HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2068 RESOLUTION NO. 2068
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SARATOGA UP[{OLDING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION AND APPROVING TENTATIVE BUILDING
SITE APPROVAL FOR SD-1509
WHEREAS, the applicant, Peach Hill Development, has requested
Tentative Building Site Approval for a 3-lot subdivision on Peach
Hill Road; and
WHEREAS, on December 19-, 1982, February 9, 1983, March 9,
1983, and March 23, 1983, the Planning Commission held a public
hearing on applicant's request for Tentative Building Site Approval
and after said public hearing approved said request; and
WHEREAS, appellants, Lester Sachs, Chaido Kim and William
Molineaux have appealed the Planning Commission' s decision to the
City Council; and
WHEREAS, on May 18, 1983, the City Council held a de novo
public hearing and after the closing of said public hearing
reviewed and considered the appellants' request, staff reports and
other evidence, both written and oral, presented to the Council
during said public hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga at
its May 18, 1983, meeting by a 3-2 vote, with Councilmembers
Clevenger and Mallory dissenting, did resolve as follows:
1. The appellants' appeal from the Planning Commission was
denied and the decision of the Planning Commission was upheld.
2. Tentative Building Site Approval for SD-1509 was approved,
per the findings and conditions of the amended Staff Report dated
March 4, 1983. A copy of said Staff Report is attached hereto.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at
a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held
on the 1st day of June 1983, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Clevenger, Fanelli, Foyles, Mayor Callon
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember M~]lory
ABSTAIN: None
|ayor
ATTEST~r~ ~. ~ dity Clerk
REPORT TO PLANNING
Revised 3/18/83
DATE: 3/4/83
DATE:_ . _?~_' ' Commission Meeting: 3/9/83
susJiCt: SD-150~, Ptach H~11Developmen~ - 15840 Peach H~11 Road
Regues~ for Tentative Subdivision Approval - 3 Lo~s
RE.~EST: Appl~can~ requests Tentative Subdivision Approval for 3 lo~s on a 7.2 acre
parcel between Peach H~11 Road and Su~s~ Dr~ve which regu~es an exception ~o a11o~
a cul-de-sac exceeding 400 f~. ~n teng~h.
OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Design Rev~e~ Approval
PLAfiNI~s DATA:
PARCEL SIZE: Lo~ #1-3.2+ Ac., Lo~ #2 - 1.4+ Ac., Lo~ #3 - 2.5+ Ac.
GENERAL PLAN DESIBNATIO~: ver~ Lo~ Dens~ Residential
ZONINs: R-1-40,000
SITE DATA:
SgRROUN~INs LAND USES: Low Dens~,Res~den~al
SITE SLOPE: 30.83%
AVERAGE SLOPES AT BUILDINs SITE:
Lo~ 1: 14.4%
Lo~ 2: ~% ~o 23%
Lo~ 3: 17% to 24%
NATURAL FEATURES AND vEGETATION: The s~e ranges fro~ gentle ~o s~eep h~11s~de ~opograph~.
Numerous s~g~f~c8n~ oaks, p~nes, cedars and acacia ~rees e×~s~ on ~he s~e along
dense brush. Drainage swales are located along the eastern and western edges of the
property.
PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS:
HISTORY: The residence on the property is located on the City boundary and its loca-
tion has been the subject of litigation for several years. One objective of this
proposal is to "clean up" this situation.
Report to Planning Commiss n 3/4/83
SD-I~09, Tom Lauer, Peach Hill Development - Peach Hill Rd. Page 2
GRADING REQUIRED: The proposal would place retaining walls up to 18' and ll' in height
along the minimum access road in order to save trees and minimize grading, and cross the
grade at Sunset Drive.
Locating the access road and residences on the site is difficult due to terrain and the
shape of the site.
RELATIONSHIP WITH ADJACENT STRUCTURES: The site is nearly surrounded by residential de-
velopments which have views onto the site across the swales.
CIRCULATION: Proposed access for the three (3) lots will be off of a minimum access road
from Sunset Drive,~with the development of an additional County lot (517-23-20), this would
create 4 lots on the minimum access road. The applicant has insured his title to Sunset Dr.
An emergency access connection between Sunset and Peach HIll is proposed with this map. ~
The cul-de~sac from Hume Drive is approximately 1500' and the distance form the proposed'
emergency access road to the cul-de-sac bulb is 520' (480' from the turnaround).
The improvement conditions recommended by the County are to be shown on the tentative
map.
GEOLOGY: A letter approving this tentative map by the applicant's geologist, has been
reviewed by the City Geologist and he has recommended the ~ap for your consideration.
ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS: The applicant has submitted slope density calculations
as follows:
C.~ty Parcel - R-1-40,O00
Site Size: 7.21 Acres
Slope: 30.83%
I
1.089 - .01778S
= 1.489 acres/dwelling unit ~
= 3.899 rounding up to 4 units
By current slope density formulas, the subject site is allowed to be subdivided into a
maximum of 4 lots.
COMMENT: If the Commission wishes to deny the map, it needs to make one or more of the
following findings:
(a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific
plans as specified in Section 65451.
(b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent
with applicable general and specific plans.
o 'ssion 3/4/83
~ Repo?t to Planning C
' SD-1509, Peach Hill Development - Peach Hill Rd. Page 3
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
(d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of
development.
(e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely
to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
(f) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvement is likely to cause
serious public health problems.
(g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of,
property within the proposed subdivision.
DRAFT PROJECT STATUS:
The Staff Report recommends approval, per the following findings and"cOnditions:
Said project complies with all objectives of the 1974 General Plan, and all requirements
of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. There are special cir-
cumstances (the physical terrain and shape of the parcel) affecting the property which
allow the Planning Commission to grant exception to Section 13.3-4 of the Subdivision
Ordinance. Granting this exception will not be materially detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which said
subdivision is located. The map, as provided, is the only feasible method of developing
the property for the use for which it is zoned.
A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the County of Santa Clara
Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of this project, if approved
under this application. Said determination date: March 3, 1982
Any approval of the tentative map for SD-1509 (Exhibit "B-7" filed March 18, 1983) should
be subject to the following conditions:
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
A. Comply with Standard Engineering Conditions dated April ll, 1977.
B. Comply with the Conditions of the Transportation Agency letter dated 2/22/83
and obtain necessary County permits (after review and approval by the City)
prior to Final Approval for work done within County jurisdiction, i.e.,
grading, encroachment, improvement plans).
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval.
B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation (pay required
checking and recordation fees).
C. Dedicate 20 ft. Half-Street on Peach Hill Road and Sunset Avenue.
~ Repo~rt to Planning Commission 3/4/83
"SD-1509, Peach Hill Development - Peach Hill Rd. Page 4
D. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easement as required.
E. Improve Peach Hill Road to City Standards including the following:
(Deferred Improvement Agreement)
1. Designed Structural Section 13 ft. between centerline and flowline.
2. P.C. Concrete Curb and Gutter (R-36)
3. Undergrounding existing overhead utilities.
F. Construct storm drainage system as shown on the "Master Drainage Plan" and
as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey storm runoff to
street, storm sewer or watercourse, including the following:
1. Storm Sewer Trunks with necessary manholes.
2. Storm Sewer Laterals with necessary manholes.
3. Storm Drain Inlets, Outlets, Channels, etc.
G. Construct Access Road 18 ft. wide plus 1 ft. shoulders using 2½ inches asphalt
concrete on 6 inch aggregate base from public street to within 100 ft. of
proposed dwelling. Slope of access road shall not exceed 15% without adhering
to the following:
1. Access roads having slopes between 15% and 17½% shall be surfaced using
4 inches of P.C.C. Concrete rough surfaced using 4 inch Aggregate Base.
Slopes in excess 15% shall not exceed 50 ft. in length.
2.Access roads having slope in excess of 17~ are not permitted.
Note: °The minimum inside curve radius shall be 42 ft.
°Bridges and other roadway structures shall be designed to
sustain 35,000 lbs. dynamic loading.
°Storm runoff shall be controlled through the use of culverts
and roadside ditches.
H. Construct turnaround having 32 ft. radius or approved equal within 100 ft.
of proposed dwelling.
I. Construct Standard Driveway Approach.
J. Construct "Valley Gutter" across driveway or pipe culvert under driveway
as approved by the Director of Community Development.
K. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required
at driveway and access road intersections.
L. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or
prevent flow,
M. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills.
Report to Planning Commission 3/4/83
SD-15[}9, Peach Hill Development - Peach Hill Rd. Page 5
N. Obtain Encroachment Permit from the Dept. of Community Development for
driveway approaches or pipe crossings of City Street.
O. Engineered Improvement Plans required for:
1. Street Improvements
2. Storm Drain Construction
3. Access Road Construction
P. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans.
Q. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed
within one (l) year of receiving Final Approval.
R. Enter into "Deferred Improvement Agreement" for the required improvements
marked "D.I.A."
S. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements.
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DIVISION OF INSPECTIDN SERVICES
1. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional
a) Geology
b) Soils
c) Foundation
2. Plans to be reviewed by geotechnical consultant prior to building permit
being issued.
3. Detailed on-site"~mprovement plans showing:
a) Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross-sections, existing and
proposed elevations, earthwork quantities).
b) Drainage details (conduit,,type, slope, outfall, location, etc.)
c) Retaining structures including design by A.I.A, or R.C.E. for walls 3 feet
or higher.
d) All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be removed.
e) Erosion control measures
f) Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record
data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's name, etc.
4. Grading shall conform to the Grading Ordinance and Section 3B.8(d)
cut and fill slopes of the Zoning Regulations.
5. Maximum height of retaining walls shall be 5 feet except where specifically
approved by the Planning Commission.
, Repo, rt to Planning Commission 3/4/83
I SD-1509 ~ Peach Hill Development, Peach Hill Rd. Page 6
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4
A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with requirements
of Sanitation District No. 4 as outlined in letter dated November 18, 1982.
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT
A. Property is located in a potentially hazardous fire area. Prior to issuance
of building permit, remove combustive vegetation as specified. Fire retardant
roof covering and chimney spark arrestor details shall be shown on the building
plan. (City Ordinance 38.58 and Uniform Fire Code, Appendix E).
B. Construct driveway 14 ft. minimum width, plus one foot shoulders using double
seal coat oil and screening or better on 6 inch aggregate base from public
street or access road to proposed dwelling. Slope driveway shall not exceed
12½% without adhering to the following:
1. Driveways having slopes between 12½% to 15% shall be surfaced using
2½ inches of A.C. on 6 inch aggregate base.
2. Driveways having slopes between 15% to 17½% shall be surfaced using
4 inches of P.C.C. concrete rough surfaced on 4 inch aggregate base
and shall not exceed 50 ft. in length.
3. Driveways with greater slopes or longer length will not be accepted.
C. Construct a turnaround at the proposed dwelling sites having a 32 ft. inside
radius. Other approved type turnaround must meet requirements of the Fire
Chief. Details shall be shown on building plans.
D. Provide a parking area for two (2) emergency vehicles at proposed building
site, or as required by the Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on building
plans.
E. Extension of existing water system adjacent to site is required for fire pro-
tection. Plans to show location of water mains and fire hydrants.
F. Fire hydrants in all hazardous fire areas as designed pursuant to Section
6-2.42 of the Saratoga City Code shall be located so that no part of any
residential structure shall be further than five hundred feet (500') from
at least one (1) hydrant and the fire protection system shall be so designed
and charged with water under pressure so that each hydrant for residential
fire protection shall deliver no less than 1,000 gpm of water. Water storage
or other availability shall be such that for any one hydrant of the system,
the 1,O00 gpm minimum shall be maintained for a sustained period of two hours
(Ordinance No. 60.4).
G. Provide 15 foot clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to building
site. Remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles.
H. Developer to install two (2) hydrants that meet Saratoga and Fire District's
specifications. Hydrant to be installed prior to issuance of building permits
Report to Planning Commiss3on 3/4/83
SD-1509 - Peach Hill Development, Peach Hill Road Page 7
I. Construct passing turnouts lO feet wide and 40 feet long as required
by Fire Department. Details shall be shown on building plans.
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed connected by
the developer to one of the existing trunk sewers of the Sanitation District
No. 4. Prior to final approval, an adequate bond shall be posted with said
district to assure completion of sewers as planned.
B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works.
C. Existing spring to be abandoned and existing septic tank to be pumped and
backfilled to County Standards. A $400 bond to be posted to insure com-
pletion of work.
V~I. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the
location and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review
and certification.
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION
A. House locations and driveway designs to be reviewed and approved by Saratoga
Fire District.
B. Public Hearing Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance
of permits.
C. Any m~difications to the Site Development Plan shall be subject to
Planning Commission approval.
D. Prior to issuance of building permits, individual structures shall be re-
viewed by the Planning Department to evaluate the potential for solar accessi-
bility. The developer shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future
passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities on/in the subdivision/
building site.
E. Design Review Approval for any retaining walls over 3' in height prior to
Final Approval.
*F. Residence on Lot No. 1 shall be removed prior to Final Map Approval. If,
however, adjacent lot is annexed to the City and lot line adjustment is
approved, the existing residence shall be allowed to remain.
