

-19-

-20 -

-21 -

-22 -

-23 -

I STEVEN M A S & ASSOCIATES, INC.

- -

- - - -

- - - - - - - -

I 19

Y

MISC. LAB RESULTS

1% Passing 200 Sieve

FIGURE NO. 5 Log of Test Borings

‘7

9 5 8 3 4 2 5-E5 2 December 22, 1995

0 8 3 8

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Brownish yellow Silty Gravelly SAND, fine grained, angular gravel to 1" of mudstone, roots, damp, very loose

Caving soils from 4 ' 4 '

Brownish yellow Gravelly Silty SAND, fine grained, angular gravel to > 2 l/2" of mudstone, damp, very loose

- - - 12-

- 13-

- -

- - - 14-

- 1s-

- 16-

c -

- -

3oring Terminated at 12'

MISC. 1 LAB RESULTS

0 8 3 9 December 22,11995

LINE LOAD 9 FOR m 0.4:

PRESSURES FROM LINE LOAD 0~

tBOUSSlNES0 EQUATION MOOIFIEO BY EXPERIMENT) .

Reference: Design Manual NAVFAC DM-7.2 Figure 11 Page 7 . 2 - 7 4

SECTlON A- A PRESSURES FROM W N T LDAO O p

MOOIFIEO BY E X P E R I M W ) (BCUSJINE-fO E0UATK)N '

7

08/40

i I I i

I i

1 I

i i

I I

I I

16.10.01 0 0 8 4 1

sections: 16.10.010 16.10.020 16.10.022 16.10.025

16.10.030 16.l0.035 16.10.036

16.10.037 16.10.040 16.30.050

1630.060

16.10.070 16.10.075

16.10.080 16.10.090 16.10.095

16.10.100 16J0.105

16.10.110 16.10.120 16.10.130

165 0.010

Chapter 16.10

GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

purpose. scope. Statntoq authorization. Basis for estabbbing the areas of specialDoodhnlarrl_ Amendment p d n r e . c o n f l i d w i t h ~ r e g u l a t i o n s . Warning and disclaimer of liability. Severability. Definit iOrrs. Requirements for geologic assessment Assessment and report preparation and review. Permit conditions. Foundation design reqnirements

Project density limitations. Projezt de!nial. Permits for repair of earthquake .damaged dwellings and accessory structnreswithinareasof earthquakedatedgroundfailure and designated seismic hazard areas.

m geologic ha2ard areas

ExceptioIls. Notice of gdogic hazards m cases of dangerous conditions Appeals Violations. Fe€!S

purpose. The purposes of this chapter arc: (a) Policy Lmplementation. To implement the policies

of the National Flood Insurance Program of the Federal I n s m Administration, the State of California Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, the Santa Cruz County General Plan, and the Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program; and

(b) Pubfic Health and Safety. To minimize injmy, loss of life, and damage to public and private property caused by the natural physical hazards of earthquakes, floods, landslides, and coastal processes; and

.

(c) Development Standards. To set forth standards far development and building activities that will reduce public costs by preventing inappropriate l a d uses and development in areas where natural dynamic processes present a potential threat to the public health, safety, welfare, and property; and

(d) Notice of Hazards. To assure that potential buyers are notified of property located in an area of special flood hazaJ& and to assure that those who occupy itreas of special flood hazard assumc rtsponsibiiity for tbeir actions. (Ora 3340, 11123/82; 3598, 11/6/84; 45184, 3/8/99)

16.10.020 scope.

including gradlag, septic systems installation,

This cbapter sets forth regulations and review procedures for development and construction activities

developmeat pmnh, changes of use as specified in Section 16.1O.oQo(s)8, building permits, minor land divisions, and subdivisions througbout the County and

areas of special flood hazard (SFHAs). These regulations andpfoctdlp#Shaubeadministertd h u g h a s y s t e m o f

development and building pennits (Ord. 3340,11/23/82; 3598,11/6/84; 3635,3/26185; 451- 3/8/99)

particularly within mapped geologic hamrds areas and

geologic hazard asstssment, technical review,

16.10.022 Statutory antborization. Tbe State of California has in Government Code

Sections 65302, 65560, 65800 confmed upon local government units tbe authority to adopt regulations designed to promote public health, safety, and g d welfare of its citizenry through the adoption of the following geologic hazard and flmlain management regulations. (Ord. 45 1 &c, 3/8/99)

16.10.025 Basis for establishing the areas of specialflood-

The aras of special flood hazard identified by the Federal insurance Adminiswtion (FIA) of the Federal Emergency Managiment Agency (FEMA) in the Flood Lnsuraace Study (ns) dated April 15, 1986, and accompanying Flood Lnsuranct Rate M a p s (FIRMS) and Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps (FBFMs), dated April 15, 1986, and all subsequent amendments andlor revisions, arc hereby adopted by ref- and declared to be a part of this Chapter. This FIS and attendant mapping is the minimum area of applicability of the flood regulations contained in this Chapter, and may be supplemented by studies for other areas. The FIS, FIRMS,

990

!A~ACHMENT 9 - 6 2 2 -

16.10.030

0842

and FBFMs are on f i e at the County Government Center, Planning Department (Ord. 45 18-C, 3/8/99)

16.10.030 Amendment procedure. Any revision to this chapte-r which applies to the

Coastal Zone shall be reviewed by the Executive Director of tbe California Coastal Cmunission to determine whether it constitutes an amendment to the Local Coastal Program. Wben an ordinance revision c~nstitutes an amendment to the Local Coastal Program, such revision shall be processed pursuant to the bearing and notification provisi~n~ of Chapter 13.03 of tbe County Code and shall be subject to approval by tbe California Coastal Commission (Ord. 3340,l U23/82; 3598,11/6/84)

1 6.1 0.035 COnflictWithexistingregalatiOnS This Chaptex is not intended to repeal, nultify, or impair

any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions- If this Chapter and any other ordinance, easement, covenant, or de& restriction conflict or overlap, whicbevcr imposes the more stringta restrictions shall prevail. (Ord. 45 18€, 3/8/99)

16.10.036 The degree of flood protection required by the

ordinance is considered reasonable forrcgulatorypurposes based on Scientific and engineering considerations. Larger floods can and will occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased by artificial or natural causes. This ordinaDce does not imply that land outside the Special Flood Hazard Areas or uses @tt#l within such areas will be free from flooding or flood damages. This ordinance shall not create liability on the part of Santa Cruz County, any officer or employee tbaeof, the State of California, or the Federal Insurance On, Federal Emergency Management Agency, for any flood damages that result from reliance on this ordinance or any administrative decision lawfully made bereunder. (Or& 45 18€, 38/99)

Warning and disclaimer of liability.

- . .

16.10.037 Severabiity. This ordinance and the various parts thereof are hereby

declared to be severable. Sbould any section of this ordinancebe declared by tbe corn to be unconstitutional or invaiid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the ordinanceas a whole, or any portion thereof other than the Section sodeclared to be unconstitutional or invalid. (Ord. 451&C, 3/8/99)

16.10.040 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following

definitions apply: (a) Accessory Use. Any use which is clearly

incidental and SeCoMiary to the main use and does not change the character of tbe main use.

(b) Active. A geologk feature (fault or landslide) which shows evidence of movement, surface displacement, or activity within Holocene time (about the last 11,Oooyears).

Addition. Improvement to an existing structure that increases the area, measured in square feet Tbeuse of breeze ways, corridors, or other non-integral co~~~lectjons betwm structmes shall not cause separate buildings or structures to be considered additions to an existing structure.

(d) Adjacentlcontipm parcel. Aparcel touchingthe subject parcel and not separated from tbe subject parcel by a road, street or other property.

Areas of specid flood hazard. An area having special flood hazard as identified by tbe Federal Insurance Administration, tbrougb the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and shown on an FHBM or FIRM map as Zone & AO, Al-A30, AE, A99, Vl-V30, VE or V. Also know0 as Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA).

Base Flood. A flood which has a one percent chance of being equaled or ex& in any gjven year. For flood insurance purposes one-hundred year flood and base flood haveibe same meaning.

(g) Basement.. For the purposes of this Chapter, any area of the building having its Door subgrade (below ground level) on all sides.

(h) Beach erosion. Temporary OT permanent reduction, transport or removal of beach sand by littoral drift, tidal actions, storms or tsunamis.

Certified Engineering Geologist A Registeren Geologist who is licensed by the State of California to practice the subspecialty of Engineering Geology.

Coastal Bluff. A bank or cliff along the coast subject to coastal erosionprocesses. coastal bluf€refers to the top edge, face, and base of tbe subject blufi.

(k) Coastal dependent uses. Any development or use which would not function or operate unless sited on or adjacent to the ocean.

Coastal erosion processes. Natural forces that cause the breakdown and traqmrtation of earth or rock materials on or along beaches and bluffs. These forces include landsliding, surface runoff, wave action and ts-.

(m) Coastal hazard areas. Areas which are subject to physical hazards as a result of coastal processes such as

(c)

(e)

( f )

(i)

(j)

(I)

991

- 6 2 3 -

' 16.10.040 0 8 4 3

landsliding, erosion of a coastal bluff, and inundation or erosion of a beach by wave action

Coastal High Hazard Area. Areas subject to high velocity waters, including tidal and coastal inundation. These afeas and base flood elevations are identified on a Flood lnsuranceRatt Map (FIRM) aszoneS V1-30, VEor V.

(0) County geologist- A County employee who is registered as a gmlogist with the State of California (RG.) and has been autborized by the Planning Dirtctor to assist intbennminic;tra tion of this chapter, OT a registered geologist under contract by the County who has bttn authorized by the Planning Director to assist in the admummion of this chapter. (Ord. 4090,12/4190,451& C,3/8/99) .

County gaologic advisor. An individual who is registered as a geologist with tbe State of C a l i f 6 (RG.), who may be employed by the County to provide

(9) critical stmcmms and facilities- s m and facilities which are subject to specified seismic safety standafils because of their immediate and vital public need or because of the severe hazard presented by their strucnd failure. These stmcbms include hospitals and medical facilities, fire and police stations, disaster relief and emergency operating centas, large dams and public utilities, public transportation'and communications facilities, buildings with involuntary occupancy such as schools, jails, and convai&t homes, d high occupancy muctmcs such as heaters, churches, office buildings, factories, and stor#.

Cumulative improve men^ For the purposes of calculating "substantial improvamnt" as ckfintd in Section 16.101040(3m), two or more instanctS of repair, reconstrucdon, alteration, addition, or improvement to a structure, over the course of five CoIueCutive years. If the value of such activities, when added togethex, equals or exceeds f i f ty (50) pescent of the market value of the stnrchne, tbe activity as a whole shall be mnsidered to be a "substantial improveme"

- (s) D c v d o p ~ t / D c v e l o p ~ t Activities. For the purposes of this chapter, and this chapter only, any project that includes activity in any of the following categories is considered to be development or developnmtnt activity. This chapter does not supercede Section 1320.040 for purposes of detemining whether a certaia activity or project requires a coastal permit; some activities and

. projects will require coastal pmnits dthougb they do not fall under this following specific definition.

The construction or placement of any habitable structure, including a manufactured home;

(n)

. .

@)

geologic stryjces

(r)

(1)

(2) Any repair, reconstruction, alteration, addition, or improvement of a habitable structure that modifies or replaces more than fifty (50) percent of the total length of the exterior walls, exclusive of interior and exterior wall coverings and the replacing of windows or doors without altering their openings. This allows a total modification or replacement of up to fifty (SO) percent, measured as described above, whetbcr the work is done at one time or as the sum of multiple projects during the life of the -;

(3) The addition of habitable space to any structure, whert the addition increases the habitable space by more than fifty (SO) percent over the existing habitable space, measurtd in square feet Thisallows a total increase ofup to fifty (50) pcrcent of the original habitable space of a struchpe, whether tbe additions are constnmed at one time or as the sum of multiple additions during the life of the sbuchne;

(4) An addition of any size to a structure that is located OD a coastal bluff, dune, or in the coastal hazard

that extends the existing structure in a seaward direction;

(5 ) Lnstallation of a new foundation for a habitable -; (6) The repair, replacement, or upgrade of an existing

foundation of a habitable s t r u m that affects more than fifty (50) pcrunt of the foundation (measured in linear feet for pairnew fouadatiom, square feet for slab foundations, or fifty (50) percent of the total number of piers), or an addition to an existing foundation that adds mure than fifty (50) percent of tbe original foundation - This allows repair, upgrade, or addition up to fifty (SO) percent, measured as described above, whether the work is performed at one time or as tbe sum of multiple projects during tbe life of the strumme;

(7) A division of land or the creation of me or more new building sites, except where a land division is accomplished by the acquisition of such land by a public agency for public use; (8) Any change of use fiom non-habitable to

habitable use, according to the definition of "habitable" found in Section 16.10.040, or a change of use from any noncritical structure to a critical structure.

(9) Any alteration of any stnxcture posted 'Wnsafe to Occupy" due to geologic hazards;

(10) Grading activities of any Scale in the 100 year

activity which requirts a pexmit pursuant to Chapter 162k (1 1) Construction of roads, utilities, or otha facilities. (12) Retaining walls whicb require a building permit,

retaining walls that function as a part of a landslide repair

.

*

floodplain or the coastal hazard area, and any grading

992

- 6 2 4 - 7

16-10 040 0844

whether or not a building permit is required, sea walls, rip rap erosion protection or retaining structures, and gabion baskets;

( I 3) Installation of a septic system; (14) Any human made change to developed or

undeveloped real estate in the Special Flood Hazard Area, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation, drilling operations, or storage of equipment or materials. This is m addition to any activity listed in items 1-13.

( 15) A n y otbet project that is defined as development under Section I3 20.040, and that will increase the number of people exposed to geologic hazards or that may create or exacerbate an existing geologic hazard, shall be determined by the P h i n g Dirextor to constitute development for the purposes of geologic review. (Ord. 4024, 10/24/89; 4080,9/11/90)

Development enveiope. A designation on a site pian or parcel map indjcating where buildings, access roads and septic systems are to be located.

(u) Fault zones. A zone or zones of fracture designated in the General Plan or Local Coastal Program Land Use Constraints Maps, or other maps and source materials authorized by the Planning Director.

Fill. The deposit of earth or any other substance or material by artificial means for any purpose, or the condition resulting from a fill taking place.

(w) Flood Boundary Floodway Map. The map adopted by the Board of Supervisors and used for land use planning and permit review on which the Federal insurance Administration has delineated the areas of special flood hazard.

Flood control structure. Any structure or m a t e d , including but not limited to a berm, levee, dam or retaining wall, placed in areas where flooding occurs, and constructed for the purpose of protecting a structure, roads, utility or transmission line.

Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The map adopted by the Board of Supervison and used for insurance purposes on which the Fedenl lnsurance Admhistration has delineated the‘special flood hazard areas, base flood elevations and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. The FIRM became effective on April 15, 1986 for insurance purposes.

Flood Insurance Study. The official report on file with the Planning Department provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency entitled, “The Flood Insurance Study Santa Cruz County, California” dated April 15,1986 that includes flood profiles, the FIRM, the Flood Boundary Floodway Map, and the water surface elevation of the base flood.

