PC Summary 11-08-05
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 777-3308
To:
Mayor and City Council Members
From:
Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development
Date:
November 9, 2005
Subj:
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIONS MADE
November 8, 2005
Chapter 19.32 of the Cupertino Municipal code provides for
a eal of decisions made b the Plannin Commission
1. Application
TM-2005-05; Frank Sun, 21989 Lindy Lane
Description
Tentative Map to subdivide a 2.06 acre parcel into three lots.
Action
The Planning Commission approved the application on a 4 - 1 vote.
The ten-calendar day appeal will expire on November 19, 2005.
Enclosures:
Planning Commission Report of November 8, 2005
Planning Commission Resolution No. 6335
Approved Plan Set
g:planning/Post Hearing/summary to cell-DB-OS
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Property Location:
TM-200S-0S
Xi Hua (Frank) Sun
Xi Hua (Frank) Sun
21989 Lindy Lane
Agenda Date: November 8, 2005
Application Summary: Tentative Map to subdivide an approximately 2.6 acre
site in an Rl-20 zoning district into three lots
Project Data:
General Plan Land Use Designation: Low Density Residential, 1-5 du/ gr. Ac.
Zoning Designation: Rl-20
Project Consistency with:
General Plan yes, with revisions recommended in resolution
Zoning yes, with minimum lot size requirement of 20,000 square feet
Environmental Review: Negative Declaration
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends either of two options:
1) Approval of a 2-lot subdivision, eliminating proposed Lot #1, or
2) Continue the tentative map application to allow the applicant to
reconfigure the three proposed lots with the intent of placing all 3
building sites on the upper, northern portion of the property.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Frank Sun, is proposing to subdivide his 2.6 acre property into
three lots of about 0.76,0.65 and 1.22 acres in size (Exhibit A).
The property is an irregularly-shaped lot located along the north side of Lindy
Lane. A single-family house occupies the center of the lot and is accessed by a
private driveway running along the north side of the property. The property is
characterized as a southeast-facing hillside topography situated between a
ridgeline and the buried Lindy Creek with moderately steep (30%) to very steep
(up to 70%) slopes. The steepest slopes occur along 2/3 of the Lindy Lane
property frontage, which is heavily vegetated with native oaks and non-native
trees. A portion of these trees and ornamental landscaping screen the existing
house from public view. The property is surrounded by other single-family
dwellings. The properties on the south side of Lindy Lane are on flatter land and
the lot sizes are around 10,000 square feet. To the north and further south the
2
topography becomes steeper and the lot sizes double or more in size. To the east,
one property (Lands of Moxley) was subdivided into three lots several years ago,
and another lot (Lands of Knopp) was recently approved for two lots.
The proposed subdivision basically carves out the center portion of the lot and
preserves the existing dwelling, its improvements and the ornamental
landscaping surrounding the home (Lot #2). Proposed lots #3 to the west and #1
to the east have varying topography (medium to steep slopes) with conceptual
building sites located in the less steep drainage swale areas. The civil engineer
provides slope calculations for the three proposed lots:
Averal!:e SloDe
Parcel No. Entire Parcel Building Site
1 35.5% 29.3%
2 25.5% 18.1%
3 38.3% 27.9%
The building sites are conceptual in nature and are provided to evaluate the
feasibility of the proposed parcels for residential development. No plans for
houses or improvements have been submitted.
DISCUSSION:
Geotechnical Review. A geologic and geotechnical investigation was carried out
by Milstone Geotechnical in a report dated March 2005 (Exhibit B) and
subsequently reviewed by the City Geologist, Cotton, Shires & Associates
(Exhibit C). Field observations show an existing home built on a combination of
cut and fill pads. Additional fill slopes follow the private driveway. Additional
shallow cut and deeper fill slopes are found in the western swale (Lot #3) and
are associated with landscaping and walking paths through the parcel. At the
bottom of the slope, at Lindy Lane, there are two concrete retaining walls up to
nine feet in height and about 190 feet in length. They support a cut slope that
resulted from grading for Lindy Lane. The consultant suggests that the easterly
wall was constructed to stabilize an unstable slope that resulted from Lindy Lane
construction. Analysis of the landforms indicated the presence of a possible
large landslide on and in the vicinity of the property. According to the geologist
the signs are subtle, and if the landslide is present, it would be considered
prehistoric.
Test pits, boreholes and exploratory shafts were dug in the anticipated building
sites and surrounding areas to better characterize the subsurface geologic
features of the property. This subsurface investigation found no strong
supporting evidence for landsliding in the tested sites. After a review of the
report and inspection of site excavations, the City Geologist concluded that the
3
proposed 3-lot subdivision is geotechnically feasible. The City Geologist also
recommended that prior to building permit approval for the construction of any
new residences, that site-specific, design-level geotechnical investigations be
performed for each lot.
Trees. City Arborist Barrie Coates and Associates evaluated the impact of the
conceptual building sites on the affected trees in his report dated August 22, 2005
(Exhibit D). On Lot #1 seventeen trees might be affected by development; seven
of them are ordinance-protected Coast Live Oaks. The City Arborist states the
trees could be protected by erecting fencing during construction and grading,
and shifting the proposed driveway alignment closer to tree #16, a smaller oak,
than tree #17, a larger oak. The arborist reviewed an earlier tentative map, which
showed an unusually small building footprint. The map in the packet has a
more realistic footprint that would affect more trees, but these additionally
affected trees are smaller and or non-native and are not protected by the tree
ordinance.
The report does not discuss Lot #3, although the trees are numbered on the
arborist's map. From his map, it appears that only one specimen size oak
(tree # 7) would need to be removed as it sits between the proposed house and
retaining wall.
Maximum House Sizes. According to the R1 Ordinance (Section 19.28.050),
properties with hillside characteristics with an average slope of 15% or greater
shall be developed in accordance with the regulations of the Residential Hillside
Ordinance or the R1 Ordinance, whichever specific regulation is more restrictive.
The RHS development regulations for house size would apply to both proposed
vacant lots. Staff estimates the maximum house size (including garage) on Lot
#1 to be about 3,660 square feet, and the maximum house size on Lot #3 to be
about 4,658 square feet.
General Plan Policies. General Plan Policies 2.53 and 2.56, are applicable to the
project.
Policy 2-53: Rural Improvement Standards in the Foothills
"Require rural improvement standards in the residential hillside zoning
ordinance and the hillside subdivision regulations to preserve the rural character
of the hillside."
S tra tegies
1. "Mass Grading in New Construction. Follow natural land contour and
avoid mass grading in new construction, especially in flood hazard or
hillside areas. Grading large, flat yard areas shall be avoided."
4
2. "Retaining Significant Trees. Retain significant specimen trees,
especially when they grow in groves or clusters, and integrate them into
the developed site." .
Policy 2-55: Land Disturbance During Development
"Be sure the natural land forms and significant plants and trees are disturbed as
little as possible during development. All cut and fill shall be rounded to natural
contours and planted with natural landscaping."
Given these impacts and the application of the General Plan policies, the Moxley
subdivision, approved several years ago and the first to occur on Lindy Lane in
recent memory, demonstrates the visual impact that subdivision and
development can have on the character of a hillside. Staff recommends that the
band of steep slopes and native and non-native tree cover that occupy the Lindy
Lane street frontage should be protected, as they give this street its semi-rural
appearance and screen the visual impact of the new residences.
To this end, staff does not support the creation of Lot #1. The steepness of the
topography and the grading and visible retaining walls needed to accommodate
a reasonably-sized house, driveway and usable yard area will disrupt the natural
landform in a very visible manner. Some trees will need to be removed to
accommodate grading and the development area. Other trees will need to be
pruned back to accommodate a future house. Staff does not see how
development can be accommodated on this lower slope without having a high
degree of visibility from Lindy Lane.
The aerial photograph below depicts the slope and vegetation that staff feels
should be included in a protective slope easement condition on the subdivision.
5
Staff has discussed with the applicant on many occasions that it could be more
supportive of a third parcel if the new building pad were sited upslope where
the existing house is located and the pad already graded. This option has not
been studied by the applicant or staff, but staff feels this possible building site
would have the least visual impact on the neighborhood as the existing home site
is already well-screened from view. To accommodate a third building site
upslope would probably involve the modification of the existing residential
improvements and landscaping. What would need to be removed or relocated
is speculative until a preferred third building pad is determined. The Planning
Commission would need to continue this application if the applicant is agreeable
to reconfiguring the proposed lots and identifying an alternative building site.
Construction Management. Since this site is located on the hillside and near a
sensitive residential neighborhood, a comprehensive construction operation plan
must be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of
grading and building permits addressing the following:
· Staging area
· Tree protection
· Construction hours and limits
· Construction vehicle and truck routes
· Dust and erosion control
· Garbage and debris container location and pick up schedule
· Signage advising contractors of the restrictions
Public Comments. Staff received a petition in support of the subdivision, one
letter of conditional support, and numerous emails opposing the subdivision.
See Exhibit E.
Enclosures.
Model Resolution
ERC Recommendation and Initial Study
Exhibit A - Applicant's Letter of Justification dated August 15, 2005
Exhibit B - Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Subdivision
21989 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, California, prepared by Milstone
Geotechnical, dated March 2005
Exhibit C- Review & Comment Letter from Cotton, Shires & Associates, dated
March 25, 2005
Exhibit 0 - An Analysis of Trees on Lot 1 of the Sun Property, 21989 Lindy Lane, Cupertino,
Prepared by Barrie D. Coate, dated August 22, 2005
Exhibit E - Petition of Support, Letter of Conditional Support and Emails in Opposition of Project
Tentative Map
Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner £)
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developmen~-.e ~./..
G:planning/ pdreport/ pcTMreports / 2005tmreports / TM -2005-05 í C¿¿)
TM-2005-05
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
MODIFYING A SUBDIVISION REQUEST AND APPROVING A TENTATIVE MAP TO
SUBDIVIDE A 2.6 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF APPROXIMA TEL Y 1 NET
ACRE AND 1.14 NET ACRES IN AN Rl-20 ZONING DISTRICT AT 21989 LINDY
LANE
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
TM-2005-05
Frank Sun
21989 Lindy Lane
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for a Tentative Subdivision Map as described in Section I of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the
Subdivision and Procedural Ordinances of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning
Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application; and has satisfied the following requirements:
a) That the proposed subdivision map as modified by the Planning Commission is
consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan.
b) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision as modified by
the Planning Commission are consistent with the General Plan.
c) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development
contemplated under the approved modified subdivision.
d) That the design of the subdivision as modified or the proposed improvements
are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and
avoidable injure fish and wildlife or their habitat.
e) That the modified design of the subdivision or the type of improvements
associated therewith are not likely to cause serious public health problems.
Resolution No.
Page 2
TM-Z005-05
November 8, Z005
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application TM-2005-05 for a Tentative Map is hereby
approved as modified, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution
beginning on page 2 thereof, and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning
Application TM-2005-05, as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of
October 11, 2005, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approved is based on the tentative map entitled "TENTATIVE MAP, LANDS OF
DR. X. SUN, 21989 LINDY LANE, CUPERTINO" by Westfall Engineers, Inc., dated
October 2005, and consisting of one sheet labeled 1 of 1, except as may be amended
by the conditions contained in this resolution.
2. TENTATIVE MAP REVISIONS
The applicant/ owner shall submit a revised tentative map showing a maximum of
two lots, deleting the interior lot line between Lot #1 and Lot #2.
3. SLOPE EASEMENT
The applicant/ owner shall submit a revised tentative map clearly delineating a
slope easement across the Lindy Lane frontages of each proposed lot that closely
reflect the illustration included in the Planning Commission staff report dated
November 8, 2005. The easement is required to be recorded on the property
ensuring that the existing landforms, trees and vegetation be preserved, and
precluding any future developments or improvements in this area, except for
necessary undergrounding of utility lines that do not adversely affect the specimen
size native oak trees.
4. TREE REMOVAL AND PRESERVATION
No trees are authorized for removal as part of the tentative map approval. Tree
removal and replacement will be evaluated when a new residence is actually
proposed to the City.
Prior to final map approval, a covenant shall be recorded on the property, notifying
future property owners of the kinds and numbers of specimen trees protected by
City Ordinance and the requirement for a tree removal permit for these trees. The
covenant shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
Resolution No.
Page 3
TM-2005-05
November 8, 2005
5. DRIVEWAY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Prior to final map approval, a driveway maintenance agreement shall be recorded for
the existing driveway benefiting the two lots.
6. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN
A comprehensive construction operation plan must be submitted to the City for
review and approval prior to issuance of grading and building permits addressing
the following:
· Staging area
· Tree protection
· Construction hours and limits
· Construction vehicle and truck routes
· Dust and erosion control
· Garbage and debris container location and pick up schedule
· Signage advising contractors of the restrictions
In addition to the construction management plan described above, the following
additional construction activity limitations apply:
· No grading is allowed during the rainy season - October through April.
· On Saturdays, grading, street construction, demolition, underground utility
work and other construction work that directly involves motorized vehicular
equipment are prohibited.
· On Sundays, construction is prohibited.
7. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The project and future developments shall adhere to the RHS Ordinance or the R1
Ordinance, whichever specific regulation in each ordinance is more restrictive.
8. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant
to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice
of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications,
reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day
approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and
other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you
fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements
of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.
9. ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS
Prior to the approval of grading or building permits, a detailed geotechnical,
design-level investigation shall be performed for each lot proposed for
Resolution No.
Page 4
TM-200S-0S
November 8. 2005
development in accordance with the recommendations outlined in a letter from
Cotton Shires & Associates to Gary Chao, Cupertino City Planner dated March 2S,
200S.
SECTION IV. CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT
10. STREET WIDENING
Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance
with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer.
11. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS
Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in
accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer.
12. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION
Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer.
Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of
visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the
maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located.
13. FIRE HYDRANT
Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City, Santa Clara County Fire and
San Jose Water Company.
14. TRAFFIC SIGNS
Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City.
IS. GRADING
Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance
with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404
permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/ or Regional
Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. No grading shall be permitted
during the City's rainy season October through April.
16. DRAINAGE
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Development
in all other zoning districts shall be served by on site storm drainage facilities
connected to the City storm drainage system. If City storm drains are not
available, drainage facilities shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
* Pre and Post Development Calculations are required
Resolution No.
Page 5
TM-lOOS-OS
November 8, 200S
17. FIRE PROTECTION
Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the
City and Santa Clara County Fire, as needed
18. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities
Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of
Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of
underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing
utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the
affected Utility provider and the City Engineer.
19. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of
Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking
and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under
grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of
construction permits.
Fees:
a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $ 5% of Off-Site Improvement Cost or $2,785.00
mIn.
b. Grading Permit: $ 5% of Site Improvement Cost
c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $1,000.00
d. Storm Drainage Fee: TBD
e. Power Cost: **
f. Map Checking Fees: $ 3,250.00
g. Park Fees: $ 31,500.00
h. Street Tree By Developer
** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the Public
Utility Commission (P.U.c.)
Bonds:
a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site
Improvements
b. Labor & Material Bond; 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement
c. On-site Grading Bond; 100% of site improvements.
-The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule
adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified
at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the
event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then
current fee schedule.
Resolution No.
Page 6
TM-2005-05
November 8, 2005
20. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment
enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground
such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas.
21. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES
The developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtenances installed
to City Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water for water
service to the subject development.
22. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water
Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans
shall be included in your grading and street improvement plans. Erosion and or
sediment control plan shall be provided.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of November 200S, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
APPROVED:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Gilbert Wong, Chairperson
Cupertino Planning Commission
g:jplanning/pdreportjresf[M-2005-05 res.doc
CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
September 14, 2005
As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following
described project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee of the City of
Cupertino on September 14, 200S.
PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
TM-2005-0S (EA-200S-12)
Frank Sun
21989 Lindy Lane
DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST
Tentative Map to subdivide a 2.6-acre parcel into three lots
FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative
Declaration finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan and has no
significant environmental impacts.
" \
' ;
....~.~. 1::'êT ~ c C:vJ.
Ciddy Wor-dell .J
Acting Director of Community Development
G: \ Planning \ ERC\ Rec \ 2005 \REC ea200512.doc
&¡''!iN~''
, ¡'";...~
it.:,"''''
cm OF
CUPEItTINO
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino. CA 95014
(408) 777·3251
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
rI:;j~'t%f~~!í~~~~~~~i~E~1~1@~~![~~Ç~~í}g,~ld~~9,K.[!~fr:r~!I~~~
taft t)s.e Only. . ... ...... .
EAFileNo. €¡q.'20ð~ 12-
as.e File No. T\'I\-'U)()S' 05"
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ttachments.
Project Title: 3- Lt.~ Lìl'\~"I l~ SJoo\~V\$ 4rn
Project Location: 2.\~ ~ l'-bJ.j L.o..N1..
Project Description: I"'",,~J{>, 'P1\.!'C'ol M~ ~ .c;,;pa~ ·'I'AL C>.- '2.10
{""N'O \ ì ^p-- "'3 1",,4-:<
Environmental S~ 9: I
;~~1;¥~r,?~,;,~~~:'à:~~~¡' if" <.D~
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Site Area (ac.) -?I:;a c., Building Coverage - % Exi~~~~i~ sJ. Propos.ed
Bldg. _ d. Zone - R \ - 2-'0 G.P. Designation - ' . - Low ~Iry
Assessor's Parcel No. - ~-'2. 6' -~4
If Residential, Units/Gross Acre - I, I Lf J) U / r:. R. A c...,
I
1-5" Dv lit
Unit Type #5
Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check)
o Monta Vista Design Guidelines
Total# Rental/Own Bdrms Total sJ. Price
.
Unit Type #1
Unit Type #2
Unit Type #3
Unit Type #4
o
S. De Anza Conceptual
o
N. De Anza Conceptual
o
S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual
o
Stevens Crk Blvd. Conceptual
o
Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape
If Non-Residential, Building Area - sJ. FAR - Max.
Employees/Shift - _Parking Required Parking Provided
Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area - YES}1( NO 0
_.';~:'INÎTíAL:stUDY~6ùREÉ LÍsi"-' "':' "',-,'>~':--.' -.'0: c'-C;':;
"~,;:~:;;'.<L';..i~~:...2L::.;1ilL~...:"",:"^,,i~i':::",';:l:::';"¿";c;i..;..:::,:". ·:;;:~~;';::i~....'~:;;'::;;.~,,:~,,>;'-'-",:,::_··~··:~";:·'c';">~.,':,,""':;:;
A. CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN SOURCES D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES (Continued)
1. Land Use Element 26. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
2. Public Safety Element 27. County Parks and Recreation Department
3. Housing Element 28. Cupertino Sanital)' District
4. Transportation Element 29. Fremont Union High School District
5. Environmental Resources 30. Cupertino Union School District
6. Appendix A- Hillside Development 31. Pacific Gas and Electric
7. Land Use Map 32. Santa Clara County Fire Department
8. Noise Element Amendment 33. County Sheriff
9. City Ridgeline Policy 34. CAL TRANS
10. Constraint Maps 35. County Transportation Agency
36. Santa Clara Valley Water District
B. CUPERTINO SOURCE DOCUMENTS
11. Tree Preservation ordinance 778 E. OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS
12. City Aerial Photography Maps 37. BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant
13. "Cupertino Chronicle" (California History Excesses
Center, 1976) 38. FEMA Flood Maps/SCVWD Flood Maps
14. Geological Raport (site specific) 39. USDA, "Soils of Santa Clara County"
15. Parking Ordinance 1277 40. County Hazardous Waste Management
16. Zoning Map Plan
17. Zoning Code/Specific Plan Documents 41. County Heritage Resources InventorY
18. City Noise Ordinance 42. Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel
Leak Site
C. CITY AGENCIES Site 43. CalEPA Hazardous Waste and
19. Community Development Dept List Substances Site
20. Public Works Dept.
21. Parks & Recreation Department F. OTHER SOURCES
22. Cupertino Water Utility 44. Project Plan Set/Application Materials
45. Field Reconnaissance
D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES 46. Experience w/project of similar
23. County Planning Department scope/characteristics
24. Adjacent Cities' Planning Departments 47. ABAG Projection Series
25. County Departmental of Environmental
Health
A. Complete all information requested on the Initial Study Cover page. LEAVE BLANK SPACES
ONLY WHEN A SPECIFIC ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE.
B. Consult the Initial Study Source List; use the materials listed therein to complete, the checklist·
information in Categories A through O.
C. You are encouraged to cite other relevant sources; if such sources are used, job in their title(s)
in the "Source" column next to the question to which they. relate.
D. If you check any of the "YES" response to any questions, you must attach a sheet explaining the
potential impact and suggest mitigation if needed.
E. When explaining any yes response, label your answer clearly (Example "N - 3 Historical") Please
try to respond concisely, and place as many explanatory responses as possible on each oaQe.
F. Upon completing the checklist, sign and date the Pre parer's Affidavit.
G. Please attach the following materials before submitting the Initial Study to the City.
ý'project Plan Set of Legislative Document
ý'Location map with site clearly marked (when applicable)
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
\ >.- 0 c"
_c =1: C·-
-1'11- CG oñi 1'111'11- t>
.!!! !J !J ,c ¡;¡ .-... ,c!JY
ISSUES: ...- ~ 1-¡¡:5'1Go I-¡¡:I'II o I'll
C:!: 1I)'-1¡ C)Q. 11)'- 0. zo.
[and Supporting Information Sources] CI> C E en c ._.... I/) C ë ë
õ.~- Q)CD ::0 CI>.!aI-
D.m ..1- :æ!J ..1m
m c
I. AESTHETICS .- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 0 0 ¡¡!I 0
scenic vista? [5.9.24,41,44]
b) Substantially damage scenic resources. 0 .s.. 0 0
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcrop pings. and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway? [5.9.11.24.34.41.44]
c) substantially degrade the existing visual 0 )!J 0 - D·
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings? [1.17.19.44] I
d) Create a new source of substantial light or 0 0 0 0
glare. which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area? [1.16.44] .
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In
determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental
effects. lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by
the California Dept. of Conservation as an
optional model to use in assessing impacts I:
on agriculture and farmland. Would the .
project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland. Unique 0 0 0 EL·
Farmland. or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland). as shown on the
I maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency. to non-
agricultural use? [5,7,39]
b) Conflict with existing zoning for 0 0 0 ø
agricultural use. or a Williamson Act
contract? [5,7.23]
c) Involve other changes in the existing 0 0 0 Iia. I
environment which. due to their location or I
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland. to non-agricultural use? [5,7.39] \
»- 0 e~
_I: e"ë 1:;:
-IV- ~ IV 0 ~ ~~- ...
.~ u 0 .1:0:::0'- .1:00 u
ISSUES: ...;;::~ I--=.-cuo I- .- <0 o <0
c_ ""-"j¡¡ CIC- CI) ~ Q. ZC-
[and Supporting Information Sources] a> I: E en C .- 1.0 '" I: E §
õ.~- Q) en :!:: 0 Q) .~-
D..c/) ...1- :!!!'" ..JC/)
C/) .5
III. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the
significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon
to make the following determinations. Would
the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of 0 0 0 &
the applicable air quality plan? [5,37,42,44]
b) Violate any air quality standard or 0 0 0 ~
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation? [5,37,42,44] , .
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net 0 0 0 ..1'3
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)? [4,37,44]
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial 0 0 0 KJ
pollutant concentrations? [4,37,44]
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a 0 0 0 ,g¡
substantial number of people? [4,37,44]
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would '.
the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either 0 0 0 ø
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game i
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
[5,10,27,44]
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any 0 0 0 12!
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
I California Department of Fish and Game or
US Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44]
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on 0 0 0 ¡¡¡ I
I federally protected wetlands as defined by
I Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
I (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal I
---1
I 0
;>..... c ê C'- cë
_c ~ o'\û ~~.... Õ
-!IS....
.!!! ... ... .e3 .-.. .e......
ISSUES: ....r;: ª 1-r;:51Vo 1-r;:!IS o !IS
C ._ ::¡c·¡¡:.E'I~ 111'_ c. zc.
[and Supporting Information Sources] Q) c: E III c: E E
Õ .!?- Q)O) ~o CI> .21-
c..cn ...Jiij :æg ...Jcn
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means? [20,36,44]
d) Interfere substantially with the movement 0 0 0 ¡¡¡t
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites? [5,10,12,21,26]
e) Conflict with any local policies or 0 0 J8I 0
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ,
ordinance? [11,12,41]
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural 0 0 0 Eia'
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan? [5,10,26,27]
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the
project: ' '
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in 0 0 0 .~
the significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5? [5,13,41]
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in 0 0 0 .P!J.
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5? [5,13,41]
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 0 0 0 ~
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? [5,13,41]
\ d) Disturb any human remains, including 0 0 0 ¡¿¡
I those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
11,5]
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the
project:
,
\ a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
I of loss, injury, or death involving:
I i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as 0 0 0 ¡¡¡¡ \
I delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
I Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
\ 0 C"Ë
»- c "é C;¡
_c
-"'- '" '" 0 '" "'",- t)
.!!! u u .cu.c·-.... ..cuu
ISSUES: -""Š 1-c;::......ñ1o 1-",,'" o '"
C ._ 1/)-·-ClQ. 1/)'- Q. zQ.
[and Supporting Information Sources] Q) C E I/) C ¡:.- "- I/) C E E
õ3l- (I) OJ .:t::: 0 CIJ.~-
D.f/) -ICñ :æg -If/)
State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42. [2,14,44]
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 S 0 0
[2,5,10,44]
I iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including 0 0 0 0
¡liquefaction? [2,5,10,39,44]
iv) Landslides? [2,5,10,39,44] 0 )BI 0 0
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the 0 18 0 0
loss of topsoil? [2,5,10,44]
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 0 1i?J 0 0
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially result
in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
[2,5,10,39]
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined 0 0 0 , 0
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1997), creating substantial risks to life or
property? [2,5,10]
e) Have soils incapable of adequately 0 0 0 .,e.
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water? [6,9,36,39]
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS - Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or 0 0 0 ~
the environment through the routine
transport. use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? [32,40,42,43,44]
I b) Create a significant hazard to the public or 0 0 0 p¡J i
the environment through reasonably I
foreseeable upset and accident conditions I
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment? [32,40,42,43,44]
i c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle 0 0 0 ßj
I hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
i substances, or waste within one-quarter mile ,
».. 0 c"é
_c C"é c:;::
-ca" ca ca 0 ca caca'" ti
.!!! (,) (,) ,c(,),c'-'" ,c (,) (,)
ISSUES: ...¡¡:: ~ i-·-....iôo I- .- ca o ca
c ._ (I)~.- me. cn=c. zc.
[and Supporting Information Sources] c ) C E ",c;:._- '" C E .5
õ.~- CI) C) :t::: 0 ...2'-
o.CJ ~.- ::E c.> ~CJ
CJ .:
of an existing or proposed school?
