The URL can be used to link to this page

24. Lau residence City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 CUPEIQ"INO Community Development Department Summary Agenda Item N o.2l( Agenda Date: February 6, 2007 Application: Z-2006-01, TM-2006-02, EA-2006-02 Applicant: TS!Civil Engineering Owner: Louis Lau Location: 21600 Rainbow Drive, APN 366-38-012 Application Summary: · REZONING of a 2.29- gross acre parcel from RHS-80 (Residential Hillside Zoning, 80,000 square foot minimum parcel size) to RHS-40 (Residential Hillside Zoning, 40,000 square foot minimum parcel size). · TENT A TIVE MAP to subdivide a 2.09 net acre parcel into one 40,009 square foot parcel and one 51,171 square foot parcel in a proposed RHS-40 zoning district. · ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration recommended. The project will have no significant, adverse environmental impacts. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends on a 5-0 vote that the City Council: 1. Approve the Negative declaration, file number EA-2006-02; 2. Approve the Rezoning application, file number Z-2006-02, in accordance with Resolution No. 6443, Ordinance No. 07-1993; and 3. Approve the Tentative Map application, file number TM-2006-02, in accordance with Resolution No. 6442. Project Data: General Plan Land Use Designation: Very Low Density Residential (Foothill Modified Slope Density Formula) Existing Zoning Designation: RHS-80 Proposed Zoning Designation: RHS-40 Gross Acres: 2.29 Net Acres: 2.09 Net Acreage per parcel: Parcell: 0.919 acre (40,009 sq.ft.); Parcel 2: 1.175 acre (51,171 sq.ft.) Existing Density: 0.436 dwelling! gross acre 2 L{- ( File Nos.: Z-2006-01, TM-2006-02, EA-2006-02 Page 2 February 6, 2007 Proposed Density: 0.873 dwelling/ gross acre (no development proposed with these applications.) Project Consistency with - General Plan: - Zoning: Environmental Determination: Yes N/A Negative Declaration BACKGROUND This hillside lot, developed with a single-family residence, is larger than the surrounding hillside lots because of the presence of steep slopes and a "restricted building area" that was placed on the property because of the assumed presence of the Monta Vista Fault. . Subsequent geotechnical studies to locate the fault found no evidence of faulting in the proposed building pad in the restricted building area. The City Geologist has reviewed the reports and concurs with the conclusions drawn by the private geologist. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan land use designation/ slope density formula, and the existing house will conform to the zoning building maximums and setbacks. The proposed housing pad will met RHS setbacks and is located in the least environmentally disruptive location - on the tennis court where there are no trees or grading impacts. At its meeting of January 9, 2007, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the rezoning project and tentative map (See Planning Commission Resolutions). DISCUSSION Planning Commission Comments One Commissioner asked about the calculation of the maximum house size for the new lot without a house. Another Commissioner asked how the "restricted building area" came to be placed on this particular lot. Public Comments One resident said access needs to be improved for two residences and guaranteed for the lot in the back since the driveway was being shared. She was also concerned about future subdivision of the property. Applicant Comments Zoning is consistent with neighborhood lot sizes and presents an opportunity to do an infill development. Staff Comments Most likely in 1976, the Monta Vista Fault was located nearby and, based on visual geophysical evidence, the earthquake fault zone was extrapolated as going through this property. The "restricted building area" was placed on the property at the time of the 2l{-.:L File Nos.: Z-2006-01, TM-2006-02, EA-2006-02 Page 3 February 6, 2007 1976 subdivision of a much larger parcel. Recently physical trenching and deep borings of the restricted area demonstrated that the fault line did not run through this area. A maximum floor area calculation was completed for the new lot, resulting in an allowable building area of 5,006 square feet for the 1.175 acre parcel. The calculation was based on the average slope of the new parcel and was reviewed by staff. Easements and improvements are present on the tentative map to guarantee access to the rear lot and provide a wider access than required by the Santa Clara County Fire Department. Based on the current slope density formula, this property cannot be subdivided further. ENCLOSURES Draft Zoning Ordinance 07-1993 Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 6442,6443 Exhibit A-2: Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 9,2007 Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Submitted by: Approved by: .?) ie~.-e t8~c;~ /&~;- Steve Piasecki Director, Community Development ~ David W. Knapp City Manager G:\Planning\PDREPORT\ CC\ U-2006-01 CC.doc :Ll{-J ORDINANCE NO. 07-1993 DRAFT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CUPERTINOCITY COUNCIL AMENDING SECTION 1 OF ORDINANCE NO.2 BY REZONING APPROXIMATELY 2.09 ACRES FROM RHS-80 (RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE ZONING, 80,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT SIZE) TO RHS-40 (RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE ZONING, 40,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT SIZE) LOCATED AT 21600 RAINBOW DRIVE, CUPERTINO APPLICATION Z-2006-01 WHEREAS, an application was filed (Application Z-2006-01) for the rezoning of property from RHS-80 (Residential Hillside Zoning, 80,000 square foot minimum lot size) to RHS-40 (Residential Hillside Zoning, 40,000 square foot minimum lot size); and WHEREAS, upon due notice and after one public hearing the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the Rezoning be granted; and WHEREAS, the property to be rezoned is presently zoned RHS-80 designation; and WHEREAS, a map of the subject property is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" as a proposed amendment to the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the properties described in attached Exhibit "B" be and hereby are rezoned to RHS-40, Residential Hillside Zoning, and that Exhibit "A" attached hereto is made part of the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its passage. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 6th day of February. 2007, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this day of , 2007, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor 2\{--L( Exhibit A 1 f" .... .... "'6<,. I fjJ-6'oJ./A' I /Q~,y I "- ~10 "- .l() 0 ~o fg ~ \J~\..ft. z ~~~~O~/'tl) F_OUND MONUMENT\ " f....~O / POB .-/' ~ " 1"l~,,<J/ ()v' ~ v \"""~'lf~ t>~().v ...... ~'\ - PARCEL 1 0.82 AC 40.008 SF LOT 1.3 TRACT 5990 APN: 366-38-013 0.204 AC N77'0 _ 7'29"W 723.99 o o c:i (]l c/O'! .~ O'! o . ~l() . co -v~ o (f) EAST 30.79 TPOB PARCEL 1 LOT 14 TRACT 5990 APN: 366-38-011 0.695 AC , , ZONING: CURRENT: RHs-eo PROPOSED: RHS-40 o o c:i <.0 I"") , , P ARCa 2 1.17 AC 51.172 SF ZONING: CURRENT: RHs-eo PROPOSED: RHS-40 I OI ~I~ 00 ~z ~ ........... "-- " -------..........." "" ---.... ....... ....... S6S' ~7' 7S/ <t<,'c ./<t ....... LOT 17 TRACT 5990 t\Pi'!: 0.900 AC L =1 27 t.~9' jg~ R=105- 39" .00 UPLAND WAY -z.. (50'R/W) ZONING PLAT MAP 21600 RAINBOW DRIVE, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA TS CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC. 1776 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE SAN JOSE, CA 95110 // N90'00'OO"E 52.70 ....... jeG--, 2;a- OC;: '-----", DATE: SCALE: DRA WN BY: SURVEYED JOB NO.: PAGE: 12/21/06 1"=60' LCIVll ~NC1IN~~RINC1 SK BY: HB 04-323 1 OF 1 PH: 408.452.9300 FAX: 408.452.9301 :J-. <i -S- Exhibit 8.1 Job No. 04-323 December 21,2006 Legal Description - Parcell Zoning Plat Map 21600 Rainbow Drive, Cupertino, California Beginning at the centerline monument on Rainbow Drive perpendicular to the most northwesterly comer oflot 15 as shown on Tract 5990 in Book 442 of Maps, page 13, Santa Clara County Records; thence from said point of beginning South 5027' 56" West 25.00 feet to the northwesterly comer and the true point of beginning of Parcel 1 ; thence South 40 10' II" West 185.99 feet to the intersection ofthe southwesterly comer of Parcell and the northwesterly comer of Parcel 2; thence along the property line of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 North 51020' 37" East 164.73 feet; thence North 62033' 10" East 174.09 feet; thence East 30.79 feet to the intersection of the southeasterly comer of Parcel 1 and northeasterly comer ofParcel2; thence North 90.00 feet; thence North 77007' 29" West 123.99 feet to a point on the southerly right-of-way line of Rainbow Drive as shown on the above mentioned map; thence South 27003' 53" West 26.27 feet to the beginning of a curve and tangent to said curve; thence along an arc curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 170.00 feet through a central angle of680 24' 03" and a distance of 202.95 feet to the true point of beginning. Parcell contains approximately 40,009 square feet or 0.92 acres. 2- y --{, Exhibit B ~ Job No. 04-323 December 21, 2006 Legal Description - Parcel 2 Zoning Plat Map 21600 Rainbow Drive, Cupertino, California Beginning at the centerline monument on Rainbow Drive perpendicular to the most northwesterly comer of lot 15 as shown on Tract 5990 in Book 442 of Maps, page 13, Santa Clara County Records; thence from said point of beginning South 50 27' 56" West 25.00 feet to the northwesterly comer of Parcell; thence South 40 10' II" West 185.99 feet to the northwesterly comer and the true point of beginning of Parcel 2; thence along the property line of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 North 51020' 37" East 164.73 feet; thence North 62033' 10" East 174.09 feet; thence East 30.79 feet to the intersection of the northeasterly comer of Parcel 2 and the southeasterly comer of Parcel 1; thence South 270.00 feet to the southeasterly comer of Parcel 2; thence West 52.70 feet to a point on the right-of-way line of Upland Way as shown on the above mentioned map; thence along an arc curve to the left, said curve having a radial bearing which bears South 440 44' 09" West, said curve having a radius of 105.00 feet through a central angle of 690 35' 39" and a distance of 127.54 feet; thence North 650 11' 42" West 157.74 feet to the true point of beginning. Parcel 2 contains approximately 51,172 square feet or 1.17 acres. 14-7 TM-2006-02 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 T one Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6442 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROV AL OF A TENT A TIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A 2.08 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 40,009 AND 51,171 SQUARE FEET RESPECTIVELY, AT 21600 RAINBOW DRIVE SECTION 1: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and . WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino General. Plan. 2) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General PIan. 3) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development contemplated under the approved subdivision. 4) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and unavoidable injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. 5) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated there with is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 6) That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Tentative Subdivision Map is hereby recommended for approval, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and That the sub conclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. TM-2006-02 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 9, 2007, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 2-~ -t Resolution No. 6442 Page 2 TM-2006-02 January 9, 2007 SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: TM- 2006-02 TS/Civil Engineering (for Louis Lau) 21600 Rainbow Drive SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on the PIan Set titled, "Tentative Map, Lands of Lau, 21600 Rainbow Drive, Cupertino, California", dated 12/22/06, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. 2. GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW The location of the house and further review of any building plans are subject to the recommendations outlined in the Cotton Shires & Associates, Inc letter dated September 12, 2006 pertaining to the Lau Property, fault investigation, 21600 Rainbow Drive. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. 3. OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks, streetlights, street widening and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. If street lighting is required, 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. 4. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City. 5. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125. 6. 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 Conh'ol Board as appropriate. 7. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. * Pre and Post-development calculations must be provided to identify if storm drain facilities need to be constructed or renovated. 2-L(-7 Resolution No. 6442 Page 3 TM -2006-02 January 9, 2007 8. 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. Ordinance No. 331 requires all overhead lines to be underground whether the lines are new or existing. 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. 9. 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: c. Development Maintenance Deposit: d. Storm Drainage Fee: e. Power Cost: f. Map Checking Fees: g. Park Fees: $ 6 % of On Site Improvement Costs or $ 2,060.00 minimum $ 5 % of Off Site Improvement Costs or $ 2,194.00 minimum $ 1,000.00 $ 2,696.10 a. Grading Permit Fee: b. Checking and Inspection Fee: ** $ 3,348.00 $15,750.00 Bonds (Required): a. On-Site Improvements Bond: 100% Performance Bond b. Off-Site Improvements Bond: 100% Performance Bond; 100% Labor/Material Bond -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. ** Developer is required for one-year power cost for streetlights 10. TRANSFORMERS E1ech'ical h'ansformers, 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 sh.eet areas. 11. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP' s), as required by the State Water Resources Conh'ol Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. 