*G. Applicant shall submit a revised tentative map for Staff review and approval
(prior to Final Map Approval or any extensions), showing a scenic easement on
Lots 1 and 2 on all that property east of the road, and on Lot 3 from approxi-
mately the center of the creek up to the easterly and northerly portions of the
property.
KK/dsc
Attachments
Ms. Kathy Kerdus
February22, 1983
Page 3
Note: Per letter of February 15, 1983 the Engineer has submitted
additional information regarding the Retaining walls for the subject
development. We have not yet finished the review of the Engineers'
subnittal. We will send a copy of our response to the Engineer 's
sut~ttal to the City of Saratoga.
If you have any questions, please call me at 299-2~62.
Very truly yours,
Transportation Engineer
AV:kk
cc: Mr. Jack N. Christenson. Project Engineer
Jim Sirr, LDE & S, EMA
JHW/JRR
~GH
Transportation Agency
1555 Berger Drive
County of Santa Clara s.. Jose, California 95112
California ~ebru~z~ 22, 1983 ~
RECE.~VE.D
Planner PERM~I REVIEW
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Subject: Peach Hill Development
Peach Hill Road
City file No: SD-1509
Dear Ms. Kerdus:
Your Janaury 28, 1983 letter along with the Tentative Map entitled Peach
Hill Development and addressed to Mr. Jim Sirr, Land Development Engineering
and Surveying was received by us on February 8, 1983. We have reviewed the
referral and our o0~ments and reconTnendations are as follows:
Please r~te that our conments and recomendations related to that portion
of the proposed subdivision within the County' s jurisdiction.
1. Dedication and Improvements:
A. Dedicate 30 ft. half street for the site's frontage along Peach Hill
Road. All rights-of-way to be curvilinear.
B. Sukmit street and drainage inl0rovement plans and construct 30 ft. half
street for the site's frontage along Peach Hill Road per Detail A/8
(collector streets) of the 1982 Standard Details Manual.
C. Install driveway approach per 1982 Detail B/5 at the site's access on
Peach Hill Road if access road is to be a private roadway.
If the extention of Sunset DriVe is planned to be a public roadway the
following dedication and improvement are required:
A. 42 feet radius turn around and a '60 feet right-of-way for Sunset Drive
extension. All rights-of-way to be curvilinear.
B. Submit street and drainage improvement plans and construct street and
drainage in~rovements for Sunset Drive extension and turnaround at the
terminus per Detail A/6 (for the turnaround) and Detail A/8 (for
the extension) of the 1982 Standard Details Manual.
C. Obtain enc~-oachment permit and install driveway approach per Detail
B/2 (without sidewalk) for access to each parcel to be served by new
improvements.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
William Colon GEOTECHNICAL C~dLTANTS
and Associates 314 Tait Avenue, Los Gatos, California 95030
{408) 354-5542
March 18, 1983
Kathy Kerdus, Associate Planner
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue ~JF.~V~
Saratoga, CA 95070
SUBJECT: Lauer, SD 1509 P} I Mff REV1EW
Dear Kathy:
At your request, we have completed a geologic review of the subject
application using the following documents:
- Tentative Map (40-scale) prepared by C.B. Engineering, Inc., dated
May 1982 and revised as recently as March 3, 1983, and
- Revised Grading Plan Review (letter) prepared by P.S.C. Associates,
Inc. dated March 3, 1983.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Tentative Map has been recently revised to show the ~sro~osed three
parcel subdivision. While the configuration, and number of lots has been
revised, the proposed grading and building sites have not changed significantly.
Our review of the referenced map indicates that the concerns raised in our
most recent review (February 18, 1983) have been addressed satisfactorily.
In addition, the applicant's geotechnical consultants have reviewed the
referenced map and determined that it is in general conformance with their
recommendations. Considering the above, we recommend approval of the
Tentative Map with the following conditions:
1. Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical consultants
shall review and approve t~e geotechnical aspects of the development
plans (i.e. grading, drainage, foundation, retaining wall, etc.).
A 'letter describing the results of these reviews should be submitted
to the City to be reviewed by the City Engineer and Geologist prior
to Final Map approval.
2. Geotechnical Field Inspection -- The applicant's geotechnical consul-
tants Shall pi~T~oe testing an~ inspection services for all future
earthwork opera?icns. These services shall include, but not necess-
arily be lim';t~d 'to testing, inspection and approval of all site
preparatio~ L ..... I grading, site drainage, excavations for residential
foundatiGn;.'~ .-~taining wal~s prior to the placement of concrete
or steel, and utility trench backfilling.