[2,29,30,40,44]
d) Be located on a site which is included on a 0 0 0 .iJ
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment? [2,42,40,43]
e) For a project located within an airport land 0 0 0 IX
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? [ ]
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 0 0 0 - ,¡¡¡
airstrip. would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the ,
project area? [ ]
g) Impair implementation of or physically 0 0 0 ~
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? [2.32.33,44]
h) Expose people or structures to a 0 0 0 ,g¡
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires. including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?[1,2,44]
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
__ Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or 0 )2iI I
0 0
waste discharge requirements? [20,36,37]
b) Substantially deplete groundwater 0 0 0 ftI I
supplies or interfere substantially with
I groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a I
lowering of the local groundwater table level
(e.g.. the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level
\ which would not support existing land uses ,
or planned uses for which permits have been I
I granted)? [20,36,42] ,
I
>.... 0 c~
_c C'E: c:¡::
-111- III III 0 III 111111- -
.!!! <> <> ~ <>~.-... ~<><> <>
ISSUES: -q::~ I-.__~o I-;¡::III o III
C ._ U>:='~c>c. U)"- c. zc.
[and Supporting Information Sources] G) C E CI) c .- a- U> C E E
õ.~- cpt» ~o Q) .~-
...1'- == U
c..m m C ...1m
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage 0 0 0 6(
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which would result in
subst¡¡ntial erosion of siltation on- or off-site?
[14,20,36]
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage 0 0 0 ri1.
pattem of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, or substantially increase the rate or ,
amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site
[20,36,38]
e) Create or contribute runoff water which 0 0 0 ~
would exceed the capacity of existing or I·
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff? [20,36,42]
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water 0 0 0 .KI,
quality? [20,36,37]
g) Place housing within a 1 OO-year flood . ' 0 0 ¡¡¡¡:
0
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
[2,38] . .
h) Place within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area 0 0 0 . ..i/
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows? [2,38]
\ i) Expose people or structures to a significant 0 0 0 I&.
risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of
a levee or dam? [2,36,38]
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or 0 0 0 ~
mudflow? [2,36,38] ,
¡IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would
I the project: !
I a) Physically divide an established 0 0 0 2
I community? [7,12,22,41]
I b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 0 0 0 gt I
I policy, or regulation of an agency with
I 0
I :-,'" 1:'"
_ c c~ c= c
-ca'" 1\1 1\1 0 1\1 1\11\1'" tí
.!1! U U J:UJ::¡:¡" J:uu
ISSUES: - ¡¡: ~ I-¡¡:_I\IO I-¡¡:ca o ca
c ._ ( )'-'¡ C)Q. ( ).- Q. zQ.
[and Supporting Information Sources] '" C ë CI) c .-.. "' C E E
õ.fZJ- Q)CD :::0 '" CÐ_
a.rn ....Iii) :=::¡ ....II/
jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
[1,7,8,16,17,18,44]
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat 0 0 0 .Þl-
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? [1,5,6,9,26]
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the
project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known 0 0 0 Ii
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
[5,10]
b) Result in the loss of availability of a 0 0 0 Iii!
locally-important mineral resource recovery
site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan? [5,10]
XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, 0 0 0 &!.
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other ..
agencies? [8,18,44]
,
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of 0 0 0 ¡g
excessive groundborne vibration or
ground borne noise levels? [8,18,44] I
I c) A substantial permanent increase in 0 0 0 s
I ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
I above levels existing without the project?
[8,18]
d) A substantial temporary or periodic 0 Kl 0 0
increase in ambient noise levels in the
I project vicinity above levels existing without I
I the project? [8,18,44]
e) For a project located within an airport land 0 0 0 i4.
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
I expose people residing or working in the
)0," 0 c1:
_c c1: c:¡:;
-<1\" III <1\ 0 III III(\ ... ...
.!!i! u u .cu.c·-.... .c<.)<.) <.)
ISSUES: -¡¡:~ ....¡¡:....1ãO 1-",,<1\ o <1\
C ._ I/ ·-·¡Clc.. I/ '_ c.. zc..
[and Supporting Information Sources] (lice II) r::: .- ~ II> C E E
õ.~- C) ;t: 0 Q) .~-
j.- :æ: <.)
Q.t/) t/) c ...It/)
project area to excessive noise levels?
[8,18,44]
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private D D D !8l
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? [8,18]
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would
the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an D D D ~
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)? [3,16,47,44]
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing D D D ~.
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44]
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, D D D Œt
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44]
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered ..
govemmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant I
environmental impacts, in order to maintain I
acceptable service ratios, response times or I
other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection? [19,32,44] D D D ¡¡q
Police protection? [33,44] D D D ~
Schools? 129,30,44] D D D ~
Parks? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] D D D ~
Other public facilities? [19,20,44] D D D 19.
XIV. RECREATION -- I
,
a) Would the project increase the use of D D D J& l
existina neighborhood and regional parks or i
».... 0 t:~
_C: e"ë c=
-ell'" ell ell 0 ell . eo CO ..... ...
ell 0 0 .:::. 0':::"- .. ':::'00 0
ISSUES: ;r¡:: ª 1-~~1UO I- .- ell o ell
c: ._ I/)'-"i C) CI. tI) ~ Q. zCl.
[and Supporting Information Sources] SC:E (I) c: .- "- In C E E
o~- Q)CD ::0 Q)B'-
..1'- :ææ 0
a..rn I/) .E ..II/)
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
[5,17,19,21,26,27,44]
b) Does the project include recreational 0 0 0 Jðt
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment? [5,44]
XV. TRANSPORTATlON/TRAFFIC--
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is 0 0 0 ð-
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (Le.,
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to ...
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)? [4,20,35,44]
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, 0 0 0 .ß.
a level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways? [4,20,44]
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, 0 0 0 .~
including either an increase in traffic levels or
a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks? [4,?] .
I d) Substantially increase hazards due to a . 0 0 0 f3
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? [20,35,44]
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 0 ~
[2,19,32,33,44]
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 0 21
[17,44]
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or 0 0 0 IiZI
,
programs supporting alternative \
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
, racks)? [4,34]
I XV\. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - I
I Would the project: I
,
>.'" 0 C~
C'" C-
_ c nsC o'1ô
-ns'" nsns'" tí
.!!!UU .c 3 .-... .cuu
ISSUES: ...¡¡:~ 1-==1a0 ~¡¡:ns o ns
C._ 1/1-'- OIC. 1/1'_ C. zc.
[and Supporting Information Sources] .. C E I/ C ¡: .- ... I/ C E E
õ.~- øC> :t:::O Q) .2'-
D..I/) ..J- :æ;u ..JI/)
I/) .E
a) Exceed wastewater treatment 0 0 0 ,g,
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? [5,22.28,36,44]
b) Require or result in the construction of 0 0 0 18
new water or wastewater treatment facilities
or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? [36,22,28,36]
c) Require or result in the construction of 0 0 0 !) :'
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? [5,22,28,36.44]
I e) Result in a determination by the 0 0 0 E:!.
wastewater treatment provider which serves
or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments? [5,22,28,36.44]
.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient 0 0 0 IX!
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs? [?]
g) Comply with federal, state, and local 0 0 0 fØ
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste? [?]
XVII. MANDATORY FINDI~~S8FSI~~lFléANCE
(To be completed bY,City~taff)
a) Does the project have the potential to 0 0 0 ~
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or
prehistory? 0
b) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 0 ~
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)?
0
c) Does the project have environmental 0 0 0 $J.
effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? 0
PREPARER'SAFFIDj\,VIT
I
I
I
I hereby certify that the information provided in this Initial Study is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief; I certify that I have used proper diligence in responding
accurately to all questions herein, and have consulted appropriate source references
when necessary to ensure full and complete disclosure of relevant environmental data. I
hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within this Initial Study may cause
delay or discontinuance of related project review procedures, and hereby agree to hold
harmless the City of Cupertino, its staff and authorized agents, from the consequences of
'"'" d,'" oc d'=o"o",o",. . h
Pre parer's Signature ~
Print Pre parer's Name Co\;l"\ :::fJ
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (To be Completed by City Staff)
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
~ Aesthetics 0 Agriculture Resources 0 Air Quality
0 Biological Resources 0 Cultural Resources BJ. Geology /Soils
0 Hazards & Hazardous 0 Hydrology / Water 0 Land Use / Planning
Materials Quality
0 Mineral Resources ø Noise 0 Population / Housing
0 Public Services 0 Recreation 0 TransportationlTraffic
0 Utilities / Service 0 Mandatory Findings of
Systems Significance
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) finds that:
)¡(, The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
o Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have
been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
o The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
o The proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
o Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an
earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
~"\
\
I /¡"l/ Db
Date
n / I q / Cc;
Date
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
OF 3-LOT SUN SUBDIVISION, 21989 LINDY LANE
Aesthetics- Development of proposed lot # 1 is constrained by lot shape, slopes and
native tree cover in a potentially highly visible location. Conceptual building footprint
generates a residence less than half of the zoning potential house size and thus
understates potential visual impact from grading, retaining walls, tree removal, etc.
Potential mitigations include: deed restriction on house size, conservation easement
around building pad and City denial ofthis proposed lot.
Noise-- Project can generate short-term construction noise impacts that are significantly
higher than ambient levels. Potential mitigations include limitations on construction
hours and requirements for mufflers on the noisest construction equipment.
Geology/Soils- A geotechnical report was prepared by the applicant's consultant and
reviewed by the City Geologist. Site is constrained by seismic conditions, potential
unstable slopes, artificial fill material, known slides, etc. Both geologists concluded that
the 3-lot subdivision is geotechnically feasible, but site-specific, design-level
geotechnical investigation is needed when a new house is proposed. None are being
proposed at this time, just the division of land.
ERC recommends that no grading be permitted on this property during the wet season.
ç \ ,1.1 fl
L--t\<\1 \p 1\·. ~ r
August 15, 2005
Dear Cupertino City Council, Planning Commmission and Planning Staff:
I am the resident and owner of 21989 Lindy Lane, a 2.636 acre lot in a
RI-20 zone. I'm applying to subdivide the property into 3 lots. I
started at the beginning of 2004. In March 2004, city engineer
completed an initial geologic review of the subject application for a
4-1ot subqivision. Upon request, over the ensuing 11 months, we
completed the detailed geological investigations for all 4 potential
lots. As indicated by the city engineer in the feasibility report, the
geological studies included several trench diggings, small and large
diameter drillings as well as hand digging of large diameter well down
to the bedrock. The costly investigations and reviews led to the
positive conclusion by the city engineer.
In February 2005, after a meeting with city planner Peter Gilli and the
Department Director, considering their opinions, an application for a
3-10t instead of 4-lot subdivision was filed but returned on March l't
2005 citing insufficient building designs especially in the lower
corner lot. Having had many conversations with city planner Peter
Gilli and the Department Director, as well as another meeting with
Peter Gilli and Mr. Colin Jung, after addressing concerns of the shape
of the lower corner lot, building design and potential retaining wall,
I tried to resubmit the application but was told that Peter was leaving
the city of Cupertino and Mr. Colin Jung would be the project manager.
Over the following months, while I had been working with Mr. Colin
Jung, our adjacent neighbor Mr. John Knopp applied and within a few
weeks, completed the subdivision of his one acre lot into two
approximate 20,000 square feet lóts using my geological investigations
and reviews on my lots. On August 8, 2005, Mr. Colin Jung indicated
that I was àble to submit my application again.
A 3-lot subdivision will be very consistent with the adjacent lots and
the recent subdivisions on Mr. John Knopp's and Moxley's properties.
The purpose of the subdivision is to preserve the value. I have no
intention to sell or build on any of the lots in a foreseeable future.
In case of any potential co~struction in the future, the look and the
landscape screen along Lindy Lane will be preserved and no single
specimen oak tree will be removed. I will live on the property and
add~ess the concerns of our neighbors by avoiding earth moving or
outside constructions during weekends. We will minimize gradings and
avoid any visible retaining walls.
Thanks for the consideration,
~7é
L-
.---ç
Xihua (Frank) Sun
5\;~J-; ß
REPORT
GEOLOGIC and
GEOTECHNICAL
INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION
21989 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, California
for
Dr. Xi Hua Sun
21989 Lindy Lone
Cupertino, CA 95014
Project No. 2560
March 2005
~_ MILSTONE
, - ~ GEOTECHNICAL
Tel 408.353.5528
Tel 650.373.7704
Fax 408.353.9690
J 7 0 2 0 Melody Lane
Los Gafos,CaUfomia 95033
bsm@mHstonegeo.com
~_ MllS1. jE
f-~ GEOTECHNICAL
March 9, 2005
Project No. 2560
Dr. Xi Bua Sun
21989 Lindy Lane
Cupertino, CA 95014
SUBJECT:
RE:
Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Subdivision
21989 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, California
Dear Dr. Sun:
Milstone Geotechnical has completed a geologic and geotechnical investigation related to the
proposed subdivision of your property. The accompanying report presents the results of the
investigation with conclusions and recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of the proposed
project.
Based on the work perfonned for this investigation, it is our opinion that, ¡¡-om geologic and
geotechnical perspectives, the two new lots that would result ftom the proposed subdivision can be
developed with single-family residences. It has been a pleasure providing professional services to
you on this project. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this report, or require
additional assistance, please phone.
Sincerely,
MILSTONE GEOTECHNICAL
GEOINSITE, INC.
&
5 }uæ~
¿J~'~ '1. Co/€-
William F. Cole, Principal
Engineering Geologist, CEG 1202
GEOLOGIC and GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSEDSUBDnn~ON
21989 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, California
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... I
Project Description.. ............... .................... ............. ..................................... ......... ................. ..... 1
Purpose and Scope ofInvestigation ........................................................................................... I
SITE CONDITIONS ...........................................................................................................................2
Topographic Setting ..... .............. .......... .................... ............. ..... ..................... ...... ............ .......... 2
Previous Grading........... ..... ...... ................. ........ ..... .............. ...... .................... ...... ....... ..... ........... 3
Surface Drainage... .............. ........ ...... ........ ............... ............. ..................... ................ ........ ......... 3
Existing Improvements.. ..... .................................... ............ ..................... ............................... .... 3
Vegetation.......... ........ ......... ...... .......... ......... .................. ......... ............. .......... ........... ................... 4
REGIONAL GEOLOGY ...................................................................................................................4
Bedrock ..................... ......... ...................... ................................................... ......... ....... ..... ....... ..... 4
Geologic Hazards.. .................................... ............. .............. ....................................................... 5
Possible Landslide..... ................. ........... ......... ........ ...... ........ ............ .............. ............ ............ ..... 5
SITE SEISMICITY .............................................................................................................................7
Anticipated Ground Surface Acceleration ................................................................................. 7
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS....................................................·..........·..·.......·.............................. 8
Subsurface Exploration ....... ..... ....... ...... ......... ....................... ....... ............. ..... ................ ............. 8
Subsurface Materi als .. ................ ..... ................... ..... ......... ................... .............................. .......... 8
GROUND WATER ........................................................................................................................... 10
SLOPE STABILITY .........................................................................................................................1 J
Methodology.................... .............. ..... ,. ........ ............ .......... ............. ............... ....... .................... I J
Surface Geometry ......................................................................................................................12
Subsurface Conditions....... ...... ..... ..... ....................... ..................... ........................................... 12
Soil Properties........ ............ ....... ................... .......... .................. ................ ........................ ..... ..... 12
Ground Water ............................................................................................................................12
Analysis and Results .................................................................................................................12
3/9/05 - Sun Subdivision - Proj. No. 2560
i
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ...........................................................................................13
Existing Fill..... ................. ................ .... ...... ......... ............. .......................... ..... ........................... 14
Surlicial Soils...... ................. .................. ...................... .................... ............ .......... ...... ........ ...... 14
Steep Slopes. ........ .... ............................. ............... ............ ............. ........... .......... ........ ....... ......... 14
Seismic Shaking ........................................................................................................................14
Geotechnical Recommendations ..............................................................................................14
LIMIT A TIONS.................................................................................................................................. 15
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1. Site Location Map ..........................................................................................fo110ws page 1
Figure 2. Regional Geologic Map .................................................................................fo11ows page 4
Figure 3. Idealized Geotechnical Cross Section A-A' .................................................... follow page 8
Figure 4. Idealized Geotechnical Cross Section B-B' .................................................... follow page 8
Figure 5. Idealized Geotechnical Cross Section C-C' .................................................... follow page 8
Figure 6. Idealized Geotechnical Cross Section D-D' .................................................... follow page 8
Plate I. Site Geologic and Exploration Map...................................................·....··............·.rear pocket
APPENDIX A - FIELD INVESTIGATION
Description of Subsurface Investigation
Logs of Exploratory Test Pits TPlA, TPlB, and TP2
Soil Classification Chart
Logs of Exploratory Boreholes MGl through MG3
Log of Exploratory Shaft LDl
APPENDIX B - LABORATORY INVESTIGATION
Summary of Laboratory Test Results
Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Compression Test Results
Consolidated Triaxial Compression with Pore Pressure Readings Resuhs
Atterberg Limits Test Results
APPENDIX C - SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES
Critical Failure Surfaces:
A-A 'static
A-A' pseudostatic
A' A' toe static
A'A' improved toe static
A' A' improved toe pseudostatic
B-B' static
B-B' pseudostatic
319105 - Sun Subdivisiun - Proj. No. 2560
ü
GEOLOGIC and GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSEDSUBDDn~ON
21989 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, California
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of our geologic
and geotechnical investigation related to the proposed subdivision of your property
located at 21989 Lindy Lane in Cupertino, California (Figure I).
Project
Description
Based on conversations with you and review of a preliminary site map prepared by
Westfall Engineering, it is our understanding that you are proposing to subdivide your
current approximately two (2)-acre parcel into three (3) lots. Following the proposed
subdivision, the property will consist of an approximate 0.6-acre lot that includes the
existing single-family residence and approximate 1.0-acre lot to the west and O.5-acre
lot to the east that are intended for future single-family residential development.
Purpose and
Scope of
Investigation
This investigation was initiated according to our confirming agreement dated June II,
2004 and authorized June 16, 2004. The original scope of work was modified as the
project progressed based on input that we received from the City Geologist at various
stages of the investigation. The primary purposes of this investigation were to
determine the geologic and geotechnical site conditions, evaluate geotechnical
feasibility of the proposed subdivision, and provide general geotechnical
recommendations for site development.
The scope of work performed for this investigation included the following tasks:
Review of historic stereograDhic aerial DhotograDhs - Historical aerial
photographs (for the years 1939, 1960, 1963, 1965 and 1980) were
analyzed to identifY pre- and post-development landforms and to evaluate
geologic conditions and changes to the natural topography. We also
compiled and reviewed pertinent technical publications describing
general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the property.
Engineering geologic maDDing of existing conditions - We performed
engineering geologic mapping of site conditions based on topography and
geologic features exposed on and around the property including road cuts,
creek banks, and other surface exposures. We also developed four (4)
geotechnical engineering cross sections supplementing the available
topographic map with field data.
r¡:"---·--Ji..i:.~~- . -f--;"" .- \ Io\III fNM1II.!!!...-
'.. ~. MII( I.'. l' 1·.···-"'-··-....····--·1.r.u. :¡
\~;" 1b..\'~-~!fJj \~ \ \@ ll~~
" "..,p'.",. ' - ,."~-" .'. " . .. \,.
';', "\a" ,-,OJ: " 1. --- \ i' --';,
.'\i~~ ~l'4,¡u-~I"..l UJ¡"'~
·.,"C,;c\~~;~!;=-=;,~vÆ~· ~~~
1\ ¡t!~\::
\: ~\~! ~-~ITr:iC
'\ !f~-\ri7ç: ;~~>
\ ~I,¡ Ù:-;]~~
/' ~" ai' +' JlJ ~ _...,
'<. f'll .I"~IQ-I
~r~"cr "I ==:
Date:
. _ __March 2005
SITE LOCATION MAP
SUN PROPERTY
21989 Lindy Lane
Cupertino, CalKornla
Scale: Drawn by:
1 inch = 2.000 feet B5M
FIGURE NO.
~_ MILSTONE
1- ~ GEOTECHNICAL
1
Project No.
2560
Page 2
Sun Subdivision Investigation
Proj. No. 2560
319/05
SITE
CONDITIONS
Topographic
Setting
Subsurface Exoloration - We logged two {2} exploratory trenches, three
(3) small-diameter boreholes, and one (I) large-diameter shaft at the
locations depicted on Plate 1. Representatiye undisturbed samples of
pertinent earth m¡¡terials were collected for subsequent laboratory testing.
Laboratory Testing - Representative soil samples obtained from
exploratory boreholes and shaft were tested in the laboratory to verify
field classifications, characterize the subsurf¡¡ce materials, and determine
pertinent engineering characteristics for geotechnical analysis and design.
Technical Analvsis - Field, laboratory, and research data were analyzed
to determine anticipated subsurface conditions. Two-dimensional slope
stability analyses were conducted to evaluate the stability of a postulated
landslide and shallow colluvial materials.
Consultation - We provided preliminary data and conclusions to and
consulted with the City Geologist (Cotton Shires & Associates, Inc.) at
various stages of the investigation.
~ _ We prepared this geologic and geotechnical report with
accompanying illustrations to summarize the fmdings of our investigation.
The approximately 2.2-acre, irregularly-shaped property is located along the north
side of Lindy Lane in Cupertino, California (Figure I). Access to the property is
ITom a private driveway from Lindy Lane. Single-family residences occupy the two
properties to the north. The property to the immediate east was recently subdivided
into three lots for residential development.
A northeast-southwest trending ridgeline roughly borders the northwestern margin
of the property. Lindy Lane, which follows the natural drainage course of easterly-
flowing Lindy Creek, parallels the southeastern property line. Thus, the subject
property is characterized by southeast-facing hillside topography situated between
the ridgeline and buried creek, with moderately steep to locally very steep (up to
70 percent inclination) slope gradients.
A central, southeast-trending spur ridge underlies most of proposed central parcel,
and is flanked on the west and east by broad drainage swales. The eastern swale,
which comprises the likely building site for the proposed eastern parcel, is inclined
at about a 27 percent gradient. Topography in the proposed eastern parcel ranges
. ITom moderately steep natural slopes in the upper swale area, very steep natural
Page 3
Sun Subdivision Investigation
Proj. No. 2560
3/9/05
Previous
Grading
Surface
Drainage
Existing
Improvements
slopes approaching 70 percent in the southwest ridge area, and gentle to steep slopes
in the southeast graded portion of the proposed parcel.
The natural hillside topography has been modified by grading associatl'<l with the
existing residential development, Lindy Lane, and an accesS driveway (to the
existing residence and adjacent properties) along the northeastern margin of the
property. The existing residential structures are located on combination cut-and-fill
pads. Landscaping of the western swale has resulted in shallow cut slopes along
walking paths, and the placement of artificial fill over colluvial materials. The fill
prisms locally are thick as approximately 10 feet. Fil1$lope gradients are locally as
steep as 30 degrees.
A comparatively thin (approximately four (4) feet) fill prism borders the downslope
(southern) side of the access driveway in the northeastern portion of the property.
Cracking of the asphalt driveway in the this area is likely the result oflocalized fill
settlement that has been exacerbatl'<l by a leaking water line and heavy truck traffic
associated with construction on a neighboring property. It is our understanding that
the water line will be replacl'<l following cessation of the heavy truck traffic.
Drainage is characterized by sheetflow toward the southeast, where it is intercepted
by the stonn drain system in Lindy Lane. Surface runoff from the upper portions of
the proposed western parcel is currently intercepted by drainage swales and conveyed
in tightline pipes to the Lindy Lane stonn drain system.
An existing single-story, wood- tramed residence, attached recreation room, and
detached garage are locatl'<l in the central area of the property. It is our understanding
that the residence is serviced by the municipal septic system.
Two concrete retaining walls up to nine (9) feet tall, totaling approximately 190 feet
in length, support a cut slope near the southern property boundary adjacent to Lindy
Lane. Design drawings suggest that the eastern wall was constructed to stabilize an
unstable slope that resulted trom grading for Lindy Lane. We are unaware of as-built
documentation for the wall. However, wall plans provided to us that were prepared
by Hoskins Engineers (revised July 8, 1983) indicate that the wall was to be founded
on a 12-inch thick footing with a 12-inch toe, three to four (3 to 4) feet wide heal, and
12 to 24 inch deep toe key. The footing was to be supported on 12-inch diameter by
six to eight (6 to 8) feet deep.piers placed six (6) feet center to center. The plans also
indicate a backdrain with drain rock and perforated pipe. Exposed portions of the
Page 4
Sun Subdivision Investigation
Proj. No. 2560
3/9/05
Vegetation
REGIONAL
GEOLOGY
Bedrock
in-place wall appear to be consistent with the provided plans. In general, the wall
appears to have performed well to date with no obvious indications of significant
distress.
The area surrounding the existing residence in the central portion of the property
is surrounded with by ornamental vegetation. The swales to the west and east of the
existing development are covered with grass and landscape vegetation (including a
number oflarge evergreen trees). Mature oak trees are present along natural spur
ridges and side slopes.
The subject property is located near the eastern margin of the central Santa Cruz
Mountains. The Santa Cruz Mountains belong to the northwest-trending Coast
Ranges geomorplúc province, and are characterized by steep and rugged hillside
topography.
The property is underlain, at depth, by two sedimentary bedrock formations:
I) the ~Unnamed Sandstone and Shale~ Fonnation (Tss), which is upper Miocene
in age and 2) younger, overlying bedrock materials of the Santa Clara Formation
(QTsc), which is lower P1eistocene to upper Pliocene in age. The Tss bedrock
consists of fine-grained sandstone and chalky shale. The QTsc bedrock consists of
semi-consolidated conglomerate, sandstone and mudstone. The regional geologic
map of Sorg and McLaughlinl (Figure 2) depicts the underlying Tss fonnation as
being exposed at the surface along the axis of an anticline in the vicinity of the
property. In contrast, however, we observed that QTsc conglomerate and sandstone
is exposed nearly continuously along the northeast-trending ridgeline, locally along
spur ridges, and as isolated deposits ("float~) across most of the property and
neighboring properties. Tss bedrock was observed only along the lower hillslope
adjacent to Lindy Lane (approximately elevation 550 feet and lower), near the axis
of the anticline.
Geologic structure in the vicinity of the property is characterized by a southeastward-
plunging anticline, with the anticline axis located to the west of the property.
Mapping of geologic outcrops to the north and west of the property support the
presence of an anticline axis west of the property. Bedding orientations measured
1 Sorg,D.H. and McLaughlin, R.I., Geologic map of the Sargent-Berrocal fauli zone between Los Gatos
and Los Altos Hills, Santa Clara County, California, US Geological Survey, MF-643, 1 :24,000.
Base map Is mocHtied from: Sorg,D.H. and McLaughlin, R.J., Geologic map of the Sargent~Berrocalfau1t zone between Los
Gatos and Los Altos Hil1s, Santa Clara County, Califomia, US Geological Survey, MF~643, 1:24,000.
EARTH MATERIALS
QI. Landslide deposits
Qal Younger alluvium
Qoa Older alluvium
Qt. Santa Clara Formation (Holocene)
Tn Unnamed Sandstone Fm (Miocene)
Q Qts exposure (this study)
T T ss exposure (this study)
~_ MILSTONE
1- ~ GEOTECHNICAL
Date:
March 2005
MAP SYMBOLS
.,r
~
Geologic contact (Sorg and Mclaughlin)
~ Revised geologic contact (this study)
...--- Revised geologic contact (this study)
IY Strike and dip of bedding
@ Landslide showing direction of movement
REGIONAl GEOLOGIC MAP
FIGURE NO.
SUN PROPERTY
21989 Lindy Lane
Cupertino. CaUfornia
Scale: Geologist:
I inch = 1,000 feet WFC
2
Project No.
2560
Page 5
Sun Subdivision Investigation
Proj. No. 2560
3/9/05
Geologic
Hazards
Possible
Landslide
along the ridgetop and in subsurface excavations (i.e., LD-l and
Trench I A) also are consistent with regional structure. In general, sedimentary
bedrock strata on the east limb of the anticline (including the subject property) strike
northwesterly and dip toward the northeast at moderate dips.
According to the City of Cupertino Geologic Hazards Map, the property is located
within the "Foothillsn terrain, which is defined as "gentle to steep, partially
urbanized hillside area located west of the valley floor and generally east of the
Monte Bello Ridge". Specifically, the property is located within the "F_2n zone.
Development in the "F-2" zone potentially is constrained by ground failure (i.e.,
landsliding), seismic shaking, and ground fracturing. Most ofthe property is shown
to be within an area of potential earthquake-triggered landsliding on the State of
California Seismic Hazard Zones map (Cupertino 7.5-minute quadrangle). The basis
for this designation on the State map is the presence of steep topography and
geomorphic indications of existing landsliding on and around the property.
Geomorphic analysis oflandforms observed rrom surface mapping and aerial
photographic examination indicates the presence of a possible large landslide(s) on,
and in the vicinity of, the property. Suggestions of possible landsliding include the
central spur ridge (site of existing residence) that appears to have pulled away ftom
the northeast-trending ridgeline and pushed into Lindy Creek; and the two bounding
swales to the west and east of the spur ridge, which may reflect more pronounced
erosion along the possible lateral margins of the possible landslide. In addition to
those observations, is.a second, similarly placed spur ridge to the east of the
property, which may represent a separate landslide, or eastern half of a larger
landslide that encompasses the property. We note that the landforms are relatively
subtle, and not ftesh, indicating that the landslide(s) (if present) would necessarily
be very old (prehistoric). In addition, if the spur ridges have been displaced by
landsliding, then the depth of the landslide(s) would be greater than approximately
50 feet, and displace both QTsc and Tss bedrock units.
Despite the subtle geomorphic indications oflandsliding, no strong supporting
geologic evidence for landsliding could be found in site exploratory excavations.
Two trenches (Trenches lA and lB) were excavated across the likely western
margin of the inferred landslide toe, in order to determine the presence of shearing
or displacement that could be indicative of deep landsliding. In addition, a large-
diameter shaft was hand-excavated near the inferred western lateral margin to
investigate indications oflandsliding.
Page 6
Sun Subdivision Investigation
Proj. No. 2560
3/9/05
Trenches IA and IB exposed a thin mantle of colluvium overlying Tss bedrock.
Local loose fill in Trench 1 B is interpreted to be associated with the construction
or widening of Lindy Lane. Bedrock structure identified in the trench is consistent
with structure exposed on the upper ridgeline, and with regional structure depicted
by Sorg and McLaughlin (1975). No indications of shearing or displacement
associated with downslope movement were observed.
The hand-excavated shaft (LO-I) exposed approximately five (5) feet of artificial
fill over approximately nine (9) feet of colluvium. These surficial deposits were
underlain by weathered QTsc conglomerate and sandstone to the depth excavated
(32 feet). The degree of weathering decreases downward, in concert with a
downward increase in bulk density and strength of the rock material.
Northeast-dipping shears were observed at depths of approximately 22 and 28 feet
in LO-l. The upper shear (at 22 feet) is characterized as a \4- to Yo-inch thick, plastic
clay gouge along a relatively straight and· narrow surface. The deeper shear
(at 28 feet) is characterized as an approximately %-foot zone of silty clay with rock
fi'agments with a strongly developed shear fabric. The lower contact of the shear
zone is a very stiff, Yo-inch-thick stiff clay gouge with a continuous caliche stain
along its base. The upper contact of the shear zone is less defmed than the ]ower
contact, but still forms a distinct contact with the overlying conglomerate. The
observed shearing could be the result of either landsliding or tectonic deformation
associated with anticlinal folding and related flexural slip. The orientations of the
shear surfaces are similar to bedrock orientations observed elsewhere in the vicinity
of the property. No downslope-dipping shears or discontinuities were observed.
We interpret the shearing observed at depths of 22 and 28 feet in LO-l to be the
result of deformation associated with tectonic folding due to the similarities with
local geologic structure. However, we recognize that there is a potential that
landsliding may exist below the depth ofLD-1 (e.g., either within QTsc units, or at
the contact ofQTsc and underlying Tss materials). Consequently, we conducted
numerical slope stability analyses of conservative, but geologicaJly constrained,
potential landslide geometries to evaluate the long-term stability of the hillslope as
discussed in a subsequent section of this report.
-~
Page 7
Sun Subdivision Investigation
Proj. No. 2560
3/9/05
SITE
SEISMICITY
Anticipated
Ground Surface
Acceleration
The subject property, like all properties in the San Francisco Bay area, is situated
in a very seismically active area. The regional seismic setting is dominated by stress
associated with the oblique collision ofthe Pacific tectonic plate with the North
American tectonic plate. The boundary between the two tectonic plates is the San
Andreas fault system, which includes the San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras, Seal
Cove-San Gregorio, and other related faults in the San Francisco Bay area.
According to the U. S. Geological Survey (Working Group on California Earthquake
Probabilities, 2003), there is a 62% chance of at least a magnitude 6.7 (or greater)
earthquake in the San Francisco Bay region between 2003 and 2032. The closest
known active faults in the vicinity of the subject property are the potentially active
Monta Vista fault (approximately 1,000 feet northeast), and active San Andreas fauJt
(approximately 3.0 miles southwest). No faults are known to cross the property and
the site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo special studies zone.
With respect to the subject property, the greatest potential for earthquake impacts is
considered to be the ilctive San Andreas fault, due to its proximity to the site and
probability of rupture. The maximum historic earthquake on the San Andreas fauJt
in northern California was the Magnitude 7.8 event that occurred on April 18, 1906.
As a result of that earthquake, the ground ruptured for a length of nearly 300 miles
and violent shaking devastated many communities in the Bay area.
Various ground motion attenuation relationships such as those developed by Boore
and others2, Campbell and Borzognia3, and Idriss4 are commonly used to estimate
bedrock accelerations at points distant fTom an earthquake source. The peak
horizontal ground acceleration generated by earthquakes occurring at a point on the
San Andreas fault or Monte Vista fault that is nearest the site is predicted by these
methods to be approximately 0.65g. It is notable that the peak ground acceleration
with a 10 percent probability of exceedance during a 50-year period is estimated by
2 Boore, D.M., Joyner, and W.B., and Furnal, T .E., 1997, "Equations for Estimating Horizontal Response Spectra and
Peak: Acceleration from Western Nörth American Earthquakes: A swnmary of Recent Work," Seismological
Research Letters, Vol. 68, No.1.
3 Campbell, K.W. and Bozorgnia, Y., 1997 (rev. 2000), "Empirical near-source attenuation relationships for horizontal
and vertical components of peak ground acceleration, peak velocity, and pseudo-absolute acceleration response
spectra," Seismological Research Letters, Vol 68, No.1.
4 Jdriss, LM., 1994, Attenuation Coefficients for Deep and Soft Soil Conditions, personal communication with T. Blake.
S USGS/CGS, April 2003, Seismic Shaking Hazards in Califomia based on Prohabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment
Model, http://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/rghrnlpshamap/pshamain.html.
Page 8
Sun Subdivision Investigation
Proj. No. 2560
3/9/05
SUBSURFACE
CONDITIONS
Subsurface
Investigation
Subsurface
Materials
Unnamed Sandstone
and Shale Fonnation
(Tss)
Santa Clara
Fonnation
(Qtsc)
the California Geological Survey5 to be 0.61 g. It should also be recognized that there
is a paucity of data available for near field sites, such as the subject site, and that it is
possible that actual ground surface accelerations will exceed the current estimates.
As a mirúmum, the proposed improvements should be designed in accordance with
the current Unifonn Building Code (UBC) standards for static and seismic design.
Subsurface exploration at the site included the excavation and logging ofthree
exploratory trenches (Trenches lA, IB and 2), three small-diameter boreholes
(MG-I, MG-2 and MG-3), and one large-diameter, hand-dug shaft (MG-LD-I).
The locations of the exploratory excavations are depicted on Plate I (Site Geologic
and Exploration Map). The purposes of the subsurface exploration were to observe
and characterize subsurface geologic conditions, detennine the presence or absence
of possible landsliding, and obtain samples for laboratory testing. Borehole
exploration depths ranged from 24 to 32 feet. Graphical logs for exploratory
excavations are included in Appendix A.
The sedimentary bedrock materials are overlain by unconsolidated to moderately
consolidated colluvial materials and artificial fill materials consisting of poorly
sorted gravel, sand, silt, and clay. Our interpretation of subsurface conditions is
depicted on Figures 3 through 6. The encountered earth materials are described
below in order of decreasing age.
Tss materials were observed in the lower hillslope (creekbank) on an adjacent
property, and in Trenches IA and IB, excavated at the base of the hillslope in the
western portion of the property. Where exposed, Tss materials consist of a pale grey,
silty sandstone, with low hardness, weak strength, closely fractured, and moderate to
deep weathering. In Trench I A, a white tuffaceous sandstone interbed was observed.
Due to the generally strong and massive nature of the Tss materials, it was not
possible to obtain undisturbed samples for conventional strength testing. For
purposes of analysis, the Tss is assumed to share engineering parameters with the
qualitatively weaker QTsc.
QTsc materials observed in exploratory borings MG-l, MG-2, MG-3, and LD-I, and
observed in local roadcuts, consist of conglomerate, sandstone and pebbly siltstone.
Where observed, the bedrock materials are weathered to deeply weathered,
moderately hard, weak to moderately strong, weakly to well cemented. oxidation of
the encountered bedrock materials has led to the development of mottled colors
tea~ ul UO!tDAaI3 alDWpc:oJddV g 4~
~ ª ¡¡¡ ~ 0 g § ~ ... i~
~
~ ~ ~ <
~
i':~ ----lL l~
Q)::::I C "
~ c. 0
o ~ .(
" ".
, 0- " Z -'
cs: 0 0 !~
::¡
z 5
w
0 ~
~
Õ ~ !¡il
0 ï
..
u
w <I .!u ~
VI 2 . .
u ~=i <
VI Z ¡;.~
'" ..
VI \ u "- .-
o. M
0 w u
\ 5
r:r: \ w
U "
Q
..... w ~
"" N
cs: \ "
· 0(
0 tš w \;
\ .. \ e ..~
Z \ § \ .
:!: .. 8
U ·
s., \ ~
w oQE:. '"
.... ~ u
0 \ z
w '11 '"
ø wU
\ E \ zw
· °5
Q \ · 5"'
w ;!j \ ~
N
:::¡ \ \
cs: \ \
w \
9 r;¡:¡
\\ \
\
\ I \
\ë \
¡; \i ~
\ 0
'"
::e ~m ...
~~ <is \ Z
C .~ \
~ L
å êg
0- \
Q "-"
~1l
0_
1'~ ~
2D \
Ù' ~-
\ ~ \ Q)"C-g::Q
\ ~ 6 8.~
\ . ~i ~ g
~ ~ \ "'C '" Q.-V; C
~ Q) Q) ° Q.:I 0
\ :tiS %oi'tJ
\ ~ \ ~2 0.>0",.5
~.?:-õ"~'8 ~
\ ~ -&§~:§E8
\ <::; \ -g$,gæ~ð
s ~!2 S....~;
. \ ~a.Q~~g;
\ \ ~ \ Q. U 'C 0:1
-:; 0 C~:¡:: Q)
\ \ Q)~Oo~.D
:o~.8.91o
\ \ \ Æ-g,g Q).Q)~
.2oou..~Q)
I ~~ãiE:2-g
\ \ \ 8.tiß 5~
~EQ)'C~.s;
I \ og~Eõ
\ - U,,:: 'C:: 0 C
\ \ §-gD; Q)","!!!
" ..
\ ~o";Q)g:s
\ \ \ Q) ~-g:ti-: 0)
õ.E:5~~~
I ",0)1tIQ)1IJJ::
.§"~~g.~~
i': \ \ \ ë:l~Q)c'E
u-c-::QW ~
8.. \ .3~.ð~~Q)"¡
20 \ \ \ ""Ê-c 0)'" '3 2ì
~:::;"-.- - ~ tí3....Q)cø"'o
\ \ ~.æ~;;;'<2E'
« o ø ~·x >- ð.
Z"'C,_ ø,C E
g § ~ ~ '" g ~
~ ~ ~ ~
taB:! Ul UO!J.DA9j3 a~cUJIXoJddv
\
í
\
.
~
iD .. -~
~ae;j U! uo!~c^aI3 a,owpcOJddV tN
åI <
'ª iò ,. 0 ¡;¡ ª
Z ~ ~ ;¡; ~ I~
0 ..
ã:o ..
~ o'
aucl ^pUn Z
!d 0 !~
.'" ¡:
ci·~= u
U) ~
~g£!£----+ ~
~ .
~ ~o. ~ j
u~ 0 dl
K
u ~
f2 i \ :;/ ~f': "
u <
0 ¡:¡ \ z ~·i .~
% ~,
.- ]-
..J .. \ ~ w u
ê3 ~ \
\ ~~ ~
\~~ "
Z -!i '" ~
~
:x: ~ N
"
frl :; ;;
1 e .~
0 I ~
\ . \
~ ;§ -'
\ \ ~
\ Z
IÏI :J:
I Wt,)
\ Zw
N S5
::¡ \ II>w
~ ¿"
~
º .; I I
\ \ ~
.
. \ \
..
ð
c I I I
¿ \ \ \
\ \ \
I I I
¡ \ \ ~
\ · \ \ z
._ c
~ .~ *£ .2
· _i-ou
I ! I I g;<õi'
\ ~Û' \ \ _ >or¡:::!:
.~ CI>.,C 010
\ \ u .!;: u
\ ~~ .g]3õ
C :Jo,,-
· "'Q,IÐ'tI
Ii! I I g'~~ ~
\ \~ \ \ ,. 0:J
.~ a.E..8
\ \ \ \ -~ ~·o
o ( ) 111_
~.~ ~"'O
'ã""'- I I I I .Q£! ë~
!-go - õ~gã
~æ~ \ \ \ \ 01- 0-
.£!...¡- 5;.5
\ \ \ \ -g~"iiõ
o . c
VI ~u.!!2
I I I I a 0.9 Q)
\ \ \ \ ~E55
00)"'01
~u.. 11)=
~\ \ \ \ 'i5 E ~:Ë
¢lO<n1-
U"' .
.!2-cu'Ë
i :s~.£( )
"''if; Ii ~ '"
0.. ,;.;"O~:s~
Q c--·-- t!:! ( ).5 Ö 8-
Q..~ ~ O~~~5
a:I z w 0.
§ ~ \j ~ ¡;¡ §
~ ~
~ea::l U! UO!~0A98 a~owpcoJddV
.
o
.
(.)
z
o
!d
U)
U)
U)
~
(.)
...I
~
Z
:J:
b3
I-
§
fa
N
::¡
~
º
!¡J
~
u
Q
¿,
t'
0..
£:5.- ---
ÁDM9^!JQ
e~D^!Jd
u
!i!
~
~ea:l Uj UO[IOA613 a~Dw!xoJddV
o
;;
~
~
§
:0
~
.
C
~Q) s
&c- -- - >-
0::; 'C
_ C
~ '"
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
~
\
\
~\
"'.. \
¡¡;¡¡; \
\ \\
\ 8 \
\,,8f~. \
~Eu~
c ~ ~ 6
\¡¡h~ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ I
\ \
\ \
\ \
\
I
\
..
I
\
\ Õ'
&
\~
§
\1
\~
~
~
¡j
s
~
\
I
\
\
\
"}I
.. \
\
\
\
\
o
~
~
¡;¡
§
~
le~ U! uOllcAel3 910WPCOJddv
!i!
~
!i!
~
(
\
Ò Ò
z "~
. It)
~ f
u h
" ~-
z ~~
0
¡::
~
~
~ .
~ ¡jil
0 j
..
u
;¡¡ ô~o ~
f!if .
u ~
Z z· u
.r ~=
:¡: "-
u " .
~ u
Õ
~
"
c ~
~
N
::¡
<: ~
~ ~
e ..>
.
g
..J
<:
u
Z
w'"
z"
o I!!
51iJ
~
~
.
a
N
Z
-g4Jg
c Qj Q) ..;
11I~.sc
Q.Q)tDl1I
.Eu.EE
011:- Q)
~ŒI:ga..;
...~'t; o!1
~Q)~tJo
ê.c >- E §'
._ &..012 0.
ê 8."C~ c:
* 0 ~~,g
"0 15..a,'¡¡¡ g
-Q):I~
ë 0 a. "0 ...
~ § a.~ §
IV ,_ 0'5 u
:gŠ~o.£
!l>oQ)E't)
C5-~ Q) Q)
..c-g.gø:;
~~:¡¡~1i
_ c"'" t:
OO~OO
i5~"'~-
_O«;:j0-O
~~ ~]-8
Q) 0 ŒI C
Õ4);:>w-Æ
c: u lí u.S
,g.gæ.gõ
8';¡E~~
o .0 11)'-
... ::;:-=Ei!!
..0"0 0 =>
!!:1 ~~:,g¡
Ooiu·~
zu"CE¡f
í
\
~ae~ U! U0!l0A913 S\cwpcoJddV g g
'" <¡¡ 8 ... ;;~
c ~ § !3 ~ t"
~ ~ ~ - <
c / ¡, h
. Q
Q
z jj
Z ~ I 0
5
0 ~ I ~
/ / ~
¡:: ~ ~
ð ~ !
u 0 do
w I " ~f' ~
I u
ell :;( 2 u. "
~
iJ I I ;..{ .
ell u ..~
ell U i / z .: ~-
0 '" .-
u . .
u
~ ~
U I I õ
~
I I "
..... / Q ~
<C / ~
N
U :¡ .
Z ~ ~
I I e .
:c I I 8
U / / -
w / <
u
.... ¡¡
0 I I I ;¡;
w u
C> I I I z~
/ / / 02
c to"
w -
N I I I / ~
::::¡ I
<C I I / I
W /~ I /
Q
ia I . I /
, !
... . I ~~ I I
<>g / /
æø / ~~
~" ~
.Ii i:) I 0
I I~ '"
...
I"! I z
/ /
!' I
I I I
/ I
I / ,,~
( )=
I I c c.."tJ Q)
·Ë.~ § C.!!!.c
~ / I }~1J£~,g
/ ID...Q)( ) "C
1J tD 2. > '"
è( ~ Q) := § Q)
c .!! I ~-oo.E:;:::-g
ci: - · ~~ ã.~ g.æ
¡:¡ I __I-'- ŒI.!,;
.. / ~o°,","Qj_
· J:-"'~G.10
· "'~§ u:
/§~ -0 c::::: ~ 0._
I §~§o~~
I i~ I .-- ~ '"
~!:!1JQ)~¡¡::
I "! / I .,g a aU- ~.!!:!
/ 1 Cl>U E J:
.8 0'" 0 ,l-
I Q) .ªJ:: g.¿
/ __ -c;
/ · 2:- 00"'0 . Q)
;§ .9-o¡;~æE";
I o C:-'æ ( ) ~
/ õolÞ ~:se.
/ I _ (1"'- VI
~äu( )gg:J
I I Q c..Q ~ WECo
~ I / õE~~~"O§
. I '" 8 "':=Qj==
"-. I / c . ~ 16.. u
00 ,g-o'8 c~ C)$
ò:::J' / I I o ¡: Q) .....
g c£:2ð'§¡ §
I I .......Q)Q)4'J ::ou
I / / g.E.....~1Jõ
I .._ '" O).....~_
~ C):E.S 8.1ð-o
I õ·~";.~~O( )
Z::I..c Q) c.E:;
Q <¡¡ § !3 ¡;¡ ~ <¡¡
~ ~ ~ ~
~a~ UI UOltCA913 a!cUJpc.oJddv
Page 9
SUD Subdivision Investigation
Proj. No. 2560
3/9/05
Soil/
Colluvium
including dusky yellow to dark yellowish orange (5 Y 6/4 to 10 YR 6/6) and light to
moderate brown (5 YR 5/6 to 4/4). In LD-l, interbeds of finer-grained units
sometimes exhibiting discontinuous shearing are present witlún the more dominant
coarse-grained materials.
With few exceptions, standard penetration blowcounts in the Santa Clara Fonnation
materials exceed 50 bpf with an average of about 66 bpf. The average dry density
and moisture content of four (4) representative samples are 119 pounds per cubic foot
(pef) and 13.3 percent, respectively. Based on the low end of various empirical
relationships to standard penetration blowcount, grain-size, and dry density, a friction
angle of 40 degrees was selected for analysis purposes. Triaxial te$1ing of the
predominant clay layer encountered in LD I demonstrated effective strength
properties ofC = 927 pounds per square foot (psf) and ø = 11.5 degrees. For
purposes of slope stability analysis, however, the clay layer was conservatively
assigned a residual friction angle of ø = 9.8 degrees based on empirical relationships
to ball-milled liquid limit and clay-size fraction described by Stark and McConé.
Most of the property is mantled by colluvium (residual soil and slopewash) consisting
of dense to very dense, gravelly, clayey sand and sandy clay with rock fragments.
The colluvium is yellowish brown to moderate brown in color, and consists of a
homogeneous, stiff to very stiff, fine-grained matrix with 30% to 40% clasts
(typically 1/8- to '/..-inches), with abundant roots in the near surface (upper several
feet). The tlúckness of the colluvium varies from very tlún to non-existent in the
lower portions of the hillslope, where it has been eroded by stream flow in Lindy
Creek or removed by shallow sloughing, to approximately 10 feet in the axis of the
western swale.
Standard penetration tests in the colluvium ranged from 34 to .62 with an average of
about 45 bpf. Laboratory testing of three (3) representative undisturbed samples
demonstrated an average dry density and moisture of 117 pcf and 11.4 percent,
respectively. A (00) triaxial test perfonned on a representative sandy clay portion of
the colluvium demonstrated and undrained shear strength of 6,530 psf. A (UU)
triaxial test perfo.nned on a representative clayey sand portion of the colluvium
demonstrated and undrained shear strength of 11,230 psf. For purposes of slope
stability analysis, the colluvium was conservatively assigned a fully-softened friction
6 Stark, T.D. and McCone, D.S., 2002, Drained residual and fully softened shear strengths for slope
stability analyses, submitted to ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering.
Page 10
Sun Subdivision Investigation
Proj. No. 2560
319/05
Artificial
Fill
GROUND
WATER
angle of ø = 31 degrees based on empirical relationships described by Stark and
McConé.
As described previously, artificial fill materials are present over colluvium in several
portions of the property. The thickest fill materials are present in the western swale,
where fill locally may be as thick as approximately 10 feet. Shallower shallow fill
prisms border the downslope (southern) side of the aCcess driveway in the
northeastern portion of the property, and the eastern margin of the existing residential
development.
Artificial fill encountered in LD-l and boreholes MG 1 and MG2 consisted of
moderately dense, clayey and silty sand and sandy clay with gravel that is associated
with landscape grading of the western swale area. In these areas the fill thickness is
estimated to range up to about five (5) feet. Borehole MG3, located near the center
of the eastern swale, encountered three to four (3 to 4) feet of loose silty sand fill.
Fill materials encountered in Trenches lA and IB, excavated along the historic banks
of Lindy Creek, consisted of various mixtures of clayey sand, silty sand, gravelly
clay, trash and debris that are associated with filling of a portion of Lindy Creek prior
to widening of Lindy Lane.
Artificial fill was placed at the proposed development areas at different times and
using apparently different techniques. Generally, the fill appears to have been
derived ftom local sources. In some locations the fill was placed directly on native
soils and at other locations the soils appear to have been stripped prior to fill
placement. The density of the encountered fill ranges from loose to dense. Three
standard penetration tests demonstrated blowcounts ranging from 21 to 39 blows bpf.
One dense fill sample ftom the western swale demonstrated a dry density of 120 pcf
and moisture content of 8.9 percent. One loose fill sample ftom the eastern swale
demonstrated a dry density of 107 pcf and moisture content of9.9 percent.
Ground water was not encountered in anY of the seven (7) exploratory excavations
advanced for this project to a maximum depth of32 feet. It should be noted that
ground water conditions at other locations or other times, or during different weather
conditions may differ from those encountered in our test boreholes. Due to the
fractured nature ofthe underlying bedrock, it is also possible that isolated zones of
ground water seepage could be exposed at site excavations. Based on the infonnation
available to date, however, it is anticipated that ground water will not adversely
impact residential construction on the proposed lots.
Pagel!
Sun Subdivision Investigation
Proj. No. 2560
3/9/05
SLOPE
STABILITY
Slope stability analyses were performed to assess the potential for reactivation of a
possible preexisting landslide underlying the central portion of the property as
discussed previously in this report. Additional analyses were performed to
estimate the relative global stability of the proposed western lot during static and
seismic loading conditions. Potential localized sliding should be evaluated in the
context of individual site development.
Methodology
Slope stability was evaluated using SLlDE7, a limit equilibrium computer program
developed by Rocscience, Inc. Site geometry, subsurface stratigraphy, ground water
conditions, and engineering properties of the site soils as described previously in this
report were input into SLIDE to evaluate the factors of safety for potential failure
surfaces. The factor of safety is defined as the ratio offorces resisting failure to those
causing failure. A factor of safety of 1.5 is generally considered to be the minimum
acceptable factor of safety under static conditions. Thousands of potential non-
circular failure surfaces were evaluated using Spencer's method with continued model
refinement to result in the lowest factor of safety.
The stability analyses were repeated with simulated earthquake conditions by
applying equivalent horizontal loads acting out of slope to the critical static surfaces.