1\{~r6 Resolution No. 6442 Page 4 TM-2006-02 January 9, 2007 CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS (Section 66474.18 of the California Government Code) I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section N. Of this resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices Is/Ralph Qualls Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works City Engineer CA License 22046 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of January 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: NOES: ABST AIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Miller, Vice Chair Giefer, Saadati, Wong Chien COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none AYES: ATTEST: APPROVED: I s I Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki, Director Community Development Department I s I Marty Miller Marty Miller, Chairperson Planning Commission 2-4-'( Z-2006-01 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION No. 6443 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THE RE-ZONING OF A 2.29 GROSS ACRE SITE FROM RHS-80 TO RHS-40 LOCATED AT 21600 RAINBOW DRIVE SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: Z- 2006-01 TSjCivil Engineering (for Louis Lau) 21600 Rainbow Drive SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR REZONING WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for the rezoning of property, as described on this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the subject rezomng meets the following requirements: 1) That the rezoning is in conformance with the General Plan of the City of Cupertino. 2) That the property involved is adequate in size and shape to conform to the new zoning designation. 3) That the new zoning encourages the most appropriate use of land. 4) That the proposed rezoning is otherwise not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of subject parcels. 5) That the rezoning promotes the orderly development of the city. 2-4~/L Resolution No. 6443 Page 2 Z-2006-01 January 9, 2007 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application no. Z-2006-01 is hereby recommended for approval; 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 Z-2006-01, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 9, 2007 and are incorporated by reference herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on Exhibits AI: Zoning Plat Map, and Exhibit Bl and B2: Property Legal Descriptions for Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, 21600 Rainbow Drive, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of January 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Miller, Vice Chair Giefer, Wong, Saadati Chien COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: / s / Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development / s/Marty Miller Marty Miller, Chair Cupertino Planning Commission G:Planning/ PDREPORT / Res/ 2006/ Z-2006-01 2-~ - { J Exhibit A. - 2. CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: Applicant: Property Owner: Property Location: Z-2006-01, TM-2006-02(EA-2006-02) Agenda Date: January 9, 2007 TSj Civil Engineering Louis Lau 21600 Rainbow Drive, APN 366-38-012 Application Summary: REZONING of a 2.09 acre parcel from RHS-80 (Residenital Hillside Zoning, 80,000 square foot minimum parcel size) to RHS-40 (Residenital Hillside Zoning, 40,000 square foot minimum parcel size) TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide a 2.09 acre partel into one 40,009 square foot parcel and one 51,171 square foot parcel in a proposed RHS-40 zoning district. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of: . the negative declaration, file no. EA-2006-02; . the rezoning, file no. Z-2006-01 in accordance with the model resolution; and . the tentative map, file no. TM-2006-02, in accordance with the model resolution. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Existing Zoning Designation: Proposed Zoning Designation: Total Acreage: Net Acreage per parcel: Existing Density: Proposed Density: Project Consistency with: General Plan: Zoning: Environmental Assessment: Very Low Density Residential (Foothill Modified Slope Density Formula) RHS-80 (minimum of 80,000 sq. ft. per parcel) RHS-40 (minimum of 40,000 sq. ft. per parcel) 2.09 acres Parcell: 0.919 acre (40,009 sq. ft.); Parcel 2: 1.175 acre (51,171 sq. ft.) 0.436 duj gr. acre 0.873 duj gr. acre (no development proposed with these applications) Yes NjA Negative Declaration BACKGROUND: The 2.09-acre, irregularly-shaped parcel is developed with one single-family residence with access from Rainbow Drive. The parcel has frontage on Upland Way, but no vehicular access from this side because of the steep topography. The eastern portion of the property where the residence and tennis court are located is flat, but the land rises ~l{ -f-( TM-2006-02 Page 2 January 9, 2007 steeply to the west with 40-50% average slope. Surrounding properties are all hillside residential as well. The lot was part of a much larger parcel that was approved for subdivision in 1976 and was known as the Rainbow's End Subdivision. At that time the larger parcel was fully subdivided into 21 single family lots under the "Very Low Density Residential, foothill modified 1/2 acre slope density formula." This lot was designed to be larger than the surrounding lots because of the steep slopes on a large portion of the property and the presence of a "restricted building area (corridor)" that bisects the property. Geotechnical studies conducted at the time of the subdivision uncovered portions of the Monta Vista Fault nearby, which was extrapolated to run through this property based on its geophysical characteristics. In 1976 the General Plan land use designation was "Very Low Density Residential, foothill modified 1/2 acre slope density formula." This changed in 1980, when this property and a few surrounding hillside properties were placed in a less restrictive hillside residential general plan land use designation: "Very Low Density Residential, foothill modified slope density formula." DISCUSSION: General Plan Conformance The applicant's civil engineer conducted a slope density calculation on the 2.09 acre lot based on the "Very Low Density Residential, foothill modified slope density formula." With an average slope of 27+%, the dwelling unit yield for the property is about 2.74 units, so a two lot subdivision would be in conformance with the general plan residential density for this area. Adjacent hillside lots are around 1/2 acre in size. Zoning Conformance Building footprints of the existing house on parcel 1 and a conceptual house on parcel 2 are depicted on the tentative map. The illustrations demonstrate that the dwellings can meet the building setbacks for the RHS zoning district. The RHS regulations also restrict maximum house size based on lot size and average slope of the property. For Parcel 1, the maximum house size is 5,174 square feet; the existing house is under that number at 4,944 square feet. The maximum house size for Parcel 2 will be 4,657 square feet. No house plans have been submitted with these applications. Geotechnical Review The applicant commissioned two geotechnical reports (Exhibits A & B) to identify the presence or absence of the Monta Vista Fault in the "restricted building area" on the property. This area is the most level portion of the property and currently contains a driveway for the dwelling and a tennis court. Both reports were completed by Terrasearch, inc., the first on November 23, 2004 and a supplemental report dated August 28, 2006. Both reports were reviewed by City Geologist, Cotton, Shires & LY - { f TM-2006-02 Page 3 January 9, 2007 Associates (Exhibits C & D). Investigation of the earth materials in the exploratory trenches and deep boring holes found no evidence of the Monta Vista Fault in the "building restriction area" where the new house is proposed to be located. Consequently the City Geologist recommended approval of the subdivision if the residential structure is located within the area shadowed by the subsurface geologic exploration. In addition, the City Geologist recommends geotechnical review of the residential foundation, retaining walls, drainage and grading. Specimen Trees The footprint of the conceptual house is on the tennis court. No trees will be affected. There are other trees on the property, but they appear to be part of a remnant orchard or ornamental in nature and not protected by the City's tree ordinance. Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner ~ Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~ Enclosures: Model Resolutions for Z-2006-01, TM-2006-02 ERC Recommendation, Initial Study Exhibit A: Geologic Assessment for Proposed Residential Development, 21600 Rainbow Drive, Cupertino, California for Mr. Louis Lau, prepared by Terrasearch, 'inc., dated November 23, 2004 Exhibit B: Addendum to Geologic Assessment for Proposed Residential Development, 21600 Rainbow Drive, Cupertino, California for Mr. Louis Lau, prepared by Terrasearch, inc., dated August 28,2006 Exhibit C: Letter from Cotton Shires & Associates dated March 1, 2006 Exhibit D: Letter from Cotton Shires & Associates dated Sept. 12, 2006 Plan Set G: IPlanninglP DREPOR 1\pcTMreports 12006tmreports I TM-2006-02. doc 2-L(-/b Z- 2006-01 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION No. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THE RE-ZONING OF A 2.29 GROSS ACRE SITE FROM RHS-80 TO RHS-40 LOCATED AT 21600 RAINBOW DRIVE SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: Z-2006-01 TSj Civil Engineering (for Louis Lau) 21600 Rainbow Drive SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR REZONING WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for the rezoning of property, as described on this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the subject rezo:r:ung meets the following requirements: 1) That the rezoning is in conformance with the General Plan of the City of Cupertino. 2) That the property involved is adequate in size' and shape to conform to the new zoning designation. 3) That the new zoning encourages the most appropriate use of land. 4) That the proposed rezoning is otherwise not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of subject parcels. 5) That the rezoning promotes the orderly development of the city. L t( -r, Resolution No. Page 2 z- 2006-01 January 9, 2007 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application no. Z-2006-01 is hereby recommended for approval; 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 Z-2006-01, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 9, 2007 and are incorporated by reference herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on Exhibits AI: Zoning Plat Map, and Exhibit B1 and B2: Property Legal Descriptions for Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, 21600 Rainbow Drive, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of January 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABST AIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Marty Miller, Chair Cupertino Planning Commission G:Planningl POREPORT 1 Res 12006/2-2006-01 l~ -{ f TM-2006-02 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROV AL OF A TENT A TIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A 2.08 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 40,009 AND 51,171 SQUARE FEET RESPECTIVELY, AT 21600 RAINBOW DRIVE SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan. 2) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan. 3) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development contemplated under the approved subdivision. 4) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and unavoidable injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. 5) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated there with is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 6) That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Tentative Subdivision Map is hereby recommended for approval, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and L~ - f9 Resolution No. Page 2 TM -2006-02 January 9, 2007 That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. TM-2006-02 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Cominission Meeting of January 9, 2007, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: TM-2006-02 TS/Civil Engineering (for Louis Lau) 21600 Rainbow Drive SECTION Ill: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on the Plan Set titled, "Tentative Map, Lands of Lau, 21600 Rainbow Drive, Cupertino, California", dated 12/22/06, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. 2. GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW The location of the house and further review of any building plans are subject to the recommendations outlined in the Cotton Shires & Associates, Inc letter dated September 12, 2006 pertaining to the Lau Property, fault investigation, 21600 Rainbow Drive. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. 3. OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks, streetlights, street widening and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. If street lighting is required, 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. ' 4. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City. 2.-L( - 20 Resolution No. P'!ge 3 TM-2006-02 January 9, 2007 5. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with OrdInance No. 125. 6. 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. 7. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. * Pre and Post-development calculations must be provided to identify if storm drain facilities need to be constructed or renovated. 8. 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. Ordinance No. 331 requires all overhead lines to be underground whether the lines are new or existing. 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. 9. 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. Grading Permit Fee: $ 6% of On Site Improvement Costs or $ 2,060.00 minimum $ 5% of Off Site Improvement Costs or $ 2,194.00 minimum $ 1,000.00 $ 2,696.10 b. Checking and Inspection Fee: c. Development Maintenance Deposit: d. Storm Drainage Fee: e. Power Cost: f. Map Checking Fees: g. Park Fees: ** $ 3,348.00 $ 15,750.00 L~-LI Resolution No. Page 4 TM-2006-02 January 9, 2007 Bonds (Required): a. On-Site Improvements Bond: 100% Performance Bond b. Off-Site Improvements Bond: 100% Performance Bond; 100% Labor/Material Bond -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. ** Develo'per is required for one-year power cost for streetlights 10. 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. 11. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS (Section 66474.18 of the California Government Code) I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV. Of this resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices / s/Raplh Qualls Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works City Engineer CA License 22046 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of January 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABST AIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: 2-L(~22- Resolution No. Page 5 TM-2006-02 January 9, 2007 ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki, Director Community Development Department Marty Miller, Chairperson Planning Commission 2,4 - 2J CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMEND A TION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE September 13, 2006 As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the City Council 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 December 13,2006. PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: Applicant: Location: TM-2006-02 (EA-2006-02), 2-2006-01 TSjCivil Engineering (Lau Residence) 21600 Rainbow Drive DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Tentative Map to subdivide a 2.08 acre parcel into two lots of 40,000 square feet and 51,258 square feet respectively Rezoning of a 2.08 acre parcel from RHS-80 to RHS-40 FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE 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. / s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development g/ercjREC EA-2006-02 2--L{ - 2-'1 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3251 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department CUPEI\TINO PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Project Title:y" ~ -z:..~', ~ Project Location: '2-l h()n Project Description: ". . $l~ffJ):s~. Pbl\j";"\:'.:.'I":'i:;.' . EA File No. '€IJ - 2-DOC:,- 2- Case File NO.2-2[,,)()~-[) I) TM-2..00~, ttachments LQ,\A. ~, RtiS- - tto " ST'o...re.. -r:e. -:;\Ct (tl\.~ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Area (ac.) -2..()~ BUil,d,ing Coverage - . ~o Exist. Building -_s.~~roP9sed 1'-._ ;.h h,'" Bldg. - s.f. Zone:..,R tiS:S.O G.P. DesIgnation -~w ~,[;\', I (0 \Df'L ),.Jic:.A\.?\ 1 ., rr Assessor's Parcel No. - ~-;'") ~ -Ql2- If Residential, Units/Gross Acre - O. q b \) '^ I"t-I ('1 r-c:;:::; c.lj:A'e..l (d Total# Rental/Own Bdrms Total s.f. Price Unit Type #1 Unit Type #2 Unit Type #3 Unit Type #4 Unit Type #5 Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check) D Monta Vista Design Guidelines D S. De Anza Conceptual D N. De Anza Conceptual o S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual D Stevens Crk Blvd. Conceptual o Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape If Non-Residential, Building Area - s.f. FAR - Max. Employees/Shift - _Parking Required Parking Provided Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area - YES ~ NO 0 ],t.{-lS 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. Transportation Element 29. Fremont Union High School District 5. Environmental Resources 30. Cupertino Union School District 6. Appendix A- Hillside Development 31. Pacific Gas and Electric 7. Land Use Map 32. Santa Clara County Fire Department 8. Noise Element Amendment 33. County Sheriff 9. City Ridgeline Policy 34. CALTRANS 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 18. City Noise Ordinance 42. Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel Leak Site C. CITY AGENCIES Site 43. CalEPA Hazardous Waste and 19. Community Development Dept. List Substances Site 20. Public Works Dept. 21. Parks & Recreation 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 Cities' Planning Departments 47. ABAG Projection Series 25. County Departmental of Environmental Health A. Complete Ell 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 completing the checklist, sign and date the Preparer's Affidavit. G. Please attach the following materials before submitting the Initial Study to the City. v"Project Plan Set of Legislative Document v"Location map with site clearly marked (when applicable) l-G( - 2l, EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: >0- 0 c:'C - c: c:'C c:; -n:s- n:s n:s 0 n:s n:sn:s- - .! 0 0 .I: 0 .I: .- "- .1:00 0 ISSUES: -.- a 1-.__'1Uo I- .- n:s o n:s c:~ III ~ .j en c. III ~ C. zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] Q) c: E III c: .- "- III c: E E c;.~ - Q) en :!:: 0 Q) .~- - ..J .- :E 0 D..tJ) tJ) c: ..JtJ) - I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 0 0 , 0 18i I scenic vista? [5,9,24,41,44] I b) Substantially damage scenic resources, 0 D D ;9. including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? [5,9,11,24,34,41,44] c) Substantially degrade the existing visual D D D ~ character or quality of the site and its surroundings? [1,17,19,44] d) Create a new source of substantial light or D D 0 ~ glare, which would adversely affect day or 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 optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique D D D A. Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? [5,7,39] I I I b) Conflict with existing zoning for 0 0 0 ~ agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? [5,7,23] c) Involve other changes in the existing D D 0 ftZ environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [5,7,39] i It{-27 >.- 0 Cc - C Cc C:;:: -ca- ca ca 0 ca caca- ..... ; .! 0 0 .cO.c._~ .cOO 0 i I ISSUES: -.- a 1-~_1iSo I- .- ca o ca c:= 1Il.-.3: Ole. III := e. ze. ! [and Supporting Information Sources] Q) C E III C .- ~ III C E E o.~- Q) Ol =:: 0 Q) .~- -I .- ~ 0 i D..t/) t/) C -It/) I - 111I. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the I I significance criteria established by the I I I I applicable air quality management or air I I pollution control district may be relied upon I i to make the following determinations. Would ! the project: i i------------------------------------------- ----- ------------- :---._------_._---~-----_.-_._-j , )Zl I ! a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of 0 0 0 I the applicable air quality plan? [5,37,42,44] ; ; b) Violate any air quality standard or 0 0 0 ~ contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? [5,37,42,44] c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net 0 0 0 ;q increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? [4,37,44] d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial 0 0 0 ..Rl pollutant concentrations? [4,37,44] e) Create objectionable odors affecting a 0 0 0 A substantial number of people? [4,37,44] IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either 0 0 0 j{ directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44] b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any 0 0 0 ~ riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44] i c) Have a substantial adverse effect on 0 0 0 Jsi:l. i ! federally protected wetlands as defined by i I Section 404 of the Clean Water Act I (inclu9ing, but not limited to, marsh, vernal I i -------------.- _-----1 2~-U >-- 0 Cc _ C C'E C~ -ns- ns ns 0 ns nsns- - .!!! u u ,c u ,c .- l.. ,cuU u ISSUES: _.- ns I- .- _ n; 0 1-.- ns o ns C ~ Q lJ) ~ .3: C) 00 lJ) ~ 00 zOo [and Supporting Information Sources] C1l C E lJ) C .- l.. lJ) C E E o.~- C1l C) :!:: 0 C1l .~- - ..J .- ::aE U D.(f) (f) C ..J(f) - pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, I filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? [20,36,44] I I d) Interfere substantially with the movement 0 0 0 Jilt of any native resident or migratory fish or I wildlife species or with established native I I I : i resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? [5,10,12,21,26] e) Conflict with any local policies or 0 0 0 ~ ordinances protecting biological resources, 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 ~ Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? [5,10,26,27] V. CULTURAL RESOURCES .. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in 0 0 0 )\ the significance of a historical resource as defined in 915064.5? [5,13,41] b) Cause a substantial adverse change in 0 0 0 JQ. the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 915064.5? [5,13,41] c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 0 0 0 ~ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? [5,13,41] I d) Disturb any human remains, including I 0 0 0 $1.. those interred outside of formal cemeteries? I [1,5] VI. GEOLOGY AND SOilS - Would the I project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as 0 0 0 ~ delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the '2 '-1 - 2- '1 >.- 0 c- -c c C c; c -C'Cl- C'Cl C'Cl 0 C'Cl C'ClC'Cl- - .! eJ eJ .r:. eJ .r:. .- ... .r:.eJeJ eJ ISSUES: -.- 3 I-Ii:_nsO I- .- C'Cl o C'Cl c~ (I)'-"i me. (I) ~ e. ze. [and Supporting Information Sources] Q) C E (I) C .-... (l)cE E cs.2>> - Q)m ~o Q) .2>>- ...I .- :iE eJ - a.m m C ...1m - State Geologist for the area or based on I i other substantial evidence of a known fault? I Refer to Division of Mines and Geology I Special Publication 42. [2,14,44] H) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 ~ 0 0 I [2,5,10,44] i I i ! i Hi) Seismic-related ground failure, including 0 ~ 0 0 i i liquefaction? [2,5,10,39,44] I I i iv) Landslides? [2,5,10,39,44] 0 j)( 0 0 ! I i b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the 0 0 Jtt 0 i loss of topsoil? [2,5,10,44] i c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 0 0 fi( 0 unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? [2,5,10,39] d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined 0 0 fia: 0 in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? [2,5,10] e) Have soils incapable of adequately 0 0 0 A supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? [6,9,36,39] VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or 0 0 0 ~ the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous 1 materials? [32,40,42,43,44] b) Create a significant hazard to the public or 0 0 0 Rl I i the environment through reasonably I foreseeable upset and accident conditions ! I involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? [32,40,42,43,44] i ; i c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle 0 0 0 JS\ hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile 2.J-{ .-]0 I :>.- 0 C- C C C.- i - C n:I 0- C i -ClS- .c~.c.-E ClSn:I- - .~ 0 0 .cOO 0 I ISSUES: -c;:~ 1-c;:_'1UO I- .- n:I o ClS I C ._ lI).-.3: tnc. lI) ~ c. zc. I [and Supporting Information Sources] CD C E lI) C .- "- lI)cE E c).~ - CDtn ~o CD .~- I -I .- :E 0 I a.. en -I en I en C 1 - i r of an existing or proposed school? I [2,29,30,40,44] d) Be located on a site which is included on a 0 0 0 ~ list of hazardous materials sites compil~d 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] 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 or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [ ] f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 0 0 0 -2; airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [ ] g) Impair implementation of or physically 0 0 0 1st 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 ~ significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?[1,2.44] VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or 0 0 0 ~ waste discharge requirements? [20,36,37] b) Substantially deplete groundwater 0 0 0 -~\ supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table 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] .--- 21,( - J I ----- ; j >.+' 0 I:+' ; -I: I:'C 1::;:: I: i -ns- ns ns 0 ns nsns+' +' i .! u u .l: U .- ~ .l:UU U i ISSUES: +';;:~ l-;;:z1GO 1-.- ns o ns 1:._ (1).-.- C)c. (I) ~ c. zc. I [and Supporting Information Sources] Q) I: E (I) I: 3:.- ~ (I) I: E E ().2' - Q)C) ::0 Q) .2'- - ...I .- ~ U i D..t/) t/) I: ...It/) i - ! c) Substantially alter the existing drainage 0 0 0 ~ 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 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 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 ;g1 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 D 0 ~. quality? [20,36,37] g) Place housing within a 1 OO-year flood 0 D 0 ~ 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 D D ~ structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? [2,38] i) Expose people or structures to a significant D D 0 Ji\ risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? [2,36,38] j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or 0 D D I ~. mudflow? [2,36,38] IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established D D D ;g( community? [7,12,22,41] b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 0 D 0 ~ policy, or regulation of an agency with - 2-C(-J-Z ! ISSUES: I [and Supporting Information Sources] >>- c _ 0 c- -c c c:;::; c -ca- ca ca 0 ca caca- - .! 0 0 .c 0 .c'- I- .coo 0 _._ ca I- .- _ 1a 0 I- .- ca 0 ca c:!::g. t/) :!:: 'j C) Q. t/) :!:: Q. Z Q. Q) C E t/) C .- l- t/) C E E '(5.2> - Q) C) :!:: 0 ...J .- :E 0 Q) .2>- - a.. en en C ...Jen - I jurisdiction over the project (including, but I I not limited to the general plan, specific plan, I I local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) I adopted for the purpose of avoiding or I i mitigating an environmental effect? i ! [1,7,8,16,17,18.44] ! I ~~~~~~t~I:~~~~~~:;I~~~~~ily --.0-+--0------ 0 -1-~-1 I conservation plan? [1,5,6,9,26] I i X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? [5,10] b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? [5,10] XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? [8,18.44] b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or groundborne noise levels? [8,18.44] c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [8,18] d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [8,18.44] e) For a project located within an airport land 0 use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the ~_ o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ~ ~ R' ~ ~ ~ ~ --' Lt{-JJ I >-- 0 C- - C C'E: C'- C i -ns- nsns o1U nsns_ - .!!! (.) (.) .c: (.) .c: .- r.. .c:(.)(.) (.) I ISSUES: -.- a I- .- _ 1U 0 1-.- ns o ns c~ !II ~ 'i en Co !II ~ Co zCo , Q) C E I [and Supporting Information Sources] !II C .- r.. !II C E E c).~ - Q)en ~o Q) .~- - , ...J .- :IE (.) i D.CJ) CJ) C ...JCJ) i 1 - I project area to excessive noise levels? I i [8.18,44] ; f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 0 0 0 ~. airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [8,18] , I I XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an 0 0 0 J?{ area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? [3,16,47,44] b) Displace substantial numbers of existing 0 0 0 ~ housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3.16,44] c) Displace substantial numbers of people, 0 0 0 ~ 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 governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? [19,32,44] 0 0 0 )4' I i Police protection? [33,44] 0 D 0 ~ Schools? [29,30,44] D 0 D ~ i Parks? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] 0 0 0 M ! i ! Other public facilities? [19,20,44] 0 0 0 ~ i I I XIV. RECREATION -- ! i I a) Would the project increase the use of 0 0 0 ~ existing neighbo~hood and regional parks or - l t{ - Jl[ >,- 0 c- -c c'E c;:; c -ns- CO CO 0 CO co co- - .! eJ eJ J: eJ J: .- ... J:eJeJ eJ ISSUES: _._ co 1-1;:_1;;0 I- .- co o co C:!:: ii en .-.i tnc. en :!:: c. zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] Q) C E en C .-... en c E E 'O.!?- Q) tn :t: 0 Q) .!?- - ...J .- :E eJ D..CJ) CJ) C ...JCJ) - other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] b) Does the project include recreational 0 0 0 ~. facilities or require the construction or i , I , expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? [5,44] XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC-- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is 0 0 0 ~ substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (Le., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? [4,20,35,44] b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, 0 0 0 ~ 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 Ji!3. including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? [4,?] d) Substantially increase hazards due to a 0 0 0 .)lJ. design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? [20,35,44] e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 0 ;gI... [2,19,32,33,44] f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? I 0 0 0 ~ [17,44] g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or 0 0 0 .Et programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? [4,34] XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: ; LL< -] J >.- c 0 c- -c i:: c .. c -cu- cu cu 0 cu cucu- - _!!! () () s:. () s:. -- ~ s:.()() () ISSUES: -~ S I-~_nso I- -- cu o cu c __ In-- -i C)c. In :!:: c. zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] Q) C E In C -- ~ In C E E c>.2' - Q)C) :=0 Q) _2'- ..J -- :2!: () o.U) U) C ..JU) - a) Exceed wastewater treatment 0 0 0 pQ 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 :2{ new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the I i ! i construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [36,22,28,36] c) Require or result in the construction of 0 0 0 li'l new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [5,22,28,36,44] e) Result in a determination by the 0 0 0 JiJ wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? [5,22,28,36,44] f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient 0 0 0 .~ permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? [?] g) Comply with federal, state, and local 0 0 0 :it statutes and regulations related to solid waste? [?] 1-l{.--Jlo a) Does the project have the potential to 0 0 0 ~ 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 i 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 P't individually limited, but cumulatively 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 -B1 effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 0 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. Preparer's Signature Cl!~. ~~.~ ,I'~ ;.f- ...- {j C Print Pre parer's Name Z-L(~J7 .JENTAL EVALUA TI()~(:€1"9'~~:(,::(jrriPI~tEld;~ 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. D Aesthetics D Agriculture Resources D Air Quality D Biological Resources D Cultural Resources IJ!\ Geology ISoils D Hazards & Hazardous 0 Hydrology I Water 0 Land Use I Planning Materials Quality D Mineral Resources 0 Noise 0 Population I Housing D Public Services 0 Recreation 0 TransportationfTraffic D Utilities I Service 0 Mandatory Findings of Systems Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) finds that: D The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ~ 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. D 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. / 2-/;/ /v 6 Date I I \ "? I, S If} h Date r ' Ll( - 3d Environmental Evaluation File Nos. Z-2006-01, TM-2006-02, EA-2006-02 Geology/Soils At the time of the original 1976 subdivision, geologic investigations identified the probable location of the Manta Vista fault zone across the property, and delineated a building restriction zone across the site. Definitive evidence of the fault trace was not obtained through the area proposed for the residential site. Rather, the fault zone was delineated based upon geomorphic mapping and geophysical investigations. Two different geotechnical investigations, involving trenching or deep boring, determined that the Manta Vista fault did not exist in the area studied, and thus the "tennis court" site can be developed for residential purposes from a geotechnical standpoint. The Monta Vista fault has however been mapped in the area, so the property is subject to the same seismic hazards that characterize other hillside properties in the proximity of the fault zone. Future residential development should be subject to geotechnical investigations with design recommendations for foundations, retaining walls, drainage and grading. L t{ ~ 37 Exhibit A GEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT for PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 21600 Rainbow Drive Cupertino, California for MR. LOUIS LAU By TERRASEARCH, inc. Project No. 10291.G 23November 2004 1-l{ - Vb GEOTECHNICAL GEOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIAL INSPECTIONS MATERIALS TESTING SAN JOSE: 6840 Via Del Oro Suite 110 San Jose, CA 95119 (408) 362-4920 ~ax: (408) 362-4926 LIVERMORE: 257 Wright Brothers Ave. Livermore, CA 94551 (925) 243-6662 Fax: (925) 243-6663 SACRAMENTO: 4200 N. Freeway Blvd. Suite 2 lCramento. CA 95834 (916) 564-7809 ?~:l..~~: (()16': 564-7672 ,.t Ell. _,mmental . Geotechnical' Special Inspections' Materia.., Testing W TSRRJJ.SEJJ.RCI/IIt,&. SERVING NORTHERN CALIFORNIA SINCE 1969 Project No. l0291.G 23 November 2004 Mr. Louis Lau 21600 Rainbow Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 Subject: Proposed Residential Development 21600 Rainbow Drive Cupertino, California GEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT Dear Mr. Lau: In accordance with your authorization, TERRASEARCH, inc., has investigated the geologic conditions at the subject site located in the City of Cupertino, Santa Clara County, California. The accompanying report presents our conclusions and recommendations based on our investigation. Our findings indicate that the site is suitable for the planned development. Should you have any questions relating to the contents of this report or should you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact our office at your convenience. Reviewed By: Very truly yours, TERRASEARCH, inc., ORIGINAL SIGNED BY ORIGINAL SIGNED BY George Makdissy, P.E. Senior Engineer Lawrence D. Pavlak, C.E.G. Engineering Geologist Copies: 6 to Mr. Louis Lau L C{ -4 ( Project No.10291.G Geologic AssessmentJRainbow Drive 23 November 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pal!:e No. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ................. ...... ...... ................ ...................... ........ 1 21600 RAINBOW DRIVE ............................................................................................................. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS.... ...... .... .................................. ........... ..... ........ ............ .................... ........ 3 GEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT............... ........... ....... .............. ......... .......... .................... ..... ......... ...... 4 Purpose and Scope............... ............. ....... ......................... .... ........ ............... .................. ..... 4 Site Location and Description................................... ......... ...... ...... .................. ...... ............. 4 Geologic Setting....... ............................ .............. .............. ........................... ........................ 5 Nearby Geologic Investigations. ........................... ....... ........ ........... ..... ..... ......... ................. 5 Site Geology.... .......... ..... ................. .................. .............. ...... ................ .................. ............ 7 Surface Reconnaissance...... ....... ......... ............ ................................... ........... .............. ........ 8 Seismic Considerations....................................................................................................... 9 DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................ 11 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... ...... 12 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS ..........................................................14 APPENDIX A .................... ........................................................................................................... 15 Location Map, Figure 1......................................................... ...... ............ .......................... 16 Regional Geology, Figure 2 ............ ..................... .................... ........ ........ ......................... 17 Site Plan and Geologic Map, Figure 3 .............................................................................. 18 Log of Trench T -1, Figure 4 ................ ............... ..... ................. ........... ........ .............. ....... 19 Log of Trench T -2, Figure 5 ......... ............... ....... ..... ................. ............... ....... ....... ..... ...... 20 Logs of Trenches T -3 and T -4, Figure 6........................................................................... 21 APPENDIX B ..... ........................................................................... ............................................... 22 TERRASEARCH, inc. Page 3 of 23 2L(.....L(L Project No.10291.G Geologic AssessmentJRainbow Drive 23 November 2004 GEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT Purpose and Scope The purpose of the geologic assessment for a proposed residential development on Rainbow Drive in Cupertino, California, was to evaluate the site's potential for geologic. Our investigation included the following tasks: a. Review of pertinent published and unpublished geotechnical and geologic literature on the site and its vicinity; b. Field reconnaissance by the Engineering Geologist; g. Stereoscopic examination of aerial photographs; h. Excavation and logging of four exploratory trenches; 1. Preparation of a geologic map depicting surface conditions; J. Analysis of the data and formulation of conclusions and recommendations; and k. Preparation of this written report. Site Location and Description The site is located near the southern edge of the City of Cupertino in Santa Clara County. It extends to the south from Rainbow Drive to Upland Way at the base of the Santa Cruz Mountains, on the southwestern edge of Santa Clara Valley (see Figure 1). Dense residential development is present in the site vicinity. The site consists primarily of a hill slope that inclines northeasterly from Upland Way at a gradient of approximately 2:1 to 3:1 (horiz: vert), leveling out in the northeastern comer of the parcel. A single-family residence and a tennis court are located on the level portion of the lot. Vegetation on the site consists mostly of grass, shrubs, and trees. It is our understanding that the client is proposing to construct a new residence on the site, within the boundaries of the existing tennis court. TERRASEARCH, Inc., Page 4 of 23 2. ~ -'-I J Project No.10291.G Geologic AssessmentlRainbow Drive 23 November 2004 Geoloe:ic Settine: The site is located in the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains, which consist of Mesozoic and Cenozoic rocks that have been complexly folded and faulted. According to the published regional geologic mapping (Helley, et aI., 1994), the hills underlying a portion of the site are underlain by non-marine sediments of Plio-Pleistocene Age (Santa Clara Formation) that are gently folded around northwest trending axes. Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits overlap the Santa Clara Formation on the site. The historically active San Andreas Fault lies 3.6 miles to the southwest. The nearest potentially active fault is the Monte Vista Fault, mapped as crossing the site. It is part of the range-front fault system, a long complex zone of curvilinear faults that include the Shannon and Berrocal Faults, dipping southwest toward the San Andreas Fault. They have thrust Jurassic and Cretaceous rocks of the Franciscan Complex to the northwest, over alluvial sediments of the Pliocene-Pleistocene Santa Clara Formation. The site is not within a State of California, Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone (1974). Nearbv Geolosrlc Investie:ations Terrasearch performed a geologic investigation of the Billawalla Property that included the subject site, in 1976. They then prepared a supplement to that investigation, also conducted in 1976. These investigations utilized seismic profiling, exploratory drilling, and the excavation of test pits and exploratory trenches to evaluate the potential for seismic hazards to affect the proposed developments. The seismic profiles identified two anomalies that were ascribed to the presence of the Monte Vista Fault. However, the supplemental report stated that "no active ruptures have been found in the alluviated area either by trenching or seismic profiling." They postulated that the fault is buried under as much as IOta 15 feet of alluvium and recommended the establishment of a setback zone of 30 feet on the northeast side of the mapped fault trace and 50 feet on the southwest side. TERRASEARCH, Inc., Page 5 of 23 2.L(-Y'f Project No.10291.G Geologic AssessmentJRainbow Drive 23 November 2004 Terrasearch also performed a geologic investigation of the 1.8 acre, adjacent property to the east in 1995. An exploratory trench approximately 74 feet long was excavated in the southwest comer of the parcel, terminating at the common property line with the subject site. The first two trenches excavated during the current investigation were meant to be an extension of the 1995 trench. The trench was 11 to 14 feet deep and encountered strata described as topsoil underlain by colluvium. No evidence of a potentially active fault trace was found in the trench. However, they observed a thickening of the apparent colluvium in the west end of the trench and stated that this "may reflect tectonic processes immediately southwest of the site." A building restriction zone of 40 feet from the southwest comer of the site was recommended to mitigate the possibility that the Monte Vista Fault underlies the hill southwest of the site. Bay Soils, Inc. (1983) conducted a soil and geologic investigation of the subject site prior to the construction of the current residence and tennis court. They excavated two exploratory trenches during this investigation, as shown on the Geologic Map, Figure 3. The longest of these trenches, located across the southwestern portion of the building restriction zone, encountered interbedded sandstone and conglomerate overlain by apparent colluvial soils. The shorter, northeastern trench was approximately 9 to 12 feet deep and did not encounter bedrock. Bay Soils did not observe any features in the trenches that appeared to indicate the presence of seismic hazards. They concluded that "from all appearances the fault does not cross the lot." Other studies of nearby sites were performed by Lee Engineers (1991) and Lowney & Associates (1980 and 1981). Lee Engineers did not find evidence of faulting on their site, which was adjacent to and east of the subject site, near its southeastern comer. The property investigated by Lowney & Associates is located east of the 1995 Terrasearch and Lee Engineers parcels, about 410 feet east of the subject site. They apparently found evidence of an inferred fault. No shears or offsets were identified by their trenching program. TERRA SEARCH, Inc., Page 6 of23 lLl. - 1.-( J Project No.10291.G Geologic AssessmentJRainbow Drive 23 November 2004 Site Geolo2V The site geologic conditions were investigated by the following steps: a) review of the above- mentioned reports, b) stereoscopic examination of aerial photographs, c) surface geologic reconnaissance, and d) excavation and logging of four exploratory trenches. Aerial Photograph review Five sets of stereo pairs of vertical-angle, black/white aerial photographs were scrutinized for indications of faults, landslides, and other geologic hazards as part of this investigation. Descriptive and identifying data for the photographs are given below. Table 1 - Aerial Photographs Examined Flie:ht Date Approx. Scale Source* Identification No. 3-2-54 1 :9,600 PAS AV-129-01-20,21 7-3-63 1 :20,000 USGS CIV-IDD-260,261 5-14-65 1: 12,000 USGS SCL 5-101, 102 8-26-76 1: 12,000 PAS A V-1277-04-16, 17 10-28-80 1 :25,600 USGS GS-VEZR 1-186, 187 USGS = U.S. Geological Survey PAS = Pacific Aerial Surveys The 1954 aerial photographs were the most useful because residential development had not yet occurred in most of the site vicinity. A linear break in slope was evident at the base of the northeast-facing hillside crossing the site. This appeared to align with similar features at the base of the foothills in the site vicinity. The Monte Vista Fault is typically mapped along this feature on the referenced maps. TERRASEARCH, Inc., Page 7 of 23 2-('{-Yb Project No.10291.G Geologic AssessmentJRainbow Drive 23 November 2004 Surface Reconnaissance The surface reconnaissance did not identify any bedrock exposures on the site or in its vicinity. Nor features indicative of the presence of geologic hazards were observed. Subsurface Investigation As shown on Figure 3, four exploratory trenches were excavated across the building restriction zone near the proposed residence footprint. These trenches, designated T-l, T-2, T-3 and T-4, were placed generally perpendicular to the trend of the mapped location of the Monte Vista Fault in the site vicinity. They were 24 inches wide, approximately 130 feet in total length, and ranged from 8 to 18 feet in typical depth. All of the trenches were excavated with a rubber-tire mounted backhoe and logged by Lawrence Pavlak, a Certified Engineering Geologist. Bay Soils, Inc. (1983) excavated two exploratory trenches on the subject site during the course of their referenced Soil and Geologic Investigation. They referred to one continuous trench but in actuality, it consisted of two separate excavations along the same alignment, separated by about 20 feet. The longest, southwestern trench was approximately 110 feet long. It extended down a hillside, terminating near the base of the slope. It revealed about 2.5 to 3 feet of clayey or silty sand and silty clay overlying interbedded sandstone and conglomerate, apparently of the Santa Clara Formation. The shorter, northeastern trench encountered fill over silty clay and was approximately 9 to 12 feet deep, too shallow to encounter bedrock. Bay Soils did not observe any features in the trenches that appeared to indicate the presence of seismic hazards. The data from these trenches were incorporated into the evaluation of the potential for seismic hazards to affect the proposed development on the site. Trench T -1 was started near the southwestern comer of the tennis court and extended to the northeast, toward the property line near the end of a trench excavated on the adjacent property investigated by Terrasearch in 1995. In order to excavate up to that eastern property line, the backhoe turned around and located trench T-2 southeast of T-l, overlapping them slightly. The third and fourth trenches, T-3 and T-4, were located in the northeastern portion of the site near TERRASEARCH, Inc., Page 8 of23 2t{-L(i Project No.10291.G Geologic AssessmentIRainbow Drive 23 November 2004 the northern comer of the tennis court. They could not be excavated as one continuous trench due to the presence of underground utilities and concrete pavement. Trench T-l extended down the hillside and revealed probable colluvium and older alluvium overlying very gravelly clay of the Santa Clara Formation. T-2 exposed similar geologic units but the colluvium! alluvium thickened gradually as the trench approached the base of the hill. In trenches T-3 and T-4, 6 to 8.5 feet offill was observed overlying the alluvium and Santa Clara Formation (similar to the units encountered in T-I and T-2). Localized wet zones were observed in these trenches, in both instances near storm drain lines. Helley, et al (1994) have mapped the site as being partially underlain by Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits, with Pliocene-Pleistocene Santa Clara Formation underlying the major, southwestern portion. This appears to be consistent with the materials encountered in the trenches excavated during this investigation. No evidence of offset, warped, or displaced sailor alluvial horizons or other anomalies indicative of faulting or shearing was observed in the trenches Seismic Considerations A significant hazard from shaking is anticipated since the site is located within the seismically active San Francisco Bay Region and epicenter maps show continuing activity in the area. The U.S. Geological Survey (1999) has estimated the probability of a large earthquake in the region during the 2000 to 2030 period as 70%. Faults that could affect the site include the San Andreas, Monte Vista, Shannon, and the Berrocal Faults. The most probable source of significant seismic shaking is the historically active San Andreas Fault, which lies 3.6 miles southwest of the site. The U.S.G.S. (1999) estimated a 21% probability of a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake on this fault before the year 2030. The lCBO (1998) estimated maximum magnitudes (moment magnitude) of 7.9 and 6.5 on the San Andreas and Monte Vista-Shannon Faults respectively. Other more distant known active faults that may subject the site to lesser shaking are the Hayward and Calaveras Faults, located to the northeast. TERRASEARCH, Inc., Page 9 of23 '2l( -\.{ r Project No.10291.G Geologic AssessmentlRainbow Drive 23 November 2004 Seismic hazards can be divided into two broad classifications, primary and secondary hazards. Primary hazards include seismic shaking and damage produced directly from fault surface ruptures. The Monte Vista Fault was mapped by Cotton (1993) as crossing the site but no evidence of faulting was identified in the subsurface investigations at the property. We estimate the potential for surface fault displacement to occur within the proposed zone of development on the subject site to be low to moderate. Secondary hazards include landslides, lurching, floods, subsidence, liquefaction, and lateral spreading produced by seismic shaking. The distance of the subject site from large bodies of water and the absence of high ground water makes the potential for secondary earthquake hazards from flooding (from tsunamis, seiches, and dam failures) to occur 10w. The absence of high ground water and loose granular soils near the ground surface makes the potential for liquefaction and lateral spreading to occur at the site low. The potential for earthquake-induced landslides to occur at the site are low to moderate. TERRASEARCH, Inc., Page 10 0[23 2l( -l{ I Project No.10291.G Geologic AssessmentlRainbow Drive 23 November 2004 DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The site is not within a State of California, Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone (1974) but the Monte Vista Fault has been mapped as crossing the site. A previous investigation of the site and adjacent parcels established a restricted building area within the property along the mapped fault trace.. 2. The site will probably be subjected to severe seIsmIC shaking during the economIC lifetime of the project. Hence, structural designs should employ current, acceptable design parameters. 3. Our geologic investigation of the subject site did not identify any features indicative of faulting or shearing in the exploratory trenches excavated and logged on the site. After reviewing the results of this investigation and previous investigations conducted on nearby sites, we determined that the potential for fault rupture to adversely affect the proposed development on the property is generally low to moderate. 4. Our review of geologic maps and literature pertaining to the site vicinity and a surface reconnaissance of the site determined that the potential for landslides or secondary seismic hazards to adversely affect the property is low to moderate. 5. We conclude that the site is suitable for the planned development. TERRASEARCH, Inc., Page 11 of23 ll{-SO Project No.10291.G Geologic AssessmentJRainbow Drive 23 November 2004 REFERENCES Bay Soils, Inc., 1983, "Soil and Geologic Investigation, Proposed Residence, Lot 15, Tract 5990, Rainbow Drive, Cupertino, California", Consultants report for Willard Construction, dated 27 June 1983 (Project No. 563). Brabb, E.E., 1993, "Preliminary Geologic Map of the Onshore Part of the Palo Alto 1 :100,000 Quadrangle, California": U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 93-271. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1982, "Special Studies Zones, Cupertino Quadrangle": Revised Official Map Effective July 1, 1974. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California": Special Publication 117. California Geological Survey, 2002, "Seismic Hazards Zones, Cupertino Quadrangle": Official Map released September 23,2002. Cotton, William and Associates, 1993, "Geologic Hazards Study for Cupertino General Plan, Section 6", Adopted June 1, 1993. Hart, E.W., 1981, "Summary Report: Fault Evaluation Program, 1979-1980 Area (Southern San Francisco Bay Region)", C.D.M.G. Open File Report OFR 81-3 SF, July 1981. Helley, E.J., and Brabb, E.E., 1971, "Geologic Map of Late Cenozoic Deposits, Santa Clara County, California", U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-335. Helley, E.J., Graymer, R.W., Phelps, G.A., Showalter, P.K., and Wentworth, C.M>, 1994, "Preliminary Quaternary Geologic Maps of Santa Clara Valley, Santa Clara, Alameda and San Mateo Counties, California: A digital database": U.S.G.S. Open-File Report 94-231. Hitchcock, C.S., Kelson, K.I., and Thompson, S.C., 1994, "Geomorphic Investigations of Deformation along the Northeastern Margin of the Santa Cruz Mountains": U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 94-187. International Conference of Building Officials (lCBO), 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near- Source Zones of California and Adiacent Portions of Nevada: map folio of fault source areas, Scale: 1 in. = 4 km. Lee Engineers, 1991, "Geotechnical Investigation Report, 3 Lot Subdivision Lot Development, Upland Way, Cupertino, California", Consultants report for Mr. Rodger Wooly, dated May 8, 1991. Lowney, John V. & Associates, 1980. "Fault Location Investigation, Seven Springs Ranch Development, Cupertino, California", Dated February 1980. TERRASEARCH, Inc., Page 12 of23 'l'--< - s') Project No.10291.G Geologic AssessmentJRainbow Drive 23 November 2004 Lowney, John V. & Associates, 1981. "Supplemental Geologic Investigation, Seven Springs Ranch Development, Cupertino, California", Dated July 1981. Rogers, T.H. and Williams, J.R., 1974, "Potential Seismic Hazards in Santa Clara County, California": California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report No. 107. Terrasearch inc., 1976, "Geologic Investigation on Proposed Development, Cupertino, California"; Consultants report for Mr. N.A. Billawalla, dated 26 July 1976 (Project No.1431-E). Terrasearch inc., 1976, "Supplement to Geologic Investigation on Proposed Development, Cupertino, California"; Consultants report for Mr. N.A. Billawalla, dated 1 December 1976 (Project No.1431-E). Terrasearch Inc., 1995, "Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation on Proposed Residential Development, Upland Way, Cupertino California", Consultants report for bas Homes, Inc., dated 14 June 1995 (Project No. 7130). U.S. Geological Survey, 1999, "Major Quake Likely to Strike Between 2000 and 2030": Fact Sheet 152-99. TERRASEARCH, Inc., Page 13 of 23 2-4 - r-L Project No.10291.G Geologic Assessment/Rainbow Drive 23 November 2004 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS 1. It should be noted that it is the responsibility of the owner or his representative to notify TERRASEARCH, inc., in writing, a minimum of two working days before any clearing, grading, or foundation excavations can commence at the site. 2. The recommendations of this report are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the exploratory trenches and from a reconnaissance of the site. Should any variations or undesirable conditions be encountered during the development of the site, TERRASEARCH, inc., will provide supplemental recommendations as dictated by the field conditions. 3. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the Architect and Engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans and that the necessary steps are taken to see that the Contractor and Subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. 4. At the present date, the findings of this report are valid for the property investigated. With the passage of time, significant changes in the conditions of a property can occur due to natural processes or works of man on this or adjacen't properties. In addition, legislation or the broadening of knowledge may result in changes in applicable standards. Changes outside of our control may render this report invalid, wholly or partially. Therefore, this report should not be considered valid after a period of two (2) years without our review, nor should it be used, or is it applicable, for any properties other than those investigated. 5. Not withstanding, all the foregoing applicable codes must be adhered to at all times. TERRASEARCH, Inc., Page 14 of23 LL( - rJ APPENDIX A Location Map (Fi21lre 1) Relrional Geolo2V (Fi21lre 2) Site Plan and Geololric Map (Fi21lre 3) Loe: of Exploratory Trench T -1 (Fi21lre 4) LOlZ of Exploratory Trench T -2 (Fi21lre 5) LOlZS of Trenches T -3 and T -4 (Fie:ure 6) lC1'- JY ~ ~I . ._' . ~ ~~i7-:~~~ ~n;j:l~e: ,:'~~' . -~... .- .~.,. ~ /. ~ I I I I I. i',~,', :..~. ~ lm . I t I I I I 8 n l- ". .,' ~,.: ~i"nT-nil...' ';:::;:' . .~~. p:I:. N - :::--\ ::t: _,~'JDJT _ ~ r..- '^" 0 " "T"7 ~ ),,'. . . .:....... \\ h -'"h II -l fI .'- -, ~ 'L......J" IV\--lo ::;l,~ (1: J.:-::-<9 (\1':tid.J' - ~ i;.., c.......:J-.l j f--:- .... o. ~ ~,~ \~ 1"""\' . "lr I< ~ ~ '" '!r -. . ~,H ~-I 'l 'tf::- ",,' ".',' . ~ '\ ,. ~ l;l'o..'.~ n:J" .,'. ~ f"lIIo.. j: H- _Lll I I II f-. ~,... ,r""YY', \\ -.... _' - i ~ ~ ,-" . '- ~ IT'f1;r. \ ~I-.. f- J- . /~ i,.. I ~ ~.\ ~"""'-" ," . .1'1 ' .' ~ r" _/ If Ti ~ I I . l" ..' I- ........ ':: ~ .......1 ,1TFIl l.---1 ?II / I I I I . '. ~ . . .- "\..' fi:~" 6~ p-' G/' . I J , -rrffl rv II III II. . . , . '\ If.", ~ if- ~~ i ~~ Wlnl;iDJ7iulre: ~ ~~,~~ I ': ~ p..."- ~~~~ .~ " .v ~ft; ~ ~ q I- II T '- DillIIll:JYA.,.':.1 I L' ~'\~~;Y;~ ~ :--. ~~cs W -Ilti E I-l- II" .~IM I ,Laf~':' ~. ~~ ~a ~ l~..u.. :::. 'r lli 1-1- .~ r.~'~ ,\t\~'f;~ ::::::I:::H:t.I~:..~~ ~ ,'~I~ ,.111-'~ /<\~~ jlI.l.' ~ ~ ::;;: ~~ ~~~.~~.drlJl:.1= IL.. \\~"'r. " '~.' . ~ _:~[)"~~~~"\n-r [;1-' ~\\ ~1"'ll~ .' 0- , I~)~ 'I~~~~ , ... ~ "EM . t:' ~~ \. El3~. . ". ;X;;. r--,~~~ ... ~q" 'I\~ _..ttU 0 "_ 1tY\, .' mrwrrlill'< -'! t; . /. ~ --n \ L. "f"';a .....", ~ ...--1 ~jj ~ 'JI 0.. l~ ~ n u. >IIIII .k . r, .?/~ \ V '" ~ \I . t?;i '" C=-O - '::,( :i 1C:::l:::3}- T I 0~\\.~'~ 1~ ',;2 till J .\Er~~~ ~I" ,,'-~: ;iiit;::;~ r/"....: ~ ),-' ~ '0. --l I 1I11"fl1 l-I- \'HI A I. '1. \ ~l, . . '.:to,:..; '. .: . ~ '\~ '~~~L~'I ~\" .~TTTI /~i I'.~,\.~-~'j~~ ) ~ ~ ~ cm"'C~ ~ . ~lr SITE l~ 1\ . . -:f... ITII.EEmIlIIIII ~ ~ '~A, (j ~~\ . ~ 7"" ~~'{~:'.. . \ ~ ~---'-- '"'''' 1--.... II '''n ~ ) 1t4:....: - _ '- '-..: ~ .:::::;. . - ~~' ~ ,~ ~LJ K' ,,~\ ~= l\.ri~~ 'r ~~...~ 1"'-..' .~. II IflflTfTrTl 1ity~~ '- (.,/_,- .......~~7 ~~...... ""- \ .~ l~<.~:~;~~~'~ gf ( ~ 1 v f/,..V _ ~'lo I ),\,u. H..- ffi ~ "I: ~j "Jc~ U . ~~ -, II \. ~ -.<.83 to Base. W. Cotton & Assoc., 1993 ~ ,,') -.... "' \ ,~. ::c -:::~ Scale: 1" = 1 ,000' LEGEND - -....- --- Monte Vista Fault Project NO.1 0291.G November 2004 REGIONAL GEOLOGY Lau Residence 21600 Rainbow Drive Cupertino, California Figure NO.2 L~ .-)J TERRASEARCH, inc. '"'" ., ',CT 1 ii'S'>":.,:' ", ~~~ ""), ,.:lrJ'IS' ~~'-1~~,.sr~" :;: ~i::I ~".' Ay ,i5 O~MI ~~, tm;;~~ t:G . ~",... ~.'.!'\"1. :~llii~rjt: ~5,PAl.M~Vio Ii' '2 BQ,..OsJ.NTA p.oiJ,.; ',.;:~,'''' {!!\.'.. i.'~~'~'~' "~ '''':'~~'. :;:, ~11VT. ~. ~..':.";~ ~. . r":' ~ ~.. ~~ ~ L ,; .-.':'.~..'",.,...' 18 J...,..... . j . ~. ~ ':Lo. V~' ,\ : ~.h?i '. f%C=8~ll' '.1 :",sTEIV1 '~~O~~AV ~.:l;'~\.' ~.a>. o'iO'~~~~!~~' N .AV......,., '~~:':. '" c::,oi!l! ~. ....._ 7; ~ 1 AV ~~.; '.': 'PE~P~..~:i :~ SUN~J :';:'~; 14 ..11l .... ,..::. '"' ROORIGlJ ..:< :v\~ .-' .~I.EAV> ..' . ~.~. '"0''' 2'iSHEL':Y....OR..' . "'c"';;"':';".' ....,..,C'H. AV LU '.- r- .... :So S -', ,. ~ ~+ . '. .. . ",'~ ..,.... '.. .. A~eI~Rll.. f:!c~", "~" -' ::5 . . on -< 20c~P.' . Ii;! '0" .11li LIB ' " ~ DOLORES AV I, c;fl::." >, ~~( '"cr~;~~.OLA.:o~ '.,i:,~~~':' ~A' c:' "~I':C.~';.""'P ,g ~ 21~--, ~~rA~~;~... -.. ,~ rl. nD n n~.~~SOlJ. ..[) ;....... " .p,-','.,- :.' ~.lLA 21400 '(!,tit~?.. ~ R!D~lR Q " : ~I ~ ~_ '-...r.;.... LV. .!'a.!i ,-,e'" f.rJNTA. ,,0," ~ SIR O,~.~ CT,~ . ,~Ji;; ;<:~'" <C ';~.v' :.'liOi9 /'I'VISTA--', ....::- "'~~ "'~ ";;;i" ""LEFI RIN..WY ~ z!SUI NCLAFST '-<E-' i Ii! HS .,' " PRESIDIO :"OR AU ~s\ '" ~cr " ,."" CT -$:- q ~ ~ ~LN' :z:.' .'. ':. ii' J! 3i~ ;@;\'\.i,.,!.. 15 131 el. i:!L ~I. !1JU)' GO:'" ~~ ~ fI' ~: I'. KIRWIN 75"00 .', ....... :;..~r. DEll. ~ IN..'' '" ~ ~~'.., ''''~' 1iJ. "'9liil~. ~J, ~1,1:;~lt ~ "">l;.: ~'~1I~~1 ~ Jt~!-: .~ ~ BOLLINGER': ,> .0l.LJ'7~' "'!G . It> "'L ~~' . "'~Ioi=:! ii.':J SlWMH "' ,\\J ~';;:I. - ~It .,. Ie 'J H 0 >~I':' It M ~!<~\:i.:: JOll~ J!~~FO\ROR~J ~~; 2~ ~ '. EVU!J: . z . ;;I ~~ .' -f;J ,. ~~R ,!.J! 7400 I ,"ox: ~ I- 3- '<ft,,: . ,~~~ $.. 23RbSARIO. 'AV ~ M ":>" ~11lE LA 'AAGE I ~ ~ '" .....Y{1 Q~.. '$ Ii . .. ,\~ ~~~~~ HEATHERWOOO OR to:.. t ! .:I~ ~ g ~ i.'t RUCKER OR i:! JI EDWARD.. WY ~~ ~~ e ;>1 ,~." ";~ ~ \;2 oR1~ Q ~ IE e m z: ,l;ULUMBUS A .,., ~:~ I t.y CJ..ARE/j00lL~ _51 :;; ., ;: ~It;;:o Sl CA.... zl - . V.. ,~ ., '~:<t-:s..:\\PTOE LN ~ 1100 l;; :5 ~ ~ ....J ~ ;:5~~/LETON STot., .~ ,...~ SIC :; 4~~~ ';'.' 1.0 ~ ~L 22 "a lli on ~ ~'~l~!5LJ~ VAl AV:) ~w. ~ I< CT'1:, ",~FORD PL i!'aUj I 3 ~ :=,Iiit: " "<i OR -" a 021300 "l,:: f:> ,'. III I 0" l , . "s,;; ,. ~ !11J' a: <:)~ ~llN!1JI Cl 'EST HILL UI"' UN.OELL "vj VIA VIeO "CH 4:' '1;; ~ ST DR "'~ ~ ~ WI' l!!' @l;; %,,"1jo;"\ ~ GOLOEIl GATE OR ., .. b' 15 ~ ill:;~ ~1;~lf ~x OR.: % '" I!~ ~ ~~~ '"F ~ - BLUE HILL DR ( t ~ i is "STON ~ ~ ~ ,\ -J '~_1fJNT11GX111:Z . ~ ,,~ :f'~"if'- - . 0 '" -' Pl <?p AV _ VlLL4Gf ~ PHYLLIS AV \." ~' ~~ '" ~l lLJ EOOHlLL OR .~. "" *' ' ~~~"\ .:r~ "...;:. 'llR'iil! ~~SF CT WI' V) CT!l!. Pl' OE. BARK>- LN <;:S .' ~\)~~.- ffie ~l""'W ~ ~ BEL P DR Sl!lJlRElI1Ll '"lAND 1 2 CO:tko bR !;J( ~ . - -=- - -_ ~ j.-~~~ -) 11 1,~ '" ~ll:f~~ ""SlJmIL:iIm M ~11:;~'!5 tr:- ~T CT ,cr ~ 3 ,. '0./11 I c.." r.; if!. I' ~ RE, ~RT Z ~CT . '" IU.-"'RAr 0 Tl CT DR ~ . SEE'\A7C4'~ SI"'~." 1I"'5! =cr ,I ;213 43. 5, ~~~. z ., . V" , '" ~ '.' :SFD~I' 'T To .....ORANGE Suis5l>>l 1lR'~ l' .. ~ 1 WEll SPRING ~ ~, ........,.. ~ 1'i;"i~f~~I~ f71S 9 110 ,Ii'. )~q l 1. ~~ ~ ~~~~IHG CT . ~~\~.:iil~'::t It~1~!~ l'I~' ~Ii!i! ~~!\.~. EN::' ~[PEAOI BlOSSOI ::; lc r......oln.. ,~~f~;. il ~1 4 SUNSET SPRING cr '. ,"-:::> , 1~'''.1'''';7:..;:g' e ii' ,,;:~,..,.. : " ~INOnu..,oY WY _ ,. ~ .....- _ ~~ S SUNRISE Sl'RlNG CT....-. ., . 4:! .... ''1"1:./# ~ u"" e;u <;:. . ~"'" e;u~:5 'WIlO :.' "CHANTEl .",-.: . I 6 AAINIlQl Pl ......... SITE ~~,~~I;- SIjV1EEJ;5Nrs~GS. OR .;.!,,:~~ FS NEI/CAS7\! DR I~ FlOWER WI' cr .~ Ci . ~ ' 7 AAINIREE SPRING cr ~ ''J- 'I'. 11! '16 '17. , ~ "'..;"'--:""" _ '. 8 COPPEl! SPRING cr ;} I," ., .of"", "', !P;"':: 'ill S wb! ERFDRD DR i z SHAAl1N t::,. %~ .. 1~ ~~t ~.NG.crcr ...,& . . W ~~'''<. ~~ <;. I ""E i!i 2'i J'~I:; '1;, <;>'" 11 I>IlRNl SI'RlNG'cr Q:' """ '~4 19 ~ c 1-,..1IlO<ETT - Ilo il'{,,' 12 VINEY 'SPRING cr'<~"4-~ ~ ~~ t:ll., '. .----.- t~" w 13 ~:J~~'i,:: c;<it.~t. _, ~I ~;j"~f">" <?p\ 1- nD"~ cr. ' \ s>. ~/lL . l:\"'" L ,., I "" ~ ~ERlNG-cr.' ~"F"cr~ lSl:; I> '- ,1:-':. CT,: ..' At-t'... ~ I R~' \ J;P C1 ~ JL /(/. u g;:: 27 [I IS DR ~\..\..,,'\ ,\.~ <.; ~""'~. ~ i ~ "'-1 ~ t ~I~ut.e. CII ~g DR---~ ~1I 8' o?'~O : ~ .~ " """" ;;; KNOLLWOOO t ~t; ,LOWENA % '" .SEA ~Ll~t-.. ~ ~ < a z CT . _I, 1!!ARL l, '.'" ~ ~ ~, SAUlT JOAN 1~,3 ill:; ~~~ o"'~ ~ ~ SF, "1,"" CT '" (-"_-'I,, '" !if ;if ':.( I ,~r:... KRElSlED t::; ~IHANOR OR c"2;,; I:g "fI ~<: FARR ~ V:IlD~lJoD()R crOR.l~ f3 AV'cr ~/ljC\~~ERI.~ ~ -P "<4< CT' ~ 1100 ..:::<..; ~ c"'- i' :::' ,?;.j( 2 cr "Ii;;; ,,( ~ ~ \\,\,t <,,'<' "- '''3>0; ~Q~~ ?D ~I' n l ~'~ ~~ r::" ~\..o1' $~t:::J;$~G' SEE \E7 HZ $ARO( WI' .? ..' < 'V : JV'\;' I. ~OX (WIllIAIIS8URG IN AV 1 fARMINGiAM WI . d..' , I IWY if ....I~ "<1 "'I 2 BAAAINGTON &RIOSE 11ll' ~;,9' ~ 1;;1\";e;lt; I ';' ~ ~ ~ -e ~ t:;E5 t; /I :~.f'J!~~ jJ" o~=~JRI~ DE ~l~~( ~~'-r "~~~{ ,z~ ~ ~ ~q}>- ac$l"'1>,.. ~ J;-'" 'to ~ ~ ~ 1= & ~ CHATEAlIERCE \"'" 'il' fil::t .5RI~ z ~--r:rDR CT '" ~I .:;; ~ SJ _"""""lIE cr I; ~k.UJ:E , SEE \C7 Jl n ~ C.OME n 01; ~ ~ JRA" -,,-~t I ~ .. leA>-. Ie; li!iJ ~ ."'REIHEt!- Pl CIR .:': .. :, '":\; 'C\ .., , . /'.: ~ '(~.l~ <$1-'( ~ V te, ~(~ C- ~ ~ "'~ ~ ,.. , BASE: By.. Thomas Brothers 1 inch = 1900 feet Project ,No.1 0291.G November 2004 LOCA liON MAP Lau Residence 21600 Rainbow Drive Cupertino, California Figure No. 1 Ll{-)~ TERRASEARCH, inc. 'I: ,"', __~"'~ _. _, &. ,'..F:". .-.1 ../. )"-. '//.r'?':":"C::'''~-J0. :.rJi'~ I O:"'~:,"~T:;~~r=-) __ ~",. c. '. " , ~'''l1f~ ;'""'f'e -~ ,... () '. . ~______ ~ "'-0'" C ,'/Z : ');, ;J':\7~ ~ -~~':~ 1~~"'."~ ,. ,,,,l "-<""',~,"-... '-('~~'~'~;~~i~ (/"~~~i(StEt /i;\ (--'?~~,_? o l./ -- .'(r:;~~(~f~:~:::..::tf::)i:"'-; j-t- l' \C~):' L. .' ,,f,',.C/Y)(~.: ,,/' ' ~,.' '::.-, :~!.;'~ 0 ~J~:--j J ?T'~eP..) >( '"C~::'r~ '- / .....,..r ' ,,( '" c'." ,- ..J -.~.. I .-'...... ~'.'.. 'r 'j " '.,,-,,, ',1 """" ~ .' .~::. c... J""".. J/ I" .' ''::;0',.\,/,,:, b" i I . ./ '~"''''~ ...... j &. '-' V ~ C'"'' "'j ~-~;~~~~;:~~f \ " "", ," I " '/'/;/:1' '),. '" \. '7"/,\. I , \:''I\')''t,\1 l-- ..' "\\\",,\ j .;J ......... .,.< \ T<:.i.J'",'o' Co.Ji"" . " /1,1 \ I ......... ""-~ '! II/~ : " .,., '\" ,. ..f " " '( " ',i' " ,/ -, ,,"" ~i/1 "j. "'~~I-I r",..-' ~,"-'~ '\ 'i ~ I . '" ^[C.- ,~,("", \'! I ,", ; .....1--"..., ~'F, \. i.\" I \ "f ~\ I I \.:; ': /I~ \' \, '.' ";"~~, ' . , :-.. ~?' I ., \_.'_1/.,/ '\" I t- "" \~t I ./ QT.c I I I : I .1 -+'-1'--- 10' ~'L' " " : I ,\ -LJ- ~'Z7-:""\-.I(sT ."'-.;.. .. L1 .L1''''"'''11 ~IM' \ N:."'~AL- /- I I I I ~ I ;t:' ; '-. , . L "~ ~ , :J QT.c '<~ -. --............" EI'1;:::f-,.qEI'~k::-'t- ~E..:S~ €;f\.::5.E.:~'_,., '. k .'-'-"~ ~'\ "~~"" \ \\ "~~ , '5,." .1__ --..... ?~, ......~_.. f\ '00, L' ,''v> -........ '-1'::"'-"i".c; ....~..., ~ .,"... Qpal "" ',,- .- ~r- / ~J , 'q;Y '.J ,,"~;-~:.~~. .. ,{ V <;~i "f(ic:' ~7(e~~hl ~a.... &4>';?-~'Cff ~ B 2~ ~Il 1..9.01-:'-'11 k 7. :OJ ~~ u'l .I' t:- '2 ~J :t:\l ~ u f <n 'Z g"H ~~~ UlAg Z., <t ~ ~ ....J""" m~~ Ll'~~ IL,. D,_ 5~f {J1u' '. z~~ Al<l,. L.:1J[[ -'!" rn. ';.' r7'J ~L::7 Iii o '1. ~ S ti.. ;( D ,I: ] " <.I .~ ~, -':i :.;1 J \L ~ ..) --L."EGEND Oeposils (Pleistocene) Opal Allu,;" F'n . (P',=.n..P'.."oc.o.) QTsc Santa Clara Formation GeologiC Unil Contact - - h (Terrasearch. 2004) Exploralory Trenc - oratory Trench (Bay Soils. 1983) ................. Expl ;a, ...0 '."3-14.CI/ ~~, . " s':~L~I": ?O-o " " ".'b:;~\ # l..U I :~O'::OI~ Qi<.&&~I'[~O f1p;. ~ .. .."".",:~::"l_ F'[ SITE PL L," R"""" L. "',"~ ;;;g:,,~~~~~~,~::: Of ft'rE Projecl No. 10291.G nn "SEARCH, inc. TE"_IV1 o .c. , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~---- ~ _____________ A. -.......... ------------ ~'""}~ ------------ D~4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C~____ ~ ~ ---------- ---- - ------- ------ --- 0- SW 5- ~ ~ ~ 10- B 15- 20- 25- I o I 10 Trench T-1 Northwest Face N 660E I 20 Distance in Feet NE -15 Clayey Sand I 30 I 46 -25 I 50 -0 -5 -10 Q5 Ql LL .~ .s:: li Ql o -20 Project No, 10291.G November 2004 TERRASEARCH, inc. LEGEND A Light brown Sandy CLAY, scattered fine to medium gravel, moderate shrinkage cracks, hard, dry B Santa Clara Formation: Mottled light yellow browr tan, and light reddish brown very Gravelly CLAY, suo angular to well rounded clasts of fine gravel to boulders, hard, damp C Old Alluvium: Reddish brown Gravelly CLAY; angular to well rounded, fine to medium gravel; hard; damp o Gray-brown Silty CLAY, minor fine sand, stiff, moist E Light brown Silty CLAY, minor coarse sand, stiff, moist LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH T-1 Lau Residence 21600 Rainbow Drive Cupertino, California Figure NO.4 ~ A I ~ sw Trench T-2 Northwest Face N 620E 0- 5- 10- 15- E Possible Bedding N 100 W, 380E 20- I 6 I 10 I 20 Distance in Feet Possible Bedding N 300W, 290E I 30 NE -0 -5 -10 Q) Q) ~ '.f: .!: 0. Q) o -15 -20 LEGEND A Light brown Sandy CLAY, scattered fine to medium gravel, moderate shrinkage cracks, hard, dry B Santa Clara Formation: Mottled light yellow brown, tan, and light reddish brown very Gravelly CLAY, sub angular to well rounded clasts of fine gravel to boulders, hard, damp . C Old Alluvium: Reddish brown Gravelly CLAY; angular to well rounded, fine to medium gravel; hard; damp D Gray-brown Silty CLAY, minor fine sand, stiff, moist E Light brown Silty CLAY, minor coarse sand, stiff, moist Project NO.1 0291.8 November 2004 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH T-2 Lau Residence 21600 Rainbow Drive Cupertino, California Figure No.5 TERRASEARCH, inc. ('.i -C I ~ C) SW 0- Trench T-3 Northwest Face F 5- G PVC Storm ___ _rfDrai~ . H \ ) H ------\ (---- C ! I C ~~ \-- B 10- 15- I o I 10 I Wet Zone, Minor Seeping I 20 LEGEND B Santa Clara Formation: Mottled light yellow brown, tan, and light reddish brown very Gravelly CLAY, sub angular to well rounded clasts of fine gravel to boulders, hard, damp C Old Alluvium Reddish brown Gravelly CLAY; angular to well rounded, fine to medium gravel; hard; damp F Fill: Light brown slightly Gravelly CLAY; fine to medium, sub angular to rounded clasts; very stiff; slightly damp G Fill: Mottled light brown, light olive green, and light yellow brown Gravelly CLAY; fine to medium, sub angular to rounded clasts; asphalt fragments; stiff; moist H Dark brown Sandy CLAY. medium stiff, moist to very moist Fill: Mottled light brown and light gray Silty CLAY with minor fine gravel, sub angular to rounded clasts, plastic, stiff, moist J Gray Clayey SILT. minor fine gravel, medium stiff, moist K Older Alluvium. Mottled gray and reddish brown Gravelly CLAY, medium stiff, moist NE -0 Trench T-4 Northwest Face N 800E -0 NE SW 0- G -5 --- H -- ___ 1- - ------===:---- --- -5 5- -10 10- -10 K ----- -15 C -15 Wet Zone, Below Possible Storm Drain Pipe Increased Density -20 20- I o I 10 Eroject lio. 10291.G LOGS OF EXPLORATORY TRENCHES T-3 and T-4 Lau Residence 21600 Rainbow Drive Cupertino, California Figure NO.6 November 2004 TERRASEARCH, inc. ). \'-:l -C , ~ ~ N 420 E ---- Conglomerate fractured, light brown fine to medi.um dense Conglomerate w'i th sands tone interbeds medillil to fine clasts, friable, moi st o I 80 20 J 100 40 I 120 "0 'I 140 8f 160 Dark brown sil ty clay I 180 Fill crushed rock, clay lumps (Field Dis'ked) Dark brown silty clay, moist Conglome ra te with sandstone interbeds medium to fine clasts, friable, moist .. BAY SOILS, INC. PROJECT NO, 563 DATE: 27 June 1983 SCALE: 1" FIGUR~ NO. la' 2 Trench Log ELEVATION (feet) 130 [ 120 110 100 90 100 ~ 90 80 70 60 ADDENDUM TO GEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT for PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 21600 Rainbow Drive Cupertino, California for MR. LOmSLAU By TERRASEARCH, inc. Project No. l0291.G 28 August 2006 Exhibit B Z-l(-(gJ SAN JOSE 322 Piercy Road San Jose, CA 95138 Phone: (408) 362-4920 Fax: (408) 362-4926 LIVERMORE '~7 Wright Brothers Ave. Livermore, CA 94551 Phone: (925) 243-6662 Fax: (925) 243-6663 SACRAMENTO 4200 N. Freeway Blvd. Suite 2 Sacramento, CA 95834 Phone: (916) 564-7809 Fax: (916) 564-7672 OAKLAND 7700 Edgewater Drive Suite 847 Oakland, CA 94621 Phone: (510) 633-1332 Fax: (408) 362-4926 FRESNO 4339 N. Go1da1 State Blvd Suite 103 Fresno, CA 93722 Phone: (559) 271-0773 Fax: (559) 271-0763 WEBSITE "'"'W.terrasearchinc.com E-MAIL ! @terrasearchinc.com ,.~ I mmental . Geotechnical. Special Inspections. Mate. Testing W TEififJJ.SEJJ.ifClf/llIC. SERVING NORTHERN CALIFORNIA SINCE 1969 Project No. l0291.G 28 August 2006 Mr. Louis Lau 21600 Rainbow Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 Subject: Proposed Residential Development 21600 Rainbow Drive Cupertino, California ADDENDUM TO GEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT References: Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc., 2006, "Geologic Peer Review, Lau Fault Investigation, 21600 Rainbow Drive", technical review letter for City of Cupertino, dated March 1, 2006. Terrasearch, Inc, 2004, "Geologic Assessment for Proposed Residential Development, 21600 Rainbow Drive, Cupertino, CA", unpublished technical report for Mr. Louis Lau, Project No. 10291.G, dated 23 November 2004. Dear Mr. Lau: In accordance with your authorization, TERRASEARCH, inc., has performed a supplemental investigation of the geologic conditions at the subject site located in the City of Cupertino, Santa Clara County, California. During a conference with a representative of Cotton, Shires & Associates, it was determined that two exploratory borings drilled at the locations shown on Figure 2 would likely satisfy the recommendations of their referenced review letter. The accompanying report presents our conclusions and recommendations based on our investigation. Our findings indicate that the site is suitable for the planned development. 2V,~(gL{ Project No.10291.G ,ddendum to Geologic AssessmentIRainbow Dri 28 August 2006 Should you have any questions relating to the contents of this report or should you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact our office at your convenience. Very truly yours, TERRASEARCH, inc., ~~~ Lawrence D. Pavlak, C.E.G. Engineering Geologist Copies: 4 to Mr. Louis Lau -':~'-L)--(:,;~..!~:.. ~. ~~ (.. ", ~ . ,. c..... \ '-.>'. .---.....:.:::.' . . 1...\>' :~/ . " . I . : . - \. U' '", ~ '--~ ..',.;. i ./~:'~>/ '-. ~h'----. ..//,,",-'j '''':'':''!2 no~,r::' r n;" \.. \'...c.c;~~' ~~:....../ TERRASEARCH, inc. Page 3 of 14 'L l( -&)" Project No.10291.G .ddendum to Geologic AssessmentJRainbow Dri 28 August 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pa2e No. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL........................................................................................2 Preliminary Geologic Assessment..................................................................................... 5 Site Background....................................................... ............................................................5 Current Site Investigation...................................... ..................................................6 Exploratory Drilling............................................................................................................. 7 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................8 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS ...........................................9 APPENDIX A .................................................. .................................................................1 0 Location Map, Figure 1................................................. .......... ........................................ ...11 Site Plan and Geologic Map, Figure 2...............................................................................12 Log of Boring B-1, Figure 3.......... ................ ..................................................... ............. ...13 Log of Boring B2, Figure 4......................................... ..................................... .................. 14 TERRASEARCH, inc. Page 4 of 14 2l! -&~ Project No.10291.G ddendum to Geologic AssessmentIRainbow Drh 28 August 2006 PRELIMINARY GEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT Site Background The site is located near the southern edge of the City of Cupertino in Santa Clara County. It extends to the south from Rainbow Drive to Upland Way at the base of the Santa Cruz Mountains, on the southwestern edge of Santa Clara Valley (see Figure 1). The site consists primarily of a hill slope that inclines northeasterly from Upland Way at a gradient of 2: 1 to 3: 1 (horizontal: vertical), leveling out in the northeastern comer of the parcel. A single family residence and a tennis court are located on the level portion of the lot. According to published regional geologic mapping (Brabb, 1993; Hitchcock, et aI., 1994), the hills underlying the site vicinity are underlain by non-marine sediments of Plio-Pleistocene Age (Santa Clara Formation) that are gently folded around northwest trending axes. The nearest potentially active fault is the Monte Vista, mapped as crossing the site. The Monte Vista is part of the range-front fault system, a long complex zone of curvilinear faults that include the Shannon and Berrocal faults, dipping southwest. They have thrust Jurassic and Cretaceous rocks of the Franciscan Complex to the northwest over alluvial sediments of the Pliocene-Pleistocene Santa Clara Formation. Terrasearch performed geologic investigations of the Billawalla Property that included the subject site, in 1976. These investigations utilized seismic profiling, exploratory drilling, and the excavation of test pits and exploratory trenches to evaluate the potential for seismic hazards to affect the proposed developments. The seismic profiles identified two anomalies that were ascribed to the presence of the Monte Vista Fault. However, the supplemental report stated "no active ruptures have been found in the alleviated area either by trenching or seismic profiling." They postulated that the fault is buried under as much as IOta 15 feet of alluvium and recommended the establishment of a setback zone of 30 feet on the northeast side of the mapped fault trace and 50 feet on the southwest side. Terrasearch also performed a geologic investigation of the 1.8 acre, adjacent property to the east in 1995. Art exploratory trench approximately 74 feet long was excavated in the southwest TERRASEARCH, Inc., Page 5 of 14 2-4 -to 1 Project No.10291.G ldendum to Geologic AssessmentJRainbow Driv. 28 August 2006 comer of the parcel, terminating at the common property line with the subject site. The trench was 11 to 14 feet deep and encountered strata described as topsoil underlain by colluvium. No evidence of a potentially active fault trace was found in the trench. However, they observed a thickening of the apparent colluvium in the west end of the trench and stated that this "may reflect tectonic processes immediately southwest of the site." A building restriction zone of 40 feet from the southwest comer of the site was recommended to mitigate the possibility that the Monte Vista Fault underlies the hill southwest of the site. Bay Soils, Inc. conducted a soil and geologic investigation of the subject site in 1983, prior to the construction of the current residence and tennis court on the property. They excavated two exploratory trenches during this investigation, as shown on the Geologic Map, Figure 2. The longest of these trenches, located across the southwestern portion of the building restriction zone, encountered interbedded sandstone and conglomerate (apparent Santa Clara Formation) overlain by colluvial soils. The shorter, northeastern trench was approximately 9 to 12 feet deep and was too shallow to encounter bedrock. Bay Soils did not observe any features in the trenches that appeared to indicate the presence of seismic hazards. Current Site Investh!ation Terraserch, 2004, initiated the current geologic assessment of the subject site by excavating four exploratory trenches across the building restriction zone near the footprint of the proposed residence. These trenches, designated T-I, T-2, T-3 and T-4, were placed generally perpendicular to the mapped trend ofthe Monte Vista fault in the site vicinity. The subsurface materials encountered in trenches T-l and T-2 consisted of probable colluvium and older alluvium overlying very gravelly clay of the Santa Clara Formation. Trenches T-3 and T-4 exposed 6 to 8.5 feet offill over alluvium and then apparent Santa Clara Formation material. Because of the thick layers of overburden, the backhoe was only able to penetrate 12 to 18 inches into the apparent Santa Clara Formation in T-3 and T-4. Cotton, Shires & Associates suggested TERRASEARCH, Inc., Page 6 of 14 LL( -~t Project No.10291.G lldendum to Geologic AssessmentJRainbow Dri 28 August 2006 that an exploratory boring be drilled near each of these two trenches to confirm the presence of undisturbed Santa Clara Formation below the fill and alluvium. Exploratory Drilling Terrasearch drilled two exploratory borings on the site on 7 July 2006. The borings, designated B-1 and B-2, were drilled to depths of 31 and 34 feet, respectively, with aCME 55 track mounted drill rig with 8-inch diameter hollow-stem auger. Continuous sampling was accomplished by alternating three types of samplers: a California split spoon, California modified, and then a standard penetration sampler. The samples were placed in core boxes and labeled for future reference. A Certified Engineering Geologist directed the drilling operation and logged the borings. The subsurface materials encountered in the borings consisted of artificial fill from the ground surface to depths of 4.5 to 5 feet, underlain by apparent older alluvium consisting of sandy and gravelly clays to 15 to 18.5 feet. These materials were observed to overly Santa Clara Formation strata consisting of gravelly clays to the final depths explored. Groundwater was encountered in one boring, B-2, at a depth of approximately 30 feet. No evidence of offset or sheared sailor alluvial horizons or other anomalies indicative of faulting was observed in the soil samples. A detailed description of the samples collected are presented in the logs of Borings B-1 and B-2 (Figures 3 and 4). TERRASEARCH, lnc" Page 7 of 14 2..l(-~9 Project No.10291.G jdendum to Geologic AssessmentIRainbow Drh 28 August 2006 DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The site is not within a State of California, Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone (1974) but the Monte Vista Fault has been mapped as crossing the site. A previous investigation of the site and adjacent parcels established a restricted building area within the property along the possible fault trace. 2. The site will probably be subjected to severe seismic shaking during the economic lifetime of the project. Structural designs should therefore employ current, acceptable design parameters. 3. We did not identify any features indicative of faulting or geologic hazards in the exploratory trenches and borings excavated and logged during our geologic investigation of the subject site. 4. We conclude that the site is suitable for the planned development. TERRASEARCH, Inc., Page 8 of 14 2 L( - 70 Project No.10291.G Idendum to Geologic AssessmentJRainbow Driv 28 August 2006 LIl\1IT A TIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS 1. It should be noted that it is the responsibility of the owner or his representative to notify TERRASEARCH, inc., in writing, a minimum of two working days before any clearing, grading, or foundation excavations can commence at the site. 2. The recommendations of this report are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the borings and/or test pits and from a reconnaissance of the site. Should any variations or undesirable conditions be encountered during the development of the site, TERRASEARCH, inc., will provide supplemental recommendations as dictated by the field conditions. 3. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the Architect and Engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans and that the necessary steps are taken to see that the Contractor and Subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. 4. At the present date, the findings of this report are valid for the property investigated. With the passage of time, significant changes in the conditions of a property can occur due to natural processes or works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, legislation or the broadening of knowledge may result in changes in applicable standards. Changes outside of our control may render this report invalid, wholly or partially. Therefore, this report should not be considered valid after a period of two (2) years without our review, nor should it be used, or is it applicable, for any properties other than those investigated. 5. Not withstanding, all the foregoing applicable codes must be adhered to at all times. TERRA SEA RCH, Inc., Page 9 of 14 1..l{-lt APPENDIX A Location Map (Fhmre 1) Site Plan and Geologic Map (Figure 2) L02 of Borin2 B-1 (Figure 3) L02 of Borin2 B-2 (Fi2Ure 4) 2.l(-72- ~;"~'IlEI~ Pl CIR <oJ ..J ~g % 0 Zo to 0_ llJl/J.; "" ~ '" ~ < Z ~ -' BASE: By Thomas Brothers 1 inch = 1900 feet Project No.1 0291.G TERRASEARCH, . LOCA lION MAP Lau Residence 21600 Rainbow Drive Cupertino, California Figure NO.1 August 2006 Inc. 'LL( -7 J Location: See Site Plan BOREHOLE LOG Elevation: Boring No.: Bl Sheet I of Date Drilled - Start: 07/07/2006 Drill Rig: CME 55 Hammer: 140lbs 30" Boring Backfill Method: "' ~ " ,; .. ~ 0 z ... E "' '" 0 u ... "' u s: '" ~ ... '" Q .. 0 ~ ji ~ ... '" " 5 Finished: 07/07/2006 Drilling Method: Logged By: LDP Drilling Contractor: Britton Exploration Total Depth of Boring: 31 ft. MA TERlAL DESCRIPTION FILL: mottled light yellow brown, brown, and olive brown, gravelly CLAY (CL), fme to medium, angular to rounded gravel, very stiff, moist D~~ro~~~~cuY(a)~eili~~w~~~---------------------------- R~ili~~WTI,~~~CUY~L~~~~w~~~~m~~~~~~mllrmm~~~~~moot------ -SANtA a:::ARA.-FoRMATION: mottled: tan~Hghtyellowbrown andllgliTbrown;- grnVeilY CUY (CL),mOcJerateiY weathered,- fme to coarse gravel, subangular to well rounded, light gray mottling Boring was terminated at 31 feet below ground surface (bgs). Groundwater was not encountered, :s: <-' ~ ~ tot!. G=:OTECHN!:Al ENGNEERS Ai'jD GEOLOGISTS i ~(i;fi T=RRASE/JRCII,IVC. g 257 Wri ht Brothers Ave. Livermore Ca. 94551 Phone 925 243-6662 10 15 20 "' o <0 as I- g '2.5 I o c: <( w en <( c: c: W I- & 30 c:i z ;:: c: W Q. Q. ::> () ill > ~ 5 :s: o co z ~ ~ en N ~ Figure No. 21600 RAINBOW DRIVE CUPPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 3 Dale: Drawn by: Project No, 10291.G Reviewed By: L Pavlak 9/6/2006 GC '2y -lY BOREHOLE LOG Location: See Site Plan Elevation: Boring No.: B2 Sheet I of Date Drilled - Start: 07/07/2006 Drill Rig: CME 55 Finished: 07/07/2006 Logged By: LDP Harruner: 140lbs 30" Drilling Method: Drilling Contractor: Britton Exploration Boring Backfill Method: Total Depth of Boring: 35 ft. '" t "' " w ~ '" W ..J ~ MA TERlAL DESCRlPTION ~ o u ,. o ..J '" c:> o ..J U ;: ~ c:> 5 Boring was tenninated at 35 feet below ground surface (bgs). Groundwater was encountered at 30 feet below ground surface (bgs) PILL: mottled light yellow brown, light brown, reddish brown, gravelly CLAY, stiff, moist ~~@~~~~~~~~@~~~~~y~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Older Alluvium - mottled reddish brown, dark gray brown, and gray, GRA YELL Y clay, stiff, moist -Dark grn:ybroWn~sanay CLAY (CL);-mmOr gravel, roundel"to-subangiihiT, [me to medlllin;-meciluiTi Stiff, mOISt - - - - - - -- 10 reddish mottling increasing sand content, light yellow brown, sandstone clasts -MOttledbroWn-;- rlarkbrown;- andgraybiOwn,-gIivcl.ly CLAy(ct), subangular-torounded, [me iO mediwn-gravel,stif(slightiy - - moist 15 20 -SANTA CLARA-PORMA fION: mottled light brown;- light gray, light yellow brown;- gfaVeiry CIA Y (cL),-mffior medium grnined- - sand, subangular to rounded, fme to medium gravel, hard, damp <D 1il a; mottled reddish brown, brown, and gray I- 8 25 :i u a: <( w en ~ a: w I- increasingly reddish brown wet very moist abundant orange oxide staining ..., Si 0 cj z ;:: a: w 0.. 0.. ::0 o W > ~ 35 3 o lD Z ~ d1 '" N o 3 Cl ~ ~ ,tr~ GEOTECHNICAL ENGI:'<EERS AND GEOLOGISTS i~.. T=RR.lJSE.lJ.R.Clllrvc. as 257 Wr; ht Brothers AVe, Livermore Ca. 94551 Phone 925 243-6662 Figure No. 21600 RAINBOW DRIVE CUPPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 4 Date: Drawn by: Project No. 10291.G Reviewed By: L. Pavlak 9/6/2006 GC 2~ ~7J ~ COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. ... CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS Exhibit C March 1, 2006 COO54A TO: Colin Jung Plarming Department CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 SUBJECT : RE: Geologic Peer Review Lau, Fault Investigation 21600 Rainbow Drive At your request, we have completed a geologic peer review of the fault investigation at the subject property using the following documents: · Geologic Assessment (report), prepared by Terrasearch, Inc., dated November 23,2004. In addition to the above referenced document, we reviewed pertinent technical documents from Our office files and performed inspections of the exploratory fault trenches on three separate occasions, participated in meetings with the Project Engineering Geologist at our office and over the telephone, and prepared a peer review status letter on March 30, 2005. DISCUSSION It is our understanding that the applicant is considering a subdivision of a single- family residential lot into 2 parcels in order to construct a new residence on the second parcel, located to the south of the existing residence. The subject property is located between Rainbow Drive and Upland Way. Current access to the property is via a paved driveway that extends southward from. Rainbow Drive and leads to the existing residence_ Geologic investigations for the original subdivision (Billawalla, 1976) identified the probable location of the Monta Vista fault zone across the subject property, and delineated a building restriction zone across the site. However, definitive evidence of the fault trace was not obtained through the area of tIl.e current proposed residential site. A relatively wide (80 feet) fault zone was delineated based upon geomorphic mapping and geophysical investigations, but the actual fault was not directly observed at this site. We understand that the preferred location of the proposed new residence is located within this restricted building zone in the area currently occupied by a tennis court; however, a development plan has not been submitted to date. 2....\1 -j 10 Northern California Office 330 Village Lane Los Gatos, CA 95030-7218 (408) 354-,o;o;.1? . Fay lA-OR) ~1)4-1852 "'-m.'lil: lo.l 'd;@('c6006 'ONs.clJIn JNI 'S31VIJOSSV ~ S3~IHS Southern California Office 5245 Avenida Encinas . Suite A Carlsbad, CA 92008-4374 (760) 931-2700 · Fax; (760) 931-l020 'NOllOJ e-mV'ldO l : l i\'9001:'l '~Wlcom ColinJung Page 2 March 1, 2006 C0054A In the summer of 2004, the applicant's Engineering Geologist excavated several fault investigation trenches in an attempt to locate the Monta Vista fault on the property. These trenches did not identify the trace of the fault, and deep colluvium prevented visual observations of bedrock in some of the trenches. In our previous review report, dated March 30, 2005, we indicated that the completed investigations had cleared the southwestern portion of the site with respect to the potential for fault rupture; however, the northeastern portion of the fault setback zone had not been fully explored because of existing residential/tennis court structures and locally deep colluvium constrained the available area for trenching necessary to fully evaluate the potential fault rupture hazard- We recommended that, if existing structures were not to be disturbed, additional deep boreholes should be strategically excavated on the property and continuously sampled to appropriate depths to characterize the nature of the bedrock materials and the fault location. We reconunended that the locations of the boreholes be submitted to OUI office for review prior to drilling_ To date we have not received information pertaining to additional exploratory drilling. SITE CONDmONS The subject property is comprised of gentle alluvial topography in the northeast comer, and steep northeast-facing slopes on the southwest portion of the property. The property is underlain at depth by sandstone and conglomerate bedrock materials of the Santa Oara Formation. Bedding is generally steeply dipping to the northeast, generally parallel with the slope face- These materials are locally overlain but valley alluvium, colluvium, and artificial fill materials. A mapped trace of the Manta Vista fault crosses the northeast portion of the property. Areas adjacent to the fault are located within an "F" zone on the City's Geologic and Seismic Hazards Map. . CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION Based on our review of the referenced report, our site inspections, and conversations with the Project Engineering Geologist, it appears that tlie consultant has completed the logging and excavation of exploratory trenches within portions of the fault setback zone. Based on exposures in Trenches 1 and 2, the exploratory trenching performed to date has cleared the southwestern portion of the site with respect to tb.e potential for surface fault rupturei however, overburden materials (colluvium, alluvium, and artificial fill material) deepen to the northeast and Trenches 3 and 4 could not attain the necessary depths to adequately expose bedrock materials and determine the fault rupture potential. Additionally, an existing tennis court and other developments constrained the area available for trenching_ Consequently, it is our opinion that, to fully clear the identified fault zone extending through the property from the potential for surface fault mpture, or to identify appropriate setbacks from an identified fault, additional subsurface exploration will be necessary. The applicant should be aware tl"1at portions of the identified building L y- 7'/ l 'd 6006 'ON COTION, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. :)N! 'S31V!:)OSSV ~ S3~!HS 'NOllO:) VIldOl:l 9001: 'l '~w~ Colin Jung Page 3 March 11 2006 C0054A restriction zone have been cleared, and that it may be possible to develop the southwesteln portion of the site without further fault exploration. A residential development plan would be necessary to assess this possibility, and site specific subsurlac:e exploration for hillside stability and foundation design would be needed. If the applicant wishes to pursue further exploration of the northeastern portion of the fault zone, then additional deep subsurface exploration should be performed. This most likely will necessitate exploring within the tennis court It should be understood that geomorphic and geophysical evidence are suggestive of a fault at depth through this property, and that definitive evidence to demonstrate its absence will be needed to clear the entire fault zone. The applicant's geologic consultant should consider an exploratory drilling program consisting of carefully located, deep, continuously cored borings. The borings should be drilled to a depth that would likely cross the fault and adequately define its subsurface geometry on the property. Deep, multi-terraced trenches could also be considered, but are very invasive and may best be used following a drilling program. Consequently, we recommend the following be performed prior to reaching geologic conclusions regarding the proposed subdivision. 1. Supplemental Fault Exploration - If the applicant wishes to pursue further exploration of the northeastern portion of the fault zone, then the Project Engineering Geologist should perform the following: . Additional subsurface exploration should be completed to adequately characterize bedrock materials and the fault location within the northwest portion of the existing restricted fault zone on the property _ If additional trenching is not feasible, borings should be drilled at strategic locations and to depths that would intersect the fault. We recommend that the consultant provide a work plan for our review prior to initiation of additional subsurface exploration. . Borings should be continuously sampled and logged by the Project Engineering Geologist. Depth to bedrock, surficial materials, and geologic sb:ucture should be described. We request to observe subsurface exposures or drilling core samples in the field at the time of exploration. . All subsurface exploration locations completed on the subject property, as well as the fault setback zone should be accurately located and depicted on a geologic map, and site/ development plan. The results of the Supplemental Fault Exploration should be described by the Project Engineering Geologist, with appropriate figures, in a report and submitted to the City Geologist for review prior to geologic approval. 2J{ -7 j E 'd 6006 'ON COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. :JNI 'S31VI:JOSSV ~ SHIHS 'NOllO:J VIldOl:l 900(; 'l '~W.J Colin Jung Page 4 March 1, 2006 C0054A LIMITATIONS This peer 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. TIlls warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. Respectfully submitted, COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOGATES, INC. CTIY GEOLOGIST \tM~~ Associate Engineering Geologist CEG 1923 Ted Sayre Associate Engineering Geologist CEG 1795 TS:JMW;RR V 'd 6006 'ON 2J{ - 71 COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. JNI 'S31VlJOSSV ~ SnlHS 'NOllOJ V"JdOl: l 900i: 'l '~Wl ~ COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. ~ CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS Exhibit 0 September 12, 2006 C0054B TO: ColinJung Planning Department CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 SUBJECT: RE: Supplemental Geologic Peer Review Lau, Fault Investigation 21600 Rainbow Drive At your request, we have completed a supplemental geologic peer review of the fault investigation at the subject property using the following documents: · Geologic Assessment (report), prepared by Terrasearch, Inc., dated November 23,2004; and · Addendum to Geologic Assessment (report), prepared by Terrasearch, Inc., dated August 28, 2006. In addition to the above referenced document, we reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office files and performed inspections of the exploratory fault trenches on three separate occasions, participated in meetings with the Project Engineering Geologist at our office and over the telephone, and reviewed small-diameter drilling core samples. DISCUSSION It is our understanding that the applicant is considering a subdivision of a single- family residential lot into 2 parcels in order to construct a new residence on the second parcel, located to the south of the existing residence. Geologic investigations for the original subdivision (Billawalla, 1976) identified the probable location of the Monta Vista fault zone across the subject property, and delineated a building restriction zone across the site. However, definitive evidence of the fault trace was not obtained through the area of the current proposed residential site. A relatively wide (80 feet) fault zone was delineated based upon geomorphic mapping and geophysical investigations, but the actual fault was not directly observed at this site. We understand that the preferred location of the proposed new residence is located within this restricted building zone in the area currently occupied by a tennis court; however, a development pIan has not been submitted to date. In the summer of 2004, the applicant's Engineering Geologist excavated several fault investigation trenches in an attempt to locate the Monta Vista fault on the property. These trenches did not identify the trace of the fault, and deep colluvium prevented visual l-l{ - J1J Northern California Office 330 Village Lane Los Gatos, CA 95030-7218 (408) 354-5542 . Fax (408) 354-1852 e-mail: losgatos@cottonshires.com www.cottonshires.com Central California Office 6417 Dogtown Road San Andreas, CA 95249-9640 (209) 736-4252 . Fax (209) 736-1212 e-mail: cottonshires@starband.net Colin Jung Page 2 September 12, 2006 C0054B observations of bedrock in trenches along the eastern portion of the property. In a previous review report, dated March 30, 2005, we indicated that the completed investigations had cleared the southwestern portion of the site with respect to the potential for fault rupture; however, the northeastern portion of the fault setback zone had not been fully explored because of existing residentialj tennis court structures and locally deep colluvium. We recommended that additional deep boreholes should be strategically excavated on the property and continuously sampled to appropriate depths to characterize the nature of the bedrock materials. The referenced Addendum Report by Terrasearch, Inc., dated August 28, 2006 summarizes the results of the supplemental subsurface exploration, where they performed deep, continuously sampled, small-diameter borings to augment the previous trenching exploration. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION Based on our review of the referenced reports, our site inspections, our review of core samples, and conversations with the Project Engineering Geologist, it appears that the consultant has completed the excavation and logging of deep exploratory boreholes along the eastern portion of the proposed building site. The purpose of these borings was to augment the subsurface exploration in the western portion of the site, obtained by deep trenching methods. The recent exploratory borings reveal that no sheared rock or other evidence of faulting was observed. Additionally, the subsurface data reveal that the Santa Clara Formation bedrock forms a continuous, unbroken surface extending from the west to the east side of the proposed building site. The unsheared rock and uniform bedrock surface forms the basis of the Project Geotechnical Consultants conclusion that the site is not underlain by the Monta Vista fault. Consequently, we recommend geologic approval of the proposed subdivision provided that the residential structure is located within the area shadowed by the subsurface geologic exploration. The following should be performed prior to approval of building permits from a geologic standpoint: 1. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation - A geotechnical engineering investigation should be performed to characterize the site geotechnical conditions and provide engineering design recommendations for foundations, retaining walls, drainage and grading. 2. Development Plans - Architectural and structural plans should be generated that include the recommendations of the Project Geotechnical Engineer and Project Geologist. 3. Geologic and Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geologic and geotechnical consultants should review and approve all geologic and geotechnical aspects of the development plans (i.e., residential locations relative L~ - fl COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. Colin Jung Page 3 September 12, 2006 C0054B to fault exploration, site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Development Plans, and Plan Review should be submitted to the Town Engineer and Town Geologist for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. LIMITATIONS This peer review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the City with discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been ililiited 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, COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ~~EOLOGI ~~~ace Associate Engineering Geologist CEG 1923 ~~ Ted Sayre Associate Engineering Geologist CEG 1795 TS:JMW:st Zl(-t;z. COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC.