PC 03-27-97CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 77%3308
AMENDED SUMMARY OF ~ STAFF WORKSHOP
HELD ON MARCH 24, 1997 AT 6:45 P.M.
IN CONFERENCE ROOMS C AND D.
Commissioners present:
Commissioners absent:
Austin, Maboney, Roberts, Chah'person Harris
Doyle
Staff present:
Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell,
City Planner; Bert Viskovich, Director of Public Works; Carmen
Lynaugh, Public Works; Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney.
Mr. Cowan discussed the topics to be covered in future staff workshops with the Planning
Commission for the purposes of educating both staff and the Planning Commission members on
significant issues when reaching a decision. He said the goal was to provide an updated sheet for
applicants which identified the issues of concern to the Planning Commission, so that the
applicants would be well prepared to address the issues of concern in their application.
Mr. Cowan explained that the first topic of the workshops was Geoteehnical Review. He
introduced Mr. Bill Cotton, William Cotton and Associates, who is the consulting geologist for the
City of Cupertino, as well as several other cities in the Bay Area.
Mr. Cotton presented a historical background of his finn, William Cotton and Associates. He said
that his firm was heavily involved in the geoteehnical review process for 12 communities since the
early 1970s. He explained that the term geotechaical review encompassed the former term soils
engineer which is now referred to as geoteehaical engineer, and the civil engineer who has training
in soil behavior and engineering geologists. He said that his company provided the geotechaical
eyes and ears for the Planning Commissioners and for the City Council as a staff recommendation,
primarily because communities do not have geologists or geoteehnical engineers on hand. His finn
prepares a report about a land use application which describes what they envision as to the safety
of the development or how the geologic processes or soils conditions will impact the proposed
development.
Mr. Cotton distributed informational material which outlined the investigative tasks performed as
part of the geoteelmical review process and reviewed the flow chart of the geoteehnical review
procedure followed.
Referring to thc geologic map, Mr. Cotton pointed out thc Monta Vista fault system, noting that
when individuals propose development in that area, they are warned about the fault system and
informed of the existing reports on thc area and discuss recommendations and concerns. He also
distributed material describing the in-house procedures followed by his finn. He noted that there
were relatively few problems in Cupertino.
Staff Workshop Summary 2 March 24, 1997
In response to a questions from Chair Harris, Mr. Cotton reviewed the significance of the colors
and coding on the map. Relative to the work performed for the City of Cupertino, he said that the
geologic review of the site was primarily to review the types of materials used in the site and any of
the geologic processes, such as compacting soil, landslides, contracting soil or improper drainage.
He explained that the geotechnical aspect of the review entailed the discussion about the sarapling
of soil and laboratory testing of the soils, using the test results to refer to the design parameters for
the architect and/or the architect's structural engineer to design the wall.
Mr. Cotton explained that his firm conducted the geologic work and the city did the engineering
work. He said the geologic aspect review of the site was to primarily look at the kinds of raaterials
that are at a site and any of the geological processes such as expansive soil, compacting soil or
sliding soil, improper drainage, and the distance of regraded conditions of the hills.
He said the separation between a geologic review and the geotechical aspect of the review is the
discussion about the sampling of soils and labratory testing of the soils. The test results are used as
design parameters that the engineer gives to the architect and/or the architect's structural engineer
to accommodate those engineering parameters.
Mr. Viskovich said that when the developer hires a consultant, that person is responsible for
developing the parameters and the city engineering department reviews the parameters to ensure
they are within the guidelines. Mr. Cotton has the responsibility of the geotechnical aspect and
makes findings which are provided through the architect, engineer or whoever designs the walls and
foundations. The numbers and parameters are used to design the structure; the city engineers
review that number; the developer generates the soils study.
Mr. Cotton noted that in the llother communities his company serves, his partner is usually
involved with the genteehnical engineering aspects. Mr. Cotton clarified that his firm does not do
private work in the communities that they are consultant for, and pointed out that they do not do
private consultant work in Cupertino. He said his company reviews the material and recommends
mitigations or deficiencies in the study, ffthere is disagreement with the findings, they recommend
to the city that a consultant redo the work, and it is up to the applicant to get their consultant to do
it.
Chair Ha~s said it was her understanding that relative to the geologic item, Mr. Cotton performed
the analysis and prepared a report that would bo the basis of the work that had to be completed by
the applicant. She said there was a difference between geological engineering which they do, and
geotechnical or soils which they do for the other cities.
Mr. Cotton clarified the role of his firm in the application process, explaining that his office would
review the applicant's proposal, ascertain the site conditions, nddress concerns about the conditions
and determine who the applicant should hire, whether a geotechnical engineer, an engineering
geologist, or both. William Cotton and Associates would then monitor the applicant's progress to
ascertain that all recommendations were carried out; and if they were not, he would refer it back to
the applicant for further work.
