The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20. Frank Sun - Appeal City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 ITYOF CUPEIQ1NO Community Development Department Summary Agenda Item No. ~O Agenda Date: December 6, 2005 SUBJECT Consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Application No. TM- 2005-05, Applicant Frank Sun, located at 21989 Lindy Lane. Tentative Map to subdivide a 2.6-acre parcel into three (3) lots, ranging from approximately 0.76, 0.65 and 1.22 acres in size in an Rl-20 single-family zoning district. RECOMMENDATION The City Council can take any of the following actions: 1) Uphold the appeal and deny the tentative map application; Or 2) Uphold the appeal and modify the conditions of approval; Or 3) Deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission's decision of approval with its conditions of approval as listed in Exhibit B; BACKGROUND The Planning Commission heard this application on Novernber 8, 2005 (Exhibit A & D) and approved it with conditions on a 4-1 vote with Commissioner Giefer voting no (Exhibit B). The Commission's decision was subsequently appealed by nearby Lindy Lane neighbors (Exhibit C). Their appeal consists of three points: 1) The Planning Commission ignored the Cupertino General Plan regarding hillside development; 2) The Planning Commission ignored the staff recommendation for two lots (not three) that reflected the General Plan; and 3) The Planning Commission, in allowing the third lot (Lot #1), will destroy the remaining Heritage Oak Tree Groves on Lindy Lane and further irreversibly erode the environment and natural habitat of the neighborhood. 2ð~l TM-20005-05 Page 2 December 6, 2005 DISCUSSION This project was originally scheduled to be heard on October 11, 2005, but was subsequently postponed twice by the applicant to the November 8th hearing date. During the postponements, the applicant contacted neighbors about his project and he submitted a petition of support from numerous neighbors. Other neighbors contacted staff and individual Planning Commissioners via email to express their opposition and concerns with the project and the ongoing construction along Lindy Lane. The petition and ernails are attached to the Planning Commission staff report. At the public hearing, the following comments, concerns and issues were raised: Applicant Comments · The subdivision is consistent with the general plan and zoning of the area. · The project has already been reduced in scope from four lots to three lots and is less dense than two previously approved Lindy Lane subdivisions: Moxley and Knopp, where 20,000 square foot lots were approved. · A geologist has studied the site and his evaluation has been reviewed by the City Geologist who has determined that the 3-lot subdivision is geotechnically feasible. · The land is being subdivided to preserve its economic value; applicant has no intention to build on the newly created lots over the short term. · As many trees as possible will be preserved when development is proposed. New trees wilI be planted to screen the residences. · The driveway on Lot #1 wilI be designed to save the large trees and minimize the visual impact. Nei~hbor Comments (in support and opposition) · Historically, there has been landslides in the hillsides along Lindy Lane. One recent landslide was not associated with any development. More hillside development wilI place more residents in peril from geologic hazards. · New houses are larger than existing ones and the future residence on Lot #1 wilI remove mature trees, add retaining walls and create adverse visual impacts for neighbors on the south side of Lindy Lane. · The character of the north side of Lindy Lane is rural in appearance. Residential development of Lot #1 will degrade the beauty of this area. · A new house on the upper slope of Lot #3 is more acceptable as the building 2JrzJ- TM-20005-05 Page 3 December 6, 2005 area. It is well-screened by existing trees and vegetation and is likely to have little visibility from Lindy Lane. · Other property owners have been allowed to subdiyide their properties according to the City's rules; Mr. Sun should be accorded the same treatment. 5 taff Comments · Staff had recommended to the Planning Commission that the band of steep slopes and native and non-native tree cover that occupy the Lindy Lane street frontage should be protected, as they give this street its semi-rural appearance and screen the visual impact of the new residences. This was the design concept that was applied to the recent Knopp property 2-lot subdivision. The Moxley 3- lot subdivision occurred four years ago and its recent development demonstrates the visual impact that subdivision can have on the character of a hillside. · Given general plan policies 2.53, 2.55 and 2.56, which relate to minimizing grading and retaining walls and retaining significant trees, especially when they grow in groves or clusters, staff felt the Sun 3-lot subdivision was not consistent with the general plan-unless Lot #1 was eliminated. · Alternatively, staffs recommendation was for a continuance, if the applicant was agreeable, to reconfigure the three proposed lots, placing all three building sites on the upper, northern portion of the property. Plannin~ Commission Comments · A majority of the Commissioners approved the tentative map with three lots, adding numerous conditions of approval to mitigate potential concerns and irnpacts. · A restriction was added to the Commission approval limiting the building area on Lot #1 to no more than 3,200 square feet. Per the R-1 ordinance, the potential maximum was 3,660 square feet. · A restriction was added to the Commission approval that prohibits further subdivision of the property beyond the three lots. · A restriction was added to the Commission approval modifying the slope easement condition allowing a house on Lot #1 and a yet-to-be-located driveway, while preserving existing land forms and trees. · A restriction was added to the Commission approval requiring a covenant on the property, notifying the property owner(s) of all protected specimen trees. · A restriction was added to the Commission approval requiring a tree bond prior to building permit approval. ?ð-3 3 TM- 20005-05 Page 4 December 6, 2005 . The construction management plan was expanded to include parking locations for heavy construction equipment and vehicles. . A condition was modified to prohibit sidewalk improyernents as part of this subdivision. ENCLOSURES Exhibit A: Planning Commission Staff Report dated Nov. 8, 2005 Exhibit B: Planning Commission Resolution No. 6335 Exhibit C: Appeal documents Exhibit D: Draft Planning Commission minutes dated Nov. 8, 2005 Tentative Map Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Submitted by: Approved by: ~-€.fl e~/c~ ~L Steve Piasecki Director, Community Development David W. Knapp City Manager G:CupertinoNT IP1anning/PDREPORT I CCI tm-2005-05ccappeal1.doc 1D ..--l{ 4 t.t~\ßn; A CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: Applicant: Property Owner: Property Location: TM-2005-05 Xi Hua (Frank) Sun Xi Hua (Prank) Sun 21989 Lindy Lane Agenda Date: November 8, 2005 Application Summary: Tentative Map to subdivide an approximately 2.6 acre site in an Rl-20 zoning district into three lots Project Data: General Plan Land Use Designation: Low Density Residential, 1-5 du/ gr. Ac. Zoning Designation: Rl-20 Project Consistency with: General Plan yes, with revisions recommended in resolution Zoning yes, with minimum lot size requirement of 20,000 square feet Environmental Review: Negative Declaration RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends either of two options: 1) Approval of a 2-lot subdivision, eliminating proposed Lot #1, or 2) Continue the tentative map application to allow the applicant to reconfigure the three proposed lots with the intent of placing all 3 building sites on the upper, northern portion of the property. BACKGROUND: The applicant, Prank Sun, is proposing to subdivide his 2.6 acre property into three lots of about 0.76, 0.65 and 1.22 acres in size (Exhibit A). The property is an irregularly-shaped lot located along the north side of Lindy Lane. A single-family house occupies the center of the lot and is accessed by a private driveway running along the north side of the property. The property is characterized as a southeast-facing hillside topography situated between a ridgeline and the buried Lindy Creek with moderately steep (30%) to very steep (up to 70%) slopes. The steepest slopes occur along 2/3 of the Lindy Lane property frontage, which is heavily vegetated with native oaks and non-native trees. A portion of these trees and ornamental landscaping screen the existing house from public view. The property is surrounded by other single-family dwellings. The properties on the south side of Lindy Lane are on flatter land and the lot sizes are around 10,000 square feet. To the north and further south the 2D-) 2 topography becomes steeper and the lot sizes double or more in size. To the east, one property (Lands of Moxley) was subdivided into three lots several years ago, and another lot (Lands of Knopp) was recently approved for two lots. The proposed subdivision basically carves out the center portion of the lot and preserves the existing dwelling, its improvements and the ornamental landscaping surrounding the home (Lot #2). Proposed lots #3 to the west and #1 to the east have varying topography (medium to steep slopes) with conceptual building sites located in the less steep drainage swale areas. The civil engineer provides slope calculations for the three proposed lots: verage ope Parcel No. Entire Parcel Building Site 1 35.5% 29.3% 2 25.5% 18.1% 3 38.3% 27.9% A Sl The building sites are conceptual in nature and are provided to evaluate the feasibility of the proposed parcels for residential development. No plans for houses or improvements have been submitted. DISCUSSION: Geotechnical Review. A geologic and geotechnical investigation was carried out by Milstone Geotechnical in a report dated March 2005 (Exhibit B) and subsequently reviewed by the City Geologist, Cotton, Shires & Associates (Exhibit C). Field observations show an existing home built on a combination of cut and fill pads. Additional fill slopes follow the private driveway. Additional shallow cut and deeper fill slopes are found in the western swale (Lot #3) and are associated with landscaping and walking paths through the parcel. At the bottom of the slope, at Lindy Lane, there are two concrete retaining walls up to nine feet in height and about 190 feet in length. They support a cut slope that resulted from grading for Lindy Lane. The consultant suggests that the easterly wall was constructed to stabilize an unstable slope that resulted from Lindy Lane construction. Analysis of the landforms indicated the presence of a possible large landslide on and in the vicinity of the property. According to the geologist the signs are subtle, and if the landslide is present, it would be considered prehistoric. Test pits, boreholes and exploratory shafts were dug in the anticipated building sites and surrounding areas to better characterize the subsurface geologic features of the property. This subsurface investigation found no strong supporting evidence for landsliding in the tested sites. After a review of the report and inspection of site excavations, the City Geologist concluded that the 2ð~ 3 proposed 3-lot subdivision is geotechnically feasible. The City Geologist also recommended that prior to building permit approval for the construction of any new residences, that site-specific, design-level geotechnical investigations be performed for each lot. Trees. City Arborist Barrie Coates and Associates evaluated the impact of the conceptual building sites on the affected trees in his report dated August 22, 2005 (Exhibit D). On Lot #1 seventeen trees might be affected by development; seven of them are ordinance-protected Coast Live Oaks. The City Arborist states the trees could be protected by erecting fencing during construction and grading, and shifting the proposed driveway alignment closer to tree #16, a smaller oak, than tree #17, a larger oak. The arborist reviewed an earlier tentative map, which showed an unusually small building footprint. The map in the packet has a more realistic footprint that would affect more trees, but these additionally affected trees are smaller and or non-native and are not protected by the tree ordinance. The report does not discuss Lot #3, although the trees are numbered on the arborist's map. Frorn his map, it appears that only one specimen size oak (tree # 7) would need to be removed as it sits between the proposed house and retaining wall. Maximum House Sizes. According to the R1 Ordinance (Section 19.28.050), 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. The RHS development regulations for house size would apply to both proposed vacant lots. Staff estirnates the maximum house size (including garage) on Lot #1 to be about 3,660 square feet, and the maximum house size on Lot #3 to be about 4,658 square feet. General Plan Policies. General Plan Policies 2.53 and 2.56, are applicable to the project. Policy 2-53: Rural Improvement Standards in the Foothills "Require rural improvement standards in the residential hillside zoning ordinance and the hillside subdivision regulations to preserve the rural character of the hillside." Strategies 1. "Mass Grading in New Construction. Follow natural land contour and avoid mass grading in new construction, especially in flood hazard or hillside areas. Grading large, flat yard areas shall be avoided." 1/}-1 4 2. "Retaining Significant Trees. Retain significant specimen trees, especially when they grow in groves or clusters, and integrate them into the developed site." . Policy 2-55: Land Disturbance During Development "Be sure the natural land forms and significant plants and trees are disturbed as little as possible during development. All cut and fill shall be rounded to natural contours and planted with natural landscaping." Given these impacts and the application of the General Plan policies, the Moxley subdivision, approved several years ago and the first to occur on Lindy Lane in recent memory, demonstrates the visual impact that subdivision and development can have on the character of a hillside. Staff recommends that the band of steep slopes and native and non-native tree cover that occupy the Lindy Lane street frontage should be protected, as they give this street its semi-rural appearance and screen the visual impact of the new residences. To this end, staff does not support the creation of Lot #1. The steepness of the topography and the grading and visible retaining walls needed to accommodate a reasonably-sized house, driveway and usable yard area will disrupt the natural landform in a very visible manner. Some trees will need to be removed to accommodate grading and the development area. Other trees will need to be pruned back to accommodate a future house. Staff does not see how development can be accommodated on this lower slope without having a high degree of visibility from Lindy Lane. The aerial photograph below depicts the slope and vegetation that staff feels should be included in a protective slope easement condition on the subdivision. Zð~O 5 Staff has discussed with the applicant on many occasions that it could be more supportive of a third parcel if the new building pad were sited upslope where the existing house is located and the pad already graded. This option has not been studied by the applicant or staff, but staff feels this possible building site would have the least visual impact on the neighborhood as the existing home site is already well-screened from view. To accommodate a third building site upslope would probably involve the modification of the existing residential improvements and landscaping. What would need to be removed or relocated is speculative until a preferred third building pad is determined. The Planning Commission would need to continue this application if the applicant is agreeable to reconfiguring the proposed lots and identifying an alternative building site. 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 and truck routes · Dust and erosion control · Garbage and debris container location and pick up schedule · Signage advising contractors of the restrictions Public Comments. Staff received a petition in support of the subdivision, one letter of conditional support, and numerous emails opposing the subdivision. See Exhibit E. Enclosures. Model Resolution ERC Recommendation and Initial Study Exhibit A - Applicant's Letter of Justification dated August 15,2005 Exhibit B - Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Subdivision 21989 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, California, prepared by Milstone Geotechnical. dated March 2005 Exhibit C- Review & Comment Letter from Cotton, Shires & Associates, dated March 25, 2005 Exhibit D-An Analysis of Trees on Lot 1 of the Sun Property, 21989 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, Prepared by Barrie D. Coate, dated August 22, 2005 Exhibit E - Petition of Support, Letter of Conditional Support and Emails in Opposition of Project Tentative Map Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner £:) Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developmen~...e ~/.. G:p1anningj pdreportj pcTMreportsj2005tmreportsjTM-2005-05 ('CL¿) 1-6 -~ TM-2005-05 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO MODIFYING A SUBDIVISION REQUEST AND APPROVING A TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A 2.6 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF APPROXIMA TEL Y 1 NET ACRE AND 1.14 NET ACRES IN AN Rl-20 ZONING DISTRICT AT 21989 LINDY LANE SECTION 1: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: TM-2005-05 Frank Sun 21989 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 as modified by the Planning Commission is consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan. b) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision as modified by the Planning Commission are consistent with the General Plan. c) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development contemplated under the approved modified subdivision. d) That the design of the subdivision as modified or the proposed improvernents are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidable injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. e) That the modified design of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated therewith are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 20 --{ 0 Resolution No. Page 2 1M-200s-0s November 8, 2005 ----- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application TM-2005-05 for a Tentative Map is hereby approved as modified, 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 TM-2005-05, as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of October 11, 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 DR. X. SUN, 21989 LINDY LANE, CUPERTINO" by Westfall Engineers, Inc., dated October 2005, and consisting of one sheet labeled 1 of 1, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this resolution. 2. TENTATIVE MAP REVISIONS The applicant/ owner shall subrnit a revised tentative map showing a maximum of two lots, deleting the interior lot line between Lot #1 and Lot #2. 3. SLOPE EASEMENT The applicant/ owner shall submit a revised tentative map clearly delineating a slope easement across the Lindy Lane frontages of each proposed lot that closely reflect the illustration included in the Planning Commission staff report dated November 8, 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 REMOVAL AND PRESERVATION No trees are authorized for removal as part of the tentative map approval. Tree removal and replacement will be evaluated when a new residence is actually proposed to the City. 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. 2-D ~\ t Resolution No. Page 3 1M-1005-05 November 8, 1005 5. DRIVEWAY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Prior to final map approval, a driveway maintenance agreernent shall be recorded for the existing driveway benefiting the two lots. 6. 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 · 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, grading, street construction, demolition, underground utility work and other construction work that directly involves motorized vehicular equiprnent are prohibited. · On Sundays, construction is prohibited. 7. 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. 8. 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 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice 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 requirernents of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. 9. ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS Prior to the approval of grading or building perrnits, a detailed geotechnical, design-level investigation shall be perforrned for each lot proposed for 20 r ( ~ Resolution No. Page 4 TM-2005-05 Noyember 8, 2005 ~~~ ---- development in accordance with the recommendations outlined in a letter from Cotton Shires & Associates to Gary Chao, Cupertino City Planner dated March 25, 2005. SECTION IV. CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 10. STREET WIDENING Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 11. 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. 12. 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 interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 13. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City, Santa Clara County Fire and San Jose Water Company. 14. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City. 15. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and! or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. No grading shall be permitted during the City's rainy season October through April. 16. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Developrnent in all other zoning districts shall be served by on site storm drainage facilities connected to the City storm drainage systern. If City storm drains are not available, drainage facilities shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. * Pre and Post Development Calculations are required 2ð --1 3 Resolution No. Page 5 TM-2005-05 Noyember 8, 2005 17. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City and Santa Clara County Fire, as needed 18. 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. 19. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not lirnited to checking and inspection fees, storrn drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $ 5% of Off-Site Improvement Cost or $2,785.00 nun. b. Grading Permit: $ 5% of Site Improvement Cost c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 1,000.00 d. Storm Drainage Fee: TBD e. Power Cost: ** f. Map Checking Fees: $ 3,250.00 g. Park Fees: $ 31,500.00 h. Street Tree By Developer ** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the Public Utility Commission (P.U.c.) Bonds: 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 tirne will reflect the then current fee schedule. '2~ ~I Lf. Resolution No. Page 6 TM-200S-0S November 8, 2005 ---- --- --------- 20. 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. 21. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES The developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtenances installed to City Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water for water service to the subject development. 22. BEST 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 8th day of November 2005, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Developrnent Gilbert Wong, Chairpersòn Cupertino Planning Commission gjplanning/pdreport/res(fM-2005-05 res.doc 2fJ -I ') CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE September 14, 2005 As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on September 14, 2005. PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: Applicant: Location: TM-2005-05 (EA-2005-12) Frank Sun 21989 Lindy Lane DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Tentative Map to subdivide a 2.6-acre parcel into three lots FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMIITEE The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan and has no significant environmental impacts. /\ \' ...,' ~ '" C\'J .:::.....'v....-.--, :i J: -~ (..... '. v . Ciddy Wol-'dell J Acting Director of Community Development G:\ Planning \ ERC\Rec\2005 \REC ea200512.doc )..(J --i ~ .11 . CITY OF CUPERJINO City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3251 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department ~,}i\'r~0~;;W;~~i%:T;~rÜ:0i''';:.~'7?,"é,0:':'~;?i''~·'''''''.':"IT~'i~.~~"~,m-:'f¿?;"i,·,,::~.:~;~~~"t1~'¡!~;-:"'7~'~r:;::~J7,:"f.~'\~~¡lj:::::;;~:1'c'TI~S'i~ t ,~,-"!"r':", _IN.ITIAL STl,JDY,: ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIOI\I:CHEGKl\$T;>"p"'::':';¡'"J t1.'i,~'i:..SÇ,;.:i:::L.'LctL:':~"::~;";:':~;:'~;¡i,L;';';'i.~C:1c:L!;~.l::'i~ê;"~t1.,~,~., ':,':i"'.S";""':-·:o'("£U~!:::;;').,;::L·6..;·'::':'i,·~':~:1Lf.U.:.S£fu¡æ'~j~,¡;<·''''''''''~'·h'',,,-',r±oZ:¿:1~:~:",{"';''::;:~j;\A~ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: . teff Use Qnly .,. ". ' EA File No. .£ A ~20ðS-: 12- ase File No. T\'<\-~5" 05" ttachments Project Title: 3- Lt>-\- Lìf\cÀ¡ L~ 5Joo\(\1\$I~ Project Location: 2~~ Û U ^J..j LA'I\.Q.., Project Description: \~",,~-\tJ~ "\J(UC'o ~ \I) ~ ~ ð,)\'~~'I~J 0.- 2·10 -f'''A'C'o \ ì^-}-.-, ~ ..4-:<; Envir.onmental~~'cJ' -\.n J I :~~~~r~t".ti£~~~~:~~;t¡{";~ .'f1~ <Df'"' PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Area (ac.) -2.1;a (., Building Coverage - % EXiRt~~~~ sJ. Proposed Bldg. - sJ. Zone - R \ - 2...0 G.P. Designation - ' . - Low ~tr Assessor's Parcel No. - ~-'2.. 6" -JL!:.4 If Residential, Units/Gross Acre - I. I '+ J) \J / (., R. A~. I 1-5" Du 1ft Total# Rental/Own Bdrms Total sJ. Price Unit Type #1 Unit Type #2 Unit Type #3 Unit Type #4 Unit Type #5 Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check) o Monta Vista Design Guidelines o S. De Anza Conceptual o N. De Anza Conceptual o S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual o Stevens Crk Blvd, Conceptual o Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape s.f. FAR - Max. Parking Provided If Non-Residential, Building Area - Employees/Shift : _Parking Required Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area - YES .:ø: NO o ;¿0 ~l '7 A. CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN SOURCES D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES (Continued) 1. land Use Element 26. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Public Safety Element 27. County Parks and Recreation Department 3. Housing Element 28. Cupertino Sanitary District 4. TransportaUon Element 29. Fremont Union High School District 5. Environmental Resources 30. Cupertino Union School District 6. Appendix A- Hillside Deveiopment 31. Pacific Gas and Electric 7. land Use Map 32. Santa Clara County Fire Department 8. Noise Eiement Amendment 33. County Sheriff 9. City Ridgeline Policy 34. CAl TRANS 10. Constraint Maps 35. County Transportation Agency 36. Santa Clara Valley Water District B. CUPERTINO SOURCE DOCUMENTS 11. Tree Preservation ordinance 778 E. OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS 12. City Aerial Photography Maps 37. BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant 13. "Cupertino Chronicle" (California History Excesses Center. 1976) 38. FEMA Flood Maps/SCVWD Flood Maps 14. Geological Report (site specific) 39. USDA, "Soils of Santa Clara County" 15. Parking Ordinance 1277 40. County Hazardous Waste Management 16. Zoning Map Plan 17. Zoning Code/Specific Plan Documents 41. County Heritage Resources Inventory 16. City Noise Ordinance 42. Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel leak Site C. CITY AGENCIES Site 43. CalEPA Hazardous Waste and 19. Community Development Depl List Substances Site 20. Public Works Dept. 21. Parks & RecreaUon Department F. OTHER SOURCES 22. Cupertino Water Utility 44. Project Plan Set/Application Materials 45. Field Reconnaissance D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES 46. Experience w/project of similar 23. County Planning Department scope/characteristics 24. Adjacent CiUes' Planning Departments 47. ABAG Projection Series 25. County Departmental of Environmental Health A. Complete all information requested on the Initial Study Cover page. LEAVE BLANK SPACES ONLY WHEN A SPECIFIC ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE. B. Consult the Initial Study Source List: use the materials listed therein to complete, the checklist information in Categories A through O. C. You are encouraged to cite other relevant sources: if such sources are used, job in their title(s) in the "Source" column next to the question to which they. relate. D. If you check any of the "YES" response to any questions, you must attach a sheet explaining the potential impact and suggest mitigation If needed. E. When explaining any yes response, label your answer clearly (Example "N - 3 Historical") Please try to respond concisely. and place as many explanatory responses as possible on each paqe. F. Upon compieting the checklist, sign and date the Preparer's Affidavit. G. Please attach the following materials before submitting the Initial Study to the City. ,(Project Plan Set of legislative Document ,(location map with site clearly marked (when applicable) ')D --( r EVALUATION OF ENVlRONMENiAL IMPACTS: I »- '" _ 0 ",- -'" £: c:¡:¡ ra;.... -1tI- ItI ItI 0 ItI - .Œ u u .s::. u.c·- .... .c(,)(,) (,) I ISSUES: -.- ~ ¡-.-....1Go t-.- ItI o ItI c~ 1/):=·~ClC. VI ~ Co zC. I [and Supporting Information Sources] c C E en c .-.... II) C E E Õ .2>- cCI ::0 c .2>- ..J- ã:u Coif) If) C ..J1f) I. AESTHETICS -. Would the project: I a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 0 0 ¡g¡ 0 i scenic vista? [5.9.24,41.44] , I b) substantially damage scenic resources. 0 Jã. 0 0 including. but not limited to, trees, rock I outcrop pings. and historic buildings within a ! state scenic highway? [5,9.11.24.34,41,44] c) Substantially degrade the existing visual 0 .ø 0 -0 character or quality of the site and its ! surroundings? [1.17.19.44] \ d) Create a new source of substantial light or 0 0 ~ 0 glare. which would adversely affect day or I nighttime views in the area? [1.16.44] . II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In . determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and \ Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an I optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project , a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique 0 0 0 m \ Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide i I Importance (Farmland), as shown on the i maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland I Mapping and Monitoring Program of the , California Resources Agency, to non- I agricultural use? [5.7.39] b) Conflict with existing zoning for 0 0 0 ~ agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? [5.7.23] I c) Involve other changes in the existing 0 0 0 ¡a i environment which, due to their location or I nature, could result in conversion of i Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [5.7.39] I , 20 -{ i \ 0 1 :>,.... c:"Ë I _I: c: "E c: ;:: I -..- .... 0" ....- ot; .!!! to) u ..c:u..c:;::;'- .c<..><..> ISSUES: .....- ~ t-~...cuo I- .- .. o .. !:~ II)'-'~C>c. CI) ~ Co zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] Q) C E (l)t: .-"- II) C E ..5 õ.~- Q) C) ::: 0 Q) .~- c..1f) ..J'- :æ: <.> ..J1f) If) I: - , III. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air I pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would ! the project: i ~ \ a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of 0 0 0 the applicable air quality plan? [5,37,42,44] I b) Violate any air quality standard or 0 0 0 ~ I contribute substantially to an existing or I projected air quality violation? [5,37,42,44] r c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net 0 0 0 ..