Loading...
17. Petition for Reconsideration Lindy Ln (Dozier)~~rv of City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408} 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 CUPERTINO Community Development ~ ~ Department SUMD/IARY Agenda Item No_ ~ Agenda Date: November 4, 2008 Application: Petition Request for Reconsideration of the City Council's Decision denying an appeal of a one-year extension of a tentative parcel map (TM-2005-03) that expires on July 26, 2008_ The Tentative Map subdivided a 1.0 acre site into two parcels of about 20,000 square feet each in an R1-20 zoning. Application No. DII2-2008-19 Applicant: John Dozier Property Owner: - John and Karen Knopp Location: 21925 Lindy Lane, APN 356-25-014 Petitioner: Councilmember Orrin Mahoney APPLICATION SUMMARY Consider a petition for reconsideration of th~~ City Council's decision denying an appeal of the Plann;rig Commission approval of a one-year extension (file no. DIR-2008- 19) to July 26, 2009 of the tentative parcel map (file no. TM-2005-03). RECOMMENDATION 'The Council has the option to grant or deny the Reconsideration Hearing. If the City Council declines to grant the reconsideration hearing, then the appeal remains denied and the extension of the tentative map remaiirvs approved. If the City Council decides to grant the Reconsideration Hearuig, then the Council has the option to either: 1) Uphold the Appeal (i.e. deny the tentative map extension request); or 2) Deny-the Appeal (i.e. approve the tentative map extension request) BACKGROUND In 2005, the -Planning Commission approved a tentative parcel map to "subdivide. this parcel into two 20,000 square foot lots. The final map approval was delayed partly due to discussions over the extent of public street improvements along the project frontage. Consequently, the applicant requested cone-year extension of the tentative map, which was approved by the Plannning Commission on August 26, 2008. On August 28, 2008, n-~ Reconsideration of the Appeal of DIR-2008-19 November 4, 2008 Page 2 Councihnember Gilbert Wong appealed the Plann;ng Commission's decision to approve cone-year extension. Among Councilmember Wong's appeal points, he contended that there was insufficient net lot area to subdivide the property without the access easement, and the inclusion of the easement in the net lot area calculation should have been approved under an exception process, rather than as a condition of approval as was done in the tentative map approval in 2005 (Exhibits B-2, C-2). . 7n the appeal staff report, staff indicated that the proposed driveway easement across Lot No. 2 and benefiting Lot No. 1 was considered during the tentative map review process and that condition #11 was added to the tentative map approval to clarify the intent. At the appeal hearing, staff pointed out that the zoning definition of "lot area" allowed the inclusion of the access easement in the lot area. calculation since it was a "driveway ' easement, and not a "street" easement (Exhibit D-2). Staff also pointed out that if the driveway easement (2,741 square feet) was excluded from the lot area calculation, there would be insufficient land area to subdivide the property into two lots. The appeal request was denied on a 2-2-1 vote (Wang and Worig, aye; Mahoney and Mayor Sandoval, nay; and Santoro abstained) DISCUSSION: Councilmember Mahoney's reconsideration hearing request (Exhibit A-2) presents new information not previously considered by the City Council at the appeal hearing. There is a separate definition of "net iot area 'that differs from "lot area" in the zoning code, Section 19.08.030 (Exhibit D-2 and E-2). Lot Area "means the area of a lot measured horizontally between boiuldary lot Imes, but excluding a portion of a flag lot providing access to a street and lying between a front Iot liize aild the street, and excluding any portion of a lot within the lines of any natural watercourse, river, stream, creek, waterway, channel or flood control or drainage easement and excluding any t~ortion of a lot within a street right-of-way whether acduired in fee, easement or otherwise." Net Lot Area "means the total area utcluded within the property lazes of a site, excluding the following: 1. Any portion of a site within the right-of-way of an existing public street; 2. The portion of a flag lot constituting the access corridor lying between the front property line and the frontage line of the corridor at the street; 3. The full width of any legal easement used for access purposes." 17-2 2 Reconsideration of the Appeal of DIR-2008-19 November 4; 2008 Page 3 The City subdivision ordinance provides that no. land shall be subdivided and developed for any purpose which is not in conformity with the General Plan, applicable specific plan and applicable zoning district for the property (CMC Section 18.04.030 et. seq.) The zoning ordinance applicable to this property is R1-20. CIVIC Section 19.28A50 defines what the m;,,;,,,um lot size is for a R.1-20 zoned property (Exhibit F-2). Note that the Rl .zone uses the term "Lot Area," not the term "Net Lot Area" in describing the minimum lot area. .Therefore, the drivev~Tay easement in question is appropriately included in the lot area for zonuzg purposes, and arguably for subdivision purposes because the proposed lots meet the minimum size for the R1-20 zonutg district_ The "Net Lot Area" concept is also used in the Rl zoning ordinance, but its application is focused on the building potential of the lot, such as, lot coverage and floor area ratio. Condition # 11 of the tentative map approval (Exhibit G2), with respect to calculating "net lot area," lot coverage and floor area ratio; are inconsistent with the zoning definition and the Rl zonirig ordinance regulations and should not apply, unless approved with an exception/variance request to the R1 zoning ordinance, not a condition of subdivision approval. If the City Council decides to grant the Reconsideration Hearing, then the issues to be considered are to be limited to those raised in the Reconsideration petition /letter (See CMC Section 2A8.096B and Exhibit A-2). The City Council has the option to approve or deny the extension to the tentative map. A) If the City Council approves. the tentative map extension, it should delete Condition #11 of the tentative map approval for the salve of clarity; and B) If the City Council denies the tentative map extension, it would need to make one or both of the following findings: 1) That the driveway easement renders 11ze proposed Iot no. 2 physically unsuitable for residential development; and/or 2) That the planning commission erroneously approved the tentative map iri 2005, by allowing development restrictions (defnition of net lot area, floor area ratio and Iot coverage) that are inconsistent with the Rl restrictions without an approved exception/variance request.. Enclosures Exhibit A-2: Reconsideration Letter-from Orrin Mahoney dated October 16, 2008 Exhibit B-2: Email Message from Gilbert Wong to Carol At~vood dated Oct. 6, 2008 Exhibit C-2: Appeal Staff Report for DIR-2t?08-19 dated October 7, 2008 Exhibit D-2: Zoning Code Definition of "Lot: Area" Exhibit E-2. Zoning Code Definition of "Nei: Lot Area" Exhibit F-2. R1 Zoning Code Definition of r-nuumum lot area ' Exhibit G2. Condition # 11 of Plaruzing Commission Resolution No. 6313 17-3 3 Recor~ ideration of the Appeal of DIR-2008-19 Pale 4 Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Submitte by- Steve iasecki Director, Community Development November 4, 20Q8 Approved by: David W. Knapp City Manager G:Pian~zing/F'DREPORT/CC/2008/l7IR-2008-Z9 reco~xsideration.doc ii-a 4 ---- Exhibit A - 2 - - ~ 1094D Miramonte Rd. - - Gupart3no , C.A 95014 - D CT 1 6 2008 City G1erk City of Cupertino 1o3oOTorreAve Cl1PERTlNO CITY CLERK Cupertino, Ca. 95094 - Dear City Clerk: _ ' 1 request a hearing for reconsideration of the ap}peal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve gone-year extension of a tentative parcel map {TM-2005-03) that expires on July 26, 2008. The Tentative Map subdivided an approximately 9.0 acre site into two parcels of about 20,000 square feet each in an R9-20 zoning, AF~plication No. DIR-2008-19, John Dozier, 2'1925 Lindy Lane, APN 356-25-014. The reason for the request for reconsideration is that incomplete information was provided to the Council at its Oct 7 meeting. Specifically, we: were incorrectly informed as to whether an ingress/egrsss easement is automatically included in the net lot area for purposes of subdivision_ The City attorney has rendered a legal opinion as follow_.: The short answer is that such an easement cannot automatically be included. City ordinance (Section 99.08.030) defines "net lot area" as the total area ircluded within the property fines of a site, exGuding the following: 9) Any portion of a site within the right-0f-rvay of an existing public street: 2) The portion of a flag lot constituting the access corcidor lying between the front property line and the frontage line of the corridor at the street; 3) The ful! width of anv legal easement used for access purposes. Hence, an ingress/egress easement which burdens asite -cannot be included in determining "het lot area° absent the granting of an exception or variance as provided in the City's ordinance code_ As this opinion differs from the information presented to the Council at the meeting, E believe that a reconsideration should be granted_ Sincerely, /~ ~~ ~ ~~ Orrin Mahoney '.-' 17-5 Page 1 of 2 Carol Atwood From: Gilbert Wong Sent. Monday; October 06, 2008 9:44 PM To: Carol Atwood Subject: Re: Please confirm the issues outlined below Hi Carol, Exhibit B - 2 Sorry I missed your phone call. Thanks for trying to capture my concerns- I need to make some corrections as well as some additions since you are doing a power point presentation. Please remember to have copies for all the council members as well as any other items that has power point presentations. Please see BELOW of my corrections. Thanks! Gilbert On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Cazol Atwood <CazolACc7cunertino.org> wrote: Hi Gilbert - In an effort to clarify the issues on Lindy and to have a slide at.the CC meeting that can summazize your concerns, I Have put together the following four reasons as to why you are appealing. Can you please confu~n that I heard your concerns correctly and then send this back to me so that Colin Sc Steve can be ready to address your issues? Thanks so much? Carol - ***.r~**~**~*~******~x*+***.~~******~s***~***+ 1. There was no geological study done on this site. The site geology was based on reports from adjacent properties. There is a geological study done for this Lindy Lane site however there was NO sample taken on this site. This TM shoud not be approve until a sample has been taken- If I would have known, I would have required it prior to approval. 2. The calculation of net lot size should have been approved under the exception process and not as a condition of approval. There is NOT enough land to subdivide the property without the easement. This TM should have required a EXCEPTION rather than have it done through the condition of approval. The neighbor were so concern on how it was subdived that it was not pointed out very clearly that there it was not enough land. 3. Section III, #4- Tree Preservation (page 10-54 of packet) states that no trees are to be removed as part of the tentative map approval. Trees will need to be removed to build the house(s). i~-s 10/7/2008 Page 2 of 2 4. Reta;n;ng wall heights not to exceed four feet are inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood (6-8 feet) and will require multiple walls. The TM resolution requred the retaining Qualls be fow- feet high. 'This will create a series of reta;ning wall to support the hillside to put in the two homes. This will significantly change the landscipe of the hill. -The hill preservation was very important and wanted to minimize the number of retaining walls for this project. ' In addition, 5. Please show me the potential building pad and where the retaining walls need._.how many retaining walls? 6. Please show me how many trees will be removed to build the house and,the driveways? 7. Please show me how you are going to put in the full street impovements and what effects will it have on the trees and the hill? Carol, please call me if you have any questions. I talked to Colin about my concerns. Either Steve or Colin or even you are welcome to contact me prior to the CC meeting. I feel very strongly NOT to extend the TM for an additional year based on my concerns above. Regards, Gilbert n-z , 10/7/2008 Exhibit C - 2 City of Cupertino _ 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 ~` °, (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 CUI'E(~T~NO Community Development Department SUMMARY Agenda Item No. ~ ~ Agenda Date: October 7, 2008 Application: Appeal of Planning Cori mission approval of DIR-2008-19 Applicant: John Dozier Property Owner: john and Karen Knopp Location: 21925 Lindy Lane Appellant: Councilmember Gilbert Wong APPLICATION SUMMARY Consider an appeal of-the Planning Commission approval (Exhibit A-1) of a one-yeaz extension to July 26, 2009 of the tentative parcel map (file no. TM-2005-03) for ari approved two lot subdivision of a 1.0 acre site into Lots of about 20,000 square feet each in an R1-20 zone. RECOMMENDATION The Council has the options to either: a) Deny the appeal (i.e. uphold the Planning Commission s decision); ox b) Deny' the appeal with modifications; or c) Uphold the appeal (allow the tentative map to expire); or c) Uphold the appeal with modifications. BACKGROUND On August 26, 2008, the Planning Com*~-»ssion reviewed and approved on a 4-1 vote (Miller, nay) aone-year time extension of a tentative parcel map (file no. TM-2005-03) for an approved two lot subdivision of a 1.0 acre site into lots of about 20,000 square feet each in an R1-20 zone (Exhibit B-1, C-1 and D-1). DISCUSSION: Ap~riicant Comments- - The applicant said most neighbors do not understand or do not want to get involved in . a petition to change the standard street improvements to a semi-rural designation. He feels that an extra year will be enough time to educate -the neighbors and secure enough petition signatures for asemi-rural street designation for Lindy Lane. n-s Appeal of DIIZ-2008-39 Page 2 October 7, 2008 He also- stated the Knopps should not be held accountable, for any alleged transgressions comrr,;tted by Bret Moxley on his own subdivision. Mr. MoxIey is not involved in this property anymore: Public Comments: At Least two residents felt the subdivision m:ap should be allowed to expire for the following reasons: • In places the slopes were too steep or covered in unengineered fill. Core sampling should have been done to validate the suitability of the property for subdivision, • The property may be too small to subdivide, • A house cannot be squeezed into Lot #2 without damaging the trees. If fhe property were allowed to be subdivided, it should be done lengthwise, which will allow development that will do a better job of protecting the trees. Regarding the street improvements, one resident felt the standard street improvements could be installed without damaging the trees. Another asked that the street not be T+ar,-owed for vehicle safety reasons, but deleting the sidewalk would be okay. Another said he would get the 2/3 signatures needed to petition the City Council for asemi- rural street improvement. Sta,~f Comments: Staff responded to a number of questions asked by the Comm;ssioners about the project. 1. Whcst type of public noticing accompanied this extension request? There is no noticing requirement for extension requests of expiring tentative maps. Staff looked to noticing procedures for extensions of other City entitlements but the municipal code was largely silent on the issue, except for conditional use permits and variances where the code allowed decisionmakers to extend the time of a use permit or variance without a public hearing. No public noticing was done for the extensie~n request hearing; however, publication noticing and mailed noticing of property owners within 300 feet was done for the appeal hearing as prescribed by City ordinance. 2. A couple of trees were removed from the Z~roperiy after the tentative map was approved. What happened after the removal? A couple of eucalyptus trees were removed by the adjacent property owner without the Knopps' permission. The Knopps' filed a refroactive tree removal permit (file no. TR- 2006-12) and ended up replacing the trees with two field grown Coast Live Oaks and an eucalyptus. Orie was planted upslope and the other planted near the street. i~-s 2 Appeal of DIIZ-2008-I9 October 7, 2008 3. Was geotechnicat review performed on the property? Yes. A copy of the report titled: "Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Feasibility Evaluation Proposed Two-Lot Subdivision: 21925 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, California/Project 2004G" prepared by Pacific Geotechnical Engineering and dated May 23, 2405 is attached (Exhibit E-1) along with the City Geologist's review letter (Exhibit F-1). The description of the site geology was based on reconnaissance of the site and vicinity, aerial photography analysis, subsurface data (i.e. core sampling) from the adjacent property and the geologist's understanding of the regional geologic framework. The .- geologist referenced his own subsurface data collected on the abutting Moxley property, as well as, published subsurface data from core sampling of the Sun property (west of ~Moxley) prepared by Milstone GeotechnicaL 'The applicant's geologist recommended that subsurface investigation be a requirement of any design-specific geotechnical investigation for any house to be built. Presently, no new house has been proposed on the property.' The City Geologist reviewed Pacific Geotechnical Engineering's (PGE) report and was in agreement with PGE's approach and study as a feasibility-level investigation_ The City Geologist recommended adesign-specific geotechnical report when a new house was actually proposed on the property (Exhibit F-1). The recommendation was incorporated in the conditions of approval for the subdivision. 4. Lot #2 has a proposed ingress,/egress easement to serve Lot #1_ If it is deducted from the net lot area, the lot falls below 10,000 square feet and the subdivision should not take place. '1"his issue was recognized by staff early in the review process when the applicant proposed subdividing the lot lengthwise with the subdivision line parallel to the street. This alternative design had a minimum of 10,000 net square feet per lot and no ingress/egress easement to deduct from the lot area. This alternative subdivision design would have created a poor development relationship with the sheet, and would not have matched the orientation of any of the other residences along Lindy .Lane. The approved subdivision with the subdivision line perpendicular to the street caused the need for the easement to Lot #1 over Lot #2, which was resolved with condition #11 of the tentative map approval- (Exhibit G-1). If the easement area (2,741 square feet) was deducted from the net lot area, Lot #2 would be too small for subdivision. 5. Would standard subdivision street improvements dar~tage the oak trees? Yes. Standard improvements include a 20-foot half-street width, a 6-inch wide curb and a 4 and 1/z foot wide sidewalk as depicted in Exhibit C of Exhibit C-1. These standard improvements would cause the removal of two oaks, regrading of the lower slope of Lot #1, and 3-4 foot tall reta;n,ng walls in back of the sidewalk on Lot #1. Trying to »-io 3 Appeal of DIIZ-2008=19 Pale 4 October 7, 2008 route fhe sidewalk away from the oaks wov_[d not prevent tree damage as there will be additional grading impacts; retaining walls for fhe uphill slopes, and, for safety reasons, 8-feet of vertical clearance -of all vegetation overhanging the sidewalk: This clearance will be damaging to the oaks, which have very low hanging canopies. If the City Council elects to-deny the appeal and uphold the tentative map extension, there are several tentative map conditions ti~~at staff seeks clarification/direction on implementation (Exhibit G-1). Condition #2: FLTTUIZE BUILDING AREA One aspect of this condition prohibits. the construction of retaining walls over 4 feet tall in height as measured from natural grade. I~Z general staff believes this condition can be met on the property, but staff believes some flexibility is warranted on this hilly property. Staff suggests that taller retaining walls be allowed if they are not visible from a public right-of-way. Condition #3. SLOPE EASEMENT- This condition requires the delineation and recordation of a "slope easement" area across the front of the property to ensure "that the existing landforms, trees and vegetation be preserved." Any required street improvements in thus area will probably cause the removal of two Silk trees (Albizia jidzbrissin) and the relocation of one of the mitigation coast live oaks. Council should ir~dicate whether removal/relocation is acceptable or if a tree removal permit is needed. Condition #4: TREE PRESERVATION No new residential development was proposed with this tentai-ive map application, sp staff indicated that no trees were approved for removal as part of the tentative map approval. Staff believes this condition has been misconstrued by some members of the public to mean that all trees on the property were protected. This is clearly not what staff intended when it drafted the condition. Staff did not intend for every orchard tree, young sapling or exotic tree species on this property to be afforded the same protection from removal as a specimen size native tree.- Note that street improvements and residenti~zl development/redevelopment will cause the removal of non-native trees on this property. Removal of any protected tree as specified in the City's protected tree ordinance will require a tree removal permit. Commission comments: A majority of the commissioners felt that the neighbors wanted to see the oaks fronting Lindy Lane preserved and the best course would be to extend the tentative map for another year to allow the applicant/property owner another opportunity to seek sufficient signatures to petition the City Council for aSemi-Rural street designation for this section of Lindy Lane. With aSemi-Rural street designation, the Public Works i~-~~ 4 Appeal of DIR-2008-19 Page 5 October 7, 2008 Department has much more flexibility with street design and can address issues of street width and on-street pazking. The Commission added one modification to the tentative map extension and that was to require core sampling of the building site on Lot #2 and City Geologist clearance prior to final map recordation. Enclosures Exhibit A-1: Appeal Email Exhibit B-1: Planning Commission Resolution No. 6524 (for extension of map) Exhibit C-1: Plane;ng Commission staff report dated August 26, 2008 Exhibit D-1 Planning Commission August 26, 2008 meeting m;nutes (draft) Exhibit E-1: Geotechrucal Report prepared #or the Knopp subdivision by Pacific Geotechnical Engineering dated -May 23, 2005. Exhibit F-1c Geologic Review Letter prepared by Cotton, Shires Associates dated June 29, 2005. Exhibit G-1: Planning Commission-Resolution No. 6313 (for tentative map) Exhibit H-1: Planning Commission staff report dated July 26, 2005 Exhibit I-1: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 26, 2005 Approved Tentative Map Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Suomi b Stev iasecki Director, Commi ty Development Approved by: ~~~C. David W. Knapp City Manager G:PZanning/PDREPORT/CC,/1008/DIR-2008-I9 appeaZ.doc i~ - ~zs Exhibit A - i Colin Jung From: Gilbert Wong Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:28 AM To: David Knapp; Colin Jung Subject: Re_ FW: Councilmember Wong appeal the PC: decision on DIR-2009-19 (21925 Lindy Lane) Thanks! On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 9:26 AM, David Knapp <LlaveKna=,cupertino.ore> wrote: -----Original- Message---- From:.Gilbert Wong Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:21 AM To: colinjCa~cuperitino.org; David Knapp Cc: Steve Piasecki Subject: Councilmember Wong appeal the PC decesion on DIR-2009-19 (21925 Lindy Lane) Hi Colin and Dave, I am following up with my conversation with you yesterday that I am appealing the Planning Commission decesion on DIR-2009-19 in regards to a request for a one year extension to a tentative map sudivsion at 21925 Lindy Lane to the -City Council. Regards, Gilbert 17 - 13 9/23/2008 Exhibit B -1 CI'T'Y OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6524 DIR-2008-19 OF "I'HE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTiNO APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO A TENTATIVE MAP APPROVAL TO EXTEND TTS EXPIRATION DATE TO JULY 26, 2009, WHICH SUBDIVIDES A 1.0 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF ABOUT 20,000 SQUARE FEET EACH IN SIZE IN AN R1-20 ZONING DISTRICT AT 21925 LINDY LANE SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: DIR-2008-19 Applicant: John Dozier {for John Knopp) Location: 21925 Lindy Lane SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Plaru~uzg Commission of the .City of Cupertino received a request to extend the time for an expiring Tentative Subdivision Map Approval as described in Section I of this Resolution; aimed WHEREAS, the application request was received on July 7, 2008 which was prior to the expiration of the tentative map on July 26, 2008 and that the map is automatically exteizded until the Planning Commission hearing. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirement that there is good and sufficient reasons why the subdivision map process has not been completed within the allowed 3- year timeliuze. NOW, THEREFORE, BB IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application DIR-2008-19 for a Tentative Map modification to i~-ia Resolution No_6524 DIR-2008-19 July 26, 2008 Page 2 extend the expiration is approved subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution begiruzing on page 2 thereof, anti That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained ire the Public Hearing record concerning Application DIR-2008-19, as set forth in the Minutes of Plann;ng Comm;ssion Meeting of July 26, 2008, anal are incorporated by reference as though fuiiy set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADr/IINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. . 1. APPROVED FX~TTBITS All previous conditions of approval incl-:zding Co*~*~*~-~i~sion resolution no. 6313 and a tentative map entitled "TENTATIVE :MAP, LANDS OF KNOPP, 21925 LINDY LANE, CUPERTINO, CA" by Nelsen Engineering, dated May 2005, aild consisting of one sheet labeled 1, remain in effect, except as may be-amended by the conditions contailed in this resolution_ 2. SOIL CORE SAMPLING OF LOT NO. 2 The applicant/ owner shall retain a geotechnical engineer to complete soil core sampling of the building area of Lot no. 2 and demonstrate in a written report that there are no significant obsfnzctions to residential development to the satisfaction of the City Geologist alzd prior to final map recordation. 3. TIME EXTENSION The expiration date-for tentative map approval (file no. TM-2005-03) is extended to July 26; 2009. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26*h day of July 2008, at a Regular Meeting of the Plaluung Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of Califorizia, by the following roil call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Vice Chair Giefer, Kaneda, Rose, Brophy NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Miller ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development g;/plmznizig/pdrepart/ies/2008/DIR-2008-19 res.doc APPROVED: /s/Marts Miller IVlarty Miller, Chair Planning COmrnission 17 - 15 Exhibit C -1 CITY OF CLTPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMNIUIVITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: DIR-2008-19 Agenda Date: August 26, 2008 Applicant: Johuz Dozier (for John Knopp) Property Location: 21925 Lindy Lane - Environmental Review: Categorical Exemption, Section 15325, Minor Land Division Application Summary: Request for aone-year extension to July 26, 2009 of the tentative parcel map (file no. TM-2005-03) for an approved two lot subdivision of a 1.0 acre site into lots of about 20,000 square feet each in an R1-20 zone. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of -the one-year time extension for the tentative parcel map and the addition of one new condition per the model resolution. BACKGROLTND• In 200the Planning Commission approved a tentative parcel map to subdivide this one acre parcel into two 20,000 square foot lots. The project has been delayed for several reasons outlined in the applicant's email message to staff (Exhibit A). Currently, the property owner is attempting to obtain final map. approval but has been delayed by lack of agreement over the extent of public street improvements (See Discussion below). DISCUSSION- Time Extension: Approved tentative maps have a time limit of three years. Cupertino Municipal Code section 18.16.100 allows the approving body to extend the time for an expiring tentative map for a period of up to another three years (Exhibit B). The request for time extension was filed before the expiration date, so the tentative map was automatically extended to the date of this meeting. Approved Subdivision Conditions: In approving the subdivision, the Planning Commission placed conditions on the development to protect the existing land forms and significant trees: 1) Condition #2: Identify future building area that reflects Planning Commission staff report and prohibit retair~ir,g walls over four feet uz height. 2) Condition #3: Record a slope easement on the lower slope that ensures the existing landforms aiZd trees are preserved and that development and other improvements, except underground utilities, are prohibited. 3) Condition #4: No permission #o remove trees and record a covenant on the property about protecting specimen size trees. 