. This type of analysis, referred to as "pseudostatic", provides a reasonable initial
assessment of seismic slope stability conditions. Seed8 suggested that slopes
demonstrating a pseudostatic factor of safety greater that 1.15 when subjected to a
seismic coefficient of 0.15 for magnitude 8 earthquakes could be expect~ to
experience acceptably small permanent ground deformations. Although Hynes and
Franklin9 indicate that pseudostatic analyses are unnecessary ¡fthe static factor of
safety exceeds 1.70, Section A-A was nevertheless analyzed with a seismic
coefficient ofO.l5g. A more rigorous pseudostatic analysis was performed along
Section B-B' to evaluate the likelihood of previous displacements. In this case, the
critical static failure surface was subjected to a horizontal seismic coefficient of
7 Rocscience, Inc., SLIDE version 5.014.
8 Seed, H.B., 1979, Considerations in the earthquake-resistant design of earth and rockfill dams,
Geotechnique, v. 29, No.3.
9 Hynes, M.E. and Franklin, A.G., 1984, Rationalizing the seismic coefficient method, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, WaterWays Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, Miscellaneous Paper GL-84-13.
10 Makdisi, F. and Seed, RB., 1978, Simplified procedure for estimating dam and embankment
earthquake-induced deformations, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE.
pagel2
Sun Subdivision Investigation
Proj. No. 2560
3/9/05
Surface
Geometry
Subsurface
Conditions
Soil
Properties
Ground
Water
Analysis and
Results
0.32g, which represents the estimated yield acceleration10 necessary to result in
approximately six (6) inches of penn anent displacement resulting from a magnitude
7.5 earthquake.
Slope stability analyses were perfonned to evaluate the likelihood of a possible
landslide through the central portion of the property represented by Section B-B'.
Possible slides initiating within 100 feet upslope and downslope of the air photo and
ground mapping inferred scarp of a possible landslide were evaluated. Analyses were
also perfonned to evaluate the potential for both deep and shallow sliding on Section
A-A', which is believed to represent the most critical condition of the two newly
proposed lots. The analyzed surface topography was developed using the February
2004 topographic map that was prepared by Westfall Engineers and locally modified
by our surface mapping.
Contacts between geologic units are idealized from the subsurface conditions exposed
during the previously described subsurface exploration. Both stability cross sections
include a projection of the sheared clay layer that was encountered in LDl.
The following table summarizes the soil strength properties used in the stability
analyses. The bases for these soil properties are described elsewhere in this report.
The existing retaining wall was assigned a nominal shear strength of 100 psf.
Moist
Material Density
c
Existin Fill 130 30
Soil! Colluvium 128 31
Sheared C Zone 130 9.8
Weathered Sandstone 135 42
Ground water was not encountered to the maximum explored depth of 32 feet and we
did not observe indications of fluctuating ground water elevations in any of the
exposed units. For analysis purposes, ground water was assumed to occur at
elevations generally consistent with the maximum explored depth.
Static stability analyses of section B-B' indicate a minimum factor of safety
exceeding 3.0. Pseudostatic analyses using a seismic coefficient of 0.32g resulted
in a factor of safety of lAO. Based on these numerical analyses, there appears to be
little likelihood that the subject slope experienced significant displacements along the
pagel3
Sun Subdivision Investigation
Proj. No. 2560
3/9/05
DISCUSSION AND
CONCLUSIONS
previously discussed possible landslide.
Random searches focused on potential deep sliding that could directly affect the
proposed improvement area in the western swale predicted a static factor of safety of
2.87. The pseudostatic factor of safety against deeper sliding with an assumed
horizontal seismic coefficient ofO.15g is 1.66 with a yield coefficient in excess of
about 0.34g. It is notable that additional analyses using stress-dependent, laboratory-
derived shear strengths for the sheared clay layer yielded higher factors of safety than
those reported.
Static stability analyses indicate that the oversteepened fill slopes below approximate
elevation 560 demonstrate a factor of safery of 1.43 with the headscarp Qf the critical
surface approaching within abQut 25 feet of proPQsed improvements. The possibility
of mitigating the slope by laying back the fill was explored with stability analyses and
found to increase the static factors of safety acceptably to 1.58. The pseudostatic
factor of safety of the modified slope with a seismic coefficient of 0.15 was
demonstrated to be 1.16.
The methods used to characterize the site geometry and geotechnical parameters lends
high confidence to the slope models used in the analyses. Additionally, site stability
will be further enhanced by the resisting effects of anticipated foundation piers and
surface and subsurface drainage control, which were neglected for the stability
analyses.
Graphical outputs of the critical failure conditions are presented in Appendix C.
Based on the findings of this investigation, it is our opinion that the geologic and
geotechnical conditions at the site are suitable for the proposed subdivision. It is
anticipated that the two (2) proposed new lots can be developed with single-family
residences using conventional design and construction techniques for hillside
properties.
We conclude that the primary factors affecting the geotechnical aspects future
development of the proposed lots to be: 1) the presence of existing artificial fill;
2) the presence of relatively weaker near surface soil and colluvium; 3) locally steep
slope inclinations at the south end ofthe proposed western lot; 4) the likelihood of
seismic shaking; and 5) the need fm site specific geotechnical design and
construction recommendations.
Page 14
Sun Subdivision Investigation
Proj. No. 2560
3/9/05
Existing
Fill
Surficial
Soils
Steep
Slopes
Seismic
Shaking
Geotechnical
Recommendations
Artificial fill exists at varying locations throUghout the two proposed lots. The fill
is of variable and sometimes substandard quality. New improvements should not
derive support from the existing fill. Existing fill should be evaluated in the context
of proposed future development and improved as necessary. It is recommended that
the existing fill along the outboard edge of the private driveway be improved to limit
further distress, possibly by removal and replacement with proper keying, benching,
and compaction. It is also suggested that the oversteepened fill slopes at the western
swale area below about elevation 560 be laid back or strengthened by removal and
replacement to improve the factor of safety against potential shallow ground
movement.
Due to the presence of relatively weaker surficial soils and colluvium, it is
recommended that future structures derive support from the underlying Santa Clara
Fonnation materials. This may be achieved with a combination of partial basement
excavation and drilled pier foundations. Retaining walls and foundation elements
should be designed to resist appropriate creep loads imposed by the colluvium.
Slope inclinations at the southern portion of the proposed western lot below
approximate elevation 550 are inclined at up to 34 degrees. A shallow landslide was
observed on these slopes at the southwestern corner of the lot. Future development
should include evaluation, protection, and possible building setbacks from, or
mitigation of, the steep slopes.
The site is expected to experience strong ground shaking from earthquakes along
active faults located within the region during the design life of the project.
A peak horizontal ground surface acceleration ofO.65g has been predicted by
probabilistic and detenninistic methods. As a minimum, proposed development
should be designed in accordance with the current Unifonn Building Code (UBC)
standards for static and seismic design.
Future development on the proposed lots should be designed and constructed on the
basis of site-specific geotechnical design parameters. Geotechnical aspects of site
development should be observed by the project engineer to verifY that the
encountered site conditions are the same as those anticipated by this investigation
and to verifY confonnance with our recommendations.
Page 15
Sun Subdivision Investigation
Proj. No. 2560
3/9/05
LIMITATIONS
These services consist of professional opinions and recommendations made in
accordance with generally accepted engineering geologic and geotechnical
engineering principles and practices in the San Francisco Bay Area at the time
this report was written. The investigation was performed and this report
prepared for the exclusive use of the client, and for specific application to
proposed site development as outlined in the body of the report. Future owners
oftlús property should read and acknowledge that they understand the content,
spirit, and intent of this report. No warranty, express or implied, or
merchantability of fitness, is made or intended in connection with tlús work, by
the proposal for consulting or other services, or by the furnishing of oral or
written reports or findings.
The findings and conclusions contained herein are valid for one year, after
which time they must be reviewed by a representative of Mil stone Geotechn.ical
to determine whether they are still applicable.
APPENDIX A
FJELD INVESTIGATION
Description of Subsuñace Investigation
Logs of Exploratory Test Pits TPl through TP3
Soil Classification Chart
Logs of Exploratory Boreholes MGl through MG3
Log of Exploratory Shaft LDl
SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION DESCRIPTION
Test Pits
Three (3) exploratory test pits were backhoe excavated to an approximate depth of 10 feet on August 25,
2004 at the locations shown on Plate 1. The test pits were subsequently logged by a certified engineering
geologist and a registered geotechnical engineer. Following completion oflogging, the boreholes were
backfilled with lightly compacted soil cuttings to the ground surface.
Small-Diameter Boreholes
Three (3) exploratory boreholes (MGl through MG3) were drilled on September 21, 2004 at the locations
shown on Plate 1 to depths ranging between 23.0 and 27.5 feet. The boreholes were advanced with
crawler-mounted Simco 2400 drill rig using four (4)-inch diameter solid-stem augers. The encountered
earth materials were continuously logged and described by a registered geotechnical engineer. The logs
of the boreholes and a key to soil classification follows in this appendix. Following completion of
drilling and sampling, the boreholes were backfilled with soil cuttings to the ground surface.
Representative soil samples were obtained at various depths in the test boreholes. Disturbed and
relatively undisturbed samples were obtained using a 3.0_inch_outside-diameter, 2.5_inch_inside_diameter,
split barrel (Modified California) sampler with a series of 6.0-inch-long, thin walled brass liners and a
2.0-inch-outside-diameter, 1.5-inch-inside-diameter Standard Penetration Test sampler. Resistance
blowcounts were obtained with the sampler by repeatedly dropping a 140-pound hammer through a free-
fall distance of30 inches using a cat-head. The sampler was driven 18 inches and the number of blows
was recorded for each six (6) inches of penetration. The blows per foot recorded on the borehole logs
represent the accumulated number of blows to drive the sampler the last 12 inches of penetration. Blow
per foot recorded for the Modified California sampler were corrected to represent Standard Penetration
test blowcounts using a factor of 0.65.
The borehole logs and related information show our interpretation of the subsurface conditions at the dates
and locations indicated, and it is not implied thilt they are representative of subsurface conditions at other
locations or at other times.
Large-Diameter Shaft
A 24-inch by 36-inch exploratory shaft was hand-excavated and shored to a depth of 32 feet at the location
shown on Plate I. Downhole logging, in-situ testing, and undisturbed sampling ofthe shaft was completed
on December 23, 28 and 30,2004 by a certified engineering geologist and a registered geotechnical
engineer. Selected shoring was removed as necessary to expose significant geologic features. A graphical
log of the east wall of the shaft follows in this appendix. Following compJetion oflogging, the shoring
was removed and the exploratory shaft was backfilled with compacted soil cuttings to the ground surface.
<
-
A-
t-
t:
A-
t;
W
t-
~
o
~
D::
o
....
A-
X
W
ifi"\1
Q) "
;¡:UJ
'"
"
~E
o 0
","",
UJ
Z
o
\!)
'3
\!)
\!)
z
\
"--
'«
...~ ,/
~/
ð
- "
2-'"
" "
E-:fi
::::"N
.. ~;;:;
lltf)Z
S N If)
.Q"'tUJ
'\!:;£'3
"Ö \!)
Sá)U)
Ezz
o
"
"
~
!L
~
.<:
4>
Õ
\I)
.'
...
'.
~
~
q
"--
'«
o
z
<C
II)
2:"
_If>
~ L
.J:>
- 0)
0"\1
Z"
<C "
11)",
>-.<:
0) If>
~~
::!U-"
__"\1
11-0"
-' '"
« ~ ~
U::>~
-~-'
!':::ËU
b21f>2-
~ ::>-
.....00)
, - :>
~ '"
...."'~
« > I»
UJ
å
<0
z
..>I.
U
o
~
..c
-"
j¡
"
~
o
~ .
.J:>ÇL
..cE
If> '"
-"\1
~ 0
.Q-"
~è
::2;..>1."\1
:J L. .~
-~tI::
>"\1.;:;
=>;;;If>
::J:s ;,;
au'\!
U >- OJ
, "\1 E
-"I»
,r::¿ '" '"
'-J(f)J::
If>
'-11
11.J:>
~
z::>:t:
At::>
",""
Ct...\U
~~~
::2; ):...c
ci~s
o I»-¡;¡
1L.I::8
UJIf>-
...J~\f)
~~~
II) ~ g
0Q)..c
z~.µ
<C1Lj¡
I.U uJ .~
zz'"
¡20g]
II)!'-"
oll)~
0"'",
ZZ~1f}
<C<C~OJ
11)11)02
o -u
'" >-.- -
......~..t:.s:::
~ iñ~'µ
<C"\1c{3
Z Q) cu c
Z L L. -
:J~~6
I .µ ~ s
~~~~
"">~-"
o
z
w
~
=>
"
¡¡:
«
....
....
....
«
....
....
....
....
¡:
....
on
w
....
>-
l:1li:
o
~
l:1li:
o
-'
....
><
w
"
."
~c:-
¡¡¡¡.9~
... >-"
a..."u
o c: _
"":::10
a.. c:
z":e
::Þ~.
.. ~ I>.
"'''
U
-'
«
~
z
:J:
wU
ZW
0....
....0
~w
_l!>
::e
ó
z
_0
u '"
. -0
·ëC'>l
~
ü
:;:
õ-
. ::;
\2,,,,
. '"
( )
,¡;
Q¡
~
'"
"
..c
o
c
$=
Õ
u
~
...
¡:¡
,,;
'"'
'S
.. '"
. ::>
"5<
o
£a
....
A-
t-
t-
-
A-
t-
V)
W
t-
>-
~
o
=;:
~
o
....
A-
X
W
~
:5
::>
o
( )
~
o
c
- v
2-"
v2
Eon
'" .
E.<:
>-~
-",v
"1;
.:;,."
]8
t? ù
o ~
"
~ ~
EO
> ~
o E
~~
2 Õ
"'"
"
v
"-
õ..
¡j
'"
v
~
-'=
3
'r
-
v
"
E
>,
O\J~
V"
==~~
~",,-
.c c ~
"-0"-
~I.)x
XX
o
"-
<:(
-
C\J
ã
\.)
-
"
~
If)
't
^
"-
"-
\ .<:
t
o
'" c
:R Õ~
F_O
_v-
0'<:«
Il-~¡::
~..'O
V v
IÜ!!~
1-0-
~~~
o
Z
<{
(j)
>-.
±!'"
iñ.t
. 0)
0'3
Z'3
<{c
(j) '"
(j.t::
>-:(¡
'" ~
:::JO'-'
__'3
ILOC
-' '"
« ~ ~
GB~
- x-.:J
~ËO
!¡z",2-
<{8~
, - >
~ '"
...."'~
<:(:> IS'
u.J
å
«)
z
6 ó
Z ICI:I ZO
w .... -U)
0-0
~ .... .~C'>I
=> .....
ii! .t
U
Z '$
", 0 õ -
'-' ~ S l1li . :;:
C 0 .... g",
0) ~- .... . '"
E l:>- e>
alE ..... e
IS'E w
'" '" . O.>L ..... "
J=~~ IL iìJ ¡: GO;:
0 .>L00 ~ S ..... ~cõ ;;
~ C O,-,.t:: C;) ~~= ~
'" °èlS' <{ .. w
.¡:: IS' ~ ::> 1:'3 ..... ou >- " U)
C ~ Z \1 2 (j)1! A..,,() 1\
0) 0 I:>- >- o c .
'3 ~-i-i£ oEE '" ""- 0 .c
...~ c u
'" C zO'" 0 zOo- C
., S ),~", <~\5 =-:i .!j::
Š"''-' ~
0 0 .c 0) 0
- ~ - 0 '" ~ 0. 0
¡¡-" 00:;:; UJ ... ~ '" "'::> ~
'-' 0 Z ~è U
IS'.>L >-_ 0 ¡2 0
'- '- ~'3
o '" '3 - '- ....
C'-',-, .... ...
'-a (j) 8
'" ", C o~ ", ><
o .- ~ è~ ", N
~o z~ 0) w .,;
~z ~O)c <{ C N
::J<{ > => (j) .- '3
::J ..-" \1J ~ '5
-(j) :> C '" OZ'"
> (j S \1JO.c iD ::>
::J ::Jo ", ~tfJs õ<
-' >- -''- => 0
-' '" -'-" 0 <{0.2
00 00) 0) Zz ..
0 0,-, C Z<{.t::
JE. '" 0) =:I(j)~ ....
, ~ , '- IS' <
- (\10)0 , >- C
> -'3E \I) == ~ U
- '"
(30 000 ~J)-t) Z
\.)E.t::
::z:
wU
ZW
0.....
.....0
C;) w
::!C>
:liE
-
" v
v "-
c
'" "
c c
o 0
,,~
c c
~ -
-.<:
B~
v c
E v
01;
1; "
v v .
ij?; Õ
Il-:Rs
..µ ~ u
Jl !::I... L..
\,) E ~
~ 8 ~
'"
IU
...
o
z
"-
"-
N
A-
t-
t-
-
A-
~
en
w
t-
~
o
!C(
0:::
o
.....
A-
X
w
u
"
§
-"
u
~
u
c
Q
Q
~
"-
~
.J)
u
~
u
c
Q
.¡:¡
~
u
~
~
u
"
u
u
{!
~
<J)
~
. .>
'"
~
.<:
-e
o
z
If)
- ..-
~
~ ^
<J) "-
..- "-
^
...
"-
~
~
f--
~
~
u
~
~
c
o
u
"
'"
<:
"
>:;
.. E
~ 2
j¿' (\\ \J I!i
u If'¡ IU .~... ....'I
'" >:; E $ "
JSuO°'¡3
O~...µQjO
...µ ~ Q.)..Q E.
t: 'is> If'¡ tL""G
$ " 00 E <:
o c- f\':i \'IS
.-D,,,;: OR"'"Q If'¡
-t è~.8Ö
'" "'= èo
o > 4- t....
...~ $\J 0
-0 - . <:
¿ <-D ;! >:; E-
( ) -'-'"
-- l ~~...
O...:.:lS..~~
Z~E~~
~ ~ :::) q) 0
,,,,is >:; (L
>- ,,--
~"EÑib
tÕ'= --
4-~Lt...
~oelOUIU
Qu)<D (L(L
U) ¡ ¡ ~ ~
~
o
"t'
\j)
z
-'-'
.<: '"
~ E Õ
> ~ E
~ >:;0
" " -'-'
>--V E (L
-t~oeE
rn L-o r\}
D ""...- >:;
-.>:; ¡ "
G" '"
IS) \J ... t:
_sì3QJ
D 0 ~ >:;
Z L- If'¡ 0
«">:;. .>
If)'=''''
-",,,,
~tf ~ &j
>-U) "">:;
G I "E
.R C :::)
,,, t: ..¡:: i5
¿$O"
2e"'µE
>-"" ..
::1~~..n
::J <---"
'" è<:
Q>:; .¡:o
Uo">-
.µ>~
I C ~ ~
-S:lO"µ
ÕOl!)~
ULI,,-
.<: 0
",-'-'
~ " '"
~~~
U o..¡::
>-ti" >-
...è>lLO-e
<--...- <J
8l~
.. '"
~U1i..
U>
( ) '" E
-<--"
o ''''is
z" "
«'=E.µ
.~- '"
\JJJ'fl~ õ
¡¡'o U) E
>--...- ..
~ I ¡ "
U ...... ~
<:>:; "
::;¡ $ '" >:;
:) E. ~ 0
>-">:;-'-'
ª~~~
O\J~!ú
U 0 "">:;
,-'-'EE
'S::: :::I ::;)
(\ $ - -
ÕE.i515
U-"EE
o
Z
w
~
~
"
¡¡:
<'I
IL
.....
ó
Zo
-U)
U..,
~N
~
<'I
IL
.....
.....
¡¡:
....
en
w
....
>
II::
o
~
II::
o
....
IL
><
W
u
~
Õ-
"::;:
!2~
. "'
0)
C
W
"
..'E
>- c ~
....0.2
.:_=
... >"
..'Cu
o c .
"'-0
.....C
ZO>t
=>:.
on _ 0.
N::>
U
ã;
~
'"
"
.c
u
c
ã)::
Õ
u
~
..
~
'"
'"
'3
Q) ::I
Ô<
o
....
«
u
Z
::t:
wU
Zw
0....
....0
~w
_C>
::E
" k
~ ~
'" "
C C
o 0
U~
:5 ~
k-"
B~
u c
E l'
e~
~
~ ~ t
æ:R.2
... .j ~ I .)
t ~ ~
æ 3 ~
'"
w
....
o
z
...
...
SOIL CLASSIFICATION
CRITERIA FOR ASSIGNING GROUP
SYMBOLS AND GROUP NAMES GRAPHIC USCS TYPICAL
SYMBOL GROUP NAMES
SYMBOL
°o:~~",:oo:~o;::·o GW Well graded gravel
:/:o~·oo:oo:.~.:;..
w ClEAN GRAVELS WITH "~':':o~~:'. ..
CI)~ UTILE OR NO FINES ...............
GRAVELS ::::::::::;: GP Poorly graded gravel
:::!8 MORE THAN HALF 0·.·."0·.·.·
O~ COARSE FRACTION .:.:..:..:.:.:
CI)!i IS LARGER THAN . I:·r.o¡;·I:·r.,:· GM
NO.4 SIEVE SIZE ;.:....:.:....;J¡ Silty gravel
O~ ·~·r.·~·I:·r.·~·
GRA\IEI....S WITH MORE -...."......"...
'" '''..''
WF THAN 12% FINES ..::....::::"..:.
Za: %'h;lo);'h;:'% GC Clayey gravel
-:11 .. ~:"..."oo ::~.":."o.
<ea: ?t~~:::~:~f~:t::~
c:s SW Well graded sand
ø", CLEAN SANDS WITH
, -
W~ UTILE OR NO FINES
CI)" SANDS SP Poorly graded sand
c::I: MORE THAN HALF
<e~ COARSE FRACTION ..::r:.~....
OF IS SMALLER THAN .krU,JX· SM Silty sand
NO. 4 SIEVE SIZE
ü~ SANDS WITH MORE .~·.}F~'Jl· .
0 THAN 12% FUNES ..."i'://;::<'
" SC
x·:/J·;/.'-¿:j. Clayey sand
. . ..
..
w
> ML low plasticity sitt
w
¡¡; INORGANIC
CI)§ SilTS AND CLAYS ~ CL
-.J. UOUIC UMIT low plasticity clay. l.ean clay
-0
OZ LESS THAN 5O'Yo
Cl)z ;;:;;:; OL Low plasticity organic silt,
..
OF ORGANIC /U~
" " " / / low plasticity oganic clay
wa: / " " "
Z~ MH High plasticity sítt. Elastic silt
-..
~~ INORGANIC
SILTS AND CLAYS ~
ø!!l UOUID UMIT CH High plasticity clay. Fat clay
,~ GREATER THAN 5O'Yo
w~ ~
~z ORGANIC ' , , A OH Medium to high plastictty
u.~ , , , , ;~,. ., organic silt or day
t-
w .... PT
a: HIGHLY ORGANIC SOilS PRIMARilY ORGANIC MATTER 1........- Peat
0
"
Note: Blow-counls reported for samplers other than a Standard Penetration Split Spoon Sampler were obtained by
empirically converting the number of blows required to drive the sampler through the last 12 inches of an 18-inch
penetration to the equivalent number of blows using a Standard Penetration Spin Spoon Sampler.
Note:The borehole logs depict our interpretation of the subsurface conditions at the dates and locations indicated.
" is not warranted that they are representative of subsurface conditions at other times and locations. The lines
separating strata on the boring logs represent approximate boundaries only. Actual transitions may be gradual.
ABBREVIATIONS
AD: Auger Drilling
CAL: California Sampler (2-inch)
MC: Modified California Sampler (2.5-inch)
SPT: Standard Penetration Sampler
T1: Tube Sample (undisturbed)
B 1 : Grab Sample (disturbed)
~_ MILSTONE
1- ~ GEOTECHNICAL
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
AND
KEY TO LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BOREHOLES
LOG OF EXPLuñATORY BOREHOLE MG1
Project Sun Property Project Elev. -564 Project Number 2560
Location 21989 Undy Lane, Cupertino, CA Hole Diameter 4 inch Page 1 of 2
Drilling Equipment Crawler mounted Simco 2400 Surface bare Logged By SSM
Drilling Contractor Cenozoic Exploration Weather clear, warm Date 9121104
"a: w tii~ 1< .".
îŠ ~;;jw w"z rtii 0
ã~ z !!i¿' 11:8 UJci
~ê ""'i t~g¡ a."'" it_o I;:w ~æ GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
gtii_ 0'" ~co r¡::
~~ ßð w< w'" ~-'
~ o.¡¡¡ UJ II! UJ~~ Cz ci!: '" =>"
a. '" a.
- - /.>(: ARTIFICIAL FILL
18/18 MC ¡::).- .
>4.5 39 1- :/.:>~
T1 Clayey SAND: Dark brown (10YR4/3): -15% angular
- x</··
-¿:;. to rounded gravel to 3/4' size; -55% very fine to fine
18/18 SPT 81 -2- grained sand: --30% low plasticity fines; very dense;
38 - - h'- SC dessicated near surface, damp to moist below.
>4.5 ;t-"?"
3- ¿:/--
AD I- - /.../."
I- /.:/--
1---4- /.j.
l-
I- - ",/
~
1---5
18/18 MC ~ - /...?~.' COLLUVIUM
44
>4.5 T2 /....>:.:
6- /...?- Clayey SAND: Dark yellowish brown (1 OYR4/4),
~ upper 12" mottled with red (2.5YR518) oxide staining;
18/18 CAL I:- -: Y..:?~ -10% fine rounded gravel; -60% very fine to fine
34 7- ¿.~~.; grained sand; -30% low to medium plasticity fines;
>4.5 82 ~ very dense; damp to moist.
- ~:~;:~
~ -
18/18 SPT B3 1---8- @8' - Dark yellowish brown (10YR3I4).
62 1-- /../....
9- /../....
AD ./)'." @9' - gravel content decreases,
I- - /:/: clay content increases.
..
1-10- ;t./.- --5% gravel:
18/18 MC '..-.
40 - /.../.: SC --55% very fine 10 fine grained sand:
>4.5 T3 /f -40 medium plasticity fines
11--: /...:;:....
- ¿:;:.
18/18 CAL' i:;:
38 B4 f-12-
>4.5 -= ~./:
/.:)."
e-13- (I:-.:
AD L- _ /.:;-."
;(:):-
1-14- /:y:
I- - ¿:¡.-
...
12/12 >84 MC 15- /.../::
>4.5 T4 :t./..:
- /./;' @16' - gravel content increases.
-16 ..
o~.o.
- - r,;¡;:1 SANTA CLARA FORMATION
AD ~" 0·.
-17- r,ì::1
r¡:j::¡ Weathered SANDSTONE: Pale olive, yellowish brown,
- - r.'Ì::i and lighl olive brown (5Y8/4, 10YR5/4, 2.5Y516);
-18- ''':;i GM -50% subangular sandstone clasts 10 at least one-
r,'!:: inch size in matrix of -70% fine-grained sand and
GOO'o
MC T5 - r,'!::1 -30% low plasticity fines; very dense; damp 10 moist.
18/18 '>DO·"
56 19- r,:I::¡
>4.5 T6 ''':;1
- r,ì::
SPT r.:i;:¡
Remarks: * No liners in sampler.
~ MILSTONE
GEOTECHNICAL
^
LOG OF EXPL lATORY BOREHOLE MG1
Project Sun Property Date 9121104 Page 2 of 2
C'" w Iü~ > í5: ! ~;;jw 0
"'- ~!2ð
8~ h "'''',.- '!;!é e....crj 0."'8 0.",- ~~ ~§ ~¡¡¡ GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
81ü", 0'" 1-°", :=;0 ~w!(
"';: "'- O-E. 0. W ~:s:=; ~Clz w- ::>~
" 12 o.~ w '" '" 0 "
'" 0.
4.5 18/18 40 SPT B5 r.,r;:oo SANTA CLARA FORMATION (continued)
¡-- - ~::I::
21_ ~::i:' GM
~::¡:;
~ - ~::¡:;
1--22- ~¡.. ---~-----------------------
.'.
AD .°0"
r- - ì::!:~ @22'- Becomes predominantly pale olive
~"i:; and harder Oess weathered);
r-23- .'.
~::¡:; poorly to moderately well cemented;
~ - 'i:'¡: moderately strong to strong.
.:.
-24- ~::h~
~o'i::
- - .0.0
ì·:~i:} RX
>4.5 18/18 MC T7 25- ~::i:'
69 - :j;:i:;
T8
26- ~::i:~
....
- ì::I:~
18/18 SPT 0·':,·:
98 B6 -27- '1:·1:·
~::i:;
0°00
-28-
- -
-29-
- -
-
1--30-
r- -
1--31-
r- -
1--32-
. I- -
-
1--33-
r- -
1--34-
I- -
-
1--35-
r- -
1-36-
I- -
~37-
- -
1-38-
- -
.
-39-
- ~
Remarks: Boring terminated at 27.5 feet
~ MILSTONE No ground water encountered.
GEOTECHNICAL
LOG OF EXPLvAA TORY BOREHOLE MG2
Project Sun Property Project Elev. -556 Project Number 2560
Location 21989 Lindy Lane. Cupertino. CA Hole Diameter 4 inch Page 1 of 2
Drilling Equipment Crawler mounted Simco 2400 Surface bare Logged By BSM
Drilling Contractor Cenozoic Exploration Weather clear. warm Date 9/21/04
w ::i It_ -
60: ! ~;;jw <)
z ~~c & w·Ô :!:Ii; ~8 t3si
Zw ~íi ~.g -'" GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
::>0- -"'00 a.o:e D-ii,j_ ~w
~~ 0:"- ~~~ 8" 0-°", ",e~ "'wo- w" ~-' ",'"
0 w- a. w ~~ ~o~ ez ::>~
" 0- ~ '" a: "
a: a.
~ (I: ~ ARTlAClAL FILL
- - I· :1:.. ~
AD -1- I·Y~
- - L.I) Silty SAND: Yellowish brown (10YR518);
. I·Y¡ SM -15% sUban~ular to rounded gravel to at least
-2- LH 1/2' size; -6 % very fine to medium grained sand;
- - LI··~ -20% low to medium plasticity fines; medium dense
18/18 MC VI:.j to dense; damp to mOIst.
27 T1 3- LY~
- I·Y~
18/18 CAL' 4- :¿j..
COLLUVIUM
39 B1 f-- - '/../::
>4.5 -
5- /...?: clayel. SAND: Dark brown (10YR413);
r-- - /../.: -5% Ine subrounded to rounded sandstone gravel;
16/18 32 SPT 82 ~/'..' -60% ve~ fine to fine grained sand; -35% low
f--6- ;(:;'." plasticity Ines; medium dense to dense; moist.
- ;(:¡..
f- '/..):.:
f--7-
r y./'.:
I- - /../'.:
AD I-
-8- .~:~~~ ~ Below 8' - Dense to very dense.
- -
:¿j. .
-9- ;(:J-;.
- - ;(:).-
16/18 MC -10- ~.?: Below 10' - Very dense.
57 - Y..:<: SC
>4.5 T2 ./)..
11- :(.,1.
16/18 - ;«("
41 SPT B3 :¿/
e-12- //.
- //.
f-13- /....:{.:
AD ,-- - /..:1'.:
/...?,.
f-14.- :¿f
I- - :¿.'(
t- /")¡.,"
1-15-
I- ¿:)..
18/18 MC B4 -: «(:
45 T3 16- -¿:)..
>4.5 - ~:~~~: @ 17' - increased gravel content.
/./ .
18/18 SPT B5 -17 . ..J:.
61 - - /.:1:.1 SANTA CLARA FORMATION
>4.5 18- 1:I:·i
LI:.~ Weathered SiRy SANDSTONE: Dark yellowish brown
- - /:1:1 SM (10YR4A5); -25% subangular to rounded sandstone
AD -19:;- Lïc. clasts; -50% fine-grained sand; -25% low to medium
Lï:·~ plasticity fines; very dense; damp to moist.
- - I!i
Remarks: ' No liners in sampler.
~MILSTONE
GEOTECHNICAL
Project Sun Property
6", tü~ >- ~
w "'- '5: å ~;;!w ~¿'ð
z
Zw ~i ","'''' !;';,g .0 !L"'g
::>0- gtü!t -"'w Q.ü.i-
0< 8,g. 0-°", ::;0 ~w!<
¡§3: "'- !L w <1j~"
0 !Li!j W '" '" <1jez
0- a. '" a.
18/18 MC
50 T4
18/18 SPT 86
65
~-: MILSTONE
1- ~ GEOTECHNICAL
LOG OF EXPL ;ATORY BOREHOLE MG2
F_
!L'"
w-
e
o .
ifg ¡;¡~
~..J ;:)~
OJ
~ _ 1J:;f. SM
~ -I:U
21-1·.1:(
1·1· ~
- I·ï>~ RX
22- (1)(
_ _I Xi
III
23
- -
-
-24-
- -
-
-25-
-
-
f-- 26-
- -
1-27-
~ -
-28-
- -
f-29-
I- -
f-3D-
I- -
f-31-
I- -
r -
-32-
- -
-33-
- -
-
-34-
- -
-35-
- -
-36-
- -
-37-
- -
-38-
I- -
1-39-
I- -
Date 9/21/04
Page 2 01 2
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
SANTA CLARA FORMATION (continued)
---------------------------
SANDSTONE: Light yellowish brown (2.5Y613) upper
12" is light olive brown (2.5Y5/4); Disintegrated very
fine grained sandstone; silty: poorly to moderately
cemented; moderately strong: damp to moist.
Remarks: Boring terminated at 23 feet
No ground water encountered.
lOG OF EXPl,.;RA TORY BOREHOLE MG3
Project Sun Property Project Elev. -507 feet Project Number 2560
Location 21989 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, CA Hole Diameter 4 inch Page 1 of 2
Drilling Equipment Crawler mounted Simco 2400 Surface wild grass Logged By 88M
Drilling Contractor Cenozoic Exploration Weather clear, warm Date 9/21104
w ::; >- -
è", z ~:fç "'- '5: !. ~;jw ~<!>i5 :I: ¡j º (l)cj
3~ ~$ ~~ .0 . ""'0 ¡:w :1:" ~ëõ GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
ª~.! ;:-o~ Q.ijj- "0
~~ "'- 8~ ::;00 ::;w~ wLL ~-' ::>~
0 .. w <",::; ;:¡c c1!;
" I- w- (I) a: (1)0 "
.. '" ..
AD - - I·Y·~ ARTIFICIAL FILL
I·l·¡
1- ¡Y·j Silty SAND: Yellowish brown (10YR5/4);
B1 - - II ~ -25% subangular to rounded gravel to at least
18/18 MC 1:1: ~ SM one-inch size; -45% very fine to medium grained sand
21 2- (I.~ -30% low to medium plasticity fines; loose; dry to
T1
-= 1·1· ~ damp; minor roots and rootlets; slight organic odor.
III
18/18 CAL" -3- IT·I
21 82
-
4- VI·j SOIL
18/18 SPT B3 - - ::l 8M SiI~ SAND: Dark yellowish brown (10YR4/4);
12 -5- Lï:.~ -6 % v~ fine to fine grained sand; -35% low to
- I·F.¡ medium p asticity fines; loose to medium dense;
I·ï:·¡ damp to moist; minor roots and rootiets.
-6 ../.
AD - - "/.:)." COLLUVIUM
-7- :i/.'
;:J-.: Clayey SAND: Dark yellowish brown (10YR416);
18/18 MC I- - /:/: -2% very fine subrounded to rounded ~avel;
40 8- X:}.- -60% ve~ fine to fine grained sand; - % medium
>4.5 T2 ..... plasticity ines; dense to very dense; moist
- x../.~
/}..
18/18 9- /:/:
SPT
>4.5 40 84 I- - /..:/.~
10- x../.." 8C
x:/.·
I- - x../.:
1-11- i(.?"
I- - ;t/
AD ¿.j."
1-12- /:/,
I- - ;¡:./."
1-13- /.../.:
¿:;.-
18/18 MC T3 /.../.: SANTA CLARA FORMA TlON
52 14 14- ;t:;'.
>4.5 - ~./.: 8C Highly Weathered SANDSTONE:
1-15- /../" Dark yellowish brown (10YR4/4);
18/18 SPT 85 I- -/...:/." inaeased gravel content; dense to very dense.
42 I- - -/.7' -- ------------~---------------
16- /.j'
- - /.:;" Weathered SANDSTONE: Dark yellowish brown
- /j.. (10YR416); -15% subangular to subrounded
-17- ;¿:}.. sandstone clasts: -60% very fine to fine grained
- - /.../.: sand: -25% low to medium plasticity fines; very
SC dense: damp to moist.
AD -18- ¿:}..
- - /. :). ~
- /.:?:
-19- -/:)..
- - ;t/.
¡:.;..
Remarks: " No liners in sampler.
~ MILSTONE
GEOTECHNICAL
LOG OF EXPli n A TORY BOREHOLE MG3
Project Sun Property Dale 9/21104 Page 2 of 2
ó'" ;,¡ >- -
w t¡¡~", '" 'Ïi ! ~~w w'õ "
Zw Z ~¿ "'<!J F_ iÊg g~
5~ ~¡ "'t¡¡... " . ""'8 a..ëi5-
0'" -~"' ::¡o .." GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
~s: "'- 8 - "c t:°æ ;jj~::> ::!w~ w- ~... ::>0
<> ..¡¡¡ w= '" '" ;jjoz 0 <!J
I- .. '" ..
9/9 3413" MC . - SANTA CLARA FORMATION (continued)
T5 ;(:/'."
- /:¡.:
~21- //.. SC
.'-.
I- - ;.:.;~
1-22- :"t";; -- _ __ _ _§eJo~ ~ ~'{.ery.!J~~<!"iI!i,!g-,-__ _ _ ___
AD I- ¡¡>¡
- - I:H SANDSTONE: Dark yellowish brown (10YR416);
-23- LI:.¡ -35% subangular sandstone dasts; -45% very
- - I-Y·¡ RX fine to fine grained sand; -20% low plasticity
LI:·¡ fines; poorly to moderately cemented;
4/4 34/4" MC T6 24- ¡<IC¡ moderately strong to strong; damp to moist.
U·¡
4/4 100/4" SPT l3õ - - .·,C·
-25-
- -
-26-
- -
-27-
- -
-28-
- -
-29-
- -
-
-30-
- -
-31-
f-- -
1-32-
I- -
1-33-
I- -
1-34-
I- -
1-35-
I- -
1-36-
- -
-37-
- -
-38-
- -
-39-
- -
Remarks: Boring terminated at 24.7 feet.
~ MILSTONE No ground water encountered.
GEOTECHNICAL
Depth (ft)
o
4
8
12-
16-
20-
24-
__ N30W
lOG OF EXPl RATORY SHAFT LDl
ARTIFICIAL FILL
Clayey SAND (SC) with rock fragments;
dark brown (I OYR4/3); medium dense.
shoring (typical)
COLWVIUM
Sandy CLAY / clayey SAND (SC/CH) with
rock fragments; Moderate brown (5YR3/4)
and dark yellowish brown (I OYR4/4);
-30 to 40% angular to subrounded
sandstone clasts generally I /8 to 3/4-Inch
size; stiff to very stiff; damp to mOist;
Pocket Penetrometer> 4.5 tsf.
WEATHERED SANDSTONE AND CONGLOMERATE
(Santa Clara Formation)
Mixed colors - dusky yellow, dark yellow orange,
and light olive brown (5YG/4, I OYRG/G, 2.5Y5/G);
more conglomerate below 22 feet; clast size
Increases with depth; moderately strong; loose
. to moderately well cemented.
.~ ~ ,J:~ èSHEAR: @ 22' _ SHEAR, Pale gray plastic clay;
"'. ,. ,00_,. ) N4O\N, 43NE continuous around shaft but thickness IS
_ _ l variable ( 1/4- 1/2 Inch).
.' N20E,24NW @ 28' - SHEAR: Dusky yellow (5YG/4),
plastic clay with rock fragments, shear
fabric; abundant Internal, discontinuous,
subparallel shears. Upper contact IS
gradational over one Inch. Lower 1/2-
Inch IS pale gray, very stiff clay, 1/8-Inch
caliche stain. Penetrometer> 4.5 tsf.
28-
32 -
LOG OF EXPLORATORY SHAFT LD1
FIGURE NO.
Date:
December 2005
SUN PROPERTY
21989 Undy Lane
Cupertina. Califarnla
Scale:
1 inch = 4 feet
Project No.
2650
~_ MILSTONE
"'- ~ GEOTECHNICAL
LD1
Engineer I Geoplogist:
BSM/WFC
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY INVESTIGATION
Summary of Laboratory Test Results
Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Compression
Consolidated Triaxial Compression with Pore Pressure
Particle Size Distribution
Atterberg Limits
::I
» ~ ~
" ~ <:>
Ü .... 0 ...
E ~
~
'0 ::I
.. .Si
.. - - ç ~ ¡.., Ó;!:
'0 .. ~ '"' a- ... <:> '0 a- N
.. .. ~ 0
= - .c '" ... ... - V> '0 N or> ...
.. .. .... ~ ... '" <:>
- = -
OJ) ..
ø..
OJ) ~
.. ~ - 00
.. - "" ~ V>
.c ïš 0 N -
.. ~ ~ ~
.. ;:;¡ ...¡ ~ ... I"-
-
- ...¡ 0 ... V>
« ~
'0 ~
.. -=
::I .. ~ti <:> <:> -5
ë .. '" '"
.. N. bI)
-= ::I '"' or> Iii
'0 OJ) e ~ .¿ -
= - - Þ
:::0 OJ) 0
-;:¡
-
B
ç ~'ß:¡ II
. ~ ....
.. -= ~ I"- .s
.. bi.u ~ <:> N
.. .. ... a-
= ~ e 00 bI)
-= .. $ ~ ~
OJ) .. OJ) "1
- .. -
OJ) '0 '" -
~ - ..
.:::
-
"
!!J
» "
t' ;':: ç - N ": r-: ... 0 N 00 '0 V> - II
0 .... ci ci a- - N -é ,..: ,..: ci ci '" µ:¡
~ = '"' N - - N N - <:> - - N 0
.. ~ - - - - - - - - - - -
~ J¡j
"
E
"
~
.. - ~
'" .. = ..
... ::I .. ~ a- ~ 00 ... ~ ... a- ": I"- '0 l"- E
- - - ~ ... :i. -é N ci
:0 ~ ::I 0 oÖ a- '" N '" '" "
'" "S " ~ - - - - - N ~
&! ~ U ::I
~
0
"
... k
'" OS Po
" '8 "
... ~ ~ g ~ ~ k
0
." <2 u u u " " " " " Po
'" OJ) OJ) = = OJ) = = = S'
- .~ õi ~ ~ ~ ~ B ~ ~ B B B :€ ~
"
.- O -= "¡: S S S S 0 .~ ~ 0 ~ U
¡:.., U 1:: " ." ." ." ." ." ~ ~ ii
.. - ::I .E! .E! " ª ª ª ª ª
." r>1 .. '> ] ;> "> g ;;;
= Ô ~ .a .a .a 0 ~ ;> 0 0 ~ $ -;:¡
<= ¡¡: ¡¡: .a ¡¡: ¡¡: ¡¡: " .~
" .~ Õ Õ õ "8 õ -;:¡
~ ;:: " .... .... .... :~ 'þ
Q)
Q §' Þ1š
...
" <= U "1 -g -ª
... 0 C! "1 or> V> l"- V> V>
Q "¡¡¡ ~ "1 C! - or> '" V> or> ... ci ... oÖ .5.a
-= N
.c .~ - ~ or> - - - N - N N N .. =
" ;> '"'<::: I I I I I I I I I I I -6 ::I
,.;¡ :a ....¡ .. ~ C! "1 V> C! 0 <:> 0 N <:> <:> =."
.g ~ ci '" C! N .. ci ... oÖ ::I "
~ € -6 - or> V> V> ¡¡~
- - - N - N N N
'"
~ Q) <= .; li:i:.:::
." p.. .~ :s 0
" Q) 0 ....¡ O¡ Z 0
a '" ... õ .. - e '" t; '0 l"- E ... '0 '0 - Õ =
o p.. '" f:ë f:ë f:ë f:ë f:ë f:ë f:ë 0 0
a 00 ..c: "is. f:ë = "
p.. <= '" .. e - - - - - - '" '" '" '" - 8:3
.. 0 ~ 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 0
:0 8 '" - " .. ::s ::s ~ ::s ::E ::s ::E t:1
'" p.. '" N ~ OJ) ...¡ . ~
15.0
~ 10.0
..
..
1:
'"
~
to
..
.c
(I) 5.0
0.0
0.0
..~ßx<~&~'ri~;);t~~;-\~1îtÆi~~~¡i$;';~¿~4'$t~*ž~W~~~~~<t~Ä\l
5.0
10.0
Total NonnalSuess,ksf
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
Sam Ie Data
Stress-Strain Curves 1 2 3 4
-Sample 1 Moisture % 9.9 14.8
- Sample 2 Density pcf 110.2 119.4
25.00 Void Ratio 0.530 0.411
Saturation % 50.6 97.0
Height in 5.00 5.01
Diameter in 2.42 2.39
Cell psi 6.9 13.9
20.00 Strain % 2.50 6.30
Deviator, ksf 13.065 22.465
Rate %/min 1.00 1.00
in/min 0.050 0.050
';; Job No.: 097 -Ø98
... 15.00
.. Client: MUstone Geotechnical
.. Project: Sun - 2560
I!!
¡;; Boring: MG1 MG1
~
S Sample: T2 T3
.!!!
~ 10.00 De th ft: 5.5 10.5
c Visual Soil Descri tion
Sample #
1 Brown Cia e SAND with Gravel
5.00 2 Brown Sand Lean CLAY with Gravel
3
4
Remarks:
0.00
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
Strain, %
-
5 9 12 15 18
Total Normal Stress, ksf
Effective Normal Stress, ksf -- --
SAMPLE NO. : 1 2 3
4-
~
$.
'J
TOTAL EFFECTIVE
C, ksf 0.840 0.927
~, deg 9.1 11.5
TAN q 0.15 0.20
5
~
~
~
L
+'
(J)
L
~
~
.£:
(J)
3
...~:~~
;.;.;'7'
o
.....--~---
---'--r"
·1
o
3
5
5
4-
~ 4
$.
.
~
~
~ 3
L
+'
(J)
L 2
0
+'
~
~
~ 1
'"
. -
--
-
-~-
"';.:.;'-~-
··..r..
\.u
.-.--\
.....,
.-~....
. ... ..\--
..... ·1
. .....-.---..-. WATER CONTENT, %
3 -' DRY DENSITY, pef
([
H SATURATI ON, %
>-- VOID RATIO
H
z: DIAMETER, in
2 H
HEIGHT, in
WATER CONTENT, %
>-- DRY DENS ITY , pef
(J)
1 w SATURATION, %
>-- VOID RAT IO
>-- DIAMETER, in
([
HEIGHT, in
o
o
5
10
15
Rxial Strain,
%
TYPE OF TEST:
CU with Pore Pressures
SAMPLE TYPE: Undisturbed
DESCRIPTION: Pale Brawn Sand~
Fat CLAY
ASSUMED SPECIFIC GRAVITY~ 2.75
REMARKS: Multi-Stage.
Nonlinear strength envelope.
Linear best fit ma~ overstate
apparent cohesion.
Fi g. No.:
Strain rate, %/min
EFF CELL PRESSURE, ksf
Deviator Stress, ksf
EXCESS PORE PR., ksf
STRAIN, %
ULT. STRESS, ksf
20 EXCESS PORE PR., ksf
STRAIN, %
0, FAILURE, ksf
03 FAILURE, ksf
-
...;;.,:.;___n...
...;:;;.:.~-
;.;.:.~-
20.7 20.7 20.7
109.1 109.1 109.1
'3'3.3 '3'3.3 '3'3.3
0.573 0.573 0.573
2.422 2.422 2.422
5.050 5.050 5.050
22.8 21.9 21. 3
105.5 107.1 108.2
100.0 100.0 100.0
0.525 0.502 0.585
2.463 2.495 2.545
5.050 4.847 4.512
0.04 0.04 0.04
2.03 5.00 7.99
2.71 3.94 4.97
1. 04 1. 97 2.53
4.6 5.8 5.5
3.70
0.99
5.95 10.43
3.02 5.45
CLIENT: Milstane Geotechnical
PROJECT: Sun - 2550
SAMPLE LOCATION: LD-l, Tl
PROJ. NO.: 097-098
TRIRXIAL SHEAR TEST REPORT
DATE: 1/27/05
COOPER TESTING LRBORRTORY
5.0 5.0
4.0 4.0
~
L ~
::J ~
en ~ 3.0 3.0
en L
~ +' '+-
L en ~
(L "'
L 2.0 2.0
~ 0
L +'
0 ~
(L
:>
en ~ 1.0 1.0
en '"
~
u
x
W
0.0 0.0
0% 8% 16% 0% 8% 16%
5.0 5.0
3
4.0 4.0
~
L en
::J en
'" ~ 3.0 3.0
en L
~ +' '+-
L en ~
(L "' /
L 2.0 2.0
~ 0 /
L +' ;/
0 ~
(L ;J
:> I
en ~ 1.0 ¡] 1.0
en '" I;
~ I
U
x
W
0.0 0.0
0% 8% 16% 0% 8% 16%
Peak Strength
Total Effective
a=0,830 ksf 0.909 ksf
4 ex =9.0 d"g 11.3 d"9
tan cx=0.16 0.20
;;;;'.-.-""=..
'+- - -
en
c< .,---~."""-:-_~-,.
- ,
rr 2
-
-ø- -
..,--_...-..¿ ........
o
o 2
4
6
p, ksf
Effective
8
10
12
Stress Paths:
Tota] -
Peak 0
C1 ient: Mi lstone Geotechnical
Project: Sun - 2550
Locat ion: LD-l,11
F ¡I,,: 097-098
Project No.: 097-098
Fig. No.:
PARTICLE ~'ZE DISTRIBUT'ON TE~ ( REPORT
0::
W
Z
¡¡:
I-
Z
W
U
0::
æ
SIEVE
SIZE
I in.
3/4;n.
3/8 in.
#4
#10
#30
#40
#50
#100
#200
0.0440 mm.
0.0316 nnn.
0.0202 mm.
0.01I8 mm.
0.0085 nnn.
0.0060 mm.
0.0042 nnn.
0.0030 mm.
0.0021 mm.
0.0013 mm.
~
¿
ÕÑ ~'¡¡.5
" -';;: -'... N ~
I
~
~ ~ ¡ i
8 ~ 8
- - ~
PERCENT
FINER
100.0
91.7
89.6
86.5
82.8
76.5
74.5
72.3
66.0
59.5
55.0
51.9
49.9
47.1
44.8
43.1
42.3
41.6
40.4
38.7
SPEC."
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)
Soil DescriDtlon
Pale Brown Sandy Fat CLAY
~ ~ N _ ~ > ~ ~ ~
100 ~
~
90
.. ¡....
80 ""'"-
....
70
"
60
'r
50 ,
40 -0
30
20
10
0
500 100 10 0.1 0.01 __ 0.001
GRAIN SIZE - mm
I %+3" I % GRAVEL T % SAND I % SILT % CLAY
I 0.0 I 13.5 T 21.0 I 19.3 40.2
PL= 18
Atterbera Limits
LL= 57
PI= 39
DeS" 3.34
D30=
e -
lJ
Coefficients
D 60= 0.0796
D1S"
e -
c-
Classification
AASHTO=
D 50= 0.0208
D10=
uses= CH
Remarks
(no specification provided)
Sample No.: Tl
Location:
Source of Sample: LDI
Date: 2n/05
ElevJDepth:
Client: Milstone Geotechnical
Project: Sun - 2560
COOPER TESTING LABORATORY
Pro ect No: 097-098
Plate
LIQUID LIMIT (%)
0 10 1620 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
60 60
E qxiicn of "A" line:
Hcriz. at PI = 410 II =25.5.
50 then PI = 0.73 {Ll-20) 50
~ Eq..dicnof"U"line:
~ V~t.dlL=16toPI=7.
)( 40 then PI = 0.9 (ll-8) 40
..
0
æ
>- 30 30
0-
º ML or OL
0-
~ 20 20
~
...
10 10
7 7
4 4
0 0
0 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
BOREHOLE DEPTH LIQUID PLASTlcn use
SYMBOL ISAMPLE Pi) LIMIT (%) INDEX (%) DESIGNATION
N.
. MGl IT 4 15.0-15.5 44 25 CL
... L D1 IT 1 28.0 - 28.5 57 18 CH
~_ MILSTONE
,., ~GEOTECHNICAL
ATTERBERG LIMITS
SUN PROPERTY
21989 Lindy Lane
Cupertino, California
Dale:
March 2005
5cde:
as shown
Tesfedb¡:
Coo erTestin
FIGURE NO.
P rqed No.
2560
APPENDIX C
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES
Critical Failure Surfaces
<c
-~-~'7··"--"-~·'
"
'"
'"
....
~
:5
'B
¡-:~
110
1,5'i__$éÍJ
i~
tb
....1.:.
\"iJ
'Q)~
i U ¡
! -ê I
I ;::¡:
ICI)I
1 ~f
læ
I"
!~
!G
S BI>'II
I'
I
¡
iÆ
I
~ /
s
:::> I
....
.... /
g¡ 0
()
III u
'2 III !
-
>G)o ..
( ;, 111 ~
-c_ (
111'- C ()
lI:....Iãi G) ° ãi j 0
w>(,) ca- ~J 0::
u ~I
D.." - :='6 :¡:: ,
oco ooc .¡: /
II: ,- c cor-- u ",I
....1.- ~I
Q.Q)'t: ..(,)00 -
G)uÑ (
zooG) Ü; +:: II ° I
j'" c.. E :r:1
I 00'-;' G)IIIOO
('11(,) s:éñLL 0 ,.. I "U
.- I
,
,
L,
_008 ,
~ -_.~._- OOL ' 069
' ,
_JliQ9
,
,
I
i
I
I
¡
,
!
I
I
,
I
\
--,--1
I
¡
- i
.01
,It)
~ It) ,
,0
-0
'"
'0
-'"
..
i
,
'0
I;'
I
,
I
!-
!_~
iM
!.
I~
t~
I-
I
i
¡-~
I.
,
I
I-
i
I
~f5
IN
r
f
10
l:~
l~
~-
1-8
,-
t
L
f
r~
L
f
l~
-
III
ï:
>Gl5
1:_
1-111=
D:....IIII
W:..O
r:L 'C -
0.= g
a:-I.
r:L0I~
ZC08.
::>01::1
(/ C::¡O
,
OgH__
CI
on
T""
ci
II
III
UI
I:
o
:¡:
:c
I:
o
GlO
õiu
::-=
(/ .!(Ø
I:UI(Ø
~ 0 .
GI'OT""
ü) ::::J II
GlGI(/
3:~LL
09L
~ -...
l~l"
OOL
i
,
I
I
~ i
IŠ: i
i3! ì
, ....
¡O¡ j
0, I
\
~
5./1
<t
-
(
ct-i
I
I
...~____ºS9
~.
"
"
.J!1
S
U)
~
"
~
.q¡
~
G
....
....
li:
....
~
o
li:
¡::
a:
""'I
"
~\
....1
~¡
:51
~/~ II
ŒJ
\,
'*
¡¡;
¡,\
r
---:! '.
0' ~
'01 "
ct I \,
@i "
[,>I
at '"
Lu ' 'i'
a:i
:~I
:r;:
U)i
!-ql
1>'21
L<?_J
I
I
L"
~--.<~" _.~"..._.-.",.-. -
,
009
.Q99_.
009_
o
~
~
o
·0
«>
o
-«>
'"
o
·0
'"
¡
r~
l
¡d!
t~1
I
Lgl
INI
!
d5
,
,
0:
0'
...-¡
I
o
~,
,
<',
o
,
__. _Y 09t
---~_.- - --------
ë:(
ë:( UI
0 c
<C 0
c;- UI
0'- CD
._ '0 0
as -c as
'2 00 -
~() '-
>CDO ;:¡
c_ o 0 UI
.....as= CU;- iã
11:...1 as -as 0
as_
w>() ;;:en ;::
Q.'O - .¡:
I o'=ê en- 0
-C'?
11:...1;:: c='<I' -
'-- . UI
Q.Ø)'- CD Co.... 0
Zco:!!. U; 4) II E
:::IØ);:¡ CD CD en 0
en~() ;¡:(ñ1L ....
<C
I, I ' I r I
1
, I '
O~_9
, ' I
I ' I ' I
'F'
rg)i
IIi
I~
I~I
":¡jJI~I~
'~.~::¡ ü ---
rll j
I~i' !./
, « i'.
I r"':
,
A L
i
::;;
:::>
s;
:::>
~I
)
)
I
!
!
I
j
,
J
,
/
/
I
,
i
¡
t
í
f
, I,
009
ŒJ
, I
099
o
~
~
'"
"
'"
-J
.¡;-
.S
-J
;
:;;~![i
I
!
,
I
,
I
I
I
-81
"'I
I
¡-~
IV
,
,
~
0
1-0
Iv
,
(-
I -
!
I
10
-",
1M
I
i
I
1-
l
,
li1
0
Q
@
~, ~
CCI
ù'i
~I
~
0
~
N
, I '
009
I ' I '
I, , ,
Vag. .
[
f¡
as
'2
>GI'-
1:.2
... as'-
a:..J'ii
W;>.U
OQ.~ -
I: °
a:'- I:
Q...J .-
ent:
zlX)GI
::J en a.
(J).,...::s
NU
'"
- I:
c(o
c:i:E
I:~
01:
_0
üU
GlU
tn:,¡::
,as
.,!êñ
as'
;;::-
(J)~
I: ° IX)
'-Ell')
.!!G>~
UJ :&.. II
GI-
,..=(J)
;>LLLL
c(
<I:
~-
I' , , 1
.._ ___O_S9 I ' I '
¡-i:u
I~
I ~
IŒ
I ~
-'1
, .-
:~
1-
I.fg
'~
ü
1- ¡
N
i._'.'....
¡:y
<"
!/
'"
GI
U
.e
'-
::s
'"
'ii
U
:;::
.¡:
U
-
'"
°
E
o
.,...
~
~
'::J
I...¡
...¡
o
ü
, I I I
"7
--,
,
, 1 '
ass
=~:-~
1 ~~o,=,~_~
'"
~
'"
...¡
~
."
.:¡
;
!
I
I
,
I
5: Þ>}/I
J
,
J
["
<n,
~;
:~J
i
i
ì
i
j
I
¡
!
I
I
'" I
ü
~ 1
a I
IJJ ti
en
a
IJJ
a:
LIi
¡¡;
!
I
I
1
oos
I
I
I
I I , '
os.
, ' I
I ' I t
<\I
'2
>GI-
I:,E
I- <\1'-
D:....ICii
w>oo
Do "0 -
01:0
D:'- I:
Do ....I .-
m'!::
ZCXIGl
:JmQ.
,^,... ::J
wNO
<
"
c:
'"
-.J
.s-
.S;
-.J
<
ci:
I:
°
:¡;:
(,
GI
I/)
en
It)
,...
c:i
II
<\I
1/1
I:
°
:¡::
=c
I:
GI °
_ 0
<\I (,
¡: -'-
'^ <\1-
",><\1
co1ñc.o
à¡E°"':
_(1)"'1"'"
en ~::J II
GI-GI
,.,:1/11/)
>ILDoIL
«
I
Oçg
,
OOg
fQ¡:l
I"
¡.!!!
1:S
I'"
~
~
¡:::::I
'~í
I-i
i ·~I'
i¿S
_L_ --
¡"'l
I~
,':._!--
-.J
-.J
i:i:
-.J
:;;
I~
;:::
ct:
L~
, I
, I
---~
i
I
?; ~¡II
~=i ~ ===-~
~--'-'-'
,
: 01
-\!')!
; tOi
I
,
III J
~
!
)
í
/
/
ß
(/
,-".
j.'
j
"
_81
"'I
¡-~i
, ~:
I
[Ë] i_8
~ ...
, ,~
i ,
I
I
I
¡
j
i
! ,
,
I_:à
, !.(')
,
,
I r
I
I ,
I L
I
r
I ~g
,
J I
~r
~
<:
,
¡
,
I
,
I I"
:_0
i . "'
'"
i
¡
I
I
,
,
ooç " I '
ij OÇv
---,-----.---.- -----
fSf]
I§I
:;j-.J
t9,;~
ÍD
-------.-----.--
----
·~,,~·__~~~_~·_~~~~~.~_g_'r~·_
\
1--'
--'
G::
--'
~
ü
ê'~~¡i
~ ¡g,
'"
-.1,,\ \
t~~ \
:::¡ ~', ,\
,.
~ .I
1--' ,
I~ "
ü .
,¡¡ ¡
rill_Vi
I~I ..
'ª i-"
~ !
j I
fa
!
- ..
\\".\
\ "'.1
\"¡'.
'.)-,1
,.
I'.
¡,i!
~
s:
;:¡
III --' g
. ë5
III ü 0:
CI) ŒJ ~
:E (
iii CI)
u ß
0:1 CI .!
i: c '- 0:
>CI)(j :;:;( ::I ù'j
c_ .!!! c ( 3: "II iJj
"""0:1= >< 0 (ã
0::....10:1 CI)'- U
w>oO CI):!:: :;:;
'-'0
D.. '0 - Q.c .¡:
0.5 g Cl)ocn U
C:...J;: -00 -
.Q . (
D..cn'- .- U M 0
Z IX) 8- ~;: II E
:Jcn::l oS(/) 0
cnNO D..cnu... ....
A
I
I,
,
I
O!
.-1£),
""
I i
~ S: r
~ r§
<:
10
.-'"
1..-
c
I
[Ë]
'I I' I ' I ' I ' I . I ' I ) I ' I I I' I ' I , I ' I I ' I I t I , I ' . I I 'ai,' I
OSL OOL OSg OOg ass ____OOS S
!- a
~o
..-
I
I·
I
I·
l
10
I-~
C
I·
I-
I.
, 0
i-a
¡M
I.
t~
!.'"
t
f.
o
-0
'"
o
'"
.,
o
~
r
I ' I ,jdj)'
·!
c
4> ....
>~.E
!-ca=
D:..JCU
W ;>.0
g, -g 0-
.- c
a:...J;
11.CJ' ....
zcx 4>
;:) ~ §-
(/)NO
------q~! __u_ ____99L
0)
N
(')
iDe
. II
IDca
4> ._
'Crn
=c
rn 0
C)+:
C'-
__ 'C
liic
__ 0
)(t)
4>t)
4>.-
....-
c.ca
G)ü)O
_0'"
,g .
._ "C 1-
rn ::;¡ II
rn4>
Om(/)
11.11.u.
~OÇ9__
'1'
iD
f1l
1]1
I~
i,ð r
1'- t
i~ ¡
!~I.
' ~ I
~
¡
¡
I~ .; i
jgl!
~~
~
\
'.
I
,
,
\
ID_{
i
I
fðl
I fÈ I'
IC
i~lt
iUJ
r 0: I
«
i~1
,IU,
j - ~ - -'-" ~
I'"
~!
,§J
t
~ iÞ II
l
- '--",~"_.".,,.
=---~.- ~-""""--'-
____~º.Q~.__._____ º~s
.-00,,--
~~
~
""99Þ- ._ ~___ ____11]'
r\·\·,L "
ty. \\, I), I : '-~
. COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
... CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
March 25, 2005
C0034A
TO:
Gary Chao
Cupertino City Planner
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
SUBJECT :
RE:
Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review
Sun, Proposed Subdivision
21989 Lindy Lane
At your request, we have completed a supplemental geotechnical peer review of the
subject subdivision application for using the following documents:
. Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation (report) prepared by Milstone
Geotechnical, dated March 9,2005.
In addition to our review of the above referenced document, we have inspected
mtùtiple site exploratory excavations, reviewed pertinent technical data from our office
files, and been in communication with the Project Geotechnical Consultant.
DISCUSSION
The applicant proposes to subdivide an existing approximate 2.6-acre parcel into 3
separate lots. The existing parcel contains a single-family residence in the central portion of
the property. A proposed approximate 1.0 acre lot is located to the west of the existing
residence, and an approximate 0.5 acre lot is proposed to the east of the residence. This
revised subdivision layout is illustrated on Plate 1 of the referenced report. The proposed
two new lots (to the east and west of the existing residence) are intended for future single-
family residential development. We understand that access to the two new residential lots
would be provided by new branch driveways extending off the existing private driveway. It
is our understanding that sanitary effluent will be discharged into the sanitary sewer in
Lindy Lane which is part of the Cupertino Sanitary Sewer District.
In our previous project review report (dated March 31, 2004) we evaluated a
proposed 4-10t subdivision plan for the subject property. We recommend that a detailed
site Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation be completed prior to action on the Tentative
Map. We noted that site development may be constrained by potential slope instability,
existing fill materials, expansive earth materials and very strong seismic ground shaking.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
Based on evaluation of presented site geotechnical data, inspection of site
exploratory excavations, and review of completed technical analyses, we concur with the
findings of the Project Geotechnical Consultant that the proposed 3-lot subdivision is
geotechnically feasible. Consequently, we do not have geotechnical objections to the
application for proposed subdivision.
Northern California Office
330 Village Lane
Los Gatos, CA 95030-7218
(408) 354-5542 . Fax (408) 354-1852
e-mail: losgatos@cottonshires.com
www.cottonshires.com
Southern California Office
5245 Avenida Encinas· Suite A
Carlsbad, CA 92008-4374
(760) 931-2700 . Fax: (760) 931-1020
e-mail: carlsbad@cottonshires.com
Gary Chao
Page 2
March 25, 2005
C0034A
The Project Geotechnical Consultant has indicated that design of future residential
development on the proposed eastern and western lots should be based on additional site-
specific geotechnical investigations once the layout of desired improvements have been
determined. The consultant has recommended that existing fill slopes within the western lot
be laid back or strengthened (by removal and replacement of fill material) as part of the
final development plan for the western lot. We recommend that the following conditions be
attached to geotechnical approval the subject subdivision application:
Lot Specific Geotechnical Investigations - Prior to approval of building permits
for the construction of new residences on individual lots, site-specific design level
geotechnical investigations should be performed. The conclusions and
recommendations of the referenced March 200S Geologic and Geotechnical
Report should be reviewed and considered during preparation of site-specific
geotechnical design criteria for residential foundations, grading, drainage
improvements, pavement and retaining walls. Recommended design criteria for
the western lot should include measures to improve stability of existing site fill
materials as outlined in the referenced Milstone Geotechnical Report.
Lot Specific Geotechnical Investigations should be submitted to the City, for
review by the City Geotechnical Consultant and City Engineer, prior to issuance
of building or grading permits for individual lot development.
LIMITATIONS
This review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the City with
discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited to review of the documents
previously identified, and a visual review of the property. Our opinions and conclusions
are made in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices of the geotechnical
profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied.
Respectfully submitted,
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
CITY GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
"Î ,,-
c-~~~
Ted Sayre
Supervising Engineering Geologist
CEG 1795 \
9J~Z, ~
David T. Schrier
Supervising Geotechnical Engineer
GE 2334
TS:DTS:lw
COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
BARRIE D. '--_ HE
and ASSOCIATES
Horticutural Consultants
23535 Summit Road
Los: Gates; CA 95033
408/35~ 1 052
~k,b\-h \)
AN ANAL VIS
OF
TREES
ON LOT I
OF
THE SUN PROPERTY
21989 LINDY LANE
CUPERTINO
Prepared at the request of:
Colin Jung
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Prepared by:
Barrie D. Coate
Consulting Arborist
August 22, 2005
Job# 08-05-165
ANALYSIS OF TRr.r. .~ LOT I, SUN, CUPERTINO
AUGUST 22ND, 2005
Summary - Lot 1
I found seventeen trees on Lot I which might be affected by proposed construction.
Most of the trees on this property are naturally occurring Coast Live Oaks (Quercus
agrifolia).
Of the seventeen trees on the property that might be affected by construction, seven
of them are Coast Live Oaks of a size protected by City Ordinance, and two of them
are Coast Redwoods of a size protected by City Ordinance.
Protected trees inc]ude Coast Live Oaks #14, 15, 17, 18, 19,21,22, and Coast
Redwoods #23 and 25.
All of the oaks are in excellent health and their protection should be relatively simple.
Summary
The only tree that would be in significant danger of construction if fences are
installed as recommended, would be tree #23 - a healthy redwood tree.
The proposed roadway alignment between trees # 16 and 17 would affect a larger
proportion of the root system of the very large healthy tree # 17 and for this reason, I
recommend realignment ofthe roadway closer to tree #16, a small Coast Live Oak,
which would tolerate that condition.
Recommendations
I recommend:
I. Fences be installed precisely as shown on the enclosed plan before any
construction equipment arrives on site.
2. I recommend that the entry driveway be realigned from the proposed
location to the one shown on the enclosed plan.
3. Leave a larger proportion of the root system of tree #17 unaffected by
equipment compaction than shown on the original plan.
4. Wherever soil cuts are necessary on the south side of trees #19 through 22, I
recommend that the cuts be vertical at the edge of the proposed roadway,
and walls be installed at those margins, and th.at no grading be done in any
areas north ofthe proposed fence. Prevent any construction equipment
activity in areas inside the fences which surround trees #14,15, and 19
through 22.
PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORJST
AUGUST 22"", 2005
ANALYSIS OFTRb"o LOT 1, SUN, CUPERTINO
AUGUST 22ND, 2005
5. During roadway construction above and north of tree # 17 and 18, 1
recommend that a·retainer wall be constructed at the edge of the roadway
and that no construction activity be allowed in areas south of the tree
protection fence as shown on the enclosed plan.
6. I suggest the retaining wall shown adjacent to tree #23 either be realigned as
shown on the enclosed plan, or that tree be sacrificed and be replaced with
the equivalent value of other screening trees. That tree is worth
approximately $6, 100.00 which is more or less equivalent to the cost of
purchase, installation and warranty of six 36" box specimens of oak or
redwood to be used as screening on the margins of the property.
Respectfully submitted,
A.,. ç:......: 1.1.
~-<. "
Barrie D. Coate
BDC/phlg
Enclosures:
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
Map
PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COA TE, CONSULTING ARBORIST
AUGUST 22"", 2005
!! ¿ 33aJ. 03.1::>3.10}:!d
1! -------.----.------------------------
'" ¿ 33}:!.L 3ÐV.LI}:!3H
"" (&-~) AJ.IHOIHd 1VAOW3H
c ______________________________________
~ 1VAOW3H ON3WWO::>3H
E --------------------------------------
8 ~3Z11IL~3;j S033N
~ ----------------------.---------------
a: (g-~) }:!3L\lM S033N
(g-~) 3SV3SIO èfV110::> .LOO}:! I I
. , ,
E -------------------------------------- ---.1.--- --.....--
.!! (g-~) 03}:!3AO::> }:!VllO::> .LOO}:! ¡ J
.Q , ,
~ ----------------------------------.--. ---,.--- ---r--
G. (g- ~),W::>30 )fNn~.L! ¡
: -------------------------------------- --- ---I---+--
: (g-~) OOOM 0'v'30 I I
ï5 -------.-------.--.------------------- ---l---I---l..-_
1: (g-~) 3S'v'3SIO NMO~::> 33~L ¡ ¡
~ -------------------------------------- ---~--- --+--
(g-~) SL::>3SNI J !
(g-~) AJ.IHOIHd ÐNINnHd I
en ______________________________________ ___1___
"" ,
: # 03033N S31S\I::> J
z ----------.--.-------.--------------- ---,.---
º .LHÐI3M-ON3 3A01f¡3~ !
.5 ._____________________________________ ___+___
:g ÐNISIW NMO~::> !
u ------------------------------------- .-., ,..-
2 NOILWOLS3}:! NMOH::> ¡
c ,
~ ---------------ÐÑÏÑ-ÑiHl-NM-õ-~'3 --T-
Q. ------------------------------------- ---1---
ÐNIN'v'31::> NMOH::> ¡
(z~-v) ÐNIL\tH O~\lZ\tH
c
~ -----Tõi:zTÐÑil~-Ñ-oiliã-Ño-5
:g ----------------(g:-if3Hnl'3ñHïš
o
o ----------------------fg:iYHllv~iH
03L\lV' ILS3 O'v'3HdS
..--------------------.-----.---------
03L \lIf¡ILS3 LHÐI3H
B3::1 Z@ H3BV' \lIO
!I
c
CD ----------------______.__.._.________
E
i!
:>
..
co
..
IE
-----------------------.--------------
-----------.------------------------.-
V' 3LSAS-IL lnlf¡
--------13-3;¡-žii:¡;@-~-313-rïvië
...... '"
I- ......
-< I-
0 -< N l~
u 0 8 œ~
.~
Q 0 .., Eð
~ ~ t
'" ~
...... '" s ~~
i:i2 -< ~ ~~
ell:: ""CI
ë:§ =
..
-<s
Xl
,
---, ,-.-
·
,
,
,
,
.--+-.-
,
,
·
---.---
·
,
,
,
---,.---
,
·
·
I
_._l._.
,
N'
,
.
---,.---
,
~,
---+---
~:
,
,
.
_-1.__
,
,
I
--1-.-
,
,
.-+--
,
,
,
--.....--
,
j
--....--
,
,
--+--
,
,
,
,
,
,
-----
,
N'
,
,
--1---
,
~,
--+--
~I
.
(1). 0,
-~¡-_. ~--
01 01
..,.: ..,..
---t-- .-+--
, .
, .
, ,
--i·-- ..--+--
, ,
, ,
, ,
, .
--- --- --+--
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
---.--- -----
. ,
, ,
---+--- --+--
q: en
;!: ~¡
HSO
HSO
"
E
..
z
'E
..
¡¡:
!!!
~, ..
~I'C
\111 0
u:~
~! CD
'0' 2
g!-g
CJU
.
"
"
t=
,
.
,
,
,
,
~I
,
,
1
,
.
,
,
I
¡
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
·
~¡
",,'
"I
ü:
~.
..I
",,'
o'
Cl>i
01
·
·
,
,
,
,
NI
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
__..L__
,
,
,
,
,
·
___.a.___
,
,
,
·
·
,
.--.....--
,
,
,
I
---t--
,
1
--...--
,
,
,
,
-.1---
,
,
,
,
,
---+---
,
,
___1___
·
·
,
,
---,.---
,
,
,
, ,
, ,
, ,
---.--- ---.....--
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
---,.--- ---1---
· ,
, ,
, ,
---1--- ---+--
, ,
, ,
, .
---.--- ---.....--
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
---,.--- --1---
, ,
, .
, ,
, ,
· ,
, ,
---t--- ---t--
, ,
, ,
---,.--- ---1---
, ,
, ,
---f--- --+--
, ,
, ,
, ,
___.a.___ .__.....__
, ,
, ,
, ,
---~___ J---~__
, .
, ,
, ,
---~--- 1---4-..
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
· ,
___.a.___ ___......_
, ,
, ,
, ,
,
·
---t--
I
,
----.
,
,
,
,
--1---
,
,
,
, ,
, .
---+-.- ---t--
I f
, ,
---1.--- ______
· ,
, ,
, .
, ,
---,.--- ---.,..--
, ,
, ,
, ,
Xl
,
___.1.___
,
,
,
,
,
,
---.....--
,
,
,
,
,
.
___.1.___
,
,
,
,
,
,
___.J..__
,
,
,
,
,
,
___l
.
,
,
,
,
~~~j
,
,
,
,
---,
,
;
,
,
___J
,
,
,
,
---I
,
---I
,
,
___J
,
,
,
,
---I
,
,
,
,
I
---I
,
,
---,
I
---I
I
,
___l
,
,
,
,
---I
,
,
,
.
---I
,
,
,
, 1 , I , , , , !
, , , , , ,
___l__. . , ___.l.__ , , ---~--- ---..:...--
------ ---+--- ---+--- ------ ---I
, , , · , , , , ,
N' N' N' MI N' N' M' "" ,
, , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , ,
---,.--- --.,..-- ---,.--. --.,..-- --,.--- ---.,..-- ---,.--- ---....-- ---,
, , , NI , , N: , :
~, ~, ~, ~, ~, ~,
, , , , , , , , ---I
---1--- ---+-- --- --- ---+-- ---1--- ---+-- ---t--- --+--
~I ~I ~I · ~I , ~I N.! I
~I ~,
· , , , , , ,
o. 01 on, 0, on, ,..., on, on, I
N' N' N' N' N' , N' N' ,
--+-- . ---1--- ---+-- --1--- ---+-- ---1--- , ---1
---,..-- ---.,..--
NI "'I ",I 0>1 01 ",I 01 "'I
..., M' ~. ~I N' ~, N' M' I
, , ---t---I--i-- , , , ----t-- ,
---1--- --+-- ---1--- ---+-- ---1--- ---I
, , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , i
I : , , , , , ,
, , , , , ,
---+-.- ----- ---+--- ---....-- --.+-- ---....-- ---+--- ---....-- ---I
, , , · , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , ,
---1--- , --+-- ---+-- ---1--- ---+-- --+-- ---+-- ---I
--,---
, , , , , , 0' , I
, , , · , , ., ,
, , , · , , 0' f ,
, , , , , , ~I ,
, , , , , , , ___J
---.--- --....-- ---+--- ---....-- ---+--- ------ --.+--- ---....--
, , , , , , , , ,
· , , , , , x' I ,
, , , , , , , ,
---1--- ---+-- ---1--- --+-- --+-- ---+-- ---1--- , ---
---.,..--
01 01 01 01 0' 01 0' 0'
., ., .,
., ml ., ., ~, ., M' 0'
0>, ,..., co' ~: on, ~: ~I
,
~
:>
~
~: ~
-g!:o::
ü' c
'..
~¡:¡
=, CD
c(1 ::::I
CD: '-
,a:-g
mJu
,~
'CI>
1.0
,:>
...:.:::1 ø
co: ø
0: ::J
...:.:::' e
o! !:
UfO
.
,
,
,
.
,
""
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
...:
,
,
,
,
,
,
, ,
, ,
, ,
___.a.___ ___......__
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
---,.--- ---.,..--
, ,
· ,
---t--- ----t--
, ,
, ,
, ,
---.--- ---......--
, ,
, ,
· ,
· ,
---,.-.- ---.,..--
, ,
, ,
, ,
! !
---+--- ---......--
, ,
, ,
, .
, .
---,.--- ---.,..--
, ,
, ,
---f--- ---+--
, ,
, ,
, ,
___.a.___ __-..1..__
, ,
, ,
I '
--t--- ---t--
, ,
, ,
---~--- ---4--
, ,
, ,
, ,
..
:>
g
0), ëñ
~, co
I-j'E
.c,S
e: f!
('0: 0)
UfU
,
.
,
,
,
.
UJ¡
,
,
,
,
..
c
~
~,
.., CD
(1)1=
a., ..
dlJ
CI>' UJ
-, :>
-'2>
..'
UI~
,
,
,
,
,
,
COI
,
,
,
,
,
,
, ,
, ,
-.+.-- ---+-.
, ,
, ,
, ,
---+--- ---......--
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
---,.--- ---.,..--
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
___.a.___ ___.....__
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
-.-,.--- ---.,..--
, ,
, ,
---+--- ---+--
, ,
, ,
, ,
---+--- ---......--
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
--,.-.- ---.,..--
· ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
---"---- ---""---
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
---,.--- ------
, ,
, ,
---f·-- ---+--
· ,
· ,
, ,
._..a.___ ___....._.
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
-.-+--- ------
, ,
, ,
, ,
---~--- ---{.o--
, ,
, ,
, ,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
~¡Jg
culJ2
011::
(1)1 g
.~: ø
...J: ::J
inl f:?
~¡ !:
UfO
,
,
,
,
!
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
~,
..I
",,'
CDI
ül
on:
..,
-,
-,
«,
,
CI>'
:>
-,
II),
,
,
,
1
,
,...,
,
I
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
0>1
,
,
,
,
,
.
, ,
, ,
---+--- ---+--
, ,
, ,
, ,
---"---- ---......--
, .
, ,
, ,
, ,
---,.------.,...--
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
___.a.___ ___""-__
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
---,.--- ---.,...--
, ,
, ,
___+u_ ___~___
, ,
, ,
, ,
---+--- ---""---
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
--,.--- ---.,...--
, ,
M: :
, ,
, ,
, ,
---+--- ---""---
, ,
~I :
---~_.- ---..:...--
, ,
, ,
---f--- ---+--
, ,
, ,
, ,
___.a.___ ___......__
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
---r--- ---i--
, ,
, ,
---t--- -..{.o--
, ,
, ,
, ,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
-ail
01
CDI
.~:
-'I
-,
on'
~!
ül
,
,
,
,
1
"'I
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
¡
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
CI>:
.51 S
a..1.S!
~-g
~, ~
s: ~
§! .=
~:~
,
,
,
,
,
01
~:
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
I
!
,
,
,
,
,
,
û) M
0 -
0
::::
" CD
'"
on ..
<ñ a.
"
<D
"
CD
C
..
...I 0
>.c
-gt
._ CD
...Ie.
'" "
o>ü
'"
~
N
"'
°
°
N
s:::~C"i
:>~N
VJJ,ê;)
Q,i0 ::J
EcDg>
..0«
Z:itiP
.c..o-æ:
~~o
!: ¿ 33Ml 031::>3LO~d
! --------------------------------------
UI ¿ 33~13Ð\fll~3H
'" (¡;-~) AJ.1~OI~d '\f^OW3~
c _____________________________________
~ '\f^OW3~ ON3WWO:>3~
E --------------------------------------
8 ~3ZIl11~3:1 S033N
CD -------._.____________________________
Π(g-~) ~31\fM S033N
(g- ~) 3S\f3SIO !N110::> 100~
·
E --------------------------------------
.!! (g-~) a3~3^O::> !N110::>lOO~
.0
e ______________________m_____________
"- (g-~)A\f::>30 ) Nn~.l
·
· --------------------------------------
: (g-~) OOOM 0\130
·
~ -(g:i)~íšV3-šia-ÑMõ~533~.ï
l -----------------------------------
(g-~) Sl::>3SNI
(g-~) AJ.1~OI~d ÐNINn¡' d
-! --------------------------------------
! # 03033N S318\f::>
z --------------------.----------------
12 lHÐI3M-GN3 3^OVB~
c
~ -----------------ÐNI-šï~-NM"ö¡:j5
u ------------------------------------
I Š NOll \71 OlS3~ NMO~::>
c
§ ---------------ÐNïÑNiHl"NM"ö¡:¡~
~
D.. --------------------------------------
ÐNIN\I31::> NMO~::>
(Z~-j7) ÐNI.l\71 O~\tZ'v'H
c ____________________________________
~ (o~-z) ÐNI1\71 NOI110NO::>
is --------.----------------------------
¡¡ (g-~) 3~nl::>n~.lS
u --------------------------------------
(g-~) Hll\13H
031 \f\^ 11S3 O\l3~dS
-----------------------------------
031\f\^ 11S31HÐI3H
!! 133:1 Z@ ~313\^ \f10
c
CD ---------------------_________________
! H80
::!
cø --------------------------------------
: H80
:IE
--------------------------------------
\^ 31SAS-llln\^
--------Li:i¡¿¡i:;:@-¡:¡-3L3-riViè
..... '"
¡- .....
< ¡-
0 < ~ 'is!
u U !9 œ:¡:
~
C 0 ;¡; Ei:5
~ I -
'" _ B
..... '" ~ 5~
¡¡¡æ < ~ ~.!
~ "'C
~ =
...
-<s-
· , , , ,
· , , , ,
· , , , ,
---....-- ___L___ ---..1--- ___L___ ---..1---
· , . , ,
· , , , ,
· , , , ,
·
·
--1---
1
___J___
·
·
·
·
--.---
·
·
·
·
·
·
---.II---
·
·
·
·
---..---
·
·
---1---
·
·
·
---.---
·
·
·
·
--..--
·
·
·
·
·
·
---.II---
·
·
·
·
---.---
·
·
---1---
·
·
·
---1---
·
·
·
------
·
·
·
·
---'1---
·
·
·
·
·
·
--->11---
·
"'.
·
·
---..---
·
~.
---i---
NI
·
O.
N'
--+--
0:
v'
--i---
·
·
·
·
---..--
·
·
·
·
---f---
·
·
·
·
·
--..---
·
·
---1---
o.
..
",.
~.
.,
e
'"
z
i:'
'"
ã:
-
.,
~
I-
: :
--+--- ---i---
: x:
, .
---Io__- ___..___
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
---po--- ---...---
, ,
, ,
, ,
. .
, ,
, ,
___Io___ ---..1---
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
---po--- ---,---
, ,
, ,
---~--- ---i---
, ,
, ,
, ,
---10--- ___01___
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
---po-- --...---
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
---~--- ---~---
, ,
, ,
, ,
---to--- --_...___
, ,
, ,
, ,
--+-- --+--
, ,
, ,
, ,
___L___ ___..1___
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
___to___ ___~___
, ,
, ,
, ,
---~--- ---~---
. ,
, ,
, .
, ,
, ,
, ,
___to___ ___~___
, ,
("')1 1"-:
---~--- ---~---
.....: ("')1
, ,
---~--- ---i---
('II "'It:
, .
&01 &01
('II ....1
--+-- --+--
0: IC):
&01 ....1
, ,
---~-- ---i---
. ,
, ,
, .
, ,
___Io___ ---01---
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
---~--- ---~---
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
___Io___ ---01---
, .
, ,
---~--- ---~---
01 01
·1 ·1
COI 01
....1 ....1
: :
---~--- ---i---
i !
---~--- ---~---
, ,
, .
, ,
---po--- ---...---
, ,
· ,
· ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
___L___ ___..1___
, .
· ,
· ,
, ,
---po--- ---,---
, ,
, ,
, ,
--+----+--
, ,
, ,
, ,
---Io--- __....__
, ,
, ,
, ,
---r-- ---1---
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
---Io__- ___..___
, ,
, .
, ,
, ,
---to--_ ___~---
, ,
, ,
, ,
--+-- --+--
, ,
, ,
, ,
___L___ ___..1___
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
---to--_ ___~---
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
---1"'--- ---,---
· ,
, ,
· ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
___to___ ___~___
· .
&0: NI
---~--- ----i---
N: ....:
---~--- ---i---
M: ....:
, ,
,
·
,
___L___
,
,
!
,
,
,
---,1---
,
,
,
,
,
,
__.1.___
,
,
,
,
,
,
---,1---
,
,
,
,
,
---+--- ---i---
, ,
, ,
, ,
---..-- ---..---
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
--po--- ---...---
, ,
· ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
__L___ ___.1___
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
--..,..--- ---,---
, ,
, ,
---~--- ---i---
, ,
, ,
, ,
___Io___ ---.1---
, ,
, ,
, ,
--:--- ---~---
, ,
, ,
, ,
· .
· .
, ,
---t--- ---~---
, ,
, ,
, ,
---po-- ---...---
, ,
· ,
, ,
--+- --+--
, .
, ,
, ,
__L__ ___..1___
, ,
, ,
, ,
· ,
------ ---...---
· ,
, .
, .
, ,
--1"'--- ---,---
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
---1---- ___...___
N! U')!
-4---1---~---
, ,
..... ("')1
---~--- ---i---
,...: N:
· ,
, ,
, ,
--+--- ---4---
I :
. ,
__....___ ---.1---
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
--....--- ---...---
, .
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
__.1.___ ___..1___
, ,
, ,
, .
, ,
---1"'--- ---,---
, ,
. ,
---~--- ---4---
, ,
, ,
, ,
---10-_- ___..___
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
---r---- ---...---
, ,
, ,
, .
,
,
,
--....---
,
,
,
, ,
------ ---...---
, ,
, .
---~--- ---i---
, ,
, ,
, ,
__....___ ---,1---
: :
, ,
, .
------ ---...---
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
---1"'--- ---,---
, ,
, .
, .
,
,
,
---.1---
,
~:
, ,
, ,
, ,
--_to___ ___..___
, ,
("')1 M:
, ,
--..,..--- ---,---
N: (\II
--+--- ---4---
, ,
....1 .....
, ,
~: ~: ~I ~: ~: ~¡
--+-- -+-- --+-- ---~--- --+--- --c.¡---
U'): colIC): N: 0: 01
M: ....: ,...1 .....1 101 IC)I
---t---- ---1--- --~--- ---4--- ~-+--- ---i---
I I 1 I I I
I I . I I I
I I I I I I
I I . . I I
---10--- ___..___ __....___ ___..___ __.....___ ___..___
I I I I I I
I . I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
1 I . I I I
--+-- --+-- -+-- --+-- --~--- --+--
0: : : I I qJ
còJ : : : : "'It!
I I I I I ....1
---10--- ___of___ ___Io___ ___..___ __....___ ___of___
I I 1 I . I
XI : : : : x:
---~--- ---~--- ---~--- ---~--- --4---- ---~---
01 ~: ~I 01 ~I ~:
~I ~! ~: wI ~¡ ~I
·
,
,
__...L___
,
,
,
1;; '"
~ -
0 0
~ N
" .,
'"
It) '"
1ñ Q.
"
'"
"
~
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, :
,
, ,
, ,
· ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, , ,
, , , ,
, "'" "", "'" "'" "", "'"
.,. .,: .. ." "': "', "': "': "', "':
c. c' c' 01 0: 0: 0: 0: 0:
.-. .-, . 'õ .-.
Q.' Q.' Q.' .,: , .,1 .,: .,: .,:
· . , :; , ."
~ ~ , ~ >, >' >' >, >' >'
, 'C .-, .-, .-, .-, .-. .-,
." 'C' ." ..J' ..J: ..J' ..J' ..J' ..J'
~. ~, cf .. ~, · , , , ,
.,. ." ." -, -, -. -. -, -'
-. -. 0' ::> -, .., .., .., .., .., ..,
c' c' e' c C' "" ",' ",' ",' "" ",'
01 01 _12 0: oj 0: 0: 0: 01 0:
::'1 ::.: <fa.. ::.: u: u: u: UJ U: u:
· , . , , , , , , ,
· . , , , , , , . ,
· , , , , , , , , ,
· , , , , , , , , ,
· , , . "': , . . , .
~: N: "'I v: v: "'I CD: ....: "': en:
~. ~. ~, ~, ~, ~, ~, ~, ~,
· , , , ~. , , , , ,
· , , , : ! , , : :
· : , , ! ,
: , : , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
· , , , · , , , , ,
,
,
--+---
:
__.1.___
,
,
,
,
--....---
,
,
,
,
:
--....---
·
,
,
,
--T---
,
--+---
,
,
,
--....---
,
,
,
--...:----
,
,
,
,
,
__J..___
:
,
·
------
·
,
--+---
,
,
,
--....---
:
,
--..:..---
,
,
:
---yo---
,
,
,
,
,
,
--.....---
,
""
,
,
--..,..---
,
~,
--+---
N'
t
.,
c
'"
..J 0
,.,c
-g€
.- .,
..J"-
en ::!
",U
en
~
N
""
-'":"+---
"':
~.
--f---
:
__J..___
I
,
,
--+---
,
,
,
,
,
--....---
,
,
--+---
0'
.,
0'
~,
'"
0
0
N
C '" Ñ
CD
::> ~ N
en .;, 1ñ
··0 ::!
., , en
e'" ::>
",0 <C
Z<t ¡,;
.Q .Q õí
0 0
-, -, 0
"'I
--+--
"'I
~.
---i---
J! .L33' Z@ ~3.L3V<J\(IO I
c __________________________.___________ ___L.
ø .
E :
e .
~ ----------------------------------.--- ---~---
~ .
ø :
::Ii 1
-------------------~31sAs_iliñVi --T-
------------------------------------- --+--
.L33' z¡¡;. @ ~3.L3V<J\(IO qj
( ).
~ ¿ 33Hl 031::>31OHd
~ --------------------------------------
ùí ¿ 33Hl 3D\( llH3H
... (£-¡) Al.II:IOll:ld ,."AOIN31:1
c: ____________________________________
~ '...AOW31:1 ON31N1NO:>31:1
E ____________m_______________________
8 H3ZIlIH!3' S033N
CD --------------------------------------
a: (g-~) H3l\(M S033N
(ç-¡) 3S\f3SIO HVl10:J 1001:1
·
E -------------------------------------
~ (ç-¡) 031:131\0:J HVl10:J 1001:1
'"
o ------------------------------------
II: (9-¡)A\(::>30 >lNmU
: --------------------------------------
(g-¡) OOOM 0\f30
·
~ --(9~~)3ŠV3-sïa-ÑMÖ~5'33~i.
If --------------------------------------
(g-¡) S.L::>3SNI
(g-¡) Al.IHOI~d ÐNINnHd
--------------------------------------
# 03033N S31a\(::>
·
·
VI
i
z ------------------------------------
S! lHÐI3M-ON3 3^OV<J3~
c ______________________________________
~ ÐNISI\f): NMO~::>
() ____________________________m_______
g NOI.L\f): O.LS3H NMOH::>
§ ---------------ÐNiÑ-ÑïHlr~Möi:t_S
~
a.. ~---~-------------------~--~--------
ÐNIN\f31::> NMOH::>
lZ¡;') ÐNll\f): O~\fZ\(H
c ________________~~______~___________
,g (Q¡-Z) ÐNI1'v'J: NOI1IONO::>
:a -~--~-----------------------~--------
6 (g-¡) 3Hn.L::>n~.LS
() -------------------------------------
(g-¡) H.L l\f3H
031WI11S30\f3HdS
-------------------------------------
03l\(V>l11S31HÐ13H
.....
I-
<
o
u
è
.....
i52
co=:
<
CD
'"
.....
I-
<N
u::9
~~
"'~
<$
-=
=
'"
1 I!!
œ~
..
-is
! 8'
:::~
is.!
-<!6>
·
·
·
---t---
·
·
·
·
---.¡..--
·
--f---
·
·
·
---.---
·
·
·
·
·
·
--..---
·
·
·
·
---.---
·
·
---i---
·
·
·
---....--
·
·
·
·
-----
·
·
·
·
·
·
--~..~-~
·
·
·
·
---.~~-
·
·
---i---
·
·
·
---..---
·
·
·
·
------
·
·
·
---1---
·
·
·
I
·
---.--
·
....
·
·
---..---
·
~.
--i---
"'I
·
Hao
HSO
"
E
'"
z
ë
'"
ë:
~:
01
·
".
.~:
-II
~.
"'.
~i
ul
·
·
·
·
·
01
NI
·
·
·
·
·
.
"
~
f-
,
,
,
---'----
·
·
,
,
,
,
---..1---
.
,
,
· ,
, ,
---f.--- ---i---
, ,
, ,
, ,
---1---- ___..___
, .
, ,
· ,
· ,
---r--- ---..---
, ,
· ,
· ,
, ,
, ,
· ,
---1.--- ___.....__
, ,
, ,
, ,
· ,
---,.--- ---.,---
, ,
, ,
, ,
---f--- --+--
, ,
, ,
, ,
---..--- ---..---
, ,
, ,
, ,
---t--- ---i---
I t
· ,
· ,
, ,
--~--- ---1---
· ,
· ,
· ,
~--r--- ---..---
, ,
, ,
---~--- ---~---
, ,
, ,
, .
___I.~__ ---..1---
, .
, .
, .
---~--- ~~-.:---
, .
, .
· ,
, .
---,.--- ---,---
, .
, ,
, .
· .
· ,
, ,
___..__ ---1---
, ,
('1')1 NI
, ,
---,.--- ---.,---
· ,
"'""' "'""'
, ,
--+-- --+--
N: "'"":
, .
Lt'), Lt'),
",""I NI
-+-- --+--
01 0:
N' N'
---;...-- --~.f---
, ,
· ,
, ,
, ,
---..-~- ---..--~
, ,
, 0'
, .,
, .....
---~--- ---~---
: 0:
, .,
, "',
, ,
___..___ ----1---
, ,
· x'
---~--- --~---
0' 0'
.. .,
0' ....,
"'""' "'"":
.>0:,
"',
01
"I
>'
.-,
-I'
,
-.
""
",'
01
UI
·
·
·
·
·
·
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
~:
01
"I
.~:
-II
-,
""
~¡
Ul
,
,
,
I
NI
NI
,
·
,
,
,
1
,
,
,
~I
N'
,
·
,
,
,
,
· ,
, ,
, ,
---1..--- ___..1___
, ,
, ,
, .
, ,
· .
---~--- ---i---
· ,
· ,
, ,
---..--- ---..---
, .
, .
, .
· ,
---r--- ---..---
, ,
LOI 1.01
,
,
,
---'----
,
·
·
· ,
---,.--- ---.,---
, .
, ,
, ,
--+-- --+--
, ,
, ,
· ,
---..--- ---..---
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
--,.--- ---.,---
, .
, ,
, .
,
,
·
---..1---
·
I
, .
, ,
, .
---..--- ---..---
: :
, .
, .
---r--- ---..---
, .
, .
---~--- ---~---
· ,
· ,
, .
---1..--- ___..1___
, ,
· ,
, ,
, ,
______ ----1---
, .
· .
, ,
---~--- -~-~---
, .
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
___..___ ----1--
, ,
('1'): C")I
· ,
---,.--- ---.,---
, ,
"'"". "'""'
, ,
---f--- --+--
N: N:
, .
0, O.
N' N'
---f--- ---~---
0: 01
LO' Il)I
---~--- ---i---
, ,
, ,
: :
---..--- ---..~--
: :
, ,
, ,
---~--- ---~---
: :
, ,
, .
, ,
___..___ ___of___
, .
, .
, .
---f--- --~---
0' 0'
.. .,
"'" N'
"'"". "'"":
...
g¡
~I
'0'
",
0:::
-.
""
21:
ul
,
,
,
·
·
"'I
NI
·
,
,
,
,
'"
<:
~
'2:
8-
E
"
'"
'"
·õ
::J
if
<JJ
,
·
·
·
·
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
...1
g:
~.
'01
",
0:::
-,
""
~J
UI
,
,
,
,
,
...1
NI
,
,
,
,
·
, .
, ,
· ,
__-'-___ ___.1___
· ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
---~--- ---i---
, .
· .
, .
---1---- ___..___
, ,
· ,
, ,
, ,
~--...--~ ---..-~-
, ,
LOI :
, ,
, ,
, ,
_--'-__ ---..1---
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
---1"'--- ---.,---
, ,
, ,
· ,
--+-- --+--
, ,
, ,
, ,
___..___ ---.1---
, ,
: C"):
, ,
--_--- --"f---
, ,
, ,
, ,
· ,
, .
__-:-___ ___l___
· I
· ,
, ,
--_--- ---"f---
· ,
· ,
---~--- ---~---
, ,
, ,
, ,
___.....__ ---..1---
, .
, ,
, .
, ,
______ ----1---
· .
, .
---i---- ---~---
, ,
· ,
, .
· .
, .
--1--- ---1---
"It: N:
, ,
---.--- ---.,---
, ,
"'""' "'""'
, ,
--+-- --+--
('1'): "'"":
, .
It). It).
-~-i--- -==~---
a: a:
It). NI
---t---- ---i---
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
__....__ ___of___
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
---~--- ---~---
· .
· .
· .
, ,
· .
___..___ ___of___
· .
, ,
--~--- ---4---
q: a:
co' .,
"'"": co:
·
·
,
·
,
·
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
'01
g¡
~I
'0'
",
0:::
-,
"'.
~!
UI
,
,
,
,
,
"'I
N:
·
·
,
,
,
,
,
·
·
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
: .~
J:§
Q)'.¡::
c: 8
.sg: tU
0..: II)
5: ê
'0' '"
<:'1'"
o .v
..JlëL
,
,
,
,
,
(DI
N'
·
,
·
,
,
,
,
,
,
---'----
,
,
,
,
,
,
___.1___
,
,
,
,
,
---~--- ---i---
I :
, ,
--....--- ---..---
· .
, .
, ,
, ,
------ ~---I~--
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, .
--....--- ---..--
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
---.---- ---.,---
: I
· ,
--+----+--
, ,
, ,
, ,
__....___ ___of___
, ,
(1'): :
· ,
--.....--- ---"f---
, ,
, ,
· ,
· ,
, ,
· .
-....--- ---..---
· ,
, ,
· ,
, ,
---to--- ---"f---
, ,
, ,
--+--- ---~---
, .
, ,
, ,
---'---- ---, ,---
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
______ ----1---
, ,
, ,
· ,
-~-I-~-- ---~---
· ,
, ,
· ,
: :
· ,
______ ___of___
, ,
vI I
, .
---.---- ---.,---
, ,
~, ,
---~--- ---i---
C"): :
· ,
"" .
~. ,
--+-- --+--
~¡ oj
· ,
--+--- ---j---
¡ ct:
__-L___ ___l___
, ,
, ,
: w:
---~--- ---~---
· ,
: 0:
· ,
, ,
------ ---..---
, .
, .
· ,
--+-- --+--
0: I
.,
(D,
~:
.s!:
a.:
<:1
0'
'01
<:.
.3:
,
,
,
,
,
....:
N:
·
·
,
,
,
~,
",
gJ
Q)'~
0..10
'E
.~:
EI ~
g¡ c:
_,:2
~, u
U:VJ
,
·
·
,
,
"'I
N'
,
,
,
,
·
,
,
,
,
__..L.___
,
,
,
1ñ
~
o
~
"
'"
'"
-
o
'"
"
( )
'"
a.
:
·
--i---
------
,
,
,
--..:..---
,
,
,
1ñ
"
CD
"
~
,
,
,
--......---
,
I
,
---.----
,
,
---i----
,
,
__.l..__
,
,
,
,
--....---
,
,
,
·
,
·
--t---
,
,
--....---
·
,
--+---
,
,
,
---'----
,
,
I
---~--
,
,
,
,
---,----
,
,
·
:
--..:..---
,
N'
,
,
---,----
,
~,
--+---
"'""!,
"
<:
'"
-I 0
>-<:
'0<: t
.- "
-Ie.
( ) ::J
"'U
( )
~
N
""
N'
·
---,----
",'
",I
---i----
,
,
,
,
------
,
,
,
,
--+---
·
,
·
,
·
------
,
,
--+---
0'
.,
N'
~I
·
,
,
·
"'.
""
"I
~tU
U' ~
t1~
~, '"
!!I E·
<:,
01
:.:
<:1
~:
01
e>1
'"
::J
'"
'"
~
e.
::J
U
'"
o
o
N
Ñ
N
<:'"
::J~
<JJ.},
Q.i'?
E'"
",0
z. "
.c.cro:
~~C)
1ñ
::J
0>
::J
«
,
,
,
,
,
( )I
N'
,
,
·
,
,
,
BARRIE D. COAì
and ASSOCIATES
Horti cutural Consultants
23535 Summit Road
LoS Gates. CA 95033
408135?-1052
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
1. Any legal description provided to the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct.
No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as to
the quality of any title.
2. The appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of
information provided by others. .
3. The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason
of this appraisal unless subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of an
additional fee for services.
4. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation.
5. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for anr
purpose by any other than the person(s) to whom it is addressed without written consent 0
this appralserfconsultant.
6. This report and the values expressed herein represent the opinion of the
appraiser/consultant, and the appraiser's/consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the
reporting of a specified value nor upon any finding to be reported.
7. Sketches, diagrams, graphs, photos, etc., in this report, being intended as visual aids, are
not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys.
8. This report has been made in conformity with acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic
reporting techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of
Arboriculture.
9. When applying any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide, always follow label instructions.
1 a.No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take
responsibility for any defects which could only have been discovered by climbing. A full root
collar inspection, consisting of excavating the soil around the tree to uncover the root collar
and major buttress roots, was not performed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take
responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by such an
inspection.
CONSULTING ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to
examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to
reduce risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations
of the arborist, or to seek additional advice.
Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree.
Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often
hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or
safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments,
like medicine, cannot be guaranteed.
Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some
degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees.
d5~ -tP. ~
Barrie D. Coate
ISA Certified Arborist
Horticultural Consultant
F., "b'¡ C
,-Xh, __ It: ~
Dr. Waguih Ishak
22071 Lindy Lane
Cupertino, Ca 95014
October 4, 2005
TO: Steve Piasecki and Colin Jung
Community Development Department
City of Cupertino, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, Ca 95014
RE: Application # TM-2005-05 (EA-2002-12)
Applicant: Frank Sun @ 21989 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, Ca 95014
Parcel # 356-25-024
Dear Mr. Piasecki and Mr. Jung
In reference to the application above (Tentative map to subdivide a 2.6 acre
parcel into 3 lots), I would like to register the following concerns in writing
since I will not be available to attend the October 11th hearing (business
travel).
We selected our current property on 22071 Lindy Lane because of the privacy
it offers us. Having a house built so close to our property can definitely disturb
this privacy. However. we wi" SUDDort Mr. Sun's DroDOSal ONLY if the
followina conditions are met:
1. Construction of the house on the North West lot (the lot that neighbors our
property) will not commence before at least 5 years. Mr. Sun has kindly
informed us that he will be building these houses for his children and that
he will not start building before ^' 10 years).
2. A fence (matching the current existing fence between my property and the
property of Mr. Daile # 11254/22101) must be extended from point A (see
diagram) to point B (se diagram). This fence must be installed as soon as
possible but no later than the end of 2005 and should be installed at Mr.
Sun's expenses. The fence should be done by a reputable company
approved by us and should follow all the regulations and codes of the city of
Cupertino. Additionally, the fence should have a gate for emergency access
only. Access through the gate should be by permission from us.
3. Trees (not taller than 20 feet) should be planted inside Mr. Sun's property
and on his own expense, at least 15 feet east of the property line (the
fence). We estimate the number of trees needed to be about 5 large trees.
The trees should be planted by a professional and reputable gardening
company approved by us.
Page 1/2
I discussed the above points with Mr. Sun. He is in agreement with me.
Additionally, Mr. Sun also offered to write a commitment letter indicating his
acceptance to the above conditions. I think this is a good idea and I would like
to see a copy of that letter included in the documentations for this case.
Sincerely
~~w
(408)996-7082
22 o:¡ I
L;",Jj \....
220b\
2z.0~\
Page 2/2
@
\\'2-$""
:L \ '?¡Ç" \
í)¡\uE
"\\'2.,?"t
2. z \ 0\
2-\'3 tð
.
~
, .
-I ¡
~
<4~\\~ t(a.-U
Page I of I
Colin Jung
From: Ciddy Wordell
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 8:26 AM
To: Colin Jung
Subject: FW: We Strongly Oppose plans for the Sun Subdivision of Lindy Lane Hillside Property
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Rodert [mailto:brodert@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 5:52 PM
To: Ciddy Wordell; Igiefer; Patrick Kwok2; Steve Piasecki
Cc: Arzeno, Sara; ronberti@comcast.net; Uner & Canden Taysi; John James; Mohammed Hossain; Andrew
Teng; LACORRE@COMCAST.NET
Subject: We Strongly Oppose plans for the ~n Subdivision of Lindy Lane Hillside Property
The same goes for the voters at 21912 Lindy Ln.
Bob Rodert
Arzeno, Sara wrote:
Dar City Planners and City Council -
All three voters at 21902 Lindy Lane STRONGLY OPPOSE the Sun Subdivision Plans on the
hillside across from our home.
The Arzeno Family
Sara Arzeno
Manager, Medical Writing
CV Therapeutics, Inc.
(650) 384-8816
9/28/2005
Page I ofl
Colin Jung
From: Ciddy Wordell
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 8:26 AM
To: Colin Jung
Subject: FW: We Strongly Oppose plans for the Sun Subdivision of Lindy Lane Hillside ...
-----Original Message-----
From: TAYSI3@aol.com [mailto:TAYSI3@aol.comj
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 6:32 PM
To: brodert@comcast.net; Ciddy Wordell; Igiefer@sbcglobal.net; Patrick Kwok2; Steve Piasecki
Cc: Sara.Arzeno@cvt.com; ronberti@comcast.net; tahoejej@comcast.net; sharminsalim@sbcglobal.net;
jujubi2003@yahoo.com; LACORRE@COMCAST.NET
Subject: Re: We Strongly Oppose plans for the Sun Subdivision of Lindy Lane HiIIsiQe ...
The same goes for voters at 21952 Lindy Lane.
Candan & Uner Taysi
9/28/2005
Page I ofl
Colin Jung
From: Ciddy Wordell
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 8:25 AM
To: Colin Jung
Subject: FW: We Strongly Oppose plans for the Sun Subdivision of Lindy Lane Hillside Property
-----Original Message-----
From: Mohammed Hossain [mailto:sharminsalim@sbcglobal.netj
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 9:42 PM
To: Ciddy Wordell; Igiefer; Patrick Kwok2; Steve Piasecki
Cc: ronberti@comcast.com; Uner & Canden Taysi; John James; Bob Rodert; Mohammed Hossain; Andrew Teng;
LACORRE@COMCAST.NET
Subject: We Strongly Oppose plans for t~e Sun Subdivision of Lindy Lane Hillside Property
Dar City Planners and City Council -
Two voters at 21882 Lindy Lane STRONGLY OPPOSE the Sun Subdivision Plans on the hillside across from our
home.
~e Hossain Famil)J
Mohammed & Sharmin Hossain
9/28/2005
Page I of I
Colin Jung
From: ronberti@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 7:59 PM
To: Ciddy Wordell; Steve Piasecki
Cc: Patrick Kwok2; Igiefer@sbcglobal.net; brodert@comcast.net; TAYSI3@aol.com;
Sara.Arzeno@cvt.com; tahoejej@comcast.net; sharminsalim@sbcglobal.net;
jujubi2003@yahoo.com; LACORRE@COMCAST.NET
Subject: Re: We Strop~ly Oppose plans for t'J¡,Sun Subdivision of Lindy Lane Hillside. ...
Please add two voters at 11406 Lindy Place.to the list of those who prefer that development on Lindy
Lane reflect a stringent ~ppreciation of the (act that the lots likely to be made available for development
are on rather steep hillsides and are consequently reasonably zoned as RHS.
Ron Berti .
:SuzanIÌe Chapman
,
-------------- Original message ________m___
The same goes for voters at 21952 Lindy Lane.
Candan & Uner Taysi
9/28/2005
We Strongly Oppose plans for the Sun Subdivision of Lindy Lane Hill.ide Property
Page 1 of I
Colin Jung
From: Arzeno, Sara [Sara.Arzeno@cvtcom]
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 5:33 PM
To: Ciddy Wordell
Cc: Colin Jung; Bob Rodert: Uner & Canden Taysi
Subject: RE: We Strongly Oppose plans for the Sun Subdivision of Lindy Lane Hillside Property
Ciddy -
Many thanks for your response.
Sara
From: Ciddy Wordell [mailto:CynthiaW@cupertino.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 22,20055:28 PM
To: Arzeno, Sara
Cc: Colin Jung
Subject: RE: We Strongly Oppose plans for the Sun Subdivision of Lindy Lane Hillside Property
We will include your statement in the Planning Commission packet for October 11. Ciddy Wordell
-----Original Message-----
From: Arzeno, Sara [mailto:Sara.Arzeno@cvt.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 5:15 PM
To: Ciddy Wordell; Igiefer; Patrick Kwok2; Steve Piasecki
Cc: ronberti@comcast.com; Uner & Canden Taysi; John James; Bob Rodert; Mohammed Hossain; Andrew
Teng; LACORRE@COMCAST.NET
Subject: We Strongly Oppose plans for the Sun Subdivision of Lindy Lane Hillside Property
Importance: High
Oar City Planners and City Council -
All three voters at 21902 Lindy Lane STRONGLY OPPOSE the Sun Subdivision Plans on the hillside
~¡.¡jh*-~-, --"..
across from our home.
T,he Arzeno Family
Sara Arzeno
Manager, Medical Writing
CV Therapeutics, Inc.
(650) 384-8816
9/26/2005
Colin Jung
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ciddy Wordell
Friday, September 23, 2005 8:25 AM
Colin Jung
FW: We Strongly Oppose plans for the Sun Subdivision of Lindy Lane Hillside ...
~
Re: We Strongly
Oppose pia...
-----Original Message-----
From: tahoejej@comcast.net [mailto:tahoejej@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 9:44 PM
To: ronberti@comcast.net; Ciddy Wordell; Steve Piasecki
Cc: Patrick Kwok2; 19iefer@sbcglobal.net; brodert@comcast.net;
TAYSI3@aol,com; Sara.Arzeno@cvt.com; sharrninsalim@sbcglobal.net;
jujubi2003@yahoo.com; LACORRE@COMCAST.NET
Subject: Re: We Strongly. Oppose plans for the Sun Subdivision of Lindy
Lane Hillside ,..
And another two from the voters at 21852 Lindy Lane.
See you at your next meeting with pictures of a hillside that turned liquid
~ohn and Julia James
1
Colin Jung
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Igiefer [lgiefer@sbcglobaLnet]
Friday, October 14, 2005 12:16 PM
Colin Jung
FW: Moxley/Knopp Lindy Lane proposal of removing heritage oaks for a driveway
Hi Colin, Would you please forward Mr. Ko's email with the other
commissioners? Regards, Gief
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Ko [mailto:simon ko@hotrnail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 9:08 AM
To: 19iefer@sbcglobal.net
Subject: RE: Moxley/Knopp Lindy Lane proposal of removing heritage oaks
for a driveway
Dear Ms. Giefer,
I've seen the progress of the Moxley/Knopp property proposal at 21925 Lindy
Lane taking a really bad turn. I was not as resolve when Moxley/Knopp
subdivided the lot. However, this new development proposal requesting an
obtrusive driveway design and unnecessary removing many heritage oak trees
on the property that really pushes me to speak up.
I have been a supporter of you and I have seen you in action on Cupertino TV
for a long time. I like your balanced approach. I really hope you will NOT
vote in favor of this part of the proposal on the property. This hillside
has a very balanced look right now. Nice modern homes are being built and
still retain the heritage oak trees (like the new house adjacent to this
property) .
I always support you because you consider both sides of the issue (property
owner's right and the environment). I am sure you can suggest an alternative
to this current inbalanced plan. Perhaps I'd try to offer my opinion for
your consideration:
1) There are 3 existing driveways all converged at a single point. Let alone
safety, it's already an eye-sore for the beautiful hillside. Adding a 4th
one within a few feet will have significant detrimental effect on this part
of Lindy Lane. Alternative, spread the driveway around if Moxley/Knopp
cannot get easement agreement with the neighbor.
2) The current driveway proposal really does not consider saving the
heritage oak trees or safety at all. Even if there is no agreement with the
Schmidt's on driveway easement in the back (the best choice), there is a
huge (more than 20 feet) space between heritage oak trees 6 & 7. It is
absolutely NO reason to remove ANY heritage oak trees. It will be wonderful
if you can put some cornman sense back into this project instead of having
the developer themselve focus on the convenience of the development and not
considering the beauty of Cupertino's nature.
Other than having the driveway design and removing any heritage oak trees, I
do not have any issue with this project. However, these two issues are too
critical for me to ignore.
Thanks for spending time and listening to your long-time supporter. I hope
you will continue to put some cornmon sense back into this matter and suggest
the developer to consider an alternate driveway that does not have to remove
ANY heritage oak trees on the property.
Kind regards,
Simon Ko
1
Page I of I
Colin Jung
From: Bob Rodert [brodert@comcastnet]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 12:10 PM
To: Lisa Giefer
Cc: Muhammed Hossain; Sara Arzeno; Uner (Charlie) & Candan Taysi; John & Julia James; Ron Berti;
Jim Moore
Subject: Lindy Lane Planning
Dear Lisa,
While I'm away in Oregon on vacation this week, this message is to document my position on
some upcoming Planning Commission actions dealing with proposed developments on the
Northern side of Lindy Lane. I would appreciate it if you would read the following statements
into the next Planning Commission meeting (currently scheduled for October 11, 2005):
1. I oppose the Agenda Item 4 proposed driveway access to the Moxley Lot 2 (Tentative Map
TM 2005-03) directly from Lindy Lane. I don't oppose the driveway to that lot being off from the
existing driveway that accesses the lots higher on the hill.
2. I oppose the Agenda Item 5 proposal (TM-2005-05 (EA-2005-12)) to divide the existing 2.6
ac. Sun lot into a total of three lots. I do not oppose the subdivision of the existing lot into two
lots - one with the current house on it and the second, behind and above the current house.
In addition to my position on these two actions, I also strongly support keeping the existing
15% slope criteria that is associated with the R 1 zoning of several lots on the North side of
Lindy Lane.
Also, in addition to reading these positions into the Commission's record, I would appreciate
you supporting them in future Commission activities.
Thank you for your support and service to Cupertino.
Bob Rodert
21912 Lindy Ln.
Cupertino, CA
brodert@comcast.net
10/10/2005
Page I of I
Colin Jung
From:
Sent:
To:
T A YSl3@aoLcom
Monday, October 10, 2005 1:37 PM
Igiefer@sbcglobaLnet; LACORRE@COMCAST.NET; ronberti@comcast.net; sarzeno@cvt.com;
sharminsalim@sbcgobaLnet; tahoejej@comcast.net; brodert@comcast.net
Subject: Fwd: Lindy Lane Planning
Dear Lisa,
We want to add our support to Bob Rodert letter and ask you to please take note of the points he has made. They
are also our concerns.
Regards,
Candan and Charlie Taysi
21952 Lindy Lane
11/2/2005
Colin Jung
Subject:
tahoejej@comcastnet
Monday, October 10, 20051:51 PM
TAYSI3@aol.com; Igiefer@sbcglobal.net; LACORRE@COMCAST.NET;
ronberti@comcastnet; sarzeno@cvtcom; sharminsalim@sbcgobal.net;
brodert@comcastnet
Re: Fwd: Lindy Lane Planning
From:
Sent:
To:
LS2]
Fwd: Lindy Lane
Planning
Dear Lisa,
I too support Bob Rodert's stand on the Moxley/Knopp and Sun eliminating
the 15% slope and driveway.
John James
1
Page 1 on
Colin Jung
From: xihua sun [xihuasun@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 29,20057:18 PM
To: Colin Jung
Subject: 21989 Lindy Lane Subdivision
TO: Steve Piasecki and Colin Jung
City Planning Department
City of Cupertino, 10300 Torre Avenu, Cupertino, CA 95014
CC: Dr. Waguih Ishak
22071 Lindy Lane
Cupertino, CA 95014
This is a response to Dr. Waguik Ishak's concerns regarding my subdivision proposal. We are
greatful for their understanding and kind support. Should our subdivision proposal be
approved, we will erect a fence along our border and plant trees on our side, All this will be
done at our expense and with close consultation with Dr. Waguik Ishak.
We do not plan to build on the lot adjacent to Dr. Waguih Ishak's within a few years.
Please include this letter in the documentations for my case.
Sincerely,
Frank Sun
10/31/2005
NUV-U¿-¿UUb U~:~J
r.v.:.
We agree with the subdivision of 21989 Lindy Lane, a 2.636 acre lot, into 3 lots.
Print Name
Add.....
Signature
-1!10h'e0n . 1¿>VVmt. Cl-l'dfJ. ~t~~ ~
.....;;,w.I..-< 1$f2,¡)~>'k~(p~plvLW.v,~
, . .
73fbT mDxl~ 30 CM>L...Áv< "'r'?!tkS'~. i~'~}n~{5
~~ FtA."'S 2l'~ll;vJylc.1\L
LIIt.//1na 'DAUé.- d,¢ UfOI I./A/DY ¿V
#1.(;-/' 5""h",-, 1../15"( (.",,1., ¿~
r
/llj,/2 'TëJ ¿Lon 6N>. 4,
d
(~7î \ fj kl)~ I .(: ~ ~l 0 ì L\ ¡J í)'-( l-,V
::rd-t)~ J('1Dp? ;?lqZ~ i-¡'¡?dv '¿"~1,
¿J,t/lJ ~~J I/Zðß /J1¡'~'
,pD~n rr\~ù
...;'l-tsh't-t ¿fA
~~~
:Dßlt~ J. ßßf~
ð/// &.-L......,Hc..L-.
/I-e,['I'.A) ð /.,() ev
Eó/)/~ OW¢N
o /(1
Ù 1 j¡]Drì n
/l~tI i.Jè.-~( <.~. 1'.... '\-
I I '-' (,
II S'"u ¡,.J.ÞfJ q"fMf c: (,-~~, ït..
-.:../9';;:; ¿.~ I AI. .
JI% }'ð/l!<<;t.: leþ¡1.
lit-I'; 'i1ùt.S1l1tC, Å
,
~ ~ Lí hi (¡l~/'¡ .
(
IIZ#M.f, (W)1 PI,
, t " ~) L \ ( -
J. .: Ö '" { \.¡:) I' i 'Wt
/
~-:::: ~ -
/',$£/Ø¿'~
C6~~>
( t!r:-.r/ .. .
,,)(X' j ,~
..... , .............-.(7 ...,'(;.../
... ¿"\..6u·,·
¡/
?,.\d~ ~<.- -~
.",. ,\
,,/'.,~ t
...
.' !
..
.'
NOV-02-2005 09:23
I".U;;
We agree with the subdivision of 21989 Lindy Lane, a 2.636 acre lot, into 3 lots.
pi{nt Name
Address
HJvQJth' rO~+~.óLhÙl~t4r
t2?r~ht-~~os~ ~ I b..,Jl pe,
r~\s-o- _..i.... ~ ~+ reo'\M.,b~ ~y +r~~
. ,
Signature
.ß \'~)-
Ý þ\ .l,tL rød..L ø.c:('()~S ()I(.(
{Y'ðPAr1-j.
NOV-02-2005 09:23
l".U4
Print Name
We agree with the subdivision of 21989 Lindy Lane, a 2.636 acre lot, into 3 lots.
6it^ ;, 'L"_
;¿t,.. :/: ,i¡-Q1, !,)
-
\.., "", :_- \Arf\. ~~>·:·t:.·f·,i·~~-f't.
D ¡ V'l1i 511711"\
J(Up--r¡ l<::fH'A 1.> 1A
SSG/V! A M Iï7"Y1L
tf." Jf1~ !1élJ()~//-
Address
-"'¡;,,-. ) - .I ,
'-~ , ..; .::>'-í' L-' :-:a.'-! L.. ,\
i
)\t{(..:\i' . ,
- "...... L.' \,'..ì >~'"/ _i·'.J
"ó,1'i'i- I
\IÞ ..'::;
~>'r-<t".I ~v('
Signature
. .ç~.' '<.",-~:. ~."~~~;,.:"."'>
~
; I,. .... ~ x~~~-" I / ,!',. . ':.~ '
'" -1. ):.Y.J.~~.: . '::;,,~S'
~ , '
'. "."
~~
22:245' C:'i.r\'1 ()'(\ Vr'él..'-" ( LÇÞ·~'--9.f.j......s:!_.
2 / ~ '-/1 <.. /N/) Y L.N ß.¿'1!~4 ~
~Tl
~'<f'3C 1~/Mb'jLA/ ~
TOTAL P. 04
1M-200S-0S
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 9S014
RESOLUTION NO. 6335
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING A TENT A TIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A 2.6 ACRE PARCEL INTO
THREE LOTS OF APPROXIMATELY 0.76, 0.6S and 1.22 ACRES IN SIZE IN AN Rl-20
ZONING DISTRICT AT 21989 LINDY LANE
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
TM-200S-OS, EA-2OOS-12
Frank Sun
21989 Lindy Lane
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for a Tentative Subdivision Map as described in Section I of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the
Subdivision and Procedural Ordinances of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning
Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application; and has satisfied the following requirements:
a) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino
General Plan.
b) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent
with the General Plan.
c) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development
contemplated under the approved subdivision.
d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely
to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially harm fish and
wildlife or their habitat.
e) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated
therewith are not likely to cause serious public health problems.
Resolution No. 6335
Page 2
TM-200S-0S
November 8, 2005
------------------------------------------
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application TM-200S-0S for a Tentative Map is hereby
approved as modified, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution
beginning on page 2 thereof, and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning
Application TM-200S-05, as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of
November 8, 200S, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approved is based on the tentative map entitled "TENTATIVE MAP, LANDS OF
DR. X. SUN, 21989 LINDY LANE, CUPERTINO" by Westfall Engineers, Inc., dated
October 200S, and consisting of one sheet labeled 1 of 1, except as may be amended
by the conditions contained in this resolution.
2. DEED RESTRICTION ON LOT #1 BUILDING FLOOR AREA
In conjunction with the final map approval, the applicant shall record a covenant on
Lot #1 restricting the maximum square footage of building to no more than 3,200
square feet. The City Attorney shall review and approve the form of the
development restriction prior to recordation.
3. MAP RESTRICTION ON FUTURE SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY
In conjunction with the final map approval, the applicant shall record an
appropriate legal instrument that prohibits further subdivision of the land beyond
the three lots approved by this tentative map. The City Attorney shall review and
approve the form of the development restriction prior to recordation.
4. SLOPE EASEMENT
In conjunction with the final map approval, the applicant shall delineate on the final
map and record a slope easement across the Lindy Lane property frontage of each
proposed lot. The purpose of the slope easement is to preserve existing landforms,
and maintain existing trees and vegetation, precluding any future developments or
improvements in this area, except for necessary undergrounding of utility lines that
do not adversely affect the specimen size native oak trees or the location and
development of a driveway for a residence on Lot #1.
Resolution No. 6335
Page 3
TM-Z005-05
November 8, 2005
5. TREE REMOVAL AND PRESERVATION
No trees are authorized for removal as part of the tentative map approval. Tree
removal and replacement will be evaluated when a new residence is actually
proposed to the City.
Prior to final map approval, a covenant shall be recorded on the property, notifying
future property owners of the kinds, numbers and locations of specimen trees on the
property protected by City Ordinance and the requirement for a tree removal permit
to remove such trees. The covenant shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Attorney.
Prior to building permit approval, a tree protection bond is required for all trees
slated for preservation.
6. DRIVEWAY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Prior to final map approval, a driveway maintenance agreement shall be recorded for
the existing driveway benefiting the two lots.
7. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN
A comprehensive construction operation plan must be submitted to the City for
review and approval prior to issuance of grading and building permits addressing
the following:
· Staging area
· Tree protection
· Construction hours and limits
· Construction vehicle and truck routes
· Dust and erosion control
· Garbage and debris container location and pick up schedule
· Signage advising contractors of the restrictions
· Construction equipment and construction vehicle parking locations
In addition to the construction management plan described above, the following
additional construction activity limitations apply:
· No grading is allowed during the rainy season - October through April.
· On Saturdays, grading, street construction, demolition, underground utility
work and other construction work that directly involves motorized vehicular
equipment are prohibited.
· On Sundays, construction is prohibited.
Resolution No. 6335
Page 4
TM-2005-05
November 8, 2005
8. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The project and future developments shall adhere to the RHS Ordinance or the R1
Ordinance, whichever specific regulation in each ordinance is more restrictive.
9. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant
to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice
of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications,
reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day
approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and
other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you
fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements
of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.
10. ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS
Prior to the approval of grading or building permits, a detailed geotechnical,
design-level investigation shall be performed for each lot proposed for
development in accordance with the recommendations outlined in a letter from
Cotton Shires & Associates to Gary Chao, Cupertino City Planner dated March 2S,
200S.
SECTION IV. CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT
11. STREET WIDENING
Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance
with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer.
12. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS
Curbs and gutters and related structures shall be installed in accordance with
grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. Sidewalks are prohibited.
13. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION
Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer.
Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of
visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the
maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located.
14. FIRE HYDRANT
Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City, Santa Clara County Fire and
San Jose Water Company.
15. TRAFFIC SIGNS
Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City.
Resolution No. 6335
Page 5
TM-2005-05
November 8, 2005
----
16. GRADING
Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance
with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404
permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/ or Regional
Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. No grading shall be permitted
during the City's rainy season October through April.
17. DRAINAGE
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Development
in all other zoning districts shall be served by on site storm drainage facilities
connected to the City storm drainage system. If City storm drains are not
available, drainage facilities shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
* Pre and Post Development Calculations are required
18. FIRE PROTECTION
Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the
City and Santa Clara County Fire, as needed
19. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities
Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of
Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of
underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing
utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the
affected Utility provider and the City Engineer.
20. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of
Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking
and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under
grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of
construction permits.
Fees:
a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $ 5% of Off-Site Improvement Cost or $2,785.00
min.
b. Grading Permit: $ 5% of Site Improvement Cost
c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $1,000.00
d. Storm Drainage Fee: TBD
e. Power Cost: **
Resolution No. 6335
Page 6
TM-2005-05
November 8, 2005
f. Map Checking Fees:
g. Park Fees:
h. Street Tree
$ 3,250.00
$ 31,500.00
By Developer
** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the Public
Utility Commission (P.u.e.)
Bonds:
a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site
Improvements
b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement
c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements.
-The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule
adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified
at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the
event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then
current fee schedule.
21. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment
enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground
such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas.
22. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES
The developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtenances installed
to City Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water for water
service to the subject development.
23. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water
Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans
shall be included in your grading and street improvement plans. Erosion and or
sediment control plan shall be provided.
Resolution No. 6335
Page 7
TM-2005-05
November 8, 2005
----------
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of November 2005, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS: Chen, Miller, Saadati and Chair Wong
COMMISSIONERS: Giefer
COMMISSIONERS: none
COMMISSIONERS: none
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
I s I Steve Piasecki
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Isl Gilbert Wong
Gilbert Wong, Chairperson
Cupertino Planning Commission
g:jplanning/pdreportjres(TM-200S-05 res.doc
,
0,
~!
II
"¡:G~¡"~' ~o,.,¡)
VICINITY MAP
~
..;"....'00.
... ¥
,
'- 260 c,
» .'S-:_~
/ ....>-
,
,
~'
~..........
~
,
_S8§.·3~OO~W236JS_ _ .........."...' ~ _
~ SD ~ 5~~'$rmG ~~()fi'" [)RA!Jf,;: '''·;''SD ~~ ,U _ S~ ~ ~D
[XISTl""SA..¡¡URYSEVÆR " "
S5_U_S._~_U_IS_5s_n_n_s
APPROVAl, "ÍM -:;}DD5 -D5
ArJ'6r'" N..,..k,
P!(!,mŽt'.tg ('f!'!~M,Û}"";¡"~·1 11:- ~ - «DC6
~-'.."
JOB NO
2003-135
SHEET
,
DC,
,
'"
,
TF:FlRACESTIiErT
,¡
11
'I
~\
IJIW"" ;
,
,
/..
,
..........
~.
r.u
-,
,
"'.
Ct'~)' C(;m:~'.'~!"
Sj¡¡n~¡ure _
TENTATIVE MAP
LANDS OF DR. X. SUN
2]989 L1NDY LANI
NOTES
T\JT....GIIOSS ,o.R£A'IIITliIIlStÆO'VlSi0N2.6JtAÇJ!£S
rotl.l roET /ý EA ~~N SU6Di'-'$ION.2.>96 ~CRE5
~DitX,SI1~
2'~89 LJNÐY i..A"I:
WP[RrHO. C~ 95014
ill.- 2711-l21~
ENGlNE~' W£ST""o.LENGlNEt:RS,INC
1458' BIG B,,!i ~ W~Y
s.o.~'roG". CA 95G70
ill.-!I67-0Z«
ASSfSSCfl'S ?ARCfi NO, 556_25_¡~
EX¡STlHGANDPl«JPosrn¡ONI,'t(;R_,
<:uIŒ~l f'lAN ~BIOÐIT1Ai
["S~"G AN" F'l'<Posrn l»ID USE _ "ONGLE FOMcY RES<DEI<ll
UT1l¡~5 WATtP $.o.kJQSE.....1(IICO
S~N T""Y 5£""''' - OJPE~"..O $A!<lT~RY DI~T1>"
G,t,S....OEL£(;TRlC-P,G.&F;
Ç>.lllElV-Co.¡C,o,ST
\fO--t~,:¡..-
DJSlJNGEAS(!oiUHrOl1POADWAYPUPPosrs
()RA/j'UI TO C1!YQr CUF'EP1ltlO 2-16-1977
800!( C6Q2. PAct: 90 OfTlClAl RECOROS
NC
-024
I
ENGINEERS,
SARATOGA, (A 95270 (408)86
Jo/!.46>
--
W 213.25
UNDY
WESTFALL
4583B1GBASIN.'AY
-
LANE
,
4;
[[3453
(}Jt-t->.G't:,<.IC\Á.
CYMBAl
;;¡."'-: '~
BY,KAI(EL
DATE
DATE,OCToBER2005
SCALE, HIJR. I' ~20'
VERT
DESIGNED JC
CHECK~
:if
DATE
'\,V¡ACE SUIPE
ENTIRE PARCEL Ð\.IIl.OOG5ITf
PARCEt t J5,5 t 29.n;
PAACEL2 25-5>1 18-1"
P¡OACElJ J8,J t 27.11'1
QÞ-\..\..t ~A
"
o <;:/c,' \0' t.
~b'O /~
to - .;7"-;:/
J. ...~<~_;:~)(/~/
I ~ -- (/. /; .
/ . ·loF. ,,/
t /" 'é;/c',
}/if
I /
I /
I ! j
I I ~:
I I· I
;;Jr P~"R:' ,
1,'_,8"P1', ¡
,
.~
'l¡
~
"
¡¡
",:>" ,
" ",><'0-,
.''/;/
-,§:'/
ot><fo,
cþ<;
,
REVISION
-~,
/
I
I
,
=20'
æ
SCALE
~
~
<
i"
z
w
ø
o
"
DATE
"
"
<
I
'"
"
'"