The URL can be used to link to this page

10. Appeal 21925 Lindy Lane - City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 G ~~PE~~~~ Community Development Department SUMMARY Agenda Item No. ~ ~ Agenda Date: October 7, 2008 Application: Appeal of Plaruling Commission approval of DIR-2008-19 Applicant: John Dozier . Property Owner: john and Karen Knopp Location: 21925 Lindy Lane _ Appellant: Councilrnernber Gilbert Wong APPLICATION SUMMARY Consider an appeal of the Planning Commission approval (Exhibit A-1) of a one-year extension to July 26, 2009 of the tentative parcel map (file no. TM-2005-03) for ari approved two Iot subdivision of a 1.0 acre site into Iots of about 20,000 square feet each in an R1-20 zone. RECOMMENDATION The Council has the options to eithex: a) Deny the appeal (i.e. uphold the Planning Commission's decision}; or - b) Deny the appeal with modifications; or c} Uphold the appeal (allow the tentative map to expire); or - c} Uphold the appeal with modifications. BACKGROUND On August 26, 2008, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved on a 4-1 vote (Miller, nay} aone-year time extension of a tentative parcel map (file no. TM-2005-03) for an approved two lot subdivision of a 1.0 acre site into lots of about 20,000 square feet each in an R1-20 zone {Exhibit B-1, C-1 and D-1). DISCUSSION: Applicant Comments: The applicant said most neighbors do not understand or do not want to get involved in . a petition to change the standard street improvements to a semi-rural designation. He feels that an extra year will be enough time to educate the neighbors and secuxe enough petition signatures for asemi-rural street designation for Lindy Lane. 10-1 Appeal of DIR-200&19 October 7, 2008 Page 2 He also stated the Knopps should not be held accountable, for any alleged transgressions committed by Bret Moxley on his own subdivision. Mr. Moxley is not involved in this property anymore. Public Comments: At least two residents felt the subdivision map should be allowed to expire for the following reasons: • In places the slopes were too steep or covered in unengineered fill. Core sampling should have been done to validate the suitability of the property for subdivision, • The property may be too small to subdivide, • A house cannot be squeezed into Lot #2 without damaging the trees. If the property were allowed to be subdivided, it should be done lengthwise, which will allow development that will do a better job of protecting the trees. Regarding the street improvements, one resident felt the standard street improvements could be installed without damaging the trees. Another asked that the street not be narrowed for vehicle safety reasons, but deleting.the sidewalk would be okay. Another said he would get the 2/3 signatures needed to petition the City Council for asemi- rural street improvement. Staf~'Comments: Staff responded to a number of questions asked by the Commissioners about the . project. 1. What type of public noticing accompanied this extension request? There is no noticing requirement for extension requests of expiring tentative maps. , Staff looked to noticing procedures for extensions of other City entitlements but the municipal code was largely silent on the issue, except for conditional use permits and variances where the code allowed decisionmakers to extend the time of a use permit or variance without a public hearing. , No public noticing was done for the extension request hearing; however, publication noticing and mailed noticing of property owners within 300 feet was done for the appeal hearing as prescribed by City ordinance. 2. A couple of trees were removed from the property after the tentative map was approved. What happened after the removal? A couple of eucalyptus frees were. removed by the adjacent properly owner without the Knopps' permission. The Knopps' filed a retroactive tree removal permit (file no. TR- 2006-12) and ended up replacing the trees with two field grown Coast Live Oaks and an eucalyptus. One was planted upslope and the other planted near the street. ~o-a Appeal of DI1Z-2008-19 October 7, 2008 Page 3 3. Was geotechnical review performed on the property? Yes. A copy of the report titled: "Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Feasibility Evaluation Proposed Two-Lot Subdivision: 21925 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, California/Project 2004G" prepared by Pacific Geotechnical Engineering and dated May 23, 2005 is attached (Exhibit E-1) along with the City Geologist's review letter {Exhibit F-1). The description of the site geology was based on reconnaissance of the site and vicinity, aerial photography analysis, subsurface data (i.e. core sampling} from the adjacent ro er and the geologist's understanding of the regional geologic framework. The geologist referenced his own subsurface data collected on the abutting Moxley property, as well as, published subsurface data from core sampling of the Sun property (west of Moxley) prepared by Milstone Geotechnical. The applicant's geologist recommended that subsurface investigation be a requirement of any design-specific geotechnical investigation for any house to be built. Presently, no new house has been proposed on the property. The City Geologist reviewed Pacific Geotechnical Engineering's (PGE) report and was in agreement with PGE's approach and study as a feasibility-level investigation. The City Geologist recommended adesign-specific geotechnical report when a new house was actually proposed on the property {Exhibit F-1). The recommendation was incorporated in the conditions of approval for the subdivision. 4. Lot #2 has a proposed ingress/egress easement to serve Lot #1. If it is deducted from the net lot area, the lot falls below 10,000 square feet and the subdivision should not take place. . This issue was recognized by staff early in the review process when the applicant proposed subdividing the lot lengthwise with the subdivision line parallel to the street. This alternative design had a minimum of 10,000 net square feet per lot and no ingress/ egress easement to deduct from the lot area. This alternative subdivision design would have created a poor development relationship with the street, and would not have matched the orientation of any of the other residences along Lindy Lane. The approved subdivision~with the subdivision line perpendicular to the street caused the need for the easement to Lot #1 over Lot #2, which was resolved with condition #11 of the tentative map approval {Exhibit G-1). If the easement area (2,741 square feet} wa.s deducted from the net lot area,. Lot #2 would be too small for subdivision. 5. Would standard subdivision street improvements damage the oak trees? Yes. Standard improvements include a 20-foot half-street width, a 6-inch wide curb and a 4 and 1/2 foot wide sidewalk as depicted in Exhibit C of Exhibit G1. These standard improvements would cause the removal of two oaks, regrading of the lower slope of Lot #1, and 3-4 foot tall retaining walls in back of the sidewalk on Lot #1. Trying to . 10 Appeal of DTR-2008;19 _ October 7, 2008 Page 4 route the sidewalk away from the oaks would not .prevent tree damage as there will be additional grading impacts; retaining walls for the uphill slopes, and, for safety reasons, 8-feet of vertical clearance .of all vegetation overhanging the sidewalk: This clearance will be damaging to the oaks, which have very low hanging canopies. If the City Council elects to deny the appeal and uphold the tentative map extension, there are several tentative map conditions that staff seeks clarification/direction on implementation {Exhibit G-1). Condition #2: FUTURE BUILDING AREA One aspect of this condition prohibits. the construction of xetaining walls over 4 feet tall in height as measured from natural grade. In general staff believes this condition can be met on the property, but staff believes some flexibility is warranted on this hilly property. Staff suggests that taller retaining walls be allowed if they are not visible. . from a public right-of-way. Condition #3: SLOPE EASEMENT This condition requires the delineation and recordation of a "slope easement" area across the front of the property to ensure "that the existing landforms, trees and vegetation be preserved." Any required street improvements in this area will probably cause the removal of two Silk trees (Albizia julibrissin) and the relocation of one of the mitigation coast live oaks. Council should indicate whether removal/relocation is acceptable or if a tree removal permit is needed. Condition #4: TREE PRESERVATION No new residential development was proposed with this tentative map application, so staff indicated. that no trees were approved for removal as part of the tentative map approval. Staff believes this condition has been misconstrued by some members of the public to mean that all trees on the property were protected. This is clearly not what staff intended when it drafted the condition. Staff did not intend for every orchard tree, young sapling or exotic tree species on this property to be afforded the same protection from removal as a specimen size native tree._ Note that street improvements and residential development/redevelopment will cause the removal of non-native trees on this property. Removal of any protected tree as specified in the City's protected tree ordinance will require a tree removal permit. Commission comments: A majority of the commissioners felt that the neighbors wanted to see the oaks fronting Lindy Lane preserved and the best course would be to extend the tentative map for . another year to allow the applicant/ property owner another opportunity to seek sufficient signatures to petition the City Council for aSemi-Rural street designation for this section of Lindy Lane. With aSemi-Rural street designation, the Public Works ~ o -4t Appeal of DIR-2008-19 October 7, 200$ Page 5 Department has much more flexibility with street design and can address issues of street width and on-street parking. The Commission added one modification to the tentative map extension and that was to require core sampling of the building site on Lot #2 and City Geologist clearance. prior to final map recordation. Enclosures . Exhibit A-1: Appeal Email Exhibit B-1: Planning Commission Resolution No. 6524 (for extension of map) Exhibit C-1: Planning Commission staff report dated August 26, 2008 Exhibit D-7 : Planning Commission August 26, 200$ meeting minutes (draft) Exhibit E-1: Geotechnical Report prepared for the Knopp subdivision by Pacific Geotechnical Engineering dated May 23, 2005. Exhibit F-1: Geologic Review Letter prepared by Cotton, Shires Associates dated June 29, 2005. Exhibit G1: Planning Commission Resolution No. 6313 (for tentative map) Exhibit H-1: Planning Commission staff report dated July 2b, 2005 . Exhibit T-1: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 26, 2005 Approved Tentative Map Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Submi b Approved by: • . . Stev iasecki David W. Knapp Director, Community Development City Manager . G:Planning/PDREPORT/CC/2008/DIR-2008-19 appeai.doc . •10-~ Exhibit A-4 Colin Jung From: Gilbert Wong ' Sent: .Thursday, August 28, 2008 9;28 AM To: David Knapp; Coffin Jung Subject: Re: FW; Councilmember Wong appeal the PC decision on DIR-2009-19 (21925 Lindy Lane) Tharilcs! On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 9:26 AM, David Knapp <DaveK~cuuertino.ora> wrote: -----Original- Message----- : From: Gilbert Wong Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:21 AM To: colinlCa~cuperitino.org;. David Knapp Cc: Steve Piasecki Subject: Councilmember Wong appeal the PC decesion on DIR-2009-19 (21925 Lindy Lane) Hi Colin and Dave, I am following up with my conversation with you yesterday that I am appealing the Planning Commission decesion on DIR-2009-19 in regards to a request for a one year extension to a tentative map sudivsion at 21925 Lindy Lane to the City Council. Regards, Gilbert ~o-s 9/23/2008 Exhibit B - DIR-2008-19 CITY OF CUPERTINO ' 10300 Torre Avenue ' Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION N0.6524 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO A TENTATIVE MAP APPROVAL TO EXTEND ITS EXPIRATION DATE TO JULY 26, 2009, WHICH SUBDIVIDES A 1.0 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF ABOUT 20,000 SQUARE FEET EACH IN SIZE IN AN R1-20 ZONING DISTRICT AT 21925 LINDY LANE ' SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: DIR-2008-19 Applicant: John Dozier (for John Knopp) Location: 21925 Lindy Lane SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received a request to extend the time for an expiring Tentative Subdivision Map Approval as described in Section I of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the application request was xeceived on July 7, 2008 which was prior to the expiration of the tentative map on July 26, 2008 and that the map is automatically extended until the Planning Commission hearing. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirement that there is good and sufficient reasons why the subdivision map process has not been completed within the allowed 3- year timeline. ' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful considexation of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application DIR-2008-19 for a Tentative Map modification to - ~o-~ Resolution No.6524 DIlZ-2008-19 July 26,2008 Page 2 extend the expiration is approved subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on page 2 thereof, and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application DIR-2008-19, as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of July 26, 2008, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1, APPROVED EXHIEITS All previous conditions of approval including Commission resolution no. 6313 and a tentative map entitled "TENTATIVE MAP, LANDS OF KNOPP, 21.925 LINDY LANE, CUPERTINO, CA" by Nelsen Engineering, dated May 2005, and consisting of one sheet labeled 3, remain in effect, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this resolution. - 2. SOIL CORE SAMPLING OF LOT NO.2 The applicant/owner shall retain a geoteclu"tical engineer to complete soil core sampling of the building area of Lot no. 2 and demonstrate in a written report that there are no significant obstructions to residential development to the satisfaction of the City Geologist and prior to final map recordation. 3. TIME EXTENSION The expiration date for tentative map approval (file no. TM-2005-03) is extended to July 26, 2009. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26~ day of July 2008, at a Regular Meeting of the . Planning Con-irnission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Vice Chair Giefer, Kaneda, Rose, Brophy NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Miller ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: APPROVED: / s /Steve Piasecki / s/ Marty Miller Steve Piasecki Marty Miller, Chair Director of Community Development Planning Commission - g~pfanning/pdreporf/res/1008/DIR-200&19 res,doc 10-8 ' Exhibit C CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: DIR-200$-19 Agenda Date: August 26, 2008 Applicant: John Dozier (for john Knopp} . Property Location: 21925 Lindy Lane Environmental Review: Categorical Exemption, Section 15315, Minor Land Division Application Summary: ' Request for aone-year extension to July 26, 2009 of the tentative parcel map .(file no. TM-2005-03) for an approved two lot subdivision of a 1.0 acre site into lots of about 20,000 square feet each in an R1-20 zone. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the one-year time extension for the tentative parcel map and the addition of one new condition per the model resolution. BACKGROUND: In 200,~C~the Planning Commission approved a tentative parcel map to subdivide this one acre parcel into two 20,000 square foot lots... The project has been delayed for . several reasons outlined in the applicant's email message to staff (Exhibit A}. Currently, the property owner is attempting to obtain final map. approval but has been delayed by lack of agreement over the extent of public street improvements (See Discussion below). DISCUSSION: Time Extension: Approved tentative maps have a time limit of tluee years. Cupertino Municipal Code section 18.16.100 allows the approving body to extend the time for an expiring tentative map for a period of up to another three years (Exhibit B). The. request for time extension was filed before- the expiration date, so the tentative map was automatically extended to the date of this meeting. Approved 'Subdivision Conditions: In approving the subdivision, the Planning Commission placed conditions on the development to protect the existing land forms and significant trees: 1) Condition #2: Identify future building area that reflects Planning Commission staff report and prohibit retaining walls over four feet in height. 2) Condition #3: Record a slope easement on the Iower slope that ensures the existing iandforms and trees are preserved and that development and other improvements, except underground utilities, are prohibited. 3) Condition #4: No permission to remove trees and record a covenant on the property about protecting specimen size trees. 4} Condition #6: Limit vehicular access to Lot #2 from the westerly ingress/egress easement. 10-9 Applications; DIR-2008-19 21925 Lindy Lane Page 2 Street Improvements; Street improvements are required as part of the final subdivision process and are administered by the Public Works. Department. Engineering studies demonstrated that the standard, city-required subdivision improvements: 40-foot, curb-to-curb roadway; curb; gutter; and sidewalk would have violated the tentative map conditions by causing the removal of two oaks, introduced retaining walls {potentially over 4 feet tall) at the edge of the sidewalk, and caused the grading of Land in the slope easement area to install a sidewalk and reduce the steepness of the adjacent slope (Exhibit C). The Public Works Department (PW) determined that the standard street improvements had to be modified to protect the oak trees and the only mechanism available was for the applicant to canvass the neighbors for signatures and petition the City Council for a semi-rural street designation for a segment of Lindy Lane {Exhibit D). This designation would enable the Public Works Department to narrow the roadway width and eliminate/modify the sidewalk to protect the two oak trees. The applicant's efforts to obtain the necessary number of signatures (two-thirds of affected property owners) failed. A second efforf by PW staff also did not yield the requisite number of signatures. PW staff brought the issue to the City Council's attention on August 19, 2008 and to find out if the Council was interested in taking unilateral actipn on the issue, but the Council declined (Exhibit E}. Conclusions: To protect the Commission's interests in the development, staff recommends that the Commission approve only a ane-year time extension of the map with one additional tentative map condition: 1} that the applicant obtain City approval of a modified street designation far the R- 1zoned segment of Lindy Lane from the RI-iS-zoned properties to just west of Terra Bella Drive that preserves the Planning Commission's conditions of approval. Planning staff believes that the objectives of the neighborhood can be achieved which preserves the Planning Commissions conditions of approval through a modified street improvement. One additional year should be more than sufficient time to complete the final map process. A copy of the commission resolution and approved map are attached. ENCLOSURES Model Resolution Exhibit A: justification for time extension Exhibit B: CMC Section 18.16.100 Exhibit C: Excerpt of Subdivision improvement plans show effects of standard improvements Exhibit D: CMC Section 14.04.040 (street improvements) 10- 10 Applications: DIR-2008-19 . 21925 Lindy Lane Page 3 Exhibit E: Staff Report to City Council on Knopp subdivision development dated 8/19/Q8. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6313 and approved tentative map Prepared by: Colix? Jung, Senior Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development s G:\Planning\PDREPORT\pcTMreports\ 2008hnreports\DIlZ-2008-19.doc 10 - 11 Exhibit D - 3. CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 - CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT' MINUTES 6:45 P.M. AUGUST 26, 2008 TUESDAY CUPERTINO CITY HALL, CONFERENCE ROOM 100 The regular Planning Commission meeting of August 26, 2008, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in Conference Room 100, Fonmer City Council Chambers, by Chairperson Marty Miller. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Marty Miller Vice Chairperson: Lisa Giefer Commissioner: Paul Brophy Commissioner: David Kaneda Commissioner: Jessica Rose Staff present: Community Development Director: Steve Piasecki Senior Planner: Colin Jung Senior Planner: Aki Honda Snelling APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of July 22, 2008 Planning Commission meeting: MOTION: Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Com. Rose, to approve the minutes of the July 22, 2008 meeting as presented. {'m'ote: 4-0-1; .Vice Chair Giefer abstained} WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Steven Piasecki, Community Development Director, noted receipt of items related to agenda items. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Commended staff for their efforts in setting up the former Council Chambers for the Planning Commission meeting because of a scheduling conflict with the regular. meeting room for the Planning Commission meeting, and asked that the changing of meeting rooms be limited. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. ~ DIR-2008-19 Director's Minor Modification to request for aone-year extension John Dozier of a tentative parcel map {TM-2005-03) that expires on July.26, 2008. ~0-12 Cupertino Planning Commission 2 August 26, 2008 21925 Lindy Lane The Tentative Map subdivided an approximately 1.0 acre site into two parcels of about 20,000 square feet each in an R1-20 zoning. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Motion: Motion by Com. Rose, second by Com. Brophy, to remove Application DI-2008-19 from the Consent Calendar for discussion. (Vote: 5-0-0} Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the. background of the request for aone-year extension of a tentative parcel map which expired on July 26, 2008; to subdivide aone-acre site into two parcels, in an R1-20 zoning district. • He reviewed Conditions 2, 3, 4 and 6 of the approval attached to the tentative map, pertaining to the street improvements: Limiting the size of the building footprint and prohibiting retaining walls over four feet tall; Recording a slope easement on the lower slope to preserve Oak trees and existing land forms and maintain the semi-rural appearance. There was no permission granted to remove trees and there was a requirement to record a covenant to protect the specimen sized trees. There was a condition to limit vehicular access to Lot 2 from the westerly ingress/egress easement. • • Staff feels since the tentative map is expiring and if the Planning Commission is interested in preserving the preservation conditions in that approval, it should extend the tentative map for at least another year to July 26, 2049; and it would include a condition in that approval to direct the property owner to apply for a modified street improvement. The street improvement must be authorized liy the adjacent property owners that would be affected by the length of street improvement and the applicant has not been successful in obtaining those signatures. With the proper education staff feels it is possible and thinks the applicant should have another year to obtain those signatures to get the modified street improvement to give the city flexibility with the type of street improvements on this street, and provide the necessary protection the Commission is interested in the development and subdivision of this property. Chair Miller: • Asked Colin Jung to review their earlier discussion about issues. Colin Jung: • He said that the property had a history; a few years back, a contractor for an adjacent property owner did not like the view from the property he was selling and he took it upon himself to cut down some trees on the property. He was reprimanded and the owner of the property (Knapp) applied for a retroactive tree removal permit for the removed trees and those replacement trees were subsequently planted. • • Another issue related to whether there was a separate geotechnical report done for this property and the question was asked whether there was any type of boring or soil samples taken to characterize the nature of the soils to see if it was fit for subdivision. The report was prepared by the consultant who also did the soils report for the Morley property which was the property next door. They did not take any soil samples on this property but they referenced two other reports, one for the Morley property and another geotechnical report done for the Sun property where core samples were taken. Based on the characterization of the soils in those reports and additional work that the geotechnical engineer did on the subdivision, the city geologist felt comfortable in determining that the subdivision was geotechnically feasible without the core samples, but with the added provision that at the design stage of the house, the applicant provide a design level geotechnical report for a proposed house on Lot 2. 10- 13 Cupertino Planning Commission 3 August 26, 2008 • An issue related to the driveway easement; in order to subdivide the property, there has to be at least a net of 20,000 square feet after the street dedication, and the applicant has this .if the lot were divided in half. • Staff took exception with the subdivision design, it doesn't match any of the patterns in the neighborhood now, and they were concerned that subdividing it in this way would not be in the best interest in protecting the trees that were located on the toe of the slope. They recommended to the applicant that instead of cutting the lot one way, he cut the lot in the up and dawn diretion; the technical problem with that and it is in our ordinance, is that this driveway now rests in Lot 2, but serves Lot 1, and they need to put an easement on that driveway for the benefit of Lot 1.. Driveway easements, travel ways, are normally deducted from the net tot area; if you were to deduct this area from this 20,000 square foot lot you would not have the ability to subdivide the property. They put a condition in the tentative map that designing the subdivision the way they wanted it, they were given the ability to get a credit for this area (here); that we would count this driveway easement as part of their net lot area. • It was made a condition of approval for subdivision; some might say that it should have been made a separate entitlement; or made a development exception to the rules stated in the zoning . code; but that was something that was done to facilitate what was thought to be a more practical subdivision of the property. • Relative to noticing, typically for time extensions, in particular conditional use permits and design reviews, if you have an existing approval the extension of time for a maximum of one . year is usually considered an administrative issue even though there is hearing before a public decision making body. We do not do an ordinance basically says you do not. need to do a public hearing notice for those types. of approvals. Relative to extension of subdivisions, unfortunately it does not say anything about noticing of extensions of tentative maps; and we took the language used for use permits and other entitlements and architectural site approvals and we did not do a letter noticing 300 feet, 500 feet of this particular extension. • Relative to decision making tonight, there are various options. (1) to approve the extension; {2) not approve the extension; (3) continue the extension for 30 days and then do a noticing of the extension. He said they were also able to amend the conditions of approval. John Dozier, applicant: • , Provided background on the neighbors' dissatisfaction on how things have transpired in the past. It began with the original rep of the applicant, Mr. Moxley, 'who was retained to act as the primary spokesman for the Knopps to proceed with the map subdivision since he had the expertise from doing so with his home. As winter approached, there was considerable amount of erosion that occurred on the properties~next door which were still going through their final approvals. Those lots were subsequently sold to three separate individuals; there was construction that occurred on Lot 3, the lower lot; there were trees illegally removed by the new owner, not Mr. Moxley; subsequently Lot 1 was also constructed and there was one very large prominent Oak tree on that property illegally removed by the new owner, not Mr. Moxley. The middle lot, No. 2 was also sold, but that one is in the poling stage, and the plan is in the approval process, but hasn't been built yet. The neighborhood has been quiet since the only home that was built there and is not associated with the Moxley property, was Mark Santoro's home which created a lot of visibility; it is larger than anything else in the . immediate neighborhood; and there was a lot of construction activity, trucks, heavy duty machinery, etc., involved in that construction beyond two years. The neighbors are not happy and I think that. they want to do everything they can to prevent Mr. Knopp from being able to develop his property. 10 - 14 Cupertino Planning Commission 4 August 26, 2008 • Said there were no city installed sidewalks passed Terrabella. He said he originally volunteered to circulate the petition; most people were baffled by it as it was very complicated and was met with suspicion. Glenn Goepfert from Public Works put together something clearer and easily understandable and he received 8 Yes responses to approve the semi rural designation, short of 8. We may be successful in getting that; it will require considerable education campaign to the neighbors. • He said it was not a north side divide in terms of support. There was general support at the last Council meeting. John James who lives directly across from the Knopp property, who was vehemently opposed to this, indicated he was in support of the semi rural and would do his best to see if he could get the required number of signatures. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said it was clear in the public hearing process when we went through the subdivision, that the two things that the Lindy Lane residents did not want to see happen was elimination of any Oaks along Lindy Lane, nor did they want to see anymore monolithic retaining walls vis a vis what is in front of the Sun property today, and the conditions put on the subdivision which are not being asked to change other than the extension, it is just counter intuitive to me that the residents of upper Lindy would not want to sign up for a rural street designation because that is giving them exactly what they asked for when we were having the public hearing. John Dozier: • Said there has been an outspoken contingency; it goes back to Moxley, and there are some issues with the private driveway, not the public right of way, involving probably 6 to 8 owners, that want some type of retribution and they feel this is the opportunity to get it. Moxley has nothing to do with this any longer, so they are punishing the Knopps which is unfortunate. • He said he felt the extra year extension would make a difference, as Glen Goepfert provided education to the neighbors through a helpful meeting. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Barry Pangrle, Lindy Lane: • Opposed to application. Referred to a drawing and illustrated where the slope is greater than 50%; there have been people when putting in an addition to a C ranch in a courtyard, had to drill core samples to do it. If the city requires that for a simple addition on existing structure on flat land, why vcrere core samples not drilled where they got 50% slope and engineering fill. He said he felt it was being misconstrued that it is not so much that the residents of Lindy Lane want a rural look, as they want to preserve the trees. Some staff have related that rural or semi rural means the trees are safe; which is not necessarily the case. • It is so steep, there is no chance to share a driveway; there is going to have to be another driveway coming in which has already been addressed by staff. What you will hear from . neighbors on the south side of Lindy Lane as well, is that you are not going to be able to put a house in here,without damaging those trees and as Mr. Dozier also pointed out on the Moxley property. There are agreements in place to save the trees, and as soon as the lot is sold, somebody comes in and cuts all the trees down. That is what people are concerned about, is that these trees are not going to be preserved. • The other part of this is that there is not enough land to do this. If you go to the title report and look at it, from what Nelson Engineering reported and what the title report says, there is another 896 square feet that axe additional on the Nelson report that magically appeared, so it could be even more than this. The.other part is there is 2648 dedication which is called out, marked 10 feet dedication, it looks like the lot line actually started out 12 feet instead of 20 10 - 15 Cupertino Planning Commission 5 ~ August 26, 2008 feet and if that is the case, there is another 80% which means there may be another additional 2,000 square feet being added on that shouldn't be counted. It could be that these two lots combined together could be 5,000 sq. ft. short of making the subdivision. If there is anything criminal here, it is the fact that all-this hasn't been taken into account_and properly weighed in doing this.. If the neighbors could see a way that a house could go in here, I think most of the neighbors thought that the better place to put the house would be down here and you could have run the driveway through parallel like the one above it and maybe that would ga. I don't think the neighbors axe necessarily against it, but we want to see the rules followed. If there is enough room to do the subdivision, I think the neighbors will get behind it. What we are seeing is that there are constraints of 4 foot retaining walls; we don't see with 50% slope, you would get away with only 4 foot retaining walls. It doesn't look like there is enough land to do this and you can't meet the constraints of meeting the R1 designation of 40 foot street without taking out the trees, and part of the designation was the original application was that there would be no trees removed. This cannot be met without removing trees, there isn't enough area; this violates Section 1908.030. There is no soil samples taken on this; you have serious slope on this property with non engineered fill. It is not appropriate. Eva Wong, Lindy Lane: • Opposed to application. • Said the more the neighbors understand the .issue, the more problem they have with the subdivision. There is not enough land to subdivide and staff made an exception to that, which was not known until now; and there was no geological report done on that particular lot; it was borrowed from adjacent subdivision. When Dr. Sun subdivided his lot adjacent to Mr. Moxley's iot, he was required to do his own geological report; he did not get an exception. If the lot was divided in a way other than staff suggested, the Oak trees would have to be removed. The neighbors are very concerned. John James, Lindy Lane: • Said his original home was demolished by a mudslide and was rebuilt. • If Knopp wants to use Dr. Sun's report, they are about 500 to 800 feet apart from each other; it is beyond belief that they would be allowed to build a house without a complete soil. report. He said he would get the appropriate signatures to do what is right. • Relative to street improvements and subdivision, he said he did not want anything done; it should stay as is. He said he would consider a compromise on the 36 foot wide street with a. curb and gutter, no sidewalk. Simon Ko, Lindy Lane: • Opposed to application. • Said it was eye opening that there were so many exceptions in the application. He questioned if he could apply for his subdivision now although he had only.a 10,000 square foot lot, but with enough exceptions, he maybe able to subdivide also. • Another concern is that he heard that they don't need a geotechnical report; when he was doing remodeling on his house, he was required to do five reports, paid $6,000 and said he was very close to the other side, closer than Knopp's property. He said it was very disturbing because he thought he was doing what he had to do. • He said although it says it is a private driveway, each rainy season, he and Mr. James shovel the dirt gravel on one side, and try to clean up the mess. Why aren't they hooked up. to the city drainage? It is not done, and the others are stuck with it as long as they live there. Without the sidewalk, fine, what about a curb with a drain like Mr. James proposed. Don't nan ow the street; it is too dangerous as is; people try to swerve around because of the deer; someone will ~o-~s Cupertino Planning Commission b August 26, 200$ • get killed. He said it was okay-with no sidewalk, but at least put a curb similar to the other side.. You don't have to kill the trees; go around the trees. He said.he wanted to do something, • . at least with a curb, no sidewalk. I think enough has been done so far to the neighborhood; perhaps this subdivision has too many exceptions. Perhaps they should reconsider if it should be subdivided? Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Com. Kaneda: • Said there were a number of remarks regarding how.this could be done wiithout requiring soil samples and a geotechnical report. If somebody is going to build there, they would be required to do a geotechnical report. Colin Jnng: . • Clarified that the project would require two geotechnical reports; one is here, I want everyone to see it because everyone is. saying it is not here. In order to develop Lot 2, they are going to have to do a separate report just for that one, and that one is going to require the core sampling. If there are problems with the soil, the project would not be allowed to proceed. • There was discussion about don't make the street any narrower; the current street. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said that what they are being asked to decide tonight is very simple issue; should they extend a subdivision by one year to help resolve the neighborhood issue of should there be sidewalks or not. It has been interesting to see how opinions have changed over time. I think that we have to keep in mind what we are actually being asked to decipher tonight; not being asked to resolve the sidewalk or retaining wall issue; we are being asked to determine if it makes sense to extend the subdivision map act for an additional year. I think it does; if they are 8 signatures away from resolving the issue, I would like to give them that time to resolve the issue. We are not being asked should the lot be subdividable or not; we made that decision about one year ago; and Council Member Wong was the Chairman at the time and it was a unanimous decision. • I support the extension of the subdivision. . Com. Brophy: • Said he had concerns about the original decision to approve the subdivision, but felt as Vice Chair Giefer stated, that it is probably too late to reopen that area; they should focus on the question of one more year time extension. The one concern, looking at report from Public Works that went to City Council on August 19~', and the proposed model resolution is that it seems like we are being pushed into encouraging the City Council to unilaterally overrule the current process for rural or semi rural street improvements to be approved. It is obvious to everybody that the issues on Lindy Lane are partly technical, but in large part a question of inter-persona] dynamics that have made it very difficult to resolve what is a two-unit subdivision. • He suggested removing Clause 2 because of the protection of trees, the land form that is already covered in the original resolution three years ago, and it be reduced to a two clause resolution that says they have one more year. The Knopps had the chance to try and get their final 8 or 9 votes; if they can get it that is fne; if not, they will have to make another decision as to what to do with the property. • ~ Clause 2, Street Improvement Standard states "The applicant owner shall obtain city approval of a modified street improvement. In the package that Public Works sent to City Council for the August 19~' meeting, they were clearly asking the City Council to overrule the inability of 10 - 17 Cupertino Planning Commission 7 August 26, 2008 the applicant to get 2/3 of the signatures. It is difficult to believe that the City Council would be willing to go through the process of passing an ordinance to resolve the matter of atwo-unit subdivision. The logical solution is for Mr. Dozier and Mr, and Mrs. Kropp to make their presentations to the 25 neighbors and to see if they can get 2/3 of those who are most affected by this proposal to sign up for it. If they can, great; if not, the subdivision map would expire in another year. Com. Kaneda: • Said it appears that the tension is rising between the existing trees and trying to keep the existing trees on the property under control and the requirements of the ordinance to put in a 40 foot wide street. He said a sidewalk makes sense to him. • There were only a couple of neighbors speak on this but it sounds like the neighbors don't really want a sidewalk, a 40 foot wide street which is what in theory the owner is required to put in, hence extending it another year and allowing the neighbors to talk this out to try to come to some conclusion would be beneficial. Com. Rose: • Everyone has stated similar opinions to mine already, and I think again in looking at the pictures of the street and the trees and hearing what the neighbors have said about feeling that the trees are very valuable to their living surroundings, if we are to move forward and approve this we will be protecting the existing conditions which protect the existing trees. I think that is an important move at this time. Chair Miller: • Said there were two germane issues. The first one related to the pulling of core samples, and it was not appreciated at that time that core samples were not pulled. This is a two lot subdivision, roughly an acre parcel that is being subdivided into two half acres. He said he has owned property that has been an acre parcel and found in his particular case he purchased a. . piece of property that was sitting in a neighborhood with other one-acre lots and all those other one-acre lots were fine; but when he did the geological report and pulled core samples, under his lot there was a slide area and he then had to go back and negotiate. There was a problem because he was sold the lot which essentially was extremely difficult to build on. • Said he was concerned about the issue in this particular neighborhood and the fact that the core samples were not pulled; without pulling core samples they don't know what the situation of the soil is and how difficult or easy it is to build on this property. That issue alone says that they should be re-evaluating this and at a minimum have the applicant go back and pull core samples and then come back. • The second issue which was not clear when the property was evaluated the first time around, was that the driveway easement would be subtracted from the property; and if the driveway easement is subtracted from the property, there is not sufficient area to do a subdivision under the rules in Cupertino, and it would have required an exception in order to make this work. • That was not done the first time around; it was not given an exception and there is another issue that was not properly vetted. He said for those reasons he was concerned about moving ahead on this. Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Vlce Chair Giefer, to approve Application DR-2~0&19 as written, with the deletion of Para. 2 under Section 3. Com. Kaneda: • Recommended adding the requirement for core samples to take place. He said Chair Miller had a good point, especially in view of the fact that there was a mudslide sometime in the past. 10 - 18 Cupertino Planning Commission 8 August 26, 2008 Vice Chair Giefer: • ~ Said her recollection was different from Chair Miller's on the discussions at that `time regarding core samples.. Staff can clarify at what point core samples would need to be taken prior to development of these parcels. Colin Jung: • Said the original report referenced the two other reports for both the Moxley and Sun properties. The city geologist looked at the data from the core samples and asked themselves if it was reasonable to extrapolate it to this lot based on all the other geotechnieal information provided in the report. • In his opinion, he felt it was acceptable and said that the subdivision lot is geotechnically feasible but a design level will have to be done. It was the recommendation of a private engineering geologist, to have to do a design level geotechnical report that would include the core samples when it came time to propose a house on Lot 2. Vice Chair Giefer: • Relative #o Com. Kaneda's point, is it necessary to add that specifically to the motion, or is it already covered on that point. Colin Jung: • Said they were covered on that point when there is not going to be a house built on either lot without the core sampling; that is covered in the conditions. Steve Piasecki: • Said that it was appropriate if the Commission feels they would be more comfortable with requiring it prior to the recording of a final map, demonstrating to the satisfaction of the city geologist that this is a buildable site. Com. Brophy: , • Said his concern as a buyer, as stated by Chair Miller, even if the city requires at the time you pull a permit if somebody has already turned over the money to the seller for the lot and then they find out there is a problem. Is there a way to put a clause as staff suggests, that protects a would be buyer in the future. Steve Piasecldi: • Said it could be handled by adding a condition to the extension that says that the applicant shall retain a geologist to complete core samples demonstrating that the buildable area on the second lot is free of any significant obstructions subject to the review of the city geologist, prior to the recordation of the final map. Chair Miller: • No one else is concerned about the fact that we implicitly are giving an exception to the ordinance instead of explicitly doing it. Com. Brophy: • Said his feeling was that they should have crossed that bridge three years ago; currently they are trying to deal with it the way they are now. He said he was concerned about the issues but felt it was not the right time. ~o-~s Cupertino Planning Commission 9 August 26, 2008 Com. Kaneda: • There are two parts to this; the one part is the driveway and the other part is that if you put a sidewalk in, it appears that there was some misunderstanding that if you develop this property according to the R1 standards, the trees you were trying to protect, you couldn't protect. Com. Brophy: • Said he understood from the City Council meeting that there is no way a standard section can be put in that would meet the conditions set for the tentative map; so that if the applicant came in with a 40 foot standard section, the Public Works Director and the Community Development Director couldn't sign it because it would violate the rules. It states that the applicant has one year to have a section designed that is acceptable to two-thirds of the neighbors. Com. Kaneda: • ~ I presume when this came up originally, there wasn't tha# understanding that there was a conflict between the trees and what the requirement was. Is that correct? Colin Jung: • Said they did not have that level of engineering data when the subdivision map was approved. Steve Piasecki: • Said they didn't assume at the time that they would be doing a 40 foot street. A 40-foot street are two 12 foot travel lanes which is a freeway wide lane, two 8 foot parking lanes on either side of that and sidewalks behind that. Most valley floor subdivisions are actually 36 feet, curb to curb, as another standard; and that works just as well. It is not an exception; the Council can approve that based on the neighborhood coming together and saying this one works for them, whatever it ends up being. Chair Miller: • Said that the last issue is that the application was not noticed to the neighborhood; can they go back and change some of the conditions of approval withou# the proper noticing? Steve Piasecki: • 'The ordinance doesn't specifically require it; if you are uncomfortable with it, you could continue it for 34 days; we could do a notice and you could take it up again. Chair Miller: • Reiterated that the issue was not the extension, but that they are changing the conditions of approval wi#hout noticing. Amendment Motion by Com. Brophy, second.by Vice Chair Giefer, to accept Com. To Motion: Kaneda's comment shoat requirement for core samples to take place. . . (Vote: 41-0; Chair Miller No) PUBLIC HEARING: 2. SPA-2008-01 (EA-2008-02) Heart of the City Specific plan amendments City of Cupertino to achieve conformance with the General Stevens Creek Blvd. between Plan. Postponed from July 22, 2008 Hwy. 85 and the Eastern city limit Planning Commission meeting; Tentative City Council date: September 2, .2008 ~o-zo EXHIBIT .E -1 ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC AND GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY EVALUATION PROPOSED TWO-LOT SUBDIVISIONI 21925 LINDY LANE CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA PROJECT 2004G For Bret Moxley Moxley Properties 30 Carolina Ave San Anselmo, California 94960 By PACIFIC GEOTECHNICAI_ ENGINEERING 16055 Caputo Drive, Suite D Morgan Hill, California 95037 (408) 778-2818 May 23, 2005 10-21 - TABLE OF CONTENTS 1: INTRODUCT[ON .................................1 1.1 GENERAL .......................................................................................................1 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................:...........................................................1 1.3 INFORMATION PROVIDED ............................................................................1 1.4 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION ...............................................1 2. REGIONAL SETTING .............................................................................................2 2.1 PHYSICAL .............................................................:.........................................2 2.2 GEOLOGIC 2 2:2.1 Regional Faults and Seismic Se#ting ........................................................4 2.2.2 Regulatory Environment 5 3. SITE CONDITIONS 6 3.1 SITE TERRAIN 6 3.1.1 Terrain, Drainage, and Vegetation 6 3.1.2 Previous Grading and Improvements 6 3.2 SITE GEOLOGY 7 3.2.1 Previous Investigations 7 3.2.2 Field Observations ...................................................................................8 3.2.3 Aerial Photographic Analysis 8 3.2.4 Earth Materiafs .........................................................................................9 3.2.4.1 Surficial Units 9 3,2.4.2 Bedrock Units 10 4: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .....10 4.1 GENERAL SUMMARY ..................................:...............................................10 4.2 LANDSLIDING .....10 4.3 SEISMIC HAZARDS 10 4.4 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS ..........................................................12 " 5. LIMITATIONS ...:.12 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................14 1. Maps and Reports ..............................................................14 2. Aerial Photographs ............................................................................................15 FIGURES Figure 1. Geologic Index Map Figure 2. Cupertino Seismic Hazard Map _ Figure 3. Geologic Site Map Figure 4. Cross Section A-A' APPENDIX A Fine and Coarse Soi! Classifications ASCE Rock and Soil Classification System APPENDIX B Selected Regionai,Fault Data - ~o-zz - ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC AND GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY EVALUATION PROPOSED TWO-LOT. SUBDIVISIONI - 2'1925 L1NDY LANE CUPERTlNO, CALIFORNIA. - 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 GENERAL This report presents the results of our Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Feasibility Evaluation of a proposed two-lot subdivision at 21925 Lindy Lane, in Cupertino, California. The location of the property is shown on our Geoiogic,lndex Map (Figure 1). 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION _ The proposed project consists of splitting an existing property to create an additional residential - lot {a 2-lot subdivision}. Anew home with attached garage would eventually be constructed somewhere on the new (western} lot (Lot 2), while an existing home would remain on the eastern lot {Lot 1). The location of the new property line has not yet been finalized. We - understand that the project would have to be configured so as to conform to all applicable setbacks etc. This report focuses on the geologic feasibility of a homesite on Lot 2,-since the existing home on the eastern lot (Lot 1}would remain. For purposes of this report, "property" is used to refer to - the two proposed lots collectively, and "proposed home site" or "site" refers to the conceptual proposed home site on~Lot 2. The specific house location and grading plan for Lot 2 has not been formulated. For purposes of this report, we have considered a typical configuration such as that shown on Figure 2 - (Geologic Site Map). Access would likely be from the shared driveway stemming off the north = side of l.'tndy Lane, at the western end of the property. The home site would be served by underground utilities extended from the shared driveway. - As implied on Figure 3, grading for the proposed home site would be fairly straightforward. We understand that cuts and/or retaining walls may be located along the upslope side of the . residence, and retaining walls maybe desirable along the downslope side of the residence to provide level patio/walkway areas. Under the configuration shown, only a very short driveway - would be required, since the proposed residence and garage would be so close to the shared driveway. - 1.3 INFORMATION PROVIDED ~ For this evaluation, we were provided with the following documents: ~ Tentative Map, Lands of Knopp, 21925 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, California, prepared by Nelsen Engineering, dated February, 2005. - 1.4 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION We understand that Tentative Map submittal requirements for the City include a "geological _ _ report" and a "preliminary soils report." Our intent is to provide that required information in this - report. 10-23 - ~ May 23, 2005 Project 2004G The first aim of this evaluation was #o research the geologic conditiohs at property, and to evaluate whether suffcient information exists to conclude that the proposed new homesite is - geologically suitable. Given geologic suitability, a secondary aim was to identify speck issues which should be addressed by a design-level geotechnical investigation far the new proposed homesite. For this evaluation, we performed the following services: ~ Reviewed the findings and subsurface exploration data from an engineering geologic and geotechnical investigation we performed for athree-lot subdivision a# 21949 Lindy - Lane; that property is immediately west of the site. We also reviewed observations we made during grading on all three of those lots. - Reviewed pertinent regional geologic maps of the area, and reviewed the findings of stereoscopic aerial photographic analysis we previously pertormed for the adjacent three-lot subdivision. That aerial photographic analysis encompassed the site. - • Contacted the geologic/geotechnical reviewer for the City of Cupertino, Mr. John Wallace of Cotton Shires Associa#es, regarding the regional geologic setting and concerns the City may have regarding projects in the site vicinity. Contacted Milstone Geotechnical, a geotechnical firm that has performed subsurface exploration at a site two properties #o the west of the site {the "Sun" property at 21989 Lindy Lame}: ' Geologic reconnaissance of the site and vicinity, de#ailed geologic mapping of the site, - and preparation of a geologic cross-section to assist in portraying our engineering geologic model for the site. • Geologic and engineering analysis of the assembled information. • Preparation of this Geologic Letter Report. - 2. REGIONAL SETTING 2.1 PHYSICAL The physiographic setting of the property is shown on Figure 1 (Geologic Index Map). The - property is located near the base of the eastern foothills of the San#a Cruz Mountains, about 1000 feet from the gently sloping floor of the Santa Clara Valley. The site is at an approxima#e elevation of 440 feet above sea level, or about 50 feet in elevation above the alluvial fan on the Santa Clara Valley floor. Stevens Creek is located approximately half a mile northwest of the site, and Regnart Creek is located about a quar#er-mile to the southeast. In the site vicinity, the hillslopes are moderately rolling. Where they are undeveloped, the hills have a cover of low brush, with mature trees concentrated in topographic swales. Land use is moderate-density residential. 2.2 GEOLOGIC The site is in an area of complex geologic structure associated with the controlling regional fault, the San Andreas faul# zone (see Figure 2). _ _ 10-24 - r_- = 2 ~ ' May 23, 2005 Project 2004G Sorg and McLaughlin (1975) show the site as being underlain by the Santa Clara Formation. This formation typically consists of semiconsolidated, poorly to moderately lithified - conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone, and clayey mudstone. Brabb and others (2000) map the site as being underlain by the Santa Clara Formation. Regionally, this unit is shown as dipping northeast, with Miocene-age rocks exposed southwest of the site in the core of an anticline. No landslides are shown on regional geologic maps encompassing .the site. The California - Geological Survey (CGS, 2002) prepared a "landslide inventory map" as an intermediate step in preparing the Seismic~Hazard Zone Map for the Cupertino quadrangle encompassing the site. This map shows a landslide west of the site, with its eastern margin located approxima#ely in the - swale containing the shared driveway. This map is regional in scale, and while it is difficult to be - certain, the mapped landslide does not appear to encompass the new proposed homesit~ or - more than a slice of the existing shared driveway, and the site appears to lie outside or at the . boundary of the CGS hazard zone (see graphic below). ~ ~ ~ - - _ "mss. _ _r - rY ~t" - - r - - - Clip from CGS (2002) Seismic Hazard Zone Map (Cupertino), showing proposed home site (red dot). Approximate field of view 2100 feet. 1_ight blue shading =zone of potential seismically induced landsliding; green shading (lower right, along Regnant Creek) =zone of potential liquefaction. The City of Cupertino's geologic reviewer (Cotton Shires Associates; CSA) maintains files on geologic/geotechnical investigations fo supplement the regional mapping reflected in the City's Geologic and Seismic Hazards Map. We understand from discussions with Mr. Jahn Wallace of CSA that where claystone beds are present in an adverse orientation with respect to slope, the City has observed clusters of landslides, such as are present south of Regnant Creek. These conditions have not been reported in the site vicinity. ; 10-25 - ~ , ! 3 t" ~ , ---j May 23, 2005 Project 2004G We previously reviewed the City geotechnical reviewer's files in search of site-specific geologic/geatechnical investigation reports for projects in the site vicini#y, finding three investigations an Lindy Lane and one on Upland Road. While these reports did not provide specific information on the new proposed homesite itself, they provide useful regional information such as the range in thickness of colluvium, texture and consistency of colluvium, nature of bedrock, presence or absence of significant groundwater, and presence or absence of expansive earth materials. 2.2.1 Regional Faults and Seismic Setting The dominant faults in the region and the site vicinity trend northwest-southeast. In a regional context, all are considered elements of the San Andreas fault system, which forms the tectonic boundary between the North American and Pacific Plates. Regional topographic relief and the local geology reflect folding and associated tectonic uplift. Compressional forces associated with a bend in the San Andreas fault zone have. resulted in the uplift and northeastward movement of the Santa Cruz Mountains up and over younger earth materials, along thrust faults. The Monte Vista fault is one such thrust foul#, forming the linear range front that separates the Santa Cruz Mountains foothills from the gently sloping Santa Clara Valley. The Monte Vista fault is mapped approximately 1,000 feet northeast of the site (Sorg and McLaughlin, 1975; Hitchcock and others, 1994), but is not considered a fault rupture hazard at the site. Sources of significant earthquake ground shaking include several active and potentially active faults in the southern San Francisco Bay area. These include the faults listed below; the more significant ones are described in detail in the Appendix to this report. • The Monte Vista/Shannon seismic source, mapped approximately 1000 feet (300 _ meters) northeast of the si#e. The site is therefore considered to be within the Active - Fault Near-Source Zone for the Monte Vista/Shannon seismic source {CDMG, 1998), and as a result, "near-source" seismic criteria will apply to project structural design. • The active San Andreas fault, located approximately 3.4 miles (5.5 kilometers) southwest of the site (CDMG, 1974). The Hayward fault (southeast extension), located approximately 14.3 miles {23 kilometers) northeast of the site. • The Calaveras fault, located approximately 17.5 miles (28 kilometers) northeast of the - site. • The Sargent fault, the northern tip of which is located approximately 12.3 miles (19 kilometers) south of the site. • The San Gregoria fault, located approximately 17 miles (27 kilometers) southwest of the site (Wagner and others, 1991; Jennings, 1992}. The property is in an area of high seismicity. Research by the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP 1990, 1996; 2003) and Michael and others, (1999) continues _ to indicate that damaging earthquakes are likely in the San Francisco Bay area during the foreseeable decades. The WGCEP's estimates of the probabilities of major earthquakes are now in their third iteration, with the greatest changes in approach being the treatment of the San Andreas fault ~ o - zs 4 ' k" ~ ~ _ May 23, 2005 Project 2004G either as segmented (WGCEP, 1990) or unsegmented (Michael and others [1999j; and WGCEP [2003j) and in the progressive consideration of more potential seismic sources. Current estimates (WGCEP, 2003) are that there is a 62% probability of a large (magnitude 6.7 or greater) earthquake in the San Francisco Bay area as a whole in the 30-year period ending in 2032. The estimate for the Calaveras fault alone is 11 for the San Andreas fault alone, 21 and for the Hayward fault, 27%. Based on a statewide probabilistic model (CDMG, 1996} #hat collectively incorporates the _ probabilities of earthquakes on individual faults, the peak ground acceleration with a 10% chance of exceedance in 50 years at the site is calculated to be 0.61 g {firm and soft rock site; CGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Mapping Ground Motion Web Page as of May 16, 2005). Due to the proxirr~ity of the Monte Vista fault, the City of Cupertino's General Plan was written with a deterministic (rather than probabilistic) emphasis on the shaking anticipated from the _ Monte Vista fault alone. As noted above, the site is shown on the City Geologic and Seismic Hazards Map and General Plan (see Figure 2) as being located approximately at the boundary between hazard zones "F2" and "F3." According to this map and an accompanying data table, zones F2 and F3 may experience moderate to locally severe ground shaking (Modified Mercalfi Vlli to IX} during a magni#ude 8.3 earthquake on the San Andreas fault, and intensity X to XII (violent to-very violent) ground shaking during a magnitude 7.0 earthquake on the Monte vista fault. The City Geologic and Seismic Hazards Map and City General Plan consider slopes over 15% _ (such as those at the site) to have a moderate to high landslide potential under seismic and non-seismic conditions. The same references consider sites within 2,000 feet west of the Monte Vista fault (including the site) to be susceptible to ground lurching and fracturing during a magnitude 7.0 earthquake on that fault. The CDMG (1996; updated version online at http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/psha/fault~arameters/pdf/B flt.pdf} considers the maximum earthquake for the Monte Vsta fault to be moment magnitude 6.7, with a slip rate of 0.4 mm/year. 8y way of comparison, the Cupertino General Plan considers the fault capable of a magnitude 7.0 earthquake. 2.2.2 Regulatory Environment The property is located within the City of Cupertino, therefore, geologic aspects of development policy are determined by City, with relevant maps including the City's Geologic and Seismic = Hazards Map and General Plan (see Figure 2). As described above, the property is shown on - these maps as being located approximately at the boundary between hazard zones "F2" and "F3," which describe the intensity of ground shaking anticipated in the event of a significant earthquake on the Monte Vista/Shannon seismic source. Although not jurisdictional, the Santa Clara County Geologic Hazard Zone Maps (Santa Clara County, 2002; subsequent updates through online version as of 5/12/05) show the site as being located within a zone of required evaluation for landsliding hazard. The same series of maps show the property as straddling the western limit of a fault hazard zone, with the proposed - homesite lying just within the boundary. The property is located outside of a zone of identified liquefaction hazard. ~ ~0-2~ _ ~ o 5 May 23, 2005 Project 2004G The site is not mapped as lying within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zane by the California Geological Survey (CGS), known formerly as the Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG, 1974). As illustrated above, the site is mapped as lying outside or at the margin of the zone of regional potential for seismically induced landsliding, according. to seismic hazard maps prepared by the - - California Geological Survey (CGS, 2002}. - As described above, the site is shown on seismic hazard maps (CDMG, 1998) that are used in _ conjunction with the 1997 UBC as lying within 2 km of the "Monte Vista/Shannon seismic source," which is considered a "B" fault. As a result, "near-source" seismic criteria will apply to project structural design. - 3. SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 SITE TERRAIN 3.1.1 Terrain, Drainage, and Vegetation The site is located on the southern flank of a roughly east-west trending ridgeline that descends = eastward to the floor of the Santa Clara Valley. Minor spur ridges with intervening topographic swales descend southward from the ridgecrest to the unnamed valley floor along with Lindy Lane runs. The site lies on the eastern side of one such topographic swale, extending on#o the adjacent spur ridge. Overall natural slopes prior to grading increased smoothly from about 8 degrees near the bottom of the property, to about 22 degrees near the upslope property line, based on surrounding topography, and preserved remnants of natural ground on site. Surface runoff from the site flows southward toward Lindy Lane. We did not observe gullying or sign cant erosion, and significant infiltration of precipitation likely occurs on the site. During our reconnaissance at the properly (conducted in May, 2005), we did not observe evidence of springs or seeps at the site. Shallow groundwater was not encountered in our _ ~ borings on the adjacent site. However, ground water levels can fluctuate depending on the time = of year, and the amount of rain that falls during a given period of time. - An elongate cluster of small- to moderate-sized trees is located on the southern (lower) portion of the site, near Lindy Lane. Other trees and landscape shrugs surround the existing house on the eastern lot, and line the existing driveway. Open areas are grass-covered. 3.1.2 Previous Grading and Improvements Early aerial photographs indicate that the roadway for Lindy Lane employed fill placed along the valley axis. Gullying then appears to have occurred north and south of the road and parallel to to it. In later photographs, fill appears to have been placed in,#hese gullies, likely as storm drain systems became integrated in the area. There is an existing house on the eastern lot, reportedly constructed around 1960. Previous grading created the pad occupied by the house by cutting on the uphill side, and filling on the downhill side. The cut slope above the house exposes pebbly sandstone of the Santa Clara Formation in cuts of approximately 35 to 42 degrees; an approximately 3-foot-high concrete ~ ~ ~o-zs = ~ s ---Y ~ , - , May 23, 2005 Project 2004G retaining wall is located at the toe of the cut slope. A portion of the fill slope below the existing house and driveway is located on the site {see Figure 3). Fill slope inclinations range from ' = barely steeper than natural ground below the existing driveway {about 22 degrees) to about 31 = degrees near the proposed lot line. - As reflected on our geologic cross section (Fig. 4}, the gentler natural slopes downslope of the - existing house and fill slope appear to have been accentuated by subsequent grading to create more of agently-sloping bench, probably to create a "front yard" area on the otherwise sloping property. = The slightly steeper slopes immediately adjacent to Lindy Lane appear to reflect the valley-floor gullying visible on early aerial photographs, with subsequent fi11 placement against the toe of _ these slopes. - The water line supplying the eastern of the two lots reportedly extends from near the _ southeastem corner of the property to the southeastern corner of the existing residence; excavation of an associated trench and wooden bulkhead have modified the ground surface in this area. - 3.2 SITE GEOLOGY Our description of the site geology is based on our reconnaissance of the site and site vicinity, analysis of aerial photography, subsurface data from the adjacent property, and our _ understanding of the regional geologic framework. Subsurface investigation at the site will be a necessary part of adesign-specific geotechnical investigation for any house to be built. . 3.2.'i Previous Investigations Our previous engineering geologic and geotechnical investigation for 21949 Lindy Lane. (Geologic and Geotechnicat Investigation, Maxley Subdivision, 21949 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, California, dated May 3, 2001) provided information relevan# to the site, including: subsurface data (blow counts and stratigraphy from five borings}; laboratory test data; detailed geologic mapping; and a geologic cross section. During subsequent grading at that site, we also observed cuts exposed; the exposures confirmed our geologic cross-section in#erpretations at that site. The primary rock type encountered on that site was clayey sandstone of the Santa Clara Formation. These exposures are stratigraphically below the site, based on a northeasterly dip direction. Milstone Geotechnical recently completed an engineering geologic and geotechnicai - investigation two properties to the west of the site (the "Sun" property, at 21989 Lindy Lane), also on the north side of Lindy Lane. This site is stratigraphically below both 21949 Lindy Lane - and the site. We understand from discussions with the City's geologic and geotechnical reviewer (Cotton Shires Associates) and submittals to the Town that their scope included excavation of test pits, drilling several small diameter borings, and logging of ahand-excavated shaft. Pertinent findings of their investigation include: o Approximately 5 -10 feet of very stiff colluvium overlie very deeply weathered massive sandstone bedrock ("residual soil"}. - No evidence was found to support the presence of a landslide shown on the CGS Landslide Inventory Map (CGS, 2002) as encompassing the Sun property (but lying west - of the site}. r ~i 10 - 29 -f- 7 - , ~ ~ May 23, 2005 Profect 2004G • Northeast-dipping bedding was encountered, a favorable orientation with respect to the site. • The basal contac# of the Santa Clara Formation lies a short distance downsection from that mapped by Brabb and others (2000), consistent with our observation of Santa Clara Formation earth materials at 21949 Lindy Lane (in borings and graded exposures) and cut slope exposures on the site. This would place the contact still farther west of the site than shown by Brabb and others. 3.2.2 Field Observations In terms of the distribution of major geologic units in the site vicinity, our observations generally confirm the regional mapping of Brabb and others (2000), as refined by Milstone Geotechnical's findings described above. ' Deeply to very deeply weathered outcrops of Santa Clara Formation pebbly sandstone are _ present in several locations on the site: in the cut slope above the existing residence; and in the slopes along Lindy Lane, near the southeastern corner of the property. Colluvium at the site is typically a sandy clay with abundant gravel (up to estimated 25 - 30 % gravel that is subrounded to rounded, and ranging up to approx. 3/a" in diameter). The pebbly sandstone at the site thus appears to lie stratigraphically above the clayey sandstone encountered on the adjacent site to the west at 21949 Lindy Lane, and the massive sandstone reported by Milstone Geotechnica} at the Sun property. Mass wasting at the site appears to have been primarily limited to creep and minor sloughing/raveling of existing fill slopes {see Figure 2). We interpret the in-egular top-of slope near the southeastern property corner to be a remnant signature of the gullying visible on older aerial photographs immediately next to and paralleling Lindy Lane, as subsequently modified by water main installation. We are not aware of any landsliding in this area. 3.2.3 Aerial Photographic Analysis Landslidrng and Regional Geology As part of our evaluation; we analyzed multiple sets of stereoscopic aerial photographs on file at ' the U.S. Geological Survey. We examined the photographs for, and did not detect in the site ' vicinity: evidence of past landsliding, including hummocky topography, anomalous breaks-in- - slope, arcuate topographic lineaments, topographic reversals, disrupted drainages, and closed depressions. The photographs display corrugations in.the ground surface that are roughly traceable across multiple ridgelines, including the Lindy Lane and Regnart Creek drainages. Some of these have - quite planar northeast-facing surfaces, and we interpret them to reflect an overall northeast- dipping stratigraphic sequence. We specifically examined the photographs to evaluate whether the landslide shown at a broad regions} scale on the CGS Seismic Hazard Report "Landslide Inventory Map" {CGS, 2002) is present adjacent to the property as mapped. Although their map is quite generalized, the CGS appears to map a landslide as encompassing a spur ridge west of the property, with the slide's eastern boundary lying in the Swale axis containing the westmost part of the existing shared driveway. Based on undisturbed rock observed in borings and graded exposures at 21949 Lindy Lane, and on similar reported undisturbed exposures encountered by Milstone { f 1.~ 10 - 30 --y 8 1 1 1 L ' / / -__J May 23, 2005 Project 2004G - Geotechnical still farther west, in addition to our analysis, we conclude that this landslide does not extend onto 21949 Lindy Lane, and therefore does not extend onto the site. ' On the earliest photographs (19fi0), the axis#ing residence had not yet been built, although grading appeared to be in progress on the northern half of the property. By the time the 1963 and 1965 photos were taken, the existing residence had been comp{eted. The graded (cut and fill) slopes near the existing residence stand out on the basis of tonal contrast in the photographs. The bench or front yard area below the residence appears to have undergone minor grading, with scattered small trees present near the southern and eastern perimeter of the property. Gullying appears to have affected the slopes next to Lindy Lane east of.the approximate midpoint of the property frontage; the most severe gullying-lies downvalley - from the site. A relict dirt-track ranch road appears to have climbed from near Lindy Lane to the ridgecrest above the property, passing near the northeastern property corner. - Placement of fill against the eroded slopes adjacent to Lindy Lane apparently occurred be#ween - 1965 and 19$0. Faulting We also examined the aerial photographs for evidence indicating that an active fault splay of the Monte Vista fault could be present at the property. We examined the photographs for, and did not detect, features such as linear topographic elements, vegetation lineaments, aligned _ deflections of drainages, planar landform facets, and tonal lineaments indicative of fault contacts that would pass through the proposed sites. The strongly linear rangefront approximately 1000 ' feet northeast of the site is generally considered to be the surface expression of the Monte Vista = fault (Hitchcock and others, 1994}. 3.2.4 Earth Materials There are three primary earth materials underlying the si#e: existing fill, coltuvium, and Santa _ Clara Formation pebbly sandstone bedrock. A brief description of the units is provided below, and our~interpretation of their in#er-relationships is shown on our Site Map and Cross Section . {Figures 3 and 4). The distribution of col[uvium is not shown on our Geologic Si#e Map, since it mantles all other units except existing fill. We have used a modified version of the ASTM method of soil description and classification, and - for descriptions of hardness and weathering properties of bedrock materials we have used the - ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice - No. 5; a summary of the soil and bedrock classification systems is presented in Appendix A of this report. 3.2.4.1 Su~cial Units Existing Fill (Eft The majority of existing fill is restricted #o the outboard part of the graded pad - for the existing house and turnaround. Based on our cross section, we estimate that maximum fill thickness is about 11 feet thick. Minor fill is present elsewhere, primarily as low berms 1 2 feet thick, or associated with roadbuiiding along Lindy Lane. Based on the association of the fills with adjacent cuts, we conclude that it is derived from onsite, and field-classified this soil as a sandy lean clay with gravel. The surface exposures of existing fill are texturally very similar to calluvium. We did not observe pronounced desiccation cracks which would indicate expansive soils, ~ , 10-31 -_^7 9 May 23, 2005 Project 2004G Colluvlum {Qcol) - Calluvium is exposed at the upper limit of cuts at the site, where it is less than about 2 feet thick. Its thickness likely increases downslope as shown on our cross section; it likely does not exceed about 4 feet in thickness, based on cut slope exposures along Lindy Lane. - 3.2.4.2 Bedrock Units Santa Clara Formation (QTsc) -Santa Clara Formation bedrock underlies the entire site, based on regional reconnaissance and the materials exposed in cuts. The formation contains a - variety of rock types, but where we encoun#ered it onsite, it consists of red-brown, weathered pebbly sandstone. Estimated gravel percent reaches about 30%, with the gravel subrounded to rounded, and less than abou# in diameter. In our borings on the adjacen# site to the west, we encountered Santa Clara Formation bedrock as well, al#haugh it lies stratigraphically below this site and were texturally different. 4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 4.1 GENERAL SUMMARY Based on the results of our investigation, we conclude that the property is gealogical[y suitable -for the proposed two-lot subdivision in that a second home site is geologically feasible on the property, provided that the specific building plans are formulated on the basis of an appropriate, design-level geotechnical investiga#ion incorporating site-specific subsurface explora#ion. In our = judgment, there are no geologic or geotechnical issues that would preclude the project. All are well within the range typically addressed by such adesign-level geotechnical investigation and are routinely addressed by conven#ional geotechnical/grading practices. Since the existing home is to remain, our discussion does no# address future geologic/geotechnical performance or design considerations for the eastern proposed lot. In the sections below, we first review the feasibility-level geologic hazards we considered for the = site. Then we review the geotechnical considerations which should be addressed by a design- - level geotechnical investigation. - 4.2 LANDSLIDING In our judgment, the potential for both deep-seated and relatively shallow landsliding to affect - the proposed project is low, as evidenced by the lack of previous significant landsliding at the ,site (mass was#ing has been limited to creep and minor sloughing/raveling); the overall moderate slopes present; the favorable bedding orientation indicated by geologic informa#ion from onsite cuts and nearby borings; and the site's location away from a swale axis. . We similarly judge the potential for seismically-induced landsliding #o occur at the site #o be low, far essen#ially the same reasons. The performance of the existing house/turnaround fill slope that lies upslope of the proposed conceptual home site is discussed below under Geotechnical Considerations. 4.3 SEISMIC HAZARDS Our judgment regarding various primary and secondary seismic hazards is summarized below. 10 - 32 ~ - r-- --ti ~ a - ~ ~ - May 23, 2005 Projecf 2004G • The potential for fault ground rupture and for coseismic faulting to occur at the site is low. • The potential for strong ground shaking is high during the economic lifetime of the proposed improvements. = Selection of the appropriate seismic design parameters for structures should be made by the project structural engineer after consideration of the site ma#erials, analytical - procedures and past performance of similar structures during magnitudes of shaking - similar to those expected for this site. - We assume seismic design will be in accordance with current applicable codes. Based on Chapter 16 of the 1997 UBC the following site-specific seismic design criteria are anticipated: 1) Seismic Zone Factor, Z=0.4 2) -Soil Profile Type = So (stiff soil) 3) Near Source Factors: Na = 1.3 N„ = 1.6 _ 4) Seismic Coefficients: Ca = 0.44Na - C~ = 0.64N„ 5) Seismic Source Type and distance as per the following table: Fault ~$eismic:Source Type Distance and Directran ` _ . . - Name UBC 1997 Table 16T. , From Site to Fault km Monte Vista- B 0.3 NE Shannon San A 5.5 SW Andreas San B 27 SW Gregorio Calaveras B - 28 NE Hayward 8 23 NE • The potential for significant ground deformation (including lurch cracking) at the proposed home site is low. Apart from fill associated with the existing house/turnaround, = the existing fill on the proposed Lot 2 is estimated to be less than about 4 feet thick. Minor sloughs or ravelling of the existing fill slope on Lo# 1 could reach retaining wails proposed along the upslope side of the proposed residence; they should be designed to = catch small amounts of debris and will require maintenance. • The potential for ridgetop fissuring/shattering is low, as the site is not located in a topographic setting conducive to this phenomenon. Ridge-top shattering can be partially attributed to focusing of seismic energy along the crests of ridges in zones of intense - shaking. Fissuring can be attributed to attenuation of seismic waves along ridge tops, and to the differential displacement of earth materials -along planes of weakness during seismic shaking. ' 10 - 33 l.' -a ~ - ; 11 ' - I i -_-J May 23, 2005 Project 2004G In our judgment the poten#ial for liquefaction is judged to be very low, based on texture of soils at the site, and the lack of a shallow water table. 4.4 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS Other significant geotechnical issues that will affect the design and construction of the proposed - improvements, and should be addressed in the design-level geotechnical investigation, include: • Potential for Strong Seismic Shaking -There is a significant potential for strong seismic shaking during the economic lifetime of the proposed project, which must be considered, as previously noted. • Soil Creep -Depending on the specific project, it may be advisable to design improvements for creep loads to an unknown depth. This possibility should be - considered in the geotechnical investigation. • Existing Fill -Existing non-engineered fill is relatively restricted in extent and thickness an the proposed home site; the most significant fill is associated with the existing home and turnaround. The potential for settlement (and creep) should be considered if fill is - present in the area of proposed improvements. Depending on the development concept, retaining wall(s) may be necessary to support some thickness of the existing fill that would fie upslope of the proposed homesite {see Figure 2). The inclination of the fill slope along the outboard edge of the existing homelturnaround is steeper than would be constructed under modem geotechnical practice, so some sloughing/ravelling should be expected, which may be addressed by providing freeboard along the top of retaining wall(s) at the toe of this slope. . • Thickness and Nature of Colluvium -The nature and thickness of colluvium wil! affect ' foundation #ype and design recommendations, and the performance of concrete flatwork. _ Nature and Depth of Competent Bedrock - While a significant amount of information is apparent from existing cut slopes and nearby borings, same site-specific subsurface information will be required. • Expansive Earth Materials -The potential for expansive bedrock and/or su~cial materials should be considered. - Typical Geotechncca! Issues, e.g. • Cut slope design • Fill slope design Foundation design • Retaining wall design • Subsurtace/surface drainage - Slabs-on-grade, utility trenches, etc. 5. LIMITATIONS = In preparing the findings and professiona! opinions presented in this report, we have endeavored to follow all generally accepted principles and practices of the engineering geologic and geotechnical engineering professions. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, express or implied. ' __-.r 10 - 34 ; - 12 May 23, 2005 Project 2004G The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based, in part, on information that has been provided to us. Our conclusions and recommendations shall not be considered valid unless we are retained to pertorm design-level geotechnical investigation as specific building plans are developed.. - _ Should persons concerned with this project observe features or conditions at the site or - surrounding area that are different from those described in this report, those observations should be reported immediately to Pacific Geotechnical Engineering for evaluation. It is important for project performance that the recommendations given in this report be made known to the design professionals involved with the project, that appropriate geotechnical criteria are incorporated into project drawings and documents, and that the design-level - geotechnical recommendations be carried out during construction by the contractor and subcontractors. It is not the responsibility of Pacific Geotechnical Engineering to perform this task. A copy of this report should be provided to new owners if the property is conveyed. - Report prepared by, PACIFIC GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING Fg,ED Gy'p` OG'~~ ~ pFCSSl0~ . No. 18513 ~ ~ti~, ~a. CORD. l~, G. Reid Fis Ph.~F1~D ~ Soma B. Goresky ~y~ ~ CEG 1858 ENGIlVEERiPlG GE 2252 W l~to. 225 r^ sl~T GEOLOGi~'~`,~~/ Exp. 6130105 ~ ..Exp. ~ f~~ ~ ~ GRF:SBGIPCA:g --J' J'~,9 ~ rECFli~~. _ Of C~4\FQ~ . -1 10 - 35 -_y 13 ~ r-- ~ - ; , May 23, 2005 Project 2004G REFERENCES - 't. MAPS AND REPORTS Abrahamson, N.A. and Silva, W.J., 1997, Empirical response spectral attenuation relations for shaElow crustal earthquakes: Seismological Research Letters (Special Issue on ground motion attenuation), vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 94-127. - Abrahamson, N.A., and Shedlock, K.M., 1997, Overview: Seismological Research Letters (Special Issue on ground motion attenuation), vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 9-23. Boore, D.M., Joyner; W.B., and Fumal T.E., 1997, Equations for estimating horizontal response spectra and peak acceleration from western North American earthquakes: A summary of recent work: Seismological Res. Letters, val. 68, no. 1, p. 128-153. Brabb, E.E., Graymer, R.W., and Jones, D.L., 2000, Geologic map and map database of the Palo Aito 30' x 60' quadrangle, California: USGS Miscellaneous -Field Studies Map MF- 2332, version 1.0, scale 1:100,000. ~ California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG}, 1974, Special Studies Zone Map, Cupertino Quadrangle, 1:24,000. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, Maps of known active fault near-sou-rce zones in California and adjacent portions of Nevada (to be used with 1997 Uniform Building .Code): International Conference of Building Officials. California Geological Survey, 2002, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Cupertino quadrangle. California Geological Survey, 2002, Seismic Hazard Zones [Map], Cupertino quadrangle, - 1:24,000. Hitchcock, C.S., Kelson, K.I., and Thompson, S.C., 1994, Geomorphic investigation sof deformation along the northeastern margin of the Santa Cruz Mountains: USGS Open File Report 94-187. Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault activity map of California and adjacent areas: California Division Of Mines And Geology, California Geologic Data Map Series, Map No. 6, scale 1:750,000., Knudsen, K.L., and others, 2000, Preliminary maps of Quaternary deposits and liquefaction susceptibility, nine-county San Francisco Bay region, California: a digital database: USGS Open-File Report 00-444, scale 1:24,000. - Michael, A.J., and others [Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities], 1999, = Understanding earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay Region, major quake likely to strike • between 2000 and 2030: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet-152-99. _ Petersen, M.D., Bryant, W.A., Cramer, C.H., Cao, T., Reichle, M.S., Frankel, A.D., . Lienkaemper, J.J., McCrory, P.A., and Schwartz, D. P., 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of Califomia:. Califomia Geological Survey Open-File Report 96- - 08, 33p. This made! has been superseded by an online version available at http://www.consrv. ca. gov/cgs/rghzn/psha/index.htm Rogers, T.H. and Williams, J.W., 1974, Potential seismic hazards in Santa Clara County, _ California: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 107, 41 p. Santa Clara County, 2002a, Santa Clara County Geologic Hazard Zones (Fault Rupture Hazard Zones): Santa Clara .County Planning Department, adopted 2/26102, revised 8/14/03. { ~ , _ 10 - 36 ~ _ -.1 14 --1 - _ ~ , May 23, 2005 Project 2004G, Current version available online a# http://www.sccpianning,org/channel/0,4770,chid%253D32110%2526sid%253D12867 OO.html Santa Clara County, 2002b, Santa Clara County Geologic Hazard Zones (Landslide, Compressible Soil, and Dike Failure Hazard Zones}: Santa Clara County Planning Department, adopted 2/26102, revised 8114/03. Curren# version available online at = http:/lwww.sccplannina.or4lchanneV0.4770.chid%253D32110%2526sid%253D12867 OO.html - Toppozada, T. R:, and Borchardt, Glenn, 1998, Re-evaluation of the 1836 "Hayward Fault" and _ the 1838 San Andreas Fault earthquakes: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of - America, Vol. 88, Na. 1, pp.140-159, February, 1998. Wagner, D.W., and others, compilers, 1991, Geologic map of the San Francisco-San Jose - quadrangle, California: Caiifomia Division Of Mines And Geology, Regional Geologic Map Series, Map 5A, scale 1:250,000. Wesnousky, S. G., 1986, Earthquakes, Quaternary faults, and seismic hazard in California: - Journal of Geophysical Research, vol, 91, no. 612, p. 12,587-12,631. Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 1990, Probabilities of large earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay Region, Caiifomia: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1053, 51 p. _ Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 1996, Database of potential sources for earthquakes larger than magni#ude 6 in northern California: U.S. Geological Survey Open- File Report 96-705. Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 2003, Earthquake probabilities in the San Francisco Bay region: 2002-2031: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-214. 2. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS Black and white unless indicated Date Approx. Scale Project Roll/Frame No. Source - 8/23/60 1:30,000 GS-VACY 2/162, 161 USGS 713163 1:20,000 CIV-1 DD 239, 240, 241, USGS 263, 261 5/14/65 1:12,000 SCL 5/103, 1.02, 101 USGS - ~ 10-37 t-= ; 15 ~ e . ; - FIGURES 10-38 EXPI,ANA~iON . ~ EARTH MATERIALS - QIS Landslide deposits J Stevens ; ; : Qo3 Older Alluvium 3. .Geek . ~ ) eoG QTS Santa Clara Formation oa T.. • o~~ :y ~;a c~~ ' °'Z ~ TSS Unnamed sandstone and shale " l so ` \ / ~ ~ s ~ - G„ ~ ~ MAP SYMBOLS ~ / °.o Earth materials contact ti J ~ - ~ Qrs.:; dip a Pauli contact; buried within map area 5~~f ~ . ` • ~~s ~ 3y Strike and dip (orientation) of bedding . 1 ~n~ a \ IC'E' ~~,o r ~ ; ~ Bedrock fold axis (anticline) a ~ . ~ ~e,g. ~ ~ .Lena ~ ~ i~'~ Y t .~a/ - / ~1- r ~ Q[}~ , ' e i Regn ~ : f 1 r ~ of r' s f'o . ~a . °rr ~ a, dtirt,~ G, . PATE GEOT.AGIC INDEX MAP FIGURE ;PACIFIC MAY 2905 PROPOSED SUBDIVISION l 'r-- _ -'OEOTECHNICAL 21925LINDYLAIYE iENCrINEERING APPROVED CUPERTINO,CALII+ORIVIA PRUJB'CT BASE MAP: Modified from Sorg and McLaughlin (1975); refer to source map for complete explaoatian of geologic units. - 200pG C.~~C7 A A. s~2°w f°o foo Existing drkeway ~ Graded Fad forecasting eu ~ residenceltumaround 80 ~ QcoI ~ e0 o \ ~ z 80 O _ so w w - _ • ? J W _ Q'i'sc ~ Ef > • ~ 40 W ~ QCOI ~ ? Ef Lindy Lane 20 'JIi~ p__ ~ ` 20 • QTsc Ef a 0 0 20 40 60 80' 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 DfSTANCE (feet) DATE F'iGURE NOTE Geobgbcrosssectionbasedonfield.measured -PACIFIC GEOIAGICCROSSSECTIONA-A' topographic profile (tape and clinometer), ( MAY 2005 4 Topography of base map does not accurately PROPOSED SUBDMSION portray grades attoe of fill sbpe. ~ GEOTECTiNTCAL APPROVED 21925 LINAYL,#NE pRUJECT _ _____;ENGINEEItTNG CUPERTINO,CALIFORNIA 2004G 0 A O . p ~ _ ' x_'35 ' - ~ t • e---~ yam.. +~-rm.. _ _ 1_ 31 ; - ~ ~ \ ~ r ` =~r ' r , ~ ~ _ , a :«fi-I n.. 2870 ~ ~ - ~ P ,_~~irc ~C ~i ~ 'i -P OWN ~`-l~ r~-~ - i y ~ _ ; Yt M ~ v - .I rib n n:uw ~ ` -.r--r maL. - _ ~ ~ 'sting AC drfveWay ily 1` e ~ \ 'i i • - Existing house 'I 1 -30--~ ~6~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~-L`q:1~n ~ 9 ? 7 ..rte ~ ~ p/I E~ , rM,~ - ~ Conceptual 1 ~ ~ ~ property line f I ~ 'f "_.~SJ.fLI imiK_ 1rSJC~` \ ~ ~ ~ ~0„f PL -~~a~ '~~f Conte wall r ~ ~ - % _ ~ _ ~ I~ conceptual ~ J~- - 30-- _ ~ ~4~(. . house - . - - ~ -f - f ,_.Shallow cat bowl= -J / ~ ~ ~r + `~y.~ ~ (max cut 3~ Ig g, . •1 1 . \ . 1 _ - c o l Dlsturbea , ; , f i - - ~ ------r f +1 .1 ~ 1 CMS ~NKUN~ ` 1\ ~8f88 11 ~~6' _Corlccplual waA - r shallow-CUFHOWI_ i - r~~ ~ ~ i~~ ~ \ * ~ ,mwn 72 (mAxcvt2 f_ ; fry-" ` # t 7 ~ soNC ,r„u<, - ~~-ehanaw 1 v - ~ M uk r~ ~ r~ l 1 ,lam '~r 0.1RIE!ti. PNKar„ - ~f~ r~rnun rPCt•P • r . PONOP ~ Ef ~ i~r wv.ewas. . „ A' ' LINDY LANE 'I ' © ~ ~ ~ ' ® ' o ':W" DATE EXPLANATION EARTH MATERIALS Ef Fili QCOI Colluvium (shown on cross. section only) QTsc Santa Clara Formation MAP SYMBOLS Contact between.earth material units, dashed. ` where approximate, queried where uncertain Fill slope Cut slope ~ Crest of berm 28/ Slope aspect and inclination (degrees) Sloughing/soil creep Peb ,k *SS * Outcrop, peb ss =pebbly sandstone A A' ' t Line of geologic cross section 10-42 _ . APPENDIX A 10-43 KEY TO SOIL,CLASS~FICA.T~Ql~1-FINE=GRAINED SOILS FINE GRAINED SOILS 1 • MORE THAN 50% PASSING THE N0.200 SIEVE • - MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP NAMES SILTS AND CLAYS < 15% COARSE LEAN SILT/CLAY WITH LESS THAN GRAINED 30% COARSE GRAINED 15 TO 29% COARSE LEAN SILT/CLAY WITH GRAVEL OR SAND = U MATERIAL GRAINED SILTS AND ~ CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT <35 SILTS AND CLAYS %SAND> %GRAVEL SANDY LEAN SILT/CLAY WITH OR WITHOUT GRAVEL WITH GREATER THAN 30%COARSE GRAINED /oGRAVEL> /°SAND GRAVELLY LEAN SILT/CLAY WITH OR WITHOUT SAND MATERIAL o 0 _ SILTS AND CLAYS < !5% COARSE Sn,T/CLAY WITH LESS THAN GRAINED - ~ 30%COARSE GRAINED 15 TO 29% COARSE STLTICLAY WITH GRAVEL OR SAND t j SILTS AND MATERIAL GRAINED CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT 35 - 50 SILTS AND CLAYS o/SAND>%GRAVEL SANDY SILTICLAY WTTH OR WITHOUT GRAVEL WITH GREATER THAN 30% COARSE GRAINED °/~~.~L> o/~~ GRAVELLY SILTICLAY WITH OR WITHOUT SAND MATERIAL SILTS AND CLAYS < 1 S% COARSE SILT/FAT CLAY WITH LESS THAN GRAINED 30% COARSE GRAINED 15 TO 29%COARSE SILT/FAT CLAY WITH GRAVEL OR SAND U SILTS AND MATERIAL GRAINED CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT > 50 SILTS AND CLAYS %SAND > %GRAVEL SANDY SILT/FAT CLAY WITH OR WITHOUT GRAVEL WITH GREATER THAN 30%COARSE MATEAL %GRAVEL> %SAND GRAVELLY SILT/FAT CLAY WITI•I OR WITHOUT SAND 1. BASED ON A MODIFICATION OF ASTM D2487-85. SOIL CONSISTENCY 2 PLASTICITY CHART 70 CONSISTENCY UNCONFINED STANDARD 3 ~ SILTS AND CLAYS S~'~ STRENGTH PENETRATION 60 ' (I{SF) (BLOWS/I'OOT) ~ ~ so VERY SOFT < 0.25 < 2 ~ ' SOFT 0.25 - 0.50 2 - 4 ~ ~ ~ FIRM 0.50 - 1.00 4 - 8 ~ 40 STIFF 1.00 - 2.00 8 - 15 , cH °a•-L~ VERY ST[FF 2.00 - 4.00 ~ 3030 ~ 30 HARD > 4.0 ~ cl zo 2. BASED ON TERZAGHI AND PECIC_ ' n+l-1 orl 3. FOR PRELIMINARY APPROXIMATION ONLY. ,'cL t° M1a07 cL-?VtL. ML a OL 00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 BO 90 COLOR ~ L1QlJID LfA~IIT (FOR FINE AND COARSE GRAINED SOILS) GENERALLY BASED ON THE MUNSELL COLOR CHARTS PACIFIC G]CQT]GC~-INICA:L~EN~IlVElERTI~G , ' KEY CO SOIL GLASSIF~(''~11TION .C`OARSE +GRAINED`-~~IUS - T. COARSE GRAINED SOILS ~ LESS THAN 50% PASSING THE N0.200 SIEVE MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP NAMES <5% FINE WELL GRADED GW <15"SAND GRAVEL GRAINED MATERIAL POORLY GRADED GP z15% SAND GRAVEL WITH SAND GRAVEL 5%TO 12% WELL GRADED GW <15% SAND GRAVEL WITH SILT OR CLAY LESS THAN FINE GRAINED 50%PASSING MATERIAL THE N0.4 POORLY GRADED GP z15% SAND GRAVEL WITH SILT OR CLAY <15" SAND SILTY GRAVEL ° SILTY FINES GM >12/° FINE , z15% SAND SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND GRAINED MATERIAL CLAYEY FINES GC `15% SAND CLAYEY GRAVEL zi 5% SAND CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND ' WELL GRADED SW <15"GRAVEL SAND . <5"FINE . GRAINED MATERIAL POORLY GRADED SP Z15% GRAVEL SAND WITH GRAVEL SANDS WELL GRADED SW <35"GRAVEL SAND WITH SILT OR CLAY MORE THAN 5%TO 12% 50"PASSING FINE GRAINED THE N0.4 MATERIAL POORLY GRADED SP ?15% GRAVEL SAND WITH SILT OR CLAY AND <i5"GRAVEL SILTY SAND >12"FINE SILTYFiNES SM ° z15 GRAVEL SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL GRAINED MATERIAL CLAYEY FINES SC <15% GRAVEL CLAYEY SAND z15% GRAVEL CLAYEY SANDWTTH GRAVEL 1. BASED ON A MODIFICATION OF ASTM D2487-85. , SOIL DENSITY 2 GRAIN SIZE CLASSIFICATION V.S. STANDARD SIEVES STANDARD sQunREOrawcc°0 sffivENUnmQe trvnaoMETER RELATIVE DENSITY PENETRATION ~ ~ 2 ~ Ravi ~ no 16 2° ,0 w loo 200 (SANDS AND GRAVELS} (BLOWS/FOOT) VERY LOOSE 0 - 4 LOOSE 4-10 MEDIUM DENSE l0 - 30 ' DENSE 30 - 54 VERY DENSE >50 2, BASED ON TERZAGHI AND PECK. SOIL MOISTURE DRY- DUSTY, ABSENCE OF ANY MOISTURE DAMP- SLIGHT MOISTURE BUT WELL BELOW OPITMUM WATER CONTENT MOIST- NEAR OPTIMUM WATER CONTENT WET- VISUAL FREE WATER, USUALLY SOIL L'C~BIFS 6RAVp. SAND 6E.T w.1 L'[AY - ~ ~ PAC~I`IC G~Q'I"~+LT~NXC.AL EI~7GINE]ERIIVG RQCKQU~LI~Y D~SC~~23P~'IONS " HARDNESS** WEATHERING** Very Hard Cannot be scratched with Fresh Rock fresh, crystals bright, - knife or sharp pick. or unweathered few joints and fractures Breaking of hand may show slight staining. specimens requires Rock rings under hammer if several hard blows of crystalline. - the geologist's pick. Very slight Rock generally fresh, fractures Hard Can be scratched with and joints stained, some joints knife or pick only with may show thin clay coatings, difficulty. Hard blow crystals in broken face show - with hammer required to bright. Rock rings under hammer break sample. if crystalline. Moderately Hard Can be scratched with Slight Rock generally fresh,. joints knife or pick. Gouges and fractures stained, and - or grooves to I/4 inch discoloration extends into rock can be excavated by hard up to one inch. Joints may blow of point of a contain clay. In granitic rock geologist's pick. Hand some occasional feldspar specimens broken with crystals are dull and moderate blow. discolored. Crystalline rocks Medium Can be grooved or gouged ring under hammer. 1/16 inch deep by firm Moderate Significant portions of rock pressure on knife or show discoloration and - pick point. Can be weathering effects. In granitic excavated in small chips rock, most feldspars are dull . about one inch maximum• and discolored; some show clay. in dimension by hard Rock has dull sound under hammer blows of the point of a and shows significant loss of geologist's pick. strength as compared with fresh Soft Can be gouged or grooved rock. readily with knife ~or Moderately All rock except quartz pick point. Can be severe discolored or stained. In excavated in chips to granitic rock, all feldspars pieces several inches dull and discolored and majority in size by moderate blows show kaolinization. Rock of a pick point. Small shows severe loss of strength - pieces can be broken by and can be excavated with finger pressure, geologist's pick. Rock goes _ Very Soft Can be carved with knife. "clunk" when struck. Can be excavated readily Severe All rock except quartz with point of pick. discolored or stained. Rock Pieces one inch or more "fabric" clear and evident, but thickness can be broken reduced in strength to strung with finger pressure. soil. In granitic rock, all = i Can be scratched readily feldspars kaolinized to some by fingernail. extent. Some fragments of strong rock usually left. FRACTURE DIMENSIONS* Very severe All rock except quartz _ discolored or stained. Rock - "fabric" discernible, but mass Fractrure Block Size (or spacingl) effectively reduced to "soil" with only fragments of strong Crushed -5 microns to 0.1 ft rock remaining. Intensely 0.05 to 0.1 ft Complete Rock reduced to '"soil". Rock . Closely 0.1 to 0.5 ft "fabric" not ,discernible or Moderately 0.5 to 1.0 ft discernible only in small Slightly 1.0 to 3.0 ft scattered locations. Quartz may Massive 3.0 ft. and lar er be present as dikes or g stringers. r 1 Average distance between adjacent fractures ' Source of data unknown Source oT data: "Subsurface Investigation for Design and Construction oP _ Foundation Buildings", Ii976) American Society oP Civil Engineers, Manuals and Reports on~Engineering Practice - No_ 5 ]P:ACJCFIC G~~TEC~[1~:~Cr~Z F,~N~G~NEER~NG " ~o - as APPENDIX B 10-47 SELECTED REGIONAL FAULT DATA San Andreas fault -The San Andreas fault is hundreds of miles Long, passing through . the greater Bay Area from beyond Pt. Reyes to the north, down the San Francisco Peninsula, and extending on beyond Hollister to the south. This fault has generated. a# least four large, damaging earthquakes during historic time: 1838, - 1857, 1906 and 1989. In addition, an 1836 earthquake once considered to have _ occurred on the Hayward fault is now thought to have occurred south of Loma Prieto in 'the Santa Cruz Mountains on an unknown fault (Opposed and Orchard, 1998}. The earthquake of 1838 probably caused ground rupture from San Juan Bautista to San Francisco, and was centered somewhere in between; it had an estima#ed Richter magnitude of about 7.5. The earthquake of 1857 occurred in - San Luis Obispo County; it had an estimated Richter magnitude of approximately 8.0. The 1906 earthquake was probably centered }"ust offshore of the Golden Gate of San Francisco .Bay, and had an es#imated Richter magnitude of approximately _ 8.3. The 1989 Loma Prieto earthquake was epic entered in the Santa Cruz Mountains. This moment magnitude 6.9 earthquakes (Richter or surface wave magnitude 7.1) caused fi4 deaths, about 4,000 injuries and about 6 billion dollars of damage in the Bay Area. The California Geological Survey {CGS) currently considers the maximum. earthquake for the Peninsula segment of the San Andreas fault to be moment magnitude 7.1 (CGS, 1996). The maximum earthquake for the Santa Cruz Mountains segment is considered to be moment magnitude 7.0. Both segments are considered by the CGS (1996) to have the same 400-year return intervals for the maximum earthquake, although recent work suggests a shorter return interval (Hall and others, 1999). - Calaveras fault -The Calaveras fault passes through the lower foothills of the Diablo Range and roughly forms the eastern margin of the southern Santa Clara Valley. The creeping southern segment of this fault merges with the San Andreas fault near Hollister. The Calaveras fault has generated a number of moderate magnitude, damaging earthquakes during historic time: 1897, 1911, 1979, and 1984. The Richter magnitudes for all four of these earthquakes were nearly - - identical: 1897 - 6.2; 1911 6.1; 1979 - 5.9; and 1984 - 6.2. Current research _ (CGS, 1996) indicates that the maximum earthquake for the Calaveras fault is moment magnitude 6.2, with a return interval of 33 years. Hayward fault --The Hayward fault forms the eastern margin of the San Francisco Bay basin. The last major earthquake on the Hayward fault occurred in 1968 along a "southern segment" of the fault, and had an estimated Richter magnitude of 7.0, Until recently, it was thought that asimilar-magnitude earthquake in 1836 occurred on a northern segment of the fault. However, as noted above, recent research = suggests that the 1836 earthquake occurred on a different fault (Toppozada and Borchardt, 1998), and that the Hayward fault may be unsegmented. The CGS ~ (1996) considers the maximum earthquake for the Hayward fault to be moment magnitude 6.9, with a return interval of 167 years. _ Sargent fault - The Sargent fault is considered part of the San Andreas fault system _ - and splays off of this fault north of the Ci#y of Santa. Cruz. Like other thrust faults . east of the Sari Andreas fault, the Sargent fault is thought to be tectonically coupled with the San Andreas fault at depth. However a recent study by Nolan and others suggests that the Sargent fault may not be tectonically coupled with the San Andreas, and thaf movement may be associated with dis#ributed shear .across ~ _ the region. t _ s 10-48 = Appendix B , --J EXHIBIT ~ -1.. COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, TNC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ANI~ GBOL~GISTS June 29, 2005 00055 To : Colin Jung Cupertino City Planner CTTY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, Califorxtia 950J.~ SUBJECT : Geologic Review ~ . ICnopp, Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision 21925 Lindy Lane, Cupertino ,A.t your request, we have completed a geologic review of the subject application for the 2-lot subdivision using the following documents: • Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Peasibility Evaluation (report), prepared by Pacific Geoteehnical Engineering, dated May 23, 2005; and • Tentative Parcel Map, Lairds of ICnopp (1 sheet, 20-scale), prepared by Nelson Engineering, dated May, 2005. In addi~kioxi to the above referenced documents, we have reviewed pertinent. technical data from. our office files and performed a recent site inspection. . DISCUSSION Our review of the referenced materials ixtdxcates that the applicant proposes 'to subdivide the existing approximate 1-acre rectangular parcel unto two residEntial lots, each approximately 20,000 square feet in size. The property is curre~.tly developed with a single -family residence with attached garage Ioca~ted in the northeast portion of the parcel: Access to the property is via a pri~rate driveway extending northwestward from Ludy Lane with a stub driveway extending eastward off of thzs private driveway_ Lindy ~Lazie bounds the parcel aloztg its southern boundary. The proposed subdivision would result in two rectangular-shaped parcels, the existing parcel would be the Eastern parcel and the new lot would be the western parcel SITE CONDITIONS The subject property is characterized by moderately steep to steep (12~to 18- degree unclii-~ations), soutk~east~facing, natural hillside topography. Grading for initial residez1tial construction has resulted in the development of a large cut/fill building pad across the northern portion of bath proposed lots, which accommodates the ex~~~.g . driveway and residence. Fill slopes associated with this pad are very steep (up to 35~ degree inclinati.ons). Cutslopes along the northern side. of the pad are very steep to precipitous (up to 42-degree iztclinations). Evideztce of shallow sloughing and sliding is apparex<t along the ovexsteep fillslope. A steep cutslope (up to 30-degree ir?clina~ons) is Noztliern California Office Southern California Office 330 village Lane 5245 Avenida E ~ inas . • Suite A Los Gatos, CA 45030-7213 Caxisbad,~1~,~J200$-4374 (408) 354-5542 • 1'ax {408) 354-1552 (760) 931-2700 ~ Fax: (760) 931=1020 _ .nnm Caliz~ dung June 29, 2005 Page 2 ~ COQ55 located along the southern property boundary, associated with Lindy sane. This . cutslope displays evidence of shallow sloughing axtd s~tdiung. T?xainage at the site iS chazacterized by partially controllQd sheetflow directed to the southeast. The site is underlain, at depth by sedimentary bedrock zxtaterials of the Santa Clara Formation (i.e., iztterbedded sandstone, siltstone, and conglomerate). ThesE zxiatezials are locally overlair? by shallow (generally less than 4 feet in thickness), . potentially exparusive surficial soil materials. Pebbly sandstone bedrock rnatexzals o£ the Santa Clara Formation are eapased along the steep cutslape above the existing building pad. The City Geologic Hazards Map. indicates that the site is located wi#hin the "Foothills" zone, which is defined as "Foothills terrain; gentle to steep, partially urbanized hz7lside area located west of the valley floor and generally east of the Monte BeIIo Ridge." The -site is near the bovndar3? of the "F-2" and "F-3" zones. Development in an "F-2/F-3" zone is potentially constrained by ground failure (landslidiztg) and seismic shaking and ground fracturing. The site lies outside of the State's earthquake induced landslide zone depicted on their Seiszxuc Hazard Zone Map .Fox the Cupertino Quadrangle. The active San Andreas fault is located approximately 3.0 aniles southwest of the project site and the potentially active Monta Vista fault is approximately 1,000 feet northeast of the site. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION' The. subject property is potentially constrained by escpar~sive surficial soil material, the potential- for settlement and shallow sluulping of non-engineered fill, surficial soil and fill creep, shallow instability along cutslopes, and the susceptibility of the site to very strong to ~riolent seisnuc ground shaking. Based upon our review of the referenced documents, it appears that the Project Geotechnical Consultant has pexfozmed a feasibility-level in'vestigatior~, of the site, and has indicated that the sitE is feasible from a geologic and geotechnical standpoint, provided that the project design incorporates the recommP~tdations of a design-level geotechnical investigation. Based upon our review of the referenced clocunnents and our site recannaissar?c~ and aexzal photographs, we agree with the Project Geoteehnieal Consultant that the proposed subdivision appears feasible fraxx~ a geologic st~.ndpoint, provided that future site development plans aze designed in accordance with a detailed design level geotechnical ixtve5tigation. The existing non:er~.giuneexed fill appears to pose tlXe greatest geotechnical constraint to the project. It is our opinion that a new xeside~ntial structure located dawnslope of this fill will not be approved by this office without either removal azad replacement of the old fill, or the zztstallation of a deep, pier supported retaining wall desig~.led to account for a deep landslide failure at the bedrock intex£ace. Prior to approval of grading or buildazig permits, we i:ecomrnend that a detailed geotechnical design-level investigation be peartormed, including, but not necessarily limited to, the following items: 1. Gentechzuieal Investigation -The applicant's Registered Geoteclu~.ical Engineer should perfoxzxt a geotechnical investigation of the project site, including, at a rninirxxu~z~, the following items: 10-50 COT'T`ON, SIRES 3L ASSOCIATES, INC. ColinJu~g June 29, 2005 Page 3 00055 • A surface investigation should be performed, including updating the original site paan/geotechnical map depicting the existing and proposed development in relatfox< to gevtechnical features of the property (i.e., cutslopes; fills, slope instability, slope angles, all subsurface excavation lpcati~rtS, etC.~; e Subsurface investigation at tk?e proposed new lot should be performed, including explorat;.oxt in the vidnity of the proposed newv foundation1. The subsurface 7lxtvestigation should include sampling of the subsurface materials from depths of anticipated foundation support. The depth of fill and non bedrock nnatexia3s should be performed within the fill prism, even if the residence is to be located dowxtslope of the fill. A.ll logs of subsurface exploration should be submitted with the geoteChnical report; • A,~n investigation of the existing fill should be performed and recommendations provided for removal and replacement, ar stabilization. It is our opinion that this fill material may not be suitable fox use as a viable building pad without rigorous mitigation efforts. if the proposed building site is located downslope of the non-engineered fill, then this fill should either be removed and replaced, or reconunendations provided for a deep, pier-supported retaining wail. Slope stability analyses should be performed to support the x'etazning wall design alternative; - Laboratory testing should be performed on selected samples from the subsurface exploration, including testing for index, strex<gth, and expansion potential; and • The results. of the geotecl~nical inx~estigation should be presented in a report that sluzunarizes the findings axed provides geotechnzcal design recommendations for foundations, retainiri~ walls, drainage control, and site grading. 2. Detailed xading and braina eg Plan - 'the ~'roject Pnginc~r should subxnit a detailed grading plan once the building location has been identified and the geotechnical investigation is conzpleted_ 3. Geotechnical >'lan Review -The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechr?ical aspects o£ the development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations and retaxrwog walls) to ensure that his xecozxanendatiai~,s have been properly incozporated. The results of the Geotechxucal Znvestigatian, Grading Plan, and Geotecluzical Plan Review should be summarized by the geotedini.eal consultant and civil engineer, and submitted to the City far review and approval by the City Geologist and City Staff prior to approval of Grading and )3uzldi.z~.g Permit. 10-51 COTTdN, S~ltks & .PsSSdCYA.~$, INC. Colin Jung june 29, 2005 Page ~ C0055 LIIVIITATIONS This review has been perforaned to provide technical advice to assist the City $2 its ditscretionary permit decisxoz~s. Our services have beext limited to review o£ the documents previously identified, and a visual review of the property. Our opinions and conclusions are zxtade in accordance with generally accEpted principles and practices of the geotechnical profession. ~s warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied_ Respectfully submitted, COTTON, SHIRES A1VY? ASfiOCIA.T1laS, INC. CI'I`X GBOY.OGI T Y ro M. Wallace Supervisixtg Engineez~xtg Geologist CMG 1923 ~ Ted Sayze Managing Engineexlxtg Geologist CEG 1795 TS_JMt~N'st 10-52 ~O`I'TON, SHIRES & ASSOCIA.TIJS, INC> TM-2005-03 ' CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 Exhibit G - RESOLUTION N0.6313 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO . APPROVING A TEN'T'ATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.0 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF ABOUT 20,000 SQUARE FEET EACH IN SIZE IN AN R1-20 ZONING DISTRICT AT 21925 LINDY LANE SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: TM-2005-03 Applicant: Bret Moxley Location: 21925 Lindy Lane SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map as described in Section I of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Subdivision and .Procedural Ordinances of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning ' Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: a) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan. b) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan. c) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development contemplated under the approved subdivision. d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environrrtental damage nor substantially and avoidable injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. e) That the designs of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated therewith are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 10-53 .Resolution No. 6313 TM-2005-03 July 26, 2005 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration-of maps, facts, exhibits, Testimony and other evidence subrxutted in this matter, the application TM-2005-03 for a Tentative Map is hereby approved subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on page 2 thereof, and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution axe .based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application TM-2005-03, as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of July 26, 2005, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approved is based on the tentative map entitled "TENTATIVE MAP, LANDS OF KNOPP, 21925 LINDY LANE, CUPERTINO, CA" by Nelsen Engineering, dated May 2005, and consisting of one sheet labeled 1. 2. FUTURE BUILDING AREA The applicant/ owner shall submit a revised tentative map clearly delineating the limits of development to closely reflect the illustrations included in the Planning Commission staff report dated July 26, 2005. In addition, no retaining walls over 4 feet tall (measured from the natural grade) shall be constructed on the project site. 3. SLOPE EASEMENT The applicant/owner shall submit a revised tentative xnap clearly delineating the required slope easement to closely reflect the illustrations included in the Planning Commission staff report dated July 26, 2005. The easement is required to be recorded on the property ensuring that the existing landforms, trees and vegetation be preserved, and precluding any future developments or improvements in this area, except for necessary undergrounding of utility lines that do not .adversely affect the specimen size native oak trees. 4. TREE PRESERVATION No trees are to be removed as part of the tentative map approval. The tree protection measures outlined in the City Arborist's report dated Jurie 29, 2005 shall be conditions of this project. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, the City Arborist shall confirm the implementation of the tree protection measures. Prior to the final occupancy, the City Arborist shall confirm that the protected trees have been preserved and survived the construction activities. In the event that any protected trees must be removed due to reasons deemed appropriate by the Community Development Dixector, then comparable diameter replacement tree{s) must be planted at the same location or locations visible to the public. ~10 - 54 Resolution No. 6313 TM-2005-03 July 26, 2005 Page 3 Prior to final map approval, a covenant shall be recorded on the property, notifying future property owners of the kinds and numbers of specimen trees protected by City Ordinance and the requirement for a tree removal permit for these trees. The covenant shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. 5. DRIVEWAY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Prior to final map approval, a driveway maintenance agreement shall be recorded for existing driveway benefiting Lot #1. 6. DRIVEWAY ACCESS FOR LOT #2 Vehicular access for Lot #2 shall be taken off the ingress/egress easement to the west side of Lot #2 in order to limit grading impacts. 7. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN A comprehensive construction operation plan must be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of grading and building permits addressing the following: • Staging area Tree protection Construction hours and limits • Construction vehicle and truck routes Dust and erosion control • Garbage and debris container location and pick up schedule o Signage advising contractors of the restrictions In addition to the construction management plan described above, the following additional construction activity limitations apply: No grading is allowed during the rainy season -October through April. ® On Saturdays, gradu1g, street construction, demolition, underground utility work and other construction work that directly involves motorized vehicular equipment are prohibited. • On Sundays, construction is prohibited. . 8. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The project and future developments shall adhere to the RHS Ordinance or the R1 Ordinance whichever specific regulation in each ordinance is more restrictive. 9. NOTICE OF FEES DEDICATIONS RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation. requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 6b020{d) {1), these Conditions constitute tiritten~~o~ice Resolution No: 6313 TM-2005-03 July 26, 2005 Page 4 of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020{a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this- 90-day period complying .with all of~ the regixirements of Section 66020, you will be Legally barred from later challenging such exactions. 1U. ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNiCAL INVESTIGATIONS Prior to the approval of grading or building permits, a detailed geotechnical, design-level investigation shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations outlined in a letter from Cotton Shires & Associates to Colin Jung, Cupertino City Planner dated June 29, 2005. 11. CALCULATION OF NET LOT SIZE OF LOT #2 For the purposes of subdivision, floor area ratio and building coverage, the area of the ingress/egress easement shall not be subtracted from the lot area to calculate net lot size. SECTION IV. CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 12. STREET WIDENING Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 13. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 14. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual iziterference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 15. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City Engineer. 16. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City, as required. 17. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by the City. in accordance with Ordinance No. 125. 10-56 Resolution No. 6313 TM-2005-03 July 26, 2005 Page 5 18. GRADING ~ ' Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Cextifications and 404 . permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 19. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Surface flow across public sidewalks may be allowed in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 zones unless the City Engineer deems storm drain facilities necessary. Development in all other zoning districts shall be served by on site storm drainage facilities connected to the City storm drainage system. If City storm drains are not available, drainage facilities shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 20. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City, as required. 21. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other .related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 22. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for undergrounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of . construction permits. Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $ 5% of Off-Site Improvement Cast or $2,130.00 minimum b. Grading Permit: $ 5% of Site Improvement Cost c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $1,000.00 d. Storm Drainage Fee: $1,293.87 e. Power Cost: N/ A f. Map Checking Fees: $ 2,000.00 g. Park Fees: $15,750.00 Bonds: 10-57 Resolution No. b313 TM-2005-03 Juiy 2b, 2005 Page b a. ~ Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements b. Labor & Material Bond:100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement c. On-site Grading Bond: 100 % of site improvements. *The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed Herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. 23. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. 24. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES The developer shall dedicate to the City ail waterlines and appurtenances installed to City Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water for water service to the subject development. 25. ~ SEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in your grading and street improvement plans. Erosion and or sediment control plan shall be provided. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26~ day of July 2005, at a Regular .Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Giefer, Vice-Chair Miller, Saadati & Chairperson Wong NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chen ATTEST: APPROVED: fs/ Steve Piasecki ~s Gilbert Wong Steve Piasecki Gilbert Wong, Chairperson Director of Community Development Cupertino Planning Commission g;/planning/pdreport/res/TM-2005-03 res.doc 10-58 Exhibit H - CITY OF CUPERTINO . 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: TM-2005-03 Agenda Date: ~ July 26, 2005 Applicant: Bret Morley Property Owner: John & Karen Knopp Property Location: 21925 Lindy Lane Project Consistency with: General Plan ~s Zoning des Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt Application Summary: Tentative Map to subdivide an approximate 1.0 acre site into two parcels, each approximately 20,000 square feet in size in an R1-20 zoning district RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Tentative Map (TM-2005-03) in accordance with the model resolution. BACKGROUND: Currently the property is a single lot with one residence on the northeasterly corner of the Iot. It is served by a private driveway, which serves several lots in the area and will serve the new lot (see tentative map). The immediate surrounding lots are larger than the proposed 20,000 square feet, while lots to the south are in the 10,000 square foot range. No site preparation zs proposed as part of the subdivision. DISCUSSION: Semi-rural character The property is along the north side Lindy Lane on a hillside with 20-30% slopes that retains asemi-rural appearance as viewed from Lindy Lane. Staff believes it is important to mask the new homes behind the tree grove on the newly created westerly lot and to retain the gently sloping hillside itn front of the existing residence. The following will discuss how to achieve this objective with this subdivision. Future Building Location: The lot is characterized by a steep slope (average slope of 28%) and has extensive vegetation including several specimen size oaks and natural vegetations. According to the R1 Ordinance {Section 14.28.050), properties with hillside characteristics with an average slope of 15% or greater shall be developed in accordance with the regulations of the Residential Hillside Ordinance or the R1 Ordinance, whichever specific regulation is more restrictive. In addition, 10-59 ' 2 according to the General Plan Policies 2.53 and 2.56, hillside developments must preserve the rural character of the hillside and minimize the disturbance to natural landforms and existing vegetation and trees. ' Based on the topographical map and the tree survey of the site, the only appropriate future building pad location is in the middle of the Iot in between - several protected specimen trees. This axea is also the only milder sloping area of the site allowing the construction of a house to occur with the least amount of grading activities and tall retaining walls. The existing specimen trees i1z front also reduce the visibility of the house from the public street. As a condition of the project, the applicant is required to work with staff to design a home within this specified area and that no retaining walls over 4 feet tall shall be constructed on the site. Staff is also recommending that a slope easement be placed in front of Lot 1 & 2 - to ensure that the existing natural landforms, trees and vegetations be preserved from any future developments or improvements. Please refer to the following . illustration outlining the future building pad area & the slope easement area. ~ - „ ! B 1 eowl s4. rr. lore w Har A i r ' ~ - ~6 ~ ~ .~~-.titi--.. 1 Future Allowable Building Slope Easement 10-60 3 ~ 3 . ~h:~ ;t " s- t r. ~ , .,use: i ~tk-,. ~ ;;~i ry \ 3-*,,~~~~ x '4 ~ It - ~ _ t ~4 ~ ~ ~'F+- r ~x~ i.~. t~ k- - ~r ~ ~ ~ II _ by. - _ . ~ . `i rr` • {.k'Y'~.j+~, ~ ~ : , ~ y `rte' , ~ n _ ~ - . - ~...i...r,c,. ~ _ ~ - ttiYi. - - - Future Allowable Building Slope Easement 10-61 4 The applicant submitted a plan with a conceptual building footprint that exceeds the allowable building area delineated by staff. In addition a 10 fooft retaining wall is proposed. To retain the semi-rural characteristic of the site, the- footprint of the future house should be smaller and be masked by the trees and the retaining wall should be restricted. ?Tees: The arborist report identifies four specimen size oak trees in proximity of development; however, no trees are proposed for removal as part of this development application. The City Arborist has prepared recommendations for the protection of the trees during construction (Exhibit C}. Tlie recommendations have been incorporated in the conditions of approval of the tentative parcel map. The applicant is aware of the fact that the future building footprint~and design will have to work around the existing specimen trees. Geoio The property contains non-engineered fill from grading conducted in the 1960's. No immediate plans are forthcoming to develop the westerly proposed lot: The City Geologist has reviewed the applicant's geotecluiical report (Exhibit A} and concurs that the site is feasible for development from a geologic and geotechnicai standpoint {Exhibit B}. He also recommends that a detailed geotechnical, design- level investigation be performed prior to grading and building permit issuance. The City Geologist's recommendations are incorporated in the conditions of approval of the tentative parcel map. Construction Management: . Since this site is located on the hillside and near a sensitive residential neighborhood, a comprehensive construction operation plan must be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of grading and building permits addressing the following: • Staging area • Tree protection • Construction hours and limits • Construction vehicle a~zd truck routes • Dust and erosion control • Garbage and debris container location and pick up schedule • Signage advising contractors of the restrictions ~o-s2 . s Model Resolution Exhibit A Report prepared by Pacific Geotechnical Engineering, dated May 23, 2005 Exhibit B -Cotton, Shire & Associates Review, June 29, 2005 Exhibit C- City Arborist Report by Barrie D. Coate and Associates, dated June 9, 2005. Conceptual footprint plan submitted by the applicant, received July 21, 2005. Plan Set ' • Prepared by: Gary Chao, Associate Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developxn G:planning/ pdreport/pcTMreports/ 2005tmreports/TM-2005-03 J • 10-63 • EXHIBIT C r. :<Ka ~~~R~ E C~./~TE ~P:3~ end ~SSU~I~TES ~]EC~IV~]~ ~~~Ya ~ ~ Horticuturai Consultants ~.`'4' 3~„ ;~;~;t 23535 Summit Road 0 ? 2005 ' .M Los c3atos, CA 55033 ~U~ X081353-105 BY. EVALUATION OF TREES AT THE KNOPP PROPERTY 22925 LINllY LANE CUPERTINO • Prepared at the request of: Colin Jung • City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Prepared by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist • June 9` , 2005 . Job # OI-OS-OOb-A 10-64 EVALUATION OF TRELS AT THE KNOPP P120PERTY, 21925 LINDY LANE; CUPP.RTRJO 1 Assignment I have been asked by Colin Jung, Community Development Department, City of Cupertino, to prepare general recolnmendatians for the protection of specific trees and. to prepare a replacement strategy should Trees # i, 2, 8, and 10 be removed at the property of Jahn Knopp, 21925 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, California. General Tree Protection Recommendations The following recolrunendations are designed to mitigate the risk of damage to existing trees by construction procedures that are common to most construction sites. Prevention is the key to tree preservation. A common practice in constnuction is to forge ahead with the intent of repairing mistakes or deficiencies later in the project. This mentality is the opposite mind set to that required for successful preservation of existing trees. Often damage to trees cannot be repaired, and often damaged trees cannot adequately recover, regardless of the aftercare. For this reason, prevention of damage is the key to tree preservation. Bear in mind that a tree protection plan is not typically designed to prevent any damage to existing trees. If a "no damage" policy were required, it would not be feasible to do any construction at many sites. Instead it is the intention that a protection plan would keep the damage within the range that we believe trees could tolerate. For obvious reasons, it would be essential that contractors follow the protection plan with diligence and good judgment. 1. The single most important item of a tree protection plan at most sites is the provision of protective fencing. I recommend that protective fencing be provided during the construction period to protect those trees that are planned to be preserved. This fencing must protect a sufficient portion of the root zone to be effective. In most cases, it would be essential to locate the fencuig a , tninimuln distance of 10 times the trunk diameter -in all directions from the trunk. For example, a tree with, a trunk diameter of 15 inches dbh (54 inches , above grade) would require that protective fencing be erected at least 13 feet from the trunk. If hardscape {i.e., curbing, paving, etc.) exists inside this 13 foot radius, the protective fencing should be erected at the edge of the hardscape feature and be located at least 13 feet from the trunk on all other sides. Occasionally it may be necessary to have a certified arborist make decisions about the location{s) of protective fencing at the project site. I recommend. that protective fencing must: • Consist of chain link fencing and having a lninilnuln height of 6 feet. • Be mounted on steel posts driven approxunately 2 feet into the soil. • Fence posts must be located no further than 10 feet apart. • Protective fencing must be installed prior to the arrival of any materials, vehicles, or equipment. • Protective fencing must not be moved, even temporarily, and must remain in place until all construction is completed. 2. There must be na grading, trenching, or surface scraping inside the driplines of protected trees, unless specifically approved by a certified arborist. 10-65 Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist Tune 9~, 2005 ' EVALUATION OF TREES AT THE KNOPP PROPERTY, 21925 LINi~Y LANE, CUPERTIlVO 2 . 3. Trenches for any utilities (gas, electricity, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the driplines of protected trees, unless approved by a certified arborist. An alternative is to install utility services by tunneling at a minimum depth of 4 feet. In this event, the sending and receiving pits must be located outside the driplines of existing trees. 4. If 10-1 S% of the root zone of a tree would suffer root loss, I recommend that those trees must be irrigated throughout the entire construction period during the dry months (any month receiving less than linch of rainfall Irrigate a minimum of 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every two weeks. A .soaker hose or a drip line is preferred for this purpose. 5. If the damage (root Ions and canopy loss by pruning) would exceed approximately 15%, I recommend that the entire area inside the driplines of Chase trees must be mulched. Mulching consists of a protective material (wood chips, gravel} being spread over.the root zone inside the dripline. This material must be at least 4 inches in depth after spreading, which must be done by hand. I prefer course wood chips because it is organic, and degrades naturally over time. Wood chips must be '/4 to 3/a inch in diameter. One supplier is Reeser, Inc., 370 Santana Dr,, Cloverdale, CA 95425, (707)894-4224. 6. Materials must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped, or buried inside the driplines of protected trees. 7. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped, even temporarily, inside the driplines of protected trees. S. Loose soil must not be allowed to slide down slope to cover the root zones or the root collars of protected trees. 9. Any pruning must be done by an arborist certified by the ISA (International ' Society of Arboriculture) and according to ISA, Western Chapter Standards, 1998. . 10. Any pathways or other hardscape to be constructed inside the driplines of protected trees must be constructed completely on top of the existing soil grade without excavation, Fill soil may be added to the edge of finished hardscape for a maximum distance of approximately 2 feet from the edges to integrate the nev,~ harclscape to the natural grade, 11. Sprinkler irrigation must not be designed to strike the trunks of trees. 12. Landscape irrigation trenches must be a minimum distance of 10 times the trunk diameter away from the trunks of protected trees. 13. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.} must not be installed directly in contact with the bark of trees because of the risk of serious 10-66 Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist June 9~', ?005 EVALUATION OF TREES AT THE KNOPP PROPERTY, 21925 LINDY LANE, CUPERTINO 3 disease infection. 14. The plants that are planted inside the driplines of oak trees must be of species that are compatible with .the environmental and cultural requirements of oaks trees. A publication about plants compatible with California native oaks can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland 94612. Replacement PIan for Trees # 1, 2, 8, and 10 A thorough tree survey far this property was prepared by Deborah Ellis in a report dated 5-19-05. The information in this report by Deborah Ellis concerning the existing trees (trunk diameters, overall condition} has been used here to prepare value assessments of Trees # 1, 2, 8, and 10 for a replacement strategy. , It is our practice to recommend replacement trees based on the accessed values of the trees removed, The method used for the appraisal of Trees # 1, 2, 8, and 10 is the Trunk Formula Method, in accordance with the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), Guide for Plant A praisal 9~' Edition. Also, the ISA Western Chapter Species Classification Guide is used to provide species ratings and to provide a trunk values per square inch, which is part of the trunk formula method, The trunk formula worksheets for Trees # 1, 2, 8, and 10 are included in the attachments. The assessed values and equivalent replacements are as follows: Tree # 1 - $ 15,600, equivalent to 1-72 inch, 2-48 inch, and 1-36 inch boxed trees Tree # 2 - $ 4,250, equivalent to 2-48 inch boxed trees Tree # 8 - $ 5,940, equivalent to 2-48 inch, 1-36 inch, and 1-24 inch boxed trees Tiee #10 - $ 11,800, equivalent to 1-72 inch, 1-36 inch, and 2-24 inch boxed trees Totaling - 2-72.inch, 6-48 inch, 3-36 inch and 3-24 inch boxed trees Or 1-96 inch, 1-72 inch and 1-60 inch boxed tree Respectfully submitted, g~ Michael L. Bench, Associate Barrie D. Coate, Principal MLB/sh Enclosures: Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Trunk Formula Method Charts - 4 10-67 Prepared by: 1vIichael L. Bench, Consulting Arboris# June 9~', 2005 BARitI E D. GATE and A~SC)CiATES Horticutural Consultants 23535 SumrnitRoad Los Gatos, CA 85033 ~osr.3s~-~o52 Trunk Formula Method 9t1i Edition, Guide for Plant Appraisal for Trees Less Than 34" diameter Owner of Property {tree): . JOHN KNOPP Location: 21925 LINDY LANE, CUPERTINO Date of Appraisal: 6-28-OS Date of Failure: n/a Appraisal Prepared for: COLIN JUNG. Appraisal Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist Field Observations of Sub'ect Tree 1. Species: OUERCUSAGRIFOLIA -TREE #1 2. Condition: Fair (60%) 3. Trunk Diameter, Inches: 36.35 {Cumulative multi-stem} 4. Location Value Site 80 % + Contribution 60% + Placement 60% = 200 ~ 3 = 66.6% Re iottal Plant .4 raisal Committee lit ormatiotr 5, S ecies Ratin ~ 100 6. Re Iacement.Tree Sizes .inches TAR: 14.6 in. 7. Replacement Tree Cost: $ 902.50 8. Installation Cost: $ 902.50 9. Installed Tree Cost 7 + # 8): $1,805.00 10. Unit Tree Species Cost (per sq. inches): $ 37.00 per in2 Calculations Usin Field and Re lotto! Committee In ormation 1 1. Appraised Trunk Area Trunk Diameter, S uared #3 x 785 = 1.022. sq. in. 12. Appraised Tree Trunk Increase {TAMC,O = TA, 1022 in. #I I -TAR 14.6 s , in. #6 = 1,007.4 s . in. 13. Basic Tree Cost: (TA„R~) {#12) 1007.4 sq. in, x UTC (#10) $ 37.00 per sq. in. + Installed Tree Cost # 9 $]805_ _ $ 39.079 14. Appraised Value: , Basic Tree Cost (#13) $ 39,079 x Species {#5) 100% x Condition #2 60 % x Location #4) b6.6 % _ $ 15.616 . 15. Round to nearest $100 ($5,000+) or $10 (less than $5,000) _ $ I5 600 , 10-68 BARRIE Cs,..ATE and ~SSQCIATES Hortlcutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road . Los Gatos, CA 95033 40$~~~-~o~z Trunk Formula Method 9`~ Edition, Guide for Plant Appraisal for Trees Less Than 30" diameter Owner of Property (tree): JOHN KNOPP Location: 21925 L1NDY LANE CUPERTINO Date of Appraisal: 6-28-05 ~ Date of Failure: n/a Appraisal Prepared for: COLIN SUNG Appraisal Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist Field Observations o Sub'ect Tree 1. Species: 0 UERCUS AGRIFOLIA -TREE #2 2. Condition: Good (75%) 3. Trunk Diameter, Inches: 15.8 4. Location Value Site 80 % + Contribution 60% + Placement 60% = 200 = 3 = 66.6% Re 'octal Plant A raisal Committee h~ ormation ~5. S ecies Ratin 100 6. Re lacement Tree Sizes .inches TAR: I4.6 in. 7. Replacement Tree Cost: $ 902.50 8. Installation Cost: $ 902.50 9. Installed Tree Cost 7 + # 8): $1,805.00 10. Unit Tree Species Cost (per sq. inches): $ 37,00 per inz Calculatiotrs Usitt Field and Re 'oval Committee In ortnation 11. Appraised Trunk Area Trunk Diameter, S uared (#3 x 785 = 195.97 sq. in. 12. Appraised Tree Trunk Increase (TA„,~ _ TA 195.97 in. #11 - TAx 14.6 s . in. #6 = 181.37 s . in, 13, Basic Tree Cost: (TA{NCe) (#12) 181.37 sq. in. x UTC (#10) $ 37.00 per sq. in. + Installed Tree Cost # 9 $1805_ _ $ 8.516 14. Appraised Value: Basic Tree Cost (#13) $ 8516"x Species (#5) 100% x Condition #2 75 % x Location #4) 66.6 % _ $ _ 4,254. 15. Round to nearest $100 ($5,000+) or $10 (less than $5,000) = $ 4.25.0__ . to-ss BA~RI E D. GATE and ASS~?CIATES Hon9cutural Consultants 23535 SurnmltRoad Los Gatos, CA 95033 4os~353~1o5z Trunk Formula Method 9~' Edition, Guide for Plant Appraisal for Trees Less Than 30" diameter Owner of Property (tree): JOHN KNOPP Location: 21925 LINDY LANE, CUPERTINO Date of Appraisal: 6-28-OS Date of Failure: n/a Appraisal Prepared for: COLIN JUNG Appraisal Prepared by: Nfichael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist Field Obsen~ations of Sarb'ect Tree 1. Species: QUERCUSAGRIFOLIA -TREE #8 2. Condition: Fair (60%) 3. Trunk Diameter, Inches: 21.5 4. Location Value Site 80 % + Contribution 60% + Placement 60% = 200 _ 3 = 66.6% Re 'ono! Pkn~t A raisal Committee ha ormation 5. S ecies Ratin 100 6. Re lacement Tree Sizes .inches TAR: 14.6 in. 7. Replacement Tree Cost: $ 902.50 8. Installation Cost: $ 902.50 9. Installed Tree Cost 7 + # 8): $1,805.00 10. Unit Tree Species Cost (per sq, inches): $ 37.00 Per inz Calculations Usin Field and Re 'oral Committee Information - 11. Appraised Trunk Area Trunk Diameter, S uared #3) x 785 = 362.87 s . in. 12. Appraised Tree Trunk Increase (TA°,c,il = TAA 362.87 in. #11 - TA& 14.b s . in. #6 = 348.27 s , in. 13. Basic Tree Cost: {TA„~R) (#12) 348.27 sq. in. x UTC (#10) $ 37,00 per sq. in. + Installed Tree Cost # 9 $1805_ _ $ 14.691, 14. Appraised Value; Basic Tree Cost (#13) $ 14,b91 x Species (#5) 100°10 x Condition #2 60 % x Location #4 6b.6 % _ $ 5.871 . 15. Round to nearest $100 ($5,000+) or $10 (]ess than $5,000) _ ~ 5,900 10-70 BARRt E ~.aATE and ASSOCIATES liorticutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 55033 ~108135~-t os2 Tnmk Formula Method 9`~ Edition, Guide for Plant Appraisal . for Trees Less Than 30" diameter Owner of Property (tree}: JOHN KNOPP Location: 21925 LINDY LANE, CUPERTINO Date of Apprassal: 6-28-OS Date of Failure: n/a ' Appraisal Prepared for: COLIN JUNG Appraisal Prepared'by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist Field Observations o Sirb'ect Tree i . Species: O UERCtIS AGRIFOLI~4 -TREE #8 2. Cond+tion: Fair (b0%) 3. Trunk Diameter, Inches: 31,5 (cumulative multi-stem) 4. Location Value Site 80 % + Contribution 60% + Placement 60% = 200 _ 3 = 66.6% Re Tonal Plani A raisal Committee Information 5. S ecies Ratin 100 b. Re lacement Tree Sizes .inches TAR: 14.6 in. 7. Replacement Tree Cost: $ 902.50 8. Installation Cost: $ 902.50 9. Installed Tree Cost 7 + # 8): ' $1,805.00 10. Unit Tree Species Cost (per sq. inches): $ 37.00 per in' Calculatio~ts Usin Field and Re 'oval Committee In ormation 11. Appraised Trunk Area . Trunk Diameter, S uared (#3) x 785 = 763.92 s . in. 12. Appraised Tree Trunk Increase (TA,,,~R)= TA,4 763.92 in. #11) -TAR 14,6 s . in. #b = 749.32 s , in. l 3. Basic Tree Cost: (TA,~cR) (#12} 749.32 sq. in. x UTC (#10) $ 37.00 per sq. in. + Installed Tree Cost # 9 $1805_ _ $ 29.530. 14. Appraised Value: Basic Tree Cost (#13) $ 29,530 x Species (#5) I00% x Condition #2 b0 % x Location (#4 66.6 % _ $ 11.800. 15. Round to nearest $100 ($5,000+) or $10 (less than $5,000} _ $ 11.800. ' 10-71 ~ BARRIE D. GATE acrd ASSOCIATES Florlicutural Consultants 23535 Sumrnrt Road Los Gatos, C.4 95433 doet~s~-~o5z ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CQNDITIONS 1. Any legal description provided to the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be corree#. No respons~b~lity is assumed #or matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as to the quality of any t'stle. 2. The appraiserlconsultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of information provided by others. 3. The appraiser/consultant shalk not- be required to give testimony or #o attend court by reason of this appralsal unless subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for services. 4. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire appraisal/evalua#ion. 5. Possession of this report yr a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person(s) to whom it is addressed without written consent of this appraiserlconsultant. 6. This report and the values expressed herein represent the opinion of the appraiser/consultant, and the appraiser's/consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value nor upon any finding to be reported. 7. Sketches, diagrams, graphs, photos, etc., ~n this report, being in#ended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys; S. This report has been made in conformity with acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnos#ic reporting techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture. 9. When applying any pesticide, fungicide, or. herbicide, always follow label instructions. lO.No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibili#y for any defects which could only have been discovered by. climbing. A ful! root collar inspection, consist'sng of excavating the soil around the tree to uncover the root collar and major buttress roots, was not performed, unless o#herwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by such an inspection. CONSULTING ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Arborists are #ree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience #o examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arbarist, or #o seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition #hat could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guaran#ee that a tree will be healthy or safe under al! circumstances, or for a speci#ied period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like medicine, cannot be guaranteed. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees. Barrie D. Coate 15A Certified Arborist Horticulfiural Consul#ant ~0-~2 . DeboraFt Eills, 11i1S Consulting Arborist 8~ Horticulturist Service ss~ice 1984 TREE S.U RVEY ARBORlST RE-PORT 2i 925 L~r~dy Lc~t~~, Cu~er~if~c~ . L®~c~tian Prepared for: Bret Moxley Prepared by: . Deborah Ellis, MS. Consulting Arborist & Harticulfurist American Society of Consulting Arborists, Registered Consulting Arborist #305 International Society of Arboriculture, Wes#ern Chapter Certified Arborist #457 Certified Professional Horticulturist #30022 MAY 19, 2005 ©Copyright Deborah Eilis, 2005. This repor# may be reproduced in whole or in pars by only the client and the clienl's authored representatives and only for use with the subject project and/or property. All other reproduc#ion requires the expressed written or verbal consent of Deborah Ellis prior to reproduction. 10-73 Deborah Ei[is, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1989 Te~?B~~ Q~ ~OI~T~NTS TREE MAP ..........................................................................................................................................:..............1 SUMMARY 2 Table 1 List of All Protected Trees on Site .............................................................................:.......................4 Tree Protection Zones .......................................................................................................................................4 RECOMMENDATIONS 5 Introduction 5 Purpose of survey 8~ report ..........................................................................................:...................................5 Background ..............................................:.........................................................................................:..............6 Survey Methods .................................................................................................................................................6 Observations 7 Field Conditions .................................................................................................................................................7 APPENDIX 8 Preservation Suitability :.........................:...................................:.................................................................:.....8 Limits of Scope .............................................................---...................................................................................9 Glossary 9 Table 2 Complete Tree Tabfe .......................................................................................:................................12 10-74 - C3eboriah E[[is, NIS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 TREE MAP ~ \l ~L. l _ y. ~ _ ii"r` .,q.l ~ ~ ~,J .~Y r X71' • _ •.NII n 1 IIaM ?Ila i~ i. ____ilwii ..ten k'^~-_ Il ` ,1t . . ~~n •,.Uf .1 ~ J till! rk 'wl.l ~ r ~l.l?I i ~ nul., 'r s' ' ' ` ~ ~ I.u. a I 'm.a o.n.Iw.. ~ .,wl ~ . y va. q. ~v~ I _ r q ' ~ ~ 1 ..Irn. ,.a Ht n ~ it Irl - - Y ~M...r~ 1 - . c ~ ...1.~ ~,>Il. - ~1 II r . la.. ..au '1, „ - .Mx ..law 740. `I / V ~y~;"!`I,>, aln _ ~ _ 4 . _-.MOSS ~ 1 .a •~s.w ~ ~•~-.r~~r~~~..~-~ -mow..-•a.Mr~--r•-- an..M.-~-- ~~~J.I V.y,r~-~~-~ny YETI hl•M l 1'~ I~: 11I81~: - - L{tNT _ ~ . Site Map showing the li protected. trees. This document taas emailed from Deborah Ellis at decah a oacbell. net. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95050. Phone & Fax: 408-725-1357. Web site: http://wvdw.decah.com/ Pag~Of-d~'14 DebaraFt Eiiis, It~S Consulting Arborist & Horticulturis# Service since 1984 S U ~II1~lA Rl( There are 1 ] protected freest on the project site. All of these frees are coast live oaks (Quercus agrifofia) except tree #4, which is a deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara). !n my opinion there is no reason to remove any protected trees, except those that will be significantly impacted by construction. I recommend that I review your construction plans when they become available, so that I can make finaE recommendations (e.g. whether to save or remove individual trees, and also any practical mitigation to proposed construction that would reduce damage to the trees). It will be important to maintain the minimum distances given in this report between any improvement and the franks of these trees. Improvements include any over-excavation or working margin beyond the actual improvement, as welt as underground utilities and landscaping. Table 1 on the next page lists all of the protected trees on site. Table 2 on page i2 gives additional information about the trees, such as specific structuraiproblems. If subsequent site plans locate a house on the upslope, western-most, side of Lot #2 in a way that impacts tree #1 and Tree #2 (see photo below, fakers from the southj, then these trees should be removed. Due to the size of both trees and the multiple-trunk structure of tree #1, these trees will not be practical to move and it would be more reasonable to instead replace them with new box trees. < , ~~y.{y w t ~ ~ ' }n~~ y,}' Sa 711., i .yr.~ t %i~i. '~u-. 1 ~ ~„(f. .s x , --r ~ .1-:. - ~ A protected tree in Cupertino (a tree that requires a permit from the City for removal) is: any tree with a trunk DBH (diameter at breast height, 4.5 feet above the ground) of 36 inches or greater, or the following tree species at 10 inches single trunk DBH (or 20 inches for multi trunk trees): native oak (Quercus) species, Aesculus californica or Acer macrophyllum. Protected trees are also the following species with single trunk DBH of 12 inches, or 25 inches for mul#i-trunk: Cedrus deodars, Cedrus atlantica 'Giauca'. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 45050. Phone & Fnx: 40B-725-1357. Email: deca{-~C~pacbell.f~et, Web site: http://www.decah.com/ Page 2 0' 14 . Deborah EEfis, ~JlS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Seance since 1984 Table 1 List of Protected Trees on Site - Tree 'free ScierrSfic Trunk D Alt M a Preservation Protection # - 8~ Common name DBH2 Ht3 Size Suitability6 Zone6 ' 3xDBH 5xDBH Opt. 01 Quercus agrifolia, 15.2, 15.0, 35x45 -Fair 9 15 27 coast live oak 14.3, 13.0 _ _ 102 coast [tve oak 15.8 3.7 25x34 Good 4 7 12 f _ t 03 coast live oak 10.5. 20x20 Fair/Good 3 4 5 - 04 Cedrus deodara, 15.2 40x16 Fair/Good 4 6 11 f deodarcedar 05 coast i~ve oak 10.4 3 18x20 Fair/Good 3 . 4 5 06 coast live oak 15.0, 13.3, 30x40 Fair 10 17 30 12.9, 12.fi, ' 10.6 . 107 coast live oak 13.2, 13.0, 3.5 (13.0), 30x40. Fair 8 13 23 l _ 17.4. 2 (17.4) f _ . _ ~ 08 coast live oak -21.5 3 30x40 .Fair 5 9 16 . _ 09 coast live oak :13.4, 12.5 30x40 `Fair/Good 5 8 16 I 10 coast live oak -14.0, 15.2, 3.5 (15.2), 30x40 Fair 8 13 23 16.9 4 (16.9) 11 coast live oak :10.4 25x18 Fair 3 4 5 2 DB means tree trunk diameter "at breast height" measured at 4.5 feet above ground level. This is the arboricultural industry standard measurement height used in many tree-related calculations, and is also the required measurement height for the City of Cupertino. s D Alt M Flt =Trunk Diameter Alternate Measurement Height, in feefi. This is the height used for trunk diameter measurement if the architecture of the tree prevented a trunk diameter measurement at 4.5 feet above the ground. Example: a '3.5' in this column means that trunk diameter was measured at 3-1 /2 feet above the ground. 3.5 (13.0), 2 (17.4), means that for a multiple trunk tree, the 13 inch trunk was measured at 3.5 feet above the ground, and the 17.4 inch diameter trunk was measured at 2 feet above the ground. a Size = Height x canopy width in feet (estimated). . s Preservation Suitability means, is this tree worth keeping? {In this case, on a suburban residential site). For additional information, see the box on page 8. 6 Tree Protection Zone {in feefi). Distances of 3 x DBH,.5x DBH and Opt. (Optimum Tree Protection Zone} are fisted in the three sub-columns. The 5 x DBH column lists the preferred minimum distance that disturbance should be kept from the trunk. Please also see the additional explanation on the next page. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95050, Phone & Fax: 408-725-1357. Email: decahC`~pacbell.net. Web site: http://www.decah.com/ ?age o 14 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service sirue 1984 TREE PR~TE~TI~N ZC~IVE. This is the distance in feet from the trunk that no construction disturbance should encroach, all around the tree. 3 to 8 X DBH'. A reasonable "rule of thumb" absolute minimum distance any excavation should be -from the trunk of an existing tree on one side of the tree is 3 times bBH. DBH is "diameter at breast height", or 4.5 feet above the ground, I have found that for the urban trees I have worked with, it tends to correlate reasonably well with the Zone of Rapid Taper, which is the zone in which the large buttress (main support roots) rapidly decrease in diameter with increasing distance from the trunk. This zone is usually one to three meters from the trunk, but it varies depending upon tree species, age and soil and other environmental conditions. Using the 3X DBH guideline, an excavation should be no closer than 4.5 feet from the trunk of an 18-inch DBH tree. This distance is a guideline only, and should be increased for trees with heavy canopies, decay, structural problems, etc. The 3X DBH may be more of an aid in preserving tree stability and not necessarily Eong-term tree health, as the roots beyond the zone of rapid taper form an extensive network of long, rope-like roots one to two inches in diameter. These woody perennial roots are referred to as transport roots because they function primarily to transport water and minerals. Few large lateral roots are found beyond 10 feet of the trunk, in most situations. 5X DBH is the "preferred" minimum distance which should be strived for however, whenever possible. Even a few feet may make a big difference in tree survival! It is important to understand that because the 3 and SxDBH distances are much less than the OPTZ, they take into account the root system of the tree but may not take into account the spread of the canopy of the tree. If a tree is very wide spreading, then these distances may be too close, or a significant amount of pruning may be required. For the trees on this site, The Optimum distance or the dripline (whichever is larger) would be the goal. Although there are no scientifically based methods to accurately determine the minimum distance for construction (for example, root severance) from trees to assure their survival and stability, there are some guidelines that are often used in the arboricultural industry. The most current guideline comes from the text, Trees 8~ Development, Matheny et al., International Society of Arboriculture, 1998. The tree protection zone calculation me#hod in this text was used to obtain the Opt distance listed in subcolumn 3 of the Tree Protection Zone Column of Table 1. It is important to understand that these distances must include any over-excavation or extra working margin that is required beyond the actual improvement itself. For example, if there must be a a- foot excavation beyond a foundation, this 3-foot distance must be included in the protection zone. In this case, if the recommended protection zone is 10 feet from the tree, the building will need to be located 13 feet from the trunk of the tree. ~ Smiley, Fraedrich, ~ Hendrickson 2002. Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories. PO Box 3734, Saratoga, CA 95050, Phone ~ Fax: 405-725-1357. Email: decah@paebell.net. Web site: http://www.decah.com/ • Page of 14 ' ~ ©eborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & fiorticuiturist Scrrncc sittce 1954 RED®~U1IVIENDATI®NS . 1 } Continue to work with me as you refine your plans. 2j t should review any grading, underground utility and construction detail plans. Such plans were not reviewed for this project, and these improvements can impact trees. 3j Custom Tree Profiection Specifications should be prepared for any existing trees on this site that will be saved. y .)t f 14 F~ ~ F. ~ ~ ~ y jh+' ~ ^ . ~ w se t. . ~ ~~e . 1~ `N. ~ r f _ Coast live oak #1 from the North, one of the many stump sprout trees. A bark- ir , ~t,~;~+, , _ x ~ - boring insect called sycamore borer causes ~ ~ the rough, darkened areas on the lower - trunk, visible in the left photo. ~ ' INTRO®U~TI~N ~U~~~SE ~ SURVEY R~~~R~ This survey and report was required by the City of Cupertino as a part of the two-lot subdivision application for this project. The purpose of this survey & report is to identify and describe the protected trees on site - -their size and condition, and their suitability for preservation. Only the existing protected trees are included in this survey and report. The audience for this report is Bret Moxley and City of Cupertino authorities concerned with tree preservation and #ree removal. The goal of this report is to preserve existing protected trees on site that are in good condition, are good species for the area and will fit in well with the redeveloped site. This report does not take. into account any specific cohstruction and its impact on trees. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95050. Phone & Fax: 408-725-1357. Email: decah@pacbeil.net. Web site: http://www.decah.com/ Page a 14 ©eborah Ellis, flHS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Serrrice since 1984 ~A~K~RC~UN® Bret Moxley is assisting the Knopps (owners of 21925 Lindy Lane) in the redevelopment of their residential property. Bret asked me to prepare the arborist report for this project. I previously prepared an arborist report for a nearby property of Bret's at 21949 Lindy Lane in 2001. SURVEY SETH®®~ I evaluated the existing protected trees on site on May 5, 2005. Each protected tree was tagged . with a metal number tag that corresponds with its tree tag number in this report. Trurik diameter was measured at 4.5 feet above the ground (D8H}, according to the requirements of the City of Cupertino. DBH is a standard arboriculture trunk diameter measurement height that is used in many tree-related calculations. A diameter tape was used to measure trunk diameters, and the diameters were rounded to the nearest 10~ on an inch. Photographs were taken of protected trees on site. Some of these photos are included in this report, but all photos are available from Bret Moxley if requested. The protected trees were briefly observed for their structural condition (stability} and general health (vigor) by visual assessment from the ground. No root coiiar~excavafionsa or other probing or boring was done upon any trees. Characteristics such as form, weight distribution, foliage color and density, wounds and indicators of decay were recorded. Tree size (approximate height and canopy spread in feet} were estimated and recorded. Surrounding site conditions were also observed. Evaluation procedures were adapted from: • Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th edition, 2000, authored by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers (CTLA} and published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA}. • Species Classification and Group Assipnmenf published by the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture (WCISA}, 2004. • Tree Hazard Evaluation Form taken from Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas, 2^d Ed., Matheny 8~ Clark, International Society of Arboriculture, 1994. The above three references serve as industry professional standards for tree and landscape evaluations. a A root collar excavation is the removal of soil below grade (or excess soil above the natural grade) at the root collar to expose and/or determine the health of tissue in this area. This is done to assess anchorage and stability of the tree. Any problems in this area can translate to whole tree health, as well as stability. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 35050. Phone & Fax: 408-725-1357. Email: decahC~pacbell.net. Web site: http://www.decnh.com/ Page 6 of 14 • Deba~ah Eiiis, MS Consu{t[ng Arborist & Horticulturist Seance sirue 1984 ~~SER1Ia4TI~NS ~1~~.~ ~®N®~TI~~1S There is one single-family, single-story house near the top Northeast end) of the lot. The lot slopes toward the south. The coast live oaks that are mentioned in this report are probably of natural growth (they were not planted), except possibly for oak # 11 near Lindy Lone. Deodar cedar #4 was probably planted, although it may have arisen from seed from a nearby larger deodar cedar on the neighboring property to the Northeast. There are several non-native, planted trees on the property, mainly around the house. None of these trees are of protected size and so are not included in this report. There are also several small, declining fruit trees scattered throughout the lot, mostly on the south (downslope) side of the house. This property was probably used far stone fruit crops long ago, as was most of the land in Cupertino. Most of the property is not irrigated, although some of the landscaping close to the house does have a sprinkler system. Lack of irrigation is a very good thing for the native oaks, and is this should be continued. The deodar cedar would appreciate this same treatment as weEl. Both of these tree species are native to dry summer areas and are predisposed to attack by root rot9 fungi in the soil it they are frequently irrigated during the summer. Tree maintenance has been moderate, with some pruning of most trees on the property in.the past. Most of the native oaks have been pruned, and some of them (particularly their lower branches} have been lion-tail pruned'. This type of pruning is very common in this area. In general the oaks have fair to good vigor and fair to somewhat poor structure. Most of the cause of their poor structure is due to the fact that many of these trees were cut down to short stumps long ago (probably when the land was planted to orchard) and they have grown back as sfUmp s rg OU1s". v Root rot is caused by wet, poorly aerated soil conditions. Degradation of roots (root rot) and sometimes the lower trunk (crown rot) ensues on weakened, susceptible plant species not adapted to such a soil environment. Opportunistic plant root pathogens (such as watermold fungi) are often the secondary cause of the problem. Root rot is a particular problem among drought tolerant plants that are not adapted to summer dry climates, such as many of our California native plants. The problem is offers worsened in fine=textured heavy clay soils . that retain water more than do the coarser, fast-draining soils such as occur in the natural environment of many of our native plants. Lion-tail pruning means that the lower portion of the branch was stripped, leaving the majority of weight concentrated at the end of the branch. A branch pruned as such is subject to sunscald and resultant canker diseases, is "end-heavy" and is generally more likely to fail. Lion-tailing is also not desirable in terms of encouraging proper branch taper and managing end weight. " Stump sprout trees are the result of a tree trunk being cut down to a short stump close to the ground. If the tree survives, it sends out many small shoots from around the cut (suckers). At least many of these suckers survive and grow to become significant trunks. These trunks are spaced very close together and usually have included bark between them, which reduces the strength of their union. Such trunks are prone to failure. Stump sprout frees can be very structurally unsourid, particularly as they become large and old. There is often a great deal of decay associated with the mother stump, which can also reduce mechanical stability. PO Box 3714, Sarntoga, CA 95050. Rhone & Fax: 408-725-1357. Email: decah@pacbell.net. N/eb site: http://www.decnh.com/ Page 7 of 14 " Deborah Ellis, ~fIS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 I hope that this in#ormation wil! be helpful to you. Thank you for the opportunity #o provide service. Please call me if you have questions or if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, ~De6orah ECCis Deborah Ellis, MS. Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#30.5, W.C.1.S.A. Cerfified Arborist #457, Certified Professional HorticuYturist #30022 APPEN®iX ~RESER~i~T~®N SU~Tf4~~LIT~: Excellen#, Good, Fair, Poor or Unacceptable, as explained in the Table- below, adapted from HortScience Inc., Pleasanton, California. "Good/Fair", "Fair/Poor", etc. are intermediate ratings. Trees in good condition: (both health and struc#ural) that have good potential Good for longevity at the site. These should be your top priority trees for saving, i# possible. A rating of "Exce[ient" is above good and indicates an outstanding s ecimen tree. Trees in fair condition: These trees have health and/or structural defects that may be improved with treatment, or are a species that is not well tolerant of " construction disturbance. Trees in #his category will require more intensive management and monitoring, and may also have shorter life spans than trees in Fair the "Good" category. Retention of trees with moderate suitability for preservation depends upon the degree of proposed site changes. In general I have recommended to save most trees with "moderate" preservation suitability, unless they are in the path of or too close to proposed, construction. "Fair/Good" and "Fair/Poor" are additional qualifiers that further separate the trees in this often-lar e rou in . Trees in poor condition: Trees with signifcant structural defec#s or poar health that cannot be reasonably improved with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline regardless of management. The tree species themselves Poor may have characteristics that are undesirable in landscape settings or may be unsuitable for high use areas. I do not recommend retention of trees with low suitability for preservation in areas where people or property will be present. "ilnacce table" is ve oor in condition and should definite) be removed. PO Box 3714, Snratoga, CA 95050. Phone & Fnx: 408-725-1357. Email; decahC~pacbeli.net. Web si#e: htfip://www.decnh.com/ Pnge ar 14 - i3eborah Ellis, IUlS Gonsulting Arborist & Horticulturist Seance siiuc 1984 . ~I~TS ®F S~®PE - i) I certify that I have no financial interest in the property or project that is the subject of this report, 2} Tree locations were provided by Nelson Engineering and are shown on the Tree Map (reduced copy on page 1 of this report. Locations are assumed to be accurate but should be verified in the field. 3J I have reviewed >fhe following pions for this project: a) Topographic Survey, Lands of Knopp, 21925 Lindy Lane, Cupertino. Nelson Engineering, February 2005, Sheet 1 of 1. 4) The measures noted within this report are designed to assist in the protection and preservation of the protected trees mentioned in this report, should some or all of those trees remain, and to help in their short and long term health and longevity. this is not however, a guarantee that any of these trees may not suddenly or eventually decline, fail, or die, for whatever reason. Because a significant portion of a tree's roots are usually far beyond its drigline12, even trees that are well protected during construction often decline, fail or die. Because there may be hidden defects within the root system, trunk or branches of trees, it is possible that trees v~ifh no obvious defects can be subject to failure without warning. The current state of arboricultural science does not guarantee the accurate detection and prediction of tree defects and the risks associated with trees. There will always be some level of risk associated with trees, particularly large trees. It is impossible to guarantee the safiety of crny tree. ~.C~SSARY The following terms appear in the Complete Tree Table and have not been explained previously in this report. 1 } Callus: the growth of undifferentiated tissue (callus) which has not yet matured into wood and bark tissue, around a wound: If growth continues the wound will be sealed inside intact-outer wood and bark {woundwood). A crack at the point of the woundwood "roll" will always remain, however. Decay does not.usually progress into the new wood made after the wound. 2) Crypfocline leafi blight: The spotty bleaching of leaves scattered throughout the canopy of coast live oaks {primarily the lower North and east sides} is caused by a common foliar fungal disease of oaks called Cryptocline leaf blight. This problem that varies in severity from year to year depending on the amount of rain we get, as it is "wet weather disease" spread by rainwater. There are pruning and fungicidal controls, but they are not usually warranted except for very high value trees under high disease pressure. In your case the problem is relatively minor and I would not attempt any control measures. 3) Included bark is bark sandwiched between adjacent branches, a branch and the trunk, or two or more trunks, often appearing as a seam. In contrast, a normal attachment will have a ridge ,s Dribfine: the area under the total branch spread of the tree, all around the tree. Although tree roots may extend out 2 to 3 times the radius of the dripline, a great concentration of active roots is often in the soil directly beneath this area. PO Box 3714, Saratoga; CA 95050. Phone & Fax: 408-725-1357. Email: decahC~pacbeli.net. Web site: http://www.decah.com/ Page 0 14 Deborah Ellis, IUiS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist ' Service since 7984 of bark protruding upwards and a continuous wood connection between adjacent members. As limbs with included bark grow, they expand in diameter, squeezing the bark~along the seam. This may kill some portion of the included bark. When this occurs, a wound response is initiated. As.a consequence, cracks can be generated, leading to breakage. Such defects can often be completely removed when a tree is young {e.g. the offending members equal or less than 2 inches in diameter}. Older, larger cuts (such as 6 inches in diameter or more) could cause decay to spread into the remaining member, which is undesirable. In these cases it may be best to thin one member {usually the smaller member) by 25% to slow its growth and size. 4) P.O.C. {Point of connection) 5} Pocket: a depression or hole, usually between trunks or branches. 6) Root collar: junction between trunk and roots. Also called the root flare or root crown of the tree- . or shrub. The health of Phis area is critical to whole-tree health and stability. 7) Scaffold branch: a primary structural branch arising from the trunk of a tree. 8) Sycamore borer causes the patches of roughened bark here and there on the trunk and larger branches of coast live oak. The larva of this wasp-like insect tunnel in the bark and sometimes into the underlying wood. Trees generally tolerate extensive boring by this insect and usually no control measures are recommended. In cases where damage cannot be tolerated parasitic nematodes can be applied to tunnel openings in Spring when openings are largest. A persistent pesticide applied to the bark may also be helpful when adults are active {usually May through July). The amount of damage on this tree is minor to moderate and I would not do anything about it. 9) Subordination pruning (Subdue): The thinning of individual branches or leaders in trees with co- dominant leaders or branches, and also long or heavy branches in order to slow their growth, size and dominance. This type of pruning very similar to end weight reduc#ion and should occur in the terminal 1 /3 of the branch so as to maintain as low a center of gravity as possible. Pruning should focus on reducing the amount of foliage so as to.reduce food supply to the branch and subsequent growth. No more than 25% of total live foliage should be removed from any one . branch. 10} Western oak gall is a common native insect pest of coast live oak (Quercus agrlfolia) and valley oak {Q. lobata). This tiny wasp insect lays eggs in the oak leaves. Spherical, 1 /16 inch round galls fom~ around the irritation caused by egg laying, and the larvae of the wasp feed within these galls. Affected leaves may turn brown along their margins or death of about half the leaf, usually progressing from the margin inward. Sometimes dead blotches will.appear in the leaf away from the margin, if there are galls in this area. Infested trees may appear "scorched" in part or in entirety: Sometimes only a portion of the tree is affected. Severity and which trees are attacked can vary greatly year to year. Just because the wasp is a problem one year does not necessarily mean it will be a problem the next year. Control is difficult and is not generally recommended. Timing of insecticide sprays is critical and must be aimed at the emergent adults - if done at other times it will do no good. Our native oaks have evolved with this native insect over many years and generally tolerate it well. tf control is necessary, you may contact me. Emergent adult wasps are clumsy fliers that do not disperse and build up a large population. These wasps are very tiny, do not fly a.great distance and they tend to concentrate on certain part of the tree -usually the southwest side. If treat with apply at specific time -flowering stage. The wasps are very attracted to the sweet 13 Application of Sevin no longer recommended, as it kills natural predators and can cause a resurgence of pest insects. Instead, use a shorter residual product such as a pyrethrin or soap or horticultural oil. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95050. Phone & Far.: 406-725-1357. Email; decnhC~pacbell.net. Web site; http://wvrw.decah.com/ Page os 14 Deborah Ellis, MS Consuiting Arbarist & Horticulturist Seance since 1954 scent of the buds. Timing varies from tree to tree. if in shade or in cool area, will be delayed. One suggestion is to put a gall in a jar and spray when wasps emerge. The marginal necrosis symptom is often misidentified as Cryptocline twig blight, a fungal disease. (PeCsonal conversation, Dr. Pavel Svihra, University of California Cooperative Extension, 9/95. 11) Wetwood: the exudation of liquid from the wood of a tree or woody shrub, caused by an internal bacterial infection. Not usually treated, because the acidity of the liquid suppresses most (more damaging) vvood decay fungi. It is a good idea to investigate and monitor wetwood areas, however, as they.can be an indication of a structural defect in the tree. , NefgfiborS #~FL~`i ;'v . - deodar~~ a '~"'rt u ~ ~ ~ ~ ' t ~ si: ~ f ,ri ~ ~ ' r 1. . t :vb ~ J .,,fit - r,,.. i Jy,'. ~'i ~a ' .+Y' w~ Ji. ~ , ~ s '`'I .i _ ~ i ~ ~ ~ . ~ 4 _~i. ,;zap ~ y. r.: ~ ~ ~ ' <a tr~ ~'P+~ x ~ ire: ~ t V RF - ~+f~ s ~ ~ r .,=fit S ti . tit 4 ~ p* c~ ~ . a $ W F# v < is - t ~~,L rt'i ~ w Tiir t.eft photo: coast live oak #3, deodar cedar #4. Right photo: deodar cedar #4 from the south, with neighbor's larger deodar just a few feet outside the property line. The branches of this larger tree extend quite far into the property. This neighbor's tree is an asset to the project site as well, and it should also be protected in the same manner as deodar #4. The Complete Tree Table begins on the next page PO 8or, 3714, Sarntagn, CA 95050. Phone ZZ Fax: 408-725-1357. Email: decah@pacbell.net. Web site: http://idrww.decah.com/ , Pnge ii or 14 . Deborah EEiis, NtS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service .since 1984 ~~APLETE TREE TA,~CE Table 2 Tree Common Inspect : Work Needed Notes # name further 01- coast live root collar clear root collar Stump sprout with included bark between trunks. Heavy oak sycamore borer damage to lower trunk. NE trunk has-old basal wound with good callus around perimeter, probably of minor concern now. 8-10 inch D scaffold removal to NW has up to 2 inches of callus around, but decay in center & rest of weight of branch above this. Lion-tail pruned. ' 02 coast live Keep upslope root Not pruned sa better condition than previous oak. oak collar with retaining Upslope root collar below soil is a little constricted but wa1114. looks OK. 03 coast five Keep upslope root j oak collar with retaining i wall. 04 deodar Keep upslope root cedar collar with retaining wall. 05 coast live oak 06 coast live Root collar Keep upslope roof Stump sprout at 18-24 inches with lots of included bark. oak if will be in collar with retaining Some wetwood near ground NW side at one included target area wall. bark seam. Deep pocket between trunks. Note that all coast live oak on this site have at least some leaf death & marginal burn associated with common native oak pests such as Western oak gall, Cryptocline leaf and twig blight, Calif. Oak warm and fruit tree leaf roller. 07 coast live Keep upslope root Stump sprout with Tots of included bark. 17.4 in D trunk to oak .collar clear of soil NE has 36 in x 6 in tear wound S side from previous . with retaining wall. scaffold failure. Remove this trunk if there will be targets near this tree. 08 coast live oak "For the oaks that need a retainina wall, this can be very simple -some small boulders or a 1 x 6" piece of redwood lumber held in place with rebar. Place fhis upslope a few feet beyond the trunk. The goal is to keep upslope soil from falling down over the root collar -this can cause decay of this area. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95050. Phone & Far,: 408-725-1357. Email: decah@pacbell.net. Web site: http;//www.decah.com/ . Page o 14 Deborah Ellls, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 Tree Common inspect Work Needed Notes # name further 09 coast live Keep upslope root oak collar clear of soil with retaining wall. Subdue prune smaller trunk. 10 coast live Keep upslope soil Stump sprout from ground level. Long near-horizontal 8 oak off root collar with inch D scaffold to S (toward rd) has been lion-tai( pruned. small retaining waU. 11 Quercus ~ Sub Large scaffold agrifolia, to NE, it is too . coast live large in D relative oak to-the trunk. ' r r}~~;. F s ~ i.. ~ ~ .2 ~5.. `l z ~a j.: ~4.iY' 2,e ~ `r , ~ 1.. i.t ~'N l?~ rl ~ ~ ' f , 1~ ` UM'~~ ~ '4t l 1 le. Y 1~~¢7 ~S~ ~ 1~ ~ ~ \ jj ~s PY T9^ _ _ . ~ , s L / ' ,1 ti 'gig ~ • , ,~1 tr ter. ~ u9~j1~i~:' _ 1~~ M: ro " i~~k ~ ~ " Upper left; coast live oaks #6, 7, 8, r 9 & 10 from the west, _ ~ Upper right: oak #6 stump sprout ~ trunks. Lower le t: oak #7 trunks, X11 ' PO Box 3714, Snratogn, CA 95050. Phone & Fax: 408-725-1357. Email: decah@pacbell.net. Web site: http://www.decnh.com/ Page o 14 ' ®ebarah Eliis, FUtS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 i.. t_ s ~ ~ ~ J~. ~ ~ .VCS Q~~ ~ 5 ~ i a+ K ~ ; ` ~ ~ ~ ~ l,eft~ oaks #7 to 10 from ~ ~r A~ ~ 5 r#b 7 the North. ~ , ( . • . .a ,t: ` 4 a. ~ , ~;1y. ~ i.;: ...f i.... r . r i~ '4 . ~li~~ ln' ~ t u :.fir t.. ^y, 4~ ~ a-r-^~r i. ~ ~,Y,, Sty{ r r ~ ~ ~ 1 . < ~ It ~ j: r ~ ! ~ p, ' ~ U~ . ~~,~`~~"~,~tS. s~-°+FY+res~(z~fev-T;~u:" ~ t i - ~ b , L. Y ` . GFC r a ~ ~ ~ Right. oaks #9 to 11 from ~ l > ~ kM; ~6 ` } ' . r j,~l6eµi F~ > > the North. ~ ~ r . r ~fi~k r," ~ . 's. PO Box 3714, Sarntoga, CA 95050. Phone & Eax: 408-725-1357. Email: decah@pacbell.net. Web site: http://www.decah.com/ Pnge 14 of 14 Exhibit ~ - Cupertino Planning Commission 22 July 26, 2005 Agree uance, to return on September 13s` to respond to the outstanding issues. Motion: Motlo>t by Vice Cbair Miller, seco . Saadati, to continxe Application M 2005-02 to the September 13, 2005 Plannieg eating. o e: ; o Chair Wong declared a short recess, 7. TM-2005-03 Subdivision of a 43,583 square foot parcel into two John Kropp (Moxiey 20,000 square foot (net) parcels. Properties) 21925 Planning Commission decision final unless Lindy Lane appealed within 14 days Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Distributed a letter from Bill Schmidt, owner of property north of the applicant's property; and a sheet illustrating Figure 3 from the geotechnical report. • He reviewed the application for subdivision of the 43,583 square foot parcel into two parcels as outlined in the staff report, fIe noted that the properly as well as a number of other properties were on the north side of Lindy Lane and have been part of the t,eneral Plan discussions, particularly relative to whether the designation should have been changed on the properties from its current designation of low density residential, 1-5 dwelling units per acre, ' to a more hillside General Plan designation which is very low density residential that has the application for slope density formulas. • Neighborhood issues: The main concerns are preserving the semi rural character of the hillside area; preserving the Iarge oak trees present on the property; addressing the geologic concerns regarding landslides; ingress/egress easement granted to Mr. Kropp for his property; and the question about whether utilities would be allowed on it, or whether there is an overburdening of the easement by creating an additional lot that would also use the ingressleasement; various construction issues relative to parking by construction vehicles, hours Qf operation, noise, and staging of operations. To address the concerns, staff is proposing to limit the size of the bmlding footprint and preserving the oak trees with a slope easement to maintain the eery-rural appearance and'to protect the oaks on the properly. An additional condition of approval would be requiring a design level geotechnical study when a residence is proposed. He noted that it was a subdivision of property with no proposal for a residence at the current time; the owner is interested in subdividing property, and not interested in building a second residence; that would be left up to a future of the property itself. • Lastly, have the applicant and the driveway property owner resolve the issues regarding the ingressJegress easement and if that is not possible, the Planning Commission may need to consider a separate access for the lot taken off Lindy Lane. This is a new condition being proposed by staff. The Deputy City Attorney will probably want to weigh in on that. • Staff~recommends approval of the Tentative Map. Coro. Saadati: Asked why the applicant proposed a 10 foot retaining wall when there is no plan at this point to build any unit. Mr. Jnng: ' • Responded that there was no proposal to bind a retaining wall; it was a conceptual plan 10-89 Cupertino Planning Commission 23 ~ July 26, 2005 submitted by the civil engineer to show the feasibility of developing the property. It was an idea he had and not a part of the application. Mr. Piasecki: • Noted that the conditions state that along with creating a slope easement, staff has suggested a condition that would limit retaining walls to a maximum of 4 feet; they would have to work out how to place the home and accomplish that, because staff does not want 10 foot retaining walls. Com. Saadati: • Asked about the history of sliding in the area of adjacent homes or the existing how. Mr. P1aseGkf: • Said that the drawing illustrated some regarding or unengineered fill going on that may not be directly sliding, but may relate to that. Suggested that the applicant address what has been going on the lower hillside area. Mr. dung: • Relative to the drawing of Figure 3, in the city geologist report he expressed a concern that if a house was built below the unengineered fill, it is most likely the most difficult constraint en the property itself and he would most likely require that either an unengineered fill be removed and recompacted, or that there be a retaining wall put in with deep enough piers to make sure that if the fill ever became loose, it would be held. back by the retaining wall: Com. Giefer•. • Given the new information regarding access on the shared. driveway, if it was necessary allow vehicular access. from Lindy Lane to the new lot, where would that driveway be. Mr. Jung: • It would likely be where the proposed driveway was drawn; it is the area of the frontage ofthe - lot which seems to be the least steep. Mr. PlasOCki: • Said that staff would not suggest that option until there was a very precise drawing. Everything seen thus far is predicated on the idea that it would be gaining access from that existing driveway and the easement. • They did not want retaining walls greater than 4 feet, and putting in a new driveway in that location would give much higher retaining walls and might be cause to reconsider whether the subdivision makes sense. Com. Giefer: With this new information, why are we considering this instead of continuing it? Mr. Piasecki: • You may end up continuing it; it is similar to the issue you had with the Bunker application where you said there seems to be three options available; you can apply a similar condition to this application and proceed with it. You could have that kind of condition saying work it out and we will approve it only with the condition that you work it out, and it hasn't been able to be worked out in the other cast. ~o-so Cupertino Planning Commission 24 July 26, 2005 Mr. Jung: - • The applicants had a conversation with Mr. Schmidt after the letter was written; you will likely want to talk to him about that. Com. Giefer: • In reading the city geologist's report, it seems we have some different ideas to pursue; but. it appears that we have either the retaining wall as part of the home or we have removal of the non-engineered fil! which would probably take out the trees above it. Is that correct? 1Mr. Jung: • That is likely. Corr. Giefer. • Asked for a review of the reason for the recommendation to split a lot at the division line running east/west vs. north/south. Mr. Piaseckl: • It was felt that the least visible building site is located between the oak tree groves Mr. lung pointed out; which exist to the west side of the lot; we felt that with the slope easements on the frontage of the eastern lot that you could preserve the semi-rural character as you come down Lindy Lane; and that it trade more sense to keep that as part of the existing house because they are looking out an to it, and they would be more likely to want to keep it highly maintained and clean. One of the maps shows that their water access comes off Lmdy Lane directly from the site anyway, so we feel. that the north/south division sets up an even more constrained new lot with a linuted building area with an easement that is going to prevent them from climbing up the hill and take advantage of the views; and the property owner would not have the option of coming in and saying let me develop that sloped area under the slope easement. There is a lot of reasons why we felt that was the better solution for the neighborhood; probably. not the- - better one from the applicant's standpoint; they would probably prefer an easdwest line, but I think in terms of ensuring the objectives that the northlsouth makes more sense. Corn. Giefer: • Another'question was regarding the Rl vs. RHS, because tl~e average slope of the lot is greater than 15%, they would actually be governed by the RHS in any future development for this lot. Mr. Jung: - • The Rl is written that if you have a slope of over 15% which is the case in this particular lot, it is either the RHS or Rl regulations whichever is more restrictive. Tn this particular case as far • as the FAR the more restrictive regulations, the RHS regulation which has a FAR percentage up to a 10,000 square foot lot, has a smaller increment for lots larger than 10,000 and there is a slope penalty that starts deducting the square footage as the slope gets steeper. The calculation was ah-eady done under a normal Rl relatively flat lot; fora 20,000 square foot lot you have a theoretical maximum that is close to a 10,000 square foot house, but with • RHS regulations on it, you end up with about 3,720 maximum. - Com. Giefer: • If this lot where the Kropp house currently sits, was redeveloped in the future, if the person - who buys it, subdivides it and decides to build two homes and scrap the lot of the Knapp house - and that. is redeveloped, would that lot also have to adhere to the RHS as opposed to the Rl? 10-91 Cupertino Planning Commission 25 July 26, 2005 Mr. Jnng: • It would still be subject to the same rules regarding the slope as well. Most likely if they were interested in expanding, they would be intruding on some of the steeper slope areas as the building pad itself is confined to just the flat portion of the lot. • if the house is larger than what the ordinance presently requires, it would be considered a legal non-conforming structure and they would have the right to rebuild that to the same square footage. It is a case that if it is a voluntary demolition, they would have to comply with the new rules. Vice Chair Miller: . Noted that were some other technologies besides removing the non~ngineered Till and replacing it with engineered fill and other technologies to investigate as an alternative to saving the trees. John IKnopp, properly owner: • Said that his property is only one of four properties that the rezoning could subdivide. • There have been reeornmendatians and suggestions about what would be built and how it would be built, but this is just the subdivision and I do not intend to actually build myself, those matters would have to be brought up with whoever buys the house and that would be the time to consider retaining walls, etc. • There never was a utility easement on that driveway and there doesn't need to be; the only utilities that are affected by the new lot is the sewer coming down from the existing house. I understand the recommendation is to move that over to the comnwn line of the two lots. • The Schmidts sent a letter stating that their concern is they don't want the driveway dug up, don't want it altered in any way, and don't want any utility easements on the driveway; there never were any and they were not proposing that in arty regard.. • 'They said that the existing property would still have ingress and egress easement. They would prefer the new lot have its own access off of Lindy Lane. . I tahked with them before the meeting and I think they would be willing to grant ingress and ogress for the new lot also, especially since it is only on the lower part of the driveway. They would not want it tam up in any way and I agree with that. There is a possibility of putting a new driveway beside it; it would mean putting in a new culvert and putting pavement next to it so that could be done; again that has to do with the development of the property itself. • Thanked the Planning Commission for. extending a second notice to neighbors affected; the notice was sent out to a broader area than the standard 500 feet. The neighbors encouraged him with the subdivision and they shared the Same concerns about construction noise, etc. • My neighbors and I are concerned about traflac noise, eonstructioa noise, etc. Again, this is one of only four or five properties that could be subdivided; we are proposing one more and it will be another year of construction noise, etc. Code enforcement has encouraged us to call if there are any violations by construction crews. Recently there was a backhce on one of the lots; a call was made and they were shut down immediately. • Briefly discussed the slides and movement in the 70s and a small slide in the 90s; there has since been no other earth movement. Brett Moxley: • I am sympathetic to the concerns about the impacts of construction, and T think it could effectively be addressed in the construction management program which can be attached to conditions; we don't object to that and recognize that it is really well addressed or should be well addressed in the exercise of the srrforcement by the building department. ~o-sz Cupertino Planning Conunission 26 July 26, 2005 • He reiterated that they were not proposing a 10 foot retaining wall and it was not part of the proposal. They have not proposed any house footprint and feel that it is best left to careful deliberation on the part of those who are designing the house that would go there and the dialog that would go on either with staff or a Design Review Commission. , • It is currently zoned R1 and would be subject to design review. There is some concern that in the hillside ordinance currently if that was not redrafted, there isn't a provision for design review provided you are within the constraints of the RHS ordinance. • As opposed to the current relatively prescriptive comments in the staff report, I would like you to consider the alternative that design review does have a finm hold on what goes in there and it gives the opportunity or the DRC the oppofimity to judiciously evaluate a more carefully considered proposal for tbe house. • I would like you to contemplate that that the Rl growth calls for design review; if it were to go . • to RHS it wouldn't, we would be happy to stipulate that any future wank that happened at the house would be subject to design review, in exchange for a relaxation of the current relatively restrictive and I think early judgments on what could and should go there, subject to more careful review by a designer. • We are going to need to bring in utilities, and I think this may not have been the intent of the slope easement; but I bring it to your attention. • The sewer district does not like the current lay of the sewer pipe; the new house would go in on the newly created lot, and they would like to see a new sewer line put in across the slope. • I suspect the slope easement that staff is proposing ,addresses larger above surface improvements, and doesn't speak to underground utilities which would not Gave any impairment to the trees here. I want to ensure that we anticipate that if it were a slope easement and no underground utilities along there, we would be obliged to object. • Relative to the retaining walls and the mitigation of the unengineercd fill ,there are three obvious solufions, and other solutions that haven't been discussed that•could be evaluated. • If there is a concern about preserving these trees here and stabilizing unengineered fill, I fee] pretty confident we can do that and not compromise those trees with a hybrid approach to some retaining wall, some uncnginecred fill removal, replacement, or retaining walls varying • the footings so the retaining walls stand far enough .out from the frees but are structurally sound and. achieve their objective. • The retaining walls in some cases could be a part of the house foundation. I appreciate that . those would not be technically retaining walls; as I understand from staff, a retaining wall is a structure separate and apart from the house envelope and the foundation. • The issue of the Schmidt easement probably will be a moot point for several reasons. It is similar to ingress/egress easements that were present on my family's lots and in retrospect, they do not specifically and prescriptively restrict use to one house. If that was the case, the houses upslope of my family's lots would not be able to be subdivided and there hasn't been any discussion of restricting subdivision. in that area because the ingress/egress tasemcnts . don't specify the number of houses that they serve. They are generic and they arc not that restrictive; on the legal merits, that argument might not stand up. I appreciate staffs comments that the city does not want to adjudicate matters like this and I don't think any of us would want the city engaging in that; I think we can work it out. It looks favorable that will be able to enjoy agreement.with the Schmidts for access along that driveway. • [appreciate that we have a supportive staff report. I suggest that the site and community are better served by availing everyone to the design review process as it was intended and should appropriately apply here and give the person who would be canting in and doing a careful design, the opportunity to engage the design review committee or staff or the community in coming up with the most elegant, least disruptive design there; as opposed to. prescriptively tying the hands of a future designer unnecessarily. 10-93 Cupertino Planning Commission 27 July 26, 2005 Tn response to an earlier question from Com. Qiefer about the existing house, staff said it was 2100 square feet. The footprint is such that you would not want to expand beyond, but want to go up. Coen. Glefer: - • (To Mr. Moxley). Would you be trying to develop and build on these lots onto they are divided and the Knopps decide~they arc leaving the arcs; would the lots be sold for future development? • Were you suggesting that the RHS house size calculation should not be used in favor of design review? Mr. Moxley: • Yes. • No, not at alI; I would gladly recognize that the RHS formula is appropriate here and applies, and the location of the house is its relationship to tress, retaining walls, of whatever size, are appropriately addresses in a design review context. I did not mean to suggest that the ltIiS formulas apply in addition with the slope penalty, 28% slope, which calculates aver a 3,700 square foot house. I think that is entirely sufficient and I don't believe we have ever had any objection to that, nor would be raise any. - Chair Wong: • Vs. north, south, east, west; what did you prefer; the current plan or the other one; it looks 117cc there is an easement going over the new subdivision. - Mr. Kropp: • As the owner, I want #a get the value out of the land; so whatever is reasonable I will go either way. If I was to develop myself and years ago if I were to put up my own house, I would have done it east/west and then developed the lower lot; put the-house down so it had a valley view; but then you have a long bowling alley type house, so that is portly aesthetics. Either one is Sne. I think staff thoroughly investigated all the pros and cons and that is why they came up with that recommendation. Vice Chair Miller: • Part of the existing driveway is now going to become a part of the new lot, and the existing house will then have an easement through there. Mr. Moxley: • You are referring to the ingress/egress casement, which is correct. We had a number of conversations-with staff about different permutations of using the site and one would be to push the driveway up elope which would require retaining walls and move a house up slope which in some regards captures more of a view. I think some of the intent was that it might provide more screening from the trees. This is an ingress/egress easement far use of the house and part of the reason for that is that a driveway here doesn't benefit anybody. Vfce Chair Miller: The part of the driveway that the current house uses will now be on the adjacent property; who maintains the driveway? - Mr. Mo~dey: ~ • I would argue that the house that enjoys the benefit of use of that driveway. • It is my understanding that subject to the RHS aspects applicable here, that a driveway 10-94 Cupertino Planning Commission 28 July 26, 2005 maintenance agreement is a requirement. Vice Chuir Miller: • :That is fine; but the new parcel you are creating has no motivation or incentive to put any. money into that driveway, because they are not going to use it. Mr. Mosley: • Unfortunately crafting a road or driveway maintenance agreement when the same owner owns both parcels, becomes an easy argument for that person to settle and record as part of a road maintenance agreement. Vice Chair Miller: You can do it any way you want but you would lfiee to do it so that you have a goal of congruence; even though you are forcing someone to do something, there is some motivation for them to do it, otherwise it creates a conflict between the two neighbors over time. Mr. Moxley: • Illustrated that a 12 foot driveway would be required per the fire code to serve the house; and showed where access to the site would be feasible, transgressing across the slope easement for a few feet, not disturbing the trees. Vlce Chair Mitler: • i have no objection to that as long as an engineer approves it and it doesdt generate retaining walls that don't fit in wi#h the general guidelines that the city would like to see. Mr. Moxley: I agree, I don't foresee any problem. Vice Chair Miller: • Also, relative to comments about other solutions to the non-engineered fill, it is from my viewpoint as long as an engineer approves the solution, you arc free to pick the best solution for you. Chair Wong opened the public hearing. Bernard Tischee, Terra Linda Lane: About 10 or 15 years ago the residents of the large lot requested to subdivide their properties and at that time the request was rejected because of the consideration of the high density and slides in those hills. • Unfortunately when they developed Lindy Lane I don't think it was done properly, the Lindy Lane road is like a.valtey; when it rains it becomes a river, and if you build more homes the overflow of the rain will make the road even worse during the rainy season. • I don't know the reason why this decision was changed that allowed that hill to be subdivided but there must be a reason. • I oppose this subdivision, not only this subdivision, but all the subdivisions because there is a lot of construction going on in the hillside now, and it has destroyed the hillside view. I think there are some potential hazards in the future such as landslides or overflow water, and we have been living with nuisance of construction noise the last 4 months; it negatively impacts - the surroundings and residents' right to enjoy their homes and yards. 10-95 Cupertino Planning Commission 29 July 26, 2005 • If the decision is made to subdivide the hillsides, at least make a decision and change the construction ordinance that construction takes place only between 8 and 5 p.m. during the weekend and no construction on the weekends. • The property owner has a right to develop his property; but when he purchased his property he knew that there was an ordinance prohibiting subdividing his property. When we purchased - our home, we realized that the hills would not be subdivided, so we would be able to enjoy our home; everybody lrnew the rules in the beginning; somehpw the rules have changed. Jennifer Griffin, Cupertino resident; • In this proposed lot split, there was a great deal of thought given to preserving the oak trees on the property. Everything needs to be done to preserve the oak trees, they are the legacy for Cupertino for generations to come. • -Asked if it was the. last subdividing of the lot; could the lots be split into quarter-acre lots; could the future purchaser of the lots come back in the fugue to split up the lots further? ' • You should publicly look at constraining the maximum size home; how large a home can be built on the lots; 10,000 square feet is a large house; do we want two stories on the property. • Please preserve the oak trees. - Chair Wong closed the public hearing. Mr. Piasecki: ~ - • Said under the current zoning, you could not subdivide further. . • Relative to changing the construction ordinance, changes . can be made but there arc consequences of changes since it affects homeowners as much as contractors. it normally - takes about a year to make changes, to gather input from the public, conduct public hearings and prepare reports. • He said under the construction ordinance, the hours of construction were 7 a.m.. to 8 p.m. weekdays and 9 a.m to 5 p.rn. on weekends. EileEn Marray, Assistant City Attorney: - • Said she was participating in r~etings about the construction hour canes; and noted that code enforcement has been on Lindy Lane at least a dozen times in the last month regarding concerns about construxtion noise, radios, and grading on the weekends. They are attempting to enforce the law and changes in the ordinance are under discussion. Mr. Piasecki: • Clarifed the definitions of daytime as 7 a.m. to 8 p.m, on weekdays, 9 a.m. to b p.m. on weekends. • Maximum house size is 3600 to 3700 - - Mr. Jnng: • The square footage requirement applies to all building structures and would include any granny unit, any greenhouse, 3720 n~ximum. Pools are not included. - Mr. Piasecki; • That was the purpose of the slope easerr~nt area, to make sure that is a non buildable zone, no pools, no poolhouses, and you could use some undergrounding of utility-that is not included. Com. Giefer: ~ ~ - • If these lots had been rezoned to RHS vs. continuing to have the RI designation, what would ' ~o-ss Cupertino Planning Commission 30 July 26, 2005 be the minimal lot size. Mr. Piasecld: • • We haven't done the slope density calculation and under the RHS I would expect that you would not be able to subdivide this property. • • If it was changed to the hillside land use designations, it would be unlikely that you would be able to get another lot there. Mr. Jung: • Said the General Plan designation that controls•the subdivision; it is not the zoning, the RHS zoning ordinance says specifically refer to the slope density formulas that are found in the General Plan designation. • • It is not the RHS that controls the lot size in this particular instance; it would be the slope density forntuia if you had a slope density formula General Plan land use designation on the Prop~'h'• Com. Giefer: • expressed concern with the condition of Lindy Lane. It is worn down as welt as Regnart Road. The developer pays a street maintenance fee, but when will those issues be addressed by the city; how is it prioritized. Mr. Piasecki: • Said that Public Works would respond. • I don't think there is a requirement that when you build you have to pay an extraordinary fee; if you damage something we know it holds. Cam. Giefer. • I thought the developers paid a city maintenance fce that specifically addressed streets Mr. Piaseckf: • I don't believe sa; private streets you would have such a setup potentially where the maintenance would be controlled Com. Giefer: • One of the issues that several residents mentioned is they felt their street is getting chewed up by the construction vehicles. Mr, Piasecki: • We can ask Public Works how they can handle that. Vice Chair Miller: • If this project does proceed, I would propose that it include some kind.of road maintenance agreement for the current driveway from the existing house out to the access road. • I don't feel we can rule on this tonight because there is contention over whether or not the shared access can be shared by the lot and if the applicant is proposing an alternate driveway, then we need to sec that on the General Plan. • I propose we continue the application until that issue is resolved. chair wang: • (To staff) When the applicant came to us were you satisfied with their comment or do we need • 10-97 G~pertino Planning Commission 31 July 26, 2005 to resolve that, regarding them talking to the applicant. Mr: Plasecki: • We received that letter today and we were not aware that it was an issue until we saw the letter; we could handle that either with a condition that said the example we cited 13~e Wolfe Camera issue that had three options, and the applicant could demonstrate to us that he has satisfied those. If they are seriously looking at creating another driveway, I agree with Vice Chair Miller, that we would like to understand what it looks like, how it impacts trees, whit do you need for retaining walls, etc. We would continue it for that purpose; again I would ask if the applicant is willing to take a continuance and come back with a definitive answer. The driveway is usable, it would bt our preference that they use the existing driveway. i Cpair'Wong: • I agree. Com. Glefer: • [would agree with Vice Chair Miller; until we see that there is not an issue iiotn the Schmidts, I would be more comfortable with that. • Another suggestion is to record the trees that are there; the reason I asked Mr. Marley if he was actually going to be developing the property himself is that once Mr. Kropp and Mr. Morley are out of the picture, the future owner may come in and clear cut the lot, thinking they can get away with that. As the property decd is changed, I would like to record the heritage frees to give them some protection, more for the future. • I suggest that we add conditions for construction stating that the neighbors feel antagonized by all the development going on. That has hoer the primary complaint I have heard. . • There are concerns about landslides; we have the geologist report they retained; the city - geologist is more negative about tbe soils there. I would like to require that there is no. construction on weekends for this project; neighbors need some relief as part of this project. • I don't know if ffie street repair is a developer issue; we as a city need to understand that this is getting worn down and should be looked at as a higher priority. • I would support Vice Chair Miller, if we do act on this tonight, I would like to suggest we record the trees and add fhe condition of construction management that they do not work on weekends or have a very limited schedule. Com. Saadatf: • Said he concurred with the statements made by fellow commissioners. • Relative to construction time, same of our neighboring cities have construction time limits 7 a.m. to 5 p.m during the week, and no construction an weekends. Exceptions for working on the weekend can be granted, but not for noisy work that would impact the neighbors. I concur with the recording of the. frees. The issue that they share access needs to be resolved; if it can be done at the staff level, I support that; if not, it be continued to come back. • Overall, this lot can be subdivided; regarding building of the house, slope stability; those will be added at the time the house is proposed and design is proposed and specific g~technical report will be required for that site, prior to building permit action. Chair Wong: • I support-the tentative mapping of the project with the condition about recording the trees; having limited construction hours on the weekend; and regarding the concerns of the residents 10-98 Cupertino Planning Commission 32 July 26, 2005 on Lindy Lane. • I also agree with Com. Saadati that if the applicant can satisfy staff s concern regarding the easement with the Schmidts, I feel comfortable leaving that decision to the competent staff. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Saadati, to approve Application TM-2005-03 with the modiCcations suggested by the Planning Commission. Com. Giefer: • The concerns of the neighbors include the heavy construction noise all of the time. I agree there may be interior construction that could be done that is less noisy; hawever, the heavy equipment, and baekhoes are too much to have going 24/7 which is what the neighbors feel they are living through. * I would suggest that on Saturday, there not be any heavy equipment and dirt trucks. If we limit heavy construction, cut and fill type of activities, that wauld reduce a lot of the noise immediately, where they didn't have trucks reducing access to their homes, Limit construction on Saturday to no heavy equipment, perhaps from 9 a.m. to noon, and if there is only quieter construction, things not requiring heavy equipment during that timeframe. On Sunday, give the neighbors a break and not have any Sunday construction. Vice Chair Miller: • Added another condition that no grading be done during the rainy season. Mr. Piasecki reviewed the suggestions: • Said there was a desire to see a road maintenance agreement recorded prior to the recordation of the final map on the private drive over the westerly lot to the benefit of the eastern lot. • That there would be a construction management plan as required by the conditions and that there be no heavy equipment construction occurring on Saturdays; no construction on Sundays and work with the applicant to define the meaning; it can be written into the construction management plan. • That they would record the trees that are protected under the tree ordinance and they would record the Pact that there would be no clear cutting; staff will define it. • That the applicant shall demonstrate that there is access as proposed over the private drive to the west of the site; and there would be a clearance from that property owner who owns the casement; there be no grading during the rainy season as defined by the ordinance. It would be recorded against both lots. ~ They would record the slope easements in which case there would be no above ground construction allowed. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Chen absent) Mr. Piasocki: • Noted it was a final decision of the Plarming Commission unless appealed within 10 days. Chair 'Wong: • Said that relative to the General Plan for the neighborhood, they made a recommendation and if they arc still interested, they should follow up with the City Council when they make their final recommendation. 10-99 006-OL b _ ~'1 r d H ~ 4 s ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r~ a J A a ~~g~~~ 04~~ ~ w ~ A ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ 9 ~ ~ ~ a R ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~>y ~ O p < ~ M O+O ~ } PPP? P / ~ C) -I N v mm• ' y / ~ v ~ 1~(pf ~~crcewr•a~r~u~~Q..~rt~wM~wc.. sma-a ~I/ / I I S) O ~ ` ~ ~ ~a ~ , qR I Q ~ q ' ~a O t'y! { o Fa Q+i pq N . L w ~ _ r W ~ ~C ~ 1 J 5 m t n 4 ` I ! ~ a . ~ ? / jR { , - . o a . ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; 'S ~ ; is I - ~ ~ 9 ~ a ~ ~ s y n ~ S I 'I W ` ~ a^ p i Y ~ ~ ~ ~ G ~ ~ ~ ° ~ i S S. g~ 8 Y 8' B S ~ w' u;. ~ ~ ~~t~~ ~ - ~ ~ ':art I I 1 ~ g# 111 %YYY 4' n ~ g~~~ ya;'J~~ ~Nx ~ 'Q a k4'3~' P F' ~ ~ ~ "'1 R ~ ~ 1 S 3~t qa~~i a 4~ ~ -y.:.. Yti;~' '~f..- 1 S~ u +T~ ~ 4 5 4. 7 p _ - a~ ~ - ~ ~ i ~~Qy~~pppp c I ~ ~ ~~0~ y tl PAP Ct' ~ N" ".N, y. ~ g y tk~ l 9 3 ~ . ~ TENTAT!' WAP; LANDS OF KNOPP ~1~L~s~ . cars' EC.wo g € ~ ~ 21925 ~ ~i7Y LANE En6mesaoaG g (:ilPPRT1N~1 (:a. nA,..~,, EXHIBITS BEGIN HERE ~r ~ a ~~~ ~~ a - k~a-.: ~ ~' q, '_'--° °___'_' _ ~- -.----._- E __ _--- _ _L=--- _------ Ap~iroVed Subdivision w ith Driveway __ Ease~rrie~nt- ~ ___ ~ ~_ - 2.7+'1 -'-::~ I , --- ~~ 5_4r ~ ~" ~~ ~ ~/ ! i _ _-~ ". ~ ~ ~. ' ~ ~ ' __~~ r-- ~ r _-_ _ _. ~\ _ ~ Z4SflT L~fl€. ~- __ _ r Stre _07 r2 LCT = i Cep 2.6Cd r.. . _ `1 :,.qy~.a Yxw m: :.~. /-- Sidewalk ~ y ,~ er 7'_ 40' wide. curb tc LT4T~~ Ln^'.t curb . _.~ _`- ~~_~ ~ _ _ j __ __~_~ --~-- ~ ~ - = ~- 't_ _ - _ ~,t~ -`~==`-- - -~-~- ~j 6ulldi L~ Envel Alternative Subdivision with no Easement r,Y' I. I:i r`. '..C. Page 1 of 2 Carol Atwood From: Carol Atwood Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 3:15 PM To: City Council Cc: Department Heads Subject: Item #10 -Lindy Lane Appeal Hi Everyone - ~-t-~n -~- t ~ cc ioI ~Io~` The following summarizes the concerns of Council Member Wong for Item #10. Please familiarize yourself with the issues before tonight's Council meeting. In addition, a copy of the power point presentation to address each concern will be on the dais for you to take notes during the meeting. Thanks! Carol Items of Concern: 1. There is a geological study done for this Lindy Lane site however there was NO sample taken on this site. This TM (tentative map) should not be approve Lntil a sample has been taken. If I would have known, I would have required it prior to approval. 2. There is NOT enough land to subdivide the property without the easement. This TM should have required an EXCEPTION rather than have it done through the condition of approval. The neighbors were so concern on how it was subdivided that it was ~1ot pointed out very clearly that there it was not enough land. 3. Section III, #4 Tree Preservation (page 10-54 of packet) states that no trees are to be removed as part of the tentative map approval. Trees will need to be removed to build the house(s). 4. The TM resolution required the retaining walls be four feet high. This will create a series of retaining walls to support the hillside to put in the two homes. 'Chis will significantly change the landscipe of the hill. The hill preservation was very important and wairted to minimize the number of retaining walls for this project. In addition, 5. Please show me the potential building pad and where the retaining walls are needed ...how many retaining walls? 6. Please show me how many trees will be removed t~~ build the house and the driveways? 7. Please show me how you are going to put in the fu] l street impovements and what effects will it have on the trees and the hill? I feel very strongly NOT to extend the TM for an additional year based on my concerns above. 10/7/2008 Page 2 of 2 Regards, Gilbert 10/7/2008 j2C C~~ ~ 0~-1-G~ ~ PG Kimberly Smith From: Gilbert Wong Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 7:;i7 AM To: Carol Atwood; City Council Cc: David Knapp; Kimberly Smith Subject: Fwd: Please confirm the issues outlined below Hi Carol, Thank you for forwarding the a-mail yesterday to everyone however as we talked I wanted to make sure that the original a-mail was entered in the record and NOT the modify e-mail that you sent yesterday. I wanted to make sure our City Clerk will enter this a-mail for item #10 acid not the one that was placed on the digs. Regards, Gilbert ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gilbert Wong <gilbertswong_(c~~gmail.com> Date: Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 9:43 PM Subject: Re: Please confirm the issues outlined below To: Carol Atwood <CarolA ,cupertino.org> Hi Carol, Sorry I missed your phone call. Thanks for trying to caf~ture my concerns. I need to make some corrections as well as some additions since you are doing a power point presentation. Please remember to have copies for all the council members as well as any other items that has !power point presentations. Please see BELOW of my corrections. Thanks! Gilbert On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Carol Atwood <Caro1.A(a~,cupertino.org> wrote: Hi Gilbert - In an effort to clarify the issues on Lindy and to have a slide at the CC meeting that can summarize your concerns, I have put together the following four reasons as to why you are appealing. Can you please confirm that I heard your concerns correctly and then send this b:~ck to me so that Colin & Steve can be ready to address your issues? Thanks so much! Carol ****************************************** 1. There was no geological study done on this site. The site geology was based on reports from adjacent properties. There is a geological study done for this Lindy Lane site however there was NO sample taken on this site. This TM shoud not be approve until a sample has been taken. If I would have known, I would have required it prior to approval. 2. The calculation of net lot size should have been approved under the exception process and not as a condition of approval. There is NOT enough land to subdivide the property without the easement. This TM should have required a EXCEPTION rather than have it done through the condi~:ion of approval. The neighbor were so concern on how it was subdived that it was not pointed out very clearly that there it was not enough land. 3. Section III, #4 Tree Preservation (page 10-54 of packet) states that no trees are to be removed as part of the tentative map approval. Trees will need to be removed to build the house(s). 4. Retaining wall heights not to exceed four feet are inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood (6-8 feet) and will require multiple walls. The TM resolution requred the retaining walls be four feet high. This will create a series of retaining wall to support the hillside to put in the two homes. This will significantly change the landscipe of the hill. The hill preservation was very important and wanted to minimizes the number of retaining walls for this project. In addition, 5. Please show me the potential building pad and where the retaining walls need...how many retaining walls? 6. Please show me how many trees will be removed to l,~uild the house and the driveways? 7. Please show me how you are going to put in the full street impovements and what effects will it have on the trees and the hill? Carol, please call me if you have any questions. I talked to Colin about my concerns. Either Steve or Colin or even you are welcome to contact me prior to the CC meeting. I feel very strongly NOT to extend the TM for an additional year based on my concerns above. Regards, Gilbert