¡g , increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality i standard (including releasing emissions I which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? [4,37,44] . . \ d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial 0 0 0 g¡ pollutant concentrations? [4,37,44] I ,¡g¡ Ie) Create objectionable odors affecting a 0 0 0 substantial number of people? [4,37,44] . \ IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would i " I I the project: I a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either 0 0 0 ø I directly or through habitat modifications, on , any species identified as a candidate, I sensitive, or special status species in local or I regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by I I the California Department of Fish and Game I I or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? I I [5,10.27,44] b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any 0 0 0 ~ I I riparian habitat or other sensitive natural I community.identified in local or regional I pians, policies, regulations or by the ! California Department of Fish and Game or I I I US Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44] I I c) Have a substantial adverse effect on 0 0 0 ¡g I , I federally protected wetlands as defined by I ; Section 404 of the Clean Water Act I (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal I I 2ß - }J) I ;>.... c: ... 0 c:ë \ -I: I: c::¡:; -ns..... IU 1\1 0 ~ IU~.... .... .~ u U .t: U .- '- =00 0 ISSUES: ......- ë t-¡;:-:5~o t-.- ca o ns C~ .. .- ¡¡: 0) c. II) := Q, zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] () C E en!:: .-""" .. C E E õ.~- 11) en ~ 0 () 0)_ a..rn ....1.- :iE 0 ....Iii) rn C pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? [20,36,44] I I d) Interfere substantially with the movement 0 0 0 ø I of any native resident or migratory fish or i wildlife species or with established native I resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or , impede the use of native wildlife nursery I sites? [5,10,12,21,26] \ e) Conflict with any local policies or 0 0 ø 0 ordinances protecting biological resources, I such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? [11,12,41] f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural 0 0 0 ISif Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? [5,10,26,27] V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the I project: . a) Cause a substantial adverse change in 0 0 0 .!B the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? [5,13,41] I b) Cause a substantial adverse change in 0 0 0 ÆJ, I the significance of an archaeological I resource pursuant to §15064.5? [5,13,41] . , I c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 0 0 0 .es:¡ i paleontological resource or site or unique I geologic feature? [5,13,41] I d) Disturb any human remains, including 0 0 0 Iii I those interred outside of formal cemeteries? [1,5] I I I VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the ¡project: , I I a) Expose people or structures to potential I substantial adverse effects, including the risk I I of loss, injury, or death involving: I i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as 0 I 0 0 Ii(! delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the 10 ~2l i , 0 ì ),.... ¡:; E c:¡:; ¡:;.... \ ISSUES: _I: C -"'.... ~ '" 0 III ~III.. ... .!S! u u '::ooC·-,- ..c:uu u .....- ~ 1-.-_1U 0 I-¡¡::'" o '" c~ III := '!!: CI 0- 11')'- c. ZO- I [and Supporting Information Sources] SCE U) c .- r- III C E E o,~- (1) C) :t:: 0 Q ,~- I D-m ....ICi) :æ:g ....1m I , State Geologist for the area or based on I other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology I Special Publication 42. [2,14,44] I ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? D fj. D D [2,5,10,44] I iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including D 0 0 D , liquefaction? [2.5,10,39,44] i iv) Landslides? [2,5,10.39,44] D ~ D D I b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the D [8 0 0 1 loss of topsoil? [2,5,10,44] I I c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is D Ii!j 0 0 I unstable, or that would become unstable as I a result of the project, and potentially result I in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, . I subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? [2,5,10,39] I I d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined D i9 D D I in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or ¡property? [2,5,10] I e) Have soils incapable of adequately D D D ..)R supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems I where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? [6,9,36,39] I i VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS I MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or D 0 D ~ the environment through the routine , transport, use, or disposal of hazardous I materials? [32,40,42,43,44] b) Create a significant hazard to the public or D D D »11 I the environment through reasonably I foreseeable upset and accident conditions I involving the release of hazardous materials , I into the environment? [32,40,42,43,44] I c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle 0 0 0 ,Hj I hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, , substances, or waste within one-quarter mile I :¿ø -;LL I ».... 0 C.... _c C E c;¡:; c -CO.... ~ CO 0 ~ ~~... ... .~ (.) (.) .t= U .- t- '<:UU U ISSUES: .....- ~ t-.-Sëû 0 t- .- ra o CO c~ en == '3: CI a. U) ~ c. za. [and Supporting Information Sources] Q <:: E rnl: .-.... en <:: E § õ.~- Q) CD :t::: 0 (þ .~- C,.(/ ...Ie;¡ :og ..J(f I of an existing or proposed school? [2,29,30,40,44] I d) Be located on a site which is included on a 0 0 0 <RJ list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a I significant hazard to the public or the environment? [2,42,40,43] i e) For a project located within an airport land 0 0 0 ~ use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport I or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [ ] I·· f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 0 0 0 ~ j¡¡¡ airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the , project area? [] i g) Impair implementation of or physically 0 0 0 ~ interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? [2,32,33,44] \ h) Expose people or structures to a 0 0 0 %l I significant risk of loss, injury or death I involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or i where residences are intermixed with \ ! wildlands?[1 ,2,44] VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY I I -- Would the project: I . ! a) Violate any water quality standards or 0 0 0 ø I , waste discharge requirements? [20,36,37] b) Substantially deplete groundwater 0 0 0 ß'I supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there wouid be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater tabie level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? [20,36,42] 1JJ -13 ! I: _ 0 i »- 1:- I - ¡;; ¡;; I::¡:; I: - ce'" rG ce 0 (G rG(G'" ... .~ u 0 .co.::::::¡:¡¡.... .l:Ul> l> ISSUES: -.- 9 i-¡¡::_nsO 1-,- '" o '" c:::~ U)o-'- C)Q. U) ~ Co za. [and Supporting Information Sources] '" C E en s::::: 3:.-.... II) C E E õ.~- Q) en ~ 0 (.~- ...J .- :æ; u D..CI) CI) I: ...JCI) . c) Substantially alter the existing drainage 0 0 0 I>J.. pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site? [14, 20,36] I d) Substantially alter the existing drainage 0 0 0 !;;t pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or I amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site [20.36,38] ,! e) Create or contribute runoff water which 0 0 0 ~ would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? [20,36,42] f) Otherwise substantially degrade water 0 0 0 .KJ. quality? [20,36,37] I, . I g) Place housing within a 1 OO-year flood 0 0 0 þit hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? [2,38] h) Place within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area 0 0 0 ' '.i'f structures which would impede or redirect I I flood flows? [2,38] I i) Expose people or structures to a significant 0 0 0 &. i risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, I including flooding as a result of the failure of , a levee or dam? [2,36.38] I j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or 0 0 0 ~ I mudfiow? [2,36,38] IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING· Would I the project: a) Physically divide an established 0 0 0 ø i I community? [7,12.22,41] i b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, Et i 0 0 0 I policy, or regulation of an agency with 20 ~1 L{ \ 0 I i >..... c~ !:+; t:"é _ c: I -..- ra C'3 0 ns ....- .... .~ (,) C,,) .cu ._t- '<:00 0 ¡ISSUES: . -.- ~ J-t¡:'5"tû0 1-'- .. o .. I::~ ~ 'c "¡ .~ e- en ~ 0- zQ. I [and Supporting Information Sources] C) <: E en <: E .§ õ.2»- Q) C) ~ 0 ø.~- I a. en .J .- :æ: c.> .Jen en c: I jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) \ adopted fQr the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 1[1,7,8,16,17,18,44] . I c) Conflict with any applicable habitat 0 0 0 Jii. I conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? [1,5,6,9,26] i X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the I project: . \ a) Result in the loss of availability of a known 0 0 0 ¡g mineral resource that would be of value to I the region and the residents of the state? 1[5,10] \ b) Result in the loss of availability of a 0 0 0 .f;[ locally-important mineral resource recovery I site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? [5,10] , I XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: I , I a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, 0 0 0 &'!. I noise levels in excess of st,mdards I established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other ¡agencies? [8,18,44] I b) Exposure of persons to or generation of . 0 0 0 ~ excessive groundbome vibration or i groundbome noise levels? [8,18,44] ! I c) A substantial permanent increase in 0 0 0 B I i ambient noise levels in the project vicinity I above levels existing without the project? i [8.18] I d) A substantial temporary or periodic 0 El 0 0 I I increase in ambient noise levels in the I \ project vicinity above levels existing without I I I the project? [8,18,44] I í 1 I e) For a project located within an airport land 0 0 0 Þ'J. use plan or, where such a plan has not been I I adopted, within two miles of a public airport I i or public use airport, would the project I expose people residing or working in the - ?ßJ -25 ;.,'" 0 c'" _c:: c E r:::¡:¡ c -"'... ~ '" 0 nI ~nI'" ... .!: (.) u ¡:.:u.c:.;::;.... ..c: t> t> u ISSUES: -.- ~ 1-'- '" o '" c~ tt::t:cuo !II'-¡:cnc. UJ ~ C. zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] ( C E t/) I: ._.... !II C E E õ.~- Q)tn :::0 ( .2'- c..en .J'- :¡¡ u .Jen en C project area to excessive noise levels? I [8,18,44] f) For a project within the vicinity of a private D D D Ia airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [8,18] I XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an D D D ~ I area, either directly (for example, by I proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of I roads or other infrastructure)? [3,16,47,44] I , b) Displace substantial numbers of existing D D D ~ housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3.16.44] I c) Displace substantial numbers of people, D D D LRI. necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered I governmental facilities, need for new or , physically altered governmental facilities. the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain I acceptable service ratios, response times or I other performance objectives for any of the public services: i Fire protection? [19.32.44] D D D Ii4 Police protection? [33,44] D D D f!i( I Schools? [29,30,44] D D D ~ ! I I Parks? [5.17.19.21,26,27,44] D D 0 ~ I I Other public facilities? [19.20,44] I 0 0 0 ¡g I XIV. RECREATION-- ! , , , I a) Would the project increase the use of 0 D 0 J& i existing neighborhood and regional parks or 20 -l~ ;:.,.... 0 t:1: _t: t:'E t::¡:¡ -cu.... ('3 cu 0 M .('3 M'" 't; .~ (.) U J: (.) ..c .- '- -"'00 ISSUES: .....- Ë i-¡¡::_ñiO t- .- C"IS o cu c~ ""-'j: CIa. CI):= c. za. [and Supporting Information Sources] Q) C E tn s::: .- '- '" C E E õ.~- tn ~ 0 Q) .~- ,5.- :Eo D.Vi Vi C ...I Vi other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? I [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] b) Does the project include recreational 0 0 0 ~ facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? [5,44] XV. TRANSPORTATIONfTRAFFIC-- I Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is 0 0 0 ð- I substantial in relation to the existing traffic ¡load and capacity of the street system (I.e., i result in a substantial increase in either the I number of vehicle trips, the volume to I I capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at I i I intersections)? [4,20,35,44] b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, 0 0 0 ,ß a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? [4,20,44] .. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, 0 0 0 -t,¡ including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? [4,?] I I d) Substantially increase hazards due to a 0 0 0 à \ i design feature (e.g., sharp curves or I dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? [20,35,44] I e) Result in inadequate emergency access? I 0 0 0 ø I I [2,19,32,33,44] I I f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 0 Q! i [17,44] i g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or 0 0 0 ¡¡a I I programs supporting alternative I i transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle i i racks)? [4,34] I I I I XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - i I Would the project: , I 2ð -1.. 1 \ »... 0 c:.... _c: C:'E I:~ I: -...... ~.. 0 ~ ~~... ... .~ (.) u ~ (,J .s:::.- r- .coo 0 I ISSUES: .....- 9 I--¡¡::_œo I-- .- ra o .. c:~ en'-'j¡: ",c. en ~ Q. zc. I [and Supporting Information Sources] '" C E U)C .-'- en C E E õ.~- Q) en :'!:: 0 "'.~- ...J'- :¡; 0 I a. en en C ...Jen a) Exceed wastewater treatment 0 0 0 å requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? [5,22,28,36,44] b) Require' or result in the construction of 0 0 0 13 new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [36,22,28,36] c) Require or result in the construction of 0 0 0 EJ' new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant I environmental effects? [5,22,28,36,44] I I e) Result in a determination by the 0 0 0 0 I wastewater treatment provider which serves I or may serve the project that it has adequate I capacity to serve the project's projected I demand in addition to the provider's existing I, commitments? [5,22,28,36,44] I f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient 0 0 0 ]i[ I permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? [?] I g) Comply with federal, state, and iocal 0 0 0 lit I statutes and regulations related to solid , waste? [?] 20 -28' · XVII. MANDATORY FIN[)IN<3S9¡::SI<3~"51Ct\NCE (To be completed by City staff) .. . a) Does the project have the potential to 0 0 0 Eit. I degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 0 b) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 0 ~ I individually limited, but cumulatively I considerable? ("Cumulatively \ considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? 0 c) Does the project have environmental 0 0 0 .ß1. effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 0 PREP ARER'S AFFIDAVIT· I I I hereby certify that the information provided in this Initial Study is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief; I certify that I have used proper diligence in responding accurately to all questions herein, and have consulted appropriate source references when necessary to ensure full and complete disclosure of relevant environmental data. I hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within this Initial Study may cause delay or discontinuance of related project review procedures, and hereby agree to hold harmless the City of Cupertino, its staff and authorized agents, from the consequences of such delay or discontinuance. Print Preparer's Name ßLh ~\:r'\ "3~ Preparer's Signature '2ù -,¡ ~- ENVIRON. MENTAL EVALUATION (To.be Completed by City S.taff) . -.. - ... ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ~ Aesthetics D Agriculture Resources D Air Quality D Biological Resources D Cultural Resources :& Geology /Soils D Hazards & Hazardous D Hydrology / Water D Land Use / Planning Materials Quality D Mineral Resources .ø Noise D Population / Housing D Public Services D Recreation D Transportationrrraffic D Utilities I Service D Mandatory Findings of Systems Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) finds that: )Et The proposed project COUtD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. D Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. D The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. D The proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 0 Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ~\ " / !¡y.! DS- -- Staff IUa}% - -- Date \ ~\¡,r- , \d-J / ~" ERC Chairperson C{ II q J C,,(~ Date ')IJ- )0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF 3-LOT SUN SUBDIVISION, 21989 LINDY LANE Aesthetics- Development of proposed lot #1 is constrained by lot shape, slopes and native tree cover in a potentially highly visible location. Conceptual building footprint generates a residence less than half of the zoning potential house size and thus understates· potential visual impact from grading, retaining walls, tree removal, etc. Potential mitigations include: deed restriction on house size, conservation easement around building pad and City denial of this proposed lot. Noise-- Project can generate short-term construction noise impacts that are significantly higher than ambient levels. Potential mitigations include limitations on construction hours and requirements for mufflers on the noisest construction equipment. GeoIogy/Soils- A geotechnical report was prepared by the applicant's consultant and reviewed by the City Geologist. Site is constrained by seismic conditions, potential unstable slopes, artificial fill material, known slides, etc. Both geologists concluded that the 3-lot subdivision is geotechnically feasible, but site-specific, design-level geotechnical investigation is needed when a new house is proposed. None are being proposed at this time, just the division of land. ERC recommends that no grading be permitted on this property during the wet season. 1.ó~)l ç \ ,\1 [l v'l.-",'þ,¡·. II August 15, 2005 Dear Cupertino City Council, Planning Commmission and Planning Staff: I am the resident and owner of 21989 Lindy Lane, a 2.636 acre lot in a Rl-20 zone. I'm applying to subdivide the property into 3 lots. I started at the beginning of 2004. In March 2004, city engineer completed an initial geologic review of the subject application for a 4-1ot subqivision. Upon request, over the ensuing 11 months, we completed the detailed geological investigations for all 4 potential lots. As indicated by the city engineer in the feasibility report, the geological studies included several trench diggings, small and large diameter drillings as well as hand digging of large diameter well down to the bedrock. The costly investigations and reviews led to the positive conclusion by the city engineer. In February 2005, after a meeting with city planner Peter Gilli and the Department Director, considering their opinions, an application for a 3-1ot instead of 4-1ot subdivision was filed but returned on March 1st 2005 citing insufficient building designs especially in the lower corner lot. Having had many conversations with city planner Peter Gilli and the Department Director, as well as another meeting with Peter Gilli and Mr. Colin Jung, after addressing concerns of the shape of the lower corner lot, building design and potential retaining wall, I tried to resubmit the application but was told that Peter was leaving the city of Cupertino and Mr. Colin Jung would be the project manager. Over the following months, while I had been working with Mr. Colin Jung, our adjacent neighbor Mr. John Knopp applied and within a few weeks, completed the subdivision of his one acre lot into two approximate 20,000 square feet lóts using my geological investigations and reviews on my lots. On August 8, 2005, Mr. Colin Jung indicated that I was àble to submit my application again. A 3-1ot subdivision will be very consistent with the adjacent lots and the recent subdivisions on Mr. John Knopp's and Moxley's properties. The purpose of the subdivision is to preserve the value. I have no intention to sell or build on any of the lots in a foreseeable future. In case of any potential co~struction in the future, the look and the landscape screen along Lindy Lane will be preserved and no single specimen oak tree will be removed. I will live on the property and add~ess the concerns of our neighbors by avoiding earth moving or outside constructions during weekends. We will minimize gradings and avoid any visible retaining walls. Thanks for the consideration, _;/(~r L- .---ç Xihua (Frank) Sun Jj)~3l..... ~ EA;~\~h ß REPORT GEOLOGIC and GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED SUBDIVISION 21989 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, California for Dr. Xi Hua Sun 21989 Lindy Lane Cupertino, CA 95014 Project No. 2560 March 2005 ~_ MILSTONE , '" ~ GEOTECHNICAL Tel 408.353.5528 Tel 650.373.7704 Fax 408.353.9690 1 7 0 2 0 Melody Lane Los Gatos,Caifomia 95033 bsm@milstonegeo.com ]J)-33 ~ MILS1. IE 1- ~ GEOTECHNICAL March 9, 2005 Project No. 2560 Dr. Xi Hua Sun 21989 Lindy Lane Cupertino, CA 95014 SUBJECT: RE: Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Subdivision 21989 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, California Dear Dr. Sun: Mi1stone Geotechnical has completed a geologic and geotec!uJjca] investigation related to the proposed subdivision of your property. The accompanying report presents tbe results ofthe investigation witb conclusions and recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of the proposed project. Based on the work performed for this investigation, it is our opinion that, from geologic and geotechnical perspectives, the two new lots tbat would result from tbe proposed subdivision can be developed with single-family residences. It has been a pleasure providing professional services to you on tbis project. If you have any questions regarding the contents ofthis report, or require additional assistance, please phone. Sincerely, MILS TONE GEOTECHNICAL GEOINSITE, INC. & ;5 }Uæ~ ¿Jj~'~::{ ~ Ie.- William F. Cole, Principal Engineering Geologist, CEG 1202 Bany S. M' stone, Principal Geotech . cal Engineer, GE 2111 20 r ~ <{ GEOLOGIC and GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED SUBDIVISION 21989 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, California TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1 Proj ect Description ....... ............. ....... ... ........ .... ............................... ................... ......... ...... ........... I Purpose and Scope ofInvestigation ........................._.................................................................1 SITE CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... ................................. 2 T opographi c Setting .......... ......... .......... ........................ _...................... .-................ ..... ................. 2 Previous Grading. .......................... ...... ................ ........ ...................................... .... ................ ...... 3 Surface Drainage .................. ....... ......... ...................... ...................... ................ ..... ............... ....... 3 Existing Improvements ....... ............ ...... ................................ ..._. .......... ......... ......... .... ................. 3 Vegetation........ .... .............. ... .... ............ .................... ......... ..... .................................. ................... 4 REGIONAL GEOLOGY ....................................................,..............................................................4 Bedrock ........ ...... ........ ......................... ................. .._.. ......... ..... ........ ... ................ ..... ..... ................ 4 Geologic Hazards .... ......... ..... ... ....... ...... ............ ..... ........................... ....................... ............. ...... 5 Possible Landsli de..... ....... ..... ......... ............ .... ..... .................... ...... ......... ................... .................. 5 SITE SEISMICITY .............................................................................................................................7 Anticipated Ground Surface Acceleration ................................................................................. 7 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................... 8 Subsurface Explorati on . ......... .............. ................. ................. ... ................ ................ ...... ....... ..... 8 Subsurface Materi als .... ............. ......... .... ......... ........... ...................... ...... ............ .......... ............... 8 GROUND WATER ........................................................................................................................... 10 SLOPE ST ABILITY .........................................................................................................................11 Methodology .......................................,...................................................................................... 11 Surface Geometry .... ......... ....... ............... ........ ...... ................. ... .......... ..... ............. ..................... 12 Subsurface Conditions. ...................... ... .................................... ......................................... ....... 12 Soil Properties........................... ...................... ........................ .... .......................... ...... .......... ..... 12 Ground Water ...................................................................................,........................................ 12 Analysis and Results .................................................................................................................12 3/9/05 - Sun Subdivision - Proj. No_ 2560 1/; - ')) DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................,.......................................13 Existing Fi11....... .............. ...... ..... ....... ............. .... ........................ ............... ......... ...... ......... ......... 14 Sum cial Soils... ...................... .......... ..... ....................... ...... .......................... ..... .......... ............... 14 Steep Slopes........ ......... ........ ......... .... .... .......... ..... ...... ...... ....... ................. .................................. 14 Seismic Shaking .......... .............. .... ....... .................... ..... ........ .... ........ ............... ............ ............. 14 Geotechnical Recommendations .... .................. .................................. ....... ....... .... ........ ............ 14 LIMIT A TIONS.................................................................................................................................. 15 ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. Site Location Map ..........................................................................................folIows page 1 Figure 2. Regional Geologic Map .................................................................................folIows page 4 Figure 3. Idealized Geotechnical Cross Section A-A' .................................................... follow page 8 Figure 4. Idealized Geotechnical Cross Section B-B' .................................................... follow page 8 Figure 5. Idealized Geotechnical Cross Section C-C' .................................................... fonow page 8 Figure 6. Idealized Geotechnical Cross Section D-D' .................................................... follow page 8 Plate 1. Site Geologic and Exploration Map...........................................................·......·····.rear pocket APPENDIX A - FIELD INVESTIGATION Description of Subsurface Investigation Logs of Exploratory Test Pits TP1A, TP1B, and TP2 Soil Classification Chart Logs of Exploratory Boreholes MG1 through MG3 Log of Exploratory Shaft LDl APPENDIX B - LABORATORY INVESTIGA nON Summary of Laboratory Test Results Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Compression Test Results Consolidated Triaxial Compression with Pore Pressure Readings Results Atterberg Limits Test Results APPENDIX C - SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES Critical Failure Surfaces: A-A' static A-A' pseudostatic A' A' toe static A'A' improved toe static A' A' improved toe pseudostatic B-B' static B-B' pseudostatic 3/9/05 - Sun Subdivision - Proj. No. 2560 ii '2.0 -}~ GEOLOGIC and GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED SUBDIVISION 21989 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, California INTRODUCTIÖN Project Description Pu rpose and Scope of Investigation This report presents the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of our geologic and geotechnical investigation related to the proposed subdivision of your property located at 21989 Lindy Lane in Cupertino, California (Figure 1). Based on conversations with you and review of a preliminary site map prepared by Westfall Engineering, it is our understanding that you are proposing to subdivide your current approximately two (2)-acre parcel into three (3) lots. Following the proposed subdivision, the property will consist of an approximate 0.6-acre lot that includes the existing single-family residence and approximate 1.0-acre lot to the west and 0.5-acre lot to the east that are intended for future single-family residential development. This investigation was initiated according to our confinning agreement dated June 11, 2004 and authorized June 16, 2004. The original scope of work was modified as the project progressed based on input that we received from the City Geologist at various stages of the investigation. The primary purp05es of tlùs investigation were to detennine the geologic and geotechnical site conditions, evaluate geotechnical feasibility of the proposed subdivision, and provide general geotechnical recommendations for site development. The scope of work perfonned for this investigation included the following tasks: Review of historic stereo graphic aerial photographs - Historical aerial photographs (for the years 1939, 1960, 1963, 1965 and 1980) were analyzed to identifY pre- and post-development 1andfonns and to evaluate geologic conditions and changes to the natural topography. We also compiled and reviewed pertinent technical publications describing general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the property. Engineering geologic maoping of existing conditions - We performed engineering geologic mapping of site conditions based on topography and geologic features exposed on and around the property including road cuts, creek banks, and other surface exposures. We also developed four (4) geotechnical engineering crosS sections supplementing the available topographic map with field data. '2ð-3'7 Mhert S'Bay JE.,: : .okUYø~ ~:.../~..,~.~ ;~o F=l J':;,à)J :;" /~7~~j; ':~~j).. _ .'~,L,.,"-. _ . -.,11 .. / ¡Y--i¡\I¡ -lit",¡[" " ¡ ,~,,'-'~~':,-~~'!,,:--!_t~:i "., '::~ ') . '\, 1;...ill.,",_1I'1' :1-- L~; '~\. J l··--~:~i-J~, '\ . "----~---I\ r l~~ /'./ ,,:~,Z~j'-~~'I:Ä,. /. /,'¡'----~ . 1 !,.(,_Z'. AI~," ,.I {"f ---T\"-I -~ If _~i",,,,,,, '. Modified from Delorme, 2004, TopoUSA 5.0. ~_ MILSTONE , - ~ GEOTECHNICAL SITE LOCATION MAP SUN PROPERTY 21989 Lindy Lane Cupertino, ColUornla FIGURE NO. 1 March 2005 Scale: 1 inch = 2.000 feet Drown by: 8SM Project No. 2560 Date: 2tJ .- j! Page 2 Sun Subdivision Investigation Proj. No. 2560 3/9/05 SITE CONDITIONS Topogr3 phic Setting Subsurface Exploration - We logged two (2) exploratory trenches, three (3) small-diameter boreholes, and one (1) large-diameter shaft at the locations depicted on Plate 1. Representative undisturbed samples of pertinent earth materials were collected for subsequent laboratory testing. Laboratory Testing - Representative soil samples obtained from exploratory boreholes and shaft were tested in the laboratory to verify field classifications, characterize the subsurface materials, and determine pertinent engineering characteristics for geotechnical analysis and design. Technical Analvsis - Field, laboratory, and research data were analyzed to determine anticipated subsurface conditions. Two-dimensional slope stability analyses were conducted to evaluate the stability of a postulated landslide and shallow colluvial materials. Consultation _ We provided preliminary data and conclusions to and consulted with the City Geologist (Cotton Shires & Associates, Inc.) at various stages of the investigation. RepOrt- We prepared this geologic and geotechnical report with accompanying illustrations to summarize the fmdings of our investigation. The approximately 2.2-acre, irregularly-shaped property is located along the north side of Lindy Lane in Cupertino, California (Figure I). Access to the property is from a private driveway from Lindy Lane. Single-family residences occupy the two properties to the north. The property to the immediate east was recently subdivided into three lots for residential development. A northeast-southwest trending ridge1ine roughly borders the northwestern margin of the property. Lindy Lane, which follows the natural drainage course of easterly- flowing Lindy Creek, parallels the southeastern property line. Thus, the subject property is characterized by southeast-facing hillside topography situated between the ridgeline and buried creek, with moderately steep to locally very steep (up to 70 percent inclination) slope gradients. A central, southeast-trending spur ridge underlies most of proposed central parcel, and is flanked on the west and east by broad drainage swales. The eastern swale, which comprises the likely building site for the proposed eastern parcel, is inclined at about a 27 percent gradient. Topography in the proposed eastern parcel ranges . from moderately steep natural slopes in the upper swale area, very steep natural 2.ð~Jq Page 3 Sun Subdivision lnvestigation Proj. No. 2560 3/9/05 Previous Grading Surface Drainage Existing Improvements slopes approaching 70 percent in the southwest ridge area, and gentle to steep slopes in the southeast graded portion of the proposed parcel. The natural hil1side topography has been modified by grading associated with the existing residential development, Lindy Lane, and an accesS driveway (to the existing residence and adjacent properties) along the northeastern margin of the property. The existing residential structures are located on combination cut-and-fiIt pads. Landscaping of the western swa1e has resulted in shallow cut slopes along walking paths, and the placement of artificial fill over colluvial materials. The fill prisms locally are thick as approximately 10 feet. Fillslope gradients are locally as steep as 30 degrees. A comparatively thin (approximately four (4) feet) fill prism borders the downslope (southern) side of the access driveway in the northeastern portion of the property. Cracking of the asphalt driveway in the this area is likely the result oflocalized fill settlement that has been exacerbated by a leaking water line and heavy truck traffic associated with construction on a neighboring property. It is our understanding that the water line will be replaced following cessation of the heavy truck traffic. Drainage is characterized by sheetflow toward the southeast, where it is intercepted by the stonn drain system in Lindy Lane. Surface runoff from the upper portions of the proposed western parcel is currently intercepted by drainage swales and conveyed in tightline pipes to the Lindy Lane stonn drain system. An existing single-story, wood-framed residence, attached recreation room, and detached garage are located in the central area of the property. It is our understanding that the residence is serviced by the municipal septic system. Two concrete retaining walls up to nine (9) feet tall, totaling approximately 1.90 feet in length, support a cut slope near the southern property boundary adjacent to Lindy Lane. Design drawings suggest that the eastern wall was constructed to stabilize an unstable slope that resulted from grading for Lindy Lane. We are unaware of as-built documentation for the wall. However, wall plans provided to us that were prepared by Hoskins Engineers (revised July 8, 1983) indicate that the wall was to be founded on a 12-inch thick footing with a 12-inch toe, three to four (3 to 4) feet wide heal, and 12 to 24 inch deep toe key. The footing was to be supported on 12-inch diameter by six to eight (6 to 8) feet deep.piers placed six (6) feet center to center. The plans also indicate a back drain with drain rock and perforated pipe. Exposed portions of the ¡Ø -L/.D Page 4 Sun Subdivision Investigation Proj. No. 2560 319105 in-place wall appear to be consistent with the provided plans. In general, the wall appears to have performed well to date with no obvious indications of significant distress. Vegetation The area surrounding the existing residence in the central portion of the property is surrounded with by ornamental vegetation. The swales to the west and east of the existing development are covered with grass and landscape vegetation (including' a number oflarge evergreen trees). Mature oak trees are present along natural spur ridges and side slopes. REGIONAL GEOLOGY The subject property is located near the eastern margin of the central Santa Cruz Mountains. The Santa Cruz Mountains belong to the northwest-trending Coast Ranges geomorphic province, and are characterized by steep and rugged hillside topography. Bedrock The property is underlain, at depth, by two sedimentary bedrock formations: 1) the "Unnamed Sandstone and Shale" Formation (Tss), which is upper Miocene in age and 2) younger, overlying bedrock materials of the Santa Clara Formation (QTsc), which is lower Pleistocene to upper Pliocene in age. The Tss bedrock consists of fine-grained sandstone and chalky shale. The QTsc bedrock consists of semi-consolidated conglomerate, sandstone and mudstone. The regional geologic map of Sorg and McLaughlin! (Figure 2) depicts the underlying Tss formation as being exposed at the surface along the axis of an anticline in the vicinity of the property. In contrast, however, we observed that QTsc conglomerate and sandstone is exposed nearly continuously along the northeast-trending ridgeIine, locally along spur ridges, and as isolated deposits ("float") across most of the property and neighboring properties. Tss bedrock was observed only along the lower hillslope adjacent to Lindy Lane (approximately elevation 550 feet and lower), near the axis of the anticline. Geologic structure in the vicinity ofthe property is characterized by a southeastward- plunging anticline, with the anticline axis located to the west of the property. Mapping of geologic outcrops to the north and west of the property support the presence of an anticline axis west of the property. Bedding orientations measured t Sorg.D.H. and McLaughlin, RJ., Geologic map oftbe Sargent-Berroca1 fault zone between Los Gatos and Los Altos Hills, Santa Clara County, California, US Geological Survey, MF-643, 1:24,000. 7ó~l{l Base map is modified from: Sorg,D.H. and McLaughlin, R.J., Geologic map of the Sargent-Berrocalfault zone between Los Gatos and Los Altos Hills, Santa Clara County. California, US Geological Survey, MF-643, 1 :24,000. EARTH MATERIALS MAP SYMBOLS Qls landslide deposits Qal Younger alluvium Qoa Older alluvium Qts Santa Clara Formation (Holocene) Tss Unnamed Sandstone Fm (Miocene) Q Qts exposure (this study) T Tss exposure (this study) -'" ~ Geologic contact (Sorg and Mclaughlin) ~ ........- 1')/ @ Revised geologic rontact (this study) Revised geologic rontoct (this study) Strike and dip of bedding landslide showing direction of movement REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP FIGURE NO. March 2005 SUN PROPERTY 21989 Lindy Lane Cupertino. California Scale: 1 inch = 1,000 feet 2 ~_ MILSTONE , - ~ GEOTECHNICAL Dote: Geologist: WFC Project No. 2560 1ð .-zt1 Page 5 Sun Subdivision Investigation Proj. No. 2560 3/9/05 Geologic Hazards Possible Landslide along the ridgetop and in subsurface excavations (i.e., LD-1 and Trench lA) also are consistent with regional structure. In general, sedimentary bedrock strata on the east limb of the anticline (including the subject property) strike northwesterly and dip toward the northeast at moderate dips. According to the City of Cupertino Geologic Hazards Map, the property is located within the "Foothills" terrain, which is defined as "gentle to steep, partially urbanized hillside area located west ofthe valley floor and generally east of the Monte Bello Ridge". Specifically, the property is located within the "F-2" zone. Development in the "F-2" zone potentially is constrained by ground failure (i.e., landsliding), seismic shaking, and ground fracturing. Most of the property is shown to be within an area of potential earthquake-triggered lands1iding on the State of California Seismic Hazard Zones map (Cupertino 7.5-minute quadrangle). The basis for this designation on the State map is the presence of steep topography and geomorphic indications of existing 1andsliding on and around the property. Geomorphic analysis of landforms observed from surface mapping and aerial photographic examination indicates the presence ofa possible large 1ands1ide(s) on, and in the vicinity of, the property. Suggestions of possible 1andsliding include the central spur ridge (site of existing residence) that appears to have pulled away from the northeast-trending ridgeline and pushed into Lindy Creek; and the two bounding swales to the west and east of the spur ridge, which may reflect more pronounced erosion along the possible lateral margins of the possible landslide. In addition to those observations, iS,a second, similarly placed spur ridge to the east of the property, which may represent a separate landslide, or eastern half of a larger landslide that encompasses the property. We note that the landforms are relatively subtle, and not fresh, indicating that the lands1ide(s) (if present) would necessarily be very old (prehistoric). In addition, if the spur ridges have been displaced by landsliding, then the depth of the 1andslide(s) would be greater than approximately 50 feet, and displace both QTsc and Tss bedrock units. Despite the subtle geomorphic indications oflandsliding, no strong supporting geologic evidence for landsliding could be found in site exploratory excavations. Two trenches (Trenches 1A and 1B) were excavated across the likely western margin of the inferred landslide toe, in order to determine the presence of shearing or displacement that could be indicative of deep 1andsIiding. In addition, a large- diameter shaft was hand-excavated near the inferred western lateral margin to investigate indications oflandsliding. ZÐ -C{ 3 Page 6 Sun Subdivision Investigation Proj. No_ 2560 3/9/05 Trenches 1A and 1B exposed a thin mantle of colluvium overlying Tss bedrock. Loca1100se fiB in Trench I B is interpreted to be associated with the construction or widening of Lindy Lane. Bedrock structure identified in the trench is consistent with structure exposed on the upper ridgeline, and with regional structure depicted by Sorg and McLaughlin (1975). No indications of shearing or displacement associated with downslope movement were observed. The hand-excavated shaft (LD-1) exposed approximately five (5) feet of artificial fiB over approximately nine (9) feet of colluvium. These surficial deposits were underlain by weathered QTsc conglomerate and sandstone to the depth excavated (32 feet). The degree of weathering decreases downward, in concert with a downward increase in bulk density and strength of the rock material. Northeast-dipping shears were observed at depths of approximately 22 and 28 feet in LD-I. The upper shear (at 22 feet) is characterized as a '/..- to V,-inch thick, plastic clay gouge along a relatively straight and-narrow surface. The deeper shear (at 28 feet) is characterized as an approximately %-foot zone of silty clay with rock fragments with a strongly developed shear fabric. The lower contact of the shear zone is a very stiff, V,-inch-thick stiff clay gouge with a continuous caliche stain along its base. The upper contact of the shear zone is less defmed than the lower contact, but still forms a distinct contact with the overlying conglomerate. The observed shearing could be the result of either landsliding or tectonic deformation associated with anticlinal folding and related flexural slip. The orientations of the shear surfaces are similar to bedrock orientations observed elsewhere in the vicinity of the property. No downslope-dipping shears or discontinuities were observed. We interpret the shearing observed at depths of 22 and 28 feet in LD-1 to be the result of deformation associated with tectonic folding due to the similarities with local geologic structure. However, we recognize that there is a potential that landsliding may exist below the depth ofLD-1 (e.g., either within QTsc units, or at the contact of QTsc and underlying Tss materials). Consequently, we conducted numerical slope stability analyses of conservative, but geo10gicaBy constrained, potential landslide geometries to evaluate the long-term stability ofthe hillslope as discussed in a subsequent section of this report. ').Ø~lf.-,;( Page 7 Sun Subdivision Investigation Proj. No. 2560 3/9/05 SITE SEISMICITY Anticipated Ground Surface Acceleration The subject property, like all properties in the San Francisco Bay area, is situated in a very seismicaJly active area. The regional seismic setting is dominated by stress associated with the oblique coJlision of the Pacific tectonic plate with the North American tectonic plate. The boundary between the two tectonic plates is the San Andreas fault system, which includes the San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras, Seal Cove-San Gregorio, and other related faults in the San Francisco Bay area. According to the U. S. Geological Survey (Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 2003), there is a 62% chance of at least a magnitude 6.7 (or greater) earthquake in the San Francisco Bay region between 2003 and 2032. The closest known active faults in the vicinity ofthe subject property are the potentially active Monta Vista fault (approximately 1,000 feet northeast), and active San Andreas fault (approximately 3.0 miles southwest). No faults are known to cross the property and the site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo special studies zone. With respect to the subject property, the greatest potential for earthquake impacts is considered to be the active San Andreas fault, due to its proximity to the site and probability of rupture. The maximum historic earthquake on the San Andreas fault in northern California was the Magnitude 7.8 event that occulTed on April 18, 1906. As a result of that earthquake, the ground ruptured for a length of nearly 300 miles and violent shaking devastated many communities in the Bay area. Various ground motion attenuation relationships such as those developed by Boore and others2, CarnpbeJl and Borzognia3, and Idriss4 are commonly used to estimate bedrock accelerations at points distant from an earthquake source. The peak horizontal ground acceleration generated by earthquakes occurring at a point on the San Andreas fault or Monte Vista fault that is nearest the site is predicted by these methods to be approximately 0.65g. It is notable that the peak ground acceleration with a 10 percent probability of exceedance during a 50-year period is estimated by 2 BOOTe, D.M., Joyner, and 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 Research Letters, Vol. 68, No.1. 3 Campbell, K. W. and Bozorgnia, Y", 1997 (rev. 2000), "Empirical near-source attenuation relationships for horizontal and vertical components of peak ground acceleration, peak velocity, and pseudo-absolute acceleration response spectra," Seismological Research Letters, Vol 68, No.1. 4 Idriss, LM., 1994, Attenuation Coefficients for Deep and Soft Soil Conditions, personal communic8Ûon with T. Blake. S USGS/CGS, April 2003, Seismic Shaking Hazards in California based on Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment Model, http://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/rghmlpshamap/pshamain.html. 2D -<-1 ) Page 8 Sun Subdivision Investigation Proj. No. 2560 3/9/05 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface Investigation Subsurface Materials Unnamed Sandstone and Shale Formation (Tss) Santa Clara Formation (Qtsc) the California Geological SurveyS to be 0.6Ig. It should also be recognized that there is a paucity of data available for near field sites, such as the subject site, and that it is possible that actual ground surface accelerations will exceed the current estimates. As a minimum, the proposed improvements should be designed in accordance with the current Uniform Building Code (UBe) standards for static and seismic design. Subsurface exploration at the site included the excavation and logging of three exploratory trenches (Trenches lA, IB and 2), three small-diameter boreholes (MG-I, MG-2 and MG-3), and one large-diameter, hand-dug shaft (MG-LD-I). The locations of the exploratory excavations are depicted on Plate 1 (Site Geologic and Exploration Map). The purposes of the subsurface exploration were to observe and characterize subsurface geologic conditions, determine the presence or absence of possible 1andsliding, and obtain samples for laboratory testing. Borehole exploration depths ranged from 24 to 32 feet. Graphical logs for exploratory excavations are included in Appendix A. The sedimentary bedrock materials are overlain by unconsolidated to moderately consolidated colluvial materials and artificial fill materials consisting of poorly sorted gravel, sand, silt, and clay. Our interpretation of subsurface conditions is depicted on Figures 3 through 6. The encountered earth materials are described below in order of decreasing age. Tss materials were observed in the lower hills10pe (creekbank) on an adjacent property, and in Trenches I A and I B, excavated at the base of the hills10pe in the western portion of the property. Where exposed, Tss materials consist of a pale grey, silty sandstone, with low hardness, weak strength, closely fractured, and moderate to deep weathering. In Trench I A, a white tuffaceous sandstone interbed was observed. Due to the generally strong and massive nature ofthe Tss materials, it was not possible to obtain undisturbed samples for conventional strength testing. For purposes of analysis, the Tss is assumed to share engineering parameters with the qualitatively weaker QTsc. QTsc materials observed in exploratory borings MG-1, MG-2, MG-3, and LD-1, and observed in local roadcuts, consist of conglomerate, sandstone and pebbly siltstone. Where observed, the bedrock materials are weathered to deeply weathered, moderately hard, weak to moderately strong, weakly to well cemented. Oxidation of the encountered bedrock materials has led to the development of mottled colors 1-.ø ,-l{(P /-- DEALlZED GEOTECHNICAL CROSS SECTION A-A' A A' 620 6'JfJ Property D-D' ~ine , , 600 600 AI - Proposed 1_____... Residence <;; Q) 580 - 580 æ æ AI -" -" - .---- MGl c < 1 0 0 -- I - - 0 , 0 MG2 . > - . - .---- I 560 " ~ 560 1 . - .---- õ õ - - .---- E E -- ·x ·x - .---- Property 0 0 ~ ~ - .---- 18 line " " - .---- - Colluvium « « --<, 540 - .---- Santa Clara Formation (Qtsc) " " 5<0 98 , - .---- , ,,g 1 - TP1B \ ...LindY la~e Standard Penelration Blowe --- __ (blows per toot) ~ - .---- -- --- --- 520 5'JfJ -- ---------- ~ Unnamed Sandstone and Shale - - .---- --- - .---- ...-1 --- (I") - .---- ~ ---- ~ .---- --- ..--- ..--- ..--- 1"";' ~ ~ ~ ~ ..--- ..--- ..--- ..--- 500 500 - - N32°W NOTES: locations 01 exploratory boreholes, test pits, and shaft were determined using tape and composs and are occurate only to the degree - implied by this methods. Surface elevations and locations of proposed and IDEALIZED GEOTECHNICAL CROSS SECTION A·A' AGU~ENO. existing residences were derived from February 2004 Tentollve Map prepared SUNrttOPflTY 3 by Westfall Engineers, Inc. Some surface' elevations were modified using field ~llSTONE 21'8?llndylane measurements. This figure is not intended to be used for construction GEOTECHNICAL Cupeltlno, Calfomkt purposes. Date: 5<:ole: Engln"efI GeoloQl<t Project No. ¡.,uch2005 Ilnch=20teel BSM/ WFC "'" - ~ , ,.c, -J /~ IDEALIZED GEOTECHNICAL CROSS SECTION B-B' B B' 600 D-D' 600 Property Une , I 2' Toll 580 580 Block + Woll ExIsting L .. --l Residence .. æ , æ c ---- - - , 560 .£ ,- 560 ~- ~ Wall c ----- c 0. 0 - - t - 0 ---- -- 0 > ----~ , . - 9' Tall . OJ - ------, Concrete OJ . -----:- ------~, Retaining . ã ------ 540 Õ E 540 Wall E 'x -- Santa Clara Formation . '. K ---- - c K (Q1Sc) ---- '3 0- ----~ ----- 0- < - ----- - - > < ---- 'U ----- ----- c co ----~ ---- - 520 520 - ---~ -" ----- - ----~ ----- Unnamed Sandstone and Shale - ----~ 1 (Tss) ----- --- ~ - -" -" ~----- ----- 500 500 - N12'\Y NOTES: SUfface elevations and locations of existing surface features were derived from February 2004 Tentative IvtIp prepared by Westfall IDEALIZED GEOTECHNICAL CROSS SECTION B·B' fiGURE NO. Engineers, Inc. Some surface elevations were modified using field measurements. This figure is not intended 10 be used for construction ~MILSTONE SUN I'ROl'fIITY 4 21'19 lindy lane purposes. GEOTECHNICAL CuparlIno. CoIIIDmkJ Dot." Secl.: 1 Engineer / GeoIogllt f'fojecINo. /ybrçh2005 linch=20leel ßSM/WFC 2560 - S' \ ,...C' "'" , IDEALIZED GEOTECHNICAL CROSS SECTION CoCO ;¡ .1' .. c o ~ o > . ¡¡; . -¡; E 'x ~ " " < 560 540 520 500 480 460 C' Property line I Lindy lane 1 C Property 560 Une > D-D' 0 , 2~ .~.E; I ~O AI 540 (~.~, - ~ 1 1--....... ""- --_>1 ---- 520 ---- '-- ------- MG3 _.----- I ~- 500 --- -- -- -- 21 ~ ~- 40";:"''':.·' ßanta Claro Formation (Quc) ____----- _---- 5242 __ __ __ -- Standard . 34/3" ~ ____ __ Penekalion 480 _ _ __ _ Blowcouo' ~ 34"" '00/4" _- __ __ (blows per tool) --- -- - .----- ----- -- ------- ----- ---- ---- 460 =------- ------- ~ - N2S·W ;¡ .1' .. c .Q -¡; > . ¡¡; . -¡; E .~ " " < IDEAUZED GEOTECHNICAL CROSS SECTION C-C' FIGUREHO. ~MILSTONE SUNPROI'ERTY 5 21'.' Undy lone GEOTECHNICAL ~ Date: Cupertino. Collamlo SCole" Englnee/Geologkt" ProjaeINO..) Morch200S 1 Inch'" 20 leeJ BSM/WC ,,,,0 . .- NOTES: Location of exp!Ofotory borehole was determined using tape and compass. Surface elevations and locations of proposed residence were derived from February 2004 Tentative Mop prepared by Westfall Engineers, Inc. Some surface elevations were modilied using field measurements. This figure is nol intended to be used for construction purposes. ~ , .-r: ~ DEALlZED GEOTECHNICAL CROSS SECTION D_Do l D D' 6'" ·640 Property A·A' B-B' C-C' line , I .. 600 ~ ·600 ã; æ '" - ~ ~ .£ ------ .£ c LDINGI ;Jf c 0 - II " ~ = 0 ~ " > ------ '. ~ . 560 - 560 '" rn ~ ¡:¡¡ - ------ Colluvium . ------ - ~ ~ õ - ~ E ~ ------ - ------ c ------ ~ - E 'x ~ - ~ -------- . ------ - -- --- --- -" I ~ - e <> ------ - Santa ClarD Formation --- Proposed NG3 0- <> ---.......... ~ ------ (Qlsc) ------ 0- 0( 520 ------ - Residence 520 -.( - - ~ ------ ~ I ------ ------ ------ ~ ------ ~ ------ ---.......... ---.......... ---.......... ~ ------ ~ ------ - - - ~ ------ - Colluvium ------ ------ ------ ~ ------ ---.......... ------..... ----.... ---.......... ------.: ------ ~ ~ - Unnamed Sandstone and Shale - - :::----... ------ ~ '80 ------ (7Ss) ------ ------ - - ------ .80 ---.......... ---.......... ---.......... ~ ------ ~ ----.... ----.... ------ - - - - ~ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ---.......... ---.......... ---.......... ---.......... ---.......... ---.......... - - - ? .'" J ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------..... ------..... ------..... - ---.......... 440 - N32'W NOTES~ locations of explOfotory boreholes and shaft were determined using fape and compass and are accurate only to the degree implied by this methods. Surface elevations and locations 01 proposed and existing residences were derived from February 2004 Tentative M::Jp IDEALIZED GEOTECHNICAL CROSS SECTION D·D' flGUIU:: NO. prepared by Westfall Engineers. Inc. Some surfoce elevations were SUH PRopnty 6 modified using field measurements. This figure is nol intended to be ~lSTONE :n'" lindy lOlle used for construction purposes. GEOTECHNICAL cupertino. CoIIIornlCl Dale: ScolB; I EngIoBerl Geologist. ~') MJrCh2005 2560 - I Inch" .ro leel B5M I wFC /,:0 G> \ ,/~ ~ Page 9 Sun Subdivision Investigation Proj. No. 2560 3/9/05 Soil I Colluvium including dusky yellow to dark yellowish orange (5 Y 6/4 to 10 YR 6/6) and light to moderate brown (5 YR 5/6 to 4/4). In LD-I, interbeds of finer-grained units sometimes exhibiting discontinuous shearing are present witlún the more dominant coarse-grained materials. With few exceptions, standard penetration blow counts in the Santa Clara Formation materials exceed 50 bpf with an average of about 66 bpf. The average dry density and moisture content of four (4) representative samples are 119 pounds per cubic foot (pct) and 13.3 percent, respectively. Based on the low end of various empirical re1ationslúps to standard penetration b10wcount, grain-size, and dry density, a friction angle of 40 degrees was selected for analysis purposes. Triaxial te"ting of the predominant clay layer encountered in LD1 demonstrated effective strength properties of C ~ 927 pounds per square foot (pst) and ø ~ 11.5 degrees. For purposes of slope stability analysis, however, the clay layer waS conservatively assigned a residual friction angle of ø ~ 9.8 degrees based on empirical relationships to ball-milled liquid limit and clay-size fraction described by Stark and McCone6. Most of the property is mantled by colluvium (residual soil and slopewash) consisting of dense to very dense, gravelly, clayey sand and sandy clay with rock fragments. The colluvium is yellowish brown to moderate brown in color, and consists of a homogeneous, stiff to very stiff, fine-grained matrix with 30% to 40% clasts (typically 1/8- to 'I.-inches), with abundant roots in the near surface (upper several feet). The thickness of the colluvium varies from very tlún to non-existent in the lower portions of the hillslope, where it has been eroded by stream flow in Lindy Creek or removed by shallow sloughing, to approximately 10 feet in the axis of the western swale. Standard penetration tests in the colluvium ranged from 34 to 62 with an average of about 45 bpf. Laboratory testing ofthree (3) representative undisturbed samples demonstrated an average dry density and moisture of 117 pcf and 11.4 percent, respectively. A (UD) triaxial test performed on a representative sandy clay portion of the colluvium demonstrated and undrained shear strength of 6,530 psf. A (UD) triaxial test performed on a representative clayey sand portion ofthe colluvium demonstrated and undrained shear strength of 11,230 psf. For purposes of slope stability analysis, the colluvium was conservatively assigned a fully-softened friction 6 Stark, T.D. and McCone, D.S., 2002, Drained residual and fully softened shear strengths for slope stability analyses, submitted to ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. 'k ,--j( Page 10 Sun Subdivision Investigation Proj. No. 2560 3/9/05 angle of ø = 31 degrees based on empirical relationships described by Stark and McCone6. Artificial AB described previously, artificial fill materials are present over colluvium in several Fill portions of the property. The thickest fill materials are present in the western swale, where fill locally may be as thick as approximately 10 feet. Shallower shallow fill prisms border the downslope (southern) side of the aCcess driveway in the northeastern portion of the property, and the eastern margin of the existing residential development. Artificial fill encountered in LD-1 and boreholes MG I and MG2 consisted of moderately dense, clayey and silty sand and sandy clay with gravel that is associated with landscape grading of the western swale area. In these areas the fill thickness is estimated to range up to about five (5) feet. Borehole MG3, located near the center of the eastern swa1e, encountered three to four (3 to 4) feet ofloose silty sand fill. Fill materials encountered in Trenches IA and IB, excavated along the historic banks of Lindy Creek, consisted of various mixtures of clayey sand, silty sand, gravelly clay, trash and debris that are associated with filling of a portion of Lindy Creek prior to widening of Lindy Lane. Artificial fill was placed at the proposed development areas at different times and using apparently different techniques. Generally, the fill appears to have been derived from local sources. In some locations the fill was placed directly on native soils and at other locations the soils appear to have been stripped prior to fill placement. The density of the encountered fill ranges from loose to dense. Three standard penetration tests demonstrated b10wcounts ranging from 21 to 39 blows bpf. One dense fill sample from the western swale demonstrated a dry density of 120 pcf and moisture content of &.9 percent. One loose fill sample from the eastern swale demonstrated a dry density of 107 pcf and moisture content of9.9 percent. GROUND WATER Ground water was not encountered in any ofthe seven (7) exploratory excavations advanced for this project to a maximum depth of 32 feet. It should be noted that ground water conditions at other locations or other times, or during different weather conditions may differ from those encountered in our test boreholes. Due to the fractured nature ofthe underlying bedrock, it is also possible that isolated zones of ground water seepage could be exposed at site excavations. Based on the information available to date, however, it is anticipated that ground water will not adversely impact residential construction on the proposed lots. Jj)-SJ.- Page II Sun Subdivision Investigation Proj. No. 2560 3/9/05 SLOPE STABILITY Slope stability analyses were performed to assess the potential for reactivation of a possible preexisting landslide underlying the central portion of the property as discussed previously in this report. Additional analyses were performed to estimate the relative global stability of the proposed western lot during static and seismic loading conditions. Potential localized sliding should be evaluated in the context of individual site development. Methodology Slope stability was evaluated using SLIDE7, a limit equilibrium computer program developed by Rocscience, Inc. Site geometry, subsurface stratigraphy, ground water conditions, and engineering properties of the site soils as described previously in this report were input into SLIDE to evaluate the factors of safety for potential failure surfaces. The factor of safety is defined as the ratio of forces resisting failure to those causing failure. A factor of safety of 1.5 is generally considered to be the minimum acceptable factor of safety under static conditions. Thousands of potential non- circular failure surfaces were evaluated using Spencer's method with continued model refinement to result in the lowest factor of safety. The stability analyses were repeated with simulated earthquake conditions by applying equivalent horizontal loads acting out of slope to the critical static surfaces. This type of analysis, referred to as "pseudostatic", provides a reasonable initial assessment of seismic slope stability conditions. Seeds suggested that slopes demonstrating a pseudostatic factor of safety greater that 1.15 when subjected to a seismic coefficient of 0.15 for magnitude 8 earthquakes could be expected to experience acceptably small permanent ground deformations. Although Hynes and Franklin9 indicate that pseudostatic analyses are unnecessary if the static factor of safety exceeds 1.70, Section A-A was nevertheless analyzed with a seismic coefficient of 0.1 5g. A more rigorous pseudostatic analysis was performed along Section B-B' to evaluate the likelihood of previous displacements. In this case, the critical static failure surface was subjected to a horizontal seismic coefficient of 7 Rocscience, Inc., SLIDE version 5.014. 8 Seed, H.B., 1979, Considerations in the earthquake-resistant design of earth and rockfill dams, Geotechnique, v. 29, No.3. 9 Hynes, M.E. and Franklin, A.G., 1984, Rationalizing the seismic coefficient method, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, Miscellaneous Paper GL-84-13. 10 Makdisi, F. and Seed, H.B., 1978, Simplified procedure for estimating dam and embankment earthquake-induced defonnations, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE. 20-)'3 Page 12 Sun Subdivision Investigation Proj. No. 2560 3/9/05 Surface Geometry Subsurface Conditions Soil Properties Ground Water Analysis and Results 0.32g, which represents the estimated yield acce1eration10 necessary to result in approximately six (6) inches of penn anent displacement resulting from a magnitude 7.5 earthquake. Slope stability analyses were perfonned to evaluate the likelihood of a possible landslide through the central portion of the property represented by Section B-B'. possible slides initiating within 100 feet upslope and downslope of the air photo and ground mapping inferred scarp of a possible landslide were evaluated. Analyses were also perfonned to evaluate the potential for both deep and shallow sliding on Section A-A', which is believed to represent the most critical condition of the two newly proposed lots. The analyzed surface topography was developed using the February 2004 topographic map that was prepared by Westfall Engineers and locally modified by our surface mapping. Contacts between geologic units are idealized from the subsurface conditions exposed during the previously described subsurface exploration. Both stability cross sections include a projection of the sheared clay layer that was encountered in LD1. The following table summarizes the soil strength properties used in the stability analyses. The bases for these soil properties are described elsewhere in this report. The existing retaining wall was assigned a nominal shear strength of 100 psf. Moist Friction Material Density Angle (pef) (degrees) Existin~Fill 130 30 SoW Colluvium 128 31 Sheared Clay Zone 130 9.8 Weathered Sandstone 135 42 Ground water was not encquntered to the maximum explored depth of 32 feet and we did not observe indications of fluctuating ground water elevations in any ofthe exposed units. For analysis purposes, ground water was assumed to occur at elevations generally consistent with the maximum explored depth. Static stability analyses of section B-B' indicate a minimum factor of safety exceeding 3.0. Pseudostatic analyses using a seismic coefficient of 0.32g resulted in a factor of safety of 1.40. Based on these numerical analyses, there appears to be little likelihood that the subject slope experienced significant displacements along the ~ _)L{ Page 13 Sun Subdivision Investigation Proj. No. 2560 3/9/05 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS previously discussed possible landslide. Random searches focused on potential deep sliding that could directly affect the proposed improvement area in the western swale predicted a static factor of safety of 2.87. The pseudostatic factor of safety against deeper sliding with an assumed horizontal seismic coefficient ofO.15g is 1.66 with a yield coefficient in excess of about 0.34g. It is notable that additional analyses using stress-dependent, 1aboratory- derived shear strengths for the sheared clay layer yielded higher factors of safety than those reported. Static stability analyses indicate that the oversteepened fiJl slopes below approximate elevation 560 demonstrate a factor of safety of 1.43 with the headscarp of the critical surface approaching within about 25 feet of proposed improvements. The possibility of mitigating the slope by laying back the fill was explored with stability analyses and found to increase the static factors of safety acceptably to 1.58. The pseudostatic factor of safety of the modified slope with a seismic coefficient of 0.15 was demonstrated to be 1.16. The methods used to characterize the site geometry and geotechnical parameters lends high confidence to the slope models used in the analyses. Additionally, site stability will be further enhanced by the resisting effects of anticipated foundation piers and surface and subsurface drainage control, which were neglected for the stability analyses. Graphical outputs of the critical failure conditions. are presented in Appendix C. Based on the findings of this investigation, it is our opinion that the geologic and geotechnical conditions at the site are suitable for the proposed subdivision. It is anticipated that the two (2) proposed new lots can be developed with single-family residences using conventional design and construction techniques for hillside properties. We conclude that the primary factors affecting the geotechnical aspects future development ofthe proposed lots to be: 1) the presence of existing artificial fill; 2) the presence of relatively weaker near surface soil and coJluvium; 3) locally steep slope inclinations at the south end ofthe proposed western lot; 4) the likelihood of seismic shaking; and 5) the need for site specific geotechnical design and construction recommendations. 20 ~ s-r Page 14 Sun Subdivision Investigatíon Proj. No. 2560 3/9105 Existing Fill Surficial Soils Steep Slopes Seismic Shaking Geotechnical Recommendations Artificial fill exists at varying locations throughout the two proposed lots. The fill is of variable and sometimes substandard qua!ity. New improvements should not derive support from the existing fill. Existing fill should be evaluated in the context of proposed future development and improved as necessary. It is recommended that the existing fill along the outboard edge of the private driveway be improved to limit further distress, possibly by removal and replacement with proper keying, benching, and compaction. It is also suggested that the oversteepened fill slopes at the western swale area below about elevation 560 be laid back or strengthened by removal and replacement to improve the factor of safety against potential shallow ground movement. Due to the presence of relatively weaker surficial soils and colluvium, it is recommended that future structures derive support from the underlying Santa Clara Formation materials. This may be achieved with a combination of partial basement excavation and drilled pier foundations. Retaining walls and foundation elements should be designed to resist appropriate creep loads imposed by the colluvium. Slope inclinations at the southern portion of the proposed western lot below approximate elevation 550 are inclined at up to 34 degrees. A shallow landslide was observed on these slopes at the southwestern comer of the lot. Future development should include evaluation, protection, and possible building setbacks from, or mitigation of, the steep slopes. The site is expected to experience strong ground shaking from earthquakes along active faults located within the region during the design !ife of the project. A peak horizontal ground surface acceleration ofO.65g has been predicted by probabilistic and deterministic methods. As a minimum, proposed development should be designed in accordance with the current Uniform Building Code (UBe) standards for static and seismic design. Future deve10pment on the proposed lots should be designed and constructed on the basis of site-specific geotechnical design parameters. Geotechnical aspects of site development should be observed by the project engineer to verifÿ that the encountered site conditions are the same as those anticipated by this investigation and to verifÿ conformance with our recommendations. )Q)~% Page 15 Sun Subdivision Investigation Pro]. No. 2560 3/9/05 LIMITATIONS These services consist of professional opinions and reconunendations made in accordance with generally accepted engineering geologic and geotechnical engineering principles and practices in the San Francisco Bay Area at the time this report was written. The investigation was performed and this report prepared for the exclusive use of the client, and for specific application to proposed site development as outlined in the body of the report. Future owners of this property should read and acknowledge that they understand the content, spirit, and intent of this report. No warranty, express or implied, or merchantability of fitness, is made or intended in connection with this work, by the proposal for consulting or other services, or by the furnishing of oral or written reports or findings. The findings and conclusions contained herein are valid for one year, after which time they must be reviewed by a representative of Mil stone Geotechnical to determine whether they are still applicable. 2ß - f1 APPENDIX A TIELD INVESTIGATION Description of Subsurface Investigation Logs of Exploratory Test Pits TPt through TP3 Soil Classification Chart Logs of Exploratory Boreholes MGt through MG3 Log of Exploratory Shaft LDt ~ ~")6 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION DESCRIPTION Test Pits Three (3) exploratory test pits were backhoe excavated to an approximate depth of 10 feet on August 25, 2004 at the locations shown on Plate 1. The test pits were subsequently logged by a certified engineering geologist and a registered geotechnical engineer. Following completion oflogging, the boreholes were backfilled with lightly compacted soil cuttings lo the ground surface. Small-Diameter Boreholes Three (3) exploratory boreholes (MG 1 through MG3) were drilled on September 21,2004 at the locations shown on Plate I to depths ranging between 23.0 and 27.5 feet. The boreholes were advanced with crawler-mounted Simco 2400 drill rig using four (4)-inch diameter solid-stem augers. The encountered earth materials were continuously logged and described by a registered geotechnical engineer. The logs of the boreholes and a key to soil classification follows in this appendix. Following completion of drilling and sampling, the boreholes were backfilled with soil cuttings to the ground surface. Representative soil samples were obtained at various depths in the test boreholes. Disturbed and relatively undisturbed samples were obtained using a 3.0_inch_outside-diameter, 2.5_inch_inside-diameter, split barrel (Modified California) sampler with a series of 6.0-inch-10ng, thin walled brass liners and a 2.0_inch_outside-diameter, 1.5_inch_inside-diameter Standard Penetration Test sampler. Resistance blowcounts were obtained with the sampler by repeatedly dropping a 140-pound hammer through a free- fall distance of30 inches using a cat-head. The sampler was driven 18 inches and the number of blows was recorded for each six (6) inches of penetration. The blows per foot recorded on the borehole logs represent the accumulated number of blows to drive the sampler the last 12 inches of penetration. Blow per foot recorded for the Modified California sampler were corrected to represent Standard Penetration test blowcounts using a factor of 0.65. The borehole logs and related information show our interpretation of the subsurface conditions at the dates and locations indicated, and it is not implied thát they are representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or at other times. Large-Diameter Shaft A 24-inch by 36-inch exploratory shaft was hand-excavated and shored to a depth of 32 feet at the location shown on Plate 1. Downhole logging, in-situ testing, and undisturbed sampling ofthe shaft was completed on December 23, 28 and 30,2004 by a certified engineering geologist and a registered geotechnical engineer. Selected shoring was removed as necessary to expose significant geologic features. A graphical log of the east wall of the shaft foHows in this appendix. Following completion oflogging, the shoring was removed and the exploratory shaft was backfilled with compacted soil cuttings to the ground surface. )ß - fq EXPLORATORY TEST PIT TPl A West End Af ~-,.. bottles . ,\ N55W. 50NE 'T;è \ \ Col metal stake Predominant JOints: N8OW, 425W ( I NG5W, 55NE (2) South Wal ¡:;o can Af Af- ARTifiCiAL fill Various mixture of clayey SAND, silty SAND gravelly CLAY, and trash and debris. N800E rock with Gol - COLLUVIUM Sandy CLAY; dark yellowish brown fragments; stiff; dry to damp. Tss _ UNNAMED SANDSTONE AND SHALE FORMATION Weathered silty SANDSTONE; Pale yellowish gray; fractured; weak strength; low hardness; with occasslonal white tuff beds to two-lOch thickness. FIGURE NO. TP1A Project No. 2650 EXPLORATORY TEST PIT TPl A SUN PROPERTY 21989 Undy Lane Cupertino, California - Date: scote: Eng./Geol. August 25. 2004 1 inch = 5 feet BSM ( we MILSTONE GEOTECHNICAL ~ ~ C> EXPLORATORY TEST PIT TPl B South Wal not metal sl:3ke Krotovln3: Gravelly day Infl continuous across trench. 4" white flex pipes x asphalt 0 x concrete cylinder x paper cup o Af Co/2 PP >4.5 tsf Af - ARTifiCIAL fill Various mixture of clayey SAND, silty SAND gravelly CLAY. and trash and debris. N800E NOTE, Top of T5. 15 - two feet higher on north wall (see T I A log) Coil - COllUVIUM (or organic-laden fil Gravelly, clayey SAND; Dark brown; organic Col2 _ COllUVIUM: Sandy CLAY with rock fragments moderate brown; very stiff to hard; dry to damp homogeneous; abundant rootlets throughout. Tss _ UNNAMED SANDSTONE AND SHALE fORMATION Silty SANDSTONE; Pale gray; fractured; weak to low strength; low hardness; dry to damp 6;> 1 o ,.--. FIGURE NO. EXPLORATORY TEST PIT TPl ß TP1ß Project No. 2650 Eng. ¡Geol. BSM ¡We SUN PROPERTY 21989 Lindy lane Cupertino. California Scale: 1 Inch = 5 feet 25.2004 Date: Augus MILSTONE GEOTECHNICAL Pocket penetrometer unconfined compressive strength In tons per 5quare foot. NOTES PP EXPLORATORY TEST PIT TP2 TRAIL up to one Inch wide Surface deSSication cr¡;¡cks Northeast Wal PP >4.5 tof PP >4.5 contacts SOIL: Silty SAND (SM); Dark brown to black: -5% fine gravel; -GO% very fine grained sand: -35% medium plasticity fines; loo5e to medium dense upper I 2" de5slcated, dry to damp below; upper 18" porous; minor root5 and rootlets. NG4°W Coil - COLLUVIUM; Clayey SAND (SC); Dark yellowish brown to dark brown; -5'70 fine rounded gravel; -55% very fine to fine grained sand; -40% medium plasticity fines; medium dense to dense; damp to mOist Clayey SAND (SC): Dark yellowish -10% fine gravel; -45% fine to -45% medium pla5tlclty fines mOist. Col2 - COLLUVIUM brown to dark brown medium grained sand medium dense to dense; 1; \ CO-. '\ FIGURE NO. TP2 Project No. 2650 EXPLORATORY TEST PIT TP2 SUN PROPERTY 21989 Lindy Lane Cupertino, California Eng. ¡Geol BSM I we Scale: 1 inch = 5 feet Dote: Au"u,! 25. 2004 MILSTONE GEOTECHNICAL Pockd Penetrometer Unconfmed compressIve strength In tons per squó3re foot. NOTES PP SOIL CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA FOR ASSIGNING GROUP SYMBOLS AND GROUP NAMES GRAPHIC USCS TYPICAL SYMBOL GROUP NAMES SYMBOL o:~~4i::o:~~o~;:: GW Well graded gravel w ClEAN GRAVELS WITH .O.~.~:'.~.~'~:'.? > UTTI..E OR NO FINES w :.:.:.:.:.:. en ¡¡; GRAVELS :::!8 ~HHHHH~ GP Poorly graded gravel MORE THAN HALF O~ COARSE FRACTION en§!! ts LARGER THAN 'I:'ro,;.:·ro,:· NO.4 SIEVE SIZE ;i·:r.'i·:i·:~·'i·:i GM Silty gravel O~ '0·".·..·..· GRAVELS WITH MORE ;.:."..~.:."..~. W :I: THAN 12% FINES .·.~:::~·N:,~.. I- Z e< 7.W,:7.~Åo;Z:7. GC Clayey gravel w . :~".'~. :~..~....: <1:'" a::e< ?::::~:::::::::::::::~::::::{:::~: ø~ SW Well graded sand , - ClEAN SANDS 'WITH W'] UTILE OR NO FINES en'" SANDS SP Poorly graded sand a:::I: MORE THAN HALF <I:~ COARSE FRACTION .. "7T. OF IS SMAL1.EA THAN .kJ:l:k.ll SM Sitty sand O~ NO.4 SIEVE SIZE .~J.H.II:I SANDS WITH MORE 0 THAN 12% FUNES ///. " SC /./:;-/-/.:;. Clayey sand .. w > ML Low plasticity silt w ¡¡; INORGANIC en~ SILTS AND CLAYS ~ CL -.J. WQUID UMIT Low plasticity clay, Lean clay -0 OZ LESS THAN 5O'Yo enz 0W Low plasticity organic silt, '" OL OF ORGANIC //'~ ' , , , ;' Low plasticity oganic clay We< ' , , , z~ MH High plasticity silt, Elastic silt -""' <1:'" a::~ INORGANIC SILTS AND CLAYS ~~ ø~ UQUID UMIT CH High plasticity clay, Fat day .'] GREATER THAN 50% W'" Z:I: WM OH Medium to high plastictty _z OAGANIC LL~ organic silt or day I- ' , , ~ w .... ........ PT e< HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PRIMARILY ORGANIC MATTER ""\.- Y Peat 0 " Note: Blow-counts reported for samplers other than a Standard Penetration Split Spoon Sampler were obtained by empirically converting the number of blows required to drive the sampler through the last 12 inches of an 18-inch penetration to the equivalent number of blows using a Standard Penetration Split Spoon Sampler. Note:The borehole logs depict our interpretation of the subsurface conditions at the dates and locations indicated. It is not warranted that they are representative of subsurface conditions at other times and locations. The lines separating strata on the boring logs represent approximate boundaries oniy. Actual transitions may be gradual. ABBREVIATIONS AD: Auger Drilling CAL: California Sampler (2-inch) MC: Modified California Sampler (2.5-inch) SPT: Standard Penetration Sampler T1: Tube Sample (undisturbed) B 1 : Grab Sample (disturbed) ~_ MILSTONE f" ~ GEOTECHNICAL SOIL CLASSI~~~TlON CHART 2J) -i 3 KEY TO LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BOREHOLES LOG OF EXPL\lrlATORY BOREHOLEMG1 Project Sun Property Project Elev. -564 Project Number 2560 location 21989 Undy lane, Cupertino, CA Hole Diameter 4 inch Page 1 of 2 Drilling Equipment Crawler mounted Simco 2400 Surface bare Logged By 88M Drilling Contractor Cenozoic Exploration Weather clear, warm Date 9/21/04 Co: w 1-" >- ~ ~ 0 0: ~~w w·z II- ~I!! Z wo ~¿ iE¡s ",ci <'" ",0:", ~~º !i:iJJ GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION >J!! 81ii~ -~'" ..o:c 0- 0< 0" 1-0", :¡ico "'wI- w"" ",'" ffi~ 0:- o~ <?-' :J~ ~ ..¡¡¡ w- .. W cn5::! û3a~ O~ '" 0: '" a. 0: a. ,. .. ARTIFICIAL FILL f- -= /..:(~ 18/18 MC /.../. >4.5 39 1- //.~ T1 Clayey SAND: Dark brown (10YR413): -15"10 angular - //-~ ',,". to rounded gravel to 3/4" size; ......55% very fine to fine -2- /.-/-- grained sand: -30"10 low plasticity fines: very dense: 18/18 SPT 61 ;(./, 38 - - SC dessicated near surface, damp to moist below. >4.5 /"'/'. ;- 3- fl·- - - /.j: AD - /.../.:' -4- /.:/., - - //.. -5 .f:",:: 18/18 MC ..' COLLUVIUM 44 - ~_/'.: >4.5 T2 /./" 6- /.../.' Clayey SAND: Dark yellowish brown (10YR4/4), - - ~./.' upper 12" mottled with red (2.5YR518) oxide staining; 18/18 CAL - /.:;.", -10"10 fine rounded gravel: -60"10 very fine to fine 34 7- grained sand: -30"10 low to medium plasticijy fines; >4,5 62 /.f very dense: damp to moist. - /.:/.. 18/18 SPT B3 -8- ;:/. ~ @8' - Dark yellowish brown (10YR3/4). 62 -- /..?: 9- /./'.: AD ¿:j.. @9' - gravel content decreases, - - /.:/.: clay content increases. 0··.. 18/18 MC -10- /"/"'.: -5% gravel; 40 -= /.../.: SC -55"10 very fine to fine grained sand: >4.5 T3 /../.: -40 medium plasticity fines _ 11- /.../'." - L..?-.~ 18/18 CAL" ~ /.../: 38 B4 >-12- >4.5 ~ L../: ~ - /"/'.: >-13- /..:(: ~ ;(.j.- AD I- - ~ ¿.").' >-14- ¿:).. I- - ¿:/. ~ 12/12 >84 MC 15- /..:?: >4.5 T4 ¿:).. - ¿:¡., @16' - gravel content increases. 1-16 '. ~o '~G f- - roì::¡ SANTA CLARA FORMATION AD - ¡N;:i 1-17- ¡¡'i::¡ Weathered SANDSTONE: Pale olive, yellowish brown, I- - '000. and light olive brown (5Y6/4, 10YR5/4, 2.5Y516): roì;:¡ -50"10 subangular sandstone clasts to at least one- 1-18- ¡¡~::i GM inch size in matrix of -70% fine-grained sand and .OG·G .....30% low plasticity fines; very dense; damp to moist. T5 - roì;:¡ 18/18 MC ''''0', 56 19- roì::¡ >4.5 T6 .0,". - ro'¡::¡ SPT .{. ro';:, Remarks: " No liners in sampler. ~ MILSTONE )..(1) --(p y GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF EXPl 1A TORY BOREHOLE MG1 Project Sun Property Date 9121104 Page 2 of 2 ca: w lug >- .. ~~w <.> Zw Z ffi-:- ~ .e. ~6ð J: ~8 "'''' <c "a:c ~ ::>>- >0 -"'c.rj o.a:g a..ëi5- >-- ¡¡Jill GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION 0< >ø glu~ 0'" >-0", ::;0 ::;w>- 0.<' a:"'" w- ~-' :5;: Þ' o.¡¡¡ o.§.. 0. w ~~:i ~c~ 0 ::>0 w "' a: '" 0. a: 0. :~':'. SANTA CLARA FORMATION (continued) 4.5 18/18 40 SPT B5 r- - 'I;:I:~ .... 21- ì::I:~ GM ~::i:~ - - ~'~i: .0:" -22- 'i:i¡4 --------------------------- .'. AD - - ~'~i': @22'- Becomes predominantly pale olive OOQO .",," -23- ì::r.~ and harder (less weathered); ~::i:' poorly to moderately well cemented; - - ~::i:' moderately strong to strong. -24- ~::i:' - - ~::¡:' ~'~i': RX 25- 0'''· >4.5 18/18 MC T7 ~::i:' 69 - ~;:i:' T8 26- ~:i:' ~ ~::i:' - 18/18 SPT B6 - ~;:¡:' 98 --27- 'i'~i: ".':- '''00 - f--28- - - -29- r- - - -30- - - ~31- - - -32- - - -33- - - - -34- - - -35- - - 1-36- I- - 1-37- I- - 1-38- I- - 1-39- I- - Remarks: Boring terminated at 27.5 feet. ~ MILSTONE No ground water encountered. )JJ -fo J GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF EXPLRATORY BOREHOLEMG2 Project Sun Property Project Elev. -556 Project Number 2560 Location 21989 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, CA Hole Diameter 4 inch Page 1 of 2 Drilling Equipment Crawler mounted Simco 2400 Surface bare Logged By BSM Drilling Contractor Cenozoic Exploration Weather clear, warm Date 9/21104 èa: w tü6 >- ~ z 0: Ii ~ ~;1w w·z J:tü <.) Zw §'¡¡ ",a:ç w'-' ~ -''''0 'i:", fjsi GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION :>¡- gtü""- ~~ -"'uj 0.0:0 D..ü;- t¡:w 0.0 0< 0:"- ¡-o", ::;00 ::.zw!.( wu.. ;?-' ",'" 13;: ~ o.¡j'j <.)£ 0. W <0:::; ~oz 0<; :>~ w- '" 0: "'0 '" 0. a: 0. I- - 1-'1: ¡ ARTlAClAL FILL ~ - ìi¡ AD 1--1- 1·:I:"i ~ IX·[ Silty SAND: Yellowish brown (10YR5/8); I- - ~ 1·:I:"i SM -15% subangular to rounded gravel to a1least [--2- I:IC¡ 1/2' size; -65% very fine to medium grained sand; - - 1·:1:1 -20% low to medium plasticity fines; medium dense 18/18 MC I:li to dense; damp to mOIst. 27 T1 3- Ir·[ - I·.I·¡ 18/18 CAL' 4- </.... 39 B1 - .: COLLUVIUM /./- >4.5 .. 5- /-.:.1:,: Clayey SAND: Dark brown (10YR413); - - -/..:(.: -5% fme subrounded to rounded sandstone gravel: 16/18 SPT B2 "/:;-." -60% ver~ fine to fine grained sand; .....35% low 32 -6- /.:/ plasticity mes; medium dense to dense; moist. .. - "/./" -7- /I" ¿:/." - - ;(:¡.: AD -8- /.../.: Below 8' - Dense to very dense. - - .¡;:).- -9- x.:(- /.:;-. ~ - - /;:~ ... 16/18 MC -10- x../." Below 10' - Very dense. 57 - /../-.: SC >4.5 T2 '/..:/.: 11- /:).". - ;(/ 16/18 41 SPT B3 /.../.: 1-12- //.. - ¡r:j.". 1-13- ~:/: AD ¡:- ~ /.../. 1'../: 1-14.- -/../.: I- - '/../.", e /.../'. 1:-15- ;¡j.. 18/18 MC B4 - .¿:). 45 T3 16- /.:/- >4.5 - «: @ 17' - increased gravel content. -17 /../- . 18/18 61 SPT B5 I:I:.¡ SANTA CLARA FORMATION - - >4.5 U:i 18- I.r.i Wea1hered Silty SANDSTONE: Dark yellowish brown - - 1·.I:.i SM (10YR416); -25% sUban~ular to rounded sandstone AD -19:;- 1:1:·[ clasts; -50% fine-graine sand; .....25% low to medium 1·[·( plasticity fines; very dense; damp to moist. - - I:r:i Remarks: ' No liners in sampler. ~ MILSTONE ll; -&~ GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF EXPL ;A TORY BOREHOLE MG2 Project Sun Property Date 9J21/04 Page 2 0\ '2 6a: ::; >- = w tiJ~.;::- ffi--:- = ~ ~;!w ~'Z <.) Zw Z ~ :I: :;:" cn!:2 <= "' . a..S2o =>0- "0-0 >¿ --'" ..a:c 0-_ "c :'¡¡ß GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION 0< >s 8wo=. o· 0-0", ::¡co ~cnF ..., :3~ a:- U2. .. w <a:::¡ ~~~ w- iI.-' =>0 0 ..¡¡¡ W '" a: "'0 0 " 0- .. '" a. - III SM SANTA CLARA FORMATION (continued) ._ - --------------------------- 18/18 MC - I:H 50 21- 1·:1:".( SANDSTONE: Light yellowish brown (2.5Y613) upper T4 I· .1:. ~ - 12" is light olive brown (2.5Y5/4); Disintegrated very 1:1:".( RX fine grained sandstone: smy: poorly to moderately 18/18 SPT 22- I·l( cemented: moderately strong; damp to moist. 65 B6 - - 1.1:'.( Il( 23 - - -24- - - -25- - - -26- I- - ~27- I- - ~ - 1-28- ~ - - - -29- - - - -30~ - - I· -31- - .-: - -32- - - -33- - - -34-= - - -35- - - -36- - - - -37- - - -38- - - -39- - - Remarks: Boring terminated at 23 feet. ~ MILSTONE No ground water encountered. 2.tJ -& '7 GEOTECH NICAL LOG OF EXPL....RATORY BOREHOLE MG3 Project Sun Property Project Elev. -S07 feet Project Number 2560 Location 21989 Lindy lane, Cupertino, CA Hole Diameter 4 inch Page 1 of 2 Drilling Equipment Crawler mounted Simco 2400 Surface wild grass Logged By SSM Drilling Contractor Cenozoic Exploration Weather clear, warm Date 9/21/04 6a: w 1-'" >- .. " a: "" ~;1w w,z J:1ü z wo w-' ~ ß ÏlO ood Zw <"" ",a:"" D -'lOO GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION =>1- >" "Iü" 6~ ì:(3~ ..a:o D..êij_ I-w ~g ~ëij 0< a:"'" o - (,).& :>00 :>wl- ih"- =>~ :5;: g ..¡¡¡ .. w <a::> ~o~ OZ a: w- oo a: 000 '" .. a: .. AD I:.- - 1-:1:·( ARTIFICIAL All 1.1:i 1- Ili Silty SAND: Yellowish brown (10YR5/4); "- III 81 I- - -25% subangular to rounded gravel to at least 18/18 MC i- 1.11 SM one-inch size; -45% very fine to medium grained sand 21 2- l·l·1 -30% low to medium plasücity fines; loose; dry to T1 - 1-:11 damp; minor roots and rootlets; slight organic odor. -3- U'I 18/18 21 CAL' 82 Il·1 - 4-' 1.1:1 SOil III 18/18 SPT 83 - - 1·1:·1 SM SiI~ SAND: Dark yellowish brown (10YR414); - 12 -5- Il··' -6 % very fine to fine grained sand; -35% low to - 1.1.( medium plasticity fines; loose to medium dense; U:i damp to moist; minor roofs and rootlets. -6 7. AD - - ¡::j.- COllUVIUM .. -7- -¿./. ..... - - /.../..- Clayey SAND: Dark yellowish brown (10YR416); 18/18 MC :/.j. -2% very fine subrounded to rounded gravel; 40 8- ;f:/- ......f3O% ve~ fine to fine grained sand; ......38% medium >4.5 T2 ~.:(: plastidty ines: dense to very dense; moist. -= x../. 9- 18/18 SPT /:/¡ >4.5 40 84 - - /).. 10- x../-: SC - - x../.: - /.../.: -11- ,,'I' - - . AD "/ -12- "( /.:).. - - ;t.-¡" -13- /...?: //." 18/18 MC T3 ¿:).. SANTA CLARA FORMATION 52 14 14- ./:/: >4.5 - -¿:).- SC Highly Weathered SANDSTONE: .. Dark yellowish brown (10YR4/4); 18/18 85 -15- /../"." increased gravel content; dense to very dense. SPT /./." 42 - - .-{j..", -- ---------------------------- 16- 1.../.: - - /..?-.: Weathered SANDSTONE: Dark yellowish brown (10YR4/6): -15% subangular to subrounded -17- <:(: sandstone clasts; ......60% very fine to fine grained ;(:j.. sand; .......25% low to medium plasticity fines; very - - //. dense; damp to moist .. SC AD -18- <-,<'.: - - ¿-/. -19- /':(.' /../: - - "/../.... //.' Remarks: ' No liners in sampler. ~ MILSTONE ~~ --(g r GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF EXPLr A TORY BOREHOLE MG3 Project Sun Property Dale 1))21104 Page 2 0\ 2 6", w !¡j~ >- -;; ~;!w u '" '§: g W'z (I)~ Zw z w-' -''''0 r ~g «.,. ","'''' >c ~ ""'0 1-- Õt( --00 a.(i.j_ u'" GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION >11 g!¡j",- 0"' 1-0", ",00 "'wI- ..'" "'w ~" "'- u"" .. w ;1j[5'" ~o~ w- (f-' ::>0 0 ..¡¡¡ w- '" '" 0 '" I- .. '" .. 9/9 3413" MC T5 - - ¿:).. SANTA CLARA FORMATION (continued) -21- /.../.: SC //'." - - y:,?" ¿:/-' Below 22' - Very hard drilling. -22- :'r::; -- e--------------------------- AD f- - IXi Il'¡ SANDSTONE: Dark yellowish brown (10YR416); 1-23- I·¡.¡ -35% subangular sandstone clasts; -45% very f- - VI·.i RX fine to fine grained sand; -20% low plasticity (Ii fines: poorly to moderately cemented; 4/4 34/4" MC 16 24- I·¡,:[ moderately strong to strong: damp to moist. 4/4 100/4' SPT B6 I- - 1.li I- 25- - - - ~26- f-- - - -27- - - - -28- f- - . 1-29- I- - 1--30- - - -31- - - - -32- - - -33- - - -34- . - - -35- - - - -36- - - -37- - - -38- - - -39- - - Remarks: Boring terminated at 24.7 feet. ~ MILSTONE No ground water encountered. 2.DJ ~ 1 GEOTECHNICAL Depth (ft) o 4 8 12- 16- 20- 24- 28- 32- ~ N30W D' o . ARTIFICIAL Fill LOG OF EXPl RATORY SHAFT LDl Clayey SAND (SC) with rock fragments; dark brown (I OYR4/3); medium dense. shormg (typical) COlWVIUM Sandy CLAY / clayey SAND (SC/CH) with rock fragments; Moderate brown (5YR3/4) and dark yellowish brown (I OYR4/4); -30 to 40% angular to subrounded sandstone clasts generally 1/8 to 3J4-mch size; stiff to very stiff; damp to mOist; Focket Penetrometer> 4.5 tsf. ~_ MILSTONE , -- ~ GEOTECHNICAL WEATHERED SANDSTONE AND CONGLOMERATE (Santa Clara Formation) Mixed colors - dusky yellow, dark yellow orange, and light olive brown (5YG/4, 10YRG/G, 2.5Y5/G); more conglomerate below 22 feet; clast size mcreases with depth; moderately strong; loose . to moderately well cemented. /. ,J ( . .J .J ,J .: SHEAR: - . 0;, "'(tHo;¡. 43N' , N20E, 24NW Samt:>le T I . ¿; Sample T2 .... ~ . .. l . 0 0'. . SHEAR: ,: . /'í' N45W, 32NE D/O ~' , y () . . Dote: December 2005 @ 22' - SHEAR, Fale gray plastic clay; continuous around shaft but thickness 15 variable (1/4-1/2 mch). @ 28' - SHEAR: Dusky yellow (5YG/4), plastic clay with rock fragments, shear fabric; abundant mternal, dlscontmuous, subparallel shears. Upper contact 15 gradational over one mch. lower 1/2- mch 15 pale gray, very stiff clay, 1/8-mch caliche stam. Fenetrometer > 4.5 tsf. LOG OF EXPLORATORY SHAFT LD1 FIGURE NO. SUN PROPERTY 21989 Lindy Lane Cupertino. CaHfornia Scale: 1 inch = 4 feet LD1 Engineer I Geoplogisf; BSM/WFC Project No. 2650 2-0'~ ')6 APPENDIX B LABORATORY INVESTIGATION Summary of Laboratory Test Results Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Compression Consolidated Triaxial Compression with Pore Pressure Particle Size Distribution Atterberg Limits 1ø-il Summary of Laboratory and Field Test Results Proposed Subdivision Sun Property 21989 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, California Shear Undrained Atterberg Standard Borehole/ Earth Moisture Dry Strength' Shear Limits Penetration Clay Sample No. Depth Material Content Density (ø/C) Strengthb LL/PI Test Fraction (ft) (%) (pcl) ( degrees/I"I) (psI) (%/%) (bpI) (%) MGUTl 1.0 - 1.5 colluvium (SC) 8.9 120.1 - - 39 MGlm 5.5 -5.0 colluvium (SC) 9.9 1l0.2 6,530 44 - MGlrr3 10.5 -11.0 colluvium (CH) 14.8 119.4 - 11,230 - 40 - MGlrr4 15.0 - 15.5 colluvium (SC) 9.4 121.7 44/25 41/6" MGlrr6 19.0-19.5 w. sandstone 12.9 122.4 56 MGlrr7 25.0 - 25.5 w. sandstone 14.4 116.0 - 69 MG3rrI 2.0 - 2.5 colluvium, (SM) 9.9 107.2 - - - 21 MG3rr4 14.0 - 14.5 w. sandstone 13.4 117.8 - - - 52 - MG3rr6 20.2 - 20.7 w. sandstone 16.7 1l0.6 - 34/3" MG3rr6 24.0 - 24.5 w. sandstone 12.6 120.5 - - - 100/4' - LDlrrl 28,0 - 28.5 clay (CH) 20.7 109.1 9.1/840 Tb 57/18 40 11.5 / 927 Eb , Consolidated undrained triaxial test with pore pressure me!lSurements: E = effective strength, T = total strength b Unconsolidated undrained triaxial shellf 'tJ G> \ ..J ('J ,,;'1¿:~?,\t,';W~~~;è~;:f'~~::[l;.~;.;i~,~i·i~Q,t;;;;?~ctfi;ft~;{~~J¡~¥&¡,tfì~i~~f$l~~k1;~K 15.0 1ii 10.0 -'" .. .. i!! ¡¡; ;;; .. .c C/J 5.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 ·15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Total Normal Stress, ksf Sam Ie Data Stress-Strain Curves 1 2 3 4 - Sample 1 Moisture % 9.9 14.8 -- Sample 2 Density pcf 110.2 119.4 25.00 Void Ratio 0.530 0.411 Saturation % 50.6 97.0 Height in 5.00 5.01 Diameter in 2.42 2.39 Cell psi 6.9 13.9 20.00 Strain % 2.50 6.30 Deviator, ksf 13.065 22.465 Rate %/min 1.00 1.00 in/min 0.050 0.050 - Job No.: 097-098 .. 0. 15.00 Client: Milstone Geotechnical .,; .. Project: Sun - 2560 I!! ¡¡; Boring: MG1 MG1 ~ 0 Sample: T2 T3 ... ~ 10.00 De th ft: 5.5 10.5 c Visual Soil Deseri tion Sample # 1 Brown Cia e SAND with Gravel 2 Brown Sand Lean CLAY with Gravel 5.00 3 4 Remarks: 0.00 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Strain, % }..b-l3 9 TOTAL EFFECTIVE C, ks' 0.840 0.927 ~, deg 9. 1 11.5 TAN C 0.15 0.20 ...... ...........,. 5 '<- ~ .0< ~ ~ ~ C +' U1 c ~ ~ .£:. U1 5 5 '<- ~ 4 .0< ~ ~ '" 3 c +' U1 c 2 0 +' ~ :> ~ 1 '" 3 - "f' .. r o o 3 o o 5 10 Rx 1al Strain, TYPE OF TEST: CU with Pore Pressures SAMPLE TYPE: Undisturb~d DESCRIPTION: Pale Brown Sand~ Fat CLAY - -- - ..~ .,. .\. .--\ T 5 9 12 Tota] Normal Stress, ksf Effective Normal Stress, ksf SAMPLE NO.: WATER CONTENT, >; 3 -.J DRY DENSITY. pef CI H SATURATION, >; f- VOID RATIO H z: DIAMETER, in 2 H HEIGHT, in WATER CONTENT, % f- DRY DENS ITY, pef U1 ..m 1 w SATURATION, >; f- VOID RATIO f- DIAMETER, in CI HEIGHT, in 1S Strain rate, %/min EFF CELL PRESSURE, ksf Deviator Stress, ksf EXCESS PORE PR., ks' STRAIN, >; ULT. STRESS, ksf 20 EXCESS PORE PR., ksf STRAIN, >; 01 FAILURE, ksf 03 FAILURE, ksf >; .....;::::.-~,.. ...~~- ~~- 15 18 -- -- 1 2 3 20.7 20.7 20.7 109.1 109.1 109.1 99.3 99.3 99.3 0.573 0.S73 0.573 2.422 2.422 2.422 5.050 5.050 5.050 22.8 21.9 21. 3 105.5 107.1 108.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.525 0.502 0.585 2.453 2.495 2.54S 5.050 4.847 4.512 0.04 0.04 0.04 2.03 5.00 7.99 2.71 3.94 4.97 1. 04 1. 97 2.53 4.5 S.8 5.5 3.70 0.99 5.95 10.43 3.02 5.45 CLIENT: Milstane Geotechnical PROJECT: Sun ~ 2550 SAMPLE LOCATION: LD-1, T1 ASSUMED SPECIFIC GRAVITY~ 2.75 REMARKS: Multi-Sta9~' Nonl inear strength envelope. Linear best fit ma~ overstate apparent cohesion. Fi g. No.: PROJ. NO.: 097~098 TRIAXIAL SHEAR TEST REPORT DATE: 1/27/05 COOPER TESTING LRBORRTORY ;2ø ~. 7l( 5.0 4.0 Ui L ~ ~ ~ ~ Ui 3.0 ~ L Ui +' '<- L U1 ~ 0.. ->< L 2.0 Ui 0 L +' 0 ~ 0.. :> ~ Ui 1.0 , ~ '" , Ui I lJ X W 0.0 0% 5.0 3 4.0 Ui L ~ :J ~ ~ Ui 3.0 ~ L /lJ +' '<- L U1 ~ 0.. ->< L 2.0 Ui 0 L +' 0 ~ 0.. :> ~ Ui 1.0 ~ '" Ui lJ X W 0.0 0% 4 tan '<- ~ ->< rr 2 8% 16% 8% 16% Peak Strength Total Effective a=0,830 ksf0.909 ksf cx=9.0deg 11.3deg cx=0.16 0.20 ~. ___-c,u:-..7e--.- o o 2 4 Stress Paths: Total - C1 ient: Mi lstone Geotechnical Project: Sun - 2560 Location: LD-l,Tl Fi Ie: 097-098 Project No.: 097-098 5.0 2 4.0 3.0 2.0 .~ ? 1.0 0.0 0% 8% 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 6 p. ksf Effective 1.0 0.0 0% .-------....-----. 8% . . ...._-.-- . ...~' -.,.Q: -- 8 Peak 0 Fig. No.: 10 16% 15% ;';;;'-""'" 12 'lJ -If' , . PARTICLE ~IZE DISTRIBUTION TE~ f REPORT ~ , Ñ .,¡;;,¡;;.,¡; .I: .,¡;;;= J;;., "" '" . ~ ri ~ i i 8: ~ 8 - ~ cr UJ Z u:: ¡.- z UJ U cr æ 0 ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ¡¡ ~1t 100 \ ""'"- 90 ... r... 80 ........ r-.. 70 I ... ...... 60 I't: 50 '-a, 40 -0 30 I 20 10 0 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE - mm I %+3" I % GRAVEL r % SAND I % SILT % CLAY I I 0.0 I 13.5 I 27.0 I 19.3 40.2 I SIEVE SIZE 1 in. 3/4 in. 3/8 in. #4 #10 #30 #40 #50 #100 #200 0.0440 mm. 0.0316mm. 0.0202 mm. 0.01l8 mm. 0.0085 rom. 0.0060 mm. 0.0042 nun. 0.0030 mm. 0.0021 nun. 0.0013 rom. PERCENT FINER 100.0 91.7 89.6 86.5 82.8 76.5 74.5 72.3 66.0 59.5 55.0 51.9 49.9 47.1 44.8 43.1 42.3 41.6 40.4 38.7 SPEC: PERCENT Soil DescriDtion Pale Brawn Sandy Fat CLAY PASS? (X=NO) USCS= CH AtterberQ Limits LL= 57 Coefficients D 60= 0.0796 D15" Cc= Classification AASHTO= D 50= 0.0208 D10= PL= 18 PI= 39 D 85= 3.34 D30= C - u- Remarks (no specification provided) Sample No.: Tl Location: Source of Sample: LDI Date: 2/2/05 Elev ./Depth: COOPER TESTING LABORATORY Client: Milstone Geotechnical Project: Sun - 2560 Project No: 097-098 Plate 7-0 ~ /~ LIQUID LIMIT (%) 0 10 1620 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 60 60 Ec¡xJimof"A" line: Hcrlz. at PI = 4 to Il =25.5. 50 !hen PI = 0.73111·201 50 ~ Eq..x:diooof"U~line: Vert. d Ll =161oPI = 7. )( 40 !hen PI = 0.9111-8) 40 ~ 0 ~ >- 30 30 ... º ML or OL ... ~ « 20 .... 20 ~ ~ 10 10 7 7 4 4 0 0 0 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 BOREHOlE DE PT H LIQUID P LASTlan use SYMBOL / SAMPL E (It) LIMIT (%) INDEX (%) DESIGNATION NO. . MGl IT 4 15.0-15.5 44 25 CL .... lDl IT 1 28.0 - 28.5 57 18 CH ~_ MILSTONE 1- ~GEOTECHNICAL ATTERBERG LIMITS SUN PROPERTY 21989 Lindy Lane Cupertino. California Dole: Scde: as shown T estec:lb,r. Cooper T estin March 2005 FIGURE NO. P rqed No. 2560 J.6-¡.-:¡ APPENDIX C SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES Critical Failure Surfaces '¿j) ~ lð' A' Lindy Lane +- Œij; _~_~ 128711 8J. Bj- 8 'Î) Grit;;al F~/ur~~~~~;j YRTIFICIA~!Il,"LJ ~ /;.---/'-. /'-;/ -0;,..- /r." .?-¿__ w -!.. - ---..,....._~._-. iTssl ~---- 0 '0- I'" SUN PROPERTY I - 21989 Lindy Lane Cupertino, California Western Swale Static Conditions FS = 2.87 0 0- 10 most critical surfaces ... I>- .~---.- ~ A --. --....."---- I ~~ -- -----.... IiV '-- .0 ~ .0- '" lc?Tscl 18~ SHEARED BEDROCKI --- '" , I ¡~~ -'--'-'r- 550 ¡.- 500 , 450 ;-.-----,- 400 ',--¡-- -,- -~-~, 350 011( N32W ,-----,--~-,-----.--,--,----¡-,----,---.......,-~-.--\----,---.--,~-.--,...,-;--.-' 150 200 250 300 __~_·_M..........__._....._~~_·_·~-"_·_____ ._. I "--r-o.,-,~--,---,---_. 1--,-----,---,-- ï Oft 50 100 N = ì --J ~ SUN PROPERTY 21989 Lindy Lane Cupertino, California o '0 :co Western Swale Pseudostatic Conditions a = 0.159 FS = 1.66 o ~ <- 116611 o o <- " A' Critical Failure Surface ARTIFICIAL FILL -~- A -" I '--- --" ~","", -'".~, /~gL~PVl(}MJ ;J¡?: o ." '" -~ ---- I IQTs'j L~__ r----- j o 0- '" ,~ --......, vy Lindy Lane y~~~-~-'----' I TSS[ .- ~~_I:iE!,~E.~a.EÓ~OC.l<"~'F"""J""""ß'!"· .~_".-:c;~'¿;~J;",~,-w:,.~It:f! 1'"/<'" . ,-~-;..- . - o ~ ~ o o ilO , 550 500 , 450 .c: N32W -¡- "---,' -- ~r-~ 150 _~-ºL-.___ 250 300 350 400 ...109. '-""';, 50__ Oft " o ~ " t:; ) '3 , i I A' SUN PROPERTY 21989 Lindy Lane Cupertino, California Western Swale . Section A-A' Steep fill· Static Conditions FS = 1.43 10 most critical surfaces - - I~ 0 'LO- A '"' ;.; B '1: ;iÒ\Fml ~. 19ritiC~1 Failure- Su-"'ac~ _~________::J , ~ .'>-?".;.....~,."'~,.............,"- ..... ,- .~" ¡r ~;. ~-- ~---._- "-"--"---- ,........-- oTsel ------~ºº----_._-------- §@--- I r 1 I I ! 'j \ Lindy Lane vv V -------.-'-,..- I Tss , ,-- 450 [SHEARED BEDROCK - ~ I;~ -< ~ N32W , ,.------.--------------r----,-- -.-----,-----.,--.-,~ "'-~-r----'----·----'----i~----·'---'---ï ~ 200 ft 250 300 350 400 o ---~..""->.~...'~.....L...:..... 0- ~.~_... "' , ---'-"'--- o ",- '" -1 o 0- '" SUN PROPERTY 21989 Lindy Lane Cupertino, California Western Swale . Section A-A' Fill removal - Static Conditions FS = 1.58 A ~ i , I 10 - "'- '" A' critical surfaces 1 0 most ,~ i:4RnRCIAL FlU] .~.~'"...? "0." ·'~";"{;i;~'~"';i~~~"",,~,.._..._~ "'. ~~ -" COLLUVIUM ---~- p..-' ""'-- -......... ----.....-.... ="- - "<..,,"-. ,8- ___'....... i'" _____,__ o "'- '" " ~ , I I I i . , , I Lindy Lane w -__V -::-.:...~ .~'"~'~-~-~, I 10 ~I 0- '" ~. .~".~.~ Irssl L_____:J SHEARED BEDROCK ._~,-- -~w~_~____~"--__~~~_~~~.~ o < "'- .., N32W ~ \ ~ SUN PROPERTY 21989 Lindy Lane Cupertino, California , I ~ §~ A A' Section A-A' a=O.15g Western Swale Fill removal Pseudostatic Conditions FS = 1.16 -11631 L~ !-Crj¡¡~al F;;J-;;';;s:;ï~;;¡ L,----~-~-----..-J )-COLLUVIUM] o -.--.~--,..,.,- -- ;AR7T1FICIAL FIL~ g-' .."-'--':~'"'-~ - - '-..--- '....."'-..... - '-. Þ> '-...., '-. ._----. I _.",___.,,___~....... . <-"':..(",,"', " '" - . .~-~ "'~-.. ·c........... I :' o <0- <0 .- ¡ -~ . .. I I I I ¡ , Lindy Lane w y - ----- IEs~j m.______.._.~___,~~_____.__ SHEA o 0- <0 ..~.~,._.~._«~.~.~-_." -~---- " \~~ ~ ~ , ~ v-' --------~~Q-- , 509 .~--~ ---,- 1?9 --r-- 400 -T- ,---¡-,--- -,- 350 --~------,------..............- N32W -....-,-------¡-----o 300 1'-- 250 ft ~002l f}i q-ith ~j- 8 1 , i í ¡ I I I I i I i I I ------<---" [ARTlF,ICIAL FILL ~ , . Lindy Lane I? v, "/~- /" ~ ~ , .-'--- ~ilure SlJrta~ ____~>,~)AiITiFiCíAL ~ ""'- ~."-,,....... ~.> ......... ------ - - --- --- ---- -- - --------- - --- - SUN PROPERTY 21989 Lindy Lane Cupertino, California Possible preexisting slide 8-8' Static Conditions FS = 3.09 10 most critical surfaces " '8 ------..-...--_ I I COLLUVIUMI -..~- -----) - IOTscl -- o "'- ,.. lê~ o "'- w o o- w o 1:2- , , , o 0- '" I Tssl SHEARED BEDROCK .<>\f--- N12W 550 ----,---r--c 500 450 -. ---,--¡---, 400 -_._~.,,_. r-r-¡--.--,-----.---,-,--~-,___,_..,·~-T-,---'~--, I-;-~ ......,.- 200 250 300 350 ·_·_~~~~-~--~~~______~"_~_~_____4_·,_~,'_.'~___. 50 00 ft - <=- 0_ o --.---.------r--r- .. o "'- .. J;' , c:,.ç --!:: SUN PROPERTY 21989 Lindy Lane Cupertino, California , I o ,"'- ~ Possible preexisting slide B-B' Pseudostatic conditions: a = 0.32g FS:: 1.40 I I I '0 '0 ,- , B 4 ARTIFICIAL FILL I '~ ~. .......,,~~ B "~~"~: _ )'. ;1;i~;'-F~¡';;;es-¡;rIacel ¿~-7---~ -, r-_____ :0 '" i(O , i i '0 10 1<0 I I ¡ , i ! o '" '" l£!"-~ "~HE¿RE¡:'-B~DR9'0] I ! i , , o o m , '0 '" ~ 00( N12W --'~-~--------~--~.- ~'-'-~. [&1 J;;;?¡ cL!", - v 10 '-\ .- r'\ ·\·1 r' ex .\! Oi·¡: \"... ~. COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. .... CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS March 25, 2005 C0034A TO: Gary Chao Cupertino City Planner CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 SUBJECT : RE: Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review Slm, Proposed Subdivision 21989 Lindy Lane At your request, we have completed a supplemental geotechnical peer review of the subject subdivision application for using the following documents: . Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation (report) prepared by Milstone Geoteclmical, dated March 9, 2005. In addition to our review of the above referenced document, we have inspected mlùtiple site exploratory excavations, reviewed pertinent technical data from our office files, and been in communication with the Project Geotechnical Conslùtant. DISCUSSION The applicant proposes to subdivide an existing approximate 2.6-acre parcel into 3 separate lots. The existing parcel contains a single-family residence in the central portion of the property. A proposed approximate 1.0 acre lot is located to the west of the existing residence, and an approximate 0.5 acre lot is proposed to the east of the residence. This revised subdivision layout is illustrated on Plate 1 of the referenced report. The proposed two new lots (to the east and west of the existing residence) are intended for fuhrre sing1e- family residential development. We understand that access to the two new residential lots would be provided by new branch driveways extending off the existing private driveway. It is our lmderstanding that sanitary effluent will be discharged into the sanitary sewer in Lindy Lane which is part of the Cupertino Sanitary Sewer District. In our previous project review report (dated March 31, 2004) we evaluated a proposed 4-lot subdivision plan for the subject property. We recommend that a detailed site Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation be completed prior to action on the Tentative Map. We noted that site development may be constrained by potential slope instability, existing fill materiaJs, expansive earth materiaJs and very strong seismic grolmd shaking. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION Based on evaluation of presented site geotechnical data, inspection of site exploratory excavations, and review of completed teclmica1 analyses, we concur with the findings of the Project Geotechnical Consultant that the proposed 3-lot subdivision is geotechnically feasible. Consequently, we do not have geotechnical objections to the application for proposed subdivision. 'UJ-~ Northern California Office 330 Village Lane Los Galos, CA 95030-7218 (408) 354-5542 . Fax (408) 354-1852 e-mail: losgatos@cottonshires.com www.cottonshires.com Southern California Office 5245 Avenida Encinas· Suite A Carlsbad, CA 92008-4374 (760) 931-2700 . Fax: (760) 931-1020 e-mail: carlsbad@cottonshires.com Gary Chao Page 2 March 25, 2005 C0034A The Project Geotechnical Consultant has indicated that design of future residential development on the proposed eastern and western lots should be based on additional site- specific geotechnical investigations once the layout of desired improvements have been determined. The consultant has recommended that existing fill slopes witlUn the western lot be laid back or strengthened (by removal and replacement of fill material) as part of the final development plan for the western lot. We recommend that the following conditions be attached to. geotechnical approval the subject subdivision application: Lot Specific Geotechnical Investigations - Prior to approval of building permits for the construction of new residences on individual lots, site-specific design level geotechnical investigations should be performed. The conclusions and recommendations of the referenced March 2005 Geologic and Geotechnical Report should be reviewed and considered during preparation of site-specific geotechnical design criteria for residential foundations, grading, drainage improvements, pavement and retaining walls. Recommended design criteria for the western lot should include measures to improve stability of existing site fill materials as outlined in the referenced Milstone Geotechnical Report. Lot Specific Geotechnical Investigations should be submitted to the City, for review by the City Geotechnical Consultant and City Engineer, prior to issuance of building or grading permits for individual lot development. LIMITATIONS This review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the City with discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited to review of the documents previously identified, and a visual review of the property. Our opinions and conclusions are made in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices of the geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. Respectfully submitted, COTION, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CITY GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT c-:J~~ Ted Sayre Supervising Engineering Geologist CEG 1795 \ CJJ~ Z_ ~ David T. Schrier Supervising Geotechnical Engineer GE 2334 TS:DTS:lw J-fJ -([1 COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. BARRIE D. L. HE and ASSOCIATES Hortîcutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos; CA 95033 4081353-1052 ij:k,b¡'h D AN AL"'JAL YIS OF TREES ON LOT I OF THE S"lJN PROPERTY 21989 LINDY LANE CUPERTINO Prepared at the request of: , Colin Jung City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate Consulting Arborist August 22, 2005 Job# 08-05-165 :LJ -tg ANAL YS1S OF TRio" ., LOT 1, SUN, CUPERTINO AUGUST nND, 2005 Summary - Lot 1 r found seventeen trees on Lot I which might be affected by proposed construction. Most of the trees on this property are naturally occurring Coast Live Oaks (Quercus agrifolia). Of the seventeen trees on the property that might be affected by construction, seven of them are Coast Live Oaks of a size protected by City Ordinance, and two of them are Coast Redwoods of a size protected by City Ordinance. Protected trees include Coast Live Oaks #14,15,17,18,19,21,22, and Coast Redwoods #23 and 25. All of the oaks are in excellent health and their protection should be relatively simple. Summary The only tree that would be in significant danger of construction if fences are installed as recommended, would be tree #23 - a healthy redwood tree. The proposed roadway alignment between trees # I 6 and 17 would affect a larger proportion of the root system of the very large healthy tree # 17 and for this reason, I recommend realignment of the roadway closer to tree # 16, a small Coast Live Oak, which would tolerate that condition. Recommendations I recommend: I. Fences be installed precisely as shown on the enclosed plan before any construction equipment arrives on site. 2. I recommend that the entry driveway be realigned from the proposed location to the one shown on the enclosed plan. 3. Leave a larger proportion of the root system of tree # 17 unaffected by equipment compaction than shown on the original plan. 4. Wherever soil cuts are necessary on the south side of trees #19 through 22, I recommend that the cuts be vertical at the edge of the proposed roadway, and walls be installed at those margins, and that no grading be done in any areas north of the proposed fence. Prevent any construction equipment activity in areas inside the fences which surround trees #14,15, and 19 through 22. 2lJ ---ò î PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTfNG ARBORlST AUGUST 22". 2005 ANAL YS1S OF TRhoJ LOT 1, SUN, CUPERTINO AUGUST 22ND, 2005 5. During roadway construction above and north of tree #17 and 18, I recommend that a·retainer wall be constructed at the edge ofthe roadway and that no construction activity be allowed in areas south of the tree protection fence as shown on the enclosed plan. 6. I suggest the retaining wall shown adjacent to tree #23 either be realigned as shown on the enclosed plan, or that tree be sacrificed and be replaced with the equivalent value of other screening trees. That tree is worth approximately $6, 100.00 which is more or less equivalent to the cost of purchase, installation and warranty of six 36" box specimens of oak or redwood to be used as screening on the margins of the property. Respectfully submitted, L:l. .' \ c: .... ..: .~ ~;;(, " Barrie D. Coate BDC/phlg Enclosures: Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Map 2- 0 - ~D PREPARED BY BARRIE D COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST AUGUST 22". 2005 c-. W W go a w I- '-' ~ o a:: a.. Status ;- , , , : , , , , , , : , , : , , : , , , , , , , I , , , , , , , ~. w W 0: >- w t? ~ ¡¡: W :I: <1: ~ >- l- ii: o ii: a. ...I ~ o ::;¡ w a:: - - Pruning/Cabling Need Pllt/Dilease Problema Recommend I , I I , 'I " I I I' I I I I I ¡ ! ¡ iñ¡ ¡ ¡ -! !! , . I', I ,I.(), -- I I : : __ : s: : :.,.!..: ~ : I..J ! z ¡ '1 ¡wi ¡ ¡õ s ¡ 1« 10 j:. ..- 100" IUJUJ I'> : - :........: «: : : a:: (f) _: : 0 I J- ,,~>- I WI _' UJ c( 1.0 I a:: I IIC : c.9 « ibi !::: : en ï:ñ'1 Ir?: > uJ ~: w .r::; : z 0::0 C9 ~ @cr:o':"'-: 8 ~ -I N ~ : Z ~'O 0 : s: ):': 0 a:::::J - Iz J-(f) Cf) 0 ill Ñ $:~ O:«:~ æ w:~ 0 1_ - Z u.., I I Ü'::5 ::5 1--' Z 'I'W õ'i W WI~...-' 0" .e:: I I I I I I I '1-'0::: t Zlm -,0 OIWI~ ~ ~I W ~ I: [ill :......U):a::: >10:0 o>:u.c. :~:~ ~:> m:~ J-ü >:~:u u w:w ~ :~:~ ~:o ~:z O:w OIZlr r 0:00 :0:0 o:~ ro:~ w:w «:~:o 0 w:w 0 :0:::0::: oc:w «:a::: ~Ia::: w:a::::o 0 w:w ~ IU,U ÜID:: U,~ _II- O'J-I~ oc Z,Z ~ Condition , " , " , " , " , " ¡ ¡ô! I 1.,...-1 1,1 __ : N: N o I"""" ..... ow w : C) ..J. In. I- I Z ........ '-" I- « 0'1 ¡::: ø ~ ~::;¡ ~:« z z - ¡::: Lõ,~:a::: ¡::: ~ ~ en '!a:::!z « -1 ill W ~I=>IO cr: U I- 0 III-I¡=: 0 ~ I < t-' 0, 0- 0: W...I'::>' ~ ~ 0:: <t:!a:::¡z 0 W Q. Wlt-IQ a:: I en :r::wlu I 0 I- W W U. "I @ ex: W tu ::;¡ « is Measurements ;- , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , I , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , I , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , H w' wi u.1 ",I -, "7:~ v:w (,:;)\ I- \!::VI en "',>- wlen 1-:..!. W'I- ~I-, «I:J ;=¡:::E BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES 14(0)353-1052 23535SummilRoad L" Gat", CA 95030 Ix ---1---- I , , , , , , , , , , ~--..----..------- , , , , , , , , , , " 1 .--i----~---+--- ---~--- , " I , 'I I · 'I , , t I , , I' , ---..----..------- ---..--- , " 1 , " I I I I I , , I 'I I ---i----~---+--- ---~--~ , t, , , I' , , " t I 'I I , " 1 ___..____..~--_t_--- ---,.--_ · 'I I I I I I , I I , , . I , , t I , , l' , ---j----t---+--- --+--- I " , I I' , ¡ I! ! x ---"f----..-.-_t_-.- ---,.--- · " I I 'I I I 'I I , 'I I , 'I I ---i----~-·-+--- -.-~--- , l' , , 'I , , " , , . I , , I I , ---..----..------- ---,..--- , l' . , , , , I' I · I' , , I' 1 ---t----t---+--- ---~--- I I' t I " 1 , " I , I' , ___J____!.___..!..___ ___!..___ ~ Best, 5 = Worst Page 1 of 3 I . . , . , t t , . I 1 I , . ---..----..----~--..----..--- I , , I I I , , , , I I , I I I I I I I , I It' I , , I I ---j----t---+--+---t--- I I . I . I 1 I I . I I I I 1 I , , I I I I , I I I , , I I ---..--~-..-------..----..--- I I t I I , , t , , , I I , I I I , I 1 I I t , I I I I ---j----t---+--+---t--- I , , , , t , , 1 I I I I I I , . 1 I , I 1 1 , , I t 1 I . ---"f----..---_+___o____..--- I I I , I , I I I I I I , , I I I , I , , . I ~--i - ---~---+---i----~---, , , t , I ¡ ¡ i ¡ ¡ I I , , t I I , I t , , , , I ---..----..----+---..--~-..--- , , I I I I , , I 1 t , , I I 1 I , , , I , I , , I , , ---j----t---+---j----t--- , I 1 , , , I 1 I I I I I I 31 I , I I , , , , I , , , I , ---"f----..---_+---o--~-..--- I It' , I It' I I I , I I I I I I I I I , , I I I , I ---i----t---~---~----r--- I , I I I 1 ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ 1 , , . I I , , 1 , --_.!_--_!._-_..!.._-_.!_--_!._- I I I , I I I I I , I ., I I . , , I ---..----+----..----+----..----..--- , I , , , , I I I , I , , I I . I . I I I I I I I , , I I I ---~----i----~---+---i----~---, , I I , I , ¡ ¡ i ¡ ¡ ¡ I I , I I I I , I 1 I I I I 1 I , ---...----+----..---.....---+----..--~ I , I I , , , t , , I I I . , I I I 1 I I I . I I I I I I --- ~----t----~---+-- -i---- ~-~- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , , I I . I I I I I I I I I I ___..----+----..----+----"f----..--- I I I 1 I 1 I , I I I I . , I I I , I It' I I I I . I , , I I , I I , ---i----j----t--+---j----t--- I 1 , I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I , I I , , I I I , I I . I ---..----,.----..---.....---+----..--- I , I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I , I , I I I I I I I , I I I I I I ---i----t ----t---+---j----t--- I I I I I ¡ 1 ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ : : ¡ 11 -~-...-~--.,.----..---~---,.----..--- I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I t I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I t 1 I ---~----t----t_---+---i----r--- I I I , t I ¡ ¡ i ¡ ¡ ¡ I I I , I I I I I , I , __~..L___l____!.___....!....___.!__._!.___ , , 1 I 1 : 2 -------..------- , , , , , , 1 : 1 I 2 : ---+---i----t--- , , , , , , 14.0: ¡ : ¡ :40:28 ------+----+-----..------..-.~._-----+---- I I I I I I . I I I . I I I t I I I I I , I I I 10.01: I : : 40 120 ---+---j----+-----t-----t----i--- I I I I I I , I I I I 1 , I OJ o :r: OJ o Name Plant Tree # -------~------I~:~;~;~;:;ra 1 ¡ 1 ¡ 2 ¡ -------..----+--- , , , , , , , , , , I I 1 I 1 I 2 : ---+---i----j--- , , , I ! I 8.0 1 ! ¡ 42 ¡ 20 -____+_.__ ___~_______ -----t------+---. I I I I , , I' I , I t Deodar Cedar -------_..------ 2 -------------- Iff 9.0 I I : J : 35 120 ----i----t-----+-----t----+---+-- I , I I I I I I I I I I Biue Atlas Cedar ------------------- Cedrus atlantica ~Iauca ______:!_____J~'?!!<.9!'_~_____ Quercus suber 3 ---------~--_. 1 ¡ 1 1 2 ! ---.....---..----,.--- , , , , , , , , , , , , 1 1 2 I 3 I ---+---i----t--- , , , , , , 7.0 ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ 15 125 ----+---- ------+----_...---------..--_. , 'I I 1 I I I I t I t I I I I 1 f I 6.0 I I : 18 120 ----1---- -----1------ ----t----t--· I I I I Carob Tree ------------ Ceratonia siliqua ~~!~~r:Y}:'_~~!. Pyrus calleryana 5 -------------- 6 -------------- 1 : 1 ¡ 2 ---_---o------- , , , , , , , , , 1 : 1 I 2 : ---+---i----t--- , , , , , , 11.0:!: ¡ 20 :25 -----..----..-----...------ -~-------..--_. I I I I t , I' I I , I I I I I I I I I t 5.0 I I 1 I I 15: 7 -----j----t-----i------t-----f---+--· I I I I I I I I I I I I ______L___J~'?~~~_~l'!.~_º~_k Quercus agrifolia Blue Atlas Cedar --_._-------------------------~--- 8 -----------.~- 1 ¡ 2 ¡ 3 ---.....---..------- , , , , , , , , , .2 I 1 : 3 I ---+---j----t--- , , , , , , 13.01 x 10.0! ¡ 1 20 ¡ 25 -----.,..--- -----~-----,.---------.,..--- I t 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 10.01: : : I 35: 25 -----i---- t-----+-----t-----f----i--- , I I I I I I I I I I I Coast Live Oak ------~.-._-----_. ~9_~~~~~y~!~!'m_______________ Pinus radiata g -------------- 10 -------------. , , , , , , ___..L___.L___l___ 21989 Lindy Lane Cupertino I I I I I I , I I I , I J____!._____..!.._____!.____-.!..____....!....__ Job Name: Sun Job #: 08-05-165 Date: 22.2005 August ~ , -Þ ~ C'-. W W go a t:':! <.> t:':! o a:: CL Status ...., wi w' a::1 ....1 w: eJ' <I ....: -, a::, w' "i '1: ~ ~ ¡¡: o ¡¡: D. ..J ~ o ::¡; W II: Recommend ...J « > o ::¡; W II: C Z W ::¡; ::¡; o u W II: , , , , , , , , , p"tJDisea.. Problem. ---.- , , , , , -' , U? ¡ iíi ¡ s¡ ~ : o - : w w , a:: rn .......: ~ L:í ~¡ffi o ~ -:N o 0 e:::::J a::: a:: WI¡::: ::s ::s 1-111: ...J ...J ~:w o 0 >:u.. U ü (f,)lcn ..... I- 010 o 0 W:W o 0 UJ:W a::: a:::: Z,Z PrunlnQ/Cabllng Needs " "I " I I , I I ,......,' I I ! ¡ u;>¡! ¡ I I ..-" I , 1- _I' , II- 1'1 w! ¡ : I : S WI:: ,," '~ «", I '<.J '=It I uJ I I............ ~ ¡ - ~ ¡ iñ¡ Il( ¡ c.9 => @. a:: 0' I 1"-' ~ ' o! Q _, ¡ s¡ ~¡ ff) 0 w,^", \O'~'O' «, - Z I u.. 'I I I Ü' « W WI a........., 0' a::: z: -: 0: 0: w: W 'l'J ff),......, '0' ~ ff)1 I u.., >1 I > IZ -'0'>':::.r:::' o ~¡z ü!w¡o!z¡ o ::E (]):> w:w:<:~: a::: w «'0::: C/)'0:::IuJ1a::¡ ü a:: uta.... ~11-:o:l-; , , , , , , Condition I : , , , , , , ¡ õ! , ~, 1,1 _ Z : Nt N 0 o ,- ..- o w :~ . ~ ~ W I- ..........: Z - <.9 « ~ « u;>:¡::: l') ~ z a:: ~::;: -1« z Z z 0 ~ - -, a::: - I- ¡:: I-ff) Lõ wI I-~ ~ ~ en en 'a:::Z ~ I W W W S ~IO Ü I- a:: I- 0 I I-i¡:: 0 ~ ~ ~ I « I- Ulõ 0:: :> S :S l'J W ...J ~Iz ~ 0 0 0 _ a::: 0:::, w a.... ~ 1-1°, O:::,a:: a:: I U) I U).U!I Ü,U ü I- w w u- N @) c:: W I- W ::;: « Õ Measurements - ; , , , , , , , , , , , , : , , , , , , , , , II CD: I 0, , , , , , , , , , , , I , 1-' wi wi u-' , ~I , -, ~¡::E "",w ~: I- a:::C/) w,r I-Iff) , ' w,- ::E:~ ~¡:> CH :::!: BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES (4001353-1052 23535 SummÏl Road Lao Gatao, CA 95030 I I i f I I I ........lJ....... Mg..QtE2r!!.x..f.iQ~ J.ª~ºl.... .........1........ .......l.1Q.J.~P ..f..l.LJ...ª.L...., I I I I I I I , I I I' I I I I I I I , . I I I I I I I I I ______!f______ ~9_r:!~~!~y~!I]~ ~_~.:º-!-___~-----+-----¡.---+-~9-_!_?? _~_+J_~--~-¡-_-, I I I I I 'I I I I I I' "I I I , , ,r I I I I' , I I I I' I 13 Almond 10.0:: : : : 15: 15 4: 3: 7 : ____._________ ___________._____ -----......---1.-----.....-----1.----........---.....-- ___......___..____1.___ I I' I I I I I I I Prunus dulcis :: : : :: j:: . I I I I I I I I I I ______!~_____ ~9_~!~!~.Y...P.!~~_ _~.:9_+._~-¡-ª.:9-+-----¡----+_~?-~_!? _?_+_?_~--~-¡---. I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I " I , I' I I I I I I I I I I I 14a Coast Live Oak 11.0::::: 18:15 111: 2: -------------. ---------------------------------- ----_..I-_-_&._----..------&.----....~--_....._- ___......___...~___.&.~~.. I I I I I I t I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I I t I I 15 Coast Live Oak 14.01 1 ¡ ¡ 1151201:1:2: -------------- ---------------------- ---------._- -----.,..---r-----.,..-----r~---+-~--,--- ---T---..¡-~·-}---, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I 16 Coast Live Oak 6.01 1 ¡ ¡ ¡ 12 110 2 ¡ 3 ! 5 ¡ -------------- --------------------------------.- -----...----.&. -----.....-----.&._----..----...--- ---......---...-~-_..._-- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I 17 Coast Live Oak 19.01: 1 : :50!40 1f213: -------------- ---------------------------------- -----'----r-----'---- -- ~ -----,.----,--- ---T---..¡----T---· I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 18 Coast Live Oak 14.01 xi 14.0: : : 50140 1: 2: 3: -------------- ---------------------------------. _____.....___ /0_____...... ___ __.&.____-1-.___.....__ __...¡,..~_~...____.&.___. :: : : I 1 ::: I I I I I r I I I 19 Coast Live Oak 10.0::: I : 15: 15 2 1 1 : 3 : -------------- ______________________________m_ ----+---1-----+---_-1-___-1-__+__ ---T--+---I---· I I I I I I I I I I I I I I' I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ , '-...1:\ ¡-... Job Name: Sun Job #: 08-05-165 21989 Lindy Lane Date: August 22. 2005 Cupertino ... ...... r , ................_... , , , f f f , 0 , , 0 , ... .... ..._........~... , , , , , , , , , I I f I I I I I I I I I .................._.......... I I I I I I , I I I I I I '" o Plant Name Tree # --- --- , , , ---..--- , , , , , 0 , , 0 , , , ---"I----r---~---' , , 0 , , 0 , , , , , 0 : : x ; ---..---_.&._--.....--- , , , , , , . , , j I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---"I----r----r---'----r--- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I " , " , I I I I ---..----1.---......--- ____1..___ I I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---,----,.---- ----r---"I----r--- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---...--------..---......---...----/0--- I I I I , I I I I I I I I I , , , ---1"'--- , , , , , , ---..--. , , , , , , , , , , , , ---'----r---~--- , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 0 , , , --...----1..---.....--- , , , , , , , , , , " , " , " ---,.---- ----r---,.-.- --- , " , " , " " , " , " , ___ ----1.---.....--- ___.1..___ " , " , " , I I I I I I I I I I I I ---,---- ----r--·-r~-- ----r--- I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---...----.&.----..--......---..---- --- I I I I I I I I I I I I I , ---~--- , , , --- --- , , , , , , --.,.-------~--- , , , . , , , , , , , , , , , ---...----1.---......--- , , 0 , , 0 , , 0 I I I I '" , , , ---1---- ----r~--'----r-·- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---..----/0---......---...----..--- t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r I I I ----{--- -~ -- --~---+---{----~--- I I I r I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .--...----./,----1..---.....---..----/0--- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , , ------- , , , , , , ---..--. , , , , , , , , , ---{_._-~---+--- , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ---..----/0---.....--- , , , , , , , , , I I I I I I . I ---~----}---~---..¡---- --- t t I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I ---..----...---.......-...----..--- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---..¡----+----}---+----{----~--- I t I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---...----./,----...---......- I I I I I I I I I , __ __~_L__ , : , . ---1--- . , , = Best, 5 = Worst Page 2 of 3 , , , , , , ---j----I---+--- , , , , , , , , , I I I I I ---~----L.--+---~----~--- I I I I I I I I I ! I I 1 r r I ---~---- ----~---_!_---J----~--- I I I I , I I I I , I I I I c-. LU ~ >- c:> 1-U G 1-U b 0:: c... StatuS , , , , , , , , , , , I , , , ,. w w It .... w 19 « .... i< w I - - Pruning/Cabling Needs P IUDi"... Problem. Recommend t I I , 'I I I 1 , , 'I I I I " I , ! ! ¡ ! Lõ! ¡ ¡ -! ! ¡ I I I I I" 111), --- I , I I I I ..-", ',11} I I- I :: : ,,-.. -::: ::..: ~ : .JI,? z: : I- : "9 wI:: 0: - ¡ c(..- 0' 'I I~ W, I ¡WI WI>- _:: : ~:: :~: 00 _: 0 > 1-, I~ #'~ W' ,_'w' ~ ~.~ c ~ c( : - : I- U): _: 1CJ: >: uJ ': UJ .c - ~ rnl~ Ol-a:: -I~I~'O' ~ ~'N W a:: .......':> Wi 0' ,,, I I - a:: 0 o z:, : 0 : :sl):::': UJ 0 a::::ï - ....(/) ølOz WOla::-I~I~:OI<{lsi a:: w ~,C a:: _. I ,,, 'u' ,«t- ,za.. W «'w W,~.,-' '0\ 1 I ~ - D::'w ~ : z: ........: 0: : w: : "'- w: ..J I~ IUJ '~(/)'a::IOIOIO~' O~ > ~,~ ~ '~ ~' (/)' Z I I >1 I 1 > I ...... : :> w:- I-:():>:~:():O en w::i > I :0 ~:z ü:w:o:zt~: ~ 0 0:00 :OO::æ:oo:~WIW: :::J:o:owwIU::l: 'D::ID::'W C('OC ØZ'.a::I~Ia::I.O' 0 W WIW W lulula:: u:~ _:I-:D:I-:OC~ oc z zla:: ~ Condition I '" I I I I I , I I I I I , I I I I , I I I I ¡ ¡ ¡õ! ! , 'I"-I~' I I I, I I I I IN' N I : : I-I..... : 0: ß : 1(91" : W : I- :.-1 z: ::!.. ": c.9 ~:« :U{:~:C> ~IZ ~ ~ :~I«IZ Z:ž ¡:: ¡::I~!W!~!~ ~!;?; en UJ '1cr:.IZI« ...JII UJ W ~:::q 0: cr u I l- t- 0 III-I~IO ~:~ I « 1-' ü' _0' a:: ' ,n uJ ...J::J: 1~ I \J cr:. «,cx::,Z' 010 ü:i a.. wll-IO: a::le:: I w :r:loo1ülI UIU Me8surem nts .... w W lL N @ a:: w tü I I ::;; CD m ~ o 0 0 , , I , , , , ....: w' wi lLI NI -, :¡!~ ~\:w ""'.... oc1w wI> I-I~ w'.... :¡:I...J «I:J ¡::;\~ BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES (400) 353-1052 23535 Summil Road t" Gat". CA 950)0 , , , .........- , , , , , , , , , ........... .......... · , · , , , , j f , , , , , . ·....1·......t···~··· .... ..... , , , , , , f I , , I , , I I , , , ..................................' , , I I I I , , I I , t , 3: 1 4 ..._.... ...... .... , , . I "j i .. , 9.0: : I : 1518 .....'t... ·..···t"·····t····-r..···'1···' , I I I I I t I I I Plant Name Tree # --þ --- , , , ---...--- , , , , . , , --- ----~-~-+~--, , , . , , , , , , , , , , , , ___.I____L_~_..L._~_ , , , · , , , , , ., , " , ,. , ___ ----r----r--- ----r--- " , " , " , I I' I I I I I I 'I I ___.1____ ___..L._.~.I____"'___ I 'I I I ,'I I I I , I I' I I , I I , I I I I t ___.,____ ----r---.,...---.,----r---· I I' I I I I' I I I'" , " , " , " ___..t________...