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY , ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES * FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
Lauer, SD 1509
Page 2
Prior to final approval of the project, the applicant's geotechnical
consultants shall submit a report and map describing the results of their
inspections and the as-built conditions of the project.
Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
William R. Cotton
City Geologist
CEG 882
William Cotton and Associates
William Cot(on GEOTECHNICAL CIE,,,dLTANTS
aFld ASSoCiateS 314Tait Avenue, Los Gatos, California 95030
(408) 354-5542
February 18, 1983 RECEIVED
FEB 2 2 i~S,:~
Kathy Kerdus, Associate Planner
City of Saratoga PERMIT REVIEW
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CalifDrnia 95070
SUBJECT: LAUER, SD 1509
At your request we have completed a geologic review of the subject applica-
tion using the following documents:
· Tentative Map (qO-scale) prepared by C. B. Engineering, Inc.
dated May 1982 and revised as recently as January 14, 1983;
· Private Road Cross-Sections (5-scale} prepared by C. 8. Engi-
neering, Inc. dated January 31, 1983; and
· Revised Grading Plan Review (letter) prepared by PSC Associates,
Inc. dated February 8, 1983.
DISCUSSION
Our review of the referenced Tentative Map indicates that significant revisions
have been incorporated into the overall design and layout of the subdivision.
While the number of proposed lots {six} has not changed, the configuration
and location of the proposed lots, building sites, driveways and the private
road have been modified. The presently proposed plan indicates that grading
and the use of retaining walls will be less extensive than proposed on previous
plans.
Our review of the referenced revised grading plan review by PSC Associates, Inc.
indicates that the project geotechnical consultants have reviewed the currently
proposed Tentative Map. The consultants have concluded that the proposed grading
in general, conforms to the recommendations presented in their Soil and Geologic
Investigation, provided the recommendations outlined in their letter of Feb-
ruary 8, 1983 are incorporated into the plans. To facilitate this task, the
geotechnical consultants have summarized these recommendations on a lot to lot
basis (Table 1, Revised Grading Plan Review).
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Tentative Map reviewed by our office is in general conformance with the
geotechnical recommendations presented by the applicant's consultants in their
Soil and Geologic Investigation dated January 26, 1982. The recommendations
in the referenced Revised Grading Plan Review, however, have not been incor-
porated into the Tentative Map. In addition, we have noted the following items
which should be addressed prior to Tentative Map approval.
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY · ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES · FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
(
City of Saratoga
February 18, 1983
Page 2
Lot I - Suitable erosion protection (eg. rip rap) has not been
shown for the outlet and inlet and outlet of two storm
drains located along the access road extending from
Sunset Avenue northeast of the proposed building site.
Lot 4 - Erosion protection is not shown for the storm drain out-
let in the steep-sided drainage swale south of the pro-
posed building site. In addition, the proposed fill in
this swale southwest of the proposed building site does
not have a subdrain.
Lot 6 - Suitable erosion protection is not shown for the proposed storm drain outlet north of the proposed building site.
In addition, it should be noted that erosion protection measures are not shown
for the portion of the extension of Sunset Avenue which crosses the major
drainage swale east of the subject property.
While the items outlined above, and the recommendations in the letter by PSC
Associates, Inc. dated February 8, 1983 are, in general, fairly minor issues,
it is our judgement, that they should be incorporated into the plans and/or
addressed prior to City approval of the Tentative Map. Consequently, the
applicant's geotechnical consultant should address the issues raised herein,
and the resulting recommendations, along with those in the PSC Associates
letter of February 8, 1983 should be incorporated into the Tentative Map.
The revised Tentative Map should be reviewed and approved by the applicant's
geotechnical consultants.
Prior to Tentative Map approval, the revised map and a letter from the appli-
cant's geotechnicalconsultants, stating that the map reflects all of their
recommendations, should be submitted to the City for review and approval by
the City Engineer and Geologist.
Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
William R. Cotton
City Geologist
CEG 882
WRC:jw
William Cotton and Associates
William CotCon GEOTECHNICAL Ci '..,dLTANTS
llIld ASSOCil],teS 314Tait Avenue, Los Gatos, California 95030
(408) 354-5542
December 7, 1982
TO: Kathy Kerdus, Associate Planner "'
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
SUBJECT: Peach Hill Development, SD 1509
At your request we have completed a geologic review of the subject
application using the following documents:
· Tentative Map, Peach Hill Development (40-scale) prepared by
C. B. Engineering, Inc. dated May 1982 and revised as recently as
October 12, 1982
· Grading Plan Review (letter) prepared by PSC Associates, Inc.,
dated November 30, 1982.
