The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-03-2013 ac peck ph1Rfi:eË ]\tF:t) Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subiect: Lease, Joseph Monday, December 02,2013 4:39 PM Goodwin, Heather FW: Grading Regulations (. i r\ r!r'-t ¡.*T".1 L.l {-, [^.!-,. ;'\ ¡ \ Hello Heather, Council Corrrespondence for t2/3113 meeting regarding the 2013 Code Adoption Ordin Thanks, - AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date. \z-l l/r< n.r* h{ \ ance. Joseph Lease, CBO Chief Building Official Comm unity Development Depa rtment 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (8os) 78L-71s9 -----Original Message----- From : Steve Peck Imailto:steve @manga noltd.com] Sent: Monday, November 1.8, 2013 11:1-1AM To: Lease, Joseph Cc: Hannula, Hal Subject: RE: Grading Regulations This is the memo that I sent to Doug. My interest here is to determine how the special grading provisions of Ordinance L555 apply to a certain property and to understand some of the ambiguities of the ordinance. Here is the memo: Thanks for agreeing to the meeting on Monday. Our understanding is that this specific code section was added by the city to the model state codes in 2010 and 201L. I assume that staff has some understanding of its intended application, or at least the desired outcomes. Thecodeseemstomakeseveralpoints:1)thatmassgradingisnotpermitted;and,2)thatacertainpartofthe"site" mustremaininitsnaturalstatebasedontheseverityofthecrossslope. Althoughtheterm"site"iskeyhere,itisnota defined term, but its usage in the code section appears to apply to the entire parcel, not individual lots, lf "site" and "lot" are the same thing, then the code would have us calculate the cross slope of each individual residential lot. Table J101.6 creates additional questions. One interpretation is that any subareas with a cross slope of less than 6% do not have a natural state set-aside requirement, Or, does it if the entire site has a weighted average cross slope of more than 6%? None of this is clear. Perhaps there is a staff report that was presented to Council when these special city amendments were made which might explain the legislative intent of this City addition to the building code. As it is now, an extreme interpretation, and perhaps the correct one is that mass grading is not allowed at alland that a certain percentage of each lot must remaininanaturalstateandnotbedisturbedatall. Bothofthesemakeprojectsinfeasible,inmyopinion. ln addition to these items, my review of the initial code sections of that chapter seems that the expanded, special provisions are limited to "waterways", rather than all grading. lf the intent was for it to be applied to all grading it would have worded and punctuated differently. I did review the staff report for this item for the t0/I912010 City Council meeting. There is no analysis is this very important issue, only vague "findings" in the ordinance to justify addition of the special requirements. There is also a reference in J101..1that the findings and recommendations of a geotech report will prevail and govern. -----Original Message----- From : Lease, Joseph Imailto:jlease@slocity.org] Sent: Monday, November L8, 2013 8:29 AM To: Steve Peck Cc:Johnson, Derek; Davidson, Doug; Hannula, Hal Subject: RE: Grading Regulations Hello Steve, Canyousendmeacopyoftheearliermemo,whichyoureferencebelow. lnpreparingthecodeadoptionordinance which is scheduled for the December 3rd council meeting, I had asked Hal Hannula to review Appendix J, since his group is responsible to grading plan review. He advised me that no changes were needed, and thus none are currently proposed. Below is Section J101.6 as previously amended "J101.6 Special grading standards, The topography of a site proposed for development shall remain substantially in its natural state. Mass recontouring shall not be allowed. ln all cases, the average cross slope of a site shall be determined prior to any grading operations or approval of any grading plan. Where a site does not slope uniformly, the building official or city engineer shall determine average cross slope by proportional weighting of the cross slopes of uniformly sloping subareas. The percentage of the site, exclusive of building area, to remain in its natural state (no grading of any kind allowed) shall be in accordance with Table J101.6. All graded planes shall be rounded on all edges to blend with natural slopes. The rounded edges shall have a radius equal to one-half the height of the cut or fill slope." Can you explain your concerns regarding this section and/or provide some suggested changes so that I can discuss them with Hal, Derek and Planning as needed. Thank You, Joseph Lease, CBO Chief Building Official Community Development Department 9L9 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (80s) 781-71ss -----Origina I Message----- From : Steve Peck Imailto:steve@ma nga noltd.com] Sent: Saturday, November L6,2OI3 7:53 AM To: Davidson, Doug; Lease, Joseph; Johnson, Derek 2 Subject: Grading Regulations See my earlier memo on this issue. lt appears that the new (2013) model building code out and the city will soon (probably prior to L/t/201.4 as prescribed by state law) be asking the City Council to adopt those model codes and affirm SLO's special amendments thereto. Given some of the difficulties and ambiguities in Section J101.6 that was added to the code by the City, this may be an opportunity to substantially modify it, or repeal it if it provides no real additional life and property safety protections. The justification in the ordinance appears to be exclusive based on SLO's expansive soils and other soil stability issues, all of which are adequately addressed by other city regulations and engineering requirements. As we work through these issues we should probably affirm what the special code section means and how it is to be applied and consider amendments or overall repeal. Stephen J. Peck, AICP (ssgì.731.-s778 3