(t)

(v)

(x)

(y)

(z)

(2a) Floodplain. inundated by water

Any land area susceptible to being 5om any source. The one-hundred

year floodplain is used for planning purposes by Federal agencies and the County. For many larger and more densely populated drainages, the I00 year floodplain is designated on Flood boundary and Floodway Maps prepared by the Federal Insurance Administration. See also “Area of Special Flood Hazard.”

(2b) Floodplain Administrator. The Planning Director, or single staff member that is designated by the Director, to manage the administration and implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program regulations and the flood control provisions of this ordinance.

(2c) Floodproofmg. Any combination of structural and non-structural additions, changes or adjustments to nonresidential structures which reduce or eliminate flood damage to real estate or improved property.

(2d) Floodway. The channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land area that must be reserved in order to carry and discharge the one-hundred year flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot at any pomt Also referred to as the Regulatory Floodway.

(2e) Geologic hazard. A threat to life, property, or public safety caused by geologic or hydrologic processes such as flooding, wave inundation, landsliding, erosion, faulting, ground cracking, and secondary seismic effects including liquefaction, landsliding, tsunami and ground shaking.

(20 Geologic hazards assessment. A summary of the possible geologic hazards present at a site conducted by the staf€ geologist.

(2g) Geologic repos fi~l l . A complete geologic investigation conducted by a .Certified Engineering Geologist hired by the applicant, and completed in accordance with the County Geologic Report Guidelines.

(2h) Grading. Excavating or filling land, or a combination thereof.

(2i) Habitable. For the purposes of this Chapter, any soucture or portion of a strumre, whether Oi not enclosed, that is usable for living purposes, which include working, sleeping, eating, recreation, or any combination thereof. The purpose and use of the space, as described above, defines the habitable nature of the space. The term “habitable” also includes any space that is heated or cooled, humidified or dehumidified for the provision of human comfort, and/or is insulated imdor finished in plasterboard, and/or contains plumbing other than hose bibs.

(2j) Hardship. For the purposes of administering Section 16.10.100, means the exceptional hardship that

993

- 6 2 5 -

16- 10.040

would result from failure to grant the requesttd @ception- The specific hardship must be exceptional, unusual, and peculiar to the property involved. Economic or financial bardsbjp done is not exceptional- LnconVenience, atstbetic

neighbors also cannot qualify as exceptional hatdship, as these. problems can be resolved through means other than granting an Exception, even if those alternative means are morc Wrptnsive, require a property owner to build elsewbere, or put the parcel to a ~~t usc than

(2) High and very high liquefaction potential itreas. Areas that are prone to liquefaction caused by gmundshakingduringamajorcarthquakc.Tbcscarcasare designated 011 maps which art on file With the Plarming

considerations,personaiplzfertnces,orthedisapprovalof

or ig inal ly in~orproposed,

DcpamncnL (21) Historic structurr. Any stmctwc that is: 1. Listed

individually in the National Register of Historic Places, or prelimimdy detamintd by the Secretary of the lntcxior to meet the mpkmmts for such listing; 2. Cextified as or preliminarilydetrsrmned by the Department of the Interior to be contributing to tbe historical significance of a registMtd historical district or a district prtliminarily dew - dtoquaIifyasahistoricdistridbythcSecretary of tbe Lnttriar; 3. IndiviMy listcd on the State Register of Historic Places which has bem approved by the Secmary of the Inteio~ or, 4. Mvidually listed in the inventory of historic s t ~ c t u r t s in a oomzriunity witb a historic preservation program that has been certified either by an approved state program or dircctly by tbe Secretary of the htnior. (2m) Hydrologic investigation. A report prepared by a

Certified Enginetring geologist or civil engineer with expatise in hydrology which analyzes surface hydrology and/or groundwater conditions.

(2n) L i d drift. Tbe movement of beach sand parallel to the coast due to wave action and curm~ts.

(20) Liquefaction. The process whereby satlpat6d, loosc, granular materials arc transfonned by ground shaking during amajor earthquake from a stable state into a fluid-lh state

(2p) lnwest Floor. For flood purposes, the lowest floor of the lowcst enclosed area of a structure, including any basement

(1) A0 unfbished or flood resistant enclosure, below the lowest f l o o r , that is usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage in an area other than a

considered a building's lowcst floor, provided it conforms to applicable nonelevation design requirements, including, but not limited to:

basemtnt arC& fOr the ?- O f this chapterz iS nOt

0 8 4 5 (i) the wet floodproofing standards in Section

16.1 O.O70(f)(3)(iX) (ii) tbe anchoring and construction materials and

methods in Section 16.1 O.O7o(f)(3)(ii) (iii) the standards for septic systems and water supply

in Section 16.10.070(f)(5) and (f)(6). (2) For residential m, all fully enclosed

subgrade areas are prohibited as tbey are considered to be basements. This probibits garages and storage amxi that art below grade OD all sides. (a) Manufactured borne. A structure, transportable in one or more scctiom, which is built OD a pemancnt chassis and is designed for use witb or without a permanent foundation when c~nnected to the required utilities. For floodplain management purposes the tnm '4manufacturcd home" also iocludes park trailas, travel trailers and other similar vehicles placcd on a site for greater than 180 consecutive days. (2) Manufkctured borne park or subdivision. Aparctl

(or contiguous parctls) of land divided into two or more manufactured home lots for sale or rent

(2s) Mean Sea Level. Tbe National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929, or other measurtment, to which base flood eleMtions shown on a community's Flood lnsusance Rate Map are referenced

(2t) Multiple-residential structure. A single structure containing four or more individual residential units.

(2u) Natural disasttr. Any situation in which the force or forces of nature causing d-on are beyond the control of people.

(2v) New Construction. For the purposes of Scctions 16.10.070(f), (g), and (h), structures for which the start of mmtmctjon commenced on or after April 15, 1986, includinganySubstquentimprovementstosuchstrucaur#,

(2w) Non-esstntial public structures. Public structures which are Dot integral in providing such vital public servjces as fire a d police protection, sewer, warn, power and ttlepbone semic '~s.

(2x) Obstruction. hcludes, but is not limited to, any dam, wall, wharf, -embankmeot, levee, dike, pile, abutment, protection, excavation., channelization, bridge, conduit, culvert, building, wire, fence, rock, gravel,refue, fill, stnrcture, vegetation or otbcr material in, along, across,orprojectingintoanvwatercoursewhichmay~, impede, retard or change the direction and/or velocity of the flow of water, snare or collect debris carried by the flow of water, or is iikely to be carried downstream.

could OCCUT once in 100 years on the average, although it could OCCUT in any year. For flood insurance purposes,

.

( 2 ~ ) One-bubdrcd year flood- A flood that Statistidy

994'

- 6 2 6 - --

I

one-hundred year flood and base flood have the Same meaning. See Base Flood.

(22) Planning Director. Tbe Planning Director of the County of Smta Cruz or his or her authorized employee.

(3a) Public facilities. Any structure owned and/or operated by the government directly or by a private corporation under a government franchise for the use or benefit of tbe comm~ty.

(3b) Recent A g.mlogic feature (fault or landslide) which shows evidence of movement or activity within Holocene time (about the k t 11,OOo years.)

(3c) Registered Geologist A geologist who is licensed by the State of California to practice geology.

(3d) Registrred Geotechnical (Soils) Engineer. A civil engineer kensed in &e State of W o m i a , experienced in the practice of soils and foundation engineering.

(3e) Regulatory Floodway. See Floodway. (30 Recreational Vebicle. Means a vehicle which is

built on a single chassis; is 400 square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projection; designed to be self propelled or permanently towable by a lightduty truck; and designed primarily not for uses as a permanent dwelling but a temporary living quartm for recreation, camping, travel, or seasonal use.

(3g) Shoreline protedon stn~cture. Any structure or material, including but not limited to riprap or a seawall, placed in anarea wbere coastal processes operate.

(3h) Soil Investigation. A report prepared by a registered soils engineer, hired by the applicant, and completed in accordance with tbe County Soils Report Guidelines. This term is synonymous with the term geotechnical investigation.

(3i) Special Rood Hazard Area (SFHA). See Area of

(3j) Start of construction. "be date the .first building permit was issued, provided actual construCtion, repair, reconstmction, alteration, addition, rehabfitation, placemen& or other improvement was begun within tbe tams of the pe.rmit "Actual construCtion" means efier the first placement of a structure on the site, such as pouring a slab or footings, the instabtion of piles, the construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation; or the placement of a manufacaned home OD a foundation Pennanent construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading, and fillirtg; 1 ~ f does it include the installation of streets and/or walkways; nor docs it include excavation for a basement, footings, pien, or foundations or the erection of temporary fonns; nor does it include tbe installation on tbe property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds which are not occupied as dwelling units or are not part of the main structure. For

.

SpecialFlood~CL

0 8 4 6

the purposes of the phrase "substantial improvement" actual construction means the first alteration of any wall, ceding, floor, or other structwal part of the building, whether or not that alteration affects the ex& dimensions of tbe building.

(3k) Structure. Anything constructed or erected which requires a location on the ground, including, but not limited to, a building, manufactured home, gas or liquid storage tank, or facility such as a road, retaining wall, pipe, flume, conduit, siphon, aqueduct, telephone line, eleceical power transmission or distiibution line.

(31) Substantial Damage. Damage of any origin, sustained by a structure wbmeby the cost of restoring the sbuctme to its beforedamaged condition would equal or e x d 50 percent of the market value of the stmctme 2s it existed before the damage occurred,

(3m)Substantial Improvement Any repair, reconstrucdon, rehabfitation, addition, alteration or improvement to a structure, or the cumulative total of such activities as defined in Section 16.10.oQo(r), tbe cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure either immediately prior to tbe issuanct of the building permit. This term includes structures that have incurred "substantid damage" regardless of the actual repair work proposed or performed- This term does not include m y project or podon of a project to upgrade an existing habitable structure to comply with current state or local health, sanita~~, or safety d e specifications whicb are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions, any alteration of an historic structure, provided that tbe alteration will not preclude the strucme's continued designation as an bistorjc structure. (See also Cumulative Improvement) (Ord- 4080,911 Y90; 45 1 8 4 , 3/8/99)

(3n) Subsurface geologk investigation. A geologic report prepared by a Certified Engineering geologist that provides information on subsurface materials through trenching, t e s t pits and borings.

(30) V-Zoae. Sce "Coastal High Hazard ha" (3p) Violation. The fdure of a structure other

development to be fully compliant with this Chapter. A strucnne or other development without the .elevation certificate, other certifications or required permits, or other evidence of compliance required in this Chapter is presumed to be in violation until such time as tbe requird documeatation has been provided.

(3q) Wattrcourse. A lake, river, creek, stream, wash, arroyo, cbannel or other topographic feature on of over which waters flow at least periodically. Watercourse includes specifically designated areas in which substantial

- 6 2 7 - I

16.10.050

flood damage may occur. (Ord. 3340, 11/23/82; 3598, 11/6/84; 3892,3115188; 3997,6/6/89; 451&C, 3/8/99)

16.10.050 Requiremen& for geologic asesment

(a) AU development is r t q ~ e d to mmply with the provisions of this Chapter, specifically including but not limited to, the placement of manufactured homes in the areas designated as SFKAS in the Flood Insurance Study.

(b) Hazard AssessmentRequired, Ageologichazards asesment shall be required far all development activities in the following designated arcas: fault UIMS, onehundred

cxoept‘ as specified in subsections (c) (a) and (e), where a full geologic report will be prepared acoording to tbe County Guidelines for Engineering Geologic Reports, or wbere the County Geologist finds that there is adequate infoxmation on file. A geologic hazards assessmeDt shall also be required for development I d in other areas of gaologic hazard, as identified by tbc County Geologist or designee, using available technical resources, from environmental review, or from otber field review.

(c) Geologic Report Required- A full geologic report

1. For all proposed land divisions and critical strucnnts and facilities in the areas defined as Eartbquake Fault Zmcs on the state Alquist-priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act maps,

2. Whenever a significant potential hazard is identified by a geologic hazards assessnent,

3. For all new reservoirs to stme major watkr supplies,

4. Prior to the construction of any critical structure of facility in designated fault zones, and

5. Wben a property hasbeen identified as “unsafe to Occupy” due to adverse geologic conditions, DO

discretionary approval or building permit (except approvals and permits that are necessary.solely to mitigate b e geologic hazard) shall be issued prior to the review and -approval of geologic reports and the completion of mitigation measures, as necessary.

Potential Liquefaction Area. A site specific i n ~ ~ ~ t i g a t i ~ ~ by a Certified Enginttring Geologist andlor soil engineer shall be required for all development appIications for more than four residential units and for structures greater than o m story in areas of hi& or very high liquefaction potential. Development applications for

. fcm wits CK less, m e stwy ,mcnrres and nowresidential projects shall berevitwed for liquefaction hazard through environmental review and/or geologic hazads a ~ ~ e ~ ~ m e n t .

year floodplains and floodways, and coastal hazard areas,

S h a l l b e r t q u i r e d :

(d)

0 8 4 7 Wben a significant h a z d may exist, a site specific

(e) Additional Report Requirements. Additional information (includbg but not limited to full geologic, subsurface geologic, bydrologic, geotechnical or other engineering i~vcstigations and reports) shall be required when a hazard or fouMiaton constrajnt requiring Mer investigation is identified. (Ord. 3340, 11/23/82; 3598, 1 1/6/84; 45 1 &C, 3/8/99)

hV&@OD shall be required.

16.10.060 Assesrment and report preparation and review.

(a) T i g of Geologic Review. Any required geologic, soil, or other technical report shall be mmpleted, reviewed and accepted pursuant to the provisions of this section before any public hearing is scheduled and before any discretionary or development application is approved or issued, The County Geologist may agree to defer the date for compldion, review, or acceptanceof any technical report where the technical information is 1) unlikely to significantly affect the size or location of the project, and 2 ) the project is not iD the area of the Caastal Zone where decisions are appealable to the Coastal Commission. Ln DO

event shall such be dcferrcd until after the approval or issuance of a building perinit

An application for a geologic hazards assessment shall include a plot plan showing the ProPMty boundaries and location of proposed development activities. Any other idormation deemed necessary by the County Geologist (including but not limited to topographic map, building elevations or grading plans) shall be submitted upon request

AII application for a geologic hazards assessment or a technical report review constitutes a grant of permission for the Planning Director, or agents, to cater the property for the purposes of responding to the application.

(b) Report Pteparation. The geologic hazards assessment shall be prepared by County staff. Ahernately, the assesmcnt may be conducted by a private certified Engineering Geologist at tbe applicant’s choice and cxpense. Such privattly prepared assessments shall, bowever, be subject toreview and approval as specified in this section.

(c) Report Acceptance. All geologic, gcotcchnical, engintering, and hydrologic reports or investigations submitted to tbe County as a part of any development appljcatjon shall be found to conform to County neport guidelines. The Planning Director may requirt an inspection in the field of all exploratory trenches, test pits, and brings excavated for a technical report

1 -

2.

996

- 6 2 8 -

(d) Hazard Assessment and Report Expiration. A geologic hazards assessment and all recommendations and requirements given therein, shall remain valid for three years from the date of completion, unless a shorter period

. is specified in the report by the preparer. A full geologic report shall bevalid and all recommendations therein shall remain in effect for three years from the date of completion of the report- The exception to the three year period of validity is where a change in site conditions, development proposal, technical information or Couoty policy significantly affects the technical data, analysis, conclusiws or requirements of the assessment or report; in which case the Planning Director may r q u h a new or revised assessment or report (Or& 3340,11/23/82; 3598, 11/6/84; 45 l&C, 3/8/99)

16.10.070 Permit conditions. The rtCOmmcndatiom of the geologic haziirds

assessmenf full geologic report and/or the ftcolpmendations of othcr technical reports (if evaluated and authorized by tbe Planning Director), shall be included as permit conditions of any pennit or approvals subsequently issued for the development- In addition, the requirements described below for spezific geologic hazards shall become standard conditions for development, building and l a d division permits and approvals. No development, building 'and land division permits or approvals shall be issued, and no h a l maps or parcel maps shall be recorded, unless such activity is in compliaoce with the requirements of this section.

Gweral. If a project is not subject to geologic review because the structure is wn-habitable and is not otherwise considered to be development under this Chapter, a Declaration of Restrictions for the mn- habitable structure shall be recorded that includes an acknowledgment that my change of use to a habitable use, or physical conversion to habitable space, shall be subject to tbe provisions of this Chapter.

.

(a)

(b) FaultZoaes. 1. Location: Development sh@ be located away

from potentially hazardous areas as identified by the geologic hazards assessment or full geologic report, and

Setbacks: Habitable structures shall be set back a minimum of fifty feet fiom the edge of the area of fault induced offset and distortion of active and potentially active fault traces. This setback may be reduced to a minimum of twenty five feet from the edge of this mm, based upon paleoseismic studies that include observation trench& Reductions of the required setback m a y only occur when both the consulting engineering geologist preparing the study and the County Geologist observe the

2.

16.10.070 0 8 4 8

trench and concur that the reduction is appropriate. Critical structures and facilities shall be set back a minimum of one bundred feet from the edge of the area of fault induced offset and distortjon of active and potentially active fault traces.

3. Notice of Hazards: The developer and/or subdivider of a parcel or parcels in an area of geologic hazards shall be required, as a condition of development approval and budding pennit approval, to record a Declaration of Geologic Hazards with the County Recorder. The Declaration shall include a description of the hazards on the parcel, and the level of geologic and/or geotechnical investigation conducted.

including but not limited to project rcdesip, eliniiaaiioi~ of building sites, and the delineation of development envelopes, building setbacks and foundation requirrments, shall be required as deemed necessary by tbe Planning Director.

(c) Groundshaking. 1.

4. other cond.itions: other perJnit conditions,

New Dams: Dams shall be constructed according to high seismic design standads of the Dam Safety Act and as specified by structural engineering studies.

2. Public Facilities and Critical Strucrures and facilities: AU new public facilities and critical strucnrres shall be designed to withstand the expected groundshaking during the design earthquake on the San Andreas fault or San Gregorio fault-

3. other conditions: Other pennit conditions including but not limited to structural and foundation requiremenu shall be required as deemed necessary by the Planning Director-

(a) Liquefaction Potential. . 1. Pennit Conditions: Permit conditions including,

but not limited to, project redesign, elimination of building sites, delineation of development envelopes and drainage and foundation requirements shall be required as deemed ~ccessary by the Planning Director.

2. Notice of Hazards: The developer and/or suboivicier of a pace1 or parcels in an area of geologic hazards shall be required, as a condition of development approval and building parnit approval, to record a Declaration of Geologic Hazards and the County R d e r . The Declaration shall include a description of the hazards on tbe parcel, and the level of geologic andor geotechnical investigation conclucted.

(e) Slope Stability. 1. Location: All development activities shall be

located away from potentially unstable areas as identified through the geologic hazards assessmen& full geologic

- 6 2 9 - -7

1 6.10.070 0 8 4 9

report, soils report or other enviromental aSSeSSmtDt

or technical

2. Creati011 of New Parcels: Allow tbe creation of new parcels in areas with potential slope instability as identified through a geologic hazards assessment, full geologic report, soils report or otber environmental or

circumstances: New building sites, roadway^, and driveways shall

not be penniaed on or across slopes exceeding thirty (30)

(6) A full geologic report and any other appropriate technical report shall demonstrate that each praposed parcel contains at least one building site and access which are not subject to significant slope imtabilitybazards, and that public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, clamical and water systems can be located and constnmed to minimh landslide damage and not cause a bealtb hazard.

(iii) New building si= shall not be pcrm.iM which would require the consauction of enginetred protective structu~# such as rCtaining walls, diversion walls, debris walls or slough walls designed to mitigate potential slope instabiity problems such as debris flows, slumps or other

Drainage: Drainage plans designed to direct runoff away from unstable areas (as identified from the geologic hazards assessment or other technical repr t ) shall be required. Such plans shall be reviewed and approved by the County Geologist

Lea& Fields: septic ieacb fields shall not be permitted in areas subject to landsliding as identified through the geologic hazards assesmm~ environmental assessment, or full geologic report

5. Road Reconstruction: Where washouts or landslides have occurted on public or private roads, road reconstruction shall meet tbt condjtions of appropriate geologic, soils and/or enginetring reports and shall have adequate engimesing supervision.

6. Notice of Hazards: The developer and/or subdivider of a parcel or parcels in an area of geologic hazards shall be required to ftcofd a Declaration of Geologic Hazards with the County Recorder. The Declaratjon shall include a description of the hazards on the parcel, and the level of geologic and/or geotechnical investigation coductui.

7. Other conditions: Other permit conditions including but not limited to project redesign, building site elimination and the development of building and septic system envelopes, building setback and foundation and

technical assessment only d e r the following

(i)

PeJrXntgrade-

types of landslides. 3.

4.

drainage requirememts shall be required as deemed necessary by tbe Planning Director.

(f) Floodplains. 1. Critical d Public Facilities: Critical facilities

and essential public structures and additions shall be located outside of the one hundred year floodplain unless such facilities are necessary to Serve existing US~S, there is DO other feasible location and cmstndon of tbese struchrres will not iacrease hazards to life on property within or adjacent to the floodplain.

Creation of New Parcels: N o w the creation of new parcels including tbose created by minor land division or subdivision in the one hundred year floodplain only

A full hydrologic report and any other appraPriate technical report must demonstrate that each proposed parcel COD& at least one building site, including a septic system and leacb field site, which is not subject to flood hazard, and that public utilities and facilities such as sewer,gas,electrical and water systnnscan be locatedand coI3StNcted to mhimize flood damage and not cause a health hazard.

(ii) A declaration indicating the limits and elevations of tbe one bundred year floodplain certified by a registaed profeonal engineer or suweyor must be recorded with the County Recorder. (ord, 3635, 3/26/85; 4518-C 3/8/99)

(iii) Adequate drainage to reduce wrposure to flood hazards must be provided.

(iv) preliminary land division proposals shall idmtSy all flood hazard areas and the elevatian of the base f'lood.

3. Development Critaia and Design Requirements: AU development within the 100-year floodplain shall meet the following criteria- Any addition, rtpair, reconsbuction, rehabilitation, alteration, or improvement of struchpes for which bdding permits wefe issued prior to April 15, 1986, wbm subject to the definition of "cumulative improvemea" does not meet the definition of ''Substantial improvement" (Pursuant to Section 16.10.oQo(r) and (3m)), is excmpt from -&is section.

location of proposed structures outside of the one- hunched year floodplain d e n a buildable portion of the p~lperty exists outside the flaodplain;

(ii) anchoring of foundations and the structures attached to tbem by a method adequate to prevent flotation, collapse and lateral movement of tbe structures due to the forces that may occur during the base flood, including hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and the effects of buoyancy.

A projezt involving a manufactured home shall achieve this by one of tbe following methods:

2.

under the following c' -: (i)

(i)

998

- 6 3 0 - 7

(A) by providing an ancboring system designed to withstand horizontal forces of 15 pounds per square foot and up lift forces of 9 pounds per square foot; or,

(B) by the anchoring of the unit 's system, designed to be in compliance with the Department of Housing and Development Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards.

(iii) shaII be constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood Aamage and using construction methods and practices that minimbe flood damage;

(iv) shall be c o n s t r u c t e d with electrical, beating, ventilation, plumbing and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities that are designed andlor located to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the c~mponents during conditions of flooding;

In flood zones A-0 and A-H, provide drainage paths adequate to guide water away fiom structures and reduce exposure to flood hazards. (Ord. 4071, 7/17/90, 45 18-C. 3/8/99)

(vi) For residential s~ucnpes, includingdctured homes, the lowest floor, including the basement, and the top of the highest horizontaI structural member (joist or beam) which provides support directly to the lowest floor, and al l elements that fundon as a part of the structure, such as furnace, hot water heater, etc., shall be elevated at least one foot above the one-hundred year flood level. Foundations shall be designed to minimize flood water displacement and flow damage. Where a piling or caisson foundation system is used the space below the lowest floor shall be free of obstruction or be enclosed with wood- constructed lattice wurk or screens designed to collapse or be Carried away under the stress of flood waters without jeopardizing tbe structural support of the building. Compliance with the elevation requirement shall be d e d by a registered profesiod engineer, architect, or surveyor and submitted to the Planning Director prior to a subfloor building inspection. Failure to submit elevation certification may be cause to issue a stop work notice for a project The Planning Direaor will maintain records of compliance with elevation requirements.

(vii) Nonresidential mctures shall be floodproofed if elevation above the one-hundred year flood level in accordance with Section 16.10B'70(f)3(vi) is not feasible.

(A) be floodproofed so that below an elevation o m foot higher than the one-hundred year flood level, the structure is watertight with waUs substantially impmeable to the passage of water based on sbucarral designs, specifications and plans developed or reviewed by a registered professional engineer or architect;

(v)

Floodproofed smlctures shall:

(33) be capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy; and, (C) be certified by a registered professional engineer

or architect that floodproofing standards and requirements have been complied With; the certification shall be submitted to tbe Planning Director and shall indicate the elevation to which floodproofing was achieved prior to a final building inspection. The Planning Director shall maintain records of complian~e with floodproofing requireme&.

(viii) In flood zone A0,residential structures shall have the lowest floor at or above the higbest adjacent grade, at least as higb as the depth number given on the FIRM, and mn-residential struchlres, where elevation is not feasible, shall have the lowest floor completely floodproofed at or above the higbest adjacent grade, at least as high as tbe deptb number given on the FIRM.

(ix) Fully enclosed areas below tbe lowest floor that are subject to flooding shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior waUs allowing for the entry and exit of flood water. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect, or shall provide a minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding. The bottom of all openings sball be no higher than one foot above grade.

or other covtrings or devices provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of flood waters- Non-residential st~ctlnes that are floodproofed in ampiiance with Section 16.1O.MO(f)(3)(vii) are an exception to this requirement

4. Recreational Vehicles: RVs that are placed on a site that is within the A, Al-A30, AH, A 0 or AE mnes as designated in the FIS, and that are not fully licensed and highway ready, shall meet the criteria given in 16.1O.O7O(f)(3)(ii) and (3)(Vi), unless they are on the site for less than 3 80 consecutive days. For the purposes of this ordinance, "highway ready" means on wheels or jacking system, artached to the site by quick disconnect type utilities and security devices, and having no attached additiOnS.

Septic Systems: New septic systems and leach fields sball not be 1ocated within the one-hundred year floodplain. The capacity of existing septic systems in the Doodplain shall not be increased.

Water Supplies and Sanitary Sewage Systems: All new and replacement water supplies and sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate

openings may be equipped with zicr=n% louvers, vdves

5.

6.

999

- 6 3 1 -

16.10.070 0 8 5 1

infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharge from the systems into Oood waters.

Placement of Fd: Allow the placement of fill within the onehundred year floodplain in the minimum amount ~ecessary, not to e x 4 50 cubic yards. Fill shall only be allowed if it can be demonstrated that the fill will not bave cumulative adverse impacts.

Flood Control Structures: Flood control structures shall be permitted only to protect existiog development (including agricultural operations) where no o h alternative is feasible or where such protection is needed for public safety. Such str\lctures shall not adversely affect SaDd supply, incrtase erosion or cause flooding on adjacent propaties or restrict stream flows below minimums ~~ecessary to xnaintain fish and wildlife habitats orbeplacedfixrtherthannecessqfromthedevelopmcnt requiring protection.

9. Notice of Hazards: The developer d o r subdivider of a parcel or parcels in an area of geologic or flood hazards shall be required, as a condition of development approval and building pcnnit approval, to fecord a Declaration of Geologic Hazards with the County Recardtr. The Declaration shall include a description of the hazards on the parel or parcels aod the level of prior bydrologic or geologic invWti@on conducted.

including but not limited to, project redesign, building site elimination, development of building and septic envelopes, and foundation req-ts shall be required as deemed necessacy by the Planning Director. When base flood elevation data am not provided in the F l d insurance Study, the Planning Director shall obtain, review, and reasonably utilite tbe best base flood data available fiom Federal, State 01 other sources, as a basis for elevating residential st~ctures and floodproofing nomresidential smcmrcs, to at least one foot above the base flood level. Rtsidential stnxtum shall bc elevated no less than two (2) feet above ~tlrral grade wbea base flood data do not exist Non-residential struchaes may elevate or flood proof to meet this standard.

1 1. Alteration or Relocation of Wamamse: Adjacent oommuuities, the California Departmeot of Water Resources and the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall be notified prior to any alteration or rtlocation of a major watcxcourse. The flood carrying capacity of any altered or relocated watcrcourx~ lllust be main-

federal permitsmust be obtained.

areas of SpecialFlood Hazard as established in 16.10.025,

7.

8.

10. mer conditions: other permit CoDditiOns,

. 12. PermitRcquirements: All o t h a r e q d stateand

(8) Permit conditions-Floodways Located within

and within some areas not map@ as part of the Flood Insurance Study, are areas designated as floodways (see also 16.10.040 2d). Tbe floodway is an extremely hamdous area due to the quantity and velocity of flood waters, the amount of debris which may be transported, and the high potential for erosion during periods of large stream flows. In tbe floodway the following provisions apply:

Development and Bdding Within Floodway Prohibited: All development activity, except for the reconstruction, repair, alteration or improvememt of an existingstnmmc,isphi%itedwithintkfloodwayunless exempted by State or Federal laws. Any encroachment which would cause any increase in the base flood level is prohibited.

Sites Whae Floodway Not Established. Where

1.

2. the Flood Insmaxe Study or other technical report has identified a flood hazard area but has not designated a floodway, the applicant must demonstrate, through hydrologic analysis, that the project will not adversely affect the carrying capacity of tbe area For the p\lrposes of

cumulative effect of the proposed developmeat, when this chapter, Uaclverseiy affects" means that the

combined with aU other existing and anticipated development in the watershed, will bcrease the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one foot at . any point The hydrologic analysis must identify the boundaries of the floodway, and the project must comply with the provisions of Section (g) 1, above-

Setback from Floodway: Wherc neitber a Base Flood Elevation nor a floodway has been identified by the Fload Insurance Study or by a site specific hydrologic study, a minimum setback of 20 feet fiom tbe top edge of tbe banks of a drainage course shall be maintained, and all activity that Cakts up flood storage area within this setback shall beprohibited.Thisfloodwaysetbackmaybcrcdu.ced by the Planning Director only ifa full hydrologic analysis identifies the boundaries of the floodway, demonstrates that a d e r setback will not iacrtaSe the suscepb~ityof

3.

the proposed activity to flood related hazards, and there is no alternative location outside of the 20 foot setback (See also Chap- 1630, Riparian protection, for vegetation related setbacks from streams.)