In addition, we have reviewed a number of technical maps and reports
which were previously submitted for this application.
DISCUSSION
Our review of the referenced Tentative Map indicates that significant
revisions have been incorporated into the overall design of the sub-
division. The currently proposed plan makes extensive use of retaining
walls up to nine (9) feet in height, for support of the access roadway
and driveways. Previously submitted plans included extensive grading, and
utilization of the retaining walls presently proposed wilt significantly
reduce the height of cut slopes and areal extent of grading. The present
plan utilizes minimal fills for the access road and driveways. Most of
the proposed fills are where roadways cross natural swales. In addition,
a few sliver fills (supported by retaining walls) are proposed for portions
of the access road and driveways.
While the number of proposed lots (six) has not changed, the configuration
of the lots and the locations and proposed grading for individual building
sites have been modified somewhat from previous plans. The present
configuration of the lots is generally the same as on previous plans;
however, the lot line between Lot I and Lot 2 has been moved so that the
building site for Lot I is on the ridge south of Lot 2 rather than in the
swales. This adjustment has required that the building site for Lot 2
be moved downslope to the northeast. All of the presently proposed building
sites are located on proposed cut slopes and some extend onto the adjacent
natural slopes. Most of the building sites, with the exception of Lot 1,
are within a few tens of feet of previously proposed building locations.
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY · ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES · FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
Peach Hill Develop .,t, SD 1509
' ~ Page 2
The building site for Lot I was previously located in a swale area which
was to be filled in order to create a relatively level pad. As previously
pointed out, however, the building site has been relocated and the fill has
been limited to that which is necessary for the access driveway.
Our review of the Plan Review (letter) by PSC Associates indicates that
they have reviewed the referenced Tentative Map and find it to be in
general agreement with their recommendations provided the comments contained
in the letter are incorporated into the development plans. The consultants
indicate that their review was primarily a review of the proposed grading,
and they have made additional recommendations for control of drainage in
the areas to be graded. The consultants indicate that previously submitted
preliminary design parameters for residential foundations should be appro-
priate for the proposed building sites; however, they indicate that these
recommendations are subject to review and modification during grading. In
addition, the consultants indicate that the extensive use of retaining
walls may require additional'investigations in order to formulate detailed.
design parameters.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENOED ACTION
In our opinion, the referenced Tentative Map is in general conformance with
the geotechnical recommendations supplied by PSC Associates. Additionally,
the map has been reviewed by PSC Associates, and they have concluded that
it is in general agreement with their recommendations provided the items
outlined in their review letter are incorporated into the development plans.
The extensive use of retaining walls in the project will require additional
geotechnical investigations to formulate detailed design parameters, and
these investigations will be required prior to approval of the Final Map.
In addition, all future earthwork operations will need to be closely
monitored by both the geotechnical consultants and the City. Consequently~
we recommend approval of the Tentative Map with the following conditions:
t. Supplementhi Geotechnical Investigations - The applicant's
geotechnical consultants should conduct additional geotechnical
investigations (field and laboratory) to provide the necessary
data to assure a soundly designed project. These investigations
should address, but not necessarily be restricted to providing
detailed design parameters for retaining walls and the supporting
data. The results of the supplemental studies should be submitted
to the City to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and
Geologist prior to Final Map approval.
2. Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical consultants
sha'll review and approve the geotechnical aspects of the development
plans (i.e. grading, drainage, foundation, retaining walls, etc.).
A letter, describing the results of these reviews should be sub-
mitted to the City, and reviewed by the City Engineer and Geologist
prior to Final Map approval.
William Cotton and Associates
Peach Hill Develop,{.~,lt, SD 1509
Page 3
3. Geotechnical Field Inspections - The applicant's geotechnical
consultants shall inspect and approve all future earthwork
operations. The inspections shall include but not necessarily
be limited to; site preparation and grading, site drainage,
excavations for retaining walls and residential foundations prior
to placement of steel. and concrete and utility trench backfilling.
Prior to final approval of the project, the applicant's geotechnical
consultants shall submit a report and map describing the results of the
inspection and the as-built conditions of the project.
Respectfully submitted,
William R. Cotton
City Geologist
CEG 882
William Cotton and Associates