4)~ Condition #6: Limit vehicular access to Lot #2 from the westerly ino ess/egress easement. ~~-is Applications: DIR-2005-19 21925 Lindy Lane Page 2 Street Improvements: Street improvements aze required as part o:E the final subdivision process and are administered by the Public Works Departs~ent. Engineering studies demonstrated that the standard, city-required subdivision improvements: 40-foot, curb-to-curb roadway; curb; gutter; and sidewalk would have violated the tentative map conditions by causing the removal of two oaks, introduced retaining walls (potentially over 4 feet tall) at the edge of the sidewalk, and caused the grading of land in the slope easement area to install a sidewalk and reduce the steepness of the adjacent slope (Exhibit C). The Public Works Department (PW) deterrruned that the stazldazd street improvements had to be modified to protect the oak trees ~uzd the only mechaizism available was for the applicant to canvass the neighbors for si_gziatures and petition the City Council for a semi-rural street designation for a segment of Lindy Lane (Exhibit D). This designation would ei~able the Public Works Department to narrow the roadway width and eliminate/modify the sidewalk to protect the two oak trees. The applicant's efforts to obtain the necessary number of signatures (two-thirds of affected property owners) failed. A second effort by PW staff also did not yield the requisite number of signatures. PW staff brought the issue to the City Council's attention on August 19, 2008 and to find- out if the Council was interested in taking unilateral action on the issue, but the Council declined (Exhibit E). Conclusions: To protect the CoT,,,-r,;ssion s interests in the development, staff recommends that the Comm;csion approve only none-year time extension of the map with one additional tentative map condition: T} that the applicant obtain City approval of a modified street designation for the R- 1zoned segment of Lindy Lane from the RHS-zoned properties to just west of Terra Bella Drive that preserves the Planning Commissions conditions of approval. Planning staff believes that the objectives of the neighborhood can be achieved which preserves the Planr,;ng Corrunission s condiiions of approval through a modified street improvement. One additional year should be more than sufficient time to complete the final map process. A copy of the cornm;csion resolution and approved map are attached. ENCLOSURES Model Resolution Exhibit A: justification for time extension Exhibit B: CMC Section 18.1b.100 Exhibit C: Excerpt of Subdivision improvement plans show effects of standard improvements Exhibit D: CMC Section 14.04.040 (street improvements) n-n Applications: DIR-20D8-19 21925 Lindy Lane Exhibit E: Staff Report to City Council on IGnopp subdivision development dated 8/ 19/ OS. Plaruzing COmmiaSlOn Resolution No. 6313 and approved tentative map Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner _ Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development- ~ ~ G:\PIaizi~iizg\ PDREPORT\ pcTMreports\ 200Stmreports\ DIR-2008-19.doc 17 - 18 Exitibif D - ~ CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CI'T'Y OF CUPERTINO PLANNII~IG COMMISSION DRAFT I4fII~T[.JTES 6:45 P.M. ~ AUGUST 26, 2008 TUESDAY CUPERTINO CITY HALL, CONFERENCE ROOM 100 The regular Planning Commission meeting of .August 26, 2008, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in Conference Room 100, Former City Council Chambers, by Chairperson Marty Miller. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Marty Miller Vice Chairperson: Lisa Giefer Commissioner: Paul Brophy Commissioner: David Kaneda Commissioner: Jessica Rose Staff present: Community Development Director Steve Piasecki Senior Planner: Colin Jung_ Senior Planner: Aki Honda Snelling APPROVAL OF 1VIIMUTES: Minutes ojTu[y 22, 2008 Planning Commisslon meeting: MOTION: Motion by Com. Brophy, second Jay Com. Rose, to approve the minutes of the July 22, 2008 meeting as presented. (Vote: 40-1; Vice Chair Giefer abstained) WRIT'T'EN C0IVIIVILTI~TICATI0NS: Stev~rn Piasecki, Community Development Director, noted receipt of items related to agenda items. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM Ct\I,ENDAR: None ORAL C0NIIVIUNICATIUNS Jennifer Gri#Bn, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Commended staff for their efforts in setting up the former Council Chambers for the P1An*.i**g Commission meeting because of a scheduling conflict with the regular. meeting room for the Planning Commission meeting, and asked that the changing of meeting rooms be limited. CONSENT CALENDAR 1_ DIR-2008-19 Director's Minor Modification to request for aone-year extension Joha Dozier of a tentative pazcel map (TM-2005-03) that expires on July 26, 2008. n-~s Cupertino Planning Commission 2 August 26, 2008 21925 Lindy Lane The Tentative Map subdivided an approximately 1.0 acre site into two parcels of about 20,000 square feet each in an R1-20 zoning. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed_ Motion: Motion by Com. Rose,'second by Com. Brophy, to remove AppHcatioa DI-2008-19 from the Consent Calendar for discussion. (Vote: S-O-O) - Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the. backgrotmd of the request for cone-year extension of a tentative parcel map which expired on July 26, 2008; to subdivide aone-acre site into two parcels, in an R1-20 zoning district. • He reviewed Conditions 2, 3, 4 and 6 of the approval attached to the tentative map, pertaining to the street improvements: Limiting the size- of the building footprint and prohibiting retaining walls over four feet tall; Recording a slope easement on the lower slope to preserve Oak trees and existing land forms and maintain the semi-rural appearance. There was no pP+-**+~ssion granted to remove trees and there was a requirement to record a covenant to protect the specimen sized trees. There was a condition to limit vehicular access to Lot 2 from the westerly ingress/egress easement. ' • Staff feels since the tentative map is expiring and if the Planning Commission is interested in preserving the preservation conditions in that approval, it should extend the tentative map for at least another year to Juiy 26, 2009; and it would include a condition in that approval to direct the property owner to apply for a modified street improvement. The street improvement must be authorized. by the adjacent property owners that would be affected by the length of street improvement and the applicant has riot been successful in obtaining those signatures. With the proper education staff feels it is possible and thinks the applicant should have another year to obtain those signatures to get the modified street improvement to give the city flexibility with the type of street improvements on this street, and provide the necessary protection the Commission is interested in the development and subdivision of this property. Chair Miller: • Asked Colin Jung to review their earlier discussion about issues. Colin Jung: • He said that the property had a history; a few years back, a contractor for an adjacent property owner did not like the view from the property he was selling and he took it upon himself to cut down some trees on the property. He was reprimanded and the owner of the property ~Knopp) applied for a retroactive tree removal permit for the removed trees and those replacement trees were subsequently planted. • Another issue related to whether there was a separate geotechnical report done for this property .and the question was asked whether there was any type of boring or soil samples taken to characterize the nature of the soils to see if it was fit for subdivision. The report was prepared by the consultant who also did the soils report for the Morley property which was the property next door. They did not take any soil samples on this property but they referenced two other reports, one for the Morley property and another geotechnical report done for the Sun property where core samples were taken. Based on the characterization of the soils in those reports and additional work that the geotechnical engineer did on the subdivision, the city geologist felt comfortable in determining that the subdivision was geotechnicaliy feasible without the core samples, but with the added provision that at the design stage of the house, the applicant provide a design level geotechnical report for a proposed house on Lot 2. i~-zo Cupertino Planning Commission August 26, 2008 • An issue related to the driveway easement; in order to subdivide the property, there has to be at least a net of 20,000 square feet after the street dedication, and the applicant has this if the lot were divided in half. • Staff took exception with the subdivision design, it doesn't match any of the patterns in the. neighborhood now, and they were concerned that subdividing it in this way would not be in the best interest in protecting the trees that were located on the tce of the slope. They recommended to the applicant that instead of cutting the lot one way, he cut the lot in the up and down diretion; the technical problem with that and it is in our ordinance, is that this driveway now rests in Lot 2, but serves Lot 1, and they need to put an easement on that driveway for the benefit of Lot 1. .Driveway easements, travel ways, aze normally deducted from the net iot area; if you were to deduct this area from this 20,000 squaze foot lot you would not have the ability to subdivide the property. They put a condition in the tentative map that designing the subdivision the way they wanted it, they were given the ability #o get a credit for this area (here); that we would count this driveway easement as part of their net lot area. • It was made a condition of approval for subdivision; some might say that it should have been made a separate entitlement; or made a development exception to the rules stated in the zoning code; but that was something that was done #o facilitate what was thought to be amore practical subdivision of the property. • Relative to noticing, typically for time extensions, in particulaz conditional use permits and design reviews, if you have ari existing approval the extension of time for a maximum of one year is usually considered an administrative :issue even though there is hearing before a public decision making body. We do not do an ordinance basically says you do not need to do a public hearing notice for those types. of approvals. Relative to extension of subdivisions, unfortunately it does not say anything about noticing of extensions of tentative maps; and we took the language used for use permits and other entitlements and azchitectural site approvals and we did not do a letter noticing 300 feet, 500 feet of this particular extension. • Relative to decision making tonight, there are various options. (1) to approve the extension; (2) not approve the extension; (3) continue ttie extension for' 30 days and then do a noticing of the extension. I3e said they were also able to amend the conditions of approval _ _ John Dozier, applicant: • Provided background on the neighbors' dissatisfaction on how things have transpired in the past. It began with the orio nal rep of the applicant, Mr. Moxley, who was retained to act as the primary spokesman for the Knopps to proceed with the map subdivision since lie had the expertise from doing so with his home. As vwinter approached, there was considerable amount of erosion that occurred on the properties next door which were still going through their final approvals. Those lots were subsequently sold to three separate individuals; there was construction that occurred on Lot 3, the louver lot; there were trees illegally removed by the - new owner, not Mr. Moxley; subsequently Lot 1 was also constructed and there was one very lazge prominent Oak tree on that property illegally removed by the new owner, not Mr. Moxley. The middle Iot, No. 2 was also sold, but that one is in the poling stage, and the plan is in the approval process, but hasn't been ~~uilt yet. The neighborhood has been quiet since the only home that was built there and is not associated with the Moxley property, was Mark Santoro's home which created a lot of visibility; it is larger than anything else in the - immediate neighborhood; and there was a lot of construction activity, trucks, .heavy duty machinery, etc., involved in that construction beyond two years. The neighbors are not happy and I think that they want to do everything they can to prevent Mr. Kropp from being able to develop his property. 17-21 Cupertino Planning Commission 4 August 26, 2008 Said there were no city installed sidewalks' passed Terrabella. He said he originally volunteered to circulate the petition; most people were baffled by it as it was very complicated and was met with suspicion. Glenn Goepfert from Public Works put together something clearer and easily understandable and he received 8 Yes responses to approve the semi rural designation, short of 8. We may be successful in getting that; it will require considerable education campaign to the neighbors. He said it was not a north side divide in terms of support. There was general support at the last Council meeting. Jahn James who lives directly across from the Knopp property, who was vehemently op$osed to this, indicated he was in support of the semi rural and would do his best to see if he could get the required number of signatures. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said it was clear in the public healing process when we went through the subdivision, that the two things that the Lindy Lane residents did not want to see happen was elimination of any Oaks along Lindy Lane, nor did they want to see anymore monolithic retaining walls vis a vis what is in front of the Sun property today, and the conditions put on the subdivision which are not being asked to change other than the extension, it is just counter intuitive to me that the residents of upper Lindy would not want to sign up for a rural street designation because that is giving them exactly what they asked for when we were having the public hearing. John Dozier: • Said there has been an outspoken contingency; it goes back to Morley, and there are some issues with the private driveway, not the public right of way, involving probably 6 to 8 owners, that want some type of retribution and they feel this is the opportunity to get it. Moxley has nothing to do with this any longer, so they are punishing the Knopps which is unfortunate_ ' • He said he felt the extra year extension would make a difference, as Glen Goepfert provided education to the neighbors through a helpful meeting. Chair Miller opened the public hPa*-~ng_ Barry Pangrle, Lindy Lane: • Opposed to application. •. Referred to a drawing and illustrated where the slope is greater than 50%; there have been people when putting in an addition to a C ranch in a courtyard, had to drill core samples to do it. If the city requires that for a simple addition on existing structure on flat land, why were core samples not drilled where they got 50% slope and engineering fill. He said he felt it was being misconstrued that it is not so much that the residents of Lindy Lane want a rural look, as they want to preserve the trees. Some staff have related that rural or semi rural means the trees are safe; which is not necessarily the case. • It is so steep, there is no chance to share a driveway; there is going to have to be another driveway coming in which has already been addressed by staff. What you will hear from neighbors on the south side of Lindy Lane as well, is that you are not going to be able to put a house in here without damaging those trees and as Mr. Dozier also pointed out on the Moxley property. There are agreements in place to save the trees, and' as soon as the lot is sold, somebody comes in and-cuts all the trees down. That is what people are concerned about, is that these trees are not going to be preserved. • The other part of this is that there is not enough land to do this. If you go to the title report and look at it, from what Nelson Engineering reported and what the title report says, there is another 896 square feet that are additional on the Nelson report that magically appeared, so it could be even more than this_ The -other part is there is 2648 dedication which is called out, marked 10 feet dedication, it looks like the lot line actually started out 1Z feet instead of 20 17-22 Cupertino Planning Commission August 26, 2008 feet and if that is the case, there is another 80% which means there may be another additional 2,000 square feet being added on that shouIldn't be counted. It could be that these two lots combined together could be 5,000 sq. ft. short of making the subdivision. If there is anything criminal here, it is the fact that all this hasn't: been taken into account_and properly weighed in doing this. If the neighbors could see a way that a house could go in here, I think most'of the neighbors thought that the better place to put the house would be down here and you could . have run the driveway through parallel like the one above it _and maybe that would go. I don't think the neighbors are necessarily against it, but we want to see the rules followed. If there is enough room to do the subdivision, I think the neighbors will get behind it_ What we are seeing is that there are constraints of 4 foot retaining walls; we don't see with 50% slope, you would get away with only 4 foot retaining walls. It doesn't [ook like there is enough land to do this and you can't meet the constraints of meeting the Rl designation- of 40 foot stx-eet without taking out the trees, and part of the designation was the original application was that there would be no trees removed. This cannot be met without removing trees, there isn't enough area; this violates Section 1908.030, There is no soil samples taken on this; you have serious slope on this property with non engineered fill. It is not appropriate. Eva Wong, Lindy Lane: • Opposed to application. • Said the more the neighbors understand the -issue, the more problem they have with the subdivision. There is not enough Iand to subdivide and staff made an exception to that, which was not known until now; and there was no geological report done on that particular lot; it was borrowed from adjacent subdivision. When Dr. Sun subdivided his lot adjacent to Mr. Moxley's lot, he was required to do his own geological report; he did not get an exception. If the Iot was divided in a way other than staff suggested, the Oak trees would have to be removed. The neighbors are very concerned. John James, Lindy Lane: • Said his original home was demolished by a mudslide and was rebuilt. • If Krxopp wants to use Dr. Sun's report, they are about 500 to 800 feet apart from each other; it is beyond belief that they would be allowed to build. a house without a complete soil. report. He said he would get the appropriate signatures to do what is right. • Relative to street improvements and subdivision, he said he did not want anything done; it should stay as is. He said he would consider a compromise on the 36 foot wide street with a curb and gutter, no sidewalk. Simon Ko, Lindy Lane: • Opposed Yo application. • Said. it was eye opening that there were so many exceptions in the application. He questioned if he-could apply for his subdivision now although he had only.a 10,000 square foot lot, but with enough exceptions, he may be able to subdivide also. • Another concern is that he heard that they don't need a geotechnical report; when he was doing remodeling on his house, he was required to do five reports,-paid $6,000 and said he was very close to the other side, closer than Krnopp's property. He said it was very disturbing because he thought he was doing what he had. to do. He said although it says it is a private driveway, each rainy season, he and Mr. James shovel the dirt gravel on one side, and try to clean up the mess. Why aren't they hooked up to the city drainage? It is not done, and the others are slack with it as long as they live there. Without the sidewalk, fine, what about a curb with a drain like Mr. James proposed. Don't narrow the street;- it is too dangerous as is; people try to swerve around because of the deer; someone will 17-23 Cupertino Planning Commission 6 August 26, 2008 • get killed. He said it was okay with no sidewalk, but at least put a curb similar to the other side.. You don't have to kill the trees; go around the trees. He said. he wanted to do something,. • at Least with a curb, no sidewalk. I think enough has been done so far to the neighborhood; perhaps this subdivision has too many exceptions. Perhaps they should reconsider if it should be subdivided? Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Com_ Kaneda: r Said there were a number of remarks regarding how.this could be done wiithout requiring soil samples and a geotechnical report. If somebody is going to build there, they would be required to do a geotechnical report. ' Colia Tung: • Clarified that the project would require two geotechnical reports; one is here, I want everyone to see it because everyone is saying it is not here. In order to develop Lot 2, they are going to have to do a separate report just for that one, and that one is going to require the core sampling. If there are problems with the soil, the project would not be allowed to proceed. • There was discussion about don't make the street any narrower; the current street. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said that what they are being asked to decide tonight is very simple issue; should they extend a subdivision by one year to help resolve the neighborhood issue of should there be sidewallcs or not. It has been interesting to see how opinions have changed over time. I think that we have to keep in mind what we are actually being asked to decipher tonight- not being asked to resolve the sidewalk or retaining wall issue; we are being asked to determine if it makes sense to extend the subdivision map act for an additional year. I think it does; if they are 8 signatures away from resolving the issue, I would like to give them that time to resolve the issue. We aze not being asked should the lot be subdividable or not; we made that decision about one year ago; and Council Member Wong was the Chairman at the time and it was a »nanimouS deCiSlOn. ~ ~ - • I support the extension of the subdivision. Com. Brophy: • Said he had concerns about the original decision to approve the subdivision, but felt as Vice Chair Giefer stated, that it is probably too late to reopen that area; they should focus on the question of one more year time extension. The one concern, looking at report from Public Works that went to City Council on August 19'x', and the proposed model resolution is that it seems like we are being pushed into encouraging the City Council to unilaterally overrule the current process for rural or semi rural street improvements to be approved. It is obvious to everybody that the issues on Lindy Lane are partly technical, but in large part a question of inter-personal dynamics that have made it very difficult to resolve what is a two-unit subdivision. ~ He suggested removing Clause 2 because of~ the protection of trees, the land form that is already covered in the original resolution three years ago, and it be reduced to a two clause resolution that says they have one more year. The Knopps had the chance to try and get their final 8 or 9 votes; if they can get it that is fine; if not, they will have to make another decision as to what to do with the property. - ~ ~ Clause 2, Street Improvement Standard states "The applicant owner shall obtain city approval of a modified street improvement. In the package that Public Works sent to City Council for the August 19`h meeting, they were clearly asking the City Council to overrule the inability of 17-24 Cupertino Planning Commission '7 August 26, 2008 the applicant to get 213 of the signatures. It is difficult to believe that the City Council would be willing to go through the process ofpassirig an ordinance to resolve the matter of a two-unit subdivision. The logical solution is for Mr. Dozier and Mr. and Mrs. Knopp to make- their presentations to the 25 neighbors and to see iif they can get 2/3 of those who are most affected by this proposal to sign up for it. If they can, great; if not, the subdivision map would expire in another year. Com. Kaneda: • Said it appears that the tension is rising between the existing trees and Crying to keep the existing trees on the property under control ;and the requirements of the ordinance to put in a 40 foot wide street. He said a sidewalk makes sense to' him. • There were only a couple of neighbors spef~lc on this but it sounds like the neighbors don't really wan# a sidewalk, a 40 foot wide street which is what in theory the owner is required to put in, hence extending it another year and allowing the neighbors to talk this out to try to come to some conclusion would be beneficial.. Com. Rose: • Everyone has stated similar opinions to mine already, and I think again in looking at the pictures of the street and the trees and hearing what the neighbors have said about feeling that the trees are very valuable to their living surroundings, if we are to move forward and approve this we will be protecting the existing conditions which protect the existing trees. I think that is an important move of this time. Chair Miller: • Said there were two germane issues. The fast one related to the pulling of core samples, and it was not appreciated at that time that core: samples were not pulled. This is a two lot subdivision, roughly an acre parcel-that is being subdivided into two half acres. He said he has owned property that has been an acre parcel. and found in his particular case he purchased a piece of property that was sitting in a neighborhood with other one-acre lots and all those other one-acre lots were fine; bu# when he did the geological report and pulled core samples, under his lot there was a slide area and he then ha~i #o go back and negotiate. There was a problem because he was sold the lot which essentially was extremely diflcult #o build on. • Said he was concerned about the issue in this particular neighborhood and the fact that the core samples were not pulled; without pulling core samples they don't know what the situation of the: soil is and how difficult or easy it is to build on this property. That issue alone says that they should be re-evaluating this and at a minimum have: the applicant go back and pull core samples and then come back. • The second issue which was not clear when the property was evaluated the first time around, was that the driveway easement would be subtracted from the property; and if the driveway easement is subtracted from the property, there is not sufficient area to do a subdivision under the rules in Cupertino, and it would have required an exception in order to make this work. • That was not done the- first time around; it was not given an exception and there is another issue that was not properly vetted. He said for those reasons he was concerned about moving ahead on this. Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Vice Chair Giefer, to approve Application DR-2008-19 as written, witL the deltetion of Para. 2 ender Section 3. Com. Kaneda: • Recommended adding the requirement for core samples to take place. He said Chair Miller had a good point, especially in view of the faces that there was a mudslide sometime in the past. 17-25 Cupertino Planning Commission 8 ~ August 26, 2008 Vice Chair Giefer: • Said her recollection was different from Chair Miller's on the discussions at that `time regarding core samples. Staff can clarify at what point core samples would need to be taken prior to development of these parcels. Colin Jung: • Said the original report referenced the two other reports for both the Moxley and Sun properties. The city geologist looked at the data from the core samples and asked themselves if it was reasonable to extrapolate it to this lot based on all the other.geotechnical information provided in the report. • In his opinion, he felt it was acceptable and said that the subdivision lot is geotechnically feasible but a design level will have to be done. It was the recommendation of a private engineering geologist, to have to do a design level geotechnical report that would include the core samples when it came time to propose a house on Lot 2. Vice Chair Giefer: • Relative to Com. Kaneda's point, is it necessary to add that specifically to the motion, or is it already covered on that point. Colin Jung: • Said they were covered on that point when there is not going to be a house built on either lot without the core sampling; that is covered in the conditions. Steve Piasecki: • Said that it was appropriate if the Commission feels they would be more comfortable with requiring it prior to the recording of a final map, demonstrating to the satisfaction of the city geologist that this is a buildable site. Com. Brophy: • Said his concern as a buyer, as stated by Chair Miller, even-if the city requires at the time you pull a permit if somebody has already turned over the money to the seller for the lot and then they find out there is a problem. Is there a-way to put a clause as staff suggests, that protects a .would-be buyer in the future. Steve Piasecld: • Said it could be handled by adding a condition to the extension that says that the applicant shall retain a geologist to complete core samples demonstrating that the buildable area on the second lot is free of any significant obstructions subject to the review of the city geologist, prior to the recordation of the final map. Chair Miller: No one else is concerned about the fact that we implicitly are giving an exception to the ordinance instead of explicitly doing it. Com. Brophy: - • Said his feeling was that they should have crossed that bridge three years ago; currently they are trying to deal with it the way they are now. He said he was concerned about the issues but felt it was not the right time. ~~-zs Cupertino Planning Commission 9 August 26, 2008 Com_ Kaneda: • "The:re are two parts to this; the one part is the driveway and the other part is that if you put a sidewalk in, it appears that there was some misunderstanding that if you develop this property according to the R1 standards, the trees you were trying to protect, you couldn't protect. Com. Brophy: • Said he understood from the City Council meeting that there is no way a standard section can be put in that would meet the conditions set for the tentative map; so that if the applicant came in with a 40 foot standard secfion, the. Public Works Director and 'the Community Development Director couldn't sign it because it would violate the rules. It states that the applicant has one year fo have a section designed that is acceptable to two-thirds of the neighbors. Com. Kaneda: • I presume when this came up originally, there wasn't that understanding that there was a conflict between the trees and what the requirement was. Is that correct? Colin Jnng: • Said they did not have that level of engineering data when the subdivision map was approved. Steve Piasecki: • Said they didn't assume at the time that they would be doing a 40 foot street_ A 40-foot street are two 12 foot travel lanes which is a freeway wide lane, two 8 foot parking lanes on either side of that and sidewalks behind that. Most valley floor subdivisions are actually 36 feet, curb to curb, as another .standard; and thal_ works just as well. It is not an exception; the Council can approve that based on the neighborhood coming together and saying this one works for them, whatever it ends up being. Chair Miller: • Said that the last issue is that the application was not noticed to the neighborhood; can they go back and change -some: of the conditions of approval without the proper noticing? Steve Piasecki • The ordinance doesn't specifically require it; if you are uncomfortable with it, you could continue it for 30 days; we could do a notice and you could take it up again. Chair Miller: • Reiterated that the issue was not the extension, but that they are changing the conditions of approval without noticing. Amendment Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Vice Chair Giefer, to accept Com. To Motion: Kaneda's comment about requirement for core samples to take place. . (Vote: 4-1-Q; Chair Miller No) PUBLIC HEARING- 2. SPA-2008-O1 SEA-2008-02) Heart of the City Specific plan amendments City of Cupertino to achieve conformance with the General Stevens Creek Blvd. between Pian. Postponed from July 22, 2008 Hwy. 85 and the Eastern city limit Planning Commission meeting,- Tentative C;!ty Council date: September 2, 2008 17-27 EXI3.LSIT .~ -1 ___ ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC AND GEOTECHNiCAL FEASIBILITY EVALUATION - PROPOSED TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION[ _- 2'[925 LINDY LANE CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA PROJECT 2004G For Bret Moicley Moxley Properties 30 Caroliria Ave San Ansetmo, California 94960 By PACIFIC GEOTECHN[CAL ENGINEERING 16055 Caputo Drive, Suite D Morgan Hill, California 95037 (408) 778-2818 May 23, 2005 17-28 TABLE OF' CONTENTS 1. 1 NTRO D U CTION -----------• .......................-----•--------•-•------•-•---.........................._..--•--•-- 1 1.1 G E N E RAL .................................. .......................•-----•--------------•----•---._........_.. _. 1 1 .2 PROJECT D ES C RI PTION ............................................................................. .. 1 1.3 1 N FORMATION PROVIDED ......................................................................•-- -- 1 1.4 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION ............................................. .. 1 2. REGIONAL SETTING -------------•--............--•--••------------------------------•----..................... _. 2 2.1 PHYSICAL .................:.................--•------••---------------'------------._......_.._............._. .. 2 2.2 GEOLOGIC ..................................---------•--•-------------------••--••---...---.................. .. 2 2.2.1 Regional Faults and Seismic: Seiting ...................................................... ..4 2.2.2 Regulatory Environment---• ................................•------------------_.__._..__.._...._ ..5 3. S ITE CON DITTO NS ---•------------------•----- ----•--•---...._...........__........---...-•---..._......•....... .. 6 3.1 SITE TERRAW .......................................:...................._.......--••--------......----••- -- 6 3.1.1 Terrain, Drainage, and Vegetation ......................................................... ..6 3.1.2 Previous Grading and Improvements ..................................................... ..6 3.2 SITE GEOLOGY ........................................................................................... .. 7 3.2.1 Previous ! nvestigatio ns .......................................................................... .. 7 3.2.2 Field Observations -------------- ---•-••-•---.._.......-------------------•---._................... .. 8 3.2.3 Aerial Photographic Analysis .......................................................•---•--_--_ -- 8 3.2.4 Earth Mate rials ...............:....................................................................... .. 9 3.2.4.1 S u rficial Units .............:....................................................................... .. 9 3.2.4.2 Bedrock Units --•---------------------------••--•-••--------------------•-----.................__._ 1 O 4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDf~T1ONS ...................................................... 10 4.1 GENERAL SUMMARY ..................................:............................................... 1 O 4.2 LAN DS LI DI NG ........................................................................................•-•--.. 1 O 4.3 SEISMIC HAZARDS .................................•..-------------.._..._......••-•-------------------- 1.O 4.4 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS .............:_._..._.._._..._..___.__................_._. 12 5. LI MiTATIONS .................•---------••--•--...._..---=---•----------.......----------~--------........_......_._. 1 2 REFERENCES ...........................•-----•-•---..........-•--•----------.._...-•-----•---------...........-•--••----- 1 4 1 . Maps and Reports .: ........................................................................................... 1 4 2. Aerial P h otog ra ph s .............................................................•----........................... 1 5 FIGURES Figure 1. Geologic Index Map Figure 2. Cupertino Seismic Hazard Map Figure 3. Geologic Site Map Figure 4. Cross Section A-A' APPENDIX A Fine and Coarse Soi! Classifications ASCE Rock and Soil Classification System APPENDIX B Selected Regional,Fault Data ~~-is "= ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC AND GEOTECFiNICAL FEASIBILITY EVALUATION PROPOSED TWO-LOT SUBDiVISiONI =_ 21925 LiNDY LANE "- CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA. -= 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 GENERAL This report presents the results of our Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Feasibility -- Evaluation of a proposed two-Sot subdivision at 21925 Lindy Lane, in Cupertino, California. The location of the property is shown on our Geologic-Index Map (Figure 1). 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project consists of splitting an existing property tq create an additional residential lot (a 2-lot subdivision). Anew home with attached garage would eventually be constructed -- somewhere on the new (western) lot (Lot 2), while an existing home would remain on the eastern tot (Lot 1). The location of the new property tine has not yet been finalized. We -_- understand that the project would have to be configured so as to conform to all applicable == setbacks etc_ This report focuses on the geologic feasibility of a homesite on Lot 2, since the existing home on '= the eastern lot (Lot 1) would remain. For purposes of this report, °property° is used to refer to `' the two proposed lots collectively, and "proposed -home site° or "site" refers to the conceptual proposed home site on Lot 2. The specific house location and grading plan for Lot 2 has not been formulated. For purposes of this report, we have considered a typical configuration such as that shown on Figure 2 _- (Geologic Site Map). Access would likely be from the shared driveway stemming off the north -_<" side of Lindy Lane, at the western end of the property. The home site would be served by " underground utilities extended from the shared driveway. -`=' As implied on Figure 3, grading for the proposed home site would be fairly straightforward. We _== understand that cuts and/or retaining walls may be located along the upslope side of the residence, and retaining walls maybe desirable along the downslope side of the res"sdence to == provide level patio/walkway areas. Cinder the configuration shown, only a very short driveway would be required, since the proposed residence and garage would be so close to the shared driveway. 1.3 INFOREAATION PROVIDED For this evaluation, we were provided with the following documents: =~ Tentative Map, Lands of Knopp, 21925 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, California, prepared by Nelsen Engineering, dated February, 2005. 1.4 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF iNVESTtGATiON We understand that Tentative Map submittal requirements for the City include a "geological report" and a "preliminary soils report.° Our intent is to provide that required information in this ---- report. _'' 1 May 23, 2005 Project 2004G The first aim of this evaluation was to research t:he geologic conditions at property, and to - evaluate whether sufficient information exists to conclude that the proposed new homesite is _- geologically suitable. Given geologic suitability, a secondary aim was to identify specific issues -_= which should be addressed by a design-level ge:otechnical investigation for the new proposed homesite. For this evacuation, we performed thcs following services: :_ - • Reviewed the findings and subsurface exploration data from an engineering geologic and geofechnical investigation we performed for athree-lot subdivision at 21949 Lindy - -_ Lane; that property is immediately west of the site. We also reviewed observations we _= made during grading on all three of those lots. - Reviewed pertinent regional geologic maps of the area, and reviewed the findings of ='_= stereoscopic aerial photographic analysis we previously performed for the adjacent three-tot subdivision- That aerial photographic analysis encompassed the site. _ - Contacted the geologic/geotechnical reviewer for the City of Cupertino, Mr. John -~ - Wallace of Cotton Shires Associates, re<3arding the regional geologic setting and concerns the City may have regarding projects in the. site vicinity. -=_ Contacted Milstone Geotechnical, a geotechnical firm that has performed subsurface exploration at a site two properties to the: west of the site (the °Sun° property a# 21989 .=== Lindy Lane). - • Geologic reconnaissance of the site and vicinity, detailed geologic mapping of the site, and preparation of a geologic cross-section to assist in portraying our engineering -'__- geologic model for the site. _-- Geologic and engineering analysis of the> assembled information. - - Preparation of this Geologic Letter Report. `s _= 2. REGIONAL SETTING 2.1 PHYSICAL =-= The physiographic setting of the property is shown on Figure 1 (Geologic Index Map). The . ~-` property is located near the base of the eastern foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains, about 1000 feet from the gently sloping floor of the Santa Clara Valley. The site is at an approximate == elevation of 440 feet above sea levee, or about !SO feet in elevation above the alluviac fan on the =::: Santa Clara Valley floor. Stevens Creek is located approximately half a mile northwest of the site, and Regnart Creek is-located about aquarter-mile to the southeast- In the site vicinity, the _=_= hil[slopes are moderately rolling. Where they are undeveloped, the hills have a covet of low -'_--'_ brush, with mature trees concentrated in topographic swales. Land use is moderate-density residential. _-~ 2.2 GEOLOGIC The site is in an area of complex geologic struC=ura associated with the controlling regional fault, the San Andreas fault zone (see Figure 2). '_'= --~ _-_ - __ j -_ . f-- _ May 23, 2005 Project 2004G =_ Sorg and McLaughlin (1975). show the site as being underlain by the Santa Clara Formation. This formation typically consists of semiconsoEidated, poorly to moderately lithified -'-- conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone, and clayey mudstone. 13rabb and others (2000) map the site as being underlain by the Santa Clara Formation. Regionally, this unit is shown as dipping northeast, with Miocene-age rocks exposed southwest of the site in the core of an anticline. No landslides are shown on regional geologic maps encompassing .the site_ The California Geological Survey (CGS, 2002) prepared a "landslide inventory map" as an intermediate step in preparing the Seismic Hazard Zone Map for the Cupertino quadrangle encompassing the site. This map shows a landslide west of the site, with its eastern margin located approximately in the swale containing the shared driveway. This map is regional in state, and while it is difficult to be certain, the mapped landslide does not appear to encompass the new proposed homesite or more than a slice of the existing shared driveway, and the site appears to lie ou#side or at the boundary of the GGS hazard zone (see graphic below}. Clip from CGS (2002) Seismic Hazard Zone Map (Cupertino), showing proposed home site (red dot). Approximate field of view 21 OO feet. Light blue shading =zone of potential seismically induced landsliding; green shading (lower right, along Regnart Creek) =zone of potential liquefaction_ =_=-=- The City of Cupertino's geologic reviewer (Cotton Shires Associates; CSA) maintains fifes on -_= geologic/geotechnical investigations fo supplement the regional mapping reflected in the Gity's Geologic and Seismic Hazards Map. We understand from discussions with Mr_ John Wallace - -- of CSA that where claystone beds are present in an adverse orientation with respect to slope, __<-- the City has observed clusters of landslides, such as are present south of Regnart Creek. ~-- These conditions have not been reported in the site vicinity. 17-32 .:. 3 r { ~__ _ ' --~ A) ~ ~J May 23, 2005 Project 2004G We previously reviewed the City geotechnical reviewer's files in search of site-specific geologic/geotechnical investigation reports for projects in the site vicinity, finding three investigations on Lindy Lane and one on Upland Road. White these reports did not provide specific information on the new proposed homesite itself, they provide useful regions! information such as the range in thickness of colluvium, texture and consistency of colluvium, nature of bedrock, presence or absence of significant ground-water, and presence or absence of expansive earth materials. 2.2.'1 Regional Faults and Seismic Setting The dominant faults in the region and the site vicinity trend northwest-southeast. in a regional context, all are considered elements of the San E~ndreas fault system, which forms the tectonic boundary between the North American and Pacific Plates. Regional topographic relief and the focal geology .reflect folding and associated tectonic uplift. Compressional forces associated with a bend in the San Andreas fault zone have resulted in the uplift and northeastward movement of the Santa Cruz Mountains up and over younger earth materials, along thrust faults. The Monte Vista fault is one such thrust fault, forming the linear range front that separates the Santa Cruz Mountains foothills froir~ the gently sloping Santa Clara Valley. The Monte Vista fault is mapped approximately 1,000 feet northeast of the site (Sorg and McLaughlin, 1975; Hitchcock and others, 1994), but is not considered a fault rupture hazard at the site. Sources of signifcant earthquake ground shakinl3 include several active and potentially active faults in the southern San Francisco Bay area. 7-hese include the faults Fisted below; the more significant ones are described in detail in the ApF>endix to this report. • The Monte Vista/Shannon seismic sourcE~, mapped approximately 1000 feet (300 meters) northeast of the site. The site is i:herefore considered to be within the Active Fault Near-Source Zone for the Monte Vi:>ta/Shannon seismic source (CDMG, 1998), and as a result, "near-source" seismic criteria will apply to project structural design. • The active San Andreas fault, located approximately 3.4 miles (5.5 kilometers) southwest of the site (CDMG, 1974). • The Hayward fault (southeast extension), located approximately 14.3 miles (23 kilometers) northeast of the site. • The Calaveras fault, located approximately 17.5 miles (28 kilometers) northeast of the site_ • The Sargent fault, the northern tip of which is located approximately 12.3 miles (19 kilometers) south of the site_ • The San Gregorio fault, located approximately 17 miles (27 kilometers) southwest of the site (Wagner and others, 1991; Jennings, 1992)_ The property is in an area of high seismicity. Re:~earch by the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP 1990, 1996; 2003) and Michael-and others, (1999) continues to indicate that damaging earthquakes are likely in the San Francisco Bay area during the foreseeable decades. The WGCEP's estimates of the probabilities of major earthquakes are now in their third iteration, with the greatest changes in approach tieing the treatment of the San Andreas fault 4 17 - 33 G _ --- r- s ---~ _ May 23; 2005 Project 2004G == either as segmented {WGCEP, 1990) or unsegmented (Michael and others [1999]; and WGCEP _ [2003]) and in the progressive consideration of more potential seismic sources. Current -_ estimates (WGCEP, 2003) are that there is a 62% probability of a large {magnitude 6.7 or _- greater) earthquake in the San Francisco Say area as a whole in-the 30-year period ending in 2032. The estimate for the Calaveras fault alone is ~ 1 %; for the San Andreas fault alone, 21 °/a; -== and for the Hayward fault, 27%. Based on a statewide probabilistic model (CDMG, 1996} that collectively incorporates the -_ probabilities of earthquakes on individual faults, the peak ground acceleration with a 10% =_=- chance of exceedance in 50 years at the site is calculated to be 0.61 g (firm and soft rock site; '- CGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Mapping Ground Motion Web Page as of May 16, 2005). __= Due to the proximity of the Monte Vista fault, the City of Cupertino's General Plan was written '-` with a deterministic (rather than probabilistic) emphasis on the shaking anticipated from the Monte Vista fault alone. As noted above, the site is shown on the City Geologic and Seismic _`-_= Hazards Map and General Plan (see Figure 2} as being located approximately at the boundary -= between hazard zones "F2" and "F3." According to this map and an accompanying data table, zones F2 and F3 may experience moderate to locally severe ground shaking (Modified Mercalli __- Vlll to 1X) during a magnitude 8.3 earthquake on the San Andreas fault, and intensity X #o Xtl (violent to very violent} ground shaking during a magnitude 7.O earthquake on the Monte Vista fault. ___= The City Geologic and Seismic Hazards Map and City General Plan consider slopes over 15% == (such as those at the site) to have a moderate to high landslide potential under seismic and non-seismic conditions. The same references consider sites within 2,000 feet west of the Monte __ Vista fault (including the site) to be susceptible to ground lurching and fracturing during a -:== magnitude 7.0 earthquake on that fault. The CDMG (1996; updated version online at h#tp://www.consrv.ca_gov/cgs/rghm/psl~affault-parameters/pdf/B_flt_pdf) considers the maximum -` earthquake for the Monte Vista fault to be moment magnitude 6.7, with a slip rate of 0.4 mm/year. 8y way of comparison, the Cupertino General Plan considers the faul# capable of a magnitude 7.0 earthquake. -_=- 2.2.2 Regulatory Environment . The property is located within the City of Cupertino, therefore, geologic aspects of development -___ policy are determined by City, with relevant maps including the City's Geologic and Seismic _-=_'_= Hazards Map and General Plan (see Figure 2)_ As described above, the property is shown on --- these maps as being located approximately at the' boundary between hazard zones "F2" and _-_ "F3," which describe the intensity of ground shaking anticipated in the event of a significant == earthquake on the Monte Vista/Shannon seismic source. = Although not jurisdictional, the Santa Clara County Geologic Hazard Zone Maps (Santa Clara -_-= County, 2002; subsequent updates through online version as of 5/12/05) show the site as being -~- located within a zone of required evaluation for landsliding hazard. The same series of maps show the property as straddling the western limit of a fault hazard zone, with the proposed homesite lying just within the boundary. The property is located outside of a zone of identified __> liquefaction hazard. ~~-a.a __ _j_ l 'r-- _J May 23, 2005 Project 2004G The site is not mapped as lying within an Algilist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone by the California Geological Survey (CGS), known formerly as the Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG, '! 974). -= As illustrated above, the site is mapped as lying outside or at the margin of the zone of regional potential for seismically induced landsliding, acc=ording to seismic hazard maps prepared by the _ California Geological Survey (CGS, 2002)_ As described above, the site is shown on seismic hazard maps (CDMG, 'I 998) that are used in <-= conjunction with the 1997 UBC as lying within 2 km of the "Monte Vista/Shannon seismic -= source," which is considered a "B" fault. As a result, "near-source° seismic criteria will apply to project structural design_ 3. SITE Cr>NDITIONS 3.1 SITE TERRAIN -= 3.'1.1 Terrain, Drainage, and Vegetation The site is Located on the southern flank of a roughly east-west trending ridgeline that descends -_ eastward to the floor of the Santa Clara Valley. Minor spur ridges with intervening topographic swales descend southward from the ridgecrest to the unnamed valley floor along with Lindy Lane runs_ The site lies on the eastern side of one such topographic swafe, extending onto the adjacent spur ridge. ` = Overall natural slopes prior to grading increased smoothly from about 8 degrees near the bottom of the property, to about 22 degrees near the upstope property tine, based on surrounding topography, and preserved remnants of natural ground on site. Surface runoff from the site flows southward- toward Lindy Lane. We did not observe gullying or significant erosion, and significant infiltration of precipitation likely occurs on the site. During our reconnaissance at the property (conducted in May, 2005), we did not observe evidence of springs or seeps at the site. Shallorni groundwa#er was not encountered in our == borings on the adjacent site_ However, ground ~roater levels can fluctuate depending on the time _~_~ of year, and the amount of rain that fails during a given period of time. _ - An elongate cluster of small- to moderate-sized trees is located on the southem (lower) portion _.. of the site, near Lindy Lane. Other trees and landscape shrubs surround the existing house on the eastem lot, and line the existing driveway. Open areas are grass-covered. ___ 3.1.2 Previous Grading and Improvements Early aerial photographs indica#e that the roadway for Lindy Lane employed fill placed along the valley axis. Gullying then appears to have occurred north and south of the road and parallel to _,-= to it. !n later photographs, fill appears to have been placed in_these gullies, likely as storm drain ~~ systems became integrated in the area. ~_= There is an existing house on the eastem lot, reportedly constructed around 196Q Previous __--. grading created the pad occupied by the house by cutting on the uphill side, and filling on the downhill side. The cut slope above the house e:Kposes pebbly sandstone of the Santa Clara -' Formation in cuts of approximately 35 to 42 degrees; an approximately 3-foot-high concrete - ~ - 17 - 35 i- ~i May 23, 2005 Project 2004G == retaining wall is located at the toe of the cut slope. A portion of the fill slope below the existing house and driveway is located on the site (see Figure 3)_ Fill slope. inclinations range from _>= barely steeper than natural ground below the existing driveway (about 22 degrees) to about 31 == degrees near the proposed lot [ine. As reflected on our geologic cross section (Fig. 4), the gentler natural slopes downs[ope of the `-__ existing house and fi[I slope appear to have been accentuated by subsequent grading to create more. of agently-sloping bench, probably to create a "front yard" area on the otherwise sloping property. _ The slightly steeper slopes immediately adjacent to Lindy Lane appear to reflect the valley-floor gullying visible on early aerial photographs, with subsequent fill placement against the toe of __ these slopes. --- The water line supplying the eas#ern of the two tots reportedly extends from near the southeastern corner of the property to the southeastern corner of the existing residence; '- excavation of an associated trench and wooden bulkhead have modified the ground surface in =' this area _=_= 3.2 SITE GEOLOGY Our description of the site geology is based on our reconnaissance of the site and site vicinity, analysis of aerial photography, subsurface data from the adjacent property, and our understanding of the regional geologic frameworl~ Subsurface investigation at the site wilt be a necessary part of adesign-specific geotechnicai investigation for any house to be buitt_ 3.2.1 Previous Investigations ' Our previous engineering geologic and geotechnicai investigation for 21949 Lindy Lane. (Geo/ogic and Geotechnica/ Investigation, Moxley Subdivision, 21949 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, Ca/ifomia, dated May 3, 2001) provided information relevant to the site, including: subsurface data (blow counts and stratigraphy from five borings); laboratory test data; detailed. geologic mapping; and a geologic cross section_ During subsequent grading at that site, we also observed cuts exposed; the exposures confirmed our geologic cross-section interpretations at that site. The primary rock type encountered on that site was clayey sandstone of the Santa _ Clara Formation. These exposures are stratigraphically below the site, .based on a northeasterly dip direction. Milstone Geotechnical recently completed an engineering geologic and geotechnicai investigation two properties to the west of the site (the "Sun" property, at 21989 Lindy Lane), also on the north side of Lindy Lane_ This site is stratigraphically below both 21949 Lindy Lane and the site. We understand from discussions with the City's geologic and geotechnicai = reviewer (Cotton Shires Associates) and submittals to the Town that their scope included excavation of test pits, drilling several srraall diameter borings, and logging of ahand-excavated shaft_ Pertinent findings of their investigation include: • Approximately 5 - 1 O feet of very stiff coiluvium overlie very deeply weathered massive sandstone bedrock ("residual soil"). • No evidence was found to support the presence of a landslide shown on the CGS Landslide Inventory Map (CGS, 2002) as encompassing the Sun property (but lying west --- of the site). ___ __~ 17-36 __ ~,_ _~ __?__ 7 ~- ~ ---i --_- Y ~ ') ---~ May 23, 205 Project 2004G • Northeast-dipping bedding was encountered; a favorable orientation with respect to the sits. • The basal contac# of the Santa Clara Fon~nation ties a short distance downsection from that mapped by Brabb and others (2000)„ consistent with our observation of Santa Clara Formation earth materials at 2'1949 Lindy Lane (in borings and graded exposures) and cut slope exposures on the site. This would place the contact still farther west of the site than shown by Brabb and others. 3.2.2 Field Observations In terms of the distribution of major geologic units in the site vicinity, our observations generally confirm the regional mapping of Brabb and others (2000}, as refined by Milstone Geotechnical's findings described above. Deeply to very deeply weathered outcrops of Santa Clara Formation pebbly sandstone are present in several locations on the site: in the cut slope above the existing residence; and in the slopes along Lindy Lane, near the southeastern comer of the property. Colluvium at the site is typically a sandy clay with abundant grave! (up to estimated 25 - 30 % gravel that is subrounded to rounded, and ranging up to approx. '/,° in diameter). The pebbly sandstone at the site thus appears to lie stratigraphically above the clayey sandstone encountered on the adjacent site to tf•~e west at 2'1949 Lindy Lane, and the massive sandstone reported by Milstone Geotechnical at the Sun property. Mass wasting at the site appears to have .been primarily limited to creep and minor sloughing/raveling of existing fill slopes (see. Figure 2). We interpret the irregular top-of-slope -near the southeastern property comer to be a reirnant signature of the gullying visible on older aerial photographs immediately next to and paralleling Lindy Lane, as subsequently modified by water main installation. We are not aware of an}~ landsliding in this area. 3.2.3 Aerial Photographic Analysis . Landsliding and Regions/ Geo/ociv As part of our evaluation; we analyzed multiple sets of stereoscopic aerial photographs on file at the U.S. Geological Survey. We examined the photographs for, and did not detect in the-site vicinity: evidence of past landsliding, including hummocky #opography, anomalous breaks-in- slope, arcuate topographic lineaments, topographic reversals, disrupted drainages, and closed depressions. The photographs display corrugations in.the ground surface that are roughly traceable across multiple ridgelines, including the Lindy Lane and Regnart Creek drainages. Some of these have quite planar northeast-facing surfaces, and we interpret them to reflect an overall northeast- dipping stratigraphic sequence. We specifically examined the photographs to evaluate whether the Eandslide shown at a broad regional scale on the CGS Seismic Hazard Report "Landslide [nventory Map" (CGS, 2002) is present adjacent to the property as mapped. AIt6'~ough their map is quite generalized, the CGS appears to map a landslide as encompassing a ~;pur ridge west of the property, with the slide's eastern boundary lying in the swale axis containing the westmost part of the existing shared driveway. Based on undisturbed rock observed i!n borings and graded exposures at 21949 Lindy Lane, and on similar reported undisturbed exposures encountered by Milstone - - 17 - 37 -- _~ ~-- --'j 8 ~` -J May 23, 2005 Project 2004G '=~ Geotechnical still farther west, in addition to our analysis, we conclude that this landslide does not extend onto 21949 Lindy Lane, and therefore does not extend onto the site. =_= On the earliest photographs (1960), the existing residence had not yet been built, although grading appeared to be in progress on the northern half of the property. -_ sy the time the 1963 and 1965 photos were taken, the existing residence had been completed. - The graded (cut and fill) slopes near the existing residence stand out on the basis of tonal __ contrast in the photographs. The bench or front yard area below the residence appears to have _=_= undergone minor grading, with scattered small trees present near the southern and eastern -- perimeter of the property. Gullying appears to have affected the slopes next to Lindy Lane east of-the approximate midpoint of the property frontage; the most severe gullying lies downvalley __ from the site. A relict dirt-track ranch road appears to have climbed from near Lindy Lane to the __ rfdgecrest above the property, passing near the northeastern property corner_ -;= Placement of fill against the eroded slopes adjacent to Lindy Lane apparently occurred between ._? 1965 and 1980. Fa uiting __ We also examined the aerial photographs for evidence indicating that an active fault splay of the ::: Monte Vista fault could be present at the property. We examined the photographs for, and did not detect, features such as linear topographic elements, vegetation lineaments, aligned -= deflections of drainages, planar landform.facets, and tonal lineaments indicative of fault contacts that would pass through. the proposed sites. The strongly linear rangefront approximately 1000 feet northeast of the site is generalEy considered to be the surface expression of the Monte Vista _ fault (Hitchcock and others, 1994)_ -- 3.2.4 Earth Materials _- There are three primary earth materials underfying the site: existing fill, colfuvium, and Santa -_= Clara Formation pebbly sandstone bedrock. A brief description of the units is provided below, `_ and our interpretation of their inter-relationships is shown on our Site Map and Cross Section _ (Figures 3 and 4). The distribution of colfuvium is not shown on our Geologic Site Map, since rt =__ mantles all other units except existing fill. We have used a modified version of the ASTM method of soil description and classification, and for descriptions of hardness and weathering properties of bedrock materials we have used fhe ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice - No. 5; a summary of the soil and bedrock classification systems is presented in Appendix A of this report. 3.2.4.9 SurFcia/ lJnrts Existing Fili (Etj -The majority of existing fill is restricted to the outboard part of the graded pad for the existing house and turnaround. Based on our cross section, we estimate that maximum fill thickness is about 1 1 feet thick. Minor fip is present elsewhere, primarily as low berms 1 - 2 feet thick, or associated with roadbuilding along Lindy Lane. Based on the association of the fills with adjacent cuts, we conclude that it is derived from onsite, and field-classified this soil as a sandy lean clay with gravel The surrace exposures of existing fi^ are texturally very similar to colfuvium. We did not observe pronounced desiccation cracks which would indicate expansive soils. 17-38 ~` ._ _! 9 ~- --i -~. --~ May 23, 2005 Project 2004G Colluvium (Qco!) - Col[uvium is exposed at the upper limit of cuts at the site, where it is less than about 2 feet thick. Its thickness likely incre=ases downsiope as shown on our cross section; -_ it likely does not exceed about 4 feet in thickness, based on cut slope exposures along Lindy -. Lane. - 3.2.4.2 BedrocK Units =:=_ Santa Clara_ Formation (QTsc) -Santa Clara Formation bedrock underlies the entire site, based on regional reconnaissance and the matf~rials exposed in cuts. The formation contains a -= variety of rock types, but where we encountered it onsite, it consists of red-brown, weathered __ pebbly sandstone. Estimated gravel percent reaches about 30%, with the gravel subrounded to rounded, and less than about'/<" in diameter. !r~ our borings on the adjacent site to the west, we __ encountered Santa Clara Formation bedrock as well, although it lies stratigraphically below this site and were texturally different. :_ ~ 4. CONCLUSIONS ANI~ RECOMMENDATIONS 4.T GENERAL SUMMARY Based on the results of our investigation, we conclude that the property is geologically suitable for the proposed two-lot subdivision in that a second home site is geologically feasible on the property, provided that-the specific building plans are formulated on the basis of an appropriate, design-level geotechnical investigation incorporating site-specific subsurface exploration. In our judgment, there are no geologic or geotechnical issues that would preclude the- project. All are well within the range typically addressed by sucih a design-level geotechnicai investigation and are routinely addressed by conventional geoteclznical/grading practices. Since the existing home is to remain, our discussion does not address future geologic/geotechnical performance or design considerations for the eastern propose=d lot. In the sections below, we first review the feasibi:ity-level geologic hazards we considered for the site. Then we review the geo#echnical consider=ations which should be addressed by a design- level geotechnical investigation_ 4.2 LANDSLIDING In our judgment, the potential for both deep-seal:ed and relatively shallow landsliding to affect the proposed project is low, as evidenced by the: lack of previous significant landsliding at the site .(mass wasting has been limited to creep an~j minor sloughing/raveling); the overall moderate slopes present; the favorable bedd'+ng orientation indicated by geologic information from onsite cuts and nearby borings; and the sit~s's location away from a swale axis. We similarly judge the potential for seismically-induced landsliding to-occur at the site to be low, for essentially the same reasons. The performance of the existing house/#umaround fil! slope that lies upslope of the proposed conceptual home site is discussed below under ~3eotechnical Considerations. 4.3 SEISMIC HAZARDS Our judgment regarding various primary and sec=ondary seismic hazards is summarized below_ ~~ ~ 17 - 39 ---~ ~- ~ ~ _ _ - ~~ --- f J May 23, Zoos Project 2004G _ - • The potential for fault ground rupture and for coseismic faulting to occur at the site is {ow. _< The potential for strong ground shaking is high during the economic lifetime of the ;- proposed improvements. Selection of the appropriate seismic design parameters for structures should be made by the project struc#ural engineer after consideration of the site materials, analytical procedures and past performance of similar structures during magnitudes of shaking similar to those expected for this site. We assume seismic design will be in accordance with current applicable codes. Based on Chapter 16 of the 1997 UBC the following site-specific seismic design criteria are anticipated: 1) Seismic Zone Factor, Z=0.4 2) Soil Profile Type = So (stiff soil) 3) Near Source Factors: Ne = 1 .3 N~ = 1.6 4) Seismic Coefficients: Ca = 0.44Na C„ = 0.64N„ 5) Seismic Source Type and distance as per the fiollowing table: = fault - Seismec~ource Type Distarice acid Di'rectton ` IVajrne -- JSC-:1997;able ~6T• ._. , _ ~Trom Sfia to Faint k Mon#e vista- B 0.3 NE Shannon San Andreas ,4 5.5 SW San Gregorio B 27 5W Ca[averas B 28 NE Hayward B 23 NE -' • The potential for significant ground deformation (including lurch cracking) at the _ proposed home site is low. Apart from fil! associated with the existing house/turnaround, the existing fill on the proposed Lot 2 is estimated to be less than about 4 feet thick. Minor sloughs or ravelling of the existing fill slope on Lot 1 could reach re#aining walls proposed along the upslope side of the proposed residence; they should be designed to _- catch small amounts of debris and will require maintenance. ~~ • The potential for ridgetop fissuring/shattering is low, as the site is not located in a topographic setting conducive to this phenomenon. Ridge-top shattering can be partially __ attributed #o focusing of seismic energy along the crests of. ridges in zones of intense - shaking. Fissuring can be attributed to attenuation of seismic waves along ridge tops, and to the differential displacement of earth materials along planes of weakness during <- seismic shaking_ 17 -'40 ~ -_.~ May 23, 2005 Project 2004G • fn our judgment the potential for liquefaction is judged to be very low, based on texture of soils at the site, and the lack of a sha [low water table. __= 4.4 GEOTECi°iNICAL CONSIDERATIONS Other significant geotechnical issues that will affect the design and construction of the proposed =_- improvements, and should be addressed in the design-level geotechrticat investigation, include_ • Rotential #or Strona Seismic Shaking -There is a signifcant potential for strong __ seismic shaking during the economic lifetime of the proposed project, which must be .== considered, as previously noted. • Soil Creeo -Depending on the specrtc project, it may be advisable to design -==_ improvements for creep loads to an unknown depth. This possibility strould be considered in the geotechnical investiga#ion. __ Existing Fiil -Existing non-engineered 1i11 is relatively restricted in extent and thickness on the proposed home site; the most significant fill is associa#ed with the existing home and turnaround. The potential for settlement (and creep) should be considered ifi fill is __ present in the area of proposed improvements. Depending on the development concept, retaining wail{s) may be necessary to support some thickness of the existing fill that -• would lie upslope of the proposed home:site {see Figure 2). The inclination of the fill ._ slope along the outboard edge of the existing home/turnaround is steeper than would be constructed under modern geotechnical practice, so some sloughing/ravelling should be -- expected; which may be addressed by providing freeboard along the top of retaining wall(s) at the toe of this slope. • Thickness and Nature of CoRuvium -The nature and thickness of colluvium will affiect foundation type and design recommendations, and the performance of concrete ffatwork. =_ • Nature and Death of Competent Bedrock - While a significan# amount of information :_ is apparent from existing cut slopes and nearby borings, some site-specifc subsurface infiormation will be required_ -_ Expansive Earth Materials -The potential for expansive bedrock and/or surficial =' materials should be considered. -- apical Geotechnical Essues, e.g. _: • Cut slope design • Fill slope design ?=- • Foundation design _-` Retaining wall design • Subsurrace/surface drainage .=_ Slabs-on-grade, utility trenches, etc. 5_ LiMi~'ATIONS =- In preparing the findings and professional opinions presented it this report, we have _, endeavored to follow all generally accepted principles and practices of the engineering geologic and geotechnical engineering professions. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, -_ express or implied. ' - 17 - 41 ~ ~ ___.~ *_ _~ l 2 ~ '„ __ _J May 23, 2005 Project 2004G - The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based, in part, on . information that has been provided to us. Our conclusions and recommendations shall not be _- considered valid unless we are retained to perform design-level geotechnical investigation as specific building plans are developed.- - _- Should persons concerned with this project observe fee#ures or conditions at the site or = surrounding area that are different from those described in this report, those observations should be reported immediately to Pacific Geotechnical Engineering for evaluation. = it is important for project performance that the recommendations given in this report be made '= known to the design professionals involved with the project, that appropriate geotechnical criteria are incorporated into project drawings and documents, and that the design-level -- geotechnical recommendations be carried out during construction by the contractor and - subcontractors. It is not the responsibility of Pa~c Geotechnical Engineering to perform this task. A copy of.this report should be provided to new owners if the properly is conveyed. =_= Report prepared by, __~, PACIFIG GEOTECF-t AL ENGINEERING ~~ c~o~ N0.1658 '\J `.cam +~,8. GO/~F~lc~` G. Reid Fis ~, Ph.L~lt77FlFD ~r Soma B. Goresky `mss ~~ CEG 1858 EPt[ill~~,IPl6 GE 2252 ~ ~~_ 225 ___ Jl~ 6EOtQG1S7 `~\~ Exp. 6/3Q/05 ~ .Exp. ~~~ ~]pr ~ :, lF OF C p.L~t J~ ~k / y0e GRF:SBG\PCA:cq Jr ~r...~.x~G4~• ~R~~ OF 17-42 ~_ .---; 4-- -- ~ 1 3 -; ----~ May 23, 2005 Project 2004G -- REFEf2Ef+jGE=S - 7. MAPS AfV~ REPORTS _ Abrahamson, N-A- and Silva, W_J., 1997, Empirical response spectral attenuation relations for -__ shallow crustal earthquakes: Seismologi~:al Research Letters (Special issue on ground motion attenuation), vol. 68, no_ 1 , pp- 94-127- -=- Abrahamson, N-A., and Shedlock, K-M-, 1997, Dverview: Seismological Research Letters ~. (Special Issue on ground motion attenuation}, voE. 68, no. 1, pp. 9-23. __ Boore, D.M-, Joyner, W-B., and Fumal T.E., 19!37, Equations for estimating horizontal response _= spectra and peak acceleration from weste.m North American earthquakes: A summary of -- recent work: Seismological Res. Letters, vol. 68, no. 1, p. 128-153. ___ _ Brabb, E.E., Graymer, R.W., and Jones, D.L-, 2:000, Geologic map and map database of the ___ Palo Alto 30' x 60' quadrangle, California: USGS Miscellaneous Fiefd Studies Map MF- - 2332, version 1.0, scale 1:100,000. __= - California Division of Mines and Geology {CDMG), 1974,- Special Studies Zone Map, Cupertino == Quadrangle, 1:24,000. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, Maps of known active fault near-source zones `= in Califomia and adjacent portions of Nevada (to be used with 1997 Uniform Building :- Code): International Conference of Building Officials- Gatifornia Geological Survey, 2002, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Cupertino quadrangle. Califomia Geological Survey, 2002, Seismic Hazard Zones [Map), Cupertino quadrangle, 1:24,000. Hitchcock, C-S-, Keison, K.1., and Thompson, S.C., 1994, Geomorphic investigation sof =_ deformation along the northeastern margin of the Santa Cruz Mountains: USGS Open File Report 94-187. _- Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault activity map of Califomia and adjacent areas: Califomia Division Of 'j - Mines And Geology, Califomia Geologic Uata Map. Series, Map No. 6, scale 1:750,000- - Knudsen, K-L-, and others, 2000, Preliminary maps of G2uatemary deposits and liquefaction -_ susceptibility, nine-county San Francisco Bay region, California: a digital database: USGS Open-File Report 00-4-4-4, scale 1:24,000. = Michael, A-J., and others [Working Group on Califomia Earthquake Probabilities], 1999, =_ Understanding earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay Region, major quake likely to strike between 2000 and 2030: U.S. Geological Survey Fac# Sheet-152-99. __ Petersen, M.D-, Bryant, W-A., Cramer, C-H-, Cao, T., Reichle, M-S., Frankel, A.D-, =- Lienkaemper, J.J., McCrory, P.A., and Schwartz, D. P., 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard ` Assessment for the State of Califomia:. Califomia Geological Survey Open-File Report 96- __ 08, 33 p. This model has been superseded by an online version available at =_ http://vvww.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/rghni/psha/index-htm Rogers, T.H. and Williams, J-W., 1974, Potential seismic hazards in Santa Clara County, _= California: California Division of Mines an<i Geology Special Report 107, 41 p. Santa Clara County, 2002a, Santa Clara Count)i Geologic Hazard Zones (Fault Rupture Hazard Zones): Santa Ciara.County Planning Department, adopted 2/26/02, revised 8/14/03. . - 17 - 43 ,(, t __ ~-- T -~ __ , 14 i -- ~ i ---s May 23, 2005 ~ Project 2004G Current version available online at htto://www.sccDlanning.org/chanhel/0.4770-chid%253D32110%2526sid%253D12867 00 html Santa Clara County, 2002b, Santa Clara County Geologic Hazard Zones (Landslide, Compressible Soil, and Dike Failure Hazard Zones): Santa Clara County Planning Department, adopted 2/26/02, revised 8/14/03. Current version available online at httA://www_sccalannina.orWchanne V0.4770 chid9~253D32S~0%2526sid °.6253D'12867 00 html Toppozada, T.R„ and Borchardt, Glenn, 1998, Re-evaluation of the 1836 "Hayward Fault" and the 1838 San Andreas Fault earthquakes: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 88, No. 1 , pp.140-159, February, 1998. Wagner, D.W., and others, compilers,. 1991, Geologic map of the San Francisco-San Jose quadrangle, Califomia: California Division Of Mines And Geology, Regional Geologic Map Series, Map 5A, scale 1:250,000. Wesnousky, S. G., 1986, Earthquakes, Quaternary faults, and seismic hazard in Califomia: Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 91, no. 812, p. 12,587-12,631_ Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 1990, Probabilities of large earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay Region, Califomia: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1053, 51p, Working- Group on Califomia Earthquake Probabilities, 1996, Database of potential sources for earthquakes larger than magnitude 6 in northern California: U.S. Geological Survey Open- File Report 96-705. Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 2003, Earthquake probabilities in the San Francisco Bay region: 2002-2031: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-214. 2_ AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS Black and white unless indicated Date Approx. Scale Project 8/23/60 1:30,000 GS-VACY 7/3/63 1 :20,000 CIV-1 DD 5/14/65 1:12, 000 S C L Rol!/Frame No. Source 2/162, 161 USGS 239, 240, 241, USGS 263, 261 5/103, 102, 101 USGS ~ ~ - 44 • == i --~ ® • ~~ ~~'{ f : SfeveeA.al ~+,)',; a. 1. D~~' 'J~;'' Oa/ r ~ %. ~ / ~~~ ~'~ A ~~ •.- i r••~'. . ~~ .'1 a ~a G~ dd 2s ,,;: Opp, i ~:: ~ dA x~l ~: "~ ~R r~ ,JJ °~o~; ~,. •~% ~; ~ ~,,79.C,.. .~ `.r y .,.~~ `^v ~. v ~i i y9G ~, ~ J' i '~I '. w h 4 1 ~ . SK•~1 /~~' 1 ~~ '~{';r 4 /l i ~~:~ f T l ,~ Regna .gyp , ~~ ~ CreAy i.. ~~ dk a 1 i ~r ;! µ~, ~ ,~ i, ~ ~ ~ ~ti Q' j 1 r ~ ~,~ „~ ~, .. ~, ~ (,a f F' ,+~ + S 1 ^... , .~~ ~,~` ~a', .... BASE MAP: MadfBedframSargaadMcLaagNia(1973);rfiftrtosourxmapfarcompleteekpleaationAfgrologicunits, EXPLANATION EARTH MATERL4iS QI5 Landslide deposits Qoa Older Alluvium QTS Santa Clara Formation TSS Unnamed sandstone and shale MAPSYMBOLS ~~ Earth materials contact • • ° ' • Fault contact; buried within map area ~~ Smke end dip (orientation) of bedding Bedrock fold axis (anticline) -N- a toooa DATE ~__ ~ PACIFIC ~AYZOOs t~ ~~tGEOTECIiNICAL ;fiNGINEEAiNG ~~~P~RCO~VED . ..... rsnT GEOLOGICIlVDEXMAP FIGURE PR0P0S6DSURDIVIS[0N 1 219231,1M1X LANE PROJECT cImERTmo, CAturoRnlA 20006 NOTE: Geolcgicaosssecdon6asedonAeltlaneasiaed ropogrephicprofile (fapa and dinometerl. Topograpiry of base map does not aavrately poArey grades et tce of fill elope. V A V D DATE PIGORE ---%FACIFIC htAY2009 • ~~GICCROSS3ECT10NA-A' 4 { PROPOSED SUBDIVISfON ~•;GfiOTECANICAL APPROVED 2192SL1NDYLANE PpO,{g~ •-,;ENG[NEERIN(} CuPEm2NO,CALUroRNu 2ooaa a zo ao so so too Aso faD fso teo soa~ 22o I DISTANCE (feet) Cf Qc Q~ MA ~~~, c~ Peb *u A E I ;~ i PA(~TFTr ~~o~s ~ EXPLANATION EARTH MATERIALS Ef Fiu QCOI Colluvium (shown on cross section only) QTSC Santa Clara Formation MAP SYMBOLS Contact between earth material units, dashed ~ ®~/ where approxim<~te, queried where uncertain ~s~ ~~ peb ~ mss ~ A A' \; ~, Fili slope Cut slope Crest of berm Slope aspect anti inclination (degrees) • Sloughing/soil cheep Outcrop, peb ss ~= pebbly sandstone Line of geologic cross section 17-49 ~ SODS-.:. _ _.... FINE GP:AINED SOILS I MORE THAN 50% PASSING TIIE NO. 200 SIEVE MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP NAMES - SILTS AND CLAYS < 15% COARSE LEAN SILT/CLAY WITH LF_SS THAN L' 30% COARSE GRAINF_D 15 TO 29 % CO.UiSE ~ ' T~'TERTA7. GRAINED LEAN SILT/CLAY WITH GRAVEL OR SAND S AND SILT j CLAYS LIQUID ZG LIMIT <35 -SILTS AND CLAYS o/~~D >%ciRAVEL SANDY LEAN SILT/CLAY WI7'II OR WTIHOUT GRAVEL WITH GREATER THAN 30% COARSE GRAINED MATERIAL %CiRAVI-'S.> %SAND GRAVELLY LEAN SILT/CLAY WITH OR W[THOiI"I' SAND SILTS AND CLAYS < I S% COARSE - SILT/CLAY WITH LESS THAN CTRAINF.L~ 30% COARSE ~ 15 TO 29% CO,~RSE SILT/CLAY WITH GRAVEL OR SAND ~j SILTS.°.ND~ GRAINED CLAYS LIQUID - LIMIT' 35 - 50 SILTS AND CLAYS °/~p~D >%GRAVF.I. SANDY SILT/CLAY WI"I'Ii OR WITHOUT GRAVEL WITH GREATER N 30% COARSE THA GRAINED -~- MATERIAL o/~yyII,> %v;AND GRAVELLY SILT/CL.AY WITH OR WI"ITIOUT SAND SILTS AND CLAYS < 15% COAPS£ . SILT/FAT CLAY WITH LESS THAN - GRAWELi 0• 6 COARSE 3 i - GRAINED MATFrzrAT i 5 TO 29% C0.4RSE GRgIN~, SILT/FAT CLAY WI"ITI GRAVEL. OR SAND - ~ SILTS AND - CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT > 50 SILTS AND CLAYS %SAND > °/aGRAVEL -. SANDY SILT/FAT CLAY W ITH OR WITHOUT GRAVEL WITH GREATER D% COAR THAN 3 SE G ' ~ERI ~ %d3RAVEL> °/diAND GRAVELLY SII,T/FAT CLAY WITI3 OR WI'T'HOUT SAND M .4 I A L c 1. BASED ON A MODIFICATION OF ASTM D24$7-55. SOIL CONSISTENCY 2 CONSISTENCY SILTS AND CLAYS LTNCONI~TED SHEAR 5'I'I2ENGTI3 (KSF7 STANDAR7) 3 PENETRATION (BLOWS/FOOT) VERY SOFT <0.25 <2 SOI°T 0.25 - 0.50 2 - 4 FIRM 0.50 - 1.00 4 - 8 STIFF I.00 - 2.00 $ - IS VERY STIFF 2.00 - 4.00 15 - 30 HARD - > 4.0 > 30 2. BASED ON TERZ.AGHI AND PEC:K_ 3. FOR PRt='I SMTNAT2y gppROXIMATION.ONLY. -,° 60 ,z~p. 50 ?. 40 F 30 zo 10 PLASTICTI'Y CHART 'U'-LINE ~ i i cH i ~ 'A'-LIN E i i c~ ~ i MH ° r OH i CL. NiIaOI Q. - M L. ML. a OL y TI °O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 8° - 90 COY OR LiQI.11D LII.SI'f (FOR FINE AND COARSE GRAINED SOII..S) GENERALLY BASED ON THE MUNSELL COLOR CIiARTS 17-51 oxs COARSE GRAINED SOILS 1 LESS THAN 50% PASSING THE NO. 200 SLEVE MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP NAMES ' WELL GRADED GW <I S% SAND GRAVEL <5% PINE GRAINED MATER? A7 _ POORLY GRADED GP 215°/a SAND GRAVEL WITH SAND GI2AVE1. WELL GRADED GW <i 5% SAND GRAVEL WITH SILT OR CLAY 5%TO 12% - LESS THAN 50%PASSING FINE GRAINED MATERIAL _ _ THE NO. 4 POORLY GRADED GP 215% SAND GRAVEL RTITH SILT OR CLAY TY FINES GM <I S % SAND SILTY GRAVEL - >12% FINE • AINED SIL 215 % SAND SILTY GRAVEL WIT'II SAND GR MATERIAL <] 5°/ SAND CLAYEY GRAVEL CLAYEY FINES GC Zl 5% SAND CLAYEY GRAVEL WITI3 SAND WELL GRADED SW <IS % GRAVEL SAND . <S % FINE GRAINED MATERIAL POORLY GRADED SP 215 % GRAVEL SAND WITH GRAVEL SANDS yyET T _ GRADED .S`W <15% GRAVEL SAND WI"ITL SILT OR CLAY MORE THATI 5%TO 12°/ NED 50%PASSING DINE GRAI THE NO. 4 MATFR 7AI POORLY GRADED SP z15 % GRAVEL SAND WITH SILT OR CLAY AND Q5%GRAVEL SII :IY SAND SILTY FINF_S SM ° Q2 / 215% GRAVEL SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL ' M?'TERIAI' CLAYEY F1NES SC <15% GRAVEL CLAYEY SAND ' 2I5% GRAVEL CLAYEY SAND WTI'II GRAVEL 1. tSA5b1J VN A A1VJJ1YJlJAJ JV1V VD AJ l lvJ L/r.wo /-o~_ SOIL DENSITY 2 RELATIVE DEPiSIT'Y ST~'~'°~D (SANDS AND GRAVELS) BMW ~~p,~ VERY LOOSE O - 4 LOOSE 4-10 MEDIIITi DENSE I O - 30 DENSE 30-50 VERY DENSE >50 2. BASED ON TERZACiHI A.Nll YECK. SOIL MOISTURE DRY- DUSTY, ABSENCE OF ANY MOIS"TURF DAI14P- SLIGHT MOISTURE BUT WELL BELOW OPITM17h2 WATER CONTENT hZOIST- NEAR OPTIMUM WATER CONTENT WET- VISUAL FREE R~A"I'ER, USUALLY SOIL. 17-52 P~1~C-~1~GEOTE'~CIi1NICALF~I~T~I~~~I~~N~'.~ ~-"` ~ _- - - GRAIN SIZE CLASSIFICATION H A R T~L3E S S * * TnTEAT EiERSI~ZG * * Very Hard Cannot be scratched with - Fresh Rock £res h, crystals bright, knife or sharp pick_ or unweathered few joints and fractures Breaking of hand may show slight staining_ specimens requires Rock rings under hammer if several hardblows of crystalline. the geologist's pick. Vary slight Rock generally fresh, fractures Hard Can be scratched with and joints stained, some joints knife or pick only wi t2: may show thin clay coatings, dif £iculty_ Hard blow ~ crystal s in broken face show with hananer required tc brigYit_ Rock rings under kia*m*~r break sample. - if crystalline_ Moderately Hard Can be scratched with Slight Rock generally fresh, joints knife or pick_ Gouges and fractures stained, and or grooves. to 1/9 inch discoloration extends into-rock. can be excavated by hard. - vp to one inch_ Joints may blow of point of a - - contain clay_ In granitic rock geologist`s pick. Hand some occasional feldspar specimens broken with crystals are dull and moderate blow_ discolored_ Crystalline rocks ring monde r hammer . Medium - Can be grooved or gouged. 1/16 inch deep by firm Moderate Significant portions o£ rock pressure on knife or - - show discoloration and ' pick point. Can be weathering effects. In granitic excavated in small chips rock, most feldspars are dull _ about one inch maximum, and discolored; scene show clay. in dimension by hard Rock has dull sound under hammer blows of the point of z. ~ and shows significant loss of geologist's pick.- - strength as compared with fresh Soft Can be gouged or grooves. rock_ - readily with knife ~or Moderately A11 rock except quartz pick point. Can be severe discolored or stained_ In excavated in chips to granitic rock, all feldspars - pieces several inches dull and discolored and majority in size by moderate blows show kaolinization. Rock of a pick point. Sma11 ~ shows severe loss of strength - pieces can be broken by and can be excavated with - finger pressure. _ geologist's pick_ Rock goes Very Soft Can be carved with knife. "clvnk^ when struck_ - Can be excavated. readil}~ Severe A11 rock except quartz with point o£ pick. discolored or stained. Rock Pieces one inch or mores "fabric" clear and evident, but thickness can be broken reduced in strength to strong with finger pressure. soil. In granitic rock, all . Can be scratched readily feldspars kaolinized to some - by fingernail. extent. Same fragments of strong rock usually left. Vary severe A11 rock except quartz ' FRACTUE2E: DT~rTS20NS* discolored or stained. Rock i "fabric" discernible, but mass Fractrura 81ocSC Size (or spacinc ) effectively reduced to ^soii" with only fragments of strong Crushed -5 microns to O.l ft rock remaining. Sntensely O.OS to 0.1 ft Complete Rock reduced to "soil"_ Rock Closely - O_1 to O_5 ft "fabric^ not discernible or Moderately O.5 to 1.D ft discernible only in -small ~ scattered locations. Quartz may Slig2atly 1.0 to 3.O £t - . be Present as dikes or Massive 3_O ft. and tar er - 4 - stringers. i Rveraga distance betvaart adjacent xracturas " Source of data ivnXnow9, - ~• Source oS data: `SUb¢urf ace investigation for Design and constrvctioa o£ Foundation Huiidings•, (199 s3 A.vezican Society of Civil En(,ineer¢. Nanual¢ artd Reports on-Engirteering Practice - No_ 5 ~ ,av ~~ i0`d'M - n L"Y~.le'~~_T~ ',''~ c~+x .mY f ~ 'litM1 ~y j ~ V~~ ~. ;:. • .. -'~ ~' ~ 1 - ~ ~~ ~ / .A , PA~IFIC ~~+ b'1~;~~i~TI"CAL ENGI~TEERIFTG _ SELECTED REGIONAL FAULT DATA San Andreas fault -The San Andreas fault is hundreds of mites long, passing through the greater Bay Area from beyond Pt. !Reyes to the north, down the San Francisco Peninsula, and extending on beyon~~ Hollister to the south. This fault has generated: at least four large, damaging earthquakes during historic time: 1838, 1857, 1946 and 1989. In addition, an 1836 earthquake once considered to have occurred on the Hayward fault is novv thought to have occurred south of Loma Prieta in the Santa Cruz Mountains on an unknown fault (Opposed and Orchard, 1998). The earthquake- of 1838 probably caused ground rupture from San Juan Bautista to San Francisco, and was centered somewhere in between; it had an estimated Richter magnitude of about 7.5. The earthquake of 1857 occurred in San Luis Obispo County; it had an estimated Richter magnitude of approximately 8.0. The 1906 earthquake was probat~ly centered just offshore of the Golden Gate of San Francisco .Bay, and had an estimated Richter magnitude of approximately 8.3. The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake was epic entered in the Santa Cruz Mountains. This moment magnitude 6.9 earthquakes (Richter or surface wave magnitude 7.1) caused 64 deaths, about 4,000 injuries and about 6 billion dollars of damage in the Bay Area. The California Geological Survey (GGS) currently considers the maximum earthquake for the Peninsula segment of the San Andreas fault to be moment magnitude 7.? {GCS, 1996)_ The maximum earthquake for the Santa Cruz Mountains segment is considered to be: moment magnitude 7.0. Both segments are considered by the CGS (1996) to have the same 400-year return intervals for the maximum earthquake, although recent work suggests a shorter return interval (Hall and others, 1 999}_ Calaveras fault -The Calaveras fault pas:>es through the lower foothills of the Diablo _=` Range and roughly forms the eastern margin of the southern Santa Clara Valley. =~ The creeping southern segment of this fault merges with the San Andreas fault near Hollister. The Calaveras fault has generated a number of moderate _'-_ magnitude, damaging earthquakes during historic time: 1897, 1911, 1979, and ___ 1984. The Richter magnitudes for all four of these earthquakes were nearly identical: 1897 - 6.2; 1911 - 6.1; 1979 - 5.9; and 1984 - 6.2. Current research ->__ (CGS, 1996) indicates that the maxirnctm earthquake for the Calaveras faul# is =_ moment magnitude 6.2, with a return interval of 33 years. .Hayward fault -The Hayward fault forms tl~e eastern margin of the San Francisco Bay basin. The last major earthquake on 'the Hayward fault occurred "sn 1968 along a "southern segment' of the fault, and had an estimated Richter magnitude of 7.0. until recently, it was thought that asimilar-magnitude earthquake in 1836 occurred on a northern segment of the fault. However, as noted above, recent research suggests that the 1836 earthquake occurred on a different fault (Toppozada and Borchardt, 1998), and that the Hayward fault may be unsegment:ed. The CGS (1996) considers the maximum earthquake for the Hayward fault to be moment magnitude 6.9, with a return interval of 167 years. Sargent fault - The Sargent fault is considered part of the San Andreas fault system `_:__ and splays off of this fault north of the City of Santa- Cruz. Like other thrust faults . east of the Sari Andreas fault, the Sargent fault is thought to be tectonically coupled with the San Andreas fault at depth. However a recent study by Nolan _____ and others suggests that the Sargent fault may not be tectonically coupled with the _-' San Andreas, and that movement may be associated with distributed shear across __ the region. ~~ - ss ~~_ _ ____> Appendix B E-- - '_~ ---~ r~ COTTON, SHIRES S~ ASSOCYATES, INC_ `COI~iSULTING ENGINHERS AhI17 GfiOLOGISTS TO : Colin Jung Cupertino City Planner CITY OF CLJPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 SUBJECT : Geologic Review 1ZE . 1<nopp, Proposed 2-Z.ot Subdivision 21925 Lindy Lane, Cupertino EXT~TR IT F ' ~ June 29, 2005 coass ,A.t your zequest, we have completed a geologic revview of the subject application for the 2-lot subdivision using the following doeunlents: Fri Bering Geologic and Geotecluz3cal .Feasibility Evaluation (report), prepared by Pacific Geotechnical Engneering, dated May 2.3, 2005; and Tentative Parcel Map, Lands of ICnopp (1 sheat, 20-scale), prepared by Nelson Engineering, dated May, 2005. In additioxi to the above referenced documents, we have reviewed pertinent technical data from our office files and perforsx~ed a recent site inspection. DISCUSSION Our review of the refezenced materials ixtdzcates that the applicant proposes to subdivide the existing approximate 1-acre rectangular parcel into two residential lots, each approximately 20,000 square feet in size. The property is r.rrrentiy developed with a single -£aznily residence with attached garage located in the northeast portion of the parcel. Access to the property is via a private driveway extending northwestwazd from Lundy Lane with a stub driveway exteztding eastward off of this private driveway. Lindy x.ane bounds the parcel aloreg its southern boundary. 'I`lls proposed subdivision would result in two rectangular-shaped parcels, the existing parcel would be the eastern parcel artid the new lot would be t11e western pazcel. STI'E CONDY ONS The subject proper-ty is characterized by moderately steep to steep (12-to 1$= degree. ir~clinations), sout7:teast-facing, natural hillside topography_ Grading for initial residential construction has resulted in the development of a large cut/fill building pad across the northeast portion of both proposed lots, Which accoTM+~odates the existing driveway and residence. Fill slopes associated with this pad are very steep (up to 35- degree inclinations). Cutslopes along tine northern side of the pad are -very steep to precipitous (up to ~--degree irtcliriations)_ Evidence of shallow slou~' ~ and sliding u apparent along the oversleep f;77clope. A steep cutslope (up to 30-degree inclinations) is NorElz.ern Califortti,a Office Southern Cali.fazaia a£fxce 330 vllal;e Lane ~ 5245 Avenida fi~a7ct c .~ Suite A Los Gatos, CA 95030-7213 Carlsbad, CA 920 0 8-43 74 (~08) 354-5542 + Fax (408) 35•~-IS52 . (760) 931-2700 ~ Fax: (760).931-1020 i Colin j"g Page 2 Julie 29, 2005 . 00055 located along the southern property boundary, associated with T indy X-.one. T}tis cutslope displays evidence of shallow slougYuztg and sliding_ 7Jxaitlage at the site is chazacterized by partially controlled siteetflotiv directed to the southeast. The site is underlain, at depth by sedimentary bedzoclc materiels of the Santa Clara Formation (i.e., interbedded sandstone, siltstone, and conglomerate). These materiels are locally overlain by shallow (gP17PSaIly Less than 4 feet in thickness), potextitially expansive surfidal soil materials. Pebbly sandstone bedrock materiels of the Santa Clara Formati.oxt are exposed along the steep cutslope above the existin-g l-f.~1Zr~y*zg - pad. The City Geologic Hazards Map indicates that the site is located within the `Foothills" zone, which is defined as "Faothu'.ls terrain; genfle to steep, partially zsrbanized hz7lside area located west of the valley floor and generally east of the Monte Bello Rldge_" The site is near the bouundary of the "F-2" and "E~-3" zorces. Development in an "F-2/k~-3" zone is potentially constrained by ground failure (landslidiztig) and seismic s~+a~T~g and .ground fracturing. The site lies outside of flee State's earthquaice~-induced landslide zone depicted on their Seismic Hazard Zone Map fox the Cupertizto Quadrar~te. Tl,e active San Andreas fault is located appror*T*Ately 3.0 miles soutttiwest of the project site and the potentially active Monta Vista fault is ispproxrimately 1,000 -feet ztortheast of the site. CONCLUSIONS AI~FO RECOiVIMENDED 1-'-CTION The. subject .property is potentially constrained by expansive surficial soil material, the potential for settlement and shallow slu~octiping of non~rigineerc~l fill; stzrfidal soil and #ill creep, shallow ixistabilirT along cutslopes, and the susceptibility o£ life site to very strong to violent seisaaic ground shaking. Eased upon our review of the referenced documents, it appeazs that tl~te Project Geotechnical Consultant ktas pex£oxrited a feasibility-level investigation of the site, aztid has indicated that the site is feasible from a geologic and geotectviical standpoint, provided that the project design incorporates the recoTM+*Y+Prdations of a design level geotechnical investigation. Based u on our review of the referenced clocuxxtextits and our site reeonnai.ssaxice and aexial photographs, we agree with. the Project Geotechnieal Coxtsultant that the proposed subdivision appears feasible front a geolo~¢c standpoint, provided that futuxe sine development plans aze designed ii1 accordan~~ with a detailed design-level geotF~.-7,~,;ca1 investigation. The exisliitg non-er-gineered fi71 appears to pose t$e b eatest g+eotechztical constraint to the project It is our opinion that a new residen~al structure located downslope of this fill will not be approved by this office without either removal and xepla~.-went of the old fill, or the installatio~-e of a deep, pier supported retaining wall designed to account for a deep landslide failure at the bedrock interface_ X'xitor to approval of grading or buildiztig permits, we recommend that a detailed geotechrucal design level zxtvestigation be perforated, including, but not xtecessarily limited to, the followixtig items: 1_ Geotechnieal Investigation -The applicant`s Registered Geotechnical Engin~r should pes'foz~at a geotecl~nical investigation of the project site, including, at a ]Tlin117C1ti7.7711, t17e. fQ110Win.g iteYYLS_ _ 17-57 CbTTO1~I, rJ~IRES ~ ASSQCZATiTS, INC_ Colin jurRg Fage 3 June 29, 2005 00055 • A surface investigation should be erforzxted, including updating the vu° *tial s3~te plant/geotechnical mall depicting the e~dstittg and proposed develapr,Prt in relatlon to geotechnical features of the property (x.e., cutslopes, fills, slope instability, slope angles, all subsurface excavation locations, etc_); ' Subsurface investigation at tkce proposed new lot should be pperforncted, including explozatzoxt in the vicilttty of the proposed netN foundation. The subsurface lxivestigatiotz should include sampling of the subsurface materials from depths of anticipated foundation support. The depth of fill, and non bedrock materials should be performed within the fill prism, evc>.tt if the reside*+~ is to be located downslope of the fill. A.11 logs of subsurface exploration should be submitted with the geoteehnical report; • Azi investigation of the existing fill should be performed and recoxtimendations provided for removal and xeplacement or stabilization. It is our opinion that this fill material may not be suitable for rise as a viable building pad without rigorous mitigation eiEforts_ IF the proposed building site is located downslope of the non-engiiieerPd fill, then this fill should either be removed axtd replaced, or recommendations provided for a deep, pier-supported reta+T+~+ng wa3.I. Slope stability ay.'talyses sktould be performed to support the retai,~ir,g wall design alternative; Laboratory testing should be performed on selected samples front the subsurface exploration„ includng testing fur it~dex, strength, and expansion potential; aztd The results, of the geotechnical inx~estigation should be presented in a report that SLTmmari9:~?g the findfzxgs aztd provides geOtechnical design recom=+-+P-ndations for foundations, retaining walls, dra**~~ge cpntrol~ and site axadiztg. 2. Detailed rading and Drainage Plan - '1;he I'zoject Fatgineer should sub~xtit a detailed grading plan once -the building location has been identified and the geotechni.cal investigation is campleted_ 3_ Gaotecllrtical Plan Review -The applicant's geoteclutical consultant shall review and approve all geot-~-r*~ycal aspects o£ the development plans (i.e_, si.te preparation and grading, site drainaa improvements and design ~axameters for fora?dations and retainng watts) to ea~surs that his recoxx~utendai~ans have been properly incorporated. Tkte results of the Geotechnical Investigation, Grading Plan, and Geotechrtical Plan 12eviewv should be s*•*n*~a*-*~ed by the geotechnicai consultant and civil ertgltieer, and submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Geologist and City Staff prior to approval of Grading and builclizxg Permits. 77-58 Ca'i`rON, SHIIZ&S ~ ASSOCTA.'I'ES, INC. Coke Jung Page g LINITTATIONS June z9, zoos 00055 This review has been performed to pro,~ide technical advice to assist the City in its discretionary permit decisxozzs. Our services have beexL limited to review of the doc»**+P*~ts previously identified, and a visual :review of the property. Our opuuons and conclusions are z7nade in accordance with ge7tterally accepted principles and practices of the geotechnical profession_ 'i'bis warranty is in Ifeu of all other warranties, eftkzer expressed or implied_ Ti~espectfully s~txbmitted, TS_J1viWst COTTOPd, S~iIRBS ANID ASSOCIA.'I'ES, INC. CI'1 Y GE~~~Y.OGI T ~V Jo 1VL T~Vallace Supervir~uzg Fno Tf PT ~ Geologist CEG 192;3 ~^ ~ Ted Sayzti= Managui€; Engineez%na Geologist CEG 1795 »-ss COTTON, S'H~FS ~ ASSOCIA'I'~S, II~C. TM-2005-_ 03 CITY OF CUPERTINO 20300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 Exhibit G - i RESOLUTION NO. 6313 OF TPIE PLAN-KING COMMLSSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.0 ACRE PARCEL IN'T'O TWO LOTS OF ABOUT 20,000 SQUARE FEET EACH IN SIZE IN AN R1-20 ZONING DISTRICT AT 21925 LINDY LANE SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: TM-2005-03 Applicant: Bret Moxley Location: 21925 Lindy Lane SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Comm~GSion of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map as described in Section I of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Subdivision and Procedural Ordinances of the City of Cupertino, and -the Planning Comrni~sion has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: a) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with-,the City of Cupertino General Plan. b) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan. c) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development contemplated under the approved. subdivision. d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially az~d avoidable injure fish and wildlife or their habitat: e) That the designs of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated therewith are not likely to cause serious public health problems: i~-so .Resolution No. 6313 TM-2005-03 July 26, 2005. Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT I~SOLVED: That after careful consideration-of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application TM-2005-fl3 for a Tentative Map is hereby approved subject to the conditions which axe enumerated in this Resolution beginning on page 2 thereof, and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are .based and contained iri the Public Hearing record concerning Application TM-2005-03, as set forth in the IViinutes of Planning Commission Meeting of July 26, 2005, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADr/IINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1_ APPROVED E?CI3HIBITS Approved is based on the tentative map entitled "TENTATIVE MAP, LANDS OF IQ~TOPP, 21925 LINDY T_ANE, CUPERTINO, CA" by Nelsen Engineering, dated May 2005, and consisting of one sheet labeled 1. 2. FUTURE BUILDING AREA The applicant/owner shall submit a revised tentative map clearly delineating the limits of development to closely reflect the illustrations included in the Planning Comnssion staff report dated July 26, 2005. In addition, no retaining waIIs over 4 feet tall {measured from the natural grade) shall be constructed on the project site. 3. SLOPE EASEMENT The applicant/ owner shall submit a revised tentative map clearly delineating the required slope easement to closely refleect the illustrations included in the Planning COmrniGSlOn staff report dated .July 26, 2005.. The easement is required to be recorded on the property ensuring that the existing landforms, trees and vegetation be preserved, and precluding any future developments or improvements in this area, except for necessary undergrounding of utility lines that do not _adverseiy affect -the specimen size native oak trees.. 4. TREE PRESERVATION No trees are to be removed as part of the tentative map approval. -The tree protection measures outlined in the City Arborist's report dated June 29, 2005 shall be conditions of this project. Prior to the issuance of grading anti building permits, the City Arborist shall confirm the imp:lementafion of the tree protection measures. Prior to the final occupancy, the City A:rborist shall confirm that the protected trees have been preserved and survived the construction activities. In the event that aszy protected trees must be removed due to reasoizs deemed appropriate by the Cozrununity Development Director, then comparable diameter replacement tree(s) must be planted at the same location or }ocations visible to the public. n - s~ Resolution No. 6313 TM-2005-03 July 26, 2005 Page 3 Prior to final map approval, a covenant shall be recorded on the property, notifying future property owners of the kinds and numbers of specimen trees protected by City Ordinance and the requirement for a tree removal. permit for these trees. The covenant shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. 5_ DRIVEWAY MAINTENANCE AGREEMEN'T' Prior to final map approval, a driveway maintenance agreement shall be recorded for existing driveway benefiting Lot #1. 6. DRIVEWAY ACCESS FOR LOT #2 Vehicular access for Lot #2 shall be taken off the ingress/egress easement to the west side of Lot #2 in order to limit grading impacts. 7. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN A comprehensive construction operation plan must be submitted to the City for review and approval prior- to issuance of gradu~.g and building permits addressing the following: • Staging area Tree protection Construction hours and limits • Construction vehicle and truck routes Dust and erosion control Garbage and debris container location and pick u_ p schedule • Signage advising contractors of the restrictions Zn addition to the construction nza.nagement plan described abode, the following additional construction activity limitations apply: No grading is allowed during the rainy season -October through April. . On Saturdays, graduzg, street construction, demolition, underground utility work and other construction work that directly involves motorized vehicular equipment are prohibited. On Sundays, construction is prohibited. 8. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The project a~Zd future developments shall adhere to the 1ZIIS Ordinance or the R1 Ord~na.~ce whichever specific regulation in each ordinance is more restrictive. 9. NOTICE OF FEES DEDICATIONS RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation. requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (3 ), these Conditions constitute writter0~~ice Resolution No. 6313 TM-2005-03 July 26, 2005 Page 4 of a statement of the' amount of such :Fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You axe hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Govenuner~t Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest witlvn this 90-day period complying .with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred- from later challenging such exactions. 10. ADDITIONAL GEOTECFINICAL INVESTIGATIONS Prior to the approval of grading or building permits, a detailed geotechnical, design-level investigation shall be performed in accordance with the - recommendations outlined in a letter from Cotton Shires 8r Associates to Colin Jung, Cupertino City Planner dated Jun<~ 29, 2005. 11. CALCULATION OF NET LOT SIZE O]F LOT #2 For the purposes of subdivision, floor area ratio and building coverage, the area of the ingress/egress easement shall not be subtracted from the lot area to calculate net lot size. SECTION IV. CONDI'T'IONS ADMII~~ISTERED BY TI LE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 12. STREET WIDENING - Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specification: and as required by the City Engineer. 13. CURB AND GZJZ°TER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and. related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 14_ STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street .lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interfereizce to adjoining properties, and shalt be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 15. FAZE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City Engineer. 16. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City, as required. 17_ STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within t11e Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by the City- in accordance v~rith Ordinance No. 125. 17-63 Resolution No. 6313 TM-2005-03 Tiny 26, 2005 Page 5 - 18. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 . permits maybe required. Please con#act Army Corp of Engineers and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 19. DRAINAGE Drainage shalt be provided to the satisfaction_of the City Engineer. Surface flow across public sidewalks may be allowed in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 zones unless the City Engineer deems storm drain facilities necessary. Development in all other zoning districts shall be served by on site storm drau2age facilities connected to the City storm drainage system. If City storm drains are not available, drainage factlities shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 20. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City, as required. 21. UNDERGROUND UTILI'T'IES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ord;nar,ce No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 22_ IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not linvited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for undergrounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Checking 8i Inspection Fees: $ 5% of Off-Site Improvement Cost or $2,130.00 minimum b. Grading Permit: $ 5 % of Site Ix~nprovement Cost c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 1,000.00 d. Storm Drainage Fee: $ 1,293.87 e. Power Cost: N/A f. Map Checking Fees: $ 2,000.00- .8. Park Fees: $ 15,750.00 Bonds: » _ sa Resolution No. 6313 TM-2005-03 July 26, 2005 Page 6 a. ~ Faithful Performance F>ond: 100°~ of Off-site and On-site Improvements b. Labor 8z Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site improvement c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements. ~'I'he fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. 23. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing aiZd landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. 24. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES The developer shall dedicate to the Ci~y all waterlines and appurtenances installed to City Standards and shall reach are agreement with San Jose Water for water service to the subject development. 25. BEST 1VIANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BA.~'s), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construcEion activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in your grading and street improvement plans. Erosion and or sediment control plan shall be provided. - PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26~ day of July 2005, at a Regular Meeting of the Pianr,;r,g Comm;GSion of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYFS: COMMISSIONERS: Giefer, Vice-Chair Miller, Saadati $c Chairperson Wong NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chen ATTES`F: APPROVED: /s/ Steve Piasecki Ls/ Gilbert Wong, Steve Piasecki Gilbert-Wong, Chairperson Director of Community Development Cupertino Plarutisig Comm;csion g:/plcznning/pd~~eport/res/TM-2005-03 res.doc n - ss Exhibit H - 1 CI'T'Y OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: TM-2005-03 Agenda Date: July 26, 2005 Applicant: Bret Moxley Property Owner: John 8s Karen Knopp Property Location: 21925 Lindy Lane Project Consistency with: General Plan yes Zoning des Environmental Review: Categorically Fxempt Application Summary: Tentative Map to subdivide an approximate 1.0 acre site into two -parcels, each approximately 20,000 square feet in size in an R1-20 zoning district RECOMMENDATION- Staff recommends approval of the Tentative Map (T'M-2005-03) in accordance with the model resolution. BACKGROUND- Currently the property is a single lot with one residence on the northeasterly corner of the lot. It is served by a private driveway, which serves several lots in the area and will serve the new lot (see tentative map). The immediate surrounding lots are larger than the proposed 20;000 square feet, while lots to the south are in the 10,000 square foot range. No site preparation is proposed as part of the subdivision. DISCUSSION Semi-rural duzracter The property is along the north side Lindy Lane on a lvllside with 20-30°~ slopes that retains asemi-rural appearance as viewed from Lindy Lane. Staff believes it is unportant to mask the new homes behind the tree grove on the newly created westerly lot and to retain the gently sloping hillside in front of the existing residence. The following will discuss how to achieve this objective with this subdivision. Future Building Location: The lot is characteriied by a steep slope (average slope of 28%) grid has extensive vegetation including several specimen size oaks and natural vegetations. According to the Rl Ordinance (Section 19.28.050), properties with hillside characteristics with aiz average slope of 15% or greater shall be developed in accordance with the regulations of the Residential Hillside Ordinance or the Rl Ordinance, whichever specific regulation is more restrictive_ In addition, i~-ss ., according to the General Plan Policies 2.:53 and 2.56, hillside developments must preserve the rural character of the hillsic~ e and m;r,;rr,;.ze the disturbance to natural Iandforms and existing vegetation and trees. Based on the topographical map and the tree survey of the site, the only appropriate future building pad location is in the middle of the Iot in between several protected specimen trees. "Phis area is also the only milder sloping area of the site allowing the construction of a house to occur with the least amount of grading activities and tall reta;n;ng wall:->. T7ie existing speciurien trees in front also reduce the visibility of the house from the public street. As a condition of the project, the applicant is required to v~ork-with staff to design a home within this specified area and that no reta;n;r,g -walls over 4 feet tall shall be coivstructed on the site. Staff is also recommending that a slope easement be placed in front of Lot 1 8~ 2 to ensure that the existing natural landforms, trees and vegetations be preserved from any future developments or improvements. Please refer to the followirLg illustration outlining the future building pad .area 8-c the slope easement area. ___ . ,._.. -. Slope Easement 17-67 Future Allowable Building 17-68 Future Allowable BtLild.iiig - Slope Easement .~ The applicant submitted a plan with a conceptual building footprint that exceeds the allowable building area delineated by staff. In addition a 20 foott reta?n;,,g wall is proposed. To retain the semi-rur~~1 characteristic of the site, the footprint of the future house should be smaller and be masked by the trees and the retain;,,g wall should be restricted. Trees: The arborist report identifies four specimen size oak trees ii1 proximity of development; however, no trees are proposed for removal as part of fh;G development application. The City Arborist has prepared recommendations for the protection of the trees during construction (Exhibit C). The recom,,,endations have been incorporated in the conditions of approval of the tentative parcel map. The applicant is aware of the fact that the future building footprint and design will have to work a:rovizd the existing specimen trees. GeoloQU: The property contains non-engineered fill from gradivzg conducted in the 1960's_ No im„-,ediate plans are forthcom;ng to develop the westerly proposed lot. The City Geologist has reviewed the applicant's geotechiical report (Exhibit A) and concurs that the site is feasible for development from a geologic and geoteclznical standpoint (Exhibit B). He also recommends that a detailed geotechnical, design- Ievel investigation be performed prior to grading and buihdiiig permit issuance. The City Geologist's recommendations are incorporated in the conditions of approval of the tentative parcel map. Construction Mat2a~enzent: Since this site is located on the hillside a.r~d near a sensitive residential neighborhood, a comprehensive construction operation plan must be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of grading and building permits addressing the following: • Staging area • Tree protection • Construction hours and limits • Construction vehicle and truck routes • Dust aizd erosion control • Garbage and debris contauier location and pick up schedule • Signage advising contractors of th~~ restrictions i~-ss 5 Model Resolution Exhibit A -Report prepared by Pacific Geotechrucal Engineering, dated May 23, 2005 Exhibit B -Cotton, Shire 8s Associates Review, June 29, 2005 Exhibit C- City Arborist Report by Barrie D. Coate aizd Associates, dated June 9, 2005. Conceptual footpruzt plan submitted by the applicant, received July 21, 2005. Plan Set Prepared by: Gary Chao, Associate Plaruzer Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developm G:plann.T+g/ pdreport/ pcTlVlreports/ 2005tnu-eports/ TM-2005-03 ~~-~o ~: ~:,;« ~'••iy~ . ~~RR.~ ~ a_ GATE ~„~ ~~ and ~IlSS~CIATES ~,~~, .'`~.,.- _„ ~~.,,~ ~~ =~~ ~ "~ i-ior[icutural ~~onsu4tants 23535 Sinnrn3tROad L c3 t ~~A $5033 _-- _ . - os a os, 408x353-1052 ~. EVALUATIOI~T OF TREES AT THE KNOPP PROPERTY 21925 LII`7DY LA1~E Ci7PERTII~TO Prepared at the request of: CoIiu Jung City of f~upertino 10300 To rre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Prepared by: IKichael L. Seneh Consulting Arborist June Sa` , 2005 Job # 01-05-006-A ExTTTRIT C RECEI~TEI~ JUL 0 7 2005 BY~ i~-~i EVALUATION OF TREES AT THE IQ~TOPP PROPERTY, 21925 LII~iDY LANE, CUPERTINO ~ - I-- Assignment Z have been asked by Colin Jung, Community Development Department, City of Cupertino, to prepare geneial recommendations for the protection of specific trees and to prepare a replacement strategy should Trees # 1, 2, 8, and 10 be removed at the property of John Knopp, 21925 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, California. ' General 'T'ree Protection Recommendations. The following recommendations are designed to mitigate the risk of damage to existing trees by construction procedures that are common to most construction sites. Prevention is the key to tree preservation. A common practice in construction is to forge ahead with the intent of repairing mistakes or deficiencies cater in the project. This mentality is the opposite mind set to that required for successful preservation of existing trees. Often damage to trees cannot be repaired, and often damaged trees cannot adequately recover, regardless of the aftercare. For this reason, prevention of damage is the key to tree preservation. Bear in mind that a tree protection plan is not typically designed to prevent any damage to existing trees. If a "no damage" policy were required, it would not be feasible to do any construction at many sites. Instead it is the intention that a protection plan would keep the damage within the range that we believe trees could tolerate. For obvious reasons, it would be essential that contractors follow the protection pian with diligence and good judgment. The single most important item of a tree protection plan at most sites is the . provision of protective fencing. I recommend that protective fending be provided during the construction period to protect those trees that are planned to be preserved_ 'T'his fencing must protect a sufficient portion of the root zone to be effective. In most cases, it would be essential #o locate the fencing a , minimum distance of l O times the trunk diameter in all directions from the trunk. For example, a tree with a trunk diameter of 15 inches dbh (54 inches above grade) v.+ould require that protective fencing be erected at least 13 feet from the trunk. If hardscape (i. e., curbing, paving, etc.) exists inside this 13 foot radius, the protective fencing should be erected at the edge of the hardscape feature and be located at least 13 feet from the trw~Zc on alI other sides. Occasionally it may be necessary to have a certified arborist make decisions about the location(s) of protective fencing at the project site. I recol"nuiend that protective fencing must: s Consist of chain link fencing and having a minimurri height of 6 feet. ® Be mounted on steel posts driven approximately 2 feet into the soil. a Fence posts must be located no further than 10 feet apart. " ® Protective fencing must be installed prior to the arrival of any materials, vehicles, or equipment. ® Protective fencing must not be moved, even temporarily, and must remain in place until all construction is completed. 2. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping inside the driplines of protected trees, unless specifically approved by a certified arborist. 17-72 Prepared by: Michaet L. Bench, Consulting Arborist June 9u', 2005 - EVALUATION OF TREES AT THE KNOPP PROPERTY, 21925 LINDY LANE, CUPERTINO 2 3. Trenches for any utilities (gas, electricity, water, phone, TV cable, etc:) must be located outside the driplines of protected trees, unless approved by a certified . arborist. An alternative is to install utility services by tunneling at a minimum depth of 4 feet. In this event, the sending and receiving pits must be Iocated outside the driplines of existing trees. 4. If 10-15% of the root zone of a tree would suffer root loss, I recommend that those trees must be irrigated throul;hout the entire construction period during the dry months (any month receiving less than linch of rainfall ). Irrigate a minimum of 1 O gallons for each inch of tnznh diameter every two weeks. A soaker hose or a drip line is prefen-ed for this purpose. 5. If the damage (root loss and canopy loss by pruning) would exceed approximately 15%, I recommend that the entire area inside the driplines of those trees must be mulched. Mulching consists of a protective material (wood chips, gravel) being spread over.the root zone inside the dripline. This material must be at least 4 inches in depth after spreading, which must be done by hand. I prefer course wood chips because; it is organic, and degrades naturally over time. Wood chips must be Y4 to 3/. inch in diameter. One supplier is Rouser, Inc., 370 Santana Dr., Cloverdale, CA 95425, (707)894-4224. 6. IVlaterials must not be stored, stocl~:piled, dumped, or buried inside the driplines _ of protected trees. 7. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped, even temporarily, inside the driplines of protected trees. 8. Loose soil must not be allowed to slide down slope to cover the root zones or the root collars of protected trees. 9. Any pruning must be done by an arborist certified by the ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) and according to ISA, Western Chapter Standards, 1998. l O. Any pathways or other hardscape ~`o be constructed inside the driplines of protected trees must be constructed completely on top of the existing §oii grade without excavation. Fill soil may be added to the edge of finished hardscape for a maximum distance of approximately 2 feet from the edges to integrate the new hardscape to the natural grade. 11. Sprinkler irrigation must not be designed to strike the iTUnics of trees. - 12. Landscape irrigation trenches must be a minimum distance of 10 times the trunk diameter away from the trunks of protected trees. 13. Landscape materials (cobbles; decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be installed directly in contact with the. bark of trees because of the risk of serious - rs Prepared by: 1vlichael L_ Bench, Consulting Arborist June 9u', ?005 EVAZ.UA'ITON OF TREES AT THE IQ30PP PROPERTY, 2 ] 925 LINDY LANH. CT 72'ER"I'INO. _ disease infection. 14. The plants that are planted inside the driplines of oak trees must be of species that are compatible with the environmental and cultwal requirements of oaks trees. A publication about plants compatible with California native oaks can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 8 i 0, Oakland 94612. Replacement Plan for Trees # 1, 2, 8, and 10 A thorough tree survey for this property was prepared by Deborah Ellis in a reporE dated 5-19-05. The information in this report by Deborah Ellis concerning the existing trees (trunk diameters, overall condition) has been used here to prepare value assessments of Trees # 1, 2, 8, and 10 for a replacement strategy. . It is our practice to recommend replacement trees based on the accessed values of the trees removed. The method used for the appraisal of Trees # '1, 2, 8, and 10 is the Trunk Formula Method, in accordance with the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), Guide for Plant Appraisal ~ 9`t' Edition. Also, the ISA Western Chapter Species Classification Guide is used to provide species ratings and to provide a trunk values per square inch, which is part of the trunk formula method. The trunk formula worksheets for Trees # 1, 2, 8, and 10 are included in the attachments: The assessed values and equivalent replacements are as follows: Tree # 1 - $ i 5,600, equivalent to 1-72 inch, 2-48 inch; and 1-36 inch boxed trees Tree # 2 - $ 4,250, equivalent to 2-48 inch boxed trees Tree # 8 - $ 5,900, equivalent to 2-48 inch, 1-36 inch, and 1-24 inch boxed trees Tree #10 - $ 11,800, equivalent to 1-72 inch, 1-36 inch, and 2-24 inch boxed trees Totaling - 2-72.inch, 6-48 inch, 3-36 inch and 3-24 inch boxed trees Or 1-96 inch, 1-72 inch and 1-60 inch boxed tree Respectfully submitted, ~~ Michael L. Bench, Associate . c Barrie D. Coate, Principal MLB/sh Enclosures: Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Trunk Formula Method Charts - 4 ' 17-74 Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist _ June 9°', 2005 BARRIE ~_ C~.ATE and A,SSCICIATES Horlicutural Consultants 2353'5 Summit Road Los GanoS. CA 85033 - - 408l353-1052 Trunk Formula Method 9`t' Edition, Guide for Plant Appraisal for Trees Less Than 30" diameter Owner of Property (tree): SOHN KNOPP Location: 21925 LINDY LANE, CIJPERTINO Date of Appraisal: 6-28-OS Date of Failure: n/a Appraisal Prepared for: CO1.1N JUNG Appraisal Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist Field Observattorts o Svb "ect Tree 1. Species: QUERCUSAGRIFOLIA --TREE #1 2_ Condition: Fair (60%) 3. TrunkDiameter, Inches: 36.35 (Cumulative multi-stem) 4. Location Value %: Site 80 % + Contribution- 60% 4- Placement 60% = 200 - 3 = 66.6% Re o»al Plmxt A sisal Corn»rittee F» ormario» 5. S ecies Ratin 100 6. Re lacement-.Tree Size s tnches TAR: _ 14.6 in. 7. Replacement Tree Cost: $ 902.50 8. Instailation Cost: $ 902.50 9. Installed Tree Cost (# 7 + # 8): $1 805.00 10. Unit.Tree Species Cost (per sq. inches): $ 37.00 per in' Calcvlatiotzs Usi» Field mxd Re Zo»al Committee I» ormvtio» ] ] . Appraised Trunk Area Trunk Diameter, S uared (#3 x 785 = 1.022 s . in. 12. Appraised Tree Thank Increase (TA,.,c~ _ TA{ 1022 in. #] 1 - TAA 14.6 s . in. #6 = 1 007.4 s _ in. 13. Basic Tree Cost: (1'A.NCn) (#12) 1007.4 sq. in. x UTC (#10) $ 37.00 per sq: in. + Lnstalled Tree Cost # 9 $1805_ _ $ 39A79 14. Appraised Value: - _ Basic Tree Cost (#13) $ 39,079 x Species (#5) 100% x Condition #2 60 % x Location #kl 66.6 % _ $ 15 616 . 15_ Round to nearest $100 ($5,000+) or $]O (less than $5,000) _ $ 15,600 17-7 BARRIE ~. GATE ar>,d ASS©CIATES HorticuturaY Consultants 23535 Summit Road - Los GatAS, CA 95033 aosts5~-~ os2 Trunk Formula Method 9`~' Edition, Guide for Plant Appraisal for Trees Less Than 30" diameter Owner of Property (tree): SOffi~i ICNOPP Location: 21925 LINDY LANE, CUPERTIIVO Date of Appraisal: 6-28-OS ~ Date of Failure: n/a Appraisal Prepared for: COLIN JiJNG Appraisal Prepared by: Nfichael L. Bench Consulting Arborist Field Observations o Szab -act Tree ] . Species: DUERCUSAGRIFOLIft -TREE #2 2. Condition: Good (75%) 3. Trunk Diameter, Inches: 1 5.8 - 4. Location Value %: Site 80 % + Contribution 60% + Placement 60% = 2D0 - 3 = 66.6% Re 'oral Plcrrrt A raisal Caznmittee In ornxation .5. S ecies Ratin 100 6. Re lacement Tree Size s .inches TAR: - 14.6 in. 7. Replacement Tree Cost: $ 902.50 8. Installation Cost: $ 902.50 9. Installed Tree Cost (# 7 + # 8): $1 805.00 1 O. Unit Tree Species Cost (per sq. inches): $ 37.po per in' CalculatioZZS Usii~ Field and Re 'oral Committee In armation 11- Appraised Trunk Area Trunk Diameter, S uared #3 x 785 = 195.97 sq. in. 12. Appraised Tree Trunk Increase (TA,,.,~,J = TA 195.97 in. #11 -TAR 14.6 s - in- #6 = 181.37 s in. 13. Basic Tree Cost: (TA°.,~A) (#12) 181.37 sq. in. x UTC (#10) $ 37.00 per sq. in. + Installed Tree Cost (# 9 $1805_ _ $ 8.516 14. Appraised Value: - Basic Tree Cost (#13} $ 8516 x Species (#5) ] 00% x Condition #2 75 % x Location (#4 66.6 % _ $ 4.254 . 15. Round to nearest $100 ($5,000+) or $10 (less than $5,000) _ $ 4,250 BARRI E [~_ GATE and ASSQCiATES Horticutttral Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 - 408135 3-1 05 2 Trunk Formula Method 9`~' Edition, Guide for Plant Appraisal for Trees Less Than 30" diameter O~~tter of Property (tree): JOHN KNOPP Location: 21925 LINDY LANE CIJPERTINO Date of Appraisal: 6-28-OS Date of Failure: n/a Appraisal Prepared for: COL1N JUNG Appraisal Prepared by: Michael L. Bench., Consulting Arborist Field Obsewations o Sub'ecY Ti•ee 1. Species: ' OUERCUSAGRIFOLIA --,TREE #8 2. Condition: Fair (60%) 3. Trunk Diameter, Inches: 21.5 4. Location Value %: Site 80 % + Contribution 60% + Placement 6D% = 200 + 3 = 66.6% Re 'o~:al Plait A sisal Committee In armation 5. S ecies Ratin 100 b. Re lacement Tree Size s .inches TAR: _ 14.6 in_ 7. Replacement Tree Cost: $ 902.50 8. Installation Cost: $ 902.50 9. Installed Tree_ Cost (# 7 + # 8): $I 805.00 10. Unit Tree Species Cosy (per sq, inches): $ 37.00 per ins Calcvlalio~a Usin Field mid Re 'o»al Committee In ormatior~ 1 ]. Appraised Trunk Area Trunk Diameter, S uared #3) x 785 = 362.87 s . in. 12. Appraised Tree Trunk Increase (TA„~ _ - TA.+ 362.87 in. #11 - TAe 14.6 in_ #6 = 348.27 . in. 13_ Basic Tree Cost: (TA,~.~R) (#12) 348.27 sq. in. x UTC (#] O) g 37 00 par sq. in. + Installed Tree Cost # 9 $1805_ _ $ 14.691. 14_ Appraised Value: Basic Tree Cost (#13) $ 14,691 x Species (#5) 100% x Condition #2 60 % x Location #4 66.6 % = $ 5.871 . I5. Round to nearest $100 ($5,000+) or $10 Qess than $5,000) = S 5,900 B~-RRI E [3. C.JATE and ASSQCIA.TES Horticuturat Consultants 29535 SurnmitRoad Los Gatos, CA 95033 - 408f353-'I 052 Trunk Formula Method 9v' Edition, Guide for Plant Appraisal for Trees Less Than 30" diameter Owner of Property (tree): 3O131~I KNOPP Location: 21925 L7TTDY LANE CLFPERTINO Date of Appraisal: 6-28-OS Date of Failure: n/a Appraisal Prepared for: COLIN JUNG Appraisal Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist Field Obsen+atiorrs o Sub ect Ti-ee 1. Species: OUFRCUSAGRIFOLIA -TREE #8 2. Condition: Fair (60%) - 3. Trunk Diameter, Inches: 31.5 (cumulative multi-stem) 4. Location Value %: Site 80 % + Contribution 60% + Placement 60% = 200 = 3 = 66.6% Re Tonal PlantA sisal Committee In ornzation 5. S ecies Ratin 100 6. Re lacement Tree Size s .inches TAR: 14.6 in. 7. Replacement Tree Cost: $ 902.50 8. Installation Cost: $ 902.50 9. Installed Tree Cost (# 7 + # 8); - ~ $1. 805.00 1 O. Unit Tree Species Cost (per sq. inches): $ 37.00 Per in' Calczrlatioizs Usin Fief' a~zd Re -oral Committee hT ornzotion 11. Appraised Trunk Area Trunk Diameter, S uared (#3 x 785 = 763.92 sq. in. ] 2. Appraised Tree Trunk Increase (TAB _ TA4 763.92 in. #11 - TAA 14.6 s . in. #6 = 749.32 in. 13. Basic Ttee Cost: (TAR) (#12) 749.32 sq. in, x 1JTC (#1 O) $ ~. 00 per sq. in. + Installed Tree Cost # 9 $2805_ _ $ 29 530. 14. Appraised Value: Basic Tree Cost (#13) $ 29,530 x Species (#5) 100% x Condition #2 60 % x Location (#4) 66.6 % _ $ 1 ] .800. 1 5. Round to nearest $100 ($5,000+) or $10 (less thaz~ $5,000) = S IL800. gA RRI E D . COATf arsd ASSQCIATES f-ior0 c~tural Gorfisul[artLs 23535 S~anmit Road Los Gatos, CA 35043 40813.53'1052 1 . Any- legs! description provided to the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct_ No responsibility is assumed fior matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as to the quality of any title. 2. The appraiser/consultant can neither guarante=e nor be responsible for accuracy of information provided by others. 3_ The appraiser/consultant shall not_ be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this appraisal unless subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for services. 4. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation. 5_ Possession of this report or a copy tfiereo# does not imply right ofi publication or use for any purpose bar anyy other than the person(s) to whom it is addressed without written consent ofi this appraiser/consultant. 6. This report and the values expressed herein represent the opinion of the appraiser/consultant, and the appraiser's/consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value nor upon any finding to be reported_ 7_ Sketches, diagrams, graphs, photos, etc., in i:his report, being intended -as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys. S. This report has been made in confiormity with acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic reporting techniques and_ procedures, as recommenderd by the International Society of Arboriculture. 9. When applying any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide, always follow label instructions_ l0_No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. 1Ne cannot take responsibility for any defects which could only have been discovered by. climbing. A full root collar inspection, consisting ofi excavating the soil around the tree to uncover the root collar and major buttress roots, was not performed, unless otherwise sta#ed. We cannot take responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by such an inspection. CONSL.DLTING ARBOR{ST [~ISCLOSLJRE STATEMENT Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhancl~ the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce risk of Living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that coulee possibly lead to the structural failure ofi a tree_ Trees are living organisrrts that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists ~~annot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like medicine, cannot be guaranteed. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To five near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees. F3arrie t3. Coate ISA Certified Arborist Horticu{tural Consultant ~~-~s TREE S.U R~/EY & ~#i~~QRIST RE~C.~RT ~~ ~2J` LE['ES~~f ~.~f'1~, ~1..f[3E3'1"'~'6B't0 - ~OpCGtf~t?~'9 Prepared for: Bret Moxfey Prepared by: Deborah Ellts, MS_ Consulting Arborisf & Horticulturist American Society of Consulting Arborists, Registered Consulting Arborist #305 International Society of Arboriculture, Western Chapter Certified Arborist #457 Certified Professional Horticulturist #30022 MAY t 9, 2005 ©Copyrighi Deborah Ellis. 2005. This report may be reproduced in whole or in part byonly the client and the client's authorized representatives and onfyfor use with the subject project and/or property. All other reproduction requires the expressed written or verbal consent of Deborah Ellis prior to reproduct'ron. - - 17-80 Deborah Ef[is, MS Coresulting Arborist 8. Fforticulturist Service since 1954 TABU O~ CO~T~NTS TREE MAP .........................................•--........---•---._........-------•-•----..........-----•---••-•---•-•--••----._............................. .. 7 SUMMARY .................................... ....•-- •- •- • •---- •- • -• ------- • ----------• • -------• -----• ---........_......_....................................... .. 2 Table 1 List of All Protected Trees on Site ...........................................................•--•-•--....._...-----------------•----- --4 Tree Profection Zones...-•--• ....................•---•--...........................:........----...--•--....._.........---------•---•-• •-- -.4 RECOMMENDATIONS ._. .-•---------•------------••--•----• ............:................................................................................ ._ 5 Introduction ...........................•--•-•----------....--••---------••--•--••--•-•--•---....................................:.................._...._..... .. 5 Purpose of survey 8. report.,...__...--• .................••-----•-----.............__.._..__....._............----...:..........--•--•------•---------- --5 Background ........................................................•--•--•-------•---...---•-••--------------.._.............._ ....-•- -- 6 Survey Methods .......................'...__........................:......-•-----------...--•-••---•--•-----------•-•-•---.................................... ..6 Observations ..................................................•---••---....---•-----•-----•-----....-•----------••---....--•--.............,............-•--- .. 7 Feld Conditions .............................•-----•--..........-----•-----......-•-•-•----•-•-•-----......_......---.................._.._....-•--•--....._... .-7 Preservation Suitability :................. - . ................................•-------.._..........--•-••----•---•-•--••-•--••-------....__..................... ..8 Limits of Scope-•----• ................:...........................•---•-------._....._...--------------.........-•--------•---.........-•- - --9 Glossory ----•--•-••-• ........................:...................................... .. 9 Table 2 Complete Tree Toble_......_..-• ......:............................................................................................•-•-----. 1 2 17-81 TREE MAP _~_ .. ~ \\ id=s .» g- -- N73'3 '0TH - ~- _ _ ~ i. ~ ~ o _____1 __ ~ '~ _ r / 11 ' ~~ ®.(' ....n ~ ' 'vte _ _--- .f _ ~~ ~ ~- ~ - u .. ~ •W ~- 1 d Hd T 00 _ uy~ _ ~•- ~~~a+x.n ~ - _ _ _ ~~_~~y u._r .rte ~ . _ __ _ _ t _ ~ _ ~ _ v ~ ^ ` sC V nm y ~ ~ M~M •Y^•' ~.~. ~ ~~ ~j~~ ~~''~y~ R~~ ~.Jllr 1~~ ~..i~tr ~ "r _ --`_ an bL _ .~.. - -- - - -- - - - Site Map showing -the 11 protected trees. This document was emailad from Oebarah E//is at decahldioacbell.net. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95050. Phone 8~ Fax: 408-725-1357. Web site: http://vewvr.deca o - P2ge 1 of 14 F3eborah E[Eis, lt~IS Consulting Arborist ~ Horticulturist Sc~Y~ice since 1984 S U M~1/1A RY ?here are Z 7 protected trees on the project site.. Ail of these trees are coast live oaks (Qvercus ogrifolla) except tree #4, which is a deodar ceclar (Cedrus deodara). In my opinion there is no reason to remove any protected trees, except those that will be significantly impacted by constn~ction. 1 recommend that I review your construction plans when they become available, so that 1 can make final recommendations (e.g. wi~ether to save or remove individual trees, and also any practical mitigation to proposed construction that would reduce damage to the trees). ft will be important to maintain the minimum distances given in this report between any improvement and the trunks of these trees. Improvements include any over-excavation or working margin beyond fihe actual improvement, as well as underground utilities and landscaping. Table 1 on the next page lists all of the protected trees on site. Table 2 on pa~~e 12 gives additional information about the trees, such as specific structural problems. If subsequent site plans locate a house on the upslope, western-most, side of Lot #2 in a way that impacts tree # t and Tree #2 (see photo below, token from the south), then these trees should be removed. Due to the size of both trees and the multiple-trunk structure of tree #7, these trees will not be practicdi to move and it would be more reasonable to instead replace them with new box trees. ~ A protected tree in Cupertino (o tree that requires cx permit from the- City for removal) is: ahy tree with a trunk DBH {diameter at breast height, 4.5 feefi above the ground} of 36 inches or greater, or the following tree species at 1 O inches single trunk DBH (or 20 inches for multi trunk-trees): native oak (Quercus} species, Aesculus califomica or Acer macrophyitum. Protected trees care also the following species with single trunk DBH of 12 inches, or 25 inches for multi-trunk: Cedrus deodars, C=edrus atlantica ' Glauca', PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA St5090, Phone & Fax: 408-729-1357. Email: de cahC~pacbell.net. Web site: http://wv/w.decah.com/ 17 - 83 Page 2 0-~ i4 Deborah Eiiis, iNIS Consulting Arborist 8. Horticuttur[s1 Table 1 List of Protected Trees on Stte _ - - - Tree Tree 'Scientific Y Treinlc D AEt M '~Preservatior - Protect+on - # ~ Gorr-mon namg ,. DBH~ ; . Ht3 Size+ Suitab+fity~ ?one6, _ ` ;. 3xDBH 5xDBH Opt_ 01 Queicus agrifo/ia, 15.2, 15.0, 35x45 Fair q 15 y coast live oak 14.3, 13.0 02 coast live oak 15.8 ~ 3.7 25x30 'Good 4 7 12 03 coast live oak ~ 10.5 20x20 Fair/Good 3 4 5 i 04 Cedrus deodara, 15.2 40x16 Fair/Good 4 5 1 1 f deodarcedar - - 05 - -coast live oak 10.4 - 3 18x20 Fair/Good 3 4 5 f l 06 coast live oak 15.0, 13.3, 30x40 Fair _ 1 O 17 30 ' 12.9, 12.6, 10.6 07 l coast live oaK 13.2, 13.0, 3.5 (13.0), 30x40. Fair 8 13 23 17:4 2 (17.4) O8 coast live oak -21.5 3 30x40 Fair 5 9 1 6 09 coast live oak 13.4, 12.5 30x40 'Fair/Good 5 8 16 j j 1 O coast live oak 14.0, 15.2, 3.5 (15.2), 30x40 Fair 8 13 23 r _ 16.9_ 4 (16.9) 11 coast live oak 10.4 25x18 Fair' 3 4 5 2 DSH means #ree trunk diameter "at breast height" measured at 4.5 feet above ground level. This is the arboricultural industry standard measurement height used in many tree-related calculations, Qnd is also the required measurement height for the City of Cupertino. 3 D Alt M Ht-= Trunk Diameter Alternate Measurement Height, in feet. This is the height used for trunk diameter measurement if the architecture of the tree prevented a trunk diameter measurement at 4.5 feet above the ground. Example: a '3.5' in this column means that trunk diameter was-measured at 3-1 /2 feet above the ground. 3.5 (13.0}, 2 (1 7.4}, means That for a multiple trunk Tree, the 13 inch trunk was measured at 3.5 feet above the ground, and the 1 7.4 inch diameter trunk vas measured at 2 feet above the ground. - a Size = Height x canopy width in feet (estimated). s Preservation Suitability means, is this tree worth keeping? (In this toss, on a suburban residential site). For additional information, see the box on page 8. e Tree Protection Zone (in feet). Distances of 3 x DBF-I,.Sx DBH and Op#. (Optimum Tree Protection Zone) are listed in the three sub-columns. The 5 x DSH column lis#s the preferred minimum distance that disturbance should be kepi from the trunk. Please also see the additional explanation on the next page. PO Box 3724, Saratoga, CA 95050. Phone & Fox: 40B-725-1357. Email: decahC~pacbeil.net. Y/eb site: http://www.decoh.com/ '17 _ 84 - PaSe 3 of 14 t~eisorah Ei[is, RftS Consuiting Rrborist S Horticulturist pp CC CC ® ~~°°yy g^w~ ~d- - - Service sznre 1984 This is the distance in feet from the trunk that n~~ construction disturbance should encroach, all around the tree. 3 to 5 X ~SH~. A reasonable °rule of thumb" absolute minimum distance any excavation should be from the trunk of an existing tree on one side of the tree is 3 times DBH. DBH is °diameter at breast height", or 4.5 feet above the ground. 1 have found that for the urban trees I have worked with, it tends to correlate reasonably well with the Zone of Rapid Taper, which is the zone in which the large buttress (main support roots) rapidly decrease in diameter with increasing distance from the trunk. This zone is usually one to three meters from the trunk, but it varies depending upon tree species, age and soil and other environmental conditions.. Using the 3X DBH guideline, an excavation should be no closer than-4.5 feet from the trunk of an 18-inch DBH tree. This distance is a guideline only, and should be increased for trees w[th~heavy canopies, decay, structural problems, etc. The 3X DBH niay be more of an aid in preserving tree stability and not necessarily long-term tree heaRh, as the roots beyond the zone of rapid taper form an extensive network of long, rope-like roots one to two inches in diameter_ These woody perennial rooi:s are referred to as transport roots because they function primarily to transport water and minerals_ Few large lateral roots are found beyond 1 O feet of the trunk, in most situations_ SX DBH is the °pre~fen-ed' minimum distance which should be strived for however, whenever possible. Even a few feet niay make a big difference in tree survival! ti is important to understand that because the 3 and SxDBH distances are much less than the OPTZ, they take into account the roof system of the tree but may not take into account the spread of the canopy of the tree. If a tree is very wide spreading, then these distances may be too close, or a significant amount of pruning may be required. For the trees on this site, The optimum distance or the driP6ne (whichever is larger) would be the goal Although there are no scientifically based metYiods to accurately determine the minimum distance for construction (tor example, root severance) from trees to assure their survival and stability, there are some guidelines that are oftE:n used in the arboricultural industry. The most current guideline comes from the text, Trees S~ Development, Matheny et al., International Society of Arboriculture, 1998. The tree protection zone calculation method in this text was used to obtain the Opt distance listed in subcolumn 3 of the Tr~se Protection Zone Column of Table 1 _ It is important to understand that these distances must include any over-excavation or extra working margin that is required beyond the actual improvement itself. For example, if there must be a a- foot excavation beyond o foundation, this 3-fo~~t distance must be included in the protection zone_ In this case, if the recommended protection zone is 1 O feet from the free, the building wilt need to be located 73 feet from the trunk of th~a tree. ~ Smiley, Friedrich, 8. Hendrickson 2002. Bartlett Tree Research Laborotories_ PO Box 3724, Snrotoga, CA 3F~050. Phone ~ Fax: 408-725-1357. Email: decahC4'pacb¢II_net. Y1eb site: http://vrww.d~cah.corn/ 17-85 Forge 4 of 7~ E3eborai~ Ellis, RIiS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist RECO!'V11!/LEN DATlO NS 1) Continua to work with ma as you refine your plans. 2) 1 should review any grading, underground utility and construction detail plans. Such -pions were not reviewed for this project, csnd these improvements can impact trees. 3) Custom Tree Protection Snacffications should ba prepared for any existing trees on this site that wi[I be saved. Const live onk #1 from the North, one of the many stump sprout trees. A bark- boring insect coiled sycamore borer causes the rough, darkened nreas on the lower trunk, visible in the left photo. lNT~~D~~T!®N This survey and report was required by the City of Cupertino as a part of the two-lot subdivision application for this project. The Auroose of this survey 8, report is to identify and describe the protected frees on site - -their size and condition, and their suitability for preservation. Only the existing protected trees are included in this survey and report. The audience for this report is Bret Moxley and City of Cupertino authorities concerned with trees preservation and tree removal_ The oal of this report is to preserve existing protected trees on site that are in good condition, are good species for the area and will fit in welt with the redeveloped site. This report does not fake into account any specific construction and its impact on trees. PO (3ox 3714, Saratogn, CA 95050. Phone & Fnx: 408-725-1357_ Email: decahC'pacbel l.net. Web site: http://www.decah.com/ ~7 _ gg Page 5 of 14 i3eborah E[Fis, h~3 Consulting Arbortst & Horficuiturist Service siure 1984 ~3ACiCGfZC>UEV® Bret Moxley is assisting the Knopps (owners of 21 925 Lindy Lane} in the redevelopment of their residential property. Bret asked me #o prepare the arborist report for this project. I previously prepared an arborist report for a nearby prope>rty of Bret's of 27 949 Lindy Lane in 2001 . SE~~i00EY ,~A~TkiC~~S I evaluated the existing protected trees on site on May 5, 2005. Each protected tree was tagged with a metal number tag that corresponds with its tree tag number in this report. Trunk diameter was measured at 4.5 feet above the ground (L~SN), according to the requirements of the City of Cupertino. DBH is a standard arboriculture trurik diameter measurement height that is used in many tree-related calculations. A diameter tope was used to measure trunk diameters, and the diameters were rounded to the nearest 1 Offi on an inch. Photographs were taken of protected trees on site. Some of these photos are includead in this report, but all photos are available from Bret Moxley if requested. The protected trees were briefly observed for their structural condition (stability) and genePal health (vigor) by visual assessment from the ground. No root colldf excoyationse or other probing or boring was done upon any trees. Characteristics such as form, weight distribution, foliage color and density, wounds and indicators of decay were recorded. Tree size (approximate height and canopy spread in feet) were estimated and re~~orded. Surrounding site conditions were also observed. Evaluation procedures were adapted from: Guide for Plant Appraisal. 9th edition, 2000; authored by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers (CTLA) and published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). Species Classification and Group Assignment published by the Western Chapter of the Internafiional Society of Arboriculture (WCISA), 2004. Tree Hazard Evaluation Form taken from Evc~luation of Hozord Trees in Urban Areas, 2^d Ed., 1Vlatheny S~ Clark, International Society of Arboriculture, 1994. The above three references serve as industry professions[ standards for tree and landscape evaluations_ e A root collar excavation is the removal of soil below ~3rade (or excess soil above the natural grade) dt the root collar to expose and/or determine the health of tissue in this area. This is done to assess anchorage and stdbirity of the tree. Any problems in this area con translate to whole tree heal#h, as well as stability. PO Box 3714, Snratogn, CA 9!5050. ?hone & Fnx: 405-725-1357. Email- decah@pncbeli_net_ \~iieb sire: http:/iwww_decah.com/ 17 - 87 Page 6 of 14 F3eborah EEfls, A/iS ' Consulfang ArborFsE S FFortfcufturist - Service since 2984 ~~~~~ ~®iY [d lT~~.f fa ~fJ There is one single-family, single-story house near the top Northeast end) of the lot. The lot slopes toward the south. The coast live oaks that are mentioned in this report are probably of natural growth (they were not planted), except possibly for oak #1 7 near Lindy Lane. Deodar cedar #4 was probably planted, although it may have arisen from seed from a nearby larger deader cedar on the neighboring property to the Northeast. There are several non-native, planted trees on the property, mainty around the house. None of these trees are of protected size and so are not included in this report. There ore also several small, declining fruit trees scattered throughout the lot, mostly on the south (downstope) side of the house. This property was probably used for sfione fruit crops long ago, as was most of tfie land in Cupertino. Most of the property is not irrigated, although some of the landscaping close to the house does have o sprinkler system. Lack of irrigation is a very good thing for the native oaks, and is this should be continued. The deader cedar would appreciate this same treatment as well. Both of these tree species are native to dry summer areas and are predisposed to attack by root rot9 fungi in the soil if they are frequently irrigated during the summer. Tree maintenance has been moderate, with some pruning of most trees on the property in.the past. Most of the nafiive oaks have been pruned, and some of them (particularly their lower branches) have i~een lion-tail oruned~~. This type of pruning is very common in this area. In general the oaks hove fair to good vigor and fair to somewhat poor structure. Most of the cause of their poor structure is due .to the fact that many of these trees were cut down to short stumps long ago (probably when the tend was planted to orchard) and they have grown bacK as stump st~routs~~. r Root rot is caused by wet, poorly aerated soil conditions. Degradation of roots (root rot) and sometimes the lower trunk {crown rot) ensues on weakened, susceptible plant species not adapted to such a soil environment. Opportunistic plant root pathogens (such-as watermold fungi) are often the secondary cause of the problem. Root rot is a particular problem among drought tolerant plants that are not adapted to summer dry climates, such as many of our California native plants_ The problem is often worsened in fine=textured heavy cloy soils that retain water more than do the coarser, fast-draining soils such as occur in the natural environment of many of our native plants. ~o Lion-tail arunina means that the lower portion of the branch v.~as stripped, leaving the majority of weight concentrated at the end of the branch. A branch pruned as such is subject to sunscald and resultant canker diseases, is "end-heavy" and is generally more likely to fail_ Lion-tailing is also not desirable in terms of encouraging proper branch taper and managing end weight. ~T Stump sprout frees are the result of a tree trunk being cut down to a short stump close to the ground. If the tree survives, i# sends out many small shoots from around the cut (suckers). At least many of these suckers survive and grow to become significant trunks. These trunks are spaced very close together and usually have included bark between them, which reduces the strength of their union. Such trunks era prone to failure. Stump sprout trees can be very structurally unsound, particularly as they become large and old. There is often a great deal of decay associated with the mother stump, which con also reduce mechanical stability_ PO Box 3724, Snrntogn, CA 95050. Phones & Fnx: 408-725-1357. Emnil: decah@pacbell_r~et. Web sifie: hftp://www.decnh.co~n/ 17-88 Page 7 of I4 Deborah E[[is, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticutturis c s.rw srwxrt:s ~tm.s.sswx w~sss.s sx~s» sr~ t Serr~ice since 198a 1 hope that this information will be helpful to you. Thank you for fihe opportunity to provide service. Please call me if you have questions or if I con be of further assistance_ Sincerely, ~De6oraFi ECfis Deborah Ellis, MS. Consulting Arborist 8. Horticulturist ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#30.5, W.C.LS.A. Carfified Arborist #457, CertiFed Professional HorticuRurist #30022 APPENDIX PRES1=1~~/ATI®1~1 SUITA131LITY: ~ . Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor or Unacceptable, as explained in the Table below, adapted from HorfScience Inc., Pleasanton,"California. "Good/Fair", "Fair/Poor", etc. are intermediate ratings. Good Frees in rood condition: (bosh health and structural) that have good potential for longevity at the site. These should be your top priority trees for saving, if possible. A rating of °Exce[[e~nt" is above good and indicates an outstanding s ecimen tree. Trees in fair condition: These trees have health and/or structural defects that may be improved with treatment, or are a species that is not well tolerant of construction disturbcance_ Trees in this Category will require more intensive management and monitoring, and nay also have shorter life spans than trees in Fair the "Good" category. Retention of trees with moderate suitability for preservation depends upon the degree of proposed site changes. In general I have recommended to save most trees with "moderate" preservation suitability, unless they are in the path of or too close to proposed construction. "Fair/Good" and "Fair/Poor" are additional qualtfers that further separate the trees in this often-lar e rou .in Frees in poor condition: Trees with significant structural defects or poor health that cannot be reasonably improved with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline regardless of management. The tree species themselves Poor may have characteristics thcrt are undesirable in landscape settings or may be unsuitable for high use areas. I do not recommend retention of trees with low suitability for preservation in areas where people or property will be present. "Unacce table" is ve oar in condition and should definitei be removed. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 9°.5050. Phone 8e Fax: 408-725-1357. Email: decahC~Pacbell.net. 4Ve6 site: http://www.decuh.com/ t7 - 89 ~~_ Page 8 of 14 deborah Ellis, [VlS Consulting Arborist ~ Horticulturist 66 pp ®~ ff ~ - SeTViu svcce 1954 1) 1 certify that 1 have no financial interest in the property or project that is the subject of this report_ 2) Tree locations were provided by Nelson Engineering and ore shown on the Free Map (reduced copy on page 1 of this report. Locations are assumed to be accurate but should be verified in the field. 3) i have reviewed fhe following plans for this project: a) Topographic Survey, Lands of Knapp, 21925 Lindy Lane, Cupertino. Nelson Engineering, February 2005, Sheet 1 of 7 . 4) The measures noted within this report are designed to assist in the protection and preservation of the protected trees mentioned in this report, should some or all of those trees remain, and to help in their short and long term hecalth and longevity. This is not however, q guarantee that any of these trees may not suddenly or eventually decline, fait, or die, for whatever reason. Because q significant portion of a tree's roots are usually far beyond its dripline12, even trees that are well protected during construction often decline, fail or die_ Because there may be hidden defects within the root system, trunk or branches of trees, it is possible that trees with no obvious defects can be subject to failure without warning_ The current state of arboricultural science does not guarantee the accurate detection and prediction of tree defects and the risks associated with trees. There will always be some level of risk associated with trees, particularly large trees. It is impossible to guarantee the safety of any tree. ~~~~~~~ The following terms appear in the Complete Tree Table and hove not been explained previously in this report_ 7) Callus: the growth of undfferentiated tissue (callus) which Yeas not yet matured into wood and bark tissue, around a wound: If growth continues the wound will be sealed inside intact outer wood and bark (woundwood}. A crock at the point of the woundwood "roll" will always remain, however. Decay does not usually progress into the new wood mode affier the wound. 2} Crypfocllr-e leaf blighf: The spotty bleaching of leaves scattered throughout the canopy of coast live oaks (primarily the lower North and east sides) is caused by a common foliar fungal disease of oaks called Cryptocline leaf blight. This problem that varies in severity from year to year depending on the amount of rain we get, as it is "wet weather disease" spread by rainwater. There are pruning and fungicidal controls, but they are not usually warranted except for very high value trees under high disease pressure. In your case the problem is relatively minor and I would not attempt any control measures. _ 3) tnctuded bark is bark sandwiched between adjacent branches, a branch and the trunk, or two or more trunks, often appearing as q seam. In contrast, a normal attachment will have a ridge 12 Drioline: the area under the total branch spread of the tree, all around the tree. Although tree roots may extend out 2 to 3 times the radius of the dripline, d great concentration of active roots is offen in the soil directly beneath this area. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA ~35p50. Phone & Fez: 40B-725-1357_ Email: decnh@pacbetl.net. Web site: http://www.decnh_com/ Page 9 of i4 f~e=bcsrah EEiis, FNiS Consulting Arborist ~ HorticrttturEsl of bark protruding upwards and a continuous wood connection between adjacent rrjembers. As limbs with included bark grow, they expand in diameter, squeezing the bark-along the seam. -This may kill some portion of the included boric. When this occurs, a wound response is initiated. As,a consequence, cracks can be generated, leading to breakage. Such defects coin otten be completely removed when a tree is young {cs.g. the offending members equal or less than 2 inches in diameter). Older, larger cuts {such as 6 inches in diameter or more) could cause decay to spread into the remaining member, which is undesirable. In these cases it may be best to thin one member (usually the smaller member) by 25% to slow its growth and size_ 4} P.O.C_ (Point of connection) 5} Pocket: a depression or hole, usually between trunks or branches. 6) Root collar: junction between trunk and roots. Also called the roo# flare or root crown of the tree or shrub_ The health of this area is critica[ to whole-tree health and stability. 7) Scaffold branch: a primary structural branch arising from the trunk of a tree. 8) Sycamore borer causes the patches of roughened bark here and there on the trunk and larger branches of coast live oak. The larva of this `nrasp-like insect tunnel in the bark and sometimes into the underlying wood. Trees generally tolerate extensive boring by this insect and usually no control measures are recommended. in cases where damage cannot be tolerated parasitic nematodes can be applied to tunnel openings in Spring when openings are larges#. A persistent pesticide applied to the bark may also be he=lpful when adults are ac#ive (usually May through July). The amount of damage on this tree is minor fio moderate and I would not do anything about it. - 9) Subordination pruning (Subdue}: The thinning of individual branches or leaders in trees with co- - dominant leaders or branches, grid also long or heavy branches in order to slow their growth, size and dominance. This type of pruning very similar to end weight reduction and should occur in the terminal 1 /3 of the branch so as to maintain as low a center ofgravity as possible. Pruning should focus on reducing the amount of foliage so as to.reduce food supply to the branch and subsequent growth. No more than 25~ of #otal five foliage "should be removed from any one branch. 1 O) Western oafs gat[ is a common native insect F~est of coast live oak (Quercus ogrifolia) and valley oak (Q. lobota). This tiny wasp insect lays eggs in the oak leaves. Spherical, i/1 6 inch round galls form around the irritation caused by egg laying, and the larvae of the wasp feed wrthin these galls. Affected leaves may turn brown along their margins or death of about half the leaf, usually progressing from the margin inward. Sometimes dead blotches will appear in the leaf away from the margin, if there are galls in this area. Infested trees may appear "scorched" in part or in entirety: Sometimes only a portion of the tree is affected. Severity and which trees are attacked can vary greatly year to year. Just because the wasp is a problem orie year does not necessarily mean it will be a problem the next year. Control is difficult and is not generally recommended. Timing of insecticide sprays is critical and must be aimed at the emergent adults - if done at other times it will do no good. Our native oaks have evolved with this native insect over many years and generally tolerate= it well. !f control is necessary, you may contact- - me_ Emergent adult wasps are clumsy fliers #hat do not disperse and build up d large population. These wasps are very tiny, do not by a.great distance and they fiend #o concentrate on certain part of the tree -usually the south~,vest side. If treat with ~~r~L~sT~Seari `TM 'ra~~~..~ ~, apply a# specific time -flowering stage. The.wasps are very attracted to the sweet 13 Application of Sevin no longer recommended, os it i;ills natural predators and can cause a resurgence of pest insects_ Instead, use a shorter residual product su~~h as o pyrethrin or soap or horticultural oil. PO Box 3714, Snrntoga, CA 96050. Phone & Fax: 408-725-1357. Email: decah@pncbell.net. VVeb sit¢: http://wvuw.decah.com/ '17-91 Page 10 0. t4 deborah E€[€s, MS Corssulting Arborist & liortlcutturist Service .rinse Y984 scent of the buds. Timing varies from tree to tree. if in shade or in cool area, ~nrill be delayed. One suggestion is to put a gall in a jar and spray when wasps emerge. The marginal necrosis symptom is often misidenti#ied as Cryptocline twig blight, a fungal disease. (Personal conversation, Dr. Pavel Svihra, University of California Cooperative F~ctension, 9/95. 7 1 j Wetwood: the exudation of liquid from the wood of a tree or woody shrub, caused by an internal bacterial infection. Not usually treated, because the acidity of the liquid suppresses most (more damaging) wood decay fungi. It is a good idea to investigate and monitor wetwood areas, however, as they can be an indication of a structural defect in the tree. Left photo: coast live oak #3, deodar cednr ~#4. €2ight photo: deodar cednr ;#4 from the south, with neighbor's larger deodar just a few feet outside the property line. The branches of this larger tree extend quite far into the property. This neighbor's tree iS an asset to the project site ns well, and it should nlso be protected in the same manner as deodar ;<#4. The Complete Tree Table begins on the next pnge _.... PO Box 3714, Saratoga, C,4 95050. Phone & Fax: 408-725-1357. Emnil: decah~pacbell.nzt_ Web site: http://vvww.decah_com/ ~7 _ g2 - Pnge lI of 14 ~®1'0!!PlETE TREE TABlE Table 2 Trey # Common na e ~lnspgcE; `-f the ' 1~Vorik t~feeded , Notes ; m ur r 01- coast live root collar clear root collar :itump•sprout with included bark between trunks. Heavy oak sycamore borer damage to lower trunk. NE trunk has old basal wound with good callus around perimeter, probably j of minor concern now. 8-1 O inch D scaffold removal to PJW has up to 2 inches of callus around, but decay in - c:enter & rest of weight of branch above this. Lion-tail pruned. 02 coast live Keep upslope root dot pruned so better condition than previous oak. oak collar with retaining Upsoope toot collar below soil is a little constricted but wall14. looks OK. 03 coast live ~ Keep upslope root i oak collar with retaining G wal I. 04 deodar Keep upslope root ' cedar collar with retaining wail. ' 05 coast live a oak 06 coast live Root collar Keep upslope root ~:tump sprout at 18-24 inches with lots of included bark. ' oak if will be in collar with retaining ~:ome wetwood near ground NW side at one included target area wall bark seam. Deep pocket between tntnks_ t`lote that ali coast live oak on this site have at least some leaf death & marginal burn associated with common native oak pests such as Western oak gall, Cryptocline leaf and twig blight, Calif. Oak worm and fruit tree leaf rol~er- 07 coast live Keep upslope root Stump sprout with Pots of included bark. 17.4 in D trunk to - oak . collar clear of soil h[E has 36 in x 6 in tear wound S side from previous with retaining wall. scaffold failure. Remove this trunk if there will be targets near this tree. 08 coast live oak ~~ For the oaks that need o retaining watt this can be ~rery simple -some small boulders or a 1 x 6" piece of redwood I~mber held in place with rebar. Place this upslope a few feet beyond the trunk. The goal is to keep upslope soil from falling down over the root collar -this can cause decay of this area. PO Box 3714, Saratogn, GA 95050. Phone & Fex: 408-725-1357. Email: decnhC~pacbell.net. \Neb site: http://www.decah.com/ t7 _ g3 Page 12 of 14 F3etsorah E[EFs, NIS Consulting Arborist S~ Hortrculturist - ~ - .Service since 1984 Tree # Common m InspecE - f rthei Work 1~[eeded - - Nofes na e _ u ,_ - __ :. - 09 coast live Keep upslope root oak collar clear of soil with retaining wall. Subdue prune smaller trunk. 10 coast live Keep upslope soil Stump sprout from ground level. Long near-horizontal 8 oak off root collar with inch D scaffold to S (toward rd) has been lion-tail pruned. small retaining wall. ' 11 G2uercus Sub large scaffold agrifolia, to NE, it is too coast live large in D relative oak to the trunk. Upper left: coast live oaks #b, 7, B, 9, & 10 frorn the west. Upper right: oak #. b stump sprout trunks. Lower left: oak #7 trunks. PO Box 3714, Saratogn, CH 95050. Phono & Fnx: 406-725-1357. Emnil: decnh@pacbell.net_ Web site: http://www.decah.com/ t7 _ g4 Pnge 13 of 14 £: r3. . s p ., ~ ~ ,..n3x . ~k: `mo t. ~ . _ '~ , ~ S ~~~ t ~, ~ . ~ ~ e ~ om., ,. • ~ L Y - v ~ ti li _ x,11.! 9 4 J`. ~ T ~T r ~ ^~-Tar °J Y~: ~ • t Y v 1 ~ ~~ ~dl a 1 p _ ~~ ill - r w. ~~ x ? .jY 3~ ~ ~' ..: ' h , € _ 1f 4 Left: oaks #7 to 10 from the North. ~; r r f T .~ ~ .--: ~f . rot {v:~' Y y iii' .,~O~c "1+T l.~- y ~ RC.v ~;-"'q"4T7 '~~ ~L~A-isid 'fi't fan-::~r~fsE~n~w- ~.r it '~: _~ '~'~ - _ _ ..i -. -__. ... ._.. .~ Right: oaks #9 to 21 from the North. -. • s .. :. ~ - i. T w f .. ._ -. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95050. Phone & Pax: 408-725-1357. Email: decahC~pacbelLnet. Web site: http://wv/w.decah.com/ ~7-9`~' Page 24 of 14 Exhibit Cupertino Planning Commission 22 IuIy 26, 2005 • Agr ce, #o return on September 13° to respond to the outstanding issues. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Miller, seco Saadati, to wnthlue Application M-ZOOS-02 to the September 13, 2005 Planning o eating. Chair Wong declared a short recess. 7. TM-2005-03 Subdivision of a 43,583 square foot p~cel into two John Kropp (Moxley _ 20,000 squai+e foot (net) parcels. Properties) 21925 Planning Commission decision final unless Lindy Lxae appeale~af within IO days Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff reporh • Distributed a letter from Bill Schmidt, owner of property north of the applicant's property; and a sheet illustrating Figure 3 from the geotechnical mport_ • He reviewed the application for subdivision of the 43,583 square foot parcel into two parcels as outlined in the staff report. He noted that the property as well as a number of other properties were on tho north side of Lindy Lane snd have been part of the General Plan discussions, particularly relative to whether the designation should have bean changed on the propertics from its current designation of low density residential, 1-5 dwelling units per acre, to a more hillside General Plan designation which is very low dcnsity residential that has the application for slope density formulas. • Neighborhood issues: The main concerns are preserving the semi rural character of the hillside area; preserving the large oak trees present on the property; addressing the geologic concaris regarding landslides; ingress/egress easement granted to Mr. Kropp for his property; and the question about whether utilities would be allowed on it, or whether there is an overburdening of the easement by crcaiing an additional lot that would also use the ingress easement; various construction issues relative to parking by constnaction vehicles, hours of operation, noise, and staging of operations. • To address the concerns, staff is proposing to Limit the size of the building footprint and preserving the oalc trees with a slope easement to uuiintain the semi~~ra~ appearance end to protect the oaks on the properly. An additional condition of approval .would be requiring a design level geotechnieat study when a residence is proposed. He noted that it was a subdivision of property with no proposal for a residence at the current tinic; the owner is interested in subdividing property, and not intceested in building a second residence; that would be left up to a future of the property itself. . Lastly, have the applicant and the driveway property owner resolve the issces regarding the ingress/cgress easement and if that is not possible, the Planning Commission may need to consider a separate access for the lot taken off Lindy Lane. This is a new condition being proposed by staff The Deputy City Attorney will probably want to weigh in on that. Staffrecommends approval of the Tentative Map. Con=. 5aadati: • Asked why the applicant proposed a 10 foot retaining wall when there is no plan at this point to build any unit. Mr. Jong-. • Responded that. there was no proposal. to b~n1d a retaining wall; it was a conceptual plan j -.1 i~-ss G~pertino Planning Commission 23 July 26, 2005 submitted by the civil engineer to show the: fcasitsility of developing the property. It. was an idea be had and not a part of the application. Mr. Piaseckl: • Iclote~ that the conditions state that along with cresting a slope easement, staff' has suggested a condition that would limit retaining walls to a maxunum of 4 feet; they would have to work out how to place the home and accomplish that, because staff' does not want 1 O foot retaining - walls. ' Com. Saadatl: • Asked about the history of sliding in the areii of adjacent homes or the existing home. Mr. Piaseclcl: • Said that the drawing illustrated some regarding or unengineered fill going on that may not be directly sliding, but may relate to that. Suggested that the applicant address what has been going on the Iower hillside area. Mr. dung: • Relative to the drawing of Figure 3, in the city geologist report he expressexl a concern that if a house was buih below the unengineered fall, it is most likely the most di13-icult constraint on the property itself and be would most lil~ly require that either an unengineexed fiU be removed and recompacte~, or that there be a attaining wall put in with deep enough piers to make sure that if the fill ever became Ioose, it would be held.back by the retaining wall: - Com. Gtefer-. • Given the new information regarding access; on the shared driveway, if it was necessary al]ow vehicular access- from Lindy Lane to the necv lot, wlsere would that driveway be. Mr. dung: • It would likely be whet: the proposed driveway was d:awn; it is the area of tbe frontage of the lot which seems to be the least steep. Mr. Piaseclci: - • Said that stall' would not suggest that option until there was a very precise drawing. Everything seen thus far is predicated on .the idea that it would be gaining access from that existing driveway and the easement- . They did not want retaining walls greater than 4 feet, and putting in a new driveway in that location would give much higher retaining ~~valls and might be cause to reconsider whether the subdivision naakos sense. Com. Giefer: • With this new information, why are we con:;idering this instead of continuing it9 Mr. Il'iasecki: • You may end up continuing it; it is siaaailar to the issue you had with the Bunker application where you said there seems to be three options available; you can apply a similar condition to this application and proceed with it_ You could have that kind of condition saying work it out and we will approve it only with the condition that you work it out, and it hasn't been able to be worked out in the other case. ~~-s~ Cupertino Planning Commission 24 Suly 26, 2005 Mr. Jung: ' • The applicants had a conversation with 1VIr. Schmidt after the letter was written; you will likely want to talk to him about that. Com Giefer: • In reading the city geologist's report, it seems we have some different ideas to pursue; but it appears that we have either the retaining wall as part of the home or we have removal of the non-engineered fill which would probably take out the trees above it_ Is that corrcct7 Mr. Jung: • That is like]y. Com. Giefer: - . Asked for a review of the reason for the recommendation to split a lot at the division line running east/west vs. nortt/south. Mr.]Pixsechi: • It was felt that the (east visible buildmg site is locatod between the oak tree groves 1VIr. Jung pointed out; which exist to the west side of the lot; we felt that with the slope easements on the frontage of the eastern lot that you could preserve the semi-viral character as you come down Lindy Lane; and that it made more sense to keep that as part of the existing house because they are looking out on to it, and they would be more likely to want to keep it highly maintained and clean_ One of the maps shows that their water access comes off Lindy Lane dir+ectty from the site anyway, so we feel that the north south division sets up an even more constrained new lot with a limited building area with an easement that is going to prevent them from climbing up the hill and take advantage of the views; and tbe property owner would not have the option of coming in and saying let me develop that sloped area ands the slope easement. There is a lot of reasons-why we felt that was the better solution for the neighborhood; probably not the better one from the applicant's standpoint; they would probably prefer an east/west lino, but I think in terms of ensuring the objectives that the mrth/south makes more sense. Com. Giefer. Another'question was regarding the Rl vs. RHS, because the average slope of the lot is greater than 15%, they would actually be governed by the 7ZHS in any future development for this lot. Mr. Jung: • The Ri is written that if you have a slope of over 15% which is the case in this particular lot, it is either the RHS or Rl regulations whichever is more restrictive_ In this particular case as far as the FAR the more restrictive regulations, the RHS regulation which has a FAR percentage up to a 10,0 square foot lot, has a smatlec incrennerii for lots larger than 10,000 and there is a slope penalty that starts deducting the square, footage as the slope gets steeper. • The calculation-was already done under a normal Rl relatively flat lot; fora 20,000 square foot lot you have a theoretical maximum that is close to a 10,000 square foot house, but with 1tHS regulations on it, you cad up with about 3,720 maximum. Com. Giefer: • If this lot where the ICnopp house curreritly sits, -was redeveloped in the future, if the person who buys it, subdivides it and decides to build two hoirres and scrap the lot of the IGnopp house and that is redeveloped, would that lot also have to adhere to the RIiS as opposed to the R1? i~-ss Cupertino Planning Commission 25 July 26, 2005 Mr. Jaap: • It would still be subject to t1~ same rules regarding the slope as well. Most lr7cely if they were interested in expanding, they would be intrixling on some of the steeper slope areas as the building pad itself is confined to just the flat portion of the tot. • If the house is larger than what the ordinance presently requires, it would be considered a legal non-conforming str~trcture and they would have the right to rebuild that to the same square footage. It is a ease that if it is a voluntary demolition, they would have to comply with the new rulea_ vice Chair Miller: • Noted that were some other technologies besides removing the non-cngineer+ed fill and replacing it with engineered fill and other technologies to investigate as an alternative fo saving-the frets. John Kaopp, property owner: • Said that his property is only one of four prol~ties that the rezoning could subdivide. There have been recommendations and suggestions about what would be built and how it would be built, but this. is just the subdivisiion and I do not intend to actually build mysei~ those matters would have th be brought up with whoever buys the house and that would be the time to consider retaining walls, etc. • There never was a utility casement on that driveway and there doesn't need to be; the only utilities that are affected by the new lot is th,e sewer coming down from the existing house. I understand the recommendation is to move 8nat over to the common line of the two lots. • The Schmidts sent a letter stating that then concern is they don't want the driveway dug up, don't want it altered in any way, and don't ~~vant any utility easements an the driveway; there never were any and that' were not proposing that in any regard. • They said that the existing property would s1z11 have ingress and egress easement. They would prefer the new lot have its own access off of Lindy Lane. • I talked with them before the meeting and I ihink they wauid be willing to grant ingress and egress for tine new lot also, especialty since lit is only on the lower part of t3~ driveway. They would not want it tom up in any way and I agrce with that. There is a possibility of putting a new driveway beside it; it would mean puttirig in a new culvert and putting pavement next to it so that could be done; again that has to do crith the development of the property itself. • 'Thanked the Planning Commission for.extc:nding a second notice to neighbors affected; the notice was sent out to a broadax area than the: standard 500 feet The neighbors encouraged him with the subdivision and they shared.the fiam~e concerns about construction noise, etc. My neighbors and I are concerned about traffic noise, construction noise, etc_ Again, this is one of only four or five properties that oouic! be subdivided; we are proposing one more and it will be another year of construction noise, etc. Code enforcement has encouraged us to call if there are any violations -by construction crews. Recently there was a backhoe on one of the lots; a call was made and they were shut dovrrr immediately. • Briefly discussed the slides and movement in the 70s and a small slide in flee 90s; there has since been no other earth movement_ Brett Moziey: • I am sympathetic to the concerns about the impacts of construction, and I think it could effectively be addressed in the conslru~ctirnr management program which- can be attached to conditions; we don't object to that and recagaize that iC is really well addressed or should be well addressed in the exercise of the enforcement by the building department t~-ss Cupertino Plarming Commission 26 July 26, 200s • He reiterated that they were not proposing a 1 O foot retaining wall and it was not part of the proposal. They have not proposed any house footprint and feel that it is best left to careful deliberation on the part of those who are designing the house that would go there and the dialog that would go an either with staff or a Design Review Commission. , • It is currently zoned R1 and would be subject to design review. 'Ilrere is some concern that in the hillside ordinance currently if that was not redrafted, there isn't a provision for design review provided you ane within the constraints of the RHS ordinance. • As opposed to the current relatively prescriptive comments in the staff report, I would like you to consider the alternative that design review does have a fuitr hold on what goes in there and it gives the opportunity or the DRC the opportumity to judiciously evaluate a more carefully considered proposal for the house. • I would like yon to contemplate that that the Rl growth calls for design review; if it were to go to RHS it wouldn't, we would be happy to stipulate that any future work that happened at the house would be subject to design review, in exchange for a relaxation of the current relatively restrictive and I think early judgments on what could and should go there, subject to more careful review by a designer. • We are going to need to bring in utilities, and I think this may not have been the intent of the slope easement, but I bring it to your attention. • The sewer district does not like the current lay of the sewer pipe; the new house would go in on the newly created lot, and they would like to sec a new sewer line put in across the slope. • I suspect the slope easement that staff is proposing -addresses larger above surface improvements, and doesn't speak to underground utilities which would not have any impairment to the trees herc_ I-want to ensure that we anticipate that if it were a slope easement and no underground utilities along Yhere, we would be obliged to object_ • Relative to the retaining wails and the mitigation of the unengineered fiII -there are three obvious solutions, and other solutions that haven't been discussed that-could be evaluated. • if there is a concern about preserving these trees here and stabilizing unengineered fill, I feel pretty confident we can do that and not compromise those trees with a hybrid approach to some retaining wall, some iutengineered fill removal, replacement, or retaining walls varying ' the footings so the retaining walls stand far enough .out from the trees but are structw-ally sound and achieve their objective. • The retaining walls in some cases could be a part of the house foundation. I appreciate that those would not be technically retaining walls; ss I understand from staff, a retaining wail is a structure separate and apart from the house envelope and the foundation, • The issue of the Schmidt easement probably will be a moot paint for several reasons. It is similar to ingress/egzess easements that were present on my' family's lots and in retrospect, they do not specifically and prescriptively restrict use to one house. 7f' that was the case, the houses upslope of my family's lots would not be able to be subdivided and there hasn't bcea any discussion of restricting subdivision in that area because the ingress/egress easements don't specify the number of houses that they serve. They are generic and they are not that restrictive; on the legal merits, that argument might not stand up. I appreciate staff's comments that the city does not want to adjudicate matters like this and I don't think any of us would want the city engaging in that; I think we can work it out. It Iooks favorable that will be able to enjoy agreement with the Schmidts for access along that driveway. • I appreciate that we have a supportive staff report. I suggest that the site and community are better served by availing everyone to the design. review process as it was intended and should appropriately apply here and give the person who would be coming in and doing a careful design, the opportunity to engage the design review committee or staff or the community in coming up with the most elegant, least disruptive design there; as opposed to prescriptively tying the hands of a future designer unnecessarily. ~~-too Cupertino Planning Commission :>_7 JuIy 26, 2005 In response to an earlier question from Com. Gie fer about the existing house, staff said it was 2100 square feet. The footprint is sucsh that you would not want to expand beyond, but want to go up. Com. Gleier. • (To Mr. Morley). Would you ~b_ a trying to develop and build on these lots once they are divided and the l~reopps decide they ar+e leaving the area; would the lots be sold for future development? • Were you suggesting that the RHS house size calculation should not be used in favor of design revicw7 Mr_ Mozley: • Yes. • No, not at all; I would gladly recognize that. the RHS formula is appropriate here and applies, and the location of the house is its relationship to trees, retairriag walls, of whatever size, are appropriately addresses in a design review context I did not mean to suggest that the RFIS formulas apply in addition with fire slope penalty, 28'~o slope, which calculates over a 3,700 square foot house. I think that is entirely sufficient and I don't believe we have ever had any objection to that, nor would be raise any_ Chair Wong: • Vs. north, south, east, west; what did you prefer-, flee current plan or the other one; it locks like there is an easement going over the new subdivision. - Mr. Kropp: • A.s the owner, I want to get the value out of the land; so whatever is reasonable I will go either way. If I was to develop myself and years al;o if I-were to put up my own house, I would have done it easbwest and then developed the barer lot; put the house down so it had a valley view; but then you have a Long bowling aitey typr. house, so that is purely aesthetics. Either one is fine_ I think staff thoroughly investigated all the pros and cons and that is why they came up with that recommendation. V[ce Clair Miller: • Part of the existing driveway is now going to become a part of the new lot, and the exist*ng house will then have an easenent through thec+e. . Mr. Morley: You are referring to the ingress/egress easement, which is correct. We had a number of conversations with staff about diil'erent pp'mutations of using tbe site and one would be to push the driveway up slope which would n:quire retaining walls and move a house up slope which in some regards- captures more of a ~riew. I think some of the intent was that it might provide more screening from the trees_ • This is an ingress egress easement for use of the house and part of the reason for that is that a driveway here doesn't benefit anybody. Vice Clair Miller. • - The part of the driveway that the current house uses will now be on the adjacent property; who maintains the driveway? Mr. Morley: • I would argue that the house that enjoys the benefit oouse of that driveway_ • It is my understanding that subject to th~~ RHS aspects applicable here, that a driveway n-tot Cupertino Planning Commission 28 July 26, 2005 maintenance agreement is a requirement. Vice Chair Miller: • That is fine; but the new parcel you are creating has no motivation or incentive tp put any money into that driveway, because they are not going to use it. Mr. Mosley: • Unfortunately crafting a road or driveway maintenance agreement when the saxr~ owner owns both parcels, becomes an easy argument for that person to settle and record as part of a road maintenance agreement. Vice Chair Miller: •_ You can do it any way you want but you would idce to do it so that you have a goal of congruence; even though you are forcing someone to do something, there is some motivation for them to do it, otherwise it creates a conflict between the two neighbors over time. Mr. Morley: • Illustrated that a 12 foot driveway would be required per the fire code to serve the house; and showed where access to the site would be feasible, traasgreseing across the slope casement for a few feet, sot disturbing the trees. Vice Chair Hitler. • I have no objection m that as long as an engineer approves it and it doesn't generate retaining walls that don't £t in with the general guidelines that the city would like to see. Mr_ Mosley: I agree, I don't foresee any problem. Vice Chair Mii7ler: • Also, relative to comments about other solutions to the nan-engineered fill, it is from my viewpoint as long as an engineer approves the solution, you are free to pick the best solution for you. Chair Wong opened the public hearing. I3eraard Tiscteee, Terra Linda Lane: • About 10 or 15 years ago the residents of the large lot requested to subdivide their properties and at that time the request was rejected because of the consideration of tltc high density and slides in those hills. • Unfortunately when they developed Lindy Lane !don't think it was done properly, the Lindy Lane road is like a valley; when it rains it becomes a river, and if you build more homes the. overflow of the rain will maiae the road even worst during the rainy season. • I don't know the reason why this decision was changed that allowed that hill to be subdivided but there must be a reason. I oppose this subdivision, not only this subdivision, but all the subdivisions because these is a lot of construction going on in the hillside sow, and it has destroyed the hillside view. I think there are some potential hazards in the future such as landslides or avertlow water, and we have been living with nuisance of construction noise the last A months; it negatively impacts the surroundings and residents' right to onjoy their homes and yerrs_ n-toe Cupertino Planning Commission :L9 July 26, 2005 If the decision is made to subdivide the hillsides, at least malae a decision and change the construction ordinance that construction takes place only between 8 and 5 p.rn. during the weekend and no construction on the weekends. • The property owner has s right to develop his property; but when he purcha~d his property he knew that there was an ordinance prolv'bitireg subdividing his property. Whets we purchased our home, we realized that the hills would not be subdivided, so vve would be able to enjoy our hort~e; everybody knew the rules in the beginning; somehow the rules have changed_ Jennifer Grfiiiin, Cupertino resident: • In this proposed lot split, there was a great deal of thought given to preserving the oak trees on the property. Everything needs to be done to preserve the oak trees, they are the legacy for Cupertino for generations to come. • .Asked if it was the last subdividing of the lot; could the lots be split into quarter-acre lots; could the future purchaser of the lots come back in the future to split up the lots furthcr7 • You should publicly look at constraining the maximum size home; how large a home can be built on the lots; 10,000 square feet is a large: house; do we want two stories-on the property. • Please preserve the oak trees_ Chair Wong closed the public hearing. Mr. Piasecki: + Said under the current zoning, you could not subdivide further. • Relative to changing the construction ordinance, changes. can be made but there are consequences of changes since it affects homeowners as much as contractors. It normally takes about a year to make changes, to gatU~er input from the public, conduct public hearings and prepare reports. He said under the construction ordinance, the hours of construction were 7 a_m. to 8 p.m. weekdays and 9 a.m_ to 5 p.m. on weekends. Eileen 14iurray, Assistant City Attorney: • Said she was participating in meetings about the construction how zones; and noted that code enforcement has been on Lindy Lane at ]east a down dines in the last month regarding concerns about construction noise, radios, slid grading on the weekends_ They are attempting to enforce the law and changes in the ordinalce are under discussion. Mr. Piasecki: • Clarified the definitions of daytime as 7 a.m. to 8 p.m, on weekdays, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekends_ Maximum house size is 3600 to 3700 +; ' Mr. Jung: • The square footage requirement applies to aII building structures and would include any granny unit, any greenhouse, 3720 maximum. Pools are not included. Mr. Piasecki: • That was the purpose of the. slope easement area, to make sure that is a non buildable zone, no pools, no poolhouses, and you could use same undergrounding of utility-that is not included. Com. Giefer. . If these lots had been rezoned to RHS vs. c.~ntinuing to have the RI designation, what would 17 - 103 Cupertino Planning Commission 30 July 26, 2005 be the minimal lot size. Mr_ Piasecid: • We haven't done the slope density calculation and under the RHS I would expect that you would not be able to subdivide this property. • Jf it wss changed to the hillside land use designations, it would be unlikely that you would be able to got another lot there. Mr. Jong: • Said the General Plan designation that controls the subdivision; it is not_ the zoning, the RHS zoning ordinance says sp~ifical2y refer to the slope density formulas that are found in the General Plan designation. • It is not the RHS that controls the lot size in this particular instance; it would be the slope density formula if you had a slope density formula General Plan land use designation on the property_ Corn. Giefer: • Expressed concern with the condition of Lindy Lane. It is worn down as well as Regnart Road. The developer pays a street maintenance fee, but when will those issues be addressed by the city; how is it prioritized. Mr. PiasecEd: • Said that Public Works would respond. • 7 don't think there is a requirement that when you build you have to pay an extraordinary fee; if you damage something we know it holds. Corn. Giefer. • 7 thought the developers paid a city maintenance fee that specifically addressed streets Mr. Pisseckf: • l don't believe so; private streets you would have such a setup potentially where tbe maintenance would be controlled Conn. Giefer: • One of the issuers that several residents mentioned is they felt their street is getting chewed up by the construction vehicles. Mr. PiasecW • We can ask Public Works how they can handle that. Vice Chair MiIIer: • If this project does proceed, I would propose that it include some kind. of road mainntenance agreement for the current driveway from the existing house out to the access road. • I don't feel we can rule on this tonight because there is contention over whether or not the shared access can be shared by the lot and if the applicant is proposing an alternate driveway, then we need to see that on the General Plan. • I propose we continue the application until that issue is resolved_ Chair Wong: • (To staff) When the applicant came to us were you satisfied with their comment or do we need ~~-ion Cupertino Piarming Commission 31 July 26, 2005 io resolve that, regarding them talkireg to the applicant. Mr. Plasecld: • We received that letter today and we were not aware that it was an issue until we saw the letter, we could handle that either with a ceandition that said the example we cited the Wolfe Camera issue that had three options, and the applicant could demonstrate to us that he has satisfied those. If they are seriously looking at creating another driveway, I agree with Vice Chair Miller, that we would like to understated what it looks like, how it impacts trees, whgt do you reeed for retaining walls, etc. • We would continue it for that purpose; again I would ask if the applicant is willing to take a continuance and cotree back with a definitive; answer. The driveway is usable, it would be our _ preference that they use the existing driveway. Chair Wong: • I agree. Corn. Gierer: • I would agree with Vice Chair Miller; until we see that there is not an issue froen~the Schmidts, I would be more comfortable with that. • Another suggestion is to record flee trees that are there; the reason I asked Mr. Motley if he was actually going to be developing the property himself is that once Mr. ICtwpp and Mr. Moxley are out of the picture, the future owner may come in and clear cut the lot, thinking they aan get away with that_ As the property deed is changed, I would like to record the heritage trees bo give them some ptnteclion, more for tl>e future. • I suggest that we add conditions for construction stating that the neighbors fuel antagonized by all the development going on. That has bcere the primary complaint I have heard. • There are concerns about landslides; we Dave the geologist report they retained; the city g~logist is more negative about the soil:: thex+e. I would like to require t2tai there is no construction on wcekends for this project; neighbors need some relief as part of this project. • I don't know if the street repair is a developer issue; we as a city need to understand that this is getting worn down and should be looked at ces a higher priority. • I would support Vice Chair Miller, if we dlo act on this tonight, I would like to suggest we record the trees and add the condition of construction management that they do not work on weekends or have a very limited sohedule. Corn. Saadatl: • Said he concurred with the statements made by fellow commissioners. • Relative to construction time, some of our :neighboring cities have construction time limits 7 a_tn. to 5 p.m. during the week, and no construction on weekends. Exe;eptiona for working on the wcekend can be granted, but not for noisy work that would impact the neighbors. • I concur with tbe recording of the trees. The issue that they share access needs to Ire resolved; if it can be done at the stag level, I support that; if not, it be continued to come back. • Overall, this lot can be subdivided; regarding building of the house, slope stability; those will be added st the time the house is proposed and design is proposed and specific geotechniual report will be required for that site, prior to building permit action. - Chair Woreg: • I support-the tentative nipping of the pnojiect with flee condition about recording the trees; having limited construction hours on the weekend; and regarding the concerns of the residents 17 - 105 G~cpertino Planning Commission 32 July 26, 2005 on Lindy Lane. • I also agree with Com_ Saadati that if the applicant can satisfy staff s cctncem :+egarding the easement with the Schmidts, I feel comfortable leaving that decision to fire competent stall: Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Saadati, to approve Application TM 2005-03 with the modiQcat[ons suggested by tho Ptanaing Commission. Com. Glefer: • The concerns of the neighbors include the heavy construction noise all of the time. I agree there may be interior const<vctioa that could be done that is Iess noisy; however, the heavy equipment, snd backhoes are too much to have gcsiag 24/7 which is what the neighbors fee! they are living through. • I would suggest that on Saturday, there not be any heavy equipment and dirt trucks. If we limit heavy construction, cut and Fill type of activities, that would reduce a lot of the noise immediately, where they didn't have trucks reducing access to their homes. • Limit construction on Saturday to no heavy equipment, perhaps from 9 a.m. to noon, and if there is only quieter construction, things not requiring heavy equipment during that timeframe. On Sunday, give the neighbors a break and not have any Sunday construction. Viee Chair Miller • Added another condition that no grading be done during the rainy season. Mr. Piasecki reviewed the saggestloas: • Ssid there was a desire to see a road maintenance agreement recorded prior to the recordation of the final map on the p~rivatc drive over the westerly tot to the benefit of the eastern lot_ • That there would be a construction management plan as required by the conditions and that there be no heavy equipment constructi~ occurring on Saturdays; no construction on Sundays and work with the applicant to define the meaning; it can be written into the construction management pIan_ • 'That they would record the trees that are protected under the tree ordinance and they would record the fact that there would be no clear nutting; stag will define it. • That the applicant shall demonstrate that there is access as proposed over the private drive to the west of the site; and there would be a clearance from that property owner who owns the easement; fliers be no grading during the rainy season as deSned by the :ordinance. It would be recorded against both lots_ They would record the slope easements in which case there would be no above ground construction allowed. (Vote: 4-O-tl; Com. Chen absent) Mr. Piasecki: • Noted it was a fine! decision of the Planning Commission unless appealed ivlt/si~s ZO days. Chair Wong: • Said that relative to the General Plan for the neighborhood, they made a recommendation and if they are still interested, they should follow up with ffie City Council when they make their final recommendation. i~-ios .~.., ~~ 9~eetasu!~u~ ~.. `, ~ - ~1s~,~U i ~~ A - '^ R -R ° A _ . e _ _ _. ~Q o y„ ` _ . .Ty SCI ~ '~~ q ~ :~.~ ( t~ ~ ~ t 8 ~~ Ef ~~ ~ E S S 2 ` , ~ ~ : ~ ` ~. T•' S S:S S S R '6 2~S'R -Yi":J VP111tiddliJ 3Nb'l .lC!• 4Z6 LZ ~ F a ddON>3 d0 SON~fI 'd'dV~ altl1N31 ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ s 4 ~ ~ ~ , a~>I ~~~ °s ~~ ¢ns `` E• Ea J<~Ap$ EI~ $$; ~ yh ~3~Epi B a~ S~~i1 ~~ ~~~ =~EY~ T ~~ ~E ~~ ~ t ~~~ ~~~~g ~ ~g ~ - i ~ t a 1~~ i~ ,~4 I 1 I .t ~ Yl 1 C1~ 3y ~tt~ F~I 1 la ~~~ ~ ~ ~ yy W vi ~~~ ~ ~ ~ d~ ~ S ~ ~g .~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ a 1 \ ~' / /e / ,. s «s' ~ o ~ ;1 W II f Q ~~ 52{ \\\~UUU __ _ F C ~ ~ ~§ ...1 ~' O ~ ~ r' 6 m g H ~ r ~j ~ = s ~~~ ~ a a m F~ ., ~. a, ~=~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~! 4 ~. a a 3 ~g r ~ si ~ ~ rv s o ~~-~o~ Exhibit D - 2- z~itlo~ ~.os.oaa ( ai,~g~g° mrsnc the fi..•niat,inv of rooms or groups of °Lot line° mP^nR aaY boundary of a lot. rooms ~oc.itl,in a dwelling unit or an accessory' building to 1. °Front lot tiae° mP~n° on an interior lot. the lot persons other than members of the family residence in the line abutting a street, or on a comer lot, the shorter lot line dweiii~Q unit, for overnight occupancy on a residential abutting a street. or on a flag lot, the interior lot line most occupancy basis, whether or not meals are provided to such parallel to and nearest the street from which access is person_ IAdging shall be subject to the residential density ' requirements of the district in which the use is located. obtained_ 2. `Interior lot Line" means any lot line not abutting °I_odging uniL° mPanc a room or group of rooms not a street. including a kitchen; used o; intP.±.!at for use by overnight 3. °Rear lot line° means the lot Line not intersecting occupants as a single unit, whether located in- a hotel or a a front Iot line which is most distant from and the most dwelling unit providing lodging where designed or used for closely parallel to the front lot line. A lot bounded by only occupancy by more than two persons: each two-persoa three tot Lines will not have a rear lot line. capacity shall be deemed a separate lodging emit for the 4. "Side lot line° means any lot line which is not a Purpose of determ;ning residential density; each two lodging front or rear lot line. units shall be conc+~.-•~ the equivalent of one dwelling unit, 5_ ° Street tot 1ine° ~'ar!a any lot line abutting a °Lot° or °site° means a parcel of land consisting of a street_ ' single lot of record, used- or intended -for use under the °Irot of record" me'*+e a lot which is part of a regulations of this title as one site for a use or a group of subdivision recorded is the office of the County Recorder, uses. ~ or a Iot or parcel described by •*+P*~ and bounds which has i_ "Corner lot" mP^•+~ a lot situated at the been recorded. intersection of two or more streets. or bounded on two or °I_ot width" means the horizontal distance between more adjacent sides by street Lines. side lot lines. measured at the required. frost setback line_ 2. °FIag lot" means a Iot having access to a street °l an +far-r++ri.+g° ._„P~. a use engaged iII tlse by means of a private driveway or parcel of land not manufacture, predominantly from previously grepared otherwise mPetig the regni,-P..,P++t of this title for lot width_ materials, of finished products or parts, i~luding r 3. "Interior 1ot° mesas a lot other than a corner Iot. processing fabrication. assembly, gaclcaging of 4. °]Zey lot° tnP^*+a the first Iot to the rear of a such products, but excluding basic industrial processing of corner lot, the front line of which is a continuation of the .extracted or raw **~~tPrza~s, Processes utilizing inflammable side li~ of the corner lot, and fronting on the streetwhich or explosive material (i_e., materials which- ignite easily intersects or intercepts the street oa which the corner lot under normal masufactnriag conditions). and Processes tranrs_ which create hazardous or commonly recognized offensive 5. °Lot. area° means the area of a lot measures - conditions. _ horizontally b~+een boundary Iot lines, but excluding a °Massage° means any method of pressure on or portion of a flag lot providing access to a street and lying friction against or stroking. Imeading, rubbing. tapping. between a front Iot Line and the street, and excluding any pounding, vibrating or.stinwlating the external partsof the portion of a lot within the tines of any natural watercourse, h++*++A++ body with the hands or with nay mechanical or stream, creek, waterway, channel or flood control or river electrical apparatus or other appliances or devices with or , d,-s.;nage Pic: ^~^r and excluding any portion of a lot wiriun without such supplementary aides as rubbing alcohol, a street right-of-way whether acquired .in fee, essemeut or liniment. antiseptic, oil, powder, cre~n lotion, oi~t~as*+r or otherwise_ other similar preparations_ °Lot coverage" mpanc and encompasses the following: _ ° Massage partor° means a building or portion thereof, 1. °Siagle-family residential use° mPaas the total or a place where **+a~-image is ar}**+ini~rPred for compensation land area within . a site that is covered by buildings, or from which a **+a~~e business or service for including all projecdons,but exctudmgground-level paving, compensation is operated which is not exempted - or t~+,~tA ape features,- lightwells, and open recreational regulated by the Massage Fstabti~•,r Ordinance as facilities. contained is ~tle 9, Health and Sanitation of the Cupertino 2_ "All other uses except single-faintly resi~~-*+rt°t" Municipal Code, Chapter 9.06_ means the total land area within a site that is covered by °Mobilehome° mraae a vehicle, other than a motor- - buildings, excluding all projections, ground-level paving, vehicle. designed or used as semipe~•++°*+Pnt housing. landscape features, and open recreational facilities designed for human habitation, for carrying persons aar °Lot depth° me°*+a the horizontal distance from the property on it4 own structure. and for being drawn by midpoint of the front lot Line to the midpoint of the sear lot motor vehicle, and shall include a trailer coach. line, or tD the most distant point oa any other lot line where °Mobilehome park° mPsna any area or tract of land there is no clear rear Iot line. where lots are sold, rented, or held out fg77 re,~ to one or 19.1J8.030 Ghapertino - :7.onfag more owners or users of mobilehomes, exch~ding iravel- trailers, for the purpose of permanent or se+*~ zmanent housing. ° Multiple-family use° means the use of a site for three or more dwelling units which may be in the same building or in separate b^+it~t**+a~ on the sa*?+e site_ °Natural grade° m°^*+c the contour of the land prior to improvements or development, unless otherwise established by a city approved grading Pisa that is part of a subdivision map approval_ "Net Iot ares° means the total area included within the property lines of a site, excluding the following: 1 _ Any portion of a site within the right-of-way of an existing public street; 2. `I7ie portion of a flag lot constituting the ~~+-~° corridor lying between the front property line and the frontage line of the corridor ai the street; 3. 'I7~e full width of any legal easement used for access purposes_ °Nighiclub° means an estabiicfimr.++ providing alcoholic beverage service and late evening (past eleven pm;.) eatert~in._ **+w~+* with or without food service_ . `Off1CC.w mean8: - 1. "Adm:n;~r;.,e or executive offices° including those pertaining t0 the m~emeat of office operations or the direction of enterprise but not including ~rchandisiztg or sales services_ 2. `Medical office" mP~nc a use providing consultation, diagnosis, *t+P~z ,~•- preventative or corrective personal treatment services by doctors, dentists, medical and dental laboratories, and similar practitioners of medical and healing arts for h.+**+anc, licensed -for such practice by the State of California and including services related to medical research. testing and analysis_ 3 _ °Professional offices" such as those pertaining to the practice of the professions and arts including, but not limited to; archir.-~-r..=e, denrishy, engineering, Iaw and medicine, but not iceluding sale of drugs or prescriptions except as incidental to the principal uses sad where there is external evidence of such incidental use: "Offset° nx~.,c the indentation or projection of a wall plane_ °Opcn° means a space oa the ground or oa the roof of a SLPnCttlrC, i1nCOVered and nnr~-ry~IOged. . `Organic°rGnnai documents° mes ~c the declaration of restrictions, articles of incorporation, bylaws and nay contracts for the mainr~.~.+.-a, m~e~t or aperatioa of all oc any part of a community housing Project-~ °t7utdoor recreation use" means a privately owned or operated use providing facilities for outdoor recreation aCC1VItie3, lIICladmg golf, tr+*+nic~ c+vimming~ I1d1IIg Or Other • outdoor sport or recreation, operated predominantly in the open, except for accessory or incidental enclosed services or facilities= IXHIBIT E -2 "Parkc° mP~nc aIIY opeII space, . reservation, ]?lay$rOUnds swmmling pool, golf OOnrSe, recreatrOII Center, or nay other area in the City owned or used bythe City or County and devoted to active or passive recreations_ "Parking azea° means as unroofed, paved area, detinP.a*~ 6y Painted or similar markings, intended and designed to accommodate one or more vehicles_ °Pazldng facility" means an azea on a lot or within a budding, or both, including one or more parking spaces, together with driveways, aisles, turning and maneuvering firers, clearances and similar features, and meeting the requirements established by this title_ Parking facility includes parking Iots, garages and pazking stractures. 1. "Temporazy pazking facility" mesas parking lots vvhieh are not required under this -title and -which are intended as interim improvements of property subject Lo removal at a later date. °Pazking space" means an area on a Iot or within 'a building, used or intended for use for parking a motor vehicle, having permanent mrgnc of access m and. from a public street or alley independently of any other pazkdag .pace, and looted in a parlong facility me~f,~,;es the x~egairements established by this title. Parking space is equivalent to the term "parking stall' and does not include driveways, aisles or other features comprising a parking facility as previously defined in this chapter. °Personal fitness training center" means a facility providing space and ~+~.+m.-s+*, with or without supervision, for group or individual athletic development, iRCreased skid cteveIopment in sports activity; or rehabilitative therapy for athletic inJury_ "Picnic area° mesas' a facility providing rabies and crooking devices for preparation and consumption of meals out of doors or within an uaenclosed shelter structure. "Practice range" **+ea*+s a facility providing controlled tic:cess to fixed or movable objects which are used to test rind **+~°~***-. accuracy of discharge from a weapon. ° Private educational~facility° means a privately owned school, including schools owned and operated by religious orgg*+i~ar~ons, offering instructioain the several branches of ]P~rning -and study required to be taught in the public schools by the Educario+± Code of the State of California "Professional office° means a use providing professional- or consulting service is the fields of Iaw, aTChlteCture, deslgrl, CngmeerlIIg, aCCOIIntiIIg, 8nd~ similar professions, including associated testing and prototype development, but excluding product mannfar~.+ring or z.ssembly. °Project improvemr-•r°^ means all public road improvPme*+rc, undergrounding utility improvements, and improvements to the on-site utility networks as required by the City-of Cupertino for a community housing project. °ProjectionT *++P°~e architectural eIemeats, notpart of the main building support, that cantilevers fivm~7a-s~le i - 19_28.040 Exiaibit F - Z Cupertino -Zoning 2. Large-family day care home, which otherwise does not meet the criteria for a permitted use. 'The aondifional use permit shall be processed as provided by Section 15.97:46(3) of the State of California Health and Safety Code; 3. Buildings or structures which incorporate solar design features that require vaziarions from setbacks upon a determination by the Director that such design .feature or features will not result in privacy impacts, shadowing, intrusive noise or other adverse impacts to the surrounding area; 4. Second dwelling units which require a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 19.84; 5. Homo occuparions requiring a conditional use permit pursuant fn Chapter 19.92 of this title. B. Issucd by the Planning Comn~.ission: I. Two-story structures in an area designated for a one-story limitation pursuant to Section 19.28.060 G(6) of this chapter, provided that the Planning Commission determines that the structure'or structures will not result in privacy impacts, shadowing, or ;ntrncive noise, odor, or other adverse impacts to the surrounding azea; 2_ Group care activities with greater than six persons; . 3. Resirie„*iat care facilities that fall into the following. categories: a. Facility that is not required to obtain a license by the State, County agency or department and has six or less residents, not including the providers, provider family or staff; b. • Facility that has the appropriate State, County agency or department license and seven or greater residents, not including the provider family or staff, is a m;n;muin distance of five hundred fees Trom the property boundary of another residential care facility- c. Facility that is not required to obtain a license by the State, County agency or department and has seven or greater residents, not including the provider family or staff, is a minimum, distance of five hundred feet from the Property boundary of another residential care facility; 4. Congregate residence with eleven or more residents, which is a m;n;muiu distance of one thousand feet from the boundary of another congregate residence and has a minimum of seventy-five squaze feet of usable rear yard azea per occupant. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord: 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1784, (part), 1998; Ord. 1688; § 3 (part), 1995; Ord. 1657, (part), 1994; Ord. 1618, (part), 1993; Ord_ 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) ~19-28_050 Development Regulations (Site). A. Lot Area Zoning Designations. 2008 5-15 1. Lot area shall correspond to the number (multiplied by one thousand square feet) following the R-1 zoning symbol. Examples are as follows: Zoning Symbol Number M;n;snum Lot Area in Square eet -~~- Rl 5• S,DOO Rl 6 6,000 Rl 7.5 7,500 Ri ~ 10 10,000 Ri 20 20,000 2_ Lots, which contain Iess area than required by subsection A(j) of this section, but not less than five thousand square feet, may nevertheless be used as building sites, provided that all other applicable requirements of this title aze fulfilled. B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be sixty feet measured at the front-yard setback line, except in the Ri-5 district where the rnin;mum jot width is fifty feet. C_ Development on Properties with Hillside Char_ acterisrics. 1. Buildings Proposed on properties generally located south of Linda Vista Drive, south and west of Santa Teresa and Terrace Drive, west of Terra Bella Drive and north of Lindy Lane (see map below) zoned Ri-20 that have an average slope equal ~ to or greater than fifteen percent shall be developed in accordance with the following site development standards: a. Site Grading. i_ A31 site grading shall be t;m;rP.9 tp a enm„tat;ve total of two thousand five hundred cubic yards, cut plus fill. The two thousand five h+ ~r°a cubic yards includes grading for building Pad. Yard arr°c, driveway and all other azeas 17-1to i _ Eactiibit G - 2 Resolution No. 6313 - TM-2005- 03 July 26, 2005 Page 4 of a statement of the amount of such- fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other. exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later chaIlenging such exactions. 10. ADDITIONAL GEOTECIirTICAL IN~TESTIGATIONS Prior to the approval.of grading or building permits, a detailed geotechnical, design-level investigation shall be performed in accordance with. the recommendations outlined in a letter fiom Cotton Shires 8r Associates to Colin Jung, Cupertino City Planner dated June 29, 2005. 11. CALCULATION OF NET LOT SIZE OF LOT #2 For the purposes of subdivision, floor area ratio and building coverage, the area of the ingress/ egress easement shall not be subtracted from the lot area to calculate net lot size. SECTION N. CONDITIONS ADMTt1ISTERED BY TIC PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTI~~NT 12. STREET WIDENING Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specification: and as required by the City Engineer. 13. CLTItS AND G7JTTER IMPROVEMF?1VTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. _ 14. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATI01~7 Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as appro•Ved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned. so as to preclude glare and other forks of visual interference to adjoir+irg properties, and shall be no lugher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 25. FIRE I-IYI3IZAIV`T Fire hydfants shall be located as required by the City Engineer. 7.6. TRI~FTZC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed a-t locations specified by the City, as required. 17. STREET TREES Street frees shall be planted within tFie Public Right of Way aizd shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance tivith Ordinance No. 125. i~-~~~ EXHIBITS BEGIN HER F" Driveway E ~ _-+ 2 74 sq ft_) == ~--- included r 31 ~ ~- -~ _ A 1 - - i Lot #'1 ` got#z . _ ~ ~ i ___- ~ _ _ ~~ ZO~000 sq Ft--- __- _- _ . -~~'~8~ sq.ff ~ F '_° ___'_ -, _ -.- Sc~ - _.- _ --ZM64 liNE ~ ~ f _ _.._ _ _ _ - _- _ - • __ _ : - Street DedicaLOn (2,648 Offsite driveway easeme nt sq. ft.) not included in lot not part Of Subdivision area or net Iot area.