Location of Septic Systems. New septic systems and leach fields shall not be located in the floodway. The capacity of existing systems in the floodway shall mt be increased

5. Alteration of Structures in Floodway: Rcmnstmction, repair, alteration or improvement of a structure in a floodway shall not cause any increase m the

4.

- 6 3 2 -

Attachment 0 8 5 2

SECTION CXX

&n 15.10.030, Applicability, of the Santa Cruz County Code is

The requirements oft build o r place a structure local street, within a Tran Line, where street width and road Criteria do not already exist. Parc moneys from trust funds, cre

ments meeting current County Design side improvements constructed using

ction 7 5.1 0.080, shall be required to either at the time such

t permit to build or place a d. This section shall w# apply

mod if i ca t i o n s o r do not result in

structure or mobile h to permits for acc

nal bedrooms as nding any other provisions of this section, equi a s a condition of a discretionary permit for any

ity of use (automobile and/or pedestrian traffic) upon the reco ing Director or Public Works Director.

SECTION CXXl

Section 16.10.070(h)4, Coastal bluffs and beaches, of the Santa Cruz County Code is hereby amended to be:

4. Alteration of Damaged Structures. Reconstruction, repair, rebuilding, replacement, alteration, improvement, or addition to damaged structures located on a coastal bluff shall proceed according to the following chart:

. ii

:/Location i I_ -__ of Existing Structure (vertical axis) ;I f ' Existing [i. Meet all ;I Exempt from Exempt from 1' Exempt from !

regulations if regulations if 11 grepairedlreplacedl repairedheplacedj repairedheplacedll ii

in kind. i in kind. Meets

in kind. i Setback ! :i Otherwise meet :I all regulations. /I all regulations. all regulations. ii IO% extends/,

-_______ ._. -.___.__.I I-._,____ . _ _ _ _ ____ - _ _ . -. - - _ _ .- ._- -- - --.---.I..- .... 3

Structure I regulations ;I 11

regulations if I

j/ Otherwise meet i Othewise m e e t i (less than // .I

-- !.- .c -.. ___,__-_--_ _ _ _ _ ,I ,,-,. _._. - . _ _ _ _ _ , . . . . . . . I ..__ ._ .,_ .__._.___I__... ,..-. _ . . . - I _ . - - _.._.,__ _.___,.. .-,.. - .,._ - ... . . ..-_-. . _- -- .___ . . : I

%' ,

53 - 6 3 3 - 7

0 8 5 3

Public beach facilities are exempt from the provisions of this chart.

C ?

- 634-

16.10.070 0 8 5 4

of cause, shall only be permitted in accordance with Section 16.10.070(Q, ahve . Repair, reconstruction, alteration, or replacement of a damaged structure whjch does not exceed the ground floor square a r e a of the structure before the damage occurred shall not be considered an increase in the base flood elevation.

Permit RequirerDentx-All other required local, state and federal permits must be obtained.

6.

(h) Coastal Bluffs and Beaches: 1. Criteria in Areas Subject to Coastal Bluf€Emsjon:

Projects in mess subject to coastal bluff erosion shall meet the following criteria-

(i) for all development and for non-habitable structures, demonstration of the stability of the site, in its c m t , pre-develcpment application coaditicn, for a minjmm of 100 years as determined by eitber a geologic hazards assessment or a full geologic report

for all development, including that which is cantilevered, and for non-habitable structures, a minimum setback &all be established at least 25 feet from the top edge of the coastal bluff, or alternatively, the distance neceSSary to provide a stable building site over a 100-year lifetime of the structure, whicbever is greater.

(iii) the determination of the minimum setback shall be based on the existing site conditions and shall not rake into consideration the effect of any proposed protection measures, such as shoreline protection structures, retaining walls, or deep piers.

(iv) foundation replacement d o r foundation upgrades that meet the definition of development per Section 16.10.040(s) and pursuant to Section 16.1 O.O4O(r), s h d meet the setback described in Section 16.10-MO(h)(l), except that an exception to the setback requirement may be granted for existing structures that are wholly or partially within the setback, if the Planning Director determines that-

the area of the structure that is within the setback does not exceed 25% of the total area of the structlrre, OR

the structure cannot be relocated to meet the setback kmse of imdequzz pace1 s k .

additions, including second st^ and cantilevered additions, shall comply with the minimum 25 foot and 100 year setback

(vi) The developer and/or the subdivider of a parcel or parcels in an area subject to geologic hazards shall be required, as a andition of development approval and building permit approval, to record a Declaration of Geologic Hazards with the County Recorder. The Declaration sball include a description of the hazards on the parcel and the level of geologic andlor geotechnical investigation conducted.

(ii)

a)

b)

(v)

(vii) approval of drainage and landscape plans for the site by the County Geologist

(v;ii) servjce transmissjon lines and utility facilities are prohibited unless tbey are necessary to serve existing residences.

(ix) AU other required local, state and federal pennits shall be obtained.

2. Exemption: (i) Any project which does not specifically require a

building &t pursllant to Section 12-10.070(b) is exempt from Section 16.1 O.O7O(b) 1, witb the exception of: non-habitable accc.;ssory structures that are located within the minimum 25 foot setback from the coastal blu€€ where there is space on the parcel to accommodate the st~ctllfe o d d e of the setback, above-ground pools, water tanks, projects (including landscaping) which would unfavorably alter clrainage pantras, and projects involving grading.

For tbe purposes of this Section, the unfavorable alteration of drainage is defined as a change that would significantly increase or concentrate runoff over the bluff edge or significantly increase infiltration into the bluff. Grading is defined as any earthwork other than minor leveling, of the d e typically accomplished by hand, necessary to create beneficial drainage patterns or to install an allowed structure, that does not excavate into the face or base of the bluff.

Examples of projects which may qua3ify for this exemption include: decks which do not require a building permit and do not unfavorably alter drainage, play structures, showers (where m f f is controlled), benches, statues, landscape boulders, benches, and gazebos which do not require a building pennit

exemption subsequently becomes unstable due to erosion or slopc instability, the threat to the exempted structure shall not qualify the parcel for a coastal bluff retaining suucture or shoreline protection structure. Lftbe exempted structure itself becomes a hazard it shall either be removed or relocated, rather than protectd in place.

3. Shoreline p & o n simctures shall be g m d by the following:

(i) shoreline protection StNCtlIfes shall only be allowed on parcels where botb adjacent parcels are already similarly protected, or where necessary to protect existing s t~canes from a significant tbreas or on vacant parcels which, through lack of proMon threaten adjacent developed lots, or to protect public works, public beaches, and coastal dependent uses.

Note: New shoreline protection structures shall not be allowed where the existing structure propo~ed for

(ii) If a structure that is cons- pursuant to this

- 6 3 5 -

,

16.10.070

0 8 5 5 protection was granted an exemption pursuant to Section 16.1 O.O7O(h)2.

(ii) seawalls, specifically, shaIl only be considered where there is a significant threat to an existing structure and both adjacent parcels are already similarly protected.

(iii) application for sborcline protective strucnves shall include tborough analysis of all reasonable alternatives to such structures, including but not limited to d0cati011 or partial removal of the threatened structme, protection of only the upper bluff area or the area immedjately adjacent to the thrtatened structure, beach nourishment, and vertical walls. Strucanal protection measures on the bluff and beacb shall only be permiaed where non-struchd measur#, sucb as relocating the s t ~ c n p t or changing the dcsign, are infeasible from an engineexing standpoint or are not tconomically viable.

(iv) shoreline protection structurts shall be placed as close as possible to the development or structure requiring

(v) shoreline protection structm# shall not reduce or restrict public beach access, adversely af€ezt shoreline

resources, increase erosion on adjacent property, create a significant visual heusion, or cause harmful impacts to wildlife or fish habitat, archaeologic or paleontologic ~esources. Sboreline protection stmchms shall minimize visual impact by employing matuials that blend with the color of mnxd mamials in tbe area.

(vi) aU p r o e o n structures shall meet approved engineering standards as determined through environmental review.

(vii) all shoreline protection structures shall include a permanent, County approved, monitoring and maintenance Pro-

(viii)Applications for shoreline protection stmctum shall include - a coT1struction and staging plan that minimkx distlpbance to tbe beach, sptcifies tbe access and staging areas, and includes a construction schedule that limits presence on tbe beach, as much as possible, to periods of low visitor demand. The plan for repair projects shall include recovery of rock and other material that has been dislodged onto the beach.

(ix) All otharequired local, state and fedaal permits shall be obtained.

4. Alteration of Damaged Structures. Reconstruction,repair, rebuilding,replactmcnt, alteration, improvement, 01 addition to damaged stmchm~ located on a coastal bluff shall proceed a-xdhg to the following chart:

protection.

processes and SaDd supply, a d v d y impact rtcreatonal

- 6 3 6 - 7

0 8 5 6

Extent of Damage 50% or more of the value of structure Cause of Damage Coastal Hazards & All other causes

Less ihan 50% of the value of structure coastal Hazards & All other Causes

Location ofExistin S

Existing Structure Meets Setback (less than 10% extends t- into setback)

(horiz. axis) Slope Instability (fire, etc.) Slope Instability (fire, etc.) I

I Existing Structure Does Not Meet

Setback but Could by relocating.

Existing Struchrre Does Not Meet

Setback and Cannot meet setback by

icture (vertical axis)

Meet all regulations

Meet all regulations, including setback for

existingstruchrre.

Ifhazardcanbe mitigated to provide stability for a perbd of 1 0 0 years, repair or replace in kind.

Meet a l l regulations except setback

Cannot be rebuik even in kind, if

hazard carmot be mitigated to a level

that provides stability for a period of 100

VearS.

Exempt from regulations if

repairedlreplaced in kind. OtberJvise meet

all reeulations. ~-

To repair or replace in kind, meet all

regulations except setback. Otherwise

meet all regulations, including prescn'bed minimum setback-

~

To repair or replace in kind, meet all

regulations except setback Otbcrwise

meet all regulations, including prescn'bed minimum setback

Public beach facilities are exempt from the provisions of this chart.

~~

Exempt from regulations if

repairedlreplaced in kind. otherwise meet

ail regulations. Exempt f h m regulations if

repairedlrepaced in k i x d Otherwise meet

all regulations, including pescriw minimum setback.

M a y repair or replace in kind. Hazards shall be mitigated to a

level that provides stability for a period

of 100 years, if feasible.

Projects in excess of "hkind" shall meet

al l regulations.

Exempt fiom regulations if

repairedlreplaced in kind. Otherwise meet

all regulations. ~ ~-

Exempt h m regulations if

kind. Otherwisemeet all regulations,

minimum setback

repairdreplaced in

including prescribed

May repair or replace in kind. Hazards shall be mitigated to a

level that provides stability for a period

of 1 0 0 years, if feasible.

Projects in excess of "in-kind" shall meet

all regulations.

1003

- 6 3 7 - 7

16.10.070

5. Coastal High Hazard Area Development Criteria: AU development, specifically including the placement of and constnuxion o n m a n u f a d homes, sh'all meet the following criteria- For structures that had a building permit issued prior to April 15, 1986, any addition, repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation, alteration, or improvement, which, when subject to the definition of "cumulative improvemen&" does not meet the definition of "substantial improvement" (pursuant to Sections 16.1O1O40(r) and (3m)), is exempt h m this section.

demonstration that the potential hazards on the site can be mitigated, over the 1Wyear lifetime of the structure, as detesmibed by the geologic hazards assessment or full geologic report and my other approPriate technical reports. Mitigations can include but are not limited to building setbacks, elevation of the proposed stmcture and foundation design;

(ii) location of the proposed structure landward of the reach of mean high tide and outside of the area of storm wave inundation where a buildable portion of the property is outside of the area of storm wave inundation;

(iii) elevation of all simctms (including man- homes) on pilings and columns so that the botmm of the lowest portion of the lowest stmctud member of the lower floor (excluding the pilings or coluxxms) and elements that function as part of the structure, such as furnace, hot water heater, etc., are elevated to or above the base flood level-

(iv) anchoring of tbe pile or column foundation and structure attacbed thereto to prevent flotation, collapse and lateral movement due to the effect of wind and water loads acting simUitaneously on all building components. Wind and water loading values shall each have a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (100-year mean recurrence interval);

a registered professional engineer or architect shall develop or review the strucmd design, specifications and plans for tbe construction, and shall certify that the design and methods of construction to be usedareinaccordancewithacceptedstandardsofpractice for meeting the provisions of paragraphs (iii) and (iv) of this section prior to pennit issuance;

(vi) the space below the lowest floor shall either be free of obstruction or constructed with non-supporting breakaway walls, open wood lattice-work or insect screening intended to collapse under wind and water loads without causing collapse, displacement or other structural

.damage to the elevated portion of the building or supporting foundation system For the purposes of this d o n , a breakaway wall shall be of Don-masonry construction and have a design safe loading resistance of

(i)

(v)

0 8 5 7

not less than ten (1 0) and no more than twenty (20) pounds per square foot. Use of breakaway walls which do not meet the above material and strength criteria may be permitted only if a registered professional enginter or architect certifies that the designs proposed will permit the breakaway wall to collapse under a water load less than that which would occur during the base flood and that the elevated portion of the building or supporting foundation system shall not be subject to collapse, displacement or other s m m d damage due to the effects of wind and water loads acting s i m u l ~ u s l y on all building components. Such enclosed space shall be useable solely for vehicle parking, building access or storage, a& shaU not be a finished area or habitable area.

(vii) the use of fill for structural support of buildings is prohibited. (Ord. 407 1,7/17/90; 45 18-C 3/8/99) (6) the altemion of sand dunes which would increase

potential flood damage is prohibited. (ix) compliance with the pmvisions of paragraphs (iii)

and (iv) above shall be certified by a regiSterea professional engineer or architect and submitted to the P@ming Diraxor wben the foundadon work has been completed- Failure to submit elevation and structura) certification may be cause to issue a stopwork notice for a project Tbe Planning Director shall maintain records of compliance with the elevation requirements.

Recreational vehicles that are placed on a site that is within the V, Vl-V30, or VE zones as designated in the FIS, and that are not fully licensed and highway ready, must meet all the provisions of Section 16.10.070(h)(5) unless tbey are on the site for less than 180 consecutive days. For the purposes of this ordinance, "highway ready" means on wheels or jacking system, attached to the site by quick disconnect utilities and security devices, and having no attached additions.

(xi) determination by the Planning Director on the basis of the geologic hazards assessment or geologic report that the mitigation of tbe hazards on the site is not dependent on shoreline protection structures except on lots where both adjacent parels are already similarly protected.

(xii) The developer andlor the subdivider of a pard or parcels in an area subject to geologic hazards shall be required, as a condition of development approval and building permit approval, to record a Declaration of Geologic Hazards with the County Recorder. The Declaration shall include a description of the hazards on the parcel, and the level of geologic and/or gemtechnical investigation conducted.

(xiii) All other required state and federal pennits must be obtained. (Ora. 407 1,7/17/90; 45 18-C, 3/8/99)

(x)

- 6 3 8 -

ORDINANCE NO. 55 7' AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 16.10 OF THE SANTA CRUZ COUNTY CODE TO REDUCE MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE LN COUNTY

SEISMIC REVIEW ZONES UNDER LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES

The Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz ordains as follows:

SECTION I

Subdivision (a)(2) of Section 16.10.080 of the Santa Cruz County Code is hereby amended, to read as follows:

16.10.080 Project density limitations.

The following requirements shall apply to density calculations for new building sites created through minor land division, subdivision, or other development approval or perrnit:

(a) Fault Zones.

1. Exclusion from Density Calculations: The portion of a property within 50 feet of the edge of the area of fault induced offset and distortion of an active or pntentia!!y active fault trace shall be excluded from density calculations.

2. Creation of New Parcels andor New Building Sites: The following standards shall apply to the creation of new parcels andor building sites within State Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones and County Seismic Review Zones:

(i) All new structures shall meet setbacks as specified in Section 16.10.070(b)2.

(ii) Outside of the Urban Services Line and the Rural Services Line, a twenty gross acre minimum parcel size shall be required, and a ten gross acre minimum parcel size shall be required for parcels w i thn the portions of the County Seismic Review Zones that are not also part of a State Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and are outside the Coastal Zone, if at least 25% of the perimeter of the original parcel to be divided is bounded by parcels of 1-acre or less in size.

SECTION I1

Ttus ordinance shall become effective on the 3 1'' day following adoption.

0 8 5 8

6. New Critical Structures and Facilities: Construction of critical structures and facilities, including tbe expansion of existing Critical srmctu~es and facilities, and nonessential public structures shall be located outside areas subject to coastal hazards; unless such facilities are necessary to m e existing uses, there is no other feasible location, and c o m c t i o n of these structures will not increase hazards to life and property within or adjacent to coastal inundation areas.

Creation of New Parcels and Location of New Building Sites: New parcels or building sites created by minor land divisions, subdivisions or development approvals or permits, and multi-residential struchrres in coastal hazard arms shall conform to the following criteria:

(i) demonstration by a full geologic report that each proposed building site on the parcel is not subject to my potential hazards and that each site meets the minimum setback given in Section 16,10.070(h)l.

detcrminaton by the Planning Director based on the geologic report that the long-term stability and safety of the development does not depend cn require shoreline protection suucturs;

(G) the proposed development does not reduce or restrict public access and the proposed development does not require the C013StrUCtion of public facilities, structures, or utility transmission liDes in coastal hazard areas or within the 25 foot or 100 year stability (whichever is greater) setback;

(iv) T h e developer and/or the subdivider of a parcel or parcels in an area subject to geologic hazards shall be required, as a condition of development approval and building permit approval, to record a Declaration of Geologic Hazards with the County Recorder. The Declaration shall include a description of the hazards on the parcel and the level of geologic and/or geotechnical iavestigadon conducted.

8. other Conditions: *er permit conditions including, but not l i i ted to, project redesign, building site e W i o n , delinea~oii of bi&iig md septk system envelopes, building elevation, foundation requirements and drainage plans shall be required as deemed necessaq by the Planning Director. (Ord. 2088, 1/28/75; 2185, 9J23f75; 2258,3/16n6; 2580,8/8/78; 2631,2/6/78; 3437, 8/23/83; 3598, 11/6/84; 3808, 4/15/86; 3892, 3/15/88; 3997,616189; 45 1 &C, 3/8/99)

7.

(ii)

16.10-075 Foundation design requirements in geologic hazard ateas

Notwithstanding whether or not it constitutes "development" under the provisions of this Chapter, all

Dew or reconstructed foundations for habitable suuctmes within designated seismic, flood plain or coastal hazard areas shall be designed by a0 engineer licensed by the State of California to perfom structural calculations on buildings. (Ord 4080,9/11/%)

16.l0.080 Project density limitations. Tbe following requirements shall apply to density

calculations for new building sites created through minor land division, subdivision, or other development approval or pennit-

(a) FaultZones. 1. Exclusion from Density Calculations: "be portion

of a propmy within 50 feet of tbe edge of the area of fault induced offset and d k t d o n of an active or potentially active fault trace shall be excluded from density calculations.

Creation of New Parcels andlor New Building Sites: The following standards shall apply to the mation of new pards and/or building sites within State Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones and County Seismic Review Zones:

(i) AU aew shall meet setbacks as sp5f5ed in Section 16- 10.070@)2.

(ii) ' Outside of the Urban Services Line and the Rural Services Line, a twenty gross acre minimum parcel sue shall be required.

(b) Landslides and Steep Slopes. The poxtion of a property with slopes over 30 percent in urban areas and 50 percent in rural areas, and the portion of a property within recent or active landslides, shall be excluded from density calculations. Landslide areas determiad by a geologic report to be stable and suitable for development shall be granted full density credit

Floodways. The portion of a parcel within the one-hundred year floodway shall be excluded fiom any density calculations.

(d) Floodplains. The portion of a property within the om-hundred year floodplain shall be excluded from

Coastal Hazards. The portions of a p r o p e r t y

2.

(c)

density calcul~ons. (e)

subject to coastal inundation, as determined by a geologic hazards assessment, geologic report, or adopted Flood insurance Rate Map (FIRM), shall be excluded from density calculations. (Ord. 3340,11/23/82; 3598,11/6184; 3808,4/15/86; 45 18€, 3/8/99)

16.10.090 Project denial. A development @t or the location of a proposed

development shall be denied if the Planning Director determines that geologic hazards cannot be adequately

4

1005

- 6 3 9 -

1 6- 10.095 :

mitigated or the project would conflict wjtb National Rood Insurance Program regulations. Development proposals shall be approved only if the project density reflects consideration of the degree of hazard on the site, as detenmined from the technical information as reviewed and approved by tbe Planning Director. ( a d . 3340, I 1/23/82; 45 18€,3/8/99)

16-10.095 Permits for repair of earthquake damaged dwellings and accessory s t r u ~ w i t h i n a r e a s o f earthqy&weWedgronndfailare and designated seismic bazard

(a) Repair and ReconstruCtion Requiring a Development Permit Within Areas OfEarthquake-Related Ground Failure. Notwithstandio g any other provisions of this Chapter, a development permit for repair or reconstruction work constituting "development" under the provisions of this Chapter of dwellings and a c c e ~ ~ ~ r y stmctures -.within areas of ground failure outside tbe California Coastal Zone which were damaged as a result of the October 17,1989 earthquake and its aftershocks may be approved even though there is an undetmmiucd but p o t e n t i a l l y s u b s t a n t i a l r i s k f r o m ~ r e ~ p u n d failure, provided that

The Planning Director dettnmines on tbe basis of a geologic assessment or report of the dwelling site that any potential risk associated with ground failure resulting the October 17,1989 eartbquake (as documented in the geologic assessment or report) can only be evaluated by monitoring over time, and based on available information it does not appear to present a significant and immediate threat to life or of persod injury to persons residing on the subject property; and

The Board of SUpenrisors has not determined that the arca in which the dwelling is located is d e to occupy due to geologic hazards affecting the propaty; and

The ownex records a Declaration of Geologic Hazards with the County Recorder which describes the potential geologic hazards from any on-site ur off-site geolo-ejc conditions, the level of prior geologic investigation conducted, and any geologic investigadon in progress, and which includes agreement by the owner to assume all risks, waive all claims against the County. ( ad . 4048,1/23/90; 4080,9/11/90; 4149,9/17/91; 4160, 12/10/91)

Repair and Reconstruction Not Requiring a . Development Permit Within Arcas of Earthquake-Related

Ground Failurt For repair and rtconstruction of dwellings within areas of potential ground failure described in subsection (a) above for which no development permit is

(1)

(2)

(3)

(b)

required under the provisions of this Chapter, the issuance of a building permit for such repair and reconstrudon work shall be subject to proof of recordation of a Declaration of Geologic Hazards containing the information specified in paragraph (3) of subsection (a) above.

(c) Repair and Reconstruction Not RequLring a Development Permit Within Designated Seismic Hazard Areas or on Parcels for Which a Geologic Report Has Been Prepared. For repair and reconsbuction of dwellings within designated stismic hazard areas, or on any parcels for which a geologic report has been prepared, which does not require a development pennit under the provisions of this Chapter, the issuance of a building permit for such repair and reconstructjon work shall be subject to proof of recordation of a Notice advising that a building permit is being obtained for repair of eartbquakt damage, the level of prior geologic investigation conducted, if any, and that the permit is being issued without any additional requirement for geologk review based on a determination that the repairs will not exceed 50 v t of the marke~ value of the structure before it was damaged. (4080, 9/11/90;4160,12110/91)

1 6.1 0.1 00 Exceptions (a) Request for Exception: A request for an exception

to tbe provisions of this chapter or the permit conditions may be considered by the Planning Director if the exception is necessary to mitigate a threat to public health, safety and welfare.

(b) Reason for Request A request for an exception shall state in writing the reason why the exception is requested, the proposed substitute provisions, when the exception would apply, and the threat to public health, safety, or welfare that would be mitigated.

(c) Required F h g s : In granting an exception, the Planning Director shall make the following findings:

1. that bardship, as defined in Section 16,10.040(2j), exists; and

2. the project is necesary to mitigate a threat to public bealth, safety, or welfare.

3. the request is for tbe smallest amount of variance from the provisions of this Chapter as possible; and,

4. adequate measures will be taken to ensure consistency with the purposes of this chapter and this Chapter and the County General Plan. ( a d . 3340, 1 V23/82; 3598,11/6/84; 45 1- 3/8/99)

(d) Exceptions for projects in the Special Flood Hazard Area: For projects in the SFHAs the following additional procedures and provisions also apply:

1006

- 6 4 0 -

0 8 6 1

I . Nature of exception. The exception set fortb in this section of the ordinance are based on the general principle of zoning law that exceptions pertain to a piece of propem and are not personal in nature. An exception may be granted for a parcel of property witb physical characteristics so unusual that complying with the requirements of this ordinance would create an exceptional hardship to the applicant or the surrounding property owners. The characteristics must be unique to the property and not be shared by adjacent parcels. The unique characteristic must pertain to the land itself, not to the swctwe, its inhabitants, or the property owners.

The interest in protecting citizens from flooding is compelling, and the cost of insuring a structure built below flood !eve! so onerous that exceptions f?om the flood elevation or other health and safety requirements io the flood ordinance shall be granted in rare circumstances and only where no other alternative is available.

2. Criteria for exceptions. (i) In considerhg requests for exceptions, technical

evaluations, all other relevant information and standards specified in otber sections of this Chapter shall be considered, including tbe following:

Danger that materials may be swept onto otber lands to the injury of others;

Danger of life and property due to flooding or erosion damage;

Susceptibility of the proposed structure and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the existing individual owner and future owners of the property;

d. Importance of the services provided by the proposed structure to the community;

e. Necessity to the structure of a waterfront location, where appiicable;

f. Availability of alternative locations for the proposed use which are not subject to flooding or erosion damage;

g. Compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated development;

h. Relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive pian and floodplain management program for that area;

i . Safety of access to the property in time of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles;

j. Expected heights, velocity, duration rate of rise, and sediment transport of the floodwater expected at the site; and

k. Costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions, including maintenance and

a

b.

c.

repair of public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas. electrkal, and water system, and streets and bridges.

(ii) Any applicant to whom an exception is granted shall be given written notice of the terms and conditions, if any, of the exception, and said notice shall also include t he

That the issuance of an exception to construct a structure below the base flood level will result in subscantially increased premium rates for flood insurance up to amounts as high as $25 for $100 of insurance coverage; and

b. That such construction below the base level increases risks to life and property.

c. That a copy of the written notice shall be recorded on the deed so that it appears in the chain of title cf the affected parcel of land.

(iii) The Floodplain Administrator will maintain a record of all exception actions, including justification for their issuance, and report such exceptions issued in its biennial report submitted to the Federal Insurance Administration of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

3. Conditions for Exception. (i)

following: a

Exceptions may be issued for new construction, substantial improvement, and otber proposed new development to be erected on a lot of one-half acre or less in size contiguous to and surrounded by lots with existing structures conmcted below the base flood level, providing that the procedures of Sections 16.10.050, 16.10.070, and 16.10.080 of this chapter have been considered. As the lot size increases beyond one-half acre, the justification required for issuing the exception increases.

(ii) Exceptions shall not be issued within any mapped regulatory floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result from the project

(iii) Exceptions shall only be issued upon a determination that the exception is the “minimum necessary” considering the flood hazard, to afford relief. “M-inimun necessary” means to afford relief wit!! a minimum of deviation from the requirements of this Chapter. For example, in the case of exceptions t o m elevation requirement, exceptions need not be granted for permission for the applimt to build at grade, or even to whatever elevation the applicant proposes, but only to that elevation which will both provide relief and preserve the integrity of the regulatory requirements.

(iv) Exceptions shall only be issued upon: a Showing of good and sumcient cause;

3 007

- 6 4 1 -

16.10.105

b. Deter tion that failure to grant tbe exception would result in a “hardship” (as defined in secbion 16.10.040) to the applicant; and

c. Deterrmna - tion that the granting of an exception will not d t in increased flod heights, additional threats to public safety, or extraordinary public expense; create a nuisance, cause hud or Victimization of tbe public, or mnoict with existing local laws or ordinances.

(v) Exceptions may be issued for new construction, substantial ixnprov-& d other proposed new development ~ecessary for the conduct of a functionally dependent use (a functionally dependent use is one that would not function or operate unless sited on or adjacent to flood prone location in qutstion), provided that the

structure or other development is protected by metbods that minimi7P. flood darnages during the base fload, does

and does not cfeate a public nuisance (vi) Exccptio~~s may be issucd for the repair or

rehabilitation of historic tmxtmes (as defined m Section 16.10.040) upon a detamination that the proposed rcpair or rehabilitation will not preclude tbe slmctme’s amtinued designation as an historic structure and that the exception is the minimum ~ectssary to -e the histon’c character and design of the stnmure.

(vii) Upon consideration of the factors in Section 16.10.100(d)2i abd tbe purposes of this Chapter, conditions may be attacbed to tbe granting of excqtions as necessary to ftnther the purposes of this Chapter. (Ord. 3340,11/23182; 3598.1 1/6/84; 45 18-C. 3/8/99)

provisions of this section are satisfied and that the

not d t in additional threats to public health or safety,

16.10.105

(a)

Notice of geologic halardc m cases of

whenever a site inspection, geologic hazards assessment M fuli geologic report identifies the p e n c e of a gcologic haziud that causes a site, building, or portions thertof to be rendered d e or dangerous, then pursuant to the Uniform Code for the Abatement of S M and Geologic Hazards as amended by subsection 0) of Section 12.10.070 of this Code, the Planning Director may issue a Notice of Geologic Hazard and Order thereon, and may record a Notice of Geologic Hazard with the County Recorder.

(b) The P W n g Director may initiate abatement procedures pursuant to the Unifoxm Code for the Abatement of Structural and Geologic Hazards as

. amended by Section 12.10.070(1) of the County Code. (Ord. 4336,11/29l94; 4392A, 4/2196; 45 l&c 3/8/99)

dangerons~nditiOIls

16.1 0.U 0 Appeals 0 8 6 2 Except as otherwise provided berein, appeais taken

pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter shall be made in conformance witb the procedures of Chapter 18.10, including appeal of the requirement for geologic hazard assessment or technical report All appeals taken concerning the decision to issue and record a Notice of Geologic Hazard pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.10.105 shall be g o v d by the procedures commencing with Section 501 of the Uniform Code For the Abatement of Structural and Geologic Hazards as amended by paragraphs 10 through 14 of subsection (ai) of Section 12.10.070oftbisCode-(Ord.2088,1/28/75;2281, 4/20/76; 3598, 11/6/84; 3808,4/15/86; 4336, 11/29/94; 4392& 4 m ; 45 1 &-c, 3/8/99)

16.10.120 VitOlatiOnS. Compliance. No stmcture or land shall hereafter

be constructed, l o c a ~ extended, converted, or altered without full compliance with all the provisions of this Chapter and other applicable regulations. Nothing berein shall prevent tbt taking of lawful action as neccswy to prevent or remedy any violation.