___......__________ , " , " , " 2! 1 ¡ 3 ! ----r---.,----y--- , . , , , , , , , , , 1 : 1 : 2 _~_..L.___..t____ þ__ , , , , , , 10.0: ¡ ¡ ! 20 ! 15 .____.,...___y_____-r_____ -----r----.,---- I I I I I 'I I I I I I I 11.01 xl 8.0! 7.0: ¡ 20 :25 _____.l-___L_____......_____L____..L..___.l-__, , , , I I , I I I I I 1 , I , ç"gí!.~t.~L'!.'2.º~.k Coast Live Oak -----------------. ......~9...... 21 ------------~- --- --- , , , ---~--- , , 5' , , , , , ---.,---- ----r--- , , , , , , , , 5 " , , ___ ____L___..L._·_ , , , , , . , , , . , , , , , ___.,____ ----r--- ----r--- , . , , , , , , , , , , , . , , , , ___ ____L___..L.__·..t____ .__ , , , , , , , . , I " I 1 I I , , I ___.,__~_ ----r---.,...--- ----r--- I ,. , , t I . I " I 1 I I I , · I , I I I , I ___..t____¿____ __......___.1.____1.___ " 'I' I I I' I I' I' I 2¡ 1 ! 3 ! ----r---.,----y---' , , , , , , , , , , , 2 I 1 I 3 ___..L.___..t_.~_ ___ , , , , , , 17.0:! ! ¡ ! 50 ¡ 20 ___þ_.,____y_____..,-_____y____-r____.,..___ I I I I I , , I I I' , I I I I' I I 12.01 I I I : 50 120 -----t----~-----T-----~----__----_I-þ~' I I I , I I t I I ! I . º-~!'.~u:~~~_º~_~_________m____ Coast Redwood ------------------~------~-------- Seguoia semoelVirens 22 -------------- 23 -------------- , , ---J...--- , , , ..- --- 5' , , , , , ---4-~--~---+·--, , , , , , , , , , , , . , , . , , , --_.&---_....--.¿.-~- , , , , . , , , , , , , , . , ---.,.--- ----r- , , , , , , I I I I 3 I I : ___.&____ ___.¿.___.&____L___ I I' I I' I I I , , , , ------r--- , , , , , · , , , ---.,---- ---- ---..,..--- ---- --.. , , , , · , I I , I , I I , . , I , I I ___..t____¿____...___.....___.&____ --- I , I I , I I I I I I I I , I 311141 ---+---~----}---, , , 0 , , , , , , , , , 1 : 1 : 2 : ___.¿.___..t____¿.__ , , , , , , , , , , . ---~--- , o , , , , , , ---'T---~ ---..,---~' , 0 , , , , , , . , , , --_.&---- ---.....--- , , , , , , i 3' , ---~----~---+- , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ___ ____~___.....___..t____ ___ , , , , , , , , , , , , , --~----J...--- , , , , , , I o --_....--- , , . I I I . , , I I , , , ----I----f----J...---+---f----J...--- I I , , I , , , , I , , I I , I , , I I I' . I : : 1 I ---...----..----...---.....--- ----~--- I ' I' , I I I I I I " . ~.~;.ºt--.~-----t----- ____~~~9-~-??~ I' I I I I I I I I I' I I I t . , I I I 8.0 I: 1 : : 20 : 15 _____...____L_____...______L____..L.____.....__, , I . I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I Coast Redwood ---------------------------------- 24 -------------- º-~~_~\B!!.~~~_~~__m___m__m 25 -------------- 3: 1 141 ---+---~----f--- , , , , . . , , , - , , ___J.._ , , , , , , , , , --...----..--- , , , , , , 6.0 1 I! : 20 : 15 _m_4____I-----,---m ----+---+--. I' t " I I I 'I I I I I I , , ,I : D: E A I D: _____..___ _____....._____ ____..L.____.....__ , I 'I I I I I I , I I ~£~!!~!'_f~~!'_~___________m____~ Platanus acerifolia 26 -------------- m___~?_____J~£~!!~!'_f~~!'_~_____m__________ , ---~--- , : , , , ---~----~---+--- , , . , , . , , , , , I I I I tit , m~----I---+--+---I--- I , , , I , , , I I I , l , . , , , I , , I I I I I I __+--+--+-+---I----lm , I , , I , I , . I I I I t't I I 1 : 1 : 2 : _.--+--+___Im , , , , , , , , , 12.0~ I I 1 : 35125 ____+ml-----+--ml----+--+-- I' t , , I I' I , I I III I , I º-~!~~!D.i!!!.'_eH~.~!________m___ Schinus molle i?-~!~_~~_!!II~_~\~!~I_ç1e!~_~~____1 Cupressus m. aurea 28 -------------- 29 -------------- ~ = Best, 5: worst Page 3 of 3 21989 Lindy Lane Cupertino Job Name: Sun Job #: 08-05-165 Date: August 22. 2005 i ,.J> \.).j ~ BARRIE D. COA1 and ASSOCIATES Hor1icutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos. CA 95033 408135').1052 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 1. Any legal description provided to the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as to the quality of any title. 2. The appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of information provided by others. 3. The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this appraisal 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/evaluation. 5. Possession of this report or 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 appraiser/consultant. 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.. in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys. 8. This report has been made in conformity with acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic reporting techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture. 9. When applying any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide, always follow label instructions. 1 a.No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any defects which could only have been discovered by climbing. A full root collar inspection, consisting of excavating the soil around the tree to uncover the root collar and major buttress roots, was not performed, unless otherwise 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 tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to 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 arborist, or to seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that 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 guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified 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. æt1hkie ¿;. ~ Barrie D. Coate ISA Certified Arborist Horticultural Consultant Jø. -'iL-f hl'I" e L..--Xh\ b,t: ~ Dr. Waguih Ishak 22071 Lindy Lane Cupertino, Ca 95014 October 4, 2005 TO: Steve Piasecki and Colin Jung Community Development Department City of Cupertino, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, Ca 95014 RE: Application # TM-2005-05 (EA-2002-12) Applicant: Frank Sun @ 21989 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, Ca 95014 Parcel # 356-25-024 Dear Mr. Piasecki and Mr. Jung In reference to the application above (Tentative map to subdivide a 2.6 acre parcel into 3 lots), I would like to register the following concerns in writing since I will not be available to attend the October 11th hearing (business travel). We selected our current property on 22071 Lindy Lane because of the privacy it offers us. Having a house built so close to our property can definitely disturb this privacy. However. we will SUDDOrt Mr. Sun's DroDosal ONLY if the followina conditions are met: 1. Construction of the house on the North West lot (the lot that neighbors our property) will not commence before at least 5 years. Mr. Sun has kindly informed us that he will be building these houses for his children and that he will not start building before IV 10 years). 2. A fence (matching the current existing fence between my property and the property of Mr. Daile # 11254/22101) must be extended from point A (see diagram) to point B (se diagram). This fence must be installed as soon as possible but no later than the end of 2005 and should be installed at Mr. Sun's expenses. The fence should be done by a reputable company approved by us and should follow all the regulations and codes of the city of Cupertino. Additionally, the fence should have a gate for emergency access only. Access through the gate should be by permission from us. 3. Trees (not taller than 20 feet) should be planted inside Mr. Sun's property and on his own expense, at least 15 feet east of the property line (the fence). We estimate the number of trees needed to be about 5 large trees. The trees should be planted by a professional and reputable gardening company approved by us. Page 1/2 2tJ ---:9 r I discussed the above points with Mr. Sun. He is in agreement with me. Additionally, Mr. Sun also offered to write a commitment letter indicating his acceptance to the above conditions. I think this is a good idea and I would like to see a copy of that letter included in the documentations for this case. Sincerely ~g:t:W (408)996-7082 - --:::=== ~ t§/ \\1-5"" :L \ '3<; \ .2:2 o:¡ I L\ ",Jj \..- 1)AW? . -,\'2-<;'-t 2- z \ 0\ 2...\'3 LÓ 2:2.0'=-\ 2.Z-0~ \ Pal!e 2/2 ~ 2J -1~ -I I ~ p./ In ^ "b"~ ~f'~\\O\A 2J¡ -77 Page 1 of 1 Colin Jung From: Ciddy Wordell Sent: Friday. September 23. 2005 8:26 AM To: Colin Jung Subject: FW: We Strongly Oppose plans for the Sun Subdivision of Lindy Lane Hillside Property -----Original Message----- From: Bob Rodert [mailto:brodert@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, September 22,20055:52 PM To: Ciddy Wordell; Igiefer; Patrick Kwok2; Steve Piasecki Cc: Arzeno, Sara; ronberti@comcast.net; Uner & Canden Taysi; John James; Mohammed Hossain; Andrew Teng; LACORRE@COMCAST.NET Subject: We Strongly Oppose plans for the Sun Subdivision of Lindy Lane Hillside Property fSf· The same goes for the voters at 21912 Lindy Ln. . Bob Roder! Arzeno, Sara wrote: Oar City Planners and City Council - All three voters at 21902 Lindy Lane STRONGLY OPPOSE the Sun Subdivision Plans on the hillside across from our home. The Arzeno Family Sara Arzeno Manager, Medical Writing CV Therapeutics, Inc. (650) 384-8816 )!J -q ð 9/28/2005 Page I of 1 Colin Jung From: Ciddy Wordell Sent: Friday, September 23,20058:26 AM To: Colin Jung Subject: FW: We Strongly Oppose plans for the Sun Subdivision of Lindy Lane Hillside ... -----Original Message----- From: TAYSI3@aol.com [mailto:TAYSI3@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 6:32 PM To: brodert@comcast.net; Ciddy Wordell; Igiefer@sbcglobal.net; Patrick Kwok2; Steve Piasecki Cc: Sara.Arzeno@cvt.com; ronberti@comcast.net; tahoejej@comcast.net; sharminsalim@sbcglobal.net; jujubi2003@yahoo.com; LACORRE@COMCAST.NET Subject: Re: We Strongly Oppose plans for the Sun Subdivision of Lindy Lane Hillside ... The same goes for voters at 21952 Lindy Lane. Candan & Uner Taysi 2IJ ~1í 9/28/2005 Page I ofl Colin Jung From: Ciddy Wordell Sent: Friday, September 23,20058:25 AM To: Colin Jung Subject: FW: We Strongly Oppose plans for the Sun Subdivision of Lindy Lane Hillside Property -----Original Message----- From: Mohammed Hossain [mailto:sharminsalim@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 200S 9:42 PM To: Ciddy Wordell; Igiefer; Patrick Kwok2; Steve Piasecki Cc: ronberti@comcast.com; Uner & Canden Taysi; John James; Bob Rodert; Mohammed Hossain; Andrew Teng; LACORRE@COMCAST.NET Subject: We Strongly Oppose pians for the Sun Subdivision of Lindy Lane Hillside Property Dar City Planners and City Council - Two voters at 21B82 Lindy Lane STRONGLY OPPOSE the Sun Subdivision Plans on the hillside across from our home. The Hossain Family, Mohammed & Sharmin Hossain 2-1J--ifX) 9/28/2005 Page 1 of I Colin Jung From: ronberti@comcast.net Sent: Thursday, September 22,20057:59 PM To: Giddy Wordell: Steve Piasecki Cc: Patrick Kwok2: Igiefer@sbcglobal.net; brodert@comcast.net; TAYSI3@aol.com: Sara.Arzeno@cvt.com: tahoejej@comcast.net; sharminsalim@sbcglobal.net; jujubi2003@yahoo.com; LAGORRE@GOMGAST.NET Subject: Re: We StroEgly Oppose plans for th.!!.sun Subdivision of Lindy Lane Hillside.... .", ".~' . Please add two voters at 11406 Lindy Place ,to the list of those who prefer that development on Lindy Lane reflect a stringent ãppreciation of the fact that the lots likely to be made available for development are on rather steep hillsides and are consequently reasonably zoned as RHS. Ron Berti .Suzanne Chapman -------------- Original message -------------- The same goes for voters at 21952 Lindy Lane. Candan & Uner Taysi .7.ð ~fD 9/28/2005 We Strongly Oppose plans for the Sun Subdivision of Lindy Lane Hil1.ide Property Page 1 of I Colin Jung From: Arzeno, Sara [Sara.Arzeno@cvt.com] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 5:33 PM To: Ciddy Wordell Cc: Colin Jung; Bob Rodert; Uner & Canden Taysi Subject: RE: We Strongly Oppose plans for the Sun Subdivision of Lindy Lane Hillside Property Ciddy - Many thanks for your response. Sara From: Ciddy Wordell [mailto:CynthiaW@cupertino.org] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 5:28 PM To: Arzeno, Sara Cc: Colin Jung Subject: RE: We Strongly Oppose plans for the Sun Subdivision of Lindy Lane Hillside Property We will include your statement in the Planning Commission packet for October 11. Ciddy Wordell -----Original Message----- From: Arzeno, Sara [mailto:Sara.Arzeno@cvt.com] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 5:15 PM To: Ciddy Wordell; Igiefer; Patrick Kwok2; Steve Piasecki Cc: ronberti@comcast.com; Uner & Canden Taysi; John James; Bob Rodert; Mohammed Hossain; Andrew Teng; LACORRE@COMCAST.NIT Subject: We Strongly Oppose plans for the Sun Subdivision of Lindy Lane Hillside Property Importance: High Oar City Planners and City Council - All three voters at 21902 Lindy Lane STRONGLY OPPOSE the Sun Subdivision Plans on the hillside across from our ~¡jn.;e.<·· Jhe Arzeno Family Sara Arzeno Manager, Medical Writing CV Therapeutics, Inc. (650) 384-8816 2Ø -I D L 9/26/2005 Colin Jung From: Sent: To: Subject: ~ Re: We Strongly Oppose pia... Ciddy Wordell Friday, September 23, 2005 8:25 AM Colin Jung FW: We Strongly Oppose plans for the Sun Subdivision of Lindy Lane Hillside ... -----Original Message----- From: tahoejej@comcast.net [mailto:tahoejej@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 9:44 PM To: ronberti@corncast.net¡ Ciddy Wordell; Steve Piasecki Cc: Patrick Kwok2; 19iefer@sbcglobal.net; brodert@comcast.net; TAYSI3@aol.coffi; Sara.Arzeno@cvt.com; sharrninsalim@sbcglobal.net; jujubi2003@yahoo.com; LACORRE@COMCAST.NET Subject: Re: We Strongly Oppose plans for the Sun Subdivision of Lindy Lane Hillside .,. And another two from the voters at 21852 Lindy Lane. See you at your next meeting with pictures of a hillside that turned liquid Vohn and Julia James 1 2b -I D J Colin Jung From: Sent: To: Subject: Igiefer [lgiefer@sbcglobaLnet] Friday, October 14, 2005 12:16 PM Colin Jung FW: Moxley/Knopp Lindy Lane proposal of removing heritage oaks for a driveway Hi Colin, Would you please forward Mr. Ko's email with the other commissioners? Regards, Gief -----Original Message----- From: Simon Ko [mailto:simon ko@hötrnail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 9:08 AM To: 19iefer@sbcglobal.net Subject: RE: Moxley/Knopp Lindy Lane proposal of removing heritage oaks for a driveway Dear Ms. Giefer, I've seen the progress of the Moxley/Knopp property proposal at 21925 Lindy Lane taking a really bad turD. I was not as resolve when Moxley/Knopp subdivided the lot. However, this new development proposal requesting an obtrusive driveway design and unnecessary removing many heritage oak trees on the property that really pushes me to speak up. I have been a supporter of you and I have seen you in action on Cupertino TV for a long time. I like your balanced approach. I really hope you will NOT vote in favor of this part of the proposal on the property. This hillside has a very balanced look right now. Nice modern homes are being built and still retain the heritage oak trees (like the new house adjacent to this property) . I always support you because you consider both sides of the issue (property owner's right and the environment). I am sure you can suggest an alternative to this current inbalanced plan. Perhaps I'd try to offer my opinion for your consideration: 1) There are 3 existing driveways all converged at a single point. Let alone safety, it's already an eye-sore for the beautiful hillside. Adding a 4th one within a few feet will have significant detrimental effect on this part of Lindy Lane. Alternative, spread the driveway around if Moxley/Knopp cannot get easement agreement with the neighbor. 2) The current driveway proposal really does not consider saving the heritage oak trees or safety at all. Even if there is no agreement with the Schmidt's on driveway easement in the back (the best choice), there is a huge (more than 20 feet) space between heritage oak trees 6 & 7. It is absolutely NO reason to remove ANY heritage oak trees. It will be wonderful if you can put some cornmon sense back into this project instead of having the developer themselve focus on the convenience of the development and not considering the beauty of Cupertino's nature. Other than having the driveway design and removing any heritage oak trees, I do not have any issue with this project. However, these two issues are too critical for me to ignore. Thanks for spending time and listening to your long-time supporter. I hope you will continue to put some cornmon sense back into this matter and suggest the developer to consider an alternate driveway that does not have to remove ANY heritage oak trees on the property. Kind regards, Simon Ko 1 2JJ ~ WI Page lof1 Colin Jung From: Bob Rodert [brodert@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 12: 1 0 PM To: Lisa Giefer Cc: Muhammed Hossain; Sara Arzeno; Uner (Charlie) & Candan Taysi; John & Julia James; Ron Berti; Jim Moore Subject: Lindy Lane Planning Dear Lisa, While I'm away in Oregon on vacation this week, this message is to document my position on some upcoming Planning Commission actions dealing with proposed developments on the Northern side of Lindy Lane. I would appreciate it if you would read the following statements into the next Planning Commission meeting (currently scheduled for October 11,2005): 1. I oppose the Agenda Item 4 proposed driveway access to the Moxley Lot 2 (Tentative Map TM 2005-03) directly from Lindy Lane. I don't oppose the driveway to that lot being off from the existing driveway that accesses the lots higher on the hill. 2. I oppose the Agenda Item 5 proposal (TM-2005-05 (EA-2005-12)) to divide the existing 2.6 ac. Sun lot into a total of three lots. I do not oppose the subdivision of the existing lot into two lots - one with the current house on it and the second, behind and above the current house. In addition to my position on these two actions, I also strongly support keeping the existing 15% slope criteria that is associated with the R 1 zoning of several lots on the North side of Lindy Lane. Also, in addition to reading these positions into the Commission's record, I would appreciate you supporting them in future Commission activities. Thank you for your support and service to Cupertino. Bob Rodert 21912 Lindy Ln. Cupertino, CA brodert@comcast.net :2JJ-/O( 10/10/2005 Page 1 of 1 Colin Jung Sent: To: From: TAYSl3@aol.com Monday, October 10, 2005 1 :37 PM Igiefer@sbcglobal.net; LACORRE@COMCAST.NET; ronberti@comcast.net; sarzeno@cvt.com; sharminsalim@sbcgobal.net; tahoejej@comcast.net; brodert@comcast.net Subject: Fwd: Lindy Lane Planning Dear Lisa, We want to add our support to Bob Rodert letter and ask you to please take note of the points he has made. They are also our concerns. Regards, Candan and Charlie Taysi 21952 Lindy Lane 2.Ø- rfk 1112/2005 Colin Jung From: Sent: To: tahoejej@comcast.net Monday, October 10, 2005 1:51 PM TAYSI3@aoLcom; Igiefer@sbcglobaLnet; LACORRE@COMCAST.NET; ronberti@comcast.net; sarzeno@cvt.com; sharminsalim@sbcgobaLnet; brodert@comcast.net Re: Fwd: Lindy Lane Planning Subject: B! Fwd: Lindy Lane Planning Dear Lisa, I too support Bob Rodert's the 15% slope and driveway. John James stand on the Moxley/Knopp and Sun eliminating 1 2j ~ 1D'1 Page I of2 Colin Jung From: xihua sun [xihuasun@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 7:18 PM To: Colin Jung Subject: 21989 Lindy Lane Subdivision TO: Steve Piasecki and Colin Jung City Planning Department City of Cupertino, 10300 Torre Avenu, Cupertino, CA 95014 CC: Dr. Waguih Ishak 22071 Lindy Lane Cupertino, CA 95014 This is a response to Dr. Waguik Ishak's concerns regarding my subdivision proposal. We are greatful for their understanding and kind support. Should our subdivision proposal be approved, we will erect a fence along our border and plant trees on our side. All this will be done at our expense and with close consultation with Dr. Waguik Ishak. We do not plan to build on the lot adjacent to Dr. Waguih Ishak's within a few years. Please include this letter in the documentations for my case. Sincerely, Frank Sun 2-0 -ID ð 10/3112005 ~vv-v~-~uu~ U~·~0 t'.u¿ Print Name We agree with the subdivision of 21989 Lindy Lane, a 2.636 acre lot. into 3 lots. Address ïflo h 'e [/11 v,w.~ Signature I/).(/((mt. C/rt;/pl c46/~~ ~ / S;2.b~ >'Ì<-V~ {y~ /HvL J ¿,J, ~ , . 72 1'111 I ,~' I.o".t( ftol-l s.... '1Jr-t, '/,..~¡-¿¡I'IDX~ 3DCMoL<.....Av< (,1 ShP.W'j Fo.."'S 2.lC¡Sl L;vJy ~\\I. LVt,{/t,.,¡(!) 'DAU.é £14; UfOI L../A/OY ú/ .k1-f,.J( S",/'.h..-... t./1 j'¡ c.",j., L¿, " I!l<td a;-ëJ ¿¿on Ä:;,' ¿" Cg.¡;í, fJk1>~1 ç~ 91).[ 0 i l\ ¡Ji)'-( 1..-,.0 ::ref¡)~ 1<'1 'Off' 2-1 q z~ !- i Yldtj t- ¿1, t2 t/I/ t2m~ ~;;¿f /Ita /J1j. ~- ,~~n rf\~() ~fi?k Drd¡;(n . ....-'I-I.ShK ¿IA 112¥1-/!1f. (W)1 PI, ~~~ :W¡')(f~ J ßr.dæç ð/// ~c-... "L~Mc..~ I ¡¡~/'f'.^j () áJ eù EðIÚ~ OweN (' K1 ---.) 11170/ì n ~.,¿-- - '7~Ø4~~ c0S~~> ( ii:-;.-..... . . ,·.þ:....-....c!·~t/{-1 . .'J ¡'\....?,_ ([ r;-- t I i.J è- U <. rMf.. ¡' .,... I ¡ '-""I l!£-u ~J'þjf <;(Mf c.(,--~iJ 71. <:...19-S-;; L.~ I"". J/15 }~(lI<<;h: leþ(l. //'-1'; tjlùc.>lIlI!~ ~ , " -I'" f" i , / _ J ., ð{:2.- U ~I ') // I J\}It- ~.\à~ ~... -1 ",... L" .........~\ ", , """.. " . " } .21> -[b q . ¡It We agree with the subdivision of 21989 Lindy Lane, a 2.636 acre lot, into 3 lots. Print Name S~r€.A,^ Lr "" .~~ hl'- ~}J .Le<2. W ?~J T /vô'v1Ad. '> W C:Ó V017J 'PLAJ AJ 1<- 1> ù u t, krJ \ rcCj"-- Ç-QIIAlI{ ,S'vlr! AJx1:Q 7~ ) . ^ 1011 ;q-.J :; /-rtr¡ If/1^- I!/I,k.vw-vla v /thk fttf1'"ff1 r /a Signature Address 12'{'-( fV\LCx'ì~',YI. CIA~~,^",/ CA ")'01'-( ".r _ 11/:zt1 ¡'II/-}, CNyif( / (''..---..·-~:i~;'') lv..r¡Å¡~ ~~ /,' 0')ã f7 '----V /r-:2:I j .' __ 1// / \\,,/'1 50-.~ ~ð. Vi '\. / / C,:r-:íd,0 fA ;hfl~ , . ':-If I" ( Sc~*, ? 1:...." < 1)-.1 >~ I~;~Z:~;~' v:~~·('7r /J [J; CvPVfl({lUo, CA-- 'I':if;It.{ K-I\. r~ It µ.f #1~C/lØ- )fJ.. CJ'50 ( ~ \ l <.-\1' Mt C-¡¿.e, q ....... tí ", Iu . '!' II2.ft /'1i . (~ . /nc,~ Hí ~¡/ aÞ1~ 'f 5>L dK:- 4~ .2/611/ (}kyrlmlL /tBjî rUSC"7) {fl --1-.- , ~ lð--llD NDV-02-2005 09:23 P.03 We agree with the subdivision of 21989 Lindy Lane, a 2.636 acre lot, into 310t5. Piint Name Address H~'{G\,t It" Po~+~o1l.lJ/øJ- Lµ ~r~b~Ye~'o5~ ~c>~U3Z7 ¿;.,JltPe. t'/"OrwI\&L .--...J..... -to ~ + re..wl..()~ ~;, tt".u..~ - Signature .Vo\J Ý ~\)...tcl roQ,J... t).C(MS Ol.l( {yt3PAro\-ý. 2-0 -\ \l NUV-U~-~OOb 08:23 P.04 Print Name We agree with the sUbdivision of 21989 Lindy Lane, a 2.636 acre lot, into 3 lots. ~... '¡i 1¡.<->' ,-, _~. '_1_,_,... "." ,>' \.., 'ì\, \_, \Af'I\.. '~>""t:.."'f;',.)'¿-('~. DiV\'/i ~fìiin ¡¡(Up,1 i<:A('A¡))A çeG./Vl A M (1))D,L ff.o Jfie: 11r;1J(Jò-//- Address ..., -, I \. >c, ~"";'../{ ) ~ / -' L-.; ;....au Lv"\, ) \ <J" -, .::... "''''\.( L. ~ \~,; >~ ',i ~i-'..) 4Vit C.!; c~ Y r.--< to.....'" !..-v.1,it 22 Z 4 5 C;<..l'\ "1 [)f\ ,j¡"Ù..A.1 2 J '7 'f '7 UN/) YLN laTl 2.'~:So I_IMb'j LAI Signature . ,--'-" '~...c::" ~,··,-',,~'-7:'--~> ; "", ~ r;~~ I ", ,,:~ . '~.: ~ ')-{':-\J.~~.. ·'::L~,-(., .. : -' / '11 ~~ ¡ lÇ;,·~'-9¿/-----s.?_. ~~ ~ )0-)1 ¿ TOTAL P. 04 BARRIE D. COATE and ASSQC'A.1£~ HortlcutUtal,:;Qf15UItant5 23535 Summit Road Los Gates. GA 95033 4081353-1052 Pc r\<cf~.,'¡,J '-t . .¡) ~ ..1- ,_',. Ai" ANAL '{IS OF TREES ON LOT 3 OF THE SUN PROPERTY 21989 LINDY LANE CUPERTINO Prepared at the request of: Colin lung City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate Consulting Arborist August 22, 2005 Job# 08-05-165 \1 JZc-,s- :i-\- " 'IT t- .lD ~\ t ') ANALYSIS OF TREES ON LOT 3, SUN PROPERTY, CUPERTINO Assignment Mr. Jung asked me to review the trees which might be affected by construction or building of roadways on Lot 3 of the Sun property on Lindy Lane in Cupertino. I visited the site on August 23'd and August 25th, 2005, to prepare the following report regarding this property. Summary There are fourteen trees on Lot 3 which are close enough to construction or roadway installation to be affected by that activity. Of these, only three trees are protected by City of Cupertino protective ordinance - trees #7,9 and 12. If these three trees are protected by the fencing shown on the enclosed map, their preservation should not be difficult. Observations The entry road to Lot 3 of the Sun property would leave Moxley Drive and move west along the property line into the one-acre lot. Several trees would either have to be removed or transplanted for construction of the driveway, but none ofthem are protected by City Ordinance. The only oak trees on the property which might be affected are trees #7 and #9, and if the fencing is installed as shown on the enclosed map, I see no reason that why those trees cannot be preserved. Both trees are healthy specimens in excellent condition and certainly deserve careful preservation. The third tree on this property which is large enough to be protected by City Ordinance is a Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata), tree #12. Since this tree already has a light infestation of Pine Bark Beetle, I would not consider that as important as the oaks. PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORlST AUGUST 22ND, 2005 )J -\ \ Y ANALYSIS OF TREES ON LOT 3, SUN PROPERTY, CUPERTINO 2 Recommendations I recommend that: 1. Fencing be installed as shown on the enclosed map to protect trees #7, 9 and 12. 2. If Monterey Pines #12 and #14 are to truly be preserved, monthly irrigation by soaker hose to apply 10 gallons per I inch of trunk diameter should begin immediately. I do not see other potential conflicts between planned construction and preserved trees. Respectfully submitted, ~$~ Barrie D. Coate BDC/phlg Enclosures: Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Map PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST 2JJ-) \ J AUGUST nND, 2005 t:< it\ 13 \1 ¡.is TM-2005-05 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6335 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A TENT A TIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A 2.6 ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS OF APPROXIMATELY 0.76, 0.65 and 1.22 ACRES IN SIZE IN AN Rl-20 ZONING DISTRICT AT 21989 LINDY LANE SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: TM-2005-05, EA-2005-12 Frank Sun 21989 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 environmental damage nor substantially harm fish and wildlife or their habitat. e) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated therewith are not likely to cause serious public health problems. )ø-1l~ Resolution No. 6335 Page 2 TM-200S-0S Noyernber 8, 2005 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application TM-lOOS-OS for a Tentative Map is hereby approved as modified, 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 TM-2005-05, as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of November 8, 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 DR. X. SUN, 21989 LINDY LANE, CUPERTINO" by Westfall Engineers, Inc., dated October 2005, and consisting of one sheet labeled 1 of 1, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this resolution. 2. DEED RESTRICTION ON LOT #1 BUILDING FLOOR AREA In conjunction with the final map approval, the applicant shall record a covenant on Lot #1 restricting the maximum square footage of building area, including garage and any accessory structures to no more than 3,200 square feet. The City Attorney shall review and approve the form of the development restriction prior to recordation. 3. MAP RESTRICTION ON FUTURE SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY In conjunction with the final map approval, the applicant shall record an appropriate legal instrument that prohibits further subdivision of the land beyond the three lots approved by this tentative map. The City Attorney shall review and approve the form of the development restriction prior to recordation. 4. SLOPE EASEMENT In conjunction with the final map approval, the applicant shall delineate on the final map and record a slope easement across the Lindy Lane property frontage of each proposed lot. The purpose of the slope easement is to preserve existing landforms, and maintain existing trees and vegetation, 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 or the location and development of a driveway for a residence on Lot #1. ~-\\ì Resolution No. 6335 Page 3 TM-2005-05 Noyember 8, 2005 5. TREE REMOV At AND PRESERV AnON No trees are authorized for removal as part of the tentative map approval. Tree removal and replacement will be evaluated when a new residence is actually proposed to the City. Prior to final map approval, a covenant shall be recorded on the property, notifying future property owners of the kinds, numbers and locations of specimen trees on the property protected by City Ordinance and the requirement for a tree removal permit to remove such trees. The covenant shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. Prior to building permit approval, a tree protection bond is required for all trees slated for preservation. 6. DRIVEWAY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Prior to final map approval, a driveway maintenance agreement shall be recorded for the existing driveway benefiting the two lots. 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 · Signage advising contractors of the restrictions · Construction equipment and construction vehicle parking locations 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, grading, street construction, demolition, underground utility work and other construction work that directly involves motorized vehicular equipment are prohibited. · On Sundays, construction is prohibited. 2PJ -)l r Resolution No. 6335 Page 4 TM-200S-05 Noyember 8, 2005 8. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The project and future developments shall adhere to the RHS Ordinance or the R1 Ordinance, whichever specjfic regulation in each ordinance is more restrictiye. 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 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice 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 requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. 10. ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS Prior to the approval of grading or building permits, a detailed geotechnical, design-level investigation shall be performed for each lot proposed for development in accordance with the recommendations outlined in a letter from Cotton Shires & Associates to Gary Chao, Cupertino City Planner dated March 25, 2005. SECTION IV. CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 11. STREET WIDENING Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 12. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. Sidewalks are prohibited. 13. 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 interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 14. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City, Santa Clara County Fire and San Jose Water Company. 15. TRAFFIC SIGNS 2J) -It 4 Resolution No. 6335 Page 5 TM-2005-05 Noyember 8, 2005 Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City. 16. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/ or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. No grading shall be permitted during the City's rainy season October through April. 17. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 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. * Pre and Post Development Calculations are required 18. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City and Santa Clara County Fire, as needed 19. 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. 20. 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 under grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $ 5% of Off-Site Improvement Cost or $2,785.00 min. b. Grading Permit: $ 5% of Site Improvement Cost c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 1,000.00 d. Storm Drainage Fee: TBD J-0 -/2() Resolution No. 6335 Page 6 TM-2005-05 November 8, 2005 e. Power Cost: f. Map Checking Fees: g. Park Fees: h. Street Tree ** $ 3,250.00 $ 31,500.00 By Developer ** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the Public Utility Corrunission (P.U.c.) Bonds: 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. 21. 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. 22. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES The developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtenances installed to City Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water for water service to the subject development. 23. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMF plans shall be included in your grading and street improvement plans. Erosion and or sediment control plan shall be provided. )J; -/1.\ Resolution No. 6335 Page 7 TM-200S-0S November 8, 2005 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of November 2005, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Corrunission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chen, Miller, Saadati and Chair Wong COMMISSIONERS: Giefer COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: APPROVED: ÆÞJ0 Gilbert Wong, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission gjplanning/pdreportjres/TMc2005-05 res.doc 1.ø -I j.L OF . CUPEIQ1NO . City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupernno,CA 95014 (408) 777-3'J.23 APPEAL 1. Application No. í¡./- 2.0Q~--(J> A¡J1) I!A-20f7':>-12 2. Applicant(s) Name: r~.MJK ~(//II 3. AppelJant(s) Name: GND{ u..\)~ ~fJM(t;oet!oOO 61lOùp __ z~ U~~¿~ Phone Number ltf¡ )µ,7{(~¡¿ ~ '3 . ¥ršf(o~ 6¿~'\~ ì r-: c IE~ ~ ~ W fË rm i\ ,\ . OV 1 7 2005 ~ CUPERTINO CITY CLERK Email . 4. Please check one: o Appeal a decision of Director of Community Development V Appeal a decision of Planning Commission . ( S"e e....fwv ~te it.<..!6 ~DV..o....':) o Other 5. Date of det"""ination of Director or mailing of notice of City decision: }JiV.~ I 200( . 6. Basis ofappea1: It1TAC-fI r:3 b '1{s '-UÞ>- ~ c\. œwitr t ~ stJ k£v¡j Nil WC( I h rJtf;¡r/S Signature(s) ~ Please complete form, include appeal fee of$I45. d return to the attention of the City Clerk, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, (408) 777-3223. 1-0 - J 1.-3 11.17.05 Basis of Appeal 11.17.05 Application No. TM-2005-05; and EA-2005-12; 11.8.05 When the Planning Commission granted the Sun permit to subdivide into three lots vs. the two lots recommended by Staff, we believe that the Planning Commission: I) Ignored the Cupertino General Plan regarding hillside development, and 2) Ignored the Staff Recommendation for two lots (not three) that reflected the General Plan. 3) Allowing the third lot will destroy the remaining Heritage Oak Tree Groves on Lindy Lane and further irreversibly erode the environment and natural habitat of the neighborhood. We have been "playing by the rules" and have tried to follow the General Plan because we think its right for Cupertino as a community. All we ask is that our City government and community members do the same. Signature page follows L.ð ~I 2Y 1\.17.05 Lindy Lane Neighborhood Group John James Bob Rodert Mrs. Hossein Herb Suzanne Chapman Margaret James Moore Humberto Arzeno Mrs. Moore Alexander Arzeno Charles Taysi Sara Arzeno Candan Taysi Nick Mohammed Hossein Bessie Sharmin Hossein ,Zð -/1. r 11.16.05 ßa2. John James 21852 Lindy Lane Julia James 21852 Lindy Lane Ron Berti Lindy Place Mrs. Berti Lindy Place James Moore 21952 Lindy Lane StfA,.} ~Moore 21952 Lindy Lane Charlie Taysi 21952 Lindy Lane Candan Taysi 21952 Lindy Lane Mohammed Hossein 21862 Lindy Lane Bob Rodert 21912 Lindy Lane Mrs. Hossein 21862 Lindy Lane û. ~ C1.., ¡;\~a (1;' ~4f!¡;t Mr. "Hoofus".(( K -," Mrs. Hoofus Humberto Arzeno 21902 Lindy Lane Alexander Arzeno 21902 Lindy Lane Sara Arzeno 21902 Lindy Lane 'UJ-f ¿~ e.,(\1\B\T~ D Cupertino Planning Conunission 3 November 8, 2005 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: · Expressed concem that the Planning Commission meeting was not simultaneously broadcast because of the election. · Expressed concern that Item 2 was the only item on the agenda not continued, and said she felt that many of the concerned residents may not be in attendance. Chair Wong: · Clarified that consideration was given to ensuring that the meeting would be taped. Mr. Piasecki: · Explained that the Permit Streamlining Act requires government to act in a reasonable period of time and noted that relative to tonight's agenda, a number of the applicants were willing to take continuances, and the applicant tonight wasn't required to and exercised his right to move ahead with the application. He pointed out that the city observes state laws and respects the applicants' rights as well. CONSENT CALENDAR: None 2. TM-200S-0S (EA-200S-12) Frank Sun 21989 Lindy Lane Tentative Map to subdivide a 2.6-acre parcel into three lots. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Postponed from the October 25,2005 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: · Reviewed the application for a Tentative Map to subdivide a 2.6 acre site in an R1-Z0 zoning district into three lots, as outlined in the staff report. · Showed a 2004 aerial photo of the site; reviewed the Tentative Map application and the maximum house sizes. · He reviewed the impact of the conceptual building sites on the affected trees and discussed the features of Lots 1, Z and 3. · Staff reconunendations include: o Either continue the Tentative Map application to allow the applicant time to reconfigure the three proposed lots; placing all three building sites on the upper northern portion of the property; which would be the least visible portion of the property for the neighbors to the south and would have the least grading impacts. o If the applicant is not agreeable to the first reconunendation, to approve a two lot subdivision, eliminating proposed Lot No. I per the model resolution. o In any subdivision, staff would like to condition it with a slope easement across the front of the property, facing Lindy Lane. · Responded to Commissioners' questions relating to the proposed application. Com. Giefer: · Disclosed that she was contacted by several residents in favor and opposed to the project. . · She also stated she was contacted by several residents that there was a rumor that the meeting was cancelled. 21rt .27 Cupertino Planning Commission 4 November 8, 2005 Chair Wong: · Disclosed that he had spoken with the applicant, and had received phone calls and emails from various parties. · Said he suggested to Com. Giefer that they should try to meet with all parties. He expressed appreciation to Ms. Wordell for meeting with some of the neighbors to express viewpoints regarding the process; and for Mr. Jung taking him to the site and talking with the neighbors. Vice Chair Miller: · Stated that he walked the site also and spoke with the applicant and received emai1s from many of the neighbors. Yetka Symbol, representing Westfall Engineers: · Said that Parcel No. 1 could be accessed from the existing driveway as mentioned, it would require some creativity in design of the structure. · Discussed the process to the present state and how the plan was developed. The process began two years ago with a detailed survey and preliminary development plan. The initial plan was to create four parcels on the property; two were created on the upper section which is now Lot No.3; and the parcel was similar to what to what it presently is. To verifY suitability of the building site, it was recommended to Dr. Sun that he do extensive geotechnical report. Barry Millstone did a subsurface exploration which included trenches and borings. It was determined that all four sites were suitable. Based on the report we met with the planning staff, recommended that the four lots were too dense and Dr. Sun decided to go with some of the recommendations of staff and reduce the subdivision to three lots. · We have taken into consideration also the pattern which was established by development of the Moxley property across the access road to the east. The map is consistent with zoning and the General Plan and the neighborhood. In the layout the smaller parcel which is Parcel No.1 located near Lindy Lane in keeping with the existing homes across the street, and the largest parcel over one acre in size creates secluded building site close to the hilltop where there are large building sites. · We respectfully request an approval of the subdivision, Dr. Sun has worked hard and in good faith to create a development which is both appropriate and sensitive to natural limitations of the property. Both the proposed parcels and the building sites were selected to minimize grading, prevent removal of existing trees while maintaining the integrity of the existing neighborhood. The three lot subdivision of 2.6 acre site has lower density than other properties developed recently in the area. It is consistent with the existing homes and parcel along Lindy Lane as well as with the larger parcel located along Lindy Lane, westerly along Lindy Lane and north along Montcrest Place. · Pointed out regarding tree preservation and tree protection, there are methods which can be utilized to protect trees. Driveways can be constructed without grading on grade with geo fabric and a thin layer of rock material, with pavers to surface it with to protect the roots of the tree. It has been utilized in cities such as Saratoga, Palo Alto, Los Gatos. Dr. Frank Sun, applicant: · Over the past few years we have been in the middle of several constructions so we are aware of the impact of a new apartment. We worked hard to communicate with our neighbors in order to know their concerns and demands. We tried to look at my project from their perspective and from their lots, their yards, sometimes their living rooms. · We often reached the middle ground to balance our rights and theirs. We worked hard to mitigate the potential impacts by reducing the lot numbers, choosing the building size and we tried hard to protect all the trees. 2ø-(2J Cupertino Planning Commission 5 November 8, 2005 · We had the most comprehensive and indepth geological review and study: one was performed by the previous owner. About 50% of the residents contacted on the south side of Lindy Lane were either neutral or supported the project; some had other wishes which they will express tonight. · It has been a long journey which began two years ago; it was a process of compromise. · I hope you see the merit of my project. Chair Wong opened the public hearing. John James, Lindy Lane: · Said his purpose was to petition the Cupertino Planning Commission to maintain a safe, sane, steep hillside environment. · Retain the significant specimen trees especially when they grow in groves or in clusters. · When highly sensitive natural areas such as those subject to floods, brush fires, earthquakes, landslides become part of the city, human life must be protected. · Illustrated photos of the Lindy Lane mudslide in the early 80s when his home was completely destroyed and 750 dump truck loads of dirt was hauled away. · Asked them to stop the destruction of the rural environment on Lindy Lane, plt"ase keep the 50% formula for hillside neighborhoods in Cupertino. · Opposed to application, but would support a two lot subdivision with sloped easement of Lots 2 and 3. Ron Berti, Lindy Place: · Said he was not opposed to Dr. Sun subdividing his property, but he was reluctant to see much more development. · Expressed concem about the number of properties being subdivided above his property and the negative impacts on his privacy. Subdivision oftbree homes on the hill are resulting in eight neW homes being constructed, which he noted is appropriate in an R 1 area, but the community is a mature neighborhood on the edge of the hillside. · He urged the Planning Commission to be restrictive in pursuing further development on the hill, as he felt the hill could not support eight new homes. Julia James, Lindy Lane: · Said she supported the neighbors and urged the Planning Commission to make the right decision. · From a safety factor, it is not feasible to have more homes on the hill. · Respectfully request limiting the hillside to 15 foot setback and smaller homes. · Opposed to the application. Mohammed Hossain, Lindy Lane: · Said when he moved to his home, he was told there would not be further hillside development. · The ongoing construction is ruining the environment. · Opposed to the application; request limiting further development. · Suggested that the Sun's property be subdivided to two lots only. Charlie Taysi, Lindy Laue: · Limit the subdivision of the north hills of the Lindy Lane, follow the staff recommendation to subdivide to two lots. 2Ø -I :¿ c¡ Cupertino Planning Commission 6 November 8, 2005 · Provided a history of the Lindy Lane development, which was developed in the early 70s; at that time the Planning Commission and City Council considered facts which included protection of the rural environment of the hillside, traffic conditions of the Lindy Lane and north hillside. The hillside was restricted to much larger sites and the homeowners were aware of the conditions. · In the late 80s the hillside owners requested subdivision of their lots and the requests for subdivision of the north hillside were denied. · In the 90s the zoning regulations were changed and the current homeowners were encouraged to attend the Planning Commission and City Council meetings to defend their position. The City Council and Planning Commission members were elected to protect the rights of the hillside property owners and make the right decision and keep the status quo of the hillsides. · Said they should maintain the hillside development to a minimum and allow only two lots for the Sun application. · Opposed to the application for subdivision into three lots. Jondon Taysi, Lindy Lane: · In the 80s there was a mudslide which covered Lindy Lane. A concrete retaining wall was then constructed to protect the Sun property; the Taysis have also had to build retaining walls on their property. · Expressed concern about the larger homes being built and the strain on the hillside. · Urged the Planning Commission to be cautious about allowing more large homes, and to save the present neighborhood for the existing residents. · Opposed to the application for subdivision into three lots. Bob Rodert, Lindy Lane: · In the 70s he selected his lot based on the rural environment and the assurance of the Planning Commission that the land would always be a rural environment. · He urged the Planning Commission to protect the hillsides and preserve the grove of oak trees. · Said he was not opposed to the development at the top of the Sun property, but requested that Lot No.1 remain the way it is. Sara Arzeno, Lindy Lane: · Lindy Lane is a canyon, when you approve homes that may on paper look perfectly adequate and look as if they are within the codes, when you build the homes, they pop over the tree canopy, way up over the hills and look down into the south Lindy Lane homes. My home looks out onto two monstrous homes, retaining walls, workmen everyday; and we have no privacy in our back yard. All our !font facing windows now have homes looking into them. · What does property rights mean? Does that mean that only people building have property rights? What about the present residents? My rights have been destroyed, I have no privacy in my backyard; my quality of life has been destroyed as well as my families. You have to look beyond what you see on a map, walk up and see the impacts; I feel the Planning Commission has ignored me, they have not listed to my concerns and I am outraged about the unprecedented lack of respect by the builders and developers for the people that have lived there for years. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: · Recalled the heavy rains in 1983 and the damage to the hillside properties in various areas of California. · Questioned whether the proposed three lots would be able to be subdivided again in the future. She said there should be a minimum lot size for the hillside building. J..j) -1 J 0 Cupertino Planning Commission 7 November 8, 2005 · She asked if there would be a bond imposed by the owner and developer for the tree protection during construction. She suggested that the oak trees be fenced off during construction. · It would be helpful to keep the density of the hillside lots to two lots. Marie Lin, Mount Crest Place: · Said her backyard opens to Lindy Lane; the slope on the Mount Crest side is smaller. · The retaining wall is well engineered, and with today's technology and knowledge of construction, civil engineering, there is a way to make the hillside living safe for everyone. · Dr. Sun's lots, after subdivision, would still be larger than some of those presently under construction. · Said she felt the large lots subdivided would make them easier to maintain and more fire safe. · If the applicant works with the city, neighbors and uses careful architecture and design, many concerns can be addressed. · Supports the application. J. W. Lee, Realtor, Stevens Creek Boulevard: · Spoke about owners' property rights and their right to maximize the value of their property if they desired. · The applicant's property is geologically approved for 4 lots and the applicant wishes to subdivide it into 3 lots to avoid crowding. · He discussed the size of the surrounding properties and noted that Dr. Sun's subdivided lots would be larger than the existing ones in the neighborhood since his parcel was 2.6 acres. Dr. Sun has also assured that he was committed to protect the current vegetation and was willing to increase the vegetation if necessary. · He pointed out that any development on the proposed subdivided lots would adhere to the city codes, geological studies, and the applicant would work with the neighbors and city relative to the design and size of the homes, and tree protection. · Supports the application. Sherry Fang, Lindy Lane: · Supports the application for subdividing into three lots because the current law pennits him to do so. · Recently there was a subdivision of two smaller lots in the same neighborhood. · If you want to preserve the hillside, since our previous meetings, no one has ever approached us about starting an endowment fund or having the city acquire the land. The view of the hillside is for the benefit of us all, we should all pitch in. It shouldn't be the burden of a few property owners. Let's be fair. · Urged the Planning Commission to approve and resolve Dr. Sun's subdivision in a timely manner, similar to the turnaround time extended to the other applicant Mr. Knapp. He started the process two years ago, and it was longer than it needs to be; time is money. Mark Santoro, Lindy Lane: · I share a driveway with the Sun's property. · Those of us who live on the north side of Lindy Lane do enjoy the hills also. We purchased land there because of the hills. · Apologized to his neighbors for the inconvenience caused by his construction. Said he would do the utmost to have his house as invisible as possible to the neighbors and make the property look better. Noted that there were more trees on his property now then when he acquired it }.f)-I sl Cupertino Planning Commission 8 November 8, 2005 and there will be more to follow. The retaining wall mentioned is closer to 6-1/2 feet tall rather than 10 feet tall, and he planted plants and trees in front of it which will grow. · In addition, I don't necessarily agree with everything that has been done up there; I think that the Moxley properties were divided by someone who was leaving the neighborhood, many trees were taken down which exposed my property as well as others which is one of the reasons why people see the wall they discussed. I am sympathetic to keeping the trees in the neighborhood and I hope we all strive to do that. · I support the Sun's subdivision. · The reason I support it is the Suns are going to continue to live there; they are doing it to preserve the value of their property; I understand that they currently don't have any intent to build, although I recognize that they could someday. Given that they have the right, a compromise of 3 lots is reasonable. · It is my understanding, and I feel the way they are dividing it is the proper way; if they tried to put more lots up on top, it is putting the small lots next to a lot of big lots and burdening the bigger lots as well as our driveway which is already loaded. By putting the entrance on Lindy Lane, it will take less burden off our private drive which is a good thing. · Said he understood that Dr. Sun agreed to not subdivide further and also agreed to limit the size of the house on the lower lot. He said if those could be included as conditions, he would support the project. If the house on the lower lot is limited to a small size so there are not trees being taken out, the current plan makes sense. · Supports the application. Jim Moore, Lindy Lane: · Resides across from the retaining wall, 10 feet high; almost 200 feet long; there is another one up Lindy Lane to the west, about 90 feet long. The retaining wall was installed to keep the hill from coming down. · Showed photos of the properties in the area. · Expressed concern about the numerous retaining walls in the area and not part of the natural beauty of Cupertino hills. · Asked that the Planning Commission to consider keeping the Sun subdivision to the two lots including the existing lot and the one on top of the hill. · I don't want us, or the future residents of Cupertino to have a hill that has monstrous homes on it, and huge retaining walls. The neighbors don't feel the walls protect the properties in the heavy rains, as witnessed over the last 25 years. · Opposes the application to subdivide into three lots. Barry Millstone, Millstone Geotechnical (Consultant for Dr. Sun): · We did a detailed site specific geotechnical investigation; we worked closely with the city geologist for a year; it was a three phase investigation and our analysis at each stage, we interfaced with the town geologist that approved our procedure and reviewed our conclusions. · Their final conclusion was that they agreed with us that the site was acceptable and safe for this type of development. The investigation looked specifically at potential land sliding; it looked at the effects of the existing fill on the slope of some deep fluving that was encountered. . · All the analyses show that we looked at both the potential deep sliding; there is some shallow sliding with some of the shallow slopes, it is stable but not to our satisfaction; proposed development would improve that. · Finally if these slopes stay as they are, they are as they are. Proposed development would result in improved conditions; both drainage would be controlled and the houses would be n-IJ¿ Cupertino Planning Commission 9 November 8, 2005 founded on drilled piers; the drilled piers would extend through the materials into the bedrock and thus retaining any shallow material increasing the stability. Com. Chen: · Asked if the construction would affect the structure of the hill and the stability of the soil. Mr. Millstone: · Said the local construction would not affect the structure of the hill and stability of the soil; the onsite construction would improve it. · You had asked the difference between the work we did do and a site specific geotechnical report. The difference is that the geotechnical report would include recommendations for design and construction; that would be how to build the retaining wall; how deep the foundation should be; where to put drains, and at that time we would include design criteria that would enhance the stability of the slope; it would be taking subsurface water away, directing surface flows and designing retaining walls and piers to also resist downhill movement. Com. Chen: · From the 1983 mudslides, was there any sign of the mudslides in the general area? Was the neighborhood site analyzed for instability? Mr. Millstone: · We looked at the neighborhood mostly for rock type; and looked at aerial photos going back to the 30s and 40s, walked the site and mapped rock types on the hill, on the north side. He said the 83 mudslide was on the south side of the canyon; they did subsurface work specifically looking for instability potentia11andslides or existing landslides. · The aerial photos showed a hint of some features that suggested there may have been a landslide; something that t\¡e land geologist did not recognize when first asked for a review. · It was identified and they proceeded to do a, test pit investigation along the margins of the feature to try to identify whether or not there had been movement. When the rock was exposed they did not see any movement; the town geologist came out and looked at our exposures and also didn't see movement in those features. Mr. Millstone responded to Commissioners' questions: · Said the prehistoric landslides occurred tens of thousands of years ago; it wasn't clear because the edges were very subdued and is why they investigated the subsurface. · Indicated on the drawings the location of the bore holes and answered questions about the proposed borings. o Said he did not dispute there was an 83 mudslide, but he would need more information to conjecture the cause. Landslides are caused by a number of driving factors - slope steepness, moisture, and strength; there would need to be more information on what kind of material failed, how steep it was and what the groundwater conditions were. Once a landslide fails, it leaves a void. Mud flows, and it is not known if it was shallow materials that floated over the surface or there was a deep slide. o Said they investigated between the upper property line, essentially the lot 3 building site. · Said with having the precautions of the retaining walls and the results of their studies, he felt comfortable with the homes on Lots 1 and 3. He and a registered geologist signed a report making the recommendation. o He said the city geologist also went over their work at each stage. v-1S3 Cupertino Planning Commission 10 November 8, 2005 · This is the way we like to look at the landslide, what do you think, and they concur; they came and looked at it; we did the same with the drilling program which followed. We interfaced; showed them the results; we discussed a large diameter shaft, where that was going to be: and then once we did preliminary slope stability analyses, also discussed with the engineer at Cotton's office; and made some changes based on his recommendations. · Said he would be willing to do the same testing on the south side that was conducted on the north side to get a more accurate reading and determine what caused the 83 mudslide. Luciano Daile Ore, Lindy Lane: · Said he was affected by the Santoro residence because it took away his view. · Said he would be impacted by the trees, because they will grow in his view; and he may be impacted when the Gingrich's who live in front, build a second floor, taking away his privacy and view. · The homeowners have the property rights. To some extent I have some things I have to live with in terms of other people's property rights; I wish I had purchased the Santoro residence to keep the view; unfortunately I did not have that opportunity. From my point of view it has to do with what kind of property rights people have; what kind of things are granted by the city; and what can be done in order to protect them. Chair Wong closed the public hearing. Mr. Jnng: · Relative to whether there was a voluntary agreement to limit the size of any home built on Line 1, he said there was nothing in the conditions of approval. · Dr. Sun has offered a voluntary restriction to limit the size of the house as an option. Mr. Piasecki: · Cautioned that this is a conventional RI-20 zoning district, and under the RI-20 zoning district, it is not required to limit the size of the house. · The city attorney said that if we were going to implement something like that, we would have to see a change in zone to a Planned Development zone, a covenant recorded on the property, so that future owners of that parcel were aware that they were limited, that we probably couldn't simply do that through the tentative map prócess. Chair Wong: · Clarified that a condition of approval could not be done on the tentative map? Recalled that when doing a tentative map on the Moxley property, there was a condition of approval to restrict his property to a certain square footage. · Suggested using the same precedent of using that condition of approval based on the precedent of the Moxley project. He said he wanted to have history on that. Ms. Wordell: · Recalled that the tentative map was approved without any size restriction on the houses, but when Mr. Moxley came back to ask for an extension for his final map, they discussed those issues as part of the General Plan, and the issue was raised to consider changing the area to hillside so to maintain control of the houses; and at that time he volunteered to put a covenant on his property to limit the size of the house. ,2(j -I 7~ Cupertino Planning Commission 11 Noyember 8, 2005 Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney: · Confirmed that it was a voluntary covenant and said an owner can do that. In this case, Dr. Sun could voluntarily put a covenant on these properties. Ms. Wordell: · All two story houses are stafflevel; if there are exceptions to the RI, it would go to DRC. It is only if there is an R1 exception for setbacks or something, that it would go to DRC. Otherwise it is staff level, with notice to the neighbors. Com. Saadati: · Asked if they could add a condition that it needs to go to the DRC because it is on the hillside. Ms. Wordell: · We avoid any connection between residential restraints on a subdivision. It should be strictly the subdivision. · It wouldn't be guaranteed that there would be any public review; there is a possibility that it could be hillside exception if it was over 30% slope, but some of this information is that the building pads would not be over 30% slope, it is likely that it would be staffreview and not a public review. Vice Chair Miller: · There have been a number of concerns with this subdivision. Relative to the slides, the neighbors have expressed concerns about the slides but what we have heard from the geologist report and the expertise here is that rather than increasing the risk of a slide, that if the structures were done properly, it would actually reduce the risk of a slide. That being the case, it doesn't seem like the slide in itself is an issue for the subdivision. · Relative to the issue of the trees, if there is development here, I think we all want to preserve the trees on the site and do the development in a way that makes that possible. For the lower lot, my understanding is that the proposal by the applicant is to put a smaller house there; that would preserve the trees and we have heard that it might have to be voluntary, and perhaps the applicant may want to address that at this hearing, if we were to go ahead with the three lot subdivision. Also a smaller house would make it less visible trom the other side of the street and there is considerable amount of foliage there with those two large oak trees. I would propose that additional screening be placed on the west side that is open to the street, to further screen the property. · The issue of the views of the house is also addressed by having the appropriate amount of screening there and preserving the trees on the lot. It isn't clear where the driveway should go and I don't know that we need to decide that at this hearing, but if we go ahead with the subdivision, I suggest some very strict provisions on it, so that we achieve as much as we possibly can the minimizing the impact on that neighborhood and on that slope. · Some of the things I have already mentioned would be to minimize the tree loss, reduce the size of the house, in some kind of a voluntary agreement with the applicant; and have the appropriate design done so that the structure fits in appropriately. · I understand the concern of the neighbors, and when I look at the Moxley subdivision, I understand that concern completely; and I am not quite sure what happened with that Moxley subdivision, or where all the trees went that were once on lot, but that is not an issue for this particular application. · It is important that we not create a large number of retaining walls that are visible trom the street and I believe that it is possible in the design of lot 3 to include the retaining walls in the structure itself so that it actually minimizes the visibility of those retaining walls. Everyone .26-11 )' Cupertino Planning Commission 12 November 8, 2005 seems to be content with the location of Lot 3 and the structure. My previous comments were related to Lot 1, and from what I have heard, nobody seems to be concerned with Lot 3 at all at this point. · Under the ordinance, the applicant is permitted to subdivide and it seems based on what we have heard, that the concerns for this development can be mitigated; with that in mind I would recommend approval of the subdivision. However, we need to discuss if a house is going to built, when it is going to be built, and what it will look like to further ensure that we protect the hillside. Com. Chen: · The project has been going on for months and the primary concern of safety has been well addressed by the two geologists. · The other concerns are aesthetic concerns based on many of the residents proposing to eliminate Lot No. 1 which is supported by staff as well. This concern can also be addressed by the screening. · The privacy issue is the main concern of the Planning Commission and staff. It would be addressed at the time the building is built. · Concurred with Vice Chair Miller with the additional concern of the potential for further subdivision of the lot. Hopefully the owner would consider voluntarily putting a condition for no future subdivision. · Suggested a smaller house on Lot No. 1 and also attempt to design a house to avoid taking more trees out and add further screening to preserve the look of the rural site. Com. Giefer: · Said that building on Lindy Lane has been a concern since they began deliberating and changed the Rl. When she walked the site and looked at the Moxley site, she felt even with voluntary limitations on the house size, those homes are too large for those parcels and she felt they did not make the right decision. · She expressed concern about replicating that decision and that this lot will be divorced as well with the oak forest that is currently there by building. She said she was concerned regarding the tree protection as all the trees have disappeared on Moxley; some by mistake and some through the building process. She said she did not want to lose the trees that are on the bottom toward Lindy Lane. · Said she was concerned that there is currently 250 feet of retaining wall at the bottom of Lindy Lane; not certain why it is there, but something slid back in the 80s on both sides of Lindy Lane. There have been slides off Montcrest on the opposite side towards Santa Teresa and just having lived in the neighborhood, she said she personally observed many of the slides. Sometimes hills will slide, not necessarily caused by houses; so safety cannot be discounted. Safe houses can be built and retaining walls put up, but it deprives the residents of Cupertino of the natural beauty of the hillsides. · She said she thought the lot was lovely, but felt it very steep, and she could not see three lots there. She said she would support staff's recommendation to subdivide in two lots or give Dr. Sun an opportunity to come back with a more reasonable map that takes irÎto consideration mitigation such as removal of oak trees. The average slope in all the areas is very steep, which is a concern. · There were also several conditions that I thought were lacking in the final resolution; some of those, Dr. Isaak sent a letter to Dr. Sun talking about privacy and fence extension along his sites. Dr. Sun has voluntarily agreed to those points as well on the letter that was part of our packet. Shouldn't those be recorded as conditions of approval? '2JJ -tJ b Cupertino Planning Commission 13 Noyember 8, 2005 Mr. Jung: · Many of the concerns that neighbors have are about the potential development of that site and we are hearing the subdivision, not presently the house. He said he did not recall seeing subdivision applications conditioned with landscape requirements. Mr. Piasecki: · Relative to the process for approval of the homes, the ordinance is structured to give staff the authority to review the house and approve the house subject to noticing. The decision can be appealed. Presumably we could incorporate some of those site specific conditions referred to. Com. Giefer: · Some of the conditions that have been agreed upon with neighbors aren't reflected in this. At what point were those actually implemented. Mr. Piasecki: · If they are relating to fencing, it would be a site development condition. Com. Giefer: · Some of the more global ones relate to the construction requirements; one of the things we had talked about is truck equipment and parking. I would like to add a condition that we specify where equipment can be left, trailers be left by double trucks, etc. because they are continually left and parking becomes an issue. Also the tree bond is not part of this package and that is a condition we nonnally add. One condition that isn't here and I question why, and perhaps we should consider removing is Condition lion Page 2-9 which addresses installing sidewalk and gutters; because this is a very rural looking place I don't think we want sidewalks and gutters especially where are you going to put them, by the 250 foot long retaining wall. That is somewhat problematic, I would recommend that whatever we approve, we remove that one; and those are the three conditions I would like to see added. One relates to trucking equipment parking and especially when it is left overnight; tree bond to protect the trees that are there in the oak forest; and then also remove Condition No. II; it does not make sense. I think we are overbuilding this hill and I think we are jeopardizing all of the oaks there and I don't think we are decreasing the value of the land because as land becomes more scarce, the value goes up. · I support the staff recommendation. · If we have a voluntary agreement on what size the lower house would be if there is approval of Lot 1, I am concerned why we haven't heard what that size is tonight. Com. Saadati: · Relative to the slide, there has been adequate evaluation done and I am comfortable that the geotechnical engineers have done enough; based on the infonnation given this slope is as safe as any similar to it; and based on the data provided I feel comfortable about the subdivision of the proj ects. · If there are any retaining walls that go in there hopefully they would be hidden and if there are some exposed they won't be too high and will be natural material such as stones or rocks that blend in and with some design of plants and shrubs consistent with what is already there to soften the effect. · There are other ways of stabilizing the slope by adding to the soil similar to the foundation system which was described for the buildings. If the piers go deep enough and lock into the bedrock they do provide some stability of the slope: similar to having a tree with the roots going down 20 to 30 feet deep. 2-ð-177 Cupertino Planning Commission 14 November 8, 2005 · Said he wanted to preserve all the trees on tbe site especially in front. Privacy is an issue that has come up many times and the design of the houses cannot be addressed now. · He said he was hopeful that any design on the hills would go to the public hearing to get more input, and that the noticing would go to all the people who attended here and also along Lindy Lane and tbe neighbors during the design review, so they can get involved and see what the proposed design is at the time it moves forward. · Said he would like to see the privacy preserved for the people across Lindy Lane; if additional trees need to be placed there to accomplish that, it should be done. · The houses should be designed in such a way to have the least impact on tbe neighbors. It may be that Lot 1 would end up as a one story building, maybe smaller. He said he was in favor of a much smaller house; hopefully the owner would voluntarily agree to that. · Not having enough information, I would support the staff recommendation of two lots; however, I would be willing to consider two lot subdivision if the design of Lot 1 was done in such a way that would not be as visible from the street. If there was some assurance on that, I would be willing to go along with the subdivision, basically the owner has the right to subdivide his property, and I recognize that; but also the staff recommendation has merit which I will value also. Chair Wong: · Thanked audience for their patience and summarized the benefits of a democracy where elections are held, public hearings held where people can freely express their opinions and be free to agree or disagree. · Relative to the present project being discussed, people have shared the history of Cupertino and expressed their opinions about the rural atmosphere of Cupertino, but as the city grows, the question of how to have acceptable growth agreeable to everyone remains to be answered. There is a prescriptive ordinance regarding the particular neighborhood, it is not known why the south side is zoned one area and the north side zoned the other area. We don't know what happened 25 years ago, but it would make sense to zone all of it RHS, which would have been the right thing to do. Today the zoning is odd and we are trying to correct it, but we have to work with today's ordinance and I believe some of the mitigating factors that were suggested can help that, and we can't get everybody in agreement, but what I hear from the neighborhood that the number one concern is how do we preserve the row of oak trees; and I believe that what the applicant suggested is by building the house behind the row of oak trees, you have that row of oak trees that will prevent the view of seeing the house in Lot 1. The house on Lot 3 is not in question since it is covered into the canyon, but it is Lot 1 where there is a row of houses facing Dr. Sun's property. More trees can always be planted along Lindy Lane to mitigate that and I believe that will help that. · Regarding staff's suggestion on the slope easement to preserve the rural atmosphere, I support it, but not the area where suggested. I prefer the smaller area so that it would allow the building envelope for Lot 1 to be built. Also I would agree with Vice Chair Miller on the driveway, that at the time of it being built, that has to be looked at carefully because there is sensitivity of the driveway òpening onto Lindy Lane and I prefer to see the driveway open up onto the private driveway. That is not the question here tonight; it is do we allow the subdivision of the tentative map tonight? · I also agree with Com. Chen if we can have the applicant voluntarily limiting Lot 1 and even though you are penalized for a slope density over 15% to 3660, I would like to see it smaller to 3200 or 3000 square feet. · Do not allow further subdivision of the lots. 2J)-/?ð Cupertino Planning Commission 15 November 8, 2005 · Also agree with Com. Giefer relative to Item 11, that there be no sidewalk and street lights on that particular side. I also agree that there should be a tree bond, and only if there is an application to build a home. · Relative to construction trucks, I agree with Com. Giefer, but is that appropriate in a tentative map or more appropriate when someone pulls an application for building a home, because it sounds like Dr. Sun does not want to build a home until 5 to 20 years later. Ms. Wordell: · It would be appropriate for any improvements connected to the subdivision, but not for the construction of the residences. Whether they are street improvements or utility improvements or whatever is required in tenns of those kinds of improvements. Com. Giefer: · Pointed out that Point No.6 is there is a construction management plan as part of our approval tonight as well as tree removal and preservation; I think it is appropriate to add those items tonight; it is already in the model resolution in both those areas but those two items are mIssIng. · No.6, add that the heavy trucks not be parked around the oak trees; there also have been a number of code enforcement calls regarding the rear part of the dump truck being left in the neighborhood. · Tree removal bond should be added to Point No.4 on Page 2-7. Chair Wong: · Agreed with the tree bond. Mr. Jung: · It doesn't make sense to place the bond now and then if Dr. Sun comes through and says he is not going build for 5 years, the bond would be in place for 5 or 10 years. Chair Wong: · Asked that the language be included to have the tree bond; they would have to pay the tree bond upon submitting construction application. Mr. Jung: · Suggested there be a covenant recorded on the trees, which can be required before any construction. Com. Giefer: · Said she would support the bond upon pulling the application for a house; suggested there be a covenant recorded on the property for all the oak trees and for identifying and stipulating where those oaks are today. Chair Wong: · Said he agreed. · Said Com. Chen would like to record a covenant not to subdivide further than 3, and on Lot 1 to restrict the size of the house to either 3000 or 3200 square feet. Dr. Sun: · Said if they had approval for the current proposal, they would not pursue any further subdivision, which has been stated many times. 2D~1?' Cupertino Planning Commission 16 November 8, 2005 . Would be able to keep the size within 3200 square feet. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Chen, to approve Applications EA-2005-12, and TM-2005-05, for a three lot snbdivision based on the map of the Sun site Lot 1, 2 and 3, dated Augnst 22, 2005, Job No. 0805-165 with the following conditions: Add a condition to record a covenant for development restriction rnnning with the land limiting all strnctures on Lot 1 to a maximum of 3200 square feet; remove Condition 11; add requirement under the Construction Management Plan that they detail the location for heavy truck and equipment parking; Condition 4 - a covenant shall be recorded running with the land identifying the oak trees that are to be preserved; aud putting the future property owner on notice that a tree removal bond will he required upon submitting for design approval of the home, on either Lot 1 or 3 or any additions to Lot 2; and a covenant recorded agreeing that there will be no further subdivision of any of the lots; the tree bond be provided upon receipt of the building permit; and tree protectiou identifying all oaks in excess of 10 inches to be preserved; the slope easement shall generally follow the line shown, excepting any areas for a driveway off Lindy Lane or off the private drive, should that be the ultimate 10catiou. (Vote: 4-1-0; Com. Giefer No) Planning Commission final unless appealed to the City Council within ten days. INESS: 6. Consider c ellation of the December 27, 2005 Planning Commissiou meeting and adding a specia eetiug in December. Mr. Piasecki: · Suggested that the P1annin Commission hold a meeting on December 20, 2005 responding to applicants' requests. Mr. Peter Pau, San Mateo: · Requested that a meeting be scheduled for cember 20, 2005 since a month's delay would delay the interior work on his project until Spring and the possibility of losing their tenancy. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Chair Wo to schedule a special Planning Commission meeting on December 20, 2005. (Vote: 5-0-0) Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: · Requested that the December 20, 2005 meeting be publicized to the neighborhoo community. · Expressed concern about the amount of development in the area of the city where Rancho 2(;- }LIb, ~ æ D~C ~ 6ll :5 æ ~ :IIólò Cc p!t!ðJ CUPERTINO CITY CLERK Bob Rodert South Lindy Lane Neighborhood Group Cupertino, CA 408-257-2607 brodert@comcast.net December 2, 2005 Cupertino City Council 10300Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear Mayor K wok and Cupertino City Council, At the November 8, 2005 Planning Commission meeting, our Neighborhood Group requested approval of a modification to Dr. Sun's Subdivision Proposal to reduce the number oflots by eliminating Lot I and retaining Lots 2 (containing the existing residence) and 3. As a result of the Planning Commission's rejection of our request we have submitted an appeal of this decision, to have it reconsidered and reversed by the City Council. As we understand it, unless this issue is continued to the January 3, 2006 Council Meeting the appeal will be considered at the December 6, 2005 Council Meeting as Agenda Item 20. Our primary basis for appeal of this Planning Commission decision is the fact that it appeared to ignore the Cupertino General Plan's guidelines regarding hillside developments. Although the Plan does not specifically state precise limitations on honsing developments it does establish clear guidelines for developers and the Commission to follow. I will summarize these guidelines here since they form the basis for our appeal: · [The City should] "allow low-intensity residential development .... providing a realistic use of private hillside lands while preserving important environmental, recreational and aesthetic values." · [The City should "èstablish building and development standards for the hillsides that insure hillside protection." · [The City should] " apply a slope density formula to very low intensity residential developments in the hillsides." · [The City should] "require discretionary review of hillside or Rl properties if development is proposed on substandard parcels, on slopes greater than 30010 or on any other areas where studies have determined the presence of health and safety problems." We fully support the General Plan and its application to our hillsides and their development. We support the reasonable development of the hillsides provided that they follow the spirit and letter of the Plan. Our primary concern with the hillside developments underway on the northern side of Lindy Ln. is the combined effect of several approved or proposed subdivisions (including Sun, Moxley, Knopp, Santoro, etc.) and the sizes of the actual or proposed homes being built on their lots. These huge homes are out of scale with the lands. The combined effect of as many as eight new monster homes on this relatively small hillside area is creating an appearance of overloading and high density that flies in the face of our General Plan's intended spirit. We request that the Council please reconsider the Planning Commission's approval of Dr. Sun's three lot subdivision eliminating the lower Lot 1 and forever preserving that portion of the hillside as open, undeveloped hillside. Thank you. Respectfully submitted, Bob Rodert for The Lindy Lane Neighborhood Group PS: We request that this letter be included in the Minutes of the December 6, 2005 City Council Meeting. We may also request to read this for the record at the meeting that considers our appeal. I ·'.70: · : F/1 ðf..A ~ c v ¡Þ ¡; /oJ TI ,¡(/' 0 $' ð¿~ T ¡:.¡ L. I ;t.fl:? f' LA.kI" E t/EI. ib..c ~ œ (G u.- fJ.J ~/òs- 0 œ il WI œ I~ c. I T r C"ov iC/ c /' DEC - 2 2005 flj) .p tTV CLERK . I).. ';2. /;løS I ,Súß./ccT: cóµr/vvA#ce of ,4e~çA¿ !t¡:'t'UCAT/ð/L1'" A/¿), TM - 2~S-oS Æ¡..rt> E A - )..é>OS - I 2- I · '¡fTci'/C/lAIl#hT$ : ~4IC-- /, 1f¡>~j;,JL IJIITc.(? µ"t/. i 7, )..&05 2, At"TJé£ ðF ¡>OßLlê HétlAf>//ØÇo · .. ",lJt5A1l M-1t' k1Æ/l'K .¡- <!:, rr ~ðVI(NIL ME~A.O£,lf5 ,¡TIlE SóurJ:l I..lt.I"f?ri../lß'ê. N£Ifi,HßOI?HtXiJ Gl'i'ðvP /5' ,RE~vE ST/A/b A CðkT/¡C/'ù;¡~.n:!~ 0'= Tr/£ AiJovE ,.su/3JEcT A~PEI1I.. T/7£ fl£¡/<;C!~>' AlfE T//A-T ~éJµE.. ,,¡6F TH1.= L/~T£O AfEIG;HÕbR S W/J..L HoT,BE ""lIcë ",TO A TT&qCJ T#L ¡)EC. C:.1 ~ObS SCI/EPU£.EÞ e IT¡- ': ~ót/~CI L. )-ÆE£T/PG 13E~ AV7¿= of 1 U.,vé$"5¡ u,</£.K¡PECTE¿/ ,;7(l¡4VE' An" t=¡C,l.EA~¿j- FJ?/l-IIL r CóMM rr~AÆ.PT<'> , , ,.'pt...£A5'E RE5'c'/.IEIPvl¿ Dc..4? /I;<>¿:>êAL FCfI? Aur ".'èt:Pt·A.féiL J-Je£TI#"6 /Æí JAvvlP/fA/-" ;L~~ .)..1 S t 2 "L.nlP.J'r L. A lifE. .cvl"'EA r/~o cA '7~"OI L/ f{ "FoR ,liE $ðuTH LINDt LAß'£. /l/él.ç',¿ffJð,R/lðcIJ M('JvP ", r- ,% ,-~ ()\ {\/¡b kJDCL'J·j, ' . CUPEIQ1NO . City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-321.3 APPEAL I. ApplicalionNo. -rU· 2.DQ~-fJÇ APn ¡çÆ-20(?~-J'2.. 2. Applicant(s) Name: Jøµ J( ~"^,, 3. Appe1JaDt(s)N~: Lt.Jnr u..1lJ~ f~ltH(~2flooh 6~ __ 2; ~~~ Phone Number eLf¡ 7 r1;{!J' 3 ¥ß1 (o~ ~~ ~ ~ w œ ~ 1\'\ n OV 1 7 2005 U CUPERTINO CITY CLERK EmaiI . 4. Please check one: D· Appeal a decision ofDireetor of CommUDÏty Developlneyt IiV" A¡:11ieaIadecisionofPIanniDgCommission {S'ee..-!tøo ;teil<.S;¡. ~ov~.:J o Other 5. Date of dete1mination ofDb:ector or m.ml1g ofnoiice of City decision: HAV.<{ I 200(" . 6. Basis ofappeal: ItrrAc..H~b ~> ml-a- ~ 0-\. C9l1l'¡U+ qfky '1 keVJ MJ t./C( I Dftï?/S Signa1ure(s) => Please complete form, include appeal fee 0£$145. return to the attention oftbe City Clerk, 10300 Toøe Avenue, Cupertino, (408) 777-3723. 11.17.05 Basis of Appeal 11.17.05 Application No. TM-2005-05; and EA-2005-l2; 11.8.05 When the Planning Commission granted the Sun permit to subdivide into three lots vs. the two lots recommended by Staff, we believe that the Planning Commission: 1) Ignored the Cupertino General Plan regarding hillside development, and 2) Ignored the Staff Recommendation for two lots (not three) that reflected the General Plan. 3) Allowing the third lot will destroy the remaining Heritage Oak Tree Groves on Lindy Lane and further irreversibly erode the environment and natural habitat of the neighborhood. We have been "playing by the rules" and have tried to follow the General Plan because we think its right for Cupertino as a community. All we ask is that our City government and community members do the same. Signature page follows 11.17.05 Lindy Lane Neighborhood Group John James Bob Rodert Julia Jam s Mrs. Hossein Ron Berti Herb Suzanne Chapman Margaret James Moore Humberto Arzeno Mrs. Moore Alexander Arzeno Charles Taysi Sara Arzeno Candan Taysi Nick Mohammed Hossein Bessie Sharmin Hossein 1 U6.05 saa John James 21852 Lindy Lane Julia James 21852 Lindy Lane Ron Berti Lindy Place Mrs. Berti Lindy Place James Moore 21952 Lindy Lane $,f"'w Mi:s...Moore 21952 Lindy Lane Charlie Taysi 21952 Lindy Lane Candan Taysi 21952 Lindy Lane Mohammed Hossein 21862 Lindy Lane Bob Rodert 21912 Lindy Lane Mrs. Hossein 21862 Lindy Lane (7."d~~~' øþ;:t Mr. "Hoofus" (1 ~L -" Mrs. Hoofus Humberto Arzeno 21902 Lindy Lane Alexander Arzeno 21902 Lindy Lane Sara Arzeno 21902 Lindy Lane a.i ~... '., Ö1Yõf CUPEIQ"INO 10300 Torre Avenue 408-777-CITY (www.cupertino.org) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Cupertino City Council will hold a public hearing on the matter described below. The public is encouraged to attend and speak. APPLICATION NO.: APPLICANT: LOCATION: TM-2005-05 and EA-2005-12 Frank Sun 21989 Lindy Lane, APN 356-25-024 DESCRIPTION: An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve Application Nos. TM-2005-05 and EA-2005-12, a Tentative Map to subdivide a 2.6-acre parcel into three lots HEARING DATE: ADDRESS: December 6, 2005 beginning at 6:45 p.m. Council Chamber, Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue NOTE: The City Council decision is final unless a petition for reconsideration is filed. Agenda may be subject to change. If you are interested in an item or have questions, please call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223 prior to the meeting date to verify that the item is still on the agenda. The time this item will be heard on the agenda cannot be predicted. For more information, agendas and packets are available for review on the Thursday afternoon prior to the meeting, and are also on the Internet at W.ww,.ÇJl.I2~Jti!:lº..ºrg,lª,g~nº.ª. NOTE TO OWNERS OF RECORD: This notice is sent to owners of real property as shown on the last tax assessment roll. Tenants are not necessarily notified. Kimberly Smith City Clerk Grace Schmidt Cc I~ I&(os- #;¿o From: ronberti@comcastnet Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 3:40 PM To: City Clerk Cc: Patrick Kwok; Richard Lowenthal; Sandra James; Dolly Sandoval; Kris Wang Subject: Item #20 on tonight's agenda (appeal on Sun subdivision permit) Please ensure that this letter is made part ofthè record of tonight's meeting (or, should it be delayed, to the appropriate meeting). I believe we are scheduled as item #20. I am writing about the application from Dr. Sun to subdivide his lot. I intend to ask the City Council to overturn the Planning Commission's approval of Dr. Sun's plan, and to implement, instead, the easement on the lower lot (as presented by staft) and direct that both new properties be developed above Dr. Sun's home. Should we lose that appeal, it seems important to me to request city's concurrence regarding implementing several restrictions and covenants prior to approving Dr. Sun's plans. These include: 1. A proviso insisting that the private driveway now servicing these lots be upgraded to city street standards, especially regarding storm drainage. 2. A proviso that no new driveways will be routed directly from Lindy Lane. 3. A proviso that limits the footprint and the story configuration of the lower home to something reasonable, perhaps 2000 sq ft (Dr. Sun has volunteered either 2200 or 2600 sq ft, depending on the reference, but the Planning Commission has estimated that the allowed size may be all the way to 3200 sq ft, and Dr. Sun did not volunteer the smaller size). 4. A proviso that no specimen trees, either oaks or redwoods, be taken in order to facilitate the construction of the lower home. I believe these to be reasonable limitations to Dr. Sun's right to develop his property as he sees fit, on behalf of maintaining the neighborhood "character". Ron Berti 11406 Lindy Place Thanks for your time and attention. 12/6/2005 {2eu.tlecl 12·(.,05 ;/I é}Ò > »Dear City council members and neighbors, > » > »1 am requesting that Tim's email be read at the council meeting tonight. »> »>In addition, I wish to correct the typo on Tim's behalf; The very »>last sentence should read; »> »>We really do not need that other path plus you will waste resources »>locking and maintaining it »> »>Thank You, »> »>Don Bautista »> »> »>From: Timothy Misko <timothymisko@yahoo.com> »>To: patrickskwok@aol.com, richard@lowenthal.com, »>kwang@cupertino.org, dsandoval@cupertino.org, sjames@cupertino.org »>CC: Tiffany Pham <tiffany.h.pham@lmco.com>, alan <yalant@aol.com>, »>donald bautista jr <donbautistajr@hotmail.com>, bang_can@yahoo.com, »>Bill and Diane Hawkes <flojoI049@yahoo.com>, Max Bokelman »><maxbok@comcast.net>, Charlie Chang <CKcI0392@aol.com>, joyce chang »><joy6007@aol.com>, Cleung55@yahoo.com, dehwey@grnail.com, »>don.suh@comcast.net, ekrnI03@yahoo.com, evalow97@yahoo.com, Malini »>Guhathakurta <malini ray@hotmail.com>, sanjib guhathakurta »><sanjib.guhathakurta@hp.com>, Tim Isbell <tim@nlnc.org>, Minhua Jin > »<minhuajin@yahoo.com>, Stewart Kelly <stuman@mavericksys.com>, »>larryloo <larry.loo@amd.com>, marylmurphy »><mary.l.murphy@comcast.net>, Timothy Misko »><timothymisko@yahoo.com>, mtaniguchi@comcast.net, Bob Murphy »><pikna2n@comcast.net>, dan nita <dhnitta@comcast.net>, Tom Nitta »><tnlplace@juno.com>, joepao@comcast.net, sjmoody <sjrnoody@msn.com>, »>su30cookieshop@yahoo.com, syoung28 <syoung28@comcast.net>, »>desiree_tsai@kingston.com, JK Tsai <jktsai@hotmail.com>, »>wesley@statemicro.com, wotakwu@aol.com, Katiemengwu@aol.com, »>yshum@centerpriseinc.com, Imam Yuan <i_yuen@yahoo.com>, »>jzuo@cisco.com, ariehstrod@sbcglobal.net »>Subject: Re: Scenic Circle Proposed Gate »>Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005.23:08:42 -0800 (PST) »»To Cupertino City Council, »»cc residents »» »»1 cannot attend the meeting this week due to work travel. Don Bautista »»or Max Bokelman can speak in my behalf. »» »»Please do not put trail access in our neighborhood! »» »»The will of the people is clearly not in favor of the trail access! »» »»1 just »»fight. »»bikes. screech »»of cars going at high speeds (up to 40 mph) around the curve at the want to I have I live say that I support the other neighbors 100% in 2 teenage boys that play out in the street and at the bottom of the hill and have to hear the this ride »»bottom where we live. I am afraid" that one day someone driving down »»the hill will not make the turn and end up in my front window! This is »»only going to get worse with trail access. »» »»1 am currently pursuing some pro bono attorneys that will help us fight »»this battle if it comes to this. I also will be willing to pay legal »»fees if required, but there seem to be pro bono solutions that will »»help us. »» »»Several letters have mentioned the deer that come through the »»neighborhood. The deer are always around and you need to consider them »»in your plans along with the young children you put in potential »»danger. »» »»The planned trailhead at McLellan ranch is more than adequate for us »»and the other scenic circle residents to use as our access to the »> >trail. We really do need that other path plus you will waste resources »»locking and maintaining it. »» »»Timothy and Jean Misko »»Scenic Circle Residents »» »» »» »» »» »»Yahoo! DSL - Something to write home about. »»Just $16.99/mo. or less. »»dsl.yahoo.com 2./ hlos- ::ft;¿o Tentative Map NOTES ~ : ~'~~~B'Ximum House Si -, ~~.. ........."'" -~%~,"'" n~ i i5~E..._ª.J~60 sq. ft. ~~\ ~ ,.............. ....-......'" '. ~ _,...,..... -......_·_0._. ~, ' , "'_",,''''''_H.,. ~"'~ ; --'2: 4,246 sq. ft. vIciÑi~Y M~P ~. ''''6 " -.. ". '''_L''''- ,.-....... ....... ..... --.., "'.. ......., .... ~ SC"'l£ ft. "¡¿ ... ~.: , " ,;' .-,/.,-:,; ,~,_:~ ~_-=-... _ _ -".'~OO:U"J; -, . :~.-.. _..-:~,..-=-..-=-'. ~":,,~~,,~'.:::::;::::.~~-~ 4,658 sq. ...v{,:<,.. #3: " G-,,-...~ø -," " ~ .. ,,~ =....135 1: 35.5% / 29.3% # 2: 25.5% /18.1% # 3: 38.3% / 27.9% '" TENT A TI VE MAP ^"'IT'lC" nr- nn v <'I NC LANE WESTFALL ENGINEERS LINDY + .(.J1'\ = :F ." " - t ,.,¡-:..- , 11 2005 Lot #2 ât :",,' '\: - ~ 2005 1 1 7' -' "'i¥' ,:;r,.;';; - .... -, -' ~Qt\,ll.RT ~oÞD VICINITY MAP --,-,-, HORTlCULlURAlCõNSut.rANTs - SUnSlee-lcI:1 CONSlIlTlNGARBORISTS - ; IlAllllŒD.COATI 219B9LiMyla'le aad ASSOCIATIS - ...... --- ~-- - 100-,(,\_ """"''''". Dale: Auaust22"l.2005 I Job. 06-0S-165 - T_I'IIII'Ib8I8~lDevabBIIc1nd'IIIIL nœlogaisaUlK:hedlDl~doneÞfIDllher~T1M"" AldlrMnllonlanr:!traelac8tiool_ ~dlhlllogoilngfotlll~ddeími:çCl1ldtbrlhl - planlxtlMle/ylOlddhorliUbnlornorbAnlinfomlatiorllD. - lianØlllPRdbvothers. - , '" "" " '. "- ~ ~ ' . 'a__ <>', - -,. - -, ,::,~~r! ~ ~ · · " · Specimel'l.Tree"Protection Lot #1 ENQINttA: =~~~;~¡NC, --- - SITE SARA TOG"- CA. 95070 m. 667-0244 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 3~6-25-24 DriP line ,;0-17 '<r . .~>\-,:" 'j' ""-"'-~ ,,( 7~ 20' W ":}; ::) o '-<,- I <, .b , , -2(')~' " , ',- "'-- ty 6/0 ",-.,,~3. l '.....,1..... r32' OO~ ---....~ ..........; I'" . "'i /><-~. ~ ,'. i ............ ' . .~ \<./í ",' ¡'Ii "',>,. i?" \. . .'~ ' , /j " ;/ >t.<:-:> 36 " ,-.._~ 7' , ~<-. i- i .. '~J'::1 ...< ~- \:' ..,., ~, " ,., 5~· ::;2 " " ~ ,': ------. .' !6 ./ -, 2 0.826 ~. /"'" / / '~~ í / j&, .'9,_ /7(' 'ìt' 7', ,'<'6?::~i' / ~. ~'- ,0 '7 1') C(-V '- "s ... 'c.' / GS3. " Job# œ.œ-16S .._,.-...Tho purpoeecidairl*lgaedlÞ'1he :or~intIfm¡JIIa1loa ~ i t \ \ I I I Knopp May 25, 2005 May 25, 2005 Prepared by Pacific Geotech. Eng dated May 23, 2005 June 1, 2005 Sun March 1, 2005 (Rejected. Application deemed incomplete) March 22, 2005 Prepared by Milstone Geotech. dated March 9, 2005 Activity Review Deposit submitted submitted by applicant Application submittal Report City Geotechnical Geotechnical 11, ~ March 2005 Cotton to City Geologist- Staff submittal of report June 29, 2005 N/A June 1, 2005 July 7, 2005 July 26, 2005 N/A N/A 2005 August 16, 2005 August 16, 2005 August 22, 2005 Oct. 11,2005 Oct. 25, 2005 Nov. 8,2005 March 25, Shires Written response from City_Geologist Application re-submittal Staff request for a report from the City Arborist Receipt of report from City Arborist First Scheduled Planning Commission Hearing First Continuance Requested by Applicant to: Second Continuance Requested by Applicant to