Mr. Viskovich clarified Mr. Cotton's role as similar to being a staff member with expertise in
geology, reviewing the work of another consultant who performs the work, and provides guidance
to the consultant. He said that the City has the expertise to do the soils portion of the application,
which is basic lab testing, and Mr. Cotton's firm provides the expertise on the geology aspect,
Sta~ Wod~shop Summa~ 3 March 24, 1997
because thc city does not have the expertise in that area. Mr. Cotton acts as thc staff reviewer,
approver of thc geology. Hc pointed out that it was a two step process, the geology, earthquake,
slides, and then the soils report says build a foundntion and a retaining wall within these
parameters. Staff reviews those. In response to a question from Chair Harris why Mr. Cotton's
firm does both processes for the other 11 communities, and only one for Cupertino, Mr. Viskovich
said that city staff felt they had thc expertise to perform thc geologic aspect of the work.
Chair Hams said she felt there was a certain serf-interest on the part of the applicant to come up
with a report that would cost them the least to complete their project. Mr. Viskovich commented
that there was also great liability for them to submit somethln~ that is not adequate.
Chair Hams questioned how the process could be accomplished through a standard where the city
is protected as well as the people who build the properties, even if the developer has to be protected
as well. In response to Com. Roberts' question about the standard performance in the evaluations,
Mr. Cotton said that the performance should be fairly high in most cases if the review process has
been followed. He said that CupeRino was not plagued with a great many problems.
Com. Roberts said that it was an underlying eoncem when hillside development is considered in a
general manner, there is assurance that virtually any site can be built upon, given the proper
controlling measures, but the corrective measures may be so extreme or drastic as to interfere with
the natural hillside, the landform, the drainage; and in the other extreme, where reasonable
procedures are required, the implementation goes awry. He said much depends on that and in such
cases, it is learned that the city doesn't have the resources to inspect every step of each project.
Mr. Cotton said that every community has differents levels of risk they take, and discussed Portola
Valley as an example, stating they would not allow a landslide to be corrected and that they had a
variety of reasons for their level of risk. Relative to Cupertino, Mr. Cotton pointed out that thc
loss of the lot in the Candyrnek development did not necessarily mean the landslide existed before.
He said that when a hillside is divided, there is a chance for failure because in thc subdivision
analysis, there will be a number of holes drilled scattered about thc subdivision. He said it was his
firm's job to look for those signs.
A discussion ensued relative to the improper grading on the Miller property. Mr. Cotton said that
sometimes the consultant is not called; the soil engineer is supposed to periodically inspect the
works; the soils engineer and the technician are the only ones that can propertly do the job. He said
the two members on hillside development are the grading operator and the contractor who hired the
grading operator who developed the driveway and the pad. He said the city requires such
coordination and specifies how it should be done.
Mr. Cotton explained the requirements for building a site on the side of the hill and said that his
office requires the documentation that all the proper standard of care and operation was taken care
of. He said that the grndlng technician or soils engineer hind by the applicant and the contractor
are the responsible parties. At the end of the grading operation, an as-built report is completed,
indicating they were on site and built the grading operation as specified in the plans and the soil
was compacted as required. Mr. Viskovich confirmed that the city maintains a file which is
reviewed by the city engineer, and indicates tests have been performed before the project is closed.
Com. Roberts nsked what action was taken by the city in the event the soils engineer didn't have
the oppommfiy to check because no one called, and what is done if the documentation is not there.
Staff Workshop Summary 4 March 24, 1997
Mr. Viskovich said that in the hillside issue, the city was not the lead in that particular case and the
contractor and soils engineer were finger pointing. He said the city conducts the inspection and
ensures that the contractors and soils person fulfilled their responsibilities.
Mr. Viskovich discussed the role of the city, pointing out that repeated calls to the responsible
parties are made, repeated warnings are given, but ultimately, if the people don't show up, it is
difficult to sue them. Discussion of bonding as a preventative measure was discussed. He said
that the city tries hard to push the developer to complete the project. He said that relative to the
project previously discussed, the project was started in early summer and even with daily pushing,
it still took to October, because the contractor either didn't have the fight piece of equipment at the
time or other conditions prevailed. He said the city is hampered from telling individuals what to
do; all they can require is performance. Mr. Viskovich said that placing performance penalities on
contractors involves the city getting into the position of taking on liability which can be done on
city projects, but he said he was not certain if it could be done on developers.
Chair Harris said that although the city doesn't want to be put in the position of taking over bonds
and assuming all the liability, it was imperative to have strength in the agreement so that the
conUactors would comply without the need for staff calling them each day and reminding them of
the deadline and their responsibility, which is not practical. She recommended a daily performance
penalty be assessed when de,adlines were not met.
Com. Austin recommended that staff return with a set of parameters and performance penalties to
be considered relative to completion of projects.
Mr. Cowan reported that he and Mr. Viskovich would discuss the gcotechnicai evaluation aspect of
the process with Mr. Cotton, as well ns official control, and report back with staff
recommendations.
Following the staffworkshop, the Planning Commission met for its regular meeting at 8:00 p.m. in
the City Council Chambers.
Elizabeth Ellis ~vt/~ ~
Approved as Amended: April 28, 1997