Actions Constituting Violation. In the event of a vi01ari011 of this Chapter or of the provisions of permit conditions as specified in this chapter, or iftbepermit has been exercised in a manner which creates a nuisance or is otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, the pexmittbe shall be given notice of such violation, a d a reasonable time shall be specified for its cwrection. ( a d . 3340,11/23/82; 3598,11/6/84; 4392A, 4/2/96; 45 18-C 3/8/99)

A.

B.

16.10.130 Fees Fees for the geologic hazards assessment, other field

reviews, applications for exceptions, and the review of technical reports shall be set by resolution by the Board of Supervisors. ( a d . 3340,11/23/82; 3598, 11/6/84; 3808; 45 18€, 3/ 8/99)

1008

- 6 4 2 - dc

0 8 6 3

- October 2, 2008

Applicant Name: Michael Watson

APN: 075-124-21 Building Permit Application:

REQUEST FOR APPEAL TO THE BUILDING AND FIRE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS:

Building Permit application review by County staff, for those issues identified in CC Chapter 7.92 and 12.12.

I, Michael Watson, hereby appeal the Environmental Planning review comments made on 9/16/08. I am not sure who made these comments or who did the subsequent decision/determination on my revised drawings, because I can only see and read these comments in the on-line services’ Routing log for my Building Permit application. which only shows a second review date of 9/16/08,

The first review comments erroneously stated the slope of the property below the house is approximately ’50-70%’, which is certainly not true. Not only does it not come anywhere close to this amount o f slope, the revised application does not add to the footprint, nor change the foundation, in any material way. Further, the Building Department review of the application did not require a Soils report upon its first review which would be in their purview under the Building Code.

This single family residential structure has been in its place since circa 1947, and has not moved. The slope below the house is closer to15-2Oo/~.There is no evidence of any significant effects of earth movement over time. There are no foundation problems, cracks or sliding visible or any other evidence of ground movement. There is no evidence of ‘any’ soils movement to show any form of instability.

Even though your Departmental handouts state I will be notified of any determination made regarding my application, I have not been ’notified’ of this determination on 9/16/08 by any Environmental Planning employee in any manner, by phone or mail.

However, in order to file a timely appeal. I am hereby exercising my appeal rights, and I will hold the Planning Department employees responsible for any denial of my appeal based upon timeliness due to the lack of notification that could have been provided to allow me time to file an appeal within 14 days.

The Planning Director has the discretion not to require a Soils report for review. I hereby request a reconsideration of my application and a determination that a Soils report should not be req u i red.

Michael Watson, 11607 Lake Blvd, Felton, CA 95018 (831) 246-2114

‘ -Y-&dLAaxa-

June 10,2009

County Board of Supervisors

701 Ocean Street, 5* floor


Dear Board of Supervisors (acting as the Building Accessibility and Fire Code Board of Appeals):

Re: Michael Watson Appeal, APN: 075-124-21, 11607 Lake Blvd, Felton, CA

We ask before starting, whether you are also acting, at this time, as the “Housing Board of Appeals” because this is an existing residential structure, and as such, this matter may need to be heard by that appeals board as well. We want you to further note that the Appeals procedure was not fully discussed or voted on by motion by the Board during any of the prior Board’ s meetings

Please remember, that this Board is in place, as demanded by the public, to reinstate “FAIRNESS” for all those potentially aggrieved by actions taken under the administration and enforcement of the Building Code by all County Planning Department staff. It is also with the intent of ‘expediting’ the permitting process, not slowing it down even further, by even more and more ‘rounds of review’ by County staff, once on appeal.

All County Plan check staff must be qualified and certified under State law to perform plan check reviews, if they do not hold the certfication required by State code, it can lead to erroneous plan check review comments, and is technically ‘void’. We hereby request the County produce any and all certifications, as required by AB 717, 1996 as adopted into the State Health and Safety Code, held by the Chief Building Official, Buidling Plan check staff, Mr Mark Deming, Environmental Plan check staff Robin Bolster and all others that have made a decision regarding this issue on this application, including the dates the certification was obtained.

The actual person who made the Plan check review comments, should be present here before the Board to explain their notes. A code section is not cited in the review comments. All denial review comments, in order to be ‘clear and specific’ as required by your policy under the Applicant’s Bill of Rights, must have a Building or County code reference in order to address the ‘code deficiency’. In this case, one was not provided.

If, as Mr Bums pointed out in his email to you, ‘we are equally bound by the code’. I call your attention to the following County Code section. 12.12.050 Setting for hearing., as in place at the time the appeal was filed.

Upon receipt of the Notice of Appeal, the Building In g before the Building Appeals Board Written notice of the time and place

*

Inspection Chief to the appellant, and the officer whose act or determination is appealed from, at least ten days prior to the hearing. Further notice shall be given in the same manner as required for the original action appealed from. The department or officer involved in the appeal shall transmit to the Building Appeals Board all records related to the appeal and shall, upon request, furnish such additional information relative to the proceedings as may be requested by the Building Appeals Board. (Ord. 228 1,4/20/76)

It is only upon request of the Board, that any further information can be furnished ... ie. Staff reports, etc.

The language also does not state this is a ‘trial de novo’, it is a review of the actual facts and information within the appeal letter, and a request for relief, that is then either granted or denied upon your vote. We already

sub %

to you our first appeal letter and evidence of when it was submitted.

0 8 6 5

If an appeal is a ‘trial de novo’, then we will bring forward facts regarding the illegal ‘trespass’ of the subject property by Code Compliance staff at the time of issuance of the Notice of Violation and other matters having to do with the County’s enforcement activity. In the interest of resolution, we will not bring those up now. However, significant issues such as those, hopefully should be appealable to your Board in the future to be able to restore due process related to Code Compliance actions.

We filed an appeal for relief from a soils report requirement based upon review comments by Environmental Plan check staff Robin Bolster’s on our building permit application. We felt it was a decision that was not qualified, was not supported by complete facts, utilized inaccurate measurements, and did not take into account all site specific information. The certified Building plan check staff Robin Woodman, who also reviewed this application, did not require a soils report under her Building Code review. So, we question this discrepancy.

Our application was filed under the prior operative 2001 Uniform Building Code. In the staff report regarding the adoption of the new 2007 code, we note that County Planning staff states below that, if the new code was applied in its extreme, it would provide unreasonable costs and delay to some projects. See page 3 of 5 from their staff report. We state here it is our belief that the prior 2001 UBC is being unreasonably misapplied to an ‘extreme’, because it is not a ‘code requirement’.

We hereby declare there was no certified Building Official on the staff of the County Planning Department at the time the staff comments were made on September 16,2008 and at the time they were appealed on October 3, 2008. So, in this appeal, we question, under whose authority, this determination was actually made. We do accept the certified staff review of Ms Woodman that did not require a soils report, whose job it is to insure compliance with the Building Code under her review.

Your current Chief Building Official, the Chief Building Inspector Jennifer Hutchinson was certified on October 11,2008. We ask the County Planning Department to provide any and all evidence of certification to show that Planning Director Tom Bums as acting Chief Building Official or any that other staff member had at the time that this plan check and these comments were made to authorize the requirement of a soils report. We submit no member of the Planning Department at that time held the required State certification as a Chief Building Official, and accordingly, did not have the authority to make decisions with the authority of the Chief

* Building Official under the Code. The County’s staff report also was written and the staff comments were supported only after the fact.

Our appeal was not provided for within 30 days as required under 12.12.050 above. Mr Watson’s appeal status was recognized as valid by County Counsel in a court hearing on January 27,2008 and a continuance was granted to provide Mr Watson time for his appeal rights to be exercised. The matter was still not calendered by staff before the Board of Appeal until April 22,2009. The County will try to state that Mr Watson did not file his fees, but his appeal was deemed as legally valid in January 2008 by County Counsel. Mr Watson did try multiple times and couldn’t pay the fees due to actions by County staff that would not allow him to submit them. At the time the appeal was submitted, County staff did not know how much the fee was and I filed the appeal anyway to preserve Mr Watson’s rights within the 14 day period. We were then told by Mr Mark Deming to file them with the counter staff, but when Mr Watson went to do that, they refused to take them, saying he was beyond the time period and they could do nothing because Mr Deming was not available. Mr Deming easily could have but did not place any direction in the computer for staff to follow. Instead, our next contact was receiving a letter dated February 6,2009 from Mark Deming (over 120 days later), which we at first thought was regarding our appeal filed to the Planning Director, which was made on the same date on October 3, 2008, as seen by the Routing Form submitted to you publicly. The February letter stated we needed to now appeal ‘that’ decision. We responded to that letter in March 2009, but backdated it at Mr Deming’s request, to February 20, 2009, since I had been unavailable out of town for a while due to the unexpected death of my child’s father.

0 8 6 6

Technically, the County should lose by default for intentional obstruction and delay. For not allowing my client to pay his fees in a timely way, for not scheduling the appeal to be heard within 30 days even after legally acknowledging it existed in court on January 27,2009, for acting without true authority under the State law and not incompliance with County code, and obstructing the appeal process because County staff knew no Board of Appeals was available, which they were aware of since July 2008. In the alternative, they could have but did not bring this matter to your Board as the local Board of Appeals earlier for action.

In the interest of resolution, we asked staff if we scaled back our application even further to have the attic space remain as non-habitable, and inquired if a soils report would still be required. They responded it would still be required, even though it would be a nominal change to the roof, would not require any upgrade to the foundation or a new retaining wall. The requirement for a soils report in this case seems overly punitive, and the costs which would be approximately $4000 or more outweigh any potential benefit to be obtained. We have no choice but to appeal.

The Plan Check routing logs and comments are attached below. As you can see, we have satisfied all other agencies, except Building, Environmental Planning and Zoning Review. We can address the Zoning review comments and Building Comments, but have appealed the Environmental Staff review comments and report requirements they impose.

We have tried to be patient with the people and the process, but we are asking you now for ultimate relief, and your recognition that the County staff has not followed County Code, which we are mutually bound by. We agree with the Building Plan check review comments that did not require a soils report.

We invite you to come to the property to take a look at the actual conditions at the property so that you are completely familiar with our request and building permit application and in order that you be fully informed prior to making any decision.

Thank you for your review and consideration of this appeal,

Claire Machado, Land Use Consultant Representing, Michael Watson P.O. Box 481 Felton, CA 95018

Adoption of the 2007 California BL.,ding Standards Board of Supervisors Agenda: September 25,2007 Page 3 of 5 01 35 New requirements for calculating the appropriate seismic design category may necessitate soils reports for a greater number of construction projects. In it’s extreme, the code could require soils reports for even small additions to existing residences. Needless to say, we believe that such a requirement would add unreasonable costs and delays to some proiects. Staff is currently evaluating whether the code could allow flexibility to exempt small-scale proiects and additions from these requirements.

0 8 6 7

Due to new seismic design requirements, standards for conventional construction may be so restrictive as to limit their appeal, resulting in a greater number of projects requiring engineered design. Again, this is a topic that we are discussing with other jurisdictions to better understand if we can exempt small-scale construction projects.

New standards for protecting life and property in areas of significant fire hazard will replace the existing Urban Wildland Intermix Code (UWIC) requirements in the County Code. Fortunately, due to the previous adoption by the County of proactive Building and Fire codes, many of the new state standards appear to be similar to our local UWlC requirements. While the new statewide construction standards are very similar to the UWlC standards now in effect, it appears that they may apply to more structures than before, including non-habitable buildings such as garages and barns. Staff is still in the process of evaluating how these requirements will apply, and whether any local amendments can be developed to limit the application of these new standards. Further, the UWlC requirements now apply in the State Responsibility Areas, which for the most part are the rural and mountainous areas of the County. But starting January 1, 2008, the new state requirements will also apply to high-risk areas within the more densely developed urbanized areas. We do not know the extent of these high-risk areas yet, and have requested copies of the applicable maps. We will be in a better position to inform your Board as to the magnitude of this change once we get a chance to study the proposed maps. Other fire-related changes include new requirements for fire-resistive construction, firewalls and fire sprinklers, and new occupancy class definitions. There are numerous minor changes to standards throughout the code. For example, the height of railings and pool barriers has been increased and stair risers have been mod if ied. Many of the requirements for administering building permits have been removed from the Building Code and are being left up to the local jurisdictions. We are currently evaluating our existing procedures contained in Chapter 12.1 0 relating to the processing of building permits and permit applications. It’s important to stress that, while we have been working closely with other jurisdictions, we continue to discover new requirements in the code - some small in nature and others significant. As a result, local jurisdictions could well find ourselves in the awkward position of not fully understanding the scope of the code changes until they are being applied after January 1.

JUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIOlv 0 8 6 8

- Building Application Review Status

Click here for General Information about this screen

Click on the Underlined Component below for definition and explanatory details.

Application Number: 00649476 APN: 075 I242 1 Application Date: 1211 3/07 Master Permit No: Expiration Date: 12/13/09 Issue Date: Not Yet Issued Status: ROUTING

PLEASE NOTE THAT REVISED PLANS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED UNTIL YOU HAVE RECEIVED A DEFICIENCY LETTER, WHICH WILL LIST ALL THE REASONS FOR DENIAL BY ALL AGENCIES WHICH HAVE DENIED THIS APPLICATION. RESUBMITTED PLANS MUST ADDRESS ALL AGENCY REASONS FOR DENIAL.

After all of the review agencies have approved their reviews in the DETERMINATION column, your permit cannot be issued until the "CONSOLIDATION" and "EVALUATION" fields in the

DETERMINATION column show as "COMPLETE".

BUILDING PLAN CHECK

Second review comments - 10-7-08

A. Previous comment 7 - Provide a cross section of the new stairway addition to the attic. LA new spiral staircase has been shown for the access from the main floor to the new upper floor. The stairway detail has does not indicate a complying handrail. Provide details that comply with handrail requirements. Clarify handrail requirements. Handrails to be installed per CBC

1003.3.3.6: ihstalled height betweull 34 and 38 inches above the nosing of the tread and landings. ii.Handrails to be continuous for the length of the stair. iii.Clearly show how the handrail will terminate (in a newel post or into wall). iv.Detai1 the handgrip portion of the handrail and clearance from the wall.v.Intermediate rails of the stairway guardrails are to be spaced so that a 4-inch diameter sphere cannot pass through per CBC 1003.3.3.7. vi.Triangular openings formed by the riser, tread and bottom element of a guardrail at the open side of a stairway may be of such size that a sphere o f 6 inches in diameter cannot pass through.

B. Previous comment 9 - Provide floor framing plans for the new attic, existing main floor and roof. Plans have been provided but the plans are not labeled to identify the individual plans. Label each plan to identify what it is pertaining to.

