CDI - Application Status

1. The validity of geotechnical reports and all recommendations therein remain in effect for three years
from the date of completion of the report [Santa Cruz County Code (SCCC) 16.10.060 (D)].
 
The Geotechnical Investigation for the original application prepared by Steven Raas & Associates,
Inc. (SRA) is dated 8/17/1998. A subsequent update was prepared by Pacific Crest Engineering Inc.
(PCE). The Update to Geotechnical Investigation Report was submitted as a letter dated 7/5/2007.
Although not referenced or provided in the supplemental documents submitted with the plans,
another update dated 2/7/2012 was prepared by PCE, but there is no record that the 2012 update
was accepted by the County. The last update accepted by the County is the 2007 report, which is
now over eleven years old, so an updated geotechnical investigation is required to be completed,
reviewed, and accepted prior to issuance of a building permit [SCCC 16.10.060 (A)].
 
The report must be updated to reflect current site conditions, reference the most recent edition of
the California Building Code, and confirm whether the original recommendations remain valid or
provide updated recommendations based on current site conditions.
 
2. Please clarify the “Earthwork Quantities Total” numbers on Sheet C1 (Title Sheet). 
     o It is not clear how the net export/cut (3,543 CY) was calculated from the estimates provided.
     o Please clarify what is meant by existing grade (EG) vs. finished grade (FG). Are the first set of
        cut and fill estimates supposed to be for the entire site?
     o For each category (i.e., building pad, driveway, walkway/others, and the general “EG V. FG,”
        clarify how the EG TO FG corresponds to the estimates provided. For example, under
        “Building Pad,” how does “EG TO FG = 430” correspond to building slab and baserock of 166
        CY +\-?
 
3. The Arborist Report prepared by Nathan Lewis (October 4, 2007) needs to be updated to reflect
current tree size and condition and to include all existing trees in the site boundary. Sheet L1
(Planting Plan) shows four existing Lagerstroenia i. Muskogee that were not surveyed for the 2007
report, and Sheet C3 (Existing Conditions & Demolition Plan) shows 20-inch oak to be removed.
Ensure consistency between plan sheets once the updated arborist report is complete. In addition,
include the certified arborist’s recommendations on the plans with reference to the updated report,
and show tree protection fencing and details for all trees to be retained on the plans.
 
4. Please provide a note on the plans that cites the soils report by author and preparation date,
provides soils engineer contact information, and states that all construction must comply with the
recommendations of the soils report.
 
5. As proposed, the Grading and Drainage Plan (Sheet C5) does not meet the requirements of
California Building Code (CBC), Section 1804.4 (Site Grading). Section 1804.4 of the CBC requires that
grades adjacent to buildings be sloped away at 5-percent for 10 feet. Where property lines or
physical obstructions prohibit 10 feet of horizontal distance, a 5-percent slope shall be provided to
an approved alternative method of diverting water away from the foundation. Swales used for this
purpose shall be sloped a minimum of 2 percent where located within 10 feet of the building foundation. The 5-percent slope may be reduced to 2-percent for impervious surfaces or where
climatic or soil conditions warrant. Any deviations from these requirements require submission of a
written analysis by the geotechnical engineer of record that clearly supports the exception.
 
Please provide a drainage plan with sufficient detail regarding existing and proposed grades and
drainage patterns to illustrate compliance with CBC Section 1804.4. 
 
6. Sheet C1 (Title Sheet) reflects a disturbed area of 0.88 acres, while Sheet C11 (Stormwater Pollution
Control Plan) shows a total area of disturbance of 0.635 acre. Please determine which is correct, and
make sure information is consistent between plan sheets.
 
7. If Sheet C11 (Stormwater Pollution Control Plan) is intended to serve as the Erosion Control Plan,
please address the following:
     o The same dashed line seems to be used for both the new drainage pipe to the new storm
        drain and the limit of disturbance. Please differentiate between the two, and add the
        drainage pipe to the legend.

     o The silt fence is shown as being place inside the limit of disturbance. The silt fence needs to
        be placed outside the limit of disturbance to keep material onsite.
     o Ensure proposed contours throughout the site are visible and elevations clearly labeled. 
     o Number 3 under “Erosion Control Notes” states that “Any excess material shall be disposed
        of off-site or stockpiled in a manner to avoid runoff onto adjoining properties.”  Please
        include the designated site or sites for off-hauled material.
     o Show the property line, in addition to the limit of disturbance, and add it to the legend
        and/or label these features. 
     o One stockpile location is shown on the plans. Indicate stockpile areas for each phase of
        construction.
     o Refer to Figure SC-4 of the Construction Stormwater BMP Manual at the following link for
        appropriate storm drain inlet protection, and include on the plans: 
        http://www.sccoplanning.com/Portals/2/County/Planning/env/ConstructionStormwaterBMPManual-Oct%20312011version.pdf?ver=2012-02-21-133552-347. 
     o Include equipment storage and staging areas for each phase of construction.
     o Provide notes regarding street sweeping schedules, if applicable.
     o Fiber rolls are included in the legend, and details for installation are included on Sheet C11 
        (Stormwater Pollution Control Plan), but installation locations for the rolls are not shown,
        only silt fences. If fiber rolls are proposed to be used on site for erosion control, please 
        indicate where they are to be placed on the plans.

8. Please show the lateral extents of overexcavation and recompaction as recommended in the
geotechnical investigation, once the updated report is completed. 
 
9. After plans are prepared that are acceptable to all reviewing agencies, the authors of the updated
geotechnical and arborist reports will need to submit proof that they have reviewed the final plans,
and all their recommendations have been included:

     o Please submit a signed and stamped Soils (Geotechnical) Engineer Plan Review Form to
        Environmental Planning.  Please note that the plan review form must reference the final plan
        set by last revision date. Any updates to report recommendations necessary to address
        conflicts between the report and plans must be provided via a separate addendum to the
        soils report. The author of the report shall sign and stamp the completed form. An
        electronic copy of this form may be found on our website: www.sccoplanning.com, under
        “Environmental”, “Geology & Soils”, “Assistance & Forms”, “Soils Engineer Plan Review
        Form.”
     o Please submit a letter from the certified arborist that references the final plan set by last
        revision date. Any updates to report recommendations necessary to address conflicts
        between the report and plans must be provided via a separate addendum to the arborist
        report. The author of the report shall sign the letter.

10. The APN listed on the plans includes an extra number. It should be “APN: 026-311-33,” not “026-311-330.”
Please correct the APN on the final plans.
 
11. Many of the abbreviations used for the plans are not defined under “Standard Abbreviations” on
Sheet A-0.1. If the abbreviations are not defined on that sheet, they should be included in the
legend for the sheet on which they are used.

Environmental Planning – Shannon Hill (831-454-2530, shannon.hill@santacruzcounty.us) 

1135 17th Avenue (APN: 026-311-33) 

1. The following comment on Version 1 of the plans has not been addressed. Please submit the
February 2012 update to the soils report for Environmental Planning review. In addition, an
addendum to the 2012 update is required, since soils/geotechnical reports only remain valid for
three (3) years.
 
“The validity of geotechnical reports and all recommendations therein remain in effect for three
years from the date of completion of the report [Santa Cruz County Code (SCCC) 16.10.060 (D)].
 
The Geotechnical Investigation for the original application prepared by Steven Raas & Associates,
Inc. (SRA) is dated 8/17/1998. A subsequent update was prepared by Pacific Crest Engineering Inc.
(PCE). The Update to Geotechnical Investigation Report was submitted as a letter dated 7/5/2007.
Although not referenced or provided in the supplemental documents submitted with the plans,
another update dated 2/7/2012 was prepared by PCE, but there is no record that the 2012 update
was accepted by the County. The last update accepted by the County is the 2007 report, which is
now over eleven years old, so an updated geotechnical investigation is required to be completed,
reviewed, and accepted prior to issuance of a building permit [SCCC 16.10.060 (A)].
 
The report must be updated to reflect current site conditions, reference the most recent edition of
the California Building Code, and confirm whether the original recommendations remain valid or
provide updated recommendations based on current site conditions.”
 
2. The following comment on Version 1 of the plans has not been addressed. Hogan replied, “No trees
to remain, no tree fencing required.” However, the four existing Lagerstroenia i. Muskogee
mentioned in the comment are to remain in compliance with the Planting Plan. Please show tree
protection measures in plan view and provide installation details, as requested in the original
comment.
 
“The Arborist Report prepared by Nathan Lewis (October 4, 2007) needs to be updated to reflect
current tree size and condition and to include all existing trees in the site boundary. Sheet L1
(Planting Plan) shows four existing Lagerstroenia i. Muskogee that were not surveyed for the 2007
report, and Sheet C3 (Existing Conditions & Demolition Plan) shows 20-inch oak to be removed.
Ensure consistency between plan sheets once the updated arborist report is complete. In addition,
include the certified arborist’s recommendations on the plans with reference to the updated report,
and show tree protection fencing and details for all trees to be retained on the plans.”
 
3. No response to the following comment on Version 1 of the plans has been provided. Once an
addendum to the 2012 soils report update is completed (see Comment #1), reference to the 2007
soils report and all subsequent updates and addendums needs to be added to the plans with a
statement that all construction must comply with the recommendations of the soils report (refer to
original comment). 

“Please provide a note on the plans that cites the soils report by author and preparation date,
provides soils engineer contact information, and states that all construction must comply with the
recommendations of the soils report.”
 
4. The following comment has not been addressed. Hogan’s response was “5% slopes have been
added to landscape areas and drain to area drains. See sheet C5.” This comment is not only
applicable to landscaped areas, and as stated in the original comment, “Any deviations from these
requirements require submission of a written analysis by the geotechnical engineer of record that
clearly supports the exception.” Therefore, any deviations from this CBC requirement must be
explicitly addressed in the addendum to the soils reports required by Comment #1. 
 
“As proposed, the Grading and Drainage Plan (Sheet C5) does not meet the requirements of
California Building Code (CBC), Section 1804.4 (Site Grading). Section 1804.4 of the CBC requires that
grades adjacent to buildings be sloped away at 5-percent for 10 feet. Where property lines or
physical obstructions prohibit 10 feet of horizontal distance, a 5-percent slope shall be provided to
an approved alternative method of diverting water away from the foundation. Swales used for this
purpose shall be sloped a minimum of 2 percent where located within 10 feet of the building
foundation. The 5-percent slope may be reduced to 2-percent for impervious surfaces or where
climatic or soil conditions warrant. Any deviations from these requirements require submission of a
written analysis by the geotechnical engineer of record that clearly supports the exception.
 
Please provide a drainage plan with sufficient detail regarding existing and proposed grades and
drainage patterns to illustrate compliance with CBC Section 1804.4.” 
 
5. Refer to the italicized notes under each of the Version 1 comments that have not been fully
addressed: 
 
“If Sheet C11 (Stormwater Pollution Control Plan) is intended to serve as the Erosion Control Plan,
please address the following:

o The silt fence is shown as being placed inside the limit of disturbance. The silt fence needs to
be placed outside the limit of disturbance to keep material onsite.
 
Portions of the silt fence are still shown as being inside the limit of disturbance line. Please
address. 
 
o Ensure proposed contours throughout the site are visible and elevations clearly labeled.
 
While the labels for the proposed contours are visible on the SWPCP, neither the existing or
proposed contours are visible in the parking and building pad areas Version 2 of the plan,
and additional spot elevations for the surrounding area need to be provided to determine
existing and proposed drainage patterns on site for each phase of construction. 
 
o One stockpile location is shown on the plans. Indicate stockpile areas for each phase of
construction.

o Please submit a signed and stamped Soils (Geotechnical) Engineer Plan Review Form to
Environmental Planning.  Please note that the plan review form must reference the final plan
set by last revision date. Any updates to report recommendations necessary to address

conflicts between the report and plans must be provided via a separate addendum to the
soils report. The author of the report shall sign and stamp the completed form. An
electronic copy of this form may be found on our website: www.sccoplanning.com, under
“Environmental”, “Geology & Soils”, “Assistance & Forms”, “Soils Engineer Plan Review
Form.”

 
o Please submit a letter from the certified arborist that references the final plan set by last
revision date. Any updates to report recommendations necessary to address conflicts
between the report and plans must be provided via a separate addendum to the arborist
report. The author of the report shall sign the letter.”
 
8. The following comment has not been addressed. Although this will not prevent approval, additional
clarification from Hogan may be required to adequately review the plans. 
 
“Many of the abbreviations used for the plans are not defined under “Standard Abbreviations” on
Sheet A-0.1. If the abbreviations are not defined on that sheet, they should be included in the
legend for the sheet on which they are used.”

Please note that an additional review fee charged at an hourly rate shall be applied to all re-submittals
starting with the next (third) routing.   

 
Please contact Shannon Hill if you have questions about these comments. Email preferred. If you would
like to meet in person, please contact me to set up an appointment.
 
Thank you,
 
Shannon Hill, Resource Planner
Email: Shannon.Hill@santacruzcounty.us
Phone: (831)-454-2530