C. All doors in the area of remodel shall be 32- minimum width per Santa Cruz county Ordinance 12.10.215(i). Ordinance is as follows: In other than Group R-1 occupancies, the minimum widths for interior egress doors within a dwelling unit or sleeping unit that is not required to be adaptable or accessible as specified in Chapter 11A or 1 IB, as applicable, shall be 30 inches clear width. If, and to the extent that, this Subsection is inconsistent with any provision of the California Building Code currently or hereafter adopted by the count of Santa Cruz, the more restrictive shall prevail. A swinging door that is 2 ft. 6 in will not provide the clear opening when in the fully opened position. The door at the closet adjacent to the spiral stair does not comply with the requirement.

D. Special Inspection shall be provided for fabrication of the spiral stair or the manufacturer may provide proof of IAS or equivalent certification. Special Inspection shall be required for all retrofit seismic holddown devices that are new, if not new but they are retrofit and to be recognized as part of this application proof load testing shall be done by a Special Inspection agency and the results of the testing shall be provided to the building inspector at the first inspection. Special Inspection and Testing agreement and forms are included with this letter.

E. Previous comment 11 - Provide railing details for the new decks and stairways. Railing details show 2 x 2 rwd at 6 in. O.C.

This spacing of the railing intermediates if not full cut 2 x 2 will not meet the spacing requirements. Correct all notes and references.

F. Page 6 of plans - The call outs for the section cuts show them on sheet 5 , correct he call out to reference the correct plan sheet.

0 8 6 9

G. Page 9 of plans - The attic p l a ~ A this sheet does not match the layout of the proposed plan. Provide a framing plan that shows the new configuration in relation to the framing.

H. Page 9 of plans - The plan shows 2 x 6 PTDF rafters at 24 in. O.C. The calculations show 2 x 6 #2DF rafters @ 16 in. O.C.

Resolve the conflict .

I. Page 9 of plans - Plans are showing 2 x 6 floor joists spanning > 20 ft. Calculations indicate that 2 x 6 floor joists may not span more than 7.6 ft. If using the spans shown in the code 2 x 12 joists are required. Correct

J . Headers are calculated but not located in the plans. Show the location and sizes of headers required on the plans.

K. Calculations page L7 - Line 2 at Roof calculations indicate a 6 ft and a 3.5 ft. shear wall. Provide the location of the 3.5 ft. wall and indicate the beginning and the end of the wall limits.

L. Calculations page L7 - Line 2 at Attic floor level - Only the 6 ft. shear wall is shown on the plans. Show the length of the second shear wall on the plan.

M. An HHDG11 is. shown on plan. The calculations call for HDQ 1. Correct

N. Calculations page L l l - An ST22 or MSTC28 at C & E line shear wall is indicated. This is not shown on the plan. Correct

0. New outlets in the new bedroom shall be AFCI protected. Arc-Fault Circuit Interrupter Protection, CEC 2 10- 12(B): All branch circuits that supply 125-volt, single-phase, 15- and 20-ampere outlets (Le. receptacles, lights, smoke alarms, etc.) installed in dwelling unit bedrooms shall be protected by Arc-Fault Circuit Interrupter (AFCI) listed to provide protection of the entire branch circuit. Please note.

P. Show any new lighting and switching to be recognized that complies with section 150(k) of the Energy Efficiency Standards and on the MF-1R forms submitted with the energy documents. The plans appear to indicate that all electrical is new.

Q.Provide the owner or designer-s signature on the CF- IR form. Additionally, complete the WS-5R form.

R.Indicate GFCI receptacles in baths, at kitchen counter tops, laundry and wet bar as required by CEC 210.8.

S.Sheet 12 shows a detail for underpinning of the foundation. Indicate where this occurs on the foundation plan.

0 8 7 0

0 8 7 1 T.Incorporate the detached details that have been submitted on 8 ?i x 11 sheets into the plan set. - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.Sheet 4 - Windows within walls enclosing stairway landings or within 5 ft. of the top and bottom of stairways where the bottom edge of the glass is less than 60 inches above the walking surface shall be tempered glass. Note on plans. CBC 2406.4( 10)

2.Sheet 4 - Provide specifications and listing for the new gas wall heaters shown on the attic floor plan.

3.Sheet 5 - Identify the egress windows from the sleeping rooms.

4.Sheet 5 - Provide smoke detectors on each level at the new stairway.

5.Show clearly on the building section what is new and what is existing construction.

6.Sheet 7 - Correct the codes to read: 2001 California Building Code, 2001 California Fire Code, 2001 California Plumbing Code, 200 1 California Mechanical Code, 2004 California Electric Code, 2005 California Energy Code.

7.Provide a cross section of the new stairway addition to the attic.

&Provide a foundation plan showing deck footings and clearly defining what is existing and what is new construction. Clearly indicate areas that the foundation is underpinned.

9.Provide floor framing plans for the new attic, existing main floor and roof.

10.Provide information for the attachment of the deck joist to the building. Indicate size of the ledger and it-s attachment.

11.Provide railing details for the new decks and stairways.

12.The structural engineer shall stamp and wet sign Sheet 7 that has the details copied from his calculations.

13 .Provide information regarding the method of attic venting.

As this plan is for rectification of a red-tag all new construction is to conform to current building codes. Be specific on the plans in defining existing and new construction.

Please contact Robin Woodman at 83 1-454-3249 or email

robin-woodman @co.santa-cruz.ca.ua with any questions you may have regarding these plan check comments. If you wish to meet to discuss these comments please call for an appointment. Please be advised that your second plan submittal will require a second plan check. If additional comments are required to be addressed for a third plan check, additional charges will be added to your permit fee at an hourly rate.

0 8 7 2

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING

Due to the expansion of the existing home by approximately 1012 square feet of new habitable space, the following reports are required:

1. A soils (geotechnical) report is required to determine the suitability of the foundation with respect to the steep slopes and added loads. This report must include a slope stability analysis for the slope below the home, as it exceeds 50-70%.

2. You have the option of applying for a Geologic Hazard Assessment to determine the extent of geologic hazards on the subject property, or submit a Geologic Report completed by a licensed geologist through a consulting firm. This report must address potential slope instability within the project area, and make necessary recommendations for mitigation of any existing hazard. If you choose to apply for the GHA, the fee is approximately $1 100 and may result in the requirement for the Geologic Report. To apply for the GHA, please bring two sets of the site plan to the Zoning Counter M-F 8-noon.

3. Engineered grading and drainage plans must be prepared for the proposed new driveway and parking area, as this area is extremely steep and subject to potential slope stability problems. The soils engineer must also provide recommendations for design characteristics of the driveway retaining wall.

Please note that lists of consulting firms are available through our website or in person at the Zoning Counter. Once the above items have been completed, please resubmit for review by the department civil engineer, geologist and staff planner. Further comments will be forthcoming once we have received these items.

**** Second Review September 16,2008 ****

There are several thresholds for requiring geotechnical (soils) report. In addition to the square footage that has been added over time (which exceeds 500 square feet according to assessor's records) soils reports can be required for additions or conversions to habitable space whenever the site is located in an area of steep slopes or potential instability. Additionally, soils reports can be required for any projects that include new retaining walls, such as this application.

Therefore, after reviewing this project with both the Senior Civil Engineer and the County Geologist, I conclude that the comments contained in the first review on January 16,2008 are still applicable and must be

before this application can be approved. 4$.

0 8 7 3

Background:

This subject property is located in Felton, in Lompico, which was subdivided under Parcel Map 18PM64, in 1925. At that time, the roads were not dedicated to the County, as is usually done today. We are submitting photos of the property and the structure to familiarize you with the existing conditions at the subject property,

In 1942, the road above the house, Lake Boulevard, was accepted by the County. It has been a County maintained road ever since. There has been no evidence of road instability nor has any repair ever been needed for unexpected earth movement due to any cause. I spoke with John Swenson, in Public Works, who confirmed for me, that there has never been any damage to the road above the house, no instability in that location, since the roadway was accepted in 1942. The bearing capacity of the underlying soil has been solid and maintained for over 62 years. Feel free to confirm this information with him. I also contacted a member of the Zayante Fire Department who also stated there has never been any response due to earth movement at the subject property.

In 1947, the existing single family dwelling was constructed below the roadway in its current location and with existing slope conditions. In 1980, it was remodeled under an approved, issued and finalled Building permit to be enlarged to 1088 sq ft., still with the existing slope conditions. This approved work obviously included the existing foundation, retaining walls, decks, and stairways which show no evidence of movement or damage from any source over time. Unfortunately, the County records do not include the approved plan set, which would have been assistive, but they did not.

NO ACTUAL HISTORY OF PAST EARTH MOVEMENT AT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY

Although the Lompico area gets a significant amount of yearly rainfall, 12-14” per year, there has been no evidence of landsliding or earth movement at the subject property. No damage assessments were ever called for or performed by the County, which is the usual practice, in case of such events. 1982, was an extremely heavy rainfall year and other slopes were affected, but not this property.

Further, the 1989 quake, caused damage to several structures, especially downtown Santa Cruz, and again, there is no record of damage at the subject property. No damage assessments called for or performed.

The Coopers-Clark map dated 1975, is showing the subject property to be within a mapped ‘potential’ slide area. The map does not show any ACTUAL scarp or notation regarding known conditions, it merely documents there may be a ‘potential’. There is no record of any actual earth movement at the subject property site location. 0

I personally lived down the street from this property for 9 years, on a slope steeper than the one at this property. At the time I purchased my residence in 1998, I asked Joe Hanna regarding slope instability in the area. He stated that it was 0.k. and that there were no slides nearby.

J

Looking at the cross section page upslope side of the structure. It appears this retaining wall has likely been in place since the original construction and would have been recognized in1980 permit approval. As you can see,IT WOULD BE NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY SOIL OR DEBRIS TO HAVE “FLOWED” UNDERNEATH THE HOUSE AFTER ITS CONSTRUCTION. There is no possible way for the soil underneath the house, or its bearing capacity to have changed from what it has been since 1947

the plans, you will find a ‘retaining wall’ that is at the lower floor on the 0 8 7 4

SLOPE IS OVER EXAGGERATED AT THE BUILDING SITE

We believe that 50-70% slope description within staff comments, is exaggerated and is not a calculated figure. Using the topographical information on the plan set, the slope is not that steep it is at 41% slope, which is about 23 degrees, nearly parallel with the 5: 12 pitch side of the roof. Please find included diagrams which show the line of slope for certain slope percentages. Please also review the photos provided which show the pad location is relatively flat.

Further, this is an existing stable slope, regardless of the percentage of slope, that has not moved since the roadway was put in. The roadway above it and the structure’s foundation has never moved in over 62 years. In fact, this house has been standing longer than most members of the Board and County staff have been alive.

DESIRE TO RESOLVE VIOLATION EXPEDIENTLY

This application is to correct a Notice of Violation. All the other issues have been resolved because they were really not in violation in the first place and were erroneous. We hereby request that County staff removed these posted but unfounded violations from the recorded Notice immediately because it is an erroneous slander to the property’s title. These issues have been resolved.

1) Replacement Fence - By code, the feen could be replaced fully within 10 years as the owner has done 2) Lower floor non-separation - assessor’s records proved this area has never had internal circulation with

the main floor. 3) No second unit exists 4) The attic is only currently an attic.

The remaining issue is for the re-roofing of the structure including a‘roof pitch change’.

This is the second version of this application. It is very scaled back from the first submittal. The roof was originally a 4: 12 pitch, and the pitch changed when it was reroofed to 12: 12 on the upslope side, and 5: 12 on the downslope side to increase height for taller thing in the attic space. This represents a minor structural change to the roof rafters and a nominal weight increase.

The current application seeks to recognize the existing ‘as-built’ construction and includes a remodeling of the new attic area, to add 484 square feet of habitable space to the existing structure. The proposal is only an addition of 40% of habitable space, which is actually less than the over 50% amount as erroneously calculated in the County’s staff report, a threshold that they state would trigger a soils report. Even if we utilized the 1088 square feet, which was fully ‘permitted’ by law under building permit in 1980, it is still only a 44% addition of habitable space. We added less than 50% of the existing habitable area, and less than 500 square feet. We did this specifically not to trigger any further requirements for upgrades to the existing septic and parking due to

limited space and specifically, so a:, LO stay below thresholds that would require additional expensive re orts so the application could be approved more cost-effectively and easily for the property owner. $875

It is our belief the County cannot legally adopt the ordinance language within the Georogic Hazards ordinance in 1999 to be retro-actively applicable to the original structure. , and cannot retro-actively apply it to utilize the size of the original square footage of the structure in 1942. Laws must recognize existing permitted legal conditions. In this case, the legal size of the building is what was approved and finalled in 1980, which is 1088 sq ft. Although it has not been legally challenged in court as yet, we believe it can only applied to the ‘existing square footage’ at the time of adoption of the ordinance. In this case, 1203 square feet. We have not been able to determine there is 115 sq fi difference between the 1203 and 1088 sq ft, since we did not find a prior plan set. The structure was not enlarged so we believe space may have been calculated differently in 1980.

We further believe that, when the 1999 Geologic Hazards ordinance was adopted, specific findings were not made to incorporate it into the 2001 Building Code at the time of its adoption, and as such, the operative 2001 Building Code is the over-riding standard. Can you show us this was done?

Obviously, the project Civil Engineer Robert Patterson, who teaches Civil Engineering at the Naval Academy in Monterey, has signed and stamped the plans and is putting his license and liability on the line, not the County. The County is only a ‘review’ agency. We appealed because we did not agree with their ‘review’. We do not believe there has been any evidenced instability of the existing bearing capacity of the soil underneath the house and at the subject property.

Again, we state the certified plan check staff, Robin Woodman, did not require a soils report to be submitted on either plan check as being required under the 2001 UBC section for soils and foundations.

Under Chapter 34, section 3403.2 for Existing Structures, there is an exception for existing conditions. Please find copies attached. We believe this exception under this section would apply to our project. Additions or alterations shall not be made that will cause the existing building or structure to be in violation of any of the provisions of the code and such additions shall not cause the structure to be ‘unsafe’.

The exception does require the structure to be engineered by a Civil Engineer, which it is. And, although there are discrepancies to be revised on the plan set per the plan check comments, this structure has been designed to conform with the 2001 Building Code. This structure is not unsafe. It has been standing ‘as-is’ for approximately five years now.

The project Civil Engineer Robert Patterson, who teaches Civil Engineering at the Naval Academy in Monterey, has signed and stamped the plans and is putting his license and liability on the line, not the County. The County is a ‘review’ agency. We appealed because we did not agree with their ‘review’. We do not believe there has been any evidenced instability of the existing bearing capacity of the soil underneath the house and at the subject property.

Because of the inconsistency between the Environmental plan check staff and Building Plan check comments and we ask for relief.

The staff report to the Board should not be permitted to be submitted by the County, under County Code section 12.12.050, since you did not request it to be provided. However, if you do, many statements and calculations contained in it are erroneous and do not reflect complete information about the project.

a

0 8 7 6

A code reference should have beell provided at the time of plan check review. Whether County code or the 2001 Building Code, neither was provided. According to the Applicant’s Bill of Rights, plan check comments are to be ‘clear and specific’. The comments did not provide any code reference and were noLclear about what authority was being utilized to require the soils report, andor how it was determined. The County should not get to keep taking ‘bites’ out of the same apple.

Further, since the County wants to submit Mr Deming’s February letter for review, it CORRECTLY states that the 2001 UBC DOES NOT REQUIRE a Soils report. IF IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT, IT SHOULD NOT HAVE TO BE SUBMITTED and THAT IS THE RELIEF WE HAVE ASKED FOR. Further, the letter also confirms that the ‘Engineer has already utilized a conservative design standard.

This project has been greatly reduced from the first application, there is no new driveway, or grading work proposed. Just a small 4’ retaining wall upslope designed to County standards, as recommended by the Civil Engineer, to alleviate any potential for additional pressure at the foundation.

Under Chapter 34, section 3403.2 for Existing Structures, there is an exception for existing conditions. Please find copies attached. We believe this exception under this section would apply to our project.

Additions or alterations shall not be made that will cause the existing building or structure to be in violation of any of the provisions of the code and such additions shall not cause the structure to be ‘unsafe’.

The exception does require the structure to be engineered by a Civil Engineer, which it is. And, although there are discrepancies to be revised on the plan set per the plan check comments, this structure has been designed to conform with the 2001 Building Code.. This structure is not unsafe. It has been standing ‘as-is’ for approximately five years now.

We ask the following, what would be of benefit, if a soils report were to be obtained? We have utilized a conservative design, why make the design even more conservative than it already is, especially if soil and slope conditions and the soil’s bearing capacity have remained stable and unchanged for over 62 years??

We further, ask the appeals board, at this point, is a Geologic Hazards Assessment necessary either?? Not only are these reports expensive, and the review fees expensive, they will not reduce the time to get this to an approved plan set. It will only increase it, and create additional hardship for this owner, over what may amount to NO need for design change at all, except to conform to the Civil Engineer’s reports and calculations.

The County should not get to keep taking ‘bites’ out of the same apple. We believe that the County should have looked at ALL of the ‘existing’ facts and evidence to determine that the slope ACTUALLY AND FACTUALLY has shown NO SIGNS OF INSTABILITY EVER, at the subject property.

Therefore, there is no need for these excessive and expensive reports as required by the uncertified Environmental Planning staff. We feel the staff determinations have been unsupported by facts, capricious and arbitrary, and overly punitive against this property owner, who, by the way, has been working as he can to file Owner/Builder plans while being affected by documented double disability, with the assistance of his Civil Engineer and myself, with his limited funds.

We want to be able to move forward with our revisions and re-submit our plans, without excessive requirements, additional costs, further obstruction and/or delay, to allow for the As-built’ construction permit to be issued to resolve the Notice of Violation as soon as possible.

County of Santa Cruz Planning Department

General Information Desk Santa Cruz: 454-3252 Aptos: 454-7576 0 Felton: 461-7450

Tracking Dropped Qff Materials Screening at the Building and Zoning Counter is needed for the following materials:

8 Applications for all new projects

0 Revisions of projects that alter the perrnit description

e Applications for revisions of projects / change orders for issued permits

* Any submittal which requires a fee to be paid

Please ask the general information desk for assistance.

dte Stamp: Staff Initials: b-2 0 8 7 7

t

2008 OCT 3 Pfl 3 L13

To track material that does not need to )e screened at the zoning counter, )lease complete this form and have it .eviewed at the general information lesk. A copy will be attached to the naterial and a receipt will be given to IOU once completed.

Today's Date: 1

Parcel Number (APN): "1 '5 - \-I- --x \

Building Application #: p,c& -3 "L*--) & --

Discretionary Application #:

(if Discretionary) Project Planner:

Other:

-t. Person Dropping off Material: Name: ; &C-=\ Ld G - X ~ ~ C Y -

Person Dropping off Material: Phone #: (y3h -a+L ---X\\y- b 1

Contact Name (if different from above):

Contact Phone #: c- 3 t-u--t;

I

_p c Destination of Material: Person: ( G: rJ t w LN<

Note: All discretionary project material will be eviewed by the project planner first, then will )e passed on to the final destinaticn)

d

<it->-! 5, F', r L ccz;&% \3.lc-.- &,

\ '* Original: Receipt Canary: Routed Pink: GID file

racking form (Excel) pin - 1001 - 12/20/02 1

c

0 8 7 8

October 2, 2008



REQUEST FOR APPEAL TO THE BUILDING AND FIRE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS:

Building Permit application review by County staff, for those issues identified in CC Chapter 7.92 and 12.12.

I, Michael Watson, hereby appeal the Environmental Planning review comments made on 9/16/08. I am not sure who made these comments or who did the subsequent decision/determination on my revised drawings, because I can only see and read these comments in the on-line services’ Routing log for my Building Permit application. which only shows a second review date of 9/16/08,

The first review comments erroneously stated the slope of the property below the house is approximately ‘50-70%’, which is certainly not true. Not only does it not come anywhere close to this amount of slope, the revised application does not add to the footprint, nor change the foundation, in any material way. Further, the Building Department review of the application did not require a Soils report upon its first review which would be in their purview under the Building Code.

This single family residential structure has been in its place since circa 1947, and has not moved. The slope below the house is closer to15-20%.There is no evidence of any significant effects of earth movement over time. There are no foundation problems, cracks or sliding visible or any other evidence of ground movement. There is no evidence of ‘any’ soils movement to show any form of instability .

Even though your Departmental handouts state I will be notified of any determination made regarding my application, I have not been ’notified‘ of this determination on 9/16/08 by any Environmental Planning employee in any manner, by phone or mail.


The Planning Director has the discretion not to require a Soils report for review. I hereby request a reconsideration of my application and a determination that a Soils report should not be required.


0 8 7 9

October 2, 2008



f

REQUEST FOR APPEAL TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR:

Building Permit application review by County staff, except for those issue identified in CC Chapter 7.92 and 12.12.

I, Michael Watson, hereby appeal the Environmental Planning review comments made on 916/08. I am not sure who made these comments or who did the subsequent decision/determination on my revised drawings, because I can only see and read these comments in the on-line services' Routing log for my Building Permit application. which only shows a second review date of 9/16/08,

The first review comments erroneously stated'the slope of the property below the house is approximately '50-70°/~', which is certainly not true. Not only does it not come anywhere close to this amount of slope, the revised application does not add to the footprint, nor change the foundation, in any material way. Further, the Building Department review of the application did not require a Soils report upon its first review which would be in their purview under the Building Code.

This single family residential structure has been in its place since circa 1947, and has not moved. The slope below the house is closer to15-20%.There is no evidence of any significant effects of earth movement over time. There are no foundation problems, cracks or sliding visible or any other evidence of ground movement. There is no evidence of 'any' soils movement to show any form of instability.

Even though your Departmental handouts state I will be notified of any determination made regarding my application, I have not been 'notified' of this determination on 9/16/08 by any Environmental Planning employee in any manner, by phone or mail.


The Planning Director has the discretion not to require a Soils report for review. I hereby request a reconsideration of my application and a determination that a Soils report should not be required.


- 4 T L . A L C s I . a=

Municode.com 1 Online Library 2 /23 /09 11:42 AM

0 8 8 0

Figure 37.40.0211B Slope Example B

5% '29" P 193"

10%

15% 8-50 242"

http://library3.municode.com/default-test/template.htm?view=objview&s -... O-Bl~hraseltrue&s~addFilter=l&s~addF~lter=2&s~ignoreDefaultFilter=true Page 1 of 1

_ _ . - ..._...._I ....,.I ~ -. Ir-I"....... ..,r ...... .,,~.r.l,-...~~.".Lmr"..- . \ r~ , . r . . _

http://Municode.com

http://library3.municode.com/default-test/template.htm?view=objview&s

P

P

L

CBD BOSMAIL

From: CBD BOSMAIL

Sent: To: CBD BOSMAIL

Subject: Agenda Comments

Saturday, June 13, 2009 10:20 AM

Meeting Date : 6/16/2009

Name : Cove Britton

Address : 728 N. Branciforte Avenue Santa Cruz, CA 95062

Item Number : 47

Email : [email protected]

Phone : Not Supplied

Comments : June 16,2009 Agenda Item 47 Building Code Appeal

Members of the Housing Appeals Board:

I have a number of concerns regarding this matter:

1. Brown Act Violation: I believe proper procedure is to provide public notice as the Housing Appeals Board, not as the Board of Supervisors.

2. Violation of California Building Code - Qualifications : It does not appear that the individuals that the Board of Supervisors have chosen to appoint (themselves) to the Housing Appeals Board are qualified to hold that position as required by state code.

I suggest that the County of Santa Cruz should seek an opinion from Housing and Community Development as to whether the particular members of the new Housing Appeals Board are qualified to hear appeals as anticipated under 108.8.

3. Violation of California Building Code - Filing with the Building Standards Commission: I do not believe the modifications made to the California Building Code are proper, nor filed properly with the Building Standards Commission with specific findings. Assuming this is correct, then this hearing is in violation of the California Building Code.

I suggest that the County of Santa Cruz request an opinion of the Building Standards Commission (with the participation of HCD) as to whether the modifications to state uniform code made by the County of Santa Cruz meet the intent and actual legislation regarding these matters. My impression is that county counsel has based their opinions on interpretation of what other jurisdictions do (i.e. "would you jump off the cliff if Johnny did?"), or their personal opinions, versus opinion verification with the state agencies that promulgate the applicable codes. Such action, or lack of action, would not result in "best practice" and would appear to disregard the public's best interest. It is important to note that the building code is specific state code unlike many land use (zoning) issues that the Supervisors act on.

6/15/2009 47

mailto:[email protected]

4. Violation of Government Code 1099: I suggest that it would in the best interest of the public for the Board of Supervisors verify (via a opinion of the State Attorney General's office) whether they will vacate their seats, as the Board of Supervisors, by accepting (self appointed) positions to the Housing Appeals Board Government Code 1099 (see below):

(a) A public officer, including, but not limited to, an appointed or elected member of a governmental board, commission, committee, or other body, shall not simultaneously hold two public offices that are incompatible. Offices are incompatible when any of the following circumstances are present, unless simultaneous holding of the particular offices is compelled or expressly authorized by law: ( I ) Either of the offices may audit, overrule, remove members of, dismiss employees of, or exercise supervisory powers over the other office or body. (2) Based on the powers and jurisdiction of the offices, there is a possibility of a significant clash of duties or loyalties between the offices. (3) Public policy considerations make it improper for one person to hold both offices. (b) When two public offices are incompatible, a public officer shall be deemed to have forfeited the first office upon acceding to the second. This provision is enforceable pursuant to Section 803 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (c) This section does not apply to a position of employment, including a civil service position. (d) This section shall not apply to a governmental body that has only advisory powers. (e) For purposes of paragraph ( I ) of subdivision (a), a member of a multimember body holds an office that may audit, overrule, remove members of, dismiss employees of, or exercise supervisory powers over another office when the body has any of these powers over the other office or over a multimember body that includes that other office. (9 This section codifies the common law rule prohibiting an individual from holding incompatible public offices.

While a particular reading of state code notes the governing body shall be the Local Appeal Board if none exists, we in fact do have a Local Appeals Board (Mr. Garcia, in letter to me regarding the Beach Drive appeal states this). The dismissal of the Local Appeals Board members was a direct result of a disagreement over interpretation of the board's duties as defined by state code. Clearly the Board of Supervisors is intentionally subverting the intent of state code and violating Government Code 1099 by doing dismissing the members of the Local Appeals Board and taking that role onto themselves.

In my professional opinion, it is clear that the public interest is not served by the Board of Supervisors taking the position as the Housing Appeals Board. I am not commenting on the particular merits of this appeal one way or another. What "triggers" requirements for a soils report? Did county code require a soils report? State code (for example 5104.3, note that the county deleted this code without express findings) specifically allows for the Building Official to not require a soils report if the nature of the work does not require it. Since the code specifically allows for judgment to not require a soils report, and for appeals regarding this issue is specifically given to a qualified appeals board, it is imprudent for the Board of

6/15/2009 3c7

Supervisors to take this role on.

The intent of these type of boards is to have qualified members in order to provide a independent peer review situation. The appellant may or may not have a qualified professional to counter argue the local authority on the matter, or a qualified professional for the appellant disagrees with the local authority and that opinion must be given equal consideration. How does an unqualified Housing Appeals Board member act responsibly in performance of their duties with no expertise of their own? The Board of Supervisors clearly relies on county staff opinion above all others, as was indicated by the hearing process where they determined they should act as the Housing Appeals Board; it is self evident that reliance defies the intent of the appeals boards to the detriment of the public interest. .

Thank you for the Board's consideration.

Si nce re I y ,

Cove Britton Architect

P.S. Please note that it is more than a bit perplexing that various county officials have claimed that appeals involving so called "red tags" can not be appealed to the Housing Appeals Board.but this very appeal involves just that.

6/15/2009

CBD BOSMAIL

From: CBD BOSMAIL

Sent: To: CBD BOSMAIL

Subject: Agenda Comments

Saturday, June 13, 2009 1:28 PM

Meeting Date : 6/16/2009

Name : Cove Britton

Address : 728 N. Branciforte Santa Cruz, CA 95062

Item Number : 47

Email : Not Supplied

Phone : Not Supplied

Comments : Members of the Board:

Health and Safety Code 18909 (c) "Building standard" includes a regulation or rule relating to the implementation or enforcement of a building standard not othewise governed by statute, but does not include the adoption of procedural ordinances by a city or other public agency relating to civil, administrative, or criminal procedures and remedies available for enforcing code violations.

With all due respect to county staff, Section 108.8 of the California Building Code is a building standard as confirmed by both the Building Standards Commission staff and HCD staff.

It was noted by state staff that it is a common misconception, by a number of local jurisdictions, that 108.8 was not a "building standard", but in fact 108.8 is a "building standard" contrary to the specific opinion given by county counsel during the BOS hearing of June 9,2009. This concept was also ruled on by the BAFCAB prior to their members being dismissed.

The state occupies the territory on this matter and does not give the Board of Supervisor's authority to hear appeals of the decisions of the various appeals board that preside over the California building standards. The decision of these appeals boards are final (a local example of this is San Francisco).

Thank you for the Boards' consideration.

Since re I y , Cove Britton Architect

6/15/2009

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ

PLANNING DEPARTMENT 701 OCEAN STREET, qTH FLOOR, SANTA CRUZ, C A 95060

(831) 454-2580 FAX: (831) 454-2131 TDD: (831) 454-2123 TOM BURNS, PLANNING DIRECTOR

June 4,2009

Mr. Michael Watson 11607 Lake BIvd Felton, CA 95018

Ms. Claire Machado P.O. Box481 Felton, CA 95018

SUBJECT: Appeal Hearing - Building Permit Application 649476

Dear Mr. Watson and Ms. Machado:

On May 18, 2009, the Building, Accessibility and Fire Code Appeals Board continued your appeal. However, on June 2, 2009, the Board of Supervisors took action to assume the responsibility for hearing building and fire code appeals from the Building, Fire Code and Accessibility Appeals Board. Your appeal will be heard by the Board of Supervisors as a de novo hearing. This hearing has been scheduled as follows:

Date: June I r 2009 4 - . Time:

(Room 525)

9 95060

]at you would like the Board of Supervisors + to the Clerk of the Board by June 10th so

k Assis

.J

acting as the 1 that we may

local

Documents

sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.ussccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/bds/govstream/BDSvData/non_legac… · 16/06/2009 · SANTA CRUZ COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS INDEX SHEET Creation Date: